Newspaper Page Text
wishing, one to sit on the right band, and th-fe other
on the left of Jesus, in his kingdom. Matt. xx. 20.
21. But Jesus thus reproved them for their ambi
tious Ye know’ that the Prinees of the
Gentiles exercise dominion over thetn; and they that
are great exercise au-thorfty upon them ; bfot it shall
not bb so atnong And further, -whosoever
wll be chief you’, let him be your servant/’— l
xx. 26. This also comports with Peter’s Epistle to
the Churches; when addressing the elders, he ex
horted them not to act as lords ofer Gbd/sP heritage.
T Peter v. 3. At the same time Peter only'professed
tb be, himself, an elder. And thus we may etrsilv
sed; that dvery thing like supremacy of bishops, or
episcopal pre-Cminence, discountenanced by Jesus
&nd his Apbstfos'; and, therefore, must bb'incompat
ible with religious liberty/
Another human invention practised, in this cur
day, by some sects, which is a gross invasion upon
the religious rights of Christians in a church capacity,
is the usurpation of the ministry in wresting from the
Churches the executive authority, given by Christ
and his Apostles to them. It is not uncommon to see
churches of several sects deprived of the right of
judgment in receiving, censuring and excluding mem
bers-
To prove this unwarranted usurpation of the min
istry over the churches or layman, we‘ would refer our
readers to the following Scriptures: l —Paul to the
ohurch at Rome, writes, “ Him that is weak in the
faith receive ye, ,; &c. xiv. 1. Here we see the
church was to receive such applicants; and further
ouch were not to be received to doubtful disputations ;
implying that the church in general had the right of
a vote on the occasion. Let us now try the right of
censure and excluding members. First, by the words
of our Lord Jesus: “If thy brother trespass against
thee: go and tell him his fault, between thee and him
alone.” The next w r as to “ take one or two more.”
And, finally, “If he negleet to hear them, tell it to
the church, but if he neglect to bear the Church, let
him be to thee a heathen and a publican.” This also
is agreeable to-Paul's directions to the Corinthian
Church. “ Put away from among yourselves that
wicked person.” 1 Cor. v. 13. These with many
other passages of Scripture, plainly testify to us the
executive-authority of the Apostolic Churches. And
thus it may be seen, that such ministers as assume
the sole right to receive or exclude members-of church
es, are acting as lords over God's heritage, and are
nearly allied to the man of sin.
This leads us to consider another violation of relig
ious liberty, or invasion ou the liberties of the churchy
by the ministry of a certain sect or sects among, us.
“We see churches deprived of the right of choosing or
rejecting the preacher or pastor sent to preach for
them. However repugnant their doctrines to the word
of God, thochurch has no right to judge or shut the
pulpit doors.- Yte would think a church under such
a priestly yoke, would be placed in a difficult situa
tion, toobserve. the folio wing, words of God: “If there
come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, re
ceive him not into your house,- neither- bid him
God speed.” 2 John ii. 10. “ Beware of dogs, be
ware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” —•
Phil. iii. 2. We would ask such churches, under
these circumstances, would they obey God or man ?
This brings to our minds, the attempt made by our
adversary and his abettors last year, to restrain the
execution of these Divine laws. And, however secure
we deemed ourselves under our laws and constitution,
the leaven of the British statutes preserved in our law
offices, and so often introduced into our courts to the
SOUTHERN BAPTIST MESSENGER.
corruption of the spirit of our laws or constitution,
was brought to act upon ns, to the annoyance of our
peace; but, like Haman’s plot, it was over-ruled by
the good providenee of God, and recoiled upon the
head of onr accuse?/
This recognition of obsolete British statutes in our
courts of judicature may be so abused in time, by
those whose ingenuity can interpret laws to suit their
own caprices, as to introduce'the precedent of sub*
jecting us to another obsolete law of that nation,
which barred'the right to all unbaptized persons of
of giving evidence. And we] think it would be well
for all that sfee” with us, in this matter, to turn their
faces against this growing evil.
Ihe next spe’eies of religious tyranny we would no
tice, which is practiced by some, in this our day, who
disclaim fellowship with papal Borne and her min
ions, is thdt which efiects ministerial privileges, and
would restrict the ministry to those only who under
stood the Latin, Greek and Hebrew languages, or
have obtained a degree from some college. In this,
we would say with the Apostle Paul, wo “ would
that ye all spake with tongues.” And Paul said, “I
thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye
all. Yet,” said this Apostle, “in the church I had
rather speak five words with my understanding, that
by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thou
sand words in an unknown tongue.” Hence wo
would suppose, as PauPgave the preference of five
words with the understanding, to[ten thousand in ail
unknown tongue, that he did not place so high a val
ue upon the knowledge of foreign languages or un
known tongues, as seme of the learned priests of our
day: and we would prefer Paul’s opinion to ten thou
sand of such priests. But if we have indubitable
proof, not from Scripture only, but from recent facts,
that God has raised up from ploughmen, fishermen
and mechanics, able ministers of the New Testament,
whom he has owned and honored in the cause cf his
Gospel,- sluvlb wo tamely submit to- this ungospel
yoke? We rather think that tberre would be found
und&r this interdiction, men like Jeremiah. “When
1 said, I will keep silence, thy wosd was like fire’in
my bones ;” And he adds-r- “ I-will therefore speak,
that I may be refreshed.” Such, who thus assume
the lordship over God’s heritage, should ever be re
butted with the appropriate answer of Peter and
John to the ‘ Sanhedrim, who had interdicted their
preaching or teaching in the name of Jesus, under the
severest penalties, as we- learn from Acts iv. 19:
“ Whether it be right irnthe sight of God, to hearken
unto you, moreAhan unto God, judge ye?”
