Newspaper Page Text
2
©nr gnlpit.
BEBESIES OF EOMiSISI
Substance of Rermcn. iih w ine addition*,
pr6ftcli(*d>t WftdM, Serevtu county, ua.,
ou the 19ih vf May, lb7B.
BY KEY. T. B. COOPER.
TTAoI it //pi oy ? Hereof, from the Greek
word hmrrtit, literally signifies choice, meaning
nothing more originally, than a choice of
opinions, or principle!*, and wan applied to
the diflerent recta of philoeopbera. In the
New Tertainent it haa reference to religious
aenlimenlr of an unscriptural or anti-scriptural
nature. In thia sense, it ia generally under
stood by thoae denominationa alyled Protes
tanl. The Roman Catholics define it “the vol
untary assumption and obstinate maintaining
of error in matters of faith.” They regard
everything aa heresy which ia in conflict with
their belief, and every one aa a heretic, who
oppose* any doctrine, ceremony, or practiceof
their church.
I shall employ the word Heresy as signify
ing whatever is unscriptural either in opinion,
precept, doctrine, otdinance or ceremony;
and 1 charge that the Roman Catholics are
heretics in their views of the Canon of the
Bible ; of its doctrines, ordinances and cere
monies ; of the church, snd of church officers.
I shall now apeak particularly of the Bible, of
the church, and ol church officers.
I. The Homan Catholics are heretics in
their viewa of the Canon ol the Bible.
They have added to the Old Testament
eight entire Books and two parts ol Books
which were not included in the Jewish Canon
and which were rejected as Apocryphal by
the early Christians and Councils. These ad
ditions re not a part of God’s revealed will,
and hence to believe or to teach them as such,
ia unscripiural and heretical. The common
version ol the Bible, aa Protestants now read
it, waa published in 1611. The Roman Cath
olic Bible as they now have it, was published
in 1749 ; and hence the present version of the
Protestant Bible is 168 years older than that
of the Catholics. The Canon of the Roman
Catholic Bible, including .the Apocryphal
Books, waa not tallied till the Council of
Trent in 1445. The Canon of the Protestant
Bible was iixed, as it now is, in second or
third century of the Christian erft.
The statement, so often made by Catholics,
that the Protestants have received the Bible
from them, iH not true. The simple fact that
ProtestanlH do not endorse the Catholic Bible,
except in pari, ia an evidence against their
boasted claim. The Bible has descended to
ua, through Jewish anil Christian channels,
outside of, us well as inside of the Catholic
church. This, as well aa the other above
facta, I have already abundantly proved to
you in a formet discourse,
The Romanists prohibit the reading of the
Bible with a view to private interpretation,
and require all to understand it according to
the teaching ol the church, or the unanimous
opinions of the fathers. To prohibit the
reading of the Scriptures with a view of inter
preting them, is anti-scriptural and heretical,
lor our Saviour commands us “to search the
Scriptures,” ol course, with a view of under
standing them for ourselves; and the Bereans
were commended liecaiise they searched the
Scriptures. This searching was intended not
to ascertain what any church or so-called
church might believe, but to see and know
what the Word itself taught in reference to
Christ, and the objects of his Messiahship and
mission to this world. The notion that the
Scriptures must be understood according to the
unanimous interpretations of the fathers, is a
mischievous folly, since the interpretations of
the fathers were not unanimous in many
matters, both great and small. The Roman
Catholic rule for the study of the Bible,
effectually prohibits the reading of it among
the masses of their members and population.
Their notion that the church gives authority
to the Bible is a fiction. They would prove the
authority of the church by the Bible and that
of the Bible by the church. The Bible, howev
er, is its own witness, and would lie as true,
and as easily proved to he true, as it now is,
if there were no living churches, save the pro
phetical and historical evidences. The church
es are the preservers and teachers of the Bible,
but they are neither its cause nor its source.
God is its only Author, and he gives it its only
authority. The church can never make a
Revelation, nor add to one, as the Catholic
church would fain do; nor can they change,
in any particular, that Revelation which God
has given to men, as the same Catholic church
has presumed to do, and as some Protestant
churches have in very many instances. The
Bible gives existence and authority to the
churches, (not national nor universal,) and
God gives existence and authority to the Bi
ble.
As I have already in a former dinconrse,
given you a liinlory of the Bible in full, I will
not pursue this subject any further.
11. The leading views of the Roman Catho
lics in relation to the church are heretical.
What ie the church ? “The visible church,”
anßwers the Episcopalian, “is a congregation
of faithful men, in which the pure word of
God is preached and ihe Sacraments be duly
ministered, according to Christ’s ordinance,
n all those things that of necessity are requi
site to the same.” —Prayer Book.
The Methodist gives us the same answer.
—Discipline.
The Presbyterian or Calvinist answers,
“Wherever we find the word of God purely
preached and heard, and the Sacraments ad
ministered according to the institution of
Christ, there, it is not to be doubled, is a
church of God.”— Calvin's institutes.
