THE STATE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

13

that many persons are inclined to overlook the importance of such an establishment in one country and of its absence from the other; and yet there is no single institution in England which in the last three centuries has exerted a greater influence in moulding the national character and in shaping the national thought than the Established Church, while nothing, perhaps, has been so important to the United States as the absence of this institution.

In England the Church is an adjunct of the State. It is supported by a tax, levied on every one, whether believing in its doctrines and attending its services or not. Its prelates are appointed by the crown, under the form of an election, which is, however, nothing but a form. Its ministers are not selected by their congregations, but are appointed by the State, or by private individuals who have inherited or purchased this privilege, and who may be atheists or pagans. The influence of this organization, as shown in English history, is too familiar to need more than a bare suggestion. During the reigns of Elizabeth and the Stuarts it was little but the handmaid of tyranny. Ever since that time it has been the consistent opponent of almost every reform. This is natural enough, for in England reforms have always been forced on a reluctant State, of whose machinery the Church has formed an important part. It has always been the bulwark of the aristocracy; so that if one goes, the other will probably go with it. This, too, is natural enough, for its ministers depend for their bread upon the upper classes. Its organization extends over every square mile of English soil; its revenues are enormous some of its ministers enjoying princely incomes-and yet no Protestant Christian body has done so little, in comparison with its wealth and

numbers, for the cause of religion or morality.* In late years it seems in some quarters to have developed a new spirit, so that its future is uncertain, but nothing can change the record of the past.

This is not the place to discuss the question whether in all these matters the influence of the State Church of England has been well or ill directed. It has been claimed that it is an evil to educate the common people, or give them too much religious instruction. Such was

* Writing in 1850, one of the best informed of English observers said: "Here, where the aristocracy is richer and more powerful than that of any other country in the world, the poor are more depressed, more pauperized, more numerous in comparison to the other classes, more irreligious, and very much worse educated than the poor of any other European nation, solely excepting Russia, Turkey, South Italy, Portugal, and Spain."-"Kay's Social Condition of the English People," Amer. ed. p. 323. If any reader thinks that I have overcolored any statement in this chapter or elsewhere, regarding the condition of the poor in England, I ask him to consult this book. Mr. Joseph Kay was sent out by the Senate of Cambridge University to examine the comparative social condition of the poorer classes in the different countries of Europe. In 1850 he gave to the world the results of his investigations, extending over several years, in a work entitled "The Social Condition and Education of the People of England." The chapters on England, which have been reprinted separately in the United States, are made up from personal observations and official reports, and give evidence of an earnest desire on the part of the author to impress his countrymen with the gravity of their situation. The preface to the American edition of 1863 well says of these chapters: "They are a warning to us, and hence useful, although abounding in facts that are not agreeable, and of a description that needs to be read only by men who have duties at the polls, and those few women who take an active part in raising or guarding our various institutions." See also John Foster's essay on "Popular Ignorance," and Booth's "In Darkest England," published in 1890.

It

the theory of Queen Elizabeth and her successors. may be that the political reforms opposed by the State Church were mistaken measures and will ultimately prove disastrous. It may have been wise to exclude Jews and Catholics from office, and to prevent any one from obtaining a liberal education at the great universities unless he professed the faith of the State. It may be that a better class of ministers is obtained under the English system of appointment, where the office is said sometimes to be sold to the highest bidder, than under a system which permits the congregations to select their own ministers. All these claims may be well or ill founded; the system may be the best or the worst ever devised by man, but it certainly is the most important of English institutions, except, perhaps, the aristocracy, to which it is allied, and it is unknown in the United States. Several of the American colonies, following the example of England, established churches supported by the State. But the Revolution, which severed the relations between the colonies and the mother country, soon put an end to these establishments. Here New York took the lead. In its first Constitution, adopted in 1777, a provision was inserted repealing and abrogating all such parts of the common law and all such statutes as could "be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers."* Virginia followed in 1785, and at later dates all the other old states in which the Church had been established did the same, except New Hampshire, concluding with Connecticut in 1818 and Massachusetts in 1833. The new states which have

* Constitution of 1777, sec. 35.

+Schaff's "Church and State in the United States," p. 46. Some

joined the Union since the adoption of the Federal Constitution have, without exception, followed the example of New York, and have by constitutional provision placed a complete separation between Church and State.*

Here then, in the most important domain, that of religion, we find the greatest possible difference between the two countries, a difference which may furnish much food for thought to those who believe that America has English institutions. But when we pass to political matters, the differences are no less important and far-reaching.

Beginning at the bottom, we find that our whole political system is founded on a basis entirely different from that of the "mother country." The theory of all our institutions is summed up in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal." This has been called a "glittering generality." So it is, and so is the refulgent atmosphere in which we live, and the crystal ocean which girds the globe. Yet what air and water are to man, human equality is to the life of the republic. We need not the authority of Sir Henry Maine for the statement that this doctrine comes from Roman jurisprudence, that it is not English, and that it is and ever has been unknown to English law, where the members of the noble order have always enjoyed peculiar privileges, extending even to the courts of justice. No one could persuade the Queen of Great Britain and Empress of India that any of her subjects is by

of the colonies had no established Church, and so seemed to require no constitutional provision upon the subject.

*See Poore's "Charters and Constitutions of the United States." + Maine's "Ancient Law," p. 91. "All men are equal," the most distinctive expression of the doctrine of Roman law. "The Early History of Institutions," Sir Henry Maine (Henry Holt, New York, 1888), p. 330.

WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS OF AMERICA

17

birth her equal. Coming down the list to the pettiest baronet, the same feeling exists, and it is not confined to the class which claims superiority. The lower orders, as they call them--and this is, perhaps, the most demoralizing feature of the system-share the sentiment, and look up to an earl and duke as a good Catholic looks up to a patron saint. So strange does all this caste spirit seem to an American that it is almost incomprehensible. It is one of the last things which travellers appreciate, but until they do so they will understand little of the English people, their institutions, or their history.*

Ascending now from foundation to superstructure, we find as radical a contrast. The United States and all the separate states have written constitutions. The importance of these formal written instruments all Americans appreciate, and even Englishmen are beginning to see their value. By them the powers of government are distributed among the executive and legislative departments, while above all sits the judiciary, not only to keep each department to its proper functions, but also to guard the rights of each individual citizen or stranger. These constitutions represent the will of the people, are superior to all congresses or legislatures, and can only be altered by the people, in such modes, as to time and majorities, as guarantee deliberation and a widespread settled feeling of a necessity for change.†

*See "Aristocracy in England," by Adam Badeau, 1886, for a full study of this subject; Taine's "Notes on England;" Emerson's "English Traits," pp. 185, 305, ed. 1857. Says Matthew Arnold, Inequality is our bane. *** Aristocracy now sets up in our country a false ideal, which materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class."- Nineteenth Century, Feb., 1885, p. 233.

No change can be made in the Constitution of the United