莱尔主教upper_room-第73章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
mainspring and backbone of its strength lay in the zeal； intelligence；
and activity of its laity。 Oh that we had something of the same sort in
the organization of the Church of England！
II。 The second thing which I propose to do is to examine the position
of the laity of the Church of England during the last two centuries and
at the present day。
Let us begin with a definition。 When we talk of the laity of our
。Established Church； what do we mean？ We mean； of course； all within
her pale who are not ordained to any ministerial office。 We mean the
people of the Church； in contradistinction to the clergy。 How immensely
important a body they are； it is needless to say。 It would be a waste
of time to dwell long on such a point。 Without the lay members； a
Church can hardly be said to exist。 No doubt the old saying is true；
〃Ubi tres； ibi ecclesia。〃 But a general without an army； a colonel
without a regiment； or a ship captain without a crew； are not more
useless and helpless than a Church consisting of clergy without laity。
In the Church of England； at any rate； there is at present no lack of
laymen。 There are probably 500 laymen in proportion to each clergyman。
In point of numbers alone； therefore； apart from all other
considerations； the laity are a most important part of the Church of
England。 Now I contend that the position of our lay Churchmen at this
moment falls very short of the New Testament standards； and is
therefore very unsatisfactory。 I hold it to be a canon and axiom of the
Christian faith； that the nearer a Church can get to the pattern of
Scripture the better she is； and the farther she gets away from it the
worse。 It is vain to deny that in the actual working machinery and
administration of our Church； in its arrangements； plans； schemes； and
normal organization； the lay members have paratively no place at
all！ Do the bishops meet in solemn conclave at Lambeth Palace to
consider the state of our Zion？ There is no place for the laity。… Does
Convocation hold its annual debates？ There is no representation of the
laity。… Does the bishop of a diocese make his annual arrangements for
the work of his See？ Has he any difficult problem to solve about
discipline or the best mode of dealing with some criminous clerk？ He
has no council of laymen。… Has a vacant living or incumbency to be
filled up？ The appointment is made without the slightest regard to the
opinion of the parishioners。 I state simple facts。 I defy any one to
deny their correctness。
Of course I shall be reminded that the laity are represented in our
Church by the churchwardens； who are elected every Easter； and summoned
annually to the visitation of the archdeacon or bishop。 I have not
forgotten this at all。 I only ask； in reply； whether churchwardens are
not； as a rule； appointed with very little regard to spiritual
qualifications？ I ask whether their annual attendance at visitations is
not ordinarily a mere ceremony and form？ How many churchwardens know
anything about a visitation； except that they go to a certain town；
hear a charge about some dry subject which very possibly they do not
understand； perhaps dine with the other churchwardens； and then go
home？ How many churchwardens accept office with the least idea of
taking a constant active interest in all the Church's affairs？ How many
of them are expected to know anything about the Church's doctrines；
ceremonies； government； difficulties； schemes； or plans？ They are often
most excellent men； and capable of doing excellent service。 But
practically little or nothing is expected of them； and little or
nothing except secular and financial business is ever given them to do。
The man who thinks that the office of churchwarden pletely fulfils
the New Testament idea of the laity's position in a Church must have
taken leave of his mon sense。 That there are exceptional
churchwardens who really do great things for the Church I am well
aware。 But they are such brilliant exceptions that they only prove the
truth of my rule。 If all churchwardens would do their duty always； as
some churchwardens do their duty sometimes； the Church of England would
be a far stronger Church than it is。
Of course I shall be reminded again that lay Churchmen occupy a
prominent place in Church confesses and conferences； and fill a very
useful position on the mittees of religious societies。 I am quite
aware of this； but it is entirely beside the question。 All these are
purely voluntary agencies； which form no part of the Church's
authorized and normal machinery。 It is the organized system of the
Church that I am looking at； and not the gratuitous service of
exceptional lay volunteers。
But some one； again； will remind me that the House of mons
represents the laity of the Church of England。 Surely the less we say
about that the better！ The man who talks in this way must have read
history to very little purpose； or has been asleep for 200 years。 We
are not living in 1686； but in 1888。 The pleasant old theory that
Church and State are co…extensive and identical has long since vanished
into thin air； and is a thing of the past。 The House of mons is a
powerful body； no doubt； and 〃monarch of all it surveys。〃 But it is no
longer an assembly of none but 〃Churchmen。〃 Moreover； it is notorious
that there is no subject the House of mons 〃cares so little to
discuss as religion； and that there are no religious interests which
fare so badly in its hands as those of the Church of England。
But unhappily this is not all。 There is something more behind。 The
laity of our Church are not where they ought to be in the direct work
of Christ； and the furtherance of Christianity in the land。 A
mischievous habit of leaving all religion to the parson of the parish
has overspread the country； and the bulk of lay Churchmen seem to think
that they have nothing to do with the Church but to receive the benefit
of her means of grace； while they contribute nothing in the way of
personal active exertion to promote her efficiency。 The vast majority
of church…goers appear to suppose that when they have gone to church on
Sunday； and have been at the Lord's Supper； they have done their duty；
and are not under the slightest obligation to warn； to teach； to
rebuke； to edify others； to promote works of charity； to assist
evangelization； or to raise a finger in checking sin； and advancing
Christ's cause in the world。 Their only idea is to be perpetually
receiving； but never doing anything at all。 They have taken their seats
in the right train； and are only to sit quiet； while the clerical
engine draws them to heaven； perhaps half asleep。 If an Ephesian or
Philippian or Thessalonian lay Churchman were to rise from the dead and
see how little work lay Churchmen do for the English Church； he would
not believe his eyes。 The difference between the primitive type of a
lay Churchman and the English type is the difference between light and
darkness； black and white。 The one used to be awake and alive； and
always about his Master's business。 The other is too often asleep
practically； and torpid； and idle； and content to leave the religion of
the parish in the hands of the parson。 Each is baptized。 Each uses
means of grace。 Each hears sermons； and professes himself a Christian。
But the Churchmanship of the one is utterly unlike that of the other。
When this is the case…and who will deny it？there must be something
painfully wrong in our organization。 If the Philippian lay Churchman
was right； the English lay Churchman cannot be right。 We are weighed in
the balances and found wanting。 The very language in mon use is a
plain proof that there is something sadly wrong。 The 〃Church〃
now…a…days means the 〃clergy；〃 and when some young man proposes to be
ordained； his friends tell you that he is 〃going into the Church；〃 as
if he had not been
