, 1874-04-05

determines the matter, and tho spiritual sentence
ia more ezaminablo into collateraliy than that
OF any other Court 1t is in fact conclusive
Watson Y, Jones, IS Wallace, 697 Chase =.
Cheney. IS Illinois. 500.
II. That in this case, it Was sufficient that tho
Bishop pronounced the sentence. Whatever ir-
regularity, If any there were, which he denied,
this would only render the action OF the Bishop
yoiiable, and not void, because the Bishop pos
aessed the power inherent in his Office to con-
demn without any trial at all. The law OF this
Church established three orders in the ministry,
OF which that Of Bishop was the superior or gov
erniur order; and it followed that the pouer OF
discipline was inherent, and. being inherent, 1ts
upcanonical exercise would be Toidable merely.
The Bishop corresponded to the High Prest, the
Presbvter to the Priest, and the Deacon to the
Leyite, OF the Jewish dispensation. EplscopacF
WAS Of Divine institution. It WAS not created BY
the Church.
Mr. Judd then went into learned and or
haustiyo argument to establish the jure dirlne
theory Of Episcopal Church Government, read
ing copious extracts from various books OF the
Gospels, Timothy, Iitus, Ephesians. Phillppi-
ans, Acts &c; also, from The Apostolic Fath-
ers, Clement, Ignatlus, Polycarpe Hermas,
Meals Primitive Liturgies, Tertu!ian. o1igen,
Hilary. Epiphasus, Atl,anasius, the Apostolical
Constitutions and Canons, Potter on Church
Government, Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity,
Robert:ons History Of the Christian Church,
B1nghams Antiquities, Johnson's Early English
canons, van Espen Jus unl'etgosn IeerGslas p;a,s
cum, otny Lc.1e1aaslsai T,m,,o,, n;a1ar,
yonlnas [lotes1ans 1p!seppa. Joie, IaIP
Mhites Menol1s ol Iue Lrutcn oes1unt s pa'
nissoty o. tne Cuu1cu ~ eouieetGos, .lt;H nuns
Eeeies'as1lcA Law, h"mAo ~ 'uo ~ Gl.~I
ana Sanons, ininos ", tse9 " t4I TSannn;i,1.
sa;ar proshr+a ar;sc TooL;,g for ~.
| Church, Vor Ecclesin, Fulton's Index Cam
| Hnddan IN ADostolical Succession. Blunt's
Annotafad prayer-Rook. and Evans on Epis-
e1,.r1 canacv Ha insisted /. That the order Of
BISHOPS ] was Divinely instituted, and they ap-
to o
Profestant Fnisconal Church vas identical with
| tha Church of ENGLAND. and 90 held. He also
| con+ende1 that tho canons OF the first six Gem
erni Councils bound the Catholic Church, and
| 80 ~ ~ anaa-;can hranch ~ that Chnrch and
~ no,,id M 1a dona a:Sav with saye by another
E"n.,an;caI @ connciI and eyen such Council
con1a mt taEe nway the power Of discipline
| from R;shons- He argued that bishop could
| aiono ordain Jf therefore Bishop ordained
cnntTarv to law. Still the ordinahon was voidatls
.r,ora1v and not void d. and 40 II a Bishop sus-
nandei contrary to law.
"A to the case OF the Rev. DR.. Cheney, he was,
| in effact snsnended because he taught false
! 17orfr;no or decrad to teacl, true doctrine To
oueit ouet a m natara1 vor might not be ANYTHING
1nnra Than = technical or no offcnse: but to omit
tho word receuerate" Was the grarest kind Of
an offfnse fecansa it imported doctrine.
| III. But with these questions this Court had
,oth;,o ~ a. Eeyertheleas. 40 far "a this first
triinnei rTas concerned be insisted that it's pro
caa5;,es rera Tes1,lar and valid. Il was exact
~ like q corrt-m1rtial. where the number was
tixod st not less thnn five nor more than thir-
nxmhar rSun; a,40 '1@'"''' o@' o
11e 1,a .,,.;,oa Tho d;rar.no. betveen
Mr. Juas oAplnmeu a.,0 .,d ;1s,atsa thst tha
public and private services anu at bt no
n use ~ -, for1ner a. 70 which Of The rubrcs were
N lne ~ tUe41 a' a.;o.a5 W ~ Sanos;t;nna ~
!mpela@fec; c.to5, 10 onS H. sfossgan and
Deacon 5tan1ey anu a.,a,3a oo7ar, I.1e4
thas OF ~. uyoo"!1 11;s.ar' ~ 10 sar1v
y on Mossmans nlseosy u. eno COZ ~ -
Cnnren & wn.cn a. ~ caso, Gonrant;on Journal of
quoted from th9 diocesan Ion'9nt1on . loul -.
September lol W sno" LIN 10 - Gonaa ~
vention nau dec'n.ed ens - - ,nd c;tad
70 oe Wnas ne eonse1dsu 4I ~, ~ "as, J,1as.+o- 49,
Ho.eora' ~, ~ '4gI Ta recaotT1,ted tIe cnnons
hon was plnuins. az ;,,a;.tdd tLst unde- thern
Of tne cnuIen, anu ans.ns Ia, ar Lid sn1
the pfocoealngs Me;9 - ef - cr;s conrt conIi
;t;tarra-a With Ecclesiastical action, and that
J1,a vv1,ama IN his decision on the demurrer
9,od r. effact decidei3 the whole case.
hIr. judd occupied five days in his opening.
oAA' m .tr1:v111rw: ru1LEn
for +ha 7efendantg. continued:
That. a. the bill was framed, no recovery
,i Ivy; ~ T,at ~ the hi nowhere intimate;
49, t,'a cono,aeation Of Chriss Church had do
| nd frnyn the DOCTRINE. QlEEtpuQG
so.sI,;r, ~ r. tha Protestant Fpiscopal Church
~ and I1 nrnnrnted therefore to no more than Al
ana Tt ~ a,,forca a., erclesissticnl sentence.
eao,r ~ ,go1,d mt ordinarily carry on partner
h;s, ,,or t1,aatre Keen hotel. or conduct til
1nR, ~ ano~a az 4 won1d fortioE not under
80 - c.rTv an a church: and. il not, it woul
1nt s<on Il A decrce here would not enec
snr+l,;nr except to close the church
hn;ii;ng II wns like case Of specif
ra+ror1mance and entirely discretionary with tn
T,n-t whetheT n rrant or deuy relief. Th
!. ornner Iii wonld 6e on behalf of person
! ccia;n;nn to ba the true congregation on accoun
- ~ 5ansrt,1ra of their associates and praye
l a. tha nossess;on OF the property, This bill
~ rs l;Ia cna m behalf of shareholders in rail
rnaa no. 'Ao comnanv nrayine an Injunction agains
n1acoanrs urrT rires and. in that aspect, ro
f;af e',oht n ha denied. because OF acquiesonce
and nud n demsud. want OF parties, and making
narties COMPLAINANT who should be defendant
atr etc Ha areued it was absurd to conced
: d"n',r;on over The property to the congregation
a md then seak tocontrol tho Wardens and Vestry
, esho rera doint. exactly az directed by the con
I e'reoation
I T1.+ +,,a c,,vavo,ca "a. made for th
3 L. tn:,1 NO ".,est;a1 "a snch and MT as i
use OF sne Ae'ou protastsnt w. E;n;zcona
: ). conneGaon wv WIN s1o ;.;a+aS ,r.s ah,wr hv Ii