Kniskern v. Lutheran Churches of St. John's & St. Peter's

Before entering upon the points of difference between the parties in this unhappy controversy, I will state briefly the history of the churches in question, and advert to the principles on which courts of equity exercise their jurisdiction in such cases.

First. These churches, together with that in Cobleskill, were in existence as one church as early as the year 1787, and were probably organized many years before. They doubtless had their origin in the emigration, in the early part of the eighteenth century, from the Palatinate in Germany. Dr. Schmucker, in his Retrospect of Lutheranism in the United States, (page 11, &c.) says, that one hundred and fifty families

On the 9th of March, 1789, one hundred and fifty acres of land at New-Durlach were conveyed in fee by the Rev. Mr. Sommer and others to three persons as trustees of the church by its name before mentioned, and as expressed in the deed, “ for the common use and benefit of the said Lutheran Congregation forever.”

A church edifice was built at New-Rhinebeck, about the year 1798, and one at New-Durlach the next year, by private subscriptions and donations of the members of the congregation who worshipped at those places, and by other means. It appears that the latter was dedicated about the year 1800. In 1799, the branch of the congregation worshipping at New-Rhinebeck, became incorporated under the statute of 1784, by the name of “ The Ministers and Trustees of the Lutheran Church in Rhine; beck.” And in 1808, the branch of the congregation which worshipped at New-Durlach, became incorporated under the statute of 1801, by the name of “ The Trustees of the Evan; “ gelical Lutheran Church of St. John’s, at Durlach, in Sharon.” The remaining part of the original Lutheran church of Cobleskill and New-Durlach, was incorporated as a separate church at Cobleskill, and does not enter into this litigation,

The land which was bestowed upon the parent congregation, in 1789, was divided in the year 1808, the Cobleskill church taking fifty acres in severalty, and the two churches at New; Durlach and Rhinebeck retaining the residue in commpn.

From that time to the present, the two latter churches, although distinct corporations and societies, have held these lands, with some other property acquired by similar donations, as a common fund for the support of the gospel in their congregations ; and have united in the employment and payment

These churches were first attached to the New-York Ministerium, an association or synod of Lutheran churches in this state and its vicinity, formed in 1796. It does not appear when the two churches first became connected with that body, but it was prior to 1820. Mr. Moeller was their pastor from about the year 1806, till 1821 or 1822. 1 Mr. Crownse succeeded him in 1823; and the defendant, Wieting, succeeded the latter in 1828. Mr. Wieting’s engagement was renewed for ten years in 1833. Both Mr. Crownse and. Mr. Wieting were licensed and ordained to preach by the New-York Ministerium, and all the pastors of the two united churches were ordained and installed as Evangelical Lutheran clergymen. A General Synod of Lutheran Churches in the United States was organized in 1820, and the New-York Ministerium afterwards united with the General Synod, but I do not learn from the testimony that it was while these churches were a part of that synod. And most of the Lutheran synods in the United States, were subsequently attached to and made a part of the General Synod.

In 1830, the Hartwick Synod was formed out of the New-York Ministerium, and these churches became a part of that synod, by the general assent of the two congregations, and without any objection, so far as it appears. In 1831, the Hart-wick Synod united itself with the General Synod of Lutherans in the United States ; (these churches then forming a part of that synod,) and adopted the Formula and Discipline established by the General Synod. Mr. Wieting, as pastor of these churches, participated in the organization of the Hartwick Synod, and its anion with the General Synod, and continued in connection with them until 1837.

The two churches in question, under the control and direction of the defendants, continue their connection with the Franckean Synod. The complainants, who are members of these churches, and one of them a trustee, adhere to the Hart-wick Synod.

Second. I will next speak of the principles which govern courts of equity in cases of this kind.

They proceed on the ground of a trust; and their aim is to ascertain its scope and objects and to enforce its proper and faithful administration. The jurisdiction is environed with greater difficulties than that over the ordinary private trusts which come under our review, by reason of the uncertainty which frequently prevails, as to the precise objects and intentions of the donor. The inquiry often arises after a great lapse of time, when no living witness can inform the conscience of the court, and when its search for truth must be made in history, and in the controversial writings of contemporaries of the donors. The course of the administration of the trust, and its alleged perversion, are also frequently shrouded in mystery and involved in the subtleties of polemics and theology. Still the court is bound to exercise its control over these charitable funds, as well as over the less difficult class of private trusts.

The law on this subject was so fully and ably investigated by

The principles of these and the kindred authorities have been sustained in various other cases in this country, such as Field v. Field, ( 9 Wend. 401 ;) St. Mary’s Church case, (7 S. & Rawle, 539;) The Presbyterian Church v. Johnston, ( 1 Watts & S. 1 ;) Denn. ex dem. De Mott v. Bolton, (7 Halsted’s R., N. J. 205;) Bowden v. M'Leod, (1 Edw. Ch. R. 591.)

In the case of .Lady Hewley’s Charity, which has been reported at large since the opinion of my predecessor was pronounced in the German Reformed Church suit, (Attorney General v. Shore, 7 Simon’s R. 309, note, and 11 id. 592; and in the House of Lords, reported by the name of Shore v. Wilson, in 9 Clark & Fin. 355; 5 Scott’s New R. 958; 11 Simons, 615, note; and 7 London Jurist R. 781;) these questions have again been most elaborately examined, and the principles of the Attorney General v. Pearson, fully confirmed and established.

The case itself is highly instructive in reference to another branch of this investigation. Here it will suffice to say, that the relators claimed, (and so it was adjudged,) that the charity was created for the benefit of Protestant dissenters who believed in the doctrine of the Trinity ; that a majority of the trustees for several year's before the information1 was filed, professed Unitarian opinions, although they called themselves Presbyterians ; and that they had applied a considerable portion of the rents in the education and support of-Unitarian preachers, and for the benefit of other persons of that denomination. By the decree of the vice-chancellor,' (Sir Lancelot Shadwell,) persons professing Unitarian opinions were excluded from participating in the benefit or administration of the charity.

The appeal from his decree was argued before Lord Brougham while chancellor, assisted by two common law judges, but he resigned the great seal before giving judgment. It was then argued before Lord Lyndhurst, chancellor, assisted by Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Patteson. On their opinion, concurring with his own, Lord Lyndhurst affirmed the decree. The case was then appealed to the House of Lords, and the

The only adjudged case which I have met with that expresses a contrary doctrine on the subject of these trusts, is that of the Trustees of the Organ Meeting House v. Seaford, ( 1 Dev. Eq. Rep. 453 , North Carolina.) And it so happens, that that was a Lutheran church. There the property was conveyed to the corporation, and as the report says, the deed specified no particular purpose to which it was to be appropriated. The minority claiming to be trustees, filed a bill in the name of the corporation, charging the defendants, also claiming to be trustees, with a violation of their trust, in this that they had attached the church to a synod, and excluded ministers from it who were regularly ordained. It appeared that the defendants were duly elected, and were, in fact, the true representatives of the corporation; which of itself was sufficient ground to dismiss the bill filed in the name of the corporation, although it was not urged. Judge Hall, in delivering his opinion, lays great stress upon the fact, that it did not appear that the grantor of the land was a Lutheran, and that there was no condition or purpose expressed. And the decision is put upon that ground. He also says, what no one can deny, that in a corporation, the will of the majority must govern, in the use and disposition of property held by it absolutely. And he declares his opinion to be, that it is not for the court to decide whether the parties or the church have strayed from the tfue faith, or introduced errors into the church government; and that it might be more than difficult to qualify any earthly tribunal to decide it.

So far as the point adjudged in the Organ Meeting House v. Seaford is concerned, it does not bear upon the principle under discussion. The opinion there expressed cannot weigh much against the well considered decisions to the contrary, especially as it will he seen that the judge was speaking of a tribunal to decide which faith was the true one in reference to the

It suffices to say, that no judge will probably be willing to sit in the decision of a suit in which he is interested, and the possibility of its occurrence is not a sound reason for refusing to exercise a well settled and important jurisdiction.

Another of the learned counsel, at the hearing, submitted that the principle could never be maintained in this country, by which certain religious creeds, stereotyped fifty or sixty years ago, were to control the disposition of charities for all time to come. That where property was acquired by an incorporated church, for the use of that church, without restrictive words or a limitation to a particular faith or doctrine; it might be appropriated to the use of the church, by a majority of its members for the time being, in any form that they pleased, and that they might change their tenets, and Carry the property with them. And he argued that the maintenance of a contrary doctrine in Europe, had led to an universal .governmental proscription there, in order to sweep away the property and estates held for ob-' noxious trusts, whenever there was a change in the religion of the state.

It would be unjust to attribute to a principle of law, thé acts of rapacity and persecution referred to by the counsel; acts of despotic power, or of governments trampling upon their own laws, as well as all notions of morality, justice and natural right. Nor should we argue that such consequences can ever ensue in a country like ours, where the rights of property are so steadily maintained, and where the government by its fundamental law, is inhibited from adopting or maintaining any one creed or form of religion. The argument itself that a majority for the timeffieing, can mould to their own notions, the principles sustained by the gifts of the founders of the charity, and can substitute other principles or cardinal doctrines in their stead; cannot be tolerated for a moment.

It strikes at the root of all religious, charitable, and even literary gifts and bequests ; which are to endure beyond the lives

Let it once be understood to be the law of the land, that funds bestowed for the maintenance of a Protestant Church, may with the change of faith of the members, at any time, be applied to the support of the Roman Catholic forms of worship and religious, doctrines; or that a devise for the support of disabled seamen, may in the wisdom of trustees for the time being, be used to educate young mariners for the better discharge of their duties; and we shall hear no more of the munificent eleemosynary donations, which so much distinguish and adorn-our country. No Randall will endow another noble charity for the worn out sons of the ocean. No Warren or Rogers will bestow her property,, to build churches for the ministration of the gospel to the poor and needy of our populous cities.

A more just and righteous principle animates our law. ££ When a gift of property is made for the service and worship of Almighty God, the thing to be regarded is, what were the religious tenets in general of the donors. Because it would not be a just application of those trust funds, if they were employed for the sustentation of religious opinions which the donors themselves would have disavowed,” (Per Vice-Chancellor Shad-well in Attorney General v. Pearson, 7 Simons, 306.) And where the gift, as in the instance before me, was for the use and support of a particular description of Christians, the thing to be regarded, is what were the tenets of that denomination '!■

If a different rule is to be established in reference to these trusts, it must be by the intervention of the sovereign power. The effort is making in England in the bill entitled “ An act for the regulation of suits relating to meeting houses, and other property held for religious purposes, by persons dissenting from the united church of England and Ireland,” now pending in Parliament. This effort was occasioned by the final overthrow

Thirdly. I now come to the points in issue between the parties.

The complainants allege that the memorable confession or declaration, presented to the Diet of Augsburgh on the 25th day of June, 1530, by the Protestant princes and cities of Germany, and. which has ever since been known as the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, has from that time been observed, regarded and adopted by the Lutheran Church, as containing the fundamental principles of the faith of that church, and that it is the Confession of Faith of the Lutheran Church and of all its members and adherents. That in the churches in question, prior to 1789, and from thence till 1837, the doctrines of the 0 gospel were preached, and the sacraments administered, according to that Confession, and that the same was adopted, accepted and received, by the churches and congregations, as their Confession of Faith. That the churches were founded and the temporalities bestowed by Lutherans, for the sole purpose of having the faith and doctrines expressed in that Confession taught and inculcated, and the sacraments administered conformably thereto.

The defendants admit that the Augsburgh Confession was adopted by the Lutherans after the diet of Augsburgh, as a system or summary of their doctrines and faith, together with Melanchthon’s Apology, the Articles of Smalkalden, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of Luther, and the Formula Concordias ; and that these are together, called the Symbolical books of the Lutheran Church. They deny that all departures from the Augsburgh Confession were ever deemed heretical or a departure from the true faith or system of doctrines of that church

The first great issue in the case is thus presented ; was the property of these corporations held upon the trusts alleged by the complainants ?-

In the case of Lady Hewley’s charity, it appeared by the deed of foundation, executed in 1704, that the object was, “ to assist poor and godly preachers of Christ’s Holy Gospel.” Lord Lyndhurst said, the first and principal question was, what class of persons and what principles and doctrines did the foundress have in view, when she used those words ? In order to decide this, he first considered the testimony, and the historical facts bearing upon the point, and ascertained that Lady Hewley was a Presbyterian; and that the great body of the Presbyterians as well as Independents, in 1704, believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, and in the doctrine of original sin. He held that it was incumbent on those who contended that she was an exception to the general belief, to establish that fact by evidence. No such fact was proved. He said farther, that all the probabilities were against her being an exception. That the principles of Unitarianism were at first received coldly, with aversion, and even with disgust, particularly among the laity. Lady Hewley was in 1704, far advanced in life, and was not likely to have adopted those opinions. And upon these data, that she was a Presbyterian, and the general doctrines of the Presbyterians at that time, Lord Lyndhurst held it established that she was a Trinitarian, and a believer in the doctrine of original sin. (9 Clark & Fin. 390-1, 393, 395; 7 Simons, 310)

In the case of the Attorney General v. Drummond, cited by my learned predecessor in the German Reformed Church case, from 1 Connor and Lawson, 210, and which is more fully reported in 1 Drury and Warren’s Rep. 353, where Lord Chancellor Sugden decided against the Unitarians on certain trusts for Protestant Dissenters; he adopted with much forcible reasoning, the same line of evidence that was held admissible in Lady Hewley’s Charity.

These authorities will aid and direct the investigation here.

In the case before me, we set out with one advantage, which the courts did not possess in the one from which I have drawn so largely. We know that the churches were founded and established as Evangelical Lutheran Churches.

It is thus ascertained that the property in controversy was bestowed for the support of the doctrines and tenets of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Having gained this point in the investigation, the more difficult question succeeds; what were the essential or cardinal doctrines and tenets of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, when this property was bestowed upon those trusts, and by what standard or symbol were they declared?

Here I must observe that the defendants, in the portion of their answer which I last stated, have departed from the true issue involved in the case. It cannot affect the result, if all that they allege in regard to the non-belief in 1828 of Mr. Wieting or his congregations, or even of the complainants, in some of the articles of the Augsburgh Confession, were fully proved. The inquiry is limited to the belief and doctrines of those who in 1789, and subsequently, were the donors of this property. The course of the teaching in the churches at. those periods, will be strong evidence of their faith and doctrine.

The defendants concede, what is abundantly proved by ecclesiastical history, that the Augsburgh Confession of Faith was adopted by the Lutherans as a system or summary of their faith and doctrines, at a period as early as their being known as a distinct body of Christians by that designation. We know also from history that both Luther and his leading supporters in the great work of the Reformation in Germany, strongly opposed the application of the term Lnitheran to his and their followers ; and desired to be known as the Evangelical Church- Their opponents fastened upon them the name of Lutheran as a term of reproach, years before the Diet of Augsburgh; and like many names intended to be opprobrious, and for that reason bestowed on a righteous cause, it very soon became the just pride and distinction of the Reformers, who adopted his doctrines. And they have for three centuries been known in history as Lutherans, while they have adopted for their church the name of The Evangelical Lutheran Church.

As the defendants declare that they do not dispute but that the Augsburgh Confession is a system or summary of the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, and that their own published creed contains nothing contrary to that system or summary; it may be supposed that the whole controversy is limited to the latter proposition. But the answer and testimony, and the argument at the hearing, disclosed that this declaration of the defendants is not intended to admit that the whole Confession of Augsburgh, or even the whole of its essential doctrines, were ever adopted or believed by the Lutheran Church at any period, much less at the institution of these churches. And I confess that the defendants avowal of their belief in this Confession as a system or summary of doctrine, when they avowedly disbelieve its articles on original sin and the Lord’s Supper; question other articles as remnants of Romish superstition and error; and are charged at least, with denying the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ; is to me quite unintelligible. At all events the eifect of the answer as a whole, is to put in issue the fact that the Augsburgh Confession was the standard of Lutheran faith

We find in the year 1789, a church founded and organized as an Evangelical Lutheran Church. What must be our inference as to the faith, doctrines and tenets of its founders 1 It is , said by the defendants that the bible is, (and I will assume that they intended to say it always was,) the sole standard of the faith and practice of the Lutherans. As the fountain head, the ground work of their faith, this is an unquestionable proposition. And every denomination or sect of Christians, from the Arian or Unitarian to the Church of Rome, asserts, and can maintain the same proposition. In¡the case of Lady Hewley’s Charity, every Unitarian trustee could with the same propriety have planted himself upon the bible as his great standard, and the rule of his faith and doctrine.

The question is not, whether the Lutherans in Germany in 1530, or the defendants claiming that name in Schoharie county in 1837, believed the bible. No one doubts but that they did. All profess to believe it, whether Lutheran, Calvinist or Unitarian. The question is, how did they understand it ? What did they believe that the bible teaches and inculcates, on the great doctrines so momentous to the immortal souls of our race ?

And we do not advance a single step in ascertaining what were the cardinal doctrines of the Lutherans, or of any denomination of Christians, when we learn that the bible is their doctrinal standard. This truth has been felt and acted upon for more than 1500 years. The Council of Nice, when assembled in the year 325, to refute the errors of Arius, proceeded upon that basis. The Protestants, at the diet of Augsburgh, acknowledged its imperative truth. The Roman pontiff followed in the same conviction, in the great and long protracted Council of Trent. From that day to this, every new sect of Christians has deemed it necessary and indispensable to set forth at large, and in some plain and intelligible manner, the doctrines and articles of faith, which, according to their understanding and mode of interpretation, the bible teaches and inculcates.

Therefore, in order to ascertain what were the faith, doctrines, and tenets of the founders of these churches, we turn to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church,

I should remark that Seckendorf wrote more than 160 years ago, and the edition from which I cite was published in 1694.

Mr. Milner, in his Church History, calls Seckendorf “ that truly excellent and judicious Protestantand other theologians speak of his fidelity and impartiality, and call his work, from which I have cited, i£ incomparable.”

