Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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