seeing it. Would not this be as justifiable as for him to pronounce it altogether genuine without seeing it? And yet this he did in the National Gazette of July 23, by promising, on his own responsibility, before he read the work, that the public should be furnished with the real discussion in full. A faux pas of this description, in an orthodox minister, is of such importance that he must be declared guilty even when innocent; but in Mr. Kneeland it is a matter of as little consequence as a speck of dirt on a climbing-boy. Some of those who have been most clamorous against me, for a supposed premature condemnation of a work really corrupt, see no fault in my opponent for a premature and unqualified approbation of the same work.

The plan upon which this report was conducted is perhaps as exceptionable as the execution. The author has insinuated that there was some prospect of his becoming a reporter to congress. Would they be satisfied if he would give nothing but their argument? Would Randolph, Clay and Webster wish their thoughts clothed in the language of Mr. R. L. Jennings? Yet he would persuade us that this is his privilege as a reporter. On the cover of No. 1, he requests us to note only errors "affecting the argument." On the cover of No. 3, he acknowledges that he had omitted certain ridiculous words of Mr. Kneeland, of which a hearer of the debate reminded him; yet he "I consays, sider myself only bound to acknowledge errors which may be pointed out, affecting the argument, on either side." On this plan, a stenographer once reported a four hours' speech of an eminent minister in this city, in such a compass as could be read in fifteen minutes. What he did not understand he left out; and what he thought he understood, he recorded in a manner so shamefully distorted that the speaker submitted to the mortifying drudgery of correcting the manuscript to keep him from publishing things in his name which would be a reproach to religion.

If the reporter be allowed to give his judgment of the argument instead of the words of the Speaker, it is evident that the character of the speech must be formed, not by the sentiments of its author, nor by his ability in defending them, but by the reporter's knowledge of language, skill in reasoning, and talents and experience in composition. A man of ingenuity could clothe a poor argument with a plausible dress, and vice versa. As Mr. Jennings is now one of Mr. Kneeland's preachers, he probably thinks himself eminently qualified in this respect. He may even suppose that I owe him as polite a bow as Pope gave to Warburton for expressing his meaning better than he could do it himself. Mr. Kneeland may perhaps give it as a fourth evidence of an unsound mind, that I, with such moderate claims, prefer my own speeches to a set of Universalist harangues manufactured for me by a student of his.

Upon this plan of running one man's defence in the mould of another, it is evident that its character must be, in a great measure, formed by the reporter's creed, as well as his talents. This made Mr. Kneeland pervert many of my arguments, and misstate many of my declarations during the debate. It has made

him often insinuate, and even expressly assert, that my defence had no argument at all. In his letter of August 2, he tells me that I had misspent four days, and probably might continue a month in the same way, and, after all, to no purpose." It is, I believe, the general opinion of men of piety and good sense, that a strong and unanswerable argument may be drawn from the case of the rich man and Lazarus; yet Mr. Kneeland said that "it has no bearing on the subject in debate." In another place, he says, "But as I before observed, I do not view it as having any bearing upon the subject in discussion whatever." Again, “therefore, I say that the account of the rich man and Lazarus appears to me to have no relation to the subject of future happiness or misery whatever." He called my defence " a continued series of quotations, without any argument, to prove the meaning which was attached to them." In another place he calls it "bare assertion without proof or even argument." When Mr. Knee

land, regardless of my words, gives this account of my argument what sort of a report are we to expect from his employed stenographer, when professedly disregarding my words, and giving what he chooses to call my argument?

This plan is not only inconsistent with candor, but contrary to Mr. Jennings's express engagements to the public. In his communication for the Franklin Gazette, of August 7, he says, 66 now, Mr. Editor, I propose publishing both of their arguments in full, and together, as they were delivered." He did this because he considered the debate public property, as he says, "so soon as the words escaped the lips of the speakers." He says, "I am accountable to the disputants and to society for any thing I may add or detract from WHAT WAS SAID." After this declaration, a member of that society, to which he is accountable, shews him wherein he has detracted from "what was said;" and receives for answer that the reporter is "only bound to acknowledge errors which may be pointed out, affecting the argument." As Universalists consider the case of the rich man and Lazarus, and indeed most other scriptural proofs, as having no bearing upon the subject, the reporter has only to view them as not affecting the argument, and then dispose of them as he pleases, without. in his view, detracting from what was sail! Is this catching the words, as they "escaped the lips of the speakers?" He did not promise my arguments in a mutilated form, but " in full;" he did not promise them as manufactured by an Universalist, but " as they were delivered."

Ι

On the cover of Mr. Jennings's last number, he can imagine no other reason for my condemning his Report, than that Mr. M'Calla intends publishing the discussion himself!" As it is probable that the fear of rivalship in the money-making business has excited alarm, let him know that it was not for money that I faced Mr. Kneeland before an audience, and it is for a much higher object that I hope to meet him in the press. Although I have been at some expense, and it is lawful and honorable to seek an honest compensation for my labour, my publication is not to reimburse the one or reward the other. If God enable me to accomplish it, I hope to see an edition of two or three thousand copies About twenty-five supernumerary copies, not one of which should be sold, would satisfy my cupidity. This is all the profit that I claim. Except these, the profits of the whole edition, whether great or small, are to be appriopriated to the funds of the Young Men's Domestic Missionary Society, in this place. That this may be done in good faith, the pecuniary concerns of the publication, shall be committed to other hands. this public declaration is necessary to obviate groundless surmise, and to inform purchasers that they will be feeding the poor, and not enriching me, it is hoped that it is not an ostentation of charity, in which grace I acknowledge with undissembled shame my inferiority to many brethren.

