Bible and Robinson! This must be true, if Mr. Ryan's testimony be true.

It is a general principle of all law, civil or military, ecclesiastical or social, that particular facts are necessary to support general charges. Notwithstanding Mr. Ryan's testimony, it can be proved, that, during the debate, Mr. Campbell ridiculed my inaccurate quotations of scripture, and in his subsequent report, accused me of making “material alterations" of the sacred text. It can also be proved that I called upon him for specifications. He has never, to my knowledge, condescended to produce one instance, in which I interpolated or misquoted Mr. Robinson, whether before my eyes or not; he has never produced one instance of my misquoting the scriptures, when before my eyes; nor one inaccurate quotation of them from memory, which would favour my own cause. If my charges against him, had dependupon the general certificates of such men as Mr. Ryan, he would have justly laughed me to scorn. But when I accused him of misquoting the scriptures, or Dr. Owen, or Mr. Walker, or other writers, (and they were not a few,) I submitted to the drudgery of producing Mr. Campbell's words, and comparing them with the original. How gladly would he have done the same, if I had ever given him an opportunity. May God accept my sincere and humble thanks for preserving me from such crimes, and for giving me a cause which needs not such artifices to support it.

ed

The most important object of Mr. Campbell's pamphlet was to shew that his book, which is such a lucrative speculation to him, is really a correct account of our debate. On this subject I would observe, that he has a very unsatisfactory way of proving the correctness of his reports, by the objections of those who impeach them. Mr. Walker published several pages of exceptions to Mr. Campbell's account of their debate; to which he added a pages of exceptions, by one of the Moderators. Mr. Campbell would persuade the public that these "altogether would not make one page ;" and then pretends that if all these exceptions were well substantiated, his Report "would appear from Mr.

dozen

B

"Walker's own treatise to be a correct representation of the con66 troversy." My exposure of his Report in our case gave a very great number of particulars. Of these he speaks as follows, viz. "Even when all the particulars he gives are excepted, still the "debate as published by me is worthy of the title and credit "which it has received." Now let us examine the title and credit which it has received, and compare these with my exceptions.

The title as published in the printed Prospectus, is "A De"bate on Baptism, between Mr. W. L M Calla, of Kentucky, "and A. Campbell, of Virginia, held in Washington, Mason "County, Kentucky, on the 15th of October, 1823, in the pre66 sence of many witnesses." The very next words of the Prospectus promise that "All the arguments on both sides shall be "faithfully and impartially DETAILED." Nothing less than this detail would make it the debate which was held between the parties mentioned, at the time and place specified, and in the presence of many witnesses. In the title page of his book, he is still more particular, informing us of the debate which he reports, commencing on the 15th and terminating on the 21st [22nd] Octob. 1823." The TITLE of the book, then, authorizes us to expect a faithful and impartial detail of all the arguments which I delivered in Washington, Kentucky, in a number of speeches, which commenced on the 15th and closed on the 22nd of Octob. 1823, lasting seven days; for the sabbath was left out. This is a fair account of the title of his book.

66

Now for the credit which it has received." Mr. Campbell's own explanation of this expression is to be found in the certificates of his witnesses, who profess to have heard the debate, as it actually took place, and then to have read and compared his printed report. They testify that so far as they "heard and read," "Mr. Campbell has given in his publication of the debate, both "in substance and FORM, fairly and substantially, ALL the argu"ments offered on both sides of the question." One calls it "a FULL, fair, and faithful exhibition of all the principal arguments and topics." Another says that it contains "all the matter and

argument advanced by both disputants." Another adds, "very generally the phraseology itself." Thus much for the credit of the book. Now add this to the title; and we are authorized by "the title and credit which it has received," to expect that Mr. Campbell's book will furnish a detailed report, full, faithful, and impartial, in respect of matter, form, and phraseology, of all my topics and arguments, in the seven days debate in Kentucky, October, 1823.

Mr. Campbell has assured us that this is the real character of report, even after admitting all the exceptions which I have

made.

The judgment of candour will consider him as virtually admitting the correctness of my exceptions, in fact, since, serious, numerous, and tangible as they are, he has not overthrown a single one of them ; but reposes himself upon their supposed harmlessness. Taking my objections, therefore, for granted, let us compare them with some of the alledged features of his book, and in the undisturbed possession of which he thinks that my exceptions leave it. This must, of course, be done with great brevity.

1. He promises a DETAILED report. My objections, which he has virtually admitted, prove from the book itself, that a great part of it is professedly an ABRIDGED report.

2. He and his witnesses call it a FULL report. My objections shew from his own book, that a great part of it confessedly records short sums, specimens and abstracts, instead of full speeches, while there is not even a specimen recorded of very much that I said.

My

S. He and his certificates call it a FAITHFUL report objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew very numerous misstatements, as to matters of fact; they shew that he has written for me in his dialect, which is, in some instances, foreign to my own, and foreign to correct English; they shew that while using his own language, he has so transposed and altered my sentiments, as to make them error, confusion, and nonsense; they shew that the body of my quotations he has suppressed, while he has partly supplied their place, by greatly and stupidly

enlarging others, and quoting for me, from books which I had never named, nor even seen.

4. It is called an IMPARTIAL report. My objections shew that he, though one of the parties, constitutes himself a judge of the weight of argument; and when Mr. Campbell the Judge, has decided against the relevancy of arguments opposed to Mr. Campbell the Party, he then forbids Mr. Campbell the Reporter to record them. This is a very cheap sort of impartiality.

5. He and his witnesses alledge that his report has the above qualities in respect of MATTER. My objections prove from his printed book and my manuscript notes, that the matter of my speeches is not in his report. His very preface expressly professes to abbreviate whole days of my matter as my publication shewed at large.

6. They attach the above qualities to his report, with regard to FORM and PHRASEOLOGY. Surely these men must know that there is a difference in the form of a SPEECH and a SPECIMEN. They must know that there is à difference in the form of an oration Occupying thirty minutes, and an abstract occupying three minutes. Besides, the very face of the book shews that these miniatures are given in his own phraseology, and my admitted objections prove that where he pretends to use my language, he actually substitutes his own phraseology, even to his idiomatic violations of grammar.

7. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses insist upon the fulness and excellency of his report, in relation to my TOPICS. My manuscript notes and my actual speeches contained seven topics: but where will you find these in Mr. Campbell's book? Where, for instance, will you find the history of the mode of baptism? My printed objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew, that he, as well as other Baptists, claimed the most respectable Pedobaptists, as advocating their views of the mode of baptism; my objections shew, moreover, that these claims were most triumphantly refuted, in my discussion of this topic. Perhaps there was not another part of the debate, in which the gross dishonesty of my Opponent, and Danvers, and other Baptist writers, ap:

peared in a more disgraceful light. To bury the remembrance of such an exposure, he has suppressed the whole topic, and then persuaded his impartial, disinterested and neutral followers, such as Walker Reid, to certify that his report is "a faithful representation of the TOPICS!" I would not be the writer of such a declaration, for ten thousand times all the votes, and all the fees, which this neutral certificate will procure its author, from the dense Baptist population around him. But let it not be thought that the above is the only instance of dishonesty on this subject. His report allows one page to my fifth topic; he allows another page to my sixth and seventh topics, which are directly called for by his challenge, and without which, I am deprived of a defence. To the sixth topic, which was the most important, he has allowed six lines of that one page. Thus he has entirely suppressed one of my seven topics, and half of the remaining six, he has reported in two pages, and that in his own language.

MENTS.

not

8. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses, alledge, moreover, the excellency and fulness of his report, in relation to my ARGUThis leads us to evidence from Mr. Campbell's own pen, that he has laid violent hands upon another topic, which has yet been mentioned. His preface informs us that he has indulged in abbreviating" "the argument from ecclesiastic history." This argument occupied the third and fourth topics, which related to the history of the subject of baptism, and the history of the mode. One of these, I have shewn, he has entirely suppressed; and he expressly confesses that he has abbreviated the other.

9. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses consider his book as a report of the Debate which took place between him and myself, in Washington, Kentucky, on the 15th-to-22nd days of October, 1823. If it be so, it must give my speeches, whether vulgar or polished, relevant or irrelevant, during all the seven days, on all my seven topics, relating to the nature or effects of baptism, and embracing the arguments from scripture and from ecclesiastical history. Instead of this, we find one topic entirely suppress