The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1845-05-15
BRANDON, Thursday May IS, 1916.


( be said that he contradicled Moses. Tn,
PhaTSecs then inquire,-"Why did Mo
SEES then command TO give writing o
enforcement. and to pu, her away2" He
replies, "Moses, because of the hard
ness of your hearts. suffered mot com.
manded) you to put away your wives bu
from the beginning ii was not So" And
the account which Moses himself gives oil
the original constitution ofthings, which
has now been referred 10, proves it to be
an irregularity which must have no place
under the gospel dispensation. How This
beautiful harmony between Christ and Mo.
ses can be overlooked, or how this COM
pIete silencing OF the skcptcal Pharisees
can be tortured into refutalion of any
part cfthe bible, in the present enlight-
ened age, is most surprsingi!
The third objection is in the supposed
'abrogation of the law OF personal revenge.
Two expressions Of Christ are here evil
IDENTIFY referred TO, viz.-"Ye have heard
that it hath been said,an eye for an eye &
tooth for tooth, but l say unto you,
thu. yc resis, not evil" Also "Ye have
heard tha, it hath been said, thou shalt
love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy,
but say unto you, lore your enemies
&C. The first statute was intended only
as direction 10 judges respecting the
punishment to be inflicted in case of vic.
lent and barbarous assaults; though the
Jews understood i. as encouraging rig
orous personal revenge. The second text,
was the former part OF it, given by God ;
but the latter, the scrbes eujoined, abusing,
i, would SEEM the command for destroying
the Canaani,es, 10 countenance the addi-
ton, hate thine enemies, though this was
in direct contradiction TO many other scrip
lures; see Proverbs 25. 81. In both in
stances, our Lord intending to comprc.
bend not only The law itself but also the
Jewish applicable" Of It, does not say, eye
know" but, Eye have heard it hath been
said, &c. l can discover 20 discrepan-
cy here, neither do | suppose that the law
itself, when properly explained ersr aoas
abrogated, II it ,oa;, il would be un-
scripural now to have civil law to punish
crime, which the apostle proves is not the
case.
You say, "in order to try The di1eren!
writer's of The old and new testaments, a
standard must be agreed upon" II
Christ is the standard you think others in
opposition must yield, implying I should
think, tina, you are willing that Chris,
should be the standard; also implying that
other precepts do conhic. with Chris!'s
and must yield. Now this is a contra,
dclion Of terms, for Christ exprcssl y says,
"Thnk no, that am come 20 destroy III
law or The prophets. | am not come to
destroy but TO fulfil, for verify say unto
you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
Que little shall in no wise pass from the
law ill all be fulfilled" Matt. 5. l7.IS.
II Christ did not destroy but fulfil, it
shows that the law and prophets were
good for the time and place they were
given, and were OF divine origin.
We are bold 10 say that no inherent
principle in one part Of the Bible Is con-
ira 1icted in another. And though the
old and new testaments have each distinct
objects, yet these objects perfectly harmo.
nize, displaying great depth, beauty and
sublimi,y of thought and morals. We
must not arraign these works 100 soon,"
for there's danger in it.
w. PERKINS.
Ripton, April 22nd, l845.