In the early part of the ensuing week, Mr. C. left Nashville, to visit (as he informs us in his narrative) Franklin and Columbia. Upon his narrative of this visit, I shall trouble my readers with but few remarks. The insinuations of Mr. C. against the Rev. Garner McConnico, who has long been esteemed a faithful laborer in the Lord's vineyard, I have good grounds to believe to be as unfounded, as they are base and unmanly, and such as no magnanimous and generous opponent would make, however little he might be sensible of religious obligations. Whilst the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches in Franklin seem to be well repaid in his narrative, for their liberality in affording to Mr. C. the use of their respective houses or places of worship; I am well assured of the incorrectness of his assertion, that it was "much to the dissatisfaction" of the people of the Presbyterian church in Columbia that he was prevented from occupying their meeting house. It is true, there may have been a few individuals, (not, as I am informed, exceeding three or four in number,) who expressed some dissatisfaction. This however in Mr. C.'s view, was sufficient to warrant the broad and reckless assertion, which is calculated, as it must have been designed, to make the impression that a decided majority of the people, who usually attend the Presbyterian church in Columbia, were much dissatisfied that he was not permitted to occupy their meeting house. According to the information which I have received, and which, it is believed, may be relied upon, this is so far from being the fact, that it must be considered as one of the false assertions with which his narrative abounds. Whilst Mr. C. was gone on his visit, it evidently appeared

that the public feeling had been not a little excited in consequence of the discussion that had unexpectedly taken place as before related; and that not a few were really desirous that a further and fuller discussion should be had, and especially with a view to obtain an answer to the question" what is truth?" It was moreover intimated to me that it was, at least, very probable, that Mr. C., on his return to Nashville, would again invite objections to the principles he had advanced; or, in other words, give a public challenge for a further debate; and that, in that event, it was thought, especially after what had taken place, I could not decline to meet him without leaving the cause of truth to suffer injury. After mature and prayerful reflection, I came to the determination not to decline an invitation or challenge for a further discussion, should it be given. Accordingly when Mr. C., after his return from the south, held forth in the Baptist church on Friday evening, the 24th of December, I again attended, as well to hear what he might allege, as to ascertain whether he would invite to a further public discussion. It is true, that upon this occasion, for the first time, I took a few notes with a pencil, and consequently the assertion of Mr. C. that I took notes before this time, is not true. And whilst it is both my wish and intention to indulge and to exercise towards Mr. C., every proper degree of candor and forbearance, I cannot persuade myself that the incorrectness of his assertion, in this particular, originated merely in mistake. The reason for this will at once appear to the reader, by his recollection of what has already been stated in the preceding part of this narrative. I had never before heard him deliver one of his public harangues, except on the evening of the 10th of December, when there existed not a shadow of a reason or fact from which to infer that I took notes. And when the debate took place on the next evening, it was manifest to Mr. C. and all the congregation that I was as destitute of notes, as he seems to be of a regard to truth, when a point (whether of great or small importance) is to be gained by a round assertion. I am aware it has been

alleged that I have, in my proposals for this publication, evinced not only a want of christian charity, but of a due regard to decorum, by the allegation that the narrative of Mr. C. abounds with false assertions. And if such be not the fact, it is distinctly admitted that in making such a charge, I am justly reprehensible, and that in no slight degree. But my only apology or defence is, that the allegation is TRUE. And for the truth of it, so far as it regards not only the assertion of Mr. C. just noticed, but others which I shall in the sequel have occasion to notice, I can confidently appeal to the whole of the congregations who attended the discussion; and notwithstanding in his assertions, which are alleged to be false, Mr. C. holds the affirmative, and consequently the burden of proof lies upon him, yet positive proof of the incorrectness of some of them at least can, if required, be adduced.

After Mr. C. had concluded what he calls his lecture, The repeated (as stated by him in his narrative) the invitation formerly given, and proposed the next day, being Christmas, to hear objections. On that day at 10 o'clock A. M., I accordingly repaired to the Baptist church, Mr. C. made his own arrangements as stated by him in his narrative, and called upon Dr. F. Robinson to officiate as chairman, and stipulated that not more than twenty minutes should be occupied at one time by any one speaker.

In the conclusion of his narrative, Mr. C. has undertaken to state what was "unquestionably" my " object in availing" myself of the opportunity thus tendered to make objections to his principles. This statement, however, like many others made by him, has but a very slight connection with truth or fact. Among other things, he asserts it was my object "to prejudice the community against the reformation." To expose to the view of an enlightened community the deception of his pretended reformation, I admit was my leading object in thus avail ing myself of the opportunity afforded for a further public discussion.

As my chief object, in availing myself of the opportunity thus tendered for a further public discussion, was not, as Mr. C. in the conclusion of his narrative alleges, to prejudice the community against his pretended reformation, but to expose its true features, in their odious deformity, as well as the trickery and presumption of its author, to the view of an enlightened public, I determined to begin with an examination of his claim to be the reformer of the present age. As, however, the accomplishment of my main design required that several subjects should be brought under discussion, that I might be enabled the better to shape my course, and to determine as to the degree of attention which could with propriety be bestowed upon any one topic, I inquired of Mr. C., through the chairman, what length of time it was proposed to devote to the hearing of any objections that might be offered. To this inquiry he replied, that such were his engagements, that he would be under the necessity of leaving Nashville the next Monday morning; and consequently that day alone could be devoted to the object for which we had then met.

This reply did not meet my expectation, inasmuch as it was my desire, if the debate were renewed, to have time sufficient for an ample discussion of the pretensions and principles of Mr. C. But as the whole proceeding was gratuitous on his part, I made no objection or complaint, but began the discussion by a brief notice of his arrogance in claiming to be the reformer of the present age, and in giving to his rotten system of disguised infidelity, the title of "The reformation." It was alleged that the term "reformation," when used in relation to a church, or ecclesiastical community, had a special reference, to errors in doctrine and in practice. Thus the change of religion, from the corruptions of Popery to, at least, a measure of its primitive purity, as begun by Luther, A. D. 1517, is by way of eminence, justly styled the reformation, throughout the Protestant world. The corruptions of the church of Rome, both in doctrine and