till we arrive at the period of its occurrence. But at this stage he began to concern himself with the vexed question of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. We quote not, here and now, to answer his inquiries, but to show how his thoughts ran; and his own probably final solution of his difficulties: "What precise relation does revelation without bear to revelation withinthe Book to the conscience? "Is anything a revelation to me which is not actually a revealing—a making known to me, or, in other words, which is not recognised as true by me? "Do I believe any spiritual truth in the Book, except in so far as I see it to be true in conscience and reason? Is my faith in the outward revelation not in exact proportion to my inward perception of the truth uttered in the letter? "Wherein lies the difference between assenting to the Principia of Newton, because written by a great mathematician, and not because I see them to be true, and my assenting to the Bible, because written by inspired men, and not because I see how truly they spoke ? "Whether do I honour Newton more by examining, sifting, and seeing for myself the truth of his propositions, or by merely taking them on his word? "Can any revelation coming from without be so strong as a revelation from spirit to spirit? Could any amount of outward authority be morally sufficient to make me hate a friend, or do any action I felt to be morally wrong while apprehending it to be wrong? It might correct me as to facts which depend entirely upon testimony, and not upon spiritual truth." (Vol. i., pp. 279, 280.) "April. It is curious to compare old and new maps, and to mark the progress of discovery. The blank space of ocean is followed by a faint outline of a few miles of coast, marking the termination of an intrepid voyager. Then further portions of the same coast are laid down at intervals as supposed islands. Then, by-and-by, those portions are connected, and the outline of a great continent begins to be developed. The undiscovered' passes to the region of the known and familiar. Then follow the exploring of bays, the tracing of rivers, and the inland discoveries of mountain, plain, wood, and pasturage, until at last we have an Australia mapped into settlements, dotted with towns and villages, divided into bishoprics and parishes, inhabited by old friends as prosperous emigrants, issuing its newspapers, and becoming an important member of the great family of man. Thus is it with the Bible. What progress is being made in the discovery of its meaning! How much better acquainted is the Church of Christ now with its spirit, its allusions, its inner and outer history, than the same Church during any former period! What a far more true and just idea of the mind of Christ, as manifested in and by the Apostolic Church, have we now than the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries possessed? Distance has increased the magnitude, extent, the totality, and grandeur in the heaven-kissing mountain range. Individually, I find in daily study of the Bible a daily discovery. What was formerly unknown becomes known, and what seemed a solitary coast becomes part of a great whole, and what seemed wild, and strange, and lonely, becomes to me green pasture and refreshing water-the abode of my fireside affections. And surely I shall read the Bible as an alphabet in Heaven. It was my first school-book here, and I hope it will be my first there. What! shall i never know the Spirit which moves the wheels, whose rims are so high that they are dreadful? "The only true theory of development is the development of the spiritual eye for the reception of that light which ever shineth.” (Vol. i., pp. 281, 282.) This last fine sentence may surely satisfy us all. Have we given, in what we have written and quoted, any impression which reflects on the evangelical and spiritual tone of Norman Macleod's own religious life? We hope not. At all events, one extract more will set all right: "I have been reading those old diaries. May I not try (in much ignorance) to sum up some practical lessons from dear-bought experience? "1. I had inadequate views of Christ's Cross. I saw a work done for me— a ground for pardon—an objective reality; but I did not see so clearly the eternal necessity of the Cross in me, of sharing Christ's life as mine, of glorying in the Cross as reflected in the inward power it gives to be crucified to the world, and the world to me.' "2. I was dealing too little with a Personal Saviour-had too little (or no) confidence in His love to me individually, and in His will and power to free from sin by making me like Himself. 