The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-03
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.
The Rights of Clergymcn, "sett1ed" as
ReotOrs-WhRt are Theys

Judge Eudlow's decision in the Case of st.
Clements Church, published by us last Satur-
day, we give below an ably written article, by
an eminent lawyer of this city. 1t will be
found exceedingly interesting by all who
have watched the progress of the difficulties
in st. Clements Church.
This question is one of interest Just now;
and inasmuch as there seems to be difference
of opinion with regard to the proper under
standing of and application of the lao gov
erning the case, it may not be out of place
to offer some suggestions which may bring
out clearly the fact that the legislation of the
Church was not designed to be the means,
and in event of being properly administered
will not have the result, of placing rector at
the mercy of the prejudices of his vestry and
the precipitate exercise of arbitrary power on
the part of his diocesan.
The learned Judge who has granted con-
tinuance of the injunction restraining the
vestry of st. Clements Church very pointedly
asks these questions;-
"Can it be posi- BILE that any minister may
be summarily elected from his parish without
trial?
'Shall the civil law guarantee to the hum
plesL ClIlHeub u uedIluB, huu tiley hh
and duly instituted minister of the Protestant
Episcopal Church be denied right as COM
mon as this one ?"
In some quarters the answer is, eyes, GER
tainly. A rector has no rights which may not
be overridden by the joint action of bis vestry
and his bishop, without redress" And some
add, "It is hard case, but the eanons of the
Church permit it,"
1t is Just this last statement which is now
denied; or, to put the matter in the form of
positive statement, ''The cauons of the Church
are not to be construed as authorizing or per-
mitting so fragrant an act of njustice."
Once for ALL before showing proof of this,
let it be distinctly understood that this ques-
tion is entirely apart from the reasonableness
or the unreasonableness of the desire of the
vestry and the bishop to get rid of an objec-
tionable rector or assistant minister. To
specify the case which has brought this dis
cussion before the public and into the courts:
the clergy of st. Clements may or may not be
teaching or acting in conformity with the
standards of their Church. If they are teach
ing and acting in conformity with those stand
ards, they are not liable to- ecclesiastical CEN
sure. If they are not SO teaching and acting,
they are liable. Bnt this has not been pr0pen
in the canonical way. To assume it
on the part of the bishop is to
PREJUDICE the case. 1t may be that
the clergy of st. Clements ought to be dis
placed for teaching false doctrine and encour-
aging false practices. 1t mag be, also, that
these questions are of only secondary import
ance, and that the real motive underlying
what has been made public is simply such a
degree of personal dislike as to make it d esi-
rable that the clergy should leave the church.
We may admit, for arguments sake, the
truth of either or both of these views; and
yet, whatever may be said of the right belong
ing to the 0eStry to say, "We wish you to go,
and so far as in as lies we dismiss you and
sever the ecclesiastical relationship you bear
to u.s." so far as the Bishops concurrence
with that action of the vestry is concerned,
we cannot but think it, so far as and in the
mode sa aoItich it has been exercised, indefensi-
BILE. If the assumption of the Bishop that he
alone is the ecclesiastical authority" men
toned in the canon be a valid assumption,
his mode of exercising the powers of that
authority will cause any man with self-respect
to pause before he enters a profession
which debars him from the right which even
a common thief possesses-the right of being
prOven guilty before he is punished as guilty
the right of a fair hearing before his peers.
The hot haste with which the concurrence"
of the Bishop in the action of the vestry was
announced within twenty-f four hours after the
action of the vestry-shows at least one thing
to the settled clergy, and that is, that if the
present laws of the Church permit them thus
to be stricken down without hearing, with
out at least some form of open judicial inquiry
into the merits of any charges under whic h
they may be laboring, the sooner these laws
are changed the better.
But it is held that the Bishop has acted
strictly in accordance with the law; that he
iss the ecclesiastical authority" upon whose
breath hangs the destiny of every settled
minister in his diocese whose vestry may
choose to turn him adrift at a moments
notice.
Even in the ancient Church, where the
bishops had far more power than they ever
have had in the American Church, it was
necessary for bishop to have.as assessors at
least six bishops before proceeding against
one of his presbyters, as Bingham shows in
his antiquities, book 2, cap. 8, section 8.
But the American Church has its own laws,
and by them must the case be ruled.
What should and do govern the case of dis
missing minister from his cure, in the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States Of American"
q l.. = Z 4