sultation in general to practical work in detail. And here I rejoice to know that everywhere the conviction is growing that "authorized and systematic Lay-agency, male and female," is needed to a far greater extent than we have it at present. And I think it may be said, in the first place, that without any change in our Church system, the parochial Clergy might do more in this direction than it has been their custom to do hitherto. How few, for instance call their communicants around them for the purpose of asking what each one of them will do in parish work! Commonly we are content to get the communicants and to see that they lead orderly lives. But this, as I have said, is to allow each of them to be in a false position. Much more might be done than has hitherto been done in pressing this point upon the people. Then, again, associations of Church helpers, male and female, might be formed in parishes far more generally than at present, to work out the two principles of common responsibility and division of labour. One parish too might learn from another. There is much experience stored up in such places as Yarmouth, Kidderminster, Doncaster, Leeds, which might be made useful elsewhere. Thus doubtless parochial work would be made systematic. Still it would not, according to my notion, come up to what is meant by the word "authorized." It would still depend upon circumstances, and would be liable to collapse on a change of incumbency.

In order to realise what is meant by "authorized," I think we want the Bishop's mark upon selected parochial Lay-agents, both male and female. This would create a continuous tradition; this would give the element of permanence, and so to speak, would incorporate Lay-agency in our Church-system. As regards Women, I would have them carefully selected and trained, medically and otherwise, during a sufficient probationary period-presented by the Clergy to the Bishop for his approval-and then sent, with his sanction, to work in Parishes, or Institutions, as the business of their lives, but without life vows. The two things are very different. So I dismiss that part of the subject. With regard to Men, the mode of procedure which I recommend is not very different, except that these would not be professionally set apart for religious work. The very essence of the Lay-agency of Men here contemplated is that they remain in their business and professions. I say nothing of Scripture Readers; not because I am unconscious of the good service they have done. But they are paid agents of one particular grade. Nor do I say anything of a development of the order of Deacons. I doubt very much the possibility of having two sets of Deacons: one, as is the case now, in the probationary year for the Priesthood, the other, on the understanding of always remaining Deacons unless indeed the latter were to continue to be engaged in some business or profession. Deacons, however, are not Laymen; and our present subject is Lay-agency. My earnest wish is to see in our parishes carefully selected and well educated Laymen working parochially under the Clergy, with the Bishop's

formal sanction. I believe that on these conditions they would willingly undertake responsibilities from which they would otherwise shrink, and that work might be wisely committed to them, which otherwise, if I may say so without disrespect, could hardly be safe in their hands, and that thus a machinery would be provided, which would vastly extend and strengthen the operations of the Church.

A word may be said now, first upon the title of such officers, and then upon their duties.

Perhaps the word "Reader" might be sufficient, which has been sanctioned and accepted by some of the English Bishops: but I confess I do not like it; partly because it is in danger of being confused with "Scripture Reader," partly because the mere reading of the Bible is by no means the most important part of such work as is required. Possibly more terms than one might be adopted, to correspond with different branches of work. The phrase "Subdeacon" is not very satisfactory, and does not correctly describe the office. I can think of nothing better than "Lay-Deacon." It may be an anomalous compound; but it correctly designates both the condition of those who do the work and the nature of the work which they do.

As to the work in general undertaken by such officers, a catalogue of many things might easily be made, to which no one could demur. Just as the Female Lay-agent would be occupied with questions of health, with attention to neglected children, with helping to prepare girls for Confirmation, with Sunday Classes of young women: so Men would find parallel lines of occupation in Evening Schools, in pioneer work and Missionary work of various kinds-all such work growing, as it always does, in proportion as it is honestly attempted.

Here we touch the point, where the greatest differences of opinion are perhaps likely to arise. What we would say about preaching and the conducting of services? Where are we to draw the line between the Clergyman and the Layman in these respects? I confess I should find it difficult to draw a theoretical line. But I would draw a practical line at the Church Porch. I think it most important that the ordained Clergyman should retain in his own. hands not only the general parochial superintendence, but all ministrations within the consecrated building, except as regards the Choir and the reading of the Lessons. So far I venture to differ from Archdeacon Hale, who some years ago proposed an order of Lay-ministers, with the conducting of certain services in the Church as one of their duties. This is one of the cases, I think, to which the Greek proverb is applicable, that "the half is greater than the whole." As to services in School Rooms or Mission Houses, these are among the opportunities in which Lay Church-officers might be most eminently useful. In such cases it is sometimes insisted that the Lay-minister ought always to read a printed sermon, from an approved book. I venture entirely to differ from this view, and

to think that, if a Layman has the gift of utterance and of exposition, he ought freely to exercise it. Indeed I am bold enough, perhaps rash enough, to go much further. It seems to me that it would be a very good thing if some of our Clergy did not preach at all, and if some of our Laity were to preach a great deal,-always, however, in co-operation with the Parish Clergyman, and with the safeguard of the Bishop's sanction, separately given to each such person and revocable at any time.

