USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Waterbury > A century of history in the First Baptist Church in Waterbury, Conn > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
But it is easier to justify the change of practice in regard to baptism, or at least to understand the reasons alleged in justification of such change, than it would be to justify the use of the word "baptize" in the false meaning which has been forced into it. No aspersionist
183
sion, as a most sacred ordinance, since it has, as he says, " the support of the example of the apos- tles and of their Master, of the venerable churches of the early ages, and of the sacred countries of the East." " Baptism by sprink-
minister would venture to say openly, "We are not dis- obeying the divine command, because, forsooth, we have changed the meaning of the word of command so as to make it conform to what we are willing to do and are doing." Yet that would seem to come pretty near to being a true statement of the case. And it may well be doubted whether any other and better explanation or justification can be given; whether, indeed, the change from immersion to sprinkling, with the use of the word " baptize " to characterize the latter, does not involve moral inconveniences of a vastly more serious nature than the physical inconvenience which it is sought to avoid by the change. There can be no doubt that of the multitudes who have heard the word "baptize " applied to sprinkling, a large majority were so far deceived as to believe that such sprinkling was authorized by our Lord and his apostles in their command to baptize. Now any misuse of a term which would involve the risk of misunderstanding or deception, would not be tolerated in legal, scientific, or business affairs, and the man who should attempt it, would not thereby improve his repu- tation for truthfulness, honesty, and candor. The case is, of course, no better in things spiritual. There is no reason to believe that anything savoring of disingenuous evasion is more acceptable to God than the same quali- ties are to men, and it would seem that the very appear- ance of such evil should be avoided. Even when there was considerable doubt as to the meaning of the crucial
184
ling," he continues, (except in the case of death- beds or extreme necessity) was rejected by the whole ancient church as no baptism at all."
CHANGE IN THE RELATIVE SITUATION.
Now, so long as the discussion between us and our pedobaptist brethren was conducted on
term, as there seems to have been one hundred years ago, it must have seemed almost like an assumption of infalli- bility on the part of the pedobaptist ministry, to resolve the doubt so arbitrarily in behalf of others as to declare positively and solemnly that they baptized when they only sprinkled. But now that the unanimous scholar- ship of the world has decided that the word used by the New Testament writers to describe the act appointed meant only to immerse, the danger of deception in its wrong application becomes almost a certainty, possibly not unaccompanied by a greater or less degree of de- moralization of the religious consciousness on the part of those who thus employ it.
But if any pedobaptist minister should for any reason be determined to persist in the present ceremonial, it would seem that the least he can do to avoid the risk of misunderstanding and deception would be to carefully explain to the people at the outset, on each occasion, that it is not the baptism exemplified by Christ and enjoined by Him and His apostles, but that it is something which, in his opinion, will answer every purpose just as well. And if he should still scruple to apply the word " bap- tize" to an act in no wise resembling the act it was originally designed to signify, I would venture to suggest that he might omit the use of the word altogether, saying
C
DEACON HIOL BRISTOL, Father of B. H. Bristol of this city and Dr. B. J. Bristol of St. Louis. A very worthy man and faithful Christian. t
185
Scriptural lines, so long as the word and example of the Lord and his apostles was the accepted standard of authority, we knew where we stood. But when the appeal is made to the preferences of the people, and to modern ideas of convenience and propriety, why, we seem to be thrown out of
simply, as he sprinkles, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This would, in- deed, have the further important advantage of relieving the somewhat farcical appearance of a Christian minister solemnly addressing words of the most serious import to infants, knowing that they do not understand a word that he utters, or even know that they are addressed at all. But if it is right to sprinkle, it cannot be wrong to say "sprinkle " openly and candidly. The word cannot be worse than the act, so long as it is a truthful word. Or the word "probaptize," after the analogy of "pro- consul " and " procathedral," might seem to some best fitted to the situation, as indicating exactly what is done or intended. Either of the methods above suggested would largely relieve the present ceremonial of its ques- tionable character, and the consideration of them may be commended in the utmost good faith to the pedobaptist ministry. In these times, when there is such a tendency to infer insincerity on the part of Christians and churches, it is certainly most desirable that the ministry, at least, should stand as far as possible above the lia- bility to such suspicion. And especially if the rule of scripture and the practice of the ancient churches is to be modified or set aside, then assuredly there is all the more reason why the common principles of honesty, sincerity, and truth should be scrupulously observed in everything which assumes to be especially Christian.
