Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-07-29

al or to particular bodies of the house.
hold Of faith in certain places; and to ap-
ply IL to mere place or house for public
worship, while it is allowed there is no
scripture warrant for it, seems 10 me very
JncongruouS Again, A. asks, Have
not those who speak any language a rio ht
to use any word in that language in as
many different senses and such senses as
they choose?' Why, this would be very
convenient, to te sure, for those who
would wish 10 propagate heresy, and car
ry on trade Of equiyocation, falsehood,
and every evil work But had thought
that words had definite meaning, or
meanings, and that i've were required TO
know what that is, and use them accord
ingly; otherwise, see not what use we
have for our Dictionaries, nor in what
sense A. has seen fit TO use words in The
communication. alluded 10 in these re-
marks. Again, brother A. enquiries
whether brother r. M. thinks himself H.
able to mistake when reading of wooden,
brick, or stone churches. | answer no
not when used in that connection. But
that does not prove it to be scriptural or
proper There are many terms used i'm
properly, which are understood from hab-
it. | think | know what a pedobapist
means, las much as ever too) when he
uses the word Baptism; but this does cot
prove his use of it to be scrptural; nor
literally correct But to proceed my op-
ponent says, Now though there be no
scripture for it, l think there is none
against To confute such an argument
us this. but little need be said. The scrip
lures are implicitly against every thing
that is wrong.
But does he mean TO be understood that
whatever the scri ptures do not explicitly
forbid, may be practiced? He might be
told of great many things which the
scriptures do not identically name, which
he would abhor to see in practice. On
this principle it was that the superstition;
rites and ceremonies of the papal hierar.
chy have been introduced and supported
1t may be said there is no SCRIP ture agains
the baptIzing of bells. as was ancientl,
practised; but this would be an awful pro
fana,ion Of the name and ordinance Q
: God, as | suppose all protestants will al
i low.
A. asks again, What on the Who'll
: shall we make of this objection, unless
u be that it is unscrptural to use word
e more senses than one?' cannot see ho
e any man of sense and candor can maxi
G This out of it. What, TO object TO a VOL
H. being used in an unscriptnral sense, in
y ply that 1t is wrong TO use any word
lie more than one sense? There are a tho
N sand words used in plurality of sense
e. but this does not prove that il is right
ir- call horse a church. Therefore | CO
ne slider all that A. has said, to prove ii
this word is used in the riptures in
uIl ferent senses. TO no purpose, unless 1t
us TO display little knowledge of the or
nd inal Greek.
NJ Again, he says, r. M. speaks of d
!, ications of churches. as if they were
ITS, very recent origin can find nothing
on nv remarks that can fairly be so c
sirued. And what A. says about
vas splendid dedications of the Temple,
ian, corded in I'd Chron. 5th 9Th and 7th ell
hile tcrs, % tot exactly understand.
cry seems 10 me The writer mus; have b
end rather in The smoke, when he pennet
Docs he mean TO be understood that
re- Jewish temple was type OF our meet
q. houses, as some have maintained E?
III would be uncharitable to suppose hi
be guilty of such monstrous absuf
Tel Would ne have US understand that
: A., houses for public worship typify the
'ord, things & answer the same end as the
lrch- ish temple? This would throw US
h of underline Cd Testament dispefsatlon
Ter i. entangle US again in the yoke Of Oon'
! the The sentiment is too absurd to be
/. was tanned for moment, by any one at a
could Ilightened into the distinction oetwee
least daism and Christianity.
submit One thno moro shall close this