Dear Sir,

TO ELDER J. M. PECK.

IF I received any notice of your communication from my Clerk during my absence in Kentucky, as it is possible I may have, the whole affair had entirely escaped my memory. Had I, however, re-, garded myself issuing, or you accepting a "challenge," as you now denominate it, I could not so easily have forgotten what was due to us both, as not to have noticed it, in some form or other. In the letter you have now published in the Banner, as above quoted, you did not, indeed, presume so far upon our vernacular. You then and there, while all was fresh in your recollection, very properly called it a "proposition." A proposition it was, indeed, to prosecute a begun discussion in a way more favorable to a satisfactory issue, with a special reference to a challenge from Mr. Lynd of Cincinnati.

You snatched a sentence or two out of the connexion of things which gave it significance, and have recently given it a new name. The challenge came from Mr. Lynd, and my acceptance of it you will find on page 566, volume 2, new series. The acceptance is in the words following:

"Mr. Lynd has challenged me once, if not twice, in his third attempt; or, in other words, he has asked me for a fourth attempt. He may have it; but it is now my time to propose the rules or mode of investigation. After republisning my reply in the 'Cross & Journal,' he may proceed to redeem his pledge in the following manner:

1st. State his proposition, or propositions, on which an issue is to be formed.

2d. He may take any one of them first; and offer, numerically, as many arguments, or proofs, as he thinks expedient; but only one argument in one essay.

3d. No one essay shall exceed four pages of the Harbinger, but may be as much less as either disputant pleases.

4th. No one argument shall ever exceed more than two essays. 5th. These essays shall appear monthly in the Harbinger, and shall be republished in the Cross and Baptist Journal.

6th. The whole series shall not transcend twelve on each side, and shall be re published in a separate volume by the parties, for more general distribution and utility.

Mr. Lynd will perceive that his challenge is now fully accepted; and the rules are such as, I doubt not, will be acceptable to him. I wish the subject to be debated fully and de novo, with a condensed brevity and perspicuity. I am daily more opposed to these verbose and endless genealogies of words. If Mr. Lynd think that any point in his first, second, or third attempt has not been fully met, he can now take it up and have it specially canvassed. He has the choice of propositions. I trust he will be logically methodical, and make his points few, definite, and clear."

Now should you, with the concurrence of your brother Editors, take the place of Mr. Lyd on the proposition in debate, I will not be tenacious on the number twelve as the maximum of the letters on each side; and, as a matter of course, I will accept the "Banner and Pioneer" in lieu of the "Cross and Journal." I will extend the series to the equivalent of 200 12mo. pages, furnishing a neat and cheap duodecimo for general distribution, as a finale of the controversy. Again, if the time be too long for you, I will promise you by every return mail, while I am at home, a fair manuscript answer; or once in two weeks a proof-sheet answer to every fair manuscript or proof-sheet letter you may address to me.

Professing, as I do, before the universe, my conviction that no man now-a-days has, or can have, one spiritual idea but through the revelation of God's Spirit in the written word, the only question with me is, What do the Sacred Scriptures teach on the subject of the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men? The Regular Baptists, in common with some other sectaries, affirm that the scriptures teach--that the Holy Spirit, sometimes without the word, and always before the word is believed, enters the sinner's heart and regenerates it by a direct and positive operation, whereby he is enabled to believe the gospel when he hears it; and without which he could never believe to the salvation of his soul; and that this is not a common, but a special influence, occurring only and always elect person.

in every

Now I simply deny that the Bible any where teaches this dogma, and am now prepared to show that neither yourself nor any other person can, by any just and fair philological interpretation of the scriptures, sustain such a view of the matter.

For while I teach that the Spirit of God operates through the word on saints and sinners, not by an abstract or independent operation, but by and through the gospel of salvation, I regard this great dogma of Fullerism and Gillism, the favorite hobby of the two principal Baptist schools in England and America, as a human tradition, making void the gospel of Christ in countless instances: and, therefore, as a very great practical error so far as imbibed and acted upon. In no other point of view would I notice this tenet, or deign to debate it with any person. And in the midst of all the reproaches and calumnies bestowed on me for so many years, because of my advocacy of the true gospel of the grace of God, it gives me pleasure to see that a very great change amongst the Baptists and amongst other communities has taken place in both the matter and manner of preaching and teaching even on this topic as well as on some others. Indeed, we hear from many sources that our preaching opponents have become so

assimilated to those whom they denounce, that it not unfrequently requires more than ordinary discrimination to distinguish a Baptist from a Disciple in the pulpit.

Touching yourself, my dear sir, if your brethren consent to your appearing as the special advocate of their theory, I have only to say, that if I do not expect to find in you any more sacred literature, general intelligence, or talent than were commanded by Mr. Lynd and his predecessors, I will expect from you at least as much candor, sincerity, and good manners as from the most accomplished of my former opponents.. -Wishing you a full participation of all the blessings of Christ, I am, very sincerely and respectfully, your friend,

Bethany, Va., June 11, 1841.

A. CAMPBELL.

P. S. I forward, for expedition's sake, a copy of the above to the publisher of the Banner and Pioneer, nothing doubting but that they will give it an early insertion. This I should not have done had you not addressed me through that medium.

