For some of us, remembering what fruits of ecclesiastical liberty, when unchecked by any State law, were tasted by Roger Bacon, Savonarola and John Huss, Colenso and Robertson Smith, may well feel that they had 'rather bear the ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of.' Nevertheless the ills we have' are many and serious. Even the incomplete catalogue which is implied in the third and fourth sections of the Report must appeal to any fair-minded reader. But the case is, in fact, so much stronger that some attempt should be made to present it as a whole, though in a bare outline.

First, then, as to Doctrine. The 39 Articles,' the Report tells us (p. 21), 'constitute, together with the Prayer-book, the formal statement of the Church of England's teaching as recognised by the State.' In other words, the tenure of benefices legally depends upon adherence to the standard of doctrine there set forth; and any open deviation from that standard renders a clergyman liable to penalties. Now, the Prayer-book and the Articles are virtually the same as those which were published in 1563 by the Convocations, which have ever since rested from constructive labours. So there are the arrears of 350 years to make up. During that interval a whole new world of thought has come into our possession. The conceptions of the universe, of God's providence, of the Bible, of man's nature and history, which are now taken for granted by all educated Christians alike, are so different from those which were held by the subjects of Queen Elizabeth that the few who now read the Articles feel like explorers in a strange country, even if they trust the guidance of those textbooks which labour to explain away their obvious meaning.

Suppose such a reader turns for comfort to the Prayerbook. Unless his eyes are sealed by custom, he will find many fresh puzzles there. The first ground assigned for Baptism is the story of Noah's Ark. The marriage service holds up the union of Abraham and Sarah as a model, forgetting apparently that Abraham was not only polygamous but deliberately allowed his wife to be taken into the harem of Abimelech. The daily services describe the King's authority in language which, however well suited to Henry VIII, is little better than

mockery when applied to a constitutional monarch. Printed in the morning service, for frequent use, is the Athanasian Creed, whose damnatory clauses so revolt the modern conscience that even its warmest advocates are forced to pretend that they do not mean what they say.

The need of revision is urgent. It is no mere academic question. From all sides, especially from the soldiers, whose minds the military chaplains are exploring, there comes a demand for a plain statement of what the Church really teaches. Within the last few months the Bishops of Oxford and Peterborough have published two admirable little books in answer to the demand. Each of them tells the plain man what the Church really teaches. Unfortunately their statements differ from each other almost as much as they do from the Articles. And, even if they were in agreement, their joint authority could not commit the Church as a whole. Neither could Convocation, if some miracle were to rouse it from its dreams to face realities. Nothing will now satisfy which does not proceed from a really representative body, representing the laity as well as the clergy.

Next, as to Worship. Quite apart from difficulties of doctrine, it has long been apparent that the forms of the Prayer-book are unsuited to the great majority of worshippers. Educated Churchmen, familiar with its language from childhood, enjoy the stately beauty of its archaic style; but to nine-tenths of our population it is almost as much a foreign tongue as Latin. And, if the poor man masters the language, he finds a fresh obstacle in the substance. Since the reign of Elizabeth the face of English society has completely changed. The bulk of the population belong to classes which did not then exist; but in the unchanging order of daily prayer there is no recognition of their problems, their needs, their temptations. There are no prayers for soldiers and sailors and men employed in dangerous trades, none for those who work in mines or factories, none for the Empire or even for foreign missions. A pervading feudalism puzzles the plain man; the unchristian tone of many psalms shocks him; the morality of some ill-chosen lessons makes him wonder. And suppose a stranger comes to the service-such a man as the Church wants

to win-how will he be affected? Why should access to the Christian fold be made harder by the double fence of Elizabethan language and ancient Hebrew morality?

Such arguments have been repeated year after year without effect.* Meanwhile earnest parish priests have been introducing irregular services (often unwisely and often in defiance of authority) in hopes of helping such as cannot use the Prayer-book. But now there sounds a new voice which cannot fail to be heard. Two of the books named at the head of this article are written by chaplains at the Front. Good men and true, of different theological schools, they have learned by a unique experience to see the Prayer-book through the eyes of the average man. This is how an open-minded High Churchman sums up his impressions:

"The Prayer-book as it stands is a volume that serves only those who are highly instructed in the Faith.... Hardly a soldier carries a Prayer-book, because there is little in it he can use. We never guessed of old how removed it was from common wants; nor how intellectual are its prayers and forms of devotion. Its climate to the simple ardent Christian is often ice.' (The Church in the Furnace,' p. 184.)

So chaplain after chaplain protests that our services must be recast if they are ever to become the prayers of the people. If any man still doubts the need of reforms in the constitution of the Church, let him learn from these books-and there are many of them-how the millions hunger for worship which they can understand; and then turn to those timid and trivial suggestions for amendment, which the Convocation of Canterbury has recently published † as the fruit of seven years' discussion.

To turn next to Discipline. The doctrine of the Church being so uncertain and her forms of worship so little suited to men's needs, there is little wonder that many of the clergy have taken lines of their own. Discipline has almost disappeared. Moreover, the Church Courts are so constituted that bishops are reluctant to appeal to them; and, until a court has given a decision, the

* See reports of the Church Congress, 1902, pp. 112-115; 1903, pp. 155–168. Royal Letters of Business. Resolutions of the Joint Committee.'

mutinous or even vicious incumbent is firmly entrenched behind the parson's freehold.

Lastly, there are problems of Church property which urgently demand a courageous solution. The root of half our evils lies in the fact that the Church has no power to deal with her own endowments. For, in point of law, the endowments of each parish belong not to the Church, but to the parish, and can be enjoyed only by the incumbent, who practically cannot be removed except by voluntary resignation or by death. The resulting scandals, though notorious enough, are not indeed very numerous; and they might be tolerated if the parson's freehold were beneficial to the majority. But, in fact, it is the effect upon the majority which is the main evil. Security is the average man's undoing. There are few incumbents whose work does not deteriorate after ten or twelve years in one place. Except in rare cases it would be far better for the parson to know that he must move at the end of a fixed term of years. A man with popular gifts generally gets many offers of preferment. But a better man, if he happens to fail in one parish, is not likely to get a fresh opportunity. Indeed, the tragedy of the square man condemned to remain for life in a round hole, just because he does not fit it, deserves far more attention than it receives. Not only does his personal suffering claim our sympathy; the loss to the Church, caused by his inevitable deterioration and the discouraging effect of his example, is a ground of alarm.

The 'parson's freehold,' in fact, is as great an incubus upon religion as the headmaster's freehold, till about fifty years ago, was upon education. No reform has done more for secondary education than the law which gave the governing body of every endowed school the power to dismiss the headmaster. A far less drastic change-the mere limitation of tenure-would do as much for the Church; for it would solve half the problems of discipline, and would put new life and hope into the rank and file of the clergy. But it cannot be accomplished until the endowments of each diocese are pooled and redistributed upon reasonable lines.*

Dr Headlam's valuable little book, though it does not advocate so radical a change as pooling, gives an effective statement of the need for

If space allowed this outline to be filled in, the case for reform would appear much stronger. But even the above bare statement goes far to justify the words which Mr Douglas Eyre, one of the Committee, has added in an Appendix (p. 69): I think the Church had far better make up its mind, before Parliament is approached, that it needs an entire reconstruction.' At least many will go so far with him as to say that the Committee's Scheme, with all its merits, is not adequate either to the situation which they have described or to the principles which they have acknowledged.

The main lines of the Scheme are simple, and have been generally approved. The government of the Church is to be, in a modified sense, representative. Existing institutions are to be adapted and developed, and only one quite new one is to be added. This last is, however, very important, being the basis of the whole fabric. Every parish is to have a Parochial Council, elected by the parishioners, men and women alike, who are members of the Church. The incumbent and other resident clergy are to be ex officio members; but the laymen will always be a majority. The Parochial Council is to elect lay representatives to the Ruridecanal Conference, where they will sit with the clergy of the Rural Deanery. The laity of this Conference, in turn, is to send representatives to the Diocesan Conference, in a number equal to that of the clergy who sit there. Finally, the lay members of the Diocesan Conference are to elect a number of representatives proportioned to the population of the Diocese, who will form the House of Laymen in the Church Council. The House of Clergy in this Council is to consist partly of ex officio members and partly of members elected by the clergy of each archdeaconry. There will also be an Upper House, consisting of the diocesan and other bishops. In fact, the Church Council is a statutory replica of the unofficial body now called the Representative Church Council.

It is proposed that this Church Council shall have power to pass measures dealing with the affairs of the Church; and that such measures, after lying on the

reform, and shows how much might be done by a Church Council possessed of real powers.