Hannibal journal. (Hannibal, Mo.) 1852-1853, 1852-07-15


Mt. EDIroR Tile following correspondence
is submitted Tor publication Ii, sods paper. Isub
Join as is my right my rcspOnsvto Mr.. Srong's
lhird letter, but wisl, the reOaer 20 understand
that sill have no newspaper eontroyerscy'with
Mr. Strong: W. ~
SO I0 HlssibAL, June rs, 1852.
REV. W. M. RUsn-
Dear Sir; am, authorized by the
Rev. Il. Manford Universalist, d St. Louis, to
challenge youto. meet him in some suitable place
in this city, between the twentieth OF July, and
the first OF August in public debate, and discuss
the following propositions:
/. Do the Scriptures teach that The endless
destiny Of mankind is dependent on the charac-
ter they form in this life?> Manford will affirm
they do not. i........-.. r.t,e
Z. Do the Scriptures teach that the coming Of
Christ to Judge the wsfld is future? Manlord
will deny.
3. Do the Scriptures teach the final holiness
and Happiness Of all mankindg Manlord will
affirm.
a. Do the Scriptures teach Chat those who
die in disobedience to the Gospel will suffer
endless punishment? Manford will deny.
As the above propositions cover The principle
grounds in dispute between yourself and the
universalists, myself, together many other eiti-
zens and friends, would be much pleased to wit
ness and hear thorough scriptIiral investigar
tion Of these propositions, by both parties, as
they are Of vital importance to us all If you
accept the above challenge, / am authorized to
represent Mr.. Manford in arranging the prelim-
inaries necessary preparatory. to the debate
| Trusting and hoping that the above will meet
with favorable consideration upon your part,
we will await patiently an carly answer from
you which Is respectfully solicited. ,',..,...,.
Yours Respectfully, (.
+" o. c, STRONG. q
~5|' HAssIpAL, June 20, 1852.
Mn. o. G. STRoSG- f
.a'..t'' ~ Dear Sir i: / am in receipt Of your
note Of the 28th inst, in which YOU say you are
authorized by the Rev. E. Manford, Universa-
list, OF st. Louis, 10 challenge me to discuss
certain propositions which you detail. In reply
TO your very respectful note haye to say 4
/. That when in very unobtrusive manner
from my own pulpit, and to the congregation Of
which l have pastoral care, delivered serie.
Of discourses upon the doctrine Of future punish
menty / little expected TO stir up the great advo
cate aud defender Of modern Universalism in the
/ West, and call from him challenge for regu.
lar pitched battle IN religious controversy,
! 2. / am not man OF war; have never held
public religious discussion, nor have | mucl
confidence in the ultimate religious tendency OIL
such controversies; Mr. Manford is a veteran
in religious controversy, and It's to be presumed
is thoroughly sehooled in the tactics of debate
and prepared ingeniously 10 fake advantage o.
any deficiency in his competitor, in this respect
| 3. Waving any objection 10 meet Mr.. Man.
ford in debate from the last cons ideraton, have
to say Of the challenge, that it is extraordins.
/ ry one. Mr.. Manford fixes up to suit himself
the whole substance Of the debate time place
and all, and then, forsooth, / may, with yourself
agree upon the preliminariesl Is this speci.
men Of Mr.. Manford's tactics? If so, for once
he must fail. | like that fair dealing which
meets an opponent as an equal, and stipulate,
with him the subject, time, place, and 9TH
er prelninaries of the discussion. Were l L
challenge Mr.. Manford, ] certainly should leavi
il for him TO propose the time and place; hal
Mr.. NJ extended this courtesy to me, Shout
have proposed St. LOFTS as the place, and froi
the fifteenth to the twenty fifth Of August as tIr
time. Tshould have proposed st. Louis and t.
4 ken ii to MIR. MS own congregation, becaus
his anxiety for debate would Indicate that liz
cause needed it, which is not the case with mih
I in Hannibal. / would have proposed the TIM
gagements, that could not attend to it at 4;
earlier date. -. "i La
:. 4. Icannot consent to discuss the propositios
presented, because Of their tautology. Thre
out Of four, at least, present mainly the sal e
issue, and were 10 drive him from his positin
, in the first proposition, he might assume tc
same position in the third, and again in the fourth
propositions, SO that the discussion would e
without system, mere child'S play, throwig
} of dust into each others eyes. The main isse
between us is made up in the following prop
sition which is in nearly the same words as NJ.
Manford's third: aa
Dothe Scriptures teach that all mankind VII
be finally holy and happy? I will deny.
AS the challenged party | am thrown Jpn
the defensive, and where there is but one pro-
2 osition, the negative properly belongs to me-
, Mr.. Manfcrd can have debate upon the teps
above indicated, which l think perfectly fair.
o. You express for yourself and many otter
citizens desire 10 hear such a discussion, md
should be glad TO crafty you in this respect,
but there are as great, or perhaps greater nun
Der, who, from Mr.. Manford's course, are Of
; opinion that he is exceedingly anxious TO obhin
some notoriety in this city, to give to himsef
{ prominence here which will enable him TO 6s-
, seminate his peculiar doctrines, and believing
his doctrines to be destructive TO the soul, o.
men, they are unwilling that he should ENJOY
that prominence in the pulpit or upon the ALA
Of the Methodist Church. No such director
can be urged by Mr. rs congregation, for, a.
universalsts, they do not believe my doctrines
: destructive to the souls Of men.
You willplease inform me at an early pero,
whether or not MIR. Nj. will agree to the abov