Sameiningin - 01.03.1912, Side 18

14
was reached after the Church withdrew was not conclusive on the
defendants. But the Synod found that the defendants had departed
from the doctrines set forth in the Constitution of the Church, and I
accept that finding' as very persuasive evidence, tending to establish
the correctness of plaintiffs’ contention. I find that the doctrine of
plenary inspiration of the Bible was one of the fundamental doctrines
of Thingvaila Congregation when organized, and I find that the Con-
stitution of the Church presupposes, if it does not directly express,
that doctrine. Defendants admit that they do not aecept the theory
of plenary inspiration. In a resolution adopted June 5, 1910, the
defendants said respecting the doctrine of inspiration of the Bible:
“The Congregation denies that the religious consciousness of the in-
dividual has not the right to choose and reject in the consideration
of Holy Scripture, and the right necessarily implies power to de-
cide.”----------Whether this doctrine be that of partial inspiration,
or of personal inspiration (as one eminent clergyman who testified
for defendants preferred to call it), is wholly immaterial; that doc-
trine certainly is materially different from the doctrine of plenary in-
spiration. I therefore hold that the defendants have materially de-
parted from the faith of the Church which it held when organized,
and from the doctrine of the Church embodied in its Constitution.
The property in question was deeded to certain named persons
as trustees of Thingvalla Congrgation, and to their successors for-
ever. The land was donated by the owner. There was no express
trust attached to the conveyance. The funds for building the Church
were contributed by the members of the Congregation. On the former
hearing I held that a trust would be implied. This theory is vigor-
ously attacked by defendants’ attorneys, but I still adhere to that
view. I conceive it to be a sound legal proposition to affirm that
where property is conveyed to trustees of a religious society for the
use of that society a trust will be implied to the effect that such
property shall be used by those whose doctrines, tenets and faith
harmonize with the doctrines, tenets and faith of the members when
the property was acquired and to which it was originally devoted,
unless there is something in the fundamental law of the society or
proceedings of the members acquiesced in by all members requiring
a different conclusion. The Constitution of the Church by which
the members of the Chureh are governed expressly provided as
above quoted: “If a division occurs in the Congregation, the prop-
erty shall belong to such portion as adheres to this Constitution.”
Assume that I am in error in declaring the existence of an Im-
plied trust, the Constitution, the fundamental law of the Church, ac-
complishes the same result as though a trust were expressed or im-
plied, for I find that the Constitution presupposes the doctrine of
plenary inspiration.
Now it shouid be distinctly understood that I am dealing in this
case solely with the property interests of the Church. I am not at-
tempting to adjudicate whether the doctrine of plenary inspiration
of the Bible is true or false, or whether or not it is approved by the
better scholarship of to-day. The evidence satisfies me that the
doetrine of plenary inspiration of the Bible was a fundamental doc-
trine of this Church when organized and that such doctrine is at
least presupposed by the Constitution of the Church.
Defendants' counsel strenuously contend that, inasmuch as
Thingvalla Congregation, or Thingvalla Dutheran Church as it has
been called since its incorporation, is an independent organization,
in no way connected with superior ecclesiastical authority, the majo»