Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-09-12
September IL, 1893.

toned, bat u not my purpose TO state any " ue
Arguments on which this opinion rests" Would
this answer have been satisfactory Or suppose
,hs question to have been to the Bishop Of the
Episcopal Church, asking him why be exercises
such authority az ne does,-and bis answer had
been. 81 believe Il Is the will Of the Lord Jesus
Chr,,t that I should exercise such authority;
but Il i NOT my purpose TO state any Of The ar
gumcn,s on which this opinion rests" Would TINS
answer have been satisfactory Most certainly
wooId rct. and ought not. No people, perhaps,
proless 10 entertain higher regard Tor tine VIII OF
an. Lord Je.us Christ than those whom friend
n,,..n.,, ,srms. IN another paragraph, the "Ant- ,
..-.a,h.,t;.ts." But chat e DE EiH Of The Lord
Jr.ws ckrfst7 Why, the Episcopal Bishop believes
4 10 b His win that he 1.-THE Bishop] should lord
n over Co.'s heritage. The Episcopal Priest be-
lieyes Il to be His will that he 1.-THE Prisstl should
nut questions to unconscious babes. James Buck
ham believes il TO be His VIII that he flames Buck
harn1 should sprinkle unconscious bab:s. Now |
can believe mono Of these things-and il is well
known that do not; thsrefore, when ask Of those
who DO believe them, fOr their bslieG is it
reasonable that should be put OF without any
proof or argument Whether am unreasonable, as
to tho kind or amount Of proof that will be satsac
tory, others-or even friend Buckham himself
shall Judge. All ask is, To be shown single pas
sage-only one shall sniisfy-from the mouth Of the
Lord Jesus Christ himself or any of the inspired
writer's, requiring any such thing at the hands Of
the Bishop, the Priest, or friend Buckham. sim
gIo dhus saith The Lord, or, tkHs saith the Spirit
.hal suffice. But in the total absence Of all such
uroof I must DO pardoned for remaining in unbe-
lisG How easy matter for friend Buckham to
have opened his Bible and cited a single passage,
0he had kH0rH rhere 10 find IL! I leave it for 9TH
ers 10 say whether his declining to do, does not
sadly initiate against his position.
-, No, no. Not because the Vermont Tele-
Erupn says so. The Vermont Telegraph is so far
from asking friend Buckham or any other person.
to mako the sentiments Of others the subject Of
baptism Tor Of any other Gospel ordinance or inSti
tutionl the rule of conduct" that it requires u
.tsHs saith the Lord and is ready to render one, in
support of its own sentiments, often it is call
ed upon 80 to do. And appeal to friend Buck
hams own good senss-when he has taken the
trouble to examine again--whether there be any
thing in my questions which will warrant his init
NATION thar the Telegraph requires him to abandon
his belief merely "because the Telegraph says
So There is nothing in tho questions that will
bsar any such constr uction. They imply, to be
SURE, that the Telegraph dsagress in sentiment
with the ono il is questioning. And they call OIL
him for reason for his practise. Let friond Buck
ham read again his own paragraph copied into the
Telegraph, and then say for himself whether thi
Telegraph is more dogmatical towards him than h'
IL towards tie Episcopal Priest. He, most mani
fsstly, would rejoice to the Priest abantonin;
the ceremony Of questioning unconscious babes
30 the Telegraph would rejoice TO see both tn
Priest and friend Buckham abandoning the who'll
ceremony OF baptism, as applied to uncOnsciou
babes, believing the one part Of the ceremony to
"a unauthorized as the other.
(s) Here is r.psttion of his pstitiO Priaeipii-
his begging OF the question. Il will DO observes
tha, this argument proceeds on the assumptio
that while there is no command to question I'll
babe, there Is a command to sprinkle it. For h
says that the difference there is between question
fE tho babe and .rriukiins siEs nsrence ther
woufd ssuvv- ucsrs between questioning the jews
habe and eircHmcisiag il. Now oil will admit th'
ro difference between questioning the jewish bar
and circuincising il is this: there was IN expires
ronsupGnd 10 eircumcise, but no command 10 que
,;an Iu, all do not admit that there is this dlii
ence betw cen questioning and sprinkling. AND III
friend Buckham knows. lie knows perfectly We
,h., ,boae whom he rs pleased to style "Anti-ped
bsp,istsn-aad these iaciade, ia The Eh0Ie, Tar
uad yroriag class ia his OTH deHOmtHati0n--do
-, ,l,at there is q command TOR sPrnklIng inar
urdor The new dspensati ON, there was for clrcu
c,s;nv them under the old. For him, therefore,
osspne the position-to take IL for granted tc'th'
proof-is a sorry begging OF the question, that
never be resorted 10 by those who have good .
.ur;cieut uroof at hand. The Anti-pedobapu
arc as utterly unable to find command to spr'H
infants, as command to question them; and u
uromise that as soon our Padobaptist me
will produce the former, they ltho Anti-p1do
tis,sl will produce the latter.
Friend Buckham places too much stress on
ridicriiHg. BY just glanci"g back, he will see
the effort at rendering ridiculous was his own
only drew comparison. He rdiculed the Epi
pal Priests questioning unconscious babes'--u
which asked him how much more ridiculous
10 onestiOn babe than to sprinkle it. II was
mv dssian 70 ridicule. would only turn his
afort Al ridiculing against himself, aud the
sho,v him. II possible--what esteem to be-
error.
In a foregoing paragraph Of his article no
h.nd ft;snd Buckhuna admits that the babe is al
conscious OF the snrnkling as the queshomi
verv well--yery we'll indeed. La dong TINS
throws himself back to stand side by side VIII
Fn;scopul Prest--or else to show, " ne can
there Is any more command for sprinkllnS Una
questioning.
t4l ftwill be seen that tho whole Of this lai
argument 70 juin-on hrptiam TO circumcisi'
built on the scme unsEstainsd foundation VII
o,h.r arguments, before noticed, viz takiH
granted hat Is get 10 be Prored In the part
-. 40. under consideration. however tn
.ss;,;,,, y, m, Lottomless foundation he
s6ss she sprnkling Of fEjJ'as wl'n 'ns Oaps'
n.,,-..-. ~ n nnrt Of the ordinance insulul