HIS paragraph constitutes one of the interludes which characterize the third section of the Gospel according to Matthew. In it Christ is seen turning to the multitudes, from His more immediate work of instructing His own disciples. The King, rejected already by the rulers, and growingly the cause of perplexity to the multitudes, yet responded to all who came, according to their needs.

There are four classes represented here. The multitudes who came to Him in need, bringing their sick with them; those who came in the critical spirit, attempting to entrap Him in His talk; those who came impulsed by natural affection, bringing their children with them; and one who came with a profound inquiry and a sincere desire for help.

And there are four subjects dealt with by the King. He invaded four different spheres, and revealed His power in each. The physical, as He healed disease; the ethical, as He answered the criticism of the critics; the social, as He rebuked the disciples, and gathered the children in His arms; the spiritual, as He flashed light upon the pathway of this man who came to Him; and through all the story we, who are following the pathway of the King with loving interest and adoring hearts, are impressed by the ease with which He dealt with the varying conditions.

The first is a brief story, contained within the first two verses. The occasion was that of His departure from Galilee. His life there was closed, His work was done, His message was delivered, His power was made manifest. He went into the borders of Judea beyond Jordan. His face was set toward Jerusalem. He had said that it could not be that a prophet perish out of his own country. He had said to them over and over again since Caesarea Philippi, "I must go up to Jerusalem and suffer . . . and be killed . . . and be raised." The must of His Passion was upon His heart and soul. As He came into the coasts of Judea He found Himself again surrounded by great multitudes of people; and although details are not given, it is perfectly evident that the people came bringing their sick folk with them. We simply read, "He healed them there." In that sentence is the revelation of a mighty compassion, and an equally mighty ability. There are no details, yet do not let us miss the grandeur of the scene, the pathos of it, the greatness of it, the tenderness of it, the glory of it. We see the King. The years of His earthly life were drawing to a close. He had enunciated His ethic, exhibited the benefits of His rule, enforced His claims; and He knew full well what the verdict of the people would be; "Crucify Him, crucify Him," "we will not that this Man reign over us." He had told the disciples this, and He was now setting His face towards that final fact of the Cross. Nevertheless when these people crowded around Him with their sick folk, all the compassion of His heart responded, and He put forth His might to heal.

In the next section we have, first, the question of the Pharisees, and the Master's answer; then the objection which they raised to His answer, and His reply to that objection; and finally, the surprised comment of His disciples, and His answer to them.

First, the question and the answer. We at once see that the question was of the hour, something which was then debatable. They said, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" There was something behind that question, a division of opinion amongst the rulers; two schools of thought were involved. The whole dispute arose out of the teaching in Deuteronomy (xxiv.1) [Deu 24:1]. "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she finds no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." Now there was a difference of opinion between two masters, Hillel and Shammai, as to what Moses meant by these words. Hillel had been the mightiest influence in Judaism for long years as a teacher, and had been dead about twenty years when Christ was teaching. He had maintained that in that word Moses allowed divorce upon the ground of what we to-day should speak of as incompatibility of temperament. Shammai held that there was only one cause for divorce. The two schools had many bitter disputations as to which was right; and that dispute was in the background of this question to Jesus.

By way of answer, Christ first revealed the true foundation of the marriage relation; "Have ye not read, that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For. this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?" That was in itself a full and final answer. The method of the King here is to be carefully observed. In the presence of a surface difficulty, He appealed to the foundation of eternal principle. He ignored Hillel and Shammai; He passed Moses; and sweeping back through interpreters and lawgivers to the divine arrangement, He said, "From the beginning." This method of our Lord is in itself a revelation of the final law of life. The things that Moses said were transitory, having application only to certain times and places. If we are in doubt or difficulty we are not to appeal to teachers who are interpreters; to a lawgiver who was the lawgiver of an age, and whose ethical code has been superseded by a higher; we are rather to make our appeal to divine intention.

