Ehrenfeldt's Appeal

1. A Lutheran church of long standing was for many years in the habit of sending delegates to a certain District Synod subject to the General Synod of the Lutheran church. Its congregation never adopted any specific profession of faith, nor did it ever expressly acknowledge the authority of the Synod. In 1867 difficulties took place in the Lutheran body which resulted in the formation of a “General Council,” as opposed to a “General Synod.” The District Synod in question gave in its adherence to the “General Council,” the delegates from the particular church spoken of voting to that effect. Afterwards, for several years, said church continued to send delegates to said “District Synod,” and the pastors chosen were those in accord with the opinion of that body. Subsequently the dhurch council regularly elected a pastor holding to the “ General Synod,” who entered on his duties. A bill being filed by certain members of the congregation, seeking to restrain said pastor from acting as such and from using the church property, Held, that the church had always been independent in matter of doctrine; that it had not, by sending delegates to the District Synod, in any way recognized the authority of said Synod or of the General Council, or adopted the distinctive doctrines taught by those bodies. Held, therefore, that the church was at liberty to elect a pastor holding any set of doctrines distinctively Lutheran, and that the bill should be dismissed. 2. The pastor of a church having been appointed to draw up a constitution, did so, and then notified the congregation from the pulpit that it would be read on a certain day. He gave no notice, however, that it would then be acted on. If was so read on the day fixed, and immediately adopted, with but one dissenting vote. Held, that the defect in the notice was sufficient to render the action of the congregation in adopting the constitution irregular and invalid.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland county: Of October Term 1882, No. 8. This was an appeal by A. C. Elirenfeldt and others from a decree of said court enjoining the appellant, Elirenfeldt, from officiating as pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Zion Church of ILempfield township, and en joining the remaining appellants, council of said church, from admitting as pastor any one who did not preach the doctrine indorsed by the general council, or from using any of the rents and profits of church property for the maintenance or propagation of any other doctrine. Bill in equity, wherein Albert Harrold, Joseph Harrold, and Jacob Altman, members of the congregation of the church aforesaid, were complainants, and A. O. Ehrenfeldt and others, respectively, the pastor and council of said church, defendants. The bill alleged that the church in question was the owner of a certain tract of seventy acres, whereon the church and other buildings were erected j that by the constitution of said church tbe congregation received and adhered to the doctrines endorsed by the General Council of the Lutheran Church, and was in union with a synod holding said doctrines; and further, that no person could officiate as pastor who did not hold to said doctrines and profess the same; that notwithstanding the premises, the defendant Ehrenfeldt had intruded himself as pastor without holding, or professing the doctrines aforesaid, and had conspired and combined with the other defendants to teach other docti-ines, and to use the church building and revenues for the propagation of the same. The bill prayed for an injunction to restrain said Ehrenfeldt from officiating as pastor, and for a decree requiring the'respondents, composing the council of the congregation, to proceed to fill the vacancy in the office of pastor, according to the mode prescribed by the church practice, etc. The answer denied that the constitution above referred to had ever been legally adopted, and further averred that defendant Ehrenfeldt had been duly elected by the church council, and also that the church, though attached to the doctrines of the General Synod of the Lutheran church, had'always acted independently in the choice of its pastora. The Examiner to whom the case was referred, with the powers of a master, found the facts to be as follows : The church in question was organized at an early date. In 1708 a patent was granted to trustees in its behalf for the land upon which the church building was erected. At that time there was no difference of opinion in thq Lutheran body, A “ General Synod ” met from time to time, to which local or district synods were subject. The church at Ilempfield sent delegates to the District Synod of Ohio as early as 1816, and continued regularly thereafter to do so. It did not, however, make any distinct statement or confession of faith. In 1867 differences of opinion took place in the Lutheran denomination, which led to the formation of what was known as the “ General Council,” as distinguished from the “ General Synod.” A number of the district synods gave in their adherence to the General Council; among others, that of Ohio. Bev. Jonas Mechling, pastor of the Ilempfield church, and John Meyers, lay delegate from said church, represented the congregation at the meeting of the District Synod of Ohio when the question was raised. Both voted in favor of annexing said synod to the “ General Council.” In 1868 Bev. Jonas Mechling died, and was succeeded by Bev. George Bruegle, wffio was duly elected pastor by the church council. Mr. Bruegle became a member of the District Synod of Ohio, and during his pastorate introduced certain changes, approved by the “ General Council.” In 1873 Mr. Bruegle was succeeded by Bev. Enoch Smith, who became also a member of the District Synod of Ohio, and approved of the doctrines held by the “ G-eneral Council.” Early in the year 1875 a committee was appointed to draft a constitution for the Iiempfield church. They failed, however, to do so, and Mr. Smith was delegated to perform this duty. He thereupon drew up a constitution containing the clauses substantially recited in the bill, and also an article prohibiting any amendment without the vote of two-thirds of the congregation. Mr. Smith then announced from the pulpit that on Thanksgiving Day, 1875, the constitution would be read to the congregation. A good number of people were preseut on that day. The constitution was read in German and English. After it was read, a motion to postpone any further consideration of it until a future day was either withdrawn or lost. A motion to consider it at once, and either adopt or reject it, carried. It was then read, voted on, and adopted, section by section. It was then voted as a whole, and adopted, with but one dissenting vote. Only a portion of those present, however, voted; a great many, without offering any objections to the proceedings, remaining silent. The constitution was declared adopted by the pastor, and the meeting adjourned. It afterwards appeared that a good deal of dissatisfaction existed, and at a subsequent meeting of the congregation it was finally agreed that another meeting should be held in two weeks; that notice should be given everybody concerned, and that they would then take another vote on the constitution, to see whether it should stand or fall. It was further agreed, and so announced by Mr. Smith, that the majority should rule at said meeting. Pursuant to this agreement, the congregation met. There was a largo turn-out. The vote for or against the constitution was taken by ballot, and resulted 26 for, and 46 against. Seven members testified that they were present at this meeting, and desired to vote; that their votes were refused by Mr. Smith, on the ground that they were constitutionally disqualified, and that if permitted to vote, they would have voted against the constitution. These seven, added to the 46 cast, would have made precisely two-thirds of all the voters present. Mr. Smith decided and announced that the constitution still stood, because there was not. a two-thirds vote against it. This gave rise to so much bickering and dissatisfaction, that finally, in the interest of peace and harmony, it was determined to call in the president of Synod to see if some way could not be found to settle the difficulty. Early in the spring of- 1877 a meeting was held, at which Rev. J. Weaver, President of the District Synod of Ohio, presided. After some discussion, the wing of the congregation which had opposed the constitution, submitted, in writing, a proposition upon which a settlement could be based. The substance of this writing was that if Mr. Smith would resign, they would co-operate with the other wing of the congregation; things should go on as before; and peace and harmony would be restored. This proposition was accepted, and Mr. Smith resigned. Immediately thereafter, liev. W. F. Ullery was elected pastor pro tern., he being also a member of the District Synod of Ohio. In July 1880, the church council duly called defendant, Ehrenfeldt, to act as pastor. He consented, and entered on the duties of the office. Said Ehren’feldt was not a member of any synod connected with the “ General Council,” nor did he in any way profess or obligate himself to preach the doctrines advocated by such council. The court, Hunter, P. J., being of opinion that the doctrines taught and encouraged by defendants were other than those which had been taught in the church before the dispute arose, entered a decree in accordance with the prayers of the bill. Defendants thereupon took this appeal, assigning for error the decree of the court.