The learned Dr. Mosheim, who was himself a strenuous Lutheran, and was, in a measure, the father of ecclesiastical history, wrote his great work on that subject about a century ago. He says the Lutherans call their standard books, which contain their articles of faith, Symbolical; and that all professors of divinity, and all candidates for the ministry, must subscribe to these. He adds, that they have no authority but what they derive from the scriptures of truth, whose sense and meaning they are designed to convey. He then continues:

“ The chief and the most respectable of these human productions, is the Confession of Augsburgh, with the annexed defence to it against the objections of the Roman Catholic doctors. In the next rank may be placed the Articles of Smalcald, as they are commonly called, together with the Shorter and Larger Catechisms of Luther, designed for the instruction of youth, and the improvement of persons of riper years. To these standard books, most churches add the Form of Concord; which, though it be hot universally received, has not on that account occasioned any animosity of disunion.” (3 Mosheim’s Ecc. History, Part 2, Chap. 1, Sect. 2.) The last assertion

Walchius, (John George,) another German Professor of Theology, in his Bibliotheca Theologica, published at Jena in 1757,¡de-votes nearly one hundred pages to the symbolical and doctrinal writings of the Lutherans, and their various editions and the accuracy of each. He designates the Augsburgh Confession and its Apology, and the Articles of Smalcald, as the three symbols which are called, “ oecumenical (Vol. 1st, page 314.) At page 353 of the same volume, he says that the unaltered Augsburgh Confession is the one, “ quæ nomen et dignitatem germani verique Symboli Ecclesice Lutherance teneatur"

And Walchius ranks the Smalcald Articles as next after the Confession and Apology.

Milner’s Church History, (ch. 13, page 962,) informs us that the 17 Articles which had been drawn up by Luther, and twice submitted in the conferences at Sutzbach, and once at Smalkalden, as the confession of faith to be agreed upon by the Protestants, were delivered by him at Torgau, to the Elector of Saxony, who was then on his way to the Diet of Augsburgh ; and Melanchthon was employed by the Elector and the other reformers, to make them into a more orderly and elaborate composition. The Augsburgh Confession of Faith was the result of his labors.

Mr. Haweis, in his continuation of Milner’s History, (chap. 22, p. 986,) says, “ The Lutheran doctrine is avowed to be comprised in the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, and in Melanchthon’s Apology, and these are regarded of the first authority. The articles of Smalcald and the Larger and Shorter Catechism of Luther, are received in that church as directorial. The Form of Concord, received by the more rigid, was warmly disputed, and was rejected by the more moderate.”

Mr. Adam in his Religious World Displayed, speaking of the Symbolical books of the Lutherans, says that their legitimate formulary of faith is the edition of the Augsburgh Con

In a very recent Church History published in Germany by one of the most learned Professors of Theology of the present day, the Handbuch de Kirchengeschichte, (by Heinr. Ernst Fred. Guerike, Theol. D.) after giving an account of the rise and progress of the Lutheran Church, the author states that the Formula of Concord, drawn up in 1576 and 1577, and published in 1580, was devised and prepared for the purpose of bringing back their doctrines to the earlier confessions of faith of the Lutheran Church and to the doctrine of Luther, and to distinguish them from Calvinism. (Guerike, Vol. 2, p. 1029. Ed. 2, Halle, 1837.) The author had previously given a full account of these earlier confessions, placing in the front rank that of Augsburgh.

Without citing more of the numerous German and English writers on this prolific subject, I will advert to some of our American theologians.

In 1818, George Lochman, a Lutheran clergyman at Harris-burgh, Pennsylvania, and afterwards a doctor of divinity, published “ The History, Doctrine and Discipline of the Evangelical Lutheran Church,” which appears to have been a book of authority at that period, on the subject on which it treats. He says, (p. 84,) that the symbolical books of the Lutherans are The Augsburgh Confession, The Apology of the Confession, The Short and Larger Catechism, and the Smalkalden Articles; He

Dr. Schrnucker, another distinguished Lutheran divine, and for many years the Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary of the Lutheran General Synod at Gettysburg, Pa., published his Elements of Popular Theology, in 1834, which work was written at the request of the General Synod.

He says, (p. 40,41,) that the “ Augsburgh Confession, which is justly styled the mother symbol of the reformation, has been adopted by the major part of all Protestant Europe, and has for about three centuries past, been the standing symbol of Lutheranism in the following kingdoms; Germany including Prussia, part of Hungary, and a small part of France, Denmark in which the king must profess the Augsburgh Confession, Norway, including Iceland, and Sweden.” He says the Moravians, or United Brethren, though peculiar in their church government, have always retained the Augsburgh Confession as their symbol. He also says, “ The Lutheran Church in the United States has always regarded it as the authorized summary of her doctrines, but has not required any oath of obligation to all its contents. The General Synod has adopted only the 21 doctrinal articles. No minister, however, considers himself bound to believe every sentiment contained in these 21 articles; but only the fundamental doctrines.”

Dr. Schrnucker furnished the principal part of the article, “Evangelical Lutheran Church,” in Rupp’s History of all the Religious Denominations in the United States, published at Philadelphia, during the present year, and the same statement is there made in regard to the symbols of that church.

The Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, an industrious compilation, but whether a book of authority I have not learned, says, “the Augsburgh Confession, consisting of 21 articles, is the acknowledged standard of faith for the Lutherans wherever

It did not appear that any Lutheran Synod or church in the United States, (except the Franckean Synod,) had adopted any Formula or Declaration of Faith, in lieu of the Augsburgh Confession, or in effect a substitute for .it, or in any manner variant from it; or had repudiated or publicly denied the authority of any of the Doctrinal Articles of that Confession.

The Lutheran Synod of Tennessee, which in 1834 was not in connection tvith the General Synod, and I believe has never united with it, expressly adopted the Augsburgh Confession of Faith entire, containing the whole 28 Articles.

The synods of Ohio, which next to that of East Pennsylvania, are the largest body of Lutherans in this country, adopted the whole Confession in the same manner.

Thus it appears from the origin and history of the Lutherans, and the concurrent and overwhelming testimony of theological writers and ecclesiastical historians, that the Augsburgh Confession of Faith was one of their principal symbols, and declared their doctrines, articles of faith and rules of discipline, from the year 1530, until long after the endowment of the churches in question.

I will now speak of the evidence in the cause, bearing upon its actual adoption in those churches.

Without repeating it in detail, the testimony proves that the old members of these churches, those who were contemporary with the grant of the land, as well as the erection of the edifices, adhered to the Augsburgh Confession and regarded it as the ground work of the Lutheran doctrine; that the Rev. Mr. Sommer, in the Schoharie church, explained the confession to those who joined the church; and that Dr. Wacherhagen, when ministering in the Lutheran church in Schoharie in 1808, treated the Confession as the articles of faith of that church;

Martin Simmons, a witness, 70 years of age, belonging to the Dutch Reformed Church, states that he was present at the dedication of the New Durlach church; and that at the close of the dedication sermon, the minister who preached it, the Rev. Mr. Krotz, said, “ This house is dedicated unto the Lord, an Evangelical Lutheran House of Prayer, in which the gospel is to be preached, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be dispensed, according to the Augsburgh Confession.” When this was stated in English by the witness, his language was slightly varied, but in no essential particular. The sermon was preached in the German language.

To prove that Simmons was mistaken, or not to be believed, the defendants called four witnesses who were present at the dedication, and heard nothing said about the Augsburgh Confession. They were all Lutherans at that time, although three of them have since withdrawn from that communion. Of these witnesses, Mr. Shafer does not recollect that the sermon was in German, but does recollect all the dedicatory words stated by Simmons, except those relative to the Augsburgh Confession. Henry France remembers that the sermon was in German, but does not remember any dedicatory words, nor any particular words of the sermon. Mr. Loucks does not recollect which of the three clergymen present on that occasion preached the dedication sermon, nor that there was any dedication distinct from the sermon.

The positive testimony of a witness to a fact which he was, in a situation to know, is not contradicted by the testimony of others present who do not recollect the occurrence. The general accuracy of Simmons’s recollection is confirmed by all of the witnesses; and upon the best consideration which I can give to it, I am bound to believe his testimony.

The Rev. 'Adam Crownse, when a boy, resided in these congregations, and was taken into the church by the Rev. Mr. Moeller, the first settled preacher there. He says that on that occasion, Mr. Moeller, in his lectures preparatory to confirmation, referred to the Augsburgh Confession, as exhibiting the doctrines of the church. Mr. Crownse succeeded Mr. Moeller, and was the pastor of these churches from 1823 to 1828; and he says, that during that period, it was regarded as containing their fundamental rules and doctrines; and in 1825 or 1826, it was formally adopted at a convention of the two churches, as published in Dr. Lochman’s work.

This evidence, of course, does not of itself show what were the standards of the founders of these two churches. But it reflects back with a strong light to the period of the foundation.

Further evidence of the same character is furnished by the defendants themselves. The Hartwick Synod was formed in 1830, and these churches constituted a part of it. In 1831, and again in 1834, Mr. Wieting, then the pastor of these churches, was present, and an active participator in the proceedings of that synod, and of the Ministerium. At the session in 1831, the Hartwick Synod unanimously adopted the Formula, &c. of the General Synod of the United States, containing the Augsburgh Confession; and on Mr. Wieting’s motion, directed a thousand copies of it to be printed, under the direction of the secretary, and it was published accordingly. Mr. Lawyer was at that time the secretary of the synod. In 1834, as chairman of one of the committees of the Hartwick Synod, Mr. Wieting made a report, in which he eulogizes, in strong terms, Schmucker’s Popular Theology, then a recent work, and says, “ It ought to be the next in rank to the bible in the “ library of every Lutheran.”

Yet this book declares that the Augsburgh Confession has always been regarded by the Lutheran church in this country as a summary of her doctrines, and her ministers are required to profess their belief in its doctrinal articles. In another report made at the same session, in conjunction with Mr. Crownse, on the Hartwick Seminary, he speaks in high terms of that institution, and commends it to parents, &c. It appears by the theological course of study at that time pursued there, that during two terms of the third or licentiate’s year, the Symbolical Books were regularly studied, in course.