Having thus appealed to the age abiding principle, He made application thereof; "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh." Thus He revealed in a sublime statement the awful sanctity of marriage. The marriage relationship is to supersede, because of its sacredness, the most sacred relationship that can exist apart from it, that of the child to father and mother. Christ made no allowances for the difficulties by which these men were surrounded, and by which we are surrounded, these declarations of incompatibility and dissimilarity. Christ lifted the subject to the pure altitudes of the divine intention as to the sanctity of the marriage relation.

Then He came down to the level of their disputes, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Mark the marvellous meaning of this. To express the thought of Jesus in other words, it is as though He had said; According to the divine intention a man leaves father and mother, and cleaves to his wife, in the high sanctity of the marriage relationship. If that ideal of the marriage relationship has been realized, then let no man break in upon it, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Jesus did not mean to say that every man and woman living together in civil relationship is married in the sight of heaven; but He did mean to say where this ideal lies at the basis of the marriage relationship "let not man put asunder." A marriage according to eternal principles, and according to the sanctity of this ideal, is consummated by God.

Then they brought their objection, and the objection was stated in the terms of their own dispute "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?" What they meant to say was, For what reason did Moses command it; what were the grounds of his permission? Jesus replied in effect that when Moses gave that permission, he accommodated himself to the need of the hour; there was in the permission, contravention of the divine intention, but it was made necessary by the hardness of men's hearts, by the fact that they had lost the simplicity and tenderness that made is impossible for them to realize the high ideal. The permission of Moses to a hardened people is not to be taken as the final standard of ethics in the Kingdom of God.

Then He proceeded to utter words which, if read by Christian people, answer all these difficulties for the present hour, "I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery." To that nothing need be added! No man, believing on Christ, and taking Christ's pure name on his lips, can say that upon the basis of dissimilarity, or upon the basis of incompatibility of temperament, there may be divorce. Oh the tragedy may be .a lifelong tragedy, but for the sake of the strength of society, and for the sake of family life, we must accept the standard of Christ. It is a solemn and a searching word; it makes indissoluble the bond once made, save for the one, and only sin. If there be suffering, that is not the fault of Christ, or of God; it is the result of the violation of the ideal of the marriage relationship; and the penalty must remain until the end of time.

Having thus dealt with the Pharisees, the disciples in amazement said; "If the case of a man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." This was not so much complaint as a recognition of the high ideal which was set up by Christ. They said in effect, The ideal is too high for the present life; had not men who are going to be true to God, better live the celibate life?

Christ's answer to them is important for all time. He did not contradict their view, but said; "Not all men can receive this saying." To what saying did He refer? Not His own, but theirs. Thus Christ declared that the celibate life is not for all. It may be for some. All men cannot receive it; which does not necessarily mean that they are weak, but that they are not called to it, for it is only given to some. He named three classes of men who can observe the celibate life; some are born to celibacy; some are made celibates-a class with which we have nothing to do, the reference being local and obsolete-and some choose celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Christ did not condemn such; He spoke of them with respect and honour; but He would not allow His disciples to condemn the men who did not observe the celibate life. It is not given to all. Thus He forbade His disciples to build upon His underlying principle a rule or set of rules to be observed by all men. That was the perpetual method of Christ. We cannot build rules upon His principles; we must deal individually with the underlying principle. Here is a man to whom it is not given, he is not called to the life of celibacy, and we must not apply any rule to him. Here is another man who is called, and for some purpose that we cannot understand, he devotes himself to celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God. That man is to be honoured; but he is not to despise a man who does not devote himself to celibacy. This is the perpetual method of Christianity; every man must find his own rule out of the principle. We cannot make rules for our fellow men.

Christ recognized two things in this wonderful passage. He recognized first of all the absolute sacredness and sanctity of the marriage relationship; and safeguarded it from every attempt to break it down and undervalue it with words of burning fire; and He recognized with fine taste and beautiful sympathy, that there may be those who will devote themselves to the celibate life for the Kingdom of God, and declared that they are to be held in absolute esteem. When the Christian Church preached the doctrine of celibacy for its ministry, they erected a rule upon a principle, with disastrous results, as we know full well. Nevertheless there have been men devoted to celibacy in the ministry of the Roman Church, pure, strong, high, noble sons of God; but again and again, because men have tried to bind their lives by rules never intended for them, they have violated the very principle upon which they attempted to work, and that is always so. To be governed by Jesus Christ is to be governed by Him directly and immediately, and by principles which one must apply to one's own life, always declining to allow others to make rules.

