s 
 
 
 ^ %- m 
 
 
 
 .i>M^ 
 
 
 "i^W^^ 
 
 
 ■■*r 
 
 
 
 '\% 
 
 
 
 . ,v -^ 
 
 .;S^' 
 
 "^N 
 
 
 I'liiiHi iriii
 
 
 \^^ 
 
 
 ja 
 
 LI E> RA RY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UN IVER.SITY 
 
 Of ILLINOIS
 
 ■i^:: ♦
 
 /jcUc U^ vw'^ ^iS^^'^ tcy^4L.tJ^ 
 
 THE 
 
 GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 
 
 IN BELATION TO 
 
 THE STATE AND THE LAITY. 
 
 REPRINTED FR02I THE " UNION REVIEW." 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTEE G. F. PHILLIMOEE, B.O.L., 
 
 • Barriiter-at-Laic, and ChanciUor of the Diocese of Lincoln. 
 
 ■s.
 
 ^&.'
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 THE GOVEENMENT OF THE CHURCH IN EELATION 
 TO THE STATE AND THE LAITY. 
 
 The matter of this paper, though often forming one topic of 
 interest and discussion at the present day, consists of two 
 subjects. Two kinds of governing bodies are to be dis- 
 cussed in their relation to the Church, the State, and the 
 laity ; the State, that is, the whole nation in its civil society, 
 apart from the consideration of whatever order and whatever 
 religion its several citizens may be — clergy or laity. Christians 
 or heathens. Churchmen or non-Churchmen; the laity, that is, 
 the fideles or faithful, who are members of the Church itself, 
 though not ordained to any place in her ministry. 
 
 It is obvious that these two kinds of government by the 
 State and by the laity are very diiferent, that they must rest 
 on different principles, and be exercised in different ways. 
 There have been theories and theorists who have represented 
 the government or control of the Church by •the State as 
 being in substance the government of the Churcli by the laity, 
 and who have justified this government upon this ground. 
 But, though in a nation composed entirely of members of the 
 Church, it may possibly be that the laity may preponderate 
 over the clergy in the State, or civil society, while the clergy 
 preponderate in the Church, yet even then the control of the 
 Church by the State will only accidentally express the govern- 
 ment of the laity, the laity regulating a matter of State will 
 do so not as lay-Churchmen but as citizens, and in fact to 
 give the control of the Church to the State in such a case is 
 to create two rival bodies, each with despotic power in its own 
 sphere, and with no bond of union between them, rather than 
 to blend with proper admixture of powers and parts the two 
 bodies into one harmonious constitution. 
 
 This is so even when the State is composed entirely of 
 members of the Church. Of course, directly persons who 
 are not members of the Church come to have civil rights 
 and influence in the State, all idea of the State representing 
 the laity is gone. 
 
 The two subjects, therefore — the government of the Church 
 
 B 2
 
 4 TJie Government of the Church m Relation 
 
 by the State, and that by the laity, must be considered separately, 
 and as having only a certain number of points in common. 
 
 First, as to the government of the Church by the State. 
 
 There are three relations in which a Church or society 
 professing a particular religion may be viewed by a State. It 
 may be prohibited by the State, directly or indirectly, through 
 all the various grades from persecution to unlawfulness, and 
 thence to simple discountenancing. It may be tolerated, i.e.f 
 have its property ensured to it by legal protection, as the pro- 
 perty of private persons, and its members not affected for 
 better or worse in relation to all matters of State by their 
 professing its religion. Or it and its members may be 
 endowed with peculiar privileges, or State revenues, when it 
 is said in modern parlance to be '' established." Many reli- 
 gions have passed through all these phases in the ascending 
 or in the descending scale. But while the broad distinction 
 of the first and third phase has been always known, there has 
 been many an age and country which has been unable to com- 
 prehend the intermediate position. 
 
 The Athenians of the days of Socrates had an established 
 religion, or set of religions, and every other religion was pro- 
 hibited or persecuted. Two out of the three charges on 
 which Socrates was condemned to death were, the non-recog- 
 nition of the gods whom the State recognized, and the intro- 
 duction of other new gods. 
 
 It is familiar to all that at that long period of change . 
 which we generally call the Reformation, the struggles between 
 the adherents of the Pope and the Reformers were rarely made 
 for toleration and liberty of conscience, but were generally sim- 
 ple contests for supremacy, that is, contests whether one party 
 or the other should be established, with the privilege of perse- 
 cuting the other party. In the time of the Commonwealth 
 the most fanatical political party was considered to be that 
 of the Levellers, and one of their special tenets was, that 
 every man ought to be allowed to believe and worship 
 according to his conscience.* 
 
 Later still, in the time of William III., the Scotch Pres- 
 byterians, who had long groaned under the persecutions of 
 Claverhouse, when they prevailed on the Government to make 
 their sect the established Church in Scotland, immediately 
 enacted and put in force a series of the most cruel and in- 
 tolerant laws against the Episcopalians ; so that it came to 
 pass that on one side of the Tweed a Church was not only 
 tolerated but established with great privileges, while on the 
 
 * Lingard, Hist, of England, vol. Yiii. p. 324. Note YYY. ^ ^ 
 
 (^ \
 
 to the Slate and the Laity. 5 
 
 otlicr side, in a country under the same sovereign, the same 
 Church was not only not estahlished, hut actually perse- 
 cuted. 
 
 It has heen said that the intermediate position of tolerating 
 a religious hody, or Church, is one which has been unknown, 
 •and apparently incomprehensible, in many ages and countries. 
 
 There is, however, one great exception : the Romans early 
 understood and practised the doctrines of toleration. Indeed 
 it may be said, that through all the middle part of their history 
 the three phases of treatment — prohibition, toleration, and 
 establishment — might be seen together in existence, applied 
 to different religions. 
 
 The early Republican state of Rome had an established 
 idolatrous creed, in and by which certain deities and their 
 images were recognized. At a later period, when conquest 
 and commerce had brought her citizens into closer relations 
 with other countries, the deities of these countries, with their 
 images and religious rites, were introduced into Rome. Some 
 of these were tolerated from the first, as for instance, those 
 of the Jews and most of those of the Greeks. The Baccha- 
 nalian rites and worship, however, though introduced from 
 Oreece, were specially prohibited by a remarkable decree of 
 the Senate, in B.C. 186. The deities and rites of the Egyp- 
 tians were at first prohibited, but afterwards g»ew to be con- 
 nived at and tolerated. 
 
 The Christian rehgion was, as we all know, very differently 
 treated. It was from the first prohibited, and its members 
 were from time to time subjected to the fiercest persecution. In 
 the intervals between these persecutions, however, it may be 
 said to have been connived at ; and some time before the reign 
 of Constantino the Church was beginning to acquire a quasi- 
 legal status or position with respect to her property. 
 
 It was not however till the reign of Constantino the Great 
 that the Church became collegium licituDi, that is a lawful 
 society or club. From that moment it was completely tole- 
 rated. It had further, with the one exception of Julian, 
 emperors professing its religion. It must not however be 
 considered that Christianity was established, in the sense of 
 having any peculiar privileges above other religions, in the 
 reign of Constantino. 
 
 Her establishment was of slow growth, and was not matured 
 till after the reignsofmany Christian emperors, as the Church 
 gradually acquired civil privileges for her bishops and officers, 
 civil sanctions to her jurisdiction and Courts, and special rights 
 as to the acquisition and preservation of her property. But 
 
 c
 
 6 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 during this period, and even after the Church was maturely 
 established, the other religions were not prohibited. For a 
 long time the idolatrous religions continued to be established 
 as before by the State. Each Roman emperor called himself 
 Pontifex Maximus, till the reign of Gratian in a.d. 378. Till 
 about the same epoch the State supplied the costs of the 
 sacrifices in the principal temples. 
 
 This account of the systems of republican and imperial 
 Rome will help us to see more clearly than we should other- 
 wise have done the necessary relations as to government be- 
 tween the Church and the State under these three phases of 
 treatment, prohibition, toleration, and establishment. 
 
 As to the first, then, it is obvious that there cannot be any 
 government of the Church by the State, where that Church 
 and its religion is prohibited. 
 
 The State does not govern in this case. On the contrary, 
 it does its best to suppress the Church. It recognizes no 
 rights as existing between its members, no property in them 
 or in the society. The Church and every member of it have no- 
 thing to hope, everything to fear, from the action of the State. 
 The relation therefore between the Church and the State 
 as to government is confined to these two cases, where the 
 Church is tolerated or where it is established. 
 
 Now there are people who say that toleration is and must 
 be establishment, that every religious society tolerated by the 
 State is thereby in fact established. According to these people 
 the several Dissenting communities are established in England 
 just as the Church is established ; and the Church in Ireland 
 is just as much established now, since its disestablishment, as 
 it was before ! 
 
 The view of these people does not of course agree with 
 that which has been given already in these pages ; and it is 
 submitted that' it cannot be a correct one. 
 
 A Church was tolerated, it was said, when its property was 
 ensured to it as the property of private persons by legal protec- 
 tion, and its members were not aff'ected for better or for worse 
 in relation to all matters of State by their professing its reli- 
 gion. It was established when it and its members were en- 
 dowed with peculiar privileges. 
 
