context shows that Peter spake of the “Gentiles" in contradistinction to the Jews. Acts xv. 14. Let the reader look at the passage and judge. The converted Jews, about whom we are arguing, not being in your premises, cannot be in the conclusion. You have shown, by that text, that the Gentile nations were not taken nationally, but that believers were taken out of them; and I have proved, by the plain words of the New Covenant, that the Jews were taken nationally. That covenant was made "with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah," collectively; but unbelievers were broken off individually. See section 30. I cannot see how Paul's "departing from them," at Ephesus, who "were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude”—“and separating the disciples" from them, proves the dissolution of the church of Israel. The law required the Jews to circumcise their children, and continue in that church; and the last sacred testimony concerning the Jewish Christians, is, "They are all zealous of the law." The fair inference is, that they continued their obedience to the law, and remained members of that church, as the law directs.

36. As you ask me to be consistent with myself, I suppose yon will tell me why you now say, "It [circumcision] was done away among all converted Jews." In your reply to my letter of June 3d, 1840, you said that I had proved that "the Jewish Christian infants were circumcised by consent of Paul and all the Apostles." Also, that Pedobaptists hold that "the infants of all believing Jews in the Apostle's time, were baptized; but you have proved that they were circumcised." The bloody rite sealed their children members of the old church; but would those Christians join their children to a church which they had forsaken? Still more-can you believe that they practised so glaring an absurdity "by consent of Paul and all the Apostles"? In answer to your inquiry, that if circumcision was not done away, "Why did the Jewish portion of the Christian church continue it till now!!!" I reply that they did continue it until Adrian, in the second century, drove all Jews out of Palestine. Then, to shun his fiery edict, many forsook it; but others left their native land, aud continued the rite, with the law of Moses, down to the latest historic trace of them. How could they have been Baptists!

37. In section 29, of my last letter, I made all the reply to your twelve facts that my space would allow; but I will answer the whole category, and prove that the old church was founded upon the covenant of circumcision; not the covenant at Sinai, as you hold,

if you will allow me five pages in the Harbinger in which to do it and review your replies.

38. How easily we fall into things we condemn! As soon as you had done admonishing me for six alleged assumptions, in my No. I., you assumed more than a dozen points in your twelve facts which I disbelieve. Although I had rather admit, or refute, arguments, than to find fault with them, I mention those because my longer silence about assumptions would not be commendable.

39. Your eleven questions I answered as fully as my space would admit, in section 30 of my last letter; but if you wish me to answer each one separately, I will do so. My answer to the 1st, 2d, and and 5th, is No. If you apply the fourth to adults, I answer Yes; but if you include infants, I say No. Each of the others I answer in the affirmative.

40. Venerable friend, allow me still to keep before you, in some form, the argument which you admitted was sufficient to establish baptism, if it be a sound one.

The law required infant church membership:

All Christian Jews were zealous of the law;

Therefore, all Christian Jews were zealous of infant church membership.

All Christian Jews were zealous of infant church membership:
All Baptists are zealously opposed to it;

`Therefore, the Christian Jews were not Baptists.

To review the points you lay stress upon, answer your questions, and keep along my own side of the controversy, has protracted this epistle; but forgive me for its length, and I will promise to do better next time.-With high respect,

BROTHER ABBOTT:

ORRIN ABBOTT.

My dear Sir-Yours of the 15th September, 1847, is now laid before the public. The terms you proposed for a laconic discussion, on new grounds, were these:

"1. The debate shall be with the pen.

"2. As I [you] shall mostly occupy untrodden ground, so that you may not know where to look for me till you see me, I shall lay my arguments before you first.

"3. As a straight forward course is shorter than a crooked one, and easier to be described"-[not always]-"and truth may be defended with less words than error, your replies shall not exceed the length of my letters.

4. "My replication shall be but half the length of my letters to which you reply, and your rejoinder shall be as short as my replication. And if the argument shall be farther pursued, it shall continue to diminish in the same ratio. I love short arguments.

"5. Either may obtain a copy-right and publish the whole in its regular order; but the other shall have the same right to publish it that he would have if he had the copy-right himself."

Of these rules the 4th has not been strictly attended to; but I do not wish to be "righteous overmuch;" or, as I interpret the words of Solomon, I do not wish to be too exact in demanding right. But having republished the rules, to which we must adhere according to contract, I shall proceed to respond to your last with all despatch. Yours truly,

A. CAMPBELL TO ORRIN ABBOTT-No. III. BROTHER ABBOTT:

A. C.

My dear Sir-"Times with me have passed but roughly since I heard thee last." I find according to the above condition of debate, in point of space I owe thee ten lines. My readers, as well as myself, have been looking with much anxiety for your new arguments promised in your prefatory communication, vol. 4, 3d series, p. 114, as above quoted. These new arguments, or, in your verbiage, this "untrodden ground," ought to be in sight from the distance we have come in the old canal. My replication will be short to your last, according to rule 4th.