The last two paragraphs are very familiar. We have first the exquisite story of the children. Both Matthew and Mark put this incident of the bringing of the children immediately after the words of Jesus about the marriage relationship. May we not have some light on the action of the disciples when they attempted to forbid the bringing of children, from what was in their mind concerning celibate life? Did they not recognize that their Master was living the celibate life ? And may it not be that after all, notwithstanding His correction of the falseness of attempting to erect a rule upon a principle, there was in their mind an underlying thought that celibacy was the purer and higher and nobler life; and therefore the children must be kept away from Him? If so, how powerfully and finally Christ corrected their false philosophy!

The bringing of the children to Him was an act of parental solicitude, the last sign of confidence in Him. They brought their children to Him. It is wonderful how this lives! There are many parents to-day, who have no personal relationship to Jesus, but who want their children to be His. In the men who want their children to be right with God, there lives a conviction about Him, which makes the sin of rejecting Jesus Christ yet more heinous.

But observe the disciples' mistake. It was based upon a wrong estimate of their Lord; it may have been a wrong estimate of His dignity; it may have been a wrong estimate of the quality of His purity, It was also due to a wrong conception of the child. One of the old Puritan Fathers has a very graphic description of what happened. Perhaps he was right. He imagines the disciples talking to these parents about the absurdity of the idea that so great a Teacher, Who had answered the politicians, could have any interest in a little child. But be that as it may, it is evident that they did not know their Lord, and they did not know a little child, from their attempt to keep a little child away from Him. If we read the story in the light of the other Evangelists, we see that Christ's attitude towards His disciples in connection with the children was one of anger. We have it distinctly declared by Mark that He was moved with indignation. There are only two or three occasions where we read that Christ was angry at all. This is one of them. He was angry with the men who so misunderstood Him, as to think He was not willing to welcome a child. His attitude towards the child was that of welcome and blessing, on the simple, warm, everyday terms of pure human affection. He blessed them, yes, and not with two fingers outstretched to touch them; He took them in His arms and blessed them; it was a great warm loving embrace. Thank God that is the place of all the babes, in the very arms of this great Christ.

The last picture is that of the rich young ruler. In studying it, let us notice the seeker and his search. A clean, upright, honest man, of fine natural temperament was searching for the one thing of supreme importance age abiding life. In observing the Master's method with Him, notice first the young ruler's arresting question concerning goodness, which indicated the fact that he was already on the track, in that he connected life with goodness; "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" The question moreover revealed the fact that in his thought of the Teacher as good, he had come nearer the mark than he himself knew. Then Christ flashed upon him external light, the light of the Second Table of the Decalogue with all its requirements concerning the relation of man to man. And the young man stood erect, and said, "All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?" Then the Master, instead of flashing upon him external light, sent light right through the darkened cells of his inner life, and revealed the fact that he was a self-centered man, never having found his true King, never having kissed the sceptre, or bent to control. He found that the power of the things that ministered to selfish desire was greater than the call within him after goodness. "He went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions." Perhaps that was not the end of the young man, but it is the end of the story. One of two things happened. Either there was a day when he turned back again to Christ and the Cross, and found life; or he found a tomb for his soul in the very things he refused to give up, when Christ called him so to do.

Now let all the others pass out of sight. The King fills the vision, as He deals with disability in forceful ease; establishes the ethical standard of marriage for all time; gathers all little children into His arms and into His love; and flashes upon the soul such brilliant light that whether that soul walk henceforth towards death or life, the pathway is perfectly clear.

In the presence of such a King; because of what He is, we say,

THE main values of this section are indicated in the words of Jesus recorded in verses twenty-six and thirty of chapter nineteen, taken in conjunction with those found in verse sixteen of chapter twenty, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible . . . but many shall be last that are first; and first that are last. ... So the last shall be first, and the first last." These verses bring into immediate prominence our Master's deductions from His teaching; but the section cannot be intelligently understood save as we remember its relation to that which has preceded it.

