Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-04-04

bad given theE power and support 10 the
pGpal beast, would fall" &c. Now con-
fess my profound ignorance Of language, i
he does not here make this one Of The ten
Kingdoms represent the one-tenth Of the
city and il one kingdom is one-tenth, ten
kingdoms would be ten-tenths, or the lohOle
city. Hence ninesterths must be the "rem-
nant," or that ,rhich remains which is
the literal meaning of the word. Nine
tennis, therefore, can be as really "rem-
nant' as one.tenlh.
6. l cannot spend my time to argue with
an opponent who will not come to the
piont, and fairly meet my language. OF
his want Of regard to this, | have complain
ed from the very first, and showed some
instances in his reply to my introductory
article, where he failed TO meet me on my
own ground. / have since shown a number
more in his first article on the 70 weeks,
and shall now notice only one or two,
among a score Of others, occurring in his
"answers." In Telegraph, Feb. 9th, Cd
column, he says, "next your argument on
time. You say, first, there is no evidence
that it is ever so used elsewhere. Meaning
1-2 times, meaning 1860 days." and then
asks, ais it possible, my dear Sir, that you
are so ignorant as 10 make such an asser-
tion 2" Now let US see what my assertion
was. See Telegraph, Dec. 81, I'd column,
| say, "You evidently call time l year,
times years, and half time S m onths-
all 3 l-2 years, which, at 800 days to the
year, make 1860 days, or as you have it
1860 years, a time really meaning 800
years" In connection with this say,
There is no evidence that it is ever so
used elsewhere" How used? Why, just
as / said, "a time really meaning 300
years" In answer to this, he comes out
and attempts to prove that the word time
means one year, or $50 days. Now, ii
strikes me there is some difference between
800 days, and $50 years. However this
may be owing to my Ignorance"
One other instance. See the following
remarks of his, Telegraph, March IA: "Yor
will not be " singular" as you say" Com
pare with what did say. See Telegraph
Jan. IL, 4th column: "If BY so doing
must stand alone and be called singular,
yet shall enter my solemn protest agains
all such explanations as yours, and other:
mentioned ABOVE" Here instead of saying
81 will not be singular" I say l aOiH anc
"stand alone' too, rather than subscrib'
such explanations, and so say 1 Tolo.
7. If the readers of the Telegraph ar
prepared to receive as truth, the followin!
remark Of my opponent, made to sustain
the necessity Of his contradiction, | shoul
despair of beneftting community by dis
cussion on this subject, however candid
it might be conducted; and if the asserto
is not true, cannot consent to protract
discussion with an opponent who, rattle
=, than acknowledge an error, will rush
, such a conclusion. Here is the assertio
un-" garbled," see Telegraph, March l4tt
near the close: 81 might go into the aeOT
of God and prore that in every age OF IN
church, from Moses until no10, 1ohen G0
thas blessed the church Nth spiritual an
> earthly blessings, at one, and the sd"
=. time, she has become corrupt, dePrare
= and seLfrighteOus." What, the chure
becoming ~ corrupt, deprGred, and Sc!
r righteous, at one, and the same time, tn
-. God is blessing it with spiritual blessings
. s. 1t is useless to debate with any pc
q son, who will not take his own declaration
e as proof against him. In Telegraph, Fe
2sth, 81 column, my opponent says, o
E next argument which shall notice Is, Il
a treading down the sanctuary. You consl
D. er it to be the Temple, viz: the bulIdt'
h made with hands at Jerusalem. You ha
', brought no proof, and we have nothing
E. substantiate your views but your assertion
or The reader will find what said, and n
II proof too, in Telegraph, Jan. Sd, I'd colum
e, "But pass to notice your explanation
i Gsanctuary and host" "By sanctuary
- you say, page 81, awe must understa
lis the temple at Jerusalem, and those W
": worship therein, which has been trodd
4 under foot by pagan kingdoms OF the "or
in since the days of Daniel the writer OF
do text" Here it will be seen that all
II proof ] attempt to bring, is his oUn erPr'
l. declaration. Such proof supposed ne,
= least, would consider valid. Now he s.
|. il is no proof Very well, then, as cam
70 tel which of his declarations would be, 9