being wider than their denominational platform? As we glance along the sparse population of these plateaux, we observe among others, the names of Bushnell and Beecher, the former with certain acute philosophical powers, the latter with a bold dramatic energy of speech, each exposing himself in a degree to the censure of that large class who dread all innovation made upon the time-honored landmarks of the Fathers, who are alarmed at new roads, even though they are more direct, convenient, and comely. But neither of these gentlemen has gone so far as did this youth in the wilderness of his adopted country. Neither has altogether _practically_ forgotten the claims of sect and of creed; and the view that holiness of life and purpose is the indisputable claim to fraternity independent of dogma, which is their highest _idea_, was his constantly _practised_ principle long before the world had heard of new and old school in the contentions of orthodox sects. Open now his first letters of commendation and you will see that the fraternities that authorized them ignored sectarian names, simply styling themselves "The Church of God in this place." In liberality, I do not see that the best part of the Christian world now are, either in theory or practice, at all in advance of his position in 1813. That his peace principles did not allow him to pray for bloody victories, or to strengthen the king's arms by his influence over the people, there is pretty good evidence. He and his brethren drank too deeply at the wells of religion to engage in the destruction of their fellows.