DEAR SIR,

      Notwithstanding I have already transcended the limits I had assigned to this work, yet I must crave indulgence a little longer, while I address you on a subject of a different nature and tendency from those which have preceded. Being of a personal character, and not tending to general edification, it is therefore reserved to the last. To have inserted it in the proper place, would have, in some measure, broken in upon the connection of the theological discussion, which I wished to be preserved entire. To me, I confess, the present subject is unpleasant:--To you, it must be painful, as it must affect your personal sensibility. But I cannot avoid it. Both my personal and ministerial character stand unjustly impeached before the public tribunal in your late address to Mr. Moreland. There I think you have rashly and unjustifiably implicated me with falsehood and slander, in reference to my former animadversions on the circumstances of your ordination. After stating to you fully and frankly, as I thought, in a private communication, the circumstances that induced me to make those animadversions, I could not believe that your infinite liberality, and unbounded charity, would have permitted you to charge upon me, without foundation, two of the foulest crimes in the black catalogue. You are pleased to say to Mr. Moreland, that you "had fully answered Mr. Cleland's slanderous publications;"--that he, (Mr. Moreland,) had "given the lie to every one, who certified the falsity of Mr. Cleland's publication;"--and that you "happily slipped out from the slanderous publications of Mr. Cleland." I never wrote but one [158] publication in which you had any personal concern. But you have twice used the phrase, "slanderous publications," I suppose to make the charge the more weighty, and impress upon the public mind, that I had been an industrious slanderer. I might here apply the ancient adage, Physician, heal thyself. But what falsity of my publication have those men, belied by Mr. Moreland as you say, certified against me? You have got them to certify that you were ordained by the West Lexington Presbytery, which is not true, as the records of Transylvania Presbytery will show. I presume you wrote their certificates for them, and, if so, you must bear the blame of this error yourself. Men, however, ought to be cautious always how they sign certificates presented to them by an interested party. They have certified, in page 32 of your book, that you preached among them, when you were their pastor, "the pre-existence of the human soul of Jesus Christ;" which sentiment, in the 17th page of the very same book, you have denied, as we have before noticed. They likewise say, that you adopted the Confession of Faith with reserve, as you had before stated to me, in a private communication, which statements I was willing to admit, without your being under the necessity, so far as I was concerned, of proving them. Your proof, when I saw it, did not in the least affect me. I felt no criminality. I attached to myself no personal guilt or responsibility. I thought I had satisfied you in my reply to your private letter. I did not see that your certificates implicated me, as my name was not mentioned, and that which you attempted to rectify, you only said was "a mistake in some." I therefore passed them by, without designing to give them any public notice whatever. But I now think it due to the public, as well as my own personal character, to lay a fair statement of this matter before the world, and let the candid judge whether I merit the heavy imputation of slander and falsehood, or not.

      On reviewing your Sabellian notions concerning the Trinity; your Arian views respecting the person of Christ; and your Socinian theory, which denies the expiatory sacrifice and the redeeming mediation, as well as with the Arian, the essential Deity of the Saviour; finding you in such [159] company, and then hearing you boast, "that for nearly twenty years past (from 1814) your mind had not wavered respecting its truth," i. e. the divinity of the created, pre-existent human soul of Christ; and knowing this twenty years belief would carry you back beyond your licensure and ordination;--I say, taking these things together, I really was exited to inquire, how it could be that, with all these obnoxious tenets, you ever obtained a clerical admittance and standing in the Presbyterian church. Being stated clerk of Transylvania Presbytery, and having the records in possession, I examined them. They give the time, place, and circumstances of your ordination full and fair, without noticing any reserve, as I informed you in my answer to your private letter, which will be seen presently. Seeing now, that your doctrine concerning faith is, that it depends not upon the will, inclination, or disposition, but on testimony;--how can you blame me for believing the testimony in the Presbyterial record on which I acted? Presbyterian usage, in ordinations is well known. Several questions are proposed to the candidates, to be answered in the affirmative;--one is, "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the confession of faith of this church," &c. The testimony before me said you answered in the affirmative. Your twenty years belief, comprising the errors before mentioned, carrying you back to that period, (4th of Oct. 1798) and even beyond it, induced me to think that you dissembled when at your ordination you sincerely received and adopted a creed, directly and fundamentally the reverse of which you secretly held at the time, and which you have since published to the world.