I86
court. We cannot deny that sprinkling is more popular than immersion, at least in New England, else the change would never have been made ; nor can we deny that "the spirit which lives and moves in human society " has frequently shown itself capable of overriding the ordinances of the Lord, the commandments of God. But we are somewhat consoled in our unpopularity by the re- flection that even on the showing of our oppo- nents, if it were not for us Baptists and other im- mersionists, the baptism which was sanctified by the example of our Lord and commanded by Himself and His apostles, and which prevailed for so many centuries in the history of the church, would have absolutely no existence or illustration in Waterbury, nor in New England, nor in our whole broad country today.
SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM.
And the situation has led us to search anew and more than ever before into the meaning and importance and use of the ancient baptism, to determine whether and how far its purpose is fulfilled by the modern rite. In doing so we have found that Christian baptism is repre- sented in Scripture both as a burial and a birth,
187
a burial of the old and a resurrection to the new, marking, as it does, by a most strikingly appropriate symbol, the ending of one course of life and the beginning of another. We cannot see that sprinkling can in anywise answer this purpose. Again, baptism is represented in the New Testament as washing away the sins of the subject, and is accepted by all parties as a symbol of moral cleansing. Well, in these days we never attempt to wash or cleanse anything by merely sprinkling water upon it. That, indeed, would generally only make the foulness more apparent. The Jews were distinctly commanded to " wash the whole flesh in water " for ceremonial cleans- ing, which they often did by an instantaneous im- mersion as the easiest, quickest, and surest way of fulfilling the requirement of the law. We cannot see, therefore, that sprinkling is properly even a symbol of cleansing. If it is the intention to represent sprinkling with the blood of Christ, then clearly, the consecrated wine of the com- munion should be used instead of water, if there were any authority for its use in this form and sense. Further, we do not find anything in the New Testament to indicate that baptism was, or was ever intended to be, simply an external cere-
188
mony with merely a ceremonial value and with- out moral or spiritual significance, but much to the contrary. We are plainly told by Peter that baptism saves, as being " the decision of a good conscience before God," for that is really the meaning of I Peter iii, 21 .* It is, therefore, the
* The difficulty of this passage consists in the fact that the Greek word 'επερώτημα, translated "answer" in the Received Version and "interrogation " in the Revised Version, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and only three times, practically only twice, in the whole Greek literature proper previous to Peter's time, thus giving but very little opportunity to determine its mean- ing. But since the Oxford revision was made, several instances of its use have been found in Greek inscriptions where the meaning " decision" is unmistakable. It is used also once in the Septuagint, the only place, doubt- less, where Peter ever saw it, and here also it is used to translate a word meaning " decision," as is affirmed by no less an authority than Gesenius, the great Hebrew scholar. Significationem decretum flagitat contextus, are his words. The probable idea of the revisers that the word refers to a series of questions asked previous to, or in connection with, the baptism, does violence to the language as well as to the sense. The baptism itself is not a question, nor an interrogation, and was never so considered by anyone who was baptized. But it is, or should be, a final, formal decision, as before God, or "toward God," as our English versions give it, not to- ward the church or the world, and so that its purpose and significance would often be better fulfilled by a private than by a public immersion - a fact which Baptists might learn greatly to their advantage.