But it is argued by .some of the advocates- of this
priestcraft, that our common translation of the Scrip
ture is so incorrect, that it cannot be sufficiently un
derstood by an English scholar, so as to expound its
principles of doctrine to others. Admit this, and we
immediately harmonize with’papal Rome. She only
prohibits her votaries from reading the Scriptures in
the vulgar tongue ; whilesuch. Greek scholars as at
tempt to monopolize the ministry,-would prohibit the
understanding of the Scriptures as rendered in- our
common translation. We Would, however, in a few
words, oppose to this principle, its practical disavow
al, by thousands of the most learned men in the
world, as members of that valuable institution, call
ed tlie Bible Society, both in Europe and America;
who in all their constitutions, embrace the following
clause,-in words or sentiment: “We will give the
present translation of the Scriptures to the world, as
the mind of the Lord.” And we would even number
among the members of this institution many of those
learned priestly monopolists, who thus speak to their
own confusion.
Our subject calls our notice to another violation of
religious liberty, or the rights of conscience in mat
ters of religion. The practice’of compelling uncon
scious 1 infahts'info ths~ pale*of called
church; and binding them by ’ sponsors,-as sureties,
to adhere to the creed professed by that community,
This practice, we conceive, took its origin from the
bishops of Africa and Romo, about the third century,
the fountain head of mystery Babylon ; but became
more celebrated in Rome, in the fourth century, >at
the period when Christianity was first established by
•aw, by Constantine the emperor of Rome; when the
Christian church there condescended to make this
emperor its earthly head; and when these principles
were enforced by anathemas from the Milevetian
Council. And thus the man of sin-Mhe sdn of ptfrdi- *
Hon—becanm more dearly rwcaled. These* princi
ples, however, were not established among- the Bri
tons and Saxons until in the year SGO, when Pope
Gregory sent Austin the monk, with forty others to
baptize those nations with their children, on the pain
of death upon their refusal; and this monk consecrat
ed the river Swale, and, it is said, baptized 10,000 on
a Christmas day.’ For our historical authority of
these sketches, we refer our readers to Ivimy’s Ecc.
11. pp. 42 to 45.’ Jones’ C. 11. Yol. 1. pp. 265 to
290. Thus we have brought to view the adulterous
woman, arrayed in the scarlet colored robe of bloody
power, that deluged the world witlv blood for many
centuries. From the same fountain the practice of
infant baptism sprang forth, continues tb partake of
the corruption of its original, and we conceive that
we have no better authority to baptize unconsciou ß
infants in this our day than Austin the monk had to
force those 10,000 Britons into the river Swale, or
the South American Indians, who were compelled to
submit to like measures by the Roman Jesuits, by
military force. Also, when the consideration of any
person being baptized in infancy, is urged why they
should adhere to that particular communion—we
deem this incompatible with religious liberty. ■ In 1
short, all coercion of, or dominion <JVer the conscience
of any person, or Jesuitical cunning and intrigue, for “
the purpose 6f inducing persons of ariy description
to enter the pale of any community called church, con
trary to their own voluntary choice, or to extorc from
them money or pecuniary aid for religions institutions
or purposes, are violations of what liberty held forth
in the Gospel of Jesus.
But we cease further to enumerate tlfese galling
yokes, which for ages have bowed down the necks of
Christians, and with pleasure turh our attention to
the second thing proposed —To notice'that'we deem
consistent with religious liberty'.’ •
It is admittedly all who have come info the liber
ty of the Gospel, that- they were by nature slaves -to
sin and Satan ; and that they are indebted for their
emancipation'to Him who said to the Jews, “If tire
Son* therefore?, make 1 you free, you shall be- free in
deed,” In this process, with which we hope you have
an experimental acquaintance, you were fully ap
prised, that you were by nature under the yjke of
bondage, and from this state” of captivity, darkness
and misery you were in the hour of extremity, deliv
ered by Him, who came “ to preach deliverance to the
captives and recovering of*sight to the blind, and to
set at liberty them that are bound.” By him you
were brought to experience all that is meant by being
born again ; and being “ translated from the king
dom of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son.”
In a word, to experience and realize what the Apos
tle meant when he said, “ Where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is liberty.” And, again, “ Now being
made free from sin, and become servants of God, ye
have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlast*
ing life.” Rom. vi. 22.
CONCLUDE® ON PAGE 54,
51