A PUBLIC DEBATE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, BETWEEN THE REV. W. L. MACCALLA, A PRESBYTERIAN TEACHER, AND ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN ESSAY ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. BY A. CAMPBELL. LONDON: SIMPKIN AND MARSHALL, STATIONERS' HALL COURT; 1842. HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY JUL 1 19.4 CHARLES ELLIOTT PERKINS 18 Jun 1919 Tranferred to Divinity Schori hibrocy 1746278 T. Kirk, Printer, Peter Gate, Nottingham. 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 controversialists. 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 controversialists that ever lived. Paul, the apostle, was more famous in this department than Alexander, or Bonaparte, in the field. Whether a Stoic, or an Epicurean 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 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 Testament 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 truth in the heat of conflict; but with all calmness, moderation, firmness, and benevolence, 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 out, 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 are 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 advanced 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 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. 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 modern sects, and such matter as Mr. Maccalla introduced having no bearing upon the controversy whatever. Of this the reader will have a full specimen in the sixth and seventh days. The correspondence which resulted in this discussion 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, inasmuch as the ground proposed by Mr. Maccalla, 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. Maccalla'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 |