District of Virginia, west of the Allegheny Mountains, to wit.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the twenty-second day of April, A. D. 1824, in the 48th year of the Independence of
the United States of America, A. CAMPBELL, of the said district, has deposited in
this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as author, in the words following, to wit:
A Debate on Christian Baptism between the Rev. W. L. Maccalla, a Presbyterian teacher,
and Alexander Campbell, held at Washington, Ky. commencing tin the 15th and terminating on
the 21st Oct. 1823, in the presence of a very numerous and respectable congregation. In which
are interspersed and to which are added Animadversions on different treatises on the same
subject, written by Dr. J. Mason, Dr. S. Ralston, Rev. E. Pond, Kev. J. P. Campbell, Rector
Armstong, and the Rev. J. Walker, by Alexander Campbell.
"There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision;
teaching things which they ought not for Jilthy lucre's sake; whose mouths must be stopped. -- Paul."
In conformity to the Act of Congress of the United States, entitled, 'An Act for the encouragement of learning,
by securingthe copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times
therein mentioned,' and also of the act, entitled, 'An Act supplementary to an act, entitled, An Act for the
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of
such copies during the times therein mentioned, and extending the benefit thereof to the arts of designing, engraving
and etching historical and other prints.'
J. WEBSTER,
[SEAL] Clerk of the District of Virginia west of
the Allegheny Mountains.
==> Our intention the copy-right is not to prevent
the circulation of this work by new editions, nor to profit by selling
the right. But as we have embarked a very considerable sum in a
large edition of this work, we wish to be remunerated our expenses
before another edition be struck. After the present impression
is sold, we will give the right of publication to any applicants,
who may be disposed to republish in any distant part of the Union,
for a very small consideration.
Buffaloe, Brooke Co. Va. A. CAMPBELL.
May, 1824.
( iii )
TO THE
CITIZENS OF KENTUCKY.
Distinguished for their general intelligence,
their patriotism, their love of civil and religious
liberty, and their courteous regard to the laws of
hospitality; the following statement of the discussion,
recently held in their State, is gratefully inscribed
by the writer, as a small token of his grateful
remembrance of their kind attention and hospitality
towards him while attending the conference
herein presented, and during the time he spent in
riding through their state. That they may ever enjoy
the blessings of civil and religious liberty, a Scriptural
knowledge of the doctrine of salvation, and the
peculiar felicity which flows from a course of life
regulated by the faith of the Gospel, and the hope
of immortality, is the unfeigned wish of their friend,
and obedient servant, A. CAMPBELL.
( iv )
ERRATA.
Page 33, line 43 from top, for conceiving, read, concerning. In sundry places, for Robertson,
read, Robinson. P. 70, line 7, after but, read, what. P. 194, line 28, after Jewish,
read, and Christian. P. 195, line 25, for first, read, second. P. 229, line 2, for pervade,
read, precede. P. 238, line 16, for two, read 200. P. 253, line 24, for is it, rend, it is.
P. 290, line 38, for, doth, read both. P. 319, line 16, for frequently, read, unfrequently.
P. 346, line 18, for nor, read, or. P. 350, line 5, for cinque, read, sink. P. 373, line 34,
for country, read, county. P, 397, lines 6 and 12, for mr, M., read mr. W.
Any other literal errors are so easily detected as not to affect the senses.
( v )
PREFACE.
______
It is long since religious controversy began. The first quarrel that arose in the human family was about religion;
and since the proclamation "I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed," the controversy has been carried on by
different hands, by different means, and with various success. It is the duty of the Christian, and has ever been
the duty of the saint, to contend for the truth revealed, in opposition to error. From the days that Jannes and
Jambres withstood Moses, down to the present time, every distinguished saint has been engaged in controversy. The
ancient prophets, the Saviour of the world, and his holy apostles, were all religious controversialist. The Saviour’s
life was one continued scene of controversy and debate with the scribes, the elders, the Pharisees, the sadducees,
and with the established priesthood of his era. The apostles were noted disputants, and the most successful
controversialist that ever lived. Paul, the apostle, was more famous in this department than Alexander, or Bonaparte,
in the field. Whether a Stoic, or an Epicureau philosopher, a Roman orator, a Jewish high priest, or a Sadducean
teacher encountered him, he came off victorious and triumphant. Never was he foiled in battle; never did he give back.
The sword which he wielded, and the arm which directed it, proved resistless in the fight.
There are not a few who deprecate religious controversy as an evil of no small magnitude. But these are either the
ill-informed, or those conscious that their principles will not bear investigation. So long as there is good and
evil, truth and error, in this world, so long will there be opposition; for it is in the nature
( vi )
of good and evil, of truth and error,to oppose each other. We cheerfully confess that it is much to be regretted
that controversy amongst Christians should exist; but it is more to be regretted that error, the professed cause
of it, should exist. Seeing then that controversy must exist, the only question is, how may it be managed to
the best advantage? To the controversies recorded in the New Testameut we must appeal, as furnishing an answer to
this question. They were in general public, open, plain, and sometimes sharp and severe. But the disputants who
embrace the truth in those controversies, never lost the spirit of truih in the heat of conflict; but with all
calmness, moderation, firmness, and beuevolence, they wielded the sword of the spirit; and their controversies when
recorded by impartial hands, breathe a heavenly sweetness, that so refreshes the intelligent reader, that he often
forgets the controversy, in admiration of the majesty of truth, the benevolence and purity of their hearts.
