Williams has made misrepresentations of words or things; } say, if to do these things be reproaching him, and injurious treatment of him, then I have injured him. But I think I should be foolish, if I were afraid to do that (and to do it as thoroughly as I can) which must be the design of my writing, if I write at all in opposition to his tenets, and to the defence he makes of them.

Indeed if I misrepresent what he says, in order to make it appear in the worst colors; altering his words to another sense, to make them appear more ridiculous; or adding other words, that carry the sense beyond the proper import of his words, to heighten the supposed absurdity, and give me greater advantage to exclaim; if I set myself to aggravate matters, and strain them beyond bounds, making mighty things of mere trifles ; or if I use exclamations and invectives, instead of arguments; then Mr. Williams might have just cause to complain and the reader would have just reason for disgust. But whether I have done so or not, must be judged by the reader; of whom I desire nothing more than the most impartial and exact consideration of the merits of the cause, and examination of the force and weight of every argument. I desire, that no bitter reproachful invectives, no vehement exclamations, no supercilious assuming words and phras es may be taken for reasoning, on either side. If the reader thinks he finds any such in what I have written, I am willing he should set them aside as nothing worth; carefully distinguishing between them and the strength of the argument. I desire not, that the cause should be judged of by the skill which either Mr. Williams or I do manifest, in flinging one at another.

If in places where the argument pinches most, and there is the greatest appearance of strong reason, in Mr. Williams's book, I do (as some other disputants) instead of entering thoroughly into the matter, begin to flounce and fling, and go about to divert and drown the reader's attention to the argument, by the noise of big words, or magisterial and disdainful expressions; let the reader take it (as justly he may) for a shrewd sign of a consciousness of the weakness of my cause in that particular, or at least of a distrust of my own” ability to defend myself well in the reader's apprehension, and to come off with a good grace any other way,

In this case, I shall not think it any injustice done me by the reader, though he suspects that I feel myself pressed, and begin to be in trouble, for fear I should not seem to come off like a champion, if I should trust to mere reasoning. I can uprightly say, I never have endeavored by such means to evade a proper consideration of any part of Mr. Williams's reasoning; nor have designedly contrived, in this or any other method, to free myself from the trouble of a just answer to any thing material in his book; and I have been especially careful to speak most particularly to the main parts of his scheme, and such of his reasonings, as I could suppose those of his readers who are on his side, would be most likely to have their chief dependence on and to think most difficult to be answered.

work

With regard to my method in this reply, I judged it most convenient to reduce my remarks on Mr. Williams's principles, and the part of his scheme, and kinds of arguing which repeatedly appear in various parts of his book, to their proper heads. I thought, this tended to give the reader a clearer and more comprehensive view of the whole controversy, and the nature of the arguments made use of; and that it also would make my the shorter. For otherwise, I must have had the same things, or things of the same nature, to have observed often, as I found them repeated in different parts of his book, and the same And that the readremarks to make over and over again. er may not be without any advantages which he might have had in the other method, of keeping, in my reply, to the order in which things lie in the book replied to, following my author from one page and paragraph to another I have therefore subjoined a table, by which the reader may readily turn to what is said on each particular, that is wont to be brought into this debate, on one side or the other.

With regard to my citations from Mr. Williams's book,I have never designedly altered his words: And where I have for brevity's sake referred to any sentiment of his, without citing the words at large, I have used care not to change or heighten the sense, or in any respect to vary from the just import of what he delivers. And that the reader may himself more easily and readily judge of the fairness of my citations and references I

have mentioned the page, and the part of the page, where the thing referred to is to be found: Supposing each page to be divided into five equal parts, I have noted the several parts of the page by the letters a. b. c. d. e. So that when I have referred to the top of the page, or the first fifth part of it, I have méntioned the number of the page, and added the letter a, to the number: And if the middle, or third fifth part, then I have added the letter c. And so of the rest, as the reader will see. I have ever done thus, unless the thing referred to is to be found through the whole or great part of the page. I have also done the same very often, where I have occasion to cite other authors. Only when I have before quoted the same thing I am not always 30 exact and particular in noting the place again, in my second quotation or reference.*

*It was not thought necessary to insert these references, nor the table mentioned above in this work, as it is probable few readers will possess Mr. Williams's Book, or wish to attend so closely to the controversy.

MISREPRESENTATIONS CORRECTED,

AND

TRUTH VINDICATED

PART I.

Observing the general Misrepresentations Mr. WILLIAMS makes concerning the Book he writes against.

SECTION I.

Concerning the DESIGN of my writing and publishing my Book, and the QUESTION debated in it.

MR. WILLIAMS asserts it to be my professed and

declared design, in writing the book, which he has undertaken an answer to,to oppose Mr. STODDARD. He has taken a great liberty in this matter. He charges me with a declared design of writing in opposition to Mr. Stoddard, no less than nine or ten times in his book. And he does not content himself with saying, there are passages in my preface, or elsewhere, whence this may be inferred; but he says expressly, that I profess to be disputing against Mr. Stoddard's doctrine p. 14. That I tell my readers, I am disputing against Mr. Stoddard's question. p. 37. That I tell them so in my preface, p. 107. That I often declare that I am opposing Mr. Stoddard's opinion, P. 152. And on this foundation he charges me with “blot

ting a great deal of paper, disserving the cause of truth by changing the question, and putting it in such terms as Mr. Stoddard expressly disclaims, and then confuting it as Mr. Stoddard's principle; unfair treatment of Mr. Stoddard.” p. 2. "Surprizingly going off from Mr. Stoddard's. argument to cast an odium upon it, treating Mr. Stoddard and his doctrine in such a manner as to reproach him and his principlcs, tending to render them odious to the unthinkingmultitude, and telling a manifest untruth." p. 14. &c. 15. Whereas, I never once signified it to be the thing I aimed at, to oppose Mr. Stoddard, or appear as his antagonist. But the very reverse was true; and meddling with him, or what he had said, I studied to avoid, as much as the circumstances of the debate with my people would allow, who had been taught by him, and who so greatly and continually alleged against me the things which he had said. Nor is there any appearance in those passages Mr. Williams cites from my preface, as though this was the thing I sought or aimed at. Nay, one of those passages which he produces to prove it, shews the contrary: As it shéws, that its being so (as I supposed) that what I wrote was not consistent with, but opposite to what Mr. Stoddard had maintained, was an unsought for and unpleasing circumstance of that publication. My words are, ""Tis far from a pleasing circumstance of this publication, that it is against what my honored grandfather strenuously maintained, both from the pulpit and the press." Certainly my regretting and excusing such an unavoidable circumstance was a thing exceeding diverse from giving notice to the world, that the thing I aimed at was to set myself up as Mr. Stoddard's antagonist, and to write an answer to, and confute what he had written. It will, at first sight, be manifest to every impartial reader, that the design of my preface was not to state the subject and intention of the book: This is done professedly, and very particularly, afterwards, in the first part of the essay itself. And if I might have common justice, surely I might be allowed to tell my own opinion, and declare my own design without being so confidently and frequently charged with misrepresenting my own thoughts and intentions.