The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-01-12
From the Commercial Advertiser.]
Rev. DIR Potts TO Rev DIR. wainwright.

From the Commercial AdvertiserJ
Rev. DIR Potts to Rev. DIR. Wainwright.
REy. AND DEAR SIa-peicre have concluded this let
ter in yours OF the sth instant, readers will
have discovered that il not purpose to reard the dis
eus0n Of your proposition ~ Insisting upon the merely
mence the discussion. will commence it but in doing
So mean to hold you strictly to The proposition you have
thrown Defiance and to Keep yourself and our
readers in mind that mine is an attitude of selfdeience
against assault, and an unprovoked assault upon the
character and rights OF the great mass OF our Christian
In my last think it shown conclusively that this
was the You to have suspicion that the close
my letter which indeed contained the g of the matter
was well adapted for my purpose popular effect You
profess not indeed to its relevancy but think others
have failed perceive that statement of the ccum
stances convcts You making gratntous attack upon all
who do not think that Preates only open the gates OF
the Christian Church "My purpose" admit; was 'poPu
lar effect" and feel compmened by your thinking that
my argument has achieved my purpose. The reason OF
its fitness for popular effects is not to be found in any
special skill upon my part in stating the facts but in the
nature ofthe facts themselves In simple matter OF fact
the hest judge the common sense of common people.
perceive that you do not yourself call question the force
OF my argument that AS there conessedy nothing in
Mr. Choates language and nothing in the applause oil the
audience which invaded yon ecclesiastical standing SO
you not called upon especially upon that OCCASION
to attack the ecclesiastical standing OF the general com
muny of Christians
You will understand me, however do not think that
the nappropriacness OF time and place the worst ica
ture in this Of ecclesiastical prescription It is the
utter unreasonabeness and the unreeved moral deiorm
y OF the nnchurchng dogma which IN my view, consti
ute its offensive character. admire boldness, but not in
a bad cause and hold that to be, pima tacie bad
cause which, either in the pulpit OF OF your churhes
the dinner table of the Astor House. prompts any
thus to assail tho Church standing including the
faith hopes and rights of his fellow Christians When
you set UP claim not to superiority but to monopoly
of the privileges belonging to the house of Godwhen
set up this claim in behalf of mere fraction molecne,
OF the Protestant communityand when such conicsedly
stupendous consequences necessarily involved in the
cannot escape the most unobservant reader that
to make out such claim, its advocates ought to be pre-
pared with proof little short ofmathmaca demonstration
And yet as shall hereafter more fully show, the extra
of the claim is eqpasd only BY The
ter OF many of the arguments which employed to
tain it, This aggravates the unproked assault you have
chosen to make and if in the OF my future remarks
shall speak of the high Church dogma it deserves
shall hold myself absoved from blame aggressor
Before proceed to do for you, what you decline to do
for yourself. C. define the terms of PROPOSE
ton so that the readermay understand them, Qor shall
show you that myself understand pretty well the
given in your last letter, which call for criticism
The first that in which you giving an account of
the origin Of tins discussion for the purpose OF Letting
the public understand what respective POSITIONS
II runs thus-upon leaving my study one morning. for
the discharge Of my psroehal duties am informed in
dressed to me in public print by the Rev. Dr. Potts 1t
put into my hand SC &c" This history wants the title
page, and few of the first leaves Win it not be better
to supply the hiatus and begin at the begnningl would
be more complete If il commenced by recording the po-
the speech o: the New England orator; the applause
which accompanied him throughout and which offended
you deeply when he gave sort of ecclesiastical gene
buke the orator and the audience by declaring your
belief not that you had better genealogy, but that
their geneaogy was absolutely spurious; your Ia
king OCCASION two three hours after (when might be
supposed that you had had time for deberation) to
that the orator of the day should challenge YOU
would prove that OF 'he clergy of New England who
had just been toasted there Justly entitled
the name except the santed Cheverus and the meek
Prclate OF your Church, with their several subor
dnates Of Papst and Protestant priesthood that this
attack upon the serespect and scnsbes Of nineteen
wentieths ifnot more, of your feowcitizensIa am al
/ aralI fpl fhrtctIa -.Ing I'D
throughout the land and hn that after all this had CONF
TO and you had perhaps congratulated yourself that
you had chastised Yankee impertinence, then-"upor
leaving your study morning. sc. SC. sc Is not tn
record unfair until these few little items preixed t
be not the tAue genesis Of the present discussion
TIL SECOND piece Of history, which is open to AM mad
version severe than can administer, is that which
informs us of the comparative antiquity and univers Lit,
| of the motto which "you bear upon your shield' NJ
Church pithou Prsiae" At the very unqualified CLAIM
you make in respect to this motto, would express
cond, surprise, asfonishent, sc. Sc, not tire
with that common practice of dsputants very eicien
thing in rhetoric but useless in logic Whatever m.
