Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/caseofchristchurOOchri L r * "(/. >rs, CASE CHKIST CHUKCH, GERMANTOWiV, PHILADELPHIA. BEING A EEPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF PRESBYTERS, IN KEFEKENCE TO THE APPLICATION OP A Majority of the Vestry of said Church, DISSOLUTION OF THE DASTORAL CONNECTION. PIT IL ADELPHI A: PUBLISHED BY KING & BAIBD, PRINTERS, 6U7 AND 009 bANSOM STREET. 1872. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by KING & BAIRD, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. CONTENTS. Brief History of the Case, S Amended Canon of 1871, 6 Correspondence in reference to the apijoiutmeut of a Board of Pres- byters, 9 Pledge of Vestry to ahide by the decision, 11 First Day's Proceedings, 13 Statement of the Vestry, 14 Secokd Day's Proceedings, 46 Third Day's Proceedings, 46 Answer on behalf of the Rector, 47 Appendix to Answer. Containing : A. Letter of Beekman Potter, the originator of Christ Church,. "J 6 B. Statement of Joseph A. Schaeffei", 8t C. Statement of N. K. Ployd, 83 D. Statements of persons -whose names are attached to the paper asking Dr. Rumney to resign, . . . .84 E. List of the clergymen who have officiated at Christ Church, Germantown, during the time of the present Rector, . 93 F. Statistics of Sunday School, 94 G. Letter from the vestry and congregation at White Puiins, . 95 H. W. C. Houston's letter of September 20th, .... 98 I. Bishop Eastburn's decision, 99 (3) Fourth Day's Proceedings, Ill Supplemental statemeut of Vestry, -. 113 Supplemental answer, 123 Argument of Lewis D. Vail, Esq., 127 " of Rev. J. Andrews Harris, 148 " of George M. Conarroe, Esq., 165 " William S. Price, Esq., 187 Fifth Day's Proceedings, . . . . - 198 Decision of the Board of Presbyters, . . . *, . . . 198 HISTORY OF THE CASE. PRELIMIITARY STATEMENT. Christ Church, Germantown, was organized in 1852, and was incorporated in 1853. In the year 1854 the Rev. A. B. Atkins was elected Rector. In June, 1869, having pre- viously had differences with some of his congregation, he resigned. The Rev. J. Newton Stanger was called to fill the rectorship temporarily, and remained for nearly a year. On September 7th, 1869, the Rev. Dr. Rumney, among others, was nominated as Rector. In December, 1869, the Rev. AV. S. Langford was unanimously elected Rector, but declined to come. In February, 1870, the Rev. Dr. Rumney was unanimously elected. He visited the parish, and in the following April, signified his acceptance. On May 1st, 1870, he came to Germantown, and was very favorably received. Soon after the Yestry election of 1871, a committee of the Vestry, appointed to confer with the Rector on the well being of the parish, insisted that he should resign. No charges were made against him, or any grounds alleged, except that he was not sufficiently "Low Church." A majority of the congregation desired him not to resign. He declined to resign. In June, 1871, Bishop Stevens, after hearing an ex "parte presentation of the case, recom- mended his resignation. A few weeks afterwards, after hearing the other side, he changed his opinion. On Sep- tember 30th, 1871, the Bishop wrote a letter sustaining the Rector. In October, 1871, at the General Convention (5) of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, sitting in Baltimore, Canon 4, Title II, of the General Canons of the Church, as amended, entitled "Of differ- ences between Ministers and their Congregations, and of the dissolution of a Pastoral connection," was passed, to go into effect on January 1st, 1872. On Monday, January 2d, 1872, the Committee of the Vestry made application, in the absence of the Bishop, to the Pev. Dr. Morton, President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, for the appointment of a Board of Reference under the Canon. The correspondence which ensued, and the proceedings and arguments before this Board, will show the constitution of the tribunal, and the positions taken on each side. The amended Canon of 1871, is as follows: CAK'O^ IV. Of Diferences Between Ministers and their Congregations^ and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connection. § I. In case of a controversy between any Rector or As- sistant Minister of any church or parish, and the vestry or congregation of such church or parish, which cannot be settled by themselves, the parties, or either of them, may make application to the Bishop of the diocese, who shall thereupon notify each of the contesting parties to furnish him with the names of three presbyters of the diocese. The Bishop shall add to them the names of three other presby- ters, and the whole number shall then be reduced to five by striking off the names alternately by each of the contesting parties. Should either party refuse or neglect to name three presbyters or to strike from the list as aforesaid, the Bishop shall act for the parties so refusing or neglecting. And in all the proceedings aforesaid the vestry or congregation, as the case may be, shall be represented by some layman of their number duly selected by them for the purpose. Provided^ That the party or parties applying as above shall first give the Bishop satisfactory assurance of compliance with v/hat- ever may be required of them as the iiual issue of such pro- ceedings. § 11. The five presbyters thus designated shall constitute a Board of Eeference to consider such controversy, and if after hearing such allegations and proofs as the parties may sub- mit, a majority of the presbyters shall be of o[iinion that there is no hope of a favorable termination of such contro- versy, and that a dissolution of the connection between such Eector or Assistant Minister and his parish or congregation is necessary to restore the peace of the church, and promote its prosperity, such presbyters shall recommend to the Bishop that such minister shall be required to relinquish his con- nection with such church or parish, on such conditions as may appear to them proper and reasonable. ^ § III. If any Rector or Assistant Minister shall refuse to comply with the recommendation of the Bishop and pres- byters, the Bishop shall proceed to fort^id him the exercise of any ministerial functions within the diocese until he shall retract his refusal, or if the vestry or congregation shall refuse to comply with any such recommendation, they shall not be allowed any representation in l^he Diocesan Convention until they shall have retracted their refusah § IV. When there is no Bishop, the President of the Standing Committee of the diocese shall perform all the duties herein allotted to the Bishop ; provided that he shall not exercise any power under the preceding third section without the aid and consent of some Bishop of this Church. 8 § V. The preceding sections of this canon shall not be ob- ligatory upon any diocese which has made, or shall hereafter make, provision by canon, upon this subject. § VI. In case a minister, who has been regularly institutei and settled in a parish or church, be dismissed by such parish or church without the concurrrence of the Ecclesiastical Au- thority of the diocese, the vestry or congregation of such parish or church shall have no right to a representation in the Convention of the Diocese until they have made such satisfaction as the Convention may require. But the min- ister thus dismissed shall retain his right to a seat in the Convention, subject to the approval of the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese. And no minister shall leave his congregation against their will, without the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Authority aforesaid ; and if he shall leave them without such concurrence, he shall not be allowed to take his seat in any Convention of this Church, or be eligible into any church or parish until he shall have made such sat- isfaction as the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese may require ; but the vestry or congregation of such parish or church shall not be thereby deprived of its right to a repre- sentation in the Convention of the diocese. § VII. In case of the regular and canonical dissolution of the connection between a minister and his congregation, the Bishop, or if there be no Bishop, the Standing Committee, shall direct the Secretary of the Convention to record the same. But if the dissolution of the coimection betw^een a minister and his congregation be not regular or canonical, the Bishop or Standing Committee shall lay the same before the Convention of the diocese, in order that the above-men- tioned penalties may take effect. § VIII. This canon shall not be obligatory in those dio- ceses with whorie cauou iaw-s or charter it may interfere. The following correspondence was had in reference to the appointment of the Board of Reference. Rev. II. J. MoiiTON, D. D., Prest Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Rev. and Dear Sir: — The undersigned were appointed on the second day of Alay last, hy the Vestry of Christ Church, Germantown, a committee to confer with the Rector on " the well hcing of the Parish." Personal interviews and communications having failed to settle existing difficulties between the Rector and a large portion of the congregation, the enclosed resolution was passed by the Vestry on the 6th September last. In performance of the duty assigned the Committee by said resolution, they waited upon the Bishop of the Diocese, and ai'ter fully explaining the whole case, were informed by him that Judge Ludlow's recent decision in the St. Clement's Church case had tied his hands, and he saw no prospect of relief so long as that decision remained in force, unless the General Convention, about to assemble, passed a canon (which he thought they would do) to meet just such cases as fhat presented by us. The General Convention having taken action by the pas- sage of Canon IV. on the Differences between Ministers and their Congregations, to go into etfect January 1st, 1872, we now make formal application to you as President of the Standing Committee, in the aljsence of the Bishop, to per- form such acts under that canon as are therein assigned to the Bishop of the Diocese. , Very respectfully yours, W. C. HOUSTON, CTTAS. SPENCER, - '^ JOSEPH W. LEWIS, W. B. WIIITi^EY, Committee. January 2, 1872. The following was enclosed in the foreofoino- letter : At a meeting of the Vestry of Christ Church, German- town, held 1st September, 1871, the following resolution was passed : '■'■ Whereas, The Vestry of Christ Church, Germantown, 10 desire the dissolution of the pastoi^al relation of the Uev. Theo. 8. Rumney, D. D., to said Church, '•''Therefore^ resolved^ That the Committee which was ap- pointed to confer with the Rector on the well being of the Parish, be authorized to lay their report and accompanying papers before the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese, asking their counsel and advice as to the proper course to be pursued. Attest— CHARLES LE BOUTILLIER. Secretary. Philadelphia, January. IS, 1872. Rev. Dr. Rumney, Rev. and Dear Sir: — Will j^ou send me the "assurance" of your "compliance with whatever may be required of you, as the final issue of the proceedings " in the case under con- sideration ? Very respectfully and truly yours, HENRY J. MORTON", President of Standing Committee. A similar note was addressed to the Committee of the Vestry. Rectory of Christ Church, Germantown, January 15, 1872. Rev. Henry J. Morton, D. D., President of the Standing Committee. Rev. and Dear Sir : — I have to-day received your com- munication requesting the "assurance" from me of "com- pliance," &c., and now beg to assure you that I am ready to comply with whatever may be required of me as the final issue of such proceedings, according to Article 1st of Canon IV. Very trulv yours, THEODORE S. RUMNEY. Rev. H. J. Morton, D. D., President of the Standing Committee. Rev. and Dear Sir : — In accordance with the desire ex- pressed in your note of 13th inst., we hand you, as annexed, the " necessary assurance." Very respectfully, W. C. HOUSTON, Chairman Committee. January 19, 1872. 11 "Whereas there is a controversy between the Vestry of Clirist Church, Germantown, and the Rev. Theodore S. Rumney, D. D., present Rector ot the said Church, and the Vestry have made application to the ecclesiastical author- ity of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, under and in pur- suance of Canon IV., " Of differences between Ministers and their Congregations, and of the dissolution of the pastoral connection," we do hereby agree to j^erform all that may be legally required of us under and by virtue of the pro- visions of said Canon. W. C. HOUSTON, CIIAS. SPENCER, JOSEPH W. LEWIS, W. B. WHITNEY, Committee. Philadelphia, 22 January^ 1872. Rev. and Pear Sir : — Please furnish me with the names of three Presbyters of this Diocese, whom you will select as judges in the approaching investigation. Very truly yours, II. J. MORTON. President of Standing Committee. Rev. J)r. Rumney, A similar note was sent to the Committee of the Vestry. Rectory of Christ Church, Germantown, January 24, 1872. Rev. Dr. Morton, Rev. and Dear Sir : — T nominate " as judges in the ap- proaching investigation," gentlemen who have known my manner of life for nearly two years last past : The Rev. J. D. W. Perry, Rector of Calvary Church ; the Rev. Albra Wadleigh, Rector of St. Luke's Church ; the Rev. J. K Murphy, Rector of St. Michael's Church. Respectfully and truly yours, THEODORE S. RUMNEY. 12 Rev. n. J. Morton, D. D., President of Standing Committee. Rkv. and Dear Sir: — In reply to jour note "to furnisli you with the names of three Presbyters of the Diocese," we name. Rev. D. R. Goodwin, D. D., Rev. D. S. Miller, D. D., Rev. Chas. D. Cooper, and are Very truly yours, W. C. HOUSTOK Chairman of Committee. Philadelphia, February, 1, 1872. Philadelphia, Fibniary 2, 1872. Rev. and Dear, Sir: — The Committee of the Vestry of Christ Church, have named ; Rev. D. R. Goodwin, D, D., Rev. D. S. Miller, D. D., Rev. Chas. D. Cooper. I nominate. Rev. Thos. C. Yarnail, D. D., Rev. F. W. Beasley, D. D., Rev. T. F. Da vies, D. D. It is your privilege, as I understand, to strike off two names from the list. Please do so, and let me know the result. Very truly yours, HENRY J. MORTON, President of Standing Committee. A note of similar import was sent to the Committee. Rectory of Christ Cburch, GermantoWxV, Ftbruary 2, 1872. Rpv. Dr. Morton, Dear Sir : — Your favor, giving me the names of clergy- men apptnnted by you and the Committee to serve in the coming investigation, was received to-day. In accordance with your request, I strike off two from the list, the Rev. Dr. Goodwin and the Rev. Mr. Cooper. Respectfully and truly yours, THEODORE S. RUMNEY. Rev. II. J. Morton, D. D., Rev. and Dear Sir : — In reply to your note of 2d inst., I am requested by the Committee of Christ's Church, Ger- mantown, to say that they have decided upon striking from the Rev. Dr. Rumney's list, the names of Rev. A. Wadleigh, and Rev. J. K. Murphy. Yery truly yours, W. C. HOUSTON, Chairman. February 6, 1872. FIRST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. The Board of Presbyters held their first meethig at the Episcopal Rooms, JSTo. 708 Wahiut street, in the City of Philadelphia, on Saturday, February 10th, 1872, at 12 o'clock i\r. The Rev. Henry J. Morton, D. D., opened the meeting with prayer. lie then stated that an application had been made to him by a Committee of the Vestry of Christ Church, Germantown, for the appointment of a Board of Reference; that nine Presbyters had been named ; that the names of four had been stricken off, in conformity with the canon, and the Board reduced to five, namely : Rev. F. W. Beasley, D. D., Rev. Thos. C. Yarnall, D. D., Rev. Daniel S. Miller, D. D., Rev. Thomas F. Davies, D. D., and the Rev. J. De W. Perry, all of whom were present. Rev. Dr. Morton then withdrew, and the Board organized by the selection of the Rev. Dr. Beasley, as chairman, and the Rev. Mr. Perry, as secretary. After a private consultation between the members of the Board, the chairman announced that they had agreed upon the following, viz. : — 1. That the sessions of the Board should be public. 2. That counsel, clerical or lay, might be admitted, but that each side should be represented by two persons only. Lewis D. Vail and William S. Price, Esquires, appeared as counsel for the Vestry. The Rev. J. Andrews Harris, appeared as clerical advocate for the Rector, and George M. Conarroc, Esquire, as counsel for the Rector. Mr. Conarroe asked what grounds were alleged by the Vestry for a dissolution of the pastoral connection, and stated that it was necessary for him to at least hear some statement from the Vestry, before an answer could be framed or any issue raised. Mr. W. B. Whitney, one of the Committee of the Vestry, then read the following : — (13) STAT E M E NT OP THE VESTRY OF CHRIST CHURCH, GERMANTOWN, REGARDING THEIR CONTROVERSY WITH THE RECTOR. . The Committee of the Vestry of Christ Church, German- town, ap[)ointed to lay before you the circumstances which have changed that once flourishing parish to a paralyzed condition, are of opinion that they can best effect their object by a simple narrative of the life of the Church from its foundation to the present time. They propose to show you the causes which led to the foundation of the Church, the progress of the Church under its first Rector, and its condition at the time of Dr. Rum- ney's election ; and then to lay before you the melancholy differences between Rector and Vestry, including the full correspondence between them, concluding by a comparison of the state of the Church, as to its contributions and its parochial work, during the rectorships of Mr. Atkins and Dr. Eumney respectivel3\ Their aim being to show the ex- pediency of a change of Rector ; their means, the simplest possible exhibition of the facts. First, then, they desire to call your attention to the fol- lowing narrative of the foundation of the Church, prepared by one of the corporators, and acquiesced in by the surviving members of the original corporation ; as witness their signa- tures : The undersigned Incorporators and ^fembers of the Vestry at the organization of the Parish known as Christ Church, Germantown, familiar with the causes which induced that organization, desire to record the same. Christ Church, Germantown, was originated by Mr. P. E. Hamm, long a Member and Warden of Grace Church, Phila- delphia. (14) . 3* 15 At the period referred to above, St, Luke's was the only Parish in German town, and Mr. Hamm, who for yenvs had been identified with the Low Church party, having consulted with a number of his friends holding like views, determined upon applying to the proper authorities and in the regular way, for a charter granting to him and his colleagues the right and privilege of forming a new Parish. Just previous to this a Sunday School had been organized in the Dunkard's Meeting Ilouse, on the Main Street opposite Tulpehocken Street, and here occasional services were held the Rev. Mr. Goddard and other clergymen of his views, and at the re- quest of the originators of this new enterprise. At the convention, when the application for a charter was brought up, some objection was made by Dr. Ducachet, sup- posed to be in the interest of St. Luke's Parish, that such an organization would trespass on the rights of the old Parish ; Bishop Potter, however, decided that the law did not apply here as in England as to jurisdiction, and the charter was granted. Mr. Hamm went to work, contributing liberally of his means and obtaining liberal subscriptions from his friends of like Church views as himself, to the new Parish, and his efibrts were crowned with success, and the Church was known and recognized as the representative of the Evan- gelical Party in the Church. To show tlie distinctive character of this Parish, its thorough identilication with the Low Church Party, it is only necessary to state, that the first to whom a call was extended was the Ptev. Mr. Bancroft, of Canada East, well known for his decided Low Church views, after him. Dr. Watson, at present Rector of the Church of the Atonement, then Mr. Walsh who was connected with the Church of the Epiphany in Philadelphia, and finally Mr. Atkins, whose Low Church tendencies none can question. Such being the status on which the Church was organized and carried on to completion, it has given the undersigned much pleasure to notice, that from its inception until within 4* 16 a recent period, clergymen holding the views of those who foaucled the Parish, have, with few exceptions, and then in cases of emergency officiated, and its funds liave been abun- dantly and freely given to sustain the various objects put forth by that portion of the Church known as the Low Church party. ALFRED E. TOTTER, G. M. TROUTMAi^, E. W. LEHMAN, J. B. CHAMPION', THOMAS EARP, B. G. GODFREY, THEODORE S. WILLIAMS. Philadelphia, January 17, 1872. The cause of the foundation of Christ Church was, as you have seen, the absence of a church in Germantown of evan- gelical views. It was intended as a supply to this want, and has always been so known. The history of the Church for all the time of its existence until the year 1870, presents a nniformly evangelical character. The Vestry was always united on this point, and the evangelical societies were inva- riably supported in the educational and missionary work, while from the pulpit, the views of the evangelical branch of the Church were always promulgated whether from the mouth of the Rector, or from those well known and highly esteemed fathers of the Church, Bishops Mcllvain and Bedell of Ohio, Johns of Virginia, Lee of Delaware, and Eastburn of Massa- chusetts, or from Presbyters scarcely less known — Drs. Xew- ton, Nicholson, Suddards ; Rev. Messrs. Brooks, Cooper, Dudley A. Tyng, and many others, whose solemn words of admonition and counsel dwell forever in the hearts of their hearers, thoup-h so Ions; strans-e to their ears. Under these conditions the records of the Parish show great and increasing prosperity. Year by year the congre- gations became larger and larger, and more homes annually were blessed with gospel influences, while the Sunday school 5* 17 became the largest of the town, and an instrument of highly esteemed advantage to the community. Grace Chapel, Mount Airy, was established and nourished until it came to matu- rity, and is now a useful and growing independent Church. Centre Mission raised the Sunday school banner in one of the most neglected parts of the town and did great good for the Church ; nor was it at home only that Christ Church's influ- ence was felt ; a mission chapel was built on the west coast of Africa, by its Sunday school, and a Missionary supported by it labored earnestly for Christ under the equator. For fifteen years, then, Christ Church held on its prosper- ous w^ay, unruffled by the waves ot polemical discussion and devoting all i^s energy to its work of evangelization. In the year 1869, however, the Rev. Mr. Atkins received a call from St. John's Church, Georgetown, D. C, which he felt it his duty to accept, and therefore tendered his resigna- tion, to take eifect on the 31st of July. His resignation was accepted, and theYestry proceeded, on the 7th of September following, to nominate a successor. The first nominations made on that evening, may be noticed as showing what sort of a Rector was .desired. Dr. Canfield of Brooklyn, Revs. 0. Perinchief, C. C. Tifiany, J. Newton Stanger, Drs. Washburn and Ruraney. The last named gentleman received one vote, Mr. Tifiany one, Dr. Canfield tAvo, and J. Newton Stanger seven, at the regular meeting in October. There having been an arrange- ment that nine votes should be necessary to an election, this, the first ballot, was without result. Other nominations were then made, but no further ballots were cast, and the matter was laid over to the November meeting. In the meantime, a member of the Yestry received information that Dr. Rum- ney was inclined towards the High Church, and as the in- formation came from an excellent source, lie communicated it formally to the members of the Yestry. This communication caused the name of Dr. Rnmney to be dropped, and the succeeding meetings show that he was not ballotted for. The November meeting resulted in 9 G* 18 nothing, and was acljonrned to the Tuesday following, when, with several others. Rev. "W S. Langford, of Englewood, N. J., was nominated, but no ballot cast. At the December meeting adport Dr. Rumney, whom we know to be exerting his energies and Christian influ- ence successfully and with entire satisfaction to a large majority of the Congregation, we cannot consent to aid in the opposition to harmony in the Church by this use of our names. In addition to this, we are placed as Candidates on a ticket composed of parties friendly to Dr. Rumney, and we cannot consistently appear as friends and opponents of the same cause. We enclose you a ticket which we would earnestly ask you to support at the election to be held on Easter Monday, between 4 and 8 P. M, This we do as a solemn duty, feeling convinced that by this j ou will promote the best interest of Christ Church Parish. Respectfully and truly yours, H. n. HOUSTON. S. B. KINGSTON. VESTRY To support the present Rector of Christ Church, Qermantown. U. H. Houston, M. Maris, S. B. Kingston, Richard Torx^in, Jr., M. S. Shapleigh, C. Bullock, E. A. Crenshaw, E. Bedlock, Jacob Clark, J. B. Barry, J. A. Schaeffer, S. K. Kille. ' 10* 22 The most urgent and re|_)eatecl personal persuasion was also put in force to induce the voters to displace the very Vestry which had elected Dr. Rumnej, to displace the Yestry which had so long and faithfully supported the Church ! It was necessary then in the opinion of these gen- tlemen that the oldest Vestrymen of the Church should be ejected in order that Dr. Rumney be supported ! That the gentlemen who had for fifteen years so ardently supported Mr. Atkins with work in the Sunday Schools, and the Mis- sions as well as in the payment of the bills and the collec- tions should be ejected in order that Dr. Rumney be supported ! Had Vestrymen changed the opinions of their lives? Had they adopted new principles of action? ISTo, gentlemen. A new line of 'policy was to be inaugurated, and 7iew men luere required to carry it out. The result of this election, in which every effort had been made to secure a majority, shows in the plainest and most unmistakable manner the decision of the voters as to whether they did or did not wish to support the " present Rector." The pew-holders of Christ Church on that occa- sion recorded their wishes in no feeble or uncertain manner. Of forty-eight votes, thirty were found to be in favor of the old system, and the old men. Eighteen were willing to sup- port the present Rector ! The ticket so triumphantly elected changed but tAvo names from the preceding Vestry. The Church voted 30 to 18 to leave out Messrs. Shapleigh and Crenshaw, and to sub- stitute Messrs. J. W. Lewis and W. B. Whitney. In view of all the circumstances, the new Vestry, in their first meeting after their organization, viz. : on the 2d of May thought that some action should be taken, and they accord- ingly appointed a committee " to confer with the Rector on the well being of the Parish," as follows: — W. C. Houston, Charles Spencer, Jos. W. Lewis and W. B. Whitney. On Sunday evening, 21st of May, after service, Mr. W. C. Houston, chairman of the committee alluded to, waited upon Dr. Rumney to consult his convenience as to meeting the committee on the following evening, Mondaj^, 22d May. 11* 23 Dr. Eumney agreed to meet the committee at the time appointed, but declined to receive any communication from them, unless written. Mr. W. C. Houston replied, that the committee had not contemplated such an arrangement, as they had been appointed to confer with Dr. Rumney, which they understood to mean an oral interchange of views on the then condition of affairs. Mr. W. C. Houston having narrated this conversation to the committee, they decided to agree to Dr. Rumney's re- quest, and proceeded to prepare a communication, which they presented to Dr. Rumney at the time appointed, Mon- day, May 22d. Before quoting this communication and the correspondence which followed, we desire to state that our edition of the correspondence is obtained from the miuutes [see report of committee to Vestry, 5t.h September, 1871], and duly certi- fied in every case by the Secretary of the Vestry. Germantown, 22 May^ 1871. Rev. and Dear Sir : That an unpleasant difference of opinion exists in Christ Church Parish, is evident from the expression at the head of the unsuccessful ticket presented at the last Easter elec- tion, no less than by the statement read by yourself from the chancel on the Sunday before Easter. A circular was issued two days before the election accom- panying a ticket, which if elected would have ejected six members of the Vestry which called you to the Parish. This ticket was headed "Vestry to support the present Rector of Christ Church," and the circular expressed in the strongest terms the reasons why the ticket it recommended should be elected. The advocates of each ticket were furnished with a full list of the voters, and the ticket and circular referred to were sent to every person entitled to vote, while a direct and most earnest personal appeal was made to almost every voter. After all this had been done, the new candidates received 12* 24 respectively, 21, 17, 17, 17, 16 and 14, out of forty-seven votes ! On the other hand those who voted the ticket, styled in the circular above referred to, " opposed to you as Rector of Christ Church," did so understand! ngly, and with a full determination to maintain the principles of the Church in the interests for which it was established. The smallest vote cast upon this ticket was 26, for one of the two members of the Vestry. The direct votes with the families thus repre- sented, constitute a large number of the congregation who are not satisfied with your preaching or Church party pro- clivities. Christ Church was originated and erected by ardent adherents of the evangelical principles of the Episco- pal Church, and has always been sustained and known far and wide as a positive member of the Low Church party. This hitherto positive record of the Parish as a member of the Low Church party makes it necessary that its Rector should be thoroughly identified with that branch of the Episcopal Church, or else that the character of the Parish should change. The latter alternative, we say in all candor, we believe cannot be reached, and certainly cannot be with our consent. You have never given us reason to believe that you would act in harmony with that party, or with the evangelical socie- ties of the Church. The aim and object of the Ministry should be the conversion of souls to Christ, as well as confirm- ing, deepening and energizing the faith of His professed followers. To accomplish this, there should be the most perfect accord between Rector and people. That this does not exist, we tliink no candid person will deny, and we believe that if a vote could be taken of every communicant of the Parish, upon the simple question (independently of their kind regard and personal afiiection for yourself), whether Christ Church shall continue as heretofore, in close and cordial connection with the Low Church party or not, the result would show a majority as large, in proportion to number of votes cast, in 13* 25 favor of such continuance as was o-lven in favor of rctainius: all but two of the members of the old Vestry. Tliat such a vote could not now be taken, arises from the fact that the question could not, under the circumstances heretofore alluded to, be now divested of the personal