As

In the place above referred to, Mr. Jennings expresses serious apprehensions that I mean to avail myself of his Minutes in aid of my work. His fears are entirely vain. I would not copy such a mass of error and nonsense for tenfold his profits. Does he suppose that there is such a dearth of evidence, that we have to resort to a publication in which the wrong side is defended by one Universalist, and the right side by another? During the whole debate, I knew not that there was such a man as Mr. R. I. Jennings in the world. If I did not need his aid in speaking, I hope to write without him.

But he thinks me incapable of writing the discussion, because I took no notes of what Mr. Kneeland said, and paid but little attention to his speeches. A correct copy of the real discussion would be a very different book from that of Mr. Jennings. But this is not my object. I repeatedly declared that Mr. Kneeland had not done justice tobis cause; and that if permitted to finish the materials in my hands, I would engage to lay before the audience a better defence of Universalism than he had given. To confine my attention, then, to what he has said, or what he can say, would be a virtual refusal to meet the controversy in that stage to which it has advanced, and would disappoint the expectations of the public. Besides this, Mr. Kneeland and Mr. Jennings are very anxious that I should confine my attention to Mr. Kneeland's flimsy sophisms, tedious repetitions, and mourn

ful complaints, uttered during the debate, that he may still boast that the writings of his favorite, Mr. Ballou, of Hartford memory, remain unanswered. In a spurious edition of Buck's Theological Dictionary, which has been, in no small degree, defiled by Mr. Kneeland's fingers, he boasts, concerning those productions and his own lectures, that " these works have never been answered, although some of them, particularly the two first, [Ballou on Atonement and his notes on parables,] have been published about twenty years and have gone through several editions."

Mr. Kneeland suppressed a part of my defence in his "own desk," as he calls the Lombard-street establishment, and Mr. Jennings seems exceedingly anxious that it may be suppressed forever. He appears to think that for me to print more than his master gave me leave to speak, would belong rather to the licentiousness than to the liberty of the press. This is perfectly in character. For, while infidelity boasts of its free-thinking, and heresy, of its liberality, they have always endeavoured, when they had it in their power, to suppress free inquiry. It is error in fact, and not true religion that is in danger, under the freedom of our happy institutions.

Among all Mr. Jennings's insinuations, it is pleasing to observe that he had not the temerity to assert that I had not the means of writing my own argument, especially as he would have been contradicted by his own employer. In his own report Mr. Kneeland says that his opponent "had his matter ready cut and dried to meet him;" that he had "not only the outlines, but the very body of his argument completely prepared before he came to the controversy;" "that on his part the discussion was completely prepared, in all its parts, before he came into this house.' As Mr. Kneeland has revised Mr. Jennings's Minutes, and declared them "as faithful a report as ever was made," we shall allow the authenticity of what is there said in his name, whether it was said during the debate or not. He has had a full opportunity of improving his argument, and exerting his utmost strength. To his reasoning, as thus published, due attention may be given, at the same time that the arguments of Messrs. Ballou, Balfour and Chauncey, Winchester and Huntingdon, Relly and Murray, shall be displayed to the best advantage, according to my feeble abilities.

The concession which Mr. Kneeland has made, of his opponent's having "not only the outline but the very body of his argument" "completely prepared in all its parts," proves not only that I have the means of writing for myself, but the means of exposing Mr. Jennings's garbled report. This task is under

taken for the purpose of defending the truth and detecting corruption, not to obstruct the circulation of his work; for it may do good, since he has retained some of my scripture proofs, notwithstanding all his unfairness. Neither do I undertake to point out all the errors of the work, for that would be to correct almost every line which it contains. It is true, there is a resemblance between my speeches and those which he has made for me; and so there is between a portrait and a caricature, or between a living animal and a dead animal; but as a living dog is better than a dead lion, so is an extemporaneous defence, fairly reported, preferable to that which Mr. Jennings has ascribed to me as the product of laborious preparation. This may be illustrated by a reference to a passage in which he has actually killed a very useful animal which was mentioned in my retort upon my opponent for endeavoring to expose my pronunciation to contempt and ridicule. After speaking of hearing a French gentleman pronounce the Latin, I asked among other things," should I prick up my ears, as Sterne, in his Sentimental Journey, says an ass does, at every new object that he sees?" Here, no doubt, Mr. Jennings tried his stenographical skill; and you have the product of it in an erratum on the back of No. 4. It is as follows: " Should I have understood him as Sterne, in his Sentimental Journey, understood the owner of the dead ass, by the accent of his apostrophe to it?" Many impartial persons, like Drs. Ely and Wylie, would, from inattention and forgetfulness, think this a fair report. There is a manifest resemblance between the original and the copy. The likeness is at least as great as that which subsists between a man and a monkey. The same species of animal is mentioned by me, and reported by him. There is this difference, however, that while the beast was in my care, he was a living travelling ass, possessed of vivacity enough to start at every strange sight, as Mr. Kneeland started at every pronunciation except his own. no sooner does he pass out of my hands, than this short-hand reporter makes short work of him; and finishes him more effectually with a single stroke of his pen, than his father Balaam could by the repeated strokes of his staff

But

This is the way in which he has treated my whole array of argument and satire. Whatsoever animation they had in my hands, they are as tame as a troop of dead asses in his management. He has not done justice, nor any thing like justice, to my language, composition, sentiments, facts or arguments. In his report, my language is low, swaggering, and even spiced with profanity: and no wonder, for it is that of a universalist. My composition is vulgar, confused, incoherent, and as unintelligible as the above expression about "the owner of the dead ass