of them. Had they given it, he would not have been injured; as it is, he may.

Mr. P.'s reason for declining the publication of the debate, viz: (that he thought to publish a debate on the same subject with Mr. W.) would have been a good reason for his not giving me a challenge, but it is a poor reason, after having given it, for declining the publication of it. Every reason for having a discussion, is a reason for publishing it. If it is important that the people of Louisville should hear it, though they may read the one about to be published, surely it is no less important that many others equally interested should read it.

But Mr. P. only increased the inconsistency of his course, by declining its publication, and immediately proposing a written discussion to be published in two papers. The fact that he only proposed to publish it once, and twice, if desirable! alters not the case, nor does it remove the difficulty, to say, he did not wish to publish it "in that manner," since the manner is unimportant, provided the arguments be presented so as to interest and convince the reader.

To prove that newspaper discussions do not become tedious and uninteresting, Mr. P. says: "The most interesting and useful discussion of Universalism and Partialism ever published, was conducted in this manner; I mean the one between Dr. Ely and Rev. Mr. Thomas." This may be true, but Mr. Thomas, as I remember, greatly preferred an oral debate; and it was to a discussion of this kind, that he challenged Dr. Ely. The latter gentleman proposed a newspaper discussion; whereupon Mr. Thomas, though he agreed to it, said— "I am sorry you decline accepting either of the proposals contained in the letter of December 14. I am sorry, because I am confident that a public disputation, in the manner proposed, would excite little partisan feeling, were you one of the opponent preachers and myself the other. And more attention would thus be directed to the disputed question than we can reasonably expect to excite by a written controversy.' (See Discussion, p. 17). I agree with Mr. Thomas, and, therefore, cannot allow Mr. P. to change his challenge from an oral debate to a newspaper discussion.

If the Universalists still desire a thorough discussion of the merits of their faith, as they have so constantly professed, they can find a man who will relieve Mr. P. from his undesi rable situation by taking his place. If they do not, I certainly have no desire to press them into it. Respectfully,

N. L. RICE.

P. S. Mr. Editor-I wrote the above immediately on receiving Mr. Pingree's last; but having once declined his new proposition for a newspaper discussion, I thought it unnecessary further to reply. On Saturday, however, I received the "Christian Warrior," of Jan. 25, in which I found in an editorial article headed "The Challenge," the following:

er.

"Dr. Rice has shown more courage than his friend PlumHe has expressed a willingness to discuss the question of endless misery with an efficient advocate of Universalism, in Cincinnati, Ohio. There is no doubt but that he will soon be accommodated with a competent man."

On receiving this paper, I determined to send you my reply to Mr. Pingree, and to say, that I shall wait patiently for the "efficient advocate," hoping, however, if such an one is to be forthcoming, I may hear from him at an early day.

Respectfully,

N. L. RICE.

February 3, 1845.

Mr. Pingree to Mr. Rice.

Louisville, Feb. 7, 1845.

MR. N. L. RICE:

Dear Sir-Your letter of the 3d inst. calls for a few words of reply. Two or three points only require to be noticed; for I am not anxious to multiply words with you on the subject; especially as your course in the matter so distinctly evinces a determination" to terminate the affair," without a discussion.

I invited you to a discussion of Universalism and Partialism, in Louisville. This proposal was made to you in such a manner-suggested by your challenge to the Romish clergy, that you could not consistently decline it, directly; you therefore seemed to accept, but made such "conditions" and terms as you could hardly expect would be acceded to. One was, that the Universalists should express their confidence in me as the advocate of their Faith.

Now, sir, you will permit me to say, that in time past, we have often yielded to conditions offered by our opponents, in their arrogant assumptions of superiority, rather than lose the opportunity of reaching the Partialists, by means of a discussion. We have done this long enough. It is now no longer necessary. For one, I will not submit to it-I must be treated with on terms of equality, or on none.

I invited you to a discussion, on my own responsibility; and thus would I meet you, or not at all. In noticing your first reply, I did not speak of this "condition," particularly;

because I imagined you might not insist upon it, in view of my other proposal, and the manner of it. I was willing to overlook the "virtual insult," for the sake of a discussion. So am I now; but will not yield to the assumption. But insisting upon this after what I have said-after being told that I would not submit to such forms, makes the fact now most palpable, that you wish to terminate the affair."

True, you give the Universalists an opportunity of putting forth another man, to relieve me from the "undesirable situation:" but you must have been most confidently assured in your own mind, that, under the circumstances, nothing of the kind would be done. In reference to this whole matter, permit me to say, that I should not consider it "degrading or humiliating," for Universalists to express any confidence they might have in me; but it would be both, sir, for them or me to yield to your demand for it. As for the "injury " that may accrue to me, from not having this "expression of confidence," I see nothing terrifying in the idea; besides, the risk of that is mine, not yours.

I trust my position is distinctly understood and appreciated by yourself and our readers. I am willing to endure the language of your affected superiority; but not willing to yield to its arrogant demands. Your position now seems to be-insisting on a condition that you know will not be complied with on my part, or the substitution of another person, obliged also to submit to the same humiliating terms, with additional aggravating circumstances; " or no discussion."

One word more though now hardly necessary—in relation to the "place and mode" of the proposed discussion. You err in saying that I "made the place (Louisville,) a sine qua non," and "absolutely declined meeting you in Cincinnati." I did neither. I proposed Louisville, and preferred declining Cincinnati, in connection with your proposed mode of publishing the discussion, for reasons then and since given. I then made another proposal, that I supposed would meet your wishes in the most important particulars; but this offer you also reject. Having expressed my preference for the controversy to be carried on thus, rather than its publication by the aid of reporters, and you having declined that way of conducting it, I had finally concluded to accede to your proposal of Cincinnati as the place-however difficult it might be, under the circumstances; that is, in case you did not persist in your demand for an indorsement;-but your last letter virtually "terminates the affair," on your part, by its clear expression

of your obstinacy in that respect. I was only induced to waive the reasons above referred to, for the sake of probably reaching the minds of so many Partialists, by the aid of one who now stands so high among them as a theological debater. Respectfully, E. M. PINGree.

I have published the correspondence in this form, because the editor of the Star, after retaining my last letter to Mr. P. two weeks, and after having sent it to Mr. P. that he might reply to it, actually refused to publish it, and yet published Mr. Pingree's answer to it! I have had some considerable acquaintance with editorial labors, and with discussions, oral and written; and I have known editors to be guilty of acts of injustice, and even of meanness; but the editor of the "Star" deserves the credit of having made a lower stoop than any editor with whom I am acquainted.

Mr. Pingree, the associate editor, published in the Star his challenge to me, and called for a reply through the same channel. As he opened the correspondence of his own accord, I had the right to close it. But although his letter of Jan. 9th calls for a reply, the editor refuses to publish it-giving his brother Pingree the opportunity to open and close the correspondence.

This is not all. He sends my letter to Mr. Pingree, that he may reply to it; and, whilst refusing to let his readers see my letter, actually publishes Mr. P.'s reply!! The reader will wonder how Mr. Gurley attempts to justify his conduct. Here is his language:

"The following letter was received from Br. Pingree a short time before the editorial form was made up, and we give it to our readers without Mr. Rice's letter, to which the first part of it alludes, for the reason that we have not room for said letter, and also the fact, that it is little more than a repetition of what has before appeared in his communications. We cannot afford to fill up our columns with matter from Mr. Rice which makes no progress whatever towards a discussion."

His first reason is, that he has not room for said letter. And how has it happened, that, just at this point, his room has become so scarce? He had room enough for Mr. P.'s challenge-and even room enough for his reply

to a suppressed letter! The truth is, there was room enough in the paper-but Mr. P. and Universalism were in a narrow place! He aimed to protect his brother and his cause.

The second reason is-" that it is little more than a repetition of what has before appeared in his communications." If Mr. G. believed this statement to be true, why did he send it to Mr. P., and then publish his reply? Had he not replied to my previous communications? The letter was so nearly a repetition, that it was unnecessary to publish it; and yet it was so far from being a repetition, that Mr. P. says, it calls for a reply, and Mr. G. thinks it well to publish that reply!

But if the reader desires to see for himself the evidence of Mr. Gurley's veracity, let him read my previous communication, together with the last; and he will be compelled to see that he has deliberately stated what is palpably untrue. This, I am aware is a severe charge against a professed preacher of the Gospel; but the evidence is all before the reader. Let him judge. He will find in my last, a quotation from Mr. A. C. Thomas, and another from the "Christian Warrior," which the editor did not desire his readers to see. The editor of the "Warrior" seems not to have discovered the insult offered Mr. P.; and no wonder, for he did not see it himself, until NECESSITY, "the mother of invention," discovered it to him. But the editor of the Warrior, doubtless, supposing his brethren in Cincinnati more courageous than they are, expresses the utmost confidence that an able advocate of Universalism will be forthcoming! The truth is, my letter was suppressed, not because it was a repetition, but because it was NOT, and because it contained things which Mr. P. could answer much better if they were not seen. Chivalrous gentlemen these cham pions of Universalism!

I am truly glad that I declined the newspaper discus sion. A gentleman capable of conduct such as is her exhibited, could not be trusted, however solemn his prom ises, to deal fairly and honestly.