Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1881-03-30

Church, Is recognized ecclesis stically, its
eau upon the superior judicatories are
heard, and itself is represented according
to the Presbyterian form OF. government.
III The petitioning body had undertaken to
Withdraw without the sanction of the Pres
ovteryj its action would have been disor-
Derry, irregular and scbismatic, and the
penalty would be excisien. Although the
expression in Chap. X, VIII, is, that
fresbytery has power to unite,
or divide congregations, at the request of
the people, it is clear that theAcxpression
Porer is used in the sense of permit and
approved, and that on its own motion Pres
byrery can do neither. When division of
a congregation is sanctioned BY Presbytery,
II Is the voluntary act of the petitioning
BODY, and the former has no power to shield
the latter from the legal consequences of
such separation. The civil law takes up
the matter al that point, and determines for
itseli the legal effect of division, on what
before was common property. II the origi-
nal organization is corporation, IFS rights
are to be discovered in the instrument which
conters perpetual succession. What that
gives inheres in those who continue TO act
10 conformity TO its req Iirements. What
ever rights are conferred by the approval of
Presbytery on the petitioners for division,
they are available only so far as they may
be enjoyed without impairing those of the
corporation. Wherever there is conflict,
the charter prevails. 1t is settled that
whilst the civil courts cannot revise, or
question ordinary acts of church discipline,
they must determine all questions which
arise from the conflicting claims of the
parties to the church property, and the use
of it. When civil right depends upon an
ecclesiastical matter, it is the civil court,
and not the ecclesiastical, which is to de-
eide. McGinnis VS.. Watson, Wright, 81
Shannon VS.. Froot, Ben Monro Den VS..
Bolton, Halstead 206; Harmon VS.. Dreck-
er, Spcer's Eg., 81; Watson VS.. Farris, |
As MISC, !s5 Ger. Ref. Oh. vs. Siebert, |
Barr, POI.
Now, what rights are conferred by the |
charter upon the corporations, for what |
ever are secured by that instrument are in- |
violsble, and beyond the reach of the eccle- |
sasticai tribunals. Well, il does this. |
namely, the congregations of Miffiin and |
Lost Greek are united as one corporation |
under the title of the Presbyterian Congre-
CATION of Cedar Spring, and however dis
tinct and individuated as congreg cations,
they are unit as a corporation, with one
ser of trustees, and bounded TO the mainte-
nance OF a minister common to both. That
minister's salary was to be secured from the
pew rents of the whole corporate property,
and not from } part only. 1t is charged
upon The whole body of corporators, and
each congregation is entitled to the aid of
the other in the discharge of the common
burden. These were the advantages and
benefits conferred by the charter, and they
are valuable rights in the eye of the law.
If any corporator, or any portion of the
whole body OF corporators, is deprived of
the revenues of the church property, or the
strength resulting in unity is diminished,
something is taken or withheld which is
in the sense Of property under the
charter, and this would be disturbance of
corporate rights. Ii would be supereroga
tion TO show, that if the Miffiin congrega-
tion is permitted 10 appropriate a minister
to themselves, and sequester the pew rents
Of the Mifilin church edifice 20 pay his sal
ary, something will be taken from the Lost
Creek congregation which belongs to them
the mere statement OF the case shows
how serious would be the loss to the latter.
The whole purpose of the act of incorpora-
ton would be annulled the administration
Of the joint revenues would be misapphed,
in short it would be revolution. The Lost
Creek people would be deprived of their
right of property in pew rents of
the Mifilin church editice, erected at the
oint expense of both branches, and ont of
corporate funds-whIlst the MifIiin people
rould take the whole unto themseIyes-for
y HOtf CT i ciltlilCu 10 ECuAs- lIOntS Z
income of realty, without Limitation, owns
The fee.
1t is contended that the design of the
superior judicatories was simply to divide
tie people composing the Cedar Spring
without affecting rights of
property. and it is manifest that the Gen
sral Assembly hoped that this had been ac-
But neither tribunal under
.ook 10 assure the petitioners of this. They
we're sensible, that whilst they could sane
ion a division of the people, the rights Of
would be left to the determination
If the civil courts. hence they said, the
oipt property is left tor future adjustment.
IN the Presbytercal committee, appointed
20 execute the ecclesiastical DEGREES, was
Mr.. Woods, of Lewistown. an eminent
urist, who instantly perceived the risk to
property if new congregation was organ
here. Then it was argued that to divide
vas not to create anew, and thus all dan
yer to property would be avoided-but to
d.
iivIde is TO part, TO separate, to sunder, TO
ever. The name is nothing-the results
ell the character of the deed-things which
ire equal to the same thing are equal to
.ach other. Ii the effect has been TO abridge
corporate rights, cut off one branch of the {
from the other, impair or de-
eat the material advantages of union under
he charter, The decd is done. Call it by
my name You please-the mischief is the
anne.
Let it be understood-we do not impeach /
he authority of Presbytery TO divide con-
simply deal with title to 4
property as affected by division. When the
warm leaves, the skep remains TO the pa |
ent hive, and this seems the natural law OF I
secession. The Miifiin people have author t
ty to set Up an independent organization, ,