THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ject placed a very low limit upon the amount of property which might he held by any one religious organization. The public policy respecting the accumulation of property by religious bodies gradually became more liberal, and their legal facilities were more adequately defined. The manner in which property may now be devoted to the purposes of religion, the title by which such property is held, and the powers of religious societies or their trustees over it, depend in each state upon the statutory enactments and also upon the nature of the conveyance and the character and legal form of the church organization seeking to hold it. There is a general harmony in the policies of the several states in the matter of the taxation of church property All of the states at the present time exempt property devoted exclusively to the purposes of religion from taxation, but not from special taxes levied in the form of assessments for local improvements. This exemption is not extended to property that is held by a religious body for investment and revenue and not actually used for purposes of religion. By statute in some jurisdictions the amount of land which may be held by religious corporations is still limited. Where a statute provides a limitation solely as to the quantity of land, these bodies are not limited as to the value of the property which they may hold. It depends upon the terms of the statute whether this limitation extends to unincorporated as well as to incorporated societies. Such a limitation applies only to single societies and not to religious denominations. It is the general rule applicable to all religious bodies that a conveyance of property in trust for the use of a certain church to certain trustees and their successors, invests their society with the legal title, and not with any beneficial interest; and the trustees have no power to transfer the title of the property from the body for whose use they hold it. The legal title must remain in them while they remain in office ; and when they resign or are displaced, it will either remain in them or be in abeyance until their successors are chosen. In either case it is their duty to hold the property until some one is invested with authority to receiveit. 2. Methods of Holding- It : While the provisions for the holding of the property of religious societies or churches differ greatly in matters of detail, there are throughout the United States only five general methods in use: (1) where the churches themselves become corporations upon the execution and filing of articles of association or by securing charters in accordance with law as in Indiana and Pennsylvania; (2) where the churches are required to elect trustees, such trustees being constituted the corporation as in Maryland, Montana, and New Jersey; (3) where, as in Virginia and West Virginia, trustees are appointed by the courts for the churches in order to secure their property rights; (4) where, as in the Roman Catholic Church, the property is held by the bishop or archbishop of the diocese. An official thus holding church property may be regarded as a corporation sole, although in some of the states he would not be so regarded. Delaware has legislation prohibiting this method of holding church property. In certain states, however, as in Oregon, special legislation has been secured per-
mitting this method. (5) Church property in the United States is still sometimes held by unincorporated churches. If they have no trustees it is doubtful whether lands can be granted by deed to them, but it would appear that they may receive both real and personal property by will. Every effort is made by the courts to protect the property rights of such churches.
3. American Rule of Specific Trusts : While all property devoted to the purposes of religion is, broadly speaking, trust property, to some property there are attached specific trusts. Property which by deed or by will of the donor, or by other instrument, is held for the express purpose of teaching some specific form of doctrine, or for any other religious object, can not be diverted from such purpose or object, so long as there are any persons willing to carry out the objects of the trust, or who, having a standing in court, are prepared to insist upon the execution of the same. For instance, a trust created to support the teaching of the Presbyterian system of doctrine, or for the maintenance of a home for the orphans of deceased Baptist ministers, can not be diverted to any other purposes. If, in the case of a given specific trust, the trustees fail, the courts, if applied to, will provide new trustees, and will carry into effect the intent of the donor or testator so far as the same can be ascertained.
4. Property and Church Divisions : The rules regulating ecclesiastical property rights in cases of
. schism have been developed by the ' from De- c^v^ courts, both state and federal, nomination. m a series of notable cases, and may be summarized- as follows: if a church acquires property when it is connected with a denomination as a subordinate branch of such denomination, it loses title to the property so acquired by severing its connection with the denomination. This rule is not to be interpreted, however, as meaning that no congregation can change any material part of its principles or practises without forfeiting its property. Individual members who, disapproving of the use of the property for the denominational purposes for which it was acquired, voluntarily leave the society and enter into another, must be regarded as abandoning their rights and privileges in respect to such property. But a majority of a congregation excluded from the church building by a minority and holding its meetings in another place does not thereby secede where it forms no new congregation and maintains the same officers and is recognized as the original church by the council of the denomination. Nor do the members of a faction withdraw from the church by supporting only their own organization (holding separate services) at separate times under another pastor and attempting to discharge the original pastor. The mere fact that the members withdrawing from the control of the supreme body of the denomination preserve identical theological belief and religious observances with those of the body from which they withdraw does not prevent them from losing title to the property.
In case of a schism in a church which is in connection with and a constituent part of an ecclesiastical organization and which has a head invested