CHAPTER XI
CHAPTER XI
AARON THE VACILLATING
THERE is one type of man who, I think, has not always received the sympathy he deserves
—the man who has narrowly missed the goal.
Of course, those who have narrowly missed and those who have missed by a million of miles are historically in the same position; they are all included under the general name
—failures. Yet, while historically it may be true that 'a miss is as good as a mile,' it is, morally, not true. The man who has lost the goal by a final slip of the foot is in a vastly
| different position from the man who has never come within sight of it. I should be disposed to divide humanity into three classes—the man of success, the man of failure, and the man of shortcoming. I would place the last between the other two. He comprehends by far the largest class among the runners of the race of life. Perfect success is not reached by many; absolute failure is the lot of few; but { 191 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
the narrow missing of the mark is the fate of the large majority of men. Take a survey of those around you. What is their mental average? It is not greatness, it is not smallness, it is not even middle-sizedness; it is shortcoming. It is the missing of the mark by a hair'sbreadth. It is the absence of one little fragment of the alabaster box preventing the structure from being pieced together. Our common impression of the men and women around us is not that the chain is brass, but that there is a link wanting to the gold.
Now, I am very glad that this wide class has not been left without a representative in the Great Gallery. The man chosen as its representative is Aaron. If I were asked to define his place in the Gallery, I should say he is the man who narrowly missed the mark, who came in second. I do not know any portrait of the group that is so suggestive of this quality. It is not, for example, suggested by the portraits of Cain and Esau. These are the delineations of men who were not in the race, whose significance lay in the fact that they were impediments to the running. But Aaron was a real competitor. He was a man who bade fair to be the leader of his time. He did
[192]
AARON THE VACILLATING
not stand to his brother Moses in the same relation that Cain held to Abel, or Esau to Jacob. He had a common cause with Moses.
He burned as eagerly for the emancipation of his people; originally, he seems to have burned more eagerly. If any spectator had looked upon the two brothers before the day of the emancipation and considered their comparative promise of success, he would, I think, have given the preference to Aaron. Aaron was the elder. That itself was little; it had become a proverbial saying that in the Hebrew race the elder should serve the younger. But in this case there seemed to lie with Aaron the maturity of mind as well as years. As the brothers stand before us, we are struck with the contrast between them; and it is Aaron who seems to have the higher ground. Moses is shy; Aaron is bold. Moses is reticent;
Aaron is outspoken. Moses halts in utterance; Aaron is a man of eloquence. Moses is meek and prone to wait the tide of events; Aaron is an impetuous spirit and tends to rush into action. Moses meditates forty years in the desert of Midian; Aaron in that same desert seems to have been doing powerful service in [ 193 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
winning the favour 'of the neighbouring chiefs.
And yet the fact remains that Moses was the chosen man, the man selected to be the leader of the rising age. Why is this? The common answer is, because he was by nature the weaker vessel, and because God selects the weaker vessel. But where do you find that doctrine—that the principle of Divine selection is the natural weakness of the object? You refer me to St. Paul—'God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.' Yes, 'the weak things of the world'—the things which the world deems weak. That is a very different statement from 'the things which God deems weak.' The truth is, the principle of Divine selection is, and has always been, identical with the principle of natural selection—the survival of the fittest. The men who are chosen by the Great Gallery to carry on the kingdom of God are chosen on distinctly Darwinian grounds—not because they are weak but because they are strong. If Abel is preferred to Cain, it is because he is a fitter man than Cain; if Jacob is preferred to Esau, it is because he is a stronger personality than Esau. Weakness
[ 194 ]
AARON THE VACILLATING
can never be the ground of a selection, either Divine or human. There zs a paradox in the choice of the Bible; but it does not lie where it is supposed to lie. It lies in the fact that the Bible has a different estimate of strength from that made by the secular eye. The secular eye sees the things on the surface; it measures the power of work by the power of manifestation. But the Bible looks below. It considers, not the power of manifestation, but the power of restraint. It judges a man more by his stillness than by his outcry, more by his words unsaid than by his words spoken. To the eye of the Bible it is a ruler's self-repression that makes him great, that proves him strong. The thing it desiderates is not fighting power but waiting power. It deems most valuable what the world calls weak. The qualities it appreciates are just the unbrilliant qualities—the attributes held to be not heroic. It prefers patience to petulance, temperance to temper, vigilance to violence, latent discretion to loud display. All this is expressed in the aphorism,
'Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.'
We may conclude, then, that Moses was selected for a higher post than Aaron, not be- [ 195 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
cause he was a weaker vessel, but because he was a stronger one. Where lay the difference in their strength? It lay within—in the innermost region of all—in the power of will. The Bible's test of strength is tenacity of will. To be immovable like the great mountains, to be steadfast as the solid rocks, is ever its deepest aspiration. The things of nature which it admires are the things which it can think of as tenacious. The tree whose leaf 'shall not wither,' the city which 'shall never be moved,' the sun that 'shall no more go down,' the well of water 'springing up eternally,' the rainbow which shall be a sign 'while the earth remaineth'—these are among its fondest fancies.
And all these are to the Bible but the symbols of a deeper tenacity still—the endurance of a human heart, the steadfastness of a human purpose.
Now, the crucial point of difference between Moses and Aaron was this tenacity of purpose. All other contrasts, from the Gallery's point of view, are irrelevant. Aaron had every quality fitted for a great leader but one
—tenacity of purpose.
He was eloquent, shrewd, persuasive, pleasing in manner and address, endowed with the gifts that win
[ 196.]
AARON THE VACILLATING
popularity; but he was vacillating. He was one of the kind whom we meet every day— vehement but variable. Men were drawn to him magnetically, but they had no security that the alliance would be lasting. He was perfectly sincere; he spoke the genuine sentiment which he entertained at the moment. But there was no guarantee that he would retain this sentiment at the end of the hour. There is a type of character which is described as slow but sure; Aaron might be portrayed as quick but uncertain. I have always.regarded..him.as the Simon..Peter,.of..the.Old..Lestament. No two men separated by long centuries are more alike. Both were lovable; both were outspoken; both were rapid in resolution; both received a call in advance of their brethren; both performed deeds of the most jealous service; and both on certain occasions were singularly untrue to their first impulse.
_ I will add one parallel more—both, were a ere rne arte Of Aaron, as of eter, it was virtually said, 'On this otk I will build my church.' Adror, like Peter, received the key of a new dispensation; he was placed as head pastor over the congregation of liberated Israel; church and state were, for [ 197 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
the first time, separated in thought. One naturally asks, Why should Aaron have been fit for the church when he was not fit for the state? If he had not the qualities of a rock for politics, why should he have been credited with these qualities for the pastorate? It is not suggested by the narrative that Moses promoted him to the priesthood in ignorance of his weak point. On the contrary, the most striking exhibition of that weakness occurred previous to his ordination. The incident may be briefly stated. Moses went up to the solitudes of Mount Sinai to commune with the God of Israel. Aaron was left in charge of the multitude on the plain. But the absence of the one man made the multitude lonely. Loneliness might help the religion of Moses, but it did harm to theirs. They craved a symbol, an image, something to represent God. Moses had been that symbol, that image, that representative. But Moses was gone. He had disappeared in the mountain mists; he might never return. They came to Aaron to ask a sign—a visible monument of the Divine Presence.
Aaron demurred. The crowd grew clamorous. They passed from request into murmur, from murmur into mutiny. Aaron [ 198 }
AARON THE VACILLATING
yielded. He told them to bring their gold earrings, and from these combined treasures he constructed the image of a young bull, such as the Egyptians worshipped. He only meant it for an image; he told the crowd in so many words that it was intended to represent the God of Israel. But the crowd hailed it as the God of Egypt—the presence by which the Pharaohs had prospered. They forgot their patriotism. They cried, in effect, 'Let the Egyptian omen be our omen!' They broke into shouts of joy; but the shout of joy was a shout of rebellion.
Now this scene of tumult and uproar came from the vacillation of Aaron. He had manifested a spirit of accommodati nc} to move with the crowd. In cou ieeeaianie the picture in the Gallery, my wonder has always been why Moses is represented in an attitude so lenient towards Aaron. We do not, indeed, associate Aaron with the rebellion of the crowd, nor deem that he was worthy of their penalty. But Aaron is not only pardoned— he is promoted; he is raised to that position of eminence in the church which is denied him in the state. With the full knowledge of his vacillating spirit, with the full proof before [ 199 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
the world that he had been guilty of compromise, this man is invested with the High Priest's office, with the chief pastorate of the great congregation. I am looking at the matter merely artistically—from the standpoint of a spectator in the Gallery. Keeping purely to the aesthetic, I ask, is it not a breach of art, a violation of the law of harmony, a dislocation in the proportion of things? What zs the problem? It is this: a man rejected by the state as unfit to be a leader by reason of his vacillating spirit is by that same state selected to be the head of a religious community within its own pale! I have never found the Great
Gallery defective in matters of proportion; I have never known the hand of its artists to apply inappropriate colours. But is there not such a misapplication here? Is there not in this picture an inartistic element, a breach of consistency which mars its beauty? We can understand that a stone once rejected should afterwards become the head of the corner, provided its rejection were found to be a mistake; but that a stone should be made the head of the corner which was once rejected and which is still known to possess the defect attributed to it—this is surely a fault of the builder!