 Now not to quarrel about words, and whether the word 
 established might be better applied to the first than to the 
 second of these two classes, it is obvious that there are several 
 important distinctions between them ; and that a Church 
 whose members gain no especial privileges from the State, 
 and are only allowed to unite together, in voluntary socie-
 
 to the State and the Laity. 7 
 
 'ties by compact, as any other citizens may when the ob- 
 ject to be attained is not an milawful one, is in a different 
 position from a Church whose members as such enjoy especial 
 privileges: such as the presence of their bishops in Parliament, 
 the civil sanction given to decrees of their tribunals, the civil 
 power of recovering the contributions of their members, the use 
 of their religious rites and services on all public occasions, and 
 all the consequences of this use ; and it is further obvious, 
 and this is the point immediately before us, that a Church 
 thus established or endowed with peculiar privileges by the 
 State must be more subject to the control or government of 
 the State than a Church merely tolerated. 
 
 This must be so ; for with a Church thus tolerated the State 
 has no interest in saying whether it exists or not, much less 
 whether it holds this or that doctrine, remains in the same 
 faith or changes it from time to time, or whether its tenets 
 and discipline be such as to attract many disciples, or as to 
 alienate its existing members. The only points in which the 
 State is interested in such a Church are these, externally that 
 its doctrine or discipline be not such as to make its members 
 less good citizens for civil purposes, and internally, that its 
 rules or their practical operation be not such as unjustly to 
 subject its members, being citizens of the State, to bodily injury 
 •or loss of property, or any of those other rights which in a 
 •complicated state of civilization such as ours are equivalent to 
 property. 
 
 In regard too to the first of these points the relation of the 
 State to the Church is not exactly governmental, it is rather 
 that of discovering where a doctrine is being taught or a dis- 
 cipline practised harmful to the State. Upon this discovery 
 being made, the State prohibits that doctrine or discipline ; 
 and if the Church holds to it, ends by prohibiting the Church, 
 and then the relation between Church and State pass out 
 'of the phase of toleration, and government of one by the 
 •other ceases. 
 
 A modern illustration of this is supplied by the present 
 •condition of affairs between Prussia and the Pope. Though 
 the sovereign and the Established Church of Prussia are 
 Protestant, belonging to the mixed Lutheran and Evan- 
 gelical sects, a large portion of the subjects of Prussia are 
 Catholics, and their religion has accordingly been always 
 tolerated, latterly with a sort of quasi-official relation between 
 the Sovereign, the Bishops, and the Pope.* The government 
 t©f Prussia has however determined that the new doctrine of 
 
 * Pliillimore's International Law, Vol. ii., Part vii., chap. 8. 
 
 C 2
 
 8 The Government of the Church tn Relation 
 
 Papal Infallibility promulgated by the Pope is one injurious to 
 the State, and has done its best to discourage it. It has not 
 openly prohibited it, but it has prohibited the bishops from 
 taking, in obedience to the Pope, certain disciplinary pro- 
 ceedings against the Catholics who refuse to profess it, thus 
 prohibiting the exercise of a particular piece of discipline which 
 they think necessary. If the contest continues, the result will 
 probably be that the Church or body asserting the lawfulness 
 and necessity of this discipline will be prohibited, while the 
 Old Catholics, the body not holding to the doctrine of Papal 
 Infallibility, nor consequently to the discipline which excom- 
 municates those who do not profess it, will remain tolerated. 
 
 As to this external relation it only remains to say that the 
 State must be the judge when a doctrine or discipline is hurtful 
 to its interests. Its rulers must in any case weigh well the 
 respective evils of allowing such doctrine and discipline to be 
 taught and practised, or of aUenating a large body of its citizens, 
 by prohibiting their Church. But having so weighed, they 
 are entitled to decide ; and the members of that Church must 
 either, if they can consistently with their faith, give up 
 that doctrine and discipline, or must in patience submit to 
 the civil punishment, knowing that cases like theirs must 
 often arise from the different and often contrary claims of the 
 Church and the world. Thus the Christians under the early 
 Roman empire endured persecution, holding fast to their 
 faith, and yet being in all other respects the most loyal 
 citizens of the Empire. 
 
 The internal relations of the members of the Churc*. ag 
 citizens between themselves can only properly come befoic 
 the State through the medium of its tribunals ; for the essential 
 of a tolerated as opposed to an established religion is that no 
 special laws are made for it ; only its members are treated like 
 ordinary citizens, and its whole body like any other society 
 voluntarily formed for some lawful purpose. 
 
 No punishment therefore causing bodily pain can be legally 
 inflicted by virtue of the laws of such a Church on any of its 
 members ; and any member suffering such punishment can put 
 the laws in force before the tribunals against his punishers as 
 against men who have committed an act of lawless violence. 
 
 No member again can be deprived of his private property 
 or mulcted of any part of it by virtue of the laws of his Church. 
 
 It is, however, VTith regard to the general funds contributed 
 by numerous subscribers and the charitable bequests of former 
 members that controversies generally arise ; and in deciding 
 these controversies, the tribunals must proceed on the same
 
 to the State and the Laity. 9 
 
 grounds on which they would proceed in deciding a case of 
 some civil club or association, and no other. If a member 
 of the Church is appointed to a particular place in it 
 having an endowment, and the rules under which he was 
 appointed provide that he shall only be removed for just 
 cause, there is a contract between him and the other members 
 of the society which cannot be broken ; and if he be removed, 
 the tribunals must see that there was just cause for removing 
 him, and must determine what just cause meant under the 
 rules by which he contracted to be bound ; but if the rules go 
 on, that in case he be removed and denies that there was just 
 cause for his removal, he may appeal to a particular body, a 
 sort of forum domesticum, a tribunal of arbitration within the 
 society, whose decision shall be conclusive, then the tribunals 
 of the State have only to see that no impediment has been 
 placed to his appeal, and that the domestic tribunal has decided 
 as a tribunal, that is without fraud or a violation of those plain 
 rules of justice which amounts in substance to fraud, for fraud 
 vitiates all contracts. Just in the same way is the case of an 
 ordinary club. If the rules provide that a member may be ex- 
 pelled the club for improper conduct, and a question arises, the 
 tribunal must determine what is improper conduct ; but if the 
 rules say that, when any member is accused of anything which 
 in the opinion of the committee of the club renders it expe- 
 dient that he shall be removed from the club, the committee 
 may remove him, and a question arises, the only matters the 
 tribunal will look into will be these : Was the member accused, 
 and did the committee act bond Jide, and without anything 
 approaching to fraud upon him in removing him ? 
 
 Practically then a tolerated Church is only subject to the 
 control of the State in these ways : its doctrine and disci- 
 pline may be inspected to see that there is nothing civilly 
 hurtful in them, and disputes between its members where person 
 or property is concerned, must ultimately come in some way, 
 and subject to certain limitations, before the civil tribunals. 
 There are perhaps a few unimportant cases in which a tolerated 
 Church like any other society or collegium, developes new 
 rights in relation to persons outside it and to the whole State, 
 which will arise in the detail of administration ; but they are 
 trifling, and may be left out of consideration here. 
 
 The next question is as to the government of an estab- 
 lished Church by the State. First of all an established 
 Church will be governed or controlled by the State in all 
 cases where a tolerated Church is governed. Thus it will 
 be in the power of the State to examine into any new doc-
 
 10 TliG Oovernment of the Church in Relation 
 
 trine or discipline of such a Church, and to prohibit any 
 it may think injurious ; and the disputes as to person or 
 property between its members will ultimately come before the- 
 tribunals of the State, whether these tribunals be the ordinary 
 civil tribunals, or tribunals established by the Church ; for 
 these latter may be considered as so far tribunals of the State^ 
 inasmuch as without the sanction of the State they would 
 never decide a question of person or property, and this sanc- 
 tion is given only on condition of their proceeding in certain- 
 recognized ways, and not deciding contrary to the civil law of 
 the State. 
 
 But besides the ordinary government by the State incident 
 to every tolerated Church, an established Church is subject to- 
 further government. It is a matter of impartance to the State- 
 that the Established Church shall in th« &st place comprehend 
 as many as possible of its citizens ; for if there were not some- 
 peculiar advantage and importance in its citizens being members- 
 of the Church, the State would never have established it. It 
 is a matter of importance also to the State that the Church 
 should be internally well-governed, both because thereby more 
 members are likely to be secured to it, and also, because it is 
 so bound up with the State, that misgevernment in one reflects; 
 discredit upon and seriously injures the other. Then again, 
 if the State not only establishes the Church, but contributes in 
 any measure to its endowment, it is entitled to see that its 
 endowments are not misapplied, and that those w^ho receive 
 them as salaries or stipends, are doing proper work for them. 
 It matters little to the State whether the minister of an unes- 
 tablished religion does his duty in labouring at his spiritual woi^k 
 or not ; but it is most important to it that the ministers of the 
 established religion shall do their duty. If the State is to allow 
 the ecclesiastical tribunals to have civil power over any of its 
 citizens, such as power to fine or to imprison, it will have a 
 right to a voice in the constitution .of these tribunals, the ap- 
 pointment of their judges, and the modes of tlieir procedure. 
 If persons of high station in the Church become thereby en- 
 titled to civil power and precedence, such as is given for example 
 to the English bishops, the State will have a right to a voice in 
 their appointment. 
 
