THURSDAY MORNING, 1st OCTOBER.

HIS GRACE THE PRESIDENT TOOK THE CHAIR AT 2 O'CLOCK, P.M. AUTHORIZED AND SYSTEMATIC LAY AGENCY, MALE AND FEMALE.

The Very Rev. JOHN S. HOWSON, D.D. (Dean of Chester), read the following paper :

The Church Congress, though meeting in successive years at different places, may now be viewed as a continuous institution. This would be true, even if it were to meet, as some think desirable, at longer intervals. It is quite natural for any speaker or writer to resume a subject where it was left off in a previous year, especially as he has had the advantage of opportunities of experience and observation subsequently afforded. I shall, therefore, make no apology for beginning my paper with some words which were written for the York Congress, though not read there for want of time.

It appears to me that we are arrived at a period in the history of the Church of England in which Lay help must play a greater part than it used to play; or at least when less of the work than heretofore will be done by strictly Clerical hands. Some redistribution of the work is suggested by the circumstances of the times. Education is now much more widely diffused than it used to be. So is religious knowledge. And the vast activity and success of our industrial and mercantile life must, it seems to me, draw off many who would otherwise become Clergymen while among those who are engaged in professions and in business there is a great amount of latent religious feeling, and more than a probability of obtaining willing labourers, if only the paths of labour were marked out and sanctioned. Much, too, of the secular work now done by Clergymen could be better done by Laymen. Some part of the religious work can be done by the latter as efficiently as by the former. I cannot help thinking that we have reached the period of Lay help, and especially Woman's help, in the Church and in this may be found one hopeful answer to the present anxious cry for more Clergy. Without attempting to define precisely what is Lay work, and what is Clerical work, I would say this, that we want the services of men, on the one hand, who are less exactly Clerical, and of women, on the other hand, who are more nearly Clerical. At present the male worker, even if he is a Deacon, is entirely set apart into a professional order; while the female worker, however useful she may be, is only a volunteer, without any ecclesiastical sanction at all. If we could bring the former class one step onward, so as to include it within the cus

tomary life of Laymen, and bring the other class one step in the other direction towards the verge of the Clerical office, then, I believe, we should begin to have something like what the Primitive Church had, and what is greatly wanted again in our day,

This is the substance of the conclusion of a paper written, two years ago, on Female Ministrations in the Church. Now, in pursuing the general subject again, it is incumbent on us thankfully to acknowledge that there always has been Lay Agency in the Modern Church of England. We all know what gratitude is due to our Sunday School teachers, both male and female. In populous parishes the services of District Visitors are invaluable. In country villages, in our early days, those who played various instruments in the singing gallery were Lay agents. The Lay Clerk in our Cathedrals represents the same idea in a more dignified and systematic form. In Lincoln Cathedral even the Litany is sung by Laymen. Nor must we omit to refer to the service done by the Laity as Secretaries to our Parish Schools-as Treasurers to Funds for Church Building-in superintending Charitable Institutions and still further in visiting the sick and instructing the ignorant. Still all this agency is loose and irregular. It depends on circumstances. It depends on the Clergyman for the time. It is, so to speak, outside the system. So far as I can see, the only official lay-work in the Church is represented by our Churchwardens on the one hand and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the other. Some seem to think that the Lay side of active Church life is adequately provided for in this way, and that, if we take into account further the action of Parliament and the Royal Supremacy, we have nothing more to wish for. But let us look into the matter more closely.

What is the Christian Church? We might answer the question, from our present point of view, very correctly, by employing a familiar modern phrase, and by saying that the Church is a Great Co-operative Society. All Christians are presumed to be living members of a living body. Every baptised person, who does not give of his service, according to his ability, is in a false position. This assertion is obviously correct, from the very nature of the case; and it is in harmony with the picture of the earliest Church, as presented to us in the New Testament. While we find there the proofs of the existence of a stated Ministry and the record of systematic Ordinations-and I hope nothing said in this Congress will lead to any laxity of view on this point-still it is most evident that the habit of active service was diffused through the whole body. We read, not simply of the orderly arrangement of offices, but of the exercise of very various gifts. There is no proof that Aquila, for instance, or Apollos, was ordained. I need hardly say that this is not a true description of the Modern Church of England. We have trained our people to think that we, the Clergy, are to do all the religious work, and that they, the Laity, are simply the recipi

ents of the spiritual benefits we are commissioned to convey to them.

And now let us look at some of the Communities which surround us, and see how they differ from us in this respect. I will take two, the Presbyterians and the Methodists. With the former the Lay Elder has a co-ordinate place with the Preaching Elder. He is by his office a member of the Kirk Session: he has an equal voice in the general religious questions which arise in the parish: he is responsible for the superintendence of a district or a section of the congregation; and, though he does not administer Sacraments, or officiate on the Lord's Day, he takes part in minor religious services. And the same principle is carried upwards from the Parish to the Presbyteries and the General Assemblies, where Laymen sit and vote on equal terms with their Ministers, and take their part freely in the discussion of all religious questions. All this must imply a training of Laymen, and a feeling of interest widely diffused, in regard to religious matters. It is easy for us to say that it produces a hard and argumentative habit of mind. This may be so. But I am not proposing any absolute imitation on our part. I am only drawing a contrast between their system and our own in one particular; and the contrast is not in our favour. The Methodist constitution is extremely different from that which we commonly understand by the Presbyterian. The Wesleyan Conference is strictly a body of Ministers. But on the other hand a large part of the financial business of the Connexion is done by Laymen: and if we turn to examine what is done by Class Leaders-many of whom are women-in close and continuous efforts for the religious good of others, and if we consider what a large amount of exertion is undertaken by the Local Preachers, we shall not be surprised at the strength and coherence of the Wesleyan Body. Let not any one suppose that I am pronouncing a panegyric on Methodism. But neither do I think we are called on here to pass any censure on it. What I urge is that we have in it an example of Lay Work in detail, as in the other case we see the presence of Laymen in Church Councils. As regards the Congregationalists, I dare say many in this meeting have read in one of the London daily papers a series of letters concerning Deacons. I think good might result if those letters were published in a collected form. Even they supply an illustration of systematic Lay agency. In fact, at whatever religious community we look, we seem to see in it a greater amount of united action than among ourselves. It may truly be said that many of the Dissenters realise the idea of the Church as a Co-operative Society far better than we do.

