Church and state

/♦ ; ^ *-^

^-

L I B R.ARY

OF THE

U N 1 VERSITY

or ILLINOIS

CHURCH AND STATE.

REPRINTED FROM THE LAST NUMBER
(No. LXVIII. FOR ^Apeil 1850)

OF

Cfie CJii^tiau 3aememl)raucei%

LONDON :
PUBLISHED BY J. AND C. MOZLEY,

6, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1850.

LONttON :
R. OT.AY, PRINTER, BREAD STRKET UILL.

CHURCH AND STATE.

1. Church Matters in MDCCCL. No. 1. — Trial of Doctrine.
By the Rev. John Keble^ M.A. London : J, H. Parker.

2. A First Letter on the present Position of the High Church
Party in the Church of England. By the Rev. W. Maskell.
London : Pickering.

3. The present Crisis in the Church of England : illustrated by
a brief Inquiry as to the Royal Supremacy . By the Rev.
W. J. Irons, B.D. London : Masters.

4. A Letter to the Rev. W. Maskell. By the Rev. Mayow
Wynell Mayow, A.M. London : Pickering.

5. The Church, the Crown, and the State. Two Sermons, by the
Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, M.A. London : Cleaver.

6. A few Words of Hope on the present Crisis of the English
Church. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, M.A. London : Masters.

The pamphlets, the titles of which we have here quoted, are
sufficient evidence that matters of no ordinary interest and
anxiety are occupying the thoughts of Churchmen. It would
be superfluous to draw attention to them ; they are sure to be
read. We trust that Ave shall not be thought wanting in respect
due to their writers, if, instead of commenting directly upon
them, we make use, in our own way, of the facts and thoughts
for Avhich we are indebted to them.

The present are days of reform, and claiming of rights. The
principle is universally acknowledged, that every real interest
and substantial power in England may justly ask, in its due
place, and according to its importance, for whatever is neces-
sary to enable it to do its own proper work. If it is allowed to
exist, it ought to be allowed to perform its functions; it is
a contradiction in a well-ordered State, that a body, or a class,
or a religion should be recognised, and yet hindered from real-
izing the objects of its existence. The State may ignore or
disallow it, but not impede what it owns. Further, interests
clash and powers conflict ; and in reconciling these, the general
power of the State is not bound to accept in their full extent
the claims of either party ; but though both may over- state their
claims, none can judge as well as themselves what they require
for their own efliciency. And accordingly, one after another,
various interests have submitted their claims to the arbitrage of
the general power of the State, have gained a hearing, and
fui'ther have gained, if not all they wished for, yet much that
was necessary or important to them. Roman Catholics, Dis-

4 Church and State.

senters, the great towns, tlie manufacturing interests, have asked
and obtained, not privileges, but release from disabilities and
impediments ; such a fair field as was due to them as important
elements and real powers in England.

There is no reason why the Church of England should not
have her reform, and claim her rights, as well as the dissenting,
or the manufacturing, or the colonial interest. Church reform,
indeed, has been long talked about ; and some specimens of it
we have already seen. We are not now going to complain of
the way in which Parliament has dealt with Church property or
Church privileges. It may have had reason for thinking the
one ill-administered or ill-applied, and the other out of date and
inconsistent with the present state of things ; and may have
wished in each case to apply a just remedy, and at the same
time to deal fairly and honourably with the Church. But
though it be very proper to prevent the Church from wasting
her money, or bearing hard on the social and political position
of other Englishmen, this is not the same thing as remo\4ng the
possible hindrances to her efficiency, much less it is restoring or
strengthening her powers according to her own constitutional
system. She has objects and Avants, she has also difficulties and
embarrassments, to her of the most real and serious kind, which
are impalpable and intangible to the most benevolent Parlia-
ment. There are innumerable things Avhich she may wish to
do and put right, for which no one is competent but herself.
There is no reason why she should be considered tied to an
obsolete state of things, more than the nation at large, or sepa-
rate interests of it. There is no reason why Parliament should
consider itself capable of discharging all necessary functions of
Church administration or legislation, any more than adminis-
tering or legislating for the internal affairs of the Great Western
Railway Company, or the Baptist body. There is no reason
why the Church should find more difficulty in gaining Parlia-
mentary sanction to the exercise in a restored form of her ow^n
intrinsic and constitutional powers, or even of new and hitherto
unknown ones, than other religious or secular bodies. There is
no reason why she should not be allowed, under Parliamentary
sanction and guarantee, to carry on reforms of her own, to
adjust her position to altered circumstances^ to administer her
own laws, to take counsel for her own interests. There is no
reason why in her case all these important matters should be
kept out of her own hands, and left in those which are not her
own. There is no reason Avhy Parliament should be strict —
justly and rightly strict — with her in the use of her revenues,
and look with jealousy, not merely on her exemptions, but on
her influence on general legislation ; and should insist, on the

Church and State. 5

other hand, on keeping up a formal system of which the reahty
has passed away, and which shackles without protecting her.
The State, which has granted the Reform Bill and Free Trade,
has no ground to deny the Church a more free and consistent
position.

There never has been a reason why the Church alone should
not be listened to in the universal cry for rights. But the event
which has happened during the past month, has changed the
state of the question, and made it imperative on her to claim
at once, and laboiu' without remission for, that which it would
have been prudent and wise in her to have claimed long ago.
If it was right always that she should have a distinct voice in
her own concerns, it is indispensable now, at whatever cost, and
whatever inconvenience ; — and the cost may be great, the incon-
veniences certainly will be many.

It cannot be dissembled that Churchmen must now take a
new and a very important position ; a very important one, both
to themselves personally, to their own consciences and their
peace, to the Church, and to the English State and nation.
Reform has long been going on within the Chui^ch, in such ways
as individuals and private efforts could carry it on ; changes for
the better, spontaneous and self-originated, in matters of private
competence, though of the highest public interest. But Church-
men must become reformers in another and far less agreeable
and safe way. They must take up the position of reformers
towards the State. There is no help for it that we can see,
except by allowing the insensible but most important political
alterations of the last half-centm-y to alter the hitherto recog-
nised basis of the Church, and to control and extinguish the
ideas which the majority of her members have hitherto held of
her constitution and organic laws. The English Chmxh of
George III., Charles II., Charles I., James, Elizabeth, and even
of Henry VIII., however closely connected with the State, — or
rather with the Crown, — however far it admitted its control, never
for a moment lost sight of the principle, that if it held one set
of powers from the Crown, it held another set of powers which
no Crown or State on earth could, or pretended to, confer;
powers which it held as a Church, powers which it inherited
through a line distinct from that of a royal or a national suc-
cession. It never, we say, for a moment forgot that, however
connected with the State, it was still a self-subsistent, even if not
independent body, which would exist to-morrow, if the State
broke up into anarchy, or cast off the Church. Unless this
basis is changed, and the Church, once co-extensive with the
nation, but now no longer so, is nevertheless, in consequence of
her union Avith the Crown, to share, so to speak, the neutrality

6 Church and State.

of the Crown, and to lose all her distinctive characters of tradi-
tion, of doctrine, of maxims, and practice, in order to fit her
once more, if that were possible, for comprehending the nation,
— unless she has passed from being a ( Ihurch with an origin and
powers of her own, into a great organ of the national government,
to be disposed of at the discretion of the national government,
— she may rightfully claim, not as an institution issuing out of
the State, but as a contracting party with the State, to be
secured from whatever endangers her organic basis, and
threatens to fuse her with the State. And such a case has
distinctly arisen. Much as she has trusted the Crown, and in-
disposed as she has been to be jealous of Governments, they never
asked of her, and she never gave them, the sole and final mter-
pretation of her articles of faith. And to allow them to have it,
to consent that officers of State and judgment, simply as such,
may by a side wind settle a fundamental question of theology,
which the Church herself has not yet interfered in, and that
without her ha^dng an opportunity of authoritatively expressing
her dissent or concurrence, would certainly be to abdicate the
distinct existence which she has hitherto claimed and been
supposed to possess.

She has a good and reasonable case; she has power more
than she knows of — more, probably, than her opponents, who
know more of her power than she does herself, suspect; and
she must be determined, steady, and unflinching. It is thus
that Adctories are gained in England. Nor is there any reason
why her position should be one of hostility, because it is one of
determination. The Dissenters did not aftront the State, but
they pressed their grievances resolutely, and made themselves
heard. The Roman Catholics did not quarrel with it, though
they had to meet strong opposition from it, and to push their
claims in spite of it. The reformers of representation, and
of commercial and colonial policy, have taken the offensive in
the most unremitting and uncompromising manner, yet without
showing themselves hostile to the State. No cause, however
clear and reasonable, will succeed in England without steadi-
ness and without temper; and few causes, even if wanting in
reason, Avill fail with them.

On the eve of a great struggle, to which we stand committed,
and from which we see no escape, it behoves us to recollect oiu"-
selves. The issues are not in our hands ; yet we shall be deeply
responsible for them, for in part they depend upon us. We
shall be responsible for indecision, for carelessness, for igno-
rance, for mismanagement, for all that sows the seeds of future
difficulty and endangers future perseverance and steadiness, as
well as for indifference and want of zeal. We are called to

Church and State. 7

battle, to battle in a name not our own ; but to battle, not merely
as brave men, but as Avise. We have to do with an age of cool
heads, of large knowledge, of practised dexterity, of resolution
and firmness — with an age of strong and deeply-rooted law, an
age incredulous of what is extreme, shocked by what is violent,
jealous of what is one-sided, impatient of w^hat is unfair, — an
age hard to persuade, yet hard from its wish to be reasonable, —
an age in which boldness and courage are more than ever indis-
pensable, and perhaps more than ever respected ; yet in which
they are too ordinarily found in different parties, and too equally
opposed, to be of avail by themselves. AVe must not look to
succeed, humanly speaking, by other means than success is
ordinarily gained by, in our own time. The daring, and main
strength of will and arm Avhich Avon Crecy and Agincourt,
were but elements, in that concourse of power and A^isdom,
which triumphed in the Peninsula.

We must knoAV our ground, and our difficulties; and if Ave
are wise, we shall take account, not merely of the peculiar dif-
ficulties of our OAvn case, but of those which surround and seem
inherent in the general question of the relations between the
Church and the CiAdl Government. For if Ave may speak our
minds freely, we cannot look back Avith much satisfaction, either
to the conduct, or the issue of most Church contests. It is hard
to find one in which the Church was ultimately and really success-
ful ; harder still, in which the ground taken by her advocates was
altogether unexceptionable and clear. They shoAV off individual
A'ii'tues, rather than command our full sympathy for a cause, or
our admiration of the Avisdom Avith which it was maintained.
We have to make the same reserves that we make in political
history; reserves Avhere we least wish to make them, yet
reserves Avhich nothing but a deliberate ignoring of facts Avill
dispense us from. And so with the results. What is represented
as a triumph, is often but a varnishing over of concession ; the
maintenance of a principle ends in the guarantee of a salvo ; what
can no longer be retained in reality, is surrendered under the
form of a grant of priAdlege ; compromise is content to save
what it can ; what is called policy is at best but management ;
a struggle for important rights expu-es in a Concordat. We are
not speaking noAV of the intrinsic power and action of the
Church on her members and mankind ; for these set contests
are no measure or trustAvorthy criterion of her true efficiency
and strength. But in these set contests, unless Ave read history
entirely Avrong, she has not been fortunate, except in the occa-
sional example she has thereby gained of saintly or heroic forti-
tude ; and, Avitli the great lesson have ordinarily come Avarnings
equally great.

8 Ckurck and Utate,

But our fathers^ failures, as they are no excuse for our inaC'
tion and despair, fumisli no argument against our better success.
We shall, doubtless, leave behind us abundant materials for the
criticism of our posterity, who in their turn must not look in
this respect to be more fortunate than ourselves. But we may
hope — at any rate we must try — to turn to full account what is
for the better in our training, what is more complete in our
knowledge and experience. We should be miserable as men
and faithless as Christians, unworthy of the place and time and
country in Avhich God's providence has called us to work, if we
could not look forward, in cases of difficulty, to acting a part
fully proportionable to our age of the world — of availing our-
selves to the full of everything, in which we see that society has
really made improvement ; of whatever good thing is rendered
more easy, more natural, more influential among our cotempo-
raries. That we possess, as we trust, the faith of the fourth or
the fourteenth centuries, is no reason why we should make no
use of our education of the nineteenth, — why we should import
into it without discrimination their ideas and methods, and
limit ourselves to their precedents.

We trust that these remarks will not be thought unmeaning,
because necessarily general. Something like them must, we
think, have come more or less strongly across the mind of any
one, who in our day, and with our ordinary habits of judging,
rises from the study of any of the controversies or conflicts
which have tried the Church, and looks forward to the approach
of a similar struggle. We doubt whether the highest admira-
tion and heartiest sympathy have not been somewhat abated or
tempered by regrets ; and whether with the full recognition of
earnestness to be copied, there went not along also a sense,
perhaps unacknowledged or repressed, of mistakes to be avoided.
And in the hasty remarks which we are about to make on one
special point bearing on our present and our impending difficulties,
we hope that we shall not be taken to doubt of the rights of the
English Church, or to despair of her cause or that of tlie Church
universal, if we attempt to look fairly in the face what appears
to be the state of the facts which relate to the subject. That
point is, the position of the Crown and the civil power towards
the ecclesiastical power, viewed as a matter of history and practice.

We are not thinking at this moment of any complete or syste-
matic account of the question, historically or theoretically. We
write in haste, under the pressure of an emergency which we
feel to be serious, and with a present and temporary object in
view. A great question has been opened, and has to be settled ;
we shall all of us contribute more or less to settle it. It is of
the highest importance that in taking tlieir ground. Churchmen

Church and State. 9

should, as accui'ately and comprehensively as they can, take in
and rcAdew, not merely their own principles, but along with
them, the real state of things with which these principles have
been connected and have worked, whether in conflict or haniiony.
It is also of high importance that they should not act under any
untrue or unfair impression as to the actual realizing of Church
independence, in our own, as compared with other Christian
nations. To master fully the nature of the ground open to them,
to choose their position carefully, and make it as unexceptionable
as possible, is the first business now of Churchmen ; and, if even
they have to narrow it, they need not be afraid of weakening it.
And then, since danger undoubtedly exists, let them see to it
that their sense of the danger be such as becomes men ; Avithout
blindness to it, and without exaggeration. With these points
in view, we shall proceed to suggest a few considerations

The English Church in the middle of the nineteenth century,
suddenly, and certainly to her own surprise, finds herself caught
as it were, and brought to a stand still, by an eftect — the unin-
tended, apparently, and unexpected effect — of what is called the
royal supremacy. It cau hardly be called a stretch of that supre-
macy, for the act in question is a perfectly legal, and, as far as
the officials and ministers concerned in it, involuntary result
and exercise of it ; but in Parliament and the Council itself, it
was felt to be an unnatural and undesirable, indeed, a hazar-
dous, exercise. And it raises the question. What is the nature
of that power, which has led, in such a perfectly legal way, to
results so anomalous and perplexing ; and how ought Church-
men to view it ?

