DX uc-nrlf 6532 M3 lio tDbeJSaptistsrxrbeir principle, Zbciv prooress XTbeir prospect :: :: :: :: 1?obert Stuart flQacHrtbur Hmencan ' »apti0t publication J Society THE BAPTISTS THEIR PRINCIPLE THEIR PROGRESS THEIR PROSPECT THE BAPTISTS THEIR PRINCIPLE THEIR PROGRESS THEIR PROSPECT By ROBERT STUART MacARTHUR Minister Calvary Baptist Church, New York, Since May 15, 1870 Address Delivered in the First Baptist Church, Baltimore Md., on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Anniversary of Its Founding November 29, 1910 ^^He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. ' ' — Jesus Christ PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY BOSTON CHICAGO ST. LOUIS TORONTO. CAN. VJ /\ ^ ^^ M Copyright 1911 by A. J. ROWLAND, Secretary Published April, 1911 Zbc Baptists: Zbcix {principle XLhcit progress, Zhcix prospect SOME of us love the Baptist denomination with tender affection. We gave her the fervor of youth; we give her now the riper knowledge and the heartier conviction of mature years. She is radiant in her queenly beauty. Never did knight of heroic days show more of chivalry toward the queen of his heart than do the knights of the cross among us toward the body whose name we bear. To us the Baptist denomination is glorious. Her martyr's crown becomes her lofty brow; her prison-soiled, flame- charred, and blood-stained robes are lustrous and glo- rious. Her past is triumphant; her present is potent; her future is resplendent. Here and now, as she is loyal to her Lord, we give her the love and loyalty of our true hearts. The Baptist who does not rejoice in the heroic history of his great denomination must have ignorance instead of knowledge in his head, and iced water instead of red blood in his veins. [ 5 ] 222089 ITbeBaptiete The Baptist Principle The slogan of Baptists all through the centuries has been: "To the law and the testimony." When God's word speaks, Baptists may not be silent; when God's word is silent, Baptists may not speak. The New Testament, the rule of faith and practice — this is the great Baptist principle. This fundamental principle rules out human creeds, as the ultimate authority of faith and practice. Creeds have their uses ; thfey may be profitably studied. They are the high-water mark to which theological thought has risen at any given period. But creeds made by men in one age may be remade, or unmade, by men in another age. Every age must do its own think- ing. So far as new forms of statement are concerned, theology is a progressive science. New light is break- ing forth constantly from God's word and from God's world. Creeds are often procrustean beds for the tor- ture of theological thinkers. They neither conserve orthodoxy nor preserve church unity. They are di- visive rather than unitive. We have learned many things since the days of Augustine, Chrysostom, Knox, Turretin, Luther, and Calvin. We shall continue to learn in the future as in the past. We are better able to make creeds to-day than were any men in any past day. We know more history, more archeology, more philology, and more theology than any of our predeces- [ 6 ] Zbciv iPrtnciplCt progreggt iproapect sors knew. There is also a much more charitable, fra- ternal, and Christly spirit among theological thinkers to-day than there was in past centuries. Progressive thinkers cannot be tethered to the gravestones of dead theologians. The, New Testament adapts itself to the progress of modern thought, as human creeds do not. The word of God is the contemporary of all ages; rightly inter- preted, it is always in harmony with truth, from what- ever quarter truth comes. Baptists^^therefore, stand for the New Testament rather than for creeds made by man. Baptists are independent thinkers; they are not alarmed by theological adjectives. They want the truth, let it come as it may. If Baptists were to adopt human creeds, what creeds would they select as authoritative? Three creeds are usually considered as ecumenical. Let us look at these creeds, and also at the West- minster Confession. There is space only to describe them with the utmost brevity. In my book entitled *' Current Questions for Thinking Men," the historical creeds are discussed at length. The Apostles' Creed The so-called Apostles' Creed, or Symbohtm Apos- tolicum, is an early summary of the Christian faith, with most of whose statements we are heartily agreed. We fully appreciate the high praise which Augustine [ 7 ] Zbc Baptiete gives it, when he says regarding it, '' Regula iidei hrevis et grandis; hrevis nuniero verhorum, grandis pondere sententiarumf It is to be highly esteemed as a compendium of doctrine for its intrinsic worth, and for the veneration in which it has been so long and so deservedly held by many bodies of Christians. One can fully agree with Doctor Schafif when he speaks of its sublime simplicity, unsurpassable brevity, and liturgical solemnity. We object, however, to its title. It is not, in any natural sense of the word, the Apostles' Creed; it never ought to have been called by this name. The apostles never saw the creed to which their name is attached; they never heard of it, and perhaps would not be willing to indorse it in all its parts as we now have it. It may be said that the title is now used with the understanding that this creed is simply a truthful compend of apostolic doctrine ; that it sets forth apos- tolic principles of faith in God and in his revelation. But the title was intended to convey quite a different meaning. The Roman Church still affirms that its clauses were actually contributed by the apostles. This church professes to settle, on the authority of a sermon by one Augustine — certainly not the great Augustine, a sermon which is now known to be spu- rious — the clauses contributed by the different apos- tles. Thus it affirms : Petrtis dixit, '^ Credo in Dcuin Patrem omnipotentem." Joannes dixit: " Creatorem [ 8 ] ICbeir principle, proQteee, B>ro0pect coeli et terraef' Jacobus dixit ^ etc. This supposed authority also gives the clauses which, it is claimed, the other apostles contributed. To the historical com- piler and traditionalist, Rufinus, of the fourth century, we are indebted for the accounts of this tradition. But no careful historic student attaches importance to-day to this testimony of Rufinus. His statement is that the apostles, before going out on a missionary tour, met in Jerusalem, and composed this compend of doctrines which they should preach. But we know that neither the Evangelist Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, nor any ecclesiastical writer, until a much later date than that claimed for this creed, makes mention of any assembly for the purpose of adopting a creed. We also know that none of the Fathers of the first three centuries, although often engaged in disputes with various heretics, ever endeavored to support their doc- trines by referring to a creed prepared and promulgated by the apostles. Not one of these Fathers ever pre- tended that the apostles composed this creed. The clause, " He descended into hell," is one whose origin is involved in great doubt, and whose teachings are not accepted by many devout believers and profound scholars. This clause was doubtless a later interpola- tion, when various errors crept into the church. It was not in the earlier forms of this creed ; neither was the phrase, " The communion of saints." We know that an alternative form is suggested regarding the [ 9 ] Zhc Bapti0t0 descent into hell, and if that form were universally adoped fewer criticisms would be pronounced upon this ancient and confessedly beautiful compend of doc- trine. But it would be much better to omit this ob- jectionable clause. It adds nothing valuable to the thoughts expressed by the associated clauses. It is quite unnecessary — especially as the Scripture is doubtful on the point — to affirm where our Lord was between his crucifixion and resurrection. The last apostle was hundreds of years in heaven before this creed, in