CANON LAW. Canon law, ius canonicum, is the sum of the laws framed by the ecclesiastical body for its own regulation. It concerns the constitution of the Church and the relations between it and other bodies, religious and civil, and also matters of internal discipline. Canon law has been developed to a considerable extent chiefly under ecclesiastical hierarchies of the authoritarian type, and especially in the Roman Church.
The theory of Canon Law implies that its sources are of such a nature as to be binding upon the whole religious body, or at least upon a specified portion of it. In the highest rank are placed Christ and the Apostles, whose dispositions for the constitution and government of the Church are contained in the New Testa ment, completed by tradition. To the Apostles succeeded the episcopal body, with its chief the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, whose legislative and disciplinary power, by a process of centralization, underwent a slow but uninterrupted develop ment. It is, then, to the episcopate, assembled in ecumenical council, and to its chief, that the function of legislating for the whole Church belongs.
We proceed briefly to describe those texts and collections of canons which to-day form the ecclesiastical law of the western Church: (I) up to the Decretum of Gratian, (2) up to the council of Trent, (3 and 4) up to the present day, including the codification ordered by Pius X.
These compilations began in the East. It appears that in several different districts canons made by the local assemblies were added to those of the council of Nicaea which were every where accepted and observed. The first example seems to be that of the province of Pontus, where, after the twenty canons of Nicaea were placed the twenty-five canons of the council of Ancyra (314), and the fifteen of that of Neocaesarea (315-320. These were afterwards increased to over 15o, and formed a col lection so well known that at the council of Chalcedon (451) several of them were read out and referred to by number. It was further increased by the twenty-eight (thirty) canons of Chalce don ; about the same time were added the four canons of the council of Constantinople of 381, under the name of which also appeared three (or seven) other canons of a later date. Towards the same date, also, the so-called "Apostolic Canons" were placed at the head of the group. Such was the condition of the Greek collection when it was translated and introduced into the West.
In the course of the 6th century the collection was completed by the addition of documents already in existence, but which had hitherto remained isolated, notably the canonical letters of several great bishops, Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Basil and others. It was at this time that the Latin collection of Dionysius Exiguus (see below) became known; and just as he had given the Greek councils a place in his collection, so from him were borrowed the canons of councils which did not appear in the Greek collection— the twenty canons of Sardica (343), in the Greek text, which differs considerably from the Latin ; and those of the council of Carthage of 419, which itself included, more or less completely, in 105 canons, the decisions of the African councils. Soon after came the council in Trullo (692), also called the Quinisextum, because it was considered as complementary to the two councils (5th and 6th ecumenical) of Constantinople (553 and 68o), which had not made any disciplinary canons. This assembly elaborated 102 canons, which did not become part of the Western law till much later, on the initiative of Pope John VIII. (872-881). Now, in the second of its canons, the council in Trullo recognizes and sanctions the Greek collection above mentioned; it enumerates all its articles, insists on the recognition of these canons, and at the same time prohibits the addition of others. This collection, together with the 22 canons of the council of Nicaea in 787, forms the official canon law of the Greek Church'.
For several centuries there is no mention in the West of any but local collections of canons, and even these are not found till the 5th century; we have to come down to the 8th or even the 9th century before we find any trace of unification. This process was uniformly the result of the passing on of the various collec tions from one region to another. The most remarkable, and the most homogeneous, as well as without doubt the most ancient of these local collections is that of the Church of Africa. It was formed, so to speak, automatically, owing to the plenary as semblies of the African episcopate held practically every year, at which it was customary first of all to read out the canons of the previous councils. The African collection has not come to us directly: we have two incomplete and confused arrangements of it, in two collections, that of the Hispana (see below) and that of Dionysius Exiguus. The latter reproduces more or less fully, almost all the synods of the collection ; this was the celebrated 'For the further history of the law of the Greek Church and that of the Eastern Churches, see Vering, Kirchenrecht, §§ 14-183 (ed. 1893) The Russian Church, as we know, adopted the Greek ecclesiastical law.
Concilium Africanam, so often quoted in the middle ages, which was also recognized by the Greeks.
