Art. 4. THE 'LIFE AND LIBERTY' MOVEMENT.

1. Report of the Archbishops' Committee on Church and State. S.P.C.K., 1916.

2. Report of the Committee of the Representative Church Council on the Report of the Archbishops' Committee. S.P.C.K., 1918.

3. Life and Liberty for the Church of England: The Life and Liberty Movement. By the Rev. W. Temple.

S.P.C.K., 1917.

4. When the Church is Free. By the Council of the Life and Liberty Movement. S.P.C.K., 1918.

5. The Reports of the Archbishops' Five Committees of Enquiry. S.P.C.K., 1918.

In the year 1913 the Archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed a committee 'to enquire what changes are advisable in order to secure in the relations of Church and State a fuller expression of the spiritual independence of the Church as well as of the national recognition of religion.' The report of this committee, published in 1916, contains a large amount of valuable matter. Most important is the proposal that Parliament shall pass an 'Enabling Bill,' giving power to a Central Church Council to formulate measures for the government of the Church, which shall in due course become law, unless Parliament refuses consent. A schedule to the proposed Bill contains a new constitution for the Church, developed out of existing institutions. Partly because of the war, and partly because the Report is neither clear nor consistent, the proposal fell rather flat, and was in some danger of being forgotten by the public; while among those who favoured the idea of the Enabling Bill there was a feeling that some details of the constitution were inadmissible. It was the moment for the enthusiasts to intervene; and they were not lacking.

In June 1917, a letter addressed to the papers, over five well-known signatures, invited Churchmen to meet in the Queen's Hall on July 16, and pass resolutions in favour of the scheme set out in the Report. The meeting was held; speeches were made by Dr Temple and others; and a Fellowship' was formed with the object of promoting an Enabling Bill. All initiative was placed in

the hands of a committee, with Dr Temple as chairman. The rank and file of the Fellowship were to subscribe funds and support the action of their leaders, but were not to have any power of control. The history of the 'Life and Liberty' Movement, therefore, is practically the history of this committee's action. It will not be uninteresting to trace the course of their evolution. But first a word must be said about the general conditions which enabled them to get a hearing.

For some years past there had been a great deal of rather vague talk and writing about The failure of the Church.' No one could suppose its hold upon the masses to be at all strong; and empty churches testified to a decreasing attendance of the middle class. Various reasons were assigned. The public spoke of the lowered intellectual standard of the clergy, of their obscurantist views, of the abuses of patronage, of the gross mismanagement of endowments, or of the absurdity of having no rule of superannuation. That there was good ground for such complaints no reader of the Reports published by the Archbishops' Five Committees of Enquiry can doubt. Those who were concerned in Church government knew of these evils and of others; but they also knew that without some measure of selfgovernment the Church could not remove them. That was the reason for appointing the Committee on Church and State. Matters were brought to a head by the experience of chaplains at the Front and of all who took part in the National Mission of 1916, which revealed a plenteous harvest, but labourers with divergent aims and hampered by the manacles of obsolete law. Under the apparent apathy of the public there was a large body of opinion in favour of some radical change. But it was divided. Many of the clergy, as well as nonconformists, advocated disestablishment as the only way to freedom of action. A larger number, better acquainted with history, believed that disestablishment would be fatal.

Now three elements are necessary to the success of a popular agitation-a general sense of dissatisfaction, a vague alliterative slogan, and an eloquent untiring advocate. Dissatisfaction was abundant; the title 'Life and Liberty' is admirable for its purpose, for it is heartening and quite indefinite; and Dr Temple

combines energy and enthusiasm with the kind of eloquence which appeals to popular audiences. The initial success, therefore, of the Life and Liberty Movement can cause no surprise. Its value, and the prospects of attaining its object, can be better estimated after a brief review of its development, which has already passed through two stages and entered upon a third.

I. The committee, which was formed to represent a variety of views, was gradually increased by co-optation, until it reached about a hundred. Besides determining policy, its members set to work at once to organise meetings all over the country and in other ways to win adherents to the Fellowship. When it became apparent that Dr Temple's presence made the success of a meeting, they urged him to resign his living and devote himself to this work. To his lasting honour, he found courage and faith to make that sacrifice.

