^l.4.JM^ 
 
 mn. 
 
 ^^. 
 
 
 i^ ^, :6 
 
 2» 
 
 
 W' 
 
 m: 
 
 ^^M 
 
 i .-^Mi:^? {-^l c^
 
 I 
 
 LI B R.ARY 
 
 OF THL 
 
 U N I VLRSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 /s 
 
 THE LIMITS OF 
 
 LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 IN THE 
 
 COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH: 
 
 DELIVERED (IN SUBSTANCE) AT THE SYNOD OF THE UNITED 
 
 DIOCESES OF MORAY, ROSS, AND CAITHNESS, HELD IN THE 
 
 CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST ANDREW, INVERNESS, 
 
 MAY 4, 1870. 
 
 BY 
 
 HENEY CLAEK POWELL, M.A, 
 
 PROVOST OF THE CATHEDRAL. 
 
 AI Trept Tas 'E/c/cXtjo-tas oiKovofxiai yiyvovTai /xev irapa twv ireTricrTev- 
 fxevcov Ti]V nrpocTTacriav avTUiv, ^efiaiovvTai 8e irapa tmu Xawu. 
 
 S. Basil, Ep. 230, vol. iv. p. 861, Ed. Migne. 
 
 " Et quia definitionem antiquonim Patrum, nostramque, quae suprascripta est, non 
 solum religiosis, sed etiam laicis medicamentum esse et desideramus et cupimus ; 
 placuit ut earn etiam et illustres ac magnifici viri, qui nobiscum ad prisfatam festivi- 
 tatem convenervmt, propria manus subscriberent." Cone. Arausic. Secund. a.d. 529. 
 
 Hard. Cone, vol. ii. p. 1102, A. 
 
 Published by request of the Primus and Clergy, 
 
 EDINBUKGH: 
 E. GEANT ATs^D SON, 54 PEINCES STEEET. 
 
 MDCCCLXX.
 
 TO 
 
 THE MOST REVEREND THE PRIMUS. 
 
 AND 
 
 . THE REVEREND THE CLERGY, 
 
 BY WHOSE DESIRE THIS SPEECH, DELIVERED BEFORE THEM, 
 IS NOW PUBLISHED, 
 
 AND TO 
 
 THE FAITHFUL LAITY, 
 
 THE LIMITS OF WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE IN THE COUNCILS 
 
 OF THE CHURCH, ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 
 
 AND THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, IT ATTEMPTS TO 
 
 DEFINE, THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE 
 
 MOST RESPECTFULLY 
 
 INSCRIBED.
 
 t UIUC g.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 My Lokd Primus, Eeverend and Lay Brethren, — I should 
 have had considerable reluctance in rising to bring forward 
 any resolution at this ray first appearance as a member of the 
 Synod of this diocese, were it not that, having for some time 
 past watched the progress of this question in England with 
 great interest, and having devoted a good deal of attention to 
 the subject, I trust on this score to obtain your favourable in- 
 dulgence ; and whatever deficiencies or errors may be observed 
 in what I shall now venture to lay before you, will, I hope, 
 be corrected and supplied by succeeding speakers. 
 
 We have already affirmed, in the terms of the previous 
 resolution, the principle that it is right that the laity should 
 take a larger part in our Synods than they have hitherto done ; 
 and the precise aspect of the question which is now to come 
 under our consideration is, within what limits this is to take 
 place. The resolution which I would propose as an answer to 
 this question is this : — 
 
 " That as respects the limits within which the laity should be 
 admitted to further jDowers and functions in the councils of the 
 Church, it is the opinion of the Synod that, with the exception of 
 the power of veto upon the decisions of the bishops and clergy im- 
 plying doctrine, it is in accordance with the principles of Holy 
 Scripture and the mind of the Primitive Church, that laymen should 
 speak, vote, and lend their assistance in carrying out the decisions 
 arrived at as freely and fully as the clerical members of the Synods."
 
 b LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 This is the resolution which I submit that we shoukl 
 adopt. You will observe that, with one exception, viz., that 
 of veto, whereby, if a constitution were adopted for our Synods 
 in other respects similar to those at present existing in the 
 American and Colonial Churches, the lay portion of the Synod 
 would have the power of hindering the bishops and clergy from 
 the full exercise of the powers entrusted to them, the laity are 
 admitted by the terms of the resolution to powers equal to 
 those of the episcopal and clerical orders. 
 
 And you will further observe that the resolution states, that 
 a constitution embodying these principles, accompanied by this 
 limitation, would be in accordance with the principles of Holy 
 Scripture and the mind of the Primitive Church. I believe 
 that it would be so. But it is of the utmost importance that 
 we should be fully satisfied as to the truth of this statement. 
 For, my Lord, I shall not be thought to be using terms of 
 exaggeration, if I say that we can hardly over-estimate the im- 
 portance of the decision which the Church may arrive at on 
 this question. That which we are proposing is either a revolu- 
 tion in the constitution of the Church, or it is a carrying into 
 effect of true principles which have lain long in abeyance, 
 and the revival of which will, we may hope, promote not a 
 little the stability and growth of the Church. 
 
 Let me then proceed, as well as I am able, to substantiate 
 the statements of the resolution. I lay some stress upon tlie 
 expression "mind of the Primitive Church." For evidence 
 respecting the conciliar proceedings of the Church in early 
 times is, comparatively speaking, so scanty, that if you com- 
 pare the details of the constitution of the American or Colonial 
 Churches in the matter of their Synods, as set forth, fbi' 
 instance, in this pamphlet* which I hold in my hand, with 
 the records remaining of the early councils, you will find it, I 
 think, impossible to give a definite answer to any, or hardly 
 any of the questions of detail which you would wish to have 
 determined. But as regards the mind of the Primitive Church , 
 it is otlierwise. We may, T think, be definitely certified that 
 
 * CUmvh Oroaiiisatinii Tlio Constitution of ilic C'ImiivIi in tlio rnitod States of 
 America, in Canada, an<l in New Zoalanrl, kv . Witli an IntnMluriion by the Rev. 
 W. Sherlorh, B.A., »'iii-ale ol Bray. Duhiin: llodc^ps. FosUm-. ."v Co.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 7 
 
 it was not contrary but agreeable to the mind of the early 
 Church from apostolic times, that laymen should be present at 
 Synods, and present as an integral part of them, and as such take 
 part in their decisions, in matters of doctrine as well as in other 
 matters. And, on the other hand, the limitation is no less 
 clear, that it would have been thought a concession which the 
 clergy had no right to make, had the laity been allowed to 
 overrule their decisions, or to hinder them from being carried 
 into effect. This I hope to be able satisfactorily to prove. 
 
 But, my Lord, in order that we may be in a better position 
 for estimating rightly the force and bearing of the direct docu- 
 mentary evidence, I would, in the first instance, bring forward 
 some previous considerations affording a presumption, at least, 
 if no more, of the conclusion at which we ought to arrive. 
 For we have these two principles to start from. We have, on 
 the one hand, the Pastoral Commission given to the clergy, 
 concerning which it may be enough for the present purpose to 
 say, that it includes the office of teaching the truth in all the 
 various ways in which that duty may be performed, and also 
 the office of maintaining and guarding the truth. To the clergy 
 especially is the <7ragaxara$yixriv,* the good deposit, given in 
 the charge But, on the other hand, though this was given in 
 charge to them principally, it was not given to them exclu- 
 sively. "The faith "t was "delivered once for all to the 
 saints" — that is, not to the clerical members of the one body 
 only, but to the whole body and in different degrees, according 
 to their position in it, to all its members, lay as well as clerical. 
 For by the Church, which is the " pillar and ground of the 
 truth,"! we are not to understand merely any one class, or rank, 
 or caste of persons, but all — whether bishops, clergy, or laity — 
 who, by the one Spirit in baptism, § have been grafted into the 
 one body, and have been made to drink of the same Holy Spirit. 
 
 * 2 Tim. i. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 20. 
 
 t S. Jude 3. " T?/ aira^ Trapa^ode'Kjij xoTs ayiois Trio-Tet. Loquitur Prselatis 
 prsecipue, sed et cseteris siio ordine," says Cornelius a Lapide (Commeut. in loc). 
 This is entirely consistent with what he afterwards says : — " Denigne jierperam hie 
 coUigunt li;i3retici, hucis rudibus et indoctis licere disputare de fide : aliud enini est 
 disputare, quod non nisi peritoi'um est et doctorum, aliud certai'e ; certant enim etiani 
 aimplices et rudes, non disputando, sed constanter veritatem fidenique asserendo et 
 tuendo." 
 
 + 1 Tim. iii. 15. § 1 Cor. xii. 13.
 
 8 LIMITS OF LAY KESPONSIBILITY AND PKIYILEGE 
 
 Consequently, liowever, the proportion of support to be 
 rendered to the truth by the several portions of the body, " the 
 pillar of the truth/' may vary according to their difference of 
 position in it, some share in this duty must belong to all. 
 The only way in which this conclusion could be invalidated, 
 would appear to be by showing that in practice the several 
 functions of the body, and this of maintaining and guarding 
 the truth among them, had been always performed exclusively 
 by the clergy as representatives of the whole body. 
 
 But this is not the case ; for it has been shown by the present 
 Bishop of Salisbury, Dr Moberly, in the Bampton Lectures for 
 1868 — and we owe, I think, no little gratitude to the author of 
 those able and thoughtful lectures for placing us in the true 
 position for determining rightly this important question re- 
 specting the laity — that a more or less important part has been 
 recognised by tlie Church as devolving upon her lay members, 
 and may, in fact, be seen to have been exercised by them with 
 more or less distinctness at different times, in all offices, even 
 those pertaining specially to the clergy, which tlie Church 
 exercises. Dr Moberly points out that a part, although a sub- 
 ordinate part, belongs to the laity in the administration of 
 baptism and holy communion, in the conferring of holy orders, 
 and in the exercise of absolution — these being acts of the Church 
 as a whole, although the principal part in their administration 
 is committed to the clerical portion of the body. 
 
 If, then, in these sacramental offices even of the Church, 
 the laity have a part to bear, is there not a presumption afforded 
 by this fact, that in respect of the conciliar action of the Church 
 also, some responsibility of action must rest upon them ? That 
 the force of these considerations, as bearing upon the part 
 which laymen ought to take in councils, was present to the 
 mind of St Chrysostom, will appear from the following passage, 
 in which, after mention of the share which pertains to the laity in 
 most of the Church offices just mentioned, he continues thus :"' — 
 
 * S. Clirys. in 2 Cor. viii. 24. Lib. of the Fatlievs, Translation. I am indebted 
 to a paper by the Rev. Canon Simmons, entitled " The Representation of the Laity 
 in Convocation," p. 13, for the reference to this passage. See also Moberly, Bampton 
 Lect. note, pp. 326, 327. The mind of S. Chrysostom may be further gathered from 
 the following passage, in which he sums up the case of the excommunicated Corin- 
 thian :— ''Throughout, he {i.e., S. Paul] makes this forgiveness the joint act of him-
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 9 
 
 " Now I have said all this, in order that each one of the 
 laity also may keep their attention awake (v^^/j, may feel his 
 responsibility, literally 'be sober'), that we may understand that 
 w^e are all one body, having such difference amongst ourselves 
 as members with members, and may not throw the whole upon 
 the priests, but ourselves also so care for the whole Church, as 
 for a body common to us. For this course will provide for 
 our greater safety, and for your greater growth unto virtue. 
 Hear, at least, in the case of the apostles, how frequently they 
 admitted the laity to share in their decisions. For when they 
 ordained the seven, they first communicated with the people ; 
 and when Peter ordained Matthias, with all that were then 
 present, both men and women. For here is no pride of rulers, 
 nor slavishness in the ruled ; but a spiritual rule, in this par- 
 ticular usurping most, in taking on itself the greater share of 
 the labour and of that care which is on your behalf, not in 
 seeking larger honours. For so ought the Church to dwell as 
 
 one house, as one body, so to be all disposed Why, 
 
 then, are we divided, when so great things unite us ? " And 
 mark the remedy he proposes for these divisions : " We ought 
 to image the conjunction of one body. For in this way will 
 he that is greater be able to gain even from him that is less. 
 For if Moses learnt from his father-in-law somewhat expedient 
 which himself had not perceived, much more in the Church 
 
 may this happen For no one of these is at so great 
 
 a distance from his neighbour, as Moses' father-in-law w^as 
 
 from him Let us, then, not overlook those who give 
 
 us behoveful counsel, even though they be of those under us, 
 
 though they be of the meaner sort And say not, 
 
 ' Why dost thou call me to council, if thou hearkenest not to 
 
 self and them. Consider it from the first ; ' But if any,' saith he, ' have cause 
 grief, he hath not grieved me, but, in part, all of you, that I may not be too severe. . 
 Then again, ' Sufficient to such a man is this censure which was inflicted of many. 
 This is his own decision and opinion. He rested not, however, with this decision, 
 but again makes them concur, saying, ' So that contrariwise ye ought rather to 
 forgive him and comfort him. Wherefore, I beseech you that ye would confirm 
 your love toward him.' Having thus again made the whole their act, he passes to 
 his own authority, saying, ' For to this end did I write unto you, that I might know 
 the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.' Then again he makes the 
 favour theirs, saying, ' To whom ye forgive anything.' Then his own, ' I forgive 
 also ; ' saying, ' If I have forgiven anytliing, it is for your sakes.' " — S. Chrys. on 2 
 Cor. ii. 11. Lib. of the Fathers, Translation.
 
 10 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 what T say ?'" (He puts these words, apparentl}^, into the moiitli 
 of the clergy.) " These accusations are not a counsellor's, but a 
 
 despot's Thus, if both houses and states — thus, too, 
 
 if the Church be ordered, she will receive a larger increase." 
 
 But, my Lord, the Bishop of Salisbury further urges, 
 in the lectures referred to, that Holy' Scripture afibrds 
 evidence of a recognition, on the part of the lay portion of the 
 Spirit-bearing body, being sought for as regards the actual 
 teaching of the apostles and apostolic men, both oral and 
 written. It would lead me too far from my present purpose 
 to enter into Dr Moberly's arguments on this head. Let it be 
 sufficient to say — if, indeed, in speaking of Dr Moberly, it is 
 necessary to say — that he is careful to state the relative and 
 subordinate proportion in which such recognition by the laity 
 was sought and given. We ourselves are familiar with the 
 fact, that it was by means of the gradual sealing of the Spirit, 
 given through the instrumentality of the entire body, that the 
 canon of Holy Scripture was, in the course of the first four 
 centuries, defined as the Church has since received it. We 
 are aware that recognition and acceptance by the whole Church 
 is necessary to give full authority to the determinations of 
 even general councils. And the remembrance of these facts may 
 enable us to appreciate the bearing of what has been just men- 
 tioned as urged by Dr Moberly upon the question which now 
 occupies us. Nor must we forget that, both in Scripture itself 
 and in ecclesiastical history, laymen are found maintaining and 
 spreading the truth by actual teaching. We read"' that those 
 who were scattered abroad after the martyrdom of S. Stephen, 
 went everywhere preaching the word. Apollos,t Aquila, 
 and Priscilla, are other Scriptural instances. And, in later 
 times,! Origen, yet a layman, was bidden by the Bishops 
 Alexander of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus of Ca3sarea, to preach 
 and expound the Scriptures publicly in the Church, as he had 
 already done in the Catechetical School at Alexandria ; and 
 on Demetrius of Alexandria remonstrating at this as a breach 
 of Church order, Alexander and Theoctistus, in their reply, 
 inform him that he is mistaken, and quote several instances 
 
 * Acts viii. 1 t Acts xviii. 21 28. X Rn?'- H. E. vi. 19.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHUECH. 11 
 
 of laymen having been allowed so to do. That they were right 
 may be argued from a canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, 
 A.D. 398, — " Let not a layman presume to teach in the presence 
 of the clergy, except at their bidding." And, as late as the 
 end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century, a canon* 
 was passed at the TruUan Council, " that it behoves not a lay- 
 man to dispute or teach publicly." 
 
 I mention these facts as showing that the mind of the Primi- 
 tive Church in regard to laymen was not altogether in accord- 
 ance with that jealous spirit of separation which prevailed in 
 later times. Whilst the oftice of the appointed ministry was 
 fully recognised and respected, such aid as laymen could render 
 in subordination to this w^as always joyfully welcomed, and 
 their zeal applauded. Sof was it in the case of Edesius and 
 Frumentius, the apostles of Abyssinia, and of the captive 
 woman from whom the Iberians first received the gospel, in 
 the fourth century. So was it that Flavian J and Diodorus 
 were praised for their zeal in defence of the truth at Antioch, 
 against the Arian Bishop Leontius. And when Eusebius, a 
 layman, exclaimed in open church against the false doctrine 
 of Nestorius, he was expressly applauded for it by S. Cyril of 
 Alexandria.! 
 
 The Primus. — A bad precedent ! 
 
 The Peovost. — Yes, my Lord, a bad precedent for these 
 times. But in those days, when the spiritual portion of the 
 Church was in little danger of not having its proper functions 
 recognised, S. Cyril does not hesitate to praise the layman for 
 the part he took in contending for the faith delivered to him, 
 as well as to all other members of the Church, to preserve and 
 guard. 
 
 These considerations, as exhibiting the mind of holy Scrip- 
 ture, and of the primitive Church, as to the position of laymen 
 in the body of Christ, and especially in regard to the part 
 
 * Canon Ixiv. 
 
 t See for the history of these faithful Christians, Fleury, Hist. Eccles. liv. xi. 38, 
 39. In each case the aid of the appointed ministry was souglit for as soon as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 X Fleury, liv. xii. 46. 
 
 § S. Cyril, Alex. Adv. Nestor, h. i. c. f), toni. ix. p. 41, ed. Migne— «j/j>/o t/s twv 
 riyav eTTieiKwv, xal TeXuyu fiev ei> Xrtt/coT? €ti, irXiiv oi'i< dOnvfianTov (rvva'yi]yepKU)^
 
 12 LIMITS OF LAY KESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 wliicli they might take in extra-conciliar diffusion or preserva- 
 tion of the common faith, are important, as showing that, 
 because they have not a responsibility equal to that of the 
 clergy in reference to these duties, it does not, therefore, follow- 
 that they have none. They prepare us to recognise that the 
 true principle upon which the Church has acted, and should 
 act, is not to be carried out by entire exclusion of the faithful 
 laity from synodal maintenance or declaration of doctrine, but 
 by maintaining the due proportion which belongs respectively 
 to the clergy and laity in the execution of this duty. But 
 this requires to be substantiated by direct documentary 
 evidence of the actual practice of the Church in council. This 
 evidence will, I think, be most clearly exhibited, if we examine 
 separately the practice of the Churches of different countries. 
 Enough will, I believe, be found to show that laymen did take 
 of old a certain distinct part in councils, diocesan, provincial, 
 and general. 
 
 And first, as regards the Churches of the East. Our eyes 
 naturally turn first to the venerable Council of Jerusalem, as 
 the model of all succeeding councils. Now, setting aside the 
 disputed reading of Acts xv. 23, there are these facts to show the 
 share which the lay brethren took in the whole matter. First, 
 we read that those who came from Antioch " were received by 
 the Church and the apostles and the presbyters" (ver. 4), — " the 
 Church," that is, the lay portion of it, thus receiving distinct 
 recognition as concerned in the matter. Next, it is to observed 
 that the apostles and the presbyters are alone mentioned as com- 
 ing together to consider of this matter ; which, as on the one 
 hand, it is an indication with whom the principal part in the 
 council rested, so, on the other, it involves the admission that 
 when, as in ver. 22, the whole Church is ranked with them, 
 the whole Church must also be supposed to have acted with 
 them. The mention of " the whole multitude " (ver. 1 2) shows 
 who were present at the council ; and it is at least probable 
 that some of these took part in the " much disputing" which 
 there was (ver. 7). If anything is to be concluded from S. 
 James' expression, " My sentence is," as to the persons with 
 whom it lay to give a " decisive vote," the conclusion must be, 
 tliat none but 8. James himself could do so, for the 57a; x^/vw is
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 13 
 
 too emphatic to justify the inclusion of the other apostles and 
 the elders. But, probably, he was only summing up what he 
 saw the conclusion of the council to be, and thus, as president, 
 bringing the proceedings to an end. And now observe how 
 action is taken upon this conclusion, — " Then pleased it (sSogg) 
 the apostles and the presbyters, with the whole Church, to 
 send chosen men of themselves to Antioch with Paul and 
 Barnabas," and with the conciliar decree, in which they state 
 their determination, after declaring the cause of it, in these 
 terms : " It seemed good unto us, being assembled together 
 with one accord, to send chosen men unto you." Before the 
 decree it is said, '' It seemed good to the apostles and the 
 presbyters, with the whole Church, to send chosen men." In 
 the decree it is said, " It seemed good to us, being assembled 
 together with one accord, to send chosen men." Is it not 
 clear that the " us" in the latter case includes the same per- 
 sons as are mentioned in ver. 22 ? And, if so,* have we not 
 distinct Scriptural warrant for the laity being joined with the 
 clerical portion of the body, " being assembled together with 
 one accord," in the settlement of a doctrinal question of the 
 highest importance ? That the most prominent part in the 
 matter was not theirs ; that the chief responsibility did not 
 rest with them, is of course abundantly clear. But whilst 
 there is nothing to determine the manner and degree in which 
 the laity acted with the clergy, it seems perfectly certain that 
 they were joined subordinately with them in what was done. 
 Hear how S. Chrysostom comments upon this : '' Then finally 
 the decree is made by common consent ; ' then it seemed good 
 to the apostles and presbyters, with the whole Church,' &c." 
 And on the words, " It seemed good to us, being assembled 
 together with one accord," &c., he adds, " So as to show that it 
 is not done in a tyrannical way, that all take part in the reso- 
 lution, and that they write the letter with careful considera- 
 tion."t 
 
 The expression of the writer in Eusebius, describing the 
 synods which met to condemn Montanism in the second 
 
 * The importance attached to the question, whether or not the brethren joined with 
 the apostles and presbyters in sending the letter, is shoAvn by the earnestness with 
 which the reading kuI oi, in ver. 23, has been debated. 
 
 t See Moberly, B. L. p. 118.
 
 14 LBIITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 century, as being composed of "the faithful, "* ur that of Ter- 
 tullian,J describing certain synods in Greece as " councils of 
 the entire clnirches," in which " the actual representation uf 
 the entire Christian name" was exhibited, are at least sug- 
 gestive of the idea that others besides bishops took part in 
 these synods. The address of the letter of the Second Council 
 of Antioch, in which Paul of Samosata was condemned, 
 A.D. 269, is still more significant. It runs thus, as given in 
 Eusebius,! " Helenus and Hymena^us .... and all the other 
 bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, fellow-sojourners with 
 us in the neighbouring cities and nations, and the Churches of 
 God, to Dionysius and Maximus, and the bishops, and pres- 
 byters, and deacons throughout the world, one with us in the 
 common ministry, and to the whole Catholic Church under 
 heaven, beloved brethren in the Lord, greeting." How strongly 
 this recalls the conjunction of the apostles and the elders and 
 the whole Church, at the Council of Jerusalem ! How strongly 
 it savours of a time when every portion of the body of Christ 
 received due recognition, and bore its own share of duty ! 
 How strongly it contrasts with a later development of 
 medisevalism, when at the Council of Trent it was proposed by 
 some one to teach the laity that they were not the Church. § 
 Fifty- six years later the great Council of Mcaea was as- 
 sembled, at which we know, on the express testimony of 
 Socrates, Sozomen, and Eusebius, that laymen were present. 
 Their part in the matter is sometimes confined to the days 
 preceding the actual meeting of the council. But observe the 
 expressions used concerning them. These are the words of 
 Sozomen,! I " Constantino .... wrote to the most eminent 
 bishoi)S of the Churches of every country." He then mentions 
 
 * Anon, in Ens. H. E. v. 16. Twp kuto. -riiv 'Aaiai^ -ttio-twi' iroWuKi^ h:(d 
 TToWaX'i TTys'Acrtas cis tovto avveXBovTCov. 
 
 •j- TertulL <le Jejun. xiii. Aguntur piiBterea per Grrecias ilia certis in locis con- 
 cilia ex universis Ecclcsiis, per qu;u et altiora qua?que in commune tractantur, ot 
 ipsa I'epnesentatio totius noniinis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. 
 
 X Eus. H. E. vii. 30. S. Jerome says that tliis letter was drawn uj) by Mal- 
 diion, the wise presbyter who confuted Paul, ex persona si/nodi — a significant ex- 
 pression when compared with the persons named in the address ! — J)e Viris Illustr. 
 Ixxi. 
 
 § Canon Simmons, Laity in Convocation, p. 13. 
 
 II Sozom. i. 17. I have used the translation published by Bagster, for Socrates 
 and Sozomen, only correcting it where it was manifestly erroneous.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 15 
 
 the bishops of the chief sees, and continues thus : " Many other 
 pious and excellent men of the neighbouring provinces were 
 congregated together, of whom some were celebrated for their 
 learning, their eloquence, and their knowledge of literature, 
 sacred and profane ; some for the virtuous tenor of their life, 
 and others for the combination of all these qualifications. 
 About 320 bishops were present, accompanied by a multi- 
 tude of presbyters aud deacons. There* were likewise men 
 present who were skilled in the art of disputation, and ready 
 to assist in the discussions." Socratesf says, " There were also 
 present many laymen, skilled in reasoning, ready to speak 
 on either side." And Eusebius, as quoted by Socrates : " The 
 number of the bishops exceeded 300 ; while the number of 
 the presbyters, deacons, and acolytes, who attended them, was 
 almost incalculable. Some of these ministers of God were 
 eminent for their wisdom, some for the strictness of their life 
 and patient endurance of persecution, and others united in 
 themselves all these distinguished characteristics ; some were 
 venerable from their advanced age, others were conspicuous for 
 their youth and vigour of mind, and others had but recently 
 
 entered on their ministerial career The doctrines which 
 
 liad thus the common consent were confirmed by the signature 
 of each individual." 
 
 How is it credible that the character and qualifications of 
 these men, belonging to the laity as well as to the clergy, 
 should be dwelt upon as they are, that no distinction should 
 be made in the enumeration of those who were present, except 
 that the clergy in the order of their rank are named first ; no 
 statement that the bishops j alone composed the council pro- 
 per, and yet that this really was the case, and that the part 
 
 * '2vfxirapricrav de auTOis avopa OiaXi^euiV e/uLireipoi, eKeivoi'i j3o^]^e'lv \6yoi^ 
 
 (TTTOUOa^Ol/TeS. 
 
 t Socr. i. 8. "ZvfxirapTiarav de kuI XulkoI ttoXXoI dtaXeKTuai^ efxnreLpoi, ev eKwrepM 
 fxepei uvv^yopeTv TrpoQvjxovpievoL. 
 
 X The facts that the Emperor is only stated to have written to bishops, that the 
 council is often called the Assembly of the Fathers or of the Bishops, or even that 
 they alone subscribed, are really not conclusive of this, in the face of the evidence 
 from the historians, that others besides the bishops were at the council. The 
 bishops were the persons who would naturally Ije written to. A council in which 
 the deacon Athanasius exercised a principal intiuence, might as naturally be styled 
 the " Assembly of the Bishops." And if none but bishops did subscribe, it may 
 have been that this was sufficient, as being in the name of all.
 
 16 LIMITS OF LAY RESPOXSTBILITY AXD PRIVILEGE 
 
 taken by the laymen who were present was confined to 
 certain preliminary discussions previous to the opening of 
 the council ? It is " well known that, for all the inferiority 
 of his rank ffor he was then only a deacon in the Alexandrian 
 Church), S. Athanasius exercised a principal influence on the 
 tone and course of the deliberations."* If, then, a deacon 
 could take so considerable a j)art, may not many a pious and 
 learned layman have borne his witness also to " the faith once 
 delivered to the saints ? " The Church was assembled, not 
 to invent new doctrines, but to declare the old. And in this 
 character of witnessing to the truth, usually in its sim]3lest 
 expression, as contained in the Church's Creed, the work of a 
 council differs somewhat from the ordinary teaching office 
 exercised by the ministry. This office consists in explaining, 
 illustrating, enforcing, and showing the various bearings of a 
 particular doctrine, as well as enunciating it, and thus, even 
 apart from the question of authority, lies beyond the capacity 
 of the only ordinarily-instructed layman. In modern times, 
 and especially in England, the exercise of the Church's office 
 of witnessing to the truth held from the beginning has become 
 more complicated. But this simpler duty is the proper work 
 of a council, so far as doctrine comes before it. And this was 
 especially the office, as Mr Keble has shown, which the early 
 councils considered to be their own. When, then, w^e raise 
 our eyes above the mist, caused in part by untoward relations 
 with a state not composed of churchmen, in part by the 
 spread, to some extent among all ranks, of infidel opinions, and 
 look back to these earlier days, what is there which could be 
 thought inconsistent with the ministerial authority of the 
 bishops and clergy of Christ's Church, in the lay members of 
 the body joining with them in support of the trutli committed 
 alike to all ? 
 
 Much has been said of the signatures of bishops alone 
 being found attached to the acts of the councils. The asser- 
 tion as regards councils other than general is not correct, 
 perhaps not as regards even them. But if it were, would it 
 amount to so clear a demonstration as is sometimes said, that 
 the power of deciding rested entirely with the bishops? The 
 
 * Mr Keble's Serm. on Primitive Tradition, Appendix, pp. 123, 124, 4th ed.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 17 
 
 idea of a decisive vote, which now forms so reguhir a part of 
 our conception of conciliar proceedings, was not known, I 
 imagine — at least* I am not aware of any proof that it was — 
 at the time of which we are now speaking. Is it not, then, 
 probable that the signatures of the bishops at the conclusion 
 of the council answered to the lyw Ttohu of S. James — that 
 they were the summing up and sealing, by those who from 
 their office were empowered to represent the w^hole council, 
 of the conclusion which had been arrived at by common con- 
 sent ? If none but bishops did sign at general councils, this 
 may at least have been very probably the reason, that the rest 
 of those who took part in the council were satisfied with the 
 bishops in so numerous a body signing on their behalf. But 
 it is not improbable that others besides the bishops did sign, 
 though their names have not been preserved. For Gelasius of 
 Cysicus, the compiler of the account of the Council of Mctea, 
 expressly says that he has not given the signatures of all even 
 of the bishops. And Eusebins, as we have seen, says that 
 " the doctrines which had the common consent were confirmed 
 by the signature of each individual." In a later council, some- 
 times called general, we know that signatures, which have not 
 been preserved, were given by laymen. At the Fourth Council 
 of Constantinople, A.D. 869, after the bishops had subscribed, 
 the laymen present at the council were asked if they assented, 
 and how they would subscribe. Being possibly unable to 
 write, they gave their assent in the usual form by word of 
 mouth, and their words were taken down by reporters, " swift f 
 writers taking down what was said by each of them." And 
 yet the signatures of the bishops only remain. 
 
 Passing from the first to the last of the four great councils, 
 we have further proof of laymen not only coming to council, 
 but being summoned to take part in it. It is contained in a 
 letter which the Empress Pulcheria, who married the Senator 
 Marcian, and made him nominally Emperor, addressed to the 
 Consular Governor of Bithynia. It was written while the 
 Council w^as at ISTicsea, before its removal to Chalcedon, and 
 
 * See Appendix, Note A. 
 
 t Harduin, Concil. v. 922, c. " Velocibus scriptoribus excipientihus quae dice- 
 bantur ab unoquoque ipsorum." 
 
 B
 
 18 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 was occasioned by certain turbulent persons — clerics, monks, 
 and laymen — having intruded themselves into the assembly. 
 Pulcheria, in her letter, distinctly marks the difference between 
 these unauthorised intruders and those who had received a 
 reo-ular summons to the council. After mentionin<:^ the cause 
 which led to her writing, she goes on to say, — "You* will 
 then, in spite of any obstinacy, dismiss entirely from the city 
 and neighbourhood any persons who, without summons from 
 us or command of their bishops, are lingering there, whether 
 clergy (either in possession of their rank, or degraded therefrom 
 by their bishops), or monks, or laymen, whom there is no 
 reason for summoning to council, so that the holy Synod may 
 hold its sittings in perfect good order, and the things enjoined 
 by our Master Christ may be ratified in common by all with- 
 out any tumult or disorder." Could we have a clearer proof 
 of laymen being summoned, either by imperial or episcopal 
 authority, perhaps in both ways, to take part in a general 
 council ? 
 
 It is, my Lord, not a little remarkable that the sphere from 
 which at present it is thought by some chiefly obligatory that 
 laymen should be excluded should be that of doctrine, whereas 
 in former times, when the clerical portion of the Church was 
 separating itself in accordance with mediaeval principles as 
 widely as possible from the lay portion, and the struggle was 
 to prevent any interference by the laity in clerical discipline, 
 it was not thought that doctrine was a matter foreign to them. 
 
 • Harduin, Cone. ii. 47 48. "Qo-Te ere KaTO. Trao-?/? o-T-eppoTi/Tos toi/s ^i'x" '//^f- 
 Tepas /cA.jj ere o) s, ?) k'KiTpo'KT]'i twu oiKeiwv eirLO-Koirwv, avTodi evoi]fxovuTa^ k\i]plkov<5, 
 CLTe evTOS TuyX'^^oLCV (iadfJLuv, eiTe Kai TLue? e^ avTUiV vnrd twv oLKeicov eiTLcrKOTrtov 
 aTToicrOjjcrai', V fxovuX^ovTa'i, v XdiKov^, ous ovSeh Xoyos eirl auuooou KaXeTv, ttcii/tij 
 a'TreXuaai t?}? ttoXccos Te kul tcov avToBi TOiruiv' loaTe /uexa Traa^js euTft^ias crvve- 
 O/oei/o-acrijs t??s dyias avvooov k. t. X. There are these further proofs of the council 
 having been composed of others besides the bishops, bearing out, therefore, the 
 above. At the close of the fifth action, on the genei-al assent to the definition of 
 faith being expressed by the bishops, the judges, as they are called, said to. irapa 
 TU)V dyiuiv iruTepwv TVTrcodeuTa, Kal TrdcTLv apearavra, dijXa Tji Qeia yej/jjo-crai 
 Kopvcjiyj. In the commencement of the seventh action, mention is made both of 
 the bishops and of others Kai .... enricrKoiriov, kclI tt/s Xoittt/s dyia^ Kal oIkou- 
 fxevLKj"]? o-ui/o(5ou.— Hard. ii. 455, E. 492, c. After the council, S. Leo wrote to the 
 bishops of Gaid, thanking God " that it had there appeared, and been decreed, not 
 only by the bishops of Christ's Church, but also by Christian princes and powers, 
 and all the clergy and people of difi"erent orders, on full and evident proofs, that 
 this was the true apostolic and catholic faith."— Quoted by Archdeacon Churton, 
 Speech at York Convocation, Feb. 22, 1870.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 19 
 
 There is a remarkable passage, more than once referred to of 
 late, in a letter written by Pope Nicholas I., a.d. 865, to the 
 Emperor Michael, which strikingly illustrates this change. 
 
 The letter,* which is a very long one, presses in the strongest 
 manner, and in every possible way, the impropriety of a layman 
 presuming to take into his own hands the discipline of the 
 clergy. (The Emperor Michael had summoned a Synod to 
 decide the case of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and 
 Photius.) Eef erring to the precedents of past times, the Pope 
 says, " Tell me, pray, where have you read that the emperors — 
 your predecessors — were present at synodal assemblies; un- 
 less, perhaps, it was at those in which matters of faith were 
 under discussion, which is of universal concern, which is com- 
 mon to all, which pertains not only to the clergy, but also to 
 the laity, and in general to all Christians." 
 
 My Lord, looking back from the ninth century upon the 
 preceding ones, with the light reflected upon them by this 
 passage, are we not made to feel in a most striking manner 
 the difference between those times, in which, even amidst the 
 storms of heresy, the authoritative voice of the Church wit- 
 nessing to the truth could make itself heard, and was listened 
 to with reverence, and in which, consequently, there was little 
 distrust of the laity taking their part in the support of the 
 common faith, and times like our own, in which the loss of 
 unity and of reverence for Church authority being sadly patent, 
 the fear of many is, that the part taken by the laity in our 
 councils, should they be admitted to them, would be not for 
 
 * Epist. Nicolai Papte I. Ep. 86. Migne Lat. Patrol, vol. cxix. p. 943. Hard. v. 
 158, c. Gratian Dist. xcvi. c. 4. The passage was commented on by Archdeacon 
 Churton, speech at York Convocation. Hooker, E. P. viii. vi. 8. De Marca, De 
 Concord. Sacerdot. et Imp. lib. ii. 6, 4, pp. 44, 45, comments thus upon it : '^Nicolaus 
 I. rationem aperuit, cur tractatibus de fide interesse possint laici. [He then quotes 
 the passage] Unde Synodus octava (Constant, iv. a.d. 870) hasrens vestigiis Nicolai, 
 fatetur, Principis liberum Synodis oecumenicis interesse, cum de fide agitur ; quamvis 
 illos a ceteris conciliis arceat, et ab ipsa fiflei definitione." The reference is to these 
 words of Can. 17, "Unde nee interfuisse illos synodis, exceptis conciliis universali- 
 bus, invenimus. Nee enim fas est seculares principes spectatores fieri rerum quae 
 sacerdotibus Dei nonnunquam eveniunt. " — ^art?. v. p. 907. c. From these last 
 words it is clear that the council was principally jealous, like Pope Nicholas, of 
 interference by the emperors in ecclesiastical trials. But the question as respects 
 emperors, the representatives of civil power, is somewhat different from that re- 
 garding the part belonging to simple Christian laymen in council. See Appendix 
 Note B, on the Presence of the Emperors at Councils.
 
 20 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 the trutli, but a^jainst the truth ? But we must not suffer 
 fears such as these to blind our eyes to the true interpretation 
 of past records. And we may, I think, not unfairly sum up 
 the conclusion to be derived from the evidence of the Eastern 
 councils in these words of S. Basil, in which, though speaking 
 of a small matter only — it is of the translation of a Bishop of 
 Colonia to Nicopolis — he expresses, apparently, his opinion as 
 to the spirit in which all Church councils should be held. 
 Writing first to the clergy of Nicopolis, he says, " Where 
 spiritual men take tlie lead in counsels, and the people of the 
 Lord follow them in harmony of mind, who will doubt that 
 their decision was made in union with our Lord Jesus Christ ?"* 
 Again to the magistrates of Nicopolis, he writes, "Matters 
 which concern the Churches are administered by those who 
 are entrusted with the rule of them, but they are confirmed 
 by the laity/'t 
 
 2. We must go back some centuries to take u]3 the evidence 
 afforded by the Church in Africa. It w^as the latter half of 
 the third century which witnessed the careful wisdom with 
 which S. Cyprian guided the Church in his province. His 
 attitude in reference to laymen is so well knowai as hardly to 
 require to be stated. The resolution with which he commenced 
 his episcopate will at once come to mind. " I resolved," he 
 says,| writing to his clergy, " from the very beginning of my 
 episcopate, to do nothing of my own private mind without 
 taking counsel with you, and without the consent of my 
 people." It is sufficient to say that this resolve was carried 
 out. Whether it were a matter of doctrine or of discipline, or 
 any other matter, he summoned the faithful laity to give their 
 concurrence to the determination of it. Thus, at the great 
 council held at Carthage, a.d. 255, respecting heretical baptism, 
 a great number of the laity§ were present. The wdiole ques- 
 
 * S. Basil, Ep. 229. Tom. iv. p. 857, Migue, Clericis Nicop. a.d. 375. ""Ottou 
 ^e dvdpei Tri/ev/uLarrLKOi twu (SovXev/ddTUitf KaTup^ovtriv, CTreTai ^e tovtoli Xao-i 
 Kvpiov ev orv/iX(})U)via tJ/s yvw/nr]?, Tts a/j.cf>i(3aXei /xj/ <^v')(l tj; Koiviovia tov Kvpiov 
 nfiwv 'ijaov yfiKTTOv .... t7/v fiov\r]v yeyevyjadai." 
 
 t Id. Ep. 230, Magistr. Nicop. torn. iv. p. 861, Migne. " AI Trepl T-as 'E^/cXtjo-iav 
 oiKovoixuti yiyuovTai /meu rrrapu tmv TreirKTTevjJievtov tijv TrpocrTuaiav uvtImv, 
 (iefSaiovvTai de irapa tcov Xawu." 
 
 X S. Cyprian, Ep. 5. 
 
 § "'Prsesente etiam plehit; maxima parte." //«rc/. i. 159.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 21 
 
 tion of the discipline proper to be exercised in the case of the 
 lapsed was settled with their approval. 
 
 It has been said,* my Lord, that S. Cyprian was a man 
 raised up by the providence of God, " in very stormy times, to 
 hold together, by the grace, wisdom, and love which God gave 
 him, the conflicting elements in the Church." The circum- 
 stances of his time are described as " exceptional." Wliat he 
 did was " a condescension" on his part. It was an act of grace 
 to summon the laity, not the acknowledgment of a right. 
 Supposing it to be so, we must still observe that the principle 
 that the laity may take some part in council, is proved by S. 
 Cyprian's conduct, whatever may be said of it as evidence of 
 general practice. For he could not have permitted even as an 
 act of grace that which was in itself wrong. He could not 
 have sanctioned, for instance, ordination by the laity, or have 
 allowed them to consecrate the Eucharist. And, therefore, if 
 our own times are such as to render it expedient to admit the 
 laity to certain privileges in our Synods, S. Cyprian's example 
 is a voucher for its being right as well as wise, provided that 
 they are not placed in a position in Synod which he did not 
 assign to them. 
 
 But, in truth, the question whether S. Cyprian's times and 
 S. Cyprian's conduct were or were not exceptional, must de- 
 pend upon what can be shown as to the practice of the Church 
 in other times and places. If, apart from this one example, it 
 is indeed " in contradiction to the concurrent testimony of all 
 ecclesiastical history," t that laymen should sit as constituent 
 members (though without the power of veto) in Synod, then it 
 would be a matter for very grave consideration how far the 
 example of even S. Cyprian might be followed in this. But 
 if, as has been already shown, and as the evidence now to be 
 adduced will still more convincingly show, limited powers in 
 Synod were exercised by laymen, probably through the whole 
 course of the Church's earlier history, then the argument from 
 the wisdom of S. Cyprian must be allowed to have not an 
 exceptional only, but full and unqualified weight. 
 
 3. It is the Spanish Church wliicli furnishes the fullest evi- 
 
 * Dr Pusey, 'Councils of the Church." Cf. Dv Moberly, Bampton Lect. p. 125. 
 t See Appendix, Note A.
 
 22 LIMITS OF LAY KESPONSIBILITY AND PKIVILEGE 
 
 dence as to the part taken by laymen in council. There is a 
 document containing a description of the mode in which 
 provincial councils were held, which, when compared with the 
 records of councils actually held, is conclusive as to the fact of 
 laymen forming a constituent part of those councils. This 
 document is probably the only early record of the kind remain- 
 ing. It is found in the Collection of Isidorus Mercator, but, 
 as far as authorship goes, is probably due to Isidore of Seville, 
 who presided at the Fourth Council of Toledo, a.d. 633, since 
 the 4th canon of that council manifestly forms the ground- 
 work of the document. It contains references to later councils, 
 by name to the Eleventh Council of Toledo, a.d. 675, from which 
 Mr Keble concluded that it was drawn up at some time between 
 a.d. 675 and 714, at which time the Saracens began to over- 
 run Spain. But there is a very clear reference to the first 
 canon of the Seventeentli Council of Toledo, a.d. 694, though 
 that council is not named, and consequently the date of the 
 Formulary may be fixed with tolerable certainty to the last 
 years of the seventh century. It is given by Hardouin,* from 
 Isidore, in the preface to his " Concilia," and by Mr Keble, 
 translated in full, in the Appendix to his Sermon on Primitive 
 Tradition. The opening of the Formulary is, in Mr Keble's 
 translation, as follows : — 
 
 " The Order according to ivliich the Sacred Synod should he 
 held in the name of God. 
 
 " At the first hour of the day, before sunrise, let all be cast 
 out of the church ; and, the entrances being barred, let all the 
 doorkeepers stand at the one door, through which the prelates are 
 to enter. And let all the bishops assembling, go in together, 
 and take their seats according to the time of tlieir consecration. 
 When all tlie bishops have come in and taken their places, 
 next let those presbyters "f* be summoned whose admission the 
 nature of the case in hand seems to warrant. And let no 
 deacon intrude himself among them. After these may be ad- 
 mitted the more eminent among the deacons, whosej presence 
 
 * llavdouin refers in the margin to Cone. Tol. iv. can. 4. 
 
 f Post ingressum omnium episcoponim, atqiie consessum, \0(;entuv dcindc pres- 
 Dyteri, quos causa probavevit introire. 
 X Quos ordo poposcerit interesse.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 23 
 
 is required by tlie regular form of proceeding. And a circle 
 being made of the bisliops' seats, let tlie presbyters sit down be- 
 hind them — those, namely, whom the metropolitan has selected 
 to be his assessors ; such, of course, as may act with him both 
 in judging and in pronouncing sentence. Let the deacons 
 stand in sight of the bishops; then let the laity* also enter 
 who, by choice of the council, have obtained the privilege of 
 being there. Moreover, the notaries also must come in, as is 
 directed by the regular form, for reading documents and taking 
 notes. Then, the doors being fastened, and the prelates sitting 
 in long silence and lifting up their whole heart to the Lord, 
 the archdeacon shall say, ' Pray ye.' And presently they shall 
 all fall on their faces to the earth." 
 
 Then follow prayers, the reading of certain canons, and an 
 address by the metropolitan to " the whole Synod," exhorting 
 them to orderly conduct in the holding of the council. After 
 this, the king and his nobles enter and shortly retire. " After 
 the departure of the king and the exhortation of the archbishop 
 before mentioned, shall enter in all who are priests, deacons, or 
 in religious orders of any kind, to the hearing of the doctrinal 
 discussion." The first three days are to be occupied solely with 
 the doctrinal discussion, which was not, it appears, any matter 
 of faith brought before the council for determination, but " for 
 spiritual instruction's sake," and in order that the deposit of faith 
 ratified by former councils might remain in living memory. 
 
 " After these things, on the fourth day, other causes shall be 
 admitted in order. And thereupon all the religious persons, 
 who on the former days had been present in the council for 
 spiritual instruction's sake, shall go out, some presbyters keep- 
 ing their seats in the council whom the metropolitan shall 
 have appointed to that honour." 
 
 Since the religious persons who had been present for spiritual 
 instruction's sake at the doctrinal discussion were distinct from 
 the members of the council named in the opening paragraph, 
 
 * Deinde ingrediantiir et laici, qui electioiie coiicilii iiiteresse ineruerint. 
 
 If the presbyters and deacons, the ground of whose attendance at the council is 
 described in the above terms, were constituent members of the council, surely the 
 terms in which the laity are spoken of require the same admission in regard to them, 
 unless it could be shown that they were present only as sjiectators, a supposition 
 set aside, to mention no other prnoC. by tlip fact of their subscril>ing.
 
 24 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 it would seem that the presbyters last mentioned were some 
 chosen from those who came to the doctrinal discussion, not 
 originally members of the council, but allowed to remain by 
 desire of the metropolitan. That those mentioned in the 
 opening paragraph, the laymen among them, upon whom the 
 doors were closed, really composed the council, seems clear 
 from this which follows : " Farther, they are to enter into the 
 council each day in the same manner and order as is herein- 
 before appointed. For the rest, whether they be either pres- 
 byters or deacons, clerks or laymen, not themselves members 
 of the council, who think themselves bound to appeal to it in 
 any matter, let them give notice of their cause to the arch- 
 deacon of the metropolitan Church, and let him mention it to 
 the council ; then let them severally be permitted to come in 
 and state their case." 
 
 The manner and order appointed for the assembling of the 
 council we have already seen. And there are named severally, 
 bishops, presbyters, deacons, and laymen, upon whom, after 
 their entrance, the carefully guarded doors of the Church were 
 to be closed. With these are here contrasted " the rest, 
 whether they be either presbyters or deacons, clerks or laymen, 
 not themselves members of the council." Is not the inference 
 plain, that the council consisted of those l^efore mentioned, 
 and that, therefore, the laymen, " who by choice of the council 
 obtained the privilege of being there," were an integral although 
 subordinate part of the Synod ? 
 
 But, perhaps, a proof more satisfactory still is furnished by 
 comparison with the records of the Spanish councils themselves. 
 From the Council* of Eliberis, then, at the very beginning of the 
 
 * The councils to wliich signatures of laymen are attached are, as given in Hard. 
 Cone. torn. iii. pp. 477, D; 968, B, C; 978, A; 1726, E; 1748, D, E; 1749, A; 
 1772, B, C; 1806, B, C ; 
 
 Cone. Tolet. 
 
 III. 
 
 .\.D. 589, 
 
 >> ,, 
 
 VIII. 
 
 653, 
 
 j> ,, 
 
 IX. 
 
 655, 
 
 ,, ,, 
 
 XII. 
 
 681, 
 
 
 XIII. 
 
 683, 
 
 V 
 
 XV. 
 
 688, 
 
 J> 5J 
 
 XVI. 
 
 693, 
 
 ff. Cone. Tarrag. a.d. 516, cap. xiii., Hard. ii. 1045, - '* Epistolas talcs per patres a 
 rnetropolitano sunt dirigenda?, ut non solum a cathedralibus ecclesiis preshyteri, 
 verum etiam de diopcesanis ad concilium traliant ; et aliqnos de filiis ecclesise 
 sfpcularibus secum adducere debeant."
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 25 
 
 fourth centmy, to the Sixteenth Council of Toledo, at the close 
 of the seventh,we find laymen not only present, but subscrib- 
 ing. The subjects determined at the councils at which lay- 
 men subscribed, were of various kinds — doctrinal, disciplinary, 
 and others. One of the councils was the now famous Third of 
 Toledo, which condemned Arianism, and at which the words 
 " et ex Filio" were added to the Creed of Constantinople.* At 
 the Fifteenth of Toledo, a.d. 688, the nature of Christ was 
 under discussion. The Eighth of Toledo determined several 
 matters of clerical discipline. Here, then, are the instances 
 sometimes demanded of laymen having subscribed as well as 
 bishops. I do not myseK attach so much importance to the 
 fact of subscription, because I think that the reason why 
 commonly bishops alone subscribed is shown by the following 
 words of the Formulary already quoted, found verbatim in the 
 fourth canon of the Fourth Council of Toledo, to have been, 
 not because these alone composed the council, but because 
 their signatures, as representatives of the rest, were generally 
 sufficient. When necessary others, laymen less frequently, 
 presbyters more often, added their signatures as well. The 
 words are these : " Let no one presume to break up the council, 
 unless all things shall have been so determined as that every 
 point which has been settled by common consultation" — we 
 have already seen who there were to consult — " be subscribed 
 by the hands of every bishop severally." 
 
 4. We may now turn for a few minutes to see what evidence 
 is afforded by the other Churches of Christendom not yet men- 
 tioned. In the year a.d. 529 was held the Second Council of 
 Arausio or Orange. The subjects discussed at the council 
 were those of grace and free will, — matters, therefore, dis- 
 tinctly doctrinal, and of high importance. At this council 
 laymen were not only present, but subscribed, as we have seen 
 they did in the Toledan councils, and, more than three cen- 
 tures later, at the so-called Eighth General Council, a.d. 870. 
 
 * This fact may, perhaps, create in some minds an imjiression unfavourable to the 
 presence of laymen in Synod. But it must be remembered that, had not one of those 
 laymen been a king, it is scarcely probable that the *' lay element" would have been 
 strong enough to carry a matter of such importance ; and the fact, which is all we 
 are now concerned with, of laymen having subscribed at this council, is in no Avay 
 affected by it.
 
 26 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 Their subscriptions also run in exactly the same form as those 
 of the bishops — " consentiens subscripsi," or " consensi et sub- 
 scripsi." In an old Lyons MS. there is this inscription given 
 to the council, — " Constitutio episcoporum in civitate Arausi- 
 cana, de gratia et libero arbitrio,"* This is interesting, as 
 showing that even when laymen were both present and sub- 
 scribed, the acts of the council might still be named after the 
 bishops alone, doubtless because they were principally their 
 acts, and this was a sufficient description of them. It shows, 
 however, that we must not be too ready to conclude from such 
 titles as these, that none but bishops composed the councils 
 so called. 
 
 In the case of this council, not only did the laymen who 
 had joined in it subscribe, but the reason for their doing so is 
 also given. It is especially interesting, since it shows, that if 
 on other occasions laymen did not subscribe, it was only because 
 it was not thought necessary, and that whenever there appeared 
 to be any benefit likely to follow from their doing so, there 
 was no impediment, on the score of principle, to prevent them. 
 The reason given is this, — "And since it is our wish and 
 desire that the aforesaid definition of the ancient fathers and 
 of us shall be medicinal, not only to the religious, but also to 
 the laity, we have thought it good that the illustrious and 
 magnificent persons who have assembled together with us at 
 the aforesaid council should also with their own hand sub- 
 scribe it.""!- Here we see very plainly the proportion of duty 
 pertaining to the lay portion of the council. The definition of 
 the matter of faith rested, principally at any rate, with the 
 bishops, not only on account of their office, but because they 
 alone, in all probability, possessed the requisite theological 
 knowledge (otherwise there could have been no reason why a 
 learned layman should not have contributed whatever he was 
 able, so long as the laity were not empowered to overrule the 
 bishops, or carry anything against them simply of their own 
 will). And the laity having gone along with the bishops in 
 the doctrinal determination, joined with them in subscribing 
 to it. They had no power of veto, but they were not excluded 
 from any measure of assent or of dissent short of this. 
 
 * Vid. S. Aug. Op. X. Appendix, p. 1785, Migne. t Hard. ii. 1102, A.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 27 
 
 The Spanish Formulary already spoken of gave birth to 
 several others, more or less exact copies of it, which apparently 
 indicate that the practice of Germany and of England were 
 much the same as that of the Church in Spain. One of these 
 is found in the works of Burchard, Bishop of Worms, a learned 
 but not very accurate compiler of canon law.* He gives it 
 under the name of a Council of Salegunstad, a.d. 1022, perhaps 
 really held at Mayence on the Ehine. This is a form for hold- 
 ing not a Provincial, but a Diocesan Synod. There is a similar 
 form in the works of Joverius, a later German writer.-)- In 
 Howel'sj Synopsis, which preceded the great collection of 
 Wilkins by a few years, and in the Appendix § to Wilkins, 
 are found similar " Forms of holding Synods in England in 
 primaeval times." A comparison of these with the Spanish 
 one will show that they are all drawn from it, and through it 
 from the fourth canon of the Fourth Council of Toledo. || But 
 as they are actually of different dates and different countries, 
 they serve to show the practice of later times. There are 
 slight differences between them. Thus, in Burchard's form IF 
 nothing is said about the laity being chosen by the council; 
 and, instead of their remaining as is directed by the Spanish 
 form, during the doctrinal discussion, they are to go out. The 
 forms in Howel a,nd Wilkins return to the earlier type in 
 both these respects. These variations are of some importance 
 as showing the real meaning of those directions respecting the 
 laity. In Germany, in the eleventh century, we could only 
 expect to find any privileges which the laity had formerly had, 
 to be curtailed. The various features of medisevalism, as dis- 
 tinguished from the earlier Catholic system, were then almost 
 fully developed. One of these features was displayed in 
 
 * Van Espen, Jus Eccles. Univ. Pt. i. tit. xviii. c. ii. 1. "Apiicl Burchardiim 
 Wormatiensem reperitur formula liabendi Syuodum Dioecesanam sub nomine Con- 
 cilii Salegunstadiensis anni 1022, quod et teste Baronio ab auctore Micrologi Mogun- 
 tinum uuncupatur." — Hard. Cone. vi. 830. 
 
 f Joyce, Letter to Bishop of Deny, p. 8. 
 
 % Howel, Decreta etc. Brit. p. 79. " Modus tenendi Synodos in Anglia primsevis 
 temporibus." 
 
 § Wilkins, Cone. iv. 784, Appendix. 
 
 II So Mr Joyce, p. 24. 
 
 *\\ Even of this form Van Espen sa>*s, " Juxtahanc formulani ad Synodum con- 
 veniunt Presbyteri, Diaconi, et aliqui laici," vi sup. heading to c. ii. 2.
 
 28 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILKGE 
 
 drawing as strong a line of demarcation as possible between 
 the clerical and lay portions of the Church. 
 
 In one point, however, the Eoman Curia bore witness to the 
 earlier practices. It was a part of their policy to depress the 
 secular clergy, as they were calL^d, and the bishops, by exalt- 
 ing the monastic bodies. We find, accordingly, that members 
 of these bodies were admitted to seats in the councils. Not 
 only abbots and priors, but abbesses and prioresses, and others, 
 to whom, either by right or custom, a seat belonged, were 
 summoned, Van Espen* informs us, to the Diocesan Synods of 
 Belgium. And similarly, he tells us,t it is to be determined 
 by custom principally who are to be summoned to the Pro- 
 vincial Synod. And he mentions a Provincial Synod held at 
 Cambray, a.d. 1565, at which all the abbesses of the province 
 were represented by proctors, and one prioress was present 
 in person ; and all these were not only present, but sub- 
 scribed. It is, however, he adds, generally held that those who 
 besides the bishops are by right or custom present at the Pro- 
 vincial Synod, have a " votum consultivum " only. In respect 
 of some having a seat by custom, he refers to the words of the 
 Council of Trent,J which bidding the metropolitan to summon 
 the Synod of his province, adds " at which all the bishops, and 
 others, who by right or by custom ought to be present, should 
 by all means be held bound to attend." 
 
 Doubtless it was the force of the argument derived from 
 this prevailing j^ractice, which, at an earlier period, enabled 
 the Chancellor of Paris, Gerson, and the Cardinals of Cambray§ 
 and St Mark, to maintain their ground at the Council of Con- 
 stance against the Ultramontanes. Tliey urged, indeed, both 
 
 • Van Espen, ^^t sap. c. i, 10. ''Prseter curani aiiimanun exerceiites, qui Synodo 
 assistere debeant, non ex canonuna sanctionibus duntaxat, sed et varia locorum coii- 
 suetudine petendum est. 
 
 "IL Quare in Synodorum Belgicavmn indictione vidimus generaliter vocari 
 capitulinii Episcopale, Rev. Doni. Abbates, Abbatissas, Pra^positos, Archipresby- 
 teros Rurales, Priores, Priorissas, cajterosqiie omnes, qui de jure vel consuetudine 
 Synodo Dicecesante interesse debent. 
 
 t Id. ib. pt. i. t. XX. c. i. 14. 
 
 % Cone. Trid. sess. xxiv. Decret. de Ref. c. li. 
 
 § See the Schedules in Hard. ix. 222-226 ; and cf. Moberly, B. L. lect. iv, p. 
 120, and Note BB, pii. 307-311. Fleury, liv. cii. c. 141, says, " Comme il y avoit 
 dans le concile beaucoup de docteurs seculiers qui y avoit voix deliberative." The 
 point debated was whether they shoidd hav'e the vote decisive ; but this is suffi- 
 cient to sliow who were acrnsionicd to be present and take some jnirt in councils.
 
 IX THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 29 
 
 Scripture and antiquity in favour of laymen taking part and 
 voting at the council, but the most unanswerable argument 
 would have been the fact of present practice. 
 
 Enough has now, I think, been said to show, my Lord, that 
 there is a thread of testimony running from apostolic times 
 through ecclesiastical records, and bearing witness to the fact 
 of some recognition having been always accorded to laymen 
 in the councils of the Church. The thread may not at all times 
 be very easily discerned. But instead of being staggered at 
 this, our wonder should rather be that so much evidence re- 
 mains. For just as the freshness of the waters of those great 
 rivers of the new world, whose current flows for hundreds of 
 miles out into the ocean pure and untainted by its saltness, 
 testifies to the strength of the source whence they flow, so, 
 when we find the stream of testimony to the point before us 
 flowing so far into the ecclesiastical ocean, in spite of adverse 
 winds, and currents, and influences threatening to swallow it 
 up, we ought to learn to rate at the highest the indications 
 which do appear of a different spirit from the mediaeval hav- 
 ing filled the mind of the apostolic Church. It is undeniable 
 that the tendency after the first centuries was in the direction 
 of separating the clerical as widely as possible from the lay 
 portion of the Church. Surely, then, whatever tokens of 
 powers exercised by laymen appear in later times, we may 
 conclude that if full records remained of the earlier, we should 
 find the indications furnished by Scripture, as interpreted by 
 St Chrysostom, fully carried out in the practice of the first 
 centuries. Learning became before very long the almost ex- 
 clusive possession of the clergy. In the period of the four 
 great councils, it was found chiefly amongst the bishops. Is 
 it then to be wondered at, that, though the place taken by 
 laymen in council is clearly discernible, their part, as well as 
 that of the lower clergy, is far less prominent than that of the 
 bishops ? We find that, according to the principles contained 
 in Holy Scripture, some proportion of responsibility and of 
 duty in maintaining " the faith once delivered to the saints," 
 devolves upon the lay members of the body. We find that 
 the chief portion of this duty belongs to the clerical members, 
 in virtue of the ministerial commission entrusted to them. It
 
 30 LIMITS OF LA.Y RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 might have been thought that the part of the laity might have 
 been intended to be discharged by a merely passive mainte- 
 nance of the faith, in private and by example. But it was 
 not thus that the apostles understood it, as we gather from the 
 history of the Council of JerusalenL It was not thus that S. 
 Chrysostom, S. Cyprian, or S. Basil understood it. This is 
 not what we gather from the records of the councils held in the 
 East, in Africa, in Spain, or in the other countries of Europe, 
 at which we find laymen present, laymen ready to assist in 
 the deliberations, laymen subscribing. If we cannot answer 
 all the questions of detail which might be asked, if we cannot 
 determine the precise part which the lay members took, or in 
 what way they voted, the reason is because these questions 
 cannot be determined with accuracy in reference to any of the 
 members of the synods, — episcopal, clerical, or lay, — not because 
 evidence is wanting only in respect of the latter. 
 
 But, while Scripture and antiquity alike assign some propor- 
 tion of duty to laymen in defence of the faith, it is equally clear 
 from their position in the body, from the ministerial commission 
 given to the clergy, and from all records, that their proportion 
 must be a subordinate one ; and it seems to me that this condi- 
 tion would be best satisfied, and the due, and no more than due, 
 position in council assigned the laity, by excepting from their 
 powers the power of veto. It may be said that this would be 
 regarded by them as enacted in a spirit of jealous exclusion. 
 But I cannot think that the laity will think so ill of the 
 clergy, especially if the reason for the enactment is fully ex- 
 plained to them. And in practice it would very rarely come 
 into operation. Usually the laity would sit, speak, and vote 
 with the clergy, and the decision would probably be arrived 
 at without even the necessity of calling for a vote by orders. 
 But if such a case were to occur, and the vote of the lay order 
 was contrary to the votes of the episcopal and clerical orders, 
 then the necessity for excepting the laity from the power of 
 veto on matters implying doctrine, would be made very appar- 
 ent. For, in that case, if the concurrent vote of the three 
 orders was requisite, they by their negative vote would have 
 the power of hindering the decision of the clerical body from 
 being carried into effect ; which, in a case of trial for heresy,
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 31 
 
 for instance, or of the condemnation of a book, would be of 
 very serious importance, and which, in any case, would over- 
 throw the relative proportion of powers belonging to the lay and 
 clerical portions of the Church respectively. I do not speak 
 of the alternative of the decision being carried by the votes of 
 any two orders against the third, because there are obvious 
 objections to such an arrangement. 
 
 The objection may also be urged, that assent implies dissent. 
 This is, of course, true ; but a limited power of assent does not 
 imply an unlimited power of dissent. If the laity have only 
 a certain measure of responsibility, and consequently of privi- 
 leges, in respect of that conciliar action whereby the faith of 
 the Church is maintained, this must surely be limited on the 
 negative as well as on the positive side. That the latter is appa- 
 rently unlimited is accidental. In fact, the objection is of an 
 entirely technical character, and will hardly be seriously 
 maintained. The influence of the laity in council, with this 
 proviso respecting the power of veto, will still be as real and 
 forcible in practice as any the most eager for power could 
 desire. Only, it will not be in their power to hinder the 
 clerical body from the full execution of the trust committed to 
 them ; and further, a safeguard will be provided against the 
 danger, not now threatening, but still a possible danger, of lay 
 influence, through the exercise of the power of veto, becoming 
 supreme in the direction of the doctrine and discipline of the 
 Church. And I am sure, my Lord, that the faithful laity of 
 the Church at this day will desire, equally with ourselves, that 
 neither of these contingencies shall be hazarded. 
 
 It can hardly be necessary to reply to what may possibly be 
 urged, namely, that concurrent assent of the three orders is the 
 system adopted by the American and Colonial Churches. For 
 surely the Scotch Church is not bound to follow their example, 
 still less in every particular, — especially when all the advan- 
 tages proposed to be obtained by the admission of the laity to 
 Synod will be gained equally well by following their example, 
 or rather that of the Primitive Church, in other respects, with- 
 out the hazard of those unlikely, perhaps, but still possible 
 dangers which have just been mentioned, ensuing; and, more- 
 over, without doing that for which there does not appear to be
 
 32 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 any justification, either in the theory or practice of Scripture 
 and of the Church. 
 
 But it may be asked, on the other hand, What are the benefits 
 likely to result from conferring upon the laity further powers 
 in Synods than they already possess ? I have already, I fear, 
 taxed somewhat severely the patience of tlie Synod, but I hope 
 I may be permitted, before I sit down, to say a few words on 
 this point. For, my Lord, it appears to me that a double 
 benefit, and that of a very important kind, would result from 
 this measure. The character of the laity themselves would be 
 raised by it, and it would add very greatly to the strength and 
 efhciency of the Church. 
 
 The character of the laity would be raised by it. And is 
 not this to remove, by the adoption of this measure, the very 
 objection which presses most upon the minds of those who re- 
 gard it with disfavour? In the Pastoral Letter upon this 
 subject, lately issued by the Bishop of Brechin, is it not this 
 which is most especially urged, that the laity of these times, 
 from want of faith — from want, if the expression may be per- 
 mitted, of theological depth, are less fitted than of old to 
 take part in the conciliar action of the Church in respect of 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Let this objection be fairly met and faced ; for it is capable, 
 I believe, of the fullest and most satisfactory answer. Ad- 
 mitting the fact of the want of faith charged — and, with little 
 knowledge of Scotland, I fear that it must be admitted in 
 respect of a large portion of the laity of England — admitting 
 the truth of the charge, the answer to it is ready, and will, I 
 think, be allowed. For, speaking now only of still professing 
 members of the Church, in what special points is their faith 
 most deficient ? Is not one of these their failure to realise the 
 spiritual powers and prerogatives of the Church, belonging to 
 her as being that living body of which Christ himself is the 
 head, and in which, as in a temple consecrated to God, the 
 Holy Ghost dwells ? And is not coldness in respect to unity 
 another point in which failing of faith is made especially mani- 
 fest ? But now, would not the adoption of the measure pro- 
 posed be the most effectual means of remedying these defi- 
 ciencies of faith ? For look at the laymen of England and of
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 33 
 
 Scotland at this time who are most desirous of aiding the 
 Church in a regular manner in her councils. Are they not the 
 men whose faith in the Church's mission contrasts most favour- 
 ably with the want of faith discernible in others ? When, 
 then, that already abundant zeal which is now fain to spend 
 itself in irregular and sometimes extravagant ways, shall be 
 brought under the very shadow of the Church's authority, and 
 taught to flow in the appointed channels through which she 
 acts, will not the faith now undirected be concentrated with 
 greater earnestness upon those objects in which it still needs 
 ^increase ? Nay, in respect not only of these, but of all objects 
 of faith, will not the very fact of having discussions of these 
 put before them, arouse not only interest, but a spirit of in- 
 quiry in those who are to take part in them ? Such, at least, 
 has been the result where the experiment has been tried. 
 " The position of laymen in our councils,"* said an American 
 writer more than twenty years ago, " has tended to produce a 
 class of well-read, sound, and practical lay churchmen, who 
 are always found on the side of order, conservatism, and law." 
 You, my Lord, have already referred to the similar testimony 
 of an American layman of the present day.-[- And the Bishop 
 of New YorkJ also, in a letter to the Bishop of Salisbury, bears 
 witness that the laymen in council " have always proved them- 
 selves cautious and conservative in their action, the great 
 majority of them earnest and sound in their Church feelings 
 and principles." Similar testimony has, I believe, been borne 
 to -the character and action of the lay churchmen who have 
 taken part in the councils of the Church in New Zealand and 
 Tasmania, by Bishop Selwyn and Bishop Mxon. Surely, then, 
 under the condition here proposed, we may well hope that the 
 like happy result would follow amongst ourselves, not only in 
 respect of those laymen who would themselves be members of 
 Synods, but, by means of a gradual influence spreading the 
 
 * See Keport of York Convocation Debate on Admission of the Laity to Convoca- 
 tion, p. 5. 
 
 f " The very fact that the laity are admitted to a part in ecclesiastical discussions, 
 makes them doubly solicitous to be well-informed upon questions which come up for 
 arbitration ; and this necessarily turns their thoughts towards the Church and its 
 work, and so stimulates them to a deeper personal interest in all its varied opera- 
 tions." 
 
 :J: Bishop of Salisbury, B. L. p. 335. 
 
 C
 
 34 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE 
 
 from them, through the entire body of the laity of the 
 Church. 
 
 And if the character and faith of the laity would he raised 
 by this measure, no less would the strength and efficiency of 
 the Church in defending and maintaining the faith be in- 
 creased by it. Let me once more remind you of the words of 
 the Arausican Council : " And since it is our wish and desire 
 that the aforesaid definition of the ancient fathers and of us 
 should be medicinal, not only to the religious, but also to the 
 laity, we have thought it good that the illustrious and magni- 
 ficent persons who have assembled together with us at the 
 aforesaid council should also with their own hand subscribe 
 it." Do not these words most forcibly suggest to us the weight 
 which would be added to the voice of the Church, raised in 
 council in defence of the faith, when that voice was understood 
 to be the voice of the whole body of the Church, and not of 
 the clerical portion of it only ? There are times in which the 
 Church needs, and will increasingly need, that all her forces 
 should be concentrated and drawn together in defence of the 
 common faith. The soldiers of the Lord's army must not be 
 allowed, as Mr Tytler has well said,* to slumber in inaction. 
 For if there is want of faith in professing members of the Church, 
 much worse is the case of those who hang upon the outskirts, or 
 who are already betaking themselves to the camp of the enemy. 
 Whilst the watchmen upon the towers of our Zion do not 
 cease to warn us of the oncoming of the foe, whilst it is daily 
 more necessary to uphold such a truth as the divinity of our 
 blessed Lord, and to proclaim that there is a Holy Ghost, how 
 can we delay to call together the whole army of the Living 
 God, and so prepare for the day of battle ? And that witness 
 borne in due proportion by the laity, together with the bishops 
 and clergy, would be largely effectual, who can doubt? Let 
 me only, in conclusion, set side by side with the declaration of 
 the Council of Orange these words of one whom the Church 
 must ever hold in honoured remembrance, the late Bishop of 
 Exeter, Bishop Philpotts. It was at a meeting at Plymouth, 
 shortly before the assembling of the Synod of Exeter, which 
 was sumntoned to uphold the article of the Creed, " I believe 
 
 * Charles Eraser Tytler, Esq., a layman who had previously spoken.
 
 IN THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 35 
 
 one baptism for the remission of sins," that Bishop Philpotts 
 spoke as follows : — " I trust the time will come when we shall 
 be able to hail the great body of the people of England as the 
 real laity of the Church. I shall be in my grave long before 
 that period arrives ; but most certainly, were that period now 
 arrived, I should not only consider it right to consult them, 
 but I should rejoice to have the real body of the laity present 
 at the approaching Synod. I should hail it as one of the 
 greatest blessings. I should remember how S. Cyprian and 
 all the ancient Fathers regarded the laity as so deserving of 
 confidence that they never did anything without consultation 
 with them, except as respectiug the guardianship of truth. That 
 was a trust which they could not permit any other guardians 
 than themselves to guard, the spiritual body being properly 
 entrusted with the guardianship of the faith ; and S. Cyprian, 
 who was most anxious for the counsel of the presbyters and 
 the concurrence of the laity, never dreamt of letting them 
 decide matters of faith. Barrow, speaking of the Pope's 
 supremacy, says, — ' Every bishop in his own church did act 
 freely according to his own will and discretion, with the 
 advice of his ecclesiastical senate, and with the consent of his 
 people (the which he did use to consult), without being con- 
 trollable by any other, or accountable to any, further than his 
 obligation to uphold the verity of the Christian profession, and 
 to maintain fraternal communion in charity and peace with 
 neighbouring churches, did require.' It is to that I look," 
 continues Bishop Philpotts, " as the point to which all our 
 efforts should be directed. We should strive to recover the 
 purity, the simplicity, and the power, in its genuine sense, of 
 the Church, — not the power of the clergy, far less of the bishop, 
 but of the real Church — bishops, clergy, and laity — united in 
 one common object for the good of the common Church ; and 
 to the laity, as the great body, should be paid great attention 
 and great deference ; and I declare I do not believe a man in 
 this country exists more anxious to have the real authority of 
 the laity than I am, as I am sure there is not one who would 
 go farther than I would to obtain it." 
 
 Such were the words spoken, now nearly twenty years ago, 
 by Bishop Philpotts. Do we not discern in them how wel-
 
 36 LIMITS OF LAY RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE, ETC. 
 
 come to him would have been a measure which, while care- 
 fully providing against the clergy being in any way impeded 
 in the full execution of the trust committed to them, seeks 
 " to recover the purity, the simplicity, and the power of the 
 real Church — bishops, clergy, and laity, united in one common 
 object for the good of the common Church ? " Shall we then 
 be slow to act upon principles such as these ? If, now that an 
 opportunity is offered of carrying out these principles in the 
 true spirit of Catholic antiquity, and thereby of gaining those 
 benefits which Bishop Philpotts foresaw would accrue to the 
 Church from more closely binding together in community of 
 action the triple cords of bishops, clergy, and laity, we neglect 
 to act upon it, will not posterity justly reproach us with lack 
 of discernment and of wisdom ? 
 
 I will, therefore, move that we adopt the resolution which I 
 have had the honour of bringing before you, — " That, as regards 
 the limits within which the laity should be admitted to further 
 powers and functions in the councils of the Church, it is the 
 opinion of the Synod that, with the exception of the power of 
 veto upon the decisions of the bishops and clergy implying 
 doctrine, it is in accordance with the principles of holy Scrip- 
 ture, and the mind of the Primitive Church, that laymen should 
 speak, vote, and lend their assistance in carrying out the deci- 
 sions arrived at, as freely and fully as the clerical members of 
 the Synods." 
 
 After some discussion, during which several of the laymen 
 present expressed approval of the terms of the resolution, it 
 was carried unanimously, one member only declining to vote. 
 
 Note. — A desire having been expressed to that effect, I have 
 freely incorporated, in the text and notes of these pages, addi- 
 tional matter, in elucidation or illustration of the argument, 
 which could not be brought within the reasonable limits of a 
 speech.— H. C. P.
 
 APPENDIX (A.) 
 
 ON THE EIGHT OF YOTIJ^G m SY:^0DS IN ANCIENT 
 
 TIMES. 
 
 Mr Joyce thinks the resolution with which S. Cyprian began his 
 episcopate *' falls far short of proving any general rule, that laymen 
 should sit as constituent members, with voices decisive, in Diocesan 
 Synods, in contradiction to the concurrent testimony of all ecclesi- 
 astical history."* Were the fact as Mr Joyce states it, I should 
 entirely agree with him. But does not the fallacy lie in those words, 
 "with voices decisive?" When Mr Joyce says " that the laity were 
 constituent members of such assemblies with ' votes decisive,' this 
 is more than appears," he states a fact which is perfectly true, un- 
 less he considers subscription as synonymous with "votes decisive." 
 That the laity did subscribe, I shall presently show. But if any- 
 thing else is meant by " votes decisive," can Mr Joyce show evi- 
 dence of how this right was exercised by the bishops and clergy in 
 Synod? For, surely, if he cannot, he has no right to press the 
 want of evidence in respect of the laity as regards this right, in 
 proof that nothing of the kind was exercised by them. And in 
 default of this evidence, is not the fact that the presence of the 
 laity at Synods is described in much the same terms as that of the 
 presbyters and deacons, with a difference only of subordination in 
 the position assigned to the lay members, presumptive proof that 
 they as well as the clergy took a real though proportionate part in 
 the proceedings of the Synods. Few subjects are, I believe, more 
 obscure than that of the right of voting in Synods. I venture to 
 doubt there being evidence to show whether there was anything in 
 the ancient Synods corresponding to the modern "voting." That 
 opinions were individually exj^ressed we know ; but there is no 
 record, that I am aware of, of a question being put to the vote 
 otherwise than by acclamation. And the words of the fourth canon 
 of the Fourth Council of Toledo, which lays down the manner in 
 which a Synod is to be held, seem to indicate that subscription was 
 
 * Rev. J. W. Joyce, Letter to the Bishop of DerrVj p. 17.
 