In the following pages, there is detailed a controversy of seven days on a question which to some may appear of very
subordinate importance, but, in fact, of very great magnitude, if we view all its bearings and consequences. The
substance of the Debate is, we believe, faithfully presented, and not one argument or principal topic of
illustration, or proof, left our, or intentionally withheld. Indeed, to say nothing of the honesty of our motives,
our interest and our reputation demand that the Debate should be faithfully and impartially exhibited. Our interest
is to convince the reader that our views nre correct; now if we either suppressed an argument, or presented it in
a weaker form than our opponent did, or than the reader himself would conceive of, we, in that instance, injure
ourselves; for so long as the reader thinks that he could have advtmced something stronger, so long he resists the
evidence adduced. Our reputation too is at stake. A very numerous and respectable congregation heard this discussion,
and although there were
( vii )
many enlisted on both sides, yet the number of those that belonged to neither party was very respectable. These were
the only umpires, and their testimony is of much more influence in matters of this nature than either friends or
opponents.
As to the means I had of giving the Debate in writing, they were quite sufficient for a person accustomed to writing
off discourses from notes taken down when the discourses were delivered, a practice in which I had engaged myself
for years. I have, at this time, volumes of discourses in manuscript, which were transcribed from notes taken down
in an abbreviated form from public lecturers on languages and sciences, as well as from those called Divines. The
notes taken of this discussion were unusually voluminous. Besides those taken down by myself which were very copious,
I was favored with those taken by Bishop. Sidney Rigdon of Pittsburgh, Dr. A. D. Keith of Augusta, and Dr. Augustus
Davis of Washington, Kentucky. It is necessary for me to be thus particular, in acquainting the reader with the means
which I had in possession of doing justice to the subject. Especially as mr. Maccalla in the Kentucky Gazette of
Feb. 19. insinuates that O have not the means of giving the Debate fully and impartially. He says, "he and a few
friends took some notes, but not in short hand. My friends did the same. But their assistance would not enable me,
nor perhaps any one, to write his arguments accurately and fully." Mr. M. rather holds out the idea in these words,
that he has as many notes, or the same means as those which I possess. Yet he took no notes himself, and all those
taken by the Rev. mr. Lyle, and the young divine that took his place, after he quit the ground, from close inspection,
were not as lengthy as those which I took myself. And no doubt mr. Maccalla declares the truth when he says, "that
the assistance of those notes would not enable him, nor any one else to give my arguments accurately and fully." But
this is not all, mr. M. dreading the appearance of this discussion
( viii )
in print, very injudiciously begins to condemn before it appeared: for having prejudged and condemned it before it
appeared, he has shewn his inclination to decry it when it does appear, and thus deprived his testimony of that
character [--ial] to credibility and authority.*
He complains, in the same publication, that I should have proposed to give the discussion in a volume of 500 pages
with animadversions on sundry works, and that before I knew how lengthy the discussion would be. In reply we observe,
that the length of these amadversions depended upon the merits of the controversy. If the controversy took in all
the ground [_____y] occupied, the animadversions would then be [___ated] or interspersed in the discussion. If it
[were] not, then the animadversions would be the more [lengthy]. Taking this into view, with the allowance of 500
pages to circumstances, as the Debate might b more or less tedious; and knowing that if a man could talk a year upon
the subject, his arguments would not be more numerous, if at all relevant, than to cover the ground enclosed in the
prospectus, [there] was nothing incongrous in the proposed limits [of this] volume. But now when the work is complete,
we can, from the actual result, fully demonstrate, [----] the face of the volume, the justice and propriety of our
proposals. The Debate ends on pace 393. We have put a good deal of matter in small type, [and] of given in such type
as the body of the work, [would] have brought this volume to nigher 500 than [393] pages. As it is crowded and
disfigured with [bre--- --] occupies 420 pages, and, with the exception of the Bible, it is the cheapest religious
work published in this country, as respects the quantity of matter [in] execution. The addition of twenty pages to
[this] work is worth 375 dollars on the whole edition [we have] printed, at the proposed price of $1.25 per volume
of 400 pages. We, them, bestow on the
__________
* [This] reminds me of some of the Paido-baptists in Ohio, [who days] before the Debate took place, reported, that
I was put [on notice] by mr. Maccalla.
( ix )
whole edition $375 for the sake of doing the most ample justice to our own proposals, and to the cause which we have
espoused. Besides we have animadverted as fully on some works viz. those of Pond Campbell, as though we had named
them in our prospectus.
Had we been as contiguous to all those who took notes as we are to mr. Rigdon we should have handed them the sheets
when printed, as we have done to him. On perusing the argument on the subject of baptism, on the action, and on the
evils resulting from infant sprinkling, he was pleased to furnish us with the following recommendation.
To all whom it may concern: This is to certify that having been present at the Debate in Kentucky,
in October last, between Messrs, Campbell and W. L. Maccalla, and that being engaged in taking notes
of that discussion, which I handed over to A. Campbell, and having read over that disscussion on the
subject and action of Christian baptism, now presented to the public in the following pages, I can
recummend the same as a fair and full exhibition of both sides of the controversy, of the arguments
and topics of illustration, used by the aforesaid gentlemen.
May, 4, 1824. SIDNEY RIGDON.
With regard to the length of the speeches on both sides,it is necessary to inform those who did not hear the Debate,
that I pronounced more words in a given time than my opponent. I think it will be granted, on all sides, that I
pronounced as many words in twenty minutes as he did in thirty. There is not, however, this disparity in the speeches
as published, for a greater portion of what I said is abbreviated than of what he said. And 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 only such matter as had little or no bearing upon the subject; such as the argument from
ecclesiastic history, the origin of the modern sects, and such matter as mr. M. introduced having no bearing upon
the controversy whatever. Of this the reader will have a full specimen in the 6th and 7th days.
The correspondence which resulted in this discussion
( x )
is fully printed in this work, and is itself the best preface to the volume. It not only fitly introduces the
Debate, but it also serves to corroborate the correctness of the narrative given, in as much as the ground proposed
by mr. M, and the topics presented in his own letters, are such as appear in my statement of the Debate. Indeed his
letters, are letters of recommendation to this work as being faithful and correct. The matter and style of his
letters, the views which they exhibit, the spirit which they breathe, admirably correspond with his side of the
argument, if we only subtract one consideration, viz. that mr. M.’s talent consists much more in that kind of
management and address, that kind of adroitness and etiquette which is manifest in his letters, than in strength of
argument, or biblical knowledge.
