1. GORDON MELTOH LIBRARY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA Gift of THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF AMERICAN RELIGION ORTHODOXY IN THE 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 OK THE METHO- DIST SOCIETV OF THE HAW-PATCH CIRCUIT OF THE WESTERN DIVI- SION OF MICHIGAN, ALIAS" THE TRUSTEES OF THE SALEM PROTESTANT METHODIST CHURCH, ALONZOT. POYSER, DAVID F. DAMY, JOHN HOSTETTER, JOHN HITB, ANDALVIN 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 EDITED BY J. H. EDWARDS To which is appended an Argument drawn from the Testimony in the Case BY W. D. OWEN CINCINNATI STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, bj STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 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 teachii.g 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 mem- bership 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 govern- ment 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 rinding of the court, etc.; to which is w t> Preface. 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 be- comes a work of philanthropy, for whatever will assist men to place them- selves 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 bless- ings, that this book is committed to the public. J. H. E. LIGONIER, Ind., October, 1883. IN THE CIVIL COURTS. CHAPTER I. 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 dimi- nution 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 in- dustry to construct new highways for human thought which are to lead into the golden lands of undiscovered wisdom; and the rapid pen, the running writer, and the lightning press are all being used to bring the re- sults of this labor to the knowledge of the great masses of men. The rea- son 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 phrlosophy, 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 the Noble County, / ss In the Noble Circuit Court, before His Honor, Judge J. Wes. McBride. The State of Indiana, on relation of George K. Poyser and William A. King, plaintift, vs. the Trustees of the Salem Church of the Method, ist Society, etc., etc., defendants. The above named cause was called for trial by Judge McBride, on the morning of June 19, 1883. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL REPORTER. Be it remembered, that at the June term of the Noble Circuit Court, the above entitled cause being called for trial, and the issues being joined, a jury being empaneled, George A. Yopst, a short-hand reporter, being appointed by the court as official stenographer in said cause, after being duly sworn to faithfully report all the evidence in the cause, proceeded so to do ; and having made a transcript of the evidence relative to the issue of orthodoxy, or non-orthodoxy of the Christian Church in controversy, it is in the words and fig-res following, to wit: SECTION I. TESTIMONY OF J. H. EDWARDS. Mr. Edwards, a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, .estified as follows : Examination in Cluef. Q. Will you please state your name to the court ? A. My name is J. H. Edwards. Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Edwards? A. I reside in Ligonier, Indiana. Q. What is your business ? A. I am a minister of the gospel. 36 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. j? Q. In what church ? A. In the Church of Christ, or Christian Church. Q. Are you the pastor of the Christian Church in Ligonier ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you hold any position in the Christian Church in the State of Indiana? If so, what? A. I have recently been Secretary of the Northern Indiana Christian Ministerial Association, and am at present the president of the State Chris- tian Ministerial Association of Indiana. Q. Mr. Edwards, are you acquainted with the practices and teachings generally of the religious denominations of this country? A. Yes, sir, I think so. Q. Please state whether the Christian Church is an orthodox denomi- nation ? A. I think it is. Q. Has that church any statement or rule of faith and practice to which a member must conform ? A. It has an authoritative statement both as to faith and practice. Q. What is that church's rule of faith and practice ? A. "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." Q. Will you please state, Mr. Edwards, what the plea of the Christian Church is, as compared with the accepted orthodoxy of other churches ? A. The great plea which I understand the Church to have made is this: The union of all Christians, disciples of Christ, in one body, with the word of God as the basis of that union. The union of all Christians under one head, Christ, is the great plea they make. Q. What do you mean when you say that all Christians ought to be one, according to the teachings of the Christian Church ? A. I mean they ought to be one in those things which the Scriptures teach as being essential to salvation the things necessary to one's turning to God and living a holy and pious life. Q. Now, then, do you mean to say you would permit any differences of opinion? A. In those things which are merely opinions in those things we allow the greatest latitude. These things make no difference in the fellow- ship of the Church. Q. Does or does not the Christian Church accept the Old and New Testament Scriptures as inspired? A. It does. (?. State whether or not the Christian Church demands of its members, and those coming to its membership, a faith in Jesus Christ ? A. It does. jfS Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts, Q. State whether or not it demands a faith in Jesus Christ as a divine being. A. It does. It always demands a confession of faith in Him as the Son of God. Q. Well, would or would not the Church accept one as a member who would refuse to make this confession of faith in Jesus Christ as the divin* Son of God ? A. It would not. Q. He would not be accepted as a member ? A. No, sir. Q. Whose voice does the Church recognize as authoritative in the matters of salvation ? A. The voice of Jesus Christ. Q. If there be any authoritative commandment which Jesus gave to His apostles concerning the matter of salvation, please state what it is. A. There is the great commission which Jesus gave His apostles. He said: "All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit : teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt, xxviii. 18 20.) The Church regards Him as authority in these things in the matters of salvation. Q. Does the Christian Church teach that the apostles who went about preaching the gospel had a creed, or command, which Jesus had given them? A. Yes, sir. Q. If a man, therefore, should accept this proclamation of the gospel which the apostles made, what relation would it put him into with refer- ence to Jesus? If a man now accepts this proclamation of the gospel which the apostles then made, into what relation does it place him with reference to Jesus ? A. It puts him into the relation of a disciple of Jesus. Q. Into the relationship of a disciple ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is this acceptance of the gospel authorized to be preached by Jesus requisite in order that a person be received into the fellowship of the Church, or that he become a disciple ? A. Yes, sir; and he accepts it through his faith. Q. Does the Christian Church teach that Jesus is the only Counselor, and Guide, and Commander in matters of religion ? A. Yes, sir; it does. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. jp Q. Does it teach that Jesus is the sole Saviour of sinners? A. It does. Q. What is the teaching of the Christian Church with reference to the power, authority, and the sacrifice of the Saviour ? Does the Church teach that these are necessary and able to effect the salvation of mankind ? A, With reference to the power and authority, and the sacrifice of the Saviour, it teaches that these are sufficient to save all ; but that the sal- vation of men depends upon the acceptance of the gospel, and its agencies of salvation by them. Q. That the salvation of men depends upon the acceptance of the life, teachings, and sacrifice of Jesus Christ? A. Yes, sir. Q. State if the Christian Church accepts Jesus Christ as the object of faith for the Christian. A. It does. Q. State if baptism is necessary, according to the teaching of the Christian Church. A. It is ; being accepted as a command of the Saviour, it must be obeyed. Q. What does the Christian Church teach as the first necessary step on the part of the sinner that he may obtain salvation? A. That he have faith in God, and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Q. What does that Church next require as necessary ? A. It teaches, and therefore necessarily requires, that the sinner re- pent of his sins his former sins and turn to live a life of holiness and virtue, according to the teachings of the Scriptures. Q. What next does the Church require as necessary? A. The sinner having believed in God and in Christ, and having repented of his sins, and turned to live a life of righteousness and virtue, the Church next requires that he confess Christ before man, for the reason that the Saviour has said, "Every one, therefore, who siiall confess me be- fore men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. x. 32, 33.) Q. What next does that Church require? A. It next requires that the sinner submit himself to the command which was given by the Saviour in the commission the first half of the commission "Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Q. What next does that Church require ? A. That he conform to the second half of the Saviour's commission " Teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you," fo Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. thus living prayerful and pious lives, continuing that obedience until the close of life. Q. After the sinner has had faith in Jesus Christ, and has repented of his sins, and has confessed Christ as the divine Son of God, and has been baptized, what is the teaching of that Church as to the effect of these things upon the condition of the sinner? A. It teaches that he is then received into the fellowship of God, and becomes His child, and that, so far as the sins of his past life are concerned, they are remembered against him no more. Q. That process makes him a Christian ? A. Yes, sir ; and he ought to be received into the Church. Q. Mr. Edwards, did the Saviour and His apostles ever require by a commandment faith in any other object, or person, than Jesus of Nazareth, and God ? A. No, sir, I think not. Q. Did the Saviour and the apostles ever require any other belief and acts of obedience, as you term them, as prerequisites to membership in the church, than faith in Christ, confession of Him, repentance of sin, and baptism? A. I know of none, sir. Q. Are you the gentleman who preached in Salem Chapel? A. I am, sir. Q. Please state to the court and jury whether or not, in your preach- ing in Salem Chapel, you preached what are said to be the doctrines of the Christian Church. A. Yes, sir. I think, so far as I can now tell, I kept wholly within the line of them in my discourses there. Q, I wish to ask you now, Mr. Edwards, if the denomination you rep- resent, and for whom you were preaching at Salem Chapel, believe and practice the things you have stated on the stand, and which you say you have preached there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did you preach at Salem Chapel? A. Well, I preached once in February, I think, of 1882. Then I did not preach any more until in April, of the same year. From that time, with the exception of one or two Lord's days, I preached every alternate Sunday afternoon until the 7th of January, 1883. Q. Have you preached there since the time of which you last spoke? A. I have not, sir. Q. Why have you not? A. On account of a notice that was given to me. Q. What notice ? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 41 A. The notice that was read before the court and jury, forbidding any u?e of the house to me except on funeral occasions. Q. And it is for this reason that you have not preached there since ? A. Yes, sir. Cross-examination by the Counsel for the Defendant. Q. You say you are acquainted with various orthodox denominations ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you have the kindness to state the various orthodox denomi- nations with which you are acquainted ? A. Well, I have an acquaintance with the Methodist denomination, with the Presbyterians, and with the Baptists. Q. Which branch of the Methodist Church do you refer to ? A. Well, I have an acquaintance with the Methodist Episcopal, and also with the Protestant Methodist Church. Q. Do you recognize the Methodist Episcopal Church as an orthodox church t A. So far as the Methodist Episcopal Church holds to the essential elements of which I have spoken, I do. Q. Do you recognize the Presbyterian Church as an orthodox church, jr as one of the orthodox churches ? A. In the same way, I do. Q. Do you regard the Protestant Methodist Church as an orthodox church 7 A. Yes, sir ; wherein it holds those points I have stated. Q. In respect to the other points you have not stated, do you regard this Church as heterodox? A. With reference to that, I would make this statement : The lead- ing differences between Protestant denominations are in matters mostly of minor importance, and so far as these matters are concerned they are mere differences of opinion. We do not make opinions matters of fellowship or non-fellowship. On such doctrines as the trinity, foreordination, predesti- nation, original sin, the decrees, etc., we are content to allow men to hold such opinion as seems good to them, without putting them under the ban of heterodoxy, providing that they truly hold the essential elements, a statement of which I have given. Hence, I do not regard .his Church, as a body of people, as heterodox. Q. You are familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith ? A. Yes, sir, I have read it. Q. Do you recognize it as a statement of orthodox belief ? A. It is a statement of orthodox belief so far as it states those points-^- the essential elements of salvation which I have enumerated, and in which all professing Christians agree. 4 4.2 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Are there any points contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith that you regard as orthodox? If so, state what ones, and what ones as heterodox, if you please. A. There are teachings in the Westminster Confession of Faith that I consider as orthodox, notably so far as those teachings conform to the statements I have previously made as to the essential elements of salvation; and there are teachings in it that do not harmonize with my opinions among them the doctrine of foreordination and predestination, uncondi- tional election and reprobation, the decrees, etc. With some this want of harmony in opinions would constitute heterodox- but with me it does not. Q. You are acquainted with the faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recognize the articles of faith of the Methodist Church as being orthodox ? A. In those matters in which there is no variance from the Bible, I do. Wherein it differs from that, in which it states the conclusions of human speculation, or in which it gives merely human opinions, I would not. Q. What portion of the Confession of Faith and the principles of be- lief of the Methodist Episcopal Church do you recognize as being hetero- dox ? Do you recognize either of them as being heterodox in any one point of faith ? A. As I have stated before, there are some things about which, among all professing Christians, there are differences, and these differences are usually mere opinions ; but where these differences are great, as, for in- stance, in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and in the Methodist Dis- cipline, wherein the former confines salvation to an unconditional election, and the latter makes salvation a conditionally free salvation, they mutually destroy the orthodoxy of each, so far as this point is concerned ; at least both of them can not be orthodox upon this point. Q. Do you recognize the Methodist Protestant Church as being orthodox ? A. As I have before stated, yes, sir, in those points I have enumer- ated. Q. Well, now, in other points, in the balance of its faith, do you recog- nize the Methodist Protestant Church as heterodox ? A. I do not know that I need to answer further than to point out its differences from other denominations; those differences will answer the question. Q. Will you point out the differences to which you allude ? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 43 A. Well, one difference between it and the Presbyterians is upon the Hoc. o ^6 trinity in the Scriptures? A. No, fir- thlt 's the reason 1 explained what I understood the term < mean yet, af'.er all, the idea is there: "The three are one." Q. And you do not find orthodox there either, do you? A. No, sir ; and that, again, is the reason why I spoke of it and ex- yl-ined what I understand it to mean. A thing which I can comprehand I may be permitted to explain ; but of a thing which is to me incomprehen- sible, 1 ought not to be pressed to an explanation. Q. What does your Church believe baptism to be ? A. It believes baptism to be the immersion of the penitent believer in Vater into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Q, Has there been any change in the belief of your Church since it was started by Mr. Alexander Campbell ? A. We never knew that our Church was started by Mr. Alexander Campbell that is news to us. Q. What branch of the Church do you belong to? A, I do not belong to any branch of it ; I belong to the Church itself. Q. There are two branches of it, are there not ? A. Not that I know of. Q. The Church to which you belong? A. The Church to which I belong? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, sir; I do not know of any two branches of it. Q. When was it organized? A. I think about fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ, on the day of Pentecost. Q. Is that your recollection of it ? A. That is my understanding of it; of course my recollection of it is only a historical recollection. Q. It has been in existence from that day to this the Christian Church? A, Christ said to Peter, " Upon this rock I will build my church : and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." On the day of Pentecost, Peter used those keys given to him by the Saviour and opened the kingdom of heaven to men ; and the Saviour having assured Peter that when His Church was thus established and His Kingdom thus opened the gates of hell should 124. Our Orthodoxy in tJie Civil Courts. not prevail against it, I am of the opinion that the gates of hell have never so prevailed, and that the Church of Christ has had an existence from that day to this. Q. What relation does Alexander Campbell bear to this Church? A. The Church to which I belong ? Q. Yes, sir. A. He was a member of it, and an elder in it. Q. Did he not start the primitive Church? A. I think not, sir; he lived at too late a period in the Christian era for that. Q. The first Church, you say the first Disciples' Church the first Christian Church, was organized fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ ? A. That is the understanding I have of the matter. Q. The Disciples' Church do you assert that this Church to which you belong was then organized? A. That is my understanding the Church then organized was made up of disciples, such as I try to be. Q. Whereabouts was it? A. I do not understand your question. . Q. Whereabouts was the original Church started ? A. In the city of Jerusalem, and I think about the temple, by the Apostle Peter. On that day there was a great baptism of the Spirit, and the preachers were so filled with it that they spoke as it gave them utter- ance. The Apostle Peter, being inspired, with the rest of them, preached the same grand gospel that I believe and try to preach, "that God hath made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ;" and three thousand of the hearers that day believed, repented and were baptized, and were added to them. Thus the Kingdom, the Church of Christ, began its onward career ; and I believe the gates of hell have never (and never will) prevailed against it. Q. Do you say the Apostle Peter was the starter of your Church ? A. It is believed he was the first preacher to declare the gospel of the grace of God in fact ; that he did this on the day of Pentecost, and that he did it under the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with the results just stated. Q. When in the religious history of the world was your Church the present organization first known ? A. We think fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ, on the day of Pentecost. Q. And you assert that ? A. Yes, sir; that is my understanding of it; and it is true, if I do not mistake myself. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Do you know this? do you recollect it? A. No, sir, only in the sense in which I recollect other historical facts. Q. Your Church the Campbellite Church, the Disciples' Church, the Christian Church was organized then ? Do n't you know that the present Church was not then organized? A. No, sir ; I do not know anything of the kind. Q. Do n't know anything of the kind ? Will you name a preacher of the Campbellite, Disciples', or Christian Church who lived in the last century ? And will you tell me where in the United States there was a congregation known by the name of Christian, Disciple, or Campbellite will you just name one that you know of? Will you have the kindness to tell me where there was one in existence a hundred years ago ? A. On the day of Pentecost, Peter told his three thousand inquirers how they might receive the remission of their sins and thus enter into the Church of Christ. In the record of that day's events, we are told that they all heard of the exaltation of Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, that they were commanded to repent and be baptized in His name for the remission of their sins, and that they all obeyed this command and were thus added to them, thus becoming members of the Church of Christ ; and from that day to this, all who do the same things, in the same way, under the same circumstances, and for the same purpose, I believe, are members of the same Church. Q. Now, of what church are you talking? A. The Church of Christ. Q. Then, the Presbyterians, as far as they follow the example of the first Christians, are members of your Church ? A. Well, I do very frequently speak of and to the Presbyterians as brethren ; but I do not do this because they are Presbyterians, but because I recognize in them an earnest desire to be Christians to be simply a Chris- tian, rising above being a Presbyterian. Q. Now you may state, sir, when in the religious history of the world the Church known as the Christian Church first claimed any separate Chris- tian organization. A. Immediately after the day of Pentecost the Church of Christ was irreparably separated from the Jewish institution ; but the name Christian was not applied to them until a church had been organized at Antioch in Syria. "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts xii. 26.) Q. You say that the Christian Church has been known through the whole history of the world from that down to this ? your Church ? A. Yes, sir ; that is what I stated. Q. Now, you understand, sir I will ask you I ask you when the first religious organization of disciples or Christians came to be known ? Our Orthodoxy in the- Civil Courts. A. I have already answered that; on . Ad after the day of Pentecost, at Jerusalem and Antioch. Q. The Church to which you belong ? A. Yes, sir; I have already answered tWt, too. Q. Yes, sir. I will ask you, where did this denomination the Chris- tian or Campbellite denomination first originate? A. I can only repeat my former answer, that from the first it has been known by that name, the Church of Christ or Christian Church our organization. Q. Do you continue to say that it was organized fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ ? A. That is just what I continue to say. We believe the Church of Christ was organized as I have already so often stated. In respect of Mr. Campbell, it is held by our people that he had no more authority to organ- ize a church than anybody else; that he was under as much obligation to become obedient to the requirements of the Church already organized as any one else. Instead of being the organizer of the Church, he only called attention to the one that had been organized under the inspired authority of the apostles of Christ. Q. Then your organization had been dormant until Mr. Campbell warmed it up and started it into new life is that your idea? A. No, sir ; I have no such idea. Q. Mr. Carpenter, do n't you preach I have asked when this de- nomination called Christian, or Disciple, or Campbellite, was first organized ? A. And so you have, and I have already answered it. Q. I will ask you to state, sir, whether or not the denomination of which you speak, the Church to which you say you belong I say I will ask you, was not that Church o.riginally started by Alexander Campbell and his father ; whether or not he did not start it in 1823? Was he not the founder of that denomination? A. I do not so understand it. Q. You don't? Do you understand your denomination was started as a reform ? A. No, sir ; not so much a reformation, though this term is some- times applied to it, as a restoration. The work of Mr. Campbell and his coadjutors was to restore primitive Christianity in its faith, in its practice, and in its organization. Q. I want to ask you, sir, if prior to this time (1823) there was any tuch institution among men as this denomination known as Christian ? A. Over and over again I have explained that, sir. Q. It was started, then, fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. It was. I understand, according to the teaching of the Scriptures, that the Church of Christ began at Pentecost. Q. Do you so understand it? Do you so assert it? A. That is my belief. Q. Now, sir, I will ask you this question again, and I want it an- swered. When was this particular denomination of which you are a mem- ber started? A. I have already explained that question again and again. What further answer does it need ? Q. It was started fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ? A. Yes, sir; that is my understanding of it. Q. As a separate organization, the Christian denomination? A. As the Church of Christ. Q. Was there any such Church during the Dark Ages ? A. We think the word of God able Q. Answer the question. Was there any such Church during the Dark Ages ? A. Some questions can not be answered by "yes, sir," and "no, sir." ( To this question objection was made, but it was repeated.) Q. Was this denomination of which you are a member, this particular Disciples', or Christian, or Campbelhte Church, in existence as a Christian organization during the Dark Ages? A. My knowledge of the Dark Ages is historical. If that is the kind of evidence the counsel wants, I can readily answer that it is my under- standing that during the whole period of what is called the Dark Ages there was a great number of persons who were members of the Church of Christ. Q. What church was there, what Christian Church was there except the Roman Catholic Church? A. My answer must again be historical. There were the Albigenses, the Vaudois, the Waldenses, and that long line of heroic representatives of the faith of Christ that made the valleys of Piedmont and elsewhere ring with the praises of a simple worship. Aye, the Lord was not with- out a people, even during the grossest blindness of the Dark Ages, and he did not have to go to the Roman Catholic Church to find them. Q. Now, Mr. Carpenter, do you testify to this jury that your Church, the real denomination, was known by the name of Christian or Disciples originally? A. No, sir; I have not testified to that or any other denomination as being called Christian ; the idea of denomination has been entirely left out of my view. Q. You have not ? I have been asking you for a half-hour if you could tell me where that denomination originated. 128 Our Orthodoxy in tlie Ciiril Courts. A. I have answered that several times, but because the counsel is used to the jargon of a divided Christendom he may not have apprehended my answers. As a people, we discard the idea of denomination, and desire to be known, and really to be, the Church of Christ the Church which was established by His authority and in which there is no division. If we have been true to our aim, and I believe we have, touching questions of origin, start, etc., I can give no other answer than I have given fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ. It does not take denominational existence to make church existence, though in common usage the term church may be applied to them. Q. That is your answer to my question ? A. If I can throw any further light on any particular point, I shall be glad to do so. Q. What is the name of this denomination? A. The counsel persists in the use of the term denomination. As a people, we are recognized in the religious world as the Church of Christ, or Christian Church. Q. When was this particular organization, of which you speak, orig- inally known? A. I have already explained that. Q. Well, explain it again. A. In the Scriptures we have the Church of Christ set forth and its organization described. Of this Church I claim to be a member. Now, it is not claimed that the Church of Christ is made up of any partic- ular congregation or congregations bound together by any human ecclesi- astical law; but it is claimed, as so often stated, that the Church of Christ was organized on the day of Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ, and from that day to this the Lord has had a people who served Him in the true Church of Christ, even during the Dark Ages. This whole body of the Lord's people we understand to be the Church of Christ ; the separate local congregations are known among us, as they were known in the Scripture times, as churches of Christ. Q. Do n't you preach I will ask you when the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized? A. I can not testify to the day, sir. Q. I did not ask you to testify to the day, sir; but to the year. When was it? .-/. I do not know, sir. Q. Have you meant to testify to this jury, sir, that it is your under- standing that every man who has lived every follower of Jesus Christ since the day of Pentecost has been a member of your Church ? A. I understand that every man who has lived since that time, being Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 129 A Christian, has been a member of the Church of Christ that he has be- longed to His Church. Q. Mr. Carpenter, do you testify that every man who has lived since the day of Pentecost, being a Christian, has been a member of the Christian Church? A. No, sir ; I do not so testify, in the limited sense in which I under- stand the counsel to use the word Christian. Q. Well, sir, you say you did not say that ? A. I say I have not said it. Q. That there have not been members of your particular branch of the Church ever since the day of Pentecost ? A. I have made some statements to the jury, and I have given some reasons why I think there have been members of the Church of Christ ever since it was first organized, on the day of Pentecost ; but that is quite a different thing from saying that they belonged to our particular local congregations. Q. You say that you do n't understand? A. No, sir; on the other hand, I have stated it several times. Q. Now tell us when this particular branch of the Christian Church was started. A. The counsel still clings to the "branch" of the Church. Our peo- ple do not recognize any branches of the Church of Christ. We realize that there are many in the so-called denominations whom we would fain believe are Christians are members of the Church of Christ, and we are glad to recognize them as such; not because they are Methodists, Presby- terians, Baptists, etc., but because they are something over and above what these sectarian names would indicate ; that they are true followers of Christ. But if the counsel desires me to testify at what particular time these particular religious congregations, of one of which I am a member, began to be organized as congregations and thus to be known in the his- tory of this country, I can do so ; and I would say that the first one thus organized as a congregation (not as the Church of Christ in that wide sense in which I have been using that application) was in about the year 1823. Q. Was there ever any particular Church so known before that time ? any particular denomination? A. We think there have been congregations, churches, members of the Church of Christ during all these ages, else the declaration of Christ is not true, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But that is not equivalent to saying that denominations have so existed, or that denominations, as such, are any part of the Church of Christ. Q. Was there ever any such Church until it was started by Alexander Campbell ? i jo Our Orthodoxy in tlif Civil Courts, A. I never knew that Alexander Campbell started a church. Q, Who, then, started a church in 1823? A. I do not know. Q. Who, then, called attention to those congregations, of which you spoke, in 1823? A. Well, when those congregations were separately organized (only as local organizations, however ), among the people who were members of them was Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, Walter Scott, et a/., all of whom plead for a restoration of the primitive Church of Christ as it was established at Pentecost and maintained during the apostolic times. Q. The persons forming those congregations were seceding members from the Baptist Church, were they not? A. I have no such understanding. Q. They were apostates from the Baptist Church, were they not? A. That can 't be said, unless it can be said that the three thousand who entered the Church of Christ on the day of Pentecost were apostates from the Jewish institution ; unless it can be said that leaving the wrong and going into the right is an apostasy. Q. Do you know anything about that matter who composed those congregations in 1823? A. I have some historical knowledge upon the subject. Q. Was not Alexander Campbell was he not the founder of the Church in the same sense that Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church ? A. I do not know in what sense you mean that Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church. Q. Do you assert that you do not know ? A. I assert that I do not know. Q. Oh ! you are too wise. A. That is just what I am trying to come at. Q. You say that Alexander Campbell originally was not the founder of the Campbellite, or Christian, or Disciples' Church, in the same sense in which John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church? What do you say? A. I can explain it, if I understand you. Q. Well, explain it in whatever sense you please. A. John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church in that he was the originator of the movement, which was an entirely new one ; in that in its first stages he dictated its teachings and policy, which teachings and policy finally crystallized in the Discipline of the Methodist Church; and in that this Discipline forms the constitution of the Church the standard by by which all heresies and disorders in it are tried. Alexander Campbell Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. ijr was not the founder of the Church of Christ; because the congregations he established were only local and under a standard already erected (the Bible), upon a constitution already adopted (Christ and His teachings, through himself and His apostles), and in a movement already inaugurated (at Pentecost). One who helps to carry on a movement already begun, under limitations already established, and under a standard already pro- vided, can not be said to be the originator of the movement. That is Alexander Campbell. Q. Do you know when the first church organization was known as Christian, if there were any in existence before the time Alexander Camp- bell organized his first congregations? If so, you may state where one existed. A. Do you mean historical knowledge ? Of course I have no means of knowing things before I was born, except historically. Q. You have no knowledge of that matter, then ? A. I have historical knowledge, I say ; knowledge I have obtained from what I have read. Q. Now, you testified that the Church was organized on the day of Pentecost. Why can 't you answer my question as to the existence of con- gregations before the time of Alexander Campbell ? A. I can testify to that just in the same way that I did to the other. Q. In what way can you testify to that, then? A. I have historical knowledge upon that point, and can testify that there were congregations, such as I have described, before the time of Alexander Campbell. Q. Well, where were they? A. At Antioch in Syria, and at Corinth in Greece, such congregations existed. Q. Was there more than one branch of the Church at that time ? A. No, sir ; there was no branch at all. Q. What did you say that there was more than one branch ? A. No, sir. Q. Now, you say that there is no branch of the Church to which you belong. I will ask you this question, Do you say to the jury that there was a separate organization of the Church of the Christian Church to which you belong existing in this country prior to the organization of congregations by Alexander Campbell ? A. That depends upon what you call the Christian Church. If you refer to an ecclesiastical body, composed of various congregations, bound together by an organization having episcopal, presbyterial, or other funo tions, and ruled by officers other than the officers of the local congrega- tion, then I must say there was not before that time, and that there has ij2 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. not been since. In that sense, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a Christian Church, the Church of Christ, in this country. Q. Well, then, I will ask you to state to the jury whether or not this people, of whom we have been speaking, ever were in the relation of a Christian Church ; do you understand that to be a fact ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is what you mean? A. Yes, sir; that is what I said. Q, Now, then, I repeat the question, Do you know of any separate body or organization, in the relation of a Christian Church, that existed before the time of Alexander Campbell ? A. Historically I do, as I have already explained. Q. What one? will you mention it? A. The church at Jerusalem, the church at Antioch, the church at Thessalonica, etc. Now, I understand that these churches belonged to the same great body that the church to which Alexander Campbell belonged did ; for the same doctrine was believed Q. I want to ask A. Will you wait till I get through my answer ? The same doctrine was believed, the churches are organized alike with the same officials per- forming like duties, in the churches the same services were performed, and the same kind of work was being accomplished. The churches were built upon the same foundation (apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself be- ing the chief corner-stone), they rallied under the same holy standard (the Word of God), and they acknowledged the same divine Head (the Lord Jesus Christ). With all these essential elements coinciding, we believe that these churches are parts of the same great body as that to which the churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, Thessalonica, etc., belonged; and, if so, then the body to which Alexander Campbell belonged existed long cen- turies before his time, and has the divine sanction of the great Head of the Church. Q. Now, then, I will repeat my question, for I want it answered : Do you say, sir, that there was a church of the same denomination to which you belong, a Christian Church, as a separate organization, teaching and preaching and professing the same doctrines and belief that you preach and profess, before Alexander Campbell organized the congregations he did? A. I have repeatedly explained that we think there has been, sir ; we think that the churches organized under the apostles' teaching, whether in apostolic or subsequent times, are the same. Q. What was their name before Campbell's time? A. God's people have been called Christians ever since the disciples were called Christians at Antioch. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. I will ask you, Do you understand that, from the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock down to the time that Mr. Campbell organ- ized his first congregation, a Church was known as a Christian Church indeed, at any time since the primitive Church, since the apostles? A. I have already explained that the Church, as we understand it, is made up of all God's people wh~6 are truly united to Christ ; that is, the local congregations (and that is the only divine organization known to us) do not necessarily constitute the Church of Christ, but that the Church is composed of all God's people who are truly in Christ, whether it per- tains to present or primitive times, or to this or other lands. The Roman Catholic Church, as an organization, can no more rightfully claim to be the Church of Christ, because it teaches and practices some of the pre- cepts and injunctions of Christ and His apostles, than it can be claimed a locomotive is a wagon because it has wheels ; and the same may as truly be said of all other organizations claiming to be the Church of Christ which have teachings, practices, and elements of organization which are different from the primitive Church as organized under the direction of Christ and His apostles. Recognizing this truth, the people with whom I am identified, and whose orthodoxy is here called in question, seek to pattern their congregations after the divine model, and to teach the same doctrine and to practice the same precepts that were taught and practiced by the apostolic Church; and they believe that in so doing they are labor- ing to restore the Church of Christ to its primitive purity and conquering power. Q. You say, now, referring to the organization of these churches when were these churches, or congregations, first known in the religious history of this country? A. I have aiready explained that my historical knowledge of the fact is that they became known in about the year 1823. Q. Who originated this movement? A. If your question refers to the first movement to restore primitive Christianity in this country, then I think it was Mr. Campbell and his co- laborers. Q. Was not Alexander Campbell the great promoter of it? A. I certainly think that Alexander Campbell was a great teacher. Q. But was not he the great promoter of it ? A. I think while Q. But, now, was not Mr. Alexander Campbell a prominent and dis- tinguished man in your Church? A. No more so than many others, and only so because of hi eminent abilities as a teacher and defender of the Bible doctrine, both by word of mouth and by his pen. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Was he the author of the Christian System ? A. If your question refers to the great plan of salvation by which men are to be saved, I must say no, for Jesus ''became to all who obey him the author of eternal salvation;" but if it refers to a book, I can say that he was the author of quite a number of volumes. Q. Was he the author of The Christian System ? A. My understanding is that he was the author of a book called The Christian System. Q. This book unfolds the doctrine or belief of your Church. A. This book unfolds Mr. Campbell's conception of the Bible teach- ing on the great question of man's salvation ; and I may say that these views are largely held by the membership of the Church, but not on ac- count of any ecclesiastical action of the Church. Q. Well, sir well, sir, do you do you say that if I recollect you, you said that regeneration is essential to salvation. A. I did, sir; at any rate, if I did not I say so now. Q. That a man must be regenerated ? Do you believe when a man it pardoned he is saved? A. I do, sir from his past sins. Q. Do you believe he is saved through the blood of Christ alone? A. In one sense, I do, sir; it is " the blood of Christ that cleanses from all sin." Q. Do you believe that a man can inherit salvation except through the blood of Christ alone ? A. I do not know what you mean by your question. The gospel re- quires that one believes in order to be saved. Q. Do you believe that the blood of Christ alone saves men ? A. The blood of Christ is that which cleanses * man from all sin. Q. You believe that the blood of the Saviour saves a man from all sin, do you? A. We do ; most emphetically we do, sir. Q. Do you believe this, then ? I will read from The Christian System, by Alexander Campbell: "Reader, reflect what a jargon, what a con- fusion, have the mystic doctors made of this metaphorical expression, and of this topic of regeneration. To call the receiving of any spirit or influ- ence, or energy, or any operation upon the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse of all speech, as well as a departure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, who calls nothing personal regeneration except the act of immersion." ( Christian System, p. 203.) Do you hold that ? A. I think that Alexander Campbell is right in that statement, if he is understood as he meant to be. If you desire it, I can explain what I understand him to have meant. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts, Q. Does your Church believe that a man can not be saved except he be "boiii jf water, be resurrected from the water ? A. Jt believes that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Q. You chink it is necessary to be born of water and of the Spirit ia order to be saved > You think a man must be born through the water is that the doctrine you teach ? A. The Church beiieves just what the Saviour said to Nicodemus: " Except that a man be ooru oi water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Q. Will you answer the tjdtation ? Do you believe it is not sufficient, or that a man can not be saved, if ne be born only of the Spirit? Do you contend that he must be born of the water ? A. It is believed that a man must be born again; and that baptism is the consummating act in this new birth, if a child can be born without the consummating act of birth, then m*/ a man be born anew without baptism. At any rate, the Saviour puts u m strong light: "Jesus, an- swered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except <* *fl&n be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is D.">rn of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born a^tin." (John iii. 5-7.) Q. Does your Church hold that a person can not be regenerated, or saved, except he be immersed ? A. No, sir, it does not ; but I think it will be necessary for me to ex- plain in order that this be understood. The conception of regeneration which is held by the denominations generally is not the conception of re- generation which Mr. Campbell held and advocated, tte taught that to be regenerated, or born again, a man must be all that the denominations call regenerated changed of mind, changed of will, changed of heart and in addition to that, as the Saviour taught, he must be born of water, which is the consummating act in the process of regeneration, of being born again, as he taught. Q. Now you may listen to what I read A. Shall I remain in my seat? Q. "Some curious criticisms have been offered, to escape the force of the plain declaration of Jesus and his apostles upon this subject. Some say that the words 'Except a man be born of water and Spirit,' are not to be understood literally. Surely, then, if to be born of water does not mean to be born of water, to be born of the Spirit must mean something else than to be born of the Spiiit. This is so fanatical and extravagant as to need no other exposure. He who can not see the propriety of calling immersion a being born again can see no propriety in any metaphor in fj6 Onr Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. common use. A resurrection is a new birth. Jesus is said to be born from the dead, because the first who rose from the dead to die no more. And, surely, there is no abuse of speech, but the greatest propriety, in saying that he who has died to sin, and been buried in water, when raised up again out of that element, is born again or regenerated. If Jesus was born again when he came out of a sepulcher, surely he is born again who is raised up out of a grave of water." ( Christian System, pp. 202-j.) Now, sir, do you say that Alexander Campbell did not teach that as funda- mental, that personal regeneration is being born again, that regeneration and being born again are the same ? A. No, sir, only in the sense that the name of the last act in a process is very frequently nearly always given to the whole process. In the extract you have read, Mr. Campbell predicates being born again upon one having died to sin, a thing that antedates the being buried in the water and the birth from it. He taught that regeneration, in the strict sense of the term, is a process of which the being born again is the last act. Hear him on this point : " Moreover, we think it will be granted, that, what- ever may be the scriptural acceptation of the word generation, regeneration is only a repetition of the act or process. After a close examination of the passages in which generation occurs in the writings of the Hebrew prophets and apostles, we find it used only in two acceptations as descrip- tive of the whole process of creation and of the thing created. A race of men, or a particular class of men, is called a generation ; but this is its figur- aMve rather than its literal meaning. Its literal meaning is the formation or creation of anything. Thus it is first used in the Holy Scriptures. Moses calls the creation, or whole process of formation of the heavens and the earth, ' The generations of the heavens and the earth.' (Genesis ii. 4.) The account of the formation of Adam and Eve, and also the account of the creations of Adam and Eve, are, by the same writer, called 'The book or record of ^^.generations of Adam.' (Genesis v. I.) This is the literal import of the word ; consequently, regeneration literally indicates the whole process of renovating or new-creating man. This process may consist of numerous distinct acts; but it is in accordance with general usage to give to the beginning or consummating act the name of the whole process. For the most part, however, the name of the whole process is given to the con- summating act, because the process is always supposed to be incomplete until that act is performed In the same sense it is, that most Christians call regeneration the NEW BIRTH ; though being born is only the last act in natural generation, and the last act in regeneration." ( Tht Christian System, pp. 262-3.) Q. I will read further: A. Read a little before where you last read, p'ease. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Yes, sir; "The Spirit of God is the begetter, the gospel is the seed ; and, being thus begotten and quickened, we are born of the water. A child is alive before it is born, and the act of being born only changes its state, not its life. Just so is the metaphorical birth. Persons are be- gotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated by the Word, and born of the water." ( The Christian System, p. 201.) A. That is what I believe. Q. Raised up out of the element of water is born again born of the Spirit and raised up out of the grave of water ? A. What Mr. Campbell said is what I believe, exactly. As to the figure involved in the grave of water, it is taught that men must die to sin, that the death must be before the burial in baptism. Q. And that personal regeneration consists in the act of immersion ? A. It is believed, as has been explained, and as Mr. Campbell has taught, when presented under the metaphor of a new birth it consists of the begetting of the Spirit, the impregnation of the Word, and the birth of water; but when presented under the metaphor of life from the dead, it consists of death to sin, as Christ died, a burial as He was buried, and a resurrection as He was raised from the dead ; both of these metaphors describe the same process, and find their completing act in the same thing baptism. Q. Mr. Carpenter, tell us whether a man's sins are washed away whether or not immersion is the act of conversion or regeneration ? A. As to the first part of the question, the Scriptures represent Anan- ias as saying to Saul: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be bap- tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts xxii. 16.) As to the second part of the question, immersion has nothing to do whatever with conversion unless it be preceded by a living faith and a genuine turning away from all sin a turning toward a reformation of life and an acceptance of Jesus as the only Saviour ; having these ante- cedents, and being a faith-act, it brings the sinner into the enjoyment of the blessings of Christ. Q. Do I understand you to say it is a part of the teachings of your Church that a person is not converted to God until he is immersed ? A. In the sense that immersion is the consummating act in the pro- cess of conversion that is, in the whole process of bringing a condemned sinner from the kingdom of Satan and translating him into the kingdom of God's dear Son, immersion is the last act which is done to bring him into the Church of Christ it is taught that a man must be immersed. Q. Is there any other way for a man to be converted than that way? A. Scholastic and opinionative theology points out a good many ways: by the whisperings of a small, still voice, by a long series of peculiar ex- Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. periences, by the miraculous in-working of the Holy Spirit, etc., etc. But any way that does not produce faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, a thorough reformation of life, and a submission to the command of the Divine Christ in immersion, if baptism be by immersion- of which I have no doubt fails to conform to the Scriptural teaching upon this subject. Q. But is there not some other way for a man to be Scripturally con- verted except by immersion? A. Mr. Campbell has taught, and the Christian Church urges, the im- portance of the divinely appointed ordinance of baptism, and it is believed that immersion is the only baptism. Now, in the divine plan of salvation, baptism has its place, to tear it from which is sacrilegious; and the Chris- tian Church believes it is the divine ordinance which stands between the world and the Church, and, therefore, that the penitent believer, in order to come into the Church, must come through the ordinance of baptism. This is common ground with all orders of Christian religionists, with per- haps the Quakers alone as an exception no members are ever admitted into any church unless they have been what they call baptized. In that sense of the word it is the means of being born into the Church of Christ, the family of God. Q. Do you mean to say that your Church does not teach that, accord- ing to the New Testament Scriptures, in coming to God, baptism is for the remission of sins? A. It U taught that the remission of sins is to be obtained in Jesus Christ, and that the penitent believer comes to the Lord Jesus Christ by being buried with Him in baptism : " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." (Romans *i. 3-) Q. Suppose the penitent believer is not immersed? A. Suppose that he is not immersed ? Then we leave him entirely with God God has not revealed what He would do with that man. Q. I will ask you, from what you know of your Church, whether or not it is its belief that unless a man is immersed he can not be saved? A. No, sir; the Church has no such belief. Q. Of course the thief on the cross could not have been baptized. A. Presumably not; but he died before there was any such thing as Christian baptism, such as we have been talking about ; besides, we believe there will be more persons in heaven who were not baptized than there will be who were. Q. Is that your teaching? A. That is the teaching of the Christian Church. Q. Then it is the belief of your Church that baptism is not at all necessary ? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. No, sir ; that is not the belief of the Christian Church. Q. I understand you, then, that if a man be not immersed he will be lost if he could have been ? A. No, sir ; I did not say so. I believe there will be persons in heaven who were not immersed ; but the sane, responsible, sinful man can not fill all the requirements of the gospel without being immersed, as I believe, and thus come within the range of the gospel promises. We teach men not to rely upon anything for salvation until they have met all the gospel requirements; then we teach them to implicitly trust the promises of God that He will save them. Q. But you teach them that there is no other form of baptism except by immersion ? A. We believe that immersion is the only baptism inculcated in the Christian Scriptures, and that this command of the divine Saviour can not be obeyed otherwise ; but we do not take upon ourselves the presumption to say what God must and shall do in cases where it has not thus been obeyed. The teaching of John Wesley is presumably true upon this point: 'But the benefit of this [the remedy which had been found by the second Adam for the removal of original sin] is to be received through the means which he hath appointed ; through baptism in particular, which is the or- dinary means he hath appointed for that purpose; and to -which God hath tied us, though he may not have tied himself," [ Italics mine. ED.] ( Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts, p. 251, edition 1850, New York.) As I have said before, touching Mr. Campbell's teaching on baptism for the remission of sins, he must be allowed his own interpretation of it. Q. What book is that you have ? A. It is The Christian System. I also have Campbell and Rice's Debate. Q. What is the page ? A. Page 58. Q. What part of the page ? A. In paragraph numbered VI., Mr. Campbell has given his own expla- nation of the relation which baptism, in the divine plan of salvation, sus- tains to the blood of Christ and remission of sins; and, as every man has the right to be understood in the light of his own explanation, I desire that this go to the jury: "Baptism is, then, designed to introduce the subjects of it into participation of the blessings of the death and resurrection of Christ; who 'died for our sins,' and 'rose again for our justification.' But it has no abstract efficacy. Without previous faith in the blood of Christ, and deep and unfeigned repentance before God, neither immersion in water, nor any other action, can secure to us the blessings of peace and pardon. It can merit nothing. Still to the believing penitent it is the means of receiving formal, distinct, and specific absolution, or release from Our Orthodoxy in tht Civil Courts. guilt. Therefore, none but those who have first believed the testimony of God and have repented of their sins, and who have been intelligently im- mersed into his death, have the full and explicit testimony of God, assur- ing them of pardon. To such only as are truly penitent, dare we say, 'Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,' and to such only can we say with assurance, 'You are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.' " ( Christian System, p. jS.) Q. I will ask you, sir: I understand Mr. Campbell to be speaking about personal sins, and not original sin, in this abstract. Am I right about that? A. Yes, sir; and I am glad you are. Q. And, as he taught, baptism does not save the sinner only from his past personal sins is this the distinction you make ? Is this the teaching of your Church ? A. As I understand it, that is the teaching both of Mr. Campbell and the Christian Church. Q. That the blood of Christ is a propitiation for sin ; that men are to be baptized into the death of Christ, and that this baptism is to be in like- ness to his burial and resurrection ? A. That is what we teach. Q. That baptism is the immersion of a believer into Christ? A. That is what we teach, as I have explained. Q. That baptism has no secret efficacy ? A. We teach that it has no efficacy of itself. Q. Are we to understand by that that it has no efficacy at all ? A. No, sir; we understand it to have the same efficacy attached to it in its legal obedience as the marriage ceremony has in marriage, and the oath of allegiance has in the naturalization of a foreigner. Q. Exactly. In other words, a man can not be legally married unless there be a celebration of the marriage ceremony? Then, as a man can not be legally married without the celebration of the marriage ceremony, so one can not become a Christian without the observance of baptism? A. What I have said does not warrant that conclusion. Q. I understand you to say that baptism sustains the same relation to the Christian that the celebration of the marriage ceremony does to the married state? A. Yes, sir ; I have stated something like that. Q. Now, as a man can not be legally married unless he goes through the process of the marriage ceremony, so one can not be saved unless he be immersed ? A. No, sir; I have already stated that to the jury several times. The Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 14.1 counsel's comparisons are of unlike things. Let me make a statement oi the thing involved in these comparisons : as the wife can not claim any right to the possessions of her husband without the solemnization of the marriage ceremony, and as the foreigner can not claim the protection of the government of the United States without the naturalization effected by the oath of allegiance, so the condemned sinner can not lay any claim to the blessings and privileges of the Church of Christ without obeying the transitional command of baptism, which is the consummating act that brings him into the body of Christ. Q. Well, now, I will read again: "They were informed that, though they now believed and repented, they were not pardoned, but must 'reform and be immersed for the remission of sins.' 1 Immersion for the forgiveness of sins was the command addressed to these believers, to these penitents, in answer to the most earnest question." (Christian System, p. /9J.) A. That expresses the belief of the Christian Church. Q. You believe that ? A. Yes, sir ; we believe that. Q. The only way the gospel specifies for men to be saved is by being plunged or immersed in the water? A. That is not what Alexander Campbell says. Q. I will ask you to read what he says: "This act of faith was pre- sented as that act by which a change in their state could be effected ; or, in other words, by which alone they could be pardoned, They 'who gladly received this word were that day immersed ;' or, in other words, the same day were converted, or regenerated, or obeyed the gospel." (Chris- tian System, p. 195.) A. That is what we teach ; we never hesitate to teach what Peter did. Q. Now, does not that plainly teach that unless one has been im- mersed he can not be saved? A. While it may not just say that, this is truer to the man to whom the plain demands of the gospel have come, and who refuses to be baptized, there is no promise of salvation. Q. Now, sir, I will ask you whether or not the passages I have read do not distinctly teach that the believing penitent can not be received, ac- cording to the formulated specifications of the gospel, or released from his guilt, except by the means of immersion is that not what is taught? A. If I now comprehend what you mean by your question, I answer that we teach it. Q. Is this the way: Change of life precedes baptism, and baptism constitutes the legal act by which the penitent believer receives remission of his sin ? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts, A. Mr. Campbell has taught, and the Christian Church believes, that baptism is the scripturally appointed means by which the penitent be- liever is to come to the death of Christ, and, consequently, to His blood ; and through this appointed means of coming to His blood he receives re- mission of his sins, for "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Q. Now, if you are through, I will ask you to answer the question. A, I am willing to do so. Q. I will ask you whether or not the act of baptism by immersion is not the means, and the only means, specified by Alexander Campbell, whereby a sinner may be received and justified according to the gospel whereby he may be released from his guilt ? A. No, sir ; but he continually specifies that there must be the anteced- ents of baptism, faith and repentance. Q. Does he not say that it is the means by which he is saved from sin, justified according to the gospel, and released from guilt? A. Mr. Campbell has taught, and the Christian Church believes, that baptism is the only scriptural ordinance or institution by which or through which the penitent believer is to pass from an unsaved to a saved state. Q. I now call your attention to what Mr. Campbell further says: " They taught all the disciples to consider not only themselves as saved per- sons, but all whom they saw or knew to be immersed into the Lord Jesus. They saluted every one, on his coming out of the water, as sewed, and re- corded him as such. Luke writes, 'The Lord added the saved daily to the congregation.' " (Christian System, /. .209.) Now, is this the doctrine ol your Church? A. We are willing to believe and teach what Luke says of this matter. II he says the Lord added the saved to the congregation in the way he had stated before, why, it is ours to believe it and teach it. But upon this point let me introduce another statement from Mr. Campbell: "While we regard immersion, or Christian baptism, as a wise, benevolent, and use- ful institution, we neither disparage, nor underrate, a new heart, repent- ance, or faith ; nay, we teach with clearness and definiteness that, un- preceded by faith and repentance, it is of no value whatsoever. These two constitute a change of heart, a mental conversion ; for all believing penitents have a new heart, and are prepared for being born into the king- dom of God." ( Campbell and Rice's Debate, /. tfj.) Q. I will now call your attention A. Before being called away from this, I desire to give the jury an- other statement by Mr. Campbell. He says: "You may have heard me ay here (and the whole country may have read it and heard it many a time ) that a seven-fold immersion in the river Jordan, or any other water, Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 143 without a previous change of heart, will avail nothing, without a genuine faith and penitence. Nor would the most strict conformity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church order; the most exact observance of all the ordinances, without personal faith, piety, and moral righteousness without a new heart, hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit any man in ref- erence to eternal salvation." ( Campbell and Rice, p. 678.) Q. Well, Alexander Campbell held a debate with Dr. Rice, of th Presbyterian Church, did he not? A. He did, sir. Q. Mr. Rice made charges against Mr. Campbell, stating that he was not orthodox, alleging that he did not accept the Scriptures, and thus giv- ing him an opportunity to take a position upon that subject. But what did he do ? He tried to head around it and get out of it. Is not that true ? A. 1 know nothing of Mr. Rice's making charges against Mr. Camp- bell of heterodoxy, but Mr. Campbell made a statement with reference to the whisperings and gossip of a certain kind of religionists upon this sub- ject, that was so satisfactory that the matter was not mentioned afterward. He said: "Much has been said, and whispered, and gossiped concerning my heterodoxy. But, sir, allow me to compliment myself I am, in all the great and weighty matters of religion, more orthodox than any of my impugners. I speak it not boastingly, sir, but in declaration of my gen- eral views of all gospel truths. I do not believe, sir, most sincerely, that there is any of those gentlemen that oppose us, more radically and univer- sally orthodox on all these great subjects of evangelical faith, piety, and morality than we." ( Campbell and Rice, p. 701.) Q. Now, Mr. Campbell in his debate with Mr. Rice, in answering a statement that had been made in reference to his remarks, said : "Accord- ing to my friend, every infant that is baptized, no matter how the cere- mony is performed, is baptismally purified; and, consequently, without faith ; and, therefore, his purification is without faith. I believe that this baptismal purification comes through faith only. Hence faith is the vital principle, without which it is impossible to please God. According to my views, a person believes, repents, and is baptized in order to purification. According to his views, he is purified, sanctified, adopted, if an adult, by faith alone; but, if an infant, by sprinkling alone, without faith or intelli- gence. An adult, with him, if he have faith he has everything pardon, justification, sanctification ; he is a child of God, he is begotten of God, he is born of God, has everything. There is no use for baptism or the Lord's supper ; all means and ordinances, according to his position, are mere superfluities, so far as these benefits are implied. But we plead for faith, because without it we can not please God ; but not for faith alone." { Campbell and Rice, p. 458.) Is that your doctrine ? Our Orthodoxy in the Cnnl Courts. A. Yes, sir ; that is the doctrine of the Christian Church it is ac- cepted in the sense in which Mr. Campbell presented it. Q. Well, now, this is your A. I desire here to say that what Mr. Campbell has taught respecting the ordinance of baptism, with Mr. Campbell's own explanation of that teaching, the Christian Church believes from beginning to end ; but we do not accept it as his enemies and the counsel have tried to interpret it. Q. Now it appears that you have shown an extraordinary memory in answering as to the doctrines of your Church; but you have repeatedly stated to the jury that, with his explanations, you believe what Mr. Camp- bell says. Now, do you think he is always right ? A. No, sir ; we do not, by any means. Q. Does every member exercise this right of discrimination ? A. They may, for the teachings of Alexander Campbell are accepted in precisely the same way as the teachings of any other man are accepted. Q. Don't each member of your Church believe what he pleases? A. No one is compelled to believe a thing because Alexander Camp- bell believed it. A member of the Methodist Church is not compelled, I believe, to accept the teachings of John Wesley, only as these have found places in the Methodist Discipline ; so the members of the Christian Church are under no obligation to accept what Alexander Campbell has taught, only as it finds a place in their standard of faith and discipline, the Bible. Q. Now, Mr. Carpenter, is it not true that Mr. Campbell is the founder of your Church, and that the members of it have been recogniz- ing the authority of his writings? In the decision of questions relating to your ecclesiastical doctrines, has he not become the authority? A. No, sir. Q. Have not the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Protestant Church, and the German Methodist Church have not all these repudiated your actions since 1823, and declared that your Church was heterodox and not orthodox? A. I do not know ; and more, I am not very much concerned about it, for all of them combined can not establish a standard of orthodoxy. That standard is the true teaching of the Bible alone; God, by the inspira- tion of His Spirit, has established that standard, and by it we stand or fall. Q. Do you know of a church considered as orthodox, since the organ- ization of your first congregation in 1823, but what has considered you as not orthodox? Ar.d further: I will ask you if, in the whole known world, all orthodox people have not excluded your Church as not orthodox ? A. I will admit that in the early part of our history as a movement for the restoration of primitive Christianity, from 1823 subsequently, the Our Orthodoxy in tlie Civil Courts. /yj so-called orthodox denominations did not fall upon our necks in the atti- tude of affection and suffuse us with kisses we had to fight or fall; but if that be evidence of our heterodoxy, then there is hot an orthodox denomi- nation in existence, for they have all had the same experience. At one time the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Quakers, and all, were held at arm's length. Q. Well, are not all orthodox people different ? A. I am inclined to think that the self-asserted, so-called orthodox people are all different. Some of them set forth unconditional election, and others cry for a conditional salvation; some of them stand out for floods of water, and some of them contend for a few drops only ; some of therp hoot the idea of falling from grace, and others walk in mortal fear lest *hey have lost their hold; some of them are broad and liberal in their views, and some of them like to impale their victims on the poniard of heterodoxy. Yes, I am inclined to think that all orthodox people are different. Q. Ah, ha! Have you ever read the Baptist work entitled "Camp- bellism Examined," and are you acquainted with its author, the Rev. Dr. J. B. Jeter? A. Yes, sir; I have read the book, and have seen the author. Q. It is a pamphlet, is it not? A. It is a book. Q. How? A. It is a book of about four hundred pages, I think. Q. Well, it has three hundred and sixty-nine pages exclusive of other matter. I will now ask you to state, sir, whether or not the Baptist Church of the State of Virginia did not refuse to fellowship with you on the ground that you were not orthodox ? A. I have no knowledge of such action. Q. Do you not know that the Baptist Church in the State of Virginia, in the year 1852, passed the following resolution: "Resolved, That this Association [meaning the Baptist Association of the State of Virginia] can not conscientiously receive members and ministers from the Campbellite or Christian Church ;" and that the Association refused to recognize your ministers in their ministerial meetings, when, at the same time, it received and recognized members of other churches as orthodox ? A. Not that I know of, sir. However, I was in the city of Richmond, Virginia, in the year 1876, attending the meetings of our General Mis- sionary Convention, and Dr. Jeter attended the sessions of the Convention. He was interested in the meetings, and in an address made at one of the evening sessions, the Doctor said that he was very sorry that he did not know a good many years ago what he did then; for if he had, a good many 1 4.6 Our Orthodoxy in tlie Civil Courts. things that were written would not have been written, and a good many things done that would not have been done. Q. Do you know, sir, that the Baptist Church ever rescinded that reso- lution against your Church? A. I do not know anything about it ; but I do know that the Baptist Church is very glad to receive our people into its fellowship whenever it has an opportunity, though the opportunity seldom comes ; and that, too, when members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of the Presbyterian Church, and of other churches, are not received unless they are immersed. I guess the Baptist folks like us pretty well. Q. Do you know whether they do this because of your being immersed ? A. No, sir; I think not on that ground only. Q. You think not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Practically, your Church and the Baptist Church are the same, are they not? A. No, sir ; we are not. Q, When was the Evangelical Alliance organized ? A. I do not know, sir ; I am not able to tell the time. Q. Do its members have to conform to any creed? A. Well, none in particular, I believe. Probably what is known as the Apostles' Creed expresses what they hold in common. Q. Well, is there any sentence in the creed that requires its members to be orthodox in belief? A. My understanding is that they make the Apostles' Creed the test for membership. They may have some such statement of what is evan- gelical as the Young Men's Christian Association has. In the International Convention at Portland, 1869, that Association defined evangelical as fol- lows: "And we hold those churches to be evangelical which, maintaining the Holy Scriptures to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice, do be- lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ (the only begotten of the Father, King of kings, and Lord of lords, in whom dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and who was made sin for us, though knowing no sin, bearing our sins in His own body on the tree), as the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved from everlasting punishment." (Constitution Y. M. C. A.) That expresses our position. Q. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that that article is not essen- tial to orthodox belief that the members of the Evangelical Alliance are required to be correct in the majority of orthodox requirements as a con- dition to membership? A. I am not thoroughly informed as to the organization of the Evan- gelical Alliance, but I have no such understanding. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Reexamination by the Counsel for the Plaintiff. Q. Mr. Carpenter, I believe your attention has been called to an ency- clopedia since you have been present here. A. I have several encyclopedias in my library. Q. Have you noticed the statements of the different doctrines or be- liefs in them? A. Yes, sir; I have. Q. I will ask you - A. I have had to look at the book several times. Q. I will ask you if you remember this from the Library of Universal Knowledge - (To this objection was maae.j Q. Well, I will ask you xo state, Mr. Witness, whether or not your Church has been recognized and admitted as orthodox in its teaching and practice in any way. A. It is my understanding that it has. And as far as I myself am con- cerned, I have never known an instance in which we were not so recog- nized. I have been in attendance at the general meetings and conventions of the different churches, union associations, the international Sunday- school conventions, etc., and 1 have never known it to be called in question. Q. You may state whether or not in those meetings you were treated as the preachers of the other cnurches were treated. A. Precisely so ; there has oeen no difference, so far as I have been able to discover. Q. You may state, sir, whether or not, when you have been present at the worship of any other cnurcn, say for instance the Methodist Episco- pal, you have been invited to commune with them. A. Yes, sir, I have been invited to commune with them, and have frequently done so. Q. I will now ask you, do you invite the members of the Presby- terian, Methodist, Baptist, ana other churches to commune with you? A. Well, sir, the close communion Baptists do not commune with any one except those of " their own faith and order." Q. Oh ! well, I mean churcnes liberal in their communion and claiming to be orthodox. A. Well, sir, we say that the table is the Lord's, and that all who are the children of the Lord have a right to a place at that table; and as the Scriptures enjoin each one to examine himself and so eat, we invite all who can honestly pass this self-examination to commune with us and celebrate with us the great event that Drought redemption to the world ; and thou- 14.8 Our Orthodoxy In the Civil Courts. sands of all these denominations have thus communed with us and brought to themselves spiritual good. Q. Have you ever known any of the members of the Christian Church to be refused the communion by any of these churches, except by the close communion Baptists? A. No, sir; but, on the other hand, they invite us. Q. Have the writings of Alexander Campbell, or of any other man in the Disciples' or Christian Church, been adopted as its true doctrine and principles? A. No, sir; the writings of Alexander Campbell are no more authori- tative than my writings, or the writings of any other man ; and no human production ever has or ever will be authoritative enough to become a standard the Bible, and the Bible alone holds that place. Q. You were asked whether or not a person, if he avowed things con- trary to the main teaching of the gospel, would be allowed to remain in your Church. I now ask you, sir, whether or not a member, denying any of the cardinal doctrines or teachings generally recognized by Christians as the standard, would be permitted to remain in the Church? A. Do you mean if he were to refuse to recognize them ? Q. I mean if he were to deny them. A. No, sir; that man would not be recognized in the Church. Q. Is it not true that the liberty of which you speak as being allowed to persons in the Church pertains only to the minor points, and not to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Church? A. The liberty of which I spoke pertains to those things which the Scriptures do not make necessary to salvation to those things the accept- ance and rejection of which will neither secure nor imperil salvation ; but to those things to which the Scriptures ascribe salvation there is no turning away from them, neither to the right hand nor to the left. These are the matters of faith, and not of opinion. It is in opinions that we allow liberty. Q. And you are liberal in respect of them? A. We try to be. Q. Mr. Baker labored a long time to get you to say that Alexander Campbell is the founder of the Christian Church. Does the Church so recognize him ? A. No, sir; the Church does not so recognize him or any other man, not even the Apostle Peter, though to him were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Q. Is this not the teaching of your Church: that the original Church of Christ was first instituted on the day of Pentecost, by the Apostle Peter, acting under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ through the inspira- Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 14.9 tion of the Spirit whom he sent on that day, as recorded in the Acts of Apostles, and that the members of that Church are called Christians ? A. That is a correct statement of its teaching upon that point. Q. Is it not true, Mr. Witness, that you meant to be understood as saying that Christian persons, irrespective of wheje they are found, from the primitive Church on down to the present time, are members of Christ's Church, and not as members of any particular branch of any church? A. That is what I said to the jury. The Church of Christ does not consist of ecclesiastical organization, so-called. The only organization known to the Scriptures is the local congregation, and that was organized, not to give membership in the Church of Christ, but to band together those who are members of His Church that they may mutually work out the great object of Christ's mission the salvation of their souls. Hence, wherever there has been a genuine Christian, there has been a representa- tive of the Church of Chnst. Q. What do you understand the relation to be which Alexander Camp- bell sustained to the 'Christian Church ? A. In the first place, it is understood by the Church that he was a member of the local congregation in Bethany, West Virginia, where he lived, and was an elder in it. In the second place, he is recognized as a distin- guished man for his pulpit ability, his polemic power, his superior scholar- ship, and his inexhaustible resources as a writer, he having written a large number of volumes and published papers for a great many years ; but not- withstanding the possession and recognition of these masterly qualities, he was only a humble member of the local congregation where he lived, with what authority the office of elder would give him in that congrega- tion alone. Q. I will ask you whether or not the restoration which Mr. Campbell and his coadjutors attempted, in 1823, was the establishment of any new church, and whether or not it gave any new styled theological doctrine different from the established principles of Christianity? A. No, sir; he established no new church, and he put forth no new theory; but he contended for the restoration of primitive Christianity with the Church of Christ as it was then established, and in doing this he neces- sarily held debates and discussions with the ministers who represented the various churches and denominations, for the reason that if the primitive Church were restored in its simplicity much that had become incorporated in these churches would have to be thrown overboard, for they differ widely from the church described in the Bible. Q. Is this one of them (holding up Campbell and Rice's Debate) ? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask you if he held a discussion with Mr. Robert Owen, of Scotland, upon the evidences of Christianity? Our Orthodoxy in t/te Civil Courts. A. Yes, sir, he did. Q. Was that discussion published and circulated generally over the world ? A. It was published, and it has had a very general circulation, being found in nearly all the public and in a very great many private libraries. Q. Where was that discussion held ? A. It was held in the city of Cincinnati, in April, 1829. Q. Was it prior or subsequent to the debate with Mr. Rice? A. It was several years prior, the debate with Mr. Rice being in November, 1843. Q. Do you understand that, because Mr. Campbell held discussions with the ministers of other churches, he is therefore to be regarded at heterodox ? A. No, sir ; for then are all heterodox. Q. Is it not true, and has it not been so in all time past, that there have been discussions ; and have not the ministers of the various churches debated among themselves ? A. I have known a great many discussions. The Baptists have held discussions ; and all the other churches have done so among themselves, as well as with us. Q. Do other churches hold discussions, too ? A. That is just what I was saying. I have known other churches to hold discussions as well as ours. Q. Mr. Witness, you may state whether or not this Church, upon the main points essential to orthodoxy, is similar to the other so-called or- thodox churches, as the Presbyterians, the Baptists, etc., etc. A. I understand that it does not materially differ with them on those points the differences are upon the minor points. Q. Do you mean to say that because of those differences some are or- thodox and some are not? A. No, sir; I do not. Q. I will ask you whether or not you understand the word orthodox, as applied to religious belief, means the doctrines generally taught in the Bible by the Lord Jesus Christ as essentially necessary to be believed that a person may be admitted into the Church of Christ? A. I do, sir; together with those that are necessary to keep him in the Church after he is in. Q. Does it mean anything else? A. No, sir. Q. That is all. [Here the plaintiff rested.] CHAPTER IX. SECTION VL TESTIMONY BY REV. J. W. SMITH. The Rev, J. W. Smith, being duly sworn to testify on behalf of the defendant, depow,. 1 as follows: Examination in Ckitf. Q. You may sttte your name to the court and jury. A. My name is )t>hn W. Smith. Q. You may state what your profession or calling is. A. My calling is that of a minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Q. How long have you been such a minister? A. Ever since the year 1845. Q. Whereabouts have you served as such minister, generally speaking? A. Through Northeastern Indiana, the northeastern quarter of the State ; and with some of the churches of the Northwestern Conference. Q. You may state to the jury whether or not you have a knowledge of the church generally known as the Christian Church it is sometimes called the Campbellite Church. A. Yes, sir ; I have a knowledge of the existence of that Church. Q. Well, sir, you may state to the jury about how long you have had a knowledge of that Church how long since your attention was called to it. A. My attention was called to it in a very early period of my life before I was a minister or directly afterwards perhaps about the year 1833. Q. Now, then, have you ever had occasion to learn the various phases of doctrine, belief, and practice of that Church? If so, state in what re- spect your attention has been called to them. A. My attention was called to the doctrine or belief of that Church by hearing its ministers preach and by reading publications books, pamph- lets, periodicals, etc. published by its members. Q. You may now state what the fact is in this respect, whether or not you have given the matter such attention as would enable you to know and understand its doctrines and belief. A. I think so, to a tolerable accuracy ; I think I am correctly informed. 152 Our OrtJiodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Mr. Witness, I will now ask you to state to the jury whether or not this Church, in its doctrines and belief, is orthodox. (To this question objection was made, but it was answered.) A. The opinion which I have been led to form is that, in the gener ally accepted sense of the term "orthodox" or "orthodoxy," I have not regarded the teaching as a whole the definite teaching by which that de- nomination is distinguished from the other denominations as orthodox. 1 understand my opinion to be inquired for. Cross- Examination by the Counsel for the Plaintiff. Q. Mr. Smith, in what portion of the country was it that you came in contact with the Christian Church, and heard the ministers preach an< teach their doctrines? A. I do not know that I understand the entire question. Q. You stated in your examination-in-chief that you had become a. quainted with the doctrines or belief of the Christian or Disciples' Churck, and that you had heard its ministers preach and had read its publications. A. Yes, sir. Q. In what portion of the country was it that you heard those mins- ters preach ? A. I have heard them preach in various portions and charges of the State where I have labored for any extended portion of time at Marion, and at Alexandria, and in almost all of the places where I have labored or have had charges. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, I understand you to say that in your opinion the Christian Church is not orthodox; am I right? A. That is correct ; that is, in the definite features by which it is di tinguished from other denominations. Q. That is, so far as it differs from other denominations it is not orthodox? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you understand by the word "orthodoxy"? A. I understand by that term "right opinion" or "correct opinion" in matters pertaining to Christianity as a faith in the Bible ; or, ii other words, the belief defining the doctrines of the Bible. Q. Does not the etymology of the word the Greek 6pflft (doxa) indicate that it means right teaching or right opinion? A. Yes, sir; right teaching. The word Wfx (doxa), I understand, has come to mean opinion or belief. Q. I will ask you if the wordicfa (doxa) is not derived from the word facet? (dokein), meaning to think? A. I understand it to be derived from &>&*> (doxazo), meaning to be- lieve or esteem. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. To believe or esteem? A. Yes, sir. Q. You say it is not derived from SOKW (dokein) ? A. I think not, directly. Q. What is the definition given by Webster of the word "orthodox" or "orthodoxy "? A. If I recollect correctly, Webster defines it as right opinion in matters pertaining to religion. That is my recollection I do not claim to have the exact phraseology. Q. You are substantially correct. You mean religious doctrine, to make it correspond with the definition by Webster ? A. Yes, sir; that is my understanding of orthodoxy. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, do you think there must be a unanimity in all matters of opinion in order that there be an orthodoxy ? Or, if not, what opinions are essential to the doctrines of orthodoxy? A. The word orthodoxy surely implies, as it is used in its modern sense, things different from what it does in its complete application. The word orthodox, as it is used in this complete application, would require the correct opinion in every particular correct in the ordinary and correct in the general acceptation. Q. ( By the defendant.) In all things ? A. But in the general acceptation of orthodoxy, so far as it relates to these things, it is not necessary to include the minor points, upon which there may be some difference. At least there is a difference of opinion in the churches. Q. What do you say, Mr. Smith: Is the \\esleyan Creed, in the main, considered orthodox? A. So far as that goes. That creed does not specify, if I recollect. Q. And that Church adopted the Apostles' Creed as its statement of belief. Would you not call the Apostles' Creed orthodox ? A. As far as it extends. Q. Well, what would be the difference from the Apostles' Creed ? A. There was a difference well, there was a difference in the car- dinal in the cardinal points. The doctrine of a great and all-creative Being, coupled with the other, is sound doctrine. Q. Well, now, suppose you state what doctrines can be drawn from the Apostles' Creed which can be considered as sound doctrine. A. Have you the place ? Q. "I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth." That is sound doctrine, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. "I believe in Jesus Christ God's only Son, our Lord; which was Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty ; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." Would you call that sound doctrine ? A. Yes, sir. Q. " I believe in the Holy Ghost ; the holy catholic church ; the com- munion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." Now, what do you think of the church that believes that, and accepts it ? Do you consider that an orthodox statement of belief? A. Yes, sir ; so far as it goes. Q. What of this: "The Spirit is said to do, and to have done, all that God does and all that God has done. It has ascribed to it all divine perfections and works ; and in the New Testament it is designated as the immediate author and agent of the new creation, and of the holiness of Christians. It is, therefore, called the Holy Spirit. In the sublime and in- effable relation of the deity, or godhead, it stands next to the Incarnate Word. Anciently, or before time, it was GOD, the WORD of God, and the SPIRIT of God. But now, in the development of the Christian scheme, it is 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' one God, one Lord, one Spirit. To us Christians there is, then, but one God, even the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, even the Saviour; and one Spirit, even the Advo- cate- the Sanctifier, and the Comforter of Christ's body the church. Jesus is the head, and the Spirit is the life and animating principle of that body" ? (Christian System, p. 24.) A. I do not understand the passage. Q. "To us Christians there is, then, but one God, even the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, even the Saviour ; and one Spirit, even the Advocate, the Sanctifier, and the Comforter of Christ's body the church. Jesus is the head, and the Spirit is the life and animating principle of that body." Now, you have it again; do you understand it? A. There is a difference between that expression and the matter as it is expressed in the gospel. Q. Well, but so far as that statement is concerned you think it is or- thodox, do you not? A. In the sense that the gospel is the means by which God has placed the sinner in such situation that he can repent of his sins and come to sal- vation and be blessed by the Holy Spirit in this life in that sense it is orthodox. Q. There can be but one sense there can be but one meaning of the expression, can there? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. If you request the exact import of that expression, I would say that there is a variety of meanings among the churches the term gospel is not always considered as meaning the same. Q. Well, Mr. Smith, if a brother come into the church and believe your doctrine, so far as that is concerned he is orthodox, is he not? (To this question objection was made, but it was answered.) Q. How is that Mr. Smith ? A. I think it is necessary that a man believe in the Divine Being, as set forth in the Apostles' Creed, and of course he must believe in the Bible, in order to come into the Church of Christ. Q. I desire to call your attention, and ask you if that is the explana- tion you would make ? A. I should regard that as the faith that is necessary to have, a faith in the Divine Being. Q. Have you given a definite statement of the doctrines of faith that are necessary for a person to believe in order to come into your Church? A. If the meaning I have given is not misapplied. Q. I ask you again if you have done it ? A. If I have? Q. Yes, sir. A. If I understand it, I have no objection to this liberal thought or statement of belief : I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that he suffered and died, or was sacrificed upon the cross, and that we are to live in the way of His commandments, lead a new life, repent of our sins, and turn to God. Q. And you require a person to be orthodox ? A. Yes, sir; that is, a faith in all his transactions in all things. Q. Do you think it necessary to have a faith in all the theological dogmas that a man may become a church member ? A. I say that in the main he must be correct. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, I want you to tell us in what the Christian Church is not orthodox what particular doctrines you regard as being not orthodox A. In my own opinion Q. You have already stated that you do not regard the members of the Christian Church as being orthodox in regard to their doctrines. You were asked to give your opinion, and you said that you think their doc- trines are not orthodox. Now, will you have the kindness to state to the jury wherein you think they are not orthodox? A. That is, wherein I consider they are not orthodox ? Q. Yes, sir. 156 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. In the first place, there is a difference in regard to the doctrine of the three personages in the Godhead the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That, I think, is essential to the correct idea of the Divine Being. The belief of His existence is essential, and that there are three divine beings, or personages ; that these continue to exist in union inseparable union, and not distinct each as a divine personage, but united and inseparable in form and eternity, and that He exists in these relations. In the Script- ures the divinity is designated by the term Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit comprise the Trinity, and they are eternal in that existence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are one eternal Godhead. This is the meaning of the term when we speak of it. The Christian Church believes that these personages are not equal, and in this respect it is not orthodox. As to the Holy Spirit being a personage, it believes that He is not equal in existence coequal with the Father ; that is, He is not coequal with the Father in existence. Q. Mr. Smith A. That is, on the ground as I stated the personages of the Trinity. Q. Well, inasmuch as you have now given your opinion upon that point, I desire to call your attention, if you please, to this paragraph: A. Very well. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, do you consider this a correct statement: "The Holy Spirit and the Son is one in substance with the Father " ? Is that statement orthodox? A. Yes, sir; that is a correct statement, I think. Q. Now, if the Christian Church believes in the three personages, in a plurality in the Godhead, do you not say that it is correct in that item? Mr. Smith, is it not true that ever since the great controversy of 1843 it has been understood that the Christian Church believes there is a plurality in the Godhead? and is it not, therefore, orthodox in its belief on the Trinity? A. I will ask you to make the last statement you made again. Q, Oh! yes, sir. Is it not true that ever since the great controversy of 1843 it has been understood that the Christian Church believes there is a plurality in the Godhead? and is it not, therefore, orthodox in its belief on the Trinity? Is not that good trinitarian doctrine, that there are three di. vine personages which are one? A. Yes, sir; those two statements you have made are very nearl) correct. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, I will ask you if all that is not good, sound trin itarianism ? A. There is no great difference of opinion as thus stated; but so far as that is concerned, at the same time the Christian Churcn may believe substantially the doctrines which are taught by all trii.itarians, yet it may Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. be said that there is no distinction, no important distinction, made by the Church in relation to these personages. Q. Yes, sir; that is, Mr. Smith, your idea is that they are heretical because of their belief, and not because of any particular expression of their belief? I will ask you to state whether or not you would make this a test of orthodoxy. A. It is not fully particularized. Q. What is there in orthodox doctrine upon that subject? A. We think that a person should believe in God and the unity of the Godhead ; that they are made manifest merely by the Spirit, and that it sustains certain relations to redemption. But there are certain attributes of the Divine Being: that He is eternal; that_ He existed and continues to exist through all eternity ; that He manifests His Spirit as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is, as I have often observed, the same properties with respect to each that each has a distinct existence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; and he that admits that theory is sound to the bottom. All must acquiesce in these things, for they make us wise unto salvation. All must believe in the Trinity, and worship it, for this is necessary to salva- tion. All must believe in a divine and eternal existence in the one God- head, and he that does not believe this is not orthodox. Q. That is, that there are three personages ? A, Yes, sir; that there are three personages and, as I understand it, that these personages have a continuous existence. Q. Now, do you say that the Christian Church does not believe that doctrine? A. I do not understand them to so teach by those different men whom I have heard preach. Q. Do you intend to testify, Mr. Smith, that the Christian Church does not believe there are three personages, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? A. As I am informed, I do not understand them to teach it. So far as I have heard their teaching and preaching, I have been led to think and understand that they are not orthodox in their teaching in this respect. Q. Well, now, I will ask you, to quicken your memory I will ask you whether or not you pretend to say that the Christian Church does not believe in one Godhead ? A. I have not been able to understand it so. Q. Will you say that they do not believe it, Mr. Smith? A. So far as I understand their teaching, I think they do not. Q. Don't they? What do you mean by their teaching? A. I mean what their preachers and their people say. Q. Please name them some of them whom you have heard preach that doctrine. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. My recollection of names is not very accurate. I think Mr. Be Franklin preached that, as well as other ministers of that denomination. I do not readily recall to recollection the names of the different persons I am unable to do it. Q. I will ask you, Mr. Smith, whether or not you have ever heard Benjamin Franklin say that in any of his preaching, or preach the doc- trine denying the three personages in the Godhead ? A. Not in terms. Q. Not in terms? A. No, sir. Q. Now, I do not know whether or not you mean to imply that he did in some other way. A. Only impliedly speaking. I think he said in his preaching that the Holy Spirit, in its operations, was a separate and distinct being ; or, at least, his preaching gave his hearers that impression. I do not recollect the statement exactly, but the statement was to that amount. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, what do you say to this: "The revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is no more clear and distinct than are the different offices assumed and performed by these glorious and ineffable three in the present affairs of the universe. It is true, so far as unity of design and concurrence of action is contemplated, they cooperate in every work of creation, providence, and redemption. Such is the concurrence expressed by the Messiah in these words : ' My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ;' ' I and my Father are one ;' ' Whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son doeth likewise :' but not such a concurrence as annuls personality, impairs or interferes with the distinct offices of each in the salvation of men"? (Campbell and Rice, p. 6/6.) Now, Mr. Smith, what fault have you to find with that doctrine ? Have you any exceptions to take to it ? A. No, sir. Wherein it relates to Christians and the ingrafted mem- bers of the Church of Christ, of course there is no fault I say no. Q. Now, how is it in regard to the personal agency of the Holy Spirit? You have stated that you have no fault to find with the foregoing statement wherein it speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now, as to the personal agency of the Holy Spirit, I will ask you if you have any fault to find with the following expression: "I would not, sir, value at the price of a single mill the religion of any man, as respects the grand affair of eternal life, whose religion is not begun, carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit. Nay, sir, I esteem it the peculiar excellence and glory of our religion, that it is spiritual; that the soul of a man is quickened, enlightened, sanctified, and consoled by the indwelling presence of the Spirit of the eternal God. But, while avowing these my convictions, I have no more fellowship with those false Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 159 and pernicious theories that confound the peculiar work of the Father with that of the Son, or with that of the Holy Spirit, or the work of any of these awful names with that of another; or which represents our illu- mination, conversion, and sanctification as the work of the Spirit without the knowledge, belief, and obedience of the gospel, as written by the holy apostles and evangelists, than I have with the author and finisher of the book of Mormon " ? ( Campbell and Rice, p. 6/6.) What do you say to that statement ? A. The statement, taken alone, is unbiblical, so far as I am able to ascertain. Q. That is, so far as the personal agency of the Spirit is concerned, the statement is unbiblical ? A. It seems to denote that. Q. Only the words, as they were quoted, do as a matter of fact convey unbtblical doctrine ; or would you take exception to the distinction made between the Father and Son? A. No, sir ; I do not know that I would, because nobody denies the personal distinction between the Father and the Son in that sense. Q. Now, then, Mr. Smith, is that not an exceptionally strong state- ment of the personalty of the three personages in the Godhead? Is not that conception of the Godhead orthodox ? A. To this I would say: Taken alone, without any additional state- ment or explanation without an explanation of these statements I say it would be. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, that is the teaching of the Christian Church; what do you say to it? But I will go on: "For example, the Father sends the Son, and not the Son the Father. The Father provides a body and a soul for his Son, and not the Son for his Father. The Son offers up that body and soul for sin, and thus expiates it, which the Father does not, but accepts it. The Father and the Son send forth the Spirit, and not the Spirit either. The Spirit now advocates Christ's cause, and not Christ his own cause. The Holy Spirit now animates the church with his pres- ence, and not Christ himself. He is the Head of the church, while th Spirit is the heart of it. The Father originates all, the Son executes all, the Spirit consummates all. Eternal volition, design, and mission belong to the Father; reconciliation to the Son; sanctification to the Spirit." ( Campbell and Rice, p. 6/6.) Now, is n't that sound ? A. The last three expressions are not. Q. "Eternal violition, design, and mission belong to the Father; rec- onciliation to the Son ; sanctification to the Spirit " ? A. Yes, sir ; those statements are such as I would not accept. Q. Well, now 160 Our Orthodox}' in the Civil Courts. A. Just those statements taken alone. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, I will ask you if the Christian Church does not believe that doctrine and teach it ? A. That does not agree with the lectures I have heard made by the ministers in that denomination. I must answer that there is quite a difference. Q. I will ask you, sir, does not the Christian Church indorse that doc- trine, accepting all of it? A. I am not able to say as to that. Q. Will you say that it does not accept it? A. I am not prepared to say they do not ; but so far as I have been able to gather their opinions from their sermons and the articles which I have read, and from the press under their control, I have been otherwise impressed with the teaching of the Church. I think it does not actually accept that doctrine as true. Q. Mr. Smith, do you not know that Alexander Campbell accepted that doctrine? A. Well, there is well, there is not hardly Q. Mr. Smith, that is Alexander Campbell's own language. A. But culled out. Q. Is that a matter for you to say ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, wait and I will give you a statement of the doctrine : " ' He has saved us,' says the Apostle Paul, 'by the bath of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his favor [in the bath of re- generation], we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' Thus, and not by works of righteousness, he has saved us. Conse- quently, being born of water and the renewing of the Holy Spirit are not works of merit or of righteousness, but only the means of enjoyment. But this pouring out of the influence, this renewing of the Holy Spirit, is as necessary as the bath of regeneration to the salvation of the soul, and to the enjoyment of the hope of heaven, of which the Apostle speaks. In the kingdom into which we are born of water, the Holy Spirit is as the atmosphere in the kingdom of nature ; we mean that the influences of the Holy Spirit are as necessary to the tum life, as the atmosphere is to our an- imal life in the kingdom of nature. All that is done in us before regener- ation, God our Father effects by the word, or the gospel as dictated and confirmed by his Holy Spirit. But after we are thus begotten and born l.y the Spirit of God after our new birth the Holy Spirit is shed on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; of which the peace of mind, the love, the joy, and the hope of the regenerate is full proof; for these are Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. i6r among the fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise of which we speak." ( Christian System, p. 267.) What do you think of that statement ? A. Oh! yes, that is scriptural; I have no objection to that; it is script- ural and orthodox. Whenever you quote from the Bible of course we will accept that. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, if we were to take forty, or fifty, or seventy-five members of your own Church, how many of them, I will ask you, would define this doctrine of the Trinity as you do, and make the distinctions which you make? A. Oh ! if I were to answer that, it would only be the introduction of my opinion into this testimony. Q. Mr. Smith, do you pretend to understand the doctrine of the Trinity? A. I do not pretend to know all about it, but there is a distinction, I think, which a great many fail to make there are a great many who fail to comprehend the subject. Q, But Mr. Campbell claimed in his writings that these ineffable rela- tions may be apprehended by nearly all, and at the same time compre- hended by none. A. That is very true. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, do you wish this jury to understand do you pretend to say that because the Christian Church may not believe the doctrine of the Trinity just as you have stated it, and as probably three- fourths of your own people do not believe it, the denomination is not orthodox ? A. I have not been led, as I said before I have not been led to con- clude that it is. Q. If it believes that doctrine, what have you to say to it then ? A. This particular expression which you have pointed out may have the same meaning it may mean substantially the same thing the Church may believe these theological doctrines just as they have been expounded and explained by the counsel, but of course I can not tell. Q. And you say these forms of expression are mere theories ? A. The full and usual meaning of the expression is the existence of three personages in the Godhead. Q. In other words, they speak the doctrine of the Trinity but they do not believe it. Is that it ? A. They seem to believe the main features to a great extent as to the formulated part. There are churches that, with that explanation and ex- pression of the doctrines of the Trinity, receive it indeed all those churches which pretend to be orthodox believe these doctrines of the Trinity. 162 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Mr. Smith, is not that statement a restatement in other words of the definition of the doctrine as it is found in the Methodist Discipline? A. There are the rules which are found in all our church disciplines. Q. Is a church that believes these doctrines orthodox or not ? A. Yes, sir; I mean that a church that believes these doctrines is or- thodox I mean to say that a church and the membership of a church that believe these doctrines, and what I have said about, and what is in the Discipline, I would accept as orthodox. Q. Yes, sir? A. I think so far as the membership of the Christian Church differ from these doctrines, they are unsound. A man is unsound if he impart a certain formulated doctrine and that doctrine does not correspond with the doctrine I have given you; in other words, if he does not believe in the unity of the Godhead, he is unsound. Q. Oh ! yes, if a man expects to be orthodox, he must believe both the unity and trinity of the Godhead. Now, suppose a man wants to be- come a member of your Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church if he wants to be admitted into your Church would you admit him without a previous change of heart? A. He should believe the doctrine pertaining to the Trinity as it has been stated ; then, relying upon the truth of his statement as to a change of heart, of course I would admit him into the Church. Q. You would read the Discipline to him, and question him on that particular phase of doctrine, and if he said he believed it, as you re- quested him to do, you would admit him into your Church and call him orthodox ? A. Yes, sir; so far as that branch of the case is concerned. Q. Now, then, Mr. Smith, I understand you to say that the Discipline Is a definite statement of the doctrine as it is. Am 1 right? A. Not a statement, only so far as we have authorities for our rules. Q. I know, Mr. Smith, that you do not incorporate all the theological rules, but you incorporate the fundamental principles in the Discipline, do you not? A. Oh ! certainly ; our Discipline as I understand it expresses the rules that are found elsewhere. Q. Not a succinct explanation of the truth, but sufficient to admit a person into the Church as orthodox? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, that is one point of difference between the Chris- tian Church and the so-called orthodox churches ? What is another that you would indicate. A. The next point that occurs to me is this : The Christian Church, Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. i6j or the so-called Christian Church, does not correspond with the other churches in their teaching in their teaching that Church says that the sinner must save himself must save himself by his own voluntary act, and not by the operation of the Spirit and not by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Q. Do you testify to this jury that that is the doctrine of the Chris- tian Church? A. It is, as I understand it. Q. What writer in the Christian Church has ever expressed that doc- trine ? You say you have read something of that. A. I can not now turn to the particular passage, or cite the particular author to whom I refer, more than to the preachers or ministers to whom I have listened and who have made such an exposition of it. And I have, too, read articles in their journals which taught the doctrine that the sinner is influenced by the Word without the Spirit ; that is, represent- ing the Word as being the terms or means of Salvation. But, as I under- stand it, the sinner is furnished with the means to reformation and repent- ance. ( We recognize the divine influence of the Spirit in producing this result, that the sinner must have this application of the Spirit to change him to a new life. The application of the Spirit gives him faith and changes him to a new life.) Then by his faith he resolves to do, he obeys the commandments of God, and his sins are stricken out; but this obedi- ence of the sinner is by the influence of the truth. As I understand it, he thus obeys the commandments and turns to God by his confession and obedience. As I understand it, it is under the influence of these manifest- ations that God pardons his sins, and he is thereby brought into Christian relationship, is strengthened in his faith, and is brought under the direct influence of the divine manifestations is brought into communion with God's Spirit, and is in charge of the Spirit as revealed by His divine will. This is what I understand to be the teaching of that Church through what I have read. I do not claim to have read all the articles. Q. Mr. Smith, tell me a minister whom you have heard preach that doctrine. A. Well, I have heard Mr. Franklin preach that doctrine. Q. How long ago? A. He preached it in Alexandria, in the year 1878, I believe. Q. Four or five years ago ? A. I think it has been that long probably; I am not sure. Q. In Alexandria, Michigan ? A. In Alexandria in this State, in Madison County. Q. Have you ever heard any other preacher preach that doctrine ? A. What did you say ? 164. Our Orthodoxy in the Chril Courts. Q. Have you ever heard any other preacher preach that doctrine ? A. I have heard another one also. Q. Whom? A. There was another preacher of that denomination whom I heard preach at Alexandria during my ministry there. I had a conversation with another minister of that denomination. It was Mr. , the preacher was a stranger to me ; I would not know him by sight. Q. Hopkins? A. Hopkins, Hopkins; yes, sir, I have had a conversation with him upon that subject since I heard the other preacher, and I remember his conversation upon that subject, although it has been a long time. Q. Well, now, what articles have you read ? A. I believe I can not cite the articles I have read I have not given so much attention to the articles as the reading I do not remember the volumes nor the author; but I have formed that opinion from their minis- ters and the articles which I have read. I have been led to believe that that is the doctrine of the Church. Q. Mr. Smith, I will ask you if you heard the testimony of Mr. Chapman ? A. Whom? Q. You heard Mr. Chapman testify upon this subject, and Mr. Ed- wards, and Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Owen, did you not ? A. In part. Q. I will ask you if you heard any such doctrine as that to which you have testified to-day in those testimonies? A. I do not know as I heard any of those gentlemen testify I do not know I heard a part of their testimony upon that subject. Q. Did they not distinctly state that it is the Holy Spirit that oper- ates upon the heart of the sinner through the Word? Did they not dis- tinctly state that it is necessary for the heart of a sinner to be influenced by the Holy Spirit in order for him to become a true Christian ? A. I understood these gentlemen to testify that the influence of the Holy Spirit is exerted upon the heart of a man in the same way that the truth operates upon the heart; that the Spirit operates upon the hearts of men in regard to their conduct in the same way that the truth operates and influences their feelings ; that, In its manifestations upon persons, it oper- ates by the same rules and in the same way that the truth operates upon the heart of the sinner; that the Spirit would have no efficacy upon the heart but for the operation of the truth upon it : that it could not exert any influence upon the heart of a sinner but for the truth. But I can not express this influence upon the heart through the medium of the truth in other words. As I understand them to testify, the Spirit operates through Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 165 the truth, and that the truth operates upon the conscience by the manifest- ation of the Spirit upon the conscience and judgment of the sinner, and in consequence of this influence the sinner obeys and becomes a Christian. This is the way I understand them to testify. Q. They didn't say that, did they? A. Oh! no, sir; but I am informed that they expressed it in other words. From what I gather, I take that to be their teaching. Q. Do they not believe and definitely state that the Spirit operates upon the hearts ot men, and dwells in the hearts of Christians ? A. Through the truth, and through it only. Q. Well, now, do you pretend to say that the Spirit operates upon the hearts of men only independent of the truth that it operates upon your own heart in that manner ? Do you say that the Spirit does it inde- pendent of the Word ; that it has no connection with the Word, but is independent in its operations? A. Through the Spirit come the intuitions of the Word ; and His abiding presence in the hearts of men is accompanied by the Word. In the same way the expression of the Word conveys conviction to the hearts of men. Q. Do they not teach that the Spirit of God and its influence live and dwell in the hearts of men and cause the incorruptible seed to spring up unto eternal life? Let me read: "There yet remains another school, which never speculatively separates the Word and the Spirit ; which, in every case of conversion, contemplates them as cooperating ; or, which is the same thing, conceives of the Spirit of God as clothed with the gospel motives and arguments enlightening, convincing, persuading sinners, and thus enabling them to flee from the wrath to come. In this school, con- version and regeneration are terms indicative of a moral or spiritual change of a change accomplished through the arguments, the light, the love, the grace of God expressed and revealed, as well as approved by the supernatural attestations of the Holy Spirit. They believe, and teach, that it is the Spirit that quickens, and that the Word of God the living Word is that incorruptible seed, which, when planted in the heart, vege- tates, and germinates, and grows, and fructifies unto eternal life." (Camp- bell and Jfice, p. 6/4.) Is not that a correct statement of the Bible doctrine upon that subject? A. I would regard that as being somewhat complex. Q. Will you please make it more simple? A. I would say that my explanation of that thought is this, that the Spirit is the source of truth. Q. You certainly do not interpret it correctly. I will ask you to give a more definite expression of the operation of the Spirit than is given in 166 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. the few words I have read; but let me continue the paragraph: "They hold it to be unscriptural, irrational, unphilosophic, to discriminate be- tween spiritual agency and instrumentality between what the Word, per se, or the Spirit, per se, severally does ; as though they were two inde- pendent, and wholly distinct powers, or influences. They object not to the cooperation of secondary causes ; of various subordinate instrumental- ities ; the ministry of men ; the ministry of angels ; the doctrine of special providences; but, however, whenever the Word gets into the heart the spiritual seed into the moral nature of man it as naturally, as spontane- ously grows there, as the sound, good corn, when deposited in the genial earth. It has life in it; and is, therefore, sublimely and divinely called The living and effectual Word.'" ( Campbell and Rice, p. 614.) Now, sir, I will ask you to give a more certain and definite expression of the Spirit's work upon the moral nature of man than is thus given in this paragraph. A. I will ask you if you wish me to state what effect it has in the conversion of the soul ? Q. ( By the Court.) The counsel asks you to give your explanation of the operation. A. Well, I will endeavor to give it as near as possible. I understand that the Spirit is sent not only to inspire the Word of truth, but also when that Word of truth is conveyed to the sinner and he is influenced by the gospel, it manifests itself upon the conscience rendering it susceptible of the influence of that truth; and that when a man is in his depraved nature he is insusceptible to the influence of the truth it is the Spirit that renders the mind, and soul, and heart susceptible to the influence of that truth ; that this truth, when a man is thus influenced by the Spirit, oper- ates upon the mind with the Spirit, and renders his soul susceptible and brings him to obedience ; and that by these influences of the truth and the Spirit, the truth operating upon the sinner through the direct opera- tion of the Spirit upon the soul thus explaining the Word, he is brought into communication with the divine Spirit. Q. I will now ask you to state to the jury that you understand that to be orthodox doctrine. A. I understand this to be orthodox, that the personage of the Spirit operates through the truth, that the inspired truth thus results in bringing the sinner into fellowship, and that he is kept in that fellowship through the efficacy and the direct personal influence of the Spirit upon the soul and heart. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, is that a better statement than what you say the Christian Church believes or claims to believe? It is a correct and definite statement to say that the Spirit quickens, is it not? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. i6j A. Well, that depends upon the word quickens. It is if the word has its ordinary meaning I should take it in its literal sense. Q. The Christian Church believes and teaches, "that it is the Spirit that quickens, and that the Word of God the Living Word is that in- corruptible seed, which, when planted in the heart, vegetates, and ger- minates, and grows, and fructifies unto eternal life." Now, don't you think that that statement is correct ; do n't you believe it is a correct assertion ? A. I should say that it is what takes place through the operation of the Spirit upon the heart in the conversion in the conversion of the Dinner. Q. Well, Mr. Smith, I will call your attention to the following as to the manner in which the Holy Spirit produces a true faith: "No new faculties are imparted no old faculty destroyed. They are neither more nor less in number; they are neither better nor worse in kind. Paul the Apostle, and Saul of Tarsus, are the same person, so far as all the animal, intellectual, and moral powers are concerned. His mental and physical temperaments were just the same after as before he became a Christian. The Spirit of God, in effecting this great change, does not violate, meta- morphose, or annihilate any power or faculty of the man, in making the saint. He merely receives new ideas, and new impressions, and undergoes a great moral or spiritual change so that he becomes alive wherein he was dead, and dead wherein he was formerly alive." (Campbell and Rice, (>. 6/7.) Again: "Now, as faith in God is the first principle the soul- renewing principle of religion; as it is the regenerating, justifying, sancti- fying principle; without it, it is impossible to be acceptable to God. With it, a man is a son of Abraham, a son of God ; an heir apparent to eternal life an everlasting kingdom. And what is Christian faith? It is the be- lief of testimony. It is a persuasion that God is true ; that the gospel is divine ; that God is love ; that Christ's death is the sinner's life. It is trust in God. It is a reliance upon his truth, his faithfulness, his power. It is not merely a cold assent to the truth, to testimony: but a cordial, joyful consent to it, and reception of it. Still it is dependent on testi- mony. No testimony, no faith. The Spirit of God gave the testimony first. It bore witness to Jesus. It expected no faith without something to believe. Something to believe is always presented to faith ; and that something must be heard before it can be believed; for, until it is heard, it is as though it were not a nonentity. But it is not enough, that it be heard by the outward ear. God has given to man an inward, as well as an outward ear. The outward recognizes sounds only; the inward recog- nizes sense. Faith is, therefore, impossible without language ; and, con- equently, without the knowledge of language, and that language under- l68 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. stood. It is neither necessary nor possible, without language intelligl ble language." ( Campbell and Rice, pp. 618, 619.) Now, sir, is not that a correct statement as to the manner in which the gospel produces a true faith? A. The statement gives the whole a different explanation ; sometimes it might be taken as including the works generally concerning duties in life, and sometimes it might be taken as including the direct and specific operations of the Spirit upon the soul, and the influence upon the mind and heart ; and then there is Q. You do n't think that that statement is enough ? A. No, sir. Q. You don't? A. No, sir. Q. That is an article upon the Holy Spirit. Now, do you profess to be able to give a better explanation of the work of the Holy Spirit in producing a true faith than this which refers the production of this end to the Spirit through the gospel? Or do you think that that is a "little complex"? A. That expression? Q. Yes, sir; too complex to be orthodox doctrine? A. What work is that ? I think that, in my own language, I would not express it in that way. I think the doctrine, as it is expressed, is not sound evangelical doctrine. I believe I would formulate the expression differently as it is first given, it is unbiblical; of course it is in the expression. Q. You think it is not correct? A. Of course that is the explanation I would give from what I have read. Q. And you think it is "too complex"? A. Well, sir, in the main points, I think it is. Q. You think it is " somewhat complex," and that it is hardly a suf- ficiently definite statement? A. It might be understood as being insufficient in one sense. I think, in a certain signification, it is too complex. I suppose, if they understood it more perfectly themselves, these persons might define the expression of their faith upon it. Q. Mr. Smith, you have been wrestling with orthodoxy, or right doc- trine as you call it. I will now seriously ask you if you think this doc- trine, as you have explained it, can be understood by the several members of a church if a common man can understand it. Do you think a majority of the members do you think that you could find one in a hundred of the laymen who can even state that doctrine, that orthodox doctrine? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 169 A. Well, we do not expect the body of the laymen to do it. Q. Then a common man, or a layman, can not understand it? Do you think the common people, the laymen, can understand such doctrine? A. Oh ! it is only the definite points of orthodoxy only the definite points are aimed to be understood by the common mind. Q. Now, in connection with the statement which you have given of what you conceive to be orthodox, I want you to answer me this : Is it necessary for a person to conceive the different points of orthodoxy, those points of orthodoxy which you have made in your statement of the prin- ciples involved in your different answers, in order that he become a Chris- tian and a member of the church ; is it necessary for a man to be capable of comprehending all the principles and differences, all the distinctions of the theory of orthodoxy, which you have made is it necessary to under- stand all these distinctions of orthodoxy and properly comprehend them in order to become a Christian ? A. I think, to a certain degree, a Christian should understand them to have faith in them. Q. Then, if he is to comprehend and understand all these things, the doctrine is not so plain that a wayfaring man, though a fool, may not err therein? A. It is so plain that a man may understand it. Q. The Bible says: "And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called, The way of holiness ; the unclean shall not pass over it ; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." (Isaiah xxxv. 8.) A. I do not know that my answer implies what your question involves. Q. Well, sir, I ask you if the way is as plain as that ? Do you say that the New Testament is not a guide for every person, laymen or no lay- man ; that every one may not read it and be profited by it, indeed that every one may not obtain thereby the way to eternal life? A. My impression is that, in the main, it can be understood perhaps not all the rules and theories that are necessary to orthodoxy, yet the the- ories in the main should be understood ; but all the theological expositions would not necessarily have to be understood. Many persons require in- struction upon those points that is what I mean. Q. Then, Mr. Smith, a denomination of Christians can not be ortho- dox until it understands the right doctrine. Which one of all the denom- inations is orthodox, for they all differ the one from the other? You say that it must have an understanding of all these distinctions, and accept them, to be orthodox ; which one does ? And the laymen of the congre- gation must understand and accept these things ? 170 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. I do not say that every layman must understand these things to that he can give a complete interpretation of them. Q. How is this : The Bible says that the way is so plain that a fool shall not err therein; but what you say is orthodox doctrine is so intricate and complex that even the wisest men are puzzled to understand it, to say nothing of the common man ? A. I do not think I said it was so complex that it required an expla- nation, and that a common layman can not understand it. The main dis- tinction upon the subject of orthodoxy, a common man can understand that is, the main questions may be understood by the common man. How is that ? Q. I understand you to say that a mere common man can not under- stand the doctrine of orthodoxy, so as to have a clear understanding of it. Now, I ask you, do you want now to be understood as saying that a lay- man can understand and comprehend it fully ? A. I do not remember of making the statement. I may possibly have said that only the preachers might comprehend it. I meant it to be under- stood in that way that is the way I understand it. Now, I think this is sufficient to define orthodoxy so far as my knowledge goes upon the sub- ject. In relation to the fact that in the conversion of an ordinary man he can not understand and comprehend the terms and expressions of or- thodoxy, that the common man is not able to understood it, or, as you be- fore said, the wayfaring man can not comprehend it, I would remark that the standard of orthodoxy or at least what I mean to say is the standard of orthodoxy is not to be so estimated. What we teach is this, that a man may understand the fundamental features, although he be not a cultured man. Any one who is able to understand the source of truth is able to understand it. If we are to estimate orthodoxy by what a certain member is able to comprehend, we can hardly have the truth in the highest sense. We might as well try to have the truth to conform to a man's capabilities who is not able to understand truth in all its phases. I take it that it would still remain truth ; and so it is not necessary to believe in all the truth in order to be orthodox. A person may be orthodox in the substan- tial doctrines, and yet not understand nor be able to define all the princi- ples of orthodoxy. Q. On that ground, can 't you consent to the orthodoxy of the Chris- tian Church on the ground that it has some of the principles of ortho- doxy? But what are the true sources of truth of which you speak? A. In regard to the salvation of a man's soul ? Q. Of course. A. God himself is the source of truth. He has given men His reve- lation of the truth in the Bible by his Holy Spirit and by his Son. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. That men may find out what truth i? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did I understand you to say that the Bible is not sufficient to in* form a common man what the truth is without extra help? A. No, sir; I did not testify so, nor do I wish to be so understood. Q. On the contrary, do you now say that the Bible is sufficient for the instruction of any man who seeks the true doctrine, or who will try to find out what the truth is? A. I will answer that by saying, the Bible is the same to all mankind, it is the expression of the truth. Q. But the question I asked you was this, and will you have the kind- ness to confine your answer to the question: Do you now say that the Bible is a sufficient aid to any man who has a desire to seek the truth, and that if he will read the Bible it will direct him in the right way ? A. Do you wish him to be his own guide first? Q. I speak of the Bible truths as they are taught in the Bible. I meant to be understood as asking you if it is sufficient to direct him in the right way the Bible itself. A. The question is hardly susceptible of a correct and full answer not by the answer of yes or no. Q. Well, sir, answer it as you please, and then give the additional explanation. A. I would say, yes, sir, it is ; that is, the conditions are all sufficient for man's salvation. It is also true that the instruction in relation to the Bible the instruction drawn from the Bible by persons commanded to in- quire into and study the Bible, or rather to draw the correct faith from it and give it to the Christian that it may be expounded to mankind by preaching, and that we may be able to teach and influence mankind by the Word in the preaching of the gospel, and thus obey the commission given to the evangelists to preach the gospel, and by these labors to give to the church, to the sinner, and to the Christian the truth, that they may be controlled by the proper influence it is true that all this teaching must be drawn from the Bible, that the Bible must be the source of instruction. Q. Do you say that it is necessary to have the Bible interpreted ? A. Necessary to have it interpreted ? Q. Yes, sir. A. Ordinarily, in order that all may concur in the truth, the instruc- tion is furnished them. Q. Mr. Smith, do you say that it is necessary to have instruction in the truths of the Bible when one has access to the Bible himself? On the contrary, is not the Bible so plain to the common understanding that, if a man will read it carefully, it will be to him a perfect guide into the right way? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. I will deny that to be the case. A person may need instruction upon certain matters. For instance : when the Bible speaks of Philip and the Eunuch we are told that the Spirit commanded Philip to join the Eunuch as he was riding along in his chariot reading the Old Testament Scriptures, for it would be necessary that he should have some teaching upon the subject upon which he was reading. It was necessary that this inquirer be furnished with some means of understanding when he was read- ing the word of God ; and so Philip was sent. Q. But the Eunuch did not have access to all the Bible the New Tes- tament was not yet written. Philip only supplied the information which the New Testament will now do ; he gave by inspiration on that occasion what the New Testament now supplies. Then the Scriptures were imper- fect, for they were not complete ; they are now complete, and, therefore, perfect, and if they are perfect they ought to be a perfect guide unto eternal life ought they not? A. It would be the same, any way. Q. Mr. Smith, do you want this jury to understand you to say that a soul must be lost because it does not have a minister to interpret the Scriptures to it ? A. No, sir ; that does not follow. Q. Do you want to say that the Bible is not a sufficient guide for a person who is able to read and understand ; that a responsible person can not find out the truth in that Bible without aid from other persons? A. I would not say that a person will be lost because he is not sup- plied with a teacher in the Word of God. A person will not be lost for that reason ; but he may have need of instruction in the essential principles of the gospel that, so far as faith is concerned, he may have faith in its statements and requirements. The province of a minister is to furnish men and members of the church the right doctrine. Now, that is the reason why it is necessary to have a teacher. Q. There is no doubt that teachers are useful, but are they necessary with the Bible in one's own hand? A. Through preaching any person who is deprived of the use of a book is enabled to become informed and acquainted with the questions which it discusses. Q. Mr. Smith, will you give a more complete doctrine than that in the Bible A. Did you ask me to announce a more complete doctrine? Q. Yes, sir; is there a more complete doctrine than that which is found in the Bible? A. No, sir. Q. You believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works " ? A. That is correct. Q. That is good doctrine ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You consider that good doctrine? A. Yes, sir ; that is correct and I believe it, it is in accordance with all the points I have stated. Q. Well, do you mean to receive that as orthodox ? A. I believe that doctrine, I believe that Q. And you accept it ? A. I concur with that, and I think it is orthodox, of course. Q. Mr. Smith, if the Bible is sufficient to enlighten a man as to salva- tion, and to enable him to find the way to eternal life and to keep him in it, what becomes of the necessity of believing that doctrine which you have testified to as necessary to orthodoxy, that of the miraculous impact of the personal Spirit upon the soul to change the nature of a man ? A. Sir? Q. Now, Mr. Smith, you have given two points upon which you think the Christian Church is not orthodox. Will you now please state all of the points upon which you think this Church is not orthodox? But I will ask you if you think all the churches concur upon the doctrine of the Trinity as you have stated it? A. So far as I know. I do not pretend to know only from what I have heard members of the different denominations say. There may be persons who are unsound upon this as well as upon other principles, or subjects, or belief; but I don't know, however. Q. Mr. Smith, if a person be right so far as his doctrine is concerned in the main, do you make a test of the belief in the doctrine of the Trin- ity as you have expounded it? I desire you to state to the jury, in regard to keeping members in the Church, if one be right in other things, whether or not he is to be required to accept the principles of the doctrine of the Trinity as you have stated them. A. I frequently do so, so far as I think it is necessary to ascertain one's belief upon it. Q. Mr. Smith, you may now state what other doctrine or belief is held by the Christian Church, which you regard as not being orthodox state it, if you please. A. The belief which I understand them to hold in relation to the doc- trine of human depravity is an additional one. Q. What do you understand to be the teaching of the Christian Church upon that subject? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. I understand the teaching of the Christian Church to be that the human race is not, in consequence of the sin of Adam, so bereft of right- eousness and so debased in its moral condition but that men may renew their life without the supernatural agency in their conversion ; that by the effect of the fall, through death and its circumstances and relations, Adam's condemnation in a certain sense has come upon the human race, and in consequence any one is liable to sin, but that this condemnation does not extend to the perversion of the moral nature nor that the cor- ruption of the moral nature is derived hereditarily from the forefathers. Q. Mr. Smith, do you understand the Christian Church to reject the fall of Adam and his condemnation ? A. No, sir ; not in that sense. Q. Do you understand that Church to teach any more than that by the sin of Adam the human race is condemned ? A. I understand that Church to teach that by Adam's sin men are condemned to death; but that does not cover the ground. It is to that part of the question to which I referred. Q. Do you not understand the Christian Church to believe that it is through the atonement of Christ, and through the Word of God through the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, men may be led to repentance and to become Christians? A. I understand that it teaches that, in consequence of the atonement, a man may be reconciled and brought into relation with God ; but that a person is not contaminated by hereditary sin, that he is not in a state of depravity, as I would regard it. Q. That is your idea, is it : not that the Church does not believe that man is depraved in his nature, but that it rejects the supernatural agency ? A. No, sir ; that is not the idea. It is this, that the supernatural agency is required for the depraved nature. Q. What agency that is supernatural do orthodox denominations, so- called, believe in besides the agencies of the blood of Christ, and the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart in connection with the Word of God ? A. I think your statement does not permit of an explanation. Q. Put it just as you understand it. Answer the question. A. In what sense ? Q. It is certainly plain enough; you can consider the questions just as you understand them. Here is the question: "What agency that is supernatural do orthodox denominations, so-called, believe in besides the agencies of the blood of Christ, and the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart in connection with the Word of God?" Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. if 5 A. For one, the influence of the Holy Spirit, which I understand to be promised that direct agency or energy that is brought to bear upon the soul : so the renewing influence is a condition of the atonement. I have already made an explanation of that statement. The whole Scriptures teach us that the stone that the builders rejected has come to be the chief corner. Q. Then this direct impact supernatural agency upheaving and turn- ing upside down the moral nature of man is the chief corner of orthodoxy, is it ? When you speak of the supernatural agency, believed in by ortho- dox denominations, is it what I have just stated to you? A. The only answer I would give upon the subject of divine agency is, that I regard it as being necessary to a recognized orthodox faith. However, I would make the explanation that it must be guarded against in explaining the influence it might be explained to be something else. Q. What do you understand to be that influence, Mr. Smith ? A. What do you say? Q. What do you undarstand to be that influence? A. I understand it to be that agency that operates upon the heart of a man in his conversion. Q. Well, now, using it in that sense, what do you say to my question '* A. I would say that it is not sufficient. Q. That is not answering my question. My question was : "What agency that is supernatural do orthodox denominations, so-called, believe in besides the agencies of the blood of Christ, and the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart in connection with the Word of God?" A. I do not understand your question. Q. What other supernatural agency do the orthodox denominations believe in, in the conversion of persons, other than those I have named ? A. Not any other. Q. Now, we will take your definition I have accepted your defini- tion is there any other ? A. I said, taking the correct view of that definition, it is sufficient. The Scriptures, and the orthodox teaching, assert that that influence is ex- erted in the salvation of a soul. Q. Mr. Smith, I asked you what other influence there is ; will you please state it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, do you say that there is any other influence except the Word of ^od and the Holy Spirit ? A. No, sir ; there is not any other influence. Q. Now, take it as you say: you spoice about the supernatural agency 7 A. Yes, sir. 176 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. I want to know what other supernatural agency there is believed in. A. There is not any other agency, except that of the Holy Spirit, in connection with the blood of the Saviour. My understanding is, that it is the agency of the Holy Spirit that was promised. The word "influence" might require a definition. Taking it alone, without its safeguards, the term " agency " might mean more than "influence." There are revealed energies or powers requiring it to mean more that the word "influence." Taking it from that standpoint, and in that sense, the word might mean, and be understood to mean more. Q. Then you say the word is used differently than in its common tense, do you ? A. The word "influence" is not the word I would use. Q. I put this question to you : Has any one ever heard the word in- fluence used to mean something else? A. That is only an exception I have answered you that already. I do not regard the word "influence "as expressing the same as the term "divine energy;" and that is requisite. Q. What word will express it, Mr. Smith? A. What word instead of the word influence ? Q. Yes, sir. A. Well, some such term as " renewing energy." Q. Renewing energy. Well, then, putting it in that way, what super- natural agency is there that orthodox denominations believe in other than the atoning efficacy of the blood of Christ, the " renewing energy" of the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God? A. I think that that is what is promised. The atonement of the blood of Christ to save men, or procure their salvation. It affects men's relation, regenerates the soul, and changes the spiritual condition. It thus pro- cures pardon, because the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. It is Q. What has that to do with the supernatural agency ? I am trying to find out that. A. The supernatural agency, or the renewing energy, of the Holy Spirit? . Q. If a man believe in that, is he orthodox ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Yes, sir. Now do you say that the Christian Church does not be- lieve in the renewing agency of the Holy Spirit? A. I do not understand the teaching of that Church to mean that the soul is renewed. Q. Do you know whether it does or does not, as a Church? A. If it does, a different term is used in teaching it than the word I have used. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. iff Q. Do you know anything about the doctrines of the Church as taught ut there at Salem on the Haw-Patch ? A. Only just so far as I have investigated its faith and doctrines. I understand it to be taught by its preachers that the word " conversion " does not mean the exercise of the renewing energy of the Holy Spirit upon the soul ; that it is only the operation of the revelation which God has given, and not the exercise of the renewing energy of the Spirit. Q. Now, you say that the members of the Christian Church do not be- lieve in the doctrine of human depravity, do you ? A. Sir? Q. Do you say that they do not believe in the doctrine of human depravity? A. I understand the members of that Church to deny the doctrine of human depravity, in the sense in which I have denned it in the sense in which men are involved in the extraordinary circumstances and relations of the fall. What I understand to be orthodox teaching in regard to hu- man depravity is this: That the corrupt and perverted condition of the moral faculties of the soul comes through hereditary transmission from the fall of the race, through parent to child, the same as the other qualities of our parents are transmitted; and that it is this hereditary perversion and corruption of the moral nature that requires the renewing energy of the Holy Ghost. Q. If perversion and corruption of the moral nature is transmitted by hereditary descent, and if it require the renewing energy of the Holy Ghost to transform this hereditary corruption and perverted moral nature if no power short of the supernatural, miraculous power of the Holy Ghost can do this why did not the Holy Ghost lay right hold of Adam and change his moral nature, so that all his descendants might have had transmitted hereditarily to them, instead of a perverted and corrupt one, a pure and correct moral nature? The work would have been a much smaller one, and would have been just as effectual as the one which the Spirit now has on his hands, according to your statement of orthodox doc- trine upon this point. A. Sir? Q. What other doctrine, held by the Christian Church, can you desig- nate that is not orthodox ? A. What other doctrine? Q. Yes, sir. A. Another doctrine is this: It is taught, as I have been led to un- derstand it, that regeneration and baptism by immersion are one and the tame thing, being so intimately related that they can not be separated one from the other that baptism by immersion is regeneration. ij8 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Mr. Smith, do you understand that this Church holds a person can not be saved without baptism by immersion? A. I understand that Church to hold, and I would direct my remarks to this one point, that being born again is to be baptized by immersion, and that this does not apply to a person in any other sense. Q. Mr. Smith, is it not true that the Methodist Church, and the Lu- theran Church, and the other churches, hold, as a part of their doctrine, that baptism is one of the commandments to be obeyed ? A. Certainly, baptism is a commandment. Q. I will ask you if any of these will admit a person into their churches without baptism? A. I did not hear every word distinctly. Q. I asked you if the Methodist Church, or any of the churches the so-called orthodox denominations will admit persons to become members without baptism ? A. That is one of the conditions of membership. I understand the Methodist Churches do ; and especially the Methodist Episcopal Church I can speak particularly for it requires baptism as one of the conditions of admission to its membership. Q. I will ask you, Mr. Smith, if orthodox denominations do not teach that baptism is necessary to salvation ? A. In what sense ? Q. Mr. Smith, there can be no different senses. Now, then, I will repeat the question : Do they not teach that baptism is necessary to salva- tion? A. If I must say yes or no, I say no. Q. I will ask you, sir, if that is not one of the doctrines of the Lu- theran Church? Here are the words: "My church teaches that baptism is necessary to salvation." A. What authority have you there ? Q. To the Lutheran Church, sir ; what do you say ? A. What do you ask in regard to that? Q. I ask you if the Lutheran Church does not teach that doctrine in this very language: "My church teaches that baptism is necessary to salvation"? A. I have never had any occasion to refer to the articles of the Lu- theran Church upon that subject, so I am unable to speak upon that unless you will permit me to state what the ministers say in regard to it I can speak understandingly with regard to the ministers of the Lutheran Church. Q. I will ask you, sir, if the Presbyterian Church does not hold that baptism is a commandment of the New Testament, ordained originally by the Lord Jesus Christ in the commission? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. I say that the sinful soul is given redemption and remission of sins through the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the command of Christ to be bap- tized for the remission of sins as promised in His truth in His Word. Q. So, then, that doctrine is taught ? A. Yes, sir; I so understand it. Q. Then, is that orthodox doctrine? A. I have never heard of a person putting the test of orthodoxy upon that subject. Q. I will ask you if your own Church does not teach that doctrine ? Does not your own Church teach that "except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God " ? A. We teach that, word for word. Q. Yes, sir? A. That is Scripture, and it is accepted, of course, by the Methodist Church. We do not accept every possible interpretation that might be given it not every interpretation that might be put upon the words. Q. Mr. Smith, if a person were to apply to your Church for member- ship, and he would refuse to be baptized, would he be received into the Church ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you understand the Christian Church to claim anything more in its teaching upon this subject than "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned "? Do you understand the Church to teach anything more than that ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, what is it? A. That baptism carries with it a saving efficacy. Q. That what ? A. That it has a saving efficacy, Q. What is that ? A. That baptism carries with it a saving efficacy that there is a sav- ing efficacy in baptism. Q. What representative men of the Christian Church ever taught that ? A. All that I have ever heard preach upon the subject of baptism, without any exception, have conveyed that idea to me upon the question. Q. Do n't you know that Mr. Campbell did not teach that doctrine ? A. No, sir ; I do not know that. Q. Do n't you know that Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Mr. Rice, said: "You have heard me say here ( and the whole country may have read it and heard it many a time), that a seven-fold immersion in the river Jordan, or any other water, without a previous change of heart, "will avail nothing, without a genuine faith and penitence. Nor would most strict i8o Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. conformity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church order ; the most exact observance of all the ordinances, without personal faith, piety, and moral righteousness without a new heart, hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit any man in reference to eternal salvation." ( Campbell and Rice, p. 678.) Again: "While we regard immersion, or Christian bap- tism, as a wise, benevolent, and useful institution, we neither disparage, nor underrate, a new heart, repentance, or faith ; nay, we teach with great clearness and definiteness, that, unpreceded by faith and repentance, it is of no value whatsoever. These two constitute a change of heart, a mental conversion ; for all believing penitents have a new heart, and are prepared for being born into the kingdom of God." (Campbell and Rice, p. 555.) Again, Mr. Campbell says: "The outward act, then, is but the symbol of the transition, inward and spiritual, by which our souls are bathed in that ocean of love, which purifies our persons, and makes them one with the Lord. Without this, being born of water, or being connected with a church, is nothing worse than nothing. Hence, without previous knowl- edge, faith, and repentance, immersion into the name, etc., is a mere out- ward and unprofitable ceremony. Hence my opposition to infant baptism ; and hence my opposition to adult baptism, without a previous knowledge of the gospel." (Campbell and Rice, p. 493.) A. If I understand his teaching, men come to the requisite require- ments of the atonement by baptism. Those statements do not conflict if I understand those statements, they do not conflict with the statement I have made. Q. Did n't Mr. Campbell, as quoted from page 555 above, teach that baptism is of no value -whatsoever -wJien unpreceded by faith and repentance ? A. I do not call in question that he used that language. Q. Mr. Smith, is it possible to put a plain proposition in language so as to have it imply an obscure meaning, so that some other meaning must be attached to it than what a man says? A. I think it is complex in its terms. Rhetorically, it may be made to have a different explanation. Q. You seem to have been studying to give Mr. Campbell's plainest statements rhetorical explanations. Do you see anything "complex" in that statement? A. The teaching upon that subject is different from other authors. Q. Mr. Smith, how is it about this: "By baptism, we who were 'by nature children of wrath,' are made the children of God. And this re- generation which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith ; being grafted into the body of Christ's Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.' This is grounded on the Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 181 plain words of our Lord, ' Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.' (John iii. 5.) By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the Apostle, 'the washing of regenera- tion.' Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward wash- ing, but to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament." ( Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 248-9.) What do you say to that? A. Will you read the last clause again ? Q. "Nor does she ascribe it to outward washing, but to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament." A. I would like to hear you reaJ sentence or two back of that : I did pot get to hear it all. Q. Yes, sir; I will read it again "By baptism, we who were 'by nature children of wrath,' are made the children of God. And this re- generation which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being 'grafted into the body of Christ's Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.' This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, ' Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.' (John iii. 5.) By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is called by the Apostle, 'the washing of regeneration.' Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament." What do you say to that? A. What is the question ? Q. I want to know whether there is any "complexity" in that doctrine? A. I think that there is an incorrectness in the formulation of the statement. Q. You think the formulation is incorrect? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, what about this: " By baptism we are admitted into the Church, and consequently made members of Christ, its head. The Jews were admitted into the Church by circumcision, so are the Christians by baptism " ? ( Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts, p. 248.) How is that ? A. That is unsound. Q. Then of this: "What are the benefits we receive by baptism? is the next point to be considered. And the first of these is, the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death " ? ( Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts, p. 2464 182 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. That is incorrect and unsound. Q. Well, [the counsel lightly thsowing the book down in front of the opposing counsel] that is Mr. John Wesley in his Doctrinal Tracts. A. Taken alone, out of their connection, and without a further expla- nation, they do not express Mr. Wesley's own idea. Q. (By Mr. Owen, one of the counsel for the plaintiff.) John Wes- ley's Doctrinal Tracts were published by the official action of the Method- ist Church. Isn't that true, Mr. Smith? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are the teachings set forth in Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts, published by the authority of the Methodist Church, a true statement of the Method- ist doctrine of baptism? Or have you read them, and are you informed? Do you think those statements are right, or are they incorrect statements? A. Taken abstractly, there are statements that would not be correct ; but, taking Mr. Wesley's teachings as a whole, they show how he called baptism the washing away of the original sin. Q. Yes, sir ? A. That is not the true Wesleyan doctrine, such as a minister would want to accept; that would not express the doctrine of the Methodist Church, when the statements are not taken in their connection. Q. "And the virtue of this free gift, the merits of Christ's life and death are applied to us in baptism. ' He gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word,' (Eph. v. 25, 26); namely, in baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification. Agreeably to this, our Church prays in the baptismal office, that the person to be baptized may be 'washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, being delivered from God's wrath, receive remission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of the heavenly washing.' " ( Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts, p. 247.) Do you think that that is not a fair statement of the doctrine? A. If it were to be taken without a just explanation, it would be lia- ble to be understood in more senses than one; but, if it be understood in connection with the whole teaching throughout and the proper explana- tion, it is correct. It might be confounded, in many instances, with this heavenly washing. This heavenly washing is the true spiritual regenera- tion of the Holy Spirit in removing the contaminations of the soul; and the water, as I understand it, metaphorically speaking, is the heavenly or divine application. Q. It is ? Does not the Methodist Church teach, and did not Wesley do so too, that baptism is the washing of regeneration ; that by it those who are "by nature children of wrath" are made the children of God; that to it is ascribed more than barely being admitted into the Church; Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. i8j :hat except a man bo born of the water, and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God" is not that the doctrine of your Church? A. Yes, sir; that expresses the doctrine of our Church; yet it is lia- ble, when taken without an explanation, to import something contrary to the sound meaning or understanding. Q. Then, Mr. Smith, if a man subscribed to that doctrine throughout, he is orthodox in that respect, is he not ? A. If he subscribe to it in the sense accepted as the plain doctrine of the Church, he would be. Q. Well, if you were to accept it in the plain meaning of the words the plain ordinary meaning of the words would you call him orthodox in that respect ? A. Well, yes; but I state this reservation: lean not accept all the interpretations that might be put upon those words. This washing of re- generation, as understood by the teachers of our Church, illustrates the operation or work of the Holy Spirit upon the soul. That baptism is the washing of regeneration is merely teaching metaphorically the application of the Holy Spirit it is used metaphorically in that sense in the expres- sion and in that connection. To say that the meaning of the application of the water is imitative, is incorrect and must be rejected. Q. Mr. Smith, does not the Disciples' Church, in relation to this sub' ject of baptism, adopt the scriptural teaching upon it ? A. I suppose they do, if they take nothing but the Scripture teach- ing upon it. Q. I will ask you if it gives any other than the ordinary meaning to the words of the Scriptures in interpreting them ? A. Any other explanation ? I would say so. Q. Now, then, what do you say to this? "You may have heard me say here (and the whole country may have read it and heard it many a time), that a seven-fold immersion in the river Jordan, or any other water, without a previous change of heart, in ill avail nothing, without a genuine faith and repentance. Nor would the most strict conformity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church order ; the most exact observance of all the ordinances, without personal faith, piety, and moral righteousness without a new heart, hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit any man in refer- ence to eternal salvation. "We are represented, because of the emphasis laid upon some ordi- nances, as though we made a savior of rites and ceremonies as believing in water regeneration, and in the saving efficacy of immersion ; and as looking no further than to these outward bodily acts; all of which is just as far from the truth and from our views, as transubstantiation and purga- tory. I have, indeed, no faith in conversion by the Word without the 184. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Spirit ; nor by the Spirit without the Word. The Spirit is ever present with the Word, in conversion and in sanctification. A change of heart is essen- tial to a change of character, and both are essential to admission into the kingdom of God. 'Without holiness no man shall enjoy God.' Though as scrupulous as a Pharisee, in tithing mint, anise, and cummin, and rigid to the letter in all observances, without those moral excellencies usually called righteousness and holiness, no man can be saved eternally; ' for the unrighteous shall not enter the kingdom of God.'" (Campbell and Rice, p. 678.) Now, Mr. Smith, isn't that just as genuine doctrine as the Methodist Church has ever given, either in its Discipline or in its other teachings just as genuine in every respect? A. That statement, without any other explanation, would not mean "the heavenly washing." Q. Isn't that statement just as clear and just as orthodox doctrine as was ever expressed? A. Yes, sir; in the main, it is orthodox. Q. I repeat my question : Is not that statement as correct and *s or- thodox as any statement of doctrine that has ever been made? A. Weil, it does not express the full theory ; and 1 would not call it fully orthodox, because it does not express " the heavenly washing." Q. Just state where it is unorthodox? A. You will find that the statement in reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit is unorthodox. Q. Now sir, again: Does not that statement set forth just as clearly and just as well the truth as any of your teachings? A. Yes, sir ; that is, some of the sentences can be taken that way. Q. Mr. Smith, I take it that a minister of the gospel would want to would try to answer a matter correctly when he is called upon to give the truth. A. Those statements, in some phases, are correct- Q. Please answer the question. A. But they are not correct in all their provisions. Q. But I asked the question : Is not that statement just as plain and explicit a statement of the truth as your own Church gives in the Disci- pline, or in the Doctrinal Tracts? A. I do not think it mentions everything it recognizes a part of them. As a standard of faith concerning baptism and the relation of t sinner, I can not say so. Q. But upon the subject of "the washing of regeneration," upon the subject of the efficacy of baptism, does it not express as explicitly the or- thodox truth as your Church does in the Doctrinal Tracts? A. As I have already said, so far as it goes, it is not objectionable. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. /n the Scriptures. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. You quote it in a different application ? Do you mean to say that baptism is not for the remission of past sins in any of the shades of mean- ing of that phrase? A. It looks like it was not given for that. Q. Will you answer the question : Does that statement in any and all of its shades of meaning, as read, bear on its face that Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins? Is not that what the language plainly imports? A. As Q. Please answer the question, Mr. Smith. You answered Mr. Glas- gow very frequently that baptism for remission of sins is not orthodox. I desire that you answer my question, and I intend that you shall do it. I have asked you quite frequently whether or not you understand the ex- pression "Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins" to be any- thing only what the plain ordinary language imports? A. Not so far as the ordinance of baptism is concerned. Q. Yes, sir. Now, then, when Peter says, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," do you understand that Peter did not mean that baptism was for the remission of past sins? Now, please answer my question, yes or no. A. I think that that was included in its relation to the results. Q. Yes, sir ; you do think that Peter meant and included past sins in his statement ? A. As a result. Q. Mr. Witness, there is no use of equivocating around about tht statement. (The defendant objects to the manner of the examination.) Q. I want a fair answer when I ask whether or not Peter did not mean and include the remission of sins of past sins as the purpose of baptism, and I mean to have it. (Objection was made to this question, but it was repeated.) Q. When Peter says, " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," do you not understand him to be referring to past sins ? A. I do not deny it. Q. Will you answer my question ? Do you understand him to be re- ferring to past sins ? A. Yes, sir ; he included them in his meaning. Q. Then was Peter orthodox, or was he not orthodox ? ' (To this question objection was made.) Q. Then, is that which I have read from the New Testament ortho- dox doctrine? /pc? Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. That which you read from the New Testament is orthodox, yet it is subject to interpretation that might not be. Q. Whose interpretation yours or mine; that which is the plain im- port of the words, or that which is not? Mr. Smith, if you understand that Peter meant, when he gave the command to be baptized to the Pen- tecostans, that baptism was to be for the remission of past sins, is it heter- odoxy when the Christian Church affirms the proposition that baptism is for the remission of past sins ? A. Do you ask me that, that I may prove baptism is not for past sins? Q. Yes, sir; if you can. A. On what theory that doctrine is heterodox ? Q. Yes, sir. A. " Baptized for the remission of sins" does not denote that it is by baptism, but indicates the relation which baptism sustains to us. When we come unto Christ, and are pardoned of past sins, it holds a specific place ; for it is true that we must receive the ordinance of baptism in ac- cordance with Christ's institution of it. It was instituted according to the divine faith which brought with it the remission of sins, and we meet this remission of sins, as the result of faith, in the act of baptism a result of exercising it in this ordinance. While baptism is designated as a true ordinance, yet in its import it does not mean that it is for the remission of past sins. Now, if we were surrounded by the proper explanations I would say it was for the remission of sins; but by the divine command of Christ it is not truly specified that baptism, in its import, is for the remis- sion of past sins, because it denotes the washing of regeneration which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit that is, I would say if a soul were to come into the kingdom of God, that it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit that the soul is converted and sanctified, and then by this ordinance it comes into near relation with God. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, when Peter demanded Christian baptism for the remission of past sins, was it right? Is that orthodox? A. Yes, sir ; it is orthodox so far as it goes and in its proper relation. Q. When Peter says it, it is orthodox doctrine ? A. It is orthodox doctrine, if it is not misapplied. Q. But when a member of the Christian Church states it, it is not orthodox is that your proposition ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you please state how it was you answered the counsel when he read to you the proposition with reference to this from Mr. Campbell'* debate when he asked you if a church that believes that baptism is / the remission of past sins is orthodox? A. I did not mean in its complete import. Our Orthodoxy in tJie Civil Courts. Q. You meant that it is not orthodox in its complete import; that is, speaking of orthodox doctrine? A. So far as that expression has any bearing, it does not import that. Q. Mr. Witness, how does it come that you did not make that expla- nation when Mr. Glasgow asked you if baptism for the remission of past sins is orthodox, and you said it is not orthodox doctrine? A. It is not orthodox. Q. Just as it is. Mr. Witness, what is the use of saying that ? I un- derstand certain things. Just state in your own language, do you say that it is orthodox doctrine or not that is, that Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins? A. It is orthodox, so far as it goes. Q. That is what I asked you : is Christian baptism for the remission of past sins? Do you now say that that is orthodox? A. I have given what I understand to be the theory ; and when you say that Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins, I can not ac- cept that as orthodox. Q. In the statement as I asked you, "Is Christian baptism for the re- mission of past sins?" do you say that is orthodox or not? A. That Christian baptism is for remission of past sins ? Q. Yes, sir. A. Now I want to know if you mean Q. Take it just as it is here. Q. (By the Court.) Just as you would ordinarily understand the words in that connection. A. Will you please ask the question again ? Q. This is the proposition, that Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. Now, taking the language as the words would plainly im- port, is that orthodox doctrine or unorthodox doctrine ? A. It is not orthodox, taken absolutely away from the Scriptures. Q. Then, sir, the doctrine of Peter, when he said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," is not orthodox, is it? A. That is correct, because it is in its connection. Q. Now, sir, I repeat, just state whether or not the proposition I read from Peter, that baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins, imports past sins but you have already stated that to the jury. Now, then, I will ask you if that proposition of Peter's is orthodox? A. The proposition that Peter made is orthodox, because it stands in its connection. Q. Well, sir, just take it as it is, standing alone, what do you say 200 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. about it ? what do you say about it, taking that verse alone just as Peter said it? A. I have never taken that portion alone. Q. (By the Court.) He asks you to do that now, and give your opinion. A. If you want me to give my opinion, I will say that Peter is correct. Q. That is the question; taking that verse the thirty-eighth verse of the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles whether that is an ortho- dox statement. A. That Scriptural statement is an orthodox statement, of course. Q. Mr. Smith A. Of course it must be taken in its common sense application I re- fer to the purpose of baptism. Q. Well, I mean to take it alone, without anything else. A. I submit that that can not be done. Q. (By the Court.) You are to take it alone, of course not consider- ing that it is quoted to you; you are to take the literal meaning of it; you are to take it without anything else: you are to decide upon the matte., and then give your opinion. Q. The purpose of my question is for you to pass your opinion upon it as you would upon any subject that is what I mean. A. The statement, as I have already stated before, is a correct state- ment. Q. Do you mean that it is orthodox ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then, in the proposition that Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins I ask you if that is not orthodox doctrine? A. Yes, sir. Q. Standing alone ; that is, without anything else ? A. I could not understand its import as the teaching of the Bible when it is taken as an extract, and not in connection with the faith. Q. Then, Mr. Witness, when Mr. Glasgow asked, why did you say, without any qualification, that it is not orthodox doctrine? why did n't you qualify it to the jury without being called upon? A. Mr. Glasgow asked me (To this question objection was made.) Q. Now, take Peter's statement again: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Does that mean to repent for the remission of sins, and then to be baptized for the remission of sins? (To this question objection was made.) Q. Mr. Witness, what do you say to the proposition, that Christian Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 201 Baptism is for the remission of sins do you say that it is unorthodox, standing alone and unconnected? A. It is orthodox, as announced in the Bible. Q. Is it orthodox, unqualified as it is there ? A. Yes, sir; it is as it is announced there. Q. Well, Christian baptism is for the remission of sins is that an orthodox statement? A. As it is, the declaration does not embody faith, it does not refer to it ; and it is faith that operates to purify the heart, and not baptism. Q. (By the Court.) You are not to take it that way, but you are to give your opinion of it as it is without anything else. A. That is, the Spirit operates with it and through faith in that connection the theory is correct, but the promise independent is not orthodox. Q. That is not the proposition. But take this: "And now, why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." (Acts xxii. 16.) What do you say about that? A. As far as it is a Bible truth, it is correct. Q. Well, is there any difference between saying, "Arise and be bap- tized and wash away thy sins," and the proposition, "Christian baptism is for the remission of sins"? A. What is that question ? I believe I passed upon that. Q. Now, Mr. Witness, to the first proposition that " the immersion in water of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the one, only apostolic or Christian baptism." Now, I desire to know if you accept that as the proper baptism for the remission of sins the immersion in water into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit whether or not you regard that as proper baptism ? A. Sir? Q. With reference to baptism being by immersion in water, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit : do you say that that is not orthodox doctrine ? A. Not exclusively by immersion. Q. Now, Mr. Witness, I will ask you if all the branches of the Baptist Church in the United States do not hold that baptism is to be by immer- sion? A. I did not understand the statement. Q. I asked you, sir, whether or not the whole Baptist denomination all of them in this country and in England does not hold that immersion in the water of the proper subject into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the one and only baptism Christian baptism ? 2O2 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. I believe that is held in the Baptist Church. Q. Now, do you say that the Baptist Church is not an orthodox de- nomination? A. In some things it is right. To have one point wrong does not necessarily exclude the Church as heterodox. In regard to the genera} statement of faith, I should regard it as orthodox ; but, in that one poinv, it is not right. Q. Then, if the Christian Church has recognized immersion as the only baptism, if it be right in the cardinal points, it is orthodox ; soicl you would not exclude it ? A. No, sir; if it were right on the points I have considered. Q. Then, so far as the holding of the belief that immersiow is \he omy Christian baptism is concerned, you would not make that thb test whether or not a church be an orthodox one, would you ? A. In its general acceptation, I say I would not exclude; a church so far as that part of the proposition is concerned. Q. The proposition is this, Mr. Smith: You would not make that the test of a denomination's orthodoxy that you would not make the be- lief that immersion is the only baptism the one and only test of orthodoxy ; that you would not exclude a church as heterodox on that account. Would you want to make that the test ? A. Not the exclusive test. Q. Then you would not say that, believing that immersion is the one and only Christian baptism, a denomination would thereby be made heter- odox, would you ? A. I would take them to be heterodox in that particular. Q. You understand my question I know you do. You do not make that the exception? Where a denomination holds that belief you still re- gard them as orthodox ? A. It might be in general. Q. It might be orthodox do you say that to the jury? A. It might be in general. Q. Take this proposition : " The infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism." I will ask you if the entire Baptist denom- ination does not reject that doctrine? A. I understand they do, sir. Q. Do you mean to hold that the acceptance of that doctrine is to be the test of orthodoxy, when you speak generally of the test of ortho- doxy? A. I submit that it signifies in regard to Christian teaching, so far as these things being a test is concerned, that in these things it is not sound- not correct in its manner of Christian teaching. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 203 Q. Yes, sir ; but take the general class of denominations that are con- sidered orthodox, would they be excluded because they, for some reason, might reject that belief? A. If they were orthodox in their belief, they would be recognized in the general sense of the word as orthodox ; but as heterodox in that particular. Q. The fourth proposition, that "baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained presbyter " that proposition you say is not orthodox ? A. No, sir ; I consider that proposition as orthodox. Q. You told me in your examination hefore that you regarded the Quakers as orthodox, did you not? A. Not in every particular. Q. Did I understand you to define the word "orthodox"? As I un- derstand the meaning of the word, it signifies right opinion; but when you speak of it from one stand-point you say that no one is orthodox except persons who believe as you do. Please give me a more specific definition of the term. Do you say there are no persons, according to your opinion, who are fully orthodox in other denominations? Is that the way I under- stand you ? A. Yes, sir. I would not say that they are not right ; but in order that they be orthodox, they must believe in the essential principles of sal- vation as I have given them. They must believe in the existence and be- ing of God they must believe in His person and existence. Q. Now, to the other proposition: " In conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God operates on persons only through the word of truth." You say that that is not orthodox ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why not? A. Because the Spirit of God operates on the human mind often in- dependent of the word in other words, in addition to the operation of the word. The word is the instrument, coupled with the operation of the Spirit the Spirit can operate through the word, but it can operate with- out it, and independent of it. Q. Mr. Smith, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." (John i. i, 2.) Does the Spirit of God ever operate independent of that Word? (To this question objection was made.) Q. I will ask you, sir, if the Spirit of God does ever operate except through the Word in conversion and sanctification does the Spirit operate en the person in any other way than through the Word' 204. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. A. Just repeat the question again. Q. Does not the Spirit of God operate upon persons in conversion and sanctification through the Word ? A. The Spirit of God does often operate through the Word. Q. Yes, sir. A. But, as I explained before, it may operate independent of the Word. Q. It depends upon what you mean. Do you mean that it oper- ates independent of the Word as that term is used in the first chapter of John? A. No, sir ; I do not understand the term, as used in the gospel of St. John, to be synonymous with the gospel " in the beginning was the Word," in that connection the term "Word" does not mean the gospel. Q. But is not that Word understood to be the Son of God ? and has not God spoken to men by his Son in the gospel ? Now, if the Spirit does not operate independent of the Son who sent Him (the Spirit), how can it be said that the Spirit operates independent of His Word when He, Him- self, is the Great Word who was in the beginning with God ? Can it not as consistently be said that the Spirit of God operates independent of God ? But to the remaining proposition: "Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical." You say that that is not orthodox doctrine. Now, if a man believe right, in regard to the essentials of Christianity as taught and included in the New Testa- ment, would you say he is not orthodox because he docs not believe in the human creed? If he truly believe the right doctrine, llie divine revela- tion of the New Testament, independent of the human creed, do you say he is not orthodox ? A. It would be almost impossible to answer that question it is a conundrum. Q. The belief of the right doctrine, that is the test of orthodoxy is it not, Mr. Smith? A, Yes, sir. Q. Well, the fundamental source of that doctrine is the Bible, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, if he believe the Bible, he is orthodox, is he not? A. Certainly. Q. Then do you make the necessary acceptance of human creeds the test of orthodoxy, so-called orthodoxy? or do you make that test what he believes as taught in the Bible? A. 1 understand the answer the answer which I made touching that question is that what it imports that proposition is certainly heterodox. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 205 I said that the affirmation is not orthodox, because there might be what are termed hiynan creeds which are simply formulas of doctrines and duties drawn from the Bible, and which express the fundamental principles of faith and obedience as found in the Bible. To accept these is necessary; I regard it as necessary. Q. What did you mean in your reexamination when you said that a man who said that human creeds are not necessary, but are heretical and schismatical, is not orthodox ? Do you say that, if the same doctrine be found in the Bible, it is not true doctrine? What do you say to it? Do you make orthodoxy turn upon the submission to human creeds, or upon a be- lief of the true doctrine as taught in the Bible ? A. The formulated test might be necessary, so far as belief in the Bible is concerned. Q. Mr. Smith, did you not imply in what you said yesterday that the Episcopal Creed was the only test of orthodoxy? A. I told you that it is, taken without explanation. Q. Yes, sir ; taken without explanation. A. Without any explanation. Q. Yes, sir. Now, then, what about this proposition which contends for nothing more than that human creeds, taken without any explanation, are necessarily heretical and schismatical ? A. It is not taking the human creeds, but that which they include. If a person believe that, it would be a sufficient acceptation of the right faith. Q. Do you test any one's faith by his belief of the doctrines of the Bible? or if he reject all human creeds may he not still be orthodox? Be- cause he does not believe the creeds, that does not necessarily make him heterodox, does it? Now, I will ask you if you take this view of the matter : Do you want to still hold to the proposition that a person who disbelieves in human creeds is not orthodox if, at the same time, he accept the doctrine of the New Testament? A. I can only answer that question by saying that perhaps a person might believe in the Bible, and still by his formulated statement, drawn from the Bible, I could not regard his faith in the Bible as genuine. Q. Then, Mr. Smith, taking that to be the case, there must be some- thing more than the Bible for a man to believe, in order to be orthodox? A. No, sir; I will explain that by saying, we must have statements of faith in almost the same expression to understand what is said about the Bible by others. Q. That is, you say that human creeds are sufficient for his belief is that it ? A. That very form necessarily contradicts the statement 206 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. Then there must be something besides the Bible, and something besides the human creeds, in order to constitute orthodoxy? A. No, sir; I do not think that, if you please. Q. Then, you say the creed expresses it. Well, there is no other creed which the Protestant churches will adopt, except the Episcopal Creed, as the expression of belief? A. The others are to be explained ; and it depends upon the definition, the explanation, in order to agree. Q. Mr. Smith, does the Methodist Episcopal Church adopt the Epis- copal Creed ? A. Oh! certainly it does not adopt that creed in every exposition that may be given of it. It does not accept it in the light of the explanatory statements of its matter which may be made by other denominations. In some of the implications, for myself, I would want to know and under- stand all that it might mean in its qualifications. I do not know that I would care to know all the facts ; I would take the truth in general, unless there were something that would seem to imply different. Q. Mr. Smith, is not the proposition true as it has been stated, that human creeds are necessarily heretical and schismatical ? Is not this prop- osition true, because you say that they require explanation; and do not these explanations necessarily generate schisms? Look at the Methodist Church : how many schisms have there been ? If they are not necessarily schismatical, why do they have to be explained ? A. I do not so understand it. Q, Mr. Smith, you heard this read yesterday, and I will repeat it : " In conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God operates on persons only through the word of truth." Now I will ask you if you understand that the Holy Spirit operates only miraculously upon the heart ? A. The supernatural agency I do not know, but I think it often works miraculously. Q. Is there any other way that it operates, except through the word of truth and in this miraculous way of which you speak? If so, to what extent do you think it operates other than it is specified, other than it is affirmed and denied, in the proposition before us? After all, I will ask you, taking the whole statement, don't you think it is' orthodox? A. No, sir. Q. Why not ? A. Because the Spirit of God operates upon us directly and upon the faculties of the soul merely miraculously. Q. Mr. Smith, to what extent do you say the Spirit operates in other ways than is affirmed and denied in this proposition ? A. I do not understand these terms. I think they might have been more distinctly designated. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 207 Q. Are not the terms perfectly simple, and can you make them mean anything else ? A. I do not understand that they are, when they are not taken in their connections. INSTRUCTION BY THE COURT TO THE JURY. Gentlemen of the Jury : You will now be permitted to separate until one o'clock p. M. Remember the admonition given you not to talk about this case, nor to form or express any opinion. Court adjourns until one o'clock P. M. THE CLOSING OF THE CASE. JUNE 21, 1883, i o'clock p. M. By the Sheriff: "Oh, yes; oh, yes; oh, yes; the Noble Circuit Court is now in session." The defendants' attorneys now came into court and filed the following REQUEST. "The defendants ask that the Court require the jury to find a special verdict in this cause. W. C. GLASGOW, "J. H. BAKER, " Defendants' Attorneys." Whereupon, the attorneys explaining that they conceded the ortho- doxy of the Christian Church, by order of the court, the jury was dis- charged; and upon the records of the Court the following finding of the Court upon this point was engrossed : THE FINDING OF THE COURT. " That said Christian Church denomination, and the ministers thereof, are orthodox; and that J. H. Edwards, one of the ministers of said Christian Church, was, at said last mentioned date (January, 1883), and still is ready and willing to hold religious services in said building for his denomination." THE REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE. State of Indiana, " Noble County, /" The State of Indiana, on relation of George K. Poyser and William A. King, plaintiff, vs. the Trustees of the Salem Church, etc. I, George A. Yopst, do certify that I was appointed and sworn in said above entitled cause to take in short-hand a Verbatim Report of said case, 208 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. and that, pursuant to the order of the Court, I took a Verbatim Report of said case, and that the above and foregoing is a full, true, and complete transcript of the evidence relative to the orthodoxy of the Christian Church. GEORGE A. YOPST, Stenographer. "AVISE LE FIN." It has been said that, "when the mills of the gods grind, they grind slow but fine." May it not also truly be said that, "when the fire of God's word burns, it burns steady but hot"? If one does not want to be burned, he must keep out of the fire. CHAPTER X. ARGUMENT* BY W. D. OWEN, OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF. GENTLEMEN: You have committed to your trust a case of uncommon importance. Never before in the history of juries has a panel been called upon to decide the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a religious body of people. That such a thing is possible under the eaves of the Twentieth Century, confirms it that something is strangely wrong in the religious world. I believe you are possessed of religious prejudices. Most men are. But when you ascended those steps into that box, you took your seats above bias, in the realm of exact justice, and you will a true verdict give, in the fear of God, and in the love of His truth, according to the testimony rendered. A Methodist Protestant body, known as the Salem Church, in this county of Noble, and State of Indiana, and situated in the country, four miles from Ligonier, owned a church building that was rotting, and a member- ship that was dying. They resolved to build a new meeting-house. The membership, being unable for the task, asked assistance of the community. Friends proffered to assist, provided the house be made free to other relig- ious people. Whereupon it was inserted in the subscription papers for the house, as follows, to-wit: "When the said house is not in use by the Methodist Protestant congregation in its regular worship, then the said house shall be open and free to the services of all other orthodox denomi- nations." Three thousand dollars was raised thereon, fourteen hundred dollars of which came from persons not members of the Methodist Prot- estant Church. Of themselves they raised but one hundred dollars over half. The evidence shows that, after the house was built, J. H. Edwards, of Ligonier, pastor of the Christian Church, preached in it once a month for nearly a year ; he occupied it on Sunday afternoons, at three o'clock, a most difficult hour to obtain a hearing; and that he always had good atten- tion and fine audiences. It has also been disclosed that the audiences of the Rev. Mr. Post, the Salem pastor, were neither good nor fine, and that for the past year they have been working on the problem of a furthe? reduction. * This argument w"s not delivered. 2O9 2 jo Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Last January the Trustees of Salem Chapel notified Mr. Edwards that he could not longer use "their" house, "except on funeral occasions." A member of the Protestant Church, and a gentleman not a member of any church, both, however, on the subscription paper, prayed the Court for a mandamus requiring the doors of Salem Chapel to be opened to J. H. Edwards and his congregation. The Christian Church did not bring this action. Strangers brought it. We would not be known in this case, more than any other religious body, but the defense, in their answer to the complaint, charged that the Christian Church, the Church of Christ, of which J. H. Edwards is a member, was unorthodox in Christian religion, and preached and practiced things not lawful by the Word of God. Their answer makes the ortho- doxy of the Christian Church the issue in action. This brings us to the lead in this trial, by casting the burden of proof on us. We are com- pelled to establish our orthodoxy. We take up the lead in this prosecu- tion with considerable earnestness. We have much at stake. The verdict here rendered will not affect the Protestant Church to any great extent. They are a fragment that has flown off from the Methodist body in its natural revolutions. They have but seventy thousand members in the world, a less number than we have in this State of Indiana alone. They are reckoned as fractions in religious statistics. Under the present aggre- gating tendencies of religious bodies, they will be absorbed and taken finally out of existence by some larger party within a few years ; which is as it should be, for they have never had the least excuse for an existence beyond their plea for lay representation. To us, however, your finding is a matter of large consequence. Our orthodoxy is on trial. Our seven hundred thousand members will go forth from this house " legally " or- thodox, which will be a strength to the divine plea of the "Bible alone," so just in its character, and so valuable an ally in our mission that you will never be able to appreciate the good you have done for the story of the cross; or we shall go forth as heterodox, as unworthy of His high name whom we worship. The baneful shadow of such a verdict would not cease to the ends of the earth, and would hover about the doors of our houses of worship with awful significance. As we assert the orthodoxy of the Christian Church, and the defense denies it, the burden of the proof rests with us. Where shall we find the true standard of church measurement ? You are not to receive the testimony of Mr. Edwards as furnishing that standard. Highly as we may esteem him, his testimony must not be regarded as creating a standard for the church of the living God. We only ask that you accept his testimony as truly point- ing out the faith and practice of the Christian Church. Likewise the ut- terances on the stand of Mr. Chapman, myself, and Mr. Carpenter, were Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 211 not made to erect an orthodox standard, but to establish clearly before your minds what this Church does hold and do. You are to take this solemnly proven position of the plaintiff's church, and place it alongside the infallible standard of Christianity, and see wherein it may vary, or if it fits into its exact measurement without the stroke of a hammer. Neither will you permit this standard to be erected by the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Smith, who is the acknowledged head of the eleven witnesses called for the defense. His testimony that we are unorthodox and heretical, was doubtless the earnest conviction of that venerable gentleman. But this jury, in its justice, will not tie us to the convictions of this witness. He charged many things against us as heretical which it -was his " understand- ing " that we practiced. If you find anything he charged against us as "heretical and unsound" forming a part of our position, then take it and try it by the standard. The utterances of our leading writers and speakers, here introduced, do not establish the standard of orthodoxy. They are only corroborativ* evidence on our faith and practice. Where then shall we find the desired standard? Dr. Smith testified that the great doctrinal points of theology upon which the orthodox churches were agreed, formed the test. And he asserted that differing from them was heresy. These agreed points are the atonement, depravity, impact of the Spirit, and the Trinity. A few of the Protestant chu.clies have made a corner on these elements in transcendental theology, and won't let any one into their orthodox pool unless accepting their state- ments of these four cardinal points. Scarcely any matter what else be preached, the acceptance of these establishes your orthodoxy. These funda- mental points of Messrs. Smith and Post constitute the popular orthodox standard. They have sworn it. Also, these must be received in the form- ulated statements given by the schools. But these are not the standard. They are not the test of Christian fellowship and character. No man has ever been commanded by divine authority to believe in or to obey either of these formulated statements. To enforce them on the soul is impious towards the Head of the church, and subversive of the plan of Divine government. They are the doctrines of scholastic divinity, the vapory fulminations of brains pregnant with the philosophies of theology, but barren of the simple story of him whose life has filled the nations with light, and whose love is bringing a weeping world to his cross. The acceptance of these formu- lated statements can never bring a soul to the presence of its God, nor for- give a single sin. They may be the test of recognition among numerous religious bodies, but they can not decide the fitness of a church to wear the name of the risen Christ. By what authority has any school, or church, or set of churches ever 212 Our Orthodoxy in tlie Civil Courts. set up a standard of orthodoxy? No competent authority has ever au- thorized it. It was a power unasked for in heaven, unassumed in hell, and only usurped among men when theologians were born. We repudiate these standards which the defense seeks to have accepted here. They are partial and sectarian. 'Tis ourselves who have affirmed our orthodoxy. Not against any other church, but before God. The word orthodoxy means the true Christian faith. We bring the book of the Christian faith nd place it before you. You have heard our sworn witnesses on what we teach. Take our positions, measure them by the teachings in this Word of God. And if they they lie four-square by the line herein given by the Spirit, justify us by your verdict; if they do not, cast us forth, as also shall the judgment of God at the last day. Hence in our evidence we have known no standard but the Word of God. We lift it above the heads of all the theologies, assert that it is divine, and challenge the defense to refuse it as the final chamber of ap- peal in this action. The defense must come to this standard ; we can not go to theirs. Therefore have we introduced the Bible as the Christian's only standard of guidance. It says, "The entrance of thy Word giveth light." It says, "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation." That is all the power needed in the world. It says, "Ail scripture given by in- spiration is profitable for reproof, for doctrine, for instruction in righteous- ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work." By inspiration it pronounces itself able to accomplish that for which it was given to man. We have appealed to this infallible and divinely true standard. The defense has followed us up here, and say they place the Bible in all their creeds as the only correct test, but that we do not make acceptable interpretations of the great cardinal doctrines. Our witnesses have repu- diated these interpretations from every source whatsoever. To stand over a church, or in a court of justice, and proclaim one a heretic for refusing to accept certain statements of divinity is the worst of heresies. This scholastic theology has desolated the house of God for fifteen hundred years. The crime of the church has been that it has assumed to know more than Christ and him crucified. One may comprehend all these doc- trines, and never know a sin forgiven ; he may have mastered all the com- plicated formulas of systematic divinity, and never had his heart touched by the love of God. But if one accepts the gospel, he has been touched by the cross, he knows his sins forgiven, and has come to the salvation of God. If he be saved, Christ is for him, and who can be against him ? The heretical maledictions of a doctor of divinity can not reach him there. If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature. His orthodoxy is estab- lished. What God has cleansed call not thou common or unclean. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 213 The Word of God must decide all our controversies. The true Chris- tian faith real orthodoxy is receiving the Bible alone, and obeying the commandments which take us from the world into Christ. Who have done this are orthodox. Who have not done so can not so claim. We claim to have done this. Gentlemen, we accept the law's assertion that you are twelve men good and true, and with confidence we place this Word of God before you as "the divine path of salvation," of which path divinity has said, "It is so plain that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein." Our confidence in the integrity of God is such that we believe the path is just that plain. Although every one of you differ widely from us in your religious views, we believe you look down this book and see that path as it is. We have unrolled the history of our Church before you, and with an unfaltering trust in your uprightness we boldly, confidently commit to your decision whether we have ever, by faiths taught or practices obeyed, stepped beyond these ordinances of the King. Orthodoxy does not mean the formulated doctrines of the schools. It does not mean a peculiar and technical phraseology concerning the car- dinal points of direct impact, depravity, atonement, and the Trinity. We have ascertained that it means the true Christian faith. Putting it into prac- tical operation it signifies the Bible, the whole Bible, and simply the Bible. Being permissible, under the evidence, let us gc back to the original time and take some observations along the line of operation when this standard was set up and its great principles were for the first time put in motion. We are told in the divine testimony that the doings of Israel were written for our ensample. Israel, a nation of two million souls, was assembled around Sinai the pulpit of the Almighty where he gave them the law which formulated their religion, and created them a church. There had been no church before this. There was no church in Abraham. From Eden to Sinai the world was churchless. All worship had been re- stricted to family lines. We now see the family lines enlarge until they swell into a single circumference, and all Israel, so far as worship is con- cerned, is melted into one family before the Lord. Families and tribes sink from sight, and the church in the wilderness stands a single organi- zation, witfi one tabernacle, one high priest, one uniform and unchangea- ble order of worship and practice. If the Saviour built his house after the pattern of the sample shown in the Mount, he has one tabernacle, one high priest, one uniform and unchangeable order of worship and practice. But if the theory of the defense be correct, it is a righteous thing to break up the circumference line of this organization, and have a wilderness of lesser lines; to dissolve the solitary house, to wreck the real unified body, and let a house be built on Mount Gerizim, or any other mount, and bear 214. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. any other name; to let the objects of faith be altered or increased at pleasure, and the practices be changed by climate and observed according to individual caprice. The defense is manifestly wrong. God never in- tended for His house to be desolated by such confusion. His dealings with Israel, after this time, afford an incontrovertible ensample. That people were thrown into conflicts by the opinions of the rabbis growing into the dignity of law. They accepted doctrines that came from their great elders, and received traditions because they were venerable. A part of their tribes wandered from Palestine, and the remaining ones were di- vided in their worship, and split into sects. Rendered blind by their pride and the bitterness of their strifes, they knew not Christ when he came as the fulfillment of their law. Had they been living in the law, they would have known Him, and a united Israel would have speedily converted the world. But instead they were a divided house, with a disregarded law; and a world with a ransom was prostrate under sin. The indignant wrath of Almighty God was stirred against Israel, and for these eighteen hun- dred years she has been kingless and priestless ; she has been a wanderer, with every man's hand raised against her, and finding no rest for her weary feet. Her presence to-day in every commercial center of the earth, persecuted, but "going on forever," forever expiring but never dead, is a living monument to the integrity of God. Men may, while professing to be His children, divide His house, and disregard His law, but His judgments shall not fail. On every public square you meet Israel with that curl of the hair and print of features stamped upon Abraham and Moses. Jeho- vah says, ' My house is divided and my lawe altered, but these wanderers shall be changeless forever." If this be true of the type, how much sorer shall be the punishment visited on those who distract the real house. The interest of the kingdom of heaven in humanity is more universal and permanent than the interest of any earthly government can be; so the testimony offered by the records of the New Testament upon the establishment of its church or house of salvation is of primary value. Whatever it testifies was then done, must be accepted as the revealed purpose of Divinity. A law inaugurated, a commandment given, an ordinance established, an example recorded, or a suggestion offered, are all and severally to be viewed as revelations of the divine mind on human redemption. We accept and live by them, or reject and die from them. When God gives a commandment or form, it is to be obeyed. No substitution will answer. The thing given is what the Father intended. To say that it is not clothed with an imperial negative, a "thou shall not do otherwise," is trifling with the eternal character. Whatever is given has the royal stamp upon it. That, that alone, that in its entirety, must be obeyed. A deviation from that precise thing is disobedience and heresy. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 215 Cain and Abel were commanded to bring a sacrifice from the flocks. Abel brought a sacrifice from the flocks, Cain brought one from the produce of his fields. And we read that God had respect unto Abel and his sacrifice, but had not respect unto Cain and his sacrifice. Cain, enraged, persecuted his brother who had given a simple and exact obedience. Ever since, the descendants of Cain have been persecuting their brethren who persist in a simple and exact obedience. It won 't do to say, " If the heart is all right, all is right," for God here, in the morning of his dealings with men, put his brand on this heart business, and refused to accept the professions of a heart when he had required the sacrifice of a lamb. The primary mo- tives of Christianity were involved here, for the Apostle testifies that, "by faith Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain." The funda- mental prerequisite to obedience was lacking in Cain. Our piety, prayers, and heart are not the standard, if faith is in rebellion. Faith accepts all and obeys all. Now, in the establishment of Christ's kingdom, we recognize Him as its sole founder and deathless lawgiver. Just prior to his ascension the Saviour said to his apostles, "All authority in heaven and earth is given into my hands. I will send you the Spirit. He will lead you into all truth. Go preach the gospel to every creature, make disciples of all men, teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Lo ! I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." Edwards testified that this commission from Jesus was the sole authority of the apostles to act in the new empire or church. We are all agreed upon this. On the day of Pentecost the Spirit came. The apostles proclaim the gospel. Yet not they, but the Spirit that was in them. The Spirit used the apostles as instruments through which it addressed the people. Those utterances came to the hearers clothed with an awful majesty. It was a voice from heaven uttering words whereby men might be saved. Three thousand souls were that day added unto them, entered the kingdom, joined the church. The next day five thousand more came in. Shortly churches were established in Ephesus, Corinth, Crete, Rome, and before the last apostle's death the gospel had been offered to every civilized people. The apostles never made a change in their preaching. What they preached on Pentecost was preached everywhere they went. They could not have varied it had they so desired. It was freighted with the destiny of human souls. God's spirit had come to protect its unvarying form. From Peter, at Jerusalem, to the last sermon of John, every apostolic action thereon was the same as the first, and unchangeable as the decrees of eternity. Whatever one inquiring sinner was told to do, every other one under a like state or condition was told to do. It was the ministration of the Spirit, which was the very act of God himself. 216 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. What does this divine standard say concerning the effect of the preached gospel upon mankind. It caused men to have faith in Jesus as the Christ of God, and to ask what they must do to be saved. They were told to repent a repentance which in that day did not mean a wail of tears alone, but a complete revolution of character, a turning of the self entirely around, from walking from God to walking towards God ; a con- verting that was potent and real. Then they were baptized into Christ. They were now in His body, which is the church, and were to begin the life of Christiikeness. To be a Christian, one had to reveal a faith in Christ, come to repentance, and be baptized. There is not a solitary case in the gospel wheie any soul is said to be saved where one of these is omitted ; not one whe^e more is required. We asksd Rev. Mr. Post, who made affidavit we were heretics, if he could give us an exception to this statement. He cited Lydia and he* household! Mr. Post's memory is a shade peculiar, but we always had the documents by which he could refresh his mind, and he never failed in the end to clear the mists away and come out all right. After mature reflec- tion and refreshment, he concluded Lydia did believe and was baptized. He then saui he could n't cite any more cases off-hand. We have bogged the learned counsel to give us one case, anywhere from the day of Pentecost to the final amen of Revelation, where a soul was said to be saved without faith, and repentance, and baptism. With a persistency that mocked the expectations of every one of their followers in this audienre, they failed to attempt such a showing. We besought them to show us in all that history where more than this was required to brin man into Christ. With a strange fidelity to their doctrine, they con- tinued to assert we were heretics, yet steadfastly refused to show us the additional reouirement. Even Dr. Smith, with all his resources, acquired and imaginative, was unable to construct an additional condition of salva- tion. Eleven preachers, representing different denominations, have united to sustain the defense. This court-room has been filled with the troubled num of their consultations. Their theology had been attacked with a perilous affliction, it had been asked to square itself with the word of God. They have stirred up their well stored minds, they have thumbed the for- gotten books in their brains, they have dragged the sea of their theological lore from shore to shore, and have come back empty-handed of any addi- tional requirement to bring one into the kingdom of Christ other than we have shown. Baffled, they sit like sullen specters over some cherished ruins, while above their heads appear the maledictions of Jehovah's word, "If any man or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which has been delivered you, let him be accursed." The testimony of Christ is contained in his life as written by Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 21? Mark, Luke, and John. He never taught a doctrine as the world to-day understands scholastic doctrine. His whole teaching had relation to him- self. His conflict with the world was a personal one, it was not doctrinal, (t was to have men accept Him. He proclaimed himself the subject of an universal faith, that all men ought to love Him, that all men ought to serve and obey Him. Search through the testimony of the apostles and evangelists: each of them was true to Christ and no more taught a doctrine. They were strangers to scholastic divinity. They preached that men must love Jesus, must have faith in Jesus, must serve and obey Jesus, and this would bring them to salvation. Love for Jesus, faith in Jesus, obedience to Jesus, this saves ; nothing else does. This is Christianity ; nothing else is. This is orthodoxy. A significant part of our divine testimony, and for which we will have important use later on, is that the members of the apostolic church were called disciples, Christians ; that these names had direct bearing on the re- lation of the person to the Saviour. Also the organization was called the Church, the Church of Christ, the Church of God. And these names all referred to the divine relationship. The Church stood as one body around the cross, even as Israel was one body gathered about Sinai. Sects and divisions were unknown. The Church of Christ in Jerusalem, and in Rome, and throughout all Asia was one, without subterfuge or sophistry, explanation or argument, as certainly and as demonstrably one as a Ma- sonic lodge here in Albion, and at Moscow, and under the shadow of the pyramids, is the one Masonic organization. The Church is His body. With a singular recreancy to their trust, counsel have not attempted to show that the blessing of God rested on Israel when she became a babel of conflicting sects ; nor have they sought to justify the multitude of denominations of to-day by citing us to precedents in the apostolic days. The divided sects of Christendom, with their human names, are passing out of this trial of what constitutes orthodoxy, without one word of defense even from their lawyers. The union of all believers in the one body, and the wearing of the one name alone, goes from here unchallenged. The sacredness of that single body and its divine name goes unviolated. The fact is a ruinous commentary on a "body" that calls itself the Methodist Protestant Church. We have now ascertained the facts concerning the establishment of the primitive church; that the church is the body of which Christ is the head, and that He is not a head with many bodies ; that the apostles preached Christ's gospel to sinners, and that they did not preach scholastic divinity to them ; that they told sinners what they must believe and do to be saved, and that they never told them to believe in or obey certain form- ulated statements of theology to be saved; that in the matter of name they 2T8 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. designated this kingdom by its divine relationship, and in no other way, that they spoke of the members thereof by their divine relationship, and in no other way; that this primitive church received the inspired teaching of the apostles as their creed and discipline, their rule of faith and prac- tice ; that they never received anything in addition thereto, nor in inter- pretation thereof it was this, nothing differing from this, and this alone, that governed them. This inspired teaching of the apostles was transcribed and constitute* the New Testament Scriptures. To the Christian that apostolic transcrip- tion is true religion. No child of God ever questions its genuineness. It is not justice to say that it is a correct presentation of Christianity. It is the presentation of Christianity itself. It is Divinity speaking words whereby we may be saved. It is the divine standard. By it we shall be judged at the last day. According to it eternity will be ruled. It reigns over us now, and aside from it there is no authority in divine matters in all the dominions of time. We present to you this heavenly standard of true Christianity. Now let us bring forward the material statements of our oral witnesses, and you shall decide how each faith and practice and doctrine, here declared under the solemn obligations of an oath to be a tenet of plaintiff's church, agrees with that confessed authority. The first witness we, the plaintiff, called was J. H. Edwards. He was the offending person at Salem Chapel, having preached there for a year, and was continuing his services when the Protestant trustees closed the chapel doors against him. Mr. Edwards is pastor of the Christian Church at Ligonier, and President of the State Ministerial Association of Indiana. His examination was quite thorough by the defense, and full latitude was given, but our own examination was short, for it was kept within the limit of the question at issue What constitutes orthodoxy ? Little space is required to pronounce all the points of faith and practice in true Christianity. Those material things which the sinner must operate in coming to the church are very few in number, and without entangling com- plications. Leaving these to strike the sea of scholastic theology, we find a shoreless waste. You may discuss over it forever, and come back know, ing no whit more of the elements which enters into salvation. Doctrinal divinity forms no necessary link between the sinner and his Saviour. Among the first questions asked of this witness, Mr. Edwards, was regarding the plea of the Christian Church. Every church has a plea, or a distinctive feature. He answered that the "plea of the Church was for a union of all the disciples of Christ in one body, with the word of God as the basis of that union." When we see the ranks of God's professed people distracted by factional animosities, and desolated by conflicts about Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 219 doctrines, I think there can be no diviner plea than this one. Whatever else may be wrong, this is divinely right. If such a church is wrong in many things, the operation of its plea is so self-corrective it will early come to the right. This plea is a safe one. I regard with great admiration the distinctive plea of the Presbyterian Church the sovereignty of God. I adore that plea of the Methodist Church human responsibility. But of vaster import to a dying world, and of greater interest to struggling Zion, is this other plea for the "union of Christ's disciples into one body, with the word of God as the basis of that union." The Master himself prayed that all his followers might be one, that the world might believe. This plea goes forth freighted with the supplicating solicitude of the Redeemer for the times that have now fallen upon us. Because the Christian Church has refused to adopt the formulated statements concerning the divine personages, you have heard it said that we denied the " divine persons." This has been asserted to be our posi- tion concerning the Saviour that he was received in a practical Unitarian belief. To settle that matter at once and forever, I asked Mr. Edwards : Q. State whether or not the Christian Church ilemands of its members, and those coming to its membership, a faith in Jesus Christ. A. It does. Q. State whether or not it demands a faith in Jesus Christ as a divine being. A. It does It always demands a contession of faith in Him as the Son ol God. Q. Well, would or would not the Church accept one as a member who would re- fuse to make this confession of faith in Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God ? A. It would not. Q. He would not be accepted as a member? A. No, sir. The faith of this Church in the divinity of Christ is here made a matter of oath. The witness states the position with a powerful emphasis ; he says no one would be accepted as a member of this Church who would refuse to confess faith in Jesus as the divine Son of God. Standing on the solid rock beside the gate of the walled city of Csesarea, Jesus said, "But whom say you that I am?" And Simon Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said, "On this rock [on this great truth ] I will build my church, and the keys of this kingdom I will give into your hands." So, when the penitent knocks at the gate of Christ's kingdom, no entrance is given him unless he confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He is then on the Rock of Ages, and enters into a city that hath foundations. When we take up the very words of Peter and thus operate them in our practice, we are standing where the Saviour's blessing has been written for eighteen hundred years. Mr. Edwards was asked if his Church had any authoritative bo^ of faith and practice one which its members were compelled to obey. He 22O Onr Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. said they had such a creed or authoritative book, lie said it was "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." They proffer to their members no man-made creed, no articles of faith, no formulated statements, no deductions ol divinity, no theological conclusions, no interpretations of the word ; they give them the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible. They reverently believe that this inspired book is abundant " for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all ^oud works." Here are three significant answers. They index the character of the Christian Church. Its plea among the churches is for all disciples to unite in one body, with the word of God as the basis of that union. It proclaims Christ the divine Son of God, and admits no one as a member who refuses to make such a confession. In its faith and practice and requirements it takes the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible. The first re- bukes the divisions in Protestantism, and pleads to answer the Saviour's prayer by a Christian union. The second announces the divine and God- .constructed foundation of the Church. The third places this Church along-side of the apostolic church, and taking up its book speaks where it spoke, and is silent where it was silent a sharp reproof to current church practices. The first and last answers several this Church as a peculiar sect : no wonder it has been much spoken against. As the Saviour set his face against the Judaism of his day, so has this Church turned his voice against the sectarianism of this day. This people are not likely to be confounded with any other body. They are a separate people. They have a singular plea and strange and unusual practice. They have rehabilitated the old Zion, they have reproduced the old forms, they have restored the mother tongue of the divine family. An uncommon and separate body, it is ar- rayed at the bar of justice under charge of heresey; it never stops to deny the charge but assumes its falsity. It announces its position, proclaims its divine correctness, asserts the infidelities of its assailants, and states its plea for union and the Bible alone with such clearness and power that the fun- damental disobedience and will-worship of the opposition stand forth self- evident. That first and last answer is a defiant challenge to all churches to come up and compare measures with the divine standard. They are the two boldest things that have been said to the world and the church in seventeen hundred years. The next phase of the evidence we will introduce touches the greatest question that was ever propounded. Of all the problems that have troubled human thought, none have been greater than this one "What shall a man do to be saved?" The time nevtr was when good men did not consider it. I would rather be certain on that question than to possess all the wisdom of all the schools of divinity in the world. A fullness of learn- Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 221 ing along those high paths may grace a man for renown among his fellows ; but on this other path, filled with a knowledge of salvation, he is graced for the presence of his God. A drowning man pays no care as to whethei the boat coming to his rescue is propelled by the scientific oar-strokes of a II an Ian ; he only asks that the rescue reach him before he goes down for- ever. No soul crushed and bleeding under the conviction of sin ever stops to discuss theology. A bankrupt soul has no interest in dogmatic divin- ity. He wants salvation to icach him before he goes down. The purpose of Christianity is to bring the rescue within the reach of the sinner. Something must be done to lift him out of hij sins. If he is not made separate from sin, he dies forever. Faith in a doctrine can not produce this separation. The simplest reason perceives that it can not. The re- ception of a theory can not avail. A profession of formulated statements will not answer. But the separation must be made. It took the Father four thousand years, with all the wealth of inspiration, and the sacrifice of the Son, to prepare that power. God had but one thought during all that tiresome time, namely, to separate the people from their sins. This is the all of salvation. His name shall be called Jesus, for he shall save the peo- ple from their sins. When the orthodoxy of a church is involved, its an- swer to the sinner's question, " What must I do to be saved from my sins?" is the trenchant test of its fidelity to Christ. If a church give the inspired answer of the apostle here, it is not likely to go far wrong elsewhere. A church that so fully understands the gospel and the object of Christ's sac- rifice, that it speaks to the penitent sinner the precise words that were ut- tered by the Holy Spirit to inquiring penitents, occupies the chief corner- stone of orthodoxy. It is in harmony with the eternal purpose which God purposed in Christ Jesus before the world was. This new-born son of God must continue separate from sin. The church, to maintain its harmony with the eternal purpose, must direct this disciple to "continue steadfast in the apostles' doctrine, in the fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." Then does that organization round out and complete its harmony with the gospel, and is in fact the Church of Christ. That we might know the conditions of salvation presented to the sinner by this Church, Mr. Edwards was asked: " What does the Chris- tian Church teach as the first necessary step on the part of the sinner, that he may obtain salvation?" To which Mr. Edwards answered: "That he have faith in God, and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God." This revealed a ground where the defendant stands as well as our- selves. The witness was then asked : Q. What does that Church next require as necessary? A. It teaches, and therefore necessarily requires, that the sinner repent of his 222 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. sins his former sins and turn to live a life of holiness and virtue, according to the teachings of the Scriptures. Let me give you the questions and answers as they appear in the evi- dence, as follows : Q. What next does that Church require as necessary ? A. The sinner having believed in God and in Christ, and having repented of his sins, and turned to live a life of righteousness and virtue, the Church next requires that he confeM Christ before men, for the reason that the Saviour has said, " Every one, therefore, who shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." ( Matt. x. 32, 33.) Q. What next does that Church require ? A. It next requires that the sinner submit himself to the command which was given by the Saviour in the commission the first half of the commission " Make dis- ciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Q. What next does that Church require? A. That he conform to the second half of the Saviour's commission " Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 1 have commanded you," thus living prayerful and pious lives, continuing that obedience until the close of life. Q. After the sinner has had faith in Jesus Christ, and has repented of his sins, and has confessed Christ as the divine Son of God, and has been baptized, what is the teaching of that Church as to the effect of these things upon the condition of the sinner? A. It teaches that he is then received into the fellowship of God, and becomes his child, and that, so far as the sins of his past life are concerned, they are remembered against him no more. Q. That process makes him a Christian ? A. Yes, sir; and he ought to be received into the Church. Do these answers agree with the practice of the apostles? There is no mistaking what they mean. They state the conditions the Church im- poses upon the sinner coming to Christ. They agree with the apostles, or they do not agree with them. If they agree with the apostolic practice, they are right. If they do not so agree, they are wrong. Are they right, or are they wrong? Mr. Edwards was then asked : Q. Did the Saviour and the apostles ever require any other belief, and acts of obe- dience, as you term them, as prerequisites to membership in the Church, than faith in Christ, confession of Him, repentance of sin, and baptism ? And his answer was, " I know of none, sir." Is it a fact, that there is any other? If there is, then we fall short of the divine requirement. We present no other terms to the sinner on his coming to Christ. We have never required more; we never accept less. To be wrong here would be a grievous heresy. An awful responsibility rests on the Church : that it give the conditions of divine acceptance with Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 223 all the certainty and clearness with which they were proclaimed by the apostles. Mr. Post testified on this subject. Being pastor of defendant's church, his statements are valuable. An extract had been read from Mr. Camp- bell on this subject, and Mr. Post had pronounced it unsound. It was where Mr. Campbell had said that "neither praying, singing, etc., was the converting act ;" and we asked, " Do you regard praying, and reading, and singing, as preliminary to coming to Christ?" Mr. Post answered, " Yes, sir." We then inquired, " Will you tell us of any place where the apostles ever demanded praying, and reading, and singing, as preliminary to com- ing to Christ? Is it not a fact that these things were enjoined after one was baptized into Christ, and never required of any one outside of Christ's body?" He answered, "I think the Apostle Peter commanded them to repent." That answer was an unworthy avoidance of a direct question. Witness and ourselves are agreed on repentance. It was now necessary to push Mr. Post; and we said: "Did he not command them to repent, be- lieve, and be baptized; and was that not alone their duty, if they believed in the New Testament?" And he answered, "Well, perhaps it was." This veteran preacher throws an uncertainty around an act which is the most solemn passage in life, more solemn than death, and upon which God himself has spoken. It was necessary to drive this witness, if possi- ble, to a positive answer. So we once more approached him : " Well, sir, is n't it so declared by the apostles? And as the counsel has asked whether or not it is orthodox, and you have answered, I will ask you for a single passage of the Bible wherein the statement is contradicted ?" And he an- swered, "Perhaps I am at a loss to recall any passage." When driven into straits, this man hesitated to swear untruthfully ; but he refused to swear to the truth, and so he balanced his conscience on a "perhaps." Do you believe this witness? He knows whether there is any such a passage or not. If there had been one, do n't you think he would have cited it? That is what he is here for. When a man's secta- rianism won't let him swear to the truth, his sectarianism has become a crime. There is no such passage. The terms of pardon offered the sinner by the Christian Church are those presented by all the so-called orthodox churches. They may add much more in many instances, and that much more was offered as a doc- trine in former years; but our presentation of the gospel has caused every one of these churches to modify their additions to the gospel, and to-day you can enter any one of these by complying with the gospel requirements which we preach. In support of this fact, we took defendant's Church itself, and he who haa made affidavit against us. We asked Mr. Post: "If 224. Our Orthodoxy in the Ciinl Courts. a candidate expresses a belief in the personality and divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and believes in the atonement of Christ, and !. pents, would you admit him into the Church ?" He answered that he would. " Would you admit him without baptism ; is not baptism one of the requisites of admission into your Church?" And he answered, "It is really a prerequisite to Christian duty." When we asked, " Would you regard a church as orthodox, Mr. Post, that did not accept the rite of baptism, or would not administer it to the sinner?" he answered, "I don't think I would regard it as ortho- dox." The defendant's church itself here asserts that it receives members on their divine faith, repentance, and baptism. Then they receive members just as we do. Even on the subject of baptism, concerning which so much has been said, the defendant's representative head here pronounces those who will not baptize as unorthodox. The acceptance of the divint terms of amnesty signals the sinner's pardon, and return to Christ. The reception of these terms places the coming one into a saved state, and ob- ligates his life to a faithful compliance therewith. Exact compliance with the terms proclaimed is God's test of our fidelity. We bring the penitent into the Church on these terms. There is no passage in the gospel that requires more than we require. No case where the apostles inducted per- sons into the Church where they required less than we require. We give an exact compliance to the terms. Now, we have not only the evidence of the divine standard to the correctness of our position, but the prosecuting defense asserts that its own Church will receive members on these terms as we do! Since 1823, we have combated the Protestant world because it did not enforce an exact compliance with the gospel conditions of pardon. After sixty years, one denomination has forced us into the courts to prove our correctness; and that denomination, by its representative, we put on the stand, and under oath it becomes a witness that confirms and proves our practice. Having established that our induction of members into the Church conforms to the apostolic practice, we will consider some of the things that naturally arise in such an investigation as this. The witnesses, Revs. Post and Smith, clung with tenacity to the doctrine of the Trinity. It was manifestly their consuming thought. If the formulated statements of the Trinity are to be received, then the impression they sought to convey concerning us is true. But the formulated statements of the Trinity are not correct, and they are not to be received. We may justly be filled with a grave apprehension of this doctrine; with a singular persistence it has sowed discord and desolation in the Church for fifteen hundred years. The Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 225 Council of Nice was called in A. D. 325, to settle the dispute between Arius and Alexander concerning the Trinity. The formulated statement was there originated. It was unknown in the Church until that time. Arius and his dissenters were expelled from the Church, and the ban of heresy placed on them. It was the first time the officers of the universal Church had cast their " construction " of Bible teaching into the mold of church au- thority. Of necessity it gathered about it other "constructions" which also became authority. And thus it was that the first creed grew into existence. An unhallowed thing, it required an unhallowed power to carry it into effect ; and with it the Church soon lost its simplicity of faith and practice, and crystallized into the Roman Catholic Church. The new created Church waged a per- secution for its cardinal doctrine until 533, when Justinian declared John, Bishop of Rome, the sole and effectual corrector of all heretics, and or< dered the armies of Rome to obey the Holy See. The Vandals, the Qtrogoths, and the Lombards, had for the most part espoused the Arian cause ; and on the above authorities (Bower's History of the Popes, Vol. II, pp. 335, 336; Gibbon, Vol. V. pp. 127-158), Belisarius led the Roman army against the Vandals, and utterly plucked them up. In 539 the same fate befell the Ostrogoths. And in 568 the Lombards met a like disaster. Which is all in exact fulfillment of the seventh chapter of Daniel's prophecy as to what the Little Horn [the Catholic Church] would do regarding three provinces. That Church has never ceased its aggressive policy on this doctrine. When the Reformers came, they unfortunately brought this dogma along with them, and the war still wages. Messrs. Post and Smith manifested that they thought more of a man's acceptance of the Nicene statement of the Trinity than they did of his obeying the specific commands of Christ. That Nicene statement of 325 was written two hundred and fifty years too late. To believe in the Trinity is one thing, to accept the formulated the- ology thereon is quite another. One witness of ours said in answer, "Yes, the Church believes in the Trinity ; for John says, ' There are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.'" He was then asked "if the Church believed and preached this statement, 'God the Father,'" and answered "Yes. The Bible continu- ally uses the terms 'Father' and 'God' interchangeably." Q. Do you teach this statement, God the Son ? A. Yes, sir; for John says, " In the beginning was the Word, the Word wa' vith God, the Word was God." And the prophet says, " To us a child is born, to us> So is given, his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God," etc. Q. Do you teach this statement, God the Holy Ghost? A. No, sir. Q. Why? A. Because there is no such statement in the Bible. 226 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. Q. But may it not be a proper construction f rom what is said in the word of Godt A. No, sir; by no means. No such construction should ever be pUced, by the teachings of a church, upon anything in the Bible. Constructions upon the Bible be- ing wise above that which is written have desolated the Church these fifteen hundred years. The Bible contains what the apostles and divinely inspired writers said upon these points; it is our duty, when we speak as a church of God, to speak their speech. This is right procedure ; it can not be wrong. After Mr. George W. Chapman had said that he believed in the Trin- ity, counsel asked him if he believed in three Gods ; to which answer was made: "I do not want to be understood to say that there are three Gods. I want to be understood to say that there are three distinct intelligences united in one Godhead. Being thus united, as explained, there are three manifestations of the Divine Nature." That is one of the best statements of the Godhead I ever heard. The testimony of Mr. Chapman is wonderfully pertinent to the issue. Nearly every one of his important answers is given in the very words of the Scriptures. They have the old Jerusalem ring about them. The Bible has no precise expression on the Spirit's Godhead. The personal Godhead of the Holy Spirit as an object of worship was not an- nounced until the latter part of the Fifth Century ; ana this announcement was at the city of Constantinople. The Holy Spirit is an intelligent Spirit. It is an entity, a person. It can see and hear, be grieved, vexed, and lied to ; it can warn, constrain, comfort, and talk. We accept and believe every word said in the Scriptures concerning the Spirit, its personality, di- vinity, and Godhead. Messrs. Post and Smith made the Trinity the very core of orthodoxy. They were lax on every other point; but their devotion to the Trinity amounted to a passion. We believe one ought to have correct views here ; and if they are "the very pillar of orthodoxy," we can assert our position with great assurance. The testimony shows that we reject every view of the Trinity that does not come expressed in the very words of the Spirit itself. This is perfect fidelity to the divine standard. Mr. Edwards was asked, "What is the teaching of your Church in reference to the operation of the Spirit in the conversion of the sinner ?" His answer was, "The gospel is the power of Go6 unto salvation." If there is any influence of the Spirit apart from the word, upon the sinner's heart, the Scriptures have nowhere recorded it. The defense believes that the sinner is enlightened, converted, and sanctified bv tne direct impact of the Spirit. This is a cardinal doctrine of Protestantism which we most positively deny. The defense failed to produce any evidence to support their theory. There is not a passage in the Bible that can be adduced to show any extraordinary and direct work of the Spirit on the sinner. The Spirit operates on the sinner only through the Word of Truth. Thus op- Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 22? crating, it is, indeed, the Spirit's work that converts and sanctifies man- kind. Mr. Campbell uttered a great truth when he said, " I would not, sir, value at the price of a single mill the religion of any man, as respects the grand affair of eternal life, whose religion is not begun, carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit." We believe that. We believe that this gospel, which the Spirit has presented us, is able to convince and convert the world. Hence we speak where the Bible ipeaks and are silent where it is silent. Again we present perfect fidelity to-the divine standard. There was some testimony from several of the witnesses, on total de- pravity, the freedom of the will, and the eternal decrees, but these need not engage our attention. Whatever attention they have won in the past has brought distraction to the house of God. There has been a great striving over these things, to no profit. Suppose the doctrine of depravity is true in all the fullness of its scholastic statement. Has the belief of it ever contributed to the salvation of a soul ? Was belief in hereditary de- pravity required by the apostles as a condition of salvation? Was it pre- scribed in any of the letters as a grace with which the Christian must adorn himself? Does a knowledge of the doctrine tend to work righteous- ness in a man? We must successively answer, No! If this doctrine is not an operating force in the scheme of redemption, it is of no practical value. Grant the doctrine to be true, if these questions are answered in the nega- tive, there is no salvation in it. If there is no salvation in it, it is not a proper question to be considered in the great issues of this trial. These questions fairly test the value of any doctrine in theology. Let us present them to the " direct operation of the Spirit on the sinner's heart." Has the belief of this doctrine ever contributed to the salvation of a soul ? Was a belief in the Spirit's direct operation on the sinner re- quired by the apostles as a condition to salvation? Was it prescribed in any of the letters as a grace with which the Christian must adorn himself? Does a knowledge of the doctrine tend to work righteousness in a man ? To each of these questions we must answer, No! This doctrine was never placed as an operating force in the scheme of redemption. There is no salvation in it. Direct the same interrogatories to the " formulated statement of the Trinity." Has the belief of it ever contributed to the salvation of a soul? Was belief in the creedal statements of the Trinity required by the apostles as a condition of salvation ? Was it prescribed in any of the letters as a grace with which the Christian must adorn himself? Does a knowledge of the doctrine tend to work righteousness in a man? And to each of these we must answer, No ! Christ never placed this doctrine as an operating force in the scheme of redemption. Therefore there can be no salvation in it. 228 Our Orthodoxy in tlie Civil Courts. Mr. Edwards testified, and Mr. Carpenter corroborated him, that "on such doctrines as the Trinity, predestination, original sin, the decrees, etc., we are content to allow men to hold such opinion as seems good to them, without putting them under the ban of heterodoxy." On all these doc- trines we leave the child of God to the same liberty Christ and the apostles extended him. No one of these doctrines is ever in the Scriptures, by command, practice, or implication, connected with the conversion of the sinner or a righteous life. Any church that makes the formulated state- ments of these doctrines a test of fellowship has usurped authority in the house of God, and has added to the things herein written. The Christian Church does not make a test of these doctrines, it does not recognize or- thodoxy as connected with them, it does not place them at the church door and say, "You can not enter unless you bear them in with you." It says, "On these profound and intricate subjects have correct views ; you had better avoid constructions and stick to the text, speaking your faith in these things in the exact words of the Scriptures." This is our practice. On all of these great dogmas we again present perfect fidelity to the divine standard. Counsel was at a loss to understand how we determined the construe- tion to be placed on any passage of the Scriptures. Mr. Carpenter replied to such a question that we settled differences as other churches. "When they arraign a man and try him, they do it by their standard, the creed as David Swing by the Presbyterians, and Dr. Thomas by the Methodists; and when we arraign a man and try him, we do it by our creed, but that is the Bible itself." Then it was asked, if the particular congregation where a difference arose was the ultimate judge in that case. He answered: "Well, as we have never had any such case (and we are not likely to have), any answer I might give would only be an anticipation of it ; but, to give my own opinion, I presume, as we have the congregational form ol church govern- ment, that it would fall to the congregation where the difference should arise to handle it, either by its own membership, or by other brethren whom it might select to do so." Then came the question that was to produce a demonstration of the attorney's statement of the case, on the opening of the trial. He asserted that we were creedless, without helm or rudder in the religious world, and that our preachers taught all sorts of doctrine, and that we were destitute of any settled faith, or rules of interpretation. He contended that a church occupying our position would constantly be found in a wrangle of differences; that it was systemless and unorganized, and could never arrive at any uniform teaching or practice. With all the assurance of a lawyer that means to overwhelm a witness, the question was hurled at Mr. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Cvurts. 229 Carpenter: " Do you know of any such thing as a serious difference in doctrine having arisen at any time?" And to the confusion of the lawyer the answer was given : "No, sir; we have never been troubled in that direction, and we are not likely to be. We take the Bible as our rule of faith and practice, and let it do its own teaching ; we have never been troubled, to my knowledge, about the ques- tion of doctrine so-called." It was determined to risk another approach : " Do you mean to say that in your Church, there is no uniform opinion that one may have his own opinion, no matter what it is?" Now, the answer had no such meaning, for if we had had no seriout differences, we had a pronounced uniformity of faith and practice, and presented to the world an unparalleled system in our organization, but let the witness answer: " No, sir. In matters essential to salvation there must be uniformity of opinion ; in the things not necessary to salvation the widest latitude and freedom are granted ; the whole thing hinges "upon the relation these things sustain to salvation, whether they are necessary or not necessary thereto." The entire line of questioning on biblical interpretation was conducted on the presumption that the primitive church did not present a perfect model, and that the experience of the ages had enabled men to improve on the revealed plan. The defense evidently believes it a necessity for church existence, that articles of doctrine be drawn from the Scriptures, and surrounded with a corresponding form of church organization. Hence they regard the divided condition of the religious household as a prudent and economic measure that brought order out of chaos, and a definite plan out of a confused generalization ; that there must ever be broad dif- ferences in the constructions placed upon much of the divine teaching ; that each of these paths of construction grows its own peculiar church practices ; that this affords a house of refuge for every shape of doctrine, and the harmony of a government that has naturally grown up under it ; that thus, the gospel, to be of practical value, necessitates religious de- nominations. This position is right or wrong. If right, we are wrong. If wrong, then the whole fabric of denominationalism is insecure, and must eventually fall. It has been twice demonstrated to be wrong. For sixty years we have existed as a people ; our preachers and members have been scattered every- where preaching the gospel ; they have gone forth without any creed or "constructed doctrine," but with the gospel alone. We are to-day the third most numerous religious body on our continent, and we have never had any serious difference of doctrine at any time. We have demonstrated their theory to be wrong. The primitive church was wiuiout a creed or 2jo Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. " constructed doctrine " for more than two hundred years. The apostles and early proclaimers bore to the world nothing but the gospel alone ; false teachers came in, but they went out; it was the most harmonious, prosperous, and glorious era of the Church, and they never had any seri- ous difference of doctrine at any time. The primitive church demonstrated this theory to be false. Can the defense present such a. record. In the whole array of denominations is there one but what has been torn and rived by "serious differences"? And these factions have again warred and separated, until there are now more than five hundred denominations. Mr. Chapman uttered a truth when he said that the Scriptures were not susceptible of more interpretations than are put upon human creeds. The primitive cause did not have its unity and prosperity distracted until men sought to enforce "constructed doctrine" upon the churches. Since that hour constructions have multiplied, and each new construction has brought a difference, and every difference has increased trouble in the house of God. Human creeds, composed of constructed doctrines, for the purpose of accommodating differing views, are pernicious in theory, and injurious to religion in practice. That part of the Bible that treats on the things necessary to salvation does not require a "construction.". All the statements concerning the necessary matters in salvation are plain com- mandments of things to be done by the sinner. Personally, I feel that God would not be good in placing the words of eternal life in such a dark- ened way that interpretation of them would be necessary. If such be the fact, the apostle made a mistake when he spoke of the gospel as being God's revealed plan of salvation. Neither do I feel that He is all-wise, if a " construction " be required upon these essentials of salvation ; because experience has shown that finite men have differed in the construction to be placed upon these things, and by the conflicts growing out of these dif- ferent constructions the Church has been desolated for fifteen centuries. On the matter of human depravity, the direct operation of the Spirit, the eternal decrees, the freedom of the will, and the whole array of intricate and profound theological problems, known as scholastic divinity, the Bible has not given a formulated statement, nor required a specific faith. The members of the primitive church, doubtless, differed upon these great questions. As they have no necessary connection with salvation, God has left us free to whatever opinion we may prefer. And all the statements concerning the necessary matters in salvation are plain commandments of things to be done by the sinner. You, no doubt, were much interested in the testimony on baptism. We rejoice that you had the privilege of hearing our position upon this subject stated from the witness stand, and supported by all the solemnity of a judi- cial oath. I am glad we got into court, so our standing on this question Our Orttwdoxy in the Civil Courts. 231 may be established by operation of law. For more than half a century, every bigot that has assailed us, every unchristian feeling that has been aroused, every charge of heterodoxy, every prejudice agitated, every slander propagated, every malign influence exerted against us has been along the line of the baptismal lie. Here, now, in this evidence, you have seen what our teaching and practice is, and its conformity to the divine plan passes unquestioned. Witness Carpenter was asked: " Does the Church believe the teach- ing that immersion alone, immersion without faith, without repentance, without confession, avails anything to the salvation of the soul?" Did the witness hesitate ? Did he halt and explain ? His answer for- ever settles whatever doubt you may have had on this question. His answer was: "No, sir; the Church believes and teaches that such a baptism would be blasphemy before God." And the Church everywhere lifts its voice and adds to that answer its indignant emphasis. The witness was then asked about the necessity of baptism. He an- swered : " It becomes necessary because it is one of the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ ; but the efficacy to save from sin is in the blood of Christ, which is appropriated and applied to the conscience by obedi- ence to His commands." The witness read from Mr. Campbell's debate with Mr. Rice, p. 555: " While we regard immersion, or Christian baptism, as a wise, benevolent, and useful institution, we neither disparage nor underrate a new heart, repentance, or faith; nay, we teach with clearness and definiteness that, unpreceded by faith and repentance, it is of no value whatsoever." And again, on p. 678, he says: "You may have heard me say here (and the whole country may have read it many a time), that a seven-fold immersion in the river Jordan, or any other water, ivitliout a previous change of heart, -will avail nothing, without a genuine faith and repentance. Nor would the most strict conformity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church order ; the most exact observance of all the ordinances, without personal faith, and moral righteousness without a new heart, hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit any man in reference to eternal salvation." Mr. Campbell believed this and taught it all his life. Mr. Carpenter believes it ; and teaches it, as an evangelist in Indiana. Mr. Edwards be- lieves it ; and teaches it, as a preacher. The preachers of the Church every- where believe and teach it. There is not a member of the Christian Church anywhere but believes it with his whole heart, and teaches it with all his zeal. When Mr. Carpenter retired from the stand, we rested. We had in- troduced Messrs. Edwards, Chapman, Owen, and Carpenter. Their evi- dence was clear, direct, and convincing. They were questioned upon 232 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. every shade of religious belief and practice, and each question received a straightforward answer; not one was avoided, not one. The testimony of Edwards, Chapman, and Owen harmonized as perfectly as ever did three witnesses in a court-room. Mr. Carpenter, who did not arrive at the trial until we had despaired of his coming we having virtually closed our case, and the defense was preparing to call their witnesses ; who did not hear a word of the evidence ; who went on to the stand almost as soon as he en- tered the room; who was put through a thorough direct examination; who submitted to a three hours' cross-examination, most searching in its character, and forceful in its manner, in which an effort was made to create a conflict in the testimony, or secure the abandonment of a position that had been taken this man, I say, who had left his sick-bed, and had come here in the integrity of his Christian devotion ; who stepped from the cars to the witness-box ; who swore that he was acquainted with the Church in every county in the State, as its State Evangelist for these twelve years; who spoke knowing its universally established faith and practice, did not conflict with a witness that had gone before him ; he testified to the faith they had'uttered, to the practices they had described, to the principles they had enunciated ; he corroborated and emphasized every answer they gave ; he did not differ from a single one, he reaffirmed every one every one. The Rev. Mr. Post attended as the prosecuting witness for the de- fense. He is the pastor of Salem Chapel Protestant Church, and wrote with his own hand the notice which forbid Mr. Edwards the use of that pulpit, and closed the doors of their house against the Christian congregation. We put Mr. Post on the stand as our witness. No wonder the defense ex- claimed, "What does this mean?" We had levied a conscript from their own ranks. He sought to avoid answering many of our direct questions, but we enforced a definite yes or no from him, and when he finally left the stand he had testified to the correctness of our position, and announced our faith and practices, one by one, to be in harmony with the divine teaching. We were prepared to rest when we did, and permit the defense to call their witnesses. They swore a dozen witnesses, the majority of them ministers in vari- ous churches. The first witness they called was the Rev. Dr. John W. Smith. He is a man of considerable ability, and evidently a theologian. He testified that one must have a correct opinion on all the things taught in the Bible, and that this correct opinion is necessary to make us wise unto salvation. But how shall one know that he has a " correct opinion on all the things taught in the Bible"? An opinion occupies a position some- where this side of knowledge. It is always more or less speculative. One man's opinion is about as good as another's, for at the best it has no Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 2jj assurance of certainty. An opinion may be correct, or it may not be cor- rect. No man can verify his opinion on scholastic theology. He may be certain in his opinion, that his opinion is correct ; but this is his nearest approach to a certainty. It is confidence in his own convictions. School theology is dogmatic, and it will require the daylight of eternity to make certain any of its opinions. Does not the witness give too broad a defini- tion of theology when he says it "must be a correct opinion on all the things taught in the Bible"? Is not his theology at fault when he says this correct opinion is necessary to salvation ? John Calvin was a theolo- gian of some ability; from the evidence it appears that John Calvin and John Smith do not have the same "opinion on all things taught in the Bible." One is wrong. There may be a fair chance for both of them to be wrong. Mr. Smith's definition of orthodoxy breaks down with its vastness. Would not the witness have been nearer right if he had said : "Opinions have no necessary connection with orthodoxy"? Every one should have right opinions, but a wise God has not sus- pended salvation upon their correctness. When the witness makes them necessary to salvation he has erected conditions of salvation unknown to the gospel. There is not a single proposition in the entire range of "opin- ions " upon which salvation is predicated in the Scriptures. The defense did not attempt to have Mr. Smith testify on the gospel requirements in salvation. We had established that they were faith, re- pentance, confession, and baptism. When they passed without comment, and no evidence was offered on them, they are to be accepted by you as admitted by the defense. An effort now arose to make all people unortho- dox who do not accept the popular statements of " theology." Mr. Smith said: "So far as the Christian Church differs from other denominations it is not orthodox." His standard of religion is that the majority makes a thing right. But I rather think Fred Douglas enunciated a better princi- ple when he said : " God and one man on the side of the right is the ma- jority of creation." If the majority of the denominations make a faith or practice right, then all the reformers have been wrong ; the Saviour was a heretic, and Luther was unsound. But majorities have nearly always been wrong, from Aaron and his golden calf, to the orthodox trial at Albion. There is no argument in a majority, except the argument of numbers. To accept a position as right because a majority of the churches hold it, is the plea of cowardice ; to pronounce a church unorthodox because it differs from the other churches, is to overthrow the authority of God, and erect in its stead the opinions of men. This witness was confined chiefly to discussing the direct operation of the Spirit, total depravity, and the kindred questions of theology. Upon 234. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. these points he said that as far as he had heard our teaching and preaching he did not think it was orthodox. He was able to name but one man he had ever heard preach in the Christian Church, and that was Benjamin Franklin. We wanted him to quicken his memory ; still he could not name another preacher he had ever heard, nor a book from us that he had ever read. Well, if he had heard Franklin on the Trinity, did he deny th three personages in the Godhead? And he answered, "No; not in terms.'' Then we asked if he did in some other way, and his answer was, tha\ " the sermon gave him the impression, that it impliedly said, the Spirit in its operations was a separate and distinct being." This aged minister, who heard a sermon many years ago, not one word of which he can repro- duce, and from what he thought the speaker implied, comes into a court- room and swears that a great religious body of people are unorthodox and heretical. He was examined for an hour on thought, growing out of this answer, and steadfastly sought to convey his "impression" to the jury. It was Mr. Post who spoke of Mr. Campbell's recent work. Why, Mr. Campbell has been dead for nearly twenty years. The book to which he referred was written more than half a century ago. From books they had read, or sermons they had heard, these witnesses knew nothing, absolutely nothing of the teachings of this Church. They spoke only from " impres- sions" and "understandings." And yet on this basis, where a prudent man hesitates to speak in the common affairs of life, they hold up their hands before God and solemnly swear we are heretical teachers. It is my conviction that these gentlemen, during this trial, have heard more of the jospel of Jesus Christ, and of the teachings of this Church, than they ever heard before. We have no objections to urge against the views of Mr. Smith on the Spirit, the Trinity, or total depravity. I enjoyed his discussions; they were marked with ability; he is a man of fixed views, and is a store-house of theological learning. When his opinions differ from ours, we are con- tent to let him enjoy them, but when we differ from him he calls it heresy. Suppose, however, it should eventually prove true that we are "correct," then our friend will be glad that "opinions" don't make for salvation. Grant that his explanations upon these doctrinal points are correct, he did not show where salvation had ever been ascribed to any one of them. He locates salvation with each one of them, but he failed to produce a passage of Scripture that agreed with him. He testified that it was necessary to a man's salvation that he have correct views on the Trinity. Yet Mr. Post testified that if a man believed and obeyed what the gospel commanded, he would be saved. Mr. Smith made a disastrous failure in attempting to show where the gospel demanded faith in any formulated statement of *he Trinity. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 235 His evidence was an argument on the necessity of faith in scholastic divinity. The defense appears to have accepted the requirements for sal- vation that we advanced, and now massed their efforts to establish "divin- ity" as also necessary. It is not needful to further pursue that undertak- ing in the discussion on the things necessary to salvation. We have shown the impotence of the effort, and its utter uutenableness in the word of God. There was one thing we wanted this witness to say ; we desired him to state that the things which the apostles told the people to believe and do in order to remission of past sins, and also afterwards told them if they kept these things in memory, and added to their lives the Christian graces, they would be saved we wanted him to say this was true. We did want him to say that. In the war of questioning that ran for an hour on this point, his genius for evasion was put to a remarkable strain, but we were unable to obtain an unqualified answer. Each answer was given with an annex of explanations. And this venerable leader of the sacerdotal forces that rallied to the standard of the defense, after nine hours of cross-exam- ination retired from the stand, refusing to indorse the apostles on the essen- tials to salvation, without adding a proviso thereto. During this examination various extracts were read from the debates and writings of Mr. Campbell, and from the creeds of many of the churches, upon doctrinal divinity. Our witnesses also testified quite fully upon these points. The fact was disclosed that there was no universal harmony of opinion among the churches, and that they differed from each other quite as much as they differed from us. Even the witness who pos- sesses a high esteem for the denominations, in an unguarded hour, took them up, and successively swore them all into heterodoxy. It was after the defense had read a long line of quotations from our writers, and wit- ness pronounced them unsound, that we reread a part and he emphasized their unsoundness ; when, without notification, we read a passage from the Augsburg Confession of Faith, and its was promptly pronounced "not sound doctrine." In a little time the Baptist Church, after the same man- ner, was consigned to the same fate. Then we took up the Westminster Confession of Faith, and read from it, and he declared that unsound ; so the Presbyterian Church was not orthodox. Then followed a number of extracts from Mr. Campbell on baptism. Witness now felt himself on safe ground once more, for the heresy of this was evident; but once more, with- out notification, we changed books, and read from John Wesley's Doc- trinal Tracts, published by the authority of the Methodist Church. We read from Article XII., on baptism, where the author says, " It is the act by which we enter the body of Christ. For the Saviour says, 'except a man is born of water and the Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of 2j6 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. heaven,'" and asked the witness what he thought of that, and he an- swered, "unsound doctrine." We then read where Wesley says, "bap- tism and regeneration are synonymous, and that our Church has always believed and taught this." When asked if this was unsound, the answer was, that " it was unsound and heretical." Once more we turned to the Tracts, and read that, anciently circumcision was the act of entering into covenant relation with God, and as baptism stood in the room of circum- cision, it was the act by which we now entered into covenant relation with God. And the witness pronounced that unorthodox and unsound, where- upon we lifted up the book where he could see it, and told him we had been reading from Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts! An occasional avoidance of a direct answer may be overlooked in a trial, and an inability to do full justice to an opponent may be expected, but an evident purpose to impeach the integrity of a great religious people should be characterized in proper terms. This witness refused to accept the ordinary understanding of the plainest statement made by a member of the Christian Church, saying he "did not know what interpretation they might give it," The masterly statement of Mr. Campbell on the Spirit's work in redemption, he would not receive without adding his un- derstanding of Campbell's position. A lucid statement on depravity, he said was good as it stood, but before he would pronounce upon it he would have to know "how it was interpreted." Emphatic declarations on the trusting faith and penitence that goes before baptism, he would not accept, insisting that the words "could be given another meaning." We read several simple and commonplace utterances on the general features of Christianity, which are written alike by all people, but he refused to give them recognition unless he knew how they were "understood" by the church that taught them. In all of these answers, it was sought to leave the impression on the jury that our published utterances did not rep- resent us; that we formulated statements approaching near to the other churches, but within the church we had a different interpretation of them ! The religious world may sometimes pronounce us unorthodox; but cowards, never. The forty years' ministry of this gentleman has many times wit- nessed the bold proclamation of our plea, and grieved at its triumphant es- tablishment. Our life has been an open book. When this witness could do no more, he sought to assail the integrity of the Church by implication. He is older than the reformation. He saw its feeble beginnings. He heard it charged with heresy. He has known men and women banished from home and society for espousing its teach- ings. He beheld it in disgrace, powerless, and everywhere spoken against. But he has lived. He has seen that Church become the third most numer- ous religious body on the continent. He has seen men and women honored Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 2J 1 } at home and in society for espousing its teachings. He has seen it become famous, powerful, and everywhere respected. He has seen its literature and colleges move among the front ranks. He has seen it a church where the poor had the gospel preached unto them, and where princes came to worship. He has seen the philosopher of infidelity march up against re- ligion until faith trembled, and there was no hand to defend ; but Camp- bell came forth, and Robert Owen and atheistic philosophy were forever driven back. He has seen Catholicism vaunt herself, and there was none to accept her challenge ; but Campbell came, overthrew her Archbishop, and stayed the threatening tide. He has seen Ingersoll, in rampant blas- phemy, travel the land, and the replying sermons of the preachers attract only a local notice; but we send forth Judge Jeremiah Black, who meets him in the greatest of the magazines, where they have the world's civiliza- tion for an audience, and universal reason rejoices in the triumph of faith. He has seen the country turn wearily from the seekers after her place and power, and ask for a leader whose life was true and whose heart was pure ; and he has seen this Church give James A. Garfield, and beheld him con- fessed the completest representative of American life ever in the Pres- idency ; when he lay smitten and stricken, the nation knelt at his bedside in prayer ; he went down unto his death with his plume unsullied and his faith unshaken ; the heart of the world followed his cortege, and wept its sympathy at his grave. He has seen the charged heresy of this Church in a court of justice established as the gospel of God! Notwithstanding alj this, his ripe age, and holy calling, he filled his evidence concerning oui advocacy and practice with a spirit that is unjust, and a doubt that is ma- licious. But why pursue this testimony longer ? Let Mr. Smith, with his shattered veracity, be conveyed to a final resting-place. Let it be in the shade of some secluded retreat. Let it be where the splendid tread of this gospel plea, as it fills the world, can not disturb his repose. If possible, let his grave be so deep that Gabriel can not awake him. It would be unkind to resurrect him, for in eternity he would be a man without a country. At the conclusion of Mr. Smith's testimony, the defense decided not to pursue their evidence further, and dismissed their remaining witnesses unused. The learned counsel and Mr. Carpenter had a serious war in agreeing on the time when the Church of Christ was established. The lawyer wanted to give the Church the same origin as the denominational bodies. If witness had consented to that, he would have yielded a principle, and cast us on to a common footing with the sects. But the integrity of our plea repudiates a human origin. No man, as such, ever organized this Church. We do not claim to be a branch of Christ's Church. We are the Church itself. His Church has no branch churches. The individual mem- bers are the branches; for the Saviour, speaking to bis disciples, said, "I 2j8 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. am the vine, and ye are the branches." If you give us a denominational creation, I will grant that we are not orthodox in that particular. This whole doctrine of branch churches is subversive of the unity and perfection of the body which the divine Master established on the earth. And a church, to be the Christian Church indeed, must be identical in all the essential particulars with that primitive establishment it must have the same ceremony of initiation, the same constitution and by-laws to govern it, the same doctrine to continue steadfast in, and the same name. Any de- viation from this is wrong. It matters not whether that deviation is the leaving off of very much, as the Universalists and Unitarians, or the add- ing on, and also the leaving off of much, as the orthodox churches. Alexander Campbell did not start the Christian Church. " When was it organized?" counsel thundered, and the witness said, "About fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ, on the day of Pentecost." Counsel strove hard to compromise the witness. The audience listened with anxious in- terest, for here a fundamental principle was involved ; and when the answer was given, that the Church was established about fifty days after the cruci- fixion, on the day of Pentecost, the murmur of applause that moved through the audience that filled the court-room, was evidence that fidelity to God was appreciated by this people. What Mr. Carpenter nieant was, that the Church, which Christ established, was yet standing ; that when he said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," he uttered a truth. That that house stands yet, not a foundation stone removed, not a stanchion gone, not a pillar crumbled, not a light on its altar gone out; it stands intact to-day as when it was first erected, immovable and indestructible forever. Through all the rise and fall of heresies and faiths, that house has stood, with its form and its laws unchangeable. And in all these ages, whenever a penitent soul confessed its faith in Christ, and obeyed his gospel, it has entered into this church. Whether there were many or few, at a given place or time, it mattered not. Wherever one obeyed this gospel, even if he was the only one in all the world, he entered into this house of God. That is the mean- ing of the witness. When we, as a people, thus obey, we have not created a new church. When we have the same ceremony of initiation, the same constitution and by-laws to govern us, the same doctrine to continue stead- fast in, and the same name, and nothing whatever added to or taken from the divine plan, we are the same church. This Christian Church, to which I belong, was established fifty days'after the crucifixion, and on the day of Pentecost. Can defendant who assails us say that he has the same ceremo- nies of initiation, the same laws, the same doctrine and the same name, not having added anything thereto, or taken anything therefrom ? We can 1 Here, again, we find ourselves in perfect fidelity to the divine model. Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 239 Viewing the "orthodox churches" in the light of the spirit that ani- mated these when they were established, our position is unique and consum- mating. Looking at these churches as organizations that have crystallized, and propose to stay permanently where they are, we have no particular connection with them ; but, viewed in the light of efforts to throw off the apostasy of Romanism, and to seek for the primitive faith and practice, we have a very intimate relation. There is a great common purpose in our battle, and the glorious object at which we aim, the restoration of primitive Christianity, is of infinite concern. Let us examine the Protestant bodies in their reformatory character. They were all a protest against Romanism. The protest created them. They were pro test ants. Men protested against what they conceived to be wrong in the mother church. The primitive church had a clearly defined practice. We may enumerate, that Christ was preached, and never a doctrine as such ; sinners obeyed from the heart, and gladly, whatever the apostles commanded them to do, and no service was accepted as obedience that differed from the exact divine requirement ; this obedience was the vehicle that transported the sinner into the church ; Christ's body was at a place, and the sinner, as to a dom- icile, must arise and go there, that he might enter in ; those coming into Christ, Christians, continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine ; they knew nothing else as doctrine. Now, this life of Christ, contained in Mat- thew, Mark, Luke and John this preaching of Christ's gospel to sinners, and the practices connected therewith, contained in Acts of Apostles the letters of instruction to those who had become Christians, contained in Romans, Corinthians, etc. with Revelations, constitute the counsel and wisdom of God in the Church. Congregations established in Christ's body by this " royal law," were soon multiplied, enlarged and augmented throughout the civilized world. When the Council of Nice organized a doctrine in the Trinity, which drove men from the church, and forbid others an entrance therein, a step was taken which departed from the clearly defined practice of the primitive church. These departing steps multiplied with increasing Councils, until the church stood forth robed in complete apostasy. It was now Romanism, and no longer The Church. Men sometimes wonder at the Dark Ages, and inquire the cause. There is no wonder here. When the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, is put out, darkness must ensue. In one sense, his light was yet in the world ; " but if the light in thee be dark- ness, how great is that darkness ! " In proportion as men retire from the di- vine likeness, in just that proportion do they retire from a prosperous do- minion over the earth. When God created man in his image and like- ness, he gave him dominion over the earth; and as man restores that marred likeness, he regains earthly dominion. Great and beneficial results 24.0 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. to humanity are not possible in heathen lands. Railroads, telegraphs, tel- ephones, the application of steam and electricity, are not possible among the heathen. So among a continent of people, when the restored likeness is debased, advancement halts, and prosperity turns back on its axis. From Nice to Worms, the likeness largely restored was prostituted, and the world of growth was worse than standing still. \Ve locate the organization of the Roman Catholic Church in the Council of Nice. It was a new establishment in the religious world. Its Councils decreed its articles of faith, prescribed its practice, and defined heresy. The Bible was always theoretically upheld ; but in the course of years a creed grew up, which was consulted by every inquirer, which was the standard in every appeal, and which controlled every movement of tht church. The church was founded on the creed. The important doctrines of Christianity were perverted in the most wretched manner, and such primitive purity as remained was obscured with extravagant opinions and idle fancies. The essence of religion was placed in the worship of images and departed saints. The fears of purgatory ex- ceeded the apprehension of eternal torments. The latter they expected to avoid through the intercession of the saints, but none dared to hope for heaven without the pains of purgatory first. The people were not privi- leged to read the gospel ; it was a sealed book, and given out only by priestly interpreters. A long series of reprobate practices and apostate faiths poured a current of calamitous events about the church, until Zion, on the beacon hill of the world, became black as sackcloth of hair, and the sweet waters from her fountain of salvation and peace had turned to wormwood and gall. It was necessary that a reformation should come. God had said it would come. But for nearly twelve hundred years it did not come. It required more than a thousand years for the Church of Christ to reach the depths of complete apostasy. But having turned from the simplicity of the divine establishment, there was no halting-grounds until the depths were reached. Then a reaction began. One man alone could not produce a reformation. Reformations are not created single-handed, neither do they come forth in a day. They are an influence that moves forth unseen and unappreciated, an unformed sentiment, sweeping over a vast area of terri- tory, and occupying much time, and finally converging at some center, and pouring into one man as through a funnel. He becomes the embodiment of the principle. It is personified in him. He is all afire with its integrity. He moves forth to its organization, and its consequent victory. So Luther became the incarnation of the faith and protest that had been growing in Germany for half a century. He flashed the sword of the Spirit before the dazed vision of the Pope, and at Augsburg organized the great return Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 24.1 to the old paths of the apostles. The Lutheran Church, founded on the Augsburg Confession of Faith, did not reach the old paths, but it went as far as one generation could march. What the world had been growing into for a thousand years could not be outgrown in one generation. Far be it from me to criticise this stalwart son of the faith. He did the grandest work of any man of his time. His mission was single. No man ever has more. His work was to arrest the career of universal apos- tasy. He did it. He built his Church on the Augsburg Confession, which was a protest against Romanism; but must needs leave the consummation of his holy purpose the restoring of the simple primitive Church to the ages after him. The spirit of protest moved in England, where Henry VIII. organized the revolt, and established the Church of England, the Episcopal Church. The king was moved against the mother Church by his unrighteous desire to put away his wile, and marry Anne Boleyn; but God may cause the wickedness of man to glorify his cause. Out of the baseness of Henry's adultery England, with her vast influence, took up her march from Rome. The Church of England was founded on what we may term the Episcopa- lian creed. It did not pass over all creeds and councils, and take its stand on the ground its movement embodied. This was not possible ; but Eng- land's coming made the Reformation a certainty. Next came the Presbyterian Church. The spirit of reform was abroad in the world, and would not down. Bold spirits were hurrying in every direction to find the Church from which the fathers had wandered. As men surrounded by a fog in an untraveled and dangerous valley seek to escape and find safety, all alike interested, but each distrusting the other's way, and with a confidence in his own that is born only of necessity, so did scores of reformers toil through this age to rid themselves from the warp of judgment which twelve centuries of apostasy had thrown about the Church, and come to know the truth as the early Christians knew it, and stand where they stood. In Geneva John Calvin gave to the world his singular and wonderful doctrine of the Eternal Decrees. A hundred years after Luther they crystallized into the Westminster Confession of Faith, and gave us the Presbyterian Church. This Confession was not the story of the cross simply, as it was preached by Peter and John. It was a feel- ing through the fog, if haply they might find the house which they sought. Out of this same spirit came the Baptist Church, and built itself on the Philadelphia Confession. In that they expressed what they believed to be the right road to the grounds of common interest. But the way was so be> clouded they could not venture yet into the Bible alone, but must have a creed as a staff to guide and protect them. Religious thought was steadily 242 Qur Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. rising out of the valley. Men now needed but little of councils, conven- tions and creeds to help them. They were now beginning to see each other face to face. The Bible itself was begun to be read. It had become a sign-board, on which the hurriers by could read the way. This same spirit brought forth the Methodist Church. John Wesley never intended to establish the Methodist Church. But the tendency of worldliness in the churches was paralyzing all that had been gained by the Reformation in other respects, and a path of real piety must be sought out. The methods employed by Wesley to infuse spiritual life into the people, were original and peculiar. In the course of time they assumed a system, and took on the machinery necessary to continue the movement. Out of this an organization grew, that ripened into the Methodist Church. It took on itself a name indicative of its peculiarity, method ist, and consigned itself thereto by establishing the Discipline, a creed conforming therewith, which was to control all its actions. The religious world had progressed so far into the light, that there was little need of longer resorting to experi- ments. There was small use for any discipline coined to assist a Christian. I have always thought that John Wesley ought to have protested against the hierarchy of the Church of England, and against all human appliances and church creeds, and with his devout nature and splendid powers, called believers to the simple word of God, and it alone. It must be that I am wrong, that the fullness of time had not yet come, and that the mission of this saintly man lay along the path of a restoration of personal piety. The world was not prepared for a restoration of piety when Luther came, or Henry, or Calvin ; their movements gave that which the times required. But there was a hungering and thirsting after righteousness when Wesley came. He filled the want of the soul. God appears to have assigned one task to each of these reformers, even as he gave one task to Moses and an- other to Joshua. Wesley was a glorious herald an unconscious John the Baptist, setting in order the last work for the restored kingdom. The spirit that had worked among men for three hundred years brought forth the movement in which we are engaged, and realized the prophecy of Worms. Mr. Campbell was the leader of the special move- ment now known as the Current Reformation. He did not seek a new church, and earnestly protested against the formation of another sect. No sect was created, no church was organized. But a religious body was pre- sented to the world, whose existence was not a purposed protest against Romanism. It had moved from a protest to an affirmative plea. It was not founded on a creed. Its faith was not defined by formulated articles, and the edicts of Councils did not give it shape. It rested on the word of God. It rested on the word of God only. Every practice which the prim- itive church practiced, it put into practice ; every person or doctrine Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 24.3 which the primitive church required a faith in, it required a faith in. Whatever practice the primitive church did not operate, or faith not re- quired, it made no movement in. It stood where the primitive church stood. The grand march began at Augsburg, and extending over three hundred years of toil and struggle, reached its blessed consummation when a handful of Disciples, weary with the way and bruised in the conflict, cast themselves on to the word of God alone. Up out of the valley, the "Old Paths " had been reached. Primitive Christianity was restored. God had built the house, and it was appointed with every appliance to move its vast interests in His service. Having reached the coveted ground, it only remained to operate the divine appliances, to make good the blood of the martyrs and the labor of the re- formers. Has it been done? Have we only reached the goal to which the Lord's people started, or have we carried consummation to a fruition, and entered into the practices of the Israel of God? This Church preaches the gospel to sinners as the power of God unto salvation, and never a doctrine as such. Is this heterodox ? It is what the primitive church did ; therefore it is apostolic. This Church teaches the sinner to have faith in Christ, repent of his sins, confess his Saviour, and be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he thereby becomes a child of God. Is this heterodox ? It is what the prim- itive church did ; therefore it is apostolic. It never requires faith in any formulated statements of doctrinal divinity, leaving each person free to hi own honest convictions thereon. Is this heterodox ? It is what the prim- itive church did ; therefore it is apostolic. This Church teaches those in Christ to add the Christian graces, and continue in the apostles' teaching. Is this heterodox ? It is what the primitive church did ; therefore it is apostolic. This Church calls itself by the name of Christ, by the divine names, and rejects all other names. Is this heterodox ? It is what the primitive church did ; therefore it is apostolic. This Church excludes all confessions, disciplines and creeds, and takes the word of God alone as its rule and guide. Is this heterodox ? It is what the primitive church did ; therefore it is apostolic. This Church practices or excludes, respectively, everything here enumerated. Mr. Edwards, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Carpenter, swore that we did so, and Rev. Mr. Post testified that this would make a man a child of God, and save his soul. This is not heterodox, for it is what the primitive church did, and is therefore apostolic. The testimony of the witnesses reveals this Church as holding the exact faith of the early church, and using every form of its practice. It reveals that nothing is omitted that the early church operated, and not a name, or a ceremony, or a creed, or anything whatever, has been added thereto. It does as that church did. This is Christianity restored. 344 Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. The Reformers labored to bring the church back to God. They spent their lives in this work, and each one moved the great march a lifetime's journey nearer home. Calvin could not have done his work in the days of Luther. No one of these men could have come at the time of the other. Their movements followed each other in a necessary sequence. Lutner tore down Papal assumptions, and restored private judgment in divine things. Calvin came, and restored God's sovereignty in the church. Wes- ley came, and established human responsibility that every man must obey God for himself. But neither of these great principles, operated alone, could restore the church. Campbell came, and harmonized them, where their extreme doctrines were conflicting with each other, and revealed their perfect accord in the gospel of Christ, and thus made possible the union of all Christians on the word of God. His was the consummating work the organization of their materials. Out of them he brought a distinctive and perfect plea. For more than a thousand years the church had traveled down into apostasy ; these reformers, with their co-workers, moved a re- turn. They marched on for three hundred years, following each other in a necessary and divinely appointed order. Such an embattled host earth never saw before. Not like the baffled and beaten crusaders, as they filed across the plains of Palestine, forsaking their defeated hopes, and fleeing to their European homes ; it was rather the resolute sons of God, forsaking the crimes of Rome, while their mighty phalanx, earth-wide in its advanc- ing influence, moved on with each new generation, in increasing faith and hope, to the sepulchre and Zion of their Saviour. Since Nice, the church has wandered far from the divine standard, each party seeking to erect a standard of its own. The Rev. Mr. Smith, in his testimony, still clings to one of these standards, and seeks to measure us thereby ; but the evidence has revealed the divine standard, and shown the so-called orthodox test of Mr. Smith to be of no value. It does not meas- ure or touch the eternal concern of the soul, and its struggle in the redemptive scheme. The true standard and its features have been made to stand out clear as the sun. Our position has been placed beside it in " that fierce light that beats against the throne " a legal investigation and found to fill it with a divine perfection. Our position, with reference to the Reformers, is unique and consum- mating. The defense has arraigned us here under charge of heterodoxy, but the evidence adduced establishes us as reproducing the church of the New Testament. That makes sure our orthodoxy. It demonstrates that we are the fulfillment of all that was prophesied in the work of the Re- formers ; but the action of the defense says that they have stopped short of realizing the restoration of the early church, and on the wayside have built their temple. The defense that prosecutes us here must not have halted in Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. 24.5 the great march to God, and built on Gerizim their permanent home. Unless they now move on, "sin lieth at the door." Much time was spent in the testimony in ascertaining the circum- stances surrounding the organization of this church, and learning its rela- tion to the various denominations ; but it was time well spent. As these facts of history pass in review before defendant's church, they will be con- fessed, and our position in this historic march will challenge their Christian integrity for recognition. We have examined the salient features of the evidence, on the things believed, and the practices observed, by the Church on trial. A few clearly established points we may mention : 1. We accept the Holy Scriptures as inspired of God. 2. The New Testament Scriptures contain the law of the Lord on the matter of salvation. 3. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. He was the Son of Mary and the Son of God. "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the God, the living One." Jesus was divine as God is divine, and human as man is human. 4. We never preach a doctrine, as such, for the faith of the Church. We present the Christ alone as the object of faith. No other name (sys- tem, authority, or doctrine) is known in heaven or among men, whereby we may be saved. 5. The statements of Scripture concerning the Trinity and the opera- tion of the Spirit are accepted in their complete and full meaning. No formulated statement of these is ever made, in addition to that which is written. 6. A living faith in the divine Saviour is the test of Christian fellow- ship. No mere doctrine is a test of Christian fellowship. 7. The sinner coming to Christ, must have faith in Him, repent of his sins, confess his faith in the Redeemer, and be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is admitted that in every case of New Testament conversion nothing less than these steps was accepted ; neither was anything more required. This, and simply this, was the apostolic practice. 8. On entering the Church, a righteous life must be lived. The Chris- tian graces must be added to this growing Christlike character. 9. If a Christian sin, he is not thereby cut off from the body of Christ, to enter again by his former steps of initiation, but is restored to divine favor by confession. " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." See John's first letter to Christians, 1st chapter, gth verse. 10. The Church is known by the name of its divine relationship The Church of God, The Church of Christ, and The Church. Or when Our Orthodoxy in the Cn.nl Courts. with reference to the character of those who compose it on the earth, Christ's ones, Christians, it is designated as the Christian Church. 11. This Church has no collated Articles of Faith and associate rulei to control it. It stands on the one article of faith which Peter laid down, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus said, "On thii rock I will build my church." 12. The regulation of the daily life, the forms of worship, and the ordinances of the house, are those prescribed by Scripture. No rule of life, form of worship, or ordinance, has been added thereto. The belief and practice is, "that all Scripture given by inspiration is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may become perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 13. The church which the gospel of the apostles established is the model for all the ages. It was reared by divine direction, as was the taber- nacle in the wilderness. The Scriptures, from Matthew to Revelation, are the plans and specifications thereof. They model the building, and the life of the occupant therein. " If any man, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which is delivered you, let him be accursed." 14. In the article of faith on which the church stands, the induction of the sinner into the Church, the refusal to put a construction on the essen- tials to salvation, but requiring the very thing to be done that is commanded, permitting freedom of opinion on all so-called doctrines, wearing the Name of divinity to the exclusion of all other names, rejecting any book or code of faith and practice except the word of God : in all these the Church conforms to the divine Model. Where the Bible speaks, we speak ; and where the Bible is silent, we are silent. 15. The word of God is the standard of orthodoxy. We have arrived at the close of an important chapter in religious history the arraignment of a church before a legal tribunal, on the charge of heresy. In the trial creeds and popular standards have been rejected, and an appeal taken to the word of the living God. In such an appeal the truth is made evident, and error is overthrown. All the evidence has been given under the solemn sanction of a judicial oath. Four men have testi- fied here, who have spent their lives in the service of this Church. The dignity of their testimony establishes their ability to speak on this grave issue. That which we gave our sacred assurance at the opening of the trial we would do, we have done. As the trial has pro- gressed, each added hour of the evidence has served to clear away the misunderstandings and the erroneous conclusions concerning our church life, until it now stands before you, divine for its nearness to the Master's way, and precious for its confident trust in the great Father. We hare Our Orthodoxy in the Civil Courts. j^f jnfolded a church that takes God at his word ; whose practice is, " Thy will, not mine, be done;" whose pathway is according to the footprints of His everlasting testimonies. We submit the evidence to your decision, with its eternal weight of interest. 731] THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS Dl E ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. 3 1205 00934 3060 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 001 029 835 4