66 Light dawns, life comes! I have faith in the love of God to me, that I— even I—shall be 'perfect' as my Father in Heaven is perfect. "What have I lost by my wilful and rebellious sin! I have during these years come in contact with many thousands in different parts of the world, in the most interesting circumstances, in domestic and in public life, in sickness, family distress, and on death-beds. How much good has been lost and evil done, by the absence of that real earnestness of word, look, temper, teaching that all, which can only come from a soul in a right state with God, and which never can be imitated, or would be so only by hypocrisy. What good, and peace, and happiness have I lost to myself! "There is another thing presses itself upon me. I know as surely as I know anything, that all my sin Las emanated from myself, and yet I do believe God has brought more good to me in the latter end by this very life than could perhaps have been brought in any other way. I would shudder in writing this if it appeared to be the slightest excuse for my iniquities. These, I repeat it, were mine. But I think I have a glimpse of that marvel of Providence by which evil—while it is nothing but evil-is yet by infinite wisdom and love made, like a wild stream, an instrument of God. "Let me not forget to mention three men from whom I have received unspeakable good-Thomas Arnold, Alexander Scott, and dear John Campbell. "I go to Glasgow to-morrow. Cholera rages, but I join my family, casting my care on God. Lord Jesus, my ever-present and ever-loving Saviour, I desire to abide in Thee, to trust in Thy life, Thy grace, Thy character, Thy ways. Lord I am thine! for time and eternity. Amen and Amen." (Vol. i., pp. 300, 301.) But we must reserve further comment for a second Chelsea, May, 1876. paper. T. P. B. 525 LIKE FOR LIKE: THE METHODIST QUARTERLY TICKET FOR JUNE, 1876. “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."-LUKE VI. 37. THE judgment, condemnation, forgiveness, spoken of in the latter part of each clause, are judgment, condemnation, forgiveness by God. According as man deals with his fellows will God deal with him. But this principle is not confined to man; it extends even to the Most High: as we deal with God, so will He deal with us. Many passages of Scripture contain these truths; the verse, as it stands in St. Luke, is, in effect, a repetition of portions of the Sermon on the Mount; see also as specimens of a large number of texts that might be quoted, Matt. v. 7; Levit. xxvi. 23, 24. Perhaps the most striking statement is to be found in the eighteenth Psalm, verses 25, 26: "With the merciful Thou wilt show Thyself merciful; with an upright man Thou wilt show Thyself upright; with the pure Thou wilt show Thyself pure; and with the froward Thou wilt show Thyself froward." The very character of the Divine Being appears to change with that of the man to whom He is manifesting Himself. At first sound, such an assertion startles and almost shocks the devout and reverent mind. Easy is it to understand how our God shall show Himself merciful; for He is "rich in mercy:" but how shall He who is pure goodness, in whom is "no darkness at all," show Himself froward? Yet, paradoxical as it seems, one may well conceive it possible. The parable of the Two Debtors will furnish an illustration. Can anything be imagined, at first sight, more ignoble than freely to forgive a debtor, and then imprison him till his debt be paid? But the conduct of the debtor amply justifies the lord; he repays meanness and mercilessness in its own coin; nevertheless, no one can accuse him of either. Suppose an oppressor to appeal against an act of oppression by one stronger than he; his master might justly refuse to interfere, saying, "Suffer as you have caused others to suffer." The froward man has refused to listen to God, by and by God shall refuse to listen to him. He has been deaf to Divine overtures and appeals, God shall be deaf to his entreaties and cries. Is not this method of procedure obviously fair and right? The justice of the law of retribution commends itself to every man's reason. The Judge does us no wrong if hereafter we "receive the things done in our body." "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap;" but let it be borne in mind that by its very nature sown seed multiplies itself. It was necessary to indicate briefly the principle that underlies our verse; let us now consider its three plain rules of Christian living-Judge not; condemn not; forgive. I. "Judge not.”—If this precept were interpreted to mean that we must never form an unfavourable estimate of another's character, it would be simply impossible to obey it. Even if it could be kept, the consequences, both intellectual and social, would be most disastrous. To close the eyes against evidence, to treat all men, worthy and unworthy, with equal respect, to obliterate the distinction between good and evil, is not to fulfil this commandment. The commonest excuse for a breach of the law is founded upon the above absurd exegesis. Feeling themselves incapable of observing it to the letter, as they misunderstand it, many men cease to attempt to observe it at all. But the context, both in St. Luke and St. Matthew, proves that discrimination of character is allowable, and even obligatory. Swine must be esteemed swine, and dogs dogs; and the rule is laid down, "By their fruits ye shall know them." How the Apostles interpreted their Master's exhortation may be seen from 2 John 10, 11, where it is taught that in a given case a judgment must be formed and acted upon sharply and sternly. The command is a rebuke and a warning to an uncharitable spirit. "To attribute motives" has been called "the vice of a great nature." As the dictum was uttered concerning a historian, it probably meant that such men too frequently construct ingenious, but untrustworthy, because