Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-03-11


ant fruits of your labors among the Green Mount /
aims! Has not God verified his promise, that in /
his service, lone shall chase thonsand and two |
put ten thousand TO flight? Z" How great, and faith
ful, and glorious is the Being whom we profess to /
serve Can we trust him too much I? Has he not
made himself TO US very present help in time of
trouble ~ How rational are his prece2ts, how
wise his commands, how holy his laws, now fearful
his threateDings, how just his infections What
lawgiver is like unto him what government can
compare with his own2 what Kingdom so strong
and magnificent as the kingdom of heaN en- Truly,
my brother the Lord reigneth; let the earth re-
Joice; let the multitude OF isles be glad thereof"
Is this the language of In6delity2 Is it
not rather, maniiestly, the language Of one
who "trusts in the Lord with all his heart"
In another part Of his letter, speaking of
friend Curtis writings which am review
ing, he says:
" He is manilestly bewidered and il is prinaa
tacfe evidence that be knows this 10 be the case,
that he has forsaken the Telegraph, Though an alb
oiIonlst, believed and taken refuge in the col
umns OF the Chronicle. Poor man! He is not yet
prepared 10 give up all things for ChrisI's sake
lie wants To have his property protected, his life
insured by the brute force Of community, his ene-
mics punished. So did not The Son of God.''
II rightly understand the true import of
the word, Lnfdel, it signifies an uabeHeper.
Now am not about to turn around and de-
nounce friend Curtis as an Infdel. But
have right TO ask whether the language of
the foregoing extracts savors more of unbs-
lief, either in God, or in the Lord Jesus
Christ, than the language and acts of those
who trust more in man and less in God.
II any think have used the word, Inf
del" without warrant, or sufficient occa-
sion, In drawing differences from friend Cur
It's language, my explanation is, that friend
Curtis Is one of those who hold to using
what is termed "soft words and argu-
meats" There are two special adranta-
geS attending this soft way of saying hard
things, which may not have been duly ap-
preciated by all-especially by those who
are In the habit of calling things by their
right names. l. 1t may enable the one
who strikes the blow 10 conceal the hand
that gives ii. 2. 1t allows the one who
practices 1t, chance to equivocate, and say,
didn't mean 500 | am not charging
friend Curtis with designing, in the present
case, TO take the benefit Of either of these
positions. am only replying to any-if
there be any-who, for HIM, may take either
OF the positions pointed out l have used
The word, "lnfdel," because it is shorter
and more definite than, profound; rever.
entail bower-down to Rousseau and Paine %
Just as christian is shorter and more
definite than, profound, reverential bower
down 10 Christ"
now turn 10 his argument He says,
81 have another argument drawn from the
social nature and necessities of mankind. %
Now SO far as his argument goes TO prove
The necessity of human governments, among
depraved men, it proceeds on false issue
an issue which Non-ResistanIs have no
part in making up. They have no conten-
ton with the subjects Of Caesars kingdom.
one way or The other, in regard TO their ne
cessity of having governments among them
selves, while they refuse 10 become the fol-
lowers of the Prince of Peace. They ex-
pect-they know-tbat men will become
Non-Reslstants no faster than they become
Observation-Disclosures of the Savior. the
Prince Of Peace,-for no other teacher Of
morals or religion ever taught the doctrines
OF on-Resistance. The doctrine is Of
heavenly origin. Ii has no place in the
hearts OF carnal minded men. lis language
Is the language of Paradise, and has no mu-
sic for the carnal ear. Non-Resistants
maintain that the followers of Christ are The
subjects Of a kingdom not of this world .,
and that therefore they are not 10 "fghtn
or In any way 10 participate in fighting.
80 far as his argument claims 10 prove
that God has approvingly ordained human
governments, he and are at our former is
sue and may proceed.
must stop here and call attention 10 his
having nov "laid aside the volume Of in
splratlon." He thinks that what he has al
ready presented from that "wiIl fully suf.
ice TO settle the question" From this il is
certainly fair TO infer that he has done his
best In presenting the scripture argument
NO doubt he has done SO. Well, then, it
may very properly be asked whether The at.
tentive reader has found all that was ex-
pected-all that is satisfactory? What is
the nature OF the proof lie has brought? Is
there anything in il stronger than recogni-
tao'l and inference? If SO, what and where !?
Does any one think he can himself make
out better case than has been made GU,
by friend Curtis !? Let such an one search
the Scriptures" diligently, and see if these