really makes the bargain. The method in Massachusetts is this: The Church, having by proper methods, (now generally abandoned in practice) satisfied itself that the person proposed for the pastorate is suitably qualified, votes to extend to him "a call," that is, an invitation, to become pastor; it then sends that vote to the parish, which, at a legal meeting, properly notified for the purpose, concurs or not, as it pleases; if the parish refuses to concur, the case is dropped; if it does concur, it fixes the salary, and the votes are transmitted to the individual in question; if he accepts, the Church and parish call a Council of neighboring churches, empowering them by letters missive, to examine, and, if they see fit, to ordain him to the pastoral office. If that Council do so ordain him, the relation is then and there ratified. Legally, less will suffice. (1) Only the parish makes the contract; the Church, it has been decided in our Courts, has no authority in the matter, although the Court recommends the practice of allowing the Church to nominate. The Church, although its officers are a quasi corporation for certain eleemosynary purposes, is not a contracting party in the settlement of a minister; and, in one case, a Council was found willing to settle a minister against the vote of the Church; in fact, Unitarian pastors are now generally settled without any action whatever by the Church. (2) The law has nothing to do with the duty and method of the parties' obtaining mutual satisfaction of each others' fitness; while, ecclesiastically, and religiously, that is a necessary preliminary. (3) A Council is not legally necessary to the formation of the pastoral connection, inasmuch as a contract can be made without one; while, ecclesiastically, a Council is required by the fellowship of the churches, although not for the validity of the transaction.' These

1 The question is sometimes asked whether a formal call, a formal acceptance, and the actual consummation of the contract, establish, Congre. gationally, a pastorate. Certainly, both Congregationally and legally; the interven tion of a Council

differences arise, in part, from the inadequacy of law to meet spiritual conditions. The law goes as far as it can go, (except in one point, viz: ignoring the Church,) and includes the essence of the pastoral relation, so far as law can touch it.

Two points will be noticed here: First, while orderly Congregationalism requires not only all the law requires, and much more, care should be taken that law should be fully complied with, and that all things should be done in a proper manner. Thus the parish meeting should be seen to be legal; the "call" should be specific and comprehensive; the Council should be regularly invited and plainly authorized; the records of the Council should be properly made up (especially embracing the fact of settlement); copies of the Result should be communicated to parish and minister, to avoid any possible confusion afterwards. A case once occurred where a minister, 78 years of age, was turned off to beggary by a parish, which had profited by his labors for fortyfive years;—although time so heals informalities as generally to prevent such wrong. Secondly, a great change has taken place in the relation of Church and parish. Formerly the Church was actually the main party, as it now is ecclesiastically. When none but Church members could vote in civil affairs, and when parishes were territorial, the parish was substantially the Church; but when this qualification for voting was done away, the power of transacting business remained in the civil body as before, which thus retained the substance, while the principle was gone; and now the Church is only an inseparable adjunct of the parish, with no voice in the contract, and exposed to affects only the fellowship of the churches, not the validity of the act itself. But a formal call and formal acceptance do not establish a pastorate unless there be an actual installation of some kind; the election of a man as Governor, and his acceptance, do not make him Governor until he is inaugurated into that position; but a Church can, with or without a Council, and in any way they prefer, instal the pastor, although to do it without a Council is irregular as to form.

all the consequences flowing from the Dedham decision. Thus the churches lost their legitimate rights by a method whose consequences we can only attribute to their own early folly. But on this matter we will not enlarge, as we propose to treat of the relation of Church and parish (or society,) in another article.1 III. The tenure of the pastoral rela

tion.

The tenure has been greatly modified by the complication of the legal with the ecclesiastical. In strict Congregationalism, the Church, which elects, has a right to dismiss at pleasure. But the pecuniary engagements which have entered, have made the relation a contract. It must, then, of course be governed by all the rules of ordinary contracts. The parties, having made a contract, are bound in honor, as well as by the ordinary rules of justice, to adhere to it. It were strange if religion allowed any greater laxity than law, in the fulfillment of contracts; any one who violates such a compact, is dishonorable in the extreme.

This includes, first, that the relation is precisely what the contract of settlement makes it. It must interpret itself. If that contract had any peculiar provisions, the parties are bound legally and ecclesiastically, to observe them. If, for example, it were specified that a colleague should always be employed, no violation of that provision could rightly impose additional duties on the pastor. If, as is sometimes the case, it were provided that the pastorate should expire at the end of five years, it must then cease. If a provision were inserted, that upon either party's giving six months' notice, the connection should cease, that provision must be enforced. So with any other peculiarities. So the law has always decided. The contract must be fulfilled. One case is perhaps worthy of mention; it was that of Cochran v. Camden (15 Mass. Re

1 A letter of enquiry on this subject from a valued correspondent will receive notice in a future num

ber.

ports, p. 296.) The minister was settled with a stipulation that "they shall each have the right, by giving six months' notice of the wish for a dismission, to call a Council, whose duty it shall be, at the request of either party, to dissolve the connection between the town and the minister, unless such dissatisfaction can be mutually accommodated." The town voted, at a certain date, to give the six months' notice, and that the connection would be ended at its expiration. It also sought to obtain a Council, but the minister declined to accede. The town then endeavored to obtain an Exparte Council, (which the Court held they had a right to do,) but, by some blundering, failed to obtain a legal one, although several persons came as called, and individually gave their advice in the premises. The minister claimed his salary for a year, (more or less,) after the expiration of the six months' notice, and brought a suit to recover it. The town held, that as a Council would, by the terms of the contract, have no option, but be merely formal, the connection was ended by their vote. The Court decided that "the Convention of a regular Council, to pass upon the question of dismission, was essential to the dissolution of the contract, and that it was so contemplated by the parties when they entered into it ;" it held, also, that such a Council could not be bound by such a restriction, but that a Council has an inherent and essential right to deliberate, and, if it choose, to refuse to dissolve the connection; and that, if a Council did thus meet, under the six months' plan, and did not advise dismission, the legal relation still continued, notwithstanding the six months' notice. The case reminds us of a recent case in Massachusetts.

The tenure of the pastoral contract, is now such, secondly, that neither party can annul it at its own pleasure, unless expressly so stated. Doubtless, no true Congregationalist would ever assent, in Council, to such a preposterous provision; it is bad enough to have to agree to

66

66

five-years' clauses," or "six-months'notice clauses," without offering such an inducement to busy-bodies. We take it for granted, that such cases do not exist. The tenure of the pastoral office, therefore, is not subject to the will of either party. Having made a contract, the parties are bound to fulfil it; this is ecclesiastical as well as legal. The question is brought before us," (Avery v. Tyringham, 3 Mass. p. 160.) "whether towns and parishes have the right of dismissing their ministers at pleasure, without assigning any breach of duty or immoral conduct against them." It is true, the religious societies are left at liberty to make such contract, and for such time as shall be agreed between them and their minister; but the contract once made, it is subject to all such rules of law as govern other engagements." So it was declared, in Peckham v. North Parish in Haverhill, (16 Pickering, 274,) that, the parish cannot dissolve the contract at their own will and pleasure ;" and this principle has been, we believe, uniformly adhered to. It has also been decided that, when no limitation is expressed in the contract of settlement, the settlement is for life; settlement of a minister, if under a contract for an indefinite period, is a settlement for life." "It has ever been the uniform opinion of all the Judges who have successively filled the bench of our highest Judicial Court, that when no tenure was annexed to the office of a minister by the terms of his settlement, he did not hold the office at will, but for life, determinable for some good and sufficient cause, or by the consent of both parties." (Avery v. Tyringham, as above.) Nor are we aware that this principle has ever been reversed.

