ever is not the case, Mr. Jennings's fruitful invention could easily furnish them with a lad apiece to bear the responsibility. How different is this complicated and contradictory system of Universalist chicanery from the plain dealing of orthodox honesty! As soon as possible, I hope to lay before the public my own book, with my own name to it. I wish no one else to write it or to father it for me.

October 5, 1824.

No. 23.

W. L. M'CALLA.

FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PRESS, OF OCT. 7.

UNIVERSALISM AND UNITARIANISM.

1.

Mr. Binns: In the universal joy of Americans, occasioned by the visit of General La Fayette, the Clergy of all denominations have a cordial participation. In Philadelphia, they have made an open expression of a sentiment which is every where felt, though generally in silence. On Friday the 1st inst. they waited upon our illustrious visitant in a body. They consisted of Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, German Lutherans, and Swedish Lutherans. Besides Presbyterians of the General Assembly, there were members of the Scotch Reformed and Associate Churches, as also of the Dutch Reformed, German Reformed and several other denominations, amounting as I was told, to about seventy persons. However these differed in their views of doctrine and worship, government and discipline, they appeared to agree in these three things at least. In placing Bishop White, the venerable Chaplain of the Revolutionary Congress, in the chair. 2. In loving our national guest, the companion of Washington, as an instrument in the hand of God, for the establishment of American Liberty. 3. In excluding from their procession those clergymen, (falsely so called,) who deny the supreme deity of Jesus Christ, and a future state of rewards and punishments. Those who are called Universalists here, deny these and other essential truths of Christianity. Neither they nor the Unitarians made their appearance, nor were they invited. In this, the orthodox clergy acted as their fathers did in the churches of England and Scotland, of France and Switzerland, Germany and Holland, Bohemia and Poland; as did the Hussites and Lollards, the Waldenses apd Albigenses, the Claudians and Paulicians; like the churches and councils of Greece and Rome in their best days, which rejected such men as Arius and Sabellius; and like the Apostles, who rejected Cerinthus and Simon Magus.

By the 9th article and 4th section of the Constitution of this State, it will be seen that none but such a Universalist or Athe

ist, as denies a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." God has declared that he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Philadelphia, Oct. 6th, 1824.

No. 24.

W. L. M CALLA.

Although, upon a comparison of the following communication in the Democratic Press, of October 14th, with No. 17, and other productions of Mr. Morse, it will be found that he has got some man to lend his pen, who had too much sense and respectability to risque his name; yet as Mr. Morse is responsible for its contents, it shows him to be a decided Unitarian in doctrine and practice. In doctrine, because he denies the Trinity, and the existence of a Devil. In practice, because he denies what he knows to be true; that is, that those, who, like him and Mr. Kneeland, reject the doctrine of a future punishment, are disqualified by the constitution of the state, from holding offices of trust or profit.

For the Democratic Press.

ENDLESS MISERY AND TRINITARIANISM. Mr. Binns. In your paper of the 6th inst. a short communioation made its appearance under the title of "Universalism and Unitarianism," which for childishness and arrogance exceeds, in my humble opinion, any thing before presented to the public from the pen of the self-constituted champion of reputed orthodoxy whose signature it bears. The purport of the whole appears to be simply to inform the world of the fact, that " 1, (W. L. M'Calla) have been in person to see Gen. La Fayette; whilst some others, less officious, or less greedy after mushroom popularity than myself, have not availed themselves of the opportunity." Though the above be the apparent, yet it is not the sole object which Mr. M.Calla had in view in presenting the public with this important item of intelligence. He thought he had now too good an opportunity to let pass of irritating universalists and unitarians in a body, as well as attempting to prejudice the public mind against them. We have the satisfaction, however, to believe, that Mr. M'Calla stands entirely alone in this affair, and that no single one of the liberal minded clergy in this city, nay of the whole country, will thank him for his officiousness, at this particular time, in striving to mar the reputation of those whose only crime is that their religious faith does not exactly correspond with his own.

It is indeed truly strange that Mr. M'Calla, on an occasion which called forth the gratitude of every heart, and in the mids of that universal harmony which pervaded all classes, sects, and parties, could not have suppressed that spirit of maliciousness for which he has on some former occasions distinguished himself. The joy produced by the presence of the illustrious visitor, the friend of civil and religious liberty, was pure and unmingled, and would have remained uninterrupted, had it not been for the peevishness of a solitary individual. Mr. M'Calla stated, that they all agreed in excluding from their procession those clergymen (falsely so called) who deny the supreme deity of Jesus Christ, "&c. I would ask who excluded them? Why the Clergy. But did the authority of the city, or did General La Fayette himself exclude them? Surely not; for universalists did visit him, and he treated them with equal attention and respect, evincing thereby that nobleness of mind which has marked his steps in every transaction of his life.

