no permanent Diaconate. It is true that there are upwards of 2,000 probationary priests called deacons, but they are not permanent. In a couple of years, or so, not one of the 2,000, more or less, probationary priests will remain deacons, having all passed into the ranks of the presbyters. Instead of 2,000, we ought to have at least 20,000 deacons working for Christ. And may I add, that we do not want to imitate the clergy in any way by being dubbed "Reverend," wearing long black coats, broad brimmed hats, and white ties. Let us be in the fullest sense of the word laymen, and not mimics of parsons. It was once said to me, "But your suggestion would tamper with the Orders of the Church." I contend that the Orders of the Primitive Church have been tampered with already, and we laymen have a right to ask that they be restored to their primitive simplicity. Who can read the Acts of the Apostles and doubt whether laymen were recognised or not by the Church of that day? Our Church has already paid a fearful penalty by tampering with the Divine order of things in the enormous amount of devoted godly churchmen who have drifted off into other systems, where their talents are recognised. We have just heard from the last speaker, of a certain Bill Sykes, who having the gift of speech, was picked up by the Primitive Methodists, though converted under the ministry of a clergyman. I conclude that individual was a representative of the East End. I can, however, speak of many a West End convert drifting off into Brethrenism, simply because their talents were not utilised in our own Church. I would even go so far as to say, that the Parish Church ought to be open to laymen to speak in, when duly authorised by the Bishop, and invited by the Vicar. We do not want to have anything to do with the regular services, but surely we have a right to ask that the churches should be used for something else. There should be all sorts of irregular attractive evangelistic services from time to time, and at these qualified laymen should be allowed to speak. I must close, as the bell has rung, but I can only urge on this Congress, that each individual member should pray the Lord of the Harvest to send forth many more labourers into the harvest fields.

The Rev. J. W. HORSLEY, Chaplain of H.M. Prison,

Clerkenwell.

I ONCE took part in a mission in a country town, and the common people heard gladly not the voice of man, but the message of God. They filled the church and invaded the pews of the respectable, and even the sanctum of the squire; whereupon the sexton came in dismay to the vicar, and said, “However are we to get all these people out of church when the mission is over?" Our problem is not how to get them out, but how to get them in; and then the more important question arises, How shall we use them and set them to work? I do not believe in an army like that spoken of by Artemus Ward, in which every person was a field-marshal, but I do believe in a Christian army, in which every one shall be an officer of some kind. In an East-end parish we were accustomed, whenever a young man came to the Church, and had attended a few Sundays, to put before him a list of the various branches of the Church Society, and ask him not whether he would work, but what work he would take up. Above many parsonic ministrations I value the testimony working-men can give to their fellows. The best of sermons are often prefaced not by the words " Dearly beloved brethren," but by such words as "I aint agoing to preach to you chaps, but" and then comes the sermon. When we get these men to deliver their testimony in that way, they reach people at times and in places where it was perfectly impossible the clergy could hope to be heard. Two convicted thieves were once overheard saying in my prison chapel, "That chaplain-" "What of 'im?" "He's a rum un; he come into my cell and said you talk straight to me and I'll talk straight to you." 'Ah, and he do talk straight, don't he; I think he's one of us— turned, you know." That was one of the greatest compliments I ever received, and I believe these good fellows listened to my daily sermons all the more carefully because they had an impression which was possibly erroneous. There are many cases in which the clergy are at a disadvantage. Men will not swear when a blackcoated gentleman is near them, and therefore they want a preacher in fustian to rebuke that vice. Working-men have these great opportunities which connotes great responsibility. Testimony, however, is one thing, and teaching is another. Anyone who

has heard even an ignorant man tell what the Lord has done for his soul, without cant or bounce, will never forget it; but there is no necessity for the convert of to-day to become the instructor of to-morrow. Read on this point an excellent tract by the Rev. W. A. Whitworth, of Hammersmith, on Testimony. The Church of England Working Men's Society is doing much in the way of lay help of this kind. The noble band of City Missionaries do much, and would do more, if by the test questions and examinations they undergo before acceptance they did not have to pass through a net of such narrow mesh that only those of one kind of thought can pass, and thus the society is no real Church Society. I would say a word about another class of lay preachers-the prophets of the Press. I was reading last week in the preface to the works of the Rev. Dr. Dodd, who was hung in Newgate for forgery, that "he even sank so low as to become the editor of a newspaper." Times have changed, and we do not agree with the dictum of Father Faber, that "Journalism is an organised villainy." A great deal of the teaching of the nation has drifted out of the hands of the clergy into the hands of the prophets of the Press, and we should recognise their position and make them feel their responsibility. It seems strange, and somewhat saddening to me, that if I say something from the pulpit people think their primary duty is to criticise it, while if I say exactly the same thing in a leader they think their primary duty is to believe it. People prostitute their intellect by swallowing all leaders whole, and taking all their sense and history and theology from the columns of the "Times.' But the whole question of lay-preaching lies in a nutshell. If a man has the love of God in his heart it burns there, and must find utterance. It is as absurd as blasphemous to tell a man who loves his God not to speak of Him. Try to stop the admirer of Sir Wilfrid Lawson or Lord Beaconsfield from mentioning their names. More preposterous is it, practically to tell a working man that if he believes in God he had better keep that to himself.

