, 1874-08-16


trtA ~Es progressing they served by Writ OF In
junction sued out by the defendant. Cheney, from t
S'pnli Court OF Chicago, restraining them frsn fur
thtr pl ogrcss-
The injunction not having been dissolved, pr
rornd decree was rendered against defendant in til.
Court below making the nuuction per,etua, and ths
case Nas carried to the Supreme Court where the de
cree was reversed. When the Presbyters again con
yened for tho trial Of Mr. Cheney, after the reversal
having IN tie meantime been elected Bishop, ant
therefore being no longer competent to act, ab
ne'ire Of said Pierce to try the said Cheney an found
nltn guilty under the pycsentment. aud recommended
That be be
SUSPENDED FROM THE Hs1srnY.
passed upon the said Cheney the sentence Of suspen
sion but, notwithstanding the game, he continued tc
ofnc1ate IS Rector OF CHRIST Church.
upon the 9th Of March, 1871, another prcsentment
that having been previously suspended by the bishop,
az naa neVertheless conunaacoualy continued to off,
the second presentment Mr. Cheney WAS tried by five
asses5ors, found guilty. and ihercupon sentence Of
deposition vas pronounced upon him by the Bishop.
AL churches in the United States regarded by tha
"a" as voluntary societies for religious purposes
CIersymen, as well as ayen, join such associations
Of their own free WILL and withdraw from them ut
pleasure. But while they rerain in connection with
the religious society, they bound to obey al the
laWs and rules Of the body not in contrayentiou OF
ence must sucr such ecclesiastical penalties u may
be prescribed by the organization.
CIVIL COURTS
are careful never to prohibit the execution Of eccles-
natlcal sentences, unless such sentences a.dgo per-
soma! nights or rights OF property. But civil tbu-
sls IN many instances recognize The validity Of ecce-
si4ssical sentences duly rendered, and give them
euect beyond TINT which could be glyen to them BY
tue cours in which they entered. Thus. as was
formerly stated upon the decision OF the demurrer to
conplainants BILL the rule Of law is that rghtfu
sentence Of deposition precludes the eposed minister
from the right to occupy the pulpit, to administer
Irvine ordinances in the church to which no IL ut
AM! fu fSH} Afu
10 ltterpose, by its writ ct Injunction. and restrain
such unauthorized use Of the church property
What shall be regardc al
RlanrFuL SENTENCE OF DEPOSITION
II the question is exclusively of religious faith
and Practice, belongs wholly the ccclesiasca ri-
nnna to determine, aud civil court will nut review
tne action OF the church court.
and In some werc the questions are not solely
as to faith and practc bat tho jurisdiction Of the
ecclesiastical count depends upon The solution OF the
qestluus tnally theological and ecclesiastical in their
character it has been held that the civil court will re-
fuse to examine into The jurisdiction OF the church
court.
When and In what class of cases will civil courts re-
fuse to examine into tue Jurisdiction Of ccclesiastic.
tfiounas7 The cases most relied upon, In the argyll
nent OF Tic demurrer, and upon the hnal herring
establish the position that the findings OF the Assess
oEs Ecre conclusive upon the que4t,. Of jurislicton
u tue twn 70 trials OF the defcndsut Cheney the
cases Of Watson Vs. L,ncs ct nj. and Chase Cheney.
III tho former 3 Wallace, 139 the Court said
There is, l.rlaps no word in lesA ter1n;nuogy
frequently used the word jursicton 80 capable OF
use IN general and vague stuse and which Is used
often by men learned in the law, without due re-
gard to precision in its application. As regards its
Use IL tne ftatfer we have been discussing. it
very wbll lie conrel that If the General Assembly Of
the Presbyterian Cth sl,uld undertake. try Of
Its members for murder, and punish lin with death
or Imprisonment lis Ecuscco would be Of validity
IN CIVIL court anywhere else. Or If it should ut
the instance Of Ut its members entertain ur1s-
lctlon ~ between him aud another mculer to their
individual right TO property, real OF personal the
riSEt IL 10 sense depending ecclesiastical questions
its decision would 10 utterly dsregarded by any ci,i
{ttk$
IL general sensc sary JUSTLY that it because the
General Assembly had no jurisdiction of the case
+" bat it is very different thing. whcro subject
matter Of dispute, strictly aud purely ecclesiastical in
its charae'cr- matter over wncn the civil courts
excrci&e no juTsl:c:iou-a matter which concerns
Theological controversy, church discipline ecelcsi-
members Of the Church to the standard Of
morals required Of them-becomes tic subject
Jurisdiction has been conferred the tribunal try
the particular caro- before H. or that in its judgment j.
