Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.