By a continued repetition of the matter, Eld. T. M. Preble is evidently deluding himself into the belief that he was grossly misrepresented by our report of the Portland discussion in 1865. He accuses that report of perverting some of his language, leaving out altogether his main arguments, and exaggerating and extolling the other side of the question. These charges have been spread over the country in circulars, and reiterated in papers. Being sustained by no proof, we have never deemed them worthy of notice, and should not now except on the principle laid down in Luke 18: 5. The same outrageous charges are again repeated in the Advent Times of April 16, 1872. But does he offer a single example, or has he ever offered one, to show wherein his language was perverted, or his main arguments (?) left out altogether? Not one; and he cannot do it. What then is his proof? Why, it has since appeared that the affirmative, in some respects not at all pertaining to the arguments he used in the discussion, was at that time in a state of mind, which could properly be considered a subject of admonition on the part of his brethren; hence, triumphantly exclaims Eld. P., glad of this ghost of a pretext to dodge the issue, "the report of this Portland discussion as given by Uriah Smith was false." This is logic under difficulties! All our report undertook to give, or professed to give, was simply a plain and fair statement of the arguments used on the occasion; and that it was scrupulously exact in the whole field which it claimed to cover, we will submit to any one who was present at the debate, excepting only those who believe that the moral law has been abolished. These charges from beginning to end are unmitigated and unpardonable fictions. And to try to retire from the field under cover of these, minus all proof, and against all evidence, is the smallest kind of retreat. We know it must be exceedingly unpalatable to the advocates of error to be obliged to look back upon a clear representation, in black and white, of their tortuous wanderings and contradictory positions. Their case would excite our deepest commiseration, were not the fault their own. But if a review of their course is painful to them, all we have to say, is, Change sides, and cease to talk the incoherent nonsense of error. This is the only way we have to suggest to them, out of their embarrassing position.