with the accent of his apostrophe to it."

This is not wonderful, since it is the composition of an untutored young man, full of prejudice, and just commencing a profession for which he is not qualified. He has attributed to me sentiments and facts which are false in themselves, and which I never believed nor uttered. Is it to be expected, then, that he is a competent judge of what does and what does not affect my argument? After casting my words to the wind, as he has done, a sound argument in favour of that truth which he hates, can be no more appreciated by him than by his little theologian at his elbow.

As the task of examining such a mass of perversion is the more disagreeable the longer it is protracted, I shall not take time to detail the many false constructions of my meaning which he has substituted for my expressions. Neither will I notice many of his supplements to my quotations, in which he makes me appear very foolish, by quoting a great deal of scripture for me, where I quoted only a few words, and where a few were required by perspicuity, and candour required no more.

Numerous glaring interpolations also have greatly enervated the argument and stultified its author, In two or three cases he has quoted texts for me which appeared quite relevant; as Ez. 18: 20, 20, in page 39. This is true also of Matth. 13: 11, 12, in 38. But he there adds the 15th verse, which is irrelepage vant. Isa. 65: 13, which he has given me in page 113. would do very well if he had put it among the contrasts: but it is inserted where it has nothing to do. These two last texts, which I never quoted, I now add to my notes. John, 2: 14, in page 262, is irrelevant. In page 51, he has given me a half a dozen verses of John's Revelation, in the same way. Also four verses of 1 Cor. in page 63; and in page 131, he has interpolated John 8: 24: In page 67, he inserted fifteen verses from Matt. and referred to a dozen more in Luke, about which I said nothing there. In page 131, he makes me talk about Greek and doctrinal parallels without any meaning. In page 126, he makes me quote the Greek of Matt. 24: 3, to show the meaning of a Hebrew word. This, however, is not more outrageous than his putting into my mouth that interpretation of Matthew's words which Unitarians adopt, and which I abhor. In the same heretical spirit; he has, in page 132, made me speak foolishly, falsely and irreverently of the resurrection of Christ, and to approve of Mr. Kneeland's erroneous translation of a Hebrew phrase, in page 153. The descant on regeneration, which he has composed for me in page 144, appears like a parable in the mouth of a fool In page 202, he does not say that I attributed inspiration to Mr. Kneeland, but this would not have been more inconsistent with truth than to make me speak of "seventy inspired

1

1

translators;" or to make me promise, as in page 98, that I would not quote from Mr. Kneeland's Lectures any more.

Perhaps Mr. Jennings thought that his many additions on the one hand, might be balanced by his many suppressions on the other. In the latter, as well as the former, he has exercised a prudent discrimination. While he manages my speeches so as to make them savor of idiocy, he takes care to suppress Mr. Kneeland's puerile display of the new coat of his miniature testament; which, by the by, is not near half as small, nor as handsome, as one belonging to his despised opponent, who never thought of showing his toys. Neither did he tell us how many languages Mr. Kneeland could read, and how many he could not read for want of lexicons and grammars! Neither did he tell us in page 162, that besides Mr. Kneeland's "appeal to all and every learned person present," he challenged the city of Philadelphia after his accustomed fashion. In the same page he has suppressed Mr. Kneeland's declaration that the Hebrew expression in Daniel xii. 3, was the same as that in Psalms ix. 5, and that the conjunction and should be supplied in the latter, because it was found written in the former. To be consistent, he has jugulated my triumphant refutation of this sophistry in page 173. To make amends for this, however, he has made me say in page 153, that the very expression used in the Greek in Isaiah, is also used in Daniel xii. 2. After fabricating this statement for me, he takes occasion to contradict it in a learned Greek note. An anonymous writer in the Democratic Press, whom I know not, but whose fidelity should excite a blush in some of Mr. Jennings's ordained and graduated witnesses, seems astonished that in these days a man can write Greek before he can read it, and asks, whence hath this man letters ? Mr. Jennings very sagaciously refers him to his little theologian, a little family dog, to solve the enigma. Our saviour and the apostles had a knowledge of languages by miracle, but not from such a quarter.

6.

On the cover of No. 6, Mr. Jennings informs us with some emphasis, that he was the only one who took notes during the whole of the debate." Yet in page 169, he tells us, something is here wanting." The same anonymous writer who convicted him of another omission in the same page, has reminded him of suppressing the following expression of Mr. Kneeland, viz: "I observe the audience only hiss and clap when my opponent is up, and are silent when I am up, which I presume is from respect to me!" In page 288, he has taken no notice of his interrupting me, and of the colloquy which ensued upon the point whether it was of any use for me to prosecute my investigation of the word everlasting and its conjugates, since he admitted their uniform, unlimited meaning, for which I was contending, In page 300, he has suppressed the words of Rom. xvi. 11, and my real comment upon them. From my fifteen affirmative

texts, beginning on page 113, he has dropped an half dozen, and several others from my argument on the will of God, page 280. When he does this, he often fills up with texts of his own. This is the case in what he has said for me on everlasting and such words, where he has suppressed scores of texts, without affecting the argument" in the least, as he would have us believe! In pages 207 and 249, he has given us a Universalist caricature of what I quoted from Gregory and Chrysostom, leaving out much which the audience cannot help remembering, when, if God permit, they shall see it in my printed argument.

