Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1842-06-22

however. Is not attributable to my bad
shirt bu. % bis own bad language Inc
word . prevalent" which be used, Gao
no, BE- tortured to apply 10 isolated cases,
% which he says he referred He asks
NEE II Moses did not err when ne gave
the law Of retaliation-'E Eye for eye and
tooth for tooth &C., what did Christ re-
peal il forl" would answer this ques-
lion, il l considered il relevant to the ques-
lion al issue. But the question is one OF
faes, not Of reasons. The proof | quoted,
70 show that God himself. and not Moses.
was ia fact the author Of SHE law Of Mos
ss,'' even 10 respecttO destroying enemies,
by violence aud also my reference 70 the
institutions Of Circumcision, and the Ee-
viiical Priesthood, 10 show thatthe Divine
Law-giver actually made laws for the an
clients, which the same Law-giver has
since abolished-whaieve were the reas-
ons, he has not condesceLdeJ to notice.
And with the same propriety that he pro.
pounds the foregoing question 10 me,
might ask him--if these institutions were
founded by infinite Wisdom, why were
they abolishedi
Again, J, A. s. says he proves that
Christ was not as really the author Of the
law ofsNoses. as he is Of the law Of the
gospel from the fac. that they conflict
with each other in many respects: there
forelhese conflicting parts could not both
come from the same source This is on
" reiteraiion Of "a former assertion. with
out particle Of proof l deny that this
"fact'' proves any thing in the case.
Does the iact' that the Lord command
ed A6rahom to sacrifice his son Isaac. and
afterwards commanded him not to do the
same thing, prove that these commands
q could not both come from the same
source 2" The fact is, this writer con-
POUNDS The moral law with the ceremonial
or TYPICAL rather in this instance, the
moral with positive law. The moral law.
Iagree with him. is Interchangeable; but
the ceremonial was taken out oflhe way,
being nailed to the cross'-Col. ii: IA, Is.
The one had lis origin 10 the fitness Of
things; bat the other /" was added because
OF transgressions. till the seed should
come."-Gal. iii: 10. ]. A. s. says
Eve know that the sayings Of Christ are
true, because they harmonic with natural
created principles and laws, and with hu.
man feelings" He may be satisfied with
this criterion but, for myself, find some
: Of Chrisrs sayings conflict with those
laws For instance: Christ taught the
doctrine ofihe resurrection Of the BODY.
This doctrine is directly against-it is
above nature. Death will retain his do
minion over our race to all eternity, for
anght "ndturaI created principles and
Laws" ever will, or can do. to prevent It.
Asso human feelings" instead Of refer
ring sothem to prove Chrisrs sayings true,
l most confess for myself that l am under
the necessity Of referring 70 His sayings.to
prove what real humanity is.
Further: "sdppose A. d. Low had
been taught that Mohammed was the
ancinted Of the Lord. &C.. and that ne
taught the laws Of God. II he did not
compare his laws with natural laws. ne
would be just as likely 70 believe on Mo.
manned as on Jesus Christ" ! think
not. Sir: but if be had proved himself Di
vine. BY overpowering 6 natural laws, as
Jesus Christ did. confess ! should
The allusion of J. A. s. to various physl'
cal matters may agree with his diagram
for aught know. and even benefit MS
position. II 80, he is perfectly welcome
to its full value. But ] am unable to SCI
the force Of il. as they possess no mora
character. Besides / supposed he wa
going to . consult the Bible on the sub
iees He says = have not proved tina
God talked much with Moses with al
apdibIe voice" WhaE have proved.
wondef2 The whole tone of. A. Spears
las, article. renders il very improbable t.
me, that any thing can be proved 10 biz
satisfaction, except what be chooses to be
l'eve' Or what agrees with bis creed. j
shs't ibereiore leave the reader to Judge