The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-03-30
For the Central Presbyterian.
The New Directory, Chap. III.
Sec. 6.

Sec. 6.
-" In the case of such as have been bantized in
infancy, and having reached wears of discre.
tion, after making credible profession of saw
ing faith In Christ have been received into full
communion by the Sess on, it is proper that
they. as well as adult persons received by ban.
tlsm, should make profession of their faith in
the presence of the congregation This public
profession on the part of those baptized in in
fancy may be made In the same words with that
made by adults at their baptism"
There is nothing in the present Direc.
tory of the Church akin to this section.
There is nothing in the standards of the
Church necessitating its introduction into
the Revised Directory In the minds of
the writer, there are reasons WHY it
should not be admitted.
1st The persons to whom the section
refers are already members of the Church.
and may have been so for years. WHY
should it be proper to require them to
make the same public profession that is
required of those who have no such rela-
ton to the Church? The unbaptized
adult person is required to make pub
lie profession in order to comply with
the conditions for baptism. Until he
complys with those conditions he cannot
be baptized. But the baptized adult
person has long since complied with
those conditions in and through his par
ents. He has been taught from infancy
that he is member of the Church; that
solemn and weighty responsibilities are
resting upon him as such !; and that the
Church itself is under binding obligations
to pray for, instruct, and tenderly watch
over him. And now, in the face of all
this, that he is required, before going to
the Lord Table, to stand side by side of
one, who has no such connection like
himself with the Church, and make word
for word the same profession, would have
very, much the appearance, that his
membership was only in name. How
natural would it be for him to solilo-
quize: "Why in my case should the
conditions of admittance to full privileges
of membership be more strict than in
the case of this unbaptized one?"
Why, in my case, should the profession
of faith be required twice, (by parents
and myself,) and yet in this unbaptized
persons case only once?" In other
words, "Where is the difference shown
1aoaO and here, IN our profession, between
being member and being nothing?"
End. If it is said that this public pro-
tesslon forms no part of the conditions
for admitting a, non-communicating mem
Der to all the privileges of the Church,
but Is proper only as ratification of the
vows of his parents in infant baptism.
and a recognition of those baptismal en-
gagements, and that therein consists the
difference; then, in the second place, it is
objected that the use of the prescribed
formula for that purpose will not make
the difference between the two persons
sufficiently clear and manifest. A real
difference of relation to the Church does
exist between the two, and that difference
ought to be clearly shown. The one is
a member, plenary member of the
church. The other certainly has no
such recognized connection, and may
have none utterly, for he may not be
even a child of Christian parents. He
may have no claims whatever upon the
Church. Is it not due then to the non
communicating member and is it not the
duty of the Church, which processes
deep love and interest for such connec-
ton, to make this difference emphatic
But by the use of the same formula it is
not made emphatic Furthermore, in
the two cases this formula is used for diff
terent purposes. In the case of the un-
baptized person--for the expression of
his own faith and obedience (prerequi-
sites to baptism); in the case Of the bap-
tlzed one-as a simple recognition of the
engagements laid upon him in infant
baptism by the faith and obedience of his
parents. Now, by requiring the same
formula Unfortunately of the two class
es of persons, will the act of baptized
one in subscribing to it, clearly manifest
the design of its use in his case? 1 sub
init, that the congregation would never
know the meaning Of his act. Yet thew
ought to know it. The audience ought
to be impressed with the fact that the
Church not only recognizes difference
between the persons, but that it acts diff
ferently towards them in order to be