CM THEHE BE- A CHDRCII WlfHOl'T A BMP! 9' -I } CONTROTEESY BETWEEN REV. DRS. WAINWRIGHT AND POTTS, (THE FORMER OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL, THE LATTER OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,) ( GROWING OUT OF THE INCIDENTAL ASSERTION OF THE FORMER THAT ^ THERE CANNOT BE A CHURCH WITHOUT A BISHOP.’ IN- A SERIES OF LETTERS, ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER. LIE OF THE ' i ' • r ' UP V NEW^YORK: GREELEY & M^ELRATH^ TRIBUNE BUILDINGS. BOSTON : Redding & Co. PHILADELPHIA : Zeibbr & Co. CINCINNATI : W. H. Mocrk & Co. 1844. ‘tiM A mm . ; ^ tri* .vf/^ in'jdi"^.;--' 'f (. tAHT ^ '-'^T " ,^U■.^:1^ n j,' ■• '■/- • -^l;' ® >ir-‘ '-!o \ ' a ’ '• V ' ■ ■\^^- '■'^- ■ '.'f-v" ’ ■ Ratinv.'vrr A r:- V ^;l {’r •l!-..'.-'Ai . ■>)< ,'>’V a .'C • ' • '' .' J.'i-l','. ’> ■ :. '■’* . /<**T *>' Ca 262 W/ 3ci Ki Ci c/> -d 1 N T R O D U C T 1^0 N . The occasion of the following Correspondence was a remark made by Hon. Rufus Choate in his Ad- dress before the New-England Society, at their Anniversary in New-York, in the month of December, 1843 . n refermg to the Puritans of. \8w-Eng!and and their flight from foreign oppression, he said they ‘‘found an asy- lum (here) and discovered a Government without a King-, and a CJmrchwithout a Bishop." The sentiment was responded to with loud and protracted applause. The manner irx which the sentiment was received, Dr. Wainwright, an eminent Episcopalian Clergyman, thought justified him in alluding to it publicly. So at the Dinner winch succeeded the Address, he repeated the statement of Mr. Choate, and added, that “if this were the proper arena, and were tlrat distrnguished gentleman (Mr. C.) to throw down the gauntlet on this question, I should not for an instant hesitate to take it up, and maintain on the opposite side that there can be no Church without a Bishop.” Dr, Potts, a distinguished Presbvterian Clergyman, of what IS termed the Old School, takes up the challenge, and, after some trouble in settling the preliminaries the discussion is commenced. ’ It will be apparent to evmy one conversant with the religious controversies of the world in every age that the whole question at issue is whether the doctrine of the Apostolic succession is a Bible doctrine o: not. The denomination to which Dr. Wainwright belongs, asserts that theie has ever been since the tinn of our Saviour a rank in the Church corresponding to that of the Apostles-that those who compose thb rank derive their power in unbroken succession from the Apostles, and are now known under the title o Bishops. These alone possess the authority to confer subordinate power on others in the Church, aw hence all ordinations except performed by Bishops are irregular, and cannot be recognised. All dissent ing denominations, to one of which Dr. Potts belongs, recognise but one real rank in the ministry— and be lieve that the power of the ministry itself is held by the Church, since, under some circumstances, it car create a ministry. In the one case all authority and power being transmitted through the Apostles to i certain class of men, it is asserted also that no organization can be a Church without their sanction Or the other hand the power resting in a class that cpn reproduce itself, or in case of emergency, be producer by a body of Christians who have organized themselves into a Church, it is claimed that the various de nominations organized as churches, me so, and their ministers all clothed with equal authority. Tba; much may be said on both sides of this question is evident from the fact, that some of the purest and ableei minds that have ever blessed the world have defended both. With these few remarks as to the real point at issue, and aroi^nd which the whole weight of arguraeni should gather, we give the Coirespondence. t "n j Ki 1} 0 y- ^ ' '’1 •' vjor. ,.- ?! ■■■^.■ 4 .,.*. ..>^< :./ .-. .asq.'iiiUfetli&ny,) ^jOiWj; • ' ' .' . f' '/►V*! ’ ^ •■ ’ : 4 >>K»'a' ,-iT' ;,’.n- i.< . *. ,. ip ri; !,.t,v;',i;x^>;!.- - |■■;.■.- ;^ Y,-< 3 s>» 'r-»r 4 } iiWt'W{j ' '•lilsiJ ,.tJ<'' 3 si ft ' - ■•*!•' i ’r.'i'l '-t-fo ic!r^.C!r. ‘^'.n :■* i ' •liA...', j?iMlt.i(rvf • l>i 4 w irvT. •i^SN'n g\\'r . •■’>; !.r--^! jTrijf •' •/ m >,-t?* • . Irr >iP*' ^r}. .; . ‘ ( V ■>;; i;ntiil:!!)^ 'i fv < M ,<■ y / ' ' ". ••-■ fcr ^ ^ ^ 4 «: 4 aS.:. ' *' . ,;■ ‘)'v?giK‘' n»l# .iilK*'a aipo^ij’lio ,. .A,, A, (•) i. r ‘ n ^ HI- ><■ I ,./...; I:.’ iftilj 4*1-' x.i- ;/r »it.' .‘-/J .. ■> ? w-- . tji/ *1 / .f^- • f '■ IV ,'•*". •• i^r ’ t •■• '■ -4 > -nj ■ '■\\c.. + t/i'ii”' vr , ■ “ ••-') ',t< ; . . > l.;^ «| - =!-':’i-.- t- -- ‘i ^ AUi.’SHiL ;'■•■!’? '•': i.-^’ •; :n «(>'«% ' ■ . ■ a^fj ipKf ,. .!■•*. ■<- nyur.'-'^ • • a; .1^441 ' a r ■ ;io’ • ’-' T'.'' «i‘.’ • iA^Vt ..•r*^-;.* , x 4 S,.,,|i^ 9.;j UiXtUU^yi J... . ..i ■ ■ ,Vr. i'- : ..M !\' J/; . ' >* ;t'j1.-.> 'yVtriJrt •.- •»•_. t.i 9 ;r ..•»{; '.i- vf. -tw' .»^E>fSr drtU ■■' : • J. .,i; SiVJ n.} <<■ C4 U r \i r ^ i: 'Ur ' i; ‘tJ.o’ •’ v '’'TOil.i ■ ly »{ • -.wSi '«( Vr.iin*" ■ i-AS ,1- i,;;f'A'j 7^? S .,'ii A'S "K* •> ;> H ■ . 'j" OwirA-V' ?-f *f ''' •> »* '.its.ff*' j ■^. •; ■■ -..v'A-sf fO: rri:- \-;i •T(t/4 !J . 7 / ,;,"j.^ y V si V: .;•>(;•■■/ ’'. ■■ * tj.i’ ein.*:. ■■'•:.■••!’• f'? •■’'it..- . , .. ..j-ir! •'] I rr: ■/';} •rtl *»i«>nov f -.- iw :.V>vv.4(* aA‘'fri .,....; '.•..■..'(•••i.-^ ;,, . . x.-ijiiiv’ ' • ^ ; !*»4r ,'■ ;_. *;*sr^ l-.-n .-UA l.s,!i u.ii-.i*!.,!' *!:.•.;! i'lw 4 , > Mniti-.uiSE— :,Afnu<} Ottt ' .'»i-.;rt . ,4^> a , ijf jnat*. ' ■ ■ * < - ‘ Vi a-'iia r!j’ .«'■?: -f»/ f»f* ■ A.ii' '■^;i V- •.' ,v" / ■'itf;-!' »• '>«i? s' ‘jcut . > K?:ur ''-ia a : ; f A '’xS/’m' ‘ • ’ * . _ . . .... - "H 2 V>,y. ',nV' s CORRESPONDENCE. LETTER 1. REV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DP.. WAIN WRIGHT : NE^v'YoRK, December 27. 1843. Rev. and Dear Sir — Will you permit me to inquire whether the remarks accribed to you, upon the occasion of responding^ to a sentiment at the late dinner of the New-England Society, are correctly reported ? I am persuaded that the reporter must have done you great injustice in respect to language, style, ^ grammar, ^c., for the report which I have seen is remarkably incor. rect in these particulars, and strangely different from the accuracy with which other gentlemen are represented as speaking upon the same occa- sion. I refer to this fact, because it has led me to suppose it possible that the evident incorrect, ness of the report of your remarks, in the partic. uiars just named, may extend even to the seniL meats — and that you did not so broadly affirm the exclusive claims to prelatical Episcopacy, nor invite a challenge from the orator of tlic day to put you to the proof of those claims. That there may be no mistake, I will quote the language ascribed to you, and to which I beg to refer you for explanation. It is contained in the “ Morning Express” of the 23d inst. “ He (the orator of the day, Mr. Choate,) told you of some who in the days of William and Mary (an evi- dent mistake of the reporter) found an asylum and discovered a government without a King, and a Church without a. Bishop. (Cheers.) — Now, sir, notwithstanding this strong hurst of approbation to the sentiment, were this a proper arena, should even the orator of the day throw down his gauntlet, I would take it up and say THERE CANNOT BE A ClIURCH WITHOUT A BlSHOP.” I repeat that I am quite unwilling to suppose that you have been correctly reported : because, although there are not wanting instances of the remorseless and arrogant exclusiveness implied in the above sentence, I cannot bring myself to be- lieve that you would make so broad and unquali- tied a statement at any time, and least of all upon such an occasion. The statement, as it stands, affirms, not merely the relative superiority of diocesan Episcopacy, not merely that prelacy is essential to the well-being of a Church, but it goes the whole length of affirming that it is essen- tial to its very being. There cannot he a Church without a Bishop. This is something more than a question of relative advantages ; it beeomes a question of vitality, of existence itself. It is not saying, our's is a better ehurch than yours, and we are better Christians than you ; but our’s is the only church, and (by implication and fair inference) we are the only Christians ; accord- ingly the above passage can be no otherwise un- derstood, but as declaring a readiness to prove that all “ the Christian churches, in whose polity the element of prelacy is not found, are usurpers of a sacred name, that their ministry and sacra- ments are impious burlesques, and (inferentially) that their people must find mercy in some indi- rect way and creep into Heaven by some back door. I repeat, again, that I am unwilling to believe that Dr. Wainwright would state so offensive a position at any time, and least of all on such an occasion. We all know the complexion of a New-England society, and the object of their festivities on the 22d of December. They were especially met to celebrate the civic and religious excellences of a band of exiles, whom the perse- cuting prelacy of the time had driven from their homes ; who actually laid the foundations of a “ State without a King and nobles, and of a Church without a Bishop.” That Church stands yet, and stands without a Bishop. To affirm, therefore, upon such an occasion, that there can- not be a Church without a Bishop, was to pro- nounce a sentence of excommunication against the great mass of those who were there assem- bled, and to affront their best sensibilities by de- filing the graves of their fathers. I confess that the more I look at the language of the above ex- tract, simply in the light of taste and courtesy, the less I am willing to believe it to be a correct report of your remarks. But, should I unhappily be mistaken as to this, should this passage be a statement of your real views — views which I had supposed were at least never expressed without a good many saving clauses to make them tolerable to even the most credulous believers in high church rights — then, and only in that case, I am induced to ask whether you are ready to vindicate the truth of this statement. You speak of throwing down a A Church without a Bishop. gauntlet, and declare your readiness to say, and of course to prove, that there cannot he a Church without a Bishop. I am aware that the form in which the words arc placed is not piecisely that of a challenge, but is it not a defiance ? If it does not gice a challenge, does it not invite one ? There is no great difference between the two things, especially when we consider the circum- stances. You could scarcely ex}>ect (I sptak now, you will observe, upon the supposition that your language has been correctly reported) that the orator of the day would either throw down his gage of battle or take up yours, for it is alto- gether unlikely that his peculiar engagements would admit of this, however competent he is to justify this, or any other statement in his noble and beautiful oration. To offer or invite a chal- lenge to controversy, under circumstances which will render its acceptance impossible, would be unworthy of an honest champion. Hence, this defiance must be understood to extend to any respectable adversary who accords with Mr. Uhoate’s statement. Now, although I am not a descendant of the Pilgrim fathers, and although I have no doubt that in all that relates to their peculiar claims upon the veneration and gratitude of future ages, there are many and fitting champions to be found among the sons of such sires ; yet inasmuch as the language which is ascribed to you does not only apault them, but ail others who are one with them in their rejection of prelacy ; and further- more, considering that if a challenge so public and offensive as this were allowed to pass suh si. ientio, it might hereafter be construed as an indi- cation of conscious weakness, and not of con- tempt, I have overcome ray unaffected reluctance to appear in the character of a controversialist, and now beg leave to say, that as an humble ad- vocate of the ecclesiastical rights of the larger part of Protestant Christendom, I am ready to debate with you, in any form you wish, the position which you are represented as affirming, viz: '^that there cannot he a Church without a Bishop.^' Of course a prelatical not a parochial Bishop is here meant. Without entering now into the merits of the question, I will hold myself ready (should you admit that the reporter of your speech has not done you injustice at least in this particular) to prove .that this proposition is preg- nant with innumerable evil consequences, theo- logical, social and civil ; and that it is unscriptu- ral^ uncharitable^ schismatical and anti-repuhli- can in its character. I have been induced to address you in this pub- lie manner, because from the nature of the case, the subject must sooner or later come before the public. The language ascribed to you (whether justly or not remains yet to be seen,) was not used in a^ private circle, was not whispered in confi- dential conversation ; it was not uttered from one of the pulpits of your own denomination, nor was it found on the pages of a sectarian print like the self-styled “Churchman.” Had it been, I should not have thought it worth while to notice it. — But having been used upon a festive occasion, iHjfore a promiscuous company, and in the most public manner, it is obviously no longer a matter for private communication. This will be my apology for thus publicly inviting your attention to it. Hoping that it will be found that you have beeij incorrectly reported, believe me. Rev. and dear sir, Your obedia u .servant, GEORGE POTTS. LETTER II. RBV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS. New-York, December 30ch, 1843. Rev. and Dear Sir ; — Your letter, addressed to me through the columns of the Commercial of last evening, was brought to my notice at so late an hour this morning, that there is not time to prepare and get to press such a reply as on every account it ought to receive from me. I cannot for a moment, however, delay acknowledging its perusal, and expressing my thanks for the cour- teous terms in which it is drawn up, at the same time stating my instant readiness to redeem any pledge I may have given in the few words spoken by me at the Nevv-Engiand dinner. As you sup- pose, my speech, (if a few remarks entirely ex- temporaneous can deserve such a name,) was most defectively reported, as I think, in the Ex- press. I cannot distinctly recall every word I said, but as far as my memory serves me, the re- port contained in the Courier & Enquirer of last Monday, which, I am informed, is to appear in the American of this evening, is the most accu- rate I have seen. But as to the important point — and the one which alone called forth your let- ter — the sentiment I uttered is accurately report- ed, and I am ready, here and on every suitable occasion, to avow it and to maintain it ; and if it is my lot to be called into the field, I cannot but congratulate myself that my challenger is one for whose private and intellectual worth I entertain so high a respect, and in discussing any question with whom I shall not fear the disruption of so- cial intercourse, and much less the utterance of any expressions which may cause regret to our mutual friends of every shade of religious senti- ment. But I must defer any farther observations until next week. With much respect, your obedient serv't, JONA. M. WAINWRIGHT. LETFER III. REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS. Rev, and Dear Sir : — In the few lines to which I was restricted on Saturday, I had only the op- portunity of acknowledging the perusal of your letter, and expressing my readiness to meet you in the discussion which you invite. To some preliminary observations upon the occasion and character of your letter, which I should then have offered had there been time, I now ask your attention. I cannot but deem it a cause of regret that, be- fore taking so decided a step as that of addressing a letter to me in the columns of a newspaper, and thus leaving me no alternative but to reply to it through the same channel, you had not been at some pains to ascertain both the accuracy of the report of my speech at the New-England dinner which you quote, and the circumstances under which it was delivered. Had you pursued this A Church without a Bishop. 7 course I think you would very probably have come to the conclusion that the occasion did not warrant the public attack you have made upon me. In- deed, I doubt whether any one, maintaining opi- nions different from those which I hold upon the subject of the organization of the Christian Church, and who had been present both at the oration and the dinner, could have felt warranted in interpreting my language as partaking at all of the character of “ defiance,” to use your own ex- pression ; unless indeed his feelings had previously been in such a state of excitement as to produce a rapid tliirst for controversy. You were not present, and therefore under this cover may es- cape from the consequences of such an impu- tation. To my knowledge there were two clergymen present at the dinner, and, as I suppose, at the oration, who are as strongly opposed to prelacy in all its shapes as you can possibly be, and who are as able and I doubt not as ready as yourself to take up the gauntlet had it been thrown down upon this question, but who did not consider my remarks as partaking of the nature of a challenge or defiance. This consideration, however, is not of much importance now, because since the issue has been joined, I take it for granted that neither of us feels inclined to shrink from the encounter. I only allude to it to shield myself from the impu- tion of having justly provoked a religious contro. versy, to which my tastes and habits of life arc entirely opposed ; and which, in common, as I believe, with the great body of the community in which we live, I deprecate except under a very stringent necessity. I am the more surprised at the course you have pursued, from your assertion that “you are quite unwilling to suppose that I have been correctly reported.” Three different times in the course of your letter you make this declaration. Now, notwithstanding this emphatic reiteration, I fancy there must have been a sort of conviction in your mind, of which, probably, you were strangely un- conscious at the time, that what I said had been correctly stated. Otherwise, I think you would not have been so ready to place yourself in a po- sition, so undesirable for the members «f our pro- fession, as that of combatants in a daily newspa- per, and compel me to follow you there. Had you made suitable inquiries, such as I should suppose would have been naturally suggested to you by your professed “ unwillingness to believe that Dr. Wain- wright would state so offensive a position at any time, and least of all on such an occasion,” and one which “ affronted the best sensibilities of those them assembled by defiling the graves of their fa- thers,” and one which was objectionable “ in the light of taste and courtesy” — had you made such inquiries, prompted by your implied previous good opinion of ni)' social taste and courtesy and Christian charity, before visiting upon me a con- tingent public denunciation, you would have learned that while I affirmed a principle which it is notorious that the great body of tlie Catholic Church has ever maintained, it was done in an offensive manner, or an exclusive spirit, or with- out some provocation. You ask if the form in which I placed the words — “ There cannot he a Church vnthout a Bishop, '' is not a defiance. If it does not give a challenge, does it not invite one ?” I reply dis- tinctly, that what I said, taken in the connection in which I said it, was not a challenge, or a defi- ance ; nor was it intended to invite either, from any quarter whatever. To assume such an atti- tude, on such an occasion, I should with you regard as an indication of exceedingly bad “ taste,” and as evincing a want not only of “ courtesy,” but of Christian charity. What then, you will now perhaps be inclined to ask, were the circumstances which prompted the declaration I made, and authorized, in ray judgment, its utterance at such a time and place? I will tell you : I was expressly invited to hear Mr. Choate’s oration ; and upon going to the Tabernacle for this purpose, and placing myself among the general mass of the audience, Was drawn by the managers of the New-England So- ciety from the unobtrusive position I had select- ed, and urged to take a more prominent situation by the side of the orator of the day. Whether or not it was prudent in me, holding the peculiar views of a churchman, to attend the celebration at all, is a question aside from the present matter, and one in which you can have no interest ; but I may say, in passing, that it is a question, in re- gard to any future decision of which I have cer- tainly obtained some new views from experience. Let this pass then. I was present from the interest I felt on the oc- casion, as the son of a New-England mother, descended from a long line of ancestors reaching up to the early settlement of the country — as having passed my early years, from the age of ten to that of nearly thirty, in New-England — as having received my education in a New-England school and college — as having been connected, at two different periods, with two New-England parishes, containing the best and most affection- ate people a pastor was ever blessed with — as having now many of my dearest friends resident in New-England, and closely identified with her literary, civil and religious institutions — and as regarding New-England with deep respect and afTection for the intelligence and virtues of its people. In this spirit, and under the influence of associations so hallowed, 1 attended the celebra- tion, as I have done in repeated instances before. To the oration I listened, in common I believe with all who were present, with great admiration of the brilliant powers of the speaker. In the course of his remarks it fell in his way to declare that the Puritans in the reign of Mary, driven from their homes, sought an asylum in Geneva, where, said the orator, “ they found a State with- out a King, and a Church without a Bishop.” — Now, entertaining the opinions of a congrega- tionalist, it was natural enough for the orator to express this sentiment. Its epigrammatic form gave it peculiar effect, but in ordinary times it would have been received, probably, with nothing more than the applause which a striking passage usually elicits. On the present occasion, how- ever, it called down such long-conlinued and tu- multuous cheering as I doubt not surprised Mr. Choate as much as it did myself. Had the sentiment produced only the applause which follows the happy expressions of every popular speaker, — had it been cheered^ even in the same degree with other emphatic poHions of 8 A Church tcithout a Bishop. the oration, many of which for force, originality and beauty of illustration were much more worthy of admiration— I should have thought nothing of the occurrence and taken no notice of it. But the cheering was obviously, to my apprehension, not that of approbation of the orator, but of defi. ance of such as did not sympathise with the sen- timent. How far all this was in good taste, or indicative of good feeling on the part of the ma- jority of the audience, who must have known that many Churchmen belonged to the society, and were then present, and certainly that one was placed in a very conspicuous position as the guest of the society, I leave for others to say. But it seemed to me to speak this language : — Now, you advocates of prelacy, we have you ; we ate in the majority ; we will make you feel how we detest your opinions, and if we cannot drive you from them, we will show you how un- popular they are, and at least, if w^e cart, make you ashamed of them.” This I know was the inference drawn, not only by myself, but by many others who were present. Now what was to be done ? To rise and leave the room would, in my view, have been a slight put upon the orator ■which he had not merited, for I ai?i convinced that he did not intend to insult any class of per- sons, or to throw contempt upon their opinions. To abstain from attending the dinner to which I had been invited, and the invitation to which I had accepted, would have been a course open to a similar objection, and would, moreover, have indicated a morbid sensitiveness to popular dis- approbation. When, however, at the dinner, I was called ■upon to reply to the toast, “ The Clergy of New- England,” &c., as the greater portion of those seated at the table had made part of the audience at the Tabernacle, I thought I had a right to avail myself of the occasion to show that I was not to be daunted by the fear of popular odium, or to be driven by the expression of it from the <^en avowal of my sentiments upon any ques tion whatever. This alone was my motive for uniting with what I intended, poor as it may have been, as a compliment to the orator of the pay, ray dissent from that expression in his ora- tion which had elicited the longest and most bois- terous applause. The manner in which I at- tempted to protect m^^self, in a position which I acknowledged was sufficiently awkward, may have been unfortunate, and the attempHtself ill. timed. I care not to rebut such a charge as this ; but I will assert again that self-defence was my only motive. Many, I know, who differ widely from me on religious questions, do not regard the course I pursued as unbecoming or uncalled for, or as involving, as you suppose in your letter, any de- signed insult to the Pilgrims or their doctrines. — That you have arrived at a different conclusion I attribute to the fact of your partial knowledge of the circumstances of the case. Had you been present you would have felt, I doubt not, as others of our profession did who are as cordially opposed to the “ regimen of Bishops” as yourself. Having thus shown, as I think conclusive, that what I said was strictly defensive, and can- not justly, subject me to the charge of manifesting the bad taste, to say nothing more, or bringing a controverted religious question gratuitously be- fore a promiscuous assemblage of persons, I now come 1o the real, and henceforth, as respects ourselves, the only important question in hand. You have seen fit — no matter whether incon- siderately. from want of full information in the premises, or deliberately— to give me, what I offered to no one at the New-England dinner, “ a challenge and defiance.” I quote your words — I will hold myself (should you admit that the reporter of your speech has not done you injus- tice, at least in this particular,) to prove that this proposition, (viz: ‘ that there cannot be a Church without a Bishop’) is pregnant with innumerable evil consequences, theological, social and civil ; and that it is unscripturaly uncharitable, schis. matical and anti-repuhlican in its character.” I deny your assertion, in all its length and breadth, and hold myself ready to maintain my denial the moment you will enable me to do so by advancing the arguments on which you found this assertion. You leave to me the choice of the manner in which the debate shall be con- ducted. I cannot for a moment suppose that you wish it to take the form of an oral disputation before a promiscuous multitude. Such an arrangement, I feel confident, you would regard as inex- pedient on very many accounts. Shall the de- bate then be conducted through the" medium of the daily press ? Were this desirable I certainly should not have the slightest objection to the highly respectable journal which you have your- self selected. But the space we shall probably have to occupy would be greater, I apprehend, than any editor of a secular paper would feel au- thorized, injustice to the majority of his readers, to give up to a religious controversy. Besides, T confess that I should prefer much not to have the grave questions we must discuss mingled up with the politics of the day and local topics. And again I should wish, while giving all needed pub- licity to the controversy, and enabling those wko feel an interest in it to observe its progress, to withdraw as far as practicable from a secular are. na, in which I am sure it will give pain rather than pleasure to our common friends to see us contend. I would propose, then, that we select, each one of us, a religious paper, the editors of which will agree that all the communications, as they ap- pear in the one, shall immediately after appear in the other, without the slightest alteration or cur- tailment ; and, moreover, that the editors respect- fully shall abstain from any comments on the controversy during its progress. On my part I select the Churchman, provided I can procure the assent of the editor, whom I have not yet seen. But I think I can count upon his acqui- escence. Should he decl ne the conditions, how- ever, I will make some other selection. I.n conclusion I must frankly avow that I do not believe we can either of us throw any light upon question.^ which have been so often the sub- ject of dispute, and which for many years in con. tinuous succession have employed the best abili- ties, and excited the fervid zeal of the most learned and pious divines of all persuasions. Still, if nothing new shall be elicited in this dispute — ann for myself I greatly doubt the learning or inge* A Church without a Bishop. 9 nuity of either of us to bring forth a single new argument — there is sometimes an advantage in having old questions stated in new forms and in new connexions, and with reference to the pre- vailing sentiments, opinions, wants and errors of the age. Very respectfully, Rev. and Dear Sir, I am your fritud and servant, January 2d, 1814. JONA. M. WAINWRIGHT. LETTER IV. REV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT. Rev. and Dear Sir — I had prepared an answer to some of the points in your last communication, and I was about to send it to this day’s paper, when it struck me that there should be a previous settlement of the question as to the form which this discussion should take, or rather the channel through which it should be made known to the public. I will, therefore, withhold my commu- nication until this question be arranged. I believe each of the plans you notice has its peculiar claims. I should prefer the oral form, because of the greater freedom it affords ; and besides, I have no objection that this or any other subject shall be brought before a public tribunal. I consider this to be a subject vitally affecting the public interest, nor can it be, as some among you seem to hold, a degradation of the claims of the Church, to defend them before a popular as- sembly. If, therefore, your mind be not entirely made up, I beg you to reconsider this point. I have however precluded myself from any right to insist upon this, and indeed any other form — but the object of this note is to request you to meet me half way, and to agree at least in the selection of one of the daily journals. I have this objection, and it is a serious one, to the employment of the columns of the reli- gious journals, viz : as they appear only once a week, the discussion would be protracted in- terminably. Besides, these journals are not cir- culated among that class of readers who are likely to be influenced by the discussion ; for probably their minds are made up upon the point at issue. I therefore beg, should you utterly decline an oral discussion, that you will at least assent to the very courteous offer of the “ respectable journal” in which our communications have already ap. peared, and which has a claim upon us, for the courtesy it has already extended to us. As soon as these points are settled, I will be happy to give a respectful notice to your last communications. With much regard, Rev. and Dear sir, I am yours, &c. , GEORGE POTTS. Thursday Morning, Jan. 4, 1844. LETTER V. REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS. Rev. and Dear Sir : — I cannot but express to you my great surprise at your preference for an oral oyer a written discussion of any controverted point in religion— more especially one of the na- ture of that now lying between us, requiring, as it does, if it be thoroughly treated, the careful and deliberate examination of “ Scripture and ancient authors.” I have as little objection as yourself to having “ this or any other subject brought before a public tribunal.” On the con- trary, if there is anything which can overcome my repugnance to a religious controversy, and my regret at having been forced into one like the present, so often agitated and so thoroughly sift- ed, it is the hope of its attracting the notice and exciting the interest of many who have hereto- fore been ignorant of it or indifferent to it. It is precisely because “ I consider this to be a subject vitally affecting the public interest,” that I wish it to be presented in such a form that the public mind may not be hurried over it with- out time for reflection, or be distracted or divert- ed from the true point at issue by those subsidia- ries which almost inevitably accompany an oral debate ; but may have the opportunity to pause and deliberate and examine. So great is ray con- fidence in the security of the position I have to maintain, that there is nothing I so much de- sire, since the controversy must take place, as that the whole community, far and near, should become acquainted with its whole progress ; or, in other words, that it should be a popular one. And it is because a debate in the Tabernacle or any such place would embarrass, if not defeat, this object, that I am opposed to the arrange- ment you press so earnestly. Does Dr. Potts really imagine that an assem- blage, such as would throng the Tabernacle at the admittance price of a shilling a head (as has been proposed in one quarter,) to amuse them- selves with the sharp encounter of two clerical gladiators, would be a suitable tribunnl to judge and decide such questions as those which must of necessity arise in the discussion ? Or that, however well selected such an audience might be on one occasion, the same persons could be in- duced to come and attend for several hours, day after day and through several weeks, to hear a theological question debated ? And if not same throughout, and auditors of the whole of both sides of the argument, could they be well informed and impartial judges? An oral discussion then could not lead to any- thing like a satisfactory final arbitrament between us. But you prefer it “ because of the greater freedom it affords.” What you mean by this freedom I do not precisely comprehend, but if you intend by it what it might be interpreted as implying, loose declamation, and the liberty of introducing irrelevant topics, instead of being re- stricted to close and well compacted argument, and confined rigidly to the matter in hand, this is a kind of freedom whicn I by no means desire for myself, and which I am willing to believe your good sense would lead you also to reject. My objection to the oral form of debate, grounded on the partial and limited opportunity which wGuld be thereby afforded to the whole community for becoming acquainted with the en- tire discussion, might be obviated, you may say, by the introduction of reporters for the public press. Now I acknowledge the great ability and general fidelity of this useful class of persons, and although through the inattention of some of them, on a recent occasion, I have been made to appear to you to have spoken in a manner “ re- markably incorrect in respect to language, style, grammar,” &/C., and have reason to believe that 10 A Church without a Bishop. through their defective report of my speech at the New-England dinner I have been exposed to the misfortune of being drawn into the present con- troversy, I cannot deny that upon the whole they would give a pretty full and fair representa- tion of the discussion. This task, however, would be more difficult in the present than on ordinary occasions, inas- much as we shall probably have to quote au- thors with whom we cannot reasonably suppose them to be acquainted, and languages with which they are not familiar. If, then, the intervention of reporters is needed to give a wider dissemina- tion to arguments which must be otherwise re- stricted to a single audience m a single room, will it not be preferable that the debaters them- selves shall express their sentiments in a manner for which they must be responsible, and which will not admit of their escaping, should they make an unfortunate demonstration, under the cover of an inaccurate report ? I cannot but think, therefore, that the great body of the pub'ic will far more certainly be put in possession of the whole argument by a written than by an oral discussion. The only advantage, as it seems to me, which the public could gain from the latter arrange- ment, would be that to the list of shows and po- pular amusements, already sufficiently extensive, another would be added. And as to the princi- ples in the debate, their sole benefit would be the opportunity of ' displaying their forensic powers before a large and promiscuous auditory. Now I take it for granted that as with each of us the maintenance of truth and not victory over an opponent is the paramount wish, and that as neither of us has an unworthy appetite for popu- lar applause to gratify, or is disposed to lend himself to any show whatsoever, to promote the popularity of any public place of resort, we shall best preserve our own self-respect and maintain our personal dignity by keeping aloof from any oral controversy. I have thus, as you requested me to do, “ re- considered this point,” and my mind is now “ en- tirely made up I “ utterly decline an oral dis- cussion,” and I only feel regret as well as sur- prise that your urgency upon this point has obliged me to enter into the reasons for thus de- dining, and that our sympathies and judgments upon preliminary matters have not proved as much in harmony as I confess I had supposed them to be. The next alternative which you propose is, that we should employ the columns of a daily paper rather than those of a religious journal, because, as the latter appears only once a week, the dis. cussion would be “ protracted interminably.” I regret to perceive this intimation of your views as to the length ot this controversy. For my part I shall wish it brought to a close as speedily as possible, for I can employ my time much more acceptably to myself, and as I believe much more profitably, in the peaceful and unob- trusive duties of my profession, than by taking part in a discussion which has often employed the pens of much abler and more learned men. Your otlier reason for preferring a secular jour- nal to a religious one, because the latter “ is not circulated among that class of readers who are likely to be influenced by the discussion ; for probably their minds are made up upon the point at issue,” does not offer any great compliment to “ this class of readers” on the score of candor and openness to conviction. However, I will not dwell upon this point, but waiving my rights and my decided preferences in this particular, at your solicitation will consent “ to meet you half way.” The courtesy with which we have been treated by the Commercial Advertiser, and the liberal offer they make of the use of their columns, settle the question at once as to which paper we shzdl select. I agree then, that all my replies to your communications shall be sent to this journal, with the express understanding that the editors will ab- stain from all comments themselves during the progress of the controversy, and will not allow the introduction of any communications touch- ing the question ; so that the attention of neither of us may be taken up by warding off side-blows from bystanders. Awaiting, then, the appear- ance of your next letter, I subscribe myself. Very respectfully, Uev. and de r sir, yours, JONA. M. WAINWEIOHT. Friday morning, Jan. 5th. LETTER VI. REV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT. January 2, 1344. Rev. and Dear Sir — I have now before me two communications from your pen, one dated the 30th ult, the other Jan. 2. In the first, you express your thanks for “ the courteous terms” in which my letter of the 27th ult. was “drawn up” — and admit that “ as to the important point, and the one which alone called forth my letter, the sentiment you uttered {there cannot be a Church without a Bishop) is accurately report- ed ;” farther declaring your readiness “ to avow it and to maintain it upon every suitable occa- sion,” and concluding with some complimentary remarks, which I will do my best to merit. The latter communication, of this date, reached me late this evening, and I now propose to give it as prompt an acknowledgement as my pressing avo- cations will permit. I have attentively and respectfully read it oft- ener than once, and with an honest desire to give the utmost force to the self-justification which is its principal object. I am not surprised, and I will add, not offended, at the somewhat marked change in the tone of your last letter ; inferring from it, however, that, upon farther reflection, you had come to the conclusion that your pre- vious commendation of “ my courtesy” had been premature. I say this did not surprise me, be- cause I felt very sure, from the beginning, that if the report of your remarks at the New-England festival should prove to be correct, you would speedily find yourself exposed to no small amount of animadversion, on various accounts, and hence would naturally entertain some displeasure to- ward any one who might call pubfic attention to your unenviable position. I can say with un- affected sincerity that it pains me to find you in this position, and still more it pains me to be the instrument of exposing it to the public view. I am perhaps indulging a vain hope when I A Church without a Bishop. 11 beg you to believe this ; for you have already im- plied, if not expressed, a doubt of the sincerity of my “ unwillingness to believe” that your din- ner remarks had been correctly reported. I trust I am not in the habit of using words at random. I felt all that I described an unwillingness to be. lieve it. I confess that my doubts were not very sanguine, but they were real, because, first, I am always shocked when I meet with any avowal of the unchurching dogma ; secondly, because the manifest incongruity, to call it by no harsher name, between the dogma and the occasion in- dined me to believe it possible that you had ac- companied it with some unreported qualifying phrase, which had softened its aggressive aspect ; and thirdly, because I deemed it respectful and charitable to suppose, farther, that you might be one of the number of prelates who hold the more tolerant views of the subject. That there are such (I would to God there were not so few among your clergy) is evident from your own expression, that “ the great body of the Catholic Church” have maintained “ the principle” you affirmed. Why should I be suspected of disingenuousness in expressing a hope that you were in the kind, hearted minority, embracing many able minis- ters and worthy members of your communion, who cannot go the length of delivering over the vast majority of Protestant Christendom to “ tbe uncovenanted mercies” of God, which are no mercies at all ? I beg ycur pardon if I have of- fended by supposing that upon the point of “no Bishop, no Church,” you possibly might accord with Cranmer, Whitgift, Usher, Stillingfleet, Whately and others, who seem to have had some bowels of compassion — rather than with Laud and Dodwell, and Oxford Tractarians, who thought no more of cutting off the heads of Chris- tian Churches than if they had been so many thistles. Before I proceed to set the main issue in its true light, 1 wish to make a remark or two upon a collateral point, yet one which affects the ques- tion — who is the aggressor in this case ? You seem to lay considerable stress upon the circum- stance that there were at least “ two clergymen” present at the New-England dinner, vyho saw nothing worthv of animadversion in your re- marks ; I can only say that if they cared so lit- tie for their own denomination as to be content that it should be unchurched so publicly and so unceremoniously, they differ materially from two other clergymen who were also present, but who were no doubt withheld from rebuking such an attack upon the spot, solely by the consideration that a festive occasion was not exactly fitted for bringing “ a controversial question before a pro- miscuous assemblage of persons.” In this connection, I beg leave to say also, once for all, that I hesitated some time before I could make up my mind to risk the suspicion of im- modesty by venturing to take the place of abler and better men. I am very happy to say that my apprehensions on that score have been quieted by my knowledge of their approval of the step I have taken. Still, I wish you and them to hold me alone responsible. It is not, I assure you, from “ a rabid rage for controversy,” or from any overweening as to my own ability, that I have thus turned aside from my more congenial occu- : pation ; but from a conviction of the impropriety of letting so offensive an edict of excommunica- tion pass unchallenged. When Dr. Wainwright, a gentleman, a scholar, a Christian minister, (in each of which titles there seems to be implied the idea of refined feelings as well as bland manners,) has taken so public, so extraordinary an occasion, for the pur- [ pose of unchurching the whole of Protestant Christendom, the Churches of Germany, Swit- zerland, France, Great Britain, Holland emd America — all except the prelatical bodies in Eng- land and this country — it surely is high time to demand that the public should be put in posses- I sioc of the evidence by which so bold and un- ^ flinching an assertion is to be sustained ; or, if j that evidence is not forthcoming, it is equally I high time that the enormity of the assumption I should be exposed. There are hundreds who can I perform the task better than myself, but still I ; believe it is not a task which requires the strength j of a giant. j And now to the point ; for I will overlook many ! objectionable matters suggested in your letter, ! because I am anxious to reach the main point as I speedily as possible. The sooner we settle those i bearings of the discussion which are merely personal, the better will our readers be satisfied, j I am bound to say, in the outset, that having j disclaimed an intention to offer an insult to the I anti-prelatical Churches, I willingly discharge ! you from .farther responsibility on that point, j Had you, in addition, been pleased to qualify your i proposition, so as to admit the ecclesiastical rights of those Christian bodies who ‘ hold the Head, even Christ,’ I should have laid down ray pen, i even though you had claimed for your own body I a lofty superiority. But you have made no such ! admission. You stand now where you stood, j when rebuking the descendants of the Puritans. I You have indeed denied any intention to be ‘ offen- i sive,’ or ‘ exclusive,’ but the question recurs, was I not ‘ the principle’ you affirmed, offensive because * exclusive? We are virtually charged with act- ! ing under forged commissions, with living in re- bellion against God, because forsooth, ‘ there cannot be a Church,^ sacred and venerable name, the name of onr birth-place : — without what ? without Christ the Divine Redeemer? No: ‘ without a Bishop.' But to be out of Christ’s I Church, in the most essential meaning of the phrase, is to be out of the pale of salvation. And I hence to affirm that there is no Church unless it have a prelate, is to affirm something that goes i very far toward shutting heaven against the I whole of Protestant Christendom, with the ex- j ception of yourselves. I Now, if these consequences naturally flow from I your position, I ask again if it is not necessarily I an “ offensive’' position. And whether, therefore, ' you did not assume an offensive attitude when I you uttered it ? Let us settle this point first, and I afterwards consider the plea of provocation which I you offer in self- vindication, and we shall then be prepared to judge of the propriety of your at- ■ tempt to alter the issue. Your object, my dear 1 sir, is to exchange places with me. So I judge i from the drift of your letter, in which you 8j>eak of “ the public attack” I have made upon you ; 12 A Church without a Bishop, of my having given you a challenge and defi- ance of my having forced you to follow me as ** a combatant” in “ a daily newspaper and finally, at the close of your letter, you leave the post you assumed on the 22d December, and call upon me to prove my negative of your proposition. In short, you wish to assume the attitude of de- fendant in this case, and to present me in the character of an assailant. This is a very ancient expedient in controversy, and is always resorted to by disputants who wish to avert from them- selves the “ imputation of having justly provoked a religious controversy,” and to secure the sym- pathy of the by-standers, as wantonly assailed persons. I admit there is an advantage in this, but I think it can be shown that you cannot in this instance claim it. Yox, first you made an offensive attach, noi on- ly upon the probable majority of your hearers, but upon the majority of the Christian Churches and ministers in this city. Whether meant to be so, or not, it was so. Whisper “ the principle” in the blandest tones, and you do not change its real character. Say that you hold it in common “ with the great body of the Catholic Church,” you can- not evade the responsibility of having publicly ut- tered an offensive thing, by sharing that responsi- bility with others. Nor can I imagine a more bel- ligerent style than that of the remarks which im- mediately accompanied it — “ an arena” — “ a throwing down and taking up of the gauntlet” — a readiness “to maintain that there cannot be a Church without a Bishop.” I ask whether it was not Dr. Wainwright who “ compelled” some one to follow him into the columns of “ a daily news- paper for surely he could not suppose that in these days of newspapers and reporters, all that he might say upon this occasion would not be im- mediately sent off through the length and breadth of the land. I have seen many offensive and ex- clusive specimens of Churchism but never one the odiousness of which was more perfectly dis- embarrassed of all ornamental drapery. But secondly, it was provoked — and may you therefore justly claim to be excused from stand, ing in the place of proponent in this discussion ? Now what was the alledged provocation ? I ad- mit that this is the most important point in the preliminary question now under consideration. What was the provocation ? Was there any that justified such a public repudiation of the majority of the churches of the Reformation ? You ex- pressly acquit the orator of any intention to in- sult those whom you call “ Churchmen but you lay the whole blame upon the vehement ap- plause of the audience. It was their noisy cheer- ing of the orator’s “ sentiment,” as you term it, that developed their latent detestation of prelacy, and discovered a determination to show its advo- cates how unpopular it was. Indeed you intimate that there was something personal in the cheering, as those who were guilty of it “ must have known, that (you) were placed in a very conspicuous position as the guest of the society.” I think this is hardly charitable, to say nothing else, for I doubt whe- ther the persons of the clergy are as well known as their names. I presume that the plaudits were given simply to the statement itself, and therefore the question finally presented itself in this form : — Was there in that statement any at- tack, designed or not, against those who modestly call themselves, par eminence. Churchmen ? and was it such an attack as imposed upon any of that number a necessity of manifesting his ag- grieved feelings ? This is the turning point in deciding whether or not you are to be held re- sponsible .as the assailant in this case. What, then, was the import of the language which seems so to have pleased the audience, and to have displeased you? I went no farther than to say that in Geneva the expatriated Puritans formed a republican state and a republican church ; and this he mentioned to account for the republicanism which their descendants brought to New-England. Now I grant you, most readily, that if the ap. plauded sentence had been so framed as to assert or even imply that this Church without a Bishop was the only legitimate Church; if the orator had uttered the converse or rather the counter- part of your doctrine, and had said “ there can- not be a Church withja Bishop,” he would have advanced a dogma as offensive, as uncharitable, as anti-Christian, and, I will add, as ill-timed, as the dogma which you felt it your duty to ad- vance. I could have forgiven some exasperation of feeling, on the score of the injustice and arrogant wantonness of the assault. Sir, I rejoice to be able to say that you cannot find on the pages of any book of the least authority among us, or in any dinner speech that ever was delivered, the counterpart of your proposition affirmed. Mr. Choate did not affirm it ; nor was this “ the sen- timent” whicli the New-England audience saw fit to applaud, not having the fear of Churchmen before their eyes. The head and front of their offending was this and no more, that they dared to insinuate that there might be a Church with- out a Bishop ; that the Reformed Churches of the continent of Europe (all of which, without an ex- ceplion, had rejected prelacy) were lawful Church- es; that their Ministers,say Luther and a number of others, not altogether unknown to fame, as having done a little service to Religion and Liberty, were not usurpers simply because no Bishop had laid his hand upon their heads ; that their marriages were not unlawful, their children not illegitimate, their baptism and communion at the Lord’s table not a farce. In one word, Mr. Choate did no more than church the Genevan and Puritan Chris, tians ; he did not unchurch the prelatical Chris- tians of England or even of Rome. Now I beg leave to say that this is the mate- rial point, and it decides at once the question of your true position in the ensuing discussion, by deciding that as no attack was made upon the validity of your Church organization, so you were without any just grounds for the offensive, I mean the aggressive, attitude which you assum- ed at the table, when you told your audience that you would be willing to meet even the orator of the day, and prove that his Church at Geneva was no Church because “ there cannot be a CHURCH without a Bishop.” This is your proposition. I mean to hold you to this ; and I now call upon you to commence the discussion by defining your terms. In an- swering your arguments, I shall have the oppor- A Chvrch without a Bishop. 13 tunity I desire to “ prove that this dogma is pregnant with innumerable evils, theological, so- cial and civil, and that it is unscriptural, &c.&c.” I beg from you three definitions, which are in- dispensable to a right understanding of your pro- position : 1. What is the Church ? 2. What is the Catholicity of the Church ? 3. What is a Bishop? With an apology for detaining you and your readers so long, believe me, very respectfully, your ob’t servant, GEORGE POTTS. Janua^Ry 6, 1844. P. S. Your reply of last evening to my note of the 4th, is open to some criticism, but I withhold it, because I do not wish that public attention should be fatigued with the discussion of collate- ral questions. I send the preceding letter to the journal which has been so politely offered for our use ; premising that, as far as possible, I will not trespass upon the com’tesy of the editors, by lengthened articles. LETTER Vir. REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS. Rev. and Dear Sir — I had really supposed that after assenting to your proposition, to “ meet you half way,” all the preliminaries were definitely settled, and that having challenged me to the controversy and pledged yourself to the proof of an affirmative proposition, you would of course open the discussion. What was my astonishment, then, to discover from your letter, which appeared on Saturday, that a most important point is stil[ undecided in your own mind, and that you have not yet concluded which side of the discussion you will assume. I begin now to understand what you mean by that “ freedom” which you consider one of the advantages of an oral debate. One of its privi- leges seems to be the liberty to change sides at your pleasure. I have good reason, therefore, to congratulate myself that I am not tempted to concede more than I did as to the form in which our disputation should be conducted, and allow my adversary to draw me into an arena where this dangerous propensity would be under less control than I mean it shall be, now that we are both tied down to our deliberate, recorded lan- guage. If, after the interchange of several letters considerately written — for you say “ I trust I am not in the habit of using words at random” — our respective positions are not defined, I do not know how many hours’ worth of extemporaneous words would have been consumed before we fairly got to work in good logical style — if we ever did. In your first letter you throw out to me a con- tingent challenge in case I uttered a certain sen- timent, and then you distinctly enunciate an affirmative proposition, and express your readi- ness to prove it. Let me recal to you your own words : — “ I will hold myself ready to prove that this proposition, (viz: that there cannot be a Church without a Bishop) is pregnant with in- numerable evil consequences, theological, social and civil ; and that it is unscriptural, unchari- table, schismatical and anti-republican in its character.” In your second letter you confess that your attitude is that of the challenger, by acknowledging that you have precluded yourself from any right to insist upon the oral or any other form of discussion, this being my privilege as the challenged party. This is your language : — ” I have, however, precluded myself from any right to insist upon this, and indeed any other form, but the object of this note is to request you to meet me half way,” &c. And now in your let- ter of Saturday you coolly turn round and tell me in effect that I am the challenger and call upon me to commence the discussion. And not only so, but with singular modesty, and a very charitable regard for my incapacity to conduct my own side of the question, you suggest to me the very mode in which I am to begin, and select for me tho words which it will be necessary for me to define. This is sufficiently extraordinary ; — but what is more remarkable still, and a thing, I suspect, unheard of before in any scholastic disputation, the very words you ask me to define are constit- uent terms in your own affirmative proposition ! Thus you make an affirmation, pledge yourself to prove it, and then, in the very outset, ask of your opponent to define the terms which govern its meaning! I can hardly believe that you are aware of the position in which you have placed yourself. You say that “^with unaffected sin- cerity it pains you to see me in a certain posi- tion,” (in which by the way I do not find my. self, and in which, I think, I shall convince the community, if not you, that I am not,) “ and still more it pains you to be the instru- ment of exposing it to public view.” Now with a sincerity at least as unaffected, I must say that it gives me no pain at all to expose your logical inaccuracy. You have controverted a proposi- tion of mine, arid you “ desire to have the oppor- tunity to prove that this dogma is pregnant with innumerable evils, theological, social and that it is unscriptural,” «Scc. — and in the very same breath you ask for three definitions, “ which are indispensable to a right understanding of my pro- position.” Now if these definitions are indispensable to the understanding of my proposition, and you have not yet obtained them, you certainly do not understand it. And thus you have undertaken to prove that a proposition which you confess you do not understand “ is pregnant with innumera- ble evils,” &c. You may select either horn of the dilemma, as you please. If you did under- stand MY PROPOSITION IT IS WORSE THAN TRI- FLING TO CALL UPON ME NOW TO TELL YOU WHAT IT MEANS. If YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT RIGHT HAD YOU TO PLEDGE YOURSELF TO PROVE IT TO BE ^^unscriptural, uncharitable, schisinati. cal and anti-republican?'^ Besides, as a theolo*. gian you ought to know the meaning of a maxim which has been extant in ecclesiastical language for centuries upon centuries ; and within the last three hundred years thoroughly debated by the ablest theologians. You advert again to my speech at the New England dinner. Presuming that you have not yet taken the pains to examine an accurate re. port of it, little as it deserves to be obtruded be- fore the public, I append one in order that yon may have no farther apology for misrepresenting its bearings. 14 A Church without a Bishop. Now will you be kind enough to examine my language ? Do I say that I throw down the gauntlet, or wish or intend to throw it down ? No — but that if thrown down I shall be ready to take it up. You have thrown it down, and I have taken it up. You bear on your shield the motto propounded some three centuries ago —Ec- clesia sine Episcopo — a Church without a Bish- op. I bear on mine the same which w'as on the banner of the Universal Church, without dispute or challenge, for 1660 years, and which, though since challenged, i^ yetl)orne without wavering by far the greater portion of Christendom. Nulla Ecclesia sine Episcopo — No Church without a. Bishop. These mottos we have respectively borne and gloried in since we became teachers of the Gospel, and we might have continued to bear them peacefully, each in his own separate theolo- gical walk ; but you have gone out of your way to challenge mine ; 1 have accepted the offer of combat, however reluctantly, from my utter dis- like of polemical strife, but 1 have accepted it. — And now wiien the lances should be ready in the rest, you stop and wish to deprive me of the privi- leges of the defied. Is this knightly ? or, in the language of polished life, is it courteous? or, in the better language of religion, is it kind ? Char- ity suffereth longhand is kind, is not easily pro- voked — thinketh no evil, &c. As to the “ unchurching dogma ” and the con- sequences you so liberally draw from it, I shall be ready to meet this point, and show your mis- take as to the opinions and feeling of Church- men, when you come to sustain that division of your proposition, “ uncharitable.” Let us now distinctly understand, and let the public understand, what are our respecti^^e posi- tions. Upon leaving my study one morning, for the discharge of my parochial duties, I am in- formed in the street, to my great surprise, that a letter has been addressed to me in a public print by the Rev. Dr. Potts. It is put info my hand ; I give it a hasty perusal ; and, in full reliance upon his gentlemanly character, and under the influence of the recollection of the very pleasant though infrequent intercourse I have had with him, I reply to it as being courteous and kind. — Upon a second and more deliberate examination at home, I discover its covert design, now openly avowed in the letter to which I am replying — “to expose me to public view in an unenviable posi- tion.” It contains, however, a challenge to a public discussion in case I am correctly reported as having avowed my belief in a certam abstract proposition. I acknowledge the accuracy of the report, so far as that proposition is concerned. — The preliminaries as to place and form of debate are discussed and settled. And now Dr. Potts wishes to change his ground and make me the challenger, and of course the originator of a most unpleasant and uncalled-for controversy. What you say, sir, about the Taberriacle scene, with a view of showing that no sulRcieiit provo- cation was given for making the assertion, and that I was therefore the aggressor, (however it may be adapted for your purpose or popular ef- fect) is entirely irrelevant. Suppose it to be precisely as you put it. What then ? It was not upon the condition that I was the “ aggressor” in making the assertion, but solely upon the condition that I made it, that yon pledged yourself to prove it unscriptural, &c. In conclusion, therelore, I have only to repeat that I did make the assertion, though not meaning it as a challenge; and that if you choose to re- deem your pledge I am ready to meet you. If you do not choose you are at liberty to recede, and I stand in the position I occupied when you c died upon me, and from which I shall not be either enticed or driven. I am. Rev. and dear sir, your obedient servant. JON A. M. WAIN WRIGHT. b’o^tDAY,, January 8th. Dr. WainwrighVs Speech at the New-England Dinner. Mr. President and Gentlemen— I cannot for a moment doubt that the expression, “ The ClerKy of New-England,” in th-» s?ntiment just given, w s intended to embrace all, of every name and shadi of religion.? belie' ; and therefore, having my- self once been an humble member of that venerated body, I venture, in behalf of all, to exi)re.ss to you our thanks for this honorable mention of us, and for the manner in which the no tice has been responded to. O I a'.l suirebleocca.iioQs I would be the last to shrink from avowing i: d rnaint’i'.iing the distinctive principles of that Church of which 1 have the great privilege of b“ing a minister. In such an . ncounter 1 shou.d not fe^r, b»ld and presumptuous as the declaration may seem, to confront even the orator of the day, who has so gloriously discharged his task, and in the presence of many of us this moniii'g has hung around the nak- ed rock of Plymouth strings of richest pearl and diamond in his e'oquent addiess. Isay I should not fear to controvert even h m. In a pait of this splendid performance, speaking of the Puritans, who in the reign of Mary w ere driven by duel persecution 1 1 om their native land to seek a refuge in Ge-.eva, he asserted th-’.t they there found ‘a government without a King, and a Church without a Bishop.” Notwithstanding the approba ioH with W'hich Ihi-s senti- ment was then and is now leceived, I must declare- were this the proper arena, and were that disnngu’sed gentleman to throw down the gauntlet on this question, 1 should not lor an insta»'t hesitate to take it up, and to maintain, ou the opposite that f here call he no Chii'^'ch witho%it a Sishop, But su :h (iis^ussi ns i»re properly biijishea from this place and ibis society. Here we know nothing of distinctive or secta- rian opinions upon the great qurs iors of religioft- And I rejoice iliat not only here but lliroughout the length and bread'h of the land, whenever the cleigy are thus h norably mentioned, no privibgedlorder has a right to get up and arro- gate this title to itself. . . ^ By the oper.ition of the Constituti'ii of our Country, we are placed upon an equal footing — we have all common richts, atidif the Clergy understand their true iuteiests, they will ever riliy as one body around this sacred instiument. and look upon it as the ark of their relitiicus as well as civil liberties. Aio ind the altar of fiieiidship and benp'olence. also, reared by this Society, they may join hand in hand, and with sentiments of mmual respect and affection, devote them- selves to one common object, the_|)roniotioii of Ch nity. And when they retire from such associations, and return to their respective fields of labor, and ar-* constrained, perhaps, to defend the distinctive principles of their F.aith, would that they coil'd ever bear in lively remembrance the Apostles words: “ Now abideth Faith, Hope and Charity — but the greatest of these is ('harity.” The Clergy of New-England In me these ejet awake gratei'ul and animating associations (jon lorbia that I should ever permit my individual opinions, upon questions of religious fai h to blind my eves in prejudice to tho^e who differ from me. or close the affeclions of my heait agaiust *^* 1 ^ 11.13 been my privilege in past times to know, more or less intimately, cleigvmen of very different and eviii opposi.e opinions, whom f l ave, ii-vertheless, loved and venerated.— Who that knew any thing oi' Boston, twenty years ago, does not rememher with unfeigned respect, the sa^inted Ol.evi-ieus, the first Roman Catholic Bishop of New-England-l-.is elo- quence, his smph and self denying lifn, and Im unwearied devntioii to thecinseof the suffering poor? Bishop Gns- woUl the meek prelate of my own Church, I knew well who that knew, did uot venerate him for his learning, piety ^n'ave'known, too, Kirkland, the accomplished scholar and Christian gentleman, the dignified head oi Harvard Co lege. Of Dwight, the distinguished President of Yale Collegt— the It arned and the eloquent — I per'onally know very little, hut for his memory 1 entenai i uu'eigiied respect. With J^/han- ning who.e literary fame is the property of two hemispheres, I w'asb'oughtinto the connexion almost of relanonship. And here I cannot refrain from naming one whose religious teiie s it would be using, perhaps, not too strong language to say that I reprobare, bu whose purity of lite, lutegnty of character and many socirl virtues I remember with oeep re- spect and aftVe ion. 1 mean Dr. Freeman Ihese are types of the the clergy of New-England. I here, have been in v ears pastmauy such, and in years to come I cannot doubt that there will be many more. But 1 h ive detained you too long upon such a theme, at the present time. I cannot, however. d«ein it other than becoming that the sentiment to which 1 15 A Church without a Bishop. have thus inadequaielv responded should be given on this oc- casion, n r is it out of place for me thus to thank von, from the fullness of my heart, for the honor you have done the Clergy ol New England. LETTER VIII. KEV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT. Ret. and Dear Sir — Before I have concluded this letter in answer to yours of the 8(h jnstant, our readers will have discovered that it is not my purpose to retard the discussion of your proposi- tion, by insisting upon the merely technical ques- tion, who shall, by the laws of defence, commence the discussion. I will commence it ; but, in do- ing so, I mean to hold you strictly to the propo- sition you have thrown out as a defiance, and to keep yourself and our readers in mind that mine is an attitude of self-defence, against an assault, and an unprovoked assault, upon the character and rights of the great mass of our Christian fel- low-citizens. In rny last I think it was shown conclusively that this was the case. You seem to have a sus- piciori that the close ©f my letter, which, indeed, contained the gist of the matter, was “ well adapt- ed for my purpose or popular effect.” You pro- fess not indeed to see its relevancy, but I think others have not failed to perceive that my state- ment of the circumstances convicts you of havino- made a gratuitous attack upon all who do not think that Prelates only can open the gates of the Christian Church. ‘ My purpose,’ I admit, was * popular effect and I feel complimented by your thinking that my argument has achieved my pur- pose. The reason of its fitness for ‘ popular ef- fect’ is not to be found in any special skill upon my part in stating the facts, but in the nature of the facts themselves. In a simple matter of fact, the best judge is the common sense of common people. I perceive that you do not yourself call in question the force of my argument, that as there was confessedly nothing in Mr. Choate’s language, and nothing in the applause of the au- dience, which invaded your ecclesiastical stand- ing, so you were not called upon, especially upon that occasion, to attack the ecclesiastical standing of the general community of Christians. You will understand me, however ; I do not think that the inappropriateness of time and place is the womt feature in this case of eccle- siastical proscription. It is the utter unreason- ableness and the unrelieved moral deformity of the unchurching dogma, which, in my view, constitute its offensive character. I admire boldness, b«t not in a bad cause ; and I hold that to be, prima facie, a bad cause, which, either in the pulpit of one of your Churches, or at the dinner-table of the>\.stor House, prompts any man thus to assail the Church standing, in- cluding the faith, hopes and rights, of his fellow Christians. When you set up a claim, not to a superiority, but to a monopoly of the privileges belonging to the house of God — when you set up this claim in behalf of a mere fraction, a mole- cule, of the Protestant community— and when such confessedly stupendous consequences are necessarily involved in the claim— it cannot escape the most unob.servant reader, that to make out such a claim, its advocates ought to be prepared with proof, little short of mathe. matical demonstration. And yet, as I shall hereafter inme fully show, the extravagance of the claim is equalled only by the contradictory, indefinite, and I must add the absolutely ridicu- lous character of many of the arguments which are employed to sustain it. This aggravates the unprovoked assault you have chosen to make, and if, in the course of my future remarks, 1 shall speak of the high-Chuich dogma as it de- serves, I shall hold myself absolved from blame as ai aggressor. Before I proceed to do for you, what you de- cline to do for yourself, i. e. define the terms of your own proposition so that the reader may un- derstand them, (for I shall show you that 1 my- self understand pretty well the sense you affix to lliern) there are two little pieces of history, given in your last letter, which call for criticism. The first is that in which youaregiving an ac- count of the origin of this discussion, for the pur- pose of “ letting the public understand what are our respective positions.” It runs thus : “ Upon leaving my study one morning, for the discharge of my parochial duties, I am informed in the street, to my great surprise, that a letter has been addressed to me in a public print by the Rev. Dr. Potts. It is put into my hand,” &c. &c. This history wants the title-page, and a few of the first leaves. Will it not be better to supply the hiatus and begin at the beginning ? It would be more cornplete if it co.mrnenced by recording the polite invitation which led you to the New England festival; the speech of the New England orator ; the applause which accompanied him throughout, and which offended you so deeply, v/hen he gave a sort of ecclesiastical genealogy of his forefa- tliors; your determination to rebuke the orator and the audience, by declaring your belief, not that you had a better genealogy, but that their genealogy was absolutely spurious; your taking oc- casion two or three hours after, (when it might be supposed that you had had time for deliberation) to avow that if the orator of the day should chal- lenge you, you would prove that of “ the clergy of New England, who had just been toasted, there were none justly entitled to the name, except the ‘ sainted Cheverus,’ and the ‘ meek Prelate of your own Church,’ with their several subordinates of the Papist and Protestant priesthood ; that this attack upon the self-respect and sensibilities of ninetecn-twentieths, if not more, of your fellow citizens — I am almost afraid to say fellow Chris- tians — was published throughout the land ; and then, that after all this had come to pass, and you had perhaps congratulated yourself that you had chastised Yankee impertinence — then — “ upon leaving your study one morning,” &c. &c- &c. Is not the record unfair until these few little items are prefixed to it ? I will leave the reader to say, whether the above be not the true Genesis of the present discussion. The second piece of history, which is open to animadversion more severe than I can administer, is that which informs us of the comparative an- tiquity and universality of the motto which “ you bear upon your shield :” » No church without a Prelate.