CHURCH AND STATE. The relation of Church and State in England, conveniently summed up in the word "estab lishment," is curiously complicated, including elements of great antiquity and arrangements made as recently as the year 1919. The antiquary, the historian, the lawyer, and the ecclesiastic find ample materials for their several studies in the Church of England as by law established. With the partial exception of Sweden, England was the only country in which the Reforma tion did not involve an almost complete breach with the system of the mediaeval Church. The main lines of the existing ecclesi astical system are mediaeval—the hierarchy, the parochial sys tem, the convocations, the presence of the archbishops and bishops in the House of Lords, the canon law in so far as it was perpetuated by the legislation of Henry VIII., and the ecclesiastical courts. The Reformation effected a threefold change—social, doctrinal and constitutional. By the abolition of the monasteries, and the confiscation of the monastic prop erty, the spiritual estate was weakened and impoverished : by the changes in doctrine and discipline the Church of England abandoned the distinctive beliefs and devotions of mediaeval Christianity; and by the acceptance of the royal supremacy, it not only repudiated the authority of the Roman pope, but re ceived the status and constitution of an independent national Church. Since the 16th century the acceptance of the policy of religious toleration by the State, and the evolution of democ racy, have affected importantly the system of the Established Church. The growth of nonconformity, the expansion of the insular kingdom into the British empire, the secularisation of parliament, and the development of denominational self-asser tion within the Church itself have all affected the existing relations of Church and State in England. Establishment in its present form may be conveniently considered under five heads, viz., the royal supremacy, the authority of parliament, the ecclesiastical courts, patronage, the tenure of the ancient endowments.
The Royal Supremacy.—Henry VIII. forced the convo cations to recognize his "headship" of the Church of England, but mitigated the unquestionable innovation by the pretence that he was but vindicating and restoring to the Crown the author ity in ecclesiastical matters which was inherent in the monarchy by divine right, and had been recognized in practice until the usurpation of the Roman popes had obscured and superseded it. The revolutionary statutes which abolished the papal authority, and severed the national Church from the larger ecclesiastical system of which it had hitherto formed part, adopted a de murely constitutional tone, emphasizing the ancient independence and imperial self-sufficiency of the realm under its monarch. Thus the Restraint of Appeals, A.D. begins : Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed, that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same, unto whom a body politic, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in terms, and by names of spiritualty and temporalty, be bounden and ought to bear, next to God, a natural and humble obedience, etc.
That the royal authority over the Church in England had been very great in the past, and that the power of the popes had grown to exorbitant proportions in the period immediately preceding the Reformation, were unquestionable facts, and they gave plausibility to a contention which was, none the less, essentially untrue. The supremacy which the royal headship implied was a new thing in Christendom, and had no real precedents in history. It owed its origin to the novel conditions of the age, and its form to the masterful despot who arrogated it to himself. The functions with drawn from the pope were accumulated on the monarch. Henry VIII., uniting in his own hands the plenitude of power both civil and spiritual, became in Bishop Stubbs's notable phrase, "the pope, the whole pope, and something more than the pope." (Lectures on Mediaeval and Modern History, p. 301.) So monstrous a claim could not be maintained. Under Elizabeth the royal supremacy was defined and delimited, and the much debated title, "head of the Church," was laid aside. Article XXXVII., which still binds the English clergy, claims for the sovereign "that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself ; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers." The Article adds that "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England." So long as the royal supremacy was exercised by a sovereign who was himself a Christian man this definition served well enough : but the development of the English constitution from the prac tical autocracy of the Tudor sovereigns to the limited monarchy of their latest successors, has had its effect on the ecclesiastical system, and raised some formidable questions, of which the answer is not yet apparent.
Parliament.—The legislative authority of the mediaeval Church had been "spiritual." In the last resort the Church in Eng land was governed by the canons of general councils and by the decretals of the popes. These controlled the action of the provin cial convocations, which held the status of subordinate legislatures. The abolition of extra-national authorities, papal and conciliar, left nothing but the convocations of Canterbury and York in exist ence. In these circumstances the king and parliament may be said to have taken over the legislative functions of the pope and the general council. The Church of England before the Restoration was governed by ordinances and statutes. Church and nation were identified, at first practically, and then theoretically. The identi fication was defended with impressive eloquence by Hooker (d. 1600) and became the assumption of the English establishment. The convocations continued to legislate under the severe limi tations imposed by 25 Henry VIII. cap. 19. (The Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals, , and the mediaeval canon law retained under the same act a carefully restricted authority, but the right of parliament to legislate for the national Church even in "spiritual" matters was asserted and acted upon. The right was grounded on the Christian character of parliament, and on its essential function. Only by recognizing the legislative supremacy of parliament could the unity of the church-nation be secured. The 17th century witnessed the triumph of constitu tional government, and the beginning of religious toleration. Legislative authority once shared between king and parliament became vested in parliament alone. The national Church was no longer governed partly by royal ordinance. James II.'s claim to the dispensing power was disallowed. While, however, the Act of Settlement (1 701), provided that "whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established," it did not provide against the danger implicit in a change in the religious character of parliament. The danger of Roman Catholic members was indeed guarded against by the Test Act (1673) ; but 45 Presby terians were admitted by the Act of Union with Scotland, A.D. and in the course of the 19th century parliament was opened to Nonconformists, Roman Catholics, Jews, and non-believers of every description. Parliament, thus frankly divorced from an ecclesiastical character, retained its ecclesiastical functions un altered. The anomaly was apparent and increasingly resented as the Church of England, waking from the deep slumbers of the 18th century, felt and acted as a spiritual society. The influence of the Oxford Movement tended powerfully in the same direction. In 1852 the convocations, which had been suspended for 135 years, again were permitted to function. Parliament ceased to be the sole organ of ecclesiastical legislation and henceforth found its action conditioned by the constitutional rights of a clerical legislature, subordinate indeed, but as ancient as itself, and within its own sphere as independent. Nor was this all. While parlia ment became patently unqualified for ecclesiastical legislation, its secular task, ever waxing with the expansion of the empire, and the complexity of social life, required its undivided concern. Urgent ecclesiastical reforms were postponed for no better reason than the congestion of parliamentary business. Accordingly the demand for better legislative machinery became general, and, in the general reconstruction of the national system which followed the World War, was met by the Enabling Act (1919). A new body, the National Assembly, was created consisting of three "houses"—the diocesan bishops, the members of both convocations and elected laity. To this body legislative authority, subject to the veto of either house of parliament, was given. Measures affecting the Church of England passed by the National Assembly, certi fied as constitutional by an ecclesiastical committee created for the purpose, and approved by both houses of parliament, were to have the force of statutes on receiving the royal assent. The con stitution of the National Assembly both reserved unaltered "the powers belonging to the convocations of the provinces of Canter bury and York or of any House thereof," and prohibited the Assembly from "exercising any power or performing any function distinctively belonging to the bishops in right of their episcopal office." This devolution of legislative power by parliament to the Assembly did not destroy the right of parliament to make laws for the Church of England, but rendered the exercise of that right abnormal and improbable. The right of a spiritual society to be truly autonomous in spiritual matters is obviously patient of large secular control in other directions : but the line between spiritual and secular is not always easy to trace, and the inter mingling of secular and ecclesiastical interests in an anciently Christian community is extremely close. The Enabling Act, how ever, carries the possibility of future trouble. In twice rejecting the Prayer Book Measure (1927 and 1928) the House of Com mons has precipitated a conflict on a plainly spiritual issue, which must affect gravely the Establishment itself, and may even bring about its destruction.
The Ecclesiastical Courts.—The unique character of the Eng lish Reformation as at once conservative and revolutionary is nowhere better exhibited than in the ecclesiastical courts. They are the provincial and diocesan courts of the mediaeval Church, but they are held in the king's name, the law they administer is the king's ecclesiastical law, and they are subject to the appellant authority of the king's privy council. The modern system has departed in some important respects from that which the Ref or matioa created. It is much more nakedly secular, for the study of canon law having practically ceased, and the race of canonists having died out, there was left no effective check on the secularis ing tendency of the lawyers, who of old time cherished a profes sional dislike of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and sought after a simplification of the legal system which paid little heed to tra dition and the claims of the "spiritualty." In the course of time, notably during the 19th century the limits of ecclesiastical juris diction have been greatly contracted by the withdrawal of suits relating to wills, marriage, and tithes. Acts of parliament are administered in the ecclesiastical courts, not any more the mediae val canon law, save where this has acquired statutory force from the provisional legislation of Henry VIII. The ecclesiastical judges are laymen, and they acknowledge the supreme appellant authority of the judicial committee of the privy council. This progressive secularisation of the Church's legal system did not provoke resent ment until, largely as a consequence of the Oxford Movement, the ecclesiastical courts had to deal with suits affecting the inter pretation of rubrics and doctrinal standards. That such subjects, affecting the worship and belief of churchmen, should be handled by secular lawyers, who might not even themselves be Christians, offended the new sense of ecclesiastical independence, and did violence to the religious conscience of many devout persons. The courts were denounced as "Erastian," and a disposition manifested itself to repudiate their authority. This disposition has certainly been strengthened by the course of national politics. A breach has opened between the general sentiment of English churchmen and the settled policy of the State in the matters of religious education and the marriage law, which is not likely to be closed, and which tends to create an attitude of apprehension and suspicion not favourable to the easy working of the establishment. A commis sion charged to make recommendations for the reform of the ecclesiastical courts was appointed by the National Assembly, and has issued its report. It is understood (1928) that legislation will be shortly attempted. Meanwhile the general discontent with the existing courts, and the widely extended disposition to ignore their verdicts, add an element of special embarrassment to the problem of maintaining discipline in the Church.
Patronage.—No part of the establishment is more distinctive, and none more perplexing than "patronage," that is, the process by which clergymen are appointed to office. It presents a curious blending of ancient and modern elements. The higher ecclesiastics —bishops, deans, some canons and many incumbents—are ap pointed by the crown on the nomination of the prime minister. In the case of the ancient sees, the mediaeval process is still followed, viz., conge d'elire to the dean and chapter accompanied by letters missive containing the name of the person whom they are desired to elect, confirmation by the archbishop, consecration, homage, and enthronement in the cathedral. In the case of modern sees which have no cathedral chapters, the bishop is appointed by letters patent. Two archbishops and 24 bishops sit in parliament—the archbishops and the bishops of London, Durham and Winchester by right of their sees, the other bishops by seniority of their con secration. The incumbents are nominated to the bishop of the diocese by patrons, who are either public (the lord chancellor, the bishops, colleges, the deans and chapters and other eccle siastics holding patronage by title of their benefices), or private. The bishop has a limited power of refusing institution, but, in the absence of disqualification duly proved, he must institute and in duct the patron's nominee to the benefice. This system is criticised as providing no adequate protection of parishioners against unsuit able appointments, and various projects for amending it have been advanced : but it is generally allowed that patronage, although anomalous in theory does not work badly, and there is no agree ment as to a satisfactory substitute. The system is closely bound up with the method by which the parochial clergy are remunerated. The parish is also a benefice, and the incumbent possesses a life tenure of the endowment attached to it. This also is much objected against by reformers, but it does not lack apologists. Opinion, however, seems to be tending towards an age-limit, which would remedy the principal fault of the existing system, viz., the incom petence of aged and ailing clergymen. A recent measure securing a modest pension at the age of 7o has laid the foundation for further reforms.
If the establishment in England is the most complicated, that in Scotland is the simplest which Christendom includes. In Scotland a "clean sweep" of the mediaeval system was effected. The Church was equipped with a new polity, and in the course of history acquired an unprecedented independence. Its constitution as set out in the Church of Scotland Act, 1921, exhibits the model of "a free Church in a free State," such as Cavour projected in the middle of the 19th century. The 3rd Article "declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland in Matters Spiritual" runs thus : This Church, as part of the Universal Church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of Church office-bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church, including the right to determine all questions concerning membership and office in the Church, the constitution and membership of its Courts, and the mode of election of its office-bearers and to define the boundaries of the spheres of labour of its ministers and other office-bearers. Recognition by civil authority of the separate and independent government and jurisdiction of this Church in matters spiritual, in whatever manner such recognition be expressed, does not in any way affect the character of this government and jurisdiction as derived from the Divine Head of the Church alone, or give to the civil authority any right of inter ference with the proceedings or judgments of the Church within the sphere of its spiritual government and jurisdiction.
Partly, this unique independence may be ascribed to the Presbyterian polity which, while magnifying the ministry, gave comparatively little importance to any section of it. There was nothing in Scotland parallel in political function to the episcopate in England. Partly, the emphasizing of ecclesiastical independence has grown from the union of the kingdoms, at first personal and then, since 1707, parliamentary also. When the centre of national government had been removed to London, and Scottish business became a comparatively subordinate element in British politics, the Church of Scotland ceased to move the anxious concern of statesmen, while it acquired in the popular regard an ever greater importance as the principal, almost the only surviving, witness of an independent Scottish nationality. In more recent times, in Scotland as elsewhere, the secularisation of society has deprived all ecclesiastical concerns of much of their former importance. The attendance of the king's commissioner at the annual meeting of the general assembly, and the appointment of a number of presbyterian ministers as royal chaplains, form the chief tokens of that connection with the State which is the core of establish ment. The State exercises no control over legislation, or ecclesi astical courts, or patronage. Establishment in Scotland has no practical importance, though unquestionably its sentimental value as a solemn recognition of national Christianity is still great, and its abolition would be regretted by many, probably by most, Scottish citizens.