ter of the ferocious Beast" of the Apocalypse. To such persons you pretend that you are doing" the greatest possible kindness, by pointing out to them the CRUELTY OF THEIR GOD and the ABOMINATION OF ALL SUCH WORSHIP. These, sir, are your own words concerning the right worship of the true God by his faithful people. And yet, after this licentious traduction of their character, you pretend great solicitude to join with such a people in such a worship to such a God! Philadelphia, August 22, 1824. No. 12. W. L. M'CALLA. The above letter received the following notice in the two papers, of August 27th, and September 4th. FOR THE FRANKLIN GAZETTE. Mr. NORVELL: I notice in your paper of the 23d istant, a long letter addressed to me, and signed "W.L. M'CALLA," which he probably expects me to answer; but as Mr. M'Calla has not complied with any of the terms on which it was proposed to him that the discussion between us might be renewed, I have no occasion to answer his long letter; being, as I am, perfectly willing to submit to the reasonableness of my propositions, and the candor of his rejoinder, to a discerning and judicious public. A. KNEELAND. Philadelphia, August 27, 1824. [COMMUNICATION.] Mr. BINNS: I noticed in your paper of Thursday a communication from Mr. W.L. M'Calla, which had previously appeared in the Franklin Gazette; in answer to it, I have only to refer you to the letters that passed between Mr. M C. and myself, that were published in that Gazette of the 23d ultimo, and afterwards in your own paper; in which it will be perceived, that I have offered to meet Mr. M'C. 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. Respectfully, Philadelphia, Sept. 3, 1824. A. KNEELAND. No. 13. The Universalist Magazine, of August 28, sent to me from Boston contained the following: FOR THE UNIVERSALIST MAGAZINE. THE REV. MR. M'CALLA. The public attention has, for some time, been excited by the movements of this gentleman, in Philadelphia. We have seen an account of his challenging the Rev. Mr. Kneeland to a public debate on the question whether the doctrine of endless misery be true; of Mr. Kneeland's acceptance; of the debate which was continued from day to day, until discontinued by mutual consent. We are further certified by what Mr. Kneeland has since published, that neither he nor his friends were in any degree convinced that the doctrine of endless misery is a doctrine of divine revelation; but contrary to this, we understand that it is their opinion that the challenger was never able to substantiate any thing which is essential to his doctrine, nor refute a single proposition which is necessarily connected with the doctrine. of Universal Salvation. As much as the foregoing is well understood by many. When I was at Hartford, Conn. last week, to attend the dedication of a new universalist meeting house in that City, and the installation of the Rev. Mr. Bisbe, I had the pleasure of seeing, among other faithful brethren, the Rev. Mr. Mitchell, from the City of New York. He showed me a letter which he had recently received, from the Rev. Mr. M'Calla, of Philadelphia, which informed Mr. Mitchell, that Mr. M.Calla had beaten Mr. Kneeland off from the strong delusion of universalism, and that he wished to wait on Mr. Mitchell in New York for the purpose of publickly refuting him, and of convincing his congregation. When this letter was read in Hartford, I told Mr. Mitchell that, it confirmed me in the opinion to which I was inclined on reading this clergyman's challenges, which were addressed to Mr. Kneeland in Philadelphia; which was, that from some cause, the man was not exactly in his right mind. I think Mr. Mitchell and others, of good judgment, agreed with me on this subject. The evening that I arrived in Boston, I received the following letter, which sufficiently corroborates the opinion which I had before formed, of Mr. M'Calla's misfortune. REV. SIR, LETTER. Philadelphia, August 13, 1824. I have recently had a debate in public with Rev. Abner Kneeland, and as the public generally have concluded, have completely beaten my opponent. I am now desirous, sir, of break D ing a lance with you upon some other tenet of the Universalists, such as may mutually be agreed upon, and should like to commence the same in some public place in your City, either your house of worship or some City hall as soon as possible.Will you, sir, favor me with an early reply to this, directed to No. 69, North Third street. For my character as a man of learning, I refer you to Rev. Dr. Wilson, and Rev. Dr. Ely, whose sanction in the present challenge has been obtained in writing. W. L. M'CALLA. REMARKS. The reason why I publish this letter and give the foregoing information is, by no means, to injure Mr. M'Calla, but to prevent, what I am very confident would be attempted, if this public notice was not given; viz. insinuations that Mr. Mitchell of New York, and Mr. Ballou of Boston, have neither of them confidence or courage to meet this man in public debate, respecting the doctrine of universal salvation. If Mr. M'Calla was perfectly sane, he would know, that if he had beaten Mr. Kneeland, in such a way as to do any good, Mr. Kneeland or his friends, or both, would acknowledge it; for what good does it do to refute one in error, unless he, by some means, can find it out? But, if he really believes that he has convinced the Universalists of Philadelphia, that the doctrine of endless punishment is a doctrine of divine revelation; if he had his reason, would he not know that there is no need of any further public dispute, but that to publish these convincing arguments, which have settled the great