It would be, perhaps, unbecoming and unnecessary to say any thing about thcta]ents 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 something
out of nothing. Had mr. M. been on my side, and I on his, doubtless I would have been put to confusion; for I
remember to have been vanquished by an old lady when I argued up infant baptism against her. It is true I had
something 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 little, was, that with all my philosophy and divinity, an old woman’s common sense overpowered me.
It may be necessary to inform the reader, that being in the habit of reading and using different translations of the
scriptures, as well as sometimes translatiug for myself, he may sometimes find quotations in this book, even where the
authorities are not adduced, which may differ from the common version. We believe, however, that in every instance,
where any great emphasis was laid upon any difference of translation; either the authority is given, or the
translation
( xi )
defended. If it be at any time otherwise, we are not at present conscious of it.
The style adopted in the following speeches is, we believe, little or nothing better than that in which they appeared
upon the stage. On my part they were extemporaneous, 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, until the evening before
the discussion, whether he was to open the Debate or to respond; whether he or his opponent was to introduce the
matter to be discussed. My health, too, for some time before, and during the Debate, as well as through the greater
part of the winter, was peculiarly delicate, so as to forbid much close thinking or close application to my pen. It
moved in my fingers with very little regard to elegancies, and as I sometimes felt doubtful, whether I should live
to accomplish this work, I was more concerned about the matter than about the manner, about what
I published than about the style in which it should appear. But as I had reason of grateful thanksgiving for
the improvement of my health, during the seven days of the discussion, so also I have abundant reason of gratitude
and praise to HIM in whom we live, and move, and have our being, for a similar, or greater improvement, during the
time that I have been employed in writing it. I hope, however, the style will be plain and intelligible to all.
We feel glad to know that mr. M. has been preaching very generally on this subject since the debate, in different
parts of Kentucky, in order, as he says, that the people of "all denominations may have a specimen of the contrast
which I know will be seen between my real arguments and the spurious production now in the press," and that these
preachings have been notified in the public prints by mr. M. as being "on the existence of a visible church in the
family of Abraham, and the ecclesiastical identity of the Jewish and Christian societies;" because we have no doubt,
but, in so doing,
( xii )
he has been obtaining for this work additional evidences of its correctness; being assured that every argument he
can urge on these topics, with its proof, will be found precisely stated in his speeches in this volume: and also
all those arguments, which indeed are substantially the same with his, used by Mason, Pond, Campbell, Ralston, and
Walker, on the same subjects. It will be evident to the impartial reader, that, if the whole of this work were a
forgery, it combats every argument advanced by the Paido-baptists; and if the arguments impugned in this volume are
refuted, he may rest assured that there are no others to exhibit. So that whether it represents the Debate correctly
or incorrectly, it is all one as respects the merits of the question. These things we urge, knowing the opposition
that will be made from what has been said before the book is laid before the public. We know that every urnpire that
heard the discussion, and those who were on the other side when the debate commenced, but who were convinced by
hearing it, that infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and we have no doubt but that even some of those who are
still Paodo-baptists, will concur with us in declaring, that it is as fair and full a representation of the
controversy, as four hundred pages of these dimensions could exhibit.
We have only to remind the reader that there is but one infallible standard of the Christian religion, and this is
the New Testament. To this let him ever appeal as the supreme judge of all controversies about Christian faith and
practice. By this standard let our argnments be tried, his views guided, and his conscience ruled. And if unlearned,
in the science and philosophy of men, let him remember that those Rev. Philosophers who composed the Westminster
Confession of Faith declare, that the scriptures are so plain, "that not only the Iearaed but the un1earned, by a
due use of the ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them." May every student of this sacred
volume grow in grace, and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
( 15 )
LETTERS OF
CORRESPONDENCE.
_______
Auqusta, Bracken County, Ky. May 17th, 1823.
MR. CAMPBELL -- The subject of thiS communications your publication on Baptism, and
particularly your proclamation to the multitude at the close of your debate on Mount Pleasant. It is found in
the last paragraph of the 144th page of your book, entitlcd, "Infant sprinkling proved to be a hunran tradition;"
printed in Steubenville, Ohio, 1820, You there say, "I conceive it is my time to give au invitation or
challeuge to any Pedo-baptist minister; and to return the compliment with the utmost cerimoniousness, I this
day publish to all prescnt, that I feel disposed to meet any Pedoboptist minister of any denomination, of qood
standing in his party, and I engage to prove, in a debate with him, either viva voce, or with the pen, that Infant
sprinklng is a hmnan tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political. I have to
adrl, 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 publis."
Some copies of your book came to this village immediately after its publication. 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 informed,)
to procure a visit from you, for the purpose of encountering me in public debate. What was the cause of their failure
I cannot tell: but rumours 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 approach, which, in other
circumstances, my conscious weakness and natural timidity might cause me to deprecate. If, however, you should
gratify our wishes, it is not necessary that you should consider this as a challenge, 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.
Neither is it necessary that you should understand me as professing a willingness 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
injurious to 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 principal or auxiliary, doctrinal or historical. A second is, that they be clothed in language,
every way suitable; possessing the qualities
( 16 )
of purity, propriety, and precision. The third is, that the question or questions be so stated as to preclude
equivocation, if possibie, and bring the parties directly to an issue; so that one can affim 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 chnrch of God?
2. 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 circumsision before Christ, and Christian Baptism after Christ, one and the same seal in substance,
though in different firms?
4. The administration of this seal to infants; was it once enjoined by Divine 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 parents?
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 uninterrupted succession ?
11. Are the American Baptists descended from the German Ana-baptists? or, in other words, have they obtained
their Baptism from Munzer?
