ART. IX.-LITTLE BISHOPRICS. National Assembly of the Church of England. The Diocese of Winchester (Division) Measure, 1923. (London: National Assembly of the Church of England, and Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.) National Assembly of the Church of England. The Bishopric of Blackburn Measure, 1923. (London: National Assembly of the Church of England, and Society for National Assembly of the Church of England. The Diocese of It has always been in the past the policy of the CHURCH QUARTERLY REVIEW to support measures for the increase of the Episcopate. It has been obvious that until recently there were many Dioceses in the Church of England which were too large for effective working, and, with perhaps one or two exceptions which have been carried out in a hurry, it is probable that all the schemes for creating new Bishoprics so far promoted have been successful, and that the formation of the new Sees has increased the effectiveness of Church work, but we are approaching a time when it becomes necessary to reconsider the situation. There is an ardent party in the Church of England who are anxious to carry this policy much further than in the past. They are advocates of what are called 'Little Bishoprics.' The characteristics of their policy have been outlined in a report which is presented to the National Assembly by a Committee on New Bishoprics, of which the Bishop of Manchester is the leading member. The fruits of this Committee have been seen in the Bishopric of Winchester Division Measure, to which we shall refer later, and in the proposals they have made in regard to Somerset, Devon, and Sussex, Dioceses and counties which they propose to cut up. The general characteristic of their work seems to be that they pay little or no attention to county divisions or to tradition. They are prepared to cut off bits of one county and stick them on to another, and they ignore the feelings of anyone but the enthusiastic members of their own party. It becomes therefore necessary to review the whole situation, and to ask what are the principles which should guide the Church in the formation of new sees. I may take, as an illustration, some of the proposals that are being made for the Diocese of Gloucester; although it must be stated that these have not approved themselves to the Committee of the National Assembly. The Diocese of Gloucester might be considered to be one of reasonable size. It is for the most part coincident with the county, containing as it does all Gloucestershire except such parts as are in the immediate neighbourhood of the City of Bristol. But our ardent reformers have all sorts of schemes for cutting up this Diocese. One of their proposals is to create an independent Diocese for Shropshire, a proposal which has in itself a great deal to be said for it. That would necessitate the Diocese of Hereford being confined to one small county and it is suggested that that is too small, so it is proposed that all that part of the Diocese of Gloucester which lies to the west of the Severn should be joined to the Diocese of Hereford. Then, in the south, the Bishop of Salisbury asserts that his Diocese is too large and wishes to create a Diocese for Dorsetshire, but that he holds would leave the Diocese of Salisbury too small, so he would propose that all those districts to the north of Wiltshire, at present in the Diocese of Bristol, should be transferred to Salisbury. But this, says the Bishop of Bristol, would make his Diocese too small, so he proposes to annex the south portion of the Diocese of Gloucester. If we turn to the north, we are given to understand that some people think the Bishopric of Worcester, which has been going through considerable mutilations in recent years, is now too small, and therefore they propose that the Deanery of Campden, in the north of Gloucestershire, should be transferred to the Worcester Diocese. What would be left to Gloucester after all these mutilations would not be very inspiring. Now these new proposals really arise from a change in the attitude of our reformers towards the duties of a Bishop and the conception of the status of a parish priest. Every parish priest has, both by law and by custom, a position of freedom and independence. He exercises his ministry in his parish with full responsibilities and great opportunities. He requires the authority of no one to enable him to make experiments and to introduce reforms, provided that he keeps within the law. He can give himself whole-heartedly to his ministry. The Bishop has given him his authority. He exercises over him ordinary jurisdiction in the administration of the law of the Church. He may give him advice and supervision, and from time to time he visits the parish for Confirmation or other purposes. But the Bishop is the leader and the guide of free men, not the manager of subordinates. This position has been one of infinite value to the Church, for it has given full power of initiative to many individual minds, and all through the history of the Church of England the leaders in advance have been the parish clergy. Supposing that in the past the Church of England had waited for the initiative of the Bishops, or that the parish clergy had been prevented from all the new activities they have created, what sort of position would the Church of England have been in ? A new conception is now being put forward by a body of ardent and enthusiastic but, in my opinion, rather illbalanced reformers. They are demanding from the Bishop constant activity; they desire that he shall shew his influence by continual personal administration; they are demanding the abolition of the freehold of the Clergy. I have seen a statement put forward by one Bishop that he considers that a Bishop should be concerned in the appointment of every clergyman in his diocese. I cannot but think that the source of some of these suggestions comes from those Bishops who have worked in the Colonies. In the Colonies the position of the Church is different, it is much more of a Missionary body. The clergy have not the established status they have in England. Far greater demands are made upon the Bishop, and necessarily so. But because a system works well in the Colonies it does not in the least follow that it will work well in this country, or that it is necessary. The promoters of these new ideas are very fond of the expression Father in God.' They say the Bishop must shew himself a Father in God to his clergy, and in order to do that they think he must be in constant touch with them. The real question is, whether his fatherhood is exercised over those who are still children or over grown-up men? The Parochial clergy of the Church of England are as grown-up men. They do not want interference or advice in every detail of their work. They should be considered responsible persons and left to themselves. The Bishop should give his advice, and shew that he is their father by being their leader in big things, their adviser in difficult questions of theology, but he should be free to devote himself to the more important questions of ecclesiastical administration, and not expected to labour over detail. Now it has been maintained that the creation of smaller dioceses would reduce the amount of correspondence which a Bishop has to deal with. I am not quite certain that it would necessarily have that effect. If the proposals of these reformers were carried out, the Bishop would be expected to take a personal interest in the minor affairs of every parish, and it is quite conceivable that the smaller the diocese the larger the amount of correspondence he might have. The tendency would grow more and more for many things to be referred to him which the clergy may reasonably settle themselves. If you transform a Bishop from an overseer of a diocese into a super-parish priest, you will increase his work, you will use him up on a large number of small details which other people could concern themselves with quite well, and you would take away the initiative of the parish priest. It is argued again that the creation of smaller Dioceses would give the Bishop an opportunity of visiting his parishes more often. There is no doubt a real value in personal visits to country parishes, but it may well be doubted whether too constant visits would be a real gain either to the Bishop or the parish. If the Bishop's visit is only occasional, it is much more effective and more interesting. I think it will generally be found that the influence of a Bishop is least in his Diocesan City, where he probably appears far more often than anywhere else in his diocese. It has further been pointed out that if the dioceses were smaller, it would be far easier for the clergy and laity to attend the various Synods and conferences that are held. There can be no doubt that the meeting together in conference of the Clergy and Laity of the diocese in itself increases and helps corporate life, but if you were to make these meetings too frequent, the interest in them would quickly die out. There are many things which are most valuable if they are done occasionally which become very tedious if they are done too frequently. Moreover, it is stated by those who have attended Conferences in dioceses which have gradually become smaller and smaller through the zeal of reforming Bishops, that as the number of Clergy and Laity decreases, the number of people who are worth hearing also decreases, and that these small Conferences are often dull and lifeless and not worth attending. There can be no doubt that if the proposal to increase to a large extent the number of dioceses in this country were to be carried out, the whole status of a Diocesan Bishop would become different. He would become, as has been said, a sort of super-parish priest, he would be very much more concerned in the less important affairs of the Diocese, he would often be a man not much interested in the general work of the Church, he would not have really any more time, and he would not have the same wide experience in dealing with general ecclesiastical matters. There are two strong reasons against the undue multiplication of Dioceses. In the first place, the creation of a new diocese, if it were done properly, would mean great expense. It would mean the duplication of many agencies which had better |