The Baptist replies, "A Christian church is
an assembly of believers in Christ, organized
into a body according to the Holy Scriptures,
for the worship and service ot God.” — Dagg.
The Roman Catholic answers, “The church
is the congregation ot ali the faithful, who be
ing baptized, profess the same doctrine, par
take ol the same Sacraments, and are governed
by their lawful pastors, under one visible
head on earth.” —Poor Man’s Catechism.
These answers, with the exception of the
last, are not unscriptural. Hut the reader of
the New Testament will readily observe that
the definition of the Baptists more nearly ac
cords ith its descriptions of the churches of
God. The writers of the New Testament, every
where call an organized assembly of Christians,
a church. It is understood and taught that this
assembly is organized upon the Scriptural
principles. The various Protestant churches
do not err so much in their views of the
church, or rather of a church, as an organiza
tion, as they do in relation to its officers and
powers. If they would restrict their defiui
tion, in practice, to local assemblies, having
under Christ, supreme jurisdiction, and limit,
their officers to the Scriptural number, two,
viz. : Bishops or Pastors and Deacons, and
their membership to believers, immersed on a
profession of their laith, we should then re
gard them as Scriptural churches. But when
they give us a Scriptural local assembly as
their definition ot a church, and then receive
unscriptural members, by an unscriptural cer
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX AND SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST -Joke 27.
emony. and transfer its jurisdiction to unscrip
tural officers and courts of appeal, we charge
them with heresy, in tbe true Scriptural
sense of that term, and, by Scriptural law, re
ject them. So do we also, when they define
the church aa a local assembly or congrega
tion, and then apply it to an indefinite num
ber of such congregations, belonging to a na
lion or province, or to the aggregate congre
gations of the whole world. This application
of the term church is unscriptural, unmeaning
(for there is no such congregation, neither
can be), and heretical.
There is no such thing as a Catholic, or
Universal Visible Church spoken of in the Bi
bie.
The Papal or Romish idea of a visible
Catholic, Universal or General Church, with a
visible head, is unscriptural ; nay, anti-Bcrip
tural and most heretical.
There is only one Universal or Catholic
Church, and that is “the general assembly and
church of the first born which are written in
Heaven.” See Hebrews xii: 23.
111. The Roman Catholics are heretics in
their view of church officers.
There is only one head, or chief officer of
the church, and that is Jesus Chbist. The
Apostle Paul says : “And (he, God) hath put
all things under his, (Christ’s feet) and gave
him to be head over all things to the church.”
Eph. i : 22. The “all things” must include
tbe visible, as well as the invisible; the Earth
ly, as well as the Heavenly. This is more
apparent from another passage, “For the
husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the church, and He is
the Saviour of the body.” Eph. v : 23,24.
Here is evidently a reference especially to an
earthly relat’on, since the illustrative relation
is earthly. Christ is represented as the head
of every earthly, visible church, as he is also
ol the Heavenly church, or “general assembly
of the first born.”
The Roman Catholic illustration, (Familiar
Explanation of Christian Doctrine, pp. 17,18),
that every nation must have a chief ruler; ev
ery swarm of bees, a queen ; every ant’s nest,
a king, etc., and hence the church must have
a supreme, visible head, proves simply that
every local church should have a Bishop
(Pastor); for as there is no chief ruler of all
the nations, nor any father of all the families,
nor any bee which is universal queen of all
the swarms, so there ought not to be any Pope
or Bishop who is head over all churches.
There is no higher authority than the local
church, except Jesus Christ who is its only
Head.
The claim of the Roman Catholics that the
apostle Peter was the first visible head or
Pope, and that there has been a regular
succession from him of visible heads or Popes,
over a universal visible church, whose center
is at Rome, Italy, ia the grandest and most
pernicious heresy that has ever disgraced ami
cursed the Christian world. This will appear
by considering the following facta:
1. The apostle Peter was not a Pope. I.
Peter v : 1 ; Gal. xi : 8.
2. He was not the head ol the apostles. 11.
Cor. xi :5, and xii ill.
3. He was not a universal Bishop. Gal.
xi :8 ; I. Peter v; 1; 11. Cor. xi: 28.
4. There has not been a regular succession
ol Popes over the Roman ( atholic church.
Compare the catalogue of Popes given in the
Roman Catholic Catechism for 1877, with that
in the Historical Catechism, of Flcury, both
by the Catholic Publication Society of New
York.
5. The moral and religious characters of a
vtry large proportion of the Popes have been
such as to prove them to be rather the vicars
and representatives of Satan than of Jesus
Christ. This shall be provtd by facts.
History shows very plainly that for many
years at the time, there have been no Bishops or
Popes of the Church of Rome. At many times
there have been two, three and even four men,
claiming to be Popes; and who have slaugh
tered or caused to he slaughtered, a vast num
ber of people, in order to get possession of,
and to hold Bt. Peter’s chair, as they have
most slanderously calltd it.
This wub the general condition of the Ro
mish church for one thousand or more years
of its history.
Hear what Baronins, a distinguished Ro
man Catholic writer and advocate says: “At
that time (the tenth century) how frightful
was the face of the church at Rome? The
Holy See was fallen under the tyranny of two
loose and disorderly women, who placed and
displaced Bishops, as their humor led them.
And (what I tremble to think and speak of)
they placed their gallant’s upon Bt. Peter’s
chair, who did not so much as deserve the
very name of Popes. For who dare say that
these infamous persons, who intruded without
any form of justice, were lawful Popes? We
do not find that they weie chosen by the cler
gy, or that they consented in the least to their
election. All the I'anons of Councils were
infringed, the decrees of Popes trampled un
der foot, the ancient traditions despised, the
customs and ceremonies usually observed in
the election of Popes neglected, and the Holy
See became a prey to avarice and ambition.”
—Du Pin, Catholic Historian, Tenth Century,
Fob 8. p. 5.
It was about this time (A. D. 900) that one
Pope, Stephen VI, called a Council, “dug up
the corpse of another, and having
dressed him in his pontifical robes, condemned
him, as if he had been alive, caused him to
be stripped of his robes, cut ofl his three hn
gers wherewith he gave the blessing, and threw
him into the river Tiber.”— Jbul, p. 0.
It was then (A. D. 931) that John XI, the
illegitimate son of Pope Sergius, was put in St.
Peter’s (!) chair, by his courtesan mother,
Marosia. — Ibid, p. 7.
Then (A. D. 956), John XII, (or as some
say, John XIII, claiming that John XII, was
the woman Pope, Joan), “a monster in de
bauching and irregularity,” as Du IYn asserts,
caused himself to be advanced to the Popedom,
at the age of eighteen years.— lbid, p. 10.
Then (A. D. 974), Boniface, "the most im
pious monster of mankind,” as Uerbert, af
terwards Pope, calls him, “all o’er besmeared
with the blood of Benedict, seizes upon the
Papal chair. — 11id,p. 14.
Then (A. D. 996) John (styled Anti-Pope),
made Pope by Creecentius, was taken (by the
faithful,) “his eyes were scratched out, his
nose amt his ears were cut efl, at.d in that pos
ture was he led through the streets of Rome,
mounted on an ass, with his head towards the
tail, and lore e-el to say, as he went along, who
soever shall dare to dispossess a Pope, let him
he etrved like me.”— lbid, p, 15,
It was in this tenth century, that Kathe
rine, a distinguished Bishop, ••tails,” as Du
2bn says, “upon the itniiu desty of theclctgy,
which was at such a height that one could
scarce liud ain an tit to be ordained a Bish
op, or any Bishop lit to ordain others.” “He
takes notice that of ail the rations in Chris
tendom, the Italians were the persons who
had the least legat'd for the canons, and the
least esteem for the clergy." “The reason
he gives for it is, that the Ecclesiastics (cler
gy) of their country were the most irregular
in their conduct, the most immodest in their
outward behavior, and the most remiss in
the discharge of their duty." "He reckons
up several horrible stories, and charges them
chiefly with an infamous converse with wo
men.” — Ibid, p. 29.
Then the Church of Rome was most em
phatically the stronghold of Satan, and was
firmly held by his best devotees, the Popes
— infallible? Yes, infallible in everything
except tbe truth and the pure religion of Je
sus Christ. Monsters—“infamous monsters,”
their own historians have styled them.
Could they be the vicars of Christ and the
successors of the apos'le Peter? Religion
blushes at the insinuation.
But take out these links in the chain of
apostolic succession, and what becomes of
the chain ?
Do you say that these were the links of
one century only ? The effect is the same —
if only one link is broken—if only one Pope
proves false, the succession is destroyed.
But let us view those of a much earlier
time.
In the year 369, “After the death of Libe
ries”! himself an Arian, a heretic), says Du.
Pin, “the Bee ol Rome being vacant for some
time, by reason of the caballing ol those that
pretended to fill it, Damasus was chosen by
the greater part of the clergy and people and
ordained by the Bishops. But on the other
side, Urcinus, or Urcisinus, who was his
competitor for the Popedom, got himself or
dained by some other Bishops in the Church
of Bicinius. This contest caused a great di
vision in the city of Rome, and stirred up so
greal a sedition there as could hardly be ap
peased. Tbe two parties came from words
to blows, and a great many Christians were
killed in the city of Rome upon this quar
rel.” Vol. 1 ,p. 122.
Dr. Neander, the Lutheran, Says, “On one
day’’(duriug this last contest) “there were
found in the church, occupied by Urcisinus,
which was stormed by the party of Damasus,
the dead bodies of one hundred and thirty
seven men.”— Ec. His'. Vol. 2, p. 222.
