Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, April 5, 1874, Page 9

B Sa— THE CHICAGO "DAILY TRIBUNE: SUNDAY, APRIL 5, 1874. 2] e A Ay ey e e e represented her,in the best dsys of Art, ss either | tion to the one hundred and fifty reviow-aticles, “ex Thorshill, and ran. sway with and married o daughter. The union 80 rashly consummated LB er, peculiarly suitable and happy. ‘;o . brs individuslity was eminently Euglicis o borrowed_nothing from foreign Att, bo o, peskope, gome instruction tochnicalities. ‘s moralist and satirist, he has never been 4 ed among painters. = Bat, despite the strong temptation to linger, " st skip over the long list of intervening T e though it include such men a3 Bey- ’”?d,, ‘Gainsborough, Fuseli, Barry,—* the Wild ooide, S0P ake—who, for being Spirituslist ot of due time, was set down 88 arazy,—Rae- ey apd Lovrence, and make no pause until e como 0 Turmer. Him we cannot pass by, pecsuze; gbove all English artists, ‘before and sfter, be has boen exalted, not only by his own ipmensé and erratic genius, but by the extra- Y. panegyTic pronounced upon him by wmnampnrable Art-writer, Ruskin. It were aous to spesk of Turner's works. Every hinctive quality of cach of them Ruskin has pade known o nsin languago of unequaled elo- But we msy narrate a few circum- gances, ghowing his life and cheracter, which s grest enlogist hss not choson £o delineato. JOSEPH WI LIAM MALLOED TURNER s born io 1775, in Maiden Lane, London. His {ather wES 8 bair-dreseer, and his mother wass yoman of violent temper, which ended 1nin- Taits. Here wo bavo the explanation of Tar- per's remarkable eccentricities. The demented pother gives U8 the key to the son's morose, el abits, tho jealows socrocy which guard- his movements, the strango solitudo of his 1fe, snd bis capricions and puzzling treatment of both bis friends and bis pictures. Wo ex- tct Miss Tytlor's parapbrase of an amusing ao- oant given by Mr. Redgravo, in *‘A Contury of puters,” of Tumer's manner 83 a critic wnd lecturer. Mr. Redgrave had received ks of favor from Turner, and appreciated o grim artist’s gaturnine humor,” his growls, bismombled words, Lis pokes in tho side, Lis ssecf his brosd thumb, or snatches & porte- tyon and brush, to point out an error, with bl of his lecture delivered over his shoulder, in {e midst of directions to the attendant who was srnging the sketches and disgrams. In ap- ce, Turner was & short, stoutman, with & sery red and somewhat blotched face, in which {ze eges were bright and restless, and the nose wquilive. His hands were fat, and were kopt gt over-clenn. He was elovenly in his fess, Wearing 6 Dlack dross-coat in want of broshing ; aud, in the warmest as well a8 in fbe coldest, daye, he wore round his throat a yapper, which be would unlooge and let the eds dangle down in front, and dip into the col- s his smple palette. He worked hat on Jsd, o elsa with & large wrappor over hishioad. ¥r. Redgrave compares AIr. Turner's appear- mee to that of a coach-driver of the old sehool. Mr. Leslie likens the grest master’s sersonality to that of s hip-captain. ‘Agein, wo borrow from Mr. Redgrave his de- exiption of Turner's house in London—in which Je did not liva, but kept his pictures—as it was 3und st his death s Tha scens in his Tooms on fhe occasion of his funer- ol would ave s2ddened any lover of Art, for the S ork left betind, almost as mnuch as for the geniud £ 2 had peesed away. The gollers secmed s if broom ustizg brusia bat never troubled it. Tho carpet matting (its testure was undistinguishable from 1) was worn and musty. The hangings, which bad ‘o been 3 gay smber color, showed a dingy yellow hte ¥hen the color was 1ot washiod out by the drip- ricgs {rom the ceiling,—for the cove and the gliss sky- J5is were in the most dilapidated state; many panes . re broken, snd patchied with old newspapers. From {Ewe places the wet hod run down the walls, and Ixsened the plaster go that it bad actually fallen behind {he eanvzs of ono picture, # The Day of Bail,” which, bunging over the botiom of the freme, bagged out- wird#, with the mass of accamulated mortar and rub- 1ib i pheld. Many of tho pictures—s Croesing the Trook,” among othors—had lnrge pleces chippad or scled off 3 while others were 8o fast going to decar -t the gaid first, end then tha ground, had perished from the wery frames, snd tiys Dars fire-wnod bersath w35 e 1t may well bz supposed, in such s dump sud moldy atmpsphere, any pictures would suffer,— 1nch more the fragile works of Lurner’s laet pariod, iorgularly carried oat, 25 hes been described. From Turner wetake & leap to the throe yonng paiaters who nre st the hesd of TIE PRE-BAPHAELITE SCHOOL in England: Rosotti (who nover oxhibits hia pictres publicly), Holmsn Hunt, and Millais. The earliost manifestation of pre-Kaphaclitism owcrred in the beginning of the century, in s coleny of young German artists assembled in Tore, The leaders of the movement were Over- becit 5nd Von Coruelins, and their purpose was to revive the rolimions Art of Giotto, Creagns, and Frs Angelico. In the accom- plishment of this dosign, they joined fhe Roman Catholic Church, and pledged {heraselves to imitate the devout and unworldly Eves of their chosen guides. Overbeckremained tre to the principles sdopted in his youth, rigidly enforcing them until his death at the ago of 80 yoars. His companions and followers, as might be expected, gradually fell from the faith. Even Cornelius, who had a wider and more cathalio nature than Overbeck, could not help diverging from sevore religions art to illustra- tions of the German medi@val poems. Tue Englich artists above mentioned adopted & modified form of the German pre-Baphaelit- ism. They also proposed to return to the school of Glotto and Fra Angelico, and recover ita ear- nest and reverent spirit ; but they refused to re- strict themselves within the limits of the Art which the early masters practiced. They bound theriselves to ba faithful to Nature, but not to rejest secalar subjects in an unyielding devotion to those of areliglous character. Millais has wanderod from tha faith prescribed ; but Hol- man Hunt, still faithfal to his early thories, has ‘produced several npble Scriptural paintings that bave received the loftiest praise. Among the many painters sketched in these ‘volumes, . ONLY NINE ARE WOMEN. Of these, Rosa Bonheur alone haa attained & bigh order of excellence. Several were popular in their day; but they owed muchof the distino- tion they enjoyed to their sex, their personal chazms, and varied accomplishments. —_——— THE VENUS DI MILO. The Natior “f last Thursday contains s letter fron Peris which makes some strange etate- Teuts abont the world's finest statue. It was found, a8 everybody knows, in two pieces. M. Ravaisson, one of the officials of the Louvre Yuseam, now claims to have discovered that the Veaus was originally made in two piecos, which were fastened together with wooden pegs, and that the two parts have not been mocurately re- Pleced. The upper half inclines too much for- werd and on ona side. The Greeks generally Fub their statues on the uneven eurfaces of natural gronnd. The restorers of the Venue di Mo putthe soles of the feetin a horizontsl Pesition, and so, M. Ravaisson 6ays, spotled tis statue. He bas placod two plester-casts £ido by mido, one of which represents the Venus 15ghe is, the otner as she would be, if thebody ware thrown back into better equilibrium. The latter is gaid to be decidedly the best. The pres- eut awkward stoop disappears entirely. _ The question of the true position of tho miss- iug srms remaing, M. Ravaisson belioves that 138 Venus stood by Mars. The battle 15 ended. 1ler foot is on the helmet of Mars' victim. She i3 disarming her brother-god. One of herhends i8 on his sword; the other seizes his shoulder- belt from behind., The group bss been put in Plaster. The arms, thus srranged, fit precisely with the body of the statue. 