CHAPTER XIII. RICHES NOT NECESSARILY SINFUL SOCIALISM -EARLY SYMPATHIES CHOICE OF LOT-PRINCIPLE-THE JEW. We have here one of those expressive and beautiful incidents that form lights, as it were, in the history of the past, enabling us to see the path of true prosperity ever to be the path of true and of Christian principle. Abraham, or Abram, the first name by which he was known, was very rich. So far it is no sin to be rich; and hence, the notion that prevails in many parts of the continent of Europe, that war against the rich is a duty, is a most unchristian sentiment. There is no more merit in being poor than there is sin in being rich. One may be very, very rich, and yet very Christian and very humble; and another may be very, very poor, and yet very proud and very unchristian. It is the man that lends weight and worth and tone to the circumstance; it is not the outer circumstance that makes or mars the man. A very mean heart may be adorned with a coronet; a very noble spirit may sweep a crossing. Abraham was rich; and yet Abraham, rich as he was, employed his riches to build an altar wherever he pitched a tent, and showed, when a collision came between a brother, what a beautiful and Christian spirit actuated the father of the faithful. Abraham was rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold. The silver and the gold, of course, were not in currency. There is no reason to believe that the gold had been in the mint and stamped into coins for currency: it was in the mass-in the ore; and it was substantial property. But cattle was the great sign of riches in ancient times; and in the case of Job-perhaps an older patriarch still, at least a cotemporary of Abraham- his cattle constituted the entirety of his property. We use the word pecuniary, derived from the nature of ancient wealth, to signify wealth- pecuniary circumstances. Now the word pecuniary comes from the Latin word pecunia, and that word comes from another Latin word, pecus, which means "cattle;" and, therefore, when we speak of "pecuniary circumstances," it is, literally translated, "cattle circumstances," because cattle was money, and money was cattle, in ancient times; and, whilst the substantial thing has changed, the name, as in many other cases, still remains. Abram returned "to Beth-el, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth-el and Hai; unto the place of the altar which he had made there." In other words, he returned to the ancient church, for church it was, where first he had worshipped when he went forth a pilgrim and a stranger, not knowing whither he should go. And who does not know that the place where we ourselves have been baptized, around the walls of which are the green and the hillocked graves of our fathers, is the shrine of many a beautiful and holy recollection? And who does not feel, when he returns to that spot, however mean the fabric in the midst of it, however bare the graves of "God's acre," as the Germans call it, around it, it is yet suggestive of many a holy and many a sublime thought? Thus we can sympathize with Abram when he returned, after many wanderings, to the first altar he built, and the first green knoll on which he bowed the knee and worshipped. Lot went with him, also rich in cattle, and herds, and tents; but the land, it is said, was not able to bear them. They were dependent upon the soil for all their sustenance, and, of course, when they increased in numbers, the soil and the pasturage were not adequate to their cattle, nor the corn equal to their nourishment, there being then no foreign imports. This is one explanation; but it may have been that it was not want of room, nor want of food, but want of temper, that made the land unable to bear them. Many a nation would have much greater harmony within and without if it had only much more temper. But we infer, from several incidents that occurred, that Lot was a quarrelsome man; and a quarrelsome man is a far greater impediment to peace in a country, than any failure of its substantial productions in pasturage and in corn. And hence, from this, or from some other cause, there was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and of Lot's cattle. There is one most significant touch given in this record, which is exquisitely beautiful: "The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land." This seems a very dry remark in itself; but, in connection with the quarrel of the uncle and nephew, it is a very vivid one, because two Christian men were quarrelling about pasturage, and food, and cattle, while the Canaanite, the heathen, who hated them and their religion, just as the Pope does us-warming his hands at the contentious quarrels that we Protestants kindle was then, as the Cardinal is now, in the land. But when there arose a quarrel between the two, who was it that ought to have given way? Abram was the elder, he might have exacted deference,—and Lot was the younger; it was, therefore, his duty to give way. But who first gave way ? The man who always built an altar wherever he built a tent was the man who gave way; and he who built no altar (for there is no record that he did) where he built a tent, was the party who stood up and fought, as he thought, most manfully for his rights. The moment that Abram saw this, he said unto Lot, "Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and go between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me; if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or, if thou depart to the right hand, then I will to the left." This single sentiment is the most beautiful commentary upon the text, "If any man will have thy cloak, let him have thy coat also." It is not the mere mechanical surrender of the coat to a man who takes your cloak, for that may be done without any Christian feeling at all that is true charity; but it is the subjection, and, if needs be, surrender of our own rights, that may really be so, in order to promote peace, and put an end to strife that is injurious to the gospel, and that can minister no good to the edifying of any. Now, Abram, the greatest Christian, the senior, who might have exacted all, at once surrendered and gave up all, and showed at once the finest specimen of Christian principle and of Christian courtesy. What is courtesy? Just our giving up our own right, which we might exact, in order to oblige a brother, and giving it up, let us recollect, not to one whom we admire, or love, or think deserves such a sacrifice; but giving it up to one whom we see to be in the wrong, and who we know deserves no such sacrifice from us; forgetting and merging the minor feeling in the great result of doing good, and promoting peace among mankind. Now, mark Lot's conduct. If Lot had had the courtesy and the Christian conduct of Abram; if he had been what he ought to have been, he would have been moved and subdued, and in prostrate humility have sunk to the earth before Abram, and have said, "This is too much; I did not expect it;" but he did not even thank him, so rude was he- for Christianity and courtesy are related; he did not give up the best part of the land, so grasping was he. In the words of the chapter, "Lot lifted up his eyes," not to thank Abram, not in thanks to God for giving him such an uncle and such -- a friend; but he "lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere,” beautiful streams, "before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east; and they separated themselves." What a selfish, unholy, uncourteous trait in the character of unhappy Lot! He chose the plain of Jordan, for what reason? Just because it was well watered. So we have people who, to get cheap things, would sacrifice truth, and love and patriotism. He did not think, Shall I there have an opportunity of building an altar? Shall I come into contact with good people, and good neighbors, and pious friends, and a faithful minister, a faithful patriarch, who will do me good, and my family good, and make us holy and happy together? He put aside all thoughts about the main thing; he thought only of the richest soil, the best trout streams, the green hedges, and the prospects of the most abundant harvests; and was actuated by these alone, in spite of clear convictions that there was no fear of God in the midst of the land where these were; for it is added, that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly, -a remark thrown in to show that Lot knew it was so. In the face of all that, he resolved to pitch his tent there. Now, these patriarchal men were just specimens of human nature in one phasis, and they have each his exact counterpart in human nature still. A man selects a house, or a district to live in, and he is never at the trouble to inquire, Is there a faithful minister near it? Are there good people with whom I should like to be associated? But the first thing that he looks at is the beautiful garden, and its convenience and comfort; and he takes it, just as Lot took the land, because it is fertile and well watered, not because he has opportunities of making himself wiser, and happier, and better.. I do not say Lot's elements should not be entertained |