The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1910. IS DISESTABLISHMENT COMING?

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 738, 10 February 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1910. IS DISESTABLISHMENT COMING?

The case of Banister v. Thompson,; which is referred to in our cable messages "to-day, may have momentous consequences as regards the relations between. Church and State in England. 'By the legalising of marriage with a depeased wife's sister a divergence lias taken .place between '■: the' .marriage.' law of. the Church and' that, of the State, and this difference hae been made acute bv the case arising out of the action of Canon Thompson in refusing the Communion to Me. Banistee on "the ground that he had married his deceased wife's sister. Both the Court of Arches and the: Court-of Appeal have given judgment against Canon Thompson, and now the case is to be taken to the House of. Lords. The decisions of the Courts have caused groat uneasiness'in the Church,'and' those who interpret them in an Eras- J tian sense—that is to say, as a declaration' of State' supremacy in .ecclesiastical matters—nave, it ;must be. admitted, a good deal of reason on their side. , The: Archbishop, of Canterbury, however,, declares .that the judgment of Sir 'Lewis Dibdin, Dean of ! ;the Arches, . did "not imply that the' Church had Most ; the right to determine the conditions of admission to Communion. "It rests,"... saye ■ the . Archbishop, "wfth the Bishop's Court to excommunicate or'.n'ot. The.ionly question ' before Sir Lewis..DißDiN: : was'the validity of the "incumbent's repulsion on his own responsibility." '' - ;Ttiis be correct.: as Sir Lewis ,Jsißdin's decision, but the Judges of the. Appeal' Court 'Bcem .to■ have gone.a step further. . ; '.- ■ .. ■ .

They have (to quote the ■ : "Church limes ) found their way to this conclusion, that .the law of. the'.lealm: forbids the Church to excommunicate persons living in a marriage-union. which the'teaching of the Church condemns. The actual question at issue was-only the question whether a-simple" parish, priest con ;be condemned- for excluding such persons from Communion; in the Court of Arches note .was. taken , of the fact, that the Bishop had not .excommunicated Mr. Banister !by canonical process j but, the judgment of ,of- Appeal makes it abundantly clear that the Bishop himself would-not be allowed to. deprive.:anyone of Communion.for'the cause,alleged. The cause itsaU: was :emphatically. '. de--dared to be insufficient." This, ■then, is the law 'as. declared by the Court, of Appeal, that the Chureh is forbidden to excommunicate persons who. defy.ithe teaching of; , the Church.' concerning 'marriage; :the.. rjgh,t to communicate -is'jEb be determined, riotyby the.- Church,'but. by. the State. If -this -he! the. law, there , is only one • thing, to be said. The -law,. must be resisted. •. '. .'lt'is a'considerable gain, to have so clear an issue."-! '.' ■„' : : ; :

The. Ghurch .Times .goes, on, to: state.that the time' has! come ' for-,., tho bishops. 'definitely; to ' .delimit , / .the spheres of ..Clnirch 'and, State. ."If. they do not repudiate" the legal view that the State is tho supreme, the solo, authority to detormine what the Church is to teach, and to' alter"--'at. will the conditions under which the latter'admits! to' its' altars, -we! can only, say, that , the- will/haye brobgHt wjthin- very , reasonable distance .the cataßtrpphe .which/they.!- so greatly: dread. For our part, we would not preserve for' five.;minutes the life, of a.Church that was no Church in any Christian sense, 1 ' but".'.a/', mere depart-, .men't , of-.the.Giyil: Service." : !It : is very significant,sjheh'a,man in such a responsible-position-as the Bishopof '.Birmingham; (Dr. Goee) should feel oomperied; to-state that .the. posi■tipn.as defined, by the-:C6urt !of Appeal .is ~.-;"intolerable.'-, .With 'his characteristic, courage , ; and directness, Dr. Gore states his view in ,these words:

.. It.appeats to.me;that it is plainly intolerable to a Christian..conscience to ad-, mit tho'prinoiple that an Act:of Parliament (Parliament being,a mixed body representing 'non-Christians as. * : reHv as Christians, and non-Churchmen as well as Churchmen)i' Bhould . have the power. to determine ..'conditions- of. Communion 'in the Church.'; of England.-.';; .: It is important that Churohmen should, without any delay, repudiate.as emphatically. ■- as possible the principle.: that an : Act. *of Pi liamentiCan alter-the conditions under which...persons,can. be admitted -to Communion in the Church of England without .reference, to:,the corporate mindi of. the: Church*:"acting through its properly qualified assemblies.... *~...■■.■.'■'•■?.'-\. ".'-..

'.A good.' deal *is said; from. time., to time'about .''Disestablishment, rfrom within,"'; and it. is quite.'; olearjthat there is a.large ;and;growing sectionof : the Church of 'England: 'which , would, prefer to' see the /separation, of Church and State rather than admit the , right 'of .the..secular.'auth'orityv to interfere ■ with;■ the 'doctrine *■' or discipline of the Church. This view., is; strongly. ;hcld by MrJC. F,.Masterman, a member of the present British Ministry, who belongs : to the younger : generation "of High Churchmen, and it is understood that when expressing* his opinions on.the subject in the House, of Commons some time, ago he was speaking 1 , for. the Bishop of Birmingham as much as for himself. The-co-operation of a strong party within.the.Church with the other advocates of••;', separation from the State might soon bring disestablishment in England as well as in Wales within-measurable distance..