JOHN TREVARTHEN, Esq., Provost of the Guild of St. Alban.

THE subject before the Congress is one of which, from varied and long experience, I have had the opportunity to learn a good deal. We have just had one layman, who in his ten minutes has contrived to array every possible objection to some kinds of lay ministration. I am glad to find that this Church Congress recognises that there is a crying necessity for lay ministration, and that it is the duty of the Church to utilise all such available agencies at the earliest possible moment. The Dean of Lichfield brought that point out in his paper, but the real leaders in this matter-and it is a good sign of the times are the Bishops. There was a time when the Bishops were always thought to be half a century behind public opinion, but now, I am thankful to say, it is the other way, and there is no man who has been more handled in the newspapers on this question than the noble Bishop of Lichfield. The Guardian has been full of remarkable letters with regard to lay missions in the diocese of Lichfield, and in spite of all that has been said by certain objectors, I think the Bishop's letter disposes of all the objections which have been raised, and I sincerely hope that the Bishop's example will be widely followed by his brethren, many of whom are deeply sensible of the importance of this matter. I am speaking with some little experience, as I am (very unworthily) the head of a large body of working laity, who are bound by solemn vows and profession to work for God. For thirty years the Guild of St. Alban has provided for almost every species of work permitted by the Church. With regard to lay mission work I have had some experience, and special opportunities of judging of its success and importance. I will not refer to the necessities of towns, but I would speak of country districts. I live about twenty miles from London, and some years ago I took charge of a little hamlet in my neighbourhood, which is three miles from the parish church. The parish church is built in a corner of the parish, so that while you can throw a stone from it into the next parish this hamlet was left unprovided for. Well, the vicar started services in a schoolroom, and very soon thereout grew the necessity for a mission church and regular services, which are mainly conducted by laymen. Every Sunday afternoon I provide a shortened Evensong and preach, and we have one celebration per month, as well as the opportunity for baptisms about as often. With that assistance from the vicar or his curate I provide for the rest of the afternoon services. Last Sunday it was our harvest festival, when there were 170 persons in the little church, cramming it to its utmost capacity, besides a considerable

fringe of people outside, and when I counted the coins put into the offertory bag I found that there were 168. This goes to prove that country districts can take up a subject of this kind. When I undertook the work I was assured that it was a district that could not get any ministration. The effect of the work has been most encouraging, for a dissenter told me lately that the services had immensely improved the general tone of the locality, and there is a marked improvement in the morality of the district. This, it seems to me, is the way to lay hold of the people of the country districts. If the Church is to reclaim any of those who have drifted into dissent, we must have missions, and to do that we must of necessity employ the services of laymen, for the 20,000 clergy cannot possibly serve the whole people. The sort of people we most want for lay ministration are often such as do not come forward and offer themselves. The clergy should therefore hold out a cordial welcome to the earnest churchman who often out of respect to the clerical office keeps in the background. It is frequently in proportion to such a man's regard for the Church that he so restrains himself, and is thus punished for his faithful attachment to Church principles. Why the clergy should attempt to do what is beyond them when there is so much latent talent amongst the laity is a perfect mystery to me. What we want is a good strong public opinion on this point, and every encouragement given to all forms of lay ministration which can be made instrumental in the work of the Church.

The Rev. JACKSON MASON, Vicar of Settle.