In your favor before me, you ask for five pages to disprove my twelve facts, or to prove that the old church was founded upɔn the covenant of circumcision. Much as I desire to gratify you, I cannot dissolve the present contract and make a new one, unless you say that you cannot maintain your position on the premises or space proposed by yourself. But that I may not farther trouble you on the past, I take no farther notice of your communication than first to request our readers to read again my first and second letters to you, with your responses; and in the second place, I now rejoin to your second edition of your fundamental argument, whose illogical structure I have already attempted to develope. As respects yourself, I have not, it seems, been successful. I shall, therefore, give you another exposition of it. Your argument is—

The law required infant church membership:

All Christian Jews were zealous of infant church membership;
All Baptists are zealously opposed to it;

Therefore, the Christian Jews were not Baptists.

The law required infant circumcision:

All Christian Jews were zealous of infant circumcision;

All Baptists are zealously opposed to it;

Therefore, all Baptists are not Christian Jews.

This is rather better logic-certainly no worse than yours. And what does it prove?! Absolutely nothing as respects the issue between us. You might frame a hundred quadrangular syllogisms, or a thousand four-cornered arguments, which prove absolutely nothing. Here is a better one in form, and what is it good for?

All Christian Jews were anciently both circumcised and baptized:

But Baptists are not both circumcised and baptized;

Therefore, all Christian Jews are not Baptists; or, therefore, all Baptists are not Christian Jews.

What, then, my dear sir, does your romantic syllogism prove! We may admit it all with perfect safety, and nothing lost to us, or gained by you.

You admit that Christianity is a new dispensation, and that no one can be a Christian who is not born again. If it be a new institution, why base one half your syllogism in the old, and the other half in the new dispensation? And if the children of the flesh were once counted for the seed, and now only the children of faith, why argue for flesh in the infant and faith in the adult in order to one and the same citizenship in one and the same kingdom? I will wait for your "new and untrodden ground:" for that on which you stand is beaten as hard as the Pope's highway into the imperial city.Yours truly, A. CAMPBELL.

LETTERS FROM EUROPE-No. XXIX.

My dear Clarinda-On our way from Auchtermuchty to Dumferline, we passed through the village of Kinross; from which, while refreshing our horse, we walked down to the ancient burial ground, near the residence of an absent Baron: from which we had a nearer view of Lochleven and its ancient castle, once the celebrated prison of Mary Queen of Scots. The island on which the castle stands is, indeed, of narrow limits, and was, therefore, a very suitable location for a stronghold, or a prison; yet it failed to secure the person of the royal prisoner. The unfortunate Mary, however, had better continued in this lonely and sequestered spot, than to have encountered all the dangers and disasters which befell her during full

eighteen years, consummated in her martyrdom by the command of the intolerant and haughty Elizabeth.

On surveying such localities as these, one cannot but associate with them the fortunes of those distinguished persons whose history is a part of theirs. The little Lochleven-so called, as tradition saith, because eleven rivers run into it, or because it is eleven miles in circumference, or because eleven species of fish compose its finny tenantry; or, perhaps, because of all three, is as famous for its relation to Culdee history as to that of the Stuart royalty.

The Culdee establishment of Lochleven, or as sometimes called, THE INCH, or ISLAND OF ST. SERF, is referred to amongst the antiquities of Kinross in the following manner:

"Before the introduction of Christianity into Scotland, there existed in Britain, south as well as north, a class of men called Druids, from whom, by the testimony of Julius Cesar in his Commentaries, the Druids of Gaul derived their origin, and who, from whatever source they derived their knowledge, it is recorded, believed in the immortality of the soul, and in the transmigration of souls. And it was not till the beginning of the 3d century, that, in Scotland, after the spread of Christianity, this form of worship began to fall into disrepute. After this, till about the year 302, nothing certain is known, when a number of the early Christians took refuge in Scotland from the tenth persecution under the Emperor Dioclesian; and about this period, mention is first made of the Culdees, men remarkable in those days for the sanctity of their lives, the purity of their worship, and for their knowledge of divine truth.

"Different explanations have been given of the derivation of the name; some giving it from the Latin, Cultores Dei, worshippers of God; others, from the Gaelic, Gille De, servants of God; and lastly, from the Gaelic, Cuil, or Ceal, a cell, a sheltered place, a retreat. And if we conjoin the two latter, the explanation is obvious that these were refugees, servants of God, dwelling in retreats and hiding places. From these, many parts in Scotland, beginning with Kil, such as Kilmarnock, Kilwinning, Kilbride, &c. derive their name. The records of the Culdees have perished, partly from the lapse of time, but principally because it was the interest of their Popish successors that they should not be preserved.

"But even in the darkest days of Popery, in Scotland, their labors were not lost; and their perseverance and example, there can be little doubt, afterwards contributed to hasten on the reformation in Scotland.

"Though noticed by various writers, as having existed all over Britain at a very early period, the first definite accounts that can be depended on, of the Culdees, tell us that, in the year 662, Columba, generally understood to be a native of Ireland, and of royal extraction, reached I-ona, or island of waves, on the west of Scotland, having performed his perilous voyage in a curach, a wicker boat, covered with hides. He had taken with him twelve companions, who afterwards formed the council of the college of Iona; and it de