German Reformed Church v. Seibert
| Decision Date | 29 June 1846 |
| Citation | 3 Pa. 282 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | The GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH <I>v.</I> THE COMMONWEALTH Ex rel. SEIBERT. |
How is this rule to be construed? The fourth gives the consistory an unqualified right to expel. In what manner then shall the congregation consent? The fair construction of the article is this: the consistory has full power to expel, and that expulsion is binding unless revoked by the congregation. It requires no formal or public assent from the congregation, but remains in full force unless revoked. The silence of the congregation gives tacit assent, and the only way the congregation can be required to take notice, would be on a complaint made by the expelled. The congregation, upon hearing his grievances, could restore him, or could give an express approval of his expulsion; which action of the congregation would then be a fair subject of an appeal to the classis, and thence to the synod. This was Seibert's remedy; the action of the consistory was right, and is in force until annulled in the manner stated. Seibert has not pursued his remedy.
The consistory had, however, other grounds to act upon, and other authority to warrant their action. He was charged with other offences which subjected him to expulsion. The seventh rule gives ample authority to the consistory, and it is under that rule his expulsion took place.
The restraining provisions of the fifth rule cannot apply to the seventh. The authority given the consistory in the seventh is positive, unqualified, absolute. The fifth rule can therefore only apply to expulsion for minor offences. Besides, the relation in which he stands to the congregation would prevent his voting at an election, even if his expulsion were irregular. The rules of the congregation require, that a man should be a Christian and a moral man to entitle him to vote. It is manifest that he does not bear that character in the congregation, and therefore could not vote. Admitting, therefore, that his expulsion be irregular, this mandamus could not restore him his vote.
Again, if this mandamus be worth any thing to him, it must restore him to all his rights and privileges as a member of that congregation. Could he, with it in his hand, force the pastor to administer to him the Lord's supper, when, by doing so, that pastor would have to violate his own conscience, and the rule and discipline of his church? Then it could not restore him to all his rights and privileges, and yet if it be worth any thing, it must be good in all respects. What does all this prove? That Jacob Seibert has seen proper to subject himself and his conduct to the scrutiny of a jurisdiction of his own choosing, and cannot come into a civil court to seek a redress which no civil court has in its power to give him.
Ulrich, for relator.—The principal objections to the proceedings in this case, as set forth in the alleged answer of the corporation, are particularly noticed in the replication of the relator, Jacob Seibert.
The first irregularity to be noticed is, the deficiency of the respondent's answer and rejoinder. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyles v. Roberts
...the civil courts must take the decisions of the ecclesiastical courts as final and binding upon the parties. * * * In German Reformed Church v. Seibert, 3 Pa. 291, it is said by the court: `The decisions of ecclesiastical courts, like every other judicial tribunal, are final, as they are th......
-
Kedroff v. St Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church In North America, 3
...Synod of Kansas and Adjacent States, 10 Cir., 135 F.2d 701. Cf. Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Mon., Ky., 481; German Reformed Church v. Commonwealth ex rel. Seibert, 3 Pa. 282. 17 'One or two propositions which seem to admit of no controversy are proper to be noticed in this connection. 1. Both......
-
Connor v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia
...[its] review of the authorities than in the language of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of German Reformed Church v. [Commonwealth ex rel.] Seibert," 3 Pa. 282, 3 Barr. 282, 291 The decisions of ecclesiastical courts, like every other judicial tribunal, are final, as they are......
-
Russie v. Brazzell
...Reformed Church, 54 N.Y. 551; Church v. Halverson, 42 Minn. 503; Landis v. Campbell, 79 Mo. 433; Church v. Church, 23 Iowa 567; Church v. Seibert, 3 Pa. St. 291; State rel. v. Farris, 45 Mo. 184; Stack v. O'Hara, 90 Pa. St. 477; Schlichter v. Keiter, 156 Pa. St. 119, 144. (9) A legislative ......