its present form, w^s promulgated. This creed was not admitted at an early age into the liturgy. It first appeared in public worship in the Greek Church of Antioch. It was not introduced generally into the Roman Church until the eleventh century, and from that church it passed into the Church of England at the Reformation. The Nicene Creed To the Nicene Creed, or, including a later addition, Symbolum Niceno-Constantinopolitanum, more se- rious objection may be offered. This creed sprang out of the conflict, which began as early as the second century, regarding the character of Christ. At the later council at Constantinople, the article on the di- vinity of the Spirit was added. The words, " and from the Son," in Latin, '' £lioque/' were added at Toledo in 589. This phrase has proved a prolific source [ 10 ] Itbeir principle^ proQreeet Iproepect of controversy. The circumstances attending the origin of this creed tend greatly to lessen the authority of its statements. In the council held, in 325, at Nicsea in Bithynia — this place is now a Turkish village, of fifteen hundred population, and is called Isnik — sum- moned by Constantine, there were three distinct par- ties : the Athanasian, the Eusebian, and the Arian.^ The Arian, or heretical party, was comparatively few in numbers ; and Arius, being only a presbyter, had prop- erly no seat in the conclave but was present by com- mand of Constantine. The direct influence of the Arian party was not great at any time in the council, but its indirect influence, through the Eusebian or mid- dle party, was marked at every stage of the discussion. For a time this middle party was able to hold the or- thodox, or Athanasian party, with a firm grasp. The chief purpose of Constantine in calling this council was to establish throughout his dominions unity in forms of faith and worship. We all admit that there was much that was grand and imposing in the Nicene Council. But we know 1 There were at this time about eighteen hundred bishops in the empire ; of this number, three hundred and eighteen, besides presbyters and acolytes, were present. Hosius, of Cordova, was the ablest of the eight bishops from the West. Sylvester, | Bishop of Rome, was unable to be present because of the infirmities of age ; he was represented by two presbyters. It was really an Eastern council. The creed was written in Greek. Its atmosphere was Oriental. It is still recited by the Russian emperor at his coronation. The first place in rank, though not in intellectual power, was given to the aged Bishop of Alexandria. He, alone, was named "Papa," or Pope. History then knew nothing of the phrase, "Pope of Rome," but Pope of Alexandria was a familiar title. [ II ] ^beBaptiete also that at times this council conducted itself in a manner altogether unbecoming a solemn assembly of Christian men, met for a high and holy purpose. Drafts of creeds were torn in pieces by the excited as- sembly, and the '' Lord of misrule " reigned occa- sionally with uninterrupted sway. The council was at times more like a ward caucus of average politicians than like a body of grave and reverent men. Even the presence of soldiers as police officers could not pre- vent shameful outbreaks. The Nicene Creed did not settle the contradictory opinions in the church at that time. Especially was the doctrine of the person of Christ immediately disputed by the Arians, the semi-Arians, and the Eusebians. The Athanasian Creed The so-called Athanasian Creed, or the '' Symbolum Quicunque/' as it is often called, is known as one of the three great creeds of the church ; but no intelligent student now supposes that it was prepared by Athana- sius, the famous father of the fourth century, whose name it bears. He himself nowhere mentions it in any of the older manuscripts of his works ; neither do any of his contemporaries or writers immediately follow- ing him. A careful examination of its contents shows that it could not have been written by him, as it omits points which were vital in his time. It was written in Latin as its original language, and Athanasius wrote [ 12 ] ICbeir principle, progreae, proepect in Greek. It was unknown in the Greek Church until about the year looo. The Greek Church rejected it because it teaches the double procession of the Spirit. As it is rejected by this church it ought not to be called ecumenical. We do not know who was its author; probably its authorship will never be known. It has been attributed to many countries and writers, but no authoritative statement can be made. Promi- nent men of the Church of England, while adopting the creed as a w^hole, strongly disapprove of its " damna- tory clauses." These clauses are quite shocking in their severity and assumption; indeed, they are little less than blasphemous. It is difficult to conceive how uninspired men dare so pronounce condemnation upon their fellow-men. Rather than be obliged to recite such a creed, affirming that every one who does not keep whole and undefiled all the tenets of this creed, shall, without doubt, perish everlastingly, many ex- cellent Christian men would become open infidels; indeed, the tendency of such creeds is to multiply un- believers. The thirteen special days on which this creed is appointed to be recited in the Anglican Church are called *' damnation days." It has been facetiously called " The Anathemasian Creed." The points of dispute at that time between the Atha- nasians and the Arians do not occur in this creed ; this is an omission utterly inexplicable, were the creed com- posed by Athanasius. Its style, as already suggested, [ 13 ] Z\)c Bapti0t6 is that of a Latin and not of a Greek writer. To give it the title " Athanasian " is a pious fraud. To name this creed after Athanasius clearly shows a purpose to deceive; this purpose is in line with that which led to the " False Decretals " and the " Donation of Con- stantine." This creed is left out of the service of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America. Our Episcopal friends are to be congratulated on this omission. The Conven- tion of 1785 expunged both the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds from the proposed Book of Common Prayer; but the bishops of the Anglican Church refused to con- secrate the American bishops unless both creeds were retained. In October, 1786, another convention was held in Wilmington, Del. At this convention the Ni- cene Creed was admitted, but the Athanasian Creed was rejected. Bishop White informs us, that had the Athanasian Creed been retained he would never read it in his church. Many men in the Church of Eng- land would gladly omit this creed if they dared. It is known that rectors who do not believe it, but are obliged to recite it, in some cases simply mumble it. Such a procedure is both laughable and pitiable. Later Creeds There is not time to discuss the Lutheran, the Cal- vinistic or Reformed, nor the Anglican, or Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, nor many other [ 14 ] gbetr iPrtnctplCt progregg, progpect Confessions which came into being in connection with the period of the Reformation. The Westminster Con- fession, however, is worthy of special mention. It was the result of the great Puritan excitements of the seventeenth century. The Long Parliament, in 1640, set itself to consider the question of the reformation of religion. On November 23, 1641, '' The Famous Remonstrance," suggesting the calling of a synod to settle the peace and good government of the church was passed. Out of this proposal came the West- minster Assembly. The ordinance summoning it was issued June 12, 1643. Among the notable divines participating in these great deliberations were Ruther- ford, Gillespie, Henderson, Lightfoot, Coleman, and Selden. The sittings began in 1643 ^^^ continued until Feb- ruary 22, 1649; ^^^ during this period of nearly six years there were one thousand one hundred and sixty- three sessions. In 1643 ^^e Assembly, through the influence of Doctor Lightfoot, voted, by