A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answer [sic] to the…A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answeer [sic] to the…

Thus, Rev. Sir, you are pleased to vaunt yourself, and glory before the World, in such an Abuse of your fellow Creatures and Brethren, and Violation of all Honour and Justice, that you may have the Glory of striking the hardest Blows.

In Page 75, 76, you say, with Respect to this Rev. Gentleman that you have so abused, if neither his being there (at Springfield) nor his Conduct there, needs an Excuse, why do these Gentlemen go about to make one for him? Wherein lies your Argument here? Is it not this, viz. That if the Rector's being there, nor his Conduct there, was indeed not blameable, why do we, when we heard he was blamed, go to show that he was not blameable? But then in the following Lines of the 76th Page, you undertake to show wherein it was blameable; and in order to that you say, in Line 5, 6, and 7, He might, and no Doubt did, make a Visit to his Rev. Father at Hatfield, but we know great Part of his Time was spent at Northampton and Springfield. Here it is insinuated, that he spent considerable Time at Northampton with the Justices: We suppose you ventured upon this on mere Conjecture; for in truth he rarely has spent so little Time among his Relations at Northampton when he came into this Part of the Country, and saw but one of the Justices, viz his Uncle Stoddard, with whom he spent but about half an Hour. In Line 7, and 8, you say, Especially at the latter Place, where he was more than ⟨p. 63⟩once. And why is this put in among the rest of your Arguments to prove the Rector to be blameable, unless it be to insinuate to your Readers that are ignorant of the Situation of the Towns here (which are far the greater Part of your Readers) that he came to Springfield more than once to concern himself in this Business, whereas a Person can't come from New-Haven to Hatfield, in the common Road, and return again, without being more than once at Springfield, the Road being through Springfield. You say, Line 10, 11, 12, We can hardly think he came as other Gentlemen do to an Ordination, when the Week before, he could confidently give out at Springfield, there would be no Ordination, or there should be none. This we suppose is said on mere hearsay, and without any Manner of Foundation in fact; the Person that you thus charge declares, that he only rode through the Town, and called at no House, and spake with no Person from Mr. Williams's of Long-Meadow, till he got to the Tavern at Chicopee, six Miles above the Town, where he called to Oat his Horse, and spoke with no Person there but a little Girl that was in the House: