with Mr. Campbell's own signature affixed, can at any time be exhibited.) inserted in page 4 of this volume. The reader is entreated to compare Mr. Campbell's substance, with the true copy, that he may, the more decidedly determine, how much dependence, he is safe, in placing on Mr. Campbell's recollections, (which is the great ground, of his narrative,) in other statements. On a fair comparison, it must be perceived, by the candid and judicious reader, that some of Mr. Campbell's rules, both as to substance and form, are an entire forgery.

But again, in Mr. Campbell's statements of what he calls facts, connected with the debate, in the 5th page,we meet with the following words: "The Debate was closed by myself, but after I sat down, Mr. Samuel Findly, by an injudicious, and unbecoming address, contrary to the rules by which he, as one of the Moderators, should have been governed, produced an unpleasant excitement in the congregation. But as the public, obviously and emphatically expressed their disapprobation of it, I feel no desire by a minute statement to perpetuate the remembrance of it." Now, whether Mr. Campbell has, in this statement, spoken the truth or not, will be submitted to the reader, after I have given a brief narrative of the transaction, to which he here alludes. Mr. C. has said that he had closed the debate, previous to Mr. Findley's address, of which he complains; and in the same sentence, he states, that said address was contrary to the rules, by which hẹ, asa Moderator, should have been governed. The controversy for which these rules were formed, it appears, was closed. They had consequently lived their day. How then could Mr. Findley's address violate

as respectably as possible, and withdrew. So far as any marks of attention, came under my notice upon my descerding the stage, they were entire ly of the caressing kind. My friends, at least did Fot discover any mortification, at my having acted · an injudicious and unbecoming part; and I had the opinion of some to the very reverse, who were as capable of judging, either on a question of order or merit, as Mr. C. or any of his friends.

Another instance of Mr. Campell's indisposition or incapacity, to state the truth, you have in a note appended to the 69th page of his book-He there calls Mr. F. the abettor and second, of Mr. W. We have only to say, that Mr. Findley appeared in no such character. No, he appeared on that occasion, as free of personal obligation to second,or abett, Mr. W. as Mr. C-;& nothing but the exercise of that prerogative, which he recd from the band of Mr. Campbell himself,to defend truth, and good order, to the insupportable chagrine of Mr. Campell's lawless spirit, could have induced him, [Mr. C. groundlessly to apply these contemptible epithets.

In the same page he complains that Mr. F. had made a proposition sooner than he had anticipated to bring the subiect under discussion to a close. It is utterly denied that Mr. F. made any such prop osition at that tine, but with the hearty concur, rence of his associ te judge. Now is it honest? is it candid? to attribute a decision that was equally concurred in, by each of the judges acting on the occasion, to the unfair interposition of an individual. Such however is the honesty and such the candour of our author.

We have a like instance of disingenuity, in the 76th P. of his book. His words are, "Here I was

interrupted by Mr. F. who objected to this mode of proceeding. He said that as the object of this meeting, was the edification of the public, he could not perceive how the asking and answering of questions could promote their edification,he desire that we should proceed in some way more conducive to their edification. To which I repliedMr. F. you are doubtless an advocate for the Westminster creed and catechism, and I presume as such, must agree with your bretheren, that the catechetical mode of instruction is the best, as we arenow proceeding as the Westminster divines direct, I think you cannot without a dereliction of principle object. Mr.F. then was mute, I proceeded." What magnanimity? What knight-hood was displayed here? Truly when I read this part of Mr.Campbell's report I was induced to exclaim, O truth whither hast thou fled! O shame, O thou fear of God & fear of man, whither hast thou fled!! Did Mr. Campbell think there were none present that could or would, bear testimony to the truth, in opposition to his abominable perversion? If he did, I assure him he is greatly mistaken. To the audience then present, I appeal, while I write for the satisfaction of those, who have had no other source of information, than the above mistatement of the fact. The truth is this. Mr. Campbell had been stating questions, and making assertions, & pausing in each interim, for the matter of two, three, or four minutes, untill his father had time to write, in full, the words he had used, and then there was a reading, and restating of what had been stated, to ascertain that no mistake had taken place; he stated at the same time, that he was thus particular, with a view to publish to the world the whole of what passed on the occasion. After

he had repeated such intervals again and again, until the audience became quite restless and discomposed, from not having their attention occupi ed, and just while Mr. Campbell was suspending his address, in waiting upon his father's transcribing what he had said, lasked him if he was done, he replied no, it was his 40 minutes, and he would Occupy them as be pleased.-I observed that it was his 40 minutes to speak and argue, if he had any thing to say, but it was not his time to waste; that the public were waiting for edification; but that they would not be disposed to wait upon his writing a book. This closed the interview between Mr. C. and myself. He progressed in the debate, and I, of course, remained mute.. I had succeeded in calling him to order, which was my object in speaking.

His

See again Page 99, to the same effect. words are:-"Mr. F. said that he and his associate Moderator thought that enough had been said on the Covenants, &c." Now I have to inform Mr. Campbell, and the public, that the word covenant or covenants, did not escape from my lips at the time; nor was it the subject of remark-our opinion respected the controversy on the subject of baptism. Mr. C. may perhaps, at this, wipe his mouth, and say, is it not a little one? Be it so. It is sufficient to discover his disinclination or incapacity at any time, where fact is concerned, to state the truth.

For another aberration of a similar kind, we invite the reader's attention to p. 118 of his book on the debate &c. There he tells you that Mr. Findley asked the name of the author of the book, which he held in his band-strange indeed! that Mr. Findley should have asked the name of an au