A. C.

ТОВА ССО.

BACON COLLEGE, Harrodsburg, Ky., 16th April, 1841.

Dear brother Campbell,

ALTHOUGH many excellent things have been said and written on the use of Tobacco, I do not recollect to have seen the subject presented in the following light.

The perfection and felicity of man's nature depends on the supremacy of the moral sentiments and intellect over the animal propensitiesor, in the phraseology of the New Testament, the triumph of the spirit over the flesh. The man who is a slave to his appeties, even to those that are natural and necessary to his very existence, is universally held in contempt by his fellow-men. Hence the ignominy that is every where attached to the idea of a glutton, a sensualist, or a degraded devotee of any species of bestiality. Now, it must be remembered, that no disgrace attaches to the lawful indulgence of natural appetites. On the contrary, to destroy life by not eating, would be as criminal as to destroy it by gluttony. Even in those cases, then, in which indulgence is a duty, excessive indulgence is criminal and degrading, as it debases and brutifies our noble nature, and makes the whole man an abject slave to the animal passions, so dependent on them for enjoyment, that he will either beg* or steal for their gratification, provided they can be gratified in no other way. But the course in question is not merely criminal and degrading-it is manifestly unwise in a high degree. That man is the most independent whose happiness depends on the fewest contingencies, and is least liable to be interrupted.

* So true is this sentiment, that not merely boys, but even men, full grown men, and mon of the first respectability, seem to consider it no disgrace to BEG for a CHEW of

TOBACCO.

True wisdom, therefore, combines with the dictates of our holy religion in urging us to subject the flesh to the spirit-so to control and regulate even the natural appetites, that we shall not be their slaves, or unduly dependent on them for enjoyment. To pursue an opposite course, and thereby pamper the lusts of the flesh, so as to make our happiness unnecessarily dependent thereon, is alike opposed to the dictates of reason and Christianity.

Now if these remarks be true in relation to those appetites that are natural, and therefore necessary not merely to our happiness, but even to our very existence, what language can adequately express the folly and criminality of creating artificial appetites in order that we may thereby make ourselves their willing and abject slaves.

Nature never implanted an appetite for tobacco, or ardent spirits. I say nothing here of the filthiness of tobacco, its needless expense, its injurious effects on the constitution, or the sickening sepulchral stench that issues continually from the jaws of him who worships at the shrine of this degrading idol. Omitting all these weighty considerations, the bare thought that he who cultivates an artificial appetite is thereby subjecting the spirit to the flesh, making himself an abject slave to a beastly and inexorable tyrant voluntarily created by himself, should be sufficient to induce all wise men, and especially all Christians, to abandon at once and forever every debasing practice of this sort, and from henceforth to touch not, taste not the unclean thing.

The foregoing remarks take it for granted that the individual who cultivates an artificial appetite, honestly possesses the means of its gratification. But how frequently is it otherwise. How often are these unnatural and filthy habits indulged, even by professing Christians, at the expense of an injured wife and defrauded children. Hundreds can be expended annually in the gratification of artificial lust, where not a dollar, nor even a cent, can be spared for the support of the gospel, or for objects of benevolence and humanity. And even this is not the worst: I have seen young professors of religion, dependent for support and education on public or private charity, cultivate these unnatural, expensive, and filthy habits, when they knew that they could not do it honestly; and that they were voluntarily enslaving themselves to an inexorable master, a tyrannical lust, for the gratification of which they would be compelled either to BEG or STEAL. Oh! shame, where is thy blush?

My brother, should not the press, the pulpit, and every friend of morality and civilization, take a decided stand against these unnatural and filthy vices, until they are entirely abandoned?

In the joyful hope of a blessed immortality, sincerely yours, JAMES SHANNON.

FAMILY CULTURE.

CONVERSATIONS AT THE CARLTON HOUSE.-No. XIX. GENESIS XVI. & XVII,

AFTER reading over the 16th and 17th chapters of Genesis, Olympas proceeded as usual-calling upon the seniors for New Testament allusions to the case of Hagar and Sarah, and their sons.

Thomas. We find a beautiful allegory made out of this case by Paul to the Galatians, 4th chap., 21-31, which we will read with your permission:-"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travail est not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free."-The two mothers, the two sons, the two births, with the two fortunes of these renowned persons are very interestingly depicted by the Apostle.

Olympas. What is an allegory, Eliza?

Eliza. A continuation of tropes or comparisons-not a single metaphor, but a series of metaphors in illustration of some important subject.

Olympas. A comparison of two subjects under a fixed imagery may, indeed, include all that rhetoricians intend by the use of this animating and impressive figure of speech. State then, Reuben, the points of comparison.

Reuben. The principal points of comparison are four:-1st. The two mothers represent two constitutions or dispensations, usually called the Two Covenants. These are the two covenants-one from Mount Sinai; the other from Mount Zion, or Jerusalem. 2d. The tendency of the two institutions is compared to the condition of the two sonsthe one a slave, the other a freeman. 3d. The peculiar character of the birth of these two sons-one in the course of nature; the other out of, or above, the course of nature-"born after the flesh," "born after the Spirit," &c. 4th. The character of the two children, indicative of the character of the subjects of the two dispensations-"Him that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit." Even so it is now.