and certain new persons were to be appointed in their stead, I ask, what could have been more natural, with all these references to synodical arrangements, before made, than to recur to original propositions, both verbal and written, as to this thing of synodical, or confidential, selection and approval. I have done so, and find your present communication makes new propositions and arrangements, never before contemplated. Really, I was not prepared for this.

My participation in any discussion was asked by you, and stipulated by me, on the assurance that I should have certain persons, some of them then named; and that too, with the concurrence of your church met in synod.

Whether the thing was to be transacted in concione clerum, ex cathedra, or in various conferences, gave me then no concern; provided it had the con current approbation of your church. You positively said, I should have the persons named, and, that you doubted not that the synod would agree to it. Such were the clearly expressed premises on which I assented to be present. If you have changed your views of the expediency of such an arrangement, or, if the persons, then agreed upon, will not attend, you are at perfect liberty to withdraw your propositions. But I will make no new covenant, the first having been abandoned.

I am perfectly willing to meet the persons named by you, in your first communication after the synod met, at our mutual convenience, believing that they were agreed upon at the meeting of the synod. But I cannot admit of your substitutes for them.

I care not who the Presbyterian church appoints, nor in what form it be done, provided, the persons appointed are known to be the selection of the denomination. The reasons I have always given, for any preference, were, that I desired a final discussion of those litigated points; and such a discussion as would have the highest authority, that our respective denominations could confer upon it.

If our brethren, in Kentucky, prefer any other person to me, I yield the arena in a moment. But, friend Brown, I go not in pretence, but in fact, for equality. Let your church sanction, in any way you please, some new man, or give me those you promised, and I am perfectly satisfied.

You say you fear not discussion, and are willing to do all that is equal and honorable. This is just what I wish to hear you say. I only ask you to redeem the pledge, and shew your faith by your works. Very respectfully and benevolently, your friend, A. CAMPBELL.

ELDER A. CAMPBELL:

Richmond, Madison Co., Ky., March 8, 1843.

Serious inflammation of my eyes has prevented me from writing for several days past, but for this your communication would have been answered at an earlier date.

In reply to my last, on the subject of synodical action, you thus remark: "The idea of eynodical action, was suggested by yourself at our interview, and again presented in your first written communication."

The language I employed at our first interview, which made the impres sion of synodical action, I know not. I may have expressed myself incautiously, and, possibly, I employed such language as would authorize such an inference. But, manifestly, the language of my first written communication, quoted in your last, and now before me, does not authorize such a deduction.

Whatever may have been your previous understanding of synodical action, and whatever requisitions you may have been disposed to make, relative to this point, I am gratified to find the whole difficulty obviated by the following declaration in your last, viz. "I am perfectly willing to meet the persons named by you, in your first communication, after the synod met, at our mutual convenience, believing that they were agreed upon at the meeting of the synod. But I cannot admit of your substitutes for them."

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.

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 agree ment, 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."

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 pn 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

ELDER BROWN:

Bethany, Va., May 24, 1843.

Dear Sir-Yours of the 15th, came by to-day's mail. You now say that it "presents too much evidence of what you have for some time apprehended, that I have resolved to avoid the proposed discussion." This conclusion makes me curious to know your premises. Nothing that I have said or done, would seem to me to authorize such an inference. The propositions which constitute your premises, are most likely those which you are now about to offer, at which you thought I would most probably revolt. Circumstances appear to favor this presumption. Hence, ever since you thought of offering them, you have apprehended that I "would avoid the proposed discussion."

When seeking to withdraw the man of my choice, promised by yourself, and to dictate all the terms, propositions, and conditions of debate, it is natural for you to expect, that as an honorable man, I should decline taking any part in such a discussion. I demanded your most gifted, learned, and accomplished man as my opponent, in case of a debate. Nothing mentioned at our personal interview, is more distinctly remembered, nothing is more frequently alluded to in our correspondence, and never contradicted by yourself, than that I should have Mr. Young for my opponent, if it came to single combat, as I then affirmed my convictions, and expressed my desire that it would. You now seem to deny any such pledge, or agreement on your part. Your words are, "You shall have him." If these words do not constitute a pledge, pray what language could be so construed?

Nor is this fact, though deeply engraven on my memory, depending on that alone for its certainty. In my letter of Nov. 16, it is written "I will debate with one person only," and then named president Young as such a person. You immediately responded, "You shall have him, as you did not doubt but the synod would select him." This is freely admitted in your reply of Dec. 8, stating at the same time that "there is now no probability that brother Young will be able to enter into the discussion with you." Do not these words affirm that he was to have "entered into the discussion" with me! Surely you will not stultify yourself. You know the meaning of words too well, to plead ignorance of the import of your own language. But you are even still more explicit in declaring your understanding of the pledge, for you speak of his engaging in a protracted discussion with me, for which you alledged "the state of his lungs would disqualify him." In these words, you admit the pledge, or agreement, which through the treachery of your memory you now seem to deny.

Again, my dear sir, may I not ask why you did not attempt to undeceive me when, in my letter of Dec. 15th, I stated my reasons for preferring Mr. Young; reminding you also of the fact, that you stood pledged to have him for my opponent, and that I could not be expected to engage with any other, unless on conditions then proposed. In your reply to this letter, Jan. 3d, you do not demur at all to this view of the matter in any one par ticular. You merely inform me that the appointment was not made by, but at the meeting of synod.

Again, in your letter of March 8th, after quoting my words indicative of my willingness to meet such a conference raised at the synod, you informed me "that brother Young's health is much improved, and that, therefore, this impediment would be removed." Now, after all this, to say that there was no such agreement or pledge, on your part, indicates it not that some of your mental powers have given way, and that you ought to be allowed the benefit of retraction?

Well, but if you did so agree, you may ask—indeed, you have virtually asked, would I insist upon having an opponent physically unable? No, indeed; I want a full grown man, of good natural and acquired ability, and also in good plight. But Mr. Young was such a man last August, and he may be such a man again next August, or soon after. I have long since