The sin of bribery.
"Their right hand is full of bribes." Christians have undeniably a far higher standard of morality supplied by the gospel than was possible in earlier times under any other dispensation. How, then, is this paradox to be solved—that we find Old Testament saints trying themselves by severer tests, and aiming at a higher level both of morality and of devotion than multitudes of professed Christians attempt to reach or even deem attainable? The practice of bribery has often attained, in nominally Christian commonwealths, such proportions as to endanger public welfare and honour, and this with the connivance of many religious people; yet it is here condemned as worthy to he classed with the worst crimes, utterly inconsistent with "innocency" and "integrity" (Psalms 26:6, Psalms 26:11; cf. Isaiah 35:1-10:15). Subject—The sin of bribery, and the duty of Christians to oppose it to the utmost of their power.
I. BRIBERY MEANS A BARGAIN TO BETRAY A SOLEMN PUBLIC TRUST. The constitution bestows the vote, not for the voter's private benefit, but that fit men may be chosen to office; it is a trust for the community. Suppose a prime minister were to sell the offices at his disposal, or a jury to sell their verdict, or a judge his sentence, would not the world cry shame? The scale is different, but the principle is the same.
II. BRIBERY POWERFULLY CORRUPTS PUBLIC MORALITY AND NATIONAL CHARACTER. For patriotism and public spirit it substitutes selfishness; for honest, independent conviction, base disregard of principle. It destroys the sense of public honour; it degrades office by making the qualification, not fitness, but pelf; it puts the making of laws and ordering of justice in the hands of men who have begun by breaking the law and insulting justice; it degrades alike the giver and the receiver.
III. BRIBERY TENDS TO PRODUCE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AND DISHONEST LEGISLATION. It is true a man's conscience may allow him to give a bribe, yet forbid him to take one; hut how long would this inconsistency last if the innocency of giving bribes were generally allowed? If an elector may sell his vote, why not a member of parliament or of council? What right would an elector have to complain if his representative were to say, "I have bought my seat, and paid for it, and have a right to make a profit out of it"?
A Christian's reputation should be dear to him, not for his own sake alone, hut for his Lord's, for the gospel's and the Church's sake. He should he able to say, with St. Paul, Acts 24:16 (cf. 1 Timothy 5:22; Philippians 4:8). Some excellent Christians, it is true, would limit "whatsoever things," etc; to the concerns of private life. But by what right? A Christian, they say, is a citizen of the heavenly city, and has no concern with earthly politics. But he cannot help having concern. He is also a citizen of his earthly country, whether he will or no, and has all the privileges of a citizen and the benefits of the commonwealth. Privilege and benefit mean duty and responsibility. Love to our neighbour and care for the poor do not surely cease to be Christian duties when the welfare of a whole nation, and of other nations, or the care of the poor at home and the enslaved and oppressed in other lands, call for the strong arm of law and national government.