Art. 8.-CHURCH REFORM.

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

2. Royal Letters of Business-Resolutions of the Joint Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury. S.P.C.K., 1917.

3. Memorandum of the Council of the Churchmen's Union on the Report of the Archbishop's Committee. Privately printed, 1918.

4. The things that are Cæsar's, and The Genius of the English Church. By Alfred Fawkes. Murray, 1917. 5. Reform or Revolution in the Church of England. By W. W. Jackson. Oxford University Press, 1917.

6. The Church in the Furnace. Edited by F. B. Macnutt. Macmillan, 1917.

7. Can England's Church win England's Manhood? Edited by Bishop Gwynne. Macmillan, 1917.

8. The Revenues of the Church of England. By A. C. Headlam. Murray, [1917].

9. The Church in the Commonwealth. Roberts. Headley Brothers, 1917.

By Richard

THE report of the Archbishop's Committee on Church and State marks, though it does not make, a crisis in our history. For it gives official sanction to the oftrepeated protests of thinking men against the deadlock which has resulted from three centuries of political change and of ecclesiastical inertia ; it supplies materials, important though not sufficient, for a reasoned judgment on the whole situation; and it offers a systematic proposal for such reforms as may restore the Church of England to efficiency. The Committee may well feel encouraged by the manner in which their report has been received. For the first time within living memory a substantial plan of Church Reform has evoked widespread interest and occasional enthusiasm.

There are some Churchmen and many Nonconformists who condemn the Report on the ground that 'spiritual independence' is destroyed by connexion with the State. One of these critics tells us that the prevailing religion of State Churches is a polite paganism touched here and

there by a Christian grace.'* This is not the place to argue that question. But an admirable answer to the disestablishers is to be found in Mr Fawkes' brilliant and stimulating book on 'The Genius of the English Church.' The critics who really matter are those who approach the Report with some degree of sympathy. Many such, while grateful to the Committee for their scheme, are still more grateful to them for opening a way which may lead to reforms much larger and more hopeful. They desire that the Church of England shall be freed from the fetters which now check her power of service, but not from the venerable ties which unite her to the whole nation. The two main tests, therefore, which they apply to the Scheme are: (1) Does it give promise of a fuller spiritual life? and (2) Will that life be shared by the nation as a whole?

Before we search the Report for answers to these questions-a task of no little difficulty, since it is a strangely confused and inconsistent document-we must remark upon an assumption which colours its language in many places. For assumptions are subtle things, which act powerfully by repeated suggestion; and this particular assumption is of great importance, because it not only underlies but undermines the Report. If the connexion between Church and State is at best an evil, which may be minimised but never neutralised, the reader may well ask why the Committee have proposed a plan for its continuance. The reason is that the plan was deliberate, while the assumption was in the main unconscious. One example of this bias may be quoted. The terms of their reference instructed them

'to inquire 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 opens with a confession (p. 3) that only one half of the task has been attempted. 'We have concentrated our attention on devising means for this free action of the Church.' That sentence describes a

* Roberts, The Church in the Commonwealth,' p. 100.
† See Memorandum of Churchmen's Union,' p. 2.

solid and useful bit of work, which is carried out in the first fifty-seven pages. But on p. 58 we read:

'It is now our business to show how this fuller expression of the spiritual independence of the Church can be made consistent with the national recognition of religion. We shall have done this if we can show that under our scheme the effective power of the State to safeguard itself is completely preserved.'

Quietly, unconsciously, 'the fuller expression of the national recognition of religion' is identified with the effective power of the State to safeguard itself. Against what? Apparently against the assaults of its natural enemy, the Church! That implication is all that the Committee contributes to the solution of a momentous problem. Surely it is strange that, in a book of three hundred pages, only these two sentences touch the 'national recognition of religion,' and touch it only to thrust it out of the way.

