, 1874-08-16

10 ~ ulnent It Is now said that some Of thea wers
coTsluefcd, the proofs being all before the Court
| 1neae points could well be decided then Us now
1er CAREFUL consideration, follows Tint the com.
panants had upon the Of tho bill SET forth eucb
q connection with Christ Church and its propert,
40, proved to e1st would entitle them to coma init
court Of equity for relief provided the defendants
we're guilty Of the conduct with which they were
| feudaut. ~'14tA--A4N'1' A'1o oe
Tha, Christ Church, by of being incorporat-
under the Ewa of this State, did not become IN In
dependent corporation but that, II connected With
tac PROTESTANT Episcopal Church. as nyerred in the
tsn @ i. Mas subject 70 1s supervisory discipline md
tlo anu its PROPERTY was held in for the aiut.1-
ahce OF the faith aud worship Of is founders and il
seFsf!ed 1to1n such trust by majority Of ita
memncrs court Of equity would interfere to pre-
vent the diversion at the instance of ever 70 ANAL
who adhered to the original faia and scip-
line Ut the Church.
II these Positions uro corrnct thev dieuoua ~ +h
oo1ecuoha abov stated aud Of Nil others OF similar
1ne cxttnce' and ingenious arguments Of
tat he t.e collector have faed . make
aua. lnsse positions were not well taken. They ure
aoundanty sustained by the decisions Of the most ~
speetahle Courts, which. 4aving BEEN onre cited by
rerite. N' = 4~eA '0' A'''
A.. =. II II FURTHER 1HsrBTED
mat the proof in this has nck.,tyed the ayer-
en1s q the bill and established the fact that the
property Of Chras Church was acaured for tho 1so OF
has particular sucty, iude euent Of the control uf
ne Courch Vt large and therefore tat til. property
ton Of Christ Church.
It H. indeed, proved that tla1c were cernn OF tho
TO the purchase o the property Of Christ
GhuIch VINO were especially anxious that the property
shond be vested in Trustees be chosen by tie con-
gregation. -
= Statute was then in force. or supposed to be-
making the Bishop Of Illinois corporation sole and
some feeling adverse to the yestng OF church prop
ery ursle- That act had up asnong some E:s:o-
gon chrst Church Fceiin strongly sp opposed to
the veslns Of title TO church property in any ono man.
ssvsIa PERHAPS many Of the contributors chriAt
chuscA srenuousy insisted that the property should
~ invested in Board Of Trustees tn I've selected hv
Trustee. "
Legal advice had to the proper method OF cot-
Feying the property and it length conveyed to
u. trustees Of Christ Church. such rc.ng tho dos
lenaon OF the grantees in the d;.ed then executed
lAare Is uothing il tho erIenre to indus e til, con-
s1Snon that auy one OF the founders Of Curlst Church.
by making the conveyance in this 1anurr tute,,ded or
desired place te church property heyonl tn an
pcrvsory control Of the Protestant Epistorl Church
IL tue Diocese IF Illinois, aud til. Guucral Church
In the United States.
On ltle contrary,
ALL THE FACTS pRoyk
that the property acErt.! the maintenance OF
the faith, worship, d>sip.lue that Church. The
relations wich the congregation Of Christ Church.
when rst organized and og atte7war,i sustained to
the Diocesan Convensio., nnll to tho Bishop Of tho
u'ocrse wers substantially those Of Other Episcopal
The Articles and Ritual Of Christ Church was tie
same as Of ali oher Episcopal Churches aud the ners
ves:ing OF the property in u,c- Of trustees chosen
By tue congregation instead Ct the Dishop in 10 re-
epeet gave to the church ron-Eriscopa character.
il tl1d. then it fellows thai there arc no Episcopal
churches in this State now for the title Of al Ep!so
put church property IS III Trustees selected by the
eral congregations
The Trustees Of Christ Church originally hcld and
now hold the legal Title such title is held by the
Trustees Of o;hcr Episcopal churches IN trust for the
enst of al the .dHere,!ss Of the faith and discipline
OF tue Protestant E;t;scora Church who might be or
remain in said c3ris. Chlrct, and subject to the
usual supervisory control to which their sister church,
that il was tue light of tue founders to have have
Impressed uron the property m express trust
for the lenehs Of themselves and their SUCCESSORS aud
1al Church in tho Diocese. bit there is evidence in
tho record tuat they o. any Of thon desired or at
tetapted to sto anything Of the Eor..
