« PreviousContinue »
W. DAWSON JOHNSTON, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
JEAN BROWNE JOHNSTON
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
SHEEHAN & CO., THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
ANN ARBOR AND DETROIT
The sources of history are divided into two general classes, contemporaryoriginal or primary sources, and secondary sources. Corresponding to these two classes of materials, although neither school confines itself exclusively to one class, arc two schools of history, the Classical and the Romantic. The former contributes to pure historical science, the latter to the applied science, namely, the historical sciences, political economy, social science, political science, etc. The aim of the one (objective) is the reconstruction of the past, that of the other (subjective) is the modification of the present. The original materials are of different kinds and values. (1) State papers and records, (2) local records, (3) society records, (4) family records, (5) individual works. In relation to these original materials the secondary are simply commentaries and guides. It is the purpose of the “ Reprints " to make more accessible some of the more important of the original materials. The character of the various classes and their relative values may be further considered.
University of Michigan,
March 3, 1897.
I. INTRODUCTORY OUTLINE.
The transition from the Roman imperial-papal system to the national system of government gave rise to both international or territorial questions and to party or constitutional questions. At first the former were continental, the latter British.
1. The period of regal despotism and episcopacy from the Reformation to the Revolution was marked by the existence of three parties in English politics, (1) the conservative party holding to a Roman Catholic church as distinct from a papal hierarchy, (2) the reform party holding to a national church either episcopal or presbyterian, and (3) the radical party holding to a congregational church and separation between church and state. The national party dominated and an Anglican hierarchy was maintained, the main difference between pre-Reformation and post-Reformation conditions being that in the mediaeval relations between church and state the King represented the English people, but in the modern relations, only a party. These relations were, moreover, in the mediaeval period political, church and state being separate, but after the Reformation, constitutional, church and state being united and the problem of the political constitution being bound up with the problem of the ecclesiastical constitution. The result was that as the mediaeval struggle ended in the elimination of the estate of the baronage, so the modern led to the elimination of the estate of the clergy, and the Commons became supreme. The history of the government and of the dominant party was marked by legislative action—the Elizabethan Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, and the Caroline legislation, aiming at permanent control of electorate and administration, and its policy concerned not with the distribution of the ecclesiastical powers as in the mediaeval period, but rather with the more fundamental question of their source. The history of the people is marked by the activity of the radical party--the Martin Marprelate controversy, the establishment of the revolutionary government of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, and the Revolution, royal supremacy having de