Production Note Cornell University Library produced this volume to replace the irreparably deteriorated original. It was scanned using Xerox software and equipment at 600 dots per inch resolution and compressed prior to storage using CCITT Group 4 compression. The digital data were used to create Cornell's replacement volume on paper that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The production of this volume was supported in part by the New York State Program for the Conservation and Preservation of Library Research Materials and the Xerox Corporation. Digital file copyright by Cornell University Library 1994.A REPLY TO A PAMPHLET, WRITTEN BY GEORGE WOTHERSPOON, RELATIVE TO A RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE, DENYING THE APPLICATION OP CHRIST CHURCH, NEW- BRIGHTON, TO BE ADMITTED INTO UNION. Nero-Work: ISRAEL SACKETT, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER, No. 53 Nassau Street, near Maiden Lane. 1850. “T\To the Parishioners of St. Paul’s Church, which, by a stretch of authority far exceeding the legiti- mate prerogative of the episcopate, has substituted its own unauthorized resolutions in the place of the law of the land, and the canons of the Church.”This sentence must be regarded as involving, in a very latent form, however, both matter of fact and “ evangelical law but neither the Standing Committee, nor myself, is expected to answer it, It is the programme only of what is to follow; or is to be regarded as the flourish of trumpets, merely, which precedes or foretells the fray. I cannot help, however, venturing to say, in regard to it, that I do not believe any man was more astonished than was the Rev. Mr. Irving himself, when he first read this account of the character and extent of the wrongs which he and his Church had suffered at the hands of the Standing Committee—that “ anomalous and irresponsible body” as the writer terms it. I will also add, that in so denominating a body of men, composed of Samuel Jones, Samuel Seabury, and Murray Hoffman—men universally known, and as universally respected, Mr. Wotherspoon has a great deal to answer for; that is to say, providing Mr. Woth- erspoon understands what he writes. But let us proceed with the book. The writer next promises a summary of the law and fact, as bearing upon the case in hand; shows the manner in which England is cut up into parishes; what is necessary for the formation of a new Church, there; and says, that double fees are paid there on all marriages burials and christenings; and he adds, that the canons of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopacy in the United States differ from the English laws. He next shows a history of the canons of the Church here, and instructs us how they are to be construed. These matters occupy some five or six pages, and constitute “ a sample” of what Mr. Wotherspoon terms his abstruse points of ecclesiastical law” They, therefore, belong to the department of the Standing Committee, into whose hands I cheerfully resign them. WTe next come to a history of the presentment of the Rector of New-Brighton Church—and an instance is also here given of a piece of very sensible advice to him from one of the lead- ing members of the Committee—Dr. Henry’s reasons are also given for the course that he pursued—all which matters, so6 stated, no rational man can object to. But we now come to the statement of a very curious fact. (I hope the reader fol- lows me as I proceed with the book.) It is in these words : “ A large number of the most eminent amongst the evangelical clergy, in this and neighbouring dioceses, expressed their deter- mination, at all hazards, to re-open the New-Brighton Church for permanent services, and to officiate by turns as long as it might be necessary.” It seems there were upwards of forty of them! But hearken to Mr. Wotherspoom He goes on to say: “ What was now to be done ? Would it be safe to present, for trial and degredation from the ministry, upwards of forty of the most influential ministers of the Church ? The arrangements were all made for the re-opening of the New- Brighton Church on a given day. A week’s delay was solicited; before the expiration of which, in consideration of concessions never heard of, and of an c honorable adjustment’ not even entertained, the presentment was withdrawn at the request of the presbyters, by whom it was made. The inter- dict was removed, and, at the end of two months, the Rector of Christ Church, New-Brighton, resumed his ministrations to an attached and united congregation. “ It remains for the Rev. Dr. Francis Vinton to explain in what way he reconciles to his conscience the withdrawal, without any cause, of a presentment against a brother clergy- man, which a high sense of principle, and the overwhelming necessity of a sacrifice to the stern dictates of justice, could alone have induced him to make.” Here let us pause. This quotation contains matters which lie within my province to notice. I now allude to that part of the quotation which is in these words : “ A week’s delay was solicited ; before the expiration of which, in consideration of concessions never heard of and of an honorable adjustment not even entertained, the presentment was withdrawn.” If there be any one thing in which Mr. Wotherspoon is more formidable, or more to be dreaded, than another, as a writer, it lies in his peculiar, characteristic mode of stating a fact.7 But let the reader judge for himself. He will remember that the statement made by Mr. Wotherspoon is this: “ A week’s delay was solicited, before the expiration of which, in consid- eration of concessions never heard of and of an honorable adjust- ment not even entertainedthe presentment was withdrawn.” My counter story will be a very short, and a very plain one. Sometime in the latter part of April last, the Rev. Dr.Taylor} of Grace Church, called to see me in relation to the subsisting difficulties between St. Paul’s Church, and the contemplated Church at New-Brighton. He was desirous that the difficulties should be amicably settled. I briefly explained to the Doctor the fiscal condition of St. Paul’s Church, showing him that there then existed a large debt against the Church, which had been contracted by the congregation in its joint capacity: and added, that I thought it should be paid off before the congrega- tion was divided. The Doctor at once assented; and upon my answering his inquiry as to what portion of the debt could, probably, be paid off by that part of the congregation who would remain attached to the old Church, he said, he, himself, would give a specified sum towards the payment of the balance, providing I succeeded in procuring the withdrawal of the presentment against the Rev. Mr. Irving; and also succeeded in procuring the assent of Dr. Winslow, giving permission to the Rev. Mr. Irving to preach at New-Brighton, which I then promised to undertake to do. A day or two after that con- versation, I received a letter from Dr. Taylor, as follows : “ Grace Church Rectory,, “ New-York, April 27, 1850. “My Dear Sir: It is particularly desirable that nothing should be said of pecuniary bounty of consideration, or any thing of the sort, so far as the two corporations are concerned; let that he a matter of understanding and arrangement between8 you and myself. I have mentioned our conversation to Mr. Murray Hoffman. Only get Dr. Winslow to arm you with a carte blanche, to withdraw all opposition to the onward pro- gress of the Church at New-Brighton, and to discontinue all proceedings against Mr. Irving, and all will be well. # # # # # # # “ Very respectfully, my dear sir, yours, &c., THO. HOUSE TAYLOR. “ Mr. Ellingwood.” The part of this letter which is ommilted, relates in no wise to the matter in hand, and the part in italic is underscored in the original. Shortly after the receipt of this letter, I waited upon the Rev. Mr. Irving with a letter addressed to Dr. Winslow, asking his permission to preach within his parish, prepared in a way which Mr. Hoffman thought most proper, and the least objec- tionable. We had a short but satisfactory interview, and it ended in his signing the letter, which he thereupon handed to me, to be delivered to Dr. Winslow. At this time the presentment had not been withdrawn. I then held the request for leave to withdraw it, under certain instructions, by which I was to be governed. The principal and most important of which was, that the Rev. Mr. Irving should acknowledge the . parochial rights of the Rector of St. Paul’s, in conformity with the Resolution passed by the Stand- ing Committee last fail. The letter addressed to Dr. Winslow, from the Rev. Mr. Irving, asking his permission to preach at New-Brighton, or within the township of Castleion, and which the latter gentle- man had just delivered to me, was, in my opinion, a sufficient acknowledgement. I, consequently, deemed iny instructions f ulfilled; and immediately upon the receipt by me of Mr. Irving’s9 letter, handed over to Mr. Hoffman the written request of the Presbyters who had presented Mr. Irving, asking leave to withdraw the presentment. The difficulty did not, however, end here. The day follow- ing that which I had delivered to Mr. Hoffman the request for leave to withdraw the presentment, I received from Mr. Irving a letter, of which the following is a copy : “ Friday Morning, 3d May, 1850. “Dear Sir: On my return to New-Brighton on yesterday afternoon, I stated to the Church Wardens of Christ Church, New-Brighton, the purport of our conversation of the morning. This morning I received from them a communication, which I enclose to you, for the purpose of ascertaining whether my impression is correct as to the tenor of our conversation, and whether you understood me as acting 6 on my own responsibility, in a matter affecting myself personally,5 and QnoV as thereby c compromising the Wardens and Yestry of the Church at New-Brighton.5 So far as regards myself, I had no hesitation in meeting the wishes of Mr. Hoffman, but I had neither right nor intention to make any surrender on behalf of the Yestry. “ I am, respectfully, yours, “ P. P. IRVING. “ N. D. Ellingwood, Esq.55 To which letter, I immediately made a reply, enclosing to Mr. Irving the communication alluded to in his letter, of the following tenor: “To the Rev. Mr. Pierre Irving : “ Dear Sir : Your letter of this date was this moment placed in my hands, enclosing a communication from the Wardens of Christ Church. “ 1 certainly did understand you to say, yesterday, that you acted in the matters which we then had in hand upon your own responsibility; but I did not understand it to be a matter in which you, alone, was personally interested, o10 The communication from the Wardens of Christ Churcfr seems to be a distinct disclaimer of what I supposed and under- stood was a necessary inference from your act. “ You will, probably, remember that allusion was made by you, as to the effect of your letter upon the question of paro- chial jurisdiction, when I stated that we could not yield the jurisdiction, which was conceded to us by the Resolution of the Standing Committee passed last fall ; and I added, that if you declined to apply to the Rector of St. Paul’s for leave to preach, that we had no alternative left for us but to let the matter go before the Standing Committee. “I regret, exceedingly, the turn which this matter has taken. If any misunderstanding exists, as between you and me, I will, immediately, if you request it, take steps to return to you the letter addressed to Dr. Winslow. We will then place matters in the same position in which they stood before our interview, and proceed before the Standing Committee. I feel satisfied, that the Vestry of St. Paul’s Church have now done all they could do, consistently with their duties, to the parish, to adjust the unhappy difference existing between the two Churches. “ I am, respectfully, yours, N. DANE ELLXNGWOOD. “ Newt York, May 3rd, 1850. “ P. S. I will also mention, that I have in my possession a favorable response to your letter to Dr. Winslow, but which, under existing circumstances, I do not think proper to deliver. N. D. E.” I, at the same time, notified Mr. Hoffman of the difficulty which had ensued, and requested that no action should be taken by the Standing Committee, on the request to withdraw the presentment against Mr. Irving, until he heard from me. But afterwards, and on the same day, I received another letter from Mr. Irving, in reply to the one I had written to him in the morning, as follows :11 “ Friday, 2 P.M., May 3, 1850. ^cDear Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge receipt of your note of this date, and I return to you the original paper, signed by the Wardens of Christ Church, for you to preserve or destroy, as you may think proper. “Upon consideration, I am ready to concede, that the resolu- tion of the Standing Committee, of last autumn, is still in force and effect at the present time, and in conformity with that direction, I must regard the Rector of St. Paul’s as having concurrent jurisdiction over the township of Castleton. “I shall, therefore, notwithstanding the enclosed letter, again repeat my wish to know whether the Rev. Dr. Winslow has any further objection to my officiating as clergyman at Christ Church, New-Brighton. “Respectfully, &c., P. P. IRVING. N. D. Ellingwood, Esq.” The words which are in italics are underscored in the original. Upon the receipt of the last letter, I considered that every difficulty was removed, and at once handed over to the Rev. Mr. Irving a letter addressed to him, from Dr. Winslow, in which permission was given to him to preach within the parish of the Rector of St. Paul’s. These are the facts,—and thus the matter ended. Now, for a moment, let us compare them with Mr. Wother- spoon’s allegation, that “ a week’s delay was solicited ; before the expiration of which, in consideration of concessions never heard of and of an honorable adjustment not even entertained, the presentment was withdrawn, at the request of the presby- ters by whom it was made.” I will make no comments. There exist cases, and this one of them, of such glaring mendacity, that a bare statement of it is sufficient to convict the delinquent; comment would only have the effect to weaken its force.12 It is no justification, to say that Mr. Wotherspoon may not have known of the facts which constituted the concessions fu - made to Dr. Winslow, before any consent was given for the withdrawal of the presentment against Mr Irving. The state- ment, itself, is a calumny against the Vestry of St. Paul’s Church, as well as against Dr. Vinton and Dr. Henry ; and Mr. Wotherspoon has published, and most industriously circu- lated it, as true. It is no excuse for him, then, to say, that he may not have known it wyas false. Should he not have known it was true ? As uncharitable as it may seem, I cannot resist the belief, that he knew it was untrue ; and, nevertheless, deliberately and designedly published it. The following are a few of my reasons for that belief: This is not the first statement of the kind which the Vestry of St. Paul’s Church have had to encounter in the course of that controversy. Mr. Wotherspoon commenced it, with deceiving the late David B. Ogden, in regard to three important facts, viz.: 1st. He gave Mr. Ogden a false name for St. Paul’s Church, with the view of having its parish limited by that name. 2nd. In order that the parish might be limited by village boundaries, he stated to Mr. Ogden that the Village of Tomp- kinsville, in which the Church was located, had defined boun- daries. And 3rdly. For the purpose of denying the existence of the Church, altogether, he said, that “ In the organization of St. Paul’s Church, Tompkinsville, the canonical pre-requisite of an application to the Rector of St. Andrew’s was wholly omitted.” Upon his statement of these three important facts, Mr. Ogden gave an opinion adverse to the parochial claims of St. Paul’s Church ; and in the course of that opinion, observed, that u the whole island of Staten-Island constituted the Parish of St. Andrew’s Church, Richmond, long before there was any Episcopal Church at Tompkinsville. This Church of St.13 Paul’s, Tompkinsville, was therefore taken out of the parish of St. Andrew’s, and as I understand, without asking' the assent of the Rector of St. Andrew’s; and it seems to me extraordinary that the Rector of St. Paul’s, which was estab- lished, if the Rector be right, in direct violation of the Canon, should how upon ground, certainly of great doubt, endeavor to enforce this Canon in the case of New-Brighton. “ The Canon itself shows that the Convention were sensible of the great difficulty in fixing the bounds of a parish. But in this case there is no such difficulty. The Church of Tomp- kinsville is admitted in the Convention by the name of St, Paul’s Church, Tompkinsville ; the parish, therefore, by its very name, as recognized by the highest authority of the Church, shows its boundary.” But upon the coming in of the Reply of the Vestry of St. Paul’s Church, these “ false facts,” so deliberately and design- edly made, were successfully controverted ; and the conse- quence was, that the Standing Committee, to whom the points in dispute were submitted, on denying the application of the Church at New-Brighton to be admitted into union, “ Resolved, that the Standing Committee cannot, with due observ- ance of the law and canons of the Church, approve of the act of incorporation of Christ Church, New-Brighton, without the con- sent of the Rector of St. Paul's Church, Castleton, to the organ- ization of the same." We no longer hear Mr. Wotherspoon speak of “ St. Paul’s Church, Tompkinsville,” as the name by which that Church was received into Convention; and the author of the statement, that “ in the organization of St. Paul’s Church, Tompkinsville, the canonical pre-requisite of an application to the Rector of St. Andrew’s was wholly omitted,” now substitutes the lan- guage, “ that inasmuch as the Rector of St. Andrew’s, some sixteen years before, had consented to the establishment of a Church in the township of Castleton, (one of four townships comprised within the parish bounds,) he, from the moment of giving his consent, ceased to be Rector of that portion of his parishshowing that Mr. Wotherspoon is capable of sayinganything and every thing, for any and every occasion, without the least regard to what he had previously said, or might there- after say. But there is an instance of want of good faith and veracity, on the part of Mr. Wotherspoon, still more palpable. In reply to a letter written by Dr. Winslow to Mr. Wother- spoon, in which the former expressed a wish that the two Churches might be united into one, and that St. Paul’s Church might be removed to a site convenient for the whole parish, with the view of avoiding the expense incidental to the keeping up of two independent Churches within a parish, which he thought too small to maintain one, Mr. Wotherspoon replied, in a letter to Dr. Winslow, dated the 16th of June, 1849, in these words ;—that “ the least consideration must satisfy you, that no action on your part can prevent the success of our undertaking, or accomplish the union of the two Churches. The location for the new Church is unalterably fixed at a dis- tance of fully two miles from yours at Tompkinsville.” In the publication of this letter by Mr. Wotherspoon, in his first pamphlet, the word “ unalterably” was italicised. This letter is dated on the 16th day of June, 1849. On the 4th day of August, nearly two months thereafter, he wrote a letter to William Emerson, Esquire, of the following tenor: “ Dear Sir : I have not been quite prepared to give you an answer about the land, as my views in regard to it are somewhat infiuenced by a negotiation now in progress relative to the site of our new Church “ I remain, dear sir, yours, respectfully, G. WOTHERSPOON.” The land referred to lies in or near New-Brighton, and the part of the letter which is emitted, relates merely to the chaf- fering about the price of it. I have italicised those words to which I wish to draw the reader’s attention. Now, how shall we characterize the statement made to Dr.15 Winslow ? or in what light must we regard the veracity of the author of it ? There are two aspects in which we are to regard this in- stance. The one is, that the site for the new Church was not fixed upon as late as the 4th day of August, although Mr^ Wotherspoon had written to Dr. Winslow, as early as the 16th day of June previous, stating that it was “ unalterably” fixed ; the other aspect is, that Mr. Wotherspoon had some venal object in view at the time that he urged “that no action” on the part of Dr. Winslow could “accomplish the union of the two Churches.” When addressing himself to Dr.. Winslow, on the 8th day of June previous, for the purpose of procuring the consent of the latter to the organization of a new Church at New-Brighton, he urged, as reasons for the establishment of such new Church,, that, “ owing to bodily infirmities and other causes, many fami- lies in that neigborhood are in a great measure deprived of the privileges of public worship.” It seems that the words other eauses were intended to cover his venal designs. But let us come down to more recent events, and regard them scrupulously, with the view of determining the general character of Mr. Wotherspoon for veracity, to enable us to judge whether he did, knowing it to be false, deliberately and designedly publish the fact, that the presentment against the Rev. Mr. Irving was withdrawn, by the Presbyters who made it, “ in consideration of concessions never heard of and of an honorable adjustment not even entertained.” Let us, first, take up his letter to Dr. Winslow, dated the 1st day of August, 1850, and which is set forth, in part, at page 14 of his prefatory remarks. This letter, unlike the fabled toad which wore a jewel in his head, carries in its front a falsehood. It is the false story repeated. In other words, it is the same which we now com- plain of, only in other language. The writer commences: “ The unconditional withdrawal of all claims adverse to the establishment of the New-Brighton Church, having, in my opinion, rendered unnecessary and16 inexpedient any further agitation of the subject, I not only abstained from putting forth the c Rejoinder,5 which I had prepared to the c Reply,5 of your Vestry, but I likewise ex- erted myself to prevent the appearance in one of the Church papers of a statement of the case, the publication of which had been announced for the succeeding number.55 This short statement contains two false ones. 1st. That the withdrawal of the claims of the Vestry of St. Paul’s, to the establishment of the New-Brighton Church, was unconditional. 2d. That Mr. Wotherspoon had prepared a Rejoinder to the Reply of the Vestry of St. Paul’s. I have already shown the first to be utterly false. If I do not succeed in showing to a demonstration that the second was likewise so, I will, at all events, show it to be highly probable. If Mr. Wotherspoon could have made a Rejoinder to that Reply, he would have done it whilst the matter was before the Standing Committee, as the facts and arguments contained in it were such as to influence them, materially, in passing the Resolution which they did. This will appear by a reference to the opinion expressed by the Standing Committee, to which I will hereafter have occasion to refer. But he did not rejoin. The fair inference is, that he could not. Besides, why should Mr. Wotherspoon wait Until the 1st of August, long after the Resolution was passed, and nearly a year after the Reply Avas published ; or why should he wait until the presentment was withdrawn, which was on the 3rd of May, beiore he prepared his Rejoinder ? Thus delaying it until it could be of no use, or answer any sensible purpose whatever. Every thing that is due to a man’s own self, prompted him, or should have prompted him to rejoin to it;—even self- pride called for a Rejoinder,—for he was then, in effect, charged with a want of veracity—but he did not rejoin. And why not ? The answer is plain to me—he could not. Do you believe, reader, he has done it yet ? We will, next, take the sentence following the one we have just now examined, and there we find a repetition of the first,17 (in another form,) and the introduction of a new and distinct falsehood. The sentence is in these words : “ On this point, viz., that all publications relating to controversies or dissensions between individuals or communities on religious matters are to be deprecated, and if possible avoided, 1 had supposed that no difference of opinion could exist. It seems, however, that in this view you do not concur ; for since the withdrawal of the claims already adverted to ,• after your6 express permission’ had been, as I understand, officially communicated, and action had thereupon by the. Standing Committee ; after, in fact, you had, as it were, authorized a non-suit to be entered against you; after all this, I say, I find that you have put forth, or caused or allowed to be put forth, under your authority, and sanctioned by your signature, a printed tract or pamphlet, purporting to be a ‘ Reply,’ addressed to the Standing Committee of the Diocese, in the matter of the New-Brighton Church.” This charge, made by Mr. Wotherspoon, is fully answered, by a letter received by me from Mr. Hoffman, of which the following is a copy : “ Dear Sir : In compliance with your request, that I would state when the Reply of the Vestry of St. Paul’s Church to the argument on behalf of Christ Church, New-Brighton, was handed to me, I answer—That I received the printed pamph- lets from you before the 1st of May last, with a request that I would distribute them among the members of the Standing Committee. This I meant to do at the ensuing meeting, to be held in that month. I cannot specify the day of reception more accurately; but it was when I supposed all hope of an amicable adjustment at an end, and before my interview with a Reverend Divine whose aid led to an adjustment subsequently. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, MURRAY HOFFMAN. N. Dane Ellingwood, Esq. New-York, Oct. 7, 1850.” Nor do the misrepresentations of Mr. Wotherspoon end here, 318 The sentence immediately before the first sentence which we examined, contains two misstatements. I now allude to the sentence which is introductory to, or which immediately pre- cedes the letter, and which is in these words: “ It is proper that it should be understood, that the controversy originated in a gross breach of confidence on the part of the Rev. Dr. Winslow, in publishing some private letters addressed to him by Mr. Wotherspoon, in connection with which he promulgated cer- tain statements concerning the pecuniary condition of his Church, and the injurious effects on its resources of the estab- lishment of the New-Brighton Church, which are rectified in Mr. Wotherspoon’s letter of the 26th February.” I have italicised those words to which I wish to draw the reader’s attention. The controversy did not originate as here stated. It originated in an attempt to erect a neiw Church within the parish of St Paul’s, in which service was to be performed according to the rituals of the Protestant Episcopal Church, without the con- sent of its Rector. This, every body knows, was the whole origin of the controversy. The letters grew out of the attempt so to organize the Church. This is the first misstatement; I will now proceed to show the other. There was no breach of confidence whatever. In : the first pamphlet written by Mr. Wotherspoon, he commences by saying, “The Rev. Rector of St. Paul’s Church, Tompkinsville, having been requested by a portion of his Vestry to publish some letters which passed between that gentleman and myself relative to the building of a Church, and the opening of a temporary place of worship at New-Brighton ; having added a letter nominally addressed to me/ but in reality solely with a view to its publication, and having, moreover, suppressed my reply to that letter; it ap- pears to me both right and expedient to supply the omission, and to submit such remarks as the subject may seem to require.” Not only this, but he sets forth in his pamphlet a copy of the letter, addressed to the Rev. Dr. Winslow, requesting the1$ publication of this correspondence, and which assigns, as a reason for the request, that there were in circulation a variety of in- correct versions of it; and the only comment then made by Mr. Wotherspoon, in regard to this letter, is in these words: This really seems to be a very equivocal sort of compliment which the Vestry pay to their Rector, inasmuch as the only version of the correspondence which had been circulated, must necessarily have emanated from himself.55 Not one word is here said, or any where else said, that I can find, in that pamphlet, charging a breach of confidence, in publishing these letters; that was not dreamt of, until nearly a year and a half afterwards. Is it necessary for me to assign any more instances of the want of veracity, on the part of Mr. Wotherspoon, to justify the belief that he, deliberately and designedly, knowing it to be false, published to the world, that the presentment against Mr. Irving had been withdrawn by the Presbyters themselves, who made it, u in consideration of concessions never heard 0/, and of an honorable adjustment not even entertained55 ? I have now given four or five instances of palpable false- hoods and misstatements, separate, distinct, and material—all comprised within the space of three short sentences, imme- diately succeeding each other. There exist too many others, I am sorry to say, in this book of Mr. Wotherspoon, to which, however, I shall make no allu- sion—at present. They will only tend to increase our feelings of pain and disgust. And yet, this is the man who says, speaking of the statements that have been made by the Vestry of St. Paul’s, in relation to the late controversy, that, “Of these statements, whether in the form of pamphlets, or of protracted editorials in the official organ of the diocese, it might be perhaps a slight exaggeration to assert that they do not contain a single word of truth ; but it is strictly within the bounds of moderation to say, that there is scarcely a paragraph contained in them, which is not either the enunciation of a positive untruth, or the elaborate perversion of an ascertained fact!”20 And this grave charge is made, too, against an entire Vestry of a Christian Church, without one particle, patch, or shred of testimony to sustain it! But I cannot retort—I cannot, on my conscience, make the same sweeping denunciation of the want of veracity, on the part of Mr. Wotherspoon, because he could not well avoid telling some things that were true, in giving an account of such a multiplicity of facts ;—but their number is small—lamentably small. And I will here remark, that among the number which have escaped, that truth, perhaps, is not the least important, in which he tells us that the writer, (meaning himself,) is an individual t£ nmnfiuential and obscure 55 He might have added many kindred terms, and not departed from the truth. I now propose, for a purpose which the reader will hereafter see, to take a cursory view of the case, which resulted in the Resolution of the Standing Committee, made last fall. There were two important questions involved in it. 1st. Whether the “ express permission55 to preach, required by the 31st canon, could be implied from circumstances ? And 2ndly. Whether the boundaries of a parish could be limited, under this canon, by a village not incorporated, or possessing ascertained limits ? As to the first of these questions, the Vestry of St. Paul’s, in reply to a pamphlet issued in behalf of the contemplated Church at New-Brighton, said, (in the language of the pamph- let itself,) “ It will be observed that there is nothing contained in the extract from the 31st Canon, requiring that the assent therein alluded to should be given in writing or any prescribed form, so that the evidence of it might be preserved in the archives of the Church ; consequently, it must happen, that a fact of that nature ceases oftentimes to be susceptible of direct proof, and becomes a matter to be inferred rather than proved^ from a combination of circumstances. When for sixteen years and more we find many distinct and independent circumstances occurring, all in harmony with the fact sought to be established, they furnish to the mind more satisfactory evidence of the21 existence of silch fact, than any we can derive from the capri* ciousness of memory.” The Standing Committee, in alluding to this point, remark: “ That the express permission of the canon, not being required to be in writing, was to be construed as a permission clearly manifested and established. The permission for the organization of a new Church could be proven by the presence and participation of the Rector at the preliminary meeting f by officiating in the new Church after its organization ; by acquiescence with knowledge, in its admission into union ; by the absence of any remonstrance for a reasonable period of time ; or by any other satisfactory evidence of approval. “ That the assent of the Rector of St. Andrew’s to the organization of St. Paul’s by its corporate title must be assumed from his failure to remonstrate at the Convention, which admitted that Church, although, as appeared by the journal, he was present—and from the lapse of so long a period.” In regard to the second question, the Vestry of St. Paul’s said, (in the language of the same pamphlet,) “ But the great difficulty, however, that exists in giving effect to the opinion of Mr, Ogden, supposing the name of the Church to be correctly assumed by him, is this: that the village of Tompkinsville has no legally ascertained limits or boundaries ; and in that respect is as loosely defined as the parish of St. Paul’s itself. We cannot regulate or define one uncertainty by another; and if the village of Tompkinsville has no admitted legal limits, we must necessarily seek some other mode for ascertaining the limits of St. Paul’s parish.” On this question, the Standing Committee also concurred with the views so taken by the Vestry of St. Paul’s, although, it seems, such concurrence was not unanimous. One of the Committee, in giving his opinion, says : “There was another question of some general interest raised. There was a great deal of testimony to show, that St. Paul’s Church was almost universally known and spoken of as St. Paul’s Church, Tompkinsville; indeed, there were several important acts of the Vestry done under that appellation.22 Tompkinsville was not incorporated as a village, but was termed such by common repute. It had not any known or ascertained bounds, yet there could be no difficulty in saying it did not extend to New-Brighton, a village also unincorporated- “Now, undoubtedly, had the Church been incorporated for ihe village of Tompkinsville, and the boundaries of that village fixed, those would have been the limits of the parish ; and the author’s impressions were, that it was competent for the Com- mittee to enter into a consideration of the testimony, as the case stood. “ But the majority judged otherwise. They considered it very doubtful whether we could go behind the title taken in the act of incorporation, and by which the Church was admit- ted into union. They inclined to the opinion that the Con* vention never meant to use the term village in a sense capable of so much difficulty, but that the true meaning was, that the village should be incorporated, or its boundaries otherwise legally settled. And if these propositions were doubtful, they concluded that the evidence was insufficient to vary the case as it appeared on the official records.” These comprised the two main and principal questions ; and being both decided favorably for St. Paul’s, the Standing Com- mittee proceeded to make the resolutions referred to. The reader will find the case set out at length in a book recently published and entitled, “ Hoffman on the Law of the Church,” For his convenience, however, I have subjoined hereto a note of the case. (See Note A.) My principal object in alluding to a case already disposed of, is not for the purpose of having it reviewed, or reconsidered, or for the purpose of offering any reasons to sustain it, (for it needs none ;) but in order that the reader may be able to form a general idea of the questions in dispute, and the nature of the claims set up by the Vestry of St. Pauls, and particularly, that he might know what were the conclusions to which the Stand- ing Committee had arrived in regard to them. These being understood, he will at once see the flagrant in- justice which Mr. Wotherspoon has done the Standing Com-mittee by attributing to them conclusions to which they had never arrived, or charging them with opinions which they had never expressed The Standing Committee decided that the Rector of St, Paul’s had concurrent jurisdiction only with the Rector of St. Andrews, in the township of Castleton ; and Mr Irving so un- derstands it, as appears by his letter to me. dated the Bd of May, in which he says, “I must regard the Rector of St. Paul’s as having concurrent jurisdiction in the township of Castleton. The language of the decision is: “That but for the existence of the Chapel at Factory- ville, the surrender of rectorial jurisdiction for the whole town of Castleton would have been complete ; and that town would have formed, under the canon, the Parish of St. Paul’s. But that the existence of that Chapel within the town worked a reservation of authority in the Rector of St. Andrew’s—caused the case to fall within the other clause of the canon ; and thus there were two Churches, with two settled ministers, having, for the purposes of the canon, co-equal authority. This was subject to the necessary exception of an exclusive power irt each, in his own church-building and precincts, and among his own people. Of course the Rector of St. Andrew’s had an entire right to officiate in the incorporation of Christ Church.” Now what shall we say of a man who shall betray such gross ignorance of the decision that was made, or who shall so wil- fully pervert it, (for on one or the other of these dilemmas Mr. Wotherspoon must find himself,) as to publish to the world, with the most consummate assurance, that the Standing Com- mittee had, in their decision, taken away from the Rector of St. Andrew’s his parochial jurisdiction over the township of Castleton, and given it, exclusively, to the Rector of St Paul’s? These are his words : “'The pretension set up by the Standing Committee is understood to be this: That inasmuch as the Rector of St. Andrew’s, some sixteen years before, had consented to the establishment of a Church in the township of Castleton, (one24 of four townships comprised within the parish bounds,) he, from the moment of giving his consent, ceased to be the Rector of that portion of his parish ; and must be deemed to have absolutely resigned his cure in favor of the ministers of the new Church, throughout the whole extent of the township, so that he could no longer officiate therein without the consent of the new Rector. “ This monstrous doctrine was not allowed or intended to remain a dead letter. No law or canon of the Church was adduced, or could be adduced, in its support.” In another part of his book he repeats the same gross error or shameful perversion of the decision, only in language more characteristic of the author’s good breeding. Here it is: “ There is nothing in the laws or canons of the Church which authorizes or empowers a clergyman to enact the part of the hedgehog in the fable,—first to obtain, through the per- mission of the minister, a footing in the parish, and then to exclude the original incumbent himself,—to outset, as it were, his benefactor, the true proprietor, from his dwelling ,\ and thus be enabled to dictate to future applicants, the terms on which they may participate in his assumed exclusive privilege of occupation. Even in regard to a matter so easily ascertained, and where any misrepresentation would be almost sure to be succeeded by immediate detection, Mr. Wotherspoon can not make a true statement. I have endeavored, thus far, to show to the reader, that whether we regard Mr. Wotherspoon as a man of understanding or a man of veracity; whether we look to him for a correct version of an opinion expressed by the Standing Committee, or for the representation of a fact, we cannot, in either instance, rely upon what he says ;—that a malicious, bad intent seems to govern him ; and through its baneful influence, both his judg- ment and veracity have become warped and perverted. After having assailed the Standing Committee, in terms which I shall not repeat, for the Resolution which they made25 last fall, he, next, maliciously assails Dr. Vinton and Dr. Henry, for presenting Mr. Irving. This is his language r “Two Pres- byters, Members of Convention, are readily found to do the bidding of the Standing Committee, and unite with the Rev. Dr. Gordon Winslow in slanderously and untruly accusing the Rector of Christ Church, New-Brighton, of a violation of the canons of the Church.” I have taken the liberty of underscoring those parts of the quotation which are most offensive and most untrue. Was Mr. Irving accused, “ slanderously and untruelyI will venture to assert that the Reverend gentleman, himself, will not say so. He will admit that the 31st Canon of the Church, in effect, prohibits him, and every other Episcopal clergyman from officia- ting within the township of Castleton, without the consent of the Rector or Rectors of the parish included within it. He will admit, that the Resolution of the Standing Committee, last fall, declared that the Rector of St. Paul’s had parochial juris- diction to the extent of that township;—and he will also admit, that he, Mr. Irving, did preach within such township, after he had been expressly prohibited by that Rector. If these admissions be made, is it not certain that Mr. Irving had violated the provision of the 31st Canon ? I cannot advert to this matter, however, without feelings of regret ,* nor would I do it, now, except for the purpose of vin- dicating a foul charge made against the Reverend gentlemen, who, together with Dr. Winslow, presented Mr. Irving. But in vindicating them, I, at the same time, feel it a duty, which I owe to the latter gentleman, for whom I entertain none but feelings of the highest respect, to state, that I am, now, convinced that he did not, knowingly or designedly, violate the provisions of the Canon referred to ; and that the unfortu- nate position in which he found himself subsequently placed, was the result of a misapprehension, or a mistake on his part; in supposing that the Resolution had been abrogated or an- nulled.26 If the presentment has given pain to the reverend gentle-fhai*. himself, or to any of his many warm and attached friends, I' assure him, that no one feels more regret for it than I do. But, to return to Mr. Wotherspoon. After having thus assailed the two Reverend gentlemen, who, together with Dr. Winslow, had presented Mr. Irving, with groundless accusa- tions, he next attacks Dr. Winslow, with all the bitter asperity of which he is capable. The charges made against the latter gentleman, as gathered, generally, from the letters and remarks of Mr. Wotherspoon, may all be comprised under this one head : that Dr. Winslow has endeavored to procure a certain amount of money from the seceding portion of his congregation, to pay off a debt which the entire congregation had previously contracted. There are some inuendoes contained in the pamphlet, to the effect that Dr. Winslow may have had some selfish object ; but the writer has not had the hardihood to allege it in any distinct or tangible shape that I can discover. If Dr. Winslow has followed the seceding portion of the congregation with the view of having them contribute, he has been equally solicitous to procure the aid of the remaining part. And whilst he has urged others to pay off that debt, he has, at the same time, set them a noble example, by permitting a large amount to be deducted, yearly, from his salary, for the purpose of having it applied towards its ultimate payment and discharge. All this, however, meets with ho approbation in the eyes of Mr. Wotherspoon ; but, says this gentleman, in extenuation of of the default of the seceding portion of the congregation to pay any part of this debt contracted as it was in their joint capacity, the debt is not legal or binding, inasmuch as there was no sufficient legal authority, on the part of the Church, to contract it. This may be, and, probably, is true. But the dif- ference between the Rector of St. Paul’s and Mr. Wother- spoon is this, that the former is governed by a sense of moral obligation.27 Throughout his remarks, Mr. Wotherspoon has endeavored to east some imputation of wrong upon the Rev. Dr. Winslow, as well as upon his Vestry, in regard to this (i money demand,55 as he terms it. But the laudible object which Dr. Winslow, as well as his Vestry, had in connexion with it, is as plainly to be seen, as is the harmless malice of the author of the impu- tation. There needs no defence of Dr. Winslow at my hands; he, as well as Dr Henry and Dr. Vinton, will, I think, survive this assault, and continue to sustain the high reputation and esteem they have deservedly won in public estimation, and in the hearts of those who know them. They are impregnable to the shafts of Mr. Wotherspoon, which hurt no one but him- self. I will here remark, that it is difficult to contemplate the audacity of Mr. Wotherspoon without amazement. No char- acter stands so high, that he dare not assail it;—the whole Episcopacy, in