Randolph County journal. [volume] (Winchester, Randolph County, Ind.) 1855-1862, 1859-12-22
For the Journal.
USIoN CRY. Ind, Dec. 1859.
Theological Discussion.
~. |


your permission. lay before your read.
er, the principal items oi the whole al
fair.
Many friends. and the people Of this
community generally. appear anxious
to know how these discussions were
gotten up. and to have the principal
arguments published. and as Ed. Me.
Connell utterly refused to have the
correspondence published as it is. we
feel called upon to publish the follow
Ing. facts and arguments.
On the first day of January. 1889.
Ed. Mcconnell addressed To Us a
short letter on the subject of Christian
Union. 1t was kindly written let
ter AMI we answered it in the same
kind manner. In n short time after
we received another letter from him.
filling about SIR pages, and containing
quite number of ltigated questions.
We answered him again. as fully as
possible. to keep in bounds of equal
space with him. Shortly after this
we received another letter from him.
filling about ten pages. altogether con
troversal. We then informed him
that we had neither time nor dispo>i-
tion to follow him in his unrestricted.
controversial course. Not long after
this we received from him q document
filling some tweiOe pages. and keeping
up the controversy as sharply as ever:
insnuating that it was easier to refuse
to follow him than To answer his ques-
tions. We then informed him that il
he desired to engage in public dis
cnssion with us. of the real issues be-
tween the parties. he could he accom-
modated; bat that we had"nei,her time
nor disposition to follow him in his
unrestricted course" That we would
not do So" That correspondence then
closed.
On the first day of June following.
he opened new correspondence with
us, and his first letter contained prop
ositions for discussion. This we re-
gar,led as a challenge or invitation to
discussion of the differences between
the two denominations. We then in
formed him that we were entirely will
ing to defend what we believe and
preach: and that we felt called upon to
DO so. but as lie had made an unpro-
voked attack upon us. his brethren
must indorse him as the defender of
their cause. We told him plainly
that we were willing to meet any man.
in all their ranks, in fair. honorable
discussion of the differences between
the parties, IN ,chose hands his brethren
would infrust their cause; bm they must
indorse their man. This seemed TO give
our friend great deal of trouble; but
the correspondence was continued I'M.
I'll the propositions and the places oi
holding tho discussions were agreed
upon: and our understanding was. that
both parties were 10 publish. Ac-
cordingly. wa sent for publication. his
first letter and our reply. But, be-
hold he sends us note obiccting TO
the correspondence heing published
We then informed him that as our
letters of correspondence were all writ
ten in reference to public discussion,
and as false rumOrs were then in cir
culation in reference to the manner in
which we had treated him. that it was
indeed a matter of importance to have
the correspondence made public Bnt.
no, that seemed too intolerable for him
to endure. But why did he oppose the
publication of the correspondenceg-
All. here lies the secret of the matter.
He knew full well that we had been
laboring for n "union" of the two de-
nominations. and that many OF his
brethren, indifferent portions of the
country, were being convinced of the
truth of our pleadings. And he knew
also, that he had made an unprov"ked
attack upon Us, and that when chal-
lenged TO all honorable discussion. we
kindly accepted the offer. provided his
brethren would intrust their cau.e in
his hands. Upon a mature reflection
of these facts. he was doubtless thrown
into confusion of mind and realizing
that his brethren were to be held re-
sponsible for the maintenance of their
cause, when brought to the ;est OF BIZ
bic investigation. he doubtless said
many things in his letters TO us which
he was unwilling for the public to see.
He frequently used unkind language.
and sometimes wonld commit himself
as in the following. We proposed
Greenville, Ohio-the place Of his res
idence-as the proper place for hold
ing the discussion. But no. he could
not endure the thought of having il
there. We then proposed Coleville-
on the roal between us-as the place.
That did not suit him. We then told him
that if he was afraid of the influence
at either of the above named places,
that the discussion could be held in
Union City. Ind. That we were not
afraid of the Influence at our place ol
residence. Union City. then," was
his response. This was an open con-
fession of the troubles which he had
brought npon himself. We cheerful.
ly accepted his proposal to discus.
with him at Union City. But we in
formed him that as he had wsged war
by making an unprovokei attack up
on us. he must discuss the same prop
ositions with us in Greenville. or to
use his own inelcgant language, "he
must switch OF" This shows why
the discussions were held in both pla-
ces. And these are some Of the rea-
} sons. in our Judgment. why he refnse.i
to have the correspondents published