^' At the very unqualified claim you make in respect to this motto, I would express my wonder, surprise, astonishment, &,c. &c., were I not tired with that common practice of A Church, without a Bishop. 16 disputants, a very efficient thing in rhetoric, but useless in logic. Whatever my wonder may be, I will not utter it. Besides which, after having ecen how familiarity with extravagant statements often obliterates the intellectual sensibilities, just as a long familiarity with an offensive odor blunts the sense of smell, I have no longer a right even to feel surprise at the occurrence ot such a pUe- nomenon ; no right to wonder that one, who had brought his mind to brave the consequences of the adoption of the unchurching dogma, should first of all find it easy to assert in a promiscuous companv that Prelacy was of the very essence of the Church of God, and then subsequently, that this doctrine was borne on the banner oj the universal Church, without challenge or dispute, 1600 years” Now this is a wonderful state- ment. I might show that so far is this from being true, the doctrine of monopoly— as I shall call it for the sake of bevity, and to distinguish it from true catholicity— is not countenanced by the voice of antiquity ; that there were writers who distinctly denied it, and whole Churches, the Waldensian for instance, which always re- fused even to admit the element of Prelacy into their constitution; and all this long before the gloiious Reformation. This is unquestionable; but that the reader may not rely upon the asser- tion of one who, he may suppose, » uses words at random,” I will quote, from a disinterested witness, a single sentence ; I will sit the au- thoritv of the learned Prelate Stillingfleet oyer against that of Dr. Wainwright. These are his vrords : “ I do despair of finding any one single testimony in all “ antiquity, which doth m plain terms assert episcopacy as it was settled by the practice of the primitive Church, m ages follow, ing the Apostles, to be of unalterable divine right.” So much for the “ unchallenged, undis- puted” antiquity and universality of your motto. But leaving these things for future considera- tion, I proceed to the most alarming part of your last communication — I mean that in which I am warned, in capital letters, of a horned dilemtna which is goring 'me. It may be obtuseness m me, but I confess I do not see these tremendous . horns. , A My “ modest” call for your own definition ot the terms of a proposition which yon volunteered to maintain, and which is the basis of this dis. cussion, was dictated by the wish to put our read, ers in possession of your meaning in your own words. As to myself I had a shrewd notion of their meaning. The proposition is capable of two senses ; but from the very circumstances in which you announced it, I am myself at no mss as to your real meaning. But I have heretofore imaerined that no discussion could be carried on without a mutual understanding as to the sense in which the parties mean to use the principal terms and phrases. How long is it since this ap- parently indispensable preliminary has been ex- punged from the laws of debate ? Why you should manifest a reluctance to commence the discussion by defining your terms,” which is all I asked of you, is more than I will undertake to explam. But as you decline doing this, and as I must contrive some way of commg to an understanding as to the true status qucBS. tionis, and the sense which our readers are to fix to its terms, I propose to waive even this right, and to do your work for you, rather than to waste time in an idle war of words. In doing this, I shall at the same time state wherein your defim- tions and mine differ in meaning. First : What is the meaning of the word Church in your proposition ? I am quite willing to take the definition of your own articles, which is as follows : “ The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”— Art. 19. This, however, does not fully express the high-Church claims, inasmuch as it does not declare, (as it ought, if the doctrine of monopoly were true) that there cannot be a congre- gation of faithful men, and that the true word of God cannot be preached, nor the sacraments duly administered, &c., except under “ the regimen of Prelates.” This the framers of your articles stu- diously avoided saying, for it is well known that the English Reformers fraternized with the Re. formed Churches of the continent of Europe.— Since the, time of Laud, however, the “ ne Pre- late, no Church” dogma has been held by an in- creasing number of your communion, with more or less earnestness, although never without re- sistance upon the part of others, until it must be admitted that at the present time there is proba- bly a majority of Anglican and American Prelat- ists, who hold the extreme views and maintain that Prelacy is— not simply scriptural arid use- ful, and therefore the best model of ecclesiastical polity_but essential to the very being of a Church. Of this number you are one ; and the lollow- ing is the gloss you must put upon your Church article, just quoted. The Church is a congrega- tion of faithful men, and the pure word of God is preached in it, and it alone has the sacraments duly administered, because it has Prelates, through whom, as the delegates of Christ, and the direct successors of the Apostles, the inferior orders of the ministry receive a right to preach aad grace to administer Christian ordmancss ef- ficaciously. In other words, the statements of these extreme Prelatists warrant us in saying that though men may believe, teach and practice else contained in the word of God, yet if they reject Prelacy, they are not m the Church of God at all, and if saved at all, (of which some speak hopefully, but others doubtfully,) must be saved “ as by fire,” upon some undefinable pnn- ciples of mercy upon which nothing that is said in the Gospel will justify them in relying. Do I misrepresent your views of the mdispen- sableness of Prelacy to the very existence of a Church ? If so, you could have prevented the possibility of misrepresentation, had you, accord, ing to my reasonable call, defined your terms in your own language. This you can still do. Secondly : What is the definition of the office and functions of a “ Bishop ? ” . In your theory a Bishop is the highest of three grades of clergy Bishops, priests and deacons. He is. set over a particular section or diocese, as its ecclesiastical head, and is invested with cer. tain exclusive rights, which rights are thus s^ted by a Prelate : “ The right to ordain and confirm, A Church loithout a Bishop. 11 that of general supervision in a diocese, and that of the chief administration of discipline : besides enjoying all the powers of the other grades.” — (Dr. H. U. Onderdonk.) In virtue of the last two of these rights, expressed with an indefinite comprehensiveness which we will examine at a subsequent stage in the discussion, the Prelate has been known even to claim a control over the proceedings and minutes of a convention. Farther, in order to the right institution of “ a Bishop,” in your sense of the term, he must have received his ordination from other prelates, and they again from others, so that an unbroken chain may convey the Episcopal grace from the Apos- ties themselves. This is the far-famed Apostol- ical succession, of which so much has been made of late yeeirs. Wh}^ this chain is considered of such consequence may be seen by the reader if he will peruse the following quotations — two out of a multitude which I have at hand. The first is from a well-lmown champion of Prelacy, Dod- well, in the following moderate terms. I beg the particular notice of the reader. “ None but the Bislwps can unite us to the Father and the Son. Whence it will follow that whosoever is disunited from the visible communion of the Church on earth, and particularly from the visible commun- ion of the Bishops, must consequently be disu- nited from the whole visible Catholic Church upon earth ; and not only so, but from the invisi- ble communion of the holy angels and saints in Heaven, and, what is more, from Christ and God himself. It is one of the most dreadful ag- gravations of the condition of the damned, that they are banished from the presence of the Lord, and the. glory of his power. The same is their condition also who are disunited from Christ, by being disunited from his visible representatwe.” The former Prelate of this diocese. Dr. Ho- bart, in his “ Companion for the Altar,” speaks the following language ; it is equally kind as the foregoing : “ But where the Gospel is proclaimed communion with the Church, by the participa- tion of its ordinances, at the hands of the duly authorized priesthood, is the indispensable condi- tion of salvation ” — making a soothing excep- tion in favor of schismatics and dissenters, who separate themselves from the regular priesthood through “ involuntary ignorance and error.” I do not mean to discuss these monstrosities now, but will only add here that the ground upon which such assumptions are made is, that from the Apostles the Bishops alone derive Episcopal grace, which they communicate to the inferior clergy in ordination, and which, through the ministrations of the inferior clergy, is commu- nicated to the people in baptism and the holy EuchaVist, by the former of which a spiritual life is given, while the latter that spiritual life is fed and sustained On the other hand, our definition of “a Bish- op” makes him nothing more than a pastor or overseer of a particular congregation, who is in all official respects, upon an equality with other pastors ; who, in administering the discipline of the house of God, is associated with officers who are elected by the people, and who, in administer- ing the ordinances of the Gospel, pretends to be no more than the ministrator of emblematic ordin- a aces, whose virtue as seals of the covenant de- £ pends altogether upon the faith of the recipients. Ordination, whether with or without the imposi- tion of hands, is no more than a public and for- mal setting apart of a suitable individual to the work of the ministry, and is performed by his predec-essors in the ministry. The case of those churches which have elected one out of the number of ministers to exercise certain supervisory pow- ers over the rest, as is the fact in the Methodist and Lutheran Churches, is not an exception to the doctrine of the essential parity or equality of their ministers. These bodies do not claim a di- vine right for their Bishops or superintendents. And now, finally, what do you mean by the Catholic Church ? It is a phrase found m your former letters, and will probably occur again. I shall understand you to mean by it that portion of Christendom in which the above views as to the indispensableness of Prela-cy are to be found. That is, you hold that Prelatical bodies alone con- stitute the Catholic Church. The Romish, the Greek, the Armenian and other Eastern Churches, together with the English and American Prela- tists, are the only component parts of this Church. And their catholicity let the reader observe, con- sists not in purity of doctrine or forms of wor- ship, (for you hold all those I have named, except your own, to be more or less corrupt) but in their being governed by Prelates. This is the essential element of their catholicity, this their redeeming excellence, this their evidence of being “ in cove- nant with God.” On the other hand, in our view of Catholicity, you will find the main stress laid upon the main- tenance of the essential doctrines of the scheme of redemption, and not upon the presence or ab- sence of any external form of polity. We admit that even Prelacy does not vitiate the character of a Church, although we think it has proved it- self to be a foreign and unwholesome element in the great Christian body. Thus, the reader will perceive that while our Catholicity proves its comprehensiveness by embracing all of every name whose recognized creeds do not absolutely reject the fundamentals of Christian religion, yours renounces all who do not admit the single item of Prelacy. Which of these views best de- serves the name let the reader judge. I close my letter by saying that if I had been privileged to meet you face to face, I should have exercised ‘ the freedom,’ at which you seem to look with distaste, of insisting at once upon your obligation to give those definitions of your terms, and thus have saved myself the task of trying to reach the point thus indirectly, and the necessity of waiting for your answer. If you refuse to give me your definitions, or to correct those I have given, I shall hold myself at liberty to consider you as shrinking from the contest. All the skirmishing in your last communica- tion as to who is, technically speaking, the chal- lenger, is of little consequence. I am resolved not to postpone the discussion of the monstrous proposition you have endorsed, by disputing as to who shall appropriate this title. I do not feel, I assure you, the least inclination to accept “ the liberty to recede,” which you kindly liint at, but will rather waive all petty questions of chrivalry, quite certain that, from the beginning to the end of this discussion^ it will be seen that mine is the 18 A Church without a Bishop. attitude of defence, and yours that of an assail- ant of the common yrinciples of all anti-Prelati- cal Christendom. This is the important consid- eration. I am, Rev, and dear sii, your obedient servant, January 18 . GEORGE POINTS. LETTER IX. REV. DR. WAtNWRIOHT TO REV. DR. POTTS, Rev. and Dear Sir: — In concludinjr my last letter to you I said that I would not be either “ enticed or driven from the position I occupied when you called upon me.” Notwithstanding your pertinacious use of both these modes of cont -troversial warfare, I stand there still, and there I mean to stand. You shall “ hold me strictly” as you please to the proposition I have thrown out. I wish to ke held there. But you shall not hold me to assent to your charge that this pro, {x>sition was thrown out “ as a defiance,” or that yours is the “ attitude of self-defence against an unprovoked assault.” I have denied this before —I deny it again— if repeated, I shall henceforth deny it as a slander. I uttered “ no defiance.” I attempted no “ecclesiastical proscription.” I “ unchurched” no denomination of Christia-ns. God forbid that I, or any of those who symbolize with me in religious belief, should be guilty of such arrogance toward their fellow men ; or, what is more dreadful, such bold assumption of the sole prerogative of God. The Church is His, and He has constituted it according to His own will. — Those who do not conform to its requisitions un- church themselves. Instead of all this stale de- famation, so often repeated to excite popular pre- judice — so often answered — prove from tscripture and ancient authors that Bishops are not essential to the constitution of the Christian Church, and then }our work will be done, and efFcctually done. But until you have accomplished this, all the charges in which you so liberally indulge about *‘exciunvenes8, uncharitablness, monopoly of privileges, unchurching,” &c. are utterly irrele- vant, and only calculated (I will not say de- signed) to divert the public mind from the true issue. Enough of this, however. Let me recal you once more to your true position. In your letter of December 27th you say, “I will hold myself ready (should you admit that the reporter of your speech has not done you injustice at least in this particular) to prove that this projiosition (viz. there cannot be a Church, &c.) is pregnant with innumerable evil consequences, social and civil ; and that it is nnscrqUural, zinchariiahle, schismatical and anti-republican in its character.” I admit the correctness of the report. Issue is then joined, and what you have undertaken to prove is set forth in distinct and emphatic terms. You certainly will not say that you did not un- derstand what you undertook to prove. You say, moreover, that “ you arc at no loss as to my real meaning.” You have then laid your work for yourself. Begin to execute it, if that is your pleasure. My part of the work I shall manage in my own way ; and when I come to use terras I will leave you at no loss as to their meaning. AvS to the ‘ two little pieces of history’ to which you allude, the first, ia the modern dspartment, is really too small a matter to make it worthy niy while to show hovv’ utterly disingenuous your re- presentation is. As to the piece of ancient his- tory, containing the allusion to the Waldenscs, and to Bishop Stillingfleet, if you are indeed an Ignorant as you appear to be on these points, and have implicitly followed Dr. Mason and Dr. Mil- ler, without taking pains to acquaint yourself with the unanswered and unanswerable counter state- ments of Bishop Hobart and Dr. Bowden, I will in due time, when the questions come up in their proper place, endeavor to tlirow some light upon them for your benefit. My wish now is simply to let the public know, through my letter to you, as you avow that “pop- ular etFecf' is your object, that to you arc they indebted for this unfortunate, and I may add, un- worthy exhibition of two clergymen contending in the public newspafjers about a question which has been discussed over and over again, and ac- cess to the ablest popular arguments upon both sides of which is very easy, by reason of the rc- publicatkm in cheap fornis of ‘ Miller’s Letters,’ &c., ‘ Bowden’s Letters’ in reply, and ‘ Hobart’s Apology for Apostolic order and its advocates.’— I assert that to you, and to you alon,e is it owing that we are both placed in this, which I will cheerfully acknowledge to be an ‘ unenviable po- sition that to you is it owing that we are both subjected to the ribald remarks of licentious tongues and pens, and the sober disapprobation of a large portion of the secular press ; that to you is it owing that our common friends and a large portion of the pious and sober-minded of all de- nominations feel deep regret and mortification. — My course was inevitable. You challenged me to controversy upon the credit of a common news- paper report ; you took no private and friendly means to ascertain its accuracy ; when the cir- cumstances of the case were laid before you you refused to be convinced, and you still refuse. — Your character and standing in the community were so respectable, that I should have been a traitor to my own, if I had shrunk even in thought from your defiance. I have met it, and I stand ready to abide all its consequences. You now yield the point we have thus far contended for, ungraciously as I cannot help thinking, but you yield it. You say you “ will commence,” and thus, with the allinnative, have assumed the responsibility of the aggressor and the defier.— Proceed. I beg you now proceed to the proof; and I take the liberty to beg you also to proceed upon the purely scriptural and historical merits of the question, and in a Christian spirit, avoiding (as I for my part, by God’s help, intend to do,) all personalities, all injurious epithets, and all ap- peals to mere prejudice and passion. Injurious epithets decide nothing ; for if my doctiine should be God’s truth, what can they avail ? Apfieals to mere prejudice and passion decide nothing ; they cannot put mj^ doctrine in the wrong, any more than the universal clamor of all Ephesus put St. Paul’s doctrine in the wrong. My views of Christian truth, you are bound to believe, are as sincerely and conscientiously held as your own. And wherever they are “ exclusive ” as toward yourself or others, I assert (what certainly you have no right to deny) that tliey are heW in A Chvrch without a Bishop. 19 my own feelings as charitably as yours can be, where the latter are exclusive as toward various otlier highly respectable bodies of professing Christians. t Uivc the honor to be, Rev aiu! dear sir. respectfullv vonrs, JONA. M. WAINVVKIGHT. Friday, January 12th. LETTER X. RETV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGIIT. Rev. and Dear Sir : — The intervention of the duties of the Sabbath ha» delayed a reply to your last communication. I proceed now to pay my respects to it. “ To the hard words you have felt at liberty to use, I reply, nothing; to your reasoning, this.” I. I am in p»isession of abundant evidence, even worse evils. Such results are to be expected when a contest for great principles takes place, and I do not deny that they are to be ranked among those injurious things referred to by the Saviour under the name of “ offences,” which He gays must needs occur, but of which — be it observed — He throws the wliole responsibility upon Uiosc who wilfully occasion them. III. Without retorting any of the discourteous language with which it would seem you desired to anger me, I 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 a vir- tual shrinking from the contest for which you have so often professed your readiness and con- fidence. In the first place, j'ou arc violating the idmitted rule of dialectics which requires before- given to me personallv by members and ministcTs of various denominations of Christians, including | hand unambiguous definitions of all the promin- number of your own, that it is very generally- desired by this community that the nature and grounds ©f the monopolizing claims of high- church partizans should be examined, and, if un- just, exposed. Howmver, therefore, I might feel myself justified in refusing any reply to your last communication, because of its angry and lordly tone, I am quite resolved that none of these things shall ruffle my temper, or deter me from ent terms that are to be employed in a 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 thesujiposed sense of hisown 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 of the public.^ and it is not to be taken for granted that what I conceive to be an important duty. I in- | public are as well acquainted as ourselves tend to go forward with my object, although it is j very evident that in doing so I arn acting in op with the sense in which these terms are used by either of us. Tliey'^ can appreciate the force of poBUiori tothe wishes of yourself and your friends. ! arguments on either side only by first knowing II. I cannot agree with you that there is nc- I precise question of debate. And finally, lam cessarily any thing “ unworthy” of the Christian i «uxious that you should set forih your meaning or ministerial calling in making a respectable , your own words, because I desire the public U> public journal the medium of communication j from definitions of your own, that this is with the public mind, upon a topic which was ‘ no small matter, about which it is idle to dispute, thought of sufficient importance to be introduced Neither ol us thinks so. It is a question, which, to the public attention first at a dinner table, and j »» your view, involves matters of life and death, then, by report, through the daily prints. Is it . mid which, in my vie'w, afiects Christian liberty too sacred for the one, then I appeal to you whe- ! opposed to a spiritual despotism, catholic char- ther it was not loo sacred for the other. This * as opposed to schismatic bigotry, the spiritu- should have been considered beforehand, and the ality of religion as opposed to a religion of sacra- consequences — apparently so disagreeable to you I ments, the efficacy ol faith in the Redeemer aa —should not be laid at the door of him who feels , opposed to the efficacy of rites and ceremonies, bound to call in question a public and most offen- j salvation received at the hands of Christ as sive attack, as publicly as it was made. Whe. i opposed to a salvation deposited in the hands, and ther it w'asor was not an attack, and even a defi- 1 only dispensed through tlic intervention, of man, aace, against unoffending Christian denomina- j that man {>fcsbyter, prelate or Pope. These tions, whose several church relations are very j are some of the points involved, and therefore dear to them, must now bo left to the decision of i the justice of the demand which, upon the the reader. To threaten me contingently with a ! pm t of the public, I reiterate, for a definition of charge of slander, ior re-affirming what is so | yotir terms. You say 3'ou will define them when perfectly clear even to members of your owni church, who have sought rnc out to s{>eak of this matter, will not alter the truth or frighten me from calling things by their right names. I re- gret, with you, that this or any similar discus- sion has originated, just as I regret that a neces- sity should ever arise for the resistance of false and injuriims principles or oppressive exactions of any kind. I regret that there is injustice in the w'orld, and that there are insidious or Auolent assaults against God’s truth ; but since such things do exist, I do not regret that individuals can be found to whom the puritj- and integrity of truth are so much more valuable than a peace bought at the cost of a dastardly submission to error that they are willing to risk ‘‘ the ribald remarks of licentious tongues and pens,” and you come to use them ; but you have u.^^ed them, and the proposition in which you have used them is the very subject of debate. All I desire is to liave the public put in possession of the high- cliurch .sense of them, from a source which none will suspect, as possibly unfair. Until therefore 3^ou give them yourself, or admit tho.se I have given, you enjoy the advantage of Indian war. fare, that of fighting from an ambush. Is this, however, an honorable position for one who should have nothing to conceal, and who has said that truth, not victory, is his object ? IV. I must now beg the reader’s attention to a passage in 3’ourl8Uit communication, which can- not satisfy tlie least observant, although it denies as slanderous the charges which I have brought against your speech at the New England festival, 20 A Church without a Bishop. of “ ecclesiastical proscription, unchurching your fellow Christians, defying them to prove that there can be a church without a prelate, and monopo- lizing the rights and privileges of the church of Christ.” Were this denial accompanied by any expression of regret that you had incautiously used the language ascribed to you, and did not mean it to be understood in the sense naturally attached to the terms, I would at once relinquish my part in this controversy. But this you have not done. That language, in your own report of it, plainly conveys an assertion that the demonin- ations of Christians in this and other lands who are not blessed with Bishops in your sense of the wmrd, do not belong to the church of Christ. Can language be plainer ? And how do you avert the odium which must attach itself to such a position ? By ascribing to them the guilt and shame of “un- churching” themselves. You have not unchurch- ed them, forsooth ; they have unckurched them, selves. But who says this 1 Not themselves, but Dr. Wainwright and his coadjutors. 'Ihis is a sophism too obvious to produce much effect in re- leasing you from the stigma against which you so vehemently protest, and which involves in it all the proscription, monopoly and exclusiveness which I have — fearless of the risk of uttering a slander — charged against your “principle,”— When analyzed, it is identical in meanirig with a similar instance of bigotry, which I find in an Ox- ford Tractist. “How,” he asks, “can we be justly charged with unchurching those who were never churched ?” Instead of making good your denial, or justifying your threat of holding me re- sponsible for slander, the passage in your letter now referred to only repeats the offence, with ag- gravations. “ Be quiet, take the matter coolly,” says an arrogant gentleman who publicly smites another in the face — “ you have no right to resist, for you are a worthless fellow, and for that reason I would have you know that I did not strike you — you struck yourself,^'' This would hardly prove a satisfactory mode of adjusting an insult. I happen to be acquainted with the “ unan- swered and unanswerable” arguments and state- ments of Dr. Hobart and Dr. Bowden, and there- fore decline any benefit from the plea of “ ig- norance,” which you politely suggest. Still not having “ implicitly followed Dr. Mason and Dr. Miller,” greatly as I admire them both, I will, of course, be the more open to the prospective illu- mination so kindly promised me. This, I believe, is all that I need to say, in jus- tification of the course I have taken, and the views I have thus far advanced, and from the farther prosecution of which I am not to be de- terred by abusive epithets, or charges of unworth}?^ motives, no matter from what source they come. Those who know me know that nothing but a sense of duty can have prompted me to depart so far from my ordinary habits as a man of peace. Forbearance has a limit. And now I shall proceed to state the question, as clearly as I can, hoping that the reader may, ere long, come at a more distinct understanding as to your views of the point at issue. Many persons will not believe that your words mean all that they appear to affirm. Let them have an opportunity of judging, from your own pen. The language of your proposition is well known by this time — but I will repeat it : — “ 1 here can be no church without a prelate.” I refer the reader to my last letter for the true sense of the words ‘ Church ’ and ‘ Bishop,’ when used by high-church prelatists. I will not, there- fore, repeat them here. Thus understood, I pro- ceed to redeem my pledge, and to show that in its nature and consequences this position, though so confidently assumed, is unscriptural. I wish that two considerations may be kept in view throughout my remarks, for they are neees- sary lor a right understanding of my position. (I.) That I am not, in this discussion, the ad- vocate of the ecclesiastical polity of that part of the Christian Church to which I consider it an honor to belong, except so far as that polity^ involves the ministerial rights of presbyters, or parochial (i. e. parish or congregational) Bishops. In affirming their rights, 1 affirm the rights of the presbyters of ail anti-prelatical churches. (II.) I am not assailing the views of those of our fellow-Christians who believe that prelacy is scriptural and expedient, but who do not believe that it is so enjoined in scripture as to be a sine qua non in the constitution of the Church of Christ ; and who accordingly admit that the order of a Presbyterian ministry is valid, though not the best order. With such I am not contend, ing ; we agree to differ ; we concede to them what they concede to us, a legitimate standing in the catholic church. Tihe dogma which I have undertaken to resist and expose, is that which makes prelacy essential to the very being of the church, BO that without prelates there is no church, and of course, no valid ministry and ordinances, no promises of God, no lawful reliance upon God’s grace, no covenanted mercies, and no just and certain hope of reaching Heaven. This is the dogma which you have received from Papist hands, and which I hold to be at war with the spirit and letter of the word of God, I. Because there is no warrant from the Word of God for making any particular external form of polity a condition of that Christian fellowship and communion Vv^ith God, which are the distin- guishing duties and privileges of the Church of Christ. If there be such a warrant, produce it. The burden of proof rests on you. Let any one ex- amine the tenor of the preacliing of Christ and his Apostles, and then point to a solitary evidence that they placed, as you do, merely external rela- tions upon a level with the exercises of the spirit- ual graces, of repentance toward God, and faith in Christ— or that they made the exercise of these spiritual affections dependent upon the individu- al’s outward relations to a form of church polity. On the contrary, this is the very error for wliich they condemn most earnestly the high-church pre- tensions of the Jews of their day, who insisted upon their ecclesiastical relationship to Abraham, their possession of the ritual, their circumcision, their doctrine of uninterrupted succession ; and who were so tenacious of these externals, that they were for bringing some of them into the Cluistian church with them. (See the Epistle to the Ga- latian church.) Understand me, I hold the Church of Christ to be a society, a commumty of believers ; and agree that it is right to cop/orm to the general principles which arc to be -found in A Church without a Bishop, 21 scripture for the regulation of that community, and the attainment of the end of all association, the benefit of those associated. I admit that I find what I conceive to be satisfactory evidence of a best form for the outward and visible Church ; best, because best adapted for the developement of the grand principles of individual and social piety and brotherhood. I find order enjoined, and sub- mission to order ; the preaching of the Gospel, and obedience to the Gospel when preached. — But I do not find any authority given for the doc- trine you teach, that one particular order is abso- lutely essential to the being of a Church. I do not find that the preaching of the Gospel must depend for its efficacy upon the circumstance that it comes to the public ear through the lips of a ministry constituted after a particular fashion. The blessing of God is promised to the truth, and to men only as they preach the truth. The true apostolical succession is a succession of apostolic truth — and as compared with such succession, a line of Prelates reaching back to the days of the Apostles, though not a link in the chain were wanting, is as “ the chaff to the wheat.” Take another view of the subject. Profound learning, combined with unquestionable piety- has been long employed in investigating the ques, tion as to the precise and detailed forms which the earliest Christian communities assumed, un- der the' eye of the Apostles. And what has been the result of their inquiries? An acknowledged diversity of opinion. Men who have fully agreed in regard to the great moral truths of the Gos. pel (and let any one take the written creeds of the various Christian bodies in the Protestant Church, and he will be struck with this doctrinal unanimi- ty,) have come to different conclusions, as to va- rious points affecting the polity or external or- ganization of Christian communities. Now, do we not find in this acknowledged di- versity of sentiment upon the question of formal religion among those who are admitted to agree upon the question of real religion, proof that scripture lays a very different stress upon them, and the most powerful argument for mutual for- bearance and toleration ? And is it not incom- patible with common sense — I say nothing now of charity — for any one denomination, with these facts before them, to insist upon disowning fel- low Christians who agree with them in every other particular of faith and obedience to the spiritual laws of Christ, upon the single ground that they have not conformed to their views of government and order? Is the unity of the Christian body a unity in respect to form ? or not rather a unity in faith and love for the same grand moving truths of the Gospel ? Do none be- long to the body of Christ, his church, but such as agree with us in every thing? And if differ- ences are allowable, as you must admit, shall we restrict our communion to those who do not hold our views of church order, although they may hold every thing else? In one word, is it not a sin against the spirituality of Christianity, that we should elevate conformity to what we deem true views of cliurch order to a level with the “ weightier matters of the law, fudgement, mercy and faith ? ” I cannot but think so. And strong as are my preferences for