Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-07-15
For the Telegraph.
ACTS, 10. 5.


Brother Murrav:-I noticed. short time
since, long reply from ". j. TO my last arti-
Gle on the baptism of the twelve, mentioned
in Acts. 10 s. | am well satisfied from the tone
of that article, that no good will result 10 COM
munity from further discussion on this subject
at present | shall, therefore, say but a few
words here, and leave the whole ground to
others In T. Us first article he charged the
translators of the Bible with using unwarrantabIe
| license. because their translation went directly
against his views of the text. then gave trans
| ialion, leaving out the very particles to which
he objected and found the same sentiment retained
as before. then gave the original, and transla-
/ ton of the Sd verse and showed that Phttotogtc-
aLLv it was the strange and unexpected ans1oer OF
1.-The disciples that turned the attention OF Paul to
their bantism-also version of the 6tn verse,
making it read almost precisely Il. contends fori
and vet he is sorry have been so sparlng In my
d pathological department have endeavored to
: lcompare his department with mine, previous TO
his last article, and as near | can Judge mine is
TO his. as to l. Z. J. contends that, because the
translators have supplied verb after eimi in John
T. 80 therefore it mast be done IN Acts, ~. z: -
II upon this remark that not to supply some verb
II in John T. 49, would make the passage contradict
e tho uchoIe BIBLE 1t would be saying that there
,e ,oas no HoLy Ghost But not to supply verb IN
IS Acts. 49, 2, would only contradict H. Us senti-
T. meat concerning the text. 1t would just De saying
that the disciples had never heard of the term tio-
liz Ghost This have no doubt they had reason
. in truth to say.
i, Tbe remainder of his long article is mostly oc-
10 cupied in contendng with man OF straw. He
ne labors to make his readers believe. that | have
st- rejected Johns baptism being gospel baptism
he do not know but his readers may be led to be-
e. eve it, bu; they certainly cannot from any thing
he that hare said. In my first article, expressy
said. that the twelve pere not JOhn's disciples
- NOR had thea erer heard him preach See Tele-
IS - oranh of March lS. Suppose then that relec
= fheir baptism-how can that be rejecting John
banhsm? Beside in nv second article, say ex
nressIv let me not be misunderstood concerning
Johns baptism That was the beginning Of th'
qospel hence gospel baptism. No person ga puze'
80 bv me was ever re- baptized See Telegraph Apr
NC And vet in face of all this, T. J comes out ans
on saws. at is plain from his communication tnat a
oO, A. does consider Johns baptism not r0ts@' ant
here he principally grounds his reasoning 10 shoV
ler hat these .discipes should be rebaptzed Anc
mo again- a a. thinks the form Of Ioords. "hici
Iobn emnIoved was next The proper form 10 renGe
=. lb;s han,;sn vaIid.' | have too mucn respect 20
ao' y ~ think he would dests nedly PerveH IN
oVe ianonaqe Perhaps h. might be LED 10 ttsa' con
the I,s;on on the account OF an in,erro9aHoh poll
eiusou been inserted in the middle Of sentence
ool bu the editor, cOmpOsitor' which never mad
oy 49, and which considerably alters the sens
Ar M sentence occurs Immediately after givnl
hat I consider tolerable correct formula use
", I,bn and is as follows: Would baptism tn
nan administered be valid now, or at any other TIM
$ sfnce Christ's ascension ?" The erroneous pun
ling .olion IS the insertion of an interrogation POI
aIier the word uaIid; making il read thus, "wou
lers. bantism thus administered be valid ms mig