Litchfield enquirer., 1869-04-22
The Marketable Church.

from the clerk of the Marketable society, m reply to charges made by our scorrespon-y dent from that place a fortnight since. Its authoritive style and frequent canon law citations make it evident that it is the pas- tor himself who is speaking through Mr.
 Ralph Buckingham, Parish Clerk. A.
 We notice in the beginning . somewhat strange omission. Our correspondent de- nied that the minister of St. Andrews, Marbledale, was rector of that church. To assume the authority pertaining to that of flee, he must have been chosen by the par ish, and instituted in accordance with the form prescribed in the book of Common Prayer. The parish clerk, with the parish records before him. nowhere claims that the gentleman in question has been can onically instituted, rector! ..; s;a. seiz.y
 Next we beg leave to assure the minis ter of St. Andrews that we have attended many parish meetings in Episcopal Socie- ties adjoining that of Marketable, and nev- CT yet saw 2 rector presiding over, or talk ing part, in the same, ,and never have known 9 Society's meeting opened with religions services. In some Dioceses, we are aware, a rector is co o6icio chairman of the board of wardens and yestry. Such, We have been assured by comp etent authority, is not the practice in Connecticut. We are confident, too, that such has never been the practice ia the Marketable Society, ,ard, that its meet ings have never, heretofore, been opened with religious services. Whether correctly or no, ,the present minister of that parish has certainly assumed an authority that is un- usual, and may we'll surprise his parishion- CTS. 4t-z e z t6 We now come to matter of vastly great
 CT importance, the minister's, refusal. as chairman of the Societys meeting, to en- certain motion looking to his dismissal l frnnn tha f,arisla- The eantlaman's position seems to be substantially this The rector of St. Andrews is co o6scio chairman of the Society i; he may rule all motions for his dismissal out of order; no discussion of the question, even, is allowed; it is 'sun- churchly' for members to discuss their rec tor and compare opinions, out of parish meetings; so the game of opposition is can onically blocked, forever To determine whether this position is correct we must 1 first quote the canon itself:-
 :" In case a Minister has who been regularly instituted or settled in parish or church, be dismissed by such parish or church without the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical authority of the ish or Church shall have no right to representa- ton in the Convention of the Diocese until they have made such satisfaction as the Convention may requlre." ain ftet. att! -r5...st.t. r.;
 The canonical way, therefore, for par ish to dismiss rector, wonld seem to be to pass a vote of dismissal, and then ask the concurrence of the Bishop. How en- tirely this concurrence is matter of form is evident from the correspondence we published on the 11th ult., between the rector and Society in this place: The for mer says, Nothing but what, after seri- ous and prayerfuls deliberation, I believe to be the call of God, would have induced me thus Co seoer ties, :" Sc. The Society re- plies: " As no action on our part can aoert iAe sundering of q relation" &c. Not a word is said in either case about the bish- 1 ops concurrence. So completely is it un- derstood that rector can remove, at will,
 that We never heard of any parish's at tempting to raise this canonicai objection. Clergymen can hardly consider the other contracting party bound, and themselves unbound. 1t will be observed, moreover, that the canon by no means denies the right of parish to dismiss it's rector; only, in case of any unfair exercise of that right,
 the parish is punished by denial of repre-
 sentation. Is it not perfectly clear, there fore. that this clergyman has SO used the unusual authority he assumes, as to stifle opinions that had a legal and canonical right to expression? A disinterested chair
 man, such as the law and practice of Con- necticut would have given that meeting, could hardly have made such mistake. A There is one other assumption in this let ter which deserves comment: that & cow ardly personal attack has been made upon the minister of St. Andrews church through the county papers. Here. too, MT. Buckingham is wrong. A minister of that parish assumes an authority never be- fore exercised in that or in adjoining par ishes. Not only are Episcopalians interest," ed in the discussion of the question, but people. generally, have rignt to, know whether the old-fashioned democratic prac. tices of our Episcopal Societies are matter of right. or merely on sufsrance of para mount authority. Above all, the minister in question is, we understand, not only one of those who labor most .assiduously to cut off all intercourse between churchmen and other christians, but his intolerance has exceeded all precedent and decency. It has literally pursued the non -Episcopalian to his grave. breaking the law. and all but breaking the peace, in the vain endeavor to maim the funeral rights q Congregation al ministar wac narforro;ucr ovor- 4ba Had