Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in No. 30, quoted against him, publishes it, as thus altered, for Dr. Ely's certificate, without giving any notice of the suppressions which he had made! The following is a copy as published in p. 334 of his work, in a supplementary number.

The Rev. Dr. Ely, of the 3d Presbyterian Church, Pine-street, has certified as follows:

At the request of Mr. Jennings, I would state, that I have not been able, since the publication of his "Minutes of a Discussion," &c. to read more than fifty pages of the work, which is less than one sixth part of the whole. So soon as I can find time to read the whole, I shall freely communicate, at his request, my opinion of the same.-During the debate of Tuesday afternoon, July 13th, I was absent, so that I can only express an opinion on the first forty pages, and the short speech attributed to myself, on pages 234 and 235, concerning which I am free to declare, that I discover in these forty-two pages, so far as my memory serves me, no important error or omission. I think the forty-two pages, of which I now give my opinion, as just a statement of what was uttered in my hearing, as could be expected of any stenographer, who should attempt to follow men of ready utterance, in a debate of TWENTY HOURS.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Jennings, in the Franklin Gazette of the 21st ult. thinking it of no avail to urge any longer the old refuted fables invented by envy and disappointed ambition, seeks to rest the whole cause upon two points; my calling him an employed stenographer, and my calling his Minutes a corrupt report: "presuming," says he, "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." On the first point he tells us that if Mr. M'Calla had "taken the pains to have enquired, 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." Let it be observed here, that Mr. Stetson was employed by the church, and not by Mr. Kneeland, and he declined the engagement and left the city before the debate was closed. This then was the time for Mr. Jennings to come forward with his proposals. In his next words

66

he plainly intimates that he had done so, and that my opposition commenced immediately after he and not Mr. Kneeland nad offered the work to the public. His words are, immediately after I had made known my intention Mr. M'Calla appeared in your Gazette and stated that the work was unauthorized.” Where was it that Mr. Jennings had made known his inten on before I made this statement? No where that I have seen. Mr. Kneeland had made known his intention often enough. He had told us, July 21st, several days after the debate, and of course after Mr. Stetson had left the city, that "the WHOLE discussion has been taken down in short hand by a stenographer employed for the purpose." Mr. Jennings, in his last pubiication tells us that Mr. Stetson did not take notes of the whole but only a part of the discussion, and that Mr. Jennings was the only person who had notes of the whole of the debate." Also on the cover of his sixth number he says. no person took notes during the whole of the debate except myself." Who but Mr. Jennings then, can be Mr. Kneeland's employed stenographer who took down the whole discussion, since he from his own shewing, was the only person who had notes of the whole debate? But we are not here left to mere inference. That same Mr. Kneeland whọ had told us above that the whole discussion was recorded by a stenographer employed for the purpose, tells us in his notice of August 6th, that the Minutes were "taken in short hand by R. L. Jennings." He does not tell us that the church had employed him, but he acts in every stage of the business thus far, as if he himself had the sole control and the undivided responsibility of the undertaking. He does not tell us, as Mr. Jennings now does, that Mr. Stetson was the employed stenographer; for this would be impossible, because this employed stenographer had taken down the whole discussion, whereas vir. Stetson recorded only a part. He does not tell us of any derangement of plan on account of Mr. Stetson's departure from the city, for it was after this departure that the whole discussion by this employed stenographer was first promised: but he announces the work once and again without any change of plan or workman, and in such a way, in one case, as to make the reader believe that it is published not by Mr. Jennings, but the parties. At last, when he tells us that the first number is in the press and proposes his terms of sale, I informed the public, to prevent a gross imposition, that the work was published by one party exclusively, and not authorized by me. In order to give an air of impartiality to the work, Mr. Kneeland then persuades the com munity that he had not authorized the work; but that without his having any thing to do with it, it was as faithful a report as ever was made. Then also for the first time, Mr. Jennings seems to emerge from his subordinate condition, and publicly to declare

himself" the sole publisher of the said debate, and as publicly disown being engaged with either of the parties directly or indi rectly." For believing Mr. Kneeland's assertion to the contrary, he accuses me of a high offence, and is willing that all our lesser matters of dispute should follow the fate of these two questions, is he an employed stenographer? is his report corrupt? My proof of the former is very simple, and although it rests upon the testimony of Messrs. Kneeland and Jennings, bad witnesses I confess, since they contradict themselves and one another, yet they ought to be good in a Universalist court, although disqualified by the constitution of Pennsylvania. Mr. Kneeland says that the whole discussion was recorded by an employed stenographer: Mr. Jennings says that he was the only one who recorded the whole discussion:-Therefore he is the employed person. Accordingly his Master at last formally announces his

name.