How is this question to be met and answered fairly and
truly ? Easy ways of answering it there are many. It may be
answered by theory, or by law-texts, or by historical argument
or induction. 'The supremacy is absolute and right; it is abso-
' lute and wrong :— it has practically no limits; it is practically
' as well as theoretically limited by Cluu-ch law and Church power :
' — historically, the Church has been subservient to the Crown ;
' historically, the Church has kept her own line and had her own
' way very much : — good, sufficient at least to reconcile us to such
' an arrangement has resulted from it ; evil has follov. ed from
' it, and worse is at hand.' And none of these contradictory
answers are made without strong grounds of one sort or another ;
if we will but choose on Avhat grounds to put the question, Ave
shall have no difficulty in getting an answer.

We cannot, however, but hope, for our own part, that Church-
men will prefer feeling and facing tlie diffi,culty of giving an
answer, to giving it, on arbitrary and limited grounds. It may
be very troublesome to collect and take in the aggregate of con-

10 Church and State.

siderations bearing on it — legal, historical, constitutional, moral,
social, theological — to balance and compare them with one
another. But the diflBculties, great as they may be, are not out
of proportion with the greatness of the question, the variety
and complication of the interests it involves, the length of time
it has agitated men's minds. Fifteen hundred years have not
been enough to settle it, in the Church universal. And those
who have been trained in the school of Bishop Butler, and who
have seen how his method is but the reflection and application of
what is the natural procedure of thoughtful men in the matters
of ordinary life, will not be surprised to be told that, on a matter
of ecclesiastical polity, their convictions ought to be the result
of that same sort of combination of various evidences, and of
that careful, and, it may l)e, laborious bringing in of many dis-
tinct particulars, which the}^ have been taught to be the legiti-
mate way of bringing home to sound and practical reason the
verity of the faith itself.

And this is the more necessary, if the system of things under
which we live is not simple, but complicated ; governed not by
one, but a great variety of distinct powers : and has further,
while going through great alterations, tenaciously kept, as much
as possible, to unchanged forms. And such is the case with us
in England. Our whole social frame is kept in work by a
number of powers, of which it is much more easy to say what
limits them, than on what they depend, and from whence they
derive their rights. That favourite foreign idea of one central
and final power, from which all others hold in delegation, and
which animates and controls them all as its organs, though not
unknown to our legal language, is not in practice and reality an
English one. We say, generally, a foreign one, for it is not con-
fined to one class of writers ; the necessity of one, sole, all-power-
ful authority, is as much a postulate of Louis Blanc as of De
Maistre or Bellarmine, for the solution of all problems, and as
the only real condition of the eftective working of a society.
But in England, it has been practically contradicted. Men
have learned to live together, held in one by many powers, none
of which are really supreme, though they are of various degrees,
and though one or other of them may be for the moment final.
But it is only for the moment. There may be no legal mode of
appeal, and the power may continue; but the tendency to
resist the absorption of one power by another is irresistible.
And the way in which this tendency has usually acted, has been
not by dethroning or destroying the dangerous power, but by
strengthening, or adding on another. Nor do powers cease to
be really effective ones, because not only under the necessity of
working with others, but liable to be interfered with and con-

Church and State. 11'

trolled, not less by the higher authority, than by the mere con-
current action of others. Whether theoretically right or wrong,
it is on this law that Enghsh society has gone on, not in modern
days only, but, as all historical inquiries show, more and more
clearly, even in what appear, at first sight, the despotic days of
the Tudors and Plantagenets ; — a law of composition of forces,
partly independent in origin, and all separate in function, and
with no supremacy among them but in theii' result and
direction.

In judging, therefore, of the present or past supremacy of
the Crown, it will be well to keep in mind, that in reality no
power is supreme in England ; and also, in laying down a line
of action for the future, that nothing which is a real power in
England can expect to be uncontrolled. The more considerable
it is — the more it makes itself felt, — the more does it naturally,
in the progress of things, find itself obliged to admit restric-
tions and limits. It Avill be well to keep this principle in
view, when examining and comparing, whether to reconcile
them, or to make one refute the other, the very conflicting
documents and precedents of our history ; — on one side a set
of statutes, on the other a set of articles and canons ;
the statutes, without noticing the articles, setting forth without
quahfication the king's power — the articles, tliemsehes of equal
authority, without noticing the statutes, limiting it ; disclaimers
contradicted by acts, pretensions given up in effect ; a long
series of connected proceedings, intelligible only on the theory
of the absolute domination of the crown, confronted and accom-
panied by another, equally long and equally connected, involving
necessarily the distinct existence and independent powers of the
Chui'ch ; and along with each of these, a corresponding line of
traditions, ideas, maxims, customs, doctrines, a school, and
a party. With such authorities, so heedless of uniformity, there
is always the temptation to construct a case. The text of Acts
of Parliament, illustrated by admissions and concessions of
Church authorities, would supply ample materials for a clear
and consistent proof of the unlimited plenitude of royal power
in the Church. But it is obvious to remark, that it would not
be more difficult to produce authentic and irrefi'agabic evidence
from the language of law and the usages of parHament, in behalf
of a theory which should represent the various powers of the
English constitution as expressly recognising in the crown of
Queen Victoria, a prerogative not less ample and magnificent
than that claimed by the Stuarts and exercised by the Tudors ;
and as acknowledging no origin and no right to continue but
her good pleasure.

But without professing to answer fuUy or finally the question.

12 Church and State.

What is tlie nature of the Royal Supremacy ? we shall venture
to offer a few remarks on it to our readers. The primary idea
of the power of the Crown in the Church — the idea which first
came in^ and is clearly discernible^ though not the only one, in
the acts of the Reformation — seems to be what may be called
a visitatorial power. It was a power which presupposed other
powers, and laws to which they were bound — powers derived
from a divine source, and laws having a divine sanction ; and its
peculiar function was to keep those powers to their duty accord-
ing to their own laws. It was a power of supervising and
inspecting ; not of creating, but of keeping up. It did not pro-
fess to supersede other powers by its own, but it watched that
those powers were duly and lawfully used. Its interference
might be very wide and very strict, but, in form at least, it regu-
lated itself by ah'cady existing laws — laws, whose independent
origin and sanction it respectfully owned, while conferring on
them its OAvn sanction besides. But this visitatorial power
was itself also claimed by divine right, and as of divine origin ;
not as a delegated Init an independent authority, inherent in the
royal function and office.

The real extent of such a power, in terms so undefined and
unlimited, must necessarily vary indefinitely. A college "vdsitor
and the Court of Queen's Bench, are, in idea, the same sort of
powers, though the one is the most dormant, and the other the
most sleepless authority in England ; and unquestionably this
visitatorial power of kings has been very various in extent, and
very variously used. But to the admission of the power itself,
and the admission of it in exceedingly large and unstinted mea-
sure, the Church has committed herself over and over again ;
not in England alone, but elsewhere, from Constantme's ' ap-
pointment by God to be Bishop (eV/o-z^oTro?, overseer) over the
external things of the Church,' to the appels comme d'abus,
and the corresponding maxims and usages of the Church of
Louis XIV, by which lawyers in France assert that the modern
French Church is still bound, in spite of the protests of her
Bishops.

We are speaking at present simply of the general and leading
idea on which, as it seems to us, all exercise of regal power in the
Church, however usurping and extravagant in its actual claims
and interference, has ever gone : the right claimed by the Crown
as a divine power, to see that the Church, also a divine power
and institution, does the work appointed her by God ; and to
intei^fere if she does not. Of course it is clear that this idea is
perfectly compatible with the separate origin of Church powers,
and may be compatible with their real freedom. It is also
equally clear, what inordinate pretensions may be founded on it,

Church and State. 13

and to what very difficult complications it may lead. And, as we
all know, these possil)ilities have been realized, here and else-
where. But what we wish to remark here is, that the Church,
while admitting the principle of such a Adsitatorial power in
kings, as she cannot fairly be denied to have done, did so, when
from the character of the period, as well as from the explicit
language of both parties, it is clear that two important con-
ditions Avere understood. One was, that the king who claimed
to rule, Avas also able and willing to befi'iend and protect her.
She contemplated a person, not a mere state, or government —
a person, having a conscience, owning personal responsibility,
and one with her in faith, in practice, in sentiment, in purpose,
acknoAvledging her laAvs, sympathising with her objects ; and
further, as the real depositary of power, really able to aid as
well as to govern. No one probably would deny, that as a
matter of fact, when the Chui'ch admitted the Crown to a share
in her concerns, whether it was in Constantine^s day, or Charle-
magne's, or at the Reformation, or under Louis XIV, it was to
a real king, understood to be both a Christian and Church-
man, that she consented to yield this power. The other con-
dition was, that her own laws and canons were to be the rule of
her government, the rule which the king was to see observed. The
existence both of Church powers and Church laws, — sanctioned,
authorized, enforced, it may be, by the king, and on his respon-
sibility, but yet separately and distinctly subsisting, — is every-
Avhere taken for granted. None of the Western nations
acknowledged, in form at least, any royal power, except exercised
according to their own laws, and protecting them. Much less
would the Church of those nations admit a king to be paramount
in her concerns, without his recognising her spiritual claims
and original constitution. Even the violence of Henry VIII.
did not ask this.

These two conditions accompany all interference of the Crown
with Church matters, in former times. They were very vari-
ously interpreted, and very strangely stretched : but they were
uncontested by any one, and their acknowledgment really influ-
enced the working of things. A real king, really acknowledging
and exclusively maintaining the spiritual power as of divine
origin and authority, is what the Church has always understood
by ' the CroAATi,' whenever she has acknowledged its place among
her powers of government. If proof of this were wanting, it
might be found, in the Avay in which the idea of the personal
power of the Crown, so faint and extenuated in all matters poli-
tical, surAives Avitli anomalous and inconsistent force in matters
ecclesiastical ; and we see hoary liberals, who have all their
life been sneering at kings, and scoffing at Churches, graA^ely

14 Church and State.

rise up in their place in Parliament, to interrogate the Prime
Minister, whether he has done his duty in upholding the en-
dangered prerogative of her gracious Majesty, as the ' Supreme
Head of the Church/

It may be useful to cite, in detail, some illustrations of this
early view of the royal power.*

No legislation of any single nation can compare for import-
ance and authority with the Code of Justinian, It has been
the authentic and universally acknowledged text of the civil law
of Christendom; and it represents the law of the empire, as it stood
when first the Church was recognised by the State. It was ac-
quiesced in then by the Church — it has ever since been received
by all Christian nations, by some as their practical rule, by all
as a great legislative document. And never, that we know of,
has the Church protested against it, though, at times, both
popes and kings have discouraged its study. It favours the
Church and her authority in the largest and most generous
manner ; and it bears very important witness to the pre-
eminence, in Justinian^s day, of the Roman See.

In this earliest and most august monument of civil legislation
in a state acknowledging the Church, we find precisely such a
power as we have spoken of ascribed to the Emperor, — a power of
universal visitation ; — and under the same limitations, that is, it
pre-supposes in the Church powers and laws which the Emperor
is to Avatch over. But the amplitude and peremptoriness of the
authority which he professes to claim, have never, probably, in
terms, been exceeded.

To quote all that might be quoted in proof of this would be to
transcribe law after law, out of the huge collection of the Pan-
dects. We can only cite a few passages, and refer our readers
to the collection itself, if they would have a full impression
of the actual state of the case.

The office of a Christian emperor is thus stated : —

' The greatest things among men are those gifts of God, bestowed by
heavenly goodness, the Priesthood and the Imperial power (" sacerdotium et
imperium ") ; the I'ornier ministering in things divine, the latter presiding
and giving diligence in things human ; but both proceeding from one and
the same origin, (principio,) and adorning hviman life. And therefore nothing
will be of such concern to the emperors, as the honest behaviour of the

priests ; since the priests ever offer up prayers to God for the emperors

We therefore feel the greatest care concerning God's true doctrines, and
concerning the honest carriage of the priests ; which if they maintain, we

believe that through it the greatest good will be given us of God But

things are in every case done well and duly, if the beginning of the matter

1 The view is that of Bramhall, who also appeals for confirmation of it to the
early specimens of Christian legislation, the Pandects, and the Capitularies.

Church and State. 15

be proper and pleasinu; to (iod. And this \vc believe will be the case, if the
observance of the holy rules be kept up, which the apostles handed down,
and the holy fathers kept and explained.' — Novell. 6. ' Qiiomodo oiiorteat
Episcopos et reliquos clcricos ad onlinutlonem addnci.' Prcefat.

Still more distinctly in the following : —

' De ordmatione Episcoporum et clericorum.

' The Emperor Justinian Aug. to Peter, Master of the Offices.

' If in regard to civil laws, the power whereof God, of His goodness to-
wards men, has entrusted to us, we are careful that they shall be firmly
kept, for the security of the obedient ; how much more care ought we to exer-
cise, touching the observance of the sacred canons and the divine laws which
have been laid down for the salvation of our souls? For they who keep
the sacred canons are worthy of the help of the Lord God ; but they who
transgress them make themselves liable to judgment. The greater there-
fore is the condemnation under which the most holy bishops lie, to whom
it is committed both to search out and to maintain the canons, if they leave
the transgression of them uncondemned and unpunished. In truth, since up
to this time the canons have not been rightly observed, we have in con-
sequence received various appeals against clerics and monks and some
bishops, as not living according to the divine canons; and others have been
found who did not so much as know the prayers of the holy oblation,
or of holy baptism.' — Novell. 137. Prisf.

