While making preparations to issue The Christian Baptist, he received a letter from Mr. McCalla, a Presbyterian preacher of Augusta, Ky., accepting his challenge given at the conclusion of the Walker debate. Mr. McCalla had been a lawyer and had gained a high reputation among the Presbyterians for his polemical powers. It was therefore greatly desired by his friends and the pedobaptists of the community that he should have an opportunity to retrieve, if possible, the injury which had been done to their cause by the generally-admitted failure of Mr. Walker. After having ascertained his standing, Mr. Campbell agreed to meet him, and arrangements were made for the discussion to take place at Washington, Ky., beginning October 15, 1823. As the Ohio River was too low for navigation at the time, Mr. Campbell made the entire distance of about three hundred miles on horseback.
Here, as in his former discussion, the entire bearing of the baptismal question was carefully canvassed. Each controverted point was hotly contested in the presence of a vast assemblage, which had been drawn together by Mr. Campbell’s reputation and their own interest in the question at issue. During this discussion, which continued seven days, in addition to his defense of the scriptural act and subject of baptism, the design and importance were set forth and examined in a systematic form, and with such critical ability as to astonish his hearers. In the discussion with Walker he barely touched the design of baptism, but either during that debate or while transcribing it for publication, an impression was made on his mind that it had a very important meaning and that it was in some way connected with remission of sins, but he was so engaged in other matters that it passed out of his mind till he received the challenge to meet McCalla in debate, when he resolved to settle its true import before he ever debated the subject again. In the investigation, he examined the New Testament with great care and discussed the subject with his father for several months, and formed his conclusion after thorough examination and reflection, and after he saw that it was the way marked out by the Holy Spirit he had no hesitancy, on the second day of the debate with McCalla, in saying:
Our third argument is deduced from the design or import of baptism. On this topic of argument we shall be as full as possible, because of its great importance, and because perhaps neither Baptists nor Pedobaptists sufficiently appreciate it. I will first merely refer to the oracles of God, which show that baptism is an ordinance of the greatest importance and of momentous significance. Never was there an ordinance of so great import or design. It is to be but once administered. We are to pray often, praise often, show forth the Lord’s death often, commemorate his resurrection every week, but we are to be baptized but once. Its great significance can be seen from the following testimonies: The Lord saith, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). He does not say, “He that believeth and keeps my commandments shall be saved,” but he saith, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” He placeth baptism on the right hand of faith. Again, he tells Nicodemus that “unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Peter, on the day of Pentecost, places baptism in the same exalted place. “Repent,” says he, “and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Ananias saith to Paul, “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Paul saith to the Corinthians, “Ye were once fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, rioters, extortioners, but ye are washed in the name of the Lord Jesus,” doubtless referring to their baptism. He tells Titus, “God our Father saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). See again its dignified importance. Peter finishes the grand climax in praise of baptism: “Baptism doth now also save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (I Peter 3:21).
It was this view of baptism misapplied that originated infant baptism. The first errorists on this subject argued that if baptism was so necessary for the remission of sins, it should be administered to infants, whom they represented as in great need of it on account of their “original sin.” Affectionate parents, believing their children to be guilty of “original sin,” were easily persuaded to have them baptized for the remission of “original sin,” not for washing away sins actually committed. Faith in Christ is necessary to forgiveness of sins, therefore baptism without faith is an unmeaning ceremony.
Our argument from this topic is, that baptism being ordained to be to a believer a formal and personal remission of all his sins, can not be administered unto an infant without the gravest perversion and abuse of the nature and import of this ordinance. Indeed, why should an infant that never sinned—that, as Calvinists say, is guilty only of “original sin,” which is a unit—be baptized for the remission of sins? (“Campbell-McCalla Debate,” pages 116, 117, 136.)
