resolved never to debate with an inferior man when a superior can be had. I prefer to await his perfect recovery, rather than to enter the list with an inferior man. My object has been so often stated to you, that I deem it almost needless again to say, that neither my own honor nor interest demand this, but the interest of the whole community. That, sir, now calls for the best man in your ranks. True, I am so sensible of the strength of my position, that however inferior I may be in other respects, I am willing to meet the strongest man in Christendom on those points at issue between us. If, then, I am constrained to refuse your new proposition, it is not because the man offered is so formidable, so mighty and argumentative, but because he is not by the community judged to be equal, much less superior, to the persons named. At least such are my impressions. If, however, in this I am mistaken, I am open to conviction. I say again, sir, I desire your strongest and most accomplished man, whether in Kentucky or out of it. I desire to make an end of the controversy, so far as I am concerned, and, therefore I desire an opponent beyond whom your community cannot look with either desire or expectation. There are but two ways you may drive me from this discussion. You can, indeed, accomplish your predictions of my avoiding the discussion by one of two expedients. You may offer a disputant of inferior rank, or you may refuse the discussion of the real issue, and offer substitutes that meet not the subject proposed. You say something of my speaking discourteously of Mr. Rice, and of rather insulting you in my allusions to certain rumors. To each of which inacceptable imputations I desire to plead not guilty. If, sir, I should say that lord Brougham is not so courteous a gentleman as sir Robert Peel, do I insult lord Brougham! It is, methinks, somewhat prudish to affect such a sense of honorable courtesy. With me there yet remain three degrees of comparison, but with you it seems there is no comparison at all that is not discourteous. I believe, sir, all Kentucky, in so far as Messrs. Rice and Young are known, will award to the latter a comparative superiority in courtesy, as well as in some other points of comparison. And, sir, as your denomination is to be represented on the occasion, I put it to your good sense, whether a very courteous gentleman be not, other things being equal, a desideratum to you, as well as to me. But as I speak from report, and not from personal acquaintance, I am in this always pervious to new light. And with regard to the second item in your late bill of indictment, my insulting you by speaking of my reluctance to listen to a rumor discreditable to your candor and christian courtesy, I confess myself so obtuse as not to perceive the precise point that impinges upon your honor in the form of insult. If the report were false there was no insult in alluding to it, and if true, you will admit, on reflection, there could be no insult; because the truth in such a connection, never can be an insult. Would it not, however, be discreditable to your candor and christian character, to believe that you had decided at synod, that Mr. Rice should be the man of your choice, and for almost a year to hold up the words of promise to my ear, that I should have Mr. Young. Nay, farther, would it not be still more discreditable for you to have so designed, and then afterwards nominate and appoint Mr. Rice one of the committee to make out the propositions and details of debate, when you calculated on my not being one of that committee. I shall present you a dilemma for your grave consideration. Either you agreed at synod that Mr. Rice or Mr. Young should be the man; if the latter, then I am right, yourselves being judges, in waiting for him; but if you agreed on Mr. Rice, you are wrong on two accounts. 1st, for holding up Mr. Young at all to my ear, and in the 2nd place, for appointing Mr. Rice one of the committee of arrangement, in this clandestine and cunning way. Extricate yourself if you can! Or do I insult you by declaring my reluctance to believe another report 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 resolved never to debate with an inferior man when a superior can be had. I prefer to await his perfect recovery, rather than to enter the list with an inferior man. My object has been so often stated to you, that I deem it almost needless again to say, that neither my own honor nor interest demand this, but the interest of the whole community. That, sir, now calls for the best man in your ranks. True, I am so sensible of the strength of my position, that however inferior I may be in other respects, I am willing to meet the strongest man in Christendom on those points at issue between us. If, then, I am constrained to refuse your new proposition, it is not because the man offered is so formidable, so mighty and argumentative, but because he is not by the community judged to be equal, much less superior, to the persons named. At least such are my impressions. If, however, in this I am mistaken, I am open to conviction. I say again, sir, I desire your strongest and most accomplished man, whether in Kentucky or out of it. I desire to make an end of the controversy, so far as I am concerned, and, therefore I desire an opponent beyond whom your community cannot look with either desire or expectation. There are but two ways you may drive me from this discussion. You can, indeed, accomplish your predictions of my avoiding the discussion by one of two expedients. You may offer a disputant of inferior rank, or you may refuse the discussion of the real issue, and offer substitutes that meet not the subject proposed. You say something of my speaking discourteously of Mr. Rice, and of rather insulting you in my allusions to certain rumors. To each of which inacceptable imputations I desire to plead not guilty. If, sir, I should say that lord Brougham is not so courteous a gentleman as sir Robert Peel, do I insult lord Brougham! It is, methinks, somewhat prudish to affect such a sense of honorable courtesy. With me there yet remain three degrees of comparison. but with you it seems there is no comparison at all that is not discourteous. I believe, sir, all Kentucky, in so far as Messrs. Rice and Young are known, will award to the latter a comparative superiority in courtesy, as well as in some other points of comparison. And, sir, as your denomination is to be represented on the occasion, I put it to your good sense, whether a very courteous gentleman be not, other things being equal, a desideratum to you, as well as to me. But as I speak from report, and not from personal acquaintance, I am in this always pervious to new light. And with regard to the second item in your late bill of indictment, my insulting you by speaking of my reluctance to listen to a rumor discreditable to your candor and christian courtesy, I confess myself so obtuse as not to perceive the precise point that impinges upon your honor in the form of insult. If the report were false there was no insult in alluding to it, and if true, you will admit, on reflection, there could be no insult; because the truth in such a connection, never can be an insult. Would it not, however, be discreditable to your candor and christian character, to believe that you had decided at synod, that Mr. Rice should be the man of your choice, and for almost a year to hold up the words of promise to my ear, that I should have Mr. Young. Nay, farther, would it not be still more discreditable for you to have so designed, and then afterwards nominate and appoint Mr. Rice one of the committee to make out the propositions and details of debate, when you calculated on my not being one of that committee. I shall present you a dilemma for your grave consideration. Either you agreed at synod that Mr. Rice or Mr. Young should be the man; if the latter, then I am right, yourselves being judges, in waiting for him; but if you agreed on Mr. Rice, you are wrong on two accounts. 1st, for holding up Mr. Young at all to my ear, and in the 2nd place, for appointing Mr. Rice one of the committee of arrangement, in this clandestine and cunning way. Extricate yourself if you can! Or do I insult you by declaring my reluctance to believe another report that has reached me, from various sources, that you never intended a debate with me on the points proposed, but only intended to appear willing and ready for such a discussion, and then, by so managing the matter, as to compel me to back out, or to secure to you such advantages as would sustain your standing with the community. Such reports have almost since the date of your first overtures reached my ear from different sources; and shall I be regarded as insulting you either by mentioning them, or by affirming my reluctance to believe them. Is it not rather kind for me to state them fully, when your proceedings assume a form squinting so much in that direction. It is, methinks, due to you, to allow opportunity for you to take such a course as will thoroughly refute imputations so discreditable" and so usually regarded dishonorable. It was, indeed, as I imagined, kind to apprize you of such reports, and to afford you opportunity to refute them by your actions. You very politely, on the heels of this double imputation, say, "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." This, of course, is neither discourteous nor insulting!! Why, sir, in thus saying, you have called my attention to Mr. Rice, under a new angle of vision. If I regard your voice as that of the denomination, I have no difficulty as to my course. You have elevated Mr. Rice to a position greatly superior to that occupied by Mr. Young. You cannot but admit that the reputation of Mr. Young, for learning and talent, has not terrified me so as to evince any reluctance to meet him in debate: but in your esteem the fame of Mr. Rice is so superlatively formidable, that I am fearful of encountering him. Convince me, sir, that this is his true position in the denomination, and I at once accept him as your strongest man. I desire, however, at least another witness or two of this fact, especially since reading a letter written by yourself, setting forth your triumphs in a discussion in which you have been engaged not many moons since. From that document, it would seem that your imagination sometimes leads captive your reason, at least in the opinion of many impartial and independent men. A word or two as to the propositions for discussion. You manifest a singular pertinacity in selecting fragments of my views, and also in imputing to me a reluctance to defend what I have written. Have I thus assailed you? The propositions touching the action and the subject of baptism, are as you would wish them, and have been frequently so discussed by your denomination. The design of baptism is the only one on that subject peculiar to the present controversy. I have offered