CHURCH AND STATE

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 36, 12 February 1936, Page 8

CHURCH AND STATE

COMMISSION'S REPORT

"INALIENABLE RIGHT"

THE ROAD TO REFORM

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, January 18. The report of the Archbishops' Commission on the Eelations of Church and State is issued in two volumes. Volume I contains the report itself with six appendices; Vol. II contains a precis of the evidence given by the witnesses examined by the Commission. ' The Commission's terms of reference are contained in the following resolution, passed by the Church Assembly on February 5, 1930:— "That whereas, in the words addressed to the Church Assembly on July 2, 1928, by Archbishop Davidson, with the concurrence of the whole body of the diocesan bishops, 'it is a fundamental, principle that the Church, that is, the Bishops together with the clergy and laity, must in the last resort when its mind has been fully ascertained, retain its inalienable right, in loyalty to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to formulate its faith in Him and to arrange the expression of that holy faith in its form of worship; it is desirable that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the present relations of Church and State, and particularly how far the principle stated above is able to rsceive effective application in present circumstances in the Church of England, and what legal and constitutional changes, if any, are needed in order to secure its effective application; and that the Archbishops be requested to appoint a Commission for this purpose." N MEMBERSHIP ESSENTIAL. Part I sketches the relations between Church and State from the time of the Reformation down to the beginning of the present century. Part II deals with more,, recent events —the constitution of the Church Assembly, the passing of the Enabling Act and its results, the rejection of the Prayer Book Measures of 1927 and 1928, and the action taken by the Bishops in consequence of this rejection. The Commissioners record their view that this action on the part of the Bishops was "in the interests of order, inevitable." The r.ction of Parliament h:.d, made it clear that the Church had not spiritual freedom. -Shortly afterwards Archbishop Davidson, on behalf o? the entire Episcopate, had made the declaration recited in the Commission's terms of reference. The. Commission arrived at the conclusion that "no person can expect to be represented on the councils of the Church unless he is, and claims to be, a member of the Church of England, and is not a member of any religious tody separated from it"; and further that "no remedy (for the present position) can be satisfactory which does'not recognise the inalienable right of the Church to decide all matters of doctrine and ritual uncontrolled by any authority not based upon membership of the Church." ' One way of escape from the difficulties of the situation would be Disestablishment, which is discussed. But this is not recommended in the present circumstances. '.-''. In the forefront of the Commission's proposals is set the need for greater unity among .nembers of the Church, on those matters especially which were mainly responsible, for the, rejection of the; Prayer Boole Measures, namely:-— (a) The permissible deviations from the Order of Holy Communion contained in the Prayer Book; and (b) The use and limits of Reservation., . ■ . , . '; , The Commissioners make it clear that the constitutional reforms which they afterwards suggest are conditional upon the attainment of this unity. In the words of their terms of reference, "the mind of the Church must first be fully ascertained." LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS. On the legislative side the Commissioners draw a distinction between ordinary administrative measures, which they think are dealt with satisfactorily under,' the procedure provided by the existing Enabling Act, and measures relating substantially to the spiritual concerns of the Church of England. For measures certified unanimously by the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker and the two Archbishops to be of this latter class, they propose a new procedure which, while retaining the Royal Assent, would do away with the necessity for. Parliamentary control or approval. Any such measure, however, must not only be passed by all three Houses of the Church Assembly, but also approved by resolutions passed by the" Convocations of Canterbury and York, and twice approved by resolutions passed by the Diocesan Conferences of not less than three-quar-ters of the English Dioceses. These requirements, it is thought, would give full opportunity for the expression of lay Opinion. The Archbishops must also certify that in their opinion the measure is "neither contrary to nor indicative of any departure from the fundamental doctrines and principles of the Church of England," as set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Common. Prayer. In order to authorise this new procedure^ a new Enabling Act, applicable to. "spiritual" measures only, would be necessary. A draft Bill for this purpose is set out. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The question of the Ecclesiastical Courts is dealt with only in relation to questions of doctrine ritual and ceremony. In the main, the Commissioners follow the recommendations of the Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts of which the present Archbishop of Canterbury was chairman, which reported to the Church Assembly in 1926. They think that in cases involving questions of doctrine ritual, or ceremony the bishop should have the right to sit personally with the Chancellor as his legal assessor, and that the Archbishop should have^a similar right in the Provincial Court. In one important respect, however, theyN differ from the report of 1926. They suggest the creation of a new Final Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical causes, appointed by the Crown from a list or panel nominated by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York with the approval of the Convocations, and consisting (1) partly1 of persons of high judicial experience, and ;(2) partly of bishops and other persons, whether clerical or lay, otherwise-speci-ally qualified. The Court to try any particular case might be selected from this panel by the Lord Chancellor in rotation or otherwise, and might consist of two Judges of the first category, and two of the second, sitting together under the presidency of a Judge of the first categoryPASTORAL AUTHORITY OF THE - BISHOP. Side by side with these proposals for the reform of the existing Courts, the Commissioners suggest that in every diocese the bishop should be enabled to hold a "pastoral" Court, to deal administratively, so far as possible, with questions of doctrine ritual, ceremony or liturgical use, with an appeal, where necessary to a tribunal of provincial bishops. These tribunals

would in themselves possess no compulsory legal powers. Some proposals are added for setting up a procedure for the arraignment of bishops. The Commissioners think it very doubtful whether there is at present any tribunal with adequate powers for this purpose; and although it may be 'hoggrl that such powers would seldorrfbe exercised, it is thought that they ought to exist. In order to ease what they l'egard as an intolerable situation, the Commissioners suggest that the Convocations, with the approval of the Church Assembly, should formally adopt a synodical declaration which would give a more reasonable meaning to the Declaration of Assent, by allowing a priest to regard as "ordered by lawful authority" deviations not being doctrinal from the Book of Common Prayer sanctioned by the bishop of his diocese, acting subject to certain carefully-defined requirements. The Commissioners ask that their recommendations should be studied as a whole, and return to their plea for a greater measure of agreement on the limits of toleration, particularly with regard to the Order of Holy Communion and Reservation. "To this fostering of that unity of the Church, without which no proposals can be fruitful," they earnestly invite the cooperation of all their fellow-church-men.