For a number of years prior to the debate Mr. McCalla had taken great delight in assailing the distinctive tenets of the Baptists, and gave them no little annoyance. As the debate progressed his defeat became more and more manifest and raised Mr. Campbell to great popularity among them; but as it was not his intention to seek popularity among them by catering to their admiration, by fostering their favorite but defective views of the Gospel and its institutions, he deemed it wise on the evening of the fifth day of the debate to candidly inform the principal Baptist preachers present of the exact position which he occupied. Being assembled in a room where he had called them together, he introduced himself fully to their acquaintance in the following manner, as related by himself:
“Brethren, I fear that if you knew me better you would esteem and love me less. For let me tell you that I have almost as much against you Baptists as I have against the Presbyterians. They err in one thing and you in another; and you are each nearly equidistant from original apostolic Christianity.” I paused; and such a silence as ensued, accompanied by a piercing look from all sides of the room, I seldom before witnessed. Elder Vardeman at length broke the silence by saying: “Well, sir, we want to know our errors or your heterodoxy. Do let us hear it. Keep nothing back.” I replied: “I know not where to begin; nor am I in health and vigor after the toils of the day to undertake so heavy a task; but I am commencing a publication called The Christian Baptist, to be devoted to all such matters, a few copies of which are in my portmanteau, and, with your permission, I will read you a few specimens of my heterodoxy.” They all said: “Let us hear—let us hear the worst error you have against us.” I went upstairs and unwrapped the first three numbers of the Christian Baptist that ever saw the light in Kentucky. I had just ten copies of the first three numbers. I carried them into the parlor and read a sample, the first essay on the clergy—so much of it as respected the “call to the ministry” as then taught in the “kingdom of the clergy,” and especially among the Baptists. This was the first essay ever read from it in Kentucky. After a sigh and a long silence, Elder Vardeman said: “Is that your worst error, your chief heterodoxy? I do not care so much about that, as you admit that we have a providential call, without a voice from heaven or a special visit from some angel or spirit. If you have anything worse, for my part I wish to hear it.” The cry was, “Let us hear something more.” On turning to and fro, I read an article on “Modern Missionaries.” This, with the “Capital Mistake of Modern Missionaries,” finished my reading for the evening. On closing this essay, Elder Vardeman said: I am not so great a missionary man as to fall out with you on that subject. I must hear more before I condemn or approve.” I then distributed my ten copies among the ten most distinguished and advanced elders in the room, requesting them to read these numbers during the recess of the debate, and to communicate freely to me their objections. We separated. So the matter ended at that time. (“Memoirs of A. Campbell,” Vol. II, page 88.)
At the close of the debate the Baptist preachers were so much pleased with the results, and so tolerant of what they found in the “Christian Baptist,” that they requested Mr. Campbell to furnish them with the printed proposals for its publication, in order to extend its circulation, and urged him to make an immediate tour through the State.
Previous engagements prevented, and he could only comply with their wishes so far as to visit Bryan’s Station, Mayslick, and Lexington; promising, if possible, to make a more extended tour through the State the following year.
As Mr. McCalla’s character for ability was well established and equally well sustained by his Presbyterian brethren, the results of the discussion were less damaging to his reputation than to the cause which he advocated, which to this day has never recovered from the withering defeat which it then suffered. But Mr. McCalla labored for some time after the debate to change public sentiment by preaching on the subjects discussed in various parts of Kentucky, endeavoring at the same time to prejudice the minds of the people in advance against the report of the debate which Mr. Campbell was soon to publish.
Mr. Campbell was fully satisfied with his part in the discussion, and was now thoroughly satisfied that debates were a great means of reaching the people with the truth, for he wrote:
Public discussion, is, we are convinced, one of the best means of propagating the truth and of exposing error in doctrine or practice. We now reap the benefits of public debates of former times, and we have witnessed the beneficial results of those in our own time. And we are fully persuaded that a week’s debating is worth a year’s preaching, such as we generally have, for the purpose of disseminating truth and putting error out of countenance. There is nothing like meeting face to face in the presence of many witnesses and “talking the matter over”; and the man that can not govern his spirit in the midst of opposition and contradiction is a poor Christian indeed. (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, page 189.)