At the sessions of the Hartwick Synod, both in 1831 and 1834, the Ministerium proceeded to the licensure and ordination of ministers, in the manner prescribed by the Formula of the General Synod, and the ministers ordained on each occasion,

We thus have the strongest recognition by the Rev. Mr. Wieting, evidently the leader and the masterspirit amongst the defendants, that the Augsburgh Confession was one of the standards of the faith and doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as constituted within the bounds of the Hartwick Synod, and in the churches in question, as late as the year 1834.

Again, when Mr. Wieting gave his reasons to the assembled members of these churches in 1837, for separating from the Hartwick Synod; his objection to that synod was, that they believed in the Augsburgh Confession, and no one could be admitted to that body without subscribing it.

The four witnesses for the defendants before mentioned, testify that on their admission to the Lutheran church, they did not hear any reference to the Augsburgh Confession. They were all previously instructed in Luther’s Catechism. Only one of them was admitted in these churches. Two state that they have frequently been present when Mr. Moeller confirmed persons, and that he said nothing about the Augsburgh Confession. And one of them who is still a Lutheran, says that he never knew it to be the standard of faith in these churches. He supposed that the bible was their standard.

The circumstance that the Augsburgh Confession was only occasionally, or even rarely mentioned, in the usual public services of the churches, does not go far to show that it was not one of their standards or symbols. Its doctrines were more familiarly expressed, and better adapted to the minds of plain and unlettered men, in the Catechisms of Luther; and there would be but little occasion to speak of the Confession, the Apology, or the Smalcald Articles in the ordinary course of the church. In a Presbyterian church, the Westminster Confession may not be mentioned publicly for a year together; and the same silence occur as to the Thirty-nine Articles in a Protestant Episcopal Church; and neither event excite surprise or even observation ; and yet no one would the less believe and understand that these were

The evidence of the several clergymen who were examined on either side, so far as it affects the general question relative to the Lutheran standards, is chiefly historical, and it was held by several of the judges, in the case of Lady Hewley’s Charity, that such testimony was inadmissible. It being derived from books, the books themselves are the better evidence.

Again. It is a marked feature of the case, that those who deny the adoption of the Augsburgh Confession in these Churches, or by their founders, do not bring forward any symbolical book or declaration of faith as having superseded it, or been received by the Lutherans of the last century in its stead. The other known Lutheran Symbols, as I will presently show, do not relieve them from this difficulty; nor are they urged as having had any different or greater force than the Confession, among the Lutherans in this country. The allegation of the defendants is, that the bible is the only Lutheran standard, as it was of Luther himself. But this, as I have already said, is an evasion of the point. Martin Luther set forth in the Augsburgh Confession, the great doctrines which the bible, in his understanding of it, taught and inculcated. The Council of Trent did the same, in its Doctrinal Decrees. So did the Synod. convened at Dordrecht, in the canons there declared. So did the Westminster Assembly. And so have the defendants themselves done in their Declaration of Faith, in the constitution and standing ordinances of the Franckean Evangelic Lutheran Synod, now in evidence before me. These standards distinguish one Christian sect or denomination from another, and we look to them to see whether a church be Lutheran, Calvinistic, or Roman Catholic, or of some other belief.

Nor do we obtain any aid from the argument, (or the evidence tending to support it,) that the Augsburgh Confession

In support of the position that the Augsburgh Confession had never been adopted by the Lutheran churches in this country, two clergymen of the Franckean Synod were called as witnesses, and they state sundry points of doctrine contained in it, which many Lutheran ministers either do not approve, or positively condemn. And I am referred to an extract from Professor Miller’s sermon, as evidence that he did not believe in the Articles of the Augsburgh Confession relative to baptism and the Lord’s Supper; nor indeed in the propriety or advantage of Creeds in general. It is unnecessary to say whether this is proper evidence ; Mr. Miller being a competent witness to prove his own opinions.- There are two considerations which it appears to me, render this species of testimony unimportant.

The omission in the copies and translations in common use, of the seven last articles of the Augsburgh Confession, was also urged against its authenticity as a standard of the Lutheran Church in this country. An examination of the whole 28 Articles shows, what all the writers on the subject state, that the seven last articles of that memorable document, were drawn up for the purpose exclusively of showing to the Diet the abuses and corruptions of the Romish Church, of which the Protestant Reformers more especially complained. Those articles contain no declaration of faith or doctrine; and after the separation between the Romanists and Protestants had become permanent, and the immediate interest of that event had ceased, the seven articles came to be omitted in the publications of the Confession. They were valuable as matters of history, but were not of any practical application in the Lutheran churches.

The other Symbolical Books of the Lutherans do not differ, at least in favor of the defendants tenets, from the Augsburgh Confession. Most of them are subsidiary to that instrument, and both their form and substance show that they were not designed to supply the place of the Confession.

Thus, the Defence of the Confession, (the Apology,) drawn up by the pious and el,oquept Melanehthon, and delivered to the Emperor Charles the Fifth, on the 22d September, 1530, was

And I am sure that Melanchthon’s exordium, or introduction to the Apology, would be deemed by the defendants as far more anti-scriptural, than any thing which they find in the Augsburgh Confession; especially on the subjects of the efficacy of baptism and the real presence in the Lord’s Supper. (See Melanchthon Operum Omnium, pars 1, fol. 58, editio 1580, and Seckendorf’s Commentarius, lib. 2, sect. 35, § 79, additio.)

And we learn from the valuable Church History of Guerike, (vol. 2d, page 863,) that Luther, when writing to Melanchthon respecting the Apology, says, that “ it has conceded all too much. If they will not take that, 1 do not know what I could give more.” And Luther held similar language at the same time, in a letter to the Land-grave of Hesse.

So of the Smalkaldic Articles drawn up by Luther, with the aid of other theologians, under the auspices of the third convention of the Smalkaldic League, and signed in 1537. These Articles were chiefly an enlargement of the last seven articles of the Confession, displaying the abuses and errors of the Church of Rome, and contained moreover, for the first time in terms, an express denial of the authority of the Pope. They also set forth anew, the leading doctrines of the Protestants who agreed with Luther, and in that respect fully confirmed the Augsburgh Confession, adopted at Smalkalden. And, indeed, the Articles declare, in so many words, that the convention republished and declared their assent to the Confession and the Apology, and directed them to be taught in, and believed by their churches.

Here again the defendants find no encouragement for their peculiar views, by rejecting the Confession, and setting up the Smalkaldic Articles as the more authoritative symbol of the Lutheran faith. The obnoxious doctrines are in some instances

The Formula Concordias which was generally adopted, stands on the same footing in respect to this controversy. We have seen Dr. Guerike’s account of the object of the Formula. And Dr. Mosheim says it was especially employed to preserve the Lutheran Church against the opinions of the Reformed Church relative to the Eucharist. (Part 2, ch. 1, § 39, vol. 3, p. 254.)

The Catechisms of Luther will scarcely be referred to as teaching any different essential doctrines from those contained in the Confession ; much less as a superior or more authentic exposition of the belief of the Evangelical Lutherans. They teach the doctrines in more simple language, and perhaps better adapted to the purpose for which they .were designed. But it is not claimed, and certainly there appears to be no historical ground for claiming it, that Luther himself ever changed his views in regard to the three articles of the Confession, which become important in this suit.

I have been thus minute in reference to the Symbolical Books, in order to show that the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, while it is always the first mentioned in enumerating them, is also the chief and principal standard. And that in its bearing upon the defendants position, it is no less favorable than if it were shown to have been secondary or subsidiary to the others.

One fact is also decisive of its being deemed the great Symbol of the Lutherans, which is that it is found published at large in a great variety of forms; and one of the witnesses speaks of it as being contained in the old German bibles j while on the other hand, the Apology, the Smalkaldic Articles and the Formula, are very rarely to be found, in extenso, even in our large public libraries.

Buck's Theological Dictionary, Article, Lutheranism, was referred to in connection with the defendants argument, that the Lutherans have long .ceased to believe in several of the

On the other hand, Mr. Adam’s book, before referred to, which was published within the last thirty years, says in reference to the Lutheran Church; “ From the time of Luther to the present day, no change has been introduced into the system of doctrine and discipline that is received in this church; so that the ancient confessions and rules that were drawn up to point out the tenets that were to be believed, and the rites and ceremonies that were to be performed, still remain in their full authority, and ate considered as the sacred guardians of the Lutheran faith and worship.” (Religious World Displayed, vol. 2d, page 335.)

Mr. Adam proceeds to say that the method of illustrating the doctrines of Christianity has undergone several changes in the Lutheran Church, although the confessions continue the same. The particular doctrines which he specifies as being the subject of this change, are the Calvinistic tenets of absolute predestination, human impotence and irresistible grace, of which, he says, Luther was an advocate, but that he has in this respect, very few followers among those that bear his name. As the Lutheran symbols declare no such doctrines, the unbounded liberty of dissent mentioned by Mr. Buck could not have referred to the doctrines which Mr. Adam details as the chief points in which their method of teaching has changed since the time of Luther.

