the opinions of others, but of the hearts or moral characters of all who possess such opinions? Are not similar censures also heard from the pulpit, and seen in the manner in which the people of one denomination treat their brethren of another? How much more of Gospel humility and Christian love would writers and preachers display, if they would kindly endeavor to convince others of their supposed errors in opinion, and leave the judgment of their moral condition to Him who knows the heart, and who has said to his fallible disciples "Judge not"-" Condemn not." Some self-confident persons probably think there can be little danger of their censuring good persons, while they only condemn such as they verily believe to be in error. But let them remember with what daring confidence the scribes and pharisees censured Him whom the Father had sent to be the Saviour of the world.

What well informed Protestant has not been shocked at the confidence with which some Catholics have asserted the doctrine of transubstantiation, and denounced as heretics all who deny that doctrine! But this indiscreet conduct of a Catholic may be a mirror in which many Protestants may see their own dispositions. The Catholic has as good a right to assume the highest place as the Protestant; but neither of them can do it without exposing himself to the dishonor of being publicly told by the Master of the feast to take a lower place. For those who have the better claim to the higher places, are too humble to assume them, or to take them without being ordered so to do.

In extempore speaking men have not always sufficient time for premeditation, and in the heat of their zeal, they are very liable to utter things which will not bear an impartial review, and which are unjustly reproachful to others. But in writing for the pulpit or the press, I think it would be a good rule, after having written, seriously to examine the copy and inquire, whether nothing has been penned which is contrary to the New Commandment, or the Golden Rule-nothing which evinces the disposition to take the highest place, or that must excite the idea that the writer is one of those who "trust in themselves that they are righteous and despise others." In such a review of what has been written, it might be useful for the writer to inquire, how the language and tone he has used would be likely to appear to him, if adopted by a person of another denomination against himself; and then erase whatever he would deem anti-christian and unkind, if used by another in an exchange of circumstances. Should the parable of our Lord be duly regarded in future, in conducting religious Newspapers and other Periodicals, the effects may be happy in relation to the progress of religion, and the peace of the Christian

world.

1

LETTER XIV.

EXAMPLE OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.

My Christian Brethren,

SELDOM, if ever, had any ministers of religion greater provocation to use the language of reproach, or more sure ground on which to censure the hearts of fellow-men, than the evangelists had to judge and censure the Scribes and Pharisees, and others who were agents in persecuting the Messiah. In this case there was something more than a diversity of opinion-there were acts of flagrant injustice and abuse. What then was the manner of the evangelists in writing the history of our Lord, and the treatment he received from his persecutors ?

In writing their histories, the evangelists had frequent occasion to state the opposition which the Messiah received-the manner in which he was treated the snares which were laid to entangle him, and the accusations brought against him. Near the close of their history they had occasion to state the conduct of the chief priests, the sanhedrim, and rulers of the people, in hiring Judas to betray him, in employing soldiers to arrest him-their treatment of him while on trial-suborning false-witnesses,, their mockings and derisions, their sending him to Pilate to obtain a sentence of crucifixion, their stirring up the people and exciting the clamorous cry-" Crucify him! Crucify him!" They also mention what oc

curred at the crucifixion-how even the ministers of religion insulted him in his agonies.

Now let it be remembered that all these writers were friends and disciples of Jesus; and two of them his apostles, who had witnessed his ministry, were members of his family, and strongly attached to him as their Lord. It may also be considered how certain it was to them that the character of Jesus was without spot and blameless; that his doctrines and precepts were divine truth, and of the highest importance to mankind. And that all the opposition against him was groundless and unreasonable. the evangelists then been influenced by party feelings, we should doubtless have found in their narratives severe reproaches and accusations against the persecutors of the Messiah, and high encomiums of his character and conduct. But in vain do we look into their writings for anything of this kind. In the most simple and artless manner they related such facts as might enable others to judge of the conduct and character of the parties. As became faithful and dispassionate witnesses, they impartially gave their testimony to facts. They neither applaud their Lord, nor reproach his enemies, by expressing their own feelings in favor of him or against them. "The historians," says Dr. Campbell, "speak of nothing, not even the most atrocious actions of our Lord's persecutors with symptoms of emotion-no angry epithet, or pathetic exclamation can escape themnot a word that betrays passion in the writers, or is calculated to excite the passions of the reader."

These facts are remarkable; and, in the purpose

of God, they were probably meant for our good→ meant to have a moral influence on the ministers of the Gospel, on ecclesiastical historians, and on all who profess the religion of the Lord Jesus. If ever there was a time when the spirit of resentment, reproach and censure was commendable, such it would seem was the time when the evangelists wrote their histories. But where shall we find four other writers who so perfectly conformed to our Lord's injunctions, “judge not," "condemn not," "Let your yea, be yea, and your nay, nay." It cannot be doubted that the evangelists clearly understood the meaning of these precepts, or prohibitions; and they seem to have been disposed to give an example of obedience to them which would be worthy of imitation. They had learned of him who was meek and lowly, and they exemplified his spirit in their writings.

I cannot but regard it as one of the best evidences that the evangelists wrote under the influence of the divine spirit, that they all so perfectly agree in the manner of their writing, or the temper they displayed in speaking of men who had persecuted their Lord even unto death. They wrote at different times, in different countries, without any pre-concerted plan; yet all under the direction of the same Spirit. Though the writers were four, the Spirit was but one, and that the most amiable.

Not only were the Evangelists of a forbearing spirit, in speaking of their enemies, but they were frank and unreserved in stating the errors and faults

G