conscience; in addition to which she has preserved her order of ministry in its apostolic succession." This applies to the Ancient Brethren's Church. In reference to the Renewed Church of the Brethren, you mention only the experiences of the 13th of August 1727. It is true, that you allude to many other examples or evidences of the Lord's work among our forefathers an hundred years

ago; but in your whole subsequent communication (pardon me if

I cannot draw any other inference from your remarks) every thing that is peculiar to the Renewed Brethren's Church in her institutions and doctrine, is regarded by you as belonging to that with which you cannot coincide in principle. You say," that the peculiar external institutions of the Renewed Brethren's Church, her exclusiveness, her character of being a mere religious Society (within the Church), which in reference to our German branch of the Church you recognise, had been assumed by political necessity alone, in consequence of existing relations upon the European continent, and that this character had been erroneously, from mere force of habit, engrafted upon our American Brethren's Church,from her first origin." You further state, "that this had been a misfortune, that her activity had thereby been limited, her energies crippled, and her spiritual life well nigh extinguished." Hence you do not approve of her external peculiarities in reference to this country, and, therefore, in accordance with your principles or views, you must earnestly desire that these peculiarities of our Church be entirely cast aside in this country.

Now this is the first point, which I wish to examine in its practical bearing, and where I desire above all things to be correctly understood. I abstain at present from all enquiry whether your views on this question be correct or not, that is, whether it be really or not an error or misfortune, that our brethren carried along with them to America, and, as you admit, partly still retain, these our peculiar institutions, which properly admit of our being only a religious Society, and not an independent Church in the full sense of the word. Here I would put this question: What are the practical results necessarily connected with your views? The most natural and simple answer is:-We must give up or abrogate all those institutions which still tend to give to our Church (to express myself briefly) this character of "exclusiveness;" I mean by this expression everything that prevents the unlimited extension of our Church in the United States. None, I presume, will deny that this is a necessary consequence of your views, if they are to be reduced to practice. But now another question arises: What are those peculiar institutions which we ought to give up or cast aside? Perhaps you and many others with you will reply, that no such institutions actually exist, and that all that is requisite, is, to ackknowledge the erroneous principles or views, and then all difficulties in practice would at once disappear; or, in other words, you will

perhaps say "if our authorities, to whom the superintendence of our Church in this country is entrusted, would only consent to surrender these erroneous views, the natural consequence would be, that all the above practical results would be removed, and our Church thus at once become truly independent, and free to extend herself without any trammels whatever." But this conclusion would be a most mistaken one. Our whole ecclesiastical organization bears rather the stamp of an ecclesiola, or religious Society-than that of a Church, or ecclesia. In the same manner as a board of missions, or of a Tract Society directly appoints their missionaries or colporteurs, and agrees with them in reference to their maintenance, so it is done by the P. E. C., which is furthermore bound, by virtue of the constitution of our Church, to use the lot when making appointments to office.

Now, do you really wish to transfer our use of the lot to a Church which you design to spread over our whole country? Apart from the unavoidable difficulties, connected with the use of the lot in the appointments to office, (difficulties, which I can assure you, I have fully experienced during a period of nearly twenty years, without, however, intending by this to say, that I am ready to vote in favor of the abolition of the lot) how can it be expected, that a widely extended Church can practically carry out or even exist with our views on the use of the lot? Again-the P. E. C. tenders an appointment to a brother, and this conference is and must be held responsible to him for defraying his traveling expenditures, his often very inadequate support in the place where he has been appointed to labor, for the education of his children, and for an all but insufficient sustentation of himself or his widow in old age, or in sickness. Now, if our brethren who are in active service, are all willing to renounce these just claims and if our congregations consent, not merely in words, but actually and by deed, to assume all these responsibilities in caring for our ministers, then a considerable extension of our Church might be possible, even under her existing institutions.

But if, as experience has hitherto proven, these presuppositions cannot be made, it follows as a necessary consequence from your principles, dear brethren, that a radical change must be made in our present ecclesiastical organization, includiny also an entire separation from our parent Church in Europe! But it is not my present design, on the one hand, to point out these consequences as results to be dreaded, nor on the other, as such which I would advise to be adopted; but my sole object is, to direct your attention and that of all who have declared similar views, to the fact, that if you expect the authorities of our church to relinquish those views or principles of the character of our Church which are objected to by you, you require something of them, which they cannot in fact consent to do, while they are bound to conform to the constitution

of the Church, as existing at present. And, as you yourselves admit, that this character of "exclusiveness," or of constituting a mere religious society, has been impressed upon our American Church also from the beginning, I cannot readily perceive how you can justly deprecate any attempt, by means of the Church Miscellany, to "re-ingraft" this character upon our Church. The impression of this character has not yet been effaced, but on the contrary, it is still most distinctly stamped upon the face of our entire ecclesiastical organization, to the present day; and it is not improbable, that there are still to be found among us those, who most fondly cherish this very characteristic trait, and who, therefore, also have the right to be heard in our public papers. This remark leads us back to our original enquiry. While the above peculiarities of our Church are still most dear and precious to some of our members, you openly declare, that you are not in favor of them, and that they have sprung from error, and led to most unfortunate consequences. Hence, it is evident, that your love to our Church cannot be founded upon these peculiarities.

