teousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."*

This is addressed by Paul "unto the Church of God which is at Corinth," a handful of Christians amidst a heathen multitude, liable, we may assume, to be led back into error, either through faint-heartedness or temptation. In like manner, so at least it seems to me, ought we to interpret the majority of those texts, which, as some would have it, enjoin faith as exclusively essential to salvation.

Times have changed so much, we may, without profanity, assume, that the Apostle, had he lived in these days, would not have exhorted one Christian to flee the presence of another Christian, his neighbour, as though mortal pestilence were exhaled in every breath, and for no other reason than a degree less of strictness in religious opinions. Would he not rather have regarded all as of one Church; some, perhaps, as weaker vessels, but members, nevertheless; and have enjoined unity, forbearance, and brotherly-love?

If religion, instead of making us humble, mistrustful of ourselves, and charitable towards others,

* 2 Corinthians, chap. vi.

ministers to the corrupt propensity of our nature, it is worse than nugatory, it is positively pernicious. But to suppose this possible, were to calumniate true religion. Such a result can only proceed from that counterfeit religion, which, like the fanaticism of the Romish Church, is compounded of merely human notions.

Admitting, for argument sake, that persons professing very strict opinions on religious matters, are right, and all the rest of the world wrong, would they not make more converts to their way of thinking if they displayed a little more toleration, a little more affability, a little more social hospitality towards their less rigid neighbours? Would not the edifying humility and gentleness of their manners, united with fervent piety, be more likely to win over the heedless in religion, to imitate their example?

What says Mrs. Hannah More? generally, if I mistake not, esteemed to have been a shining light of the Religious world. "He who advocates the sacred cause of Christianity should be particularly aware of fancying that his being religious will atone for his being disagreeable; that his orthodoxy will justify his uncharitableness, or his zeal make up for his indiscretion. The modes of doing good in society are various. We should sharpen our discernment to discover them, and our zeal to put them in practice. If we cannot open a man's eyes to the truth of religion by our arguments, we may perhaps open them to its beauty by our moderation.

Though he may dislike Christianity in itself, he may, from admiring the forbearance of the Christian, be at least led to admire the principle from which it flowed. If he have hitherto refused to listen to the written evidences of religion, the temper of her advocate may be a new evidence of so engaging a kind, that his heart may be opened by the sweetness of the one, to the verities of the other. He will, at least, be brought to allow that that religion cannot be very bad, the fruits of which are so amiable. But we put it out of our power to become the instruments of God, in promoting the spiritual good of any one, if we stop up the avenue to his heart by our violence or imprudence. We sometimes justify our rash violence under the colour that our correct piety cannot endure the faults of others. The Pharisees, overflowing with wickedness themselves, made the exactness of their own virtue a pretext for looking with horror on the publicans, whom our Saviour regarded with compassionate tenderness, while he reprobated with keen severity the sins, and especially the censoriousness of their accusers."

This is sound doctrine, and consonant with that contained in the Scriptures. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, has condensed the es‐ sence of it in the following simple, but comprehensive passage, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one

* Conduct of Christians with the Irreligious.-Practical Piety, Vol. II., chap. xiv.

in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."

If we survey the life of Christ as portrayed by the Evangelists, we shall perceive that so far fro being tinctured with exclusiveness, it was eminently social. His first recorded miracle, for example, according to the Gospel of St. John, was performed during the celebration of a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, to which he and his disciples were bidden; a sufficient proof that he was not wont to withhold from such scenes of festivity the sanction of his presence, and the miracle itself was the turning of water into wine. Had our Saviour considered it sinful to indulge in moderation in such accessories to social hilarity, he would not thus have exercised his miraculous power, since there lacked not opportunities for displaying it to mankind. After the water had been changed by him into wine, he commanded them to draw out, and bear to the governor of the feast. We have also, in another place, the testimony of his own words in regard to his mode of life, "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, the friend of publicans and sinners."

Against forming rash judgments of others, have

we not those ever memorable words delivered by Jesus in his sermon on the mount? "Judge not, that ye be not judged," &c. Words which cannot be too deeply engraven on the heart, and which ought to prevent, one would imagine, religious people from indulging a spirit of censoriousness and exclusivism, on the plea of superior sanctity. I cannot but give a similar interpretation to the 14th chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, commencing thus, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye." It is too long for transcription, but breathes throughout a spirit of Christian toleration.

There are a few tests, if I might venture to recommend them, by which persons of great religious pretensions might try whether pride and selfishness mingled, or did not mingle, with their piety. Persuaded of their own election, could they with complacency, nay, with satisfaction, contemplate the probability of others, differing from them, both in precept and practice, being admitted at the last day, equal partakers with themselves of salvation? Would not the bare possibility of such a thing fill them with regret and displeasure? Like the brother of the prodigal son in the parable, would they not repine instead of rejoice, deeming themselves injured and defrauded of their just rights by such an extension of God's mercy? Do they not sometimes experience a secret exultation, unacknowledged probably even to themselves, in the thought that persons considered by them unrighteous, vo