muster as of final account.

The First Com

mandment, being itself framed upon a negative, invites us to study negatives in our search after all perfection. Of these one may perhaps serve as a specimen of its class, as a clue whereby each of us for himself can track home others.

DISINCLINATION may never go such lengths as to make us purposely omit a single duty, yet may it colour and dwarf our whole conception of duty. Far from breaking the box with Mary, we eke out our spikenard, and, unlike the Apostles, are more intent on rescuing the last fragments than on spreading the feast. All sorts of prudent precautions occur to us in studying Holy Scripture, and these land us occasionally in very eccentric latitudes; at least, so would persons say who merely look to the landmarks vouchsafed for our guidance. Sometimes our comment appears about as compatible with the text, as was that child's who pointed out the "niceness" of St. John Baptist's wild honey. Thus meditation on the Magi (St. Matt.

ii. 1-12) leads us not to any tangible offering, but to the still higher truth that,

66

Richer by far is the heart's adoration,

Dearer to God are the prayers of the poor:"

a truth adapted to the devoted missionary bishop who penned the lines, but not so obviously to the run of men. Our study of Martha and Mary (St. Luke x. 38-42) assures us that the former was not wrong in the main, the latter setting an example to be followed cautiously because (we flatter ourselves) not applicable to all persons. Who has not seen the incident of the Young Ruler (St. Mark x. 17-27) utilized as a check to extravagant zeal? so far, that is, as a preliminary stress laid on what it does not enjoin can make it act as a sedative. It does not, we are assured, by any means require us to sell all; differences of rank, of position, of circumstances, are Providentially ordained, and are not lightly to be set aside; our duties lie within the decorous bounds of our station. The Young Ruler, indeed, was invited to sell all in spite of his great

possessions; therefore we must never suppose it impossible that that vague personage, our neighbour," may be called upon to do so; we must not judge him in such a case, nay, we must view it not as his penalty but rather as his privilege: only we ourselves, who are bound by simple every-day duties, shall do well in all simplicity to perform them soberly, cheerfully, thankfully, not overstepping the limits of our vocation: wherefore let us give what we can afford; a pleasure or a luxury it may be well to sacrifice at the call of charity.

Yet is a caution against "righteousness overmuch" the gist of our Master's lesson? His recorded comment on the incident was "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" which He goes on to explain as they "that trust in riches." Is our most urgent temptation that which inclines us to do too much, or that which lulls us to do too little, or to do nothing? Is it so, that the bulk of professing Christians are likely to be dazzled by the splendid error of excessive "corban," and fairly

:

to consume themselves by zeal? or are they not more likely so sedulously to count the cost as never to undertake building? It may be worst of all to put hand to plough and then look back nevertheless it is no light evil so to gaze backwards as never to grasp the plough. When we detect ourselves calculating how little will clear us from breach of any commandment, and paring down our intention accordingly, we shall (I think) have grounds for searching deeper, lest already we be breaking the First Commandment.

A more intelligent sort of at least nominal disciples indulge Disinclination very differently. They tithe mint, cummin, everything; observing no less, although in a manner of their own, the weightier matters of the law; they provably do "these" after a fashion, neither do they leave undone "the other;" but all they do is done alike, "grudgingly and of necessity." Push their temper to its ultimate issue and they bid fair to become Balaams (Num. xxii.-xxiv.). That Prophet had (in a sense) no need to recognise the binding duty

of obedience, so imbued was he with a conviction of its inevitability; he "said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak." Nothing could be more apparently straightforward, more fair to all parties. Indeed, throughout his career (until his "last end" reveals his self-chosen position at that furthest point to which mortal eye can track him, Num. xxxi. 7, 8), his conduct is such that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to prove him in fault at any given moment. "The Lord refuseth to give me leave" may not be the best mode of expressing a Divine prohibition, but at any rate it is unequivocal. "I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more," might not so much as raise a suspicion against him, but for subsequent events. His proposal midway on the downward path, "If it displease thee, I will get me back again," might have left us still in doubt but for the Angel's own words to which that was an answer, "Behold, I went out to withstand thee,