The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-08-15

idea of adherence to the Church South
at the date OF the deed; and by the
further fact that II is not even claim
ed by the parties, or any of them, that
there ever was any attempt TO change
the ecclesiastical connection from the
church North to the church South, be-
fore 1861, when it is said the thing was
first inaugurated in the Conference at
Staunton, and only claimed to have
been completed by controverted Con-
ference atAlexandria in 1866. Concedlng
them all that could possibly be claimed
to legitimate the attempted change OF
ecclesiastical connection from one or
RuniZaLion to the other, on the part or
the LewiAburg station or congregation,
and suppose it border station, ana In
1866, in pursuance of the action OF the
Alexandria Conference, took action by
a vote of the congregation called by the
minister of the NJ. f. Church, right
fully having that church in charge,
and upon due notice, and after full and
fair consideration ofthe whole subject,
large and decided majority OF the
members resolved TO cut their connec-
tion with the NJ. E. Church North, and
unite with and adhere to the Church
South from thenceforth. and conformed
their action to this resOlYe, could that
have the effect to change the ecclesias-
tical relations and connections 0t the
minority in the same maneri without
their consent, and against their Will ?
Such would undoubtedly be the case
II the act were authorized by the plan
OF separation adopted by the General
Conference in 1874, but would moi be
the fact If not SO authorized. And this
depends upon the fact whether that
plan OF separation is to continue open
and existing for action and counter
action by border stations, and ever
shifting borders for all time past and
future, or whether action once taken
Is final, and the period for such action,
ia q reasonable time, after the plan of
separation was adopted and executed?
Upon this point II is most manifest
that the plan of separation was plan
of paaca, to end strife. And the rela-
tions of the conferences, churches, sta
tions, and societies along the defined
and specified border, being once settled
by the choice OF those authorized so to
act, by adhering to the one side or the
other, was tnal and conclusive, and
could never after be changed, or coun-
plan and authority. Nor was 1t con-
templated to keep the question open TO
be shifting from side to side, from time
to time, as one side or the other may
have a majority. Such construc-
ton would be to defeat the
acknowledgements The dissensions
among the people, and make confusion
worse confounded. Upon no hyPothe-
sis, then. could the action of any por-
tion of the members, whether small or
great, influential, or not so, male or te-
male, black or white, of the Lewis
burg Church change the ecclesiastical
connection OF that church though re-
duced to minority, from its former
relations and connection with the NJ.
E. Church to the NJ. F.. Church
South; neither could it thereby
in anyWise whatever, change or af-
feet the property held in trust for the
use of such congregation. The action
(if any has been taken) united with and
adhering to the Church South, could
only affect the parties SO acting. They
have the power to join " whatever church
they please, however 1t may be in dis
regard of the rules and constitution OF
the church TO which they may have
formerly belonged, but they cannot by
so doing affect the rights OF others, nor
divert the use OF property held in trust
for particular and specified purpose,
to another and different purpose, or
use.
The conclusion, therefore, is, that the
particular congregation at LewisburgI
having been church in common with
the NJ. K. Church, and having never
changed that connection under the
plan of 1874, to the Church South, still
continues a church in its original con-
nection, and is the same church, ana IN
the same church connection, as mem
toned and described in the deed of
trust In question. And the proper au-
thorities of said church having applied
for, and obtained the removal of the
appellants, and the appointment and
substitution ofthe appellees as trustees
in said deed for the uses therein men
toned, there has been no injustice done
to any one, nor is there error in the
Judgment com planned of,
The judgment, therefore, of the Cir:
cult Court of Greenbrier county should
be affirmed, with costs and damages to
the appellees.