12. Did John Baptize infants?
13. Did John Baptize by submersion?
14. Does the Bible authorise the Baptism of infants as a Christian ordinance?
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 to 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, injurious 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
( 17 )
affirmative or negative, and you could do the same. From your publication of the debate at Mount Pleasant, I fairly
conclude that (unless suppressed by mutual consent,) they will all be discussed if we should ever meet. The most
orderly method of discussion will be the most expeditious and edifying. The terms of conference may, I hope, be
precisely, if not easily, adjusted, should Providence bring us together. I 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. MACCALLA.
MR. MACCALLA,
SIR, -- Your favor of the 17th ult. came to hand about 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 neceassary 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 denomonation, and of your general character. Dr. Keith’s account was also confirmed by the testimony
of a mr. Logan from your vicinity and A respectable member of your community, who favoured 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 debate,
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,snd the triumph of truth, suggested the propriety of giving au 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
better of it. His side of the controversy was comprized in one short proposition; viz. that infant baptism or
affusion is a Divine institution." The side which I assumed, from conviction, was comprised in the negative of
this proposition, viz. that infant Baptism or affusion 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, and still say no. I say it is a human tradition, and injurious to society, &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 suggest that it should be equidistant from you
( 18 )
and me. I have no business to Kentucky more than to any part of the Union; yet, on certain conditions, I am willing
to go to Augusta.
With respect to the time, I think it ought not to be sooner than two or three months after we have agreed upon
the preliminaries; i.e. it should be published in all the circumjacent country for so long a time. And, as respects
the manner of procedure, I would say, I have no objection to take up and discuss the qnestions yon have
proposeed, to 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, I will take the liberty of suggesting the
following, which I conceive to be perfectly reasonable and of conrse equitable: --
1. That Mr. W. L. Maccalla agrees to attempt to prove that infant affusion or Baptism is a divine institution, and
A. Campbell agrees to attempt to prove that it is not, in a public debate, to be held, if the Lord will,
at Augusta, on Wednesday the first day of October next, to commence at 11 o'clock A.M.
2. That each of the parties shall choose one person to act as moderater, and that these two shall choose a third,
who is neither a Baptist nor a Paido-baptist, to sit with them.
3. That these moderators shall merely keep order, and not pronounpe judgment 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. Mr. W. L. Maccalla, as he supports the affirmative, necessarily opens the debate, and A. Campbell closes it.
6. Tbe scriptural subject of baptism shall first be discussed, then the action of baptism.
7. The debate shall be conducted with decornm; all improper allusions and passionate language shall be guarded
against.
8. Whatever books are produced on the occasion shall be equully accessible to the use of eaoh 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 on the topic.
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 the said debate, and please inform me by return of mail. I will
then furnish ou with an equal number of questions to those 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 convinced. As truth is my riches, the more I
gain of it the richer and the happier I must be. Moreover I shall feel a great obligation to you if you convince me
of any error. I hope therefore, you will spare no pains in your efforts to convince me. You may rest assured that
you will find me open to conviction, and anxious to maintain what I believe. A. CAMPBELL.
( 19 )
Augusta, Kentucky, July 2, 1823.
MR. CAMPBELL -- Your letter of June 16th ult. 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 comply with all the conditions of your letter. As this compliance is declined, the place of
meetingis a point still to be determined. If you should yet consent to encounter me here, the meeting of our
presbytery and synod in which our congregation has business imperiously demanding my attention, will make it desirable
that we should appoint a time a week sooner or several weeks later than October 1st.
The adjusting of the points of difference, in the form of disputable propositions, however difficult, is deemed
important by us both. After having intimated to you my objections to the form contained in your challenge, I proposed
a number of questions which bring into view all the matter of the question contained in your challenge, with these
advantages, that its complication is removed by method, and it is presented in such a manner as to bring the parties
to a fair and direct issue. You do not seem [necessarily] 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 yetknown, is a sort of theological
Quixotism, worthy only of the dark ages. If you have been told that I love controversy for its own sake, you have
been misinformed. I would not waste my breath, nor poison my heart, nor disgrace religion by vain jangling. With
the help of God, I am willing to defend the truth as held up to view in the proposition referred to, or in any other
equitable 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 particular objection to my questions, I have several to the one which you propose in your
epistle, viz. "Is infant affusion or -- is infant 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. lst, 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. 2nd These propositions encourage a popular misconception, which has been
too much insisted upon by our adversaries; 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, that faith in the subject is an essential
qualifcation 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 narrow
bounds
( 20 )
with regard to the mode, than we in good conscience ocoupy. We do not advocate affusion exclusively; and if you leave
this word out of the propositions, they are confined to the subject, and say nothing of the mode. We admit of washing
and sprinkling as well as pouring, and we even acknowledge the lawfulness of dipping; but we deny that 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 a condition of an interview that we should assume ground worse than that
which we in truth occupy
With respect to your 9th article I would observe, that the people will always let us know when they have heard enough,
but the parties should he permitted to judge when they have said enough. In your 5th article you claim the closing
address, This you would probably have without any stipulation, for in practice I am not tenacious, but I see no
reason for acknowledging your superior right. In the conference at Mount Pleasant you say, that "as mr. Walker gave
the challenge, it became his duty to open the debate." You of course had the privilege of closing. The above is your
own declaration; and the only reason which you give for making it mr. Walker’s duty to 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 challenge. Since this is a new practice, your letter gives a new reason for it, that os, that it is the right of the
negative to close. But where did you learn this rule? I am as 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 expression; snd, whether the proposition be affirmative or negative the
same proof would be required on both sides. Of thos you will see an example in my two letters. In civil courts, and
in the courts of our church there is a rule on this subject, but it 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
( 21 )
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, howerer contradwtory and unauthorized, will give me the closing address, though
unsought, nothing more remains now to be settled but the time and place, which are the only subjects to which you
claim a vote. If 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, Washington in Pennsylvania, or Washington city, Baltimore
or Philadelphia, New Haven, or Boston. I should like for the time to be shortly before or after the general assembly,
which convenes in Philadelphia on the third Thursday in May, and sits about two or three weeks. When the preliminaries
are adjusted, all possible pnblicity may be given to the appointment according to your request. If it be your choice,
you can send a notice to the papers in Phildelphia and elsewhere, that, "on the third Monday of May, Mr. Alexander
Campbell, of the regular Baptist church, and mr. W. L. Maccalla, of the Presbyterian church, will (Deo volente)
discuss the following propositions, viz. Infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being
of society, religious and political. For the discussion of this proposition, the former of these gentlemen gave
a gaeral challenge to Paedo-baptist ministers."
