only, we would cheerfully relinquish our preference for immersion as the more beautiful and expressive rite, and practice sprinkling. Not for a moment would we allow our convenience and preference to weigh in the balances against their conscience and principle; but instantly they should be relinquished, that we might strike hands in fellowship and love upon this question. But while our brethren are in this position to yield without the sacrifice of principle, we are not. Which of us is the more responsible for the separation? By just as much as conscience should be above convenience, as principle should be above preference, by just so much does the respon sibility of the separation not rest upon Baptists.

Fourth. It is objected that Baptists make too much of baptism. It is not a saving ordinance; why make such an ado about it?

If we were disposed to retort, we might say that the charge comes with bad grace from those who practice sprinkling or pouring; since it was the belief that baptism is a saving ordinance that first led to the change in the primitive practice, in such cases as the sick, when baptism was deemed impracticable and dangerous. Yet that they might not die without the regenerating fluid, in such cases sprinkling or pouring was substituted for baptism. Bap. tists have neither unduly exalted nor debased the ordinance of baptism. They keep it just where the Master put it. The same with the Supper. They do

not seek to exalt the Supper above baptism. Both are divine ordinances, and were established by the same lips. The Master placed one at the entrance of the church, the other within the church. No one has the right to run over the one ordinance, baptism, to get to the other, the Table. All the commands of Jesus are full of power, sweetness and beauty. Obedience is the test of love, in small matters as well as great. A command to pick up a pin is as sure a test of love as a command to put out a fire that is burning down a house,-perhaps a surer one. To put out the fire is of so great importance that it would be done without a command; whereas, the command to pick up a pin carries with it no reason for obedience save that it is commanded.

But underlying this question about baptism is one that is not of minor importance, the Headship of Christ. If Christ ordained immersion, have we any right to change it? The Catholic Church says, "Yes; and we have done it." Calvin says on Acts viii. 38: "They went down into the water. Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth sprinkle the body or the head.

* It is certain that we want nothing which maketh to the substance of baptism. Wherefore the church did grant liberty to herself since the beginning to change the rites somewhat excepting the substance." (Edinburg: by Calvin Translation Society,

quoted by Jeter.) But if we claim the right to change what Christ has ordained, where will the matter end? Where has it landed the Catholic Church, which arrogates to herself the right to change the laws of Christ? Look at her to-day and contrast her with the teachings of God's word, and let that be our answer.

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the King in Zion, and among the last words which he caused to be spoken is a curse upon him who should "add to" or "take away from the words of the book." Rather let my hand or tongue be palsied than do or attempt such a thing.

Conclusion. We conclude as we began. Baptists simply ask for themselves the liberty to administer the ordinance of the Lord's House in such a way as their consciences tell them that His Word requires. They ask their fellow Christians of other names to recognize their right to do this, and charge their course to this motive alone, not to prejudice, bigotry, uncharitableness, or an affectation of a superior piety or wisdom. The practice of Close Communion is the logical result of the principles which they have learned from the Scriptures. If they are wrong, either in the principles themselves, or in their practical application, we think they have the candor and manliness to acknowledge the wrong, when it is pointed out to them. On a question like this, argument is more agreeable to them, and more becoming those wh differ from them, than harsh words and bitter

upbraidings. They desire to live on terms of brotherly kindness with all Christian people. They do not shrink from criticism and investigation. They would be glad to have the world study their principles in the light of God's Word, and will cheerfully abide the result.

To my Baptist brethren I say, we should remember that we have naught to gain, but everything to lose by compromising the principles which we hold. Should fidelity to God's Word lead us to separation from those we love as well as our own lives, we should still be firm; remembering that true love to Jesus, as well as to our friends, should lead us to stand firmly by the truth. Baptists have accomplished a noble work for the world. We do not believe that their mission is ended. Our fathers suffered imprisonment, stripes, banishment, death, that they might bequeath to us the rich legacy which we enjoy. Shall we barter that legacy for popular applause? The early Christians were the "sect everywhere spoken against." Our Master bore suffering and shame for us. If our principles bring reproach upon us, let us bear that reproach. Let us be careful to avoid bitterness and unholy strife. Let our lives abound in patience, forbearance, gentleness, goodness and truth, while we commit ourselves, not to men, but to God, who judgeth righteously.

BAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL.

BY PROF. ALBERT H. NEWMAN, ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John xiv. 15. "Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt. xxviii. 20.

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

II. Cor. iii. 17.

The aim of the present discourse will be to show that Baptist churches are Apostolical, alike in spirit and in form; and that Baptist churches alone of all the churches are Apostolical in spirit and in form.

We shall attempt to show, furthermore, that the formal elements of Apostolical and Baptist churches constitute the expression, and by far the best expres. sion, within the knowledge of man, of the spirit of Christianity.

That Baptist churches are coincident in form with Apostolic churches we shall find no difficulty in proving, for the testimony of Scripture and that of scholars of all leading denominations of Christians is ample and clear. The fact that Baptist churches alone consistently adhere to the New Testament as an absolute and complete guide, in matters of prac

198