The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-01-22

N0luWDDpua amt quite "...
mcnts OF elIor are presented .. ..HH.
eration. The question raised Hy ue aa
sisnments OF error are uoi presented
their logical order, and IN considering lhllu
we Will not observe the order of presenta
ton.
/. II Is insisted by applicants that III,
trial court erred in treating the case a,
necessarily involving questions of roig.
ious faith or Baptist doctrine, and pro-
nouncing conclusions and Judgment upoi
such supposed issue.
Fortunately this character of controversy
rarely comes before civil courts for adju-
dication. Matters OF religious concern
upon which differences OF opinion and in
terests arise, ordinarily fail within the
Jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authorities
possessing judiciary authority. II is u
matter much to be regretted that all such
troubles are not settled in the churches
without resort to the civil courts. Civil
courts are poorly equipped Tor the salts
factory adjustment of such difficulties and
to settle them within the religious organi-
cations themselves would tend most
strongly to promote the objects for which
churches are supposed TO be organized
and maintained, but when questions In
volving property rights arise in such re-
ligions bodies and resort is had to civil
courts for settlement. tho courts must per-
tortn their constitutional functions, as in
other cases of controversy over property
righfs. In the discharge of such duties
courts viii endeavor TO place their de-
cisiuns upon we'll defined principles OF
general application and steer clear of the
fields of theological and dcctrinal contro-
yersy. ~
The land was bought April 10, 1861,
hy an organized but unincorporated Zap
tist church known as the Paris Baptist
church. The deed was executed to Lem
uel H. Williams. Hardy Moore and Good
man Tucker, trustees of the Paris Bap-
list church, and their successors, for the
use OF the said Paris Baptist church. The
hnbendum clause Of the deed being in these
words: ITO have and to hold unto the
said L. II. Williams. Hardy Moore and
Goodman Tucker, and their SUCCESSORS, for
the sole and exclusive use and benefit of
the said Paris Baptist church. The
church constructed building upon the
lot out of means contributed by its gem
eral membership. The building was. IN
fact, erected before the formal execution
OF the deed to the lot upon which 1t was
placed. The same organization after
ward assumed the form of q legal corpora
ton by Incorporating itself under and by
viitue OF the laws of this State. AS such
CORPORATION 1t constructed the building
low standing upon the lot borrowing
some money for the purpose and exc
cutting a decd OF trust upon the building
and lot to secure the loan, When the
church was Incorporated 1t took the corr
porate name of First Baptist church OF
Paris. Texas" The change of name and
legal character assumed In mo- way affect
cd the religious character or identity of
the church--it was the same church. II
f.s1np lad and NC ha mr. anrtv IN MR.
mony OF Christian fellowship and in entire
consistency with the purpose for which
1t was acquired and dedicated until Diff
ferences arose among its membership az TO
The management and control of the matter
OF a pastor. some OF the members having
become dissatisfied with his doctrinal
teachings and desiring change In pastors,
while others indarsed his teachings and
desired his retention.
II Is a dispute over the right of possess
sion of property acquired by an independ-
ent sovereign church and dedicated TO the
exclusive Use OF that church, which has
never lost its existence or identity. The
right Of possession OF the property can not.
therefore, depend upon whether he for
mcr pastor. Dir, Fortune, taught theories
of the atonement and inspiration OF the
scriptures at variance with the views en-
tertaincd by Baptist churches generally,
with which view some OF the members ac-
" interpreted the Scriptures according to
the creed OF the church Is an ecclesiastical
inquiry, exclusively within the power and
jurisdiction OF the church itself Courts
are not constituted to decide such queg-
tions, and were they to attempt to do SO
science or practice of a single member OF
the church. and would tend only TO bring
confuslen and disorder into the MANAGE
4 naent Of the spiritual affairs OF the church.
In tho case OF Bouldin ct al vs.. Alexander
ct al III Wall. 1919 the attempt was made
4 by part Of the members OF Baptist
church TO have the court adjudicate that
the other portion OF the membership had
Departed from tho faith. while they con-
tinued In the faith, and on this account
wore tho church and entitled to posses
Y stcn Of the house Of worship. The SUI
the right Of possession did not depend
upon such ecclesiaBtical issue, but placed
s It's decision upon the ground that the
regularly constituted trustees whom the
mlnortty, claiming to DO the church. had
aftempted 20 remove. were legally entitled
The rsllgiaus controversy sought to BE-
4, inv9lved IN The case grew out OF the cx-
q proGfeQ, Ftewn OF DR.. Fortune, believed in
fty e0me pt The members OF the church.
upon xhe subjects Of the atonenient aud
re l9eplrntion of the Scriptures Hc be-
ef4cociQue TACT, but denounced the aubsti-
tIpnary theory of Il ~ inconsIstent with
N M pnfurc And mercy OF God aud pro-
olelme4 ~ mediatorial theory "a his com
eeetion ~ ~ atonement: II e contended
fnof re suna! ltgsy n theory 4 the Rap
E; = lj1ee ~ silt)6o WAS, Therefore I'M
j 1otlti n Fortune disc taught tho
a u ~ ~ ~ Inspired word Of God but
~ ne literal Nnd pieuary