Your perfect willingness to meet those individuals, is in full view of the fact definitely stated, in my former communication, that they were not appointed by the synod, but only agreed upon at the synod.

In a former communication, I suggested that one of the men selected at synod, lived in a distant state, and, that when written to, he found it utterly impracticable to attend.

You certainly cannot object to one being chosen to fill his place, by the other four, inasmuch as this plan was agreed upon at synod, in case the individual, who was absent, could not come, and, especially so, when the men, on your side, (and you go for equality) have not been selected "in concione clerum, ex cathedra, or, in various conferences."

You are aware, also, of the fact, that the synod cannot meet again till next autumn, and, therefore, an individual to fill the vacancy, cannot be chosen at synod.

The difficulty you make (surely without the slightest reason) seems equivalent to a declinature of the discussion.

But, if you still object to our selecting an individual to fill the vacancy, then the four, who were named in the letter, after the meeting of synod, will meet you and three of the men selected by yourself, and go on with the debate.

The health of brother Young is much improved since I last wrote, and this impediment would, therefore, be removed.

If you agree that the vacancy shall be filled by the four, originally appointed, (it being understood at the time that they would exercise this power-or, if you are willing to proceed with four on each side, then the way will be open for the settlement of the three remaining questions, preparatory to discussion.

I await your response, and shall be governed accordingly.

Respectfully yours,

JNO. H. BROWN.

Bethany, Va., March 17, 1843. Dear Sir-Yours of the 8th inst. was received on the 15th, and, though not in very good health to-day, I hasten to reply in a few words to the favor before me.

Waiving any comment on your explanations and historic allusions to our correspondence, I hasten to say, that I have no objection to the choice of a fifth person, in room of Mr. Breckenridge, by the four gentlemen agreed upon at synod; especially, as you say, that it was an understanding at synod, that should any one fail in attendance, the others might elect a substitute.

I sincerely hope, that in all despatch, you may be enabled to respond satisfactorily on the propositions already offered, so that time may be redeemed, especially as now full two months have been consumed in getting an answer to my former letter. Should matters progress so slowly on the propositions, and other details, it will require a full year, at least, to settle the preliminaries. I think, indeed, it is very prudent, nay, absolutely necessary, to have every thing clearly understood, and plainly stated in writing, before commencing, as nothing more directly tends to preserve good temper, and to prevent a mere logomachy, than clear and definite propositions, good rules and equal terms. In this, I feel a very special interest, also, as the debate contemplated will, according to our previous understanding, be immediately between Mr. Young and myself, supported, as we shall be, by our respective friends on each side.

Please then afford all facilities for a consummation so devoutly to be wished, and as promptly as possible.

With all respect and benevolence, I remain your friend,
A. CAMPBELL.

ELDER A. CAMPBELL:

Georgetown, April 8, 1843.

Dear Sir-Yours of March 17th, post-marked 20th, is received. You agree that the four individuals, selected at synod, may select a fifth in lieu of Rev. R. J. Breckenridge. We, therefore, select Rev. Jas. K. Burch, as before mentioned.

Although the health of brother Young has improved, as stated in my last, so that he can be present as one of the five, there is scarcely any probability that he will be physically able to go through with a debate so protracted as the one we have in contemplation.

I did agree, in our first interview, that he should be one of the five, but not by any means that he should be the only debater, for I did not at that time, suppose that the discussion would be confined to two individuals, but that all on each side would take part; however, I will not object to such an arrangement, if you desire it, only reserving the right, in case of physical inability on the part of brother Young, to select one from our number to debate with you.

With regard to the questions, I hope we shall have but little further difficulty. As to the mode and subjects of baptism we are agreed.

Your 3d proposition, as stated in your letter of Dec. 15, is objectionable in both of its forms. In the first form, because your full ground is not occupied; and, in the second, because in scriptural language, concerning which we would probably differ. I must, therefore, insist on my 3d, as presented in my communication, of Dec. 8th, viz.

3d. "You affirm that the new birth, as mentioned in John, 3d chapter, is a change of state, and not a change of heart." We deny.

This embraces the difference between us, the design of baptism; for baptism, is, with you, the new birth. To this proposition you have presented no objection, though you offered another in its place.

Your 4th is as follows, "In all christian communities, the Lord's supper should be observed every Lord's day." This is objectionable, because comparatively unimportant. If any church, or denomination, choose to observe the supper every Lord's day, then be it so. We do not consider it a matter of sufficient importance to demand discussion. We have already suggested a much more important subject, involving the validity of baptism, which we offer as the 4th proposition for discussion, viz.

4th. "None except ordained ministers are, by the scriptures, authorized to administer baptism." We affirm. You deny.

Your 5th proposition is objected to, because it affirms less than in your publications you have affirmed, and does not fully present the difference between us. We hope you will agree to discuss the proposition already submitted, taken verbatim from your Christianity Restored, p. 350, which we present as the 5th proposition.

