$^ 
 
 PY I 
 
 ^ 
 
 (^'''M 
 
<:::? PTfTTSrnF.TOW- TJ". J. -vO 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agncw Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 
y-oj^^i^,^/ 
 
 ^j^^y^ 
 
 W-^^j: yfdiL 
 
 % 
 
THE 
 
 UNITARIAN BAPTIST 
 
 OF THE ROBINSON SCHOOL 
 
 EXPOSED; 
 
 In papers collateral to a Discussion of Christian Baptism, 
 and its effects upon civil and religious society as shewn 
 in the Scriptuies, and in the history of the Church, 
 in opposition to the views of 
 
 MR. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, 
 
 As expressed in a seven days^ debate with the Author, at PPash- 
 inglon Kentucky, October 1824, and in his spurious publication 
 of that debate, and of a previous one of two days with the Rev. 
 John WkhK:.R of Ohio, and in opposition to the views of the 
 celebrated Mb.. Robinson, and other Baptist Authors. 
 
 Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and Author 
 of a "Discussion of Universalism." 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: PRINTED BY JOHN TOVWC. 
 
 1826. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In the autumn of 1819, the author settled in Augusta, Ken- 
 tucky, as the Pastor of a Presbyterian Church in that poor and 
 obscure, but delightful and healthful village. As soon as he 
 began to lecture on the Gospel according to Matthew, the Bap- 
 tists in the neighbourhood, who, as jet, appeared friendly, began 
 to predict that he would take little or no notice of the 3d Chap- 
 ter. It is now confessed with shame, that after a severe internal 
 3t:uggle, he had partially determined to follow this unfaithful 
 course, although he had kept his intention to himself. His re- 
 solution was occasioned not by any doubt of the propriety of 
 our views or practice in relation to Baptism, but by a too anxious 
 desire to live in peace, and to shew his affection to Baptist chris- 
 tians to whom he was very tenderly attached. Just before the 
 3d Chapter came under review. Major Fee, a man of very ad- 
 vanced age, and an elder of the Church, hearing the pro>hetic 
 rumour which tlie Baptist friends had set in motion, communi- 
 cated it to the author, accompanied with a remonstrance against 
 a policy so unmanly and so unininisterial. This occasioned him. 
 ti) give our Saviour's baptism a prayerful discussion of a fevv 
 minutes, qualified with many sincere expressions of love and 
 esteem for Baptist christians. Mr. Vaughn, a Baptist minister 
 settled iii the same place, acknowledged openly from the same 
 pulpit, on the ne ct sabbath-day that the Preacher had said noth- 
 ing which could wound the feelings of him or his bretheren in 
 the least degree. This was exceedingly gratifying to the Preach- 
 er's heart ; for although he had not an exalted opinion of Mr. 
 Vaughn in any respect, he thought that union in a good cause, if 
 it could be attained, promised far more usefulness than unneces- 
 sary and unprofitable dissention. Had Mr. Vaughn's subsequent 
 conduct been consistent with the above candid declaration, the 
 present work would probably never have been imposed upon the 
 public attention. But bad counsel, disappointed ambition, and 
 a mistaken view of the motives of his friend's conduct, induc<"d 
 him soon to assume a very different attitude. There is lea- 
 son to believe that Mr. Vaughn's opinion of the Author bef >re 
 and after the lecture on the Baptism of John, very much resem- 
 bled the opinion which the frogs entertained of King Log before 
 and after their acquaintance with him. They first feared and 
 honoured him. bt-* ause thev thought him dangerous ; they after- 
 ward despised and insulted him, because they found him harm- 
 
less. Being destitute of that generosity which can appreciate 
 disinterested motives, he afterward attributed forbearance to 
 feebleness, and publicly scofted from the pulpit, at the Author's 
 expressions of tenderness, as an indication of his timidity and 
 the weakness of his cause ; assuring the people that he in reply, 
 had no notion of touching the subject delicately like a man 
 treading on glass. He discovered too late that a more tender 
 walk would have been much to his advantage. 
 
 After Mr. Vaughn's most mortifying failure in an attack as 
 unprovoked as it was scurrilous and unfeeling, he and his warm- 
 est adherents were much refreshed with Mr. Campbell's publi- 
 cation of the debate between hira and Mr. Walker, in Mount 
 Pleasant, Ohio, June, 1820. This remarkable man is not sa- 
 tisfied with a friendly investigation of the subject and mode of 
 baptism, but he undertakes to prove that our practice is ^'■inju- 
 rious to the well-being of society, religious and political:''^ and 
 to the discussion of this question as well as the other, he pub- 
 lishes at the close of his debate, what he himself expressly calls 
 *' an invitation or chaHenge to any Fedo-bavtist •jiinister.'^^ It 
 soon appeared that a subscription paper was in circulation for 
 the joint purpose of requesting a ^'isit from Mr. Campbell, and 
 of paying his expenses. On the Author's expressing a willing- 
 ness to subscribe five dollars himself, if the paper v/ere presorted, 
 it soon disappeared^ probably fnsm an apprehension that a repe- 
 tition of Mr. Vaughn's precipitancy might issue in a similar 
 manner. While they were deliberating upon the matter, be- 
 tween two and three years, the rumours which reached Augusta, 
 concerning Mr. Campbell's genius and education, his resistless 
 boldness and overwhelming eloquence, raised the spirits of his 
 friends completely to the war point, and drove the author of 
 this work lo (what he hopes may without presumption, be called,) 
 constant and fei'vent prayer. From the rep* rts of Baptists and 
 Pedobaptists, all parties expected that on Mr. Campbell's ap- 
 pearance, their eyes should behold such a man as they had never 
 seen before, and might never view a« ain. Their fancies were 
 glowing with the image of a man, whose clear and accurata 
 reasoning, whose ready, rapid and inexhaustible elocution, were 
 backed by such a person and port, such a visage and voice, as 
 were altogether unparalleled and irresistible. The courage of 
 his friends so far from faultering, was now wound up beyond 
 the point of composure, to a considerable degree of confidence. 
 They resolved that the Author should either decline a meeting 
 with Mr. Campbell, or fall before him. Major (now Colonel) 
 Morris, a real friend, was despatched to him, to inquire first 
 whether he was willing to meet Mr. Campbell, and on another 
 visit, to inquire whether he would undertake to communicate his 
 willingness in writing. An afiirmative answer being given to 
 both these questions, a correspondence was immediately begun, 
 and on the 15th of October a debate commenced, which (omit- 
 ting the sabbath,) continued until the evening of the 22nd, (not 
 the 21st, as Mr. Campbell's title page declares.) v 
 
In the Prospectus of Mr. . Campbell's professed Report of 
 the debate, he has prsmised that '■'■all the arguments on both 
 sides, shall be faithfully and impartially detailed.'' Having 
 circulated many thousands of copies throughout the United 
 States, he has publicly triumphed in the eSect produced upon 
 the character and cause of his Antagonist- Sufficient time has 
 elapsed to satisfy both parties that this effect is considerable. In 
 prop<«;tion to^the groundless exultation of his adherents, Pedo- 
 baptists suffer mortification and loss. The exultation was on 
 the other side, at tlje debate, but it has changed hands by means 
 of his printed Report. Whatsoever may be thought or said 
 about the propriety of exposing such a work, among persons at 
 a distance from the field of conflict, it is confidently believed 
 that every Pedobaptist who heard the discussion, and myriads 
 who did not hear it, are conscientiously convinced that to answer 
 Mr. Campbell's book is an important duty, and that it cannot be 
 neglected without betraying the cause of truth. In defending 
 himself and the Church of Christ from the injurious assault of 
 Mr. Campbell, the Author does not seek a contest with other 
 Baptist ministers or churches. With honest and respectful 
 plainness, he can assure them that it is not their wisdom to be 
 indentified with him. If in some instances, they have thought 
 and acted otherv/ise, they and not the Author, must be answera- 
 ble for their folly. It will be recollected that the subjects in 
 dispute, are, whether an ordinance which we hold dearer than 
 life, is " a human tradition," and whether it is "injurious to 
 society, religious and political." When our religious principles 
 and our mural characters are unjustly assailed, we are not more 
 willing to plead guilty, if Mr. Campbell were backed by every 
 Baptist on i',arth, than we are, when our Accuser stands alone. 
 That the better sort of Baptists in Mr. Campbell's neighbourhood, 
 condemn him and his book, appears probable from the combin"- 
 which he has received from Mr. Greatrake, a preacher of theirs. 
 But that many olhers at a distance are otherwise-minded, appears 
 probable from Mr. Campbell's answer to his castigator. He 
 there publishes a flattering communication from an aged strano-er 
 in the State of New York, and tells us that he '-could give 
 others equally as flattering, from many parts of the UnUed 
 States." The extract which he has copied is signed by l imothy 
 Brewster, a Baptist minister, and is in the following words; viz: 
 " I have been in the habit of reading all publications on the doc- 
 " trine of baptism that have come my way fov forty years. I 
 "have never found a piece that was, in my opinion, so full so 
 "plain, so pertinent, so instructing, so convincing, so uiian- 
 "swerable, and unexceptionable^ as yours against Mr. M'Calla. 
 " And 1 thought it and felt it my duty to say to you — Well lone 
 " good and faithful servant of the church of the LorPs Anoint- 
 "ed." 
 
 Notwithstanding Mr. Greatrake's statement that "the more 
 solid and pious of the Baptist Church" condemn Mr. Ctinp- 
 bcU's public debates, he admits that they have secured him ex- 
 
& 
 
 tensive "influence among the Baptists," who have abundantly 
 rewarded his false zeal "with their subscriptions and their 
 smiles. " In one place he tells him, '• It appears that a conside- 
 rable part ol the Baptist church in the»e western sections of 
 the country have given the reins of dictation into your hands." 
 FroiTi one of these deluded followers, a letter was sent to the 
 Editor or Editors of the Columbian Star, a Baptist paper, pub- 
 lished in Washington City ; remonstrating against a gross slander 
 which that paper had aided. in circulating concerning the manner 
 of conducting the debate. The Editor corrects the slander, but 
 inserts a far more slanderous extract from the hitter, of which 
 no correction has ever yet come to hand, although evidence of 
 the fact must have been before the Editors long ago in Mr. 
 Campbell's book. Their western correspondent, to whose 
 statement they try to give currency, by assuring the public that 
 he is ''a very respectable clergyman in Kentucky,'' says, that 
 "Mr. Tampbell. in a most masterly manner, supported the cause 
 he had espoused." Mr. Campbelj's book has informed them what 
 that cause was ; it was a declaration that Pedo baptism was in- 
 jurious tb the well-being of civil and religious society. It has 
 also informed them substantially, of the masterly manner in 
 which he defended it. It was by roundly accusing the I'edo- 
 baptists not only of innovation, will-worship and corruption, but 
 of deception, superstition, imposition, persecution, and such like 
 slight offencn. These accusations, no less impious than impotent, 
 form just one half of that cause which the Columbian Star, through 
 their " very respectable clergyman in Kentucky," would have 
 the world to believe was supported "in a mont masterly Tuan- 
 ner.'" They are found in that zealous production which secured 
 to Mr, Campbell the " subscriptinns'^ and the " smilps^'' of west- 
 ern Baptists, and gave him among them, what Mr. Greatrake 
 calls '■^the reins of dictation.''^ These accusations form an im- 
 portant part of that book, which, if we may believe its author, 
 has been declared by Mr. Brewster, of New York, and other 
 flatterers equally great, in ''many parts of the United vStates," 
 to be " so full, so plain, so pertinent, so instructing, so convinc- 
 ing, so unanswerable, and [even] so uNExcKPTioNABLt.." Be 
 it so then. There are many Baptist preachers in the East and 
 in the West, who wish others to place them along with the 
 amiable Fuller or Gill, while they choose to indentify themselves 
 with Robinson or Campbell. By profession, they are so charit- 
 able and antisectarian that they seem to think it quite sinful to 
 mount a polemical charger even in the best of causes, yet they are 
 willing to hold the stirrup while a more daring champion vaults 
 into the saddle. If in the overthrow of their hero, a mingled 
 strife should trample upon the toes of his abettors, let them re- 
 member who made this unhallowed attack, and who said that 
 it was comJucted in a manner so '-^ masterly^^ a.n(\ so '•'•iinexcep- 
 tiono.ble.^^ Let who will uttei or approve such foul aspersions, 
 it is right that they should be repelled, that innocence should be 
 brought to light, and the ordinances of God defended. 
 
When, under a mask of zeal agairst infant-baptism, the Uni- 
 tarian Robinson of iinglaiid endeavoured to lead the [jeople 
 away to infidelity, the greatest Baptist in the kingdom was 
 among the fiist to expose the imposture. But the Baptists of 
 America have republished and industriously circulated this infi- 
 del production, and where is the Andrew Fuller to lift his voice 
 against it? Even the solitary and unheeded little Mr. Great- 
 rake, who has condemned Robinson's legitimate offspring (as 
 truly as death is the oftspring of sin,) has not, it is believed, 
 borne any testimony a uinst the guilty parent. Even his indig- 
 nant rebuke of heresy and hypocrisy, accompanied with the most 
 wanton and inexcusable caluinay, is rather a reproach upon ms 
 brethren, who, partly by silence, and partly by express approba- 
 tion, have become accomplices in liis guilt. 
 
 If their error cannot be corrected by wisdom and pious zeal, 
 they are likely to be convinced by sore experience. 'Ihey al- 
 reacly find that taking him into their favour, is like receiving 
 worms into the human body ; they prey upon the coats of the 
 stomach, instead of its pernicious contents. They would let 
 him bite at the heels of Hedobaptist Editors, Pastors, Missiona- 
 ries,^ Churches and Church-courts, until his heart was eased of 
 its venom ; but they find that he is not satisfied with this. Wher- 
 ever he sees any evidence of piety, zeal or usefulness, among the 
 Baptists themselves, he considers them lawful game, especially 
 if his temper is whetted, like Esau's appetite, by disappointment. 
 When he has made an unsuccessful campaign against such papers 
 as the Lexiijgton Luminary and the Pillsburgh Recorder^ he is 
 very apt to make the Baptist Luminary and Star pay the ex- 
 pences of the war. These he treats with perfect contempt, 
 while he quotes Socinian and Infidel papers as suuporfing their 
 cause in the m,ost muaferly manner. It is well known that he is 
 not only o])posed to the voluntary pecuniary support of the cler- 
 gy, but even to the very existence of such an order; and this, 
 not only among the Pedobaptists, but among the Baptists them- 
 selves, unless tJiey will become as impious as this Clerico-anticle- 
 rial Knight errant, and as abject in their servility as his Sancho, 
 Sidney Rigdon, who attended him to K.entucky. The superior 
 virulence which he has shewn to the Baptist Missionaries re- 
 minds one of he conduct of Ahasuerusoi Cambyses the son and 
 successor of Cyrus, who, after a disgraceful retreat from a for- 
 eign war, wreaked Ids vengence upon his own mau;istrates and 
 subjects, and even upon his own brother and sister. A war 
 with women was more suitable to the temper and talerits of that 
 degenerate monarch, and those who have witnessed Mr. Camp- 
 bell's brave and repeated assaults upon the character of Mrs. 
 Judson, the Baptist Missionary, can attest the same for him, 
 without putting Mr, Rigdon to the trouble of signing a certifi- 
 cate. If Mr. Campbell would be satisfied, like Sanballat the 
 Horonite, with opposing the budding of Pedobaptist churches 
 onl)*, some of his brethr^-n cuuld bear it, but his anger has burn- 
 ed against the Baptist Church in Fomfret, Connecticut, fur de- 
 
voting a house to religious purposes, and he has represented him- 
 self as guilty of a real sin in aiding to build, by voluntat-j con- 
 tribution, a Baptist church, in a village where there was no place 
 of worship. His own aifecting account of this mournful immo- 
 rality is in the following eloquent language ; Viz : "I made an 
 "•extensive tour through a part of the eastern region, visiting 
 "the cities of New Yorl, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Wash- 
 "ington, and did, to my present shame, by milking both the 
 " sheep and the goats, obtain about 1000 dollars for the building 
 " of a meeting-house in Wellsburgh, a place then destitute of any 
 "house for religious meetings." If Mr. Campbell would con- 
 fine his spite to the Pedo baptist Conferences and Conventions, 
 Synods and Assemblies, he would be more tolerable ; but he 
 prefers sometimes taking an object on which his artillery may 
 nave more effect. For this purpose he very unceremoniously 
 attacks the Baptist Conventions of New England, and that no- 
 ble committee who were instrumental in their formation. These 
 were the worthy Baldwin, Boles, Williams, Going, and Way- 
 land, whose excellence might well excite his spleen, and whose 
 piety and fidelity in the midst of general defection, endear their 
 names to the writer of this work, and to all who prize the essen- 
 tials of religion above its circumstantials. 
 
 The Author is very far from insinuating that Mr. Campbell 
 should not expose, with a proper spirit, the real faults of Min- 
 isters and people, even if they do belong to his denomination. 
 Their being in his connexion should be a reason for denouncing 
 their errors moi'e plainly and fully. But it so happens that their 
 errors are all that Mr. Campbell loves about them, and their ex- 
 cellencies are the object of his unrelenting hatred, and ceaseless 
 opposition. That a man who is perpetually talking and preach- 
 ing, and writing and printing in such a cause, can be actuated by 
 
 a proper spirit. that a tree which bears such fruit, can be 
 
 a good tree, requires more than christian charity to believe. But 
 he has not left us at a loss for his motive. We shall give it in 
 his own words. After the above mentioned snarling condemna- 
 tion of the Baptist Ministers and Conventions of New England, 
 he tells us what had moved him to publish that and many similar 
 productions for the past year. "My great object,'' says he, 
 *' was to please myself." There is no reason to doubt that this 
 is as faithful an exhibition of his motives, as the little child made 
 of its desires, when instead of praying, ''•thy will be done," it 
 said, ^'•my will be done." And it cannot be doubted that Mr. 
 Campbell's declaration is as good a'correction of the first ques- 
 tion in the Shorter Catechism, as this child's is of the 3rd petition 
 in the Lord's prayer. For wisdom and dignity, Mr. Campbell 
 considers the Westminister Assembly mere children in compari- 
 son with himself. They say, "Man's chief end is to glorify 
 God and enjoy him forever'' Mr. Campbell says, "My great 
 object was to please myself." Whether he has not here told 
 more of the truth than he is willing, upon second thought, to 
 acknowledge, may be safely submitted to the judgement of pious 
 
Baptists. Is Mr. Campbell's apposition to praying, singing 
 Psalms, and preachiug the gospel, even by pious Bapiists, 
 calculated to please God or to please himself? Is his op- 
 position to Baptist meeting-houses and congregations, minis- 
 ters and Theological Seminaries, on account of the good they do, 
 most pleasing to a good or to a bad conscience ? And who is most 
 pleased, the Author of Mercies, or the Father of lies, by Mr. 
 Campbell's fretful aiid persevering hostility to Baptist Missiona- 
 ries and Missionary .Societies, Bible and Benevolent Societies, 
 and every plan and effort which good Baptists can use for pro- 
 moting the Glory of God and the good of souls ? Let the Bap- 
 tists tnemselves consider this matter. " 1 speak as unto wise 
 men, judge ye what I say." 
 
 During the six months' correspondence which preceded the 
 debate, the Author made laborious as well as prayerful prepara- 
 tion for an event which he thought very probable. He brought 
 almost as many books along with him as Mr, Campbell had in 
 the debate with Mr. Walker. These he unlocked by easy and 
 accurate references, occupying tfiree closely written sheets of 
 paper, resembling a Lawyer's brief, and compacted by means of 
 a sort of short hand, almost as original as that of the unlettered 
 shop-keeper, who made a circle for a cheese, and put a dot in 
 the centre to denote a grindstone. These m iterials being all 
 moveable, could be disposed of in any way that the occasion 
 might call for. They admitted of transposition, compression or 
 amplification, as circumstances might require. At the very com- 
 mencement of the debate, and in several subsequent stages, the 
 Author thought it b<st to vary from the method prescribed in his 
 notes. This new arrangement, though not agreeable to an inex- 
 perienced theorist^ is found by experiment to be so effective, that 
 it will be continued in this work. The only exceptions now re- 
 collected, are, that Jewish Proselyte Baptism and tht N. C. 
 authorities will be put into places to which they more naturally 
 belong. 
 
 It cannot be concealed that Mr. Campbell entered the field 
 with far too much confidence in his own powers. There were 
 many things which greviously disappointed the high expectations 
 which his vain boastings had excited. He spent much of his 
 time in complaining of the use which the Author made of his 
 little manuscript. In this he called into requisition all his bra- 
 very and generalship ; for after many defeats he would ral'y, and 
 return to the onset. When he found that this availed him very little 
 more than butting his head against one of the trees undei which 
 the encounter commenced, he appeared like one reaching in 
 every direction after something to say; and after all, was so much 
 at a loss for matter, that he gave a partof some of his half-hours 
 to his Antagonist. When shame or policy made him keep his 
 time to himself, the palpable sterility of his addresses, his tedi- 
 ous repetitions, and his frequent, protracted, ami unmeaning 
 •digressions, will not soon be forgotten by those who heard them. 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 None of these things appear in their true colours in his printed 
 report. There he has suppressed much nonsense, introduced 
 much new matter, and endeavoured to give everything of his 
 own, such a turn as would at least appear to beai upon the sub- 
 ject in hand. As this is an object better worth contending with 
 than his real speeches, the Author is ir. some n\easure, under the 
 necessity of making a correspondiiig alteration in his replies. Be- 
 sides this, the audience will recollect that the-author repeatedly 
 and emphatically iaforaied them that he was obliged, by the want 
 of time, to omit much matter which was in his notes. H^s notes 
 are also enlarged during his resit'encein Philadelphia^ by exam- 
 ining the Commentary of the great and the good Dr. Gill, the 
 most eminent and othodox of the Baptist Clergy. Perhaps the 
 greatest improvement in his argument may be found in the histo- 
 ry of the rayde of Baptism, and in the argument on household 
 baptism, on which last, he has been much aided by Ti-ommius' 
 Concordance, lent to him by his friend and neighbour Dr. Wylie; 
 and by the controversial pieces of Taylor, the Editor of Calm et's 
 Dictionary. For this purpose these last were sent for to London, 
 by Mr. Jos. P. Engles, a member of the same Session with the 
 Author, and one to whose assistance he is much indebted in pub- 
 lishing the "Discussion of Universal ism,'' as well as the present 
 work. 
 
 Introductory to Mr. Campbell's Report, he has professed to 
 copy our correspondence. Its many typographical errors make 
 it necessary that a new edition should accompany these papers. 
 In one of these letters, the Author mentions a reformed City of 
 Switzerland, as the seat of a theological debate. In the letter 
 now in my hands, the name of the place is Berne | in Mr. 
 Campbells printed copy, it is Rome. However, in his view, 
 there is very little dift'erence between the Mother of Harlots and 
 the Bride of Christ : for the sake of their infants, lie treats them 
 both pretty much alike. The unusual freedoms which he has 
 taken, not only in composing and publishing for the Author, but 
 in traducing his character, and that of others, would certainly 
 deceive the public, and injure the truth, if they were to pass un- 
 noticed. A narrative of facts, the spuriousness of the report, 
 and some account of the Reporter, will necessarily swell these 
 collateral papers. On the last subject the Author hopes to be 
 excused for republishing several pages of Mr. Greatrake's tes- 
 timony, i hese documents will be closed by a new miniature 
 ironical Report, in alternate speeches, intended as a syllabus of 
 the Author's real arguinent, in connexion with specimens of that 
 portion of Mr. Campbell's book, which cannot be noticed in a 
 serious defence. 
 
 After what has occurred in a similar case, it would not be at 
 all surprihing, if Mr. Campbell had succeeded in propping his 
 fraU fabric, by the premature and ex parte testimony of many 
 witnesses. Of this he has hau a finh opportunity, from which 
 his Antagonist has been precluded by removing to Philadelphia. 
 
11 
 
 He even tells us of several of his particuhr friend? who took 
 notes (iuriiigu part of il,.-. debate. Vet alter alllhe has iai'l be- 
 foie the public no certificate, except that of his mere shadow, 
 Sidney Rigdon, who might as well be called Sidney Suly-Cusnp- 
 bell. As many are in the habit of confirming matters by two or 
 three witnesses, he thinks to give double weight to his certificate, 
 by represetiting its author as a Bishop of Pittsburgh. He ne- 
 glected however, to intbrm us that this celebrated Pittsburgh 
 Bishop, Sidney Rigdon, is the creature of Alexander Campbell, 
 Archbishop of Butialoe Creek. As this expert manufacturer of 
 E: iscopal witnesses, knew that several Pedobaptist ministers 
 also took notes, he endeavours before hand to invalidate their 
 testimony, by an artful insinuation that neither of then\ was 
 
 f)resent during the v/hole debate. After naming one who actual- 
 y did depart, he mentions the other, as ''the young divine that 
 took his place, after he quit the ground." Mr. CampD^ll had. 
 skill enough to know the point of danger. He knew that this 
 young divine had a soul of his ownj and he knew also that he had 
 taken no man's place, but had, attentively and laboriously and 
 faitlifully, kept his own place, from the commencement to the 
 close of the controversy. Now Providenee so directed events, 
 that this young divine came to Philadelphia as a Delegate to the 
 General Assembly oT May 1825, a few weeks after the Author 
 had commenced the perusal of Mr. Campbell's book. A certi- 
 ficate which, by request, he wrote at his lodgings, and handed to 
 the Author, may now be seen beside that which Mr. Campbell, has 
 adduced. 
 
 Certificate of Mr Piigdon. 
 
 "To all whom it may coucern : 
 This is to certify that having been pre- 
 sent at the Debate in Kentucky^ in 
 October last, between Viess. A. Camp- 
 bell and W. L. Maccalia, ami that 
 being engai^td in taking notes of thut 
 (liscussioD, which I handed over, to 
 A. Campbell, and having read over 
 that discussion on the subject and ac- 
 tion of Christian baplism, now pre 
 sented to the public in the following 
 pages, I can recommend the same as a 
 fair and full exhibition of both sides of 
 the controversy, of the arguments and 
 topics of illustration, used by the a- 
 foresaid gentlemen. 
 
 SIDNEY RIGDON.'' 
 
 May 4, 1824. 
 
 Let any sober, experienced and practical man, let 
 
 any pious and intelligent Baptist, now place himself in the Au- 
 thors situation. Suppose that a decided enemy to Christianity, 
 calling himself a Regular Pedobaptist Minister, were to arraign 
 the whole Baptist denomination before the public, undertaking 
 in the most confident manner, to prove them guilty of the highest 
 crimes, and to prove their system of religion inconsislent witli 
 
 Certificate of Mr. Lowry. 
 
 " Philadelphia, May 24th, 1825. 
 
 I do hereby certify, that I attended 
 at the debate on Baptism, held at 
 Washington, Ky. in October V'.TJ, be- 
 tween \.'ess. C.-mpbell and Maccalia; 
 that I was pre.-nnt during the v.' hole 
 discussion, and took notes. I have 
 since read the account of the debate 
 as given by Mr. Campbell, at the tame 
 time comparing it with my notes; and 
 can unhesitatingly :ay that the account 
 given is essentially incorrect, as to the 
 matter and manner, both of Mr. Mac- 
 calla's speeches ;ind his own. 
 
 Given under my hand this dsvy and 
 date above. 
 
 SAML. G. LOWRY." 
 
12 
 
 the well-being of civil and religious society. Suppose that for 
 years he has sole possession of the Arena, vapouring and vaunt- 
 ing, and strutting and swelling, antl puffing and boasting like a 
 swaj^gering braggadocio, challenging any man of the Baptist 
 ranks to stand in their defence, and casting their quietness into 
 their teeth, as an evidence of their guilt. Suppose that after 
 being fairly met and completely defeated, he should endeavour 
 to retrieve his affairs, b^ an expedient as directly opposed to 
 common honesty and veracity, as it is inconsistent with every 
 manl}' and noble sentiment of the soul. Suppose that he for- 
 ges speeches for you, which are any thing but your own, and 
 which he may answer and confute at his leisure ; and thus effect 
 by fraud, what he could not do by force of argument. Would 
 you think it inconsistent with true piety, meekness and charity, 
 to say to this man, as Michael did to this man's father, "The 
 Lord rebuke thee?" Paul called such a man a '' child of the 
 devil," and an " enemy of all righteousness ;" and so would you. 
 It is true that many would condemn you for doing so, but in the 
 midst of reproach, you could, with a clean conscience, commend 
 yourself and your defence to the blessing of the God of truth. 
 Through grace, this is the present state of the Author's mmd. 
 He covets the affection and esteem of pious Baptists : but he 
 cannot purchase their favour, at the expense of tame submission to 
 a heretical pirate, nor of basely deserting; the interests of religion. 
 If it be necessary, he is willing to tell the truth without their aid, 
 and even under their displeasure : yet he would rather have their 
 concurrence in opposing a common enemy. Praying that this 
 may be the case, he commends this work to God, and to the 
 candid perusal of God's people 
 
 PRELIMINARY PAPERS. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 THE CHALLENGE. 
 
 h^^ts 
 
 Near the close of Mr. Campbell's last speech, accordihj* 
 own report of his Debate with Mr. Walker, we find the following 
 paragraph ; Viz : "I have now accepted the invitation or chal- 
 ** lenge of the Seceders, and having now fully satisfied their 
 "must eager desires for an interview of this kind, I conceive it 
 "is my time to give an invitation or challenge to any Pedo-bap- 
 ^^tist minister; and to return the compliment with the utmost ce- 
 *« remonionsness, ] this day publish to all present, that I feel dis- 
 ^^ posed to meet any Pedo-baptist minister of any denomination^ 
 *' of good standing in his party^ and I engage to prove i.i a de- 
 **bate with him, either viva voce, or with the pen, that Infant 
 *• Sprinkling is a human tr\dition and injurious to the 
 
 " WELL BEING OF SOCIETY, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL. 1 have 
 
 "to add that I must have an equal vote in determining the time 
 "and place. This is the only restriction 1 attach to the ohal- 
 " LENGE / now publish,^' 
 
15 
 
 About two years after this bold defiance, Mr. Campbell had 
 occasion to answer the Letters of Mr. (now Dr.) Rall^ton. His 
 strictures commence with the foUowino; paragraph; Viz — 
 " Many reports have been in circulation respecting the debate 
 " at Mount Pleasant. Before that debate took place, much was 
 "said concerning the superlative abilities of Mr. Walker. It 
 "was asserted that ' he was one of the brightest ornaments of 
 "the Secession sect.' But nlas! such is thecapriceof maukind, 
 "such the instability of popular opinion, that it is twnv agreed 
 "on all hands, that Mr. W is even below mediocrity; and, 
 "what is still worse, it is reported that he came to the stage of 
 "debate, 'totally unpre'-ared.' This is ungrateful a;id cruel. 
 "That those of his own views, and especially of his own sect, 
 " should thus rev/ard his zeal and efforts in tlieir cause, f^tsi'es, 
 " tvho on his side of the question, sinck or before that Debate, 
 ^^ has done better or who c\y: do better? For our own part we 
 " sympathize with Mr. Walker, a'hd d(,' not rate his talents nor his 
 "industry so low, as either his quondam or his present friends 
 "seem to do. We think it an act of extreme unkindness, on 
 "the part of his professed friends, to attribute the refutation of 
 " the Pedo baptist arguments to the incapacity or negligence of 
 ''Mr. W. Is there no man in all the hosis of Pkdo-bap- 
 "tists, of greater capacity and industry than Mr, fPalker? If 
 "there be, let the cause be maintained and let not Mr. 
 " fV.bear all tiie blame, as if the whole cause rested on him.^' 
 
 When these invitations were at last accepted, and the parties 
 were on the ground, Mr, Campbell had penetration enmgh to 
 see that there was an advantage in being thought not only bold 
 but modest. He had secured the former character by his chal- 
 lenges, and he endeavoured to secure the latter, at the expense 
 of his Antagonist, bv representing his Opponent and not himself 
 as the challenger. Finding all the evidence against this posi- 
 tion, he endeavoured to establish it by a circuitous process. He 
 represented this Debate as. arising out of his debate with Mr. 
 Walker, in which the challenge came, according to his state- 
 ment, from the Pedobaptist and not from the Baptist party. 
 This he has publicly declared in the introduction and in the close 
 of his Debate with Mr. Walker. In the first place he says, 
 " As Mr. Walker gave the challenge, it became his duty to open 
 " the debate " In the last place, he says, as recorded above, I 
 " have now accepted the invitation or challenge of the Seceders.'* 
 
 Mr. Campbell's challenges gained him a character for at least 
 ordinary courage, among the Kentuckians, who are no strangers 
 to combats, either in words or blows. But they gave him credit 
 for more than common boldness, when they found him, in the 
 face of palpable evidence, denying the fiict of his being the chal- 
 lenger. As such heroic exploits Mre seldom found alone, his as- 
 sertion concerning IVIr. Walker's sending the original challenge 
 became liable to suspicion. It seems that Mr. Greatrake excited 
 Mr. Campbell's wrath by expressing such a suspicion in his own 
 
14 
 
 neighbourhood. In reply to Mr. Campbell's censures, he after- 
 wards reiterates bis opinion in the following langaaxt., V;/ 
 
 "li'oii go on to observe that in jour first debate with Mr. Wal- 
 "ker you 'was v/ritten to three times,' before you accepted of 
 " the challenge. Who wrote to you } Not Mr. Walker : No, it 
 " was a Baptist minister, Mr. Birch : and who knows but it was 
 <'a preconcerted thing between you and Mr Birch ? This is a 
 " conjecture, to be sure, but one, in a measure, authorized by a 
 " knowledge of your * ruling passion.' It is certain you ief" the 
 "essential interests of those who v/ere more imsriediarely under 
 *'your care, as a teacher, to go elsewhere, to contend tht- subor- 
 "dinate principles. Mnd it is certain, and posilive, and triie, 
 *' that you never did receive a challenge from a Fedobaptist, to 
 ^^debate.'\ 
 
 Mr. Campbell gave previous printed notice of the debate be- 
 tween him and Mr. Walker. In this he represented his antago- 
 nist, as, ''^having challenged any minister of Ike Baptist 
 Church.''^ This advertisement Mr. Walker read and exposed 
 about the comnrencement of their interview. The introduction 
 to Mr. Walker's Reply to Mr. Campbell's report speaks of the 
 affair as follows. Viz. " Mr. Walker then proceeded to read 
 "the advertisement mentioned above, in which it was stated 
 " that ' Mr. Walker having challenged any minister of the Bap- 
 " tist church,' &c. Mr. Walker then publicly denied, that ever 
 '' he had challenged any minister of the Baptist church, for a dis- 
 " pute. Mr. Campbell after stating that he was the author of the 
 ^'publication, said that he had received the information from Mr. 
 "Birch. By request, Mr. Birch then made a full statement of 
 " what had passed at the place, at v/'nich Mr. Walker preached.'' 
 f" The fright in which Mr. Birch appeared, I think did not pre- 
 " vent him from telling the truth, I believe he was cantlid."] ^'^ 
 " Mr. Birch gave no hint of such a challenge. A falsehood rest- 
 "ed someplace; and although Lir. Walker proved to the satis- 
 " faction of the public, that no such challenge was given, Mr. 
 "Campbell never blushed." 
 
 Let Mr. Brewster of New York now contemplate his " good 
 and faithful servant of the church." The Editors of the Co- 
 lumbian Star will at least blush for their champion : but what 
 words could express their indignation and contempt against a 
 Pedobaptist disputant, if his skirts were defiled with such du- 
 plicity and turpitude ? 
 
 (a) A note which Mr. Walker- places ia the margin, is here inserted in 
 brackets, in the place to which it belongs. 
 
THE CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. ' * '^ f) ^ 
 
 M'Calla to Campbell. *_ -V'- 
 
 Augusla^ Bracken County, Ky.May llth, 1823. 
 
 Mr. Campbell The subject of this commuaicatioa is your publi- 
 cation oa Baptism, and particularly your proclamation to the multitude at 
 the close of your debate at Mount Pleasant. It is found in the last paragfraph 
 of the 14ith page of your book, entitled, "Infant Sprinkliug proved to be a 
 human tradition :'' printed in Steubeuville, Ohio, 1820. You there say, "I 
 ' conceive it is my time to give an invitation or challenge to any Pcdobaptist 
 "mmM/cr and to return the couiplimeat with the utmost ceremoniousness, I 
 " this day publish to all present that I feel disposed to meet any Pedobaptist 
 " minister of any denomination, of good standing in his parly, and I engage to 
 '■^ prove, in a debate with him, either viva voce, or with the pen, that Infant Sprink. 
 " ling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious 
 " and ■political. I have to add that I must have an equal vote in de<ermining 
 "the time and place. This is the only restriction 1 attach to the challenge I 
 "now publish." 
 
 Some copies of your book came to this village immediately after its publi- 
 cation. As the topics which it discusses had been matter of controversy 
 amongst us, those who espouse your opinions, set on foot a plan, (as I was in- 
 formed,) to procure a visit from you, for the purpose of encountering me in 
 public debate. What was the cause of theii- failure I cannot tell : but ru. 
 mours of your intending to visit this country, and probably this place, are 
 lately renewed, and I am encouraged by your friends to hope that a letter 
 from me might accelerate such an event. The anxiety which they manifest 
 for our meeting, appears like a call of Providence, for me to solicit your ap- 
 proach, which, in other circumstances, my conscious weakness and natural ti- 
 midity might cause me to deprecate. If, however, you should gratify our 
 wishes, it is not necessary that you should consider this as a chadange, but 
 only as an acceptance of your invitation copied above. Nothing more was 
 needed from me, after the publication of a general challenge by yourself. 
 '{fiSfeither is it necessary that you should understand me as professing a wil- 
 lingness to confer with you on the truth or falsehood of the statements in your 
 proclamation; i. e. "that Infant Sprinkling is a human tradition, and injuri- 
 "ousto the well being of society, religious and political." In order to come 
 at the merits of a controversy, there are three things at least to be desired. 
 The first is to lay hold of the most important points in dispute, whether they 
 be '.irincipal or auxiliary, doctrinial or historical. A second is, that they be 
 clothed in language, every way suitable; possessing the qualities of purity, 
 propriety and precision. The third is that the question or questions be s« 
 stated as to preclude equivocation, if possible, and bring the parties directly 
 to an issue ; so that one can affirm and the other deny, or if both agree, one 
 shall be considerably the gainer. In the pursuit of these objects, (as far as 
 circumstances would permit,) I have drafted the following questions which 
 are now respectfully submitted for your consideration, and (if you please) for 
 your adoption or rejection, amendment or selection, enlargement or diminution' 
 
 1. Were Abraham and his seed divinely constituted a true church of God.* 
 
16 
 
 S. Is the christian church a branch of the Abrahamic church ? or, in other 
 words, Are the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after 
 Christ, one and the same church in different dispensations ? 
 
 3. Are Jewish circumcision, before Christ, and Christian Baptism, after 
 Christ, one and the same seal in substance, though in different forms ? 
 
 4. The administration of this seal to infants ; was it once enjoined by Di- 
 vine authority? 
 
 5. Is it now prohibited by the same authority ? 
 
 6- Do the Jews baptize the infant offspring of proselytes on the profession 
 of the oarents ? 
 
 7. Did they practice this in the time of John the Baptist? 
 
 8. Did they learn their proselyte Baptism from the Christian Church ? 
 
 9. Is John's Baptism Christian Baptism? 
 
 10. Are the American Baptists descended from John ? or, in other words 
 have they obtained their Baptism from him by unmterrupied succession ? 
 
 11. Are the American Baptists descendants from the German Anabaptists? 
 or, in other words, have they obtained their Baptism from Munzcr ? 
 
 12. Did John Baptize infants.'' 
 
 13. Did John Baptize by submersion? 
 
 14. Does the Bible authorise the Baptism of infants as a Christian ordi- 
 nance? 
 
 15. Has the church of Christ always practised the Baptism of infants as a 
 Christian ordinance ? 
 
 16. Does the Bible authorise the church to consider submersion essential t« 
 Baptism ? 
 
 17. Has the church of Christ always considered submersion essential to 
 Baptism ? 
 
 18. Is the administration of the initiatory seal of the church to infants, in- 
 jurious to the well being of society, religious and political ? 
 
 19. Is sprinkling, when used as a mode of Baptism, injurious to the well 
 being of society, religious and political ? 
 
 20. Is the exclusion of infants from the church hurtful to society ? 
 
 21 Is the exclusive practice of submersion as a mode of Baptism hurtful to 
 society ? 
 
 To all these questions I can conscientiously answer with a direct affirmative 
 or negative, and you could do the same. From your publication of the de- 
 bate at Mount- Pleasant, I faiily conclude that, (unless suppressed by mutual 
 consent) they will be discussed if we should ever meet. The most orderly 
 method of discussion will be the most expeditious and edifying. T'he terms 
 of conference may, I hope, be precisely, if not easily, adjusted, should Provi- 
 dence bring us together. 1 am admonished by a friend of yours to use no 
 equivocation in assuring you that a meeting is now expected, either according 
 to this letter or some other plan. Evidence of unwillingness on your part 
 will be considered as a withdrawal of your challenge. Having asked advice 
 of God my Redeemer, to him do I now commit this affair. 
 
 W. L. MACCALDA. 
 
17 
 
 No. 3. 
 Mr. Campbell to Mr. M'Calla. 
 
 Buffaloe, Brook County, Fa. June \6th, 1823. 
 Mr. Maccalt,a, 
 
 Sir Your favor of the I7th ult. came to hand two weeks since. Though 
 
 I was pleased with the style and spirit of your epistle, yet having never before 
 heard of the writer, I thought it necessary to ascertain of what character and 
 standing he might be,before I should make any reply. In the midst of my inquiries 
 on this subject I received a letter from Dr, Keith of your town, informing me 
 of your " high standing," in the Presbyterian denomination, and of your ge- 
 neral character. Dr. Keith's account was also confirmed by the testimony of 
 a Mr. Logan from your vicinity and a respectable member of your communi- 
 ty, who favored me with a visit. Being now satisfied on the above subject 
 of inquiry, and being convinced that it is my duty to meet you, in public de- 
 bate, on the subject proposed ; I inform you that I most cheerfully consent to 
 meet you as aforesaid. 
 
 The challenge to which you refer necessarily grew out of the circumstances 
 which accompanied its first promulgation. I was drawn into a discussion by 
 a challenge from a Paido -baptist. Having seen that Paido-baptist confuted ; 
 generosity, candor, and the triumph of truth suggested the propriety of giv- 
 ing an opportunity, to any other Paido-baptist teacher, of coming forward to 
 take Mr. Walker's side of the controversy, if he thought he could make a 
 better of it. His side of the controversy was comprised in one short proposi- 
 tion, viz : " that infant Baptism or affusion is a Divine institution." The 
 Side which I assumed, from conviction, was comprised in the negative of thia 
 proposition, viz. that "infant Baptism or afi'usion is not a Divine institution," 
 but a human tradition. This. I think I then proved. I am ready, however, 
 to do it again on any other ground that may, or can be taken. The simple 
 question to be discussed, divested of every thing extraneous, is this, is infant 
 affusion, or, as it sounds sweeter to a Paido-baptist ear — Is infant Baptism a 
 Divine institution. Mr. Walker said yes, I said JVay, I still say J^ay. I say 
 it is a human tradition and injurious^ &c. 
 
 As to the place, time, and manner of proceeding in the proposed discussion 
 I would observe ; first, with regard to the place ; that reason and equity sug- 
 gest that it should be equidistant from you and me. I have no business to 
 Kentucky more than to any other part of the Union ; yet on certain condi- 
 tions, I am willing to go to Augusta. 
 
 "^With respect to the timt, I think in ought not to be sooner than two or three 
 months after we have agreed upon the preliminaries : i. e. it should be pub- 
 lished in all the circumjacent country for so long a time. And as re^pecls the 
 manner of procedure, I would say, I have no objection to take up and discuss all 
 the questions you have proposed, or any other you may please to propose 
 provided that I have the liberty of proposing an equal number. But in order 
 to facilitate and expedite an agreement on the preliminaries, 1 will take the li- 
 berty of suggesting the following, which I conceive to be perfectly reasonable 
 and of course equitable — 
 
 1. That W. L. Maccalla agrees to attempt to proTe that infant affusion or 
 infant Baptism is a Divine institution, and A. Campbell agrees to attempt t«. 
 
18 
 
 prove that it is noU in a public debate to be held, if the Lord wilU at Augusta, 
 Kentucky, on Wednesday the first day of October next, to commence at 1 
 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 2. That each of the parties shall choose one person to act as Moderator, and 
 ^hat these tvro shall choose a third, who is neither a Baptist nor a Paido-bap- 
 ist, to sit with them. 
 
 3. That these Moderators shall merely keep order and not pronounce judg- 
 ment on the merits of the debate. 
 
 4. Each speaker shall speak thirty minutes without interruption, if he wish 
 to speak so long, if not, he is free to stop when he pleases. 
 
 5. W. L. Maccalla as he supports the affirmative necessarily opens the de- 
 bate and A. Campbell closes it. 
 
 6. The Scriptural subject of Baptism shall first be discussed, then the action 
 of Baptism. 
 
 7. The debate shall be conducted with decorum, and all improper allusions 
 and passionate language guarded against. 
 
 8. Whatever books are produced on the occasion shall be equally accessi- 
 ble to the use of each disputant. 
 
 9. The discussion shall be continued from day to day until the people' are 
 satisfied, or until the Moderators agree that enough has been said oh each to- 
 pic. 
 
 These are substantially/, and some of them formally, the same with those 
 agreed upon by a committee at Mount-Pleasant, previous to that debate. If 
 you agree to these, the preliminaries are settled, and you may immediately 
 publish the place and time of holding said deBate, and please inform me per re- 
 turn of mail. I will then furnish you with an equal number of questions to thdse 
 you have proposed for your consideration, that you may have the fullest time 
 for reflection. You have my consent if you please, to call to your aid any of 
 your Paido-baptist brethren in the ministry. I wish to convince or to be coa- 
 vinced. As truth is my riches, the more I gain of it the richer and the hap- 
 pier I must be. Moreover I shall feel a great obligation to you if you con- 
 vince me of any error. I hope therefore you will spare no pains in you ef- 
 forts to convince me. You may rest assured that you will find me open to con- 
 viction and anxious to maintain what I believe. 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 No. 4. 
 M'Calla to Campbell, 
 
 Augusta, Kentucky, July 2, \^^. 
 
 Mr. Campbeli, — ■- Your letter of June 16th has just been received. 
 
 It speaks of the time and place, the topics, regulation and notification of the 
 dispute in prospect. You appear willing to see me at Augusta, if I will com. 
 ply with all the conditions of your letter. As this compliance is declined, the 
 place of meeting is a point still to be determmed. If you should yet consent 
 to encounter me here, the meeting of our presbytery and synod in which our 
 •ongregation has business imperiously demanding my attention, will make it 
 desirable that we should apjgoint a time a week sooner or several weeks later 
 than October 1st. 
 
19 
 
 Tfeie adjusting of the points of difference, in the form of disputable proposi- 
 tions, however diflScult, is deemed important by iis both. After having inti- 
 mated to you my objections to the form contained in your challenge, I propos- 
 ed a number of questions which bring into viewalj the matter of the question 
 contained in your challange, with these advantages, that its complication is 
 removed by method, and it is presented in such a manner as to to bring the 
 parties to a fair and direct issue. You do not seem to doubt that these ends 
 have been attained. Yet as a condition of your agreeing to discuss these 
 questions, which you have seen and examined, you require that I should agree 
 on my part, to discuss as many others which I have never seen nor examined ; 
 although you have had the same opportunity of conveying them to me, that I 
 had of sending mine to you. " He that answereth a matter before he heareth 
 it, it is folly and shame unto him." To promise a contest on a subject not yet 
 known, is a sort of theological Quixotism worthy only of the dark ages. If 
 you ha:/e been told that 1 love controversy for its own sake, you have been 
 misinformed . I would not waste my b reath nor poison my heart, nor disgrace 
 religion by vain jangling. With the help of God, I am willing to defend the 
 truth iis held up to view in the propositions referred lo, or in any other equita- 
 ble form, or if you prefer it, with no form at all. I am willing to meet you 
 with no other words before us than " The subject and mode of Baptism." 
 
 Although you have made no parlicnlar objection to my questions, 1 have 
 several to the one which you propose in your epistle: viz. " Is infant affusion, or 
 • ... .is infent Baptism a Divine institution?" I have the same objections to the 
 proposition discussed by you and Mr. Walker, ' that infant Baptism or affusion 
 is a divine institution.' 1st. These propositions confound the subject and the 
 mode, which are distinct things, and which may be so exhibited in fewer 
 words as in the end of the last paragraph. 2d These propositioas encourage 
 a popular misconception, which has been too much insisted upon by our ad- 
 versaries ; that is, that we hold infant Baptism to the exclusion of believer's 
 Baptism ; than which nothing is more incorrect. We maintain as strenuously 
 as our opposers, the administration of Baptism to believers; but we differ from 
 them in this proposition, thai faith hi the subject is an essential qualification 
 for Baptism ; or which is the same thing, we are willing to prove that Baptism 
 should be administered to infants as well as to their believing parents. 3d 
 These propositions confine us within narrower bounds with regaid to the mode, 
 tha we in good conscience occupy. We do not advocate a usion exclusively; 
 and if you leave this woi-d out of the propositions, they are confined to the 
 subject and say nothing of the mode. We admit of washing and sprinklinj 
 as well as pouring, and we even acknowledge the lawfulness of dipping : but 
 we deny ihd^i submersion is essential to Christian Baptism, and you affirm that 
 it is. Since then this proposition will bring us directly and fairly to an issue, 
 why should you make it a condition of an interview that we should assume 
 ground worse than that which we in truth occupy. 
 
 With respect to your 9th article 1 would observe that the people will al- 
 ways let us know when they have heard enough, but the parties should be 
 permitted to judge when they have said enough. In your 5th article yoii 
 claim the closing address. This you would probably have without any stipu- 
 lation, for in practice 1 am not tenacious, but I see no reason for acknowledg- 
 iog your superior right. In the conference at Mount-Pleasant you say that 
 
@0 
 
 " as Mr. Walker gave the challenge, it became his duty to open the debate." 
 You of course bad the privilege of closing'. The above is your own decla- 
 ration ; and the only reason which you give for making it Mr. Walker's duty 
 ±0 open the debate, is that he gave the challenge. Now the case is altered, 
 and your view of duty seems to alter with it. According to the principle and 
 the practice stated in your book, As Mr. Campbell has given the challenge it 
 becomes his duty to open the debate, and mine to close : but according to the 
 demand of your letter, you must close whether you give or receive a chal- 
 lenge:. Since this is a new practice, your letter gives a new reason for it, that 
 is, that it is the right of the negative to close. But where did you learn this 
 rule? lamas ignorant of its origin as of its correctness. This rule or its 
 opposite would in doctrinal disputes, be arbitrary in its application. The same 
 doctrinal opinion may be exhibited equally well in opposite forms of expres- 
 sion : and whether the proposition be affirmative or negative the same proof 
 would be required on both sides. Of this you will see an example in my two 
 letters. In ci^al courts and in the courts of our church there is a rule on this 
 subject, but its relates to matters of fact in judicial cases, and not to doctrinal 
 questions. This practice is, however the very opposite of that which your 
 letter approves, for it gives to the affirmative the right of opening and closing. 
 I wish not to take advantage of this. My desire is, that each party may be 
 heard fairly and fully, and until he is satisfied, and if we have not sense enough 
 to quit when we are done, the people will, to our mortification, give their 
 opinion by leaving us. 
 
 The inequality of your terms, you now see, is the only impediment to our 
 meeting. This it is hoped you will relinquish, not only for justice sake, but 
 because it is in direct opposition to your challenge. You there say "I have 
 ♦' to add, that I must have an equal vote in determining the time and place. 
 "This is the only restriction I attach to the challenge I now publish." There 
 is nothing here of your closing the debate or enjoying any other privilege 
 above your antagonist. If, however, you cannot comply with these fair terms, 
 I have only one other plan to propose. It is this. We will agree to discuss 
 the very proposition which you have offered in your challenge. As this is 
 one in which you take the affirmative, and as both your rules however con- 
 tradictory and unauthorised, will give me the closmg address,though unsought, 
 nothing more remams now to be settled but the time and place, which are the 
 only subjects on which you claim a vote, (f you should visit this place, 
 I would endeavour to make all other engagements suit your convenience. If 
 you should prefer some other place where I could procure books, or to which 
 I could with cheapness and convenience convey my own, such as Pittsburgh, 
 Wheeling, Steubenville, Washmgton in Pennsylvania, or Washington City, 
 Baltimore or Philadelphia, New-Haven or Boston, I should likp for the 
 time to be shortly before or after the General Assembly, which convenes in 
 Philadelphia on the third Thursday inMay, and sits about two or three weeks. 
 When the preliminaries are adjusted, all possible publicity may be given to 
 the appointment according to your request. If it be your choice you can 
 send a notice to the papers of Philadelphia and elsewhere, that "on the third 
 "Monday of May, 1824, Mr. Alexander Campbell of the regular Baptist 
 ''church, and Mr. W. L. Maccalla of the Presbyterian church, will, {Deo 
 ^'volente) discuss the foil owing proposition, viz, ^ Infant sprinkling is ahuma 
 
" tradition and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political.* 
 « For the discussion of this propositioa the formei of these gentlemen gave a 
 "general challenge to Pedobaptist ministeis." 
 
 As you have offered a system of rules for the debate, it may not be wrong 
 for me to do the same. It need have no effect upon the question whether we 
 shall meet. They are not made conditions. Words in brackets are consider- 
 ed as so many blanks. 
 
 Rules of debate adopted and signed this [16th day of May, 1824, in the 
 city of Philadelphia] by Alexander Campbell, and W. L. Maccalla. Dupli- 
 cates given to the parties. 
 
 1. The proposition for discussion shall be the fallowing, viz. ["Infant 
 sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, re- 
 ligious and political,"] 
 
 2. Each speaker shall be entitled to an alternate address of thirty minutes 
 and no longer, unless the other party weiive his right. 
 
 3. The books brought forward shall be equally accessible to both parties. 
 
 4. The established rules of decorum must be observed. 
 
 5. The discussion shall be moderated by three men; each q{ the parties 
 choosing one, and these two a third, which last shall belong t© no religious 
 society. These are to keep order and not to decide the question. 
 
 6. The debate shall be opened by and shall 
 ^God willing) commence on the [I8th inst.] at the 
 
 Meeting-house at [9 o'clock,A.M.] and continue, if necessary, until [2 o'clock, 
 P. M.] And it shall, if necessary, be continued during the same hours, and at 
 the same place, and under the same superintendance (unless altered by mu- 
 tual agreement,) from day to day, until both parties are satisfied. 
 
 W. L. MACCALLA. 
 
 No. 5. 
 Mr. Campbell to Mr. M'Calla. 
 
 Buffaloe Printing-Qffice, July 21st, 1823. 
 Mr. Maccalla, 
 
 Sir — Your letter of the 2d inst. but post marked the 8th inst. came to hand 
 yesterday. It seems to import that the "terms of conference may not be so 
 easily adjusted," as your first epistle portended. You object to my not for- 
 warding the questions promised. My sole reason \yas, that my letter was 
 sulficiently crowded without them. Besides, I supposed that a person pro- 
 posing to discuss a subject of so great importance, and of so common occur- 
 rence, as that proposed by yourself, could be at no loss to answer any 
 question connected therewith. If I had proposed to send you twenty-one 
 questions on any other subject, than that proposed by yourself, or if I had 
 proposed to give you no information of them until the day of debate ; your 
 objection would have been relevant and cogent ; but as the circumstances are, 
 it appears irrelevant and futilf;. I should never have proposed to discuss a 
 subject, on which twenty-one questions could be proposed, that after two 
 months deliberation, I would fear to encounter. So little attention to yoOr 
 
twenty-one questions has been paid by myself, that were I now asked whai 
 they are, I coald not, from recollection, mention the half of them. On reading 
 them once or twice, 1 saw the drift of them, and apprehended the peculiar 
 turn of reflection that dictated them. With a very little reflection, 1 found 
 myself able to answer each of them with a yea or a nay, -with perhaps a very 
 little explanation in one or two instances. 
 
 Though, you say, I have made no particular objection to your questions, 
 you have several to the one which [ proposed. iSow, sir, were I to be so 
 captious, or so precise in objecting, as you seem to be, we would not settle the 
 preliminaries in a year. The fact is, I had many objections to your questions, 
 as being inconsequential, confused, far fetched, and inapplicable to the faith or 
 practice of christians, as respects christian Baptism. Yet knowing the pecu- 
 liar delicacy of the feelings, and the keen sensibility of the conscience of 
 Paido-baptist teachers in general, on such topics as those contained in your 
 queries, 1 made no objection to any of them lest it should retard our meeting ; 
 but thought it best to stipulate, for the privilege of proposing an equal num- 
 ber. ' 
 
 You have favored me vdth three objections to my one question. It was 
 well I did not propose propose twenty-one. The cogency of your three ob- 
 jections I confess myself too duU to apprehend. One thing appears pretty plain 
 that you conceive the question — " Is infant affusion or Baptism a Divine in- 
 stitution," obliges you, as you express it, " to assume worse ground than that 
 which in truth you occupy." This would indeed, be unreasonable, to make 
 your ground of defence "tcon^e" than it is. But while you allow believer's 
 Baptism to be a Divine institution, and while you practice infant afl"usion, 
 you maintain that to be a Divine institution also. Why then object to defend 
 the precise tiling which you practise ? And to say you do not always practise 
 it, is nothing to the merits of the question ; for, inasmuch, as you sometimes 
 practise it, as a Divine institution, it behoves you, for one such occasion to be 
 able to prove it to be a Divine institution. And if the whole proposition can- 
 not be proven — viz. that infant affusion is a Divine institution, to cut it into 
 pieces, and to divide into words, syllables, vowels, or consonants, and prove it 
 in piece-meal, wiU, every Logician knows, avail nothing. 
 
 With regard to who shall open, and who close the debate, I had 
 thouo-ht that my statemant of the attendant circumstances of my giving the 
 challenge alluded to, would have prevented such reasons as you assign for 
 differino- from me on that item. My stating that it behoved Mr. Walker to open 
 the debate from the circumstance of his having given the challange was true, 
 as far as it went, but it was also true, that his having the affirmative side of 
 the question was that which rendered his commencement essentially necessa- 
 ry. In this controversy Baptists have nothing to prove as respects their prac- 
 tice. Paido-baptists agree with them, that a disciple immersed on a profes- 
 sion of the christian faith, has received christian baptism. Our practice then 
 is correct, in this respect, Paido-baptists themselves being judges. They 
 blame us for omitting to Baptize infants, but not for what we do, consequent- 
 ly it is they who have to prove their practice, and it is our duty to show that 
 their arguments are inconclusive. In every controversy then with Paido-bap- 
 tists, upon this topic, they affirm and we deny, they ifimi ,<;onijafmfi<; ^od vie 
 
23 
 
 respond. But you profess to be i^orant of the origin of this rule of practice, 
 I say it originates in the Jilness of things, and is supported by long prescrip- 
 tion. For precedent and for proof of its antiquity, I refer to the era of the 
 Reformation. In t'.e famous disputes at Leipsic between Eckius, Lxither, and 
 Carolostadius, June 27th, 1519. Eckius gave the challenge, took the affirma- 
 tive, and opened the debate with Carolostadius. On the 4th of July, 1519, 
 Eckius mantains the pojie's supreme authority, Luther denies it, Eckius opens 
 the debate, and Luther closes. The same took place at Baden, in May 1526, 
 between (Ecolampadius and Eckius. In the dispute between Luther and 
 
 (Ecolampadius concerning the " real presence,''^ Luther affirms and CEcolampa- 
 dius denies, Luther commences and (Ecolampadius responds. See many other 
 instances from page 102 to 200, Du Pin's Ecclesiastical His(ory,vol. 3rf. 
 
 In the last place on this head, you allege that the possibility of converting 
 an affirmative proposition into a negative, renders such a rule of procedure of 
 Tery doubtful application. I admit that the negative proposition " infant af- 
 fusion is not a Divine institution,^'' may be converted into an affirmative, thus, 
 infant affusion is a human tradition; yet the nature of things will not change 
 with the words we may choose to represent them. Still the grand predicate 
 " Divine institution''' is denied of the subject " infant affusion,''^ and the grand 
 truth in pursuit of which the investigation proceeds, is denied of the subject 
 of the proposition which, ac<?ording to my views, will force the proposition 
 into the form of a direct negative in the discussion. 
 
 I contend for this rule of procedure, then, on the ground of the fitness of 
 things, and on the ground of long prescription in theological discussions. 
 
 I am willing to change the time proposed for holding the conference from the 
 1st to Wednesday the 15th of October. Later than that period, I cannot 
 think would be expedient to defer our interview, as the weather will then be 
 , precarious, and the days short. Owing to the meeting of our Association, 
 which I am under the necessity of attending, I could not, with any degree of 
 propriety, promise to attend sooner than the first of October . And as you 
 were so kind in mentioning New-Haven, Boston, New- York, and Philadelphia; 
 I think for exhibiting to better advantage your very accommodating disposi- 
 tion, you should hav« mentioned London, Dublin, or Ghent; as water conve- 
 niences, and plenty of books equally recommend those places. I will how- 
 ever be still more accommodating than you, for I will go to your own village 
 as aforesaid. 
 
 I will now propose you twenty-one questions, andjthus prevent all further 
 «[emur on this ground. 
 
 1. What is the doctrinal import of christian Baptism .* 
 
 2. Are any infants members of the christian church ? 
 
 3. Are infants members of the christian church by natural birth or Baptism? 
 
 4. Is the Abrahamic church a branch of the Noahic church? or in other 
 words, were the patriarchs, before Moses, and the Jews after Moses, on eandthe 
 same church in different dispensations ? 
 
 5. Was the sacrificial rite, before Moses, and circumcision, after Moses, on* 
 and the same seal in substance, though in different forms ? 
 
 6. Was the church at Jerusalem, at Rome, at Corinth, at Samaria, or the 
 first geatile church at Cesarea, a Baptist, or a Faido-baptist church ? 
 
24 
 
 7. What benefit does an infant receive from Baptism ? 
 
 8. Does Baptism represent, seal and apply any thing to an infant ? 
 
 9. Does Baptism become an effectual means of salvation to an infant? 
 
 10. Is not the present enjoyment of all the benefits and blessings of the 
 New-Testament confined to believers ? 
 
 11. Have not parents a right to Baptize their own infants, as tlie Jews 
 circumcised theirs ? 
 
 12. Ought not all the household of a believer, his slaves, and their children 
 to be Baptized on the profession of his faith ? 
 
 13. Ought not infants to be Baptized the eighth day? 
 
 14. Ought infant females to be Baptized, contrary to the law of circumci- 
 sion ? 
 
 15. Ought not Baptized infants to be admitted to the Supper? 
 
 16. Are infants under any vow or obligation from Baptism ? 
 
 17. Were infants members of the patriarchal church? 
 
 18. Can there be a Baptism suited to infants, without faith, and a Baptisn^ 
 suited to believers, and yet, but one Baptism ? 
 
 19. What is the action of Baptism ? 
 
 20. Did the Apostles either Rantize or Baptize infants .' 
 
 21.. Is there a command in all the Bible to Rantize, or Baptize infants ? . 
 
 These questions I arrange on the principle of correspondencies, to be a pep 
 contra to those you have proposed, as far as the answers apprehended would 
 come into contact. But, sir, neither your twenty-one questions nor mine, ar® 
 the best course to come t© a fair and clear issue. They afford us themes of 
 copious verbosity, and would, no doubt, in the end, aff'^rdto all intelligent and 
 impartial hearers, sufficient data, to judge on what side truth lay. But it is 
 like walking nine miles, to come to a point accessible in one, and that, merely 
 for the sake of showing our dexterity in walking. Did I, from my soul, de- 
 sire to investigate the subject for my own good, and to exhibit it for the good 
 of others ; or did I cordially wish to help a fellow disciple out ef the mire, or 
 to be helped myself; I would calmly, in the fear of God, with humility of mind, 
 and pure benevolence to yourself, and all others, who may be present on the 
 occasion ; and with all openness to conviction, propose four questions only for 
 discussion. — One of these I conceive to be of great consequence, not only as 
 respects baptism, but the whole exhibition of the christian religion. 
 
 1. Were the Jews in their corporate state, whether called national or ec- 
 clesiastical, an association, the same as the Christian Church ? — This topic I 
 would propose as a mere introduction to the subject primarily in view — theo 
 
 2. What is the doc{rinal import of Baptism ? 
 
 3. Who is the proper subject ? 
 
 4. What is the proper action ? 
 
 As these questions equally comprehend the substance of your twenty-one 
 questions and mine ; I feel perfectly agreed, if you are, to investigate these in 
 the fullest manner, by every possible means of illustration, and to confine the 
 whole controversy to them. As I have dwelt chiefly on that article of ar- 
 rangement, which you seem to make of the greatest consequence, I have na 
 room to say any thing of the other eight items. They still appear to me pre- 
 ferable to any alterations you hare proposed. But in case of your refusing; to 
 
25 
 
 accede to these rules of procedure, I have to propose that the three persona 
 who shall sit as moderators, shall meet the day preceding our conference, and 
 that they shall, after having heard read in their hearing our whole correspond- 
 ence, decide, both what questions shall be discussed, and in what manner. I 
 will pledge myself to comply with their decisions. This I think ought to be sa- 
 tisfactory, if the rules adopted by the committee, preceding the debat« at Mount 
 Pleasant will not please you. I have only to request, that this epistle be an- 
 swered as promptly as I have answered yours ; and that you would excuse 
 this hasty scroll, I was interrupted twenty times since I sat down to write it. 
 Very respectfully your's, 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 No, 6. \y^. ^^ '<i 
 
 V 
 
 M^, -6> '^^ 
 
 M'Calla to Campbell. 
 
 ./Jvgi/.ttrt, Ky. August 8lh, 1823. 
 Mr. CAMPJimr.r,— In the progress of our correspondence, it is a pleasure td 
 Jne to remember that this controversy is not one of my own seeking. Mine is 
 •a defensive attitude. Your challenge was bold, public £uid general : neither 
 did it exhibit on its face the least design to take advantage of any stripling 
 who migb'i ill the faith of Israel's God, step out to meet you. You did not 
 ■enumerite rules of debate -you did not prescribe weapons to your antag- 
 onist^ you did not lay down what he was, and what he was not to defend— 
 
 yoa did not require the last blow as a sine qua non to an encounter ; but you 
 pimply stated what you would undertake to prove, and left your oppcaient to 
 choose his own position, to which he certainly has a right. You expressly re- 
 nounced all other restrictions to your challenge, except the right of an equal 
 vote as to the time and place of meeting. Two years after the publication of 
 the debate, you reiterate your defiance, without adding any farther condition. 
 In the first page of your strictures on Father Ralston's Review, after compljiin- 
 ing that Mr. Walker's friends under-rated his talents, you add " who on his side 
 " of the question, since or before that debate, has done better '' or who can do 
 
 ♦' better Is there no man in all the hosts of Pedo-baptists of greater ca- 
 
 " pacity and industry than ]V^r. Walker ? If there be, let the cause be main- 
 " tained, and let not Mr, W. bear all the blame, as if the whole cause rested 
 *' on him." While thus bravely exulting over our armies, who, (as you imag- 
 ined,) were panic struck at your superior prowess, why did you not inform us 
 that besides an equal vote in the time and place, you must choose the position 
 and weapons of your opponent, and that in addition to this, you must have 
 the last fire ? Wliy did you not tell us that you must have exclusive privi- 
 leges, and not only choose your own the?e;, but you must ^Iso indite the iden- 
 tical words which we are to defend, although, in our conception, they may 
 comitenance errors which our soUls abhor. With an invitation thus restrict- 
 ed, I have never complied, for such an one Wiw never given ; but, remember^ 
 sir, that the challenge actually published bv yourself, has been accepted, with 
 its accompanying condition. 
 
 Although I cannot, admit the right of an antagonist to direct what I shall de- 
 fend, yet when he gives a reason for preferring one proposition to another, I 
 am willing to list«n. Some of your reasons are as follows : " Why then object 
 
 D 
 
 
*« to defend the precise thing which you practise ?..... And if the whole pre- 
 "position oarmot he proven^viz. that infant affusion is a Divine institution, to 
 * cut it into pieces, and to divide it into words, syllables, vowels or consonants, 
 "and prove it in piece-meal, will, every logician knows, avail nothing." To 
 your quesion I answer, that I am willing to defend the precise thing which I 
 practise. I practise the Baptism of believers and their seed; whereas I am sor- 
 ry to observe that you wish the world to think that these two stand in opposi= 
 tion to each other. I practise aspersion, though I equally approve of ablution 
 and affusion; yet I am not willing to defend the latter to the exclusion of the for- 
 mer, nor even in oppugnation of immersion. In your remark concerning the 
 cutting of a proposition into pieces, I scarcely know whether to consider you 
 in earnest. It is hardly possible that I can have the honor of giving you the 
 first information that some questions maybe divided, and that this is practised 
 by all eminent deliberative bodies, whether ecclesiastical or political. Do 
 you think it derogatory to the logical, or grammatical, or rhetorical character 
 of the Senate of the United States, that their ninth rule says, "If the question 
 *• in debate contain severjll points, any member may have the same divided." 
 You will agree, it is to be hoped, that the subject anii the mode of Baptism are 
 distinct points, and that the question may be so divided, without making each 
 Word, syllable and letter, a distinct subject of discussion. 
 
 Much of your letter is spent to establish your claims to the grj.nd desidera- 
 tum, the last speech. The fitness of things and long prescription Lre the two 
 pillars u pon Which your fabric rests. These, you say, give to the negative the 
 right of closing. The negative, therefore, you are determined to have. 2.ecol- 
 lecting, however, that you have to take the affirmative of the proposition con- 
 tained in your challenge, you bring the fitness of things, or (as you there call ft) 
 the nature of things, to a bearing upon the affirmative proposition, " Infant af 
 fusion is a human tradition ;" and you shew, or think you shew, that it *' wili 
 force the proposition into the form of a direct negative in the discussion." If you 
 can force an affirmative into a negative in order to secure the closing 
 speech, it seems to me that very little more force would prove that I ought 
 not to speak at all. This additional/orce is probably the very thing which cau- 
 sed Bishop Gunning of England, a hundreid and fifty years ago, td deny those 
 whom he had challenged, the liberty of replying. 
 
 In establishing a right upon the ground of prescription, you are aware that 
 tht custom must be made to appear, for this purpose you refer me to cer-» 
 tain nameless occurrences in Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, vol. III. p. p« 
 102—200. "Will you be so kind as to send mfe so particular a reference that 
 the place may be found in the London edition of 1698, as that contains noth« 
 ing of the sort^ia the pages marked, and the index refers to no conferences ex- 
 cept those of Cartilage and Jerusalem, p. p. 220, 321. The latter, A. D. 415, 
 has nothing lo the parpcxse. Neither has the former, which occurred four 
 years sooner, except that i\ie long disputes of the Donatists about the quali- 
 ties of opposers and defenders, may appear to authorize the pertinacity of 
 some with regard to the privileges conferred by affirmatives and negatives. 
 At last Augustine obliged them to come to the main question, which waa^ 
 •' Where was the Catholic Church?" The Donatists opened and Augustine 
 clblibdi 35'othing cm. be gathered from such facts, unless the fitnesi cf thing* 
 etei elf^att a fkVcirable cb'ncli^'ion. 
 
27 
 
 If we had SeckendorTs History of Lutheranism, and Loscherus'a Acta and 
 Documents of the Reformation referred to in Maclaine'a Mosheim (4. 44. 
 Chariest, ed. 1811,) we might possibly obtain some satisfaction on the other 
 cases referred to. Dm Pin is the only author whom you quote, and in the ve- 
 ry short abstract which he gives, in half a page, of the dispute between Eckiui 
 and Carolostadius, which occupied a week, there is no account of the number 
 or order of their speeches. He does not expressly tell us who closed, or for 
 what reason. The debate which immediately followed between Eckius and 
 Luther, was professedly on twenty-six propositions, half of them produced by 
 each of the disputants, not dictated by one to the other. This debate is di- 
 vided by Du Pin into a number of conferences. Several of the first were 
 occupied in discussing the supremacy of the Pope, the subject to which your 
 letter refers. You say, that Eckius, having the aifirmative, opened the de- 
 bate. Du Pin's narrative would encourage the belief that Luther opened. 
 You say that Luther closed. Du Pin intimates that Eckius closei the first 
 conference, and does not give the least hint who it was that clos*d the whole 
 dispute on this topic. On the subject of indulgences, Eckiu? took the affir- 
 mative as before, and if Du Pin's abstracts give any informaJon on this point, 
 Eckius both opened and closed. Although he was so remarkable for voice 
 and gesture, for information and readiness of utterance, he was exceedingly 
 fond of this same privilege of opening and closing. -Like Charles I. in hia 
 paper controversy with the noble Henderson, he anfeared to think this a pri- 
 vilege due to his dignity. He obtained it in a conference with Melancthon at 
 Ratisbon, as we are informed in a letter fro!<i Strasburg by Calvin to Farel. 
 And if, according to Luther, as quoted by Seckendorf, and from him by Mil- 
 nor, (4:346) Eckius took another more ungenerous advantage of Carolstadt 
 in the conference above mentioned, I have no doubt that he both opened and 
 closed in that contest ; although Du Pin, a popish writer, has mentioned neith- 
 er of these advantages. This author gives no information about the closing 
 epeech at Baden, although you say that Eckius opened and (Ecolampadiut 
 closed. The same may be said of the conference at Berne, which occurred 
 December I7th, 1527. At Marpurgh, (if that be the other instance to which 
 you refer) Luther produced five articles of exception against the doctrine of 
 the Zuinglians, of whom CEcolampadius was one. Du Pin does not positively 
 say who opened and closed, but from his narrative 1 should draw a conclusion 
 the very opposite of yours. It is a wonder that you did not add to this case a 
 similar one which occurred at Lambeth in England, about the year 1584. It 
 was a kind of conference between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 
 Bishop of Winchester on the one part, and Dr. Spark and Mr. Travers on the 
 other. The latter gentlemen produced articles of exception against the church 
 of England. The second of these was on Baptism. They objected to pri- 
 vate and lay Baptism, — to their view of its absolute necessity and infallible 
 efficacy, — to certain superstitious interrogatories, and the use of the cross. 
 (Toulmin's Neal, 1.422.) Although I see no evidence of any privilege given 
 to the negative, I have no doubt that much might be obtained by that perspi. 
 cacity which has discovered such wonders in the foregoing instances. 
 
 If I am not as ignorant ol arithmetic as yoa think me to be of logic, the 
 questions contained in your letters and the appendix to your debate amount 
 to one hundred and thirty-five. I am willing that you shall appear on the 
 
seene of conflict with all these, and 1 am willing to meet you with the tiro' 
 following or similar propositions, 1st. Faith is not essential to Baptism. 2*i, 
 Submersion is not essential to Baptism. You would then have room to dis- 
 play your wit on the number and character of my questions, and I would 
 have an opportunity of giving my opinion of your one hundred and thirty- 
 five questions. Remember, however, my former proposals to meet you oq 
 the bale subject and mode, and my agreement to meet you on the proposition 
 contained in your chedlenge, and the condition therein expressed. 
 
 W. L. MACCALLA. 
 
 No. 7. 
 Mr. Campbell to Mr. M 'Calls. 
 
 July Uth, 1823. 
 Mr. ^accalla, 
 
 Sir — ^l-vrote you on the 16th ult. an answer to your favor of May last ; 
 I also addressee a letter on the same subject to Dr. Keith. To these commu- 
 nications I have joceived no reply. A letter having become due before this 
 date, I feel anxious "^^o know, whether my letter was received, and whether 
 you have answered i^. I would send a copy of my reply per tbe bearer, but 
 time forbids, as he is nuy on his way. You will please inform me on Mr. 
 Logan's arrival, whether ny letter was received. — And if you should have 
 written a reply, at a date aphorizing me to have received it, you must con- 
 sider your letter as miscarried, ^nd will, therefore, have the goodness to write 
 again ; as my business and arrangements requiie me to know results as soob 
 as possible. Respectfully your's 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 No. 8. 
 Mr. M'Callato Mr. Campbell. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, Your letter of the 14th inst, sent by Mr. Logan* 
 
 was received yesterday at church, and of course not opened until this morn- 
 ing. If my former one obtained as speedy a passage as this of your's, it must 
 have arrived on the day of your writing ; and but for the late departure of 
 the mail, much sooner. As correspondence with this place by mail is gene- 
 rally tedious, it is probable that my letter has not yet miscarried. If it ar- 
 rive, you will find that I am willing, with the help of God, to meet you oa 
 fair and practicable terms, in any city in America, and I may add, in England, 
 Scotland or Ireland. But your terms I decline, for the present, because they 
 are unfair and inconsistent. The only condition annexed to your public invi- 
 tation, was that you should have an equal vote in determining the time and 
 place. After I had accepted your challenge, as you expressly called it, you 
 add in your letter to me, as another condition, that you must have the last 
 gpeech, although the fact of Mr. Walker's giving the challenge, was the 
 reason which you gave for your having the last speech at Mount-Pleasant. 
 You appear to think with the lawyers, that the last speech is a matter of 
 some importance, and that it must be gained, if possible, whether you give or 
 receive a challenge, and whether you assume the affirmative or the negative 
 of the proposition in dispute. 
 
29 
 
 You do not object to the discussion of the questions which I sent to you, 
 and therefore suggest the propriety of having the meeting notified to the 
 public forthwith. Yet your letter is so constructed that you would consider 
 this publication a virtual agreement on my part to discuss an equal number of 
 questions written by yourself, which I have never seen, and to which I might 
 have very serious objections, after seeing them. My desire is, that with the 
 grace of Christ in my heart, my lips may be consecrated to the defence of 
 truth and righteousness. He who disputes from ambition or ostentation, may 
 promise you a debate at random : but shew me the questions first, as I have 
 shewn you mine, and I hope that God will direct me to a suitable answer. 
 
 If you cannot agree to discuss my questions without obtrusive conditions 
 and if after examining your questions, I should not approve of them, the pro- 
 posal of my letter was, that we sheuld discuss "/Ae subject and the mode ofBap- 
 tism'^ without any question, or that we should meet upon the proposition con- 
 tained in your challenge, to the discussion of which you have dared the Pedo- 
 baptist world. As you gave the challenge, and as you take the afl5rmative of 
 your own proposition, both your rules give to me the closing speech. This 
 however, my letter does not ask, but requests that both parties may have li- 
 berty to speak until they are satisfied. 
 
 As Dr. Keith by showing your correspondence with him to the citizens, has 
 made it public, it is not improper for me to observe that it was premature in 
 you to tell him that your proposals could not be manfully or justly rejected 
 by me. I am informed that in his answ^ he has represented me as a forward 
 enemy of the Baptists, and as disposed to retreat from this controversy. No 
 person acquainted with the state of things here, could expect him to give me a 
 favorable character. I am constitutionally timid, but I hope that through 
 grace, I am not malicious. This same grace has also strengthened my heart 
 against the fear of man, so that although I have not the talents and prepara- 
 tion to be desired in such a controversy, I am willing to trust in the Lord, and 
 encounter even the hero of Mount-Pleasant. At least the question, who has 
 acted manfully and generously ? and who wishes to retreat? will one day be 
 submitted to the judgment of the United States, 
 
 W. L. MACCALLA, 
 Augusta., July 2\st, 1823. 
 
 No. 9. 
 Mr. Campbell to Mr. M'Calla. 
 
 Buffaloe Creek, August 23rf, 1823. 
 Mr. Maccalla, 
 
 Sir — Your's of the 8th inst. was received last night. It differs very much 
 both in spirit and style from your first. In your first you objected to meeting me 
 on the bare ground of my challenge ; saying that I should not understand you 
 as professing a willingness to confer with me on the truth or falsehood of the 
 statement in my proclamation ; " That infant sprinkling is a human tradition, 
 and injurious to the well-being of society religious and political." You then 
 proposed twenty-one questions. In your next you complained of the one 
 question I proposed, and because I had not sent you the twenty-one questions, 
 I then promised to send. In my next, I sent you twenty-one questions, and 
 
also proposed reducing the topics to four questions. In your last, you profess a 
 willingness to be off both from your own twenty-one questions and mine ; and 
 agree to meet me on the bare words of my challenge, or on two propositions, 
 both negativut and thus to force me to give you the last speech. In my first, 
 I proposed rules of conference similar to those framed at Mount- Pleasant, to 
 expedite our interview, and to regulate our discussion. To those you object 
 as inequitable. I proposed in my last, that if the rules I had proposed, should 
 not meet your approbation, as yours had not met with mine, the three mo- 
 derators should decide, both the questions to be discussed, and the manner of 
 discussing them, and pledge myself to abide by their decission. Of this you 
 take no notice ; but very gravely and generously proceed to accuse me with 
 departing from my challenge ; as offering new conditions ; and appending a 
 sine qua non to them. This, I was about to say, is worse than the quibbling 
 of school-boys. You should anticipate that there is a probability of our 
 correspondence meeting the public eye ; and that whatever your design may 
 be in throwing obstacles in the way, it will, perhaps, appear as though you 
 wished to be off from the conference forever. It certainly strikes me so. 
 Otherwise, why, in the name of common sense, would you object to me, as 
 proposing terms of conference, as a sine qua non, when / proposed to refer the 
 whole matter to men, and to submit to their rules? If this is inequitable,-all 
 arbitrations and references are inequitable. If this is inequitable, and my rules 
 are alsp inequitable, then it follows that your rules are equitable, or that they 
 must be so considered : at least, they are such as please you better than those 
 you would expect from a committee. Moreover, while you talk so much of 
 my proposing questions and theses for you, you should remember that you 
 began by proposing questions for me ; for had you, at first, proposed to meet 
 me on the ground of my challenge, and the subject matter of it, I should never 
 have proposed any questions at all. You have, or appear to have, the rare 
 talent of committing faults, and of charging them on another. You project a 
 course, and when I follow you, you gravely censure me as departing from my 
 printed challenge ; and, as leading you off to worse ground than you occupy. 
 As to the latter, instead of leading off, my proposal was to lead you on pub- 
 licly to assume, and if possible to defend the precise ground you occupy in 
 contradistinction to Anti-paido-baptists ; that is, that infant Rantism, or su- 
 perfusion is a Divine ordinance; for surely, there is no dispute between us and 
 you about believer's Baptism, This, I grant you, includes both the subject, 
 and the very action itself, which the law of Christ specifies and ordains. This 
 therefore being the very point at issue between us, I suggested to you the 
 propriety of assuming it as such, and, if possible, of proving it to be a Divine 
 ordinance ; which it certainly behoves you to do, so long as you continue to 
 practise it in the Divine name. But, perhaps, your objection against assuming 
 this ground, in the first instance (for to this we must come at length, as the 
 alone question at issue) is, that it would lead you to take the affirmative; for 
 it seems you are quite averse to this, and are determined, if possible to be 
 on the negative ; as I think you must be convinced that it behoves the affirma- 
 tive to open the discussion. As to what you say concerning my references to 
 Du Pin, being at present from home on a journey, I have not that book at 
 hand : but if you are willing to rest the matter upon my proving from that 
 trriter, aod other*, that tba. affirmative has usually opened every discuaiioot 
 
$1 
 
 where theses were so limited, I will engage te do it, or to concede to you the 
 closing speech. But why you should hare dwelt so much on this topic, as a 
 sine qua non, when I consented to be govened by the rules of the moderators, 
 without ever so much as noticing this important concession, this just and rea- 
 sonable alternative, quite astonishes me ; it seems to argue something very 
 forbidding in a religious antagonist. When you will not agree to have the 
 matter referred, it is evident you look for an advantage. If I must give you 
 an advantage I will do it gratuitously ; not under the semblance of a ri^ht. 
 I will, then, to obviate all diflSculties on my side, if possible, propose to meet 
 you at Augusta, or rather at Mays-Lick, on Wednesday, the 15th day of 
 October next^ the day ocf^.,.,,^ qj ^q (jay after, as may best suit' your convt- 
 niency, at 11 o'clock, A. M.; and that you shall have the privilege of both 
 opening and closing the discussion, and of speaking twice for my once : that 
 the words of my challenge shall be the subject of discussion, and that the 
 moderators shall act as aforesaid. I will either meet you thus, or I will agree 
 that the moderators, on the day before our meeting, after having heard all our 
 correspondence, make the rules by which we shall proceed. If I miut giro 
 advantage, 1 will do it all at once, and manifestly. Talk no more then, if you 
 please, about sine qua nons. I will meet you as aforesaid, if the Lord will, 
 either on your twenty-one questions and mine ; or on the words of my chal- 
 lenge; or on the four questions proposed in my last; or on the decision of 
 the three moderators that shall be chosen. I have mentioned Mays-Lick, aj 
 by letters sent me from Kentucky, I understand it to be a much better place 
 than Augusta for accommodating the country in general, and that many more 
 could attend. I request you, if determined to meet me, to inform Dr. Keith, 
 on the receipt of this, and to let him know, to which of the proposed termt 
 you choose to accede ; and also to have our intended meeting made as public ai 
 possible. You will abo please to write me immediately on receipt of this. 
 Please also to recollect, that the challenge which elicited mine, eame forth 
 from your armies ; and talk no more of the stripling David ; nor of the Philis- 
 tine, Goliah. How good soever the analogy may be between you and the 
 tender stripling ; for our part we disclaim comparison with the mighty Philis- 
 tine. 
 
 P. S. I wrote this hastily, while stopping for dinner on a journey, you will 
 therefore please excuse inaccuracies of style, and want of method. 
 Your's respectfully, 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 No. 10* 
 Mr. M'Calla to Mr. Campbell. 
 
 Augusta, Sept. ISth, 1823. 
 Mft, CampbBLi. ' If, as you intimate, I am afraid to meet you, it 
 
 should be matter of regret, when we consider the goodness of my cause, the 
 power of Christ, and the experience which I have had of his faithfulness and 
 condescending goodness. You are mistaken, howftver, in one statement which 
 may encourage you in this belief. It is that I try to force you to gire me th* 
 last speech. If this were true, it might be en evideice of fear or somethinj 
 worse. Your assertion of the fact is as unprt>per, as your maoner of givinj 
 mtt an tmvought ptlvHejifa ii Impolite. 
 
Although to be afraid of so formidable an antagonist would bp, in som« 
 Sneasure, excusable, I am not willing to lie under your charge of uncorteous 
 behaviour for omitting to notice your proposals for a theological arbitration. 
 In your letter of July 21st, you propose that the moderators, " shall after having 
 ^ heard read in their hearing, our whole correspondence, decide both what 
 *' questions shall be discussed, and in what manner. I will pledge myself to 
 "comply with their decisions." This I omitted to notice for want of room; 
 because you had already my opinion twice on such measures, and because I 
 did not wish to expose every inadvertency of which you might be guilty. If 
 1 were, in haste, to offer such a proposal, I would thank my correspondent for 
 passing it in silence. In my letter of July 2d, I exRrp=-='><3 an opinion that such 
 a preceding was nothing better than tKo».i«5ical Quixotism. In a letter of 
 July 21st, I considered that to promise a debate at random arose from ambi- 
 tion or ostentation. When you, in your pledge copied above, commit the 
 very fault here reproved, did decorum require that I should repeat my con- 
 demnation ? or was it necessary for me to insinuate my suspicions, that you 
 chose ground which you knew had been abandoned, for the purpose of giving 
 to your candor and bravery a more illustrious and uninterrupted display? 
 
 Concerning this proposal you say, " if this is inequitable, then all arbitra- 
 tions and references are inequitable ;" and you insinuate that a refusal on my 
 part is an indirect impeachment of the ability or integrity of a committee. 
 The third rule proposed in your letter of June 16th, and in the system adopt- 
 ed at Mount-Pleasant, is, "that these moderators shall merely keep order, and 
 not pronounce judgment on the merits of the debate." Did you, by this 
 rule, mean any insinuation of ignorance or corruption ? Did you, by this 
 proposal, mean to make war upon all arbitrations and references, which are 
 intended to decide upon the merits of causes ? It is well for school-boys to re- 
 ceive subjects for composition and declamation. It is well for students of the- 
 ology to receive subjects for trial exercises. In both these cases, however, as 
 well as in arbitrations and references, the merits are decided by the committees. 
 This, which is really the most innocent part of the business, and which haa 
 been the practice of the literary and theological world, time immemorial, does 
 not please you ; but you are delighted with the thought of returning to a 
 state of minority, of engaging in a sort of polemical fencing, on a subject ar- 
 bitrarily dictated by others, and concerning the tendency of which to good or 
 evil we are utterly ignorant. If the long parUament of England which you 
 hold in such contempt, had been men of your liberal conscience, they would 
 have given Archbishop Laud less trouble about the et cetera oath. But they 
 complain, " We are here to swear to we know not what, to something that is 
 'not expressed ; by which means we are left to the arbitrary interpretation of 
 "the judge." You and men of the same spirit often accuse us of a slavish 
 adherence to the Assembly of divines convened by this Parliament. This 
 eorrespondence should cause you to inquire again who it is that is most dis- 
 posed to servile compliances. Is it the man who cautiously and prayerfully 
 examines and compares the Westminster articles, and then adopts them be- 
 cause he finds that form of sound words consistent with the word of God ? — Is 
 it he who, in sacred things, is unwilling to make a leap in the dark ? or is it 
 that man who pompously pledges himself to abide by the future decision of 
 an unknown and mixt committee .■* and who takes frequent occasions of ridi- 
 
33 
 
 eulin^ the tender consciences of those who would rather know a matter be> 
 fore they answer it. 
 
 This alternative of your proposals'is of course rejected. I must treatyout 
 four questions in the same way. On the three last of them we can come to 
 no immediate issue. Lsst a silent concealment of my disgust should again 
 incur your resentment, I must tell you that the first of these four, and scores 
 of others from the same quarter, are only calculated to darken counsel by 
 words without knowledge. 
 
 To excuse yourself for so long insisting upon the right of prescribing what 
 I should defend, you say that I first dictated twenty-one questions to you. I 
 can find no excuse for this statement, except that you were on a journey when 
 you made it, and had not my first letter with you. You will there find that 
 they were "respectfully submitted for your consideration, and (if you please) 
 for your adoption or rejection, amendment or selection, enlargement or dimin- 
 ution." Did I then, or have I ever since, made your adoption of them a condi- 
 tion of our meeting ? So far was I fi-om acting the part of a dictator, that 
 you have more than once commended the spirit of that letter. So far from 
 insistipg upon their adoption after they were trammelled by your obscure 
 and ambiguous questions, I have incurred the censure of inconsistency by 
 abandoning them without a struggle. This I did in silence, not, as 
 Dr. Keith has said, because I was afraid to meet you, but because I was 
 afraid to tell you my opinion of your questions, lest it should prevent a meet- 
 ing, by raising too high that magisterial indignation which has been man- 
 ifested in several of your letters, and which, from a long habit of domi- 
 neering without control, has become quite ungovernable. This same mo- 
 tive induced me entirely to suppress the first letter which was penned for 
 your address, because on reading it to my friend. Major Morris, he gave it as his 
 opinion that, by irritating your feelings with severe animadversions upon your 
 book, it would prove an obstruction to our meeting. To the same cause yoa 
 may ascribe my silence hitherto concerning your character, although mine 
 occupied the introduction to your first letter. Whatsoever may have moved 
 you to magnify my reputation and standing, I am sorry that I cannot praise 
 your orthodoxy or piety. The numerous, respectable and almost uniform 
 reports against you in these respects are corroborated by your various writ- 
 ings. It is said that you are polluted with the theology of your favorite au- 
 thor, the disciple of Dr. Priestly, whose Socinian and infidel pravity has been 
 so completely exposed by his Baptist countryman, the excellent Andrew Ful- 
 ler. If this be a mistake, you will rejoice to correct it ; and be assured that 
 gUch a favor will give me no less pleasure than yourself. Untd this is done, 
 no devoted minister of the divine saviour can desire any other intercourse 
 with you than as an adversary. 
 
 Your declaration that I am convinced that the affirmative should open, (and 
 of course ,the negative close,) notwithstanding my assurance to the contrary, 
 is a much more modest insinuation than you are accustomed to making. In 
 this respect it resembles a very delicate remark in your first address at Mount 
 Pleasant. It is in the following words; " I cannot persuade myself to believe 
 that they who affirm that Baptism came in the room of circumcision, really 
 
 F 
 
34 
 
 thiak so." A real Christian "who could utter such things, not from hasty pas- 
 sion, or settled malignity, but from sincere conviction, could hardly wish to 
 see me, except as an antagonist. In this capacity I am inclined to meet you ; 
 not from any favorable opinion of your piety or sincerity, but because yoa 
 are allowed (and I suppose justly) to be the greatest champion of Anabap- 
 tism, in America — because you have charged the Pedo-baptist world with ad- 
 ministering a factitious and pernicious ordinance; — because you have public- 
 ly challenged them to stand on their- defence ; — because you have publicly 
 gloried in their silence, as arising from guilt, timidity, or incompetency ; — and 
 because your partieans have bantered me, and thus given a particular direc- 
 tion to your general invitation. 
 
 To this invitation I at first objected, because although, it brings us to a spee- 
 dy issue, yet it confounds things quite distinct, and it is clothed in unMecom- 
 ing language. True, its exceptionable phrasp, infant sprinkling, is not so 
 low and profane an expression a? David Jones' watery hocus pocus^ yet it is in- 
 tended as a sneer, and of course will never, by the lovers of piety and courte^ 
 ay, be made a member of a question in debate. This proposition, however 
 with all its confusion of points and vulgarity of expression, is still prefera- 
 ble to any other alternative which you have offered. My former repeated 
 acceptance of it is now confirmed. As you were mistaken about the superior 
 eligibility of Mays-Lick, I was reluctant to comply with your wish. Your 
 friends and corrospendents. Dr. Keith and Major Davis undertook the respon- 
 sibility of requesting on your behalf that Washington might be the place of 
 meeting. As this was to your advantage, I consented. A copy of our joint 
 publication is enclosed. W. L. MACCALLA. 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 Mr. Campbell to Mr. M'Calla. 
 
 Septembir ^Ith, 1823. 
 Mr. Maccalla: 
 
 Sir — Your long looked for favor of the 15th inst. came to hand last night. 
 It assures me that you are now disposed to meet me, and have actually »- 
 greed to meet me at Washington, Mason county, Ky. on the 15th October, oa 
 the proposition printed in my general invitation. But under what regula- 
 tions, I know not; as you have declined referring the matter to the three 
 moderators, and have said notliing, in your last, on what rules or order should 
 be observed. — It appears your conseience is too tender to allow the moderator« 
 such a liberty, as to say, how the debate should be conducted, and which of all 
 the topics and questions proposed should be discussed. It appears also that 
 you omitted to notice this proposal in a former letter for the want of room ; 
 yet, there is more than one third of a page of your letter blank ; so that yoo 
 must have had more to say about it, in your letter of the 8th August, than ia 
 yours of the 15th ingt. for you do not say so much on it in your last, as might 
 have been written on the blauk in your preceding epistle, and you might ae 
 well strive to arouse my feelings then as now. It nmreover appears, that 
 your conscience was not ?o tender, on the subject of mr character for "or^ho- 
 d6xy and piety," as to prevent you froia insinuating, nay, u om declaring that 
 
35 
 
 Dr. Prieistly's disciple was my favorite author, contrary to all evidence or fact 
 from any thing in ray writing'", or from any respectable source. You ahall, per- 
 haps, soon know that I have no favorite authors in religion, but one ; and that 
 man who says I am a first or second hand disciple of Priestly's or of any sociniaa 
 author, is a man of no piety nor respectability of character : nor is there a maa 
 living who can say, or dare say in my presence, that I ever expressed a senti- 
 ment derogatory to the Lord Jesus as a Divine Redeemer, as Emmanuel God 
 with us. Such insinuations may be circulatsd in Kentucky, by those who 
 would wish to impair my influence, in supporting a truth more hated by many 
 of the "orthodox and pious" than socinianism : but here we regard them not. 
 As to my piety, I know I have nothing to boast of, God alone is my judge. As 
 to my external deportment, men can judge^ And whenever you bring forward 
 any specific charge of immorality, or unchristian deportment, I will try to re- 
 fute it. But as I shall, Deo volente, at some future day expatiate on the style 
 and sentiment of your last, I proceed to say, that your reference to your first 
 letter, in relation to the twenty-one questions is ^ar<iai; and not altogether 
 correct. You did propose the twenty-one questions in the first instance as 
 you have quoted, but afterwards, you tell me, in the same letter, that you 
 " fairly conclude that (unless suppressed by mutual consent,) they will all 
 be discussed, if we should ever meet." Query : Have we mutually agreed 
 to suppress them ? Or are they to be discussed at our meeting .'' I request 
 that you will meet me at Washington, the 14th day of October, at 11 A.M. 
 in order to arrange the business, for you have not agreed to meet me on 
 any of the terms proposed, in my last. At least you iiave not informed me 
 so. But you have told me that you are to meet me as " an adversary," as 
 ho Satanas. Well, I hope you will remember, that when Michael the arch- 
 angel, disputed with the adversary, about the body of Moses, he durst not 
 bring agamst him a railing accusation. As you are celebrated for piety and 
 orthodoxy, and I, for the want of them, a great deal will be expected fr»m 
 5'ou, and very little from your 
 
 Humble Servant 
 
 A. CAMPBELL. 
 
 P. S. — It would appear, from the circumstance of your contrasting what I said 
 of your high standing, &c. ■vvilh your deep sense of my want of "orthodoxy and 
 piety," that you understood the high standing mentioned, to mean your high stand' 
 ing for " piety and orthodoxy." Lest this should have any undue influence on 
 your raiad, I think it right to explain it. — You were never described to me by any 
 Baptist or Paedo-baptist, as of high standing for either " piety or orthodoxy," but 
 that you once stood high as a lawyer, if I mistake not, as a chaplain in the army, 
 and now as a presb}'terian teacher: and that you were highly distinguished for a pe- 
 culiar kind of argumentative faculty, which you have displayed in debates, in ser- 
 mons, and in ecclesiastical courts. — Excuse this much to nrevent mistake. A. C. 
 
36 
 
 ' No. 12. 
 
 M'Calla to Campbell. 
 
 Philadelphia, Au^UHf 1st, 1826. 
 Mr. Campbell In yours of Sept. 27, 1 823, you ob- 
 serve, "I shall. Beo volente, at some future day, expatiate on the 
 style and sentiment of your last." 1 have long waited in vain 
 to see these promised remarks. In the commencement of your 
 letter you inform us that my " long looked for favour" had come 
 to hand. It must have arrived in a week or two after you look- 
 ed for it. If you languish under a fortnight's suspense, when 
 expecting a letter from me, how cruel is it for you to keep me 
 during several long years, from witnessing in how interesting a 
 manner, you can " expatiate on the style and sentimenf of niy 
 very sentimental effusion ! As it is probable that this, like many 
 promises of marriage made by professed ministers of -the gospel, 
 IS never to be fulfilled, lam compelled to notice your little letter 
 which was intended as a precursor of the more splendid epistle. 
 
 Not long after writing, you discovered in a personal inter- 
 view, that you were mistaken in insinuating that I was reluctant 
 to settle definite rules of conference. At that meeting the ob- 
 jections came from yourself; and were accordingly, at a ubse- 
 quent meeting, relinquished by yourself All that I asked was, 
 that you should have no unfair advantage. 
 
 A remark in your letter, which really appears specious, oa 
 account of an uncandid concealment and an incorrect assertion, 
 reads as follows, Viz. " It appears also that you omitted to no- 
 *'tice this proposal, [for three autocratical arbitrators] in a for- 
 *' mer letter for the want of room ; yet there is more than one 
 "3d of a page of your letter blank ; so that you must have had 
 **more to say about it in your letter of the 8th of August than 
 "in yours of the 15th inst. for you do not say so much on it in 
 *'your last, as might have been written on the blank in your pre- 
 " ceding epistle." The letter to which you refer, forms No. 10 
 of these Collateral Papers. The matter to which you refer, oc- 
 cupies the second and third paragraphs of that letter. Look 
 back and see whether those paragraphs which fill a page of your 
 printed book, could be conveniently written on a fraction of a 
 page. Read also the first of those paragraphs, and see whether 
 the want of room was the only reason for ray silence ', or wheth- 
 er it was not only one of three reasons, either of which would 
 have been sufficient if 1 had had three pages instead of a third of 
 a page. If you could place me in an awkward predicament by 
 fair ingenuity or wil, I should laugh and admire, instead of an- 
 swering. But your endeavouring to do it by concealing facts 
 and inventing fictions, involuntarily reminds me of one of your 
 many endearing remarks to Mr. Greatrake. If I recollect rightly, 
 you informed him, that you knew a reptile, (and of this I have 
 no doubt,) that you knew a reptile, which could creep through a 
 
hole less than itself, and swallow a body larger than itself. Af- 
 ter so long and so intimate an acquaintance with such a person- 
 age, it is no wonder that you can reduce the reasons of my con- 
 duct to one third of their number, and make one third of a page 
 hold|as much as a whole page. 
 
 In No. 9, you accused me of dictating twenty one questions. 
 This I refuted in No. 10, by quoting the plainest declaration to 
 the contrary. In your last you renew the attack in anotiier way. 
 
 The following are your words, viz. " your reference to your 
 
 *' first letter in relation to the twenty-one questions is partial, and 
 *' not altogether correct. You did propose the twenty-one in 
 " the first instance as you have quoted, but afterwards you tell 
 *« me, in the same letter, that you ' fairly conclude that funiess 
 ''suppressed by mutual consent,) they will all be discussed, if 
 "we should ever meet.' Query: Have we mutually agreed to 
 " suppress them r or are they to be discussed at our meeting ?" 
 Now your reasoning would be perfectly conclusive, if you 
 could establish as a Major Proposition, that subtsiitting articles 
 to future negotiation was equivalent to dictating them. Your 
 
 argument would then run as follows' "Proposing subjects 
 
 "for debate, is an imperious and dictatorial method of inipos- 
 
 "ing those questions upon an Antagonist. But W. L. 
 
 "M'Calla did respectfully submit twenty-one questions for my 
 " consideration, and (if I please) for my adoption or rejection^ 
 '•^amendment or selection, enlargement or diminution. This 
 "same W. L. M'Calla did, moreover, in the same letter, fairly 
 " conclude, that (unless suppressed by inutual consent,) tlwy ivill 
 ^^ all be discussed if we should ever meet. ^ And all this the said 
 " W. L. M'Calia wrote, before there had been any mutual 
 " agreement on the subject, and when no one could tell whether 
 
 " they are to be discussed or not. Therefore it is as plain as 
 
 ^' that Mr. Greatrake is a great sinner ; or that Sidney Rigdfm is 
 "a second Solomon ; that this imperious Kentuckian has dictat- 
 '• ed these questions to me, and means that I shall discuss them, 
 " whether there is a mutual agreement to that effect or not." 
 
 Shortly after the commencement of the discussion, you were 
 probably convinced that this conclusion was incorrect .1 ear- 
 nestly and repeatedly requested that several topics embraced in 
 these questions might be entirely suppressed. I wished to ad- 
 here to scriptural evidence, and leave ecclesiastical history, in 
 relation to the subject of baptism, and the mode of baptism, and 
 the origin of the Baptist Church, out of tiie question. This 
 would drop many of the twenty-one questions ; perhaps every 
 one which was not directly em!>raced in your challenge. It was 
 soon discovered that these subjects could not be omitted by mu- 
 tual consent. You probably suspected, that the request to pass 
 them by, proceeded from want of preparation. This caused you 
 to press the points in what you would call a dictatorial nianuL^r. 
 ■VVhile you were doing this, a gentleman took me aside. He 
 
58 
 
 entreated me not to urge tny request any more, but to take you 
 at your word, and he and others would continua to attend, if the 
 discussion should last a month. I consented, and after this, all 
 the mournful entreaties for suppressing these topics, came from 
 the other side : but the dye was cast by your own act, and vou had 
 to bear the consequences. In your letter you tell us of some 
 things which no living man can say, or dare say in your august 
 presei ce. How different this menacing air, from the doleful 
 ditty of some of your plaints, when contending with one who 
 dared to tell the truth. What a pity that you had not kept your 
 threats for the exclusive use of such men as Mr. Rirch. your 
 writer of challenges, and Mr. Rigdon your writer of certificates. 
 
 Lest your good opinion should have an undue influence on my 
 mind, you are careful to inform me very exactly what you have 
 heard and what you have not heard, concerning my character. 
 Now sir. do you really think that a serious Christian would covet 
 the praise of an avowed enemy to religious exercises and institu- 
 tions, and even to moral duties and associations ? But if you 
 ever heard that I once stood high as a lawyer, it was probably 
 from one who was about as well qualified to write my life as you 
 ■were to write my speeches. I once attempted to study law, but 
 failed for the very same reason that has made you fail in the min- 
 istry ; that is, I had no- relish for the profession. A lawyer who 
 conscientiously recognizes his responsibility to God, and keeps 
 truth and justice (whether for or against his client) steadily in 
 view, may spend his breath usefully, in perpetually disputing 
 about wounds and bruises, and thefts and murders, and frauds 
 and forgeries, and money and lands and goods and chattels and 
 houses and horses and hog& : And perhaps the man who inform- 
 ed you of my high standing at the bar, would admit that, in that 
 pursuit, I could with thtt help of Providence have amassed a con- 
 siderable portion of this world's Wi-alth, and have risen a little 
 highei than the bar, and have obtained the admiration and praise 
 of those who now traduce me. But the Grod of the bible, for 
 Christ's sake, and by the agency of his Holy Spirit, was pleased 
 to convince a perishing sinner that those emoluments were not 
 the most valuable. My ambition reached after nobler pursuits 
 and higher rewards. I am willing to dispute with as much ar- 
 dor and perseverance as any lawyer ; but it is in a better cause : 
 and if I receive no other return, than the sweet comforts of re- 
 ligion, which attend a disinterested and conscientious perform- 
 ance of duty, I prefer it to their gold and silver. It is true that 
 I have sometimes to fight with wild beasts at Ephesus, oi if you 
 please, at Washington, (Kentucky) and Lombard Street Church 
 (Philadelphia,) but 1 decidedly prefer the lot of a gracious and 
 faithful minister of the Gospel, with all its thankless mortifica- 
 tions, dangers and toils, to that of any other man under the sun. 
 
 This has not been my feeling alway, nor even from the 
 Commencement of my religious profession. It was after that pe- 
 riod that I obtained licence to plead law, and was admitted to 
 
59 
 
 practice in the Lexington Court. But when that was done my 
 legal career was done. I never advocated one cause. But if I 
 had done it, it wos always my determination that, in the face of 
 all consequences, I would uniformly and invariably avoid quib- 
 bles, prevarications and falsehoods, as I would avoid sin, death 
 and hell. Oh! how many transgressitms of this sort have stained 
 the character of one who does not pretend to be a lawyer, but a 
 Bishop, and even a Bishop-maker. Among his many tricks, I 
 will remind you of one, the mention of which was designedly, 
 postponed to the close of our correspondence. Several years 
 ago he blew a trumpet on Mount Pleasant, challenging any man 
 in the world to contend with him on equal terms, tlis invitation 
 being at last accepted by your humble servant, the great man in- 
 sisted that as he had had the last fire in a former engagement, so he 
 must in this, though for different and even opposite reasons. At 
 last the fitness of things and long prescription were announced 
 as the strong holds which should secure his object. His man- 
 ner of supporting the last position is the cause which brings the 
 subject now before us. In No 5, of these Collateral Papers he 
 endeavours to prove his prescriptive right to the closing speech, 
 by referring to particular interviews of a similar character, iu 
 which Luther, OEcolampadius, Eckius and Carolostadius were 
 parties, and then referring to ninety-eight pages of Du Pin's 
 Ecclesiastical History in the lump, for wliat he carelessly calls 
 *' MANY OTHER INSTANCES." After my informing him in No. 6, 
 of my inability to find any of these many nameless instances, I 
 proceeded to shew the perfect irrelevancy of those to which he 
 particularly referred. This he answers in No. 9, in the follow- 
 ing words, viz : *' As to what you say concerning my references 
 ** to Du Pin being at present from home on a journey, I have not 
 " that book at hand : but if you are willing to rest the matter 
 " ujjon ray proving from that writer, and others, that the aflSrtn- 
 *' ative has usually opened every discussion, where theses were 
 '* so limited, I will engage to do it, or to concede to you the clos- 
 ♦* ing speech." After such a display of learning, and such an ar- 
 ray of authorities, at the commencement of this discussion, who 
 could have expected sueh a retreating, dodging, drivelling an- 
 swer at the close of it ? After having gallopped into this ques- 
 tion with such pomp and confidence, is it not surprising that he 
 should slip out of it with such inoffensive tameness ? In this 
 answer he insinuates, as usual, that it was I who wished the 
 closing speech, and that on certain conditions he would consent 
 to let me have it. What he has here insinuated, he asserts in 
 the plainest terms, in the close of his report. He well knows 
 that I never descended so low as to ask this or any other exclu- 
 sive privilege. Moreover, in this answer he shifts the question 
 from the right of closing to the duty of opening, as if proving it 
 my place to open, would secure the close to him : whereas he 
 could not deny that prescription aiYiongst us, would secure the 
 closing to the one who opened, instead of to his antagonist. — 
 Finding that Du Pin was to his cause, what Jonah was to the 
 ahip— — onlj calculated to sink it, the above answer shews that 
 
40 
 
 he threw his author overboard, or which amounts to the same 
 thing, he jumped overboard himself by starting on a journey, 
 which of course, must be a satisfactory reason for not consulting 
 the work before his departure or after his return ! ! After his re- 
 turn, he wrote No. 11 above, without givin me the desired in- 
 formation, nor has he yet sent it, although he has had time to « ex- 
 patiate on ihe style and sentiment of all that I ever wrote in my 
 life. The question was much agitated between the parties in 
 Wasliington, the day before the debate. Neither Du Pin nor any 
 other author was called for, although 1 had brought his massy vol- 
 umes and several other works to the ground, for Mr. Campbell's 
 use, at the request of his friend Dr. Keith. Thus have you asser- 
 ted cases which had no existence, distorted those which had, and 
 at last abandoned both the real and fictitious cases, not with the 
 candour of a man, but with the unprincipled shuffling of a petti- 
 fogger. Yet this is the man who, in No. 9 above, replies to 
 reasoning which he could not refute, by saying that it was 
 ♦ ' worse than the quibbling of schoolboys. " 
 
 W. L. M'CALLA. 
 
 No, 13. 
 