80 far ruus the letter. The correspondenca of *rms and body by no means proves M. Ravais— ton's theory. A like correspondence exists ¥hen the arms are put in wholly differont posi- tions. At the Vienns Exposition u Greek scalptor exhibited his ides of the origmal Venus diXilo, It was a statve, in dazzlingly-white, Pure marble, of the goddess admiring herself 304 her goldon earrings in an oval mirror which m’nam beforo har, The Gresk based his ren- dering on Homer. He eaid that the blind bard sonstantly gave Venus two attributes. She s “‘golden” and “groedy of admiration.” Breek sculptors followed Homer. They took Ihsir {des of the goddess from bim, and put in @arhle what he had pui ia words. Honos they | the l attracting the admiration of others or as admiring herself, and they gave ber golden coronets and other adornments. The face of the Venus di Milo, said the modern sculptor. represents an in- nocent, glad surprise at her own besuty. Hence she must bo seciog it. Bho cannot be looking in apool She must, then, hold before her & mir- ror, probably made of buinished steel. The earrings eatisfy the sdjective *‘goldon,” and give the goddess something beside herself to admire. Another theory is that the statue does not represent Venus at all, but Minerva. It is said that the right foot originally rested on a tor- toise, and that the Goddess of Wisdom was often thus represented. Some of those who find Minerva in the matchless form say that the god- Qess held sword and shieldin her hands. Othera give her moro pacific emblems. The ehield the- ory has at loast this muchof support: that there is o mark on the right kaoce, which looks—to believers’ oyes—aa if the shield held by the right hand had rested there. The fact, however, that the figure representa Ve- nus may be eafely taken on trust by people who have never studied the ststue. It is taken on reagon by most of those who have. There aroadozen Greck statuesin existence which are modeled after the Venus di Milo, and which undoubtedly represent the Goddess of Love. The Museum szt Naples cor:tains & small and exquisite copy in bronze, found at Pompoii, in which the arms are outstretched, 23if in bene- diction. The Nation’s letter partly tells the curious story of the way the Venus was preserved from harm, during the double siege of Paris. One of the cellar-walls of the Louvre was hollowed out. The statuo was taken from its pedestal, enveloped in plaster, and put in this hiding- placo. Bricks were laid before it. A number of valuable books were put in front of the brick- work, and the original susfaco of the wall was restored. If anybody had discovered that some- thing was hidden there, search would have atop- ped with the books. So the Venus was doubly safe, Statue and books both escaped. The goddess has been safely resurrected, to be wor- shived in the fature aa ahe has been in the past. e WORKING BY RULE. DY PROF. WILLIAM MATHEWS, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. A Boston correspondent of the Now York Tribune, in speaking of the late Prof. Agassiz, remarks that he was eingularly unmethodical in his habits. Men who live and work by rule would be puzzled to understand how the great scientist contrived to do so much without these holps. Agassiz lived sud worked by iuspiration. #+1¢ he was suddenly scized with an interest in some scientific inquiry, ho would pursue it at once,—putting by, perhaps, other work in which ho had just got fairly stacted. *I always like to take advantage of my productive moods,” ke gaid tome. Thus be often Lind several irons in the fire, only one of which might bo ultimately’ finished. Probably ho saw that the lastiron promised to work up better than the firat. Ho never conld be made to work like a machine turning ont a definite quantity at regalar inter- vals. He never felt bound to regard tho rule that you must finish ono shing befors you begin snother, 8o emphatically prosonted in ihe ald copy-books.™ & The fact here stated concerning Agassiz's hobits points to an important principle of intol- Jectual labor which merits the attention of all montal workers. There are some persons who seem to think the great end and aim of life is to practice tho minor virtues. To be couriogus, punctusl, economical in the mansgeraent of time ~ad money,—to do one thing at & time, and never to procrastinate,—in short, moral dexterity snd handinoss,—are qualitiea which they never tire of glorifying, and which, sbove all others, they aim to exemplify in their own lives and charac- ters. Almost every liverally-oducated man con remember some porsons of this cluss whom ho knew in college,—young men who were marked by their associates for their enslavement to cor- {ain stiff, east-iron rules, more inflexible than thelaws of tho Medes and Persians, so often referred to by stump-speakors.—by which they regulated their minutest actions. Over their mentels wers posted“s long string of regu- Iations, which, at & heroio sacrifice of com- fort, they dsily and sedulonsly ob- served.—such as these: 4 Remember, 1. Torise at 6. 2. Recitation st 7. 8. Breek- fastat8. 4. Exercise half an hour. 6. Study two hours;” and so on. Such sticklers for method are generally very conscientious men, who honestly wish to make the most of their fac- ulties and opportunities ; but generally, wo fear, they arenot overstocked ‘with brains, sad, as thoy do not create a prodigions sensation in col- lege, 8o they aro rarely guilty of setling any rivers on fire after graduation. The Roman poet, Juvenal, with his usual vigorons touch, bsspaint- od & “representative man” of this class: ¢ he but walk o mile, e first must look For the fit hour and minute in his hook; ¢ his eye itch, the pein will atill endure, Nor, till a scheme be raised, apply the cure, Now, it is well to havo somo method in one's actions,—even in one's madnoss, as did Hamlet; but to be shackled by many and minute rules of conduct,—to rule all one's actions with & raler,— to divide one's time with & pair‘of- compasses, and allow precisely 80 much to _this'. thing and so much to that,—is a2 intolerable torment. The virtucs that accompany ‘method—such as punctuslity, the disposition not to loiter, and the power of working up sparo moments for useful purposes—are ell commendable; they help s man to do his work triumphantly, snd ic £n eusy, assured manmer ; but 1t is possible to overrate their valua. They ol the wheels of life, snd make them run without hitch or creaking ; bat they do not determine the character of that ife. Their only value is derivative, and they have no more power to do the business of life than s pulley has to lift a weight. Robert Hall used to soy of early rising, that the real question a8 not what time you get up, but what do you do when yousre up. S0 method and the im- provement of time are important in themselves; but & far more important question is, how do you improve your time? It is well to be at your post at the very moment the clock striles tho hour; bat it is far moro important to be sblo to dis- chargo its duties after you have got there. Mental stature, intellectusl power, has not s very close relation, we fear, to the virtues of & mar- tinet. A wise, thoughtfal, useful man—a cloar- headod reasoner, & profcund thinker—may be immethodical, dilatory, elovenly, just ss a graot may b3 clumsy, swkward, sod 1doss in all his mske-up. Perhaps no t\wo persons were ever mors un- like each other, in respect to method or system, than Southey and Coleridga. They strikingly illustrate the advantages and drawbacks of the Liabit of mind which has been so much Isuded. Sonthoy was 8 regular 88 & clock. Always promyt and punctual, be did his work with the exaetucss £nd procision of s machine; and the wateh no sooner ticked the hous than his liter- ary tale of brick was forthcoming. He wrote poetry before bresidfast; he read during bresk- Tost; he read history till dinner; he corrected ‘proof-shoets between diner