The recent Union of the Evangelical Church in the Prussian dominions, effected by governmental authority, corroborates the view of Mr. Adam. For in that Union, embracing the Reformed as well as Lutheran churches, the articles of faith are chiefly from the symbols of the latter; the former yielding in a great degree the high toned doctrines of the Five Points, and the Lutherans in the Union, assenting to the spiritual presence only in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. But in this Union, the churches expressly relinquish their name and character as Lutheran Churches; and it therefore

It is, doubtless, true of the Lutherans as of every other sect, that various learned men amongst them have held different views in regard to some of the articles of their faith and doctrine, and have published their variant constructions of such articles. And this is peculiarly the case in reference to the Lord’s Supper, holding, as they did, a sort of debateable ground between the simple commemoration of the great Swiss Reformer, Zuingli, and the transubstantiation of the Romish Church; and still variant from the spiritual presence held by Calvin and his immediate followers. But in respect of the three essential points which form the issue in this suit, I do not find that any Lutheran of note, much less any considerable or even respectable portion of the Lutheran Church, ever, either by profession or construction, held any different doctrine from that contained in their leading Symbols, from the days of Martin Luther to the era of this controversy.

Occasional differences and dissents among the Lutherans, on their doctrinal articles, do not, as I have already said, impugn the position that their standards as a church remained the same. And such dissent, if it had been shown to have existed upon these three points, must be traced to the founders of the churches in question, in order to establish the defendant’s ground in regard to the force of the Confession.

To conclude this most interesting and importaat branch of the case. I find that these churches were founded as Evangelical Lutheran Churches, by the descendants of Lutherans who fled from Germany to avoid religious persecution; that for more than two centuries prior to their foundation, the Augsburgh Confession of Faith had been one of the principal, and the first in rank of the symbolical books and standards of the

In addition to this, I find that the Augsburgh Confession was treated as their doctrinal standard by several of the contemporary members of these churches, and was recognized from time to time by their pastors, for twenty years after they had procured stated preaching in the churches. That one of the church buildings was dedicated to be used according to that Confession, for preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments; that, at a much later period, the churches formally adopted the Augsburgh Confession, and subsequently attached themselves to a synod which adheres to it; and finally that until the year 1837, no other confession or declaration of faith or doctrines was known in those churches, save the Smybolical Books before mentioned, of which this was the principal, and next to the Catechisms, the best known and understood.

It is therefore established that the Augsburgh Confession of Faith was accepted and receivei oy the churches in question at the time of their endowment, e 1 by the members thereof, as their confession of faith; and t' ^ churches were founded for the purpose of having the faith B ’’ I doctrine expressed in that • Confession, taught and inculcate'' .erein. And that in respect of the doctrines in question in ; suit, there never had been any established or even known 1 ent from the Augsburgh Confession in this, or any of th , _ -eran churches.

Fourthly. The next great it it becomes my duty to examine, trusts in question by the defendí charges the defendants with havii jetween the parties, which e alleged perversion of the . The bill in substance abandoned and repudiated

1. It does not maintain and declare the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the three persons constituting the Godhead, are equal in power and glory ; or even that there are three persons constituting the .Deity. 2. It does not declare or admit the divinity of Jesus Christ, or his equality with God the Father. 3. It does not teach or declare that man will be condemned to punishment in a future state, because of original or inherited sin, unless it be repented of; or that it condemneth all who are not born again of water or of the Holy Ghost.

I will omit the subject of the government and judicatories of the church for the present, while I examine the other issues made.

I. The defendants by their answer deny that theB Franckean declaration of faith is essentially variant from the Augsburgh Confession, in respect of the doctrine of the Trinity, or that it is in any wise Unitarian. And they aver that it declares essentially the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed and believed by the whole denomination of Lutherans. And they further aver that they believe that doctrine in its fullest extent, as taught by the Augsburgh Confession.

The defendants examined as witnesses, two clergymen of the Franckean Synod, one of whom, (Mr. Lawyer,) by his ability and intelligence appears to have merited the place of leader and prime actor in its organization. They both assert that the members of that synod believe in the Augsburgh Confession as a system or summary of doctrines, but they do pot believe, nor do Lutherans generally profess to believe, in certain doctrines therein declared. Both mention the second article, (on inherited sin,) as one of these, and also private confession and absolution. Mr. Lawyer says that several points in the Confession,

Undoubtedly, the most authentic as well as conclusive evidence of what the defendants and the Franckean Synod believe and teach ; is to be found in their Declaration of Faith. Hr. Wieting, representing the defendants as their pastor, and one or more of the defendants also representing the others and professing' to answer for the church as lay delegates; participated in framing and promulgating this declaration, both in 1837 and 1838. And the published proceedings declare that the constitution containing the same, was unanimously adopted on both occasions. The defendants in their answer state the one adopted in 1838, to be “ a summary exhibit of the system of doctrines” held to and inculcated by Lutheran churches.

It was therefore put forth to the world as the standard of the doctrines of the adherents of the new synod. It declared to all mankind, how they understood the bible, and wherein they differed from other Christian denominations in their doctrinal belief.

It is also evident, that they no longer recognised the Augsburgh Confession as their symbol or doctrinal standard. Their constitution makes no allusion to it. They adopted a similar declaration, as the 12th Article of their constitution, which as the president of their synod stated in his address in October, 1837, “contains the doctrines which (they) believe, and not those points which (they) do not believe.” This, in effect, superseded every different standard. Indeed, the president cites the entire silence of their constitution in regard to the Confession, as proof that they have not renounced it. This is however a mere play upon words. He declares in the address that they do not believe in all the doctrinal articles of the Augsburgh Confession. Some of them, he says, are manifestly unscriptural; and “ we do not receive and adhere to it complete, entire, and in all points of doctrine.” In the report of a committee at the same meeting in October, 1837, in reference to the Hartwick Synod proceedings, they speak of that Synod’s

Further, it is proved by Dr. Moeller, that Mr. Wieting, in the fore part of May, 1837, when5 he gave from the pulpit of one of these churches his reasons for separating from the Hartwick Synod, stated that he did not believe the Augsburgh Confession. That it was an antiquated" thing, unfit for the present age,. Nicholas Russell testified that one of the defendants, a deacon in the New Rhinebeck Church; told him that they, the Franckeans, had put the Augsburgh’ Confession entirely aside, and held to the bible, and nothing but the bible.

By Section 2 of Article 6th of their Constitution, they require, every church which seeks tó become connected with their synod, to adopt the constitution ; and the 4th section reserves to the synod the power of cutting off any church that shall be proved to have become fundamentally corrupt in doctrine. And in their form for the “ Ordination of Ministers,” published by order of the synod, in the church discipline, the candidates are required to promise faithfully to observe the constitution.

I cannot doubt, therefore, but that the defendants have abandoned the Augsburgh Confession of Faith in these churches, and that in some essential articles, they1 have repudiated it.

But the complainants are restricted to the points stated in their bill; and I redur to them, to see Whether the Franckeans have repudiated the Confession in those points, or adopted a declaration or creed at variance with it.

The first article of the Augsburgh Cóhfession of Faith is in these words : “ Of God. In the first jilace, we unanimously teach and hold, agreeably to the decree of the Council of Nice, that there is one only Divine Being, who is called, and truly is God; but there are three persons in this only Divine Being

In addition to this, the third article, (“ Of the Son of God,”) declares that God the Son “ eternally rules over all his creatures, and governs; that he sanctifies, strengthens, and comforts, through his Holy Spirit, all who believe in him, and gives unto them life and various gifts and blessings, and that he defends and protects them against the devil and against sin.”

The first declaration of faith adopted by the Franckean Synod in May, 1837, contains this substitute for the first article of the Áugsburgh Confession.

“ Of God and Creation.” (We believe,) “ 2. That there is only one true and living God, called and made known by revelation under the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; infinite and immutable in all natural and moral perfections ; the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible.”

The 4th clause, relative to Jesus Christ, does not attribute to him any of the powers of God.

The difference between the Augsburgh Confession- and the Franckean Declaration of 1837, in respect of the Trinity, is too obvious to require extended comment.

Mr. Lawyer frankly testifies that the latter does not affirm three persons in the Godhead,- nor aver" that God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are equally powerful and eternal with God the Father; and that a believer who confines the glory and divine attributes to the Father, and to him only, might by construing the article, subscribe to it.

On the other hand, Mr. Ottman testifies that he thinks this article in the Franckean declaration does imply three persons in the Trinity, and that it distinctly avows that God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, are equally powerful and eternal with God the Father.

I can only say as to this, that it requires much more acute

So far as I can judge of language when applied to this subject, the Franckean declaration, in 1837, as to God, was nearly or quite, Sabellian. The Sabellians held that there was but one person in the Godhead, and reduced the three persons in the Trinity, to three characters or relations. Sabellius himself made use of this comparison to illustrate his doctrine; 11 as man, though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so God, though he is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is but one person.” And he taught that the Word and the Holy Spirit, are only virtues, emanations or functions of the Deity; that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, were one subsistence and one person, with three names.

The fourth section of the Franckean Declaration of 1837, is also in connection with the second, substantially conformable to the view of Sabellius ; for he held that a certain portion of the divine nature, was united to the son of God, the man Jesus, in the same manner that he considered the Holy Ghost as a portion of the everlasting Father.

At the second annual session of the Franckean Synod, held in June, 1838, their declaration of Faith was revised and published anew. The reason for this revision, as Mr. Ottman, one of their licentiates, testifies, was that the doctrines of the Trinity were not so expressly, distinctly-and fully declared, as they wished to have them.

The fact of altering the declaration in this respect, with the reason assigned, confirms all that I have said of its intrinsic character.

