New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-01-24
From the Commercial .Adrertiser.

Brondon w., January, 1884,
From III. Commercial .Advertiser
Rev. DIR. wainwright to Rev. DR.. Potts.
Rev. AND DEAR S1R-We are by no means so
well agreed upon first principles as | had sup
posed, and therefore, to my regret, find that we
have not arrived at that stage of the argument
which thought we had reached when | address
ed to you my last letter. The necessity is now
imposed upon me of taking a step backward, IN
order to meet you fairly. Having for my oppo
neat an eminent divine of the Presbyterian
Church, and one in connection, as am informed,
with "the old SCHOOL, | certainly took 1t Tor
granted that he would hold himself bound to
maintain that doctrine, upon the question of the
Christian ministry, which the standards of his
Church so clearly set forth. Upon this suppostlon
the statements and inierences of my last letter
were grounded.
This doctrine stated in substance as follows,
viz. that the Christian MINIsrRYls essential to the
Church and must always eXlst-that this MINIS
try must be DlvINELY APPolNTED-and that 1t must
be AposToLlcAL, that is, deriving its commission
in some way from Christ, the head of the Church,
through the Apostles. Had you admitted these
first principles to the extent in which | supposed,
and still suppose them to be held in the teaching OF
your standards, the points between US would have
been reduced to this one:-What is the nature OF
the Apostolical ministry does it subsist in one
order alone-that of presbyters-or does it of me-
cessity require three orders, Bishops pTcsbyters
and deacons, and how is the title to this ministry
to be authenticated?
AS L now understand you, you admit that a
ministry is essential to the visible Church.
request you to observe, however, that the postu.
late which | advanced, as the one to which pre-
sumed we should both yield our assent, was no,
81 ministry simply-but ga ministry dipiuely
appointed"
Now from careful examination of what YOU
advance under the two heads of g facts'' and
principles, am compelled to infer that &C
cordlng to your theory 1t is not essential that the
ministry should be dlvincly appointed. 1t may
be seltconsttuted by an inward Call, or it may
be constituted by the simple appointment, by a
community OF Christians, of one or more Of their
number, who Shall give himself wholly to the
work of mlnisterlng Gods word and ordinances"
Thus the Friends, you acknowledge, have a min.
lstry. Their Organization may be detective
but still they have ministry, and III your view
ordinances also. How this allowance of ordi
nances destitute of external signs and seals, ac.
cords with the doctrine of the Presbyterian Con.
fession OF Faith on the subject OF sacraments, |
will not now stop to inquire. Under your head OF
principles you state q hypothetical case-which.
you leave to infer, therefore, is the illustration
of Il principle. Conceive. YOU say, for in.
stance, of a community of Christians cast upon a
desert shore they have the word of God, bu, no
minister; shall they continue for ever without the
offices OF Christianity, and not rather appoint one
or more of their number who shall give himself
wholly to the work of ministering Gods word
and ordinances Z"
10 meet this imaginary case let me suppose
another. Suppose that IN the shipwreck which
cast this unfortunate community upon desert
shore, they had lost their last copy of the sacred
Scriptures, but had saved or could procure mate
rails for writing would they not, for their own
satisfaction and for the benefit of their posteritv,
make a record of all they could remember of the
word of God But would it be the word of God {?
And would they not upon tho first opportunity,
cast aside their imperfect manuscript, and with
Joy ana gratitude return to complete and well
authenticated copy of the holy book But to
reason from such extreme hypothetical cases is
always dangerous and unsatisfactory. We should
be careful how we erect an extreme case of ex.
cepticn to general rule into principle Tour
use of the one Just mentioned, however, under
the head of principles" shows that while you
allow ministry TO be essential 20 the visible
Church, you do not admit that it must of neces
slty be &" dlvlnely appointed
Now, my dear sir, although | did not under
take to defend the Presbyterian doctrine against
Congregauonalism, and perhaps should succeed
IN doing so, may receive no thanks for nv pains
yet as this course viii serve my purpose as wei!
as any other, shall endeavor to controvert the
views you have advanced in relation to the MN
istry, by appeal TO the Presbyterian Confession
OF Faith and the Larger Catechsm.
What, then, is the question NOW in dispute be-
tween us Will state it again, and as distinctly
as can, with view 10 clear comprehension
by those OF our readers who are not familiar with
theological subjects of this nature.
II is not whether Bishops IN any sense, that is,
diocesan Bishops, having charge of many con-
sregations, or parochia Bishops, having charge
Of but one, are essential to the visible Church
put 1t Is whether ministry Of divine appoint
nent-that is, a ministry receiving It's CON-
MISSION from other ministers possessing divine
authority to bestow the commission, in contra
distinction to ministry holding It's sole authority
trough the appointment of the members of
Christian congregation, is essential to the visible
church.
On this question | will, with your permission,
hange places with you and take the affirmative,
hat the former and not the latter is true minis
y according to the Word of God.
That the Church is avlsible body-that is, an