were convened-with anything but Doctrine. Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, attacked not the discipline of the Church, but its Faith; and it was for the reassertion of that Faith, not for any matters of Church government or discipline in the ordinary sense that the Church assembled at Nicæa, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. And probably this principle would be, so far, readily received by Churchmen if it were not supposed that the facts of ecclesiastical history appear to carry us to a different conclusion, to show, namely, that laymen actually were present at the councils of the Primitive Church, and took a real part in their proceedings.

The first precedent appealed to in support of this allegation is naturally that, and the only one, which we find in the New Testament, the assemblage of apostles and elders, generally called the Council of Jerusalem, of which we read in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts. Now two things must be proved before this can be admitted in support of those who use it as their strongest argument for admitting the laity to a voice in other ecclesiastical assemblies: first, that the laity actually took an essential part in its proceedings; secondly, that if they did, the Apostolic Council was in any true sense a precedent for others to follow. The first point is not by any means so clear to every mind as it seems to be to those who use it on behalf of lay co-operation. SS. Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem "unto the apostles and elders, about" the "question" of Christian Gentile circumcision; "and when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them." In this first reception of the two famous brethren the lay members of the Church of Jerusalem doubtless took part, but there is no proof whatever that this reception had any necessary connection with the council of which an account is afterwards given. Rather it appears to have been such a gathering of the whole Church as might well be expected on an occasion so striking and interesting to all as the visit of the two great Apostles of the Gentiles: and whatever it may prove, this great gathering of the whole Church of Jerusalem certainly does not prove that the laity took part in the decision afterwards recorded. Next we read that "the Apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter;" and the sole indication of any presence of others is that "the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them;" where if "multitude" means some not included among the Apostles and elders previously named, it is yet not so connected as to give any sign of a multitude of laity holding anything like a co-ordinate position, (and as we have already shown, if there at all as taking a share in the deliberation, their position must have been such as

to be all but co-ordinate) with the ordained members of the council. The sending forth of the messengers who were to convey the decision of the council is more certainly recorded as an act of the whole Church,-" then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole Church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren." And yet after the strong expression used by the chief Bishop S. James, "My sentence is," it is a wresting of words to represent this verse as indicating anything more than a general assent of the Church in that place to a decision already declared by the apostles and elders who had "come together for to consider of this matter;" which general assent and consent might well indeed be supposed to be contained in that of those apostles and elders, even in the entire absence of the laity. Then come the words of the decree itself, "The apostles and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:" and respecting this we shall simply quote the remark of Dr. Pusey,

"The very mention of the Laity, at all, as even agreeing in the decree, is uncertain. For according to a reading extant in the second century, and for which there is considerable authority, the words are, 'The apostles and elders, brethren, to the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch,' &c. In this case, the apostles and elders, writing to the brethren who came from the Gentiles, call themselves by the same title. As brothers they write to brothers."-P. 32.

On so slender a foundation as this does the argument rest which takes for its starting point the presence of laymen at the Apostolic Council, as members of it taking a share in the deliberation and decree.

But allow that even this slender foundation is something, what precedent can be derived from this council for the guidance of other ecclesiastical assemblies? Here was a comparatively small body of men laying down a law for the Christian world; not a representative body, but the two or three Apostles who then happened to be in Jerusalem, and the elders of the place: how came they to take to themselves in this decided manner the office of lawgivers to the whole Church, or to any other portion of it than their own? The fact is the authority of this so called council rests wholly upon the inspiration of the Apostles. It was because they knew themselves to be in CHRIST's stead that they dared to lay down laws for His Church: and it was because the whole Church knew who and what they were that their decree was received and acted upon as being what it was, the actual Word of GOD.

"Without that plenary inspiration the Council of Jerusalem would have had no authority to prescribe its decree. Of the twelve Apostles, 'James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,' were, probably, 3 F

VOL. XIX.

alone present, with Barnabas and Paul. The rest of the Apostles, (except S. James the elder, who had borne witness to CHRIST by his death) were probably dispersed throughout the world, preaching CHRIST. There was no representation of those absent; no Bishops, nor (as these will have it) laity collected from the whole Church. The Council of Jerusalem could have had no weight at all with the Church, save from that authority which gives it its weight now, that the words spoken there by the Apostles were the words of GOD, and were owned as such then, as they are owned by us now.

"The laity of Jerusalem had no authority over those of Antioch, or of the rest of the Church, nor were they entitled to accept the decree in the name of the rest. They had not been consulted by the rest. Paul and Barnabas were sent 'to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question.' 'The Apostles and Elders came together, for to consider of this matter.' Paul and Timothy gave to the Churches which they visited, the decrees which were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem,' not to examine, nor to receive of their own mind, but for to keep.'"-P. 31.

Truly may it be said that where there was this full inspiration in the Apostles themselves, the office of the laity at least, even supposing them present, could be neither to exercise the powers of adding to or diminishing from which are involved in consultation, but only to assent to and receive what their inspired teachers laid down for them. Those whose office it was to teach with the fullest divine authority were in themselves sufficient for teaching the Gentiles what God's will was in this matter. To couple such full and awful power of infallible teaching with that of men not even set apart for the ministry, as if the former needed the aid of the latter, seems almost profane; it would be quite so to suppose that laymen were called together for consultation when their counsel was already anticipated by GoD's gifts of Inspiration, and their convocation would consequently be only a pretence.

Indeed, it seems to our mind a fatal objection to the use of this assembly as a precedent for subsequent councils, that the decree issued was not the result of consultation among Bishops and Presbyters blessed with the ordinary gifts of the ministry, yet capable of error, but the infallible word of inspired Apostles which no man could call in question or disobey without sin.

