reference, and finally announced their judgment in the name of the whole Church? Here, then, is representation of the Laity recognised, even in their presence, but not representation by the Laity-nor are the representatives of the Laity appointed by the Laity. And when we look farther down in the history of the Church, still less trace is there of Lay representation in any sense resembling our modern idea of it. In the chief inspired accounts of later Churches which have been vouchsafed to us, in the Epistles of St. Paul, it appears simply that St. Paul ruled the Churches under his guidance with absolute authority. There is not a hint of any power of legislation being reposed in any one, either Clergy or Laity. In the Pastoral Epistles, we look in vain for any directions to Timothy and Titus as to the organization of Synods. And later still, in post-Apostolic times, in medieval times, though Emperors, Kings, and Lay-dignitaries often sat in Church Councils, it is nearer the truth to say that they did so, like "the brethren " in the Council of Jerusalem,—rather for the sake of publicity and dignity, than as co-ordinate members specially representing the Laity. Certainly we may say that they were present rather in a civil than in an ecclesiastical capacity.

My lord, in these days, it is futile to talk of admitting Laymen as representatives of our Laity, for the purpose of concurrence only, for the ratification and promulgation of the determinations of the Clerical members of Councils. In these days it is of little use to profess, like St. Cyprian, to do nothing without the consensus plebis, if their cooperation is to be thus limited and confined. Under such conditions our English Laity will probably prefer to continue represented by the Clergy, as they have been from the days of the Apostles.

But is it not wiser to face the question as it is now presented to us under the present circumstances of the Church? Is it for the manifest benefit of the Church, and therefore presumably according to the Will of our unseen Head, that Church Councils should now include Laymen, elected and deliberating as representatives of Lay feeling in the Church ? Without pretending to produce a distinct direction or precedent for it, is not this an allowable modification of ancient practice? Provided the exclusive ministerial functions of the Priesthood are maintained intact, is not this variation in the constitution of Church Councils permissible under the authority of binding and loosing conferred by Our Lord on the representatives of His Church? Is it not (to use the words of our Book of Common Prayer) one of "those things in their own nature so far indifferent, and alterable, that upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as, to those that are in place of authority, should, from time to time, seem either necessary or expedient"?

And, irrespective of the great and worthy object of satisfying the longings of the Laity, now so plainly declared; irrespective of the manifest gain of ability and weight which their accession to a Church Council would confer on its proceedings (especially in financial matters); irrespective of the value of an unprofessional element in a deliberative body; irrespective of the wholesome effect of their presence and influence upon the Clerical members of the body; irrespective of the enormous impetus thus given to their own loving interest in their

Church; to take one only of the numerous reforms unattainable without this extension,-is it not hopeless to look for the chief desideratum of our day, the restoration of the Discipline of the Church among Clergy and Laity alike, under any other conditions?

But now for the other side of the question:-1st, If representatives of Lay Churchmen are to be elected as members of a Church Council, what is to be the qualification of the electors? Until some better definition of a Communicant Churchman can be found than that which would seem to have been devised in very scorn and insult to the Church, viz., every Englishman who is not excommunicate, be he unbaptized, or apostate, heretic, or infidel, this one difficulty seems a fatal bar to any general system of Church election.

Secondly, comes the danger of the gradual deterioration of Church Councils for want of important business. It is manifest that questions of doctrine at least need be rarely stirred,—the more rarely the better. And after the first glut of business which must succeed a long suspension of Synodal action, a state of things might be expected frequently to arise, like that which followed close upon the passing of the last Act of Uniformity; when Convocation entered upon nothing more important than the revision of a Grammar for the use of Schools. And when there is little to be done,-when a Council is assembled, not because it is wanted, hut because it has been elected, then it is not only very likely to do mischief, but will surely deteriorate in quality. Able, active men will not care to spend their time upon insignificant matters or fruitless discussion; they will gradually withdraw from an assembly which does not give adequate occupation to their powers, and they will be succeeded, as we so often see in Parochial representative bodies, by turbulent noisy partisans, whose object is to force themselves upon public notice, and to gratify their vanity at all hazards.

Thirdly, and most seriously of all. Where is the sufficient supply of Laymen to be the worthy representatives of the Laity ?

No doubt every one is ready with a few illustrious names of men, whose devotion to the Church is unimpeachable, whose capacity for business is admirable. But how short is the list!

