| Summary: | 334 29 NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS sonal views. The question is largely one of fact, involving primarily a construction of the constitution of the Thingvalla Congregation, which is the governing and controlling contract between these parties, and must measure their respective rights. Was it the intention of these contracting parties to adopt, and did they knowingly adopt and agree to, the doctrine of plenary inspiration of the Bible ? It seems plain to me from this record that such question must be answered in the neg ative, and that the learned trial court's finding to the contrary is with out support in the proof. Xo one contends that such constitution or contract expressly stipu lates in favor of the doctrine of plenary inspiration, for there is not the least foundation in such instrument for such contention, but it is con tended, as I understand it, that such doctrine was "presupposed," or, in other words, inferred or implied. As I construe such instrument, however, there is no warrant for reading into it such implied or in ferred stipulation or presupposed doctrine of faith; for it is or must, I think, be conceded that up to that time the Icelandic Lutheran Church had not adopted any definite doctrine or creed upon the subject. On the contrary, it affirmatively appears that the so-called mother church of Iceland professed and adhered to no such doctrine in its confessional documents, or otherwise. I am therefore inevitably forced to the con clusion that if the parties to this compact intended such a radical de parture from the doctrines of the mother church they no doubt would have, in unmistakable language, so stipulated. This is but reasonable. They did not deem it necessary, however, to insert any express stipula tion on so vital and important a matter, although matters of much more minor importance were carefully covered. The truth is, as I read and construe the record, that no particular doctrine of faith respecting the inspiration of the Bible was ever thought of by them, much less consid ered. They merely took it for granted that all accepted the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible. In other words, it was "presupposed'' that the Bible was inspired, but in what specific manner it was thus inspired did not, at that time, concern them. If it had, is it not reasonable to presume that they would have covered the subject by express stipula tion ? It is very apparent that when, some years later, the question arose as to the particular belief of the congregation respecting the doctrine of verbal, mechanical, or plenary inspiration of the Bible
|
|---|