CHURCH AND STATE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1487, 9 July 1912, Page 4

CHURCH AND STATE.

. The decision of the House of Lords that a clergyman of the Church of England cannot legally refuse Holy Communion to a person who has married his deceased ■wife's sister has created a very serious position as regards tho relations between the Church and the State. Originally the law of; Church and State agreed' in forbidding such marriages, but recently Parliament passed an Act legalising them, while the rule of the Church of England has remained unaltered. The question as to the wisdom or unwisdom' of permitting marriage with a deceased wife's sister, has now become a matter of secondary importance, being overshadowed by the more fundamental question as to tho right of the State to dictate to the Church upon such a vitally religious point as the terms on which persons shall be admitted to Holy Communion. This would bfi a big price to pay for the privilege of Establishment. It is true that the Archbishop of -Canterbury does not think the rights of the Church in this matter have- been impaired, but it is evident from the report of the debate at the Kepresentativo Church Council published in yesterday's issue that other distinguished Churchmen take a much more serious view of the position. There is a great and growing body of Anglican Churchmen who regard it as intolerable that a Parliament,' composed of men of ajl religions and some of no religion at all, should have power to interfere in matters of doctrine and discipline. They would not merely accept, but also welcome and insist upon disestablishment—and 'Hisendowment, too, if necessary—rather than allow the Church to sink into tho position of a mere Department of State. Tho Bishop of Oxford (Dr. Gore), than whom no man exercises a creator influence in the Anglican Church at the present timo, has made his position quite clear on more than one occasion. He contends that secular or civil authority has its own sphere, and it is quite distinct from the sphere of Christian authority.

To allow the State to dictate the conditions of Christian discipline or doctrine, or worship, is to confuse essentially distinct (unctions. ... There are thoeo hopeful enough to believe that onr English Church could distinctly and peremptorily claim its essential liberties and still retain its established and endowed position. There are those who do not believo that this is possible. That question may be left for the future to settle. What is required of us by our loyalty to Christ is that we should, persistently and plainly, assert and make evident that wo do claim for the Church the liberty to formulate its own doctrine, to organise its own worship, to exercise its own discipline, and that we are prepared to take- the consequences.

Dr. Gore clearly recognises that theso consequences may mean disestablishment, and possibly dowment also, and he and many other loyal Churchmen seem to have made up their minds that when a vital principle is at stake all consideration of privilege and property must if necessary oe brushed aside. If, as Sir Edward Clarke says, tho Church must finally choose between Parliamentary; authority on questions of doctrine and discipline and separation from the State, tho prob-abilities-are that the disestablishment of the Church of England will quickly come within measurable distance of accomplishment.