to discuss the very proposition which you have offered in your challenge. As this is one in which you take the affirmative, and as both your rules however contradictory 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 on 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 Penn. or Washington city, Baltimore or Philadelphia, New-Haven or Boston. I should like for the time to be shortly be fore 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 publicity may be given to the appointment according to your request. If it be your choice you can send a notice to the papers in Philadelphia and else where that" on the third Monday of May, 1824, mr. Alexander Campbell of the regular Baptist church, and mr. W. L. Maccalla of the Presbyterian church, will, (Deo volente) discuss the following proposition, viz. Infunt 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 general challenge to Pado-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 considéred 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. E. Maccalla. Duplicates given to the parties.

1. The proposition for discussion shall be the following, viz. [“ Infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society religious and political."]

2. Each speaker shall be entitled to an alternate address of thirty minutes and no longer, unless the other party waive 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. These are to keep order and not to decide the question,

6. The debate shall be opened by

and shall,

(God willing) commence on the [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 superintendance [unless altered by mutual agreement,] from day to day until both parties are satisfied. W. L. 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 con ference 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 without them. Besides, I supposed that a person proposing to discuss a subject of so great importance, and of so common occurrence, ag that proposed by yourself, could be at no loss to answer any question connected therewith. If I had proposed to send you twenty-one questions on any other subject, than that proposed by yourself, or if I had proposed to give you no information of them until the day of debate; your objection would have been relevant and cogent; but as the circumstances are, it appears irrelevant and futile. I should never have proposed to discuss a subject, on which twenty-one questions could be proposed, that after two months de liberation, I would fear to encounter. So little attention to your twenty-one questions has been paid by myself, that were I now asked what they are, I could not, from recollection, mention the half 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 or 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 Baptism. Yet, knowing the peculiar delicacy of the feelings, and the keen sensibility of the conscience of Faido-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 have 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 Baptisin a Divine institution," obliges you, as you express at," to assume worse ground than that which in truth you occupy." This would indeed, be unreasonable, to make your ground of de fence "worse" than it really is. But while you allow believer's Baptism to be a Divine institution, and while you practise infant af fusion, 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 behoves you, for one such occasion to be able to prove

it to be a Divine institution. And if the whole proposition cannot be proven-viz. that infant affusion is a Divine institution, to cut it into pieces, to divide into words, syllables, vowels, or consonants, and prove it in piece-meal, will, every Logician knows, avail nothing.

In

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 behoved mr. Walker to open the debate from the circumstance of his having given the challenge was true, as far as it went, but it was also true, that his having the affirmative side of the question, was that which rendered his commencement essentially necessary. this controversy Baptists have nothing to prove as respects their practice. Paido-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, Paidobaptists themselves being judges. They blame us for omitting to Baptize infants, but not for what we do, consequently it is they who have to prove their practice, and it is our duty to show that their arguments are inconclusive. In every controversy then with Paido-baptists, upon this topic, they affirm and we deny, they commence and we respond. But you profess to be ignorant of the ori gin of this rule of practice. I say 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, Ecking opens the debate, and Luther closes. The same took place at Baden, May 1526, between Oecolampadius and 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 allege that the possibility of converting an affirmative proposition into a negative renders such a rule of procedure of very doubtful application. I admit that the 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 things will not change with the words we may choose to represent them. Still the grand predicate Divine institution is denied of the subject, infunt 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 theologi cal discussions.

I am willing to change the time proposed for holding said diş

cussion from the 1st of October, to Wednesday the 15th of October Later 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 necessity of attending, I could not, with any degree of propriety, promise to attend sooner than the first of October. And as you were so kind in mentioning New-Haven, Boston, New-York, 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 accommodating than you, for I will go to your own, village as aforesaid.

I will now propose you twenty-one questions, and thus prevent all further demur on this ground.

1. What is the doctrinal import of christian Baptism?

2. Are any infants members of the christian church?

3. Are infants members of the christian church by natural birth or Baptism?

4. Is the Abrahamic church a branch of the Noahic church? or in other words, were the patriarchs, before Moses, and the Jews after Moses, 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, 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 ine fants?

These questions I arrange on the principle of correspondencies,

.

to bé 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 accessible in one, and that, merely, for the sake of showing 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 may be present on the occasion; and with all openness to conviction, propose four points only for discussion.-One of these conceive of great consequence, not only as respects baptism, but as respects the whole exhibition 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 fullest 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 your seem to make of the greatest consequence, 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 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 answeredyour's; and that you would excuse this hasty scroll, 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 corres pondence. By accident they neglected to appear in their proper place. They should have been inserted after my first to mr. Maccalla. The correspondence is perfect without them. They appear here merely for the sake of giving every word written in our correspondence.