Establishment

ESTABLISHMENT, a word applied to certain religious bodies in their relation to the State.

Perhaps the best definition which can be given, and which will cover all cases, is that establishment implies the existence of some definite and distinctive relation between the State and a religious society (or conceivably more than one) other than that which is shared in by other societies of the same general char acter. It denotes any special connection with the State, of privileges and responsibilities before the law, possessed by one religious society to the exclusion of others; in a word, establish ment is of the nature of a monopoly.

But it does not imply merely privilege. The State and the Church have mutual obligations towards one another: each is, to some extent, tied by the existence of this relationship, and each accepts the limitations for the sake of the advantages which accrue to itself. The State does so in view of what it believes to be the good of all its members ; for "the true end for which religion is established is not to provide for the true faith, but for civil utility" (Warburton), even if the latter be held to be implied in the former. On the other hand, the Church accepts these relations for the facilities which they involve, i.e., for its own benefit.

It will be seen that this definition excludes, and rightly, many current presuppositions. Establishment affirms the fact, but does not determine the precise nature, of the connection between the State and the religious society. It does not tell us, for example, when or how it began, whether it is the result of an unconscious growth (as with the Gallican Church previous to the French Revolution), or of a determinate legislative act (as with the same Church re-established by the Concordat of 1801). It does not tell us whether an endowment of the religious society by the State is included; what particular privileges are enjoyed by the religious society; and what limitations are placed upon the free exercise of its life. These things can be ascertained only by actual inquiry; for the conditions are precisely similar in no two cases. Of the sovereign States existent in 1928 about two-thirds were without establishments, among them the United States, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Japan. But among the nations having no State religion some give support to ecclesiastical or ganizations. Thus, in the Argentine Republic the Roman Catholic Church is State-supported, and in the Netherlands the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jansenist and Jewish churches receive financial assistance from the Government. In Belgium the ministers of all religious congregations are assisted by the national treasury. Besides England, the nations supporting establishments include Spain, Sweden, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, Finland, Bolivia and Peru. Of the total number of such countries about one-half are monarch ies and one-half republics, while in the States without establish ments the proportion is, respectively, about one-third and two thirds.

Church of England.

The word Establishment as applied to the Church of England denotes the existence of a special relation ship between Church and State without defining its exact nature. The statement that this Church is "established by law" denotes that it has a peculiar status before the law; but this is all. It cannot be said that it was established at any particular time, or by any particular legislative act. There were no doubt periods when the existing relations between Church and State were modi fied or redefined, notably in the i6th and i 7 th centuries; but the relations themselves are far older. They existed from the first ; the English Church and State grew up side by side, and from the very beginning they were in close relations with one another. But although the state of things which it represented was there from the first, the term "established," or "established by law," came into use only at a later date. Until there was some other re ligious society to be compared with it, such a distinctive epithet would have had no point.

The questions which arise out of the relations between Church and State are difficult e.rid their difficulties are increased by the imperfections and ambiguities of language ; which lead us to forget that Church and State are abstract terms ; that the con crete reality underlying each is an aggregate of individuals knit together by an ideal bond ; and that the same persons who from one point of view constitute the State constitute the Church also, the Church being the nation on its religious side. The theory of a Church Establishment rests historically on the assumption that, this being so, it is the right and duty of a Christian State to exert its influence for the maintenance and propagation of religion. But the case is materially changed when the unity of Christian belief has been split up into a multitude of conflicting sects. The application of the general principle to such a state of things is then beset with grave difficulties both of theory and in practice.

Religious Establishments have been defended and attacked on grounds of principle. Their authority is, in fact, founded on utility ; and is to be argued, not as a matter of right or wrong, but on certain broad lines of moral and political science which we are left to discover and apply by the light of our own reason and con science. Their application will vary with circumstances. Man is the measure of all things, or, in the language of religion, "the Sabbath was made for man." This is particularly the case when questions of property are involved. Should circumstances lead to a separation between Church and State, what is to be held with regard to the property which has previously been enjoyed by the former either by the gift of the State or under the sanction of the law? It requires some hardihood to argue that its secular ization is as such, unlawful; or to deny that the title of the Church to its possession is less subject than that of secular cor porations to the altum dominium of the State.

The locus classicus on the question as a whole is the chapter in Paley's Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, "Of Re ligious Establishments and of Toleration." The conclusion ar rived at is, "That a comprehensive national religion, guarded by a few articles of peace and conformity ; together with a legal provision for the clergy of that religion ; and with a complete toleration of all dissenters from the Established Church, without any other limitation or exception than what arises from the con junction of dangerous political dispositions with certain religious tenets—appears to be, not only the most just and liberal, but the wisest system which a state can adopt : inasmuch as it unites the several perfections which a religious constitution ought to aim at—liberty of conscience, with means of instruction ; the prog ress of truth, with the peace of society; the right of private judgment, with the care of the public safety." The Concordat.—In mixed countries like England, a Church Establishment, which has in itself the nature of privilege, is un likely either to be introduced, or, if it has been abolished, to be restored. Where it exists and works for the greater good of the greater number, it may reasonably be retained. Should it, how ever, become a source of inconvenience or discord, its sufficient reason would disappear. Were the Dissenters to be in a majority, the Establishment itself should be revised and qualified, Paley thinks; were there a certain parity of sects, he suggests a scheme of concurrent endowment. In England many of the reforms which he desired have now been introduced; and the judgments of the Courts of Appeal have been uniformly in the direction of in clusion: the less we define, it has been recognised, the better : "Vitals in religion are few." It is the tendency of the larger Churches to develop on the lines of a Concordat, on the one hand between religion and secular thought, and on the other between conflicting Church parties. In an age when the clerical and the lay minds are diverging more and more widely, and the fissiparous tendencies of religious parties appear to be on the increase, it is difficult to see how the coherence of the body corporate can be retained. Whether this difficulty can, or cannot, be overcome is the religious, perhaps not only the religious, problem of our time.

Disestablishment is in theory the annulling of establishment ; but since an established Church is usually rich, disestablishment generally includes disendowment, even where there is no state endowment of religion. It is, in short, the abrogation of estab lishment, coupled with such a confiscation of Church property as the State thinks good in the interests of the community.