The divergence between the reference and the Report is not accidental, but corresponds to a divergence between two conceptions of the Church. The Report takes for granted what is frequently called the Catholic conception, according to which the Church in England is merely a group of dioceses, belonging to the Catholic Church, which happen to be located in England. Being no more than a slice of a larger body, such a group has no organic unity. To call it a national Church is a misnomer, for its forms are not the expression of national religious life, but imposed upon that life by an external tradition. Any claim of the nation to modify them is therefore an intrusion into an alien dominion, an interference with 'inherent authority.' In its fulness this conception belongs to the Roman Church, which is really a homogeneous world-wide corporation. The fruits of this conception are such as Bishop Westcott had in view when he wrote, 'The Church of England cannot, as long as it is national, degenerate like the Roman Church in France into a separate, a rival, an antagonistic society.'* While obvious facts prevent members of our Church from holding this opinion in its fulness, a similar conception of

* Christian Aspects of Life,' p. 65.

the Church, which is often expressed by some members of the Committee, influences the tone of their Report. Naturally, those to whom the very idea of a national Church is repugnant see the difficulties of Church and State through a magnifying glass.

Those who formulated the reference were inspired with a larger and nobler conception, which was briefly described by Archbishop Benson when he said, 'The English Church must be the religious organ of the English people.' His lifelong friend, Bishop Westcott, used the same image on a memorable occasion:

'If the National Church ceases to be national-national as accepting the pastorate of the whole people, and expressing generally their spiritual convictions-no other Communion can take its place. No other organ can be found through which the nation can declare its faith.'

The same thought is expressed by Mr Fawkes :

'A Church rests upon a broader basis [than a sect]. It is established not because it teaches a particular theology, or possesses a particular succession, but because it represents the best mind and conscience of the community-the working, in philosophical language, of Reason, in religious language, of the Spirit, in the world and among men.'†

What is involved in Bishop Westcott's axiom that the National Church must express generally the spiritual convictions of the whole people'? A conception of the Universal Church as vital rather than mechanical in its unity; a picture of the Churches in the several nations as a family of brothers, differing much among themselves, but all bearing the essential features which proclaim their origin; a conviction that a national Church may express the religious character of one nation without ceasing to be a member of the mystical body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people.' The Church of England, then, mustas Archbishop Benson implied-represent the Christianity of the whole nation, including that part of it which is beyond her formal boundaries. Her position

✦ Albert Hall meeting (1893). See 'Christian Aspects of Life,' p. 62. + 'The Genius of the English Church,' p. 69.

of privilege is a trust on behalf of all English Christians,* for she is maintained in that position by the one body which is authorised to speak for them all.

If we recognise that as a true description of a national Church, we shall feel the unfairness of the Report in some of its references (e.g. p. 26) to Parliament and to other instruments by which the State exercises control. Parliament is not wholly made up of Christians, nor are its members often elected upon religious issues. Yet it is really representative of the whole people in its attitude to religion. Busy, ill-informed about many details, and impatient of technicalities, it is not unfriendly to the national Church. Its failure to satisfy her needs is due neither to ill-will nor to incompetence, and only in part to lack of time. The principal fault lies at another door. Churchmen, having no council of their own in which they can discuss and agree upon a programme, hold their debates in Parliament, which is confused by their dissensions, and bored by the partial and timid character of the reforms which are put forward by some, only to be opposed by others. Even under present conditions a united Church could obtain a large measure of its desires by the old methods.

The State exercises control also by means of Crown patronage and the Courts of Law. Though it makes no definite proposals for abolishing these, the Report disparages them, and fails to acknowledge the benefits which the Church has derived from them. Prime Ministers have shown themselves wiser patrons of bishoprics, for instance, than any synod, caring more for character and ability and less for considerations of party. And the final Court of Appeal, by protecting representatives of each Church party in turn † from the tyranny of a passing majority, has preserved for our Church a freedom of thought and a variety of temperament which make her the envy of other communions. Yet the Report implies that this lay Court of Appeal is a clog upon spiritual liberty. Careful readers will insist upon a definition of the liberty which the authors desire.

That is why it is wrong to require 'Qualified electors' to declare that they do not belong to any religious body which is not in communion with the Church of England.' Report, p. 41.

† E.g. the Gorham case, the Burnett case, the Wilson case.