I TRUST I shall not be thought in any way to disparage a great and generous movement-this tidal wave of lay preaching so full of promise-if I yet protest most earnestly against its overflow into our churches. For claims have been recently put forward for the layman inside the Church which go far to confound him with an Order commonly known amongst us as the Diaconate. The deacon has indeed long enough been obscured. He has been for years a sort of vanishing quantity—a nebulous object, so to speak, fast merging and all but lost in the fixed star of the priesthood. But just lately a stronger lens has been brought to bear upon him, and he has been so well differentiated and defined that both Convocations and the whole bench of Bishops have at last allowed him, beyond his mere name, something like his proper "local habitation." Now, however, he is like to be obliterated once more, by a whole troop of minor constellations-a very "milky way" of lay preachers streaming up from behind-who threatened to blot him off the face of the Church altogether. I say this from no jealousy. Let these zealous and devout laymen shine and shine to their uttermost, in the field, in the chamber, and the street or mission room, provided they shine within their proper province. But there is a certain Article -the 23rd in our Church-which, true to Catholic tradition, has marked off the sacred edifices as holy ground, ground not to be invaded by any but those who are "lawfully called and sent." This "lawful calling and sending," as the Archbishop of York has pronounced, is clearly limited to Ordination. Some, I know, have disputed this, and would argue that because the word "Ordain" does not actually occur in the Article, a Bishop's license to preach would do as well. But I ask in all fairness, could the Article, did the Article at the time of its construction, carry on the face of it any such meaning? Did we so understand it when we learnt it, when we signed it? It forbids, in one and the same sentence, public preaching in the church and administering sacraments in the church, to all but those lawfully called and sent. Now a Bishop's license would not, I presume, empower a man to administer the Sacrament. And who would have dreamt (until the wish was father to the thought) that a Bishop's license can be here ruled to empower a man to do the other thing, viz. public preaching in the congregation? I contend then, on the face of this 23rd Article, that Ordination, and nothing short of it, is the sine qua non intended, enabling a man to preach within the Church. And no individual Bishop's laying down the law can in so momentous a matter supersede or override the necessity of the Bishop's laying on of hands. To license merely, where a man needs the Seal of the Ordaining spirit, is far more than a breach of the Act of Uniformity. It is treason to the Institution of the Christian Ministry and to the Grace of Holy Orders. Two pleas, however, have been recently adduced for this irregularity-a layman preaching in churches. (1) That splendid law-breaker, Origen. He was invited, no doubt, to preach in the congregation; and preach he did, but for the first

and last time as a layman. He was promptly reprimanded and recalled by his Diocesan. This "leading instance," as it has been quoted, of a layman preaching in churches has this peculiarity, that it led to never another. The Church was shocked and had had enough of it. (2) But again, how about the licensed readers under Archbishop Parker's injunctions? Well, for a hundred years, more or less, after the Reformation these obtained in the Church. It was a time of great dearth and clerical destitution, and by way of a make-shift-somewhat as in the navy a captain reading prayers on board ship in the absence of a clergyman-so these readers were licensed to occupy the vacant desks and read Prayers and Homilies. Not to preach, observe. Public preaching and administering the Sacraments were explicitly forbidden them in accordance with the 23rd Article already in force. The fact is, Parker's readers in 1559 bear no analogy whatever to the evangelist readers proposed now. They no more professed to evangelise the masses than do such officiating captains of our Royal and merchant navy. As to our present zeal for evangelising the masses, may God bless it and prosper it further and further. Yet let us beware of one thing, not to bewilder and confuse the mind of those masses as to who is a clergyman and who is not. Remember the Archbishop's weighty warning to Convocation. Allow, said he, an Upper Reader, licensed or unlicensed, to invade by preaching or minis. tering the services of the Church, and this encroachment, in itself illegal, will very soon obliterate the respect at present felt for Holy Orders. What then is the true safety-valve for all this expansive lay energy? (I wonder it has not been more generally insisted on.) The Diaconate. The one true door to further ministrations within the Church is the door of Deacon's Orders. It is now wide open by common consent of the Bishops to competent volunteers. Let the laity be made to understand this, and the Bishops encourage them to press in, and all is well. But lure the laity with false Will-o'-the-Wisp hopes of doing Deacon's work without a Deacon's commission, and all is danger and confusion. For we cannot do the Church or nation a greater injury than to make believe that the laity have power in the sacred precincts which have been denied them from the days of St. Chrysostom until now. The prevalent idea of lay agency is a truly grand enthusiasm, a veritable inspiration. But keep it within its due limits of place and function, otherwise it will imperil the sacred ministry itself-drag into our churches unsound or sensational teaching-lay us at the mercy of uncontrollable spirits-promote and multiply the scandals of irreverencepuff up the ill-instructed laymen, and disgust the devout. In a word, this noble and aspiring ambition "to preach the Gospel to the poor," will, for lack of due deference to the safeguards of Church order, "overleap itself and fall on the other side."

JAMES R. HALL, Esq., Broughton-in-Furness.