 Onfads^ and on the truth of Mr. CaniphelVs Report. 
 
 From W. L. M'Calla to Col. Jos. Crockett, near Nicholasville, (Ky.) 
 
 My Dear Unclk, Your letter, for which I have never 
 
 before had an opportunity of thanking you, has touched a chord 
 which vibrates with sincere and tender affection for yourself and 
 my bel(»ved aunt and cousins, ever since my infant eyes could 
 distinguish you in the remote Kentucky forest in which I was 
 born. My love for your family is by no means weakened from 
 the fact that several of them have become Baptists. The debate 
 with Mr. Campbell prevented me from visiting your pious Bap- 
 tist son Dr. Jos. C. at his request, in that sickness from which we 
 hope that he ascended to eternal health. And cordially did I 
 wish that your daughter and her husband Dr. Bower, and all mj 
 Baptist friends could have witnessed the forbearance with which 
 I treated real christians of that denomination. With a good 
 conscience I can say, that in that controversy, and every other, 
 truth was my object. For this reason, I never asked the right 
 of closing, but only of speaking until satisfied. When Colonel 
 Morris of Au^ usta. asked me, before Mr. Campbell's arrival, 
 what I would do about the last speech, I told him that if we en- 
 gaged on equal terms, the last address was of so little import- 
 ance to me, that I had no expectation of speaking last. 1 then 
 assigned and at the same time illustrated my reason f:tr this in- 
 difference, by an allusion to an animal with which you know we 
 Kentuckians have to be familiar, from the time ttiat we can hold 
 a bridle. A running horse shews when he is out of breath, by the 
 motion of his tail. I observed to Col. Morris tliat when my point 
 
41 
 
 •was gained, and my antagonist began to switch his tail, my meth- 
 od was to leave him the field j for he would only show his own ex- 
 haustion, and proclaim ray victory. From Mr. Campbell's let- 
 ters, in Nos. 9 and 11, of these prelimifary papers, Dr. Keith, 
 his representative, agreed that he had relinquished his claims for 
 privilege, and was willing to debate on equal terms in alternate 
 speeches, according to the tenor of our correspondence. His 
 -words, in his own hand writing, are now before me. They are 
 the following, viz : " It is our understanding of Mr. A. Carap- 
 *' bell's letter of August 23d, 1823, to W. L. M'Calla, that he 
 '* relinquishes his claims. But when we met at Major Davis's in 
 Washington, the day before the debate, he interposed several dii- 
 ficulties. He insisted again upon 4US much loved closing 
 speech, and as this was refused, he required as an indispensable 
 alternative, that I should both open and close, and speak twice 
 tohis once! ! He had discovered also, that, to my feeble health, 
 writing was then, as it is now. exceedingly difficult, and to any 
 great extent, impossible. He therefore urged as another sine qua 
 non, before unheard of, that I should write down for his use du- 
 ring the debate, any portion of my argument which he should call 
 for ! On my pleading the impossibility of the thing, he, instead 
 of relaxing, became mure pertinacious. My refusal was then pe- 
 remptory. After this, he appeared to agree to fair terms, and 
 consented to have them immediately committed to paper. As 
 it is generally disagreeable to me to write even ten lines, I re- 
 quested that he would take the pen. He did so, but to the as- 
 tonishment of the compan}', embodied in the written articles, his 
 demands which had just been renounced. Tn dealing with such 
 men, it has, for many years, been deemed important to have a 
 witness with me. On this occasion, an eminent lawyer of 
 Washington, Mr. Paxton, at whose house I lodged, favored me 
 with his companj". Before he could send me his vv-ritten testi- 
 mony concerning this and a subsequent conversation, as he de- 
 clared he would, it pleased Providence to remove him from this 
 world. Yet God has so ordered it, that the autograph of those 
 rules is now in my hands, with the signature of the parties, and 
 the three moderators, attesting that the exceptionable articles 
 were afterwards exploded by mutual consent. This point was 
 not, however, gained at that meeting. He persisted in his un- 
 reasonable demands. Just before we partetl, I told him that I 
 should endeavour to attend punctually, at the time and place 
 appointed for the debate, and would, with the help of God. de- 
 f«'nd the truth against the allegations of his challenge, whether 
 with or without written rules. In the evening, he, in company 
 with Mr. Rigdon and .Mr Vaughn, came over to Mr. Paxtoirs, 
 where he fimnd me pleasantly seated in a circle of friends, chiefly 
 ladies. Immediately after taking his chair, he informed me rhat 
 he was willing to drop the objectionable articles, and come to an 
 agreement on the remaining rules which he had written. After I 
 had expressed my satisfaction, we agreed to liave them copied, 
 signed and attested, the next morning, and put into the hands 
 of the moderators. He then very abruptly demanded my au- 
 
 G" 
 
42 
 
 thority for insinuating, as in No. 10 above, that he was tainted 
 with the theology of Robinson, a disciple of Dr. Priestley. As 
 this, and every thing else, during the interview, was spoken by 
 him in such a manner as ta engross the attention of the compa- 
 ny, I observed with a smile, that, if he chose, we would attend to 
 that subject at another time and place. But he was not to be put 
 oiF. He pressed the point, and demanded my author. Just at 
 this moment, there was in my mind an association, which need not 
 be explained, between mj informant and an intelligent, witty, 
 and much admired young lady of the company. 1, therefore, 
 with a grave countenance, tinged with drollery, asked her if she 
 did not hold herself responsible for this information. It had the 
 desired effect. The feelings of the company which had begun 
 to be on the rack, were relaxed with a hearty laugh, in which 
 the young lady, discovering my design, cordially joined. It 
 was soon discovered that Mr. Campbell did not enjoy the joke. 
 He observed that he did not think the insinuation in question to 
 be such as would come from a gentleman. This cast a gloom over 
 every countenance in the room except my own. Every one had 
 expected, (and in this I agreed with them,) that Mr. Campbell 
 had at least sense enough to make him beiiave with commun de- 
 cency in such a company. But this was expecting too much 
 from the animal whose indiscriminate ferocity had endeavoured 
 to adorn his den with the bones of Mrs. Judson, a female Bap- 
 tist Missionary. Mr. Campbell's remarks hurt me in no other 
 way than as it made me the unwilling occasion of having the 
 company insulted, and that in the house of a high-minded gen- 
 tleman, whose patience and prudence were put to a severe trial. 
 Being unwilling to contend on such a subject at all, and espe- 
 cially in Mr. Paxton's parlour, 1 arose, took a drink of water, and 
 saunteied about the room ^^ith great composure. But still his 
 pronouncing me no gentleman, rang in their ears, and sealed their 
 faculties in mute astonishment. To relieve them from a long and 
 painful silence, and at the same time to turn the subject entirely, 
 I sat iown ; and, taking a piece of alum out of my pocket, obser- 
 ved to the company, that for some time I had been troubled with a 
 sore tongue, and had found alum a good remedy. " Yes sir," said 
 Mr. < 'ampbell, " but that does not prove that I am a Socinian." 
 ' No sir,' said I, ' but I thought that your tongue also might be the 
 better of a little alum.' This again relieved the company in some 
 measure. But Mr. Campbell received no farther attention from 
 me, and but little from any present j so that he and Mr. Rigdoa 
 withdrew. To Mr. Vaughn, who remained by request, Mr. 
 Paxton expressed himself with great freedom. Mr. Vaughn, 
 perhaps not expecting such conduct, was at a loss for an apolo- 
 gy. \t last he said that Mr. Campbell was an Irishman, and 
 that an Irishman ought always to have the privilege of speaking 
 twice. Phis may be true of Mr. Campbell, but nut of such 
 Irishmen as now compose the majority of my congregation. 
 
 As it is contrary to my wish to interrupt the argument with 
 narration, 1 would here inform you of some things which Mr. 
 
• 43 
 
 Campbell has omitted or misstated in his report. He omits Mr 
 Verdeman's laughing and afterward denying it, and remaining 
 under a stigma f()r this conduct, although he got Mr. Vaughn 
 and even Mr. Campbell to try to convince the people that the 
 witnesses against him might not exactly understand the meaning 
 of the word laugh! ! Instead of telling the public that Mr. 
 Verdeman opposed my rtading certain passages from Robmson, 
 he makes Mr. Verdeman volunteer his consent to my enjoying 
 this liberty. This was because Mr. Campbell had published 
 that the Pedobaptist moderator at Mount Pleasant, had tried to 
 deprive him of the privilege of reading the same author. After 
 accusing the Pedobaptist in one debate, (though falsely as some 
 say) of this illiberality, he did not like to expose Mr. Verde- 
 man's real guilt in another debate. 
 
 In connexion with this subject, he mentions the complaint 
 made by Mr. Verdeman, and (he ought to have said) by Mr. 
 Campbell, that 1 transgressed the rules of decorum in styling :Vtr. 
 Campbell our Jlccuser ^nd Adversary. He professes to give the 
 word: or the purport of the speeches of the three moderators. 
 The man whowould,underoath, give the statements found in the 
 62d and 63d pages of his book on this subject, would,be grossly de- 
 ficient invery desirable qualities. He does not report Mr. Burch, 
 the Pedobaptist moderator, \o justify me in the use of the words 
 complained of, but only to say " something intended as an excuse 
 for Mr. M'Calla.'' As for Mr. Verdeman, the Baptist moderator, 
 and Major Roper, the presiding moderator, he represents them as 
 giving an opinion against me, and then represents me as approv- 
 ing of this adverse decision of the president. By this he evident- 
 ly designs to make the reader believe that a majority of the bench 
 did, by a definitive decision, deprive me of the light of using 
 these words, and that I relinquished the use of them because I ac- 
 quiesced in their decision. Mr. Campbell's challenge, which 
 was the well known subject of debate, read as follows, viz : 
 " I engage to prove, in a debate with him [that is, any Pedobap- 
 tist minister,] that Infant Sprinkling is a human tradition, and 
 injurious to the well-being of society, religious and political." 
 Among the particulars which he adduced to shew that our reli- 
 gion was injurious to society, we find such as innovation and cor- 
 ruption, will-worship and superstition, deception and imposition, 
 tyranny and persecution. 1 insisted that these accusations con- 
 stituted their author an Accuser, and that he was our Adversary 
 in proportion to our innocence and the heinousness of the crimes 
 alledged. In this I viz.% justified ax\(ii not excused by Mr. Burch, 
 the Pedobaptist moderator, and my right to the use of these 
 word* was secured to me by the casting vote of Major Ro>er, 
 the presiding moderator, whose speech on this point ot order ve- 
 ry ably supported his vote. And how could a man of his char- 
 acter and standing, be expected to decide otherwise? With 
 uncommon reputation, he has served his country as a lawyer, a 
 legislator and a judge. Could he deny that one who makes such 
 < onspicnoufe opposition to the Pedobaptist world, istlieiradver- 
 
44 
 
 Saty r or that oue who volunteers such malignant accusations, is 
 their accuser ? After his decision was announced, and I had 
 expressed ray hearty approbation of it, I told the audience that 
 this was the very end for which I had us^ed the words. Before we 
 met, I had suspected Mr. Campbell's design of ungenerously 
 throwing the odium of challenging and accusing upon myself. I 
 therefore determined to use these words iji perfect consistency 
 with truth and decorum, until Mr. Campbell should complain, 
 and elicit an authoritative decision in my f ivoiir. The thing 
 had proceeded and issued according to my expectations and de- 
 sires. They cotild now see in the light of a decision of the 
 bench, who was the assailant, and who stood on the defensive. 
 I then observed, |that as the end was accomplislied forwhich I had 
 used the oftensive words, I should not designedly use them again. 
 
 There is reason to believe that the character of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's speeches was. in some measure, owing to an impressioa 
 that I was a Kentuckian in temper as well as birth and educa- 
 tion. He thought that to irritate, would be a summary method 
 of defeating me. It is probably for this reason, in part, that he 
 is said to have assured his friends that the debate should not oc- 
 cupy more than three hours : for this appeared a sufficient length 
 of time to make me bite myself like an infuriated rattle-snake 
 of our woods. The spirit and word of God had convinced me 
 of my nature and my danger. I prayed in the name of Hira 
 who bruises the Serpent's head, and heals the Serpent's bite. 
 Notwithstanding his proud, boastful and abusive language, I oc- 
 cupied the first day in nothing but argument, as if I had not 
 heard his taunts and sarcasms. Early the next morning, several 
 bref:hren told me that as his scurrility was relished by many, it 
 was highly important that I should notice it ; especially as some, 
 particularly Baptists and strangers, might interpret my calmness 
 into stupid tameness, or cowering fear. " Now, brother M'Cal- 
 la,'' says one of them, " I know very well that when you think 
 proper, you can clothe your tongue with a sufficient portion of 
 -severity." i hat day Mr. Campbell shew^ed considerable unea- 
 siness, and betrayed a great anxiety to bring the controversy to 
 a. close as soon as possible, lest the length of the debate and the 
 greatness of his honor, might be in an inverse ratio, the longer 
 the less. The difficulty with him was to find out a way of cry- 
 ing '• enough," and yet gaining the reputation of a triumph. 
 But try it he must, and that very soon ; for the longer it con- 
 tinued, the worse his affairs became. He therefore collected his 
 scattered forces to a point ; boasted much of his success ; form- 
 ally and very pompously too, proclaimed himself the victor; and 
 then with a bold and dictatorial air, pronounced the discussion 
 at an end. This artifice appeared perfectly nugatory in the 
 stage which the debate had then attained If only made his 
 weakness conspicuous. This he soon discovered, and as his last 
 resort, he fled to the Moc'erators to protect him trom my argu- 
 ments ; calling upon them to interpose their authority, to pre- 
 sent me from, taking my own course in the debate, and to com- 
 
4j 
 
 pel me to follow any method whicii he might choose to pursue. 
 His reason for this liberal request was, that he had opened in the 
 affirmative, and that I had followed in the negative, and was 
 therefore (strange to tell) bound to follow him in method and ar- 
 gument as well as in time ! In this he was remarkable, alike 
 for generosity and consistency. Was it not generous for him to 
 ask the Mpderators to hold his Antagonist until h*^ beat him ? 
 And was it not consistent for him to give as a reason for this, a 
 fact which he perseveringly denied in his correspondence Avith 
 me ? that is, that he held the affirmative and I the negative ? 
 To obtain the closing speech, he insisted, before the debate, that 
 he held the negative. To stop my head-waj during the debate, 
 he insisted that he held the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's book tells us that Mr. Verdeman's opinion on 
 this point of order, was given " after a number of remarks and 
 "references, which we are sorry cannot be correctly stated, as 
 "there were no minutes taken of the speeches of the Modera- 
 *'tors on such occasions.'' To give weight to these " remark? 
 and references'' of Jeremiah Verdeman, as the Baptists of Ken- 
 tucky call him, Mr. Campbell calls him Bishop Verdeman, leav- 
 ing the reader to conjecture whether he is the learned Bishop of 
 Kentucky or of the western country at large. Considering his 
 knowledge of deliberative bodies in church and state, both from 
 his own observation and his acquaintance with books, how can 
 the scribes answer to the public for neglecting to record these 
 said '• remarks and references" of his ? We can easily spare the 
 speeches of the other two Moderators, as they differed from the 
 bishop, and especially as Mr. Campbell gives them no credit for 
 such "a number of" these pillars and ornaments of eloquence. 
 The manner in which this impartial reporter introduces the deci- 
 sion of the Pedobaptist Moderator, presents to advantage the 
 great superiority of his favourite Mr. Verdeman. It is as fol- 
 lows : "The rev. Birch [his name is Burch] replied to the bish- 
 op," &c. This Mr. Burch, whose friends would be very sorry 
 to rank him with such Bisliops as Mr. Verdeman, or such Arch- 
 bishops as Mr. Campbell, has since declared in public, if I be 
 rightly informed, that Mr. Campbell's report is a tissue of false- 
 hoods. In the particular decision now under review, he has not 
 given a true account of his speech nor that of Major Roper, nor 
 even that of the Baptist Moderator. A.s for Mr. Verdeman's 
 numerous references of which Mr. Campbell speaks, they must 
 have been made at home if they were ever made at all ; and his 
 few and confused remarks were a weak echo of Mr. Campbell's 
 attempt to prove that I ought to be required to follow my oppo- 
 nent's method instead of my own. This puerile effort at usurr 
 pation and tyranny, was so preposterous, that I said little ov 
 nothing upon the subject, especially as 1 knew the character of 
 the Bench. Accordingly Mr. Burch and Major Roper overru- 
 led Mr. Campbell's motion, and supported their decision in their 
 respective aldressesj with great calmness, dignity and ability. 
 Shortly after this, Mr. Campbell wished an adjournment, while 
 
46 
 
 the sun was yei high, and gave as a reason for it, that he was 
 sick. I ventured to request that we might continue longer. 
 Mr. Verdeman said that if their chairs were as hard to them as 
 his was to him, thev would think that the debate had lasted long 
 enough that day. The Bench very peremptorily decided that 
 the sickness of one of the parties, was a sufficient reason for an 
 adjournment even at that eaily hour, whether the other party 
 agreed to it or not. There was a sharpness in Major Roper's 
 manner which appeared to charge my request with want of deli- 
 cacy. I felt the reproof, and acquiesced in the decision. This 
 day's work strongly reminded Col. Morris of the remark which 
 1 had made to him about the last speech ; that when my Antag- 
 onist began to switch his tail, I was willing to leave him the 
 field. He therefore came up to the stage after the adjournment 
 and asked very gravely, in a low tone, " Don't you think he's 
 beginning to switch his tail .^"' Mr. Campbell probably heard 
 that many others viewed his sudden indisposition in the same 
 light : and their suspicions are doubtless strengthened by his in- 
 directly denying in the preface of his book raj that he was really 
 taken sick on that or any other day of the debate. His words are 
 as follows : " 1 had reason of grateful thanksgiving for the im- 
 provement of my health, during the seven days of the debate." 
 
 The next day was Mr. Campbell's strongest day of the seven, 
 and sliewed liim to be what a lawyer in the neighoourhood call- 
 ed him, •• a very considerable man." From the morning until 
 he closed the discussion in the evening, he was thought to hare 
 the windward of me. But the very reverse was the general im- 
 pression concerning Satui'day, the next day: and so completely 
 was the former "ground regained in my closing speech that even- 
 ing, that Mr. Verdeman, like a losing gamester, could not con- 
 sent to procrastinate until Monday, an opportunity of making 
 reprisals. He obstinately insisted that the debate should con- 
 tinue during the Sabbath. In this he failed, and his champion 
 failed in ever again obtaining any advantage. On Tuesday even- 
 ting it was rumoured that Major Roper could not attend longer 
 than Wednesday. I was advised to calculate upon this. Du- 
 ring the six days that were past, I had sometimes had to abridge 
 the matter of my notes, but in general, 1 had produced palpable 
 proof for every assertion. If this plan had been rigidly pursu- 
 ed on the last day, I should probably have left the latter part of 
 the challenge and perhaps half of Mr. Campbell's speeches whol- 
 ly untouched. I was obliged to adopt more of a declamatory 
 method, in which facts were rapidly strung together with gene- 
 ral references to evidence, without quotations or extracts. This 
 gave a more popular air to the defence of that day than perhaps 
 any other, and it was evident that as the house of David waxed 
 stronger and stronger, that of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. 
 After my recapitulation, I went to packing my books in the trunk, 
 calculating that if Mr. Campbell had resei-ved any thing for the 
 
 (a) Page XI. 
 
47 
 
 last blow, he would give it then, when I appeared to be doTie. 
 I was not disappointed. Such palpable violations of truth as he 
 then gave, required an answer. I arose as usual, to occupy mj 
 half hour, according to our agreemert and our previous practice. 
 Mr. Campbell forbade me to speak, and appealed to the Bench 
 to stop me and secure to him the closing speech. After consult- 
 ing the written rules, Major Roper announced it as their decision, 
 that I had a right to proceed. He also informed us that he was 
 now willing to remain there, if we requested it, until Saturday 
 night. I answered that, during life, 1 should love him that for 
 declaration. This, however, was the least of Mr. Campbell's- 
 wishes : and lest an adjournment to the next day should really 
 take place, he made short work of the matter, by closing the de- 
 bate with the following speech, viz : •' Mr. M'Calla is the most 
 perverse niortal that I ever had any thing to do with.'' These are 
 the words, and all of the words of his last speech, according to 
 my recollection ; and as they did not seem to need an answer, I 
 gave him the full benefit of his closing speech, according to my de- 
 claration to Col. Morris. Yet you need not expect to find this 
 speech nor these facts in his printed report. There he gives you 
 a few lines of his own invention, for ray last speech, which would 
 occupy several pages, and he gives twice as much for his last 
 speech, without once recording the sentence and the only sen- 
 tence which really constituted his last speech. And what is more 
 remarkable still, he represents me as trying to secure the closing 
 speech, and applying to the Bench to prevent him from replying, 
 and observes that "the Presiding Moderator read the rules and 
 *' declared that 1 [Mr. Campbell] had a right to reply, if I [Mr. 
 Campbell] thought it necessary" 1!! From Mr. Campbell's in- 
 vincible disposition to exchange his faults for his Antagonist's 
 virtues, and viceve^sa^ I cannot helpthinking,(and I hope that it is 
 not uncharitable to think) that he has some Egyptian blood in him: 
 for this is the very way in which Potiphar's wife treated Joseph. 
 She charged him with the crime of which she was guilty, and 
 claimed to herself the virtue which he possessed. 
 
 The name of this Patriarch again reminds me, my dear Uncle, 
 of your name and that of your Baptist son, who I hope is in 
 heaven. Ma;y this be your happy portion, after your revolution- 
 ary frame of more than four score years, is laid in the dust. 
 Should we not pray also that this may be the truly glorious 
 destiny of the friend of our country. General la Fayette, with 
 whom your letter informs me you had the pleasure of dining in 
 that county which bears his name, and in which J was born and 
 brought up. 
 
 Ever yours affectionately, 
 
 VV. L. M'CALLA. 
 
 flUasgow Forge, 37 miles from Philad. Auj. 9, 1826. 
 
48 
 
 No. 14. 
 On the tfuth and genuineness of Mr. CampbelPs Report. 
 
 From W. L. M'Calla to the Rev. John R. Moreland, near Cynthiana, (Ky,) 
 
 My Dear Brother Whether Mr. Campbell's opinion 
 
 of my character be true or not, your fraternal esteem and affec- 
 tion must be evident to any one who knows that your first sou 
 was M'Calla Moreland. A long residence together under my 
 father's roof, formed a christian attachment between us, in which 
 mj heart has ever rejoiced. Through grace, I have never yet 
 been ashamed of the solemn covenant which we formed and re- 
 newed with God and with one another, that we would, by the help 
 of his Spirit, devote ourselves to his faithful service, in the face 
 of all the toil, disgrace and suffering which attend such a life. I 
 have not yet forgotten the conspicuous instrumentality which you 
 had, in company with Father Lyle and Brothers Martin and Ran- 
 kin, in my licensure, ordination and installation ; nor the peculiar 
 participation which you and I afterward had, in each other's dan- 
 gers and troubles, in the good and glorious, though traduced and 
 insulted cause of our Divine Redeemer. 
 
 Your letter and the letters of many others, urge me strongly 
 to publish as soon as possible, my Discussion of Baptism. De- 
 lay, occasioned by Pastoral duties, you will justify ; and con- 
 stant sickness will call for sympathy rather than censure. Add 
 to this that my circumstances require leisure and deliberation, 
 as well as faith and prayer, on account of the wiles of the adver- 
 sary with whom I have to contend. With this you are in some 
 measure acquainted, as it was you who informed me of the artifice 
 used for obtaining subscribers for his book in your congregation, 
 by the holders of the papers telling them that it was authorized 
 by both parties. You told me that justice to your people and to 
 the community, required me to notice this fraud. I did so in 
 the Kentucky Gazette ; and at the same time expressed an opin- 
 ion that Mr. Campbell, from the want of both the means and 
 the disposition, was not quite so well qualified to write my 
 speeches as I was myself. The want of disposition appeared 
 from very numerous, and sometimes very gross misstatements of 
 my words and sentiments during the debate. In this treatment 
 I was far from being the only sufferer. I read some pertinent 
 remarks of Dr. Mason's, on a certain point. Mr. Campbell an- 
 swered by popular declamation and personal slander. He en- 
 deavoured to persuade the audience that the Dr. considered in- 
 fant baptism not as a divine institution, but a money-making 
 scheme to aggrandize the clergy. Basing our system of a mixed 
 church upon divine authority. Dr. Mason had spoken of its happy 
 effects upon the resources, numbers, and safety of the church. In 
 the 216th page of Mr. Campbell's book, he openly declares that 
 he called this "Dr. Mason's grand reason for advocating a mixed 
 church ;" thus assigning to the Dr. as a cause, what he had giv- 
 pn as favourable providential effects of that which was caused 
 
49 
 
 by the authority and power of God. I observed that the senti- 
 ment of the passage tnus perverted, was simply this, that irreli- 
 gious men helped the pious by their money and their protection. 
 This I observed was the sentiment of an inspired prophecy also, 
 which says that " the earth helped the woman. " Mr. Campbell's 
 answer in the above-mentioned page, pretends that in this remark 
 I advocated the alledged scheme of money-making as the grand 
 reason for our system, and justified Dr. Mason's assertion to 
 this effect, from the consideration that this humanly devised meth- 
 od of raising money, was a fulfilment of prophecy ! ! ! 
 
 Another perversion of words and actions which took place dur- 
 ing the debate, Mr. Campbell has substantially recorded in page 
 366, in the following words, viz : "I wish it to be noted that 
 "Mr. M'Callahas quoted the most of his Paido-baptist author- 
 cities from my debate in Ohio, and acknowledged that in eve- 
 *'ry instance they are correctly given in that volume." In an- 
 swer to this I told him that for particular reasons, I had quoted 
 a few, but not most of my Pedobaptist authorities from his 
 book. And that, so far from acknowledging that, in every in- 
 stance, they were correctly given in that volume, the context of 
 some of the passages read was incorrect, and that I meant to 
 shew in its proper place, that he was grossly dishonest in his quo- 
 tations. In the progress of the debate, I did shew, as I hope to 
 shew in print, this gross dishonesty of his. Yet he has recorded 
 his false assertion concerning my opinion of his book, and to 
 give it credibility, he has left it unanswered and unrefuted, 
 by my immediate reply, and my subsequent exposures. 
 
 In No. 13, above, I gave an instance in which his book claim- 
 ed my words and actions to himself, and attributed his words 
 and actions to me. In page 66, he has recorded a similar error 
 in one of his speeeches. His words are the following, viz : 
 ♦* Why did he contend with me so long in his correspondence, 
 on the necessity af my opening the debate ?'' Now here is a 
 case which may be tested by the evidence of record. Let any 
 one examine our correspondence as incorrectly published by him, 
 or as fairly published by me, and then say whether I ever once 
 contended with him on the necessity of his opening the debate, 
 or whether it was not Mr. Campbell who pertinaciously con- 
 tended for the necessity of my opening ; thinking thereby to se- 
 cure the close to himself, When this point was lost, and both 
 were left at liberty to speak until satisfied, Mr. Campbell open- 
 ed of choice, and not of compulsion ; for although I preferred 
 his opening, I told him that his wish should be my rule on that 
 subject ; he might direct which of us should perform that duty. 
 He accordingly undertook this task himself; and it appears, from 
 his subsequent conduct, that he was determined to make this an- 
 swer a more important end than the closing speech could, by 
 pleading that it gave him a right to dictate the course whicn 
 his Antagonist should take !! How I should hate to advocate a 
 cause which needs such Machiavellian twistin-j; and pinching and 
 screwing to carry it through ! 
 
Take a third fact, in which Mr. Campbell has surreptitiously 
 changed places with his Antagonist. He was always anxious for 
 Tiie to admit that sprinkling or pouring was only a figurative bap- 
 tism and not a literal baptism : whereas I always insisted that 
 they were literal, and gave, to prove my point, such instances as 
 the baptism in the cloud and in the sea, where there was not even 
 a partial immersion, but sprinkling only. If Mr. Campbell had 
 fairly stated and correctly copied my words and sentiments, he 
 would have been poorly paid for l-'is labour. As an indemnifica- 
 tion, therefore for his disinterested benevolence, in speaking and 
 writing for us both, he takes the libeity of putting into my mouth 
 that doctrine v/hich I rejected. In what he professes to be his 
 own speech, in page 301, this misrepresentation is found in the 
 following words, viz: "Like Dr. Rallstou, he [M'Calla] argues 
 " that the word haptizo and baptismos 'are not used in a literal 
 "but figurative sense' in relation to baptism." This was to 
 pave the way for the splendid triumph which he has celebrated in 
 pages 353, 353. The following are his words, viz : " And has it 
 " all come to this that Mr. M'CaUa with Mr. Rallston and others, 
 "can only arguethefig'urafive meaving of BAPTIZO against 
 '•'•the li'eml: that ' the ivriters of the New Testament use it in a 
 ^\figm\qtive sense. 'P [Let this be sung, doloroso ed affetueso.'] 
 *' Unpar'illeled circumstance! The only occurrence since Rev- 
 " elation began that the word which enjoins a religious action is 
 " to be taken figuratively!!'' [The next should be sung allegro 
 ed con- spirit 0.'] " Kappy result! nothing can be decided from 
 " Gree!< but that baptizo is used figuratively., not literally in 
 "the New Testament! ' What a dolorous ?a\a affecting, and 
 yet what a brisk and spirited display of eloquence would the 
 world have lost, if Mr. Campbell had, in this instance, confined 
 himself too strictly to the truth, after the obsolete fashion of the 
 Pedobaptist Puritans of old! Few such specimens of the sub- 
 lime can be found in their buckram productions. Their writings, 
 however, had one advantage, that they could bear examination; 
 a durable quality, in which it is to be feared that Mr. Campbell's 
 book is deficient. In page 303, Mr Campbell says that in rela- 
 tion to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, "The word is used figu- 
 ratively,'' and 1 am guilty of agreeing with him. I said moreo- 
 ver, that in Coll. 2d, and in Rom. 6th, the Apostle speaks of a 
 spiritual baptism, because he connects it with a spiritual circum- 
 cision and planting or engrafting, and with a Spiritual crucifixion 
 and death and burial. Yet I never did say, as Mr. Campbell has 
 atributed to me, that ''^ Baptizo -drA Baptismos are not used in a 
 " literal but figurative sense in relation to baptism." 1 never 
 did say "that the writers of the New Testament use it in a fig- 
 urative sense" "only" But. as Mr. Campbell well knows. I 
 have Said and proved the contrary of this, in the discussion of 
 passages, where he made a dolorous and affecting retreat to that 
 very figurative baptism, against which he here makes such a 
 brisk and spirited outcry. In page S71. he makes no less than 
 five assertions of the figurative use of baptism: and in page 302, 
 ■•he very next to the one in which he first charges me with this 
 
Si 
 
 Ci-ime, he insists that the baptism of the Israelites in the cloud 
 and in the sea "was a figure only.'' 
 
 Misrepresentations, such as the above were made so frequently 
 in my presence, and in the presence of a large audience, that W r. 
 Campbell's character stand? much higher for boldness than for 
 veracity. A hearer of high standing, who makes no pretentions 
 to religion, and who was unfriendly to me before the debate, said, 
 during its progress, (as I was credibly informed,) that he now be- 
 lieved the report of Mr Campbell's rejecting the revealed law: 
 for he had, in his hearing, thrown contempt upon ail of the ten 
 commandments ; especiallly that one which says, thou shalt 
 not He had not committed the commandments to mem- 
 ory, and therefore gave the substance of the ninth, in four very- 
 plain monosyllables. Knowing that my opponent's acquaintance 
 with this Cre/on accomplishment was far superior to his knowledge 
 of the Alexandrian Version, of which he boasts so much, 1 ven- 
 tured to inform the public, as mentioned above, that 1 did not 
 think him qualified to write for both parties. This occasioned 
 the following words in Mr. Campbell's Preface; viz: "Mr. 
 "M'Calla, dreading the appearance of this discussion in print, 
 *' very injudiciously begins to condemn it before it appeared : for 
 "having prejudged and condemned it before it appeared, he has 
 *' shown his determination to deny it when it does appear, and 
 "has thus depriv^ed his testimony of that character essential to 
 "credibility and authority." 
 
 You recollect at whose instance, and for what reason, I put 
 that notice into the paper. Many Pedobaptists had been told 
 that I had a hand in the book. Justice to them required that the 
 traud should be exposed. When this was done, I was so far 
 from fearing its appearance, that I rejoiced in the prospect : and 
 I have rejoiced ever since I read it. But its author took care 
 that I should not enjoy this piivilege very soon. Early in May 
 1824, 1 passed through his neighborhood, on my way to this place, 
 as a delegate to the General Assembly. He knew that I wished 
 an o]>portunity of answering his book in Philadelphia. It was 
 in his power to give me a cop}'. Hearing that it was just through 
 the press, I sent a request for the sheets, by one of the most 
 respectable of his fellow-citizens, promising not to show it to any 
 one until such a period as he would allow could not interfere with 
 his interest in the sale of his work. Regardless of entreaties, 
 he refused. You now see his reason for saying that I was afraid 
 to see his book. The truth is, he was afraid to see mine ; and 
 you know he is in the habit of charging me with his faults. 
 
 On arrivij)g in Philadelphia, I found just such a fowl as Mr. 
 Campbell, perched within a few steps of where I now live ; and 
 crowing defiances to the whole world, muc!i in the style of my 
 former opponent. The assembly soon adjourned. I visiitcd 
 friends in New-Jersey and New-York, and returned. As no 
 
copy of Mr. Campbell's book had yet arrived, although I had 
 earnestly requested that a copy might be sent as soon as possible, 
 I accepted the proud challenge of this new adversary, a Unita- 
 rian Universalist. He also soon had a book that he thought I 
 was afraid to see : and in the next December, while I was en- 
 gaged in answering his book, (an answer not completed till the 
 following April,) I got the first sight of Mr. Campbell's Report. 
 And now that I have got it, he seems to think that I need not 
 answer it, because I prejudged it, as he says, and as my Univer- 
 salist neighbour also said about his book. In both cases, I was 
 guilty of telling the people that I had no hand in the book : and 
 in both cases I was so unruly as to insinuate that I did not like 
 the character of my Antagonist quite well enough, to subscribe 
 every forgery which they chose to write in my name. This is, 
 in their eyes, sufficient to destroy my credibility when vpriting for 
 myself: and on reflection, I confess that it should stamp a man's 
 character for falsehood and corruption, as readily as an act of 
 scandaluui magnatum against the Pope or the Devil should con- 
 vi ct him of heresy or impiety. 
 
 In Mr. Lowry's evidence, given at the close of the Preface to 
 this volume, he says with per^ct truth, that Mr. Campbell's ac- 
 count of the debate "is essentially incorrect, as to the matter 
 "and mannc/', both of Mr. M^Ccdla's speeches and his ownJ'^ 
 With regard to his own, this is evident from his substituting a 
 speech of his best polish for the single pitiful sentence with which 
 he closed the debate. Yet on this subject his Preface uses the fol- 
 lowing language; viz: "The style adopted in the following speech- 
 "es, is, we believe, little or nothing better than that in which 
 ' ' they appeared upon the stage. On my part they were extempo- 
 "raneous, as all my public addresses are; and therefore the 
 " style is of the familiar and diffuse character, such as might be 
 " expected from a person who did not know till the evening be- 
 " fore the discussion, whether he was to open the debate or to re- 
 "spond ; whether he or his opponent was to introduce the mat- 
 "ter to be discussed. " Although 1 do not very much admire 
 the style even of his written composition, yet all who compare it 
 with his real speeches will give it the preference. Take for in- 
 stance, his last speech, which he had fondly hoped would be a 
 triumphant topping-off of the controversy. " Mr. M'Callais the 
 ** most perverse mortal that I ever had any thing to do with." 
 Though we cannot admit that the style of so short an address is 
 very " diffuse^^^ yet we can agree with its author, that it is very 
 ^'•familiar.'''' We can agree also that it was extemporaneous^ as 
 all his public addresses were; and as he had no previous acquain- 
 tance with thematter which elicited this sally of eloquence too big 
 to be recorded, so we agree with him lastly, that he did not, before 
 the debate commenced know ?vhat sort of a close it would come to. 
 It is somewhat remarkable, however, that he should so anxious- 
 ly persuade the public that he has given a fair report of his 
 speeches which he confesses were extemporaneous, and which 
 were not recorded by any stenographer. His vanity has disclos- 
 
ed evidence which his avarice would, otherwise have conceal- 
 ed. ' 
 
 As his own book proves the impossibility of his copying his 
 own speeches, would you suppose that the same volume gives evi- 
 dence, that in this respect 1 have the advantage of him beyond 
 all comparison. That volume from beginning to end, proves that 
 I have abundant means for writing my own argument, and for 
 correcting his false report of my argument. Here J will not re- 
 sort to the sophism of his preface, which pretends that his report 
 must be correct, because it contains the topics presented in my 
 letters; as if the mere existence of a text was sufficient to au- 
 thenticate the commentary. But in this same preface, INIr. 
 Campbell pretends to rejoice that 1 had preached in Lexington, 
 from the same notes used in the debate, " because," says he, 
 *' we have no doubt, but, in so doing, he has been obtaining for 
 "this work additional evidences of its correctness.'' He says 
 that he has given my speeches correctly ; But if their char- 
 acter is enhanced by my addresses in Lexington, my addresses 
 
 there must have been correct too; And if, as he thus admits, 
 
 there is "no doubt'' that my notes would enable me to repeat in 
 Lexington, speeches originally delivered in Washington, will 
 they not as well enable me lo repeat or write them here, and to 
 compare them with the speeches which he has forged for me ? 
 
 My wish was to curtail the debate, by confining it, as much 
 as possible, to the scriptures : yet I endeavoured laboriously to 
 make previous preparation on every point which my opponent 
 could touch. A friend or two enquired of me before hand, how 
 long a time I supposed the debate would occupy. The answer 
 was, that Icould not tell. I should rejoice if it could terminate 
 in two or three days : but if my Antaji,onist took a certain course, 
 the matter which I had prepared, might probably occupy eight 
 days. My opponent did take this course ; and his subsequent 
 lamentations over the unwelcome effects of this course, prove, out 
 of his own mouth, the stability of them aterials now in my hands. 
 In the 71st page, he has recorded the following words, viz : *• I 
 *'see from the course or method projected by Mr. M'Calla, that 
 *'the information I had a day or two ago, concerning the quantity 
 *' of matter he had prepared for this debate was correct I heard 
 "from a respectable source, that my opjjonent boasted that he 
 "had 'eight days matter prepared,' that the discussion of his 
 " matter would require eight days ! Indeed, soon as 1 heard 
 "him read his five propositions, I felt assured that this discus- 
 **sion would be tedious beyond all necessary bounds." 
 
 Besides these dreadful notes, I brought a trunk of books to 
 the ground. In the conclusion of No. 12 above, it is mentioned 
 that many of the&e we^e brought at the express request of Mr. 
 Campbell's friend and representative, for* his use. Instead of a 
 polite acknowledgment of this attention, this detector of ungen- 
 tlcmanly conduct endeavoured to make his wit bear upon the 
 mere fact of bringing a trunk of books to the stage of debate. 
 
Without reproaching him for ingratitude, I met him single hand- 
 ed with his own weapons. I am much mistaken if he did not 
 wish chat he had left this subject untouched. As an evidence 
 of this, he has suppressed it in his report ; and instead of this, 
 he has, in the very same book, endeavoured to place Mr. Wal- 
 ker in the ridiculous attitude in which I placed him, and for the 
 very same reason. In page 4ir, he introduces Mr. Walker as 
 saying in his subsequent publication, "His, [Mr. Campben's3 
 "library, when carried to the stage in pomp, presented nearly a 
 " cart load of books." Mr. Campbell then says, " Avery small 
 "part of my library was carried to the stage, but it appears Mr. 
 " Walker has not got over the panick yet ; for he repeatei'lj 
 "talks of that 'vast pile of Greek, and huge dictionaries ferried 
 " over the sea.'" If Mr. Campbell had given us a tx'ue copy of 
 Ids extemporaneous addresses, in his "style" "of the familiar 
 and diffuse character," of which his Preface speaks with such 
 graceful self-complacencv, we should have had much more une- 
 quivocal evidences of bibliophobia at Washington than at Mount 
 Pleasant. We should also have had more redundant evidence 
 from his pen as well as his lips, to my means of correcting his 
 report, and of writing for myself. 
 
 But of this there is enough even in his present report, garbled 
 as it is. In page 173, he says that his antagonist "• projected 
 this easy course of reading and commenting on the gleanings of 
 his leisure hours." These gleanings are still in my hands, and 
 it is as easy for me to read them and comment on them now as 
 then. In page 113, his remarks are too long to insert here, 
 though they must not be permitted to perish. This handsome 
 exhibition of clerical meekness and gentleness shall be given to the 
 Baptist disputant in No. 19 of these coHatei-al papers, as one of 
 his speeches. The substance of it, however, is this: Instead 
 of comparing Mr. M'Calla, and his laborious preparations, with 
 Mr. Campbell and his invincible talents, he brings a boy of six- 
 teen years of age into contrast with the Archbishop ftf Canter- 
 bury J a Prelate, whose tittle would please his taste much bet- 
 ter than that of the Archbishop of Buffaloe Creek ; and whose 
 honours and emoluments might possibly rescue him from the de- 
 grading occupation of publishing spurious books, a trade not a 
 whit more honourable, in a moral point of view, than that of a 
 dreadful-accident maker to a newspaper. In order to prepare 
 the minds of the people for witnessing with compassion the fall 
 of a great man, a catastrophe, which he seemed to think might 
 Bot be very distant, he told them that circumstances might ex- 
 ist, in which this ignorant lad of sixteen might hold an indefin- 
 itely protracted, and even at last, a successful dispute with his 
 learned Lordship of Canterbury. The only reason which he 
 assigns for this supposed phenomenon, as yet unheard of in the 
 polemical world, is that Mr. Campbell should be permitted to 
 place in the hands of this b.:y, such written preparations as I had 
 in iiiy hands. This was as much as to say to the audience, 
 " When you see me tottering and reeling and falling, give me 
 
65 
 
 an interest in your sympathy and respect, for my fate will be 
 owing not to any want of <renius, or information, or skill, (for in 
 these respects I have an Archiepiscopal superiority,) but it will 
 be owing solely to the inequality of our w eapons : I had more 
 truth and talents, but alas ! my Antagonist had more paper and 
 ink!!'' In answer to Mr. Campbell's truly original argument on 
 this subjecl, I would ask him the following question. If writing 
 for one of the parties, and tnat an illiterate boy, would probably 
 gain the victory, is it not safer to write for both, and thus make 
 sure o{\i? This plan he has adopted; and it will ultimately 
 appear as fraught with wisdom as the scheme of the man who 
 was not satisfied with saving half his winter's wood by getting 
 one stove, but he must get two, and thus save the whole of it. 
 
 But we proceed to quote a few other passages from his own 
 book, to shew that while he is dealing in stoves, I have all the 
 fuel. In page 146., he introduces my half hour as a term of read- 
 ing instead of declaiming. "Mr M'Calla read as follows." In 
 page 87, he closes his half hour by saying, "But I shall give 
 place to him to read farther on his Jewish Church." In page 
 156, he says, " Mr. M'Calla again resumed his )iotes." In page 
 82, he says, " I complained in my last address that Mr. M'- 
 Calla read his arguments from his manuscript, and neglected to 
 respond to mine. '' Instead of calling this an occasional reading, 
 he terms it in the same page " a constant attention to this little 
 book." 
 
 Repeated observation has taught me that my little books are 
 ot a different description from the little book mentioned in 
 Rev. X. 9. Howsoever bitter that was after being swallowed, 
 it was sweet in the mouth of him to whom it was administered : 
 but a little book of mine is bitter as soon as a person tastes it. 
 It produced the very same wry faces in my Universalist patient 
 that it did with Mr. Campbell. What a remarkable resemblance 
 there is between the effects produced by two different potions, 
 upon two different subjects of disease, at the distance of six 
 hundred miles from each other, will appear to persons not pres- 
 ent, by their expressions of loathing which are recorded b}- 
 themselves. The Unirersalist uses tlie following language, viz: 
 -'My opponent has once more turned to his little book." "It 
 "appears to me, and I think it must also appear to you, that my 
 "oppo)ient had not only the out lines, but the very body of lus 
 "argument prepared before he came to the controversy ; for he 
 "is going strait>;ht on in his long story, without taking notice of 
 "aught I say." "|He has his mind marked out in a particular 
 "track; for having anticipated, as he supposed, the ground 
 "which would be occupied by his opponent, he had his matter 
 " ready cut and dried to meet him." " While I am speaking he 
 "is reading his little book, without attending to the argun(ents 1 
 " may oticr against his doctrine." Compare these Universalist 
 a:roans with those which have been given of Mr. Campbell's, or 
 ^vith the following in page 67. "Is it possible that he is going 
 
3(i 
 
 <•' to read all the time out of this manuscript he has in his hand : 
 
 *'that he has all his arguments written down, and will not aban- 
 **don the course he has prescribed to himself! 80 then he de- 
 " bates with the pen^ and I viva voce, or rather he reads hisar- 
 ** guKients, and dares not attack mine. " And lastly, in page386, 
 he says, ■■ « ■ • '^ He [M'Calla] wrote down at home all that he 
 «* has advanced as argument in this discussion j and knowing 
 ** that he had all that he could or would say in waiting, he at the 
 **same time, insisted that 1 should open the debate, whereas he 
 " was determined to keep to his notes, let me take what course 
 *« I might." 
 
 Although the above extracts are far from telling the truth in 
 some particulars, yet they certainly testify in the strongest man- 
 ner, tne fulness and the accuracy of the means which I possess 
 for writing my own argument, and for exposing his report. They 
 moreover show, in a strong light, the prevarication of the fol- 
 lowing passage in his Preface ; viz : " Mr, M'Calla rather holds 
 *' out the idea in these words, [in the Kentucky Gazette,] that he 
 *' has as many notes, or the same means as those which I possess. 
 «' Yet he [Mr. M'Calla] took no notes himself," &c. The force 
 of this passage may be estimated hy remembering, that in the Ken- 
 tucky Gazette, I expressed no wash, and claimed no qualifica- 
 tioMs, to write for Mr. Campbell, but only for myself. My pos- 
 sessing the means ef writing for myself more fully and correctly 
 than he could write for me, is then, the position which the above 
 remark was intended to refute. He knows that the notes writ- 
 ten before the debate, and used in the debate, are those which 
 were contemplated by me in the Kentucky Gazette. These 
 therefore are the notes, the existence of which he indirectly de- 
 nies ; when he says that I have not " as many notes'' as himself, 
 nor '• the same means as those which'' he possesses. Whether 
 this sly insinuation, (as guilty as the most direct affirmation of 
 falsehood,) be not flatly contiadicted by the above extracts from 
 his own speeches, even according to his own unfair report, you 
 can easily judge, by remembering, that he represents me as be- 
 ing able to repeat my argument in Lexington from notes used in 
 
 the debate ; that he declares his belief of the rumour that I 
 
 had eight days' matter prepared; that he represents his An- 
 tagonist as taking " the easy course of reading and commenting 
 
 on the gleanings of his leisure hours ;" a method by which 
 
 Mr. Campbell could enable a boy of sixteen to overcome the Arch 
 
 Bishop of Canterbury ; that he closes his thirty minutes by 
 
 giving way to my reading, and introduces my turn as a period of 
 
 reading, not speaking ; that he expressly says that " Mr. 
 
 M'Calla read his arguments from his manuscript," and gave " a 
 
 constant attention to this little book :" Oh ! bitter, bitter! ! 
 
 that he declares that his opponent " has all his arguments written 
 down," that "he debates with the pen," that " he reads his ar- 
 guments," that " he wrote at home ALL that he has advanced as 
 argument in this discusion," that "he had ALL that he could or 
 would say in writing, * 'and" was determined to keep to his notes. '' 
 
The man who can make these statements, and then deny that I am 
 as well furnished with notes as he is, must be aUnito.'ian. I am 
 glad that he is not a Pcdobaptist. Mr. Brewster of New-York, 
 and the Editors of the Columbian Star are welcome to him, and to 
 his Episcopal moderator whom jou defeated in Paris : for I have 
 not yet forgotten that you made the floor feel as hard to his feet 
 on that occasion, as the chair felt to his seat when Mr. Campbell 
 fell so suddenly sick, in a debate, in which, (strange to tell!) his 
 health improved from first to last. Neither have I forgotten that 
 you also were guilty of preparing a little book, in defence of our 
 blessed Lord's eternal Deity, in consequence of a challenge re- 
 ceived from Mr. Campbell's Baptist brother, the great New-light 
 Unitarian, from which challenge, however, he receded in my 
 presence. . May God enable you ever to act with the pious fideli- 
 ty and manly firmness displayed on those occasions. 
 
 Yours affectionately, 
 
 W. L. M'CALLA. 
 
 No. 15. 
 
 TVie Campbellisms, transpositions^ supplements,' interpolations, 
 suppressions and alterations of Mr. Campbell's Report. 
 
 From W. L. M'Calla to the Rev. Archibald Cameron, near Shelby ville, Ky. 
 
 Dear Brother Your very name reminds me of a fact, 
 
 which you doubtless rejoice to hear, that materials are now col- 
 lecting in Scotland for writing the history of your countrymen, 
 the Cameronians. Through Jesus Christ, I glory in the thought 
 that the vile novels of the basest slanderer on earth have been the 
 means of bringing once more, fully before the public eye, th^ 
 character of the martyrs. The Devil is now trying to finish with 
 the pen of Walter Scott, what the sword of Claverhouse left un- 
 done. His defeat is likely to be as conspicuous now as then. 
 
 But your letter to me brings into view, a slanderous novel of an. 
 enemy nearer home. You seem to grumble at the price which Mr. 
 Campbell has asked for his fictions .: yet if you knew how ex- 
 quisitely fabulous they are, you would be still more astonished at 
 that disinterested benevolence which could ask six thousand Dol- 
 lars for one edition of such commodities, besides something for 
 the copy-right. I would not, for all the dollars that he ever 
 made, endure the labour of exposing every falsehood of his book. 
 It would be almost as interminable and unprofitable as making 
 war upon the musquitoes of Louisiana. But as you did not wit- 
 ness trie conference, you will have patience to examine a fe\y 
 specimens of different descriptions in the following order. 
 
 T 
 
1. Camphellisms. Mr. CampbeH's words and forms of speecli 
 have certain characteristics, which if not peculiar to himself, are 
 at least very foreign from his Antagonist : yet with these words 
 and forms, which, for convenience, 1 call Camphellisms, he has 
 thoughtlessly plaistered his man of straw. It was a fashion of 
 his to call me by name. After dropping the words adversary and 
 accuser, it v/as my fashion to call him my Opponent, according to 
 Mr. Verdeman's express request. In pages 288, 552, 353,, it 
 will be seen that I have to follow suit with him ; so that although 
 I did not use this form three times perhaps, in the seven days, he 
 has made me use it six times in the two last pages referred to. 
 For the same reason he has, in page 139, made me talk of the 
 scriptures, as exciting us to a virtuous and happy life. This is 
 the language of him and his school: but this mil k-and water 
 style is no more mine than talking of obtaining good fortune from 
 propitious stars. In pages 196, 204, it will be seen that he 
 deals in such words as formative and confirmative: In pages 
 191, 192, he gives these words to me. In page 232, he gives 
 me the plural minutiss instead of the singular minutia. This I 
 set down at first for a typographical error : but on reading to a 
 note in page 326, I found that "every minutise^' is a Campbell- 
 ism, notwithstanding his boisterous aad contemptuous treatment 
 of Mr. Greatrake for such trifles as th^se. In pages ITS, 184, 
 and in many other passages of his composition, Mr. Campbell him- 
 self uses the word prove7i. Many ytars before the debate, I re- 
 nounced this word as not English, and used in its place the word 
 proved the real past participle of prove. Yet in pages 119, 233, 
 he has blistered me with this exploded Campbellism no less than 
 three times, his abuse of Mr. Greatrake for the use of such can- 
 tharides notwithstanding. But Mr. Campbell has ''proven'' 
 that the notes of the bishop of Pittsburgh, and the Archbishop 
 who created him, and the Doctors who assisted him, have made 
 me speak exactly like my Opponent. If these gentlemen have 
 really the art of making men of such opposite sentiments and 
 habits speak exactly alike, in ^' every minutiae,'^ would jit not be 
 well to get them to attend your synod ? They are certainly 
 needed in the General Assembly. 
 
 2. Transpositions. This is one of the most important arts of 
 a Reporter, who wishes to make money by writing for himself 
 and his opponent too. If, in the debate, his own argument should 
 fail him, like a broken tooth or a foot out of joint, this process, 
 like the surgeon's art, will enable him to adjust the dislocation in 
 the absense of the enemy, and thus to set his argument once more 
 upon its legs. This plan of concentrating in a report, arguments 
 which were scattered in the debate, Mr. Campbell acknowl- 
 edges in a note, page 220, under the pretext of its promoting 
 brevity. But as he has transposed A^s arguments for the purpose 
 of strengthening them by a better arrangement, so has he more 
 abundantly shifted my'arguments and responses, for the purpose 
 of weakening them by derangement. Of the many instances 
 now before my eyes, I shall give you one or two samples. In 
 
59 
 
 consequence of my brethren recommending to me a gi-eater por- 
 tion of severity than I had shown on the tirst day, Mr. Campbell 
 became exceedingly unhappy on the second day. A part of those 
 remarks which exposed him to the ridicule which he desired so 
 much to bring upon his Antagonist, he has pretended to record in 
 page 137, during the second day in the woods, the correct time 
 and place. Otht rs of these iemarks he has devached to page 167, 
 in the third day, affer the weather had driven us from the forest 
 to the Baptist meeting-house in town, at which time and place 
 they were not made. In both cases my remarks are silly in 
 themselves and inapplicable to what he has said, in consequence 
 of artful alterations made both in his speeches and mine. 
 
 As observed before, it will not quit cost to give many particu- 
 lars ; but i would in general terms give another specimen of 
 transposition. A remark of his own which he has suppiessed in 
 page 204, he has transferred to me by anticipation, in page 200: 
 and my answer which immediately followed this remark of his, 
 he has detached to page 233, as some parents send their children 
 to a distant scliool, to keep them from doing mischief at home. 
 In this as in other passages, he has made such alterations and 
 confusions in his speeches and mine, as are altogether too nu- 
 merous and too contemptible to deserve correction. 
 
 3. Supplements. Although Mr. Campbell would not like to 
 have his argument supplanted by the voluminous irrelevant con- 
 text of a few references, yet he scruples not to substitute such 
 compilations for my speeches, and then to sell them as my com- 
 position. Perhaps he thought this necessary to prove his asser- 
 tion that my addresses were reading instead of speaking. In a 
 note page 92, he gives us the following notice, viz : " Not hav- 
 ing minuted the precise number of verses read in each reference, 
 we have, in order to give full satisfaction, given the whole of 
 each reference!.'-^ As an instance of his disinterested genei'osity 
 in thus filling up my few minutes with good things, he has in 
 page 170, given me a half a pasfc of scripture instead of half a 
 thie which I quoted. This plan he follows in quoting uninspired 
 writers also. Instead of eight lines which I quoted from Dr. 
 Mason, he has in page 210, and following, given me the benefit 
 of three pages. If you suppose that for this supplementary mat- 
 ter, he allows mc additional space in his book, you are much 
 mistaken ; for the above passages are in such short addresses, 
 that, if I ever had spoken them at all, (which I certainly never 
 did,) I should have got through them in much less than a quarter 
 of an hour. But all this was done, (to use his own language,) 
 "in order to give full satisfaction-" Would it not have given 
 still fuller satisfaction, if he had taken the whole of my speeches 
 out of the scriptures and Dr. Mason's writings, instead ofinvent- 
 ing the greater part himself } 
 
 4. Interpolations. You know that Mr. Campbell published 
 what he called a debate between him and Mr. Walker. There 
 
was nothing in that whole work, which presented his talents as a 
 disputant, in so advantageous a light, as his retort upon the Pe- 
 dobaptist Moderator, for objecting to his asking questions. ' Yet 
 in the 237th page of Mr. Walker's publication, it appears that 
 this ready and exquisite retort was not spoken at the debate, but 
 was interpolated in the Report 5 and although it was the fruit of 
 subsequent excogitation, Mr. Campbell expressly stated that it 
 was uttered by him on the spot, in immediate reply to the Mod- 
 erator. If he has interpolated the whole of his last speech a- 
 gainst me, and much other matter, perhaps he tiiinks I have no 
 right to complain, as he has tried his talents so liberally in my 
 speeches also. At this moment I see a text in page 147, which 
 is not in my notes, and which every one will see ought not to be 
 there. In page 307, he begins a speech for me, of which 1 never 
 uttered one sentence, and hardly one single sentiment. As he 
 is making me speak of seals in page 190, he inserts the affair of 
 Judah leaving his seal with Tamar. For the same reason, and 
 in the same page, he interpolates a remark upon the sealed dupli- 
 cates of important Jewish contracts. In the next page he makes 
 tne refer to such a volume and such a page of Han ways Travels | 
 a book which I never quoted, and never saw in my life. So in 
 page 141, he makes me give the very words of Mr. Porter's Dis- 
 sertation on Baptism, in the 24th and 25th pages of that Disserta- 
 tion ', of which author and dissertation, pages and words, I nev- 
 er knew any thing, until I saw them in a speech composed for me 
 by Mr. Campbell. 
 
 5. Suppressions. Considering the fair promises of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's prospectus and the unequivocal declaration of Mr. Rig- 
 don's certificate, is it not strange that when I filled up my half 
 hours so industriously, the report should give me no more than 
 6i pages for a speech, as in page 316, or no more than 2^, as in 
 page 250, or no more than half a page, as in 372 ? In a note, in 
 ])age 356, he professes to give only an abstract of what was said. 
 In page 176, he professes to give the sum of my remarks? and in 
 page 250, and 243, to give nothing more than a specimen ; con- 
 fessing that "other extracts more lengthy," [another Campbell- 
 ism for the philological castigator of Mr. Greatrake,] con- 
 fessing that " other extracts more lengthy' than those which he 
 reported, were suppressed. When he suppressed the matter of 
 Ills own speeches as he confesses he did in pages 165, 327, it does 
 not appear to shorten his speeches as it does mine. For doing 
 both, he always had a reason. In a bracketed note, page 155, 
 he tells us why he suppressed both his remarks and mine on a 
 passage in Macknight. His words are the following, viz: "On 
 ^' the stage we read and commented on the whole passage in Mac- 
 " knight's translation, which is too tedious for insertion here, we 
 "shall give the substance at another time." When this other 
 time occurred I am not able to say. In another instance he quo- 
 ted and commented upon a passage of the same author in He- 
 
 ',See p. 74. 
 
61 
 
 brews; but as his own weapon was turned against liim, the argu- 
 ments on both sides became so "tedious" that he suppressed them. 
 
 During the 3d day Mr. Campbell asserted that Calvin and Beza 
 were the first who taught that baptism was the Christian circum- 
 cision. In my next, I requested the audience, to take particu- 
 lar notice of this assertion, as I should afterward, God willing, 
 produce the direct testimony of the early fathers to this point. 
 He endeavoured to screen himself from impending disgrace, by 
 reading to the audience, what he called a very respectable author, 
 in defence of this untenable position. Suspecting that the au- 
 thor was an acquaintance of mine, who could not be bolstered 
 up in his own country, by being called the Bishop of Lexington, 
 I requested his name, and it was given. In page 167, he gives 
 my request that the audience would notice this false assertion of 
 his last speech : but in his last speech he suppresses this false as- 
 sertion. He entirely suppresses his attempt to prove it by his 
 "respectable author," and he suppresses my evidence of its 
 nUsehood, as too long for insertion, as he expresses in page 230. 
 
 During his report of the 6th and fth days, he carries on the 
 work of suppression on a great scale. On an average, he allows 
 to both parties, less than five pages an hour : and as his address- 
 es are always made longer than mine, he very condescendingly 
 allows me at the rate of between one and two pages for every 
 half hour spent in debate during these days. 
 
 To tender consciences it may appear difl[icult to reconcile this 
 proceeding with the principles of veracity and honesty. In his 
 Prospectus he promises tliat "a// the arguments on 6o^4 sides 
 " shall he faithfully and impartially detailed.''^ In his Preface 
 he says, " But novv when the work is completed, we can, from 
 " the actual result, fully demonstrate, from the face of the vo- 
 " lume, the justice and propriety of our proposals '' In the same 
 Preface he says, " In the following pages there is detaUed a con- 
 " troversy of seven days." And to prove all this, he publishes 
 Mr. Rigdon's certificate, declaring his report to be "a/wzV and 
 "/i/// exhibition of both sides of the controversy." It is nof ne- 
 cessary to multiply, witnesses to see whether these things are 
 true. The face of the report proves the falsehood of Mr Camp- 
 bell's pi'omise and of Mr. Rigdon's certificate. Can any one believe 
 that it takes me thirty minutes to deliver the matter cuntained in 
 two small pages? Will a list of unfaithful abridgments, summa- 
 ries, specimens and abstracts pass for all the arguments in detail? 
 Will anyone, acquainted with language, say that in these "there 
 " is rfe/mVe*? a controversy of seven days?" Will these be con- 
 sidered ?ifair a.nd full exhibition of both sides of the controversy? 
 Mr. Campbell knows that it is incredible to those who examine 
 it, and he therefore ofters explanations. His Preface reads as fol- 
 lows, viz,. "With regard to t!)o length of the speeches on both 
 " sides, it is necessary to inform those who did not hear the de- 
 "bate, that I pronounced more words in a given time than my 
 
. 62 
 
 *' opponent. I think it will be granted, on all sides, that I pro- 
 *' nounced as many words in twenty minutes as he did in thirty." 
 In this also he very much resembles my Universalist opponent. 
 On reading his report, people who know the rapidity of my speech, 
 may wonder that his written addresses are longer than mine. On 
 enquiry they find that he arose very slowly, pulled out his watch 
 very deliberately, took as long a time as possible to adjust it on 
 the desk, and at last made frequent complaints of the want of 
 matter to fill up his time. Yet the speeches which he wrote for him- 
 self were longer than those which he wrote for me! Mr. 'Campbell's 
 great volubility was the reason which he gave for writitig longer 
 speeches for himself than for Mr. Walker. Yet in the 239th 
 page of Mr. Walker's reply, I find that Mr. Campbell wasted a 
 good deal of his time, in such a way as to try the patience of the 
 assembly, and at last produce an altercation between him and 
 his opponent, whether he was not bound to speak all the time, or 
 whether he had riot a right to spend his period in writing, or 
 otherwise, if he chose. A Baptist who was at the debate in 
 Washington, told the people in Lexington that Mr. Campbell 
 had the truth on his side, but that I had appeared to gain the vic- 
 tory because I used the tongue faster than he. And from that 
 day to this I have never known a contrary testimony on this point 
 of rapid speaking, except in Mr. Campbell's book. 
 
 Immediately after the above excuse for suppression, he adds 
 the following, viz. "As the topics which we were pledged to 
 *' discuss, were chiefly taken up in the first five days, we have 
 *' given the arguments of those days in great length, abbreviating 
 <' oniy such matter as had little or no bearing upon the subject? 
 •' such as the argument from ecclesiastic history, the origin of 
 «' modern sects, and such matter as Mr. M'Calla introduced, 
 »' having no bearing upon the controversy whatever. Of this 
 '* the reader will have a full specimen in the sixth and seventh 
 " days." If Mr. Campbell were sincere in this excuse of irre- 
 levancy for suppressing a part of my speeches, he would for the 
 same reason have suppressed the whole of them: because, like 
 my Universalist opponent, he declared in each of his addresses, 
 that my preceding one was irrelevant. Both of them were con- 
 stantly asserting that I had never yet come to the point, that I 
 had not touched the subject, that I said nothing to the purpose, 
 nothing that w^as in the least relevant to the question. I knew 
 that these declarations were made only to blind the audience, 
 and cover their own confusion: but how inconsistent is it in Mr. 
 Campbell, to pretend after these assertions, that only two-se- 
 venths of my matter was irrelevant. Besides, if my matter be 
 irrelevant, would it not enhance his cause to publish and expose 
 it, fully and fairly according to his promise? or would not such a 
 fulfilment of his bona fide engagement, at least prove him an 
 honest man? What would he think of Mr. Lowry who took notes 
 of the debate, if he had issued such a Prospectus as his, and then 
 given the public only a few pages for Mr. Campbell, because he 
 thought all the rest irrelevant? Yet, according to this rule, such 
 
65 
 
 must have been his report, as can be shewn by a letter of his to 
 me, accompanying an abstract of his notes. The following are 
 his words, viz. "You will probably be surprised that I have noted 
 *' so much nonsense, and matter foreign to the subject in debate. 
 *' This indeed needs an apology, and I have one at hand. I have 
 <' endeavoured to notice every argument that [Mr.] Campbell 
 " used, as far as I could, and also carefully to preserve the plan 
 *' of the argument: but his arguments were given very much 
 *' without head or tail, without system or arrangement; and this 
 " necessarily made it difficult to take any notes of them. Also, 
 '* the principal part of what he did say, M'as totally irrelevant and 
 " foreign to the matter in dispute. This accounts for so much 
 *' of such matter in the notes. I am well satisfied from a care- 
 " ful observation of [Mr.] Campbell's course, that he depended 
 •' for success, on throwing you or leading you off' the solid ground 
 " which you assumed at the commencementj and when he failed 
 «' of this, he found room for little else than scurrility, boasting 
 " and challenging, and of these we had enough." 
 
 There was on the ground a professed stenographer, who leaned 
 to the Baptist sentiments. He took notes for a while, but lost 
 them by stealth or otherwise. As he heard Mr. Campbell con- 
 verse freely on religion, I asked him to give mean account of his 
 theology in writing. He did so, and volunteered some remarks 
 on his conduct as a disputant. Considering his Baptist preju- 
 dices, it is wonderful how near he comes to Mr. Lowry's opi- 
 nion. The following are his words, viz. '.' I attended the debate 
 " as a humble enquirer, doubting, as I once told you before, on 
 " which side the truth lay; and on the third and fourth days I 
 *' considered Mr. Campbell's ar;^uments of considerable weight, 
 " so that I was rather more inclined than before to embrace that 
 " opinion. But from that time, while you continued to advance 
 " argument, his sophistry and want of candour, which had before 
 " manifested itself, became constantly more glaring, till the con- 
 " viction was forced upon me, that the cause that needed such 
 " weapons to defend it, could not be the cause of truth, could not 
 ** be the cause of God." From this testimony it appears that Mr. 
 Campbell made a mistake in suppressing my speeches of the 
 two last days for the want of relevancy. It was only his own 
 that were irrelevant. 
 
 My antagonist's excuse for this conduct contains a concession 
 which he and his Baptist friends have not been accustomed to mak- 
 ing. It is " that the argument from ecclesiastic[al] history," 
 and *' the origin of the modern sects,'' is wholly irrelevant to 
 the dispute between us. Among "all" the " publications on the 
 *' doctrme of baptism, that have come" in Mr. Brewster's "way, 
 " for forty years," I doubt whether many have treated this ar- 
 gument as unworthy of notice. I could almost answer for the 
 editors of the Columbian Star, that Mr. Cau»pbell is the first 
 man whom they have known for fifty years, who " in a most mas- 
 " teriy manner, supported the cause he had espoused," without 
 
64 
 
 directlj" or indirectly calling to their aid this argument whiclf is 
 now exploded by this masterly and "unexceptionable" produc- 
 tion, pjven this "faithful servant of the church'' never made the 
 discovery until the debate in Kentucky. His former publications 
 brandish this weapon over our heads with terrific effect, as he 
 and his admirers thought. So confident was he of its temper, 
 that he could not consent to sheath ii at my earnest and repeated 
 solicitations. But now that he has made a full trial of its metal, 
 he is willing to lay it aside as irrelevant, and bury the aflfair in 
 oblivionj pretending that he never wished to touch a matter so 
 foreign to the subject, but that " Mr. M'Calla introduced" it. 
 
 When Mr. Campbell had finished his report of five days, he 
 found himself in straits on all sides. He had printed his pros- 
 pectus before he ever saw Kentucky or his perverse Kentucky 
 Antagonist. When he first endeavoured to get subscribers, he 
 expected that the debate would occupy three hours, or a day at 
 most. This would make too little a book for his viev/s. He 
 therefore promise*!, in the same volume, animadversions on a 
 book of Dr. Mason's, and on four pamphlets, written severally 
 by an Episcopalian, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Seceder; 
 the last by Mr. Walker, his old Antagonist. According to his 
 proposals, he could not demand coinpensation for more than 400 
 pages. After all the shameless suppressions of the first five 
 days, they brought him at last to his 342nd page. This made it 
 necessary that he should in some measure lay aside the mask, 
 or diminish his expected pecuniary profits. lb lose the money 
 appeared to his disinterestedness, the worse alternative. He 
 therefore preferred the former. In addition to these difficulties 
 on the right and on the left, perhaps the recollection of past cor- 
 ruptions haunted his memory, and the consequences of future 
 forgeries stared him in the face : for 1 would have you know that 
 in treating the historical topics of this question, I was obliged to 
 convict him of some very naughty things, and place him in veiy 
 bad company. For particulars I shall have to refer you to mj 
 argument on those subjects: a single specimen it may be proper 
 to give here. In the history of the mode of Baptism, I was oblig- 
 ed to show the unfaii'ness of Baptist authors, in claiming so ma- 
 ny Pedobaptist writers, as holding their doctrine that submer- 
 sion is essential to Baptism. Among the many high authorities 
 quoted by them and by my opponent, the great Dr. Wall, our 
 most eminent controversialist, held a conspicuous place. In sev- 
 eral parts of his book, I shewed the Doctor's otvn words, deny- 
 ing the fact. In one place I read a quarto page, where he not 
 only denies the fact, but exposes the dishonesty of Dawfrs, 
 (another Campbell,) for charging this opinion upon such Pedo- 
 baptists as " Scapula, Stephanus, Pasor, Vossius, Leigh, Casau- 
 "bon, Beza, Chamier, Hammond, Cajetan, Musculus, Piscator, 
 "Calvin, Keckerman, Diodat, Grotius, Davenant, Tilenus, Dr. 
 "Cave, Walafridus Strabo, and Archbishop Tillotson." I read 
 Wall's declaration that Danvers quotes " all these in such words 
 " as if they had made dipping to be of the essence of Baptism." 
 
65 
 
 I read also Wall's assertion that Mr. Walkei*, an old writer, had 
 shewn that this Dan vers " has abused every one of them ; 
 "by affixing to some of them words that they never said, 
 "by -adding to others, by altering and mistranslating others, 
 "and by curtailing the words of the rest." In addition to this 
 I was obliged to shew, from Mr. Campbell's former publications, 
 that he was a legitimate son of this Danvers. Is it any wonder 
 that he and his friends have become sick of the historical argu- 
 ment, which he compelled me to canvass ? Is a man of his prin- 
 ciples going to puhjish these things against himself.^ Give 
 any convict the power, and he will soon obliterate the records of 
 the court. To nim, at least, they will appear irrelevant. 
 
 6. Alterations. In Mr. Campbell's report of the debate with 
 Mr. Walker, the latter says that there are many alterations. In 
 page 49, he makes Mr. Walker " ask him for a positive com- 
 mand for the institution of a church .^" In the 12th page of Mr. 
 Walker's reply, the real question is declared to be, " Have we 
 a positive command for all the acknowledged institutions of the 
 church.^" What a difference can be made by a little alteration ! 
 After his debate with me, he discovered that his incessant chal- 
 lenging rendered him ridiculous. To prevent this from being so 
 visible in the Report as it was audible in the debate, he some- 
 times drops those bravadoes, and sometimes changes the word 
 (shalletige for some other. In page 72, he substitutes the word 
 call. " I have called and called upon my opponent," &c. In 
 the argument on household baptism, I read some quotations from 
 profane Greek authors. Mr. Campbell's plan in such cases, 
 was, to endeavour to ^^ alarfti the natives," by boasting in the 
 most extravagant manner, of his superior acquaintance with 
 Greek literature, and by expressing the most profound contempt 
 of my ignorance. On the occasion just mentioned, he said, 
 witWa most pompous air, " Now we have not read Rice's Pamph- 
 "leteer, but we have read all of the writings of Aristotle and 
 "Plato, in the original." In his report, this great word all is 
 altered into some 1 What a descent! 
 
 "The king of France, with twice ten thousand men, 
 " March'd up a hill, and then march'd down a^ain." 
 
 His writing specimens and summaries and abstracts instead of 
 speeches for me, gave him fine scope for the exercise of this art. 
 Many things, such as the recapitulation of page 382, and the bur- 
 lesque challenge of 393, I shall not take time to explain in this 
 place. Page 128 gives an opportunity of testing Mr. Rigdon's 
 certificate, that his master has given "a fair and full exhibition 
 " of " my " tQpics of illustration. " Speaking of the sameness of 
 the Jewish and Christian church, I argued that their nominal and 
 circumstantial differences should be no objection to the doctrine 
 of their ecclesiastical identity. Among my illustrations, one was 
 very familiar to the audience. I observed that before my settle- 
 ment among them, the congregation which I then served, met at 
 Garmantown, and was called the Germantown Church. It after- 
 
 K 
 
G6 
 
 ward worshipped statedly in Augusta, and was called the Au- 
 gusta Church. Yet the church ot Germantown and the Augusta 
 church were not two. but one and the same church. Mr. Camp- 
 bell's fair and full exhibition of my illustration excludes the 
 nominal difl'erence entirely, and expresses the circumstantial 
 difference in a manner which is not consistent with perspicuity or 
 with truth. 
 
 His marks of quotation in pages 319 to 23, shew that he ^ves 
 my speech in the words of another person, probably Mr. Rall- 
 ston, as his name is mentioned. Besides professedly omitting 
 one extract from Dr. Rice in page 286, he makes me cast out 
 another, and substitute for it an extract from Dr. Rallston. This 
 alteration is repeated in the next page and in 280. Instead of a 
 diftuse argument from Dr. Rice, he makes me say, in page 26G, 
 *'Mr. Rallston's condensed view of this argument proceeds thus." 
 In page 258, which introduces another substitution of Rallston 
 for Rice, a bracketted note contains evidence in his own words, 
 that in all these cases, he has altered the diffuse virguments of one 
 author into the condensed views of another. Another note in the 
 margin of page 252, confesses that, instead of my copious ex- 
 tracts from Di". Wall, he has put into my mouth, "aTni/Jiafwe," 
 *' condensed view,^' from J. P. Campbell's sermon In a bracket- 
 ted note in page 300, he confesses that he has there bestowed 
 wpon me several pages from the same author, although I never 
 quoted them, and never knew to this moment, where they are to 
 be found in his works, if they are to be found there at all. But 
 he justifies this alteration upon two grounds: one is, that I 
 " seemed to have taken" my argument from Dr. Campbell; ano- 
 ther is, that that author " precisely expresses'' my "■ sentiment* 
 ♦' as noted down." His notes must have been remarkably accu- 
 rate and wonderfully useful; since they enabled him to guess, 
 (however incorrectly) at the character and source of my argu- 
 ments, and to make so judicious a selection of the author in 
 whose words he should express my sentiments. Instead of giv- 
 ing me so good a spokesman as my friend Dr. Campbell, he has 
 in piiges 376, 377, altered a speech of mine, into a perfect cari- 
 cature of his own manufacture. In answer to his slanders against 
 all Pedobaptists, I observed that the men of Munster and of the 
 rustic war were as lawless a race as the Crusaders, whose pre- 
 datory bands were no better than hen-roost-robbers. Mr. Camp- 
 bell informs the public, in the above pages, that I assured the 
 audience ti^at "some" "of the German Anabaptists" "were 
 " robbers of hen-houses" I observed that the tyrant of Munster, 
 to gratify his lust, encouraged polygamy among his followers, 
 and so perfectly despotic was he, that when one of his fifteen 
 wives committed a slight verbal offence, he took off her head with 
 the sword in presence of the rest, who, for fear of the same fate, 
 loudly extolled his justice, and danced round the dead body of 
 their companion with feigned hilarity. For this Mr. Campbellj 
 in the above places, substitutes the following sentence, viz- 
 ' ^ Some of them had from three to a dozen wives, one orthodox 
 
07 
 
 Anabaptist cut the hearls off three, or perhaps thirteen, of his 
 wives, and danced at their exit.'' 
 
 He shews great art in altering my comments on scripture 
 texts. In proof of the ecclesiastical identity of the Old and New 
 Testament churches, 1 rjuote<l Vlatt. viii. It, 12, "that many 
 {^Gentiles] shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit 
 down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob [Jews] in the kingdom 
 of heaven, [tlie church on eartli:] but the children of the king- 
 dom, [the unbelieving Jews] shall be cast out [of the church on 
 earth:"] for out of the kingdom above, none shall ever be cast out. 
 Besides other follies, Mr. Campbell makes me say "that the 
 Jews are represented in Matt. viii. 1 1,12, as being members of the 
 kingdom or heaven or evangelical dispensation." But he is not 
 satisfied with altering comments, he does not hesitate on some 
 occasions, to alter the sacred text. In his anxiety to prove that 
 the Christian Cliurch was a new kingdom, and not a new branch 
 of the old Abrahamic church, he quoted Dan. vii. 14, as follows; 
 *' And there was given him dominion and glory and a new king- 
 dom." The word " nez^;" was not given by him as an allowable 
 paraphrastical interpolation of his own, but it was repeatedly 
 urged as that empliatical word of the sacred text, which proved 
 his point. Uf this the Rev. John R. Moreland was a witness, for 
 he opened his bible at the time to see if it was possible that the 
 word tieiv was in the text. In page 345, he alters the version of 
 Junius and Tremeilius, and gives his forgery as the rendering of 
 those eminent translators. He tells us that Mr. M^Calla's "ap- 
 *' plication of the words, 'so shall he sprinkle many nations,' is 
 "availing himself of a mistaken rendering, which Junius and 
 *' Tremeilius have corrected, it reads ' so shall he astonish ma- 
 " ny nations.' " I had Junius and Tremeilius with rne, and shew- 
 ed that his translation was, " so shall he sprinkle [with astonish- 
 ment,] many nations." But I took another step which Mr. 
 Campbell's lull and fair report has totally overlooked. I proved 
 that " so shall he sprinkle many nations," was a correct transla- 
 tion of the original, and told the audience that the book which I 
 then held open in my hand was Parkhurst's Hebrew English 
 Dictionary, which would shew this intelligibly even to the un- 
 learned. 
 
 It is well known that Luke i. 72, is esteemed a strong proof of 
 the identity of the Jewish and Christian churches: for it repre- 
 sents Christ as coining not to destroy the Abrahamic church and 
 covenant, but " to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and 
 to remember his holy covenant." In the 159th page of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's book against Mr. Walker, he, in a great measure, neu- 
 tralizes this text by an alteration. Instead of " to our fathers," 
 he writes " by the Father." After it had been written in two 
 editions, Mr Walker exposed it in the 14th page of his reply, 
 which complains that it is far from being a solitary error of this 
 sort. My quotations of scripture from memory, were, during 
 the debate, as they are at all times, apt to b« inaccurate. On this 
 
68 
 
 account Mr. Campbell scornfully told the audience that he did 
 not believe that I could, from memory, quote five verses of the 
 Bible correctly. In a note in his 335th page, he alters this in- 
 vidious remark, and considerably aggravates it, by saying that 
 Mr. M'Calla '' appeared not to have any one paragraph of a few 
 " verses so familiar as to refer to it without material alterations 
 *' or deviations from the text." That this novel accusation is 
 perfectly groundless, will appear from one fact: and that is that 
 in all his addresses, whether spoken or written, he has not shewn, 
 nor, to my knowledge, attempted to shew, one such material al- 
 teration or deviation. Among all my mistakes he has not been 
 able to find one which favoured my cause. But Mr. Campbell's 
 alterations are not from weakness of memory, for they are deli- 
 berately written and printed, and that in more than one edition. 
 Neither are they trifling verbal inaccuracies; but to use his own 
 words, they are "material alterations or deviations from the 
 text." They are comparatively few in number, but so well se-- 
 lected, and so sagaciously constructed that everyone of them 
 tells. Each of them answers some important purpose to his 
 cause, either on the subject or the mode of baptism. His altera- 
 tions of Daniel and Luke materially affect our argument on the 
 identity of the Jewish and Christian churches, and of course our 
 obligation to administer to infants the initiatory seal of the church. 
 And his altered quotation of Junius and Treraellius is professedly 
 intended to make Isaiah exclude sprinkling from the mode of 
 baptism, although this was in direct opposition to the literal and 
 real import of the Hebrew original. In the 417th page of his 
 book against me, he very awkwardly and evasively insinuates that 
 his alteration of Luke i. 72, of which Mr. Walker had convicted 
 him, was a mere typographical error: but in the very same pa- 
 ragraph, he makes a statement which is not true. It is that *'all 
 the exceptions made Qn "Mr. Walker's own treatise,] against the 
 faithfulness of that statement of the debate," written by Mr. 
 Campbell, "altogether would not make one page." Now be- 
 sides several pages of exceptions written by Mr. Walker him- 
 self, his publication contains a dozen pages of exceptions, by one 
 of the Moderators. Mr. Campbell's express design in limiting 
 these exceptions to one page, was to prove the correctness of his 
 report from the testimony of his antagonist. He says that if all 
 Mr. Walker's exceptions "were well substantiated, it ([Mr. 
 " Campbell's report] would appear from Mr. Walker's own trea- 
 " tise, to be a correct representation of the controversy." The 
 Moderator's letter, which is an approved part of Mr. Walker's 
 book, declares Mr. Campbell guilty of " the propagation of false- 
 hoods the mi st naked and gross." (a) In page 239, he gives us 
 one of Mr. Campbell's alterations^ at the close of which he ob- 
 serves that '* it is sufficient to discover his disinclination or in- 
 capacity at any time, where fact is concerned, to state the truth." 
 " However," says he, " to pursue Mr. Campbell through all his 
 meanderings, to detect him in all his mis-statements of facts, 
 
 (a) See page 233. 
 
69 
 
 and to correct him in all his aberrations from scriptural princi- 
 ple, would be almost an endless undertaking." In page 11, Mr. 
 Walker himself says that Mr. Campbell " appears only to have 
 *' introduced as many of Mr. Walker's arguments as served his 
 " purpose; and even these are presented in such a mutilated 
 "form, that he (Mr. C.j might the more easily manage them." 
 In page 12, he says, '' Out of many examples, I shall only note 
 " a few, and let these serve for the remainder." How strange a 
 testimony is this for establishing the correctness of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's report! Comparatively a few errors are quoted, only as a 
 specimen of a work, which has so many, that not one argument is 
 
 fairly represented; of a work which propagates falsehoods 
 
 the most naked and gross; to detect which would be " almost an 
 endless undertaking;" of a work, whose author has a " dis- 
 inclination or incapacity, at anytime, where fact is concerned, 
 to state the truth:" These declarations goto shew that Mr. 
 Campbell's report is false throughout, as to fact and argument, 
 wherever falsehood would answer his purpose. Yet these decla- 
 rations he treats as so many attestations of his correctness. If 
 these are compliments, it is hoped that he will give me credit for 
 more than one page of them. My tedious letter to you will shew 
 that I cordially agree M'ith the above gentlemen, in their account 
 of his moral character, and of his labours as a reporter. This 
 remark applies to the whole of his book against me. even bating 
 the many particulars which I have specified. 
 
 As you are within a day's ride of Lexington, you have proba- 
 bly heard that your old acquaintance, and Mr. Campbell's parti- 
 cular friend and brother Dr. James Fishback of that place, has 
 left it, perhaps forever. lie passed through this place lately on 
 his way to Boston, to take charge of a Baptist congregation 
 which the Rev. Mr. Wayland has lately left. A Baptist of the 
 highest standing informed me, the other day, that the Doctor's 
 avowed object in going to Boston, was to oppose the Unitarians. 
 I should not give the contemptuous name of heresy-hunter to a 
 truly pious and Orthodox man who would go all the way from 
 Lexington to Boston for such a purpose. Neither Mould I give 
 the odious name of crusade, to his long journey on so glorious 
 an errand. Time, however, will disclose whether Dr. Fishback 
 is such a man, gone on such a pilgrimage, for such an end. To 
 you who are so well acquainted with his character, I need not 
 mention half the changes which he has undergone in politics and 
 religion. From your knowledge of these, you perhaps doubt his 
 qualifications for acting the part of a reformer in Boston. You 
 recollect that while he was practising medicine, he felt urgently 
 moved to undertake the reformation of the Lexington bar. Un- 
 happily, however, before he got license to plead, his vievvs of 
 right and wrong underwent such a change, that it was difficult for 
 a stranger to tell which of the lawyers was the reformer and who 
 needed most to be reformed. Forgetting his original design, he 
 endeavoured (but in vain) to get into the Legislature, to effect a 
 reformation there. Since this disappointment his chief attention 
 
«fe 
 
 TO 
 
 has been given to religion, or rather to religions^ for on this sub- 
 ject he might say as Legion did, " we are many." 
 
 Although his literary education did not, I believe, go farther 
 than to read the Latin of Virgil, yet you know that from his god- 
 ly and exemplary parents, he had what was far more important, 
 a religious education. When a student of medicine, and living 
 in my Father's house, he was esteemed a believer in revelation. 
 By a habit of espousing any cause indifferently in colloquial liti- 
 gation, he was subsequently known as an infidel for some years. 
 Afterward, " when he returned to his fori ner sentiments, he was 
 sometimes a Predestinarian and sometimes an Anti-predestina- 
 rian. He, at length professed to oe settled on this and other 
 doctrinal points in our Creed, and joined the communion of the 
 first Presbyterian Church in Lexington. One day a French 
 Quaker preached in our pulpit! After sermon the Doctor went 
 to my Father's house, which, for many years he very much fre- 
 quented; and advocated the Quaker's notion of being moved bj 
 the Spirit, as to the time, place, circumstances, and matter of his 
 discourse. By way of corrective, I opened Dr. Archibald Alexan- 
 der's sermon, preached before the General Assembly, and read 
 his caution against this and the opposite error of denying the opera- 
 tion of the Spirit altogether. After a while, Mr. Thomas B. Craig- 
 head came to Lexington, and preached the latter erroi . This also 
 Dr. Fishback embraced, although on the opposite extreme from his 
 former opinion. He and I belonged to the same prayer meeting. 
 One evening I prayed for the fulfilment of the prophecy of 
 Joel, "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh." When we 
 arose from our knees, the Doctor took his hat, and formally re- 
 signed his membership in our meeting, because he could not cor- 
 dially join in our devotions. The Session afterward suspended 
 him from the communion of the church for this Pelagian doc- 
 trine of his, and on his appeal, the Presbytery confirmed their 
 sentence. From them he appealed to the Synod, in whose pre- 
 sence you and I both heard him give as a reason for leaving the 
 prayer-meeting, that its members prayed for the out-pouring of 
 the Spirit of God ! as if this blessing which belonged to the days 
 of miracles, was to be expected in our day! The Synod sus- 
 tained his appeal, on account of alledged informality in the ori- 
 ginal process; but so clear was their perception of his heretical 
 pravity, and so manifest was their disapprobation of it, that from 
 that time he seems to have entertained little or no hope of being 
 authorized to preach by any of their Presbyteries. As he was 
 not sure of becoming a bishop among the Anglican or Methodist 
 Episcopalians, the Baptist Church, the strongest in Kentucky, 
 offered the fairest field for his ambition. Before he resolved to 
 join them, he was a very decided Pedobaptist, He had a slave 
 called Billy, who was a Baptist Preacher. I have been diverted 
 at the glee with which the Doctor used to relate his controversy 
 with Billy on the rebaptism of the twelve disciples of John, by 
 Paul's order at Ephesup. According to his own account, the 
 Master, of course, triumphed at the time; but the man gained 
 
71 
 
 the ultimate victory, for the Doctor went over to his side. Be- 
 fore taking this step, he wrote a book, a great part of which was 
 directed against the internal, sanctifying influences of the Spirit 
 of God. After his immersion and ordination, many of his min- 
 isterial brethren shewed considerable opposition to him on account 
 of his corruption. To secure his standing among them, he was 
 obliged to preach the doctrine of spiritual influences in as plain 
 and strong a manner as he well could, and to deny that he had 
 ever meant to oppose it. Some of them could not help seeing that 
 his book was in direct opposition to this essential doctrine of 
 Christianity, and they could not be satisfied unless he would re- 
 nounce his book. But instead of doing this, he continued to cir- 
 culate it privately, and after his acquaintance with Mr. Camp- 
 bell who has written much against the saine doctrine, he felt 
 himself strong enough, as I am informed, to sell his book publicly. 
 
 The sincerity of Dr. Fishback's professions to the Baptists of 
 Philadelphia can be tested by his conduct in Kentucky. If he 
 has such a zealous antipathy against Unitarianism, why did he 
 take into his bosom, Mr. Alexander Campbell, the disciple of 
 Robinson, who was the avowed disciple of Priestly? It is well 
 known that Dr. Holley, Principal of Transylvania University, 
 is one of the most depraved Unitarians that ever infested Boston. 
 For Mr. Campbell to advocate him is natural. But who can 
 believe that Dr. Fishback, who has now gone all the way to Bos- 
 ton, to oppose Unitarianism, supported this Boston Unitarian of 
 the worst stamp, much more effectively than Mr. Campbell 
 could. Verily the walls of their northern Jericho have very 
 little to fear from his horn. 
 
 And here it will not avail in proof of his consistency, to say 
 that before his departure from Kentucky, he became disaftected 
 to Dr. Holley. It is as easy for rogues to fall out without refor- 
 mation, as for Pilate and Herod to be reconciled without regen- 
 eration. The question is, what made this Pelagian sick of his 
 brother Unitarian F Was it any rottenness in his creed or im- 
 morality in his practice.^ His guilt in both these respects, wai 
 well known to Dr. Fishback while he acted as a tool of the 
 President. For his services in this capacity, he received the de- 
 gree of Doctor of Divinity ; which, from such hands, was per- 
 haps as good an evidence of merit, as the gift of a Bishopric 
 from Charles the 2nd. But the Doctor was not to be satisfied by 
 such a parchment .play-thing. He could very well distinguish 
 between the empty barrel of a Doctorate, and the rich cargo of 
 the Morrison Proftssorship. The University could easily give 
 the former to any man as a bribe, but to bestow the latter on a 
 man of Dr. Fisliback's attainments, would, in their view, sink 
 the ship. It is this that made the people of Kentucky laugh when 
 Dr. Fisliback deserted his old master. They knew that this hun- 
 dredth change of the most chan .cable man that they ever knew, 
 Mas not from principle, but from disappointed ambition. And 
 they now know that the man who, in licxington, supported Dr. 
 
Holley, frotn the hope of a Professorship in Transylvania Univer- 
 sity, would, in Boston, support Dr. Kirkland, for a Professor- 
 ship in Harvard University. Andrew Fuller shewed the sinceri- 
 ty of his opposition to Unitarianism, by denouncing Robert Ro- 
 binson, the greatest champion of Anabaptism that England ever 
 produced: Dr. Fishback shews the insincerity of his pretensions 
 by taking to his bosom Mr. Alexander Campbell, the most con-^ 
 spicuous disciple of Robinson which our country contains. From 
 him he was infected with the anti-homologetical fever. On his 
 admission to the pulpit of Mr. Dagg, the Baptist successor of Dr. 
 Staughton in this place, he preached against creeds and confes- 
 sions, in such terms as broadly infer that all who adhere to them 
 are on the road to perdition. This is a line preparation for set- 
 ting Boston to rights. The arguments of Mr, Campbell, Mr. 
 Duncan, and the liberal men of Massachusetts have probably 
 convinced him beforenow, that the Council of Nice was extreme- 
 ly guilty, in excommunicating x\rius for denying that Christ was 
 of the same essence with God the Father!! Consistency will 
 then require him to acknowledge the Christian character and 
 ministerial standing of his polished Arian acquaintances, at least 
 so far as to exchange pulpits with thern, as some specimens of 
 Orthodoxy, already settled there, are in the habit of doing. 
 When he has gone over to them a very little farther, their refor- 
 mation will be complete. Then Dr Fishback will have the 
 credit of converting tl>e Unitarians to his system, as Dr. Priestley 
 had the credit of converting the Infidels to his. , To secure them 
 from relapses, it would be well to see to it, that the next vacan- 
 cies occasioned by the removal of Orthodox Baptist ministers 
 should be filled by Mr. Campbell, Sidney Rigdon, and Mr. 
 Duncan, who will take care that the error of the Nicene Council 
 shall never be repeated. From such reformers, may the Divine 
 Head of the Church deliver his people. How different is your 
 course from that of these self-conceited men! Instead of strut- 
 ting in what they call the march of mind, and instead of dream- 
 ing that your wonderful wisdom is always making improvements 
 in the Christian system, you are satisfied to take religion as it 
 was long ago revealed in the Scriptures, and as you conscien- 
 tiously and intelligentry believe it was acknowledged by Augus- 
 tine, by the worthies of the sixteenth century, by the Synod of 
 Dort, and by the Westminister Assembly. For the Christian 
 system as thus revealed, and thus maintained, you have suffered 
 much obloquy, and are willing, if necessary, to suffer even to 
 blood. May Kentucky never want such able and faithful cham- 
 pions of the truth, as you have been. Thus prays one who has 
 watched you for near thirty years, and who hopes in time and 
 eternity to remain 
 
 Your affectionate brother in Jesus Christ, 
 
 W. L. M 'CALL A. 
 
 Philadelphia, Se: :?. 
 
No. 16. 
 Mr. CampheWs Religiovs Character, 
 
 As givft'i by Mr. Greatrake, a highly esteemed, re£;;ilar Baptist Minister, in 
 Mr. Cftmpbeirs neishbourhoou. Out of several pamphlets, we can only 
 copy his 4th, 5th and 6th Letters with apart of his 3d lo Mr. Campbell, his 
 circular to the Western Baptists, and a few extracts from his "MAniatwe 
 Portrait of Alexander Campbell." 
 
 Mr. Greati-ake to Mr. Campbell. 
 
 the cliaraeter of individuals, in yon r 
 
 sphere particularly, is fairly ascertainable in all its essential features, by com- 
 ing to a knowledge of its effect upon those with whom it has estimation. That 
 you have many admirers and adherents there is no doubt; that they have been 
 sitting at your feet learning of you,and holding up to their view your character, 
 as a model for their imitation, is equally certain. Now, if the many of these in- 
 tiivjduals with whom I have been more or less acquainted, have not been most 
 bungling scholars, they have been taught by you, and others more immediate- 
 ly your subordinates, a variety of sentiments, which, if not altogether new, is 
 at least so in relation to their influence among the Baptist churches in Ame- 
 rica. And though it is in the chapter of probabilities that your sentiments 
 may have been misunderstood, yet what is found as the views of your professed 
 disciples, will be necessarily considered as the production of your labours, and 
 correlative with your opinions. In the first place then, we notice, that among 
 your adherents, pupils, or disciples, there are those who believe, and havepub- 
 licly (.leclared, that a man by being baptized was made as holy as an angel ! or 
 which is the same thing, and to use the words literatim, that " he came up out 
 of the water as holy as an angel." — Again, it has been said by some of them, 
 that "■ the Almighty liad been tired ol h'u own moral law for 1500 years, when 
 he abrogated it by the New Testament dispensation, and that it is no longer a 
 rule of conduct for the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ !" — Again, many of 
 3'our adherents profess to scout the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's immedii^te in- 
 fluence in regeneration, as well as in all subsequent stages of christian life, and 
 to denominate the well known characteristic experience of spiritual Israel, a 
 mere phantasy, or mass of mysticism. — Again, they profess to believe that 
 prayer is no duty, but rather an insult to the majesty of heaven. Such are 
 some of the horrible brood of sentiments entertained and expressed by indi- 
 viduals who are recognized as nnder-teachei-s to you, as well as others who are 
 your joint hearers. Now, I do not exactly say that these and other kindred 
 doctrines are the oil'spring of your own teeming brain, but you are certainly 
 and strongly suspected of having begotten them in their ductile pericraniums 
 by certain secret intercourses; though under more public circumstances you 
 have appeared rather to disown the progeny. If such sentiments, sir, are really 
 the product of your system of theology, the results of your writings and your 
 labours, you must have a mind circumstanced to enjoy them! and I can con- 
 ceive your feelings of admiration and exultance, while you fondle with, and 
 hang over them with a father's love and father's hopes, to be closely allied to 
 the sensations of Milton's Satan, when for the first time he beheld his iucestu- 
 
 L 
 
r4' 
 
 0U3 gfand-chiidren, the progeny of sin and death, y'clept hell hounds. Wheth- 
 er, sir, you be, or be not, the teacher of such doctrines, is of little consequence, 
 as long as they have the authority of your name. Of such sentiments, at least 
 some of them, I am free to say, that they exceed the whole sum of blasphe- 
 mies that ever I met with in the character of men or devils, and the propaga- 
 tors thereof ought to be known and hung upon the gibbets of public infamy, 
 But leaving every thing that cannot absolutely be identified as part of your 
 opinions, speculations, and teachings, we will proceed to notice what is as tan- 
 gible thereof as the leaves of your " Christian Baptist." You are then, in the 
 first place, endeavouring to create universal distrust of the ministry, in all de- 
 nominations, bating an occasional qualiiication in the admission of an indivi- 
 dual now and then, as an exception to the degraded character you give of the 
 rest. Those individuals that are yowv exceptions may be calculated upon as those 
 of whom you expect to make partisans in your own scheme of operations: 
 hence the occasional allusion to them in diiferent and well-timed expressions 
 ofpanegyrick, becomes a stroke of policy, and not a feeling of charity. But 
 for what, sir, is this almost universal attack upon the character of ministers 
 tnade? the end in view is obvious; and that end is, that you may dissolve, if 
 possible^ existing connexions between pastors and people, and thus effect the first 
 s>tep towards making the latter your followers, or the proselytes to your system of 
 theology, under the direction of your agents! and in thus doing, consummate the 
 measure of your fame by becoming the acknoivledged head of some new, though 
 yet nameless sect. That you really believe, sir, what you intimate and assert 
 of the dishonesty jand selfishness of ministers, I do not doubt: the reason is, that 
 you never had the necessary mental perception to see the real and spiritual 
 pastors and servants of the church of Christ, and having met with many that 
 I'^ere the reverse, and the constituents of whose character you could by natu- 
 ral affinity analyze, you have suspected the whole to be of the same base ma- 
 terial. — The subject we shall notice more fully hereafter. This spirit of dis- 
 trust we know you are labouring to diffuse in every direction, and while it is 
 evidently to the end, and for the object we have suggested, you have the ef- 
 frontery to pass it off as a labour of love, an expression of dininterested zeal 
 for the church of Christ. — Again, we know that you propagate the doctrine of 
 the church's independency, so far as to exclude all reference to articles of faith 
 and principles of order upon which they have been founded, (I am now speak- 
 ing of the Baptist church) this your writings are uniformly understood to aim 
 at. And really, sir, your attempt to disseminate this sort of sentiment, in the 
 Baptist church in particular, demonstrates your very great attainment in im- 
 pudence, or that you are extremely ignorant of the constituents of social unity 
 and order, as I shall hereafter endeavour to exhibit. Can you suppose that any 
 reflecting intelligent member of the Baptist church, will ever conceive favour- 
 ably of that man, or have confidence in the purity of his motives, who attempts 
 to destroy the very foundation upon which the denomination has risen to such 
 imposing magnitude, in such fair proportions, and with such solidity? indeed, 
 sir, the attempt on your part, or that of any other person, bears testimony of a 
 radical defect in understandmg, andean only leave you, (in the exercise of all 
 possible charity) the character of the knight of La Mancha, or the phrenziei 
 Swede. ........ ^ .......... . 
 
75 
 
 SIR, 
 
 In my last I noticed some of the moral impressions made upon the mindis 
 of that part of the community which are to be considered, more immediately-" 
 your disciples. Having adverted to certain of the doctrines held by them, as 
 well as to their gjeneral sentiments respecting; church order and g^overnmenti 
 and in the recoofnition thereof seen, what may be fairly considered as additional 
 features of your own character; I shall proceed to raise up some other charac- 
 teristics of the same fraternity. For brevity and distinctness sake, I will fix 
 your attention upon a solitary church, as a specimen of the whole, and as suf- 
 ficient to afford you, a tolerably correct estimate of the general results of your 
 labours. In this church there are two Pastors, or Elders, or Teachers, as you 
 please: one of them occupies an entire sabbath, in expounding a certain part 
 of the scripture to his flock, who are immensely delighted and edified by the 
 luminous, as they think, discwurse; and run to and fro through their respective 
 neighbourhoods to proclaim the erudition and the knowledge of their semi- 
 pastor who last addressed them — while he hies away to his worthy associate 
 and fellow-labourer, to tell him how his audience had been astonished at his 
 learning, delighted with his commentaries, ravished with his eloquence, and 
 established in their faith. He then proceeds to give his coadjutor a summary 
 of all he had said in the course of the lecture, which is no sooner communicated 
 to the former, than he very gravely tells him, that the whole of his views up- 
 on the subject are entirely diiferent from his; and proceeds to give an exhibit 
 of what he conceives to be the legitimate, and the true meaning of the subject. 
 Our lecturer no sooner hears the sentiments of his dear help-mate, than in true 
 philosophical mood of indiiference, he observes, well, brother A. if what you 
 ^ay be true, I must have instructed the people erroneously, but never mind, 
 the people are pleased with v/hat I said and I am pleased too; and as we, only, 
 are interested in the case, I do not see that there is any occasion to take further 
 notice of it. Besides, brother A. your charity ought to cover all such infirmi- 
 ties; add to which, you know not how soon you may stand in need of equal 
 forbearance. And sure enough, sir, this intimation of brother A. turned out 
 in the end to be a literal prediction; for it was not long before Elder A. had oc- 
 casion to acknowledge, that he had found himself to have been in something of 
 an error for a long time; having disbelieved in the influences of the Holy 
 Ghost upon the human mind, subsequent tp the apostle's days; but that novr 
 he thought it was a New Testament doctrine — the word said so. And though 
 he might not teach it, for fear of collision with his amiable brother, and out of 
 reciprocal charity; yet he would believe in the doctrine, to the end I suppose, 
 that his faith might be verbatim et literatim, as was that of the Jews of old, 
 who considered themselves orthodox believers if they knew the number of 
 words in the Pentateuch, and kept them stored up in their head; no matter 
 who was the occupant of the heart, one, or one legion of devils. 
 
 But to proceed with our sketch of the character we have noticed— leaving 
 their personal difference in sentiment, let us follow them to the field of their 
 public, social, and private ministerial exercises. Behold one of them going 
 forth to the margin of the river, where a number of raftmen and others are en- 
 gaged in their avocations: these are unregenerate, impenitent, perishing sin- 
 ners, as you and I sir, are by nature. To a posse of these characters, your K3- 
 
76 
 
 der directs his way, tixnl pommences an haran^ie, by tellino; them, " that thev 
 are not under the law; thnt the ten commandments are ahro;5ated, as well as 
 the ceremonies of the Old Tectament dispensation; that the world is fall of 
 priestcraft; that preachers of the gospel, as they call themselves, ai-e only 
 preaching for money; that himself, and the system with which he revolves 
 round his uplendid centre, is the true light." With a hundred other things of 
 the same sort, and d thousand other, and different sayings, quite as irrelevant 
 to the gospel. After having finished his address, his auditors separate from him, 
 some saying, that he is a noble felloM'^, that he has extracted from their con- 
 science, something like fragments of the law, that had been there ail their 
 lives, like thorns, when they devised, or perpetrated, what they had been 
 taught were crimes. Others declare him to be truly an antinomian — others 
 understand him to denounce the doctrine of the Spirit's influence, and to treat 
 it iis an idle notion — others understand him as absolutely calling in question 
 the divinity of Jesus Christ — and a socinian present cries out, m^ brother — 
 while others believe, that in this single address, he has advocated, and rebut- 
 ted all. and every one of these sentiments; together with many more . Are 
 you not delighted, sir, with the clearness of this man's perceptions — the intel- 
 ligence of his mind — the piety of his doctrines — the solidity of his system al- 
 together; when the exhibition thereof, produces no more opposition of view? 
 among his hearers, than just — antipodes. Paul could rejoice that he was a fa- 
 ther to Timotliy — But O! how supei-lative must be your joy to be the father 
 of so many children as you are, of whom the above character is a specimen ; 
 how enviable must be the lot of your disciples to have provision made for their 
 guidance of such able leaders, and intelligent instructors. " Treading the 
 crude consistence, half on foot, half flying — o'er bog, or steep, through strait 
 rough, dense, or rare ; they swim, or sink, or wade, orcreep, or fly." While* 
 indeed, the hubbub of their jarring notions and sentiments, carries forward 
 the resemblance between their situation and that of the celebrated personage, 
 to whom the above extract is originally applied, when he was groping his way. 
 through chaos and old night. We will follow the same Elder of yours to the 
 exercises of social worship. See him recumbent upon some three or four 
 chairs, with his segar in his mouth ; disposing of its smoke with one respira- 
 tion, and going on by breaks, witli a lecture, on some part of divine truth, with 
 another — or, standing up at the fire, mingling the fumes of his tobacco pipe, 
 with the breath of prayer and praise issuing from the mouth of his professed 
 brethren, while engaged in their devotions! but we will stop ; nor wound any 
 more the religious sensibilities of the children of God, by a further exhibit of 
 the flagrant abominations, and blasphemous irreverence towards '■'■him whom 
 their soul loveth." Leaving your Elders, sir, we come to notice, briefly, some 
 of the features of the character belonging to those we may call your lay -men : 
 and well do we find established, in refering to this part of the subject, the pro- 
 phet's adage, "like priest, like people;" the most of whom, connected with 
 you, shew, conspicuously, that vanity rules in and over them. They are not so 
 politic as you, sir ; they cannot, indeed, put any restraint upon their ruling 
 passion ; but, under its influence, many of them, " play such fantastic tricks be- 
 fore high heaven," as, if not to make angels weep, atleastto make devils laugh, 
 and fill with sorrow the breast of every real christian ; particularly those of 
 the Baptist denoniiaation, upon whom, their character and conduct brings the 
 
reproach of the wicked, the contempt of the wise, and pity of the good. As two 
 or three specimens of the whole fraternity, we remark — here is a man who has 
 borne the name, and made the profession of almost every sect in Chiistendom 
 —say, Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Universalist, Socinian: 
 at last he comes to your society, professing to be a convert to your theology, 
 (though that's all a gratuitous assertion, for mortal ken never yet discerned 
 what it is) he says that 1'ie will jom your fraternity, and at his induction deli- 
 ver an address upon baptism. All this being acceded to, the time arrives when 
 he is to be baptized : and at the water he delivers an harangue of five hours 
 in length, or in other words, gives a recitation of what you have compiled and 
 published upon that ordinance, from the writings of other men. And to crown 
 the inconsistency of the whole, you, sir, the would be star of the west; you, be- 
 come his amanuensis, and the pitiful caterer to this vain man's vanity, by vir- 
 tually professing, to be taking down notes of something new upon the subject, 
 from what this speckled disciple of yours is saying ; whereas, in fact, he is ad- 
 vancing nothing but what is as old as his great-grand- father, i^ow, sir, think 
 you, that if this man had been a poor, humble, broken-hearted sinner, as he 
 ought to have been before he was baptised,thsit he would have had any disposi- 
 tion to obtrude himself upon the notice of men at such a time? particularly, 
 after having exhibited such an unsettled mind through a period of many years 
 as he did, and such a fitful scene of profession and reprofession. Or, sir, if you 
 had been a regenerated man yourself, and a fit person to be a minister of the 
 gospel, do you think that your thoughts, and your gratification, would have 
 been in, or your time and labour devoted to, making a record of what this poor 
 deluded man said about the mode of baptism? no, sir, you would not ; but in- 
 stead of this, your soul would have burned within you to make, if possible, the 
 conversion of this man, had he been converted, the means, under the Holy Ghost, 
 of making your auditors, or the spectators, humble penitents towards God, and 
 spiritual believers in Christ Jesus — and not mtrely proselytes to baptism. In- 
 stead of this, what has been done? the disciple has had his vanity gratified, by 
 being the orater of the day; and rising (like an ignis fatuus from the bog) for 
 a few moments, a little above the level to which nature designed him in the 
 community, to sink again to the same place, confirmed in a delusion, perhaps, 
 that shall only be dissipated in hell : (I mean by delusion, that baptism 
 M salvation.) The vanity of the society to which he has connected him- 
 self, is gratified in being numerieally enlarged; and your vanity, sir, was 
 Ratified, in being recognized, as the mighty agent by which this Jack-o'-the 
 lanthern professor was caught, and safely secured within the pale of your so- 
 ciety. Here then, is an expression of the vanity of your society ; and the 
 same is visible in nearly all your followers. If they read the Scriptures, it is 
 only to get some additional notions about them, to the end, that they may gra- 
 tify their pride and their vanity in the exhibition of these speculations. Their 
 tongues are ever going like the pendulum of a clock, and with as much noise, 
 almost, as the machinery of a steam engine; indeed, it is the fullest trial of 
 the saint's patience to listen to them : and that is the best tiding that results 
 from their acquirements. Some of them say,tliey have been regenerated — 
 some of them say, there is no regeneration — some of them admit, that 
 part of their brethien deny the s]iirit"s influence in any stage of the 
 christian's life, but that they believe it, though they consider disbelief 
 
as nothing' essentially defective in faith — s,ODie oi' them say, that they 
 would never have fellowship with teacher or laymen in their body, who denied 
 the spirit's influence, and that none of their brethren do it ; while others main- 
 tain, that the word is the spirit, and the spirit is the word, and that it is no 
 matter whether there is any spirit or no : meditation, social^ family and closet 
 ■prayer, are, for the most part, esteemed a matter of foolishness with them. I 
 have, sir, you will perceive, made some exceptions among those who are your 
 followers from the character I have been briefly exhibiting of them. Deep - 
 ly do I regret that I iiave to make such exceptions ; I would that all who fol- 
 low you were what I most solemnly believe, and feel well assurred the great- 
 er part are, ungeneraie persons : but I feel afraid, that tliere a»e gracious souls 
 who have been led away after you, as Barnabas was by the dissimulation of 
 false teachers m former times; they are given up, perhaps, to be bufleted hy 
 you, as Peter was by Satan, to the end, that they may learn similar lessons to 
 what he did. For them I feel, sir; and had it not been for them I should have 
 never addressed a line to you, or thought more about you than any other un- 
 regenerated man ; you are filling their eyes with cbaflf, feeding them with 
 husks, and quenching their thirst with waters fouled to the most abomniable 
 stench. But I shall curb the feelings of my soul, until I come to address them 
 in connexion with these letters to you ; to spread out my feelings for them to 
 you, would only be unintelligible jargon in your estimation. Having now 
 given as much of an exhibit of the moral impressions, which your writings 
 and your teachings, make upon the community that give heed thereto, as I 
 deem necessary at present, I shall recapitulate that, together with the previous 
 investigation of your character, in my next and concluding letter, in whick 
 you will have brought to a point the estimation in which you are held by 
 
 A REGULAR BAPTIST. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 In recurrence to what I have written, you will perceive, I mean to be 
 Understood, as saying, that you never gave the Baptist denomination any evi- 
 dence whatever, that your becoming professedly a Baptist yourself was the 
 "answer of a good conscience;" on the contrary, there is much reason to be- 
 lieve, that you left the Pedobaptist ranks, and joined our denomination, from 
 sinister and selfish motives. Tlie whole series of your disposition and conduct 
 toward that body, since you left them, must forcibly impress the mind of every 
 close oDserver of human character, with the conviction, that mingled vanity 
 and rage drive you on in your assault thereof. This conviction is deepened, 
 when we take into notice, (and what is solemnly true) that no Pedobaptist 
 church, possessing any tiling of the power of Godliness, could ever derive any 
 edification, or satisfaction under your ministry, though you were to be as la- 
 borious as Luther. This is a sentiment, in which every regenerated, spiritual 
 man under the heavens, I know, will unite with me. Whatever ability ihey 
 may concede to you, as a teacher of ecclesiastical history, or Biblical critic, 
 they will all unite in saying, that however much you may amuse and instruct 
 the head, you have no access to the believer's heart. You know not any 
 thing of the history of that, from the dawn of regeneration, to the completion 
 of its salvation in the beatific vision. Think, sir, on that 1 ten thousand thou- 
 sand persons of diifercat denomiQations of christians, and many of them fa 
 
79 
 
 every respect your superiors in natural gifts, ■wouW, if they knew yon, declare 
 simultaneoiHly, that you know nothing about the "Hea ealy Gift." Yc--^ 
 the best spirits in even the denomination to -which you now belon*, consider 
 you still dead in trespasses and sins, yea, they know it. As a man of some 
 sense, such a circumstance, if true, must have a solemn impression upon your 
 mind, however much you may appear to hector above all human opinions. 
 The second particular to which we recur is, the subject of your public dispu- 
 tations and v/i itingfs : in all of which, every intelligent man, and humble dis- 
 ciple of the meek and lowly .Jesus, will perceive that you sacrifice to the idoJ 
 self; and all the character that we challeajed, as witnessess to your unrejene- 
 racy, will unite in declaring, that your professed zeal for one denomination is 
 without knowledge, and your hostility to the other but beating the air; that 
 both combined, demonstrate that you are radically ignorant of what are the 
 essential constituents of every Christina church. Were you not ignorant of 
 these things, sir, you would never dare to level such unqualified anathemas 
 against the Pedobaptist churches, particularly agamst that denomination froiri 
 which you seceded. The most common placed mental integrity, would con- 
 strain you to neutralise the obloquy that you have poured upon it. Yea, po- 
 licy would have prompted you to have done it — for we Baptists, generally, 
 are not so bigotted and ignorant, as not to know, and acknowledge to the praise 
 of sovereign grace, that there are, among the Pedobaptist churches, tens of 
 thousands of blood-bought, heaven-born, heaven-bound souls: with them, in 
 all the essential relationship of the gospel, we have refreshing fellowship ; 
 with them, grow up in essential faith ; with them, twin in love, until we shall 
 be forever one, visibly and invisibly, in the glorious head. Yes, and from the 
 ministry of many of them, we Baptists receive the word of di^^ne truth in 
 the comfort of the Holy Ghost, again and again. We know and feel assured 
 that they are pastors after God's otvn heart, and made overseers of the flock of 
 Christ by the Holy Ghost. I say, we Baptists, in general, know and feel assured, 
 that there are many, even of the Pedobaptist ministers, that bear this inteiest- 
 ing relationship to us: and you may rest assured, that you might as well at- 
 tempt to shake the foundations of the earth, as our confidence in them. We 
 dare not call that common or unclean, which the living God has made clean, 
 " by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost ;" such 
 character, let me tell you, sir, will always be transcendently fcigher in our es- 
 timation, as regenerated spiritual Baptists, though they should not observe one 
 ordinance of the New Testament, than that like yours, though you had a 
 " throat of brass, and adamanftine lungs," worn out in contending for our ordi- 
 nances, which we know to be truly gospel ones. I have mentioned sober facts^ 
 sir — you may dispose of them as you ^)lease. The third particular to which 
 we refer, of what has been addressed to you, is the effect that your controver- 
 sies have upon the Baptist denomination generally; and that is, they draw off 
 their attention from fundamental pvnnciples of Godliness, to that which, ab- 
 stractedly considered, can never give them estimation in the sight of God, or 
 man. And little do you know of human nature, in its unregenerate or rege- 
 nerate state, or you would never dare to engross the attention of mankind so 
 much upon the subject of an ordinunce : indeed, were you truly an evangeli- 
 .'•al minister of tlie gospel, you could not do it. But as we have said, your 
 ovideat ignorance of every spirHuai feature of the church of Christ, must it 
 
80 
 
 a measure, plead your apology for spending: all your time in making the dour 
 of the home creak. Nevertheless' you must admit, that it is possible the noise 
 may be productive of disturbance, to even your own family at times; ai^dthat 
 they must, one and all, feel mortified to perceive it is publicly noticed, that 
 one of their household can de nothing else. If you, sir, should succeed in 
 proselyting four-fifths of the Pedobapvtists denomination to the Baptist order, 
 what would be the consequence ? vrhy, that our denomination would become 
 incrustated with that much more wood, hay and stubble ! for I take upon my- 
 self to say, that until God the Holy Ghost makes you a different, and a new 
 creature, that no truly spiritual ['edobaptist would e^-er cast in hi? lot among 
 a people, of who^e character he was to ,}udge by that of yours : no, not if he 
 was never to have connexion with the church mililant. So then, all we can 
 calculate upon of proselytism is, of those from whom we had far better be 
 separated. On the other haad, many alas ! very many of the Baptists, it is to 
 b feared, are, under your auspices, only solicitous to be known by a name., not 
 by a life. If the spirits of departed saints can take cognizance of what 
 transpires here on earth, it appeal's almost impossible, that those devoted, holy, 
 and laborious servants of the cross, who, in sweat, in tears, and groans, and 
 even blood, laid the foundation, under God the Holy Ghost, of the Baptist 
 church in this Hemisphere; I say, one would suppose it almost impossible for 
 them to be calm spectators of such desolation, as you are bringing in upon that 
 spiritual vineyard for which they were spent to the last pulsation of their 
 lives. But an attempt to make application of sentiment to you, sir, 1 am afraid, 
 would be as unavailing as to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. The fact I 
 wish to fix upon your attention is, that you are destroying much of the power 
 and life of religion, in the Baptist denomination, by fixing their attention upon 
 and engrossing their minds with subordinate articles of their faith ; and that 
 this is one of the results of all your debates, writings and orations. Literally, 
 then, you may say, that your "zeal will eat them up." 
 
 The next particular that we shall recapitulate of our previous remark is, 
 that your vanity is gratified, and your pecuniary interest advanced by the 
 whole circle of your doings, and that these combined, are the grand control- 
 ino- principles fiom which you act. You pass for a man of vast comprehen- 
 sion of mind, and great attainments of knowledge ; upon the same ground that 
 what we call a common stone, is considered a wonder in some of the southern 
 sections of the country, and gains the appellation of a rock, or that Guilliver 
 passed for a giant among the Lilliputians. But, sir, whatever may be the 
 amount of your knowledge., which I venture to say is nothing extraordinary, 
 your judgement is certainly miserably defective, or you would never have 
 supposed, that your intrinsic character could remain hid from the eye of men 
 of experience, under the flimsy veil of your sectarian zeal ; and that they 
 would not perceive the "Csesaraut Nihil" was your motto. While men of 
 sense will readily discern the ambition of your projects, those of the most 
 commonplaced ability, in business calculation, will be enabled to furnish 
 themselves with conclusive testimony, that by the publication of your De- 
 bates on baptism, and your mere sounding " Christian Baptist," you wheedle 
 the Baptists, and others of the community, out of as much money as woald 
 cover the salary of nine out of ten, at least, of the Baptist ministers. 
 
81 
 
 I shall here enter into a brief calculation of the pecuniary advantages result- 
 ing to you from your publications. In the first place then, we have your first 
 Debate upon Baptism, in a volume of about 200 pages. Of this book, I should 
 say that its publication did not stand you more than 37 1-2 cents pei volume. 
 This I say with the fullest conviction that it is a fact, unless you choose 
 to pay extra prices for the VFork, which is not likely to have been the case. .A.s 
 a particular evidence for the correctness of the foregoing assertion, I may ob- 
 serve, that about the same time you published your first Debate on Baptism,! 
 was interested in the publication of a book, altogether superior in materials 
 to yours, of 360 pages, and that did but cost 45 cents per volume; add to this, 
 my book was published in a part of the country, where the price of labour 
 and material for making up a book is 33 1-3 per cent, more than it is in O'uo, 
 where you published your first Debate — For the said first Debate you 
 charged 75 cents. In the publication of your second Debate, I take upon me 
 to say that youdid^ or that you could have published it at an expense not ex- 
 ceeding 50 cents per volume : and for that your price to your friends is f 1 25* 
 The number of copies that you had printed of the fiist was 2000, and you 
 sold the copy-right for 300 dollars, I will suppose that the whole of both 
 debates will be sold by the middle of the year eighteen hundred and twenty- 
 five. From this data we shall have the following exhibit to give of the case-^ 
 
 Dr. Publication of Debate on Baptism. Cr. 
 
 By 2000 copies of Debate 
 with Mr. Walker, at 75 cents 
 per copy, 1500 00 
 
 By sales of 6500 copies of 
 Debate with M'Calla, at 1 25 
 Iper copy, 8125 00 
 
 By sale of copy-right of De- 
 bate with Mr. Walker, 300 00 
 
 To 2000 copies of Debate 
 with Mr. Walker, at 37 1-2 
 per copy. 750 00 
 
 To 6500 copies of Debate 
 with M'Calla, at 50 cents, per 
 copy, 3250 00 
 
 To incidental expenses of 
 distributing said Debate, in- 
 cluding contingent losses, say 
 12 1-2 cents per volume. 1062 501 9925 00 
 
 To Balance 4862 50 I 
 
 $,-9925 00 By Balance $1862 50 
 
 Now, sir, it appears that you have made the sum of 5000 dollars, within a 
 fraction, clear profit, when your books are disposed of; this we suppose will be 
 done by the middle of the ensuing year, at which time there will have been 
 five years elapsed since the debate with Mr. Walker. This will show, that 
 you have been writing and preaching and debating upon the ordinance of Bap- 
 tism, (a scrap of our faith,) without any inducement whatever, but your seal 
 for the Baptists and regard for the truth, excepting, tht mere sum of 1000 dol- 
 lars per annum; which in the western country, where you live, is equal to 2000 
 dollars in Boston, J^ew York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore.' Where did this 
 money come from ^ did it not come principally from the Baptists f it did, uor 
 have they had any better value for it than you suppose them to receive by send- 
 ing their dollars to convert the Laplander or the Hindoos. So much, sir, by 
 way of redeeming our pledge, to prove that you are not the disinterested 
 champion for the truth that you profess to be — that your eye sometimes is di- 
 rected to the glittering clifls of Potosi. It is perfectly natural, sir, that yoa 
 should attempt to persuade every body, that you are governed by no sordid 
 motive? in any thing that yoi^ do : but really sir, it is "passing strange" that 
 
 M 
 
82 
 
 men should be so credulous as to believe you, with such facts stariag them in 
 the face : it shows that they are prone to " swallow without pause or choice, 
 the total ^rist unsifted, husks and all," so that it is sweetened with a little 
 adulation, of their civic, their moral, their intellectual worth. We shall say 
 nothin;^ at present about your "Christian Baptist," as being a source of re? 
 venue to you ; if you have, however, even a thousand subscribers, for that, I 
 will undertake to prove, that you clear 300 dollars by it per annum; and even 
 that sum is more than nine out of ten of the Baptist ministers of these western 
 states get per annum; perhaps I mi°;ht be safe in saying, that it is twice as much 
 as they receive. What! envy them a paltry $150, when you get 10 to 1300 
 dollars — what, deem them overpaid by 150 dollars, who preach all the glori- 
 ous truths of the gospel, and who labour incessantly to inspire spiritual life 
 and universal holiness into the church, when you receive 10 to $1300 for 
 mere disquisition upon an outward ordinance ! or things allied to it ! Nor does 
 it escape observation, that you are giving evidence, that you consider the pre- 
 sent slage of your operations but the mere seed time in pecuniary results, that 
 you calculate, e'er long, on throwing a considerable part of the religious 
 community around you into such a state of anarchy, as to make any kind of 
 order tliatyou may dictate desirable. In such an event you would know, no 
 doubt, how to fix your price for your interference. You have, Ho doubt, a full 
 account of aW. costs. Here let me say, sir, that while from my soul I abhor all 
 extravagance, luxury, and covetousness in the ministers of the gospel, as 
 much as you, or any other man can, on the other hand I must say, that the 
 manner in which you declaim against all pecuniary compensation to the min- 
 isters of the gospel, proves, in itself, without refering to many other evidences 
 that jexist, that you are.absolutely ignorant of the essential relationship subsist- 
 ing between the pastor alter God's own heart, and the flock of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and as a man, destitute of the spirit of the living God, who alone can 
 give adaptation to the olfice of the ministry; or indeed, make one jot or tittle of 
 efficient application of the salvation of Christ to the human soul; as such a 
 man it would be a futile attempt on my part, to furnish your mind with any 
 just perceptions on that subject. Till God the Holy Ghost does it, the subject 
 in any and every form of language, would appear but foolishness in your eyes. 
 All this remark, a spiritual people and a spiritual minister, know to be true, to 
 whatever denomination they may belong ; and you may as soon expect to al- 
 lure the living to the embrace of a putrescent carcass, as to draw the " Israe- 
 lite iudeed," the truly lively and devotional believer, from the pastor of his 
 choice, to such a character as you are among ministers. 
 
 The nest thing we shall refer to of our remarks, is, the effort you are making 
 to render obsolete all forms of faith and church order. In this attempt of 
 yours we must positively consider you a fool, or designing to disorganize, and 
 overthrow all social compact in the religious community. We have already 
 expressed our conviction, that it results from your design to produce anarchy ; 
 that in the end you may dictate what shall be faith and order, and yonr own 
 terms for which that shall be done. We may pause, to decide whether there 
 should be pity or indignation felt toward you. Certainly you ought not to 
 calculate upon offering such an insult to the understanding of sensible men in 
 the Baptist deuomiiiatiori, as is found in your proposition to lay aside their 
 
S3 
 
 faith and order, without expecting their contempt or their frowns; th.s cir- 
 <7Uinstance itself demonstrates to every reflecting mind, that you are no Bap- 
 tist ; only after the willof the flesh! no, nor ever have been. 
 
 The next feature of the subject that we have brought to your view, which 
 we shall retouch is, the general character of your adherents, or disciples' 
 (teachers and pupils ;) in view of which, are you not rather abashed at the 
 motley group ! teachers advancing sentiments and doctrines oae day, that they 
 gainsay another— acknowledging that tlicy h;id been for years instructing 
 others in the gospel of Christ, while disbelieving the very fundameatals of it 
 themselves ; and even in the concession of their ignorance themselves m the 
 past, giving no jot or tittle of evidence, ihat they eveu now beliere in, or feel 
 the truths they have been ignorant of. Teachers, of wnose views no definite 
 opinion can be formed, by learned or unlearned; whose heareri say, alternate- 
 ly, that they are Antmomians, Sandemaaians, or Socinians, and in the aggre- 
 gate, that they cannot tell what they say, or know whereof they atfirm : whde 
 their immediate adherents say, away with all forms of faith and order ; we 
 be freemen; we will read and think, and judge for ourselves — our Elder 
 thinks one thing, we another — ^we had such and such views yesterday — to- 
 day we have different ones — and to morrow we calculate upon having opin- 
 ions at variance with all we have heretofore entertained : this they call the 
 liberty of the gospel — a mark of mental independence — the evidence of their 
 growing in the knowledge of Scriptures. They profess to feel great satisfac- 
 tion ia reading the Bible, to have much peace and joy in their attainments of 
 knowledge. Now, the truth is, that in every stage of their experience, the 
 pride of their minds, the vanity of their hearts, being gratified, is the sole 
 cause "^f their satisfaction. Indeed, the whole of your fraternity, from first to 
 last, including yourself, sir, are flatterers of each other — they say, that there 
 is no teacher like you — you respond, there is no people so well instructed and 
 intelligent as them. You recollect, I suppose, who " obtained a kingdom by 
 flatteries." Bear in mind also, that it is written upon good authority, "he 
 who speaketh flattery to his friends, even the eyes of his children shall fail"-— 
 and that the characteristic of an evangelical minister is, " not to use flattering 
 ■words;" for, that is to be considered, and set down, as "a cloak of covetous- 
 ness" after fame or emolument, or both. Now, it is not my wish to be under- 
 stood as disapproving of all possible devotedness to the perusal of the Scrip- 
 tures: on the contrary, I think your fraternity worthy of imitation in this par- 
 ticular ; but I wish to be understood, as saying, that, generally., they read for 
 no other object, and to no other end, than to grow wise in their own conceit: 
 and you know it is written, " that there is more hope of fools," than such char- 
 acters. You will, I persuade myself, looK over the address to the Baptist 
 churches appended to these letters ; in that you will see some of the contrast 
 which I conceive the real and the spiritual believer bears to the character of 
 your adherents. For the present I relieve your attention, with simply observ- 
 ing, that it was not for your sfike that I have made a recapitulation of my 
 former remarks io this last letter, but for the sake of those whose minds may 
 not be so well disciplined in recollection, as yours. 
 
 A REGULAR BAPTIST. 
 
 N. B. I shall trouble you with a few lines more, rather than swell Ihe last 
 fetter to greater dimension?. 
 
84 
 
 Sir, 
 
 In view of what I have exhibited of your character, from the fairest 
 ground of conjecture, and from the face of your doings, since you have been a 
 professed Baptist, together with the notification, that the same estimate is form- 
 ed of you by far the greatest, if not all the really spiritual and intelligent part 
 of the Baptists that have knowledge of you ; from these circumstances com- 
 bined, I say, one might hope, that you will fall a little from the loftiness of 
 your self-complacency. Perhaps, in the reminiscences which the considera- 
 tion of the subject v.5^11 produce, the language of the prophet may come up to 
 your :iiind, where he says, " Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride 
 of thy heart, O thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that boldest the 
 hei^bt of the hill ; though thou shouldest make thy nest as high as the eagle, 
 1 will bring thee down from thence, saith the Lord." Confident that you 
 hare an und ue and deleterious influence in the Baptist church, I would wish to 
 see it destroyed. To this end I am now writing to you ; believing that noth- 
 ing is necessary to the accomplishment of the object, but to rouse the minds of 
 the Baptists around you to an investigation of your character, similar to that 
 which I have given an outline of — " the death of reflection, is the birth of all 
 wo; f ' '■ vuen churches sleep, the enemy will sow tares. Hence, good will 
 to the Bapiisl cause, and not ill will to you sir, moves me to address these re- 
 ma; ht to you for the public eye. I am fully persuaded, that you are every 
 day sinking the character of the Baptist church in these western states, both 
 in ibe estimation of the truly religious and irreligious. All you do, all you 
 say, together with your satellites, is fathered upon the regular Baptist church 
 — doctrines hov, ever horrible — practices however corrupt — observances how- 
 ever fool'sh — incousisiencies however numerous — and speculations however 
 atsu. D, incongruous and versatile, that prevail in your fraternity, are all set 
 down to the account of the Baptist denomination. Does not the blush crim- 
 son p.ad burn your cheek, sir, when you see the mental dishonesty, the moral 
 tUiplUide that is implied in the fact of your having threw around you the 
 . haLiiiments of a Baptist profession, to the end, that you might, unsuspectedly, 
 propagate sentiments and doctrines directly at variance with, and disgrace- 
 ful to the Baptist church ! but " vengeance belongs unto God." The Lord re- 
 buke thee in the chambers of your own conscience ; then you will be the first 
 to acknowledge, that of such character, and such conduct it may be truly said, 
 " O full of all subtlety, thou child of the devil, will thou not cease to pervert 
 the right ways of the Lord."' I assure you, that I entertain no idea of moral 
 superiority over and above you by. nature; that in an unregenerated state, 1 
 know myself capable of practising all the trick and manoeuvre that you have 
 been practising, to get a name in the world ; that the pride of the human 
 heart iu its native language, is in accordance with Satan's, when he says, "better 
 to reign in hell than serve in heaven." The principle that appears chiefly to 
 govern you, is, what the world, in its severest judgment, calls "the infirmity 
 of a noble spirit ;" but then, you must not be surprised if others should feel 
 somewhat indignant while suffering under the devastating freaks of that 
 " nobis spirit ;" or, if they raise a warning voice to their neighbours of its 
 presence, particularly when it comes dressed in long and flowing Phylacteries 
 with disinterested zeal — universal reformation — absolute equality — and con- 
 summate perfection written thereon. 
 
-;• 85 
 
 You are, sir, a citizen of America; and as such, free to worship God alter the 
 dictates of your own conscience, to profess to believe, or not believe, in any, 
 or every part of the Bible — to advance whatever doctrines you please in the 
 community, unless in hostility to the known laws of the land. But you are not 
 at liberty^ sir, to profess a connexion with any religious denomination when you 
 are advancing doctrines diamelrically opposite to theirs. What head of a reli- 
 gious family is there in the community, but would feel indignant, were you 
 to enter his house, and having gained some general ideas of his family affairs, 
 go forth into the world, and make use of that information as an evidence, that 
 you were his son, or otherwise nearly related to him ! and how would his in- 
 dignation be increased if he found, that you were passmg yourself off as his 
 son, while living in the practice of theatrical buffooneries, or any other land 
 of habits at variance with that respectability of himself and family, which you 
 were r^fering to, and making use of, to command attention from, and influence 
 with others ! certainly, every man would conceive you deserving of rebuke 
 for taking such unjustifiable liberties with his good name : indeed, it would be 
 fairly considered as the worst species of robbery — and can similar conduct be 
 more authorised because it is practised on a large body'* certainly not — and 
 here is the particular point upon which I found all my reason for considering 
 you deserving of public exposure. Come forth, sir, to our view, what you 
 really are! but not as a genuine Baptist — for you now are, and have been, try- 
 ing to overthrow the faith, the order and the ministry of that for years past . 
 Come out then, sir, in your real character, and with your real sentiments — 
 tell us candidly, that you do not believe in what we emphatically denominate 
 regeneration, or in the Spirit's special influences at all — tell us, that you consi- 
 der a man eligible to baptism without one word of inquiry as to what God has 
 done for his soul, and upon his bare declaration that he believes — tell us, that 
 you do not believe the moral law of God to be a rule of life for the believer ! — 
 tell us, that you do not believe that preaching the gospel since the completion 
 of New Testament revelation has the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ — tell 
 us, that you have no fellowship with any forms of faith or church discipline — 
 tell us, that you have no confidence in the exercise of prayer, as a means of 
 grace, or, estimation of it, as a believer's privilege : and that, in proof thereof 
 you have been entirely neglectful of it even in your own family for years past — 
 tell us these things openly, declare them explicitly, and merit the name of a can- 
 did man. You are at full liberty, and under positive obligation to do so. You 
 will then give the public a reasonable pledge, that you are governed by no 
 sinister, nor improper motives. The Baptist denomination will then be an- 
 swerable for the palpable inconsistency of holding connexion with a man whose 
 sentiments are in direct opposition to that faith and order which they hold up 
 to public view, as the foundation of their spiritual hope, and bond of their visi- 
 ble existence. Had you done this, sir, at a proper time, no one would have 
 had any cause to reproach you; and multitudes who now shun you as a rfe- 
 ceiver, would have been pleased to have met with you upon principles of or- 
 dinary intercourse, and interchanged the feelings of social amity — among 
 whom, sir, I assure you with the utmost sincerity and truth, I may mention 
 myself; believing as 1 do, that as a natural man, you have a good share of those 
 attractions of mind and manners, which beguile the tedium of life, and smooth 
 its rugged path. Before I close, indulge me with permission to repeat, tliat my 
 
86 
 
 own judgment dictates solely and wholly, in this address to you: that if my 
 wretched heart does not deceive roe, I have had the best of motives in endea- 
 rouring to poui-tray your character, as being opposite to what you profess it 
 to be, under the name of a BaptistI Upon a review of what I have written, I 
 do not think any injustice is done to the subject. I am sensible, however, that 
 infirmities will ever characterize me in all I attempt to do while in the flesh ; 
 and that iniquity belongs to my most holy things. I have endeavoured to write 
 with death, eternity and judgment before my eyes; and to keep up an earriest 
 desire and pi-ayer in my soul, that I might not unnecessarily inflict any wound 
 upon your feelings, or that of any other person. You are, sir, and all whom I 
 haA'e adverted to as like you, in these letters, my fellow man, fellow immortal, 
 and fellow sinner. If you and they are under the fatal mistake, and in the aw- 
 ful darkness that I believe you to be, the foregoing address may be made use 
 of, by that God who delights to make use of the weakest things to accomplish 
 the greatest qi purposes, to your essential benefit;' as I hope he will to the be- 
 nefit of liis people in the Baptist church, where your influence is felt. At all 
 events, I feel satisfied, that my soul is big with inexpressible desire, that you 
 and all who drink into your particular views in religion, may realize the over- 
 shadowing and indwelling power of the Holy Ghest, who only can make an 
 effectual and saving application of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to your 
 precious souls. I now take my leave of you, sir, after informing you that my 
 real name I wish to conceal in reference to this publication; not that I want to 
 avoid any responsibility connected with what I have written. No; my name 
 is at your serviee through the medium, of the printer hereof, when you may 
 think proper to demand it in propria persona; provided, you give a fair rea- 
 son for having it communicated to you. I have not written to you without 
 counting the costs. It has been severely painful to my feelings while speak- 
 ing in any respect harshly to you — but, sir, you have struck, and are striking 
 at my faith. " 'Tis my glory, the lifter up of my head" from every billow of 
 aiiliction — yea, more, 'tis the glory of the Baptist denomination. And well it 
 may be; for without any qualification, it makes Jesus Christ all and in all of 
 the sinner's hope; it gives to the adorable three in one, their respective, proper 
 and full share in the salvation of the elect. Moreover, many of that denomi- 
 nation, together with myself, not only charge you with attacking our faith, 
 (this had it been done openly we could, we must have borne) but it has been 
 done insidiously by you. " There's the rub:" this consideration, perhaps, has 
 roused more resentment in writing to you than I ought to have felt. But in 
 perfect coolness I now tell you in my concluding sentence, that my pen is but 
 the echo of ten thousand voices when I say, that you ought to be divested of the 
 name of "• the Christian Baptist," and known by that of " the Theological ad- 
 venturer.'''' . 
 
 A REGULAR BAPTIST. 
 
9,7 
 
 To the regular Baptist Churches, scattered throughout the. 
 Western tSection of the United IStates. 
 
 BRETHREN, BELOVF.D OF THE LoRD, 
 
 As many of you as read the foregoing; letters to Alexander Campbell 
 will, I hope, be disposed, in justice to him and to yourselves, to give every 
 possible investigation to the subject of which it treats; and like the noble Be- 
 rscans, "search if these things be so." Yes, brethren, search, search his whole 
 life as far as possible; it is high time he should be fully known to you, for he 
 is either your very zealous, though ignorant advocate, and therefore wants 
 your Aquila's and Priscilla's to direct his zeal according to knowledge, or he 
 is an enemy in disguise and ought to be exposed. You cannot, brethren, but, 
 perceive, upon a most common-place notice of this man's life, since he has beeiii' 
 among you, that you, as a denomination, have been made the citadel of hi? 
 safety, while throwing the shafts of his hostility at other denominations; par- 
 ticularly at that one with which you most assuredly stand in the greatfest de- 
 gree of fellowship. 
 
 The question then is, whether Mr. C. represents your feelings towards the 
 Presbyterian and other Paedo-bnptist churches, ag-ainst whom he "breathes 
 out threateuings and slaughter?" if he does, let us know what cause they have 
 given for this interminable rage. But I need not put this sort of question to 
 you, being fully persuaded that your greatest partiality is towards that very 
 church which Mr. C appears to hate with the most deadly hatred. It is but 
 reasonable that it should be so; for with all their spots and imperfections^ they 
 approach the nearest to what is your glory as a denomination, I mean experi- 
 mental religion and solid piety. Perhaps, brethren, you are indulging your- 
 selves in a little merriment,, by allowing Vlr. C. to go out in your name to chal- 
 lenge, and even attack, with his single arm, the formidable phalanx of the 
 Paedo-baptist churches, indeed, brethren, apart from other considerations, and 
 it is really amusing. You have an exhibit of the freaks which human vanity 
 can play, and how it can make a man fanc}' himself a Plercules, and push him 
 forth m quesL of adventures for his prowess, when indeed, he is but a pigmy; 
 and that he can draw out from the deep leviathan, with a hook that his own 
 fingers have fashioned. But, brethren, you will, I hope, seriously redectthat 
 the animosity which Mr. C. exhibits towards the Pedo-baptists, will be re- 
 garded, at least very generally, as your feelings towards them, so long as he 
 shall have a name and place among you. Think, I say, seriously, of that breth- 
 ren, and judge you, whether it is not taking away from you the ornament of a 
 meek and quiet spirit ! if it is not getting you the character of a tribe of Ish- 
 maelites, whose hand is against every one, rather than the name of a church 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, walking i'n the fear of God, the comfort of the Holy 
 Ghost,, and living peaceably with all men. Then, the next question is, will 
 you indulge your humour, or gratify the vanity of Mr. C. at the expense of 
 that good name of yours, which has been like ointment poured forth.-' besides, 
 brethren, you may rely upon it, that no man, mucii less any body of men, ever 
 familiarized themselves even to the fighting of dung-hill cocks, or little surly 
 rnrs, but what found themselves gradually warmed up to fighting temperil • 
 
88 
 
 ineut! hence, saith the wise man, in the maturity of wisdom, "leave off con- 
 tention before it be meddled with ; cast out the scorner and contention will 
 cease." Now, brethren, the proposition I have just advanced, is known to be 
 true to every one of any observation on human life. It was by the exhibition 
 of different kinds of fighting among beasts and men, that ambitious demagogues 
 and mily politicians of old, were wont to brutalize the feelings, and render fe- 
 rocious the dispositioH of the common people, to the end, that they might be 
 prepared for all manner of violence and rapacity that their headers might see 
 fit to direct them to. You will understand, that these demagogues pretended 
 to have only the pleasure and amusement of their fellow-citizens in view, in the 
 exhibitions alluded to. Now, the same or similar causes will always produce 
 similar effects. It makes no difference where the contention goes on; in church 
 or state, in city or family: when men see contention and fighting, as we saidf 
 they begin to wax warm on different sides of the fray — the brea*h quickens, 
 the pulse doubles, the eye rolls, the hands clinch, the fist smites, almost un- 
 consciously to themselves. Ah, and this Mr. C. knows right well too; and hav- 
 ing had you for two or three years spectators of his own personal combats, or fa- 
 miliarized your minds to a mew of his own fightings, you will find, perhaps 
 too late, that the object contemplated by Mr. C. was to prepare you for dissen- 
 tions and fightings among yourselves; to the end, that he might share the spoils 
 by making you a divided people. Already, brethren, it is to be feared, that 
 many of you are much more ambitious to make it known, that you have a va- 
 riety of Greek prepositions, Latin verbs, and Hebrew roots in your heads, than 
 the incorruptible seed of divire truth abiding in your hearts. Already many 
 of you are disposed to contend more for the faith once delivered to the saints, 
 in noisy, empty words, than by a well ordered life, and a holy conversation. Is 
 this not the case? or if you refuse to answer that question, at least, brethren, 
 solemnly and prayerfully inquire of your souls, individually before God, soul I 
 soul ! of what profit to thee is the spleen and declamation of Alexander Camp- 
 bell or any other man against any body of people? does, or can it ever add one 
 jot or tittle to the spiritual prosperity of the church to which I belong? If it is 
 evident that no benefit results from attention thereto, it is certainly both fool- 
 ish and wicked to have the fleeting moments of our fleeting lives, occupied 
 therewith: then, brethren, if you do not wish to have Mr. C's animosity to- 
 wards other denominations chargeable to you, you must learn him to be quiet. 
 
 You have, brethren, in your church, a justly regulated observance of the 
 only two ordinances of divine appointment in the New Testament dispensa- 
 tion, binding in common upon all the disciples of the Lord J esus Christ; they 
 'are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Before any person is entitled to the first, 
 you professedly believe, that " he must be born again:" — born of the adorable 
 Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ; or to use the apostle's strong and comprehen- 
 sive language upon the subject, he must experience " the washing of regene- 
 ration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" that to baptize any one who does not 
 give evidence of this change of heart, (not a change merely in the head,) is aw- 
 ful presumption, abominable blasphemy, and a deed of darkness, which is em- 
 phatically to mimick the kingdom of the Lord J esus Christ. Now, brethren, 
 the next inquiry is, whether or no Mr. C. has ever given evidence that he is a 
 regenerated man? if he has not, then you must necessarily consider him an 
 
89 
 
 '' evil tree," and you know, upon good authority, that " an evil tree cannot bring, 
 forth ^ood fruit," neither towards God nor man, spiritually. You may as soon, 
 and as reasonably, expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles,as 
 any real and spiritual benefit from the services of an unregenerate man; be 
 they ever so numerous and extensive, they will all amount to nothing more, as 
 res;">ects the Church of Christ, than the many things which Herod did. Now, 
 I say solemnly, and in the fear of God, that there is great, if not unqualified 
 reason to conclude, that .VTr. C. is an unregenerated man. The reasons for my 
 believing so you will have seen in the preceding letters addressed to him. One 
 solitary circumstance, however, of the many which I have noticed as evidence 
 of hiS unregeneracy, is all that 1 deem necessary to settle the point with you ; 
 that is, there is every reason to conclude from his writings and orations, toge- 
 ther with the general sentiments of his adherents, that he does not so much as 
 believe in the Spirit'' s immediate influences upon the soul, in ike first, or ani/ fol- 
 lowing stage of thej)eliever''s life. 
 
 I know, brethren, that it is said, with some degree of plausibility, that there 
 is reason for suspending judgment on Mr. C. in that respect, because many 
 good meaning people are held in doubt; alternately believing that he does, or that 
 he does not acknowledge a belief in the doctrines alluded to. O ! heavens! and 
 has it come to this pass, that Baptist churches will suffer themselves to wait 
 six or eight years to learn whether or not one of their professed ministers be- 
 lieves in the Holy Ghost, as the mighty, special and direct agency of all efli- 
 cient conversion in the human soul ! What next ? wait six or eight years to 
 ascertain whether or not some other of their ministers believes in the Divinity 
 or Godhead of Jesus Christ ! What next? wait six or eight years to inquire 
 whether or not some other of their ministers acknowledge the being of a God ! 
 What next .'' wait to the end of our lives to know whether or not we are to 
 have any ;jar/ of our faith admitted as the truth; and quietly sink into hell 
 while in the attitude of humbly waiting upon iMr. C. and other innovators, for 
 something which they mai/ call believing. It ought not to be a matter of ques- 
 tion for one moment, with any regular Baptist, or any real and spiritual chris- 
 tian, as to who and what that man is, who, as a minister of the gospel, even 
 neglects to preach the doctrine of the new birth by the Holy Ghost sent down 
 from heaven. No, nor will it be a matter of question with any intelligent 
 spiritual christian, of whatever denomination they may be ! they will one and 
 all ])ronounce him to be an unregenerated man, and an impostor. We repeat, 
 that there is no necessity of his saying in so many words, he don't believe in it; 
 if he does not preach it, he virtually denies it, and ought to be estimated ac- 
 cordingly! The devil, brethren, is never so dangerous, as when he assumes the 
 form of an angel of light, and comes into the churclies with great profession of 
 zeal for ordinances, and some part of the truth: but not the whole truth. You 
 will recollect, the Lord Jesus Christ has admonished us, that not every one 
 that even says Lord! Lord ! unto him, shall enter the kingdom of heaven : as 
 if he had said, you already know, that he who denies me to be the Lord Jeho- 
 vah, has no saving; knowledge of me, I now tell you what shall surprise you 
 
 •N 
 
9t) 
 
 more, that there shall be many that shall give me every name of honour and 
 distinction, as (rod over all, who, nevertheless shall not enter into heaven. 
 Brethren, if the Devil was to be permitted his choice of devices against the 
 Baptist churches, I should expect it to be exhibited in a flaming zeal for their 
 ordinances^ and earnest vociferation of the name of Christ, as Lord, Lord. He 
 knows that they love the ordinances, and are delighted to hear the name of 
 Jesus exalted. Under these circumstances, suppose hira to select an instru- 
 jnent for the infliction of some disastrous injury upon you : it would be of an 
 individual of the best outside appearance, and one that would have the most 
 imtiring zeal for the minutia of your faith, as the Pharisees of old had for mint, 
 rue, r.nd cummin ; in your attention to which, he would praise and commend 
 you above all others, and insensibly lift up your minds in pride, and a disposi- 
 tion to measure and compare yourselves with those around you ; contrary to 
 the command given us to kno\y no man after the flesh, but to judge, if we 
 would judge correctly, by the fruit of the spirit ; whicfws, love, joy, peace, 
 long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. He would 
 be full of exclamation of " Lord, Lord, we prophecy in thy name :" that is, 
 not denying the eternal power and Go(J head of Jesus Christ, but readily ac- 
 knowledging him to be the King of kings, and Lord of lords ; the Almighty's - 
 Fellow, and Father's equal ; Creator, Upholder, final Judge, and Disposer of 
 all worlds ; together, with the admission of his being the end of sin, by the sa- 
 crifice of himself, and the Lord, our everlasting righteousness. Here, how- 
 ever, he would stop ; having charmed your ears with these great swelling 
 words, and words without knowledge, he would have you to repose upon these 
 abstract truths ; because all these things you might hear, and read, and histori- 
 cally believe, to the end of your lives, and be damned as certainly as Satan 
 himself is ! Wherever there is a ministry that stops here, you may rely upon it, 
 that there is a devil in, and destruction folio wing it — it is Satan transformed in- 
 to an angel of light — it is hell moving to deceive, and make a prey of the human 
 soul, in its master stroke of machination. To accomplish that, it will be no 
 marvel if the Devil, in some instances, gives up all reference to pecuniary con- 
 siderations ; particularly, if it is likely to give his doings the greater appear- 
 ance of good intentions. However, he generally makes a liberal compensa- 
 tion to his agents, in some way or other : and if he does not permit them t© 
 touch the fleece of the sheep, he will, perhaps, give them a fat flourishing ewe 
 from the goat-herd. 
 
 But to return to the subject immediately before us : and, of all such minis- 
 try, we must say, that it is but an illustraiion of the words of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ already quoted ; namely, " not every one that saith Lord, Lord unto 
 me shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." No, brethren, we profess to be- 
 lieve, that God the Holy Ghost, only, can make a saving application of thg 
 gospel of Christ to our souls, by its immediate, enlightening and regenerating 
 influences : that, without this, the gospel is but a dead letter. We profess to 
 bebeve, that the adorable Spiiit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is 
 the great, the glorious, the soul refreshing promise of the J^ew, as Jesus Christ 
 was the promise of the Old Testament. What think you then of the man, as a 
 minister in your denomination, who never preaches this doctrine? What to 
 
91 
 
 best, is all equivocation in his remarks upon it? and who, in truth, does not be- 
 lieve in it? ave you going lo call such a one, brother ! can you, as inin/slrr;! and 
 ]^eo[)]e, possibly consider yuursdves at lihcrly^ to welcome to your churches, 
 and phice in your pulpits, a man entertaining such sentiments as these? a man, 
 that will tell you, there is no spirit to rengenerate and quicken in righteous- 
 ness ; no Holy Ghost for those who ask it of God : no comforter for the saints 
 now : no spirit to make intercession for them with groanings which are unut- 
 terable ; or, to bear witness with their spirits, that they are the children of 
 God; and to seal them heirs of heaven. O! brethren, what a rent is here 
 made in the rock of your salvation! the heavens become shrouded, the sun of 
 righteousness is hid from your eyes, the stars of glory's firmament vanish from 
 your view. What craelly, injustice and fraud is there contained in the at- 
 tempt to fill your hearts with unbelief in this glorious doctrine. I repeat, that 
 it is the master stroke of hell's machinations against your souls', that as many of 
 you as indulge in any such sentiments, you have reason to consider yourselves 
 reprobates ; and that if you die in this state, you must inevitably be damned. 
 So, then, you were under delusion, when you thought, that God the Holy 
 Ghost convinced you of sin, of righteousness, and judgment to come; whea 
 you saw and fclf, your hearts all deceitfulness and desperately wicked ; when 
 you were broken and contrite in spirit ; when ynu felt your souls to draw nigh 
 unto the grave, and your lives to the destroyers. You were under a delusion, 
 then, when you thought that God, by the Holy Ghost, gave you the oil of joy 
 'or mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness. You have been 
 under a delusion, then, in the thousand instances wherein you thought, that 
 you found fellowship with the Father and Son, and communion with the Holy 
 Ghost. You have been mistaken when you have thought that at a throne of 
 grace, in prayer and supplication, God has lifted your souls from a sea of trou- 
 ble to a peace that passed all understanding ; from awful wretchedness, to joy 
 unspeakable. You have been mistaken too, when reading the Scriptures, 
 you thought you sav , in a moment, a glory, and fulness, and loveliness, in the 
 salvation of the cross; and through the august agenci/ of the Holt/ Ghost, that 
 surpassed the power of language .to describe, and greater than you could ever 
 have acquired, through a life of ten thousand years, unoperated upon bj' that 
 Spirit who reveals the things that belong unto Christ. You then, and all the 
 precious souls, of those highly intellectual, gifted, holy and spiritual mea 
 whose memories are embalmed in hymns, and psalms, and sjiiritual songs, as 
 well as other impressive, soothing, sanctifying writings ; you, T say, and they» 
 have all been uuder a delusion, a phantasy of the brain; for Mr. C. says so- 
 Ah! Mr. Cs. master is a bold and imprudent accuser : he had the audacity t6 
 tell the Almighty to hisfacp, that he did not believe in his servant Job's erpc' 
 rience ; neithfc^ in lh:.t of " Jushua and his fellows," whom he followed to hea- 
 ven, to deride and accuse as fanatics. And you, my brethren, are to expect 
 Satan, and all unregenerated men, to treat your holy things as swine treat 
 pearl. "The natural man understandeth not the things of the spirit, for they are 
 foolishness to him: neither indeed, can he understand them, for they are spirit- 
 ually discerned." He may nevertheless, talk and write with as much volu- 
 bility, energy of language, and splendour of conception, about the Lord Jesu 
 Christ, as did Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, converse with Job about the Ab 
 
9i2 
 
 mighty. Yet they could never say, with Job, that they knew " their Redeem- 
 er lived." And in the end, Jehovah rebuked them for their empty declama- 
 tion ahoiit himself; and his wrath fell upon them while he told them, "ye 
 have not spoken of me the thin^j that is right, as my servant Job hath." Job 
 fell that he knew the Almighty, for ht had his spirit in his soul. The other? 
 were full of confidence, that they knew Jehovah as well as Job! but the latter 
 knew they ivere deceived. And God made it manifest they were so in the end. 
 Parallell to this, is the case between those who have, and those who have not 
 the spirit of God in these days. They may both talk or write equally well 
 in a certain degree, of Christ ; but those who have the spirit will know that 
 the other is blind, when he says he sees, and sinking to hell when professmg 
 to be soaring to heaven. Of the latter character, I feel but too much afraid 
 Mr. C. is. But you will make it I hope, a subject of due enquiry : and if it 
 is so, will you, can you, dare you profess fellowship with such a man? will you 
 suffer him to blaspheme the Holy Ghost (for it is nothing less than blcisphemy) 
 by preaching to you in the name of Jesus Christ, without reference to the glo- 
 rious oifice of that adorable Spirit, in the economy of salvation.' alas! so far ag 
 you do so, it is ominous of the most fearful and disastrous consequences to your 
 unity, peace, and spiritual prosperity. Whatever may be the scene of trial, of 
 confusion, and of temporary sacrifice of your personal feelings ; you are called 
 upon, by every consideration of fealty to Jesus Christ, of obedience to his pre- 
 cepts, of honour for his gospel, of regard for his cause, and the welfare of Zion 
 as well as respect for your personal religion, to tear ofi" and cast from you, as a 
 deadly viper, every individual infested with those desolatin" sentiments. 
 
 You will, I say again, it is to be hoped, make proper inquiry upon the sub- 
 ject before you. You will not only find the heterodoxy we have mentioned, 
 to be chargeable to Mr. C. but that many ofhis fraternity, who are less wary 
 and intelligent, have in many instances, the effrontery to laugh at, and make 
 derision of your professedly, and really essential experience as christians. The 
 broken and contrite spirit, the new heart, the disquieted and cast down soul 
 the groaning intercessions, the fears within and fightings vr ithout ; together 
 with all that proves you to be of the number of God's people, whom he has 
 "chosen in the furnace of affliction," and who "have fellowship with the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ in his sufferings; ' all this is considei ed by them, as the price of a mis- 
 guided and distempered brain- So, also, are the opposite circumstances in your 
 new and spiritual liie ; wherein, you have refreshings from the presence of the 
 Lord when his candle shines bright upon your tabernacle ; when you feel that 
 your body is the temple oftheHoly Ghost,that he is imbuing allyoui thoughts, 
 and affections, with the constituents of his own glorious kingdom ; whereof 
 is joy unspeakable, peace that passeth all understanding of the unregenerate 
 mind, love to God, all vehement and devouring; views of the ai' -arable person, 
 and work of Christ, as mediator unutterably ravishing and glorious ; and un- 
 der which views, your souls become clothed with humility, meekness, gentle- 
 ness, patience, and all the bright hues that characterize the "garments of sal- 
 vation." All these things, in the history of your life of faith are estimated, 
 and spoken of, by these formalists, as was the power and influences of the Ho- 
 ly Ghost, through the instrumentality of Christ and his Apostles, spoken of by 
 the Jews. In the latter case, there was a sinning against the Holy Ghost, for 
 which there waa no forgiveness ; aixd in the former case, it may be said, " Be- 
 
hold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish : for I work a work in your day, a 
 work in which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it .into you." 
 Mr. C. and his followers do not believe in this work! Hherefore, "they shall 
 all likewise perish;" unless that spirit, against whom they are doing despite, 
 shall make them wise to salvation. Brethren, I have dwelt lousrer upon the 
 subject, than I coatcmplated to do ; but its vital importance to a savins; know- 
 ledge of Jesus Christ, will justify all my remarks. Indeed, take it away from 
 the Baptist church, and I would as soon have connexion with a body of -oci- 
 niaa% or a club of Deists, as with them. The question returns ; is Mr. C. and 
 his loiiowers chargeable with such views as we have stated? and if they ar€» 
 well may we exclaim with Jacob of old, (Jacob, brethren, was an Israelite, m- 
 deed — the first of all the Israelites : and what made him an Israelite? prayer! 
 noon-day, midnight, fervent, effectual prayer! are you Israelites, indeed!!) "O 
 my soul come not thou into their secret ; and unto their assembly mine honoup 
 be thou not united." 
 
 Brethren, 1 shall occupy but little more of your time, having had your at- 
 tention to what I consider the great, the conclusive and absolute evidence, that 
 Mr. C. and those who think like him, are unregenerated people. And I have 
 yet to learn, that any body of people, calling- themselves a regular Baptist 
 church, ever admitted, that an unregenerate man was fit material for church- 
 fellowship, much less to be a ministerof the church of Christ. With an aspiran^ 
 after worldly fame, however, with one who woidd be the founder of some 
 new sect in religion, the character of the material of which it is to be formed, 
 will be of secoudary con■^ideration. The first and important point will be, to 
 get the material, and then follows the work of bringing it toge'her and giving 
 it some semblance to the Church of Christ To the mind of the real and ^ji^t- 
 ritoaZ Christian, however, all those imitations of the work of God, the Holy 
 Ghost, will bear no more resemblance to the reality, than does the clums},half 
 human, half brute idol of the Hindoo, to the beauty of a well proportioned man • 
 
 Brethren, let me beseech you, by the mercies of ^od, again to ask your- 
 selves, individually, and as churches, if Mr. C's. controversies about baptism « 
 have done you any real service? if they have made, one thought more holy! one 
 affection more spiritual! one moment of your lives more heavenly and happy! 
 Did .Vlr C's. preaching to you ever humble, and abase, uud empty you, to the 
 end, that you might learn, experimentally, (not speculatively or notionally) 
 the fulness treasured up in Christ. O, did it ever make you feel, (not merely 
 think or say) that you are nothing, and that Christ is all in all. Does he by his 
 orations, orwritings» clothe your minds with solemnity, fill your hearts with 
 hunger ings and thirst ings after righteousness ; expand your breasts in mighty 
 supplications to the Goil and father ot our Lord Jesus Christ, by day and by 
 ni^ht; wean you from the world, and make your conversation to be in heaven, 
 in a word, has he ever done any thing to diffuse the power of Godliness in your 
 hearts as individuals? to promote yoar peace, unity, and spiritual f'llawship ag 
 churches? or your essential beau(y and glory as a denoniinat:on, by making 
 you conspicuous among the sects in the christian world, in holiness unto the 
 Lorrf, and not in mere talkativeness and vaui contention with men. On the con- 
 trary, has not his verbose disputations about the ordinance of baptism, been of 
 serious injury to you individually, by making you think more highly of your- 
 selves than you ought to think; and by lessening your prayerful attention to 
 
94 
 
 essential faith Jiope and charity — "to the things that accompany salvation," and 
 that make the possessor meek and lowly in heart. Does not his preaching 
 leave upon your minds the conviction, that he addresses you exactly upon the 
 same principle, and to the same end, that an attorney speaks for his client, or 
 that an office hunter harangues at the hustings! that is that he may "rise to 
 shine" — that he may appear great by putting all others below his own level, 
 Yes, brethren, you know, that however much Mr. C. may have amused, or even 
 informed your minds by his preaohmg, he never was the means of sending any of 
 you in Godly sorrow to a throne of grace ;he never made you humble nor self- 
 a-based, nor comforted your souls when •' enduring the fight of affliction," in 
 •which, and to which,it hath pleased God to choose his truly believing people. 
 Instead of this, brethren, he has attempted to rob you of the only ''comforter"; 
 that you can possibly have in this life of tribulation — 1 mean, the adorable, the 
 condescending Holy Ghost,without whose inliuences,your souls will become inu 
 poverished and lean.,your minds vain and arrogant, yourheaj-ts hard and impeni- 
 tent. O, brethren, hell triumphs most fearfully over you, if any of you have 
 given up your belief in the spirit's influences. God grant that it may not be 
 to demonstrate that you are reprobates ; but, to teach you how foolish, and 
 how beast-like you were in giving heed, for one moment, to the blasting, with- 
 ering, damning doctrines of innovators upon the faith of God's elect. You 
 know, brethren, thatthei-e is a veil upon the hearts of theJews, so that they 
 cannot understand the coming of the " Son of man," though he is the great bur- 
 then of all the ceremonies and prophecies of the Old Testament, and though the 
 very day of his being " cut otf for the sins of the people" is therein predicted- 
 Yet these Scriptures they always have, and do continue to read incessantly. 
 Exactly similar is the case with Mr. C. and those that think as he does, in refer- 
 ence to the New Testament! those that do not receive the spirit's influences, are 
 no more benefitted by reading the JVe/c, than the Jews are in reading the Old 
 Testament. They might both read to eternity and be still ia daricness! or, as an 
 Apostle says, "ever learning, and never able to come to a knowldge of the 
 truth." Six million of Jews, however, are ready to rise up and declare that they 
 do understand the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and that the Messiah i'^ . 
 not yet come. But this only shows how blind and deluded are their minds? 
 and that they are capable of asserting, and even swearing to a lie. And if six 
 million of Campbellites, or more properly speaking, Glassites and Sandemin- 
 ians, were to swear that there was no Holy Ghost now, to opei-ate specially, 
 and immediately upon the human soul, it must only be considered ns an evi- 
 dence, that they were equally as blind and wretched in their spiritual condi- 
 tion as the Jews! ah, and just as consistent and pious would it be, for professors 
 of religion to go to a synagogue to learn gospel truth, as to an assembly of the 
 Sandeminians^ or those denying the doctrine of the spirit^s influence.' 
 