wonder may be- will not utter II. Besides which, ate
having seen how familiarity with extravagant statement
often oblteraes the intellectual sensbilities just
long familiarity with offensive odor blunts the
smell, have no longer right to feel surprise at tn
| occurrence of such phenomenon; right to wonde
| that one, who had brought his mind to BRAY
| the consequ noes Of the adoption OF the unchurch
| ing dogma, should first of all find it easy to al
| ser in promiscuous company that frelacy wa
of the very Of the Church OF God, an
then subsequently, that this doctrine borne II
banner of the universal Church. pitou challenge dis
Puie, 1000 years" Now this is wonderful statement
might show that far is this from being true, tn
doctrine of menopolyas shall call for the sake
brevity, and to distinguish it from true caholicty-i
not Counenanced by the voice of antiquity that Their
were writerIwho distinctly denied it, and whole church
es the Waldensinn for instance. which always refused
even to admit the element of Prelacy into their consu
ton and all this long before the glorious reformation
Thss unquesonable but that the reader may not rel.
upon the assertion of who, he may suppose. use
| words at random will quote ON DISTINGUISHED wit
| single sentence | will the authority of tn
learned Prelae stllngneet against that Of Dr. Wair
| wright. These are his words " do despair of fndin
any one single testimony in all antiquity, which dot
in plain terms assert epscopacy settled by tn
practice of the primitive Church. in ages following tn
Apostles, 10 be- Of unaerable dirne right So much 70
the unchallenged, undispued" antiquity and universal
| ty OF your motto.
But leaving these things for future consideration Pre-
coed to the most alarming part of your last communca
toni mean that in which warned In capital letters
Of horned dilemma which is goring II may be OF
tusenes in me- but confess do not see these rcmendou
| horns.
My modest call for your own definition of the term
Of proposition which you volunteered to maintain AM
which Is the basis oil this dscusson was dictated by thu
wish 10 put readers in possession of meaning IL
your own words. AS to myself had shrewd notion o
their meaning The proposition capable of tDo
but from the very circumstances in which you announc
ed it, myself al no loss to your real meaning
have heretofore imagined that no discussion could b
carried without mutual understanding to the
in which the parties mean the the principal terms ant
phrases How long II since this apparently ndispensa
bic preliminary has been exp1ngcd from the laws oil de
BATE
Why you should manifest reluctance ITO commence
the discussion by defining your terms" which Is all ask
ed of you, IL than will undertake to explain. Bu
as you decline doing this and must contrive som,
way OF coming to Misunderstanding to the true statu
qesiionis and the which readers to fix to
its terms, propose TO waive this right and to dc
your work for YOU rather than TO waste time in idle
war OF words In doing this shall at the same time state
wherein your definitions and mine differ in meaning
First What is the meaning of tie word CHURcH il,
your proposition am quite willing to take the defni
ton Of your articles which is follows -: The vi
sible Church OF Christ is congregation ofaithi men, in
which the pure word Of God IN preached and the
mens DO duly mnistercd according to Chris ordinance
in all things tibet Of necessity requisite TO the same"
Art H. This, however does not fully express the high.
Church claims, nesmuch does not declare, (as II
ought If the doctrine Of monopoly ruc) that there
cannot be congregation OF faithful men, ond that the true
word OF God cannot be prcoched the sncrnmenis duly
administered SC except under the regimen oPreates
This the trainers Of your articles studously avoided say
ing, for II is well known that the English Reformcrs fra
crnized with The Reformed Churches Of The continent Of
Europe Since the time OF Laud however, the no Pre-.
late no Church dogma has been held by increasing
number Of communion, with more less