Litchfield enquirer., 1843-02-02

eECUe"eW Ou TIC euoJeCt HUI UoCOnAS anuyeu - ana
those who believe more firmly convinced by there
being numerous disbeevers, or false prophets &c.
which must needs be in the latter days; and the
unbelisvers had investigated the scriptures thereby
becoming more familiar with the bible than they
probably ever would have been had not this doctrine
been ntroduced-though perhaps quite as satisfac-
tory convinced ofits erroneousness its believers
are OF its truth.
We have experienced many excitements within q
brief period, but with little apparent good. Let uH
see what can be said ofthis
1t has, on the one hand, been the grand conductor
Of thousands to the bible-ed some who were deis-
ticay inclined, into righteous belief made them
christians and attentive listeners to ministerial truths
| on the Holy Sabbath. While on the other hand, it
has wrecked the minds of some by the excitement
necessarily attending awful subject-made, pos
sbly, some few fanatics in the belief of the sacred
writings of those who had before entertained
sentiments purely orthodox and has unques6ona-
bly, made theological mathematicans of still grea-
ter number. These are perhaps but a very few Of
the results
And now, Mr.. Printer, after partial extiuguisit--
ment ofthis fiery doctrine-from which sprang tho
prosy disputa'on which appears wofully mall
treated in your paper; and it is singular that they
should manifest quite SO much bitterness, in thsin
communications, if they good men-l will give
my opinion, that all division of sentiment 10 to be-
done away with, and a disposition of swords and
lances are to be properly made, and universal re
gon is to pervade the remotest corners Of the EARTH
anterior to the actual millennium - and would il not
be well to settle down and wait the passage ofthe
seasons and year with much resignation as possi-
be. let the ordeal be what it may, and happen what
will QuoDA ~
MORE UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION.
Mr.. EDITOR - By my article ON the vindicaton Of
religious Excitement did not suppose that should
incur The contempt Of all honorable men,, which Mr.
F. thinks 80 abundantly merit; bat perhaps havs~
however, incurred the contempt Of SONS AsnerGble
men, among whom Mr. F. would doubtless like to be
numbered; but Dir, am really sorry that eur Stick
Ter for uninterrupted succession finds IL % extreme
y difficult to vindicase his cause lhas he 10 actually
driven to the necessity Of covering up to say tho
least under the filthy fumes Of unshasitabls huglesqua
even 70 the sacrifice Of what must ever b. &C..
knOwledged to b correct principle. Reason, Law,
and Common Sense oil agBes that is 10 sufficient TO
pass ssnsence Of condemnation upon an individual
after having been psOysd guilty but our Ssieklsr in
his highness would impose upon the public entire,
new grounds Of condemnation, he would have men.
condemned upsn the ground e mere imaginasion--
just look at Me F.'s new mode Of eoaasmnatisn,slk
ludng 70 the writer Of the article: 5AOs 90 Ezeias.
men h says- ahs Wriser osgAs reeus tie senssps
Of all honorable mem. But why %? because de 10
proved euiIsy? No-bus for attacking 40 he says.
he kno''s not who,r end for taking such cowardlR
way to Islander and inure shem--Really! our Stick.
Ter would arraign the public up 70 condemn men up
on strange principles indeed for according to his
caPtious notions, men must be arraigned and eon-
deHned for attempting to SANDER injure no ons.
or if any one they know not whom, nor can he With
all his superior sagacity give them the least in.ms-
ton who it 10 upon whom the attempt of Islander or
injury has been made, for we have his own words-
'lknos1 not sUhem.' @<
noS; rnffed up with self coneeie and inflated with
vanity, must that man be who thus HattsFs himself
that he interest discerning public ooin him in
pouring contempt upon an individual upon principles
SO fallacious; if he could accomplish this however,
we apprehend that he might have more hope Of sue.
ceeding in making them believe his doctrine Of high
toned Exclusiveness, which he and he claims NOT
a few others hold so sacred.
We think however our StckIer might be applaud
ed for the superior order Of his decaey. True, in
his article he makes few coarse and rather unre-
hned illusions, but he Immediately wipes his mouth
and starts up into most lofty strain of dolicacy and
declares that is point that should haze had
the indeicacy to- first INTRODUCES to public like this sUAo
divided in .hsr religious sentiments
But what is the point which our Stickler's delica--
cy would not permit him under other circumstances
to introduce to the public Why, the doctrine Of
uninterrupted succession, in which as he claims alb
denominations of christians in this community agree
for he declares that this is the doctrine of the Eps.
copalians, Congregationalists, and Methodist.
Wonderful dehcacy indeed! that Isl 80 remarkable
acute that it will not permit him to introduce to the
public point in which they all agree.
But let us examine this delicacy little, for 10 us
it has at least the appearance Of deception What
kind OF succession was alluded to by well wisher?
A succession that comes down to us through Pres
byters or Bishops?
Our Stickler would be glad to make the public be.
eve that it was succession of Presbyters but does
the article itself convey any such idea? Surely not
for the succession alluded to was one that was de.
clared to be incapable of proof
But succession Of Presbyters is not incapable Of
proof and consequently could not have been the sue
cession alluded to- No. rejoice that in the re-
formed churches there has never been wanting q.
succession Of Pastors who are both dvnely appoins-
ed and divnely assisted a. their successost clear
y and unequvosay proves. for they are the inssru-
nents OF the eoaSersion Of many sinners to God, O.
work that it 10 evident can do unless God him