used sometimes in one sense and sometimes in the other naturally fails to convince.

A worse confusion is caused by the tacit identification of a self-governing Church' with a united Church.' Both of these are doubtless excellent things, but they are quite distinct. A self-governing Church rules or directs its own members. A united Church, as here described, endeavours, by collective effort, to rule the community to which its members belong, after the model of the medieval Church. The reader, who is puzzled by finding them treated as identical, suspects some confusion in the minds of the authors.

The sections of the pamphlet are almost equally divided between these two aspects of the Church. Certain sections show how self-government is needed for the co-ordination of missions, for the indispensable restatement of doctrine, and for maintaining discipline. Other sections describe how a united Church, able to use its collective influence, might promote international peace, social justice, and political honesty. In both divisions there is much which will commend itself to all serious readers. But why should their assent be made more difficult by a needless ambiguity?

6

Among the functions assigned to a united Church' are some which will certainly not be accepted without criticism. For instance, Among other similar problems in relation to which the Church should be able to offer guidance to mankind are... the use of the raw products of the world.' This statement is inconsistent with what is said on page 5 of the same pamphlet, the solution of certain problems requires a technical knowledge which renders the judgment of those who are without that knowledge of little value.' It is, in fact, a startling instance of the fallacy put forward several years ago in the report to Convocation on the Moral Witness of the Church,' which argued that the Church ought to have a definite and detailed economic policy and should press it with all its power.

Again, we all agree that 'a man who exploits the need of the community for his own advantage is acting wickedly.' But why should the committee hold that dagger to the breast of the capitalist only, leaving the syndicalist unrebuked? If one may judge by what is

said and what is left unsaid, their reason is a conviction that only the well-to-do need the warning of the Church in order that they may avoid sins against society.

In the sections indicated the committee tell us they are showing how, according to their persuasion, a liberated Church would bring the Mind of Christ to bear upon the problems of life.' Even those who come nearest to accepting their main contentions will regret that such a title as the Mind of Christ' should have been used in connexion with a programme which is not distinguished either by precision or consistency or width of outlook from commonplace socialistic writings.* Many of those who were prepared to act heartily with the committee in working for the Enabling Bill may be excused if they now hesitate, lest they should seem to endorse an economic scheme which is pretentious without being either clear or logical. They may well be daunted when they find the same voice warning the Church against partisanship and invasion of the expert's domain, yet expressing a desire that in particular cases the Church should exemplify both these errors.

The committee would, in our judgment, have taken a more politic as well as a more modest course if they had been content to predict that, if self-government should be attained, and if it should lead to union (which is far from certain), there would be 'the possibility of bringing the whole weight of the Church's witness and influence to bear upon individuals, upon parties, upon the nation, upon the world, for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.' In those words Dr Temple gave a fine expression to a legitimate hope, which appeals to all good Churchmen. But a forecast in detail of what the united Church will say and do in this or that connexion is less likely to unite and inspire than to divide and discourage.

It is to be feared that, by issuing this manifesto, the committee have seriously diminished their prospect of attaining the goal of their hopes. That is the more to

* The committee refer to the report of the Archbishops' Fifth Committee of Enquiry on Christianity and Industrial Problems,' as supporting their views. Unfortunately that report, though it contains much excellent matter, is open to much the same criticism.

be regretted because the report recently published by the Committee of the Representative Church Council shows a decided advance upon the original plan of the Archbishops' Committee. In this amended scheme we find the Baptismal Franchise accepted, women admitted to all Councils except the 'Church Assembly,' and a clearer recognition of that Assembly's right to deal with finance. There is also a door opened for the amendment of the constitution of the Church Assembly; for, while its Clerical House, as before, includes all members of the Lower Houses of both Convocations, an injunction is laid upon the Convocations to reform themselves so as to make their Lower Houses representative. A small concession has also been made to public opinion about the Parochial Councils; for it is declared that the Church Assembly may do no other business until it has fully constituted these Councils, and assigned their functions. Though not a satisfactory plan, this is the next best thing to granting statutory rights.

