fault〃 to be restored to munion？ St。 Paul tells those who are
〃spiritual〃 among the Galatians to do it； and does not refer it to
their ministers。 （Gal。 6：1）。Is an Epistle written to the Christian
Hebrews？ Not a word is said about 〃rulers〃 until you e to the last
chapter。 Does St。 James write a General Epistle？ He addresses the
〃twelve tribes；〃 and only names 〃teachers〃 in the third chapter。 Does
St。 Peter write a General Epistle？ He writes to the whole body of the
elect； and says nothing to the 〃elders〃 till he arrives at the last
chapter； and even then he is careful to remind them that they are not
〃lords over God's heritage。〃 As for the Second Epistle of St。 Peter；
and the Epistles of St。 John and St。 Jude； they never touch the subject
of the ministry at all。
Now let no one mistake me。 That there was to be a distinct order of men
to minister to the Church is； to my eyes； most plainly taught in the
New Testament。 St。 Paul； we are told； 〃ordained elders in every Church〃
（Acts 14：23）。 See 1 Cor。 12：28； Eph。 4：11； 1st and 2nd Epistles to
Timothy； and Titus。 But that 〃the Church〃 in any city or country meant
especially the laity； and the ministers were only regarded as the
〃servants of the Church〃 （2 Cor。 4：5）； seems to me as clear as the sun
at noon…day。 As for a Church in which the clergy acted alone； settled
everything； decided everything； judged everything； and managed
everything； and the laity had no voice at all； I cannot find the ghost
of the shadow of such a thing in the Acts or Epistles of the New
Testament。 On the contrary； while St。 Paul tells the Thessalonians to
〃esteem their ministers very highly；〃 it is to the laity； and not the
clergy； that he addresses the words； 〃Warn them that are unruly；
fort the feeble…minded； support the weak〃 （1 Thess。 5：13…14）。 I
trust that Churchmen who remember the Sixth Article of our English
Church will not fail to observe this。
Before I go any further in this paper； I think it right to say a few
words in self…defence； to prevent possible misunderstanding。 If any one
supposes that I wish to exalt and exaggerate the position of the laity
at the expense of the clergy； and that I think lightly of the
ministerial office； he is totally mistaken。 In a deep sense of the
value of the Christian ministry； as an ordinance of Christ； and a
necessity in a fallen world； I give place to no man。 But I dare not
overstep scriptural limits in this matter。 I cannot refrain from saying
that a sacerdotal ministry； a mediatorial ministry； an infallible
ministry； a ministry of men who by virtue of episcopal ordination have
any monopoly of knowledge； or any special ability to settle disputed
questions of faith or ritual such a ministry； in my judgment； is an
innovation of man； and utterly without warrant of Holy Scripture。 It is
a ministry which has been borrowed from the typical system of the
Jewish Church； and has no place in the present dispensation。 The
Christian minister is a teacher； an ambassador； a messenger； a
watchman； a witness； a shepherd； a steward； and is expressly authorized
by the Epistles to Timothy and Titus； where his duties are clearly laid
down。 But there is a conspicuous absence of New Testament proof that he
is a sacrificing priest。
In saying this I do not stand alone。 The learned Bishop of Durham； in
his exhaustive work on Philippians； uses the following language：
〃The kingdom of Christ has no sacerdotal system。 It interposes no
sacrificial tribe or class between God and man by whose entreaties
alone God is reconciled and man forgiven。 Each individual member holds
personal munion with the Divine Head。 To Him immediately he is
responsible； and from Him directly he obtains pardon and draws
strength〃 （p。 174； ed。 3）。
Again； he says： 〃The sacerdotal title is never once conferred on the
ministers of the Church。 The only priests under the gospel； designated
as such under the New Testament； are the saints； the members of the
Christian brotherhood〃 （p。 132； ed。 3）。
This is sound speech； which cannot be condemned。
First published in 1868； it has stood the test of eighteen years'
criticism； and its principles remain unanswered and unanswerable。 To
these principles I firmly adhere； and I press them on the consideration
of all English Churchmen in the present day。
I leave the subject of the lay members of the apostolic Churches at
this point； and mend it to the attention of all who read this paper。
It is my conviction that the prominent position occupied by the laity
in these primitive munities was one grand secret of their undeniable
strength； growth； prosperity； and success。 There were no sleeping
partners in those days。 Every member of the ecclesiastical body worked。
Every one felt bound to do something。 All the baptized members； whether
men or women； if we may judge from the 16th chapter of the Epistle to
the Romans； took a direct active interest in the welfare and progress
