Daniel 6:5 Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Fault-finding is not a difficult science. A practised critic will find blemishes in the most beautiful works of men. The judges of a century ago who passed capital sentence on cases that were more than doubtful consoled themselves by the reflection that there was enough in every man to justify a hanging. So strong has been the sense of human guilt that it had been satisfied with nothing less than theories of total depravity. Many countries have sought for stainless statesmen, many masters for spotless servants, many Churches for immaculate ministers, but the supply has not been equal to the demand. And every fresh failure has only served to intensify the depth of the conviction that the best men have in them the principle of evil. And I go further and say that this conviction has forced itself on those who have not set themselves to find out the faults in others. Our failings, as a rule, are so obvious that the most charitable must acknowledge them. It does net need a jealous or envious eye to detect our flaws. And if this is true of our experience of private life, it is doubly so of public life. The "fierce light that beats upon a throne," beats with no less fierceness upon the guiders of a throne. Their most private failings are magnified into public evils. It might also be said that a public man has no privacy. The more widely a man is known the larger is the circle of his critics. Daniel was a public man. He was one of the three presidents of Darius's kingdom, and we are told "the king thought to set him over the whole realm." It would not have been easy to play perfectly so exalted a part before the most friendly spectators. But they who watched Daniel were hostile in the worst degree. Theirs was no manly, open hostility, that thought his actions wrong, and opposed them because they thought so. Theirs was a mean, underhand, jealous and envious hostility, that could not bear to see virtue rewarded. And for them the sting was in the virtue. Daniel was faithful. His conduct would bear the severe scrutiny of his enemies. We do not suppose this to mean that Daniel was no sinner, but there was no open departure from righteousness and justice which could be made the basis of an impeachment. There remained one chance of striking a blow at the man they hated. Daniel was a religious man. His religion was a part of his life. They knew him well enough to know that on no consideration would he forsake or neglect his religion. We have here, I think, a very striking illustration of a very great truth that conscience derives its power over men as it is recognised by them to be a law of their God. The gospel of Christ appeals to the most savage and slavish of people, as well as to the most civilised, because it appeals to those great principles of our nature that distinguish us as mankind. And of all our common qualities, conscience is one of the most undeniable. With more or less distinctness it defines for every class of men certain broad lines of right and wrong. But it is evident that its power over us will depend on how we regard it. It may be to some a mere uncomfortable sensation that may be removed in time; the result of a passing feeling of sorrow for harm done or wrong tolerated. In such a ease it is not likely to speak with much force. But to others it is sacred with the monitions of God Himself. They have seen an inner law in all men, and have agreed that there was a great Lawgiver. They have heard an inner voice calling them to righteousness, and have felt there was somewhere a Source of righteousness. The history of the world is full of instances of the conduct that is the result of these two ways of regarding conscience. Its Pilates, even when to the reproaches of their consciences have been added superstitious fears, have washed their hands and declared themselves innocent of just blood it was in their power to save. But its Luthers, when they might have stood aloof and declared their innocence of declines and practices that had degraded the Church, felt compelled to suffer persecution with the people of God rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. If the world has had its King Johns who could consent to make their kingdom tributary to the Pope, and hold their crown from his command, it has also had its William the Silents who for the sacred cause of liberty could endure all personal sacrifice that they might finally bequeath to their successors the inheritance of a free people, whose rights were assured, and whose consciences were respected. Again I say, obedience to conscience as to the law of God makes the hero. I plead that there is no way in which we can better serve our Master. Here, if in any way, is our best opportunity of serving our day and generation. We live at a time when, with shame be it said, in many trades custom has done its best to condone dishonesty: to patronise sham commodities has become general; many an honest living has beech ruined by unfair competition; cheapness of material has been secured by lavish expenditure of human suffering. There is very serious danger that our national conscience may become dull as our national sins become common. There is very serious danger lest good Christian people should act the part of Pilate through mistrust of their powers to stay the wrong. There is very serious danger lest we should become so accustomed to hear the voice of pain as to shut our ears to its cry and be absolutely dumb. We pass on to notice how the law of God is superior in authority to the law of man, and how the law of man only derives its validity and authority as it reflects and realises the law of God. Daniel's enemies saw that it was possible to frame a law that Daniel's conscience would not permit him to obey; and they knew that no matter what penalties were attached, if obedience to the law of man meant disobedience to the law of God, Daniel would be s law-breaker rather than be false to his religion. Now, how would the opinion of a certain class of people regard Daniel? They say the law is sacred: obedience to the law is imperative. They who go to Rome must do as Rome does. They must at least bow down to the house of Rimmon, even if it was only an outward formality. It is possible to act like a heathen and think like a Christian. God regards the heart — and to Him lip-service is insignificant, the worship of the heart is everything. Outward formality is nothing, inwardly reality is all. To them, then, Daniel's action may have been brave and grand, but it was the action of a fanatic, not of a careful and prudent man. Christian manhood shrinks in horror from conformity even in appearance to the false. It may be the law of the country, but no country has a right to make the law. Nay, human law has its province: there are certain broad rules of morality that no one has a right to transgress. But human law has no right to interfere with man's religion: here he passes into a sacred realm; here his relationship is with God. Oh, that our characters may so bear the scrutiny of our enemies that our religion may be in their eyes our only fault? In a sense our lives are public ones. A godless world will eagerly pounce on any un-Christian conduct, and make it an occasion against us. (C.S.Horne, M.A.) Parallel Verses KJV: Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. |
    |