less emphasis of expression than he has used in setting forth the effects, which I believe would become apparent among us, if all our children were taught of the Lord; and if we who call ourselves the disciples of Christ, (instead of building up schemes and systems of divinity, in which the influence of the classics, the schoolmen, and the polemics is more or less obvious,) would all of us, as brethren and equals, go, sit at Jesus' feet, and learn of him.

NEW AND FEEBLE SOCIETIES.

It is a question of painful interest, how the many little religious societies which are now formed in every denomination are to be supported, and what influence their rapid increase will have on religion and the best interests of the community. There is no reflecting Christian, or good citizen, who does not often ask this question of himself or others at the present day. The fact of the existence of such societies which cannot support themselves the fact also that they are multiplying with every month, cannot be overlooked or questioned. One of the late Orthodox reports states that there are as many as seventy, I think, of these 'feeble churches' within their own denomination in

this state. How many there are in other denominations, I know not; enough to show that the evil is general. And how is this evil to be corrected? Or, can it be so regarded and treated as to prove, not an evil, but rather a blessing?

Some there are who do so regard it, who see no thing in the multiplicity of these little societies to awaken apprehension or cause regret, but quite the opposite. If we may judge from what we see, we should infer that most of those who call themselves Orthodox take this view of the matter, and rejoice in it. They certainly are persevering enough in promoting the formation of such societies. I believe it is their avowed principle, as a body, to advise and help the organization of a distinct church, the erection of a new house, and all the furniture of a separate ministry, wherever 'there are two or three gathered together.' In not a few instances they seem to observe this rule to the very letter. We do not wish them to suffer for it; at least, we do not wish religion to suffer in their hands, or any hands. But we are persuaded they are suffering and will suffer much more. We are persuaded they find it extremely difficult to keep these churches alive, and that they will be compelled, as we believe they have already been compelled in some places, to abandon them entirely. We are persuaded that some of their prominent men regret that so much has been done in this way. We know indeed that some of them have never given this measure their countenance. They have disapproved of it, they have discouraged it, they have even half advised their people to remain quietly under Unitarian preaching, rather than separate when they cannot exist by themselves. Such instances are rare, it is true, very rare. But there are some thus minded, and there would be many, we must think, if they were not afraid or unwilling to oppose the great body of their brethren. Nor can we won

der at some timidity and reluctance of this kind; for this independence would no doubt put to hazard their good name and their comfort, if not their places and support.

Now all this is as much at variance with the spirit of Christianity, with the nature and purposes of religion, as words can express. We cannot conceive of any course better calculated to break up the good institutions and good habits of the people of New England than this. It will inevitably bring a large portion of the community into a state of feeling unfavorable to all religion, unfavorable to everything but party and contention. It is having that effect already, and any man with but one eye half open must see it. Nay, we believe many do see it who have advocated and helped these measures, and that nothing prevents their acknowledging it but self-will and party-will. And is religion to be sacrificed to these? Are the peace, prosperity, and very existence of our churches and most precious institutions to be brought into jeopardy, on account of speculative differences, for the triumph of a name or of numbers? Or, supposing these differences are not regarded as merely speculative by our opposing brethren; supposing they consider them as practical and vital, and are therefore bound in conscience and duty to contend for them; still, let me ask, is there nothing else practical and vital? Is all truth and all goodness so involved in these contested points, that to cease to be zealous for them, is to cease to be zealous for religion? In other words, is it a fact-I put it to the consciences of the fomenters and advocates of separation-is it a fact, that they would think

it better to scatter the people of a mixed society, and expose them to the danger of having no religious ministrations at all, or at least very feeble, irregular, and inefficient ministrations, than to permit them to remain in the quiet enjoyment of stated services, but services of a suspected or decidedly heretical cast? Do they think heresy a greater evil than infidelity, an imperfect religion worse than no religion?

That some of their conduct looks like this, and that some of their assertions imply it, cannot be denied. And if it be so, they may soon have an opportunity to make the experiment. Let them go on dividing towns and rending churches, building here a house where there are not persons enough of their own denomination to keep it open and in repair; forming there a church of three women and one man, drawn from as many different towns ;-let them pursue this course, as poor in policy as it is in religion, and in ten years, they will have more churches than they can provide, even with a literal two or three' worshippers; and what is infinitely worse, they will expose numbers of every name to all the evils of indifference, discontent, skepticism, and mutual reviling. Than this few things are more certain. During the present outbreakings of temper and the first heats of opposition, men may consent to bear heavy burdens, and put up with many inconveniences and trials. But if human nature is what it used to be, if it is one half or one twentieth as bad as the Orthodox say it is, men will not submit long to these burdens and sacrifices for mere party's sake; and their weariness and revolt, whenever they come, will shake if they do not pros

trate all their interest in religion, and drive them away even from its outward support.

Ah yes, say the Orthodox to these predictionsyes, you say this because you see our societies so rapidly multiplying, our opinions irresistibly advancing— and you fear for the safety of your tottering fabrics! To this rhetoric, I will venture to offer for myself a short answer in the tangible shape of a fact. Never were so great exertions made by the Orthodox, and never can they make greater, than were made the last year. Now I can enumerate ten, I believe fifteen parishes, in only two counties, which have dismissed or bought off their Orthodox ministers within the last six months, and in direct consequence of those extravagant measures and desperate exertions. Most of these parishes have sent already for Unitarian preachers. Others have votes enough to do it and would do it, if they did not fear the evil of which I have been speaking, the weakening and distracting of all their religious forces and privileges. The demand for Unitarian ministers is very great and every week increasing. There is the fact. Take it and make what you can of it. If you can twist it into discouragement, failure, and fear on our part, do it. If not, seek some other explanation, take some more tenable ground.

No, the predictions and apprehensions which we have here expressed, concern the great truths of our common faith, the interests of our common nature, and not those of our or your party. We should despise ourselves inexpressibly, if for the sake of multiplying our churches and extending our party statistics, we could lend ourselves to the sordid work of feeding dis