To correct his report would be to write it over again in my own language and arrangement instead of his. The above are not near half of the errors which I have noted. That want of strength which Mr. Kneeland has informed the public prevents me from writing, hinders me from finishing at present. The most of these corrections are susceptible of ocular proof, in my notes which Mr. Kneeland has so abundantly authenticated. It is true that Mr. Jennings has adduced living witnesses against me. He has obtained and published in yesterday's Gazette, the certificates of Drs. Ely and Wylie, in company with those of Messrs. Hogan, Morse, Kneeland, Condie and Jennings! I confess I do not envy Dr. Wylie and Dr. Ely the company in which they are found, nor the business in which they are engaged. They have permitted themselves to be enlisted in the army of God's enemies, in an assault upon the truth and integrity of a man whose honesty and veracity they both believe to be unimpeachable, and whose reputation in these respects, Dr. Ely vindicated in the paper, after he knew my opinion and declarations concerning Mr. Jennings's report. As I never asked of these truly eminent and highly esteemed brethren, any other assistance than that of their prayers, their countenance and their books, the least that could be expected of them was, that if they would not throw their weight into the right scale, they would remain neutral. If the winning character of disinterested and candid witnesses has ensnared them, I would beg them to consider the court and the cause in which they have testified. God says, "be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause." Upon this infallible authority, the Scottish fathers of these gentlemen bottomed their testimony against the Doeg-like sin" of being "either witnesses or members of inquest upon irrelevant libels." If, however, they had simply acted the part of witnesses, and testified what they could recollect, instead of adopting as their own, the manufactured testimony of one party, before hearing the other, who was sueing for a hearing, their conduct would have been unexceptionable. But they have now acted rather as judges than as witnesses. They knew that Mr. Jennings and myself were directly at issue on the purity of his report. He had been fully heard, and I had repeatedly, in

66

public and in private, promised a reply with all possible expedition. Mr. Kneeland had revised and authenticated the report which was published. It was desirable that the other party should have an opportunity of aiding the memories of these gentlemen as well as his opponent. They have already given their decision! and they know the consequence. Yet if the son of Alcnomac would not complain, why should the child of a KING whom Alc-nomac never knew? I am not sorry that in much sickness and weakness, God enabled me to defend his precious truth, even if these brethren, after compelling me to self-defence, should make this a ground of an exterminating war. I know by sweet experience in whom I have trusted: "And when my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up."LLA. Philadelphia, October 22, 1824.

No. 27.

W. L. M'CALLA.

In consequence of Dr. Ely's speech when taking the Moderator's chair, and bis afterward certifying for Mr, Jennings, the Universalists are said to have greatly extolled his liberality, and to have boldly claimed him as one of their own honorable fraternity. This probably arose in part, from Mr Jennings's having circulated among them a grossly garbled copy of his certificate, which may be seen below in No. 29. But as the true copy, given above in No. 25, shows the Dr. in his real character, as a willing witness for orthodoxy, and a decided enemy to hypocrisy and heresy, Mr. Kneeland could not remain quiet under that weight of condemnation which the certificate left on him. He therefore, unburthened himself in the following effusion: viz,

"DR. EZRA STILES ELY.

We thank this Rev. Doctor that he has been willing to let the world know his feelings towards “ Mr. Kneeland”—that he "will show him any kindness in his power, AS A MAN.— Wonderful Doctor! Now if God is only as good as Dr. Ely, Mr. Kneeland is perfectly safe; and the Doctor's squeamishness, in conceiving himself "positively forbidden to countenance him, in any manner, as a minister of the gospel," is a matter of no concern, neither does it give Mr. K. the least uneasiness whatever. But would it not have been more becoming in this sapient "D. D." in speaking of Mr. K. " after knowing his sentiments," to have pointed out wherein they are erroneous, than to have insinuated, (as he has done without proof,) that he preaches an essentially different gospel from that contained in the bible? Of such men it may be truly said, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."

In this Mr. Kneeland seems to think that if God is as good as Dr. Ely, he is perfectly safe. Dr. Ely had said that he conceived himself positively forbidden to countenance Mr. Kneeland as a minister of the gospel; that he would not receive him into his house in the character of a servant of Christ. Now if God refuse, like Dr. Ely, to countenance Mr. Kneeland, does he think that the countenance of Mr. Morse and Mr. Jennings will secure his safety? If God, like Dr. Ely, should refuse to receive this heretic, "in the character of a servant of Christ," does he think himself perfectly safe in the character of an enemy of Christ, or a servant of the devil? But Dr. Ely has refused to receive him into his earthly house, in his present guise. If God, like him, should exclude Mr. Kneeland from his house in heaven, does he think himself perfectly safe in the Lombard-street Church, the floors of which gave way during our debate?

No. 28.

FROM THE FRANKLIN GAZETTE.

Apology to Dr. Wylie.

DEBATE ON UNIVERSALISM.

Mr. NORVELL-As you have declined publishing for me for the future, accept my sincere thanks for past favors, and permit me to inform the public through your paper once more, that my argument on Universalism shall appear as soon as possible. Also permit me to make a public apology to Dr. Wylie for the strictures which lately appeared in your paper on his conduct. These were bottomed upon a mistaken supposition that although Mr. Jennings had reported my speeches falsely, he had reported his conversation fairly. This was not the fact, as the public shall see at a convenient time.

Yours, respectfully, Philadelphia, October 30, 1824.

WM. L. M'CALLA.

NOTE. We have offered to continue to publish for all the parties engaged in the abovementioned controversy on the condition of paying for the insertion of their communications; a condition both reasonable and just.-Franklin Gazette.

No. 29.

Not satisfied with misrepresenting Dr. Wylie's testimony, Mr. Jennings lays violent hands upon Dr. Ely's certificate, as given in No. 25, and after cutting out passages which are,

K