question in Philadelphia, would silence universalism where ever they should be read ? But he wishes to dispute with me on some other tenet of universalism; as if after he had disproved the doctrine in the gross, it becomes necessary to refute it by taking its items in detail ! But after all, if I have not judged correctly, and Mr. M'Calla is just what he thinks he is; and if the Rev. Doctors, to whom he refers are in earnest and acting understandingly in this matter, then I would say, let them accompany their champion to Boston and stand by him while he shall publicly refute the doctrine of God's universal, impartial goodness, and prove that the God of all grace is unmercifully cruel, and I will engage, when all this is done, to give up my hope in divine mercy, and join these Rev. divines in the doctrine of despair. But before this, I promise to use my feeble powers to the utmost in defence of the gospel. HOSEA BALLOU. No. 14. September the 1st, Mr. Kneeland published the following. FROM THE FRANKLIN GAZETTE. TO MR. HOSEA BALLOU, OF BOSTON. SIR.I have just seen a publication in the Universalist Magazine" of your city, for August 28, 1824, over your name, in which you give a letter, purporting to be from the Rev. W. L. M'CALLA. That letter makes Mr. M'CALLA say, "for my character as a man of learning, I refer you to the Rev. Dr. WILSON and the Rev. Dr. ELY, whose sanction in the present challenge has been obtained in writing." I have no question but that you received from somebody the letter which you have published; but I am fully convinced that Mr. M'CALLA is a man of sound mind and unblemished integrity, and that he never wrote, indited, or addressed one line on any subject to you, or to Mr. MITCHELL of New York, in his life. One thing I can positively affirm, that he never consulted me about challenging any man, to any sort of contest, nor did I ever give any sanction, by writing or otherwise, to his challenging any one. Some person has put into the pretended letter of Mr. M CALLA an absolute and infamous lie. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, August 30, 1824. I suspected that the letters above alluded to might be a forgery, on my first seeing the one to Mr. B. though I am not fully convinced that they are so. What created my suspicion was the respectful appellation "Reverend," prefixed to the names of Mr. Ballou and myself. I should be able, however, to detect the forgery, if it be one, could I but see the original letters. In all his correspondence with me, Mr. M'C. never wrote any thing more than his name, which is very peculiar, and I think I should know it among five hundred. He told me, in the presence of several others, that he was so nervous he could not write. Dr. Ely says, "I am fully convinced that Mr. M'CALLA is a man of sound mind and unblemished integrity." How could a man of sound mind denounce a discussion as being altogether spurious, to which the testimony of hundreds could be obtained (if it were necessary) of its being as faithful a report as ever was made; so faithful that no one has yet been able to point out a single error affecting the arguments on either side? If he were of a sound mind, how could he say that he was denied the privilege of the house any longer, when Dr. E. knows himself to the contrary Por, how could he say that I had sent him the first number of the discussion, and requested him to point out the errors, if there were any, when I had neither done the one nor the other? and when the very number contained on its cover a let ter from Mr. Jennings, the Stenographer and publisher of the work, addressed to both him and me, (as well as to Dr. Ely and the other Moderators,) requesting the same thing which was imputed to me? If Dr. Ely can reconcile all this with the gentleman of a sound mind, so be it. Then to what motive will he impute these facts, which must stare him in the face? No. 15. PHILADELPHIA. A. KNEELAND. WEDNESDAY EVENING, Sept. 8, 1824. Reverend Sir, You are hereby respectfully requested to furnish the public with the evidence by which you were "fully convinced that Mr. M'Calla is a man of sound mind and unblemished integrity, and that he never wrote, indited, or addressed one line on any subject to [Mr. BALLOU, of Boston,] or to Mr. MITCHELL, of New York, in his life." We sometimes presume without any other evidence than that which the nature of the case affords : but to presume is one thing, and to be convinced is another, and a very different thing. You might presume it, because, as you say, the letter to Mr. Ballou contains "an absolute and infamous lie!" but by what evidence were you" convinced" that Mr. M.C. did not sign the letter which contains it? He has not disavowed it as yet, as I can learn, and if he had not "addressed" such a letter, would he not have been as prompt in disavowing it, as Dr. E. has been in disavowing the lie it contains. Presuming, therefore, that you possess the evidence which "fully convinced" you of the truth of the statement contained in your letter to Mr. Ballou of the 30th ultimo, in justice to Mr. M'Calla, as well as all concerned, I repeat the request that this evidence should be given to the public. Your's, respectfully, Philadelphia, Sept. 8,1824. ABNER KNEELAND. To the Rev. EDWARD MITCHELL, of New York, and the Rev. HOSEA BALLOU, of Boston. Reverend Gentlemen, 66 As the Rev. Dr. Ely is fully convinced that Mr. M'Calla never wrote, or addressed" either of you, on any subject," (and of course considers the letters which you have received [bearing his name] a forgery,) if you should be convinced, from the statement in the last number of the Gazetteer, that those |