cal principles to prevent them from thus keeping each his own minister in chains. Those alone who lived in the cities, where there was a circumjacent theological atmosphere not exclusively of the church or of the clerical profession, rose to high social or professional distinction.

Of the honor of the Anglican Church no one was more jealous than Mr. Southey. Of her mission and prerogatives no one took higher views. Yet even Mr. Southey, speaking of this period of high clerical prerogative, but degraded clerical position, tells us: "The clergy had lost that authority which may always command, at least the appearance of respect; and they had lost that respect, also, by which the place of authority may sometimes so much more worthily be supplied. In the great majority of the clergy, zeal was wanting. The excellent Leighton spoke of the Church, as a fair carcass without a spirit. Burnet observes that, in his time, our clergy had less authority, and were under more contempt, than those of any other church in all Europe; for they were much the most remiss in their labors, and the least severe in their lives. It was not that their lives were scandalous-he entirely acquitted them of any such imputation; but they were not exemplary, as it became them to be; and, in the sincerity of a pious and reflecting mind, he pronounced that they would never regain the influence they had lost, till they lived better and labored more."* This was the period when in the rural districts a "lay preacher" was ducked and pilloried, and when it was declared by the stan dard and favorite commentator of these very divines, that no one is to "preach the Gospel" unless he have either miraculous commission from God, or authority "from persons commissioned by Him."+ How far in the metropolis and universities more enlightened views prevailed, and with what results, will be presently seen.

In our American Church, the exclusion of the laity from the missionary work is likely to produce peculiar mischief. Religious zeal must find some outlet. If we succeed in banking

*Southey's Life of Wesley, chap. ix.
Whitby on Acts, chap. xii. v. 20.

up its natural channel-that of preaching the Gospel-it will force itself into another, in which, likely enough, it will break down hedges, and desolate fields. Now, not only have we closed the natural channel-that of preaching and teachingbut we have opened one which, in one sense at least, is nonnatural-that of Church primacy. The Apostolic Church made the layman an evangelist, but did not make him a pontiff; we make him a pontiff, but refuse to make him an evangelist. In the same way we contrast with the Methodist and Roman Catholic communions. They send the laity forth to preach-humbly, but none the less efficiently; and to visit the sick and poor. We keep our laymen at home to govern our bishops and clergy. I am far from quarrelling with that provision in our Constitution which makes the laity a coördinate power. But let it be observed, they are not merely coördinate. They are, in fact, the controlling element. In the General Convention they have not merely the veto which either of the three estates can exercise, but as contrasted with the bishops, they can exercise this veto without limit or specification, while the bishops are confined as to both. But this is not all. The laity elect the ministers themselves. They are not merely the coördinate power, but they are the constituency. No parish minister can hold his title without their choice. No bishop can be elected without their concurrence. To the laity is given the control over the minister's salary-of cutting it down or taxing it—a power which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania once declared the State could not exercise, on the ground that a control over subsistence is a control over opinion and life. Now this, I have no doubt, is all right. What I complain of is, not that this channel is open for lay energy, but that that energy should be forced out of its legitimate duties, into those which are, after all, but subsidiary and abnormal, though in our peculiar system proper and necessary. If the laity were kept warm and earnest in the missionary work, I should see no mischief to result from their absorption of ecclesiastical power. But I confess I do see a mischief from a secularized laity being vested with such prime functions. Those whom, in our exalted notions of the clerical office, we

refuse to permit to lead in the prayer-meeting, or exhort in the schoolhouse, we first create politicians, and then make primates. We busy them with canons, with ecclesiastical discipline, with Church constitutions; and then, when their tem pers have become thus secularized, we give them the control of our councils.

Now, I will not ask the effect of this on the Church, though I do believe that we have been hereby greatly impeded in our ecclesiastical progress, and deadened in our missionary zeal. I do believe that we have thus turned what should have been a propulsion into an obstruction. But pass from this point to that which is now immediately before us. What has been the effect on clerical independence and prerogative, of this perver sion of lay energy? Now, here is a point of personal history and experience which I confidently leave to those who have ob served parish vicissitudes in the United States. Is it not the fact that the warden, or the "distinguished layman," as he is so frequently called, who, capable, indeed, of far more generous work, having been admonished that for him it is not decorous or lawful to "preach" or "pray" even in social meetings, soon turns himself to governing his minister? Observe the peculiar advantages the layman has for this purpose. He is stationary, and, as parishes go, has already presided through half a dozen changes, being, in the intervals, rector as well as warden. The minister is after all but a sojourner-is unacquainted with the society or business arrangements of the new field, or the com mon law and usages of the parish. The former is in most cases experienced in the world, of superior though disciplined energy, of a more than average command of means, and with a leisure which is unembarrassed by parochial duty, unelevated by those impulses which the pulpit imparts, unbroken by the throes of pastoral tenderness. The latter is inexperienced; is, likely enough, unguarded and imprudent in his policy; is poor in this world's goods, and forgets mere ecclesiastical business in the splendid mission of proclaiming Christ. Now, what is the result of a conflict between the two? Sometimes it is, there is a revolt, and an appeal to the congregation; and then, when the really religious lay-element is invoked, that which is merely

