I have said, you will choose to give your influence to that system which produces the better effects. This you will choose to do for two reasons.

1. You will prefer the society of the good, to that of the bad; of the better, to that of the worse. You will prefer it, because it will be the more pleasing to you. You will expect to derive more pleasure from the company of those, who think of God, and strive to promote the glory of God and the good of men, of those who are the friends of God and man; than from the company of those who prefer themselves to God, and their own interest, to his glory and the good of mankind.

You will also prefer the society of the pious to that of the impious, because it will be more useful to you. You well know the force of example; that it gives a fascinating appearance to what is vile, and wicked, and dangerous; that it fixes the character, sometimes for respectability, and sometimes for the opposite. You know, that the heart is better affected by a good, than by a bad example. And do you not think, that you shall prepare yourself for a happier old age, and death-bed, by associating with the serious and prayerful, than with those who cast off all serious thought of God? You will also regard the influence, of associating with the pious and virtuous, on your family. You would place a child of yours under the instruction of a tutor who is even too scrupulously temperate, rather than of one who is intemperate. Will you not, then, on the same principle, associate yourself and family with those who honor God more, rather than with those who honor God less? Shall you not part with your children, and family, at your own demise, or at their deaths, with a clearer conscience, if you reflect that you have surrounded them with men whom God loves, and who love and obey God, than if you reflect, that you have placed them in such situations that they have looked up to irreligious men as their patterns? Would you feel consoled and happy, to leave to your children, as they surround your bed in your last moments, such instructions as the following? My dear children, I have spent my life in acting for those who would not pray to God, nor strive to promote His cause, nor omit one single self-gratification for Him; who would not pray, nor labor for the spiritual and temporal interests of their fellow men. I have, by my influence and example, opposed those, who I believe have, with sincerity, performed these duties. And I am now going to meet my God. My dying counsel to you is, that you oppose, as I have done, the active friends of your Creator; and favor, as I have done, those of his professed friends, who refuse to act for him, who disobey his commands, and vilify his sincere and devoted servants."!

I will even put the case on another ground. I will suppose that you doubt (although no rational being can doubt) whether the acts

which I have specified be duties to God. Even if you doubt this, it will be prudent for you to perform them, if you regard your true interest, you will perform them; for the performance of them cannot be injurious, and it may be beneficial. Are you not on the safe side, when you perform that which may be useful, and cannot be hurtful? It is the safer way, reasons Bishop Butler, to conduct as if there were a future state, whether we believe in one or not; for there may be one, and our conduct will, in this event, be beneficial to us, while, in no event, can it be injurious. So it is safer to conduct as if the acts I have specified were duties, as such conduct may be beneficial, and cannot be injurious, to us; and, especially, as the opposite conduct may be injurious, but cannot be beneficial. If, then, it be the dictate of prudence for you, Sir, to perform these acts, is it not the dictate of prudence to connect yourself and family with those who perform them, and refuse to associate with a body of men, whose example will tend to lead you and your family to neglect them? If you wish to pursue a safe, a useful, a pleasing course, you will associate with those, who not only inculcate, but practise these duties; and, if you wish to glide along, in a dangerous, an unsatisfactory, an injurious course, you will unite with these, who neither inculcate nor practise these duties. Undoubtedly, you will prefer the former.

2. The second reason why you will prefer to give the sanction of your name to that system which produces on its adherents the better effects, is this; the more beneficial system is the true system. Either the Liberal or the Orthodox system, it is admitted, is the true system. That system which is from God, is true; that which is from man, is false. We know that God gave us His system to have a good influence upon us, to promote piety in our hearts, and make us obedient to him. This was the design of the Deity in giving us a revelation. Here then, are two systems; one of them (which, is yet to be determined,) is beneficial, the other is injurious; or, in milder language, one is more beneficial than the other. And one of them is from God, and the other, not. Is that from God which does not accomplish the designs of God, which is not beneficial; and is that from man which does accomplish the designs of God, which is beneficial, far more so than the other? Has man devised a system of truths, differing from that of Omniscience, and better adapted to promote the designs of Omniscience, than its own? Is man wiser than Wisdom? Is he more benevolent than Infinite Love? Will God bless a system directly contrary to the true one; and nullify the force of those doctrines which are true, and which He has taught? From falsehoods of men, will good effects flow; and from the eternal truths of heaven-truths given to us at vast expense, will no good effects, or but inferior good effects, proceed?