      The notion of a pre-existent human soul, you say, you "received when a student of divinity." This we now see is the clue to your whole book;--on this dogma is founded your denial of the proper divinity and real atonement of Jesus Christ. As a moral Archimedes, this DOS POU STO was never wanting; and the fulcrum and two-forked lever were already at hand to aid the designs of your logical mechanism. With this created, pre-existent human soul, linking with, and binding to itself all the theological farrago published in your different productions, you made you way through licensure and ordination into clerical [160] standing, among ministerial brethren whose souls ever abhorred the foul errors which you must have then concealed from them, and for some time covertly maintained, until you were detected and cast out of the church. But with regard to the testimony on which my former animadversions were founded, believing it, as I did, to contain a true statement of your ordination, how can you make it out, and publish to the world, that I have dealt in falsehood and slander, when even the immaculate Mr. Stone himself might have unintentionally erred in the very same manner? And, moreover, did charity and candour authorize you to charge me with those wicked crimes, after the explanation I gave you upwards of six years before, as you have done in your angry letter to Mr. Moreland? To cast as much light on this subject as possible, I will here insert your letter to me, dated 21st April, 1815, shortly after my publication appeared, and also my answer. It is as follows, viz.:

      "SIR; I discovered in your late declamatory production a bold stroke aimed at my moral character. You were under a mistake,^* in stating that, without reserve, I had, at my ordination, "received and adopted the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrines taught in the holy Scriptures." I did object to some articles contained in the Confession, and one was the doctrines of Trinity, &c. I made my objections known at that time to some, if not to all the preachers--some of them laboured to convince me. I told them that thus far I would go, but no farther; I would receive it as far as I saw it agreeable to the word of God. When I was publickly asked, "Do you receive," &c. I answered aloud, to be heard by a large assembly, "I do, as far as I see it agreeable to the word of God." This I can prove by hundreds. Mr. John Lyle was there at the time, and a few nights ago in this place (Lexington) related the circumstances of that transaction to the company as it really was. Mr. Lapsley was present, when Mr. Lyle gave the relation. Now, Sir, as you say you will rejoice to find yourself mistaken, I have corrected the mistake. You certainly see that you have injured me. This injury you can repair, by making your acknowledgment of the mistake as public as you have the [161] take itself. I am persuaded you will do it, and without reserve, and thus save me the trouble of doing it myself. At the close of your book you style yourself in my sincere friend: Is it the part of a sincere friend to ruin his friend? Or, if he has tries, will he not acknowledge and repent of the evil? Do, Sir, let me hear speedily from you, whether you will rectify the mistake yourself, or permit me to do it. The matter does not admit of delay. Farewell.

BARTON W. STONE."      

      To this letter I returned the following answer a few days after its reception.

      "Sir; Your letter of the 21st ult. came safe to hand. Its contents I have specially noted. The circumstances of your ordination, as related in your letter, are, in my opinion, the most curious and forbidding of any, of a similar kind, I ever heard of. You did, you say, "object to some articles contained in the Confession, and one was the doctrines of Trinity, &c." Now, how far this "&c." goes, is hard for me to say; and, it further shews, to my mind, that ambiguity and want of explicitness, every where observable in your writings. "The doctrines of Trinity, &c." I suppose we are certainly at liberty to include the Deity of Jesus Christ, as one of those objected to; especially as it was on that subject, particularly, that you made the statement respecting your twenty years belief; and I have my doubts whether any Presbytery, even the most corrupt, would ordain a man who would tell them that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father "in essence, being or eternity;" or whether the Transylvania Presbytery ever dreamed that you held such obnoxious sentiments at that time.