The Roman Church, even more than the rest, governed itself according to its own customs and traditions. Up to the end of the 5th century the only canonical document of non-Roman origin which it officially recognized was the group of canons of Nicaea, under which name were also included those of Sardica. The local law was founded on usage and on the papal letters called decretals. The latter were of two kinds: some were addressed to the bishops of the ecclesiastical province immediately subject to the pope ; the others were issued in answer to questions submitted from various quarters; but in both cases the doctrine is the same. At the beginning of the 6th century the Roman Church adopted the collection drawn up at that time by the monk Dionysius, known by the name of Dionysius Exiguus (q.v.). At the desire of Stephen, bishop of Salona, he undertook the task of making a new translation, from the original Greek text, of the canons of the Greek collection. The manuscript which he used contained only the first fifty of the Apostolic Canons; these he translated, and they thus became part of the law of the West. This part of the work of Dionysius was not added to later ; it was otherwise with the second part. This embodied the documents containing the local law, namely 39 decretals of the popes from Siricius (384-398) to Anastasius II. (496-498). As was natural this collection received successive additions as further decretals appeared. The collection formed by combining these two parts remained the only official code of the Roman Church until the labours undertaken in consequence of the reforming movement in the iith century. In 774 Pope Adrian I. gave the twofold collection of the Scythian monk to the future emperor Charle magne as the canonical book of the Roman Church; this is what is called the Dionysio-Hadriana. This was an important stage in the history of the centralization of canon law; the collection was officially received by the Frankish Church, imposed by the council of Aix-la-Chapelle of 802, and from that time on was recognized and quoted as the liber canonum. The DXonysio-Hadriana did not, when introduced into Gaul, take the place of any other generally received collection of canons. In this country the Church had not been centralized round a principal see which would have produced unity in canon law as in other things ; even the political territorial divisions had been very unstable. The only canonical centre of much activity was the Church of Arles, which exercised consider able influence over the surrounding region in the 5th and 6th centuries. Evidently the impulse towards unity had to come from without ; it began with the alliance between the Carolingians and the Papacy, and was accentuated by the recognition of the liber canonum.
In Spain the case, on the contrary, is that of a strong cen tralization round the see of Toledo. Thus we find Spanish canon law embodied in a collection which, though perhaps not official, was circulated and received everywhere; this was the Spanish collection, the The collection is well put together and includes almost all the important canonical documents. In the first part are contained the councils, arranged according to the regions in which they were held : Greek councils, following a translation of Italian origin, but known by the name of Hispana, African, Gallican and Spanish councils. Nearly all these were held at Toledo, beginning with the great council of 589. The series continued up to 694 and was only interrupted by the Mus sulman invasion. Finally, the second part of the Hispana contains the papal decretals, as in the collection of Dionysius. From the middle of the 9th century this collection was to become even more celebrated ; for, as we know, it served as the basis for the famous collection of the False Decretals.
The churches of Great Britain and Ireland remained still longer outside the centralizing movement. Their contribution towards the later system of canon law consisted in two things : the Penitentials and the influence of the Irish collection, the other sources of local law not having been known to the predecessors of Gratian nor to Gratian himself. The Penitentials are collections canonum Ecclesiae Hispanae (18o8) ; reproduced in Migne, P. L. 84.
intended for the guidance of confessors in estimating the penances to be imposed for various sins, according to the discipline in force in the Anglo-Saxon countries. They are all of Anglo-Saxon or Irish origin, and although certain of them were compiled on the continent, under the influence of the island missionaries, it seems quite certain that a Roman Penitential has never existed'. They are, however, of difficult and uncertain ascription, since the collections have been largely amended and remodelled as practice required. Among the most important we may mention those bearing the names of Vinnianus (d. 589), Gildas (d. 583), Theo dore of Canterbury (d. 69o), the Venerable Bede (d. 735) and Egbert of York (732-767) ; the Penitentials which are ascribed to St. Columbanus, the founder of Luxeuil and Bobbio (d. 615), and Cumean (Cumine Ailbha, abbot of Iona) ; in the Frankish kingdom the most interesting work is the Penitential of Halitgar, bishop of from 817 to 831. As penances had for a long time been lightened, and the books used by confessors began to consist more and more of instructions in the style of the later moral theology (and this is already the case of the books of Halitgar and Rhabanus Maurus), the canonical collections began to include a greater or smaller number of the penitential canons. The Irish though it introduced no important documents into the law of the Western Church, at least set canonists the example of quoting passages from the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers. This collection seems to date from the 8th cen tury; besides the usual sources, the author has included several documents of local origin, beginning with the pretended synod of St. Patrick.
