England has just with mortification read the Editor's article on intention. England does not know who the editor is or who wrote the article. He has twice refused to insert the same attack from the same quarter in the Miscellany, though he was prepared to answer it, merely because he saw that it would involve the paper in a useless controversy. The doctrine as put by Dr. Moses Waddell concludes irresistibly against the editor and the editor has not made the slightest approach to a rational solution. Neither he nor Waddell seem to understand the true doctrine. He merely touched the question of ordination and showed he was not master of his ground. He should allow England, with twenty years of experience in controversy, to advise him to get out of it as soon as he can. It is not necessary to intend to confer grace or a sacrament or to believe that it is conferred, nor is the intention of going through an external rite sufficient. Nor is the sacrament conferred by the external rite when the conferrer says in his heart that he does not intend to confer a sacrament. It is required that the person intend seriously to perform the religious rite for the purposes of religion. England is aware that some run to Providence and the supernatural for protection but that is dangerous and gratuitous. England prefers this to an article in the Miscellany to correct him. Such an article would be a triumph against both of them., P.S. If Waddell is about to publish a book, Talley has given him a color for a calumny., Note on back: This is not to be opened but by the editor. :: I-1-a A.L.S. 4pp. 4to.