a majority of one, against giving the choice as between baptism or rantism — baptism being immersion and rantism sprink- ling ; and, in the year following, Parliament sanctioned their decision and decreed that s prinkling should be_ legal baptisjTi. The Westminster Confession is re- tlnarkabie for its rhetorical skill, for its scholarly breadth, and for its Christian devotion. Our Presby- terian brethren, in my judgment, ought not to attempt [ 15 ] Z\)c Bapti9t0 a revision of this historic Confession; it ought to be left intact as a monument of theological thought in its day. Let the Presbyterian Church, if it must have a Confession, make a new one, and not attempt to re- model this historic document. It is interesting to note that it was a human parliament and not the word oL God which was, in this case, the ultimate authority re- garding baptism. Baptists find it easier to interpret the New Testa- ment, on which creeds are supposed to be founded, than to interpret the creeds. Creeds do not conserve ortho- doxy. The two Churches which have recently had most painful trials for heresy are Churches with long and supposedly strong creeds. ^ Baptists, without a creed in_the technical sense of the term, are more nearly a unit in faith and practice than any denomina- tion in our country to-day. Baptists thus believe that Holy Scripture is the supreme authority in religious faith and practice. Some denominations, as we have seen, regard creeds and councils as infallible standards. Baptists care nothing for the authority of " the Fathers," unless their teaching agrees with Scripture; past fathers and grandfathers, Baptists go to the apos- tles and to Christ. The best campaign document of the Baptists is the Bible — the most widely circulated and the most authoritative book in the world. Because Baptists accept the word of God as their rule of faith, theyjreJ££t^Q-c ailed infant baptism. It is [ i6 ] Z\)civ principle, iProQteee, proepect here boldly affirmed that there is not in the New Testa- ment a single command for, or example of, infant baptism. If there were even one it could be found. So-called infant baptism is purely a human appoint- ment. This statement is fully supported by learned commentators, church historians, and many other scholars, although they are not Baptists, but who ^^^ speak as scholars rather than as churchmen. Doctor Wall, of the English Church, who wrote the " History of Infant Baptism," says : " Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infants." .Luther says: " It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles." Neander, the great church historian, says : " We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution." Professor Lobegott Lange says : " All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age and to the fundamental principles of the New Tes- tament." He was professor at Jena for many years; he is a voluminous author, having written more than a dozen books ; two of his books are entitled, " History of Protestantism " and " Infant Baptism." Doctor Hanna, author of a life of Christ, says : " Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants." This quo- tation is from his article in the " North British Re- [ 17 ] Zt)c Bapti0t0 view," May, 1852. A great number of other writers from the ranks, of scholars and divines have borne similar testimony, which could be cited to the same effect. But, on this specific point, let these authorities suffice. We know how and when infant baptism arose. Into the church, at an early date, crept the deadly error of baptismal regeneration; it was believed that, if chil- dren were not baptized, they would be lost; it was be- lieved that baptism had a sanctifying, a saving power ; that 'by baptism sins were actually washed away, and the soul by it was fitted for heaven. Thus the sick were thought to be prepared for death, and salvation secured by its efficacy. Anxious parents, therefore, desired their children to receive baptism to secure them against the perils of perdition. Such was the error of a superstitious age. Hence arose infant baptism, as one of the many perversions which early corrupted the doctrines and ordinances of Christianity. Jnfant baptism is not a beautiful ceremony; it is rather the historical embodiment of a repellent super- stition. The whole meaning of the ceremony is that, unless certain drops of water are sprinkled on the babe's brow, that guiltless little creature if it should die would go down to the darkness of eternal despair. This is a superstition akin to that of " extreme unc- tion " — the one rite applied to unconscious babes, the other often to unconscious men and women. Such [ 18 ] JLbciv principle, progreea, Biroepect superstitions naturally drive thoughtful men into in- fidelity. Who dares, even in symbol, teach so horrible a doctrine as the damnation of non-elect and unbap- tized babes? How can a few drops of water, or an ocean, change the child's relations to God? In any case, the child has no more penal sin, no more per- sonal guilt than a rose or a snowflake. The mere statement of such a doctrine ought to end it. Th e doc trine that all dying in infancy are saved was first taught by the Baptists. ThexJield that not only an adult believer would be saved, though he died without baptism, but that all dying in infancy were saved. This doctrine continually appears in the charges against Baptists who were put to death for their faith. For instance, Henry Craut, Justus Mueller, and John Peis- ker were beheaded at Jena, in 1536, not by Roman Catholics, but by their Protestant brethren, the Luther- ans. Among their announced views was the doctrine that " all infants, even those of Turks, Gentiles, and Hebrews are saved without baptism." The first time this doctrine appears in a non-Baptist creed it is men- tioned only to be condemned. The Augsburg Confes- sion, of 1530, says: '^ Damnant Anahaptistas , qui im- probant baptismum puerorum et aMrmant pueros sine baptism salvos fieri " — " They (the churches putting forth this creed) condemn the Anabaptists (a nickname of the Baptists) who reject the baptism of children, and declare that children are saved without baptism." [ 19 ] ?i;beBapti6t0 I again unhesitatingly assert that there is not in the New Testament a single command for or example of infant baptism. If there were it could easily be found ; but no one has yet made this discovery. How can men who adopt the famous dictum of Chillingworth, " The Bible, and the Bible only, the religion of Protestants," practise infant baptism? In so doing, they at once depart from their fundamental principle; they cannot successfully antagonize the " churchianity " and tradi- tionalism of the Church of Rome. If infants have a right to baptism, have they not also a right to com- 1 munion? They certainly are as worthy to receive the j Lord's Supper as the Lord's baptism. In the works of Cyprian, we read of the placing of the sacramental bread in the toothless mouths of babes. This is still the practice in the Greek Church, as I observed in Russia. Those who practise infant baptism are il- logical in refusing communion to babes. There is no Scripture authority in either case. I have already shown how the idea that children dying without baptism would be lost led to the origin of the practice. The idea that baptism was necessary to salvation led also to the substitution of rantism, sprinkling, or affusion, pouring, for baptism. It was because there had arisen in the church this supersti- tious idea that water baptism was necessary to salva- tion. When, therefore, a man was converted on a dying bed, or in prison, when baptism was perhaps out [ 20 ] ICbcir principle, prosreaet proepect of the question, affusion, pouring, or rantism, sprink- ling, was resorted to as a substitute for baptism. These were not considered regular baptisms, but were by some deemed allowable substitutes when the pre- scribed act was out of the question. Pouring and sprinkling were at first used only in