1 He is the author of The Forming of an American Tradition; a Re-examination of Colonial Fresh yterianism (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1949).Google Scholar

2 It is notable, for example, that the most recent award of the Brewer Prize in Church History was made to Dr. Ira Brown for his excellent study of Lyman Abbott, which originated as a doctoral dissertation in the History Department of Harvard University. I think it is soon to be published by the Harvard Press. Another recent illustration of this type of interest is Professor Smith's, T. V.Abraham Lincoln and the Spiritual Life (Boston: Beacon Press, 1951)Google Scholar. Discussion of the problems revolving around the relations of church, state, and education, has recently enlisted scholars from many fields, some of whom have made notable contributions to our understanding of American Church History. These publications are listed and discussed by Sweet, William W. in “Recent Books on Church and State,” The Pastor, vol. 15 (Nov. 1951), 32–35Google Scholar. His list does not include O'Neill's, J. M.Catholicism and American Freedom (N.Y.: Harper, 1952)Google Scholar, which has been published since.

3 There is a fairly adequate listing of both books and articles in the “Other Recent Publications” section of the American Historical Resiew.

4 For example, Stevenson's, George M.The Puritan Heritage (N. Y.: Macmillan Company, 1952)Google Scholar. Cross, Whitney R., The Burned -over District; the Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York 1800–1850 (Ithaca Cornell University Press, 1950)Google Scholar.

5 A basic confusion seems to underlie much of what Mr. Trinterud has to say. On the one hand he seems to be assuming that American Church History is and ought to be a separate and distinct discipline, but on the other hand the solution to its problem is to incorporate it into the discipline of Church History.

6 Nichols, J. H. “The Art of Church History,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, XX (03. 1951), 6Google Scholar. It would be unfair to infer what Mr. Trinterud's conception of “history” is from such meager hints given in this article as his reference to “European Church Historical science.” But, referring to his last paragraph, is it not diflicult to see how anyone can expect “some ideal American Church History” to arise out of the multiplication of studies “inadequate in conception” unless there lurks behind the expectation a positivistic conception?