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


Slr,-As you have proposed some ques-
lions to me in the Teleg raph, and have ia
ken the trouble TO send me copy of the pa
per which contains them, suppose courtesy
requires that l should take some notice Of
them. l do not intend, however, to be led
into controversy on the subject Of baptism ;
and | wish it TO be understood that the re-
mark, which am about 10 make in answer 10
your inquiries, shall comprehend all that
have 10 say upon it, at this time. Ii may be
we'll TO repeat your questions, that your read
ers may have a view Of them in immediate
connexion with my observations. You say,
"Why not renounce the whole ceremony
OF baptism as applied TO unconscious
babes" How much more ridiculous is the
questioning Of these babes, than The utinin-
1stering Of the ordinance 10 them? Are
they any more conscious in regard 10 the
latter than 10 the formeT2 How can a be-
ing that is void of 'underStdnding'-abso
luteIy incapable Of 'cOrendnting' or con-
tTactng, IN regard to ceremony imposed
upon it, be enefted by that ceremony p
Furthermore,-- who hath required This
L>pr'nklIng unconscious babes at your
hand ?-lt the Lori has not, is II not worse
VIA" " "o'A VI S"PvFcrOgahOH
do "not renounce the whole ceremonv,"
nor any part ot the c"remon! OF baptism, IN
the case OF the Unconscious babes" Of Chris
tan parents, SIMPLY because | believe it is
VIC " III VI VIC L0.o Jesus Ohfls'' mat 'I'ls
~ ""oe S"00'0 0s administered 10 them
~ Is not no" my P"f2o 10 state any OF the
"'So"'e"'S o" "NIc1 '"'s opinion rests: they
nave ol'eh Oeeh published 10 the world OY
UNITS anu III III! we" lucy are conclusive
ana uh3hs"eFaOie' (p Am TO make the
sentiments OF others on tie subject Of bap-
uSm the rule OF my cOn1uct? Am |, in op-
position to my own solemn conviction Of
what is my duty, to "rvIvunce the whole
ceremony as applied t. the Unconscious
babes" Of those who. ia the iudrment OF
charity, are Christians Am 10 saw to- the
people 10 whom | preach. 81 believe that
The children of pious PARENTS ouoht to be
baptized II have, | think, examined TIL,
point with care and This !. rho corc),.;o, 80
which have come; but still | must not act
ACCORDING 10 NV own o.,inion hpropso ,Lo
Editor Of the Vermont TpIor,anh .o,s
vugilt TO .rcnounrp the Whale cpron,onv ..
applied TO unconscious babes p" (2)
T. i or oo,.,o oIa,;,,., .Lo, :-c.
NOT mora co,Sc;o,e IN roo,;,.;,,,r h.,n,;.,,, 49,
10 use tho form which uo, o,,,l -, :, L,,.
mo tb;. "c.ron,o,, ;,nno-oa roo,,, ,bo,x,
Iban ,bay arc I" in ,po.rdn - tho ones,;nns
addressed 70 them bv tho nros,. and nra
sumo YOU will allow that Jewish hahos .,
,ioht DAVIS ,ld wbo, ,h. Wiz. Sc .
ION was imposed uDono Them were oo,,1-
" unconscious.
From the want Of consciousness IN hohos
you would have me to inGer,ba, il, !, r;5;c,.
ous 10 administer the ordinance Of ban,iSm
10 them,-as ridiculous IS TO * ,hp,, COW.
orally, "Dost thou rencunce the devil? dos,
thou believe? wilt thou be baptized ~ Was
It then ridiculous to circumcj>c the "urcon
:cious babes" Of the Jews? Ycur arrumen,
it proves any thing, would prove this; and
get know you would not make such az as.
sertiOn. Now | should like to he informed
low it is, that the want Of consciousness II
he children OF Christian parents, renders it
90 perfectly ridiculous to boyli@e Them
While tie very same want Of consciousness
n The children Of Jewish Parents, had 70
e"dfncy at all TO render it ridiculous to cir
""'c|sc them. There is, think, no diff
uI'y IN giving an answer to your question.
now 'n0'" more ridiculous is the question:
ns OF '"e,e 0'OeS' than the administering