Orthodoxy in the civil courts : or, a history of the case, "The state of Indiana, on relation of George K. Poyser and William A. King, plaintiff, versus the trustees of the Salem Church of the Methodist Society of the Haw-Patch Circuit of the Western division of Michigan, alias the trustess of the Salem Protestant Methodist Church, Alonzo T. Poyser, David F. Damy, John Hostetter, John Hite, and Alvin H. Ramsby, defendants, which was tried in the Noble County, Indiana, Circuit Court, June 19 to 21, 1883, and in which was involved the orthodoxy of the Christian Church, embracing a verbatim report of the testimony given in the case.

Front matter

r

HARRY FREMD,

EMINENCE, KENTUCKY '

Preface

This book is dovoted to a very important subject in the religious world — nothing less than the historical disturbing element in Christendom — “orthodoxy.” What is the true teaching of the Scriptures? or What is true orthodoxy, as it is related to human redemption and salvation? is the one question which has connected itself with all the controversies of Christendom.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which has, in this country, made itself so potently felt in the domain of religious thought in the last half-century, and which, in that time, has gathered together a membership which is to-day about 700,000, and is rapidly increasing, and which membership embraces men of the most brilliant minds, enlarged hearts, and profound scholarship — men who have filled all the responsible positions in society, from the executive, legislative, and judicial offices of the government downward; such men as President James A. Garfield, Judge Jere. Black, et al. — has been forced to come before the civil courts to repel the charge of non-orthodoxy. The interests of Bible Christianity were thought to be of sufficient importance to justify the employment of an official reporter, who should faithfully report this case, that the world might know what the result would be when the legal tests were applied to the questions which were thus involved. This book is the result of that precaution. It contains an introduction bearing upon the question of orthodoxy ; a statement of the facts and incidents which led to this legal discussion of the question ; the pleadings in the case, so far as they are necessary to understand the issue involved, written by the editor; a verbatim report of the testimony given (which occupied two whole days),

reported by George A. Yopst; the finding of the court, etc.; to which is

6 Prejace .

appended an argument deduced from the evidence, and which would have been a part of the argument before the jury, if it had been permitted to go that far, by W. D. Owen, one of the attornies who had the special charge of this issue.

It is believed that true Bible orthodoxy will be materially helped by the publication of this book ; and,- if this should be realized, it then becomes a work of philanthropy, for whatever will assist men to place themselves in such relations as will secure to them the blessings of the Gospel of Christ, is a work of love to men. It is thus, as a work of philanthropy, as a means of bringing uncorrupt Bible Christianity to the attention of men, and as a persuading power to induce men to place themselves within the range of the Gospel promises that they may receive the Gospel blessings, that this book is committed to the public.

J. H. E.

Ligonier, Ind., October, 1883.

OUR ORTHODOXY

IN THE

CIVIL COURTS.

Introduction

This book is unique for the reason that it presents certain great issues in a way never before recorded.

The various fields of literature are well occupied with works of greater or less merit ; and new books are appearing like spears of grass in the spring-time for number, giving new discussions of old themes, and recording investigations upon the borders of the still unknown. A diminution of these may not to be looked for, since the literary ax and saw, pick and spade, drill and blast, shovel and dredge are being used with tireless industry to construct new highways for human thought which are to lead into the .golden lands of undiscovered wisdom; and the rapid pen, the running waiter, and the lightning press are all being used to bring the results of this labor to the knowledge of the great masses of men. Tire reason for this teeming flood of books, no doubt, is to be found in the fact that there is an insatiable maw of a hungering public to be filled.

Books are to be found in all the fields of human thought, in so far as they have been cultivated. Science and philosophy, history and romance, biography and fiction, pure reason and lofty poetry, religion and irreligion* etc., etc., and these have been called out under a variety of circumstances. These fields have been gone over again and again, in a thousand ways, and many kaleidoscopic combinations have been produced, bt h for the instruction and amusement of men, and it would seem that nothing new in the way of producing literature could arise ; but among these vast productions and the variety of ways by which the field of literature has been hitherto occupied, there has arisen a new way, unique in itself, at least so far as America is concerned, by which to present to thoughtful men the great question ol religious orthodoxy. This book has been thus produced, and it is the outgrowth of one of those fortuitous events which arise in the history of men — no one planned it, no one intended it, and yet it came.