As either the Liberal or the Orthodox system is from God,

and as reason teaches that the system which, in the better manner, answers the design of God, is from Him; so the Bible teaches, that the system which is adapted the more effectually to promote piety, is divine; and that which is not adapted to promote piety, is not divine. The whole current of Scripture forces the conviction upon our minds, that the doctrines which God has revealed are "profitable," and "perfect, converting the soul;" that false systems are ruinous, "causing" men "to err by their lies, and by their lightness," and that those, who teach false systems, "shall not profit the people at all." It is as evident from Scripture, that a true system cannot, unless wickedly abused, produce evil effects, and a false system good effects, as that "a good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, and a corrupt tree good fruit." And just so certain as that "every good and every perfect gift cometh down from the Father of lights," is it, that the beneficial system of religion is from Him, and the system not so beneficial, is not from Him. According to the Scriptures, that system which, in proportion as it prevails, is found to promote piety, is true; and that which is found to tolerate and encourage sin, is false. You will, of course, give your influence to that system which is true. Which system, then, produces the better effects? Under the ministrations of which are men found to be the more pious and virtuous? Look, my dear Sir, around you. Compare the spirit of Orthodoxy with the spirit of Unitarianism and Universalism, and decide which exerts the holier influence. Ascertain, whether to human view, God has as many devoted, humble friends, in an Evangelical as in a Unitarian college. Ascertain for yourself, whether the piety in a town which enjoys an Orthodox ministry only, exceeds the piety in a town which enjoys a Liberal ministry only. Look into your own town, and compare the religious feelings, which are exhibited by the members of the opposing societies. You find a broad line between them, in feeling and practice, as well as in speculation. I say not, whether the wolves in sheep's clothing are on the Unitarian and Universalist, or on the Orthodox side of the line. Search for yourself, my dear Sir, and go resolutely over to that side where holiness and piety prevail.

Suffer me now to name a few particulars, in respect to which it will be proper for you to institute a comparison between the two sects in your divided town.

1. And, first, I will mention RELIGIOUS MEDITATION AND gen

ERAL SERIOUSNESS OF DEPORTMENT.

While on earth, and liable, every moment, to be taken from it, while a great and good Being, above us, and around us, continually protects us from unseen dangers, it is unquestionably our duty, and a duty which no man who is conscious of the dignity of his nature can resist, to think much and often of our future prospects, and of our bountiful Preserver. The habitual practice of this duty uni

formly produces a seriousness of demeanor, and a disposition to devote our time, not to indolence and jesting, but to useful actions. "Be soberminded" is a command which is written, on the pages of the Bible, and on the character of Christ, and of his apostles, and of every good man. As far then, Sir, as you are able to judge of internal feeling by outward action, who, do you decide, are the more disposed to serious thought, and religious meditation; and who the more indisposed to levity, and hilarity, and boisterous mirth, the Liberal, or the Orthodox? Who prefer religious meetings, or solitary retirement for religious thought, to the diversions of the bowling-alley, and card-table? Who the more vehemently oppose, and who wink at, scenes of theatrical amusement? Whose conversation has the more of a serious cast, and whose is the more tinctured with a spirit of ridicule of the pious and devout? Is it natural for the Unitarians and Universalists to be grieved in spirit by hearing the Orthodox laugh and jest on solemn subjects-death, eternity, and human sins? Or is the reverse the case? Who feel the more at home, when in conversation on serious themes, and when rebuking the contemptuous spirit of the scoffer at religion? And who feel the more at home, and excel the more, in jesting, and bantering, and profane mirth? If the Liberal system makes men prefer serious to vain conversation, solemnity to hilarity, religious thought to the ridicule of sober religion; and if Orthodoxy, as its general characteristic, encourages frivolity and thoughtlessness, and fails to produce that delight in solemn worship, which Unitarianism and Universalism inspires; then is the Liberal system from God, and the Orthodox from man: or else man has devised a system, better adapted to promote the good of the world, and to prepare for death and eternity, than a perfect God has devised.

