Chije.Ch

A temple or building consecrated to the honor of God and religion; or, an assembly of persons, united by the profession of the same Christian faith, met together for all religious worship.' Among those whose polity is congregational or independent, a body of persons associated together for the purpose of maintaining Christian worship and ordinances.* A " religious society " may be a body of persons associated for worship, omitting the sacraments.* "Church" and "society" popularly denote the same thing: a religious body organized to sustain public worship." A school-house in which religious services are held on Sunday is not a " church." ' The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the State V. Chandler, 2 Harr., Del., 562 (1837); Shover v. State, 10 Ark. 2C3 (1850); Bloom v. Eichards, 2 Ohio, 3^D (1863); Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Barb. 560-68 (1861); Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Ey. Co., 54 Pa. 432(1867); Hale v. Everett, 63 N. H. 204 (1868); Board of Education v. Minor, 33 Ohio St. 346-54 (1873); 30 Alb. Law J. 265, 385 (1879). -" Cooley, Const. Lim. 472, cases. 2 See 'Wheaton o. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834); Pennsylvania V. ■Wheeling, &c. Bridge Co., 13 How. 519 (1851). ' Eobertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. 95 (1860). * [Silsby V. Barlow, 16 Gray, 330 (1860); Anderson V. Brock, 3 Me. *847 (1836).. ' Society v. Hatch, 48 N. H. 396 (1869). « State V. Midgett, 85 N. C. 538 (1881). See also 9 decision of controverlsd questionrof faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government o£ all individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied assent to this government, and are bound to submit to it... Each member is bound by the law of the society,— the written organic law, books ofdiscipline, collections of precedents, usages and customs. The civil courts have only to do with the rights of property: they cannot revise an act of discipline, excommunication, etc., though they may inquire whether such act was the act of the church or of persons who did not constitute the church. Where property is in dispute, the civil court inquires: (1) Was the property or fund devoted, by the express terms of the gift, grant, or sale by which it was acquired, to the support of a speoiflc doctrine or belief, or was it acquired for the general use of the society for religious purposes, with no other limitation? If so, when necessary to protect a trust, the court will inquire into the faith or practice of the parties claiming the use or control of the property, and see that it is not diverted from the trust. (2) Is the society of the strictly independent form of government, owing no submission to any organization outside of the congregation? If so, the rights of conflicting claimants are determined by the ordinary rules which govern voluntary associations — the will of the majority, the decision of chosen officers, or otherwise. Those who adhere to the acknowledged organism by which the body is governed are entitled to the use of the property. No inquiry is made into the opinions of those who comprise the legal or regular organization. (3) Is the society one of a number united to form a more general body of churches, with ecclesiastical control in the general association over the individual members and societies? The tribunals of such association decide all questions of faith, discipline, rule, custom, or government. When a right of property depends on one of those questions, and that has been decided by the highest tribunal within the organization to which it has been carried, the civil courts accept that decision as final. The local society is but a member of a larger organization, under its control and bound by its judgments.! Churcli and state. See Religion. See also Assembly, Civil; Banns; Canon, I^aw; Christianity; Congregation; Parish, 1; Pew; Sanctuary, 1; Schism; Subscribe, 3; Worship. 'Watson V. Jones, 13 Wall. 713, TJ2-31 (1871), cases, Miller, J. The litigation grew out of dissension, due primarily to differences of opinion upon the subject of slavery, among the members of the Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, of Louisville, Ky. See also Bouldin v. Alexander, 15 id. 131. 140 (1878); Same ■o. Same, 103 U. S. 330 (1880); Hennessey v. Walsh, 55 N. H. 515, 526 (1876); Stack v. O'Hara, 98 Pa. 232 (1881); Graff V. Greer, 88 Ind. 13;-32 (1883), cases; Hadley «. Mendenhall, 89 id. 136, 158-.56 (1883), cases; Wliitecar v. Michenor, 37 N. J. IS. 6 (1883, cases; State v. Rector, 46