We wdl go still earlier than this. Greg
ory Naziunzen, (A. D , 318), deploring a sim
ilar state of things, not only in the city of
Constantinople, where he was Bishop, but
also at Rome and elsewhere exclaims,“They,
(Maximus and his party), will take from me
one of the chief Sees, and one of the princi
pal churches in the world; but is it not, at
this time, a piece of prudence to shun great
dignities, since upon their account all church
es are subverted and overturown, and upon
their account the whole earth is divided.
Alas! would to God that there were no places
of dignity in the churches, no precedences,
no tyrannical prerogatives, and tha l none
would distinguish us but by our virtue.’’ —Du
Pm, Vol. 1 ,p, 169.
Such men as these licentious and fighting
monsters, and tyrants, could not be the suc
cessors of the apostle Peter, nor the head of
Christ’s Church ou earth. Tin y were not—
no they were not. They were the diabolical
repres' Qtativcs of the Church of Anti-Christ,
the Man of Bin.
For many centuries after Christ, thechurch
of Rome was not regarded as the first church,
nor the Bishops of that church as the first
Bishops in the world.
You observed in the extract I read you
from Gregory Nazianzen, that he regarded
the church of Constantinople as one of the
principle churches in the world.
The Council of Nice, (A. D., 325), 6th
Canon says : “We ordain that the ancient cus
tom shall be observed, which gives honor to
tlie Bishop of Alexandria over all the provin
ces of Egypt, Bybia, and Pentspolis; because
the Bishop of Rome has the like jurisdiction
over all the sui urbicary regions.”— Due Pin ,
Art. Council of Nice.
Tlie Council of Clialcedon, (A. I)., 451,)
Canon 28, “ grants to the churches of the city
of Constantinople, which is called New Rome,
the same privileges with Old Rome, because
this is the second city in the world.”—Du Pin.
The Council of Constantinople, in Trullo, (A.
D., 692), 36th Canon “ renews the Canons of
Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, con
cerning the authority of the See of Constanti
nople, and grants to it the same privileges as
to the See of Old Rome, the same authority in
ecclesiastical affairs, and the second place; the
thitd to that of Alexandria, the fourth to that
of Antioch, and the fifth to that of Jerusa
lem.” —Du Pin.
The 38th Canon, same Council, renews the
12ih Canon of the Council of Chalcedon
whereby it is ordained, that the disposition of
chore hell shall follow that of the Empire."
Du Pin.
Here, mark the reason why the church of
Home had the " first place,” but yet no supe
rior authority, privilege, or jurisdiction. It
was because Rome was the chief city of the
chief Empire. It was the same principle,
which, bv common consent, gave the Bishops
of Metropolitan cities, places superior to those
of inferior cities and towns. It is the same
principle which now influences some Protes
tants to esteem the Bishops and Pastors of
some cities as more exalted and more excel
lent, and even more authoritative than others.
But the principle itself is unscriptural and
pernicious. There were no distinctions of priv
ilege or prerogative among the churches of
the New Testament or their Bishops. One
was their Master, even Christ, and all they
(the Bishops) were brethren.”
For at least seven hundred years, therefore,
the Church of Rome was not regarded as the
first church as to any privilege or jurisdiction,
and for the same time, its Bishops or Pastors
had no superior authority over other Bishops
or Pastors. Hence it is most evident that the
Roman Catholic cburch is heretical in its
views of its highest church officer.
Bat further, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage,
(A. I)., 250) says, " None of us ought to make
himself a Bishop of Bishops, or pretend to
awe his brethren by a tyrannical fear; because
every Bishop is at liberty to do as he pleases,
and can no more be judged by another than he
can judge others himself. But all of us ought
to wait and tarry for the judgment of Jesus
Christ, who alone has authority to set us over
the church and to judge our actions.”—Du
Pin, Art. St. Cyprian.
Jerome, (A. D„ 400) says, “ We are not to
believe that the church is otherwise at Rome,
than in other cities of the world. Gauls, Brit
tans, Africans, Persians, Indians and all other
nations worship the same God, and have the
same rule of laith. If authority be required,
the world is bigger than a city. Let a Bishop
be the Bishop of what town you please, he is
neither more or less a Bishop, whether of
Rome or Engubium, whether of Constantino
ple or of Rhegium, Alexandria or Tunis, it is
still the same dignity and the same function.
Power and riches do not make a Bishop greater,
poverty and want of credit do not render his
station more vile. All Bishops are successors
of the Apostles.” —Du Pin, Art. St. Jerome.
Gregory, 1., Bishop of Rome, (A. D., 600):
“ Though there were many Apostles, yet there
was but one See of the Prince of the Apostles,
which was raised in authority above the rest,
because of the primacy which he founded:
That this See is in three places; at Rome, the
place where he finished his course; at Alex
andria, whither he sent his Evangelist, St.