 But I have digressed, and no wonder, for the subject to which I uninten. 
 tionally returned, is so awfully, and essentially important, that I could write 
 the same things to you about it a thousand times, if, peradventure, I might 
 succeed in stirring up your pure minds to a proper concern about it. I was 
 saying, that Mr. C. in his preaching or writings makes you not more holy, 
 more humble, more heavenly minded, or spiritual: but, as numbers of you have 
 told me, he appears to darJjea counsel by words without knowledge ! be con- 
 
95 
 
 fuses and perplexes your miuds ! he disquiets your souls ! troubles your hearts, 
 and causes you to call in question all that the blessed Spirit of your dear Jesus 
 has done tor your precious souls ! so that you have been led to abandon your 
 closet devotions, your family prayers, and all hope of keeping up a holy and sen- 
 sible communion with your God. Alas ! this is " making; havoc of the chur- 
 ches" indeed! The cruelties of Saul of Tarsus were tender mercies compared 
 to this. Flee then, " ye prisoners of hope," flee from this plague, pestilence arid 
 /«7Hme, that is stalking; forth in your churches ! turn to the strong holds of 
 God's elect, the salvation of your souls through sanctijication of the Spirit, and 
 belief of the truth ! this is the strong hold, this is the only hope of every true 
 believer, of his ever being made mete for the inheritance of the saints in light. 
 By this he feels sensible, that "the love of God is shed abroad in his heart," and 
 without this he knows that all men would lie, if they said they loved God, or 
 knew auy thing of his love in their own souls! Again, brethi-en, ts not Mr.C, at- 
 tempting to destroy your ronjideme in your tmnisters, and to have you lay aside 
 your church order and discipline ? What is this for ? Suppose for a moment 
 that you have done it, and we will soon shew you the object in view. Well, 
 all is still ! Mr. C. has commanded, and the Baptist churches around him have 
 silenced their ministers ; they have tlirew away their discipline ; they are one 
 and all searching the scripture for themselves. Nobody but Mr. C. dare put 
 a foot, or move a tongue among them as a minister. But there soon appeal's 
 some difference of sentiment : the low murmur and muttering of contention 
 is heard ! Mr. C. has calculated upon this : he knows, that it must arise : he 
 secretly fosters and promotei it : it grows, it rises, it rages to such a calami- 
 tous extent, that at last tt is agreed on all sides to refer the differences 
 to Mr. C\ that he shall be umpire; and that rather t/ian endure such feud and 
 confusion, they will submit to whatever Mr. C. may say is faith and order. And 
 thus he becomes your rabbi, your master, your pope, your antichrist. There — 
 that is what Mr. C. is after, or sometliing nearly allied to it. And I challenge 
 the whole history of mankind, in their political, social, and domestic compact, 
 to prove,that that must be what Mr. Cor any other man designs, when either 
 shall make a proposition to cast away known principles of union, and rules of 
 order among any body of men. I say, 1 appeal to the whole history of mankind 
 through past ages, aad to every living person around us, of sense and observa- 
 tion, to prove, that such a proposition must be coupled with the design specifi- 
 ed, or that the proposition itself must come from a fool! but Alexander Camp- 
 bell is not a fool — ergo, Alexander Campbell's design must be as above repre- 
 sented. Brethren, with such a proposition before you, a proposition to sur- 
 render your faith, your ministry, your discipline, you ought to rise in holy 
 indignation, and respond — "No, sir, wc shall not trifle with our own souls, 
 'nor with the militant existence of our denomination in this manner! The 
 'glorious sum and substance of the gospel scheme of salvation is found spread 
 ' out incidentally through the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ; our 
 'venerated and pious brethren, who have preceded us in the pilgrimatre of this 
 ' life, have brought together and embodied, all the grand outlines of that so- 
 ' vereign, finished, everlasting, special and spiritual salvation : and connected 
 'therewith a clear, sufficient and gospel exhibit of the discipline necessary for 
 ' the well being of the church militant. Both have been tried, and re-tried a 
 ' thousand times told, and compared and recompa red with the scriptures in 
 
96 
 
 * instances without number, and never found other than pure gold \ It is only 
 t when it i? siibjeteed to the moral breath of unre^enerat'=-d tnfin, that it be- 
 . » comes dim ! and in this very incident, we have warning given us of the pre- 
 'sence of impostors! we shall therefore retain our precious faith as a"mea- 
 'suring line for that part of spiritual Jerusalem which we constitute ; and our 
 'discipline, for those unrenewed, refractory, innovating and ambitious spirits 
 ' which the Devil niay be permitted to send in among us, to try our brother- 
 'hood and iellowship, as well as patience and forbearance ;" for, as it is writ- 
 '" ten, there must be also heresies among us, that they v/hich aie approved 
 'may be made manifest among us." We shall not, sir, confide in a man who 
 
 * shall make us any such proposition; we shall not gratify him by joining him 
 'in spouting and blowing, like so many grampus whales, against other denomi- 
 ' nations, and as if it were the whole sum of our business and happiness in this 
 'life. We shall not, sir, believe that man a Baptist at all, or deserving the 
 'name of a Bajjtist, who, in public, creates the spirit of general contention^ 
 •and in private of local animosities : who would have us renounce onr well 
 ' known, clear, solid, and glorious faith, for his, which no one can define or 
 
 • understand. We will not, sir, throw ourselves into a sea of tumult and con- 
 ' fusion by giving up our discipline and order, to the end that you may have 
 ' an opportunity to pull as out, or <lo something in our behalf, and to prevent 
 
 * our drowning, for which we should be compelled ever after to bow our necks 
 •to the yolce of your arrogant dictum, and pay you your price. We will not 
 
 * confide in the man who calls in question the general character of our minis- 
 ' ters, who serve us, for the most part, for less than what dads them comforta- 
 ' bly, and in many instances for less than what really hides their nakedness, 
 ' Avhether of seasonable or unseasonable clothing. ' We will not support that 
 'man, who is evidently unable to raise himself by any intrinsic merit, and 
 
 ♦ therefore resorts to the prostration of the character of others, that he may get 
 
 ♦ a pedestal on which to perch his own insignificant self in ephemeral distinc- 
 
 ♦ tion. No, sir, we will do none of these things ; and besides, for what would 
 ♦you have us rise with you in this hubbub of solicitude for the conversion of 
 'the PEcdo-baptisis to our order? are their ministers the designing, selfish, 
 ' covetous, luxurious and effeminate creatures that you have represented them 
 
 • to be .'' and is it these characters, forsooth, that you want to bring in amon^ 
 » us ! ! is a dipping in the water to change them .'' it must be you think so ! or, 
 
 ♦ you intend to bring them into our denomination dripping with all their exis- 
 
 ♦ tent loathsomeness ! and is this, sir, your kindness, your zeal for us .'.' ah.' sir, 
 ' do not be surprised if we tell you, that suspicion of yourself begins to flitter 
 ' o'er our minds .' But you would proselyte not only ministers, but people, 
 tone and all, in the Paedo-baptist churches to our order. Now is it, or is it 
 'not true Wlien the prophet says, "like priest, like people f" We have n« 
 I doubt but what you, by this time, think the saying is correct ; indeed your 
 ' own writings, accord therewith ; then, sir, as an additional expression of your 
 'lovmg kindness and tender mercies to the Baptist denomination, you are put- 
 ' ting forth all your energies for the purpose of proselyting the ministers and 
 < people of the Paedo-baptist churches to us, stinking in all that filthiness, he- 
 ' terodoxy, pride, luxury and unregeneracy, in which you have been, and still 
 ' are holding them up to our view .'.' O, if this be an expression of your zelal, 
 ' what must be your opposition .' if this be an expression of your love, what 
 
97 
 
 ' would be your hatred.' We have somev/here read that " the tender mercies 
 ' of the wicked are cruelties ;" and really, we think, if you did, or do mean us 
 'well, we are likely to have no better evidence of it than the wicked give us 
 'of mercy. Seriously, sir, ascertain if you are not under some similar and 
 'ffiarful mistakf, in regard to your service for us, that Saul of Tarsus was* 
 ' when he thought, that by going to Damascus and making havoc of the church 
 ' he was doins; God service I Saul was quite as great, scholastic, and intellec- 
 ' tual a man as you, and yet he was subject to this awful delusion ; that is, he 
 'denied Jesus Christ of Nazareth! — you, the Holy Ghost from heaven! — 
 '"par nobile fratrum." Think, sir, we say, upon this subject; go down and 
 ' tarry a little season at Jericho ; at least, until you have a few scattering hairs 
 ' of testimony for to shew us, that you are a regenerated man ! As for us, sir, 
 'we shall proceed to make proselytes of the Paedobaptists by the use of eu- 
 ' tirely different means, to what you have been using ; our weapons shall not 
 ' be carnal but spiritual, and thereby mighty to the pulling down of the strong 
 'holds of sin and Satan. We will, sir, through the spirit of Christ strengthen- 
 ' mg MS, rise and shake ourselves, as a denomination, from the dust, and put 
 ' on the beautiful garments of salvation — we will out-pray, out-labour, and 
 ' out-love, our Paedo-baptist brethren, in the gospel of Christ ; we will be 
 ' ambitious to set them an example in all manner of Godliness, to demonstrate 
 ' ourselves to be holiness unto the Lord ! in unity, peace and concord among 
 ' ourselves. This shall be the method to which we will resort, to malce them 
 ' take knowledge of us, that we have been with Christ and learned of him, 
 t that we love one another : and by which, we will compel them to inquire 
 ' after, and adopt, every minutia of our faith. Thus we will manifest to them, 
 'that we have, and enjoy, the fellowship of the Father and Son, and the com- 
 'munion of the Holy Ghost. Holy Ghost! O glorious, blessed and sanctify- 
 ' ing bond of union between all the regenerate on earth, and all the ransomed 
 J before the throne of God and the Lamb. Yes, yes, we will manifest to our 
 I Paedo-baptist brethren that we are full of the Holy Ghost ! this will allure, 
 ' will constrain, all that are spiritual among them, to seek and solicit a name 
 ' and place among us . And as for the many, alas ! too, too many among 
 
 • them, that are not spiritual members of the church of Christ, we want them 
 *■ not : the Lord knows, we have enough dead weight, of that sort; as much as 
 
 • we can very well stagger under. Take, sir, and welcome, from both denomi- 
 '■ nations, all the latter description of material, if you can : — should j'ou get 
 ' it, thcreivill be no lack of slime and brick to make yourself a Babel Tower, 
 ' equal in height, if not in base, to the mountain Cotopaxi. Take it all, sir, 
 'you know how to manage such material as that ; but do not meddle with the 
 '" Uvcli/ stones" until the spirit of our God shall have made you a workman 
 ' therefor. To attempt to do any thing to, or for them, until you are thus pre- 
 ' pared, will prove like the olHciousness of Drain, in brushing away flies from 
 'the human face : you will be more apt to injure than preserve .' We shall, 
 ' sir, exercise the spirit of prayer on your behalf; and should God the Holy 
 'Ghost, of whom you appear to be entirely ignorant, convert your precious 
 'soul, you will then be welcome, to our arms, (o our heart, to our all .' We 
 
 O 
 
98 
 
 ' sliali lejuice over you, more than over ninety and nine persons that need no 
 'repentance; yea, we -will "joy over you with singing! !" 
 
 Ye ministers and people of the Baptist denomination, let some such sen- 
 timents be expressed by you towards Mr. C. immediately, and towards every 
 one whose religious views are what his are. Never, never can you tamper 
 vfith such glaring errors without the most pernicious of consequences. — OI 
 by all that is adorable in the God-head ! by all that is precious in the blood 
 and righteousness of Christ ! by all that is connected with the glory of God 
 the Father, the exaltation of the Son, and the honour of his gospel.' bj-^ all that 
 is essential to the peace, purity, and welfare of the chuj:ph of Christ at large' 
 and of your own souls individually ; I conjure you, to cast out, any and every- 
 one from your connexion, who is an unbeliever in the adorable SpirWs special 
 influences, in and upon the soul of every real believer. Yea, though an angel 
 from heaven should guinsaj' the doctrine, be true to your blessed comforter ; 
 aud tell, e'en an angel, that he lies. Ah.' the apprehension trembles in my 
 heart, that many of you have been living, days, and weeks, and months, with- 
 out the '• communion of the Holy Ghost." O .' mournful circumstances.' O .' 
 miserable state .' No marvel, then, if you have your doubts and fears about 
 the reality of the subject, as part of the christian's experience. Grieve not the 
 ^^pirit any more ; return to seek his presence, you shall find it. The love 
 or God shall thereby, once mork be shed abroad in your hearts: your 
 peace be as the rivers, and your righteousness as the waves of the sea .' Satan 
 shall fall, like lightning from heaven, and hell recede from you, detected, ex- 
 posed and defeated, in its du-eful master-stroke of machination against your 
 souls .' / Full, then, icill be the ricp of his joy, loho, on earth, will be known iv 
 you only by the name of 
 
 A REGULAR BAPTIST- 
 
 If you have ever understood him to say, either in his preaching or writings. 
 that the ordinance of baptism has any tendency to wash away sin, or to infuse 
 holiness nito the soul of man, he has said that, which, is at direct variance with 
 the Baptist faith ; and if he has said it as a Baptist, it is a foul slander upoE 
 them — or, if he has said, under the name of a Baptist, that there is no Holy 
 Ghost to operate especiallv and essentially upon the souls of sinners in con- 
 version, he has denied the faith of the Baptist church — or, if you have under- 
 stood him as saying, that the moral law of God is not a rule of conduct for the 
 believer in Christ ; that also is contrary to the Baptist faith. If he has said 
 that prayer, after a man has believed, or professed to believe in the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ ; is not a duty, and a marl: of saving faith, that also is in opposi- 
 tion to the sentiments of the Baptists. If he has said, that preaching the gos- 
 pel since the apostles' days is gratuitous, and unauthorised by the Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; that is likewise foreign to the faith of the Baptist church. And if he 
 has advanced such doctrines CIS the foregoing, while prof essedly a Baptist, what 
 confidence can be placed in his honesty or veracity? Could you consider that 
 man your friend, who was reporting things of you^by which you would be- 
 (rome disgraced in your own o.:timation; and that of others? who gave curreu- 
 
99 
 
 oy to sentiments as yours, which you had disavowed, by the most solemn pro- 
 fession of contrary opinioDs before God and man. Then turn off your eye^ 
 from beholdmg "vanity" in Mr. C. or any other person of the same charac- 
 ter, and remember, that he who bids him, God-speed, is a partaker of his evil 
 ^eeds. * 
 
 He has shown, that he considers baptism as either the whole, or part, of the 
 • being' born again," which Christ speaks of." He has made Peter say, that 
 it is salvation. He has said, that it washes away adultery, theft, &c. — and is 
 for the remission of sins ; and Mr. Rigdon has said, it makes a man holy as 
 an angel ! 
 
 In view of this exhibit of the subject, by Mr. C. himself, and who will 
 doubt, but what I had reason to charge him, and iiis fraternity, with the strong 
 delusion of believing, that baptism is a saving ordinance. And what shall be 
 thought of their bitter invective against me, for intimating that they held 
 these sentiments. Now. the fallacy of the foregoing sentiments is known to 
 every christian, spiritual Baptist ; because, he feels that dipping had nothing 
 to do in saving him from the guilt of sin — it was the blood of Christ. He 
 knows, that dipping had nothing to do with saving him from the dominion of 
 sin — it was, and is, the Holy Ghost .' Every Paido-baptist, of a tnUy spiritual 
 character, feels the same Holy Ghost — sees the same Invisible Savioui-, in all 
 his transcendent fullness of grace and truth ; and is as mighty in his emotions 
 of panting desire after the God of his salvation, as is any Baptist ; and herein. 
 Baptist, and Paido-baptist, have evidence, that God is no respecter of the pei'- 
 sons of those whom he has really quickened in righteousness; and, conse- 
 quently, that all ideas of baptism being essential in the economy of salvation, 
 is in direct opposition to sober facts, and every day experience, with both 
 Baptist and Paido-baptist believers. Every observing man of the world 
 knows, and feels satisfied, that there is nothing effectual, or of saving influ- 
 ence, in baptism ; inasmuch, as in too many instances, he sees those who have 
 been sprinkled with a little water, living in sin / and those who have had wa- 
 ter /)Owre<i upon them in baptism) (as it is called) living in more sin than he 
 that was sprinkled .' and he also sees, those that have been dipped in four foot 
 water, committing more sin, than either of the other prolessoi's."= Such is the 
 fact in many instances ; and those, perhaps, who have been baptized in all the 
 modes practised, (that is, those who have been sprinkled, poured upon, and 
 dipped backwards and dipped forwards) are among those who are the least 
 holy as professors — a striking instance to the point might be referred to in 
 Pittsburgh. 
 
 I will take upon me to assert, that neither Methodist, Presbyterian, Episco- 
 palian, or Baptist, or any other denomination of christians who are of any 
 
 (a) A word to the unconverted, in the S'th pajje of his Letters. 
 
 ''How tullys this interpretation of the nexu birth, with what he has said else- 
 where, oi regeneration being llie Pentecostal outpouring of the spirit ! !but note* 
 Mr. Campbell's contradictions arc too numerous for me to think of noticing 
 here I ! 
 
 «I am not to be understood as intimating, that the Baptist denomination are 
 less pious than other sects; no, but the reverse is my candid opinion. 
 
100 
 
 geneial estimation in the world, could, with the shadow of consistency, or upon 
 the fundamental principles of their personal religion, regard Mr. C. in any 
 other light, than as one of the dry bones in Ezekiel's valley ; or, in other 
 words, as a poor deluded unbeliever. For my own part, I must confess, that 
 it is one of the most inexplicable of circumstances that I have ever met with, 
 how he should ever be acknowledged as a believer, in any part of the chris- 
 tian church, after the public expression of the sentiments here quoted from 
 his writings : but above all, how the Baptist denomination should tolerate 
 him for an hour, as one of their ministers .' The substance of his views is — 
 That man, by na/!(re, has the faculty of faith — that reading the scriptures, sX- 
 teniively, naturally produces faith from the testimony of prophecies and mira- 
 cles — that believing in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, upon that 
 testimony ,is faith — that faith is non-essential until connected with baptism— that 
 thus believing, and being baptized, and practicing the morality and virtue of 
 the great prophet, makes a christian to all intents and purposes ! Now, the 
 reveries of Svvedenbourg, or the rationale of Joseph Priestly, is not more dis- 
 tinct from savmg faith, than these views of Mr. C. — Speak, ye mourners in 
 Zion .' Ye, who are broken in heart, contrite in spirit, ye heaA^y ladened and 
 labouring sinners: speak, and tell Mr. Campbell, that e'er saving faith in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ is realized, you find, ihsX rejientance toward God is essen- 
 tially necessary — a subject that he speaks not of, writes not of, and knows no- 
 king about. 
 
 In page 27 of Mr. Greatrake's "Miniature Portrait of Alex- 
 ander Campbell,-' he copies from Mr. Campbell's writings, the 
 following extract, viz. 
 
 "The grandeur, sublimity and beauty of the foundation of hope, and of ecclesi- 
 astical or social union, established by the author and founder of Christianity, con- 
 sisted in this, that the belief of oke fact, and that upon the best evidence in 
 ^he ICO rid, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation. The belief of this 
 one fact, and subjection to one institution expressive of it, is all that is required 
 of heaven, to admission into the church. A christian as defined, not by Dr. John- 
 son, nor by any creed-maker, but by one taught of heaven, and in heaven, is, 
 one that believes this one fact, and has submitted to one institution, and whose 
 deportment accords with the morality and virtue taught bythe great prophet. 
 The one fact is, that Jesus the Nazarent is the Messiah. The evidence upon 
 which it is to be believed, is the testimony of twelve men, confirmed by pro- 
 phecy, miracles, and spiritual gifts. The one institution is baptism, into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Every such per- 
 son is a christian, in the fullest sense of the word, the moment he has believed 
 this one fact, upon the above evidence, and has submitted to the above men- 
 tioned institution." 
 
 On this extract Mr. Greatrake remarks as follows, viz: 
 
 " Upon this principle, it appears quite evident, that the Devils want nothing 
 but baptizing to be bone fide christians! They said, " we know thee, who 
 thou art, thou Holy One of God." They said, " Paul we know, and Chrisj- 
 we know." They believed this ONE fact. They now believe this one fact 
 
101 
 
 If .Mr. Campbell can only g-et some water to them, or get them to some watei-. 
 he may have disciples plenl}'. ^uerif — Were not the De ils that entered iun> 
 the herd of swine, believers of thi? one fact! they owned Christ to be the 
 " Son of God!" were they not " dipped," (and in the body too) they ran down 
 into the sea — erjjo, they were Chris^tians!! Yes, Mr. C. they were just such 
 believers, and christians, as your system makes yourself and your disciples." 
 
 No. ir. 
 
 The Religious Characfer of the Parties. 
 
 From W. L. M'Calla to the Rev. Dr. \l. H. Bishop, Piincipd ot .Mi.4>n 
 
 UNIVEKSITr. 
 
 While memory lasts, mj dear Father, you must be often in my 
 thoiio-hts. I have reason to biess that Providence, who sent yo\x 
 immediately after your arrival in America, to my native woods. 
 Your being among strangers soon gave you an interest in my 
 youthful heart. I admired the ability and dignity with which 
 Vou fdled the chair of Loiric and Moral Philosophy in the Tran- 
 sylvania University, and i loved your wisdon), piety and dili- 
 gence as a Christian and a Minister. Your labours in the Univer- 
 sity for about twenty years, have laid the institution, the town, 
 the state, and the Western Country, under a weight of obligariou 
 which they never can cancel. Notwithstanding this, in the ret- 
 rograde movements of my unhai)py country, they seem to have 
 treated you as the Gadarenes did your master. They wished 
 him to leave them, because they loved their swine better than 
 their Maker. If wallowing in the mire of infidelity and vice 
 will make swine, the Gadara which you have left, is well stocked 
 under Dr. Holley's administration. How mournful that our 
 precious young men should be taught immoralitv and nonsense, 
 under the name of Moral Science! The funds of the institution 
 are burthened and ruined, to support in extravagance, a frequen- 
 ter of the race-ground, of the ball-room and of the theatre, and 
 a gallant of theatrical actresses, that he may set a literary class 
 to laughing at religion and religious people, by entertaining theni 
 with foolish and profane anecdotes and horrible blasphemies, un- 
 der the name of scientific lectures ! After the pitiable ignorance, 
 vile corruption, and base ingratitude exhibited in the treatment 
 which you received there, what honor does it reflect upon the 
 Legislature of Ohio, to place you at the head of a state institu- 
 tion! Under a man of the religious and literary qualifications 
 which I know you to possess, I do not wonder to hear that it pros- 
 pers. As to the honorable notice which has been taken of you 
 by most respectable literary institutions in Scotland and Amer- 
 ica, it is hoped that it does not please yourself, so much as it 
 gratifies your patrons and annoys your enemies. 
 
1U£ 
 
 In the Tiudst of your triumphant honors and arduous duties, it 
 has perhaps never come to jour knowledge, that Mr. Campbell, 
 the advocate of Dr. HoUcy, has assailed your character, by pub- 
 lishing an anecdote concerning the man whose name and office 
 are coincident. As it is, however, to my own knowledge, a fic- 
 tion, like many other things from the same quarter, I shall not 
 trouble you with it: but in its room permit me to say a word con- 
 cerning his attack upon my character. In page 373. of his book, 
 he professes to answer certain remarks of mine concerning his 
 departed father Robinson, his living brother HoUey, and other 
 such gentry, of ''• true merit," ''the brightest worth," and "the 
 fairest name;" to use his own words. Being much at a loss for 
 the means of defending such /air, bright, and , neritorious char- 
 acters, he consoled himself with the reflection that my statements, 
 deserved no credit, because he had heard that I was convicted of 
 slander by a judicial decision in a civil court. His words are as 
 follows, viz: " It afforded us some cousolation his testimony, as- 
 ■'to things of this nature, was harmless, inasmuch as it was I'e- 
 •• ported, that he had lately been convicted by the laws of his 
 '• own state, and by a jury of his own country, of having libell- 
 *"ed a neighbouring preacher." To this remark he appends a 
 note, in the following words, viz: " The Synod of Kentucky still 
 •'hold Mr. M. in good standing, and therefore he came within 
 "the purlieu of my general invitation. Had I known, however, 
 -^^ that such had been the fact, I should have preferred another 
 "disputant." 
 
 Here Mr. Campbell insinuates that he had not heard this re- 
 port before the debate. To those who are acquainted with the 
 circumstances in which he was placed, there is not the least room 
 to hope that this is true. He also confesses that his Antagonist 
 '• came within the purlieu of my [Mr. Campbell's] general invi- 
 tation." This is saying in plain terms that he is the challenger 
 and I the person challenged ; the very opposite of which he tries 
 to prove in the same book. The above quotation moreover con- 
 tains an insinuation against the Synod of Kentucky, a meeting 
 of which, you and I both attended, as members, a few days be- 
 fore the debate. Now it so happened, that a deluded clerical 
 neighbour of mine, whose name I am now unwilling to record in 
 connexion with so disgraceful a transaction, brought up, by ap- 
 peal, to this very Synod, every accusation which he thought could 
 have the least tendency to crush me : and although he was well 
 acquainted with this civil transaction, he did not charge me with 
 any error in relation to Mr. Gardner, the preacher referred to 
 by Mr. Caaipbell, as having been slandered by me. The reason 
 was that he knew the contempt which such a step would bring 
 upon him, in a place where the affair was so well known. But 
 when, from a unanimous decision of the Synod, in my favour, he 
 appealed to the General Assembly, he put into the hands of Dr. 
 Ely, his Counsel, many new and dreadful reproaches, with dis- 
 
103 
 
 cretionary power to use them or not to use them. The two which 
 he divulged, both related to Mr. Gardner. One of them was, 
 callin"- him a son of the Devil, and the other stated that he had 
 recovei-ed damages from me in a case of slander. As for the re- 
 mainder of the Budget, the learned counsel seemed to insinuate 
 that they were of so serious a nature that the developement 
 might possibly give an irremediable shock to the nerves of the 
 Ho^se. They were therefore kept back, whetlier for private use 
 or not, I did not enquire ; fori have a Saviour, who in his own 
 time and way, will deliver me from those slanders which look 
 me in th.e face, and from those which skulk behind my back. 
 He flid defend me in the General Assembly, blessed be his name, 
 and mav he ever preserve me from the circumstances in which 
 the investigation of that day placed my Accuser and liis Coun- 
 sel. You know, my dear Father, that I have been a grievous 
 sinner ; but I believe that you know also, that since I loved the 
 Lord Jesus more than life, 1 hate sin worse than death. 
 
 Mr. Mathew Gardner, the preacher concerned in the above 
 charges, is in the connexion and under the direction of Mr. Bar- 
 ton VV. Stone, who is the disciple of Mr. Craighead, Dr. Fish- 
 back's spiritual father. You are well aware that Mr. Stone is 
 the Apostle of a sect of Anti- Trinitarians, who as they use im- 
 mersion in baptism, and reject infants from that ordinance, are 
 known as Unitarian Baptists. Mr. Gardner, of course, is a 
 brother of Mr. Campbell, and must, like Dr. Holley, be esteem- 
 ed by him, a man of "true merit," "the brightest worth," and 
 *♦ the fairest name." He preached statedly in my nameless Ac- 
 cuser's neighbourhood, and robbed him of some of his communi- 
 cants, without receiving any direct opposition. One of his mem- 
 bers who with several others, was on the point of following his 
 apostate brethren, owned the ground on which Mr. Gardner held 
 many of his crowded meetings. This member requested me to 
 preach in tlie same place. Just then a Deacon of Mr. Gardner's 
 stepped in, and requested that, as the weather was getting cool, I 
 would preach in a school-house occupied by Mr. Gardner in the 
 winter. My nameless friend had never come thither, to oppose 
 what he believed to be fatal error ; but soon after I preached, he 
 came and preached, in the same place, for the first time, and de- 
 nounced me to the assembly. His reason was, that I had been 
 ordained in Kentucky, my native state, without the leave of him 
 and his Presbytery in Ohio, who professed to have some claims 
 upon me. These claims were fairly and fully tried, and forev- 
 er invalidated by the General assembly of 18'2], which con- 
 demned the manner in which a pretended right had been exer- 
 cised. They accordingly pronounced my ordination valid. 
 Notwithstanding this, he accused me before the Presbvtery. of 
 the enormous crime of preaching on his side of the river, near 
 two miles from the spot on which I resided! It was from their 
 decision that lie appealed to tjie upper court, of which von were 
 
104 
 
 then a member. The Synod could recollect that near the begin- 
 ning of this century, Mr. Stone and his companions were depos- 
 ed and excommunicated from our Church, and that, by an act of 
 th< ir own body, these men are, to this day, considered as schis- 
 matic intruders and, heretics. They could see that Mr. Gard- 
 ner's irregularity was real, while nsine was only asserted. They 
 could see that 1 agreed with my Accuser, who was an Orthodox, 
 Presbyterian preacher, while Mr. Gardner was an infidel in dis- 
 guise. They had evidence that Mr. Gardner had robbed him of 
 several members, and that I was instrumental in preventing him 
 from entrapping several more, and that 1 had never taken any of 
 his members, until he determined to cast them out for encourag- 
 ing me to preach; and there was evidence ot record before the 
 Synod, that he and his Session had cast out fourteen members, 
 for this reason. They could not help, therefore, wondering at 
 his zeal against me, and his passive depf^rtment towards Mr, 
 Gardner. The more I saw myself out of the reach of my Accu- 
 ser's arm, the more was I distressed at his unreasonable persecu- 
 tion. Being delivered from personal resentment, my heart felt 
 more pungently for the wounded cause of religion. You well 
 recollect that when the Synod heard the papers and then the plea 
 of my accuser, I submitted the case, without a word of defence. 
 Notwithstanding the solicitations of several, I persisted in my 
 silence, and should have continued so to do, had not Mr. Came- 
 ron said, with a degree of passion, that, if the party had nothing 
 to urge in his defence, he would move that the appeal be sustain- 
 ed. I well recollect the horror with which the synod shuddered 
 at the manner in which the accused and his session, and the ac- 
 cuser's fourteen outcast children had been treated: and that for 
 no other reason, than that 1 preached the same doctrines which 
 he professed, in a place where he never preached, and to a people 
 who were very hungry, very needy, and in very great danger of 
 destruction. I well recollect the Scottish plainness, with which, 
 when called on to speak, you directed your awful eye, and your 
 significant finger toward the accuser, and said, that his conduct 
 was like that which filled up the cup of iniquity of the Jewish 
 nation, who persecuted the Apostles, because they preached the 
 Gospel to the Gentiles. This persecution aided other providen- 
 tial difficulties to separate me from a congregation between which 
 and myself there was a tender attachment. Immediately afterthat 
 event, which was truly mournful to more than one of the parties, 
 I came to this place to meet the appeal to the General Assembly, 
 who rejected it, notwithstanding the zeal of the the able advo- 
 cate, who, in the fervor of his eloquence, was pleased to call me 
 a wandering star and many such pleasant things. These events 
 were under a merciful Providence, the occasion of my settling in 
 my present situation, where I enjoy more happiness, than I ex- 
 pected to see in this world, after parting with my dearly beloved 
 little flock in Augusta. As I was in good standing with the Synod 
 of Kentuikv, where my accuser dared not charge me with slan- 
 
i05 
 
 Bering Mr. Gardner, so am I now, in good standing with the 
 Synod of Philadelphia, and that with the cheerful acquiescence 
 of mj Accuser's advocate. And if Mr. Campbell or any one 
 else, will attend their next meeting, or the next one to that, or 
 the one following that, (if I shouhl live so long,) and prove to 
 them that I have slandered Mr. Gardner, I promise to waive the 
 article of limitations or any other which might stand in the way 
 of a prosecution. 
 
 Soon after the commencement of my preaching on the forbid- 
 den ground, Mr. Gardner attended for tlie purpose of conversing 
 with me after service. As he had, after the Unitarian fashion, 
 deceived many well-meaning people, by a wily concealment of 
 his real character, and standing, and sentiments, I was rejoiced 
 at this opportunity of a public interview. A few friendly ques- 
 tions soon unmasked him to the view of the by-standers: after 
 which I told him, in the same dispassionate manner, the irrecon- 
 cilable difference which there was, between his religion and thatof 
 the bible. Although he and Mr. Stone were in the habit of pro- 
 nouncing the very worst condemnations upon Trinitarians, they 
 nevertheless entice many by a feigned charity and good brother- 
 hood. These arts he tried with me. He soon found that I could 
 not accept the confraternity of a man who would deny my JLurd, 
 trample upon his atoning blood, reject his spirit, "and by Good 
 *♦ words, and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." 
 ** Well," said he, " VIr. M-Calla, as you will not allow me to 
 call you Brother M'Calla" ' Mr. Gardner,' said I, ' if I 
 
 * do not own you as a brother, it is for the same reason that made 
 
 * Polyrarp act thus towards Marcion, when that conspicuous 
 
 * teacher entreated him to own him. I do own thee^ says Poly- 
 
 * carp, as the first born of the Devil. ' This is the real expression 
 which occasioned my Accuser's charge against me in the Gener- 
 al Assembly. Now he and I are perfectly agreed about Mr. 
 Gardner's real character. He believes him as truly a child of 
 the Devil as Marcion, or Cerinthus, or Elymas Would not 
 consistency, then, require him to condemn Polycarp, and Poly- 
 carp's Pastor the Apostle John, and his fellow labourer, the 
 Apostle Paul ? There are very many who are willing to garnish 
 the tombs of the Prophets, but they will traduce those living 
 men, who love a crucified Saviour better than their own charac- 
 ter or comfort- 
 After the above conversation, I continued to preach in the 
 
 same house with Mr. Gardner, because it was built and furnished 
 by the patrons of both parties. But a Deacon of his at last se- 
 cured the key and shut us out, because he owned the ground. 
 The weather then permitted us to occupy a tent in a grove, only 
 a few steps from the school-house, where one of my friends l;;m 
 permitted Mr. Gardner to hold his meetings. As Mr. Campbell's 
 brother Gardner and his people were better at wielding tht- ;irm 
 of flesh than the sword of the Spirit, about twenty of his disci- 
 ples came in a body, and tore down the standi or boarded tent, (in 
 
 P 
 
106 
 
 which we worshipped,) while Mr. Clark, the owner of the land 
 
 was remonstrating against the outrage. Previous to the sabbath 
 another tent was built, farther off: but on Saturday night, that 
 also was demolished. The next day I mounted a chair, and 
 preached to an attentive audience. While adverting for a 
 few moments to the conduct of our adversaries. I observed that 
 the face of a gigantic hearer, (Mr. A.. L.) reddened far too rap- 
 idly. I therefore had to turn the subject into an exhortation to 
 patience and prudence, forbearance and forgiveness, lest the con- 
 gregation should seek redress in a summary way, by tearing 
 down the school -house. If they had done so. without my oppos- 
 ing or condemning such a measure, before or after it was taken, 
 Mr. Campbell would justly have considered me more deeply 
 guilty than any of them. Just so he should think of his brother 
 Gardner. He neither opposed the measure of pulling down the 
 tent, at first, nor made it a subject of investigation or censure 
 afterward. He is therefore more deeply guilty of this trespass 
 than any of his ignorant and deluded followers. The instni- 
 ments by which he perpetrated this crime were amerced in dam- 
 ages to the amount of 124 dollars, in an action of trespass, by 
 the verdict of a jury of his own country: yet his brother Camp- 
 bell takes no notice of this; but considers him and all Baptists 
 free from all such charges of lawless violence, and stigmatizes us 
 with almost all the persecution and tyranny known on earth. 
 
 If Mr. Gardner had been consulted beforehand, it is probable 
 that he would have had sense enough to beg Mr. Campbell not to 
 bring him and his damages into the public view; because his char- 
 acter is by no means better for examination. Like his Unitarian 
 brother, he is much opposed to receiving a salary for preaching, 
 but like him he has other ways of making money which are not 
 remarkably honorable. I shall not dwell upon his contrivances 
 to obtain contributions in money and clothes, nor the disgraceful 
 traffick in which he was detected and disappointed at Ripley. I 
 shall confine myself to the subject which occasioned the judicial 
 decision referred to by Mr. Campbell But, no. So inconsis- 
 tant, disgusting and disgraceful was the occupation of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's Clerical brother, that I am forbidden by my friend Mr. E. 
 to stain my pages with it Suffice it to say, that it was a busi- 
 ness to which he very naturally added that of a horse-jocky. 
 
 In the prosecution of these professions, the Bishop unhappily 
 contracted a habit for which his brother Campbell is remarkable. 
 This habit adhered to him in all his intercourse in society, even 
 where horses had nothing to do, and occasioned many unfavoura- 
 ble reports concerning him, some of which found their way into 
 the press. A handbill was published by Mr. Thompson, a res- 
 pectable Methodist preacher, proving by the testimony of near 
 fifty witnesses, that he was guilty of telling a palpable falsehood. 
 In a horse trade which he had with the husband of one of his own 
 followers, he shewed almost as great an aversion to giving his 
 people money for their horses, as to receiving a salary for his 
 
107 
 
 preaching. The injured man prosecuted Mr. Gardner for fraud 
 and falsehood, before the congregation. They met, refused to 
 receive Mr. Hughes's written charges, refused to hear his witness- 
 es, let Mr. Gardner tell his own story, let him take the chair 
 and put tie thing to vote, and as there was no negative, he pro- 
 nounced the cause decided in his favour, and there it ended. 
 Mr- Hughes then exposed him in an anonymous pamphlet, pur- 
 pttrting to be a letter from one of Mr. Gardner's people, to his 
 Master. Barton W. Stone. After a ludicrous account of Mr. 
 Gardner's trial, it speaks as follows, viz: " There are only two 
 ' things that can be lamented in the whole transaction. One is 
 ' that broth.-r Gardner imprudently denied the promise gi^en to 
 ' Mr. Hughes, when there was evidence at hand to prove the 
 
 * promise. Another is. that he declared that to be the first 
 ' time that his veracity had been impeached, when all the people 
 ' knew that Mr. Thompson had proved him a liar by scores of 
 ' witnesses. These things are to be regretted, not in a moral 
 
 * point of view, for to a liberal mind, this is a mere ^r»/7e, (to use 
 ' a favourite word of yours;) but because ot the effect they are 
 ' likely to produce on a people not yet sufficiently confirmed ia 
 ' our system of religion " The pamphlet then proceeds to enu- 
 merate several things in which the above trial of Mr. Gardner is 
 calculated to promote the cause of religion and civilization. 
 The third particular is as follows, viz: "By this step the last 
 
 'objection of infidelity to our religion is removed. We 
 ' first stripped the bible of the peculiar dogmas of the Genevaa 
 ' School. We then removed the mysteries of the Trinity and 
 ' atonement, (Vc. But with regard to most Deists, said old 
 ' Father llice, ' the greatest of all objections, the morals, the 
 ' morals of the bible still remain ' Now 1 will leave it to you, 
 'if brother Gardner's trial does not remove this objection. He 
 ' was publicly proved a liar by Mr. Thompson, and he denied 
 ' befori! the church that he had ever been accused; - he made 
 'a promise of cencessions to Mr. Hughes, and denied that 
 ' promise, when there was written testimony in the house to 
 
 ' prove it; and he bought a horse, or, (which is nearly the 
 
 ' same thing,) he bought a mare, and after trying to sell her as 
 ' his own property, he publicly and perseveringly denies the 
 ' contract, in a large congregation, where many of his own peo- 
 ' pie and others also can attest the fact. If any Deist, after this, 
 ' can think us righteous overmuch, and be frightened from join- 
 
 * ing us, by the rigidity of our morals, he must have a denier con- 
 ' science indeed. " 
 
 It was Mr. Hughes's design to give point to the above pamph- 
 let by making it actionable. For that reason it declared that 
 Mr. Gardner " was publicly proved a liar by Mr. Thompson," 
 and "that Mr. Thompson had proved him a liar by scores of 
 witnesses.'' These were at last made the ground of a prosecution, 
 not against Mr. Hughes, but against myself, who readily c.nfess- 
 ed both out of court and in it, that I had written the pamphlet at 
 Mr. Hughes's request. 1 therefore plead justification, or rath- 
 
158 
 
 er this was done in my name, by those gentlemen of the bar wh» 
 
 generously volunteered their services in my defence. For this 
 purpose Mr. John Chambers, of Mason county Kentucky, went 
 to Brown county, Ohio, out of his own State, and put of his own 
 eircuit, for the sake of doing a noble action, foi the very expenses 
 of which he refused to receive any remuneration. It was chiefly 
 for the sake of Mr. Gardners money that his lawyers urged the 
 prosecution. Besides the i- ife of one of them was a sister Bap- 
 tist, and had in common with her husband, a very strong per- 
 sonal hatred against me; and his other lawyer, an infidel brotner, 
 ■was very near going to the seat of government ^hy the election of 
 twelve jurymen, but escaped by the wickedness of the States- 
 Attorney, who was a relative. The jury hung, and Mr Gard- 
 ner withdrew the prosecution at his own expense, and not a little 
 did it cost him. Urged by the avarice and disappointed malice 
 of his attorneys, he afterward brought suit in my own state, and 
 in the town where I lived. At that time the Baptist with whom 
 Mr. Campbell afterward lodged in Washington, resided in Au- 
 gusta, and was a violent enemj of mine. I found, when it was 
 too late, that one of the jurymen whom I had neglected to chal- 
 lenge, was a bosom friend and kindred spirit of his. Another 
 such man was received in the same way, througW*my ignorance, 
 while a friend of mine was eagerly but vainly endeavouring to 
 give me information of my danger. A case occurred, which 
 shewed me that such information was far more important than an 
 inexperienced person would suppose. Before the trial, an ad- 
 herent of the Plaintiff harangued a little knot of hearers, with 
 some vehemence, against me, and in Mr. Gardner's favour. A 
 friend of mine who providentially heard him, informed me of the 
 fact, and appeared particularly- anxious to impress it upon my 
 memory, because the expressions of this envenomed declaimer 
 involved a sort of threat that he meant to throw himself into the 
 way, that he might become a juryman. The result proved that 
 my informant was not mistaken. In due time this worthy advo- 
 cate of Mr. Campbell's Unitarian brother, was called, and with 
 the livid hue of deliberate perjury on his lips, declared, under 
 the solemnity of an oath, that he had never formed nor express- 
 ed an opinion upon the case then before the Court. He was of 
 course laid aside by peremptory challenge: but the mischief was 
 already done by the reception of one or two others whom it was 
 too late to remove. It was in vain for these to persuade the rest 
 of the jurymen that the expressions of the anonymous pamphlet 
 wei'e not strictly true. Many living witnesses had attested 
 in court, that Mr. Gardner was guilty of the very falsehood 
 which Mr. Thompson had made public. Mr. Thompson's 
 handbill was before them with the attestation of near fifty names. 
 It V as therefore too plain that Mr. Gardner "was publicly prov- 
 ed a liar by Mr. Thompson" and " that Mr. Thompson had 
 proved him a liar by scores of witnesses.*' Mr. Gardner's 
 irien is in the jury were consequently obliged to take new ground 
 ag in^t mp, which I was equally well prepared to meet, but to 
 wnich 4 i^atl never had an opportunity of replying, as it had never 
 
109 
 
 appeared before the Court. While in the jury -room, they per- 
 auuded their companions to believe that if I was not guilty of de- 
 famation, I was at least guilty of intrusion, in crossing tlie river 
 to )(reach on the Ohio side, which was already pre-occupied by 
 Mr. (Gardner; and in interfering with the quarrel between him 
 and Mr. Thompson: so that although their favourite might be 
 guilty of lying, 1 was in their view, guilty of meddling. This is 
 the substance ot what I was informed one of the jurymen after- 
 ward related in Mr. James Armstrong's store, if this crime 
 had been actionable, and I had been openly and honourably ac- 
 cused of it, I should have replied that my preaching on the Ohio 
 side was in compliance with the earnest solicitations, and the ur- 
 gent necessities of the people; that the place w^s less than two 
 miles from my own residence; that during the greater part of the 
 time it was on the farms of members of my own church; and 
 that, under my ministry, it pleased God to bring a number 
 of persons to give good evidence of a change of heart. If there- 
 fore they had put me in jail for this alledged intrusion, as the Phil- 
 ippians did the Apostle Paul, for preaching in a place preoccu- 
 pied by heathenisnj, it would have been my privilege to praise 
 God in my bonds. Abi for exposing the doctrinal and moral char- 
 acter of an errorist who preaches in sight of me, if this be med- 
 dling, then it is a duty, as the Apostle John testifies to the Ephe- 
 sian Church, when he says, ''thou hast tried them which say they 
 are Apostles, and are not; and hast found them liars." But Mr. 
 Gardner's advocates persuaded the jury to thiak other wise. And 
 to this they were impelled by an anxiety to be relieved from their 
 confinement, and by a degree of compassion artfully excited in 
 behalf of Mr. Gardner, who had already lost the price of several 
 horses in lawyer's fees and other expenses. This they seem- 
 ed to think might be a suflicient punishment for his real 
 crime; and for my supposed oftence of meddling, they thought 
 it not too severe to make me in this last prosecution, pay the 
 costs, which, (according to the technicil use of that word,) a- 
 mounted to less than seventeen Dollars, much less than what it 
 cost Mr. Gardner. In order to throw the costs upon an innocent 
 man, for a crime of which he was not even accused, they were 
 obliged to give the Plaintiff a verdict ; and in order to its being 
 a verdict at all, it must award, specific damages. They there- 
 fore fixed the damages at one oknt. Yes, one cent damages 
 were given to Mr. Campbell's worthy brother, to heal the wound 
 made in his character, by a pamphlet which said ^ that Mr. 
 Thonjpson had proved him a liar by scores of witnesses." 
 
 Now remember, this is the verdict by which Mr. Cainpbell 
 says that his Antagonist " had lately been convicted by the laws 
 of his own state, aq^d by a jury of his own country, of having 
 libelled i neighbouring preacher." This is the verdict which lie 
 quotes, as proving me unworthy of cretlii, and of course unwor- 
 thy of "'good stai\ding" in the Synod of Kentucky. If there 
 bean) meani.ig in these declarations of his, it is the ftllowing. 
 1. That my charging Mr. Gardner with lying was a false accusa- 
 
110 
 
 tion, and of course, constituted me guilty of that crime. This 
 is evident from his pretending that on this account, my "testi- 
 mony'' was *' harmless." 2. His insinuation against the Synod 
 for continuing me in good standing shews that he would be un- 
 derstood that for the alledged libellous matter of my pamphlet, I 
 deserved deposition and excommunication 3. He evidently 
 designs to make the public believe that the jury agreed with him, 
 in treating the pamphlet as a defamatory libel, and that they 
 shewed their agreement by a verdict of suitable damages for the 
 Plaintiff. All these particulars he makes to hang upon one pivot, 
 the verdict of the jury. This he thinks decisive proof that they 
 thought me a guilty defamer of an innocent man, and their think- 
 ing so, he gives as the reason why he and the Synod and the pub- 
 lic should treat me as a libeller of good men. Now if it can be 
 shewn that the jury did not think so, and that Mr. Campbell 
 knew it, and that he designedly concealed this truth, and tried 
 to give currency to an opinion which he knew to be untrue, it will 
 not require a civil prosecution and a verdict of one cent, to make 
 his book and its author appear in an unfavourable light. Here I 
 will not stop to question ^r. Campbell's faith in the infallibility 
 of a jury, but Popish as his doctrine is on this subject, I will sup- 
 pose that he is correct in taking it for granted that whatever they 
 thought concerning my guilt was right. I ask what evidence 
 have we that they thought my pamphlet a false and defamatory 
 libel against Mr. Gardner.? If thej really thought so, can we 
 suppose that they would omit to award him sufficient damages to 
 indemnify him for his pecuniary disbursements in the tedious 
 prosecution on both sides of the river.? If two or three hundred 
 Dollars would cover this expense, would that be an extravagant 
 allowance.? But besides his loss of money and labour, of time 
 and comfort, was the characterof a worthy, persecuted innocent 
 man, worth nothing? Solomon says, *' A good name is better 
 than precious ointment." " A good name is rather to be chosen 
 than great riches." Suppose that I had robbed Mr. Gardner of 
 that ointment which he sold at Ripley, or of those riches which 
 he made by keeping and trading horses, would the jury have re- 
 quired me to restore only a cent.? But we will suppose that they 
 were so mistaken, as to think a man's character worth no more 
 than the old board tent which Mr. Gardner's followers destroyed 
 for Mr. Clark. This the jury estimated at one hundred and 
 twentv-four Dollars. Can any one believe that twelvp citizens 
 of Kentucky would esteem a few weather-beaten boards to be 
 woith twelve thousand four hundred times as much as the char- 
 acterof an innocent persecuted man.? If he was really a man of 
 truth, I must have been extremely culpable in publishing that he 
 had been proved a liar: and my guilt was peculiarly agjjravated, 
 for every body who saw Mr. Thompson's handbill, with its scores 
 of witnesses, believed the truth of my statement. The most 
 respectable members and officers of his own synagogue belii^ved it. 
 His own lawyers believed it. One of them at first volunteered 
 with five other advocates, to defend my cause, and when the 
 Court refused to permit more than four to speak on each side, he 
 
ni 
 
 received a fee from Mr. Gardner. With my publication in ©ne 
 hand and Mr, Thompson's in the other, I defy any man of com- 
 mon sense and ordinary respectability to deny it. Mr. Camp- 
 bell himself, with all his fondness for prevarication, has not de- 
 nied it, and he probably never will. But he lias done what is equal- 
 ly inconsistent with veracity and honesty, he has endeavoured to 
 injure me by quotinji; an adverse verdict, and concealing; its most 
 important feature, the ovk cent oAMAGiis, the mention of which, 
 he knew would give a new face to the subject, amJ make him ap- 
 pear a contemptible slanderer. In what other light would the 
 community view me, if I were to assail Di. Fishback's charac- 
 ter for veracity upon the ground which Mr. Campbell has assum- 
 ed against me? and yet I myself was present in the Nicholasville 
 Court, when, " By the laws of his own state, and by a jury of 
 his own country,'' Dr. Fishback was amerced in one cent dam- 
 ages, in an action of slander, brought by Dr. J. R. And the 
 jury gave the same reason for it, that is, that Dr. Fishback ought 
 at least, to pay the costs. Yet Mr. Campbell quoted Dr. Fish- 
 back as a respectable author, on those subjects on which he pre- 
 tended that rny credibility was destroyed by this one cent verdict. 
 But circumstances alter cases. I am a Pedobaptist, and of 
 course full of moral deformity ; and Dr. Fishback is a Pelagian 
 Baptist, just now sent by Mr. Campbell to reform the Boston 
 Unitarians. When a Pedobaptist of Virginia, procured a judicial 
 decision, for fining and imprisoning my old friend Mr. Lewis 
 Craig, Mr. Campbell quotes it in both his debates, as a proof of 
 the persecuting tendency of Pedobaptism. To this he will pro- 
 bably add the decision in Ohio, against those who pulled down 
 our tent. But when his brother Gardner, a Unitarian Baptist, 
 procures a verdict of one cent against me, for telling the truth, 
 and for preaching the Gospel on his side of the river, this is no 
 longer persecution, but it is good reason why my own Synod 
 should depose and excommunicate me! 
 
