TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE DIOCESE OF NEW-YORK:--

We, the Churchwardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church, New-Brighton, do respectfully set forth and submit the following statement, being of the nature of an appeal from the decision heretofore pronounced in the case, disallowing the certificate of approval of the incorporation of this Church.

By canon 31, 1832, of the General Convention, it is ordained, that no clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church shall officiate, in any way, in the parish of another clergyman, without having received the "express permission" of the minister of the parish for this purpose. The canon then goes on to define the limits of all parishes in the United States, and restricts the jurisdiction of "Protestant Episcopal clergymen" to the places in which are situated the churches or congregations under their charge. From this restriction, however, and this definition of limits; parishes already established by law, or otherwise, are specially exempted; and this exemption applies to the parish of St. Andrew's Church, Richmond, to which the village of New-Brighton belongs.

The whole of Staten Island constitutes the parish of St. Andrew's Church, the Rector of which, for upwards of one [3/4] hundred years, and until within a comparatively recent period, was the only Protestant Episcopal minister having a cure on the island.

As the population increased, and villages sprung up, other churches were established; some, as in the case of St. John's, Clifton, and Christ Church, New-Brighton, with a due observance of the canonical prerequisite of the consent of the actual Rector of St. Andrew's Church: others, as in the case of St. Paul's, Tompkinsville; St. Luke's, Rosseville; and St. Mary's, Elliottsville; not only without the "express permission" required by the canon, but in disregard of the rights and authority of the minister of the parish; the congregation of St. Mary's having been organized by the present Rector of St. Paul's, who laid the corner stone, and officiated at the opening of the church. It is proper here to state, that the three last named churches received the sanction of the Rector of St. Andrew's, at different periods subsequent to their organization, either by express assent, or by exchanging with their ministers. The New-Brighton Church was organized at the request of the congregation by the Rev Dr. Moore, the present Rector of St. Andrew's, but under the express condition imposed by him, that another Minister should be chosen immediately on its incorporation under the law of the state.

The admission of this Church into union with the Convention was opposed by the Rector of St. Paul's, and at his instance and on his remonstrance, the Standing Committee are understood to have virtually decided,--

That the implied assent of the Rev. Dr. Moore to the establishment of the Tompkinsville Church by the self-assumed corporate name of "The Rector, Churchwardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul's Church, in the town of Castleton, county of Richmond," constituted its minister the exclusive Rector of Castleton, the right of Dr. Moore, as Rector of St. Andrew's, to concurrent jurisdiction in the township, being thenceforth assignable only to the location within the same of Trinity Chapel, of which, by virtue of his [4/5] Rectorship of St. Andrew's, he is the Minister; and that the Rev. Dr. Moore could not lawfully organize the New-Brighton Church, notwithstanding his admitted right of co-ordinate jurisdiction, without the consent of the Rector of "St. Paul's Church, Castleton."

The resolution passed by the Standing Committee, although in terms requiring only the consent of the Rector of St. Paul's, Castleton, to the organization of Christ Church, New-Brighton, is avowedly based on the assumption, that the consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's,--which is admitted to be equally essential,--has been already obtained. It is certain, however, that if Dr. Moore's consent be attempted to be used in derogation of the vested rights of his parish, it will be immediately withdrawn. That consent was given in his capacity of sole rector of Staten Island, and as possessing exclusive jurisdiction, for the purposes of the canon in the village of New-Brighton; and it is not competent for us to use it in support of, or in submission to, adverse claims. It follows that the consent of both Rectors is still required, under the resolution, to the officiating of a minister to the New-Brighton congregation; and the principles of action of these two reverend gentlemen are so diametrically opposed, that it is in vain to hope for any agreement between them.

The construction given to the resolution, as informally communicated to our Rector, on the part of one or more members of the standing committee, viz., that the officiating of a clergyman at New-Brighton, without the consent of the Rector of "St. Paul's, Castleton," would subject such clergyman to ecclesiastical censures, contemplating even the possibility of degradation from the ministry, is such, therefore, as renders it tantamount to an inhibition of all services to the New-Brighton congregation; and if adhered to, and, on appeal, sustained and confirmed by the Diocesan and General Conventions, will naturally and necessarily lead to the dissolution of our church.

