vil too, if you look not to its body,
but to its spirit. There is no reason to suppose that it was, even at
the moment, an act of true obedience to his father. "He said, I go, sir;
and went not:" he said one thing, and did another, an opposite; but
there is no ground for believing that he meant to go when he promised,
and afterwards changed his mind. His smooth language was a lie; and his
subsequent conduct showed, not that he had changed his mind when his
father was out of sight, but that he concealed it while his father was
present. It is worthy of notice, that although the first son changed his
mind after he had given his answer, there is no intimation of any change
having passed on the second son, between his answer and his act. By its
silence on this point, the narrative leads us to infer that the purpose
of the disobedient son was the same while he was promising well as when
he acted ill. The course of the life flowing full in the direction of
disobedience, proves that the expression of the lips which ran in the
opposite direction, was a lie; it was like a glittering ripple caused by
a fitful breeze, running upward on the surface of the river, while the
whole volume of its water rolls, notwithstanding, the other way.

Thus is even the worship of hypocrites worthless: Not every one that
_saith_ unto me, Lord, Lord; but he that _doeth_ the will of my Father
which is in heaven. The want of the subsequent obedience shows that the
promise was not true.

Thus at first both these sons were in a false and unsafe position. Their
characters were not the same,--were not similar: they differed in
thought and word; but the difference, in as far as their answers were
concerned, indicated only varieties of sin. Legion is the name of the
spirits that possess and pollute the fallen; but all the legion do not
dwell in every man. Different temptations tinge different persons with
different hues of guilt. At the time when the father uttered his
command, the character of the first son was bold, unblushing rebellion;
the character of the second was cowardly, false pretence. The one son
neither promised nor meant to obey; the other son promised obedience,
but intended not to keep his word.

In the first instance, therefore, there is no ground for preferring the
one to the other. While they stood severally in their father's presence,
and before either had repented of his sin, they were both, and both
alike evil. The blasphemer has no r