 You will pardon me, my dear Preceptor, for taxing your pa- 
 tience so largely on this subject, I have done this, because si- 
 lence on my part would give his libel the semblance of truth, and 
 would be esteemed an indirectacknowledgment of guilt. I have 
 done this the more readily, because, as far as my recollection 
 serves, this is the only charge against my moral character, which 
 he professes to support by any tangible evidence. Well would 
 it be for him, if only one, and that an unsupported charge of 
 falsehood could'be brought against him. But in Nos. 13, 14, and 
 15, of these collateral papers, you will find many such faults 
 stated according to truth and evidence. Yet let me assure you 
 that they are very far from being a full list of the misstatements 
 contained in his book. Open the volume almost any where, and 
 you will see errors of this sort on both pages. Tiie very para- 
 graph in which he charges me with libelling a neighboring preach- 
 er, is headed with an instance which has not been mentioi ed in 
 any of the precedin r papers. He there says, '♦ Seventh day, 
 met according to adjournment." Now it is a notorious fact, that 
 
11® 
 
 ©n the seventh day, the people and two of the Moderators and 
 myself had to wait a full hour after the time to which we had ad- 
 journed, before Mr. Campbell and his Moderator made their ap- 
 pearance. As our President was to leave us that evening, and 
 as there was much important matter which I had not yet touch- 
 ed, and which I should be compelled to abridge at any rate, I 
 thought that Mr. Campbell took a very ungenerous advantage in 
 this delay: and many of the people thought this an additional 
 evidence that he was heartily sick of the debate, although his 
 general health might be improving. If I recollect rightly, Mr. 
 Lowry made such an observation himself: and accordingly when 
 we commenced business, he sat down and wrote the following no- 
 tice of the affaii', as it is now before me in his own Abstract. 
 Viz: " Wednesday morning. 7th day of the debate. Campbell 
 *' came an hour too late.^^ This may serve to shew the compara- 
 tive merit of Mr. Campbell's notes and those of Mr. Lowry. 
 Mr. Lowry endeavoured to state things as they really passed; 
 Mr. Campbell stated, or misstated, or concealed, as it appeared 
 most likely to serve his interest. It is for this reason that Mr. 
 Lowry has declared in his certificate copied in the Preface to this 
 work, that he " can unhesitatingly say, that the account given 
 is essentially incorrect as to the matter and manner " This ha- 
 bitual disregard of the truth is one feature in which he strongly 
 resembles his spiritual father, Robinson, and his spiritual grand- 
 father, who, as our Saviour informs us, was a teller of falsehoods 
 from the beginning. That he is their disciple, Mr. Greatrake 
 has fully proved, as in No. 16, above. 
 
 He is their disciple in opposing the Christian ministry. On 
 this subject Robinson speaks as follows, viz: '* After the de- 
 *' feat of that numerous, learned, and wealthy church, called 
 *' Catholick, farther attempts to prove what they have contend- 
 *' ed for, are extremely rash and entirely hopeless, and go on a 
 *' principle wholly disallowed in pure Christianity, the necessity 
 ** of a standing priesthood. The Apostle Paul gave a rule to the 
 ''Corinthians, applicable to baptizing as well as to preaching. 
 *' Ye may all prophecy one by one, that all may learn and all may 
 *' he cornforted. And the right of every Christian to enlarge the 
 *' kingdom of Christ by teaching and baptizing others, is perfect- 
 •'ly in unison with the whole spirit and temper of Christianity. 
 ** The conduct of Jesus was uniform. He first called twelve, 
 *' afterwards seventy, and when he extended his commission to 
 ** the whole world, he appointed above five hundred, and in them 
 "all Christians to the end of the world ; nor is it imaginable 
 "' that he uttered any prohibition against such as should increase 
 "■' his holy empire by instruction and baptism:"* Here the aboli- 
 tion of a regular ministry is made to rest on Christ's ordination 
 of all Christians to that ofilce, and his ordination of all Chris- 
 tians is made to rest on Mr. Robinson's unscriptural imagination: 
 for although Christ, by his Spirit, has uttered many prohibitions 
 
 »Robirisoa's History of Baptism, American Eiiition, p. 54. 
 
113 
 
 nation of five hundred men and of all Christians in them, is a 
 mere fiction of his own imagination. There is no more proof 
 that Christ conferred ministerial ordination on the five bundled 
 witnesses of his ascension, and on all Christians in them, than 
 that our last General Assembly ordained all who witnessed their 
 deliberations, all the tnen, women, and children, and all their 
 posterity to the end of the world. Yet baseless and hase as 
 this anti -clerical system is, Mr. Campbell is i\ir. Robin- 
 son's humble fidlower. 1 do not say that he acts consis- 
 tently with his profession; for while he makes war upon the 
 ministerial order in geneial, he is instituting a new clerical col- 
 lege of his own, and he is very willing to spare all ot the old or- 
 der who will come over to his side. He denies that any Chris- 
 tian can be a bish(»p, while he is a Pedobaptist. Yet lie calls 
 Sydney Rigdon a bishop, because he belongs to Mr. Campbell's 
 new corps of Baptist Bishops. Among \\\e. old school, Mr. 
 Greatrake is no bishop, for a well known reason: but Mr. Ver- 
 deman is a great bishop, for a reason as well known. Even lit- 
 tle Mr. Vaughn is called a bishop, because he falls into the 
 ranks: but although Mr. Campbell spoke and wrote very patheti- 
 cally about Mr. Lewis Craig, he did not call him a bishop, be- 
 cause he was unable to learn the new tactics. After the old gen- 
 tleman had been imprisoned for (Christ's sake, more than half a 
 century ago, he did not feel willing to sell his master now for 
 an empty name. 
 
 Mr. Campbell is also a disciple of Robinson in that liberality 
 which is indifferent to truth and holiness, and which stigijiatizes 
 as inquisitors all who exercise ecclesiastical discipline, especial- 
 ly when they are aided in that important scriptural duty by the 
 use of a public creed. On this subject Mr. Robinson speaks as 
 follows, viz: '^ The Baptist churches were constituted on grounds 
 *'just and liberal, and at an infinite distance from the foremen- 
 " tioned principle of the inquisition. The creeds which they 
 *' puolished, therefore, are not to be considered as a publick 
 *' faith, which it would be accounted heresy to contradict; but 
 ** the scripture, and the scripture interpreted by individuals, 
 "was the true and real foundation of their first churches. It 
 "must be allowed, however, that they have not all acted on this 
 *' principle. Most ai-e divided into two principal branches, on 
 " the speculative points of grace and free will; the particular 
 *' Baptists holding Arminianism as an heresy, and the General 
 *' Baptists consit'ering Calvinism in the same liglit, and neither 
 "admitting the other to church communion, and both cousider- 
 *' ing the Socinian Baptists as inadmissible to their churches. 
 *' All allow separate societies to judge for tiiemselves; many al- 
 " low individuals in their churches to dilfer, except on funda- 
 " mental articles ; and some have no fundamental articles, and 
 *'only require a person to profess himself a believer in Christ; 
 *'and this seems to be the only true ground of action."" In 
 
 '' Histoij of Baptism V p. 504. 
 
Hi 
 
 this passgea Mr. Robinson opposes creeds as illiberal, and in- 
 quisitorial, because they are apt to contain fundamental articles 
 of faith. This he thinks wrong, because it so often excludes 
 Socinians from the church. In the preceding page he tells us 
 that, at the Reformation, Dudith joined the Baptists, "for the 
 " sake of a liberty of saying what he would on every subject." 
 He tells us that "he quitted the Lutheran and Calvinistic 
 " churches, and for this he settled in that of the Unitarians in 
 " Poland, where in the enjoyment of this precious liberty,^he 
 " felt a happiness which he had never known before." In the 
 following page he celebrates tlie praises of another Unitarian 
 Baptist of the same period, who was condemned for dissenting 
 from a creed which recognizes the Son as co-essential with the 
 Father. This was the identical reason for which the Council of 
 Nice condemned Arius. As Mr. Duncan censures the latter, so 
 does Mr. Robinson the former, and for the same reason. Mr. 
 Campbell has as great an opposition as either of them, to creeds 
 with fundamental ai'ticles, tending to shut out Unitarians. It 
 is a little amusing to read the note which Mr. Benedict, the A- 
 merican Editor of Robinson, has appended to his remai'k about 
 '* no I'undamental articles." He says "It may be question- 
 " ed whether there is not a little too much laxity in tins ex- 
 *' pression." I think he might as well have questioned whether 
 there was not a little too much laxity in the bowels of Judas and 
 Arius, when they gushed out, and tne guilty wretches expired. 
 
 That Mr. Campbell is Mr. Robinson's humble disciple in his 
 opposition to creeds, and fundamental articles of faith, and the 
 exercise of church discipline, is evident to those who are conver- 
 sant with his writings. For one passage to this purpose I would 
 refer you to the close of No, 16 above. Besides a contemptu- 
 ous notice of creed-makers, in that passage, he tells us, (as is 
 usual with those who snarl at creeds,) what sort of a creed he 
 would make. He tells us that "the belief of one fact, and that 
 " upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as 
 " far as faith goes, to salvation." " The one fact is, that Jesus 
 " the Naza,rene is the Messiah." Compare this vv'ith the creed 
 given above from Mr. Robinson and his Unitarian Baptists, who 
 "only require a person to profess himself a believer in Christ." 
 " This," says he, " seems to be the only true ground of action:" 
 That is, this is the only profession requisite to baptism, and, of 
 course, to admission into the church. To the same amount Mr. 
 Campbell says, " The belief of this one fact, and subjection to 
 " one institution [baptism] expressive of it, is all that is requir- 
 " ed of heaven to admission into the church." Here then we 
 have their views of doctrine and discipline. For " a person to 
 " profess himself a believer" in " the one fact'' " that Jesus the 
 Nazareneis the Messiah," and to receive adult baptism by im- 
 mersion, is all that is necessary to entitle am-- to every ecclesias- 
 tical privilege, even to the right of prtach.ng the gospel and 
 baptizing others. These terms were evidently made to embrace 
 all Unitarian Baptists," for they all profess to believe this one 
 
115 
 
 fact, and they receive adult baptism by imraersion. But Mr. 
 Greatrake justly shews that these terms of communion embrace 
 devils too, for they profess to believe this one fact, and those of 
 them who entered the herd of swine, received adult immersion 
 in a lake which is formed by the important river Jordan, These 
 then must be members of Mr. Robinson's and Mr. Campbell's 
 church. To be consistent, they must be considered duly quali- 
 fied ministers of religion, and be called bishops. Mr. Campbell 
 has frequently tried to make his readers laugh at our Presbyte- 
 ries, Synods and General Assembly: but really an Ecclesiastical 
 Association of his packing is no laughing matter. We might 
 find Bishop Beelzebub in the chair, with Bishop Chemosh and 
 Bishop Catnpbell at the table, acting as clerks. On the right 
 hand we might see Bishop Vaughn, Verdeman and Mammon, and 
 on the left. Bishops Gartlnerand Lucifer, with Bishops Robinson, 
 Rigdon and Dagon; while tiie main body of this liberal Association 
 might befcomposed of Simon Magus and his Gnostics, Cerinthus 
 and theEbionitts, the Monophysites of the East and the Unitarians 
 of the West. This is the sort of Company in Which Mr. Robin- 
 son's worthy Bishop Dudith " felt a happiness which lie had never 
 "known before." Here he had '-a liberty of saying what he 
 would [provided it is false] on every subject." Who would not, 
 with him, leave "the Lutheran and Calvinistic churches," for 
 " the enjoyment of this precious liberty?'' "Our lips are our 
 " own; who is Lord over us.?" From this august chuixh Mr. 
 Campbell excludes all the Pedobaptist, creed-making world,- that 
 is, ihe great body of the Christian world: and, blessed be God, 
 they have no wish for a seat there. May you and I be faithful 
 members of that Church which has publicly refused to acknowl- 
 edge Unitarian Baptism ; and when called hence, may we be 
 at liberty to sing the song of Moses and the Lamb, in the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of the Church of the First born on high — a 
 
 song in which no Unitarian ever joined, an Assembly in wichno 
 Unitarian was ever found. 
 
 Yours sincerely and affectionately, 
 
 W. L. M'CALLA. 
 
 Philadelphia, Oct. 19, 1826. 
 
 No. 18. 
 Mr. CampbeWs Literary and Polemical Character. 
 
 From W. L. M'Calla to the Rev. John T. Edgar, Maysville, Kentucky. 
 
 Beloved Brother; 1 am now about to redeem a pledge 
 
 which you probably tiiought that I had forgotten. You were ve- 
 ry well satisfied that I had encountered Mr. Campbell, until 
 your mind was changed a few months afterward, by information 
 
116 
 
 received from his neigUhoarhood. You then told me that, from 
 unanswerable evidence, his character was too low to justify so 
 formal a notice by any respectable man; and that, in defence of 
 my own character, an apology should be made to the public. 
 This I promised to do. Since that time, your information has 
 been confirmed by many direct communications to myself, from 
 men of the first standing in his part of the world, and by travel- 
 lers through that country, some of them Baptists and some Pe- 
 dobaptists. With three or four exceptions, the respectable pai't of 
 society appear to have adopted the same plan; that is, to let him 
 curse on, and pay no attention to him. Some profess to avoid 
 him, as a well dressed gentleman would avoid an animal in our 
 woods, whose formidable missile is a species of musk not general- 
 ly relished as a perfume. Others seem to avoid him from a con- 
 scientious opposition to controversy. They think it wrong for 
 an ecclesiastic or an ecclesiastical court to take any public notice 
 of a prevailing heresy. Their plan is to pray it down, and to 
 live it down, and to preach it down, not by controversy, but by 
 instruction. This is the plan pursued in Massachusetts, ever 
 since heresy made its appearance there. The consequence is 
 that the prayer ot faith, holy living, and instructive preaching 
 are comparatively scarce articles there now. These things, to- 
 gether> with Confessions of Faith, have been laid aside, as savour- 
 ing of the inquisition! It will probably be admitted that the in- 
 spired Prophets and Apostles, and it cannot be reasonably deni- 
 ed that our fathers of the seventeenth century, in England and 
 Scotland, were as faithful as any of the present generation, in 
 praying, living, and teaching ; yet in the name of their God, they 
 met false prophets and apostles, heretics and heresies, full in the 
 face, and by that very means, promoted wisdom, piety and vigi- 
 lance in themselves and others. The clergy of this City have 
 fairly tried both experiments. A man of Mr. Campbell's reli- 
 gious character, but, I think, his inferior in education and tal- 
 ents, talked, pi'eached and printed in this place, until he built an 
 elegant church in the Northern Liberties, in addition to a fine one 
 which he already occupied near the Southern confine of the City. 
 These churches were crowded to overflowing, and proselytes 
 multiplied, wliile the clerg} were silent: but after almost every 
 pulpit in the city had resounded for months with the refutation 
 ef every prominent feature ot his abominable system, he hastily 
 emigrated to a neighbouring city, the clergy of which are trying 
 silently to liA'^e down his error, while he is building a new church 
 for tlie propagation of it. 
 
 i do not believe "that many intelligent Pedobaptists are sorry 
 ihat Dr. Wall defended Christian Baptism, either before or after 
 the assault which Mr. Gale made upon him. And notwithstand- 
 ing the contempt which is thrown upon Mr. Campbell for his low 
 cunning, his mean duplicity, as well as his audacious effrontery, 
 it is more than probable that in these respects, as well as his lite- 
 rary and polemical talents, he very much resembles Mr. Gale. 
 That the latter t(Jok great liberties in perverting the sense and 
 
117 
 
 altering the words of his Antagonist is fully shewn by Dr. Wall 
 in his Defence, throughout. One glaring instance may be seen 
 in his ninth Chapter." You will also recognize the resemblance 
 in Dr. Wall's description of Mr. Gale, in the following words, 
 viz: " He writes in a style indeed, sufficiently fluent, and with 
 " a good stock of philological learning, but d<»es not keep very 
 •' close to the rules of candour, modesty or truth, but delights in 
 "vaunting, insulting, slighting, and laying odious and false iin- 
 "putations." Their resemblance in one polemical trick is very 
 remarkable. Mr. Campbell pronounced almost every one of my 
 arguments a.pefifio prindpii^ or a begging of the question. In 
 page 303, he says, "This is a. petitio principii, a begging of the 
 " question. Let this first be proved. But it cannot " With- 
 out troubling you with many instances of this declamatory logic, 
 [ will point you to one which embraces every other. In his re- 
 capitulation in page 388, he says, " It was also shewn that he 
 " [Mr. M'Calla] begged every question connected with his views 
 " of Baptism." From this you may see that Mr. Campbell's an- 
 swer to every argument was to pronounce it a petitio principii. 
 In this he closely followed Mr. Gale, as will appear from the fol- 
 lowing words of Dr. Wall, viz: " He tells, them their argument 
 »' for infant baptism, from seminal holiness, is a petilio principii; 
 "by which I should guess," says the Dr., "that they have 
 " said something beyond his reach ; for that is the common name 
 " that he gives to all arguments that he cannot answer." 
 
 These men are also very much alike in their bold way of de- 
 nying what their antagonists have said and done. Although Dr. 
 Wall's book is evidence that he used arguments from scripture, 
 Mr. Gale denies it: so although I triumphantly refuted Mr. 
 Campbell's arguments, he denies that I noticed them at all. 
 " Mark it," says he, " my friends, Mr. M'Calla has not replied 
 " to one of them." " Having also advanced sundry arguments 
 " both as respects the subject and action of baptism, which he 
 "has not so much as ventured to impugn " ''You will have 
 " the goodness to bear in mind that not one of +liem has been for- 
 " uially impugned by Mr. M'Calla." "He has not so muck 
 "as yet adverted to my disquisition on the words in contruver- 
 *' sy." " Has he met me on that point either? N'l, no. In 
 " no one instance, from the commencement of this discussion, 
 " dare he encounter me on any definite terms. He does best at 
 " a great distance. He keeps oft' at; sea, fearing to be land 
 " bound" Similar expressions are found even in his recapitu- 
 lation, where he says, " Thfcse arguments have never been at- 
 " tacked by my Opporient." In this same recapitulation he 
 also says, " I called upon Mr. M'Calla to read IVom the same 
 " volume, rthe New Testament,] his authority for infant bap- 
 "tism, but be could find nothing to read an<l withdrew to Rob- 
 "inson."'= Whether it be true that I "couldfind nothing to 
 
 =■ See p. 200 of the 4th London Edition. 
 
 <= See Debate pp. 234, 255, 146, 301, 225, 388, 390, 
 
118 
 
 " read" from the New Testament on this subject, jou and thou- 
 sands of others can attest. In the same spirit of truth, M r. Gale 
 sajs repeatedly that Dr. Wall "confesses" that " infant baptism 
 cannot be found in scripture," and that " infant baptism cannot 
 be maintained but by the traditions of the Church."^ 
 
 If Mr. Gale was deficient in modesty, Mr. Campbell's opinion 
 of himself in comparison of others, is perhaps as immoderate. 
 You remember that Mr. Walker exposed Mr. Campbell's re- 
 port of his debate Avith him. This work Mr. Campbell reviews. 
 I should like if I had room to copy the last paragraph. Suffice 
 it to say that in the bitterness of his spleen he is not satisfied 
 with heaping the most unqualified abuse upon Mr. Walker's 
 book, but he undertakes to contrast it with his own transcendant 
 performance which it exposed. He calls Mr. Walker's em- 
 phatically a little treatise, because it has a few pages less than 
 his own, and an ephemeral production, as if his own would cer- 
 tainly live forever. After rating it as vulgar, malicious, false, 
 inaccurate and ungrammatical, he adds, with great self-compla- 
 cency, " It has, however, by the contrast of light and shade, of 
 •' good and evil, which everywhere appear in the natural and 
 " moral world, been the happy means of furnishing a new evi- 
 " dence of the excellency of truth and the corruption of errorj 
 " by giving to the volume which it attacks, an additional splek- 
 " DOUR.'"' That his volume was originally splendid is here taken 
 for granted: Mr. Walker's answer is only allowed the honor of 
 giving it an additional splendour, by the contrast of light and 
 shade!! '"Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; 
 a stranger, and not thine own lips." 
 
 The Editor of the Pittsburgh Recorder, after travelling, pub- 
 lished a journal of his tour. This Mr. Campbell notices in the 
 most contemptuous manner; informing the public, that "the most 
 astonishing and interesting incident recorded" in it, is, that the 
 Editor became acquainted with an old Irish Lady who left one 
 Presbyterian body to jom another. Mr. Campbell also is an 
 Editor; and in the same volume he gives us an account of his 
 own tour to Kentucky. In this splendid performance he gives 
 us more astonishing and interesting incidents in half a page than 
 his neighbour Editor had given in three papers. He says, " I 
 "have come home richly laden with intelligence derived from 
 " observation, conversation with many of the most intelligent 
 " and pious teachers of the Christian religion, and from reflexion 
 *' on religious men and. things of our own times." He then mo- 
 destly hints at his great superiority over those who only read 
 geography by the fire-side; after which he speaks with rapture, 
 of mountains and hills, plains and deserts, rivers and morasses, 
 toils and perils, battles and gibbets, patience and perseverance, 
 
 a See Wall's Defence, pp. 132, 133. 
 i9 See his last spurious report, p. 418. 
 
119 
 
 meadows and fields, fragrance and beauties, until the dull jour- 
 nal of the Pittsburgh Editor, appears fit for no other end than to 
 give additional splendour to the Buffalo Editor's velume, by the 
 contrast of light and shade. 
 
 You and I have the honor of knowing the 'weight of some of 
 those most intelligent teachers to whom he refers, and we have 
 participated in the amusement occasioned by the report of his in- 
 terviews with them. You have seen, (in fancy, at least,) a 
 man of education and information, and conscious strength, sit- 
 ting in a circle of gazing, gaping, unlettered admirers, whom he 
 calls bishops. He tells them that he was acquainted with a Scot- 
 tish Laird; Bishop V. who sits by his side, moves his chair an 
 inch back, as unworthy to sit in a straight line with such a man. 
 He then observes that he was once in company with some of the 
 Noblesse of France; Bishop V. recedes another inch. The great 
 man farther informs them that he had conversed with members 
 of the British Parliament; Bishop V. makes another move in the 
 rear. To bring this " most astonishing and interesting" inter- 
 view to a climax, the man of splendour then electrifies the com- 
 pany, by informing them that when ship-wrecked at a certain 
 time, he was reading a I^atin treatise on Logic! which, to men 
 who know nothing of Latin or Logic, must have been as captiva- 
 ting as his declaration on the stage, that he had read all the 
 works of Aristotle and Plato in the Original. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell denies that " his ruling passion is the love 
 of fame." He does not wish you to think that he covets the ad- 
 miration of fools. According to his own account he is one of the 
 most modest, unassuming, self-denied, retiring men, that the 
 world has known. Hear his own words in reply to Mr. Great- 
 rake's charge of vanity. They are as follows, viz: '* A person 
 " that refused, as 1 have done, offers of connexion with popular 
 " sects, and of places of public and conspicuous eminence in the 
 " cities of Philadelphia and New-York, who could take his bible 
 " and tlie plough, and sit down among the hills of Western Vir- 
 " ginia, and from the age of 21 to 31, move in the quiet vale of 
 " retirement without seeking in one instance to make himself 
 "more conspicuous than his immediate duties and business re- 
 " quired, afiords, we conceive, but few evidences that his ruling 
 " passion is the love of fame." To this Mr. Greatrake rejoins, 
 *' Give us proper testimony, aye, testimony, ' for the belief 
 *' OF THIS ONE FACT,' that you have had those overtures from 
 *'■ popular sects, and offers of places of /3M6/iC and conspicuous 
 ^^ eminence, &c., and when you doit, though not a miracle, it 
 " will be a wonder of first rate magnitude. "'' This language of 
 Mr. Greatrake is really provoking; and is calculated to drive his 
 Antagonist to greater excesses ot boasting. It would not be at 
 all surprising if Mr. Campbell's next bulletin should announce 
 to a wondering world, that he had rejected the offer of a peerage 
 
 ' Miniature Portrait, p. 9. 
 
12U 
 
 in Scotland, and another in France; and that he had refused tlie 
 offer of a seat in the British Parliament: preferring a retired life, 
 with his hammock and his Latin Logic, ploughing the watery 
 mountains of the Atlantic, in search of a sentimental shipwreck. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's literary vanity has made him give frequent 
 hinfs in his book, that his reading is very extensive indeed. In 
 page S6t), he says, "■ We have searched all the large and vol- 
 " uminous histories now extant, and many if not all the abbrevia- 
 *' ted ones, we have examined all the writings of those called the 
 *' Apostle's successors, both orthodox and heterodox." In the 
 close of his b{»ok, he says, " Having explored all the systems of 
 *' infant baptism hitherto exhibited, I would inform the public 
 "that unless some new ground is taken, I will promise to re- 
 ** view annually all the new works published on this question, 
 *' and sell the annual review for twelve and a half cents." Bap- 
 tist controversialists can hardly ever forego the pleasure of ap- 
 pearing learned, even if they should, without credit, borrow all 
 their materials from Pedobaptist writers. On a certain text Gale 
 makes a pompous display of interpreters and versions, for both 
 of which. Dr. Wall says, '* One may plainly trace him along 
 •'Pool's Synopsis."'' Mr. Gale, like my Opponent, affected a 
 great familiarity with the Christian Fathers. In one of these 
 exhibitions, he refers us to the Greek Original of Origen's Homi- 
 lies on St. Luke. Dr. Wall had the trouble of ir forming him, 
 that the work to which he referred was not now in the world 1^ 
 Mr. Campbell has fallen into precisely the same error with re- 
 gard to the minutes of the Westminster Assembly. In his de- 
 bate with Mr. Walker, he made some bold and untrue assertions 
 concerning that venerable body, and nailed them by a reference 
 to their written proceedings, in the following words, viz. "See 
 •' the minutes of the Assembly, met at Westminster, A. D. 16- 
 43 ."'' These minutes perished in the fire of London, A. D. 1666, 
 so that Mr. Campbell tells us to see a work which has long been 
 invisible. 
 
 If spared to publish my argument, I hope to shew one unhappy 
 refuge of this gigantic polemic, which will be apt to expose the 
 weakness of bis cause to every scholar. It is his resorting to the 
 critical principles of Home Tooke, to defend exclusive immer- 
 sion. I should be glad if every Baptist writer hereafter, would 
 honestly own that their cause needs such a preposterous system to 
 support it. I am inclined to think moreover, that inconsistency 
 as well as extravagance, betrays either error or weakness or 
 both. In one place he says, that Mr. M'Calla's "own letters 
 " shew that he was competent." In another place, he says that 
 Mr. M'Calla's speeches are "decisive evidence of his conscious 
 " incompetency. '"* These he may appear to reconcile; but there 
 are others which he cannot. While he was trying to secure the 
 
 » See his Defence, p. 1«8. * Defence, p, 326. 
 
 •^ See a Note in p. 129. •' Debate, pp. 10, 336. 
 
121 
 
 negative in the debate, he says, " In every controversy, then, 
 " with the Pedobaptists, upon this topic, they affirm and we de- 
 " ny, they commence and we respond."^ His challenge was the 
 ground of our debate. I had observed that the proposition 
 whicli he there undertook to defend was an affirmative one. But 
 he goes on to give arguments "which," says he, "according 
 *' to my views, will force the proposition into the form of a di- 
 *'rect negative in the discussion.'"' In other places he says, 
 " Have I not taken an affirmative proposition.'^" " I waspledg- 
 *' ed to affirm and he to deny."'' In another place he says that 
 his opponent " necessarily affirms," and then calls upon him for 
 the proof, because, as he expressly says, "the proof lies on the 
 "affirmer."' He then goes on to compare infant baptism to a 
 house made of ice, which he wisely tells us will soon melt away. 
 He might have added that it was not more evanescent than that 
 pitiable sophistry which conjured such a watery phantom a- 
 gainst a permanent institution of Heaven. 
 
 After Mr. Campbell had accused me of holding a controver- 
 sy in writing and not viva voce, I exhibited my notes to the au- 
 dience, telling them how much space they occupied. This he has 
 omitted to record! but he has, in page 82, recorded a similar ex- 
 hibition of his own notes, which took place immediately after, 
 and in consequence of mine! In connexion with this, he has 
 partially recorded in the same paragraph a proposal which sets 
 his controversial character in its true light. He urged that we 
 should both give up our papers and books, and let the rest of the 
 debate be a mere logomachy : or as he expresses it, " let our de- 
 bate be viva uoce as it was proposed." This is as much as to 
 say that it could not be viva voce, if either party used papers or 
 books, and that these were therefore excluded by our original 
 plan: whereas ^^ it was proposed,''^ by himself, in his 8th rule, 
 m No. 3, above, that " Whatever books are produced on the 
 *' occasion shall be equally accessible to the use of each dispu- 
 *' tant." He brought a great store of books to the debate with 
 Mr. Walker, and in this same 82d page, gives the " stage of the 
 »' river'' as a reason for not bringing some ponderous volumes to 
 our debate; where, however, he secured by stipulation, the use 
 of mine, many of which were brought for him by request. He 
 even came to the stage with his own printed controversy in his 
 hand, accompanied with a greater quantity of manuscript paper 
 than I had. These lawful and honorable weapons he used as 
 well as he could, and did not beg his Antagonist to throw away 
 his sword, 
 
 " Till at advantage ta'en, his brand 
 Forced Roderick's weapon from his hand, 
 And backwards borne upon the lee, 
 Brought tlie proud Chieftain to his knee." 
 
 In Mr. Campbell's introd ctory address, he professes to be ac- 
 tuated by generous principles. He says, " I trust neither Mr. 
 
 »Debate pp. 10, 386. <=Debate pp. 142, lie. 
 
 *Debatep. 23. l!dDebate,p.55. 
 
122 
 
 « M'Calla nor myself came hither for the purpose of displaying 
 ' our talents or our acquisitions. It was not, we assure you, my 
 'friends, for the purpose of exhibiting our strength, or the 
 ' weakness of my opponent, that induced me to leave my family 
 * and visit this place. No such inglorious object could have in- 
 ' duced me to undergo the privations and toils of my journey 
 'hither." '' No, my friends, it is not our own reputation, nor 
 'sectarian victory we have in view; it is the triumph of truth, 
 'it is the union of Christians on a proper basis." Did Mr. 
 Campbell find after a few hours' discussion, that the truth vt'ould 
 suffer, by his " few hundred references to the original scripturq^ 
 *»and a few extracts from ecclesiastical history, from authors 
 "which I [Mr. Campbell] could not bring hither owing to the 
 stage of the river.^" No, he did not probably think that much 
 evil would attend the reading of his texts, but he was willing to 
 give them up, if he could by that means deprive mc of minej 
 especially as he had many of his at his finger ends, and I could 
 scarcely repeat five verses of the scriptures accurately, according 
 to his account. He was willing also to give up his extracts from 
 ecclesiastical history, because by writing and repeating them for 
 years together, he could quote them by memory^ whereas with- 
 out notes, I should do great injustice to that evidence, which he 
 knows is against him. As his proposal was almost if not quite 
 in the form of a demand, I referred it to the Moderators. They 
 decided that the parties had a right to use books and papers at 
 discretion. After this I remarked that my Opponent's proposal 
 reminded me of a similar one made in the sixteenth century. 
 Martin Luther declared that in a debate between Eckius and 
 Carolstadt, the latter had greatly the advantage, while the par- 
 ties were allowed access to authorities in support of their posi- 
 tions; but after the proposal of the former to exclude all notes, 
 papers and books was agreed to, the flippancy of the Pope's Le- 
 gate, a practised disputant, produced a greater effect. For my 
 own part, 1 observed, that as I did not undertake this discussion 
 for the love of talking, or for the purpose of making empty asser- 
 tions, but of defending the truth by good evidence, I should avail 
 myself of such preparations and such authorities as were within 
 my reach; leaving my Opponent to enjoy the same privilege, 
 and to invalidate my proofs if he could. In Mr. Campbell's 88th 
 page, he gives a new turn to this, evidently for the purpose of 
 extracting a compliment to his superior abilities. There he 
 makes me assert a historical falsehood, by representing Carol- 
 stadt as rejecting the proposal of Eckius, on account of the su- 
 perior experience and flippancy of the latter; whereas notwith- 
 standing these advantages, he accepted the proposal. He then 
 makes me reject Mr. Campbell's proposal for the same reason; 
 that is, because 1 dreaded his dexterity and volubility; whereas 
 my reason was a wish to prove the truth, instead of waging a war 
 of words. But of such errors as this, there is no end until you 
 get to the end of his book. 
 
123 
 
 One of Mr. Campbell's controversial arts was to multiply 
 challenges indefinitely, and then to boast that every defiance en- 
 titled him to a triumph. In page 225, he has three of these and 
 a reference to many more in the compass of a dozen lines. His 
 manner was to speak witli great confidence of every point, and to 
 offer to rest the whole controversy on it. "-Let Mr. M'Calla'' says 
 he, " meet us on this passage, as we have proposed to meet him on 
 " many others; we wi! I rest the whole controversy on this point. I 
 *' request my opponent to try it. I will rest the whole weight of the 
 *'conrruversy upon the correctness of the statement I have made, 
 " upon the exposition of the allegory I have given. " "I will pledge 
 
 *' MY ERUDITION, MY CRITICAL ACUMEN, MY RESPECTABILITY AS 
 
 ** A SCHOLAR, that he cannot, upon the investigation of that refer- 
 *' ence — Nay I will rest the whole controversy upon it. If he 
 ** proves this one point we shall say all is proved, and his cause is 
 ** triumphant."^ He knew that our meeting was occasioned by his 
 publishing and my accepting a particular challenge, which was 
 then, by written agreement, the subject of discussion. He 
 knew also that this challenge embraced several important topics, 
 which must be supported or oppugned by many scriptural authcH:- 
 ities. Notwithstanding this, he would sometimes perch upon 
 some outer twig of some inferior branch of one of these topics, 
 an«i fiercely challenge me to let the whole controversy turn upon 
 that point. Nay he would sometimes select some single passage 
 of scripture adduced on that remote point, and challenge me to 
 make that the subject of discussion, to the exclusion of all other 
 topics, arguments and authorities. In page 124, he says, " Let 
 *' hini^then lay aside every other topic and open this chapter." 
 Seeing that his original challenge suffered much by rough hand- 
 ling, he often endeavoured to draw me from the work of destruc- 
 tion, by challenging me to meet him a hundred miles off" about 
 some minor matter not effecting the main topics; as a partridge 
 makes a great fluttering on one side of the road to decoy the 
 traveller from her nest which is on the other side. In page 218, 
 after requiring me to rest the whole controversy on one point, he 
 expressly tells us that whatsoever might be the issue, " it would 
 " not affect the main topics of discussion!" Yet because! kept 
 up a steady fire upon his original positions, and paid no atten- 
 tion to his decoys and distant alarm guns, he bravely accuses me 
 of unmanly and cowardly conduct. In his recapitulation, page 
 388, he says '• You will also remember that in every instance 
 ** when 1 invited Mr. M'Calla to the discussion of any particu- 
 *' lar portion of scripture, pledging myself to rest the whole con- 
 "troversy upon it, such as," &.c. &c. "he manfully declined 
 *' and resolutely refused to do so " A stranger would hardly 
 suppose, that before these words were written or spoken, I had, 
 as far as the time would allow, noticed particularly and success- 
 fully almost every important argument and text adduced by Mr. 
 Campbell or any other baptist author. It is probable that two ex- 
 ceptions could not be produced, although my time was so limited. 
 Yet as he is judge and jury, accuser and witness, he seldom gives 
 
 » See Debate, pp. 218, 250, 124. 
 
1£4 
 
 me credit for so doing: and when, for a rarity, he does admit it, he 
 makes me as in pap;e 261, rest the whole controversy on it, after 
 his fashion; and because I merely contradicted this statement, 
 without consuming time with useless explanations and disputa- 
 tions, he bring, me in more guilty than if I had not noticed the 
 point at alK Thus he wraps it up. 
 
 What Dr. Wall says of Mr. Gale's eloquence, maybe said of 
 Mr. Campbell's. " His talent in rhetoric, (which is not incon- 
 ^' siderable) he uses to false colouring and gaining his point (as 
 " he calls it) by wrested representations of things and passa- 
 " ges.'"" He is a considerable wit. One effect of this was, that 
 in proportion to his ambition to excite laughter, so was his mor- 
 tification when the laugh was turned against himself. When he 
 was prostrate, I endeavoured to lead the audience into a serious 
 frame. This was done to spare his feelings and to promote the 
 general edification. For this favour he rewards me by putting 
 foolish words into my mouth, and by pretending as in the last 
 page quoted above, that the risibility which I endeavoured to re- 
 press, was not at his expense, but was excited by "a canting 
 tone and a sorrowful countenance" which he there indirectly at- 
 tributes to me. But these very expressions are a great softening 
 of the real words which he used in the debate. Instead of " a 
 canting tone and a sorrowful countenance'' as in the report, his 
 real expressions were, " long faces, dirty Pharisaical faces, sanc- 
 tified sighs, pious sobs, and holy groans. " His thus altering his 
 own words, is a proof that his conscience and taste are not yet 
 jjerfectly insensible to the ugliness and the odiousness of vulgari- 
 ty, profanity, and scurrility. That these expressions were the 
 ebullition of spleen and mortification was as evident, as that he 
 was afterward moved by his hatred against missions, to censure 
 the London Society and the Editors of the New-York Observer 
 for relating certain " transactions, without a comment and with 
 
 out A GROAN." 
 
 What easy and astonishing success attended Mr. Campbell's 
 labours in the debate, if we listen to his own account! One 
 would suppose that he had nothing to do but to attend the funer- 
 al obsequies of his Antagonist. He tells the audience that "Mr. 
 ♦'M'Calla, theologically considered, is digging his own grave. 
 " He is, in fact, about to defeat his own cause, and to subvert his 
 " own theses." " He has not only killed, but buried himself." 
 "He was digging a pit for his own interment.'' "We have 
 "seen he is theologically dead and buried." " But recollect 
 " my friends, he has not made one struggle to get out of the pit 
 " into which he has fallen. He is buried under the ruins of one 
 "of his bulwarks.'" Mr. Campbell is not satisfied with the 
 death and burial of an individual, but every "hireling priest,'' 
 
 i> See Defence, p. 47. 
 
 <= See Debate, p. p. 133, 134, 194, 195, 203. 
 
125 
 
 (as he politely calls Dr. Mason and his adherents, in page 207,) 
 is consigned to the tomb with me; and in page 293, he pronoun- 
 ces over us a pompous funeral oration, in which, with his usual 
 regard to truth, he says, that his Antagonist " has examined 
 " the annals of the world for fifteen hundred years, and has not 
 " found a syllable about infant baptism!" Bat this is only one 
 out of fifteen hundred such statements, several of which you in- 
 form me he has published against you. 
 
 Your letter moreover says, " unless you soon publish your de- 
 ''bate with Campbell, his friends in this country will say that 
 " you are conquered " This is a temporary disadvantage to 
 which I desire patiently to submit; especially as it is firmly be- 
 lieved that the truths which 1 advocate, have, by Divne assis- 
 tance, obtained a real victory, and shall, by the same assistance, 
 secure a permanent triumph. The hast} , crude, partial and spu- 
 rious publications of my 'Baptist and Universalist Antagonists 
 were designed, in a great measure, to make money: and if I 
 were such a hireling as they are, I should have adopted their 
 measures. Thej^ are calculated to give a momentary lift to their 
 cause, but ultimately to destroy it. When the public has fully 
 and fairly heard both parties, may vve not hope that the truth 
 will triumph in the press, as it did on the stage. When they 
 compare my work with Mr. Campbell's I am not afraid of their 
 decision on the merits of the cause, or on the weight of argu- 
 ment. His unanswered publication gives a partial and mo- 
 mentary turn to the popular voice: but if he had remained silent 
 like myself, or if my argument could have been published with 
 hisj this effect woulcl not have been known. 
 
 It is natural that the parties and their friends should be alive to 
 the immediate ett'ects produced upon the community by their oral 
 controversy. Each is willing to think that the public voice assigns 
 to him the palm of victory. This is a subject which admits of 
 something more tangible than declamation. Mr. Campbell him- 
 self concedes that an unaccountable anxiety to bring a debate 
 to a close, is an evidence that the party, thus solicitous, feels 
 that he is losing ground. For this reason he represents Mr. 
 Walker as requesting his Moderator to curtail the debate of the 
 last day.* The Moderator afterward published a denial of the 
 fact, and very correctly observed that, " the statement is obvi- 
 *' ously intended to bias the public with the apprehension that 
 " Mr. Walker was exhausted or tired with his part of the con- 
 *' troversy.'"' In my case, it is quite unnecessary to manufac- 
 ture instances in which my Opponent " was exhausted or tired 
 with his part of the controversy." As he came to the ground 
 determined to conquer in three hours, or a day at most, he soon 
 became impatient of delay. Accordingly, on the second day he 
 proclaimed himself victor, and pronounced the debate at an end. 
 
 » See Debate with Mr. W. p. 121. 
 
 ^ See Mr. Walker's Reply, p. 242. , 
 
126 
 
 Ji'inding; me still under weigh, he appealed to the bench to en- 
 force his pi uclamation, by controlling my course. Being disap- 
 pointed here also, he plead sickness" as a reason for a premature 
 adjournment, //is Moderator backed this request by a mourn- 
 ful complaint that his seat had been very hard to iiim that dav. 
 Although the sympathy between the Moderator's seat and his 
 champion's stomach was invisible, yet it was not inexplicable to 
 a part of the audience, to whom it occasioned no little merri- 
 ment. It was at this time that Col. Morris proposed to me the 
 question about the gesture of an exhausted race-horse. If I had 
 complained, it would have been nothing unreasonable, because I 
 was really sick, and was getting worse every day; vvhereas, in 
 his preface, he asserts " the improvement of" his " health dur- 
 ing the seven days of the discussion." Notwithstanding this, he 
 manifested to the close, as great a solicitude to terminate the dis- 
 cussion as I did to continue it. Here then you have an instance 
 of a xnan who is daily improving in health, and yet using every 
 art to escape from the grasp of another, who resolutely maintains 
 his hold, though daily declining in health. His appearing on the 
 last day, an hour too late, and then carefully assuring the pub- 
 lic that he had come according to adjournment, indicates an ex- 
 haustion which he would conceal at the expense of truth. Late 
 as it was when he came, he insisted that we should read our vo- 
 luminous correspondence, which a few days before, he had refus- 
 ed to' read, when I requested it as a means of exposing his false 
 statements concerning it. 
 
 The opposition of Mr. Walker's Moderator to the reading of 
 Kobinson was construed into evidence of fear and defeat: Yet 
 Mr, Campbell's Moderator opposed the reading of the same 
 book by me, because I turned it against him. Mr. Walker's 
 sneer at Mr. Campbell's load of books was construed into a 
 *' panic;" and although Mr. Campbell declared his intention of 
 bringing many of them to our debate, and actually did appear 
 with pompous preparations in manuscript and in print, yet he 
 himself was at last reduced to the necessity of sneering at my 
 notes and books, and of making a formal proposal that we should 
 give them up: and when he failed in this, every shot from the 
 Pedobaptist battery marked its effect by the groans and com- 
 plaints which it elicited against the " little book.'' 
 
 Except a few instances in which I stopped to chastise his irre- 
 levant wit, (merely intended to annoy,) I endeavoured in every 
 speech, to make all practicable progress in a regular chain of ar- 
 gument. When he had exhausted argument and sarcasm, he 
 spent hours, if not days, in irrelative essays, intended to pervert 
 such precious graces as faith, hope, and charity; and to prove 
 that it is from ignorance and wickedness that people pray "thy 
 kingdom come;" and to shew that people ought to be permitted 
 to drive waggons and herds of hogs on the Sabbath day; and a 
 variety of such matters equally connected with baptism. This 
 son of Kish, this Gadarene; who loved cattle and hogs better 
 
X lie? 
 
 than obedience to the laws of God and man, uttered and repeat- 
 ed some ot these loathsome essays on the last day; at which time 
 he published another challenge accompanied with new restric- 
 tions, the necessity of which he said he had learned '•'•from ex- 
 perienceP^ and lest we should not know where his experience 
 was obtained, he expressly told the audience that these restric- 
 tions were intended to prevent intrusion from such men as my- 
 self! This is precisely the way in which my Universalist An- 
 tagonist secured himself from future danger. For men to talk 
 and act thus, and yet boast of a victory, is preposterous indeed. 
 
 As an evidence of his final success, and of my defeat, he rep- 
 resents me as trying to obtain an assurance from the Moderators 
 that he would not be permitted to leply to my last speech. If 
 this were true, it would be proof of my conscious weakness, as 
 our rules gave to each the right of speaking until satisfied. Bat 
 if it be a fact, as the Moderators and audience know it is, that I 
 did not endeavour to deprive him of this stipulated privilege, but 
 that he endeavoured to deprive me of it, then the evidence of de- 
 feat is on the other side. Moreover, when the President an- 
 nounced his intention of remaining, if we chose, for three days 
 longer, contrary to his former determination, and when I warm- 
 ly expressed my gratitude for such kindness, such was Mr. 
 Campbell's terror at the apprehersion of protracting the debate, 
 that he made one foolish sentence answer for his last speech. 
 
 Among those witnesses which Mr. Campbell cites for the cor- 
 rectness of his report, there is one class of persons, who, as far 
 as I can learn, have no existence whatever, except on the 12th 
 page of his preface. They are "those who were on the other 
 ♦' side [from him] when the debate commenced, but who were 
 *' convinced by hearing it, that infant sprinkling is a human tra- 
 "dition." If you will examine the whole sentence, you will 
 find reason to conclude that he never heard of such persons him- 
 self: for along with those witnesses whose testimony he profess- 
 es to *' know" will be in favour of his book, we find " every 
 umpire that heard the discussion." Now you know very well 
 that the testimony of two out of the three umpires is wanting to 
 that end, and one of them has publicly condemned his book as 
 an abominable impostuie. A man who can indulge in such wild 
 insinuations and eroneous assertions cannot be reasonable trusted. 
 Althoui»;h his spurious debate may have led many weak people a- 
 stray, I do not believe that he has ever heard of one person who 
 was proselyted to his cause by hearing the real debate. Yet I 
 have heard things which would delight his heart if they were as 
 much in his favour as they are in mine. One of the most emi- 
 nent elders in the bounds of the Kentucky Synod, and a per- 
 sonal friend of yours, informed me in this house, that a discourse 
 delivered in Washington, before the debate, by your humble ser- 
 vant, in answer to Mr, V.'s sermon on baptism, was the means 
 in the hand of God, of convincing him that our baptism was 
 Christian baptism: whereas Mr. V.'s misrepresentations, if un- 
 
1£8 
 
 refuted would have taken him away. This is the discourse to 
 which, during the debate, Mr. Campbell referred, as being de- 
 livered with so bad a spirit. On this subject also, you are ac- 
 quainted with an interesting fact. You know that an intelli- 
 gent man who was then and is yet, a Baptist from principle, did, 
 imraediately after the sermon was delivered, shew me unequiv- 
 ocal marks of affectionate regard, among which a present of 
 twejity dollars was one. 
 
 On the question, who had the weight of argument in the de- 
 bate? you will probably agree with me, that among friends and 
 foes, there was, in general, but one opinion. A citizen of Au- 
 gusta who was an enemy of mine rode in company vvith a citi- 
 zen of Washington who was unfriendly to me. The Washing- 
 tonian answered all his enquiries concerning the debate, and told 
 him that my deportment on that occasion had made him my 
 friend. My stern Augusta neighbour came home and told his 
 friends that he was glad that Campbell had been severe with 
 M 'Calla, for he deserved it; but he was nevertheless pleased 
 that a man who had travelled so far to whip a Kentuckian, should 
 go home with a good beating. Another citizen of Augusta (since 
 removed) who inclined to the Baptist views, declared to me in a 
 letter which is now before me that I gained a decided victory, 
 and that the debate convinced him that Mr. Campbell was wrong. 
 Another who had some dislike to me because his acquaintances 
 were almost all Baptists aiid their adherents, visited Washing- 
 ton and Maysville shortly after the debate, and being asked on 
 his return, what the people in those places said upon the subject, 
 he had to answer candidly that they considered Mr. Campbell 
 beaten, his occasioned Dr. K. to insult him before the com- 
 pany. A citizen of Ohio, near Augusta, declared that in his 
 presence, very prejudiced members of rigid Baptist families near 
 W^ashington confessed that I had the advantage. Another fact 
 you are probably acquainted with. A niece of a Bapti&t preach- 
 er had for years advocated the Baptist cause. Her uncommon 
 intelligence is the object of general admiration. In the debate 
 she sided with Mr. Campbell, until the argument on household 
 baptism convinced her. This she said was irresistable. 
 
 The impression which the debate made upon the temper of the 
 parties speaks loudly on this subject. When the discussion 
 closed, the countenances and behaviour of the parties presented 
 a strong contrast. Happy good humour enlightened the one, 
 and surly displeasure beclouded the other. In some cases the 
 Baptists refused to shake hands with the other party. A few 
 days afterward one of them told an elder of my Church that his 
 champion had beaten me. " Well" answered the elder, " there 
 *' is one strange thing about that matter, that I should like to 
 «' hear you account for. It is this; you say that we are conquer- 
 *' ed; yet we bear it with great good humour: and you say that 
 *' you are the victors; yet you are all angry about it. I thought 
 " that the conquerors were generally pleased, and the vanquish- 
 
129 
 
 "ed enraged. " Whether therefore we look at the conduct of Mr. 
 Campbell or of his folh wers, during tlie discussion or after it, 
 there is an air of dissatisfaction and disappointment which looks 
 very unlike that ascendency which he claims. He was not sat- 
 isBed with the subject of the debate, although it was his own 
 challenge; but was always challenging me to discuss something 
 
 else; He was not satisfied with the time occupied in the 
 
 debate, but was constantly trying to bring it to a close; He 
 
 was not satisfied with the regulations of the Bench, because they 
 gave me as well as himself, the r.ght of taking my own course; 
 He was not satisfied with the use of books and notes, because, 
 through divine help, they enabled me to lay before the audience 
 a mass of irrefutable evidence, instead of irrelevant harangues, 
 vain boastings, mournful complaints, and empty triumphs. To- 
 ward the close he became dissatisfied not only with the subject, 
 but with the very form of his original challenge, because, like 
 my Universalist neighbour, he had learned from experience, that 
 it was wiser to guard against the intrusion of such a, person as he 
 was then contending with. While his people participated in his 
 discontented and angry feelings, the Pedobaptists and myself be- 
 canie quite in a good humour, with every thing. We were even 
 pleased with the challenge, at last, notwithstanding " its confu- 
 sion of points and vulgarity of expression." We were pleased 
 with the time occupied, and would rather have wished it longer 
 than shorter. We were pleased with the decisions of the bench, 
 because they were fair, equal and honorable. We were pleased 
 with the use of notes and books, because, through divine good- 
 ness, evidence, without declamation, gave triumph to the truth. 
 We were even pleased with our Antagonist, because as far as our 
 knowledge extends, he is the most powerful champion of Ana- 
 baptism in America, if not in the world. 
 
 I still remember with delight, my dear brother the many hap- 
 p}- hours which we have spent in sitting and riding, preaching 
 and praying together. I still remember your tender attention to 
 me in sickness. May that love which has been formed on earth 
 be continued in heaven. Remember me affectionately to your 
 little Theological Seminary' and their pious mother. 
 
 Yours in Christ, 
 
 W. L. M'CALLA. 
 
 Philadelphia, Nov. 1, 1826. 
 
 No. 19. 
 
 Neio Report of a Debate on Baptism. 
 
 The following report is intended to embody a syllabus of my 
 ■whole argument on Baptism, in connexion with such of Mr. 
 Campbell's matter as it was right that 1 should publish, and yet 
 
 a Two of his sons are called Archibald Alexander and Samuel Miller. 
 
 s 
 
130 
 
 such as, in many cases I could not put anj where else. It is 
 also intended to shew how much better it is tor euch to publish 
 for himself, than one for both. It is not given as an exact report 
 ot my conference with Mr. Campbell, though it mi^ht claim 
 this character more justly than Mr. Campbell's book. As it pro- 
 fesses, like his work, to be written by the Baptist controversial- 
 ist, the names of the parties and of the author shall be fictitious, 
 and sliall be taken from their denominations. As my argument 
 consisted of seven topics and we occupied seven days, I shall 
 make the topics and the days to coincide. I shall not pi-etend 
 to give the real number of our speeches, nor shall those which 
 are noticed be given in their exact order. Like Mr. Campbell I 
 shall take the liberty of giving as many sums, specimens, ab- 
 stracts and miniatures as convenience may require, without ad- 
 hering strictly in all such cases to the exact sentiments. Like him 
 also I shall make some transposicions and suppressions. But I 
 shall not like him, forge for my antagonist my own peculiari- 
 ties, nor help him out with supplements and interpolations. I 
 shall not publish in his name, extracts from authors which he 
 never saw, nor give him words and sentiments which he never 
 uttered. In his speeches I shall give his own words as they are 
 found in his book, once iu the preface, twice or three times in the 
 correspondence, and the rest in the debate. I proceed to give, 
 first, the title page, then the dedication, and lastly the debate. 
 
 TITLE PAGE. 
 
 A Debate on Baptism between an Anabaptist and a Pedobap- 
 tist, in consequence of a general cliallenge published by the for- 
 mer and accepted by the latter. " All the arguments on both 
 "sides shall be faithfully and impartially detailed, and all the 
 *' evidence adduced on the occasion, shewing on which side the 
 '* truth lies on this long contested subject, shall be as fully ex- 
 " hibited as the nature of the case will permit."* The whole 
 being snugly squeezed into a certain number of pages fixed up- 
 on in a printed Prospectus, circulated before the debate began, 
 and while the Author expected that the discussion would occu- 
 py three hours instead of seven days. Written by the Ana- 
 baptist and attested by Sidney Sapscull. " I could make a boj 
 of sixteen dispute with the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.'' 
 Campbell. "Caesar aut nihil." Greatrake for Campbell. 
 Copy right secured, not for filthy lucre's sake, but from the most 
 disinterested philanthropy. " After the present impression [of 
 *' 6000 copies] is sold [for g6000] we will [Generously] give 
 ''the right of publication to any applicants, ^^alo maybe dispos- 
 " ed to republish in any distant part of the Union, for a very 
 " small consideration:"" say §1000, as I am no hireling priest. 
 
 "Campbell's Prospectus printed and circulated before the Debate. 
 •"Mr. Campbell's advertisement t<iilowin5 his copy-ri^ht. 
 
131 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 This work is not dedicated to my neighbours at whose expense 
 1 was brought to this country; because 1 have been abusing young 
 beneficiaries and their benevolent supporters ever since. Nor 
 is it dedicated to the Legislature of the State in which the de- 
 bate occurred, because after my third sermon, (for I had three 
 sermons that 1 preached almost every where, and the last of them 
 was against preachers and sermons and all such things;) Af- 
 ter my third sermon, I say, the Legislature quit me, to follow Dr. 
 B. who exposed me. I shall not therefore dedicate it to them, 
 but the state in general, on account of the extreme salubrity of 
 its air, which caused my health to increase during seven days 
 of hard fighting, except on the 2nd day, when the refusal of the 
 Moderators to handcuff my Antagonist made me considerably 
 dyspeptic, and made the seat of Bishop Tricentiman uncomfor- 
 tably hard, for which reasons there was a premature adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 FIRST DAY. 
 
 ♦* Silence and good order universally pervading the large as- 
 " sembly, I thus began: Men, Bre'hren, and Fathers;" After 
 which entre, I endeavoured, according to the directions of Cice- 
 ro, to make the audience attentive, benevolent and docile, by 
 persuading them that I was not the orijnal challenger, and that 
 i meant no harm to Pedobaptists, when I accused them of hold- 
 ing a human tradition which was supremely injurious to civil and 
 religious society. 
 
 My Pedobaptist Antagonist, after a long-faced introduction of 
 a few words, and in cousequence of my determination to treat 
 the subject historically as well as argumentatively or scripturally, 
 distributed the matter of the challenge into seven topics. 1. 
 The scriptural subject of Baptism. 2. The scriptural mode. 
 3. The history of the mode. 4. The history of the subject 5. 
 The history of Anabaptism. 6. The effects of the subject. 7. 
 The etFects of the mode. He then began upon the first topic, 
 and undertook to piove that the scriptures authoi-ized the baptism 
 of infants, because they contained divine command and apostoli- 
 cal precedent for this cfuty. 
 
 "I then arose.'" " Mr. Pedobaptist, theologically consider- 
 «' ed, is digging his own grave. He is, in fact, about to defeat 
 " his own cause, and to subvert his own theses; for as soon as he 
 *' has proved the identity of the two societies, so soon will he 
 " have destroyed his whole scheme. This we now assert, and we 
 
 <^A11 these pomp»us introductions to his speeches are copied from Mr. 
 Campbell's book. 
 
182 
 
 " pledge ourselves to make it manifest as soon as he says he has 
 " proved the point. The case will stand thus. If Mr. Pedo- 
 " baptist does not prove the identity of the Jewish and Christian 
 " Societies, this being fundamental in his scheme, he is on his 
 " own principles, defeated. And I now assert and pledge mj- 
 *' self to prove hereafter, that if he does prove their identity, he 
 "has not only killed, but buried himself In either case his 
 "cause is lost On this ground it will be j^royenthat the Fedo- 
 *' baptist cause is untenable." 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent then proved a divine command for 
 infant baptism by arguing in five propositions as follows ; viz. 
 
 1. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible 
 church of God. 2. The Christian church is a branch of the Abia- 
 hamic church : or, in other words, the Jewish Society, before 
 Christ, and the Christian Society, after Christ, are one and the 
 same Church, in different dispensations. 3. Jewish circumci- 
 sion, before Christ, and Christian baptism, after Christ, are one 
 and tne same seal in substance, though in different forms. 4. 
 The administration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by 
 divine authority ; that is, God once commanded it. 5. The ad- 
 ministration of this seal to infants has never since been prohibit- 
 ed by divine authority ; that is, this command of God originally 
 given in the Old Testament, is not repealed in tWe New Testa- 
 ment, but rather confirmed^ therefore he concluded that this 
 command was still in force. He then proceeded to establish his 
 first proposition, that Abraham and his seed were divinely con- 
 stituted a visible church of God. This he did by shewing that 
 the Abrahamic Society had 1. The oracles of a visible church. 
 
 2. The ordinances. 3. The members. 4. The officers. 5. 
 The constitution. 6. The express, inspired, at.d unequivocal 
 name of a visible church. 
 
 »'I then arose." " You vvill no doubt, my friends, beexpect- 
 " ing that 1 should now think about redeeming my pledge. I 
 " confess the time has come, when it becomes my duty. What 
 '* was I to do ? I think this was my promise : that so soon as 
 *' Mr. Pedobaptist had finished the second position, I would 
 *' show, that in proving it to be true, he would thereby confute 
 *' himself." ''You will however, no doubt, consider, my friends, 
 " that according to my promise, something more is due. For I 
 "said if Mr. Pedobaptist proved the identity of the two chur- 
 " ches he was confuted, on the plainest principles j and I also 
 *'said if he did not, he would be coiifuted on his own principles. 
 *' Upon the supposition, then, of his having proved his first po- 
 "sition, we have seen he is theologically dead and buried. But 
 "now I proceed to shew that he has not proved the identity of 
 " the two churches — consequently on his own principles, con- 
 " futed. Here I request you to watch me closely, as this is a 
 *'pointof no little moment." -'But recollect, my friend%, he 
 *' nas not made one struggle to get out of the pit into which he 
 *• has fallen. He is buried under the ruins of one of his bulwarks ! 
 
133 
 
 " Better try to get out of the present catastrophe than to add to 
 " the mass of inaterials already too heavy Ur bear." 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent then endeavoured to establish his 
 2nd proposition, tlie ecclesiastical i(heiitity of tlie Jewish and 
 Christian .Societies This he did by shewing from scL-ipture tliat 
 they were the same m religion, names, and constitution or cove- 
 nant. Under the head oi' religion, he specitied theology, morali- 
 ty, worship, governnieat and discipline. JJiider tiie head of 
 names, he specified such as treasure, king<bni, naiion, genera- 
 tion, priestliood, people, tree, vineyard, foundation, floor, house, 
 comioonwealtii, man, brethren, bride, children. Under the 
 head of covenant, he proved that the Abrahamic, and not the 
 Sinaitic covenant was the common ecclesiastical constitution of 
 the Jewish and Christian Societies. 
 
 ''I then spoke." "I v/ill pledge my erudition, my critical 
 *' acumen, my respectability as a scholar, that he 'cannot upon 
 " the investigation of that reference — nay, I will rest the whole 
 " controversy upon it. If he proves this one point, we shall say 
 " all is proved, and his cause triumphant. The conditions arc 
 " a'-suredly most easy, and this brings us to a speedy issue." 
 " Let Mr. Pedobaptist meet us on this passage, as we have pro- 
 " posed to meet hnn on many others : we uill rest the wiiole 
 ''controversy on this point. If he establishes his views by a 
 "fair criticism on this passage, although it would not att'ect the 
 " main topics of discussion, yet we would cheerfully say that he 
 "had gained a victory.'' "I asked him to produce one testi- 
 "mony of holy scripture, to shew that baptism was ever called. 
 ♦• a seal ot any covenant. Did he attempt it .'' No. I then pledg- 
 "ed myself to rest the whole controversy, as far as I was ron- 
 " cerned in it, upon his proving from Rom. 4, 11, that circumci- 
 " sion was to any, or every Jew, what it was to Abraham. Did 
 " he meet me on this topic .^ ]So. And yet he goes on asserting 
 " these points, as though he had proved every thing. And a^ain 
 " 1 gave him a similar challenge to discuss Col. 2, 11, 12. Has 
 " he met on that point eithei .^ No, no. In no one instance, 
 *' from the commencement of this discussion, dare he encounter 
 " me on any definite terms — he does best at a great distance. 
 " He keeps oif at sea, fearing to be" land bound." " 1 will rest 
 " the whole weight of the controversy uj)on tlie correctness of the 
 " statement I have made, u[)on the exposition of the allegory I 
 "have given." I closed this animated and terrific aihlress, by 
 asserting tliat Calvin and Bcza were the fust who had ever said 
 that baptism had come in the room of circumcision. 
 
 The poltron of a Pedobaptist, without taking the least notice 
 of one word that I had said, proceeded very co.illy to establish his 
 third proposition, the sisriUinticcd i«ientity of circumcision and 
 baptism; by producing scripture for their use and signification, 
 their duration, their subject, and their substance. On their use 
 and signification he shewed that thcv were both iHitiatorv seals, 
 
134 
 
 that they were both signs of justification, and both signs and 
 means of sanctification. On their duration he proved from Rom. 
 4, 11, that though circumcision, as to its original form, is now 
 dead, jet it still lives in substance, in another form. On their 
 subject, he proved from Phil, 3, 2, 3, that Christians were now 
 the ciixumcision ; that is, in a certain sense, circumcised. On 
 their substance, he proved from Col. 2, 11, 12, that baptism was 
 the circumcision of Christ, that is, the Christian circumcision. 
 In opposition to my assertion that Calvin and Beza were the first 
 that ever held the substantial identity of circumcision and bap- 
 tism, he produced the express declarations of Athanasius, Epipha- 
 nius, Austin, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, Cyprian, and Justin 
 Martyr. He then answered objections to this doctrine. 
 
 " I then proceeded'' with a dissertation on the petition " Thy 
 kingdom come;" (which I have preached in Lexington and ma- 
 ny other places,) shewing that to use such a prayer now, must 
 proceed from ignorance or wickedness. None but those who 
 ihave been in my situation can imagine how happily this sermon 
 answered here, to take off the attention from those old supersti- 
 tious Pedobaptist Fathers that had been quoted against me, to 
 shew that Calvin and Beza were not the first to say that baptism 
 had come in the room of circumcision, but that this doctrine can 
 be traced up to the Apostles. 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent who was both ignorant and wicked, 
 then established his fourth proposition, that there is a divine com- 
 mand for the administration of this seal to infants ; and his fifth 
 proposition, that this command has never yet been repealed, but 
 rather confirmed; after which he drew his conclusion that it wa^ 
 still binding. He considered himself then as having made good 
 his argument that there is now in force, a divine command for 
 the baptism of infants. He then entered upon his argument from 
 Apostolical practice. Here he displayed the doctrine of house- 
 hold baptism; shewing that oikia and oikus and oikodomeo, with 
 their numerous conjugates, whether used in relation to the mate- 
 rial or spiritual house, the ecclesiastical or celestial, the national 
 or sectional, the royal or pontifical, the patriarchal or domestic 
 house, will all confirm and illustrate the doctrine that a house- 
 hold embraces infants, and that the household baptism of the New 
 Testament is infant baptism. 
 
 2nd DAY. 
 
 The Pedobaptist entered this day upon his second Topic, the 
 scriptural mode of baptism, on which he took the following po- 
 sition, viz. The scriptures do not make submersion essential to 
 baptism: after which he criticized the original word at con- 
 siderable length. 
 
 *' I r<;plied" J. P. C. allows three minutes a-piece for hear- 
 " ing the experience and baptizing each of the candidates and. 
 
135 
 
 " confining it to twelve persons, he calculates more than twelve 
 "hours would be requisite. But he forgot that the Apostles 
 " were not such dreamersand talkers about experience as some 
 "of his contemporaries. Query. How long did it take the 
 " e.unuch to give in his experience ?" " As to those puerilities 
 " you have heard about John's baptizing with a squirt, or some 
 " such thing in order to despatch the business, about the impossi- 
 *' bility of the tliiee thousand being iminersed in one piece of a 
 " day ; about Paul's standing up to be baptized ; about the jai- 
 " ler's not being able to find water sufficient for immersion, and 
 *' a number of other such boyisms, they are not half so feasible 
 " as the arguments in favour of transubstantiation." " They 
 " are all put out of countenance by adverting to the fact that one 
 " person can immerse as many as another can sprinkle in a 
 *' given time. There are well attested facts of 60 persons being 
 " immersed in 30 minutes, or in that proportion, when the bap- 
 " tizer simply immersed those led into the pool or bath, or river 
 « to him." 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent then descanted upon scriptural 
 cases, scenes, and circumstances of water baptism : remarking 
 that if he were to admit (which he did not) that baptizing where 
 there were rivers and much water proved submersion, yet bap- 
 tizing in the City of Jerusalem, in the jail at Philippi, and in the 
 desert of Judea, would argue more strongly for sprinkling, pour- 
 ing or washing ; if going down into and coming up out of 
 
 the water, must prove submersion, (which he was far from ad- 
 mitting,) then arising and washing away ones sins in baptism, 
 as in the case of Saul, must be something else than immer- 
 sion ; if the going of the subject to the water must be a 
 
 proof of submersion, (which he could not admit,) then the bringing 
 of the water to the subject is a proof of sprinkling, pouring or 
 
 washing ; and if the baptism in Ihe Jordan and Enon must 
 
 prove that the subject was buried under the water, (which they 
 aid not,) the baptism in the cloud and in the sea is an undoubted 
 case in which the numerous subjects were only sprinkled, while 
 the Egyptians were immersed like the Gadarene swine and the 
 Devils, the latter of which he broadly insinuated, (like Mr. 
 Greatrake,) were my disciples, because they believed my " one 
 FACT," and received adult immersion. He then examined cer- 
 tain Greek prepositions and the passages in which they occur, 
 and commented more particularly upon those passages which evi- 
 dently prove a partial administration of water in Christian bap- 
 tism. 
 
 *'I rejoined," by proposing to my Opponent that we should, 
 during the remainder ol the conference, dispense with all our 
 papers and books, and made a speeeh to shew that this was the 
 only way in which we could dispute vivo voce! How evident is 
 it that when notes or books are used in the Senate or at the bar, 
 their contents are communicated, not viva voce, that is with 
 TMEHviNG voice, but with dumb signs! Besides, the man who 
 
, 13G 
 
 flike Webster in Congress) uses such helps, gives plain proof of 
 '''■ conscious incoinpetency.''^ How different from the Hero, who 
 can speak six hours at a stretch, with no other help than a gal- 
 lon of porter and a volume of Burke, and can throw such a spell 
 upon an enraptured audience, that when he is done, they can- 
 not guess to what point of the compass he would direct their at- 
 tention. 
 
 Mj Pedobaptist Opponent referred my proposal to the Bench, 
 for their opinion. Altiiough the President was himself a lawyer 
 and a legislator, he seemed so grossly ignorant of Latin and the 
 rules of order, as to suppose that a debate might be viva voce, 
 although books and papers might be used. The Moderators 
 therefore allowed the use of them, as consistent with our wintten 
 agreement. After this my Opponent established his views of 
 the scriptural mode of baptism, by scriptuial allusions and com- 
 parisous,in which last he proved that Noah'S Ark was not submers 
 ed, as had been asserted. He then closed with a recapitulation. 
 
 *' In reply to which i spoke." " My friends this is the most 
 " singular discussion I iiave either seen or read of. What is the 
 " subject of controversy.*^ What were y<>ur expectations in com- 
 "ing iiitlitn'.^ To hear a discussion upon church government, 
 " discipline, doctrine.^ &c. &c. Is this the topic under discus- 
 " sion.^ In this course of procedure there can be no debate. 
 *'Mr. Pedobaptist and i resemble two ships at sea; he sails in 
 *' latitude 40 north, and I in latitude 40 south, each bound for 
 *' his own port. We may pass each other in one latitude on our 
 *' voyage. We may then salute each other and proceed. Is 
 *' this the order of debates in schools, in deliberative bodies, on 
 *' any topic, in any country.'"' "Mr. Pedobaptist as he sup- 
 " ports the affirmative necessarily opens the debate and the Ana- 
 *' baptist closes it." " In this controversy Baptists have noth- 
 '^ ing to prove as respects their practice." "In every contro- 
 " versy, then, with the Pedobaptists. upon this topic, they af- 
 " firm and we deny, they commence and we respond." " Have 
 " I not opened this debate, or have I not taken an affirmative 
 "proposition.^ If Mr. Pedobaptist be my opponent, he is, I 
 "presume, bound to respond to me. iTe is bound to proceed 
 " according to the rules of respondents: If he be not my oppo- 
 " nent, why did he engage to discuss this subject? Why did 
 " he agree "to take the negative side in this controversy? Be- 
 " forel proceed in waging this strange and unprecedented war- 
 " fare in which my Antagonist will not attack me, nor defend 
 " himself when attacked, but is fighting with some unseen An- 
 " tagonist, and occasionally talking to me, I say, before I pro- 
 "ceed farther in this course, I will appeal to the Moderators on 
 " a question of order. Gentlemen, I know your powers in 
 " moderating this controversy are very limited. This is not my 
 "fault. I was willing to lodge all necessary power in ^our 
 "hands. To this Mr. Pedobaptist would not agree. Yet still I 
 "think you have the power of deciding whether we ought to 
 
137 
 
 •' proceed this way. One of those items in your hand, says that 
 *' you are ^ to keep order'' in this discussion. The question then 
 " is — is it order, in controversy, for the respondent to introduce 
 *' affirmative propositions, on any subject he pleases; and instead 
 " of responding; in the negative to his Opponent, to spend his 
 " time in proving his own affirmations on otiier topics? This 
 " question I respectfully submit to your decision." Thus end- 
 ed my wind -broken appeal. •' Bishop Tricentiman, after a num- 
 ber of remarks and references [to the Parliaments of Scotland 
 and England, and the French Chamber of Deputies, with which 
 he and myself are well acquainted] gave it as his conviction, 
 * that it was ovt of order for Mr. Pedobaptict to proceed in this 
 ■way.' " And if the decision had been by weight instead of num- 
 bers, he would certainly have carried. ♦' Bishop Tricenti- 
 '* man exhibits the finest appearance, tall and well propor- 
 " tioned, weighing 500 lbs. of a remarkably florid and heal- 
 " thy aspect, possessing uncommon energies of constitution, 
 *' and though on the borders of 50, says he feels no abatement 
 «* of his constitutional vigour." Although this description may 
 rather overrate the symmetry of the Bishop's appearance, (an 
 error which is often found in advertisements of stray horses,) 
 yet I seriously think that he does not look so much like a hogs- 
 head as some pretend. 1 will also readily admit that the bish- 
 op does not weigh as much as some shew-beeves have done of 
 late, yet he certainly out-weighs both the other Moderators. The 
 Pedobaptist Moderator "Mr. Rod is rather below^ mediocrity in 
 *'his person, and his countenance does not indicate the most 
 "healthy constitution." The same remark will apply to the 
 President. Yet these two little sickly men, whose beauty none 
 but Pedobaptists admire, overruled the most august dignitary of 
 the house of Anak. "The Rev. Rod^ replied to the Bishop 
 that his opinion was different'' The President then decided 
 the point against me. How unmerciful to non-plus me in this 
 way ! I knew not what to say or do. I begged an adjournment, 
 and gave sickness as a reason. The Bishop immediately took 
 the hint. Notwithstanding his " remarkably florid and healthy 
 aspect," he complained that his seat had been uncomfortably 
 hard for some time; so as to occasion a slight " abatement of his 
 constitutonal vigor,'' in despite of his "uncommon energies 
 of constiution." We carried the motion for adjournment unan- 
 imo usly 
 
 TFIIRD DAY. 
 
 ** I thus began." <' It would be perhaps unbecoming and un- 
 *' necessary to saj any thing about the talents or acquisitions of 
 " my opponent. His own letters shew that he was competent, 
 " and his speeches evince that his industry and research were 
 "adequate to the task proposed, if his cause had been tenable. 
 " But it requires more than Herculean strength to bring some- 
 " thing out of nothing. Had Mr. Pedobaptist been on my side 
 " and I on his, doubtless I would have been put to confusion; for 
 
 (a)See Mr. Campbell's Debate p. 142. 
 
 T 
 
138 
 
 «* I remember to have been vanquished by an old lady when I 
 " argued up infant baptism against her. It is true I had sorae- 
 *' thing to say, and held on stoutly to the last; but I felt in my 
 '* own heart that I was defeated; and what mortified me no lit- 
 *' tie was, that with all my philosophy and divinity, an old wo- 
 " man's common sense overpowered me." ''What honor can 
 *' be gained from an encounter with a gentleman, a reputed lin- 
 "guisttoo, who, like Mr. Pedobaptist and Mr. R., could bring 
 "forward '■ anastas' in the case of Paul as a proof that he was 
 *'sprinkled? 'He arose' and was immersed." 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent here gave me Yankee treatment. 
 He answered my last question by asking another. I had asked 
 *' What honor can be gained by encountering a gentleman'' of 
 such a character.' He replied, What honor can be gai ed by 
 encountering a man who is constantly uttering empty boasts of 
 his " philosophy and divinity," his "erudition," his "critical 
 acumen," his " respectability as a scholar," and who is never- 
 theless obliged to confess that "an old woman's common sense 
 overpowered" hivn, and he was " vanquished by an old lady.'" 
 He then entered upon his third Topic, the history of the mode of 
 Baptism, which he treated analytically, and not synthetically, 
 which latter method has been followed by every one else. Here 
 his fundamental proposition was, that the Christian Church has 
 never esteemed submersion essential to baptism. He divided 
 their testimony into three periods. 1. From the present time 
 back to WicklifFe. 2. From him back to the fifth century. 3. 
 From that date back to the Apostles. He then entered upon his 
 first period, and examined the testimony of 1, America, 2, A- 
 sia, 3, Africa. After which his time expired. 
 
 "I then replied." "I have already submitted eight argu- 
 " ments or evidences of the plainest character, all declarative 
 *' of an essential difference between the Jewish church and the 
 " Christian Kingdom — Mark it well, my friends, Mr. Pedobap- 
 " tist has not replied to one of them." '" You will also reniem- 
 *'ber that he has not so much as yet adverted to my disquisition 
 *' on the words in controversy.'' " You will also remember that 
 *' in every instance when I invited Mr. Pedobaptist to the dis- 
 *' cussion of any particular portion of scripture, pledging my- 
 *' self to rest the whole controversy upon it,', " he manfully de- 
 *' clined, and resolutely refused to do so." " It is well known 
 " to you all, my friends, that these arguments have never been 
 *« attacked by my Opponent, and that they are directly subver- 
 *'sive of his whole theory." I then endeavoured to shew, in 
 glowing colours, how unrighteous and oppressive the laws of the 
 land are, in stopping men from driving waggons and herds of 
 hogs on the Sabbath day. A Baptist minister present observed 
 that he had been of that opinion for thirty years. It was even 
 reported that Bishop Tricentiman had put these principles into 
 practice, less than thirty years ago. " But I shall give place iQ> 
 *< Mr. Pedobaptist to read farther." 
 
139 
 
 The Pedobaptist then continued the consideration of his first 
 period J and examined the testimony of 4. Europe. Among 
 whom, as there was great diversity, he examined 1. Those who 
 advocate exclusive inaiiersion. 2. Those who only prefer im- 
 mersion. 3. Those who practise a ])artial administration of wa- 
 ter. On this point he quoted countries, churches, creeds, trans- 
 lators, commentators, lexicographers, and reformers, among 
 whom WicklifFe's testimony was last examined. 
 
 *' I thus replied." "Thus we have seen an end to infant 
 "baptism. My Opponent has tried circumcision and the law, 
 " the Abrahamic covenants; he has tried commands and prece- 
 " dents of the Old and New Testament; he has tried 'prose- 
 *' lyte baptism,' and 'household baptism.' He has travelled 
 " from Genesis to Revelation — He has gone from Jerusalem to 
 " the uttermost parts of the earth — He has examined the annals 
 " of the world foV fifteen hundred years, and has not found a syl- 
 " lable about infant baptism. Ill fated cause. It deserves to 
 ** be abandoned for ever. Amen. The modus operandi he has 
 " at length introduced— M)c?e of baptism, curious phrase! Mode 
 "of immersion is immersion itself, and mode of sprinkling is 
 " sprinkling itself. Two modes of immersion and one of them 
 " sprinkling is somewhat dissonant. Sprinkling a mode of im- 
 " mersion, or immersion a mode of sprinkling is a new mode in 
 " Logic. But we must bow with deference to established modes, 
 " and it is vulgar to call it action its proper name." 
 
 *' Mr. Pedobaptist resumed his notes," and examined the tes- 
 timony of the church on the mode of Baptism, from the time of 
 "WicklifFe up to the fifth century; by 1. Their pictures, engrav- 
 ings, and monuments. 2. Their laws: after which he traced the 
 third period, from the fifth century up to the Apostles. 
 
 FOURTH DAY. 
 
 *' I commenced as usual." A dissertation on faith, hope and 
 charity, consisting of a mixture of Paganism and Pelagianism 
 occupied the time, toward the close of which I asserted, as I 
 had frequently done before, that the voice of the Christian Church 
 had always been in our favour, on the subject and the mode. 
 
 The Pedobaptist entered upon his 4th Topic, the history of 
 the subject of baptism, which, like the Ihird, was treated ana- 
 lytically. The proposition which he undertook to establish, was 
 that the Christian Church has always practised infant Baptism. 
 For convenience, he considered their evidence in six divisions. 
 He examined their practice 1. Erom the present time back to 
 the reformation in the 16th century. 2. The reformers who liv- 
 ed before that period. 3. The Waldenses. 4. Bark to the 
 fifth century. 5. The first four centuries. 6. Jewish prose- 
 lyte Baptism. 
 
140 
 
 ^' I then addressed the people.-' "Now we have not read 
 *' Rice's pamphleteer, but we have read some [all] of the writ- 
 " iiigs of Aristotle and Plato in the original, and we have read 
 " Ur. Samuel Rallston's ' condensed view' of the criticism, and 
 " we boldly pronounce that it is 'a refuge of lies.' — And we 
 " will go a little farther jetj and affirm, that not only is the 
 " criticism erroneous: but that assertions are made in the ' con- 
 " densed view' referred to, that are downright falsehoods. 
 " Mark it well, my friends. We have said falsehoods. '^^ " If 
 *' ever this discussion should meet the public eye, I am wofully 
 " mistaken if his whole course in this controversy will not ap- 
 " pear in the highest degree evasive. Assertion and evasion 
 *' are the two most prominent features in the polemical charac- 
 ''ter of Mr. Pedobaptist." 
 
 My Pedobaptist Antagonist then replied as follows, viz: "I 
 "heard much of my Opponent's learning and talents before I 
 " ever saw him; but never did I hear half so much in his praise 
 " from any other quarter, as from his own lips. How does he 
 " delight to inform us of his erudition, philosophy and divinity! 
 ^'and lest we should not sufficiently prize his critical acumen^ 
 '♦and his respectability as a scholar, he must tell us, (whether 
 " truly or not I dare not say.) that he has read all the works of 
 " Aristotle and Plato in the original. What a contrast is there 
 " between him and tlie ignorant raw Kentuckian who, without 
 "being able to read one chapter in the Septuagint, or even to 
 " repeat five verses of our translation, has ventured to meet 
 "him! Rash mortal that I v/as, to encounter such a literary 
 " Sea-serpent! But since it is too late to recede, I shall endea- 
 " vour, with divine assistance, to finish the 4th Topic by an- 
 " swering Baptist arguments in relation to it, and by taking 
 " some notice of the works which are quoted in favour of the 
 " Baptist cause." "And here he gave such a mass of slander, 
 as was perhaps never equalled since the flood. The consequence 
 was that as this took place on Saturday evening, Bishop Tricen- 
 timaii could not endure the burthen until the next Monday, but 
 insisted strenuously upon continuing the debate through the Sab- 
 bath. He was overruled by the other two. 
 
 FIFTH DAY. 
 
 I began this day by insisting, as I had often done, that the 
 Christian Church had always. been in our favour. I traced the 
 Baptists of the present day up to the Apostles, by a variety of 
 channels: whereas all other churches were of late and low origin. 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent then entered upon his fifth Topic, 
 the history of Anabaptism; in wMch he undertook to prove that 
 the Baptists of England and America are descended from the 
 Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, and that they cannot be 
 traced higher. He complained of having been compelled to- in- 
 
J4i 
 
 vestigate this subject, against his will. He examined the various 
 channels through which Baptist writers profess to ascend to the 
 primitive churches. 1. By the name of Baptists. 2. By their 
 f)eculiarities. After which his time expired. 
 
 "I then addressed the assembly." "Having now replied to 
 " every thing advanced by Mr. Pedobaptist from thecommence- 
 " ment of this discussion, bearing directly or indirectly a- 
 " gainst our views; and having also advanced sundry arguments 
 " both as respects the subject and action of baptisn», which he has 
 " not so niiM h as ventured to impugn, I thinlc I am entitled to 
 " say, that 1 am not only, as respondent, got up with him, but 
 "in the proof of tiie propositions which I was pledged to prove, 
 " I have got considerably a-head of him in the natural stages of 
 "this debate." "And you will have the goodness to bear in 
 " mind that not one of them has been formally impugned by Mr. 
 " Ped' baptist. We consider them, then, as far as respects iiim, 
 ** unanswerable." 
 
 My Opponent then examined 3. What historical evidence 
 there is that the Baptists are descended from tiie Apostles. 1. 
 Through the English Aborigines, to whom it is said that the Apos- 
 tles preached. 2. Through the Waldenses, whom he had before 
 proved to be Pedobaptists. 
 
 " I then addressed th«^ congregation." " Having now paid 
 " much more respect to his arguments than he has done to mine. 
 " I will, my friends, for the sake of occupying a few minutes 
 " advtntageously, deliver you a short address on an importanl 
 " fact." " 1 compL'.ined in my last address, that Mr. Pedobap- 
 " tist read his arguments from his manuscript, and neglected t» 
 *' respond to mine; which he is bound to do, according to all 
 " established usage; or else to yield the point at issue." "Mr. 
 " Pedobaptist still goes on to prove a point that I have not 
 "denied. He is determined to take his own course; whether 
 " his arguments are denied or affirmed." 
 
 My Opponent then examined other channels through whicli 
 various ISaptist writers endeavour to trace themselves to the 
 Apostles. 3. Through heretical societies; to which he observed 
 we were welcome, although historical evidence was wantin>', 
 for their being either christians or Baptists. 4. Many Baptists 
 acknowledge their connexion with Munzer, and this can be 
 proved, whether they admit it or not. 5. The inscrutability of 
 their liistory, prior to Munzer, as acknowledged and urged by 
 the Baptists themselves, is evidence that they cannot be traced 
 to the Apostles. 
 
 «I then addressed the assembly." "Mr. Pedobaptist has 
 " proved by the method he has taken, that he was con- 
 " sciousinhisown breast, that he conld not maintain his views 
 " of baptism in a fair discussion. Mv reason for so alledg 
 
142 
 
 "• ing is taken from the fact, that (le v/rote down at home all that 
 ""he has advanced as argument in this discussion ; and knowing 
 " that he had all he could or vvouki say in writing, he at the same 
 *'time, insisted that 1 should open the debate, whereas he was 
 "determined to keep to his notes, let me take what course I 
 "might. This then, I conceive to be decisive evidence of his 
 *' conscious incompetency. His marked out course required, 
 *' in the nature of things, that he should open and I respond — 
 " but he wished to have the place of the respondent, and at the 
 " same time to introduce the matter to be discussed. This was 
 " good policy, but bad logic." Here I could not help complain- 
 ing again of tlie refusal of the bench to control the movements 
 of my unmerciful Opponent. The President called me to or- 
 der ; and observed that these insinuations were painful, and 
 it was time to declare their inconsistency with decorum. I 
 then eased my heart by complaining of the intolerable length 
 of time consumed in a discussion, wliich I had thought could 
 not occupy more than a day or two at the farthest. But lest 
 the people should suppose that such whining arose from " con- 
 scious incompetency," I engaged largely in the challenging, 
 trade. I challenged my Opponent to meet me on this point, 
 and I challenged him to meet me on that text, and at last I 
 challenged him to read chapter about with me in the Septua- 
 gint : after which I published another general challenge, with 
 such new conditions as effectually to secure me hereafter from 
 the intrusion of such plodding polemics as my imperturbable 
 Opponent, who had taught me by experience that challenging 
 ■was much easier than fighting. My new challenge therefore re- 
 quired that my next Presbyterian Antagonist should be a Presi- 
 dent of a college, or should be appointed by a Presbytery or Sy- 
 nod ; and that if he were an Episcopalian, he should be a Digni- 
 tary of the Church ; for who else is fit to meet so dignified a per- 
 sonage as I myself .►* Feeling myself now pretty well entrench- 
 ed against a future assault, and being at a loss for something to 
 say, I began to sneer at the books which my Opponent' had 
 brought with him. But fearing that the people would think me 
 no book-man, I observed, "It is true, I had about 150 volumes, 
 which I would have brought v/ith me, but for the stage of the 
 river: But if I had brought them, I should have been Tar from 
 using them as my Opponent has done. I should only have kept 
 them as vouchers. "" 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent then spoke as follows, viz. *' The 
 " audience were probably aware that with my last address, my 
 *' argument on the history of Anabaptism was closed. A short 
 " appendix to that history is all that is now intended Authen- 
 *' tic records have perpetuated the remembrance of the Rustic 
 *' war, and the feats of Munzer the author of that sanguinary 
 " conflict : but the mental exercises of that artful but incompe- 
 
 "^Tliesfi words, or words to the same amount were used in the discus* 
 aion ; but oaly a part of them are in Mr. C's Keport. 
 
143 
 
 ** tent chieftain have been in a great measure buried in oblivion. 
 *' It is my intention to supply this defect as well as may be, by 
 *' a careful attention to the inte-esting exercises of a legitimate 
 *' desendant of Munzer, in similar circumstances of affliction 
 " and dismay. Wlien Munzer was breathing out his arrithemas 
 ** and challenges to the Fedobaptist world, he was doubtless bol- 
 ♦' stered up with the thought that he was the Grand Patriarch of 
 *' the Anabaptist Religionists, and Captain General of the Rus- 
 " tic Warriors. Wlien the Rubicon was past, and he was 
 ♦' hemmed in by an army, and the awful realities of the tug of 
 *' war stared him full in the face, it is natural that his self-confi- 
 *'<lence should give place to agitations of soul with which it is 
 *' highly desirable that his descendants should be acquainted. 
 *' As far as my means of information go, these struggles of his 
 "illustrious bosom were probably expressed in something like 
 
 *'the following soliloquy. 'With what an Emperor is 
 
 ' Germany cursed ! How little does he know of the Modera- 
 tor's office, or the rules of order! I told him long ago, that 
 
 * as I began the conflict, and thus took the affirmative, my ene- 
 
 * mies were bound to respondto my directions, in their choice of 
 
 * weapons and measures. Had he compelled them to follow thi.s 
 
 * plan, which is dictated by common sense and immemorial us- 
 
 * age, I should have soon tied them and him hand and foot, and 
 
 * given them over to the tender mercies of my undisciplined 
 'troops. For the want of this wise measure, our struggle has 
 < been protracted to a most immoderate length. I told my men 
 
 * that It should not last more than three hours, or a day at most: 
 
 * but here we have been on the rack for many days, and can see 
 ' no end to the affair yeU unless, Alas ! it shall soon end in our 
 
 * utter discomfiture. I expected to have written home before 
 ' this time, m the language of the victorious Csesar, " veni, vi- 
 ' Di, vici, /came, I saw, 1 conquered:'' but I have fearfui fore- 
 
 * bodings, tuat my Anabaptist father, who helped me in a former 
 
 * combat, and whose help I greatly need now, will have to look 
 
 * out at the window, like the mother of Sisera, ard cry throu-rb 
 
 * the lattice, ^' Why is his chariot so long in comino-? why ta^'r- 
 ; rv the wheels of his chariot ?" I am the more apprehensive 
 
 ot this fearful issue, from having again examined the ground 
 upon which our decisive battle must now be fouo-ht. It is true 
 *that this .IS the very spot on which I challenged them to meet 
 1?/^ "^"tthcn It was with the expectation that our Imperial 
 Moderator was well enough acquainted with the rules of cr- 
 uder, to compel them to take such a course as I should dictate. 
 « and not permit them to take their own course as they are now 
 'doing. Here we are like kids surrounded bv wolves, and 
 with nothing but a pervious breastwork of baggage wa--ons 
 to protect us from their unbridled fury. But I am detennhied 
 what to do. I will challenge some Dignitary of the Church, 
 or some President of a College to meet^ne single handed; and 
 ^Z.Z '^ «^^^P^ f'|"n my present ticklish situation into 
 ^t^.M^'^'-^T^ challenge brought ,ne, I will challenge him 
 to meet me m Lnon, or the River Jordan, or the Red sla, my 
 
144 
 
 * own element, or if he would prefer it, I will challenge him to 
 
 * meet me on Aloiint Ararat, and there to read chapter about 
 
 * with me in the Septuagint, and to chime or chaunt the Origi- 
 ' na'l of Peter^s First Epistle, [to the tune of Dr. McKnight,3 
 ' from which I will undertake to shew by three incontrovertible 
 ' proofs, that Noah's Ark was actually submersed in the waters 
 ^ of the flood, as a figure of baptism; and that after this, it arose 
 
 * to the top of the water and settled on Mount Ararat, the place 
 ' of our meeting. If they will not agree to let me out of their 
 
 * hands, upon the ground of any one of mj numerous defiances, 
 ' I shall publish them as cowards, and my people at least, will 
 ' believe it. But what wheeled engines are those which I see 
 ' them arranging and presenting against us? Behold what das- 
 
 * tardly weapons for men of honor and spirit to use! Nothing 
 ' but " conscious incompetency" ever brought artillery into the 
 ' field. It is true that I have a hundred and fifty pieces of ord- 
 ' nance at home, which I should have brought to the scene of ac- 
 ' tion, but for the low stage of the water; but if I had brought 
 ' them, can any one suppose that I would be so destitute of cour- 
 ' age and politeness, as to use them, and thus raise a smell and 
 
 * a smoke that would be enough to take^away the men's appetites 
 
 'for their dinner?' While speaking thus, little did Mun- 
 
 ** zer know how many of his men had eaten their last dinner. 
 '* The stomachs and olfactories of their enemies were not too 
 " delicate to burn powder. They opened a fire upon them 
 " which soon riddled their frail fortification of baggage waggons, 
 "and made the beef and the bacon, the bread and the blankets 
 " fly about their ears, until Munzer and fifty thousand of his fol- 
 " lowers lay weltering in their blood. But stop; did I say that 
 '• Munzer was killed? No, the unhappy man escaped the gen- 
 *' eral slaughter, and took care to hide himself where no Presi- 
 " dent of a College or Dignitary of the Church could easily 
 " find him.'"' [During this address and some others, the audi- 
 ence laughed at my expense. 3 
 
 SIXTH DAY. 
 
 " I arose." "Mr. Pedobaptist, conscious of his own incom- 
 ^' petency to make a single criticism, or to defend one of his 
 " own, shrewdly considered if he could work upon my modesty! 
 " [lovely virtue!] so as to make me ashamed to even mention a 
 " Greek v/ord, he would then escape exposure, for I am told he 
 "has affected to be a very profound linguist even in this very 
 "place, and on a certain occasion defamed the illiterate Bap- 
 "tists. But the fact is this, Mr. Pedobaptist is unacquainted 
 *' with Greek, and I now say he cannot, in my opinion, read one 
 " chapter in the septuagint, if his life depended on it. Here it 
 " lies before me, and he can easily have an opportunity of con- 
 " vincing both you and me that I am mistaken." " I verily be- 
 
 (c)This is a tolerably exact report of what was said on the 5th topic in 
 Washingtoa. 
 
145 
 
 '• lieve that he cannot repeat five verses of the Old or New Tes- 
 •" tament by memory."'' " It will be necessary here to observe 
 " that during the course of this day some arguments were oft'er- 
 " ed by myself in proof of the proposition, ' that infant sprink- 
 <* ling is injurious to the well being of society, i-eligious and po- 
 *'litical." One of the audience gave a very correct miniature 
 of my arguments on this topic, by observing that I had charged 
 Pedobaptism with the guilt of every sin that had ever been com- 
 mitted by our race, except one, and that was the first' sin of Ad- 
 am. I could inform him that this was omitted merely through 
 inadvertency. 
 
 During the several speeches of my Pedobaptist Opponent on 
 this day, he was not satisfied with noticing my accusations only, 
 but he answered those of Robinson and other writers also. He 
 shewed that Pedobaptism had been accused of pride, superstition 
 and innovation; of will-worship and ignorance; Latitudinarian- 
 ism and schism; of deceit, indecency and debauchery; stubborn- 
 ness. Popery and Judaism; of blasphemy and rebellion; robbery 
 and assassination; usurpation, tyranny and persecution. In con- 
 sidering these heads distinctly, he sometimes appeared to turn, 
 the tables upon his Accusers. The audience gave visible, and 
 sometimes audible evidence that they thought Robinson and my- 
 self guilty of bearing false witness against our neighbour. But 
 what vexed me most of all was, that while they were entertain- 
 ed at my expense, my Opponent, with Puritanical gravity, en- 
 deavoured to reduce them to a charitable, serious and devout 
 frame of mind. But I gave it an ingenious turn for all. 
 
 *' I replied." " If Mr. Pedobaptist subjects himself to your 
 *' smiles and provokes your risibility, I cannot see why he should 
 *' blame youj nor do I see any propriety in his exhorting you to 
 *' assume a sanctified appearance, and a prayerful countenance, 
 " while he manages this discussion in this singular way. We 
 *'know there is a canting tone and a sorrowful countenance 
 '* much practised by those who are most ignorant of the genius 
 " of Christianity. We do not plead the cause of levity nor of 
 ** laughter, but we knew that there was nothing more obnoxious, 
 '*to me reproof of Him, who was most certainly the most de- 
 *' vout, than the whining sorrowful tone, and the sanctified ex- 
 *' terior of those devotees, once called Pharisees, but which is 
 " now greatly extolled by many who inveigh against Pharisaism, 
 " A cheerful countenance and a pure conscience are necessari- 
 *'ly allied, but a good conscience and sighs and groans, and a 
 *' dejected prolonged face, [long faces, dirty Pharisaical faces, 
 " sanctified sighs, pious sobs and holy groans,] are very incom- 
 *' patible and irreconcilable." [This speech stopped the laugh - 
 "ing.] 
 
 (d)This last sentence is taken from Mr. Lowry's notes. Mr. Campbell's re- 
 port of it in a note, p. 335, is incorrect. 
 
 u 
 
146 
 
 SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 I 
 •* Met according to adjournmentj" that is, after I had come 
 an hour too latei 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent remarked that the challenge charg- 
 ed the evils enumerated in the foregoing Topic (the 6th) upon 
 ** infant sprinkling," He had shewn that Pedobaptism was not 
 justly chargeable with those evils in relation to the subject: and 
 he would now endeavour, in discussing the 7th Topic, to shew 
 that their baptism is not injurious to society, in respect of the 
 mode, sprinkling, pouring or washing. He observed that asper- 
 sion, affusion,, ablution and immersion were technical terms in 
 medicine as well as in divinity; that they were allowed to differ 
 very much from each other in their effects upon the huaian body, 
 and that they were esteemed safe or not, according to the pres- 
 ent state of the patient, and his constitution and habits. He 
 asked the question, " Is submersion good for all diseases, all 
 constitutions, educations and habits.^ Let any Physician an- 
 SAver." He said that many Baptists denied that any person was 
 ever injured by receiving the ordinance in their mode: yet the 
 *ame persons would allow that the administrators might suffer 
 in health; of which he had known an instance, in a robust min- 
 ister who was prevented from preaching in the evening by going 
 into the water to baptize in the afternoon. 
 
 *'I then arose:" biit I could hardly arise, I was so full of the 
 
 witty reply which I was going to make. That I had reason for 
 
 gigling as I did, no person who has heard or read my speech can 
 
 deny. " I observed, that Benjamin Franklin, when Minister 
 
 ' in Paris, dined with a number of French and American 
 
 ' gentlemen. A learned French Abbe at dinner entertain- 
 
 ' ed the company with a very learned disquisition on the de- 
 
 ' teriorating influence of the American climate on the bodies 
 
 * of all animals. That the human body diminished in size and 
 ' energy, and that even the mind itself shared in the general 
 ' deterioration. Dr. Franklin made no reply; but after dinner 
 ' told the company with what pleasure he had heard the learned 
 'disquisitions of the Philosopher: he moved that the company 
 ' be divided, observing that the fairest way of testing the cor-» 
 ' rectness of the learned Abbe's theory, was to place all the A- 
 
 * mericans on one side the room, and the French on the oth- 
 ' er. The motion was carried: and behold a company of little 
 
 * swarthy insignificant Frenchmen on the one side, and a row of 
 ' little giants on the other. Aye, says the Dr. see here is a 
 ' striking proof of the correctness of your theory!! Now let 
 ' us take the philosopher's way of testing the correctness of 
 
 * the theory of my Opponet. There sits on the bench a Baptist 
 ' and a Pedobaptist teacher, both well advanced in years; the 
 ' former has, we are told, immersed more persons than any 
 ' oth^r person of the same age in the state, or perhaps in the 
 
147 
 
 *«* United States^ the other from his venerable age, may be si>^- 
 <* posed to have sprinkled a great many infants. Now see the 
 *' pernicious tendency of immersion on the Baptist, and the hap- 
 *' py influence of sprinkling upon the Pedobaptists. " Through- 
 out the whole discussion there was not so happy a hit as the above. 
 Its claims to the character of real wit have never yet, to my 
 knowledge, been disputed. A proof of this is, that my hearty 
 chuckling did not keep the audience from laughing. Bishop 
 Tricentiman was delighted, and even " the Rev. Rod" smiled 
 and made me a polite bow. 
 
 My Pedobaptist Opponent observed that the challenge accused 
 infant sprinkling of beinginjurious to society. " This" said he, 
 *' embraced our practice, as to the subject and the mode, the 
 *' baptism of infants, and baptism by sprinkling or any mode 
 *' short of submersion. Our practice as to the subject was de- 
 *' fended on yesterday, from twenty distinct and important 
 *' criminations. Not one of them has been urged against our 
 *' mode 5 nor have any new charges been made out against it, 
 *' unless my Opponent's last speech may be considered as charg- 
 *' ing it with injuring the health of the Administrator, as oiir 
 *' Moderator is a sickly man, while he would make you believe 
 *' that baptism by immersion in a river or creek promotes the 
 *' health and growth of the Administrator, because the Baptist 
 *' Moderator who has done much of this service, weighs 300 lbs. 
 *' In regard of the self-complacency with which the compliment 
 " was uttered by my Opponent and received by his weighty 
 ** friend, I would observe that Goliah's weight was worth less 
 *'than David's sling, and that this stripling was preferred to 
 *' Saul who was a head and shoulders above the people. Be- 
 ♦* sides, it would be every whit as reasonable to attribute Saul's 
 *' eiiormous size to his hiding among the stuff on a certain occa- 
 *' sion, as to attribute the size of our weighty Moderator to his 
 *' wading in the water. If this were true, and the common 
 *' sense of the public could be made to believe it, the sick would 
 *' become almost amphibious, and would let their nurses, apothe- 
 *' caries and physicians seek another way of living. If it be 
 *' true that dipping the fingers into water, for the purpose of 
 *' baptizing infants, has ruined the health of our Pedobaptist 
 " Moderator, then our three hundred pounder must have careful- 
 " ly avoided the daily washing of his hands' and face. To say 
 *' that his standing in three-feet water a few hours every month 
 " has preserved him from the effects of ordinary partial ablution, 
 *' would be as reasonable as to affirm that Alexander's rushing 
 *' into the river Cydnus was the means of saving him from dying 
 "by the many sprinklings of water and blood to which he had 
 " been subject. It is a fact of historical record, and it is the be- 
 " lief of the Medical Faculty ancient and modern, that his go- 
 " ing into the water on that occasion was extremely near taking 
 "the life of that hardy warrior. Through the providence of 
 *' God, he recovered: and so did the Baptist preacher mentioned. 
 
148 
 
 " in my former speech, recover from the violent cold caught hf 
 "going into the water on the Sabbath afternoon; and since his 
 " recovery he is very tall and very fat as he was before he turned 
 *' Baptist. But this argues nothing for standing in waist-deep 
 *' water, an hour or two at a time, in summer and in winter. A. 
 " strong constitution may endure the frequent repetition of such 
 " hardships, and yet become as fat as an ox, [looking at Bishop 
 " Tricentiman] yet a delicate frame might sink under one such 
 "experiment." When my Opponent, with his long Pharisai- 
 cal face, looked at the Bishop, the people also looked and laugh- 
 ed, according to tlie license which I had given to this healthful 
 exercise. I confess it would have pleased me better if they had 
 laughed at some other time; not on my own account so much as 
 that of the Bishop, who sate very uneasy, and seemed as if he 
 would like to hide his carcase, with that-of the Royal Benjamite, 
 among the stuff". But he soon plucked up courage, and whisper- 
 ed a while in great haste, with the President. It is said that, in- 
 stead, of making a polite bow as the other Moderator had done 
 to me, he wished the Bench to rebuke the speaker: but the presi- 
 dent persuaded him to be patient a little longer and the discus- 
 sion would close. My Pedobaptist opponent then proceeded to 
 shew that the most eminent advocates of submersion, were also 
 advocates for sometimes warming the water, confessing that the 
 health of the subject as well as the administrator might suffier in 
 the usual way. He was himself acquainted with a case of sick- 
 ness occasioned by being baptized in this way; his friends knew 
 other similar cases. He had in his hand a paper published in the 
 town where the debate occurred, stating a case of a woman who 
 lately died in the water, in the hands of the Minister. He pro- 
 duced other well authenticated cases of death occasioned by im- 
 prudent submersions. As far as sickness and death were the 
 effect of immersion, he though^; our mode injurious to society; 
 but he could not see any valid objection against sprinkling as in- 
 jurious. After this he considered himself as acquitted from the 
 accusations of the challenge in every point; and as I had renew- 
 ed my challenge with such alterations as would forever secure 
 me from another such troublesome affair, he took the liberty of 
 publishing a similar challenge, for the sake of being in fashion. 
 The conditions of it, he said, were two. 1. The man who en- 
 counters him must be unanimously chosen by an Association in 
 the interior woi'ld, which Captain Symms proposes to visit. 2. 
 The Moderator chosen by my opponent must be one imported 
 from Holland, who has been dipping and dipping and dipping, 
 until he shall weigh at least five hundred weight. With this, 
 the speaker and the audience ga^'e another look at Bishop Tri- 
 centiman, whose tallow was becoming very cheap; but as the oth- 
 er Moi'erators were not sensitive enough to notice every thing, 
 and as I had introduced the subject of his corpulency to raise a 
 laugh against " the Rev. Rod," which greatly delighted the 
 Bishop,, he had now to grin and bear when the laugh was turned 
 against him. My opponent then gave a 1-o-n-g recapitulation of 
 
149 
 
 liis seven topics, with all their branches and propositions, points 
 and particulars. 
 
 "I rejoined." "I was pledged to affirm and he to deny. Henot- 
 *' withstanding affirms and leaves me wirhout. an opponent in strict 
 " propriety. -On his plan of managing this discussion, I could make 
 *' a boy of sixteen dispute with the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 *' I would tell him to collect as much matter as would require ma- 
 *' ny days reading; and to have it rendered so familiar, that he could 
 *' read it very fluently, looking oft" now and then, and making a few 
 *' extempore remarks. I would charge him never formally to 
 "attempt to reply to his Lordship, but when his Lordship, 
 *' had done speaking to go on and read another half hour, and if 
 "his Lordship should attack and discomfit his arguments, never 
 " to appear to feel it ; never to attempt to defend his positions, 
 "but to pursue his notes : taking care, however, in the course 
 " of his reading, to say any thing that might occur to his mind 
 "as very pert: [like my story of Dr. Franklin and the French 
 " Abbe ;j in the mean time never venturing to lose sight of his 
 ** manuscript. In this way his Lordship might become wearied, 
 *' [as my Lordship most assuredly is,] and might not be able to 
 " speak so many days as he could read ; and if he should only 
 " succeed in continuing longer than his Opponent, the majority 
 *' would think he had the best of the argument ; at all events, 
 " all would say, if his Lordship should excel, he had his hands 
 "full, and had little to boast of." Alter this compliment to the 
 judgment of the majority, (which I rightly apprehended would 
 be against me,) I recapitulated my challenges and triumphs as 
 given above, and gave some important hints, such as I thought 
 suitable to close v/ith. My Pedobaptist Opponent arose to re- 
 ply. I objected to his right so to do. He referred it to the 
 Bench. They decided in his favour. The President who had 
 before intended to sit no longer than that evening, told the par- 
 ties that he would sit until Saturday night, (three days longer,) 
 if they required it. My Opponent, with an appalling ardour, 
 observed that he would love him as long as he lived, for such a 
 declaration. Knowing that he had abridged his matter very- 
 much, and fearing that I might be kept on the rack during the 
 rest of the week, I let him speak again ; after which, 
 
 "I then just observed." ' Mr Pedobaptist is the most per- 
 * verse mortal that I ever had any thing to do with. ' 
 
 " So ended the Discussion." 
 
 Note. " As T conceive myself on clear ground with the Pe- 
 "dobaptist world, as having explored all the systems of infant 
 " baptism hitherto exhibited, I would inform the public, that, 
 " unless some new ground is taken, I will promise to review an- 
 '^ nually all the new works published on this question, and sell 
 " the annual review for ISi Cents." 
 
£60 
 No. 20. 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 It was the Author's original intention to publish these papers 
 with the argument, when it should have been prepared for the 
 press. The plan of making them a separate pamphlet to precede 
 the argument was lately suggested by a friend. The latter work 
 may yet be delayed many months. The materials are full, and 
 very conveniently digested, in the brief : yet sickness and weak- 
 ness and many engagements make the draft for the press goon 
 very slowly. It shall be finished as soon as Providence will per- 
 mit. May God expose imposture, and bless his people with 
 truth and holines, for Christ's sake. 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 No. Pa»6 
 
 1. The Challenge, by Mr. Campbell, - - - - 12 
 
 2. The Challenge accepted by Mr. M'Calla, - - - 15 
 3 — 12. The subsequent corresponce by the parties, - 17 — 36 
 
 13. On facts and on the truth of Mr . CampbelFs Report, - - 40 
 
 14. On the truth and genuineness of Mr. Campbell's Report, - 48 
 
 15. The Campbellisms, transpositions, supplements, interpolations, 
 
 suppressions, and alterations of Mr. Campbell's Report ; with 
 some notice of Dr James Fishback, a Pelagian Baptist, gone all 
 the way to Boston to put down the Unitarians ! ! - - 57 
 
 16. Mr. Campbell's religious character, by Mr. Greatrake, a pious 
 
 Baptist preacher of his own neighbourhood, - - - 73 
 
 17. The religious character of the parties, in which the one cent ver- 
 
 dict is discussed, ...... IQI 
 
 18. Mr. Campbell's literary and Polemical character, with a word up- 
 
 on the question who gained the victory in the debate i* - 115 
 
 19. New Report of a debate on Baptism, containing specimens of Mr. 
 
 Campbell's eloquence, and a syllabus of his Antagonist's argu- 
 ment, --..-.-. 129- 
 
 20. Notice of W. L. M'Calla's fnll argument, now m hands, to be 
 
 published, (God willing) in a few months, - - - 15§ 
 
 «