of trust! But these mark a weakness of principle which is a presage of greater failures when tempta tion shall put us to the test. "If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?" The meaning and connexion of these verses seems to be: Since it is an admitted principle that he that is untrustworthy in small matters will be untrustworthy in greater he that has wasted or embezzled the comparatively worthless materials of worldly comfort, the "unrighteous mammon," is not fit to be trusted with the administration of those high matters which concern the spiritual interests of mankind. Neither is he who, when under account to others, still managed to defraud, fit to be trusted with independence (that comparative independence which is only accountable to God)-in which position he will have greater opportunities of wasting and misusing God's gifts. Thus, a dishonest clerk is not fit to be an employer, nor is he who has been mean and grasping, selfish and unjust in private life, fit to be a spiritual or civil governor-a Bishop, a Statesman, a Member of Parliament. Neither, if we have not been faithful in our earthly trusts, will God give us to possess an eternal inheritance. Now let us apply the lessons of this parable to a matter of which we unhappily have heard muchthe practice of bribery at elections. In too many instances, the candidate, or his friends on his behalf, act like this unjust steward-they corrupt others for their own interests, sometimes by promising them advantages for which the Nation, their great Employer, will have to pay. This may be wise for this world-wise, just, as regards some short-sighted interest. But is it wise as a child of light? If the candidate's object is to serve his country, can he be furthering this end by helping to make his countrymen mean, false, and selfish? And is it wise in the man who sells his vote? If he has an interest in the good government of the country, in fair and equal laws, in righteousness, judgment, and the fear of God, is he wise to help to send to Parliament one who, unfaithful in little, is likely to be unfaithful in much, and who, having made an unfair use of the unrighteous mammon, is, in the sight of God, unfit to be trusted with the true riches? "A SECTION XXVIII. THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. LUKE xvi. 14-31. ND the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided Him. And He said unto them, 'Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.'” The Pharisees derided Him, sneered at Him. No doubt they thought it great folly to maintain that we cannot serve God and Mammon, as our Saviour had just told them; perhaps, too, they thought they, secure in the favour of God, children of Abraham, the rightful heirs of the kingdom of heaven, had very little need to be exhorted to make friends who should receive them into everlasting habitations. With special reference apparently to these sneers, our Lord, having first warned them that their own opinion of themselves, or even men's respect for them, was no certain earnest of acceptance before God, proceeds to relate the following parable. "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple, and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day." No doubt he was highly esteemed among men, admired for his splendour aud luxury, flattered by a host of dependents, yet all the while "abomination in the sight of God," not because he was rich, but because he was poor—poor towards God, poor in love and faith, selfish and godless. "And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table"-longing for a morsel of food, and anxiously watching for the fragments which from time to time were flung out of the doors by the servants. "Moreover the dogs"-his only friends-" came and licked his sores."* If the * In one of the narratives of the Indian revolt, published after peace had been restored, there is an instance of a wounded officer whose wound was healed by the licking of a puppy, which he happened to have with him, as he lay helpless in the bush.See EDWARDS' Pers. Adventures, p. 138. rich man had not been too proud and selfish to trouble himself about a poor beggar, he would have had him tenderly taken up and placed where he could be thoroughly nursed and provided for. The casual relief given to beggars, which leaves them beggars still, and perhaps encourages them to be such, is not efficient charity. They either need more or less. : "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom❞— not because he had been poor, but because he had been rich rich in faith, patient, loving, a trusting Ichild of Abraham. "The rich man also died, and was buried." And now comes a fearful reversal of their lots; now reality has play; now they are treated according to character. "And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,* and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."" Here seems a glance at the exhortation, "Make yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness." The services of the despised Lazarus are sought as the greatest boon. "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and * We are not warranted from these fearful images to draw any positive conclusions as to the nature of future punishments, any more than as to the nature of future rewards; 'flames of fire,' 'Abraham's bosom,' are probably introduced as being in accordance with the common Jewish ideas of hell and heaven. : thou art tormented."" He reminds him of the justice of his present punishment, and in this is implied a suggestion of patience and submission. "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.'" It was not then want of charity in Lazarus that he did not comply with the entreaty. "Then he said, 'I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'* And he said, 'Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.'" So have men thought in all ages: terror must produce conviction, certainty of punishment must effect repentance. A sort of conviction, a sort of repentance, perhaps, they may; but true repentance is not to feel, "I shall certainly be punished for this," but, "I have been wrong, and deserve to be punished for it," and no amount of mere terror will make a man feel this. "And he said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."" Their rejection of such sufficient evidence shows that it is their hearts which are in fault, and where that is the *This feature in the parable seems to show that the details are employed for a special object, and not intended to reveal the mysteries of the future state. The rich man is shown as one not entirely dead to feelings of disinterested affection, and one cannot believe that such feelings will co-exist with final damnation. |