There is a way of corrupting a work of this kind without any of those grievous interpolations and suppressions which were exposed in the Franklin Gazette of the 23d ult. The strength of each part depends on its connexion, and every fact and argument will become nugatory, every anecdote and retort will become insipid. There is no difference between the best and the worst composition, when they are read across the columns of a newspaper. Not satisfied with transposing my remarks on the disorderly conduct of the Universalists, and thus introducing them where there is no call for them, he actually transposes his notice of the clapping and hissing of the audience which occasioned the animadversions of the parties. Near the middle of page 47, he tells us that there was loud clapping, then hissing. Now it is a fact, which the audience will doubtless recollect, that this loud clapping took place just before" Mr. Morse sat down," and of course belongs to the middle of page 48. During the debate I observed that my opponent sometimes complained of my doing nothing but reading my little book, and at other times, that I did nothing but exercise my wit upon his speeches. This contradiction, I observed, reminded me of the fable of the traveller and the Satyr, the latter of whom drove the former from his cave (not hut, as Mr.Jennings has it,) for blowing hot and cold with the same breath. Mr. Jennings thinking that this was applicable in page 80, tells it there for me better probably than I told it myself; but in page 87 to which it really belongs, he merely refers to it, after making a confused and incorrect statement of the facts which occasioned me to relate it. A disputant who should speak as he has made me do in page 112, about the lion and the eagle might be suspected of an addled brain. This unsavoury omelet which he has mixed for me, is about equal to the barbecue with which he favoured us from Sterne's Sentimental Journey. In this place he does not give my authority, certain Scottish Reviewers

to whom I expressly referred for my real remarks, but he refers to them in page 86 where I said nothing about them.

In quoting a certain passage of Scripture I observed that it related to the end of the world. Mr. Kneeland immediately set to work to prove that this expression, the end of the world, did not mean what we usually understand by it. As these words were not in the text but only in my comment, I thought that Mr. Kneeland's criticism resembled one of Thomas Paine's which I had read more than a dozen years ago, on Job 37, 18. Without consulting the sacred text where he would have found that the word there used meant a molten metallic mass, Mr. Paine exercised his ingenuity upon our translation, molten looking-glass; to prove that the book of Job was written since the manufacture of glass was discovered. The only time that I used this illustration was in connection with an argument which Mr. Jennings professes to give in page 97, where the illustration is not found, but only an indefinite reference to it as having been given before. Turning back, we find it transposed to page 86, and attached to a foolish observation carved out of something that I said, but to which it is no illustration at all. He probably observed also that my reference to the metallic mirrors of the ancients was clumsy and obscure. For the sake of perspicuity, he makes me say that "the original does not signify glass, but something as transparent as glass!" Transparent metallic mirrors! He might as well have made me talk of transparent millstones.

Mr. E. of Maysville, Ky. once lent me a little work on Universalism which supposes the case of a poor afflicted widow reading Scarlett's translation of 2 Cor. 4-17, and enquiring of him what he meant by aeonian in that text. On Thursday afternoon of the debate, I recounted this case as one which I had read. Mr. Kneeland insinuated that the case was manufactured for the occasion; and asked why I did not use the name of Kneeland at once, as that was what I meant. The next morning I commented upon 2 Cor. 5-1, and supposed the case of a sinful and miserable man like myself instead of the widow. going to Mr. Scarlett; or, as my opponent seemed to prefer it, suppose that I should go to Mr. Crimson, to enquire the meaning of this celebrated word aionian. This was undoubtedly the first instance, and, unless I am egregiously mistaken, it was the only instance in which the word crimson was thus used. Yet in page 250 where this case is reported, this word is not found. Turning back to pages 224, 247, we find it tranposed to the case of the widow, and twice used in that connexion where it was never mentioned.

Besides all the errors which have been already exposed, notes are now before me of more than four score instances of palpable alterations, some of them affecting the argument, and

all affecting the character of the speaker for understanding or probity. This remark is not intended as an acknowledgement of the purity of the report in other places, where his alterations are less observable, nor is it intended as an intimation that the public indulgence shall be taxed by a multiplicity of specifications. It shall be taken for granted, that if a suitable proportion of these spurious speeches can be invalidated, this will sufficiently prove, according to Mr. Jennings' rule, "that the remainder are equally unfounded and unjust." But this will appear much more plainly when those who heard the debate shall compare Mr. Jennings' report with my argument. For this work we shall wait, to shew my real division which he has so transformed in page 22; and my real criticism which he has pretended to copy in pages 284 and 324, and other places. In page 220, he appears disposed to make a solemn subject ludicrous, at my expense, and at the expense of truth. In illustraing Paul's expression, before the everlasting times, by an expression of the same writer, far above all heavens, I had occasion to tell the audience of the ærial and etherial heavens, and the heavens of heavens. My first heavens, the atmosphere of our earth, in which birds fly, Mr. Jennings makes the residence of God and sometimes God himself. My second heavens, in which the sun, moon and stars are fixed, he makes the residence of the Son of God, or the Divine Son himself. third heavens the abode of God and saints and angels, he makes the residence of angels only. His making me refuse to pray for Universalists, under pretence that they had committed the unpardonable sin is not the only error that can be plainly proved in page 81. Nor is his manner of introducing Epicurus who died for fear of poverty, when he was worth 70,000 sesterces, a solitary error in page 183.

My

Mr. Jennings thinks himself a witness between the parties in some matters of fact, and therefore has a special eye on these in his report. As Mr. Kneeland continued to the last day, to inform the audience of his want of matter to fill up his time, I informed them on that day, after one of these complaints, that as I had much more to say than the time allotted would allow, I should be much obliged to my opponent for such crumbs of his half-hours as he could spare. This had a bearing upon the question whether I was allowed time to finish my argument or not. Mr. Jennings therefore in page 259, converts it into a compliment to Mr. Kneeland's superior learning, without the least reference to my want of time. His words are the following, viz; "And although I may not have the learning of my opponent to make converts of you all, yet I hope he will give me the crumbs which fall from his table." It is evident that he

« AnteriorContinuar »