Page images
PDF
EPUB

he very convincingly demonstrates, this be the alarming truth, surely no Protestant can withhold his mite of exertion in contributing to the conservation of all that is dear to us in time and priceless in eternity. With the example of that noble cloud of witnesses, the illustrious martyrs of our country, before us, let us buckle on our armour with alacrity, thank God for the success with which he crowned former efforts for the emancipation of England from the thraldom of Papal Rome, and the preservation of her Protestant charter, and taking courage from the survey of their experience, and the glowing records of the triumphs, be dauntless and unwavering in our opposition to the same haughty power.

ART. III.-The Revival of Diocesan Synods: a Charge, delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Rochester, in April, 1838. By WALTER KING, M.A., Archdeacon of Rochester. Printed at the Request of the Clergy. 8vo. London: Rivingtons. 1838.

AMONG the numerous subjects connected with the Church, to which the notice of the public has been directed for some years past, there is one, which we consider to possess peculiar importance, and which has nevertheless attracted a far inferior degree of attention to that which it merits. The subject to which we allude is the convocation of the clergy. It is true, the clergy, during the last few years, have begun, in a few instances, to turn their attention towards this matter. In some dioceses, petitions have been addressed to the crown by the clerical body; and some of the archdeacons, in their charges, have spoken at greater or lesser length upon this point, If we are not misinformed, the clergy of the archdeaconry of Dorset have petitioned her Majesty upon the subject of the convocation, and the Archdeacon of Dorset (whose excellent charge, delivered in 1837, we had the pleasure of reviewing in a former number) has treated of the provincial synods of the clergy in his charge delivered during the past summer, but which has not yet been published. The venerable author of the pamphlet before us has also discussed the subject of diocesan synods. But we are not aware that any person has treated at length, and in a detailed manner, of the origin, nature, and successive history of the different public assemblies of the clergy.

It is, therefore, our intention, in the present Article, to present our readers with some account of the different assemblies of the clergy in this country from an early period.

Assemblies of the clergy appear to have been held very frequently from the beginning of Christianity: and under heathen emperors, as we are informed by Eusebius, Cyprian, and Tertullian. The necessity for such assemblies, even in the earliest periods of the Church, is self-evident. During the lifetime of the Apostles, when the Church was governed by holy men, who spake under the immediate inspiration of God, we find questions of discipline arising among the disciples of Christianity, which required for their decision the assembling of themselves together. How much more frequently then, would such questions occur at an after period, when the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit had departed? The earliest assemblies of the clergy were composed of the bishops and presbyters who were seated, and of the deacons and people who stood before them, and who were little more than witnesses of what passed in the synod. The presbyters, indeed, in every city, formed a necessary standing council to their respective bishop, and together with the bishop, formed a diocesan synod, in which they met to give their advice and consent upon all important matters. This was the practice of the primitive Church, and the same custom was preserved in England after it had declined elsewhere. Some remains of this ancient ecclesiastical discipline are still observable in the capitular bodies attached to our Cathedral Churches, which were originally intended to act as a select body of priests for the assistance of the bishop in the management of the affairs of his diocese. The assembly next in degree to the diocesan synod, was the provincial assembly or council of the province, which comprehended within its limits several dioceses. These assemblies were originally held as often as twice in each year, but afterwards, from various reasons, they were held only once, during the same period. The persons of whom these assemblies were composed, appear to have varied at different times. By an account given of one of them held in this country in the year 1129, it would seem, that the following persons were summoned to it, viz: bishops, abbots, archdeacons, all the priors, monks, and canons who were in the religious houses in England, and finally all who had the care of religion committed to them, by which last description it is understood, that the parochial clergy were designated, the words in the Latin translation of the chronicle are," omnes denique quorum Curæ Religio erat commissa.” At a later period, when synods were more frequently held, and the expense and trouble of attendance had become burthensome to the clergy, it was often the custom for the dean or prior of the chapter or convent, to bring up instruments of proxy to the synod, which empowered him to act for his chapter or con

vent, and for the archdeacons also in the same manner to represent the diocesan clergy. But in the Council of Reading, which took place in the seventh year of the reign of Edward I., it was ordered, that the clergy of each diocese should appear by two proctors chosen from their own body, which has been the practice ever since. The inferior clergy, who were members of these assemblies, possessed an equal power with all the other members of deliberating upon and assenting to those matters which were brought before them, which appears not only from the words of the constitution of the Council of Reading, to which we have referred, and which run thus:

"Item præcipimus, ut veniant duo Electi ad minds a Clero Episcopatnum singulorum, qui auctoritatem habeant una nobiscum tractare de his quæ Ecclesiæ communi utilitati expediunt Anglicanæ."

but also from the ancient forms of the archbishop's summonitory letters, which ran, "ad tractandum una nobiscum."

The constitutions passed in those synods always ran in the name, and were stated to be passed with the consent and approbation of, the inferior clergy, even when they were only represented by the archdeacons to whom they had given procuratorial instruments. Thus in the Council of Merton, 42. H. 3. the constitutions which were there made, are stated to have passed, "de unanimi assensu et consilio Prælatorum Religiosorum, et totius Cleri Ecclesiæ;" and towards the end, the same form is repeated in a still more clear and detailed manner: "Archiepiscopi et episcopi de consensu et approbatione inferiorum prælatorum, capitulorum, cathedralium, et conventualium, nec non universitatis totius cleri Angliæ hæc prædicta communiter et concorditer providerunt.”