cases of necessity ; but their superior convenience led to their being em- ployed more and more, till, in the course of ages they, in Western Europe, largely supplanted baptism. In the Greek Church, however, immersion, baptism, is still preserved. It continued the ordinary baptism of the church for thirteen hundred years, as Dean Stanley has affirmed. It was the practice in England down to the reign of Elizabeth. The Anglican prayer book still directs that the priest, naming the child, " shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily " ; adding, however, that if the parents " shall certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." No " priest " of the Church of England has any right to this day to sprinkle or pour water upon a babe, unless the parents certify to its delicate health; it would seem as if the great majority of children in that Church are in feeble physical condition. The rubric of the Protestant Epis- copal Church, in the United States of America, directs that the minister " shall dip it in the water discreetly, or shall pour water upon it," not positively prescrib- ing immersion, but giving it the preference of a prior mention. The late Doctor Ewer, of New York, al- [ 21 ] ^be Bapti0t6 ways baptized the babes ; he would not practise pouring or sprinkling. The same is true of other clergymen of the Episcopal Church, who are advocating a return to the proper act of baptism. Baptists hold that only intelligent believers, and not unconscious babes, are, according to the New Testa- ment, proper subjects of baptism; they also hold that only immersion, and not sprinkling or pouring, is bap- tism. They affirm that this is the teaching of the New Testament as interpreted by unlettered Christians, and that it is also the teaching of the best scholarship of all centuries and countries. On no one point of learning is the scholarship of the world so nearly a unit. It would be easy to occupy all the time properly given to this address in quotations from learned authors of all churches, centuries, and countries in support of the Baptist position. A few authorities may suffice for this occasion. Chrysostom, A. D. 398, says : " To be baptized and plunged in the water, and then to emerge or rise again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave and our ascent out of it." Luther says : " The term ' baptism ' is Greek ; in Latin it may be translated ' im- mersion,' since we immerse anything into the water, that the whole may be covered with water." Melanch- thon says : " Baptism is * immersion ' into water, which is made with this admirable benediction." Cal- vin says : " The word baptize signifies to ' immerse ' ; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the [ 22 ] JTbeir principle, Iprogree^, iproapect ancient church." Turretin says : " The word baptism is of Greek origin, which signifies to baptize, to dip into, to ' immerse.' " John Wesley says : " Buried with Him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Roman, and other theologians so constantly add their testimony, that one is embarrassed by the richness of the material available. These authorities are not Baptists; they give their testimony not as denominationalists, but as scholars. *' We cannot deny that the first institution of bap- tism considered it immersion and not sprinkling " (Keckerman, German Presbyterian). " Immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the words hap- tizo, haptisma, and haptismos, used to designate "the rite" (Dr. Philip Schaff, in "Hist. Apos. Ch.," p. 568). Doctor Schaff was a professor in the Union Theologi- cal Seminary, Xew York. Doctor Paine, professor of church history in Bangor (Maine) Seminary (Congre- gationalist), on being arraigned by some of his less- informed brethren, for admitting that the primitive baptism was immersion, said: "The testimony (for immersion) is simple and decisive. No matter of church history is clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all church historians of any repute agree in ac- cepting it. It is a point on which ancient, medieval, and [ 23 ] Zbc Bapti0t0 modern historians alike, Catholic, Protestant, Luther- an, and Calvinistic have no controversy." Dean Stan- ley says : " There can be no question that the original form of baptism — the very meaning of the word — was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters." He also speaks, as already intimated, of immersion as " the primitive, apostolical, and, until the thirteenth century, the universal mode of baptism, which is still retained throughout the Eastern churches, and which is still in our own church (the Church of England) as positively enjoined in theory as it is universally neg- lected in practice." He also adds that, " The change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism." Doctor Schaff, in addition to the quotation already made from him, says : " The baptism of Christ in the Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the New Testament, are all in favor of immersion, rather than of sprinkling, as is freely admitted by the best exegetes. Catholics and Protestants, English and Ger- man." Prof. George P. Fisher, of the Yale Divinity School, speaks with equal explicitness, when he says : " Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly administered by immersion." All scholars are agreed that Professor Harnack, of Ber- lin, is one of the most brilliant, as he is one of the latest and most authoritative investigators of early church history; these are his recent words : " ' Baptize in ' un- [ 24 ] XTbeir principle, prosreee, iproepect doubtedly signifies immersion. No proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the New Testament, and in the most ancient Christian literature." Here is what some Catholic authorities say, among them the great Bishop Bossuet, of France : "It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reformation, although some will cavil at it, that baptism was instituted by immersing the whole body into water; that Jesus Christ received it so, and caused it to be so given by his apostles ; that the Scripture knows no other baptism than this ; that antiquity so understood and practised it ; that the word itself implies it, to baptize being the same as to dip ; this fact, I say, is unanimously acknowledged by all the divines of the Reformation, nay, by the Reformers themselves, and those even who best un- derstood the Greek language and the ancient customs, as well of the Jews as Christians; by Luther, by Me- lanchthon, by Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, by all the rest, and lately even by Jurien, the most contra- dictory of all ministers. Nay, Luther has observed that the German word signifying baptism was derived from, and this sacrament is named, '"'' Tanf" from profundity or depth, because the baptized were deeply plunged into the water" (''Varia. Protest," Vol. II, p. 370)- Doctor Dollinger, the distinguished Roman Catholic historian and theologian, said : " At first Christian bap- tism commonly took place in the Jordan ; of course, as [ 25 ] ^beJ6apti0t0 the church spread more widely, also in private houses. Like that of St. John, it was by immersion of the whole person, which is the only meaning of the New Testa- ment word. A mere pouring or sprinkling was never thought of" ("First Age of Christ and Church," p. 318). He also says in his Church History, Vol. H, p. 294 : " Baptism by immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the church as late as the four- teenth century." Cardinal Gibbons, the foremost Roman Catholic in the United States, says : " For several centuries after, the establishment of Christianity, baptism was usually conferred by immersion, but since the twelfth century the practice of baptism by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion" (''Faith of Our Fathers," p. 275). Baptism, as truly as the Lord's Supper, is a teaching, ordinance. It declares, in a pictorial act, the believer's spiritual death, burial, and resurrection. In this re- spect it is a creed in act. The candidate for baptism standing beside the baptistery not only utters his " Credo " in word, but still more significantly he ex- presses it in act. Luther caught this idea when he said : " Baptism is a sign both of death and resurrec- tion. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word means and the mystery signifies." So [ 26 ] ^beir principle, progreea, proapect great a scholar and noble a man as Lightfoot, the late Bishop of Durham, also caught the true idea of bap- tism when he said : " Baptism is the grave of the old man and the birth of the new; an image of the be- liever's participation both in the death and in the resur- rection of Christ. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters the believer buries there all his corrupt affec- tions and past sins; as he emerges thence he rises re- generate, quickened to new hopes and a new life." Baptism is also prophetic of a believer's physical death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism, however, means more than simply the death, burial, and resur- rection of a believer ; the most important thing taught by baptism is Christ's own death for our sins and his resurrection for our justification. We know that the Greek language is one of the most philosophic and accurate of all languages; it is rich in terms for the expression of various shades of thought. We may well believe that Christ and his apostles chose from the rich treasury of the Greek lan- guage the words which would most adequately convey their exact thought to the minds of men. It was not the divine intention that the New Testament should be an ejiigmatical book. Why then did the apostles and the Lord use always and only that one word, *''' haptizo," to describe the act of baptism ? This word is found eighty times in the New Testament, and no other word is ever used to designate the ordinance of [ 27 ] G;be3Bapti0t0 baptism. It is a derivative of hapto. Bapto is found three times in the New Testament. It also means " to dip." Why then is it not used to describe baptism? Because it has other meanings, and if it were used the form of the ordinance would be open to misunder- standing. The Greek has the word, loiio six times, meaning to wash and to bathe ; but this word is never applied to the ordinance of baptism. Nipto is also found seventeen times, meaning to wash parts of the body; but this word is never used in commanding or describing baptism. Breko is found seven times, and means " to wet, to moisten," but is never used to designate the ordinance of baptism. The New Testament also has the word rantizo, which is used four times, and means " to sprinkle " ; but this word is never employed to describe baptism, for the sim- ple reason that sprinkling is not baptism. A word meaning " to pour " is also found in various combi- nations; but it is never used to describe baptism, be- cause pouring is not baptism. There is also the word katharizo, a word meaning '^ to purify," but it is never used to signify the act of baptism. Why is it that these inspired writers select always and only the word which, according to the consensus of scholars of all ages and creeds, means " to dip or immerse," except that the act which they commanded or described was a dipping or an immersion and nothing else ? It is not too much to say that, if Christ and the apostles had wished to [ 28 ] JLbciv principle, progreee, proepect teach the ideas of baptism now held by Baptists, and with all the resources of inspired wisdom and of the wondrously philosophic and accurate Greek lan- guage at their command, they would have used exactly the words which they did use, and which are now found on the pages of the New Testament. It may safely be said that if God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, according to our present knowledge of the lan- guages of the world, had intended to teach the ideas of baptism now held by Baptists, they could not have used words which would make their meaning plainer than the language which they employed. If they did not wish to teach the Baptist idea of this ordinance, then they have employed language which, with rever- ence be it said, has misled the scholars of the world in all ages of church history. But they did not mislead the scholarship of the world; they did intend to teach that baptism is immersion and nothing else, and that pouring and sprinkling are not baptism, but a human substitute for a divine ordinance. We ought never to say '^baptism by immersion"; so to speak is to say baptism by baptism. This is unforgivable , tautology. We ought never to say " baptism by sprinkling " ; so to speak is to utter an unpardonable contradiction. It is saying baptism by rantism. How dare men and women make light of an ordi- nance so sacred as baptism? The only time in the en- tire New Testam ent when, according to the record, all [ 29 ] ^bcBaptists i-y,. the persons of the Holy Trinity were audibly or visibly present was at the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The presence of the Father was shown by his audible voice, the presence of the Son was seen in his human form, and the presence of the Holy Spirit was indicated by the coming of the dove. God the Father expressed his approval of the obedience of God the Son when he said, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Baptists are sometimes criticized because, it is said, they are sticklers for a mode of baptism. This is an utterly inaccurate statement of the case. Baptists care comparatively little about the mode of baptism. Per- sons may be baptized forward or backward ; they may kneel and be baptized, or they may stoop and be bap- tized. All these modes are practised in different churches, and to some degree also in the Greek Church. Most Baptists, however, think that the symbol of burial and resurrection is best illustrated by having the candidate baptized backward; but the mode is a mat- ter of comparatively little importance. What Baptists contend for is baptism and not something else, such as pouring, affusion, or sprinkling, rantism, or any other human substitute for the divinely significant and pro- foundly instructive ordinance of baptism. They rightly attach great importance to its signifi- cant symbolism. There is no ordinance in the Chris- tian church so spiritually symbolic as baptism. It most [ 30 ] ^beir principle, prosreee, proepect suggestively and tenderly sets forth the idea of death, burial, and resurrection. The old man is dead, and so is buried; but there has come a new life in Christ, and so the new man arises, as the Apostle Paul has taught us, to walk in newness of life. It is a thousand pities that so many of God's dear people rob themselves, by their failure to obey Christ's command, of the touchingly tender and profoundly spiritual lessons which the or- dinance is designed to teach. Because with Baptists the New Testament is the only rule of faith and prac; tice, tl;ey„..h£).lii-..that faith must_preqede..baptisjii; jtJaaJL, only believers are the subjects of baptism; and that the church consists of a regenerated membership. Bap- tjsts do not believe that baptism is essential to salva^ tion, but they believe that salvation is essential to baptism. They hold that the thief on the cross was saved without baptism. The circumstances of the case made obedience to the command impossible, therefore the act was not obligatory upon him. It is urged that baptism is only a form. Yes; and so a flag is only a form, merely a piece of bunting, and yet men will die for ifj ^ The United States flag is a symbol of the Union, since it has a star for every State. When the great conflict arose, in 1861, it was seen in a moment that if disunion came the flag would have to be changed. The contest, therefore, took the shape as to whether the old flag should be retained. When the " Star-spangled Banner " was sung, when [ 31 ] i ^be Bapti0t6 the Stars and Stripes were unfurled to the