Accordingly, he proceeds to give directions to the ' Master of
the Offices/ a great civil officer, for the restoration of discipline,
according to the canons. The qualifications for the episcopal
office requu^ed by the canons and the imperial laws are to be
strictly required — ' but if any one be ordained Bishop contrary
' to the above mentioned rule, we order that both he by all
' means be deprived of the Episcopate [episcopatu dej'ici), and
' he also, who has d.ired to ordain him contrary to such rule ' —
synods are to be held at the times appointed ; discipline is to
be exercised in them ; special rules are enjoined for the due
performance of divine service. And the observance of these
injunctions is thus to be secured : —

' And we command also the presidents of the provinces, if they find
anything neglected of the tilings which we have decreed, that first they
compel the metropolitan and other bishops to assemble the said synods,
and to fulfil all that we have commanded by the present law about synods.
But if they find them backward and remiss, then they inform us ; that we
may forthwith proceed to due correction against those who decline to cele-
brate synods. And let the presidents and their officers know that if they
observe not this, they shall be subjected to extreme punishment. But we
also confirm by the present law all things enjoined by us in various laws
concerning bishops, and presbyters, and other clergy, and besides concern-
iniz; hospitals and orphan asylums, and all who are set over sacred places.'
—Novell. 137. Ji'K

He lays dovvn laws about the authority of the four councils,
the order of the principal sees, &c. ; addressing a civil officer : —

IG Vhurch and State.

' De ecclesiaxticis titulis.
' Imp. Justin. Aug. Petro gloriosiss. prafecto sacr. prcctor.
' Concerning ecclesiastical rules and privileges, and other heads relating
to the holy churches, &c., we promulgate the present law.
' c. 1. De quatuor Sanctis Ecclesiis.

' We therefore order that the sacred ecclesiastical rules, which have been
set forth or confirmed by the sacred four councils, Nice, Constantinople,
Ephesus and Chalcedon, shall have the place of law. And we receive the
doctrines of the aforesaid four synods as Holy Scriptures, and observe
their rules as laws.

' c. 2. De ordine seclendi Patriarcharum.

' Therefore we order according to their decision that the most holy Pope
of old Rome be the first of all priests; but the most blessed Arch-
bishop of Constantinople, which is new Rome, have the second place after
the holy apostolic see of old Rome.

' c. 3. De episcopo prima Justiuiance.
' c. 4, De episcopo Cartliaginensi,' &c. — Novell. 131.

With respect to bishops, the form and mode of their election,
their quahfications, their canonical age and condition, their
property, their disabilities — no purely ecclesiastical laws could
speak more authoritatively or peremptorily, or more in detail.
The ordinances on the subject are numerous. The following,
addressed, as usual, to a civil officer, may serve as a specimen of
his style.

The Emperor, to John Prator. Prcpf.

' We decree, that no one be ordained to the episcopate, unless useful and
excellent otherwise : one who lives not with a wii'e, and who is not the father
of a family ; but who for a wife will cleave to the most holy Church, and has
in the place of children the ^vhole Christian and orthodox people, kuomng
that from the beginning we have thus disposed concerning the succession
of bishops, and that with this intent our law has proceeded; and that those
who have done or do contrary to it are altogether unworthy of the Episcopate.
For they, who after this our constitution shall dare either to make or to be
made bishops, against its purport, shall neither be numbered among
bishops, or continue in the sacred ministry, but being expelled from it,
shall give room for an ordination, which shall be regular and altogether
pleasing to God.' — Cod. lib. i. tit. iii. 48.

But this is no fair specimen of the minuteness with which he
regulates everything relating to the election and qualifications
of the bishops. It may be seen fully in the Novell, vi. and
cxxiii., which are complete bodies of law relating to the ministers
of the Church. He thus concludes the former : —

' The things therefore which have been decreed by us, and which main-
tain the sacred order and state according to the observance and form of the
sacred rules, let the most holy Patriarchs of each diocese for the future
keep perpetually inviolate, and the Metropolitans, and the rest of the most
reverend bishops and clergy; everywhere maintaining undisturbed the
worship of God and sacred discipline : since this penalty awaits the offender,
— to be alienated from God and the office of the priesthood; for he shall be
expelled from it as un^vorthy. And we give licence to all, of whatsoever

Church and State. 17

office or conversation they be, who observe any transgression in this behalf,
to inform us and the Imperial power for the time being ; that we who have
established these things according to the explanation of the sacred rules
and the tradition of the Apostles, may visit the offender with our due
indignation,' &c.

' But let the most holy Patriarchs of each diocese set forth these things
in the churches which are under them, and make known what has been
established by us to the Metropolitans ; and they in their turn let them set
forth these things m the most holy metropolitan church, and make them
known to the Bishops under them. And let each one of them set them
forth in his own church ; that no member of our State may be
ignorant of what we have ordained for the honour and magnifying of the

great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Copies of this were written

to the most holy Archbishop of Alexandria, to Ephrem, Archbishop of
Theopolis, to Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem, John, the Praetorian Praefect, &c.'
— Novell, 6. Epilog.

He lays down^ -with the same authority and detail^ the order
of proceeding, and the order of appeal, in ecclesiastical trials.'
His language is that of an absolute legislator ; hut it is used to
maintain the strict observance of the canons. It would be end-
less and superfluous to quote all his ordinances on matters of
purely spii'itual interest ; as, for instance, the regulation of the
monastic hfe. We find him decreeing at once ecclesiastical and
ci\il punishments against perjm'ed clerks; fixing the age of
deaconesses, of priests, deacons^ and bishops ; forbidding
bishops to excommunicate except for a just and proven cause,
and ordering them, if offending, to be themselves excommuni-
cated ; (Cod. lib. i. tit. iii. 30 ;) providing for the due attention
of the Clergy to the office of the Church ; forbidding bishops to
leave their Sees. The appointment of the penalty in this last
case is cm'ious : —

' If any one knowingly transgress, and break this regulation, piously
and rightly introduced by us for the honour of the most holy Churches, he
shall feel our no small indignation ; and moreover he shall be placed under
excommunication — if he be a Metropolitan, by your Blessedness ; [he is
addressing the Patriarch of Constantinople;] but if he be a Bishop of a city
subject to a Metropolitan, by the Metropolitan. For we have not thought
it necessary to fix a pecuniary penalty against the despisers of our divine
ordinance, lest the loss should fall on the most holy Churches, whose pro-
perty we wish to remain free from all diminution.' — Cod. lib. i. tit. iii. 43, § 2.

We will quote another ordinance on a point of Chui'ch dis-
cipline. It will be noticed on what grounds, and with what
authority the emperor speaks, and the punishment which he
decrees. It is an ordinance addressed to the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople against gambling, play-going, horse-racing, and
betting clergymen. After stating in the preamble the import-
ance, both for the honour of God and the good of the state,
of piety in the clergy^ and the grievous scandals which have
come to his knowledge, he proceeds : —

' Cod. lib. 1. tit. iv. 29. ' Deforo clerici e( ppiscopi accu-satt.'
B

18 Church and State.

' We have often exhorted them to observe these [rules] ; but seeing that
this information has reached us about such offences, we are under the
necessity of having recourse to the present law, as vrell on account of our
zeal for religion, as also for the benefit both of the priesthood itself, and
of the State.

' And we decree that no deacon, priest, bishop,' or other cleric, play at
dice, &c.

' But if any one in future be detected doing any of these things, and be
informed against, either in this happy city to your Holiness, or in the
provinces to the Metropolitans or Bishops,' a fair and strict trial by
evidence is to be instituted by the Patriarch or Bishops, as the case
may be ; if the clerk be convicted, ' he is to be separated from the sacred
Liturgy, and a canonical penance imposed upon him, and a time is to be
fixed, during which it may be convenient that, using fastings and prayer,
he implore the great God's mercy for such a transgression. And if he
continue for the time appointed in tears and penance, and beseeching the
Lord God in prayer for the remission of his fault, then he, who is his
superior, having diligently ascertained this, and made careful inquiry, shall
cause common prayer to be made for him, and shall with all dihgence impress
upon him that for the future he abstain from such dishonour to the priest-
hood; and if he deems him sufficiently penitent, then let him deign to
extend to him the priestly clemency. But if after excommunication he be
found neither to have exercised true penance, and otherwise to have con-
temned it, and to be manifestly ensnared by the devil, then let the priest
under whom he lives, remove him from the sacred rolls, deposing him for
good ; and let not the offender ever again have licence under any circum-
stances, of coming to the priestly degree.' (And then follow provisions
for his maintenance, and civil condition ; and threats if any Bishop or magis-
trate, from weakness or corruption, fail in his duty.)

' And these things we have done in the way of legislation. . . . But as
these things have been decreed by us for no other reason than for God's
service, we add this further, that inquiries be made with the utmost dili-
gence, and that no one arise to accuse any falsely, or bear false witness.
For, hke as for the priests who have committed such things we have appointed
civil punishment, so on those who venture to accuse them, we will that
punishment abide them, both from heaven and from our laws, if, the chai'ge
once made, they refuse to follow it up, or cannot go on with it.' — Cod.
lib. i. tit. iv. 34.

The religion of the empire is thus fixed by the emperors
before Justinian : —

' De Siimmd Trinitate etFide Catholicd et ut nemo de eu publice contendere audeat.

' We will that all people, whom the power of our clemency rules, should
live in that religion which was given by S. Peter the Apostle to the Romans ;
as the religion, by him introduced, witnesses to this day ; and which it is
clear that Pope Damasus follows, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man
of apostolical sanctity : — that is, that according to apostolic discipline and
evangehc doctrine, we believe one Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, in an Equal Majesty, and in a merciful Trinity. We command that,
following this law, they take the name of Catholic Christians ; adjudging the
rest, senseless and mad, to bear the infamy of heretical doctrine, and to
be punished,' — Cod. lib. i. tit. i. 1, Law of Gratian and Theodos. a. 380.

The Nicene Creed is made the test of orthodox belief, and
heresy and heretics are proscribed ; as, for instance, in the fol-

Church and State. 1 9

lowing injunction^ addressed for execution lo the Praetorian
Prsefect : —

' Further we decree, that those, who abet the impious opinion of
Nestorius, or follow his abominable doctrine, if they are bishops or clerks,
be cast forth from the Churches ; if laymen, be anathematized, acco'-diug to

what has been already established by our Divinity,'

******

' But whereas it has come to our pious ears, that certain have compore-d
certain doctrines, and have published such, being ambiguous, and not in all
things and exactly agreeing with the orthodox faith propounded by the
holy synod of those holy Fathers who assembled at Nicasa and Ephesus,
and by Cyril of pious memory, who was bishop of the great city of
Alexandria, we order that all such writings, whether composed before or

now, be burnt and utterly destroyed,' &c ' And henceforth no one

is at liberty either to say or to teach any thing beyond the faith set forth
as well at Nicfea as at Ephesus; and the transgressors of this our di%'ine pre-
cept shall be subject to the same penalty decreed against the impious faith
of Nestorius, But that all may learn in very deed, how much our Divinity
abhors those who follow the impious faith of Nestorius, we command, that
Irenaeus, formerly under our displeasure for this cai;se, and afterwards, after
second marriage, (as we have learnt,) contrary to the apostolic canons made
bishop of Tyre, be deprived (dejici) of the Church of Tj^re, and do abide in
bis own country in quiet, divested of the character and name of a priest.

' Your Magnificence, therefore, following the object of our Religion, will
take care to observe this, and give it effect.' — Cod. lib. i. tit. i. iii. TIteodos.
and Valentin, to the Pr(PAorian Prcefect, 449.

Public disputation about the faith is forbidden ; the edict is
also addressed to the Prsetorian Prefect : —

' Imp. Marcian. Palladio prcefect. prcBt.'
' No one, cleric, or military, or of any other condition, is henceforth to
venture, before crowds publicly assembled and listening, to treat of the
Christian faith, seeking occasion for tumidt and disloyalty. For, besides,
he does injury to the judgment of the most reverend synod who attempts
to re-open and discuss publicly things decided once for all, and set in
right order ; since those things, which have been now decreed concerning
the Christian faith by the priests who came together by our order at Chal-
cedon,' are known to have been defined according to the apostolic expo-
sitions, and the laws of the 318 holy fathers at Nicaja, and the 150 in this
royal city. Against the despisers of this law punishment shall not be

wanting If therefore it be a cleric who has dared publicly to treat

of religion, he shall be removed from the fellowship of the clergy ; if mili-
tary, shaU be deprived of his belt.' — Cod. lib. i. tit. i, iv.

Nor was Justinian's interference confined to discipline. There
are various edicts in which he lays down and declares, on the
authority of the Church and the four Councils, what is the true
Faith. And he thus communicates his measures to the Patriarch
of Constantinople : —

' We wish your Holiness to know everything which relates to the state
of the Church, We have, therefore, thought it necessary to address these
Divine words to your Holiness, and thereby explain to j^oix the measures

' * Ea qum . . . a .sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenentnt per voslra iwa^cfpta
statuta sunt.'

B 2

20 Church and State.

which have been set on foot, though we are persuaded that you are ac-
quainted with them. Finding, therefore, some who were aliens from the
Holy and Apostolic Church following the deception of the impious Nestorius
and Eutyches, we before promulgated a Divine edict, as your Holiness
knows, by which we restrained the madness of the heretics ; yet without
having changed, or changing anything whatsoever, or having gone beyond
the constitution of the Church, which has been, by God's help hitherto pre-
served ; but having kept in all things the state of unity of the most holy
Churches, with the most holy Pope and Patriarch of old Rome, to whom
we have written to the same effect. For we suffer not that anything that
pertains to the state of the Church should fail to be referred to his Blessed-
ness, seeing that he is the head of all the most holy priests of God ; and
the moi-e so, because whenever heretics have sprung up in these parts,
they have been restrained by the sentence and right judgment of that vene-
rable throne ' . . . .

He then proceeds to explain further the meaning of his edict
concerning the faith : —

* These, then, are the points, in which, by our Divine edict, we convicted
the heretics ; to which Divine edict all the most holy Bishops who were here,
and the most reverend Archimandrites, together with your Holiness,
subscribed ' . . . .

He then proceeds to declare his adherence to the Four Coun^
cils, and speaks of the necessity of making them the test of
orthodoxy, and he thus concludes : —

' Let no one, therefore, vainly trouble us, relying on a vain hope, as if
we ever had done anything contrary to the Four Councils, or should do, or
should allow to be done by any, or should suffer the holy memory of the
same holy Four Councils to be removed from the aforesaid diptychs of the
Church. For all who by them have been condemned and anathematized,
and the doctrine of those condemned, and those who have thought, or think
with them, we anathematize.' — Cod. lib. i. tit. i. 7.

We quote these passages simply as facts; they show very large
claims of interference. Yet the spirit of Justinian^s legislation
was supposed to be in the highest degree favourable to the
Church. ' His Code, and more especially his Novels/ says Gib-
bon, ' confirm and enlarge the privileges of the clergy/ And
there is nothing to show that the clergy of his day, or even the
Pope, looked upon this interference as anything strange or dan-
gerous ; while the precedents then created were incorporated
into the code which has been erected into the text-book of civil
legislation. But while they show interference, they carry on
their face its conditions.

