Litchfield enquirer., 1877-08-30
WARREN, Aug. 24th. 1877

may set his mind at rest in regard to
 "Visitor." As member of that council
 myself, and conversant fully not only with
 the entire examination, but with the views
 of all the members of the body as express ed in their private session, I am very sure
 that .'Visistor" was not a member of the Council, either Tn clerical or lay capac-
 ity. Who he was do not know. nor have I the least idea, neither do I care. The
 ministers and lay delegates of that Coun-
 cil, and of Lltchfeld South Consociation
 generally, are quite able to take care of
 their own orthodoxy, and to look after
 the orthodoxy of any candidate who may
 come before them, without foreign aid.
 By his article il the Advance, Visitor has
 ralsed the hue and cry of "laxity" as against that ordainiug Council. and thus, unthinkingly no doubt, cast abroad a shade of suspicion as to their soundncss in the faith. As one of that body, I re- pudiate the charge. Yisitor has stated too strongly by far. and without needed quail fcation, the views of the candidate on that occasion, in regard to two or three inn portant points of doctrine. On those points it is true that. in common with many in the Council, and among these
 some of our best men, regretted that the candidates positions were not taken with
 more care and circamspection of the truths involved. But we regarded his youth, his inexperienee in stating public ly bis opinions, the disturbing excitement of an occasion SO trying to a young man, his manifest earnestness and devoutness of spirit, and his sonndness. on other and vital points, we were confident
 that whatever error may have attached to some of his views, would be eliminated by further and careful study. Visitor l jumped to too nasty conclusions, there fore. and has not done justice either to the candidate, or the Council. His con-
 demnation was altogether too sweeping, and he is entirely mistaken iu some of his
 representations. nova i-<" :-,-s zsd lo
 At the same time, must also enter my decided protest against one or two as.
 sumptions which your correspondent '.G' has made in his comments on the affair One is. that there, is anything necessarily mean or ,unmanly in Visitors" disguise.
 Such Actions as "O5serUer" '' Vinder, :" ,
 "Spectator" |" Visitor," are common in
 newspaper columns the world over. Us7
 age sanctions it, and if the writers choose.
 there is nothing vrong.in it.. The author
 ship of the "Junius" letters is yet un- known, but who planes him for his ficti-
 tious name2 If 'asG had signed himself | X or z. nobody could justly censure. him.
 Whoever Visitor may be and have no
 knowledge of his identity-he has right
 to his assumed disguise. That sort of Darkness" is not dishonorable. ,t I must also, in the interest of ''fair piay'' 1 all round, dissent from the assumption
 that Visitor is to be regarded and spoken of as ''falss witness" or as if he had
 been guilty of an intentional ''insult.'" 7
 Mistake. error. misrepresentation, Visitor
 has made. bull do not believe he has
 tied. Probabably he was a clergman-I l 80 judge by the style of his article--and I
 cannot doubt was gentleman. as we'll as
 q christian If '''G" will reconsider, his
 language, am sure he will find it. too
 strong For myself my best wishes are
 with my young brother, the pastor Tn
 Washlngtqn. and with the church to which l I ministered so long. WIS. G.