enforce his precepts by example. We must believe that David's own bitter experience of the thorns and snares in the path of sin made him very anxious to preserve his son from wandering as he had done, and led him to train him most carefully. It is also said of the sons of a man whose life was outwardly stainless-of Samuel-that his sons "walked not in his ways" (1 Sam. viii. 3). Yet we cannot suppose that Samuel, who had seen in Eli's family the miserable fruits of non-restraint, had neglected to train his sons. Yet the exceptions are doubtless very few in number compared with the rule, that a rightly-trained child does not depart from the right way in his riper years, though, in Bishop Hall's words, "God will let us find that grace is by gift, not by inheritance."

"Lord, with what care hast Thou begirt us round!

Parents first season us: then schoolmasters

Deliver us to laws; they send us bound
To rules of reason, holy messengers.
Pulpits and Sundays, sorrow dogging sin,
Afflictions sorted, anguish of all sizes,
Fine nets and stratagems to catch us in,
Bibles laid open, millions of surprises.
Blessings beforehand, ties of gratefulness,
The sound of glory ringing in our ears;
Without our shame, within our consciences,
Angels and grace, eternal hopes and fears.
Yet all these fences and their whole array,
One cunning bosom-sin blows quite away."-Herbert.
OUTLINES and suggeSTIVE COMMENTS.

Ver. 5. A forcible image to show that nothing stands so much in a man's way as the indulgence of his own unbridled will. The man who is most perversely bent on his purposes is most likely to be thwarted in them.Bridges.

The ungodly finds nothing in his path to hell but thorns and snares, and yet he presses on in it! A sign of the greatness and fearfulness of the ruin of man's sin.-Lange.

Ver. 6. Three different meanings have been found of the interpretation, "according to his way." (See Critical Notes.) It may be-1. His way in the sense of his own natural characteristics of style and manner,—and then his training will have reference to that for which he is naturally fitted; or2. The way of life which he is intended by parents or guardians to pursue; or, 3. The way in which he ought to go.

The last is moral, and relates to the general Divine intention concerning man's earthly course; the second is human and economical; the first is individual, and to some extent even physical. Yet although the third presents the highest standard and has been generally adopted, it has the least support from the Hebrew idiom. Tr. of Lange's Commentary.

Two

He learneth best any way that knoweth no other, and he best keepeth any way that groweth in it. children that are bred and grow up together, are settled in affection the one to the other. Now, it can be but a childish goodness that is in a child; but if the childhood of goodness shall be bred and grow up with the childhood of man, it will settle the stronger union between them. Aristotle saith, it is a matter of chiefest moment for a man to be accustomed this way or that. Jermin.

MAIN HOMILETICS Of verse 7.

AN ANALOGY AFFIRMED AND A CONTRAST SUggested.

I. The contrast between the poor man and the borrower. The proverb at least suggests that the poor man and the borrower are not necessarily convertible

HOMILETIC COMMENTARY: PROVERBS.

CHAP. XXII.

be in

terms-that a poor man may owe no man anything, and that a man may debt without being a poor man in the common acceptation of the word. 1. The poor man and the borrower may occupy different social relations; indeed, as a rule this is the case. The poor man may have been born to poverty, and consequently may be inured to its hardships, one of which is its subjection to the will of the rich. But the borrower may have been born to wealth, and himself accustomed to rule over the poor. The one may be so ignorant and degraded by reason of his poverty as scarcely to be conscious of the yoke he wears; whereas the servitude of the other will be galling in proportion as his education renders him sensitive to his position. 2. They may be unlike in the fact that the poor man may have had no choice but poverty-he may have been born in it, and may have had no opportunity of altering his condition; but the borrower may not have been absolutely obliged to borrow-he may have borrowed merely to speculate or to waste.

II. The point of resemblance between them. They are alike in being both dependent upon the same person-upon the rich man. This rich man may be unlike his poor brother in nothing save in his possession of gold; he may be as uneducated as he is, and, morally, far beneath him. He may be much less polished and refined than the man who borrows of him, but, whatever he is or is not does not alter the case, his money makes him the master-both the poor man and the debtor must submit to his dictation, must acknowledge their dependence on him. Both often have the painful consciousness that he holds in his hand all that makes their existence of any value to them-both often alike feel that he could at any time deprive them of their very bread.

III. The lesson of the proverb. The wise man, by thus showing how two men who are unlike in almost every other respect may be reduced to the same level in this, is probably reading a lesson against borrowing. The poor man's subjection to the rich is a matter which it is not in his power to alter, but a man goes into debt generally of his own free will. He may often be very hardly pressed by necessity to do so, or as a matter of business it may be advisable, but the proverb at least suggests that the step should not be taken without well weighing the consequences. It is doubtless mainly directed against borrowing when a man has not resources to repay, and is not likely to have them.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS.

