Parochial Council should collect funds for the support of such agencies, and do what they could to discover, and present to the Incumbent for his approval, pious persons as suitable agents. By such services the Parochial Council, as the representative of the parishioners, would become the means of connecting them, contemplated as the body of Christians in the parish, with the different organs of parochial moral and spiritual activity.

It would now appear that, of the duties performed by the primitive Elders, a very small part could be entrusted to the Parochial Council. Like the former, the latter might be regarded as participators, in some degree, of “government," through their power over the Parish Church and its services. Also, through the assistance they might afford the Incumbent in the different modes enumerated, they might be said to render, with the primitive Elders, “help” to the Church. (1 Cor. xii. 28.) But for that sort of ministry which is parallel to the instruction imparted to the ignorant by the primitive Elders, and to the aid they rendered to the weak and sick, we must turn, not to the Council, but to the different parochial agencies under the superintendence of the Incumbent, which have been already adduced. Upon an adequate supply of the requisite agents must the ignorant masses of our large parishes chiefly depend for religious instruction and consolation. Important then, nay momentous, is the enquiry—to what means shall we have recourse for the discovery and acquisition of Sunday-school and Raggedschool and Night-school teachers, of district visitors, male as well as female, and of every other of those agents engaged in the moral and spiritual cultivation of the parish.

Surely we should fall back on that part of the existing Church which represents the primitive Church. The latter contained in itself individuals endowed with gifts rendering them adequate to the discharge of every ministry needed for the edification of its members. (Eph. iv. 12, 1 Cor. xii.) May we not venture to hope that the agents we require for the different descriptions of parochial ministry, may be found in that part of the Church now which corresponds to the early Church ? And what is that part but the Communicants? The mark, which distinguishes them from other professed Christians, is precisely that which most distinguished the primitive Church from the world, namely the participation of the Lord's Supper. Let the communicants in each parish be registered, assembled, instructed, and organised, as a Communicants' Meeting. Further, let them be made to understand the obligation and the privilege to provide from among themselves, in aid of the Incumbent, the different agents required. The produce of this appeal would depend on the number and spiritual condition of the communicants. Those who were qualified would

in time come forward, and submit to be trained and organised, constrained by the high consciousness that they were a part of the very instrumentality raised up and employed by the Chief Shepherd of the flock for the edification of the parish.

But I must hasten to an end. My purpose was to solicit attention to this measure, and to elicit criticism, by venturing to offer some remarks. At the close it is in order to moot a very plain question; and I put it bluntly. Is the Parochial Council, after all, worth having?

I surmise that the Ritualist will reply at once, and that sharply, in the negative. They who are not Ritualists may hesitate. When they throw out of consideration the advantages offered by this measure for the repression of movements in a Ritualistic direction, and weigh calmly what may be said for it and what against it, they may, very possibly, be unable to say whether the scale of judgment moves downwards in its favour, or no. With myself, though not unconscious altogether of hesitation, the balance is still, I think, in favour of the measure of Lord Sandon. Much injury it cannot well do. For, whatever embarrassment the Parochial Council may cause the Incumbent, it will be unable to interfere seriously with his preaching the Gospel, or with his zealous efforts, in any direction, to save souls. Then it must be of some use. Possibly it may issue in much good.

The fate, indeed, to which an institution, with duties so few and simple, and in itself of such small prestige, would be imminently exposed, is, I think, very obvious. In such an age as this, when society is at once so impulsive and so volatile, with its attention almost incessantly exposed to the exciting attractions and solicitations of novelties, novelties, many, various, and not unfrequently startling in form and momentous in import in such an age as this, I say, when the interest taken in the Church is busy, fidgety, trifling, and changeful, rather than grave, profound, and constant, is it likely that such an institution as the Parochial Council, if it should gain the attention of the parish for a time, should possibly retain it? I apprehend that many Parochial Councillors, finding that they had little to do, and that what they had was irksome, would speedily withdraw. Soon the parishioners will be possessed with the same indifference. In the issue, the election of the councillors, neglected by others, would fall to the disposal of the Incumbent and his friends. As the result, the composition of the Council would be improved, and the practical value of their personal work in the parish increased; but the specific character of the Council, as representatives of the parishioners, would be seriously attenuated. Still, even then, it would be of some value as a parochial institution. Though a ghost

incesce so iobviou presti

as a representative, it would fit about in the parish, serving as a reminder of the fact that, at any time, the parishioners might appear at an election, and substitute a solid and real representative of themselves for the existing apparent one. Such a ready capacity of legal self-representation, in each parish, might be of vast practical value, should the Church establishment come to be attacked, and a social battle have consequently to be fought by us. Still more conspicuous would the advantage be, if in the issue we lost the battle, and the old Church of this land, like that of Ireland, should be obliged to fall back on her individual strength, resources, and tactics, for reconstruction, defence, and support.

Such, however, may not be the issue in some parishes. If the age in which we live be distinguished for impulsiveness, volatility, and inconstancy, it is also distinguished for the frequent creation of new projects, for the development of unexpected energies, and for a certain remarkable pliability of selfadaptation to novel pursuits and activities.