2. As God is the greatest and best being in the universe, and as we are under infinite obligations to him for creating and preserving us, we are bound to love him supremely; and, consequently, when occasion offers, to delight in denying ourselves for the promotion of his cause. Did our Saviour, during his mission on earth, sweat great drops of blood, and die for the cause of God; and shall not we suffer some trifling inconveniences, that we may extend our Saviour's name, and plant the mild system which he brought, on that soil which Mohammedanism and Paganism have whitened with bones, and in those hearts on which Popery presses its leaden hand? Fix it in your mind, Sir, that unless a man deny himself, and take up his cross, he cannot be a disciple of Christ; and that the Gospel system is designed to make disciples of Christ. And then ascertain, WHICH OF THE TWO OPPOSING SYSTEMS MAKES THE GREATER NUMBER OF SELF-DENYING DISCIPLES; and you will have conclusive evidence that this is God's system. Under the ministration, then, of which of these systems, in your town, does the love of God and man rise so high, as to become a spirit of self-denial for the cause of religion? Both the Liberal

and the Orthodox profess to desire the prevalence of the Gospel throughout the earth. Both confess, that, if the Gospel thus prevails, it must be extended by the use of means-the sacrifice of property and of ease, in circulating the Scriptures, and preaching the Gospel, throughout the world. Who, then, in your town, appear to desire most earnestly the spread of the Gospel among the nations, that the intemperate, the profane, the impure, the wicked in every form, and everywhere, may be changed, and humbled, and purified, and saved? Who are the more cheerful, and the more liberal contributors of their bounty to the holy work of evangelizing the world; of pulling down the carcassfounded temples of heathen deities, and erecting, everywhere, the peace-giving banner of Christ? And who give the more generously for the more extensive spread of the Gospel in our own land? Who are the more inclined to consider it a privilege to pay the ministerial tax, in your town; and who are the more inclined to repine and complain, when the collector visits them? Calculate, as far as you are able, the income of your fellow citizens; ascertain which is the greater, that of the Orthodox or of the Liberal; and then ascertain which denomination contributes most, in proportion to its property and numbers, to religious uses.

I imagine that you have completed the investigation, and that I hear you say, The Orthodox are not so much disposed, as the Liberal, to retrench the expenses of their tables, of dining parties, of balls, dancing schools, and theatrical amusements, that they may deliver from the galling yoke of superstition, millions of wretched and perishing men. And what aggravates the guilt of the Orthodox is, they neglect these duties, when they can perform them without being ridiculed and taunted by the Liberal, as the Liberal, for their self-denying spirit, are ridiculed and taunted by the Orthodox. I only say, then, my dear Sir, if this representation is just, JOIN THE SOCIETY OF THE LIBERAL. Their conduct so much resembles that of the self-denying Saviour, that you cannot innocently oppose them. But think again;-Is the representation just?

3. Ascertain, Sir, as far as you are able, which society is the

MORE FRAYERFUL.

No one will deny, that they, who are in the regular habit of humble prayer, secret and public, are more acceptable to God, than those who are negligent of the command, to "pray without ceasing" and still more than they, who, when they dare, ridicule the performance, and evince their dislike of the duty.

If, then, you wish to determine which system was given by the prayer-commanding God, determine which has the more praying adherents. You can easily determine, by a person's deportment and conversation, whether he be frequent in converse with God. Who demean themselves in such a manner as proves them to be often at the mercy seat; and who, in such a manner as proves