66

Universalists and unitarians had the same privilege of forming a procession that others had, and perhaps would have made as respectable an appearance (but for their numbers) as the procession did, in whose ranks was numbered the modest Mr. M'Calla. The only sanction which Mr. M'Calla has given for the proceedings of which he has borne so conspicuous a part, is the conduct of those whose faith accords with presbyterians; but we have great reason to be thankful that in this land of freedom and independence, such contracted views do not form the standard by which to judge of a man's piety or merit. As to his classing universalists and atheists together, he has manifested either too much ignorance or too much wilfulness to render it worthy of comment. What he has extracted from the 9th article of the constitution of this state, he as well knows does not disqualify universalists from holding offices of trust or profit, as he does, that many of the civil officers, not only of this state, but of the United States, are universalists and unitarians. Before Mr. M'Calla boasts any more of his having visited the General. while some others did not, which privilege (as he would insinuate) was denied them, on account of believing the doctrine of universalism or unitarianism, I hope he will have the goodness to inform the public what qualified the most distinguished citizens of Boston and Cambridge for the company of Gen. La Fayette; or what qualified the Hon. John Q. Adams for the General's society while he tarried in this city! It will be easy for all to conclude who know the religious faith of the individuals to whom I have just alluded, that their qualifications did not consist in embracing the doctrine of the Trinity, of their believing in the existence of the devil as a "fallen angel," nor of their belief of the interminable torments of the wicked. Philad. Oct. 11, 1824.

WILLIAM MORSE.

No. 25

DEBATE ON UNIVERSALISM.

FROM THE FRANKLIN GAZETTE, OF Oct. 21.

:

Mr. Norvell As my report of the late theological discussion is now completed, and will be presented to the public in a few days, I beg leave to trouble you with the following remarks, in answer to some of Mr. M'Calla's statements in relation to me, which appeared in your Gazette of the 7th instant, presuming that if I can show that the most prominent of his assertions are not founded on fact, it would only be intrusion to attempt to prove that the remainder are equally unfounded and unjust. He insists, that I was employed by the Universalist church to report the discussion. This is not a fact. Had he taken the pains to have inquired, he would have found that it was a Mr. Stetson who was engaged by the church, which engagement Mr. Stetson could not fulfil, in consequence of the discussion being protracted longer than he could remain in the city; or for some other cause to me unknown. I then, being the only person who had notes of the whole of the debate, considered it a duty I owed to the public to publish my report of it, knowing that it could not be obtained from any other source. Immediately after I had made known my intention, Mr. M'Calla appeared in your Gazette, and stated that the work was "unauthorized," because, I suppose published without his authority. I, in my reply of August 7, stated that I considered myself the reporter of neither Mr. Kneeland nor Mr. M.Calla, not having been engaged by either of them nor by any other individual in existence, but the reporter of the public, whom alone I considered my authority for publishing it. From the purest motives, I undertook and have completed the laborious task; namely, from a conscientious belief that it will be useful to the public. Had any other person possessed the materials for furnishing the report in full, as I have given it, I should have been glad to have been freed from so unthankful an office; for it is well known to those who are in the habit of reporting debates in congress, in the state legislatures, or in the houses of parliament in Great Britain, that speakers do not always repay with kindness the faithful labours of a reporter. Speakers are apt to forget many things they have stated; the more faithful, therefore, the reporter is in reporting expressions used by them in the warmth of debate, the less they thank him for his fidelity, when, in their cooler moments, those expressions meet their eyes, to which their heads, I will not say their hearts, have given birth. The case of Mr. M'Calla, then, is not singular. He is not the first who has denied his speeches, nor is it likely he will be the last. It is natural for a man of sanguine temperament, in the warmth of argument, to use expres

H

sions which, on reflection, he would perhaps gladly expunge from the reporter's minutes; but which, in this instance, are given to the world as they were delivered. Had I been less faithful, it is probable I should have escaped the chastening pen of Mr. M'Calla; and, as the author of a little pamphlet which appeared immediately after the close of the debate, have passed along unheeded. But Mr. M'Calla, as soon as I made known my intention of publishing my report, being aware of the powers of the stenographic art, was determined to be beforehand with me; he therefore endeavoured to prejudice the public against my report by publicly denouncing it as "spurious" before he had seen a line of it! It is true, he has since attempted to prove that it is "partial, unsatisfactory and spurious;" but how? Not as a candid man would, by pointing out, when requested, one or more of the real or supposed errors, as a proof that he had something to ground his assertions on: No! but by telling the world that I am a Universalist! This, he thinks, is quite sufficient to justify him in any thing he may be pleased, in the plenitude of his charity, to alledge against me, no matter how seriously it may af fect my interest or my character. This proof of my having given an unfaithful report may do very well, coming from Mr. M'Calla, for the bigotted, the illiterate, and the unthinking part of the community; but it will not convince a man of sober reflection; for he will see, immediately, that by pursuing this train of reasoning, it would be morally impossible to have a faithful report. This debate was not the affair of a select few, nor of a party, but one in which all are interested, whether Pagan, Mahometan, Jew or Christian; and between the two points of controversy their is no intermediate belief; for every individual in existence, if he think at all on the subject, believes that there is a future state of punishment in another world, or there is not. As I have thought and examined a great deal upon this subject, I must necessarily believe with one or other of the two disputants. Suppose then, I believed with Mr. M'Calla, that there is a future state of punishment in an immortal state; by the very same rule that he attempts to prove that a Universalist can not possibly give a faithful report, he equally proves the utter impossibility of a faithful report being given by one who is not a Universalist, or by any other individual in existence.

Mr. M'Calla's reasoning upon this subject, however, is consistent with the system of logic by which he can demonstrate to the satisfaction of any person, as narrow-minded as himself, that if a universalist were to give a loaf of bread to a poor famishing fellow creature to keep him from actual starvation, or to give him a blanket in the depth of winter to keep his slow circulating blood from freezing in his veins; or if he, as the Samaritan of old, were to administer to the wants of a distressed and wounded traveller; in any one of these cases, this Mr. M'Calla, with a