The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1874-08-12
FoR THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
A COUNTRY PASTORS REPLY TO
DIR. CURRY.

DR.. Currys first paragraph does me much
injustice. He dismisses several words used
by me with the remark, 81 have no taste fol
that sort of writing" Let me assure him
that his opponent in this argument has the
same dislike to the use of any word in a
sense personally offensive. l used the word
" misrepresentation" once, to say that l knew
the Editor of the Central was unwilling to
believe him capable of it, and again to de-
clare that l did not ascribe has "misrepre-
sentatious" to design. / used "blindness,
it is true; but can the most courteous con-
trOversialist fail to ascribe this to the opposite
party, till one or the other is convinced
Aesosd;sg to Dr. Curry argument l am
blind, for do not see meaning in his words
which is patent to himself. As to 'candor, -
l simply said that "Christian candor re-
quires him to use language that corresponds
with our usage" And now, to the express
siOns of respect for him as Christian gen.
tleman, in which l am sure that my first
piece was not wanting, l will add that feel
sure that he will upon reflection, and when
convinced, do and say what Christian candor
requires. I would hardly waste time in wri
ting in reply to him if l did not believe this.
And that my object may be obtained, l sub
NIT the following remarks to his candid con-
sideration:
charged DR.. Curry with claiming "that
the Baptists, and the Baptists alone, require
conversion antecedent to communion" 1
sustained my assertion by the following pas
sage from his letter to DR.. Bennett No
churches but Baptist churches, so far as |
know, require of all members on admission,
a profession of conversion" And now, DR..
Curry asks, "are these declarations identical
or equivalent" 1 reply that if he will refer
to the report of his address at the opening of
the Association in Fredericksburg, published
by one of his own brethren, l think he will
find that he charged all pedObaptists with
admitting members to communion" before
conversion, as we'll as with "baptismal re-
generation" "sacramental grace" &c. But
as have not the paper now, / must proceed
upon the quotation from his letter aforesaid,
which is quite strong enough for my purpose.
l. argue that the expression, "on ad-
mission, 4" implies to all, and to Baptist
audience especially, admission to all the du-
ties and privileges of the Church; and l
complain that DR.. Curry has never qualified
.Is SO as to express that which he now claims
to be his real meaning. Suppose that DR..
Curry should, in the course of his next ad-
dress before Baptist audience, say "the
Presbyterians do not require of all their
members, on admission, profession of con-
version, and l, being in the assembly, should
rise up and say, "admiSSion to what, DR..
Curry?" Would not his explanation give
definition to his statement which, as at first
made, it does not convey? I ask DR.. Curry,
as scholar, and special professor of the
English language and literature, what do We
mean when we say man is a member of the
Church?
2. l claim that DR.. Curry's article now
before me, admits distinction which he has
never before recognized. He confesses that
our late General Assembly distinctly ac-
knowledged and defined the relations of bap-
tized children to the church But the paper
adopted draws so broad line between them
and other members, as to provide for them a
different register, and different form of
certificate on removal. Has DR.. Curry ever
limited at this distinction in one of his public
speeches? Does he make a certificate of
baptized relationship" and certificate of
membership identical or equivalent. -
Again DR.. Curry quotes from DR.. A. W.
Mlller's treatise on "the Status of Bap-
tized Child" DR.. Miller is sustained in
part, but not entirely by our "BOOk of Dis
eipline." Let US take the latter in connec-
ton with our DIRECTORY for Worship. -
Here we find that while baptized persons are
"members of the church, ""under its care, -
''subject to its government, and bound to
perform all the duties of church members,
they are not to be admitted to sealing ordi-
nances till they have Sufficient knowledge
to discern the Lords body" and are exam
ined as to "their knowledge and piety. -
Has Dr. Curry ever told his Baptist breth'
rem that we require these qualifications il
our communicants? Has he not made an
impression that we do not?
8. DR.. Curry'S manner of treating this
subject appears in the very reply under con.
sideration. "Baptists, he says, "admit nc
persons to church duties and privileges who
have not previously made credible profes
sion of personal faith in Jesus Christ. L
any other religious denominations than those
which practice exclusively believers baptism
hold this truth, l am not aware of it,
That is, Presbyterians admit persons to tn,
" "priulegeS" of the church, without profes
sion, &c. Here, as elsewhere, the write
leaves us to infer that he means the "privi
!, lege" of communion at the Lords Table.
| dismiss the remainder of DR.. Curry
communication with two or three remarks.
regret that DR.. Curry quotes me as saying
&" regeneration and publication, when
wrote Regeneration and justification.
, sent, as nv friend, DIR. Brown, is aware,