 When all these things have been said, it may appear to- 
 some persons that the position of an established Church is one 
 of entire subjection to the government of the State, and that, 
 if its members are allowed to govern their own body in any- 
 thing, it must be in such trifling matters as the State will 
 delegate to them. But this is not so, for we at once come upon
 
 to the State and the Laity. 11 
 
 a great principle which limits the application of everything 
 which has just been said. When the State establishes a Church, 
 it does not create a new Church and a new religion, but it 
 takes an existing Church and religion and establishes them. 
 Consequently, anything that the State by virtue of the esta- 
 blishment may do to that Church, must be such as will not 
 injure the foundations of the Church, such, that is, as will not 
 contravene its essential doctrine and discipline ; for other- 
 wise the Church, being compelled to change its doctrine and 
 discipline, would become a new Church, and would be not so 
 much established as created by the State. 
 
 I say the State does not create a Church and religion, it 
 takes an existing Church and religion and establishes it. It 
 does so because a created religion would answer no end or pur- 
 pose. A religion must be believed in by its professors. No man 
 sets out with saying, If I were to think so and so about God 
 and my relation to him, it would be a very convenient belief 
 and religion, so I will just suppose that it be my belief, my 
 religion, and I will profess it and act upon it. No ; a man 
 professes a belief and religion because he really believes in it, 
 because he is sensible of its truth, and cannot help himself; he 
 takes that religion, makes it his own, and acts upon it. 
 
 So it is with 'the State. Almost every State, that has for- 
 mally adopted and established a religion, has done so because 
 its sovereign or the preponderating body of its citizens have be- 
 lieved it to be true. From the early Saxon kings who, con- 
 verted by the preaching of S. Augustine, made their subjects 
 follow them to the font, from Clovis in France, and every king 
 or chief of a half-civilized tribe who has since accepted Chris- 
 tianity, to the Parliaments of Edward VI., who believed and 
 proclaimed that the reforms in the teaching and discipline 
 of the Church of England which they were sanctioning were 
 especially inspired by God the Holy Ghost, this is true of 
 them all. And, though there have been instances where the 
 governing power in a State has established a religion in 
 which it did not itself believe, as in the case of the golden 
 calves which Jeroboam set up in Israel, or that probably of the 
 re-establishment of Christianity in France by the first Napo- 
 leon in 1802, this does not hurt the argument. It would still 
 have been impossible for the State to create the religion, and 
 the reason it was established, not partially with some of its 
 doctrines omitted, but just as it had been before, was that the 
 people believed in it. Napoleon probably did not believe, but 
 he knew that so many of his subjects believed, in Christianity, 
 that it was important for the safety of his own government
 
 12 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 that it should be bound up with Christianity by an establishments 
 No other religion would have served his purpose, and no religion 
 will serve the purpose of any State save a religion in which its 
 citizens believe. A State therefore establishes, never creates 
 a religion, and a Church teaching that religion ; and it is led to 
 establish it for two reasons, either because the sovereign or the 
 predominating body of its members actually believe in it them- 
 selves, or because having no particular belief themselves, they 
 find it expedient to give a governmental sanction to the belief 
 of a large body of their subjects. But in both cases they estab- 
 lish either what they believe, or what they wish their subjects 
 to believe ; that is, a real existing religion, not a creation of 
 their own, which no one believes in. And to return to my 
 original argument, a State not being able to create a religion or 
 Church, cannot interfere with the Church which it establishes 
 in such fundamental matters as would make the Church substan- 
 tially what it is not, and would cause it to cease to be that 
 Church. 
 
 This then is the first and great limit to the government of 
 the Church by the State. What are fundamental doctrine 
 and discipline in any Church is of course to be decided only 
 by a careful examination of the position of that Church. It 
 would not be difi&cult however, to take the instance most 
 nearly concerning us, to sketch the general outline of such 
 doctrine and discipline with regard to Catholic Christianity, 
 The fundamental doctrines of a branch of the Catholic 
 Church established in any country, which no State could 
 touch without altering the Church, and making it other than 
 a branch of the Catholic Church, would include those held 
 in the three Creeds, the belief in the divine position and 
 authority of the Church, the sacraments, and the apostolical 
 succession of her bishops and priests. Fundamental disci- 
 pline would include the canonical subjection of priests to 
 bishops, the spiritual mission to spiritual offices, and the in- 
 ability of the secular power to make or repeal canons of dis- 
 cipline, and so on. These, therefore, are not matters in which 
 the State, powerful as its relation of government to an Estab- 
 lished Church is, can control that Church. 
 
 A second and less important limit to the government of an 
 Established Church by the State is fixed by the ignorance of 
 the State. To govern well, the governors must understand tho- 
 roughly the subject-matter with which they are dealing ; that 
 is, the society they are to govern, its existing regulations, the 
 relations between its members, its principles and aims. Now 
 of these ike State must be in great part ignorant ; its ruling
 
 to the State and the Laity. IS 
 
 men are chosen for other reasons than their knowledge of the 
 Church ; its own organization is essentially different. This is 
 the case even when the Established Church is so nniversally 
 received that all citizens of the State are members of it. 
 But where, as in onr country, it is merely the Church of 
 the domhiant majority, and there are numbers of citizens dis- 
 senting from it, many of them too holding high places in 
 the government of the country, the State's ignorance of all 
 Church matters becomes so marked as to make it impossible 
 that it should attempt, except in some few matters, to under- 
 take the internal government of the Church. 
 
 This matter will be referred to again. But, to sum up 
 what has been said as to the government of the Church 
 by the State ; in a pfohihited Church there is no such go- 
 vernment ; in a tolerated Church there is government, to 
 the extent of inquiring into and restraining doctrine or dis- 
 cipline hurtful to the interests of the State, and of subjecting 
 to the State tribunals disputes in the Church, when they 
 affect the person or property of any citizen. In an established 
 Church there is government by the State, limited by these 
 two conditions, that such government must not violate the 
 fundamental rules of the Church as to doctrine or discipline, 
 and that it must be in matters on which the State is not 
 unfitted by its ignorance to decide. 
 
 The second part of this paper should deal with the govern- 
 ment of the Church in relation to the laity, that is the mem- 
 bers of its own body organised as such members, but distinct 
 from the priesthood. In the former part of the paper we have 
 treated of the government of any Church or religious society 
 by the State ; not confining ourselves to the relations between 
 a Christian Church and the State, but endeavouring to see 
 what must be the essential relations between the State and 
 any religious body. This part of the paper deals only 
 with the relations as to government between a Christian, a 
 branch of the Catholic, Church such as our own, and the 
 State. 
 
 Nobody pretends for a moment that the laity is to be the 
 one governing body of the Church, to the exclusion of priests 
 and bishops ; the only questions are whether they are to have 
 any share at all in the government of the Church, and if so 
 what is to be the extent of that share. 
 
 Now it seems that there are two principles which must 
 guide us in this inquiry; the first practical, and of expe- 
 diency only, is founded on the universal modern recognition 
 of the advantages of self-government, both as contributing to
 
 14 The Government of the Church in Relatio7i 
 
 good government, and much more as tending to raise the self- 
 governing in character and in knowledge. But the second, 
 theoretic and theological, is paramount to the first ; it reminds 
 us that, however expedient it may seem to us to put power into 
 the hands of the laity for the sake of their own moral improve- 
 ment, yet we are dealing with Clod's Church, and cannot violate 
 His laws for it by giving government or portions of government 
 to hands which He has not empowered to hold it, any more 
 than He has empowered them to ordain, to confirm, or to con- 
 secrate the Blessed Eucharist. We must therefore, in the 
 first instance, look to see what power in these matters has 
 been vested in or denied to the laity by the teaching of the 
 Church. 
 
 First in importance comes the question of their power in 
 matters of doctrine. The declaration of doctrine is resolvable 
 into two elements, which may be called, though not with 
 strict accuracy, the legislative and the judicial. The first 
 consists in declaring what is the faith of the Church, always 
 implicitly held but never till now declared in an express 
 binding formula, on some particular question which has arisen 
 in the course of the progress of the Church. It is not strictly 
 a legislative proceeding, for the Church never makes new 
 doctrines ; it is rather an authoritative development of the faith 
 into mere detail of facts. The second, the judicial, deals in 
 each case with a particular doctrine asserted by one or more 
 particular members of the Church, and pronounces whether 
 that doctrine is or is not consistent with the already expressed 
 faith. 
 
 The first, the legislative or developing element, is in matters 
 which relate to the necessary faith of the Church and every 
 member of every branch in it, the exclusive province of (Ecu- 
 menical Councils, their determination being afterwards ratified 
 and confirmed by the general consent of the Church. 
 
 Now, there have been the most elaborate discussions on 
 these points between great divines ; and it is therefore with 
 the utmost diffidence and the greatest care that any one 
 should speak on these matters ; but it may be said that it is 
 generally admitted that laymen never took part in the actual 
 assembly and meeting of the (Ecumenic Council. If this be 
 so, they cannot assert any right in legislation or development 
 of new doctrine. Their power is at the best limited to a share 
 in the veto which is given to all in virtue of the necessity for 
 the subsequent ratification of the decrees of the Council by the 
 whole Church. This power, it seems, they probably have, that 
 irf, they share so far with the bishops and priests in the presence
 
 to the State and the Laity r W 
 
 of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that their views are to he 
 reckoned among those whose consent is necessary to make a 
 doctrine one received by the whole Church ; but they have no 
 right to a voice in the Coimcil. 
 
