The ••Cheney case." as it has been called, may prop- erly be dealt with in this connection, especially a- Mr. Cheney has become quite prominent in the schismatical body w hich Dr. ( lummins originated. The case, in sub- stance, is as follows: The Rev. C. E. < Iheney, of Christ's Church. Chicago, 111., having mutilated the service for public baptism by omitting the words regeneraU ami regeneration wherever they occur, was brought to tri- al and suspended by bishop Whilehouse. February 18, L871,the suspension to last until be should repent and amend. .Mr. Cheney refused obedience; and the vestry Of Christ's Church having invited him to continue with them, despite the senienee.be acceded to their wish.
I In n iilt was thai he was tried by an ecclesiastical
court tor contumacy, ami. on the 2d of .lime, was finally degraded. Hut the vestry continuing t" bold on to the property of Christ's < Ihurch, contrary to law and justice, Mr. Cheney remained where be was, until he joined the followers of Dr. < lummins and his movement. The ques- tion of the right to the property being a verj scrums
one, as involving the whole Bubjecl of the right of re- ligious bodies to hold property ami prevent its aliena- tion, the ease of Christ's Church. Chicago, was carried into the courts, where, in accordance with precedent in like cases, ii was decided in favor of the Protestant Episcopal church in the diocese ofElinois. Not sat- isfied with this, the parlii a inter. Stl d in e.e|tin_ sion of the church had the case taken by a]. peal to the Supreme Court of the state, where, early in L878, singu- larly enough, the decision of the lower court was re- \ ersed, and judgment was given in favor of the vestry ami congregation as against the diocese. So far as this particular piece of property i- concerned, the math r is of no great importance; but the principle involved is of the gravest consequence. It has been decided, over and over again, that all ecclesiastical organizations shall possess the power to be governed by their own laws, M, long as those laws do not iui, rfere wiih the established law of the land; and, consequently, that all property
belongs, of right, to those who adhere lo and sustain
the laws and principles of their respective organiza- tions. If church property, by the action of vestries and congregations, can be legally diverted from its
rightful ownership, in the way in which this in Chica- go has been taken away from the Church, then there is no tenure of property anywhere which is safe. The sub- ject has aroused attention among other Christian bod- ies, who are quite as much interested as the Protestant Episcopal Church can be in the fundamental question at issue It is to be hoped that the Supreme ( ourl of the United States will be called upon to inti n settle fully and clearly a point of so ureal moment to all Christians or religious associations of every name.
In regard to the "provincial system." so called, we may briefly state that, as early as [850, a motion was made in the House of Bishops by bishop Delancey to appoint a committee of live bishops, five clergymen, and five laymen, t;to report to the next triennial General Convention on the expediency of arranging the dio- ceses, according to geographical position, into four prov- inces, to be designated the Eastern, Northern. Southern, and Western Provinces, and to be united under a Gen- eral Convention or Council of the Provinces, having exclusive control over the Prayer-book. Articles, Offices, and Homilies of this Church, to be held once every twenty years." In 1853 no action was had. I ut the committee was continued, and the matter handed over io the next convention. It came up in 1856, but was indefinitely postponed by the bishops. Tie subject was brought up again in 1874, was warmly discussed, and again indefinitely postponed. In 1*77 a preamble and resolution were offered in the House of Deputies expressing a desire to obtain "an authoritative recog- nition of the provincial system." and referring to the committee on canons '-to inquire into the expediency of repealing the prohibition against suffragan bishops, and making such- canonical provisions as will enable
dioceses (just before described) to give the name and
style of provincial or comprovincial bishops to all such bishops «in, max be elected and consecrated to assign- ed districts within their respective jurisdictions." The resolution was adopted; bul in the House of Bishops
the entire Bubjecl was again committed to committee, to report at the convention of 1880. There the mailer stands for the present. It remains to be seen whether the Church will d> em it best to adopt this 9vstem, or to continue under the arrange menl now
in existence. A canon w as adopt i d in 1 868 authorizing
federate councils, aB follows : "It isherebj declared law- ful for the dioceses now existing, or hen after to exist, within the 111 n i I - of any slate or commonwealth, to es- tablish for themselves a federate convention, or council. representing such dioceses, which may deliberate and decide upon the common interests of the Church within
the limits aforesaid; bul before any determinate action of BUCh convention, or council, shall be had. the powers proposed to be exercised thereby shall be submitted to