and tes ; he wrote an ocgeay for the Quarterly afterwards ; and after supper composed * The Doctor,"~-an_claborste jest. Nover was there 8 greater miser of time never, gince Pliny, were ‘moments 80 conscien- tiously improved. Even when walking for osercise, ho took & book with him. Bot what does his lifo prove, except that the habits of mind best fitted for communi= cealing information— habits formed with the groatest care, snd daily regulated by tho best 8 otives—ara exactly the habits which are Likely Yo afford » man tho best informstion to commu- picate? Southey's works are prodigies of learn- ing and labor; bat who reads them now? What worlk has he produced which the world “ will not willingly let die”; what bold, striking thoughta has he uttered which stiok in the memory lke barbed arrows, that cannot bo withdrawn? Ot ‘hundrsd sad thros Yalumes, whick, in eddi- he so painfully composed, not onme, in all probabil ity, except possiblythe * Life of Nelson,” of which Lis publisher dictated the subject and sizo, will be read fifty years hence. The truth is, Southey 1ad and wrote so systematically and so mechapicelly—so much like a machine—that his life was m onotonous and humdrum ; it had no adventures, changes, events, orexperiences; acd hence his works show & painfal want of intelloctual bone and muscie, and rarely touch the hearts or thrill thoe sympathies of his hearars. Gorgeous passsges may be found in thers,—proofs of vigorous fancy aud imayination ; but hus porsons and their adven- tures are so supernatural—so dreamy, phantom- like, and out of the circle of human sympathies, both in their triumphs and sufferings—that his gorgeons and ambitions poems produce on us the impression of & splendid but unsubstantial nightmare. - Now look at Coleridge. He passed Lis whole life out at elbows, physically snd morally. He loitered and dawdled ; he wasted whole weeks and months ; ho had no sense of the valwe of minates ; ho prosecuted s thousand literary schemes which weze never finished ; and, when ho died, left behind him, a8 Lamb playfully said, “forty thousand treatises on metaphysics and divinity, not one of them complete.” It is m .these fragments,—in casual remarks, scribbled often on tho margins of booke, and reminding us of the Sybil'sleaves,—in ymperfectly-roported conversations, and in & fow briof but exquisitoly- harmonized poems, that we must look for tho proof of Coleridgo's mighty but imperfect- ly-recorded powers. Yet who that is familiar with these, and with the writings of Southey, can donbt that Coleridge was by far the groater man of tie two; snd who can help suspecting that thero was, if not s dircct connection, at least a strong sympathy between his gepius and his slovenlinees ? Ho had, a8 another bes soid, a ift for secing the difficulties of life, its seamy side, its incongruities and contradictions, which he would probably have lost if he had been more respectablo and victorious. “But Agsssiz's or Coleridge's method of workiog would bo ruinous to sny msn who had not their wonderfal facultios, their far-sight and insight.? Ne doubt; and therofore neither of +| them evor proposed his own method of working a8 3 model for others. *Once, in my presence,” says the correspondent of the Tribune o, near relative ventured to ask him (Agassiz) it he did not think ha would accomplish more if ho finished ome thing befors Le began snother. ‘Every man must work according to bis own mothod’ he replied. It was frequently a hard thing to got him to sign o paper, or Write lettor (oxcept for some- body else), or to look over sccounts, or to do little rontine work. Yet hie conid mever have attainod his great eminence in scioncoe if hehad not paid, in his department, great attention to the minutest snd apparently the most insignifi- cant details. Looking at the drawing of a fish made by his artist, ho said, after taking s singlo glance, ¢ It is » beautiful drawing, ‘but don't you ses you have left eut two or three of the scales 7' The sum of the matter is, method, like fire, i3 | good slave, bat bad master, and s too apt to degonerato, Iike othier minor virtues, into mero prigrishness. As intellectual companions, your eystematic square-rule-nud-compass men aro, of all porsoas, the dullest and most unsatisfring. +1 love not," says the charming French writor, £ his Voyage Autour de ma Chambre, “ people who are o completely the masters of their stopa and their ideas that thoy sey to thomselves, ¢ To- day I will make throe visits; I will write four lotters; I will finish that work which I have be- gun.’” We sympathize with him. Wo respect the literary Pharisees, who tithe mental mint, anise, and cummin, with serupulons regularity ; bat wo canrot love them. Even in morals, it is not the most straight-Iaced persons—tho “nnco guid,” who pevor deviatebys bair's-breadth from the path of proprioty—that are the bost Christians, . tho best neighbors and citizens, parents and childron, husbands and wives. John Milton has justly denounced those serupliiats % who, when God has set us in 3 fair allowanco of way, novar leavo subtleizing and casuisting &1l thoy have straightoned and pared that liberal path into a razor's edge o uvalk on.” And the \wise old Gascon, Montaigne, with his usual sa- gacity, observes of systems of conduct gener- slly, that a young man ought gometimes [0 cross his oton rules,” to awake Lis vigor, and to keep it from growing faint and rusty; *for there is no course of life 80 weak as that whichis car- riod on by rule and discipline.” e o BEECHER-TILTON. Reply of Theodore Tilton to the Con- gregational Couzucile Prom the Golden Age. SHF. CONGREGATIONAL COUNOIL. An Ecclesiastioal Council—large, venerable, and honored—composed of clergymen, college- Presidents, Judges, and other able and revered men—have spent & week in Brooklyn, discussing questions growing out of the case between Ply- mouth Church and Ar. Tilton. As this gentleman is the editor of the Golden Age, this journal, however fairly it might com- ment on the proceedings, would be open to the imp utation of & personal biss in his favor. For this reason, nothing shall be here said ex- copt the few plain words which justice requires. Mr. Tilton’s case, after serving to originate the Council, ccased from that moment to be the case which the Coureil discnssed: and through- out the whole proceodings, and in the final ver- dict, an imaginary case was discossed instead of the real one. X The imaginary case laid before the Conneil was that of a church-member charged with bear- ing false witness against the pastor, and declin- ing to answer the charge. But, in the real case, the alloged member was not a member, nor did e bear false wituess, nor did he decline to an- gwer; and, moreover, instend of being a slan- Geror, he was, snd stillis, the person’ chiefly slandered. = The Council’s verdict centains the following remarkably incorrect description of Mr. Tilton's case: 1% will suffics to say that in the Plymonth Church & complaint wos brought against s memnber that he had Girculated and promoted scandals derogatory to the Christisn integrity of the pastor, and injurious to tke reputation of the church, The. person comnplained of Eppeared in tho church meetiug, snd declared that four years before that time Le had, by bis own voli- tion, terminated his connoction with the church ; and thereupon his name was, by & vota of the cliurch, dropped from the catalogue of its members. Tho above statoment of Alr. Tilton's case may have sufticed for the technical needs of the Council, but does not suflice for the claims of truth and justice; for it presents to the public & porvorted, misrepresented, and distorted viow of the real case. Alr. Tilton was indzed charged with an offense, as ths Council here state; more- over, he sppeared in person in Plymouth Chinreb, as is also hero stated; but he did not sppear there for any such ipsufficient, frivolous, and evasivo parpose 28 simply to reply to a grave charge opainst him by the faint ples that he had been absont for four yeurs. What he went there to say in person— Jod what he did say—wos, not merely that he had been absent for four ears,—which would Bave been s mean man's buse defense,—but that, having been stigmatized a3 & slanderer, he was there to ansicer _openly to the man whom he was alleged to have slandered. : This fact was commuuicated to the Council by Mr. Tilton in suthentic extracts from ‘historic Tocords, capable of being confirmed by a thou- f20d ejo-witnesses : all living men and women whosoe homes were in the very city in which the Council was held. A “Che Council, for ecclesiasticsl ressons, put aside Mr. Tilton's letters, but ten Couucils could not put aside one jot of the truth which these letters still contain. . ‘Beyond ¢ purely personal interest in the Conn- cil, the Golden Age has no interest at all. The Shole inquiry a8 to what constitates classical 2nd ideal Congregstionnlism i & guestion for others, Mr. Tilton, in leavin Plymouth Church, did not stop to inquire into the genersl Congre- gational nsage in such cases. 1t was suflicient for bim that ho left in strict conformity with his right to do s0, 88 gueranteed and frequently re- T med—not by the Copgregational denomina- fion—but by Plymonth Courch— right whica heu been recently restated in & manifesto in be- hulf of that charch, as follows = U T,yERY MAX HAS AN INDEFEASIELE RIGET TO 2 LINSELY ¥ROX THE CUUNCH BY I8 OWN BT o8 Plymonuth Chincsh in aocardandcs with this right, which that church guarantees to all its memberg. If this right be not nc:ard:d by other Coogregational churcies to their mem- bers (and the Courcil have decided that it is not), then it ought to be. Plymouth Church, roafiirming and vindicating this indefeasible right, has championed a principle worth more than the whole Congregationa! polity without it. Cotton Mather—ane of the fathers of Congre- gationalism—said, * There is no moro force in tho decree of & Council than there is force in the reuson of it.” Judging the recent Council by Cotton Mather's test, there was nothing in ita proceedings comparable in moral value with the _indefeasible right which the Councl voted down. The Christian Church neocdu s Personal Liberty law. Thbis law may fitly be coined omt of the pure gold which was smelted by the recent far- nace-heats in Plymouth Church; and it can bear no better superscription than the words alreads quoted, namely: ‘“the indefeasible right of & man to sepcrate himself from the Church by his own sole act.” 1f any church will not make such a law for its members, then every free man should be free to enact such a law for himself. THE CHENEY CASE. Sketch of the Evidence and Arguments of Counsel. What Dr. Tyng and the Rev. Mr. Kinney Think of the Two Parties in the Episcopal Chureh. Omissions from Services Toler= ated. The hearing of the case of Calkins ve. Cheney, of twenty-four days' duration, was concluded on Saturdsy, and the matter taken under advise- ‘ments. As this is in fmeny respects a cause celobro, we give bolow an outline of its leading features : In the summer of 1869, tho Rev. Charles Ed- ward Cheney, Rector of Christ Church, Chicago, was PUT UPON HIS TRIAL before an Ecclesiastical Court, composed of the Ttev. Samuel Chase, D. D., the Rev. Henry N. Piorce, D. D., the Rev. A. H. Soyder, the Rev. T. N. Bepedict, and the Rev. John Benson, se- lected under the Diocesan canon providing for such proceedings, upon the charges of violation of the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Chaureh, eatablishing s Book of Common Prayer, -offices, articles, otc., sod prescribing that no alteration or eddition should be made therein or thereto, except at two sessions of the Gener- L a1 Convention of that Chureh; =nd also of vio- 1ation of his promise to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Church. On tho second day of the trial, and before any evidence was taken or heard, the proceedings +were enjoined by tho Superior Court of Chicago. The caso in this Court was carxied by sppeal to tho Supreme Coart, and the decree reversed in Janusry, 1871 The ecclesinstical trial was Te- suwed in Fobruary. In the meantime, however, the Rev. Henry N. Pierce had been consccrated Bishop of Arkansas, and did not and could not appear as a member of the Court. The sccnsed thereupon objectod toany further proceedings, upon the ground that ho could mot bo tried by four Prosbyters when the camon 6e- cared him tho right of selection, and this had been mads to the nnmber of fivo. Tho Rev. Messrs. Chase, Benson, Beno- dict, and Snyder went on, novartholoes, and found tha respondent gnilty, il sentenced him to suspension until bo could prozaise to conform in future, and express contriticn for the past, which sontence was soon after pronounced by Bighop Whitehouse. Aftorwards,—Dr. Chency officiating notwithstanding the sentence,—he was again impleaded before a second Ecclesias- tical tribunsl for disregarding the prior sentence, and found guilty, and sentanced to 'DEPOSITION FLOM TIIE MINISTEY; which sentence was pronouncel by Bishop ‘Whitehouse. The Rev. Dr. Cheney still offiiiating under employment by the Wardens and 'Vestrymen of Christ Church, who were directed! to contizne Ius services by vote of the congregation, on the 28th of May, 1572, & bill in chancer;7 was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County by Messra. Calking, Cleavelsnd, snd Jennisap, insisting taat the Bishop of the Dioceso of Illinois had inherent power to discipline the clorgy of the Diocese, and that the Wardens and: Vestrymen Were guilty of & broach of trust in continuing to permit Mr. Cheney's ministrations, and praying for an injunction. No averment was made in the bill that tho congregation of Clarist Church had deviated or doparted. or that sny- portion of the congregation bad done go. To this bill some of the defendants .filed a de- murrer, aud others a remurrer. After lengthy argument upon the motion for_injunction and the demurrer to the bill, Judge Williams denied thie motion, and overraled tho demurrer- The defendants who had demurred theia joined in the answer, and - TUE CABE WAS BROUGHT TO IESUE. The snswer denied the validity of the alleged sentence upon Dr. Cheney, and set up that the property of Christ Church was acquired and £ou- Veyod for the use of the congregation 28 su.ci and Dot =8 & copgregation of tae Protestant Episcopal Church ; that there are two great pai= ties i the Protestant Episcopal Cuurch, who hold two dismetrically-opposize beliefs upon or- ders, sacraments, otc., aod the rule of the Church, as a whole, is toe rule of tolersting each school of belief; &nd tuat thin proverty was ac- cumulated for tlle promotion of tha viowe of oue of these schools, viz.: the Evangelical or Low Church; and from the Doctrines, Discipline, and Worship thereof the congregution had not de- parted. The inherent power of the Biahop to proceed oatside of tho constitution 2nd canons of the Church was emphatically denied. ATUCH TESTIMONY was taken on both sides, and particularly on the theological and devotional aspects of the case. For the complainants, the deporitions of the Hon, Murray Hoffman, Pro?. Seymour, Dr. Ful- ton, Bishop Odenleimer, Bishop Whitebouso, Bishop Kife, Dr. Dix, Dr. Adams, John Honry Hopkins, Dr. Locke, Dr. Chase, Dr. Dean, the Rev, Mossrs. Kinney, Stocking, and_Townsend, upon the goneral Church ;and. theological ques- tions involved, were read ; and those of hlessrs. Calkins, Woodruff, Jennison, Otis, and the Rev. Messta. Cheney, Knowles, and others, as to tho trinl of tho Rev. Mr. Chenoy, and the circum- stances sttonding the scquigition and situation of the property. For the defendants, the dopositions of Bishop Vail, Bishop Whitslo, Dishop Cummins, Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Newton, Dr. Nicholson, Dr. Tyng, Prof. McEllinncy, Dr. Powers, Dr. Cheney, in this country, and of the very Rev. the Dean of Westminster, and of the Lov. Thomas W. Mose- man, of England, upon the Church and theologi- cal questions, were road; and those of Mersra. Mills, Phillips, Henry S. Monroe, H. C.Swith, and othery, in relation to the situation of the property, etc., etc. Great contrariety of view was expressed by the witnessos. Judge Hoffman, Dr. Fulton, Bishop Odeubeimer, Prof. Segmour, aud Dr. Tocke, concurred in_ declaring a sentence pro- nounced without trial a8 void and not voidable ; Jsishop Whitebouse, the Rev, Dr. Stocking, and Meesrs. Hopkins and Kinney, testified it would be voidable only. The defendant’s witnessos conceived that such a sentoncs wonld be void,—Bishop Vail stating it would bs in fuct void, but perhaps voidable in offect for wunt of anymeans of geiting behind it. ‘An to the omission of words from the gervices, the evidence was chiety in behalf of the defend- ants. H DB. TYNG, JR., testifled, on cross-examination, a8 follows: In reference to my own ussges it has been my babit, over since I have exercised my ministry, to_ omit, for f20od and sufncient Tessons, on occasious of pul fic worship, parts of the order for ~Morn- ing and Evenivg Prayer, parts of the form for the administrationon 'of the Lord's Supper, parts of the office for Iufant snd Aduit Baptiem, Tara of the ofiice for the Churching of Women. d the'sshole of tho ofice for the Visitaticn of the Sick. I huve the support of the usgae of Lishove nnj Presbyters connected with all achiools of thoughts ch. all the Dioceses in_the Protestant Eviscopal Ch §t would be hinpoesible {6 give all the names of part! 1a7 individuals who make tup ssme or si:ailar ou elors to those which ars included in my Jabit. o the best of my knowledge and Bl 13 of the Frosbyters in the City u omiswicos are tolerated ‘s historical and doctrinal comprehensiver.ess of Uie Yhurch. They are suthorized by the prevaiiing io- ferpretation of Canon 20, Title 1, ‘ss manifested fu :te action and debates of the General Convention of 18 1 do not know from personal knowlsdge the particular omissions made by many of the clergy to wkea I Bavesiraady ceisrred, bt 1he Kpacial ainisian of the wonl “regenerate” in the offics of Baptism, which occasfoned. the so-called deposition of the defendant 4n this action, is practiced habitually by myself; by the Nev. Dr. Braneroft, of Brooklyn: the Rev, DF. Newton, of Philadelphia; the Rev. Mr. Matlock, of Pliludelphia; aud many others, as I am informed nd beliese. THE REV. THOMAS W. MOSSMAN, for defendant, testificd : There 18 o recognized usage among clergymen of the Church of En- gland to omit words from Morning Ser- Vico, Evening Servico, Communion* Ser- vice, Marriage Service, and, under cer- tain conditions, the Burial Service. This ap- plies only to words importing doctrine ; and the usage is 80 univereal that **mos pro lege " pre- vails, The right of private judgment °may bo oxercised on the doctrine of Baptismal Regenera- tion, but not upon the doctrine of the Divibity. Ho considers Episcopacy s_matter of ecclesiasfi- cal arracgenent, and says his views are those of fully one-balt the Bishops and clergy of En- gland. = ON THE PART OF COMPLAINANTS, but little evidence appears in this part of the cnse, a8 they take the gronfld that the civil court 1ias nothing to do with it. Judge Hoffman says, however, that no Presbyter has the right to omita word because, in his judgment, it'is im- material; and Dr. Adams agrees with him. Bishop Odenheimer testifies that the omission of a single letter from the ereeds made, and etiil makes, the offense of beresy (referring to the controversy over homoiousion and homoousion —of *‘the same ” and of ‘‘like" substance with the Father). BISHOP WHITEHOUSE, called in rebuttal, testified that many of the ser- vicew were discretionary, and particularly in the Anglican use. Take the English Marrisge Ser- vica, for inatance, where the procreation of chil- dren was alluded to. This was omitted where the uge of the parties rendered it mapplicable. Many services carried within themselves the Qiscretionary requisition. The office for tho Visitation of the Sick was rarely used. It was intended to bo confined to cases of those about or appointed_to die, and of course not generally spplicable. There wa also tho distinction to be beerved between public and private services, and this should be borne in mind in the exami- nation of the rubrics. DR. W. B, NICTOLEOY, for defendant, testified: There is no law in the Protestant_Episcopal Church making the omis- sion of an immaterial word in the administration of the oflices of said church & presentable of- feowo. As to what words may be material or not, there is littlo room for doubt or debate. Talie, for instance, the word *regenerated” in the thankegiving after the baptism has been performed; self-evidently, it neither promotes nor hinders the efficecy of ‘an act alrendy done, whether we speak of it afterwards in one phraso- ology or snother. And the correctness of this view is attested by the offico for the Private Baptism of Children, wherein this word * regenerated " is omitted, and yet the baptism is expressly pronounced in the rubric to be's “lawfol and sufficient * baptism. And, in case the sick child thus baptized should live, it is only eaid to be ** expodient,” not essential, that the child should afterwards be taken to church and the remainder of the servico be said overit. Various omissions ars made. A great number of the clergy of this Church are in_the Liabit of omitting the word *‘regenerate.” This was 80 in the Dioceses of New York, Long Jutand, snd Pennsylvania, and this is noforions. “These omissions are wlerated by the Bishops, Tor they thomsclves are awnre that there is no Jaww of the Church making such omission s pre- suntable offcuse. Dr. Nowton, Frof. McElhinney, and others testified upon this subject. As to the existence of TWO PABTIES in the Protestant Episcopal Chureh, all the wit- nesses eubstantially agreed, except Dr. Adems, Who denied it, upon the ground, xpparentls, that those who differed Wwere extremists and worthy of no attention. Defondant’s witnesses spoks of these parties as schools of bolief; complainants’ witnesses genorally stylod them schools of opinion. Dr. Tyng, for the defendant, siates these differences, thus: There are two_historical partles in the Protestant Eplacopal Church in the United States, 26 well a3 in. thio Chiurch of England. Both schiols of thoaght and action have always been considered by seid Churches 5 parta of thelr organizstion snd comprenended by incir symbols. Thse schools differ chiofly in refer- ence 1o the doctrines of the ministry, of the Church, of tho sufficiency of Scripture,and of the relation and eficacy of Sscraments, With reference to the mniatry The Los.Church achool clum the reforming Arch- Dbishops and Bishops of the ixteenth century ; Thie 1igh-Chiurch school have o8 their representa- tivas Archibishop Lond and others, "The Low-Church school hold he preface to the Ordinal o8 the recitation of an indispensable fact of fiistory, namely : that, from the Apostlce’ time, there hhave bean three orders of ministers : Bishops, Priests B Deaconn ; but they deny, an necessarily connected. With this fuct, either an_unbroken line of pedigroe, 3 Virtue of sacerdotal grace, or an. exclusicn of all other ministries as valid excapt these. "The Tizh-Churcl: school hold that tho preface to the Ordinal is the law of the Church _establishing the doo- trine of the Apostalical succession, 5o called, denying the validity as weli 28 the regularity of all other minis— tries out of a tactual succeasion, and afirming the pos- soesion of & Apecial gacerdotal grace by those wlio have Tocelved £piscopal ordination in the Line of such suc- cession. With reference to the Church : Tho Low-Church school hold to the language of Art. 10, a8 o full definition of the visible Church of Chris and do, therefore, recognize the Protestant Evangelical ‘hon-Eptscopal Churchos a8 responding, in all essential Teatures, to this definition. The High-Church school hold that Eptscopacy is es- sential to the orgauization o Church, snd do Tecog- nize and eeek communion with all Episcopally-con- stracted bodier, With reference to the su of Seripture : The Low-Cliureh school hold to the 1pnasima verba of Art. 6, that “ Holy Scripture containeth all things Recensary’ to salvation, to thas whatever is not read {herein, nor may be proved thereby, {8 not to be re- quircd of apy man, that it ebould bo believed a8 an article of failh, or be thought Tequisite or necessary to Balvation:” end they alwo hold that the authority of the Church is limited by Art. 20 to such consent of Scripture: *that, although tlie Cburch bo s witness snd & keeper of Holy Writ, yet, s it ought not to de- cree anything ngainst the same, 60, besidea the same, Gught it mot to enforce anstiing to be belleved for Decessity of salvation.” And, upon these articles, they Tmaintain the right and responsibility of privata judg- ment in interpretation of Holy Scripture. The High-Church School hold that Holy Scriptures, sa interproted by the whole Church for 300 yesrs after Christ, aro the Rulo of Faithi; and claim that, since 4 e Church 13 the keeper of Soly Writ, it pertalns also to theCharch suthoritatively to interpret the same. \Tith reference t the efficacy of Sacraments - .6 Low-Church school hold o the literal rendering of As "te, 25, 77, 28, 20, and 30. TinY urch Achool claim that Regeneration is coinc dent witn Baptism ; that the Real Presence is objects vely to ba honored'snd received in &nd through ba elen tents of bread snd wine in the Lord’s Supper ; hat Gon firmation, whilst not 8 Bacrament, 13 Sacra- Tnental O rdinance, through which the grace of atrength. 15 confernd; and that Orders, whilst not s Sacrament, 18 » Secram vental Ordinance, through which the graces ‘of the minh itry are impartod. THE REV. I. C. KINNEY, » for the complaifant, thus: The difference “be- tweon the twe patties reiate principally to the Orders, and to the Sacraments of Bsptism and of the Tord's Supper. A High-Churchman be- Tieves that Ordevs and Apostolical Succeesion “are pecessary to the very existence of any Church. A Low-Churchman believes that they aremecessary only in this Church. Both are Qeoed that, in the Protestant Episcopal Church, S orduined by & Presbyter must be reordsined Py a Bishop before ho can bscome » minister in the Protestant Epieconal Church. With re- apect to Daptism, 8 High-Churchman believes that, in Daptism, the germ is always implanted that will develop, if nourished, into life eternal. The Low-Churcbmen bolieves ~that, in all “baptized, thero i4 » change of relationship, but onlyin some dipgerminal change. Both High and Low Churchmen equeily teach that Infant “Baptism should be administered ; and both esch that no person baptized is sure on that so- count of eternal salvation. The High-Churchman teaches that, in the Toly Commanion, the Savior, aftor the conse- .cration, i6 epiritually and, indeed, present. The Tow-Churchman, that it is the great actof ‘Christian worship, which unite all the faithfnl ; -and that every minister in aoy religions, body, .excepting & Deacon in the Protestant Episcopal ‘Chureh, hae a right to administer. Both High :and Low Churchmen will. mn posce, kneel and ‘receive from the same hand the same Holy era- ‘blem. There is not only_this differenco; but Low- «Churchmen merge into High-Churchmen, and ‘High-Churchmen into Catholic Churchmen ; and = Drosbytor will egree with mo partly in ono “point, and with another in & second doctrine; in word, in the Protestant Episcopal Church, here i6 unity in essentials, and liberty in non- essentials, and charity in all thinge. DR. RICHARD NEWTON, ’ for defendante, says : The chicf points of differ- ence botween the two partiesare in regard to the natare of the Sacrament aud the character of the Tinjstry. Perhaps tho best practical deflnition is: tho High-Church party would forbid any _man from casting out devila unless he does it in {teir way. The Low-Church party are not so T urticnlar abont the war in which it isdone, p rovided only the devila are caat ont. Ho testifies to numercaa omissions, and. ara0ng othars, the ofica for the Visitation of the Spsk: andy ginco sll agres to * swallow this camel " withont a ny suthority, it ‘seems strangs st some should b 60 persistent in straining at g.uats. “Tpon concluding the evidence, CORNING JUDD buc‘:;;h- foar for tin complainants, sad eon- timed: 5 1L Thuas, whare sn Noclssiastionl Covrs has 2cted aud passed upon the questiona presented, whether jurisdictionsl or otherwise. that finlly determines the matter, and the spiritual sentence is no more oxaminabla into colluterally thanthat t;s,;lny other 't;ourt. ét 1;-‘ ix[} fact conclusive.— son. v. Jones, allace, 697; . e, 88 Tlinoi, St0. V1 5.Chte T . That, in this case, it was sufficient that Bishop pronoanced the sentence. Whll:vzertg‘i Tegularity, if any there were, which he denied. this would only render the action of the Bishop voidable, and Dot void, because the Bishop pos- sessed the pover inherent in his office to con- demn_without any trial at all. The law of this Church established three orders in the mimstry, of which that of Bishop was the suparior or gov- erning order; and it followed that the power of discipline was inberent, and, being inherent, its uncanonical exercise woald be voidable merely. The Bishop corresponded to the High Priest, the Presbyter to the Priest, and the Deacon to the Levite, of the Jewish dispensation. Episcopacy was of Divine institation. It was not created by the Church. Mr. Judd then went into ® learned and ox- haustive argument to establish the jure ditine theory of Episcoval Church Government, read- ing copious extracts from varicus books of the 0Old and New Testament.—Numuers, [saial, the Gospels, Timothy, Titve, Ephesians, Phillippi- ang, Acts, &c.; also, from whe Apostolic Fath- ers, Clement, Ignatws, Polycarpe, Hermas, Neal's Primitise Liturgies, Tertulian, Origen, Cyperian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Abgustine, Hilary, Epiphasius, Athanasius, the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons, Potter on Charch Government, Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Robertson's History of the Christian Church, Bingham's Antiquitics, Johnson's Early English Canons, Van Espen's Jus Uuniversum Ecclesiasti- cum, Grey's Ecclesiastical Law, Bioren's Journals Protestant Episcopsl Church, Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, Beardaloy's Hiatory of the Churchin Counecticut, Burns' Ecclesinstical Law, Hawks on tho Constitution and Canons, Palmor's Treatise on the Church, Vinton's Manual of Cavon Law, Theophilus Americanus, Presbyterisn Looking for the Church, Vox Ecclégim, Fulton's Index Can- onum, ' Odepheimer on _the Prayer-Book, Huddan on_Apostolical Succession, Blunt'a Annotated_Pravor-Book, and Evaus on Epis- copacy. Ho insisted: 1. That tho order of Bishops was Divinely instituted, and they ap- pointed to b the successors of the Apostles ; 3. “hat the Church of England so beld ; 3. That the Protestant Episcopal Church was identical with the Church of England, and so held. He also contended that the canons of the first six Gen- cral Councils, bound the Catholic Charch, and 8o the American branch of that Chburch, and could not be done away With save by another Ecumenical Council ; and even such’a Council conld not take away the power of discipline from Bishops. He argued that a sishop could alone ordain. If,. therefore, a Bishop ordainod contrary to law, still the ordination was voidable ‘morely, and not void; and 80 if a Bishoo sus- pended contrary to law., _ A8 to the case of the Rev. Dr. Cheney, he was, in effect, suspended because he taught false doctrine, or declired to teach true doctrine. To omit