There will then be presented to the world, the strange [5/6] and sad spectacle of a regularly organized congregation, by feeling and on principle attached to the church and belonging to her communion, with a place of worship already erected, possessing both the ability and the inclination to provide suitably for the support of a pastor, earnestly desiring the consolations of her services and ministrations; and yet, without any fault or omission on their part, cut off and excluded, by her ordinary legislation, from all participation in the ordinances of religion as administered according to the rites and ceremonies which she has prescribed for the benefit of her members.

We now earnestly and respectfully solicit the attention of the Standing Committee to the proceedings had in relation to the organization of St. Paul's Church:

In the year 1833, certain persons, professing to be a church, congregation or society,"--we quote from the certificate of incorporation--"worshipping in the village of Tompkinsville," undertook to incorporate themselves under the general law of the State, without the knowledge, permission or consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's, in whose parish this village was situated, and of which it formed a part.

The Rector of the parish, the Rev. Dr. Moore, having accidentally heard of their intention just before the time when the meeting for the election of Churchwardens and Vestrymen was to be held, presented himself for the sole, avowed, and acknowledged purpose of protesting against the proceedings, as being wholly irregular and uncanonical. He was barely allowed to express his sentiments; he took no part in the proceedings; his right to the chair, which he claimed in virtue of his office, was denied; in short, he was not allowed to preside, nor to make under his hand and seal the certificate of the election of the church officers, and of the name of the church, as was his duty and privilege under the statute.

By the "Act to provide for the incorporation of Religious Societies," passed 5th April, 1813, it is enacted, that [6/7] at the first election of Churchwardens and Vestrymen, "the Rector, if he be present, shall preside at such first election, and together with two other persons shall make a certificate, under their hands and seals of the Church-wardens and Vestrymen so elected, and of the name or title by which such church or congregation shall be known in law."

These provisions of the act are imperative, and cannot be dispensed with; and not having been complied with in the case of St. Paul's Church in the village of Tompkinsville, we are advised that the election of Churchwardens and Vestrymen, and the act of incorporation, are wholly null and void; that all the proceedings of the Trustees, in their corporate capacity, including their election of a Rector, are necessarily invalid; and that no church, which is not legally incorporated, can, according to the constitution and canons of this diocese, be lawfully admitted into union with the Church, or be represented in the Convention. The bearing of this defective organization on the rights of the parties in this case, we respectfully submit to the consideration and judgment of the Standing Committee.

The parties above referred to assumed the name of The Rector, Churchwardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul's Church, in the town of Castleton, county of Richmond," omitting the name of their village from the corporate title of their Vestry, in regard to which the statute enacts,--after constituting the Vestry the Trustees of the church or congregation,--that "such Trustees and their successors shall, by virtue of this act, be a body corporate, by the name expressed in such certificate."

That the omission was accidental, is reasonably to be inferred from the fact, that previous to the organization of the New-Brighton Congregation, in no single instance has the Church ever been designated or described by the Rectors or Vestry, in their recorded proceedings, otherwise than as "St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville," or "St. Paul's Church, in the village of Tompkinsville." The parochial reports to the successive conventions, are all of [7/8] "St. Paul's, Tompkinsville;" mortgages recorded in the County Clerk's office, are from the "Rector, Churchwardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul's Church, in the village of Tompkinsville, in the town of Castleton, County of Richmond, and State of New-York;" and the deed of conveyance for the land on which the Church is built, is from "Caleb T. Ward, of the village of Tompkinsville, in the town of Castleton, in the county of Richmond, and state of New-York," to the "Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul's Church, in Tompkinsville, aforesaid." This deed was recorded, at the request of "the officers of St. Paul's Church, at Tompkinsville," on the 9th April, 1833--the meeting for the election of these officers having been held on the 11th day of March.

