The reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, had now reached its third year. His sway was very wide, and other history lends valuable confirmation of the contents of the former of these verses. Herodotus, far enough removed in his general tone from a Scripture historian, fixes this year as the year in which Xerxes summoned the rulers of his provinces to Susa, or Shushan, preparatory to his expedition against Greece. Although no mention is made here of this circumstance as the occasion of the feast, or as connected with it, yet the two intimations are not inconsistent with one another, and in fact are well fitted to one another. Each historian keeps the object of his own work in view. The thing which had no significance with Herodotus would be the consideration of primary significance in our present history; and we get as the result a consent of two widely differing authorities to testify to the fact of special doings in Shushan this year. The passage offers us a typical instance of a feast such as to answer correctly to the motto, "Self first, hospitality second." This is evidently the character of it. Yet let us take into account what may be said for it.

1. It was confessedly an Eastern feast, and as such it would have been considered essentially wanting if it had been wanting in the matter of display.

2. It was not a feast given by one of those people who had "received the oracles;" who had been long time under a course of higher instruction; who had heard, ]earned, pondered "the Proverbs of Solomon," or "the words of the Preacher, son of David, king of Jerusalem." Much less was it possible in the nature of things to have been the feast of one, who had had the opportunity of knowing the doctrine of Christ in such a matter.

3. Yet nevertheless it answered in one respect to one of the prescriptions of Jesus Christ himself; for it was a feast which could not be returned to its giver - not in kind, at all events. The feast of a great king, who drew on enormous wealth, - "made to" a whole multitude of princes, subordinate to him, and prolonged over months, - this could not be returned to him.

4. It was a feast of unstinted plenty - the thought of a nature that had some sort of largeness about it, and the distributing of a hand that dropt more than the uncared-for crumbs of its own table. On the other hand -

I. IT IS INCONTESTABLE THAT THIS FEAST VISITS UPON ITS GIVER THE CONDEMNATION OF VAINGLORIOUS DISPLAY AS REGARDS HIS "KINGDOM," AND SELF-SEEKING DISPLAY AS REGARDS HIS OWN "EXCELLENT MAJESTY." The greater the scale on which it was made, the more profuse its abundance, the longer its continuance, so much the more impressive and convincing evidence does it furnish of vanity insatiable, of selfishness deep-seated, of the presence of the hand of one who not only sought the praise of men rather than that of God, but who sought to influence even those men by the lower kinds of appeal - those of sense and the eye, rather than by any of a higher kind.

II. THERE WAS BEYOND DOUBT A DISTINCTLY AND DECIDEDLY UTILITARIAN DESIGN ABOUT THE FEAST. Though it could not be returned in kind, it could be recompensed. At recompense it aimed, and without the prospect of such recompense it would never have been "made." It was pre-eminently a banquet of policy, unwarmed by one simple genuine feeling of the heart, unhonoured by any noble object for its motive, fragrant with no philanthropic beneficence. It was simply a device of an inferior type, first, for flashing to all the extremities of the kingdom the envious tidings of the central wealth, luxury, splendour, and power, and thereby riveting the tyrannous hold and the ghastly fascination of an Eastern arbitrary despot; and, secondly, for ingratiating that central authority with the numerous helpless, subordinate powers who were to send contingents and contributions to a disastrous expedition into Greece. It was very different from an English banquet in celebration of some accomplished fact, or in honour of some worthy hero or distinguished benefactor of the people, though oftentimes it is not very much that can be justly said in commendation of even these.

III. THE GIVING ITSELF - WHAT WAS IT? It happens to be well termed "making" a feast, in the undesigned idiom of the language. Did it cost much to make? It cost lavish silver and gold very likely; but whence were these drawn? Were they not already drawn from those for whom the feast was "made"? and probably absolutely wrung by these again from the oppressed subjects of their grinding rule. Did it cost Ahasuerus himself much? Did it cost him anything at all? Was it drawn from the honourably-earned and diligently-acquired results of his own past labour? No; it speaks plenty without bounty, liberality without generosity, profuse bestow-ment the fruit of no kindliness of soul, a lavish hand moving to the dictate of a selfish heart.

Conclusion. -

1. These are just some of the hard facts of human nature, tried in such a position as that of this king.

2. There is a great deal to explain and account for such exhibitions of human nature in Ahasuerus, to be found in his time of day, in his antecedents, etc., but these things do not justify them. They do impressively help illustrate to what human nature's time of day and antecedents bring us.

3. We could plead no extenuations whatever if our own conduct or our own principles were detected sinking to the level of those before us, and all the less for the beacon of this very history. - B.

All the wives too are included, for they are all "to give honour to their husbands, both to the great and small." Well, the great, the really great, will get the honour easily, and could do very well probably without the helpful edict. Where there is real greatness, which, in Christian speech, we may translate into real goodness, it is the wife's joy to render what it is the husband's pride to wear. But the honour is to be given "both to the great and small!" "Ay, there's the rub." If this insurrectionary torch should go through the land, what will become of the small ones? — the selfish, the spiteful, the meddlesome, the rude, the mean, the silly, the helpless, the good-for-nothing? They are all to have honour! As if a decree could really get it, or keep it from them. Wouldn't the better plan be, in that case, and in many a case besides, that the small shall try to grow larger? Let them be ashamed of their littleness, and rise out of it into something like nobleness. Let them love and help their wives, and care for their children, and honour will come as harvest follows sowing. But unless they do something like that, one fears that all the edicts that can be devised and promulgated will leave them as it finds them — "small."

(A. Raleigh, D. D.)