[ 200 ]
AARON THE VACILLATING
But I think we have forgotten one thing of great importance—the difference of qualification requisite for a leader in the state and a leader in the church. The quality which would be a blemish in a rock is a beauty in a. flower—tenderness. That a rock should be | easily bent or broken is a proof of its unfitness; but that a rose should be easily bent or broken is an element in its charm. The simile has direct application here. The leader of a state ought to be unbending; firmness is essential to successful government. But the pastor in a congregation ought not to be cunbending. quired before all things that he should be a man of human sympathy—able to adapt himself to the needs of each time. The characteristic of the individual church-leader and the characteristic of the Church universal must always be one of accommodation to circumstances. That is the secret of Christianity's power. It has been durable amid shifting epochs just because it has been willing to assimilate these epochs. The stream has been content to take its colour from the soil through which it flows; therefore it has irrigated many soils. It has turned its ear to the special needs
[ 201 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
of special ages. It has not granted all for which each crowd has clamoured; but it has
_ granted something—it has recognised... that every widespread clamour.implies_a_widespread want. It has met the cry for imperial- 'ism; it has met the cry for freedom; it has met the cry for asceticism; it has met the cry for earthly loveliness; it has met the cry for reconciliation between religion and _ science.
This priesthood has conquered by stooping, has reigned by serving, has endured by veiling what is not essential to its faith. Its power of survival has been its power of accommodation.
Let me put a supposition. Let us imagine that the man selected to fill the High Priest's office had been, not Aaron, but Joshua. A greater contrast than that between Aaron and Joshua cannot be conceived. If Aaron was vacillating, Joshua was unbending; if Aaron was soft, Joshua was inflexible. The future leader of the army of Israel was a man of no compromise. To him it was enough that the law had once been given; to be once given was to be enforced permanently. We know that on account of this quality Joshua was made head of the state; why was he not made
[ 202 ]
AARON THE VACILLATING
head of the church? Though a little younger, he was contemporaneous with Aaron; he lived in the same environment; he was familiar with the same conditions of life. Why did the Gallery not select Aim as the pastor to the great congregation? Clearly because church and state _.require..opposite. types.,of. mind.
Joshua made a great leader to the army; he would have made a very poor leader to the church. The reason is that, while the army wants an absolute leader, the church does not.
The church leader must be content to be, in a measure, /ed. He must consent, in certain things, to otto: He must atc the course of the stream. He must observe the current of the time. He must consider the state of the tide. Aaron was chosen because he was such a man as that. Nouother. tine. 2h mind whut. sbe
Seer making a golden ca
\ clamauting See they would s soon have a_visible tabernacle cece ee oe he "wees
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
gospel to their needs is the man who merits ithe foremost place in the sphere of the pastoral
Ol Cf "And this to my mind furnishes the explanation of an incident in the life of Aaron to 'which I think no other explanation has lent any significance. T od-branch : almond-tree are deposited in the tabernacle.
Bach rod represents a secular power; they stand respectively for the twelve heads of the twelve clans or tribes of Israel. To these rods another is added—making thirteen. The thirteenth is the rod of Aaron—representing the spiritual as distinct from the secular power.
On the day after they have been placed in the tabernacle, Moses enters the building and finds a wonderful phenomenon. The twelve rods remain as they were when first deposited ; but the thirteenth—the rod of Aaron—has burst forth into bloom.
Now, what is the ideal significance of this?
To me it clearly means that in the tabernacle of God, in the sphere of the religious ministry, the forces which will survive are not the secular forces. None of the twelve rods of temporal power will flourish here. The very thing which makes them survivors in the world [ 204 ]
AARON THE. VACILLATING
would kill them in the church—their inability to bend. They can bud in secular life, because the secular ruler reigns by the exercise of authority. But the spiritual life SROR — by the the exercae oF sahara Tene aa by the veiling of authority—by sacrifice, by lov e nly one rod will blossom here—the rod of Aaron! Only one power will —the_power.,of stooping! Within this holy temple the laws of survival are altered, reversed! The things which once disqualified: become the source of life; the rod which would in the outward kingdom have only served for firewood becomes, in the spiritual sphere, a sc ower!
