08 Baptist Churches Apostolical

Baptist Churches Apostolical By Prof. Albert H. Newman, Rochester Theological Seminary, New York.

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15.

“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.” Matthew 28:20.

“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17. 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 expression, within the knowledge of man, of the spirit of Christianity. That Baptist churches are coincident inform 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 practice as well as in matters of doctrine, is freely and heartily admitted by many of the ablest defenders of other systems. That Baptists hold to Apostolical forms in Apostolical spirit, and that Apostolical and Baptist church order best expresses for all ages the spirit of Christianity, would be denied by the great majority of the scholars of other denominations than Baptists,— even by men who admit that the teaching of the New Testament is final in matters of doctrine.

We may best accomplish our purpose by sketching first, the essential features of the Apostolical churches as set forth in the New Testament, as interpreted by scholars of various denominations and as understood by ourselves; and afterwards, the essential features of Baptist churches as they are observed in the history and the actual state of Baptist churches.

I. The Essential Features of the Apostolical Churches.

We freely admit at the outset that in many minor matters of form the Baptists differ from the first Christians. Such points of difference, alike in matters superadded and in matters omitted, will be considered hereafter. We may further observe that our brethren of other denominations, while admitting the correctness of our specifications of characteristics of the Apostolical churches, would probably deny these characteristics of them to be essential.

1. The most fundamental thing in the Apostolical churches was their ascription of absolute lordship to Jesus Christ. The expression “our Lord Jesus Christ,” and expressions of like import, constantly meet us throughout the “Sew Testament writings. And in the mouths of the first Christians these words meant something,—more, alas! than they commonly mean with us. The chief question with those early disciples was, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” The Apostles, under the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, preached not themselves “but Jesus Christ, as Lord.” Whatever they did by way of giving form to the outward expression of Christianity, they did as they thought themselves directed to do by Christ himself, through his remembered words and through the Holy Spirit.

Far, far would it have been from any one of the Apostles, to have made changes in matters with regard to which Christ himself was known to have given express commands. So far as the words of Christ went, they were regarded as the final test and the only allowable guide. Where definite directions from the Master were wanting, the Apostles and their disciples acted as they felt impelled by the Spirit of God to act. This lordship of Christ was in the minds of the early Christians based upon the fact that Christ had by his own blood redeemed them, so that they felt themselves no longer their own, but Christ’s, by right of purchase. The spirit of obedience was not slavish, but loving. “If you love me, keep my commandments,” said our Lord Jesus Christ.

Christ promised to his disciples spiritual guidance into all truth, and the evidence is abundant that in all of their missionary work, whether in teaching or in organizing and developing Christian life and activity, they relied upon and received this promised divine aid. The most fundamental thing, therefore, in Christianity, and hence in the Apostolical church organization, is the recognition of Christ as Lord, on whom alone salvation depends, to whom alone his followers are responsible, to whom alone in spiritual matters implicit obedience is due, on whom alone his followers depend for guidance in their inner life and in their outward activity.

2. The feature of Apostolical church polity next in importance is, if we mistake not, that of regenerate church-membership. The Apostolical churches were made up exclusively of such as gave credible evidence of saving belief in Christ, who professed themselves ready to separate themselves from the world, to crucify the flesh and the lusts thereof, to devote themselves wholly to the service of Christ.

Unregenerate men crept into the churches from time to time, it is true; but when their ungodliness was revealed, when they were seen to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, there was little hesitation on the part of the churches in “separating themselves” from such interlopers. The Christian life of the Apostolical churches was, as a matter of fact, far below the ideal. Pagan morals and pagan conceptions could not be shaken off completely, at once, even by the truly regenerate; but the ideal constantly kept in view was pare and Christ like; if impurity existed it was recognized as abnormal. The Apostolical Christians did not argue from the impracticability of attaining to the ideal, that the ideal should be lowered; that no effort should be made to secure regenerate church-membership, as many Christian scholars do at the present day. Though he knew that disorder and corruption prevailed in the Corinthian church, Paul writes “to the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” The word which we render saints (ἁγιοι) —what does it mean? It means “holy” “consecrated to God,” “separated from the world.” A Church which is designated “saints” can hardly be regarded as including normally any but regenerate members. Whatever in that Corinthian church did not conform to this characterization, Paul regarded as entirely abnormal. If unregenerate members were in the Apostolical churches they surely were not of them. (1 John 2:19.) In the same epistle to the Corinthian church Paul writes: “Know ye not that ye are God’s temple, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you. * * * for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17.) Our position, otherwise unassailable, would be still further fortified, if, as some suppose, the very word which we translate Church (ἐκκλησία) contains in itself an allusion to the calling of Christians out of the world by the Gospel, so as to form a distinct class. The words calling (χγῆσις), the called (χγητοι), and similar words, occur so frequently in the New Testament (and always with reference to the regenerate) that the application of the word, already in common use to designate an assembly, to Christian assemblies and to the great Christian brotherhood could hardly have failed to become tinged with the same idea.

Those only were members of the Apostolical churches who gave credible evidence of change of heart through faith in Christ, and who symbolized their death to sin and resurrection to newness of life, the washing away of the stains of sin through the blood of Christ, in baptism. This assertion the great majority of scholars of all denominations would probably assent to.

3. Another leading characteristic of the Apostolical churches was that of each local church’s entire independence of any other and of all other local churches, and of any individual. Each church was self-governing, the only authority recognized being the will of Christ as it was made known to them immediately through the inspired Apostles, and immediately through the Holy Spirit. The church at Jerusalem, for example, does not transmit its instructions to the church at Corinth, — does not threaten them with excommunication when it learns of the disorderly walk of some of the Corinthians. The churches established by Apostles looked upon these Apostles as spiritual fathers, sought their advice when difficulties arose, acted upon their advice freely, because they recognized it as wise and as in accordance with the will of Christ. When deacons were to be appointed (Acts 6) to administer the charities of the church at Jerusalem, what course do the Apostles pursue? On any prolatical hypothesis they might have been expected to take the matter into their own hands and to appoint them. But this would have been unapostolic. What they did was truly Apostolic. “So, brethren,” said they, “look ye out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we will appoint over this business. * * * And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the Apostles; and when they prayed they laid their hands on them.” This is a fair specimen of the relations of the Apostles to the Apostolical churches. They told the churches what to do, but they were careful that the execution should in every instance be the act, unconstrained save by a sense of duty, of the entire church. The office-bearers having been chosen, the Apostles gave their approval and set them apart to the work, ceremonially.

