second half of the fourth century, and which has even been attributed to Cyprian, the cross is described as a tree, and Christ himself as the tree of life; the last as follows:

"In very centre of the earth there lies

A place called Golgotha in the Hebrew tongue,
Where, as I do remember, once there grew
A tree hewn from a barren oak, which bore
To mankind precious fruit, but it did yield
None to the gardeners who did plant it, for
A foreign race the blessed harvest reaped.
This tree has but a single stem, and spreads
Its branches out in even lines . . .

Him that it bore as fruit, the earth received
In her dark bosom, when he felt but soon
As dawned, the light on the third day, behold,
O great amaze, to heaven and earth he sprang
Forth from the tomb, a living glorious branch,
Bearing the fruit of life."

The above-mentioned hymn of Fortunatus (Pange Lingua) near the end contains these lines:

"Crux fidelis inter omnes arbor una nobilis

Silva talem nulla profert fronde, flore, germine
Dulce ferrum, dulce lignum, dulce pondus sustinent.

"Flecte ramos arbor alta, tensa laxa viscera,
Et rigor lentescat ille quem dedit nativitas,
Et superni membra regis tende miti stipite.

"Sola digna tu fuisti ferre mundi victimam,
Atque portum preparare arca mundo naufrago
Quem sacer cruor perunxit fusus Agni corpore.'

In like manner, in the middle ages. There is a hymn composed in praise of the cross, by Adam of St. Victor, in the twelfth century (Laudes crucis attollamus), the twelfth verse of which is :

"O crux, lignum triumphale

Vera mundi salus, vale,
Inter ligna nullum tale.

Fronde, flore, germine:

Medicina christiana

Salva sanos, ægros sana,

Quod non valet vis humana

Fit in tuo nomine."

Then the hymn of Bonaventura in the thirteenth finds its

proper place, to which however we shall return when we come to speak of the monuments.?

The following seems worth insertion here:

"Vexilla regis prodeunt,
Fulget crucis mysterium,
Qua vita mortem pertulit,
Et morte vitam protulit.

"Impleta sunt quæ concinit
David fideli carmine,
Dicendo nationibus:

Regnavit a ligno Deus.

"Arbor decora, et fulgida,

Ornata regis purpura,

Electa digno stipite,

Tam sancta membra tangere," etc.—Tr.

The Bible, I say the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else they beleeve besides it, and the plaine irrefragible, indubitable consequences of it, well may they behold it as a matter of opinion, but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds beleeve it themselves, nor require the beliefe of it of others, without most high and most schismaticall presumption. I for my part, adds he, after a long (and as I verily beleeve and hope) impartiall search of the true way to eternall happiness, doe professe plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this rock only. I see plainly and with mine own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councells against councells, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. Traditive interpretations of Scriptures are pretended, but there are few or none to be found; no tradition but only of Scripture, can derive itselfe from the fountaine, but may be plainly prov'd either to have been brought in, in such an age after Christ; or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certaintie but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. This therefore, and this only I have reason to beleeve; this I will professe, accrding to this I will live, and for this I will not only willingly, but even gladly loose my life, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me. Propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I beleeve it or no, and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason, I will subscribe it hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true. In other things I will take no man's libertie of judginent from him; neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Christian. I will love no man the lesse, for differing in opinion with me. And what measure I meet to others I expect from them againe. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men out not to require any more of any man, than this, to beleeve the Scripture to be God's Word, to endeavour to finde the true sense of it, and to live according to it.- William Chillingworth.

THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS."

IV.

THE difficulties involved in the parable of Dives and Lazarus have been most ably stated by your correspondent, Mr. Flower. There are few persons who have attempted to expound this parable who have not felt the difficulty of giving a perfectly satisfactory explanation of it. Is the conclusion to which Mr. Flower evidently tends, that the parable was not uttered by our Lord, a necessary inference from the difficulties in question? Without maintaining that the whole of them are entirely removed by the following remarks, I commend them to Mr. Flower's attention, as it is evident that some portion of the case has escaped his observation. I will therefore discuss his reasoning in the order in which it is presented by him.

It must be admitted that a few passages have crept into the text of the Scriptures which never were written by the authors of the inspired books. It is therefore conceivable that this parable may have been introduced into St. Luke's Gospel in a similar way, if the internal evidence against it affords conclusive proof that it could not have been uttered by our Lord. The other passages of doubtful authenticity are wanting in some of the manuscripts. But if this passage must be rejected, it must be pronounced to be an interpolation entirely on internal evidence. It will also readily be admitted that the parable, as it stands in our present copies of St. Luke's Gospel, contains no words. which directly attribute it to our Lord. But I cannot admit that the connection between Luke xvi. 18 and Luke xvii. would be equally good if the parable were expunged.

