Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ART. III.-1. A History of the Convocation of the Church of England from the earliest period to the year 1742. By the Rev. THOMAS LATHBURY, M.A. Second Edition. London:

1853.

2. The Convocations of the Two Provinces, their Origin, Constitution, and Forms of Proceeding; with a Chapter on their Revival. By GEORGE TREVOR, M.A., Canon of York. London: 1852.

3. England's Sacred Synods. A Constitutional History of the Convocations of the Clergy, from the earliest Records of Christianity in Britain to the Date of the Promulgation of the present Book of Common Prayer; including a List of all the Councils, ecclesiastical as well as civil, in which the Clergy have been concerned. By JAMES WAYLAND JOYCE, M.A. London: 1855.

4. The Journal of Convocation, Nos. I.—VI. August, 1854, -April, 1856.

WE

E cannot avoid, sooner or later, a public discussion upon the subject of Convocation. It is a question which neither the bad nor the good qualities of ecclesiastical agitators will allow us to pass over. To the clamorous and turbulent amongst them nothing will ever be admitted as a reason for destroying their own vocation; and to many men of a widely different stamp the question of Church Synods appears of the greatest moment to the very being of the Church to which they belong, and no consideration is of importance enough for them to acquiesce even in its postponement. We do not agree with these men, but we admit their sincerity and respect their characters.

[ocr errors]

Whether we like it or not, therefore, and whether we belong to the Establishment or not, the question of permitting its Convocations to resume their functions has claims on our attention. The possible consequences of such resumption are grave enough to interest every man of education; and it is very desirable to acquire, if possible, some clear notion of the precise points at issue, and of the principles which should guide our judgments upon them. The learning of the Convocation question may be safely left to those whom it concerns. It has been elaborately debated whether, in its origin, or under the early Norman kings, the Convocations were provincial synods, with power

over the doctrinal and spiritual concerns of that portion of the Church which they represented, as well as over its temporal affairs; whether they were summoned by the king's authority, or by the archbishop; whether they could be prorogued by the archbishop alone, or by the archbishop with the consent of his comprovincials; what were the limits of their authority, and of the authority of Parliament; whether the Church of England can claim that they should be summoned as of legal right, and is entitled to complain of their prorogation as a constitutional injustice; these and kindred questions we see no occasion, and we have no appetite, for discussing. Wake and Burnet, Gibson and Atterbury, and the hosts of smaller warriors on either side who discharged their light artillery under the shadow of these great chieftains in the Convocation fray, may, as far as we are concerned, lie solemnly entombed in folios, or slumber under the dust of accumulated pamphlets. Not by arguments from history, but by present need,-not by the authority of precedents, but by the dictates of good sense and practical experience, will an English Ministry now be guided in its dealings with this question. It is vain to cite examples from the times of William III. or of Queen Anne for the guidance of our present statesmen, when the whole aspect of the times is so different, and the relations of the Church of England to the State have so materially changed. A certain section of the clergy may raise an outcry over obstructed rights and unjust suppression, but they will find no echo in the minds of the nation at large. The privilege they are seeking will not be granted to them simply because their predecessors may have enjoyed it. It will not be granted to them at all, unless, upon mature consideration, the exercise of it should be thought compatible with the safety of the Church as she at present exists, nor without the most stringent guarantees to secure that safety. Nor, indeed, ought any Minister to permit what is called synodical action in the Church of England, under any circumstances, without most carefully limiting its sphere, and excluding from its operation those important subjects of theological controversy on which the minds of men will differ to the end of time. The constant and angry discussion of such topics has already much impaired the unity, and weakened the practical efficiency, of the Church. The risk is far too great, the possible consequences far too serious, for any one to contemplate without alarm the unfettered action of a Convocation upon all the matters it was accustomed to deal with in the days of its activity. We shall hope to show, by excellent reasons drawn from the present position of the Church, that her

representative assemblies, if permitted to meet at all, should, as matter of right and justice, exercise only very limited functions. But beyond all these, there is the great argument from necessity, that, in the present state of things, the very existence of the Church herself would be inconsistent with an absolutely unfettered Convocation. Any one who will undergo the disagreeable task of reading a few numbers of the 'Record' newspaper, and some of the multitudinous publications of Archdeacon Denison, and who remembers that both the newspaper and the archdeacon represent a considerable body of the clergy, will at once admit that nothing less than the absolute destruction of the Establishment could result from a purely clerical assembly, in which the two parties of the clergy could meet with unrestrained control over all ecclesiastical affairs, and without any legal check upon their free operation.

It may be said, however, and with some degree of truth, that no one, or scarcely any one, desires the simple restoration of Convocation in its ancient shape and with its ancient powers. It is therefore very desirable to ascertain exactly what is meant, when persons speak of the restoration of Convocation, and clamour for the reintroduction of synodical action into the machinery of the Church of England.

