case that a bishop's monition is not godly is a serious matter; and the presumption in every case will certainly be in favour of compliance.

So much it seemed desirable to say on a point which is often overlooked, in order to establish the fact that the parochial system was not intended to create a number of little despotisms subject to no superior authority. Of course, where great responsibility is entrusted, there a large measure of freedom of action is bound to accompany it; and the admirable results secured through the parochial system as a whole, may fairly be pointed to as largely due to the way in which power and responsibility are placed in the hands of the incumbents. But all the same, it was never seriously contemplated that the parochial system should render the Ignatian maxim, μηδὲν ἄνευ ἐπισκόπου, a dead letter. The whole theory of the episcopate and the diocesan system, as developed in the early Church, demand that episcopal oversight should be a reality and not a mere shadow; and it may be added that a more effective episcopal supervision is not only right in theory, but would assuredly be found good in practice, so that a well-considered measure for the increase of the episcopate would be one of the very best means for strengthening the parochial system.

Then also the subject must be considered from the other side, in regard to the incumbent's relations to his parishioners, as well as to his bishop, for while under one aspect the parish priest is the representative of the bishop and acts as his substitute, there is another not less important aspect in which he is, as it were, the embodiment of the local Church itself, and the representative of all his parishioners. The idea that the incumbent is the "Rector" or ruler of the flock, or even the "Curate," with the care of their souls, is not the whole truth; and and if it is insisted on to the exclusion of other ideas,

THE RIGHTS OF THE LAITY

139

may easily become mischievous, and result in arrogant autocracy. He is not only the "Rector" or "Curate," he is also the "Parson"; qui personam gerit ecclesiæ, who "bears in his small sphere the person of the Church."* It is only quite recently that this point has begun to receive the attention due to it. For too long the laity have acquiesced in the view that the management of the affairs of the Church was the concern of the clergy, and that they themselves had no part or lot in it. Such a notion is wholly false. It finds no support whatever in Holy Scripture, in which the Church is represented not as a "simple hierarchy," but, on the contrary, as "hierarchy largely tempered by spiritual democracy,"† and from the pages of which we gather that the Christian laity were to have a large share in such matters as these: "general Church management; moral discipline; election and approbation of officers; financial provision." It has been shown that in the primitive Church such a position was actually given to them, and that it was only very gradually, owing to certain tendencies at work in the Church, that they lost their share in her government.§ But it is

probable that even in the Middle Ages they took a far larger share in the general Church life of the parish, and consequently were entrusted with considerably greater powers than the majority of persons imagine.

The theory of the parish which prevailed in mediæval times has been already set forth, and, if the researches of experts are to be trusted, the share of power to which the laity were admitted was anything but small. It is therefore much to be hoped that if the Church Reform League, which is taking the matter up in earnest, should

* MOBERLY'S Bampton Lectures for 1868, p. 50.

† GORE in Essays on Church Reform, p. 9.

+ Ibid., p. 11.

§ See RACKHAM'S " Essay on the Position of the Laity in the Early Church" in the volume just alluded to.

succeed in formulating any plan for restoring to them. their rights, and, together with this, for securing from them the performance of their duties, there will be no disposition on the part of the clergy to place any obstacles in the way of its adoption. It is certainly right that the faithful laity should not only be protected from arbitrary and highhanded action on the part of the parish priest in regard to the conduct of the services of the Church-and none can doubt that there have really been grievances in this matter -but that they should also have an effective voice in the management of ecclesiastical matters, and not be treated like children who have no share in the settlement of the affairs of the household. But it is hard to resist the conviction that the real difficulty in the way of formulating any reasonable and workable scheme lies quite as much in the apathy of the laity as in any supposed clerical unwillingness for reform. It is not meant that there would be no opposition from the clergy-undoubtedly there would be some; but it is the present writer's belief that it would be confined to a comparatively small minority, and that the great body of the parish priests would sincerely welcome any reform which gave them a more constitutional position and more effectual support and help from their lay parishioners. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that so far there has been no indication of any very widespread desire for a substantial measure of reform on the part of the laity. Many might be willing to accept power to control or interfere without responsibility for duties to be done. But that is not what is wanted; and where we have failed most conspicuously is in creating a genuine sense of responsibility for the healthy Church life of the parish on the part of the laity. They respond to the calls made upon their purses often with great generosity; and it would be utterly untrue to say that there are none among them who have learnt the

APATHY OF THE LAITY

141

lesson of personal service. The Church owes much to the work of devoted laymen and women in all classes of society, from the highest to the lowest; but it has to be sorrowfully confessed that there is still a great deal to be done before we shall have succeeded in convincing every communicant that the Christian ministry was founded not so much to minister to him as to set him to work for others, as it exists "for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering."

It is only when the great body of our people have realized what this means that the true strength and the full value of the parochial system will be seen.

THO

V.

Convocation

BY W. H. HUTTON, B.D.

HOSE who look, in Church matters, below the surface which is ruffled by our present discontents, see clearly that the question which it is most important for the future to solve is that of the limits of the Church's power to govern herself.

An enlarged authority of self-government is demanded by many Churchmen as a right, and is allowed by some sagacious statesmen to be a needed reform. If the question should come within the range of practical politics-and it depends upon Churchmen to bring it there it is well that we should understand what is the present position in this regard which the British Constitution allows to the lawful assemblies of the English Church. We are asking, “May the Church legislate, and on what subjects, and under what safeguards?" We should begin by considering that she already possesses legislative bodies, and by inquiring what are their constitutions and what their powers.

The history of the Convocations of Canterbury and York is very far from being a matter of merely antiquarian interest. It throws, at many points, light on the nature of the English character and the lines of English progress. It has its lessons by the way for the politician and the ecclesiastic.