had repaid by neglect, desertion, and open profligacy. Here the mother stands as creditor; and here too we will suppose the same generous friend to interfere, and to perform with the greatest tenderness and constancy all those duties of a grateful and affectionate son which James ought to have performed. Will this satisfy the mother's claims on James, or entitle him to her esteem, approbation and blessing? Or what if Matthew, the virtuous son, should at length address the mother to this purpose: Now,' I trust, you are appeased, and will be hence forward reconciled to James. I have satisfied all your claims on him; I have paid the debt in full-you will therefore receive him into your presence with the same love as if there had been no difference between him and you; for I have made it up. What other reply could the swelling heart of the mother dictate but this: "O misery! and is it possible that you are in league with my son to insult me? Must not the contrast of your merits magnify his demerit in his mother's eye, and at once recall and embitter the conviction of the canker-worm in his soul?

'If indeed by the force of Matthew's example, by persuasion, or by additional and more mysterious influences, or by any inward co-agency, compatible with the idea of personal will, James should be led to repent; if through conviction and love of this great goodness gradually assimilating his mind to the mind. of his benefactor, he should in his own person become a grateful and dutiful child-then doubtless the mother would be wholly satisfied! But then the case is no longer a question of things, or a matter of debt payable by another. Nevertheless the effect to

James is similar in both cases-in both cases James is liberated from a grievous burden; and in both cases he has to attribute his liberation to the act and free grace of another.' pp. 320-326.

Mr. Coleridge might perhaps have rendered his illustration more complete, by supposing that Matthew not only obeyed for James, but consented to suffer an equivalent to all the pains which a mother's heart could inflict on her undutiful son. Yet with this addition to the statement it would still be easy to see, that nothing which had been either done or suffered by the vicarious son,' could with any propriety be regarded as a ground on which the mother might approve or justify her disobedient James. But when the character of James was changed from a disobedient to a penitent, grateful and dutiful son, there was ground of approbation, and also of joy. Not approbation of what he was, but of what he now is. What he was is freely forgiven, and what he is cordially accepted and approved. This accords with our Saviour's more perfect illustration in the parable of the prodigal son. How then can it be true that the righteousness of Christ is the only ground of the sinner's justification'. R.

BLESSED ARE THE DEAD.

Come, gather to this burial-place, ye gay!
Ye, of the sparkling eye and frolic brow,
I bid ye hither. She who makes her bed

This day 'neath yon damp turf with flowers besprent,

Was one of you. Time had not laid his hand
On tress or brow, stamping their loveliness
With dire decay, till Death had naught to do
Save that slight office which the passing blast
Lends to the waning taper. No. Her cheek
Sham'd the young rose-bud; in her eye was light,
By gladness kindled; in her footsteps grace;
Song on her lips; affections in her breast,

Like young doves nesting. Yet from all she turn'd,
All she forsook, unclasping her fond hand

From Friendship's ardent pressure, with such smile
As if she were the gainer. To lie down
In this dark pit she cometh-dust to dust,
Ashes to ashes, till the glorious morn
Of resurrection.

Doubting do ye ask

Where is the blessedness? Go home, ye gay,
Go to your secret chamber, and kneel down,
And ask of God. Urge your request like him
Who on the slight raft mid the ocean foam
Doth plead for life. Prevent the hasting dawn,
And through the night-watch pray.

Then should ye find

That faith, whose fruit is love, that hope whose breast
Is radiant with the motto 'death is gain,'

Ye will no longer marvel that the friend

So beautiful, so lov'd, so lur'd by all

The pageantry of earth, could meekly see
A blessedness in death.

H.

A LETTER ON THE EXISTENCE AND RIGHTS OF

CHURCHES.

Mr. Editor: I have just been reading a small pamphlet called a Review of the Confession of Faith and Covenant of the First Church of Christ in Framinghain, Mass.' It has sug

gested to me some remarks which I will offer you in connexion with a little religious intelligence. It appears that the Church, whose Confession of Faith and Covenant are here reviewed, is in fact the second Church of Christ in Framingham, being the church of the second Society formed by seceders from the First. This is not the only instance in which orthodox churches have betrayed the worldly and childish ambition of calling themselves first, when all law and common sense declare them to be second. It is amazing that they do not see the folly and absurdity which this assumption involves. Just carry it out and see to what it leads. The first society in Framingham loses a part or the whole of its church members by secession. This secession attaches itself to a new society, or creates a new society. What should this society be called? not the first, but the second society, all allow, if it be called either. But the church chooses to call itself the first. So we have here a first church in a second society! But the first society have now a church. What church? Not the first of course, for that has gone. No, this is the second church of the first society in Framingham! nonsense, the whole of it. Take another view of it. Dr. Beecher has determined to remove to Ohio, because he thinks, Boston and New England will be safer without him, than Cincinnati and the West,' as he declared in my hearing in a public discourse, giving the reasons for and against his going. This no doubt is a sufficient reason why he should go. But suppose his whole church should deem it a sufficient reason for their going with him, or should remove from any other cause. Suppose when they reach Cincinnati, they should connect themselves with a new society or form one, and still call themselves the 'Evangelical Church in Bowdoin Street,' or whatever name they now bear. If the absurdity of this is too glaring an account of a particular street being named, you have only to suppose it to be now the first, second, or third church, and then imagine it to adhere pertinaciously to its present title, after its removal to Ohio. How preposterous! you say, And yet why should a mere difference in distance make all this difference in the right and wrong, the wisdom and folly of the measure?

The plain truth seems to be this. Every church belongs

to some religious society, grows out of that society, and is essentially a part of that society. So long as it remains connected with that society, it continues to be a church. But as soon as it separates itself from that society, it is no longer a church, or at least no longer the same church. It may join a new society, or create one, but even then, I am inclined to think, it must be duly organized as a church, before it can take the name and properties of a church. And this is a point to which I wish particularly to call attention. To my mind it is involved in some difficulty, which I should be pleased to have removed. I am not an enthusiast for forms. I would not, if I could, bind all or any to the observance of particular forms. I do not believe it essential that every christian church should be organized and governed in one fixed mode. I find no particular mode established by the head of the church or used by his Apostles, and as to the platforms, confessions, and various rules which men have devised, I believe those only are bound by them who choose to be. Let them have them if they will for their own use, but let them not impose them on others. Let nothing be thrown in the way of the great objects of all religious institutions, the free action of the truth upon free minds. Still all will admit that some rules are needed if not enjoined, and that those at least who profess to observe rules ought to be consistent. Now I would ask if it be consistent with any known ecclesiastical rules, for a church to leave its connexion with the society out of which it grew, form itself into another society with another name, and still remain the same church without any organization or new steps of any kind.

To make myself clearly understood, let me take an actual ease. In one of the towns in Worcester county, a large society, which has been supposed to be orthodox, and in the articles of its church was orthodox, declared itself lately by a great majority to be liberal, dismissed its Orthodox minister and employed Unitarian preachers. The church all seceded; for in this case as in many others none had been able to join the church except those who would subscribe to Calvinistic articles. The seceders have formed a new society under a new name. The church has taken all the church furniture and re