This privilege appears to have been possessed by the inferior clergy, not only at a later period, but even in the Saxon times, for we find that simple presbyters frequently subscribed their names to the constitutions passed by councils, and often in great numbers. At the Synod of Cloveshoe, held in 803, we find, besides twenty-six abbotts who were present, that nearly forty simple presbyters attended, who were ranked under the several bishops from whose dioceses they came, and also a few of the clergy of a lower order. In the preface to the Canons passed in an earlier synod, held at the same place in the year 747, we meet with these words:

"Sacri ordinis prosules, cum plurimis sacerdotibus domini, et minoribus quoque ecclesiastici gradûs dignitatibus, ad locum synodalem, cum venerabili Archiepiscopo Cudberto convenerunt, et de unitate ecclesiæ, et concordia pacis troetanda, confirmanda-que pariter consederunt."

Archbishop Chicheley also, in his letters mandatory to the

Bishop of London, expressly recognizes this privilege by the language which he employs, and makes it very evident that it was of long established usage; in one place his words are, "De fratrum nostrorum et cleri in eadem convocationê præsentium voluntatibus consilio, et assensu." In another, " De nostrorum fratrum ac cleri Provinciæ consilio et assensu." In another, "De venerabilium confratrum nostrorum aliorum que prælatorum, et cleri provinciæ consensu puriter et assensu." To shew how firmly established was the right of the inferior clergy, not only to deliberate, but also to decide in synods, we find it laid down in a paper drawn up in the reign of Henry VIII. and signed by four bishops: "In all the ancient councils of the Church, in matters of faith and interpretation of Scripture, no man made definitive subscription, but bishops and priests; forasmuch as the declaration of the Word of God pertaineth unto them." But although the consent of the inferior clergy, together with that of the higher, was necessary, in order for any measure to pass through the provincial synod, yet the archbishop was said to decree and ordain, and the provincial constitutions were published on the last day of the synod by the archbishop. It was not necessary to obtain permission from the sovereign, or, whilst the domination of Rome endured in this country, from the Bishop of Rome, for the purpose of holding one of these assemblies, nor does the authority of either the one or the other appear to have been requisite previously to the time of Henry VIII., in order to make canons. It was only necessary for the clergy to take care not to exceed their proper limits, either in the matter or manner of their decrees, and that they should make such constitutions only as would not be revoked or annulled by the sovereign. The metropolitans were obliged, by the canons, to call these synods together once in each year. But there was no more necessity for them to ask leave to summon these assemblies, than there is in the present day for a bishop to do so previously to his citation of the clergy of his diocese, and the officers of the church to a visitation. The archbishop, it is true, sometimes convened these assemblies together at the instance of the sovereign, which was signified to him by a royal writ, but even in that case, so clearly recognized was his right to summon his clergy, that he called them together by his own authority. And whether the assembly was convened at the instance of the sovereign or not, it appears that the archbishop always dissolved it.

A very remarkable instance of the power of dissolving these assemblies, possessed by the archbishop, occurred in the last convocation, in the reign of Henry IV., which, although called

at the instance of the sovereign, signified to the archbishop by a royal writ, was so much considered to be held under the authority of the archbishop, that it is recorded to have continued its sittings for nearly two months under the king's successor, Henry V. without a dissolution.

Until the time of Archbishop Chicheley, convocations were frequently held, even whilst the Parliament was sitting, without any other writ from the king but what was contained in the bishop's summons, with the clause Præmunientes inserted. After the eighth year of Henry VI. the clergy, if they met by the king's letter, enjoyed the benefit of the Act of Parliament of that year, and, therefore, it is to be supposed usually desired it in order to gain the parliamentary protection.

When these assemblies met, writs were often sent to them by the king, forbidding them to attempt any thing against his crown and dignity, and these prohibitions are considered to have been tacit permissions of such assemblies on the part of the sovereign. It certainly appears that the right of the clergy to assemble in these synods was fully recognised on the part of the crown, for otherwise the sovereign would most probably have forbidden them to meet and sit at all, instead of only forbidding them to attempt any thing against his crown and dignity. But this appears very seldom to have been done.

The king had also his proctors or commissioners occasionally in these assemblies, who proposed, protested, and appealed in his behalf, but they were always persons in holy orders. Lay persons, indeed, frequently carried the royal commands to these assemblies, but the only individuals who at any time remained to act for the sovereign were clergymen. It is a remarkable circumstance, that amongst the different grievances which were brought forward, we never find any mention made of a want of convocations. The clergy, on the contrary, sometimes complained of being called together too frequently, and of being kept sitting for too long a time, and, therefore, requested a dismissal, and we also find the archbishop frequently excusing himself on this head in his letter of summons.

We have hitherto considered the assemblies of the clergy as provincial synods, held under the authority of the law ecclesiastical. But there is another point of view under which they may be considered, which is, as attendant upon the Parliament of England.

It appears that during the Saxon times, the clergy, both the bishops and parochial clergy, attended at, and formed a component part of, the general assembly of the nation. The Norman conquest made no change in this respect, for William the

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »