THE CHURCH REFORM LEAGUE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:9 SIE,—Both the writer of the article in the Spectator of October 30th and, to some extent, Mr. Herbert Torr in his reply of last week appear to forget that the proposal to grant self-government to the Church is not a leap in the dark, but one which has been in practical operation in America and our Colonies for many years. There is thus no lack of material to guide those who are responsible for the production of a scheme. The problem—which you rightly declare to be the crucial one—of the adjustment of the relations between clergy and laity has been solved in those Churches by the simple plan of voting by orders. No canon or regulation is binding unless it commands a majority of the Bishop, clergy, and representatives of the laity. If this principle is accepted, it matters comparatively little whether the clergy and laity form separate "Houses," or whether, for purposes of debate, they sit together in one House. It is scarcely con- ceivable that any responsible body would, with the experience of the Colonial Churches to guide it, propose any scheme of self-government of which voting by orders did not form an essential part. May I, however, point out that the object of the Church Reform League is not so much to formulate a scheme as to create a strong demand on the part of Church- men for the concession to the Church of the right to govern itself ?—I am, Sir, The Athenzeum, November 91h. BARTON R. V. MILLS.
Previous page