      "When publicly asked,--'Do you receive, &c.' you say, you 'answered aloud, to be heard by a large assembly,--I do, as far as I see it agreeable to the word of God.' Now, who in his senses will say, that this was not a mere sham--a solemn NOTHING! Your conduct was impolitic, to say the least of it; and that of the Presbytery unfaithful and disorderly. What happiness could you expect by imposing yourself on a society contrary to their established rules? Was this the way to ensure future peace and harmony in that society? Could it be desirable for an honest man to put his head among a people in society, when he knew there existed such a difference of sentiment, as might at some future period and in some other section of that society, endanger his standing, and destroy his peace? Admitting they were willing to dispense with their strict laws for his [162] accommodation, this would afford but little encouragement, seeing the society would not be acting a faithful part to themselves, nor to their connection at large. If the Presbytery were satisfied with such an adoption of the Confession, as you state, they acted just such a part; and no wonder if they should afterwards see their folly, and smart for it too, as they certainly have in the trouble and difficulty they have had with the very man in whose case they so flagrantly transgressed. You received the Confession "as far as you saw it agreeable to the word of God." And pray, Sir, could you not receive the Alkoran, and the Shaker's Testimony in the same way? If it really was as you say, then I candidly confess, that so far from your sincerely receiving and adopting the Confession, that you did not adopt it at all. It was nothing but a solemn farce. It was doing things in a way that I should most certainly have objected to, had I been in your place, or acting as a member of the Presbytery.

      "As for the 'bold stroke aimed at your moral character' in my 'declamatory production;' I will venture to say, that any other person looking at the statement you made, with the same circumstances before him, that were before me, in animadverting on that declaration, would have viewed the subject in the same light that I did, and would have noticed it in a similar way, without having any intention, or feeling any desire to aim a bold stroke at your moral character. The records of Presbytery are in my hands, as their stated clerk. This, I thought, was the best evidence in the world. If they did not give true history, I am not to blame for it; I took it for granted they did, and so I presume you would have thought and acted in a similar situation. The Presbytery state, that when you made application to preach within their bounds, that they 'examined your credentials, and likewise your acquaintance with doctrinal and experimental religion, and having received satisfaction,' &c. And at your ordination they state that after the 'several steps had been previously taken, agreeably to the directory of this church, he (the presiding bishop) then proposed to Mr. Stone those questions appointed to be put to candidates previous to their ordination, and Mr. Stone having answered these questions in the affirmative, and the congregation's having answered, &c.' Now, Sir, I need not inform you what those questions are, appointed to be put to candidates, and which the Presbytery say by their record you answered in the affirmative, prior to ordination. And when I look at our form of government on the subject, and predicate the conduct of a Presbytery upon it, and then compare their history with it in your case, without their having recorded any [163] thing like what you have stated in your letter; surely you must see that any person writing on the subject would be compelled to make the same statement of facts that I did. You ought therefore to blame the Presbytery and yourself for not having made a true record of your singular case, however irregular and censurable it might have been.

      "Were I therefore to make any acknowledgment of the mistake, which, however, I am not authorized to do without contradicting the record of Presbytery, it would have to be accompanied with such strictures as would not, in my opinion, help the matter much, if any at all. Admitting your statement to be true, you have my real and candid opinion of that matter in the preceding part of this letter, which I should publish, were I to resort to newspapers or hand-bills, which would be the last resort, and, of all others, the most unlikely way of remedying the evil. And as it seems a matter of indifference with you whether I 'rectify the mistake' myself, 'or permit you to do it,' I therefore leave the matter with yourself, it being your province and not mine to disprove the record of Presbytery; supposing that you can do it more to your own satisfaction; and if done fairly, by stating the evidence, I had before me when I wrote, and placing the matter as it should be, I shall certainly not have the least objection; but if otherwise, I shall as certainly reply, by giving my views of the case similar to what are contained in this letter, which you are at liberty to publish if you choose.