It is stated in the report, which serves as the basis of the resolution of the Standing Committee, that Mr. J. B. Simonson who was appointed, in opposition to Dr. Moore, chairman of the meeting of the 11th March, 1833, for the incorporation of St. Paul's Church, has presented an affidavit to the effect, that Dr. Moore was present at, and took part in, the proceedings of the meeting, and that he was also present at the laying of the corner-stone of the Church. It is further stated, that Dr. Moore was present at the convention of 1833, to which the representatives of the Church were admitted, as of "St. Paul's, Castleton." From these alleged facts, the inference is deduced, as the sole ground of the adverse decision of the Standing Committee to our former application, that Dr. Moore recognised the Church by its legal or corporate name; and that such recognition of the name not only established St. Paul's as the Parish Church of the town of Castleton, and its minister as "the Rector of Castleton," but divested the Rector of St. Andrew's, as such, of all his rights within the township, operating as a dismemberment of his parish, and to that extent working the forfeiture of the charter.

With regard to Dr. Moore's presence at the Convention of 1833, it may be sufficient to observe, that his rights were [8/9] abundantly protected on that occasion; inasmuch as he was expressly admitted and stated to be Rector of the whole of Staten Island. The following is from the list of the clergy presented to the convention:

"The Rev'd David Moore, Rector of St. Andrew's Church, including Trinity Chapel, Staten Island."

With reference to Mr. Simonson's affidavit, upon which the decision of the Standing Committee would now appear exclusively to rest, we have received the permission of the Rev. Rector of St. Andrew's to present, as part of our case, a letter from him to the Standing Committee, of which the following is a copy:

To the Clerical and Lay Members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New-York:

Reverend Brethren and Gentlemen--

I have learned, with surprise and deep regret, that an affidavit has been laid before you, in the matter of Christ Church, New-Brighton, stating that I was present at the meeting for the incorporation of St. Paul's Church, held in the village of Tompkinsville, on the 11th of March, 1S33, and took part in the proceedings, and also that I was present at the laying of the corner-stone of the Church.

I beg to assure you that I was not present on the occasion of the laying of the foundation-stone of the Church.

I was present at the meeting, but took no part in the proceedings.

And here let me be permitted to state the reasons for my apparent opposition, at that time, to the organization of St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville. In the first place, because I had never been apprised of the meeting until my arrival, accidentally, in the village; because, after having entered into the meeting, I was grossly insulted by not being called to the chair,: as was my privilege; and, in the next place, because at that time, and for several years previously, the corporation of St. Andrew's Church, of which I was and still am Rector, contemplated the erection of a chapel in said village, and for carrying out of which plan, a lot was pledged to us by the late Daniel D. Tompkins, for the location of said chapel; and, moreover, [9/10] the legislature of the State of New-York had granted unto us the sum of one thousand dollars, out of the unappropriated funds of the Marine Hospital, Quarantine Ground, and which I held, at that time, under my control, in one of the banks of the city of New-York.

The meeting was, notwithstanding, organized, and a chairman appointed, in defiance of my authority, previous to my departure,

I am aware that, by subsequently exchanging with the Rector of St. Paul's, and officiating for him in his church, I did give, and I intended to give, an implied assent to its organization.

It would have been repugnant to the best feelings of my nature, and at variance with the principles by which, as a minister of the gospel, and a presbyter of the Church, I have endeavoured, with God's help, to regulate my conduct through the whole course of a long life, to have done Otherwise,--to have held back encouragement where it was wanted, on the mere ground-.of personal disrespect to myself; or to have adopted harsh measures towards any of my brethren in the ministry, even if warranted in doing so both by the letter and the spirit of the Canons of the Church.

But I beg to represent to the Committee, that the Congregation of St. Paul's was known to me as a Church or Society worshipping in the village of Tompkinsville, and I conscientiously and solemnly declare, that such implied assent was intended by me to be given only to the officiating of a minister to such Church or Congregation in the village of Tompkinsville, and not otherwise or elsewhere.

In conclusion, I beg most respectfully to be allowed to remonstrate against any action on the part of the Standing Committee which can be directly or indirectly construed into an invasion of the vested rights, under the charter, pf the Parish of St. Andrew's Church, Stamen Island.

With sentiments of great respect, I remain,

Reverend Brethren and Gentlemen,

Your friend and servant,

(Signed,) DAVID MOORE.

Rector of St. Andrew's Church, Staten Island.

Richmond, Staten Island, )
31st October, 1849. )

[11] P. S. I had forgotten to remark, that after having united with St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville, in an application to the legislature for a modification of the act which had presented us with a thousand dollars, by which I might be enabled to pay the amount to St. Paul's Church--on the 31st of May, 1834, 1 had the satisfaction of making such payment.

(Signed,) DAVID MOORE.

This application to the legislature, in which, at the solicitation of the Vestry of St. Paul's, Dr. Moore united, was from and on behalf of the "Churchwardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul's Church, in the village of Tompkinsville;" the grant was made to and accepted by the Church under that name; the Wardens and Vestrymen gave bond to erect their Church "in the village of Tompkinsville." They subsequently presented themselves to the Rector of St. Andrew's, as about to build their Church in the village of Tompkinsville, on a site already provided for that purpose previously to the application to the legislature; and on the faith of such representation, and as dealing with a Church Society worshipping in the village of Tompkinsville, and pledged to erect their Church edifice therein, Dr. Moore paid the money, receiving a voucher, of which the following is a copy:--

"At a meeting of the Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville, held at the District School House, on Saturday, the 31st May, 1834:

Present--

Henry Drisler, Warden, Jacob D. Stagg, John Whetten, C. T. Ward, Daniel Simonson, Richard Harcourt and A. G. Dixon, Vestrymen. Henry Drisler was called to the Chair, and A. G. Dixon appointed Secretary.

On motion, Resolved, that a Committee of four, consisting of John Whetten, Jacob D. Stagg, Daniel Van Duzer, and J. M. Catlin, be appointed to receive from the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Andrew's Church in [11/12] Richmond, the sum of one thousand dollars, heretofore appropriated by the state, out of the funds of the Marine Hospital, to aid in the erection of a Church at the Quarantine Ground."

(Extract from the minutes.)

(Signed,) A. G. Dixon, Secretary.

Endorsement on the above:--

"Received of the Rev. David Moore, the Rector of the St. Andrew's Church, of the County of Richmond, referred to in the within minutes, the sum of one thousand dollars.

Jacob D. Stagg,
One of the Committee of St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville."

By uniting in this transaction as Rector of St. Andrew's, Dr. Moore gave his first, and in fact only formal official recognition, in short, the "express permission" of the canon, to the organization of this Church, which was repeatedly presented to him by the Wardens and Vestrymen themselves in their official capacity, as "St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville;" and by that name only did he assent to its establishment.

For the better elucidation of the subject, we deem it proper here to set forth the nature of the right of exclusive jurisdiction claimed and exercised by the Rectors of St. Andrew's Church over the whole of Staten Island.

By Royal Charter, granted in 1713, the Rector, Church-wardens and Vestrymen of St. Andrew's Church, in the village of Richmond, were constituted a body corporate, with spiritual jurisdiction over the whole of Staten Island, the boundaries of which were declared to be commensurate with the limits of the parish.

This, with other charters, was confirmed and adopted by the original constitution of this state, which ordains, (section 36,) that nothing in this constitution contained shall be construed to annul any charters to bodies politic, [12/13] by the king of Great Britain or his predecessors, made prior to the 14th day of October, 1775.

The validity of this charter has been further repeatedly recognised and affirmed by acts of the Colonial and State Legislatures; and being thus adopted, recognised and affirmed, its provisions have the same force and effect as if specially enacted, and forming part of the statute law of the state.

The existence of this parish must be taken and deemed to be acknowledged and recognised by the church as corning within the scope of the clause in canon 31, which restricts the cures of clergymen to the localities in which their churches or congregations are established, but expressly exempts from this limitation parishes, the boundaries of which are defined by law or otherwise.

From all which, it manifestly follows, that the legal and canonical limits of St. Andrew's parish, and the spiritual jurisdiction of the Rector, for the purposes of the canon* still extend over the whole of Staten Island; and cannot be relinquished by him, nor participated in by other parties, without further enactments, both of church and state, than at present exist.

The Rector is trustee for his parishioners and his successors, and cannot divest those for whose benefit the trust was created of the indefeasible vested rights conferred upon them by the charter.

Notwithstanding the consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's to the organization of new churches within his parish, his exclusive spiritual jurisdiction over the whole of Staten Island, derived from the charter, and confirmed and re-ordained by canon 31, remains unimpaired. Such churches possess no territorial jurisdiction whatever, beyond the precincts of their own church grounds. They are precisely in the position of churches in the large English cities and towns; Liverpool, for example, in which there are numerous churches and chapels belonging to the Establishment, but only one parish church with a chapel, and two Rectors possessing territorial jurisdiction. Their [13/14] congregations fife their parishioners, and constitute such parishes as are thus accurately described:--

"In some of the American states," says Webster^ "parish is an ecclesiastical society not bounded by territorial limits; but the inhabitants of a town belonging to one church, though residing promiscuously among the people belonging to another church, are called a parish."

Such, also, is evidently the construction of Bishop Onderdonk, when in his address to the convention of 1833, he says, "The Rev. F. H. Cuming has been chosen Rector of the newly incorporated St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville, where he is labouring with great success in the building up of a parish."

The consent of the major number of all the parochial clergy in the parish of St. Andrew's has been duly given to the organization of Christ Church, New-Brighton, and to the officiating of a minister therein.

For convenience of reference we here insert the text of the clause of canon 31, which applies to and governs the case:--

"Where parish boundaries are not defined by law or otherwise, each city, borough, village, town or township, in which there is one Protestant Episcopal church or congregation, or more than one such church or congregation, shall be held for all the purposes of this canon to be the parish or parishes of the Protestant Episcopal clergyman or clergymen having charge of such church or churches, congregation or congregations."

Under the advice of counsel, we respectfully submit the following propositions, as being fully established, and as necessarily resulting from the premises herein before set forth:

1. That the implied subsequent consent of Dr. Moore to the establishment of St. Paul's Church, by its corporate name, can confer no other or greater rights than the [14/15] precedent "express permission" required by the first clause of the canon for which it is merely admitted as a substitute.

That the "express permission" required by the canon, is not to the corporate name of the Trustees of a church, but to the officiating of a clergyman within certain designated limits.

That the parochial cures of clergymen are expressly restricted by the canon to the places in which their churches or congregations are located.

And, consequently, that St Paul's being, in the words of the canon, the "one Protestant Episcopal Church or Congregation "in the village of Tompkinsville, that village alone must be held, for all the purposes of the canon, to be the parish of the Protestant Episcopal clergyman having charge of such church or congregation.

2. That the limits thus assigned to parishes by the canon, can only be altered, enlarged or abridged, by the same authority which has assigned them.

That the highest diocesan authorities, even the Convention itself, cannot amend or repeal a canon of the General Convention.

And that, consequently, even if by express agreement, the Rector of St. Andrew's had consented to the extension of the limits of St Paul's parish over the whole township of Castleton, as he is alleged to have done, by implied assent, such agreement could have no valid effect adverse to the rights of third parties. In other words, that even if the Rector of St. Andrew's should forfeit or resign his right pf jurisdiction over the township, he possesses no authority to create or assign limits to new parishes within the same; but that the whole would, in such case, revert to, and be governed by, the general provisions of the canon.

3. That as the limitation of parish boundaries, in canon, 3t, does not apply in the case of existing parishes, the limits pf which were already established by law or otherwise, the [15/16] extent of the parish of St. Andrew's, and the jurisdiction of the Rector, are exclusively defined and designated by the charter of 1713.

That, under the charter, the Rector of St. Andrew's could not lawfully cede, and, in point of fact, never did cede or relinquish, any portion of his jurisdiction to other parties, being still, for all the purposes of the canon, "the Minister of the parish."

And that, consequently, as the village of New-Brighton, prior to the organization of a Protestant Episcopal Church therein, formed a portion of the parish of St. Andrew's, the consent of the Rector of that parish was alone required to the lawful and canonical officiating of any minister called by the new congregation.

4. But if by consenting to the establishment of new churches within the parish of St. Andrew's, the Rector be held to have granted co-ordinate or concurrent jurisdiction to the ministers of these churches such jurisdiction must either attach throughout the whole extent of the parish, as defined by the charter, or else must be restricted by the limits assigned by the canon--that is to say:

If, on the one hand, the concurrent jurisdiction, as in the somewhat analogous case of Trinity Parish, New-York, be held to extend over the whole of Staten Island, then the consent of the major number of the parochial clergy having been given to the officiating of a minister at New-Brighton, that of the Rector of St. Paul's is unnecessary.

If, on the other hand, such jurisdiction be held not to attach throughout the whole extent of the parish, it is then referable to the limits established by the canon, viz: the places in which the churches are located; and the Congregation of St. Paul's having organized themselves as "a Church, Congregation or Society worshipping in the village of Tompkinsville; and being, in fact, as has been already stated, the "one Protestant Episcopal Church or Congregation "in the said village of Tompkinsville; that village--saving the vested rights of the Parish of St. Andrew's--is "the Parish of the Protestant Episcopal Clergyman having charge of such Church or Congregation,'" and; consequently, the consent of the Rector is not required to the organization of any new Church beyond the villages bounds.

5. That in the case of parishes having two or more churches or congregations, the consent of the major number of the parochial clergy given to the officiating, by preaching, of an unbeneficed clergyman, within the common boundaries, in any other place than in one of the churches thereof, would, under the canon, be deemed to be a consent to the formation by him of a new congregation, and the organization and incorporation of a new church--the Rector of which would thereupon become one of the parochial clergy.

That the parochial clergy themselves, each possessing original inherent jurisdiction over every part of the common boundaries, with the exception of each other's churches, can lawfully do and perform all acts on their own authority and without the permission of each other, which an unbeneficed clergyman can lawfully do or perform with the consent of the major number of the parochial clergy.

That whether considered as sole and exclusive Rector of Staten Island, by virtue of the charter to St. Andrew's Church, or only as one of the parochial clergy of the town of Castleton, including the village of New-Brighton, the Rev. Dr. Moore was in the lawful and canonical exercise of his office in officiating for the New-Brighton congregation, and organizing the new church.

That consequently, even on the hypothesis that the Rector of St. Paul's, as one of the parochial clergy, is entitled to co-ordinate or concurrent jurisdiction throughout the whole township of Castleton, including the village of New-Brighton, the Rector of St. Andrew's, being in the lawful and canonical exercise of his office in forming and [17/18] organizing Christ Church, New-Brighton, within the limits of his own original parish, his acts as one of the parochial clergy cannot be invalidated by the absence of the consent of the major number: and that the new congregation formed and organized by him became one of the churches of the parish, and its Rector one of the parochial clergy, entitled as such, to all the same and equal rights, privileges and immunities as may be exercised and claimed by other Protestant Episcopal clergymen having charge of churches or congregations in any parish or parishes in the United States, by virtue of their office.

6. That according to the true intent and meaning of the canon, and saving the exception in favour of parishes already established by law or otherwise, every distinct village in which no congregation of the Protestant Episcopal Church exists, has an absolute, unqualified right to form and organize a separate independent church under a duly qualified minister canonically resident in the diocese to which the village belongs.

That the village and demesne of New-Brighton, having distinct ascertainable limits, settled and fixed by legal deeds duly recorded, the inhabitants thereof, in communion with the Protestant Episcopal church, could lawfully form themselves into a congregation, and call a minister to officiate for them, without the consent of the Rector of St. Paul's Church, in the village of Tompkinsville; the consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's Church, Richmond, being alone required to the lawful and canonical officiating of any minister so called by the new congregation.

That the congregation at New-Brighton having been canonically organized, by a qualified minister of the church in the lawful exercise of his office, at the time and place when and where he was officiating, became the "one church or congregation" in the village, in the intendment and in accordance with the precise terms of the canon.

That consequently the village of New-Brighton became and is now the parish of the Protestant Episcopal clergyman [18/19] having charge of such "church or congregation," who,--saving the vested rights under the charter of the Rector of St. Andrew's,--is alone entitled to exercise jurisdiction therein, for the purposes of canon 31.

And lastly, that the right to establish a church in the village of New-Brighton, together with the right of exclusive jurisdiction in the minister of such church, being derived and held directly from a canon of the General Convention, such rights cannot be invalidated, abrogated or qualified by any authority inferior to that which conferred them, nor can they be affected by any arrangement or agreement to which the minister of such church is not a consenting party.

7. That inasmuch as under the canon no right of jurisdiction attaches to the name of a church, the implied consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's to St. Paul's, Castleton, by its name expressed in the certificate of incorporation, could not overrule the canon, and confer extra canonical jurisdiction.

And even if it be held that such jurisdiction does attach in consequence of the alleged implied consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's to the name expressed in the certificate of in-corporation, that such right of jurisdiction was formally and conclusively waived, ceded, and abandoned by the Vestry of St. Paul's, by their own repeated official acknowledgments, in order to obtain from the Rector of St. Andrew's the money granted by the State; and which, by the terms of the grant could only be paid id aid of a church erected within the village of Tompkinsville, as is herein before recited.

But that inasmuch, as by the canon the right to officiate, involving the right of jurisdiction in the minister of a new church established within the limits of an existing parish, passes only by the "express permission" of the minister of that parish, no implied or inferential assent whatever, unless clearly proved to have been, in the contemplation and intention of such minister, understanding and designedly given in the place of, and as a full equivalent to [19/20] such "express permission" can be held to pass such right of officiating and jurisdiction.

And that in point of fact, in the transaction above referred to and afterwards by officiating in the church, the Rector of St. Andrew's gave, and intended to give, and the Vestry of St. Paul's accepted, the "express permission" required by the canon only to the officiating of a minister in St. Paul's Church, in and for the village of Tompkinsville, and not otherwise or elsewhere.

Standing in the position of parties promoting a cause, we respectfully submit, that we are entitled to the privilege of reply, should any opposition be made to our application; and further, of presenting additional testimony in support of the facts herein before set forth, should they be impugned pr otherwise called in question.

We here rest the case, in full confidence that the Standing Committee, on a review of all the circumstances, will see fit to reconsider their former decision, and allow the certificate of approval of the incorporation of Christ Church, New-Brighton, required by the canon as a condition to admission into union with the Convention of this Diocese.

Done at New-Brighton, this 23d March, 1850.

W. S. Pendleton, D. A. Comstock, Churchwardens.

F. B. Cutting,
Charles D. Rhodes,
P. Stuvesant, M. Morgan,
S. T. Jones,
G. Wotherspoon,
Geo E. Kunhardt,
One Vacancy,
Vestrymen.

[21] We are authorized by Mr. Pendleton, to present the following copy of a letter, addressed by him to a member of the Committee of the Vestry appointed to manage the case on our behalf.

New-Brighton, March 21, 1850.

Dear Sir,

In compliance with your request, I will endeavour to give, substantially, the account that Mr. J. B. Simonson gave me of the part that the Rev. Dr. Moore took in the business of, the meeting convened for the purpose of organizing St. Paul's Church, Tompkinsville.

Mr. Simonson informed me, in the course of a conversation at the house of Caleb T. Ward, Esq., in June last, that a number of gentlemen, including himself, had met according to appointment, to arrange the affairs for the organization of their new church, and that they were much surprised at the appearance of the Rev. Dr. Moore at the meeting, which was quite unexpected. When about to commence business, the Rev. Doctor insisted upon his right to preside over the meeting as Rector of the parish, and attempted to take the chair, but the right was denied, and the chair uncourteously refused him; the Rev. Doctor then requested the privilege of making a few remarks when they were ready to hear him; this was granted, and when the meeting had organized, (with Mr. Simonson in the chair,) and some preliminary business transacted, the Rev. Doctor was informed that they were ready to listen to him. He accordingly addressed them, and in a few moments after he had done speaking, he took up his hat and left the room. The Doctor's address was not given to me in detail, but I understood from Mr. Simonson that it was in opposition to the intentions of the party who had met to organize the church.

In the foregoing I have given you, in a brief way, all that I can recollect to have heard Mr. Simonson say on the subject of the Doctor's interference at the meeting aforesaid, and hope that it may assist in doing all the good that you may desire to effect.

Yours, truly,

W. S. Pendleton.

SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS

PRESENTED IN THE FOREGOING STATEMENT.

1. As to the effect of Dr. Moore's alleged consent to the establishment of St. Paul's Church by its corporate name:

1. Such consent equivalent to the "express permission" of the canon.

2. the "express permission" not to the name, but to the officiating of clergymen within designated limits.

3. The village of Tompkinsville, designated by the congregation themselves as the location of St, Paul's Church, therefore, co-extensive with the parish limits.

