LAYMAN AND PARSON.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 45, 22 February 1929, Page 6

LAYMAN AND PARSON.

Lord Cushendun's letter, just published in the "Times," on the relative positions of the laity in the Church of England and in the Church of Scotlaud, in which he says that the laity control doctrine and discipline in Scotland, whereas in England they possess 110 effective voice, does not seem to describe the position quite accurately. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian ChurcJi consists of an equal number in most cases of ministers and laymen, and the laymen are elected on a democratic basis bv the congregations. The laity thus an effective voice and vote 011 all questions brought before the Assembly, but they can hardly bo said to have complete control. Their position is very much the same as that of the laity in the Church of the Province of New Zealand. In England the body corresponding to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is the National Assembly of the Church of England. This Assembly consists of three houses. There is a House of Bishops consisting of all the English diocesan bishops, a House of Clergy consisting of the deans, archdeacons and representatives of the clergy in each diocese, and a House of Laity elected every five years by the representative electors of the diocesan conferences, each diocese having one representative for every 10,000 electors.- This is not so democratic a constitution as that of the Church of Scotland or tlio Anglican Church in New Zealand. The real difficulty in regard to the Church at Home is that the laity are preponderatingly Protestant, while the clergy are largely more in sympathy with the doctrinal position of the AngloC'atholics than with that of the Evangelical school. Lord Cushendun is quite right when he refers to the lack of control vested in the laity in England. It lias been found almost impossible for a congregation to protest effectively against ritual or doctrine of which the majority may disapprove. Endowments place the clergy in ail independent position financially, and those who possess well-endowed benefices can afford to be indifferent to the size of their congregations. There does not seein to be any reason why within limits the congregation should not determine by a majority vote the type of service which suits it best. The parochial system in England largely precludes people from choosing their own church, and the congregation has no real control over the conduct of the services. The Parochial Church Council in each parish has full control over linancial affairs, but in matters of doctrine or ritual it can only make representations to the bishop. The ultimate control over matters of doctrine and discipline in the Church of England is held by Parliament, and this is not entirely satisfacturv because Parliament is 110 longer overwhelmingly Anglican. Disestablishment would bring spiritual freedom to the Church of England, and with disestablishment would go disendowment. The Dean of St. Paul's thinks that in any bill for the disestablishment of the Church. Parliament would endeavour to guard against Anglo-Catholic control. But even if it did not do so, the loss of endowments would make the clergy more dependent on the laity, and this might prove a more effective method of controlling extremists than any decree of Church Courts or Privy Council. —ANGLICAN.