PROVINCIAL SYNODS. HI ■ BY CHARLES H. TODD, ESQ., LI, D„ BA KRISTER- AT-LAW ; VICAR-GENERAL OF THE DIOCESES OF DERRY AND RAPHOE. UNIVERSITY OF ILLEIOIS LIBRARY AT UREANA-CMAMPAiGN &OOKSTACKB DUBLIN : HODGES, SMITH, AND CO., 104, GRAFTON- STREET, PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. CONVOCATION AND PROVINCIAL SYNODS. BY CHAELES H. TODD, ESQ., LL.D., BARRISTER-AT-LAW; VICAR-GENERAL OF THE DIOCESES OF DERRY AND RAPHOE. DUBLIN : HODGES, SMITH, AND CO., 104, GEAFTON STEEET, PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. 1864 . DUBLIN: iprtntcU at tfje Sntbcrsltp ^ress, BY M. H. GILL. 262,7 Ts-Cffe- CONVOCATION AND PROVINCIAL SYNODS. Synodical action has been for some years past granted to the Convocations of Canterbury and York, while a similar privilege has not been granted to the Irish Convocation, although by the “ Act of Union” the English and the Irish Churches are united into one. When the Convocation of Can- terbury proposed to alter the 29th English Canon, corresponding to the 16th Irish Canon, the Bishops of the Irish Church, thinking they ought to have a voice in any changes to be introduced into the Canons, Constitution, Formularies, or Liturgy of the United Church, addressed, in the month of July, 1861, a memorial to Her Majesty, praying, “that all matters involving any alterations in the doctrine, worship, discipline, or government of the Church, should be referred to a general Synod of the United Church of England and Ireland.” To this memorial a 2 4 CONVOCATION AND an answer was received, u that it was not advisable to convene such a Synod; and without entering into the question whether any circumstances might here- after arise to render such a Synod necessary or ex- pedient, it did not appear to the Government that such circumstances did then exist.” This answer not being deemed satisfactory, a memorial signed by all the Bishops of Ireland was forwarded to Her Majesty in the month of November, 1862, by the present Primate, praying that Her Majesty would be pleased to convene the Irish Convocation. The Government have declined to comply with the prayer of this memo- rial. The Primate had previously taken the opinion of A. J. Stephens, Esq., LL. D., of the English Bar, as to his power to convene a Provincial Synod of the pro- vince of Armagh without the sanction of the Crown, and as to the general nature of the business which could be transacted in a Synod so convened. Dr. Ste- phens’ opinion has been published, and is in favour of the Primate’s power to convene such a Synod. These facts sufficiently indicate the strong feeling which prevails on this subject, and have induced me re- spectfully to offer to the consideration of those who are promoting this movement some observations upon the nature and powers of these assemblies, and the expediency of calling them into action. There is no reason to doubt that, in the earliest ages of our constitution, the Clergy formed a part of the great national council along with the other mag - PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 5 nates of the country. In progress of time, when they claimed for themselves to be independent of the civil power, to be governed by their own laws, to hold their property discharged of all state burdens, they voluntarily absented themselves from these assem- blies, and considered it rather an encroachment on their privileges to be summoned to attend them. Any aids they gave to support the national burdens were regarded in the nature of benevolences, for which they demanded, and often obtained, additional rights and privileges. The English Convocations, as they at present exist, owe their creation to King Ed- ward I., who, designing to put the taxation of the Clergy on a more sure footing, introduced into the writs by which the Bishops were summoned to Par- liament the “ prsemunientes” clause, directing them to summon their Clergy, in the manner in the writ specified, to come along with them to Parliament ; but the Clergy objecting to be summoned by mere temporal authority, the King, to remove all objec- tion, directed a summons' to the Archbishop of each province, in addition to the prcemunientes clause, di- recting them to convene all the Bishops and Clergy of their respective provinces ; by virtue of which provincial writs they assembled in two separate and distinct ecclesiastical Synods, under the presidency of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in which they voted subsidies to the King, and made canons and constitutions for the Church. The prce- 6 CONVOCATION AND munientes clause, although retained in the writs to the Bishops, hereupon ceased to be executed. These assemblies, thus convened, constituted the Convoca- tions of Canterbury and York, and differed in some essentials from the Provincial Synods known to the ecclesiastical law. When they were assembled, the Archbishop stated the subjects to be brought before