Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-08-05

whether the Holy Spirit was impaired. So
at John vii 80, where our version very
properly expresses the didomenon. In both
passages the extraordinary influences of
the Holy Spirit must be understood
DR.. Scotl's opinion comedies with this of
Bloomfield, in relation to what is taught. by
the passage in verse I'd, I'VE have not so
much as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost He says, in his notes on this pas
sage, After Apollos was gone TO Corintb,
Paul, having travelled over the upper or in
land parts Of Asia Minor, establishing the
believers, and promoting the gospel, arrived
at Ephesus, rich and famous city on the
coast of the Egean sea where he had be-
fore left Aquila and Priscilla. who had pri-
vately been making way for his preaching
the gospel 10 the Jews residing in that city.
There he found some religious persons, who
expressed regard TO Jesus, as the Messi-
ali +; and he inquired of them whether, hav-
ing believed, they had received the HOLY
Spirit, in respect ofhis miraculous gifts.
To this they replied, We have not so much
as heard, whether there be any Holy Ghost
by which they must at least, have meant
they lad never been led to expect his mi
raculous powers, or informed of any thing
respecting the extraordinary communica-
lion of them to believers, al that lime; or
about the gospel being especially the min
istration Of the Spirit From these quota
tons, | think, it clearly appears, that "A.
A. is IN radical mistake, when he SAYS,
not TO supply verb (word p in Acts xix !:
2, would only contradict z. Us sentiment
concerning the text. 1t would just be say
{ ing that the disciples had never heard of the
term Holy Ghost. This l have no doubt
they had reason 10 truth TO say Your cor
respondent seems to intimate that the com
mon version : only contradcts' mig senti-
meat Of the text. But am not alone in
my views Of the meaning Of that text; on
the other hand, know of no: author, that
agrees with him.
The remainder of his long article is
mostly occupied in conending with a man
Of straw
Were not in danger Of giving tone
dissonant in the ears of your correspondent
| might reply to this sentence, in Language
similar 10 it. But as his ear is particularly
sensitive in distinguishing different tones,
will not unnecessarily pain it.
In regard to A. AS reasoning. on the sub
ject of Johns baptism, in his first reply II
me, consider. /. that he did reject john
baptism, or 2. he was deeply in the fog, s.
that could not discover him, or 3. he wa
entirely above my comprehension. AS t
perverting his language had no thought c
it. But let US look again at this natter
, I'm conclusion, would ask any one VIII
may differ from me with respect to tn
twelve being re-bqptized, would you az
) cept PERSONS baptism mo1o, which wa
not administered in the name Of the Fathe
, and of the Son, and OF the HOLY Ghost g.
If then, John did not baptize thus, as A.
/ admits and teaches, then would you a
cept Johns baptism now? If not, the
would you not regard Johns baptism n
:, rolid noao? A. A. does plainly teach, a
cording TO my best judgment of his pc
Torrance, in column g. near the bottom,
page 1st. No. 80 Vol. 18th of the Vermo
= Telegraph, that any candidate baptized a
; cording to Johns baptism, since Chris
Ascension did not receive valid baptis
10 If he can explain that language to me
=, any thing else, should be exceedingly hs
py to see him make the effolt.
in But how does A. A. extricate hi.ns
e. from this charge? He thinks z. J. shot
rs have believed his express declaration IN
or vor of Johns baptism. But what shall
ce with this long section, (and not sin
s. sentence merely which is in the midst
ek an argument on the same subject WI
a mans writings seem to contradict
70 avowed opinions, what shall be done, sh
,ly we credit his avowed statement, or ere
he his writings ? So far as his writings
concerned, we must let them speak
mo themselves and if they do not speak
h right sentiment for the author, he must
"a rect them, and not find fault with Others
-, understanding him as be writes.
in In regard to the FIVE declarations of ia
of that wind up your correspondents last c
\ munication, can not see their connec
n.y. with an exposition of Acts xix: 5.
I in 1t is plain, however, from this, and ft
DO er specimens Of his writing, that, he
See cultivated that particular branch of the