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 where we shall meet. They are not made conditions. Words in brackets are considered 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. Duplicates given to the parties.
1. The proposition for discussion shall the following, viz. ["Infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious
to the well being of society, religions and political."]
2. Each speaker shall be entitled to an alternate address of thirty minutes and no longer, unless the other party
wave 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 of the parties choosing one, and these two a third, which
last shall belong to no religious society. They are to keep order, and not to decide the question.
6. The debate shall be opened by [ ] and shall (God willing,) commence on the [18th 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 superintendence [unless
altered by mutual agreement,] from day to day until both parties are satisfied.
W. L. MACCALLA.
( 22 )
Buffaloe Printing-Office, 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 forwarding the questions promised. My sole reason was, that my letter was sufficiently crowded withont them.
Besides, I supposed that a person proposing to discuss a subject of so great importance, and of so common oocurrence,
as that proposed by yourself, could be at no loss to answer any question oonnected 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 us the
circumstances are, it appears irrelevant and futile. I should never have proposed to discuss a subject, on which
twenty-one questions could be proposed, that after two month’s deliberation, I would fear to encounter. So little
attention to your twenty-one questions has been paid by myself, that were 1 now asked what they are, I could not,
from recollection, mention thehalf of them, On reading them once or twice, I saw the drift of them, and apprehended
the turn of reflection that dictated them. With a very little reflection, I found myself able to answer each of them
with a yea or a nay, with, perhaps, a little explanation in one ir two instances.
Though, you say, I have made no particular objection to your questions, you have several to the one which I proposed.
Now, 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 aptism. Yet, knowing the
peculiar 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, I 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 number.
You hare favored me with three objections to my one question. It was well I did not propose twenty-one. The cogency
of your three objections I confess myself too dull to apprehend. One thing appears pretty plain, that you conceive
the question -- "Is infant affusion, or Baptism, a Divine institution," 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
"worse" than it realiy is. Butwhile you allow believer’s Baptism to be a Divine institution, and while you
practise infant affusion, you maintain that to be a Divine institution also. Why then object to defend the
precise thing which you practise? And to say that 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 behooves you for one such occasion
to be able to prove
( 23 )
it to be a Divine institution. And if the whole proposition cannot be proven -- viz. that onfant affusion is a
Divine institution, to cut it iuto pieces, to divide into words, syllables, vowels, or consonants, and prove it
in piece-meal, will, every Logician knows, avail nothing.
With regard to who shall open, and who close the debate, I had thought that my statement of the attendant circumstances
of my giving the challenge alluded to, would have prevented such reasons as you assign for differing from me on that
item. My stating that it behooved mr. Walker to open the debate from the circumstance of his having given the challege,
was true, as far aa it went; but it was also true, that his having the affirmative side of the question, was that
which rendered his commencement essentially necessary. In this controversy, Baptists have nothing to prove as respects
their practice. Paodo-baptists agree with them, that a disciple immersed on a profession of the Christian faith, has
received Christian baptism. Our practice then is correct, in this respect, Paido-baptists themselves being judges.
They, indeed, blame us for omitting to Baptize infants, but not for what we [really] do, consequently it is they who
have to prove their practice, and it is our duty to show that their argumeuts are inconclusive. In every controversy,
then, with Paido-baptists, upon this topic, they affirm and we deny, they commence and we respond. But you profess to
be ignorant of the origin of this rule of practice. I say that it originates in the fitness of things, and is
supported by long prescription. For precedent and for proof, I refer to the era of the Reformation. In the famous
disputes at Leipsic, between Eckius, Luther, and Carolostadius, June 27th, 1519. Eckius gave the challenge, took the
affirmative, and opened the debate with Carolostadius. On the 4th of July, 1519, Eckius maintains the pope’s supreme
authority, Luther denies it, Eckius opens the debate and Luther closes. The same took piace at Baden, May, 1526,
between Oecolampadius with Eckius. In the dispute between Luther and Oecolampadius concerning the "real
presence," Luther affirms, and Oecolampadius denies, Luther commences and Oecolampadius responds. See many other
instances from page 102 to 200, Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, vol. 3d.
In the last place on this head, you aliege that the possibility of converting an affirmative proposition into a
negative, renders such a rule of procedure of very doubtful application. I admit that tbe negative proposition, infant
affusion is not a Divine ordinance, may be converted into an affirmative, thus -- infant affusion is a human
tradition; yet the nature of thiugs will not change with the words we may choose to represent them. Still the grand
predicate Divie institution is denied of the subject, infant Baptism, and the grand truth in pursuit of
which the investigation proceeds is denied of the subject of the proposition; which, according 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 said discussion
( 24 )
from the 1st of October, to Wednesday the 15th of October. Latar than that period I cannot think it 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 neoessity 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 the sake of exhibiting to better advantage your very accommodating disposition, you should have mentioned
London, Dublin, or Ghent; as water convenience, and plenty of books equally recommend those places. I will however be
still more aocommodating than you, for I will go to your own village as aforesaid.
I will now propose you twenty-one qnestions, and thus prevent all further demur on this ground.
1. What is the doctrinal import of christian Baptism?
2. Are infants members of the christian church?
3. Are infant members of the chriatian 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,one and the same church in different dispensations?
5. Was the sacrificial rite before Moses, and circumcision, after Moses, one 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 gentile church at Cesarea, a Baptist
or a Paido-baptist church?
