THE TRIBUN E

From The Commercial .fdrtrtiser.
can be no Church without Pre-.
late.

.Sirth Letter to DR.. Wainwright.
{"character_count": 6088, "word_count": 1087, "ccnet_language_score": [0.954800009727478], "ccnet_perplexity": [1422.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}

perceived, have been too anxious to reach the
merits OF the question before us, to insist with
anypertinactv upon technical questions. 1t would
have been verv easy, as believe, to make sue
cessfui battle upon all the points you have raised
from time to time but as it would have entangled
tha question, have waived them. | am now in
some hope that there will be- hencelorth, fair
and manly graphing with the real point at issue
between US.


have but single remark to make before
proceed to notice your last communication. 1t is
in relation to my supposition that your preceding
letter was composed in IAN angry and lordiy
tone,,' and contained dscourteous language
which forbore to retort." Ordinary people do
not deem charge Of siaader very civil yet this
charge YOU brought against me, IN company with
other ungrccious language, estate defamation y
Constructing nv Ignorance" sc. Though this
style of dealing with an opponent passes with
many as equivalent to argument, and Is consider
cd an evidence of clcverness, hope no tenpta-
ton whatever will seduce me into the use Of It.
Hard arguments and hard words do not belong to
the same category.


Passing all this repeat my satisfaction that
we have now fairly got to the dogma, which l
hold to be at war with the spirit and letter Of the



YOU have received it. You call upon me to re-
member that It's truth never disputed until
s. the Reformation that it formed no ground ot
objection in the minds of the first Reformers to
the Church of Rome, and that these great men
Welded it up with marked reluctance, &c" You
can hardly expect me to g remember this for
do not believe 1t to have been SO, but on the con-
trary, I think | can show that it 1raS not So l
will not touch that point now, for you admit that
this question is not properly before US, and that
the true issue is whether, as you have affirmed
Prelacy be essential TO the beng Of the Church
of Christ. am glad to find that you are ready
to abide by the Word Of God, as the on y au
thority which we are now to summon to the de-
ci.on of this question.


My first reply to your affirmation, that Prelacy
is essential to the being of the Church, and the
reply to which restricted myself in my last letter,
was this That there is no warrant in Scrip
tare for making any particular external forms OF
poli,v condition of that Christian fellowship
and communion with God which are the distin-
gushing duties and privileges Of the Church Of
Christ"


You say that were the argument | have ad-
yanced true i. e., were 1t true that there is no
warrant Sc &C. this would not make Epis-
copacy anti-Scriptural,' any moro than Pres5y,
tery This, beg to say, is not the point in hand,
for admit that the argument bears equally on
Prelacy and Preshytery, as respects the making
either of them exclusive. Either may, according
to the different judgments of their respective adj
yocate. be the most conformed to the Scripture
model, and yet neither as maintain, should be
raised to the rank Of an essential condition Of
Christian brotherhood and communion with God.
You may think Preacy most clearly taught 10
Scripture as | do Presbytery, but the question
which | pray you to bear IN mind, IS, Shall we,
on the ground OF our respective OPINIONS on a
question of forms, about which multitudes of wise
and good men differ, although they are agreed in
respect to the spiritualities of Christianity as
moral institute-shall we, say, proceed to de-
liver each other over to uncovenanted mercy ::
in other words, excommunicate each other from
the covenant Of God, and It's promises and prvil.
eyes Against any position of which this is the
natural and inevitable consequence my whole soul
revots.


Now what is your reply to this Why, after
assuming two things, which you say | must ad-
NIT, and which do admit, you proceed to infer
that must If consistent, run upon the very same
consequences which have charged against your
own position. You quote from various authori
ties, jerome, the Augsburg Confession ofthe Lu-
theran Church. Calvin, and the PRESBYTERIAN Con





the visible Church. Agreed: had already adj
mttcd this. when giving an account, in my last
letter, Of what | found in Scripture concerning
the essentials of Church order. But another pos
tulatc, which you take for granted will concede,
Is that this ministry must be apostocal, that is,
derived from Christ III some way through the
Apostles Now fancy that this is the point
where your argument falters. This is a venerable
term, this " "Apostolical,' and not more favorite
with Yourself than with me but still | am salts
fed there is allacy in your use Of it, which
will proceed to notice IN due time. Supposng me
then to admit ''an Apostocal ministry of lht
word and ordinances as essential to the vers
being of Church, YOU proceed to draw ;l(
necessary interenccs for me in these words
You have unchurchcd, then, the Quakers anC
left them to the uncovanted mercieS Of God vou
have unchurched the Congrcgatlonasfs: vou
have unchurched the whole body of the Meho
dists; you have unchurched large portions If not
the whole of the bapustS, to the full extent that
unchurch yoa; and you Significantly ask, no
doubt with some triumph over nv foolish ucon
slstency, whether do not shrink in horror from
proposition so monstrouS."


| answer tins question. thus put in IRONY. eo
phatically IN the affirmative | Go shrink from
1t with horror. And more than this were your
retort of this charge of unchurchng the scycra
bodies you name a just retort, might well admit
my folly for having forgotten the familiar pro.
verb, about living In glass houses and throwing
stones But can dispose of the rctort in very
summary manner, and without any Impeachment
OF my consistency, and can show that | do nor
unchurch my fellow Christians of these large anc
respectable denominations (who hold the essen
tial truths of the Gospel in any sense, much les
IN the sense and ''to the extent y in which vor
unchurch me. Am | TO suppose that in making
the above averment you meant to be understood
as asserting a matter Of fact2 You must surel,