The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-01-11

the aggressive attitude which You assumed at the
table when you told your audience that you would be
willing the orator Of the day and prove that
his Church at Geneva was no Church. because there
cannot be a church without Bishop"
This is your proposition. mean to hold you to this
and call upon you to commence the discussion by
defining your terms. In answering your arguments.
shall have the opportunity desire, TO prove that this
dogma pregnant with nnumerable evils, theological
social and civil, and that it is unscriptural, &c &c
beg from You three definitions which are indspensa
| bic TO right understanding of your proposition
l.-What is the Church
2-What is the catholicity of the Church
3.-What is Bishop
With apology for OBTAINING you and our readers
long, believe me- very respectfully, n,,,,,s
Your obodient servant, GEORGE POTTS
p s-Your reply ofast evening to my note of the 4th
is open to some criticism but withhold it, because do
wish that public attention should be fagued with the
discussion of collateral questions send the preceding
letter to the journal which has been politely offered for
use; promising that far possible, viii not
respass upon the courtesy Of the editors by heightened
articles
Rev. DIR. Wainwright to Rev. DIR. Potts.
REV. AND DEAR SIR: had really supposed that after
all the preminarics definitely settled and that hay
ing challenged the controversy and pledged your
self to the proof of affirmative proposition you would
of course open the discussion What was my astonish
mon then to discover from your letter. which appeared
Saturday that important point still undecided
in your Mid and that you have not yet concluded
which side the discussion You will assume
begin now to understand what you mean by that
freedom" which you consider OF the advantages OF
oral debate One of its privileges to be the ber
therefore, congratulate self that not tempted to
concede than did to the form in which dspu
taton should be conducted and allow my adversary to
draw into arena where this dangerous propensity
would be snder less control than mean it shall be-
that are both tied down to our deliberate recorded
language II after the interchange OF several letters con-
siderately wrien-or you say 81 trust am not in the
habit of using words at random"our respective positions
not defined do not know how many hours worth OF
heterogeneous words would have beon consumed before
fairly got to work in good logical styleii we ever
| did.
In your first letter You throw ont to n contingent
challenge uttered certain sentiment and then
you distinctly enunciae an affirmative proposition and
readiness II. Let recall to
your own words go will hold myself ready TO prove
that this proposition viz that there cannot be Church
without Bishop is pregnant with innumerable evil con
sequences theological social and civ and that is
scrptural uncharitable schsmatca and ant'repubcan
in its character" In second letter confess that
your that Of the challenger by acknowledging
that have precluded yourself from any right to insist
my privilege the challenged party This is your laa
guage-"l have, however, precludcd myself from any
right to insist upon this and indeed any other form, but
the object of this note is to request to meet half
way" &c. And now in your letter OF Saturday you
cooly round and tell me, in effect that am the chal
lenger and call upon me TO commence the discussion
And not only so, but with singular modesy and very
charitable regard for my ncapacy to conduct my own
side of the question you suggest to the very mode in
which am TO begin, and select for the words which
| it will be necessary for me to define.
This is sufficiently extraordinary what is more
markabe still and thing suspect unheard OF before in
any scholastic dsputaon the very words you ask me to
defse constituent terms in your affirmative pro-
prove it, and then in the very outset ask of your opro
nen to define the terms which govern its meaning can
hardly believe that YOU of tho position in hch
You have placed yourself You that with unaffected
rity il pains you find me in certain position" On
which by the way do lot find myself and in which,
think, shall convince the community, not you, that
no) and still more, il pains you TO be the instrument
of exposing il to public view" Now, with sincerity at
eas unaffected must say that it gives me no pain at
all to expose your logical naccuracy You have cont1o
verted proposition of mine and you desirc TO have the
opportunity prove that this dogma is pregnant with in
evils theological social and civil snd that is
unscriptura" &cand in the very same breaih you ask
for three definitions, (Which Indispensable to right
| understanding Of my proposition"
Now these definitions Indispensable to the under
standing Of my proposition and you have not yet obtain
ed them You certainly do not understand IT. And thus
you have undertaken to prove that proposition which
you confess you do not understand sis pregnant with in
Vulnerable evils, You may select either horn OF the
| dilemma, as you please. II you did understand my
proposition 1T sworse than riing to call upon me nov to
tell you what means you ana not UNDERSTAND II " MAJ
right had you pledge yourself to prove i to be
tura ,unchartablc schismatical and anrepublicanf-
Besides theologian you ought to know the meaning
ola maxim which has been cxtant in ecclesiastical
language for centuries upon and within the last
hundred years thoroughly debated by the abest the
ologans .
| You advert again to my speech at the New England
dinner Pesumng that you have not yet taken the pains
TO examine an report it, little it deserves
be obruded before the public append in order tina,
you may have no farther cause for misrepresenng It's
| bearings.
| guage Do say that throw down the gauntlet or
wish or intend to throw down No but that thrown
/ l
down, and have taken 1t up You bear on your shield
the motto propounded three centuries ago-Ecclesia
mine the same which the banner of the Universal
Church, without dispute challenge for 1000 years, and
which, though since challenged is yet borne without wa
vcrng by far the greater portion OF Christendom Nulla
Ecclesia sine Episcopo--N0 Church without Bishop
These notices have respectively borne and glored in
since we became teachers of the Gospel and might
have continued bear them peacefully, each in his
separate theological walk but you have gone out OF
your way to challenge mine have accepted the oheI
Of, from nj of
polemical strife but have accepted it, And now when
the lances should be ready in the rest you stop and wish
to deprive of the privileges OF the dehcd ls this
knghtly or in the Language Of polished life II cour
eous or in the better language Of religion IL KIND
Charity sutereth long and kind, is not easily provoked
As to the unchurching dogma" and the consequences
you so literally draw from it, shall be ready to meet
this point and show how you mistake NJ 70 the opinions
and feeling of Churchmon, when you come to sustain
that division of your proposition unchnritobe"
Let distinctly understand and let the public I'M
derstand what respective positions. Upon leav
ing my study morning for the discharge OF my pno
chial duties am informed in the street to my great sur
prise that letter has been addressed to in public
print by the Rev Dr. Potts II is put into my hand give
II hasty pcrusa and in full reliance upon his gentle
manly character and under the influence Of the recoec
ton OF the very pleasant though inrequent intercourse
have had with him, reply to 1t as being courteous
d ha ana esra now
openly avowed in the letter to which am replying
Ito expose to public view in an iunenviahs pos'
ton" II contains however, challenge TO pubic DIS.
cusson in correctly reported as having ayowec
mybecf in certain abstract proposition lacknowiedgc
the sccurac yof the reports far as that proposition con
ccrncd The preliminaes rs to place and iotm OF ue
bate are discussed and settled And Dr. Potts wishes
change his ground and mako me the challenger ana OF
the originator Of most unpeasent ana uhcu'u
for controversy. tn,
What you say sir about the Tabernacle scene, WIN
view of show ing that sufficient provocatior WIS gwen
for making he assertion and that therefore NE
agcressor (howevcr IL may be adapted for your pupo'e
or popular eirect) Is entirely irrelevant
Suppose il be perciscy as you PM H. what then
4, was not ,pon the condition that the "aggressor"
in making the assertion but solely upon the condition
that made it, that you pledged yourself to prove un.