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 children?
12. Ought not all the house-hold of a believer, his slaves, and their children to be Baptized on his profession of
the faith?
13. Ought not infants to be Baptized the eighth day?
14. Ought infant females to be Baptized, contrary to the law of circumcision?
15. Ought not Baptized infants to be admitted to the Lord's Table?
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 Baptism suited to believers, and yet be 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 correspondences,
( 25 )
to be a per 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 are the best course to come to a fair and clear issue. They afford us
themes of copious verbosity, and would no doubt in the end afford to all intelligent and impartial hearers sufficient
data to judge on what side truth lay. -- But it is like walking nine miles to come at a point which is accessible in
one, and that merely for the sake of shewing our dexterity in walking. Did I from my soul desire 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 of the mire, or be helped myself; I would calmly, in the fear of God, with humility of mind and pure benevolence
for yourself, and all others, who maybe present on the occasion; and with all openness to conviction, propose only
four points for discussion. -- One of these I conceive of great consequence, not only as respects baptism, but as
respecte the whole exhlbition of the Christian religion.
1. Were the Jews in their corporate state, whether called national or ecclesiastical, an association, the same
as the christian Church? -- This topic I would propose as a mere introduction to the subject primarily in view -- then
2. What is the doctrinal import of Baptism?
3. Who is the proper subject?
4. What is the action?
As these questions equally comprehend the substance of your twenty-one and mine; I feel perfectly satisfied, if you
are agreed, to investigate these in the fuliest manner, by every possible means of illustration, and to confine our
whole conference to them. -- As I have dwelt chiefly on that article of arrangement which you seem to make of the
greatest importance, I have no room to say any thing of the other eight items. They still appear to me preferable to
any alterations you have proposed. But in case of your refusing to accede to these rules of procedure, I have to
propose that the three persons 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 correspondence, 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
satisfactory, if the rules adopted by the committee, preceding the debate at Mount Pleasant, will not please you. I
have only to request that this epistle be answered as promptly as I have answered your's, and that you would excuse
this hasty scrawl. I was interrupted twenty times since I sat down to write it.
Very respectfully your's, &c.
A. CAMPBELL.
The two following letters are detached from the thread of the correspondence. By accident they neglected to appear
in their proper place. They should have been inserted after my firsr to mr. Maccalla. The correspondence is perfect
without them. They appear here merely for the sake of giving every word written in our correspondence.
( 26 )
July 14th, 1823.
MR. MACCALLA,
Sir, -- I wrote you on the 16th ult. in answer to your favor of May last; I also directed a letter on the same subject
to Dr. Keith. To these communications I have received no reply. A letter having been due before this date, I feel
anxious to know, whether my letter was received, and whether you have answered it. I would send a copy of my reply
per the bearer, but time forbids, as he is now on his way. You will please inform me, on Mr. Logan’s arrival, whether
my letter was received. -- And if you should have written a reply, at a date authorizing me to have received it, you
must consider your letter as miscarried, and will, therefore, have the goodness to write again, as my business and
arrangements reqnire me to know the result as soou as possible, respectfully your's, &c.
A. 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 morning. If my former one had 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 generally tedious, it is probable that my letter has not yet miscarried.
If it arrives, you will find that I am willing, with the help of God, to meet you on 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 invitation, 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 speech: 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 affimative or the negative
of the proposition in dispute.
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 shall 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
( 27 )
conditions, and if, after examining your questions, I should not approve of them, the proposal of my letter was, that
we should discuss "the subject and the mode of Baptism" without any question, -- or that we should meet upon
the proposition contained in your challenge, to the discussion of which you have dared the Paido-baptist world. As
you gave the challenge, and as you take the affirmative 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 liberty 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 answer 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 would 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
preparation to be desired in such acontroversy, 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 21st, 1823.
Auqusta, Kentucky.
MR. CAMPBELL -- In the progress of our correspondence, it is a pleasure to me to
remember that this controversy is not of my own seeking. Mine is a defensive attitude. Your challenge was bold,
public, and general: neither did it exhibit on its face the least design to take advantage of any stripling who
might, in the faith of Israel's God, step out to meet you. You did not enumerate rules of debate -- you did not
prescribe weapons to your antagonist -- you did not lay down, what he was, and what he was not to defend -- you did
not require the last blow as a sine qua non to an encounter; but you simply stated what you would undertake to
prove, and left your opponent to choose his own position, to which he certainly has a right, You expressly
renounced 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
conditions. In the first page of your stricture on Father Ralston’s review, after complaining 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-baptiste of greater capacity and industry
than mr. Walker? If there be, let the cause be maintained, and let not mr. Walker bear all the blame, as if the whole
cause rested on him." While thus bravely exulting over our armies, who, (as you imagined,) were
( 28 )
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?
Why did you not tell us that you must have exclusive privileges, and not only choose your own theses, but you must
also indite the identical words which we are to defend, although, in our conception, they may countenance errors which
our souls abhor? With an invitation thus restricted, I have never complied, for such a one was never given; but,
remember, sir, that the challenge actually published by yourself has been accepted, with its accompanying condition.
Although I cannot admit the right of an antagonist to direct what I shall defend, yet when he gives a reason for
prefering one proposition to another, I am willing to listen. Some of your reasons are as follows: "Why then objeot
to defend the precise thing which you practise? -- And if the whole proposition cannot be proved, 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 question 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 sorry to observe that you with the world think that these two stand in opposition 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 former, 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 may be 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 several points, any member may have the same divided?" You will agree, it is to be hoped,
that the subject and the mode of Baptism are distinct pointa, 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 grand desideratum, the last speech. The fitness of
things and long prescription are the pillars upon which the fabric rests. These, you say, give to the negative
the right of closing. The negative, therefore, you are determined to have. Recollecting, however, that you have to
take the affirmative of the proposition contained in your challenge, you bring the fitness of things, as
(you there call it,) the nature of things, to a bearing upon the affirmative proposition, Infant affusion
is a human tradition;" and you shew, or think you shew, that it "will force the proposition into the form of
a direct negative in the discussion" If you can force one 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 force is probably the very thhlg which caused Bishop
( 29 )
Gunning, of England, a hundred and fifty years ago, to deny those whom he had challenged, the liberty of replying.