In the very middle of the 9th century a much enlarged edition of the Hispana began to be circulated in France. To this rich collection the author, who assumes the name of Isidore, the saintly bishop of Seville, added a good number of apocryphal documents already existing, as well as a series of letters ascribed to the popes of the earliest centuries, from Clement to Silvester and Damasus inclusive, thus filling up the gap before the decretal of Siricius, which is the first genuine one in the collection. The other papal letters only rarely show signs of alteration or falsi fication, and the text of the councils is entirely respected'. For a study of the historical questions connected with the famous False Decretals, see the article DECRETALS (FALSE) ; here we have only to consider them with reference to the place they occupy in the formation of ecclesiastical law. In spite of some hesitation, with regard rather to the official character than to the historical authenticity of the letters attributed to the popes of the earlier centuries, the False Decretals were accepted with con fidence, together with the authentic texts which served as a pass port for them. All later collections availed themselves indiscrimi nately of the contents of this vast collection, whether authentic or forged, without the least suspicion.
The False Decretals did not greatly modify nor corrupt the Canon Law, but they contributed much to accelerate its progress towards unity. For they were the last of the chronological collec tions, i.e., those which give the texts in the order in which they appeared. From this time on, canonists began to exercise their individual judgment in arranging their collections according to some systematic order, grouping their materials under divisions more or less happy, according to the object they had in view. This was the beginning of a codification of a common canon law, in which the sources drawn upon lose, as it were, their local character. This is made even more noticeable by the fact that, in a good number of the works extant, the author is not content merely to set forth and classify the texts ; but he proceeds to 'This is proved by M. Paul Fournier, "Etude sur les Penitentiels," in the Revue d'histoire et de litterature religieuses, vol. vi. (i9oi), pp. 289-317, and vol. vii., 19o2, pp. 59-7o and 121-127.
discuss the point, drawing conclusions and sometimes outlining some controversy on the subject, just as Gratian was to do more fully later on. During this period, which extended from the end of the 9th century to the middle of the 12th, we can enumerate about forty systematic collections, of varying value and circula tion, which played a greater or lesser part in preparing the juridical renaissance of the 12th century, and most of which were utilized by Gratian.
Gratian published, probably in 1148, his treatise called at first Concordantia discordantium canonurn, but soon known under the name of the Decretum. Nowadays, and for some time past, the only part of the Decretum considered is the collection of texts; but it is actually a treatise, in which the author endeavours to piece together a coherent juridical system from the vast body of texts, of widely differing periods and origin, which are furnished by the collections. These texts he inserts bodily in the course of his dissertation; where they do not agree, he divides them into opposite groups and endeavours to reconcile them ; but the really original part of his work is the Dicta Gratiani, inserted between the texts, which are still read. Gratian drew his mate rials from the existing collections, and especially from the richer of them ; when necessary, he has recourse to the Roman laws, and he made an extensive use of the works of the Fathers and the ecclesiastical writers; he further made use of the canons of the recent councils, and the recently published decretals, up to and including the Lateran council of 1139. His immense work con sists of three parts (partes). The first, treating of the sources of canon law and of ecclesiastical persons and offices, is divided according to the method of Paucapalea, Gratian's pupil, into tor distinctiones, which are subdivided into canones. The second part consists of 36 causae (cases proposed for solution), subdivided into quaestiones (the several questions raised by the case), under each of which are arranged the various canones (canons, decretals, etc.) bearing on the question. The third part, which is entitled De Consecration, gives, in five distinctiones, the law bearing on church ritual and the sacraments.
Considered from the point of view of official authority, the Decretum occupies an intermediate position very difficult to define. It is not and cannot be a really official code, in which every text has the force of a law. There was as yet no idea of demanding an official compilation. The Decretum has thus remained a work of private authority, and the texts embodied in it have only that legal value which they possess in themselves. On the other hand, it actually enjoys a public authority which is unique ; for centuries it has been the text on which has been founded the instruction in canon law in all the universities; it has been glossed and com mented on by the most illustrious canonists ; it has become, without being a body of laws, the first part of the Corpus iuris canonici, and as such it has been cited, corrected and edited by the popes. It has thus, by usage, obtained an authority perfectly recognized and accepted by the Church'.
Gratian's collection, for the very reason that it had for its aim the creation of a systematic canon law, was a work of a transi tional character. Henceforth a significant differentiation began to appear ; the collections of texts, the number of which continued to increase, were clearly separated from the commentaries in which the canonists continued the formation and interpretation of the law. Thus the way was prepared for official collections. The disciples of Gratian, in glossing or commenting on the Decretum, turned to the papal decretals, as they appeared, for information and the determination of doubtful points. Their idea, then, was to make collections of these points, to support their teaching ; this is the origin of five large Compilationes which were after wards embodied in the collection of Gregory IX. These compila tions were intended by their authors to complete the Decretum of Gratian ; in them were included the decretals called extravagantes, i.e., quae vagabantur extra Decretum. The most important is the Breviarium extravagantium, compiled about 1190 by Bernard of Pavia.
The result of these and numerous other supplements to Gratian's work, apart from the inconvenience caused by their being scattered, was the accumulation of a mass of material almost as considerable as the Decretum itself, from which they tended to split off and form an independent whole, embodying as they did the latest state of the law. From 123o Gregory IX. wished to remedy this condition of affairs, and gave to his penitentiary, the Dominican Raymond of Pennaforte, the task of condensing the five compilations in use into a single collection, freed from useless and redundant documents. Raymond does not attempt any original work; to the texts already included in the Quinque compilationes, he adds only nine decretals of Innocent III. and 196 chapters of Gregory IX. This first official code was the basis of the second part of the Corpus iuris canonici.
Gregory IX. wished to supersede the compilationes, but he had no idea of superseding the Decretum of Gratian, still less of codifying the whole of the canon law. Though his collection is still in theory the chief monument of ecclesiastical law, it only marked a certain stage and was before long to receive further addi tions. The reason for this is that in most cases the decretals did not formulate any law, but were merely solutions of particular cases, given as models. Two important results, however, were achieved : on the one hand, supplementary collections on private authority ceased to be made, for this Gregory IX. had forbidden; on the other hand, the collections were no longer indefinitely swelled by the addition of new decisions in particular cases, those already existing being enough to form a basis for the codification of the abstract law ; and for this reason subsequent collections con tain as a rule only the "constitutions" of popes or councils, i.e., rules laid down as of general application. Two new official collec tions followed. The first was prepared by a committee of canonists under Boniface VIII., and published in 1298. As it came as an addition to the five books of Gregory IX., it was called the sixth book, the Liber Sextus. It includes the constitutions subsequent to 1234, and notably the decrees of the two oecumenical councils of Lyons ; the last title, de regulis iuris, contains no less than eighty-eight legal axioms, mostly borrowed from Roman law. The next collection, the Clementinae, was prepared under the care of Clement V., and even promulgated by him in consistory in March 1314; but, in consequence of the death of the pope, which took place almost immediately after, the publication and dispatch of the collection to the universities was postponed till 1317, under John XXII. It includes the constitutions of Clement V., and above all, the decrees of the council of Vienne of 1311, and is divided, like preceding collections, into books and titles; it is cited in the same way, with the additional indication Clem-(entina).
At this point the official collections stop. The two last, which have found a place in the editions of the Corpus, are collections of private authority, but ones in which all the documents are authentic. Evidently the strict prohibition of the publishing of collections not approved by the Holy See had been forgotten. The Extravagantes (i.e. extra collectiones publicas) of John XXII. number 20, and are classified under fourteen titles. The Extra vagantes communes (i.e. coming from several popes) number 73, from Boniface VIII. to Sixtus IV. (1484), and are classified in books and titles. These two collections were included in the edition of Jean Chappuis in 15oo; they passed into the later editions, and are considered as forming part of the Corpus iuris canonici. As such, and without receiving any complementary authority, they have been corrected and re-edited, like the others, by the Cor rectores romani. They are cited, like the decretals, with a further indication of the collection to which they belong : Extray. Jo. XXII., or inter-comm-(unes).
Thus was closed, as the canonists say, the Corpus iuris canonici; but this expression, which is familiar to us nowadays, is only a bibliographical term. Though we find in the i5th century, for example, at the council of Basel the expression corpus iuris, obviously suggested by the Corpus iuris civilis, not even the official edition of Gregory XIII. has as its title the words Corpus iuris canonici, and we do not meet with this title till the Lyons edition of 1671.
Though the collections of canon law were to receive no more additions, the source of the laws was not dried up; decisions of councils and popes continued to appear; but there was no attempt made to collect them. Canonists obtained the recent texts as they could. Moreover, it was an epoch of trouble : the great Schism of the West, the profound divisions which were its result, the abuses which were to issue in the Reformation, were conditions little favourable for a reorganization of the ecclesiastical laws. Thus we are brought to the third period.
After the Council of Trent.—The numerous important de crees made by the council of Trent, in the second part of its sessions, called de ref ormatione, are the starting-point of the canon law in its latest stage, jus novissimum; it is this which is still in force in the Roman Church. It has in no way undermined the official status of the Corpus iuris; but it has completed the legis lation of the latter in many important respects, and in some cases reformed it. During this period, the legislative power becomes strongly centralized in the hands of the pope : since the reforming decrees of the council of Trent it is the pontifical constitutions alone which have made the common law ; the ecumenical council has not become obsolete but no such council was held until that of the Vatican (187o), and this latter was unable to occupy itself with matters of discipline. This centralization, in its turn, has greatly increased the tendency towards unity and uniformity, which have reached in the present practice of the Roman Church a degree never known before, and considered by some to be excessive.
If we now consider the laws in themselves, we shall find that the dispersed condition of the legislative documents has not been modified since the closure of the Corpus iuris; on the contrary, the enormous number of pontifical constitutions, and of decrees emanating from the Roman Congregations, has greatly aggravated the situation ; moreover, the attempts which have been made to resume the interrupted process of codification have entirely failed. As regards the texts, the canon law of to-day is in a very similar position to that of English law, which gave rise to J. S. Mill's saying : "All ages of English history have given one another ren dezvous in English law; their several products may be seen all together, not interfused, but heaped one upon another, as many different ages of the earth may be read in some perpendicular sec tion of its surfacer." Nothing has been abrogated, except in so far as this has been implicitly demanded by subsequent laws. From this result insoluble controversies and serious uncertainties, both in the study and practice of the law; and, finally, it has become impossible for most people to have a first-hand knowledge of the actual laws. For this third period, the most important and most considerable of the canonical texts is the body of disciplinary de crees of the council of Trent . In consequence of the prohibition issued by Pius IV., they have not been published separately from the dogmatic texts and other acts, and have not been ; but their official interpretation has been reserved by the popes to the "Congregation of the cardinal interpreters of 'Quoted by Hogan, Clerical Studies, p. are innumerable editions of the council of Trent. That which is favoured by canonists is Richter's edition (Leipzig, 1863), in which each chapter de reformatione is followed by a selection of decisions of the S.C. of the council.
the Council of Trent," whose decisions form a vast collection of jurisprudence. Next in importance come the pontifical constitu tions, which are collected together in the Bullarium; but this is a collection of private authority, if we except the Bullarium of Ben edict XIV., officially published by him in 1747; further, the Bul larium is a compilation arranged in chronological order, and its dimensions make it rather unwieldy. In the third place come the decrees of the Roman Congregations, which have the force of law. Several of these organs of the papal authority have published official collections, in which more place is devoted to jurisprudence than to laws; several others have only private compilations, or even none at all, among others the most important, viz. the Holy Office (see CURIA ROMANA). The resulting confusion and uncertainty may be imagined.
The Future Codification.—Neither Clement VIII. nor, at a later date, Benedict XIV., could have dreamt of the radical reform at present in course of execution. Instead of accumulating the texts of the laws in successive collections, it is proposed en tirely to recast the system of editing them. This codification in a series of short articles was suggested by the example of the French codes, the history of which during the 19th century is well known. From all quarters the Catholic episcopate had submitted to the Vatican council petitions in this sense.
The common law of the Roman Church cannot by itself uni formly regulate all the churches of the different nations; each of them has its own local law, which we must briefly mention here. In theory, this law has as its author the local ecclesiastical authorities, councils or bishops; but this is true only for laws and regulations which are in harmony with the common law, merely completing or defining it. But if it is a question of derogating from the common law, the authority of the Holy See must intervene to legalize these derogations. This intervention takes the form either of "indults," i.e. graceful concessions granted at the request of the episcopate, or of special approbation of conciliary resolutions.
Canon Law in England and in the Anglican Commun ion.—The historical position of the general canon law of the Catholic Church in the English provinces has, since the separa tion from Rome, been the subject of much consideration by Eng lish lawyers and ecclesiastics. The view taken by the king's courts 'Omnium concilii Vaticani . . . documentorum collectio, per Con radum Martin (Paderborn, 1873), p. 152.
and acquiesced in by the ecclesiastical courts, since Henry VIII. is that the Church of England was always an independent national church, subject indeed to the general principles of the /us com mune ecclesiasticutn (Whitlock J. in Ever v. Owen, Godbolt's Reports, 432), but unbound by any particular constitutions of council or pope ; unless those constitutions had been "received" here by English councils, or so recognized by English courts (sec ular or spiritual) as to become part of the ecclesiastical custom of the realm. The sources of English ecclesiastical law (purely ecclesiastical) were therefore (1) the principles of the /us com mune ecclesiasticum; (2) foreign particular constitutions received here, as just explained ; (3) the constitutions and canons of Eng lish synods (see Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law, part i. ch. iv., and authorities there cited).
An important departure in the grant of legislative autonomy to the Established Church was effected by the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act of 1919 (often referred to as the "Enabling Act") , which was the result of the report of a special committee appointed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and of what was known as the "Life and Liberty Movement" in the Church of England. The act gives power to the newly con stituted Church Assembly, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity (men and women), to pass measures "relating to any matter concerning the Church of England"; such measures to have the effect of an act of parliament after the passing of resolutions in both houses, and the granting of the royal assembly (see ENG LAND, CHURCH OF) .
The Church Assembly is free to discuss any proposal concern ing the Church of England, and to make provision in respect of such matters, but where this includes parliamentary sanction for any alteration contemplated, this authority is to be sought in the manner prescribed by the Enabling Act. It is specially provided that any innovation touching doctrinal formulae, or the services or ceremonies of the Church, or the administration of the Sacra ments or sacred rites thereof, must be debated and voted upon by each of the three houses sitting separately, and must then be either accepted or rejected by the Assembly in the terms in which it is finally proposed by the House of Bishops. It is further laid down that the Assembly or any of the three houses may debate and formulate its judgment by resolution upon any matter concerning the Church, or otherwise of religious or public interest, but the Assembly may not issue any statement purporting to define the doctrine of the Church on any question of theology. None of the powers belonging to the Convocations of Canterbury and York is to be diminished or derogated by the Assembly, which is also prohibited from exercising any power or performing any function distinctively belonging to the bishops by right of their episcopal office. The following measures have been passed by the Assembly, to the end of 1926 (the date of the royal assent is given in brackets) : Convocations of the Clergy, 192o (Dec. 23, 192o) ; Parochial Church Councils (Powers) , 1921 (July 1, 1921) ; Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 1921 (July 28, 1921) ; Union of Benefices, 1921 (Aug. 17, 1921) ; Rep resentation of the Laity (Amendment), 1922 (April 12, 1922) ; Plu ralities Act, 1838 (Amendment), 1922 ; Revised Tables of Lessons, 1922 (Aug. 4, 1922) ; Benefices Act, 1898 (Amendment), 1923; Bishopric of Blackburn, 1923 ; Diocese of Southwell (Division) 1923 ; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations, 1923 ; Union of Benefices, 1923 (July 14, 1924) ; Diocese of Winchester (Division), 1923 (Aug. 1, 1924) ; Interpretation, 1925 (May 28, 1925) ; Bishopric of Leicester, 1925 (July 31, 1925) ; Dio cesan Boards of Finance, 1925 (Dec. 22, 1925) ; Rural Deaneries of Pontefract and Hemsworth, 1926; Brislington Parishes (Transfer), 1926 (March 26, 1926) ; Parish of Manchester Division Act, 185o (Amendment), 1926 (April 29, 1926) ; First Fruits and Tenths, 1926 (July 15, 1926) ; Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 1926 (July 15, 1926) ; Clergy Pensions, 1926 (August 4, 1926) ; Episcopal Pensions, 1926 (Dec. 15, 1926) ; Benefices (Ecclesiastical Duties), 1926 (Dec. 15, 1926).
Ireland.—In the case of Ireland, the canon law of the Protest ant Episcopal Church becomes important after 1869, when the Irish Church Act (32 and 33 Vict. c. 42) "disestablished" the Irish Church, and in sect. 19 repealed any act of parliament, law or custom whereby the bishops, clergy or laity of the said church were prohibited from holding synods or electing representatives thereto for the purpose of making rules for the well-being and ordering of the said church. The Church of Ireland, so set free, created for herself new legislative authorities, unknown to the old canon law, viz., mixed synods of clergy and laity, and a sys tem of representation by election, unknown to primitive or medi aeval times. Under the provisions of this statute, the "archbishops and bishops of the ancient Apostolic and Catholic Church of Ire land," together with representatives of the clergy and laity, assem bled in 187o, in "General Convention," to "provide for the regu lation" of that church. This Convention declared that a General Synod of the archbishops and bishops, with representatives of the clergy and laity, should have chief legislative power in the Irish Church with such administrative power as might be necessary and consistent with the church's episcopal constitution. This General Synod was to consist of two houses—the House of Bishops and the House of Lay and Clerical Representatives. No question was to be carried unless there were in its favour a majority of the clerical and lay representatives, voting either conjointly or by orders, and also a majority of the bishops, should they desire to vote. This General Synod was given full power to alter or amend canons, or to repeal them, or to enact new ones. For any altera tion or amendment of "articles, doctrines, rites or rubrics," a two thirds majority of each order of the representative house was re quired and a year's delay for consultation of the diocesan synods. Provisions were made as to lay representation in the diocesan synods. The convention also enacted some canons and a statute in regard to ecclesiastical tribunals (see ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDIC TION). It expressly provided that its own legislation might be re pealed or amended by future general synods.
Scotland.—The post-Reformation history of canon law in the Anglican communion in Scotland has differed from the story of that law in the last four centuries in Ireland. After the legislation under William and Mary, disestablishing episcopacy in Scotland and subjecting its professors to civil penalties, little attention was given to canon law for many years. The canon law in Scotland before the 16th century was generally that of the continent of Europe. The usages of the church were similar to those in France, and had not the insular character of those in England and Ireland. The canon law regulating marriage, legitimacy and succession was taken over by the Scottish secular courts (see ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION) and survived as part of the common law of the land almost unimpaired. Thus, the courts recognize marriages by verba de praesenti or by verba de futuro cum copula—in this last matter following a decree of Gregory IX.—and also legitima tion per subsequens matrimonium. But though it is one of the fontes iuris Scotiae, canon law never was of itself authoritative in Scotland. In the canons of her national provincial councils (at whose yearly meetings representatives attended on behalf of the king) she possessed a canon law of her own, which was recognized by the parliament and the popes, and enforced in the courts of law. Much of it, no doubt, was borrowed from the Corpus inns Canonici and the English provincial canons. But the portions so adopted derived their authority from the Scottish Church. The general canon law, unless where it has been acknowledged by act of parliament, or a decision of the courts, or sanctioned by the canons of a provincial council, is only received in Scotland according to equity and expediency.
Since 187o, at least, the "Church of the Province of South Africa" has secured autonomy while yet remaining a part of the Anglican communion. By its constitution of that year the Eng lish Church in South Africa adopts the laws and usages of the Church of England, as far as they are applicable to an unestab lished church, accepts the three creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, the decisions of the undisputed general councils, the Authorized English Version of the Scriptures, and disclaims the right of altering any of these standards of faith and doctrine, except in agreement with such alterations as may be adopted by a general synod of the Anglican Communion. But in interpreting these standards of faith and doctrine, the Church of the Province of South Africa is not bound by decisions other than those of its own Church courts (see Wirgman, The English Church and People in South Africa) .
BIBLIOGRAPHY.—The literature of the subject in all its branches is Bibliography.—The literature of the subject in all its branches is very elaborate. The articles "Law (Christian), Western," "Law (Christian), Eastern," by A. Fortescue, and "Law (Christian), Angli can," by A. J. Maclean, in Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, give concise statements of information with references for fur ther study. For fuller accounts, see articles on Canon Law in Herzog Hauck, Realencyklopddie fur Protestantische Theologie; in the Catho lic Encyclopaedia; and in Vacant-Mangenot, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique. Among the classical authorities, the following may be mentioned: P. and J. Ballerini, De Antiques Collectionibus Canonum xxx.; in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 56 (to Gratian) ; Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen u. Literatur des conischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart (1875). For information as to the sources see: Schneider, Die Lehre von den Kirchenrechtsquellen (1892) ; and the works mentioned above. (See also the article, ECCLESIASTICAL JURIS