The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-05-10
Case of Rev. c. e. Cheney.

The following remarks upon Mr.. Chenevs
recent letter to the EpiScopdlian appear in the
Chicago Times of April 27:-
The Rev. Charles Edward Cheney may be the
most conscientious of all living divines; never
theless, as an ecclesiastical lawyer, he is one of
the worst possible description. His recent let
ter, defending his refusal to recognize the ecce-
siastical authority of his own Church, is a model
of the most barefaced sophistry that ever pro-
ceeded from one who insists upon squaring the
government of the world to his own peculiar
notions of what it ought to be. While protesting
scrupuleus loyalty to the constitution, canons
rubrics, and all other laws of the Episcopal
Church, Mr.. Cheney assumes that, for himself,
In his ministerial relation to the Church, he is
the authorized interpreter and judge of the
meaning and intent of those laws. His duty to
abide by and obey the ecclesiastical authority of
the Church goes no further than the decisions
of that authority coincide with his own under
standing of the law. This is the whole ground
of his defense. This is his whole argument,
reduced to single point. Upon this ground
alone he finds the illogical result to be that the
whole proceeding of the ecclesiastical tribunal
which found him guilty of violating the eccle-
siastical law "is null and void"
1t is az If defendant convicted in one of the
civil courts for some violation of the statute
.aw should say:-"That which the court decided
to be the law, l do most conscientiously decide
ls not the law; whaL, then, inevitably follows
but the logical result that the whole proceeding
against me is null and void? ?"
The Times can hardly suppose that ecclesi-
astlcal institutions rest upon basis SO unsuo-
stantial as Mr.. Cheney's logic would imply. In
that case every minister of the Gospel would be
the supreme head of his own church. Every
deacon would be his own presbYter and every
presbyter his own bishop. And every layman,
upon the same reasoning Cor, rather unreason-
ing), would be his own ecclesiastical superior.
Every member of religious organization would
be his own judge and court of final jurisdiction
upon every question of ecclesiastical law that
could arise; for the decision of any tribunal
which should be averse to bis own understand
ing of the law and evidence would, ''as logical
result, be null aud void.
The object of every court ecclesiastical as
well as civil-is twofold. 1t is, first to declare
what the law Isl next, it is to render Judgment
upen the law as declared. If the power or the
right to determine what the law is belonged to
the party accused it would he self-eVident
absurdity to place the power of giving judgment
elsewhere. The two are inseparable, in the
nature of things. If Mr.. Cheney is the
competent authority to declare what the eccle-
siastical law is, or is not, then Mr.. Cheney is
correct in assuming to decide that the proceed
ing of the ecclesiastical tribunal is null and
void But if the ecclesiastical tribunals of the
Church are the authorized power to declare
what the ecclesiastical law Is (aud the Supreme
Court of the State has so decidedly, then Mr..
Cheney stands clearly In the wrong, and the
reasoning of bis letter TO the Philadelphia EptS
cOpaion is sheer nonsense.