The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1882-07-14

WOdSulp. NOWUeF9 CUulmhuueu uts
rectly but ruie or law everywhere
followed.
ChrIst left hls church on earth as
the means Of bringing mankind TO .
knowledge OF the principles Of the
Gospel. It's DEGREES In council were
everywhere accepted by Christians
as law. for illustration seq the council
held at jerusalem, Acts XIV.
A council Of tho whole church,
held at Nice 825, A. d., settled the
debates as On the true Interpretation
OF the Scriptures concerning the Dl-
vinIty Of Christ It's decrees OH this
subject are accepted by all Evangell.
cal denominations. This same csun.
ell made and confirmed certain laws
for the Church which we're every.
where obeyed, because q true gener.
al council Of the Church has been
looked upon as an authoritative
means Of settling doHated questions
Of doctriue and discipline.
One OF these laws was concerning
the proper conservation VI bishops,
that the ministry might DO continued
In unbroken descent. IL reads thus ::
alt Is most proper that q Bishop
should be constituted by oil the
Bishops Of the Province but II this
be difficult en- account Of some urgent
necessity or the length Of the way,
that at all events three should meet
together at the same place, those
who are absent also giving their
sufFrages, ,..and their consent In writ
ing, and then the ordination be per-
formed. The confirming however
Of what Is done In each Province be-
longs TO tho Metropolitan Of IT,"
Canon ".
This was only Affirming o rule
that hail prevailed from the times 81
the Apostles. Thus We read In the
Apostolic constitutions, that the
Ministry were to be ordained In this
way VIII Book OF A. c.:
/. "L4et q Bishop he ordained by
two or three Bishops"
.. "a Presbyter by one Bishop, -
also Deacon and the rest Of the
Clergy"
We see then that the Ministry of
the Church was no, regarded as law
ful, unless ordained according - the
universal practice of The Church. We
ask IL IL reasonable that any body Of
Christians should disregard these
rules? Aud u they d., Is IL not evi-
dent that they have not q lawful
Ministry according 20 tbe universal
practice OF the Church In the pasi
ages, and OF nioeiecn-twentIeths Of
the Christians Of the present day ?
There Is thIA difference betw cen
breNking the law Of The land aud
breaking the law OF the Church. The
State uses physical force where It's
regulations arc disregarded. II
tax payer thinks he ls unjustly taxed
and refuses TO pay, his land IL seized
and sold 10 satisfy costs. But In the
Church II an individual feels himself
wronged by law and refuses 70
obey, his dIsobsdIeuce cannot be dI.-
clplIned Ia the same way the only
appeal that can be made to him Is
that he must needs be subject for
conscience sake. The State needs
tho cheerful Submission Of her sub
jects In order 10 exist how much
more does the Church need that the
meral sense OF right Of her members
be directed 10 obedience 10 law as
the only method by which unity
can be preserved.
Many members Of the different de-
nominations who may read these
werds have been brought up with
the idea that there Is no law binding
upon their consci ences In this respect
But let them ask themselves these
questions Are you not by virtue Of
your baptism and faith members Of
the Church Of Christ ? You will
Onswer, "most certainly" By virtue
OF your membership In Chrlsts Church
Is not your relation to every ether
true believer Ia Christ, that OF q
brother bouRd by the ties Of love
beyond that Of nature ? Again the
answer must be "yes." Ii 1t not q
violation Of this Christian love to
deny that you have an organic rela-
tionship TO the living members Of the
Church, wherever they may be ? II
Et. Paul can be understood In l Cor.
XII. no Christian can say al am mel
of the body" and II he do he rends
and divides that Body about whIch
the law Of love says, "that there shetIli
Be no schism III the Body, bat that ht
members should all hGve the same car.
one for another"
When Christians do not commune
and work as a united band it mus,
be at once evident that they are iiv.
ing schism or division and break
ing the law Of love. With whom
does the guilt lie ? With those who
hold to the old laws or those who
have no law ut all The answer fol
; every otker society In the world
would ba, those who break the Law
are the guilty parties. Ignorance oI
the existence Oflaw makes the wrona
less, and many good Christians have
never dreamt OF evil In this respect.
But the issue canRot be avoided.
Christian believers are brethren
when they do not work together they
break the law Of love and there Il
guilt In whatever tends to keep this
separation up IN unlawful Ministry
Will not submit to the regulations
which the Church, as whsle, hal
always required and the inference Is
too plain to need statement.
A love oflaw and order would nc
only stop the unlawful division
among Christians, but would brinl
| fhnn. AnroAhnr aanira Gnn :, sAik.Ad a AfEnr.4