« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
nothing more than the priesthood of one denomination railing at the priesthood of another.
The whole system of the supporters of “ The New Faith” appeared to hinge upon Apostolical Succession, and I conceived that the only mode of examining its continuing or not with any order of men, was by an appeal to the scriptures. I have therefore adopted this course and confined myself to the evidence afforded by the Bible, believing this to be the only rule for a christian's faith and practice.
In this feeble attempt to explain the subject I have no wish to escape censure, nor do I seek after applause; one fervent, anxious wish I have, that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth may be known, believed in, and universally acknowledged, for the good of mankind, and for the glory of the only wise God our Saviour.
W. I. P. WILKINSON.
Exeter, July 13. 1839.
I am well pleased to see that you intend to devote a portion of your interesting Journal to the topic of “ The New Faith.” 66 It is sure in its progress to command the most anxious attention of public journalists of all parties,” and in this age of enquiry it will engross the attention of a large part of your numerous readers. Will you allow me a portion of your paper from time to time to remark on this subject-most important in itself as it respects revelation. If you should not find that I side with either party engaged in this controversy, you will not, I trust, discover me using abuse instead of argument or invective in the place of truth. When I mention truth in connection with this topic, I wish to be understood; truth must be found somewhere when God and religion are concerned. Revelation is the
But I agree
standard, and that revelation I believe is to be found
that it is desirable when it can be done, “ to define terms which must be of frequent occurrence.” At the proper time I may venture to show that this term “ Church,” is misunderstood and misrepresented by not a few sects.
These Oxford tracts, are called “ Tracts for the Times.” In the words of a learned and pious modern writer, I would say, “no reflecting man, contemplating the signs of the times, can possibly doubt that we are on the eve of a more tremendous conflict of opinion, in regard to the Established Church of the country, than any which the nation has yet witnessed. The subjects debated hitherto have been of comparatively minor importance-whether Dissenters shall have the privilege of celebrating marriage and of burying their dead with their own religious ceremonies, in those places of sepulture which partly at least belong to them. The all engrossing question will, ere long, become-Is it compatible with the rights of conscience, with the principles, and laws, and spirit of
christianity, and is it the best mode of providing for won the religious institution of a country, for the state to take any
denomination of christians into union with itself; to employ the ministers of that denomination
as its agents in teaching religion to the nation at large, and to compel all its inhabitants to contribute to their support.”
This is a great question, and has been repeated for the thousandth time. But who would have expected that a party within the bosom of the establishment within the walls of one of the universities—would have arisen vigorously to propel forward this question to an issue, and not this only, but others of vital consequence.
Who is it that has bid defiance to the state to control it religiously? Who is it that has mocked at Protestantism? Who that ridicules the Reformers? Who that would conform their practices of the church, to those which has preserved its traditionary practices unbroken? Who that would claim infallibility of the church? Who that would establish in this country the monastic system? Who that vaunts apostolical succession ? THE OXFORD PARTY! And who can prove them wrong? Not the bishops and clergy of the popish protestant establishment of England, consistently with their order of prelaty, ritual, services, and traditions.
Nor, Mr. Editor, can the Dissenters prove them wrong, for what is “ Presbyter, but OLD PRIEST writ LARGE.” And while the different sects oppose one another as to form, creed, and ceremonies, they all agree that some parts of the PRIESTHOOD are continued and proper. Thus, “ bit by bit the whole is swallowed."
You, Mr. Editor, have said, that you "offer no opinion upon the truth or error of the creed itself;" Will you therefore allow me to test it by the scriptures