Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1842-04-13

FURTHER REPLY TO J. A. SPEAR.

March 9, 1912, notice a communication
headed, "Chri>t superior 10 Moses" The
TILE Is very good; but in prosecuting the
suhJect, II appears 10 me the writer has fall
ell ialo some errors of no small consequence,
aud which feel bound, if YOU will permit
me, through the Telegraph, to bear nv de-
ended testimony against. Who J. A. Spear
is, w"o has sci his signature TO the above
named piece, am as ignorant Of as proha
bly, he is Of The author of this - nor does it
make any difference with me even if he
should be greater than John the Bapti>'.-
Anything which goes 10 inValddte the d.
viue authenticity Of The sacred scriptures
should be strictly guarded against, as Sink
ing blow al lac rUot Of all true moraily
AID religion and tue onIy hope Of fallen
WoEll. AID .bou2h il is believed the Wriet
above mentioned could DOT intend any such
thing, yet il appears to me that bis state
mems and arguments 90 directly, or al beast
INDIRECTLY to support the cause Of infdeIity.
But TO come directly to the sub rcG. v b.
all This labor 10 prove that Christ is greater
Than Moses? IL may be supposed that all
christians "count that Christ is worthy OF
more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he
who hath builded an house hath more honor
than The houSe."-Heb. iii: s. And what il
some of the writer's Of the New Testament
were greater than Moses? Does the au
ihority or credibility OF their writings de-
pend on the dignity of the character Of the
writer? If so, Peter and John, and many
othe such ignorant and unlearned men,
stand but lille chance &c be heard and be-
Iieved. And what was the object 10 proving
that the law which was given 10 The nation
Of Israel, is called the law OF MOses2 Was
it TO make out tba; that law did not emanate
from God but from The corruption Of Moses
natural heart? 1t would seem so. Hear
him. and be astonshed 0 We heavens and
is that Moses knew not what manner Of
spirit he was of when he destroyed his enc
mics with violence. Again, mag ine that
if Moses should arise from the tomb and
hear his law 49, especially that part which
approves Of violence, retaliation, slavery and
oppression, exalted lar above the law o!
Christ, he would be astonished and blush
with shame" l hope the author Of the
above expressions will blus h with shame aud
deep repentance, before he arises from the
tomb, for having charged the law of God
with approving of those abominable sins,
named above, and scandaIized the character
of one whom it pleased the great Jehovah
to employ as his mouth to the people, TO
deliver his law attended with such terrible
majesty as not only shook the foundation OF
The earth, and filled the whole camp Of
Israel with awe and trembling, but Moses
said exceedingly fear and quake.
But; says Mr.. S., the presumption is that
Moses knew not what manner Of spirit he
was Of Horrible presumption this, truly.
And Christ must be brought in as sanction
ing these crude notions of the law of God
''In speaking Of some Of the law OF Moses
Christ did not recognize it as being Of God,
but only says, we have heard tina; II hath
been said by them of old time, an eye For
an eye, and a tooth for tooth" Yes, and
he only said, aye have heard that it was
said bv them in old time, thou shalt not
( commit adultery" AID, eye have heard
that ii was said by them Of old time, thou
shalt not kiIl."-Malt. v: II, 81. SO. If The
language of Christ goes 10 prove that be
did not recognize the law of Moses as being
of God in the one case, why not in the
other? And then we have got only Moses
opinion that il is wrong to kill and commit
adultery But perhaps he knew not what
! manner Of spirit he was of. But what shall
we think Of Moses and the whole law!
| Did he not deliver it in the name Of God,
sanctioned with awful penalties, the judi
ciaI as well as the moral and ceremonial
or typical parts of it? And do not the
terms, Law of Moses" mean the whole
law given from or by God through Muses.
10 the children Of Israel? IF its being called
! tie law Of Moses warrants US IN setting
aside any part of it, as not being oil God,
why not the whole? Who gave any one
the authority to say which Of the preeepts
| of tie ancient law was OR was not OF divine
auihority2 But J. A. S. says Moses did
not claim infaIibi!ity. Neither did any OF
The Apostles, nor Prophets. " hat then
! Does this authorize Us to question the d.
vine authority and inspiration OF their writ
ings? If so, we are without revelation
from above, that we can place any depend
ence on after all.
But Jesus Christ, it is said, is the only
~ Th;r / hnrn N a nr,o M Ill