latter. To refute the Roman Catholic argument, we must appeal to the understanding, and to the principles of common sense; and tried by this standard, the trinity falls at once. D. N. C.

UNITARIAN INSTALLATION AND ORDINATIONS.

June 24. Rev Benjamin Huntoon, installed as Minister of the Independent Congregational Society in Bangor, (Me.) Services on the occasion by Messrs Everett of Hallowell, Nichols of Portland, Mason of Castine, and Frothingham of Belfast.

June 30. Mr Jason Whitman from the Theological School in Cambridge, ordained as Pastor of the Second Congregational Parish in Saco, (Me.) Introductory Prayer and Reading the Scriptures, by Mr Thompson of Natick; Sermon, by Mr Gannett of Boston, from Matt. v, 13; Ordaining Prayer, by Dr Nichols of Portland; Charge, by Mr Whitman of Billerica; Right Hand of Fellowship, by Mr Lathrop of Dover; Address to the People, by Mr Everett of Hallowell.

July 7. Mr George Putnam, from the Theological School in Cambridge, ordained as Colleague Pastor with Rev Dr Porter, over the First Parish in Roxbury. Prayer, by Dr Gray of Roxbury; Reading of the Scriptures, by Mr Austin of Brighton; Sermon, by Mr Dewey of New Bedford; Ordaining Prayer, by Mr Osgood of Sterling; Charge, by Dr Ware of Cambridge; Fellowship of the Churches, by Mr Newell of Cambridge; Address to the People, by Mr Parkman of Boston; Concluding Prayer, by Mr Capen of South Boston.

RELIGION, ILLUSTRATED BY A COMPARISON OF IT WITH OTHER QUALITIES AND OBJECTS.

NO. V. EVIDENCES OF PIETY AND VIRTUE.

6

The subject to which I shall invite the attention of my readers in this number, is usually described by the phrase, Evidences of piety,' or 'Evidences of vital religion.' And so much has the subject been narrowed, far indeed within the limits of broad and rational comparison, that I have no doubt, that the addition of the word, virtue, to the description, at once puts a somewhat different aspect on the inquiry. How much would this effect be increased, if I had stated the subject to be, evidences of worth, excellence, or goodness! There is a spell imposed by much of the prevailing religious phraseology, from which the mind can be disenchanted, only by carrying out the whole subject into its broad relations, and by bringing religion, as a principle, into free comparison, with other mental qualities and operations.

VOL. II.-NO. III.

Of all topics, too, connected with religious experience, this of its evidence, perhaps, has been involved in the greatest difficulty. Many books have been written upon it—and multitudes have read them, and, I suppose, are still reading them, with the most painful solicitude and uncertainty. There are intrinsic, moral difficulties, undoubtedly, for it is not easy to be thoroughly acquainted with ourselves. But there are difficulties, that are quite extraneous to this great question; difficulties that have resulted from circumstances, and that do not properly belong to an inquiry into the interior character. These will claim some attention, before we enter upon the immediate question.

If I were fully to trace these obstacles to the right and satisfactory judgment of our religious character, I should go back almost to the sources of religion itself. It certainly would be important to remember, that the predecessor of our system of religion, was Judaism. How many extraneous considerations, affecting the question of his piety and acceptance with God, were there in the mind of a Jew!

Had he been

Had he paid Had he kept the

regularly up to the temple to worship? the due offerings at the altars?

whole ritual? Above all, was he Jew?

Religion was

very much a national affair. It consisted, very much, in the apprehension of a Jew, in belonging to the chosen people. It consisted very much, therefore, with all prosolytes to Judaism, in the bare event, the bare fact of their proselytism. It was, of course, mixed up with many extraneous, foreign considerations. It was not the simple question, with a man, whether he were a good and pious man.

Amidst the institutions of this religion, Christianity had its origin. Not that christianity is for a moment to be confounded with Judaism. The difference between them was immense. Nothing, perhaps, more strongly characterizes and proves the divinity of our Saviour's mission, than his bringing out from the narrow pale of Judaism, the broad and beneficent system of the gospel. He could not have obtained it from earth, and we believe, therefore, that he must have received it from heaven. But still the promulgation of this system, was made in language, and was attended by circumstances, that tended to give it an appearance somewhat analagous to the Jewish peculiarity. There was, as I have said, in a former article, a proselytism, a conversion, which was marked, not by the inward, and almost imperceptible process of experience, but by epochs, by events and dates. There were, also, two classes of men in religion, the believers and the unbelievers. There was, moreover, a system and a sect arising. And the question, with a man concerning his religion, was not simply, whether he was an excellent and devout man, but also, whether he belonged to this sect; whether he had adopted this system; whether he had been converted; whether he were a proselyte? It will be easily perceived, that all this must have given somewhat of a peculiar and circumstantial character to religion in those days; that these circumstances must have connected with the simple question of a man's goodness or badness of character, many things that are extraneous and foreign to the matter.

I conceive, that these observations have an important bearing, as upon several other subjects, so in particular

ter.

upon the evidences of piety. The question of piety is mixed up with matters that do not belong to it. It is not viewed in those broad relations; it is not brought to that simple issue, in which we are accustomed to contemplate and determine other parts of the characWe may decide, not as easily perhaps, but we may decide on as simple and natural considerations, and by as obvious rules, whether we have piety, as whether we have intelligence; whether we have a sound judgment, or a bright genius; whether we have a love of science, or a taste for the arts. But we do not so decide. At least, men generally do not. They do not divest the question of piety, of every thing technical, and peculiar, and circumstantial, and make it just as plain and practical, as any question they can ask about their character. They imagine that the inquiry into religious character, is to proceed upon very different principles; that it is something singular and strange; that it calls upon a man to sit down and examine himself, in some unusual and almost preternatural way.

Thus, for instance, a man says, 'how shall I know whether I am a christian? Now to test the peculiarity that is conceived to belong to this question, let us put it in another form. How shall I know whether I am an honest man, a good man, a kind neighbor, a useful citizen, an affectionate relative, a disinterested friend? How shall I know whether I am temperate and virtuous in my habits, and forbearing, gentle and pure in my affections? How shall I know what' feelings I cherish toward my Maker; whether I feel and cultivate a true reverence and love for him; whether I pray to him, and love to pray? Now these questions,