so little love of truth and holiness had they, and so much of pride and vain glory, that they soon fell back into self-admiration, and into haughty contempt and hot indignation toward others who omitted a punctilio and overstrained interpretation of the law, while their own hearts were empty of the love on which rest all the commandments. "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned; but what sayest thou?" High respect for Moses and desire to know present duty were the avowed motives of the question, yet in their hearts they sought only a ground of accusation against the holy Teacher. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her;" and at this reply they were convicted by their own consciences, and silently went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last. "Why was not this ointments old for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." Many excuse themselves from giving to missions on the plea that the money is needed at home, and yet give meagerly whatever may be the appeal, and spend freely for their own gratification, or invest largely that they may build up a fortune. "Wherefore all this waste?" they ask, as they look at costly churches; and perhaps the funds might have been more usefully expended, but these critics keep their money in their own pockets instead of bestowing it liberally for the relief of the necessitous whom they profess to pity, and to whose benefit they would convert the superfluous cost of cathedrals; and in some cases they may even impoverish honest laborers by their trickery and extravagance.

Responsibility for belief cannot be rationally disputed, though it is limited, and we should be careful to rest it on the right ground. No one can be justly blamed for involuntary, unavoidable ignorance and error. Our knowledge is scant, our judgments are fallible. We are accountable for the talents committed to our keeping, five, two, or one, and for these only; but the faithful use and consequent improvement of these is a duty. We are under obligation to add to our knowledge, correct our mistakes, invite and welcome light; to examine and judge earnestly, cautiously, candidly, patiently. Men say that they cannot change the constitution of their minds; that convic

tion belongs to the logical faculty and not to the will; that they must believe according to the evidence; that they have no control of their opinions. But experience teaches that we do possess power over our attention; that we may elect or refuse to investigate a subject; that we may either content ourselves with what we already know and believe, or collect diligently all possible information; that we may weigh the whole evidence, or fix our mind on a part and turn it away altogether from the remainder; that we may be guilty of nearly all the unfairness and one-sidedness in arguing a question in our own mind that are usually suggested by the phrase " special pleadings." Attention has been beautifully described as a natural prayer for the enlightenment of reason; and with this natural prayer we should join, on moral and religious questions, earnest supplications for the wisdom from above, the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Ignorance is no justification where we might and should have known; the plea of following conscience cannot avail if we tike not pains to instruct conscience, or fail to inquire, with that simplicity of soul which thrusts self aside, and asks only, What wilt thou have me to do? if we listen rather to pride, passion, self-interest, or self-will. Willful blindness, self-stultification, imposing on ourselves sophistries so gross that we would promptly detect and denounce them if employed by opponents of our own cherished opinions or purposes, believing what we would like to be true rather than what is proven, are facts too frequent and obvious to be denied. The guilt is not in following conscience, but in not following it fully; the sincerity is not complete, not profound, not thorough, but partial and superficial.

We are very incompetent judges in the case of others, how far their darkness and errors are voluntary and, therefore, guilty. To them we should be lenient, while seeking to set them right; but our own hearts we should search with all diligence and honesty, and not accept lightly the plea for our mistakes that they proceeded from lack of light or weakness of judgment. There is one historical case to which we can apply these principles, because we have revelation as our guide -the case of Saul the Pharisee and Paul the Christian. Sincerity, in the popular, less profound sense, must be granted to Saul. He blasphemed Jesus because he believed him an im

