upside down the better。 If we want to remove one grand cause of our
Church's present weakness； we must pletely alter the position of the
laity。 On this point； if on no other； there is great need of Church
reform。
III。 Let us； in the last place； consider our own immediate duty。 What
ought we to aim at； in the matter of the laity； in order to strengthen
the 。Established Church of 。England？
When I speak of aims； I shall have to e to practical details； and I
shall not shrink from saying precisely what I mean。 Grant for a moment
that we have at length discovered that our lay Churchmen are not in
their rightful position。What is the remedy for the evil？ What is the
change that is required？ What ought to be done？
The answers that some men make to these questions are so puerile； weak；
and inadequate； that I am almost ashamed to name them。 They tell us
coolly that the laity may bee lay… agents and Scripture… readers；
though even this at one time； I remember； was thought a shocking
innovation。 They may even exhort and give little addressesmay teach
Sunday schools and be parochial visitorsmay manage Reformatories and
Houses of Refugemay attend mittees； and superintend Church finance
I My reply is； that all such suggestions are ridiculously below the
mark； and show woeful ignorance of the Church's need。 I marvel that
sensible men can have the face to make them。 Oh； mighty condescension！
Oh； wondrous liberality！ We will let laymen do rough work which could
not be clone at all without them； and which they have no need to ask
the clergy's leave to do！ If this is all that people mean when they
talk of enlisting 〃lay co…operation；〃 I am sorry for them。 Such
doctoring will not heal the wounds of our Zion。 Such reforms will not
win back the lukewarm sympathies of our laity； and make them the right
arm of the Church of England。
The reform I plead for in the position of our laity is something far
deeper； higher； wider； broader； more thorough； more plete。 I plead
for the general recognition of the mighty principle； that nothing ought
to be done in the Church without the laity； in things great or in
things small。 I contend that the laity ought to have a part； and voice；
and hand； and vote； in everything that the Church says and does； except
ordaining and ministering in the congregation。 I contend that the voice
of the Church of England ought to be not merely the voice of the
bishops and presbyters； but the voice of the laity as well； and that no
Church action should ever be taken； and no expression of Church opinion
ever put forth； in which the laity have not an equal share with the
clergy。 Such a reform would be a return to New Testament principles。
Such a reform would increase a hundredfold the strength of the Church
of England。 What the details of such a reform ought to be； I will now
proceed to explain。
（a） The unit with which we ought to begin； if we would raise the
position of lay Churchmen to the standard of the apostolic times；
beyond doubt； the parish。 From one end of the land to the other we
should try to establish the great principle； that every clergyman shall
continually consult his lay parishioners。
If he does not like to have anything so stiff and formal…sounding as a
〃parochial council；〃 let him at any rate often confer with his
churchwardens； sidesmen； and municants about his work。 Especially
let him do nothing in the way of changing times and modes of worship；
nothing in the matter of new ceremonials； new decorations； new
gestures； new postures； without first taking counsel with his
lay…people。 The church is theirs； and not his； he is their servant； and
they are not his： they have surely a right to be consulted。 Who can
tell the amount of offence that might be prevented if clergymen always
acted in this way？ No people； I believe； are more reasonable than lay
Churchmen； if they are only approached and treated in a reasonable way。
Above all； let every parochial incumbent make a point of teaching every
municant that he is an integral part of the Church of England； and
is bound to do all that he can for its welfare；to visit； to teach； to
warn； to exhort； to edify； to help； to advise； to fort； to support；
to evangelize； to awaken the sleeping； to lead on the inquiring； to
build up the saints； to promote repentance； faith； and holiness
everywhere； according to his gifts； time； and opportunity。 He should
educate his people to see that they must give up the lazy modern plan
of leaving everything to the parson； and must be active agents instead
of sleeping partners。 On this point； I grieve to say； the Methodists
and Dissenters beat Churchmen hollow。 With them； every new member is a
new home missionary in their cause。 Never will things go well with the
Church of England until every individual member realizes that he has a
duty to do to his Church； and keeps that duty continually in view。