The new Declaration of Faith, published in 1839, is contained in Article 12th of the Constitution. The second section is in these words:

“ Of God and Creation. 2. (We believe,) “ That there is only one true and living God,'and that in this one God there is a distinction of three, revealed in the Scriptures, as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; inseparably connected with one another, possessing the same essence, and equal and alike, infinite and immutable, in all natural and moral perfections j the

This, the defendants insist, exhibits the doctrine of the Trinity as held by the Lutherans and by all Trinitarians, in its fullest extent.

The first remark that occurs is, that if such were the design, why did they not adopt the first article of the Augsburgh Confession ; the language of which is at once plain, intelligible and explicit, and which requires no resort to theological dictionaries or class books, to be understood by the most unlettered Christian1? I say understood, so far as this holy and sublime mystery may be understood by men in the present life.

And I confess that I approach the examination of all these questions, and especially of the one under immediate consideration, not only with great diffidence and profound reluctance, but with an oppressive sense of the inherent difficulties which ever have attended, and to the end of time must attend, their explication. But it is a duty from which I may not shrink ; and it is a satisfaction to know that if I err in its performance, the parties can readily review and redress my judgipent.

To arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to myself, I have resorted to the creeds, doctrinal standards and authoritative publications of the various denominations of Christians, to see in what language they express their belief in relation to the Supreme Being.

First. In those denominations which not only avow a full belief in the Trinity, but are conceded by all the world to hold that doctrine.

In the Church of Rome, the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent contain their standard of faith. The first decree is “ The Creed of Faith,” and commences thus :

“ In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” It then proceeds with the confession of faith in the words of the Nicene Creed; which, I need scarcely say, affirms three distinct existences or persons in one God, who are equally adored and glorified ; that the Son is God of God, born of the Father before all ages, is to judge the living and the dead, and of whose kingdom there shall be, no end ;

In Rupp's History of all the Religious Denominations in the United States, a work compiled with great care, and by theologians esteemed a book of high authority, (the articles on each sect having been prepared by an eminent writer of that sect;) Professor Walters, in the article on the Roman Catholic Church, says, “ The Catholic Church holds, as the foundation of all religion, that there is but one supreme, self-existent, eternal Deity, infinite in wisdom, in goodness, in every perfection; by whom all things yrere made,” <fcc, “ It teaches that in this one God, there are three divine persons, perfectly distinct in personality, perfectly one in nature.” “ The Catholics believe that the Holy Ghost, the third person of the blessed Trinity, proceeds from the Father artd the Son, and is equally God with them.”

The first article of tfye Augsburgh Confession professes expressly to be a declaration of the Nicene Creed, in relation to God, and it never was understood to contain qny point or doctrine, variant from the established belief of the Church of Rome on that subject.

The Protestant Episcopal Church in Great Britain and the United States, adopts the Nicene Creed in Article Eighth, and in its order for Daily Morning Prayer; and the first of the Thirty-Nine Articles declares its “ Faith in the Holy Trinity'' in these words:

“ There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness ; the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

And Article 5th, Of the Holy Ghost, is thus; “ The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one Substance, Majesty and Glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.”

The Dutch Reformed Church receives as its Creed, the Con

Article 1st of the Confession revised at Dordrecht, asserts, “ that there is only one simple and spiritual being, which we call God; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good.”

Article 8th is entitled, “ That God is one in. essence, yet nevertheless distinguished in three persons;” and it asserts that God is one single essence in which are three persons, really, truly and eternally distinct, according to their incommunicable properties, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

After asseverating and illustrating their distinctness in emphatic terms, it concludes, “ For they are all three co.eternal and co-essential. There is neither first nor last, for they are all three one in truth, in power, in goodness and in mercy.”

Article 9 contains the proofs of the 8th article. Article 10 declares the glory and divinity of Jesus Christ, and his equality with the Father in all things ; and article 12 treats of the Holy Ghost, and declares that the Holy Ghost is true and eternal God, and of one and the same essence, majesty and glory with the Father and the Son.

The doctrinal system of the German Reformed Church is contained in the Heidelberg Catechism.

In its explication of the Apostles Creed, (which this, and I believe all Trinitarian churches adopt,) the Catechism teaches that God has revealed himself in his word as but one divine essence, and that the three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the one only true and eternal God. It then sets forth the distinct offices of each, and re-asserts their unity, co-eternity and glory.

The Presbyterian family of Christians, in its various branches of the Presbyterian Church of the old and new schools, Associate Presbyterians, Associate Reformed Church, Church of Scotland, and many others, together with the Congregationalists, adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The 2d Chapter of the Westminster Confession treats “ Of

And in the Larger Catechism of Westminster, which is also a standard with the Presbyterians, the answer to Question 9th is thus: “ There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory, although distinguished by their personal properties.”

The Cumberland Presbyterians adopted a Confession of Faith and Catechism, founded on those of Westminster, which assert the doctrine that God is an infinite, eternal and unchangeable spirit, existing mysteriously in three persons, the three being equal in power and glory, &c,, and that Jesus Christ is both God and man in one person. (Rupp’s History, 218.)

The Articles of Faith of that large body of Christians in this country, the Methodists, contain the following:

“Article I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The second and third articles relate to our Saviour. The fourth is thus expressed. “IY. Of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.” The “ True Wesleyan Methodist Church ” hold substantially the same doctriné, and in respect of the Holy Trinity, in the same language.

Second. I will now consult the standards of denominations who do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Unitarians, or Unitarian Congregationalists, believe that Jesus Christ is a distinct being from G'od, derived from him and sent for the purpose of the redemption of fallen man; not before existing, subordinate to' God. That the Father alone is entitled to be called God,' aff'd alone possesses the attribute of infinity. They hold the supremacy of the Father, and the inferior nature of the Son. That the idea that Jesus was the infinite and supreme God, is irreconcileable with the language of the new testament.' Some Unitarians, however, hold that Christ pre-existed his coming upon earth: The Unitarians object to the doctrine of three persons in one God,' on adcount of its intrinsic incredibility, and because acdording to their conception of it,- it teaches that there are three beings, three minds, three conscious agents, and thus it makes three Gods, and to assert that these three are one, is a contradiction: And they generally do not think it lawful, directly to address Christ in prayer.

They profess to believe iff the divinity of Christ, and they regard him as one with God in affection, will and purpose.'

By the Holy Spirit, Unitarians suppose is meant, not a person, but arr influence. See the Article on Unitarians, in Rupp’s History, 704 to 710; written by the' Rev. Mr. Lamson," an old and well known minister of that church.

Mr. Adam in his View, &c., vol. 2, p. 159, says, that the Unitarians in England, have totally divested Christ of his Divinity, and" maintain that he had no existence before he was conceived'by the Virgin' Mary;' and that the Holy Ghost is merely a figurative expression,'to den'ote the power or energy of God.

The Universalists entertain' views similar to the English Unitarians, in relation to God, Christ and the Holy Ghost.

The “ Christians,” or Christian Connection, are Unitarian in their belief; holding however that Jesus Christ is divine, and generally, that he existed with the father, before all worlds. (Rupp's History, 169; Millard's True Messiah. )

The Friends, (Hicksite Quakers,) avow that they reject the common doctrines of the Trinity, as contrary to reason and revelation. Yet they believe in the divinity of Christ.

The heresy of Arius,' so destructive to'the church of Christ in the fourth century, the cause of the first- bloody persecution by Christians of their own brethren, and the subject of most bitter controversy until the present day, consisted in the doctrine that Christ, although he was God,- was of a different essence, and inferior to the Father even as to his Deity; and that the Holy Ghost was not God. That Christ was created prior to all other beings, but denying that he was eternal.

Another distinguished tenet on this subject, was that of Laelius and Faustus Socinius, who argued that Christ was a mere human being, but upon his death was advanced by God to the government of the created universe, and became the proper object of religious worship.

Many of those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity at this day, follow in part the views of Socinius and in part those of Arius; and among the Unitarians, some are S'ocinians and others nearly allied to the High Arians in belief.

I will not pursue the labyrinth of the doctrines, and shadés of belief, on this holy mystery, -which have filled-' innumerable books and treatises for centuries past; but will now attempt to compare the Franckean creed with the tenets professed by ninety-nine hundredths-of the Christian world.

It is a circumstance which weighs against the Franckean declaration, that in respect of the Holy- Trinity, they should have -departed from the plain terms of the great Lutheran

Connecting this needless deviation from the time-honored symbol of their church, (that memorial of the Reformation which every true Protestant reverences, although he may not subscribe to all its doctrines,) with the palpable Unitarianism of the Franckean declaration of faith adopted in 1837; the new declaration in 1838 merits close scrutiny; and if it turns out to be in any degree evasive or silent upon any pointed feature of the doctrine of the Trinity, it must receive our condemnation as an intentional deviation from the Augsburgh Confession in that behalf.

In every creed, or exposition of belief, of the large bodies of known Trinitarians, we find one point which is most fully expressed and declared, viz., that in the .one living and true God, there are three distinct persons. The word person, is used to express, that individuality, and distinction of one from the other, which constitutes the sublime and confessedly incomprehensible mystery, which Trinitarians believe. They assign to each distinct personality, agency and divine offices ; while they attribute to each and to all equally and alike, in one essence, the great functions, powers and perfections of the Triune God.

The Canons of the Synod of Dort illustrate the distinction of persons as well as their unity, by saying that “ the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor tbe Son. Nevertheless these persons thus distinguished are not divided nor intermixed: For the Father hath not assumed the flesh, nor hath the Holy Ghost, but the Son only. The Father hath never been without the Son, or without his Holy Ghost.” (Article 8th.) Here is a definite proposition in regard to this great subject, which is capable of being expressed in the plainest and most simple terms, and which

After a most careful and anxious consideration of the Franckean Declaration of 1838, I am compelled to say that it does not to my understanding declare or express, that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead. It indeed asserts in section 2d, that “ in this one God, there is a distinction of three, revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghostbut the inquiry at once occurs, a distinction of three what ? Does it mean a distinction of thrpe names 1 That was the obnoxious feature in the declaration of 1837. Does it me.an three persons, three individualities ? If so, why were not those words inserted ? The identical words in. which this solemn truth had been expressed inthe Augsburgh Confession, then lying open before them, and in which it had been maintained in their Church for three centuries? Does it mean three distinct characters, relations or revelations, of tjhe only one true God ? It is perfectly consistent with that meaning, so far as the express terms reach. Let us assume that the latent meaning really was, that God is only one being, revealed in the Scriptures in three distinct characters or relations. The residue of the section asserts, that these three relations are “ inseparably connected with one another, possessing the same essence, and equal and alike immutable in all natural and moral perfections.” All this follows of course, if they are three relations or characters of one divine being. It may be said to be a very unnecessary outlay of words to express it. But all these words do not necessarily express any greater meaning. Then take the 4th section of the Franckean declaration, which relates to Jesus Christ and Redemption, and read it with the hypothesis that he is but a relation or character of the one living God as revealed in the Scriptures, and it is consistent with that hypothesis. And so of section 7, “ Of the Holy Ghost.” As virtues or emanations of the Deity, Jesus Christ could, on this assumption, be manifested in the flesh, ascend into heaven, and be exalted at God’s right hand, to intercede for our race; and the Holy Ghost more especially, might be “ given to quicken and renew the hearts of men.”

Jt would seem that like the “ Disciples of Christ,” better known as Campbellites, the Franckean Lutherans were unwilling “ to use those scholastic terms and phrases which the wisdom of men” has provided; and perhaps will say with that sect, that “ although they use not the words Trinity, Triune, &c., they receive every thing whiph the Seripture affirms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, giving to every expression its full and obvious meaning.” This is all well iq establishing a new or better sect. But when a church or synod of Lutherans or Presbyterians, brought up amongst ancient standards which express in the strongest terms the doctrine of the Trinity, announce that they have adopted such a declaration of their faith, carefully eschewing these terms of mere human learning, and such declaration is vague, reserved and inexplicit on this point, what can we infer, except that such church or synod no longer believe or mean to profess the doctrine as contained in the old standards ?

And when, as we are informed by the Franckean ministers, this article of faith was amended in 1838, and published in its present form, for the express purpose of stating the doctrine of the Trinity more fully and explicitly than it was stated in

The Franckeans appear to have patterned, in some respects, after a new sect denominating itself “ The Church of God,” which sprung out of the German Reformed Church in Pennsylvania, and first assumed a distinct organization in 1830. This sect set out to establish “ spiritual, free and independent churches, consisting of believers or Christians only, without any human name, or creed, or ordinances or laws.” I quote from their founder and principal minister, the Rev. John Winebrenner, who, notwithstanding they were to have no creed or laws, furnishes for publication “ The Faith and Practice of the Church of God,” in no less than 27 articles or heads, which he says is an outline of their avowed principles and practice. The 18th and 19th of these articles are against the manufacture, traffic and use of ardent spirits as a beverage, and against slavery as impolitic and unchristian ; therein stopping far short of the Franckean declaration. They renounce the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, and thus depart from their German Reformed standards. Their article as to God is in these words: “ She” (the Church of God) “ believes in one Supreme God, consisting .of Father, Sop, and Holy Spirit, and that these three are co-equal and co-eternal.” And there is nothing in the separate articles relative to Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, which award to them either Divinity, powernor glory.

This creed, coming from one who once professed the Canons of Dort or the Heidelbergh Catechism, appears exceedingly barren and unsatisfactory in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, if we are to understand from it that the writer believes that doctrine.

The words “ consisting of,” and “ these three,” go farther in this respect than the Franckean Declaration. Consisting of is used by many theologians as synonymous with “ composed of,”

The similarity to which I have alluded, and the apparent reserve in expression in the two creeds, is certainly a coincidence which deserves attention.

There is another defect, which it is alleged, distinguishes the Franckean declaration in respect of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. The Augsburgh Confession declares that the three persons in the Divine Being called God, are equally powerful, equally eternal; and that all three are one Divine Being of Unmeasurable power, Avisdom and goodness.

The' doctrinal standards of the other Trinitarian Christians which I have cited, affirm the same truth in distinct, and some of them in very emphatic terms.

Let us assume, for this part of the argument, that the Franchean declaration does assert the existence of three persons in the one true God. Does it assert that the Son and Holy Ghost are equally powerful, and equally eternal with th e Father ?

It will not suffice to answer this by saying that as they are one with the Father, they must necessarily be equally powerful. Luther, Melanchthon and the German Protestants in 1530,- deemed it essential to declare this equality in express terms. The principal Christian denominations, adopting the Trinity, have all deemed it necessary. Accordingly the defendants insist that the Article in question, does avow and express this doctrine. They find it in the words, “ equal and alike infinite and immutable in all natural and moral perfectionsJ’ The first words, “ equal and alike infinite,” are limited 'to those which succeed, and qualified by them. The whole point therefore turns upon the meaning of “ natural and moral perfections.”

The Campbellites would have rejected these words at once, as savoring too much of human wisdom.

To illustrate and enforce their meaning, the defendants read from the Theological Class Book, by W. Cogswell, a small publication issued at Boston in 1840, in the form of question and answer. This book divides God’s perfections into Natural

It cannot be denied, that if the Franckean declaration is to be construed by this book, it does declare the equality in power of the Son and Spirit with the Father, and that they are equally eternal. As I could not find these words defined thus, in any other book, I have taken much pains to learn the standing of the Class Book. On inquiring of some of the professors in our theological seminaries, and several doctors of divinity,-1 did not meet with one who had ever heard of the work. This fact/ and its standing alone,- so fa'r as my researches have extended, induce me to allow to it no further influence than I would to any biblical critic, or professed lexicographer/ whose reputation and accuracy has not received the sanction' of the literary and scientific world. And it imposes upon me the unpleasant duty of criticising the words in question:

The division of G'od’s perfections into natural and moral, is manifestly for the purpose of illustrating the subject by our human nature. Because, strictly speaking, God’s moral perfections, as defined by the defendants, are as much his nature, and as natural to-him/as any of those which they call natural. All his perfections and his attributes are his natural attributes and perfections.

We are therefore to ascertain God’s moral and natural perfections, by comparison or contrast with those of mankind, and we cannot understand by the term natural perfection, when applied to the Deity, any thing which would not be esteemed a natural perfection,- when applied to a man. And the point is then distinctly presented, is power a natural perfection of man ?

It at once occurs to every mind, that men possess different kinds of power; they have physical power, mental or intellectual power, and moral power which last embraces of itself a great field of influence. Some have one of these, and not the others. Some possess one or more, or the whole, in an infinite diversity of extent and combination. The physical power may be termed natural; the moral power never can be so termed;

Is the idea any more clear or definite when applied to the Supreme Being ? We all agree that power is an attribute of God. He is omnipotent. But when the defendants assert that God has all natural perfections, without further illustration, would any person who had not studied W. Cogswell’s Class Book, understand by it, that they intended to declare that he was omnipotent?

If the word 11perfections” had stood alone, the meaning would have been more intelligible, at least in respect of the equality of the three persons constituting the Godhead, as it is a word sometimes used to express an attribute of God. But this equality is limited to natural and moral perfections, and we are assured that omnipotence is one of the former. So if the expression were, “ all divine perfections,” to my mind the language would have conveyed much more than the article now does. The distinction taken in the article refers us to our ideas of human nature for an explication of the meaning of the words. On recurring to those ideas, we find a third class of perfections, the intellectual; and we also find that power is deducible from each class, and all the classes combined.

I must presume that the Franckean Lutherans, when putting forth a declaration of faith for the information of their own people and the world, the unlettered as well as the learned, intended to use language in no technical or professional sense, but in its ordinary and every day meaning.

Receiving it in that sense, although I speak with great diffidence on this point, I cannot understand by the Article in question, that the defendants believe the Son and the Holy Ghost to be equally powerful with God the Father. And when I contrast the language of this Article, with the positive and explicit language used by other Christian denominations, and the pointed words of the Augsburgh Confession; I cannot help expressing my surprise that the Franckean Lutherans

The doubt whether they do so believe, is strengthened by a consideration of the subsequent articles relative to Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. The one affirms no attribute of power in the Son of God, nor the. other in the Holy Ghost. And these articles too, stand out in strong relief, when compared with the similar articles of faith in the standards of other churches.

I have examined this point at great length, because I desired to avoid expressing any opinion upon the fact that the defendants claiming to be Evangelical Lutherans, have established a new declaration of faith, which is alleged to be a departure or secession from their church. Conceding that the mere reforming of the language of the old standards, or wholly remodelling them, is unobjectionable; there can be no doubt of the secession when the change extends to essential doctrines.

The testimony of other Franckeans, that they believe in the Trinity, and so understand the declaration of their faith, is unavailing to the defendants. They must stand or fall by the declaration itself, the solemn act by which they presented themselves to the Christian world as a new synod, more evangelical and scriptural than their brethren who remained behind. In that declaration they have set forth what they deemed to be “esssential doctrines of the bible, while they avoided stating those points which they did not believe as set forth in the Augsburgh Confession.” {Mr. Lawyer’s testimony.) They do not now repudiate it, but claim a construction of it which I am unable to derive from its language.