Mark, to supply the place ; and at Antioch,
where he continued seven years. But that
these three Sets are but one See, which belongs
to St. Peter, on which three Bishops now sit,
which are in eflect, but one in him who prayed,
“ That they may be one as I am in the Father,
and the Fatlnr in me.” . . . Du Pin,
says, “ St. Gregory does not only oppose the
title (el Universal Bishop) in the Patriarch
of Cos; antinople (John, the younger or Fas
ter), bin. PC' maintains also that it cannot agree
to any other E:hop, and that the Bishop of
Rome neither ought nor can assume it.
That the title of universal Bishop 1b against
the rules of the Gospel, and the appointment
of the Canons, that there cannot he an univer
sal Bishop, but that the authority of all the
others will be destroyed or diminished. . . .
That the Council of Chalcedon had offered
this title to St. Leo, but neither he nor his
successors would accept it, lest by giving some
thing to one Bishop only, ihey should take
away the rights which belong to all Bishops.
“ He calls this title,” (says Dr. Cane, quoted
by the translator of Du Pin), “ proud, hereti
cal, blasphemous, anti-Christian, diabolical."
Du Pin, Art. St. Gregory, I.
Mark you, now, in the beginning ol the
Seventh Century, we have a Bishop (certainly
not a Pope) of Rome, disclaiming tbe title of
universal Bishop (or Pope), and although
styling Peter the Prince of the Apostles
(which Paul the Apostle denies, 2 Cor. xi; 5,)
and his Bee the chief Bee, yet asserts that it is
in three places, and is occupied by three Bish
ops, which are in effect hut one. How this
could be, a genuine Catholic only can explain.
But however explained, it directly controverts
and demolishes the Papal notion of the tenth
and nineteenth centuries. The Bishop of
Rome did not then suppose himself to be supe
rior to at least two other Bishops; and the
S retension of the Catholics to-day, that the
•whops of Rome have always claimed, pos
sessed, and exercised a supreme jurisdiction, is
false, themselves being judges.
Let us now see, from the same Catholic his
torian, Dir Pin, how and when the Bishops
of Rome became Popes, and obtained their
supremacy.
Says he (fourth century), “ In the meanwhile
the Popes began to lav, by little and little the
foundation of their sovereign dominion. For
although sovereign powers did yet remain in
She hands of the people who created the ma
gistrates in Rome and the neighboring cities,
nevertheless, the Popes who were now grown
rich and powerful, used all their endeavors to
make themselves sovereign, and that the
shadow of sovereignty should only remain in
the people. Yet the Romans had two Con
suls, one Pisetor and one Governor of tbe city,
whom they chose ; and oftentimes cast off the
yoke which the Popes would impose upon
them, which was tlie cause of those cruel wars
that happened between the Popes, the princi
pal citizens of Rome and the Emperors of
Germany. But at last the Popes got the bet
ler on’t and remained sole masters and sover
eigns of Rome and the countries about it.”
Art. Constantine. This history extends beyond
the eighth century, for not till the year 800
did tlie Pope crown Charlemagne, (of whom
Du Pin is speaking,) who had just granted
(in part) and secured to him his “ tempor
alities."
But it was reserved to the latter part of the
eleventh century, one of the darkest centuries
of the world, and yet tbe golden age of Po
pery, (A. D , 1080), for Gregory VII, “to sit
m the temple of God and show himself as
God,” (2 Thes. ch. 2), and to claim that he
was “ Sovereign Bishop, Christ’s Vicar, Pi i rice
of the Apostle*, God on earth, King of kings
and Lord of lords, Prince over all nations and
kingdoms, Master of the universal world,
Light of the world,” etc., etc. Benedict, quo
ted from Trial of Antichrist p. 51.
To affirm, therefore, that these so-called
church officers, these Popes, these Anti christs,
these wolves in sheep’s clothing, are arch-here
tics, is to affirm the truth, in the light of his
tory, and of the gospel of J*u Christ.
80 low had these monster iin human forms
descended in the scale of corruption, that God’s
curse evidently rested upon them, and they
were almost constantly dying or changing hv
the force of circumstances; so that in a space
of less than five hundred years there were one
hundred and fourteen Popes; and in the early
part of the eleventh century, in the short time
of fourteen years, five of them occupied the
Pope’s chair —Satan’s seat.
In the beginning of the fifteenth century,
four of them tried to occupy it at the same
time. And yet, there are some poor creatures
of (lie present day who try to maintain that
the Popes are infallible (1), and thn• the*' are
indeed the successors of the Apostle Peter, and
that they are the Vicars of Jesus Christ! and
that they have descended in a regular line!!
Can there be anything more untrue, or more
shamelessly preposterous ?
The facts which I have given are from their
own history. They may deny them, but they
cannot disprove them.