In establishing a right upon the ground of prescription, you are aware that the custom must be made to appear. For
this purpose you refer me to certain nameless occurrences in Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, vol. iii. p. 162—200.
Will you be so kind as to send me so particular a refereuce that the place maybe found in the London edition of 1698,
as that contains nothing of the sort, in the pages marked, and the index refers to no conferences except those of
Carthage and Jerusalem, p. 220, 321. The latter, A.D. 415, has nothing to the purpose. Neither has the former, which
occurred four years sooner, except that the long disputes of the Donatists about the qualities of opposers and
defenders, may appear to authorize the pertinacity of some with regard to the privileges confessed by affirmatives
and negatives. At last Augustine obliged them to come to the main question, which was, "Where was the Catholic
church?" The Donatists opened, and Augustine closed. Nothing can be gathered from such facts, unless the fitness of
things can extract a favorable conclusion.
If we had Seekendorf’s History of Lutheranism, and Loscheim's Acts and Documents of the Reformation, referred to in
Maclaine's Mosheim, (4. 44. Charlest. edit. 1811.) we might possibly obtain some satisfaction on the other cases
referred to. Du Pln is the only author whom you quote, and in the very short abstract which he gives, in half a page,
of the dispute between Eckius 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 divided by Du Pin into a number of conferences. Several of the first
were occupied on discussing the supremacy of the Pope, the subject to which your letter refers. You say that Eckius,
having the affirmative, opened the debate. Du Pin's narrative would encourage the belief that Luther opened. You say
that Luther closed. Du Pin intimates that Eckius closed the first conference, and does not give the least hint who it
was that closed the whole dispute on the topic. On the subject of indulgences, Eckius took the affirmative as before,
and if Du Pin's abstract give any information 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 his paper controversy with the noble Henderson, he appeared to
think this a privilege due to his dignity. He obtained it in a conference with Melancthon at Ratisbon, as we are
informed in a letter from Strasburg by Calvin to Farel. And if, according to Luther, as quoted by Seekendorf, and
from him by Milnor, (4-346.), Eckius took another more ungenerous advantage of Carolostadius in the conference above
mentioned. I have no doubt that he both opened and closed the contest; although Du Pin, a popish writer, has
mentioned neither of these advantages. This author gives no
( 30 )
information about the closing speech at Baden, although you say that Eckius opened, Oecolampadius closed. The same
may be said of the conference at Rome, which occurred December 17th, 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 Oecolampadius was one. Du Pin does not positively say who opened and closed, but from his narrative I 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 exceptions against the church of Englaud. The second of these was on Baptism. They objected to
private 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 perspicacity which has discovered
such wonders in the foregoing instances.
If I am not as ignorant of arithmetic as you think me to be of logic, the questions contained in your letters and the
Appendix to your debate, amount to one hundred and thhty-five. I am willing that you shall appear on the scene of
conflict with all these, and I am willing to meet you with the two following or similar propositions: 1st. Faith is
not essential to Baptism. 2d. Submersion is not essential to Baptism. You will then have room to display your wit on
the number and character of my questions, and I should have an opportuuity of giving my opinion of your one hundred
and thirty-five questions. Remember, however, my former proposals to meet you on the bare subject and mode, and my
agreement to meet you on the proposition contained in your challenge, and the condition therein expressed.
W. L. MACCALLA.
Buffaloe Creek, August 23d, 1823.
MR. MACCALLA,
Sir, -- Yours 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 thu statement in my proclamation; "That
infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political." You
there 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
negatives, and thus to force me to give you the last
( 31 )
speech, In my first, I proposed rules of conference similar to those framed at Mount-Pleasant, to expedite our
interview, and regulate our discussion. To those you object to 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 moderators should
decide, both the questions to be discussed, and the manner of discussing them, and pledge myself to abide by their
decision. Of this you take no notice; but very gravely and generously proceed to accuse me with departing from my
challenge; as offering you 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
if 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 I propoaed 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 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 publicly to assume, and, if
possible, to defend the precise ground you occupy in contradiction to Anti-paido-baptists; that is, that infant
Rantism, or superfusion, 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 behooves 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 affirmative 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 writer, and others, that the affirmative has usually
( 32 )
opened every discussion where theses were so limited, I will engage to do it, or concede to you the closing speech.
But why you should have dwelt so much on this topic, as a sine qua non, when I consented to be governed by the rules
of the moderators, without even so much as noticing this important concession, this just and reasonable 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 right. I will, then, to obviate all difficulties on my side,
if possible, propose to meet you at Augusta, or rather at Mays-Lick, on Wednesday, the 11th day of October next,
the day before or the day after, as may best suit your conveniency, at eleven 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 there, 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 O must give advantage, I will do it all at once, and
manifestly Talk no more then, if you please, about sine qua non. I will meet you as aforesaid, if the Lord
will, either on your twenty-one questions and mine; or on the words of my challenge; 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,
as 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 receipt of this, and to let him know to which of the proposed terms you choose to accede; and also to have our
intended meeting made as public as possible. You will also please to write me immediately on the receipt of this.
Please also to recollect, that the challenge which elicited mine, came forth from your armies; and talk no more of
the stripling David; nor of the Philistine Goliath. How good soever the analogy may be between you and the tender
stripling; for our part we disclaim comparison with the mighty Philistine.
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.
Auqusta, Sept. 15th, 1823.
MR. CAMPBELL -- 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, howewer, in one statement which may encourage you in this
belief. It is that I try to force you to give me the last speech. If this were true, it might be an evidence of fear,
or something worse. Your
( 33 )
assertion of the fact is as improper as your manner of giving me an unsought privilege is impolite.
