Simply, basis article 7 renumbered to 5.4 reads

"Any property or funds owned by a church, charge, circuit or congregation at the time of the union solely for its own benefit, or vested in trustees for the sole benefit of such church, charge, circuit or congregation, and not for the denomination of which the said church, charge, circuit or congregation formed a part, shall not be affected by the legislation giving effect to the union or by any legislation of The United Church without the consent of the church, charge, circuit or congregation for which such property is held in trust."

i. the words "for the sole use and benefit of the said congregation" are repeated in the Model Trust Deeds used by the Presbyterian Church in Canada [Rules AND Forms of Procedure IN THE CHURCH COURTS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA, Toronto, The Westminister Co., Limited 1909, pp. 128, 130, 132, 138], leaving no question of how property was held "at the time of the union";

ii. the provisions are very specific, "shall not be affected by the legislation giving effect to the union or by any legislation of The United Church without the consent of the church, charge, circuit or congregation for which such property is held in trust", disqualifying both "the legislation giving effect to the union" [The United Church of Canada Act] and "any legislation of The United Church" [the Manual, first published March 24th, 1928 {yb/rop 1928 p. 156} including later provision "to make rulings on questions of jurisdiction or interpretation with respect to all matters of the Polity, procedures, and practice of the United Church" {bylaw section 513(f)}], from affecting property or funds so held;

iii. estoppel

"... a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself";

precludes the only Manual authorized person from interpreting United Church of Canada v. Anderson as authority per "...based on my interpretation of church polity as set out in The Manual" and "...matters of civil law are beyond my role as General Secretary"; and

precludes the United Church of Canada from disputing the static disposition of property having similarly refused status to appeal, where property is not directly affected by

static disposition; question of static disposition being ultra vires; the future implications of static disposition;

iv. decisions are two edged swords, cutting both ways, leaving the question of property with different rules than those of appeal ...straightforward and quite simple.