Take another instance: “Then it seemed good to the Apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose out men of their own company and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” (Acts 15:22). But does not the mission of these men to Antioch itself contradict what we have said? The brethren at Antioch had been greatly distressed by Judaizers who, pretending to have received a commission from the church, had endeavored to force upon the consciences of the Christians at Antioch the entire Jewish ceremonial law. The present delegation was designed to free the minds of the Christians at Antioch from this disturbing influence. It was no effort to assert absolute authority, but simply an effort to set themselves right in the eyes of the Antiochians. As a younger and less experienced church, it was expected, of course, that the Antiochian would be influenced by the Jerusalem church.

If the Antiochian church had become heretical, the Jerusalem church would probably have refused to recognize the members as brethren. But further than this there was no thought of dependence of one church upon another.

One church might seek the advice of another, but the church seeking advice remained entirely free to adopt or reject any advice given. One church might, unsolicited, admonish a sister church, but neither the church admonishing nor the church admonished would have felt that any obligation other than moral, other than the recognition of the truth and importance of the admonition would induce, rested upon the church admonished to yield to the admonition. The New Testament churches, therefore, were independent one of another; yet as being subjects of one Lord, brethren beloved, the members of each church felt a profound interest in the members of every other, so far as their circumstances were known. Each church felt bound to admonish churches and individuals when they were seen to be in error, to encourage them in adversity, to aid them with their counsel, their prayers and their means. There was a fellowship of churches, but no organic union. The relation of the Apostles to the churches which they founded was an exceptional relation, a relation which is well illustrated in the history of modern missions. To them the churches looked at first as the only external source of Christum truth; their word was in the estimation of their converts, as it was in reality, the very truth of Christ. As their living words were authoritative in the churches which they founded and in which they labored, so now their word, written under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit, by whom all their Christian activity was directed. As specially commissioned and specially equipped by Christ for a special work, the Apostles claimed and exercised more of authority than it could be lawful for any individual not so commissioned and not so equipped to exercise or to claim. But, as we have seen, even the Apostles brought to bear upon the churches only moral suasion, and they recognized fully the right of each congregation of believers to administer its own affairs. In maintaining the entire independence of the Apostolical churches, we encounter more of opposition than in maintaining the recognized lordship of Christ or the insistance on regenerate membership in the Apostolic churches. Yet we believe that we are amply sustained by Scripture in the statements we have made.

4. A fourth leading feature of the Apostolical churches was the recognition, of the entire equality in point of rank and privilege of all the members. Every Christian has become a child of God, an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ. “For as many as are being led by God’s Spirit these are sous of God. For ye received not a spirit of bondage that ye should fear again, but ye received a spirit of adoption, wherein we cry Abba, Father. The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children heirs also, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” (Romans 8:14-17.) This applies not to a class of believers, but to all believers, to “as many as are led by God’s spirit.” If such alone as are led by God’s spirit are recognized as proper members of Christian churches, as we have already seen to be the case, and if such as are led by God’s spirit are sons of God, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if every believer has been brought into a mystical union with Christ, if every believer is a priest of God, with power to offer up to God the sacrifice of prayer and to plead the merits of Christ Jesus for himself and for others; if to his own Master every Christian standeth or falleth; if unto every Christian is promised the continued presence of Christ, through his Holy Spirit, as a comforter and a guide; if every Christian is responsible, not simply for himself, but in great measure for those within the reach of his influence;—if such are, according to the Scriptures, the prerogatives and duties of each individual Christian, the idea of ranks or grades of Christians is utterly out of place and preposterous. The equality in point of rank of all the members of Apostolical local churches as well as of the church universal, may be made to appear still more clearly from a consideration of the metaphors employed in the New Testament to set forth the relations of Christians to Christ and to each other. “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” (John 15:5.) Surely it could not be said that one branch of a particular vine outranks another. One may be more advantageously situated, more ample, more fruitful, but all are alike in kind, all draw their vitality from the same source, no one is differentiated from another in any essential particular.

Again, take the metaphorical representation of the church under the figure of the human body. All the parts of the body are one flesh and blood. Each part has its function. Upon the presence of each member and the performance of its proper function does the completeness and the efficiency of the entire body depend. Each member has an important function of its own, all minister to the whole, each member ministers to every other member. The function of one member may be more conspicuously important than that of another; but, on examination, the utility of each part and its necessity in the formation of the organism is clearly to be seen. There is, therefore, not the slightest basis in the New Testament for any sacerdotal idea. The church is a democracy. Church officers are not priests mediating between God and man, but servants, ministers.

“The most singular evolution,” writes Renan, “that has ever been produced in a democracy, was brought about in the bosom of the Church.^[19]The ecclesia, the free union of persons, established on a footing of equality among themselves, is the thing democratical par excellence.”

[19]He refers to the growth of hierarchical principles in the churches of the second century.

5. The headship of Christ, acknowledged by the Apostolical churches, the spiritual character of the aims of the churches, the equality of rights, duties and privileges, the entire independence of each church of all other churches,—all taken together make the idea of any organic union between Church and State utterly unthinkable as an element of the Apostolical churches. Not only was any union of Church and State entirely absent from the thought of the Apostles, but it was entirely contradictory to all the most fundamental principles of the Apostolical churches. The Apostolical churches, therefore, believed that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world ^ that Christianity was to accomplish its mission, not by assuming the reins of civil government, but by bringing individuals to yield themselves up in obedience to Jesus Christ. The triumph of Christ over all things in heaven and on earth and under the earth was not to be mediated by intriguing political prelates, but by the gradual transfusion from heart to heart of the spirit of Christ.

