schismatical"-unless you agree to the modification already suggested, viz "The using of creeds, except the Scriptures, is necessarily heretical and schismatical." We prefer the modified form of it; but if you object, we will not insist upon it. Then, in order to give an equal number of affirmatives and negatives to each party; the first question can be thrown into the form already agreed upon, viz: "Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism."

Your fifth proposition is not quite satisfactory. We are willing to take it as presented in your last letter, with a slight verbal alteration suggested in my reply, and which you have made. Then it will stand thus: "The Spirit of God operates on persons only through the Word."

Now, since you have all the propositions, in almost the precise language chosen by yourself, I hope this matter may be considered as settled.

Brother Rice will withdraw from the committee of arrangements, and brother J. K. Burch and myself will constitute that committee. This change is made in view of remarks made in your letter of May 24thand in view of the fact, that Mr. Rice will be your opponent in debate. We are prepared to meet your committee, at any time mutually agreed upon, and to make all necessary arrangements. Respectfully, &c.

ELDER BROWN:

JNO. H. BROWN.

Bethany, Va., July 13, 1843.

Your very courteous letter of the 7th inst. lies before me. Your reiteration concerning Mr. Young, and your polite allusion to my reasonable demands for a respectable opponent, I shall hereafter expect as a part of every epistle for the next six months. To these matters I shall hereafter pay no attention. If any testimony is wanting concerning your promises in reference to Mr. Young, I have recently learned that such testimony (living and unexceptionable) to all my allegations can be had.

I have said, for the next six months; for it appears nothing is yet fixed. The arrangement of the propositions concerning baptism, it would seem from allusions to the first, found in your letter before me, is yet to be made. In endeavoring to find our relative positions to points at issue,-what you affirmed and what I affirmed,-and thus to ascertain the subjects and number of topics, I did not imagine that either the order in which these subjects were named, or the affirmative or negative forms in which they were expressed, was to be that of discussion. Hence, in my last, after hearing all the explanations, statements, amendments and objections, I drew out in order and form the propositions, and our positions to them, which fairly exhibit our standing before the community on these points.

These six propositions were:

I. I affirm that immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the action ordained by Jesus Christ as the one only christian baptism.

II. You affirm that the infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism.

III. I affirm that, to a believing penitent, baptism is for the remission of past sins.

IV. You affirm that baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained presbyter.

V. I affirm that, in conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God operates on persons only through the word of truth.

VI. You affirm that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is the constitution of Christ's church.

To the last you object, and prefer an expression of my views of creeds found in former communications. That expression covers not the whole ground of my dissent from creeds ecclesiastic. You will then affirm your views of your creed as essential to the unity, purity and peace of the

church, and I will take the negative. This is the only point undefined be tween us, so far as the six propositions go. I desire the privilege of affirming what I teach in my own words, and extend the same to you. But on those points on which we have fully expressed our views,-namely, the first five propositions,-I think it is time we had done. You need not protract the time for the sake of any changes in the propositions, since I will sustain my real position and no other. Besides, no committee shall choose propositions for me, nor the mode of discussing them. You have more than once offered your sine qua non, your grand ultimatum: it is time for me to

commence.

As I expect to be in Lexington from the 1st to the 6th of August, I have no objections to your making Mr. Rice one of the committee to meet myself and another person or two for arrangements of the laws and etiquette of the debate, as well as the mode of reporting and publishing. This will save much time in correspondence. Please address me there, to the care of Mr. Ficklin.

In very much haste, and with all due respect,

A. CAMPBELL.

Richmond, July 29, 1843.

ELDER A. CAMPBELL:

Only the

Dear Sir-Your communication of the 13th is now before me. closing paragraph demands attention. In this you propose that Mr. Rice be made one of the committee, to meet you, and another person or two, in Lexington, between the 1st and 6th of August, for the arrangement of preliminaries, preparatory to discussion. To this proposition I am requested to address you at Lexington, to the care of Mr. Ficklin.

I have postponed a reply, awaiting the return of Mr. Rice from Nashville. I expected him to have been at my house on the 27th, to assist me in the services of a protracted meeting; but in this I have been disappointed, his stay at Nashville having been unexpectedly protracted. I still expect him, and hope he will arrive to-day. If so, the arrangement you propose will be acceded to. If not, Mr. Burch and myself will meet your committee at Lexington, on Friday, the 4th of August, if in accordance with your wishes. I have postponed a reply to the last hour, expecting the arrival of Mr. Rice. Time, therefore, will allow me to reply only to this single proposition; other matters in your communication will be attended to at no very distant day. Please reply by return of mail. Respectfully,

JNO. H. BROWN.

Richmond, July 31, 1843. ELDER A. CAMPBELL-Since I replied to your last letter, brother Rice has returned from Nashville, and in accordance with your wish, he will be added to the committee on our part, and he, Mr. Burch, and myself, will meet you and your committee in Lexington, on Thursday afternoon, at 3 o'clock, P. M.