And when we look for recruits, where is the sufficient Theological learning of the Laity? I dread the evil consequences of drawing a hard line through a Council between the learned Clergy, and the unlearned Laity. And we need no further illustration of the deficiency of our Laity in this respect, than the list, given by the Bishop of Salisbury in his Bampton Lectures, of Laymen "who by their writings have contributed to the illustration and defence of Christian Truth." One is almost astounded at the poverty of Theological learning in a list so general as to include Izaak Walton, Addison, Southey, and Coleridge, which really contains but a single name worthy to be called a divine, of the last and present generation, that of Principal Macbride. And worse still than the want of Theological learning, is the want of personal insight into the Church's system. The Laity have so lately aroused themselves to an active and zealous share in the work of the Church, that, with the exception of Sunday School teaching, comparatively few of them can have arrived at that ripeness of experience in her work, which alone can qualify a man for useful deliberation upon it. There are, indeed, many proposals for the structure of mixed Church

Councils, which profess to meet these difficulties. We have plenty of what is expressively called constitution-mongering on this subject. But, my lord, I desire rather to see our mixed Synods and their practice grow up gradually (though not so slowly), as our State legislatures and their practice have done. It is a formidable undertaking to begin ab ovo, as some of our Colonial Churches have done. It is a fearful danger, to be compelled, with scarce any preparation, to make a sudden plunge into the working of a new Constitution, as our brethren in Ireland have been obliged to do. It is perilous to lean heavily on a system of Veto; perilous, formally to exclude any part of a Council from any part of its business; perilous, to attempt to shut out by express enactment Lay members from Doctrinal questions, instead of trusting to their modesty and good sense to hold aloof from them, as the Lay members of the House of Lords leave the legal business to the Law-lords.

But let us begin at once to prepare for our mixed Synods. Let us have mixed Conferences, organized by local authorities, in which both Clergy and Laity may be educated as rapidly as possible for Synodal action. Practicable forms of election and representation will develop themselves best by trying them on a small scale, where mistakes are not ruinous. And above all, let our Laity prepare themselves both for Conferences and Synods, by cultivating, if not Theological learning, at least the experimental knowledge of active work in the Church. It is experience alone which will make their counsel useful-and experience is to be attained only by diligent and persevering work. Indeed their success in Church work, promising as it is, must advance. The time has perhaps arrived, when the tone of encouragement and compliment addressed to the zealous Laity must be purged from an element of flattery. It is almost necessary to declare the truism, that every enthusias

tic Layman, who is anxious to preach, is not competent to do it,—that every Layman, with leisure and earnestness, is not necessarily a man of business, not necessarily a dispassionate judge of the relative importance of religious forms, not necessarily superior to the Clergyman in knowledge of physical science, or of human nature.

and

Let Laymen's work go on improving, and the zeal will increase; the Clergy will be improved too, and all will be trained together. Lastly, let our men, who desire to legislate for the Church, be as efficient in its practical departments as their sisters so often are in their special provinces. The daughters of our Church have herein set the example to her sons. Without trenching upon the exclusive Ministerial functions of the Clergy, let our brethren acquire surely and effectively that personal acquaintance with the needs of the Church, which is the sole foundation of practical wisdom in her administration, which alone will enable them to be, in Church Synods and Conferences, not mere safety-valves for the effervescence of undisciplined enthusiasm, but cautious, far-seeing counsellors, and invaluable Church-helpers.

DISCUSSION.

Sir JOHN AWDRY.

I STAND upon the ground that has been already laid down for me by the honoured Prelate who opened this discussion; and a great deal as to the matter of expediency has already been said, much better than I should have said it, by Archdeacon Utterton, so that very little remains for me to say. But first, I would say, and without fear of contradiction, that de facto the determination of the highest questions of doctrine belongs, by the existing constitution of the Church, to Parliament, to whom it appertains to adjudge what is Heresy, "with the assent of the Clergy in their convocation." It is so declared in the 36th section of the 1st Chap. of the first Year of Elizabeth, which determines the reconstitution of our Church on the reformed model after the reign of Queen Mary. That is the law under which the Establishment at least stands to this day. That statute, or a great part of it, was repealed, indeed, by the 16th of Charles I. It was repealed in order to get rid of the High Commission Court, which had to administer the law; but as to the declaration where the power existed, that declaration was the recital of a matter of fact; and the repeal of the enacting part of the law would not falsify that declaration, when it had been once authoritatively expressed by the legislature. Whether, therefore, such ought to be the Constitution of the Church or not, such is the constitu. tion of our Established Church. But there is an evil in it; because it is unadapted to the present day, on account of the insufficiency of the Civil authority for the exercise of power of that kind. The Civil authority is represented by the Crown and Parliament. The Church authority, under the present state of affairs, requires to be in different hands: first, because the Civil authority is by no means exclusively in the hands of Churchmen; and secondly, because the functions are different, and therefore it becomes expedient that individual Churchmen should be admitted to the Councils of the Church properly so called, rather than that the external force of Civil authority should dictate in Ecclesiastical matters. I do not desire to see, however, in the local assemblies of the Church, nor in the purely Ecclesiastical assemblies, more power given to the laity than they have at present; but this I do desire-that the power which exists should be in respect of a definite authority, and thereby be coupled with the responsibility for forming and expressing a judgment in the exercise of such authority. Now the power is great enough, indeed. Is there any Clergyman here who does not know how the laity can thwart him, whether in spiritual or other parochial matters? The power exists; but it is sometimes exercised, and can any day be exercised, by the noisy, self-seeking popularity-hunter: it is very often exercised by the man who has a personal spite against the parson; whilst the quiet, humble man, who exercises his own intellect in Church matters to the extent to which his cultivation enables him to do it, but who nevertheless acts with due deference to that order which is more particularly conversant with these subjects,—that quiet, humble man is kept out of the field of action, even if he is invited, as a mere auxiliary sort of ecclesiastical volunteer, to take a part in Church Conferences. He is not one of the authorized body; and if he has any degree of humility, the chances are that he keeps back. I hope, however, I have a little humility, though at the present time I am coming forward to speak upon the subject. But I may say, that the great difficulty my own neighbourhood is in finding laymen, who must necessarily be good, honest Churchmen in reference to such matters,—willing to come forward and act for themselves. Is there any Clergyman, in any single Deanery represented here, who does not feel that there is a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of competent persons to act? Not because the intellect and activity of the laity of the present day are insufficient; but because, though they may be interested in Church matters, their intellect and activity are devoted exclusively to civil and kindred topics, inasmuch as they have really no authorized and constituted place in Church Councils. I have nothing more to say than this,--that I do not think more power, but more responsibility, is needed for the laity.

What I do ask is, that those who come forward in Church matters should be invested with more responsibility, resulting from a real authority, and consequently that the modest men, who are prepared to exercise authority well, should be invited to act, instead of the whole being left to unauthorized and self-seeking volunteers.

The Rev. JAMES MOORHOUSE, M.A., Vicar of St. James's, Paddington.

MY LORD,-I should not have ventured to come forward to say anything on the subject now before the Congress, if I had not something practical to contribute to the discussion. I was asked, when I came into the room, to come forward simply to tell the members of the Congress what has been done, in my own parish, to furnish that which has been advocated by various speakers this afternoon. Every layman who has spoken has desired to have, not more power, but more responsibility, for the laity. That is exactly my view; and as it was my view when I first went into my parish, I endeavoured to carry it into practice. I asked the laity, as far as I could give them responsibility, to allow me to do so. I asked a number of my friends to come together to consider what kind of laws should be adopted for a Church Association. We framed a set of rules. Then I called a meeting of the congregation. At that meeting it was agreed that the Association should consist of all parishioners living in my own district, or being members of my own congregation, who should write a declaration that they were members of the Church of England. That being the constitution of the Association, we then asked the Association to consider the laws which we had outlined, and to elect a Council to be representative of them; which they did, and elected twenty-five of the principal inhabitants, duly qualified, and also Communicants of the Church, to be members of the Church Council. The Council then met, and the great question at once arose-what were they to do? I thoroughly agree with the sentiment, that the difficulty is to find sufficiently important work to make it worth while for men of practical ability, whose time is most valuable to them, to come and do it. One thing at once suggested itself. It has fallen to the Clergy (chiefly, no doubt, because there was no one else to undertake the duty), to determine for what Societies collections should be made in the course of the year. This seems to be no essential part of a Clergyman's functions; and I saw nothing to forbid me giving to the Council the power of making this choice themselves. Of course, in the next place, I asked them to counsel me as to what additional work could be done in the parish, of a spiritual, educational, and practical character. I also asked them, as I proposed to change the hymn-book, to furnish me with their counsel on that matter. I told them, before they gave me their counsel upon any subject, that I should always defer to it. I am the president ex officio of the Council; and thus I preside at all its deliberations, and can furnish its members with any reasons for the course I think it right to adopt. I said therefore, “I shall always implicitly follow the advice of the Council, unless you ask me to do anything to which I conscientiously object." Thus they were made to feel a real responsibility for all their acts; and as a consequence I have found that the business brought before them has invariably secured their utmost attention and interest.

Now let me say a word or two as to the results of this movement. The members of the Council asked me at once to have two additional services-one for Sunday scholars on the Sunday, aud another early in the morning, to which persons could come who were otherwise prevented from attending services at any other period of the day. They further gave emphasis to their advice, by adding-" If you will act upon our recommendation, we will give you another Curate to do the work." Thus they gave me at once a substantial token of the fact, that they felt the responsibility involved in the advice they tendered: the parish got the additional services, and the further advantage of the labours of an earnest and useful Curate.