Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-07-29

OF Mr.. Frederic j. Haskin on the posi-
ton OF the clergy OF the Church Of Eng
land. in the matter OF public education.
said then, as / repeat now, that when
ever man attempts to constitute him
self, offhand, an encyclopedia OF univer-
sal knowledge he must OF necessity ride
to fall a thousand times Mr.. Haskin
forms no exception TO the rule. In your
issue this evening he says, first. The
Church Of England is the state church in
England, the church Of Wales, separate
institution OF the Anglican order, is the
established church Of Wales and Monmouth.
But Monmouth is only shire or county
Of wales. 1t is about as absurd to speak
Of "the established church OF Wales and
Monmouth" as 1t would be to speak of
the state of Nebraska and Douglas"
Moreover, the church in Wales is not "a
separate institution OF the Anglican order
1t is an integral part OF the Church of
England in the ecclesiastical province of
Canterbury. 1t contains four blshoprlcs,
whose bishops are subject to the arch
bishop Of Canterbury. Monmouth is not
one OF them. They have been subject to
the archbishop OF Canterbury at least since
the final conquest of Wales by Edward 1,
in the thirteenth century Moreover, the
church in Wales has never been "estab-
llshed" by any legal statute, English or
Welsh, any more than the Church OF Eng
land has ever been SO established. The
Church OF England became so not by law
but by conversion of the people of the
Saxon heptarchy, before England itself ex-
listed as a single state. 1t helped to mold
the warning tribes Of Angles, Saxons and
Jutes into a single homogeneous nation.
The archbishop Of Canterbury and York
existed and ruled their people, Christianity,
before there was any king or Parliament
Of England.
Another misstatement: THE establish
ment of the church by law means the In
corporation of the law of the church into
the law Of the land That was never true,
and 1t was never less true than II is today.
The law of the church never became the
law of the state until 1t was first re-en-
acted by Parliament since the Norman con-
quest or by the ''wittengemot" during the
Saxon period, or else promulgated by royal
authority when Parliamentary authority
was in allegiance. Today the struggle is to
prevent the law of a mixed parliament of
all religions or no religion at all, being in
corporated into the law of the church.
That struggle is sure to be a long and a
bitter one. Its ultimate issue will be the
freeing of the Church Of England from all
bondage to the state, as they are now free
in this land.
Another misstatement, which was, how
ever, an outward form OF truth, though un-
| true in fact: THE heads of the church, the
archbishops OF Canterbury and York and a
great number of other bishops are APP
pointed by the political leaders Of the coun-
| try" That is true to this extent: The
| ai,,4cf Of he daU 10 he it,,a
minister Of the king, while he is In office
Under the English constitution the klnG
dominates to the several cathedral chapters
some reputable priest Of the church, or the
bishop of an inferior see, or a suffragan
bishop. The duty of nominating this man
| is first committed to the prime minister OF
| the day, who may be anything or nothing
| in religion; though as a matter of fact and
| history, the only prime ministers of Eng.
land who have not been, at least nominhlly
members of the Church of England are
Balfour and it may be Mr.. Asquith. Banner
man, 1 am almost certain, was. But bt
that as 1t may, the prime minister does no
appoint absolutely to any bishopric. HI
dominates to the king The king, who mus
be a member of the Church of England
can, and may, and does sometimes veto tn,
ncminati ton Of the prime minister. AS offer
as otherwise, oftener perhaps, the king II
first consulted, and his wishes govern tn,
prime minister's nomination. That wa
notably so in the days of Queen Victoria
both as to first nomination and to its veto
1t was so in the days OF Edward VII.
II was an open secret that the presen
bishop Of London as well as the archbishop
of York, were exalted to their present posi-
tons by the desire of King Edward. The,
/ hafh
or political influence. They were each ii
turn suffragan bishops to the bishop o
London in the wretchedly poor district o
stepney. For their devotion to their worl
among costermongers and other like peo
pie they won King Edwards admiration
and approval and were appointed to thel
present positions, the one by Balfour. tn
; other by Asquith, in fact by Edward him
self.
Again Mr.. Haskin says: AS a matte
of fact the head Of the Anglican churcl
may be appointed by Jewish Disraen,
Unitarian Chamberlain, an agnostic Bal
; four or a dissenting Asquith, quite as oftel
as by an Anglican Gladstone" AS a mat
ter Of fact and history Disrael whilst
Jew by blood was an Anglican in religion
Mr.. Chamberlain was, and is, a Unitarian
J but he was never prime minister and. o
course, never appointed the head of tn
Anglican church. Balfour doubtless Is
near agnostic, though hardly a complet
one If his 81 oundation of Faith" fairl
represents his intellectual position. Mi
. Asquith may be a dissenter, though I an
8 not certain Of that because of any state
!. nent made by Mr. Haskln, But whethe
' he is or not his appointments are con
: trolled by law and the royal approval; an
I so Balfour. They appoint as ministers sub
G ject to the law and to the crown, not a
/ agnostics or dissenters. And even then tn
cathedral chapter may refuse to ratify tn
appointment, II they choose to run the ris
e of the penalties of the old statute OF pre-
II munire of Richard H. That would not b
= a serious risk In these days II any chapte
8 chose. for cause, to take it, The statut
a was enacted against what was deemed Ii
n aggression Of the papal authority on In
q | authority OF the English crown In eccles
q ! astical appointments. II was that terrifi
! statute that enabled Henry VIII TO wor
:, his will upon Wolsey and both houses {
the English convocation. These had a
lowed this statute to fall into disuse, wit
. Henry's own consent All at once h
worked 1t with terrific force Wolsey fe
. and the bishops sulienly yielded. thong
" not without the enacting of a saving claus
J. against Henry's demands. The old Plantas
70 enet statute still remains. but no heaG
J. would fall today did any chapter refuse
q obey It,
II Again, Mr.. Haskin writes: In the rur,
II mate 81 EuaIand tha rhurchsg ar tha -