I have affirmed that their highest church
officer, the Pope, is an inch heretic. Their
Cardinals, Patriarchs, Arch-bishops, Metropo
litans, Bishops, Arch-priests, Priests, Arch
deacons, Deacons, Sub-deacons, Exorcists, etc.,
etc , are all Anti scriptural; and hence, hereti
cal officers. Their offices and their powers are
unknown to the gospel, and directly opposed
to it in principle and practice.
This will appear more strikingly, when we
prove that the only permanent church officers
known to the New Testament are Bishops,
who are also styled Elders or Pastors, and
Deacons.
It is easy to determined this, by reference to
Acts xx: 17, 18; Titus 1:5,7; Philip, i: 1; I Pe
ter, v. 1,3.
Inthe first two of these passages, those who
are called Bishops (Epiecopoi) are also styled
Elders, (presbuteroi). In the Becond two, the
Apostle, giving instructions to permanent
church officers, mentions only two orders, viz :
Bishops and Deacons ; and he places Deacons
next to Bishops, so that there can be no other
officer between these two. None higher than
Bishops are admissible, because these were or
dained by the Apostles and their agents, to
take the oversight of the churches. There
can be no lower than the Deacons, for they
were ordained to be Ministers of Tables, or of
the temporal matters of the churches. This
you will observe by reference to Acts xiv: 23;
Titus i: 5; Acts vi: 3.
The notion of the Roman Catholics, that
these Bishops were the successors of the Apos
tles, cannot be true, (1.) because the number
of the Apostles was fixed to twelve, in conse
quence of the peculiar nature of their charac
ter, offices and work. When their mission
was fulfilled, their office ceased end successors
were impossible. (2.) They were never the
Bishops of particular churches; for they or
dained these in every church. These Bishops
or Elders, or Pastors ol the churches, ordained
by the Apostles and their agents, as Titus, were
the predecessois of the present Pastors; and
the present Pastors of Scriptural churches are
the successors, not of the Apostles, but of the
first Pastors or Bishops, elected by the chur
ches, and ordained by the Apostles and those
whom they appointed for this purpose, as in
the case ol Titus. To these Pastors, thus cho
sen by the churches, and ordained first by the
Apostles, and then by the laying on of the
hands ot a Presbytery, composed of their fel
low Presbyters, Elders or Pastors, was assign
ed the offices of preachers, administering the
sacrament, and taking the oversight of that
particular church to which such one was called.
Christ gave the Apostles the authority to preach
the Gospel and administer the ordinances, they
gave this authority officially to the Pastors or
Bishops, chosen by the churches to this end,
and these pastors gave it to others chosen in
like manner, to be continued to the end of
time. Therefore, every Minister called of God,
chosen by a Scriptural cburch (a church or
ganized on Scriptural principles), and ordain
ed by a Presbytery of his fello-wministers, is
a Bishop in the New Testament sense, and has
the highest authority to preach the Gospel an-c
administer the ordinances. They are not to
be Masters and lord it over God’s heritage,
bat to be the true Minister, or servant of
Christ and of the churches. (3.) The Apos
tolic office was not restricted to anv church or
country. While, as the Apostle Paul states,
his mission was especially to the Gentiles, and
Peter’s to the Jews, yet they, as the others,
preached both to Jews and Gentiles, without
reference to places or territorial lines.
A Pope, fixed to St. Peter’s (?) chair, in the
city of Rome, dressed in the paraphernalia of a
Jewish Priest, or rather of a Pagan Pontiff,
and worshiped by millions of benighted de
votees, and having no commission or inclina
tion to preach the Gospel, cannot be a succes
sor of any Scriptural officer. There is noth
ing in tbe Bible like him. He has no authori
ty from the Bible, and hence the claim which
he makes is most false, presumptuous and
heretical.
Clemens Romanus (disciple of the Apostle
Paul) says, “ In tbe country and cities where
Apostles preached, they ordained their first
converts for Bishops and Deacons, over Ihose
who should believe.” Lord King, Prim.
Church, p. 140.
The same Clemens says, “ The Apostles fore
knew, through our Lord Jesus Chrißt, that
contention would arise about the name of Epis
copacy; and, therefore, being endued with a
perfect foreknowledge, appointed the aforesaid
officers, viz: Bishops and Deacons, and left
the manner of their succession described, that
so, when they died, other approved men might
succeed them and reform this office.”— lbid,
p. 141.
“ Polycarp, exhorts the Philippians to be
subject to their Presbyters and Deacons, under
the same of Presbyters, including both Bish
ops (and Priests, as we now call them).” —
Ibid, p. 136. The word Priest which the Ro
man Catholics have applied to a particular
officer, is a mistranslation of the original Pres
buteros, which signifies Elder. A Priest a* a
church officer is not known in the New Tes
tament. Every Priest of the Roman Catholic
church is a heritical usurper.
