New-York daily tribune., 1844-01-17
From the Commercial .4artrtiser.
There can be no Church without Pre-.


use, reply, nothing; to your reasoning, this"
1. am IN possession OF abundant evidence
| given to me personally by members and ministers
OF various denominations of Christians including
I. number of your own, that it is very general,
desired by this community that the nature anc
grounds of the monopolizing claims Of high
church partizans should be examined, and, if un.
Just, exposed. However, therefore, | might fee
myself justified IN refusing any reply to your las,
communication, because Of its angry and lordy
tone, | am quite resolved that none of these
things shall rufie my temper, or deter ne from
what I conceive to be an important duty. IN
tend TO 90 forward with my object, although it is
very evident that in doing so | am acting in op-
position to the wishes OF yourself and your friends
Ii. cannot agree with you that there is ne
ccssarlly any thing "unworthy'' Of the Christian
or ministerial calling in making respectable
public journal the medium of communication
with the public mind, upon a topic which was
thought OF sufficient importance to be introduced
to the public attention first at dinner table and
then, by report, through the daily prints Is it
too sacred for the one, then | appeal to you whe-
thcr it was not too sacred for the other. This
should have been considered beforehand. and the
nscqucnces-apparently so dsagreeable to you
should not be laid at the door Of him who feels
bound 10 call Ia question public and most often
slvc attack, as publicly as it was made Whe.
thcr Ii was or was not an attack, and even def
ance against unofcnding Christian dcnomina-
tons, whose several church relations arc very
dear TO them, must now be left to the decision o
the reader. To threaten me contlngcntIy with a
charge o. SiGnder, for rc-aiiirm!ng what IS so
perfectly clear even to members OF your own
church, vino have sought me out to speak OF TINS
matter, Will not alter the truth or inghten me
from calling things by their right names. re-
grot, with you, that this or any similar discus
sion has originated, Just as | regret that Il neccs
sty should ever arise for the resistance OF false
and in Iurpus principles or oppressive cxacilons
of any kind. | regret that there is Injustice III
the world, and tha, there are nsldlous or violent
assaults against Gods truth; but since such
things do exist, ! do not regret that individuals
can be found to whom the purity and integrity OF
truth are so much more valuable than peace
bought at the cost Of Il dastardly submission to
error that they are willing to lisll the rIbtld
remarks OF Iccntlous tongues and pens, and
even worse evils. Such results arc to be expected
when contest for great principles takes place,
and | do not deny that they are to be ranked
among those furious things referred 10 by the
Saviour under the name of offences" which
observet-IIe throws the Whole responsibility
upon those who wilfully occasion them.
III. Without retortlng any OF the dlscourteous
language with which it would seem you desired
to anger me, shall now take the liberty of stat
ing the reasons why your refusal to define your
position, by defining in your own language the
terms YOU have used, is TO be considered as vr-
tual shrinking from the contest for winch you
hos, sand
fidcnce. In the first place, you are violating the
admitted rule of dialectics which requires before
hand unalnbiguous definitions of all the promn-
cnt terms that arc to beemployed IN discussion.
The Justice Of this rule is obvious to any one;
for without such explicit definitions, it will be
easy for an opponent, when pressed by an argu
ment founded upon the supposed sense of his own
terms, to escape by affirming that he did not use
them in that sense But in the next place we
are discussing this point in the presence o. the
pubIic, and it is not to be taken for granted that
the public are as well acquainted as ourselves,
with the sense in which these terms arc used by
either of us. They can appreciate the force OF
arguments on either side only by first knowing
the precise question of debate And finally. am
anxious that you should set forth your meaning
in your own words. because desire the pubic to
Judge, from definitions OF your own, that this Is
no small matter, about which 1t IS idle to dispute.
Neither Of us thinks So It's question, which,
in your view, involves matters Of life and death,
and which, in my view affects Christian liberty
as opposed to a spiritual despotsm, catholic char
ity as opposed to schisnatic bigotry, the splritu
altv of religion as opposed to a religion Of sacra-
ments, the efficacy OF faith in The Redecmer as
opposed to the efficacy of rites and ceremonies
and salvation received at the hands OF Christ, as
opposed to a salvation deposited IN the hands, and
only dispensed through the ntervention of man.
be that man prcsbyer, prelatc or Pope. These
are some of the points involved, and therefore
the Justice of the demand which, upon the
part Of the public, relteratc, for a definition OF
your terms. You say you Will lidehne them when
YOU come to use them; but you haze used them
and the proposition in which you have used them
is the very subject of debate. All desire IS to
have the public put IN possession OF the high
church sense of them, from source which none
will suspect, as possibly unfair. Until therefore
YOU give them yourself, or admit those | have
given, YOU enjoy the advantage OF Indian wal
fare, that Of fighting from an ambush. Is tins,
however. an honorable posltlontor one who should
have nothing to conceal, and who has sad tnat
truth, not victory, Is his object
". | must now beg the readers attention to
a passage in your last communication, which can
not satisfy the least obscrvant, although II denies
as slandcrous the charges which have brought
against your speech at the New England festival
OF ecclesiastical prescription, unchurchlng your
fellow Christians, delyng them to prove that there
can be a church without preIate and monoPo-
lizing the rights and privileges of the church OF
Christ Were this denial accompanied by any
expression of regret that you had incautlousI y
used the language ascribed TO you' and DID not 10
mean It to be understood IN the sense naturally
attached to the terms, | would atonce relinquish
my part in this controversy. But this you nave
not done That language, in your own report OF