 But besides the doctrines held by the Universal Churchy 
 there are certain doctrines held in particular branches of the 
 Catholic Church which seem to be required by those branches 
 to be believed, though they are not held, at least not necessa- 
 rily held, in the other branches. What are we to say as to 
 the position of the laity with regard to the enactment of these 
 doctrines ? The exact position of these doctrines themselves; 
 is rather ambiguous. They cannot be necessary to salvation, 
 for Ihey are not required by all branches of the Church. It 
 seems, however, that no branch of the Church requires these 
 doctrines to be believed, except on the supposition that they 
 are necessary deductions from those held by the Universal 
 Church. Whether they be so or not, and whether they are to 
 be necessarily held or not, is therefore to be decided mainly 
 by close theological argument, founded on much learning and 
 study. The deduction therefore and development of these 
 doctrines should be the work of men learned in this lore — 
 whose duty it is to search, give their days to these studies — 
 that is, bishops and theologians, and cannot b^ the province 
 of the ordinary simple Christian layman, who has neither 
 learning nor leisure to qualify him for such an undertaking. 
 Moreover, the deduction and development of these doctrines is 
 undertaken by each branch of the Church, principally in her 
 character as a teacher, which leads her 'not to rest contented 
 with the minimum necessary of divine truth, but ever to 
 explore and analyse further the sacred mysteries, that she 
 may have more to teach the lay flock committed to her : and, 
 if this be so, it is again clear that the proper teachers are the 
 bishops, with the assistance of the learned theologians among 
 the priesthood ; and that it is on their endeavours and their 
 teaching that we may best expect the divine blessing and 
 guidance into all truth, and preservation against error. The 
 laity are, however, witnesses to the faith : they share so much 
 in the divine blessing, that their consentient voice is necessary 
 to the perfect ratification of even these doctrines ; and this is 
 their function in this matter, as in the matter of declaring the 
 doctrines of the Universal Church. 
 
 There is, however, a further function which seems to be 
 given to the laity of each branch of the Church in this matter. 
 It has been said that these particular doctrines, though held 
 Jbecausc they are considered necessary deductions from those
 
 16 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 held by the Universal Church, appear not to be held explicitly 
 by the Universal Church, and not to be therefore necessary 
 to salvation, but are enjoined, or rather taught, by the autho- 
 rities of each branch of the Church as developments of the 
 other truths. Before, therefore, they were so enjoined, they 
 were not in the position of doctrines compulsorily held even 
 in that branch of the Church, but were rather ** pious opi- 
 nions," that is, opinions which are probably true, and certainly 
 not so untrue as to contradict the doctrines of the Universal 
 Church ; but which, on the other hand, are not doctrines of 
 the Universal Church, or such obviously necessary deductions 
 from those doctrines as to require to be compulsorily held in 
 that branch of the Church. 
 
 In the history, then, of the reception of each of these doc- 
 trines, there comes a stage when the question arises. Shall they 
 remain in their condition of *' pious opinions," encouraged but 
 not taught as necessary or required as a condition of member- 
 ship, or shall they be so accepted and indorsed by that 
 branch of the Church as to be always taught and required in 
 all cases to be held in it ? In determining this question, 
 great consideration always is, and rightly, given to the expe- 
 diency of either course : thus, on the one hand, if the members 
 of that branch of the Church have believing hearts, accepting 
 gladly the truths of the Universal Church, and meditative 
 minds ^requiring additional doctrinal food, it will be most 
 highly expedient for them that they should have put before 
 them all truth, as well the further development and crown 
 of those truths as the "bare necessaries for salvation ; and, on 
 the other hand, the members of that branch of the Church 
 may be slow of heart, and may find the burden of these further 
 doctrines more than they can bear, and then it is expedient, 
 in the highest interest of their souls, that this branch of the 
 Church should not enforce upon them any but the absolutely 
 necessary truths. Now on this question, that of expediency 
 only, it would seem that the voice of the laity has far greater 
 weight than in other questions of doctrine : for these reasons, 
 the teaching of these doctrines is a matter almost solely 
 affecting them, the clergy will probably learn and study them 
 in any case ; no Church principle is contravened by the laity 
 having so powerful a voice, the question being one of conveni- 
 ence, not of truth ; and, lastly, they know themselves best, 
 and are most capable of judging what will or will not be expe- 
 dient for their souls. 
 
 The conclusions, then, on this question of the voice of the 
 laity in legislation on doctrine, conclusions which are pro-
 
 to the State and the Laity. 17 
 
 pounded with the greatest diffidence, are these. That in 
 matters of universal faith held by the whole Church, the 
 laity have — both from precedent and the reason of the thing 
 — no voice in the Councils which determine them, but a share 
 in that general voice of the Church which subsequently rati- 
 fies or reverses what that Council has determined ; that in 
 matters of doctrines held by particular branches of the 
 Church they have a similar position, with this one excep- 
 tion, that on the question of the expediency of enforcing a 
 particular doctrine, not the truth of it, they have a right to 
 be heard in and out of Council, and have even, if necessary, 
 a veto. 
 
 But it has been said that there are two elements in the decla- 
 ration of Christian doctrine — the legislative and the judicial; and 
 we have now to deal with the judicial element. Here no question 
 of expediency can arise ; the judges will simply have to deter- 
 mine what is the doctrine, either the doctrine of the Universal 
 Church, or the further doctrine of the particular branch of the 
 Church. The position and right of the laity will therefore be 
 the same, whether universal or particular doctrine be brought 
 before the tribunal. 
 
 This second, or judicial element has from the earliest 
 times been given to the Bishop, with appeal in regular grada- 
 tion from him to the Metropolitan, from the •Metropolitan to 
 the Patriarch, and thence, if necessary, to the Council. No 
 doubt the Bishop in many instances did not act without advice, 
 either from assessors chosen by himself, or from his diocesan 
 Synod; and in this Synod the lay-people may have had a 
 sort of undefined influence, rather than vote ; but the Bishop 
 was certainly not bound to ask the advice of assessors or 
 Synod in these matters, and neither clergy nor a fortiori laity 
 could claim it as a right to be admitted to give advice. And 
 not only has Christian practice given this jurisdiction to 
 bishops. It is part of the doctrine as to the grace given them 
 by their consecration, that they have jurisdiction to decide in 
 cases of doctrine, and to. drive away heresy. In the reason of 
 the thing, too, it is plain that the ordinary layman would have 
 insufficient instruction and theological training to enable him 
 to decide on these questions. The Church has ever followed 
 the principle, that while expecting the promised grace of the 
 Holy Spirit to be with her and to guide her, especially in 
 matters of faith, she must yet not neglect to use all the earthly 
 advantages of ability and knowledge that her members possess, 
 and it has never been supposed by her that the gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit were so distributed as to put on a par in the deci-
 
 IS The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 ■sion of such questions learned theologians and the untrained 
 intellects of simple Christians. 
 
 We are not, of course, speaking of the case of great lay 
 doctors of the Church — men eminent for their learning in 
 theology, who, though not bishops or priests, may yet be in- 
 voked by the bishop to give him assistance, or even deputed 
 to report to him on the merits of the case — not as laymen, but 
 as doctors, or learned men. Their individual share in the 
 determination of doctrine has nothing to do with the general 
 rights of the laity in this determination ; and though it is very 
 right that their abilities should be thus made use of, and it 
 would be even wrong for the bishop to deprive himself of their 
 assistance, they cannot claim, and much less can the laity in 
 general claim for them, a right to take part in these trials. 
 
 The next great question in which the government of the 
 Church is shown, is that of discipline. Discipline, in an eccle- 
 siastical sense, has a peculiar meaning ; it is not the same as 
 the discipline of an army, which is perfected in order that the 
 army may mest effectually contend against a foreign foe ; its 
 intention is rather moral and internal, than external or prac- 
 tical. Discipline is exercised on a layman pro salute animce, 
 for the sake of his own soul's health ; on a clergyman it is 
 exercised partly for the same purpose, partly for the sake of 
 removing him on account of his moral offences from the posi- 
 tion which he holds over the flock committed to him. 
 
 The regulation of discipline by legislation has, therefore, 
 primarily to do with morals, and should as such be in the first 
 instance committed to the teachers of the flock, the bishops, 
 and, in a lesser degree, the priests. On the other hand, as 
 regards lay discipline, the laity have this locus standi. They 
 know, in a way that persons set apart from them, bound by 
 peculiar vows, having peculiar privileges, and constantly con- 
 versant in holy things, do not know, the peculiar temptations 
 of the laity. They can better judge the degree of moral 
 heinousness which a particular overt offence imports, and what 
 form of penance or censure is most likely to restore the 
 offender to a state of spiritual health. Discipline, in most, if 
 not in all points, is, it is admitted, variable according to the 
 exigences of the age and the country. Its end is to ediflca- 
 tion. If this be so, surely it is for the laity of any particular 
 branch of the Church to have a voice in saying what they, 
 from their own inward consciousness, can say will best tend to 
 the edification of their brethren. 
 
 What has been said, then, points to the union of all three 
 bodies, bishops, priests, and laity, in the matter of lay dis-
 
 to the State aiid the Laity. 19 
 
 cipline : the bishops and priests to say what is the law of God 
 and the end to be attained, the laity to say how that end 
 shall be attained. This seems true of legislation and also of 
 adjudication. In each decision on an individual case of lay 
 discipline, both parties should be represented, the bishop or 
 priest to pronounce the spiritual sentence, with the quasi- 
 sacramental effect that such a sentence, when rightly under- 
 gone, has on the offender : the laity to judge in doubtful cases of 
 the probability of the original mens rea, or intention of offend-, 
 ing, and in all cases to signify by their assent that the sen- 
 tence is not too hard for the sentenced to bear. 
 
 On this point the practice of antiquity seems to have been 
 various. There is, however, at least high authority for the 
 principle laid down, that of S. Cyprian. He had to form 
 a decision on the most important question of the time, the 
 treatment of the lapsi, Christians who had in times of perse- 
 cution fallen from the faith of their baptism, but who now 
 again repented of their fall. 
 
 The following extract is taken from Bishop Moberly's 
 
 Bampton Lectures : — 
 
 No person who reads the Epistles of Cyprian can be ignorant how con- 
 stantly he recognizes the share of the "plebs Christiana" in the essential 
 powers of the body of the Church. Take for example the following pas- 
 sages : — " For this thing is agreeable to the modestj, and discipline, and 
 life of us all, that the bishops assembling with the clergy in the presence also 
 of the standing (that is, the not lapsed) laity, to whom also themselves respect 
 is to be paid for their faith and fear, we may be able to settle everj'thing by 
 the sacredness of united'counsel ? " To that which our fellow-presbyters 
 have written, I have not been able to write back anything alone, since I have 
 resolved from the beginning of my episcopate to do nothing of my own pri- 
 vate opinion without your counsel (the letter is addressed to the priests and 
 deacons) and without the consent of the lay-people. Nay, the clergy of Kome, 
 in writing back in reply to Cyprian, allege the same thing. In so important 
 an affair, they say, the same thing approves itself to us which you have 
 already dealt with, namely, that the peace of the Church (that is, the resto- 
 ration of the lapsed) must be deferred ; and that then a communication of 
 counsels being made with the bishops, priests, deacons^ and standing lay- 
 people, the case of the lapsed be dealt with. 
 
 Thus much for the voice of the laity in lay discipline. In 
 the discipline of the clergy they can claim no right on the 
 grounds here stated, and there is no known practice of the 
 Church giving them such a right. The clergy alone legislate 
 and adjudicate upon the discipline of the clergy, both as 
 teachers, Imowing the end to be obtained, and as brother 
 clergy, knowing the character of the clergy and the means by 
 which the end is to be attained. It is not meant however that 
 there may not be cases in which some admixture of the lay 
 element, by way of counsel rather than vote would not be use- 
 ful, especially in adjudications ; but the laity cannot claim this
 
 20 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 as a right, it will be at the utmost only conceded to them by 
 the clergy upon special grounds, with an absolute power of 
 revocation when to the clergy it should seem fit. 
 
 One word here to guard oneself against being suffered to 
 push these doctrines too far in practice. In every case of 
 exercise of discipline it may be that the supposed offender 
 will deny the commission of the act attributed to him, and 
 then there will be a preliminary question, whether he has or 
 not, actually committed the offence charged. In deciding this 
 question, the faculties of a civil judge or a jury are required ; 
 and there is no reason that laymen, who from their worldly 
 experience are much more versed in matters of sifting and 
 weighing evidence, and the practical rules of impartial investi- 
 gation, should not be employed — nay, they have a right to be 
 employed on these occasions — leaving always, even in cases 
 of clerical discipline, after the fact has been decided, the deter- 
 mination of the law and the application of it to the clerical 
 judges. 
 
 We have thus far dealt with the voice of the laity in govern- 
 ing the Church in matter of doctrine and discipline ; and endea- 
 voured to show that in these matters their voice has, of right, 
 and in accordance with the practice Qf the Church, only a very 
 limited weight. But in all other matters connected with the 
 government of the Church — and these may probably be classified 
 as administration and patronage — we find no such limits imposed 
 by Christian practice, or arising from the reason of the thing; 
 and therefore the other principle laid down upon entering into 
 this subject came into play, that on account of the advantages 
 which accrue from self-government, the laity should be allowed 
 their full share in these matters. 
 
 Under the head of administration, should be included all 
 questions relating to the finances of the Church, the mode of 
 raising and distributing her funds, and the management of 
 landed property. There should be further included arrange- 
 ments as to the building and repairing of parsonage houses, and 
 other establishments belonging to the Church, the division of 
 parishes and even dioceses, or the re-arrangement of their 
 boundaries where necessary; the right of the laity in this matter 
 being clearly recognized by the 12th and 17th canons of the 
 (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon ; and the fixing of the sti- 
 pends of the several church functionaries, clerical or lay, with 
 the temporal conditions on which the payment of their stipends 
 should depend, or on which pensions for long service might be 
 given. 
 
 There is, moreover, one matter of great importance which
 
 to the State and the Laity. 21 
 
 seems to come rather under this head than any other ; and in 
 which it is submitted the laity have a full voice — that is in the 
 determination of the forms of liturgies and other public services, 
 and the ceremonials to be used in the public worship of the 
 Church. The ritJ^ht of the laity to share in the arrangement 
 of matters of public worship and ceremonial, and the limit of 
 that right, are fixed by the principles regulating these matters ; 
 which seem to be those laid down by S. Paul, " Let all things 
 be done decently and in order," and " Let all things be done 
 to edifying." 
 
 These first, referring to the pattern of heavenly things, as 
 most accordant with, and symbolical of, the doctrines of the 
 Church, and represented by the ritual of the Church in all 
 ages and in all countries, being for the episcopate and the 
 priesthood to consider ; the second principle, that of the edifi- 
 cation of the minds of the laity, being a matter rather for the 
 laity to judge of. 
 
 Thus matters of public worship and ceremonial fall to be 
 decided by the common voice of bishops, clergy, and laity; not 
 that each body has an equal voice, as in matters of ordinary 
 administration, finance, division of cures, and the like ; but that 
 each body has a special voice relating to a particular branch of 
 the question — the laity having no right to appose a ritual 
 observance as being to their mind un- Christian or un- Ca- 
 tholic, the bishops and priests yielding to the laity in their 
 opinion of the expediency of the introduction of the observance, 
 as affecting the souls of the laity. Both bodies would on these 
 principles be represented in legislation and in adjudication in 
 these matters. In adjudication especially the presence of 
 trained laymen, lawyers accustomed to the construction of 
 documents and laws, must afibrd valuable assistance. 
 
 The next matter is that of patronage. By patronage is 
 here meant the selection of an individual to fill some particular 
 vacant office in the Church. These offices are of three kinds : 
 (1) lay offices, or offices which maybe filled by laymen, whether 
 clergymen are or are not eligible for them also ; and these 
 are either those of lay judges, where such are required in the 
 causes I have already mentioned, or offices of administra- 
 tion, and may in either case be filled, or the mode of filling 
 them may be regulated, by the laity ; (2) parochial or priestly 
 cures ; (3) bishoprics. Both these latter stand pretty much 
 on the same footing ; as to both it must be admitted that 
 Christian practice requires not merely the ordination or conse- 
 cration of the holder of the office — this of course is necessary — 
 but also the spiritual mission to the particular cure or bishopric 
 
 D
 
 22 T)ie Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 by the superior who has jurisdiction over it. Thus S. Paul 
 made it his rule not to build on another man's foundation : 
 that is, apostle as he was, not to intrude in a place where 
 another apostle had been, or even whither another apostle had 
 sent his subordinate ; while, on the other hand, for the mis- 
 sions of his own foundation he consecrated whom he would, 
 Timothy or Titus, or others, to be bishop ; and S. John simi- 
 larly consecrated S. Polycarp. Nor, indeed, has this principle 
 ever been disputed. In the case of missions or missionary 
 dioceses, where there are no or comparatively few faithful to 
 have any voice in the matter, the spiritual mission of the 
 territorial superior from whose jurisdiction the missionary 
 is sent is alone necessary. But in the case of settled Christian 
 Churches, where the country is organized into established 
 parishes, or cures and dioceses, the flock in each having a 
 certain unity and order among themselves, the voice of those 
 who are to be subordinate to the new officer, whether priest or 
 bishop, has in the best times been always allowed to be given, 
 not as finally determining the election of the officer, for that 
 must be done by the spiritual superior, who can alone judge 
 of his fitness in the ultimate result, but rather as calling for or 
 recommending some spiritual person whose appointment would 
 be agreeable to their own feelings, if his qualificationsare such 
 as to fit him in the judgment of the superior for the office. 
 
 As regards parish priests there is perhaps less to be found 
 in the earlier history of the Church ; but, on the other hand, 
 the later practice and theory has been more uniform in support 
 of the right of the laity to a voice in the selection of their 
 priest. Even the Scotch Church, which of all Churches of 
 the Anglican communion concedes least to the laity, yields to 
 them this right. Their 10th Canon, according to the revision 
 of 1838, is as follows : — 
 
 Whereas it has never been the practice of this Church, nor the wish of 
 her Bishops, to interfere directly or indirectly with the funds or tempo- 
 ralties of her Congregations, it is therefore fully acknowledged that the 
 right of presentation to any chapel vacant within her pale, is vested in those 
 who are appointed to manage its affairs, whether known by the title of 
 Trustees, Churchwardens, Vestrymen, Managers, Proprietors, or Directors, 
 and who in virtue of their office procure the means of the minister's support. 
 Yet to preserve the ancient and regular discipline of an Episcopal Commu- 
 nity, it is hereby enacted that no Presbyter shall take upon himself the 
 pastoral charge of any congregation to which he may be presented before 
 
 the Deed of Presentation be duly accepted by the Bishop But if no 
 
 election shall be made within six calendar months after a vacancy hath 
 taken place, the right of nomination of a pastor shall then lapse to the 
 Bishop of the diocese, whose appointment shall be binding on all the 
 members of the congregation. 
 
 The scheme of the new Irish constitution provides for the 
 
 mut^^mimm^ii^
 
 to the State and the Laity. 28 
 
 appointment to vacant cures by a board of nomination, consist- 
 ing of one lay and two clerical members of the Diocesan Synod, 
 and three nominators to bo elected ad hoc by the vestrymen 
 of the vacant parish, the bishop having a vote at this board, 
 and also a power to reject afterwards the presentee of the 
 board, subject to an appeal to a tribunal, which is to be 
 established by the General Synod of the Church to receive 
 appeals in that behalf. This tribunal has not apparently yet 
 been constituted. It is obvious that much depends upon its 
 constitution : it might be a purely clerical or even episcopal 
 one, that is, consisting of the metropolitan of the province 
 with or without his suffragans, for it is to sit on appeal from 
 the bishop, deciding merely on the spiritual qualifications, for 
 the purpose of giving the spiritual mission. Any other 
 tribunal of appeal will be inconsistent with Catholic practice. 
 
 In America, by Canon 30 of 1832, the vestry deliver to 
 the bishop, or, in the vacancy of the see, to the Standing 
 Committee of the diocese, a certificate that they have chosen 
 A. B. their rector, and the bishop proceeds to satisfy himself 
 that the chosen person is a qualified minister, and if he is not 
 rejects him without appeal. 
 
 It is well known that in England and many other coun- 
 tries, principally those affected by feudali^, the founder 
 of the church being generally the lord of the manor also, and 
 thus representing the parishioners, who were the tenants and 
 vassals of his manor, acquired the right of patronage, first 
 for himself, then for the religious community which he desired 
 to introduce, and lastly for any person to whom as a piece of 
 valuable property he could sell it. In some places, though, to 
 this day the election of their rector or vicar is vested in the 
 parishioners, or in the members of the municipal corporation 
 of the town. 
 
 Next as to the election of bishops. Many people of much 
 learning on these subjects deny that the laity had in primi- 
 tive times any right to a voice in the choice of their bishop. 
 But with all respect for their view it does not carry conviction. 
 It is agreed that in the ultiiaate resort the decision lay with 
 the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province, whose 
 confirmation of the election was absolutely necessary to its 
 validity ; but the original election or recommendation lay with 
 the clergy and laity of the vacant diocese. The writers hold- 
 ing the opposite view would at once say — of course the clergy 
 elected, not the laity. On this point, however, the testimony of 
 the great Canonists is conclusive. Thomassinus says that 
 both clergy and laity had a voice in the election ; though he 
 
 d2
 
 24 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 thinks more weight was given to the clergy than the people :* 
 Van Espen says that the clergy took the principal part in the 
 election, but that both laity and clergy really elected " vere 
 eligerunt."t It is well known that the practice of the em- 
 peror giving his assent to all elections of bishoprics — a prac- 
 tice which was allowed at one time by the whole Church — 
 arose from his being considered as the head and representative 
 of the lay people, whose place he ultimately took.J 
 
 The constitution of the Scotch Church, unfortunately, con- 
 fines this right of a voice in the election of bishop to the clergy 
 only. Their 3rd Canon is as follows : — 
 
 Every Bishop is hereby required to appoint one of the Presbyters of his 
 diocese to act under hm as Dean, who in the absence of the Bishop shall 
 preside in all Diocesan Synods ; and the Dean thus canonically appointed 
 shall upon the demise or translation of any Bishop notify the same to the 
 Primus, who, being empowered by his colleagues, shall thereupon issue a 
 mandate to the Presbyters of the vacant diocese, requiring them to proceed 
 to the election of a successor. Should they make choice of a person already 
 invested with the Episcopal character, the Bishop so elected shall have no 
 jurisdiction over that diocese, unless his election be ratified by the majority 
 of the Episcopal College, transferring to him by a formal deed the superin- 
 tendence of the diocese. But if the Presbyters of the vacant diocese shall 
 elect a Presbyter to be their future Diocesan, of whose fitness for that office 
 the Bishops shall declare they have sufficient reason not to be satisfied, in 
 that case the Presbyters shall be required to proceed to a new election. 
 
 The constitution of the American Church allows the mode 
 of election to be determined by every diocese. As a matter 
 of fact, however, in all the dioceses both clergy and laity take 
 part in the election, though the mode of their participation 
 differs in some points of detail. 
 
 The material parts of the constitution of the Irish Church 
 — in this point not deviating from the primitive model — are 
 as follows : — 
 
 Chap. I., sec. 24. — From and after the 1st of January, 1871, if any See 
 be or shall become vacant, the Archbishop of the Province shall, as soon aa 
 may be convenient, convene the Diocesan Synod for the election of a suc- 
 cessor. And if the Archiepiscopal See of the Province be vacant or the 
 Archbishop be unable, then the person for the time being authorised to 
 convene the Diocesan Synod shall convene the same . . . 
 
 25. — The Diocesan Synod shall thereupon meet and, save in the cases 
 hereinafter specially provided fcr,§ the clerical and lay members present 
 shall in the first instance vote by voting papers each for one or more 
 persons (not exceeding three) being Bishops or Priests of not less than 
 thirty years of age : Provided that no person shall be entitled to vote for 
 himself. 
 
 And after providing that the person so to be elected shall 
 have a majority of two-thirds of each order in his favour, or 
 
 * Vetus et Nova Ecclesice DiscipUna, vol. ii. p. 313. 
 
 t Pars i., tit. xiii., c. 1, § 6. 
 
 i Ibid. c. 3. § This relates to Armagh.
 
 to the State and the Laity. 25 
 
 that if not, two persons shall be selected, each by a majority of 
 votes ; it proceeds as follows : — 
 
 29. — If any one person shall be declared elected by the Synod as afore- 
 said, his name shall be forthwith transmitted to the Bench of Bishops, who, 
 if satisfied of his fitness, shall take the necessary steps to give effect to such 
 nomination ; and if more than one person shall have been chosen by the 
 Synod as aforesaid, the names of such persons (not exceeding three) shall be 
 transmitted to the Bench of Bishops, who shall thereupon elect by a 
 majority of their votes one of the said persons, if satisfied of his fitness, to 
 the vacant See. 
 
 Having in these latter pages discussed the rights of the 
 laity in the several parts of Church government, and endea- 
 voured to show in what instances these rights amount to sub- 
 stantive shares in the actual government of the Church, it 
 remains to consider by what scheme of representation their 
 share in this government can be provided for them. 
 
 In an independent unestablished Church, such as the 
 Scotch, the American, the Irish, or that in some of our great 
 Colonies, the existing machinery is very simple ; though we 
 shall have to inquire how far it corresponds with the strict 
 canonical rule. 
 
 In each diocesan governing body, call it synod if you 
 please, or if you please confine the term synod to that part of 
 it which consists only of the bishop and clergy, there exists a 
 house or body of lay delegates chosen in various ways so as 
 to represent the laity of each parish or cure, who sit and vote 
 with the clergy, under the presidency of the bishop. In the 
 provincial or national assembly there are similarly a body of 
 diocesan lay delegates, a body of clerical lay delegates, and a 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 The 2nd and 3rd articles of the American Constitution 
 on this head are as follows : — 
 
 Article II. — The Church in each diocese shall be entitled to a represen- 
 tation of both the clergy and laity, which representation shall consist of one 
 or more deputies, not exceeding four of each order, chosen by the convention 
 of the dioceses. 
 
 In all questions, when required by the clerical and lay representation 
 from any diocese, each order shall have one vote ; and the majority of 
 suffrages by dioceses, shall be conclusive in each order, provided such 
 majority comprehend a majority of the dioceses represented in that order. 
 The concurrence of both orders shall be necessary to constitute a vote of 
 the convention. 
 
 Article III.— The Bishops of the Church, when they shall be three or 
 more, shall, whenever general conventions are held, form a separate house, 
 with a right to originate and propose acts for the concurrence of the House 
 of Deputies, composed of clergy and laity, and when any proposed act shall 
 have passed the House of Deputies, the same shall be transmitted to the 
 House of Bishops, who shall have a negative thereupon ; and all acts of the 
 convention shall be authenticated by both Houses. 
 
 And in all cases the House of Bishops shall signify to the convention
 
 26 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 their approbation or disapprobation (the latter with tlieir reasons, in writing) 
 within three days after the proposed, act shall have been reported to them 
 for concurrence; and in failure thereof, it shall have the operation of 
 a law. 
 
 Not unlike these provisions are those contained in the con- 
 stitutions of the synods in our colonial provinces and dioceses. 
 These vary in some details, but all seem to concur in these two 
 points ; they admit a lay representation, but give an abso- 
 lute veto to. the bishop in the diocese, and to the House of 
 Bishops in the provincial synod. This seems to be the case in 
 the provinces of Canada, New South Wales, New Zealand, 
 and South Africa. The objection alike to these and to the Ame- 
 rican constitution is, that it gives the laity an apparent right to 
 a voice in all matters of legislation not exclusive of doctrine 
 and clerical discipline ; — the judiciary power is often differently 
 arranged, and is not always subject to the same censure. This 
 objection is, however, to some extent answered by the absolute 
 veto given to the bishops ; for though it may be wrong accord- 
 ing to all Christian theory and practice, as has been said, 
 for the laity to determine matters of doctrine and clerical 
 discipline, yet inasmuch as the sanction of the bishop and 
 priests is requisite to give their determination any force, 
 the laity cannot effectively legislate on these matters, and 
 their proposals may be considered as in the light of peti- 
 tions only. Still the form of the constitution seems in this 
 respect incorrect and calculated to mislead, unless the 
 laity are well instructed as to the canonical limit of their 
 rights. 
 
 The constitution of the Irish Church however is in these 
 respects much worse. After giving to the Diocesan synod, the 
 same form of representation as is given in the colonial pro- 
 vinces, and providing that where the bishop alone dissents, the 
 matter shall be referred to the General Synod, w^hose determi- 
 nation shall decide the question, it proceeds as to the mode of 
 legislation to provide as follows : — 
 
 Chap, I., sec. 22. — The Bishops shall vote separately from the represen- 
 tatives, and no question shall be deemed to have been carried unless there 
 be in its favour a majority of the Bishops present, if they desire to vote, and 
 a majority of the clerical and lay representatives present voting conjointly 
 or by orders ; Provided always, that if a question affirmed by a majority of 
 the clerical and lay representatives voting conjointly or by orders, but re- 
 jected by a majority of the Bishops, shall be re-affirmed at the next ordinary 
 Session of the General Synod, by not less than two-thirds of the clerical and 
 lay representatives voting conjointly or by orders, it shall be deemed to be 
 carried, unless it be negatived by not less than two-thirds of the then entire 
 existing order of Bishops, the said two-thirds being present and voting and 
 giving thoir roasous in writing.
 
 to the State and the Laity. 27 
 
 The following are the Canons of the Scotch Church on this 
 subject : — 
 
 31. — A Diocesan Synod shall be holden annually in every Diocese of 
 the Church at such time and place as the Ordinary or as the Dean empowered 
 by him shall appoint, and shall consist of the Bishop, the Dean, and such 
 clergymen as have been instituted to their charges ; and shall be attended 
 by all the clergy of the Diocese, unless hindered by some suflfieient cause, 
 
 whereof notice shall be given to the Diocesan Every Diocesan 
 
 Synod may also suggest rules for the regulation of Ecclesiastical Affairs, 
 which, if approved by the Bishop, and not inconsistent with the constitu- 
 tion and Canons of the Church, shall have the force of laws within the 
 diocese. 
 
 32. — Every General Synod shall consist of two chambers ; the first 
 composed of the Bishops alone ; the second of the Deans, the Pantonian 
 Professor of Theology ex officio, and the representatives or delegates of the 
 clergy ; one such delegate being chosen by and from the Incumbents of each 
 diocese. The second chamber shall elect a Preses or Prolocutor, who shall 
 at all times have free admission to the first chamber, when communication 
 is on either side required. 
 
 Canons or rules for the order or discipline of the Church shall be 
 made and enacted by a General Synod only ; and no law or Canon shall be 
 enacted, abrogated, or altered, but by the consent and with the approbation 
 of the majority of both chambers. If the chambers shall happen to be 
 equally divided in their opinion son any question, the Primus in the Upper 
 House and Prolocutor in the Lower, shall have the casting vote. 
 
 The Canons provide also for holding episcopal synods an- 
 nually. 
 
 It may be as well here to mention the arrangements for 
 the judiciary in the unestablished Churches of our communion. 
 
 The American system leaves the arrangement of the tri- 
 bunals to each diocese, with the exception of the remarkable 
 provision as to sentences upon clergymen, which will be men- 
 tioned directly. It appears that the general practice in case of 
 clergymen is to have a board of " tryers " nominated by the 
 bishop, consisting of a certain number of clergymen ; these 
 clergymen try the case and report to the bishop, who may, if 
 he thinks proper, order a new trial ; but if he agree with the 
 report, and that report be to find the clergyman guilty, pro- 
 ceeds to pronounce canonical sentence upon him, in some dio- 
 ceses of his own decision, in other dioceses a sentence not 
 greater than that which the " tryers " recommend. 
 
 An accused bishop is tried before the whole Bench of 
 Bishops of the American Church ; and at least seven of them, 
 besides any bishops who may be accusers, must be present to 
 form a quorum. (Can. 3 of 1844). 
 
 Lay discipline is exercised only apparently on complaint of 
 the parish priest ; and then by the bishop, either alone or with 
 the concurrence of two laymen and two clergymen. 
 
 There appear to be appeals from the Diocesan tribunals. 
 
 Thoir Gill Article ;is to B(^iii(>n(.'es is as followH :-—
 
 28 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 None but a Bishop shall pronounce sentence of admonition suspen- 
 Bion, or degradation on any clergyman, whether Bishop, Presbyter, or 
 Deacon. 
 
 The provisions in the Irish Constitution as to ecclesiastical 
 tribunals are as follows : — 
 
 Chap. IV., sec. 3. — The Archbishop or Bishop, or his Commissary, 
 shall be the judge in the Diocesan Court, and shall in every case be assisted 
 by his Chancellor. The clerical members of the Diocesan Synod shall elect 
 three clergymen, and the synodsmen three laymen, who shall hold office for 
 five years, and shall be capable of re-election. The Archbishop or Bisbop 
 shall in every case summon by rotation to sit with him, a clergyman and a 
 layman from those so elected, to whom, along with the Archbishop or Bishop, 
 or his Commissary, all questions of fact shall be referred. If both parties 
 shall express their consent in writing, it shall be in the power of the Arch- 
 bishop or Bishop or his Commissary, to hear the cause alone. 
 
 Where the bishop is himself the accuser, the Court shall 
 consist of the other members without the Bishop ; but if a 
 case of doctrine is involved, it shall only determine the facts 
 of the case, and shall then send it to the Court of the General 
 Synod to determine the doctrine. From the Diocesan Court 
 either party may appeal to the Court of the General Synod. 
 There is no provision enabling an appeal from the Court of the 
 Bishop to that of the Metropolitan ; and, in fact, the Court of 
 the Metropolitan is, contrary to all usage, destroyed. 
 
 The Court of the General Synod which is thus the sole 
 court of appeal in ordinary' cases, the first and last Court in 
 most cases of doctrine, and also the first and last Court for trial 
 of a bishop or archbishop — (Sec. 27) for even archbishops are 
 made subject to it — is thus constituted. 
 
 Sec. 19. — The full Court of the General Synod shall consist of one 
 Archbishop, with one Bishop, and three laymen, to be selected as herein- 
 after provided. The Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbisbop of Dublin 
 shall sit in turns. The Bishop shall be chosen by the Archbishops. If the 
 Archbishop, whose turn it is to sit, shall be unable to attend, the other 
 Archbishop shall take his place, and if both shall be unable to attend, the 
 Archbishop shall select a second Bishop to take his place. The General 
 Synod shall name not less than six or more than ten lay members of' 
 the Church of Ireland, from whom the lay judges of said Court shall be 
 selected. 
 
 These lay judges are to have held certain high temporal 
 offices. Three of them are to be chosen by ballot for each 
 case. 
 
 It is obvious how totally and how needlessly un- Catholic 
 such a tribunal as this is ; to make laymen judges in a tribunal 
 of ultimate resort, the principal duties of which will be to 
 determine cases of doctrine and of clerical discipline, which 
 will in some cases of doctrine, where a priest is concerned, be 
 the only tribunal, and will always be the only tribunal for a 
 trial of a bishop, is contrary to all principle. But more, these
 
 to the State and the Laity, 29 
 
 laymen are to be the majority, of the judges, and though a 
 sentence ot condemnation may not be passed unless the two 
 bishops agree to it, yet a sentence of acquittal, perhaps fixing 
 m the Church some teacher of false doctrine, may be passed 
 against their vote. Bishops are to be tried before a tribunal 
 which, according to accident, may or may not contain the Me- 
 tropolitan to whom they have sworn canonical obedience, and 
 one other bishop only. Nay, a Metropolitan may be tried by 
 his brother Metropolitan and one bishop, or possibly, in his 
 brother Metropolitan's incapacity, by two suffragan bishops, 
 those perhaps his own suffragans. 
 
 That such provisions should ever have been made law, 
 shows strongly the canonical imperfection of the Irish consti- 
 tution, the over-great weight which the laity have in it, and 
 the way m which they have intruded into matters without their 
 own sphere. 
 
 The Scotch system has no express provision as to lay dis- 
 ciphne, unless it be that contained in the 35th Canon :— 
 
 , . 5^ any differences which may arise between a pastor and members of 
 flock which cannot be amicably settled, the matter in dispute must be 
 carried before the Ordinary. 
 
 By the 36th Canon, if the Bishop have reason to believe 
 that one of the clergy have committed a crime 
 
 Of a grave or scandalous nature, then the Bishop shall, after due 
 notice of the charge stated in precise terms to the parties concerned, 
 summon them before himself, sitting in Diocesan Synod, and shall appoint 
 tne -L»ean or u necessary some other Presbyter, to state the charge and bring 
 forward the evidence; and having fully heard both the accuser and the 
 accused, and all the evidence that either can produce, he shall, after having • 
 received the opinion of each member of the Synod, proceed to pronounce 
 
 By the 36th Canon, 
 
 Episcopal Synods shall receive appeals from either clergy or laity against 
 the sentence of their own immediate ecclesiastical superior. 
 
