The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-06-28

tim0nes of our Church IN the past. nope
| that DR.. Wills will withdraw his substitute,
and that the members of this Assembly will
have it as something to be proud of, and to
thank God for that we have been enabled
to utter our testimony in accordance with
the testimony in years gone by. 1t Will De
one of the glories of this Assembly; it will
be something that shall be proud OF, as
member of this Assembly.
Mr.. Bery-Brother Baird misappre-
hended the position | took. 1t was that the
Roman Catholic Church up to the time of
the Reformation was the historic Church OF
| Christendom that the Reformers received
their orders and baptism from it, and that
they never denied their orders or their bap'
tism.
DIR. WiNs-In reply to DR.. Dabney's IN
ouiry whether he and the Committee will be
sheltered from the attacks of Campbellites
and Catholics, if their report shall not be
| adopted, reply that certainly they will,
The previous action Of the Assembly stands
until It is repealed. re ore the suceas]sor
of ne Presbyterssl-Tl q. s. : sie = nircd
States; and they are protected BY the en-
| actment of that body adverse to the validity
of Popish baptism until different action
shall be taken. My reason for offering the
substitute is that it is the impression that we
will adjourn to-day, and to take up great
subject like this for discussion, seems to me
to be utterly out of the question. | there
fore offered the resolution not out of opposl-
ton to the report, but because | wished to
vote intellgently-to be well informed on
the subject. wish the information to be
we'll difused among all our people; and |
wish especially that this Assembly may be
unanimous in the deliverance it shall make
on this subject. If you force action to-day,
you will have divided vote, which will tend
to impair the moral power of our action
Twelve months from this time, if this reso-
luton is adopted, there will be concurrence.
We shall all agree. l stated that | would
withdraw the resolution if the brethren
thought it discourteous; and if they will in
dicate in any way that such is their con-
struction, stand upon my honor, and will
withdraw it, But believe it would be wise
and timely to take the action proposed in
the resolution.
DIR. Hendrick-The simple question iS
have these brethren fulfilled the task as
signed them? 1t is not the question of bap.
tism; that is decided. As DR.. Dabney we'll
remarked, the Committee are only part of
the judges, who have already passed their
Judgment, called upon to give the reasons
for the decision. That is all Are these
reasons good? 1t seems to me that nine
tenths of this Assembly will not only say
they are good, but as brother Huber re-
marked, we consider it an honor to adopt
them as our reasons.
Judge MitcAeU-I should like to be in
structed upon one point. The fundamental
difference between the Romish Church and
genuine Protestant churches is the right OF
private judgment. The Romish Church
claims the right to dictate to it's members
what they are to believe. The principle of
the Presbyterian Church is thet evecg man
is left to form his own judgment. Now, the
point upon which my mind labors is this:
Suppose a man baptized in the Campbellite
Church comes to the session of which / am
member asking for admission into the
Church; are we bound under this action of
the Assembly to rebaptize him? Suppose
he says that his father and his mother were
members of that Church, and that, under the
influence of education while very young, ne
was baptized by immersion, and that he is
satisfied with it. Shall we reject him or
compel him to be again baptized, when he
himself in the exercise of his own liberty of
Judging is satisfied? Or if we are applied
to by one who has been baptized by Rom
ish priest, and declares that he does not wish
to be again baptized, shall we reject him?
That is the question. There is nothing
stated upon that point but the whole bear
ing of the action of the Assembly seems to
be to dictate to our sessions, that we shall
rebaptize such persons, although they are
satisfied. Does not that sayor of Popery?
Has any church the right to dictate abso-
lutely to any mans conscience when he sim
ply asks to come among the people of Godf
When converted man, one in whose soul
the Holy Spirit has wrought the great work
of regeneration, comes to, the Presbyterian
Church and says, 81 want to be with you"
can we shut the door? l have been greatly
edited by this report, but think it will an
swer all the purposes desired to present it
in the Appendix to the Minutes, and let it
20 forth for what it is worth.
| Rev. T. G. sStrahan-I come from re-
gion perhaps more pervaded by Campbellism
than any other part of the United States. |
have received quite a number of members
from that Church into the Presbyterian
Church; and before our Synod (of Kentucky
took any action upon the subject at all, |
required all to receive the ordinance of bap-
tism-regarding their so-called baptism as
no baptism at all In every instance they
have cheerfully submitted often voluntarily;
excepting one. That case precisely meets
the supposition of Judge Mitchell. Two
gentlemen, both from that denomination,
desired to unite with my church. One of
them said that of course he expected to be
baptized; the other said that he regarded
himself as having received the ordinance and
was satisfied, and he thought that | ought to
receive him. My answer was, "you are
satisfied, but am not; my church is not; we
do not regard the organization from which
you come, as Christian Church at all. 1t
is not so regarded by any evangelical church; /;
your baptism, SO far as l know, was per-
formed by an irresponsible person, not a
regularly ordained minister" For it is a
customary thing with them when their
preacher is disinclined to go into the water,
for him to call upon private member to
perform the ordinance.) ..The gentleman sub
mitted and baptized him.
1t was in our Synod, and in the Presby-
terry to which belong. that the question of
| IL .J;I:Ix. &c o1l;to bo n+;s,,o ,uoe 6rot