It is interesting and natural that St. John should have introduced the question. Others were usually more forward, but that was because he was more thoughtful. Peter went first into the sepulchre; but he first, seeing what was there, believed. And it was he who said “It is the Lord,” although Peter thereupon plunged into the lake to reach Him. Discerning and grave: such is the character from which his Gospel would naturally come, and it belongs to him who first discerned the rebuke to their conduct implied in the words of Jesus. He was right. The Lord answered, “Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a mighty work in My name, and be able quickly to speak evil of Me:” his own action would seal his lips; he would have committed himself. Now this points out a very serious view of human life, too often overlooked. The deed of to-day rules to-morrow; one is half enslaved by the consequences of his own free will. Let no man, hesitating between two lines of action, ask, What harm in this? what use in that? without adding, And what future actions, good or evil, may they carry in their train? The man whom they had rebuked was at least certain to be for a time detached from the opponents of truth, silent if not remonstrant when it was assailed, diluting and enfeebling the enmity of its opponents. And so Christ laid down the principle, “He that is not against us is for us.” In St. Luke the words are more plainly pointed against this party spirit, “He that is not against you is for you.” How shall we reconcile this principle with Christ’s declaration elsewhere, “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth”? It is possible to argue that there is no contradiction whatever, for both deny the existence of a neutral class, and from this it equally follows that he who is not with is against, and he who is not against is with us. But this answer only evades the difficulty, which is, that one passage reckons seeming neutrality as friendship, while the other denounces it as enmity.