6. To descend now to particulars, the Apostolical churches, in accordance with the principles already stated above, chose out of their own ranks individuals for the performance of special functions in the churches. However democratic a body may be, it is still indispensable, in order to its proper efficiency, that some organization find place. The choosing and the functions of the officers of the churches must have been in accordance with the above statement of principles. The officers were chosen by the entire membership of the churches, under the advice, in most instances, of the Apostles or their missionary disciples. The officers were chosen not to rule but to serve the churches, and interests were committed to them not for their own sakes but for the sake of the churches. If a certain authority was delegated to them, it was not for the sake of the office but for the sake of the general weal. When officers had been elected by the assembled church, they were set apart to their special work by the Apostles, the object of this setting apart being to impart to them spiritual gifts, and to secure their general recognition and support in their service of the church.

There certainly was no thought of exalting such officers into a class apart from and above the general body of the church.

Men that had been thus set apart had authority to perform certain functions in the church, and in that alone, whereto they belonged, and by which they were elected to perform such functions.

If they performed similar functions in other churches, it must have been in accordance with a similar election by such churches, and if they, on any account, ceased to perform the functions whereunto they were called, there is no reason to believe that they retained the authority conferred upon them for the performance of such functions. The number of officers that found place in the Apostolical churches (apart from the Apostolate, which was a special provision by Christ for a special purpose, and which was not perpetuated) there were two classes of officers and only two, viz: Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons. That the terms Επισχοπος and Πρεσβυτερος are employed in the New Testament to denote, not two classes of officers, but one, is clear from an examination of the use of the terms, and is admitted by most advocates of Episcopacy. We shall, in the first place, show that the terms are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and afterwards quote a few of the more striking admissions by advocates of Episcopacy. The term most frequently employed in the New Testament to denote pastors of Churches is Πρεσβυτερος—Elder. Various other terms are also used, as Ποιμην—Pastor;Διδάσκαλος— Teacher. The term Πρεσβυτερος occurs in the New Testament seventeen times, to denote church officers. The term Επισκοπή—Overseer, Bishop, occurs only five times. The term επισχουντες—performing the functions of a Bishop, occurs once. In all instances, except in the one instance where it is applied to Christ, the “shepherd and bishop of our souls “(1 Peter 2:23) the term επισχοπος is used in such a manner as to make it absolutely certain that those designated Bishops are no other than Presbyters or Elders. In 1 Timothy 3:2, the term Bishop is used in connection with the term Deacon, as if these two classes of officers exhausted the category. The qualifications of Bishops are given at length, and afterwards those of Deacons, no mention whatever being made of Presbyters. In Titus 1:5 sq., Paul, having spoken of the work which he has entrusted to Titus as that of appointing Presbyters, and having pointed out in general the essential qualifications of such officers, assigns as a reason for insisting on such qualifications: “for the Bishop must be blameless as God’s steward, etc.” It is perfectly evident that the terms Bishop and Presbyter are here used with reference to the same individual.

Again, in Php 1:1, Paul salutes “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, together with Bishops and Deacons.” If there had been Presbyters as distinct from Bishops, Paul would hardly have failed to mention them in such a connection. So also in 1 Peter 5:1-2, we read: “The Presbyters, therefore, who are among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ * * * I exhort, fulfilling the office of Bishops (επισχοπουντες) shepherd the flock of God among you,” etc. That is, presbyters are exhorted to perform the functions of bishops or overseers.

Again in Acts 20:17, we read: “Having sent from Miletus to Ephesus he (Paul) called for the Presbyters of the church.” Having addressed to these presbyters a most touching account of his past relations to them and the church, and having signified his prospective departure, perhaps never to see their faces more, he exhorts them as follows: “Take heed therefore to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit appointed you Bishops (επισχοπος) to shepherd the church of God [or of the Lord] which he purchased through his own blood.” (vs. 28). The identity of the persons denominated Presbyters with those denominated Bishops is here perfectly evident, and perhaps none would venture to question it. The term Presbyter was derived probably from the Jewish Synagogue, and was the term in common use among Jewish Christians to denote the office of those that had the especial oversight of Christian churches. The term with Christians, as with Jews, was therefore, one of dignity. The term Bishop was confined to Gentile churches, and was a word in common use among; the Greeks to denote the office of oversight or superintendence. The word Bishop, therefore, refers not so much to the dignity as to the duties of the office.

We subjoin a few statements from Roman Catholic and Anglican writers, all men of highest authority in matters of ecclesiastical history:

Alzog^[20](Roman Catholic) admits that “the words επισχοπος and ερεσβυτερος are, in the New Testament, applied indifferently to the same person. * * * “Peter and John, though Apostles, call themselves Πρεσβυτεροι.” * * * “The name ‘Bishop ‘signifying a title of authority, was of later origin. In churches whose members were composed of Jewish converts, the word Elders (πρεσβύτεροι) was used to designate those holding offices of dignity, while in those frequented by pagan converts the word used for the same purpose was overseers (ἐπίσκοποι), and hence Peter and James uniformly use ερεσβυτερος not ἐπίσκοπος.

[20]Univ. Ch. Hist. i., p. 201-2

Lightfoot (an Anglican, now Bishop of Durham, and universally recognized as standing at the very head of theological science in England) writes: ^[21] “It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’ (ερεσβυτερος) * * * Episcopus— ‘bishop,” overseer’—was an official title among the Greeks. In the Athenian language it was used especially to designate commissioners appointed to regulate a new colony or acquisition, so that the Attic ‘bishop’ corresponded to the Spartan ‘harmost’ * * * In the LXX., the word is common. In some places it signifies ‘inspectors,’ ‘superintendents,” taskmasters’; in others it is a higher title, ‘captains’ or ‘presidents’.” * * * [21] St. Paul’s Epistle to the Phippians, 2 ed., p. 93 sq.

