of purity, propriety, and precision. The third is that the question or questions be so 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?

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 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 enjoin. ed 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 practise 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 Chrisfian ordinance?

15. Has the church of Christ always practised the Baptism of in fants 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 froin 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

From your

affirmative or negative, and you could do the same. 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.

MR. MACCALLA,

W. L. MACCALLA.

Buffaloe, Brook County, Va, June 16th, 1823.

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 mecessary 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 denomi ination, 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 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 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. Hav. ing seen that Paido-baptist confuted; generosity, candor, and the triumph of truth suggested the propriety of giving 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 comprized in one short proposition, viz. that infant Baptism or affusion is a Divine institution." The side which I assumed, from conviction, was com prized in the negative of this proposition, viz. that infant Baptism or affusion is not a Divine institution," but a human tradition. This, 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 the discussed, divested of every thing extraneous, is this, is infant affusion, or, as it sounds sweeter to a Faide-baptist car--Is infant Baptism a Livine institution. Mr. Walker said yes, I said, and still say no. say it is a human tradition and injurious to society, &c.

As to the place, time, and manner of proceeding the proposed discussion I would observe; first, with regard to the place that reason, and equity suggest that it should be equidistant from you

and mc. I have no business to Kentucky more than to any other 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 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, I will take the liberty of suggesting the following, which I conceive to be perfectly reasonable and of course 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 Moderator, 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 pronounce 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. The Scriptural subject of Baptism shall first be discussed, then the action of Baptism.

7. The debate shall be conducted with decorum, all improper al lusions and passionate language shall be guarded against.

8. Whatever books are produced on the occasion shall be equally accessible 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 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 said debate, and please inform me per return of mail. I will then furnish you 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 er 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. may rest assured that you will find me open to conviction and anxidus to maintain what I believe. A. CAMPBELL.

You

Augusta, Kentucky, July, 2, 1823.

MR. CAMPBELL-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 comply with all the conditions of your letter. As this compliance is declined, the place of meeting is 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 desireable that we should appoint a tinie 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 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 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 jangking. With the help of God, I am willing to defend the truth as held up to view in the propositions 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. 1st These propositions confound the subject and the mode, which are distinct things, and which may be so exhibited in fewer word's as in the end of the last paragraph. 2d These propositions encourage a popular misconception, which has been too much insisted upon by our adversaries; that is, that we hold infart Baptism to the exclusion of believer's Baptism; than which nothing is more incor We maintain as strenuously as our opposers, the administration of Baptism to believers; but we difler from them in this proposition, that faith in 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 pas rents. 3d These ropositions confine us within marrower bounds

rect.

with regard to the mode, than we in good conscience occupy. 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 di rectly 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 be 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 chal lenge. 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 is, 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: 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 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 nust have an equal vote in determining the time and place. This is the only restriction I attach to the challenge I now publish." Thore 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, have only one other plan to propose. It is.this. We will agree