postor, and persecuted his disciples because he believed that this was doing God service. He always affirmed his conscientiousness in these things. He was not a hypocrite of the type of those who professed zeal for Jehovah and Israel while secretly infidel or indifferent, or of those who affected moral strictness in public while privately wallowing in licentiousness. Such hypocrisy he loathed and scorned. His guilt was not so great as if he had rejected and persecuted the Nazarene, knowing him to be the Messiah. "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." The same mitigation of guilt was pleaded by the Crucified in behalf of his murderers, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." But neither in the case of those who with wicked hands crucified and slew our Lord, nor in the case of the young man who consented unto the death of Stephen and wasted the Church, were ignorance and a false belief a justification. Saul confessed himself a great sinner, the chief of sinners. Wherein? For doing what he honestly held to be his duty, misled, not by a bad heart, not by a will which yielded to evil, but by unavoidable ignorance? Not so; but because he cherished pride, self-righteousness, contempt of his fellow-men, and vindictiveness, which were immoral, shut his eyes against the plain teachings of the Scriptures and the credentials of Jesus, and perverted his views of duty. Our Lord condemned the Jews who did not receive him, and the condemnation was based on this ground, not indeed that they were convinced of his Messiahship in their hearts while they denied him with their lips and lives, but that light had come to them, and they preferred darkness; that they could not appreciate the truth of his doctrine and the divine glory of his kingdom, because of that worldly and carnal soul which sought the loaves and fishes, and the honors which come from men; that they were blinded, hardened, and enslaved by the lusts of their depraved nature and the want of any true love to God or man, and, therefore, were out of harmony with the truth, and under the yoke of falsehood and unbelief. Paul came to see that the secret source of his pharisaic zeal and anti-Christian hate was not a genuine hunger and thirst after righteousness, not the supreme love to God which humbles, purifies, and enlight

ens, which excites tenderness, gentleness, forbearance and benevolence to all men, not a self-renouncing and truth-seeking spirit, but unspiritual, worldly, unholy tempers and aims that mislead the conscience, that are a film over the inner vision, that are in fact both inhuman and impious. In one place, it is true, many interpreters think that he claims a perfect sincerity in those blaspheming and persecuting times. "And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." Some interpret, "I have discharged my apostolic office." But whether he referred to his whole past life, or only to the part since his conversion, we may safely say that he did not mean to claim for his pharisaism that singleness of eye which the heart-searching God approves, because he condemned himself with great severity for his course, and because inspiration condemned other Jews of the same day and circumstances for their unbelief. His Christian consciousness of sincerity he described in these comprehensive and beautiful words: "For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world." He threw open all the windows of his soul; there was in him no duplicity, but simplicity, singleness; not a manifold nor even a twofold motive and intention, not an appearing to seek one object and a real seeking of somewhat quite different, but all his thoughts lay unfolded for inspection, and his whole aim was to serve God and save souls; his was the sincerity before God which stands the searching test of the pure and brilliant sunbeams; he was not guided by carnal wisdom, the policy that seeks a selfish and worldly success, or scruples not at the means by which to secure a worthy end; he was inspired and directed by the Spirit of truth, holiness, and love in his aims and methods. There was a crystal clearness in his conscientiousness, a crucifixion of self, a fullness of consecration, an abounding charity, a harmony of his whole soul and conduct with the first principles of virtue and piety, which differed radically from his state when his very breath was fiery with threatenings and slaughter, and he was swept along by the madness of pride and revenge. True, "touching the righteousness which is in the law," he was "blameless." "blameless." But this was an outward and

ceremonial righteousness of the letter and not of the spirit; not the righteousness which Micah described: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" not the righteousness which Christ described, "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; there is none other commandment greater than this."

To sum up: 1. The standard of truth and duty does not depend on human opinions. The most thorough conscientiousness in Saul of Tarsus, if proved, could not change the facts of the indictment, that he fought against the truth, blasphemed the Son of God and Saviour of mankind, and persecuted the saints in violation of justice and charity. 2. The sufferings he inflicted on the disciples and the moral injury of his example on his own people are not the less real because of the honesty of his convictions. When converted, he must have looked back on his conduct with regret, if not with remorse. 3. His proud self-complacency in an outward and ritual righteousness which lacked the heart of love, his arrogant and scornful bigotry, and his fierce delight in persecuting the Church, reacted on himself in narrowing and perverting his moral nature, in stifling all sweet and lovely sentiments, and making him harsh, tyrannical, and vindictive. Yet his conscientiousness preserved him from the reprobacy and baseness of those who slander and tread down what they know to be sacred and divine. We feel a degree of admiration for the earnestness with which he maintained his own principles, but it is mingled with detestation of his haughty and blood-thirsty intolerance. 4. His innocence or guilt must be determined, not by our light and advantages, but by those amid which he lived. A perfectly sin cere Israelite might hold up his head in judgment as well as a perfectly sincere Christian. Complete sincerity seeks with all the soul and strength to know what is true in creed and right in act, for the love of truth and holiness, and does not obscure, nor color, nor refract the light in the interest of covetousness,