The political orator on the stump in this country delights to run his fingers over the musical strings of freedom, for he knows that it will find a warm response in the heart of the freedom-loving American who delights to b^ast of his country as being the home of liberty, both political and religious. This American is made to exult in the fact that “every man can worship God, or not, according to the dictates of his own conscience,” the Constitution of his country determining this in that it provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thus it is proclaimed to the world that, in America at least, there can be no orthodox religion by virtue of legal enactments, laws passed under the forms of parliamentary authority ; that is, there can be no church whose organization, doctrine, forms, rites, and ceremonies are made right, or orthodox, by parliamentry enactment. If there is to be an orthodox religion in this country, therefore, it must be so from other considerations than this.

Under the powerful influence of this freedom in religious thought, which finds its bulwark of strength thus wrought into the Constitution, there has grown up in America a very strong indifference to wh at is called orthodoxy, and a like disregard of what is styled heterodoxy, in some quarters. These terms have been bandied a good deal, yet they have been applied to things in an indiscriminate way, having no definite longitude and latitude, meaning in the mind and use of one man one thing, and in the mind and use of another something else. This state of affairs has been tersely stated by another in the following way : “Orthodoxy is my ‘ doxy,’ and heterodoxy is your ‘ doxy.’ ” These tei;ms, therefore, have been made to express the mine and thine in religion, to a very large extent. And while this is true, it has nevertheless been felt that there is something which ought to be recognized and regarded as orthodox, while its opposite should be deemed heterodox. The trouble has been all the time to find an authority with powers sufficent to define these conceptions with such precision and correctness as to definitely designate the one and the other so as to command the respect and acquiescence of all parties. None of the great religious bodies could assume to do this ; for, when any one of them would set up its own peculiarities as the standard of orthodoxy, it was sure to be met with a rebellion on the part of all others, because their peculiarities are just as worthy of such designation, and each party would choose to jtand by its own. From these causes, there is now no well-de-

Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. g

•

fined idea of what orthodoxy and heterodoxy are, the whole thing being a kind of kaleidoscopic combination which takes form and color from the particular position from which it is viewed. All along the line of religious adherents, from the hyper-Calvinistic predestinarian, who believes that God from all eternity irrevocably decreed that a certain portion of angels and men should be ordained unto everlasting life, and the other portion to eternal death, and that these are so definitely fixed that they, neither one, can be increased or diminished, to the super-Universalist who safely ensconces all mankind within the battlements of eternal blessedness, there rings out this resonant word, “orthodox.” But what it means in the mouth of the Calvinistic predestinarian, is not what it means in the mouth of the liberal Universalist, and so along the whole line.

Then what is true orthodoxy ? This book, with the aid of those things which enter into the administration of civil law, would fain be serviceable in ‘answering this question. One thing is true: the reader will find, as he passes through its pages, that the decisions neither of kings, nor popes, nor councils, nor any other human authority which has sought to establish dogmata for the Christian world, have been invoked. The influence which these have had, deleterious and disastrous, may be seen in the long line of events which have succeeded the culmination of the contentions of Alexander and Arius of Alexandria, in the decrees of the Council of Nice, in Bythinia, A. D. 325, until the present time. If history establishes a single thing, it is this: Religious orthodoxy can not be established by the decrees of kings, popes, synods, councils, or by any other human authority.

To set this truth more prominently before the mind of the reader, let him note the following facts : The Council of Nice was composed of complaining and angry bishops, bishops jealous of and bitter against one another, and whom it required all the skill and authority of Constantine to control; but the emperor did finally succeed in restoring them to some kind of temper, so that they set about devising an orthodox creed. Following is a summary of the creed that, under these circumstances, they devised and which was immediately, by all the imperial authority of Constantine, pushed to the front as the only standard of orthodox faith :

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten ; begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; true God of true God ; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were uiade — things in heaven and things on earth; who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate, and became man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and comes to judge the quick and the dead: and in the Holy Ghost. And the catholic and apostolic church doth anathematize those persons who say, that there was a time when the Son of God was not ; that he was not before he was born ; that he was made of nothing, or of another substance Qr being; or that he is created, or changeable, cr convertible.”

io Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts.

This creed was not only set up as the standard of orthodox faith at the time, but it was made, to a certain extent, the law of life and death ; for Constantine issued an edict banishing Arius to Illyricum, ordering that his followers should be called Porphyrians, ordaining that the books written by them should be burnt, that there be no vestige of their doctrine left ; and, to complete the climax, enjoining “that if any one shall be found to have concealed any writing composed by Arius, and shall not immediately bring it and consume it in the fire, death shall be his punishment ; for as soon as he is taken in his crime, he shall suffer a capital punishment.” Thus, steadied in its pose before the world by the strong arm of the imperial government, was this human standard of religious faith set up.

