The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-03

and decide, proper reasonable notice OF the
matters objected to, an opportunity to meet
and reply to them, are fundamental"
We have yet to learn that these funda-
mental things were deemed worthy OF notice
or practice by ''the ecclesiastical authority"
in ''concurring" in the action of the st.
Clements vestry.
But Mr.. Hoffman proceeds: -"The opinion
of that sound lawyer and canonist, Mr.. G.
M. Wharton, upon the case in Michigan, was
that vestry had no right to dismiss a rector
without accusation or trial The legislation
of 1865 prevents the dismissal of minister
by vestry with the assent of the bishop
from being uncanonical, and relieves the
parties from the penalties of the canon.
do not think, however, that it makes good
dismissal without trial, or that it dissolves
the contract between bim and the parish.
Such a result would be a violation of general
principles, and, 1 think, the law Of 1865
should be construed in subordinaton to
these"
These statements, coming from such a
source, are entitled to grave consideration.
They fix the principles Of equity governing
such cases, and the only point open to ques-
tion is whether Mr.. Hoffman is right in as
Stunning that the law of 1865 makes the SEQ
clesiastical authority" to reside in the bishop
alone.
We admit that for certain acts of ecclesias-
ticsl authority the bishop of diocese is alb
solutely competent by himself, without asses
sors or council of advice; but that he is SO
IN the case under dispute is precisely what is
in question. 1t must be noticed that where,
as above, Mr.. Hoffman writes ''the dismissal
of q minister by vestry with the assent of
the bishop" the canon of 1865 to which he
refers, does not use the expression ''the con-
currence of the bishop" but 'the concurrence
of the eccIesiaSticaI authority Of the diocese"
and if it be said that this is general express
sion, and is intended, of course, to mean the
bishop IF there be one, and, if not, then the
Standing Conanatttee, it is answered that there
are other considerations which show that the
bishop alone is not meant, but the bishop and
assessors In aOay ao1ich En0OI0es a fair hear
ing.
But, to be perfectly explicit, we quote SO
much of the ''law of 1865, above referred to,
as bears upon this point. 1t is Title II, Can.
A. Sec. of the Digest, and is headed "Of
the Dissolution of Pastoral Connection:"-
"Section l. In case a minister who has
been regularly instituted or settled in parish
or church be dismissed by such parish or
church qDGttOut tile concurrence of the ecclesi-
astical authority of the diocese, the vestry or
congregation of such parish or church shall
have no right to representation in the con-
vention of the diocese until they shall have
made such satisfaction as the convention may
require; but the minister thus dismissed shall
retain his right to a seat in the convention,
subject to the approval of the ecclesiastical
authority of the diocese. And no minister
shall leave his congregation against their will
without the concurrence of the ecclesiastical
authority aforesaid and if he shall leave them
without such concurrence" etc.
The former part is the only one having
bearing upon the case at issue.
The canon implies, and only inpIes that a
Regularly instituted or settled" minister can
be dismissed aoSM the concurrence of the
ecclesiastical authority of the diocese" but it
does not state how, or with what formalities,
and it does not define who or what is, for
purposes Of such concurrence, the 'ecclesias-
tical authority" Everything is in the most
is concerned. But the canon itself points to
an authoritative formulary of the Church in
which, for purposes Of such concurrence, the
ecclesiastical authority" is clearly defined
A regularly 'settled" minister and regu-
larly 'instituted" minister are, so far as the
rights now under dispute are concerned, upon
precisely the same footing, and by the terms
of the canon.
| By turning to the Office of institution, in the
Prayer-Book, we find two forms of the 'sLst-
Ter of Institution" one from the bishop and
the other in case there be no bishop of the
diocese at the time, from the clerical mem
bers of the Standing Committee.
That form of "Letter of Institution" given
by the bishop ends thus,-"and in case of
any difference between you and your congre-
cation, as to a separation aud dissolution of
all sacerdOtal connection between you and
them, we, your bishop, with the advice of our
presbyters, are to be the ultimate arbiter and
Judge"
That form of 'Letter of Institution" which
comes Tin event of there being no bishop of
the diocese) from the clerical members of the
Standing Committee ends thus,-''and in
case of any difference, etc., the ecclesiastical
authority of the Church in this diocese (taking
the advice and aid of a bishop shall be the
ultimate arbiter and judge"
In both of these forms one thing is evil
dent. 1t is to be no lone man power" to
which the sacred rights of the clergy are
given over, as to an ultimate, irresponsible