We need

No doubt it is easy to assign some reasons for this. not be afraid to say that certain things were left incomplete at the Reformation. Especially is this true as regards the absence of any authorized place for women in our system of Church-work. Again, the Acts of Uniformity have had a stiffening effect. Our

State connection-great as is the benefit of combining Church and State has benumbed our energies, by causing us to think much of our prestige. Our Endowments-not that we wish to lose themhave had a demoralizing effect, in causing our people to forget the duty of exertion. They have not perceived that if the voluntary principle in past times has secured to us large resources now, it is their part to work in a similar manner for future times. And further, it must be admitted that there has been a great deal of Clerical sensitiveness in this matter. We have taught our people a lesson of passive acquiescence: and they have learnt the lesson only too well.

This is a very serious state of things, serious at all times and particularly serious now. The loss of a large amount of useful work is no light matter. The Clergy are sadly over-burdened; and the complexity of our modern civilization points more and more to the division of labour in everything. Again it seems rather hard that the Clergyman should be called to exercise all manner of gifts, when he certainly cannot possess them all, and that the Layman should be precluded from exercising a gift, which perhaps he has in great perfection. Let it be remembered, too, how much we need the building of a bridge, and a convenient bridge, between the Clergy and the Laity; and, further, how great a temptation there is to our Laymen, through having no recognised status with us, to go where they will obtain such a status. We lose many of our best people in this way. Those who long for opportunities of usefulness will find them elsewhere, if we do not supply them. And especially I would lay stress on the faint idea which we have of Church life, through the want of united action. If we exacted more, we should have more. Self-sacrifice always produces attachment to that for which we sacrifice ourselves. We are enthusiastic on behalf of that for which we toil. All this habit of mind we lose in our Lay People, by being almost exclusively a Clerical Church. If the Church of England were disestablished to-morrow, it would be thrown out into the country, as regards organization, in the form of a Clerical Skeleton. I take it as a matter of course that its main organic framework ought to consist of an authorized and regularly-ordained Clergy; but this is not enough, without the sinews and muscles of the Laity, to constitute a living and working body.

This may suffice as a statement of the evils under which we are suffering in this respect. It is now time that we should consider the remedy. To provide a complete remedy, I think an entire renovation is required throughout the whole framework of the Church, from our highest Church Courts and Councils down to the smallest parochial details. For the accomplishment of all this wish there is need of obtaining some new permission and power from the State; but very much lies within the ability of the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity.

As regards Convocation, I am very far from under-rating its

value as an opportunity for debating subjects of high importance, as an instrument for exerting a strong influence on public opinion, and as preparing the way for the settlement of many questions which must be dealt with before long. But Convocation is no true representation of the Church. It is broken up into two sections, which might be discordant with one another, at Canterbury and at York: it does not adequately represent even the Clergy; and it contains no Laymen at all. As regards the Constitution of Church Courts, I will only say this, that while I conceive our present Courts are unsatisfactory, I can see no reason why Laymen should be precluded from dealing even with doctrine. In our popular view of this subject I believe that we are more stiff than even the Roman Catholics themselves. In some recent Theological Conferences at Munich I understand that Laymen were conspicuous, and even at one of the Conferences at Malines, Montalembert, if I remember rightly, was one of the speakers. And this leads us to say, that even without legislation, much is within our own power, in this matter of Lay-consultation on religious subjects.

The Diocesan Conference and the Ruridecanal meeting are not likely to be interfered with by the State, whatever form they may take; and when Laymen are invited into conference in this way, it is obvious that they are placed in a semi-official position, while yet there is nothing imprudent in such a step. So far as experiments of this kind have been made, the best results seem likely to follow. I may take as an instance the diocese of Ely, where Diocesan Conferences of Clergy have been followed by Diocesan Conferences of Clergy and Laity combined, and these are now to be followed by similar Conferences in the several Archdeaconries. Consultations of the same kind, within the smaller area of Rural Deaneries, are taking place from time to time in various parts of the country. Thus the habit of co-operation, we may hope, will be gradually formed, and the way safely prepared for more organic changes in the future. I will only add this, that I think the Laity ought to be met on such occasions with perfect confidence and fearlessness. It is very good for us the Clergy thus to be brought face to face with them and to learn from them many things which we are not in the habit of learning for ourselves. And it is very good for the Laity to be taught that they are not merely the recipients of the spiritual good which we are supposed to do to them, but are constituent parts of the Church and fellow workers with us, and that they ought to take some trouble in this matter, and to do it under a sense of responsibility. As to any fear lest the Laity should be disposed to tread either upon our heels or upon our toes, this, I am persuaded, may be dismissed as an idle dream. It must be remembered that the Laymen who are likely to be present on such occasions, however chosen or elected, will be the best, the most serious, the most thoughtfnl, and the most ready to give us help.

But now I pass on to the Parish, and turn from the subject of con

N