Smyrna times., 1882-02-15

the man who labOrs for it come to the |
front in one element of usefulness as we'll |
as another? 1t is lesson that some are
slow to learn but it must be learned, that |
the rules of criticism which apply to all
other departments run for the good of
society, must also apply to the ministry.
MINISTERIAL PREROG OGATIVEs.--There
was something it seems more significant
in the Delaware City Church case than
the mere decision of case between a
belligerent rector and refractory cOngre-
CATION The "QuO warranto' as decided
by the Court has especial interest from
the fact that it is claimed to be the first
case ever settled in our State and deals
heavy blow to some ministers who are
wont to assume Priestly prerogatives'
and regard the ministerial as the only
power governing churches and members.
The facts in brief as they came out in
the court trial were that the vestry,
backed by large part of the congrsga-
ton, failing to dissolve the pastoral rela-
ton of Rev. H. l.. Phillips, appealed to
Bishop Lee and the standing committee
of the diocese for his removal. The
Bishop replied, decreeing that the pastor
al relation should cease at midnight of
Easter Sunday, April 18th last. The cleo
tion of vestrymen and wardens was to
take place the next day. Notwithstand-
| ing the decision of the Bishop the Phil
lips party, led by Rev. ken2ie Johns
! Stewart, Il superanuated clergyman, met
and proceeded to elect officers in the in
teres of Mr.. Phillips. Before they were
through, however, the anti-Phillips party
arrived and between the two it was about
the liveliest church meeting ever held in
the State The Bishops opinion was
called revolutionary and to prevent its
being read, the men vociferated and
women sung and women and children
stuffed the ballot box without regard Il
qualifications. The turmoil was SO grea
that a constable was sent for at one tim,
to preserve the peace. The Phillips party
had possession, and in their Language
held the fort until decided against b,
the court last week.
The decision of the court virtually was
that as we have no Ecclesiastical court il
this country, the trustees elected and in
corporated under and by the laws of tn
State are the only church authority know
| by our laws. The trial in question onl
decided which was the legal board c
Yestry, allowing such board to have entir
control.
If this case can be remembered as
precedent, it may be of value in preven
. ing other assumptions by clergymcn, an
4 consequent unpleasant church relation
Some do not understand this, rs a cas-
happening near the same time in an oth'
church in our State will show. By a
understanding a former pastor was
marry the daughter, whenever thi
= event occurred. of leading trustee of
u certain church. This understanding WI
Y the outgrowth of strong personal int
l. macy as well as the minister in questiC
1
al lady. Shortly before the time for Il
l. nuptials, the succeeding pastor was a
le prised of the arrangements made befo
ID he had assumed the pastorate. The latte
IN however, never accepted an eXplanati
II nor an invitation to the wedding Gel
I'd mOAy which was held in the church. T
tn unpleasant relation which naturally f
r. lowed led 10 fo;mal interview. T
I'd minister stated his grievance i'm brief
of this: that by inviting another minister
v. ofiiciate and making other arrangemel
al to Use the church without first consult
l- him and asking his consent, a slight and
nd offence was given for which the fail
% owed him az apology, notwithstandi
he his previous explanation. Also that
ra- pastor the church was under bis jurisd
itv ton and control, and that the geuUen
he in question had no right to give such
I'VE vitation or make such arrangements wi
All out his consent or concurrence. The h
Ter position assumed was one that could
ces he acceded to, sa.d was replied to as
ace lows by the father:
an The right to grant necessarily inciG,
ian the right to refuse, and the ground
nly minister held Implied that authority
yho vested in him by which he could rel
to members permission to use the church
The the purpose referred to, nothwi!hstand
not that such use interferred with no chu
tier services, and was expressly granted
t of general rule passed by the Trustees. ]
yith he (the Trustee) denied any such autho
vii as being granted by the general rules OF
o is church and sooner than acknowledge 4
lent authority, he would go to some o
self church the laws and usages of which
,rts. more in accord with the rights of
,ays vidual church members. He could
N it apologize where he was not consciou
the doing wrong, hut 9B the preacher
hen minister in charge ana claimed t.
arIy acting under the law of the churc1
low, defined by ecclesiastical authority 9
e as understood il, be as nembcr W
res so far recognise and respect tiiat auth'
!, is as to absent himself frspl tbe cb
alue while he renained ss the pastor.
race. The itinerant wheel sooa Psyslyes
es to cases out of jurisdiction to the relief I
e no parties, but in other case like that at
U.1 tt 81 8a -t+ q .I