Ireiaeus, in his Synodical Epistle, twice
called Anicetus, Pius, Higynus, Telesphones,
and Hystus (Bishops of Rome) Presimteroi,
or Presbyter, and those Bishops who derived
their succession immediately from the Apos
tles lie calls the Presbyters it> the church; and
whom Clemens Alexandriaus, in one line calls
the B shops of a certain city near Ephesus, a
few lines after he calls the Presbyter.”— lbid,
p. 137.
Jerome says, “ The name of Priest or Pres
byter, denotes age, and that of Bishop, digni
ty; wherefore, in the Epistle to Timothy men
tion is made of the ordination of Bishops, but
not of that of Priests (Presbyters,) because
Priests (Presbyters) are confirmed under the
name of Bishops.” —Du Pin, Art. St. Jerome.
Calvin says, “ In calling those who preside
over churches by the appellations of Bishops,
Elders, Pastors, Ministers, without any dis
tinction, I have followed the usage of the
Scriptures, which applies all these terms to
express the same meaning.— lnstitutes, l of. 2,
p. 265.
Dr. Neander thus writes: “ That the name
Episcopoi or Bishops was altogether synony
moua with that of Presbyters, ia clearly evi
dent from those passages of Scripture, where
both appellations are used interchangeably.—
Acis xx; Comp. v. 17, with v. 28; Epistle to
Titus, ch. i, v. 5, with v. 7, and from those
where the office of Deacon is named immedi
ately alter that of Bishop. So that between
these two charch officers, there could not be a
third intervening one. The Epistle to Philip,
ch. i, v. 1; I. Tim. ch. iii, v. 1-8. This
interchange in the use of the two appella
tions shows that (hey were perfectly iden
tical. Even were the name Bishop originally
nothing more than the distinctive title of a
president of this church senate, of a primus
inter pares, (first among equals), yet even in
this case such interchange would be quite in
admissible. Likewise, in the letter which
Clemens, the disciple of Paul, writes in the
name of the Roman Church, the Deacons are
named immediately after the Bishops, as the
presiding officers of the communities.”—Ec.
Hist. vol. 1, p. 184.
To say nothing of the Scripture testimony,
which is decisive, there are no better authori
ties than those which I have here given, to es
tablish the Scriptural facts, that the only
permanent church officers are Bishops or Pas
tors (which are the same) and Deaeons. These
were ordained by the Apostles, after they had
been chosen by the churches and particular
instructions were given to them, for the proper
discharge of their official duties, for all future
time.
The Apo-tles never gave authority to the
churches to add any others, and no others have
ever been necessary. All provincial or dioce
san church officers have had their being out
side of the Scriptures, and contrary to its in
structions; and have invariably proved tyranni
cal and pernicious to the welfare of the chur
ches, and the extension of the kingdom of
God.
All church officers, not recognized and com
missioned by the authority of Christ and his
Apostles, are intruders, usurpers, heretics,
wolves in sheep’s clothing; and all Christians
should, in view of the law of God, reject and
discountenance them.
When the world comes back to the simpli
city of the Gospel ot Christ, then the local
churches will have supreme jurisdiction un
der Jesus Christ, their only head ; and no offi
cer but Pastors and Deacons, and will serve
them, in obedience to Scriptural law.
I must reserve what I have to say on Doc
trines, Ordinances, and Ceremonies, to another
time.
(Sot ffSarnsjitroilcnts^
1)K. HULL’S KNqiTKKR.
The series on Church Polity, by Dr.
Mell, are so clear, instructive, and so
nearly correct, that most of our bredr
ren are well pleased with them. We
did not expect that any discussion
like it could be earned on withoutsome
criticism ; and our judgment was to
withhold controversy until the Doctor
should be through with the subject.
But, here comes brother Enquirer
with so many questions, some of which
are involved with others he pro
pounds, being disposed to have a live
ly interest excited in the matter, we
have concluded, without consulting
Dr. Mell, to give our readers the ben
efit of Enquirer’s questions.
The Doctor may turn aside, for an
article or so, and attend to these things,
if he thinks best. The papers, when
completed, will be considered as au
thority, and used as such, and it may be
well, at this period, to correct any
misapprehensions or wrong conclu
sions which Enquirer or others have
entertained :
Da. P. H. Mell— Dear Brother: Yonr pa
pers on Church Polity are worthy of your Chris
tian heart and gifted pen. I have read them
with great profit and much pleasure. Entertain
ing so high an appreciation of yonr Biblical
scholarship, I am constrained to ask yon to give
me fuller and more particular instruction on
some points not clearly presented in your excel
lent articles.
Iu your article of May 30th. you write;
“Though not numbered in the ranks of the reo
oguized ministry, as a simple believer in Christ,
any man has a right in his own person to pro
claim the news."