Consequently, that Church, the "one Church" in the village, and, reciprocally, that village "the parish" of the minister of St. Paul's Church.

2. As to the extension of St. Paul's Parish beyond the village boundaries, by the alleged consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's.

1. Canons of the General Convention can only be amended or repealed by the Convention itself.

2. Limits of all parishes in the United States defined by canon of General Convention.

3. Limits of St. Paul's parish cannot, therefore, be enlarged, nor limits of St. Andrew's parish abridged, excepting by canon of General Convention.

Consequently, the alleged agreement of the Rectors of St. Andrew's and St. Paul's to erect a new parish, co-extensive with the town of Castleton, not valid as against third parties.

[23] 3. As to Dr. Moore's consent alone being required to the New-Brighton church:

1. The canon expressly exempts chartered parishes from its restriction as to limits; thus confirming those assigned to them by their charters.

2. The charter to St. Andrew's parish does not authorize the Rector to cede, relinquish, or in any way alter or abridge its limits.

3. The village of New-Brighton is within the chartered limits of St. Andrew's parish.

Consequently, the consent of the minister of St. Andrew's parish is alone required to the officiating of a minister at New-Brighton.

4. As to the effect of the consent of the rector of a chartered parish, assuming that it concedes co-ordinate jurisdiction:

1. The canon recognises only two descriptions of boundaries--

Those of chartered or legal parishes; Those created by the canon itself.

2. If the consent of the Rector of St. Andrew's be to co-ordinate jurisdiction throughout the chartered limits, we have the consent of the "major number."

3. If to a parish under the canon, then the village of Tompkinsville alone (as per No. 1, page 22) is the parish of the clergyman of St. Paul's, who has no jurisdiction beyond its limits.

Consequently, in neither case is the consent of the Rector of St. Paul's required to the organization of Christ Church, New-Brighton.

5. As to the right (on the hypothesis of co-ordinate jurisdiction) of each of the parochial clergy to establish new churches within the common boundaries, the exercise of such right not being prohibited or restricted in canon 31, or elsewhere:

1. A stranger is authorized to form and organize a [23/24] new congregation, by the consent of the "major number."

2. The rights and privileges of the parochial clergy are equal to those of a stranger who has the consent of the "major number."

8. The Rev. Dr. Moore is on all hands admitted to be one of the parochial clergy of the town of Castleton, including New-Brighton.

Consequently, Christ Church, New-Brighton, being organized by him, became, on its establishment, one of the parish churches, and its Rector one of the parochial clergy of the township.

6. As to the right of New-Brighton to a separate independent church:

1. Every distinct village is entitled, under the canon, to its own church.

2. New-Brighton is a distinct village, with ascertainable limits, and is, therefore, entitled to organize a church, and call a minister.

3. Christ Church, New-Brighton, is canonically organized, and legally incorporated.

Consequently, the village of New-Brighton is, for the purposes of the canon, the parish of the minister of Christ Church, who--saving the rights of the Rector of St. Andrew's--has exclusive jurisdiction therein; and such jurisdiction being derived from a canon of the General Convention, cannot be affected by any agreement to which he is not a party.

7. That St. Paul's waived all right of jurisdiction, if any, derived from the name expressed in the certificate of incorporation; and accepted the consent of Dr. Moore to the officiating of their minister in and for "Tompkinsville" only.

1. The Canon gives no jurisdiction to the name of a church; and the implied assent of the Rector of St. Andrew's cannot overrule the canon.

[25] 2. Even if originally entitled to co-ordinate jurisdiction over the township of Castleton, such jurisdiction has been waived and abandoned by the repeated declarations of the Vestry of St. Paul's themselves made to Dr. Moore.

3. But as the canon requires "express permission," the implied assent must be clearly proved to have been in the contemplation of the minister, and designedly and understandingly given, as equivalent to the "express permission."

4. And that in the transaction for the payment of the money granted by the State, and by subsequently exchanging with the minister, the Rector of St. Andrew's gave and intended to give, and the Vestry of St. Paul's accepted, the "express permission" required by the canon, only to the officiating of the minister of St. Paul's in and for "Tompkinsville" and not otherwise or elsewhere.

Project Canterbury