But what were the results which this step, headed by the Emperor Constantine, effected as related to orthodoxy? Another hand has very fittingly described these results :

“ The Scriptures were now no longer the standard of Christian faith. What was orthodox, and what heterodox, was, henceforward, to be determined by the decisions of the fathers and councils; and religion propagated, not by the apostolic methods of persuasion, accompanied with the meekness and gentleness of Christ, but by imperial edicts and decrees; nor were gainsayers to be brought to conviction by the simple weapons of reason and Scriptures, but persecuted and destroyed. It can not surprise us, if, after this, we find a continual fluctuation of the public faith, just as the prevailing party obtained the imperial authority to support them ; or that we should meet with little else in ecclesiastical history than violence and cruelties, committed by men who had fully departed from the simplicity of the Christian doctrine and professionmen enslaved to avarice and ambition, and carried away with views of temporal grandeur, high preferments and large revenues.” — ( Jones' Church History, p. 139.)

The decision of the Council of Nice, though it was the judgment of the bishops present against Arius and his doctrine expressed by the vote of a large majority of them, and though it was sustained by the edicts and decrees of Constantine, did not settle the controversy which had arisen between Alexander and Arius over the sonship of Christ. It is true that the doctrine of Arius had been condemned by a large majority, that he himself had been banished by the edict of the emperor, that his books were ordered to be burned, that his followers were compelled to assent to the Nicene confession of faith, and that death had been pronounced against all who should conceal his works — all this is true ; but persecuting edicts, whether originating with kings, emperors, councils, or popes, can not be executed in the domain of human thought, and scarcely can they be made to restrain the tongue and lips. However, this trinity question was as effectually settled by this decree of the Council of Nice as it is possible to settle any like question by such means ; for, it had all the authority of the council itself, it was backed by all the authority of the imperial government, and it had the confirmation of the bishop, or pope, of Rome. As

II Our Orthodoxy In the Civil Courts

soon as the decrees and canons of the Council of Nice were written out they were sent to Sylvester, bishop of Rome, by whom, with the concurrence of the bishops in the thirteenth Council of Rome, they were confirmed in the following words:

“ We confirm, with our mouth, that which has been decreed at Nice, a city of Bythinia, by the three hundred and eighteen holy bishops, for the good of the catholic and apostolic church, mother of the faithful. We anathematize all those who shall dare to contradict the decrees of the great and holy council, which was assembled at Nice, in the presence of that most pious and venerable prince, the Emperor Constantine.” — [Maimburg’ s History of Arianism, Vol. I., p. 48.)

Thus was this dogma made orthodox by council, emperor, and pope, and yet but thirty years elapse before the shoe is on the other foot ; for Constantius, son of Constantine, and the synods of Arles and Milan condemn Athanasius, the strongest supporter of Alexander in the Council of Nice and the representative of the Nicene dogma, and adopted the Arian decrees. So, in the short space of thirty years, such a change of opinion was wrought that what was declared orthodox, by the Council of Nice in 325, was condemned as heterodox by the synod of Arles in 353, and by the synod of Milan in 355. What was pronounced heterdox at Nice was declared orthodox at Milan.

Now, from the historical point of view, who can tell whether Arianism is heterodox or orthodox ? it having been declared both by like authorities, and having been crushed and sustained by like imperial powers. And thus — may it not be truthfully affirmed? — is the whole history of the orthodox controversies down through the ages, including the rise of all those so-called churches which have their organizations based upon the deductions and conclusions of human assemblies, councils, etc., ascertained, as were the decrees of the Council of Nice and of the synods of Arles and Milan, by a vote.

The impossibility of settling the question of orthodoxy by such means as those noted above, in the light of the historic attempts, is apparent, and there is an inconsistency that obtrudes itself along with the impossibility which it would seem ought to have deterred from the attempts, but it did not. Yet inconsistency does not belong alone to the ages past, by any means. If we disturb the curtains so as to get but a glimpse of things as they are being played on the present stage of action, the same thing _ will appear. Above the clashings of unreconciled and discordant factions and sects, if one will turn the attentive ear, two musical sounds — “ evangelical” and “orthodox” — may be heard rising like the siren’s song. To some extent, by their musical cadences, they overcome the discordant notes which are continually being injected into the song which Christendom sings before the world, but they will never cover up all the inconsistencies

Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts.

