CENSURE AGAINST CRITICISM.
By E. Goodrich
It is quite natural for men to judge from first impressions, and to look upon the external as being always a proper index of the internal. Also there is danger of calling things by the same name that have only an apparent similarity while in fact they are essentially different. But before we render judgment concerning any matter, the thing should be thoroughly analyzed and all its parts properly estimated. It is true there are some points of comparison between the fault-finder and the critic. The former is sure to discover the mote in his brother's eye. He is sure to see all his neighbor's faults and in a berating upbraiding manner point them out to him, or speak of them behind his back. But while he does this he makes no allowance for the unfavorable circumstances under which the person or theory of which he is speaking has labored. He makes no mention of existing virtues, and seems to care but little for the gold that may be hid beneath or mixed with grosser metals. And touching the wrongs and errors that exist in our world of fallen men, the critic is no less discerning than the fault-finder. Even the least and last fault is seen by his close discriminating eye; yet while he discovers these things, and may use the clean-cutting knife or the scourging rod he by no means forgets that virtue is always to be spared. He remembers that his is the work of a refiner whose business it is to purge away the dross and thus refine the gold. He is careful to preserve all the tender plants and flowers, and that not one grain of wheat should fall to the earth or be wasted. There is no more similarity between the fault-finder and the critic than there is between the persecutor and the reformer; than there is between the fretting, scolding parent who is careful to note all the little wrongs and censure them without offering the better way, and the wise and thoughtful parent, who though he may discover the wrong and point it out, yet is very careful always to recommend the better way. To reprove and rebuke with all long suffering and doctrine is as much the duty of a Christian or reformer as to commend the right. He is by no means to suffer wrong in his brother. But he has no right neither does it do any good to be always fretting and finding fault. Without making and marking the difference that exists between these things, both those who labor as teachers and those who are taught, are liable to labor under a fatal mistake: the former by supposing they are earth's benefactors, the real light of the age, when they are little more than calumniators; the latter by looking upon reformers as zealots, wishing to build themselves up on the ruins of others. And they thus reject the truth that is preached unto them. The prophets of old were viewed in this light. Many of them (and the word of God sent by them) were rejected, being regarded as enemies of the king, as troublers of Israel, or as those that made the hands of the people weak; and even the Saviour and the apostles were regarded as disturbers of the peace, pestilent fellows. Again the difference between the fault-finder and the critic is, while the former needs no qualification for his business, will not listen or submit to be taught by others, neither is qualified to teach, the latter is always master of the things of which he speaks. He is necessarily both scholar and teacher. He is scholar for the purpose of learning the art of teaching and is teacher that he may right those wrongs that exist in the business in which he is engaged. Let us then study to emulate the critic, but never find fault.