Year: 1871

on this subject. If the doctrines taught il


that report are diffused among our people
and they have an opportunity to discuss
them, / think they will all be likely to come
to the same conclusion; and that therefore
tbs report will have been of inestimablt
value. But'we are not prepared to discuss
the subject at the close of our session.
Days would be consumed in profound and
elaborate discussion of the points involved
DR.. Peck-As member of the commit
tee, am fully prepared for discussion Of
the points made by brother Berry, but l dc
not wish to enter upon that subject unless
the Assembly have determined that the ques,
tion shall be discussed at this time. l rise
now simply to call attention to the precise
relation Of this report on the validity Of
"Campbellite" Baptism to the previous ac-
tion of the Church. The General Assembly
at its last meeting in Louisville adopted the
following action:


The Committee on Bills and Overtures have
considered Overture No. ID, being the inquiry Of
the Rev. Mr.. Vernon: "When members in good
standing in the Christian Church commonly called
Campbelite,l who have been baptized in the name
Of the Holy Trinity, apply with or without letters,
for membership in connexion with our Church,
shall such persons invariably be rebaptized2" ?" The
Committee recommend the adoption of the follow
ing minute:


The principles set forth in the deliverance of the
General Assembly of 1914 concerning the baptism
of Unitarians, and in the deiverance of the Gene
raj Assembly of lS45 concerning Popish bap-
tsm, (see Baird's Digest, Book Ill, u, l3-
PIP. l02, 1887 necessarily imply the invalidity Of
baptism as administered by ministers commonly
known as Campbelites; and persons SO baptized
only by ministers of that body, coming into our
connection, should invariably be baptized before
being admitted to the Lords table.


On motion of the Rev. A. R. Graves, the fol-
lowing resolution was adopted


ReSolued, That committee be appointed which
shall present to the next Assembly report of full
and clear instruction to the Church on the whole
subject of valid baptism, and the extent to which
baptism administered by other churches should be
recognised.


You will see then the question presented
to US by this report, is not the question as
to whether Campbellite Baptism is valid or
invalid. That was decided by the last AS
sembly. The whole purpose of the appoint
ment of this Committee, whose report is now
under consideration, is to expound the doc
trine of the Church on this subject, and to
vindicate the position taken by the last AS
sembly in harmony with the position taken
by the Assemblies of 1914 ION Unitarian
Baptism) and 1845 ION Popish Baptism 1t
strikes me as rather extraordinary that the
brother Mr.. Berry, should make the kind
of argument he has made upon that ques-
tion-thatit it had never before been discussed
in the Presbyterian Church. 1t has greatly
surprised me that he should assert that his
doctrine is the common doctrine of the Re-
formed churches on the continent of Europe,
as we'll as in the United States. My read
ing of history has been different from that.


I propose now for the information of the
Assembly to read the action of the Assem-
bly, of 1845 with respect to the validity of
Roman Catholic baptism. You will find it
on the 1O3d page of Baird's Digest do
not design, to 60 into the argument upon the
merits Of the question, and answer the points
made by brother Berry. l should be very
glad indeed to do so, if the Assembly had
time Nothing would please me better. But
I will simply read this action in order to
vindicate ourselves as members of the Com
mittee from the charge of ultraism, which,
if applicable anywhere, belongs to that
venerable Assembly equally with ourselves.


DR.. P. then read in conclusion from the
Digest which fully sustained the Commit
tees report.


DIR. Dabney-I do not rise to make a
speech but to ask the clerk to read little
question to the Assembly.


The Temporary clerk read from a slip of
paper presented by DR.. D., as follows: " If
the report is printed on the motion of DR..
Wills, and if a Campbellite preacher attacks
it, may ]: say in reply that the Assembly
sustains it p


DIR. Msller-The motion of brother Wills
is not properly substitute for the resolution.
If he wishes the consideration of the matter
deferred, he can move to commit it to the
next Assembly; but to vote to return thanks
to these brethren, and print their report for
information, does not compass the end pro-
posed by the last Assembly. The report is
to be acted upon at sometime-either by this
Assembly or another. Why not by this AS
sembly?


The Moderator decided that DR.. Wills
motion was in order under Rule 81, as a
substitute for the motion to adopt the re-
port.


DR.. Dabaey--If the report is printed,
and we who may have to defend it are au-
thorized to say that the Assembly sustains
us, the Assembly might as we'll adopt the
report; if we are not 80 authorized, we had
better not print it. AS to the compliment
to the Committee, would beg leave to say
personally, that we do not desire the Assem-
bly, to be embarrassed particle. Our self
esteem is protected under the very broad
wing of the Assembly of 1870, which merely
referred to us, as court often refers to one
of its members, to draw up the reasons Of
its decisions. If this Assembly does not
approve the reasons of the decision, we are
not assailed at all; and I hope the brethren
will feel a perfect freedom to lay the report
on the table, to reverse the action of the
last Assembly, or to exscind any part of the
report which is not according to the mind Of
this Assembly. We have no sensitivenes;
about it at all.


DR.. s. j. Baird propose to say few
words in vindication of the report as il
stands My first remark is that the report
does not alter the position of our Church il
the slightest degree. The brethren who OBJ
iect to it seem to assume that it takes new
position, and that by rejecting or otherwise
disposing of it, the Church will be prevented
from assuming that new position. In regari
to Romish baptism, it is apparent from th'
action of the Assembly of 1916, as read by
DR.. Peck, that the position is not new-i
not sectarian. If there is any question al