Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1880-03-10

the Mitfiintowu congregation in elecsing and
calling Pastor to and for said corporation,
yet their application has been refused and
assistance IN that behalf has bten denied
and withheld by the congregation of Milf
nintown, and they are now, and have been
since the aforesaid resignation of the Rev.
Sherrard, without Pastoral ministration,
and their rightful enjoyment of public re-
ligious worship"
As to the matter of the charter, permit
me to recite the history of the church from
the days of the earliest organization of the
church within the limits of the congrega-
tions now in controversy.
Mr.. Patterson went into minute history
of Cedar Spring church, from the days of
the Glebe land patent to the present time,
which will furnish frst-class data for true
history of the church in tins vicinity. Mr..
Patterson argued from the history which he
recited that the late action of Presbytery,
and the other Ecclesiastical courts did not
change the action of 20 years of the pco-
pie who were working under the charter.
There has been no departure in the usages,
in the practice, and spirit under which the
congregation understood the charter.
The financial part, or history OF the con-
gregations was recited. The manner of the
distribution of the money obtained from the
Glebe land was pointed out, and very many
other financial transactions were mentioned
from the books of the churches, from which
was deduced that the churches in their man.
agement were careful TO distribute the
finances upon each end respectively. How
can Lost Creek claim interest IN a three
by John Harris, and in part the grave-y yard
was bought from other parties by the Milf
iiintown congregation. There is no such a
case like this in the books, and the acts OF
those who applied for the charter and fol
many years governed the church under il
are the best interpreters of the spirit and
letter of the instrument. II was Away:
held to be for the use Of both ends. The
| officers, rreasurers and trustees were for the
common use. See 5th section of plaintiffs
bill. The allegation in the section is hard
TO sustain. do not see how it can be sus-
tanned. The solution depends upon the de.
cision of the Ecclesiastical court. Mitiiir
congregation was not alone interested
Agitation of division was agitated in 1871
a notice was read IN Miffin congregation
from the pulpit in 1872, asking for division
/ Ii set forth:
LIST. We are no longer one congregation
except so far us we are made such by oul
charter.
End. Each part of the congregation i:
amply able 10 sustain Pastor.
3rd. The field is entirely too large to bt
successfully cultivated by one minister.
4th. The interests of the Masters king
dom demands it.
The notice was signed By eleven meu
bers of the Miffiin congregation, and wa.
the cause of meeting being held by tn,
Lost Creek congregation to take action OF
the question.
From the preliminary meetings, Mr.. Pat
terson followed the proceedings in the case
of separation through the several Ecclesi
astical bodies up to the time when the Bill
in Equity was framed and issued. From
the actions thus had he concluded thai
Lost Creek understood the movement il
the light of a separation, and not as a Sc
cession movement.
1t is well established principle that al
| Ecclesiastical court should be the bes
judge of the action OF the church and it:
powers Read records on this point
Presbytery has power to make a division
on the petition Of a majority or on the peti
tiOn of a minority, when notice has beer
notice was served upon both parties. Ha:
there been a violation of chartered rights
| To certain degree. Certain members oi
Lost Greek participated in the preliminary
steps locking to separation, prominent
among whom are Mr.. Doty and Mr.. North
They also worshipped with the Miffiin peo'
pie, and by reason of this conduct they
sanctioned the work of separation, and they
should be estOpped from coming in here tC
complain. He spoke Of the order of preach
ing in the old order of things.
The question of abandonment. There
was nothing to show that the Mifiiin con.
gregstion thought of abandoning the church
property after the storm On the contrary
there is evidence IN abundance that the
question of abandonment was not thought
showed that the building was not in prop.
erly safe condition, and the Miffiin congre-
CATION were justiiable in leaving the build.
| ing. There is nothing TO show that when
the storm came along and unroofed the
building that the thought of abandonment
had ever been entertained.
Mr.. Barnett's argument is based on the
assumption that this people had seeded
All the evidence cited from the books by
him shows that a schism existed to a GER
tain degree that is what they say. 1t has
not been shown that schism exists here.
If the people of the congregation could
live so long under the charter, where is the
suffering to complain of? Where is the in
jury ! If the action complained of is not
outside of church rules and regulations,
where is the just thing to complain off II
it is not schism, it should be dismissed.
SPEECH OF EZRA d. PARKER, ESQ.
Ezra d. Parker, of this place, next ad-
dressed the Master on the same side with
Mr.. Patterson-on the side of the defend
ants.
He expressed great admiration for the
speech of Mr.. Barnett, and asked Mr..
Sponsler, who expected to follow on the
same side with Mr.. Barnett, whether he
would touch on the question of church
abandonment. He realized that the case is
near an end, and that the Masters tribula-
tiOn is about to begin.
The rights under the law; rights of the
charter; rights of the rules of the church,
are to be considered. The application of
authorities cited by Mr.. Barnett would be
like pouring oil on the troubled waters-like