CHURCH POLITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20309, 17 July 1929, Page 14

CHURCH POLITY.

Sir,—ln what a tangle of thought the world's Christian leaders are at present is evidenced by tho correspondence culminating in the letters of the Revs. J. J. North and Isaac Jolly this morning. In how delightfully illogical positions do some of these good people stand. Mr. North emphasises the need of baptism but virtually guarantees a man's salvation without it.; yet in the next sentence contends that such an one is not ready for membership in tho Christian Church. If his decision to follow the Christ has done all that is necessary, hew can he be left out of the Christian Church; and if not out of the Christian Church, how out of tho Baptist, Church? Is the latter more than Christian or less? Then, again, the Baptists appear to stand almost alone in not regarding baptism (in some form and at some period ot life) as "a saving ordinance." I have been curious to look up somo of the passages with reference to this ordinance, and so far as I can see both the Christ and the Apostles appeared to connect it so intimately with salvation that it is difficult to see how one can avoid that conclusion. But another question occurs: if baptism was simply "tagged on" by the Christ and His Apostles, does it not appear as little more than a fiiece of mummery ? And, now, turning to the Rev. Isaac Jolly's statement that the Presbyterian Church receives men into its fellowship after baptism on the ground of their profession of faith, that seems to accord with the procedure of tho Church as established by tho Apostles, but is inconsistent with his own prior statement that the Church bapises children, who ? obviously, cannot make a profession of faith. Mr. North's statement that "membership of the Christian Church is for those who have made a definite decision for Christ" seems to be in accord with tho teaching of tho New Testament, and how futile it is to go through a mere form of baptism of one who may, on attaining years of discretion, repudiate tho act. Is there any truth in tho statement that the way is so plain that a wayfaring man, though a simploton, need not err? All this has, no doubt, much to do with conscientious objection to military service, but I would like to hoar of somo basis on which Christians could become united. Layman. July 16, 1929.

Sir,—''The Church's One Foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord," Christendom professes that Jesus taught it. "On this rock will 1 build my Church," the "rock" of His acknowledged deity and headship. All who acknowledge by life and lip Jesus as Lord are in fact members of His Church. The foundation is Christ, not Christ and baptism. The Rev. Isaac Jolly will agree to this. Will ho state whero Scriplure declares that baptism is the initiatory ordinance of tho Church ? History teaches that this very view was the parenterror that has made this holy ordinance such a prolific occasion of division. As the Rev. J. J North states tho purpose of baptism "is declaratory," not initiatory. It is the beautiful symbolic and appropriate profession of fidelity to Christ. The five points in Mr. North's letter are admirably stated. Tho language of the Baptist Church is "unshackle tho individual conscience, giro it footroom to obey the Lord." John Broadmead's capital motto, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity," exactly suits its historic profession of the Baptish Church. Tho open Baptist Church exactly conforms therewith. The Baptist Union, in accord with the democratic government of the Church, says not only shall the individual be free, but also the individual Church, the collective unit shall bo "free to obey its collective conscience in these non-essentials." Fidelity to Christ's command of baptism requires me to be baptised. The same fidelity to His spirit and emphasis and to His passionate plea for "oneness" in His great prayer obliges me to accord full liberty to my Christian brother's conscience in all externals and non-essontials. Fidelity.