5th. "The Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and sanctifying power in the words which it fills with its ideas." To this you certainly cannot object. It is in your essay on Divine Influence, italicised, and therefore the cream, the very essence of the whole thing. You can, of course, refer to your writings in illustration of your doctrines.

Your 6th proposition is as follows," Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical." We do not understand exactly what you mean by the phrase "bonds of union and communion." We, therefore, suggest the following alteration or amendment, viz. 6th. "The using of creeds, except the Scriptures, is necessarily heretical and schismatical." You affirm. We deny.

As soon as we shall agree on these, or other propositions, involving the difference between us, on the agreed points of discussion, brother Rice and myself will meet your committee in Lexington, and arrange preliminaries preparatory to discussion, at our earliest mutual convenience. JNO. H. BROWN.

Very respectfully,

Bethany, Va., April 24, 1843. Dear Sir-Yours of the 8th inst., post-marked 10th, arrived here on the 19th inst. Business of much importance, and obligations various and numerous, prevented my careful reading of it till to-day. You inform me that the improvement of Mr. Young's health is not such as to warrant the hope that he will be physically able to endure the fatigue of a protracted discussion. My consent to participate in a public conference, was given upon the solemn pledge on your part, that if single combat should be the result of our interview, I should have Mr. Young. This has again been stated in our correspondence, and fully assented to by yourself. A rumor has more than once or twice reached my ears, that this pledge on your part, was never to be redeemed; and that in the well known policy and style of ecclesiastic diplomacy, in a protracted correspondence, you would manage it to substitute Mr. Rice for Mr. Young; and thus in any issue of the affair, Presbyterianism would stand either upon her reserved learning and talents, or upon the triumphs of the said Mr. Rice. Reluctant though I have been to listen to such a rumor, so discreditable to your candor and christian sincerity, I confess, things begin to wear an aspect somewhat ambiguous, squinting, at least, in that direction.

I am not a man to be managed just in that way, and have replied to madam rumor, that the moment you presented Mr. Rice, you have forfeited every claim upon my attendance; and that unless the denomination, in some way, selected him in preference to Mr. Young in scholarship and discursive talent, I should have nothing to do with the affair. True, indeed, I should not insist upon Mr. Young's presence if he was physically unable-but I am often physically unable myself, to do justice to any subject, in the way of even a single speech, much more to questions of protracted discussion, and, therefore, make my appointments and arrangements accordingly. The time has been so long protracted already, that it will not greatly affect your reputation, should it be made to suit the health and convenience of Mr. Young.

Mr. Rice may be as learned, and as able a disputant, for any thing I know to the contrary, as Mr. Young; but he stands not so high with the community either as a polite gentleman or a scholar; and I presume, is discreetly located at Paris, while Mr. Young exmerito presides at Danville. The reasons given by me first and last for taking part in such a discussion, compel me to demand the fulfillment of at least the two essential conditions on which my consent was obtained; the first, that there should be a full discussion of the main points between us;-the second, that I should have the disputant named, in order to give it authority with the whole community. The moment you recede from this ground, you have released me from every pledge and obligation that I have given. You need not repeat to me that I ask from you conditions which you have not propounded to me, as you have done on a former occasion. We do not meet exactly upon that ground. My presence was demanded, even after I had said that Kentucky had talent and learning enough to maintain the reformation cause against every denomination in the state; and it was promised on those conditions, AND THOSE CONDITIONS ONLY. If then yourself and your brethren are not willing to meet on the conditions stipulated, you will please so inform me, and the matter ends.

With regard to the propositions, I am not a little surprised at the reluctance you manifest to discuss the design of baptism, indubitably one of the main issues and points advanced in the pending reformation controversy. Would you have me and the public to think that you wish to slur and blink that question? If not, why propose such a substitute for the main point of debate? You offer the new birth for the design of baptism!! and then again, bring up spiritual influence and converting power in another proposition. If you do not design to evade the design of baptism altogether, why create the suspicion by such an indirect and ambiguous mode of proce

dure! This will never do, Mr. Brown. You and your party have assailed our views of the design of baptism a thousand times; and, depend upon it, you must not shrink from it now. I have often told you I must defend what I preach; and as your party oppose my views behind my back, you must in honor, do it now before my face; if not for my sake, at least for your own. Unless then you concede that our views are correct on that subject, you must debate it! As you refuse to take up the whole confession of faith, I cannot but admire your generosity in putting me on the defence of all my writings, and your culling out such insulated and detached sentences as you think most favorable to your intentions. I see you have formed high conceptions of my magnanimity. Still I would have you take care of your own. Do not say, nor even think, that I refuse the examination of those sentences; you can bring them forward under their proper heads. But through respect for the literary character of our discussion at the bar of public opinion, I would not appear as a logician in defence of a sentence or an individual expression, while the whole category to which it belongs is unassailed. Let us prove the genus-or the species-and then we shall not contend about the individual. Your calling a sentence the cream and essence of a whole system, because it is italicised, is an aberration of reason of the same character. Divine influence-creeds, and the ordinances of the supper-are points at which we are at issue. We must have propositions setting forth our respective views on these topics. I deny abstract spiritual influence in conversion and sanctification. You affirm it. The propositions submitted by me, are indicative of our respective views, as I understand them. So of creeds. If you choose to add another proposition, concerning who may administer baptism, I have no objectionrather than substitute any one of these offered by any other you can devise. I will discuss as many more as you please, essential to our respective systems. But the four questions of baptism, regeneration, the Lord's supper, and creeds, are great, essential points of discussion: and the six propositions furnished by you and myself on these topics, must, according to our agreement, be debated, unless you concede some of them.

