TO THE EDITORS OF THE CRIMSON: -

VERILY, I put my hand out to let a draft of fresh air into an ill-ventilated spot, and, 10, I hit upon a hornet's nest! Within the few short days that have passed since my communication appeared, no less than three letters have been written on the subject, and I understand there are some more in store for me, wretched one! Let it be understood, however, that "J. N. M." is by no means so ferocious as might be supposed from the warmth with which the controversy is conducted. So small is, in fact, his bump of pugnaciousness, that he would fain let the matter rest, but for the honor the president of the Christian Brethren did him in answering his remarks in person, and under his own signature. That this gentleman thought it necessary to come to the front, in spite of the dauntless onslaught of "V. I. Z.," in the Echo, shows the true value of "V. I. Z.'s" criticism. Had it been worth any thing at all, Mr. Maude would not have gone to the trouble of putting pen to paper. I am, therefore, obliged to him for relieving me kindly from replying to one who succeeded in the feat of writing a whole column without any bearing whatever on the question. But more grateful would I have been, had Mr. Maude saved me also the necessity of replying to himself. For manly as his letter is, he has not succeeded in correcting "the false impression . . . of the writer of the letter," which was, as he says, one of the purposes of his reply.

Mr. Maude is a student of philosophy, and, with a truly Spencerean somersault of logic, he reduces me ad absurdum. The burden of his proof is that "J. N. M." contradicts himself. Think of this! I charge the Brethren with halfness, with not having bravery enough to take a decided stand, either Orthodox or Liberal; with leaving its constitution in such a way that no Unitarian or Universalist can, with self respect, join the society - for such could be members not by virtue of a clean-cut statement of the constitution, but by its "fair" interpretation, which means by twisting it. This I charge, and I am told that I am honest and fair, but - contradict myself! Not a single argument is brought to overthrow my position. I contradict myself! What if I contradict myself a hundred times, does this disprove the fact that the "slight" change in the amendment was only a sop thrown to the conservative members to stop their opposition? Mr. Maude has listened to the long debates as well as "J. N. M.," and knows that but for that "slight" change, the amendment would never have been adopted. And why did that slight change pacify all opposition? Because it left the tacit understanding - to which some of the officers gave even loud expression - that the "slight" change will have the practical effect of shutting out Liberal Christians. Does any sane man suppose that, before signing the constitution, a new member would search out with a pair of magnifying glasses its "fair" meaning? The constitution does not yet say that Liberal Christians may be admitted, and I assert that it does not yet dare to say so. This it is that places the Brethren in such an awkward position. A "Unitarian minister," indeed, certifies that a Unitarian may join the Brethren with a clear conscience. But who is a better interpreter of the constitution, its own words, or a "Unitarian minister?"

To put the whole matter into a nutshell: why did not the Brethren, if they are to be considered liberal, make a straightforward, honest statement of their position, that they were henceforth willing to admit Liberal Christians without reserve? A society that stands pledged for the highest morality ought to have moral courage enough to define its position about membership fairly and squarely, and not leave its constitution so that it can be twisted any way, both to satisfy its exclusive tendency, and to preserve before the public the reputation of being liberal.

J. N. M.