breeze, it meant that there was to be no change in that flag. That great four years' war was a war over a flag; to save the flag meant to save the Union. If the flag had been the French tri-color, or the Swiss cross, which could have been retained after the nation was divided, it would have been different. But the fact that if dis- union came the flag would have to be changed, made the soldier " fight for the flag " and " stand for the flag " with tenfold earnestness. Perhaps it would not be too much to say that the flag saved the nation. The flag, though a " mere form," had a marvelous power, for it told the whole story of loyalty, of patriotism, and of heroic consecration. And so the baptismal burial in water, though a mere ceremony, sets forth so strikingly the great central truth of Christianity, the truth that eternal life comes through the death and resurrection of Christ, that Baptists, in preserving that symbol, are doing an es- sential service to the church and the world. Separation of Church and State Baptists stand for the entire separation of Church and State. This is now an American doctrine; gjjce it was exclusively a Baptist doctrine. The right of soul liberty, the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Baptists have always main- tained. With them the Bible is the " magna charta " of [ 32 ] ^bcir iprinciple, proQreee, prospect the soul, the source of civil and religious liberty, and the guide of the individual conscience. The Baptists preceded others in declaring the true relations of the civil and ecclesiastical bodies, not because they were superior to other Christians in their understanding of civil principles, but because they held an ecclesiastical tenet which was correct where others were in error. The condemnation of the use of force in religion was originally a Baptist peculiarity. Down to a compara- tively late date, if a man said that the civil magistrate should not interfere in strictly religious matters, it was known that he was a Baptist. But this doctrine has now extended to all churches in our land, and it is rapidly becoming the doctrine of all Christian coun- tries. Baptists have had in this respect a noble mis- sion, and right nobly have they borne its burdens and discharged its obligations. Our Baptist fathers witnessed to these truths on the rack and at the stake. We have given many of our noblest souls as martyrs to the cause of civil and re- ligious liberty. We have stained the snows of . Al- pine peaks, and we have enriched the soil in Alpine valleys with Baptist blood. Our martyrs have given their testimonies by giving their lives in old England, and by many forms of suffering in New England. (^^^^^ ^- They have been imprisoned in Virginia and in other States, and evermore the blood of the martyrs has been the seed of the church. It was not uncommon in [ 33 ] ZTbeBaptieta Virginia when Baptists were observing the ordinance of baptism, that efforts were made not only to throw ridicule on the divine ordinance, but to drown those who were thus obedient to Christ. We do not forget the brave Ireland and the Culpeper jail in Virginia. His preaching through the bars of that jail resulted in the conversion of many souls, and when the jail was torn down a Baptist church was erected on its ruins. We do not forget the persecutions endured by John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, and James Crandall, because of their advocacy of the doctrine of religious liberty and their persistent denial of infant baptism as scrip- tural. They were arrested on the Lord's Day, July 2, 1657, at the house of William Witter, in the town of Lynn, Mass. William Witter as early as 1643 ^^^^ renounced infant baptism. When Clarke stood at the whipping-post, almost under the shadow of the State House in Boston, having refused to pay his fine of twenty pounds, we are told that some kind-hearted person interfered and bought his release with a sum of money ; also the fine of five pounds was paid for James Crandall, and he was set free; but Obadiah Holmes, a man of broad learning and invincible will, upon the refusal to pay his fine of thirty pounds, was so cruelly whipped, thirty stripes being given him, that for weeks, according to Governor Jenks, he was unable to have rest in his bed except upon his knees and elbows. On [ 34 ] Z\)c\v principle, pro9re00, iproepect asking, "What law of God or men he (Clarke) had broken ? " Governor Endicott replied : " You have de- nied infant baptism and deserve death." Henry Duns- ter, the first president of Harvard, rejected infant bap- tism and preached against it at Cambridge, 1653, " to the great alarm of the whole community." He was arraigned for refusing to have his child baptized. His opposition to infant baptism virtually drove him from his position as president of the college. Infant baptism is the prolifi c mother of many of the Sa- tanic persecutions which have dishonored the church through the ages. Persecution of those who so deny is the natural result of the belief which led to the practice of infant baptism. We again affirm that it is a practice contrary to Scripture, even as interpreted by non-Baptist scholars, and also to the sound reason of all intelligent men who are not prejudiced by early training and one-sided education. The world will never forget Roger Williams, the founder of the State of Rhode Island, and his heroic avowal of civil and religious liberty. When the first Continental Congress met, in 1774, the first petition was for religious liberty, presented by a commit- tee from Warren Baptist Association of Rhode Is- land. As a result, we have in our Constitution the words, " No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any ofiice or public trust under the United States." The first amendment, guaranteeing L [ 35 ] ^beffiaptiete religious liberty, was also the work of Baptists. John Locke said, " The Baptists were the first propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and im- partial liberty." Chief Justice Story, speaking of the Rhode Island Baptists, said, " In the code of laws es- tablished by them in Rhode Island, we read for the first time since Constantine ascended the throne of the Caesars, the declaration that conscience should be free, and men should not be punished for worshiping God in the way they were persuaded he requires." It is a well-known historical fact that the charter obtained by Roger Williams, the Baptist, for his Rhode Island colony, was the first legal declaration of liberty of conscience ever adopted in Europe or America. Bancroft says of Roger Williams : " He was the first person in Christendom to assert the doctrine of liberty of conscience in religion. . . Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of the Baptists." John Fiske, referring to the views of Roger Williams, uses these words : " Such views are to-day quite generally adopted by the more civilized portions of the Protestant world; but it is needless to say that they were not the views of the seventeenth century in Massachusetts or elsewhere." Leonard Bacon says of Baptist churches : " It has been claimed for these churches that, from the age of the Reformation, they have been always foremost and consistent in maintaining the truth of religious liberty. [ 36 ] Zbcix principle, progrees, prospect Let me not be understood as calling in question the right to so great an honor." In order to maintain these doctrines thousands of Baptists were hanged, drawn, or burned at the stake. They have often given such testimony as that of Trewoort, the Fleming, who, in England in 1575, said of Baptists: "They who have the only true gospel doctrine and faith will persecute no one, but will themselves be persecuted." In the case of Baptists it is certainly true that the blood of the martyrs has been the seed of the church. Absolute liberty of conscience has always been a distinctive tenet of Baptists. In Switzerland, when Zwingli, following the example of Luther, turned from the simple faith