Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

22 articles on this Page

Advertising

CORRESPONDENCE.I

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

COUNCILLOR CHARLES GRIFFITHS…

WHAT DO TRADE UNIONISTS THINK?

Advertising

[No title]

THE PURCHASE OF CYFARTHFA…

I DISTRESS AT* CEFN COED.

SHEEP DESTROY CEFN GARDENS.

CATHOLICS AND SOCIALISM.

WHY A CATHOLIC (MNNOT BE A…

"HUW MENAI" AND COUNMLOR\…

iTREDEGAR SCHOOL MANAGERS…

EBBW,VALE CHURCH LADS' BRIGADE.

THE MINERS' OUT OF WORK FUND.

WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.

News
Cite
Share

WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT. Sir—I maintain that "Churchman's" questions are not to the point, as they imply that he does not distinguish between State endowments and private benefactions. The question as to what legally belongs to the Church of England and what does not, is not for me to decide, and is irrelevant to the subject. I stated distinctly, in my last letter, that all Church property and endowments previous to 1703—the date of Queen Anne's Act empowering her to estblish by let- ters patent a corporation and to settle upon it for ever all the revenue of first fruits and tenths, to he applied in augmenting the main- tenance of poor parsons, vicars, curates, etc., officiating in the Church of England—is the property of the State, as the Church was then oo-extensive with the State, and was the State in its religious aspect. Mr. Asquith, in his Welsh Disestablishment Bill, has been too gen- erous in drawing the line at 1662, because we find that so late as the reiern of George III. "a sum not exceeding £100,000 was set apart from State funds to promote the buildinrr of new churches." Five years later George IV grant- ed an additional State aid of £500.000 for the same purpose. But the reason why the date 1662 i rhosen is because the Act of Uniformity drew the line of cleavage between the Church of England and all the progressive religious forces in the country. It is indisputable that previous to this date no distinction can bo made be- tween the State and the Church. A great au- thority says in regard to Church property pre- vious to the Norman Conquest, "In each par- ish an independent body of Church p1"Operty was formed, in the first instance by donations from the lord of the soil and by irregular gifts upon occasion of divine service, afterwards by tithes and a whole series of other taxes, volun- tary at the outset, but soon transmuted by ec- clesiastical or civil ordinances into enforceable services." (Makower, Constitutional History of the Church of England, page 12). This is one way by which church property was accumulated in early times. No distinction was made be- tween revenues drawn by the crown from ec- clesiastical sources and other incomes with re- gard to their management. They all flowed into the same coffer. It was at the time of the reformation that certain special authorities were temporarily established for the (separate man- agement of several of such revenues. The first authority of this kind was created by Henry VIII. to "administer the property which fell to the Crown through the first Act for the dis- solution of monasteries." It bore the name "Court of Augmentations of the Revenuas of the King's Crown." But even if it could be proved that all Church property previous to the reign of Henry VIII belonged to the Church apart from the State, it could easily be shown that the Church of England has no moral nor legal right to that property, as a portion of it, at least, was given or confiscated when the Church was connected with Rome. It was Henry VIII who was the instrument of snapping the chain that bound the Church to Rome, and. who constituted him- self the temporal head of the Church, and who, by doing so, incorporated in himself the prin- ciple that tho State and Church of England are one, and as such it was recognised until the civil revolution under Oliver Cromwell, when the Rump Parliament demolished epis- copacy, and placed at the disposal of the State, apart from any particular church, all property which had pertained to the offices and corpora- tions so abolished. Sufficient has been said to expose the crude and silly questions of "Church- man"—"When, where, and to what extent did the State endow the Church," as if endowment of the Church by the Sta.te took place in a. day or a week or a year. No intelligent Churchman disputes that the Church has been endowed by the State, and by the State we mean ultimately the people. What we have to recognise is that the endowments have grown and accumulated through many centuries side by side with pri- vate benefactions, until it has become diffi- cult in many instances to draw the line of de- marcation between them. The Welsh Church Commission was appointed as one of its objects to find this out. The "Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners for England" were established and in- corporated by Act of Parliament in 1836- com- posed of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and other bishops and laymen, to admin- ister and manage all endowments, private and public, and they are to make an annual report to one of the Secretaries of State, and the re- port is to be laid before Parliament. For fur- ther knowledge of the matter I would refer "Churchman" to Makower's great and learn- od work on the "Constitutional History of the Church of England." I once more repeat my questions to "Churchman"—Does he deny that the Church is endowed by the St.ate? If so, let him give his reasons. If not, why is it incon- sistent for the Church to be endowed and to raise big sums of money? Also, will he kindly prove from the teachings of Jesus Christ that the Church of God is to be esta.blished by the State.—I respectfully await his answer. ANTHROPOS.

CYFARTHFA CASTLE.

LINGERING COUGHS

Advertising

--,.-...-......-.....-.-..---.....---.--T----…

Advertising