The best men in the parish may come forward and be elected on the Council. In their small sphere they may be as much in earnest, and as able and as zealous and assiduous as the London Educational Board are likely to prove themselves. What, in that case, the effect in the parish after a course of years might be, and what further remedial or enabling legislation, or what new Church organisation, the success of such councillors might suggest and authorise, I will not venture to surmise. The Church at present is so divided and subdivided in itself, and so feeble in each part, that it seems to be passing into a state of more and more perfect solution with the world. In and with that world it is in a state of chaotic confusion and movement. He that can, from its present seething condition, divine the effect of the introduction of any new device, and assert that it will necessarily constrain the dissolving Church elements to crystallise into a better thing, or otherwise, must have more power than Glendower to call spirits from the vasty deep.

This much, however, may be predicted without hesitation. The establishment of a Parochial Council will be, at once to the parishioners and to the Incumbent, a benefit not easily estimated, if, by its intervention, the latter should be materially relieved from the present onerous secularities styled generically “ Serving Tables," and, like the apostles, he should devote the time and strength set free to “prayer and the ministry of the Word.” I suppose that it was the practice of St. Paul to pass from the public proclamation of the gospel to private consultation with those who had just been touched and penetrated with what they had heard. The wound received in the synagogue was dealt with afterwards in the chamber at home, the apostle for the purpose passing from house to house (Acts xx. 20). By this combination of the two cardinal functions of the ministry of the gospel, conversions did not halt by being neglected at their commencement, but passed on regularly to consummation. The deeper things of God, apprehended imperfectly at the public discourse, were simplified and made intelligible and understood accurately at the domestic interview. Of such a combination now, the incumbent, I fear, of many a large parish does not know much. For private consultation he has to spare but little time, but little strength, but little leisure of mind; and, through the depressing influence of an exhausted body on an exhausted mind, he has indeed but small leisure of heart for such sympathy as spiritual trouble elicits. Leisure, then, if I mistake not, for that part of the ministry of Christ without which the name of pastor is scarcely fairly applicable to an incumbent, is his great desideratum. If a tolerably large provision of such leisure should be the result of the introduction of the Parochial Council into his parish, the clergyman at least will bless the day of its advent.

I have but to add, in conclusion, that to the principle, and not to the structure of this Bill, has my attention been directed. It will be time enough to criticise the latter, when the measure shall re-appear in Parliament. —Yours, &c.,

E. H. C.

DISESTABLISHMENT OR COMPREHENSION. SIR,—Towards one of these goals, if either of them be a goal and not a mere stage, we are-certainly not drifting, . although that is the common description, but-being rapidly impelled by influences powerful in themselves from without, and influences powerful owing to their situation from within.

From an observant but very unlearned Christian stand-point I ask permission to make a few remarks, in your pages, on such questions, in relation to the above-stated alternative, asWhich is it to be? Which is best? Best for whom? Is either right ? Is either necessary? If either is right, are not we of the Church of England, so far, wrong? If so, are we wrong by the developments of progress, or essentially wrong? If the former, how long have we been, and how far are we in error ? What sort of error is it, -how far verging upon doctrine, how far limited to government and discipline? What can be done? Are we to be the chief moving, the partly moving, the only moving, or the immovable people ? if immovable, is our immobility to be of faith, or mere justifiable

Vol. 70.-No. 397.

K

prudence and political expediency? And so onward to other issues that spring in tumultuous abundance from this fruitful and just now all-absorbing topic of the day.

The question that arises is, Which is it to be, Disestablishment or Comprehension ?

There are some of the very best Church of England members who say, though they say it, like brave confessors under the hands of a Romish inquisitor, with a voice more and more faltering in its tones, be its meaning as firm and resolved as it may, that it is for Nonconformists (Roman and Secession) to discuss a question like this, while we continue to refuse the making of an admission which hastens the very possibility it admits by so admitting it. Surely such a policy resembles too much that of Gambetta's proclamations, and is far less effective than Trochu's grave and sorrowful admissions. I am well aware that the question “Which is it to be ?” implies a sort of necessity that one of the two it will be ; and I am quite willing to meet the ecclesiastical patriotism-if I may so call it-of the feeling just described, by modifying the question into “ Which is it to be, if either is absolutely inevitable ?” i.e., granting for mere argument's sake that the Church of England must become a more comprehensive established, or a less comprehensive disestablished (for it cannot become, I believe, a more comprehensive disestablished) Church,—which of the two futures do facts, feelings, opinions, tendencies, in strongest currents set in towards ?

It is scarcely worth while to meet here the arguments, unless for the sake of paying them the fitting tribute of respectful and even reverential recognition, of those devout objectors, who plead for faith in a church's future not moulded by the influence of politics, events, enemies, attacks, defences, or any such things. Surely that means the Church of Christ, and the Church of England only in so far as, by godly development, or godly steadfastness, or a due regard to both, so far as both are Scriptural, she is not less and less, but more and more, animated by the Church militant, Church expectant, Church preparing spirit. Besides which, Faith is to be rather a spur than a check, rather a leaven than an opiate, if we reverently read the mind of God in Holy Scripture, in Providence, in History, in Biography, and also in Grace.

I think, then, that the question seems now fairly open for treatment in some of its branches; and first of all, in regard to the preliminary question, which I have suggested, Which is it to be ?

Thirty years ago, our Church would have had but to make a few far from important concessions, and Comprehension