New-York daily tribune., 1844-02-07
From the Commercial .aduertiser.

Rev and Dear Sir Il am quite as well aware
as YOU can be how much of my last letter is
strictly pertinent to the question now between us,
whether Episcopacy is exclusively the Divine
constitution of the Church, but do not admit
that anv of it is irrelevant to the mode In which
YOU have from the commencement conducted the
discussion. This is point, however, which
am perfectly content to submit to the decision OF
our readers-simply begging them to remember
that | am the respondent in this debate, and
therefore in a measure compelled to await your
movements, and to follow the course of argument
you may adopt.
You have spoken more than once of my seek
ing to avert the dreaded issue," and have called
upon me, with what courtesy of tone and manner
I will leave others to Judge, to g come to it," to
"come to it boldly" and to "prove" this and
that. Now, Sir, permit me to say that you en-
tirely forget yourself, and lose sight of your true
position, when you use thislanguage.
You talk of bringing me to the point. So far
from seeking to evade the point, my sole object
has been to bring you to it. Not until you had
put forth your FIFTH letter did succeed in bring
ing you to advance one single step toward estab-
fishing the proposition you undertook to demon
strate namely, that the doctrine of the necessity
of Episcopacy to the constitution of the Church
of Christ is unscTiptural &c. &c.
You then advanced what you called your FIRST
ARGUMENT, in form as follows:
81. Because there is no warrant from the Word of
God for making any particular external form of
polity condition." &c.
Now obviously this allegation contains no ar
.gumsent, unless the matter alleged be true. You
boldly affirm that it is true. pray you to con.
slider that your affirmation does not necessarily
make it true. | have denied your allegation,-I
still deny it. 1t belongs to you, therefore, to
prove it. This you have not done, nor have you
advanced single step toward doing it. So far,
then, as concerns the question between us, y0ur
first argument" IS as get no argument at all;
1t is a solitary, unsupported assertion Of yours,
sohich / hape denied.
You indeed called upon me to dsprove your
assertion, and although was not under any OBJ
legation to dsprove what you were first bound to
prope, did, as | maintain, fully and fairly dis
prove it out Of your own standards, and by the
judicial action of your own General Assembly,
supported by the authority of Scripture.
You still repeat this same call. am sorry to
be obliged to remind you again how illogical, not
TO say absurd, this demand of yours will be, even
if had done nothing more than simply deny
your assertion. But it is due to my own charac-
ter, both for moral fairness and logical accuracy,
TO vindicate myself against your reiterated charges
of not coming to the point dreading the ISSUE
&c. wish our readers, therefore, to bear with
me while in few words endeavor, for the last
time, to Justify myself for the course of argument
I have taken.
l. In the first place, then, beg them to re.
member that you advanced an assertion and
called upon me to DIsrRoyE it. Surely, sir, you
cannot be SO ignorant of the rules of fair discus
SION as to suppose that | was logically bound to
do any thing more, the first instance than DEM
your assertion. The burden of proof {notwith
standing your continual declaration to the contra
ry) rested with you.
q But, secondly, 1t may be thought, perhaps,
that although, according to the strict rules of de-
bate, the burden Of proof rested upon you yet, In
asmuch as your allegation was negattoe one, 1t
was hardly consistent with my professed anxiety
to come to the main issue for me to stand upon
my rghts as respondent, and insist on your pro.
wing your negative allegation; but that ii did
not admit 1t, ought In fairness to waive the tech
nicai right and proceed to disprove.
frankly admit that there are cases in which I
should feel disposed to pursue this course. But
this is far from beng such case And why
Simply because the negative allegation which You
call your first argument is tantamount to a
yetitio principii, mere begging of the very point
IN question; for if there be no warrant from the
Word of God for making any particular form Of
polity condition." then, Of course, exclusive
Episcopaeyts unscriptural; but this latter is the
very point you undertook to demonstrate. You
might as well, therefore, not lave advanced your
+" first argument" at all, but have persisted in the
course first adopted and SO long continued, but
which | understood you in your fifth letter to
abandon, namely, that of calling upon me to DIS
PROVE the main proposition which you undertook
70 PROVE.
II, therefore, was justified in declining to dis
prove this main proposition until you had offered
your proofs to sustain 1t, should have been
equally justified in declining to notice the allega-
ton which you call your " first argument" any
otherwise than by simple denial Of it, since it is