The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-13
.ROOLEsLASrLOAL LAR.


CANON 4, TITLE 2, OF THE PROTESTANT EPIs.
coPAL CHURCH.
The following communication is in answer
to one that appeared in our columns few
days ago, and it takes another view of the
rights of clergymen and vestries under the
civil law and the canons of the Church,
There is no law in Pennsylvania distin-
gushing between contract entered into by
clergyman and one made by any other citi-
zen. So far as the law is concerned, clergy
men are on the same footing as other persons
The position of the rector in the civil
courts, unless there is particular contract,
is that of an employe without fixed term of
Office, but at a certain rate of compensation.
Such q relation may be severed by either
party to it at will. (Cofin VS.. Landis, 10
Wright, 426. Peacock VS.. Chambers, 10
Wright, 434. Kirk VS.. Hartman, 13, p. +.
Smith, 97.)
1t is true the canons or laws of the reli-
gious bodies to which the parties belong may
impose obligations upon them which supple
ment the civil law, and become, Qu0dd hoc, the
particular contract or part of it, and which as
such will be recognized in the civil tribunals.
Has the General Convention of the Protes-
tant Episcopal Church in the United States
of America legislated upon the relation of
pastor, and church, or vestry?
1t has done so distinctly, changing and
repeating its canons from time to time, until
the only legislation of the Church upon the
subject is Title II, Canon of the Digest,
entitled "Of the Dissolution of Pastoral
Connection"
This canon recognizes the right, which we
have shown exists by the civil law, to dis
solve the connection, as residing either in
the vestry or the rector. But in exercising
that right, it must be done with the concur
renee of the Bishop, or in his absence of the
Standing Committee, if union with the con-
vention of the diocese is sought to be main
tanned.
If the Bishop refuses his concurrence the
party taking the initiative in the discussion
is not, IpSo .fdct0, forever cut off from union
with the convention, but may be restored to
1t on making such satisfaction as the conven-
tion may require. Of course, if the conven-
ton approves the action, it can restore with
out any satisfaction other than a statement of
the case, notwithstanding the refusal of the
ecclesiastical authorities to concur.
The second section of the canon strength
ems this Interpretation of the first, it declar-
ing Sin case of regular and canonical dis
solution of the connection between a minister
and his congregation the Bishop, or, if there be
no Bishop, the Standing Committee, shall
direct the Secretary to the Convention to re-
cord the same"
Any dissolution is regular and canonical to
which the Bishep or Standing Committee, as
the case may be, has given consent. If the
dissolution has been by the act of the vestry
or minister, with the concurrence of the
ecclesiastical authority, it is still dissolu-
tion, but not regular and canonical, and in
that case it is to be laid before the conven-
ton of the diocese.
Canon of this title is not IN pd7S ma
terra. 1t provides for the punishment of
offenses.
Canon may come into force without any
offense having been committed. 1t is enough
if the ecclesiastical authorities approve the
separation. A trial is not necessary not
intended. All was done which was deemed
essential for the protection of either party
when the consent of the ecclesiastical autho-
rity was required. The dissolution is COM
plete when the vestry or congregation, as
the case may be, have dismissed or the rector
has resigned. The ecclesiastical authority has
no part in the dismissal. 1t imposes, or re-
lieves from, the penalty-nothing more.
The argument OF Judge Ludlow in the case
of Patterson VS.. Thompson confounds things
entirely distinct when he likens the dissolu-
ton of ministerial connection to degrada-
tion. This puts an end to the employment
of the clergyman in a particular field. The
other displaces him from the ministerial office
or function. s.l.E-
The Judge, with all due respect uses Ian
guage bordering on the sensational when he
exclaims, "Can it be possible that any minis
ter may be summarily elected from his parish
without trialg" The true question is SIS
there any difference between contract with
a minister and any other person, in its legal
effect?' That the foregoing argument gives
the real import of the canon of 1865 will be
evident to any person who will compare its
q N ma. .xrit hat IF uxxhi
ceded it.
In 1904 two canons were enacted. One,
No. 33, "of the dissolution of the pastoral
which ran thus, 'When any
minister has been regularly inducted or
settled in parish or church, he shall not be
without the concurrence of the
ecclesiastical authority of the diocese or
State" etc. etc. etc., as in the present canon.
The canon of 1908 was in the same words,
except that instituted" was substituted for
'inducted, and the following words were
canon shall not be obligatory
upon those States or dioceses with whose
usages, laws, or charters it interferes," which
DIR. Hawks on page 80 of his contribution to
the ecclesiastical history of the United States
explains thus: 1.-THE last (change) arose
from the fact, that as a relation between a
minister and his people involved mere civil
contract for work and labor to be done, it, of
course, like every other civil contract, was
subject to the Leg loci, and the Church had no
power to interfere with the legislation or
courts of the several States"
Canon 33 of 1882 was the same.
There was also a canon of 1904, No. 81,
renewed in 1S08 and called the thirty-fourth
canon of 1882, which was IN pGFS mdte9ia,
and called ''Of differences between ministers
and their congregations" This canon re-
quired all the presbyters of the diocese to be
on a question of dissolution, and
rras axtrannalu incnnsistant In r,rn otioa Thana