con- siderations which have been so unfortunately brought in. The position of Christ Church assumes more importance to such citizens of Germantown as desire to be identified with the Low Church party, because it is now the only Parish in this part of the city, which is not to a greater or less extent opposed to that party ; and if Christ Church is brought into accord, these will have no Church home. We beg to assure you that this statement is made with none but kind personal feeling for yourself, and only with a desire to bring about harmony and active co-operation in the Parish, and it is not our desire to have any official record made, or more public notice taken of this matter, than this plain statement and candid appeal to j^ourself. In view of this state of aftairs and the consequent drawback to the efficient working of the Parish for the building up of the faith of its present members and in bringing others into the fold of the Good Shepherd, we desire in the kindest manner possible, to ask, whether you cannot better serve the great cause to which you have consecrated yourself, by changing your field of labor before the present difficulties shall have culminated in some way more unpleasant to you, and more injurious to the cause of our Master. We trust that these representations will convince you that the cause of Christ and the happiness of our Parish will be promoted by your resignation, to take effect after you shall have had ample time to make arrangements for such a change. "VVe earnestly suggest that you will take this matter into praj-erful consideration, without exposing it to any who might from personal esteem, be led to advise you more in accordance with their wishes than their judgment. We propose to keep the subject of this communication 14* 26 entirely between you and ourselves, and shall be glad to have your early reply to it. Vert/ respectfully^ On behalf of the Committee. Eectory of Christ Church, Germantown, May 30, 1871. To Messrs. "W". C. Houston', Spencer, Lewis and ^Vhitney. Gentlemen : — I might properly decline to make any answer to the communication dated May 2'2d, 1871, handed to me by you on the evening of the day it bears date, on the ground that it was not signed by you or any one else ; but I prefer to regard it for the purpose of this reply, as if it were signed by you. In the paper in which 3^ou have placed in my hands, I do not find any specific charges made against me, in my ofiice of Eector of the Church, over which Divine Providence has placed me, and therefore, cannot further answer, except to say, that whenever charges of any specific default as the Rector of Christ Church are communicated to me by the Vestry, I will endeavor to reply respectfully and fully to the same, and iu the meantime remain Your friend and Pastor, [signed.] THEODORE S. RUMNEY. Rev. T. S. Eumney, D. D., Dear Sir: — Your note of 30th IMay, referring to our inter- view and communication was duly received. The paper read to and left with you, was not signed, as it was not received after being copied until five minutes of the time we called upon you, but being presented by the committee in a body, we deem the point you make, of no moment whatever. We presented our views in writing, as an act of courtesy to your request, not that we admitted the right to ask it, as the resolution raising the committee was lor a conference. We 15* 27 sincerely regret that you did not think proper to answer our communication, after requesting it in writing. The mover of the resolution for a committee " to confer with you on the state of the Parish," did not contemplate presentations of charges of any specific default as Eector of Christ Church, but to express to you, in candid, plain and frank manner, the views conveyed in the communication re- ferred to. Our object was to inform you of a want of har- mony, and difterence of views existing between yourself and a large portion of the congregation, of such a nature as to cause great unhappiness, which, if continued, would prove seriously detrimental to the cause of Christ, and having heard that you said when you came to the Parish, "if you thought that there was a single person opposed to you, you would not accept the call ;" we would not understand, how, as a Minister of the Gospel, you could remain, when you had proof that a majority of the congregation was dissatified with your preaching and Church polity. "We had indulged the hope, that the presentation of our views and those we represent, would have induced you to calmly consider the subject in all its bearings, in reference to yourself and your family, as well as to the great and holy cause of our Lord and Master, and that however great the sacpfice might seem, you would arrive at the conclusion that your happiness and the cause of religion would be most pro- moted, by tendering your resignation " to take effect after you had ample time to make arrangements for such a change." "We had also hoped that such an end could be accomplished in as private a manner as possible, as we had no desire to injure you or your future prospects, by act, word or deed, and sincerely pray that such may still be the case. "\Ve learn with regret, that soon after tlie date of your note, a paper was being presented to members of the con- gregation for signature, asking 3'ou not to resign, as we thought such action would place you in an unfortunate position, not only v/ith those of our Parish, but with the 16* 28 community at large, and we still tliink it was an injudicious move on the part of your friends. We remained quiet on tlie subject about two weeks, when on hearing of the repre- sentations that were made to parties to sign said paper, it was deemed but right to draw up a counter paper which has thus far been signed by about 130 persons. Upon consultation, we have decided to address you again. As a congregation you must be aware we are not only sadly divided, but very unhappy, and we regret to learn that this feeling in some cases extends even to family circles. "With such knowledge we know you cannot be happy your- self, as the cause of religion can never prosper as it should under such adverse circumstances; indeed, is a great sufferer from the outside world, which always seems to rejoice at any trouble amongst church members. Our belief is, that the longer matters remain in their present state, the worse it will be for the church, as also for your future usefulness and happiness. It has been proposed that a special meeting of the Vestry should be called to receive the report of the committee and such action be then taken as they might deem proper. This course would place upon the minutes, communications handed to you, and your reply, and thus make the matter still more public, which should be a source of regret to all. In support of our state- ment that it is not " only a few " in the congregation who desire your resignation, we have made an analj'sis by taking each pew in the Church and counting the members of the congregation over fifteen years of age, who are represented by the pew and seat holders, who liave signed the paper asking your resignation, and find that nearly two-thirds of the congregation and about the same proportion of the legal voters desire the change. We consider the suggestion that has been made, that all who are dissatisfied with the present status of the Church should go elsewhere, a most ungenerous one in view of the large number thus situated, and we deem it as impossible to 17* 29 force tlicm away as it is for them to be reconciled to having you as their Rector. With this statement of facts we again appeal to you to consider the subject in all its bearings on Christ Church as well as the Church at large, and on the happiness of your- self and family as well as your usefulness now and in the future, and then decide whether it will not be best to call a special meeting of the Vestry and tender your resignation to take effect, say 1st January next. This action coming from yourself would not prejudice you and would settle the whole difficulty. The Vestry will grant you as early leave of absence as you may desire, with your salary paid in advance to the time named, and also make the necessary arrange- ments to keep up the work of the Parish. Hoping you will favor us with an early reply and that the nature of it may be the means of securing the happiness of all parties concerned, we are Very BespedfuUy Yours^ [siGKED.] W. C. HOUSTON, CHAS. SPENCER, JOS. W. LEWIS, W. B. WHITNEr, Committee. Germantoavn, July 26, 1871. Germa:jttown, 25 August, 1871. Rev. T. S. Rumney, D. D. Dear Sir : — On the 26th day of July, thirty days since, a communication was handed to you from the committee appointed by the Vestry of Christ Church the 2d day of May ; and as they addressed you in writing, in accordance with your expressed wish, the members thereof are united in their opinion that they were entitled to a reply, if dictated by no other motive than common courtesy, and have re- quested me to so inform you. They also wish me to say, that if you desire proof of the statement made in said communication in regard to the lb* 30 views of the voters and members of tlie Congregation it ^x\\l be promptly furnished. I am, respedfuU}/, [SIGNED.] W. C. HOUSTON, Chairman of Committee. Eectory of Christ Church, Germantown, July 31, 1871. "Wm. C. Houston, Esq., Chairman of Committee. Dear Sir : — I have received the communication of your committee, dated July 26th, and respectfully ask that you will send to me the original paper asking my resignation, with the names subscribed thereto, which I presume is ad- dressed to me, and if in possession of the Committee should have been enclosed with their letter. Very RcsjpectfuUy Yours, [SIGNED.] THEODORE S. RUMXEY. Germantown, August 27, 1871. Mr. Houston. Dear Sir : — In the absence of Dr. Rumney, allow me to say that your son can fully explain you Dr. Rumney's seem- ingly discourteous conduct. Truly, [SIGNED.] KE^m J. RUMNEY. August 31, 1871. Rev. Dr. Rumney. Dear Sir :— Your note of July 31st, to Mr. Houston was given me to-day, the delay in its delivery was ex- plained to Mrs. Rumney by Mr. H., Jr., and this will ex- plain to you, Mr. W. C. Houston's note to you of August 25th. As Mr. Houston is from home, it devolves on me to assume his place. I therefore beg to say that the paper to which you refer was addressed to the Vestry ; had it been addressed 19* 31 to yon it would have been sent yon. As we have a Yestry meeting on Tuesday next, the Committee earnestly request that you Avill answer their communication of July 26th, that it may be acted upon at said meeting. The Committee's only object is the glory of God in the good of the Church, and they trust you will see your duty in this regard. Very respectfully^ [signed.] ' CHAS. SPENCEE. Germantown, September 1, 1871. Eev. T. S. Eumney, D. D. Dear Sir: — By the advice of a part of the Committee, I herewith send you a copy of the petition addressed to the Vestry with the signatures attached. There are a great many who fully endorse every word of the paper who have not signed, amongst them I may men- tion Mr. C. W. Robinson, Mr. E. M. Lewis, Mr. George !N"ugent, and Mr. J. Clark, there are four names at the bot- tom of the 2d page of parties who had signed a paper ad- dressed to you, to which this paper refers. Thej' state that they did so without proper reflection and now attach their names to the paper herewith. Respectfully yours, [SIGNED.] CHAS. SPEXCER. Here follows the petition referred to in and enclosed to Dr. Rumncy, with the preceding letter. To THE Vestry of Curist Church, Germantown. A paper having been circulated for signature asking the Rev. Dr. Rumney to decline acceding to any request that may be made asking him to resign the Rector of Christ Church, Germantown, we, the undersigned Communicants, holders of pews or sittings and members of the congregation, 20* 32 hereby desire to express our conviction that the best interests of the Church and congregation with which we are con- nected will be best subserved by the resignation of the pres- ent Rector. We also desire to say that we have been moved to this conclusion by no personal ill-will or opposition to Rev. Dr. Rumney, and have no desire to injure him or in any way interfere with his usefulness in any other field to which he may be called. Here follow the signatures of 47 voters and pew-holders, and 82 other members of the congregation. After these preceding communications had been read to the Yestry, Mr. Spencer, who was presenting the report of the committee in the absence of Mr. Jlouston, Chairman, said : — Before I read Dr. Rumney's letter of September 2d, I would like to be informed by Dr. Rumney on the following points : Before you wrote your letter of September 2d, did you not receive mine of August 31st and September 1st, with a copy of the petition addressed to the Vestry and a list of the si'gners attached ? Dr. Rumney — I did not receive your letters before I wrote mine of September 2d. Mr. Spencer — My first letter was written August 31st, and posted the same day. Did you not on reaching home find it, and Mr. W. C. Houston's of August 25th? Dr. Rumney — I did.* Mr. Spencer — Your letter was dated September 2d, but postntfirked September 4th. Did you not receive my letter of September 1st, and a copy of the petition with list of signers before you posted your letter ? Dr. Ramncy — I did, but did not read them until after I had posted my letter of September 2d. This was .the end of the conversation. Mr. Spencer con- tinued the report by reading the document next in order, viz.: Dr. Rumney's letter of September 2d. *See pages G3 and 123. 21* 33 Rectory of Christ Cuurch, Germantown, September 2, 1871. To Messrs. W. C. Houston, Charles Spencer, J. AV. Lewis, W. B. Whitney, Committee on Conference. Gentlemen: — Upon my return last night I found await- ing me the following note from your Chairman: Germantown, 25th August^ 1871. Rev. T. S. Rumney, D. D. Dear Sir : — On the 26th day of July, thirty days since, a communication was handed to you from the Committee appointed by the Vestry of Christ Church the 2d day of May, and as they addressed you in writing, in accordance with your expressed wish, the members thereof are united in their opinion that they were entitled to a reply if dictated by no other motive than common courtesy, and have re- quested me to so inform you. They also wish me to say that if you desire proof of the statements made in said com- munication in regard to the views of the voters and mem*- bers of the congregation it will be promptly furnished. I am, BespectfuUy^ [SIGNED.] W. C. HOUSTO:^', Chairman of Committee. The tenor of the above communication establishes me in the conviction, so long entertained, that your committee and some others whose minds have been prejudiced against me are wholly mistaken in their estimate of my character as a gentleman, a Christian or a clergyman. On the 31st day of fast July, I addressed to Mr. W. C. Houston, as Chairman of your Committee, the following note : Rectory of Christ Churcit, Germantown, July 31, 1871. \Vm. C. Houston, Esq., Chairman of Committee. Dear Sir :— I have received the Communication of your Committee dated July 26th, and respectfully ask that you 3 23* 34 will send to me the original paper asking my resignation, with the names subscribed thereto, which I presume is addressed to me, and if in the possession of the committee should have been enclosed with their letters. Very respectfully yours, [SIGNED.] THEODORE S. RUMNEY. You may imagine my surprise at receiving no reply, but presuming upon the gentlemanly character of the Committee, I was willing to wait, hoping in due time to receive my request. I have been informed that the Committee has recently received my communication of July 31st, but no written explanation placing the blame of the delay where it belongs, and releasing me from the unjust severity of the letter above quoted has yet come to hand. In that letter your Chairman assures me that " if I desire proof of the statement made, etc., the Committee wish him to say that it will be promptly furnished." My request has been in the hands of the Committee three daj's at least, but I have not received the original paper for which I respectfully asked. It is pertinent to my present writing that I remind you of the substance of my communications with the acting Vestry at the time of my etection and settlement as Rector of Christ Church. In the letter announcing my election the Com- mittee appointed used the following language : " We believe that the unanimity of the Vestry in extending ^-ou this call is a clear intimation of the guidance of Divine Providence, and we trust it may be so regarded by you, and cause your early acceptance of the trust." CHARLES LE BOUTILLIER, Warden. H. H. HOUSTOI^, E. A. CRENSHAW. 23* 35 Tn my reply T -wrotG thns: — "If it is a Providential inti- mation that I must chano^e my happy relations of years and sever my connections with this beloved people, I am ready to comply with Heaven's appointment, but I think it would be well and just that I visit you before giving a positive answer to your kind invitation." I accordingly came and officiated in the Church and after- wards assembling a number of the Vestry, I assured them that if one member of the Congregation expressed dissatisfaction with the Vestry's action, I would cheerfully release them from every obligation, and contentedly return to my com- fortable and happy home, and be saved the terrible ordeal of separation before me. I was told by them that the Con- gregation unanimously sustained the action of the Vestry, and the matter seemed to be so clearly from God that I dared not decline. And in my acceptance expressed the hope, that all would " work with me in faith, and give me their sympathy, their love, and their prayers." Having been induced by such considerations of duty, at great sacrifice^ to change my parochial relations, and now falling to see any just occasion for relinquishing my present position as Rector of Christ Church, I must beg leave under the guidance of that Being whose direction I have earnestly craved, genthj but positively to decline compliance with your suggestions that I should tender my resignation of the charge wich God has so solemly placed in my hands. When I consider my duty to Him, as His chosen ambassa- dor I dare not. "When I remember that I should be virtually acknowledging the truth of the many false statements with which Philadelphia has been filled regarding me, I cannot do so ; in honor to my office as a Minister of the Church of Christ, to say nothing of my individual character as a gen- tleman. The two communications which I have received from you as a Committee, are based almost wholly upon the fact that a prejudice (as you say) exists against me in the Parish. That such prejudice has been created (not arisen spontane- 24* 36 oiislj^), in tlie minds of some, and created too in a number of instances by statements which had no foundation in truth, I am fully aware; yet I feel so confident that in the strength, and by the grace of the Master, whom I strive humbly to serve, it shall be possible for me to live down that prejudice, and to show that it has been occasioned by a misunderstand- ing of my views and purposes. Had I consulted my own feelings and sensitive nature, I should long before this, have sought peace and quiet by removal to some other sphere, but a sense of duty has given me confidence, and God has gra- ciously sustained me day by day, enabling me to bear up under the cruel persecutions, which for some months past has been waged against me by a few, for which it does not appear that occasion has been given, either in my public ministrations or in my more private discharge of duty as Minister of this Church. I pray that God will forgive the wrong of those who have thus interfered with the peaceful success of one of his servants, and enable them to see the injustice they have done me. And now my determination is fixed, and I dare not go counter to what my conscience tells me is the will of Heaven. Hoping you will receive this decision in the spirit with which I write it, I remain Your Friend and Pastor, [SIGNED.] THEODORE S. RUMISTEY. Thus closes the correspondence between Dr. Eumney and the Committee of the Vestry as reported to the Vestry on the 5th of September, 1871. Defore proceeding to the next point of our subject, we should like to notice this final letter of Dr. Rumney, first asking you to compare the " spirit with \vhich " it is written with the spirit displayed by the Committee of the Vestry in those communications to which it is an answer. 1st. Dr Rumney saj'^s : — " Upon my return home last night I found awaiting me the following note from your 25* 37 Chairman " (here he recites Mr. Houston's note of An2:u8t 25th), but he does not say that he also found Mr. Spencer's note of August 31st, showing why Mr. Houston's letter of August 25th was written ; yet at the Vestry meeting of September 5th, he admitted that he received both of these letters at the same time. 2d. Dr. Rumney further says (referring to his note of 31st July, and to the delay in the answer of the Committee and also to Mr. Houston's note of 25th of August): "But no icritten explanation placing the blame of delay where it be- longs and releasing me from the unjust severity of the letter above quoted {i. e. Mr. Houston's of 25th August), has yet come to hand." Please note that Dr. Rumney admitted to the Vestry, on the 5th of September, having received the letter of Mr. Houston, dated 25th August, (in which the '"'unjust severity" occurred), and Mr. Spencer's note of 31st August at the same time ; he having been away from home at the time of the arrival of Mr. Houston's note and until the arrival of Mr. Spencer's. ISTow, in Mr. Spencer's note of 31st August, we find the following : "Rev. Dr. Rumney, — Dear Sir: — Your note of 31st July, to Mr. Houston, was given me to-day ; the delay in its delivery was explained to Mrs. Rumney by Mr. Houston, Jr., and this will explain to you Mr. W. C. Houston, Sr.'s note to you of August 25 th!" 3d. Dr. Rumney, again referring to Mr. Houston's note of 25th August, says: — '"In that letter your Chairman assures me that if I desire proof of the statements made, etc., the Committee wish him to say that it will be promptly fur- nished. My request has been in the hands of the Committee at least three days, but I have not yet received the original paper for which I respectfully asked." Dr. Rumney admits having received Mr. Spencer's note of 31st August before he wrote the above, now Mr. Spencer, in 2G* 38 that letter, tells Dr. Eumney that the paper referred to was addressed not to Dr. Rumney, but to the Vestry, and thereby shows him that he has no right to demand it. Mr. Spencer did, however, after consultation with a part of the committee prepare a copy of the paper on the 1st oi September, which together with Mr. Spencer's note of that date, was handed to Mrs. JRumney, in Dr. Rumney's presence, by Mr. Spencer's servant, on the 2d of September 1 Now please take notice, Dr. Rumney's letter was dated September 2d, but was not posted till September 4th 1 So that he had that very paper of the tardiness of which he complains, for at least thirty-six hours before he mailed his letter ! ISTow, referring to the conversation between Dr. Rumney and JNIr. Spencer at the Vestry meeting of September 5th, we find — Mr. Spencer — Did you not receive my letter of Sep- tember 1st and a copy of the petition with list of the signers, before you posted your letter of September 2d ? Dr. Rumney: — I did, but did not read them until after I had posted my letter of September 2d ! 4th. Dr. Rumney further says, " I accordingly came and officiated in the church, and afterwards, assembling a num- ber of the Vestry, I assured them that if one member of the congregation expressed dissatisfaction with the Vestry's action, I would cheerfully release them from every obligation * ^ I was told by them that the congregation unanimously sus- tained the action of the Vestry, and the matter seemed to be so clearly from God, that I dared not decline," etc. We ask how it was possible for the " nnmber of the Ves- try" to knoAV the opinion of the congregation immediately after the service, since it was impossible for a canvass to have been made. Again, we ask who were the " number of the Vestry" whom Dr. Rumney assembled ? Of twelve, the total num- ber of the Vestry, we know that Messrs. Powers, Le Boutil- lier, Miskey, Spencer, W". C. Houston, Clark, Mellor and Kill<5, were not assembled. This, then, was the criterion from 39 which Dr. "Riimncy formed his opinion of the unanimity of the congregation ! 5th. Dr. Rumney again says, " the two communications which I have received from you as a committee are based almost wholly upon the fact that a prejudice (as you say) exists against me in the Parish." Dr. Rumney is in error, the two communications are not based upon prejudice, but upon the conscientious convic- tions of the committee, based upon the principles on which the church was founded and upon the wishes of the congre- gation. 6th. Dr. Eumney states that he felt the call was from God, on account of the seeming unanimity of the Parish. What is his interpretation of the Divine Will now ; when so large a majority of the congregation is opposed to him ? If the will or supposed will of the people was an indication of Provi- dence then, is it not so now ? If Dr. Rumney made the call a subject of prayer as an expression of the Divine Will, should he not now make the same instrumental cause a sub- ject of prayer, as being possibly another means by which the Divine Will has chosen to act ? Finally, we might allude to Dr. Rumney's expressions — "cruel persecution," "prejudice created, not spontaneously arisen," " false statements with which Philadelphia has been filled," etc., — but we do not wish to do so. We do not wish, and by the tenor of all our words and acts we can prove that we do not wish to make this unfor- tunate contest either bitter or personal, but to conduct it with a single end in view — our duty to God, our Church and ourselves. It is but natural that you should wish to know who this Vestry are, and what proportion of them desire the resigna- tion of Dr. Rumney. Are they an ephemeral majority, liable to be at any time ejected from oiSce, or do they fairly rei> reseut the wishes of the Congregation ? 28* (( 20th July, 1854. (; 5th July, 1859. u Easter, 1863. li (( 1867. a n 1869. u 11 1871. ii 11 a 40 "We will briefly answer these questions : — Thr. following, out of twelve Vestrymen, desire the resig- nation of Dr. Eumney. Thomas II. Powers, elected 20th June, 1853. Charles Le Boutillier, " " " Anthony Miskey, Charles Spencer, W. 0. Houston, Jacob Clark, "William Mellor, J. W. Lewis, W. B. AYhitney, There were, thus, two new members of the Vestry elected in 1871 by the pew-holders, to take the place "of Mr. Cren- 8haw, the nominator of Dr. Rumney, and Mr. Shapleigh. It will be seen, therefore, that with two exceptions, the Vestry has substantially represented the church for many years, and that these two new members were elected, too, in opposition to Dr. Rumney as Rector. But, gentlemen may say that the term of service is nearly over, that with the coming Easter election they may cease to be Vestrymen, and successors be elected in sympathy with Dr. Rumney. Let these gentlemen remember that the highest possible number of votes is 59, then let them listen to this paper, which pledges a full majority of these voters to choose, at the coming Easter election, a Vestry, which shall stand against Dr. Rumney ; not nine to three, but twelve to none ! We, the undersigned, who will be legal voters for Vestry- men of Christ Church, Germantown, at the next Easter election, hereby declare our determination to vote for a Vestry who shall be in harmony with the action of the pres- ent Vestry, inasmuch as we believe the principles of the 29* 41 present Vestry are in accord with tliose upon wLiicli the Church was originally established. Germantown, Pa., January^ 1872. Charles Le Boutillier, Thomas W. Evans, Benj. Homer, W. C. Houston, Joseph W. Lewis, W. B. Whitney, William Mellor, Norton Johnson, J. A. Miske3^ Jacob Clark, Thomas Drake, Matthias Maris, ^. Miskey, Edgar IT. Butler, George W. ^fason, Thomas H, Powers, Martin Nixon, Alexander H. Jones, H. Freas, C. W. Robinson, Robert D. Dunning, James Hogg, H. W. Hieskell, Lloyd'P. Smith, Samuel Crowder, C. P. Bayard, Thomas Eodbard, George Nugent, William Parker JSTewlin, Henry S. Tarr, Chas. Spencer, E. F. Shoenberger. Does this not prove that the present Vestry has a right, speaking as it does with the weight of the past in its favor, to claim to represent the future of the Church ? They do so claim, and as a further and final proof, they invite your attention to the comparison between the state of the Church as to its contributions and its parochial work, during the rectorship of Mr. Atkins and of Dr. Rumney, re- spectively. Let us then examine the various means which have been adopted by their Church to extend its influence in the com- munity, and compare Christ condition under Mr. Atkins' rectorsbip, with their condition under Dr. Rumney's rector- Bhip. Perhaps the most important enterprise of the Church was the Mount Airy Mission, which was established and grew steadily into a strength which warranted it in assuming for 30* 42 itself a parocliial organization, when it styled itself Grace Church, Mount Airy, and called Rev. Mr. Edwards to be Rector. This Church is now doing very well indeed and is rapidly growing, thus disseminating the same principles that organized Christ Church, and being a new evidence of what those principles were. This enterprise was carried to perfection. Where is there a successor to it at the present time ? 2d. Centre Mission is the next enterprise in the order of importance. Centre Mission was organized in i860, and a fine building erected on Morton Street, where such a Mis- sion was sadly needed. Here was assembled a Sunday. School of more than 150 scliolars. Every Sunday afternoon there was a prayer-meeting, while, week-night services of an interesting kind were held from time to time. Centre Mission was a great aid to the work of home Mis- sions. On account of its proximity to St. Michael's Church, it has been sold to that Vestry. But the workers who in- augurated and carried it on are ready now and waiting for some new enterprise under a leader in sympathy with them. The Church which once spread its aggressive Missionary arms over the entire community, is now making desperate eiforts to maintain successfully a defensive attitude. There was, during the winter months of former years, in the basement of Christ Church, a free reading room, where the daily and weekly newspapers and other interesting litera- ture, attracted many visitors and paved the way for the edu- cational influence that soon began their work in the same place. Weekly lectures were given upon popular and in- structive subjects, which were largely attended. A teacher was engaged, and all who cared to impi'ove themselves were here welcomed and carefully taught the elementary branches of education. This extremely valuable work was carried on by volun- tary contributions from mendjcrs of the Parish, and prom- ised immense advantages to the work of Christ, but it has 31* 43 perished. There is no longer school or lecture, or reading room. There was under Mr. Atkins' personal instruction a Bible class of men, each Sunday afternoon ; fifty members were on its roll, and it is found that th'e average attendance was from twenty to forty. This Bible class still exists. It is taught by Dr. Eumney. The average attendance is from four to eight! Cottage readings were favorite enterprise with the lady-members of the Cliurch, and many and valuable are the members of the Church now who were first interested in Christ at those meet- ings. These too are gone. The Missionary spirit seems dead among us, and we gladly finish the comparison here and present to you the tabular comparison of the collections of the Church. Objects of Collection. Average of five years, from 1865 to 18G9, inclusive. 1871. Foreign Missions, $1058 71 $41 82 Episcopal Hospital, 288 44 Go 50 Disabled Clergy, 137 86 50 75 Evangelical Education Society, 280 17 58 95 Average of four years., '65, '66, '68 and '69. Evangelical Knowledge Society, 143 72 48 00 Our narrative is now concluded, and you have the case before you. We have followed the history of the Church down to the present time, in order that you may understand fully on what grounds we desire the dissolution of the pas- toral relation between Dr. Rumney and the Parish of Christ Church, seeing that we prefer no charges against Dr. Rum- ney, of any specific default as Rector, we have attempted to show that the Church was founded for, and had always been, an Evangelical Church ; that Dr. Rumney was elected under a misapprehension and misconception, both of his views on church politics, and of the opinion of his nominators. That although he was welcomed at first by willing hearts, there soon sprung up dissatisfaction in the Church. That this 44 unfortunate feeling resulted from liis own action ; and not any fault of the Parish ; that under the administration of Dr. Rumney the Congregations dwindled down ; that many of the members, retaining their pews in Christ Church in the hope of a change, sought a temporary home in other churches ; that the collections decreased ; that the missionary work of the Church died out, almost entirely ; that a ticket, professedly to support Dr. Rumney as Eector of Christ Church, was overwhelmingly defeated at the Easter election in 1871, although the most thorough and determined canvass was made ; that the Vestry in May, 1871, requested Dr. Rumney's resignation in the most respectful and kindly manner ; that in doing so they were actuated Jjy a profound sense of duty, and frequently deplored the unpleasantness of their task, while they repeatedly and earnestly endeavored to perform their evident duty in such a manner as to put Dr. Rumney to as little pain and inconvenience as was possible ; that all their advances were met with direct and positive opposition ; iinally, that the Vestry represents the congrega- tion in the fullest possible manner, and that the pew-holders have pledged themselves to support them at the next elec- tion. These are the grounds on which we beg to rest our case, and to ask that Dr. Rumney resign. We regret exceed- ingly the necessary publicity of a reference, and we have shown that it is not our fault. Warmly attached to the Church-home of so many years, looking back on the times that are gone, upon the vicissi- tudes in our lives that she has recorded, in her solemn offices of baptism, confirmation, burial, performed within her sacred walls on those near and dear to us, it is with strong emotion that we contend for the preservation of our sanctuary from change ; that " we shrink from singing a new song in a strange land." Confident in the certainty that we, and we only represent the principles of the church from its foundation, and in the belief that we are doing our duty to God and to our fellow- men in this matter, we submit the case, praying most ear- m* 45 nestly that God will give you wisdom to decide in tliig matter according to His law and the welfare of His faithful people. W. C. HOUSTOJS", CHAS. SPENCER, JOSEPH W. LEWIS, W. i3. WHITXEY, Committee. The nndersi2i:ned members of the Vestry having the pre- ceding paper s ubmitted to them, hereby endorse the action of the Committee. THOS. H. POWERS, CHARLES Le BOUTILLIER, A. MISKEY, JACOB CLARK, W^ILLIAM MELLOR. During the reading of this document the expression "I did," attributed to Rev. Dr. Rumney, on page 21*, was cor- rected by Dr. Rumney and Mr. H. H. Houston ; and it was stated that the expression used was " I did not." This correction was assented to at the time, and it was men- tioned, apologetically, that the statement was being read from a printer's proof, in which there were a number of errors, and that the errors would be corrected. At the conclusion of the statement, Mr. Conarroe said : May it please the Court: this statement has been just heard by us for the first time. It is a lengthy document, containing many statements of facts and figures. The complainants have had mouths in which to prepare it. The respondent will need time to prepare an answer. In the case of the Rev, Mr.- Tyng, thirty days were allowed by the court in which to prepare an answer. We do not wish any unnecessary delay, but two weeks at least will be required, after we have copies of the statement. I there- fore move that when the court adjourns, it adjourns to meet on Monday, February 26th, at 10 o'clock a. m. The Board then adjourned to meet on Monday, Febru- ary 20 th, 1872, at 10 A. m. SECOiTD DAY'S mOCEEDITs^GS. The Board having snhseqnently decided to hold its next meeting in the Vestry room of the Church of the Epiphany, the Presbyters, and parties, and counsel, assembled there on February 26th, at 10 a. m. Present — Rev. Dr. Beaslet, Eev. Dp.. Yarnall, Eev. Dr. Miller, Rev. Dr. Daviks, Rev. Mr. Perry. Lewis D. Vail and William S. Price, Esqs., counsel for the Vestry. Rev. J. Andrews Harris, clerical advocate, and George M. Conarroe, Esq., counsel for the respondent. Mr. Conarroe stated that it had been found impossible to have the answer prepared and printed; that a delay had been caused by not getting early copies of the statement, but that the answer was then in the printer's hands, and would certainly be ready by the following Thursday. After some unimportant discussion the Board adjourned to meet on Thursday, February 29th, at 3 p. m. :THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDmOS. February 29, 1872. The Board of Presbyters met in the Vestry room of the Church of the Epiphany at 3 p. m. Fresejit—llEV. Dr. Beasley, Rev. Dr. Yarnall, Rev. Dr. Miller, Rev. Dr. Davies, Rev. Mr. Perry. The complainants and their counsel. The respondent and his counsel. Rev. Dr. Beasley. We have met to-day to hear the answer of the respondent. The answer on behalf of the Rector was then read by his counsel, George M. Conarroe, Esq., and was as follows : (4G) AI^SWER. A Committee of the Vestry of Christ Chnrch, German- town, W. C. Houston, Charles Spencer, Josepli W. Lewis, and W. B. Whitney, appointed "to confer with the Rector on the well-being of the parish," have presented a statement to this Board of Presbyters alleging certain grounds of com- plaint against the Rector, and asking for a dissolution of the connection between the Rector and his congregation, under Canon 4, Title 11. as amended, of the General Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church. This action of the committee is endorsed by Tnomas H. Powers, Charles Le Boutillier, A. Miskey, Jacob Clark, and William Mellor. These nine per- sons constitute a majority of the present Vestry. The " statement" of the complainants is so weak, the failure even to make specific charges of default against the Rector such a conscious admission of inability to prove any default, and the grounds of discontent as stated are so ex- plicitly partisan, that the respondent might well have been willing to have rested his case without even a reply. But the complainants have managed so thoroughly to entangle the facts that an answer seems to be imperative. The substance of this " statement" may be summed up as follows : 1. That Christ Church, Germantown, was organized by certain persons in the interests of the " Low Church party," and that it owes allegiance not to the church at. large but to the persons who contributed money to its erection. 2. That the Rev. Dr. Rumney was elected Rector, " unseen, unheard, unknown," upon the representations of certain members of the vestry, which representations betrayed the remaining vestrymen into voting for him. 3. That " a very short time served to show that Dr. Rumney was not ' an Evangelical man as we Low Churchmen understand it,' and that he was not willing to support those Evangelical societies which it had been the invariable prac- tice of Christ Church to support. Clergymen filled the a* (47) 48 pulpit under Dr. Rurauey's auspices in his exchanges and occasional absences, who had never before addressed the con- gregation of Christ Church, and who were different entirely in their views from their dearly loved preachers. Innova- tions were introduced in the parish which were not approved by either the vestry or the pew holders." 4. That since Dr. Rumney's rectorship that " once flourish- ing parish" has been reduced to a "paralyzed condition," that the missionary spirit has died out, that the collections have decreased, that the free reading room has perished, that the congregation has dwindled down." 5. That the dissatisfaction with Dr. Rumney has " resulted from his own action and not from any fault of the jjarish," and that for fifteen years previous to his rectorship all was peace, harmony and success. 6. That the majority of the vestry in desiring a dissolu- tion of the pastoral connection represents the congregation in the fullest possible manner. I. As to the origin of the church organization. The statement of the vestry begins with what is called a " narrative of the foundation of the church, pre[)ared by one of the corporators, and acquiesced in by the surviving mem- bers of the original corporation." Of course the only impres- sion conveyed to the reader by this is that all the surviving members concur. There is no exception or reservation. This narrative names Mr. P. E. Hamm as the originator of the church. Will it be believed then that the gentleman (not Mr. P. E. Hamm) who really originated the church, at whose house the first meetings were held ; who started a flourishing Sunday school, and had regular church services for months before a vestry was thought of; who was superintendent of the Sunday school for three years ; who invited the co- operation of the other gentlemen in forming a vestry ; who drew the charter with his own hand ; who was "one of the corporators," a member of the first vestry, secretary of the vestry for seventeen months, and for nineteen years an at- 4* 49 tendant at the cLurch ; and v/ho to-day is alive and in good health ; is not even recognized iu this document as a survi- vor ! But IMr. Potter shall he allowed to speak for himself. liis letter will he found in the appendix, and fully shows that most of the original incorporators had little more than a nominal connection with the parish, and that the lot on which the church was built was given solely at Mr. Potter's solicita- tion by a member of the Episcopal Church, who has never been a Low Churchman. It will thus be seen that the corner stone of the " state- ment" has not been very accurately laid, and that the historian of Christ Church, who professes to be so " familiar with the causes which induced that organization," has proved himself to be, at least, a very incautious chronicler. Another of the incorporators, Mr. C. W. Robinson, it will be noticed, is still surviving. His signature also does not appear at the conclusion of the " narrative." Every one knows how readily signatures are obtained and how seldom documents are read by the signers. Xone are more surprised than those very signers frecpiently are at the uses to which their signatures are put. There is nothing in this narrative, incorrect as it is, to directly connect it with a plan for the removal of Dr. Rumney. Cne of these orig- inal corporators, who, for many years, was accounting warden and who is the only one of the "surviving" signers who has habitually attended the church within twelve years, with a frankness which does him honor, in the following letter disclaims any intention to pass judgment on Dr. Rumney. Germantow>^, Fchruary 16, 1872. Rev. T. S. Rumney, D. D. Dear Sir : — In signing the paper, as one of the corpora- tors of Christ Church, I only intended to sa}^ that it Avasgot up as a Low Church. Further, as I stated at the time, I know nothing about, as not being a pew holder I wished not to take any part. I did object to the part (that Mr. 4 5* 50 Ilamm originated the chnrch) which is not exnetl}' correct. As regards the closing paragraph, the insinuation of your unfitness, I do not suhscribe to. Kot having been inside the chnrch since you have had charge, I do not suppose I should be supposed to know anj^thing about it. M}' family are at present thinking of taking a pew in the church. Yours, &c., J. B. CIIAMPIOIT. Mr. Edwin W. Lehman and Mr. G. M. Troutman also, have stated, that in signing the narrative they had no iuten- sion of reflecting in any way on the Rev. Dr. Rumney; that they had never seen Dr. Rumney or heard him preach, and knew nothing of the merits of the present controversy. Mr. Lehman has been in the church but once in eighteen years. As no one of these "surviving" corporators has attended Christ Church for at least eight years, and as some of them have never attended it at any time, it is difficult to see how their sentiments, given in a general w^ay, are entitled to the slightest weight in a controversy like the present. But as they have chosen to certify that the church was organized in the interests of the " Low Church party," it may be well to notice Article IL of tlieir charter of incorporation, which is as follows: ARTICLE IL "This church acknowledges itself to be a member of, and to belong to, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania, and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. As such it accedes to, recog- nizes, and adopts, the constitution, canons, doctrine, dk-:ci- pline and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania, and of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and acknowledges their au- thority accordingl3^ Any member of this church or corpora- tion who shall disclaim or refuse conformity to the said authority, shall cease to be a member of this corporation, 51 aind shall not be elected, or vote in tlie election for vestry- mcn, or exercise any office or function in, concerning or connected with the said church or corporation." There is nothing here ahont the " Low Church party," hut there is a promise of conformity to the "Protestant Episco- pal Church in the United States of America," and an ex- plicit acknowledgment of her doctrines and discipline. It is painful to be obliged to add that at least one member of the present vestry, a complainant in this controversy, notori- ousl}'- repudiates some of the doctrines of the church, and offpnsivelj' denounces the venerable formulary in which they are stated. II. As to the election of Eev. Dr. Eumney: The complainants state that Dr. Rumney was first nomi- nated September 7th, 1869, then '•'■dropped;'' that Messrs. II. II. Houston and Crenshaw, " constituted themselves " a committee to go and hear him; that they " revived " his nomination on their return, and that on their statement only, and especially after their answers to certain questions. Dr. Rumney was elected " unseen, unheard, unknown," and that thereby they were beguiled into electing a rector who was not an " Evangelical man." At the vestry meeting in September, 1869, Dr. Rumney, Dr. Canfield, Dr. Washburn, Revs. 0. Perinchief, C. C. Tif- fany and J. N. Stanger were nominated. At the October meeting a ballot was had, with no practical result. At the same meeting " it was moved that further nominations be made and that all parties named at last meeting be eovtinned as noininees, which motions were seconded and carried," as ap- pears by the vestry minutes. This plainly contradicts the statement that Dr. Runniey was "dropped." His nomina- tor never withdrew his name in any way. • Two meetings were held in Novemuer and one in December, and no result was i^eaclied, except that seven additional clergymen were 52 nominated. At one of the vestry meetings Mr. Powers was asked if Dr. Caniield was in favor of secession from the Episcopal Church if the Praj^er Book was not altered. He said he did not know, bnt that he was. Under these circum- stances it was not considered^ safe to vote for Dr. Canfield. A large number of the candidates were reconmiended by Ptcv. iieman Dyer, D.D. ; and nearly all Dr. Dyer recom- mended were signers of the testimonial to Mr. Cheney, of Chicago. It was then agreed that each member of the vestry would visit the churches of some of the nominated candidates and report to the vestry. Messrs. W. C. Houston and Spencer, in accordance with this arrangement, " consti- tuted themselves " a committee to hear the Rev. J. W. Drown. Messrs. Crenshaw and Kille did the same on another occasion. Mr. H. H. Houston "constituted him- self" a committee to go and hear Rev. Mr. Langford. He did not hear him, but inquired about him, reported favora- bly to the vestry, and Mr. Langford was unanimously elected. He declined the election, and was again unani- mously urged to come, but declined. Messrs. H. H. Houston and Crenshaw then went to hear Dr. Rumney. They had precisely the same authority any vestryman had previously had. No more, no less. They reported favorably. But Dr. Eumney was also recommended by Bishop Johns of Virginia, in a letter to a parishioner of Christ Church, by Bishop Stevens to Mr. Crenshaw, his nominator, by the Rev. Dr. Childs, and the Rev. Samuel Durborow, all certainly recognized as " Evangelical men." Bishop Stevens stated that he knew of Dr. Rumney, and that " the vestry would be safe in electing him without hearing him." Dr. Childs was expressly quoted by two of the complainants as partly deciding them in their minds how to vote. Dr. Rumney was unanimously elected, ten vestryfiien being present and voting for him, viz.: Messrs. W. C. Houston, Le Boutillier, Mellor, Clark, Miskey, Crenshaw, H. H. Houston, Ivill6, Kingston and Schaetter. But the complainants now say that certain questions were 53 asked of and answered by Messrs. 11. H. Houston and Cren- sluiw, by which they were misled (p. 8), as follows: " Is Dr. Rumney an Evangelical man as we Low Church- men understand it? Ans. Yes. Is Dr. Rumney willing to support the Evangelical so- cieties, and only those,^ as it has been the invariable practice of Christ Church to sujjport ? Ans. Yes." This statement is not correct. The questions were not so asked, and the answers were not so given. What was asked and answered and stated will appear by the following certifi- cate of five of the vestrymen then present and voting, two of whom answered the questions. " The undersigned hereby certify that the following is a correct statement of the proceedings of the vestrj^ meeting at which Dr. Rumney was elected : " The statement made by Messrs. H. TI. Houston and Crenshaw was that Dr. Rumney was a man Evangelical in his doctrine, a conservative Prayer Book Churchman, and not a party man. On being asked whether he bowed in the creed, the reply was he did. On being asked how he voted in convention, the reply was, such a question was not proper to be asked of a gentleman, but that we supposed he would act as his conscience dictated. After the balloting had com- menced and seven had voted, A. Miskey stated that he had that day seen the Rev. Dr. Childs, who told him that Dr. Rumney was Evangelical in his doctrine, an excellent pastor, a hard worker in his parish and a good Sunday school man, and that he would suit our congregation admirably. Mr. Miskey then said that he voted partly on the representation of the two gentlemen who had seen Dr. Rumney, and partly upon the recommendation of Dr. Child?, as above expressed. AV^ C. Houston then said that he was willing to vote for any man endorsed by Dr. Childs, and, therefore, cast his ballot. After which, Mr. Le Boutillier did the same. 9* 51 " The undersigned deny positiTely that the question was asked ' Whether Dr. Kumuey was an Evangelical man as ice Low Churchmen understand it' We also deny that the question was asked, ' Whether Dr. Eumney was willing to support the Evangelical societies, ujid only those.' H. H. HOUSTON, S. D. KINGSTON, JOS. A. SCIIAEFFER, SAMUEL K. KILLfi, E. A. CEENSHAW." February 15, 1872. How totally different is this from the statement put forth by the majority of the present vestry. The accuracy of the committee's statement may be further judged by the aid of this noteworthy fact. Only one of the committee of four which prepared it was present at the vestry meeting where the conversation occurred. Mr. Spencer was in Europe, and Messrs. Lewis and Whitney were not then in the vestry. Comment is needless. The vestry appointed Messrs. Le Boutillier (now one of the complainants), H. H. Houston, and Crenshaw, a commit- tee to inform Dr. Eumney of his election, and the following letter was sent by them : Germantown, February 18, 1870. Eev. and Dear Sir : — It gives us great pleasure to notify you of your unanimous election to the Rectorship of Christ Church, Germantown, and to hand you a copy of the resolu- tions passed at a meeting of the vestry yesterday, viz. : '■'■ lie- solved^ That Messrs. H. H. Houston and Crenshaw, with the warden, be a committee to inform the Eev. T. S. Eumney, D. D., of his unanimous election as Eector of this parish, at an annual salary of two thousand five hundred (2,500jdollars, with use of the parsonage. Resolved^ That an additional sum of five hundred (500) dollars, to be paid in advance, be appropriated to defray the expenses of his removal." 10* 55 "We believe that the unanimity of the vestry in extend- ing you this call is a clerEY. September 5, 1871. Robert Cupitt, Engle Street. I am very sorry that I signed the paper for ^liss She talked about Low Church, and I signed only to keep a Low Church. lN"othing was said about you (Dr. Rumney) resigning, or I would not have signed, as I do not wish you to go away ; only I wish to have a Low Church. I regret that I signed the last paper, and never stated that I signed the Urst paper without reflection. Stated in our presence, F. MORTIMER LEWIS, T. S. RUMNEY. September 5, 1871. 48* 90 Mrs. E. CupiTT. I did not hear anything about you (Dr. Rumney) leaving the church. The talk with Miss and Miss was about Low Church, which is what I hke. I did not sign for you (Dr. Rumney) to leave us, and I do not wish you to go away. Stated in our presence, F. 'MORTIMER LEWIS, T. S. RUAmEr. September 5, 187L Mrs. Brandreth, Engle Street. Miss called and asked me to sign a paper to keep our church from being a High Church, which I refused to sign. She made me promise to call at her house in the after- noon. "When I was there she brought out the paper and I signed it, only because I do not want our church like the Roman Catholic. I see no difference now from when ]\Ir. Atkins was here. Miss said that you (Dr. Runmey) intended to make it a High Church. 1 told Mr. Cupitt that I was sorry that I signed the paper, a,nd would like to have my name taken off. I do not wish you to leave us. 1 hope you will stay with us. Stated in our presence, F. MORTIMER LEAVIS, T. S. RUMNEY. September 5, 1871. Mrs. Twist. I signed the paper, as I washed the church kept on Mr. Atkins' platform. I have nothing against you (Dr. Rum- ney), and only signed to keep our church a Low Church. I cannot say that I see any difference in the church services, but there is a difference in the prayer meeting. Stated in our presence, F. MORTIMER LEWIS, T. S. RUMNEY. September 5, 1871. 91 Mr. Twist. I was not at home when the paper was brouglit here, and I did not sign it. I have nothing against you (Dr. Rumney.) Stated in our presence, F. MORTIMER LEWIS, September 5, 1871. T. S. RU:MXEy. Mrs. Ann Steer e. When the ladies, Miss and Miss called here, they said that Dr. Rumney "was going to make Christ Church a High Church, and they wanted our names for a Low Church, is'othing was said about Dr. Rumney going away. I told them to put down my name, my hus- band's, and my daughter Lizzie's for a Low Church. My husband does not go to church, except sometimes with me at night. He is not a member. My daughter signed at Mrs. also for a Low Church. We have notMns; ao-ainst you (Dr. Rumney), and wish you to stay. I do not know the dilference between High and Low Church. Stated in our presence, E. MORTIMER LEWIS. T. S. RUMKEY. September 5, 1871 Mrs. Sykes, Bowman Street. A pciper was brought to me to sign, and I was told that it was only to have the church the same as when Mr. Atkins was there, and nothing else. Since, I have been told that the paper was to ask you to leave ; and I have said that I was very sorry that I signed it. I only signed to have the church as it was. I do not wish you to resign at all. I am very sorry that I signed. Stated in our presence, F. MORTi:\rER LEWIS, T. S. RUMXEY. September 5, 1871. 50* 92 Miss McNaughton, Washington Lane. I was told that papers were being taken around among the people, one for High Curch, and one for Low Church, and I was asked which I would sign. I said I would sign for Low Church. I never thought of such a thing as asking you (Dr. liumnej) to leave. I thought that you might change your views to that of the Low Church when you saw the paper. If you coukl not, that you might probably leave us. I did not sign to ask you to resign, only for Low Church ; and had I known all that I now know, I would not have signed the paper. Stated in our presence, F. MORTIMER LEWIS, T. S. RUM^'EY. September 5, 187L Henry Freas, Main Street. The paper which I signed was only for a Low Church. Kothing was said to me about my signing to ask you (Dr. Rumney) to resign. I did not read the paper, but from what was said to me, I was under the impression that the paper was only to keep the church a Low Church, and to have no change brought in. I also signed for my wife" for the same reason. Stated in our presence, F. MORTIMER LEWIS, T. S. RUMNEY. September 8, 1871. Daniel P. Freas, Main Street. I was busy when the paper was brought to the store, and read it over hastily. I do not remember that it said any- thing about your (Dr. Rumney) resigning ; all that I sup- posed it was, was a desire to keep the church as a Low Church. Stated in our presence, - F. MORTIMER LEWIS, T. S. RUMNEY. September 8, 1871. 93 APPENDIX "E." List of clergymen who have preached or oiEciated in Christ Church under Dr. Rumney. Rev. Dr. Williamson, Wilkesbarre. Rev. T. "W". Martin, Lewistown. Rev. Dr. Fitch (uncle of Mr. Whit- ney of the Committee). Rev. Dr. Hay, Radnor. Rev. J. Houston Eccleston. Rev. R. C. Matlack. Rev. Juo. G. Furey. Rev. Dr. Childs. Rev. A. Shiras, D. D. Rev. Mr. Page, of Tenn. Rev. J. N. Stanger. Rev. A. B. Atkins (twice). Rev. Dr. Benj. Watson. Rev. Dr. Hawkins, Chambersb'g. Rev. Dr. Spalding, Wisconsin. Rev. J. K. Murphy, Germantown. Rev. A. Wadleigli, Germantown. Rev. G. L. Bishop, Germantown. Rev. Dr. Oliver. Rev. S. D. Hinraan. Rev. Dr. Sniedcs, North Carolina. Rev. Dr. Goodwin. Rev. R. T. Roach, D. D. Rev. A. T. Twing, D. D. Rev. Mr. Cathell. Rev. Sam'l Durborrow. Rev. W. H. Hare. Rev. Mr. Cullen. Rev. Mr. Diehl, Rev. T. A. Jaggar. Rev. J. DeW. Perry, Rev. Dr. Yarnall. Rev. F. B. Van Kleeck, White Plains. Rev. Mr. Davidson. Bishop Randall. Bishop ]\Iorris. Bishop Tuttle. Bishop Clarkson. Bishops Johns and Bedell have been both invited, and could not come. 52* 9i APPENDIX "F." PuiLADELPniA, February 16, 1872. Eev. Theodore S. Piumney, GrERMANTOWX, PA., Rev. and Yery Dear Sir: — In pursnance of yonr expressed Avislies, I now enclose herein a statistical table, compiled from my Sunday school records for the seven preceding years, as •well as the small fractional ,part of present year. The nnm- hers stated are those in attendance on Advent Sunday for the respective years. Truly yours, SAMUEL K KILLfi, Assistant Superintendent Christ Church Sunday school^ Ger- mantown. Tear Total Pupils in Scliool. Total Bible Classes. 1865 341 71 1866 .,..318 70 1867 413 73 1868 335 73 1869 345 80 1870 305 75 1871 326 74 1872 328 74 Included in list of Bible classes for each of the above years were 34 pupils of Mad. Clement's school. It may be here noted that at the last confirmation in Christ Church (in 1871), a class of thirty was presented to the Bishop. 53* 95 APPENDIX " G." Letter from White Plains. UndervStanding that reports have been recently circulated in Germantown, to the effect that Dr. Rumney's congrega- tion, at White Plains, N. Y., were tired of him, and were glad to get rid of him, the following letter is inserted to show the utter falsity of such reports : "Since reports have reached this parish, that certain per- sons, inimical to our former beloved Rector in his present field of labor, are endeavoring to bring accusations against him, so as to remove him, if possible, from his position in Christ Church, Germantown ; therefore. We, the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Grace Church, White Plains, in special session assembled, deem it but an act of duty towards the Rev. T. S. Rumney, D. D., to make the declarations proclaimed below in regard to him, which declarations we subscribe with our own names, inviting thereafter the signatures of all available members of the congregation, that, thus endorsed, they may be sent to Mr. H. II. Houston, Rector's Warden in Dr. Rumney's Vestry, to be used by him in any emergency, in which they could be of service. We declare : 1. That under Dr. Rumney's rectorship in this parish the greatest harmovy prevailed, and to such a degree, that the delightfully harmonious relations existing between Rector, vestry and congregation, became a marked topic of conver- sation during meetings of the clergy of the Southern Mis- sionary Convocation. * 2. That his success as a Rector can easily be demonstrated by two circumstances, one. being, that the modest wooden structure in which he began his ministrations, soon became 54* 93 too small for the steadily inereaping congregation, and had to give way to the present beautiful and commodious church edifice ; the other being, that this parish, from having been small and comparatively unimportant, became one of the most flourishing and useful in the county. 8. That he was beloved and revered not only by all the members of his church and congregation, but by all the people of this village and district that knew him, no matter whether they belonged to the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyte- rian, or any other church. 4. That his departure brought grief to every heart, and that the poor of all sects lost in him their best friend. 5. That his purity and simplicity of life, his untiring and unselfish devotion to all who needed aid, procured to him, most justlj^ the undivided love of the entire people, who censured only the last act of his life amongst them, the one which took him from their midst — his acceptance of the call to Christ Church, Germantown. White Plains, N. Y., Jaimary 18, 1S72. F. B. Van Ivlceck, Hector Grace Churchy White Plains, N. Y. Joshua Ilorton, Elisha Ilorton, Wardens. M. M. Fisher, Wm. II. Iluestis, Jno. Swinburne, J. C. Buckhout, E. T. Preudhorame, Samuel Faile, 11. Ernest Schmid, S. A. Martin, Vestrymen. Jane Cammann, David Horton, Phebe McDonald, Isaac V. Fowler, W. II. Dearman, J. 0. Dykman, Mrs. S A. Dearman, Jno. L. Anderson, John Philips, P. Carpenter, 55* 97 Mary Philips, F. II. Towell, R. Kennedy, E. Kennedy, J. E, Kennedy, Henry Williams, Mary E. Williams, Mary E. Baldwin, O. Cross, St. John Brown, John Alctzer, Joseph Lye, Helfrich Bromm, Conrad Bromm,' Lewis Buckhout, J. W. Buckhout, Edward Schimer, L. S. Peek, F. J. Preudhomme, Eliza II. Fisher, Caroline Fisher, Mrs. Selina II. Thompson, Gilbert Lyon, Anna Lyon, Sarah C. Lyon, Phehe Lyon, Lizzie F. Walton, Mrs Mary Farr, Thomas Prior, K B. Hunter, A, K. Dunn, Walter G. Mackay, Elisha Horton, Jr., Henry M. Bissell, Mrs. Julie Adler, M. J. Adler, A. Adler, E. T. Adler, A. S, Jarvis, Mrs. A. S. Jarvis, Mrs. A. S. Davis, Miss N. Jarvis, Anna H. Jones, Mrs. S. B. Attwater, Katharine C. Smith, Sarah M. Jarvis, M. F. Harris, Mrs. M. M. Fisher, II. A. Little, Mrs. Wm. Iluestis, E. S. Underhill, Joseph Thompson, Mrs. A. Roe, Louisa Roe, Elizabeth Roe, Mrs. E. Prior, Alex. W. Russell, R. L. Zimmerman. 93 ArPEXDIX " H." MR. W. C. HOUSTON'S LETTER. E. AVastiington Lane, Germantown, September 20, 1871. Rev. T. S. Rumney, D. D., Dear Sir: — I have been informGcl that dnring my absence from home, mj so-n, on putting on a coat that he had not worn for some weeks, discovered in the pocket of the same a letter addressed to me. Having authorized him to open m3Metters during my absence, he opened it, and finding it was from you, repaired at once to your house to make to 3'ou his explanation of the subject, and as you were absent, made it to Mrs. Rumney. Of the character of his explanation I have no knowledge beyond the above, as he had to leave hon>e on business before I reached home, and has not yet returned ; but I presume it to be that the letter was handed to hira by the carrier ; that he put it in his pocket, intending to hand it to me, but hap- pening to change his coat, and not to wear it again for several weeks, he entirely forgot the receipt of it. I can only say, that I sincerely regret the occurrence — especially that the first that has happened should have been with your letter, which the committee felt -they had a right to expect from you ; but now having it, and finding it was dated five days after our communication, it is l:ut just that you should be relieved from a seeming want of courtc^^y as implied in the note addressed to you under date of August 25th. Your letter of 2d, postmarked 4th instant, was not received by me until Saturday evening. 'Sly son was expected home yesterday, and I delayed sending you a " written acknowl- edgment of the missing letter," hoping to have from him 57* 99 his explanation to send to you, Lut ns he has i:ot arrived, I have deemed it best to wait no longer. Eepeating my regret of the unfortunate occurrence, I am Yery respectfully yours, W. C. IIOUSTO]^, Chairman of Committee. P, S. — T open this to say that my son has just arrived at home. He says m}^ explanation of the cause of delay of yours of 31st July, is substantially correct, and that he will hand you this, if you are iu, and confirm my statement. APPEIs^DIX "I." Bishop Eastbukn's Decision. l\OTE. — As Bishop Eaptl)urn is expressly'- referred to by the complainants as one of their "highly esteemed fathers" in the church, his fatherly action in the following case ought to have weight with them. It is certainly a case in point for the consideration of this tribunal. A statement of the case of the Rev. William Rawlins Pickman, Rector of St. Peter's Church, Salem, Massachusetts. Mr. Pickman was rector of St. Peter's Church, and on April IStli, 1865, received the following communication : Easter Tuesday, April 18, 1865. Rev. axd Drar Sir : — At the anniial Easter meeting last evening the following resolutions were passed by a vote of thirtj'-four yeas to fifteen nays. '■'■ JResohed, That the proprietors of St. Peter's Church, in parish meeting assembled, feel constrained to express their opinion and conviction that the interests of the parish will be best subserved b}'- a termination of the connection between them and their present Rector. 58* 100 ^^liesolvcd, That the clerk cause a copy of these resolutions to be sent to Rev. Mr. Pickman, and that when this meeting adjourn, it adjourn to meet at this place on Monday evening next, 7J o'clock p. m." To this the Eector replied, that werehe " to accede to their resolution, he would go from them with an utterly ruined character ; " that while he had been assailed by public slan- der with a grossness, a pertinacity, and a malignity which falls to the lot of few men, they had refused as a body to bring any charges against him, by meeting which he could defend himself, and that in short he felt constrained to ex- press his ' opinion and conviction ' that the interests of the parish and the interests of the Rector would be materially injured by a termination of the connection existing between them at present." At a subsequent meeting of the " proprietors," the follow- ing resolution was passed by a vote of thirty-seven to eight. ^'' Hesolved, That for the purpose of bringing back harmony to the parish, and wholly disclaiming nuy intention of imputing to the Rector any wrong, the proprietors hereby reiterate their opinion as to the expediency and necessity of such dissolution, and most respectfully and earnestly request their Rector, the Rev. William Rawlins Pickman, to resign his charge of this parish." The Rector declinino- to follow the advice of these o-entle- men, at a subsequent meeting, by a vote of thirty-seven to nine, they declared the pastoral relation dissolved, and ap- pointed a committee " to apply at once to the Bishop for his concurrence in such dissolution." The application having been made, the Bishop replied to the chairman of the committee as follows : Boston, 71% 10, 1865. My Dear Sir: — I have received from you a copy of certain proceedings of the proprietors of St Peter's Church, Salem, 5D* 101 including a resolution -u-liicli was passed, dissolvino- the pas- toral relations between the parish and its Rector, and ajipoint- ing a committee to ask for n\y concurrence in such dis.solu- tion. You also, on behalf of said committee, request me to indicate the time, place, and mode in which it will please nie to meet the committee, and hear their views on the subject. Having already heard statements from two gentlemen of St. Peter's, in a recent visit which they made to me, and also stated my views to them, I do not perceive the necessity of a personal conference with the committee. In one of the resolutions passed on May 1st, the proprietors declare that, in one resolution adopted in the annual Easter meeting, they had " no purpose of casting any imputation upon the character of their Rector in any of his relations as a man, a clergyman or a Christian ;" and in the other resolu- tion they wholly disclaim "• any intention of imputing to the Rector any wrong." This being the statement of the proprietors in regard to the Rev. Mr. Pickman, I feel that I should do a great act of injustice to him, by concurring with the action of the pro- prietors. I therefore decline so doing. I am very respectfully, yours, i\iA2{T0^ EASTEURN. John Kilburn, At the conclusion of the reading Mr. Conarroe said: There was a mistake in the copies of the canon printed on a loose slip, and furnished by complainant's counsel to this Pourd, and we have therefore had the canon correctly printed at the end of this pamphlet. Mr. Vail. I'lease state the mistake? Mr. Conarroe. The mistake was in the transposition of the proviso — an awkward error. 102 Mr. Vail. Please state how it was made, so that the gentlemen of the Board may know, or they may imagine Mr. Vail made the mistake. Mr. Conarroe. I beg pardon. The mistake occurred in this way : Mr. Vail took the canon from the columns of the Daily Churchman, where it was printed erroneously. I have' taken it from the official copy furnished to me by the Rev. Dr. Perry, Secretary of the General Convention. Mr. Vail. May it please the Doard, we are prepared to go on at any time this Board may decide. We prefer that you should indicate to us the manner in which we should proceed. "Within a week from to-day, we shall be prepared to go on with the evidence, or hear anything that may be said on the other side, or if these gentlemen ask two weeks ? Mr. Conarroe. "These gentlemen" do not ask two weeks. It is to be supposed that the complainants knew what their case was before it was commenced. They had months in which to prepare it, but we heard their com- plaint for the first time when the statement was read before this Board, and of course required time to put in an answer. After an answer is read, which is simply responsive to the allegations, it is not usual to allow complainants any con- tinuance at all, but as a matter of courtesy to the other side, I suggest that Monday next at furthest be fixed, and that this Board proceed with the case at that time. There is nothing which requires a week's delay. We have the right to demand that the complainants go on with their case, but we are willing to concede an extension of time until Monday. Mr. Price. The complaint has been read to the court, and we certainly were entitled to know in advance, what would be the case set up on the opposite side. A great deal of it appears to be confession and avoidance, and a good deal of the contents of the pamphlet that has been read, is matter which would hardly be listened to by the court as evidence, and certainly does not apply to the com- 103 plaint as it has been made. What I understood M'r. Yail to ask of the court, is simply to designate what course of proceeding they desire this case to take. We are not just now in the jDOsition of applying for time, but are simply asking that the court shall indicate to us in what manner they propose we shall go on, and in what manner they propose to hear the case, and of course we shall adapt our case to their plan, and if any more time is desired by the other side they can have it. Mr. CoNAiiROE. Without desiring to trespass upon tlie time of the court, I would say that the position of the case at present is this : The complainants have brought in their com[)laint. We have put in our answer. The canon under which this Board of Reference is •assembled prescribes that the tive Presbyters shall hear the allegations and proofs which the parties may submit to them. You have heard the allegations on the other side, and you have heard the answer, and such allegations as have been made on behalf of the respondent. It now simply remains for the com- plainants to go on and prove their allegations. If they fail to prove their allegations, the case falls. If thej^ prove anything material, opposing proof will be furnished by the respondent. Mr. Price. I do not understand the case to be quite as now mentioned. I understand the case presented to your notice to be that a ditference exists between the Vestry and the Kector of Christ Church, Germantown. That was shown to you in the statement presented at the first meet- ing; enlarged upon in a manner, perhaps not necessary, showing to what ends it had led. ISTow in answer to that statement, or in what is called an answer to it, a pamphlet has been read, Avhich if I view it correctly, sus- tains the allegation that is made on the part of the com- plainants; to wit, that a ditference exists between the Vestry and tlie Rector of Christ Churcli, Germantown. My friend, Mr. Conarroe, appears to think that we have statements of 10-1 fact in our pamphlet which we are bound now to go on and maintain by proof. I say the only important fact we bring to the attention of the coart is that a difference exists. As to the other facts, I do not suppose it is necessary to give them in proof before you; some of them are confessed' and admitted by the counter statement. If any proof is to be given as to these facts in any form, it should come from the other side. I desire that my friend should designate what facts he thinks we should support by proof? Mr. Conarroe. All the facts, may it please the court, which the other side consider material for the support of their case. If it is maintained that all this court need do is to ascertain the mere fact that a difference exists, and that then — no matter whether that difference be well founded or not, no matter who is in fault, no matter whether the clergyman be in fault or not — the mere fact of such difference is conclusive, and under this canon this court can go no further into the case, but must recommend a dissolu- tion of the pastoral connection, I should like to know it, for I would have something to say on that point. Is that the complainants' view of the canon ? Mr. Price. I can only say that is the language of the canon, and I suppose that should govern the court and the advocates also. Mr. Conarroe. If that is the language of the canon I beg leave to read a little more of it. The words of the canon under which this Board is constituted are these; " Section second. The five Presbj^ters thus designated ^hall constitute a Board of Reference to consider such con- troversy, and if after hearing such allegations and proofs as the parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters shall be of opinion that there is no hope of a favorable termi- nation of such controversy, and that a dissolution of the coimection between such Rector or Assistant Minister and his parish or congregation is necessary to restore the peace of the Church and promote its prosperity, such Presbyters shall recommend to the Bishop that such minister shall be 105 required to relinquish his connection with such Church or parish, on such conditions as may appear to them proper and reasonable." This Board is therefore to ascertain, First — whether there is a controversy. Second, whether that controversy is irreconcilable. Third, whether a dissolution is the only remedy for the controversy. Whether a dissohition of the connection is necessary to promote the peace of the Church and the pros- perity of the parish. In ascertaining these facts they can do nothing less than go into the merits of the whole case. If it is proved that the agitators form but a small insignificant minority; or a minority, if they be not small or insignificant; then it only remains for the respondent to show that such a dissolution is not necessary to restore the peace of the Church. "We have here, at the conclusion of the answer, the certificate of certain vestrymen, former vestrymen and members of the congregation, directly on that point. "AVe further certify to our firm belief that the interests of the parish and the interests of Rector would be materially injured by a dissolution of the present pastoral coimection ; and that the peace of the Church would be more disturbed by the removal of the Rector at the present time than by any other possible "cause." NoAV the statement on the one side must be proved, and the case of the respondent on the other hand, of course, must be proved. If the complainants prove no case here, there is nothing for the respondent to reply to. It is not a mere question of whether this court or Board shall ascertain that there is a controversy and that it is irreconcilable, but the question is whether there is a controversy, who is in lault in that controversy, and is a dissolution of the pas- toral connection the projier and the onl}'' necessary remedy? Mr. Vail. I think it would be as well probably to read a little history of this canon, as it is a new canon. Mr. Coxarroe. I do not want to interrupt the gentle- man, but really, this hearing must proceed in some sort of 106 orderly and ]eo;al way. The gentleman knows hiniPolf, and I know, that he could not atteniiit such a manner of con- ducting a cause in court. When the plaintill" is called on to prove liis case, if liis counsel were to say, "I will read a history of a canon " or of an Act of Assendjly it would be absurd. It might he very well in his argument at tlie close. J\1r. Vail. I leave it to you gentlemen. Our view of the case is this: There seems to be some hesitation in the beginning, a little hesitation as to how we are to proceed in this cause, otherwise it may take one or five years, if we are to take up the whole congregation and bring them before you ; I submit entirely to your decision. AVe do not want to inflict any more up(m 3'ou than we can help. This is merely to show you how the canon originated and what it was intended for, without saying anything about the present case. Rev. Mr. Harris. I agree thoroughly with my colleague that this is hardly the time in which to give a history of the canon. That properly forms part of the argument. Mr. Vail. I merely ofier it in this way; for this honorable Board must of course indicate some form of proceeding. It may be said that in every court of justice, the history of every statute is well known to the court. The court have laid down rules for their order and proceed- ing. I have been unable to iind but four cases under this canon. It has been so seldom enforced that strict rules are not laid down. So that each Board will have to lay down some I'ules for its own guidance. We do not wish to go into an argument as to the merits of this case; we only Avish to show the origin and what was intended to be done, bimply the origin of this very canon. Mr. Conarroe. I can only renew my objection that such a proceeding is totally out of jilace at this stage of the cause. At this [)oint the Board withdrew for consultation. Rev. Br. Beasley. I am directed, first to ask the ques- tion, are both parties pre[)ared to rest the case upon the pamphlets they have presented ? 107 Mr. Price. I think that on behalf of the complainants, I might say yes. In the absence of the court I have been suggesting to the counsel on the other side, that each pamjihlet contains sundry statenients, which, in the originals, bear the signatures of responsible parties. I ask why call upon them to bear witness to what they have already said over their signatures ? "Why cannot we admit on each side that the pamphlets shall be taken by the Board for what the}' are worth. As at present advised I should answer the President of the Board in the affirmative. j\1r. Conarroe. We are perfectly willing to agree to sub- mit the case upon the pamphlets. (A consultation here ensued between the Rev. Dr. Good- win and the counsel for the complainants.) Mr. Price. The complainants think that they may have occasion to add some further evidence and facts, but so far as the pamphlets go they are willing to adopt them. Rev. Dr. YarXxVLL. Then you don't submit the case on the pamphlets. Mr. Conarroe. IMay it please the Court, the complainants are simply avoiding the question ; for if the complainants have something to add, the respondent may have something to add, and you will never get to the end of it. I would like to ask if the venerable gentleman on my right is one of the counsel in this case? I see a gentleman who was nominated by the complainants as one of the Presbyters to compose this Board, whose name was excepted to for cause, and whose name was stricken from the list. lie appears to be acting as counsel on tlie other side, the impropriety of which is obvious. Pev. Dr. Beasley. Are the Board to understand that both parties will rest their case upon the pamphlets as we have them before us ? Mr. Price. Kot entirely rest the case ujion the pam- phlets. Upon consulting with one of the gentlemen I am 108 informed that there ought to be some evidence added to the statements of the pamphlets. Therefore, I am willing to rest it upon the statements that tlie pamphlets contain, to that extent on each side, and to add what they may deem necessary. I am not able to state to what length. Mr. Conarroe. The complainants have expressly rested their case, may it please the Court, on the statement. Now it is a well known point in criminal law, (and this canon to some extent is a penal statute) that after an indictment is submitted, it cannot be amended. These prosecutors here are really asking to have a chance to amend their indict- ment, by adding " whatever may be deemed necessary." Mr. Price. IsTot even that, but adding evidence in sup- port of what is originally alleged. Mr. Conarroe. There is no objection to that, if both sides are to go into testimony. Rev. Dr. Beasley. Under the present circumstances I have to ask the complainants if they are prepared to go on immediately. Rev. Mr. Harris. Mr. chairman, I beg to renew the question which was put by my colleague, and which was not answered, whether the Rev. gentleman on the right is acting as one of the counsel for the complainants ? I would like to have a clear and definite understanding. I refer to the Rev. Dr. Goodwin. We understood that the counsel for the complainants in this case were Mr.- Vail and Mr. Price. There appears to be a consultation with the Reverend gentleman and the com- plainants, and I ask on the part of the respondent whether he is one of the counsel on the part of the complainants ? Because, if so, it seems to me that the delicacy of the pro- ceeding might be questioned, as the gentleman was one whose name was put upon the list as one of the judges in this case. He was excepted to by the respondent for cause. He is also a clerical member of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, under whose review, in the absence of the Bishop, this case may possibly come. 109 I^ow, I leave it to the Court whether his acting as counsel in this case is consistent with propriety. Mr. W. C. Houston (one of the complainants). It may be proper to say that we clearly understood that we might have a clerical representative. Eev. Mr. Harris. I do not deny that, and I have no ohjcction at all on the part of the respondent (though I liave not consulted with him at all, I am speaking of my own motion) to the complainants getting as many Preshyters as they think proper to advise them, but I claim under the peculiar circumstances, that this individual Presbyter is a little out of place, when he appears as one of the counsel on the other side. Mr. Vail. On what grounds ? Pev. Mr. Harris. On the ground that his name was put upon the list of judges in this cause as a member of this Board. That it was excepted to by this respondent for cause, and stricken off, and, therefore, one would suppose on that ground his connection with the case officially would cease. I oi)jcct to him in the second place, because he is a cleri- cal member of the Standing Committee, a committee which acts as a "council of advice" to the Bishop, and that in t!.e course of his official duties in that capacity, he may have to review this very case, which he has worked up. jMr. Vail. Will my friends point out the reason of this ? Mr. Coxarroe. It is looked upon in the same light as if one of the judges of the Supreme Court was to come down and assist in the trial of a cause in the District Court, when he might afterwards be called on to review the case. Mr. Vail. May I ask the gentleman to state under what section of tiie canon the decision of this Board will come before the Standing Committee for review ? Rev. Mr. Harris. I believe, sir, that the Standing Com- mittee has, as one of its duties, the counsel and advice of the Bishop, and this case may come, or the judgment of this Board may come, before the Bishop. I presume my 110 learned friend will not dispute that, in fact, it may come before him in such a way that he may wish to have advice as to how he shall act. It is a perfectly supposahle case. I do not say it will be so. I will not argue the case. If he thinks I have not drawn attention to him sufficiently, I have nothing more to say. Mr. Vail. If you will be kind enough to show any sec- tion of this canon which requires that the judgment of this Board may come under the decision of the IHshop; I am so stupid I am not able to see it in any place. I do not think that the gentleman's name, as one of the Presbyters, was stricken off for cause, but because the respondent has a right under the canon, in the same manner as in the Courts. IsTine were named, and thej' had to be reduced' to five by the alternate striking off of names. Rev. Mr. Harris. I beg your pardon, I know of one member who was stricken off by the other side from mo- tives of delicacy. I refer to a clergyman of Germantown, with whom some of the other side have had verj' pleasant relations, but thinking it would at D.ny rate serve to create an unpleasant feeling, and in the kindness of their hearts, so I understood, they objected to his name. I do not mean to say the cause in this case was the same, for I do not believe it was. JMr. Vail. My friend will agree with me as to my as- sertion as to the practice in the courts. The counsel have a right to strike off so many names, absolutelj', of a jury without any reason. They then can go on and strike off further, if they can give cause as to relationship or any- thiug of that kind. In legal parlance, for cause, means a certain thing, but striking the name off here means another thing. Rev. ISIr. Harris. The name was stricken off because the gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee. Mr. Conarroe. It is an immaterial point, may it please the court. I do not tliink it is a point worth arguing. It is a question of propriety. I Avill only say one word, and Ill that is, if the other side can stand the impropriety of the thing, I am sure we can. We have nothing more to say. ]\Ir. Vail. Then I would ask the Board, as it is now five o'clock, to adjourn to either Monday or Thursday. Rev. Dr. Beasley. We now adjourn to meet at this place on Monday next at 3 p. m. FOURTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. March 4, IS 72. The Board of Presbyters met in the Vestry room of the Church of Epiphany at 3 p. m. Present — Rev. Dr. Beasley. Rev. Dr. Yarnall, Rev. Dr. Miller, Rev. Dr. Davies, Rev. Mr. Perry. The complainants and their counsel. The respondent and his counsel. Rev. Dr. Beasley. The Secretary will now read a minute prepared by the Board. The Rev. Mr. Perry then read the following: The Board of Presbyters convened to consider the case of the controversy between the Rector of Christ Church, Ger- mantown, and the Vestr}^ of the said Church, having heard the statement of the Yestry and the answer on behalf of the Rector, are very desirous to have the matter, which has thus been brought before them, settled as speedily as possible. They wish to avert, if they can, the unseeml}'" continu- ance of strife, and especially at this holy season, to avoid the scandal of heated debate and acrimonious contest. They are therefore ready to take the case as it has been presented to them, and give it their careful consideration. They have simply to determine so far as the basis of any action to be recommended hy them may be concerned : I. "Whether there is any hope of a favorable termination of the present controversy. II. Whether a dissolution of the connection between the Rector of Christ Church, Germantown, and his parish is 112 necessary to restore the peace of the Church and promote its J)rosperit3^ But should it bo desired to introduce any farther proofs in support of what has ah'eady heen alleged as ground of complaint against the Eector, such proofs must now he brought forward, as the final statement to be presented on the part of the Vestry of Christ Church, and opportunity will be given for the respondent to answer. Rev. Dr. Beasley. Are the gentlemen now read}'- to proceed ? jMr. Vail. We have a statement, or rather reply, of eight pages, to the answer read on behalf of the Rector. Me. Conarroe. We would like to see this before it is read, because we may have a right to object to it. AYe may be willing to have it admitted. If so, it will save time and discussion. Mr. Vail. We beg pardon of the Board for taking the time. I liad promised my friend (Mr. Conarroe) a copy of this supplemental statement before we came here, but although we hurried the printer, we could not get it until just before the time for the Board to meet. Mr. Vail. (Mr. Conarroe having finished reading the paper.) May it please the Board, my friend, after reading the document, has concluded not to object, therefore, we will read it. This is a reply of the Committee of the Vestry to certain allegations in the answer. Mr. Conarroe. We would like to understand whether, when this supplemental statement is put in, that closes com- plainants' case? Mr. Vail. Certainly, there is nothing more. We do not intend to introduce any oral testimony at all. That is our object, as we appreciate what the Board has already said, fully. We do not wish to keep up this disturbance any longer than can possibly be done. The supplemental statement was then read by Mr. Vail, as follows : 113 In reply to certain allegations made in " an answer on be- half of the Rector," the Vestry of Christ Church, German- town, respectfully say, that in their judgment, nothing contained in the answer controverts the position taken by them, viz. : That there is " a controversy between the Rector and the Vestry ; that there is no hope of a favorable termi- naliou of such controversy, and that a dissolution of the connection between the Rector and congregation is necessary to restore the peace of the Church and promote its pros- perity." Page 31 of the answer is the only one which attempts to explicitly deny any of these positions, and there the opinion of ten gentlemen are given. The Rector's advocates have endeavored to sum up the substance of our statement and to refute it. Have they succeeded ? They say that we asserted " that Christ Church, German- town, was organized by certain persons in the interest of the Low Church party," we did so assert, it is true, and they themselves confess it. The paper printed an pages 3 and 4: of our statement was prepared by Alfred R. Potter, one of the signers, and was signed by the others to show that " It was got up as a Low Church." (See Mr. Champion's letter, page 5, of the answer.) The statement of the seven gentlemen is clear and distinct. The long letter of Mr. Beekman Potter contains but two things — abuse of the Vestry and other incorporators, and a setting forth of his personal claims. As to the absence of the signature of C. W. Robinson, you are respectfully re- ferred to page 27 of our statement. The Vestry deny that they have ever said or intimated, that Christ Church "owes allegiance not to the church at large, but to the persons who contributed money to its erec tion." The present Vestry have never repudiated any of the doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Imt are faithful adherents thereto, and propose so to continue. Should they be culled upou to select another Rector, they 114 hereby declare that they would endeavor to elect one whose loyalty to its doctrines and discipline cannot be doubted. As to the second summary upon page 3 of the Answer, viz. : " That the Rev. Dr. Ruinney was elected Rector, un- seen, unheard, unknown, upon the representations of certain members of the Yestry, which representations' betrayed the remaining vestrymen into voting for him;" the Vestry did 80 state, and are prepared to sustain their statements. Mr. LeBoutillier distinctly and positively states that the ques- tions recited on page 17 of our statement, and denied on page 10 of the Answer, were asked by him and answered as stated. At the Vestry Meeting the nominator of Dr. Rumney read to another Vestryman a letter addressed to a member of Christ Church, which stated that Dr. R.'s church views would not accord with those of Christ Church ; and, after reading it, placed it in his pocket, saying it would not do to read it to the Vestry. Had that letter been read this board need not have been convened. We did say " that a very short time served to show that Dr. Rumney was not an evangelical man, as we Low Church- men understand it, and that he was not Avilling to support these evangelical societies which it had been the invariable practice of Christ Church to support." We do not under- stand from anything that has yet been said or alleged in the answer or otherwise, that ])r. Rumney claims to be an evangelical man as we Low Churchmen understand it, or that he sympathizes in any manner with the Low Church party, or that the collections for the evangelical societies were made by his especial choice or desire, instead of under the direction of the Vestry, given in accordance with the Dj'-Laws on the subject of collections in the church. The fiict that Dr. Rumney's church views and ecclesias- tical position are not in harmony with those of the Vestry of Christ Church as at present and heretofore constituted, is too well known to require to be substantiated by proof in detail. 115 As to the compp.rntive condition of Christ Church under the former Rector, and its alleged decline under its present Rector, we do not understand that any material point made in the statement of the vestry has Ijeeu rebutted in the answer of the Advocates. With reference to the Reading Room, we merely intend to state that it was in useful and successful operation under the Rectorship of jMr Atkins, and that it has not been restored by the present Rector. As to the statement, that the " Mission in Lcihman street is fully as successful as Centre Mission," we can only reply, that it must have been made under an entire misapprehen- sion of the former condition and work of Centre jNIission. The statement on page 18 of the Answer, that there is not now a vacant pew to rent in the church is incorrect ; the fact being that there are thirty-live pews and parts of pews not rented ; twentj^-four of which are set^ apart as free pews. (The Accounting Warden's books show that ninety-three whole pews and parts of five pews are rented ; two others are occupied respectively by the Rector's family and the Sexton. Many of the pews which are rented are held by persons who desire a chano-e in the Rectorship. The foot-note on page 19 is altogether incorrect. ISTo in- accuracy was admitted at the reading, and no promise was made to insert the word " not." The facts are correctly re- cited in the Statement of the Vestry. The note from W. C. Houston, of September 20th, to Dr. Rumney, was not pub- lished in the statement because it was never presented to the Vestry. The tabular statement of collections made on page 29 of Statement of the Vestry is correct. It professed to give only the average of the regular annual stated collections for cer- tain specified objects, and not to include any special collec- tions. The collection for Foreign Missions, referred to on page 20 of the Answer, was a special collection taken in June, not 116 in September, and tlierefore not. included. Special collections for other objects were taken within the five years, which, if included, would make the difference still more marked ; one especially of over $3,000, another of $4,000. On pages 20, 21, and 22 of the Answer, reference is made to individual contributions, and the Accounting Warden's statement called in question. This reference shows that these amounts formed no part of the regular collections in the church, and therefore had no place in the Accounting Warden's books. It is plain now, if it was not before, that the gentlemen, whose private contributions we referred to, did not intend that their gifts should go to the credit of Christ Church. Is it ingenuous to claim that credit? These gentlemen as plainly intended that the societies in question should not suf. fer from the deficiency in the contributions of Christ Church. We suppose every man has the right to make or withhold his benefactions when and where and through what chan- nels he sees fit, and that no other party on earth has any more right to call in question his conscientious action in do- ing what he will with his own, than he has to call a man to account for votins; according- to his conscience. It will certainly appear that if these gentlemen withdrew or were driven away from Christ Church, the amount of her contributions to these objects would be greatly diminished. Article 3d, Section 1st of the By-Laws provides that the Accounting Warden shall receive the moneys of the Church, and pay the same under the direction of tbe Vestry. The "Warden states that in no j'ear since he became Warden has he failed to present to the Vestry his yeai-ly financial state- ment, duly audited by the [)roper committee. After it has been presented, it becomes the property of the Vestry, and the Warden is no further accountable for it. We may add, that he has frequently been complimented upon tbe accuracy with which the accounts have been kept. It will thus be seen how groundless are the aspersions cast on him on page 28 of the Answer. At the bottom of page 22 of the Answer, an attempt is 117 made to show an increase in collections taken for tlie Ameri- can Church Missionary Society. In the language of the Answer, " accuracy of figures does not seem to he one of their gifts ; " the true figures are — Collection, September 18th, 1870, . . $473 85 " " 24th, 1871, . . 54 82 Decrease $419 03 On page 23 of the Answer, a vague charge is made. If it is intended to state that the persons who now oppose the Rev. Dr. Rumney, stirred up controversies in Christ Church in the times of Mr. Atkins, it is unfounded. As to the gross personal attack upon Mr. Charles Spencer, we need onl}- re- fer to his nearly sixteen years' connection with Christ Church as a communicant. On becoming a member of the church, he was informed by its Rector that his long connec- tion with an Evangelical denomination rendered confirmation unnecessary. The omission of confirmation in his case, hav- ing caused some discussion amongst certain members of the church, he conferred upon the subject with Bishop Stevens, who advised him to be confirmed ; whereupon he expressed his willingness to be confirmed, and a desire for that ordi- nance, and on the return of the Bishop, intends to present himself for confirmation. As to the attack made upon two ladies of the congregation on page 27, and also in Appendix D. we are content to rest the matter upon the following letter from one of the ladies, the other being absent in Europe. It was at the house of the writer that the " meeting " referred to was hekl, and her chai'acter is so well known in Germantown, and particularly in Christ Church, that her word will not be doubted by any one, whose opinion is worth considering. 118 January 15, 1872. "At 3'onr request I give the names of the members of our Parish upon whom I called, in company with Miss , hast faU. The work was undertaken with great reluctance, but we were soon convinced it was a necessity, as we lound that many of our most earnest members liad signed a paper circu- lated by friends of the present Rector, which stated that it Avas considered for the spiritual wellare of the Church that he should retain his position. Xnowing that these parties were in full sympathy w^ith the views upon which Christ Church had been founded, and hitherto stood, we inquired if they had read the paper to wdiich their signatures were at- tached ; the almost universal reply was " ?io, but they were told it was only expressive of friendly feeling towards Dr. Rumney, and as they had had no personal diflerence with him, felt very willing to give their names." We explained to them that the Vestry had felt it their duty to circulate another paper, simply because this wrong statement had been made. That though there was no personal feeling against the Rector, they were convinced his views were not in fellow- ship with the evangelical party in our Church, nor could we continue, under his pastorate, to be a representative church of such views. In no case did we permit a signature to the paper furnished us by the Committee unless fully convinced it was done under intelligent convictions. In several instances we found persons who were in full sjmipmthy with us, unwill- ing to sign any paper, and as their motive was a conscien- tious one, we immediately left them, with the assurance that we were entirely willing to leave the matter as one which the}", of course, must decide for themselves. Hoping this statement will be satisfactory, I remain." 119 As to the Sunday School statistics given on page 53, we herewith present another table made bj the same gentleman, and showing the average actual attendance including Bible Classes. 1865, .... . 375 1866, .... . 370 1867, .... . 369 1868, .... . 337 1869, .... . 350 1870, .... . 270 1871, .... . 260 We have just received a copy of the paper containing signatures asking Dr. Rumney to remain, and therefore have not had time carefully to analj^ze it, but it appears, on the face of it, strange that 101 names on that paper should chance to represent 337 members of the congregation, while 129 names on the opposite paper should represent but 173. On page 16 of our Statement it will be seen that we counted only such members of the congregation as were over 15 years of age. On what basis did their estimate proceed ? Of the 129 names on the paper addressed to the Vestry, the answer endeavors to show in its appendix that 23 have been withdrawn. It will be observed that the precise language of these persons is not professed to be reported ; they proba- bly answered the questions, tlxe precise bearing of which they may not have understood. We have not called, nor do we intend to call upon those persons to question them, they have not been cross-examined here; and we might reject their whole testimony. But to save the time of the Board in examin- ing witnesses, we will concede that there have been found 28 of our 129, who on being applied to by the Rector in person have in the kindness of their hearts, not had the firmness to tell him to his face that they desired him to leave the church. 120 But it will be observed, first, that witb five or six excep- tions these 23 are admitted to have expressly desired that the Church should continue as heretofore a "Low Church ;" and second, that more than 100 names-remain in unbroken opposition. We have felt compelled to make these additional state- ments to vindicate ourselves from the attacks made upon us in the Answer made on behalf of the Rector. W. C. HOUSTON", CHAS. SPENCER, W. B. WHITNEY, Committee. J. W. Lewis has been absent from the city. Statement of W. C. Houston. A duty to myself and those with whom I have acted, compels me to notice certain statements in the " Answer on behalf of the Rector," as presented to the Board. Germautown is my legal place of residence, and I have only spent the past few winters in th,e city. I do not recollect of saying, " I was willing to vote for any man endorsed by Dr. Chi Ids," — I did vote for Rev. Dr. Rumney by reason of the representations of Messrs. H. 11. Houston and Crenshaw. I did not "leave Christ Church in 1868," but I attended St. Michael's for a few Sundays in 1869, for a reason which the members of Chirst Church knew bad no reference to the church views of Mr. Atkins, and I did not cease to -p^y the rent of my pew. I claim that my contributions to dificrent objects for which collections were made, Avere in no way connected with the Chuch, and never heard of sucli contributions be- ing so claimed or credited, as are stated on pages 20, 21 and 22. 121 The parties? who furnished the information to the Answer, well knew that the collections have heen decreasing for two 3'ears, and hence the necessity of adding individual contri- buiions that bad never passed through or had any connec- tion with the church. w. c. nousTo:!^ il/r. Spenceys Statement. The letter of Joseph A. Schaffer, on page 40 of the Answer for Dr. Rumney, refers to an alleged interview with me, " a few daj^s after the Easter election in 1871," and represents me as saj'ing, " I have a paper requesting Dr. Rumney to resign his position as Rector of Christ Church, nine of the Vestrymen have already signed the paper, and I want you to make the tenth." I have no recollection of ever asking Mr. Schafler to sign any paper ; and it is certain that at the time referred to, no such paper existed. The first paper request- ing Dr. Rumney 's resignation was not prepared until late in the month of June. The deductions drawn on page. 27 of the Answer, from this apocryphal statement, may therefore be regarded as unfounded. It is quite true Mr. j\liskey and I did call upon Mr. Plojd, who is probably "the friend " referred to hy Mr. Schafter, and who told us that a certain gentleman sustaining Dr. Rumney, had been a great friend to him, and he was afraid if he voted our ticket the gentleman would withdraw his friendship. I told him that, if for voting as his conscience dictated, the gentleman withdrew his friendship, I would be his friend to an equal extent. I felt sure that the gentleman named had too much integrity of character to withhold his friendship from a man sim[)ly for doing ^Vhat he conceived to be his duty. I should have much preferred to have left these papers unanswered, feeling assured that no one who knew me would believe them, but as they will prohably be widely circulated, I have felt it necessary to notice them. ClIAS. SPEXCER. 122 Church Lane, Germantoicn, March 4, 1872. Edwin jNL Lewis, Esq., My Dear Sir : — I was mucli suqiriscd to find in Dr. Rum- ney's answer to our statement jour note to him of February 13th. When Mr. "W. C. Houston and I called upon you to pro- cure your signature to our petition asking Dr. Eumney to resign, you assured us that could we give you evidence that our petition would induce Dr. Kuranoy to resign, you would sign it. Therefore, I could uot see that in my note to Dr. Kumnoy, I was taking undue liberty with ^-our name in stating tliat, although you had not signed our paper, you fully endorsed it. Very truly yours, CHAS. SDElsrCER. [Mr. LeCoutillier was absent from the city at the time the answer was read. He has not yet returned. This will explain why he has not answered the aspersions cast upon him.] Mr. Conarroe, I desire here and now to correct the assertion just made in tlie supplemental statement that no inaccuracy was admitted at the reading of the original statement, and that no promise was made to insert the word " not." This assertion is so directly contrarj- to the facts that it cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. The lan- guage attributed to Dr. Rumney, was distinctly denied when it was first read before the court, and it was distinctly corrected. There is no doubt of the fact. I heard the correc- tion. Dr. Rumney heard it, Mr. II. H. Houston heard it. This court can say whether there was an interruption during the • reading of that document and a promise oi correc- tion or not. Rev. Dr. Yarnall. I recollect the circumstance. 123 Mr. Vail. I did not hear the correction, and the jrontle- iiian who read the statement says he did not [)rouiise to make the correction, and that if anything of that sort was under- stood, it was a mistake. But I am not going to say it did not happen hecause I did not hear it. Mr- Conarroe. There is no doid)t of it at all. Xow, may it please the court, we have a hrief supplemental answer, on the part of the respondent, which I beg leave to read : SUPPLEMENTAL AIv^SWER. The complainants having Leen permitted to lay before the Board additional matter in explanation of their case, the respondent claims leave to present the following additional facts : L Twenty-five different clergymen were nominated for the ofRce of Eector of Christ Church, between September 7th, 1869, and the time of Dr. Kumney's election. Nine Vestry meetings were held, and numerous ballots were had, and the minutes of the Vestry show that only two of the twenty-live could be elected. XL Of the persons certifying that they will be voters, and how they will vote at the next election, R. B. Dunning, H. W. Heiskell, and C P. Bayard are Presbyterians, and do not attend Christ Church ; George Nugent is a Baptist, and does not attend Christ Church ; and E. F. Shoenberger is a member of St. Paul's, Cheltenham, and does not attend the Church. III. To show the hollowncss of the statement (p. 8), that "these people" (meaning the complainants) "built the Church, and for fifteen years maintained it," and the impres- sion sought to be conveyed that they still maintain it, it is answered : 124 1. That a large majority of the complainants came into the Church long after it was built, and that they have con- tributed no more in proportion for its support than the friends of the Rectcr. 2. That Messrs, Powers and Le Boutillier, the only two of the complainants vvho contributed to the original erection, received in pews or scrip, or other money equivalent, full value for the greater part of their contributions. 3. That for some years past, the pew rents have amounted to about $4,000 to §1,200 annuall}^, while the current expen- ses have been about $5,000, and a deficiency of about $1,000 has been usually collected by the Vestry from members of the parish. At the Vestry meeting in November, 1871, Mr. Charles Spencer reported this deficiency, with a statement that he could devise no means to raise the required amount. Mr. W. C. Houston moved that a committee be appointed for the purpose. Messrs. W. C. Houston, Charles Spencer, and Charles Le Boutillier were appointed such committee, all of whom declined to serve. A collection was afterwards made in the Church, and $1,012 was collected. $1,000 of this amount was contributed by friends of the Rector, namely : Messrs. Chas. Bullock, M. S. Shapleigh, S. B. Kingston, S. K. Kille, E. Bedlock. F. Mortimer Lewis, E. A. Crenshaw, H. H. Houston, Madame Clement, and others. If the entire balance was contributed by the complainants, which is not likely, it would give $42 as the contribution of the nine, being an average of $1.66 to each complainant. This will afford a fair idea of the good faitrli of complainants, and of their anxiety to '• promote the prosperity of the <^iiurch." GEO. M. COXARROE, Of Counsel for the Rector. "We hereby certify that the facts above set forth are cor- rectly stated. II. n. IIOUSTOX, S. B. KINGSTON", JOS. A. SCHAEFFER. 125 In the supplemental statement just read, llv. W. C. Hous- ton, as a sort of denial of certain facts stated in the answer says: " Germantown is my legal place of residence, and I have only spent the past few winters in the city." We have nothing to do here Avith Mr. Houston's legal place of resi- dence, with where he may vote or be assessed, but with his ecclesiastical residence. I liappen to have here a paper filled up in the handwriting of Mr. Houston, which shows ijis ecclesiastical resideuoe to be in Philadelphia. We offer this paper in evidence. It is as follows: ^ " The Rector of Christ Church, Germantown, respectfully requests that the accompanying blank form may be filled up, in order that he may pre- pare a complete Parish Register. This paper may be returned to him by mail or left with the Sexton. " TnEODORE S. Rumney, D. D., Rector. " No. 36 Tulpehockeu St. "FAMILY REGISTER. ♦'Place'of Residence, East Washington L:ine, corner of Morton street. NAMES OF ALL TUE MEMBEKS OF THK FAMILV. Their rela- tiiiusljip to th.>H«adof tlie tiimily. D,ite of Birth of those now under 15 Bap- tized. years. Con- firm- ed. Com- ma ui- ca.uts. REMA.RKS. W. C. Houston, Mks. W. C. Houston, Mr. and Mks. F. H. Williams. Have six children besides Mrs. W. All belong, to and are communing Mem. bers of the Church of the Atonement. (Kev. Du. Watson,) Philadelphia. City residence, 1737 Arch street. W. C. H." We also produce before the Board the printed reports of the Evangelical Societies, from which the statistics in tlie answer were taken, and desire them, together with the Vestry minutes, which are here, to be considered as put in evidence. There is one other paper which we desire produced here, namely, the original paper asking for Dr. Rumney's resigna- tion. This paper has never been seen by Dr. Eumney or his counsel. It was asked for last summer, and has been repeat- edly asked for since. As it is the paper on which the Vestry partly base their action in this case, it should be produced. [Two papers were then produced by Mr. Vail, asking Dr. Eumney to resign, containing in all 40 signatures.] Mr. Vail. There is a third paper containing additional signatures which I ought to have produced. We thought we hud uU three parts, but find that we are mistaken. 123 Mr. Price. I am requested to state that Avhen the Com- mittee of the Vestry called upon the Bishop last summer, he told them that he had written a letter advising Dr. Paimney to resign, that the clergj- of Germantown had united in a letter askino- him to withdraw his suo-o-estion, but that he had declined to do so. We ask for the production of the Bishop's letter, advising Dr. Rumney to resign. Mr. Conarroe. ISTobody knows better than my friend, Mr. iPrice, that a notice to produce must be given before the trial. There would have been no difficulty whatever about produc- ing that letter, had we known it would be called for. I did not happen to bring it with me, and it is too late to call for it now. It was agreed that this case should be closed to-day. Mr. Price. I understand then that there is no denial of the letter? Mr, Conarroe. There is no denial, whatever ; but we de- sire to state that the Bishop's first letter was written in June last, after hearing one side only, and without any notice to Dr. Pumne3^ When the Bishop was called on by Dr. Rum- ney's friends, about two weeks afterwards, he said that if he had known what he then knew, he would not have suggested a resignation. It should be especially noted that the letter we printed in the answer, is the final testimony of the Bishop after hearing both sides. We thought it would be better for the Bishop's reputation if the first letter was not alluded to here, but our friends on the other side have thought best to bring the subject in. The letter of Septem- ber 30th, is a full answer to them. Rev. Dr. Beasley. If the counsel are now readj' they will proceed with the argument. I will have to observe to the persons present that perfect silence must be maintained, and that there must be no demonstration from any person amongst the audience. If we are annoyed in that way, we shall be under the necessity of asking all who are not in im- mediate connection with this case to witlidraw from the room. ARGUxMENT OF AIR. VAIL. AIay it please TLiE BoARD : — If a longer time had been afForcled me for preparation, my remarks would have been more concise. The J3oard well knows that a concise sermon or speech requires more study and preparation than a long one. I engaged in this cause with the greatest reluctance. I removed to Germantown last April, and since that time my intercourse with the Eector of Christ Church has been of the most pleasant character. I personally have the highest regard for him. A lew weeks after my removal, I was called upon by a committee of the Rector's friends to sign a petition, asking him not to resign. I defined, and being urged, gave my reasons — that I found the Church divided by a controversy between the Rector and some of the congrega- tion — that two tickets for the Vestry had been presented at the last election, and the one opposed to the Rector had been chosen — that it was not right to ask the Rector to remain in such a state of atfairs. It was niy intention not to sign any paper for or against the Rector. Afterwards, another committee presented me the petition, recited on page 19 of the A^estry's Statement. I at first declined to sign this, but the argument was used that it was the duty of every man who had a decided opinion to express it. After carefully reading the petition and seeing that there was nothing in any part of it that could in an}^ manner reflect disagreeably on the Christian character or standing of the Rector, I signed it. I stand here to-day feeling that the cause I advocate is right, and that the peace and prosperity of the Church demand a dissolution of the connectiou between it and tlie Rector. it has been frequently said to me, that no matter how the case was presented, it was prejudged, because a maj(M'ity of the Board were of the Church party opposed to tlie Vestry. I could not believe this — the gentlemen were placed here as a Board of Reference to consider this controversy, and no matter what their party predilections may be, or what are their jiersonal feelings, they must decide it upon the allegations and proof presented to them. Woe be the day in this country if it should ever come to pass that a Demo- (127) 128 crat or lAopul^lican could not obtain justice in a civil court, because ibo judge on the bench was of an opposite political party. JSTow let us consider tlie canon under which you act, for it all turns upon its'interpretation. Let us look at its history. It is not a new canon, although many think so. It is \n substance the second and fourth canons of 1804, and is there- fore older than myself and the majority of persons in this room. The present proceedings are under and by virtue of the first five sections, and to these we confine our remarks. The General Convention of 1804 was held in the City of ^New York, from Tuesday, September 11th, to Tuesday, Sep- tember 18th. The Journal of Saturday, September 15th, states: — "A memorial was presented from the Vestry of Trinity Church, K'ewark, New Jersey, stating that a very unhappy diflference which appears to threaten the very existence of their church, subsists between the Hector and the congrega- tion of said church, and praying the Convention to devise some means for their relief." The above memorial was referred to the following com- mittee to report thereon: the Rev. Dr. Blackwell, Rev. Mr. Haskell, Rev. Mr. Brunson, Rev. Mr. Ilobart, Rev. Mr. Price, Rev. Dr. Kemp, William Ogden, Thomas Cumpston, and Richard K. Heath, Esqrs. On Monday, September 17th, the Journal states: "The Committee on the memorial from Trinity Church, Newark, New' Jersey, made report ; on motion, the report was reconmiitted to the same committee." Further, on the same day, it states: " A projiosed canon respecting difierences between ]\linis- ters and their Congregations was adopted and sent to the House of Bishops for their concurrence." The Journal of the House of Bishops states, that on the evening of the same day — " The canon respecting difierences between Ministers and their Congregations was passed with an amendment." The Journal of the House of De})utie3 states, that on the next morning, viz.: Tuesday, September 18th, the House agreed to the amendments. The same morning, the Committee on the ]\femoi'ial of Trinity Church, Newark, made the following report : 129 " The Committee on the Memorial of the Vestry of Trinity Church, Xewark, wliose re[>ort was yesterday recommitted to them, made report, that as this Ct)nvention have passed a canon })roviding for such cases as that of the A'estry of said church, the committee think it unnecessary that tliis House shoukl go into an investigation of the aii'air." This Canon so enacted was Canon IV of the Convention of 1804, and was in the following words : " Respecting differences between Ministers and their Congre- gations. "In cases of controversy^ between Ministers who now or may hereafter hold the rectorship of churciies or parishes, which controversies are of such a nature as cannot be settled by themselves, the parties, or either of them, shall make ap- plication to the Bishop of the Diocese, or, in ction to it. They make out an increase of $230.54 in the collection for 1871, over that >>f 1870. Figures are dece])tive. The books show that the collection taken up September 18th, 1870, was $473 85 " " 1871 " 54 42 making a decrease of $419.43 We are told about a controversy in the time of Mr. Atkins. The printed reply disposes of this in a few words. " If it is intended to state that the persons who now oppose Rev. Dr. 143 Rnmnoy stirred np controvorf^ies in Clirist Churcli in the time of iMr. Atkins, it is nntounded." We now come to \vliat I was sorry to see in their pamph- let, and Avliat my friends will regret hereafter— the gross personal attacks npon certain mcnd)crs of the Vestry. Com- pare the spirit of these two pam[thlets, read them for yonr- selves. I do not wish to talk much about them, fearing I may sa}^ something harsh. One gentleman is attacked in tliis pamphlet in the most bitter and malevolent spirit. ITe has been a communicant in Christ Church for nearly sixteen years — has lived in and near Germantown for a quarter of a century, is wv.W kiiown in that community, and the things tliey charge him with are things that have never been imputed to him before. He has never been charged with lying or attempted forger^^ l)efore this. In this Answer he is charged with lying, or at- tempted forgery. In this Answer he is charged with either deliberate, wilful falsehood, or attempt at forgery. It is charged in the appendix. If he had said to that person what is charged he did, he must either have told birn a de- liberate, Avilt'ul lie, which would be useless as soon as he brought the paper out for him to sign, for then it would be seen that their two names were not on, or he must have forged their names. This gentleman has never been charged with such things before. His character has always been that whatever he had to say to a mail he did not keep it in, but stated it to him plainly and positively. His character for truth has never been doubted. His word is as good as Ijis bond. But again and again they call him a Methodist. That is terrilile ; that is liorrible ; that is enough to damn him for- ever — they have rung the changes upon it all the way through. It occurs many times on ditterent pages But gentlemen, in the first place, would it be any sin for him to be a Methodist ? In the next place is it not well known that for nearly sixteen years he has been a communicant at Ciirist Church ? He has told you why he has not been con- firmed, and what his intentions are. Ho you doubt it? They sneer at the Presbyterians and Baptists, and all those miserable people who do not belong to our church. J>ut they say that the most material point in this branch of the case is, whether the complainants do represent the congregation in the fullest possible maimer. To disprove this, they tell us tliat they carefully prepared a table, which 144 they give yon on pnge 26. My friend, Mr. C, with his usual politeiie^^s, has furnished me the fignres in detail. As it was received Friday afternoon, and I have not had time to analyze it. But I find some remarkahle things in it. One lady and her daughter connt thirty. She has a boarding school. Another lady is a warm friend of the Rector, while her husband sus- tains the Vestr3^ Yet she is put down as if she were the man of the lionse, holding the pew, and her husband is counted in with her. There is the name of a gentleman who is un- married, wlio according to their own statement does not hold a pew or sitting. You have read of two single gentlemen being rolled into one, but this single gentleman is rolled out into four. My friend tells me they count all the children of a family, even the infants. In that case I count more than any of the other side, except the lady who has the boarding school and Mr. S. lie counts as nine and so do I. But away with this badinage, and let us look at the two lists. One hundred and one names are on their list, and one hundred and twenty-nine names on that of the Vestry. Now in the language of their Answer, see page 5. " Every one knows how readily signatures are obtained and how seldom docu- ments are read by signers. None are more surjirised than those signers frequently are at the use to which their signa- tures are put." No one denies that this paper was circulated in that Parish two weeks before the other was jirepared. Every one knows how iiard it is for any person to sign a paper against the clergyman of a Parish, and how much easier it is to sign one in his favor. The other side know that their paper was presented to every man, woman and child in that Parish who would sign it, or that there was any hope would do so. I have told you my own feelings when it was presented to me. You know how difficult it is for a member of a con- gregation to sign a paper asking the Rector to resign. Our gentlemen found that as they went around. And yet in spite of all that, one hundred and one names are on the paper asking him to stay, and one hundred and twenty-nine names are on the paper asking him to resign. Take off the names of tliose twenty-three [persons who all answered the two gentlemen in nearly the same way, and there are one hundred and six names left. But, gentlemen, after all, as ray friend on the other side and I talked the matter over this morning, what is it 145 whether there is a ninjoi'ity one way or the other? Taking both statements it must Ije nearl_y bahmced. The sneering at " Evangelical"' or anytliing of tliat kind, let it pass. The real questions in the case I will endeavor to sum up in a few words. I have drawn up some points which I con- sider really contain the gist of the case, which I will give you in summing up. 1. This is not the trial of the Rector upon awy charges whatever, either in his personal or ofiicial character, and cannot result canonically in any condemnation of him or anybody. The Vestry carefully avoided in their statement of the case, making or intimating any such charges. They have sought to avoid personalities and insinuations through- out. Whether they have succeeded in doing so you can judge hy reading their two pamphlets. 2. It is not a trial to decide which part}^ is rifjht in the " controversy," and to adjudge accordingly. You must decide whether there is a controversy, and whether there is a reasonable hope of a favorable termination. 3. Tiiis Board must act specifically under the Canon under and by virtue of which it has been constituted, and cannot depart from its directions to decide the " controversy " sub- mitted upon any other considerations or principles, or with a view to any other result than those prescribed by the Canon. The Canon is exclusive and imperative. 4. There is indeed a two-fold relation of rio:ht to the ques- tion. (1) Xo injustice must be done, but the Canon settles for this Jioard that what it commands is just. (2) If hard- ship be imposed upon one side by the decision, it is to be compensated by a fair imposition on the other, as has been done by all the former Boards. 5. The history and mind of the Church on the dissolution of the pastoral connection are seen in its legislation, and not in the opinion of individuals. The rights of Hectors as con- tracting parties are better secured tban those of parishes. This Board is to protect the Parish ; and yet it is composed exclusively of clergymen. If a Kector wishes to leave his Parish, all he need do is to say to them " I wish to leave," and get the consent of the Bishop. The congregation have nothing to say. But if the congregation wishes to change a Rector, they must summon a Board as tliis. 6. High and Low Church is a real difference and a sub- 10 146 stnntial 2;ronnfl of controvers'y., f'^^lj' snfiicicnt to explain its existence and violence. I have gone over this before to show you that tliere are two parties in the Church. This exphiins why there can be a bitter controversy existing in a particular Church. Men, as i!!^apoleon said, tight for an opinion. Wars have raged for mere matter of opinion. No more bitter controversies liave ever existed than those upon matters of opinion. If you shut up in the same cliurch building a Rector and Congre- gotian, or Rector and Vestry, with different views on these church questions, there must be a bitter controversy. 7. The Vestry and the Parish have been disappointed, by whom or through whom is not essentiaL The Parish has suffered i,n its peace and in its efficiency. 8. 'J'his state of things seems likely to continue, unless either the Rector leaves, or the church is revolutionized. You must come to this conclusion after reading this answer, and seeing what is said in it and the gross personal attacks. Can you doubt it? Have you a right to bid them wait for such a revolution and call it " peace." You have read Taci- tus, and know what he says as to how peace could be made in Germany. 9. The matters alleged against the Vestry or its members only go to show the incurable character of the controversy. 10. If the fault is in the Parish, then they must make amends, in case a dissolution is directed. Unless a dissolu- tion is judged necessary, the Board cannot cauouically advise or decree anything. 11. A dissolution would be for the good of both parties, and for the general good of the Church. Do you not l»elieve this, gentlemen, if there is such a feel- ing in this Church as is alleged bj' the gei\tlemen on the other side? They say only a few persons desire this change. We have shovvn you that a majority of the legal voters of the Church support the Vestry complainants, and will vote for them at the Easter election. Bishop Stevens, in his last annual charge, tells you that he considers the Vestry repre- sents the Church to all intents and purposes. I say again that a dissolution of the connection will l)c for the benefit of l)Oth parties, and for the general good of the CMiurch; not only of this Church, but of the Church at large. 12. If the Parish is wrong it will suffer more than the Rector in conserpience of a separation. 147 1^0 w, cccntlcmcn, T have told you in the heginning what were Bishop i'otter's views, please bear them in mind. Bear with me while I state to you from page 191 of his life, Avhat Bishop Howe says of liim. He states that which we all know, that which you know better than I do, how faithfully he stood b}' his clergy, and how his confidence in the Chris- tian princi[)le of an earnest minister, induced him to assume "prhni facie that if he were wrong he was so by mistake. Yet Bishop Howe \\\ this verj' book gives two letters, show- ing how severe Bishop Potter was upon the laity in a controversy with the Koctor, and yet in both these letters he says that the clergymen must resign. [Here Mr. V. read the letters on pages 191, 192 and "l93 of life of Bishop Potter.] I say that in both those cases Bishop Potter says the Vestry are clearly and entirely wrong, and yet the Hector must resign. I know that Dr. Rumney wishes to resign. I take his own words, " Had I consulted my own feelings and sensitive nature, I should long before this have sought peace and quiet by removal to some other sphere." His friends, I am sorry, advised him otherwise. N^ow, gentlemen, I leave it to you, as men of God, as judges in this cause, to say whether there is any hope of a favorable termination of this controversy, be that controversy what it may. And if not, whether yoxi think the peace of the church and its prosperity will l)e promoted by keeping- together the Rector and this Vestry. In what I have said I have endeavored not to say any- thing against the Christian character of Dr. Rumney. The Vestry have endeavored to say nothing against it. The highest aspersion his friends charge us with, is in saying that he is a High Churchman. As for the terms, that is for you to decide. You have those other cases before you in which terms have been given. The Vestry have otfered terms, which are before you. It is not right that the Rector should be asked to leave vvithout terms. A gentleman of the talents of Dr. Rumney, a gentleman of his character and standing has the whole United States before him. Christ Church, Germantown, is not the only church. He can receive a more congenial church with a more congenial set of Vestrymen. He can do the Master's work and there do it well. AEGUMEITT OF THE Rev. Mr. HARRIS. May it please the Court : Being more of a novice in this kind of speaking than my eloquent friend, Mr. Vail, I cannot hope to compete with him in producing an impression upon the court. As I am no lawyer, I can only speak upon the common-sense aspect of the case, and leave the points of law to my learned colleague. I shall try to be brief, and, so far as I can, follow step by step the points made by my learned friend who has just spoken. In the first place he states in advance what our argument will be — namely, that the union between a rector and his parish is of the indissoluble chaiacter of that between a man and his wife. I never thought of arguing thus. I do not believe thus. So that falls to the ground. My friend next asks the question — and asks it very solemnly — "Is there a controversy here?" I, for one, am not disposed to deny it. There certainlj' is a controversy. But the next question which he asks strikes me as giving the key of the whole position. " How did this controversy arise ?" This is the main point, I take it, w^hich the court has to take into consideration in deciding this case ; for I do not at all agree with my friend in his view of the case, which, as I understand him is this — that the canon simply requires the court to register its opinion that there is a controversy. No court was necessary to determine that, for it is evident on the surface. That there is a controversy we admit ; but my good fi'iend quoted just as much of the Canon as was convenient to him, and lorgot to read the rest of it. With your ^eave, I will supply his omission. You will no; ice that he sto])}»ed at that part of the second section of the Canon, which says, that ''if after hearing such allegations and proofs as the parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters shall be of opinion that there is no hope of a favorable termination of such controversy." There my friend stops ; and argues that if the court come to such an opinion, they simply give such a decision and the rector must go, and there is no help for it. (148) 149 Bat let ns see what the Canon does say. It continues where my friend left it — " and that a dissokition of the con- nection hetvveen such rector or assistant minister, and his parish or congregation, is necessary to restore the peace of the church and promote its prosperity," &c. That is a very ditferent thing from this, viz. : whether the parties in the church who have originated this controversy with the rector, are the only ones to be taken into consider- ation. It concerns the whole congregation, and not simply these discontented members of the vestry. So much for that point. My friend in the next place said that a note from Mr. Champion, and various other matters which we submitted to the court, recognize the '• Low Church " character of " Christ Church, Germantown." I don't see how that helps his case. ISTo one on our side of the case is disposed to deny that Christ Church, Germantown, is what is ordinarily known as a " Low Church." We have not thought it worth while ro dwell on that point in our "answer." We admit that Christ Church, Germantown (while it can find no authorization for so being in its char- ter), is generally recognized as " Low Church." But then we claim that the rector is a " Low Churchman ;" and we claim, and I think have shown vei'y clearly, that no proof at all has been made that the present rector is not a " Low Churchman." It is very easy to call a man a " High Church- man " or a " Ritualist," but the proof of it is another thing. We must go beyond this mere bandying of names ; and if the term " Low Church'" or " Evangelical " be taken in its fair, honest, and customary acceptation, then we say that the rector is a "Low Churchman." And, as far as Mr. Cham- pion's note is concerned, the statement that his family are thinking of taking a pew in Christ Church, shows in the most practical way that he at least considers the rector to be a " Low Churcliman." My friend next tries to invalidate our statement of what occurred in vestry meeting. Please to bear in mind that the gentlemen who are quoted in our "answer" (as making statements with reference to what took place and what did not take place at the vestry meeting), state very jiositively that such and such things did, and such and such things did not take place. To rebut this testimony you have nothing \mt vague asser- tions of not recollecting anything about it; as for instance 150 in tliG printed paper read by Mr. Vail, ^Yhore 'Mr. W. C. Houston says, "I do not recollect of saying," &c. Mr. Spencer says, "I have no recollection of ever asking Mr. Schaetfer to sign," &c. jMk. Vail. That was not about what took place in the vestry meeting. Mr. Harris. That makes no diflerence, in both cases there is only tlie mistiness of '' no recollection," to oppose to posi- tive assertion. The other side — to recur to another point attempted to be made by them — harp u}»on their own allegation that there is " no assertion " (in our " answer,") " that the rector is a Low Churchman." I beg to say in answer to this that we do, distinctly and emphatically, make that assertion, and we refer the court to the printed words. AVe did not, it is true, think it necessary to be proclaiming on every ]iage of the " answer," that " this man is d Low Churchman ;" but we do say at the close of it (p. 30). " The question is in no sense a party one. It is simply whether justice shall be aceord(»d by the majority of an ' Evangelical' vestry to one who is in every true and honest seiise of the word an '■ Evangelical ' rector ; and who stands to-day, to quote the words of his Bishop, 'free from all personal or canonical reproach, and with an unimpeached ministeral record.' " In s])ite of this, ni}^ friend, Mr. Vail, persists in saying that Dr. Rumney is not a Low Churchman, and docs not claim to be a Low Churchman, but rather carefully :»voids the im- putation of being such. To [irove this last rather singular assertion, reference is exultingly made to the correspondence between the Bishop and I)r. Rumney on this point, published on pp. 13, 14, and 15 of our " answer," the last }iart of the Bishop's letter of September 30th, 1871, being quoted — as follows: " You have assured me a2;ain and again tliat your views are unchanged from what they were when you were unani- mously elected rector of Christ Church ; that you never designed making any changes in the services or in the eccle- siastical status of that Parish ; and that your synqjathiea were with the general doctrines and })(>licy of that class of men with which Christ Church has usually been identified. liencCj having no reason to doubt the truth of these asser- 151 tions, I cannot l)ut regret the keeping up of agitation on these points as unnecessary and unwise, and as detrinioutal aUke to the peace and prosperity of your ]\T,rish," And now, mark the position taken by my friend on tlie other side. According to him, Dr. Rumney l.eing a man of truth and honor, coukl not for a moment rest under any im- putation of being a Low Churchman. He must (still accord- ing to Mr. Vail) instant!}' write a disclaimer to the Bishop; and it is Dr. Runiney's letter which (my friend seems to think) furnishes him with a ]>eg on which to liang his hat. One portion of that letter I beg leave to read. j)r. Kum- ney says (like an honorable man as he is): " To one part of that reply" (of the Bishop's) " I beg leave to allude, that in any future reference to it there may l)e no misunderstanding on the part of any. You say you have been assured by me that my sympatliies are with the general doctrines and policy of that class of men Avith which Christ Church has usually been identified. By this I understand you not to mean that I symi)athize with any who would destroy the unity of the church, or on either side disclaim or reject her authority and long-established customs and usages. Such persons, in my opinion, go contrary to what my judgment teaches me is right, and also are in conflict with what I take the liberty of presuming from his pub- lished statements, are the opinions of my Bishop. With this understanding, I can assure you that it shall be my purpose (God being my helper) to persevere in that maintenance of gospel truth, and that character of churchmanship which have hitherto marked my life, standing before you, as 3'ou say in vour letter to me, 'with uniuipeached ministerial record.'"" There! says Mr. Vail triumphantly; what do 3'ou tliink of tliat? Dr. Kunmey is not willing to be considered a Low Churchman ! I admit, that it is evident from this letter, that Dr. Rum- ney is not an " Evangelical as we Low Churchmen under- stand it," if by that is meant the being willing to remain in the church, and insist on setting at defiance the authority of the church ; but these complainants are bound (if they Avish to make out their case fairly, even upon their own chosen grounds) to disprove that the rector of Christ Church, Germantown, is a Low Churchman in the honest and' fair accc[»tatiou of that term. He is not, we freely admit, such 152 a Low Churchman as to be willing to ostracize his brethren in the ministry of the church — to say to them "You do not i:)reach 'the Gospel,' and so you cannot come into my pul- pit oi* chancel ; 'stand by thyself, I am holier than thou;' you may come as far as the threshold of my church, but further you cannot come unless it be as an liuinble listener to my exposition of a ' pure gospel;' we all owe allegiance, it is true, to the same standards, and in our ordination vow made the same promises, but you must not venture to teach my flock, for you are not ' Evangelical ' in the true sense in which I am 1" The rector is not such an " Evangelical." We admit it, gladly. When he came into residence in Gerraantown, he made up his mind that he would not taboo his brother Presbyters there, as the former rector did, but that he would meet them as brother Presbyters should be met, with- out any assumptions of superior piety or devotion to God's truth ; and in this he had the distinct sanction and advice of his Bishop, who expressed his hope " that the former policy of non-intercourse should cease." Now, Bishop Stev- ens is what is known ordinarily as a Low Churchman, or " Evangelical " if the term be preferred, and l)r. Rumney's views seem to accord with tlie Bishop's ; and if preaching " Evangelical " doctrine, conducting the church services in the way which is customary in what are known as "Evangeli- cal" churches, supporting church societies which claim the distinction of being " Evangelical," and sustaining in the whole tone of his life and conversation a status analogous to that of a majority of those known as Low Churchmen — if these things entitle a man to be fairl_y and honestly con- sidered a Low Churchman — then we claim that Dr. Eum- ney is one. And now, as to the matter of tlie " Evangelical " societies, and Dv. Rumney's alleged failure to sustain them. He has sustained them as our facts and figures prove. He has not, it is true, [)Ut his hand into his own pocket to make up deficiencies ; but he has done everything else which he could. He has had collections taken regularly, in accord- ance with the arrangements made by the vestry — arrange- ments wdiich he found in force when he came to the parish and which he has preserved unchanged. He has statedly preached to his congregation on behalf of these objects, urging them to sustain them ; and if, for ulterior pur- 153 posos of their own, certai!! persons have manipnlated their contributions so as to make it appear that the general con- tributions of the church were falHng off, is that chargeahle upon the rector? Does it show that he is unwilling to sus- tain the societies in question ? I think a very ditferent con- struction should be [)Ut upon it. Then, as to this "paralyzed condition " of the parish, which my good friend said we made so merry over — Mr. President, there is a great deal in this word " paralyzed." We meet it at the very outset of the complainants' " statement." They charge directly that the rector has " reduced this once flourishing parish to a paralyzed condition" — and the charge, directly and indi- rectly, runs all tlirough their statement. They make the charge, but they fail to bring the proof; and I think if we look at the whc^le work of the parish it will be found to be iu as active a condition as any. We have a right to make merry over the allegation of" paralysis." With regard to the number of pews and parts of pews taken, my friend attempts to invalidate our statement ; and, besides tlie inaccuracy of his own figures, triumphantly points to the fact that twenty-four pews, " which are set apart as FREE FEWS," are " not taken I" Why, sir, we took for granted that when the vestry set apart a certain number of pews to be " free pews," tliey were acting in good faith, and we did not Fuppose that we had any right to count them as among pews which could be "taken," in the ordinary sense of that word. We had too much confidence in their honor to su[)pose any such thing; and we have had exhibited to us a ground plan of the church, with a statement of members of the vestry accom- panying it, showing that with the exception of these free pews, every pew, in whole or in part, is " taken." Our statement on this point, therefore, has not been controverted. With reference to the " collections," I shall have more to say further on. Our figures have been considerably traversed, but I do not see that any real answer has been made to their exhibit. So far as the American Church Missionary Society is concerned, their statement made this afternoon that the collections were larger in 1870 than in 1871, is not to the jioint at all. They were both taken during i)r. Kunmey's rectorship, and they were both acknowledged under one authority — a report of the American Church Missionary Society. But I pass this for the present. 154 And now, Afr. PrGsiJcnt, Avitli regard to the "gross per- sonal attacks " which are charged upon us, I have only to say, that it is sometimes, owing to peculiar circumstances, difficult to avoid hurting some people's feelings by simply telling the truth. There has been no malignity, or the intention of it on our part, so far as I know. I forget the iierce word my friend used in describing the animus. In the "statement" of the complainants there had cer- tainly been a very elaborate, labored, attempt to prove that the rector had been guilty of a lie ; and any one who should read that statement without reading also the expo- sure, would be very likely to think, " Why, dear me, they might have brought a far more serious cliarge against the rector than being a High Churchman, if that thing were truel" AVhile I am on this point, I might as well tinish it, and answer the denunciations that were hurled upon us this afternoon. I ask the court to notice that on page 20 of the first "statement of the vestry of Christ Church, Germantown," Dr. Eumnej^ is reported in a certain conversation to have said, "I did," instead of " I did not." _ I did not, myself, hear the correction made at the first meeting of the court when tliat "statement" was read ; but at that" particular point I saw the rector turn to Mr. H. 11. Houston (who was sitting beside him), and say something — it appeared to me indignantly — and 1 saw one of the gentle- men on the other side go to the person who was reading the "statement" and say something to him. I did not, myself, hear what was said; but others who were present — and, it I mistake not, some members, certainly one member of the court — did hear exception to that statement, and the promise that the error should be corrected. But, at any rate, whatever may have been the understand- ing then, the facts are simply these: that in the conversation alkuled to on page 20, Dr. Runmey actually answered, "I did not ;" he did not answer " I did." If that be the case, and it is the case, then all those two or three pages, in which Dr. Kumney is held up to public scorn as being, to use the mildest term, a " tergiversationist," fall to the ground. ISow my" friend talks about "personal attacks." I should 155 like to know how j'oii can more grossly attack in a personal manner a clergyman than by trying to make him ont a liar 1 That is the plain English of it; nothing more, nothing less. Among men of the world there is always a })ractical and summary way of meeting such an insult. But a clergyman is debarred from that. He has to sit still and bear it as patiently as he can, until Iiis friends, as in this case, come before the Board, before whom the charge is spread, and contradict the lie, and, humiliating as it rjuiy be, )>rove that^ he lias been honest, and straightforward throughout. As to the personal attacks which we are charged as making, as I said al)ove,it makes some people uncomfortable to have the truth told about them. We have not gone out of our way ; we have simply stated certain facts, and these facts cannot be dis})roved. If they can, let them be dis- proved here and now. My friend tried hard to made another point against us. He charges us (and dwells feelingly u})On the charge) with "snearing" at Methodists and Baptists, and Lutherans and Presbyterians. This is a gross misunderstanding of our position. AVe in- tended to do no such thing. What we did mean to say, was simply this, that certain persons are claimed by the com- plainants as their supporters, who do not owe allegiance to the " Protestant Episcopal Church in the United states of America," in the way which her laws require ; and we claim that such persons should have no voice in the government of that church. That is all. !N^ow suppose you or I should go into a meeting of Friends — tlie most peaceable [)eople in the Avorld — and should attempt to dictate to them how they should do this, that, or the other thing, we should certainly be met with the statement: "Friend, thee has no business here, go thy way." Every organized body has its own laws, and only those who own and i)ay obedience to those laws have the full privi- leges of the body, have a right to a voice in the government of the body. I claim that there is no " sneering" in that. It is most unfair and ungenerous in my friend to attempt to put it in that light. We have a right to say if any gentleman is avowedly a Presbyterian, 30U may go into a Presbyterian church 156 and help to mnnage that church ; and we may say the same of the Alethodist, and the Bayttist, and the Lutheran, and their respective churches ; but, we have a right to add, " do not take upon you to help manage the aft'airs of the l*rotestant Episcopal Church." That is all ; and the charter of this particular church recognizes that in the most posi- tive way. It does not saj^ anything about Presbyterians, or Methodists, or Baptists, &c. ; but it does say that only those who are fully members, " lawful communicants," of the Protestant Episcopal Church shall be invested with all the rights and privileges of that church ; and we simply ]ioint out certain gentlemen who claim those rights and privileges who do not, by the terms of the charter, really possess them. There is no intention of " sneering." I would be the last man in the world to commit the 2;ross outrao;e of" sueurino;" at any man for his religious belief. JMr. Vail. I believe it. Mr. Harris. I trust that point will be considered as falTmg to the ground. I must say that it is unworthy of my friend to cast such an im[tutation upon us. He knew very well that there was no such intention on our part. And now with regard to the point which he made at the last, in his summing up, viz. : that this is not a " trial" to determine which part}' is right, but simply to determine the existence of a controversy." I beg to differ from him on that point. It is a "trial," and this ])ody is a court, because it is within tlie power of this Board of Presbyters to impose a penalty under certain circumstances. But then I do not believe (and I think the terms of the Canon bear out my assertion) — I do not believe that the Canon was simply intended in a certain formal way to enable five Presbyters of tlie church to hear that a con- troversy exists, and that, having heard it, all they could do was to say to the rector, " Here, pack up and be off with you?" I do not believe the cliurch ever intended such a thing to be the result of her legislation. I look upon this Canon as a protective, not a destructive Canon. The oppo- site view is contrary to every principle of common sense, and it is patent to the court. The court are not simply to de- termine that a controversy exists, but to go furtljor and determine answers to these questions :" Who is the guilty party, ?" " Who is the party that has been stirring up the mud?" These questions must enter into the judgment. 157 M}' friend says " no injustice must be done." I tliinkthat unless those questions are taken into consideration, great injustice cannot fail to be done. My friend is right — " no injustice must be done" under this Canon, — no injustice to the rector, or to the congregation ; for they must be taken into consideration as well as the complainants. The learned counsel on the other side gravely said some- thing this afternoon about " compensation." Mr. President, some one offered " conijiensation" — a money value — to an apostle, once, and got for an answer : " Thy money perish with thee." I think that to bring in this question of money — dollars and cents — to a gentleman, one who has been trying to do his duty, and because he has done Ids duty faithfully in obedience to the laws of his church has given offence — Heaven knows why — to certain persons who hold the laws of the church jn very light esteem — and to say : "Here, you I we do not like you; you don't suit us; what wid you take to go?" — i^augh!! — I think the answer of that apostle might very well be made in such a case — only perhaps in stronger terms. An absolute money value! Why one who goes f om a parish under such circumstances and conditions, has, how- ever innocent of wrong lie may be, a stigma aflixed to hini that money will iiot be a compensation for. But I pass that. There are one or two otlier points which may be adverted to very briefly. My friend says that the history of the mind of the church is to be seen in her legislation. I agree with him. He also says that it is the duty of this court to pro- tect the parish — I agree with him again — I believe that to be the duty of the court ; and therefore I ask it to take everything into consideration. It is not constituted simply to athrm the existence of a controversy, but it is constituted to protect. It is bound to take other matters than the mere fact of controversy into consideration. The incurable character of the controversy was another point which my friend dwelt upon. Perhaps the controversy is incurable, in one aspect of the case. There are some people who never will admit them- selves to be wrong ; and if these people choose and are allowed to remain and to continue to make trouble, the con- troversy may be " incurable." But then I think the court is bound to take that matter into consideration also, and to 158 clearly fix the blame whore it belongs, and to restrain a further continuance of strife. As for the statement that in event of a separation the parish will suiter more than the rector by such separation, it ought to be so certainly; but unfortunately it is not so in fact. All that the penalty upon the parish can amount to is the being deprived of a represen- tation in the Convention of the Diocese; no very great punish- ment, certainly ; at any rate not in Pennsylvania. I pass now to another matter. The "additional statement," as read by Mr. Vail this afternoon, says (in the middle of its first page) "The statement of the seven gentlemen is clear and distinct. The long letter of Mr. Beeknutn L*otter contains but two things — abuse of the vestry and other incorporators, and a setting forth of his personal claims." This, I presume, is intended to invalidate the force of Mr. Potter's letter. As I read that letter, it states certain facts of which he (Mr. Potter) was entirely cognizant. His statement of facts is simply directl}^ contradictory of the statement of alleged facts made by the gentleman who drew up tliat paper signed by the seven. If that be personal ahuse we cannot help it. As a matter of fact, the gentleman who drew up the paper signed by the seven, knew nothing of what he was writing about, lie was engaged at the time referred to in "starting" the Church of the Crucifixion, in Philadcl})hia, in the same way in which Mr. lleekman I'otter was "starting" Christ Church, Germantown. We simply claim that Mr. Bcekman Potter, being on the spot, was fully capable-of knowing exactly what he had done, and was en- titled to give that, early historj^ of this church in German- town. They have not disproved his assertions. At the risk of repetition, I must notice the printed state- ment (on p. 32 of their additional paper), "il'hey reiterate the charge so constantly that iteration of reply is at any rate excusable. They say " We did say ' that a very short time served to show that Dr. Humney was not an Evangelical man, as we Low Churchmen understand it, and that he was nor willing to support those Evangelical Societies which it had been the invariable practice of Christ Church to sup- 2)ort.' We do not understand from anything that has yet t)een said or alleged in the answer or otherwise, that Dr. Kunmey claims to bean Evangelical man as we Low^ Church- men understand it, or that lie sympathises in any manner 159 ■vvitli tho Low Church party, or that the colloctions for the Evaiisxx'lical Societies were made hy his special choice or desire, instead of under the direction of the vestry, given in ac- cordance with the by laws on the subject of collections in the church." I should like to know what an Evangelical man is, " as Ave Low Churchmen understand it." I can onlj^ understand it in one of two ways. One is, being a man who holds what are ordinarily called Evangelical views as opposed to distinctively High Church views; one who conducts tlie service in the way which is ordinarily used in " Evangelical" Cliurches, or Low Clinrches, if you prefer ; one Avho preaches " Evangelical" doctrines, and who supports " Evangelical" Societies. T can understand that ; and the onl}- other way in which I can understand the designation is that of a man who not only holds those views, |)reaehes those doctrines, and does those thincjs, but who also holds them, preaches tliem, and does them in an oli'ensive way, a narrow .minded way, or in a way which contravenes the legislation of the cljurch, her canons and rubrics. So far as I can see, these two classes comprise all ; and certainly Dr. Rnmney is not one of the latter class. If being one of that class is Avhat they mean by " an Evangelical as we Low Churchmen understand it," there is certainly no controversy about it. But we go further, and claim that the rector of Christ Church, Germantown, is not bound to be " an Evangelical, as Ave Low Churchmen understand it," if that is Avhat they mean by it. We say, in vicAv of his position and his OAvn statements, that he does agree Avith the general vicAvs of the Loav Church party ; and teaches as they teach, and conducts the services as they do, and supports their Avork generally. This Ave claim that he has done, and Ave have proved it. They assert that lie has not, but their assertion is not sustained l)y proof. And now, Avhat is the use of their saying that nothing has been said or alleged in the answer^or otherwise, to show that Dr. Kuniney "sympathises in any maimer Avith the Low Church party, or that the collections for the Evangehcal Societies Avere made by his especial choice or desire, instead ot under the direction of the ve^ry," &c. What is the use of this allegation ? Dr. Kunuiey Avent, a new rector, to Clirist Church. He found that arrangements had been made by the former rector IGO for certain stated collections, and that the card setting forth the order of those collections was iti nse, and regulated the times at which they were taken. No one said to him " this is all wrong," *•' you are breaking a hy-law," or the like. He received no intiniation that the vestry desired a change, and he went quietly on in the way which he found appointed when he came to the parish. We have no allegation tliat h? made a change, but only this — that his sympathies were not as ardent perhaps as they might be ; that " it was not his especial choice or desire ;"' that he did not wax very enthu- siastic about it, and go rushing up and down his parish talking about it. Such a charge is the veriest trifling. The statement that Dr. Rumney's ecclesiastical status is not in harmony with that of the general policy of Christ Church, Germantown, is too well known to be false to need denial in detail. It is not in sjmipathy with the radical men of the vestry ; but, as regards the general policy of the church, I simply meet their assertion by a denial. The complainants attempt to show, in detail, the falling off in the work of the parish, under Dr. Eumney, from its flourishino' condition under Mr. Atkins. A readino- room, they say, was in successful operation under Mr. Atkins, and no longer exists under the present rector. Why, sir, in point of fact, that reading room died under ]\Ir. Atkins's care, and was decently buried under him ! I do not su|)pose that the present rector thought it worth while to go into the ques- tion of the necessity of digging up a cor[)se and trying to galvanize it. He considered, no doubt, that the experiment had been fairly tried, and that, having been a failure, it was not necessary to have that failure a second time. The complainants say: "As to the statement that the Mission in Lehman street is fully as successful as Centre Mission, we can only reply, that, it must have been made under an entire misapprehension of the former condition and work of Centre Mission." To this I reply that said statement was made under no such " misapprehension," but with a full knowledge of all the facts of the case. The matter of the pews, which next follows in the " addi- tional" printed "statement" of the complainants, I have already alluded to, and have nothing more to say here; as is also the case with the repeated inaccuracy in their state- ment of Dr. Rumney's use of the expression " I did," instead of " I did not." 161 They say that the "note from W. C. Houston of Sept. 20th, to Dr. Kunmey, was not published in the statement, because it Avas never presented to the vestry." This seems to me to be wide of the point. ^J'here were other letters published Avhich were not presented to the vestry, if my memory serves me. I now come to this allegation of the complainants, on p. 83 of the "additional "statement," as follows; "The tabular statement of collections made on p. 29 of statement of vestry is correct. It professed to give only the average of the regular annual stated collections for certain specified objects, and not to include any special collections." JSTow, may it please the Court, if you will simply look at this, you will see that it is a very unfair statement. I hope my friend will not consider me as giving him personal abuse. Mr. Yail. Oh, no ; we are used to it. Mr. Harris. I should hke to ask what any person would imagine to be the facts of the case upon reading the tabulated statements on page 39 of the complainants book — statements, which could have and did have only this object in view, namely, to show how the church had gone down in its mis- sionary powers and interest, missionary interest in everything connected with this matter of contributions, especially con- tributions to the " Evangelical" Societies. I think that any fair minded person, upon taking up that pamphlet and looking at that tabulated statement of contri- butions, and seeing the average for five years contrasted with the contributions for the year 1871, would naturally suppose that the compUinants had in fairness given all the sums which had been contributed from the general collec- tions of the church, or from tliose individuals who were attached to tlie church, and tliat the contrast between the average of the five years and the sums given in 1871, fairly and honestly represented the exact amount of falling off ; made a fair exhibit of the " paralysis" complained of. For instance, seeing that for Foreign Missions the average annual contributions of the five years was $1,058.71, while for the year 1871, the amount was only $41.82, the ordinary fair minded reader, upon whom the impression of " paraly- sis" was intended to be produced, would not stop to say or to think, "perhaps tliey intended to exclude some particu- lar contribution or especial collections, and it is that which makes the sum for 1871 ap[)ear so small." lie would not 11 162 stop to think, "and perhaps they only counted one collection, and took no note of others."' No, sir, he would look at the $41.82 just as it was meant by these gentlemen to be looked at, as the total of contribu- tions for Foreign Missions for the year 1871, in this " par- alyzed" parish. I must confess that when I heard that tabulated statement read for the first time (as I could not then suppose such manipulation of figures possible), a hor- rible fear and dread overwhelmed me. I thought to myself: " Here have I been asked to be the advocate of this gentle- man who is charged with killing his parish, and it does certainly look, in these particulars at least, as if he had gotten it into a comatose condition, — nearly dead," And yet, sir, these gentlemen have actually done this thing, namely: they have ignored everything except one collection that was taken for Foreign Missions in the year 1871. They have ignored utterly a collection made earlier in the sariie year, and which amounted to more than $800 ; they have ignored other contributions for the same object, from the Sunday Schools, which raised the amount to more than $900 ; and they have also ignored a contribution for the same object from two persons claiming pre-eminently to represent Christ Church, Germantown, which contribution amounted to $1,100. They have actually ventured to put before you. in their printed statement, this sum of $41.82, as the total for Foreign Missions, contributed from Christ Church, Germantown, in the year 1871, and point exultingly to it as an evidence of " paralysis ;" while the official record, the " Spirit of Missions" acknowledges for that year the receipt of over $2,000! But if they claim that the special contribution of $1,100 should not be counted for 1871, we have a right to claim that such contributions shall not be counted in the average for the five years, a time during which, for ulterior purposes there was no reason for excluding special contributions from the record of the church's gifts ; which, as a matter of fact were counted in as making up that average. But whichever way they put it, it makes against them. If all contributions w^ere counted in making the average for the five years, then all contributions must be counted for 1«71 ; and from a careful study of the receipts in the "Spirit of Missions," I can tell these gentlemen that if all contributions are counted in making the average for the five years, they have not done themselves justice. Their 163 avorag'c is liiglicr tlian thoy make it ont to be ; but even then, not equal to the coiiti'il)utiou for 1871. If, on the other baud, they claim that this special con- tribution shall not be counted for 1871, then we have aright to claim that such shall not be counted as making up the average of the live years, and if such contributions be not counted, either in 1871 or for the five years, then the aver- age falls far below what they make it, and not by any means equal to the contributions tor 1871, even excluding this sum of $1,100. They may take either horn of the dilemma they choose. They have dealt with figures in the same way when con- nected with the contributions to the Episcopal Hospital. I suppose every rector knows that there is scarcely an oc- casion of collection in the church for a specific object, when there is not some person who has come unprepared to give ; and there are always some present, who, stirred up, perhaps, by the appeal of the rector for the specific object, do not put as much money as the}'- intend to give upon the plate, but who send it in a contribution afterwards. Is not that fairlj^ to be counted as a contribution from that parish ? It is not credited to any other, certainly. !Now, if we take such contributions, into consideration, as we have a right to do, the su'm contributed to the Episcopal Hospital, in 1871, from Christ Church, rises very far above the $65, as set forth in the tabulated statement, and reaches at least $397, ex- cluding Mr. ISpencer's contribution. So also of the collectious for the " Evangelical Education Society." The same principle, or want of principle, seems to run through their whole exhibit. It really seems as if in defi- ance of facts, they have been making up accounts to suit themselves, Kow, may it please the court, let us pass to another mat- ter. We find on page 34 of the " additional statement" of the complainants, read this afternoon, the following: " As to the gross personal attack upon Mr. Charles Spen- cer, we need only refer to his nearly sixteen years' connec- tion with Christ Church as a communicant. On becoming a member of the church, he was informed by its rector that his long connection with an Evangelical denomination rendered confirmation unnecessary." I should say that this was much worse for the rector 164 than for Mr. Charles Spencer. As I said before, in reference to tLis matter, we are not going into causes, we are going into facts, and certainly there was no in- tention of " sneering." Our client had been borne upon very hard, and we wished to see, as a matter of fact, what elements were engaged in this opposition. We had a right to do it ; and if it be a " personal attack," I am sorry for it. Of course, if a gentleman goes to his pastor expressing a readiness to be conlirmed, and his pastor says, '• never mind that ; it is not necessary," he would naturally take his pas- tor's word for it. But the fact remains unchanged. His pastor's unfaithfulness does not alter his ecclesiastical status ; and I can't help saying that such a pastor ought to be ashamed of himself for thus misleading an inquiring member of his flock. I hesitate very much to trespass further upon the time and patience of the Court, as the hour is growing late, and I shall leave to my colleague, Mr. Conarroe, tlie summing up of certain points upon which I could readily enlarge. It seems to me that if you take into consideration all the allegations made by the complainants against the rector, the sum and substance of them all, unsustained as they are by any proof, may be gathered from the following parable, written long ago by one w^ho has no claim, it is true, to be considered ^' an Evangelical, as we Low Churchmen under- stand it," but whose words may be profitably pondered even by such. He wrote, Mr. President, as follows : "A A\^olf meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, re- solved not to lay violent hands on him, but to tind some plea which should justify to the Lamb himself his right to eat him. He thus addressed him: 'Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me.' ' Indeed,' bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, 'I was not then born.' 'Then,' said the Wolf, 'you feed in my pasture.' 'Ko, good sir,' replied the Lamb, 'I have not yet tasted grass.' Again, said the Wolf, 'you drink of my well.' 'No,' exclaimed the Lamb, ' I never yet- drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me.' On which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying : ' Well, I wmvt remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my impu- tations.' " We look to the court to prevent this wholesale supper. ARGUMENT OF MR. CONARROE. May it please the Court: My colleague has discussed this case .so fully that I must claim your indulgence if I seem to weary you with any repetition. Unlike my friend on the other side, I am not a resident of Germantown, nor connected in anyway with the y)ari8h of Christ Church ; nor have I the advantage of knowing anything about this case, exce})t what has come to my knowledge professionally. My friend, I think, has overlooked one very important fact, namely, that the complainants must make out a sufficient case ; though perhaps, from his point of view, it is not even necessary. Indeed, I understand him to assume the posi- tion that it is not necessary to prove anything here but the mere fact that a controversy exists between the rector and a majority of the vestry of Christ Church, and that then, the fact of a controversy being ascertained, this tribunal is power- less to do aught than recommend the resignation or dis- missal of the rector, no matter what the controversy is, no matter by whom it Avas originated, or who is in fault. But in point of fact, the complainants, whom my friend represents, must prove their case, and show just grounds for a dissolution of the connection between the rector and his congregation. I do not think they have proved anything resembling a case. We might have demurred to the entire bill of complaint which has been presented before you, as wholly insufdcient to authorize any interference under the canon, in this, that the complainants set up a test of partisanship — mere partisan- ship — as a ground for a dissolution ; a test which the church at large could never recognize. The church at large could certainly never admit that kfkewarmness in supporting the interests of any " party" in the church should be a ground for turning a clergj'man away from his parish, and we might have rested here. But we felt it proper that the cause should be fully heard upon its merits, and that the complainants sliould be met on their own ground, well knowing that these allegations of the complainants could be answered and fully disproved. This we are satistied we have been able tho- roughly to do. The case of the complainants may be summed up in a very few words. (165) 166 First, they charge that Christ Church, Germantown, was organized in the interests of the " Low Church party." We admit that a large nunil)er of tliose who originally con- nected themselves with this Chnreli, and of those who have been since connected wii"h it, have been generahy chissed as Low Churchmen. But we also contend that the congre- gation at present, and the persons who support the Rev. I)r. llumney, are still to be found among those gi^neruUy known as Evangelical men, and Low Churchmen. So much on this point. Again, they charge that the Rev, Dr. Rumney was elected "unseen, unheard, unknown," upon certain representations made to the vestry by two of their number. This allegation we have fully and efiectually replied to in the answer, where it is clearly shown by the certificate of five vestry- men, who were present at the vestry meeting, that the rep- resentations, alleged iu the statement to have been made, were not made, and that certain other representations of au entirely different character were made. But iu the supple- mental statement, Mr. W. C. Houston attempts to break the force of this certificate by the very insufficient reply, " I do not recollect of saying ' I was willing to vote for any man endorsed by the Rev. Dr. Childs.' " Now, may it please the court, Mr. Houston may not recollect saying this, but five ^gentlemen testify that they do recollect his saying so. They say they can distinctly recollect the thing, and it makes no difference at all that he does not. At best his testimou}^ is merely negative proof. Positive proof always outweighs negative proof, and the weight of the evi- dence is in the proportion of five to one against Mr. Hous- ton. Under these circumstances, no one can doubt that he used the expressions, though he may have forgotten them since. You are bound to decide according to the weight of the evidence. The printed answer shows just what was said in the vestry at the time of Dr. Rumney's election, and what was not said. It was then said that he was " Evangelical in his doctrine, a conservative prayer book churchman, and not a party num." That he is now exactly what he was then de- scribed to be is the principal burdeu of the complaint before The complainants further sa}^ that " a very short time served to show that Dr. Rumney was not an Evangelical 167 man as we Low Churchmen niiderstand it," and that " he was not willing to support those Evangelical societies which it had been the invariable practice of Christ CMiurch to support. Clergymen tilled the pulpit under J)r. Rumney's auspices, in his exchanges and occasional absences, who had never before addressed the congregation of Christ Church, and who were diiterent entirely in their views from their dearly loved preachers." As to the Evangelical status of Dr. Rumney it is only necessary to refer to one letter ; that letter is from the Bishop of this Diocese. The whole case between the vestry of Christ Church and their rector was presented to the Bishop la:-t summer, and he decided in the end in favor of the rector. It is true that the Bishop first wrote advising Dr. Rumney to resign, but that was because he had then heard only one side, lie subsequently stated that if he had known all the facts which were afterwards submitted to him, he would not have written such a letter. Ilis first let'er therefore goes for naught, as nothing can fairly be called a decision which is made before hearing both sides of a case. It is not necessary to go into this matter further, and we should not go into it at all at this time, but for the fact that it has been already brought before you, unwisely I think, by the other side. The Bishop's final determina- tion is seen in his last letter, that of September 30th, 1871. In that letter he declares that Dr. Runiiiey is "free from all p)ersonal or canonical reproach," and stands before him "with an unimpeached ministerial record." But it is alleged, by the complainants that Dr. Rumney is not an Evangelical man. Does any one suppose that the Bishop of Pennsylvania — a decided Low Churchman — knowing the status of Dr. Rumney; having recommended him for this very parish ; having heard the assertions of the complainants, that they had been imposed upon and de- ceived as to his church views; would, if he believed there had been any imposition, deliberately certify that the gentle- man who had committed the imposition, or had at least become a party to it by refusing to resign, was free from all personal or canonical reproach? Ko ! The Bishop heard all the allegations which you have heard, and decided against these complainants. The complainaiits have thought fit to re-open this controversy, and to a^tply for a Board of 168 Reference under the ennon, in order to have the chance of another decision hy this tribunal. As to the clergymen who preached, the lists furnished in the appendix to the answer shows exactly the amount of damage inflicted on the complainants. The names tell their own story, and this branch of the case needs no further criticism from me. The most serious charge, however, which has been made by the complainants, is that since Dr. Rumney's rectorship in Christ Church, that "once flourishing parish" has been " reduced to a paralyzed condition." The utter groundless- ness of this charge is amply shown in the answer. My col- league has already commented on most of the points arising under this head. I may here say, that the statistics of col- lections, &c., which are set out in the answer, were prepared by us from the original printed reports of the several Evan- gelical Societies. We took the reports which covered the particular years referred to in the complainants' statement, and extracted from these reports what appeared on the face of them, and I think we extracted enough to show that the statistics of these complainants were very inaccurately made, to say the least. One of these reports was that of the Evangelical Educa- tion Society, of which Mr. W. C. Houston, one of the com- l)lainant8, was and is the Treasurer. In his report for 1871, he credits from Christ Church, Germantown, $58.95. On another page of the same report, he credits moneys received on the same day from individuals of the congregation, amountnng to $195.01. 'Now who are these individuals? They are Charles Spencer, R. S. Spencer, C. LeBoutillier and J. V\^. Lewis. In the report of the Evangelical Knowledge Society, also, the individual contributions are suppressed. They were from Charles Spencer and W. C. Houston. You cannot fail to have noticed that the very persons who have combined to withhold their contributions from the usual channels, are the same who have combined in this unjust complaint against their rector, and who claim that the col- lections have fallen off. Why, they actually have the assur- ance to say that they did not intend that their contributions "■should go to the credit of Christ Church," and that they have the right to contribute through any channels they may see fit. Undoubtedly they have, ordinarily ; but they have not the right to contribute through other than the usual 169 channels, and then clainn that " the collections are falling oif." This is too transparent a device. Their individual contributions have in previous years been counted in the general aggregate, and on every principle of fairness must be so counted now. We have answered that the complainants' figures are grossly incorrect, and that the accounting warden must have known this. We said : " The accounting warden, at least Mr. Spencer, through whose hands the moneys of the church pass, should have known whether the financial sta- tistics were or were not correct. Strangely enough, his yearly financial statements, which are carefully preserved in the vestry minutes, from 1862 to 1869, inclusive, are as care- fully omitted since 1869. And this is the gentleman who writes to Dr. Rumney, "The committee's only object is the glory of God and the good of the church." The vestry minutes are now before you ; you can readily see whether this statement is or is not correct. What is'the reply attempted on l^ehalf of the com[)lainants? Simply, that " the warden states that in no year since he became warden has he failed to present to the vestry his yearly financial statement, dulj'' audited by the proper committee. After it has been presented, it becomes the property of the vestry, and the warden is no further accountable for it. We niay add, that he has frerpiently been complimented upon the accuracy with which the accounts have been kept." This is no answer to the plain allegation that the warden's yearly statements for 1870 and 1871 are withheld from the vestry miimtes, or, at least, do not appear there. These vestry minutes were produced for our inspection, and were handed to me. Wliether the yearly statements were taken out of the books immediately before their production, or whether thej' have always been absent, I do not pretend to say. It is sufficient to know that the warden's statement appears in all the previous years from 1862 to 1869, and tliat it does not appear in the last tw^o years. It may have been presented to the vestry and duly audited, but it has been wdthheld from the minutes, from the rector, and from the rector's counsel. In view of the stress which is now sought to be laid by the complainants on the financial sta- tistics of these very years, the absence of these statements is certainly suspicious. As to the dissatisfaction in the times of the Rev. Mr. 170 Atkins, referred to on page 23 of the answer, the facts are too well known, and are too capable of proof, to require any sort of reiteration. It is notorious that the former tin.ies in this parish were far from being " unrufHed." In fact, one expression made use of by the complainants in their supple- mental statement, read this afternoon, gives the key to the difficulty Avith the former rector. They say, " we suppose every man has the right to make or withhold his benefac- tions when and where, and through what channels he sees tit, and that no other party on earth has any more right to call in question his conscientious action in doing what he will with his own, than he has to call a man to account for voting according to his conscience." N^ow, it so happens that for voting according to his con- science at a presidential election in 18G8, the former rector was required to leave the parish. Mr. Price. "Where does that appear? Mr. Oonarroe. That is a matter of public history, like the Declaration of Independence. In the complainants' supplement a letter is printed from the anonymous Miss Blank, who, in company with the other Miss Blank, undertook the work of getting signatures against the rector with so " great reluctance," but who was soon " convinced that it was a necessity ; " and who certifies that no misrepresentations were made to any of the parties called on, but that everything was done in the most amiable, and decorous, and thoroughly honest manner. Kovv, I am sorry to say anything to reflect upon any ladj^, but unfortunately for her we have the testimony of Mr. b\ Mortimer Lewis, Dr. Rumney, and twenty-three other persons, contradicting the statement in this letter. These twenty-three persons tell very plainly what representations were made in order to get their signatures. And I may add here that it is a moral impossibility that twenty-three persons, each in a different place, visited unexpectedly on the same day by two gentle- men, and clearly and distinctly giving their separate state- ments in their own words, could have been in any sort of collusion. What did they tell these two gentlemen 'i Identi- cally the same story ; and they could not well have done that unless that story was entirely and exactly true. The complainants reply to this " we have not called nor do we intend to call upon these persons to question them," and again, "it will be observed that the precise language of these 171 persons is not professed to be reported." I^otlnnG; of the kind will l)e observed, msiy it please the court ; just the conh-ary. We do profess to give substantially and exactly Avhat they each said. The notes of what was said were taken carefully at the time by Mr. F. Mortimer Lewis, and it is woiiliy of remembrance that these statements, just as printed in the appendix to the answer, were read at the vestry meeting in Se})tember last. So the complainants have had ample notice, and ample opportunity to investigate the subject had they wished. But complainants say of these persons " They pro- bably answered the questions, the precise bearing of wliich they may not have understood." Is it "prol)able" that twenty-three grown persons should be so dull of comprehen- sion that they did not know whether they were or were not in favor of their rector ? Com])]ainants again say : '' They have not been cross-examined here ; and we might reject their whole testimony." Well, who has been cross-examined here ? Nobodj^ It was agreed that the pamphlets on each side should be admitted as if testified to. It was agreed that we sliould dispense with oral testimony. If want of opportunity for cross-examination is so fatal, the complain- ants' whole case will fall to the ground, for we have had no opportunity to cross-examine any one on the other side. I do not understand the principle on wliicli it is assumed that this testimony might be rejected. I3ecause these persons might readily have been brought here ; many of the facts stated could be proved by persons now in this room. It is trifling with the court to use such an argument. The complainants again say: "But to save the time of the Board in examining the witnesses we will concede that there have been found 23 of our 129, who on being ap[)lied to by the rector in person, have, in the kindness of tlieir hearts, not had the firmness to tell him to his face that they desired him