The Rev. ROBERT GODOLPHIN PETER, M.A., Rector of Cavendish. THE subject before this Conference is-Shall the laity be represented in the Synods and Conferences of the Church of England? I hope you will bear with me, for I shall speak honestly and plainly. I take my stand upon the words of the great authority—the great Head of the Church, who has all jurisdiction in heaven and in earth. When He rose from the dead, and appeared to His people, we are told that He came to the eleven, and not only to the eleven, but to those also who were with them. It seems to me, therefore, that from the very beginning our Lord has given authority in His Church that the laity should have full power to speak and to act in it with the Clergy. History informs us how His words were carried into effect in the workings of the Church; and history, alas! informs us how they were deviated from. Hence I believe the correct way is always to go back to principles-to take hold of some single principle, and to cling to it. I need not say more: for both by Archdeacon Utterton and Archdeacon Churton we have had it shown from history that the Laity have had their true place in Church Synods and Assemblies from the very beginning. Now I am going to speak in regard to a matter which has not hitherto been touched upon, and I hope you will bear with me in doing so. My words will be in respect to the house of the Convocation of the Clergy. I wish my self-though I may be mistaken-that the Convocation of the Clergy should be changed into the Convocation of the Church of England. I cannot see why it should be otherwise. Look, I beg you, to the constitution of the Houses of Convocation. I will take the Lower House, because I think that there the defect of principle shows itself in its completeness. How is that House made up? Does it even fairly represent the Clergy? It does not. Of what members is that House composed? Principally of nominees, directly or indirectly, of Government. And does that House command greatly the respect or excite the interest of the country, or does it command the confidence of the Church of England? I think not. With regard to the individual members of that House of Convocation I have not a word to say. They are faithful and intelligent men; and you cannot get better. But still they do not fairly represent the Church of England; and that is my great objection to the House as it is now constituted. Unless it is changed from the Convocation of the Clergy, into the Convocation of the Church of England, we cannot have very great confidence, or feel very great interest, in the debates of that assembly. Now, what would I have? I would have the Lower House of Convocation entirely elected. I would have half Clergy and half Laity. That is one of the great things to be done. It might be a danger-let us not be afraid of dangers. It might be a difficultyperseverance will overcome it. Further and here I tread upon delicate ground-out of that assembly, now made, by election, the assembly of the Church of England, I would elect an equal number of Laity and Clergy to enter the Upper House-the House of Bishops. I yield to no man in my respect for our Bishops. They are apostles, and hold their commission directly from our Lord. Our Bishops are equal in authority to the first apostles. But I do not read that our Lord conferred authority upon the apostles alone. It was to the eleven and those with them. I would pay great deference to my Bishop; but there must at the same time be perfect freedom for the Laity and inferior Clergy to express their opinions. The evil to which I have referred, it strikes me, extends from the House of Convocation of Clergy downwards into our Diocesan Conferences.

Now, I have said that in the House of Convocation something like three-fourths of its members are nominees, directly or indirectly, of the State. That is so very paternal, and I confess I do not like paternal Government-I am averse to it. I think if the Government is too paternal you do not foster the mental strength and intelligence of manhood; and it is of the utmost importance, in these days of controversy and contention, that you should make a strong-minded man as well as a man who will concede somewhat to others. In our Diocesan Conferences we have State Nominees in an undue number. Why should not the members of Conference be elected also, and represent the Laity and Clergy in equal numbers? Of course it might be permitted that the Bishop should

have any whom he specially desires to be with him in order to assist him; and it would be well if our Bishops had each a standing Council. Lastly, go down to our Archidiaconal meetings; there we get a charge and no conference-a charge repeated till we know it by heart-but little opportunity of speech for Laity or Clergy. I have read that the Archbishop of York proposes to deliver his charge in one place only, and to hold conferences in different parts of his Diocese. I think that Archdeacons would greatly improve. their visitations if they did the same. Now, if we, by God's blessing, can get this great change in the House of Convocation, it would, I believe, be of inestimable value; and why should we not get it through Parliament under such a Premier as we now have, who seems willing to do justice to our Church as Catholic,—and I hold that our Church is Catholic and Apostolic? Why should not this change come to pass? And if it did, then I venture to predict that the House of Convocation-then the Assembly of the Church of England-would excite the interest and would command the confidence of our whole Church. I believe that the more we strive to realize the word of our Divine Founder, so He will bless our consultations; and in that case we shall collectively, as well as indivi dually, manifest ourselves with increased power to the world as members of the true vine, and bear much fruit, as He Himself has said, to the honour of our one Father above.

