Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-06-03

lie, thot they should believe on him which |
hould come after him. that is, on Christ
esus.' This passage does not show us,
VIA: was the form of words John used
It his baptism. 1t shows what he requir-
ID ofhis candidates whom he baptized
Does il not appear, then, that A. A. SETS
aside Johns baptism on very fimsy
grounds? He gives form of words
and now we must admit that form to be
nearly the same as the one john employ
ed, or we must be charged with in6deli-
ty, as not creditingt Mathew and Paul
Now am free 10 say, that $ A. AS form
Of words is the result of his own imagin-
alton. -
But there is another view of the sub
ject. A. A. takes the liberty to say
what Johns form of words, was, and was
not, because no precise form has been. gao
en-; and he objects to his form, because
thesevangelisls have not said. that John
baptizedin the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But
if this be sound objection, then how can
IA. a. be satisfied with The baptism of
the disciples in any case! He sup
poses that verse 5th refers TO the twelve
Disciples But fit does, it does not APP
pear from the account there given, that
they were baptized in the name Of the Fa
Ithef, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. They were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus. How can A
A. be satisfied with this baptism, even !
this verse refers to the twelve, and they
| We're baptized by companion Of Paul
an Apostle Of Chris, ! Again, Acts 10
AZ, And he commanded them to be bap
5 lzed in the name of The Lord Now di'
D not John baptize in the name Of the Lord
, He was commissioned to baptize by tn
2 Lord. John :. 33. In whose name the
). would he baptize? In the name of til
$ Lord. Why then shall we consider hi
d baptism insufficient when we regard tn;
n in Acts 10: 48, valid "A. A shout
e be consistent in his views and if he make
d objection to JONAS baptism on account
/. form of words he should do the san
II in other instances, unless other forms co
a, respond to his views. On the whole,
t, do not see, that A. A has proved John
I'd baptism insufficient. But on the contl
Sc rv. think there are substantial reason
n. which will show, that Johns baptism W
TO- regarded by the Apostles as good as tn
ID. own. 80
ast III. Is there any reason to believe, FRI
ey The passages before Us, that the disciple
rit mentioned in verse lst aoere re-bapt1ze
: According 10 our view, as there existed
liz necessity to re-baptize, we have presun
'fid tive evidence, that they were not bapti
INT again and shall so believe, unless P
APP tive, unequivocal testimony can be
oes duced, to prove that they were re-baI
sos ed.
The question, then, whether these
!. D ciples were re-baptzed or not, mus
- decided on pathological principles, an
no others. regret that A. A has
r. pN 50 sparing of his labors in this departr
Of his reply. With few brief staten
he has disposed of the whole subject
:. his reply towhat he called my etym
- zeal criticism, he has certainly adva
W. one .aew idea, for which, he sh
: " doubtless, have the merit Of originali
P He says, Respecting z. Us etymol
80 al criticism, | have only to say, tn
y our language, where the form OF the
80 is soliuIe varied, repetition OF PROF
r. is absolutely necessary to 'persplc'
, : :" but in language like the Greek,
prefixes and afixes TO the verb, so G.
- indicate what is the subject of the
A., no such necessity exists If unde
-, "A. A. he would rave US believe
.ss;on .prefres and e65res' in the Gree
,ou by guage, clearly indicate VIVA: is INT
litents, ;ect' Of the verb This, certainly,
lenow - The trpih is. II
! is ex- -"
'ssages PrepIes, augment "''0 UP''
at Mat do not indicate in ana aoGy, what
rive the - o,h, And the of,
lis bap- ~ :. 'no :, aa.o.,:.,
"a UeS-l termlnatll0nS OF tue NeIOs oCsCIuhuhS