to leave the Church." That is to say, there are twenty- three persons on the other side, supporters of the comi^ain- ants, who, wdien they are inquired of by Mr. Mortimer Lewis > and the rector, have not the firmness to tell the truth! This is a fatal concession, and it reall}^ concedes the whole case as far as the list of signers asking the rector to resign is concerned. We contend that the misrepresentations proved, and now virtually admitted, vitiate the whole docu- ment. A document that is impeached in part, as you well 172 know, is impeached altogether. You cannot separate the bad and leave the good. But this original paper, asking the rector to resign, which has been repeatedly asked for by him, and which was pre- pared in August last has never been furnished to him. A copy only was given. The original has not been submitted to our inspection until this very afternoon, though these gentlemen knew perfectly well that this was to be the last meeting of this Board. All that they are now able to pro- duce is this paper which I hold in my hand. This paper contains on one sheet forty-two names, and on another four names, making a total of forty-six names. The^^ saj^ they have omitted to bring part of it! Thus the 129 names dwindle down to 46. The estimate of complainants' strength in the congregation given in the respondent's answer was based on the supposition that the signatures claimed could be produced. Forty-six names are all that are produced in evidence before you, and, as this case is now closed, no furthei" paper can be put in evidence. It will be further seen by an inspection of this original paper, that a large number of the signatures are far from being genuine ; at least they were not written by the persons themselves. In a number of cases several names appear to be written by one person. Thus, four names on the second page, are evidently written in cne hand, and with the same ink. A little further down upon this page are two names which plainly appear to have been written by the same per- son. A few lines still further down three names are written by one person. Now, in a matter so serious as the sending away of a rector from a parish like Christ Church (or any parish), is a document which is gotten up in this reckless and unfair way, and which in many cases is not even signed by the persons themselves, to be presented to this court of live Presbyters as of any authority ? Boes that paper really amount to anything at all? I submit, clearly not. This court must determine. The Hummary in the answer, showing the relative strength of the friends of the rector, and the friends of the present vestry, or rather a majority of the present vestry, was pre- pared from tables carefully compiled by Mr. H. II. Houston, rector's warden, a gentleman thoroughly competent to do such a work, and one whose word, as every one knows, is 173 beyond question. (To ]\Ir. Vail.) You do not intend to deny this on the other side ? Mr. Vail. Certainly not. Mr. Conarroe. We have based our figures upon Mr. Houston's written tables. The details were too voluminous for insertion in the answer. Credit was given to complain- ants for all the names appearing on what purported to be a copy of their paper. The original, it seems, fails to come up to the copy. But Mr. Houston gave them credit for all they claimed, and in his analysis the same rule is applied to both sides, in estimating the number of persons represented by eacli ; therefore, it is equally fair. He took the heads of families who had signed, and considered them as reiiresent- ing their children or families. He did not, as the other side seem to have done, go to the Smith family, for instance, and say let Mr. Smith sign, and Mrs. Smith sign, and then take all the seven little Smiths who can write, or can have a pen put into their hands, and let them put their names down ; and then say the Smiths count nine. And then, when Mr. Brown signs on the other side, as the head of a family, he does not omit to count Mrs. Brown and all the eight little Browns, because their names are not on the paper, and say the Browns count one. IS'o ! he counts the Smiths as nine, and the Browns as ten. It is easy to see that a mere list of names furnishes a very unreliable index to the views of the congregation, even if these names are all signed by the per- sons themselves ; which is more than can be said of those upon the complainants' paper, as I think this Board w'dl be fully convinced upon an inspection of it. The complainants have signed this paper, and their children have signed it. The rector's friends did not think it worth while to have any other than grown persons sign the letter asking him to remain. This is the reason why the one hundred and one names on the rector's paper represent a much larger part of the congregation than is represented by the one hundred and twenty-nine names on the opposition paper, twenty-three of which names, by the way, are now admitted to have no right there. Ihe complainants have therefore entirely failed to make good their assertion that "they represent the con- gregation in the fullest possible manner," and it will be noticed that the canon speaks of the pastoral connection as being between the rector and his parish or congregation. But the complainants present another paper for the cou- 174 siclerntion of this Board, and, if they do not represent a ma- jorit}^ of the congregation, they chiini to represent a majority of the voters of two j'ears' standing. They say nothing ahout pew owners for less than two years, who are equally entitled to 3'our consideration. The IStarement says : "Let these gentlemen remember that the highest number of votes is fifty-nine, then let them listen to this paper, which pledges a full majority of these voters to choose at the coming Easter election, a vestry which shall stand agains^ Dr. Rumney, not nine to three, but twelve to none!" Well, what is the language of the paper ? " We, the undersigned, who will be legal voters for vestrymen of Christ Church, Germantown, at the next Easter election hereby declare our determination to vote for a vestry who shall be in harmony with the action of the present vestry, inasmuch as we believe the principles of the present vestry are in accord with those upon which the church Avas originall}'' established." There is nothing in this paper about l)r. Rumney ; nothing about "• twelve to none ;" nothing whatever to prevent any signer of it from voting for Messrs. 11. H. Houston, Kingston and Pchaefter, members of the present vestry and friends of the rector. Now, as to some of the signers of this peculiar document, which certifies the result of the election in advance, Robert B. Dunning is a Presbyterian, and does not attend Christ Church ; II. W. lleiskell is a Presbyterian, and does not at- tend Christ Church ; and Charles P. Bayard is also a Presby- terian, and does not attend Christ Church ; while George Nugent is a Baptist (an elder, at that), and does not attend Christ Church. The charter of the church provides that no one shall vote for vestrymen who is not a member of said cliurch, and a member who refuses " conforn;iity" is expressly disqualified from voting. We have set out this article of the charter in full in the answer. It certainly is far from modest or becoming, therefore, for these persons to assert that they will vote, and how they will vote. Their prefer- ences are at least entitled to no respect from this tribunal, I know the language of the charter has been frequently strained to a great extent ; but I do not think it has ever been strained to the extent attempted here. A man certainly cannot be a Baptist Elder and a member of the Episcopal Church at the same time, and there is no religious body in the land which would tolerate such officious interference. 175 It is ,1 seniulal that such a question should ovon he ari^necl. That a inemher ot' another religions hody, who does not be- Heve the doctrines of the Episcopal Clmrch, nor conform to them, can come to vote at a vestry election with the avowed purpose of driving a rector away on doctrinal or any other grounds, is a monstrous proposition and a glaring impro- ])ricty. Even Avith these unlawful voters the complainants can only claim thirty-two out of iifty-nine. But my friend, Mr. Vail, accuses us of sneering at Presby- terians, and Baptists, and Methodists. I concur with my colleague in saying that we desire to do no such thing. I have many worthy friends among each, but those bodies are not on trial here. What we do "contend for is that Metho- dists and Baptists have no right to govern tbe Episcopal Church, or to have any share in its government, so long as they remain Methodists and Baptists. If they come into the Church well and good. They have the same legal right to their opinions that we have to ours. We do not dispute their right to govern their own religious organizations in their own way. It is certainly not too mucli to ask from them what they undoubtedly expect from us. They would readily, and very properly, resent any interference on our part with the status of their ministers. And I may add here that I do not think there is a religious body in the land in which the position of a minister is held to be dependent on the will of a majority of a board of trustees, or body analogous to our vestries. The Congregationalists hive the loosest notions of the ministerial tie^ and even among them a majority of the congregation is required to dissolve the connection. Among the" Presbyterians, I understand, the majority of the congregation, or even the whole congrega- tion, cannot dismiss without the consent of the Presbytery. While I am upon this subject, as Mr. Charles Spencer has been referred to as a consistent communicant of Christ church for sixteen years, though unconfirmed, and it has been thought altogether slanderous to call him a Metho- dist, I will quote from a document which will throw some light on the matter. I hold in my hand the Eifth Annual Kcport of the " Church Extension Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church," with a liandsome wood cut of the church at Broad and Arch streets, upon the cover. Tliis report contains a^ list of the otHcers and managers for 1871, the very year in which Christ Church is said to have been so 176 paralyzed. In the list of "laympn" who are mana2;era of this society, I find the name of Charles Spencer. The con- stitution of this Society requires that these managers shall all be "members of the Methodist Episcopal Church." Mr. Spencer is sufficiently a Methodist to be one of the managers of this Society. I do not think it exactly fair, therefore, tc say that it is a slanderous accusation to call him a Methodist . I do not say that he is any worse for being a Methodist. It is better to be a straighttbrward Methodist than a disloyal " Episcopalian." Whether he is an inconsistent Methodist or an inconsistent Episcopalian, I will not pretend to settle. - There are several other ])oints in the complainants' case which may be briefly referred to. In their supplement read this afternoon, they say, "The present vestry have never repudiated any of the doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but are faithful adlierents thereto, and propose so to continue. Should they be called u[)on to select another rector, they hereby' declare that they would endeavor to elect one whose loyalty to its doctrines and discipline cannot be doubted." Part of this declaration may be true, in one sense. The present vestry, as a vestry, nmy never have repudiated any of the doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church. But do the complainants mean to say that no member of the vestry has ever repudiated any of tlie doctrines of the (Jhurch ? The " statement " before this Board was prepared or signed by four members of the vestry. It is "endorsed" by live others. The first endorser — to use a technical expres- sion — is Mr. Thomas H. Powers. Mr. Thomas H. Powers is the proprietor of a " religious " paper miscalled the " Episco- palian." Has that paper ever re[)udiated the doctrines of the Episcopal Church ? I leave the question for this Board to decide. I think it is very well known that that })aper has done all it could to abuse and misrepresent the Episcopal Church, and the distinctive doctrines and formulary of the Church. It is a matter of notorious and regretful comment. That newspaper speaks the views of its proprietor. Some time ago a paper was gotten up which a nnml)cr of misguided gentlemen signed. It was a testimonial of sym- pathy to a person in Chicago, Mr. Cheney, whose princq^al distinction was that he was a law-bi-eaker, and iiad been convicted of brcakins: the law of the Church. Amu no- the 177 pi2:ncrs of that testimonial may be found Air. Thomas 11. I'owers and Mr. W. C. Houston. How the signing of that testimonial can be reconciled with the statement that the complainants have never repudiated anj' of the doctrines of the Episcopal Church, I cannot see. And these are the gen- tlemen who pledge themselves, if you will only give them the chance to elect another rector, to elect one whose '■• loyalty " to the Church cannot be doubted ! Whether tliey would have any difficulty in electing a new rector may perhaps be inferred from the fact that, when they last had a rector to elect, twenty-five clergymen wei-e nominated, nine vestry meetings were held, innumerable ballots were had, and out of the whole number, as the vestry minutes show, they could only agree upon the Rev. Mr. Langford, and the Rev. Dr. Rumney. The Rev. Mr. Langford declined. The Rev. Dr. Rumney came. It would be a dangerous experi- ment to agitate this vestry with another election. The last piece of testimony to which I will refer was submitted to-day in the sup})lcmental answer. It is there shown that when the collection was taken up in Christ Church, in November last, for the purpose of meeting the customary yearly deficiency in the revenues of the church — these gentlemen, who are complainants here, and who would liave you believe that they are the principal supporters of the church, and without whom it would immediately go to ruin, contributed less than §42 out of the total sum of $1,042, which was then collected. One thousand dollars was con- tributed by the friends of the rector — and tliis furnishes tolerably satisfactory proof that the rectors' friends are in the majority. It would be lamentable to suppose that the complainants, if they represent the congregation, as they say, in the fullest possible manner, should only be able to contrib- ute the sum of forty-two dollars towards the deficiency in the expenses of the "sanctuary" for whose custody they contend so ardently 1 Why, it is only an average of four dollars and sixty-six cents to each of these wealthy complain- ants, and there is no sort of proof that they even gave that. We are only conceding it, for argument's sake, and I think we show very clearly that the support of the Church can scarcely be said to depend on the complainants. The greater part of the trouble in the present case, and in similar cases, arises from a total misconception of the powers and rights of vestries. Instead of bein<>; content with their 12 ITS leo;itimatG flutics, in pnpervising the temporal affairs of the parish, some vestrymen are actually inclined to think that the vestry may organize itself into a sort of court to ti-y the real or supposed delinquencies of the rector. They reverse the relative positions of teacher and taught, This is evidently the idea of the complainants. They say "it began to be discovered that the vestry did not govern the Church." It would be unfortunate if they did. llow and where did they get any authority to govern it? Their business is simply to manage the temporal ati'airs of the parish. Webster delines vestry to be " a committee chosen an- nually by the parish, who, in conjunction with the church wardens, manage its temporal concerns." Judge Iloifman quotes from Lord Stowell to show that the office of church warden (which is higher than that of mere vestryman) " is an office of observation and com|)laint, but not of control with respect to divine worship." That " if the minister introduces any irregularity into the service they have no authority to interfere, but may complain to the ordi- nary." Law of Church, 268. This does not look like " gov- erning the Church." They may complain to the ordinary. In this case they have so complained. Their complaint was held groundless. A rector holds his office during good behavior. The doc- trine that because the body which elects or appoints may therefore dismiss, will not stand the test of investigation. A Diocesan Convention elects a Bishop, but cannot dismiss him. When our judges were appointed (during good behav- ior) b}^ the governor, the power of appointniont did not im])ly the power to dismiss. The first canon on the subject of " Differences between ministers and their congregations," was, like many other bad laws, passed to meet a particular case. The case pro- vided for was that of Dr. Ogden, of JSTewark, New Jersey, wdiere the ground of difference was " a tendency to doctrines and practices inconsistent with the principles and rules of the Churcli, an overbearing conduct, and an assumption of control in temporals." The last was a direct intrusion upon the domain of the vestry. Bishop AVhite said of it, " the canon deserves the name of a necessary, but it is hoped only a temporary evil. The apprehension of the abuses of it have l)een verified." The Bishop questioned its principle on the ' ground that there should be no severance from a pastoral 179 charge except ns the result of a trial for alleged misconrluct which is, "-most agreeable to the idea of exalting law aljove will." Iloff. L. 0. 322. The coinphiiiiants here wish to re- verse this principle and exalt will al)Ove law. This canon of l.'S04 was followed by a canon of 1808, which imposed a penalty for the dismissal of a minister with- out the concurrence of the ecclesiastical authorities. The imposition of such a penalty, as is well settled, plainly im- plies that the act itself is unlawful, and does not mean that the penalty is merely a price to be paid for the doing of the wrong. Alitchell v. Smith, 1 Binney, 119; Bartlew v. Vinor, Carthew, 25. To the twenty-ninth canon of 1808 was added a clause peculiarly applicable to the present subject: "It is understood that the church designs not to express an appro- bation of any laws which make the station of a minister dependent on anything else than his own soundness in the faith, or worthy conduct." Ilotfinan's L. C. 322, The canons of 1804: and 1808 on this subject were substan- tially the same as the thirty-fourth of 1832, which was as follows : " In cases of controversy between ministers who now or hereafter may hold the rectorship of churches or parishes, and the vestry or congregation of such churches or parishes, which controversies are of such a nature as cannot be settled hy themselves, the parties, or either of them, shall make ap- plication to the Bishop of the diocese, or in case there be no Bishop, to the convention of the same. " If it appear to the Bishop and a majority of the Presby- ters convened, after a summons of the whole belonging to the diocese, or if there be no Bishop, to the convention, or the standing committee of the diocese (if the authority should be committed to them by the convention), that the controversy has proceeded such lengths as to preclude all hopes of its favorable termination, and that a dissolution of the connec- tion which exists between them is indispensably necessary to restore the peace and promote the prosperity of the church, the Bishop and his said Presbyters, or if there be no Bishop, the convention of the standing committee, if the authority should be committed to them by the convention, shall recommend to such ministers to relinquish their titles to the rectorships on such cc^nditions as may appear reasonable and proper. " If such rectors or congregations refuse to com])ly with 180 such recomrnen flat ion, the Bishop and his Preshy tors for the convention or standiuo- eoniniittee, if anthorized, with the aid and consent of a Bisliop), nia^', at their discretion, pro- ceed according to the canons of the church to sus})end the former from the exercise of ai\y ministerial duties within the diocese or State, and prohibit the latter from a seat in the convention, until tViey retract such refusal and submit to the terms of the recommendation ; and any minister so suspended shall not be permitted, during his suspension, to exercise any ministerial duties in any other diocese or State." This canon was repealed in 1859, and from that time until 1871 there was no canon to supply its place. In 1871, Canon 4, Title II. was amended, and the pi'ovisions of the canon of 1832 were re-enacted with some modilications. The follow- ing is the second section of the amended canon under which this Board of Bresbj'ters is now convened : " II. The five Presbyters thus designated, shall constitute a Board of Reference to consider such controversy, and if after hearing such allegations and proofs as the parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters- shall be of opinion that there is no hope of a favorable termination of such contro- versy, and that a dissolution of the connection between such rector or assistant minister and his parish or congregation is necessary to restore the peace of the church and promote its prosperity, such Presbyters shall recommend to the Bishop that sucli minister shall be required to relinquish his connection with such church or parish, on such conditions as may appear to them proper and reasonable." Under this amended canon, the five Presbyters have full jurisdiction to ascertain : 1. What the controversy is. 2. Whether the alleged complaints are true. 3. If true whether they are such as to " warrant an inter- ference under this canon." 4. Who is the party in fault. 5. Who is the party applying for relief, and if a vestry, whether that vestrj- truly re[)resents the congregation. (J. And lastly. Whether (if the controversy is irreconcil- able) under a full consideration of the whole case, there is just ground for a dissolution of the pastoral connection, " between such rector or assistant minister and his parish, 181 or congregation," as necossarj to restore the peace of the church and promote its pros[)erity. Any less than this would make this tril)nnal the veriest mockery of justice. To contend, as these complainants con- tend, that the court has nothing to do with the causes which led to the diiferences, or with the merits of the ease, but is merely to ascertain whether there are difterences, and whether the complainants say they will not be reconciled, and then that the court is powerless to do anything but de- cree a dissolution, is to contend for a direct reversal of the most fundamental principles of law and equity. To state this monstrous proposition, is to show its unfairness and its absurdity. I. "What the controversy is, appears by the complainants' statement, and the respondent's answer. II. Are the alleged complaints true? If they are not, the case of the complainants falls. At the conclusion of their " statement" they expressly say (p. 29), "• our narrative is now concluded, and you have the case before you. We have followed the history of the church down to the present time, in order that you may understand fully, on what grounds we desire the dissolution of the pastoral relation between Dr. Rumney and the parish of Christ Church, seeing that we prefer no charge against Dr. Kumney of any specitic default as rector, we have attempted to show that the church was founded for, and had always been, an Evangeli- cal Church, that Dr. Kumncy was elected under a misappre- hension and misconception, both of his views on church politics, and of the opinion of his nominators." Whether these complaints are true, it remains for this board to decide. III. If true, are they such complaints as warrant an inter- ference under this canon ? It is submitted that they are not. Defective partisanship cannot be just ground for a dissolution of the pastoral connection. IV. From the testimony produced, this Board of presby- ters can decide who are the parties in fault. V. The "parties applying for relief" under this canon are a majority of the present vestry, and this tribunal is to 182 decide whether they have shown that the}' faithfully repre- sent the eongregatiou. The second section of this canon sn_ys, that if a majority of the Presbyters shall be of the opinion, -(fee., that a disso- lution of the connection between such rector or assistant minister and his parish or congregation is necessary, &e. How are the Presbyters to ascertain whether such a dissolu- tion is necessary without having explicit proof of tlie wishes of at least a majority of the congregation ? The complain- ants admit the force of this, in their ••' statement," when they claim that the " vestry (meaning their portimi of it) rep- resents the congregation in the fullest possible manner." If they do not, how can the Board of Presbyters decide that a dissolution is necessary? The vestry may inaugurate these proceedings, it is true, but the final question to be passed upon by the Presbyters is whether a " dissolution of the con- nection between such rector or assistant minister and his parish or congregation (not tlie vestry) is necessary to restore the peace of the church (not of the vestry) ''and promote its prosperity" (not the prosperity of the vestry). The rela- tion between tlie minister and his congregation is permanent. He is called the rector of the parish. The vestry are simply transient oiiicers elected annually. Accidental circumstanc;es, or a trifling majority of half a dozen votes on a false issue, may retain them in office a year or two after they have ceased to represent the real constituency of the congregation. They are but acting in a representative flduciary capacity, and should be held in a case like this to the strictest good faith. But it may be argued that the vestry need only represent the pewholders of "two years' standing." But the canon does not provide for such a narrow interpretation. The monstrous modern inicpiity of property in pews, is not taken into account, and when the church has used the broad word congregation in this es[)ecial canon, it caimot with any candor be urged that the voice of the congregation is only to be ex- pressed according to the forniul.ie of a joint-stock corpora- tion. VI. Lastly, this Board of Presbyters must decide (if they find the controversy irreconcilable) whether upon a full consideration of the merits of the whole case, there is just ground for a dissolution of the pastoral connection between sucli rector or assistant minister and his parish or congrega- 183 tion, and that such dissolution "is necessary to restore the peace of the church and promote its prosperity," and herein the peace of the whole church may well be considered. My friend, Mr. Vail, has quoted very freely from Bishop Alonzo Potter, a Bisliop for whose memory 1 always enter- tain the sincerest respect. It strikes me, however, as a little strange that the complainants, when enumerating the " higidy esteemed fathers of the church," who have pro- mulgated Evangelical views to their satisfaction, should lefer to Bishops AJcilvaine and Bedell, of Ohio, Johns, of Virginia, Lee, of Delaware, and Eastburn, of Massachusetts, but not to Bishop Alonzo Potter. Tiiey did not refer to hirn as one of their highly esteemed fathers. Mr. Price. I suppose that was because he was not living. Mr. Conarroe. They refer in the same paragraph to the Rev. Dudley A. Tyng. lie is not living. lie died before Bishop Potter, if I am not mistaken. Well, the complainants now quote from ji letter of Bishop Potter, advising a rector to resign. We do not know the circumstances of this rector's case, but it would seem to have been a ease where money matters, principally, were in- volved. As the complainants have neglected to quote from their esteemed father. Bishop Eastburn, we will talce the liberty of quoting from him. The case of the Kev. W. P. Pickman, decided by Bishop Eastburn in 1805, is directly iti point here. The principle of that case is exactly the principle of the present case. Xhe " proprietors," as they are called, of St. Peter's Church, iSalem, Massachusetts, were dissatisfied with their rector, and at their annual parish meeting thev- [>assed a resolution that the interests of the parish would be best subserved by a termination of the con- nection between them and their rector. This resolution was passed by a vote of thirty-four yeas to lifteen iiays. The rector replied that the proprietors, while assailing him privately, had refused as a body to bring any charges, by meeting which he could defend himself, and that in his opinion, a termination of the connection would materially injure the interests of the parish and of the rector. Tiie " proprietors " at a subsequent meeting, disclaimed any in- tention of imputing to the rector any wrong, and by a vote of thirt3'-seven to eiolit, requested his resignation. The rector declined to resign. The " proprietors " then de- clared the pastoral relation dissolved, and appointed a com- 184 mittee to npply at once to the Bisliop for liis concurrence in guch dissolution. Tlie language used by these " projirietors" is almost identi- cal with that used by the present complainants. Tlie com- plainants saj', " we have no fault to iind with Dr. Rumney. jS'one at all. He is a very amial)le man, and we all love him." This was their feeling when they went about elec- tioneering for a ticket pledged to turn liim out ! " We have no specific ground of com[)laint. AVo have the greatest atFection for him — at a distance. We are all law-abiding, peaceful men, faithful adherents of the Protestant Episcopal Church — so long as we have our own way." In Mr. Pickman's case, Bishop Eastburn decided in favor of the rector, saying that the proprietors in one of their resolutions had declared that they had "no purpose of cast- ing any im[)Uta':ion upon the character of their rector in any of his relations as a man, a clerg3Mnan, or a Christian." I understand the case here to be similar, and that the com- plainants do not undertake to cast any imputation upon the character of their rector in any of his relations. If 1 am wrong I would like to know it now. Mr. Vail. We do not, most emphatically. Mr. Conarrob. Bishop Eastburn concludes thus: "This being the statement of the proprietors in regard to the Rev. Mr. Pickman, I feel that I should do a great act of injustice to him, by concurring with the action of the proprietors. I therefore decline so doing." If the example of this esteemed father in the church had been followed in Pennsylvania this Board need never have been convened. His decision is a much later authority than the decision in Dr. Jarvis' case, cited by our friends on the other side. The fact that the amended canon of 1871, was not in force makes no differ- ence at all. The canon is 8ul)stantially the same as that of 1804 and 1832, exce[)t as to the Cv)mposition of the tribunal. That only four cas(>s, since If^OI, can be found where a disso- lution has been recommended under the canon is pretty con- clusive evidence that it does not furnish the short and easy method of getting rid of a rector which the complainants Avould have you believe. The powei-8 of vestries were stronger, if anything, in 1865 than now under this Can(ni, according to the views of the gentlemen who were delegates to the last General Con- vention. The " proprietors" or pew owners of ISt. Peter's, 185 Salom, v\'ere not a small minority. Tlie\- were a lnr2;e ma- jority ; 37 to 9. They requested the rector to resi