were respectively promulgated. As if the punishments therein denounced against sinners were inadequate, and we therefore take upon ourselves to make up the deficiency by our crude and imperfect judgments.

If every man were at liberty to set up a tribunal of his own, and call before it the faults and miscarriages of his neighbours, would not this be to trench upon the authority of Him who is appointed to preside at that final investigation, when the grand audit shall be closed betwixt man and his Maker? Would it not be to interfere between the Almighty and his creatures? to insult Him by assuming, as it were, his authority, and to wrong them by subjecting them to a blind and utterly incompetent judgment? Can we think the law and the gospel, which have put forth such terrible threatenings against sinners, too restricted in their denunciations upon the guilt of evil-doers, that we add our contumelies, as if to fill up a measure which Omniscience had left incomplete? Can we put our hands upon our hearts, whilst we are traducing others, and conscientiously feel that " we are not in the same condemnation"?

If, to judge others, be "to judge the law," as the concluding words of the text declare, then he that doeth so, "is not a doer of the law, but a judge." Here we are placed upon a level with transgressors of the law, by judging that as imperfect which came from God himself, and thereby

66

violating it, by presuming to imagine that we can improve it, in supplying our censorious condemnations; as if the law itself had not sufficiently condemned. If we constitute ourselves judges of the law, we plainly usurp a privilege which no created being could ever rightly pretend to; and by thus claiming a presumptive authority, which is solely vested in God himself, we exalt ourselves, as it were, to an equality with Him. This is the drift of St. James's argument, in the words of our text. Judge not," says our blessed Saviour," and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned." And we are to note here, that the implied affirmative will be as certain as the negative expressed: that is, if we judge, we shall be judged; and if we condemn, we shall be condemned. Our condemnation, too, under such circumstances, will be perfectly just; since as we never can be in a condition to form an accurate estimate of the good or evil predominant in any human heart, so we can have no moral right to judge it. Our judgment is therefore a direct breach of the divine law, and, consequently, renders us subject to its penalties. "Judge nothing" then "before the time until the Lord come, who shall make manifest the counsels of the heart."

If we refer to the conduct of Him who "knew no sin," and was, therefore, a competent judge of sinners, because he was acquainted with their heart and all its secret springs of action, we shall every

where find how slow he was to condemn; that he was not so severe against any, as against those who set themselves up as judges of their fellow creatures, and arrogated to themselves a superior sanctity; whilst they hesitated not to pronounce all who happened to differ from them in doctrine and practice, as impious and accursed. Such, indeed, were severely rebuked by our blessed Lord: but let us turn to the scene where these sanctimonious pretenders brought before him, for condemnation, a wretched adulteress. Did he turn from her with contempt and reproaches? Did he taunt her with her infamy? Did he hold her up to reprobation and scorn? Did he shut her out from those sympathies which misery, under whatever aspect, claims from our common nature, or exclude her from those consolations which the contrite sinner never fails to receive from an offended but propitiated God? When, confounded and ashamed, the Scribes and Pharisees, who had made the accusation against her, left "Jesus alone, and the woman standing in the midst, he said unto her, Woman, where are thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord; and Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more."

Did he hesitate to make himself known to the Samaritan woman, because she had led an irregular and profligate life, seeing, as he did, within her the principles of future good? Did he discard

G

her from his presence, when a knowledge of him might reclaim her? Did he ever refuse to hold communion with publicans and sinners, when contrition rendered them fit objects of his condescension and favour? Were even the unclean forbidden to approach him? Can we say, however, that we judge of others with the same tenderness? Does even the most earnest repentance always win our favour or regain our lost esteem? Will the bitterest tears of contrition restore a fallen, forsaken creature to society, although the guilt of her fall has probably been much less hers than another's? Do we not daily behold the daring seducer received and caressed in the most polished circles of life, whilst the deceived and abandoned victim of his passions is exposed to neglect and infamy; driven perhaps to become familiar with the worst crimes, because absolutely excluded from all communion but with vice? Is this reasonable, is it just? nay, is it in accordance with the precepts of the gospel? And yet, how loudly is the voice of condemnation raised against those wretched beings, who owe their fall to the arts of others, and their continuance in guilt, most frequently, to the abhorrence with which they are almost universally treated. Who is there but speaks evil of them? Who is there but reproaches them? Who is there but despises them? Nor will the most earnest contrition on their parts, reverse the fiat of popular condemnation. Still they are God's creatures, as we

are they are Christians as we are;-and who shall presume to say that they are beyond the reach of God's mercy; more especially when we recollect that they have, for the most part, fallen victims to the vices of others? I hope it will be remembered, that I am alluding here only to penitent sinners of this class. It is moreover a melancholy fact, that although they are generally betrayed into guilt by the profligacy of our sex, they are too frequently continued in it by the neglect and reproaches of their own.

To many, who judge with extreme rigour of such unfortunate beings, the words of the prophet may be very justly applied: "Thou also, who hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame, for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou."

God forbid, that I should be thought to recommend communion with revolting profligacy! No! there are states of daring and intractable delinquency, from which female purity must shrink with consternation and abhorrence; but there are, nevertheless, conditions of guilt where virtue might step in to reclaim, instead of indulging in morose invective; and I have no hesitation in asserting, that, in all such cases, an endeavour to recover the delinquent should supersede a disposition to condemn.

Let me not, however, be misunderstood: I trust I cannot be. The sanctity of the function in which