which obtrude themselves from the popular notions of orthodoxy. By some kind of legerdemain, in which the secret manipulations are yet undiscovered, many of the great religious bodies have, tacitly at least, consented to treat one another as orthodox — upon what principle it is hard to tell, foi there is scarcely a principle which has found its way into their valious foimulated creeds but that, in some particular, is contradicted by some member of this so-called orthodox fraternity. It can not be that they are orthodox upon a series of contradicted principles. It may be that the only basis of a true orthodoxy will be found in that position taken by the Christian Church, and which has been developed in the trial of which this book gives an account. But to the inconsistency of the popular, so-called, orthodoxy. In the practical application of this orthodoxy, which has so inexplicably made its appearance among religious denominations, there appeals one of those ridiculous inconsistencies which have burdened the entiie course of ecclesiastical history from the Council of Nice until now. It will appear from the following case, as an illustration: Not long since, Dr. W. H. Thomas, one of the Methodist Episcopal pastors of Chicago, a man noted for his ability and consistent Christian life, was arraigned before the authorities of that Church on a charge of heterodoxy. In the tiial which succeeded, these authorities found the charge sustained, and because of this fact the relation which had been sustained between Dr.

Thomas and the Methodist Episcopal Church was dissolved by authority of the Church. The whole Methodist fraternity united in proclaiming Dr. Thomas as heterodox, and hence unworthy of its communion. Now, in the course of events — and the contingency which I now mention is not at all improbable — Dr. Thomas may find it both agreeable and acceptable to connect himself with a Congregational church. Now, should he do this, because the Congregational Church is regarded by the Methodists as an orthodox Church, the Methodist Church fraternity would be under the necessity of hailing, and associating- with, as orthodox, the same Dr. Thomas, unchanged in principle, whom they had driven from their communion as heterodox. And the same thing may be said of Dr. Swing and the Presbyterian Church. If the Methodists were not to thus receive Dr. Thomas, and the Presbyterians Dr. Swing, then, to be consistent, they must not stop until each one in the whole round of so called orthodox churches has been thus struck, for each one of them is liable to be placed in precisely the same circumstances. Let this proceed, and it is easy to be seen that there will be as many standards of orthodoxy in the end, and that is the real fact now, as there have been repudiations, and we come right back to the condition of affairs in which orthodoxy is the mine and heteiodoxy is the thine in religion. This must ensue, or Christendom remain filled, as it is now under the regime of a tacitly-consenting ortho-

Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. fj

doxy, with the jargon of inconsistency. From all this it is evident that the question of orthodoxy can not be settled by this reciprocal acceptance of the several churches, the one of the other. If it is to be settled at all, it must be done by some other means and upon some other basis

than this.

The etymology of the word “orthodox” will give some aid in determining the scope of its meaning, and assigning to it a definite longitude and latitude. This, as given by Webster, is as follows: “Gr. 6 p06So£o? ( or - thodoxos), from 6p0os (orthos) , right, true, and <5ofa (, doxa ), opinion, from South' ( dokein ), to think.” The word, therefore, means to think right, or to have a correct opinion, and this can never be determined with authority by any assembly of men, be they never so learned, and wise, and good ; for the one who has the ability to think right, and therefore to obtain a correct opinion of any subject of disputation, may be, in the possibilities of human action, confronted with the whole herd of learned, and wise, and good men, and a majority vote in this case would make the wrong right, and the right wrong. In this case the lone man is right and the multitude wrong. Galileo vs. the priesthood of the Catholic Church, is a case in point. Galileo taught the stability of the sun and the earth’s motion, contrary to the priestly conception of these things. For this he was summoned to Rome and compelled to make an abjuration of his teachings. “Clad in sackcloth and kneeling,” he swore upon the Gospels never again to teach the earth’s motion and the sun’s stability ; he declared his detestation of the proscribed opinions, and promised to perform the penance laid upon him. Then rising from the ground, he is said to have exclaimed in an undertone : “ jE pur si muoven — it does move for all that; and the universal teaching of science to-day shows that the lone Galileo was right, and the combined Roman priesthood was wrong.

From what has now been said it will appear that a vote, no difference how unanimous it may be, can not change the status of an opinion — can not make a right opinion wrong, or a wrong opinion right.

