ment of the subject of debate, could only be settled or removed by an amicable adjustment or understanding between ourselves. It was not a question of order, such as the moderators were at all competent to decide. Mr. C., nevertheless, left me for 24 hours under the impression, (and that too, notwithstanding the private conversation above alluded to,) that the subject proposed was altogether agreeable to him; nor was it until after the mode rators selected by us, had appointed the Rev. Mr. Paine, of the Methodist Episcopal church, as the third man, and they had taken their seats, that I had the least intimation of any difficulty in the way of entering upon the debate. Then he made his appeal or complaint to the moderators, informing them, as he states, that he had not received a (logical) proposition from me, but only the statement of a topic for discussion, or in his own language, as contained in his narrative, "only the subject of a proposition, without a predicate." "Mr. Jennings, (he adds,) at first demurred against giving me any thing save the topic already mentioned, but being reminded of the pledge he had given on Saturday evening, he attempted to draft one. But so it came to pass, that we could not get any definite proposition from Mr. J., till one o'clock." With a small mixture of truth, this statement is declared to be a gross misrepresentation, and calculated, as it was no doubt designed, to make a false impression upon the public mind. Mr. C. needs to be "reminded," and the public to be informed of the truth. His statement would lead his readers to conclude, that I not only "demurred against giving" him "any thing save the topic already mentioned," which is true, but that upon "being reminded of the pledge" previously given, which it would say, that I at least tacitly acknowledged had not been redeemed, I forthwith attempted to draft a proposition, and yet that nothing definite could be obtained from me before one o'clock. It is true that I demurred, as he has stated, but for the reason, as I contended, that I had fully complied with my stipulation on Saturday evening. It was further alleged, that whatever had been the understanding or

expectation of Mr. C., it certainly was not understood by myself, that a logical proposition should be furnished as the subject of that day's discussion. It was, moreover, shown to be unreasonable and unfair, to make such a demand, inasmuch as such a proposition, at least, of an affirmative character, could not be given without affirming something which I myself believed, and which must have the effect of totally changing the nature and subject of the debate. It was further alleged that the object of the meeting, and that too in pursuance of an invitation or challenge publicly given by himself, was to hear and discuss objections to his religious cystem, and not mine. That I had accordingly attended with a view to discuss, “not Presbyterianism or Calvinism, but Campbellism." Mr. C. was also reminded that his complaint on Saturday, of my course of proceeding, was not because I did not introduce logical propositions for discussion, but because the topic or subject of debate was so frequently changed, and that I had then selected one topic, which alone I expected to be the subject of that day's conference, which was substantially the same that had already been partially discussed, and with which he had expressed himself to be well satisfied. But after an altercation or desultory debate of, perhaps, two hours' continuance, Mr. C. still persisted in refusing to enter upon, or resume the discussion of a topic with which he had been so well pleased the preceding Saturday; and that too, as will be clearly perceived by the sequel, notwithstanding the debate which at last did take place in the afternoon, was, in fact and in substance, nothing more nor less, than a discussion of "the topic already mentioned." At length it became apparent that Mr. C. in persisting in his refusal to discuss the topic proposed, had one of two objects in view. Either he wished to decline any further discussion, or he intended, if possible, to exchange positions, by putting me on the defence of my own religions sentiments, with a view to prevent any further attack upon his. My own impression was, that the latter was his real object; although it is believed

that a majority of the audience were of opinion, that he had a strong disinclination to renew the contest. I was confirmed in my own opinion of his real object, from the fact, that on Saturday, he had made attempts to turn me aside from my avowed purpose in meeting this champion of error and false doctrine, in debate, by endeavoring to provoke me incidentally to discuss the subject of infant baptism, and other doctrines held by the sect to which I belong.

As I had met Mr. C., in pursuance of his own invita. tion, with a view to attack his system, and not to defend mine, it was my, determination not to permit him to change sides. Still, with a view that it would more clearly appear to the audience that Mr. C., (to use a homely, but expressive phrase,) really wished to "back out," if he still persisted to decline entering upon further discussion, I at length proposed, to endeavor, if possible, to remove all objections, by furnishing him with a proposition. A proposition, of a negative form, was accordingly prepared, denying the truth of what is asserted in the following paragraph of his Extra, No. 1, (page 12,) "Whatever this act of faith may be, it necessarily be comes the line of discrimination between the two states before described. On this side, and on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side they are pardoned, justified, reconciled, adopted and saved: on the other, they are in a state of condemnation. This act (of faith) is sometimes called immersion, regeneration, conversion; and that this may appear obvious to all, we shall be at some pains to confirm and illustrate it." This paragraph, which brings out "the ancient gospel" in bold relief, evidently contains the affirmative proposition, that such, and such only, as submit to be immersed, with a belief that they shall thereby obtain "the remission of sins," are pardoned, justified, sanctified, &c., while all the rest of mankind, whatever may be the state of their heart, or whatever may be their character, not only in the opinion of their fellow men, but in the sight of God, "are in a state of condemnation." The proposition pre

pared, and proposed for discussion, instead of " the topic already mentioned," was the negative of the foregoing, which, it seemed evident, Mr. C. was bound to defend or acknowledge his error. Still the proposition was not accepted. Let it, however, be particularly noticed, that the objection first raised, was not that the proposition was too multifarious, but because it was a negative proposi tion. In making this objection, he indeed observed, that he did not urge it so much on his own account, as mine, for he inquired, could I undertake to support a negative proposition? To which it was replied, that he need not indulge in any uneasiness or concern, on my account.

I would here call the attention of the reader to the evident want of consistency in part of Mr. C.'s narrative. He informs his readers he was" determined not to tarry on Monday, unless a proposition of some sort, affirmative or negative was presented;" and yet when a proposition was presented, the first objection made was that it was of a negative character. But this was not all. His determination not to remain but upon the condition already stated, is by him assigned as the reason why he "requested through some of the brethren who waited on" me "next (or Lord's day) morning, a proposition." And yet notwithstanding his determination, although he "had not got a proposition," but a topic, he remained the next day until nearly 11 o'clock, without giving me a hint of his dissatisfaction with the topic which had been furnished, or of his determination not to remain unless a proposition was presented.

It is true that Mr. C. did afterwards object to the proposition offered as being multifarious and proposed to engross it, which I agreed he might attempt to do, reserving to myself the right to reject it, if I thought proper. He accordingly engrossed it in a manner to suit or please himself; but after some examination it was rejected, and particularly because, like most of his productions, it contained some small mixture of truth with much error, and therefore it could not be accepted without laying myself under the necessity of denying the part that was true,

66 was con

as well as that which was erroneous. Determined on my part to leave him without the shadow of a pretext for declining any further debate, 1 next proposed another proposition, which Mr. C. has, as is usual with him, first stated incorrectly, and then pronounced it to be awkward. The proposition was not as he states it to have been "To be born again and to be immersed is not the same thing;" but it was in the following words: "To say that to be born again and to be immersed is the same thing, is false, and cannot be supported by the word of God." The Bishop, in his narrative, states that he strained to accept this awkward proposition, or to have no discussion." If the reader will refer to his Extra, No. 1, page 28, he will at once perceive that he had so unequivocally advocated the doctrine or position which the proposition last presented affirms to be false, that he could not unqualifiedly object to it without making it glaringly manifest either that he was determined to have no further discussion, or that he was unwilling to defend what he had deliberately published. Nevertheless he evinced a desire to avoid the discussion even of this proposition, which, in his view, or according to his feelings at the time, it is believed, was indeed "awkward" enough. Instead of frankly and without hesitation accepting of the proposition, as a man who had confidence in the truth of what he had published to the world would do, he required, as a condition precedent to his acceptance of it, that I should make a concession. In the abstract, and according to every sound principle, he had no more right or just reason to demand this than he had to demand one of my garments, or than the robber on the high way has to demand the traveller's money. If he had in his Extra advanced nothing except the truth fairly deduced from the word of God, what need of a concession from me? Could not the champion of Bethany, who could boast of having foiled or totally defeated powerful foes, defend himself in his own intrenchments, if indeed they were fortified "by the word of truth," and he him self clad with the "armor of righteousness on the right