 The provisions for ecclesiastical tribunals in the province 
 of New Zealand were very carefully framed in an act of the 
 Colonial Synod. This act provides for a legal Chancellor 
 of the diocese, a legal advocate and a kind of jury, four, two 
 clergymen and two laymen, who are to be assessors to the 
 chancellor, and are to be unanimous in their verdict on the 
 facts before sentence can be passed. There is to be one ap- 
 peal upon points of law, and upon points of doctrine or ritual, 
 to the Bench of Bishops. 
 
 Thus far, with relation to the unestablished Churches of
 
 80 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 our communion, and the position held in each of them by the 
 laity. 
 
 But what are we to say as regards our own Established 
 Church? We have no synods or conventions in which the 
 laity have any voice at all; and we are thus driven to one of 
 two alternatives, either independent organization in volunteer 
 societies, operating, not with a constitutional influence, but 
 through the pressure of public opinion which they bring to 
 bear, or to the control of the State and the secular Legis- 
 lature. It has however been already shown in the first part of 
 this paper, that the control of the State can never be, even 
 in a country where all the people are members of the Esta- 
 blished Church, a substitute for the legitimate constitutional 
 powers of the laity; how much more so in a country like 
 England, where so large a portion of the people are not members 
 of the Church, belong to alien or even hostile religious bodies, 
 or proceed in matters of legislation upon secular principles 
 only ; and are in any case in a state of ignorance of the 
 Church, such as renders them incompetent to attempt legisla- 
 tion for her ! 
 
 We have indeed our Convocations of the two provinces, 
 which canonically represent the bishops and the clergy of the 
 country ; and we have the power of calling diocesaij synods, 
 similarly representing the bishop and clergy of each diocese ; 
 but the Convocations cannot assemble unless summoned by the 
 Crown, and cannot even treat of and prepare the canons and 
 ordinances which they may think necessary without prehmi- 
 nary license ; and both they and the diocesan synods cannot 
 promulgate or put into execution the canons which they have 
 framed without the ratification of the Crown. The results are 
 these : As the population grows, as civilization increases, as the 
 material circumstances of the country alter, as the relations with 
 other countries grow more numerous, and as manners change, 
 alterations in the discipline and in the general administration 
 of the Church are constantly required, if her ministers are 
 not to fall into apathy and slumber, and if the ship of the 
 Church is not to be left high and dry, an obsolete and useless 
 craft, by the receding waves of time. It is so with all other 
 organizations or corporations ; and they are allowed to make 
 bye-laws from time to time in order to adopt themselves to 
 new circumstances. But the Church is allowed to make 
 no such bye-laws for herself : the laity have no organization 
 or assembly ; the bishops and clergy could not successfully 
 make these alone — at any rate in many matters — and for this 
 very reason, lost they should assume too much power and trench
 
 to the State and the Laity. 31 
 
 upon the privileges of the laity, they are practically suffered to 
 do nothing, not even in their own sphere and for their own 
 discipline. Parliament cannot fill the place. It undertakes 
 to do so sometimes from the urgent necessity of something 
 being done : bat immediately on its so doing tv70 things 
 become apparent: the first its incapacity for the work as shown 
 in the bungling inefficiency of its legislation ; the second, its 
 powerlessness to command that hearty, loyal assent of the 
 members of the Church, without which no laws, however ex- 
 cellent, will be of avail. On the first point, it is only neces- 
 sary to mention two or three facts. Down to the fifty- eighth year 
 of the reign of George III. — that is till 1818 — there was no 
 power, in spite of the growth of the population and the shifting 
 of its centres which could divide or re-arrange parishes, 
 or authorize the building of new churches, which should 
 be other than mere chapels of ease. Parliament was then 
 compelled to undertake the task. Since that time, that is 
 in fifty-four years, it has passed at least nineteen statutes on 
 this subject alone, and most of them with scores of clauses 
 and pages long. Besides this there have been incidental pro- 
 visions on this subject in other statutes ; and the statutes go 
 on increasing. There was one last year — though a small one — 
 and there was one the year before ; and probably tjiere will be 
 another this year. And the terms of the statutes are so compli- 
 cated and contradictory that judges make it a joke when they 
 have to construe them ; while the benefactor who wishes to 
 found a church, has often cause to rue the mistakes into 
 which they lead him, and the waste of good money which they 
 compel. 
 
 In the third year of Her Majesty's reign, in 1840, Parlia- 
 ment was compelled to pass an Act for regulating the tribunals 
 which were to enforce discipline on the clergy — a subject which 
 had not been touched since the reign of Henry VII. The 
 act was so ill drawn that after dozens of cases have been 
 decided on it — at great cost — there are several provisions in it 
 still obscure ; and it gives satisfaction to no party in the 
 Church. 
 
 Two years ago it was thought necessary to pass an Act 
 amending the law as to the dilapidations of parsonages, vicar- 
 ages, and other parochial incumbencies. 
 
 This act is seventy-three clauses long. It is often difficult 
 to understand and is full of omissions, while it has created a 
 whole body of new officers and has established a system of 
 procedure which in ordinary simple cases is of absurdly dis- 
 proportionate expense, and all to be paid by fees out of the
 
 32 The Government of the Church in Relation 
 
 pockets of the clergy. And, moreover, it had to be altered at 
 once. There was an amendment Act last year; and we may 
 have another. 
 
 And not only is Parliament incompetent through igno- 
 rance, it is also unwilling to legislate. It is notorious that 
 it is with the greatest difficulty that Church Bills, even on 
 simple matters where every one admits the usefulness of the 
 measure, can be got through the two Houses, particularly 
 through the House of Commons, where there are many 
 Nonconformists who object to the time of the House being 
 taken up with discussion of Church matters, and some even 
 who would oppose any legislation, on the sole ground alone, 
 that it will be for the advantage of that Church to which 
 they are opposed. 
 
 It is clear that this state of things cannot last long ; 
 and for it there is, apparently, only one effectual remedy. 
 Recognize the true position of the laity in the Church, 
 give them some voice in its government. Let there be side 
 by side with the Convocation in each Province a house of - 
 lay delegates, chosen by real Churchmen and communicants ; 
 let this house and the existing Convocation agree upon an 
 arrangement as to their respective functions, so that no one 
 body shall trespass upon the canonical rights of the other; 
 and let the Provincial assemblies thus formed legislate for the 
 wants of the Church. It may be that Parliament will re- 
 quire some voice in the matter ; but if so, let that voice be 
 one of control and veto only, not entering into all the details 
 of which it can understand nothing, but accepting as a rule in 
 good faith what is propounded by the Church assemblies as 
 for the advantage of the Church, and only interfering in very 
 grave matters. 
 
 There are not wanting precedents for such a course : Par- 
 liament is in the habit of appointing bodies of commis- 
 sioners who legislate on matters within their sphere subject 
 to the control of Parliament This control is expressed 
 in one of two wa^^s : in one the commissioners frame a com- 
 plete scheme and lay it before Parliament, which accepts it 
 in toto, unless upon very strong grounds indeed it rejects 
 it. This is the case with the schemes of the Inclosure Com- 
 missioners and of the Charity Commissioners. The other 
 way is to give the commissioners or some such body power to 
 frame schemes, which are immediately laid before Parliament ; 
 if then either house so far disapprove of the scheme, as within 
 a certain number of days or weeks to make an address to Her 
 Majesty against it, it fails altogether ; but if no such address
 
 to the State and the Laity, 33 
 
 is made, the scheme, without any Act of Parliament, becomes 
 law. Thus the Endowed Schools Commissioners prepare 
 schemes, which when approved by Order in Council become 
 law, unless either House address the Queen against them. But 
 there is an analogy still closer, that of the Ecclesiastical Com- 
 missioners, who, with the further sanction of an Order in 
 Council, have the same power of legislating within the sphere of 
 matters committed to their control. 
 
 It is only necessary to extend the principle a little farther, 
 to create a lay house, and to give liberty to the existing Con- 
 vocations, and you have a remedy for all evils in the adminis- 
 tration of our Church. Without it, you have a Church, with a 
 laity which, though anxious to take its proper share, is allowed 
 no share in her government, with an episcopate and clergy 
 who have a share in it, nominally very great, but actually fet- 
 tered in the most minute matters, for fear of their infringing 
 the rights of the laity ; and a Parliament which, though un- 
 willing, has not only to discharge its proper functions of apply- 
 ing the control which the State may exercise, but also to 
 assume to itself the share in the government of the Church 
 which belongs to her laity, and even in many respects the 
 initiative which appertains to her bishops and clergy.
 
 w
 
 
 ■;'^,*'^l''"''':^''''';'^;^.';' 

 
 
 
 • .W- ■■'."Vf!,\y:\y 
 
 
 ^m-uT^Wi 
 
 ■'1^' 
 
 
 SSSHDCa 
 
 ^■■Bl 
 
 riii
 
 <^- "% 
 
 
 ■* ^^^■^.. V, 
 
 IJ' 
 
 
 m^ 
 
 # •♦ j»%.% 
 
 iWiy'sF' 
 
 .m:# 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 W .^^ ".v>''-*?I^-.