WITNESS OF CHURCHES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20923, 13 July 1931, Page 11

WITNESS OF CHURCHES.

THE BAPTIST VIEWPOINT. A REPRESENTATIVE STATEMENT. ADDRESS BY DR. NORTH. Much interest is being shown in the series of addresses being given monthly in the Balmoral Presbyterian Church by leaders of various denominations expressing the particular aspect of Christian truth lor which their Church stands. Last evening the subject of the witness of the Baptist Church was dealt with by the Rev. Dr. J. J. North before a large congregation. At the outset Dr. North expressed deep interest in the candour of Presbyterians in asking for such a statement. Fidelity to the modern method required such candour, ho said. When the eighth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was published, the famous Protestant controversialist Littledale was invited to provide the articles on Roman Catholicism. The thing was ridiculous. scholar was content with second-hand accounts of other people's faith. He preferred a written or spoken statement by a believer in any given position. A desire to understand the viewpoints of other Christians ought to be accompanied by a passionate desire to reach final truth. Difficulties of the Two Sacraments.

It might be taken for granted that all serious churches were created for serious reasons, continued Dr North. A schism apart from a serious reason was a deadly sin. It should also be noticed that reasons that once commanded separation might wear thin. The Presbyterian sciiism of 1843 became outworn in 90 years. The famous Calvinistic Arminian controversy had been adjusted between Presbyterians and Methodists in Canada. All Churches had need to make sure that their title deeds for separate existence were good. It was plain that the most intractable difficulties among Christians concerned the two sacraments. The question " What happens to the bread after the prayer of consecration ?" was so volcanic that the Prayer Book controversy convulsed the English Parliament the other day. The question who should be baptised, and what does baptism do ? was just as agitating.

The reformers rejected the idea that baptism regenerated the soul. Their radical idea was that faith was necessary to salvation. They, however, retained infant baptism, affixing to it other and new meanings. The Baptists, from before the Reformation, held that baptism ought to follow faith—never precede it. They regarded it as a grace-giving act of confession.

The real interest of the Baptist Church, which was the largest Protestant church in the United States, in India, in Russia, was in conversion. The Baptists believed that neither heredity nor sacrament could make a Christian. Thev believe that " second birth" was essential. Therefore, they found themselves unable to allow any fowm of infant baptism, believing that the position was obscured in every such case.

Freedom of Conscience Doctrine. It followed very naturally from this view of religion that among Baptists the doctrine of freedom of conscience should have been first enunciated. They and the Quakers uttered together that watchword of the modern world. They did not invent it as a shield from persecution. It followed necessarily from their belief that religion was a relation between a man and his God, requiring no human intermediary. It was, therefore, no pose on the part of Baptists when they talked of Christian brotherhood. While they could not unite till their principle regarding the relation of sacraments to salvation was conceded, they desired ardently, like Wesley, to have a league with all who loved Christ. The Methodist viewpoint .will be set forth in an address to be given next month.