Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-09-16

derlng Of baptizo. Moreover, if R. M
Will consult the Dictionaries which he
so highly esteems, he will learn upon the
authority of Or. Webster, that church,
signifies a place Of worship,
and secondarlly, the body Of believers. If
any authority on this subject is to be de-
rived from the usage OF the HOLY Ghost
it is found in eccIesia a word employed
by the inspired writer's. In many places
in the New Testament it is used for
BODY of believers, and is rendered church.
but in Acts 49,: 80 and IL it is used for
riotous assembly, and in verse 80, fer a
lawful assembly. In classic use, ecc,esia
slgnlfed, like church in English, both an
assembly and the place of assembling
Now If the Holy Ghost applied this word
10 believers, did he not also apply it to
riotous assembly! How extremely sin-
congruous' must this appear to R. NJ.
But if a mob was called ecclesia, which
K. M. has not denied, and can not DENY,
be may still object. that there is no scrip
ture warrant j. e. neither precept nor ex-
ample, for calling house for worship,
church. In Acts 10: 81, we read, For
We have brought hitler these men which
are neither robbers of churches, ST.
Churches here means houses of worship,
not probably christian worship but heath
en- temples The word rendered robbers
OF churches, means nothing else than sac
rhegious persons, l. e. robbers or plunder-
ers Of houses consecratel to sacred pur-
poses. If r.. Mdonhts it. let him make
use of "a little knowledge Of original
Greek Behold, then, scripture war
rant, based not upon the caprice and su-
pcrstition of man, bat on scripture ex-
smple. Ii it is not 'incongruous' TO call
heather temples churches, surely it can
not be, to call christian meeting houses
SO.
After what brother Hutchins has said
upon what he calls r. MS 81 objection,
viz. 1t savors of papacy,' (Which | think
he should have referred not to the name
but TO the dedication of churches,) but lit
tie more need be said will only re-
mark, That, granting papish origin suffi-
cient to condemn the practice, r. M has
not proved it to be Of such origin. The
most that he has proved, is that the time
and place Of its origin are not known. Au
thentc history does no! trace it beyond the
origin of Constantine, bat it does not prove
it to have originated then and there M,
friend has, indeed, made a most uncom
promising attack upou this custom, bat
do not perceive that he has preferred an,
other charge than its origin. AS he ha
not sustained this, any attempt to defen
the practice seems quite uncaIIed for.
: Again, r. NJ. says, What A. say
about the splendid dedication Of the TEN
n pie, recorded in I'd Chron. 5. 6, char
G tiers do not exactly understand. ltseen
e to me the writer must have been IN
k smoke when be penned it, Let X. n
$ 'understand,' that alluson was made
% that occasion, in proof that the dedicatC
% Of houses of worship was Of more ancie
" origin than the Romish church, and
p course not the offspring Of that church,
| Now if this custom once received Coz
to appreciation, and has never been Forbid
d in reference TO christian temples, who W
al take it upon HIN to denounce it as heret
or al and in a high degree sinful? Excl
A. me from such presumption. What va
he able purpose could be effected by H. N
he long harangue upon the corruptlons OF
II. church. or what connection It has "
ny this subject, can not understand. 1t
es, very forcibIy reminded ne of species
IN spurious oratory, called by rhetorical
IS an appearing 10 sag something VII
les, is resorted to only when the cause can
hat maintained neither by sound argum
nor specious falIacics.
me Had not alreadry trespassed on
rive patience of editor and readers, | We
par show r. NJ. a few facts-fac's requr'
nth, no knowledge of the original Greek
as. comprehend-facts and principles vi
lutte i IS no nraise to a man to know, b