But speeches alone are not enough, for no such agitation can live long without a literature of leaflets. With these the movement has been well supplied. There are leaflets of two pages with challenging titles and plenty of leaded type, booklets of a few small pages for the more reflective, and two pamphlets containing a reasoned statement of policy. The reader of this literature is able to some extent to reconstruct the course of the movement of which they are the advertisements.

In the first stage attention was concentrated on such abuses in Church order, finance and patronage as were already familiar to the public, and were recognised reasons for demanding reform. Aided by the Report, a speaker had little difficulty in convincing his audience that some new machinery was necessary, if the abuses were to be remedied. A slight account of the Enabling Bill, which would release the Church from her shackles, led up naturally to a picture of a new era of Church life. So there were inany resolutions passed with enthusiasm in favour of promoting the Bill.

II. Meanwhile a few critical people were doing what these audiences did not attempt, and what by no means all the committee had accomplished. They were reading the Report carefully, and considering how far its recommendations were likely to attain their object. They began to point out some of the many inconsistencies in

that singularly ill-written document, and to make objections to some of its proposals. Before the end of 1917 six grave issues had been raised in various quarters, not by enemies but by friends of the Enabling Bill. Serious objection was made to

(1) The Communicant Franchise.

(2) The inadequate position assigned to women.

(3) The insufficient financial powers given to the Church Council.

(4) The lack of security for the Parochial Councils. (5) The excessive size of the Church Council, and the unrepresentative character of the Clerical House.

(6) The denial of powers to deal with urgent questions of doctrine.

Step by step the committee began to follow the trend of educated opinion. After a few months they pronounced in favour of the Baptismal Franchise. Indeed, they had no choice; for the public had condemned the original proposal as an unreal compromise. Then they decided to advocate the admission of women on equal terms with men to all the representative bodies. And they learned the need of insisting that the Church Council must have 'power to legislate on all matters relating to ecclesiastical endowments, property, patronage and tribunals.' These three amendments to the Enabling Bill are all contained in booklet No. 2. The committee have not printed anything about the Parochial Councils; but it appears that they now see the danger of leaving them without statutory powers. So in the course of a year the committee of the movement accepted four out of the six main propositions which were laid down in an article published in this Review in April 1918. They have not expressed any opinion about the constitution of the Church Council; and on the sixth point, which is of the greatest importance, they have not had any formal discussion. But their statement of policy, which was issued in November last, contains at least one sentence which implies the opinion that the Church Council ought to pronounce upon questions of doctrine: It must be one of the first tasks of a self-governing Church to state more clearly its interpretation of the Creeds in relation to modern thought.'

Whatever be their exact position with regard to the

last question, the second period of their evolution has been characterised by a serious criticism of the Bill, which at first they had accepted in toto. So far as their influence extends, it is being exerted in favour of a considerable improvement in the machinery upon which Church Reform depends. Many, therefore, who at first regarded their enthusiasm for the Bill and nothing but the Bill' with suspicion, are now ready to act with them in promoting a revised Enabling Bill.

III. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say 'were ready to act with them until last November,' when their new 'official statement of policy' was issued, under the title When the Church is Free.' Having very clearly pointed out the abuses in the Church, and indicated the proper machinery for dealing with them, we might have expected that they would stop. But they had a surprise in store for us. They may, indeed, claim that it ought to be no surprise. In the early booklet already mentioned they had stated that

The Church is commissioned to bring to bear upon all phases and problems of life-political, social, and economic, no less than personal-the mind of Christ, wherein alone can be found the true principles of human life and civilisation.'

Here was a germ which might clearly be developed. And we all know how a 'movement' once fairly started 'vires acquirit eundo,' and cannot easily stop when it has reached its original goal. Had we been wiser, then, we might have foreseen this third and critical stage in the committee's development. At any rate we cannot fail to find it interesting.

Plausible on a first reading, this manifesto soon loses its charm. It is in fact pervaded by three distinct elements of confusion. There is the confusion which is usually produced by compromise in a committee. The original draft was doubtless both pointed and uniform in tone; but successive casual amendments have deprived it of both these qualities. The phrase bring to bear . . . the mind of Christ' is susceptible of two interpretations. It may mean 'apply Christ's teaching to throw light on the problems of human life,' or, 'agitate for special measures which we believe to be demanded by His principles.' An argument in which the phrase is Vol. 231.-No. 459.

Ꮓ