Next. In regard to the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the alleged omission in that behalf in the defendants declaration.

Article 3d of the Augsburgh Confession is in these words, as translated by Dr. Lochman.

a Of the Son of God." “ We also teach that God-the Son, became man, born of the virgin Mary ; and that the two natures, divine and human, inseparably united together in one person, are one Christ, who is true God and man, who was truly bom, who was crucified, dead and buried 5 that he was a sacrifice, not

The fourth section of the Declaration of Faith of the Franckean Synod, is as follows: “ Jesus Christ and Redemption.” 4. (We believe,) “That Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, in the fulness of time, was manifested in the flesh, and is the only Redeemer—that he was crucified, dead and buried— that he arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is now exalted at God’s right hand, to make intercession for the whole human race.”

And section 11th, “ Final Judgment and Future State.” 11. (We believe,) “ That Jesus Christ will come the second time, when he will judge the world in righteousness; that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust, and that he will receive the righteous into life eternal, but the wicked will be sent into endless punishment.”

It is not claimed by the defendants that the sections just quoted, affirm the equality of Christ with God the Father, although the fourth declares his divinity. They however contend that his equality is fully expressed and declared in the second section, “ Of God and Creation and in their answer they allege that Mr. Wieting has always taught and preached the doctrine of the equality of Jesus Christ with the “Father in its fullest extent, and his preaching has been so received, and approved of by the members of the two churches in question.

I have gone so fully into this subject in speaking of the Trinity, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. It is involved in the doctrine of the Trinity. The belief in the divinity of the Saviour is not any mark of a belief in his equality with God the Father. All Socinians, and most of the Unitarians believe in

My conclusion upon this has been already stated. The section fails, in my humble judgment, to convey the idea distinctly that there are three persons in God, all three one Divine Being; and even if that difficulty were obviated, it does not declare clearly or explicitly, that the Son and the Holy Ghost, are equally powerful with God the Father.

The first article of the Augsburgh Confession is positive in this respect; and the various creeds of Trinitarians from which I have quoted, are equally direct and explicit.

III. The remaining ground upon which the complainants insist that they have shown an essential difference between the Augsburgh Confession, and the declaration of the Franckean Synod, is in reference to original or inherited sin.

The second article of the Augsburgh Confession is as follows :

“ Of Original or Inherited Sin.” “ We teach that after the fall of Adam, all men, who are naturally born, are conceived and bom in sin; that is, that they are all, from their infancy, full of bad desires and dispositions, and can have no true fear of God, nor faith in God, by nature; and that this innate disease and inherited sin, is really to be accounted sin and condemneth all who are not bom again of water and the Holy Ghost.”

The third section of the Franckean Declaration of Faith, is in these words, viz. “ Primitive State of Man and his Apostacy.”—3. (We believe,) “ That man was created in the image of God, free from sin and every moral imperfection ; that he fell by disobedience from this state, and became morally depraved in his nature, and that in consequence of this sin, he transmitted his moral pollution and sinful propensities to all his posterity.”

Section 5.—“ Of the way of Salvation and the Atonement,” it is true, declares “ that those only who repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.”

The grounds of defence, therefore, on this point are, that the doctrine itself is not essential or cardinal; and that it has been abandoned by the Lutherans generally.

1. As to its being an essential and vital article in the Confession of Faith presented at Augsburgh, I can entertain no doubt. It stands next in order to the declaration of the Protestants as to God, the Creator of all. It is the foundation of the great atonement, of its necessity; in short, of the Christian religion itself; and in every creed and declaration of Christian doctrines, the dogma of human depravity, by the fall of our first parents, in some form, occupies a prominent position, and is made the basis of the belief in Christ’s coming upon earth, and man’s redemption. From the decrees of the Council of Trent, to the declared belief of the Universalist, this doctrine is made essential and cardinal. The total depravity of mankind in consequence of the fait, was one of the Five Points established by the Synod of Dort, on account of the disbelief of which the Arminians were persecuted; and which points, to this day are of commanding influence in the creeds of Calvinism. And in reference to the tenets of other denominations, the Lutheran creed in the Augsburgh Confession, that inherited sin is really to be accounted sin, and of itself condemneth all mankind, is an essential doctrine, and not a difference of opinion

2. In order to derive any benefit from the alleged abandonment by the Lutherans of the doctrine of Inherited Sin as contained in the second article of the Augsburgh Confession, the defendants must establish the changed belief to have existed in these churches when they were endowed with the temporalities in controversy. The history of the Augsburgh Confession with which I set out, shows that no such abandonment had taken place at that period. The testimony respecting it adduced by the defendants, and the publications on the subject, are far from establishing that the Lutherans generally in this country, at the present day, do not believe that article ; although they undoubtedly show a wide latitude of construction among their theologians, in regard to human depravity by nature and its consequences. But I have no evidence before me that any of the donors of the property in question dissented expressly or by construction, from the second article of the Confession, or that they intended their gifts for the support or teaching of a modified or different doctrine.

The complainants have, therefore, in my opinion, established that the defendants have adopted a rule or standard of faith which is different from the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, and the other standards of faith and doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as held and maintained by the founders of the two churches in controversy; and that they have diverted the churches and church property from the purposes and objects for which they were erected and bestowed, and perverted them ' to the preaching, teaching, and support of an essentially different faith and doctrine, in violation of their duty as trustees of that property and those edifices.

IY. There is another ground which forms an important portion of the complainant’s bill, and which relates solely to the government and discipline of these churches, and the severance of their connection with the Hartwick Synod.

The government of the Lutheran Church in Europe, differs

Whether the connection of this synod with the General Synod of the United States, with appellate powers of discipline, was also proper, I am not prepared to say. Without those powers, I perceive no objection to it. Without reference to that question, the Hartwick Synod including these churches, adopted the Doctrine and Formula of the General Synod, and thus made its discipline and government, as adapted to local synods, a part of the system of the Hartwick Synod, to the benefits of which the complainants, as members of these churches, were entitled.

This Formula provides the series of judicatories, as set forth in the bill of complaint, and Lochman confirms their existence to the extent of the local synods.

The inquiry remains, whether this synodical connection was indissoluble without the consent of all the parties on both sides; or was separable by the act of a majority of those entitled to a voice in the government of the two churches, against the wishes of the minority, and without the consent of the other constituent members of the synod.

The decision of the Chancellor in the ■ German Reformed Church case, Gable v. Miller, before cited, appears to establish that the attempt of the defendants to cast off the authority of the Hartwick Synod, was a departure from their duty. And the founders of the Franckean Synod seem to have entertained the same opinion of such a secession ; for they make it irregular for any minister or church to withdraw from the synod, without a regular dismission therefrom. (Article 6th, section 2d.)

I prefer, however, to rest my conclusion on the more important points relating to the faith and doctrine of these churches.

On these points, the defendants are convicted of a violation

There must be a decree, removing from the office of trustees the defendants who held that office when the bill was filed, declaring that their offices are vacant, and that the complainant, Marcus Brown, is a trustee of St. John’s Church at Durlach. There must be a new appointment of trustees, and the defendants and their successors, and those claiming under them in the respective churches, must deliver up to Brown and the new trustees, all the real and personal estate of the two churches, and the books, papers, and records of the same. And they are to account for the rents, income, and profits of the property since the commencement of this suit. The defendants must be perpetually enjoined from interfering with the property, except in accordance with the decree, and from using or appropriating it for any different purpose.

The defendants must be charged with the costs of the suit.

The following decree was entered.

This cause having been duly brought to a bearing on th.e pleadings and proofs therein, and Samuel Stevens having been heard on the part of the complainants, and Henry Hamilton and Marcus T. Reynolds on the part of the defendants, and due deliberation being thereupon had, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, and this court, by virtue of the power and authority therein vested, doth order, adjudge, and decree, that the two church edifices or meeting houses mentioned in the bill of complaint in this cause, as having been erected and built by the members of the two religious societies in the bill mentioned, one of which was subsequently known by the corporate name of “ The Evangelical Lutheran Congregation of St. John’s Church at Durlach, in Sharon,” and the other of which \yas then a religious corporation, known by the corporate name of “ The Ministers and Trustees of the Lutheran Church in Rhinebeok,” in the county of Schoharie and state of New-York, were so erected and built by the members of said churches or congregations, as places of divine worship, by an Evangelical Lutheran Church, according to the principles,-doctrines, and tenets of said church, as established, expressed, and declared in and by the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, and for the purpose of having the faith and doctrines of the said Evangelical Lutheran Church, as expressed and declared in and by that confession, and no different faith or doctrine preached, taught, and inculcated therein, and that the real and personal estate mentioned in the said bill of complaint, as belonging to the said churches or congregations, and by them held in common, were obtained, bestowed, and given by the members of said churches, or congregations, and by other persons, for the sole and only purpose of having the same appropriated and applied to the support and maintenance of the preaching, teaching, and inculcating, in said church edifices, and to the members of said churches or congregations, the doctrines, tenets, and principles of the said Evangelical Lutheran Church, as established and declared in and by the said Augsburgh Confession of Faith, and that all and singular the said two church edifices, with their appurtenances, and the other temporalities of said two churches or congregations, ever since the incorporation of said churches or congregations, as men

And that the said complainants be at liberty to apply for such further order and directions in the executioh- of this decree, as they may be advised.