      "When I styled myself your sincere friend, I did it not thoughtlessly, hypocritically, or ceremoniously. I am sincere in wishing your return to truth and sound doctrine. I am sincere in praying for your soul's eternal welfare, and can assure you that no man would do more to accomplish these ends than myself. I am your sincere friend, when I tell you the truth, and endeavour to point out your errors. I hate not the man, but his sentiments.

      "Should you answer my 'declamatory production,' as it is thought you will, I can assure you, that you are quite welcome; and welcome too to call it what you please, and even to have the last word, unless I deem a reply necessary, in which case I am your pledged antagonist."

      How you managed this matter I never heard, except in one instance, when you came over to Harrodsburg, and after preaching, you made a verbal statement respecting the manner of your ordination, at which the people listened; but not feeling much interested about it, one way or the other, it had little or no effect, and but few really knew [164] your object. Probably you were more full and explicit further off; but you never sent any written corrective after my "declamatory production," until your certificates were published last summer in your body of divinity, which you supposed authorized your malignant and triumphant assertion of my slander and falsehood.

      But if it be true, (and we have no reason to doubt it from your own declaration) that you really held the odious sentiments before and at the time of your ordination, which you a few years afterwards published to the world, and which you have recently enlarged in two editions of your standard work, the only alternative that remains, is, that you deceived the Presbytery, by concealing your real sentiments, and passing upon them a counterfeit. In this way, and no other, were you smuggled into the ministerial office, by imposing on those good men who gave you the right hand of fellowship, to take part in the ministry with them; as little suspecting, as the Trojans did when they laid down their wall to let in the wooden horse filled with armed men, that they had received into their circle a man covertly bearing with him such a troublesome and pernicious host of Arian and Socinian sentiments as were shortly after let loose upon them. The ministers, recorded as present at your ordination, were "Messrs. Crawford, Mahon, Tull, Rannalls, Blythe, J. P. Howe, S. Findley, W. Robertson, Marshall, Cameron, and M'Namer." The first four are dead, the last is well known on the rolls of Shaker fame; not one of the rest have I yet conversed with on this subject; yet I can pledge myself in their behalf, had they known your real sentiments at your ordination, that neither they nor their brethren deceased would have laid hands on you. And the only excuse or apology which can consistently be offered by or for them, for not arresting your ordination, or protesting against it, from the manner you adopted the Confession, is, that believing in their good will and charity towards you, that your difficulties being merely speculative, and not fraught with danger, as to yourself, or as affecting any fundamental article of gospel doctrine, they must have thought an interference entirely unnecessary. The only communication I have obtained, and the only one I have sought for from any of the brethren [165] who ordained you, will be found in the following extract from a letter addressed to me, at my request, by the Rev. Dr. Blythe.

      "As it respects what took place, at the time Mr. Stone was ordained, I am not able to state the particulars. I have little doubt, but that gentleman did at that time, make some objections to the terms in which certain doctrines are expressed, in our Confession of Faith; but that he did not make objections to any of the leading doctrines in that formula, no person will believe, and he knows it not to be the fact. Much less, will the world believe, that he ever expressed any doubt on the all-important doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Mr. Stone was originally from the same section of the country with myself, and, I think, was licensed by the same Presbytery that gave me license. I am acquainted with the very special and particular manner in which that Presbytery examined their candidates on all the leading doctrines of the Confession of Faith; and nothing could induce me to believe, that the Presbytery or Orange ever would have licensed any man holding such abominable sentiments as Mr. Stone has recently avowed, and now says he has always held.

