the
man who is fitted to fill it. The ever recurring complaint of
employers is the scarcity of good men, especially of men able to
exercise discretion in positions of responsibility. Was it
Joseph's skill in interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, or his wise
counsel in suggesting methods of providing for the people during
famine that gave him his position of high trust and authority? Was
the policy which made Pharaoh practical owner of all the land first
instituted by Joseph, or was it already in force in Egypt? (_Hist.
Bible_, I, 133.) In the thought of the prophetic narrative, was
Joseph's fiscal system regarded as evidence of his loyalty to his
master rather than of disloyalty to the interests of the people?
Was the system suited to that stage and kind of civilization? Can
this be cited by Socialists to-day as a valid argument in favor of
public ownership of all land? If not, why not?
Three principles, illustrated by Joseph's life, are true to all
time: (1) The only successful way to forget one's own burdens is to
help bear another's; (2) God makes all things work together for
good to those that love him; (3) he alone who improves the small
opportunities will not miss the great chances of life.
IV.
THE TEMPTATIONS OF SUCCESS.
Modern life, and especially that in America to-day, is full of
illustrations of the overwhelming temptations which come to the man
who has had great success. Many a man has enjoyed the confidence
and respect of his associates until his abilities have won for him
large wealth with which apparently comes at times a misleading
sense of immunity from the ordinary moral obligations. The result
has been that the sterling virtues which have enabled him to win
success have been quickly undermined and his public and private
acts have become the theme of the public press. Instead of being
an honor he has become a disgrace to his nation.
Joseph's sudden rise to power surpassed anything told in the
Arabian Nights' Tales, and yet he remained the same simple,
unaffected man, more thoughtful for another's interests than for
his own. The supreme test came in his contact with his brothers,
who had insulted and cruelly wronged him. They were completely at
his mercy and he had abundant reason for ignoring the obligations
of kinship. Did Joseph hide his cup in Benjamin's sack and later
hold him as a hostage in order to punish his brothers or to test
their honor and fidelity? Was this action wi
|