, 1874-04-05


copal Church holds the contrary On al these
propositions. The question was to be settled
upon ths written documents Of the Church
3Ir. Fuller then discussed the Preface to the
Book Of Common Prayer, the Offices of conse-
Grating Bishop and Ordaining Presbyter. tie
Tnirtv-uine Articles, ETC., etc. He read from
Burnett, Rogers, Tomline, and Browne, on tie
Thrtr-nina Articles and from the works Of
S:arkov, Arnold, Leighton, Coryin, Jewell.
Bramhall Prof. How, Formularies OF
Faith, Bingham, and Hooper. He
then conteuded that even Il tho
Church held to Episcopacy as jure dicino, the
possession of arbitrary power was never conccd-
el,-citing Browne, Bng gham, Robertson, Hawks,
cult to settle now what WAS held then, but moth
from Gibbons Decline ana Fail Morheim's In
etituses, Milman's History of Christianity, the
Apose9i.c fsthersaaAugus;ine, Jerome 1repnus;
sides; as also the Scriptures. In reference
! to the Church Of England Hume Nacaulav and
Froude were read from. ard ss to tho Church in
the United States Hoffman, Bishop White,
Biorcn's journals, and Hawks The American
Church was e1ninently one OF law, and not Of
will, aud none OF it's ofdce-bcarers possessed un-
limited power. In England, Bishops were re-
strained by law; in the Colonies and in tho
United States, BY the terms OF the contract
Because the uncanonicl ordination by q Bishop
might be voidable only, it did not follow
that suspension stood On the same
ground, for that msy be given which
cannot be taken away. Uncanonica
ordination would not make the recipient Pres
by1er OF This Church. To the objection that DR..
Cheney should have appealed counsel replied
that there was nothing to appeal from. Il Lo
had appealed, and the finding had been affirmed,
it would have changed nothing, because, as the
matter rested ip contract, la was entitled to 5
trial befo.e those he selected, 1s ueI as IN ap-
peal, and the latter Was no substitute for tho
FORMER. Mr.. Fuller insisted that the sen-
tence Was void, because contrary to natural
Justice, in that it required an expression
Of contzition for doing what the accused believed
lie had the right aud that it was his duty to do;
also, because Dr.. Cheney mad committed no
of1ense. Charged with doctrfnal error, if he had
committed it so had his congregation Il he had
not, then neither he nor they had departed. To
adhere to him though sentenced would not be q
deviation, If the sentocce we're unlawful, or for
departure from doctrine which did not in
fact exist: In the Go5ham case, IN En-
| same views that DR.. Cheney did !; and
| .ha Priv Council decidcd-in which decision
| the two Archbishops concu1red-that he did not
| hold doctrine contrary to that Of the Church Of
England Neither did Dr.. Cheney hold doctrine
contrary to Tint OF the Protestant +: EpiseopM pa
! Episcopal Church held the child regenerats By
| the act OF baptism, then, logically, Whist became
| of upbaptiZed children! The Bla1op, IN l9il,
after this sentence OF deposition, declared tho
| word s. regenerato'' meant no moral change. 1t
| means either change of nature OF OF state II
| no moral change, then it IL change or state,
which is simply GTafting into the body OF ChTi2ts
| Church.
| The sentence in this case had not been acqul-
| esced in by the Church Of large, for there Tas
no way to get at it. Mr. F. reviewed the ru-
and the evidence as to the naase N asteeualns n;