of the New Testament and subjected the church to the stake, the Baptists in 1527 published the first Confession in which Christian men claimed absolute freedom for themselves and granted the same to all others. In England, in 16 14, John Smyth gave the first English Declaration of Faith in which com- plete separation of Church and State is proclaimed as the law of Christ; and in Rhode Island, in the year 1636, Roger Williams, as has already been suggested, instituted the first government on earth on the princi- ple of absolute freedom of belief and practice not in- consistent with good order and morals. Baptists were thus the first to announce the principle of religious liberty in Switzerland, in England, and in America. It is difficult for us to realize to-day that Hezekiah Smith [ 37 ] ^beBaptiete was " warned off from God's earth " by the sheriff of Haverhill, Mass., and that thousands more men and women, of whom the world was not worthy, have suf- fered various forms of persecution, both in old Eng- land and in New England. Thank God, Baptists have never persecuted! If they would persecute, they would so violate one of their chief tenets as to cease at once to be Baptists. The Baptist idea is that baptism does not make a man a Christian; baptism is administered not to make persons Christians, but because they already are Chris- tians. This idea makes the church consist not of citi- zens, but only of a separated number of those who give evidence of divine regeneration. The divorce between Church and State was not merely a lucky thought of certain Baptist philosophers ; it was the logical outcome of distinctive Baptist principles drawn from the New Testament. Personal Access to God Baptists have ever taught that the individual soul can directly approach God zmthout the intervention of church rites, ceremonies, or priests. This is the dis- tinctive characteristic of true Protestantism; it is par excellence the teaching of Baptists. They have ever taught that each soul has the right of personal access to God. Baptists hold to the priesthood of the in- dividual believer. They emphasize his sole respon- [ 38 ] Zbcix principle, iprosreae, Iptoepcct sibility to Christ. They affirm the right of every mem- ber to interpret Scripture for himself. They teach the truth that the church consists of a regenerated mem- bership. This truth, rather than baptism, is a funda- mental tenet of the Baptist faith. Baptists thus admit to church-membership only those who give creditable evidence of being truly converted and baptized accord- ing to the command and example of Christ. Baptist Progress Our growth has been truly wonderful. When Wash- ington was inaugurated the population of the thirteen States which composed the Union was 3,750,000. At that time the whole number of Baptists was 50,000; then, as now, the larger number was in the South. To-day the number of Baptists is 5,266,369. There was a net gain during 1909 of 151,192. It will be most instructive to show the proportion of Baptists to the population at different periods in our history as a nation and as a denomination: In 1794 there was one Baptist to ninety-four of the population. In 1812 there was one Baptist to forty-two of the population. In 1840 there was one Baptist to thirty of the population. In 1880 there was one Baptist to twenty-three of the population. In 1890 there was one Baptist to twenty- one of the population. In 1900 there was one Baptist to nineteen of the population. In 1905 there was one Baptist to eighteen of the population. In 1908 there r 39 ] -/^^ Zl)c Bapti0t6 was one Baptist to seventeen of the population. In 1910 there was one Baptist to sixteen of the population. The following table also is instructive : m in > 1/) Sk ■XI tfl 0. z X z S w X g J * X " X J H Z H 52 u in u U X < S ?5 X < ^i < n ri OS u n s a z Oh Q z > X X z 1895 27,090 37,910 205,857 3,637,421 22,916 1,500,834 S 80,285,034.00 $11,672,691.00 1905 32*244 45,927 240,936 4,600,799 28,966 2,015,672 101,476,882.00 16,823,588.00 1908 34,038 47,409 275,508 4,969,524 32,514 2,241,606 121,870,340.00 22,268,892.00 1909 34,312 48,302 294,388 5,"5,i77 32,815 2,386,000 125,214,095,00 22,813,864.00 I9I0 33,909 49,045 321,403 5,266,369 33.633 2,498,354 133,528,647.00 24,122,911.35 In actual gains for the year 1909, Baptists stand at the head of the list. Seventeen bodies of Methodists reported a gain of 101,696. The Lutheran Church re- ported 65,172; and the Presbyterian Church 49,627. The Disciples of Christ record an increase of 23,365. The total Presbyterian Church, including twelve bodies, is a little less than 2,000,000. The Lutherans were formerly fourth on the Protestant list, but they have now reached the third place, and Presbyterians take the fourth place. The order is : Methodist, Bap- tist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, Epis- copal, Congregational, United Brethren, and Reformed Dutch. The figures of 19 10 do not change the relative numerical position of the denominations. [ 40 ] ^tbeir iprinciple, proQrees, Iproepect In the year 1870 the population of the United States was, in round figures, 38,000,000 ; the number of Bap- tists at that time was 1,500,000. The population of the United States proper to-day is approximately 95,- 000,000, and the total membership of Baptist churches, not including several bodies that are Baptists but are not in full fellowship with us, is 5,266,369. Within a period of forty years — a period selected simply because it chances to be the length of my pastorate — the popu- lation of the country has not trebled by a large num- ber; and during this same period the membership of our Baptist churches has trebled, with three- quarters of a million over. Ours is probably the most rapidly populating country on the globe; and yet the membership of Baptist churches is increas- ing much more rapidly than the population of the country. This growth is the more remarkable, as Baptists re- ceive few members by immigration. From England and the north of Ireland the Episcopal Church re- ceives a very considerable number year by year; the same remark applies to Presbyterians coming from Scotland and the north of Ireland. The Lutherans re- ceive very largely from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. To immigration the Lutheran Church is indebted for its enormous growth of late years, giving it rank, as we have seen, above the Presbyterian Church in numbers. The Roman Church is increased [ 41 ] ZTbeBaptiete by copious streams of immigration from many lands. If these streams were cut off, it is almost certain that the Roman Church would barely hold its own in the United States. One of its most learned priests in New York, in a public address delivered at the close of its recent great celebration, lamented that in the crowds that filled the streets there were so few descendants of the Pilgrims and of the early settlers in North and South Carolina and other States of the Union. He expressed his sorrow that these crowds were made up of foreigners and their immediate descendants, and he urged the people of his church to put forth re- newed efforts to secure converts. In making these statements, this learned and eloquent priest uttered the simple truth. One writer belonging to the Roman Church, a writer of distinguished name in that church, put the loss from that church as high as 17,000,000. Baptists have grown more during the last ten years than either the Episcopal Church or the Congregational Church has grown since each was founded in America. These statements are not made with the slightest feel- ing of unkindness toward these denominations; they are made by me simply as a statistician, after study of official figures. Baptist growth is also symmetrical ; it does not run to extravagant extremes in any direction. We have grown at every point in our denominational life. This is true of missions — State, home, and [42 ] Zbciv principle, progreee, proepect foreign. It is especially marked in our educational work, and