folly of those who remain satisfied with themselves, because they are no worse than other people. An argument of this sort is sometimes used, that it is not right to measure the conduct of men who live in one state of society, by those who live in a better. Thus, for instance, in former times men practised some things, which, in our eyes, are extremely wrong; but we ought not to condemn them severely, because the state of society was so different and so much lower than that of ours. This argument is very good, when properly applied, but we have nothing to do with it. It is true, that when Luther thundered out the bitterest condemnations against those who were opposed to him in the church, he was less to blame than those who imitate him now. He lived in an age when the harshest words were not considered persecution, and a man was regarded as mild enough if he refused to sanction outward severity. What we call persecution, and justly too, for reproach and scorn, and denunciations are to the mind what stripes and burning are to the bodywhat we call persecution was then not thought inconsistent in a good Christian. Luther partook of the error of his times; great and good as he was, he was not able to shake off all the follies and sins of his age. It is right that we should not condemn him for such errors as severely as if he lived now, when society has advanced in the knowledge of Christian principles. Again: fifty years ago, the slave-trade was considered right and proper, and had many an advocate in the Christian church. At that time, a man who engaged in it, was not necessarily a bad man, although he certainly was doing a bad and wicked thing; at least we should not condemn such an one with the same severity that we feel now toward those who continue it. Then it was common, and men did the wrong without thinking of it, as we must do now. But this is not at all a parallel case to ours. We judge men of less enlightened countries and times than our own, with mildness, because we judge them according to the light they had. They were in some respects in the darkness, and therefore stumbled. Now we believe that all Christendom is yet in some respects in darkness, i, e. some things are universally regarded as right, which, hereafter, when the spirit of Christ is more shed abroad, will be regarded as abominable sin, so that in future days we shall need the same leniency from our successors that we now show to those of former times. But wherein we have light, we are bound to walk as children of light. The question with us is-shall we do as well as we know how? or shall we make the ignorance or evil Do we custom of others a cloak for our sin? Suppose that we see some common practice-say, some mode of life or of business, which we were educated to think unchristian; shall we give up our Christian principles, merely because we can do so with impunity. God forbid. Or we find that outward religious demeanor is not so es ential to a good reputation, as where we formerly lived; shall we disregard the ordinances of religion, and come down to the level of others, because we can do so with impunity? How obvious the absurdity? Does a man's conscience change with his re idence? Do the words of Christ mean one thing here, and another somewhere else. Nay, by what rule are we to be judged hereafter?--by the customs and prejudices of other men, or by the knowledge of truth which we ourselves have? How is it with the judgment which con, science give? That generally decides well, if we give it a fair hearing, and bring the light of the gospel to bear upon it. Does it say, do as those around you think right; or as you yourself think right? Why, it is the plainest thing in the world,-what other people think and do, makes no manner of difference in respect to what is right or wrong to us. think such a thing right? then in God's name, let us do it. Do we think it wrong? though it be done by the whole world, as we value our Christian hope, let us hold back from it. "Let every man prove his own work, for every man must bear his own burden." If we lived in Egyptian darkness, it would be a different thing; we should be judged mildly even if we were irreligious and immoral. But who complains for want of light? There i: light every where. It forces itself into your houses, shining from the Go pel of Chri t, reflected from the lives of many who dared to live up to it; it is every where upon our paths. We cannot do wrong ignorantly. Unpunished we may go, because we may sia with the crowd. But if we despise religion, if we encourage intemperance, if we do any thing like to the se, it is with our eyes wide open, and there is not a single rational excuse which we can offer. Should we go too far, if we say that a man who conforms his principles and practice to those prevalent around him, whether such as his conscience approves or not, has in fact no virtue at all? Perhaps so-yet it is a fair conclusion, that if I go down in the scale as far as fashion will let me, I would go further down if fashion required. When a man takes other people's practices for his standard, where is his safety? To-day he is a good man, because he lives among a moral community; to-morrow he goes