I invited you to an oral discussion, to be held in Louisville. You have declined acceptance, for reasons which you pronounce "obvious," and I prefer declining your invitation to Cincinnati, for reasons which you will please consider equally obvious; and its publication in the manner you propose from the fact that I now have a discussion nearly ready for the press, on the same subject, lately held with the REV. JOHN N. WALLER. Thus far, therefore, we are even.

I now propose a sort of compromise, which may be the means of meeting some of the conditions named in your letter, making the discussion more "thorough" and satisfactory, and more extensively read. I invite you to a written correspondence on the questions noted in my first communication. The editor of the "Star" has freely tendered me the use of his columns as the medium of my letters, which you may consider a sufficient evidence of my standing in the Universalist denomination. All I now ask on your part, is, that you obtain the use of the columns of a Presbyterian paper with one third the circulation of the "Star," about 3,500 copieswhich you can readily do, if your friends have the same confidence in you that mine have in me; each paper to publish both sides. When the discussion is ended, the letters may be rendered permanent by publication in book form, if desirable.

Owing to my unintentional delay in answering your letter, I shall send you this to-day-so that it, and your reply, if received in season-say next Monday noon-may be published together in next week's "Star." Not presuming that you can ascertain, so soon, whether you will be able to obtain the use of a Presbyterian paper for the discussion, I only respectfully ask an early expression of your willingness or unwillingness to accept the present proposal, in case of succeeding in this respect. Respectfully yours, E. M. PINGREE.

Mr. Rice to Mr. Pingree.

MR. E. M. PINGREE:

Cincinnati, Jun. 4, 1845.

Dear Sir-Your letter, in reply to mine, was received on yesterday afternoon. Your challenge was published on Nov. 30th. My reply was sent in time, as I supposed, for the next paper, but was not published till Dec. 14th. It is now three weeks since it appeared. Your letter does not explain the cause of your delay in replying, which, from the zeal inanifested in your challenge, was certainly unexpected.

The contents of your letter are by no means such as I had expected. You challenge me to a public discussion of the merits of Universalism, and this, from the fact that Doctors Plumer and Breckenridge were also challenged, I presume was a concerted matter. I did not decline, but agreed to accept your challenge on certain conditions. One was, that I should have some evidence that your brethren are willing to trust the defence of their views to you. This you do not pretend to consider unreasonable. The second was, that the debate should be in Cincinnati, not in Louisville. You will scarcely pretend that the challenging party has the exclusive right to determine the place where the discussion shall be held. Certainly I was not prepared to believe, that a chivalrous gentleman, like yourself, would first challenge me to a debate, and then positively insist on my meeting him in his own city. I preferred Cincinnati, chiefly because Universalism is much more prevalent here, and in Ohio, than in Kentucky. A discussion in this city, therefore, would excite more interest; and I should have the opportunity of addressing audiences, a small portion of which, at least, are inclined to Universalism. I can conceive of no reason why the Universalists, if they really desire a discussion, should decline having it in Cincinnati.

The only other condition was, that the debate should be published. This you decline, because you are about to pubÎish a debate on the same subject, with another individual; and yet you propose a written discussion, to be published twice-first in two newspapers, and then in a book!!! I cannot accept the new proposition. Newspaper discussions are generally tedious, and soon become uninteresting. Indeed I presume Mr. P. did not expect me to accept it. It was probably considered the best method of terminating the matter. In my reply, I stated that if the Universalists desired a discussion, they were at liberty to select a man in whom they have entire confidence. I did so, because they have long and constantly expressed the most earnest desire for public discussion, and have complained, as well as boasted, that their invitations and challenges were not accepted by ministers of a different faith. Mr. Abel C. Thomas, now of Cincinnati, stated, in a letter to Dr. Ely, of Philadelphia, "that the Universalists anxiously desired a thorough investigation of the merits of the doctrine they profess;" and complained "that it has been the general policy of the Partialists to avoid and discourage all direct discussion with the Universalists.

ters:

And the editor of the "Christian Warrior," a Universalist paper, in an article headed "Consistency of the Presbyterian Clergy," whilst condemning me in no very measured terms for not having accepted a challenge in that paper, which I never saw, thus discourses concerning Presbyterian minis"They have assailed from their pulpits, and through their newspapers, and by means of their tracts, and in numerous other ways, the Universalists and their doctrine. We have denied and disproved their assertions, through every medium at our command, and challenged them again and again to fair, open, manly, and candid discussion of our sentiments. But with very few exceptions, all such challenges have been unheeded." And, after noticing Mr. Pingree's challenge, he says-"We shall be anxious to hear from the worthy challenger of the Catholics, and learn by what means he will escape from the corner into which he is driven."

It was in view of complaints and boastings such as these, that I gave the Universalists an opportunity, if they did not choose to trust the defence of their views to Mr. Pingree, (who, I learn, is a young man,) to select one in whom they had the utmost confidence. Since they have now had a fair opportunity for a thorough discussion of the merits of Universalism an opportunity sought and obtained by their own ministers-I hope they will henceforth cease either to complain or to boast. Very respectfully, N. L. RICE.

MR. N. L. RICE:

Mr. Pingree to Mr. Rice.

Louisville, Jan. 9, 1845.

Dear Sir-I received your last letter through the columns of the "Star" of this week, and hasten to answer it; endeavoring to do so in the same manner and spirit as if it contained no sneers or insinuations about my wishing to "terminate the matter," &c. Permit me to most earnestly assure you, sir, that I do not wish to "terminate the matter;" and it will not be "terminated" without a discussion-unless by yourself.

I invited you to a discussion in Louisville: this was a part of the proposal itself. And I did not anticipate the substitution of another place, or its publication by stenographers; still, I have not "positively insisted" on your "meeting me in my own city." I preferred holding the discussion here, because, of course, I more especially desire the promotion of our Faith in this city and vicinity; and because there have

been many discussions held in Cincinnati and neighborhood. I thought one more necessary and called for here, than elsewhere. But I say no more of this condition of your accepting my proposal; for, although the place was as much a part of the challenge, as the questions to be discussed, yet I do not "claim the exclusive right to determine the place."

I will now-as I did not in my last letter-speak particularly of your requiring the Universalists to express their willingness "to trust the defence of their views to me." You say 1 "do not pretend to consider this unreasonable." Sir, I do consider it unreasonable and out of place; although I did not speak of it directly in my preceding reply. I presume I am as extensively, and for as long a time known as a disputant, (though a "young man,") as yourself, besides being associated several years with Rev. Mr. Gurley in the editorial department of the Star in the West." If you knew nothing of me, you might have easily declined any controversy with me, on account of my obscure position; and have so saved me the virtual insult of being required to be INDORSED, in order to meet you in debate. You could not imagine, Sir, that I would submit myself to any such humiliating terms; however much I might desire a discussion with you. I trust you will pardon this manner of speaking of myself, and I will pass to notice another matter for what I have said must suffice on this subject-on my part at least.

A few words now in relation to another point of difference between us-the publication of an oral discussion. You desired the discussion to be "permunent" and "thorough ;" and proposed that it be taken down by stenographers, and published. I did not wish to publish it in that manner, because I had been engaged in one, recently, on the same subject, with another person, now nearly ready for the press ; at least I did not wish to do it Now, for obvious reasons.

On this account, and at the same time to meet your desire for the discussion to be "permanent" and "thorough," I offered the compromise contained in my last letter-that the discussion he a written one, carried on through the columns of a Universalist and Presbyterian paper; and to be put in bookform afterwards, "if desirable,”- -a phrase you seem not to have noticed, in your attempt to make me appear inconsistent with myself. If you are really willing to discuss the merits of Universalism and Partialism, as I have no doubt you are; and desire its publication so as to reach and benefit the most persons, especially Universalists, (of whom you say there

are more in Cincinnati and Ohio, than here, as a reason why the discussion should be there,) why not accede to this proposal! You would thus reach ten times, perhaps twenty times as many Universalists through the "Star" alone, as by an oral discussion; and I only asked you to furnish another paper, so that I could be speaking to Presbyterians at the same time. I was willing it should be made into a book afterwards, "if desirable ;" because it could be done thus with much less trouble and expense than by stenographers, and because the close of a written correspondence would be so long after the publication of my discussion with Mr. Waller, that I should have no objection to have another book put forth, on the same subject; should it then be found expedient or desirable. Certainly, you did not imagine your remark, that newspaper discussions are generally tedious, and soon become uninteresting," to be an "obvious reason " for not accepting my last offer. I believe the contrary to be true; for 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.

66

I have now, Mr. Rice, presented more in detail, than I at first intended, the reasons for my preferring the discussion to take the form proposed in my last. I sincerely hope they may prove satisfactory to your mind; and that, after carefully reviewing the whole matter, you will readily yield your assent to an offer so nearly meeting your wishes in several respects. Before positively refusing it, I pray you to seriously reflect on the propriety of your neglecting so favorable an opportunity of speaking to several thousand persons, in relation to a doctrine that you believe is endangering their souls, and exposing them to endless and unutterable damnation. Hoping to hear from you, at your earliest convenience, I remain, with sentiments of respect,

Yours, &c., E. M. PINGREE.

Mr. Rice to Mr. Pingree.

MR. E. M. PINGREE:

Dear Sir-Your letter of the 9th in reply to mine, came to hand on yesterday. As I had declined your new proposition, I supposed our correspondence at an end. Your last seems designed as a defence of your course in relation to your challenge. It is not satisfactory-so it appears to me.

66

You say the place of holding the discussion (Louisville) was a part of the proposal itself." Yes, and you might,