The

But this is a thing by no means easy to discover. claim is usually made in language so loose that it would suit almost equally well claims to which few reasonable men would be disposed to listen with disfavour, and claims which few men of sense would concede under any circumstances. Indeed the opponents of synodical action are often placed at considerable disadvantage by this vagueness of language, and are accused of refusing reasonable requests, when, in truth, they are only desirous to resist exorbitant and dangerous demands. If, for example, a man expresses apprehension at the probable effects of the revival of Convocation, he is told, and perhaps truly enough, that it is a monstrous thing that the Church of England should be the only religious body in the world whose members are never consulted and have no legal means of expressing their opinions upon the matters which most intimately concern them. But if, in reply to this, he admits the grievance, he is told that the only method by which a remedy can be effected is the immediate revival of Convocation. We have never yet seen any attempt to prove that the chief practical inconvenience to which members of the Church are subject would be in any wise removed or even lightened by the revived activity of Convocation; and we believe that men are asking they know not what in crying out for the instant resuscitation

[ocr errors]

of an assembly, the past history of which by no means abounds in instances either of wisdom or of moderation. It is true that many and serious inconveniences exist in the present relations of the Church of England and the Parliament; but they cannot be traced to the suppression of Convocation, nor would they be removed by its revival.

There is certainly something at first sight very striking in the statement, that the Church of England alone, or nearly alone, amongst Christian communities, has no recognised assembly of its members in which its concerns may be discussed; nor does the wish to see it placed in this respect on the same footing with other constituted bodies, appear unnatural or extravagant, Perhaps it is not in substance so unlike other bodies in this matter as it appears to be in form; and perhaps, even if it were, reflection would disclose abundant reasons why, for the sake of other great and countervailing advantages already in its possession, it may be not at all unfairly asked to forego the enjoyment of this particular privilege. But at any rate the revival of Convocation will not get rid of any practical grievances, if such exist. Let it be granted that the members of the Church of England might with advantage be allowed to meet for discussion, and if need be for legislation, upon matters of practical importance; and that they should be consulted, in some formal and acknowledged way before Parliament legislates on matters affecting their own interests; in neither of these matters would the Convocation, if restored, be likely to afford the least satisfaction, or be capable of any efficient work.

Convocation is an ancient body known to the Constitution, with old traditions and historical precedents. If revived, it is revived in its integrity. Its powers are unaltered; the scope of its authority is unaffected by the lapse of time. Whatever it could or could not do in the days of Queen Anne, that it could or could not do in those of Victoria. The Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles, the doctrines of the Church of England, the terms of her communion, the orthodoxy of particular teachers and particular books, — all those matters which excite controversy and kindle temper, would form legitimate subjects for its discussions. No debate upon any one of them could be stopped; no resolution, if it was not a formal canon, upon any one of them, however mischievous and hasty, could be prevented, except by an extraordinary interposition of the Royal Prerogative in each particular case. Both Houses of Convocation have before now resisted, and no doubt would resist again, any attempt by the Archbishop to fetter their liberty; and the Minister, who permitted Convoca

VOL. CV. NO. CCXIII.

G

tion to meet for effective deliberation, would find that in addition to his Parliament, he had taken upon himself the labour of controlling another constitutional assembly, the past history of which shows it to be as utterly unmanageable as from its component parts we should naturally expect to find it. These are not merely imaginary fears. The invincible turbulence of the Lower House led to the permanent suspension of the active powers of the Assembly more than a hundred years ago. It is true that the opinions and character of Hoadley may sometimes have excited sympathy for that large body of the clergy which in the last active Convocation so pertinaciously attacked him. But the spirit of the Convocation itself was such as no man can approve; and no Minister with his eyes open would willingly expose the Church to the dangers, or himself to the added responsibilities, of conflicts so serious.

The truth is, that when men speak of the revival of Convocation as desirable, they contrive to forget past history and not to see present facts. They speak as if they thought that there was one Convocation for the whole English Communion,—a sage and venerable body, with ascertained, safe, and limited authority, competent of itself to make laws for the society it represents, and to apply remedies to evils the urgency of which cannot be denied. Nothing can be less in accordance, unfortunately, with the facts of the case. There is not one Convocation but two, perhaps more; for we have now to deal with the United Church of England and Ireland.* The relations of the Convocations of Canterbury and York are entirely unsettled, and it would puzzle Doctors Commons to say what is the exact ecclesiastical position of the Irish Church-united to the English Church by Act of Parliament alone, yet widely different, not only in feeling and external circumstances, but in many purely ecclesiastical customs of great importance, such e. g. as the mode

* The Irish Convocation undoubtedly met for the first time in 1615, and again in 1635, and in 1662, when it was described by the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin as a National Synod, all the archbishops and bishops sitting in one house, and all the proctors of the clergy in another. The clergy were summoned by a clause 'præmunientes' inserted in the writs summoning the bishops to the Irish Parliament. An attempt was made by Archbishop Marsh of Dublin to revive the Irish Convocation in 1703 (Lathbury, p. 466), and the subject is fully discussed in Bishop Mant's History of the 'Church of Ireland,' vol. ii. p. 158-166. But we have seen no attempt to explain what the rights and position of the Irish Convocation may be since the Act of Union. That formal summons, which has kept alive the institution in this country from year to year, appears to be altogether wanting in Ireland.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »