New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-01-08
ruERCii CONTROVERSY.
1v,in,yricn. and D.. Potts.
no Bishop, No Churc H.

lo,,er to Dr. WAINWRIGHT, through the
ofthc Commercial Advertiser, lnqumng
nl the remarks ascflbed 10 him upon The
| a.;o, Of responding to a sentiment at the late
' If the New England Society were cor
,,r ,eno,,ed." The remarks alluded 10 were
w. med in the following paragraph which ap-
,s,sd in the newspaper reports Of the proceed
/ US OF the dinner
Hen the orator Of the day, Nh Choatc,l
nd you of somc ,oho in the days Of HIlliana and
,r,,y AN evident mistake Of the reporter Jyund
. ;, calum, and discoocred Goeermen eoithoat
KING, and Church wishout q Bi&hoP
Cheers Noe, Sir, notwithstanding tins
,,,,ag burst Of appreciation TO tic sentiment,
here this proper arena, should coen TIE orotor
II the day throw dozen his gauntlet, 1 a0ongd
IKE il 40 and sqy-" THERE CANNOT Pc a
urgcH WITHOUT A Blsnor.''
70 this DR.. Wainwright replied that the =" sen
-mcnt he uttered was accurately reported and
hat he was ready on every suitable occasion TO
VOW It and maintain it.
The Doctor objected to an oral discussion bat
yrees to reply to all DR.. Pottss communications
rough the Commercial, with the express un-
qs,andng that the Editors will abstain from all
olnments themselves during the progress of the
controversy, and will not allow the introduction
# any communications touching the question;
10 that the attention Of neither may be taken up
" warding off side-blows from bystandcrs.-
ghcrcupon DR.. Potts, through the columns of
la paper opens the Discussion as follows:
Rev. DR.. Potts to Rer. DR.. Wainwright.
January ., 1911.
Rev. AND DEAR S1R--I have now before me
Two communications from your pen, onc dated
he Goth ult, the other JAM. In the first, YOU
,yprcss your thanks for "thc courteous terms"
n which nv letter of the 9th ult. was "drawn
p'-and admit that Gas TO The important point,
nd the one which alone called forth my letter,
nc sentiment you uttered (fherc c"nnot be q
'huch w;thout a Bishop is accurately report
Il" farther declaring your readiness . 10 avow
gand 10 maintain 1t upon every suitable occa-
SION, and concluding with some complimentary
remarks, which | will do my best to merit The
alter communication, OF this date, reached ne
ate this evening, and now propose 10 give ii as
,pompt an acknowledgement as my pressing ayo-
atoms will permit.
have attentivcIy and respectfully read it oft
ner than once, and with an honest desire to give
he utmost force to the self. Justification which is
IS principal object | arn not surprised, and |
,ii add, not offended, at the somewhat marked
mango in The tone of your last letter inierring
Tom 1t, however, that, upon farther reflection,
ou had come to the conclusion that your pre-
aous commentator my courtesy" had been
Nenature. | say this did not surprise me- be-
auSe felt very sure, from the beginning, that II
he report of your remarks at the New England
rStlvo should prove to be correct, you would
peedliy find yourself exposed 10 no small amount
anlmadversion, OH various accounts, and hence
OuId naturally cntcrtaln some displeasuie
Dward any one who might call pubic attention
your unenviabie position. can say with un-
tiected sincerity that 1t palns me to lind YOU IN
MS poston and still more 1t pans me to be the
OF exposing 1t to the public view.
am perhaps indulging a vain hope when |
cg YOU to believe tins tor you have already ln!-
lied, ii not expressed, Il doubt OF the sincerity
my unwillingness to believe" that your DIN
er remarks had been correctly reported. trust
am not in the habit OF using worcS at random.
felt all that described an HnUi5ii"gneS$ to be-
ere 1t. confess that ny doubts were not very
tnsune, but they were real, because, ttfSt, am
ways shocked when meet with any avowal
the unchurchlng dogma; Sec0ad!y, because
lie manifest incongruty, to call It by 40 harsher
anne, between The dogma and the occasion III
lined me to believe i; possible that you had ac-
it with some unrcported qualifying
lrdSe, which had soitened its aggressive aspect;
nd thirdly, because | deemed II respectful and
nartable 10 suppose, farther, that you might be
ne OF the number OF prclates who hold the more
'cran, views OF The subject. That there are
!ch Il would TO God there were not so few
mong your clergy is evident from your own
spresSion, that the great b0dY OF The Catholic
hurch" have maintained the principle . you
hrmed.
Why should be suspected Of dlsingenuousness
expressing hope that you were in the KIND
,artod minority, embracing many able mlnls-
rs and worthy members OF your communion,
no cannot 90 the length of delivering over the
iSi majority Of Protestant Chrstendom to " inc
ncovenanIed imcrcics' of God, which arc no
ercies at all? beg your pardon il | have Of
ndcdby supposing that upon the point OF no
ishop, no Church." you possibly might accord
uh CFanmcr, Wright, Usher, StiiIIngtlcct,
'hately and others, who seem to have had some
'wes OF compassion-rathcr than with Laud
nd Dodwell, and Oxford Tractarians, who
fought no more of cutting off the heads of Chris
an Churches than If they had been so many
llsiles
Before proceed to set the main issue in its
ne light, wish to make a remark or two upon
collateral point, yet one which affects the qucs-
oa-who is the aggressor in this case You
'em to lay considerable stress upon the clrcam.
ance that there were at least two clergymen .
resent at the New England dinner, who saw
o,hing worthy of animadverslon in your re-
larks; can only say that if they cared 50 1T
c for their own denomination as TO be content
nat il should ,bc unchurched so publicly ana SO
they differ materially from TWO
thp- ..1S prpSpnt bIt VINO