      "From the circumstance of Mr. Stone's having originated from the same quarter of the country with myself, and from a strong personal friendship for him, there existed between that gentleman, and myself, the most perfect intimacy. I do not hesitate to say, that in none of our private and confidential conversations, which he knows were not a few, did he ever express himself so as to lead me in the slightest manner, to doubt the soundness of his faith, as to the proper divinity of Jesus Christ. That Mr. Stone may have held the same sentiments on that subject formerly, that he does now, I will not pretend to deny; but if he did, I am confident he deceived me, and, I believe, deceived the presbyteries that licensed and ordained him.

      "What that gentleman hopes to profit by publishing to the world, that he has never changed his opinions, I cannot conceive. By this course, he avoids the imputation of that which has happened to some of the greatest and best men our world every saw;--a simple change of sentiment; but he must incur with every man of a moment's reflection, the heavy imputation, of having deceived his bosom friends, and the presbyteries which licensed and ordained him: for no man can for a moment believe, that if Mr. Stone had given to his opinions any such [166] shape as they have lately assumed, he would ever have been either licensed or ordained, by any presbytery belonging to the General Assembly. The thing speaks for itself.

      "A thousand times have I thought of this once bosom friend with a pained heart. Gladly would I have cast over him the mantle of charity. But alas! every year has but furnished fresh proofs, that "he went out from us, because he has not of us."

      This not only confirms my own opinions on this subject, but also I suspect measurably anticipates the impressions and opinions of the other members of the Presbytery who assisted at your ordination, and which shall be procured, if necessary, should this matter be further agitated. And should that be the case, you need be at no more trouble to prove what I most cheerfully admit, namely, that you excepted to the Confession of Faith, at your ordination, and that long ago you held and preached the created, pre-existent human soul of Christ. Your certificates are only calculated to blind the ignorant, and mislead the uninformed, and prevent them from seeing the true state of the case as it really is. I say, therefore, I would rather admit, than otherwise, what you have attempted to prove. These very things make your case look suspicions at least, and in the opinion of many, tend to plunge you deeper into the ditch.

      I have one remark to make on your quarrel with the Presbytery. "The Presbytery have done me injustice in omitting a note of my exceptions in their minutes." (p. 34.) Sir, this charge falls with redoubled force on your own head. You took a seat in the Presbytery as a member the very moment after your ordination; and you sat with them two days afterwards, and it is presumed heard the minutes read over, as is always the case before the signatures of the Moderator and Clerk. You must have then known the omission you now complain of. Did you complain of it then as a member of Presbytery having a deeper individual interest in it than any other person present? Did you ever ask for a rectification of the mistake, or ever complain, before, that it was not done for your benefit? No, you never thought of it till you saw my letter, and the innocent, unsuspecting brethren, probably never thought of the danger of [167] incurring the heavy imputation of injustice twenty-three years afterwards.

      "The Synod," too, "have done me greater injustice, in that noted minute of theirs, in which they declare to the world, that they have suspended me, because I seceded from the Confession of Faith. Could I have seceded from a book I never received in any other sense than I yet receive it? I will receive any book, as far as I see it consistent with the word of God. I stand on the same official ground now, that I did before their vote and minute of suspension." I will inquire again; did you make this any part of your defence before the Synod? Did you then take this ground, and tell the Synod you were at their defiance,--that you never had acceded to their book, and, therefore, you never seceded from it;--was it hinted,--was the manner of your ordination thought of at all by yourself or a single member of the Synod, many of whom were recent members, and never heard of your novel case? Again, I ask; would you ever have thought of this charge, had it not been for the information afforded you in my letter respecting the record of Presbytery? Such conduct in a great man looks little,--it looks worse,--it looks disingenuous,