eneeeds thu ro~ers conferred upon it, Of that
the par icular form Of proceeding adopted,
nnd in sense. often used i'll the courts. a Of these
may e said to DC questions Of Jurisdiction. But it is
Easy to that il the civil courts arc to inquire into
all these matters. tho wloc subject ot tho ductrn.l
theology, thu usages and Customs, tie written laws,
nomination may and must i'e examined with minute
css nlsd care for they would become in Utmost eTcry
rar, the critela 1y which tho validity OF the eccies-
2*ta decree would lie drer1nine by tie civil court1
In Tie from which tue aboyo quotation Is inade
Ac Unltts States Court ullds to tue decision of the
Court Of A eals of Kentucky III the Watson w.
Avery in which the Letter Court went into an elaborate
Ut the principles N Presbyterian Church
anu uvcyTulsd he decision OF the hgn
81 juiicatory of that Church, both the jl1rs.ttu
md the uc1 X, and substituted s judgment for that
# tie ecclesiastical court, deciding that Ruling
Elders declared be such by that Court suc
md must not be recognized ny the congregation.
The Was decided III the Supreme Court ~ Ill
7ided Court, and bago majority, Judge bsing
!lscnt aud two dissenting but i, certainly is not
hority Tor the position that the civil courts will allow
he ecclesiastical to be the sue judges of their
Jurisdiction III every case. On the contrary, it e1-
'Tesy declares that there in which tney will
lot regard their judgments upon that question
usTe. Du; turtuer decides that whcrs the subject
character, that it will permit o ecclesiastical
determine TO its jurisdiction Of such subject
e., without auy interference Of the cyi! court.
THE cf1K,:EY CASE.
In tho case Of Chas. 1t III. Cheney {58 I'll. 54Ol.
he Supreme Court Of this State said Five intelligent
iergy'ncn Of the Church. presumed to le deeply
ettas, than this Court, to decide the peculiar |
1estions raised. Why should We review that aud |
ot every other dcrlson which involves the inter- |
rotation Of the canonH? 1t il cori*cdsd that where
attacIes, the Judgment Of the Church
ourt is conclusive ss Tn purely ecc1esastra oflenscs
should 10 equally conclusive uIon doubtful aud |
chii'l questions ;n:vlvnz criticism Of the canons,
ven though they might comprise jurlsdictional |
acts.r
There the following objections made before the
to their juriadi:tion:
Because eight ITeahyiers not present at Tho
Le Of the return Of the citation. -"
Because the a:sesSors refused to be examined i
1uchilg their qualifications II sit the trial in
ctt to the formation expression Of their opinion.
Because Que TT the asssssurs had formed and
Itsscd al opinion Of the guilt OF the accused.
Because list Of eight lresbyters qualified TO sit
as teen furnished to the ACCUSED.
because the commission ard prescntment were 1e-
81 uad void.
Because tic Bishop did not have reason to believe
IL accused guilty Ut any oitnSc.
Because the prc5eEttntnt contains the statement Of
oersc misconduct for winch respondent cuulu
tried under the c2nolls.
Tic nloye arr only part Of the objections Of tho
.sIsonlrnt made before the agsessora, ai,d also
used III the Supreme Court.
THESE INVOLVE THE QUESTION |
hcthfr the Of tle wordn ."Tcttcrlte and
regeneration III the baptiana1 service for infants
" oifenBe against the cauuns, well rs other
lcsiiouB Of theological and ecclesiastical character
is very easy Acw tile Judges Of Tie Supreme
,urt should deem it proper to lclte such question
tlle above stated TO be determined by clergymcn
rsca in Ecclesiastical and theological lore rather
an personally to attempt its Esuton-
Aud in saying that tTo clergy yInen were moro COM
.cut than they to Ilss upon such question: |
III others Of i Hke character, the Court does |
IT hay that five clergsmcn, OF Euy num-
n, moro comEesLnt tlan they to pass
every question upon which tue jurisdiction Of IN
tribunal may depend
The Court sufficiently indicated the class Of luris-
ctional facts, which, when once passed upon by |
urch court it would lot review This rule 20 laid