I begin purposely with this point。 I am certain it is a vital one； and
lies at the root of the whole subject which we are considering。 Best of
all； it is a reform which may be menced at once； and needs no Act of
Parliament to start it。 It needs nothing but a determination on the
part of the rectors； vicars； and perpetual curates of England to bring
the matter before the municants of their respective parishes； and to
incite them to e forward and do their duty。 They have the matter； I
believe； in the hollow of their hands。 The laity； I believe； would
respond to the invitation； if they once realized that the health of the
Church was at stake； and that there was work for them to do。 In truth；
it is our day of visitation。 In our Established Church it will never do
to try to man the walls with officers； and let the rank and file sit
idle in their barracks。 Clergy and laity must learn to work together。
We must have not only an apostolical succession of ministers； but an
apostolical succession of laymen； if our Church is to stand much
longer。
（b） The next point which demands our attention； if we want to raise the
laity of the Church to a scriptural position； is the absolute necessity
of giving every parish and congregation some voice and vote in the
appointment of its ministers。 I make no apology for taking up this
defect in our present system； because it is directly handled in the
Church Patronage Bill which is being brought before Parliament。 I own
that I care little for some of the provisions of that Bill； and I doubt
much if they would work well； supposing they passed the fiery ordeal of
Lords' and mons' mittees。 But there is one clause in the proposed
measure which is most praiseworthy； and I hail it with deep
satisfaction。 I refer to the clause which would enable the inhabitants
of any parish to offer objections to a clergy man being placed over
them； for a certain time after his name is made known。 I regard this as
emphatically a move in the right direction。 I am not anxious to see
patronage concentrated in one set of hands。 Much less am I anxious to
see clergymen elected entirely by the parishioners or congregation。 But
I do think that the people should have some voice in the appointment of
ministers； and that they should not be left to the mercy of。 an
inpetent patron； and not allowed to make any objection to his
choice。 We all know that a si quis must be read before an ordination；
and I contend that a si quis should be required in every case before an
Institution。
Our present system of appointment to livings entirely ignores the
laity； and often proves a grievous abuse。 Clergymen are constantly
thrust upon unwilling parishes and disgusted congregations； who are
entirely unfit for their position； and the people are obliged to
submit。 The parishioners are consequently driven away from church； and
the Establishment suffers irreparable damage。 It is high time to give
up this system。 Let every patron be required to send the name of the
clergyman whom he wishes to nominate to a vacant living； to the
churchwardens； one month before he presents the name to the bishop。 Let
the name of the proposed new incumbent be publicly read out in church
like banns； and affixed to the church doors； on three or four Sundays
consecutively； and let any one be invited to object if he can。 Let the
objector be obliged to satisfy the bishop and his council that there
are good reasons； whether doctrinal or practical； for his objections；
and let the bishop and his council have power； if satisfied； to refuse
the patron's nominee。 Of course such a safeguard as this might often be
ineffectual。 The objections to the nominee may often be frivolous or
incapable of proof。 But at any rate a principle would be established。
The laity of a parish could no longer plain that they are
perpetually handed over to new parsons without having the slightest
voice in the transaction。 One right the laity even now possess； I
remind them； which I heartily wish they would exercise more frequently
than they do。 They may effectually prevent young men being ordained who
are unfit for orders； by objecting when the si quis is read。 Well would
it be for the Church of England if the laity in this matter would
always do their duty！
（c） The third and last reform in the position of the laity which we
should aim to obtain； is the admission of lay Churchmen to their
rightful place in the administration and management of the whole
Church。 I entirely agree with two of my Right Rev。 Brethren； that we
greatly want a National Church Council； posed of bishops；
presbyters； and laymen。
Such a council ought not to possess any legislative powers； or to
interfere in the slightest degree with the prerogative of the Crown or
the Royal supremacy。 There ought； therefore； to be no great difficulty
in obtaining legal powers for its formation； and it ought