Hearing that cousin R. L. Jennings had found dull sale for his work in 6 numbers, I thought it safer to divide mine into 4. If, however, it should meet with due encouragement, it is my intention to add two more numbers to the second edition. The 5th to contain cousin Jenning's first great effort after his ordination to the ministry in the Universalist Synagogue. It is his essay on little family dogs, published in the Democratic Press of the 13th inst.* It is said that Homer wrote first the wars of the frogs and then the war of Troy. There is no telling what our cousin may yet come to. He has already made such proficiency in the dead languages, that he thinks himself able" to compare the letters which are used to form one word with the letters that are used to form another, and if they do not agree, to alter them." At least, he thinks," it is probable the writer, [that is, Cousin Jennings,] could do this much himself, were he to attempt it!" This is as much as to say that he has not yet attempted it. What then must we think of that genius who can consult Hebrew and Greek Lexicons and Concordances, and write critical notes on the sacred languages, when he has never yet attempted to learn their alphabets, and when he has no other created assistance than a little family dog at his elbow. If he had a great butcher's dog or a pack of hounds there, he would be equal to a man of sound mind, who said a few years ago, that he could speak all the languages spoken in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

The 6th number will be devoted to a couple of lectures written by brother Morse on the philosophy of language, In the first of then he will prove that when a preacher professes to write on Universalism, a lawyer on Forgery, or a physician on Insanity, they must write in favour of these things, or be guilty of deception.† To this will be appended a few remarks of brother Kneeland's last letter to Dr. Ely, shewing thatjit is more charitable to attribute the use of such language" to a disturbed imagination or a disordered brain, than it is to say that it proceeds from a worse motive!" The second lecture will be on the subject of controversial etiquette; in which brother Morse will prove, according to the doctrine of his letter of the 10th inst. § that for an orthodox minister to route five Universalist assailants at once, is as indecorous as the conduct of that revolutionary American who surrounded seven British soldiers.

Before taking leave of the public, I wish them to remember that the above report of Mr. Kneeland's defence of Universal ism is in his own words, as approved by himself, without either alteration in language or injustice to argument. There is only a little liberty taken in an arbitrary arrangement of his expressions; in which however, I have been very modest, in comparison +See No. 19. See No. 17.

*See No. 20. † See No. 16.

with my cousin R. L. Short-hand, in the liberties which he has taken, in suppressing and inventing, culling and collecting, altering and arranging the expressions of Mr. Kneeland's antagonist. R. L. LONGHAND.

66

In the Franklin Gazette of the 11th of September, you have addressed a letter to me. It is not necessary for me to state my reasons for answering it so tardily, or for answering it at all. Although it may be dishonourable for the five persons of whom you speak, to make an unfair and unjust assault upon me, there is no reason to be ashamed that God has enabled me to make a successful resistance. There is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few." The case would not be altered if you and your four brethren were multiplied by a hundred, each brandishing a forged letter in his hand; For Jehovah has promised his faithful servants, that one shall "chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight." Whenever five men or five hundred resort to personalities and pious frauds, men of sense will suspect that their cause is desperate. Mr. Kneeland consumed much of his tedious time during the debate in canvassing my personal character, and you and Mr. Ballou have since joined him in that important occupation in the public prints, If this were not intended to injure the truth, you might divide my reputation, as the Jews did my Master's garments, between you. It is with the greatest reluctance that I leave, for a moment, the real subject in controversy, to answer forgeries and fables, whether the old-wives who publish them be male or female, five or fifty.

Although you and your associates, in subserviency to the great accuser of the brethren, are engaged in the same work, you have different lists of charges. The sum of your several catalogues appears to be, that you accuse me of saying, during the debate, that Mr. Kneeland wrote and published a Greek grammar;-of saying, since the debate, that I was denied the continued use of the house; -that Mr. Kneeland has since refused to meet me;-that Mr. Ballou has, without my invitation, done the same ;-that Mr. Kneeland sent me the first number of Mr. Jennings's report;-that he has a hand with him in that work; and that it is a spurious production.

As the affair of the Greek grammar is mentioned in the re

port, an examination of its genuineness will, if Providence permit, recall that subject on a future occasion. The refusal of the house until my argument was completed may now receive a partial attention. Mr. Kneeland has said in an article of the 1st of September, and afterwards in his letter to Dr. Ely of the 13th, that it is untrue that I 66 was denied the use of the church in Lombard-street any longer." In the former, he says that "Dr. Ely knows himself to the contrary;" and in the latter, that Dr. Ely has "not the hardihood to deny" this and similar accusations. Besides the notorious concurrence of the audience who attended the debate, in denying this charge, it is well known to you that Dr. Ely had denied it in that very letter which this of Mr. Kneeland professes to answer. As Dr. Ely was our moderator on the last day, he must have known whether I was denied the farther use of the house or not. If I was not refused this privilege, he must have known that my complaint of the house being denied was untrue, and that to acquit me of falsehood was becoming an accomplice in my crime. Yet in his letter to Mr. Kneeland of the 11th ultimo, he has not only acquitted me himself, but has declared that he believes my veracity to be unquestioned, not only among the hearers of our debate, but all others except a few Universalists. The following are his own w words:

"His veracity, so far as I know, was never questioned by any before he commenced a correspondence with you; and since, none doubt it but a few who believe in the universal salvation of mankind. These SEEM to me to doubt the veracity of God, and to believe in the veracity of the father of lies,' who said ye shall not surely die;' so that it is no wonder if they should call Mr. M'Calla a liar."

This declaration of Dr. Ely is a denial of Mr. Kneeland's charge, and certainly attaches guilt to his subsequent assertion, that Dr. Ely had "not the hardihood to deny" a thing so notoriously incorrect.

In your letter you appear to think with some reason, that this subject may be illustrated by the case of Mr. Ballou, and the forged challenge which gave him such unnecessary alarm. Your words are, "the refusal of Mr. Ballou to meet Mr. M'Calla is not unlike what has more than once been called a refusal of the church in Lombard-street to continue the debate.”

1 confess they are alike in four particulars at least. 1. They are both well known matters of fact. 2. The same moral infirmity made Mr. Ballou refuse to commence a discussion, which made Mr. Kneeland refuse to continue it. 3. Both these facts have been alike denied by Mr. Morse. 4. They resemble each other in both being made occasions of a charge of untruth against an innocent person, which charge recoiled upon its guilty

fabricator. They are therefore almost as much alike as two peas, or as the two pillars of Haman's gallows, which hung the man who built them.

While noting resemblances, you might with safety have added to the list Mr. Kneeland's refusal to meet me again, since the debate was closed. The assertion of this fact he has impugned in his letter of the 13th ultimo. In his communication of the 3d of September to Mr. Binns, he says, "it will be perceived that I have offered to meet Mr. M'Calla again, or in other words have accepted his challenge, on condition that his friends will open one of their churches to accommodate the audience, as proof that they approve of his manner of conducting an argument, together with some other conditions therein named, not ONE of which has he complied with. Until therefore he shall comply with those conditions, or others equally fair, I have nothing more to say to him on the subject."

It is said that he has impressed some of his credulous followers with a belief, that a compliance on my part with ONE of his conditions such as finding a church, is all that he requires, to another meeting. In the above article, however, he refers to his letter of August 2d, published in the Franklin Gazette of Aug. 21st, and requires a compliance with some other conditions therein named," such as uniting with him in religious worship and giving him my hand "in token of friendship!" that is, of christian fellowship, as he means. These conditions evidently require me to do what the church of Christ has never yet done; that is, to acknowledge the christianity of an Unitarian. They require me to violate a good conscience, and give up the point in dispute, before he will discuss it with me. What he means by other conditions "equally fair," I know not, unless he intends to require that in place of worshipping with him, his antagonist must be gagged, and that instead of giving him one hand, I must have both tied behind my back; for these conditions would be equally fair with those required in his letter. If I were to require as an indispensable condition to another meeting, that he should appear on the arena with a halter round his neck, every one would consider it a retreat from the conflict: so when he makes a sine qua non of a moral impossibility, it is a refusal to meet me. No man who was willing to submit his opinions to an investigation of this sort ever required such terms. Mr. Kneeland himself did not demand them until sore experience taught him to do so. His doing so, however, proves that while he boasts of success, he feels the realities of a defeat. His church was built for the spread of Universalism. He pretends that our debate promoted this end yet the house cannot be obtained for me to finish my argument! He pretends that the discussion multiplied proselytes to Universalism, and greatly increased the sale of his books: yet we cannot have the house a

few days longer, least his books and his followers should multiply like the lice and the locusts of Egypt! A man whose conscience will permit him to speak and act so inconsistently, is not likely to be scrupulous about writing a false report, and afterwards denying it.

In Mr. Kneeland's article and letter of September 1st and 13th he charges me with saying that he sent me the first number of this report. I knew that Mr. Jennings had sent me the number; although I believed then, and believe now, that it was done with Mr. Kneeland's knowledge, and by his authority. I therefore stated in my letter to Mr. Norvell of August 10, that a сору had been sent to each of the parties." This was accompanied with an intimation of the quarter from which it came, as in the following extract: "The first number of Mr. Kneeland's promised minutes of the discussion, professing to be taken in short hand by one of his friends, has made its appearance. If there were no danger of detection, it would be a tolerably good book for promoting the views of its author. He has informed the public that a copy has been sent to each of the parties.' This is not saying that Mr. Kneeland sent the book, but that a copy has been sent." The person who sent it is its author. He has informed the public" of the fact. It has two authors; Mr. Kneeland, who promised the minutes, and Mr. Jennings, who professed to take them in short hand. I meant, and I said with sufficient clearness, or at least with sufficient correctness, that the latter had sent me the first number. Mr. Kneeland insists upon it that I represented him as sending it.

He has perverted Dr. Ely's language in a similar way, though in a much more inexcusable manner. In his letter to him, he speaks as follows: "And after all, I am not disposed to call Mr. M'Calla a liar, though you quoted those words, a liar!' thereby insinuating that he had been so called by a few who believe in the universal salvation of mankind, among whom you UNDOUBTEDLY meant to include ME. Dr. Ely said and meant that a few Universalists had given me this name, because he had been circumstantially informed of the fact, as it occurred in the Lombard street church, a few minutes after the debate had closed. But he neither meant nor said that Mr. Kneeland was one of these persons, as appears by his verbal declaration, and by his letter. But, like the man who thought that every body he saw laughing was deriding him, Mr. Kneeland says, "you undoubtedly meant to include me." I suppose that we cannot hereafter speak of the world, the flesh and the devil, without undoubtedly meaning to include Mr. Kneeland, Mr. Jennings and his "little family dog;" which famous little animal has, according to Mr. Jennings's own account, become his preceptor in theology and criticism.* I could not give you a better piece of advice

* See No. 20