J. CARPENTER GARNIER, Esq., Rookesbury Park.

you

My Lord,-It is not my intention to occupy very long the attention of this Congress. I merely wish to offer a few remarks of a practical character. The question as to the constitution of the Councils has been well and ably gone into by former speakers; and I think it may be said that at any rate it has not been proved that the Laity were not represented in the Councils alluded to. It seems to me that it would be to the advantage of the Church of England, that in her Synods the whole Church should be represented. That is not the case now; for as long as the Laity are not represented, the whole Church is not represented. It has so happened that in the course of a visit to the United States of America, I had the opportunity, to a certain extent, of looking into the working the Episcopal Church there; and from what I saw, I came to the conclusion that the Episcopal Church in the United States is most satisfactorily organized, and that it is doing a great work. There, as you are doubtless well aware, the Laity are represented in their Synods. They have one house consisting of the Bishops. In the other house the Clergy are represented, and the Laity also, and they vote by orders. Before this Synod was established, all the same objections were raised which are made now with regard to the representation of the Laity in our own Church; and I think will see, if you look into the matter, that these objections have proved for the most part to be fallacious, and that in fact the Laity and Clergy have worked together in a most satisfactory manner. There is no doubt, that, as the representative body of the Laity, the House of Commons is not now a satisfactory representation of it; and if we had a real representation of the whole Church-if we had the Laity and the Clergy acting together in both Provinces combined into one Convocation, and the Laity properly represented, I believe the deliberations of such an assembly would have very great weight with the Parliament of this country; and therefore, I think, that such an arrangement would be of the greatest advantage to the Church of England. It is not my intention or wish to say anything but what is most respectful. I wish in all ways to show my esteem for the Clergy; but still I think a certain admixture of the Laity with them would be of advantage to the Clergy, and that the Clergy themselves, would, as a body, welcome their assistance. I must say, that I think, upon reviewing all the speeches that have been made, that the majority of the evidence is in favour of the representation of the Laity in Synods. Therefore I hope that something will be done in this respect; and I am sure that if the Laity are properly represented, they will in time be, so to speak, educated to

J. Carpenter Garnier, Esq. Rev. Dr. Harrison.

161

take a proper part in the proceedings of the Synod, and the representation of the Laity will add to the strength, the efficiency, and the usefulness of the Church of England.

The Rev. JOHN HARRISON, D.D., Vicar of Askern.

THE few words I have to say, I wish specially to address to my brethren the Laity. The difficulty in regard to yourselves is your position in the Church of England. You are recognised as members of the Church of England, but what status do you occupy? Are you masters or are you servants? Now, it so happens that if the same question were applied to other Reformed Communions, we should find that in many cases the Laity are really the masters, and that those who officiate as ministers are ministers and servants. Our Church retains so much of what is ancient, that modern Churches are utterly dissimilar to it. It behoves us, therefore, to go back to early days; and we have been referred to those early periods, as for instance, to the time of St. Cyprian. Now, beyond all question, as a matter of simple certainty, the Laity who formed the Church, with her ministers after the Apostles, possessed supreme power; and hence, according to the strict argumentation of St. Augustine, in reply to the schismatical Donatists, who assumed more authority than they ought to have done, we find him declaring that the Donatist Bishops were but servants of the Church-that the Church preached-that the Church administered the Sacraments-and that the Church exercised discipline through the ministry, and that what was done on their part was done by the authority of the Church. Now, what might possibly come across this particular condition, is Priestly Power, which is supposed to have been derived from the Apostles; and we have already been referred to two texts (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; John xx. 21-23) more especially, as the ground upon which a considerable power was presumably transmitted to those who were supposed to be the successors of the Apostles. To come to these two texts, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." This, the first, was addressed, according to the intrepretation of the early fathers, not exclusively to one class of persons, but was interpreted and understood to apply to all Christians; and I believe, there is not a single instance on record in which this text is ever applied exclusively to the priestly office; and if we look carefully into antiquity, or study those who speak impartially as to it, we shall find that the authority was vested in the Church as a whole.

The learned Tostatus, Bishop of Avila, a Roman Catholic author, in his voluminous commentary, dwelling upon this point, states, "The Church, however, would not have had it (jurisdiction), unless it had been delivered to her from the beginning; for the jurisdiction of the keys is not such as are the jurisdictions which communities appoint for themselves by laws; for since this jurisdiction is in the remission of sins, and binding, men cannot frame it for themselves; but it is only from God, since He Himself remits sins. But, in the Church there is now this jurisdiction, and in this manner. When any one is elected for a prelate, jurisdiction, is conferred upon him by election, for the Church had that jurisdiction, and could not exercise it, because she was not one person; therefore she conferred it on one man; and then, when the Chief Pontiff is elected by the Cardinals, he is elected by the whole Church, since they in the name of the whole Church elect" etc.-(On Num. xv. 33, 34; Quæs. 48, tom. iv., pt. i., p. 387.)

Then he goes on to show that the Cardinals represented the Lay element in the Church. I might refer you to extracts from St. Augustine and St. Cyprian; but as we have two different modern translations of St. Cyprian's Epistles, I would request my Lay friends and the Clergy especially, to read those epistles for themselves, bearing in mind that he was a Bishop of one Church out of 700 that existed in North Africa alone. He would not have ordained any one even as a Scripture Reader, nor as a Deacon, nor to

M

any other Office of the Church without the consent of the Laity; and he laid it down as & fundamental principle, that the consent of the Laity was absolutely essential to the election of a Bishop-a principle which we find running through all antiquity.

The Rev. J. B. SWEET, Vicar of Scalby.

My apology, as your lordship is well aware, for obtruding myself a second time to-day before this assembly is, that I am virtually charged with a message to it from the Convocation of this Province. For, having been called upon by that body to raise funds for a memorial to the greatest modern promoter of Synods and Lay co-operation, I feel that to allow the present opportunity and the present session of this Congress to pass by unoccupied, would be a censurable neglect of my trust. There are probably few persons interested in the present subject-Lay Representation in Church Synods and Conferences-whose hearts will not glow with a grateful recollection at the mention of the name, the self-devotion, the single-mindedness, the lengthened and successful labours of Henry Hoare. Allow me, therefore, to urge upon your sympathy and practical attention the fact that there is laid upon several tables, in rooms thrown open to this Congress, a large sheet of paper prepared for the reception of subscribers' names, headed, "The Henry Hoare Memorial at Keble College;" and to entreat you thereon to record your appreciation of the character and achievements of the most distinguished recent advocate of Synods and Lay co-operation. By the same act you will be strengthening and adorning the foundation of Keble College. Had Henry Hoare lived to be present at the meetings of this Congress, and especially at that of last evening, on Agencies for the kindling and revival of Spiritual Life, I may safely say that, by their tone and tenor, he would have been filled with joy and hope. But, my lord, I will venture to add, that at several of the statements here made he would have manifested displeasure and surprise. At the confusion of that Ordination which planted elders in every city with that anointing by the Holy Spirit which sanctifies and illumines all true believers-and at that similar confusion of ideas which identified the private priesthood and co-ordinate royalty of the members of Christ's body with the public office of ministering God's Word and Sacraments, committed to the ambassadors of Christ, he would have certainly shaken his head. At that strange assertion which we have just heard-that Parliament was made by Elizabeth a co-ordinate authority with Convocation for defining the Faith of the Church of England-he would assuredly have expressed a similar dissent; and would have suggested that the office of the Civil power was simply to give legal force and constitutional sanction to the definitions or determinations of the Spiritualty. And his line in this morning's debate (with all his jealousy for the Lay position, and for such rights as really pertain to it) would have been to deprecate the reduction of a Divine Kingdom to the condition of a Republic, and the delegation of the duties and responsibilities of the Officers of Christ's army to the army itself. And, my lord, I will take leave to add, that, in order to accelerate the convening of Diocesan Synods proper, side by side with Conferences of Clergy and Laity, he would have suggested to the Bishops a return to that plan which prevailed far more extensively amongst us of old than most men are aware-the nomination of Rural Deans by the Clergy, for the Diocesan's approval; whereby those officers would become real representatives of the totus Clerus, and the difficulty, which now stops the way, of finding a satisfactory Clerical representation in an anomalous Diocese, would be happily removed.

