Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-04-19
THE TELEGRAPH.
BRANDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10.
The Ziou,s Watchmon insists that the

The Zion's Wdtchmon insists that the
proposed new edition Of the Bible would
be an federation - and seems 10 think it a
strange idea in the Telegraph, that it should
hold otherwise. Our view Of the case is.
that it would only be contributing to finish
work that was begun more than two CEN
turtles ago. We offer an illustration-in
part borrowed. A man furnishes materials
for building himself house, and directs his
workmen as to the structure. They pro-
coed according to his instructions, until they
come to the window of one room, which,
after setting the frame, instead Of filling
with glass they close up with boards. Now
the question is, whether in employing an
other workman to remove the boards and
substitute the glass, he makes an alteration
of his house. We Contend that be only
finishes it.
| Brother Sunderland fears that II would
be bad precedent that might be followed
by Universalists, Shareholders and others.
How are we to understand brother Sunder-
land? He has not undertaken TO say that
the proposed finishing work would be vio-
lation of truth. If he thinks it 4couid be,
why not make this the objection, which
would be worth his attempt 10 support, and
ours to meet? If he chooses not TO take
this POSITION. e. if he must and does con-
| cede that ours is the cause Of truth, why
does he bring as an objection to it, that
errorists and wicked men may take occa-
sion from our support Of it, TO make special
efforts IN support of error and unrghteous-
ness2 If our work be the work of untruth,
1t ought to be met and exposed as SUCH If
1t be the work Of truth, it gives no just &C.
cason to supporters Of error and sin for
additional effolts; and those who take such
occasion for such purposes, take on them
selves the responsibility. Is not this brother
Sunderland's doctrine, in regard TO some
other subjects?
While leaving the subject we wish to
set this argument against the remaining
propositions in the article in the Christian
Review, already noticed to some extent
What we formerly offered upon this article
was confined chiefly to the writer's first
proposition, which involved question of
fact, respecting the "determi,,ate sense"
OF the terms baptism and baptixe. II was
remarked at the close of our comments, that
the writer's remaining propositions were
founded on e.1pediency; ), and, inasmuch as
we viewed the que s,ion to be pre-eminentlv
one of duty, we thought proper to give
these propositions no extended notice
They are now brought forward and placed,
and left, by the side of the objection in
Zion's Waterman.
Secondly, That the substitution of
other words in lieu Of these, would be
weak and pernicious expedient.
Thirdly, That our opponents on the
bapusmal question would have reason to
congratulate themselves, in the event Of
such an innovation.
Fourthly, We should thereby deprive
ourselves of very powerful argument in
the baptismaI controversy
Whilst, lastly, we might he in danger
of laying too much stress upon an exter-
nal rite"
1t becomes christians-especially Bap-
lists, if they would be consistent with their
Notwithstanding found the truth, to obey
its dictates, without stopping to inquire
what will be the consequences of such ODE
dience.
Somewhere in the South, there is a pro-
fessedly religious paper, styled the "Signs
OF the Times" one part Of whose work it
seems to be, to oppose the various beneyo-
lent operations Of the day. The "Baptist
Banner" published at Louisville, Kentucky,
handles the Signs of the Times thus:
"ONE's OWN MEASURE Melted INTO
HIM.-Our friend, the editor of the Signs
of the Times, complains in none of the
meeEest terms, that one of his subscribers
ordered discontinuance of his paner
without paying for four numbers which
he had received. But we see not whv
our friend should murmur. Is he not