Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1842-03-30

/ iols 10 me kedeemer's king dom, Tor Chrisl's
! sls11le church,") great as he has srriven 10
make OUT They are. His arguments-asser-
! tlons rather appear TO me so much at war
With truth, and so infidel III their tendency
IN faet, while the writer exhibits so much
zeal Tor God in appearance, that feel
bound by the sacred obligations imposed
upon me by the Great Head of the Church,
al least 10 "endeaVor" to show "what saith
the Lord
Friend S. considers the "idea prevalent
that the ancien,s, such as Moses, Joshua,
T Solomon and the prophets, were not and
can not be incorrect in any Of their views :;
but that those who belong to the Redeemer's
: Kingdom, Cor Cbrist's visible church,) do
not and can not know much, about God, or
s his will concerning the children of men,"
DC. ITO be contrary 10 both reason and
scripture" Doubtless if there is such "an
\ idea prevalent" it is erroneous. But the
fact ls, be has either made false statement
OF the idea" or given it in caricature If
he is as we'll Informed as lie would appear,
or as he ought to be-, before prelerring such
a grave charge upon the christian commu-
nifty in general, he knows there is no such
Idea prevalent" If he can "make out :"
there is, shall stand informed as well as
corrected. But his language is guarded :
"There oppears,'' &c. Some people have
strange visions. And apprehend that if
such an "iIea" as he speaks Of has 'ap-
peared' to him, he has been impose upon
: or, allowing the vision TO be genuine,
, doubt whether the "dea" can be found suf-
, fciently "prevaIent" TO warrant the use OF
that term. On the other hand, all acknowl-
edge that "the ancients were only men, and
therefore liable TO err: and that it is matter
Of revelation that many of them did err
But that Moses did err an giving the ta,0
or that the ancient prophets, or writers OF
the Old Testament, did a0rite or "prophesy
| talsely," do not believe nor has friend S.
r proved. And had supposed that 70 one
in this age of gospel light, and especially
under coke Of zeal for christianity, would
even endeavor" to prove il, until his ar'i
:. Gle appeared .@@~-7 - .: :~~~
He has but little to say about the proph
els, except by unequal and strained compar
ison; bul makes very bold and ungracious
attack upon Moses: charging him with the
: tremendous crime Of Iegislating in THE
AWFUL NAME OF Cop, on his oacn response
billy! True, he does not bring this charge
in form but ii he does not in fact, | have
greatly misapprehended him. First, he On.
derakes to show that Moses was not Gin
fallible" Rut that is not the thing. No
body believes he was infallible. But he
evidently has something more in view than
to "make out" in general sense, thai
Pa Moses was infallible. His~object is to ere
ate the impression that he was fallible in
the matter Of giving the Law. Here we
/. are al issue. Let him produce his proof
= Aapan, he says" Moses never pretended
e to be infaliibe. Neither does any part o.
y either the Old Testament or New contend
: that he was infaIlible; but the reverse, mas
!. much as he could not, or at least did not
J. give perfect law; for if it had been per
1 feet, there would have been no chance TO
a an amendment, or place sought for the sec
! ond." Here again his charge is obScure'
I in The fog of generality. In regard TO TIT
n charge, however, which he has here pre-
J ferred - misty as it is, remark that Gol
u saws he was as faithful as Christ himself
j. in the discharge Of the duty referred to-
d aWho was faithful to him that appointed
l. him, as also Moses was faithful in all hi
o house.'2 II does not help the matter 70
K friend S., that Christ is even there repre-
n sented as sup erior 10 Moses: for the supe
r. riority there. spoken Of, has reference
e character, and no; to fidelity. "Moses wa
: verify faithful as servant, bat Christ a
l. a son orer his otOn houSe."-Heb. iii: 90
| also Mum. xii: 60.
e ] contend, nay, assert, (and let J. A. S
t. prove the contrary if he CAM that Christ
If as really the author Of the Law Of Moses,
Of as he is Of the = Law of the Gospel an
e that Moses is no more responsible for th
le law which he wrote, than John was for ih
he commandment "that we should believe o
IT. 1.-The name Of His Son Jesus Christ, and tov
pit one anoiher."-1 Jno. iii: %. So that b
e endeavor" TO snake out " that he alon
is was the author Of that law, or any part {
!e il, from the fact that it is called ''the la
h, of Noses" proves just nothing. Abraha'
an is called the father of circumcision :" bt
n doubt whether even my opponent wi
,r- preiend that he was the author of that Ia7