walketl, "·ill, \\"isc men shnll he wise; but the companion of fools ~hnll ho destroyed," 3. Ritter s01-i·o10. Precisely in proportion to the eminence of his religious olum\ctet would this be inevitRble. The immoralities and infidelities of the Sodomites would plunge him into grief, if they did 11ot cause "rivers of water" to rnn down his eyee: And so it e,·entnnlly came to pass (2 Pet. ii. 8). ITJ. '.l.'".'E sJNFUL'NEss OF Lo-r's cnotcE. 1. Aoo.rici<>us in us origin. Thus it wns R sin agamst God. Had no dra·wbacks attended it, bad it in all other respects been commende.b\e and prudent, the lust of cupidity out of wliich it sprang would have condemned 1t. Few things are more f-requently and emphaticaHy reprehended in the ~•.ord of God ~l_1_an the inordinate _de~ire of possession (Luke _xii. 15 ;_Ephes. v. 3; Col. m. 5; Heb. xm. 5). 2. Selfi.~h in its cliara,cter. Thus, besides being a sin against God, it was an offence against his uncle. Had Abram and Lot stood upon~ platform of equality, religious principle should have dictated to Lot the propriety of either returning the right of choice to Abram, or himself selecting what he believed to be the inferior quarter (Rom. xii. 10; Phil. ji, 3); but Abram wns Lot's superior in. age, and therefore entitled to take precedence of one who was younger; Lot's uncle, and; in Yirtue of that relationship, deserving of his nephew's honour; Lot's guardian and benefactor, and, as a consequence, worthy of acknowledgment and gratitude at the hands of one whom he had enriched ; and, what :was more important for the settle- ment of the question, the actual heir ancl owner of the lnnd, to whom accordingly belonged the prerogative of claiming not its fattest portion only,. but its entire domain. All these considerations rendered Lot's choice offensive in the extreme. K Dangerous in it,s issue,s. As such it w.as a sin against himself as weU as against God. Even though evil shonld not come of it, it was not open to Lo,t, as a good man, t.o esta.blish himself where injury to his spiritual interests was possible. That he did not reckon the moral bearings of his choice was an aggravation rather than an ex- tenuation of his sin. He had time to calculate the chances of material prosperity: he should also have counted up the moral hazards before he elected to drive his flocks and herds to Sodom. Lessons :-1. .All is not gold that glitters; hence the supreme· unwisdom of judging either thing11 or peraons according to appearance. 2. In every man's lot there -is Ii crook; hence the propriety of moderating our desires concerning everything. 3. H is possible to pay too dear a price for material prosperity. "What shall it profit' a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" 4. Itis II poor out- come of piety which prefel"!l self-interest to the claims either of affection or religion: the ma.n who loves himself better than his· neighbour is still devoid of_ the spiri_t of Christ. 5. In the long run the spirit of selfishness is certain to overreach itself and nccomplish its own ruin.
HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS. Vere. 10--13.-The choice of Lot. I.· WHAT LoT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT. 1. His owri worldly circumstances· and, 2. The suitability of the Jordan circle to advance them'. lL '\VHAT LoT DID ~OT TAKE INTO ACOOUNT. 1. The reverence ~ue to his uncle; 2. The greater right which Abram had to the soil of Canaan. 3. Th~ ~anger, in part- i11g with Abram, of separating himself from Abra1?1's God. 4. The. risk of damage to his spiritual interests in settling in the Jordan circle. . • Learn-1. That while it may be right, in life's actions, to take our worldly mterests into account, it is wrong and dangerous to take nothing else. 2. That no amount of purely worldly advantage can either justify or recompense the ?isregard of the higher interests of the soul. 3. That though good me!!- m_ay oft~ntimes find reasons for neglecting the soul's interests, they cannot do so with 1mpumty.-W. Vera. 10 13.-Sodom and tlie Sodomites, or tlie place a'Tl,(l, tlie people. 1. The pl,ysical be'auty of the Jordan valley. 2. The moral corruption of its inbabitonts. Lessons .-1. The weakness of nature as a moral educati;,r. 2. The true design of nature ll.B a more.I educator.-W. • • \"er. '!1.--Theparting of thefriends. I. The BADNESS of this parting. It was a OD, XIII. 10-13.] THE BOOK OF GENESIS.