Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1881-04-20

;,r extracts from prHA' -. q
l.s ain themselves. The gentleman 70
whom lnes s;.c-stion. Ed.
NcCo,svrLLE, April IL, 1881.
vn,s SIR: | write this at late hour
tonight.
-, sorry to hear, from His Honor and
-. that some OF the Chapel people
,I,im the decision in their favor The
,-,,s,, opion;ou and decree are altogether
.s,or Of Lost Greek. ANY man reading
NJ. uo,or's clear opinion, if he seeks the
III cannot fail to perceive this. There
,-.,.;,;velv no room for two opinions about
80 This know from the clesr logic
., The composition and HIS HOncr's declar-
atom. in personal conversation, as well.
7. .,-uck me, on FIRST reading the opinion
,,nd have it nc; by zne now, and do not
srs,k positivelyl that having decided that
pre.bvtery could aot divide the congresa-
.;on. or Lost Greek and Mifiiiatown, which
,..-a legally united, what was called a
d;,;.;on. was not SO, but might be taken as
.cyiy.Ient to a Rew organization. As 1t was
~, point before the court TO decide wheth-
., those w.rshipping in the chapel had a
-,gulsr church organization, the court did
No: decide that question. The PreSbytery
sppear TO have doubt about the rectitude of
,b,ir own action. They ttViis, bur do not
s;.;d,. If they really divide the congrega-
,;ons why does not an equitable division of
,-operty 20 with theml II it was airi-
,;,- Nifiln was as much entitled TO the
u-ersrtv at Lost Creek Is Lost Creek could
he TO that of Mitiiin. II it was division,
!, follows thst you were as truly s member
pf the chapel church as any other individ-
nal. But If was not division Presby-
,ery has no power to repeal or ennul a civil
law. Pre>oyr@ry may supervise their owa
acts. not the acts OF civil ccurt. Presby-
tery had no more power TO divide these two
ronrregstions than 10 decree a divorce, or
separare man and wife. All admit that
Presbytery had power 10 organise new
congregation out Of part OF an old one.
Wha. pity the petitioners had not adhered
10 their original design instead OF seeking
division.
Le, US now look a. some of the difficult
ties in the case:
l. Presbytery has no right To divide con-
g-ezatisns without heir consent. The con-
gregstiou- in this case die BOT give then
coussnt. as tas congregation OF Lost Greek
Rlihh ID hers, aud. l rhIHk, vas not asked
20 give II, consequently the act of Presby-
tzry ugs roid as a division, but may be valid
a. a separate organization.
2 That the congregation at MitiiinioSn
and the congregation al Lost Creek, although
composing one and the same church, (the
Cedar Spring Church,) were separate and
distinct congregations already, and could
net be divided as such. The power coz
1
tons has reference TO united congregations,
wOrshipping in the same place 1t would
be too much TO say that congregations in
this case meant churches
8. That these two separate congregations
composed one and the same church and was
chartered as such by the name of the Cedar
Spring Church; and by that charter each
bad certain specified duties to perform to
itself and 10 the other, over which Presby-
tery had no control. P.esbyte-y cannot an
nul or repeal civil law, nor even alter IT.
Those duties were not imposed upon them
BY the church organization, nor by Presby-
tery, but by the charter granted them at
their OWE request. While that charter re-
mains III force, any (even two or ,hree) ad-
herring 10 il, can req uire its fuifillnent. This
does not deprive any or all from going out,
bat in going out, they leave the charter and
all its benefits or advantages behind
1. The positions taken by Lost Creek are
entirely sustained by the court, unless this
be an exception, the legal organization of
the church worshipplng in The chapel. This
may be saved by the clause in the organi-
Iation (or diFision) which declares that it
is not TO interfere with the rights of prop
-rty. That is, il is to be an organization or
adFision, as circumstances may require.
This is really the best Interpretation we can
put upon it. 1t was certainly a biuuder in
Presbytery (or its committee) to divide,
when they were simply asked and sent TO
organize.
.. There is another difficulty in the way.
The Cedar Spring Church had its existence
before the charter was granted, and was
chartered as such. Il is not in the power
Of Presbytery TO destroy it as a chartered
church. They may disown it; they may
drop It's name from their book or their rec.
ord, but it still viii exist as a legal corpo-
ration, with the right .sto sue aud be sued"
NOW, as Judgment has been obtained
against the church nov worshipping IN the
chapel, it follows that the Cedar Spring
church can By law recover rent for their
property while used by the church now wor-
shipping in the chapel. The legal right TO
all the property belonging TO the Cedar
Spring Church, at the time of what is called
The division, adheres to those who are now
ihi' viii &c true whether you go to the
chapel, or the chapel comes to you.
Now let ine speak plainly. Naboth's
vineyard is toe convenient sometimes. This
whole difficulty comes through covetous-
ness The church worshipping in the chapel
conceived they had the right to the house
al Mifiilntown. They may have had the
moral right. if this De possible where there