The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1881-07-14
JACKSON, OHIO, THURSDAY, L.,

to suit him. Other charges, still more
serious, were made against him. But
his views on theology were correct.
He was something of a power in revi-
walls. So he remained in good stand
ing in the church, to the dav of his
death. There was that Missouri
preacher, too, who whipped his wife
with a cowhide because she wouldn' t
come in to family prayers. He was
determined to enforce Christian dis
cipline though, he got into the police
court for it.
Not to go so far away as Missouri,
either, there was that recent church
trial hereabouts, at which preacher
was cited to appear, ON the charge of
conduct unbecoming minister, or in
deed, anybody else with claims to COM
mon worldly respectability. The
brethren must have regarded the scan
dalous charges as proved, in measure,
for they recommended the reverend
gentleman to quit the ministry. At
the same time, however, with what
appears to a secular eye an inexplica-
BILE inconsistency, they reported that
they found nothing in his conduct as
a Christian to prevent his continuance
as a member of the church in good
and full standing. He was and he
wasn't. If a man had been very
naughty, morally, he might well pre-
fer to have his tria at the hands Of a
body Of Christian ministers instead of
common law court. One may infer
from the above instances that the code
of ethics governing the theological
profession IS very different from the
ordinary standard.
Such facts tend to confuse the
mind. In their bewilderment many
will be apt to wonder what would
have been the result if Brother Cow
ley and the other reverends had been
on trial for heresy. Suppose they had
been guilty of merely doubling some
point of doctrine, about which scarce
ly any two churches agree. There are
some matters which must forever re-
main mere matters Of belief Nobody
in this world can possibly be absolutely
certain about them. In these points
one honest and intelligent person is
quite as apt to be right as another.
Sometimes there arises in the ordi-
nary evangelical.denominationsa pure,
faithful and eloquent minister of the
Gospel, who, try as he may, can not
accept the doctrine of eternal punish
ment. Another, may be devout, able
and upright, can not become clear in
his mind that the Sabbath was not
made for man. as the Bible saws II is.
His conduct is otherwise irreproacha-
bic. Perhaps another is honestly un-
able to solve the mystical doctrines of
the Trinity. In sorrow these good
men declare their doubts concerning
disputed points Of doctrine in no way
affecting the moral conduct of their
lives. What then?
Church authorities themselves will
attest that, in nine cases out of ten,
these upright men are yanked from
their pulpits in less than no time, and
roasted over the theological gridiron
of a church trial. They are deprived
of their bread in the church; their or
dination papers are taken from them,
and they are turned out to an orphan
age worse than that of the children
intrusted to the care of Wolf Cowley.
If, however, ministers are guilty of
what is accepted the world over as i'm
morality, or cruelty, then the court of
Christian ministers who try them. ap-
pear to let them down as easy as pos
sible. Do not things seem rather
turned up-side-down, somehow?