Has the unbaptized Christian “the right to
proclaim the news ?” If so. by what authority,
and uuder what circumstances ? Has not the
believing woman, as well ss the man. a right to
proclaim the news ? Is the proclaiming of the
news, by either, to be considered as preachieg
the Gospel ? vo
In your article of June 6th, you say : “In the
matter of preaching. Paul waa disposed to
aileiice no one. Borne of his cotemporaries
preached Christ, even of envy and strife, by way
of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add af
fixtions to his bonds. Did he denounce them,
aud warn the public against the reception of
their doctrine? Not at all. He rejoiced rathsr.
‘What, then ? Notwithstanding every way,
whether in pretense or iu truth, Christ is
preached ; and Ido rejoice.’ Ph. i: 15-18. The
preachiug of Christ by those not of his party,
whatever their motive, he rejoices at.”
Did Paul silence women? Did he not “de
nounce,” in his Epistle, those of his cotempo
raries who preached Christ through “envy
and strife” as “contentious” and pietend
ers? Were they baptized Christians? Were
they oppoeers of Christ and his Gospel? Again,
you say : “However defective men may be in
doctrine or in life, we may rejoice when we
know they publish the genuine Gospel.”
How far can a man preach “a genuine Gos
pel, and at the eame time teach “defective doo
trines ? ’ Is not the “Gospel” based upon “doo
trine?” How far will one be “defective" with
out impairing the “genuineness” of the other?
Did the “contemporaries of Paul,” referred to
above, preach a pure Gospel and a pure doo
trine ? Did Paul extend to them Christian fel
lowship ? Can a baptized Christian preach or
teach “defective doctrines" and maintain church
fellowship or Christian fellowship ? Do unbap
tized Christians occupy a higher or lower plain
as to Christian fellowship ? Does the failure to
maintain church fellowship deprive the baptized
Christian of all, or only part, of the privileges
incident to church membership ? Can an uubap
tized Christian be allowed any church privilege
not extended to a baptized Christian, from
whom church fellowship has been withdrawn, by
reason of the teaching (preaching) of doctrines
offensive to the church, taught alike by both?
Should you answer tlie above questions, you
will ooufer a Christian favor upon au earnest,
EtiquißEß.
For the Index amt Baptist ]
K. W. ff. oo the Yimoe Men’s Christian Asso
riatlon.
Dear Index —l rejoice to see a name
so true to the right thing coming out
ou the Young Men’s Christian Associa
tion. The intials. E. W. W. as seen in
The Index of June 6th, should be a
finger board to all young Christians, as
they never appear in connection with
an indifferent article. Bro. W. is cer
tainly worthy to be heard on the ques
tion of the Young Men’s Christian As
sociation. His age, piety, discreetness,
and his opportunities for knowing
whereof he affirms, should entitle him
to be heard by all who wish to know
and obey that which is right. Nothing
is clearer to my mind than that the
churches are deprived of the benefit
of the most hopeful class of her mem
bership, namely, the pious, zealous
young men. This article from Bro.
VV. is timely, and should be read with
prayerful interest.
Surely it is time that Baptists were
deciding the question, whether the
church of Christ is capable of doing
the work assigned it by Christ or not ?
If we say it is competent to that work,
then we have no need of the Young
Men’s Christian Association. If we
say it is inadequate to the task, then
we say our Saviour has done an imper
fect work. All that Christians do
should be done to the glory of God,
especially iu the extension of the Gos
pel kingdom, but can they do this in
taking the time, money, personal ser
vice, and personal influence, in doing
good through auother institution when
it should be done, and could be done,
through the church. For worldly men
to do good tbrough such organizations
is perfectly legitimate, but for church
members to do so is dishonoring their
church. This subject deserves to be
considered carefullv. W. M. H.
For the Index and Baptist.]
OKIH>ATIt)\.
Brother J. O. Harris having been
called to the pastorate of the Baptist
church at Madison, Florida, a presby
tery was called by the Quittnan church
for the purpose of ordaining him to the
full work of the ministry. The pres
bytery met on Thursday evening the
6th instant, consisting of Elders O. S.
Gaulden, E. B. Carroll and N. A. Bailey.
Elder E. B. Carroll preached the ordi
nation sermon, after which Brother
Harris was examined on his Christian
experience, call to the ministry and doc
trines of the denomination. This being
satisfactory, he was duly ordained h,y
prayer and imposition of hands of
presbytery. The following order was
observed: Prayer by Elder Bailey,
charge by Elder Gaulden, presentation
of Bible by Elder Bailey, hand of fel
lowship by presbytery and church,
benediction by candidate.
N. A. Bailey.
Quitman. Ga., June 14. 1878.
For the Index and Baptist.]
AfKSOWLKDGJIESr.
Allow me through The Index to
acknowledge the receipt of 55 from
liev. S. Boykin, chairman of the corns
mittee on Home Missions appointed by
the Georgia Baptist State Convention,
and to make it the occasion of an
earnest appeal to other members of the
committee to co-operate heartily with
their chairman in their efforts for the
Board. Wm. H. Mclntosh,
Corresponding Secretary.
Marion, Alabama, June 13,1879.