We cannot afford to discuss the case of subsequent ecclesiastical councils at the same length with which we have considered the Apostolic assembly recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Suffice it to say that a learned familiarity with all the details of the early councils has convinced Dr. Pusey that the laity never took part in those acts which we have before shown were in reality acts of teaching-a setting forth of the true faith before the Church of GOD. 66 Laity or representatives of the laity were often present in councils on matters of faith, because the faith concerned them But wherever they were present, it was as sheep, not as shepherds; as the taught, not as the teachers." The pages of the

volume before us are full of proofs to uphold this assertion; but as no object would be gained by transferring a few such proofs to these pages, so our limits would prevent us from reproducing them in sufficient number; while at the same time such a step is unnecessary, since the book itself is accessible to all who really desire to study the question in detail. There may be found testimonies gathered from all quarters, orthodox and heretical, from Macedonian and Arian Synods, as well as from Nicæa and Constantinople. Considering how much stress has been laid on S. Cyprian's authority by those who hold the opposite opinion, it may be useful to subjoin the following as the faithful summing up of his testimony on the question.

"S. Cyprian states without hesitation and in the most varied ways, that the entire spiritual authority in the Church of CHRIST had been given by CHRIST Himself to the Bishops. Every principle, whether of doctrine or discipline, was laid down by the Bishops exclusively. Judgments on heresy were pronounced by the Bishops alone. The whole proceedings as to the lapsed themselves, the delay of restoration, the mitigation of the enactment, and the final reception of the whole number, on the approach of a new persecution, were regulated, step by step, by the Bishops exclusively. The opinion of the laity was taken solely as to a matter of fact which came before their eyes, the outward tokens of the penitence or impenitence of the individuals who sought to be restored to Communion. And even here the Bishop, if he thought right to over-rule the opinion expressed by the people, exercised that power naturally, as wholly vested in himself. S. Cyprian's letters give a vivid picture of his times; they give, not only the outward facts of an eventful time, but the inward feeling of the actors. They mention what was willingly of free grace allowed by S. Cyprian ; they mention the desires, wishes, requests, repugnances, of the several parties. But there is not the slightest trace of any wish of the laity to assume to themselves any part of the legislation, which our LORD had intrusted to the Bishops."-P. 90.

In short, there appears to be ample authority for saying that any schemes of lay co-operation which give to the laity a voice in the decision of any questions involving doctrine are as inconsistent with the practice of the early Church of CHRIST as they are with that first principle of Christianity whereby certain men are set apart for teachers, who alone have authority to teach.

Now we very much doubt whether there is any existing form of Synod which is not constituted on principles taking their origin in the same theory which regulated the practice of those earliest days. Every Synod, indeed, is not called upon at its every meeting, to give decisions upon important questions of doctrine; but the primary object for which every one is constituted is the good government of CHRIST's Church; and we confess that we find it impossible to dissociate the idea of such good government from that of special gifts bestowed on those set apart from the rest of the

Church having certainly this, for one object, in view. And hence those schemes which propose that the laity shall have leave to cooperate in our Synods on some questions, and be excluded from co-operation on others, appear to us to be mere clumsy attempts to get rid of difficulties which are in fact insurmountable; and tampering with a principle which ought to be left untouched and preserved in integrity.1

If, however, any plan could be devised by which the laity might be brought to give more of their consideration to questions of Church legislation which are brought before Parliament, without pretending to any new ecclesiastical position, we should be as much disposed as any one to welcome such a plan. It has been attempted in Church Unions, and if the attempt has failed, we believe the failure to have arisen solely from the supineness of the laity themselves, who are so busy at their professional avocations that they cannot find time to take practical interest in the well-being of the Church. If the following propositions, (which we take the liberty of quoting as some of the most reasonable contained in a pamphlet alluded to in the commencement of this article) indicate that the advocates of lay co-operation are at last condensing their demands into a more moderate form, we may yet hope that some good will arise from an agitation which has hitherto been singularly barren of any practical result.

66 SUGGESTIVE PROPOSITIONS.

"I. That provision might advantageously be made for an increased measure of consultation between the Clergy and communicant laity of the Church of England.

"II. That in making such provision, care should be taken to adhere strictly to her order and discipline, to use existing machinery as much as possible, to avoid organic changes, and to refrain from adopting any novel principle of election, properly so called, among laymen.

"III. That with a view to such consultation, the Clergyman of a parish might conveniently assemble the churchwardens, and some suit

1 Among that multitude of original and whimsical propositions which the question of the lay element' has given rise to, there is one recently started by Mr. F. H. Dickinson for a great central body external to Parliament and Convocation, but consisting of a sort of hybrid mixture of both. Mr. Dickinson has favoured the world with his ideas on the subject in a letter to Archdeacon Grant, entitled "Convocation and the Laity," (Ridgway, London,) which amusingly illustrates "F. H. D.'s" well-known propensity for lecturing the clergy. The substance of the pamphlet may be stated as a patronizing assurance to that body of men that they will get on very respectably if they have the valuable assistance of Mr. Dickinson and other laymen of that sort to help them; but that without this they must not expect to be prudent or energetic enough for any practical purpose. If Mr. Dickinson has been driven to form these conclusions from his close observation of the proceedings in Convocation, we can only trust that he will, for his own sake, extend his acquaintance somewhat beyond the bounds of that assembly. If such an extension of acquaintance should lead him to see the extremely absurd unpracticalness of his own proposition, it may also lead him to modify his views as to the want of good sense in exclusively eeclesiastical legislation on Church questions.