a particular form of government, I dare not deny, as you have done, that the man who is “ a Christian” is by that very fact a mem- ber of Christ’s church. You are bound to these alternatives : either to admit the covenant rela- tions of other Christian churches, or by denying them, to admit that God has poured out his bless- ings, and raised up hosts of eminent, learned, de- voted and dseful Christians, among Christian bo- dies which were never in covenant wuth him If, as you will not deny, he lias actuall}^ done the latter, then the inference is, either that yours is not the only church, or that, if it be, it is not the only or the principal channel of spiritual good to the world. In other words. Heaven has made no such discrimination between you and others as will justify your exclusive claims. This is a common sense argument, and it con- firms the position taken in the outset of these remarks, namely, that the formalities of religion ought not to be raised to the level of the spirituali- ties of religion ; because all fact establishes the. infinite superiority with which scripture invests the latter. The inference we draw is that there is no warrant from scripture for making any par- ticular external form of polity, a condition of that Christian fellowship and communion with God, which are distinguishing duties and privileges of the church of Christ. Asking pardon for the length of this commu- nication, I reserve other scriptural considerations for another occasion, and remain, Ile.si)ectfully, yours, GEO. FOTTS. LETTER XI. REV. DR. W'AINWRIGKT TO REV. DR. POTTS. Rev. AND Dear Sir : The first half of your let- ter is fa^^en up with matters to which I shall re- ply very briefly. In the first place you still discuss the question as to who is the assailing party in this contro- versy, and reiterate your conviction that it is I who am the aggressor. My dear sir, let us drop this discussion. I can by no means admit the justice of your charge. Let the public decide between us on this point — I am quite willing to submit it to their decision. In the second place you speak of the “ angry and lordly tone” of my last letter — its discourte- ous language,” designed “ to anger” you — and of the “ abusive epithets” and charges of “unworthy motives.” I am totally unable to perceive that I have given you any just ground to speak on this wise. I cannot for one moment admit that I am justly chargeable under either of these heads. I have only to say again, let the candid public judge between us. All the other points in your preliminary obser- vations, that have any bearing upon the simple question in dispute, shall be disposed of in their proper places. We have now got fairly to “ the dogma ” which you say I “ have received from Papist hands,” and which you hold to be “ at war with the spirit and letter of the Word of God.” I have received it from Papist hands precisely in the way in which you have received the Holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Trinity and the Atonement, &c. You surely will not esteem it a just ground of objection to any doctrine that it has been held 22 A Church without a Bishop. by the Church of Rome in common with the great body of the Church catholic, at all times and in all places. And as regards this dogma, remember that its truth was never disputed, and conformity with its distinctive provision never departed from until after the Reformation ; that it formed no ground of objection in the minds of the first reformers, to the Church of Rome, and that these great men yielded it up with marked reluctance, and only from the compulsion of the circumstances in which they were placed. But the question now properly before us is, where does this dogma, as you term it, find its origin, not through what channel it has come down to us. If it is “ at war with the spirit and letter of the Word of God,” as you say, I acknowledge that no power of prescription, no universality of acceptance, could sustain it for one moment. — Here I join issue with you, and say that the prin- ciple, there ‘ can be no Church without a Bishop,’ is not anti-scriptural, but is in perfect consisten- cy “ with the spirit and letter of the Word of God.” You ask me again for ray definition of the terms “Church” and “Bishop.” I reply that I use them precisely in the sense in which they are used in the standards of the Church of which I am a member. These are contained, as you know, in the Book of Common Prayer — to these definitions it is my intention rigidly to ad- here, and if you detect in my remarks any de- parture from this resolution and will expose it, I shall thank you cheerfully and amend the error. I presume you are equall}^ ready to be bound by your own standards, and I will ask you for no other definitions than those which are there recorded, or which may be logically inferred from their plain propositions. You maintain your affirmation, 1st, on this ground — “ because there is no warrant from the Word of God for making any particular external form of polity a condition of that Christian fellowship and communion with God, which are the distinguishing duties and privileges of the Church of Christ.” Now sup- pose it were as you affirm, this would not make Episcopacy anti-scriptural any more than you will allow Presbyterianism to be anti-scriptural. Episcopacy excludes Presbyterian ordination just as Presbyterianism excludes congregational or lay ordination. But this reminds me that we have one or two questions to settle in relation to your exact “ po- sition,” before we can proceed with a clear mu- tual understanding. I take it for granted that you admit a ministry by God’s appointment to be necessary to the being of a Church, and that this ministry derives its authority, not from men, nor from the Church itself, but from Christ, the head of the Church. We must, if you please, be very explicit on this point, or our discussion might soon assume a rambling and discursive character, which it is the interest (for the saving of time) and, I doubt not, the wish of us both to avoid. In the considerations you offer as “ ne- cessary for a right understanding of your posi- tion,” you say that you are “ not the advocate of the eccicsiasticai polity of the Church to which you belong, except so far as that polity involves the ministerial rights of presbyters or parochial (i. e. parish or congregational) Bishops.” Now what are these ministerial rights, and whence are they derived ? I think that when you have an- swered these questions the Congregationalists and the Friends, and some other denominations, will not find much to choose between us as “ to chari- ty,” “exclusiveness,” “unchurching, &c. I presume, then, you hold to the doctrine “that the Christian ministry is essential to the Church and must always exist.” I dare say that in this point we should both coincide as to what is “ the spirit and letter of the Word of God.” St. Jerome, the father by no means least in favor with you, says that is “not a Church which has not priests.” The Lutherans, in the Confession of Augsburg, declared that “ in order that we might obtain justifying faith the ministry of preaching the gos- pel and administering the sacraments was insti- tuted,” and they add that they condemn “ the Anabaptists and others who think that men re- ceive the Holy Spirit without the external word.” Calvin argues at length in proof of the necessity of the ministry in the Church — saying, that “the Church is not otherwise edified than by external preaching” ; he affirms that “ Christ so ordained the office of the ministry in the Church, that, were it taken away, the Church would perish.” — In your own confession of faith, chapter XXV., section 2d, it is asserted — “ The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under Uie Gos- pel, (not confined to one nation as before under the law,) consist of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ — the house and family of God — out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” — “Unto this catholic, visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life, to the end of the world, and doth by his own presence and spirit — according to his promise — make them effectual thereunto.” Thus Christ is represented as giving the minis- try equally with the oracles and ordinances, and to the same end. In the form of government of the Presbyterian Church, Chapter III, “Of the officers of the Church,” we read — “ Our blessed Lord at first collected his Church out of different nations, and formed it into one body by the mis- sion of men endowed with miraculous gifts, which have long ceased.” “ The ordinary and perpetual officers of the Church are Bishops or pastors, &c. And here Ephesians IV. 11 12, is referred to as authority, where Christ is spoken of as appointing the ministry. “ And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” As touching this point, then, we agree that a min- istry, divinely appointed, is essential to the being of a Church. I presume, too, you would admit as readily that this ministry must be Apostolical ; derived from Christ m some way through the Apostles. An Apostolical ministry, then, you must acknowledge to be “ essential (to use your own words) to the very being of a Church, so that without it there is no Church, and of course ‘ no ordinances, no promises of God, no lawful reli- ance upon God’s grace, no covenanted mercies, and no ju-st and certain hope of reaching heaven.’ ” Observe, I do not give all these inferences as my A Church without a Bishop, 23 own. You have put them upon me as resulting from my position, that a Bishop,”or“ Prelate,” as you choose to quote me, is essential to the be- ing of a Church. I am authorized, therefore, I think, to put them upon you as resulting from the doctrine we hold in common, that an Apostolical ministry is essential to the being of a Church. You have unchurched, then, the Quakers and left them to the uncovenanted mercies of God : you have unchurched the Congregationalists, you have unchurched the whole body of Methodists, you have unchurched large portions if not the whole of the Baptists, to the full extent that I un- church you. Do you shrink in “horror” from a proposition so “ monstrous” ? If you can escape from it I shall be glad to know how. If you do confess that this is your position, as far as I can see you must relinquish the doctrine of the minis- try and the church, as maintained, I believe, in all the reformed creeds and certainly in your own. Now this is a point upon which I should like some satisfaction. And if the result of your reconsi- deration of the subject should be that we symbolize on this grand point, perhaps you will agree with me that we had better not preier against each other any charges of “ uncharitableness,” “ exclusive, ness” “ unchurching,” &:-c., but since we both agree that “ there is warrant from the Word of God for making a particular external form of polity a condition of that Christian fellowship and com- munion with God which are the distinguishing duties and privileges of the Church of Christ,” we calmly proceed to inquire what that external form of polity is. You will perceive that I return to you your own first argument against my posi- tion, requesting you to reconsider it and see whether it does not militate against fair inferences to be draw’n from the standards of the Church to which you belong. I should conclude my letter here, and await your answer, for I am anxious that our coinmu- nications should be short, by being restricted as far as practicable to a single point, both with a view to our own convenience and what I believe to be the public wnsh, but I must correct you up- on one point where you have certainly greatly misapprehended my views. You say “ let any one examine the tenor of the preaching of Christ and his Apostles, and then point to a solitary evi- dence that they placed, as you do, merely exter- nal relations upon a level with the exercise of the spiritual graces of repentance toward God, and faith in Christ.” My dear sir, I will not doubt your sincerity in making this charge, but I be- seech you to examine again those expressions of mine to which you have given a construction so abhorrent to my clear convictions of Christian truth. Place external relations upon a level with the exercise of spiritual graces — repentance and faith ? ! ! Never, never, could I do this. Formalist as you may believe me to be, I beseech you make me not appear to value the body more than the eoul. I believe that in this world the intimate union of both is essential to life. The body we know cannot live without the soul, nor have I ever yet learned that God has permitted a soul to exist in this probationary state without a body, but do I therefore place as high a value upon the body as the soul ? By no means. I only contend that what “ God hath joined together” man should not attempt “ to put asunder if he hath said concerning his Church, there is “one Spirit,” he hath also said there is one body.” I am, Rev. and Dear Sir. yoor obedient servant, JON A. M. WAiN WRIGHT Wf.dnksd.iy, Jan. 17th. LETTER XII. REV. DR. roTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT. Rev. AND Dear Sir : As our readers will have perceived, I have been too anxious to reach the merits of the question before us, to insist with any pertinacity upon technical questions. It would have been very easy, as I believe, to make suc- cessful battle upon all the points you have raised from time to time, but as it would have entangled tha question, I have waived them. I am now in some hope that there will be, henceforth, a fair and manly grappling with the real point at issue between us. I have but a single remark to make, before I proceed to notice your last communication. It is in relation to my supposition that your preceding letter was composed in “ an angry and lordly tone,” and contained “ discourteous language which I forbore to retort,” Ordinary people do not deem a charge of slander very civil ; yet this charge you brought against me, in company with other ungracious language, “ stale declamation,” “ instructing my ignorance,” &,c. Though this style of dealing with an opponent passes with many as equivalent to argument, and is consider- ed an evidence of cleverness, I hope no tempta- tion whatever will seduce me into the use of it. Hard arguments and hard words do not belong to tlie same category. Passing all this, I repeat my satisfaction that “ we have now fairly got to the dogma, which I hold to be at war with the spirit and letter of the word of God,” no matter now from what hands you have received it. You call upon me to “ re- member that its truth was never disputed until the Reformation ; that it formed no ground of objection in the minds of the first Reformers to the Church of Rome, and that these great men yielded it up with marked reluctance, &c.” You can hardly expect me to “ remember” this, for I do not believe it to have been so, but on the con- trary, I think I can show that it was not so. I 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 being of the Church of Christ. I am glad to find that you are ready to abide by the Word of God, as the only au- thority which we are now to summon to the de- cision of this question. My first reply to your affirmation, that Prelacy is essential to the being of the Church, and the reply to which I restricted myself in my last letter, was this — “ That there is no warrant in Scrip- tare for making any particular external forms of polity a condition of that Christian fellowship and communion with God which are the distin- guishing duties and privileges of the Church of Christ.” You say that were the argument I have ad- vanced true, i. e., were it true ‘ that there is no warrant,’ &c. «Si,c., this would not ‘ make Epis- ! copacy anti-Scriptural,’ any more than Presby- 24 A Church without a Bishop. tery. This, I beij to say, is not the point in hand, for I admit tliat the argument bears equally on Prelacy and Presbytery, as respects the making either of them exclusive. Either may, according to the different judgments of their respective ad- vocate, be the most conformed to the Scripture model, and yet neither, as I maintain, should be raised to the rank of an essential condition of Christian brotherhood and communion with God. You may think Prelacy most clearly taught in Scripture, as I do Presbytery, but the question which I pray you to bear in mind, is, shall we, on the ground of our respective opinions on a question oi forms, about which multitudes of wise and good men differ, although they are agreed in respect to the spiritualities of Christianity, as a moral institute — shall we, I say, proceed to de- liver each other over ‘ to uncovenanted mercy in other words, excommunicate each other from the covenant of God, and its promises and privil- eges ? Against any position of which this is the natural and inevitable consequence my whole soul revolts. Now what is your reply to this ? Why, after assuming two things, which you say I must ad- mit, and which I do admit, you proceed to infer that I must, if consistent, run upon the very same consequences which I have charged against your own position. You quote from various authori- ties, Jerome, the Augsburg Confession of the Lu- theran Church, Calvin, and the Presbyterian Con- fession, to show that a “ ministry” is essential to the visible Church. Agreed : 1 had already ad- mitted this, when giving an account, in my last letter, of what I found in Scripture concerning the essentials of Church order. But another pos- tulate, which you take for granted I will concede, is that this ministry “ must be apostolical, that is, derived from Christ in some way through the Apostles.” Now I 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 I am satis- fied there is a fallacy in your use of it, which I will proceed to notice in due time. Supposing me then to admit “ an Apostolical ministry of the word and ordinances,’’ as essential to the very being of a Church, you proceed to draw the necessary inferences for me in these words — “You have unchurched, then, the Quakers and left them to the uncovanted mercies of God ; you have unchurched the Congregationalists ; you have unchurched the whole body of the Metho- dists ; you have unchurched large portions if not the whole of the Baptists, to the full extent that I unchurch you ; and you significantly ask, no doubt with some triumph over my foolish incon- sistency, whether I do not shrink “ in horror from a proposition so monstrous.” I answer this question, thus put in irony, em- phatically in the affirmative. I do shrink from it with horror. And more than this, were your retort of this charge of unchurching the several bodies you name a just retort, I might well admit my folly for having forgotten the familiar pro- verb, about living in glass houses and throwing stones. But f can dispose of the retort in a very summary manner, and without any impeachment of my consistency, and can show that I do not unchurch my fellow Christians of these large and respectable denominations (w'ho hold the essen- tial truths of the Gospel) in any sense, much less in the sense and “ to the-extent ” in which yon. unchurch me. Am I to suppose that in making the above averment you meant to be understood as asserting a matter of fact ? You must surely have known that as a matter of fact, we freely recognize the essential character and Church rights of these bodies of Christians. This is no- torious. You must mean, therefore, that if I carry out my principles, I must do, what you do, unchurch the above named bodies. Your argu- ment is ad invidiam, but it fails to answer your object, because I shall now proceed to show that it not only contradicts matter of fact, but is built upon a false inference of your own, from our views of what constitutes a valid ministry. First. It contradicts well known facts. The only apparent exception is the case of the Friends ; concerning wffiom as a society a yariety of opitiions exists. They are divided into two opposite parlies, one of which rejects, as wc both believe, the very fundamentals of Christianity, while the other holds fast (so far as I know) to evangelical truth, though with a mixture of doc- trinal errors. It is only concerning the last that there can be any question m this connection. — These do not reject a ministry, for they have ministers and elders, after their own sort ; nor tlo they reject the ordinances of the gospel pro- fessedly, simply contending that these ordinances arc to be observed spiritually, and not at all ex- ternally. Now I consider these views as serious- ly defective, but if through these views they hold communion with the Head of the Church, I dare not deny that they are living mernbers of his body. Their ecclesiastical organization may be defective, but not in such a sense as to de- stroy their hold upon the blessings of God’s cov- enant. As to the other bodies named in the above ex- tract — Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, — there is not even a faint shadow of authority for the assertion that I unchurch them, in any sense, least of all in the sense in which you un- church me. To make this out, you must be able to adduce /flc^s, not inferences. The facts to the contrary lie open to the knowledge of any man. The mutual interchange of ministerial services proves that it is not so. If a minister of any one of these Churches desires to enter into ihe minis- try among us he is not re-ordained ; should a member of one of these Churches choose to unite with us, in constant or only occasional com- munion, he is not re paptised. You cannot point to an individual among us who wmuld hesitate to sit down at the table of our common Lord, with accepted members of any of these Churches. We honor them, as the possessors of the truth, and as having the best of all imprimaturs to at- test the validity of their ministry and ordinances, viz : the seal of God’s spirit, which has made each of these bodies eminently useful in improv- ing mankind. We rejoice in their successes in accomplishing so glorious an object, and consider their successes as the best of all evidence that God is with them, and has recognized their or- ganizations as possessing the essential features of the cathohe Church. Do thev send forth their devoted missionaries to a foreign field, we A Church without a Bishop. 25 never interfere with their labors, as you have done in reference to those you call Lutheran- Cal- vinists, but we bid them God speed, cherishing no feelings of rivalry, much less of animosity, upon the ground that they do not articulate our Shibboleths in our way. What son or daughter among us will refuse to meet a pious parent of another Church, at the Lord’s table, (as is noto- riously the case among you,) upon the ground that it is not the Lord’s table, and that those who meet at it are not ministers or members of Christ’s Church ? These are significant ques- tions, simply put, and I beg the reader to ponder them and decide how little reason there is for the opinion that there is not much to “ choose be- tween us, as to ‘ charity,’ ‘ exclusiveness,’ ‘ un- churching,” &-C. Such is the state of the facts. But, second, you will reply that our practice is inconsistent with the principles you have quoted from our formularies. To this I answer, that in those for- mularies there is not a word which condemns our practice. Let the reader examine your jeferen- ces and decide whether they are liable to the charge of exclusiveness. Farther, let him turn to Book I. Ch. I. of the Form of Government, and he will hnd a distinct declaration that we “ believe that there are truths and forms with re. spect to which men of good characters and prin- ciples may differ and that “ in all these, we think it the duty, both of private Christians and societies, to exercise mutual forbearance.” What clearer renunciation of exclusive claims can be given than this ? But to leave no room for the charge of incon- sistency with our doctrines, let me add that the principles in regard to a ministry, which are set forth in our symbols, no where make a linked succession of individuals an indispensable requi- site in ministerial investiture. It is at this point that I detect the fallacy of your retort — a fallacy already adverted to, and which I promised to no- tice. You demand from me that I should admit an Apostolical ministry — i. e. “ one derived, in some way, from Christ, through the Apostles.” — I do admit it, but evidently not in your sense, for in your sense an Apostolical ministry embraces the idea of an unbroken series of individuals . — Now were I disposed, I think it would not be difficult to show that if there be any weight in the claim of such an unbroken series of ordina- tions, we can establish as perfect a right to it as you. The only difference between us being this,, that we trace the series through the ministers of Christ’s Church as presbyters^ and you as pre~ lates. But we lay no stress upon this, first, be- cause no stress is laid upon it in Scripture, (if there be, you can show it,) and secondly, because we can conceive of cases in which it would be the duty of Christian believers to disregard the punctilios of ecclesiastical genealogy, which a re- gard for regularity and fitness would lead good men to observe under ordinary circumstances. — Conceive, for instance, of a community of Chris- tians cast upon a desert shore ; they have the word of God, but no minister ; shall they con- tinue for ever without the offices of Christianity, and not rather appoint one or more of their num- ber who shall give himself wholly to the work of ministering God’s word and ordinances ? Such a one, I believe with Luther, would be as truly a presbyter as if he had been consecrated by all the Bishops in the world. Conceive, again, of the possibility of so" extensive an apostacy from sub- stantial Christianity, in any body calling itself a Church, as to make communion with them no longer tolerable, is there no remedy ? The Eng- lish reformers thought differently, and so did the reformers of the continent, and so in their turn did Wesley and his coadjutors, and a large body of the Puritans. In one word, the exercise of the right of separation is to be justified or con- demned, in the first instance, by the facts which caused the separation. If unnecessary, the sepa- ration is schisfii, and its immediate authors arc to be held responsible ; but, if necessary, the sin of schism rests upon those who made it neces- sary. The grand point is not whether the sece- ders in any case carry along with them a minis- try derived from the body they are quitting, but whether they carry God’s word with them as the charter of Christian rights, organize themselves in substantial conformity to that, and then humbly ask God’s blessing. I have neither time nor room to expand these truths, and apply them to the case in hand. Let it be sufficient to add, at present, that an Apostol- ic ministry authenticates its title to th© name by the fact of its ministering Apostolic truth and or- dinances, and by the seal of God’s blessing upon its services. No other title-deed can be compared with this. Who gave the better evidence of “di- vine right” to preach the Gospel and administer its symbolic ordinances, a Robert Hall or a Dean Swift, a Dr. Chalmers or a Lawrence Sterne ? — A thousand thoughts crowd upon me here, but I must suppress them. Thus, I have “ given you some satisfaction,” I hope, by showing that the views I hold upon the subject of an “ Apostolic ministry” are in perfect harmony with the detestation with which I regard the frequent and offensive assaults made upon the various bodies of non-prelat1cal Christians. — We “ do not,” as you perceive, “ symbolize upon this point.” I have carefully reconsidered “ my first argument against your position, and I think I have shown, both from fact and theory, that it does not militate against fair inferences drawn from the standards of my own Church and of consequence that it is not only a fair argument itself, but fair for me to use, and that you have now to answer or admit. It still remains un- touched. I may pause then, until it is answered ; only observing upon the last paragraph of your letter, that in saying that you place merely external re- lations upon a level with the exercise of the spirit- ual graces of repentance and faith, I stated what I conceived to be a fair inference from the high- Churoh dogma, which makes a Prelate as indis- pensable to the Church as a Savior. I rejoice at the adhorrence you express for such a consequence, it is a fearful consequence, and as I hope to be able at some future point in this discussion to show that it is a legitimate child of its parent, may I not hope that you will see it to be your duty, in the sight of God, to renounce the parent as well as the child ? Would to God it might be so. Oh, sir, this dark world is not so full of Christians that we can af- ford to alienate any of them, by magnifying our 26 ^ Church without a Bishop. points of difference. Why, by insulting their sen- sibilities, make it impossible lor them to greeT; each other in respectful love, and work together and contend together against spiritual wickedness in high and low places ? Let us look at this single city in which our lot is cast ; its thousands who despise the truth, the history and present state of crime and ignorance, the yet unoccupied fields for holy enterprize, the progress of Papal errors — let us consider these things but a moment, and say whether, instead of uniting our forces against this legion of evils, we shall rather whet our swords against each other, and imitate the spirit of the mistaken disciple, who seems to have claimed credit of his Lord for his exclusiveness, saying “ master we found one casting out devils in thy name, and wo forbade him, because he followeth not with us.’' B.espectfally, your obedient servant, GEORGE POTTS. LETTER XIII. REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS. Rev. and Dear Sir — We are by no means so well agreed upon first principles as I had sup- posed, and therefore, to my regret, I find that we have not arrived at that stage of the argument which I thought we had reached when I address, ed to you my last letter. The necessity is now imposed upon me of taking a step backward, in order to meet you fairj.y. Having for m}^ oppo- neat an eminent divine of the Presbyterian Church, and one in connection, as I am informed, with “ the old school,” I certainly took it for 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 setforth. Upon this supposition the statements and inferences of my last letter were grounded. This doctrine I stated in substance as follows, viz. that the Christian Ministry is essential to the Church and must always exist — that this minis- try must be divinely appointed — and that it must be Apostolical, 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 I 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 ne- cessity require three orders. Bishops, presbyters and deacons, and how is the title to this ministry to be authenticated ? As I now understand you, you admit that a ** ministry” is essential to the visible Church. I request you to observe, however, that the postu- late which I advanced, as the one to which I pre- sumed we should both yield our assent, was not “ a ministry” simply — but “ a ministry divinely appointed.” Now from a careful examination of what you advance under the two heads of “ facts ” and ** principles,” I am compelled to infer that ac- cording to your theory it is not essential that the ministry should be divinely appointed. It may be self-constituted 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 ffive himself wholly to the work of ministering God’s word and ordinances.” Thus the Friends, you acknowledge, have a min- istry. Their “ organization may be defective,” but still they have a ministry, and in 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, I will not now stop to inquire. Under your head of principles you state a hypothetical case — which, you leave me to infer, therefore, is the illustration of a principle. “ Conceive,” you say, “ for in- stance, of a community of Christians cast upon a desert shore : they have the word of God, but no minister ; shall they continue forever 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 God’s word and ordinances ? ” To meet this imaginary case let me suppose another. Suppose that in the shipwreck which cast this unfortunate community upon a desert shore, they had lost their last copy of the sacred Scriptures, but had saved or could procure mate- rials for writing ; would they not, for their own satisfaction and for the benefit of their posterity, 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 the first opportunity, cast aside their imperfect manuscript, and with joy and gratitude return to a 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- ception to a general rule into a principle. Your use of the one just mentioned, however, under the head of “ principles,” shows that while you allow a ministry to be essential to the visible Church, you do not admit that it must of neces- sity be “ divinely appointed.” Now, my dear sir, although I did not under- take to defend the Presbyterian doctrine against Congregationalism, and perhaps should I succeed in doing so, may receive no thanks for my pains, yet as this course will serve my purpose as well as any other, I shall endeavor to controvert the views you have advanced in relation to the min- istry, by an appeal to the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism. What, then, is the question now in dispute be- tween us ? I will state it again, and as distinctly as I can, with a view to a c-lear comprehension by those of our readers who are not familiar with theological subjects of this nature. It is not whether Bishops in any sense, that is, diocesan Bishops, having charge of many con. gregations, or parochial Bishops, having charge of but one, are essential to the visible Church — but it is whether a ministry of divine appoint- ment — that is, a ministry receiving its Com- mission from other ministers possessing divine authority to bestow the commission, in contra- distinction to a ministry holding its sole authority through the appointment of the members of a Christian congregation, is essential to the visible Church. On this question I will, with your permission. 27 .4 Church tcithout n Bishop. change places with you and take the aflSrmative, that the former and not the latter is a true minis- try according to the Word of God. That the Church is avisible body — that is, an association of men professing the true religion and united together by some outward organiza- tion — we both agree. Now what is essential to this organization ? The Confession of Faith, chapter XXV,, section III., replies : — “ Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world ; and doth by his own presence and spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.” Now Christ gave the “ ministry” just as he gave the “ oracles” and “ ordinances,” and his presence and spirit are equally promised to all. It is styled the “ minis, try of God,” just as the Scripturs are styled the “ oracles of God-” No man, no body of men, how- ever learned or pious, could indite other oracles, or sanction other ordinances, and by parity of rea- son they could not appoint any other ministry. And he has left the ministry in no painful doubt as to its continuance ; for when he gave it its grand commission he said, “ Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” The ministry must be derived from Christ or it is no valid ministry at all. As he hath conveyed his word to us through a long succession of ages, and preserved it in periods of ignorance, con- fusion and darkness, so hath he conveyed to us the ministry and so preserved it; and the same line of proof and argument which traces back the “ oracles” and “ordinances” to the Apostles’ days, traces back the “ ministry” and proves that it is divinely appointed. But here vve touch upon the question of sue cession — which, however, I mean to reserve for* future and fuller consideration. The present ar- gument is preliminary ; for if you can set aside the necessity of a ministry divinely appointed, in the sense that I have attached to the words, the question of succession is an idle one. I next quote the Confession of Faith, chapter xxvii. section 4. “There be only two sacra- ments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gos- pel, that is to say, baptism and the Supper of the Lord ; neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the word, lawfully ordained.” In support of the condition that this minister must be lawfully ordained, tiie Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. V. verse 4, is quoted : “ And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Now, that the Confession of Faith is right in thus considering the divine call of Aaron as an external call, is manifest in that, according to Scripture, it was not a simple spirit- ual preparation for the sacred office, nor was it a designation by the choice of the congregation of Israel ; but, having been selected by God, he was visibly set apart and consecrated by divine au- thority. And moreover, the Gonfession of Faith might greatly have strengthened its position, had its compilers thought it needful, by referring to the followinfg verse ; “ So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest : but he that said unto him. Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.” If the blessed Saviour, prepared as he was by the indwelling of all the i fullness of God’s spirit for his great work of the ministry, did not enter upon it without an exter- nal ordination, can we doubt of its necessity to the complete organization of his Church to all fu- ture time ? But power greater even than that of adminis- tering the sacrements is conceded to the ministry by the Confession of Faith, Chapter XXX, sec- , tions 1 and 2 : “ The Lord Jesus, as King and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a go- vernment in the hand of Church offices, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent both by the word and cen- sures ; and to open it unto penitent sinners by the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from censure as occasion shall require.” Here are powers which no man certainly would take unto himself, and which it would be reck, less contempt for the prerogatives of God for any congregation of men to pretend to confer. Nor is the Presbyterian Church guilty of such awful presumption, for it is expressly acknowledged that these powers are derived from the Lord Jesus, and they are exercised in virtue of authority j from him — and not by any delegated authority i from the Church. I go forward now with the Larger Catechism. Question 63 is as follows : “ What are the spe- cial privileges of the visible Church. ?” Answer — “ The visible Church hath the privi- lege of being under God’s special care and gov- ernment ; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all ene- mies ; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all members of it, in the min- ''iSTRY OF THE GosPEL,” &.C. The visiblc Church being thus under God’s special care, and being protected and preserved in all ages, can we suppose that he would suffer the “ ministry,” which he originally gave to it through Christ, to be lost any more than the “ oracles and ordi- nances ” which he also gave ? Again, the com- munion of saints, the ordinary means of salva- tion, and offers of grace by Christ, are enjoyed in the Ministry of the Gospel. If these blessings are to be enjoyed in the ministry of the Gospel, this is the channel through which they are con- veyed ; and the channel must be as permanent and continuous as the stream which is to flow through it, and therefore both channel and stream are of divine appointment. In the Larger Catechism, question 158 is as follows : “ By whom is the word of God to be preached ?” Answer. — “ The word of God is to be preached by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.” The inward gift alone, then, is not sufficient, nor the approval of this gift by the Church, but there must be a call to the office. Of what nature is this call ? The text referred to answers the ques- tion : — “ And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Observe that this same text was cited in the Confession of Faith, in explanation of what lawlul ordination is. To be “ duly approved and called,” then, is to be lawfully ordained, and 28 A Church without a Bishop. to be lawfully ordained is to beset apart outwardly by those possessing authority to this end by di- vine appointment. I might here proceed to make other extracts from the standards of the Presbyterian Church, and sustain those I have made by parallel pas- sages from the standards of her sister Churches around us, and illustrate the whole by unequivo- cal language from the teachings of her ablest doctors — proving that the undoubted doctrine of this Church is, that a ministry divinely appointed by external ordination is essential to the visible Church, and proving, moreover, that this doc- trine has the surest warrants of Scripture and sound reason — but enough has been raid. So much for the principles maintained by your standards. As to the general inconsistency of your practice, as indicated in the array of facts which you have drawn up, that is your affair and not mine. However, if you will permit me I will observe that I think instances are not wanting to show that other communions interpret the stan- dards of your Church, and the practice of that section of it to which I suppose you belong, in the sensei have expressed, rather than in that which, incautiously perhaps for the purpose of this dis- cussion, you have asserted. The Congregrationalists do not seem to think that you are one with them. In the Congrega- tional Catechism, bearing the imprint, New- Haven, A. H. Maltby, 1844, the last question of the book is : — “ In what important respect does the Presbyterian Church agree with those just mentioned, (viz. the Protestant Episcopal and Methodist Episcopal Churches,) contrary to the primitive and Congregational system ? Answer. “ In depriving the brotherhood of each particular Church of the government thereof, and vesting all ecclesiastical power in the hands of Church officers.” What the Quakers and Baptists might have to say to your catholic practice I will not undertake to determine. And whether in “mis- sionary” enterprise and the circulation of God’s word you find yourselves in brotherly unity with the Methodists, I need not inform the public. But I will say that the professions of your last letter, of catholic^affection and practice, are strangely illustrated by the charge brought against you by 60,000 of your Presbyterian brethren, that in Anno Domini, 1837, you by an act of discipline cut them off from your Church, because they ad- hered to a “plan of union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists” for the work of the Gospel; or rather because, as Church members, they were embraced in a system which grew out of this union. Into the merits of this charge I do not enter — for I do not make the charge — but may it not be well for you to remember that while you are bringing accusations against me for “exclusive- ness” and “uncharitableness,” and are ringing all possible changes upon the word ^-unchurch” 60,- 000 of your laymen and 500 of your clergy are of your clergy are hurling an accusation against you ? They employ the stronger word “ excom- municate.” Does not this tend to show that whatever may be your mercy toward Quakers and others, this mercy has not been extended to these your brethren ? You “ excommunicated*' them — without citation, and without a trial— -not on the ground of apostacy from the essential faith, but on the pretension that the “ plan of un- ion of the Presbyterians and Congregationalists” was unconstitutional, irregular and unnatural. — You “excommunicated” them all. This, I be- lieve, is their charge against your Church.* The facts and principles advanced in your last letter, I think, have been shown to be inconsist- ent with your standards. But you will say no — and refer again to book I, chapter I, of the Form of Government : — “ Tliey also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles differ. And in all these they think it the duty both of private Christians and Societies to exercise mutual for- bearance toward each other.” Who can doubt the truth of this position, or dissent from it? There are many ‘ truths’ and many ‘ forms,’ as to which we differ, that I should think it a waste of time to dispute about. But the question is, whether among these ‘ truths and forms ’ the standards and doctors of your Church mean to include the doctrine in question between us, namely, that of a divinely commissioned minis- try. If they do not, your quotation does not hold good for the purpose for which you cited it — and that they do not, I think I have sufficiently shown. And surely you yourself do not set so lightly by the ministry of the word as to regard the ques- tion between yourselves and the Friends, and the Congregationalists, as only a question of form. If you do, I am confident that the most learned and eminent of your brethren vnll not coincide with you. Did I regard the discussion between us as involving only matters of form, I would instant- ly drop my pen, destroy what I have written, and retire from the field, conceding to you the victo- ry. But it is very far from being, in my view, a question of “ form” or a dispute about “externals.” It involves a principle of the deepest importance — a principle which in my view has brought down to me, from my blessed Saviour, that cove- nant of mercy in which I place my hope of sal- vation, and which is forever to protect this cove- nant and convey it to all the lost and perishing sons of men — not relaxing its watch and ward over it till the Church militant on earth shall be- come the Church triumphant in Heaven. But even if it were a matter of mere form, if God has ordered and appointed it, how dare we say that it is not indispensable ? It may seem to you ungracious in me to adopt the line of argument to which this letter has been devoted, but I plead as my apology that I have been constrained to do it in self defence, for so far as as the doctrine goes, of the necessity for a divinely appointed ministry, desiving its autho- rity from Christ, by external ordination by other ministers, I am a Presbyterian, in the sense which I attach to your standards. If you cannot come and stand with me on this ground, and there with me try our strength whether I must remain with you or you be compelled to go on- ward with me, I shall he forced to leave you in the latitudinarian region of Congregationalism till some other opponent from the Presbyterian * A Review of the leading measures of tlie General As- sembly of 1837. Cvamember of the New-York bar. York ; John S. Taylor, 1838. The American Biblical Re- pository. Vol. Xll. page 219. State of the Presbyterian Church, page 221. Whatever may be ultimately decided to be the legal rights of the parties, the Church is in fact divided. 29 A Church without a Bishop. ranks presents himself to break a lance with you ; or in other words I shall consider this point as sufficiently established, and in my future letters shall take it for granted, without farther argu- ment. Now, in a few words, let me say, in conclu- sion, that it may be distinctly marked, that your own standards plainly and unequivocally set forth — I. That the ministry is given to the Church by the self-same authority which gives to it the Holy Scriptures, namely, Christ’s authority. As Christ’s authority must be binding in one case as absolutely as it is in the other, it follows of course that the Presbyterian Church holds a divinely appointed ministry to be essential to the being of a Church. II. That tliis divine appointment is given in an external commission, through ordination by other ordained ministers. Now it is for you to say how the ordaining ministers are invested with Christ’s authority to ordain. Observe, the question is not concerning the internal call and qualifications of the candid, ate for ordination — but concerning the qualifica- tions of his ordainers to give him his outward call. The question is, not whether he hold the faith of Christ, but whether his ordainers have authority to give him the commission of Christ — so that the scriptural rule may be obeyed which is referred to by yourselves as bearing upon ex- ternal ordination — “ No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron.” Do you or do you not believe that you can, consistently with your standards, with the teach- ings of your accredited ministers, and the most eminent living doctors of your Church, affirm that a minister can be lawfully commissioned otherwise than by external ordination hy other ministers, who have themselves been externally ordained ? I am, liev. and Dear Sir, your obedient servant, JONATHAN M WAIN WRIGHT. iloNPAY, Jan. 22d. LETTER XIV. REV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT : Rev. and Dear Sir : — Were I disposed, I might easily show that from the very commence- ment of this discussion, my opponent has been busily employed in endeavoring to shift the ground of it, and to make an issue altogether different from that which presents itself to every unbiassed mind as the true one. I will not call the various movements, which he has made, evasive, cap- tious or ‘ imgracious,’ but will leave the reader to judge for himself, after a review of them. At the New England Dinner, under very extraordinary circumstances, you volunteer to maintain, upon a ‘ proper occasion,’ that ‘ there can be no Church without a Prelate,’ thus unchurching the great mass of Protestant Christendom. The ‘ proper occasion’ is offered to you, by one who feels that his character and usefulness are publicly assailed by the above proposition. Instead of standing upon any question of mere technicalities, and con- testing the points ‘ who is the challenger,’ and * who shall commence the discussion,’ 1 ask from Dr. W. such a definition of his terms as will put I the public in possession of his meaning, under his own hand and seal ; but this under the cover of a technicality, is indignantly refused. The right to make this demand, though so obviously just, is also waived for the sake of reaching the merits of the question. Again, I jirocced to^re- deem my pledge, and to show that the unchurch- ing dogma, so offensively advanced, is at war with the spirit and the letter of the Word of God. My first argument is that “ there is no war- rant from Scripture, for making any particular external form of polity a condition of that Chris- tian fellowship and communion with God, which are distinguishing duties and privileges of the Church of Christ.” I give some proofs of this position, (see the close of the fifth letter,) and call upon Dr. W. to furnish — if he can — evidence to the country. The only reply made to the posi- tion is, not that it is untrue, but that I cannot con. sistently assume it, because it is repugnant to the standards of the body to which I belong, which standards, with all the adroitness he can employ, my opponent strives to show are as exclusive and 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 this, I consent to go out of my way to show that both fact and theory demonstrate conclusively that the Presbyterian Church, neither in its standards nor in its practice, gives the least plausible ground for this argumentum ad invidiam. To repeat what was said upon this point would be to repeat the whole letter. The sum of the argument was briefly this: that while — in 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 Christ — we maintain the necessity of a ministry, and an Apostolical ministry, divinely derived from Christ, in some way, through the Apostles ; we do not maintain that such a minis- try, in order to authenticate its title, must, of ne- cessity, be derived through an unbroken succes- sion of individuals. Believing that I had said enough upon this point to satisfy any reasonable mind that there is nothing inconsistent wnth the principles of my own communion in the argument which I sub- mitted to you as long ago as the 16th of Janua- ry, I awaited your answer. But W'hat is that answer? Neither more nor less than another evasion of the real question. Instead of a manly grappling with the true issue, your last commu- nication is entirely occupied in a repetition of the process to which your previous letter was de- voted. Now I ask, and many a reader has asked, whether this does not seem like trifling with the subject, and whether also, it docs not evidence an unv/illingness upon your part to approach the real merits of the question. You arc quite mistaken, if you have supposed that I am to be drawn aside bj^ an expedient so often adopt- ed in controversy, but one which, in this case, is sopalable that nobody can mistake its design. — It is enough to say, that upon a proper occasion, I will hold myself ready to prove that all the quo- tations made from our standards, (one of which in particular is sadly misunderstood, besides be- 30 A Church without a Bishop. ing: imperfectly given,) present not a single idea tliat is inconsistent with the perfect catholicity which I claim for them. And farther, as respects the facts to which I have appealed, I am fully prepared to ^rovc how entirely you have misap- prehended and misstated the actual reiations tliat subsist between us and the various bo lies of Christians, and especially between the two branches of the Presbyterian family, one of which you represent as “excommunicating” the other. It is quite enough to assure the reader that mei- tiier of these bodies so understands the matter, and that at the present moment moment their amicable relations illustrate the important truth, that there may be sejyaration without schism, just as the present distracted state of your own denomination illustrates the opposite truth, that there may be schism vjithout separation. All these points, I say, are capable of the most satisfactory adjustment, but this is not the place for it. For, to what purpose, unless it be to en- tangle the question before us with irrelevant mat- ters, weary the patience of the reader, and avert the dreadful issue — is all this hunting through the Presbyterian formularies ? What even if you ean prove, with the clearness of demonstration, that these formularies teach doctrines in regard to the ministry and sacrament, which are the same or akin to those you teach ? What if you ean convict me and ail the Presbyterian body of the most palpable inconsistency with the princi- ples of our own standards ? 1 beg leave to ask whether this would refute in any wuse the truth of the position I have taken in ray fifth letter. I have said already that in this discussion I stand upon the ground common to all who acknowledge a ministry and ordinances. The question as to which ol the forms of this ministry is most ac- cordant with scripture teaching, and best fitted to secure the purity, efficiency, frerdom and hap- piness of the Christian Churcii, is, in its place, an interesting question ; but, I repeat, it is not the question before us. The question wdiich is before us is, whether amj one of the various forms of constituting the Church of Christ is essential to the very existence of that Church. To this questkm I again invite your attention, with the hope that you will see that my con- sistehey or inconsistency has really nothing whatever to do with its settlement. As to the meaning of my own standards, I have no doubt that our readers will at once appreciate the justice of my claim to be considered as sound an interpreter of them as you can possibly be. — Besides which, did I need any farther argument to demonstrate that they do not take the arrogant ground of unchurching you or others who do not receive them, I find that argument in the ac- knowledged, the notorious fact that our practice is just what I described it, in my last letter. It is universally known that we do most cheerfully and in the emphatic language of facts, acknow- ledge the ministry and ordinances of other Chris- tian Churches. I ask Mdiether our practice be not the best exponent of our principles, and wheth- er that practice is not conclusive that, (to use the language of our standards) “ we embrace in the spirit of charity those Christians who differ from us in opinion or in practice,” upon tlie subject of the precise forms of Churoh order. I might go through the whole series of your quotations, and show conclusively that they teach no more than is believed and admitted by all the denominations of Christians who believe at all in the propriety and necessity of the ministry and ordinances of the Gospel. In this respect the denominations I have named stand upon common ground. They hold a ministry, an Apostolical ministry, and a divinely-appointed ministry. — But the fact of its being Apostolical and divinely- appointed is not, as I have already showm, made to depend upon the fact that it has come down to them in a regular, unbroken series of individuals, but upon the fact that it is substantially conformed to Apostolic practice, and that it is imbued with the Apostolic spirit. The call to it consists, pri- marily, in the possession of a sincere desire to ad- vance the cause of evangelic truth and righteous- ness ; secondly, in the possession of the requisite intellectual gifts and qualifications for this pur- pose ; and thirdly, in the voice of the people, invit- ing the individual to exercise those qualifications in their behalf. Ordination is ‘the public recog- nition of such an individual as the possessor of such a call, and does not invest him with any sacramental and mysterious virtues which he did not before possess. Every denomination, for the simple purpose of securing order, and preventing the intrusion among them of persons who give no proof of possessing such a call as the one just des- cribed, has made its own arrangements, as it has an undoubted right to do, provided its rules be in substantial and designed conformity with what they believe to be the piinciplcs and spirit of the Gospel. This is, -in their sense of the words, lawful ordination, concerning which you say so much. If the reader of these letters wishes to see the subject fully and ably treated, I beg leave to recommend to his perusal the work of the present incumbent of the Archiepiscopal see ofl)ublin, Dr. Whately, entitled “ The Kingdom of Christ.” Enough now to repeat, that a succession of individuals, beginning with the Apostles and de- scending to the present times, does not, of itself, (as you affirm and as you are bound to prove,) make any set of functionaries an Apostolical or divinely appointed ministry, for reasons I gave in my last, and to which you have not replied. — Let us imagine the possibility that at the period when the Reformation shook the throne of the great spiritual despotism which had so long and wickedly usurped the holy name of the Catholic Church, not one of the prelates or priests of that vast incorpation of anti-Christian errors had come out of its bosom. Instead of a number of ordain- ed priests, such as Luther, let us suppose some noble-hearted layman had had first lighted the flame of reform, and had gathered multitudes of Christians around the re-instated Word of God, would it not have been the right and duty of those believers to organize themselves as a Church of Jesus Christ, and to appoint and invest ministers to discharge ministerial duties for them? To deny this would be to say that that there is no remedy against essential error. You may reply that this is another extreme case, and that it should not be considered as establishing a rule ; but it certainly establishes a principle, and that princi- ple is the very one in debate, viz : that there may be, without a succession of individuals, a true, 31 A Church without a Bishop. evangelic, divinely appointed and lawfully ordain- cd ministry of the Gospel. But I must refer the reader again to my last letter, as containing my views upon this point more at large, reserving farther and even more impressive considerations for the time when, abandoning all hope of farther evading the real issue, you shall have given your answer to my first Scriptural argument. Let me then, state the true issue, once more. You have asserted — not merely that a ministry, and a divinely appointed ministry, is essential to the Church, but that it must be & prelaticalmm- intry ; so that without 'prelacy there is no Church, and of course (as 1 have shown and as your wri- ters affirm,) a covenanted spiritual mercies and no warranted hope of Heaven. On the contrary I have denied that any one particular way of se- lecting and designating the persons who are to fill the office is essential to the existence of the Church. This is my first answer to the un- churching dogma. I pray you then come to this point, without any further attempt to show that you understand Presbyterianism better than I do myself. Come to it boldly, and prove, if you can, that it comports with the spir- ituality of the Gospel to exalt, as you do, a matter of external order into an essenttial. — Come to it, and explain why, if prelacy be a vital element in the Church of God, there has.notbeen a uniformly divine and practical testimony given to it exclusively ; so that none should be left in doubt that the blessing of God rested upon your ministrations only. Come to the point, and show (tor you are bound to do so) that prelacy has in- variably proved itself to be the only channel of spiritual benefits to mankind ; that it alone has preserved the truth, and preached the truth, and exemplified the truth in the lives of its adherents ; that it has promoted the peace and unity and pu- rity of Christendom, so infinitely beyond any other system from which it has been discarded as to demonstrate, not only that it is right, but es- sential. In a word, come to the point, and prove that, like Gideon’s fleece, the dews of the grace of Heaven have fallen only upon prelatical Rome, preiatical Austria, prelatical Russia, prelatical England and Amciica, while th? rest of Christen, clom is perishing in drought. Prove these things, and your claims are estab- lished. We will then no longer question the mo- desty of your monopoly of the name and rights of the Christian Church. You may then call your comparatively contracted denomination I'he Church, and yourself, par excellence, Church. MF.N. Nay, a prelate may propose, (as I under- stand one has actually done,) to drop the words ‘ Protestant Episcopal ’ from your style and title, and you may publish a list of your prelates in the * Diocescsof the Church of the United States.’* In a word, prove that ‘ there can be a Church without a prelate,’ and I pledge myself that we will one and all bring — what one of your number has called — our forged commissions, and lay them at your feet. But until then be assured that your claims will l>e none the more readily conceded because they are loudly asserted ; on the contrary, every open assault, l ike that which originated this discussion. , * Charch Alcaanac for 1844, published by the Ei copdl Tract bgciety, Presideol.Rifcht Kev. B. U. Oadei^j will be met with promptness and repelled. If your hands are found to be against every man, do not wonder that every man’s hand will be against you. Self-respect and the desire to maintain an unimpeached character as the ba§is of our use^ fulness, enjoin the duty of self-defence. iiespecefuliy, your obedient servent, GEORGE POTTS. LETFER XV. REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DK. POTTS. Rev. and Dear Sir — I am constrained to call the attention of our readers particularly to the conclusion of my last letter, which is as follows : “ Do you or do you not believe that you can, con- sistently with your standards, with the teachings of your accredited writers, and the most eminent living doctors of your Church, affirm that a min- ist(!r can be lawfully commissioned otherwise than by external ordination by other ministers, who have themselves been externally ordainedV* I had little expectation that you would answer the foregoing interrogatory, for I knew, and doubtless our readers perceived, that any answer true to its point would involve you in serious dif- ficulty. Should you answer in the affirmative, you must abandon the principles of yourown Church. Should you answer in the negative, 5'ou must abandon your own proposition, viz. “ that there IS no warrant from Scripture for making any par- ticular external form of polity a condition of that Christian fellow'ship and communion with God which are the distinguishing duties and privileges of the Church of Christ.” You therefore did not find it expedient to an- swer the question — but instead of doing so ran off into various disquisitions, interspersed with your accustomed vague charges against me— de- nunciations of my Church — historical sketches of the rise and progress of the present controver- sy — assertions about unduly exalting forms, &c. The public, I trust, will not be misled. They have seen the force of the argument ffom your standards. They have seen the point of my ia- terrogatorj^ and its direct bearing as an argv~ mentum ad hominem upon your proposition. — They know why you did not answer it, and they will judge between us whether your most adven- turous assertion, that I had in my last letter en- deavor to evade your argument, is w^ell founded or not. When you volunteered in this controversy you took your ground against me as being an Episco- palian. I, on the other hand, accepted your chal- lenge as from a Presbyterian. I had a right to suppose, therefore, that we should each be true to our own standards, and carry on our controversy under their sacred and binding authority. I had pledged conformity to mine, in the same spirit as I do not doubt you did to yours when you gave an affirmative reply to the question, ‘‘ Do you sincerely receive and adopt the confession of faith of this Church, as containing the sys- tem of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.'^ Form of Gov. of the Pres. CUk. Chap. XV. Sec. XII. When therefore in your fifth letter you ad . vanced your first argument in support of the af- firmative proposition, I met it fairly and directly. My course of argument was this — (the public, I 32 A Church without a Bishop. trust, will understand it and feel its weight, if you do not) — I showed that the Presbyterian Church did “ make a particular external form of polity a condition of that Christian fellowship,” &c. I quoted the standards of that Church — I sustained their doctripe by references 'to scripture and by comment. I adopted this doctrine, as far it goes, and assumed it as my own. To all this you of- fer not a single refutation, nor any thing that to my apprehension approaches to one. You say “ that upon a proper occasion you v^^ill hold yourself ready to prove,” &c. You say what you could do, what you might do, and what on some future occasion perhaps you will do, to show that “ Presbyterian formularies teach no more than is believed and admitted by all the de- nominations of Christians who believe at all in the propriety and necessity of the ministry and ordinances of the gospel.” But you have not done this, or attempted to do it, and permit me to add, with all due respeet, my firm conviction is that you cannot do it. Your standards, at any rate, do teach more upon the subject of the minis- try than is held by Friends, Congregationalists or Baptists ; and although you more than once sug- gest to our readers that you must be abetter judge of the meaning of your formularies than I am, (and although this may have a certain effect with persons for whom I do not write,) I am confident that the intelligent and eandid of your own com- munion will say that when I appeal from you to your own accredited doctors in regard to the meaning of your standards, the appeal deserves to be tried. Now here I must solicit your special attention and the reader’s patience, for the question pre- senting itself is of the utmost importance. It lies at the foundation of all this controversy. If the principle I contend for is not sustained by the most cogent and satisfactory arguments I need go no farther. If a divinely appointed Apostolical ministry — I mean too in the sense of the Epis- copal and Presbyterian standards, and I affirm that on this point they agree — is not essential to the Church — then Prelates are not essen- tial — then the question of Apostolical succession is as unimportant as can well be imagined. There- fore it is that I press this point home upon you, and demand a categorical answer to the question which concluded my last letter, and which I re- peat in this. If you can answer in the affirmative and sustain your affirmation, or in other words if you can support your first argument, that “ there is no warrant from scripture for making any particu- lar external form of polity a condition” &c., then you knock down your own ecclesiastical mansion about yom- ears, and with the same blow you de- molish the Divine right of Episcopacy. But you have not done this, and I repeat my firm belief that you cannot do it. Now we must have a clear understanding upon this point, and the public must have a clear un- derstanding upon it. And it is for want of this clear understanding that the progress of our ar- gument has been retarded. And as you intimate that the delay has been owing to me, I am com- pelled to retort upon you, and affirm that this un- satisfactory slow dragging of the argument is wholly chargeable upon you. Answer affirma- tively or negatively to the question of my last let- ter, repeated in this. If affirmatively, then you are a Congregationalist and I leave you in the hands of the Presbyterians, to battle with them the question of a divinely appointed ministry. If negatively then your first argument is demolished and you must build up another. But you may say — you do say — that you “ hold to a ministry, an Apostolical ministry, a divinely I appointed ministry.” How do you hold to this j position ? That is the question. You say, be- i cause “ it depends upon the fact that it is sub- j stantially conformed to Apostolical practice, and i that it is imbued wdth the Apostolical spirit.” j And you go on — “ The call to it consists prima- ' rily in the possession of a sincere desire to ad- I vance the cause of evangelic truth ahd right- eousness ; secondly in the possession of the re- j quisite intellectual gifts and qualifications for this i purpose ; and thirdly in the voice of the people ! inviting the individual to exercise those qual- ‘ ifications in their behalf. Ordination is the pub- ' lie recognition of such an individual as the pos- I sessor of such a call, and does not invest him with any sacramental and mysterious virtues which he did not before possess.” Is it possible that in your estimation this is the whole force, intention and efficacy of ordination ? The Presbyterian stand- j ards say that it is a calling of God, as Aaron was 1 called of God. No, says Dr. Potts, it is simply I “ a public recognition.” A newspaper paragraph , duly signed by the proper person would be “ a ' public recognition.” Would this be an ordina- tion ? A hand-bill at the corner of the streets is in j like manner “ a public recognition.” In what j heresy that ever cursed the earth have not the I leaders been favored with “a public recognition” 1 by their adherents ? And is this equivalent to or. j dination, to the “ laying on of the hands of the ! Presbytery ? ” j I affirm and you cannot deny that the Presby- j terian standards teach that neither ‘ the inward j call,’ ‘ nor intellectual gifts and qualifications’ ; (this is the Quaker doctrine) nor ‘ the voice of the i people inviting to exercise their qualifications, in ' their behalf,’ (this is the Congregational doctrine,) constitute a gospel minister ; and that ordination is not merely ‘ the public recognition of such an individual as the possessor of such a call,’ (this is the whole import of Congregational ordination,) but that ordination does invest the individual with an authority which he did not before po.ssess, and which he could possess solely and exclusively by the laying on of the hands of other ministers, who have themselves been externally ordained. — (And this is the Presbyterian doctrine.) That this is the Presbyterian doctrine I will not attempt to strengthen the proof by quoting more largely from your standards, than I have done in my last letter, lest I should fatigue onr readers, but I will refer to what may be of some interest to them, and what will greatly fortify my position. I will refer to the doings of the Gen- eral Assembly held in June last. This very point now between us then came up, and was fully discussed, on the question of the rights of ruling elders to impose hands at or- dination. On one side it was argued that they had the right, on the ground that “ they were members of the Presbytery, and ordination was to be by the laying on of the hands of the Pres- * Ji Church without n Bishop. m Nfc*ytery.” On the other side it was contended that they had no such authority, inasmuch as “ min- 'isterial acts could be performed only by minis- ters.’-' Ministers were the representatives of the head of the 'Church, tire elders the representa- tives of tire body.” “ The ministers are Christ’s representatives, the eiders the Church’s. We have here then tire two elements of office — 'election by the .people through their represcntati-vx3S the eiders, and ordination by Christ through his rep- resentatives or nrinisters.'” “And what power does the Church give him (i. e. the ruling cider) ? Not the power of ordination, for the Church her- self, aside from the ministry, does not possess that power. Independents sometimes ordain without preaching elders, but that is not Presby- terianism. And here is the very point in ques- tion. The Church has power to deliberate, ad- vise and decide, but not to impose hands. This significant act of very ancient origin is an em- blem ef the transfer of ministeriai power. But the Church is net the depository of this power, and therefore she cannot delegate it to her repre- sentative.” These were some of the arguments used, and sound arguments they were, and they prevailed, and they weresustained by your Gene- ral Assembly, by the following overwhelming votei Yeas.-...