BAPTISTS AND THE CHURCH EXEMPTION AMENDMENT.
By G.
LAST year the Central Baptist Association of California, which met in this city, passed a decided vote against the proposed amendment to the State constitution exempting church property from taxation. This year the association met in Alameda, and, during an afternoon session, when the attendance was small and mostly composed of women, a vote was taken which reversed that of last year. One strange part of the proceeding was that a Methodist minister was called in to advocate the amendment, which is to be decided at the November State election. That of itself was an acknowledgment that to advocate and support the measure was a departure from time-honored Baptist principle. A lay brother took exception to the idea of a Baptist association's being obliged to call in an outsider to tell them what to do. He thought Baptists ought to be able to decide questions involving church principles for themselves. Ordinarily, the body would have agreed with him, as they did last year on the main question. But he was overruled. But the pocketbook influence seems to have been at work during the year, and “the god of this world” overcame Protestant principle in the minds of some. This was virtually admitted by one leading minister, pastor of the church in which the association was held. Until recently he had strenuously opposed the amendment, being opposed to any mixing of Church and State. Admitting that he had changed his views since a year ago, he gave as the most convincing reason to him, that the heavy taxes paid keep many societies from building better churches, and resulted in a very poor style of architecture. When we are confronted with the spectacle of Protestant ministers deliberately yielding Protestant principle for monetary and architectural considerations, the “image to the beast,” noted in Revelation 13, passes from prophecy to a literal condition in our very midst. Dr. Inskeep, an able teacher in the denomination, noted the appearance of the resolution's being “railroaded” through, and asked that the time for its consideration be extended. But those who had the matter in hand evidently were aware of their temporary advantage, and refused the request. This action rather demonstrated Dr. Inskeep's fears in the matter. The “railroading” feature was still further manifest in the fact that the Methodist minister who was called in to advocate the measure was given half an hour's time, and then the remainder of the entire discussion was limited to fifteen minutes, speakers to have two minutes each. Col. J. L. Lyon, a prominent layman of the First Baptist Church of this city, takes exception to the action of the association as representative of the sentiment of the churches represented. He expresses the opinion, through the Oakland Enquirer, that had the vote been postponed until the evening session, when the brethren could be in attendance, the result would have been the other way. We are also informed that several of the brethren are highly indignant over the manner in which the action was taken, feeling that, as Baptists, their true position has been sadly compromised. G.