The Representative Church Council, at its meeting on Feb. 28, adopted the report of its Committee, in spite of the protests of a large minority. When so conservative a body is ready to concede so much to public opinion, the prospect of passing a satisfactory Bill is greatly increased. But success can be attained only by the co-operation of all Churchmen who desire that the Church should be free to fulfil her great mission; and we fear that the pamphlet entitled 'When the Church is Free' will cause some to draw back. To do so would, in our judgment, be a mistake. Men ought not to be deterred from providing an essential piece of machinery by suspicion that their neighbours may wish to make some wrong use of it. Even when the declared purpose of a party seems to them wrong, they would be wise to take the risk and trust the good feeling and good sense of the whole body. But that requires a larger measure of faith than is granted to all men.

We have left to this place a question of grave importance which concerns both the 'Life and Liberty' Movement and the scheme of the Representative Church Council. Thinking men, whether advocates or critics of the Church, will judge both those bodies very largely by their attitude to the restatement of doctrine. The need

of such restatement is frankly recognised in the 'official statement of policy' from which a sentence has been quoted above (p. 336). The fact is so plain that it seems almost impertinent to insist upon it; and yet it is constantly ignored. A large part of the dissensions in the Church, and of the consequent inefficiency, is due to the lack of a recognised standard of doctrine. The report of the Archbishops' Committee points out, what indeed is undeniable, that the only legal standard is contained in the Prayer-book and the 39 Articles. The Articles and some parts of the Prayer-book represent the 16thcentury conceptions of God's providence, of man's nature, and of the Bible, which the intellectual and moral advance of three centuries has rendered not merely repulsive but unintelligible to the present generation. During the last eighty years all parties in the Church have practically turned their backs upon the Articles, and sought an expression of their faith elsewhere. Unfortunately, they have turned in different directions, so that the further they severally advance the further they are removed from each other.

This dangerous process will continue until a new standard is set up which attracts instead of repelling, and which presents Christian truth in a form consistent with the best knowledge and the highest aspirations of our own age. A task of immense difficulty, such as no body can hope to accomplish which does not possess faith, knowledge, and authority. Where can we find such a body? A hundred years ago the Bishops might have undertaken it; but the days of episcopal autocracy are past. Three hundred years ago Convocation might have done it; but Convocation practically abdicated after issuing the 39 Articles, and its voice is now so 'hoarse with long silence' that no one will hear it. There remains only one alternative. No declaration of doctrine will now have authority which does not proceed from a central body representing the whole Church. The proposed Church Assembly,' including all the bishops, with representatives of the clergy and the laity, is the modern equivalent of the great Councils which in the fourth and fifth centuries formulated the creeds. It is to such an assembly alone that we can look for a healing and enlightening pronouncement.

Yet the new scheme of the Representative Church Council seems, no less decidedly than that of the Archbishops' Committee, to forbid the Church Assembly to issue any statement purporting to define the doctrine of the Church of England on any question of theology.' Is this a surrender to the contention of many clergymen and some laymen, that doctrine is the sole concern of the clergy? They actually contend that, even if the Houses of Bishops and Clergy agree in a new formula, it will be rendered unholy by the concurrent approval of a House of Laymen! The bulk of sensible Englishmen, who regard that view as absurd, may hope that the prohibition is merely a formal concession to Church tradition. For, since leave is given to the Assembly 'to debate and formulate its judgment by resolution upon any matter concerning the Church of England, or otherwise of religious or public interest,' we may conjecture that, when the resolution purports to define the doctrine of the Church of England,' the right to issue the decision may be reserved, in deference to ancient custom, for the Bishops, who will act as the mouthpiece of the Assembly. If that be so, it ought to be stated clearly; for the passing of the Bill may turn upon this very point.

6

What is the attitude of the Life and Liberty Movement to this important question? The sentence quoted above, 'It must be one of the first tasks of a selfgoverning Church to state more clearly its interpretation of the Creeds in relation to modern thought,' is understood by some of the leaders in the sense which we have suggested that is, the Church Assembly is to formulate and the Bishops to pronounce. But the committee as such has avowedly never discussed the subject. They would do well to discuss and to make a clear pronouncement. If they palter with the question-still more, if they advocate a return to the mediaval autocracy of the episcopate-they will alienate many supporters.

There is another question of great importance, as to which their attitude appears to many to be disquietingly indefinite. In the first enthusiasm of the movement some of the speakers proclaimed that, if the desired 'liberty' could not be obtained by means of the Enabling Bill, they were prepared to purchase it at the cost of disestablishment. Such words made a deep impression