- IJl Excused 2 Nays 8 Absent 16 Total 159» Whether IJr. Potts was a member of this As- £5embly, or whether he was among the yeas, nays, excused, or absent, I am not informed — nor is it material to know. Such was the decision of his Church, and the decision was in conformity with its standards, and its standards and this decision recogniize a principle which I believe to be scrip, tural, and therefore accord with it, and I advance ?t as containing my negative, and the reasons for my negative, to his first argument, “there is no war- rant from the word of God for making any parti- cular external form of polity a condition, ”&c. And I submit to the]>ublie whether I have not, (by the aid of his own standards, I acknowledge,) over- thrown his argument. If not, let him show upon what foundation it yet rests. If upon any that is valid and firm, then, as I have before said, there rs no need of any farther discussion — for if an Apostolical, divinely appointed ministry, in the sense I have contended for it, is not essential to the Church, Presbyterian ordination is not essen- tial, and a fortiori Episcopal ordination is not essential, and to argue for Apostolical succession would be worse than vain. In view of the above argument let the puiriic ■decide who has embarrassed this discussion by confused views, contradictory statements, iucon- elusive argunients, and declamation having no real bearing upon the question at issue. Do not take this remark, I pray you, in an offensive light. I should deprecate offering it in this light- I pro sent it in self-defence — to s’lield myself from tiie accusation v;hich you have repeatedly made, and which you seem anxious to impress upon the public, that I am trying ^‘to avert the dreaded Issue.” Now, sir, in concluding this part of my letter, let me sum up and ask the public to judge be- tween us. * New-York OtseiTer, 3, t6i3. C Your first argument, in proof that my assertion, concerning Episcopacy is unscriptural^ is con- tained in the following allegation : “ There is no warrant from scripture for making any particular external form of polity a condition,” &c. Wliich allegation, if it be at all to the point, is the same as alleging tiiat tliere Is no warrant from scrip- ture for making any particular form of polity es- sential to the being of a Church. I maintain that I met it directly and fairly. — You, indeed, witli admirable appreciation of our logical relations to each other, desired me to dis- prove your allegation. Of course! preferred that you should prove it first. It was enough for me to deny it. 1 deny it stHl. Will you prove it ? Or, will you answer the question ! have propounded iu relation to ordination ? You have manifested great sensitiveness throughout our correspondence in regard to what yuu call the arrogance of 'Episcopalians, and I have been particularly surprised at the concluding paragraph of your last letter. You speak of “ open assault, like that which originated this discussion,” (I deny again that any assault of mine did origi- nate this discussion, and deny it in the sense I have sufficiently explained,) — of “ our hands be- ing against every man,” and, therefore, in the spirit of Christian retaliation, “ your hands are to be against us” — of “ self-respect” — and an“ unim- peached character^’ to be maintained. These words imply grave ciiarges. Who has assaulted ■you ? Who has impeached your character ? Who has wounded your self-respect .? Who has denied that you are a Presbyterian minister — the popular pastor of a highly respectable congregation ? Who has denied your right to administer the affairs of your own congregation and your own Church in yourGv.7n way ? Wlio has interfered, or wished to interfere, with your liberty in Christ to worship in your own way — to preach the doctrines you be- lieve to betrue — to administer the sacraments you believe to be Christ’s sacraments? And Irecausc v;e choose to assert and maintain our liberty in Christ in these matters, and to read and interpret God’s word according to tire best liglit we have, and in view of our solemn responsibilities to be judged at the last day for the use we have made of this word, common to us all, are we to be accu- sed of arrogance and undiaritableness, and to have all other offensive epithels heaped upon us? Per- mit me to s'dy that ail this excitement on y-our part is uncalled for. I maintain a certain doc- trine because I believe it to be taught in God’s word. If you can convince me, aa you have un- dertaken to do, that it is not there taught, I will at once relinquish it. But if I maintain it with- out interfering, ©r wishing to interfere, with your civil, social or religious rights, and without indul- ging the language of denunciation, (and if you will point out to me any such language that I have used, an any occasion lokaisoevcr, I will re- cal it and apologize for it,) you liavc no cause to feel yourself aggrieved. I have now to say a few words or your oft-re- pcated charge about ‘ exclusiveness,’ ‘ unchurch- ing,’ ■&uc. I have hitherto been contented with showing- from your standards tliat, however just in itself this charge might be, it cannot with propriety be preferred by uny Presbyterian m nister who ad- 34 A Church without a Bishop. hcres to his own scheme of doctrine. I now, however, go farther — and solemnly deny the charge, I am not “ exclusive.” I “ unchurch” no man in the sense which you attach to these terms. I consign no fellow-creature to those “ uncovenanted mercies” which, according to your views of Christian truth, you very properly say are “ no mercies at all.” Herein consists your mistake, and I ask our readers to look at it closely. The maxim “ nulla ecclesia sine episcopo ” is an ancient maxim of the Church catholic, and it is to be interpreted and understood according to the great principles whereby the Church repre- sents upon the earth the Universal Father’s mer- cy toward all his guilty and suffering children. — But you have withdrawn it from its home and its true interpreter, and have read it to the w^orld and commented on it, not by the aid of catholic char- ity and truth, but in the light of the narrow sys- tem of Geneva. Your views of the “Church” and of the “ covenant ” and of God’s mercy to the human race may be gathered from the fol- lowing dogmas : Confession of Faith, Chap. XXV.— The catholic or univer- sal Church, which is invisiOle, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered info one under Christ, the head iheieof, and is the spouse, the body, t.he fulness of him that fillerh all in all. Confession of Faith, Chap. 111. Sec. III.— By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others jiie fore-or- dained to everlasting death. IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-or- dained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is .so certain and definite that it cannot be either in- creased or diminished. V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was Ind, ac- cording to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the se- cret counsel and good plea,sure of his will, hatn chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good v.'ojks, or iier.sa verance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto, ami ail to the praise of his glorious grace. VI. As G»d has appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordati.ed all the means thereunto. VVherelore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are elfectually called unto faitli in Christ by his snirit working in due sea- son; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and lept-byliis power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, ana saved, but the elect only. VII. The rest ol mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he ex- tendeth or withholdelh mercy as he plsaseth, for the glory ol his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to or- dain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the piaise of his glorious justice. Confession of Faith Chap. X. Section 1. All those whom Godhath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, efltectuallv to call, by his word and spirit, out of lhat state of sin and death, in which they are by n tu. e, to grace aud salvation by Jesus Christ, enlightening ilu'ir minds, spiritually and-avingly, to uiider''.tand the things of God, tak- ing away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their v/ills, and by his almigluy powe.- de- termining them to, that v;hich is good; and effectually <'ran ing thfcm to Jesus Chiist, vet so as they come most Ireely, being made willing by his grace. 'II. This effectual call is of God’s free -and sp c ill grace, alone, not from anv thing at all foie.seen in mm, who is alto- eether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, aud to embrace the grace offered and couveyed in it. HI. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who workeih when, and where, and liow he pie seth. So a’so are all o'hei elect per sons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of tlie Word. IV. Others, not elected, al. hough they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have .some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Ciirist, and there- fore cannot be saved ; much le.ss ca.i men, not professing the f-hristiau religion, be saved i i any oti.er way whatsoever, be they never so ililigent liame their lives according to the light of Nature, and the law of tint rc-hgion they do pr ofess ; mid to assert and tn liutaiu tliat they may is very pernicious, and to be detested. in the light of such a system as this it is that you have undertaken to interpret iny maxim, and have lifted your hands in horror at its im- port when thun interpreted. You of course limit the “ Church and the “ co- venant” and the possibility of salvation, to the “ elect,” that is, to that specific numher of adults and infants whom God, according to his eternal purpose, hath predestinated unto life and hath chosen in Christ, without any foresight of faith or good works, or any thing in the creature as con. ditionsor causes moving him thereunto. Conse- quently you regard my dogma as with awful pre- sumption laying its hand upon the Divine decrees, defining their course, designating their subjects among the children of men, and impiously deter- mining lhat every community without a Bishop at its head is not of the “ elect,” but consists only of vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction. But no, sir, this maxim “ no Church without a Bishop ” is not yours — you cannot interpret it. Its birth place is not Geneva — its borne is not there. It belongs to the system of free grace and of salvation within the reach of all. It abides in the great temple »pf him who died for all — the gates of which are open continually and open to every man — to which no man is admitted, and from which no man is excluded, by any uncondi- tional decree of the Almighty. And as the pa- rent, obeying his Savior’s invitation, is carrying his little children to baptism, he is not tortured by doubt and fear, lest after all, his oflspring not being of the number of “ elect infants,” the ordi- nance may be in vain, and his affectionate care for their Christian nurture, and his watchings and prayers and tears, be returned to his desolate and despairing heart by a resistless and unconditional decree, recorded in the clouds and darkness above him. He knows, and is sure, that in the laver of regeneration his little ones arc made “members of Christ, children of God and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.” And he knows also that their attainment of the full maturity of the Chris- tian life, or their failure to attain it, depends, through the grace of God, not in appearance merely but really and truly, upon the manner in which he and the}’- sustain their responsibility as free moral agents. A membership of the visible Church is ordina- rily necessary to salvation. In a Christian land, however, men are not ordinarily out of the Church but through their own fault — and for this they are of course responsible in proportion to the wilful- ness of the fault. If in Christian, as is the case in heathen lands, many should be out of the Church not through any fault of their own, we know of no authority given to man to pronounce their condemnation. V/c do not believe that the fact of their being out of the Church is a sign that God has by a secret decree “passed them by,” or, which is the same thing, appointed them unto perdition. Wc commend them in faith and hope to the mercies, in our view the all embracing mercies, of our Heavenly Father. Were it true, then, that wc “unchurch” all who do not acknowledge and receive the organi- zation of the Churcli as we believe we have re- ceived it from Christ, we should regard those on- ly as in a state of condemnation wlio reject the truth of Christ w'ilfully, through evil dispositions — i. e. knowing or having the opportunities of A Church without a Bishop. 35 knowing it to be the truth of Christ, and reject- ing it as such. While unchurching others not thus wilfully rejecting the truth w'e should not condemn — not believing the being out of the Church to be a necessary sign of perdition, as it is in the system of Geneva. We do not “un- church” men, hov/ever, quite so recklessly as my opponent seems to imagine. We “unchurch” no man — we banish no man from our communion, who has been lawfully baptised, and holds the essential faith ; who leads a Godly and a Chris- tian life, and who is not, wilfully and knowingly, a schismatic. It is true that we believe in one only visible Church of Christ. We believe that it is un- changeably constituted and organized by Christ himself. We believe that it will continue one to the end of the world. And we do not believe that the various communities around us, which have sprung up at different times within the last three hundred years, and which continue to spring up every year, calling themselves Churches, are so in fact. They are without Christ’s organiza- tion and ministry. Their organization and min- istry are recent — of yesterday. Whereas Christ organized his Church eighteen hundred years ago. But while we thus deny to these communi- ties in the aggregate the name and character of Churches, and while we regard them as in a state of schism, we yet believe, so far as the indi- viduals belonging to those communities are con- cerned, that the gxiilt of schism depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. And we do not decide that those individual members may not, by virtue of their baptism and their Christian faith and virtue, be still connected, though in imperfect communion, with the Church of Christ. Though in their corporate capacity we refuse to acknowledge them as Churches, and we deem them not lawfully organized, in respect to indi- viduals, we do not refuse to commune with them as members of the Church. Were your temple of worship to be suddenly destroyed by fire on some communion day, yourself and your whole body of communicants would be received, I ven- ture to say, with the utmost Christian hospitality, in any Episcopal Church in this city, or in the land, and would be welcomed to partake with us of the Holy Communion. Cease, then, I pray you, attempting to bring this undeserved odium upon a whole denomination of your fellow Chris- tians, and bear with the only rebuke I will utter for the attempt — “ Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth.” Now, from what has been said in this latter part of my letter, it appears — I. That we are not “exclusive” in your sense of the word, or in the sense in which your scheme of doctrine makes the Church exclusive. II. That to “ unchurch” men is not, neces- sarily, as it is according to your system, to con- sign them to perdition. III. That while we deny to the recently organ- ized communities around us, in the aggregate, the name and character of Churches, we do not deny that the Christian baptism and faith of the individuals embraced in these communities may connect them though in imperfect communion, with the one visible Church of Christ. IV. That all your various charges of “ exclu- siveness,” “uncharitableness,” “unchurching,” &LC., are unfounded and unjust, and that you have been led into this injustice by your attempt to interpret a maxim of the Church catholic, eighteen hundred years old, in the light of the syattm which was fabricated at Geneva three hundred years ago. I have the honor to be, Kev. and dear sir, Your obedient servant, JONA. M. WAINWRIGHT. 30th January^ 1814. LETTER XVI. REV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT : Rev. and Dear Sir : Our readers, no doubt, have shared with me in my disappointment, at not finding some reference to Calvin and Servetus in your last letter, especially as you trod so close- ly upon this favorite topic, and as it has quite as powerful a bearing upon the point of exclusive High-Churchism, as the topic of predestination and election. There are some kinds of argumen- tation which are quite beyond the reach of a se- rious reply ; they move the gravest people to in- dulge in a little harmless mirth. When we con- sider how admirably inconsequent they are, we find it much more difficult to keep our counte- nances than to keep our tempers. Of this sort is your argument in favor of High-Church exclu- siveness, drawn from the obnoxious doctrines of predestination. There are several other topics, equally pertinent, which I beg leave to suggest for future use, that may serve to amuse, if not to convince. When drawn up, in syllogistic form, they are very striking. One I have just mention- ed : Calvin burned Servetus — therefore, no Pres- byterian can say a word against High-Chureh monopoly. Or this: — the non-conformists in Eng- land were round-heads, who sang psalms through their noses — therefore, no Presbyterian can say a word against being unchurched. Or this : — the Puritans of New-England always burned witches, always persecuted the Quakers, made blue laws, declared that the whole earth belonged to the Saints, &,c. &c. &c. — therefore, no Presbj^terian can call in question the charity, modesty and jus- tice of the unchurching dogma. But even should you take occasion to resort to these or similar specimens of logic, they will not draw me aside from the point in hand. “ A time for every thing.” They are just as germaine to the true issue as the question of Millerism or Mes- merism, upon both of which points, perhaps, your opponent may be, for all you know, a fanatic. — Were I a believer even in the theory of Lord Mon- boddo, according to which mankind were origin- ally provided with those caudal appendages vul- garly called tails, that would hardly be a pertinent reply to certain arguments I might adduce to prove that Prelacy is not the indiepcnsable con- necting link between the grace of God and the life of the Ciuirch. I may believe, with the great apostle, that for reasons inscrutable to us, the wise, good and just God may and actually does “maite men to differ,'^ but surely this does not imply that either myself or you should, of our own motion, be allowed to play the Sovereign among Christian Churches, emd elect some and shut out otliers, 36 A Church without a Bishop. upon such futile grounds as that they do not agree with us in our respective notions as to Church order. This is the claim I am resisting, and which I would resist as firmly, were it ad- vanced by a Presbyterian or Congregationalist, as I now do, when it is advanced by a Frelatist. It is not Prelacy, but exclusive Prelacy, monopoliz- ing Prelacy, that we are now concerned with. When we have settled this point I will be ready to meet you, ar d to vindicate rational views upsn any of the doctrinal points which are to be found in our standards, and this among them. I will be glad of an opportunity of showing that we hold all infants to be elect, and therefore sa- ved, by the grace of Christ, in which respect we differ from you, who make baptism indispensable to their regeneration, and thus to their salva- tiori. And in reference to all mankind, I will undertake to show that neither the quotations you have made from the Westminster confession, nor the 11th article of your own Church, nor the well-known views of the English Reformers, nor the equally well-known views cf many of your ablest Prelates of past and present times, militate in any degree against a free Gospel and a large charity. All this 1 pledge myself to do, if you will hereafter consent to meet me. In the mean- time I will dismiss the subject, by delicately hint- ing that the next time you may wish to deal a blow at an opponent, you would do well to select a weapon which in some of its flourishings will not cut off" the heads of many of your own breth- ren, and strike down one of the articles of your own creed. That I am not making a mere in- sinuation, destitute of any basis, I refer the rea- der to the 17th article of your creed, which I give in a note.* The argument in your last, so far as it touches the point at all, is but a repetition of the former strain. To use a homely comparison, in using which I mean no offence, you find yourself in the condition of the animal in the fable which had lost his brush, and would fain persuade others to put themselves in the same condition. Nay you insist upon it that I am actually in the same con- dition with yourself, on the question of unchurch- ing. Bwifact contradicts this. When you can point to an instance in which your opponents have *Art. XVII. Of Predestination and election. Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to ever- lasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. tV herefore they which be endued with so exc -lleut a benefit of God, he calied according to God’s purpose by his Spiiit working in due sea- son; they through grace obey the calling; they bejastified freely: they be made sons ol God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk leligiously in good works; and at length by God’s mer- cy they attain to everlasting felicity. A.s the godiy consideration of Predestination, and our elec- tion in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable com- fort to godly pel sons, . nd such as fe i in themselves the work- ings of the Spirit of Christ, moriil'ying the v, orks 9I the flesh aid their eartiily members, and drawing up theii mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it dvth great y establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love toward God: so, for curious and crrnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to liave coutinually before iheireyes the .Sen- tence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either i«to desperation, or into wretchlessu^ss of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation, Farthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scriptiue: And in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we hav'e xpressly declared unto us in the Word of God, re-baptized or re-ordained any one coming from other Christian denominations, I give you leave to hold up my bigotry and inconstancy to scorn. When you can show thatone of your number has partaken of the symbols of communion at the hands of Christian ministers who do not admit the absolute necessity of Prelacy — when you can produce an instance of among us, similar to one among you, in which a modest High-Churchraan (speaking of a minister his equal, aye his superior in every quality that constitutes moral and intel- lectual dignity,) said of him, “ He has no more right to preach the gospel than that dog” — when you can find among us an individual who has gone so far as to call in question your right even to cele- brate marriage — when you can show that we have called ourselves with offensive presumption, The Church, and have even gone to the Legisla- lature of the State, as you have done, to ask for the incorporation of a society under this exclusive title, “ The Church Mariners’ Society” — when you can show, from the pages of any author re- cognized among us, such claims for their owm precise order as I can show upon the pages of Dodwell and Palmer, and Hook and Hobart, and a host of others, who go far to make prelacy or perdition the alternative — then I will admit that High-Church pretensions do not assail the charac- ter and usefulness of those who differ from you. You deny that you have thus assailed their character and usefulness. I consider my char, acter assailed when 1 am met on all hands with the insulting assertion which virtually amounts to this — “ Sir, you are a sham minister ; yours is a sham Church ; yours are forged credentials ; you have no right to preach the Gospel.” It is no fault of High Church pretension, if you cannot persuade the world to believe these things. But should you succeed in persuading them, I ask whether our usefulness to society would not at once be destroyed. This is what I mean when I say that self-respect, and self-defence, and the good of the world, all demand a resistance of the as- sertion that there can he no Church without a Prelate. I have shown the legitimate conse- quences of this position ; I have shown the sense in which it is understood by the world, and by your own writers. If you now start back from these consequences, it is because they are odious to others, and therefore injurious to yourselves — and not because they are not logically derived from your position. You say you do not give over all other denominations to uncovenanted mercies. Are the covenant mercies of God then equally shared by those who are in and those who are out of the Church ? If you admit this, you do indeed give up the point, and take back your unchurching dogma, and the debate may cease. Again, you say you would welcome to your com- munion myself and the communicants of our Church, if driven from what you call our ‘ tem- pie of worship,^ by fire. Yes, doubtless, but it would be only because, by accepting your prof, fered hospitality, we should be virtually admit- ting that we were Prelatists for the occasion. — How we could go to partake of a hospilality so invidious, and so hedged round with provisos and conditions, as for instance that we must be first ‘ lawfully baptized, and not ‘ wilfully and knowingly schismatics' — is another question. — A Church without a Bishop. 37 Hospitality is not worthy of the name, which is not reciprocated. Let me put the question : — Would you come to us, and sit down with us at the table of our common Lord, should your ‘ tem- ple of worship’ be consumed by fire ? Unless you can answer this question in the affirmative, 1 hand you back your modicum of charity and hos- pitality, until it is so far increased as to make an acceptance of it compatible with a decent self- respect. Again, you pronounce the Churches of the Reformation to be no Churches, and yet say you do_not unchurch those who belong to them. Let who can, reconcile this unchurching of ag- gregates with a churching of the individuals who compose the aggregates. No, sir ; with all your distinctions, intended as loop-holes for the escape of charity, your position is unchanged ; you do claim, and claim as the exclusive property of Roman and Anglican Prelatists, the name, the authority, ihe immunities, the sacraments, the rights and blessings of the visible Church of Christ. And I again call upon you to let the world have the evidence of this claim ; the as- tounding consequences of which are such as to require evidence little short of demonstration to justify them. I now proceed more immediately to the point before us, and to which I have not yet succeeded in bringing you. If our readers will be patient, I promise to be patient myself, in the hope that the true issue cannot be much longer postponed. You seem to think that a certain query, which closes your last letter but one, contains somethirrg so formidable to my argument that I purposely avoided any notice of it. This is quite a mis- take. I cannot perceive, in the question referred to, any Scylla and Charybdis, any sunken rocks, through which I feared to pass. In what I have already offered, the question had been answered again and again. It is in fact the very question in debate, viz: the necessary succession of indi- viduals. If you require farther satisfaction upon this point, I hope my succeeding remarks will fur- nish it. A ministry, a divinely appointed ministry, a ministry to the exercise of the dudes of which there should be God’s call, which call I defined to consist in certain internal and external signs, such as God’s grace, and God’s Providence can alone bestow upon any one such a ministry, I believe, enters into the very idea of a Church, besides being distinctly recognized in the Word of God. Now, I maintain that with such a call one is as really “ called of God as was Aaron,'’ for I take it for granted that no man of common sense will see, in this passage to which you have so often re- ferred, any thing more than that every particular individual, before his assumption of the ministerial office, should be guided by some divine directions. Aaron and his sons were called hy a direct call from God given to Moses in express terms. Do you mean that it is by such a call as this, that your Prela' ‘s, priests and deacons are summoned to their pUces ? In this sense, are they “ called of God as was Aaron ?” Taking for granted that none have yet reached the point of claiming, in behalf of the ministry, an ms’jpfrerf appointment of each individual, such as that of Aaron, there is nothing more in the text referred to than an in- culcation of the duty of seeking the Divine direc- tion in every way reasonable and possible at the present time. Such a divine direction consists, as I have already said, (1) in strong and pious desires to honor our master in the preaching of the Gospel, — (2) in the possession of the requisite endowments, and (3) in the invitation of the Church, (embracing the ministry and the people,) calling the individual to the exercise of his gifts. Where, then, does this discussion rub? At what point do your route and mine diverge ? — Just here, in the first instance: that you make the very existence of the ministry, and of course the validity of its functions, depend necessarily, and in all supposahle cases, upon its descent through an unbroken line of persons, along which line alone can be conveyed what some have called “ Episcopal grace.” In other words, you affirm an unbroken chain of ministers — we affirm a perpetuated ministry ; yours is a succes- sion of men, ours a succession of truth; you in- sist upon the officers, we upon the office. Instead ©f following your remarks through all their wind- ings — which would be labor thrown away — I am only anxious to set our opposite principles clearly before the reader’s view. For this pur- pose, I beg your and his attention to an illustra- tion. It shall be taken from the very sentence in Mr. Choate’s noble oration which occasioned your utterance of the unchurching dogma. “ A State without a King — a Church without a Prelate : a sentence which I hope will be long remembered. Now you have undertaken to deny the truth contained in the latter half of this sentence, and have affirmed, not that there may a Church with Prelates, (which I freely admit) but that there can be no Church without them. I shall endeavor to show that you might, with equal justice, have called the other truth in question, and have un- dertaken to prove, not that there may be a State with a King, but that there cannot be a State without one. To my apprehension, it would have been quite edifying and agreeable to the sturdy republicans at the New-England festival, if her Majesty’s consul, had he chanced to be present, had followed Dr. Wainwright’s challenge of the one position, by a similar challenge of the other. But this by the way. The point of my present remark is, that such a challenge would have been equally just, and for the following reasons. Even admitting (what I am by no means dis- posed to admit except for argument’s sake,) that Prelacy is distinctly recognized in Scripture as the existing form of the Christian Church at that day, it is not surely more distinctly recognized than monarchy is, as the then existing form of civil government. “ Render unto Cwsar the things that are Ccesar's;" Honor the King; The powers that he arc ordained of God," says inspired authority. I may remark, in passing, that when you can show as good a proof text for exclusive assumptions in the Church, as these and some others which the advocates of the ex- clusive Divine right of kings can show, I shall be disposed to think much better of the modesty of those assumptions. Supposing, however, that an equally pointed recognition of Prelacy can be shown, as that which the believers in monarchy appeal to — would it justify you in making it, as 38 A Church without a Bishop. you do make it, absolutely and without any ex- ception, essential to the very being of the Church ? Is there no room to be allowed for mistake — no ground for the possible supposition that Prelacy, like monarchy, might be dropped to suit circum- stances, and yet not actually destroy the Church, and leave it without God’s blessing ? If some should affirm that there is so strong an affinity between Prelacy and monarchy that they should go together, (and this seemed to be the belief of King James I — whose haired for Presbyterianism often found vent in his favorite maxim, “No Bishop, no King,”) and if others should affirm that a republic in the state requires a republic in the Church; and if upon these principles they should severally agree to arrange the order of Church government — the question occurs wheth- er either of these classes of persons could by justly charged by the other with the guilt of absolutely subverting the Church. Now in respect to both the Church and the state, both of them institutes distinctly recog- nized in the Bible, I boldly affirm (and I pray you observe that this is the substance of my first ar- gument, which you have not so much as touched,) that the Bible does not make a particular form of either indispensable to the existence of either. The passages I have referred to, upon which a staunch High-Churchman in England would build the exclusive divine right of Queen Victoria, do not, as you will admit, justify such a conse- quence. If they did, then was our revolution re- bellion, and our present existence is a continued rebellion against a constitution which God has appointed. Will you take this consequence ? If not, v/hy ? The word of God no where recog- nizes a popular government in the state. There is no mention there of a President, chosen by the popular voice. On the contrary the authority looks altogether the other way. What then ? What reply will you make to the Scriptural argument for the exclusive divine right of Kings ? Precisely this, which I make to youi claim of the exclusive Divine right of Prelates ; that the office-bearers of the State are not the es- sence of the State — that God has divinely ap- pointed Govermnent, but has not prescribed any precise details of Government or the mode of con- stituting Governors — that He has enjoined civil law and obedience to civil law, but has not en- joined that the law-makers shall be hereditary raonarchs, whose autliority is derived from their predecessors, and theirs again from other prede- cessors in an unbroken monarchical succession, akin to your apostolical succession — in one word, that there may be a state, divinely authorized by His province — a state meeting all the substantial requirements of civil Government — a state with competent officers — and yet a state without a King. The analogy might be indefinitely pursued, were this the time — it is perfect. God has ap- pointed a government in his Church — he has es- tablished a ministry — he has warranted the ap. pointrnent of agents to carry out the' necessary purposes of a Church relation. Up to this point we agree — but at this point, as I have said, we diverge. You are not willing to allow of a diver- sity of judgment as to the appointment and induc- tion of these agents, but actually make it essen- tial that they should, in every case, become pos- sessed of their rights by a sort of hereditary and unbroken descent. This is your theory of exclu- sive legitimacy, and, as I have shown, it finds its counterpart in the monarchical legitimacy of the old world, judged by which the government of the United States is not a government at all ; and has none of the rights, and none of the duties of a government. Upon this principle, we are bound to renounce our constitution, and at once fall back upon the principle of a succession, by submitting ourselves to the Queen of America. But as it will be some time before the people of this land can be brought to this conclusion as to the state, so 1 am sure it will be some time before they can admit the conclusion as to your Church, or any other individual Church. Just as in the state, there were abundant reasons for the rejection of the empire of Great Britain, and for a reorganization of a new government growing out of the great charter of human rights which lies aback of all governments, so in the church, when a necessity exists, Christians may fall back upon the great charter of religious truth, the Bible, abandon an old and intolerable tyran- ny, and reorganize themselves as a Church of Christ. And farther, as in the State, when reorganized, the necessity of officers, and the necessity of ap. pointing and inducting them according to some established rule, will be apparent, so in the Church, when reorganized, the same necessity will origin- ate rules more or less accordant with truth and justice. And this is the sense in which you are to understand all the rules in regard to the