1. The responsibility of the rich. How great the power of wealth. In this world it is a talent often more influential for good than intellect or genius 2. The temptation of the poor To become servile, cringing in spirit. Flunkeyism is the greatest curse of the people . 3. The wisdom of the diligent. The industrious man is a wise man. Why? Because the more industrious he is, the more independent he becomes of wealthy men.-Dr. D. Thomas.

Very important is it to maintain an independence of mind, quite distinct from pride, which elevates the mind. far above doing or conniving at evil, for the sake of pleasing a patron,

Many have been forced to great en-
tanglement of conscience, perhaps to
vote contrary to their conscience,
rather than lose the great man's smile.
Often also the influence of capital is an
iron rule of the rich over the poor.
Many, who profess to resist con-
scientiously state-interference, have
little regard for the consciences
of their dependants.
The monied

master exercises a control Over
his workmen, which shews too plainly
his purpose to make them the crea-
tures of his own will. This gigan-
tic tyranny should be denounced
with the most solemn protest. The
true Christian line is to shun that
proud independence, which scorns the

kindly offer of needful help'; but at the same time to avoid all needless obligations. "Sell not your liberty to gratify your luxury." If possible, "owe no man anything but love." (Rom. xiii. 8.) "Guard against that poverty, which is the result of carelessness or extrava

gance. Pray earnestly, labour diligently. Should you come to poverty by the misfortune of the times, submit to your lot humbly; bear it patiently; cast yourself in child-like dependence upon your God."-Bridges.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF VERSE 8.

A WORTHLESS SEED AND A ROTTEN STAFF.

I. The seed sown. It is iniquity. All kinds of deeds and every manner of dealing that are out of harmony with the principles of justice are acts of iniquity. The least deviation from the path of moral right is in its measure an iniquitous step. Sowing iniquity is an expression that covers very much ground, and includes inany degrees of moral wrong, from the withholding of the smallest act of justice to the inflicting of the greatest act of injustice. Now, whenever a man deliberately and knowingly does either the one or the other he does it with a purpose. He has an end in view as much as the farmer has when he sows seed in the field. Men do not generally act unjustly and commit crime out of mere love of sinthey generally expect and desire to gain something by it that they think worth having. Solomon here declares that they will be disappointed. He has before dwelt upon the retribution that will follow sin, he is here speaking of its deceptive character. Men do not get from it what they expect-they are disappointed either of the harvest or in it. This has been the experience of all sowers of iniquity in the world since Eve cast in the first seed. In a certain sense she got what she was promised, but how different the crop from what she hoped for. She "reaped vanity."

II. The staff depended upon. Haughtiness or pride. (See Critical Notes.) This pride of heart and haughtiness of demeanour is born of a man's imagining that he has gained for himself a position and a name that will defy the changes and vicissitudes of life. This idea bears him up; he leans upon it, as men lean upon a rod or staff. The rich man often makes a staff of his riches, and uses it to "rule over the poor," as in verse 7. The man of talent sometimes makes his talent a staff, and walks among his intellectual inferiors with a proud and haughty step. The great conqueror says in his heart, "I will ascend unto heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will be like the Most High" (Isa. xiv. 13), and with the rod of his power he smites the nations and tramples upon the rights of his fellow-creatures. But all these rods of haughtiness shall be broken, and those who lean upon them shall find they have been trusting to a broken reed, and the objects of their oppression shall say unto them, "Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us ?"

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS.

The proverb takes two terms for iniquity, one meaning crookedness, the other meaning nothingness. It paints one as only breeding the other. It intends a positive law. Wheat breeds wheat. So iniquity breeds only worthlessness. A man may live a thousand

years and yet the harvest will be unvarying. And then to meet the fact that the dominion that his ambition gives does make him ruler over the saints themselves, he employs a verb which expresses high action, but action that exhausts itself. Its literal sense

is to consume. The idea is as of a
fever which wears down the patient
and itself together. .
The im-
penitent seem to have the whole "rod,"
or sceptre, of our planet, the true solu-
tion is this, that the "rod" is just
budding out its strength. -Miller.

Often may oppressors prosper for a time. God may use them as his chastening rod. But the seed-time of iniquity will end in the harvest of vanity; and when they have done

fail.

time,
day.

their work, the rod of their anger shall Such was Sennacherib in olden such was Napoleon in our own Never has the world seen so extensive a sower of iniquity, never a more abundant harvest of vanity. The rod of anger was he to the nations of the earth. But how utterly was the rod suffered to fail, when the purpose was accomplished! despoiled of empire, shorn of greatness-an exiled captive. -Bridges.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF VERSE 9.

THE BOUNTIFUL EYE.

I. The eye is an index of the soul. This is true, not only of the expression of the eye but of its direction. What is in the mind can often be read in the eye; both evil passions and divine affections reveal themselves through it, but sometimes both depend very much upon where the eye looks-upon the objects towards which its glance is directed. Perhaps the text refers both to the eye that softens at the sight of another's woe, and to the eye which makes it its business to look around and search for objects which the hand can help. For if the expression of the eye reveals the character so does the direction which it habitually takes. There is many an eye that readily moistens with sympathy at the tale or the spectacle of sorrow which can hardly be called a “bountiful eye," for it is only by accident that it ever encounters anything to call forth its sympathy. But the eye that is ever on the watch for opportunities of doing good, of feeding the hungry and raising the fallen, is a much surer index of a godlike disposition. For such an eye has something in common with the eye of Him who looked upon the bond slaves of Egypt and said, "I have seen the affliction of My people and am come down to deliver them," and who, manifest in a human body, was moved with compassion" at the sight of "people who were as sheep not having a shepherd" (Mark vi. 34). He whose bountiful eye brings down a blessing upon him is not one who now and then meets a needy brother and relieves him; still less is he one whose sympathy is shown only by the look. His is evidently one whose glance of pity is followed by a deed of kindness and whose habit it is to look out for opportunities of succouring the needy.

II. The soul is blest by the ministry of the hond. He who gives of His bread to the needy will have the gratitude of the needy, and there is not a more exquisite joy perhaps on the earth. But the blessing of God will be his in an especial manner. Upon both kinds of blessing see Homiletics on chap. xi. 25, page 234, and on chap. xix. 17, page 576.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS.

Perhaps the expression-" he giveth of his bread to the poor," may mean, that he is ready even to share his own provision with them; not merely to give a small portion of his superfluities, but to stint himself for their supply.

And this is the spirit of true charity.
-Wardlaw.

Some that have a bountiful eye have no bread to give, but they will give what will turn to as good an account to the donor, and sometimes will be as

pleasing to the receiver; tears and attention, and offices of tenderness and prayers to Him that is able to help-Lawson.

This bountifulness is a privilege, which earth possesses above heaven.

Many a rich blessing is sealed to it. "Beneficence is the most exquisite luxury; and the good man is the genuine epicure." He "hath a continual feast," because his objects are always before him.-Bridges.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF VERSE 10.

A MAN WHO CUGHT TO DWELL ALONE.

I. The scorner should be dismissed from social bodies for his own sake. It is better for the man himself that his power to do evil should be as limited as possible. If we could know beforehand that a man intends to commit a great crime, and so render himself liable to heavy punishment, and bring guilt upon his conscience, the kindest thing that we could do for him would be to deprive him of the power of doing as he intends. We should thereby save him from the misery of becoming a greater transgressor. If the other disciples of Our Lord could have foreseen what was passing in the mind of Judas, and could have prevented his becoming the betrayer of his Master, how great a blessing would they have conferred upon that unhappy man! Whatever might have been his other sins, he would have not been stung with that agony of remorse at having betrayed innocent blood. But many sins are of such a nature that it is impossible to hinder men from their committal-the steps which lead to them are hidden from those around, and no one suspects that the guilty one has any such intention. The scoffer, however, is not a sinner of this kind-his transgression is not a single act, but a habit of life; it is not a secret purpose hidden in his heart until the moment of its accomplishment, but is manifested in his words. Men can therefore, to some extent, hinder him from increasing his own guilt by depriving him of the opportunities of indulging in his sin-if they "cast him out"-if they shun his society, and dismiss him from their midst, he will have fewer opportunities and temptations to indulge in scoffing, and so will be kept from going to such great lengths in sinning. A man who loves to turn into ridicule all pure and holy things, uses to his own condemnation and degradation influences which were intended to bless and elevate him, and it is better for himself that they should be placed beyond his reach than that he should so abuse them and increase his own guilt.

II. He should be cast out for the sake of his fellow-creatures. There are certain diseases of the human body which are not only most dangerous for the patient himself, but expose to a like danger all who come in contact with him. The leper is not only a great sufferer himself, but he is a centre of a deadly disease which will spread itself to those with whom he dwells. It is therefore necessary to remove him from the society of other men— —so long as he is a leper he must dwell alone, must be denied the privilege of citizenship and the joys of social life. So it ought to be with the scorner-the habit of scoffing is one which is very infectious-very easily communicated by one man to another; and seeing that it is so soul-destructive, those who indulge in it ought not to have the opportunity of communicating the moral pestilence. But there is another aspect of leprosy which renders it necessary to isolate as far as possible those who are suffering from it from the abodes of other men. Even if it were not so infectious, it is most loathsome; and this alone would render some separation necessary. Now, there are societies of men in which the words of the scoffer would be quite powerless to do harm-there are those whose love of that which is true and holy is strong enough to withstand all such evil