After the legislation of Justinian comes that of Charlemagne.
The Capitularies of the French kings are the next example we
meet with of legislation for a Christian state. They are to the
empire of Charlemagne, what the Pandects were to that of
Justinian; a very miscellaneous collection of laws, edicts,
canons, injunctions, from very various sources, and on all sub-
jects, from the highest matters of religion and government,
down to the herbs to be cultivated in the eraperor^s gardens.

Church and State. 21

The emperor speaks always in his own person; but many of the
Capitularies are stated to have had the consent of the clergy and
nobility, and probably all of them were worded and put into
form by the emperor's ecclesiastical advisers. And they breathe
throughout an ecclesiastical spirit, and prove a deep interest
in the welfare of the Church.

In the Carlovingian legislation, the same authority and office
is attributed in the emperor, as was ascribed to him in that
of Justinian, and with the same understanding and limita-
tions. He is viewed as God's minister, not only to guard, but
also generally to oversee the Church ; to take care, in conjunc-
tion with her pastors, that she observes her own laws.

' Ever since the renovation of the Frank Church under Carloman and
Pepin, it had continued to flourish under the Carlovingian kings, and to be
the most important Church of the West. In the new Church the Metro-
politans had been reinstated in their ancient rights ; the kings retaining,
hoAvever, the general superintendence of the Church, the right of arbitration in
Church matters, as also the direction and confirmation of all ecclesiastical decrees.
Though Charlemagne wished to introduce again the election of Bishops by
the Clergy, they still continued for the most part to be appointed by the
king. The Carlovingians continued also to dispose as they pleased of the
Church lands. . . . The ecclesiastical supremacy of the Pope was acknow-
ledged, the kings often applying to him for advice in ecclesiastical matters,
and allowing the right of appeal to him, as fixed at the Council of Sardica.
In the affairs of their own Church, however, they allowed no interference
but by argument and persuasion.'

Such is Gieseler's account, in which no one who has looked
into the Capitularies will think that he overstates the extent of
the king's interference. And this interference was not confined
to external matters, or even to Church discipline or judicature.
It extended to doctrine ; and Charlemagne, in his own name,
disputed the decision of a professedly oecumenical Council, sanc-
tioned, confirmed, and defended by a Pope ; and caused its
condemnation in a Council of his own.

' In the year 790, a formal refutation of the decrees of the second Coun-
cil of Nice [on image worship] was drawn up under the direction of
Charlemagne ; the " Libri Carolini." ... In these books Charlemagne alone
is the speaker, e.g. "Ecclesisein sinu regni gubernacula suscepimus — nobis,
quibus Ecclesia ad regendum commissa est." It is not probable that the
emperor prepared these books without assistance, but there seems to be
no good reason for thinking that Alcuin assisted him. . . . Though Pope
Hadrian attempted to answer this exposition, the worship of pictui'es was
formally condemned at a Synod held in Frankfort, AD. 794.' — (Gieseler). •

We win quote a few passages from the Capitularies, to show

1 Cf. Lorenz's Life of Alcuin (Eng. Trans.) pp. 109 — 127. Yet these books
are said to recognise in very ample terms the authority of the Roman See.
Charlemagne sent the acts of the Council of Frankfort to the Pope, requiring him
to confirm them. The Pope argued for the decrees of Nice, but without persuad-
ing Charles. The Acts of Frankfort were confirmed in a Synod at Paris, 825.
(Lorenz.)

23

Church and State.

the terms in which this authority was expressed, and the kind
of subjects of which it took cognizance. ^ These Capitularies, or
collections of laws, are, many of them, preserved in the original
form in which they were drawn up in the Emperor's Council.
There is also an arrangement of their enactments, distributed
according to their subjects. The first four books of this arrange-
ment were compiled by Ansegisus, Abbot of Fontenelle, one of
Charlemagne's counsellors ; three more were added by the
deacon Benedict, at the request of the Archbishop of Mayence,
in the middle of the ninth century ; and there are four sup-
plements by unknown authors, — (Guizot.)

The compiler, Ansegisus, thus speaks of the contents of his
collection : —

' The "Capitula," which have been from time to time published by the
said princes, I have arranged in four books. I have collected, in the first
book, those which the Lord Emperor Charles made, relating to the ecclesi-
astical order ; and in the second, the ecclesiastical ordinances published by
the most religious Lord Emperor Louis. I have united in the third those
which Lord Charles made from time to time, pertaining to the secular law ;
and I have collected, in the fourth, those which Lord Louis, the noble
emperor, made, relating to the improvement of worldly law.'

Charlemagne's view of the kingly office is expressed in the
following circular to ' all orders of Ecclesiastical piety, and dig-
nities of Secular power,' which Ansegisus prefixes as a preface
to the ecclesiastical laws. After exhorting the pastors to keep
their flocks within the bounds of ' the canonical sanctions and
the paternal traditions of the universal councils,' the Emperor
proceeds : —

' In this work, let your Holiness know assuredly, that our diligence
works with you. Therefore we have sent to you our Commissioners (Missos),
who, by the authority of our name, might with you correct what wanted
correction. And further, we have subjoined some " capUula," out of the

' We insert, from Guizot's "Hist, de la Civil, en France," an analysis of the
subjects of the Capitularies. He disti-ibutes the subjects imder eight heads.
The proportion of the religious and canonical legislation to the political, under
Charlemagne, is observable.

o

<

3

a<

3

S
«

o

a*

i

65
26
51
3
3
1
3

1,151

362

529

22

19

1

10

87
16
2

293

136

259

6

12

130
36
17

1
7

110

24

4

85
1
2

305

129

51

4

73
1

12

20
193

11
2
I

10

Louis le Deboiui

Charles le Chauve ....

Charles Ic Simple ....

152

2,094

105

706

191

138

88

489

74

249

Church and State. 23

canonical ordinances, which seemed most necessary for you. Nor let any
one, I pray, think this admonition of piety presumptuous, whereby we
study to amend what is faulty, to cut off what is superfluous, to keep what
is right within bounds ; but rather let him receive it with the well-disposed
mind of charity. For we read in the books of Kings, how holy Josias, by
visiting, by correcting, by admonishing, endeavoured to bring back the king-
dom committed to liim by God to the worship of the true God. Not that
I count myself comparable to his holiness, but because the example of the
saints ought ever to be followed by us ; and whomsoever we can, we are
bound to bring to the desire of a good life, to the praise and glory of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, as we have said, we have caused to be
noted down certain laws, that you may endeavour to recommend both
them, and whatsoever else you judge to be necessary," &c. {Prcgf. D.
Karoli R. ad Capit. Aquisgranense ; (Aix-la-Chapelle,) a. 789.)

The Capitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle contains eighty articles,
addressed variously, according to their subjects, ' To all ;' ' To
the Priests.' ' To the Bishops.' They are such as these : —

1. De his qui ab Episcopo proprio excomraunicantur.

2. De his qui ad ordinandum veniunt.

3. De clericis fugitivis et peregrinis.

4. De Presbyteris, Diaconis, vel his qui in clero sunt.

5. De usuris.

6. De Presbyteris Missas cantantibus et non communicantibup.

7. De his qui a Synodo vel a suo Episcopo damnati sunt.

8. De Suffraganeis Episcopis.

9. De Chorepiscopis.

10. De Episcopis vel quibuslibet ex clero.

11. De ordinationibus vel quibuslibet uegotiis.

12. De cura Episcoporum.

16. De ignotis angelorum nominibus.

19. De Episcopis ubi non oporteat eos constitui.

20. De libris canonicis.

24. De Presbyteris non absolute ordinandis.

31. De fide S. Trinitatis prsedicanda.

35. De his qui excommunicato communicaverint.

80. De pra^dicatione Episcoporum et Presbyterorum.

The collection of Ansegisus contains 162 ecclesiastical laws of
Charlemagne, and 48 of Louis. They are, like those already
noticed, on every subject of Church interest, — many of them
taken from the older Chui'ch canons, others original enact-
ments.

The objects, sanction, and authority of the kingly oflBce is
thus stated by the emperor Louis le Debonnaire. After saying
that it ' had pleased Divine providence to appoint him to take
care of holy Chiu'ch and this kingdom,^ and mentioning the
great objects for which he was bound to labour, — 'the defence
' and exaltation or honour of the holy Church of God, and of
' His servants, and the preservation of peace and justice in the
' people at large,' he goes on to describe his relation to the
various orders of his kingdom : — •

24 Church and State.

' But though the sum of this mhnstry appears to reside in our person, yet
we know that by divine authority and human order it is so divided into parts,
that each one of you in his place and order may be known to possess part of our
ministi-y. Whence it appears that I am bound to be the adraonisher of you
all, and all you are bound to be our helpers. For neither are we ignorant
of what is suitable for each one of you, in that portion committed to him.
And therefore we cannot omit to admonish each one according to his
order.' — Capit. Lud. Pii, a. 823, § 3. Coll. Anseg. 1. ii. c. 3.

Accordingly, he proceeds to use tliis authority — the following
are the headings of the succeeding chapters : —

» Of the sacred ministry of the Bishops, and of the admonition of our
Lord Emperor to the Bishops.

' Of the admonition of our Lord Emperor to the Bishops, concerning the
priests appertaining to their care ; and concerning schools.

' Of the admonition to the Counts, for "the utility of God's holy Church.

' Of the admonition to the laity, for maintaining the honour of the
Church.

' Of the admonition to the Abbots and laymen, on behalf of monasteries,
of royal bounty committed to them.

' Of the admonition to Bishops, Abbots, and all the faithful, for their
assistance to the Counts.

' Of the admonition to the Bishops, or even to all, touching concord
between themselves, and with the rest of the faithful.

' Of the admonition to all in general, touching mutual peace and charity.

' Of this, namely; that each Bishop or Coiuit has part of the royal office
{partem ministerii regalis haheat), and of their testimony of one auother ;
{i.e. to know from the witness of the Bishops whether the Counts love and
do justice, and from the witness of the Counts, whether the Bishops behave
and preach religiously.')

What is expressed here in general terms, is, as we have said,
exempHfied in most minute and ample detail in the mass of
heterogeneous acts which are collected together in the ' Capi-
tularies of the Frank Kings.^ The king, by Divine Providence
constituted, holding of God only, and entrusted in the largest
terms with the charge of the Church, is the one source and
fountain of law and justice to Church and State. As a Chi-istian
king, he acknowledges the ancient laws of the Church ; he takes
counsel of his Bishops, and places them in honour' before his
Counts. But for everything he is finally responsible to God, and
therefore everything belongs to his charge, and is to be ordered
according to his discretion — all authority and power in Chiu'ch
and State is from him, is ' part of his ministry.^

We will add but one extract more. It is from a Synod under
Carloman, 742, at which S. Boniface was present.

' In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I, Carloman, Duke and Prince
of the Franks, in the year from the incarnation of Christ 742, the 11th day
before the Calends of May, with the counsel of the servants of God and
my nobles, have, for the fear of Christ, assembled the Bishops who are in
my kingdom, with the Priests, to a council and synod ; that is, Boniface the
Archbishop, and Burchard, and Regemfrid, and Wiztan, and Willibald, and
Dadan, and Eddan, and the rest of the bishops, with their priests, that

i

Church and State. 25

they might give me counsel, how the law of God and ecclesiastical religion
may be restored, which in the days of former princes has been overthrown,
and how the Christian people may attain to the salvation of their souls,
and may not perish by the deceit of false priests. And by the counsel of my
Priests and nobles we have appointed Bishops to the cities, and have set over
them ( constituimus super eos,) the Archbishop Boniface, who is the legate (Missus)
of S. Peter. And we have ordered that a synod should be assembled
every year, that in our presence the decrees of the canons and the rights of
the Church may be restored, and Christian religion amended,' S:c. —
Capitular. Karlorn. a. 742. Bened. Levit. 1. v. c. 2.

The following remarks of Guizot may show that oui' extracts
give no unfair representation of the spirit of the CarloAingian
policy and system. Om* readers will not, we think, complain of
us for declining to weaken the writer's language by translation.

' Puerile ou grave, monastique ou seculiere, toute cette reforme de I'e-
glise Gallo-franque s'accomplissait sous I'impulsion et avec le concours du
pouvoir temporel. A vrai dire, de Pepin le Bref a Louis le Debonnaire,
c'est le pouvoir temporel, roi ou empereur, qui gouverne I'eglise, et fait
tout ce que je viens de mettre sous vos yeux. Les preuves en sont
evidentes.

' 1°. Tons les canons, toutes les mesures relatives a I'eglise, a cette
epoque, sont publics au nom du pouvoir temporel ; c'est lui qui parle, qui
ordonne, qui agit. II suffit d'ouvrir les actes des conciles pour s'en
convaincre.

' 2o. Ces actes, et beaucoup d'aiitres monuments, proclament meme
formellement que c'est au pouvoir civil qu'il appartient d'ordonner de telles
choses, et que I'eglise vit et agit sous son autorite. Les canons du Concile
d'Arles, tenu sous Charlemagne en 813, se terminent ainsi: —

' Nous avons bri^vement enumere les choses qui nous semblent avoir besoin de
r6forme, et nous avons decide que nous les presenterions au Seigneur Empereur,
en invoquant sa clemence, afin que, si quelque chose manque a ce travail, sa pru-
dence y supplee; si quelque chose est autrement que ne veut la raison, son juge-
ment le corrige ; si quelque chose est sagement oi-donne, son appiu, avec I'aide de
la bontg divine, le fasse executer.' '

' On lit egalement dans le preface des actes du Concile de Mayence, tenu
aussi en 813 : —

' Sur toutes ces choses, nous avons hesoin de votre appui et de votre saine
doctrine, afin qu'elle nous avertisse et nous instruisse avec bienveillance ; et si ce
que nous avons redig6 ci-dessous, en quelques articles, vous en parait digne, que
votre autorite le confirme ; si quelque chose vous y semble a corriger, que votre
grandeur imperiale en ordonne la correction.' ^

* Quels textes pourraient etre plus formels ?

' 3°. Les Capitulaires de Charlemagne prouvent egalement a chaque pas
que le gouvernement de I'eglise etait une de ses principales affaires :
quelques articles pris au hasard vous raontreront avec quelle attention il
s'en occupait : —

' Nos missi doivent rechercher s'il s'elfeve quelque plainte centre un ev^que, un
abbg, une abhesse, un comte, ou tout autre magistrat, quel qu'il soit, et nous en
instruire.^

' Qu'ils examinent si les gveques et les autres pretres vivent selon I'institution

' Cone. Labbe, t. vii. col. 1238.

2 Ibid. col. 1241.

3 3e Cap. a. 789, § 11 ; Bal. t. i. col. 244.

26 Church and State.

canonique, et s'ils connaissent et observent bien lea canons ; si les abbes vivent
selon la rSgle et canoniquement, et s'ils connaissent bien les canons ; si dans les
monastSres d'hommes, les moines vivent selon la rfegle ; si, dans les monastSres de
fiUes, elles vivent selon la r^gle, et quelle en est la cloture.'

* Qu'ils examinent dans chaque cite les monast^res d'hommes et de filles ; qu'ils
voient comment les eglises sont entretenues ou reparees, soit quand aux edifices,
soit quand aux ornements ; qu'ils s'informent soigneusemeut des moeurs de chacun,
et de ce qui a 6te fait quand a ce que nous avous ordonng sur les lectures, le chant,
et tout ce qui concerne la discipline ecclesiastique.^

' Si quelqu'un des abbes, pretres, diacres, &c., n'obSit pas 3, son eveque, qu'ils
aillent devant le metropolitain, et que celui-ci juge I'afFaire avec ses suffragants.
Et, s'il y a quelque chose que I'eveque metropolitain ne puisse reformer ou apaiser,
que les accusateurs avec I'accuse viennent h nous, avec des lettres du metropolitain,
pour que nous sachions la verite de la chose. ^

' Que les eveques, les abbes, les comtes, et tous les puissants, s'ils ont entre eux
quelque debat et ne se peuvent concilier, viennent eu notre presence.' *

' C'est la a coup sur, une intervention bien directe et active. Charle-
magne ne gouvernait pas les affaires civiles de plus pres.

4°. ' II exer^ait d'ailleurs une influence tres-efficace, bien qu'indirecte ;
il nommait les eveques. On lit, a la verite, dans les Capitulaires, le reta-
blissement de I'election des eveques par le clerge et les peuple, selon I'usage

primitif et le droit legal de I'eglise Mais le fait continua d'etre

peu en accord avec le droit: apres comme avant ce Capitulaire, (1"^ Cap.
a. 803, § 2, t^i. col. 379,) Charlemagne nomma presque toujours les eve-
ques ; et meme apres sa mort, sous ses plus faibles successeurs, I'inter-
vention de la royaute en pareUle matiere fut avouee par ses plus jaloux
rivaux. Eu 853, le pape Leon IV. ecrit a Lothaire, Empereur : —

' Nous supplions votre mansugtude de donner cette iSglise Jl gouverner ^ Colonne,
humble diacre, afin qu'en ayant re9u permission de vous, nous puissions, avec I'aide
de Dieu, le consacrer eveque. Si vous ne voulez pas qu'il soit eveque dans la dite
eglise, que votre Serenite daigne lui conferer celle do Tusculum, veuve aussi de
son pasteur.'

******

6°. ' Ce n'etait pas seulement de I'administration et de la discipline eccle-
siastique que s'occupait a cette epoque le pouvoir temporel; il intervenait
meme dans les matieres de dogme, et celles-la aussi etaient gouvernees en
son nom, Trois questions de ce genre se sont elevees sous le regne de
Charlemagne; je ne ferai que les indiquer. l.La question du culte des
images .... L'eglise Gallo-franque repoussa ce culte et tout ce qui parais-
sait y tendre .... La favevir qu'accordaient les papes a cette doctrine
n'ebranla point les eveques francs, ni leur maitre, et, en 794, le Coucile de
Fraucfort le condamna formellement. 2. L'heresie des Adoptiens ....
que Charlemagne fit condamner dans trois conciles successifs. 3. La ques-
tion d'une addition au symbole sur la procession du Saint-Esprit. C'etaient
la a coup sur des matieres bien etraiigeres au gouvernement exterieur de
l'eglise, bien purement dogmatiques. Elles n'en furent pas nioins reglees,
sinon par le pouvoir civil lui-meme, du moins sous son autorite, et avec
son intervention.

' On pent done, sans traiter la question de droit, sans examiner s'il est
bon ou mauvais qu'il en soit ainsi, affirmer en fait qu'a cette epoque,
directement ou indirectement, le pouvoir temporel gouvernait l'eglise. La
situation de Charlemagne a cet egard etait, a peu de chose pres, la meme
que celle du roi d'Angleterre dans l'eglise Anglicane. En Angleterre, aussi,
I'assemblee civile, ou parlement, et I'assemblee ecclesiastique, ou convocation,

1 2^ Cap. a. 802, § 2—5 ; t. i. col. 375.

2 5e Cap. a. 806, § 4 ; t. i. col. 453.

3 Cap. a. 794, § 4 ; t. i. col. 264. * 3^ Cap. a. 812, § 2.

Church and State. 27

out ete long-temps distinctes ; et ni I'un ni I'autre ne decidait rieu, ne pou-
vait rieii, sans la sanction de la royaute. Qu'il s'agit d'un concile ou d'un
champ de mai, ou d'un dogme ou d'un guerre a proclaraer, Charlemagne y
presidait egalement : ni dans I'un, ni dans I'autre cas, on ne songeait a se
passer de lui.' ^

But lie goes on to observe that the ' early Carlovingians,
' while thus governing absolutely, conferred on the Church ira-
' mense advantages, and laid the most solid foundations of its
' future power/ He specifies, 1 . The final estabhshment of the
payment of tithes : 3. The extension by Charlemagne of the
jurisdiction of the Clergy : 3. The increase of the power of the
Clergy in civil matters, particularly in questions of marriages
and Avills : 4. The appropriation to each Church of a glebe,
mansus ecclesiasticus. He continues — ' Malgre sa servitude mo-
' mentanee, Teglise avait 1^, a coup sur, de nombreux et feconds
' principes d'independance et de pviissance, lis ne tarderent
' pas a se developper/

Now this theory is the foundation of European royalty ; after
all our revolutions we have not yet finally abandoned it. We
are not speaking of the effect of it, which of course must vary
according to the state of things in which it works, and with
which it is Imked, Doubtless, if Charlemagne or Louis speak
to Bishops and upon spiritual matters, in terms as authoritative
and peremptory as those of a Pope^s brief, we know that they
are fully agreed with their Bishops, and are probably using the
words Avhich their Bishops have drawn up for them. Neverthe-
less, with the terms and language of this supremacy, the Church
is not offended. The supremacy thus claimed and used, is not
looked on as a profanation ; not even as a grievance. Not
a protest, not a warning is heard ; not an expostulation, not
a suspicion, not a misgiving, even from Bome. It is accepted and
embraced as perfectly natural and right. It breaks no canon,
it trenches on no jurisdiction, it invalidates no power, it wounds
no feeling. It appeared as legitimate a consequence of Charle-
magne's poAver, as the authority exercised by the Jewish kings
did to the Jews, and does still to the reader of the Old Testa-
ment. And yet the Church at this time, however different from
that of later times, was very far from being insensible to its
own claims and powers, or, as an impartial observer attests, to
its duties. 2

' Civilisation en France, Lcfon 26.

' V. Guizot, Hist, de la Oivilis. en France, Lc9on 26. He notices especially
the number of councils. ' Twenty councils only had been held in the seventh cen-
tury, and seven only in the first half of the eighth.' From Pepin to the accession
of Hugh Capet, (752 — 987,) in 235 years, 201 councils were held, of which 33 in
the 46 years of Charlemagne, 29 in the 26 years of Louis Ic Debonnaire, and 69 in
the 37 yearg of Charles le Chauve.

28 Church and State.

It does not, of course, the least follow, tliat because this
supremacy suited the days when it arose, it should be satisfactory
now, or under Henry VIII. When it led to bad consequences,
the Church opposed it; if she could not get rid of it, she
checked and balanced it ; as she ought to do, when necessary,
and may do still. But as a fact in her history, it cannot be
overlooked. She was not forced or surprised into it ; she did not
view it as a tyranny submitted to under protest. It grew up
while she was on the best terms with the powers of this world,
when she was their instructress and guide, under her auspices
and sanction, in the councils of her bishops, whose knowledge
and learning determined its form, whose literary superiority
furnished its language, who were its spokesmen, scribes, law-
makers, codifiers, interpreters, ministers, judges. They certainly
cannot be accused of being insensible to the prerogatives of the
spiritual order ; yet they fell into the system of Charlemagne or
of Justinian, naturally and as a matter of course, without mis-
giving or reluctance. Doubtless, it was natural for the Church
to be liberal and unsuspicious to her friends : and she is not
bound to continue to a hostile or indifferent government, powers
of interference which were judged safe in the hands of a reli-
gious king. But the supremacy of the Carlovingian and Eastern
emperors shows that the Church was willing to go very far in
consolidating the ecclesiastical and civil powers, in order to
secure real efficiency and strength. It shows that at that period
she was not very nice in settling accurately their relations and
subordination; that she trusted to their broad and essential
distinctions, for preventing any fatal confusion of authority or
function ; that in her %dew then, her intrinsic powers were not
brought into abeyance or suspension, much less extinguished, by
being associated with those of a temporal crown. And further,
she is committed, not to the permanence, but to the lawfulness
in itself of such an arrangement ; for she fully acquiesced in it
under Justinian ; and in the case of Charlemagne, it was of her
own authorship. The material force was the king's ; but to her
he owed the idea, which gave it the character of a legitimate
authority and a reasonable power : it was her learning and
cultivation which supplied its maxims, and devised its formulse.
She grew and strengthened by it ; and the theory, which she
had developed and fostered, gained force and cm-rency among
the nations which looked up to her, as much in consequence of
her authority, as from the interest and influence of kings and
emperors, who found their account also in it. This must not
be forgotten. With such a precedent, it would be at least un-
persuasive for her to argue in defence of her independence or
freedom, on the broad ground of the unlawfulness of such a

Church and State. 29

supremacy, as she herself shaped out for Charlemagne. If she
is -srise, she will fight her battle on the more troublesome, but
more real question, of special circumstances. And in judging
of the acts of the later Church, it must be remembered, not
merely that precedents are of force in ai'gument, but that the
policy of one age really abridges the liberty of action of another;
and that the later Chm'cli found itself shackled and embarrassed
by an idea and tradition left behind by the earlier Church,
which the earlier Chui'ch had not merely submitted to, but
originated, when perfectly free to choose, holding the highest
position of command, and fully impressed with the sacredness
and divine origin of her own mission and powers.

To come to England, The visitatorial power of the Crown,
of which Henry VIII. made such \iolent and bad use, is yet, in
itself, one of the very earliest facts which meet us in English
history. It was not his invention, nor the invention of his
counsellors and bishops ; the idea of it was famihar both to the
jurisprudence and to the common opinion of England. It had
come into Anglo-Saxon England as a matter of course, with the
beginnings of royalty and the Chm'ch, as inherent in the first
and ob%dous idea of a religious king, the idea suggested by the
examples of the Old Testament, reahzed in the instance of
Charlemagne, and by his legislation and his renown stamped on
the mind of Christian Em'ope. This power had been used
broadly and unsuspiciously, with the full concurrence and co-
operation of the Clergy, used legislatively, administratively,
judicially, within no definite limits, yet without being supposed
to usm-p, invalidate, or supersede the joint and parallel action of
the Church. In the more energetic times, indeed, which followed
the Saxon kingdom, it was no longer the undisputed prerogative
wliich had dealt, in its rude and simple fashion, with a rude and
simple time. Kings found new secrets in it ; the Chm'ch had
to be jealously on its guard against its early ally. But though,
as all know, fierce contests followed, and as circumstances or
individual character varied, limitations were fixed by compro-
mise, carried forward by victory, pushed back by defeat, silently
altered by custom, the idea of monarchy derived from the Saxon
times continued from William the Conqueror to Henry VIII,
as it continues to this day, the invariable tradition of England,
respected and acknowledged, however interpreted by the
Church, as it was acknowledged, and also interpreted, by the
law.

How completely this Anglo-Saxon notion of the royal power
coincided with that which is shown in the legislation of Justi-
nian and Charlemagne, may be seen in the following passages
from the collections of Anglo-Saxon laws. The royal power is thus

80 Church and State.

stated, vaguely enough, yet broadly, in the ' Laws of Edward
the Confessor : ^ —

' De muUiplici Potestate Regia.

' But the kina;, who is the Vicar of tlie most high King, {Vkarius summi
Regis,) is set for this, that he may rule and defend from wrong-doers the
kingdom and the people of the Lord, and above all, holy Church ; {itt
regnum et populum Domini, et super omnia, sanctum Ecclesiam, regat et defetidat
ah injui'iosis ;) but that the wicked he may overthrow and root out. Other-
wise he loses the name of king, as Pope John witnesses, to whom Pepin
and Charles his son, when not yet kings but princes, under the foolish king
of the Franks, wrote, asking, "Whether the kings of the Franks ought to
continue thus content with the bare name of king?" By whom it was
answered, " That it is fitting that theg be called kings, who AvatchfuUy
defend and rule the Church of God and His people, following the royal
Psalmist, who says, ' He who doeth pride shall not dwell in the midst of
my house,' " &c,' — Thorpe, vol. i. p. 449.

The state of things shown in these laws is that of a union of
powers for practical effects. The directive and coercive powers
of the Avliole body are joined and centralised, that they may
speak and act with force. The king is the oA'erseer, the chief
minister, and the spokesman of the body ; he orders justice to
be done, whether in Church or State, and sees that it is done.
But he is not the only power. His bishops and his thanes have
their own functions and powers ; and both have their part in his
councils. Thus Wihtraed, Avith the Archbishop and other great
men of Kent, issues a variety of injunctions, partly civil, partly
ecclesiastical, and threatening ecclesiastical as well as ci^dl
punishments — injunctions of so mixed a character, that they
are placed both among the laws of England and the collections
of English canons.^ They command excommunication of evil
livers, suspension of priests for ecclesiastical offences till the
judgment of the Bishop, forbid Sunday labour, enjoin fasting.
The same miscellaneous character belongs to the laws in
general. In one collection of ordinances, we have an order, ' that
fifty psalms shall be sung every Fridaj^, at every monastery, for
the king, and all who will w hat he Avills,' interposed between a
law about tracking cattle, and another about compensation for
theft. {Thorpe, i. 322, 223.)

The collection of the laws of King Edmund begins thus : —

' King Edmund assembled a great synod at London, during the holy
Easter tide, as well of ecclesiastical as of secular degree. There was Oda
Archbishop, and Wulfstan Archbishop, and many other Bishops, meditating
concerning the condition of their souls, and of those who were subject to
them.'

Then follow the laws, in two divisions, one ecclesiastical, the
other secular. The same authority enacts botli.^

■■ Thorpe, i. 36. Bruns, Canones, &c. Concilium Bergliamstedense, ii. 311.
2 Thorpe, i. 340, 341.

Church and State. 81

The laws of Ethelred are numerous and varied, and extending
to ecclesiastical as well as civil matters. ' A Christian king/ he
says, ' is accounted Christ's Vicegerent among Christian people,
and it is his duty to avenge offence to Clu'ist very severely/
Again, the religious character of his legislation is expressed in
the following : —

' It is very justly incumbent on Christian men that they very diligently
avenge any offence against God. And wise were those secular "tvitan,"
who to the Divine laws of right added secular laws for the people's govern-
ment; and directed the "ioi" ("amends") to Christ and the king, that
many should thus of necessity be compelled to right.

' But in those assemblies, though deliberately held in places of note, after
Edgar's lifetime, the laws of Christ waned, and the king's laws were impaired.

' And then was separated what was before in common to Christ and the
king in secular government ; and it has ever been the worse before God
and the world; let it now come to an amendment, if God will it.' —
Thorpe, i. 348, 349.

Again : —

' And he who holds an outlaw of God in his power over the term that
the king may have appointed, he acts at peril of himself and all his pro-
perty, against Christ's vicegerent, who preserves and sways over Christi-
anity and kingdom [' Cristetulom 8f Cynedoin'^ as long as God grants it,'
—Thorpe, i. 350, 351.

The guardianship of religion, and the rights which this gave
him, in conjunction with his ' witan,"" to watch over and take
cognisance of ecclesiastical discipHne, are expressed in the
following : —

' This is the ordinance which the King of the English, and both the eccle-
siastical and lay counsellors, have chosen and advised.

' 1. This then is first: that we all love and worship one God, and
zealously hold one Christianity .... and this we all have, both with word
and promise, confirmed, that, under one Kingship we will observe one
Christianity

' 4. And the ordinance of oiar Lord and his " witan " is, that men of every
order readily submit, before God and before the world, each to that law
which is appropriate to him ; and above all, let all the ser\"ants of God,
bishops and abbots, monks and mynchens, priests and nuns, submit to the
law and live according to their rule, and fervently intercede for all Christian
people.

' 5. And the ordinanceof our Lord and of his " witan "is, that every monk
who is out of minster, and heeds no rule, do as it behoves him ; let him
willingly retire into a minster, with all humility, and abstain from misdeeds,
and make amends (" hot'') very strictly for that which he may have broken ;
let him be mindful of the word and promise which he gave to God.

' 6. And let the monk who has no minster come to the bishop of the
diocese, and engage himself to God and to men, that he therefore will
specially observe three things ; that is, his chastity, and monastic habit,
and to serve his Lord, as well as he best can ; and if he perform that, then
he is worthy of being the better respected, let him dwell Avhere he may.

' 7. And let canons, where their benefice is, so that they may have a
refectory and a dormitory, keep their minster rightly and with purity, as

33 Church and State.

their rule may teach ; or it is right that he forfeit the benefice who will
not do so.

' 8, And we pray and instruct all mass-priests, that they secure them-
selves against the wrath of God.

* 9. . . . And let him that will preserve his chastity, have God's mercy . . .
and he who wQl not do that which is befitting his order, let his honour
wane before God and before the world.

' If a monk or a mass-priest become altogether an apostate, let him be
for ever excommunicated, unless he the more readily submit to his duty.'—
Thorpe, Laivs of King Ethelred, i. 304—307, 348, 349.

The same laws regulate ecclesiastical payments, and the
observance of festivals and fasts : —

' 13. Let Sunday's festival be rightly kept, as is thereto becoming.

'14. And let all S. Mary's feast-tides be strictly honoured ; first with
fasting, and afterwards with feasting. And at the celebration of every
Apostle, let there be fasting and feasting ; except that on the festival of
SS. Philip and James, we enjoin no fast on account of the Easter festival.

' 16. And the " witan" have chosen, that S.Edward's mass-day shall be
celebrated all over England on xv. Kal. April.

' 17. And to fast every Friday, unless it be a festival.

* 18. And ordeals and oaths are forbidden on festival days, and on the
regular Ember-days, and from Adventum Domini till the octaves of the
Epiphany ; and from Septuagesiraa till xv. days after Easter.' — Thorpe,
1. 306—309.

And so with the laws of King Canute.' He makes laws for
the general direction of his subjects both in Church and State,
'with the counsel of his witan, and to the praise of God, and
the honour and behoof of himself.^ And he goes even to
matters of private conscience. He speaks by his own authority,
thouffh with the concurrence of his ecclesiastical as well as
temporal counsellors. He prescribes duties, m their own sphere,
to his Bishops. He regulates ecclesiastical ordinances, such as
fasts and holidays. He enjoins Christian worship ; he pre-
scribes the form of trial and purgation of ecclesiastics, regular
and secular, and orders great offenders to be excommunicated ;
he orders Churchmen to live each according to his proper rule :
' We will that men of every order readily submit, each to that
' law which is becoming to him ; and above all, let the servants
* of God, bishops and abbots, monks and mynchens, canons and
' nuns, submit to law, and live according to rule, and by day
' and night, oft and frequently, call to Christ, and fervently
' intercede for all Christian people/ He speaks as one bound
to preserve the faith, and to make his people obedient to the
law of the Church; he bids them go to Confession, communi-
cate at least thrice a-year, study and hold fast Christian doc-
trine, learn at least to say the Lord's Prayer and Creed, and
keep from evil works. The vagueness which pervades all the

' Thorpe, Laws of King Cnut ; Ecclesiastical, (i. 358 — 375;) Secular, (i. 376
—425.)

Church and State. 33

Anglo-Saxon laws^ (except in the matter of fines,) and the
mixtnre of moral exhortation with legal command, give the
Anglo-Saxon royalty a sort of domestic character, at least in
outward appearance. But the claim to interfere in all matters
relating to Christianity, and to correct all abuses, is not less
clear. And in England, as abroad, it went side by side with
a strong spirit of ecclesiastical independence.

The history of the English Church from the Conquest to the
Reformation, Moidd illustrate this with as much force as its history
afterwards. It Avould show how difficult it was for the Church,
even after such contests as those of Anselm and Becket, we say not
to shake off, for that was never done, but to restrain, the supremacy
traditionally belonging to the English CroAvn, and practically
exercised by powerful kings. The sort of supremacy claimed
by William the Conqueror, and in his case not disputed, in the
face of the great contest which Gregory A'll. was carrying on
upon the Continent, is, considering the period, one of the most
startling instances of royal prerogative. And though this was
checked in his successors, by A\'hat we must consider the saintly
heroism of two indi\ddual Archbishops, unaided and almost
alone in theii' stritggle, the principles for which both had suf-
fered, and one had died, — principles, then the plain admitted
foundations of ecclesiastical law, and deemed essential to the
welfare of the Church, — Avere in every reign, sometimes more,
and sometimes less, contradicted, ignored, put aside, overruled
by the King's authority. The Pope was then the acknowledged
chief depositary of Church jurisdiction, the organ of Church
authority, and representative of the public rights of the Church
— whether rightly or wrongly makes no difference : but being so
accounted, both by Church and King, his action was continually
and arbitrarily limited or overridden ; or he was forced to con-
descend to compromise matters of the highest importance to
the influence and interests of the Church. The idea of a
supreme ^visitatorial power, a power of determining finally, on
his own responsibility and at his discretion, the ecclesiastical
relations of his subjects, was never parted with by the King,
was often acted on, and but seldom and faintly protested against
by the body of the national Clergy. The Church was even
reminded that it was of the King's grace and goodness that she
held her liberties, and was allowed to use those powers which
she could not but consider her inalienable right.'

To take one instance. It is difficult to imagine, in a polity
like that of the Chui*ch before the Reformation, a clearer and
more intelligible right, than that of free intercourse between
the Head of the Church and its members. Where the Pope was

' For instance, the Articuli Cleri, 1316. Collier, iii. 42—46 ; cf. pp. 100—103.

C

34 Church and State.

viewed as by Diviue right the Chief Shepherd of the Universal
Church, its governor, watchman and refuge, and the living and
final interpreter of its law, it seems in theory a tyranny the
most intolerable, to fetter or impede, by human regulations and
for political objects, the appeal to such a judge, or the commu-
nication of his decisions or his counsels. Yet the right to
control this intercourse was systematically claimed by the
English kings ; and when claimed by a strong king, submitted
to. William the Conqueror assumed it without scruple. In
later times, it became the subject of a chain of statutes of
famous import and name, the statutes of Provisors and Praemu-
nire. And these statutes, sometimes with a faint saving clause
on the Pope's behalf, were not thought anything strange by
the English Bishops. We will quote the account of the statute
of Prsemunire of 16 Rich. II. —

' " To our dread sovereign lord the king in this present parliament, his
humble chaplain, William, archbishop of Canterbury, gives in his answer to
the petition brought into the parliament by the commons of the realm, in
which petition are contained certain articles.

' " That is to say, first. Whereas our sovereign lord the king and all his
liege subjects ought of right to be, and had been always accustomed to sue
in the king's court, to recover their presentations to churches, to maintain
their titles to prebendaries and other benefices of holy Church, to which
they have a right to present. The cognizance of which plea belongs solely to
the court of our sovereign lord the king by virtue of his ancient prerogative,
maintained and practised in the reigns of all his predecessors, kings of
England. And when judgment is given in his highness's said court upon
any such plea, the archbishops, bishops, and other spiritual persons, who
have the right of giving institution to such benefices within their juris-
diction, are bound to execute such judgments, and used always to make
execution of them at the king's command, (since no lay person can make
any such execution,) and are also bound to make execution of many other
commands of our lord the king : of which right, the crown of England has
been all along peaceably possessed : but now of late, divers processes have
been made by the holy father the pope, and excommunications published
against several English bishops for making such executions, and acting in
pursuance to the king's commands in the cases above-mentioned, and that
such censures of his holiness are inflicted in open disherison of the crown
and subversive of the prerogative royal, of the king's laws, and his whole
realm, unless prevented by proper remedies."

' To this article the archbishop promising his protestation, " that it was
none of his intention to affirm our holy father the pope has no authoritj' to
excommunicate a bishop, pursuant to the laws of holy Church, declares
and answers, that if any executions of processes are made or shall be
made by any person ; if any censures of excommunication shall be pub-
lished, and served upon any English bishops, or any other of the king's
subjects, for their having made execution of any such commands, he main-
tains such censures to be prejudicial to the king's prerogative, as it is set
forth in the commons' petition : and that so far forth he is resolved to stand
with our lord the king, and support his crown in the matters above-men-
tioned, to his power.

' " And likewise, whereas it is said in the petition, that complaint has
been made that the said holy father the pope had designed to translate
some English prelates to sees out of the realm, and some from one bishopric

Church and State. 35

to another, without the knowledge and consent of our lord the king,
and without the assent of the prelates so translated, (prelates who are
very serviceable and necessary to our lord the king, and his whole realm,)
which translations, if they should be siiffered, the statutes of the realm
would be defeated, and made in a great measure insignificant, and the said
lieges of his highness's council would be removed out of his kingdom with-
out their assent and against their inclination, and the treasure of the said
realm would be exported: by which means, the country would become
destitute both of wealth and council, to the utter destruction of the said
realm : and thus, the crown of England, which has always been so free and inde-
pendent, as not to have any earthly sovereign, but to be immediately subject to God
in all thi?igs touching the prerogatives and royalty of the said crown, should be
made subject to the pope, and the laws and statutes of the realm defeated and set
aside by hini at pleasure, to the utter destruction of the sovereignty of our lord
the king, his crown and royalty, and his whole kingdom, which God forbid.

' " The said archbishop, first protesting that it is not his intention to
affirm that our holy father aforesaid cannot make translations of prelates
according to the laws of holy Church, answei's and declares, that if any
English prelates, who by their capacity and qualifications were very ser-
viceable and necessary to our lord the king and his realm, if any such
prelates were translated to any sees in foreign dominions or the sage lieges
of his council were forced out of the kingdom against their will, and that,
by this means, the wealth and treasure of the kingdom should be exported ;
in this case, the archbishop declares that such translations would be preju-
dicial to the king and his crown : for which reason, if anything of this
should happen, he resolves to adhere loyally to the king, and endeavour, as
he is bound by his allegiance, to support his highness in this and all other
instances, in which the rights of his crown are concerned ; and lastly, he
prayed the king this schedule might be made a record, and entered upon
the parliament-roll : which the king granted." ....

' We may observe farther, that this schedule of the archbishop's seems
to have led the way to the statute of ' pi-aemunire,' passed in this parlia-
ment: for the preamble and iutroductive part of the act is but a copy, as
it W'ere, of this declaration. The bill, it is true, was brought in by the
commons by way of petition, who prayed the king to examine the opinions
of the lords spiritual and temporal upon the contents. The question being
put, the lords temporal promised to stand by the king against the pope's
encroachments : neither were the engagements of the lords spiritual less
loyal and satisfactory ; for they concurred in all points with the common
petition, and renomiced the pope in all his attempts upon the crown.' —
Collier, vol. iii. pp. 208—210.

And now let us hear how these statutes, acquiesced in so
easily by Enghsh Bishops, were viewed by the Pope. Martin V.
thus characterises one of the statutes of Praemunire, in a strong
letter of rebuke to Ai'chbishop Chicheley.

' " Now, what abominable violence has been let loose upon your pro-
vince, I leave it to yourself to consider. Pray peruse that ' royal law,' if there
is any thing that is either ' law ' or ' royal ' belongs to it : for how can that
be called a statute w hich repeals the laws of God and the Church ? How
can it deserve the name of ' royal ' when it destroys the ancient usages
of the kingdom ? when it is so counter to that sentence in Holy Scripture,
' The king's honour loveth judgment ? ' I desire therefore to know, reve-
rend brother, whether you, who are a Catholic bishop, can think it reason-
able such an act as this should be in force in a Christian country?

' " For, in the first place, under colour of this execrable statute, the king

c 2

36 Cliurch and State.

of England reaches into the spiritual jurisdiction, and governs as fully in
ecclesiastical matters as if our Saviour had constituted him His vicar. He
makes laws for the Church, and order of the clergy ; draws the cognizance
of ecclesiastical causes to his temporal courts ; and, in short, makes so
many provisions about clerks, benefices, and the concerns of the hierarchj',
as if the keys of the kingdom of heaven were put into his hands, and the
superintendency of these affiiirs had been entrusted with his highness and
not with S. Peter.

' '■ Besides this hideous encroachment, he has enacted several terrible
penalties against the clergy. So unaccountable a rigour this, that the
English constitution does not treat Jews nor Turks with this severe usage.
People of all persuasions and countries have the liberty of coming into
England : and only those who have cures bestowed upon them by the
supreme bishop, by the vicar of Christ Jesus, — only those, I say, — are
banished, seized, imprisoned, and stripped of their fortunes. And if any
proctors, notaries, or others, charged with the execution of the mandates
and censures of the apostolic see, — if any of these happen to set foot upon
English ground, and proceed in the business of their commission, they are
treated like enemies, thrown out of the king's protection, and exposed to
extremities of hardship.

' " Can that be styled a Catholic kingdom where such profane laws are
made and practised, where application to the vicar of Christ is prohibited,
where the successor of S. Peter is not allowed to execute our Saviour's
commission? Christ said to Peter, and, in him, to his successors, ' Feed
my sheep ; ' but this statute will not suffer him to feed them, but transfers
this office to the king, and pretends to give him apostolical authority in
several cases. Christ built his Church upon S. Peter; but this act of
parliament hinders the effect of this disposition ; for it will not allow
S. Peter's see to proceed in the functions of government, nor make pro-
visions suitable to the necessities of the Church. Our Saviour has ordered,
that whatever his high priest * shall bind or loose upon earth, shall be bound
or loosed in heaven ; ' but this statute ventures to overrule the divine
pleasure : for if the immediate representative of our Saviour thinks fit to
delegate any priest to execute the power of ' the keys ' against the in-
tendment of the statute, this act not only refuses to admit them, but forces
them out of the kingdom, seizes their effects, and makes them liable to
farther penalties : and, if any discipline and apostolic censure appears
against this usage, it is punished as a capital offence." '-^Collie?; vol. iii.
pp. 341, 342.

He goes on to require the Arclibishop, under pain of excom-
munication, to use all his efforts to get it repealed ; and makes
excommunication the penalty of obedience to it. He proceeds
to steps of greater vigour ; he makes void the statutes of Pro-
visors, and of Prsemunire, of Edward III. and Eichard TI., and
excommunicates all who obey them; he orders his monitory
letter to be published to the whole nation; he wantes to the King,
to the Duke of Bedford, to the Parliament, telhng them ' that
' they caimot be saved without giving their votes to repeal this
' statute.^ Yet the Archbishop ignores the Pope's censure, and
excuses himself to the Pope, ' that he could not be farther in-
' formed' on the censure, ' because he was cominanded by the
' king to bring those instruments with the seals whole, and lodge
' them in the paper office till the Parliament sate ;' and the

I

Church and State. 37

Parliament, after hearing the Pope^s letter, and an exhortation
of the Archbishop to attend to it, simply does nothing, and
leaves the statute as it stands.

We cannot then, in spite of the abuses of Henry VIII., deny
that the Church had, long before his time, admitted the King's
visitatorial power. Henry may have used it to her hurt, others
for her benefit. He may have asserted it in extreme cases, and
worded his claim in the most extravagant terms — terms which
his successors shrunk from and gave up. But, unless terms and
phrases are all that is to guide us in judging of a case, he can
only be said to have misused a power, which the Church had
allowed, when used in her favour. The principle which Avas
finally laid down and agreed to by the English Church and the
Crown in the 37th Article, cannot be said to be a new or unknown
or peculiarly English principle. The principle of visitatorial
power in the Crown, of keeping all things in their place, and all
persons to their duty, of seeing to the due execvition of all law,
— with aU that such a principle involves of final i-esponsibility,
and final discretion, governs, as we have seen, some of the most
important and largest developments of Church influence. It
governs the earliest specimens and the most august models of
European legislation— that of the Christian Roman empire, and
that of the Christian Frank empire. It is equally shown in the
homely and common sense arrangements of the Anglo-Saxons;
and it is not more distinctly asserted in the uncontradicted and
tranquil prerogative of Justinian or Edward the Confessor,
than in the contested and balanced royalty of Henry II. or
Richard II. Even in the presence of an antagonist power to
which, in the imposing form which it at last assumed, Justinian
was a stranger, the royal authority maintained its claims obsti-
nately and tenaciously.

The words of the 37tli Article are almost the very words of
Edward the Confessor's law, based on a pope's rescript. But
Justinian and Charlemagne went beyond what would be a fair
though large interpretation of those somewhat vague terms.
We do not see how it can fairly be denied that they were
' Supreme Heads in Earth' of the Church within their realms,
in whatever sense the title was claimed by Henry VIII. Not
to speak of two very important points, which rested with them,
whenever they pleased to interpose, — the appointment of Bishops
and the calling of Synods, — the eastern and the Carlovingian
Emperors interfered, without scru^jle and without remonstrance,
in any ecclesiastical matter which they judged to require either
their sanction or their correction. ' For the increase of virtue in
' Christ's religion within their realms, and to repress and extir-
' pate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses here-

38 Church and State.

' tofore used in the same/ they of then" own authority decreed
the acceptance of the faith, interfered with and confirmed coun-
cils, repressed errors, condemned heresies, ordered tlie degra-
dation or excommunication of heretics. Henry VIII. claimed
' fidl power and authority from time to time to visit, repress,
' redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such

* errors, heresies, abvises, offences, contempts, and enormities,
' whatsoever they may be, which by any manner spiritual
' authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed,
' repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended,
' most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue

* in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace,

* unity, and tranquillity of the realm.' The early emperors, as
we have seen, took on them to sanction and give authority to
Church canons, not merely in the State, but in the Church ;
they watched over the due observance of these canons ; they
issued injunctions of their own, having in view the same objects
as the canons, but framed by themselves and resting on their
authority, to regulate the mode of election of Bishops, their
qualifications, duties, liabilities, manner of life ; the forms of
ecclesiastical proceedings ; the interior economy of the monastic
system : they addressed these injunctions to Patriarchs, Metro-
politans, and Bishops ; they threatened them with ecclesiastical
penalties for negligence or disobedience ; they empowered civil
commissioners to visit for the maintenance of ecclesiastical
discipline, to restore its decay, ' redress ' its ' abuses,' and
' correct ' its ' enormities.' Surely, between the claim of Henry
VIII. and that of sovereigns who professed to judge betAveen
what was right and what was Avrong in doctrine, and to see that
right doctrine was alone taught — whose ordinances embraced in-
differently both purely ecclesiastical and civil matters, who directed
spiritual punishments, who enforced ecclesiastical discipline by
civil officers, who asserted the right to stop the ordinary course
of ecclesiastical proceedings, for reasons of which they were
judges— it is not very easy, in principle, to draw a line.

The real difference is in the understanding on which such
interference was accepted. It was accepted when the sovereign
was not only on good terms with the Church, but sympathised
heartily with, her faith, her system, her discipline, and her ob-
jects. Neither party stood on forms or etiquette ; they trusted
and understood one another. The Clergy knew" that their spii'itual
powers were as fully believed in and recognised by the King as by
themselves; they had no need to seek even the disclaimers asked
for and given in more suspicious days ; and at a time when, if
ever, they were alive to the greatness, incommunicable by human
power, of their function, they freely admitted the association of

Church and State. 39

that power with their own, even in their own peculiar pro-
vince.

Things had altered greatly at the time of the Reformation.
But, as has been often said, the idea of a Christian and respon-
sible king, embarked in the cause of the Church, and identified
with her interests, still existed even under Henry VIII. — to
revive with greater force at subsequent periods. And further,
it is plain that the idea of the essential distinctness of the
spiritualty, drawing its peculiar power from more than earthly
sources, was still a clear and strong one ; and as plain, that the
spiritualty was a real and acknowledged complement and co-
efficient of the Crown, in the government of the Church.
Whether synods were in theory said to be dependent on the
Crown, as a matter of fact they sate ; whether articles and for-
mularies required the consent of the Crown, the Clergy made
them. The proof of this depends, not on the formal disclaimers
of spiritual functions contained in injunctions and articles, but
in the records of the time, and the books it has left behind it.^
But what is the case now ?

We have not disguised or understated the strength of the
case for the Supremacy. We have not, as we are aware, even
stated its full strength. We have left out, for instance, the
whole history of the French Church, from the time of the great
Western schism to Napoleon : a history whose characteristic
features the modern French Church, so differently situated,
seems disposed partly to lament, partly to extenuate, on special
grounds and fine distinctions; but which exhibits as a fact,
a practical and energetic supremacy on the part of the Crown,
resisted by the Pope as irreconcilable with Catholic truth
and law, yet accepted and defended in principle, and sub-
mitted to in practice, by the great body of the French Church,
when it was the most illustrious branch of Christendom. We
do not disguise, we say, the amount of precedent which may
be alleged for the supremacy, whatever be the true way of
dealing with precedents, as bearing on right in ecclesiastical
pohty. On the contrary, we wish it to be distinctly ascertained
and understood how the facts stand, that time and other precious

' The distinction of the 37th Article was used in the discussions in France,
during the great schism, on the king's right to withdraw his kingdom from the
Pope's obedience while the schism lasted. In the council held at Paris, in 1406,
Pierre Plaoul, speaking in the name of the University of Paris, says : ' Je ne dis
pas que la puissance temporelle administre les sacremens, ni qu'elle s'entremette
de conf6rer les ordres. Mais quand elle voit tel schisme, de quoy il luy con-
viendra un fois rendre compte, pourquoy ne se conseilleroit-elle pour savoir quel
remade est convenable? C'est tr^s grand merite et vertu au prince temporel,
quand il fait ce que doit faire le prince espirituel ; et fait trfes grand plaisir il la
puissance espirituelle, pose qu'il deplaise a celuy qui preside en telle puissance.' —
Crevier, Hidt. de I' Univ. de Paria, iii. 350.

40 Church and State.

things may not be thrown away in maintaining untenable
ground. But we say this, — that the facts which prove the
supremacy, prove also, and with exactlj^ the same force, that it
existed on an understanding ; and that understanding was one
which not only recognised the independent existence of the
Church, of her powers, and laws, but recognised them as the
rule, and as the first and highest care, of civil govei'nment.

But now this understanding no longer exists. The conditions
on which the Church accepted, and, it may be, courted the
supremacy, are evidently changed. We are not speaking of
rights of control generally, which the nation and its Parliament
may claim over the Church, as over other bodies, as the corre-
lative to advantages conceded. We are speaking of the eccle-
siastical supremacy of the Crown.

Legally, the position of the Crown in the ci^dl government is
not much changed from the days of Edward the Confessor;
politically and constitutionally, it is altogether changed. As
a power, it is a ministry or a government, constitutionally limited
by and dependent on Parliament ; as a person, the Crown stands
at the head of a nation, like all other free nations broken up into
recognised and tolerated parties — and is bound to neutrality.
Such is the position of the Crown in temporal matters, though
acts of Parliament as well as articles of religion, attribute to it
the supreme government of its imperial realm, in temporal
matters as M^ell as in spiritual, and in terms as absolute and unre-
stricted in one province as in the other. But in temporal matters
this position, fixed by many conflicts and compromises, and
ascertained by usage, is unambiguous and understood by all —
the Crown is still a power, but it acts only concurrently with
other powers, who are interested in the same great objects v.itli
itself, — Avhose rights to influence government have been proved
and established, and whose sense is clearly and constitutionally
ascertainable. But as to ecclesiastical matters, the minds even
of keen statesmen are, or seem to be, under a singular confusion.
They cling, with inconsistent tenacity, to a notion of eccle-
siastical supremacy entirely different from that which they
entertain of temporal ; and are taken aback at the idea of limi-
tations on the one, which they have all their lives assumed as
first principles in the case of the other.

It is natural that the nation should have outstripped the
Chm-ch— that the Crown should still, at this day, be holding
towards the Church the same sort of position which it held
towards the nation under James I. — acting conciuTcntly with
free legislation in one case, without it in the other. But though
natural that this should have happened, it is not reasonable that
it should continue ; not more reasonable in one case than in the

Church and State. 41

other^ on grounds common to both cases ; still more unreasonable
under the special circumstances of the Church.

Whether the Crown be regarded personally or constitutionally,
the grievance of the Church, arising out of the anomalies of the
present received \ie\f of the royal prerogative, is the same.
Personally, the Crown is the defender of the faith, and protector
of the Church ; personally it is supposed to be, as it was in
other times, in intimate relation and in full sympathy with the
Church ; but things are altered from the original understanding,
if, what the Church asks, the Crown cannot grant, except its
ministers ad^^se it. But if the Supremacy is no longer to be
%aewed in this personal light, then there is no reason why it
should not be subject to the same constitutional system which it
acknowledges in c\\\\ government. The Church is, of itself, a
substantive and organized body, and has hitherto been always
supposed to be so — supposed not only in the theories of divines,
but by the law of England. But if, when a question of doctrine
deeph" interesting to the Church is decided in such a way as to
change her position as to that doctrine, she have no oppor-
tunity— the opportimity be denied her— of expressing her sense
on this change in her position, this is not acknowledging her
substantive existence and laws ; it is a valid and just proceeding
only on the assumption that she has been transformed, or has
melted away, from a Church, which she once was, into a phase,
a peculiar aspect or side', of the nation of England, for which the
Parliament and Courts of England are the only rightful autho-
rities, as they fully and fairly represent its mind, in the making
and execution of laws. And those, to whom such an assump-
tion comes as a contradiction of those principles on which they
have hitherto held the Christian faith, have but one course left
them. They must get it overthrown. They must not rest till
an assumption so insidious and so fatal be negatived in fact, as
it is contradicted by all previous theoiy, by all existing law, and
by the doctrine of the Supremacy itself; negatived by the une-
quivocal and unambiguous exhibition of her distinct functions
by the Chiu"ch herself.

To invoke the doctrine of the Supremacy, as a reason for
letting things remain as they are, is as irrelevant in argument,
as it is insulting to the Church in policy. The Supremacv in its
palmiest days implied joint powers; the effect of it as urged
now, is to extinguish one of these powers altogether. The
Supremacy was, and is still, in its formal terms, granted to the
Crown; not to whomsoever the Crown might transfer its
responsibility and assign its authority. The understanding
never was that the ecclesiastical power should be transferred to
a body of men, neither representing the Church nor identified

43 Church and State.

with her in feeling, in purpose, in belief, into whose hands, by
the effect of political changes, had passed in reality the old
civil and temporal functions of the Crown. No mass of pre-
cedents for the Supremacy touches this point ; much more do
they cease to be of force, as soon as it is understood, that by
transferring the ecclesiastical authority of the Crown to the
Parliament, the Ministers, and the Civil Courts, she thereby
surrenders for good all claim and right to a separate and distinct
authority of her OAvn. She never did this to ' godly emperors,'
and certainly cannot be expected to do it to a liberal Parliament.

There is no ground in reason to be alleged against the distinct
action of the Church by her Bishops and Synods, except the
most general conservative ones—very respectable ones, yet not
conclusive. Yet, it cannot be dissembled that in practice
they are likely to be far from inoperative ; especially when that
which is sought to be maintained intact, has a remote and
possible importance, beyond itself. Among the strange spec-
tacles which may be reserved for us in time to come, is that,
possibly, of a liberal Minister, maintaining with a grave face in
a modern House of Commons the doctrines of Thomas Crom-
well and Lord Burleigh on the rights of the Crown, and recom-
mending to the consciences of the Clergy an interpretation of
the Oath of Supremacy even more rigid than that of Queen
Elizabeth ; and then interpreting an absolute submission to the
Crown to mean, a recognition of the sole and supreme authority
of Parliament in the legislation of the Church, and of himself,
the minister, in its administration. But the opposition of a
Cabinet is a difficulty which men in these days have ceased to
regard as insuperable, though for the moment formidable.
Reason reaches even ministers in time ; and they, too, as well as
others, maintain at their peril, even though with temporary
success, a hollow theory or a masked falsehood. There are
more important points to occupy the attention of Chui'chmen
than the repugnance of ministers to disturb a status quo, —
matters which, whatever be their moral, must not be overlooked
by those who may be called upon to think and act in behalf of
the English Church in times of difficulty and change. A clear
understanding of our whole position is as necessary as a keen
and true sense of the grievance of which we complain.

The battle Avliich we seem called upon to fight is not confined
to one time or one branch of the Church. We misjudge it
when we isolate it. We are tempted to exaggerate, — not its
importance to ourselves, — but its singularity, and its conclu-
siveness. Important as it is to us, it is but a repetition of what
has happened to our fathers. Every age thinks that questions
raised in former times, are at last to be settled for good in its

Church and State. 43

own; that doubts are to be cleared up, limits fixed, the great
crisis to be decided once for all, so that posterity sliall be able
to see its way and choose its side. And every age has hitherto
proved to be mistaken. A contest is but a step in a deeper,
wider, more enduring strife; its settlement one way or the
other ends nothing necessarily but the particular dispute. It
neither establishes securely, nor finally overthrows, the prin-
ciples which seemed to be at stake in it. They may survive it :
whether they do or not, whether the war may still be hopefully
carried on, is seen in history to have depended very little indeed
on tlie issue of solemn arbitremeuts, and apparently conclusive
terminations. In our own case we say that the struggle between
the pohtical and ecclesiastical powers has been going on since
the Reformation, and. seems now at last likely to be decided.
Let us take a wider "view. Let us consider whether it has not
been going on since the Conquest, since the conversion of Eng-
land, since the conversion of the empire. Let us think whether
it is not sure to go on, whatever may happen now, for ages to
come ; as long as Christian belief and Christian principles work
in men^s minds. Doubtless we may, by our cowardice, our
concessions, or our rashness, indefinitely prejudice the cause of
those who come after us. But it may give steadiness and calm-
ness to our minds to recollect, that matters, probably, will not
end with our settlements ; and that if we act in faith and earn-
estness, even oru* mistakes may not be more fatal than our
fathers' have been to us.

Again, seeing the struggle from so near, we come insensibly
to look on it as a peculiarly English struggle ; that the gradual
loss of Church power, and narrowing of Chmxh influence, is
a peculiar note against the English Chm-ch. It may not be
consolatoiy, but it is at least wise and fair, to see how matters
stand Avith the Church in general. Is this circumscription
of sphere, and loss of rights, and surrender of principles,
confined to England, or confined to the English Cluu'ch,
since the Reformation? What was the prominence and
extent of ecclesiastical jmisdiction in Fi-ance, Italy, or
Germany, in the 5th, the 10th, the 15th centm-ies, compared
with what it is now ? What has become, in countries of the
Roman obedience, of the Church claim to draw to its own
tribunals, matters where relig-ious duty and conscience were
involved — marriage, oaths, wills, the care of the poor, of
widows and orphans, the crimes of ecclesiastical persons V
What has become of those exemptions, claimed once, not as
privilege, but as rights given by the Christian law, guarded so
jealously, protected by excommunication ? Where are all those
causes decided now, which gave occasion to that vast and

44 Church and State.

imposing mass of canonical law, once the living rule of Christen-
dom, which attracted to its study, not less the ambition than
the subtlety and learning of many centuries ? What were the
penances which the Church appointed and enforced in the
3d century — what Avere they in the Frank and Anglo-Saxon
penitential canons — and what are the penances which the
Roman Church now thinks her people able to bear ? What is
now, we do not say the spiritual eflect of excommunication, or
the increased discretion in using so awful an instrument, but
the practical feeling of society about it, which gave it its force
as a weapon of the Church in former ages ? How was a pope's
interdict felt under King John, in England ? How was it
received in Catholic and devout Venice in the 17th century,
where, after a total disregard of it for ^ whole year, by the
whole body of the clergy, except three of the orders, the Pope
was obliged to content himself with a diplomatic compromise ;
and his legate's tact Avas tried in imposing on the reluctant
Venetians, not a penance, but an absolution, so private and
so informal, that they continued to deny that they had either
wanted or received it ? What was the feeling of the Cliurch
about her property in earlier times, and what were her real
powers of guarding it ; powers of course dependent on the
extent to which her feeling was shared by society at large ?
And what have been in later times — in Austria, in Tuscany, in
Naples, in France, in Spain — we do not say the encroachments
of greedy nobles, but the sweeping confiscations of Catholic
kings or Catholic governments — and how has the Church
judged it expedient to meet it ? Has she spoken of excom-
munication ? or, if she has spoken of it, has it not been in a
whisper ; very unlike, either for dignity or eff'ect, to her awful
voice of old ? The theory of the deposing power is written in
the pages of Bellarmine, and Bellarmine is still one of the
greatest doctors of the Roman See— is the case conceivable, in
which that power would now be used, to vindicate a right, even
to avenge an outrage ? Who would have deemed it credible or
probable beforehand, that any circumstances should arise,
which should make it a question with a pope, Avhether or no
he should endure such a system as that which imposed the
' Organic Articles ' on a Church of his obedience ? and, it may
be added, who could have said, that after such a step, by such
an authority, it would be possible ever to retrieve it ?

It is not in England only that the Church has withdrawn
from ground which she once claimed, that her hold on society
has been loosened. In fact, the English Church has retained
far more of her ancient position and power than any other of the
Western Churches. And let it not be said that the explanation

Church and State. 45

of this is in her spirit of compromise and their spirit of inde-
pendence. It lias not been by pressing their spiritual claims,
and protesting against the world, that they have been deprived
of their temporal power. The charge of compromise comes
hard from them. Surely the principle of condescension and
compromise has been accepted and acted on by the Roman
Churches in the most varied forms ; in pnA-ileges, in indul-
gences, in dispensations, particular and general, in concor-
dats. It does not follow, because their difficulties are different
from ours, that they are entitled to the monopoly of rightful
compromise. They have yielded, to avoid breaking with the
powers of the world, to secure their concurrence, to retain the
means of power. They have yielded, when they could not
avoid it, by making that the formally free act of the spii'itual
power which in reality it was forced to submit to, or risk a
schism or a persecution. Acquiescence, guarded by refined
reservations, has been the rule ; resistance the exception. It has
been so, because it seemed to thoughtful and well-intentioned
men the best way at the moment of preserving the influence of
the Church. And yet, notwithstanding Homan prudence,
Roman losses have not been small.

If then we have to bear up against the discouragement of an
apparent diminution, steadily and uniformly progressive, of
Church influence, it is not oiu' trial only. And if so, there is
no wisdom, — even in order to strengthen an argument, or
enforce an appeal, — in claiming a monopoly of grievance, or
the lowest depth of degradation. But perhaps we misin-
terpret altogether the apparent law of Divine Providence.
Perhaps the right way to look at former liberties and powers
of the Church is to view them, not as things sacred in
themselves, and meant to be held fast for ever, but as
having laid a ground for us, without which we should not
now be able to do our work in furthering God^s kingdom ; and
their gradual disappearance, not as significant of the Aveakening
of the Church, but as pointing to the line on which henceforth
the Church is to be mainly thrown for its influence ; that moral
superiority which seems still to have an irresistible hold even on
a sceptical and self-relying age, — ' by pureness, by knowledge, by
* long-sufi'ering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love un-
' feigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the
' armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.' In
this respect, and in others also, she seems being thrown back on
her earlier days.

To keep in view, practically and vi^ddly, both what is moral
and spiritual, and what is political, in that mixed system which
upholds and strengthens the Chui'ch, is the necessity and the

46 Church and State.

difficulty of those who have to work for her. It is not so easy
to adjust these two lines of thought and action ; not so easy for
the same mind to follow both, for they naturally attract the
interest and sympathy of different classes of minds. In exclusive
attention to either there is the danger, on the one hand, of a
vague and dreamy hopefulness, or an equally dreamy despair,
ruinous to all thought, all effort, all practical truth ; and on the
other, of a stiff attachment to special points or measures, and a
forgetfulness in the bustle and conflict of ecclesiastical business,
and the necessary technicalities of theological debates, of the
inscrutable mysteries of nature and grace on wliich they bear.
To be dogmatic and not to be verbal — to feel that a remedy or
a safeguard may in itself be temporary, and yet for the time
indispensable — to appreciate in their full extent the evils and the
perils of the day, without losing sight of its real good and its
grounds of hope — to bear without flinching, and without gloss-
ing them over, uncomfortable facts — to be able to endure the
humiliation of an unanswerable retort, or the still greater humi-
liation of apparent temporising or conniving at evil — to be
earnest for a principle, without being the slave of a watch-
word— finally, to be able, without ceasing to be zealous for the
work of to-day, to consider it in the light in which in years to
come we shall look back on it, — this has been necessary for the
defenders of the Church in all former ages, and cannot be less
necessary now.

It would be weakness to disguise from ourselves that we have
a serious prospect before us. What is now proposed and looked
forward to by Churchmen is a change — a change startling to
the minds of most men, an anxious one, probably, to all. To
bring it about, the usual obstacles to change must be encoun-
tered— political suspicion, political dislike, political indolence,
political caution ; strong adverse precedents understood in the
most adverse sense. Still the claim — that what the English
Church would have a right to, loere she but a sect, she has a
right to, as a power in the English State, as the Church, recog-
nised by the English nation, — namely, the right to be really
represented, as a Church, — is so strong and so reasonable, that
when she makes it in earnest she must be heard. And the
change, though great, is in entire harmony with that principle
of improvement which has worked so long and widely in
England; which does not destroy, but add on; which alters
with as little visible change and break as possible ; which,
leaving what it finds, reinforces what appears too weak, — a
principle of compensation and remedy, not of substitution and
obliteration. But in making the change, technical difficulties,
perhaps great ones, must be anticipated; and difficulties would

Church and State. 47

not be over with the restoration of the English Synod. Then
would come the difficulties of government. And what they
have been in the aetive and influential periods of Church history,
as in the days of the Councils, the Schisms, or the Reformation,
we, accustomed only to paper controversy, know little.

Doubtless, great difficulties await us, for we have a great
duty to perform, and a great stake to win. To expect that a
Church, claiming the position, and exercising the power and
influence which the English Church does, is to go quietly
through an age of thought, and boldness, and jealous watchful-
ness, without having to meet real difficulties at every step, is
to expect what is contrary to that course of things in which the
Church, though divine, has to take her part — is contradicted
by all her history. It is impossible, without shutting our eyes,
that we should not feel the seriousness of the prospect : it
is impossible that such a prospect should not raise misgiving
and anxiety.

But misgiving is not always so ominous as confidence. ' It is,
' indeed, a season of trial and uncertainty ; but the most glorious
' days of history have dawned in doubt ; and it is only what
' every conquering host has suffered on the morning of victory,
' if England is now spent with exertion, harassed by perplexity,
' and saddened with the recollection of many reverses ' — so
speaks a politician, looking forward, after a discouraging past,
to a future no less replete with fear than with promise, —
full of perilous risk, and of the chances of failure, — a. new era
of colonization. It would indeed be a painful contrast if
Churchmen should meet their seasons of anxiety with less high
and firm a heart, with less steadiness and faith ; and that, with
such a history as the Church has had. We are sure that we
express the feelings of many minds, when we say, that of all the
wonders of history, the history of the Church is the strangest.
How it has lasted — how ever seeming to fail, it has never failed
— how strangely it has seemed to change, yet has remained in
spirit and substance the same — how, not through ages like those
of Egypt or China, but exposed to the most changeful centu-
ries of history, it has still kept its own faith, — kept it, out of all
analogy with that principle of change which seems a law of
European society, and with those human changes which the
Church underwent itself, — how, we say, this faith, which to
human eye seems but opinion or prejudice, has resisted that
fluctuation which no opinion or prejudice has been exempt
from, and how, again, it has survived trials enough to destroy
the firmest belief that was but opinion, trials brought upon it by
the evil elements which had gathered round it, and provoked
a retribution which threatened more than themselves, — with

48 Church and State.

what strange security both the Church and its doctrine have
taken up without hurt, principles apparently destructive, — this
may make a philosopher marvel, and a Christian believe and
give thanks. And what is true of the Church Universal, is not
less true of the last three centiu'ies of the English Church.

But, in spite of all this, there is one contingency which, in
the present state of the world, comes unbidden into our
thoughts. It may be the fate of the Church throughout the
world, to sink again, as regards the State, into the condition
of a sect, as she began — to sink from being the associate —
honoured, or disliked, or reluctantly acknowledged — of Govern-
ments,— to be ignored by them as a mere school of thought, or
watched as a secret society, or legalised as a harmless or even an
useful association. Something like it has happened abroad ;
and it may follow here. But do not let us use words lightly
about it. If it comes we may turn it to account, as it has been
turned to account abroad. But before it came, the Church
abroad shrunk from no sacrifice, which she could consider
lawful, to avert it ; she well knew what she would lose by it,
whatever might be its compensations. And surely the Church
here would be inexcusable if she courted it or needlessly let it
come to pass. This great nation of Englishmen is committed
to her trust ; if she cannot influence them, what other body has
a more reasonable hope ? If they will break away from her, or
cast her off, let it be clearly their fault, not hers, or that of her
clergy. She and her clergy have much to answer for ; but the
heaviest of their former sins will be in comparison light, if from
impatience, from want of due consideration of the signs and
changes of the time, from scruples, fi'om theory, from fear of
being taunted with inconsistency, or want of logic, or love of
quiet, or insensibility to high views, or indifference to the
maxims of saints — or any other of those faults of feeling or
intellect, which are common at once to the noble and the feeble,
the sensitive and the timid — she, or they, throw up that trust.

R. CtAT, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.