Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-08-15

G.Baptisna Of Infants.0
A correspondent of the Vermont Chroni-
Gle, signing his name James Buckhdm,
dating a, Chelsea, VT, and supposed 10 be
Congregational minister recently from
England, has for some weeks past been
furnishing the Chronicle with a series of
articles, exhibiting to view various demon
inarions of Christians in Great Britain. In
the last No. of the Chronicle he gives some
reasons why the English Congregationalis,s
dissent from the doctrines and practices of
the Church or Episcopal establishments
On the following paragraph the writer will
permit me to ask him one or two questions:
Il might have remarked in reference
to the bal tism of infants, that the Church
of England does not permit parents to
appear as sponsors for their children
others must assume this character. The
twenty ninth canon of the church COM
mands, "that no parent shall be urged to
be present at his child's baptism, nor be
admitted TO answer as godfather for his
own child" Congrcgatlonalists regard
such regulation as unreasonable and
unnatural IN the extreme, especially as
the VOWS and promises then made involve
obligations and duties, which are more
properly incumbent upon parents than
they can be on others The questions
also proposed by the priest to the child
that is brought TO be baptized, appear to
Con 3regationalists to be absurd. If it
were not that the ordinance is OF too sa-
cred a character for the indulgence of
mlrh, one could scarcely suppress smile
when he heard grave and venerable
divine address to the unconscious babe
these inquiries -" Dost thou renounce the
deviI?-dost thou beieve?-wiIt thou be
: baptlzed?'' ITO these questions,' says
e Wheatley, "the god-fthers may very
well presume 10 answer for the child that
this is his desire; for if the child could
o understand the exceIIency of this religion,
and speak its mind, it would, without
doubt, be ready to say the same words -
White, to whom Towgood's Letters on
Dissent were addressed, says, "the church
, considers these answers as the child's
= answers; they contain its part of the
, baptismal contract, which, because by
reason Of its tender age, it cannot utter
is 10 be uttered by its suretes." On this
explanation. Towgood remarks in hi;
Usual manner, that is to say, the chile
= thinks, but cannot speak. 1t leally GOV
t enants, contracts, promises; but not being
: able by reason of its tender age, to uttel
= its good intentions, these surtles are It's
mouth to utter them for it, But why, gooc
y Sir, its mouth to speak for it, and not its
r understanding also TO think for it; its w1l
r to promise for it; and indeed its soul, it,
r. rery SELF TO covenant, and contract for ii
:, Is not the child, BY reason of its tende
II age, as absolutely incapable of corenant
II ing as of uttering; of contracting as O
% speaking? 1.-THE surety does one of thes
X good Offices for it; he undoubtedly doe
III the other ALSO"
~ My questions are these:-Why not re
re- nounce the whole ceremony, as applied t
ID Unconscious babes?' How much NOR
I'd ridiculous is the questioning of these babe
re than the administering Of the ordinanc
a to them Are they any more conscious i
% regard to the latter than TO the former p
-. How can being that is void of "unde,
1e stdnding''- absolutely incapable of cor.
ill nanting" or Contracting" in regard to
a. ceremony imposed upon it, be benefited b
y that ceremony? Furhermore,-"wh hat
lie required this [sprinkllng unconscious babes
+ at your hand "-if the Lord has not, is
he not worse than work of supererogation2