The time is already past in which this meeting was, according to our Richmond conversation, to have taken place. Our college vacation is in July and August. I do hope then you will accommodate me and the public, so far as to have it either in the end of July or first of August. You may, in a single letter, now settle all these points on fair and honorable principles. It is in your power. We must have stenographers secured as soon as possible, or we must sell the copy-right to some good house in the East, who will send on a stenographer, and so have matters speedily arranged. The propositions, and the main points settled, our committee can soon adjust other matters. Please answer this immediately. In all benevolence, yours, &c.

ELDER CAMPBELL:

A. CAMPBELL.

Richmond, Ky., May 15, 1843.

Yours of the 24th ult. is before me. Its contents present too much evidence of what I have for some time apprehended, that you are resolved to avoid the proposed discussion.

I gave no pledge of any kind, that Mr. Young should be your opponent, but only that he should be one of the five in debate; but if I had, physical inability is, I believe, universally admitted to excuse. Mr. Young has for months been in feeble health; and there is no probability of his being able to engage as the only debatant, in such a discussion as the one proposed. He is now able to preach only occasionally. But when you are imformed of this fact, you insult me by speaking of your reluctance to listen to a rumor, so discreditable to my candor and christian character!" Yet you say, "True, indeed, I should not insist upon Mr. Young's presence if he were physically unable."

66

Well, sir, he is physically unable to go through with such a debate. Still he is able and willing to be present as one of the five on our side. If then you are resolved to debate with no other man, the matter is at an end.

Ordinary courtesy, I suppose, would have forbidden the introduction of the name of Mr. Rice, as you have thought proper to introduce it. It would have been quite time enough for such remarks, when his name had been mentioned by me, as the disputant on our side. I do not wonder at your reluctance to meet Mr. Rice. He has health to go through such a discussion, and is accustomed, as well as yourself, to public debate. But it seems his standing in the community "as a polite gentleman," is not high enough for you! With all deference, I beg leave to say, I am not aware that his standing, in this respect, is inferior to Mr. Campbell's. As to his learning, it is sufficient that Presbyterians are willing to risk their cause in his hands, even against Mr. Campbell. Whilst it is unnecessary for me to say any thing about the comparative merits of Messrs. Young and Rice, I may smile at the ground on which your opinion is founded, viz. that the one is at Danville, and the other at Paris. I am not aware that the standing of Mr. Campbell "as a polite gentleman," or "a scholar," is much higher since he became President of his college, than before. We offer you a Presbyterian minister as your opponent, who shall be selected by us precisely in accordance with the arrangement made AT synod, viz. that we would select one of our number to meet you in debate. Now you have vour choice to retreat or accept.

I have manifested no reluctance to discuss the design of baptism. I have simply presented it precisely in the form in which you yourself have constantly presented it in your publications. With you baptism is the new birth, and it is designed to effect a change of state. This is precisely what we propose to discuss. Yet you seem to be in great wonderment that I should offer the new birth for the design of baptism!"

But I am not particular as to the precise statement of the question. All I ask is that you take the whole ground in debate, which you have taken in your publications. This you have not ventured to do, and I fear you never will. The moment you do, we shall accede to your proposition.

On the influences of the Spirit, I have offered you a proposition in your own language, and you refuse to discuss it.

When you find a clear proposition in our "Confession of Faith," which we refuse to discuss, you may then proclaim to the world that we have retreated.

The proposition I have offered you is clear and full, embodying avowedly your faith on this point; whilst those you offer us, throw both sides off their true ground. What you mean by "abstract spiritual influence," I do not know; but if you mean spiritual influence without the word, you must know, if ever you read our Confession, that we hold no such thing, except in cases where the word cannot be received.

State a proposition containing your real views, and making a fair issue, and it will be accepted. But if you retreat from your own language, the reason will be understood.

In regard to the Lord's supper, we have objected to discussing your proposition, simply because we deem it of minor importance, and because our church, in her confession of faith, neither affirms nor denies. It is silent on that point. We are not, therefore, disposed to discuss such a question. The question concerning the administrator of baptism, is quite as important as either of the others, involving the validity of the ordinance.

Your reluctance to discuss it, is, I fear, another evidence that you have published important things which you would rather not defend.

We are ready for you, just so soon as you are willing to meet a man who is "physically able" to go through with the debate, and to defend your published doctrines. Respectfully yours, JNO. H. BROWN.

C