Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-06-02
FOr tic TeZe nraph

W Ft 90 = UPH'
MIR Editor In your paper Of May
Goth, notice cali upon me, to answer
inquiries therein proposed, by "M.' in
relation to the doctrine of atonenent.-
Any man has an undoubted right, to ask
questions on any subject concerning which,
he may wish to obtain any information
He can also lay down those rules, which
be may wish to be observed, in making
out answers to his questions On the 9TH
er hand, take it TO be equally proper for
man to be his own Judge about answer
ing questions, as it is for another to pro-
pose them. consider it perfectly allow
able too, for one to adopt his own mode Of
answering inquiries, whether this mode
be las it is with some) with mo argu-
ment" according to the request of NJ, "
or with those arguments and illustrations,
that will present the subject i'll its proper
light.
In relation to the inquiries of M" in
your last, | see no good reason, why he
should propose them, or expect that |
should answer them at the present time
! If he is dissatisfied with the review of his
essay, and thinks it was not conducted as
it should have been, he has a right to re-
view the reviewer If he is not dissatis-
! fed, | know not, why he should propose
inquiries, for which he may not have found
sufficiently definite answers in the review
itself Any thing, which has been brought
/ forward in the review, in the shape of facts,
must stand on its own foundation, until its
authenticity is brought in question and
then there will be sufficient opportunity
to show the ground, on which, both its
authenticity and solidity rest AS to the
last five inc uires of "M.," see no good
reason, why he should demand answers
of me, rather than Of you, Mr. Editor, or
any other individual. Here it appears,
that IN" goes on the suppositon, that
| had fully complied with the proposition
Of some "several excellent brethren"
and had engaged to answer all the ques-
tons, asked ondto be asked, by him, until
some "member of the conference" had
fully prepared himself "to reply to Da-
Icth" But have not engaged to respond
to any member of the conference" g I'M
der the direction of which" the essay un-
der consideration was published, not to
say "written" Neither have | propos-
ed to enter into discussion with "M' on
the subject of the atonement But sup
pose | had done either, or both, it looks to
me, like begging the question, to send
over to the reviewer, to obtain ga satisfoc-
tory understanding Of his positions' in
order to give " NJ - "or some other men,
Der Of the conference better opporu-
nifty to defend an essay, which has quite
recently " been carefully rc-writtcn " and
as to appear either IN the June or Sept.
No. of the Christian Rcrier." All |
have had to do with the doctrine of the
atonement as yet, in any manner which
concerns NJ" or any member Of the
conference" has been embraced in the
review of the essay now in question: The
essay and review are both at their COM
mand; and therefore why should they
come to me with their inquiries, which
they wished to be given with "no argu-
ment" before they commence defence
of the essay? Suppose also that l had
the felicity of having corps scriptorum
at my back, like the writer of the essay,
and one of them should wish to answer
some member of the conference" who
"should see cause to reply to Daieth =
he might wish to take different "posl-
tons" than those assumed by the review