probably have lasted through the first day. Mr. W.contended with the father& the son for two days. Had this in any degree aided the investigation of truth, it might have been borne with. But it was generally observed, that when the son received a note from the father he, always made an effort to change his ground; because the old gentleman thought it not tenable. The truth is, the son only excells the father, in ease of communication; but in disputation, the father as far excells the son-and, although the father is deservedly unnoticed by the living, it is not because he is. deficient, either in literature or talents; but because, from some species of delirium, his faith, his creed was as changeable in character and positions, as the aurora borealis.

On the 19 and 20 of June Mr. C. had not the power of forming his opponent; but when he comes to write, he makes one small enough-one easily vanquished. This is first manifest in the length of his peeches compared with those of Mr. W. The following certificate I received from a learned gentlemen,member of the general assembly church, who attended every moment of the debate.

"Debate on baptism by J walker and A Campbell; length of time spoken by each. Each spoke 16 times in the following proportions. Question 1st. Who were the fit subjects of Bap

tism?

Q. 2nd. What is the proper mode of Baptism?

Mr. Walker.

Speech. minutes.

Mr. Campbell.
Speech. minutes.

Total length of Mr. C's speeches, 7 hours 12 mi

nutes.

Total length of Mr. W's speeches, 5 hours 48

minutes.

Difference in favor of Mr. C. during the 2 days, 1 hour 24 minutes.

I certify the above to be correct.

JOHN M'CRACKEN.

But the form in which we find the speeches of Mr. W. in the miserable statement of his arguments, may indeed render them an easy prey to Mr. C. Some of the most important observations are entirely omitted. He appears only to have introduced as many of Mr. W's arguments as served his purpose; & even these are presented in such a mutilated form, that be (Mr. C.) might the more easily manage them. Thus Mr. C. makes a collection of arguments, in a pitiful shape indeed; then displays his eloquence in causing them to expire. Had Mr. C. by writing, only intended to reply to those arguments used by Mr. W. in the de

bate, which he found himself unable, at that time to answer, there might have been some excuse; but, when the whole history of the debate is his declared object; the world can never approbate his honesty.

Out of many examples I shall only note a few; and let these serve for the remainder-page 51. He represents Mr. W. as asking for "a positive command for the institution of a church." To this Mr. C. replies with great activity, page 52. The question was never asked, nor had it any meaning; and of course the reply was lost. The question was, "Have we a positive command, for all the acknowledged institutions of the church?" Had he stated the question, as it was, we might have expected some form of an answer. We might then have tried him upon some of those rites in the church he acknowledges.

To save himself the odium which every man of sense must of necessity attach to him, we have him setting his phrases of astonishment differently, in his book, from the facts, as they were delivered in the debate. When speaking of the new covenant, pag. 39, 'Paul saith the new covenant 'is better than the old. Mr. W. says it is just the same.' He then adds that burst of acclamation page 86, I stand on the first ground on which I

have ever heard &c.' But this he has omitted; for then it would have been evident that he never had read any theological work, and that he never had been a pedo-Baptist.

Pag. 65. He has Mr. W. asserting that the church received its origin with Abraham's covenant. But Mr. W. had no disposition to date the commencement of the existence of a church, with Abraham; but throughout the whole debate he paintained that the church commenced its exis

冬

tence with the first person on earth that believed; yet asserted that the church received a particular organization in Abraham.

Pag. 81. Mr. W. asks, what did circumcision seal to Ishmael? This question was important-Mr. C. to have given it an honest answer, would have lost a point: but after he diverts the reader with a few flourishes upon it, he takes an easy way of removing the difficulty, P. 90, 'Mr. Walker will please to answer the following queries. 1st. What did circumcision seal to Ishmael?

P. 75. In a part of Mr. W's. speech, we have this expression-"I maintain that temporal blessings as well as spiritual are enjoyed through 'Christ, or were a part of Christ's purchase". Upon this he adds a few jests, and intimates a fact, which otherwise might never have been learned, that he hadheard of the Covenanters & Seceders in Scotland, P. 78. But the truth is, Mr. W. never made the assertion; or even Mr. C. these remarks, until they were made in his book. For the satisfaction of the reader, I shall copy the notes of Mr. Miller as they were taken. As all 'the blessings believers enjoy, come through the 'covenant of grace, and as circumcision was a 'seal of that covenant, circumcision confirmed the 'promise of temporal blessings, as well as spiritual; but, as it was a seal of the covenant of grace, ' denied that it confirmed the promise of temporal 'blessings only.' Throughout the debate, Mr. W. expressed no other sentiment than that common to pedo-Baptists; much less did he oppose a sentiment of that branch of the church, to which he has the honor of belonging. Mr. C. whose christian system (if it may be so called,) has become so general, seems incapable of comprehendC

ing, that right which the covenant of grace con. veys to believers, in their enjoyments of temporal blessings; and of understanding why the earthly Canaan was promised to Abraham and to his seed by Isaac.

Mr. W. showed that the right which Abraham had to that land, was materially the same with that which any believer had to his earthly possessions. A blessing through Christ, removes the curse from temporal things. And this is universally true, to all saints; whether they lived under the old or new testament. Thus, by misrepresentation, which I hope was not wilful, and then by some sporting upon it, a share of the arguments of the debate was lost.

I might notice such things in almost every page, but why complain? the sacred oracles have receiv. ed the same treatment; some of these will be noticed in due time. I would now call the attention of the reader to one, Pag. 164-Mr. C. says Christ was born to perform 'the mercy promised BY THE FATHER, and to remember his holy covenant,' Luke 1 72, To perform the mercy promised TO OUR FATHERS and to remember his holy covenant.' If Mr. C. had done this passage justice, even in quotation, it would have told the reader a fact, that the covenant of grace had an entailment that promises were made by God to children through their parents; a truth which every Baptist feels unwilling to grant.

In Page. 196, he makes the following statement I would observe, that at the close of the debate at Mountpleasant, some of the Pedo-Baptists (as I afterwards understood from some of the most creditable witnesses) proposed violently forcing us to quit the ground by argumentum Ba