 38 APPENDIX. 
 
 not merely the token of individual assent, but was given by the 
 bishops in the name of the whole council. The words are as fol- 
 lows : — " Concilium quoque nullus solvere audeat, nisi fuerint 
 cuncta determinata : ita ut quascumque deliberatione communi 
 iiniimtur, episcoporum singulorum manibus subscribantur." " Let no 
 one, moreover, dare to break up the council unless a determination 
 has been made of all the business ; so that what things soever are 
 concluded by the common deliberation, may be subscribed by the 
 hands of the individual bishops." Since the bishops were not 
 always the only members of the council who subscribed, as Mr 
 Joyce himself says, surely it is reasonable to conclude that when no 
 signatures except theirs were given, they were given in the naiue of 
 all who were present — of the laity, therefore, as well as of the clergy. 
 It may be said that the use of the word •^rjcfio'g, in the Nicene 
 canons and elsewhere, proves that "votes decisive" were known in 
 the ancient Synods. But it will be very difficult, I think, to prove 
 this from the use of the term. Mr M'Clellan, in his recent j^am- 
 phlet on the fourth Nicene canon, after careful investigation of all 
 the terms used, adds the following note upon the word ^7J(f>os : — " I 
 have not thought it necessary to dwell upon ij/yjcfio?. It gives no 
 support to one interpretation more than another, as it is a most 
 general word, and employed for any decision of an assembly or 
 synod (as Nicaen. Canon v.) whether respecting faith or discipline, 
 ordination or deposition." (P. 26.) We can, therefore, gain no in- 
 formation from it respecting the manner in which decisions were 
 arrived at, or whether the distinction between the "jus decisivum" 
 and "jus consultivum" was known anciently, and whether the first 
 was possessed by some members of the Synod only, while others 
 had only the latter. Van Espen, speaking of this distinction, says 
 no more than that it was held by men oi his time (communiter 
 receptum est, pt. i. t. xx. c. i. 16), and gives no ancient precedents. 
 Since then it is not mentioned in any of the " Forms of holding 
 Synods;" it probably came into use between the eleventh century — 
 the date of the later of the forms — and the fifteenth, in Avliich it 
 was employed in the Councils of Pisa, Constance, &c.
 
 APPENDIX. 39 
 
 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ox THE PRESENCE OF THE EMPEROES AT COUNCILS. 
 
 It will be observed that nothing has been said respecting the 
 presence of the emperors at councils. It seemed better not to do so^ 
 because another and a different question is mixed up, in the case of 
 the emperors, with that with which we are concerned. The ques- 
 tion before us is, "Within what limits are simple Christian laymen 
 found to have taken part in the councils of the Church 1 The ques- 
 tion of the relations of the Church with the civil power, especially 
 in respect of the exercise of discipline, is involved in the attitude 
 of the emperors towards the councils. When many bishops at 
 Mcsea presented their complaints to Constantine, it was the power 
 which he possessed as emperor which they each wished to enlist in 
 their own favour. And when he ordered all those papers to be 
 burnt, this ought not to be cited as evidence that a layman as such 
 in those days felt that he had nothing to do with such matters, 
 but we ought to see in the act the emperor declining to make the 
 civil power judge of things which it was then thought that the 
 Church alone should decide. For, as has been already remarked, 
 the authority of the Church as a divinely commissioned body was 
 at that time recognised. And therefore the frequent disclaimers on 
 the part of the emperors of interference in the decisions of a 
 council, are to be imputed to their recognition of the authority of 
 the Church as contrasted with the civil powers, not of the bishops 
 and clergy as contrasted with the laity. Some fear was doubtless 
 felt of the civil power as too dangerous a neighbour, and this fear 
 the emperors desired to remove. Abundant proof may, I think, be 
 given that this was the main feeling on both sides. Take, for 
 example, these words of the Emperor Marcian, addressing the 
 Council of Chalcedon, to which we have already seen that laymen 
 in their capacity of Christian witnesses to the truth were sum- 
 moned. 'HdA.?^^€ia rat? vfxwv iKOiaeaL (f)Ctv€pova6(D' ■)7/xcts yap ySe/3aio- 
 TTjra rots TrparTO/xeVois irpoaOyjaovTeq, 6v Swayweco? iircSei^Lv 7roL7]cr6u,€.voLy 
 Trapetvat Trj avvoSio iooKLfxdaafxei , {'TroSety/x.a 7roLr](TdfX€vot rov T7J<5 /xuKapias 
 Xri^€(i)<; Ko)i/aTavrivov. — Hard. ii. 4G5, A. " Let the truth be by you
 
 40 APPENDIX. 
 
 set forth and manifested. For we have determined to be present at 
 the Synod, after the example of the pious Constantine, for the pur- 
 pose of giving additional confirmation to your acts, not for the 
 purpose of making a demonstration of power." It is from this 
 point of view that Van Espen (Jus. Eccles. pt. i. tit. xx. c. 4) dis- 
 cusses the authority of princes in the synods of bishops. It is 
 quite true that the emperors, in their disclaimers of authority in 
 ecclesiastical matters, sometimes assign their being laymen as the 
 ground. Thus the Emperor Valentinian, in his answer to the 
 Oriental bishops requesting him to summon a council, is reported by 
 Sozomen to have said, *E^o/, fih, (Lira Xccov rsrayfisvcf}, ov Gifiic, roiavru 
 ^^roXvT^ayitiovsTv (Sozom. vi. 7. quoted by De Marca De Concord. 
 Sac. et Imp. lib. ii. c. 6, p. 44.) "For me, who am one of the 
 laity, it is not lawful to meddle in such matters." Hooker con- 
 siders this to have been a " colourable reason," to escape from an 
 awkward position. Nothing could better show the two characters 
 of the emperor and the layman, and that what is spoken in the one 
 character is not always applicable to the other. (Hooker, E. P. 
 viii. V. 2, vol. iii. p. 394, Ed. Keble.) And so the Emperors 
 Theodosius and Valentinian, in their letter to the Council of Ephe- 
 sus, respecting the part which Count Candidian was to take in the 
 council. He was to be present to keep order, but not to interfere 
 in the discussions respecting faith, since that was the province of 
 the bishops, d^sfiirov ya^ rov fiYj rov xaraXojou ruv ayiuraTuv sTiaxo- 
 «rwv rvyyjxvovra roTg s-/t7cXsG/a.ffTixoT^ ffxsfjbfjLaoiv smfiiyvvffdai. — Hard. i. 
 pp. 1345, 1346, c. 1). 
 
 But though these passages prove that the distinction between 
 interference by the civil power and the part which a layman might 
 properly take in bearing witness to the faith, was not always clearly 
 perceived, they do not appear sufficient evidence that it was not the 
 exercise of their civil authority in ecclesiastical affairs which the 
 emperors generally felt would be improper ; and that because this 
 is so evidently the uppermost feeling in most of the passages 
 adduced. Thus Marcian says, " Magis esse decorum, ut ecclesias- 
 tica capitula ab ecclesiasticis quam a civilibus legibus, et a Synodo 
 quam a se sancirentur " (vid. Howel, Proleg. ad Synopsim.) And 
 even Justinian (Noy. 83. c. 1. ; Howel, ib.) " neque enim volumus 
 talia negotia omnino scire civiles judices, cum oportet talia ecclesi- 
 astice examinari." 
 
 Nor can I convince myself that if S. Ambrose had been address- 
 ing a simple layman, from whom no exercise of power was to be
 
 APPENDIX. 41 
 
 feared, and who underatood that his part m council, though real, 
 was subordinate to that of the clerical body, he would have ex- 
 pressed himself exactly as he has done in the following passage, 
 the strongest, I suppose, which is to be found :■ — '' Quando audisti, 
 Clementissime Imperator, in causa fidei laicos de Episcopis judi- 
 cassel Ita ergo quodam adulatione curvamur, ut sacerdotalis juris 
 simus immemores, et quod Deus donavit mihi, hoc ipse aliis putem 
 esse credenduni 1 Si docendus est Episcopus a laico, quid sequetur? 
 Laicus ergo disputet, et Episcopus audiat ; Episcopus discat a laico. 
 At certe, si vel scripturarum serieni divinaruni vel Vetera tempora 
 retractenius, quis est, qui abnuat, in causa fidei, in causa inquani 
 fidei, Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Iiupera- 
 tores de Episcopis judicare." — Amhros. lib. v. epist. 35, quoted by 
 De Marca ut sup. p. 44. 
 
 Observe the frequent repetition of the word judico in this passage. 
 And does not the use of this word show that the idea of the epis- 
 copal decisions being overruled by laymen, and especially by the 
 emperor, whose power would give him the means of doing so, was 
 prmcipally in S. Ambrose's thought? At any rate, there is a wide 
 difference between overruling or taking the principal part in what 
 is decided, and that duly proportioned and subordinate testimony, 
 which is all that it is here contended there is warrant from Scrip- 
 ture and antiquity for laymen bearing in council. And this seems 
 to have been felt at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, a.d. 870, 
 sometimes called the Eighth General Council, already referred to. 
 
 For after the Emperor Basil addressing the Synod at the close 
 of the proceedings, and calling upon all present — whether bishops, 
 clergy, or laymen — to state their objections, if they had any, to what 
 had been determined, had added the proviso, that it did not belong 
 of right to laymen to determine ecclesiastical causes (quanquam non 
 datum sit istis [sc. laicis] secundum canoneni dicendi quidquam 
 penitus de ecclesiasticis causis ; opus enim hoc pontificum et sacer- 
 dotum est ; sed ex abundanti, etc.), the Synod nevertheless, as we 
 have seen, called upon the laymen for their assent and subscription, 
 which was given. 
 
 I cannot think, then, that S. Ambrose, or any other of the Fathers, 
 however strong may be the expressions used by them with reference 
 to the civil power, would not have been of tlie same mind with S. 
 Cyprian, S. Chrysostom, and S. Basil, as regards the presence of 
 layman in council in their capacity as members of the Christian 
 body; that they would not have assented to the principle as stated
 
 42 APPENDIX. 
 
 by S. Basil, — -At xcpi ras 'EKKXr^aiaq oLKOvo/xLat yiyvovrai fxkv Trapa 
 Tu)v TTCTna-TevfiWuiv Trjv 7rpoara(Tiav dvrCJv, ^e^ULovvTai 5c Tra/oa. tCjv Xawv ; 
 or that tliey would not have regarJctl the confirinatioii by the lay 
 portion of tlie cniurch, so long as the decisions of the clerical body 
 were not overruled by them, as of great value and importance.
 
 m 
 
 ^^m*' % 
 
 fe,^ 
 
 s?llc/ t%