The strength of Aaron, then, is to lie in something which in the secular province would be called weakness—t ity to be b th .
. We have a fine and a typical instance of this in the six-_ teenth chapter of Numbers, where Aaron is seen standing 'between the dead and the living.' He appears as the intercessor for stricken humanity. A dreadful plague has fallen— fallen as a vengeance. The anger of the God of Israel has been kindled, and thousands lie low beneath the stroke of the pestilence. Then
[ 205 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
ollows a scene of sublime humanitarianism.
Aaron takes his place among the stricken, and ours forth his prayer to heaven. He stands on the pestilential field whose atmosphere is reeking with contagion. In front of him are the reaining members of the congregation who re still untouched—trembling, cowering, nticipating. Behind him are the dying and the dead—a ghastly concourse. Aaron is in that charnel-house. He stands on no hill apart from the multitude. He utters his prayers from no palatial retreat securely embowered against the entrance of infection. He comes down into the foul air, into the vile miasma.
He identifies himself with the case of the dead, of the dying, of those who are preparing to die. His attitude is that of a participator, of one who wishes to be numbered among the transgressors. He could have been no coward
—to face the virulence of a deadly and contagious malady! It throws a fresh light upon his attitude towards the worshippers of the golden calf. We commonly attribute that attitude to timorousness; is it not more likely to have been the fruit of pity! Was it not simply another phase of humanitarian sympathy— that same humanitarian sympathy which here
[ 206 }
AARON THE VACILLATING
prompts him, in the hour of pestilence to take his stand beside his stricken brethren!
And this has ever since been the characteristic note of the Bible. priesthood. In this sphere the rod of empire has habitually burst into softness. The true priesthood has ever been.a.service.of..man; every stage of its development has been a stooping further down.
Step by step it has descended into the depths of human care and human sorrow. Step by step it has identified itself with the lot of the suffering and the sinful, till it has reached the last valley of humiliation at the Cross of the Son of Man. Aaron did not, any more than
Moses, enter the land to which he was going.
To both it was only a promised land. Each had a mountain view of coming glory; each died in the faith of a world to come. But to posterity the world of each has come. The land whose dominion was prefigured to the eye of Moses has more than realised his dream; the priesthood which floated before the sight of Aaron has attained a grander goal than his fancy pictured. The brothers have each had their reward, and each a reward after his kind. Moses bore the secular sceptre and he has inherited the crown of Christen- [ 207 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
dom; the highest thrones of the world are baile upon his Law. Aaron bore the rod which blossomed..into a passion-flower, and it.has issued in the _Cross al.
Sahin ry; tbe -climiae of the heart ENDOW me, oO Lord, with riestly spirit consecrate me to nate warns St qt nacle! Help me to take my place with the stricken sons of the wilderness! I do not ask to | be enabled to pray for them on the height; let
_me come down from the height! Let me stand - in the scene of the pestilence! Let me touch the lepers' spots ere I say 'Be thou clean'!
Often have I thought of these words, 'If a _ man be overtaken in a fault, restore him in the spirit of meekness'/ I have seen those who - would restore in the spirit of pride; they
. speak to the fallen, but they speak from the mountaintop. Not thus would J restore, O
Lord. I would come with Thy Christ down from my heaven; I would empty myself with Him. Let me descend with Him into the manger! Let me breathe the atmosphere of the beasts of the stall! Let me wrap myself in the a,6 ee [ 208 ]
AARON THE VACILLATING
humble garments of a child of earth! Let me } | join in the common struggle of the sons of Nazareth! Let me accept the same baptism that is offered to the vilest! Teach me that for the healing of a soul there is more virtue in the touch than in the ointment! Let the touch ices Caer pity precede the precept; let the kindness precede the kingdom; let the brotherhood with man precede the breath of God! Let me meet the fallen in their own valley, the desolate in their own ruin, the broken in their own desert, the wandered in their own night! Then shall I be in truth one of Thy Royal Priesthood.
[ 209 ]
| a Pa re een ES +4
aid "
»* od :
~ pe * Po '
* hi '
v.2
MAIN "CNT