.

technical and worldly is thrown off. But in most cases the minister gives way. Paul trembles before Felix. It is a hard, crushing yoke; but it is borne. It is hard to him who imposes. it-to the layman, whom a more genial policy could have made an earnest and beloved proclaimer of the blessed Gospel of Christ, but who now has gradually narrowed himself to a lowering inquisitorial power, the very severity and persistency of whose grasp on the living element he has inclosed, acts backward in ossifying and compressing his own heart. It is doubly hard on those whom that iron hand incloses. The joylessness of aged ministers in our own and the English Establishment has often been noticed, and it has been compared with the almost effulgent cheerfulness of the poor itinerant, who, withont parsonage or even parish, without goods, goes down-with feeble feet, it is true, but with shouts of triumph-to the very banks of the river. The latter carries his sheaves with him. His, too, has been a free heart, and a heart making others free. Those whom he has taught to feel, he has taught to preach. He sees light not merely absorbed, but sparkling, in every once dark orb he has touched. The delight of fructification is his-the delight of a gladsome harvest, and that a harvest of seed

But alas! for him who has turned that influence which might have been his light and joy, into his shadow and grief!

"But," it may be insisted, "are the clergy to have opposition lines run in their own churches? This young layman with 'concern' for speaking, that old one with a talent for it—are they to have their specific partisans and admirers?" By no means. Inside of a parish there should be no religious instruction except under the rector's direction, though I do believe that he would greatly further his own usefulness, greatly increase his fruits, greatly strengthen his position, if he call in the aid of his laymen, eminent for age and piety, in the management of social religious meetings. Those who have done so have been not the least distinguished for the strength of their hold on their people's affections, and for the permanency of their pastoral relations. In proof of this I need do no more than mention Dr. Bedell, at St. Andrew's, Philadelphia; Bishop Griswold, at Bristol; Dr. Milnor, at St. George's, New

York; and Dr. Pilmore, at St. Paul's, Philadelphia. This, however, is a point for the minister himself. It is not so, however, with these missionary posts which are outside of parochial limits, and to which none of our present machinery applies. These belong to the Church at large. When, as is the case in our particular communion, chief overseers are placed over a specific Mission territory, then the supervision of such chief overseers will be sufficient protection against any irregularities as would disturb the integrity of the whole.

So far as concerns the clergy generally, the attempt to force upon them the monopoly in the work of religious instruction is as injurious to them intellectually as history has shown it to have been injurious to them socially. Let us observe, in this connection, the history of the Gallican Church. There was a time when that communion exulted in a constellation of intellect and culture such as no religious body has at any time excelled. It was the time when the laity were heard through her press, in her monasteries, and in her public avenues. It was the time when the fine professional skill and quick intellect, of Perrault were employed to gain in the sick-chamber, as well as in the academy, an access for truths which otherwise might have stood without, at once rejected and rejecting. It was the time when the sublime and pathetic genius of Pascal was giving all the force of logic, all the finish of wit, all the charms of a style the most perfect, all the grace of an unction most tender, to win, to convince, to attach. Then, when laymen thus spoke, did the ecclesiastical intellect of France rise in a superb lustre. In that epoch were heard the thunder notes of Bossuet, of Massillon, of Bourdaloue. Then were published the acute disquisitions of Arnauld, to whom more than to any other mind we owe the harmonizing, on a solid basis, of the theories of Des Cartes and of Leibnitz. Then arose from the sisters of Port Royal a literature which, if a little bordering on mysticism, was perhaps scarcely more than a just reaction from the sharp metallic worldliness of the heroines of the Fronde. Then were published the sweet commentaries of Quesnel, even now to the Christian heart the dearest and most cherished.