189
final, formal, decisive step by which the subject, of his own free will and honest purpose, accepts Jesus as Lord and Christ and pledges allegiance to Him as such. It was in this sense, indeed, that baptism was called a sacrament in the an- cient churches, from its close resemblance in sig- nificance and effect to the sacramentum, the newly recruited Roman soldier's oath, by which he swore allegiance to the emperor.
Now, as the act of baptism, that is immersion, was appointed and established in this most im- portant significance by divine authority, we can- not be sure that any other act which we may choose to substitute in its place, and with very doubtful propriety call by the same name, will be accepted by God and charged by Him with the same important significance, or be the means of establishing the same relations between us and Him. Seeing no inherent fitness in the proposed substitute for the purpose in view, we must be sure of God's acceptance of it before we can ac- cept it ourselves. At the best that can be said of it, therefore, sprinkling as baptism is of but doubtful authority. It can never be accompanied by the certainty which the mind and conscience should require in such a solemn and important
190
matter. And no faithful Christian minister, it seems to us, can ever advise any convert to com- mence his Christian life with a doubt.
THE TRUE BAPTISM IMPERATIVE.
The Christian religion is of divine authority, or it is not. If it is, then its institutions and ordinances are of divine authority, and are not to be set aside, substituted or changed by any authority less than that by which they were es- tablished. And an ordinance instituted through the mission of a prophet, sanctified by the ex- ample of the Master himself, enjoined by Him and His apostles, and accepted and practiced without question by all Christians through more than twelve centuries from the beginning, we cannot but regard as properly belonging to the Semper Eadem of the Church of God, which neither priest, council, nor congregation, nor even the spirit which lives and moves in human society, can have any right or authority to change.
SUCCESSION BY ORDINANCES RATHER THAN BY ORDERS.
We cannot see, therefore, that the new reasons for sprinkling are any better than the old. In-
1
C
DR. BENNETT J. BRISTOL,
Son of Deacon Hiol Bristol and elder brother of B. H. Bristol of this city. Graduate of Yale (Academic Class of '54). Surgeon in the U. S. Army during the War of the Rebellion. Settled after the war as a practicing physician in a suburb of St. Louis, where he lived, highly esteemed and respected, for the rest of his life. He died about the time of the Centennial Celebration, having filled a very honorable and useful career. t
191
deed, we hold that the line of the church's con- tinuity is to be traced in ordinances rather than in orders, since ordinances were before orders, and are not dependent upon orders, and are more vital and fundamental than orders; and since ordinances are unquestionably of divine author- ity, whatever doubt or dispute there may be in reference to orders ; and since it is by ordinances rather than orders that the visible church is con- stituted and its life perpetuated. Also succession by ordinances leaves to the church its proper freedom, while succession by orders inevitably suggests the idea of hierarchical domination. Succession through ordinances is also the more complete and effective, as reaching to the people, to the membership of the churches, while succes- sion by orders stops away up among the bishops, as the exclusive prerogative of a hierarchy. And this first great ordinance, which, by the concur- rent testimony of Scripture, history and scholar- ship, is immersion and not sprinkling, is that through which we may trace our descent in un- doubted and unbroken succession from the churches of New Testament times. And while we, as Baptists, have never attached any great practical importance to the idea of succession, and
192
while we are glad at all times to join with our brethren of other names in every good work, yet we shall certainly be found most unwilling to break our connection with the long line of churches, going back even to the beginning, which have been faithful to this ordinance,* and the
* As regards the question of unity, I am obliged to differ from the opinion expressed in Dr. Anderson's ex- cellent paper, that it is largely or chiefly differences of ecclesiastical organization which keep the different bodies of Protestants apart. There is in the New Testament neither positive precept nor clear example covering either of the existing forms of church organization, though each finds something in both scripture and history in support of its own peculiar position.
