Trait 12.

TRAIT 12.

The ingenuous manner in which he acknowledged and repaired his errors.

IT is difficult for a proud man to confess himself in an error: but they who are possessed of humility and love can make such an acknowledgment with cheerfulness. When St. Paul was called upon to justify his conduct before the tribunal of the Jews, the same spirit of resentment which animated his persecutors suddenly seized upon the more passionate of his judges, when the high priest, still more exasperated than the rest, commanded them who stood near Paul “to smite him on the mouth.” It was in that moment of surprise and indignation that the apostle, unacquainted with the author of so indecent a proceeding, and not imagining that the president of an august assembly could so far forget his own dignity as to act with so reprehensible an impetuosity, gave this sharp reply to so unjust an order. “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” Immediately those who stood by, reproaching him with his apparent disrespectful carriage, inquired with the utmost indignation, “Revilest thou God’s high priest?” Here the apostle, far from justifying his own conduct in resenting the severity of a judge who had degraded himself by an act of the most flagrant injustice, immediately acknowledged his error: and lest the example he had given should encourage any person to withhold the respect due to a magistrate, still more respectable by his office than blamable by his rigorous proceedings, he endeavoured to make instant reparation for his involuntary offence, by citing a penitent passage from the law, answering with all meekness: “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people,” Acts 23:2, 5.

There is another instance of the indiscretion and candour of this apostle. Paul and Barnabas going forth to publish the Gospel, took for their companion John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas. The young evangelist, however, staggered by the dangers which those apostles were constantly obliged to encounter, forsook them at Pamphilia in the midst of their painful labours. But afterward, repenting of his former irresolution, he offered to accompany them in another journey. Barnabas, who had charity enough to hope all things of his nephew, wished to afford him a second trial: while Paul, whose prudence taught him to fear every thing from a young man who had already given an indisputable proof of his inconstancy, refused his consent. At length the two apostles, unable to decide the matter to their mutual satisfaction, took the resolution of separating one from another. Paul went to preach the Gospel in Syria with Silas; while Barnabas, accompanied by his nephew, proceeded to proclaim Christ in the isle of Cyprus. Thus the separation of true Christians, without producing any schism in the Church, frequently tends to the propagation of the Gospel.

Time alone could determine whether Barnabas was deceived by an abundance of charity, or St. Paul through an excess of prudence. The event turned the balance in favour of the judgment of Barnabas; the conduct of John Mark on this second mission was irreproachable. From that time, St. Paul, with his usual candour, forgetting the former instability of Mark, placed the utmost confidence in him, received him with joy as the companion of his labours, revoked the order he had formerly given respecting him, and recommended him to the Churches as a faithful minister. Thus much may be inferred from the following passage in his epistle to the Colossians: “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, touching whom ye receive, I commandments; if he come unto you, receive him,” Colossians 4:10. Thus the sincere followers of Christ are ever anxious to repair their involuntary faults: faults which we, as well as the apostles, are always exposed to the commission of, and which should constrain us to say, with St. Paul, “Now we know” things and persons “in part.” This imperfection in our knowledge will sometimes produce errors in our judgment, and those errors may probably influence our conduct. But, if in these failings there be no mixture of malice; if we sin through ignorance, and in the integrity of our hearts, God imputes not to us those errors; provided that we are always prepared, like St. Paul, to confess and repair them. To err is the lot of humanity: obstinacy in error is the character of a demon: but humbly to acknowledge, and anxiously to repair an error, is to exhibit a virtue more rare and valuable than innocence itself, when accompanied with any degree of conceit and pride.

They who give the portraits of legendary saints generally paint them without a single failing. But they who wish faithfully to imitate the sacred authors, are obliged to employ shades as well as lights, even in their most celebrated pieces. If this part of the portrait of St. Paul should not appear brilliant, it will serve, at least, to manifest the reality of the original, the liberality of the apostle, and the fidelity of the painter.