a

66

value of this connection, is dishonorable in the highest degree. Starving a minister out," "cutting off supplies,” however sophistically shielded, render a parish only worthy of contempt. When individuals refuse to bear their proportion of expense, or refuse to aid in those spiritual duties wherein coöperation is essential to ministerial success, those individuals act in a way which should cause the blush of shame to mantle their cheeks. The underhanded methods often taken to bring a minister into unpopularity, are of every-day occurrence. Some physician is offended, because the minister's family prefer pills to pellets, or pellets to pills; or some reformer or conservative finds too little or too much abolitionism; or some purse-proud parishioner receives too little reverence; and immediately a long face "fears that the minister's usefulness is at an end." The low and despicable arts, which whisper where they dare not speak, are then busy. Or, sometimes, the precise opposite is the case. A parish is bold enough, for instance, to close the Church against the pastor. Such a course is not only mean,-it has no force whatever. This was settled in the case of Sheldon v. Easton (24 Pickering, 281,) where the Court decided that the plaintiff was legally entitled to his salary, inasmuch as he had at all times been ready to perform all duties to them, growing out of the relation thus created, and having, in fact, performed such parochial duties as they would permit him to perform." Also in Thompson v. Rehoboth (5 Pickering, 470,) where it was held that "he was a minister de facto, as well as de jure, until lawfully dismissed; and might lawfully claim his salary, on the ground of services, notwithstanding the meeting-house was shut against him.”

On the other hand, ministers are equally bound in honor and in law. No man has a right to trifle with the pastoral office. That vanity in candidates, which loves to accumulate "calls" only to be refused; which boggles and manœuvres to

or, if they will not coöperate in Christian work, but throw on him labors not belonging to him, he is not bound to remain, although he is still to consider whether duty to his Master may not require him to bear with such difficulties, and still to preach the gospel, even although the people he preaches to, are evidently sinners, and not saints; and certainly he is not to act without a fair endeavor to have the grievances redressed. On the other hand, if a pastor is, spiritually, unfaithful; if he neglects his duties; if he merges the pastor in the politician, or the temperance or abolition agent, then he violates his contract. (2) If the proper ends of the ministerial work are not accomplished, it becomes then a presumption that the connection should cease,-even although no fault be chargeable on either side.1 A man may not be fitted for the place where he is settled, and yet do admirably somewhere else. A parish may not work well with one man, but may with a different. Now no hasty determination should ever be made, in the discouraged feeling so common to ministers that they "see no fruits;" they should “learn to labor and to wait." But when it is clearly evident that a minister fails to meet the requirements of the case,-perhaps cannot keep the continued affections of a people, perhaps is not adapted to the place, then there is no reason in his throwing himself back on his "bond," and persisting on remaining, while Providence indicates his removal. In saying this, we are afraid we may give countenance to an unsettled feeling on the part of churches, a love of novelty, a desire of change, in which all these reasons are alleged, while the true one is their own indoleuce, unkindness, and want of that spiritual-mindedness which is life and peace. Against this we

1 We do not, of course, refer to cases where a pas

that

protest; but nevertheless we do say, after all proper efforts to remove cause for difficulty fail, and the great ends of the pastorate are evidently not attained, no personal considerations ought to weigh with a pastor one moment. True, he has his contract, but why is not this thought of when the pastor is called to a “broader field of usefulness," and, against the desires and prayers of an affectionate people, "feels it his duty" to go? We remember a case where this principle was stated with powerful effect; a parish desired a change in the pastorate; the pastor and his friends exclaimed against the injustice, and alleged "the sacredness of the contract;"" if he was not the man, why was it not discovered at his settlement?" "But," was the reply," Mr. A. B. was settled at C., over a united people; against these remonstrances he left, to accept a call from the richer parish of D., notwithstanding the sacredness of a contract;' and yet again, against the entreaties of D., and with an abundant income there, he left D. to enter into this "broader field" of E., forgetful of the sacredness of a contract.' Twice he insisted on the dissolution of his contract; why may not a parish do so once?" And it is difficult to see, if a minister ought to leave a Church and go where he can do more good, why a Church may not desire a man who can do them more good. The prevailing instability is not all chargeable to churches.

When the parties are considering the subject of a separation, one or both, they should first consider religiously the reasons for such a proceeding. That a separation can be legally consummated, is not evidence to a Christian, that it ought to be consummated. It is for the conscience of the parties to decide this. For ourselves, we incline to that old fashioned view, which locked upon such a separation as

best years of his life to his parish; in such a case, no decent man would treat an old horse as superannuated ministers sometimes are treated. Christianity and humanity alike require an adequate support from those to whom he has devoted his life.

the clearest evidence of duty, and sadly unfortunate when it is clearly necessary. Hence we dislike the modern plan, which subjects the continuance of this holy rela