Although to be afraid of so formidable an antagonist would be, in some measure, excusable, I am not willing to lie
under your charge of unrighteous behaviour for omitting to notice your proposal for a theological arbitration. In
your letter of July 21st, you propose that the moderators "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 for the want of room, because you had already my opinion twice on such
measures, and because I did not wish to expose every inadvertancy of which you might be guilty. If I 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
expressed an opinion that such a proceeding was nothing better than theological Quixotism. In a letter of July 21st,
I considered that to promise a debate at random arose from ambition or ostentation. When you, in your pledge copied
above, commit the very fault here reproved, did decorum require that I should repeat my condemnation? or was it
necessary for me to insinuate that you chose ground which you knew had been abandoned, for the purpose o fgiving to
your candor and bravery a more illustrious and uninterrupted display?
Concerning this proposal you say, "if this is inequitable, then all arbitrations 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 adopted at Mount-Pleasant, is, "that these
moderators shall merely keep order, and not pronounce judgment on the merits of the debate." Did yen, 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 schoolboys to receive subjects
for composition and declamation. It is well for students of theology to receive subjects for trial exercises. ln both
these cases, however, as well as in arbitrations and references, the merits are decided by the committee. This, which
is really the most innocent part of the business, and which has 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 arbitrarily dictated by others, and conceiving
the tendency of which to good or evil we are utterly ignorant. If the long parliament 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 selfish adherence to the Assembly of divines convened by this parliament. This
correspondence
( 34 )
should cause you to inquire again who is it that is most disposed to servile compliances. Is it the man who cautiously
and prayerfully examines and compares the Westminster articles, and then adopts them because he finds that form of
sound words consistent with the word of God? -- Is it he who, in sacred things, is unwiiling 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 ridiculing the tender consciences of those who would rather know a
matter before they answer it.
This alternative of your proposals is of course rejected. I must treat your four questions in the same way. On the
three last of them we can come to no immediate issue. Lest a silent concealment of my disgust should again incur your
resentment, I must tell you that the first of these four, and some others from the same quarter, are only calculated
to darken counsel by words without knowledge.
To excuse yourself for so long persisting 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
diminution." Did I then, or have I ever since, made your adoption of them a condition of our meeting? So far was I
from acting the part of a dictator, that you have more than once commended the spirit of that letter. So far from
insisting 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 meeting, by raising too high that magisterial indignation which has been manifested in several of your
letters, and which, from a long habit of domineering without control, has become quite ungovernable. This same motive
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 aa 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 you may ascribe”my silence hitherto
concerning your character, although mine occupied the introduction to your first letter. Whatever 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 writings.
It is said that you are polluted with the theology of your favourite author, the disciple of Dr. Priestly, whose
Socinian and infidel pravity has been so completely exposed by his Eaptist countryman, the excellent Andrew Fuller.
If this be a mistake, you will rejoice to correct it: and be assured that such a favor will give me no less pleasure
than yourself.
( 35 )
Until 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 assurances 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 think so." A real Christian who could utter such things, not from hasty passion, 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 you are allowed (and I suppose justly) to
be the greatest champion of Anabaptism in America; -- because you have charged the Paido-baptist world with
administering a factitious and pernicious ordinance; because you have publicly 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 partizans have bantered me, and thus given a particular direction to your general invitation.
To this invitation I at first objected, because, although it brings us to a speedy issue, yet it confounds things
quite distinct, and it is clothed in unbecoming language. True, its exceptionable phrase, infant sprinkling,
is not so low and profane an expression as David Jones' watery hocus pocus, yet it is intended as a sneer,
and of course will never, by the lovers of piety and courtesy, be made a member of a question in debate. This
proposition, however, with all its confusion of points and vulgarfty of expression, is still preferable to any other
alternative which you have offered. My former repeated acceptauce of it is now contirmed. As you were mistaken about
the superior eligibility of May’s-Lick, I was reluctant to comply with your wish. Your friends and correspondents,
Dr. Keith and Major Davis undertook the responsibility 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. MACCALA.
Sept. 27th, 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 at Washington, on the proposition printed in my general invitation. But under what regulations I know not;
as you have declined referring the matter to the three moderators, and have said nothing in your last, on
( 36 )
what rules or order should be observed. I-- t appears your conscience is too tender to allow the moderators
such a liberty, as to say how the debate should be conducted, and which of all the topics and questions proposed
should be dismissed. It appears also that you omitted to notice this proposal in a former letter for want of room;
yet there is more than one third of a page of your letter blank; so that you must have had more to say about it in
your former letter, than in your last; for you do not write so much on it in your la% as might have been written on
the blank in your preceding epistle, andy ou might as well have tried to arouse my feelings then, as now. It moreover
appears, that your conscience was not so tender, on the subject of my character for "orthodoxy and piety," as to
prevent you from insinuating, nay, from declaring, that Dr. Priestly’s disciple was my favorite author, contrary
to all evidence or fact from any thing in my writings, or from any "respectable" source. You shall, perhaps,
soon know that I have no favorite authors in religion except one, and that man who says I am a first or second-hand
disciple of Priestly or of any socinian author, is a man of no piety nor respectability of character: nor is there a
man living who can say, or dare say in my presence, that I ever expressed a sentiment derogatory to the Lord Jesus
as a Divine Redeemer, as Emmannel, God with us. Such insinuations may be circulated in Kentucky by those who would
wish to impair my intluence, 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 judge. As to my external
deportment, men can judge. And whenever you bring forward any specific charge of
( 37 )
immorality, or unchristian deportment, we shall refute 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 partial; 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 connclude
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 fourteenth day of October, 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 have 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 archangel disputed
with the adversary about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him a railing accusation. As you are
celebrated for piety and orthodoxy, and I for want of them, a great deal will be expected from you, and very little
from your
Humble serv't
A. CAMPBELL.
(remainder of text under construction)
|