Now, as it cannot be denied, that the above peculiarities belong, at least in a great degrce, to externals (although in all earthly relations, and owing to human imperfection, internal and external things are often most intimately connected, yea the former cannot manifest themselves without assuming some outward form), the following question concerns us nearly: "Whether our Church have some other, more internal peculiarities, which constitute not only the distinguishing features between her and other churches, and which must essentially adhere to her, if she is at all to be a distinct Church, but which have drawn thousands to seek our little Zion, or, if born or brought up within her pale, to love and revere her to this day, and to deem it a privilege by grace to belong to her fold? And here I must candidly state, that I have in vain sought for such a distinguishing feature or peculiarity as recognised by you in your communication; as, upon the whole, you no where point out any one positively peculiar characteristic of our present Church, except where you refer to her labors in the missionary and diaspora fields, which are after all mere fruits, (albeit of the noblest kind), of the tree, but not the tree itself, and besides are not the exclusive property of this tree. All that I can infer from your remarks, is merely a declaration of what is not, or at least ought not to be, the peculiar character of our Church, although it has been hitherto represented as such.

You state- "It is said, that the word or the doctrine of the cross is such a distinguishing peculiarity of the Brethren's Church." That this is in truth the fact, you directly deny, and, in this respect, you make use of stronger language than is consonant with my feelings at least, if I bear in mind, that on this very point everything depends upon a correct understanding of the meaning of words.

You proceed to ask: "What constitutes preaching the cross?" But you do not answer this question directly, unless by your asserting, that "the word of the cross has been proclaimed among us in a one-sided manner:" Now this may mean as if you had said: "there is doubtless a certain doctrine of the cross which has been proclaimed among us, and upon which it is needless to expatiate at length, as it is well known to us; but this is a "one-sided" doctrine, this doctrine of the cross, as we preach it, is "rhapsodical," as John Wesley said, it is unsystematic, not always plain and clear, not decided and intelligible?" You declare, hence, that there is such a doctrine proclaimed among the brethren, a so-called doctrine of the cross, but, which has not only borne but few good fruits ("our preaching is so little awakening"), but has even "nurtured the poisonous serpent of Antinomianism in our midst, so that its deadly "virus already affects us in every limb!"

This strong language cannot possibly refer to single cases only, but to the manner of preaching as generally prevalent in our Church, i. e. it is a decided censure of that doctrine, which has in general been regarded as the doctrine of the cross in the Brethren's Church, although of course, neither at present nor perhaps at any previous time has it been thus viewed by all. What you state concerning the true character of the doctrine of the cross, contains much to which I can subscribe with all my heart, but it is not represented by you as peculiar to our Church, but, on the contrary you must distinctly protest against any attempt of doing so. And thus you deny to the Brethren's Church all claim whatever of possessing any peculiarities of doctrine worthy of commendation, and, as it seems to me, according to your representation, there remains absolutely not one positively essential, i. e., distinguishing feature of the Renewed Brethren's Church, which meets with your approbation. I must, therefore, freely declare, that your entire article has in this respect a radically negative tendency, and that I cannot perceive, how, according to your views, any peculiarities whatever do still belong to the Brethren's Church, as she is now, and as, since her renewal she has ever been constitu ted, which can in any wise elicit our love, veneration and sacrifice for her sake. Yea, furthermore, I cannot see what remnants, according to your views, of a Brethren's Church can at all remain, constituting an independent Church, and one designed to extend herself in America. And do you not indicate the same, by representing the Puritan churches "as most eminently biblical, faithful in their teachings, most marvellously consistent throughout their whole history, and apparently the instrument which God is now using for furthering His great day of millennial glory?" If this view be indeed the true one, would it not be better for us, at once to join one of these Puritan churches, as by so doing, our Brethren's Church would receive so much and give so little in return?

It is far from my design to assert by what I have written, that you are not earnestly filled with love and veneration for the Brethren's Church, and that you advance your profession of attachment to our Church as a mere captatio benevolentiæ, in order thereby to acquire a right to throw censure upon her. But I at least have derived this impression from your essay, that a different "ideal" of the Brethren's Church presented itself to your minds, which you desire to see realized, and that your communication is designed to aid in the realization of this ideal, and also to call upon others to co-operate with you in this object. This would be the really practical part of the whole matter. But in order to effect this object it seems to me to be absolutely necessary, after an explanation and exposition of all the objectionable features in our past and present forms and doctrines, that you clearly state what you can substitute in their place. If we are to continue to exist as an independent Church, among the great multitude of religious denominations in the United States, and even to aim at the extension of her borders, we ought, I presume, to have and retain something peculiarly our own, in order to distinguish us from others, besides the name and remembrance of our historical origin, even if this be ever so praiseworthy, and, if we wish permanently to remain an independent Brethren's Church, we should have something connected with and originating from, the spirit of our Church, and concerning which we are all agreed as a community. And this feature common to us all, and yet distinguishing us from all others, must be expressed or embodied in our constitution, in the character of our doctrinal teachings and of our religious services. But as already stated, and this is of the highest importance, it must emanate from the spirit of our Church, and not, like a garment, be merely thrown around her. Now, it is true, that every Church, which is not utterly corrupt, (no one being wholly free from imperfection, I presume) will possess as the chief trait in its character this truly christian spirit: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." But because we are still encompassed with imperfections, we are even in our ecclesiastical forms, children of circumstances, relations and customs. Our ecclesiasti

cal organizations receive the stamp of a peculiar character from special relations, particular circumstances, peculiar influences from on high, furthermore, from our education and the custom and manner in which we have been brought up, all combining to produce those external forms in which our Church appears and maintains her position among other Churches. Now, returning to our own Church, if this her distinguishing character should really be rather deserving of censure than of praise, and this I at least take to be your meaning, then the prospects of our Church for the future would appear to be very gloomy, at least in this country, unless some still undeveloped germs should lie hidden within her, which