“The earlier history of the word presbyteros, (elder, presbyter or priest) is much more closely connected with its Christian sense.” * * * “Among the chosen people we meet at every turn with presbyters or elders in Church and State from the earliest to the latest times.” * * * “Over every Jewish synagogue, whether at home or abroad, a council of ‘elders,’ presided. It was not unnatural therefore that, when a Christian synagogue took its place side by side with the Jewish, a similar organization should be adopted, with such modifications as circumstances required.” Bishop Lightfoot then goes on to prove, from a consideration of the New Testament passages cited above,” the identity of the ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ in the language of the apostolic age.”

Jacob (an Anglican theologian of good repute) writes: ^[22] “The only bishops mentioned in the New Testament were simple presbyters; the same person beings ‘bishop’— επισχοπος; i.e. a superintendent or ‘overseer,’ from his ‘taking an oversight’ of his congregation, as is distinctly shown by Acts 20 and other passages; and a presbyter— ερεσβυτερος or elder, from the reverence due to age. It may, however, be observed that the office of elder is of Hebrew origin; while the term επισχοπος is Hellenic, and is applied in the New Testament only to the officers of Gentile churches, though it did not supersede the use of the word presbyter among them.”

[22] The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament. p. 72, sq.

Conybeare and Howson (Anglicans) write ^[23] “Of the officers concerned with church government, the next in rank to that of the apostles was the office of overseers or elders, more usually known (by their Greek designations) as bishops or presbyters. These terms are used in the New Testament as equivalent, the former (επισχοπος) denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the latter (ερεσβυτερος) the rank, of the office.”

[23] Life and Epistles of St. Paul, (Treat’s Am. Ed.) p. 433 sq Such citations from Episcopalian writers might be multiplied. The Reformers, e. g. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Cranmer, Coverdale, etc., were of the same opinion. The Protestant church historians of the present century, and especially the German church historians, who have studied church history more scientifically and more exhaustively than it was ever studied before, are well-nigh unanimous in their assertion of the identity of presbyters and bishops in the Apostolical churches. Among many who distinctly teach the identity, I may mention Neander, Gieseler, Guericke, Hase, Kurtz, Herzog, Ritschl, Hagenbach and Bunsen. The second class of officers in the Apostolical churches (probably the first in point of time) were Deacons. There seems to us to be no sufficient reason to doubt but that the diaconate was established when the Apostles advised the Jerusalem Christians to choose out from among them suitable men to take charge of the church charities (Acts 6). The meaning of the word διακονέω is minister, and hence the essential idea is that of service. As older, more experienced men were commonly appointed to the presbyterate or eldership, so younger, more active men were, we may suppose, commonly appointed to the diaconate. The seclusion of females in eastern society made it important that females should minister to them. Hence deaconesses existed in the Apostolical churches. (Romans 16:1. comp. 1 Timothy 5:3-16.)

7. The Apostolical churches were characterized by the regular observance, in the spirit of loving obedience, of certain ordinances instituted by Christ. Christianity was not designed to be a ceremonial religion. The spirit of the gospel is a spirit of freedom. “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” But Christ himself instituted two ordinances, for perpetual observance, which are most appropriate as bringing frequently before the believer, in an impressive manner, the central truths of the Christian faith. As to the number and the names of these two ordinances all Protestants, we may assume, are at one. They are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Let us ascertain, if we can, the precise nature of the rite, which in the Apostolical churches was designated by the term Baptism. How was it performed? The meaning of the term, as it is generally admitted, is sufficient to make it perfectly evident to an unprejudiced mind, that the outward form of the rite was the immersion of the subject in water. That such is the meaning of the term will be abundantly confirmed, as we proceed, by the testimony of scholars who can certainly have not the slightest interest beyond the interest of truth, in maintaining this view. The circumstances connected with the performance of the rite are of such a nature that even if the designation of the rite were equivocal, there would be no sufficient reason to doubt but that the thing actually performed under the name of baptism was immersion in water.

Again, even if the meaning of the word “baptism” were doubtful and we were left without the circumstances, the practice of the western churches until the middle ages, and the persistent practice of the oriental churches, would make it morally certain that the rite denominate a baptism was from the very beginning the immersion of the subject in water. This is not the place for an elaborate philological discussion. The discussions of the subject by others are so exhaustive and so conclusive that I shall content myself with citing a few striking passages from the writings of those who defend the validity of baptism by other methods than immersion.

Such, in our judgment, and, as we shall see, in the judgment of the scholarship of the ages, is the outward form designated baptism in the Apostolical churches. What was the aim and significance of the rite? Was it in the Apostolical churches an opus operatumi. Did the Apostles and their followers receive and administer the rite with the feeling that it produced a magical effect?

They certainly regarded baptism as important, from the fact that Christ himself had submitted to it, and that he had made it a part of his Great Commission. As an act of obedience to Christ they certainly did not feel at liberty to neglect it.

They certainly expected that in this as in all other acts of obedience to Christ they would receive the divine blessing.

They regarded it as an initiatory ceremony into the visible Church of Christ—as an act of consecration to Christ—as an outward symbol of the inner spiritual cleansing which they experience, through repentance for sin and faith in Christ Jesus as the Saviour from sin and from death.