The obvious inference would seem to be that each body of Christians is left free to work under such form of organization as it believes to be best adapted to its peculiar condition and circumstances, and it is quite reasonable to suppose that all existing forms may be better for the general aims of Christianity than either would be alone and without the others. Nor do differ- ences of opinion in matters of doctrine have any longer a disturbing effect. If one takes a different view from another in regard to the divine decrees or any similar matter, each accords to the other the fullest liberty to learn and understand as best he may, and there is not on that account any reserve in the cordiality of Christian fellowship between them. Nor is a greater or less degree of the liturgical or ritualistic element in divine worship any longer a disturbing principle. For my own part, I can unite in the worship in an Episcopal church without the slightest sense of alienation or re-
193
serve, and can listen to the preaching of an Episcopal or Methodist bishop with as much complacency as to a Baptist or Congregational Doctor of Divinity, so long as there is no reminder of any express violation of, or unwarrantable and irreverent interference with, the positive commands of God or the established order of His House. But the trouble is that there is apt to be - I might, perhaps, rather say there is sure to be - for the intelligent Baptist, in some form or degree, such a re- minder.
Consider for a moment how much there is to pre- clude the possibility of complete and sympathetic har- mony in the mind of a conscientious Baptist in attend- ance upon pedobaptist worship, - or, we will say, of a Baptist so "bigoted " as to believe that men have no right of their own motion to set aside an ordinance of the Lord in accommodation to human preferences, or even in order to follow the traditions of the elders. The baptism of Christ and the apostles has been so metamor- phosed as to be absolutely beyond recognition. There is no reason to believe that either of the apostles of the Lord, on beholding the modern rite, could know or imagine what was being done or intended. Further than this, in utter disregard of both Scripture precept and example, it is applied to those who themselves cannot know what is being done or intended, and often accom- panied by accessories utterly foreign to any New Testa- ment practice. Nothing is more sacred in religion than a sacrament; and if there is anything sacred in an insti- tution ordained by God the Father Almighty, established through the mission of a prophet, sanctified by the ex- ample of the Lord Himself, faithfully accepted and solemnly observed by all ancient churches, then these unauthorized transmutations and metamorphoses of a divine ordinance can scarcely be regarded as anything less than a positive desecration. No matter how char-
I3
194
itably disposed the intelligent immersionist may be in a pedobaptist house of worship, he cannot always shut these facts from his mind. Even when listening to the most fervent prayer or the most earnest exhortation, he cannot be sure that the disturbing thought of a repudi- ated, dishonored, and falsified sacrament will not thrust itself into his mind with such a backing of substantial truth that no exorcism will be able to dislodge it. Somebody, he will be apt to remember, has laid irrev- erent hands on the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and these people, with whom he would otherwise gladly unite in worship, most of them ignorantly, no doubt, are approving and upholding the profanation. It is true that he cannot judge nor condemn. He cannot accuse nor excuse. We are not allowed to be judges of the consciences of our brethren of other orders; and we are glad that we are not; for we are free to confess that here is a matter we cannot understand, a problem of moral action and responsibility on the part of Christian teachers, with which we are sorely puzzled and are utterly unable to solve.
But with the suspension of judgment there will also be a certain inevitable suspension of sympathy. Here is a barrier which the conscientious Baptist cannot pass if he would. His only consolation is that the barrier is not of his raising, that he has no responsibility for it, nor for the schism in the body of Christ which has re- sulted therefrom. Nor do the speculations of theo- logians and theorists, attempting to show that baptism is of little or no consequence, help in this matter. Such theories are dissipated for the intelligent immersionist the moment he opens his Bible. They are no more ac- ceptable to him than are the superstitious notions of a mysterious, magical effect attributed to the sacrament as practiced by Romanists and High Churchmen. The influence of these theories, even where they seem to have
195
been tacitly accepted, has only been superficial. It has never reached down to the bed rock of the Christian consciousness of the denomination.
There is, therefore, but this one question upon which differences of opinion and action necessarily make a line of cleavage in the forces of Protestant Christianity, namely, the question of New Testament baptism. But here, one party proposes to walk with Abraham in the paths of faith and obedience, faith always first and obedience afterwards, while the other, lured, perhaps, like Lot, by the prospect of more abundant ecclesiastical forage, have followed his example, except that instead of pitching their tents towards Sodom they have pitched them towards Rome. For in regard to this question, differing from questions of doctrine, organization, and worship, there is both positive precept and clear example. It is not necessary, as some have thoughtlessly imagined, that there shall be complete agreement on all questions relating to doctrine, worship, and discipline in order to unity in the church, and that so the cause of union is practically hopeless. With simply the restoration of New Testament baptism, the substantial unity of Protestant Christianity is practically assured. And we may, I think, regard it as a positive advantage that the "Röentgen rays " of scriptural truth have shown us where the real bone of the contention lies. I would not be understood, however, to represent that the Baptists have already at- tained or are already perfect, or that they are generally superior to other Christians. Doubtless we have much to learn from our brethren of other names in return for the little they may learn from us; and doubtless, also, more light is to break forth from the Word of God for us as for them ; but all should remember that careful and conscientious obedience to such light as we have may be an indispensable condition of receiving further light.
196
apostolic symbol of the church's unity, One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, we must continue to hold as our own .*
Note on Succession.
* It will be seen that we prefer a doctrine of suc- cession which clearly shows the continuity of the church from apostolic times by a uniform and divinely ap- pointed visible sign, in itself virtually a conscious, vol- untary, personal act of fealty to Jesus as Lord and Christ, to any theory of succession which can only be traced in a line of men subject to all the infirmities of human nature, representing an authority usurped or legitimate, or both, interspersed with ambitious, in- triguing bishops, and even including in one of its branches such characters as John XII and Alexander VI. It is inconceivable to us that any pure stream could come through a channel so foul.
But whether the above-stated ideas of succession are acceptable or not, it will at least be admitted by all par- ties that there can be no valid succession without valid baptism. And no baptism which is not a baptism really, that is, an immersion, can be accepted without serious question, since, as Dean Stanley says, that is "the very meaning of the word." No chain can be stronger than its weakest link, and a baptism which the learned Dean declares "was rejected by the whole ancient church as no baptism at all" is hardly the link upon which to hang the heavy chain of apostolic succession. Here, then, is the "rift within the lute," the fatal flaw in all theories of succession which reject the baptism of Christ and the apostles, or accept unauthorized substitutes therefor. No process of reasoning can be reliable which admits a serious element of doubt in its premises.
ALBERT D. FIELD, Chairman of Finance Committee - p. 197.
THE SURPLUS FUND.
Our brother Mr. A. D. Field, a man of affairs and of large experience in the management and control of finances, devised, during the year 1901, a plan of endowment for the church known as " The Surplus Fund." It is incorporated under the laws of Connecticut and no investment as a public benefaction could be more diligently safeguarded by legal enactment. In the year 1901, one thousand dollars was contributed by members of the church to this fund, -that amount being required by the articles of incorpo- ration before the fund could be established. It is more especially designed to afford security for money and property which may be given to the church through wills and deeds of gift.
It is a perpetual endowment, of which the Trus- tees are custodians, under bond in the amount of the market value of the assets of the fund. Each gift, devise, or bequest is kept separate one from the other, and is known as and called by the name of the donor, and is entered under such name upon the books of the church. Reports of
198
the condition of the fund are to be made by the Trustees to the Finance Committee whenever they are called upon for such report by said Finance Committee. The Trustees are empowered to ac- cept and to lawfully receipt for any and all gifts made to the fund by will. Appropriations may be made from the income or interest for estab- lishing and supporting Baptist missions and the Connecticut Baptist Convention, but the principal itself is to be held intact forever. If the income should become sufficient to pay sixty per cent. and more of the annual expenses of the church the Trustees are to pay over all in excess of sixty per cent. to the American Baptist Missionary Union and the American Baptist Home Mission- ary Society.
Upon the honor roll of this endowment appear the names of the first contributors whose liberal- ity made the "Surplus. Fund " possible. These names, together with the terms of agreement signed, are appended :
SUBSCRIPTION TO SURPLUS FUND
We, the undersigned, hereby unite in agreeing to the terms of the deed of gift to the Surplus Fund of the First Baptist Church of Waterbury,
199
to which this is attached, and in constituting said Fund for the purposes therein specified; and further agree and bind ourselves (and in the event of the death of any of us before payment of the money herein provided, bind our respective heirs, executors, and administrators) to contrib- ute thereto the sums set opposite our respective names, and to pay the same within thirty days after demand therefor by the Trustees of this Fund; it being a condition hereof that these sub- scriptions shall not be binding unless the total sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) shall be subscribed hereto.
Albert D. Field,
Sidney A. Risdon,
Edward L. Ashley,
James Stout,
Warren S. Trott,
Fred E. Stanley,
Alfred J. Shipley,
Mrs. A. L. Mulloy,
Dwight L. Smith,
V. M. Shaw,
Martha A. Trott,
James H. Mintie,
Mrs. Ella C. Field,
Miss Delia C. Field,
F. J. Parry,
Edwy E. Benedict.
Wm. O'Neil,
DR. LORIMER'S ADDRESS.
Dr. George C. Lori- mer of New York made the principal address the evening of Old Home Day. He began by saying that there were some who believed that Baptists stood for nothing but immersion and close DR. GEORGE C. LORIMER. communion. But peo- ple might think him an idiot if he were a Baptist simply for the sake of immersing people, and as for close commun- ion, he would not go across the room for that. Individuality in religion, he said, was the great distinguishing principle of Baptists, and immer- sion had no more to do with it than the drab suits and broad-brimmed hats had with the belief of the Quakers. There were just two facts in religion, namely, God and man. All the rest had simply to do with the relation between them.
201
The divine message was addressed always to man, never to churches. Independence of ec- clesiastical authority is a principle of the Bap- tists, who hold that where two or three meet in a common faith there is a church, needing nothing which has gone before to establish its validity.
He did not think much of succession. Still, some people came to Luther and wanted him to carry his reformation further, which proved there were Baptists before the Reformation, and there were probably some who held substantially Bap- tist views even from the time of the Apostles. Quality is more important than bulk in a re- ligious body, yet the numbers of Baptists were by no means inconsiderable. There were about 5,000,000 Baptists in this country, and, taking in the families, as the Roman Catholics do, there would be fifteen to eighteen millions. The Bible is the creed of the Baptists, and they stand for the whole Bible. There was once a wealthy woman who had a fad for purchasing expensive silks, and when she had bought a fine piece, she would sit down in her house and begin to tear it in pieces, and she would keep on tearing and tear- ing till the fine silk was but a worthless pile of shreds. Then she would buy another piece and
202
tear it in like manner, and finally she had to be shut up in an asylum for fear she would spend her whole fortune in buying and tearing silks. So there are critics so crazy that they like to tear up the Bible in a similar way. They begin and tear up one of the sacred books after another, just for the sake of hearing it rip.
He believed in union and unity. He was one of those who believed that God had not re- stricted his revelations to the Jews. Some light of divine truth had been imparted to Zoroaster and to Brahma and Buddha and Confucius, and to other founders of great religions. Something similar, he said, was true of the different forms or denominations of Christianity, God having wrought by each of them. And they might be compared with the different colors revealed by the prism, but which in their blending make up the pure white light which illumines the world, as Christianity in the mingling of these differ- ent forms illumines the moral world with spiritual light. Baptists had always stood for religious liberty. Virginia Baptists were the first to move for that amendment to the constitution of the United States which provides for liberty in re- ligion and the freedom of speech and press.
DEACON FRANCIS WELTON. +
203
Dr. Lorimer gave a highly dramatic representa- tion of the scene when Patrick Henry defended the three Baptist preachers who were arraigned in Virginia for preaching the gospel contrary to law, and closed with a brilliant illustration taken from his experience on an Atlantic liner. He saw a wave approaching the ship which, from its peculiar formation, he intuitively recognized as a Presbyterian wave. He thought from its appear- ance it might have a considerable effect, but as it approached the ship it broke and subsided into the sea without perceptible result. Then he saw another wave coming, which in like manner he recognized as an Episcopal wave. But that also failed to fulfill the expectations excited by its pretentious appearance, but broke and dropped into the sea like the other. Then he saw a very big wave coming, which from its bulk and threat- ening aspect he at once understood to be the Baptist wave, and that, he thought, would surely do something effectual, but behold, it broke and dropped into the ocean like the others, and did not amount to anything any more than they. The address was throughout popular in its character, and was received with great applause.
204
Dr. Lorimer declined to give us his brilliant address for publication, and the abstract given above seems to need guarding at certain points against misconceptions, to which the reader might otherwise be liable. Of course, it will be under- stood that in whatever he says in disparagement of ordinary Baptist principles and practice, he is speaking merely for himself, and not for Con- necticut or American Baptists, who must be re- garded as being Baptists from conviction and principle and not from mere preference. But also at other points, owing perhaps to the peculiar rhetorical style of the speaker, the reader may need a caution. For example, when Dr. Lorimer declares individuality in religion to be the great distinguishing principle of Baptists, he is not to be understood as affirming that other Christian de- nominations deny the principle of individuality and individual responsibility in religion, though they may have other means of reaching this in- dispensable requisite. And when he says and repeats that there are just two facts in religion, namely God and man, we cannot believe that he intended to reduce Christianity to the level of deistic infidelity, whose platform he so broadly states, leaving the difference between them only a question of methods. And surely he did not intend to deny that Christ the Godman, the Holy Spirit, and the Church, are facts in religion, and facts also of the most vital significance. Nor in
E
1
IGN
THE PRESENT CHURCH BUILDING WITH SUNDAY-SCHOOL ENLARGEMENT.
205
stating the Baptist principle of church independ- ency did he probably intend to convey the im- pression that any three disgruntled schismatics can set up a church of their own, having as much divine authority as any other. And when he says that the divine message in the Bible is ad- dressed always to man and never to churches, he probably overlooked the fact that the Lord sent his messages direct to the seven churches of Asia by the hand of his servant John. And where he represents the relation of the different denominations to each other as being like that of the different colors of light separated by the prism, he probably did not mean that truth and error, even in the matter of methods, can blend with each other as easily and naturally as the colors of the rainbow. In regard to the remark- able vision of the denominational waves, which one after another, and all alike, subsided into the great ocean without apparent effect, he surely did not intend to convey the impression that the great ocean of divine truth on which the denominations are so unimportant and insignificant, is either De- ism or Unitarianism or Roman Catholicism. In order to understand just what the ocean stands for in this remarkable vision, we must wait till a further interpretation is forthcoming, as also to know how the lesson of these specious but wholly ineffectual denominational waves is to be recon- ciled with that of the beautifully effective denom- inational colors.
206
After the prolonged applause which followed Dr. Lorimer's brilliant address had subsided, the solo by Mrs. Frederick Granniss of the Methodist choir was rendered impressively and in excellent voice, the flowers with which the auditorium of the church was profusely decorated were dis- tributed to the older members, the pastor in be- half of the church extended thanks to the press of the city for its kindly assistance rendered dur- ing the progress of the centennial exercises in publishing announcements and reports and in friendly comments, the benediction was pro- nounced, and the large audience slowly dispersed, exchanging pleasant greetings and congratula- tions, a large number lingering till long after the organ postlude had ceased ; - and thus the cen- tennial celebration of the First Baptist Church in Waterbury, of which the present volume is in- tended as a memorial, but is necessarily an im- perfect record, passed into history.
١
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.