Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1857-06-20

Lcttcr TO Rcv. DE W. 4. HUNTINGDON
.--- Dr,p SIr.--Ysurs- oe tho ai
inst. is before me. shall reply with simple words
of truth and sobcrncss feeling too much reverence
for my religious faith and valung my integrity too
highly to descend to the Of anything lower in
the defence of either.
|. Let me notice such Of your prompt answers
as have any bearing.-Q) In answering my sec
ond question, which you do first, you either do not
or pretend not to see the point of it. You are no
doubt Sufficiently familiar with their rie,rs to
know" that you did not misreprcscnt your two
brethren in the substance of the message. But, If
you gave me reason to believe that they sent you
when they did not, they might think that you mis-
represented them in the matter Of sending.-QD
You answer my first question-"why do you take
the pains to contradict this little word" sent by
saying that .'you mentioned the point in your let
ter merely as an instance in which made you say
that which was purely an excogitaton Of my own"
Now, sir in my letter to the editor of the Phoenix
inform him that "you found two of your breth-
rem who sent you to me-" do not represent you
as saying any such thing. If you make such mis-
takes in representing my printed words, you give
make mistakes in representing your words and
mine which they may not have hearl.-QII) You
admit that you said ''you were simply the bearer
of the message" 1t does not matter that you used
these words to ward off discussion at the time, as
that fact, if fact, docs not alter their bearing
Let us see if yours is call the natural inference
that can be drawn from them:
NJ 10 h. 81
who is not sent;
You were simply the bearer of message,
Therefore, you were sent
Thus, without the words which you deny having
used, what you admit is enough to show that you
gave me "good reason to believe you sent.''
H. The second paragraph of this letter, like the
second division of your first, is founded upon mis-
take The only sentence of mine which evenappears
to make capital out of such material as you here
handle is the to which you refer at the close Of
the paragraph. You could not hitch anything you
say to that without making hole in it by leaving
out word. 1t reads-"We must be content with
the privilege of feeding and lodging" sc. Not q
word in either of my letters that implies that en-
tered "heartily and at into the matter of en-
ertaining the Conference, or that even one of my
people gave so much as n cup of cold water to any
of its ministers. l have placed nothing upon such
n foundation, and therefore nothing that have
written is moved. l will, however, notice you,
three points l. There is nothing strange in the fac
that did not "enter heartily and at once into til,
matter Of entertaining the Conference" Wher
you solicited my interest and influence with m,
people your one-sded attack on our Christian faitl
came to mind with the hard names you had giyei
us. The question rose whether you would do any
thing towards entertaining Uniyersast minister
under the same circumstances. did the best
could, sir, Mt the time to subdue my inclination t
do by you as you would do by me and so far sue
ceeded III fulfilling the neglected law of Christ
Whatsoever ye would that men should do to yol
do ye even so to them''-as to promise to do wha
| could for you. My people shared this diff
Guilty largely with me, and my only wonder is tina
you did not receive sharp rebuke in place of kndl
! federation among the few of whom you asked favor
} you would not reciprocate 2. Instead of one fou
ministers through Conference week, and one wit
his wife and horse through part of the week. wer
entertained by families connected with my societ
exclusive of accepted invitations of ministers t