clergy, who in turn would bring it before their parishioners, with much greater weight and more success than if I or any other individual Bishop had begun by ourselves an independent movement.

The PRESIDENT-If the lay teachers are to be nothing more than Scripture-readers or district visitors, it would be unnecessary to bring the matter before the house; but inasmuch as they are to be invested with other functions than these, the Bishop would then, I think, require some encouragement from the great body of his brethren in taking such a step. Now, the particular part of the report which bears upon this is where it states that the duties of the lay teacher thus authorised be, in addition to those which are usually performed by district visitors and Scripture-readers, to visit under the direction of the incumbent, to read to and pray with the sick and infirm. Probably the Scripture-readers do all that; but they do not deliver cottage and schoolroom lectures, hold Bible-classes, or conduct short services on Sundays.

The BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S-I should never for one moment have conceived that I was making any innovation if I had authorised the clergyman in any parish in my diocese to accept such services if they were offered to him, or that it was necessary that I should first have the authority of this house. I do not understand that the clergyman would in such case be doing anything that he has not been authorised to do already when he employs a Scripture-reader. I cannot see any substantial difference between the two things. The same functions are performed, only under different names. What I particularly want to know is the nature of the attraction to the laity who would otherwise be willing and able to undertake those functions. I cannot understand what additional satisfaction can be required; because I do not think the Bishop would be doing anything that all of us have not been doing already under a different name, with this difference, that we have been employing paid agents, whilst these would be an unpaid agency. The real difficulty, I apprehend, on the part of the Bishop and incumbent would be that of finding persons who are thus able and willing to devote themselves to the work; but that any clergyman would have any hesitation in accepting such services, or that any Bishop would entertain any scruple in authorising them when found, I confess never occurred to me.

The BISHOP OF BANGOR-The occasion referred to by the Bishop of Llandaff was rather an important one; it was the annual meeting of our diocese, which has now almost assumed the proportions of a Diocesan Synod. A paper was then read on this subject, and afterwards discussed by the persons present, including a considerable number of the clergy, and it certainly evoked the expression of a great difference of opinion. I think the general impression was, that the more doubtful part was that which proposed some solemn setting apart for the office; but all appeared to be of opinion that there were persons ready to give their services gratuitously, after their daily tasks were completed, in the manner contemplated by the report just read to your lordships. I think that both to the clergymen employing them and to myself as Bishop in my own diocese, it would be a great support if we

Agency.

felt that we had the approbation of Convocation generally in allowing persons not only to visit and to pray with the sick, but also to deliver those cottage lectures and perform other services in decent places in our large mountain parishes. Scripture-readers and other communicants of the Church are already constantly in the habit of holding prayer-meetings, and visiting and praying with the sick; but I do not think that we proceeded so far as to recommend, and I believe my clergy and myself would experience some difficulty in sanctioning, the holding of services in rooms as contemplated in the report, unless we were supported with the express opinion of your Grace and my right rev. brethren assembled in Convocation. There are many persons, and very competent persons too, who would reckon it a great privilege to be employed in that way, and they would feel themselves strongly supported by such authority; but there are also many of them who, if not so encouraged, might be induced to offer their services to some Dissenting body, and thus they would be altogether lost to the Church. On this ground I am most anxious to hear the matter fully discussed here, and the opinion of the house pronounced upon it.

The BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S-The question is, whether Convocation should give its formal sanction to the employment of these lay agents, whatever name you call them by, for this particular purpose of holding something very like divine service in private houses; in other words, authorise them to take upon themselves one of the most important offices of the clergy in those particular circumstances, from the fear that, unless they are allowed to exercise their talents in that direction for the benefit of the Church, they may turn those talents in another direction. Now, I think it requires very grave consideration before this house formally sanctions the employment of such persons for the office of preaching; for it is nothing more nor less than that; and it does not matter whether it is done in the parish church, in a chapel, or in a cottage crowded by the people, who collect in as large a congregation as could be found in the church. In fact, we are called on to give these persons permission to preach the Word of God, and perform many other most useful functions about which there can be no question they might if so disposed be employed. But I strongly suspect that, for the most part, those who would wish to be thus employed are a class of persons who have little desire for other useful but less showy duties, and who are rather ambitious to have authority to exhibit their talents in this particular way. I am not certain, therefore, that the Church would be materially benefited by the assistance of that class. I think it is a question that must and ought to be left to the discretion of each Bishop; and, moreover, that it will require the exercise of very great care on his part before he authorises such a practice, even if he conceives that he Las the power to do so. But for this house to come to any general resolution authorising, sanctioning, or stamping it with their approval in every diocese, is a measure of great importance, demanding very grave consideration. Indeed, it appears from what the Bishop of Bangor himself says, that its propriety struck many persons at the meeting of his clergy as very questionable. I think it would be most imprudent for any Bishop to

Agency. S sanction such a step in any case where he had not the fullest assurance of the fitness of the individual proposed to him; and I confess that I should feel very great hesitation in admitting even the judgment of the incumbent of the parish for such a purpose as that. I have no doubt, however, if there are persons who offer themselves for the ordinary purposes for which lay agents are at present employed under the sanction of the Bishop, that the Bishop might safely trust the judgment of the clergyman for that purpose; but to employ a lay agent for one of the most special duties of the clergy themselves would be a dangerous step, requiring the utmost caution on the part of any Bishop who might think fit to adopt it. A still greater amount of caution is needed in this house before it comes to any resolution generally approving of such a measure. Of course I speak with the greatest deference to the opinion of my right rev. brethren; but to my mind this part of the question requires further and careful investigation.

The BISHOP OF LICHFIELD-I feel myself greatly indebted to the Bishop of St. David's for having raised this discussion; for what I collected from the report was, that as a consequence of that report this house was to consider whether it should not take some action upon it, and whether some authority should not proceed from this house for the appointment of those lay agents, readers, teachers, or whatever you may please to call them. If I remember rightly, something is said in the report about a licence to be given and revoked after a certain time. The BISHOP OF LINCOLN-Not to be revoked, but to expire in case it is not renewed.

The BISHOP OF LICHFIELD-Well, my own impression was so strong on that point that I was going to propose, if this conversation had not arisen, that some common form of licence should be used throughout all the dioceses; but now, after hearing what the Bishop of St. David's has said, I confess that I am very much of the opinion, upon giving my best attention to it, that the matter must be left as it was; that nothing can come from this house authorising, whether Synodically or not, a body of Readers, or whatever else they are called; but that the Bishops must act as they have done already in many dioceses. In my own diocese, for example, the Scripturereaders are examined by certain of the clergy, who report to me upon their fitness; and I then give authority to the readers to do their work. With regard to the particular work of which the Bishop of St. David's has spoken, I agree with him as to the questionableness of our formally authorising these lay preachers. For what is the fact now? Those Scripture-readers are called "readers," it is true; but what is the work they do? They go to a house to meet a number of people there. Mind, I do not wish to depreciate their work. On the contrary, I admit that they do a great deal of good. They assemble the people professedly to read the Scriptures; and what is that reading? It is not simply reading, but the reading and expounding of Scripture. It is, in fact, preaching; and I do not see how the exposition of Scripture can be separated from the office of Scripturereader. Without troubling you further, then, I may say I have come to the conclusion that the matter must be left as it was; only that

Agency.

we, the Bishops who have acted in it hitherto, will have the comfort, satisfaction, and increased confidence arising from the reflection that in doing our duty according to our judgment we have the concurrence of our right rev. brethren. I shall continue in the course I have hitherto pursued; but I do not see, any more than the Bishop of St. David's, how any sort of authority can be given out from the Church generally without involving us in great real difficulty.

The PRESIDENT-In justice to those who drew up the report, I ought to mention that they make no allusion whatever to preaching after holding the short services. There can be no objection, I think, to Scripture-readers reading the prayers.

The BISHOP OF LLANDAFF-If this report be received by your lordship, I should feel that although it carried no authority with it, yet that on the whole my right rev. brethren concurred with me in thinking that such an agency might be useful, and that I am not acting solely on a principle of my own, but doing that which my right rev. brethren would in similar circumstances do themselves.

The BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's-I never intended to say or imply that lay agency could not be employed consistently with the distinction which exists between the lay and the clerical office. What induced me to rise was the entire want of additional motive that would be supplied by anything that is recommended in this report; but the discussion has taken quite another turn, and does now involve that point.

The BISHOP OF ELY-As I understand the matter, the principal object in view is this. Many laymen of all ranks in society would be glad to devote a portion of their time and their services to ministrations amongst the poor, if they were quite satisfied they could do so under proper authority-if they were satisfied that it was not an irregular agency, but an agency under the regular authority of the Church. I do not suppose that the report lays any particular stress upon the holding of special services, or short services, or any particular work at all. The principal stress is laid on the desire of laymen to work in the Church. I do not know whether this house or individual Bishops can interfere in the matter, but it is a very important consideration whether something like authority should not be given to satisfy the parties who desire to engage in the work.

The BISHOP OF LONDON-With reference to the report which I was instructed to lay on the table, I think that the suggestion which has been made is perhaps the best that could be made to receive and adopt it, and send it to the Lower House for consideration.

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-In the main purpose of this report I entirely agree; but there are one or two passages in the wording of it in which I should wish, if it be not too late, to see some alterations,— not as altering the material purpose, but as guarding against danger. One of these two passages is the one defining the duty of these lay assistants to the clergy. It says that, under licence of the Bishop and the nomination of the incumbent, they shall read to and pray with the sick and the infirm, conduct cottage and schoolroom lectures and Bible-classes. Up to that point I have no objection to offer. Then

Agency. S

the report continues-" and to hold short services on Sundays or other days in rooms not usually employed for the purpose of public worship, especially in hamlets or remote parts of parishes." Now, I should myself object to the wording of that paragraph entirely. To receive it would look as if we meant that there were to be in the parish gatherings for public worship which were to be conducted by these persons. And as I believe that except in cases of necessity it is the law of the Church that there should be no gathering for worship unless it be presided over by the clergyman, I should regret if the report were so worded as to make it appear that we approve of such gatherings. If the wording had been thus-"To conduct cottage and schoolroom lectures and Bible-classes, and to preside at gatherings of the parishioners, held with the sanction of their clergyman, especially in remote hamlets, for the reading of the Word of God and prayer"-my objection would be gone. It would be taking it out of the category of its being for public worship of the parishioners, at which I think the clergyman ought to preside, and it would be bringing it into the category of those meetings for prayer and for reading the Word of God in the absence of the clergy, which there is nothing whatever to prohibit. I should also wish to see an alteration in the first paragraph where it says, "The rapid increase of the population of England and Wales, while the increase of the clergy ministering therein takes place in a lower ratio, makes it important to employ to the utmost every available agency which, without trenching on the peculiar offices of the ministry, may assist the clergy in some branches of their duty." The only objection I have to that is that it seems to betray a jealousy on the part of the clergy of their peculiar office being infringed. And that is not the danger; it is the delegating the office of the ministry to other hands. It is not that we feel that we are jealous, but that we feel that we cannot commit what Christ has committed to the clergy-we cannot delegate that to an unordained man. I should wish that "readers" should be substituted. They propose to call them lay teachers. I should propose to call them readers; if you call them teachers you infringe on one of the special characteristics of the ministry. If these three alterations could be made in the report I should agree with it, but I feel with those who think it best to send it to the Lower House to get their practical wisdom upon it.

The BISHOP OF LLANDAFF-Would it not be well to refer it to the committee whether they should make these alterations and report to us again?

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-The committee might do so.

The BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S-Although the Bishop of Oxford seemed to think that I had no objection to the report up to that point, I do feel a little difficulty as to the expediency of this house giving its sanction to the propositions contained in this report. I do not see that there is any real distinction; there is no definition which would distinguish it from the Sunday service. It appears to me that the terms require a little further definition. I think it had better be left to each Bishop in his own diocese. I think that something should be donc to prevent the cottage lectures really taking the place of the Sunday service.