The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-06-23

aI ITOm their proper, anu PIeIeIl0"' anu
historic connection with the Presbytery OF
Florida.
8. They could not worship where loyalty
to Caesar was made test of loyalty to
Christ.
These protestant5 having brought the case
before the Pre8bytery of Florida, the Rev.
W. B. Telford was, by the Committee Of
Domestic Missions, under the authority of
Presbytery, appointed to visit the church
and effect, as far as possible, a reconciliation
of the parties at variance. Being denied the
use of the church, he assembled the party
adhering to the Presbytery of Florida in
the Methodist church, which had been kind
ly offered for their use. After due notice
given from the pulpit of the Methodist
church by Mr.. Telford, the congregation as
sembled on the first and twentieth of July,
1867, and unanimously elected to the elder
ship of this church the undersigned, viz:
John I. Gilehrist, James Nj. Baker, and
John Cardy, who were subsequently in
stalled in the usual and regular manner.
As the withdrawal of the protesting mem
bers, under the circumstances, could not,
and did not, affect their right and title to the
property of the church, or, at least, fair
proportion of it, they determined to appeal
to the civil law for itsSahscMery from the
possession of those ~ by an unjust
and arbitrary authority. Some time after
the meeting above mentioned took place,
the elder and leaders of the disaffected party
claimed and affirmed that the church had
been placed under the jurisdiction of the
Central Presbytery of Philadelphia, how or
when we are not informed. The church
building and parsonage were claimed and
held as in connection with and under the
jurisdiction of the same body. 1t was well
and universally known that this church has
been in organic union with the Presbytery
of Florida every since the erection of that
body; yet when the disafected party estab-
ished relations with the Central Presbytery
of Philadelphia, that body complacently re-
ceived and authorized the use of the church
property without any examination of the
mode by which the pretended transference
of the property to its care and jurisdiction
was effected, and without any reference at
all to the Presbytery or connection with
which the church property has always been
held. e
Under these circumstances no alternative
was left US but to appeal to the civil law.
The case was brought and tried in the Court
of Chancery, and after hearing by the
Chancellor, dismissed upon the ground that
it did not properly come within his jurisdic-
ton, and that the redress of the plaintiffs
was to be sought in the court of common
law. This disposition of the case was made
in the spring of 1868. In the following
fall the Presbytery met at Jacksonville for
the expressed purpose of reconciling the
difficulty in the church. Their overtures
looking to that end were received and an
swered in a way that put an end at once to
all hope of settling the difficulty npon fair
and amicable basis.
The effort made by the Presbytery to ad-
just the difference having thus failed, no al
tentative was left US but to go for redress
where the Chancellor above mentioned re
ferred us, viz: The court of. common law.
Still, however, unwilling to proceed to this
extreme, we determined for righteousness
sake to make a final effort to compromise
| the matter.
Receiving from some of the less extreme
members of the disafected and seeding
party assurance of disposition on the part
of many in their congregation to settle the
matter by division of the propesty, we
opened correspondence with their Board of
Trustees, requesting a committee of confer
ence to meet one similarly appointed by our
Board Our request was complied with, and
the two committees met at an appointed
time, discussed with much frankness, fair
ness and good feeling propositions looking
to division of the property; and at length
the committee of the "Northern Branch"
retired with request from our committee
to call meeting of their congregation and
lay before it a proposition they were au
thorized to make, offering them the choice
of the church or parsonage The PROPOSE
ton was defeated by the refusal of the ell
ders of their church to call meeting of
their congregation. We are, therefore,
driven to appeal to the civil law, necessity
which we most sincerely deplore, and which
we have made every reasonable effort to
avoid.
We believe that if the Central Presbytery
of Philadelphia, under whose protection
and authority the disafected party are act
ing, would give the matter that calm, fair
and unpreiudiced attention and investigation
which Christian magnanimity and charity
would seem to demand, they would in all
Justice refer the matter to the Presbytery of
Florida, to which it properly belongs, or at
least direct and require those who profess
adherence to them to build upon grounds
that are more honorable, legal and constitu
tional. JOHN T. GILCHRIsT,
JAMES NJ. BAKER,
JOHN CARDY,
Session of the Church of Jacksonville.
Mr.. DeVeaux.-It is very late, but l
would ike to give brief history of what
has been done. have been acting as
Stated Supply. When l went there found
the congregation very much scattered, but
having rented hall. The United States
Marshal was then tryiAsto secure the use
of it for the United States Court, and we
hoped that if the Court secured it, we could
have it on the Sabbath. The plan failed.
We secured it for Sabbath. But soon a
theatrical company got the use of it, and
compelled us to make change. And We
changed to the Young Mems Debating Hall.
This hall is open to temperance lectures
during the week, and to the Historical So
ciety. Below the room is a restaurant, and
our Sabbath service is often interrupted by
the clatter of dishes. Shall we not then
make some efforts to secure house fitted
for our worship without interruptions2 |
have been advised to appeal to our churches