In this section the King turned again from the crowd to His own disciples. The paragraph begins, "And Jesus said unto His disciples," and it is directly connected with the case of the young ruler. All that our Lord said to His disciples concerning riches and the Kingdom of God; and all that He said in answer to a question which Peter propounded, grew out of the coming of the young ruler, and our Lord's dealing with him. The teaching goes far beyond the case of the young ruler, and far beyond all similar cases; but it begins there; and we certainly shall not understand our Lord's attitude when He spoke of riches, neither shall we understand His parable, if we forget these two preliminary matters; first, that He was talking to His own disciples; and secondly, that He was speaking to them in the light of what had happened with regard to the young ruler, and of the attitude of their minds resulting from His attitude toward the young ruler.

We may, then, divide our study into two parts; the first, a comparatively brief, and yet a most important one, Christ's comment on the case of the rich young ruler, and the resulting conversation. Then secondly; Christ having settled the difficulty suggested by the disciples, Peter raised a new question, "We have left all, and followed Thee; what then shall we have?" and Christ answered him.

First, Christ's comment on the case of the rich young ruler and the resulting conversation. We may read an entirely false meaning into the words of Christ concerning the rich young ruler unless we are careful to catch the Master's tone. Although the fact is not recorded here, one of the other Evangelists makes the very interesting declaration that when the rich young ruler had said to Jesus, in answer to His presentation of the twofold table of the Decalogue as the standard of measurement, Master, all these things have I observed from my youth, "Jesus, looking upon him, loved him."

Now with that love in His heart, Christ turned to His own disciples and said, "It is hard for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven." That was a severe word, but there were tears in it, there was pity in it, there was love in it. We shall do no violence to this text if we change it slightly, and read-It is very difficult for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven. And when He repeated the same thing with a new emphasis, there was still the same tone and the same spirit, the tone and spirit of regret, and sorrow, and love, "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

Why is it difficult for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven? Here again we need not indulge in speculation. Let us go back to the King's own wonderful Manifesto-the Sermon on the Mount. In His first sentence He set the door open, and revealed how men may enter into all the blessedness which He described. "Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven." Now over against that fundamental assertion put those tender, regretful words of Jesus, It is hard work for a rich man to enter in. Why? Because wealth means power, and power is far more likely to create pride than to create poverty of spirit. It is very difficult for a wealthy man to be poor in spirit; not impossible in the economy of God; but very, very difficult. Jesus had seen the going away of that rich young ruler, and the cry of His heart was full of sorrow, for He loved him.

It is more than hard, it is practically impossible, "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye." possibly by the "needle's eye," our Lord referred to the small gate of a city, through which no camel could pass except by being unloaded, and bending in order to gain entrance. It is a figure intended to teach the impossibility, so far as the man himself is concerned. It is impossible for any man who is possessed of wealth which gives him power, to become poor in spirit, and learn the lesson of an absolute submission in his own strength.

Now notice the disciples' question. When Jesus had said this thing, and said it with a sob and a regret in His voice, the disciples were astonished exceedingly, saying, "Who then can be saved?" Here we may wrong the disciples if we are not careful. The usual, and popular, and yet superficial interpretation of this is", that they meant to say, If a rich man cannot be saved, who can? that they were each looking to the time when rich and influential men would come into the Kingdom the more easily because of their wealth. But probably that would be to charge them with baser materialism than that of which they were really guilty. One would rather believe that when Christ said that, they saw very deeply into the heart of His meaning, and saw that He intended to teach that absolute poverty of spirit, freedom from the desire to possess for selfish purposes, lay at the wicket-gate of the Kingdom; and that they said in effect, in one of those confessions of the heart that men suddenly make oftentimes, and hardly know they are making them. There is not one of us that would not be rich if we could; and if the desire to possess wealth, and the determination to do it if we were able, prevents us coming into the Kingdom, who can be saved? These disciples were in all likelihood more honest than we often are. They recognized that if they could have possessed the young man's wealth, they would; and they recognized that Jesus Christ in His statement of difficulty was not dealing with a class after all He never did deal with a class-but that He was getting down to the common facts of human nature and human peril; and they said, Who then can be saved?

