rr

commune with his own heart and be

ftill," and not find there fome weaknesses of character, fome errors of conduct, and fome infirmities of temper, which he does not wifh fhould be viewed with an eye of tenderness? And furely not every fingularity of difpofition should be treated with harshnefs, nor every little deviation from the general practice of life with feverity. Where there is folid worth and established virtue, we might forbear to fcandalize a few peculiar traits of character with the contemptuous appellation of folly, and to magnify a few extravagances of the heart into crimes. If this mutual forbearance be neceffary to maintain peace and benevolence in our daily intercourfe with the world, and every one knows it to be fo, it is not lefs neceffary, in our occafional intercourfe with chriftians of every denomination. That candid and charitable difpofition of mind, which I wish to inculcate, would withhold us from bestowing, with indifcriminate cenfure, the opprobrious epithets of bigotry, fuperftition or folly on the reli

gious practice of our neighbour, whofe principles might be as firm, and whofe piety might be as fervent as our own, though he might, fomewhat differ from us in fpeculative tenets, exterior forms, and unavailing ceremonies.

IF, instead of cultivating this meek and amiable temper towards our brethren, we indulge a perverse spirit of wrangling and difputation on every trifling occafion, there must be an end of all unanimity. Among our most intimate and fincere friends, there will be no general and permanent concordance of fentiment or opinion, nor can we expect that there fhould be any, " in the houshold of faith, of one heart ❝ and one foul.” The important interests and eternal obligations of religion, that ought always to be felt at the heart, will often be forgotten, for the fondness of engaging in a mere battle of words," and the vanity of obtaining victory in argument. Befides, there feems to be a fomething highly improper, if not impious, in talking

R 4

talking with indecent familiarity of the dispensations of heaven; in naming "the "Great and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity," without a due reverence of his glory; in making his attributes the fubjects of colloquial difputation; in examining into his effence and his nature with vain and idle curiofity, and questioning even the extent of his power.

IN religious, as well as philofophical enquiries, there are certain limits which propriety and a just sense of the human capacity will generally determine. To tranf grefs them in the former, is to enter the mazes of scepticism and error, or to blunt that internal fentiment which connects the worship of God, and our meditations on his glory, with the most exalted emotions of the heart. To pass beyond them in the latter, is to bewilder ourselves in the fanciful regions of hypothefis, and the wide bounds of poffibility. Let us not forget also, that the man who is ever ready to start the awful fubject of religion as a mat

ter

ter for argument, will certainly, in time, make it rather an exercife for his understanding, than acknowledge it as a divine law, given to us by the Lord of life, to regulate our actions, to purify our hearts. from fin, and lead us into all righteousness and true holiness.

NOR are these the only ill effects to be dreaded from this abuse of our faculties. Who does not witness almost daily, ❝ the "bitterness and wrath, the anger, clamor "and evil-speaking," that are occafioned by perverse and obftinate disputation on the moft frivolous and uninteresting topics? If we look back on paft times, we shall often find the pages of history blotted and difgraced with the memorial of horrid perfecutions and cruelty to individuals, arifing wholly from this evil propenfity of the mind. Let us remember, alfo, that primitive christianity was not corrupted, till some share of profperity had lulled its profeffors into a fort of indolent fecurity, and till men arose in the church fonder of ar

gument

gument and mystery, than of performing the practical duties of the gospel, or of adorning their profeffion by the salutary example of a holy life. It was amidst the jarring of contending principles and oppofite opinions, that the errors of popery came to maturity; the bands of focial, as well as religious union were diffolved, and in those evil days of darkness and confufion, the impoftor, MAHOMET, erected the banners of his empire, on the doctrines of the KORAN.

BUT what shall we fay of the mighty host of difputants that surround us now? All" fight the good fight of faith,' as they would perfuade themselves, but are so far from being "of one heart and one "mind," that they seem induftrious to find occafion for differing with each other. Contrary to the practice of those who were happy "to testify only what they knew," they are moft zealous in contending for what every one, who acts ingenuously, must own he knows little, or nothing of. It

fhould