The following letters, report of social meetings, J. T. Johnson's Essay on the Finances of the Churches, with the conclusion of the discussion, and prospectus for publishing the debate, are all taken from the Christian Journal of December 2nd and 9th.

It is our desire that the brethren in this country should be fully acquainted with all that is taught by the brethren on the other side the Atlantic-at least all that is of a practical nature. Theories, without practice, have been too long in existence: it is more than time they were abandoned by all parties. The disciples of Jesus are especially called upon to set the example. Let us not speculate on but practice the things which are taught in the Bible - ED.

LETTER, NO. I.

Lexington, Kentucky, Nov. 22d, 1843. MR. EDITOR,-Presuming that many of your readers will be anxious to hear of the progress of the discussion, I take advantage of a passing opportunity to give them a few observations. The first proposition," the action of baptism," has been disposed of; and I am constrained to say that, in the annals of controversy, there has never been a more triumphant victory for the truth. Two days were almost entirely devoted to Greek and Latin criticism, which was necessarily, to a considerable extent, uninteresting to a greater part of the audience.-Mr. Rice made a good use of that part of the time; and by a repetition of the many witty sayings at his command, induced some of his friends to believe that he was gaining a signal victory. But as the matter progressed, the tables were turned against him, and by arguments better adapted to an English audience, the proposition was unanswerably sustained. Mr. Campbell produced some thirteen sources of evidence upon which he relied for the support of his proposition, not one of which was shown to be irrelevant; and either of which would have been sufficient to settle the matter at once; and together they present a fortress as strong as the everlasting hills.

To give you some idea of Mr. Rice's method of meeting the proof submitted, I will present your readers with his

to mean "6

course upon the first class of evidence. This was derived from the natural, proper, and primary meaning of the Greek words bap, bapto, and especially baptizo, which was shown to dip," "immerse," and only metonymically to have any other signification. An appeal was made to the lexicons and classics. Mr. Rice immediately took up the lexicons, and showed that they gave other meanings than "dip," and at length argued boastingly, that Mr. Campbell was wrong. He paid no regard to the distinction between a primary and an accommodated meaning-a literal and a figurative. Dipping." in reply, was shown to be a means of washing, and that in that sense it could mean wash without affecting the point at issue; but that in no case could it be said that they meant to sprinkle or pour. Mr. Rice still paid no attention to the distinction and the true issue, and continued most fearlessly to reiterate that Mr. Campbell's own witnesses had given other meanings. Mr. Campbell still gave him cord, paying but little attention to his bold assertions, so that upon the fourth day, Mr. Rice became sufficiently emboldened to declare, that he had not only shown Mr. Campbell's witnesses to testify against him; and that there was not a dictionary upon earth that had said that wash was a figurative meaning of baptizo. Mr. Campbell then took up, and asked him if he had ever seen the lexicon he then held in his hand (Stokius) Mr. Rice said he had not! Mr. Campbell turned to the definition and found it to sustain him throughout, even asserting what was the name of the figure of speech used when "wash was given as a signification. He also re

ferred to Schleusner and several others, who amply sustained him. Never, in all my life, have I seen a professedly learned man so discomfited. He denied that it was so. Mr. Campbell proposed to refer it to the learned men present; but Mr. Rice refused, and such was the overwhelming confusion that one moment he would deny, the next admit, and attempt to show, by a reference to Ernesti, that the figurative sometimes became the proper meaning; and being again confounded in his use of Ernesti, he would again deny. But he was never at a loss-no matter how contradictory or unlearned his statements were, he persisted in declaring and redeclaring all he had said before. short, when Mr. Campbell would prove that "dip" was the

In

primary meaning of all the words of the family of baptizo, Mr. Rice would show that the figurative meaning was used and thus yield the first point. When Mr. Campbell would prove that the figurative meaning had always the idea of dip retained, Mr. Rice would assert that the primary was not to dip! But he was driven from every position and the proposition most learnedly, fully, and triumphantly sustained.

There seems to be every difference in their manner of conducting the controversy. Mr. Campbell goes regularly and systematically to work, not allowing even the gross mistakes, or witticisms of his opponent to disturb“ the even tenor of his way." Mr. Rice makes his appeals to the risible faculties of his audience-argues without reference to system, and by every turn and manœuvre, attempts to turn the mind of the audience from the point before his opponent. The one has given us a most concentrated and logical argument; and when printed will be found to be one exhibiting the most research and conclusive argumentation that has ever been offered to the public; the other a most disconnected, heterogeneous mass of attempts at wit, with many undigested assertions, based upon numerous references to passages in the classics and Scriptures, having little or no bearing upon the point at issue. Mr. Campbell's argument was evidently intended to be a standing refutation of all the important difficulties that have ever been presented upon the opposite side of this subject-showing conclusively that neither pouring nor sprinkling can be sustained by any thing that has been spoken or written upon the subject for the four past centuries. These are the impressions of all his friends, so far as I have learned, and especially of your correspondent, who is here merely as a

LOOKER-ON.

LETTER, NO. II.

Lexington, Nov. 23, 1843.

MR. EDITOR.-In my last I gave you a general view of the character of the discussion upon the first proposition, which occupied four days. The second proposition has been taken up and disposed of. This proposition, "infant baptism," having but little to do with Greek criticism has, if possible, engrossed more attention than the first.

There

has been immense interest manifested upon both;-the spacious house of our brethren in Main-street has been filled with perhaps two thousand persons every day, two hundred of whom are preachers, from all parts of the union.

Mr. Rice's first effort upon this subject was a reiteration of almost every argument that has ever been advanced upon it. He spread himself out upon the whole surface of the question, delivering, decidedly, the most desultory and disconnected discourse I have ever heard. His object was evidently to offer so many topics and to present so many views of the subject, as to prevent Mr. Campbell from presenting a connected examination of infant baptism. Mr. Campbell had, during the discussion of the first proposition said, that he was not speaking for present effect when he was delivering his Greek criticisms. Mr. Rice concluded that it would be the case upon the second, and accordingly so proceeded; but never was man so sadly mistaken. Mr. Campbell came up to the work with a power such as I have never before seen used. Every hold of his opponent was taken-every position was shown to be untenable, and many of them absurd and preposterous. Mr. Rice professes to mark out a new course upon this subject. He says he cares not a straw for the argument based upon the assumption that baptism has come in the room of circumcision. He abandons this fortress; and pretends to believe that his cause is not made dependent upon it-that Mr. Campbell's published arguments upon that subject were unanswerable. He was, therefore, driven to new ground, or rather abandon a part of the old argument. He said that the church of Christ was organized in the days of Abraham with children introduced into it. He says that there has been no positive enactment to cast them out; and that therefore they are in it to this day. This position has called forth one of the most able dissertations upon the covenants from Mr. Campbell, in which he has shown unanswerably, that there are two covenants, based upon two distinct promises made to Abraham, entirely dissimilar in their nature, character, and design. That the one concerned one nation, the Jews alone; the other, ALL NATIONS-the one fleshly, the other spiritual. He also proved that it was a baseless figment of the imagination to suppose that there was a Christian church before Christ was born, &c.

VOL. VIII.

H

Mr. Campbell proposed to risk the whole controversy upon any one, two, or more points Mr. Rice had made upon the subject; and although he had made these points of paramount importance and had used them as involving the fortunes of the whole controversy, he would not accept the proposal; but has continued to the end to make the most reckless assertions without allowing his opponent to close in upon him upon any one point! Yesterday Mr. Rice denied, and laboured the whole day to prove, that there was but one covenant, although he said it had been spoken of at different times, and had different specifications. He represented it as a bond, with two or three specifications, some of which were fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah. Today he was driven from that point, and Mr. Campbell proposed to rest the whole controversy upon it. He was made to acknowledge indirectly, for he had not the magnanimity to do it openly, that there were two covenants; Mr. Campbell having shown that the Scriptures had not only frequently so called them, but that they were different transactions, mentioned at different times, ratified differently, and under different circumstances, and each of these transactions called

by the great name, "Covenant." His triumph was most signal, memorable, and complete.

But I have not room to give you the particular method of Mr. Campbell in meeting his opponent. Let it be sufficient to say, that Mr. Rice was driven from the covenants to the commission-from the commission to household baptismsand from these to the fables and visions of the so called fathers of the first and second centuries, and from these to attempts, vain and frivolous, to show that Mr. Campbell was now teaching what he had repudiated in former years. This was his dernier resort, such was the desperation of his cause. I do not believe there was a single disinterested man present, who did not see, that every point and position he took was untenable and vain.

Mr. Rice, when baffled by the strong and powerful reasoning of his opponent, invariably makes false issues and forces them from the incidental remarks of his opponent. He thus tries to impose upon his audience the belief that he is replying to his opponent; when, perhaps, he is noticing simply a verbal criticism, or that which Mr. Campbell had not at all connected with his argument. On the contrary