Ii Is ag:ta Urged upon the behalf Of the Defend
ants that The Bible cannot be retained ,.vause the
evidence has established tao fac: TIL property Of
Chris Church was accumulated for ths use ii .losa
boiling tic Eiews Of
THE EVANGELICAL SCHOOL
u the Protestant Eis:op Church, i'll other words, Of
he Low Church patty; an. from such yieB this con-
yrtgat:oa lias ne:er departed.
Tnls objection might bc aEswered ly saying that it
ntirey ignores the wo'c henry upon wlicl. tho COM
,iauants bi framed and the Court has held that
hat theory i: ascorrect
What that theory il has been already stated, and
lced not be repeated.
But there III smother ausWrr In the view of tfto
dy:l courts the Protestant Episcopal Church cannut be
csardel collection Ut rJEaut schools Of religious
p1HlOH. OuS as United body OF WUrShlHSrt.
The Episcopal churches in Illinois, aud throughout
he CLi;cd States give their assent to the Art1-
les Of Belief they usoths Same Lany they adopt the
ercnce in schools is the result of difference Of in
expectation Of tie sAtne Church Standards. |
WITH THESE nrrEEnEscEs OF INTERPRETATION
lvtl courts have nothing TO d.. Sch Q,cH Ions must
&c settled by each laymau and Clergyman for himself
foro couscien.B Tic civl law regards the Episco-
al Church ecclesiastical family having the
anne faith snd the worship. Whatever md how
yer wide the dlveEsties Of interpretation, the ncr-
ers are bound to its standard by their assent formally
veu, and are bound to el:h other by the law Of :o-
ration. AL Of them, however much they disassee, |
'oud aiike Resent the charge Of not be1ng Episco-
al:a1iA.
These differences havo existed for generations, but
he Church has nevertheless 1nal,,ta:nca its unity.
hat it las te' mile 20 renlin united is due 10 s
Law Of tplerai,n-
GnRHAa.s CASE.
The case OF Gorha1s Tr- TIC B:sho7 Of E1eter,-a
are cited :1ld r'licd on by defendants COUNSEL. was
cciaed in England in The 1850, by the Court OF
LIST resort in such cases, the Judicial Committee OF
e Irivs Council. It then consisted Of Dr. Lushins-
III, Lord Langd7le, Lord Clnptel, ST james Parke
ir KuiEh Bruce, aud 1lr pemberton Leigh, assis:ed
their deliberations In the above easc l.: the Arch
iShops Of Canterbury and York. and by the Bishop Of
,,ndon.
The Court, in the decision Of tho case, stated the
ro which should govern tlle interpretation of the
rices. Eubrics, and Fornluiazics OF the Episcopal
h'lrch to be this Ecclesiastical Judgments Of prlvy
:. But ii {tlc church, could no: have intended to
tempt tue determination Of ali the questions which
nd arsea might arise, to include ii. the Articles
4 authoritative statement Of MI Christian doctrine
I'D In making the necessary SELECTION OF those points
hiCh 1T waa Intended decide, MAJ be allowed to
resume that regard w.s hal the points deemed
important to Lc made known to, and be ac-
ptcd ty, the members Of the Church, aud to those
ucstious, upon which members Of the Church could
:rcc that ohc- points to other ques.ious left
future discussion by competent authority and in tho
c:utin1e TO The private judgment: Of pious a,ld
ieEtious persona" !. - And iu all c1scs in
ch tie Articles, considered test, admit Of dir-
rcnt Interpretations, it must be held tia. any sense
hA fl-f
nse bc not contradictory to something which tie
aurcn has elsewhere allowed and required
s. II there be any subject which tile Articles arc
lent ambigzcusly expressed. to be capable Of
o ueaninsH. ulssst sunpose that it intended
leave that doctrine to private judgment unless tue
abrics and fornraEes clearly aud distinctly decide
II They tlo vo must conclude that the doceriue so
cile1 is the doctrine Of the Church.
But, IN the other hand, if tue expressions used in
g ltuhric nrl Tnrmularts ambiguous, it ia not
Included that the Church 1ncat to establish inrcet-
doctrine that which it did mol establish directly
such by the Articles Of FAith,-thc code uyowclly
,de for the avoiding of tiye1sties Of opinion and
the establishing Of consent touching true re- |
ion."
such being tho rule Of Interpretation u the Arti-
d RuhT;c6, aud Formulsres Of The Protestant Epis-
pal Church, it to bo expected that wide differ
&C ct opinion should exist among its members to
teachings Of the Church. Similar, If MT great,
fcrences exit among the members Of other |
urches in the Interpretation of their Church stand
L.. But tile Churches not Tor such differences