what rules, or order should be observed.-I} appears your conscience is too tender to allow the moderators such a liberty, as to say, how the debate should be conducted, and which of all the topics and questions proposed should be discussed. It appears also, that you omited to notice this proposal in a former letter for the want of room; yet, there is more than one third of a page of your letter blank; so that you must have had more to say about it, in your letter of the 8th August, than in your last; for you do not write so much on it in your last, as might have been written on the blank in your preceding epistle, and you might as well have tried to arcuse my feelings then, as now. It moreover appears, that your conscience was not so tender, on the subject of my character for "orthodoxy and piety," as to prevent you from insinuating, nay, from declaring, that Dr. Priestly's disciple was my favorite author, contrary to all evidence or fact from. any thing in my writings, or from any "respectable”. Source. You shall, perhaps, soon know, that I have no favorite authors in religion, except one; and that man who says I am a first or second hand disciple of Priestly or of any socinian author, is a man of no piety nor respectability of character: nor is there a man living who can say, or dare say n my presence, that I ever expressed a sentiment derogatory to the Lord Jesus as a Divine Redeemer, as Emmanuel God with us. Such insinuations may be circulated in Kentucky, by those who would wish to impair my influence, in supporting a truth, more hated by many of the "orthodox and pious" than socinianism: but here we regard them not. As to my piety, I know I have nothing to boast of, God alone is judge. As to my external deportraent, men can judge. And whenever you hring forward any specific charge of

your

immorality, or unchristian deportment, we shall refute it. But as I shall, Deo volente, at some future day expatiate on the style and sentiment of your last, I proceed to that your reference to say, first letter, in relation to the twenty-one questions is partial; and not altogether correct. You did propose the twenty-one questions in the first instance as you have quoted, but afterwards, you tell me, in the same letter, that you "fairly conclude that (unless suppressed by mutual con-t sent,) they will all be discussed, if we should ever meet." Query: Have we mutually agreed to suppress them? Or are they to be discussed at our meeting? I request that you will meet me at Washington, the fourteenth day of October, in order to arrange the business, for you have not agreed to meet me on any of the terms proposed, in my last. At least you have not informed me so. But you have told me that you are to an adversary," as ho Satanas. Well, I hope you will remember, that when Michael the archangel, disputed with the adversary, about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him a railing accusation. As you are celebrated for piety and orthodoxy, and I, for the want of them, a great deal will be expected from you, and very little from

meet me as

your

Humble serv't

A. CAMPBELL.

.66

P. S. It would appear, from the circumstance of your contrasting what I said of your high standing, &c. with your deep sense of my want of orthodoxy and picty" that you understand the high standing mentioned, to mean your high standing for "piety and orthodoxy" Lest this should have any undue influence on your mind, I think

it right to explain it -You were never described to mes by any Baptist or Paido-baptist, as of high standing for either "piety or orthodoxy," but that you once stood high as a lawyer, if I mistake not, as a chaplain in the army, and now as a presbyterian teacher and that you were. highly distinguished for a peculiar kind of argumentative faculty, which you have displayed in debates, in sermons, and in ecclesiastical courts-Excuse this much to prevent

INTERVIEW.

On the evening of the 14th of October I was introduc ed to Mr. Maccalla by major Davis. We could only agree ir. the rules published below. Mr. M. would not agree to refer the arrangement of the rules of debate to the moderators. Nor would he agree to open and close and occupy double time. Neither would he allow the moderators to have any controling power in the direction nor continuance of the discussion. In short, we parted that evening without any final arrangement; to meet upon the ground next day, and proceed some way, we knew not how. Mr. M's strong argument was, there were no rules attached to my challenge, and consequent by I could not demand any. To insist upon rules was, with him, attaching a sine qua non to my challenge, a withdrawal of it. Rather than that we should meet in a disorderly manner, at the advice of some friends, I called on Mr. Maccalla, to concede the point on which we had Separated.

Having called on mr. Maccalla that same evening, in the house of mr. Paxton to inform mr. M. that I would concede that point for the reasons above specified -I thought it expedient to inquire of mr. M. on what grounds he had charged me with Socinianism and insincerity in his last letter. This I did in the presence of mr. Paxton, Bishop Sidney Rigdon of Pittsburgh, Bishop Wm.. Vaughan of Kentucky, and a number of ladies The only ground or reason mr. M. could produce for the first accusation was, that a certain travelling gentleman,. whose name could not be given, had told him that I was. à Socinian. I asked mr M. to what part of my writings. be had reference, as containing Socinian principles. He observed that I had recommended Robertson as an historian; that this Robertson was a Socinian, and that he supposed I must agree with him in sentiment. With re

gard to the charge of insincerity, he had nothing to say. On mr. M's principle of accusing, every one that recommends Hume as an historian must be a Deist. Every one that recommends Gibbons as an historian must be an infidel, and every one that recommends Robertson's history of Baptism must be a Socinian, especially if some solitary traveller who has rode three hundred miles from home, should say he heard or thought he heard some-. body say so

I chose BISHOP JEREMIAH VERDEMAN as Moderator on my part. Mr. M. chose the REV. JAMES K. BIRCH on his part, and these two chose MAJOR WM. ROPER and appointed him president of the board of Moderators.

We met under the following regulations :

RULES.

Rules for conducting a Debate betwixt Messrs: W. L: Maccalla and A. Campbell, to be held at Washington, Mason County, Kentucky, October 15th, 1823.

I. That each of the parties choose a moderator, and that these two moderators shall appoint a third person, who belongs to neither party, for the purpose of merely keeping order.

II. That A. Campbell open the debate.

III. That each disputant shall have the privilege of speaking thirty minutes, without interruption, unless he is pleased to waive his right.

IV. That whatever books are produced upon the oćcasion shall be open to the perusal of each disputant. V. That the debate shall be adjourned from day to day, until the parties are satisfied.

A. CAMPBELL, W. L. MACCALLA.