it is conspicuously seen in our grand total of contributions, rising from a little over $11,000,000 in 1905, to $24,122,911.35 in 1910. The Baptist Prospect The prospect is bright and glorious. Baptists are in line with the foremost thought in the democracy of the hour. Every member of the Baptist denomination has a right to interpret Christ's law for himself, and to^,^ have a voice in the conduct of the affairs of his church. Baptist church government thus agrees with republi- can civil government. We have already seen that Bap- tists had much to do with shaping our national con- /? stitution. No man had greater influence in framing x/ ^-^^-^^-^ our fundamental law than Thomas Jefferson, and he ^€-^-'' declared that " IJ.e considered Baptist church govern- ment the only form of pure democracy which then existed in the world," and that he "had concluded, ' " eight or ten years before the American Revolution, that it would be the best plan of government for the American colonies." Baptists, as we have seen, more than any other denomination of Christians, have the honor of securing the first amendment to the Constitu- tion, which declares that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The principle of democracy is stirring every throne in Europe; this is the mean- [ 43 ] ^beBapti0t0 ing of the commotion in Russia, in Portugal, in Spain, and even in India. Baptists are the finest ex- ponents of scriptural democracy the world has ever seen. This is a day of devotion to liberty. Baptists have never persecuted, although they have often been persecuted. We have seen that many Puritans had no idea of true religious liberty; they fled from per- secution in old England to inflict persecution in New England. Our prospects are bright educationally. We are reaching out as never before on the lines of broad, varied, and consecrated learning. Our academies, col- leges, and universities multiply in numbers and increase in power. We are making great improvements in our forms of public worship; the barrenness of the past is giving place to an ornate, stately, and scriptural liturgy. We are exalting the standards of political life, and urging our young men to serve God by serving their country as statesmen. Baptists have no creed, in the technical sense of that term; and yet it remains true that there is no denomination in the United States so nearly a unit in faith and practice as the Baptist. Cases of heresy, such as recently shook the Presby- terian and Episcopal Churches from center to circum- V ^ ference, notwithstanding their long and supposedly A Qf^ strong creeds, are an impossibility among us. Our ^ 0"^ polity is as wise practically as it is sound scripturally. The organization of the Northern Baptist Convention [ 44 ] OJ Ebeir principle, progteee, prospect marks an era in our history. The unification of all our great denominational activities will now be assured as never before. The enthusiasm of our people is now aroused as never before. Our loyalty to our Lord as Prophet, Priest, and King was never more marked than it is to-day. Glancing over our long, checkered, brilliant, and consecrated history we see, as already suggested, that the past of the Baptist denomination is triumphant; gazing into the opening years, we see that her future is resplendent. Summary To sum up, I would say that a fundamental principle of the Baptists, and one formerly held by them only, is that a man's salvation depends solely on personal faith in Christ and the resultant change of inward character, and not on baptism and other church ordi- nances. ■ As^a result, they affirm that faith must be personal; that no man can believe for another^no parent for a child; and that, therefore, the church is not made up of '^ believers and their children," except so far as the children are themselves believers. They hold that any other view of the church is without the authority of Scripture or common sense. They ad- minister baptism only to those who profess faith in Christ and give evidence in daily life of having been converted. They administer immersion, the baptism of the apostolic church, the truly catholic" baptism, and [ 45 ] Zi;be3Bapti0t0 when this is impracticable they let the convert die with- out baptism. If I take the Bible only as my guide, I must be a Baptist; if I discard it and take the traditions of men, I could not consistently stop until I had reached Rome. If I were not a Baptist, logically I should have to be a Romanist. The Romanists are perfectly consistent, but unscriptural ; grant their premises and logically you must adopt their conclusions. The Baptists are also consistent and at the same time scriptural; grant the Baptist premise and you must accept the Baptist conclusion. But the Congregationalists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians are not con- sistent. Their position is half-Romanist and half-Bap- tist. They have no logical standing-ground. There are but two consistent and logical positions, one of which is held by the Romanists and the other by Bap- tists. Here, on the word.of .God,. Baptists stand; they are consistent Protestants; they antedate existing de- nominational divisions ; they are truly apostolic. Bap- tism is the catholic and aj)patolic-' ordinance ; rantism is comparatively recent in origin and sectional in prac- tice. Their position is irnpregnable. Historically, Baptists are not Protestants ; doctrinally, they are the most consistent Protestants. While the Bible stands they shall stand, and the " word of our God shall stand forever." If there is ever organic unity, it will begin at the [ 46 ] , , - - ^beir principle, iproisreee, EJroapcct baptistery. Every denomination in Protestant Chris- tendom, and in the entire Roman and Greek Churches, can agree upon baptism, that is immersion, as taught by our Lord and his apostles. The Greek Church, num- bering quite one hundred milhon adherents, has ever been a stout witness on behalf of baptism. The Roman Church accepts it, and all the Protestant churches join hands with these two great bodies. On no substitute for baptism, such as rantism, sprinkling, or affusion, pouring, can all the denominations agree. We are not now arguing a point; we are simply stating an incon- trovertible fact. Do men really want organic Christian union? Are they in earnest when they proclaim this desire? Are they willing to follow Christ into the waters of baptism? Are they willing to join hands with their brethren in all centuries and in all climes? Here is the opportunity ; here is the truly apostolic and catholic ordinance. It is said that when Ptolemy built the Pharos he desired to make his own name immortal, but the archi- tect deemed it unfair that the king's name should en- dure while his own should perish. He therefore cut the king's name in plaster, but deep in the imperishable granite he carved his own name — Sostratus. The waves dashing against the Pharos destroyed the plaster. The king's name disappeared, but the name of Sos- tratus was seen so long as the structure stood. The name of Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, [ 47 ] .*S^be3Sapti0t0 or Baptist, however much we love it now, and how- ever loyal we are to it now, is one day to give place to that name which is above every name. Not our name, but the name of our Lorci and Saviour, our Prophet, Priest, and King, will abide, and amid the light of earth and the increasing glory of eternity one name shall alone be read — Jesus Christ. [ 48 ] ■^^"V LIBRAE' -* n 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. FEBll m^ m Ril-CefVED rCB ^'67-9Pl Jl LOAN DEPT. JULI7I3684 8 ^ECEfVEn JU L g '68 - 2 PM LO AN DCPT. LD21A-60w-7,'66 (G4427sl0)476B General Library University of California Berkeley LIBRARY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. THIS BOOK IS DUE BEFORE CLOSING TIME ON LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW REC'D LD m 7 '66 -10 PM LD 62A-50m-2,'64 (E3494sl0)9412A General Library University of Calif on Berkeley