of the whole ecclesiastical body。 They were not tame； ignorant sheep；
led hither and thither at the beck of an autocratic shepherd。 The best
regiment in an army is that in which officers and privates take an
equal interest in the efficiency of the whole corps。 It is the ferment
in which the officers trust the privates and the privates trust the
officers； as they did when they fought through that eventful night at
Rorke's Drift in the Zulu war。 It is the regiment in which every
private is intelligent； and behaves as if the success of the campaign
depended on him。 It is the regiment in which every private knows his
duty； and is honourably proud of his profession； and would fight to the
last for the colours； even if every officer fell Such a regiment was a
primitive Church in apostolic days。 It had its officers； its bishops；
and deacons。 It had orders； due subordination； and discipline。 But the
mainspring and backbone of its strength lay in the zeal； intelligence；
and activity of its laity。 Oh that we had something of the same sort in
the organization of the Church of England！
II。 The second thing which I propose to do is to examine the position
of the laity of the Church of England during the last two centuries and
at the present day。
Let us begin with a definition。 When we talk of the laity of our
。Established Church； what do we mean？ We mean； of course； all within
her pale who are not ordained to any ministerial office。 We mean the
people of the Church； in contradistinction to the clergy。 How immensely
important a body they are； it is needless to say。 It would be a waste
of time to dwell long on such a point。 Without the lay members； a
Church can hardly be said to exist。 No doubt the old saying is true；
〃Ubi tres； ibi ecclesia。〃 But a general without an army； a colonel
without a regiment； or a ship captain without a crew； are not more
useless and helpless than a Church consisting of clergy without laity。
In the Church of England； at any rate； there is at present no lack of
laymen。 There are probably 500 laymen in proportion to each clergyman。
In point of numbers alone； therefore； apart from all other
considerations； the laity are a most important part of the Church of
England。 Now I contend that the position of our lay Churchmen at this
moment falls very short of the New Testament standards； and is
therefore very unsatisfactory。 I hold it to be a canon and axiom of the
Christian faith； that the nearer a Church can get to the pattern of
Scripture the better she is； and the farther she gets away from it the
worse。 It is vain to deny that in the actual working machinery and
administration of our Church； in its arrangements； plans； schemes； and
normal organization； the lay members have paratively no place at
all！ Do the bishops meet in solemn conclave at Lambeth Palace to
consider the state of our Zion？ There is no place for the laity。… Does
Convocation hold its annual debates？ There is no representation of the
laity。… Does the bishop of a diocese make his annual arrangements for
the work of his See？ Has he any difficult problem to solve about
discipline or the best mode of dealing with some criminous clerk？ He
has no council of laymen。… Has a vacant living or incumbency to be
filled up？ The appointment is made without the slightest regard to the
opinion of the parishioners。 I state simple facts。 I defy any one to
deny their correctness。
Of course I shall be reminded that the laity are represented in our
Church by the churchwardens； who are elected every Easter； and summoned
annually to the visitation of the archdeacon or bishop。 I have not
forgotten this at all。 I only ask； in reply； whether churchwardens are
not； as a rule； appointed with very little regard to spiritual
qualifications？ I ask whether their annual attendance at visitations is
not ordinarily a mere ceremony and form？ How many churchwardens know
anything about a visitation； except that they go to a certain town；
hear a charge about some dry subject which very possibly they do not
understand； perhaps dine with the other churchwardens； and then go
home？ How many churchwardens accept office with the least idea of
taking a constant active interest in all the Church's affairs？ How many
of them are expected to know anything about the Church's doctrines；
ceremonies； government； difficulties； schemes； or plans？ They are often
most excellent men； and capable of doing excellent service。 But
practically little or nothing is expected of them； and little or
nothing except secular and financial business is ever given them to do。
The man who thinks that the office of churchwarden pletely fulfils
the New Testament idea of the laity's position in a Church must have
taken leave of his mon sense。 That there are exceptional
churchwardens who really do great things for the Church I am well
aware。 Bu