The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-10-16

pressed their intention that a partic
ular form of worship and government
be maintained, it is not in the power
o. individuals having the manage
ment of the institution, at any time
to alter the purpose for which it
was founded"
In the case of Watson VS.. Jones, Ii
Wall. 679, the Supreme Court of the
United States recognize the sound
ness of the principle for WHICH we
contend in the following strong
language: eff the trust is ccnfded
to a religious congregation of the in
dependent or congregational form of
church government, it is not in the
power of the majority of that copgre
cation, however preponderant, by
reason of change of views on relig-
ious subjects, to carry the property
SO confded to them to the support of
new and conflicting doctrines A
pious man building and dedicating
house of worship to the sole and ex-
elusive use of those who believe in
the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and
placing it under the control of con-
gregation which at the time holds
the same belief, has a right to ex-
pect that the law will prevent the
property from being used as means
of support and dissemination of the
Unitarian doctrine, and as place of
Unitarian worship. Nor is the prin-
ciple varied when the organization to
which the trust is confded is of the
second or associated form of church
government.
"The protection which the law
throws around the trust is the same.
And though the task may be del
icate one and a difficult one, it will
be the duty of the court in such
cases, when the doctrine to be taught
or the form of worship to be used is
definitely and clearly laid down, to
inquire whether the party accused
of violating the trust is holding or
teaching different doctrine, or using
form of worship which is go far
variant as to defeat the declared OBJ
iects of trust"
In the recent case of Mount Zion
Church VS.. Whitmore, SO Iowa 1873
(49 n. W. Rep. 81; 13 L. r. A. 1881 the
Supreme Court of Iowa says: " Upon
authority SO general as to be be be-
yond question it is held that prop
erty given or set apart to a church
or religious association, for its use
in the enjoyment and PRONUNCIATION
of its adopted faith and teachings, is
by said church or association held
in trust for that purpose, and any
member OF the church or association,
less than the whole, may not divert
it therefrom. + = The Mt. Zion
Baptist Church came into possession
and ownership of the property it now
holds under profession of faith and
practice limited by the articles of
faith and church covenants published
ia the minutes of the Des Moines
Baptist Association in the year 184S,'
which we understand to accord with
the teachings of the Baptist demon
nation. These articles of faith and
church covenants, and the teach
ings with which they accord, are
limitation on the trust or use to
which the property may be applied.
# The organization gave birth to
the church, and power to govern
the church. The church is Baptist
because of the faith and covenants
that make it SO. 1t is not the faith
and covenants that need or are to be
governed, but the members in the
enjoyment and fulfillment of the
same. The power to govern the
church gives no power to change the
church or the faith and covenants
that fix its character. The property
of this church is the common prop
erty of all it's members, and each has
such an interest therein that he may
insist that it shall be devoted to the
religious faith for which it was given
The manner of the application is
delegated to the judgment of ma
jority Of the members of the church,
but there is no delegation of author
ity to the majority to apply it to the
advancement of church of another
faith by direct transfer, or by chang
ing the faith of a majority of the
members of the church" In the still
more recent case of Smith vs.. Pedigo,
33 N. E. Rep. III and Al N. E. Rep.
1868 (32 L. R. A. $500 the authorities
are collated and reviewed and the
doctrine of the Iowa case fully sus
tanned. These citations and quota
tions could be extended to fill vol
umP