a proposition that covers the main ground occupied by me in my writings: for which you offer a most ridiculous substitute. "With me," you say, "baptism is the new birth, and it is designed to effect a change of state." If it be the new birth, can the new birth be the design of it? That it changes the state, is your own belief, and what controversy is there on this point! I must have a clear enunciation of the design of baptism. The propositions offered on that subject are such as to cover the real ground of difference between you and us. I shrink from nothing I have written. You have no reason to say so. You may protract the time, but I will never debate a proposition that does not meet my views. I have just as good a right to select from my writings as you have, and I can select a score on this subject that cover the real ground of debate. Christian baptism is designed to confer personal assurance of the remission of sins on every legitimate subject. Or, Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. This is my doctrine on the subject: and this I will defend. You may use all that I have written upon the subject, if you please; but such is the concentrated view which I propose. On the influences of the Spirit-I teach that in sanctification it operates only through the written word. You teach that in some cases, it operates without the word. I, therefore, affirm that the Spirit of God operates on sinners and on saint only through the word. You affirm that it regenerates and sanctifies, in innumerable instances, without the word. Here is the gist of the controversy. All that I have written, and every thing in your creed, comes up under this proposition. As you admit that our views of the weekly celebration of the Supper are scriptural, so far as your creed affirms, I shall not press that proposition farther upon your attention. Touching your new proposition, about the administration of baptism, I regard it as a very small affair. I teach that for good order's sake, persons ought to be appointed to baptize, but that baptism by the hand of a layman, as you call him, when no other can be had, is just as valid as that of the pope, or your ministers. You can produce no divine precept nor precedent confining baptism to bishops, or elders-nor of their baptizing as such. That human creeds, added to the Bible, are now and always have been unauthorized by God, roots of bitterness, apples of discord, necessarily tending to schism, and always perpetuating it, I affirm to be a great practical truth, deeply affecting the very existence of pure religion, and essentially obstructing the union of christians. These are main points of difference between us, and such as we have agreed to discuss-baptism, the work of the Spirit, and creeds. You may, in your reply, settle the whole matter of the propositions, or you may protract the subject for months. I must have some two months interval, after all things are agreed upon, to make preparations for leaving home. Such are my duties and my numerous responsibilities, that I cannot in a few days obtain leave of absence. I intimated to you my desire of having the discussion during our vacation; but you seem to pass it over without notice. I must make my arrangements in a few days for the vacation, and it will depend upon the promptness and the distinctness of your reply, whether my arrangements can be made to permit my attendance during vacation or after it, sooner than late in September or October. I am pleased to be able to say, from the retrospect of the past, that this long delay in bringing these matters to a close, is neither of my option nor creation. With all due respect, I remain yours, &c. A. CAMPBELL. ELDER A. CAMPBELL:-Yours of the 24th has been received. You are anxious to know the premises from which I concluded that you are resolved to avoid this discussion. It is, I believe, universally admitted that a man can give no more unequivocal evidence of his purpose to avoid a contest, than by insisting on extraordinary and unequal terms of fight. This evidence you have abundantly afforded. You assert that I, in our interview at Richmond, gave a pledge that Mr. Young should be your opponent, in case of a debate occurring. I will disprove this assertion by your own testimony. In your Harbinger for November, you state, that you consented to attend the meeting at Lexington, "provided only, that if we should go into a regular debate, that out of the most respectable of said delegation one be selected whose authority with the people was highest in the state-such as the president of their college at Danville, and with such a person I would go into a regular debate,' &c. Is this not singular language in which to express the fact, that you were to debate with president Young, and no other? Why did you not say" Provided only, that if we should go into a regular debate, I should have the president of their college as my opponent?" This would have been a totally different thing, for then there could be no selection at all," out of the most respectable of said delegation." But you have recently given a second version of this matter, plainly contradictory of the first. In the Harbinger for April, you say-" And in the event of the conference not coming to an agreement, I would go into single combat with a certain gentleman then named," &c. Now, Mr. Campbell, can you reconcile these two statements? According to the first, the debater on our side was to be selected out of the |