Until I received your last letter, I supposed the propositions for discussion might be considered as settled, since I had accepted them as stated by yourself, with merely slight verbal alterations, to almost all of which you had agreed. But I am not a little surprised to learn from your last letter, that you are unwilling to debate your own propositions!!! On the mode of baptism you proposed the following, which, with a small change, to which you agreed, was accepted by me, viz: "Sprinkling, or pouring water, upon a suitable subject, is scriptural baptism." You now, after both parties have agreed to the above proposition offer another quite different in form. What does this mean? In relation to the subject, the design, and the administrator of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, we are agreed on the proposition to be debated.

On the subject of creeds, we have agreed to discuss your own proposition,

viz: "Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical." But you now inform me, that this proposition, stated by yourself for discussion, covers not the whole ground of your dissent from creeds ecclesiastic," and you propose the following: "You [I] affirm, that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is the constitution of Christ's church." And does this proposition really cover the whole ground of your objection to creeds ecclesiastic? Is it true that all that you affirmed against creeds, amounts only to this-that the constitution of the Presbyterian church is not the constitution of the church of Christ? Or have you not gone on a crusade against all creeds, because they "supplanted the Bible, made the Word of God of non-effect, were fatal to the intelligence, purity, union, holiness, and happiness of the disciples of Christ, and hostile to the salvation of the world?"-Chris. Sys. p. 9. These and many such things, you have affirmed concerning the use of creeds. You say, "I desire the privilege of affirming what I teach." Now, my dear sir, we have accepted your own proposition, thus affording you the opportunity of affirming and proving, what you have so constantly, and so loudly, affirmed and taught; and mirabile dictu!—you decline affirming, or attempting to prove it, and desire us to affirm a totally different proposition, not at all covering the ground of your published sentiments! This procedure does strike me as marvellous in the extreme. You have before declined discussing the doctrine of the influences of the Spirit, as published in one of your most important books; and now you are unwilling to discuss a proposition of your own forming! I must insist now, that you defend your own proposition. I cannot accept a totally different one in place of it.

But it seems that all this while we have been engaged, not in settling propositions, as they were to be debated but only in "hearing all the explanations, statements, amendments, and objections." Yet propositions were stated, verbal or other alterations suggested and agreed to. Still, although the precise language of the propositions was agreed upon, you now feel at liberty to begin de novo, and restate them in different form; or to state entirely new propositions! To this twisting and turning you must allow me decidedly to object.

In a word, we have accepted your propositions, and we are now prepared to arrange other preliminaries, and to enter upon the discussion at the earliest convenience of the parties concerned.

In regard to the testimony, of which you speak, in reference to your allegation, I will now only say, I am prepared to meet it. Hoping to see you on Thursday next, I remain yours, &c. J. H. BROWN.

N. B. We will be at the residence of Rev. J. K. Burch, at the hour specified above, and will receive any communication you may deem expedient.

ELDER J. H. BROWN:

Lexington, Ky., August 2, 1843.

Dear Sir-Yours of the 31st ult. is just to hand. I am not unwilling to debate my own propositions. Propositions submitted by me to elicit your position, and to ascertain your views, are not, however, my own propositions. Had you been willing that I should have debated my own propositions, a single letter would have been sufficient to settle the whole issue of debate. In the six propositions, so often and so variously propounded to ascertain the true issue, but one of them is exactly my own proposition. True, I have elicited the attitude you wish to maintain, and such as you would desire me to maintain; but this is a very different thing from my having obtained my own propositions, or my having absolutely agreed to discuss a single proposition, the verbiage of which you have at all interfered with. My approval of any proposition, so far as expressed, has always been prospective of the amicable settlement of the whole issue. I was willing, however, and am still willing, to distribute the four propositions on baptism as expressed in my last, which are in exact accordance

D

with our respective positions as before defined; but I am not willing to give you three affirmative, propositions out of four, and even then not have my single affirmative in my own words!!

I confess I was not prepared to expect such exorbitant demands at the hands of my Presbyterian friends, especially after conceding so much to their views of expediency. Called upon for a discussion of my views as opposed to Presbyterianism, and pressed into this debate, as I have been, by your importunities, I was prepared to expect the privilege of propounding my own propositions in my own words, and to expect that such chival rous spirits as the sons of the Solemn League and Covenant would manfully stand up to their own tenets and defend their own true and veritable position before this community, and allow me to defend and assail in regular turn. But what is my disappointment, after one year's diplomatic negotiation, to find them claiming three out of four propositions, and thus refusing me an opportunity to sustain my proper attitude in this long protracted controversy. I never can yield to demands so arbitrary and unequal. If, then, I have given opportunity and latitude to ascertain what advantages would be sought, and how promptly you and your brethren would assume the defence of your own tenets and assail mine, I am not to be understood as agreeing to place myself three times in the mere negative of your tenets on baptism, since I have been summoned by you to stand up to the defence of my own teaching. I must affirm my views on at least the two main points in which I have been most assailed by Presbyterians. This is not only just and equal, but it is my special right, coming into this discussion as I do.