At the opening of Luke xvii. our Lord warns the disciples of the sin of placing stumbling-blocks in the way of others. The point of transition from the parable to the warning given to the disciples is evidently contained in the parable itself. Dives had been a stumbling-block to his five brethren. He dreaded their arrival in Hades in an unrepentant state. He therefore wished Lazarus to be sent to them to testify unto them lest they also came to that place of torment.

Now it is a most mysterious dispensation of Divine Providence, that one man should be a stumbling-block to another, and a means of occasioning him to fall into sin, which sin he would have avoided but for his evil example. Our Lord in the beginning of Luke xvii. said that the existence of such stumblingblocks was part of the appointed order of God's moral govern

a See J. S. L., Vol. V., pp. 126-132, 290-309.

ment of the world. But although it is the purpose of God that such stumbling-blocks should exist, it does not diminish the responsibility, or the sin of those who are the immediate causes of them. Now, as Dives had been a stumbling block to his five brethren, nothing is more natural than that this solemn warning should follow the parable and be suggested by it.

It must be conceded that there is a great difference between the structure of this parable and the apparatus employed in it, and that of the other parables unquestionably spoken by our Lord. Now is this difference so great as to afford sufficient evidence that this parable could not have been uttered by him?

I quite agree with Mr. Flower that we are not at liberty to make a new Gospel for ourselves by surmising or suggesting additional circumstances to aid us in our interpretations. To expound our Lord's parables, we have no right to assume the existence of anything which is not expressly stated or implied in them. Nothing would be a greater reflection on our Lord's divine character, than to suppose that he did not embody in his parables everything necessary for conveying the truth which he designed to teach. To assume the existence of circumstances not in the parables is to assert that they are capable of improvement.

;

But Mr. Flower considers that the parable, accurately interpreted, teaches compensation and retribution, and nothing else that it represents Dives as miserable in Hades on account of the wealth which he enjoyed in this life, and Lazarus happy as a compensation for his sufferings endured here. If such is the unquestionable teaching of the parable, no amount of manuscript authority will avail to prove that it was ever uttered by the great Teacher come from God.

But as in ascertaining their true meaning we are not at liberty to introduce any fresh circumstance into our Lord's parables which he did not utter, or positively imply, so we must not omit any circumstance actually mentioned by him. This parable is not only absolutely unique in the apparatus which it employs, bnt it possesses another circumstance, which distinguishes it from our Lord's other parables. To one of the actors in it it assigns a name.

Now, our Lord has never introduced a name into any other parable uttered by him. In this parable, while the rich man is nameless, the beggar's name is explicitly given, "There was a certain beggar named Lazarus." Unless there was a special reason why the beggar should have a name, the parable might as well have run thus: "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and who fared sumptuously every day; and there was a certain beggar who was laid at his

gate full of sores." As this is the only parable in which a name is introduced, we may conclude that the name itself forms a part of the apparatus of the parable, and that the parable can only be correctly interpreted by a distinct reference to the meaning of the name given to the beggar.

Now the word Lazarus means "God a help." If, therefore, the name Lazarus is part of the apparatus of the parable, it contains the key to its right interpretation. Our Lord might as well have given him any other name; but he has given him a name appropriate to the sense of the parable. When a fictitious name with an appropriate signification is thus assumed, it is equivalent to saying that the beggar's character corresponded with his name. This will enable us to expound the parable without the necessity of introducing any matter or supposition not contained or implied in the parable itself. The parable will then run: "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and who fared sumptuously every day; and there was a certain beggar named God is my help, who was laid at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores."

What then does the parable assert or expressly imply respecting the character of the rich man and the beggar? Is the character of the beggar, as Mr. Flower thinks, without a single moral element ? His name contains the moral element in his character. He was one who, amidst all the trials and miseries of life, put his trust in God. But what respecting the

character of Dives? Is it that of a blameless rich man? quite true that the parable does not assert that the character of Dives was morally worse than that of other worldly-minded rich men. He did what other rich men do. He ate and drank everything that was good, and clothed himself magnificently. In this there was no sin. Many religious men, whom God has blessed with the means, have done the same. It is a duty of those whom God has blessed with wealth to furnish employment by a liberal expenditure on articles of luxury. But we must not allow ourselves to contemplate Dives apart from the picture of the beggar lying at his gate. He was full of sores. He was desirous of being fed by the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. This fare Lazarus most probably obtained, for this seems to be implied in the request of Dives for Lazarus to be sent to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool his tongue. The rich man seems to say, As in my day of life I gave an inconsiderable favour which cost me nothing, so now in my day of suffering I crave of Lazarus a favour even less, a drop of