a body, he terms—“ a mockery, a delusion, and a snare” There is nothing, however, sacred or venerated among men, that he does not handle with familiarity or treat with contempt. In allusion to the Resolution passed by the Standing Com- mittee last fall, he says : “ There is no more difficulty in passing a c Resolution5 de- claring the consent of the Virgin Mary, or the adoration of the cross, to be essential to the salvation of souls; than in affirming the consent of the Rector of St. PauVs, Tompkinsville, to be indispensible to the organization of Christ Church, New- Brighton.” * In short, in whatever light Mr. Wotherspoon may be regard- ed, whether we regard his want of truthfulness,—or his malice, -^or his audacity, we unavoidably feel both astonishment and disgust. Gentle reader,—for so I must call you, in compliment to your patience in following me through this tedious detail,—I28 feel that I ought to apologize, in thus permitting myself to be carried away by a false accusation against the Rector and Vestry of St. Paul’s, as well as against two eminent Divines, wherein they were charged with having withdrawn the claims of that Church against the Church in New-Brighton, in a manner alike discreditable and dishonorable to them; and the more especially do I feel that an apology is due, inasmuch as I had invited you to sit beside me, as it were, whilst I proceeded, book in hand, to analyize the prefatory remarks of Mr. Woth* erspoon. I will now return to the prefatory remarks ; but in order that the remaining stock of your patience may not be entirely ex- hausted, I promise to confine my observations to a single paragraph. I did intend to urge upon your attention well grounded com- plaints which I have against Mr. Wotherspoon, in not stating reasons, or in not giving reasons, when he condemned, in general terms, the little pamphet issued by the Vestry of St. Paul’s, in defence of their parochial rights, “ in order that his readers might judge of the manner in which the terms of the verdict apply to the subject.” I did also intend to allude to the contents of two short notes, which Mr. Wotherspoon sent to me, if it were only for their brevity; but I have no time to do either now, and you have no patience left, if I had. Besides, I may be under the necessity of calling upon you, again, inasmuch as Mr. Wotherspoon has promised another book,-“ “ The cry is still they come.” But let us proceed with the paragraph. The reader will note how closely it resembles, in length, breadth, and depth, and I will also add, in turgidity, the very first paragraph or sentence. They, together, form, in style and substance, in matter and in manner, the alpha and omega of Mr. Wother- spoon’s prefatory remarks. Here it is : “ It is not the least remarkable phase in the extraordinary phenomenon presented by this case, that an individual so un-29 influential and obscure as the writer of these pages, should be wantonly and recklessly dragged forth from the cherished re- tirement of private life, arraigned at the bar of public opinion, and compelled, in self-vindication, and for the assertion of public principles and private rights, to take a prominent part in the discussion of abstruse points of ecclesiastical law, as the advocate of the free exercise and extension of Gospel privi** leges, in opposition to the unhallowed and mercenary endea- vors of an ordained minister of the Church, supported by the whole weight of the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese, to withhold and prohibit the preaching of that Gospel, which he is bound to promote and extend by the most solemn obliga- tions. How long will it be ere such men can be made to un- derstand that they must become Christians, before they can be Christian ministers ?” Mr. Wotherspoon belongs to a class of writers who suppose that a fine sentence consists of long words and complicated involutions; but wherein Truth, should she, peradventure, gain admission, must sit abashed. But mark his affected modesty. He complains, that he has been dragged forth from the cherished retirement of private life, 66 to take a prominent part in the discussions of abstruse points of ecclesiastical law ” Man is, and ever will be, I fear* a selfish creature. What cruelties, and what wrongs, stain and blur every page of his history! The little bee he destroys; and he pursues the mighty whale, within the verges of the arctics, far from the haunts of men and for what? For his own selfish purposes. With its life, the little bee yields its honey to the destroyer; and the king of the finny tribe is dragged forth from his retire- ment, like Mr. Wotherspoon, to enlighten the world. But what are the violaters of Mr. Wotherspoon’s retirement to get ? Of honey, certainly, none. As to the light, it is not proper for me to express an opinion; that, as I have said before, belongs to the Standing Committee. N. DANE ELL1NGWOOD, One of the Vestry.m NOTE A. An important case came before the Standing Committee in 1849 and 1850, which led to great discussion of the canon, and 'no little warmth of controversy. Happily, by the counsel of friends, the matter was amicably settled. The case had been anxiously examined by a sub-committee, whose conclusions upon several points of general interest it may be useful to state. 64 The material facts were these : “By a charter of Queen Ann, the whole of Staten Island was created into the Parish of St. Andrew’s, the parish Church being at Richmond. By a colonial act, re-adopted in 1784, again in 1813 and in 1830, the island was divided into various towns, with specified boundaries, of which Castleton was one, “ Prior to 1832, the Parish Church of St. Andrew’s was the only Church on the island. This was in the town of Rich- mond. But there had been erected a chapel of ease at Facto- ryville, in the town of Castleton, at which the Rector of St. Andrew’s occasionally officiated. “ In this state of things, and in the year 1833, a new Church was organized and incorporated. Its incorporate title and name adopted in the act was, c The Rector, Churchwardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul’s Church in the Town of Castleton.’ By this name it was reported upon favorably by a Committee of the Convention, and by this name it was admitted into union in 1834, and delegates from it were received. “ In the year 1849, a new Church was organized in what was termed New-Brighton, in the town of Castleton, The Rector of St. Andrew’s attended at the preliminary meetings, commencing on page 371 of “ Hoffman on the law of the Church.”