Now carefully notice our Lord's answer, which is an answer to the whole question, and not to a part of it. The question is this If a rich man cannot be saved, who then can be saved? Who then, in view of these terms and these requirements, can be saved at all; what hope is there of any man's salvation? Christ's answer was to the question concerning the salvation of man; and not merely to that concerning the salvation of a rich man "-With men this is impossible;" no man can be saved out of his own will, by his own determination, whether he be rich or poor, bond or free, "But with God all things are possible."

This word of Christ was not simply His declaration that a rich man cannot be saved by the power of men; but that with God he can be saved. In a moment He had risen from that first ground of viewing the wealthy class; into the larger ground of recognizing the underlying humanity of all men.

One other thought as to emphasis here. Our Lord did not say, to men this thing is impossible, to God all things are possible. There is a very peculiar value in the preposition which He used. With men impossible, with God possible. If a man co-operates with men, makes their maxims his, makes their methods his, salvation is impossible. So long as a man lives upon the plane of humanity alone, and loses his touch with God, and recognition of Him, he cannot be saved. The material level of life will have material ideals, a material goal, and material failure. But with God; that is the man who has linked his life to God will find it possible, be he wealthy or be he poor, to enter the Kingdom and be saved. So the whole theme of human salvation lies by suggestion within this statement of Jesus.

Now let us consider Peter's comment and the answering instruction of our Lord. Peter's question went back undoubtedly to the case of the rich young ruler, and we are simply compelled to understand it thus, and to put a resulting emphasis upon the passage. "Then answered Peter and said unto Him, Lo we have felt all, and followed Thee; what then shall we have?" Jesus had said to the ruler, "If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."Peter said, We have done it; what is the treasure we are to have? The subject of the possibility of human salvation had gone out of Peter's mind. The Lord had settled that, and now we have a new subject. Peter was, in his deepest thinking, putting himself and others into contrast with the young ruler. It is as though he said, A young man came to Thee, O Master, with great wealth. You told him what to do, and You promised him treasure in heaven, and he has turned his back upon Thee, he has not been obedient. But, Master, we have been obedient, we have left all to follow Thee; what treasure are we to have?

Now mark the answer of Jesus, and let His answer rebuke any tendency in our soul to be angry with Peter on account of his question, for the Lord was not angry with him. The answer of Jesus moved within two distinct realms; first, a definite answer to his question about reward; and secondly, a warning against what is revealed in his asking the question.

He said to him in effect, You have asked Me what you shall have, I will tell you, "Verily"-mark the word of authority-"I say unto you, that ye who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory"-not Ye that have followed Me in the regeneration, but "Ye who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory"-placing the comma as in the Revision-shall occupy twelve thrones under My control and My government; judging, not condemning, but overseeing, administering on My behalf the affairs of the Kingdom to be set up in the world. He took one long glance ahead over the centuries to the day which He described as "the regeneration." These men were to share in His authority in His Kingdom-which is that of regeneration. That was His first answer to them. But His answer was broader. Not only ye, but all others who shall suffer loss, all those people who in the coming days shall leave "houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life." So that our Lord did not rebuke Peter's question, but answered it. It is as though He said to them, Is it true you have left all to follow Me? If you want to know what you shall have, here is My answer, as to you particularly, the twelve first messengers of My love. My Kingdom is the day of regeneration and restoration, and when I have won the victory, you shall be administrators sitting upon thrones, and judging; and all who suffer loss, turning the back upon property, and friends, and love, and relations, shall enter into great possessions. I did not speak idly to the young ruler; whoever sacrifices for Me shall win a hundredfold.

But now notice the word of warning. "But," said Jesus, "many shall be last that are first; and first that are last." Then followed the parable, and it ended with these words, "So the last shall be first, and the first last." Notice carefully these two statements, and the relation of the parable to them. Christ warned His disciples by saying to them; "Many shall be last that are first, and first that are last." Then He illustrated the meaning of His words by a parable, which was a parable to His own disciples. We must not take this parable and make it of general application. John Ruskin, in his book, Unto This Last, has absolutely missed the meaning of it. There is an application of it to the social order which will be realized when that order becomes Christian. But within the Christian Church it is a parable concerning precedence in the matters of reward. It is a parable directed against Peter's implication of superiority over the young ruler. "Lo, we have left all and followed Thee; what then shall we have?"We are the first of Thy disciples. That man has turned his back, and even though he comes back presently at the eleventh hour, we are first; "What shall we have?" There are many first that shall be last, there are last that shall be first. So our Lord would teach these men the truth concerning precedence in His Kingdom, and He would correct their implication of superiority.

The figure of the householder was here used by Jesus of Himself. He had used it upon one occasion of His own disciples, in chapter thirteen. He used it in several parables of Himself. The whole application of the parable is to service, and the reward of service for men in the Kingdom. There is no question here about salvation, no question about entering the Kingdom. There is no thought about equal payment for unequal work. If we attempt to base upon this parable the teaching that if a man lives and loiters through ten hours, and comes in at the eleventh, he is on equal rights with the man who has worked from the beginning, we are absolutely unfair to the other parables of Jesus. If we build upon this parable a doctrine of social order, we must also include the parables of the talents and the pounds, for all three are needed to have a perfect picture of social service. This parable is intended to teach one simple truth, that a man's reward will be, not according to the length of his service, not according to the notoriety of his service, but according to his fidelity to the opportunity which is given him. The men at the beginning of the day entered into a covenant and an agreement. The Master of the vineyard went out later in the day, saw others standing idle, and sent them in. When He said, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" their answer was, "Because no man hath hired us." That is why they had not been at work before, they had not had their opportunity. When He created opportunity by sending them in, then in that last hour they were true to the only opportunity they had, and therefore their reward was as great as the reward of the men that had been at work twelve hours. It is as though He said to Peter, to revert to our illustration, If that young man comes now, though he has been long delaying, his reward will be as great as yours, if he is faithful.

Yes, but why did not the Lord give him the opportunity before? That is not in the parable. If we take the other parables we find in that of the pounds, that He gave to every man a pound. That teaches that there is an opportunity for every man. If we want the doctrine of opportunity we find it there, not here. It is absolutely unfair to read into any parable something for which the parable was not used. He first corrected the false standards of comparison, such as length of notoriety of service; and then revealed the true standard of reward-that of fidelity to opportunity. Here is a man to whom is given the opportunity to speak to thousands upon thousands of people the great word of God. It is a great opportunity. But here is a woman living away off upon the mountain, who never saw a city in her life, but has wrought with God in the training of two or three children. When that man and woman stand for final reward, they will each have their penny if they have been faithful. This is so in all Christian service.

So in conclusion we have no right to take this parable and use it in application to the social questions of unregenerate men. It is impossible to do so without violating the sense of justice. Christianity has no pity for those who, being unfit remain so, in spite of the opportunity for fitness which He creates. It is a false message to the age which says that Christianity will take hold of the unfit man and nurse him and take care of him, when by response to her evangel he can be made fit. If his unfitness is the unfitness of a physical limitation for which he is not to blame, Christianity will take hold of him, and love him. But if the unfitness is a moral disease which Jesus Christ can correct, then Christianity is sterner than Hebraism in refusing to feed him or help him until he have taken advantage of the dynamic of Jesus Christ. The one plain meaning of this parable is that those highly privileged will not receive wage according to privilege, but according to fidelity. Or again, those whose privilege is less, will not receive less wage if they are true to the opportunity which comes to them.

Consequently, the great word to each, one of us is a word that warns us against being proud of anything we have done in the past and imagining that by virtue of a greater opportunity we are entering into a greater reward. It is a word that drives us back to the whole day, or the one hour of opportunity, in order that we may fill it to the full with consecrated toil, and so enter into the reward which He gives to faithfulness.