New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-01-27
From the Commercial .4dcertise'.
There can be NO Church without Pre-
late.
SEVENTH LETTER TO DR.. WAINWRIGHT.


REV. AND DEAR SIR Were l disposed, |
might easily show that from the very commence
men, OF this discussion, my opponent has been
busily employed in endeavorng to shift the ground
of it. and to make an issue altogether different
from that which presents itself to every unbiased
mind as the true one. will not call the various
movements which he has MADE evas'se' a. oap,
I;ons or nnora c;ons, but will leave the reader 10
10 fnr b;,oself. after review of them At the
NoT. Enrlapd Dinner, under very extraordinary
circumstances. YOU volunteer to MAINTAIN, upon
.~,,,,a occasion that there can De no ChaTc"
,,;tbout q Prelate,' thus unchurching the great
roass of Protestant Christendom. The proper
occasion is offered to you, by one who leels l,'a,
his character and usefulness are puohcly ASSAULT
~, tho above proposition Instead OF slanoihs
,,oo, anv nnestion of mere technlcahtles, ana con,
,as,;,,e, tbe Joints who is the challenger, ana
80. sh.u commence thc discussion ask rom
n. w sncb definition of his terms as will pat
tho nnbic in possession OF his meaning, under DIS
Inn hand and SEAL but this under the cover OF a
technicality, is Indignantly refused he figh'
IN make this demand, though SO obviously Just,
10 also waived for the sake OF reaching ! inc
merits Of the question. Again, L proceed TO re-
deem nv pledge, and to show that the unchurch-
,np Donna, so Extensively advanced, is ut 1o0r
,,ib The shirt and tie letter Of the Word Of God
Nv first argument is that " there is 10 war
rant from Scripture, for making any particular
external form OF polity condition OF that CHRIS
tan fellowship and communion with God, which
are distinguishing duties and privileges OF the
Church of Christi give some proofs OF this
position, (see the close of the fifth letter., and call
noon DR.. W. to furnsh-if he can-eudence TO
the country. The only reply made to the posi-
ton is not that is untrue, but that cannot co"
sistentIy assume it, because 1t is repugnant TO the
standards of the body to which l belong, when
standards, with all the adroitness he can employ,
nv opponent strives to show are as ezcluS1ce ana
unchurching as his own dogma thus again is
AN attempt made TO evade the real issue. Al
though not bound to make any reply to thls'
consent to 90 out of my way TO snow thdl ootii
fact and theory demonstrate concluslvely that
the PRESBYTERIAN Church, neither IN Its standards
nor in it's practice, gives the least plausible ground
for this argunentum ad lnuidtam. To repeat
what was said upon this point would be to repeat
the whole letter The sum Of the argument was
briefly this: that wilhelm common with the
Churches upon the continent of Europe, the va
rious families of the Presbyterian Church IN this
country. the Congregational Churches OF New
England, the Methodist and Baptist and other
Churches of Chrst-we maintain the necessity Of
!. ministry and an Apostolcal ministry, dlvlnely
derived from, Christ, in some way, through the
Anostlas. we do not maintain that such MINIS
trv in order to authenticate its title, must, OF ne
cessity. be derived through an unbIoken success
sion of individuals.
Believing that | had said enough upon this
point to satisfy any reasonable mind that there
is nothing inconsistent with the principles of my
own communion in the argument which l sub
,nitted to YOU as long ago as the 10th of janua-
~. awaited your answer. But what is that
answer? Neither more nor less than another
evasion of the real question. Instead of manly
graphing with the true issue, your last commu
nication is entirely occupied III a repetition o
the process to which your previous letter was dc
voted.
Now ask, and many reader has asked
whether this does not seem like trltlng with the
subject, and whether also, it does not evidence
an unwngness upon your part to approach
the real merits of the question You are
quite mistaken, if you have supposed that am
to be drawn aside by an expedient SO often adopt
ed in controversy, but one which, in this case, is
sopaable that nobody can mistake It's design
It's enough to say, that upon proper occasion,
will hold myself ready to prove that ali the quo
tations made from Standards zone of which
in particular is sadly misunderstood, besides be.
ing imperfectly gven,) present not single idea
that is inconsistent with the perfect ca,holicity
the facts to which have appealed am fully
prepared to prove how entirely YOU have misap-
pretended and misstated the actual relations that
subsist between us and the various bodies of
Christians, and especially between the two
hoe of h.,
you represent as communicating the other
1t is quite enough to assure the reader that mel
Their Of these bodies so understands the matter
and that at the present moment moment then
anicabe relations illustrate the important truth
that there may be separation ,cithout schiSm
Just as the present distracted state of your owl
denomination illustrates the opposite truth, tina
there may be SchtSm WITHOUT separation.
All these points, | say, are capable of the mos
satisfactory adjustment, but this is not the place
for it. For to what purpose, unless II be to en-
tangic the question before Us with irrelevant mat
tiers, weary the patience of the reader, and arer
the dreadful isSue--is all this hunting throue
the Presbyterian fogmuiarles What even If yot
can prove, with the clearness OF demonstration
that these iormusarles teach doctrines IN regarC
to the ministry and sacrament, which are the
same or AKIN To those you teach What if you
can convict me and all the Presbyterian body Of
the most pal pable inconsistency with the princ
Piles of our own standards | beg leave to as
whether this would refute in any wise the truth
of the position have taken in my fifth letter.
have said already that in this discussion stanl
upon the ground common to all who acknowledge
a ministry and ordinances. The question as t
which OF the forms OF this ministry is most &C
cordant with scripture teaching, and best fttee
to secure the purity, efficiency, freedom and hap
pness of the Christian Church, is, in its place, ar
interesting question: but, repeat, it is not IT,,
question before US. The question which is before
US is, whether any one OF the various forms o
constituting the Church of Christ is essential L