into another part of the world, and you would not know him! Virtue no longer commands a premium, and he will not buy it. Now, what was his morality worth when he had it? wherein was it better than any other fashion that he happened to fall into? Such custom followers are as likely to be imitators of vice as of goodness; and as far as their own merit is concerned, it does not seem to be much greater in one case than in the other. A truly virtuous man is virtuous every where, from principle, because he fears God, and fears to do wrong; and in proportion as the community in which he lives is careless in morality he is faithful to what he thinks right. And it is with this thought that we will conclude. We should be watchful in our own conduct in proportion as others are careless of theirs; if religion is often spoken against, we should always be ready to speak in its favor; if it is generally neglected, we should the more pay it respect. If the names of God and Christ are often lightly taken, we should so much the more let it be known that we respect and revere them; and so in every thing. Our testimony in favor of religion, its ordinances, and precepts, is so much the more important, the more they are disregarded. If we hold it back from fear, our conscience is inexpressibly contemptible. If from fashion, there is no further proof needed that we are mere time-servers. If from avarice, like Judas we are selling our Lord for money, and the price will be required at our hands. To every man who reads this, let the words come--Prove your own work! Look to your own conscience, obey Christ for yourself! Let neither fear, nor idleness, nor fashion, nor love of money, betray you into sin. Be faithful to your principles. W. G. E. ART. 8.-ODE TO APOLLO. BY JOHN KEATS. [The following beautiful poem is for the first time published from the original manuscript, presented to the Editor by the Poet's brother. ED.] God of the golden bow, And of the golden lyre, Of the patient year; Where, where slept thine ire When like a blank ideot I put on thy wreath, The light of thy story; Or was I a worm, too low crawling for death? The Thunderer grasped and grasped, The eagle's feathery mane, For wrath became stiffened-the sound Of breeding thunder, Went drowsily under, Muttering to be unbound--- O why didst thou pity, and for a worm Why touch thy soft te, Till the thunder was mute? Why was I not crushed-such a pitiful germ O Delphic Apollo! The Pleiades were up, Watching the silent air, The seeds and roots in the earth Were swelling for summer fare, The ocean, its neighbor, Was at its old labor, When-who, who did dare, To tie like a madman, thy plant round his brow? And grin, and look proudly, And blaspheme so loudly! And live for that honor, to stoop to thee now, ART. 9.-SINGULAR IGNORANCE ABOUT UNITARIANISM. One can hardly spend a single hour in company, even with well informed persons of the Trinitarian denominations, without seeing and lamenting their singular ignorance of Unitarian principles. Much as I have known and heard of the common ignorance and misrepresentation of our view, a case occurred within my observation the other day, that surpassed all my anticipations. I happened to be in a steamboat in company with several clergymen of the Presbyterian and Methodist denominations. As I was sitting on deck viewing the quiet beauty of the Onio, my attention was drawn to an earnest conversation on my left, between a gentleman who appeared to be a Deist, and two clergymen, one of whom I found to be a Methodist, and the other a Presbyterian. The conversation appeared to be on the ambiguou-ness of the Scriptures, and affecting their worth and truth. As the conversation grew warm, the attention of many of the passengers was drawn to it, and a circle of listeners was formed around the disputants. I will here mention but a single point of the discussion. The sceptical gentleman referred to the different interpretations which dif ferent sects put upon the Scriptures, and seemed to infer that a book which uttered such various and contradictory sentiments, could not be of much value. He spoke particularly of the Unitarian, who, as he said, held a belief entirely different from that of the gentleman with whom he was talking. The two clergymen, instead of endeavoring to show how all sects saw in the Bible a revelation of the same great principles of duty, cut the matter short, by denying that Unitarians were Christians. One of them said, that the Unitarians directly denied the declarations of the first chapter of John; and the other said that they did not believe in the Saviour. When this conversation ceased, I asked one of the clergymen who denied all just claim to Christianity to a body of professed Christians, whose faith I have always been accustomed to venerate, to tell me if he had examined the sentiments of the denomination he was condemning. He said yes, certainly I have read a great many of their publications, and have given their sentiments much reflection. I asked him if he would deny the Christian name to those who believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God and the messenger of his will, who trusted in the immortality brought to light |