) An Address Jlrnf. <£?is. £. for r, §. IL Professor of Church History in the Newton Theological Institution Before the Unatrnt Sap twt fHintslrra’ (Sflitferrnre April 22, 1907 The Compliments of HENRY IV. PEABODY Salem, Mass . Reprinted from THE WATCHMAN baptist ©rgamgatum m IGtpljt of ipatorp N 1812 the Baptists numbered in the States that then formed the Union, 2,417 churches, 1,916 ministers and 188,215 members. There were few common bonds between them, and no general or¬ ganization. The Philadelphia Association, however, had been formed in 1707, the Charleston in 1751, the Warren in 1767, and, more than a century after the Philadelphia organization, the Boston Association was formed in 1812. In this first decade of the 19th century the churches were not altogether lacking in devotion to foreign mis¬ sions. The formation of the English Baptist Mission¬ ary Society in Kettering, England, in 1792, and the work of Carey in India, awakened much interest in this country. Contributions of money were sent to the Serampore Mission. Rev. John Williams of New York, and Rev. Thomas Baldwin of Boston, main¬ tained a regular correspondence with Dr. Carey and his associates. It was probably the general desire in the churches that this correspondence might be given to the public which led to the publication of the Mass. Baptist Missionary Magazine. The first number was issued in September, 1803. In 1836 it became “The Baptist Missionary Magazine.” It is the oldest Bap¬ tist periodical in America. One of the first things Rev. Adoniram Judson did after reaching India in 1812, as a missionary of the American Board, was to send two letters to Boston; one to the American Board resigning his post as a missionary, because he had been convinced of the cor¬ rectness of Baptist views; the other to Rev. Thomas Baldwin, inquiring if the Baptists would form a for¬ eign missionary society, and offering himself as its first missionary. Dr. Baldwin immediately called together at his home the leading brethren within reach. A so¬ ciety was at once organized, which assumed the sup¬ port of Mr. and Mrs. Judson. Nothing has ever hap¬ pened in the history of our denomination in America that has done so much to bring our churches to a 3 consciousness of their common interests and fellowship as the letter of Mr. Judson to Dr. Baldwin. In its result it reminds one of the letter of John Knox, writ¬ ten from 1 Dieppe, to the Scotch lords. Missionary so¬ cieties to help in this good work sprang up all over the country; in Virginia, in Philadelphia, in New York and Savannah and Baltimore. The far-sighted brethren of the Philadelphia As¬ sociation saw that for the largest effectiveness, this work should be unified. They called a convention of delegates from all these societies at Philadelphia. It assembled May 18, 1814, and it was the most notable gathering of American Baptists that up to that time had met on this Continent. There were 26 clergymen and 7 laymen from 11 different States. This convention or- ganized “The General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions,” usually called “The Triennial Convention.” The Judsons w r ere appointed missionaries of the con¬ vention, and Luther Rice agent to visit the churches on behalf of the foreign missionary cause. Through the efforts of Mr. Rice, the contributions which in 1814 had been $1239 in 1816 were $12,236. Multitudes of auxiliary societies were organized, and many of the associations made foreign missions one of their lead¬ ing objects. Let me now summarize the subsequent history by considering: I. The development of the Triennial Convention into Northern Missionary Societies and the Southern Convention. II. The efforts to determine a satisfactory basis of membership in these bodies. III. The attempts since 1901 to unify the Northern Societies and to bring into being an organization cap¬ able of denominational leadership and the expression of denominational opinion. IV. The legitimate inferences from this historical survey. The Evolution of the Triennial Convention. The second meeting of the Triennial Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1817. By that time Mr. Rice had spent nearly four years in visiting the churches. He knew the condition of the denomination better than any living man. He had become convinced that an educated ministry was the indispensable condi¬ tion of any large success in foreign missions. Foreign missionaries must be educated men, and the home churches must have educated pastors if foreign mis¬ sions were to be sustained. 4 The convention took up the matter aggressively, and amended its constitution so as to engage in educational work, stipulating that the funds for missions and edu¬ cation should be kept entirely separate. Under this Ivote Columbian college was established at Washing¬ ton, and William Stoughton, Alva Woods and Irak Chase were nominated as professors. In 1816 the convention entered the field of journal¬ ism. “The Latter Day Luminary,” first a quar¬ terly, and then a monthly, was established, and in 1822 “The Columbian Star,” a weekly, was founded. This is now “The Christian Index” of Georgia. The convention also undertook home mission work, amending its constitution in 1817 to do so. John E. Peek and James E. Welch, both of whom had been pupils of Dr. Stoughton at Washington, began their great work in the Mississippi valley under this vote. Thus up to 1826 we had one society, having for its constituency the entire country, which was engaged in foreign missions, education, journalism and home missions. Still the meeting of the Triennial Convention in New York in 1826 marked the close of an epoch. Luther Rice, the most unselfish of men, was not a good finan¬ cier. He kept his accounts loosely, and did not sep¬ arate his funds. The committee which investigated the whole matter reported him innocent of intentional wrong, and Rice himself gave up his savings and his little patrimony of $2000 to the convention. But the convention was seriously embarrassed. The reports of the meeting for that year are quite meagre, but the yellow pages of the old minutes are redolent with discouragement, and many began to question the wisdom of doing so many things by one organization. It is a significant circumstance, too, that the convention at this meeting felt obliged to pass the following vote: “Whereas, fears have existed to some extent in the Western states and elsewhere, that, at some future day, this body may attempt to interfere with the inde¬ pendence of the churches. Resolved, In accordance with its former views and with well-known and long-established Baptist princi¬ ples, this convention cannot exercise the least author¬ ity over the government of the churches.’’ It looked as if the whole enterprise might be aban¬ doned, but wise councils prevailed. The brethren from Massachusetts saved the day. They reported that two months before the Baptists about Boston had obtained a charter for a theological seminary, and that they hoped to go on with the work. Then they even pledged that if the seat of the Triennial Convention were 5 removed to Boston, the foreign missionary work should be supported. The result of these overtures on the part of the Massachusetts men was that the convention voted to amend its constitution so that its work was limited to its original function of foreign missions, and the theological department of Columbian college was discontinued. Immediately the Massachusetts men pushed the work of establishing the Newton Theologi¬ cal Institution on a firm basis, and Irah Chase came from Washington to be its first professor. At the same time the; Triennial Convention established its seat in Boston. That is why the Missionary Union today has its headquarters in Boston and not in Phila¬ delphia or New York. The limitation of the Triennial Convention, how¬ ever, to its original purpose did not cripple the de¬ nominational energy in the work from which the con¬ vention had withdrawn. A General Tract Society had been organized in Washington in 1824. At once, when the convention resolved to confine itself to foreign missions, this so¬ ciety removed to Philadelphia, and in 1845 changed its name to “The American Baptist Publication Society/' The Massachusetts Missionary Society immediately after the action of the convention in withdrawing from home mission work, threw itself with new energy into the evangelization of the West. Dr. Jonathan Going, pastor of the First church, Worcester, Mass., made an extended tour in the West in 1831, and on his return the Mass. Society adopted a resolution that the Baptists of the United States ought to form a general society for mission work in America, especially in the Missis¬ sippi valley. After negotiations with the New York Baptist Missionary Convention, a meeting was caUed in New* York April 27, 1832, the time of the meeting of the Triennial Convention. As a result the Ameri¬ can Baptist Home Mission Society was organized with Homan Lincoln of Mass, as president, and Jonathan Going as secretary. The constituency of this society, like that of the Triennial Convention, was the entire country. The 1 slavery question became acute in the early for¬ ties, and, as a result, the southern Baptists called a convention at Augusta, Ga., which was attended by 377 delegates, and the Southern Baptist Convention was organized May 8, 1845. In its “Declaration,” the convention says that its constitution is “precisely that of the original union, that with which throughout his life Adoniram Judson lived, under which Ann Judson and Boardman died. We re¬ cede from no single step. We use the very terms, and 6 we uphold the true spirit and great object of the late General Convention." That declaration is an affecting evidence of the unity of the entire denomination up* to 1845. The Judsons and the Boardmans belonged to the Soutli as mrlch as to the North. At Augusta the South withdrew from the Home Mission Society as well as from the Triennial Conven¬ tion. Indeed it was the action taken by the Home Mis¬ sion Society the month before at Providence that pre¬ cipitated the calling of the Augusta convention. In their organization the southern Baptists adopted the plan of the General Convention previous to 1826. They had one convention, and the Board of Home Mis¬ sions and the Board of Foreign missions were simply committees of the convention, charged with these du¬ ties and responsible to the convention. That remains the organization of the southern Baptists. They per¬ petuate the form of the original organization of Amer¬ ican Baptists for missionary work. The Basis of Membership. Let us now inquire what constitutes membership in our missionary societies? The fundamental question is this: Should the membership of those societies consist of delegates from churches, without any refer¬ ence to whether or not the churches are showing enough interest in the society to contribute to its sup¬ port, or should the membership consist of those indiv¬ iduals and the delegates of those churches that have enough interest in the society to help support it ? The way the Triennial Convention answered this question is very clear. In the first constitution dele¬ gates not exceeding two in number might be sent by “Missionary societies and other religious bodies" that contribute at least $100 a year to the convention. This article was amended in 1820 and in 182^. In its final form its gives one delegate to “mis¬ sionary 7 societies, associations, churches or other religious bodies of the Baptist denomination'’ that con¬ tribute at least $100 a year to the convention, and “for every additional sum of $100 an additional represen¬ tative and vote shall be allowed. But no individual shall be entitled to have more than one vote.” The Southern Convention followed this model with some changes. It provided for two sorts of members: brethren who contribute funds or Baptist bodies con¬ tributing funds for the regular work of the convention, an the basis of one delegate for each $250, and “a rep¬ resentative from each of the District Associations that co-operate with the convention.” The notion that churches, as such, without reference to their contribu¬ tions, send delegates to the Southern Convention, or 7 that the convention is organized to represent the whole body of the churches is wholly incorrect. An examination of the constitutions of the Northern societies yields these results: The Publication Society limited membership to con¬ tributing individuals, churches and District Associa¬ tions. The minimum amount was $100. Successive changes have brought the constitution to the position that condition for Annual Individual Membership is the payment of $10 a year; Honorary Life Mem¬ bership, $50 at one time. One delegate is allowed to each church contributing to the society (no amount named) and an additional delegate for each $50, not to exceed ten. The Home Mission Society had originally two classes of members. (1) Individuals—Annual Mem¬ bers, those contributing annually (amount not named) ; Life Members, those contributing $30 at one time; Di¬ rectors for Life, those contributing $100 at a time. (2) Organizations—Churches, associations, State con¬ ventions and missionary societies, contributing (amount not named), “are entitled to be represented by one or more delegates. Successive changes in 1846, 1886 and 1902 brought the membership article into substantial agreement with that of the Publication Society (1902). The Missionary Union did not reach this position ex¬ cept by a long process of evolution. The Triennial Convention, which the Union perpetuates, provided only for the annual membership of “missionary socie¬ ties, associations, churches and other religious bodies.” , After the breach between North and South, the con¬ stitution of the Missionary Union made provision for only one class of members—life members. The article reads: “The Union shall be composed of Life Members. All the members of the Baptist General Convention who may be present at the adoption of this Consti¬ tution shall be members for life of this Union. Other persons may be constituted Life Members by the pay¬ ment at one time of not less than $100." At the meeting of the Union, 1846, the question was raised whether or not churches should not have a right to annual membership in the Union on the payment of $100 a year—a right they had had under the old Trien¬ nial Constitution. The question came up on the resolution of Rev. Al¬ fred Bennett: “Resolved, That any church or other religious body choosing to represent itself in one annual meeting only upon the payment of $100 shall enjoy for the time being all the rights and privileges of a member." Observe the question was not whether a non-contrib¬ uting church should be entitled to send a delegate. The 8 question was whether a church that contributed $100 for a given year could send a delegate for that year. This question was submitted to a committee—per¬ haps as strong a committee as our denomination had ever raised. William R. Williams was chairman, and the other members were Morgan J. Rhees, Elisha Tuck¬ er, James H. Duncan, Adam Wilson, Greenleaf S. Webb, Pharcellus Church, John Booth and John Ste¬ vens. This committee did not makes it report for three years, and then it made a report that is a classical de¬ fence of the Baptist church polity. This report was undoubtedly written by Dr. William R. Williams, and the depth and sweep of its thought, the happiness of its allusions, and its reverence for the Scripture make it illustrious among all our documents. It is impossible to summarize this notable paper in a few sentences. It is substantially an argument against, the application of the representative system of govern¬ ment to Baptist churches. . We have no right it says to admit the dangerous principle of church representa¬ tion. If representation does not necessarily result in legislation, it slopes toward it as the ways of a ship soon to be launched. A sharp distinction is drawn be¬ tween delegates and representatives; the latter word is wholly repudiated, and preference is given to the term, “messengers of the churches.” The reason that our churches cannot erect a legis¬ lative body is that they have no legislative power to confer. The legislation of the church is settled by the New Testament. If on the one hand a Baptist church is a pure democracy, on the other hand it is an absolute monarchy, with Christ as King. The assumption “that like any other democracy the church should make and mend its own laws, overlooks the monarchical char¬ acter of the church, and the inference, based on this false assumption, that these independent democracies can come together by their representatives, making a joint democratic confederation, with power to legislate for its constituent churches, is to build up a system which is neither friendly to Scriptural truth nor prac¬ tical freedom.” To the objection that, if this is so, the Baptist churches are a rope of sand for purposes of effective co-operation, the report says: “Without the Spirit of God they are; and it is safer for them that they should remain a rope of sand; but when pervaded by that divine and assimilating love, .the sand is molten into a sea of glass. Their cohesion depends on their piety.” . . . “When the breath or earthly spirit goes out of a man his body rots. So it is in the polity 9 of the Neiw Testament churches. As long as they remain spiritual and prayerful, our churches with Christ in their hearts, and Christ in their assemblies have energy and elasticity and boundless enterprise, and yet perfect union. But when piety dies, the unity' and power disappear, as they ought to do, for unity without piety makes the church a curse to the world. Other systems hold the ecclesiastical continuity and or¬ ganization unbroken, when the spirit and inward life brave vanished. They galvanize the corpse of a Chris¬ tian church into ghastly and murderous activity, after the breath of the divine life has quitted it.” It is evident that this committee did not so much fear that annual membership would do harm, but what it feared was that the adoption of that plan would lead to the introduction of a representative system, in which churches, as such, without reference to their interest in the work, would send delegates to the annual meet- ing. This report was sent to all the members of the Union (1700) ; 412 favored amending the constitution, and 419 opposed it, and the next year, 1849, the great majority of the convention (Philadelphia) voted to leave the constitution unchanged. Things remained in this position for five years, but in 1854 the constitution was amended to admit dele¬ gates from contributing churches. The society evi¬ dently believed that the right of churches as such to a voice in its work had been disproved. The contest over the Bennett resolution had not been over the reso¬ lution itself, but over the principle that it was believed underlay it. In 1902 the constitution was brought into practical agreement with those of the other societies. Substantially all the points that have been made dur¬ ing the last months in the Boston Ministers’ Confer¬ ence were made by the progressives and the conserva¬ tives in the years 1845-48. Indeed, the brethren of sixty years ago showed that they had a grasp of prin¬ ciples and details quite equal to that of their children and grandchildren. Though the issue of a represen¬ tative system in the organization of the Missionary Union was not directly involved in the Bennett resolu¬ tion, those who favored it did not hesitate to grapple with that question. They thought it would be wise to work toward a represntative system by which the churches as such, without reference to their interest in the work of the society as shown by contributions, should send delegates to the annual meeting. They saw that a representative system slopes tow r ard legis¬ lative power in the body that results from it; but they were willing to take the risk. They believed that 10 churches would become interested in missionary work if they sent delegates to the annual meeting with a voice in the control of the society. They believed that such an organization of the Union would minister to denominational unity and efficiency. On the other hand, the conservatives asserted that a church that was; not sufficiently interested in the work of any society to make any contribution to it, was not entitled to a delegate to its meeting, or to a voice in its control; that since the amount of the contribution was not large, no just charge could be made that member¬ ship is put on a money basis; that those who care for and support a great work for extending the Kingdom of God are the only ones who should have a voice in it They pointed out that when only 30 percent of the Baptist churches of the North contributed to the Miss¬ ion ary Union—-the number today is about 50 percent— and most of the support came from three States, as today, the change proposed was full of peril to the enterprise. And back of all lay the fundamental ques¬ tion : Can the denomination be adjusted to or take on any representative system without a sacrifice of one of its essential ideas? Recent Movements Toward Unification . III. Thirdly, let us look for a moment at the move¬ ments of recent years toward tha larger organization of the denomination. (1) A committee on “Co-ordination,” appointed in 1900, reported at Springfield the next year. It recom¬ mended that “the best interests of our denomination require that the annual gatherings of our three great societies should be 'representative and delegated bodies/ having the same basis of representation.” The recommendation that the “annual gatherings should be representative and delegated,” was not adopted, but the recommendation of a uniform requirement for membership was adopted, as far as possible, the next year at St. Paul. (2) At St. Paul (1902) a Joint Committee of XV from the three societies was constituted to consider “the unrest among our churches as to the lack of proper co-ordination in the activities of our national Baptist missionary societies.” This committee made an elaborate report at Buffalo, 1903. This report had two salient points: (a) It em¬ phatically declared that the consolidation of our three societies is neither possible nor desirable.” It went on to say: “Not every 'merger* is beneficial to its pro¬ moters or its stockholders. The forced organic union of our three societies into one mammoth organization would, in our view, be immediately disastrous. The interests they represent are too vast, too diversified, too complex to allow it.’’ (b) This committee also recommended that a com¬ mittee of reference be appointed “to consist of nine persons, to which shall be submitted for consideration and final decision all questions of difference which ex¬ ist or may arise among the several missionary societies, or between any two of them concerning policies and methods of work, and that such changes be made in the constitutions and by-laws of each of the societies as shall secure the permanence of this committee of refer¬ ence, and the annual appointment of its members.” This report was adopted by the joint meeting of the socie¬ ties with practical unanimity. 3. We now pass to a different movement. At, St. Louis (1905) those present at the Southern Con¬ vention and at the anniversaries of the Northern So¬ cieties met in one great meeting and organized “The General Convention of Baptists of North America.” The constitution thus defines the objects of the so¬ ciety and the terms of membership: The objects of this convention shall be to promote closer fellowship among American Baptists, their in¬ creased efficiency, and spirituality and the evangelistic spirit in our churches; to consider subjects having a bearing upon the missionary, educational and philan¬ thropic enterprises of the denomination and upon the moral and spiritual welfare of society. Article IV., Membership. This convention shall be composed of representatives duly appointed as fol- ows: Section 1. Each church may appoint one repre¬ sentative, and one additional representative for every one hundred members or fraction thereof above the first one hundred. Section 2. Each local or district association may appoint two representatives, and one additional representative for every ten churches or frac¬ tion thereof above the first ten. Section 3. Each terri¬ torial, provincial and state convention (or general association) may appoint ten representatives and one additional representative for every ten thousand mem- mers above the first fifty thousand. 4. Last autumn the Chicago Association, in response to a paper by the Rev. Dr. B. A. Greene, appointed a committee consisting of Dr. Greene, Mr. J. S. Dicker- son and Prof. Shailer Mathews, which presented a pre¬ amble and resolutions: The gist of this paper is that there is a growing belief that there should be more coherence in our mis¬ sionary work than there is, and to promote this our Baptist anniversaries should be made more helpful to denominational unity. This document therefore urged the executives of the national societies to call a joint meeting of all the societies, in connection with the an¬ niversaries of 1907; that provision be made for the per¬ manent organization of a 12 General association or convention representing all Northern Baptists; that this general convention be so organized and its objects so stated that it shall voice to a large extent the trend of denominational sentiment and policy in such matters as touch the welfare of all the churches, leaving to the societies the management of the great missionary and publication work which they are now conducting.” 5. We pass to the proposals now before the Boston Baptist Ministers’ Conference. The specific article that comes within the scope of this discussion reads: “The policy thus outlined for increasing denomina¬ tional effectiveness should culminate in a Northern Baptist Convention, with such powers as may be dele¬ gated to it by duly elected representatives of the churches. It should be able to express, after thorough investigation and deliberation, the attitude of the de¬ nomination with reference to great moral issues. It should administer the missionary work of the denomi¬ nation through executive boards. It should advise con¬ cerning the service in our churches, the literature and music used in our Sunday schools and the development of our young people in Christian character and ser¬ vice, and it should act for the churches in its territory in relation to similar organizations in this and other countries. “To this end we approve the calling of the proposed meeting at our coming May anniversaries to effect a permanent Northern Baptist Convention which shall express and guide denominational sentiment and pol¬ icy.” These proposals are much more radical and go much further than the Chicago resolutions. The Chicago brethren asked for a convention to “voice to a large extent the trend of denominational sentiment and policy as touching the welfare of all the churches.” The Bos¬ ton brethren ask for a convention “with such powers as may be delegated to it by duly elected representa¬ tives of the churches.” The Chicago brethren declare that they wish to “leave to the societies the management of the great missionary and publication work which they are now conducting.” The Boston brethren declare that they want a national representative body to “administer the missionary work of the denomination through execu¬ tive boards.” The Chicago proposal is that Northern Baptists have a convention to accomplish for themselves what the General Convention of Baptists, which meets at Jamestown next month, proposes to do for the whole country. The Boston proposal is that we form a rep¬ resentative delegated body with power to express the denominational opinion and to administer the societies through executive boards. 13 Some Inferences From the Situation. IV. There are one or two inferences from this sur¬ rey to which I would like to call attention before I take my seat: 1. Baptists are largely centralized already in their missionary work. Leaving out the women’s societies, which present essentially the same problem in all the denominations, Baptists are doing their general work through three organizations, while Congregationalism have seven. The Congregationalists have four distinct societies for doing the evangelistic, educational and church edifice work done by our Home Mission society. The Methodists, while consolidating some of their homework, have just separated their missionary work into two distinct boards. 2. The movement toward merging the societies has been twice defeated within a few years. By implication at Springfield in 1901 ; positively, definitely, decisively at Buffalo in 1903, when the report of the Committee of XV was adopted, practically without dissent. Un¬ less there has been a remarkable change of denomina¬ tional sentiment since 1903, we may regard that pro¬ posal as settled in the negative. 3. We have in the recently organized “General Con¬ vention of Baptists” a society admirably adapted to ex¬ press the consciousness of the denomination. If, through this expression we hope to influence general public opinion, this society can speak with vastly more weight than any organization composed simply of Northern Baptists. 4. It is evident that our present position has been reached by an evolutionary process. Our development has been vital and not mechanical. Historical causes and forces lie behind our present organizations. If we stood back in 1845, wit* 1 the light we have now, perhaps we should think that our southern breth¬ ren adopted a better form of organization tnan our fathers did here at the North. I am free to say that I think so. I wish they had imitated the organization of the old Triennial Convention. Still we must re¬ member that they confronted an actual situation with the Publication and the Home Mission Society already in existence. But, brethren, whatever you and I think, we cannot blot out the history of 62 years. The stream across which you could have leaped in 1845, during 62 years has widened into a broad river, across which a strong man can hardly swim. The most pertinent question that can be asked, when some one says that we should organize after the model of the Southern Convention is: Tell us how to do it. Think the thing through and present your plan. It is 14 not enough to. show that a thing is desirable. If you are dealing with facts, concrete things, actual positions, historical situations, you are bound to show that your proposal is practicable. Take a single difficulty. I will not say anything about the difficulties of adjusting titles to property or the perils of costly litigation. I do not mention these things; but I would simply ask how are we going to put the Missionary Union—a voluntary society, to which those who perpetuate and love our great mission¬ ary history are devotedly attached,—which, though fourth or fifth among American societies in revenues, leads every misionary society in the world in the num¬ ber of its converts in heathen lands, how are we going to bring this society into the fold of the Northern Bap¬ tist Convention, unless its members wish to come ? And if they vote to take: that action, no bare majority vote will be effective—a merger on the basis of a bare ma¬ jority vote would be a fatal blow to our whole foreign missionary work. To make an effective merger you must do something more than convince a few minis¬ ters’ conferences or associations, whether m Chicago or Boston. From the New Hampshire farms, from the Illinois prairies, come the prayers and money of the people who have sustained these enterprises, and who must be convinced as to the wisdom of the proposed action. And the further you go into this matter, the more thoroughly you will be convinced that the reluctance of Baptists to form “a representative delegated body” is deep and inveterate. The spirit that found consum¬ mate expression in the eloquent report of Dr. William R. Williams in 1848 is alive in the denomination. Thousands of Baptists do not join in the cry : “Make us a King like all the other nations.” They believe that even a Saul and a David may be a mistake. This conviction strikes deep roots into the past. It manifests itself unmistakably in our historic confes¬ sions. It has been normative in our genius and spirit as Baptists. Here again we are dealing with his¬ torical situation. And let us sometimes reflect that every polity has its disadvantages. A Constructive Proposal. Undoubtedly there is a just demand from many quarters for closer co-operation in all our de¬ nominational agencies, for better methods of put¬ ting before the denomination well considered plans, and for giving utterance to denominational opinion. There is no equal reason for believing that is a gen¬ eral demand for a merger of our three great mission¬ ary societies. 15 Have we not at hand a means for accomplishing’ some of the ends we have at heart? In 1903 all the societies voted to appoint a Commit¬ tee of Reference, consisting of nine persons. Two are chosen by each of the great societies, one by the Wo¬ man's Foreign Missionary societies in mutual agree¬ ment, and one member each by the two Women’s Home Mission societies. This committee is annually ap¬ pointed by these bodies. Its function is to “consider and decide finally all questions submitted to it of dif¬ ference which exist or may arise among the several missionary societies, or between any two of them, con¬ cerning policies and methods of work.” This com¬ mittee is an organic link between the societies. It springs out of their common life, and represents their common interests. My proposal is that this committee be expanded to 18 or 27 members, appointed as now, and that its functions be enlarged. I should like to see it charged with the duty of considering all the denominational problems to which reference has been made in the course of this discussion—the great moral questions of the day; our problems of missions, publications, and education. In short, I would have it serve as a de¬ nominational outlook corrfmittee, preparing well con¬ sidered reports and recommendations to be presented annually to a joint meeting of all the societies held in connection with the May anniversaries. I do not believe that we can do better than to utilize an organ¬ ization we already have in this way. Certainly that joint convention would be as thoroughly typical of the senti¬ ment and conviction of the Baptists of the North as any body that could be devised, and that, after all, is what we want. Baptists who do not take enough interest in the work of extending the Kingdom of God to support one of these societies are not sufficiently in touch with the life of the denomination to desire or to be entitled to any voice in expressing denominational opinion or in influencing denominational policy. I thank you, brethren, for your kindness in listening to this long exposition. Let me close this address by quoting a sentence from the report of 1848, to which I have referred: “The vital missionary agency is hap¬ pily beyond our control and above our reach. The helm: is not given to our weak and mortal hands. The Pilot who points the prow, and watches the heavens to guide our missionary way, is older than the stars, and than the keel of the! missionary church that he guides; for he is the Ancient of Days, and his goings forth have been from everlasting.” 16