I MAY confidently trust that nothing which has fallen from other speakers, or which may fall from me, may be calculated in any way to set up a competition between clergy and laity. I at once disavow any desire among the laity to minister in the parish church. We must feel that the clergy have, beyond the special grace given them by Holy Orders, a natural fitness for their ordinary work, and so a speciality: they are trained for special work, and I believe will succeed better than others not so trained. For the principle of the division of labour obtains in the spiritual as much as in the natural kingdom. It is a question of professionals against amateurs. But the limits of a clergyman's power are obvious. There is a limit of time, and a limit of distance. A clergyman cannot expect, during a short winter Sunday, to reach every part of an extensive country parish. The laity, also, have their specialities, which may consist of a power of persuasive eloquence in addressing others, or of teaching in school, or of a more decided sympathy with their own class; and they can under such circumstances speak to laymen with better effect than the ordinary clergyman. It must be remembered, however, that laymen who are engaged in the work must have a beginning, and some practice. How can a soldier learn to fight if he never goes into battle. Those who are most established in lay ministration generally began in a humble way-perhaps in a night school. Lay workers are not sufficiently recognised, and at present their position is nothing. In the case of the Rifle Volunteers and Volunteer officers, they have a recognised position in relation to the officers of the regular army; but in the case of lay workers, they have no position in relation to the parochial clergy. For instance, a new clergyman coming into a parish, may, if

he like, make a clean sweep of all the lay workers whom he finds there. I would not depreciate the position of the vicar as the head of his parish, but long labour and experience in a lay worker ought to go for something. In some places there is great competition for lay work, and there are more lay people anxious to work than there is work for them. This puts the patronage of lay work entirely in the clergyman's hands. To lose his favour is to lose all chance of a share in church work. I deprecate the introduction of a formal lay Diaconate. The best churchworkers would shrink from claiming a distinction which would formally mark them off from their lay brethren, while unworthy laymen might eagerly embrace it. I should rather look for amelioration of the lay workers' lot to some modification of the present absolute power of the parish clergyman.

The Rev. E. H. BICKERSTETH, Vicar of Christ Church,

Hampstead.

I ONLY rise at the urgent request of a friend, to say a word regarding the preaching of laymen in our churches. The subject was fully discussed at a large meeting of rural deans in the Diocese of London; and the almost unanimous feeling of those present was, that while we should welcome, not grudgingly, or of necessity, but freely and heartily, the evangelistic aid of our lay brethren in mission halls and schoolrooms, and in giving open air addresses, the line should be drawn across the church door. And for this reason, if they preach in our churches, even at extra services, it will go far to obliterate in the minds of many the difference between the ordained and unordained servants of the Church. This would be so grievous a loss, that for the sake, not of the clergy only, but equally for the sake of the laity themselves, I, for one, earnestly hope we shall observe the rule of consecrated preachers for consecrated buildings.

The Rev. ROBERT BEE, Curate-in-Charge of Saint George's

District Mission, Wigan.

THIS is one of the few subjects set down for discussion upon which I feel that I can humbly lay claim to speak. Reference has been made to, and names have been mentioned by one of the previous speakers, of gentlemen in the Established Church of England whose ministrations as lay helpers have won for them an honourable distinction. There is yet one name which I would add to the list, and I am sure that it is that of a gentleman well known to many members of the Congress, I mean Mr. Clarke Aspinall, of Liverpool. An apprehension has found vent at this meeting that an extension of lay ministrations might result in an encroachment upon the distinctive privileges of the clergy. That objection, so far as the gentleman to whom I have alluded is concerned, was anticipated and disposed of by Mr. Aspinall, in a speech delivered by him at the Liverpool Diocesan Conference a year ago. It has proved to be groundless and unsubstantial, although many of us know Mr. Aspinall's platform powers and ability are of an unusual order. The avowed object of aggressive evangelisation, which renders lay helpers necessary, is to reach the masses of the people who are outside the pale of the Church. Open-air preaching is a means towards the accomplishing of this very desirable end. I have engaged very much in that kind of labour, in fact I am specially licensed by the Bishop of Liverpool as a mission curate. Yesterday, in one of the papers read in the Hall, the question was asked, whether atheists practised a different morality to that of the Bible. The answer to that question is "No." The reader of the paper thought "Yes," to be the proper reply to the query, and in support of his opinion enumerated several things of a doubtful kind which tended to prove what he had maintained. If those things are so, then are they not moral at all. Let it never be forgotten that atheists, even when they practised the most rigid morality, and I have known some who live very exactly-are