The Rev. WILLIAM POUND, Appuldurcombe.

MY LORD,-I did not expect to have been called upon to add to the many remarks which have been made upon this subject; but I think there are one or two that still may be made, especially with reference to those Synods proper which belong to the constitution of the Church, as set forth by the Bishop of Salisbury; for the only constitution in which we can work with effect, is that which the Holy Spirit gave to the Church at the first; and if we depart from that Divine constitution, I do not conceive that we can with any reason expect to have the presence of the Holy Ghost with us. If we go merely upon the ground of human expediency, and if we form after our own notions representative assemblies-whether they be Conferences or Convocations--which seem to us to suit best the century in which we live, I think we must necessarily fall after a time into collision and disagreement amongst ourselves; because, wherever there is a representative assembly, there is necessarily a representation of something which exists. Now, in the Colonial Church, and in the American Church, there is a Lay representation in the Synod; but what does it represent? It represents the property possessed by the Church; and this Lay representation commences before there is a ministry of the Church at all. If you look into the laws of the American Church, you will find that if certain persons desire tɔ have a church built in any particular district, the site being duly acquired or possessed, the Lay representatives may present themselves in Synod, and represent that property years before the church is built or the ministry is placed there; so that the example of Colonial or American Synods cannot be applied at all to the ancient catholic constitution of the English Church. The principle of representation, I say, involves something which should be represented. Now, what can now be represented in the English Church but differences of opinion? And therefore we should have the same collision in the election of the Laity to represent the Church in our Synods that we have in the House of Commons; and whenever the representation in the Church of the Laity takes place, there will be much commotion and a great deal of temporizing with the opinions of people throughout the country. Therefore, I warn the meeting against this evil day and its consequences. There are the regularly constituted Synods of both Clergy and Laity combined, to which the Clergyman would necessarily take some Layman with him, to assist him in representing his Parochial Communion; and that is how the Church must do her Divine work. A particular man may be enlightened-perhaps inspired-upon a given subject and therefore fit to be sent to the Synod; but it is utter folly to elect any one man in a parish to represent it upon every question. He may be a good, a holy, and an influential man, but not necessarily competent to deal with all the matters which the Holy Spirit may from time to time moot in the household of the faithful. I would therefore press upon this assembly, and upon the Church, the urgent necessity there now is that her Synods be held; and, my lord, with permission, I would urge upon you and the Bishop, that you give countenance to none but "SYNODS PROPER."

The Rev. R. SEYMOUR, M.A., Rector of Kinwarton.

As an old member of our Church Synods I desire to say a few words upon what I believe to be the harmful defectiveness of our present system in regard to Lay co-operation. Convocation-of which I have long had the honour to be a member-is, I venture to say, the one Constitutional means by which the Church of England may express her mind in regard to matters of faith and discipline, and the worship of her members. In saying this, I do not forget that of which Sir John Awdry reminded us, that Convocation can make no change in these things without the sanction of Parliament and the authority of the Crown. Convocation is the guardian of the Church's faith, and the adviser of the Crown in this matter; and yet what is the position which Convocation has in the mind of