To secure a genuine orthodoxy in the religion of the Bible, there must be made a movement backward beyond the Council of Nice to the apostolic, and immediately subsequent, times when the Scriptures were allowed to set forth their own orthodoxy, their own principles of right and truth. The Scriptures are better able to set forth those facts and principles which are connected with the redemption and salvation of men than any other agency, especially such a one as fluctuates and is under so many caprices as the human judgment, because they have been set forth under a divine inspiration. “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible,” becomes, therefore, the only standard of Christian orthodoxy. Every statement of the Bible is an orthodox statement. This covers a wide field, for the Bible makes statements upon many subjects. In interpreting these statements there may be a wide diversity of opinion, and it is to be looked for that there will be a want of unanimity among the readers and students of the Bible upon its entire range of teaching; and if this unanimity is to be insisted upon before there can be a recognized orthodoxy, then it may be safely affirmed that there never will be a perfect Bible orthodoxy among men. But this is not necessary, for the principle of orthodoxy is applied among men only for the purpose of determining the conditions of a partial or complete fellowship among them; and, to determine these conditions for a Bible fellowship, only those statements which the Scriptures make necessary to secure the salvation and redemption promised in the gospel ought to be taken.

A little analytical work will enable any one to make the discovery that these statements naturally fall into line in two sections: I. Those things which the Scriptures make necessary to take a man from the world into the Church of Christ, viz ..faith in the great objects of Scripture belief, a repentance , or turning to a reformation of life, a confession of Christ before men, and a baptism into the trinity of adorable names, on a genuine conformity to which the scriptures promise a salvation from the sins that are past, and an introduction into the divine fellowship of the church. 2. dhose things which the Scriptures make necessary, after a man is in the church, to keep him there as long as he shall live, viz., prayer, the holy service of worship, and the acts of a fraternal, philanthropic and pious life by which an exalted manhood will be reached, and an everlasting salvation secured. These, and these only, it is believed, ought to be insisted upon in determining the conditions of the fellowship which is to subsist between the disciples of Christ in the church — the things which the Scriptuies make necessary to salvation as related to the remission of sins in this life, and the final great redemption in the life to come ; under no circumstances ought these conditions be made to embrace the things which are the outcome of human cogitation and speculation, which form so large a part of that which is technically called “scholastic theology,” for these things may not only be wiong, as indicated above, but their acceptance or rejection will in no way assure or jeopardize one’s salvation or final condition.

For instance: as referred to above, it has been taught that God, by His own sovereign decree, has predestinated some men and angels unto everlasting life, and foreordained the remainder unto everlasting death, and that the number of these angels and men is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Now, if this be true as related to individual men and angels, it makes no kind of difference whether it is accepted or rejected, because this acceptance or rejection can have nothing to do in the least in determining the final condition, for the reason that that condition has been unalterably fixed by the sovereign act of God from all eternity, according to the dogma ; and, if it should turn out that this dogma is true, there will, without doubt, be among that number of men foreordained unto everlasting life, and who because of that foreordination became the recipients of everlasting life, both those who accept it and those who reject it, thus showing that their everlasting life was in no way assured or jeopardized by their acceptance or rejection of this dogma. But it is not so with those things which the Scriptures make necessary unto salvation. For instance: The Saviour commands His disciples to make known the gospel to every creature, assuring them that those who believe it and are baptized shall be saved, but that those who believe it not shall be damned. (Mark xvi. 15, 1 6.) Thus the salvation of men is made contingent upon their acceptance or rejection of the gospel.

Not so with the dogmata of scholastic theology, which involve the speculations concerning the trinity, the sovereign decree of God, hereditary total depravity, etc., etc. The Christian Church, the body of people whose orthodoxy was called in question in the trial rehearsed in this book, has never assigned these dogmata a higher pl^,ce than that of speculation and opinion, and has insisted that they should never be made the criteria of orthodoxy, but that in regard to them there ought to be indulged the widest latitude. While the Church would be thus liberal in these matters of opinion, it permits no latitude in those things which the Scriptures make necessary to salvation; as to those things it has uncompromisingly insisted that all men shall accept them according to the Bible teaching. It has done this, not simply to build up an organization of men, but that the salvation of Christ shall be assured to men under the promises of the gospel; and they insist that the term “orthodox,” used as a term to designate the conditions of fellowship among the disciples of Christ, should not be applied to any thing which the Scriptures do not make a condition in the salvation of men — their salvation from past and present sin, and their salvation from an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power; and hence, that no body of men is orthodox, in the Christian application of that term, which does not accept all these Scriptural conditions, no difference how tenaciously the dogmas of speculation, or even the revelations of Scripture upon other things, are held.

Now, to get before the minds of the people these Scriptural conditions, and thus to set forth the only reasonable orthodoxy, various means have been resorted to and used : the song faculty has been drawn upon, the sacred desk and public platform have been diligently used, the arena of belligerent polemics has been sought, the powerful agencies of the pen and press have been brought into requisition, etc., etc.; but until now the civil courts in this country have never been invoked to aid in determining t6 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts.