ASSOCIATION OF THE LAITY
OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS
ON THE
HOUSE OF LAYMEN
IN ALLIANCE WITH
THE SYNOD OF TORONTO
SUBMITTKD
TO THE LAITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
COMPILHD BY
THE HONORARY SECRETARY, s^
I' y
TORONTO :
Thk Williamson Book Co.
6 King St. Wkst,
1893.
ASSOCIATION OF THE LAITY
OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS
ON THfi
HOUSE OF LAYMEN
IN ALLIANCE WITH
THE SYNOD OF TORONTO
SUBMITTED
TO THE LAITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
COMPILFI) BY
THE HONORARY SECRETARY.
TORONTO :
Thk Williamson Book Co.
6 Kino St. Wkst,
1893.
I" '4. '
»fc."
PREFACE.
We have to expresH our gratification at the interest felt l»y
the Laity generally in the first presentation to their n» iice of
the su^Tfrestion to establish a House of Laymen, in alliance with
the Synod of To^'onto — an interest vviiich has increased in pro-
portion to the kno\vle<lge of the su)>ject treated on, and which
we are sure will be accelerated by a perusal of the following
evidence and opinions so readily and handsomely given to us by
all classes of the Laity. In the change proposed there are no
doubt some difficulties to encounter, but the advantages which
the following synopsis of letters shows, are of such extraordinary
importance and value to the best interests of the Church, that
they will surely be overcome ; and we have good hope that all
orders in the church will accord to the movement their earnest
and active support.
The one great object of the Institution is to enable Lay
Representatives to acquire such knowledge, not only of the sub-
jects which ordinarily engage the attention of the Synod, but
also all sucli as may be referred to them by the Bishop, the Pres-
ident of the Synod, or originated by themselves ; so that they
may better and more intelligently, than at present is possible,
discharge their duties to their constituents, to the Synod and to
the Church.
The proposed House of Laymen is, we submit, well adapted
to this end. The Lay Representatives having knowledge months
before hand, of at least some pf the subjects to be discussed, are
likely by previous reading and enquiry to fit themselves for the
crucial test of debate, when by comparing the opinions of one
with those of another, by rubbing them together as it were, by
seeing which is the harder and best stands the friction of prac-
tical utility, truth by such means is separated from the numer-
ous sophisms that surround it, and will be afterwards employed
in carrying out the well thought of conclusions to the general
advantage of our beloved Church.
20th May, 1893.
PROPOSAL
To Establish a House of Laymen in Alliance with the
Synod of Toronto.
1. Tlie institution now suggested is of recent origin. The first
one WR9 inaugurated hy the present Archbishop of Canterbury on July
8, 1885, by virtue of resolutions agreed to by both Houses of Convo-
cation of the Province of Canterbury. His Grace, in the course of his
address on opening the first House of Laymen, said : "This House is
therefore a body purely representative of the laity, and its realization
at this day with simpler, freer, larger aims than those of faction or
political party, is full of strong and happy promise. The moral efTects
of its discussions must, from the first, be great, and we cannot doubt
that if its conclusions are arrived at by patient debate in fully attended
meetings, the moral effect will, in due time, take material and practical
form.'' And at the present day, after seven years' experience of the
working of the organization, it is understood, and, as indeed its annual
reports of proceedings show, that his Grace's hopef have btsen fully
realized.
2. It has met with such high approval by the various parties in
the churci;, tiiat the Province of York has recently followed the lead
of the provnce of Canterl)ury, and now England and Wales are repre-
sented on church matters by two representative Lay Houses.
3. The House of Liymen is not, in any way, a legislative or
political body, with any definite powers, but is simply a consultative
or deliberative body of laymen, meeting when the Synod meets, but
sitting and acting apart from it. The House will meet on one or two
evenings during the time the Synod is in session, so as not to interfere
with their duties as members of the Synod. (See resolutions 2 and 5,
page 8.)
4. The resolutions 7 and 8 will show the class of subjects the
House will deal with. First the motion, notices and business before
the Synod will be considered, and then, if there is time, general objects
and matters of actual or proposed legislation, and subjects both ecclesi-
astical and civil affecting the interests of the church ; and they may
also discuss matters of philanthropy, such as the best mode of increas-
ing largely the Superannuation Fund, the better housing of the work-
ing classes, the investigation and relief of poverty, and such like.
6. Thv House of Laymen in London and country districts claim
th»!ir discussionH and reports are read with interest, and that the clergy
and church generally attach some weit^lit to tiieir resolutions, and their
expressions of opinion, and we doulit not that having repjard to the
numbers and intelligence of our laity, the same results will attend their
deliberations when authorized to ni(( t in their own House. And we
submit that tlie present is a most favorable time to inaugurate oui
House of Laymen, in alliance with the Synod of Toronto.
6. It may be objected that the lay members of tlie present Synod
are quite satislied with the position they occupy. Many of them, no
doubt, are, but there are some who are not, yet all without a di-ssenti-
ent voice, putting on one side the diverse opinions, will venerate the
memory of the good Bishop Strachan wlio gave them that position.
Before his time, l)Oth her<i and in England, tliey were almost entin ly
ignored as co-operators with the clergy.
7. We would just observe in passing, that we ffel it necessary
to refer frequently to English church precedents. We acknowledge
with thankfulness the many blessings and benefits we derive from our
beloved mother church, yet we are not insensible of the fact that we
inherit some of her faults and disadvantages, which our own church
has long labored under, and which we are now trying to remedy.
8. We say the laity were almost entirely ignored, and the clergy
in England were supremely indifferent as to the waning prosperity of
the churci), and wliat was the result? One of the able authors of the
Bampton lectures says: "under the exclusive regin\e oi an endowed
clergy, niore than one-lialf of the religious people of England were
alienated from the church. Other denominations rapidly rose on our
decline, and it is only witliin the present generation that the ground
then lost has been, to some extent at least, regained by the exertions of
a more devout and intelligent clergy, and we owe to them whatever
advance the church has made during recent years."
9. Looking to the results of our late census, so disappointing to
Churchmen,* it is evident that there is still some ground left which we
ought to recover. Numerically our church is far below the position
her prestige and great advantages warrant her in holding, and which
she is only prevented holding by, we are sorry to say it, tlie super-
cilious apathy of a large portion of her laity, from whatever cause it
m ayhave arisen
10. Bishop Strachan's invitation to them to sit in Synod with
the clergy was a well-chosen effort to arouse them ft-om that lethargy.
It was, indeed, a great advance towards placing them in their true
position. It has, for forty years at any rate, offered them a good
*The church population in the Diocese of Huron has decreased (j.60 per
cent. In the Diocese of Niagara 3.81 per cent. These ai]ti[the loss in other rtio-
cesea, are not at all agreeable reading.
school for ac(]uirin^ an insight of the tinnnciiil contlition and manage-
ment of the various depnrtments of cliurch work. Hut here we must
stop. There are questions at tlie present day, beyond this gratefully
acknowledged privilege, of vastly greatfr importtinco to the laity and
the church generally, on which they desire and ought to have better
facilities than they now possess, for acquiring such information as will
enable them in Synod to deal with them in an intelligent and an effec-
tive manner.
12. Representatives to the Synod, especially those from the
country, with few exceptions, know nothing of the merits or demerits
of any question until it is placed before them at the end of a session,
when they are absurdly expected to give an almost instant decision
upon it. It is then introduced and supported by a few hurried re-
marks, anything like debate which would bring out facts necessary to
be known is not practicable, and it is then summarily disposed of by
postponement, withdrawal, or reference to the Executive Committee,
and little more is heard of it. This has unfortunately been the ex-
perience of many of the laity on questions Vjefore the Synod of late
years.*
12. As to the composition of the Synod. We think if enquiry
were made, it would bo found that the spenking power of the clercy is
as two to one, and the voting is in about the same proportion. It is
sometimes put forward as a very liberal concession, that each parish
sends three representatives to the Synod and oidy one clergyman. As
a beginning of a brighter era for laymen, it was perhaps, in Bishop
Strachan's time a wise provision. For then the laity had to be edu-
cated to fill satisfactorily their new position, and so they might sit and
listen to the remarks of the clergy, but were not to vote. Now that
they are allowed the privilege, it should be stated that three repre-
sentatives in voting only count as one, which provision therefore is
now only liberal in appearance, as in fact the clergy, some of their
parishes sending two and three, far outnumber the lai^y in voting.
This fact may perhaps account to some extent at least, for the ill-suc-
cess of motions brought before the Synod of late years by laymen.
The point however we do not lay much stress upon, inasmuch as there
is no record, as far as we know, of the speeches made during any ses-
sion, 80 as to form a correct opinion. Our estimate is based on the
motions made in the Synod, 1890.
13. It may be further objected that in Canada we have Synods
where the laity sit with the clergy, whilst in England there are no
Synods. This last assertion may not be qu'te correct,! but assuming
that it is, it should be stated that in England all or most of the Dio-
*VVe refer to motions made by Dr. Hodgins, Rev. E. Baldwin, in the inter-
est of the laity, Mr. Symons, Mr. Motheraill, Mr. Cumberland.
tSalisbury, we are informed, has a Diocesan Synod.
8
ceses have conferencts wIkmh tli(3 laity sit and vote with the clergy as
our Synods do, and it is from these conferences that members are
chosen and sent to the House of Laymen in London, whilst in Canada
we have no conferences,* and therefore it is proposed to choose our
members at the Easter vestries.
14. And we tliink we are correct in stating, as an instance of
the value of debate, however constituted, that it was owing to the de-
bates, resolutions and suggestions of the House of Laymen,! that the
Archbishop of Canterbury was prevailed on earnestly to support the
Bills for the Reform of Church Patronage and the Promotion of Church
Discipline, and which latter Bill became an Act of Parliament during
the late session.
At the proper time the following, or some such resolutions, may
be agreed on :
HOUSE OF LAYMEN FOR THE DIOCESE OF TORONTO.
\. That it is desirable that a House of Laymen, l)eing communi-
cants of the Church of England, be formed for the Diocese of Toronto,
to confer with the Bishop and Clergy of such Diocese.
2. That the members of the House of Laymen be appointed by
the lay members of the various parishes in the Diocese, and who shall
be the same members as are appointed representatives to the Synod,
and that they continue to hold their seats until the then next Easter
vestries.
3. 1 hat additional members, not exceeding ten, be appointed by
his Lordship the president, if he see fit.
4. That the House of Laymen be in all case convened by his
Lordship the president, simultaneously with the convening of members
of the Synod.
5. That the said House be convened to sit only during the first
two evenings the Synod is in Session, or on the evening before and the
first evening the Synod is in Session, and be opened by his Lordship
the president.
6. That the said House, or any committee of the House, may be
requested by his Lordship the president to meet in conference the
clergy, or any committee of the clergy, upon such occasions and at such
place as his Lordship the president may think fit.
7. That the subjects on which the House of Laymen may becon-
*\Yhil8t this pamphlet is going through the press, we iearn that it is pro-
posed to hold a Church Couference in Toronto ihortly. It will be, we believe,
the first of the kind ever holden in Canada. It is j, move in the right direction
and we wish it every success.
t8ee their proceedings of Session 1891, page 11.
suiter), shall be all subjects which ordinarily occupy the attention of
Synod, saving only the definition or interpretation of the faith and
doctrine of the church.
8. That his Lordship the president, in opening the House of
liRymen, or at any other time in their session, may lay before them
any subject (with the limitation provided in resolution 7) on which he
desires their counsel, and that the results of all the deliberations of
the said House on any suVyects, whether thus referred to them, or
originated by themselves, be communicated to the president.
9. That if the a'.ove resolutions be adopted by the Synod, a joint
committe of the clergy be appointed to confer with any committee that
may hereafter be appointed by the House of Laymen, in order to frame
such rules and orders as may be found necessary. •
10. Provided that nothing in the scheme shall be held to pre-
judice the duties, rights and privileges of the Toronto Synod according
to the laws and usages of the Church of England in the Dominion of
Canada.
We will suppose the Synod agrees to some such resolutions as the
foregoing, and that under resolution 9, committees of clergymen and
laity are appointed, when the following or other rules may be adopted.
Rules for Proceedings :
1. The proceedings of the House shall begin with prayers selected
from the Book of Common Prayer.
2. In the absence of the chairman and vice chairman, a chairman
shall be elected by the members present, ard fifteen shall be a quorum
of the House.
3. After prayers the minutes of the last meeting shall be read,
confirmed and signed.
J^TIT" 4. The procedure of the House of Commons, as regards the
organization and conduct of debate shall, as far as possiV)le, be adopted
by the House of Laymen, except where otherwise ordered by these
rules ; but, this rule shall not be held to preclude the chairman from
the right of taking part in the debate.
5. The chairman fchall determine all points of order, the manner
of putting questions, and order in which members shall speak.
6. Notice of business intended to be brought before the House
on any day, must be given before 4 15 p.m. of the preceding day, to
the honorary secretary.
7. Votes shall be taken by show of hands, unless six members
shall demand a formal division, which shall be taken at once and in
such manner as the chairman shall appoint.
10
8. No business not entered on the agenda paper for the day shall
be entered, unless voted urgent by the House.
9. The chairnmn shall decide the order in which business shall be
entered upon the agenda paper.
10. Each member shall contribute one dollar towards the annual
expenses, and a treasurer shall be appointed.
15. The advantages of the proposal just explained, while they are
obvious to every reflective mind, are of such extraordinary importance
at the present juncture of the cliurch'a position, that some further allu-
sion to tliem seems absolutely requisite. Many great and important
church questions are passing and others will very soon pass before us,
and it is KtMng and proper that the laity should be able with facility
and perfect freedom to consider them, and that the church authorities
and all interested in the verities of religion and the best means of
inculcating them, should know what the solid opinion of the laity is
upon all such questions. We regret to point to the fact which we deem
indisputable, that no one in the Synod or out of it, with measurable
accuracy, knows what the opinion of the laity is, on any given church
question This ignorance is destined to disappear. The dark ages are
passed, and the prospect begins to brighten. We look forward with
hope, and now firmly believe, when permission is authoritatively given,
that at the Easter vestries the best and most capable men will lie
chosen in the double capacity, as representatives to the Synod and as
members to their own House. They will then be, as the Archbishop
of Canterbury said, " A body purely representative of the laity, and its
realization at this dry, with simpler, freer, larger aims than those of
faction or political party, is full of strong and happy promise. The
moral effect of its discussions must from the first be great, and we can-
not doubt that if its conclusions are arrived at by patient debate in
fully attended meetings, the moral effect will in due time take material
and practical form."
16. In the new organization we are happy to know (1) That there
will be nothing which will wear an antagonistic aspect. In debate
there is, and always will be differences of opinion, but when various
minds are brought into contact, such differences are likely to be lessened,
if not entirely removed, and particularly when all have but one distinc-
tive obiect in view, the promotion of our holy religion and the best
means of inculcating it. (2) In this, their first aim will be, to assist
and CO operate with the clergy, in all that appertains to church work,
spiritual and temporal, leading to closer relations, warmer sympathy,
and increased mutual respect. (3) There will be no destroying the
just rights and privileges of one order in church government for the
benefit of another, but rather the greater and more equal diffusion of all
those blessings and happy surroundings of all orders in the church now
enjoyed, and which should tend to her advancement and prosperity.
,11 . '■.':'.,'■
(4) Every Churchman, clerical and lay, would be materially benefitted
and instructed by the stimulus which free discussion on church work,
from a layman's point of view, would be certain to engender and
encourage. (5) The discussions on motions, rules, resolutions and
reports and final expressions of opinion thereon by intelligent laymen
in a well-ordered debate, must have some weight with all Churchmen
throughout the diocese and beyond. (6) And we hop<i we are not pre-
sumptuous in saying, that we think they would be especially valuable
to the clergy and all our church governors, and we gladly include, in
anticipation, the proposed inauguration of the mugh needed " General
Synod," when, and if it is desired to know on any occasion the correct
opinion of the laity on any question of church interest. (7) Admirably
as were the arrangements of Bishop Strachan, suited to the more
immediate exigencies of the laity of his day, and successful, as we
gladly admit they have been, in many respects ever since, there is still
a yearning, an absolute necessity, for the adoption of some more compre-
hensive and perfect system of lay-representation, a system which will go
far to remove apathy and ignorance amongst so many of our Church-
men. A system in short which will carry out the earnestly expressed
words and wishes of the liberal-minded bishop reff^rred to. A system,
an educational institution ; the " House of Laymen," which shall " tear^^
our people energy, self-reliance and enterprise in the cause of religion."
17. The foregoing Pioposal to establish a House of Laymen,
in Toronto, we now commend to the favorable consideration of every
Churchman. It is we know a departure from an old synodical in-
stitution originated by Bishop Strachan, but which has now out-
grown its usefulness. It no longer acts up to or satisfies the spirit
and intention of the good Bishop. We say advisedly that Laymen
who now attend our Synods learn there little beyond the mysteries
of ecclesiastical finance. They have no power or influence, on any
matter brought before them that concerns the externals of religion
on which they are or ought to be deeply interested, and which
power the Bishop of Manchester said they ought to have. The
Archbishop of Canterbury has set the church a good example. He
has pointed out a remedy for this injustice and moreover has proved
its success — a way by which the Laity may have simpler and freer
opportunities for discussion on all such matters, which, said His
Grace, " by patient debate could not fail to have a great moral
effect." Let the Laity now do their duty to their church. Let
them make the cause we advocate their own, banish from their
ranks all apathy and indifference, talk over and promulgate their
views among their brethren, and assert themselves by their numbers
and intelligence fit and worthy to possess the great boon oi their own
House of Laymen, in alliance with the Synod of Toronto.
Toronto, 14th Nov. 1892.
8
12 -. ^" >"'■
HOUSE OF LAYMEN.
^
J. Symons, Esq.,
68 Avenue T.toad, Toronto, Canada.
Dear Sir, — Your Letter of the 6th of July reached me some
time ago, but the General Election and pressure of engagements
generally prevented my attending to it until now. The enclosed
paper showing the origin and constitution of our House of Laymen
at its commencement in 1886, will, I think, best answer some of your
questions. I may further explain that we are not in any way a
legislative or political body with any definite powers, but are rather
looked upon as a consultative or deliberative body of Laymen, meet-
ing when the Houses of Convocation meet, but sitting and acting apart
from them.
You will observe that members of the House of Laymen are to
be appointed by the lay members of the Diocesan Conferences (see
Resolution 2). I should perhaps explain, that the members of the
Diocesan Conferences are themselves appointed by Ruri-Deconal
Conference throughout each Diocese, and such R. D. Conferences
are elected by the church members of each parish in vestry Iti every
Rural Deanery so that indirectly the members of the House of
Laymen represent every parish in the Diocese. I may add that the
Province of York has recently followed the lead of the Province of
Canterbury, and now England and Wales are represented in Church
matters by two representative Lay Houses.
As to our " General Objects," you will gather these partly
from Resolutions 7 and 8, and from the paper (of proceedings)
of 1886, enclosed, which shows you to some extent the class of
subjects with which we deal. Since that time we have been chiefly
occupied with matters of actual or projected legislation in matters
aflfecting the church, and in matters of philanthropy such as
"Thrift," "Houses of the Poor," and such like. And [ think
it may fairly be claimed for the House of Laymen, that its
discussions and reports are read with interest, and that the clergy and
church people generally attach some weight to our resolutions and
our expressions of opinion. But I am bound to confess that with a
church established like ours, and carrying on its legislation through
Parliament, I do not think that our doings can be expected to have
much practical importance. I shall be glad if this letter gives you
the information you seek.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) Charles J. Blagg.
Greenhill, Chendle, Staffordshire,
July 29th, 1892.
18
PrOVINCB OF CaNTKRUUBY, HOUSK OP L. YMEN,
CnuiiCH HousK, Dean's Yard,
Westminstbb, S. W., Ist Sept., 1892.
J. Symons, Es(^.,
Toronto.
Dear Sir, — Your inquiries as to the constitution, etc., of this
House I have great pleasure in answering.
The House of Laymen was instituted Vty Resolutions agreed to
by both Houses of Convocation of the Province, on July 8th, 1885,
to confer with the members of Convocation. One of the resolutions
reads as follows : "That the subjects on which the House of Laymon
may be consulted, shall be all subjects which ordinarily occupy the
attention of Convocation saving only the definition or interpretation
of the faith and doctrine of the church."
The House is composed of rather more than 100 members selected
by the Lay Members of the Diocesan Conference, the JJiocese of Lon-
don returning ten members, Winchester, Rochester, Lichfield and
Worcester, six each.
The House meets only when Convocation is in session when
any subjects referred by His Grace, the Archbishop, or originated
by members of the House, are discussed and communicated to the
Archbishop.
In the words of the present Archbishop of Canterbury in opening
the first House of Laymen :
" This House is therefore a body purely representative of the
Laity, and its realization at this day with simpler, freer, larger aims
than those of faction or political party is full of strong and happy
promise. The moral effect, of its discussions must from the first be
great, and we cannot doubt that if its conclusions are arrived at by
patient debate in fully attended meetings, the moral effect will, in due
time, take material and practical form."
And I think His Grace's hopes have to a large degree been
realized.
I send you by separate post a summary of the proceedings of one
of the sessions which will give an idea of the method of procedure,
and the names of the members, rules for procedure, etc. And if I can
answer any further questions which you may wish to be informed on,
I shall be only too pleased.
I may add that a House of Laymen has also this year been
instituted for the Province of York, in this kingdom, on the lines of
this House.
I am, dear sir.
Yours very faithfully,
(Signed) J. Larcombb,
Secretary.
14
NOTICE OF MOTION BY WALTER A. GEDDES, ESQ.,*
FOR THE SYNOD ON JUNE 13th, 1893.
That it is desirable to afford the Lay Heproaentatives to the
Synod the privilege of meeting in conference during its session under
the name, style and title of " The House of Laymen in alliance with
the Synod of Toronto."
That the resolutions and rules governing the said Houne of Laymen
shall be in the main the same as those approved of by the Archbishop
of Canterbury for the London House of Laymen.
That his Lordship the President of the Synod in opening the
House of Laymen, or at any other time in their session, may lay before
them any sulyect on which he may desire their counsel, and that the
results of all their deliberations on any subjects whether thus referred
to them or originated by themselves bo communicated to the President
by the chairman of such House.
*Col. Boulton, of Cobourg, it was expected would have introduced this
motion to the Synod, but he writes expreasing his sincere regret that he cannot
fill his place at the Synod on 13th .lune, as he is under orders to take his regiment
on that day into the annual camp of military drill at Kingston. Mr. (ieddes has,
therefore, kindly consented to supply liis place.
COMMENTS ON THE "PROPOSAL."
WITH
REMARKS IN A FEW OASES.
1. •' There is much in the pr«ainl)lo or statement of the case with
which I concur, e. g. paragraphs 9, 10 and 11. I have noticed that
the reporters ignore all hut the stock speakers, generally the clergy.
When a country delegate gets up to speak the reporters carefully place
their pens behind their ears, and lean back in their seats for a " recess,"
and that they are to some extent supported in this by the indifference
of the gentlemen on the raised platform. The lay delegates, it is true,
have neither time nor opportunity to study the questions brought before
the Synod. In this connection I may say in answer to the question
occasionally raised in Synod, "Why are the country parishes so poorly
represented 1 The delegates feel that they are merely wanted as voting
machines, that their opinion \re rather resented as presumptuous than
listened to as contributions t the vote."
If any thing were wanting to show the little interest taken
by laymen in important matters before the Synocl, we refer to
the fact that of 64 country representatives present in the Synod
of 1890/ only three took part in its five days' proceedings.
" In England there is a raison d etrh for the House of Laymen
that we have not here, (Houses of Convocation). Previous to the
Institution of that body, the Laity was not represented at all in the
National Church Courts, and even now they do not rank as the Lower
House of Convocation or take part in the work of the Church as that
body does. They help to mould opinion or rather they strengthen or
rectify (modify) the opinions of the two clerical bodies by the
expression of opinion of a picked body of the Laity, but they cannot
do more than that."
We are quite aware of all this. There a vast difference be-
tween the Clerical Courts of England and Canada, but the prin-
15
16
ciple of admitting the laity into the confidence of the ruling
powers is, or should be, the same in lx)th countries True we
have no convocations, but this will likely be remedied in Sep-
tember next by the organization of a General Synod which will
do the work of convocations. Our House of Laymen wouKl Ihj
useful now, it will then be an essential. The General Synod
will effect no great and durable changes unless they have the
well ascertained opinion of the laity. Just as the Archbishop of
Canterbury failed year after year to get passed his Church Dis-
cipline Bill, until he established his House of Laymen and had
the clear opinion and support of that body. We have no two
Houses of Convocation, which is alleged as the reason for the
establishment of the House of Laymen in London, there being
no Synods there such as we have hero. But they have and had
long before the establishment of such House what was far better,
as stated in the pamphlet Diocesan Conferences To these con-
ferences the laity are elected at the Easter vestries. Church
(juestions are discussed and freely and fully debated and in a
manner wholly at variance with the hurried slipshod discussions
witnessed in our Synods, and so instructed and equipped are the
members in the art of debate that there is great rivalry as to
who shall be selected to adorn the House of Layman in London.
And so would it be with laymen here when they know that a
way is open to them, that they have the boon of their own
House of Laymen conferred upon them, where they can stand
upright as intelligent men, where they will be under no restraint
or surveillance as regards the freedom of speech where they can
converse freely, compare the opinions of one with those of an-
other, and see which is the harder and best stands the friction
of practical utility. Depend upon it when such a state of things
is brought about there will be emulation among churchmen, and
the very best men in every parish will be proud to represent it
in their own House when the Synod meets. The status of an
elected layman will be greatly raised and honorable in the esti-
mation of the whole Church.
" The time for debate, two evenings of the session, is too short. It
should be at least a week before the Synod meets."
17
This would be (juite in order and denirable if we were or-
^raiiizin^ an institution de novo. Hut wo liavo to deal witli
things as they are, with customs venerable for their age, and it
would hardly do to be too exacting or too sweeping in the change
proposed.
" I would suggest that it would bo better to choose one of your
own body as PresidHnt than ask the Bishop to act as President."
One word of explanation. The House of Laymen is not
an independent organization. It is in fact part and parcel of
the Synod and is presitled over by its own elecleil chairniiin.
The Bishop merely opens it and then retires. He takes no part
in its deliberations and is simply President of the whole Synod.
Just as the Archbishop of ('anterbury opens tlu; two Houses of
(Convocation and then the House of Laymen and retires.
Though laymen may with the greatest freedom meet and
deliberate, yet may take no part in the Jictual legislation, their
influence is felt on various occasions. Take for example a recent
case in the London House of Laymen. The Archbishop in 1885-0
introduced into the House of Lords two bills relating to Patron-
age and Discipline. They were opposed and nothing was heard
of them for several sessions. The House of Laymen considered
their objects most important in the interest of the Church. They
were reforms much needed, and in 1891 passed unanimously the
following resolution : — " That this House while regretting the
failure of the eHbrts which were made in the Parliament of
1885-86 and the early sessions of the present Parliament to effect
legislation on the subjects of Church Patronage and Clergy Dis-
cipline, respectfully presses upon His Grace the Archbishop the
importance of these subjects not being allowed to drop, and
hopes that Bills dealing with them will be introduced into Par-
liament during the pi'esent session." In conse<iuence of this reso-
lution His Grace reintroduced the Bills and had the satisfaction
of passing the Bill on Clergy Discipline during last year and has
promised that he will direct his earnest attention to get the Bill
on Church Patronage passed during the present year.
If we had a House of Laymen in Toronto might not a similar
resolution be appropriately and usefully passed in relation to
IS
Mr. Cumberland's motion on ('hurcli Patronage — " That this
House while regretting the failure of the efForts made (hiring
the last seven years to eHc:;t a reform in the inod(! of making
appointments to Rectories, lespectfully presses upon His Lord-
s!np the Bishop, the importance of not allowing the subject to
drop, and hopes that the Executive Committee will be able to
report their final decision in time for the present Synod.'
2. "Your's of the 4th to liand, pamphlet received on Friday.
The * Proposal ' meets with my uuquiilitied approval, and it is tny
opinion that country dnlegatcs as u whole will also approve of it,
when they come to realiza the fact that a House of Laymen will
afToi'd an opportunity tor full discussion among laymen, impossible in
the Synod, where motions introduced by laymen, if they seem in any
way to encroaci: on the irresponsible position of the clergy, are not
allowed to be even discussed, in a word the mover is ostracised. Now
if such motions were discussed by laymen before they were submitted
to Synod, much of the odium now attached by the clergy to the movers
of such mouons would disappear."
3. " I have carefully considered the proposal of a House of Lay
men, submitted by you, sections 9, 10 and 11 set forth the prominent
reasons for the movement. Why should not the lay delegates appoint a
Committee to sit apart, as occasion may call for, under regulations, to
discuss such matiars as affect the proceedings of Synod or to originate
subjects for Synodical action."
A very good suggestion, but it asserts the principle of an
independent House of Laymen. Our desire is to be in alliance
with the Synod if possible.
" Impromptu motions made by members in Synod on important
matters ofttimes make little impression and reasonably so in so large an
assemblage."
•• I observe that the House of Laymen in England was formally
instituted by resolutions agreed to by both Houses of Convocation, and
that the House was composed of 100 members of the Conference
selected from each Diocese of the Province."
" I take it that the movement contemplated in your proposal must
originate in Synod to be of service."
" Should I again represent ray parish in Synod to be elected next
Easter, I would gladly enter upon a discussion of matters affecting the
usefulness of Synod's welfare of the Church."
4. " I am favored with your circular of 27th ult., enclosing a
10
second copy of proposal aiui fully H^^rco with tlio oJijectg coiitomplated
in th« estal)lislinient of a ilouse of Liynu'n for tlm DiocPHeof Toronto."
" Tliiit tho opinion of tlio country Uity would be favoraWIe to th«
project 1 think thei*' is littlo (|'ic-.tii'ii."
" The ponition of tho country uiiHsionH particularly, and some o^
the pari»thHii from whatever cause arisin<; has heconie deploralile."
" Having regard to the financial condition of the Synod, improve-
ment f'om extraneous source* must at hest prove slow, and judging
froui the results of the last few years cannot in any dej^ree he
anticipatHl."
"To attain the desired end at least two conditions seein indis-
pensalile, viz., a radical chani»e in the supervision and visitation of
rural districts, in conjunction with tho adinisiion to holy orders of only
such candidates, as, in addition to scholastic attaintnents, may atTord
relial)le indi(;ations of the possession of a measure of energy which
would conduce in u reasonable degree to success in a secular calling."
" There are, of course, other matters of great nioinent which should
be legitimately considered by a House of Liyinen, but may be well left
to its collective wisdom rather than dealt with in the medium of
correspondence."
5. " I am in receipt of your circular, etc. Tn reply I beg to sug-
gest to yourself and your associates that it would be Itetter to attend
regularly the meetings of the Synod and insist thereupon the rights of
the laity being respected, than to separate ourselves into a cave of
aduUam or lay caucus. JJut if your scheme was carried out, I should
most strongly object to the Bishop being the presiding otticer, for
obvious reasons."
The Bishop is not t\\v presiding officer 'J'he Hinise of Lay-
men elect tlieir own presiding officer under the name of Chair-
man. The Bishop is President only of the Synod. (See remark
on page 6).
" Could not your object be equally well attained by a fuller and
more regular attendance at Synod ?"
These two requirements are fully attained at present. The
laity are numerous enough, but when in Synod with a few rare
exceptions, they have no will of their own, arising from the fact
that they have had no opportunity such as the clergy have had,
of informing themselves on the subjects discussed, and are obliged
to vote just as the clergy wish them to vote. Tliey liave no free-
dom or choice whatever owing to the want of previous instruc-
tion.
20
" I do not understand an apparent contradiction in your proposal.
In clause 7 of your constitution, on pnge 5, you except from the sulijects
which may occupy the attention of the House, • the definition or inter-
pretation of the faith and doctrine of the church,' and then on page 9,
in section 17, you complain that the Laity ' have no power or influence
on any matter brought before them that concerns th« externals of
religion.' If you mem that externals in IJivine worship have nothing
to do with t.ie definition and interpretation of the faith and doctrine
of the Church, I entirely disagree with you.''
The writer labors under some misconception. He assumes
that all extei-iials are essentials. Bread and wine in the Holy
Communion, and water in baptism are external emblems and
essentials as ordained by our blessed Lord. But e.Kcessive bow-
in^^s, lighted candles,^) ncen.se, crosses in the church, processions
with banners, man-inillinery and innumerable other puerile de-
vices are non-essentials. It may be asked why did the Jews in
their worship use various emblems ? because their priests had to
deal with and instruct very ignorant people.
In the early ages of the world people mentally walked in
gross darkness. We do not (piite agree witli Dryden's line
" Since wild in witodj the noble iavagre ran."
Yet it is undoubted that the Jewish people long remained in a
condition of ignorance and al)ject slavery. Their mental facul-
ties and ideas were not fitted for such instruction as could be
given them when they had become more enlightened and edu-
cated. It was therefore necessary that many thini,'s had to be
conveyed to their minds in such a manner as was suited to their
capacities at that time, and in language best suited t(j their
understandings. And thus ornaments, decorations, customs and
ceremonies contained symbolical and eml)lematical signiHcations
which the priest no doubt fully explained to them.* But we
claim, and it is a just claim, to live in more enlightened times.
The New Testament teaches us to worship Cod in spirit and in
truth — " to serve Him, not in bondage of the figure or siiadow,
but in the freedom of the Spirit." It is only the indifferent and
the very ignorant of the present day who are satisfied in their
worship to copy the puerile practices of the eai'ly Jewish nation.
* The Jews and their Customs, by Rev. E. M. Myers : New York, 1879.
21
Some of the ceremonies oF the C^hurch which had an emble-
matical meaning were at tirst very few and of godly intent, but
we ai-e told they had so increased up to the time of the Refor-
mation — there was such an excess of them, and that they had
led to so many abuses, that the burden of them was intolerable.*
They were at that time — being non-essentials, — "cut away and
clean rejected " for ever it was thou<^ht. Is it wise, in the in-
terest of a pure and intelligent theology, to wink at their being
brought back again, — undoing the work of our great reformers,
and slowly but surely enticing us, nay where it can be done,
compelling us to be familiar and approving of the ever-to-be
deplored dark ages of the church, both Jewish and Christian ^
A reaction of barbarianism from a religion of civilization is not
in the interest of our church.
If the clergy, more especially the younger clergy, decline,
as they have done so far, to effectually consult their congrega-
tions as to the introduction of symbols and emblems which are
nonessentials, it will then become the duty of the laity to remon-
strate, and if no heed be taken, to appeal to the Bishop, or after
September next, to the General Synod.
"But I am entirely at one with you in a desire to see our Synod
reformed. It is about as slovenly and unbusinesslike a deliberative
body as we could tia»l. The rea.son being, that the laity leave matters
too much to the clergy, and do not take the trouble to remind them, as
the Archbishop of Canterbury did his clergy, that there is such a thing
as an abuse of independence. I should like to hear the matter discussed
in Synod, and will do my bc^t to secure for it a good hearing."
6. " I beg to state that I cannot help feeling that the country
delegates, as a rule, find it difficult enongh to attend the ordinary meet-
ings of Synod regularly and conscientiously ; and it would be a very
serious addition to their liurdens (both mentally and physically) if they
were required to meet on two extra evening.s, or to come up a day
sooner than usual."
" In principal the idea is most excellent, and the need for it very
great, but I fail to see how it could be carried out vvith the materials
at present at your disposal. Parishes in the back country have such
difficulty as it ia in securing men of sufficient time, education or means
for Uy deleg.ite^, thvt miny of them avail theiuielves of tItA priviUge of
obtaining proxies in the cities."
* Prayer Book. Preface.
22
This is an important fact and shov/s in a clear light the
hollowness of the representative system in the Synod as applied
to country parishes. Here are between forty and fifty gentle-
men, all most respectable, who sit as representatives of congre-
gations of whom they know nothing. Here they sit year after
year clothed with the honor and enjoying the privileges of being
members of the Synod without knowing their constituents and
never giving any account of their stewardship. Here they sit
incurring no trouble, expense or inconvenience of any kind, in
perfect independence. It is absurd to expect that these men,
with a few exceptions, will promote any change which will de-
prive them of the peculiar privileges which this unique system
of proxy representation confers. It is (juite as bad as the sys-
tem known in England half a century ago as the rotten borough
system. Agents there, living in small towns like Old Gatton
and Sarum, arranged for the election of members or for proxies
to members wdio never saw their constituents, and the shameful
practice at last aroused the people to such a pitch of excitement
at the wrong they had so long endured that King William nearly
lost his crown. The great Reform Bill saved it. And yet there
were bishops in the Hous .1 of Lords and clergy throughout the
land who saw many advantages in the system, and persuaded
themselves that it was the perfection of Parliamentary repre-
sentation ! Just as laymen holding proxies will contend that
our Synod sy?tem is faultless.
7. " I beg to .state that I think the establishment of a House of
Liyiiien for tlie Dioces« of Toronto would be a very good thing, as
then should laymen have anything to bring to the notice of the Synod,
it could be done in proper form, and any suggestion they have to make
would receive better attention as coming from the whole body of
laymen, than as at present from one individual. I am sorry to say
that I am unable to give any definite opinion as to the feelings of the
country laity on this subject, as it U very difficult to get the farmers
to take any interest in church matters, and when it comes to paying a
dollar a year towards keeping up the Housp, I feel certain many of
them would object to doing so. There is such a vast difference between
the city arid town parishes. We ar« so scattered, and are so far apart,
it is imposible to get any nuiiilmr together except on a fink Sunday
afternoon. We cannot then talk these matters over."
Country laymen having a House of their own in Toronto
23
would feel that the office of representative was one of some
importance ;\nd i-esponsibiiity. There would be emulation
among them, and a much superior class, both in point of wealth
and intelligence, would be elected, and the >?1.00 fee would be
no objection.
It might be provided that at the Easter vestries only two
instead of three country representatives to the Synod should be
elected, but then their attendance as a rule should be required.
This would raise the status of a representative, and proxies
would cease.
8. " As to the establishment of a House of Laymen for the
Diocese of Toronto, the proposition has my cordial sympathy, and T
believe that a like feeling is lield by the country laity as a whole."
9. " As to establishing a House of Laymen in alliance with the
Synod of Toronto, I am quite in accord with what is suggested,
especially number 16 and 17, and feel satisfied my brother laymen
who have attended Synod are equally so."
" When attending Synod my feeling has always been that my
time has been wasted. The vital matters of the Church omitted as
appears to the mind of a layman."
10. " In reply would say, I have met quite a number of lay
members, and they think it is a move in the right direction, and that
it should have V)een introduced before. It is likely that I will be with
you at next delegate meeting."
IL "In regard to the establishment of a House of Laymen for
the Diocese of Toronto, on the lines indicated by you and your com-
mittee, I beg to say I consider it is a movement in the right direction,
I cannot do other than give it my most favorable consideration, and by
the blessing of God accompanying your feeble efforts I cannot doubt but
that the issue shall be a general benefit to our beloved Church."
12. " Replying to your circular, etc., I may say that I would
consider the establishment of a House of Laymen most desirable, and
further, that from such experience as I have had of country parishes,
I am confident that such a movement would have the effect of awaken-
ing much greater interest among the country representatives, and that
they would feel in coming to the Synod sessions they would be able to
take a more active part and accomplish more than at present is possible.
It is very evident also that very little weight attaches to the remarks
of individual lay members in the Synod as at present constituted, and
the proposed House would certainly enable the lay opinion to be pre-
sented in a proper and weighty manner. I h«artily concur in the pro-
posed establishment on the lines suggested."
24
After speaking of his illness, etc. :
13. "With regard to the House of Laymen I cannot say much
as I liave not l)een able to talk to any one about it. T cannot see any
great good it would be to the Church in this Diocese. I think the
better way would be to call a meeting of the laymen some evening when
the Synod is in session and talk the matter over and then take a note
of what the laymen say. There are a few words in the pamplet, Sec.
9, page 6, after the words, ' we are sorry to say it,' which I think will
not suit the laity too well. It will set them thinking."
The suggestion of an unauthorized meeting of the laity dur-
ing the sitting of the Synod is not desirable under present cir-
cumstances.
14. "I think the establishment of a House of Laymen would be
in the interest of the Church and in the cause of God. I am greatly
in favor of this move and think it is in the right direction."
15. " Have read the circular on the proposal to establish a House
of Laymen for the Diocese of Toronto with much pleasure."
" The proposal is a step in the right direction I think, and if
wisely and judiciously organized and directed would give much more
power and value to the opinions and v'ews of the laity in the deliber-
ations of the Synod. There is no opportunity for laymen to hear the
views of their brother laymen on any question that may come up in
the Synod, whereby unity of action might be secured and thus are ill
prepared to vote intelligently on the question. I believe it would
Ijroaden our views on all questions connected with our Church, and
lead to more active and aggressive work l)y laymen cooperating with
our clergy for the building up of Christ's Kingdom here in Canada."
Apology for not writing sooner.
16. "The project meets with my heartiest sympathy. In my
humble opinion one of the causes, if not the chief cause of the lack of
progress of our Church in this Dominion is the fact that the laity have
not received encouragement to take active interest and responsibility
in all matters temporal and spiritual pertaining to the Church, and
which, together with the general composition of our Synod, and the
methods of procedure therein account in large measure for small attend-
ance of lay representatives at its conventions."
17. " In reply to your circular enclosing, 'Proposal to establish
a House of Laymen in alliance with the Synod of Toronto,' I beg to say
that I cannot see n»y way to support it. I think it is iu the best
interests of the Church that there should to the most extent be joint
action on the part of the clergy and laity. The Synod as constituted
25
»
carries out this idea, giving most ample rights and privileges to the
laity, whose opinions and suggestionH have so far as my experience goes,
been accorded due weight both at the meetings of Synod and in the
committees. And I fear that the proposed scheme might unfortunately
lead to disunion and distrust."
If our church authorities will tread in the footsteps of the
Arclibishop of Canterbury there can be no " disunion or distrust."
Of a number of letters received, this is the only one which gives
the scheme a negative. We quite agree that it is desirable that
there should be joint action on the part of the Clergy and Laity,
that is if botli classes have fair information on any question be-
fore them. But what are the facts. The clergy have every
cpportunity to study the (questions brought before them. 'J'hey
are in constant communication with each other, and they have,
in most cases, good libraries at tlieir command. The laity, with
a few rare exceptions, have no such opportunity or advantages.
Not one in ten probably of even city and town representatives
have adequate knowledge of the questions they vote on. And
of the country representatives, one fact already referred to alone
will suffice. Out of G5 present in the Synod of 1890, only three
took part during its tive days sittings. Surely that is conclusive
evidence that for want of opportunity to gain information, the
laity are silent, and when recjuired to vote, are almost necessarily
compelled to vote as the clergy tacitly desire them to vote. The
laity of the London House study all questions, and by debate
impart and gain useful information, and they have been of great
service to the Church. But for their suggestions and advice the
important Clergy Discipline Bill would never have become law.
18. "1 have read with care your pamphlet, etc,, I would say, it
has been a long felt want, as the laity should have some knowledge of
the motions to come before the Synod before the meeting thereof. I
would say that there are many points in church work that the laity in
cities know nothing about Since I have been here 1 have come in
contact with church matters which should be discussed by right-think-
ing men, wishing you every success in the work, etc."
19. "In reply, etc., I may say, as far as I can at present judge,
such an organization would surely be a benetit, and 1 would bo in favor
of it, and without doubt it would meet with approval of laymen in this
vicinity."
26
m
20. " I received ycur circular, etc., a,n<\ have been thoughtfully
considering it. I fully coincide with all that the pamphlet contains.
It will he a great advance in bringing the lay element of the Church in
closer communion with the powers that be. What struck me very
forcibly the lirst time I attended Synod, a decade ago, was that lay
delegate.*!, especially those from rural parishes had but a small share in
the proceedings of the House. The discussions were all confined to the
clergy and a few city laymen, who, being by their professions used to
addressing public audiences readily took part in debate with the clergy.
Many delegates from rural districts do not like to rise before a large'
body of talented men to give expression to their views, but meeting
together as laymen, they would have more sol f-posse.ssion and confidence
than in attempting to address the whole Synod. That 1 am not alone
of that opinion I know, because some of my friends have declined to
act as delegates as thoy could not speak if they went to the Synod."
" I believe the proposed scheme will be the means of infusing new
life into the laity. It will bring them into closer relation with His
Lordship, and the rulers of the Church. I have given much earnest
thought to the paragraphs 1.5 and Hi, and fully concur in what is
therein set forth. 1 believe it will be the means to teach our people
to have more energy and enterpris(> in the cause of the Church."
?1. "I have carefully read your circular letter and proposal, and
in my opinion feel that as an auxiliary, the House of Laymen will do
much good. Sec. 11 of the Proposal is particularly true, and if only
the House of Laymen could remedy that, it would have served a good
purpose."
23, " Your circular and pamphlet duly received. In reply : The
composition of Convocation, and our Synod being so unlike, makes me
conclude, that what may be advantageous there might be quite the
contrary here. I have also several objections to the argument in favor
of and the plan for carrying out the ' Proposal.' The speaking power
of the laity is but little, if any, inferior to that of the clergy. We have
many clever business men whose besetting fault is speaking too often,
and on every matter brought up. Again the small majority of the
clergy vote vanishes when the voting is not by orders, as is generally
the case."
" As regards the plan as proposed, the Tuesday evening at present
is taken up with the opening service, and Wednesday night is devoted
to the missionary meeting, therefore there is no available time, but on
the Monday, and as there were objections raised to the * opening service'
being held at that time, the same objections would hold good to a meet-
ing of the ' House of Laymen.' "
•' I think everything might be discussed with advantage in Synod
if we had more time, and certainly evening sessions for the Synod should
he the rule and not the exception, so that we might have more time for
real church work, other than routine "business."
27
The first paragraph is a mere Jissuniptioii of a fact for the
existence of which there is not a shadow of likelihood. Then
we have a list of objections, which the writer answers (to him-
self) most satisfactorily in the last paragraph. Re-organize the
whole Synod — extend its sittings — alxjlish the " opening ser-
vice " and the "missionary meeting," and then everything might
be discussed with advantage in Synod.
Our object is not to pull down but to build up If only the
Laity were required to meet, and we are satisfied they would
willingly do so, on the Monday from two to five and from eight
to eleven, the objects of the House of Laymen would be fully
answered, and without in the least interfering with the present
composition and arrangements of the Synod.
23. " Replying to your favor, etc., I am quite in favor of the
establishment of House of Laymen, although I have had no opportunity
of discussing this proposal with my colleagues or other laity. I would
venture the opinion, that it would meet with the approval of the laity
as a whole."
24. " I have considered the matter you suk my opinion about
I think it is a step in the right direction. The delegates from country
parishes could bring up matters connected with the Church, and debate
among themselves, better than they can if they are sitting with the
clergy. Many are afraid to speak before men so highly educated, and
yet our objects and meaning may be as good."
25. *' I beg to say that I am favorable to the establishment of a
House of Laymen for the Diocese of Toronto, and believe that it would
meet with the approval of a majority of the country laity."
26. " If our constitution was changed, and instead of the present
election of delegates, a House of Laymen should be formed to confer,
etc., the Bishop could have no difficulty in giving his support to the
movement."