ap. pointrnent and induction of a ministry which you find in the several formularies of the reformed churches. You came out of the Roman hierarchy, some- what later than the Churches on the Continent ; so far as that hierarchy could, it deprived all the reformed bodies of their ecclesiastical rights. They did not heed this, but quietly proceeded to exercise the rights inherent in Christian believers, and of which no excommunication can deprive them, and to organize themselves into Christian Churches. By considering these statements, the reader will see that insuperable objections must lie against the figment of which you make so much, (bnt which you have not yet attempted to prove,) the necessity of a succession of individuals in order to the existence of a lawful government and a lawful ministry in the Church. I bring you back again to this point. I am quite sure that you have seen along that it is the turning point, and considering the insuperable difficulties by which it is beset, I am not surprised that you are unwilling to confront them. You claim such a succession, as the very basis upon which alone the unchurch- ing dogma can possibly rest. I deny that Scrip- ture prescribes it as invariably necessary, and have again and again called for the proof. The burden of proof lies on you. Hoping that you will feel that you are now hedged in, and remind- ing you that, in order to justify your bold tone and prove a tenet which carries with it such as- tounding results, you must produce the most un- doubted evidence, I beg leave to say in conclu- sion that you are called upon to prove your point, 39 A Church without a Bishop. by establishing the three following propositions : I. That Scripture imperatively requires an un- interrupted succession of individuals, in order to the validity of ministerial character and acts. II. That this succession must necessarily run in the line of diocesan Bishops ; and after estab- lishing these two propositions, then III. That you can claim such a succession for your ministry, so that not a link of the chain shall be wanting ; and, considering what powers you claim for your ministry, (upon which point I will hereafter make some developementsj and consid- ering also the grounds upon which you claim those powers, you must not leave the shadow of a doubt as to your possession of this famous Apostolical succession. After you have given your views upon these points, I shall have more to say. Rpspectfully, your oW’c ser’c, liEORGE POTTS. Febkuaiiy 2, 1844. LETTER XVII. REV. DR. V/AINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS. Rev. and Dear Sir : — I am quite as well aware as you can be how much of my last letter is strictly pertinent to the question now between us, whether Episcopacy is esclusively the Divine constitution of the Church, but I do not admit that any of it is irrelevant to the mode in which you have from the commencement conducted the discussion. This is a point, however, which I am perfectly content to submit to the decision of our readers — simply begging them to remember that I am the respondent in this debate, and therefore in a measure compelled to await your movements, and to follow the course of argument you may adopt. You have spoken more than once of my seek- ing to “ avert the dreaded issue,” and have called upon me, with what courtesy of tone and manner I will leave others to judge, to “ come to it,” to “ come to it boldly,” and to “prove” this and that. Now, sir, permit me to say that you en- tirely forget yourself, and lose sight of your true position, when you use this language. You talk of bringing me to the point. So far from seeking to evade the point, my sole object has been to bring you to it. Not until you had put forth your fifth letter did I succeed in bring- ing you to advance one single step toward estab- lishing the proposition you undertook to demon- strate, namely, that the doctrine of the necessity of Episcopacy to the constitution of the Church of Christ is unscriptural, &c. &,c. You then advanced what you called your first ARGUMENT, in foim as follows : “ I. Because there is no warrant from the Word of God for making any particular external form of polity a condition,” ^c. Now obviously this allegation contains no ar- gument, unless the matter alleged be true. You boldly affirm that it is true. I pray you fo con- sider that your affirmation does not necessarily make it true. I have denied your allegation, — I still deny it. It belongs to you, therefore, to prove it. This you have not done, nor have you advanced a single step toward doing it. So far, then, as concerns the question between us, your first argument ” is as yet no argument at alii it is a solitary, unsupported assertion of yours, which I have denied. .You indeed called upon me to disprove your assertion, and Eilthougli I was not under any ob- ligation to disprove what you were first bound to prove, I did, as I maintain, fully and fairly dis- prove it out of your own standards, and by the judicial action of your own General Assembly, supported by the authority of Scripture. You still repeat this same call. I am sorry to be obliged to remind you again how illogical, not to say absurd, this demand of yours will be, even if I had done nothlhg more than simply deny your assertion. But it is due to my own charac- ter, both for moral fairness and logical accuracy, to vindicate myself against your reiterated charges of not coming ‘ to the point,’ ‘ dreading the issue,’ &.C. I wish our readers, therefore, to bear with me while in a few words I endeavor, for the last time, to justify myself for the course of argument I have taken. 1. In the first place, then, I beg them to re- member that you advanced an assertion and called upon me to disprove it I Surely, sir, you cannot be so ignorant of the rules of fair discus- sion as to suppose that I was logically bound to do any thing more, in the first instance, than deny your assertion. The burden of proof (notwith- standing your continual declaration to the contra- ry) rested with you. 2. But, secondly, it may be thought, perhaps, that although, according to the strict rules of de- bate, the burden of proof rested upon you, yet, in- asmuch as your allegation was a negative one, it was hardly consistent with my professed anxiety to come to the main issue for me to stand upon my rights as respondent, and insist on your pro- ving your negative allegation ; but that if I did not admit it, I ought in fairness to waive the tech- nical right and proceed to disprove. I frankly admit that there are cases in which I should feci disposed to pursue this course. But this is far from being such a case. And why ? Simply because the negative allegation which you call your “ first argument,” is tantamount to a petitio principii, a mere beggingof the very point in question ; for if there be “ no warrant from the Word of God for making any particular form of polity a condition,” then, of course, exclusive Episcopacy is unscriptural ; but this latter is the very point you undertook to demonstrate. You might as well, therefore, not have advanced your “ first argument” at all, but have persisted in the course first adopted and so long continued, but which I understood you in your fifth letter to abandon, namely, that of calling upon me to dis- PROVE the main proposition which you undertook to PROVE. If, therefore, I was justified in declining to dis- prove this main proposition until you had offered your proofs to sustain it, I should have been equally justified in declining to notice the allega- tion which you call your “ first argument,” any otherwise than by a simple denial of it, since it is only another form of reasserting what you “ pledged” yourself in your first letter to prove. Your first proof, or argument as you term it, and your call upon me to disprove it, are no doubt a very ingenious mode of endeavoring again to accomplish what in the outset you tried and have A CRvrsA witRauf a BtsRap, 4^ ©onstaiitly been aiming at, that isj to induce me fo change places v.dth you, I shall do no such thing. You are affirmant, I^j^pspondent. You are bound to prove exclusive Episcopacy, “ un- scriptural.’’ I am bound to defend it. Tms I nESIRE YC«P* READERS NEVER TO FORGET. There are doubtless inconveniences to yourself in the attempt to prove a negative, as you have undertaken to do. That is not my faidt. You slmuld have thought of that before. 3. But, thirdly, I did not insist on holding you to the strict rules of fair debate. I met your allega- tion with what I consider abundant argument to disprove it. The refutation I employed was partly ad honiinem (not ad invidiam, as by a strange confusion of different thirjgs you termed it.) I showed, namely, that whether the matUr of your first allegation were true or not true, it was not an argiimertt for you to offer ; but m addition to this I positively denied, and as I say fully disproved, the matter itself of your allegation. 1 shall not go over that ground again. I submit to our readers that I proved, from the authoritative standards of your own Church, as supported by Scripture, and the decision of your General Assembly, that a ministry exte-knaelv ORDAINED BY ORDAINED MINISTERS IS A D5VINE AP- POINTMENT, AND CONSEQUENTLY NECESSARY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF A ChURCH, AND THAT IT IS A SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. A word nowon the extraordinary notion of or- dination put forth in your last letter. Notwith- standing, your intimation that you know how to interpret your standaid.s better than I do, I will be bold to affirm that neither the formularies of your Church, nor your accredited writers, teach or countenance any such latitudinarian doctrine. You talk of a man becoming a lawful ministerby (1) “ strong and pious desires to honor our mas- ter in the preaching of the Gospel j (2.) requisite endowmems, and (3) the invitation of the Church, (embracing the ministry and the people) calling the individual to the exercise of his gifts ” I ! I I am persuaded that the most learned, sound and accredited living doctors of your Church would scout the idea of any man, whatever his “ strong and pious desires ” and his “ endowments,” ac- quiring any part of his authority as a minister in virtue of an “ invitation ” 1 of the “ people.” — And they will teffi you, moreover, that he would have the authority of a" minister if ordained by imposition of hands of the “ ministry ” of the Church, even though he and his ordainers should happen to have erred as to his “ strong and pious desires,” and even though the “ people should never have invited ” him “to exercise his gifts.” In my last two letters I pressed upon you a question in regard to ordination, namely : whether a man can he a lawful minister of Christ unless he has been ordained by imposition of hands by other similarly ordained ministers. You say that you have answered it “ again and again.” 1 am obliged to reply that, to my appre- hension, you have not answered it at all. Ex- cuse me for saying my belief is, that you dare not categorically answer it, yes or no. At all events, I submit it to the judgment of the sound theologians of your own Church, that you have not answered it. Instead of answering it you have over and over again confounded it with another question, which I have not yet touched upon. You have confound- ed ordination with succession, besides totally mis* apprehending the true notion of succession, as i will at a proper time show. It is enough for me to tell you that ordination and succession, how- ever closely connected, are yet two perfectly dis- tinct things, and not to be confounded. Whether, on- the one hand, your instinctive foresight of what I might build upon your ad- mission of ray doctrine concerning ordination> (which I contend is also your Church’s doctrine,) and on the other hand your dislike of the position as toward your own Church in which you wovdd be placed by an unqualified denial of it, led you to evade the point concerning ordination, and confound it in advance with an erroneous notion of succession — this I shall not decide. That you have confounded ordination and suc- cession I assert, and leave it to your sound theo- logians to decide between us. If you had answered my question concerning ordination, the way would have been immediately open to the question concerning succession — a question you most unaccountab^ imagine I am desirous to avoid. It is the very question I am anxious to reach. I pressed the point concerning ordination solely to get at the question concerning succession, i assure you there was no design to entrap you — no unworthy artifice in my course. I supposed, and I still suppose, that between a sound Presby- terian and myself there is no difference, either in regard- to the necessity for an externally ordained ministery, or in regard to the Apostolical succes- sion of "that ministry, but that the doctrine of both our Churches on these two points is per- fectly identical ; that there is no difference in principle; and that the sole question between us is — whether the ordaining power is given by Clirist to all the Presbyters, or limited to a cer- tain number of chief Presbyters or Bishops. The correctness of this supposition I also refer to the decision of the intelligent theologians of your own Church. In conclusion, I simply desire our intelligent and candid readers to judge whether the whole amount of you have advanced in sup- port of your position, that exclusive Episcopacy is “ unscriptural,’' is any thing more than a soli- tary allegation, unsupported by a single proof from you, and on rny part denied and disproved. Will you now produce other proofs for your al- legation : or, will you join with me in submitting this which you term your first argument” as sufficiently discussed, and proceed to your second argument in proof that ray dogma — no Chiurch without a Bishop — is “ unscriptural.” I submit that one or the other of these things is what the public and myself have a right to expect. I am, llev. and Deai Sir, yoi\r obedient servant, Ftbruaiy 5th, 1814. JONA. M. WAINWRIGHT. LETTER XVIIf. REY. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT. It is now perfectly obvious that my opponent does not mean to come to the point, and therefore, the idea of dignifying this correspondence with the title of a discussion is worthy of ridicule only — a ridicule in which I am not at all inclined A Chvrch without a Bishop. 41 to share. I should on these accounts feel myself to be perfectly justified in altogether dropping an opponent, who, however valiant at the dinner- table, is like the knight who comes into the lists with a fine flourish of trumpets, and a thundering defiance, as if he would eat up his adversary at a mouthful, but who is always missing when the onset arrives. But although I confess to a strong feeling of disgust, I am unwilling to abandon my object altogether, or even seem to shrink from what I believe to be a public service ; more espe- cially as I am sure that I should thereby exceefl- ingly gratify those who do not desire that the un- churching dogma should be exposed to a class of readers who have not heretofore been aware of its character and tendencies. This, however, I am resolved upon, viz : that I will pay no attention to any shifts or dodgings for the future, but pursue the line of argument which I have commenced — with my reader and not my opponent in my eye. I shall therefore say nothing to the prodigious dis- play of logic in his last production, but after reca- pitulating what I have already advanced, and showing its point and bearing, will proceed to other considerations. Our starting point is the assertion at the din- ner table, that there can he no Church without a Prelate. I have several times alluded to my reasons for not insisting upon my right to demand of the loud-voiced champion of exclusiveness, that he should begin this discussion, by furnishing proof of this allegation. Every one can see that the pretext that, having advanced a negative proposition, he cannot, by the laws of dialectics, be fairly called to prove it, is no more than a pre- fect under the cover of which he desired to es- cape from the predicament in which his untimely dinner-speech had placed him. It is a mere pre. text, I say, for it requires but a moment’s atten- tion from any school-boy, to decide that his as- sertion contains two negatives, which, (the judi- cious Lindley Murray being judge,) make the strongest kind of affirmative. “ There can be no Church without a Prelate without being a negative particle, the assertion amounts to this, prelacy is indispensable to the existence of the Church of Christ. Rather than let him escape, I consented to commence the discussion, still holding him to the position which he thrust so vauntingly in the face of the whole community, and believing that I should soon subject him to the necessity of letting the public see upon what Scriptural grounds he meant to justify a doc- trine involving such astounding consequences; so contrary to the common sense of mankind, and so contradicted by every-day facts. Hence ray first Scriptural argument, aow called an asser- tion, and a begging of the question. That argument is unanswerable, and no wonder it has been unanswered. It is to this effect, that nei- ther the doctrine of Prelacy, nor that of Presby- tery, (the one implying superior and inferior grades in the ministerial office, the other the per- fect official equality of ministers of the (Tospel,) was made, by the word of God, absolutely essen- tial to the existence of the Church. There might be a Church with Prelates, there might be one without them. By this argument I renounced all exclusive claims for Presbytery while I de- nied such claims to Prelacy. This kind of argument, I have no doubt, took my opponent by surprise, for it would have pleased him better to see the subject presented in the shape of a contest between a member of one sect claiming exclusive authority, and the member of another sect claiming a similar authority ; in oth- er words, a debate between a Presbyterian so called and a Prelatist, upon the pitiful question, which of the two was the true Church. But I repeat here what I have often said, (because I wish the reader to bear it in mind,) that I set out with the purpose of exposing exclusive claims. I believe that all the substantial elements of Pres- byterian government are traceable in the word of God, and farther, that it is best to adhere to them. I have no doubt whatever upon that point ; but I would not, therefore, make an adherence to Presby- terianism essential to the existence of the Church of Christ. This is my position, and I believe the position universally held in my own communion. But it is not the position which my opponent de- sired me to take, if one may judge from his sub- sequent efforts to deprive me of my catholic char- acter. I proceeded at once to fortify the above argu- ment by an appeal to the spirituality of the Gos- pel as a moral institute, in contrast with the formalism of insisting upon the fundamental ne- cessity of a particular mode of constituting the ministry. I adduced also the true principles of Christian unity^ showing that it was a unity of faith, love and other moral affections, which con- stitute the Christian character — which affections were not made dependent upon an individual’s external relations to one particular Church polity. I still farther corroborated this view by an appeal to glaring facts, proving that the blessings of God's spirit have not been confined to any one of the Christian denominations. From this fact I argued that my opponent must find himself in the following dilemma : obliged, on the one hand, to deny the substantial Christianity of all com- munions but his own — or, by admitting them to be Christian, on the other hand, obliged to admit that the best blessings of the Gospel, its promised spiritual blessings, had been bestowed upon bodies which did not belong to the Church of God at all, and which therefore were not in covenant with Him — in other words, that it made very little dif- ference whether men are in or out of ‘ the Church.' Now, without any great pretensions to logic, I take upon me to say that here was something to answer, which has not been answered. We are told that without Prelates there is no Church, and Scripture is referred to as the test. I search the Scripture and reply, I can find no such dogma there, but I find much that looks the other way. What is the answer of my opponent ? Why, that my own Church is as exclusive as his. I go out of my way to reply to this, and show that neither in theory nor fact are we chargeable with any such exclusiveness. I give all manner of illus- trations — I answer all manner of questions — and then, to return the compliment, I ask all manner of questions. But in vain ; the rejoinder is — risum teneatas — “ your Confession of P'aith, your General Assembly, your doctrine of predestina- tion,” tell a different story. This would be simply amusing, if it did not cost so much good ink, pa- per, time and eye-sight. Facts are nothing ; oh 42 A Church without a Bishop, no, who cares for facts ? Analogies between the Church and the State are nothing ; who cares for analogies ? Answers to questions are nothing, be- cause they go beyond a mere yes and no. Nothing, in short, is argument, which does not suit my op- ponent. This is significant, and I have reason to know is thoroughly appreciated by the great mass of our readers. What would he have ? Should he take it upon him to affirm that there can be no state without a king, and profess his willingness to test the affirm- ation by an appeal to the Federal Constitution ; the burden of proof certainly lies upon him to show how and where that instrument counte- nances any such assertion. My denial that the Federal Constitution teaches such a doctrine is not to be met by another assertion, that the denial is a mere unsupported allegation, a begging of the question, &c. Alas ! for logic ! One can hardly imagine how any one, even though he were a pro- fessor of moral philosophy or logic, could have constructed such a happy piece of argument as that which occunies my opponent’s last article. It is a novel mode of playing Ihe part of res- pondent, the title in which he rejoices, and which (respondens a non respondendo) he seems to consi- der as investing him with the privilege of not res- ponding at all. Instead of the hard work of an- swering questions or arguments, he prefers to throw out — like tubs to a whale — the Confession of Faith, predestination, sixty thousand excommuni- cated Presbyterians, &c., in hope that he may distract attention from the main issue. The read- er understood all these things, and considers them as signals of dirtress from a vessel on a lee shore. Enough of them. I shall notice hereafter nothing but argument. In support of the position advanced in my fifth letter I pursued briefly, in my last, an analogy between the State and the Church, and showed conclusively (so conclusively as to have placed it beyond my opponent’s power of reply, for he does not notice it all,) that even admitting, for the sake of argument, that Prelacy is recognized in Scripture as the then existing model of Church order, it is not more distinctly recognized than monarchy. And yet that no one in this land will affirm that our rejection of the latter was against the will of God, in such a sense as to destroy the State. In other words, that even supposing we may have erred (as I am told a few highly con- servative, strong government people among us do,) in casting off* the kingly polity, we are, nev- ertheless, a bona fide state. If this be so, (as all will admit) I asked whether a similar error in re- spect to Prelacy (supposing it to have been even half as explicitly recognized in Scripture as mon- archy is) must necessarily be a fundamental error, which puts the mistaking persons completely be- yond the pale of the Christian Church. The force of this illustration of the gross absurdity of the High Church exclusiveness consists in this, that such exclusiveness makes an error as to form, as fatal as an error in regard to substance ; that it puts upon a par, the accidents and the essence ; that it confounds government with the function- aries of government. No Church without a Pre- late can be maintained only by a course of rea- soning which will establish the corresponding doctrine, No State without a King. But the main thought is, that this analogy des. troys the doctrine of a necessary succession of in- dividuals. For, as that succession in the state was broken up entirely by our revoluti( n, and yet the country was left wit,h a better government than when it was ruled by a hereditary monarch, so may a succession in the Church be broken up, with advantage to the Church. But this my op- ponent denies. He affirms that an unbroken series of ordinations to the ministry is the very basis of the Church. It is, therefore, the turning point of the whole argument. I have again and again ad- mitted that there have been cases, and may be again, in which the regular method of transmitting the ministerial character might be interrupted, and yet a true Church be preserved and a true ministry raised up, and subsequeiitly transmitted by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. The reader who wishes to see this subject fully discussed, may turn to Claude’s well-known de- fence of the Reformation. As, therefore, any such interruption in the series of ordinations would — according to the doctrine of my opponent — ut-. terly vitiate all subsequent acts, I have considered the questions of an unbroken series of ordinations and an unbroken succession, as really identical, although (strangely enough, considering his claims to “moral fairness and logical accuracy”), he denies this identity. He gives no reason, however, and I shall therefore consider them as virtually one, and proceed now with the train of remark suggested by the above parallel between the Church and the State. My object now will be to investigate the proofs which are advanced in support of the absurd fancy of an Apostolical succession, as necessary to the existence of the Church. It will be found to be a new version of an old fable — the world resting upon the back of the elephant, the ele- phant upon a tortoise, the tortoise upon — nothing. The Church resting upon Prelates, the Prelates upon an unbroken descent from the Apostles, their predecessors, and this unbroken descent resting upon — nothing. The theory is this : our modern Prelates are the lineal successors of the twelve Apostles ; to them the Apostolic power has descended, (how much they can show of this power we shall see present- ly,) they only can appoint a ministry, which min- istry alone has the promise of blessing, and can rightfully take care of the fold of Christ, as pas- tors ; they only can confer regeneration in bap- tism, and they only (as one of them said) have the body and blood of Christ to give to his peo- ple. (See these claims as taught by Palmer, vol. II., part 6.) These are astonishing powers, as every reader can see, and no wonder that they have a strong attraction fol" certain classes of minds, both among priests and people. No won- der that many of the former are anxious to per- suade the latter that they are invested with a sort of vicegerency from Heaven, which really places the Church and the world pretty much at their mercy. But upon this point we shall have more to say at another time. Such substantially is the claim, and such the ground (viz. : a succession to the Apostolic office,) upon which the claim is built. “ There is not a Bishop, priest or deacon among us,” says Dr. Hook, “ who cannot, if he please, A Church without a Bishop. 43 trace his own spiritual descent from St. Pcfer or St. Paul.” Now, as my opponent seems quite unwilling to give us arguments (perhaps because they are not as ‘plenty as blackberries,’) I must resort to other advocates of this doctrine of the necessity of unbroken descent from the Apostles, to disco- ver the basis of this futile theory, out of which such absolutely fearful consequences are made to grow. The theory is built upon two assumptions. 1. That modern Prelates are the descendants of the Apostles. 2. That their lineage is and must be unbroken, from the days of St. Peter and St. Paul. 1. That modern Prelates are the succes. sors of the Apostles. What Scripture (for to that lies the appeal) can be shown for such an assumption? Especially is there any Scripture so absolutely demonstrative as to silence all doubt upon a point which is made by my opponent an article of faith — an essential item in the creed of the Church of Christ ? an element, wanting which, the Church is defunct, and cannot be re- stored without a miracle ? The reader will smile at the magnificence of the edifice as contrasted with the narrowness of the foundation. A volume might be written in exposure of this claim, but I must be content with a few condensed paragraphs. Christ ordained the Apostles, as chief minis- ters — Prelates are the only chief ministers of Christ in succeeding times — ergo, Prelates are the direct descendants of the Apostles. This is the reason- ing. To make it good, it must be shown that Prelates have inherited the character and power with which the Apostles were expressly invested; that their relations to the Curch are the same. Let us test the matter by a question or two. (1) The Apostles were the inspired teachers of the world ; but what evidence of in- spiration (short of loud claims of infallibility or ‘ indefectibility ’) — do the Prelates of Rome, Eng- land or America give ? Again : (2) The Apos- tles were empowered to communicate miraculous gifts, (see Mark XVI. 17, 18) gifts of healing, the power of speaking with unknown tongues, &c. ; but what Prelate (with the exception of a few highly-favored individuals in the Papal body, who have appealed to “ lying wonders ” wrought by them) can tell of a disease cured, sight restored, a fractured limb healed, or a discourse in an un- known tongue delivered by any of those upon whom they have laid their hands. Again ; (3) The Apostles wrought miracles themselves ; they could drink any deadly thing without harm, &c. &c. ; but what Prelate would be hardy enough to try the experiment upon himself, of taking a dose of poison? Prussic acid would be, I doubt not, as fatal to Dr. Doane as to Dr. Wainwright. Again : (4) The Apostles were the overseers of the whole Church, having received plenary powers to preach, baptize, bestow miraculous gifts, ordain, and direct ordination, not for a limited district or diocese, but for the known world ; but what mod- ern Prelate has ventured to claim such an exten- sive jurisdiction, if we except the Prelates of Rome, who alone, in this particular, claim their full inheritance of the Apostolic character ? Again, (5) the Apostles were especially set apart as liv- ing witnesses of the resurrection ; they were par- ticularly characterized by the fact that they had seen the Lord. This can be shown, by a dozen references to Scripture, to have been one of the marked peculiarities and duties of their office. But what modern Prelate can in this, any more than in miraculous endowments, establish his -claim to “ the signs of an Apostle ?” These common sense contrasts establish the ab- surdity of resting the claims of any ministry whatever upon the assertion of its inheritance of the Apostolic authority. The apostles had^ no successors, except as they were Christian men, and ministers of the word. They organized Churches of Christ wherever they went ; they established a ministry ; and whether that minis- try consisted of three orders or only one, (which is a distinct question,) it was assuredly not the depository of Apostolic powers. But this is not all : before we consent to ac- knowledge our modern Prelates, or presbyters, as the lineal descendants of these legates of Heaven, we must have some explicit Scripture to prove their claim. I say again, explicit, for nothing but proof positive can justify such a claim. If it be not an undoubted claim, it deserves no better name than absurd arrogance. And what Scriptures, reader, do you suppose are referred to by our Apostolical successionists ? These are the best they have — “ Lo, I am with you always, even, unto the end of the world.^' Answer — Does Christ then restrict this promise to the Apostles, and prelates their successors ? Is he pledged to be with no other ? Are other Christian teachers t® have no share in the pro- mise ? Again “ as my father hath sent me, even so send I you.^^ Answer — Does this sending im- ply the necessity of a lineal succession ? And has he sent none but Prelates ? And are Prelates sent in the same sense as Christ sent the Apostles ? Again, “ I appoint unto you a kingdom as my F ather hath appointed unto me.” A nswer — Such a place and authority in the kingdom of Heaven, the Church, was bestowed upon the Apostles alone, as the inspired and miraculously endowed lawgivers of his Church, in which respect alone could they be said to be placed “ upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Now, I ask, does it not require all the gravity which a grave subject demands to prevent one’s lifting the lash of ridicule against such preten- sions, supported by such appeals to the word of God? Finally, upon this point, let us remark that the paucity of Scriptural arguments is fully admitted by the staunchest advocates of this mysterious Apostolical succession, I will let some of these gentlemen give us a specimen or two of their views of the Scriptural argument for the doctrine “ no Church without Prelates,”. or as it ought to read, “ without Apostles.” Thus Mr. Keble (on Tradition, p. 96) says, “ The succession itself is — “ A mystery, and of course left, as all mysteries are, in some respects dimly revealed, i. e. in the world’s language, vague and “ indistinct.” He argues that tradition alone can prove the doctrine. In Tract No. 86, the writer says of these doc- trines, “ if the Episcopal and priestly succession have in them something divine, as channels which convey, as it were, his presence to us — we must 44 A Church without a Bishop. expect to find in them something that hideth it- self — surrounded with difficulties to the carnal mind, withdrawing itself, &c.” In Tract No. 8, the writer says, “ there is no part of the ecclesiastical system which is not faintly traced in Scripture, and no part which is much more than faintly traced.