« AnteriorContinuar »
reason, he says, was, because belonging to another Paido-baptist sect," he would be impartial” to him, and no doubt to me also !!
Though it has been generally said, that mr. Findley represented mr. W.'s failure in supporting the tradition as proceeding from his want of preparation ; yet he comes forward, by some agreement with mr. w. in his late Treatise, as a sort of auxiliary in tlic defamatory part. This letter is one continued epistle of defamation and misrepresentation. The following are facts that will not be denied, at all events they are notorious in this vicinity. 1. Mr. Findley acted as a moderator at the discussion at Mount Pleasant. 2. He was chosen, as mr. Walker says in his letter to me, p. 43, • not to give judgment, but to preside.” 3. He did, after the Debate was over, give his judgment on the stage, in the presence of the congregation. 4. After he had done speaking, in order to prevent a person from speaking who was requested to speak to the congregation, he told the congregation to depart, that he was the moderator, and now dismissed them. 5. He then took his hat, and departed through the crowd amidst the "hissings" of the congre·gation and cries of“ clear out” accompanied, some affirmed, by two, others, by three persons. 6. The congregation kept their place until addressed and dismissed by mr. Thomas Campbell. 7. After that Debate was published, mır. Findley said their was “a lie” in the first, or “frontal page" of it, that I had not applied to him for a copy of the rules for publication as I had there said. After some time this “ lie" became a subject of general defamation. I published a letter in the Washington Reporter to mr. Findley demanding the reasons why he had said so, and calling to his remembrance two persons who had called at his house for said copy of the rules, and also for the letter I had sent him to be submitted to thrce persons of respectability in that vicinity. Instead of submitting the letter to inspection as requested, he published in the next, or a succeeding paper, a most defarratory and scurrilous piece in which he published what he called the letter I sent him, signs my name to it, and represents me as demanding the original and not a copy of said rules. I then published the copy of the letter I sent him, which I had on file, and told him, now was the time to convict me of falsehood and exonerate himself, by producing my letter to him and comparing it with that published. If it did not correspond with that which I had published, then I was guilty of a crime worthy of being exposed; if it did, I was clear. So the matter
The letter was never produced, and it was reported that mr. Findley had lost it some months before, and published it from
but mr. Findley became so unpopular about West Middletown, that he emigrated down into Virginia, and now lives in the adjoining county. This is that mr. Findley who writes a letter in justification of himself, and in favor of his friend mr. Walker.This letter is still worse than the aforesaid treatise as respects style, matter, and manner. No less than 24 blunders, and most of them of the most palpable kind, are in the first page.
So much is necessary to explain the following testimonies
JUDGE JRTIS TESTIMO.VT. llavira presides is modurator in conjunction with mr. Findley, at the l'i bate at Mount Pleasant, between Alexander Campbell and Join Walker, and having read the substance of that Debate published y Alexander Campbell, shortly after its publication, I do certify that his representation of it is a fair, impartial, and correct statement of it, and as such I can conscientiously recommend it to the public.
I would also inform the public that I was interrupted from erpressing my disapprobation of the interference of mr. Fin lley after the Debate, in giving his judynient of it, from which I conceived him precluded, according to the rules by which we were to have brengoverned ; and because mr. Findley, in his address, endeavored to represent me as concurring with him in that speech; where. as, ! entirely disapprobated it, and believed the contrary of his repri sinations to be fact. 11-12, 1924.
JACOB MARTIN, THE TESTIMONY OF SALATHIEL CURTIS, ESQ. Trenrly clerk on the ground that belonged to neither party.
I ko certify that I was present at the Debate between Messrs. Campbell and Walker in Mount Pleasant, Ohio, June, 1820.
That I tou k the fullest notes, (except Greek criticisms, which I did not understand) on comparison with others, that were taken, and that I gave those notes to A. Campbell. That having read the Debate, as published by A Campbell, immediately after its publication, i can conscientiously recommend it as a full, fair, and impartial repre. sentation of that discussion, according to the notes taken by myself, and according to my recollections, which, at the time of its first appearance, were very distinct. Mut; 4, 1824.
S. CURTIS. Mr. W. has published what he calls the rules, whether they are or not I cannot say, as I never obtained a copy of them. Those published from my recollection differ froin thein in no one essentiul point, taking in mr. W.'s letter to me. Mr. W. makes a very unjust remark upon these. He says, I must have remembered them better than any other part of the Debate. The reverse is fact. For having heard them but once read' at the opening, and having no notes of them, how could I be supposed to remember then so well as the Debate, of which I had the notes taken by three persons, and in which my judgment was so much occupied !
Of As I conceive myself on clear ground with the Paido-baptist world!, as having explored all the systems of infant baptisni hitherto exbibited; I would inform the public, that, unless some new ground is taker, I will promise to review annuuilu all the new works published on this question, and sell the annual Review for 12 cts.
* CHRISTI. IN BAPTIST, of 12 numbers, each 24 pages, making a handsome volume per annum, edited by A. CAMIB"I!.. is publishtd monthly at this office, and sold at 8! a volume,