to the parable: There was a certain rich man, says our Lord, who was cloathed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate full of sores: desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; and no one did give him moreover, the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died; and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw 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 to cool my tongue, for I am tormented in these flames. `And Abraham said to him: Son, remember thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things :

but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. This, my beloved, is a parable delivered by Truth itself: and the whole purport of it is intended, as I will demonstrate by a few instructive reflections, to prove one of the most important points that can be discussed in the system of christian morality, namely, that a worldly life alone is a life of sin, and worthy the severe effects of God's eternal justice.

1. In the first place, the parable remarks that he was rich: there was a certain rich man. Nothing odious, however, is added to this circumstance. He is not accused of acquiring his wealth by unjust means, nor of behaving with haughtiness or arrogancy in his exalted rank. It is merely stated that he was rich and it may be presumed that he peaceably enjoyed the patrimony of his ancestors, void of ambition, free from cares, surrounded by tranquil and domestic pleasures, I

VOL. II,

and enjoying the sweets of a property which was his own by right. Could the possession of wealth be more innocently acquired? And yet, this was the first step that led to his condemnation.

In the second place, he was cloathed in purple and fine linen. This, undoubtedly, was a costly dress in those times. But it is not said that he surpassed the bounds which custom prescribed to people of his rank and sta tion. It is not said that his means were unequal to his expenditure, nor that the labourer, the tradesman, and others who were about him, were sufferers on account of his splendid magnificence. Nothing at all of this is so much as hinted at. Neither is it said that he endeavoured to ensnare the innocent by the improper adjustment of his dress, and that he justified himself by the plea, that he meant no harm-a plea, by which too many of the fair sex, now-a-days, endeavour to justify

the indecent and artificial display of their personal charms. Nothing of the kind is laid to his charge. It is said that he was rich, that he was cloathed in purple and fine linen, and that he was fond of pomp and splendor; and these things were certainly more excusable under the old, than under the new law; for Jesus, poor and debased, had not then given the example, nor displayed in his own person the model of modesty and simplicity.

In the third place, he feasted sump-. tuously every day. Here again we must consider that the law of Moses forbad only excess that strict watch over the sensual appetite, which has been since prescribed by the gospel, was not then enjoined. Milk and honey were a part of the promises made to the sons of Abraham: and it was rational to conclude that the sweets of plenty, which were held, out as the recompense of fidelity, might be enjoyed without

crime. It is said, indeed, that he feasted sumptuously but it is not said that he eat forbidden meats, or that he violated the fasts and abstinences enjoined by the law. It is not said that he was guilty of debauchery or excess; that the infidel and libertine were his guests; that improper conversation formed any part of his entertainment ; or that there was any thing in his conduct which marked him out to his associates and others as a loose and dissipated character.-No neglect of his religious duties is imputed to him : nor is there any thing said, from which we might infer that he was either a hard master, an irreconcileable enemy, a perfidious friend, or an unfaithful husband. He is not accused of envying the prosperity of others, nor of defiling his tongue with calumny and detraction. In a word, according to the description given in the gospel, he was fond of the table, and spent his days