untestable, theories, to account for deeds the causes of which could not be really even approximately ascertained. Such an one might be too subtle in his analysis of character, and sometimes miss the truth through his very subtlety. At any rate, his vice would affect only his intellect. But to "impute motives" is often the sin of a puny soul. Whatever some may fancy, quickness to discern the weakness of a brother, readiness to find fault with him, is no token of lofty Christianity. Yet who has not come into painful contact with professors of religion who have displayed an eager cleverness in suggesting evil grounds for actions that appear good, or, at worst, indifferent? Perhaps there are few who are not more or less conscious of a similar tendency, who do not too readily believe ill of their neighbour. We call this sin, when fully developed, censoriousness. Other phases of it are scandal, backbiting, evil surmising. How shall we reconcile our right to discriminate character with the commandment "Judge not"? What limitations to that right does the commandment suggest? At the very least, it implies the utmost caution in coming to an unfavourable decision. Be sure that the grounds of your judgment are valid. Do not accept rumours, or even statements, as facts, upon insufficient evidence. Specially does circumstantial evidence require to be tested; for, though no species of evidence is stronger, when every link in the chain is perfect, none is less trustworthy when there can be found therein the slightest flaw. Be fairly certain that every indication has been read aright; remember how little we know of each other's hearts. Then, if censure be due, apportion the blame to the guilt, tempering judgment with mercy, distinguishing between infirmities and sins, making all allowance for errors of intellect and of ignorance, and for everything that could mitigate and extenuate the wrong. Another canon is laid down by Jesus Christ Himself; Matthew vii. 3-5. Judgment of our fellows must be preceded by judgment of ourselves, lest the beam in our own eye hinder us from seeing clearly the mote in our brother's eye. If the mote be there, the beam will so distort our vision that we may mistake its nature; though often the fancied mote is but the reflection of our own beam; the fault we imagine we perceive in others, is really a defect in our own character. Endeavour to put yourself into your neighbour's place; treat him as you would wish to be treated by him. Forget not the golden rule; the law of love. Commonplace counsels these, but highly necessary. There are certain questions which every Christian must decide for himself, upon which difference of opinion is inevitable. During the life-time of St. Paul such points were marked in the Roman Church, and were adjudicated upon by the Apostle; see Romans xiv. Were holy days obligatory? might meat be eaten? The more scrupulous accused the less so of impiety, of breaking the Divine law; the latter retorted upon the former with charges of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. St. Paul arbitrates; yet he does not pronounce either party to be exclusively right. Let both keep the peace: let the contention terminate. Let the second party allow liberty of judgment to the first; let the first respect the conscientious convictions of the second. Let each admit the sincerity of the other, nor dare to deem his motives impure. Were not all serving the same Master? Was not the one object of both to please Him? Both he that ate and he that abstained from eating honestly thought his conduct the more strictly in accordance with Christ's will. Who should decide? Let each follow his conscience, and let the matter in dispute remain in abeyance till all should "stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." The mistake, whoever made it, was not of the heart but the head. The application to the present day is only too obvious. On many questions the Christian world is, for the present, hopelessly divided, the members of the same Church ranging themselves on opposite sides. Contend as earnestly as you will for the view you hold to be true; but while you find fault with your brother's arguments, presume not to impugn his piety. Give him, as you take, credit for acting upon principle. Fitly may we summarize this section in Adelaide A. Procter's words: "Judge not; the workings of his brain A scar, brought from some well-won field, The look, the air, that frets thy sight, May be a token, that below The soul has closed in deadly fight With some infernal, fiery foe, Whose glance would scorch thy smiling grace, And cast thee shuddering on thy face." II. "Condemn not."-The previous precept referred to our thoughts, this to our words. It is a grievous wrong to our brother to think ill of him undeservedly; it may be as grievous a wrong to express even a correct judgment in speech. It is not always necessary for us to appraise our neighbour's character; it is often advisable to keep our estimate to ourselves. Regard for another's welfare, for Society, and for the Church, may render it imperative upon us to condemn, but let us beware of pronouncing needless sentence. The cautions about judging apply even more forcibly to condemning. A false judgment may be rectified, but |