Besides all these considerations, obvious and imperative though they be, I have others, affecting not only these, but the other propositions submitted, which in harmony with our original stipulations, are entitled to your special regard. You represent a denomination: so do I. You have had frequent consultations among yourselves: I have not had one with my brethren till my arrival in this city. From them I have learned how we, as a denomination, have been assailed, both in Kentucky and Tennessee, by your representative Mr. Rice. From the facts stated, and the representations given, to meet the objects of this discussion, it will also be expedient and necessary that the proposition concerning the Spirit, and that concerning creeds, shall be more full than before propounded. According to the views of such as have conferred with me, it is requisite that your views of Spiritual influence, regeneration, &c., so far as they differ from ours, should be fully developed and discussed. I should, therefore, amplify the proposition already before us, so as to bring all our views, and yours, fully before the community, thus: The Spirit of God, without any previous, special, separate, spiritual operation on the mind, illumination, or call, is known, believed, received, and enjoyed, through the word of God; which word is the only and all-sufficient instrument through which sinners attain the knowledge of God, are converted, sanctified, and obtain the true religion As respects creeds, I affirm that human, authoritative creeds, superadded to the Bible, are an insult to its Author, unphilosophical in their nature, schismatic in their tendencies, and retard the conversion of the world. But as you may claim a negative attitude in the discussion of this point, I consent to your framing any proposition that precisely and fully negatives the above. I should be pleased to add one or two other propositions:-one concerning the weekly observance of the ordinance of the supper; and one concerning the constitution of the Presbyterian church; but leave this matter wholly to your own discretion.

I am sorry to state that the misconstructions and misrepresentations which have reached my ears from various quarters, together with the spirit and details of your letter now lying before me, recommend to me the expediency of settling all the important preliminaries by writing, rather than by a personal interview. I therefore state distinctly, that of the six propositions I claim the 1st, 3d and 5th, as before stated, viz.:

I. That the immersion in water, of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the one only apostolic or christian baptism.

III. That, to a proper subject, baptism is for induction into the christian covenant, or for the remission of sins.

V. "The Spirit," &c., as above expressed.

Should you think proper to place my proposition on creeds before that on the Spirit, and allow me to affirm it, and then select one indicative of your full views on the Spirit expressed in your own words, or in those of your creed, and allow me to negative it, you shall have my consent. As I sincerely desire a frank, candid and friendly interview, I am willing to allow you a full expression of your tenets in the best terms you can select. I only state distinctly, that if there be but six propositions, I shall have three affirmatives, as aforesaid, and that you shall have three. I claim the action and design of baptism, and either that on the Spirit or creeds, as you please. If to these fair and equitable terms you agree, I am prepared to go into other preliminary arrangements immediately. If not, say so, and the matter ends.

I sincerely and solemnly profess to go for truth, and not for victory,—for truth indeed, and victory,-for the Bible, and its triumph over all rivals. And if you can concur with us in such views and feelings, I think we ought to agree to spend the day antecedent to the commencement of the discussion in prayer and fasting. All of which is respectfully submitted. Please address me at Mr. Henry Bell's.

With all due respect, yours, &c.

A. CAMPBELL. Lexington, August 3, 1843. ELDER A. CAMPBELL-Yours of the 2nd is before me. It contains information curious, if not instructive, viz: that propositions submitted for debate by Mr. Campbell, are not his own propositions!!! Then, pray, whose are they? But it seems, that you submitted them to elicit my position, &c. Is it true, then, that you submitted for my consideration propositions which you knew did not correctly present our relative positions, in order to ascertain my views? If they do correctly represent the ground of difference, why do you now insist on changing them? If they do not, why were they offered? Why did you not offer such propositions as you were willing to discuss? This is, indeed, a new species of military tactics!

But surely your memory fails you; for in your letter of Nov. 17, you state six propositions for debate, and then remark, "I will discuss these in single debate," &c. Again, in your letter of Dec. 15, after stating six propositions yon say, "I regard the above as a candid and definite expression of our relative positions on these six points," &c. And yet you tell us, these are not your own propositions; and some of them you refuse to debate! Nay more, we accepted your sixth proposition, in the letter of Dec. 15th, without even insisting on the slightest verbal alteration, and then, behold, Mr. C. informs us, "that expression covers not the whole ground of his dissent from creeds ecclesiastic," and proposes to introduce another proposition, wholly different, which does not even touch the question of the lawfulness of creeds!!! Again, in yours of July 13th, you state, that the only point really undefined between us is that concerning creeds, on which we had accepted your own proposition!-and then remark, "but on those points on which we have fully expressed our views-namely, the first five propositions, I think it is time we had done." But what do I see in your letter now before me? Another proposition on the work of the Spirit, entirely new and wholly unintelligible in its phraseology! Your next epistie will, probably, insist on other propositions, different from all these? Alas for the cause that requires such manoeuvring extraordinary to sustain it.

But can we understand you? You tell me you did not absolutely agree to discuss a single proposition, the verbiage of which I have at all interfered with. Of course, then, you are absolutely pledged to discuss those