They certainly regarded baptism as symbolical of the death of the believer to sin, and his resurrection to newness of life, in imitation of the burial and resurrection of Christ. But that baptism was regarded in the sense of an opus operation is entirely contrary to the spirit of the New Testament, to the direct teachings of the Apostles, to the circumstances under which the rite was performed. “By faith ye are saved “is, in substance, reiterated constantly throughout the New Testament. If it is added that” faith without works is dead,” the reference is far more to works of mercy, to Christian life and Christian effort for the salvation of others, than to the performance of any outward rites. It is never said or intimated that” by baptism ye are saved.” “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin,” not “baptism.” “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.” Not “he that is not baptized shall be damned.” The passages that have been especially relied upon for the support of baptismal regeneration are: Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 4:11. Now, taken apart from their connection, and interpreted without any regard to the particular teachings of the Apostles with regard to the way of salvation, and the general tone of New Testament Christianity, these passages might easily be supposed to attach something more than a symbolical meaning to baptism. Let us consider these passages one by one:

Acts 2:38. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is entirely inadequate for the purpose for which it is employed. Evidently the repentance is regarded as the first and most important step, and this alone is indispensable to the remission of sins. But Peter couples the two together, from the fact that the one followed immediately upon the other in Apostolic practice, and the two-fold act, the inner change and the outward recognition of the change, are represented jointly as securing remission of sins. The passage, therefore, is perfectly explicable in itself; but even if it were less so, our duty would be to interpret it in accordance with the numerous explicit teachings of the Apostles on this subject, and not in such a way as to contradict such explicit teachings and the entire spirit of the gospel.

Let us consider the passage, Acts 22:16 : “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.” This passage occurs in Paul’s account of his own conversion. He had been struck down on the way to Damascus, had yielded himself up in entire submission to Christ (“What shall I do Lord?”); in obedience to the divine command he had gone to Damascus for further instruction as to his duty; it is revealed to him by Ananias that he has been chosen by God to be a witness for him unto all men. His repentance and his faith in Christ are certainly presupposed. The washing away of his sins in baptism, which Ananias enjoins, can, therefore, be only a symbolical washing. Paul, who relates this of himself, certainly regarded salvation as entirely of grace, through faith in Christ Jesus, who died for sinners. We must, therefore, suppose that Paul understood the words of Ananias in accordance with this fundamental principle of all his preaching.

So, also, the passage, Ephesians 5:26 : * * * “Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it, that having cleansed it with the washing of the water he might sanctify it by the word,” must be taken in connection with Paul’s constantly emphasized doctrine of justification by faith. The washing of water is only symbolical of the inner washing through the Spirit of God. In 1 Peter 3:21, we read: “And now as an antitype, baptism saves you.” But, lest this should be misunderstood, the Apostle explains: “Not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answering of a good conscience unto God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Evidently, Peter has in mind here the symbolical significance and not a magical effect of baptism. We must admit that by those who are otherwise inclined to attach a magical efficacy to the baptismal rite, these passages can easily be made to favor such a view. But if we interpret these passages in accordance with the otherwise well-known Apostolical views of salvation, we shall be in no danger of going astray.

Such was the nature of the external rite, such its aim and significance. Who were the subjects of this rite? Even if we had no facts on which to base our answer to this question, we should be at no loss to decide. If baptism is an initiatory rite, and if the Apostolic churches, as we have shown to be the case, were, theoretically at least, composed entirely of believers, then the subjects of baptism could be none other than believers; if, as we have seen to be the case, baptism is spoken of in the New Testament, only in connection with faith and repentance, this indicates as clearly as possible, that the subjects of baptism are so far advanced in age as to be capable of repentance and faith, capable of turning away from sin and self, and turning unto Christ.

There is no passage in the New Testament that lends any probability to the view in accordance with which unconscious infants were baptized in the New Testament time. In cases where households were baptized, it is certain, in accordance with the plain teachings and the general spirit of the New Testament, either that no infants were members of the households, or else that they were left entirely out of account in a matter which, according to Apostolic conceptions, could sustain no possible relation to them.

We may supply the place of elaborate argumentation, by making a number of citations’ from writers of recognized authority and whose consistency would best be subserved by an entirely reverse explanation of primitive Christianity.

Dr. Jacob (an Anglican) writes: ^[24] “It may at once be inferred from the words of the original institution, that this sacrament was to be an initiatory rite in the church. It was to be administered to those who believed in the One God, the Father of all; who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the long promised and now manifested Saviour; who accepted the doctrine that the Divine Spirit is the author of holiness in man, and would lead them to the knowledge and practice of the Christian life; and who with this amount of understanding and conviction were desirous to renounce the dominion and deeds of sin to become obedient servants of Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom, and to join themselves to him and to his church. To such persons their baptism was to be the sign and seal of their discipleship; and thus to be the formal evidence of their Christian profession,—their actual admission into the visible fellowship of the church—the symbol of their union with Christ, and of their participation in the privileges which that union imparts.”

[24] Eccl. Polity of the N.T., p. 245

Dr. Jacob’s view is evidently the same as that which we have stated above, with regard to the aim and significance of baptism. What does he say as to the mode of baptism?

“Baptism in the primitive church was evidently administered by immersion of the body in the water —a mode which added to the significance of the rite and gave a peculiar force to some of the allusions to it.”^{[25] [25]} Eccl. Polity of the N. T. p. 258.

We surely have no fault to find with Dr. Jacob’s statement with regard to the mode of baptism practiced in the Apostolic churches. What then does he say concerning the subjects of baptism in the Apostolic churches?

“Notwithstanding all that has been written by learned men upon this subject, it remains indisputable that infant baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament. No instance of it is recorded there; no allusion is made to its effects; no directions are given for its administration. * * * It ought to be distinctly acknowledged that it is not an Apostolic ordinance.”

We shall have space for only a few more citations on this subject. We cannot do better than to give a few striking passages from the recent article on the subject “Baptism,” ^[26] published by Dr. A. P. Stanley, a Dean of Westminster, whose name is as widely known and as universally respected as that of any other churchman of the present time.

[26] Nineteenth Century. Oct, 1878.

Having stated that the primitive idea of baptism is that of cleansing, the outward rite symbolizing the inward spiritual state, Dean Stanley proceeds: “‘Baptism’ was not only a bath, but a plunge—an entire submersion in the deep water, a leap as into the rolling sea or the rushing river, where for the moment the waves close over the bather’s head, and he emerges again as from a momentary grave; or it was the shock of a shower-bath, the rush of water passed over the whole person from capacious vessels, so as to wrap the recipient as within the veil of a splashing cataract. This was the part of the ceremony on which the Apostles laid so much stress. It seemed to them like a burial of the old former self, and the rising up again of the new self. So St. Paul compared it to the Israelites passing through the roaring waves of the Red Sea, and St. Peter to the passing through the deep waters of the flood. ‘We are buried,’ said St. Paul, ‘with Christ by baptism at his death; that like as Christ was raised, thus we also should walk in the newness of life.’”

Having described more minutely the baptismal rite with its circumstances, as it was practiced in the Apostolic churches, he proceeds: “These are the outer forms of which, in the Western churches, almost every particular is altered, even in the most material points. Immersion has become the exception, and not the rule. Adult baptism, as well as immersion, exists only among the Baptists. The dramatic action of the scene is lost.” The learned Dean goes on to enumerate and discuss the changes that have taken place in the ordinance. He shows, with perfect right, as we humbly believe, that the first change was a change in doctrine: “There was the belief in early ages that it was like a magical charm, which acted on the persons who received it without any consent or intention, either of administrator or recipient, as in the case of children or actors performing the rite with no serious intention. There was also the belief that it wiped away all sins, however long they had been accumulating, and however late it was administered. * * * There was the yet more dreadful superstition, that no one could be saved unless he had passed through Baptism.” The second change, according to Dean Stanley, was a change in form (logically and chronologically the change in subject preceded the change in form, but we retain Dean Stanley’s order). “For the first thirteen centuries “he writes, “the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word ‘baptize’—that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. That practice is still continued in Eastern churches. In the Western church it still lingers amongst Roman Catholics in the solitary instance of the Cathedral of Milan, amongst Protestants in the austere sect of the Baptists. It lasted long into the Middle Ages. Even the Icelanders, who at first shrank from the waters of their freezing lakes, were reconciled when they found that they could use the warm water of the Geysers. * * * Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in the rare case of death-beds or extreme necessity) as no baptism at all.” The third change discussed by Dean Stanley is the change of subjects. From the expressions that have already been cited, we might readily infer the course of his discussion of this change. “In the Apostolic age, and in the three centuries which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in full age, of their own deliberate choice. We find a few cases of the baptism of children; ^[27] in the third century we find one case of the baptism of infants.^{[28] [27]} He does not mean in the Apostolic age, but in the first three centuries

[28] This last clause may be misleading. If the Dean states the matter too strongly on our side, we do not think that we ought to take advantage of it, but to correct it. We may observe that in the instance which Dean Stanley doubtless has in mind here, the discussion of the subject in one of Cyprian’s letters, the question is not as to whether infants may lawfully be baptized, but whether they may be lawfully baptized before the eighth day, Cyprian decides that the ceremonial impurity of the child ought to furnish no obstacle, and that if grown-up people, who are full of pollution, are fit subjects of baptism, much more are infants, who have personally committed no sin. We should be inclined to infer from this passage, if its genuineness be admitted, that baptism of infants was becoming common by the middle of the third century.

“The liturgical service of baptism was framed entirely for full-grown converts, and is only by considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants Gradually, however, the practice spread, and after the fifth century the whole Christian world, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, Episcopal and Presbyterian, (with the single exception of the sect of the Baptists before mentioned) have baptized children in their infancy.^[29]

^[29] As we took the liberty of explaining a misleading passage to our hurt, so now we object to the sweeping statement contained in the last sentence. In the Middle Ages, the Petrobrusians, Henricians and many of the Waldeuses rejected infant baptism. So also the Anabaptists and the Socinians in the sixteenth century.

“* * * What is the justification of this almost universal departure from the primitive usage? There may have been many reasons, some bad, some good. One, no doubt, was the superstitious feeling already mentioned, which regarded baptism as a charm, indispensable to salvation, and which insisted on imparting it to every human being who could be touched with water, however unconscious.”

Here, as on the identity of presbyters and bishops, it would be easy to multiply citations from English, German, French and American authors—men who stand highest in scholarship and in general esteem, agreeing substantially as to the nature, mode and all subjects of the baptismal ordinance as practiced in the primitive churches.

We should find that almost complete unanimity exists among the scholars of the world, (Roman Catholic and Protestant), with regard to the form of Apostolic baptism; as to the subjects of baptism in the Apostolic churches, the unanimity would be found considerably less; as to the nature of the rite, still greater diversity of opinion would appear. The other ordinance of our Lord, designed for perpetual observance, and practiced as such in the Apostolic churches, is the Lord’s Supper. The significance of this ordinance, in the Apostolical churches, was two-fold: First, to commemorate the incarnation and the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. “This do in remembrance of me.” “As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come.” Secondly, it was a communion of believers with Christ and among themselves. “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for we being many are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” The word rendered “communion,” in the passage just cited, means simply “participation in;” but the expressions that follow show that the idea of joint participation was also present in the Apostle’s mind.

We shall not attempt, on this occasion, to refute the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance under its two-fold aspect of transubstantiation and consubstantiation; nor the theory in accordance with which the Lord’s Supper partakes of the nature of a sacrifice. Such a discussion would require more space than can be given to it, and would probably interest few of the readers of this article.

Who, in the Apostolic age, were the participants in this ordinance? No one will pretend that any but baptized believers were such. Believers, in the Apostolic times, were promptly baptized; baptism forming, in the eyes of the Apostles, an integral part of the profession of belief in Christ.

Certainly no one would have thought of partaking of the Lord’s Supper without having made full profession of his conversion to Christ. Most Christian churches, throughout the entire Christian era, have not only understood the New Testament practice thus, but have themselves practiced close communion, i.e., have regarded communion as an ordinance to be participated in only by those who have fulfilled all the conditions of church-membership.

II. Apostolical And Baptist Churches COMPARED AS TO FORM AND SPIRIT.

Such, as we humbly believe, were the essential characteristics of the Apostolical churches. They acknowledged Christ as the only head, and regarded his will, as communicated to them by the Holy Spirit and through the Apostles, as absolutely binding. The Apostolical churches were composed theoretically, and practically as far as rigid discipline could make them so, of true believers, of the regenerate. Each Apostolical church was absolutely independent of all other churches and of any men or class of men. The members of these churches were possessed of equal rights and privileges, there being manifest nothing of the nature of a hierarchy or sacerdotal class. Anything like a union of Church and State is utterly repugnant to the Apostolical teachings with regard to the nature and end of the church. The Apostolical churches chose out of their own ranks officers for the performance of special functions, which officers regarded themselves and were regarded, not as lords, but as servants or ministers of the churches for which they performed functions. These officers were divided, in the Apostolic times, into two general classes: bishops or presbyters, and deacons. The ordinances instituted by our Lord for perpetual observance, and which were faithfully performed in the Apostolical churches, were two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Such were the Apostolical churches. What are the essential characteristics of Baptist churches? Do Baptist churches correspond with Apostolical churches in the first specification? They do most perfectly. As the Apostolical churches depended for doctrine and for methods of organization upon Apostolical teaching, representing to them the mind of Christ, so Baptists make the Scriptures, and especially the Apostolical writings, given as they believe by Divine inspiration for the perpetual guidance of Christians, and interpreted by the aid of the Holy Spirit, their rule of faith and practice. As the New Testament churches were organized in accordance with Apostolical direction, so Baptists believe that churches for all time ought to be organized in accordance with Apostolical direction, and, where express direction is wanting, they feel and maintain that churches ought to proceed in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament precept and example.

Baptists may make innovations within certain limits, but these limits are very definitely fixed. There may be, in their view, development to meet the exigencies of the times and the circumstances in which a church may be placed; but such development must be strictly in a line with the New Testament precept and example. No fundamental principle of Apostolical Christianity and church order must be violated, however expedient such violation may, to human comprehension, appear.

Christ is the supreme head of the Church, the Lord of the consciences of all believers. His will is and must be the supreme rule for believers. Now Christ either has revealed and does reveal his will to believers, or not. Either the Scriptures set forth the will of Christ with regard to us, or not. If they do, then we have a firm foundation whereon to stand, and we ought to stand upon it. If not, we are left entirely to human caprice. The church order laid down in the New Testament is exceedingly simple; but church order, Baptists hold, ought to be simple.

Some minor matters, of Apostolical example, that bear no necessary relation to what is fundamental in Christianity, Baptists may and do put aside.

Matters of practical expediency, which do not conflict with any fundamental principal of Apostolical Christianity, but can be clearly shown to be in harmony with such principles, Baptists wisely super add. But Baptists are and ought to be exceedingly careful and conservative with regard to any such changes. They recognize the fact that it is better to err on the side of conservatism than on the side of liberalism.

Let us illustrate. Baptists have, for the most part, abandoned the Love Feast, which was commonly observed in Apostolic times, in connection with the Lord’s Supper, partly as a charitable arrangement for providing for destitute Christians, and partly as a means of Christian social intercourse. Love Feasts were not appointed by Christ, they were not enjoined by Apostolic precept, they are rendered necessary by no fundamental law of Christianity. The fundamental ideas which it was designed to subserve—liberal provision for destitute Christians and fraternal intercourse among Christians— are of perpetual obligation, and these ends are at present better subserved in other ways. On the other hand: The Apostolic churches had no costly structures in which to worship; had no musical instruments with which to accompany their singing of psalms; had nothing, probably, which corresponded entirely with our Sunday preaching services; had no regularly appointed Associations, Conventions, or Mission Boards; had nothing corresponding exactly with our Sunday-schools.

Yet no fundamental principle of Apostolical Christianity is violated by the building of costly structures for Christian worship, provided only that they are paid for; that their building does not conflict with other Christian duties, the caring for the poor, the dissemination of the truth at home and abroad, etc.; and that they do not foster in the members of such churches a spirit of self-sufficiency and pride, or deter the poor from the privileges of the sanctuary. The use of musical instruments, in connection with Christian worship, violates no fundamental Christian principle, in so far as it does not tend more to sensuous gratification than to the intensifying of the religious aspirations. The regular employment of the Lord’s Day for special preaching services by an elder, one of whose chief functions is pulpit oratory, violates no fundamental principle of Apostolical Christianity, so far as it does not weaken the sense of responsibility in individual church members, so far as it does not foster the habit of attending church services largely for the merely intellectual gratification furnished by eloquent speaking, so far as it does not foster a sacerdotal spirit; and so far as it does prove itself to be a great element of power in winning souls to Christ and in promoting Christian intelligence and Christian development. The evils which might otherwise flow out of this practice are obviated to a great extent by the social meetings which are, in our judgment, an elemental part of Christian church order. So also, in annual and other associations of churches no Apostolical principle is violated, so long as freedom of discussion is maintained, so long as they do not become practically mere means of getting registered the decisions of a few; and so long as they do promote Christian fellowship among the churches, knowledge in the individual churches of the religious needs and the efforts to supply these needs in the outside world, activity in the churches, (and of course in the individual members of the churches) in every good word and work. Not only are such associations not contrary to the Apostolic spirit, but they are clearly in accordance with the Apostolic spirit. The aim of Christianity, and hence the proper aim of every church, is the highest development of its members in spirituality and in Christian knowledge, and the extension of the knowledge of the truth to the greatest possible number of those that are without.

Whatever really favors this aim is sure to accord with the will of Christ and with the spirit of the Apostolic churches. Yet we may well be on our guard against incidental evils, such as those suggested above. That Baptists insist upon regenerate church-membership has always been at the same time their glory and the occasion of their being persecuted and treated with contempt by other Christians. This principle, as it was the second fundamental principle in the Apostolical churches, so it is the second fundamental principle in Baptist churches. It was this, and not the rejection of infant baptism, that lay at the bottom of the Anabaptist movement in the sixteenth century. Zwingle was inclined to agree with Grebel, Manz and Hübmaier in their rejection of infant baptism, until, all at once, it dawned upon him that something lay behind the rejection of infant baptism in the minds of these earnest, godly men namely, a belief in the necessity of a church of the regenerate. So, to-day, a belief in the necessity of using all available means for the securing of regenerate church-membership is the most fundamental principle of Baptist churches. From this New Testament principle, this principle which cannot be eliminated from Christian churches without great and constantly increasing harm, all other distinctive points of Baptist, as of Apostolical, church polity, naturally flow.

If saving belief in Christ is necessary to church membership, then saving belief in Christ is prerequisite to the validity of Baptism, an initiation into church-membership involving a profession of such saving belief. Hence, infant baptism was never thought of in the Apostolic age, and has been utterly abolished by the Baptists, who have made the Apostolic churches their model, the Apostolic spirit their guide.

Again, if all church-members are saints, regenerate, separate from the world, united with Christ, sons of God, then there can be no such thing as difference of rank or difference of privilege in churches of such constituency. All sacerdotalism thus falls to the ground. Whatever officers the church may have, they stand upon precisely the same footing as other members. Natural gifts may fit one above another for the performance of certain functions, but the performer is not elevated thereby, is put in no different relation to Christ, is simply doing his duty according to the ability that has been given him, just as the humblest Christian does his duty to the extent of his ability.

Again, as the Apostolic churches were independent, each of all other churches, and relied upon the teachings of the Apostles at; embodying the revealed will of Christ, but interpreted such teachings each one for himself,—”each one being fully persuaded in his own mind,” and acting according to such persuasion,—so Baptists believe that each individual church-member has the inalienable right to interpret the Scriptures for himself, with the light which his education, his reason, and the Holy Spirit give him, and to think and act according to the dictates of his own conscience. This involves freedom of each individual in the congregation, and freedom of each congregation from any outside interference, whether of prelate, presbytery or State. As the Apostolic churches scrupulously observed the two ordinances that Christ entrusted to them as matters of perpetual observance, so Baptists preserve these ordinances in spirit, in form, in subjects, to the best of their ability.

Baptists insist that the rite of baptism be performed by baptism, not by rhantism. Just as only believers were baptized in the Apostolic churches, and just as the ordinance is in its nature and design suitable only to believers, so Baptists maintain and practice to the best of their ability.

Just as, in matters of great importance, Apostolical churches sought the counsel of other Apostolical churches, and acted on such counsel freely when received, so Baptist churches, as a matter of expediency, frequently consult with other Baptist churches, on important local matters and on matters affecting the runs, of Christ in general.

Again, just as the Apostles, as representatives of Christian work in different regions, met at Jerusalem, in convention, to discuss questions of importance, so now Baptist churches appoint delegates to assemble from time to time, to discuss matters pertaining to the progress of Christ’s cause; and just as this Apostolical convention appointed certain Apostles to a special work, so Baptist churches by their delegates form missionary societies for the more efficient carrying forward of the work of Christ at home and abroad.

III. Concluding Remarks.

Such are, in brief, the principles and the practices of Baptist churches, as held to theoretically by the great Baptist brotherhood. Most institutions with which men have to do are inferior to their ideals, especially if their ideals are exalted and Christ like.

Although Baptists claim to make absolute obedience to Christ their fundamental principle, how many Baptists give the lie to their profession by impure, selfish, unevangelical lives!

Although Baptists insist theoretically upon regenerate church-membership, how many Baptist churches tolerate, on account of financial and social considerations, members that give abundant evidence of being members of Satan rather than members of Christ!

Although Baptists believe in the divine right of every individual Christian to interpret the Scriptures for himself, and to act freely according to the full persuasion of his own mind, how scantily is this freedom, as a general thing, accorded! Baptist churches have a standard of orthodoxy, partly written, partly traditional, the aim and effect whereof is in many cases to hamper the freedom of individual consciences. The amount of bigotry and intolerance to be found in Baptist churches is, when compared with the fundamental principles of Baptists, appalling!

Again, Baptist churches are theoretically democratical; but to how great an extent are they governed oligarchically! Elders and deacons are theoretically servants, ministers of the churches. How often, alas! do they insist upon “lording it over God’s heritage.”

Even with regard to the ordinances, which Baptist churches alone keep theoretically to the Apostolical norm, how much bigotry and Phariseeism often find place in Baptist churches! As forms appointed by Christ, these ordinances are important, but how sad it is to see large numbers of Baptist churches exalting them practically above the spiritual elements of Christianity!

We can show, as we believe, that every important innovation upon the Apostolical church order is evil in its tendency, and has been historically evil in its results. We could show, for example, if time permitted, that the perversion of the idea of the nature of baptism into a magical rite, containing in itself a means of grace and securing remission of sins, led to the belief that without baptism there is no salvation. This in turn, led to the introduction and the general adoption of infant baptism, and hence to the discontinuance of effort to limit church-membership to actual believers. This practice, in time, greatly facilitated the union of Church and State, and the growth of hierarchy, with all the corruption inherent in State churches and hierarchical churches.

It is not denied that circumstances may, in certain cases, hinder a similar downward development, as a result of departure from New Testament principles; but such being the tendency, and such the historical facts, we cannot be too careful to avoid any departure from the principles of Apostolical Christianity, however slight it may appear in itself, and however expedient it may seem, on a given occasion, to make such a departure.

“The truth is immortal,” wrote Dr. Balthazar Hübmaier, the great Baptist of the sixteenth century, on the title-pages of all his books. He thought he possessed, and he did possess, the truth. He preached the truth, he lived the truth, he died heroically at the stake for the truth. The principles that he taught were too exalted for his age. He was hunted down by Protestant, and burned by Roman Catholic, Scribes and Pharisees. But these principles—the supreme lordship of Christ, the necessity of regenerate church-membership, the independence of the local church, absolute freedom of conscience, and freedom in manifesting religious thought and feeling in religious life and in church organization— have, in their marvellous extension and general recognition, justified abundantly the faith of this man of God.

It is never really expedient to sacrifice the truth. Let us teach the truth, let us live the truth, let us die for the truth, if need be; and our reward will not be wanting when we come to stand before Him who is the Author of Truth—nay, who is Himself the Truth.