sn immaterial word might not be anytking more than a tecunical or no offense ; bat to omit thoword * regenerats” was the gravest kind of an offense, because it imported doctrine. IIL But with theso questions this Court bad nothing to do. Nevertheless, 80 far ss this first tribunal was concerned, he insisted that its pro- ceedings were rogular and valid. It way exact- 1y like & court-martial, where the number was od at Dot less than five nor more than thir- teen, and migat sccordingly go below the latter number. Mr. Judd explained the difference betweon public and private services, and insisted that the use in the latter might be discretionary, but not in the former, sa to which of the rubrics were o reviewed the depoeitions of imperative. Deacon Stanley nnd Mr. Mossmanm, and that of Dr. Goodwin, dwelling particular- Iy oo Mossman's_ History of tho early Church, which he_denounced as unsound. He uoted from the Diocesan Convention journal of eptember, 1871, to show that the Diocesan Con- vention had declred the meaning of Canon XX. to be what he contended it was, and cited 3 Howcard, 556, to show tbat guch dectaratory ac- tion was binding. He recapitulated the canons of the Church, and insisted that, under them, the procedings were regular snd valid, an sgnin insisted that, if not, co civil court counld interfere with ecclesiastical action, snd that Judge Williams, in his decision on the demurrer, had in effect decided the whole case. "Mr, Judd occupied five days in his opening. M. MELVILLE W. FULLED, for the defendants, continued: 1. That, as the bill was framed, no recovery could be had. That the bill nowhere intimated that the congregation of Christ Church had do- viated or departed from the doctrine, discipline, or orship of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and amounted, therefore, to no more than an offort to enforce an ecclesisstical sentence. As & court would not ordinarily carry on a partner- ship, nor theatre, keep a hotel, or_conduct the Ttalian opers, 80 it wonld, a fortiori, not under- take to carry on a_church’; and, if not, it wonld not stop it. A decrce here would not effect ansthing, oxcept to close the church- building, It was like s cese of specific performance, and entirely discretionary with the Court whether to grant ordeny relief. The proper bill would be on bebalf of porsons claiming to be the true congregation on account of the departure of their associates, and & prayer for the possession of the property. This bill was like one on behalf of shareholdors in a rail- Tond company praying sn _injunction against roceedings ullra vires ; and, in that aspect, ro- iof ought to be donied, because of scquiesance, and of demand, wantof parties, and making parties complainant who should be defendsut, ete., ete. He argued it was absurd to concede dominion over the property to the congregation, and then seek tocontrol the Wardens and Vestry, who were doing exactly as directed by the con- gregation. II. That the conveyance was made for the nse of the congregation a8 such, and not a8 in connection with the Protestant Episcopal Church. This, he insisted, was shown by the deed, sad by the evidence, if admisuble, as he contended it was. i TII. That the parish was formed and the prop- erty sccumulated for the promotion of the Yiews of the Evangelical scheol in the Protestant Epis- copal Church, and tho congregation had deviated fn no ome particular from the doctrine, disci- Dline, and worship of that school. The two Fehools differed fundamentally a5 to Episcopacy, the ctiurch, the sacraments. The Anglican Chiurch was the result of & compromise, and the rule of toleration was the only rule that could keep it together. To violate that rule was as much aunlawinl as to violate the rule of either extreme, if that were exclusive. Oil and water would not Tmix, but might be kept in the samo bottle. To try and make water out of oil, or oil out of water, only smashed the bottle and spilled the contents. Adierence to particular judicatories was only one element to be considercd in administoring trusts in relation to such a church-organization, and not a conclusive one. ~Mr. Fuller citod Innes on the Law of Creeds in Scofland ; Craig- dallic v. Aikman, 1 Dow, 1; Attornay General 7, Pearaon, 8 Mericale, 353 : Happy v. Morton, 53 Tlinois. The departure bere was mot that of this congregation. IV, That Dr. Cheney was never deposed, be- causs the sentence of deposition was inflicted for disregarding an invalid sentence of suspea- sion. The mcntence of suspension was void because, after tive Presbytera were selected te try the Sccused, four, againat his protest, pre: tended to do #o. There was an utter want ol ower. Counsel cited cages from Vermont, entucky, Missouri, New York, Englsnd, snd Beotland to show that this question Wea necessa- rily examinable into by the Civil Court. "Phe rule laid down by Hoffman, in his Law of the Church, was, that such proceedings stood on the same ground as foreign judgments, which were alwaya open to attack for want of jurisdic- tion or bsd faith in the rendition. That the ardons and Vestrymen occupied the third parties, sud to them the jurisdic question was always open.—4 Cushing, 27. \ras necessarily 60 in a church organzation pos- pessing no general Court of Appeal.—Hawcks on Constitution and Canons, 34, 57. Vinlon's Manual of Canon Law, 153, 154. Colenso's care was & good example; for, how- evor horetical he may Lave been. ho s illegal- 17 deposed upon the jure divino theory, and, Vhen temporal rights became invoived, tho English Courts wero obliged to decide that the contract between him and_ the Church had been Siolated and his deposition was void. The dis~ tinction beiween rights jure divino and rights arrising out of the stipulations of a volun- fafy association was 8 brosd ome. Thers was nothing spinitual sbout real estate, and transfers could not be made by bull or decretal. Mr. Fuller then adduced a multitude of casey establishing that the nbsonce of an arbitrator chosen by the parties vitiated swards. ‘As to conrts-martial, the members were seloct- od, not by the zccased, but Ly the commanding officer; and it was in the discretion of the latter to reduce the pumber. As to constraction by the Diocesan Convention, that was expost factc, an exercise of judicial power, and could not {form a rule of decision. The ciaim of inherent wer Mr. Fuller denied in toto. 1f the Protest- sut Episcopal Church 8o held, then it logically followed, therefore, that it held that there could beno Church without a Bishop; that non-Epiz copal orders were invalid; that the inatitution Fns unalterablo; and that orders wers an out- ward sign of aninwardand spiritual grace,—that iy & Bacramast; wharess, the Protssteci Byis- copal Church holds the contraryonall these propositions. The question was to be settled upon the written documents of the Church. Alr. Fuller then discussed the Preface to the Baok of Common Prayer, the oftices of Conse- crating » Bishop and Ordsining a Presbyter, tio Thirty-nine Articles, etc., etc. e resd from Buruett, Rogers, Tomline, and Browne, o tho Thirty-nine Articles; and from the works of tarkoy, Amold, Leighton, Corvin, Jewoll, Bramiall, Prof. Hoy, = Formolaries of Faith, ~ Bingham, and Hoop Ho then ' contended that eyen tho Church beld to Episcopacy 8s jure divino, the possession of arbitrary power was never conced- ed,—citing Browne, Bingham, Robertson, Hawks, &c. As to the Primitive Church, it was difii- cult to settle now what was held then, but noth- ing sustained complainant’s _position. Ho read from Gibbons' Decling ana Fall, Morheim's In- stitntes, Milman's History of Christianity, the Apostalic Fathers—Augustine, Jerome, Irenzns, Q‘i e ""'".'. ‘:lasr: § gzig) resorted to by all 5 o Scriptures. In referenco to the Church of Eng!and,pflnma, numx,:‘ and TFrouds were read from, acd, as to the Church in the United States, Hoffman, Bishop White, Bioren's Journals, and Hawks. The American Church was eminently one of law, and not of will, and none of its office-bearers possessed un- limited power. In England, Bishops were ro- strained_by law; in the Colonies and in tho United States, by the terms of the contract. Because the uncanonical ordination by a Bishop might bo voidable oanly, 1t did not follow that sosponsion stood on the same gronnd, for that msy be given whirh cannot be taken away. Uncanonica ordination would not make the recipiont a Pres- byter of this Church. To the objection that Dr. eney should have appesled, counsel replicd that there was nothing to sppeal from. If Le had appealed, and the finding had been afirmed, it wonld bave changed notking, because, as. the ‘matter osted iv coutract, ha was entitled to a trial befozo thoso he selected, as well as an ap- peal, and the latter was Do substitute for ths former. Mr. Fuller insisted that the sen- tonce was void, because contrary to nstural justice, in that it required an expression of contrition for doing what thesccused balicved Do had the right and that it was his duty to do; also, bocause Dr. Chepey had committed no offenso. Charged with doctrinal error, if he had committed it 80 had his congregation. 'If he had not, then neither he nor they had departed. To adhere to him though sentenced wonld not be & deyiation, if the sentorce were unlwfal, or for adeparture from doctrive which did not in fact exist. In the Gorham case, in En- gland, Mr. Gorbam held precisely the same views that Dr. Cheney did; and the Privy Council decided—in which decision tho two Archbishops concurred—that he did not hold dostrine contrary to that of the Church of England. Neitber did Dr. Cheney hold doctrins contrary to that of the Protestant Episcopal Church’; yet it wss argued that he did. If the Episcopal Church held the child regenerats by the act of baptism, then, logically, what becamo of unbaptized children? The Bieho, in 1871, attor this sontence of deposition, doclared the word “ regenerato” meant no moral change. 1t ‘means either a change of nature or of state ; if 10 moral change, then it is a change of which is simply grafting into the body of Chriat's Church. ‘The sentence in this caso had not been acqui- esued in by the Church at large, for thero was no way to get st it. Ar. F. reviewed theru- brics, which, he contended, wers chiefly diraciery. and the evidonce as to the uaage in disregarding thm,—insisting that the Burial, Marriage, and Jike Kinds wore a8 - public” as any other ; end clused after epeaking somo four days and a half. MR, JUDD then addressed the Court for two days in reply. Ho reiterated his previous views, and contended that the deposition of the Rev. Dr. Cheney wes acquiesced|in by the whole Church; that the question hero was, whether thore shonld be dis- cipline in the Church or not, and the Court could not hesitate to 'do its cuty. Tho cases in reforence to partnership and_ shareholders in corporations had no application. The complainants are still mem- bers of the parieh ; for the rule is, once a par- ighioner, always 6o until transferrcd. As to the deed, it ran to the * Trustees,” and they wera tlio Wardens and Vestrymen by statute, and evi- dence was inadmissible to the contrary. The oages cited in the former argument settled tha questions of acquiescence, otc. A minority, Bowover small, might be the trne congregation. Here he cited cases from New York, Pennsylva~ iy, Sonth Carolina, etc. As to omigsions, be- cause some Bishops tolerated them, it did not render them less offenses. Many crimes went unpunished, but that would not be a defonse to sn indictment. As to tho necessity of averring & depasture, it was averred when tho bill states the sentence, and that it was an offense for 1 minister to officiate after sentonce. Never heard {hat the property was accumulated for tho Evan- gelical School. Bat High and Low must obey {he law. Mr.Judd denied that his position as %o inherent power unchurched enybody. Epis- copalinns believed in their own Church. but con- Qomned no others. The Episcopal Church did not define orders to be an “ outward and visible sign ofan inward and spiritual grace,” but they nre sn ontward eign of an co. The difference in the definition was serions in the omnission of tho word " The Church was rigid in eszentials, liberal in non-essontials. ‘The use of theword “regenerate” was essential, becauao doctrinal. It is an article of faith,—the one re- mmission of &ins by baptism. Tho rubrics require that regeneration shall be taught. Presbytcra are bound to submit to lawful commands, hut cannot et up private judgment a3 to what iz fawfal. The spiritual valiity of 8o Ecclesiaati- cal sentence cannot be attacked, and that all the authorities hold. Hallam's ** Middle Ages,” works of that kind, were not of any suthority in the Protestant Episcopal Church. ‘Mr. Judd than reviewed the works adduced fo1 tho defondants, insisting that they established notbing to tho purpoze, and had been_fally an- wwered in the work of Dr. Drum, entitled Voz Feclesice. He denied thnt Macaulay, Hume, or Froude, Mosheim, or Milman, were of any au- thority in the Episcopal Church. The quostion of Baptismal Regeneration could not be _discus- ged o detormined in this caso. The opinion of tho Supreme Court settiod that. This case was most important, for it involved - the queation whether Secular Courts wonld in- terfere with Ecclesiastical Courts, snd also whether property could be sccumulated and ded- jcated to certain trusts without dauger of balag diverted to the support of falae dootrine. R ——— SUGGESTIONS TO THE LADIES. To the Editor of The Chicaqo Triduna : Sin: While there is much doubt in regard te the expediency of the Indies visiting the saloont of this and otherlarge cities in porson, there are & srreat variety of other waye in which the cause of temperance can be most effectualiy advanced by them. Places will always exist where men can get liquors; but the groat aad important thing to be done ia to agitate this subject, aud elevato public sentimen 80 za to make it un- fashionsble and dishonorable for men to drink, or to invite others to do s0. As longasitisa gocial custom, and regarded as a compliment for & man to invite anotber to drink; and as long as higbly-respectablo femilies have it on their tables and on their sideboards,—eo long will the ranks of tipplers and drunkards be recruited by thousands of young men who first begin becauso it is a eocial custom. Now for the means: First—Circalate pledges for men to siga that th ey will never invite another to drink, aad will themselves mnever * accept an invitation. Mon never go sod drink alome until they have beccme confirmed topers. Sco ond—Pledges among owners of property thal they will not rent their buildings for this trific. Third— Provide reading-rooms, where also i aocent games can be indalzed in, and where & Iaboring man can spend an evening without bo- ing surrounded with liquors. Fourth—Forbeat to patronize grocers who make liguors » Jead: ing branch of thoir business. 1f you bave say " ncquaintance who is tippling. or “beginoing ta form the habit, go to that person as s friend, sympathize with him, warn him, sod make hio feol from your kind words that you are seeking Hes intorest and wolfare, and ‘arouse his will: Imwer and manhood to overcome the bondage of \is appetise,—mako him fcel that this bondage ia » misfortune and a disgrace. Go towork in these directions, axnd st no distant day the liquor-trado will become vers dull in Chicsgo, and galoons will decrease groatly for wantof business. TEMPRRANCE. DISSOLUTION NOTICE. DISSOLUTION. The partnership heretoforo exist- ing under:the firm name of Webster & Burnham, is this day dissolved hy mutual consert. E. Burnham con- tinues the business at292 West Mad- json-st., and assumes all the liabili- ties and colleots all debts due the old firm. J. A, WEBSTER, April 1,1874, B, BUBNHAM, inward i i § i : i