^’ By another of these writers, “it is granted that the divine right of Episcopacy, the Apostoli- cal succession, the power of the Church, &c. are wantmg in direct or satisfactory proof, and are to be established, if at all, only by the aid of very attenuated and nicely managed inferential argu- ments.” “ Every one must allow that there is next to nothing on the surface of Scripture about them, and very little, even under the surface, of a satisfactory character,” &,c. P I need quote no more. Let it be remarked that these are admissions made by men who rely mainly upon tradition, but who would gladly have seized upon Scripture arguments, if they could have come at them. What, then, shall we say to a dogma whose buttresses are so rotten ? What is the worth of a pedigree, the proofs of which are so “ atten- uated?” Who can fail to admire the infinite self-complacency with which its claimants are so full that they fear not to walk abroad, even in daylight, Apostolically linked arm in arm, and crowding men as good as themselves off the foot- path into the kennel ? In my next, I shall consider the assumption upon which the dogma of unbroken succession rests — after which I will proceed to farther scrip- tural objections to the unchurching monopoly. February 8, 1844. GEORGE FOTTS. LETTER XIX. REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS. Rev. and Dear Sir — You have unceremonious- ly sounded a retreat from the field to which you as unceremoniously challenged me, but I cannot permit you to escape without a word or two at parting. With what good reason you first gave and then persisted in the challenge, with what tem- per you have thus far carried on the controversy, and with what courtesy you now retire from it, I leave others to judge. As I will not presume, myself, to decide upon the propriety of the step you have now taken, as between gentlemen, to say nothing of its aspect as between ministers of the Gospel, so neither do I feel disposed to question its prudence. After having made a bold affirmation, and in the progress of eight letters, of no very moderate length, advanced one solitary argument in its support, upon being called upon to substantiate that argument when invalidated, or to bring for- ward a second, not feeling disposed or prepared to pursue either course, it was perhaps wise in you to throw up the discussion altogether. You say that you do not make “ any preten- sions to logic.” I do not know that any man is under a moral obligation to understand the art of reasoning, or to be versed in the com- mon and well defined rules of debate. But perhaps it may not be amiss to suggest that, in such an instance, it would be expedient for the individual, whosoever he might be, not to thrust himself into positions where the observance of these rules is fairly imposed upon him. The assertion you have made, that you have “ answered all manner of questions,” is, I think, somewhat venturesome. I do not remember to have asked more than one question touching closely the point in dispute, but that is a vital one, for the categorical , answer to it involves a principle which lies at the foundation of the whole debate. It has not been answered plainly and manfully, and your abrupt termination of this discussion sustains me in the belief I expressed in my last letter, that you dare not answer it in a straight-forward manner, yes or no. Not being able or willing to answer it, and not having the frankness to say so, and to leave it, and proceed with a second argument, I do not see what course was left for you to pursue other than the one you have adopted. Having now with- drawn from the attitude of a disputant, you have of course relieved yourself from the responsibili- ties of one ; and you can henceforth manage your arguments, assertions and analogies as you please, and thus save yourself the trouble of de- fending hasty and unfortunate premises and illo- gical inferences. I also shall find my advantage in the arrangement, for I can now go forward and vindicate my doctrine without the annoyance of repeated and unsuccessful attempts to bring my adversary to the point and keep him there. When I express to you my disappointment in not having found in you such an adversary as I flattered myself I was to be honored with, upon accepting your challenge to a discussion, I would not have you or our readers imaginne that there is any regret mingled with this feeling, at the question itself having been brought into such prominent notice. On the contrary, I rejoice much at the deep interest that has been excited in relation to it, and at the prospect there is of its now obtaining a thorough investigation by some means or other. It can still be fully and fairly examined without a formal disputation, and I am confident the result will be that mueh ignorance and prejudice in regard to the opinions held by Churchmen will be thereby removed. To be sure, a public discussion, conducted in an honorable and dignified manner, with a mu- 1 tual avoidance of uncourteous and unkind ex- pressions, and appeals to mere popular prejudice, would have produced no unpleasant excitement, ' and would have added no little interest to the I whole investigation. As it is, however, (let the I blame rest where it may) it has been clearly I proved that we had better each proceed after his . own method, to establish our respective doctrines, I and then leave the public to judge of ihe com- I parative weight of our arguments. I I was very unwilling to commence this discus- I sion, as is well known, and I cannot say that I I' regret being relieved from the necessity of follow- ing it up with an adversary, in debating with whom I had begun to feel that neither the cause of truth nor that of charity could be much ad- vanced ; but I should be far more unwilling to leave the question in its present unsatisfactory position. And therefore I shall not consent to do so. You indeed have deserted the arena ; but as A Church without a Bishop. 45 trust that I should not have exulted over a pros- trate foe, had it been my fortune to vanquish you in a fair-fought field, I feel no disposition to tri- umph in your precipitate retreat, and, therefore I shall say no more, but proceed as I best can with- out you. With my parting salutation to you as you go, however, suffer me to unite a word of friendly caution. You have tried your powers in contro- versy, and are now about to change this mode of discussion for one which, I doubt not, will occa- sion you less perplexity and discomfort. I trust that the altered character of your communications to the public will enable you, in your preparations, to reflect more seriously than I fear you have heretofore done, in the excitement of debate, upon thesacrednessof the question under consideration. When one has a present adversary to contend with, it is not perhaps in human nature always to distinguish between zeal for the truth and ambi- tion for conquest, and therefore it has often hap- pened, unfortunately for the reputation of our common Christianity, that religious controversy has befen marked by a levity of manner, and a contumelious use of language, which have been in reality aimed not so much at the subject in dis- pute as at the person of the disputant. Now, however, that you have withdrawn yourself from the influence of this temptation, I trust that the Church of which I am an humble member, and the doctrine which, as I believe, sustains her dis- tinctive character, will be regarded by you as in- vested with some degree of sacredness, and there- fore that you will not allow yourself to assail them any more with opprobrious epithets or ex- pressions of ridicule. Remember that your own Church and the doc- trines which command your firm belief are ex- posed to the same description of unworthy attack from the ranks of infidelity. In the estimation of the unbeliever you are as “ arrogant,” as “ ex- clusive,” as“ uncharitable” toward him, as you can possibly suppose Churchmen to be toward you. But does this justly subject you to such denunciations ? Certainlj^ not. And wherefore ? Because you conscientiously believe that the doc- trines you hold are the revealed truths of God — you cannot alter their exclusive character, and if you hold them in the spirit of love, you do not \ feel that you are obnoxious to the charge of want of charit}'. Why, then, not mete out to us the same mea- sure of forbearance that you yourself feel entitled to from others ? I believe the doctrine I hold, in relation to the essential constitution of the Church, to be as surely founded on the Word of God, as we both do the doctrine of human depravity, or the atonement, or the Trinity, and to be as fairly deduced from this Word. I do not hold it, as you assert, to be a question of form, but one of suh. stance. Now this may be the error of those who are called High Churchmen. Convict them of error, if you can, from the ultimate authority we both appeal to. But in doing so pray remember that they have as deep an interest in discovering God’s truth as yourself, that they have perhaps sought for it as diligently, and that they hold what they have obtained as conscientiously. While then you bend your efforts to instruct the ignorance or remove the prejudice of the body whom you designate as a “ comparatively con- tracted denomination,” but whose insignificance has nevertheless not shielded them from your as. sault, reflect that you are dealing with doctrines as sacred in their estimation and as dear to their affections as any Gospel truth can be to you. In conclusion, suffer me to direct your atten- tion to a sentiment of Richard Baxter, who, in the earlier part of his ministry, was as bitter in his hatred and as violent in his denunciations of Episcopacy as many of those in the present day with whom he is held in high estimation, but who, when age had made him wiser, and expqri- ence had enlarged the bounds of his charity, ut- tered and left on record the following memorable words ; — “ At first it would disgrace any doctrine WITH ME IF I DID BUT HEAR IT CALLED PoPERY AND Anti-Christian ; but I have long learned to be more impartlal, and to know that Satan CAN USE even the NAMES OF PoPERY AND AnTI- ChRIST, to bring truth into suspicion AND DIS- CREDIT.” I bid you now a final farewell, and am, with all due respect. Your obedient servant, ^ ^ JON A. M. WAINWRIGHT. Saturday, Feb. 10, 181,4. GREELEY & McELRATH’S PUBLICATIONS. WII^G PUBtlCATIOiVS. The attention of Whig Associations, Clay Clubs and others interested in the dissemination and promotion of Whig Doctrines and Senti- ments, is respectfully called to the following Cat- alogue of Works published at the office of The New-York Tribune by the undersigned : Tile New-York Daily Tribune Is published every morning (Sundays excentfd) at The Tribune Buildings, 160 Nassau street, on a laige and (air royal sheet, and tuiuished by Mail at the low price of Five Dollars per annum, pa\ able inflexibly in advance. Aithough strialler than the 'i'en Dollar D-iilies, its range of topics is as wide, and its amount of reading matter not less than ihe aver- ajeof theirs. The e periment of issuing a cheap cash pirer, elevated in character and diguified ni tone, devoted to the true pj inniples of the Government, and sustaining the gr'=>at i'rotluciiig Interests of the Country, was commerced on the )Oth of April, ISil, and in less than a year atvi a half after its comm ncement the daily circulation of THE INEV\-YORK TRIBUNE •» as nearly or quite 111, 000 copies, reaching every quarter of the Un- ion, while Its subicripti'ui list at the present lime is constantly and rapidly increasing. The Editorial conduct of this paper rests with Horace Greelev. abl y assisted in the Depaitments of Literary, Com- mercial and Miscellaneous Intelligence, by the aid of stated correspondents at Washington ami tlv most important points throughout, t'ne Union, as well as private advices from (iiends possessing superior facilities for impelling information, the Publishers hope to render their paper the thannei of iheearli.-st and most authentic accounts of all iinponant Politic 1 Move- ments in progress or ill cont>=mpluion, Federal and State Le- gislation, wiih full and accurate returns of all transpiring Elections. The earliest accounts of Crops, Business, Piices, Sic, with ilieevents of the day, wi I also be thus given; while the Commercial Deprrtmenl of The 'Pribuiie i.s the sjiecial charge o*’ an Assistant of ability am] experience, who will give fresh, full and a -curate reports of all doings in Produce, Goods, Stocks, Exchange, &c, &c, not only in this City, but at important points throughout the Union. An Even ng Edition is published every afternoon in time for the Mails, -wliich contains the News received by the morning mails and a summary of the Markets and Stock Sales up to 2 o’clock c. M. Please address GREELEY & McELRATH, Publishe s. Tribune buildings, NewYork. The New-York Weekly Tribune Is made up mainly by tlie Editorials, Nv.ws, other than mat- ters ofm rely Ciiy interest, Literature, Statistics, Miscel- lanies, &c. Sic., wh ch appear throughout the week in the Daily TRinttWE. It will contain some Literary matter, ori ginal and selecte 1, which does not appear in the Daily with a Weekly Rev ew of the Markets In its Political ana General Intelligence, its'iall be our end avor to render itequaltoanv other Weekly. .. .Tee character of the Tribune is by this time generally known. It ' ims to reconcile tin largest F/es- dom of Tnought and Action with a profound reve eiice for Raw and ob aience to rightful Authority— to be the stern foe of all discord, auarchv and turbulence, but the champion of every gene 0U3 idea, however novel or uniiooular, w hich has for its end the uprising of tlie oppress dan I the lowly. While it proffers no claim to the abused name of Democracy, so long the cloak of political Piiarisees, the cant of designing dema- gogues, it will be. as it has been, in the legitimate sense of th? word, truly Deinocra ic— the adversary ol eveiy wrong, the exposer of hollow profession and scheming knavery, and the advocate of every movement tending to the diffusion of true Freed^m and the upward Progress of the Human Race The Weekly Tribune is published in this cayevery Saturday morning, but desiiatched by the Mails of rhui-sday and Fri- day. It is of tiie largest size, folded in eight pages, so as to he about the. average siz? of two commo'n newsiiapers. Subscrip- tions are resiiectfuUy solicited. .. .In irs I’o! tical i-ourse. The Tribune is ardently, inflexibly Whig, and advocates, with its utmost energies, the Pkotection of Home Industry, the restoration of a Sound and Uniform Currency, the rigorous pr.secu'ion of Internal Improv- mi'.nt, and the election of HENRY CLAY as the next Presid ntof the Uni- ted States Being sent only for Cash in .advance, the Publish- ers areenabled to afford it, iiotwitnstanding the great size and the cost ol its pu'ilication, at the low price of Two Dollars a year, or where clubs are (orrned Ten Copies for Filteeii Dol- lars. fCT^Posimaste.s are amhorized by law to trrnsmit mo- neys subscriptions to newsi>apers, under iht-ir frank, free of postage [Xy^ Money remitted through the mail will be at the risk of the Publishers. NoUsofall specie-paying Banks in any State of the Union -will be received at par. GREELEY & McELRATH, Publishers. The Whig Almanac for the year 1844. This valuable Register of Political events has rapidly pass- ed through Sixteen editions, and the demand for it still con- tinues. Manv of the articles contained in it are of permanent value, and all of them will continue, to be sought after and read throughout the entire year 1841. Country Merchants coming to the City this Sirring viill affoid a favorable oppor- tunity to those -who may v.ish to purchase. It contains the usual Calendars and Astronomical calcula. tions, mad foreveiy meridian from Maine to l-ouisiana. A I-istof the Government Executive officers of the United States, Judges «f the Supreme Court, &c. with theirjSalarie.s; a com- plete Lisr of thr- Members of the present United States Senate and House of Kepresentaiives arranged according to their re- spective States. and the politics of each.,member designrrted ; History of the 'I'ariff; Past and Present Tariffs; Comparative Statement of the most impoitant articles bearing specific du- ties. as imposed bv the acts of 1816, 1824, 1828, 1832 and 1842; The Present Tariff Law of the Ui'ITed States, be- ing the entire law on that subject. A National Bank with Extiact< from Mr. McDuffie’s Report; Protection to Ame- rican Industry— Its Expediency and Necessity, by the Hon. Charles Hudson of Mass. This valuable and useful Essay ocucp es 14 pages. Its facts, illustrations and doctrines ought to be understood by* every citizen who takes an interest •n the cause of American Industry and the pro-perity of the people of the United States; Extracts from Mr. Clay’s Speech on the Public Lands. 'J hese extracts occupy several pages, and are sufficient to g’vea general view ofihis interesting sub- ject. Anecdotes of Politics and Politicians, never before pub- lished. ELECTION RETURNS, by States, Uongres- sional Districts and Counties. These Returns are the fullest and most comiilete which have ever been i ubiished. They were prepared at grea' labor and at considerable expense expressly for the Whig Almanac. They will be constantly referred to during tne coming year, as they show not only the returns for the present year b t a so those of 1840; Times of holding Elec- tions ill each of the States; Popular Vote for Mr Van Buren and Gen Harrison in 1836 and in 1818; The number ol Electors of each State in 1840 and tFe number to which eat'h Suteis entil ed in 1841; Tables of the Popula.ion, Debts, Governors and Chief Justices of the several States; A-iiecdotes of Mr. Clay, John Quincy Adams, Col. Johnson, &c. &c. The price of the Whig Almanac is the same as last year, notwitlrstanding it contains about one quarter more matter. Single copies 12^ cents; $l per dozen; $7 per lOO. Orders must be accompanied bv the cash. Postmasters remitting, free of postage, $1 for a dozen copies, will be entitled to a copy gratis. It contains sheets, and is sub- ject only to periodical postage. The, WHIG ALMANAC is rega’arly published every year, and is only subject to periodica! postage. GREELEY & McELRATH, Publishers; Tribune Buildings, 160 Nassau-street- ?ke Life and Speeches* of Henry Clay, 2 volumes octavo, 1L4 pages, with Steel Portrait and Engr'- viiigs. This edition comprises— 1. A MEMOIR OF HENRY CLAY— Clear and glowing, written expressly for this work; 2 THE SPEECHES i E MR CLAY, from 1810 to 1812 in- clusive, carefully collected from various sourc 'sf«r this wsrk, compaied and corrected, and all lestored to the fir.-t person- many of them having been only reported in the third person— “ Mr. C-lay said ” so and so, and “ he urged,” &c. instead of giving his own vigorous and graceful diction, without inf^r- po'ation or dilution. No collection of Mr. CLAY’S SPEECHES at all comparable widi this, in completeness or coi|ectuess. has ever before appeared. Each Speech is prefa- ced by a brief introductory pa>agraph explaining the circum- stance.s which called it foith, and whenever it is desirable and not oiheiwise indicated, a note at the end gives the fate of the measure unuer discussion. [L7=* Price, neatly bound in boards, with gilt titles, $135 per copy, or $95 for 100 copies. In paper covers, French style, single copies $l 00, or.$80 per 100 copies. The American Laborer. An Important Work for Manufacturers, Mechanics, Farmers and (“oliticians — The A.MERICAN LABORER, devoted to the cause of Protection to Home ludustvy, embracing the Arguments. Reports aud Speeches of the ablest Civilians of the United States in favor <>f the Policy of Protection to Amer- ican Labor, with tlie Statistics of Production in the United States, 8tc &c. 1 vol octavo. This is a highly useful work to all who desire correct and accurate information in reference to the Labor, Productions and Resources o' the United States. It contains many o) the ablest Speeches, Repoits and Disser- tations on Manufacturing and Agricultural subjects which have ever been made 0=* Every Clay i lub in the United States ouaht to see that one or more copies is placed in some p^ublic Library or Reading Room for the use of the public. — Price $1 00, or $8 per dozen. Greeley ^ McElrath's Publications. Life and Public Services of Henry Clay, Published in a neat Octavo Pamphlet, with an engraved Likeness, a new edition revised and improved, and brought down to the year 1844. By tpes Sargent, Esq , of the City ofNew-York. This is the best biography of Mr. Clay ex- tant. Price )2i cents, or $8 per 100 copies. Reasons for Preferring Mr. Clay to Mr, Van Bureu for next President. By Hon William C. Rives, U. S. Senator from Virginia. Tlie Tariff Question in Germany. This m.asterly Essay was called forth by a Report of Dr, Bowring, a prominent ' Free Trade’ Member of the British Parliament, on the Commercial Relations of Great Biitain with' Germany, intended to induce the Germans to abandon their Protective policy, and concur in a free interchange oP- their respective productions. 'L'he fallacy of its assumptions and the delusiveness of ifs calculations, so far as they were intended to shov/ that it is wise in a nation to suffer the de- structive paralysis by Foreign rivalry of its Home Manufac- tures, in the exiiectalion of supplying itself more advanta- geously from abroad, is ably set forth in this Tract. Its prin- ciples and truths apply equally well to this country. The above named Letter ol Mr. Rives and the Discu.s-sion of the German 'I’arilf, are both minted together in a neat Pa.mphlet of 8 pages, ai,d sold at $l 25 per 100, or $10 per 1,000. It is hoped that this Tract may receive a very extensive cir- culation. Commercial Intercourse with Great Britain. This is a Pamphlet or Tract of 8 pages showing the precise operation of the present British 'J'aiilf on the Produce and Manufactures of the United States whenever the people of this country undertake to export to England. A knowledge, of the fact of an average duty of 330 per cent, on American Products when shipped to England, against an average duty of some 30 p^r cent on English gooi's imported into the Uni- ted States, will piobabiy show the fallacy of the anti Tariff party. Price $1 25 per 100 or $10 per 1000 copies. The Junius Tracts. No- 1. The Test, or Paities tried by their acts. No. 2. The Currency. No. 3. The Tariff. No. 4. Life of Henry Clay. No. 5. Political Abolition. No. 6. Democracy .. . tC^This Series of Political Tracts, Irom the well-known author of "Cris:is of th Country f in 1840, uniform in size and price, is publisheu and for sale at tVie Tribune Office, NewYork, at $2 50 a hundred coiiies, or $20 a thousand. Orders from any part of the Union supplied with despatch. Remittance by mail, postpaid or free, at the risk of the proprietors and publishers None sent out on commission. Orders must be accom- panied with the c’sh. GREELEY & McELRATH, Publishers for the Author GREELEE & McELRATH have also for sale — A Defeaice of ifie VVliigs— -By a Mewber of the Tweaty-Seveuth Congress. Price 25 cents, or $46 per 100 copies. 'I’lie Clay Minstrel : Or National Sosgster, with a Sketch of a^r. Clay’s Life, &c. By John S. Litcell of Ger- mantown, Pa. Pncs- 25 cents— $16 per JOO. Ordeis for any of the above named works must be ad- dressed to GREELEY &. McELKATH, Tribune Buildings, New-York. Scientific & Useful Faitolications. BIT The following valuable works are also pub- lished at the Tribune Office, and may be obtain- ed from any of the Agents of the Tribune ; or at Cincinnati from William H. Moore ^ Co; Philadelphia from Zeiber ^ Co. ; and at Bos- ton from Redding Co. Elements of Natural Pliilosophy ; Embracing the general principles of Mechanics, Hydrostat- ics, Hydraulics, I'neuinatics, Acoustics, Optics, Electricity, Gilvanism, Mignetism, and Astronomy. lHustrsted by seve- ral hundred eng ravuigs. By Leonard D G.^lk, iM.D , Pro- fessor of Geology and Mineralogy in hie Univer.-iity of the City of New-Yo'^k, and Lecturer on Chemistry and Nature! Ptiiiosophy . . . The abjve work is extensively introduced in the best Schools and Seminaries throughout d fferent parts oi' the. United States, and is coiiddered the best Book extant for piivate learners. Dr. Gaie b-ing himself apractical Chemist, and his professional duties as Lecturer requiring liim to make constant and repe..te(l experiments iu all branch* s of Natural Philosophy, w ,s eminently qualified for the task of editing such a work. Most of the other publications oii the popular branches of I'liilnsophy and Chemistry are mere ccm. ilatioiis made by book rri ikers; hence the frequent failures of .students ill their attempts at experiment:? while following the diivctioi.s co.it.ained in ilirs? works. No such difficulty will occur in the use of this work of Dr. G ile. Parents and teachers are requested to examine the work. Price 50 cents. O'Coiineirs Ireland ! A Memoir oa Ireland, Native and Saxon, {Second Edition,) by Daniel 0’( Ionnell, M. P. with a likeness of the Autho r. Price 25 cents; five copies for $1. Lectures on Geology. Doctor Lyell’s Lectures on Geology, (Second Edition.) It contains an engraved Frontispieee, exhibiting an ideal section of part of the Earth’s Crust, with explanations It also con- tains a general Introduction to Geology not before published. Xeefnre I, embraces the following subjects: Auvergne, Lacus- tnne Period, Volcanic Period, Erui tion of Coseguiua, Mount Dor. Lecture II, The Earth’s Strata, Marine Strata, Periods, Auvi'rgne District, Sub-Appenines, Mount JEtna Lecture III, Upheaval and Subsidence of the Earth, Naples, Temple of Serapis, Monte Nuovo. ieefure IV, Coral Reefs, Coral I.slands. Lecture V, Origin of Coal. Lecture VI. Fossil Footquints. Lecture VII, Recession of the Falls of Niaga- ra. Lecture Vlll, Boulders and Icebergs. To the above is also added in this edition, a Sketch of the Lecture of Dr J. Augustine Smith, delivered before the Lyceum of Natural History on the 9th of December last on the Different Races of Mtn. Price 25 cents; five copies for 1 dollar. Useful Bo©l£S for tSie. People, Farnliam’s Travels. No. i.. .Travels in the Great Western Prairies, the Anahuac and Rocky Mountains, and Oregon Territory; by Thomas J. FaRnham, Esq. Price 25 cents; five cojiiesfor $'. “ It is really relit'shiiig to rise from the pent-sal of such a valuable and interesting woik. There is such a fountain of freshness and originality gushing through every page, such a continual stream of wit and anecdote, tliat orre never oecomes weary of drinking from its sparkling fount.” [Fhila. paper. “ In these days of Cheap Literature, when every kind of namby-pamby trash is flooded weekly from the press, it is really refreshing to rise from the perusal of such a valuable and interesting work. The writer appears to have struck out for liimselt ail entirely new path, and has so entertained and interspersed it with the green leaves of instruction, and the , bright flowers of beautiful imagery and stirring incident, that^ CO a lover of nature in its wildest and most sublime teaching^, presents attractions such as, in our opinion, verj^ few worJis of the kind possess. There is such a fountain of freshness «Aid originality gushing through every page, such a contiliual stream of wit and anecdote, that one never becomes weary of drinking from its sparkling fount.” [Philadelphia Citizen Soldier. Dr. Lardner’s Lectures. No. III. — Laidner’s complete Coarse of Lectures, delivered at Niblo’s Saloon, in the City of New-York. The subjects embraced in the Lectures, are : Electricity— The Sun — Gal- vanism— The Fixed Stars— Magnetic Needle — Latitude and Longitude — Bleaching— Tanning— Popular Fallacies— Light — Failing Stars— Temporary Stars— Historical Skeich of As- tronomy — De\v-;-Scieuce aided by Art — Scientific Discove- ries — Sound— Vibrations of the Retina— Voltaic Biltery — Sieam Engines of England and America. This edition of Doctor Lardeer’s Lectures is introduced by a Sketch of the Progress of Physical Science. Price, for the whole, includirg Lardner’s Lectures, 25 cents per single copy. Postmasters and others will receive five copies lor $1. Chemistry and Philosophy. No, IV. . .Chemistry of thefour Ancient Elements— FVr«, Jiir , Earth and Water— Founded upon Lectures delivered beiore Her Majesty the Queen, bv Thomas Griffith, Lec- turer on Chemistry at Sc. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Illustrat- ed by upwards of seventy engravings The Boqk of Philo- sophical Experiments, illustrating the principal facts and cu- rious phenomena of Electricity, Galvanism, Magnetism, Chemistry, O^itics, Heat, &c witn Introductory Observations on each Science, and upwards of300 Experiments. By J, S. Dalton. This Essay on the Chemistry of the Four Ancient Elements is chiefly intended I'or those who have not studied the science. Abstruse details and theories are avoided, useful and interest- ing information supplied, and instruction united with enter- aiiiment. Explicit directions are given respecting the per- formance of the Experiments. “A person who Perloiins an Experiment and thorough! v understands the nature of it, will hardly ever forget tihe pnii- ciple it illustrates. It has been the object of the writer to in- troduce only such experiments as may be performed with sim- ple apparatus, and such as may be easily and cheaply pro- cured.’’ Extracts from the Preface. The two books above named have met with a rapid and extensive sale in England, and continue to be very pop- ular and in great dematid, notwithstanding each one is sold at about four times the price of the cost of both works together in the edition piinted in the “ Series of Useful Books for the People.’’^ The above works are neatly printed on clear new type with about 150 eiigravii gs, and together are sold at the evceedingly low price of 25 cents: five copies for $1. Political Economy. No. V. .. Ibinciples of Political Fdcoimmy, or the liaws of the Formation of National Wealth, developed hy m ‘ans of the Christian Law of Goverairicnt; being the .su 'siance of a ease drlivered to the Hand-loom Weavers’ Comtnission, by William Atkinson. With an Introduction, Tieating of ih. present state of the Science of I’oliticil Economy, and the Adaptalio.i of its Triucinltfs to the Condition of our own Couuiry, and the upbuilding of its Prosperity, by IIOR.scK Greeley. Price 25 cen's: five copies for $1. Greeley ^ MeElrath^s Pv Ellsworth’s Report. No. 11— TK- Irnprovements in Agriculture, the Arts. &c. iu the United States; being an account of recent and impor- tant discoveries and imprqvemenis in i he mode of building Houses, making Fences, raising Grain, making I’ork, dispo- sing of tiegs, making Lard Oil, raising Silk, with engravings of improved Ploughs and other Ag icultural Implements, &.c. J3y Hon. H L. P i.lswouth. Commissioner of Patents. And a Treatise on Agiicultural Geology Priie 25 cents; five co- pies for $1. '‘It is one of the most valuable and interesting documents we have ever perused.” The above valuable work contains a vast amount of the most important information to Farmers which has ever be- fore been presented at so cheap a rate. The contents of the work, in part, are as follows: Tabular Estimate of the Crops in each State of the Union, showing the numbers of bush.els raised in each State of Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye, Buckwheat. Corn, Potatoes, pounds of Hay, Flax and Hemp, Tobacco, Cotton, Rice, Silk, Cocoons, Sugar, gallons of Wine, Stc. Remarks on the foregoing, and a Review of the Crops of each of the above named articles, with important suggestions Progress of- Improvement — Causes of Improvement. Corn-Stalk Sugar— Lard Oil, &c. Foreign Markr.ts. Improved Mode of Fencing— Mode of constructing Houses. Railroads. Future Surplus— Comparison of Exports and Imports. Markets at Home or Aoroad. Prospect of a Foreign Market. Success of Competition. Corn Laws of England. The work also contains the following valuable Docu- ments: 1. Letter from Hon. John Taft^erro of Virginia, to Mr. Ellsworth on the Culture of Wheat. 2. Letter from William Webb of Wilmington, Del. and Ex- tended Remarks by the same gentleman on the Manufacture of Corn Stalk Sugar. 3. Extract from Annales de la Societs Polytecl .lique Practique, translated at the Patent Office and highly confirma- tory of Mr. Webb’s Essay. i. .Method of crystalizing Corn Sirup— Utensils, Process, &c. &c. By J. J. Mapes, Eso. 5. BROOMCORIS — Method of Planting, Cultivation, Har- vesting, Scraping, Machinery, Product, Value, Manufacture of Brooms, Miscellaneous. 6. Pot and Pearl Ashes. By W. A. Otis, of Cleaveland Ohio. 7. do. do. By H. Work of Fort Wayne. 8. LARD OIL. — Converting Lard into Oil, and ako into concrete forms for the manfacture of Candles— Result of Ex perimeuts. By Harris, Stanwood & Co. of Boston, With Remarks on the same subject. By Campbell Morfix of. I’liiladelphia. 9 and 10. Same subject discussed by W. Milford and J. R Stafford of Cleaveland, Ohio. 11. Mode of Manufacturing Elaine and Stearine from Lard, &c. By John H. Smith of New-York. 12. Letter from A. Scott, Esq. of Erie, Pa. on the uses and value of Rape Seed. , . 13. Mode of Fencing and Ditching, &c., with cuts or dia- grams representing— 1. The Fence; 2. B.aiLs sharpened; 3. Au- gur with Cutters; 4. Holes bored; 5. Post, Ditch and Embank- ment; G and 7. Views of the Scraper; 8 and 9. Views of tlie Plough: 10. Surface of the ground; IJ. Cheap Wood Mill; 12 and 13. End and Front views; 14. Post-bonng Machine. 14. Letter from H. W. Ellsworth of Lafayette, Indiana, on the same subject. 15. Plan of Cheap Cottages. 16 and 17. Duties on Imports into the Port of St. John’s, L C., from the United States. 18. On the subject of Exporting Beef, Pork, Hams, Lard, Cheese, &c. from the United States to England, and the proper mode of preparing the same. In addition to the foregoing, which w'as prepared by the Hon. H. L. Ellsworth, and presented to Congress at its last Session, and ten thousand copies ordered to be printed, the Publishers have connected with it a valuable Treatise on Raising Swine, and the best Methods of Fattening Pork; by Henry Colman of Mass. . And to render the work still more worthy the attention of Farmers, they have also added an invaluable Treatise on ^Geology as Connected with Agriculture, by Willis Gay- lord, of Onondaga Co., N. Y. This Treatise alone is consi- dered by many practical farmers as worth twice the cost of the whole work. History of tlie Silk Culture ; No. ■vi...The Silk Culture in the United States: Em- bracing complite accourifs of the latest and most approved modes of Hatching. Reaiing and Feeding the Silkworm, Managing a Cocoonery, Reeling, Siiiniiiiig and Manufactur- ing the Silk, &c &c.; with very interesting History Sketches of the Silk Business, Na’ura! History of the Silkworm, the Mulberry, fkc. Mastrated by iiumeious engravings of Ma- chinery and Processes, and a Manual of the Silk Culture.— Price 25 cents; five co pi-s for $ 1. TUe Weekly Tribune has now the largest circulation of any paper printed in the City of New-York. A few advertisements will be insetted if handed in on or before Tuesday of each week. Price fifty cents for a square of eight lines.— Terms cash. 3 0112 058794774 urvAUXCUit aA.lXU«illU,VS I A large supply of German Almanacs (or sale at the office of the New York Tribune. Price 37i cents per dozen. This Almanac is printed in the Getinaa language, in the usual style and s ze of German AImvnao, and contains, in addition to the usual variety ©f reading matter, articles of great interest to Germans connected with ihe Industry and Labor of the country, and on the importance of Protection to the Mechanics and Workingmen of the United States against English competition OUR PUBLICATIONS — AGENTS — CASH ^ BUSINESS. Our friends in different parts the Urited States who sea proper to endorse the responsibility of individuals and recem- mend them as worthy of credit, are hereby informed that, our rerms being invariably eaih in advance, we never inquire into the pecuniary respoiisibiiii y oi' our cusioniers. 1 he bet- ter wav, perhai s, where an individual is anxious to engage in the circulation of our valuable and popular iintdications, won'd be for his friends at home to loan him a sufficient sum of money to make his first purchases. Tli s may avail him somethiiu- ; luit letters of introduction and ttrsiimoiiialsof good character, iiowever much they may command our respect, cannot be made to answer in the place of Cash. [Cr“ We send out no boo rs on commission. GREELEY & Mct:LRATH, Tribune Buildings, opi/osite City Hail. ICS“ Postmasters are authorized by law to transmit moneys for subscriptions to newspapers, under their frank, free of postage. Money remitted through the mail will be at the risk of the Publisliers. Notes of all specie-paying Banks in any State of tlie Union will be received at par. G. & M. Curiosities of Literature, AND THE LITERARY CHAR4GTFR ILLUSTRA- TED. Byl D’lSRAELLEsq.D.C. L.,F. S.A. First and Second Series THE LITERARY CHARACTER. Illustrated by the Historv »f Men of Genius — Drawn from their ovrn Feel- ings and Confessions. Bv 1. D’ISKAELI, Ksq. CURIOSITIKS OF AMERICAN MTciRATURE- Compiled. Etlifed and Arranged by Rev. RUFUS W. GRISWOLD. “ The design of this work is to stimulate the literary cuiios- ity of those who, with a taste for its tranquil pursuits, are im- peded in their acquirements. _ The characters, ihe events, and the singularities of modern literature, are not always familiar even to those who excel in classical studies. But a more nu- merous part of mankind, by their occupations, or their indo- lence, both unfavorable causes to literary imjiro vents, require to obtain tlie materials for thinking, by tliee.^.siestand readiest means.” — \_Extract from the Author’s Pr^ace to the Firsts Series. “ These Researches offer authentio k\o\\ ledge for evanes- cent topics: they attempt to demonstrate some general princi- ple, by induction from a variety of principles — to develope those imperfect truths which float obscurely in the mind— and to suggest subjects, which, by their siiigulaiity, are new to inquiry, and which may lead to new trains of ideas. In accus- toming ourselves to discoveries of this nature, every research seems to yield the agreeable feeling of invention — it is a pleas- ure peculi.-ir to itself— something which we ourselves have found out — and which, whenever it imparts novelty «r inter- est to another, communicates to him the delight of the first discoverer.” — Extract from the Preface to the Second Series. “ Nor do I presume to be any thing more than ihe historian of genius; whose humble office is only to tell the virtues and the infirmities of his heroes. It is the fashion of the present day to raise up dazzling theories of genius; to reason a priori; to promulgate abstract paradoxes; to treat with levity the man of genius, because he is only a man of genius. I have sought I'or facts, and have often drawn results unsuspected by myself. I liave looked into literary history for the literary character.”— [£xtract/rom the JluthoPs Pr^ace to the Lit- erary Character. The Curiosities of American Literature, which will be published in connection with the works above mentioned, will prove to be among tlie most interesting collections of literary anecdote ever made. It is the first work of the kind ever un- dertaken in this country, though imr literature offers to the dil- igent inquirer a vast amount of the most attractive material.— Mr. Griswold, who will compile the work, has been collect- ing matter for it for a great number of yeirs; and no one this side the Atlantic is better fitted for the task than he. He has a literary acquaintance embracing almostevery literary person in America, and a collection of American Literature- stand- ard and periodical — probably unsurpassed in the United States. This departmentof the work will he of rare interest and value. These three works will be published in a single volume, im- perial 8vo. The above work will be published some time in the month of March or April, 1844, by the undersigned, and will be sold at a very low price. No Library, pubiic or private, will be cemplete without a copy. D. APPLETON & CO..'200 Broadway.