ing the two evil doctrines” that Mr. Darby had just been imputing to him. On the first page of the letter as published, these changes were referred to as follows: “The following letter was written some years ago, in reply to the inquiries of a friend, who resides in Norfolk. It is now published, with some omissions, and alterations, but in substance it remains the same.” Newton’s defence of this course was that the additions did not affect the substance of the letter, and that therefore the prefixed notification met the case.
Darby, on the contrary, alleged that nearly a quarter of the printed matter was not in the manuscript letter at all; “that the new matter consisted of reasonings against the doctrines he was charged with holding now as to the authority of teachers”. Darby therefore considered that the published letter made the charges appear “most wanton and unfounded, inasmuch as six years ago the person charged had actually written against the things he was now charged with”. There is perhaps some little force in the complaint; and in such delicate circumstances Newton ought certainly to have been perfectly explicit in distinguishing the new matter from the old. But, in view of the notification that was prefixed, the imputation of bad faith was on the face of it absurd. It was also with good right that Newton said in his own defence, “Surely, if there had been any intention on my part to deceive, it would have been a strangely foolish thing to print the letter at variance with the MS. when the MS. was in everyone’s hands”.
Darby made no attempt to communicate these charges to Newton before advancing them in public. His excuse was that Newton at that time held no communication with him. This could hardly have prevented his sending Newton a written statement of the charges and re-