Two objections to this view occur to me as natural, and at first sight serious. It is proper that I should state them and answer them as well as I can.

a very

bad

It might be said that to put an official mark upon work of this kind might hinder, and take the place of, the voluntary work which is now done so well and so freely, and that it would be substitute for it. My answer is, that I believe it would have precisely the contrary effect; that it would stimulate a great deal of effort which is now dormant, and organize and consolidate a great deal which is now desultory. I have had some opportunity of inquiring into the matter on its feminine side. I have seen on the Continent the Parish Deaconess-an educated woman, working, not for pay, but for the love of Christ, with her mission room stored with simple medicines and whatever else may be needful for adding to the comfort of the suffering poor-forming a link between the Pastor and the Physician-eliciting large bounty, because the givers know that it will be properly applied-and surrounding herself by a committee of ladies, who work willingly, as feeling that every little fragment of time that they can spare from their home duties has a real value, because it is combined with a system of charitable exertion that goes on continuously. And I could mention a similar instance nearer home, in the case of two ladies whom Dublin has contributed to Liverpool, where this system would have taken deeper root, and would have been strengthened by larger help, if good people would give a little more time to honest inquiry and open their hearts a little more widely to generous sympathy. I may just mention one illustration of the manner in which official female work does not weaken voluntary work, but, in fact, reinforces it. Our District Visitors must withdraw in the case of virulent fever; and thus the help is lost when the need is the sorest. And to answer this by saying that now and then a District Visitor is found who does not withdraw under such circumstances, is to trifle with a serious subject. For what we want is an agency commensurate with our needs. And what has just been said of Women is clearly, under changed circumstances, applicable to Men. A few educated men, well chosen, officially charged with definite duties, and scattered through the various parishes of the country, would bring a strong influence to bear on many inferior agents, would excite much that is now languid, and give coherence to much that is irregular. And after all, this objection, if pushed to its extreme point, would lead to an absurdity. We, the Clergy, are official workers.

Will any one say that, if our office were abolished, the volunteer work would be more copious and systematic?

The other objection is, that we are so much divided into religious parties, that the establishment of a general system of this kind would be impossible. Different Parishes, it might be said, and even different Dioceses, might take different complexions in this matter of lay-agency, whether of men or women; and what is to happen, it might be asked, when one Vicar or one Bishop succeeds another of different sentiments? Certainly the existence of these divisions cannot possibly be denied. In fact, nothing can be more miserable than the Party Spirit which poisons our atmosphere. But my reply to the objection is, that if Laymen had been associated with us, throughout our Church frame-work-in labour and in consultation-we should have had far less of this party spirit than we have. This friendly friction would have a tendency to rub off some of our clerical angles. We must admit that in clerical life there is some danger of angularity. Once or twice a week, in the pulpit, we have everything our own way. If a Clergyman is successful and popular, a little contradiction is the best possible discipline for him. But how seldom does he get it? I am inclined to lay great stress on the value of mixed meetings, merely as opportunities for forming acquaintance. We all belong to the same Church,—and we ought at least to know one another. In proportion as we do know one another, we often find out that we differ less than we thought. In proportion, too, as we act together, we gradually learn to agree more and more. Again, he Lay view of Ecclesiastical subjects is an important correlative of the Clerical view; and each is likely to be modified by being placed side by side with the other.

Two remarks of a practical kind will complete what I have to say, and will fill up the measure of my time.

The first is this, that whatever arrangements we may make for accomplishing the union of Lay-men and Lay-women with the Clergy in Church Ministries, we cannot be too careful in all outward matters,-in costume, for instance, or phraseology,-to avoid all imitations of that which is distasteful to the majority of our fellowcountrymen, and which, at the present crisis, is likely to excite suspicion. There is no doubt, for example, that the principle of Association is one of great importance in this matter, and much stress will be laid by some on Sisterhoods and Brotherhoods. As regards the former, I would suggest that the Sisterhood element should be viewed simply as a means to an end, just as association in a Training College is made subservient to the planting out of Schoolmistresses in various parishes. As regards the latter, in the constitution of any thing like Guilds much must depend on the form and outward manner of them. In the formation of all closely associated bodies there is great risk of bottling up Party Spirit in its most concentrated and dangerous form. Therefore we must be careful.

The other remark is this, that in this matter, as perhaps in some others, we are likely to learn our best lessons from the experience of the Colonial Churches and our sister Church in the United States. They have some time ago been called upon to face some of the difficulties which we are beginning to feel, and they are already in advance of us in the solution of some important problems. The Dioceses of New Zealand and Lichfield have, in the course of God's Providence, been brought together in so remarkable a manner that on that point I will say no more. I may mention the Diocese of Melbourne as one in which the cooperation of Clergy and Laity has been accomplished with very excellent results. But I believe we should especially derive benefit from a close study and a published account of the operations of the American Church, both in its General Convention and its Diocesan Conventions. I hold here in my hand a bundle of pamphlets, all of which belong to the one Diocese of Pennsylvania. I will simply read the titles of three of them: Women's Mission in the Christian Church; The Church's Mission to Working Men; The Vocation and Ministry of Church Members. And there is this difference between these three pamphlets and any that might be written by ourselves and published in Waterloo Place or in Grafton Street. These are all "Reports" carefully drawn up and presented to the Diocesan Convention. It is too late for any of us this year to attend the Triennial Conventions; but I believe great benefit would result from sending some competent men in 1871 to study the ecclesiastical facts of America on the spot, and to give us the result on their return.

Meantime it is our duty to keep this subject of Lay agency well under discussion. I am very glad that I am now to be succeeded by a Layman; and if he and I do not in all respects agree, so much the better for the purposes of debate.

T. GAMBIER PARRY, Esq. then read the following Paper :Why does the Church need organized agency of the Laity? What are the strongest agencies she can organize? I propose to answer these questions shortly as the time allowed to me will permit-not by any means in respect of the Church of Ireland particularly, but of the Church generally at home and abroad. The Church's great enemy seems to have drawn up his whole army in array for a last and desperate attack. The Church and the world must always be antagonistic, because the standard of God's faith is one thing, and the convenience of the world's respectability

is another.

The conceit of ignorance and the conceit of philosophy have equally filled the world with heresies and doubts. Human power and human reason have raised their standard of defiance. The glorification of human genius is the idea, and progress is the pas sion of the day. The Church may well bestir herself. She has