      But you stand on the same official ground now, that you did before the vote of suspension. This is certainly very problematical at least. Though you will regard the authority of our General Assembly with as little concern now, as the fugitive Arab regards the authority of the Emperor of Russia, yet with us it is sufficient that they have decided, that a licensure, or ordination in our church, "without explicit adoption of the Confession of Faith, as being highly irregular and unconstitutional." (See Min. of 1807, and Digest. p. 139.) Your ordination, therefore, being irregular and unconstitutional, was certainly invalid. You were willing however, to consider yourself a regular member of the Synod as a high official ground as any: they thought so too, and from that stand they hurled you. But it seems they were mistaken,--they missed their mark, as you dodged out of the way, and now your official standing is as good, it seems, as ever. Let us try it logically:--Things that are equal to one and the same thing, are equal to one another; this is the axiom; now for the proposition;--an illegal suspension from ministerial office, where the same subject is [168] implicated is equal in point of validity to an illegal ordination. Now for the dilemma. If Mr. Stone's ordination was a nullity, so was his suspension, but if Mr. Stone's ordination was valid, so was his suspension. You may here take choice, and by the assistance of the foregoing scholium, axiom, proposition and dilemma, two corollaries inevitably follow viz: from the first member of the dilemma, Mr. Stone never was an ordained minister; from the second, he never has been in official standing since his suspension and deposition. I think your official standing about as good as Richard M'Nemar's, John Dunlavy's, and Matthew Houston's, who, no doubt, feel as happy, as leaders of Shakerism, and can make as triumphant a boast of having "wisely slipt out of the chain forged in Westminster," as you do now, at the head of the Arian party in the three states of Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. If you are on official ground, so are they; as it is well known you all stood and fell together, under the same ecclesiastical discipline.

      You and your party have assumed to yourselves the style of Christians. We doubt not the sincerity of the professions of many of you, but we do not, and in conscience we cannot think of fairly entitled to that appellation. Believing and inculcating the doctrines we do. you must, in your unbounded charity, excuse us for holding you up as dangerous enemies of the faith once delivered to the saints. "One thing is certain: if your creed be true, ours is fatally erroneous." Upon fundamental principles, and a regard to ecclesiastical discipline, we cannot conscientiously maintain christian fellowship and ministerial brotherhood. Your infinite liberality ought to excuse us. But on another account you ought not to wish it. Take your book into your closest, and before Him who searcheth all hearts, examine its contents; mark all the ugly names and harsh insinuations it contains against opposing brethren, as you call them. Particularly cast you eye on page 18, where we are denominated the "daughters" of "the whore of Babylon," having "the same mark:" where we are designated by the star that John saw, (or as you paraphrase it, "an angel of the church) fall from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit--with this key (not the key of knowledge) he opened the dark cabinet of hell, and let out a flood of [169] smoke (the doctrines of devils, and commandments of men) which darkened the sun," &c. &c. O what a sweet flow of charity this is! No wonder your pious soul was excited to burst forth in the highly appropriate prayer that followed; "O Lord, with the breath of thy mouth, blow away the smoke from the air, that the sun of righteousness may "break forth with healing in his beams," &c. How flexible, loving, good-natured, and even meretricious must that charity be that can sacrifice all principle, and stoop to embrace such bigots, such strumpets of Babylon, such sooty fellows from the dark cabinet of hell, laden with doctrines of devils and commandments of men, and even quarrel with them too, calling names, and muttering a thousand harsh insinuations, because they cannot permit her to associate with them in their pulpits, and at the solemn feasts of Zion. Sir, there is an incongruity, a glaring contradiction in this thing, which, though it may go down with the ignorant and the selfish, will never pass with men of sober judgment and correct discernment for any thing more than a mere shew of pretended friendship, fanatic zeal, and unconscious hypocrisy. You have long given abundant occasion to opposing brethren, and many others, to suspect your lack of that charity you boast so much of, and the want of which in others you so unmercifully condemn. There is certainly a great contrast between your tongue and your pen,--between your soft, insinuating personal manners, and the harsh invectives, and religious animosity that abound in your writings in your different attack upon the sentiments of others. Such a discrepancy in a man's character, is fitly represented by the Psalmist: "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords." But I am admonished of the necessity of closing this address. I have used great freedom and plainness of speech with you, I hope, without feeling any spirit of animosity. I cast myself upon the mercy of God, and ask his divine forgiveness for what he may see amiss either in the sentiment or conduct of this work, which I also submit to the judgment and candor of the religious public. With respect to you, I remain unambitious of the honour of the last word. Be it however understood, that if you should think proper [170] to make any further defence, or any new attack, I am not pledged either to reply or be silent.

      P. S. Since the above was written and sent to the press, I have received the official account of your licensure, in an extract from the records of Orange Presbytery. It stands full and fair, and completely exonerates me from your harsh censure of falsehood and slander; and throws you back, notwithstanding your certificates, on suspicious ground; exactly where I found you, when I first animadverted on your singular case. If you held the doctrines published in your first edition, twenty years before you wrote that book, consequently antecedent to your licensure, on which occasion, (according to the Presbyterial record,) you sincerely received and adopted the Confession of Faith,--then, according to the following testimony, you must have acted the part of a dissembler, and deceived the Presbytery that gave you license. The following is the document alluded to, which will speak for itself. It comes certified as a true extract from the records which are in the possession of the Rev. Colin M'Iver, who resides in Fayetteville, N. C.

HAWFIELD'S CHURCH, April 6, 1796.      

      "Messrs. Stone, Foster, and Tate, delivered discourses on the subjects assigned them, at our last stated sessions of Presbytery; and were examined on divinity in general; which discourses and examinations, were sustained as parts of trial previous to licensure."

      "Messrs. Barton Stone, Robert Foster, and Robert Tate having gone through the trials assigned them by Presbytery, with approbation, and having adopted the Confession of Faith of this Church, and satisfactorily answered the questions appointed to be put to candidates to be licensed, the Presbytery did license them to preach the gospel of Christ, as probationers for the holy ministry, within the bounds of this Presbytery, or wherever they shall be orderly called."

      Did you adopt the Confession of Faith at this time with exceptions? Did Messrs. Foster and Tate likewise? Or were you licensed differently from them? If this record is not true, and I guilty of slander and falsehood again, because I depend on it as testimony "without will, inclination, or disposition." If the declaration in your first edition [171] respecting your twenty years belief, contained the truth, why is it now left out in your second "corrected and considerably enlarged" edition? Why not stick to the truth, and again publish the declaration, or "confess the foul fact like an honest christian?" As a man of open, ingenuous, undisguised character, general rumour appears to be against you. As a literary polemic, or controversialist, your writings, from beginning to end, speak for themselves, and, on this point, are evidently unfavorable to you.

      [NOTE. It was not until the foregoing work was ready for the press, that the Author identified the person who issued the first proposals, pledging him to reply to Mr. Stone. In the 6th page of this work, the Author has stated that this was done without his "knowledge, concurrence, or approbation;" which is true, as it related then to his own views and intentions respecting the course he had intended to pursue, which was, to pay no further public attention to Mr. Stone's book. But these expressions are not by any means intended to impugn the motives, intentions, or conduct of the friend, who, through misapprehension, thought himself authorized by me to issue the proposals in question. Being a sincere lover, and able advocate of the truth, and (as he believes) a friend to the Author, who, likewise being made acquainted with the circumstances that induced him to act as he did,--he most cordially approves his friend's intentions and conduct; and if any benefit results from this publication, it must be measurably attributed to that circumstance, which induced the Author to change his mind, and undertake the work which he now tremblingly sends forth to the public. The very excellent and able reply of the Rev. Mr. Cushman, of Hopkinsville, to Mr. Thomas Smith's sermon, has superseded the necessity of the "appendix" that was contemplated by the first proposals to accompany this work; and therefore, it was thought proper, by the intended Author, to abandon it for the present.]

      ^* Call it mistake as often as you will, but you must not call it slander.

[LBWS 158-172]