It is quite as rational to associate godliness with insufficient air as with inadequate food; and if it had occurred to the hermits of old to practise self-denial in the consumption of oxygen, Hagiology would doubtless record the sufferings of gasping as well as famished saints.

6

In his personal contempt for riches Jesus was a true Essene Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,'1 said Jesus. The Essenes do not store up for themselves treasures of silver and gold,' said Philo. It was open to Jesus, as to all men of noble and exalted character, to regard the good things of this life with stoical indifference. This form of wisdom is, however, so often found to flourish best among those who have got no riches to despise, that sneering sceptics may unjustly cry, Sour-grapes!'; but those who attain to this sublime superiority over human interest in temporal advantages should pause before condemning their weaker brethren, as possibly there is something to be said, even on the side of morality and religion, in favour of riches as compared with poverty. Jesus, however, following in the footsteps of the anonymous author of the Book of Enoch, discredits all possession of property.

'Woe to you who are rich! for in your riches you have trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed, because you have not remembered the most High in the days of your prosperity,'' says the author of Enoch. Woe unto you that are rich! for you have received your consolation,' says Jesus, thus out-Enoching Enoch by condemning capitalists, not for any alleged breach of duty, but for the guilt of possessing property.

3

1 Matt. vi. 19.

2 Enoch xciii. 7.

3 Luke vi. 24.

These views of Jesus are fully confirmed in the parable of the rich man and the beggar. We are not informed that Dives was particularly wicked or Lazarus remarkably virtuous; the crime of the former consisted in enjoying the good things of this life, and the merit of the latter in not having them to enjoy. Both these men die. First the squalid beggar, who is carried by angels into Abraham's bosom; then the rich man, who is forthwith consigned to hell fire. The cause of so wide a gulf between reward and punishment is clearly explained in the conversation between Abraham and DivesRemember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.' It is impossible to mistake the meaning of Abraham. Poverty wins heaven; riches merit perdition. Dives was, however, very deficient in tact, or he would have answered, 'What saith the Scriptures? "Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." " Why, therefore, art thou not present with me in this torture ?

2

Apologists may tell us that Dives was not only very rich, but desperately wicked. Abraham, however, made no such charge; and if Dives suffered, not as a wealthy capitalist, but as a hardened sinner, the parable had no meaning until interpreted by modern sages. The views of Jesus, however, receive full confirmation in the narrative of his interview with the young man of great possessions and many virtues, whose countenance was so expressive of nobility as to win the heart of Jesus: and yet, because this youthful Dives declined to cast

the proceeds of his inheritance into the gulf of pauperism, his prospect of entrance into the kingdom of heaven is less than the chance of a camel's passage through a needle's eye.1

The son of Sirach anticipated Enoch and Jesus in the condemnation of riches: 'What agreement is there between a hyena and a dog? and what peace between the rich and the poor? As the wild ass is the lion's prey in the wilderness, so the rich eat up the poor. As the proud hate humility, so doth the rich abhor the poor.' 2 Language so extreme obviously indicates the presence of unreasoning prejudice; and if Jesus adopted the fallacies of his age, is it not full time to recognise and admit his error, instead of affirming that he did not mean what he said? Could the Son of Man revisit the earth in this nineteenth century, and witness human progress based on wealth, he would doubtless deplore the primitive ignorance which failed to see in riches the powerful friend of education, knowledge, refinement, virtue, and even religion.

Having condemned riches, Jesus continued his discourse with the following words: Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall.put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the birds of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feedeth them: are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of

1 Matt. xix. 16-27.

2 Ecclus. xiii. 18-20.

:

the field; they toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these: therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or wherewithal shall we be clothed? for after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought of the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.' 1

How marvellous is the simplicity and ignorance of this discourse! If flowers are naturally independent of clothing, should man therefore neglect the important art of dressing in seasonable and becoming garments? Could we live the precarious life of birds without resorting to picking and stealing'? Do not feathered tribes take thought for to-morrow by seeking food and shelter on distant shores, whilst those of less sagacious instincts, unfed by Providence, perish of cold and hunger in the winter's snows? Has not wisdom, from time immemorial, invited man to follow the example of the industrious ant, rather than the improvident sparrow? Can man, thoughtless of the future, rise above the condition of the savage or the tramp? Is not anxious forethought the germ of human progress?

Modern research discloses that animal existence, throughout the ages, has been dependent on the foodsupply gathered, seized, or produced by the strongest, the swiftest, the most sagacious; whilst species inca

1 Matt. vi. 25-34.

P

pable of adaptation to shifting conditions of life have perished, through the inexorable law of 'survival of the fittest,' whose despotic rule knows no variation through divine compassion. Even piety cannot save nations from destruction, which give no anxious thought to their food-supplies. On the eve of famine no people could have been more pious than the Irish race, and yet, because they trusted in Providence and the potato, they perished by hundreds of thousands, although nationally illustrating the policy of the Mount-Suf ficient unto the day is the evil thereof.'

6

As modern Christians now, however, practically disavow evangelical economy, apologists tell us that the Greek words un μeрiμvâтe may be translated, 'be not over-anxious,' instead of take no thought.' No doubt; but when Jesus, pointing to the lilies of the field, tells us to part with our garments, and give up all our possessions to the poor, we cannot question that he preaches absolute indifference to the wants of to

morrow.

Some theologians affirm that all this is figurative, and depicts an ideal self-denial, impracticable under the ordinary conditions of life. This theory is, however, but another instance of revelation interpreted in harmony with contemporary thought. If Jesus was merely uttering visionary precepts, could he have declared, at the conclusion of his discourse, Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock; and every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand'? Dis