ever allowed to be present when Esther made her charges against him.
There is a world-wide difference between the firm, indignant
disapprobation with which a virtuous mind regards an evil man, working
ill to all, and that malignant hatred which arises from selfishness and
envy, and which pursues with bitterness and cruelty all that does not
minister to its indulgence.

If it should seem strange to us that the national antipathy should so
long be cherished, we may remember that it is quite as strange that
national character should be thus faithfully transmitted through so many
generations; and those who so confidently predict a change of character
from the mere change of the circumstances of a people, may do well to
ponder the facts presented by the past history of the races of the
earth.

There are other contrasts between the characters of Mordecai and Haman.
Haman was superstitious, yet not religious. He was artful, selfish,
treacherous, bloodthirsty, corrupt himself and corrupting others,
ambitious and vain-glorious. Mordecai was pious, upright, conscientious;
fulfilling every duty, yet seeking no selfish aggrandizement, no wealth,
no personal honour--even when placed in circumstances where he might
claim them as a just reward--and never exerting an influence for selfish
purposes; still ready to forego and sacrifice all that was demanded at
the call of duty.

While we see in Mordecai the devoted worshipper of the true God, the
high-minded patriot, the man of inflexible integrity--an integrity that
scorned the bad acts that would minister to the pride of false
greatness--and a nobleness that rose above the desire for court
favours, the strong features of his character are softened into beauty