them, and the inferior clergy were dismissed to con- sider these subjects in some place apart by them- selves. Hence they became divided into two distinct Houses — the one consisting of the Bishops, the other of the inferior Clergy, — called the Upper and Lower Houses ; and in their debates and mode of transact- ing business they imitated as much as possible the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament, — the Lower House eventually claiming to be independent of the Upper, and asserting an inherent right, when once summoned, of meeting and adjourning, and debating any question, irrespective of the power or authority of the Archbishop. Although these Convocations met at the same time as the Parliament, they did not form a part of it; and even the tax imposed by them upon the Clergy always required the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. It is said that these Convocations sometimes met in obe- dience to the Archbishops’ summons without the King’s writ. However, by the “ Act of Submission” of the Clergy, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, reciting that the Clergy had “ acknowledged, according to the truth, that PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 7 the Convocation of the Clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be assembled only by the King’s writ,” it is enacted, “ That they, nor any of them, shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or putin ure any constitutions or ordinances provincial, by what- soever name or names they may be called, in their Convocations in time coming ( which always shall he assembled by the Kings writ), unless the same Clergy may have the King’s most royal assent and license to make, promulge, and execute such canons, con- stitutions, and ordinances, 'provincial or synodal .” Since this time no Convocation, and, it would seem, no Synod, diocesan or provincial, can in England make Canons or Constitutions without the King’s license first had and obtained. Lord Coke says, that this restriction upon the making of Canons existed before the statute, and the statute itself expressly recites that it did. When the Clergy began to be taxed by Act of Parliament along with the laity, Convocation gradually declined, and although it was always convened, and met pro forma , it transacted no business of any importance. In Ireland, the Pale depending on the King, the Clergy seem to have complied with the model of Edward I. in sending Proctors to Parliament ; and the Archbishops, Bishops, and mitred Abbots, sat in the Upper House, and the Proctors of the Clergy in the Lower House of Parliament.* It seems that the * Gilbert, Exch., p. 56. B CONVOCATION AND Parliament, so constituted, made laws regarding ecclesiastical matters; for, by 36 Hen. VI., c. l,Ir., it was enacted that beneficed persons should forfeit their benefices, if they were absent without leave. The Prcemunientes writ in Ireland summoned only the Proctors of the Clergy, and not the Deans, Arch- deacons, and Proctors of the Chapters, as in England, as appears by an ancient writ in Richard II.’s time, wherein the Proctors only were summoned; and it is the only writ extant before Henry VIII. on which the Clergy were summoned, so that the Parliamen- tary establishment in relation to the Clergy differed from that which was established in England.* By the 28 Hen. VIII., c. 12, Ir., the Proctors of the Clergy were excluded from any seat in the Lower House of Parliament. The Statute regards their voting in Parliament as an usurpation. It recites : “Forasmuch as at every Parliament begun and holden within this land two Proctors of every dio- cese within the same land have been used and accus- tomed to be summoned and warned to be at the same Parliament, which were never by the order of the land, usage, custom, or otherwise, members or parcel of the whole body of the Parliament, nor have had of right any voice or suffrage in the same, but only be there as counsellors and assistants to the same, and upon such things of learning as should happen in controversy to declare their opinions, * Gilbert, Exch., p. 57. PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 9 much like as the Convocation within the realm of England is commonly at every Parliament begun and holden by the King’s Highness’ special license.” It then enacts that they shall not be considered mem- bers of the Parliament, nor have any voice, &c. It is manifest from the reference to the English Con- vocation in this statute, that there was at that time no Convocation in Ireland ; nor is there any trace of a Convocation in Ireland to be found until the year 1615, in the reign of James I., at which Con- vocation Articles of Religion were framed. These Articles were, however, signed by Lord Deputy Chi- chester, by order of King James, as well as by the Primate, and by the Prolocutor of the Lower House. The Convocation of 1634 was convened by the King’s writ. At it the English Articles of Re- ligion were adopted, through the exertions of Lord Strafford ; and the Canons which at present govern the Irish Church were enacted : they were, however, also signed by the King, and affirmed by proclama- tion. This was the first time the Clergy in Ireland taxed themselves — at this Convocation they granted eight subsidies to the Crown. Convocations* were also assembled in 1639 and 1661, immediately after the Restoration ; and continued to meet until 1666, from which time until 1703 no Convocation met in Ireland. On the convening of the Convocation, in compliance with the petition of the Bishops and Clergy, in this last year, the Bishops were consulted 10 CONVOCATION AND as to the mode of summoning it, and as to its powers ; and in answer to the latter, they expressly say that it had power to “ make ordinances and decrees, having the force of ecclesiastical canons and constitutions, and to publish and promulgate the same, having first had and obtained the royal consent .” At the Convoca- tion in 1705 nothing was done ; in 1709 there was but little done — no canons were made. The last Convo- cation that met in Ireland was in 1711 ; at this Con- vocation five canons were passed, regulating the pro- ceedings in the ecclesiastical courts. They were re- turned to the Duke of Ormonde, to lay before Her Majesty, Queen Anne, for confirmation, and received the Queen’s approbation. At this Convocation cer- tain forms of prayers were agreed on — one “ for the visitation of prisoners,” one u for prisoners, under sentence of death,” and a third “ for imprisoned debtors ;” these received the approbation of the Lord Lieutenant and Council in 1714. This was the last time Convocation was convened in Ireland, although the Parliament continued up to the Act of Union, nearly a century after ; so that even the formal as- sembling of the Irish Convocation has been discon- tinued for a period of a century and a half. The Convocation in Ireland was summoned by the Prcemunientes writ to the Bishops, which was in the same words as in England, and differed from the old Prcemunientes writ by which the proctors of the Clergy had been summoned to Parliament. PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 11 As the Proctors came to Parliament from all parts of the kingdom, so they assembled in Convocation at one Synod, where the Parliament was held, and did not form four synodical meetings in the four distinct provinces, as they did in the two dis- tinct provinces in England ; and therefore they make one national Synod under the Primate, and there they, by the King s leave, make canons, which bind the whole Clergy through all the four provinces.* In the answer of the Lower House of Convocation in Ireland to the Lower House in England, a. d. 1705, the mode of convening the Convocation is thus described: — “The Members of the Lower House of this present Convocation in Ireland were summoned, elected, and returned by virtue of the prcemunientes clause in the Bishops’ Parliamentary writs, which clause was executed by all the Bishops throughout the kingdom ; but the Clergy deferred the electing of a Prolocutor, and the proceeding to business, till the reception of the pro- vincial writs by the several Archbishops.”*)* This ap- pears to be an unmeaning imitation of the Convo- cation in England ; for by the mandates of the Archbishops they would be convened to four sepa- rate Provincial Synods, which they certainly were not. By the Prcemunientes clause they were sum- moned to one place and one convention, deriving its * Gilbert, Exch., p. 59. f Wilk., Cone., iv. 632. 12 CONVOCATION AND authority from the King’s writ, though executed by the Bishops. An Archbishop has no jurisdiction out of his own province, and therefore could not summon his Clergy to meet him in the province of another Archbishop, so that the Lower House insisting upon the Archbishops’ provincial writs before transacting business would appear to be an unmeaning form. Their plea was, that by the King’s writ they were constituted a civil assembly ; but they required the Archbishops’ to make them an ecclesiastical synod. From the character, therefore, of the Irish Con- vocation, being always convened by the King’s writ, it would appear that, although the Act of Submis- sion of the Clergy, 25 Hen. VIII., c. 19, did not ex- tend to Ireland, yet that the Convocation in Ireland was completely under the control of the Crown, was convened by royal writs directed to the Bishops, and could make no canons or constitutions without the sanction or license of the Crown. And the fact is, that no Convocation ever did assemble in Ireland without the King’s writ, and no canons or constitu- tions were ever made and promulgated by it with- out the sanction of the Crown. That the Irish Con- vocation cannot now meet without a writ from the Crown, appears unquestionable ; and if its powers are to be judged by the acts of previous Convocations in Ireland, it would also be clear that it cannot make canons or constitutions for the Church without the royal license, or at least that such canons would PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 13 have no legal obligation even on the Clergy, and could not be enforced by an ecclesiastical court until they had received the royal assent — they would not bind the laity until they received the sanction of Par- liament. Not only is the power of Convocation to make canons, thus limited, but it is very doubt- ful, to say the least, whether the Upper House, as such, has any jurisdiction or power to try or con- demn a clergyman for the publication or preaching of heretical opinions. In the celebrated case of Mr. Whiston, in the reign of Queen Anne, the Queen, on the petition of the Upper House, took the opi- nions of the Judges on this question. They were divided in opinion ; and, although the majority were of opinion that such a power did belong to the Upper House, they reserved to themselves the power to de- cide otherwise, if the question were brought before them b y prohibition. There can be little doubt that the opinion of the minority of the Judges would be adopted by our Law Courts at the present day, founded as it was upon the absence of any precedent for convening and censuring offenders in Convoca- tion since the Reformation, on the statute, 23 Hen. VIII., against citing any person out of the diocese to which he belonged, and the Act, 24 and 25 Hen. VIII., against Appeals. They thought that, since these statutes, the proper tribunals for such trials were the Ecclesiastical Courts, from which appeals lay to the Crown. They were, however, of opinion, 14 CONVOCATION AND that heretical opinions might be examined and condemned in Convocation, without convening the authors or maintainers of them. These opinions were given with reference to the powers and jurisdiction of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, which was in truth a provincial Synod, in the case of a clergyman of that province. But the Convocation in Ireland was not in any sense a Provincial Synod, and consequently had none of the ordinary powers of such Synods, which powers did belong to the Upper Houses of the Convocations of Canterbury and York. I shall now shortly advert to the nature and powers of Provincial Synods. In the early ages of the Church the Archbishops and Bishops, whenever the affairs of their provinces or dioceses seemed to them to require it, could convene a council of the Clergy subject to their jurisdiction, which councils are usually termed Synods. A Diocesan Synod was convened by the Bishop, and consisted of the Clergy of his diocese. In these the Bishop inquired into abuses and irregularities, and made canons for en- forcing ecclesiastical discipline, and reforming the manners of the Clergy in his own diocese ; as was done by Bishop Bedell in 1638, who convened his Clergy to a Diocesan Synod at Kilmore, at which certain canons were made for the regulation of his diocese, which are to be found in Wilk., Cone., iv. 537. At these Synods, also, the canons, constitu- PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 15 tions, and decrees of the Provincial Synod were published by the Bishops to their Clergy, to be by them observed. The Provincial Synod was summoned by the Arch- bishop, and consisted only of his sutfragan Bishops. The inferior Clergy, and even laymen, were some- times present at such Synods, and might by cus- tom have a right to be present, but the Bishops alone had “ suffragium decisivum any others who by custom ought to be present had only “ suffra- gium consultivum The Upper Houses of Convoca- tion in Canterbury and York, when the inferior Clergy retired to deliberate apart by themselves, constituted, in fact, strict provincial Synods. These Synods, both Provincial and Diocesan, were anciently judicial tribunals, in which, without forensic forms, “ sine strepitu judicii” causes of the Clergy and Laity were summarily decided ; but these causes are all now heard either in the ecclesiastical tribunals, be- fore the Bishop’s officials, or in the lay tribunals of the country, according to the nature of the subject matter in dispute. Synods have thus lost their judi- cial character, and would seem to have at the pre- sent day no more power or duties than an ordinary visitation of the Archbishop or Bishop. They can only enforce what is already the discipline and law of the Church. At them inquiry may be made into * Yan Esp., Part i., tit. xx., c. 1. 16 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. the conduct of the Clergy, and the manner in which they discharge their ministerial duties, as also into the state of the fabric of the churches and glebe houses. It would appear from the celebrated case of the Dean of York, reported in Burn, Eccl. Law, iv. 13 (Phillim. Ed.), that a Bishop cannot at his visita- tion proceed to pronounce sentence on a clergyman. In this case (although it very much turned upon the effect of the statute 3 and 4 Yict., c. 86, which does not extend to Ireland), Lord Denman was of opinion, that independently of the statute no such power existed. The proper course seems to be — that the Archbishop or Bishop should not proceed against the offender cursu visitationis , but upon his return cite him to answer articles in his Ecclesiastical Court. The duties of Synods, as judicial tribunals, being now for some centuries transferred to the Ecclesiastical and Civil tribunals,* it may be con- cluded that at the present day no Synod, provin- cial or diocesan, could be permitted to deprive or degrade a Clergyman or Bishop, although Dr. Ste- phens seems to entertain a different opinion. Since the Act of Submission of the Clergy does not extend to Ireland, Dr. Stephens is of opinion that the Arch- bishops of Ireland can convene Provincial Synods without any authority from the Crown, although he gives to such Synods, when convened, very limited * Van. Esp., Part i. ; tit. xvii. ; c. 4. PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 17 powers indeed. He admits that no canon made by a Synod so convened, even if sanctioned by the Crown, would be valid, if it were contrarian t to or inconsistent with the prerogative of the Crown, the common law, the statute law, any custom of the realm, any civil rights of the subject, or the ca- nons of 1634 and 1711. It might well be asked, what power then have these Synods ? I shall presently notice the powers Dr. Stephens allows them. At a very early period of the Church — so early as the eighth century — these Synods began to fall into disuse, their judicial power being rendered al- most nugatory, by appeals to Rome being permitted from their decisions.* In subsequent times, the re- gular Clergy claiming to be exempt from the juris- diction of the Bishops, and therefore not bound by the decrees of the Provincial Synods, the Bishops had recourse to the See of Rome to procure from it confirmation of their decrees, and thus secure obe- dience to them from the regular Clergy. This cus- tom prevailed for a long period ; but after the publi- cation of the spurious decretals, and especially of the Decretum of Gratian, an opinion prevailed, that no Synod could be convened, nor its decrees be valid, unless it had the assent of the Pope.f And it is an undoubted fact, that scarcely any Synod was held * Van Esp., tit. xx., c. 2. f Ibid., Part i., tit. xx., c. 5. B 18 CONVOCATION AND after the twelfth century at which a legate from the Roman See did not preside. Yan Espen, Part i., tit. xx., cap. 6, states that Synods were frequently convened by the order of kings and princes, and that an examination of the records of Sy nods proves that they were scarcely ever convened without the royal license ; that in Italy it was prohibited to convene a Provincial Synod without the leave of the Sacred College ; and in the provinces of Belgium the citations convening a Synod always state that the authority or license of the king had been ob- tained. And after giving some instances of Synods so held, he adds that the summoning or convening of Provincial Synods always rested with the metro- politans ; nevertheless they never were used to as- semble without the consent of the prince in whose territory they were convened was first obtained, as well because it is the interest of the prince to know what assemblies — especially so illustrious and nu- merous as Synods — meet in his dominions, as be- cause the authority of the metropolitan would not of itself be ordinarily sufficient to compel the at- tendance of all who ought to attend, unless it was aided by the authority of the prince. He also states that kings and princes, and their ministers, were frequently present at such Synods, not taking part in them as judges along with the Bishops, but to suggest and propose to the Bishops subjects for their consideration and determination. An ex- PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 19 animation of the records of our own Synods to be found in Wilkins’ “Concilia,” and Ware’s “Irish Bishops,” will lead to the same conclusion ; they are almost all held by a legate from Borne, or by autho- rity from the Crown. I shall instance a few in Ire- land. In 1097 a council was held, by Murtagh O’Brien, King of Ireland, of the Bishops, Nobles, Clergy, and people, in which they apply to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, to erect Waterford into a bishopric. This, perhaps, was more properly a meeting of the national council of the State. In 1112a Synod was held in Westmeath, at which were present “ Cellachus Comorbanus Patricii, et Maelmurrius O’Dunan, Archisenior HiberniEe, una cum 50 Episcopis, 300 presbyteris, et 3000 ordinis Ecclesiastici, ad regulas vita* et morurn clero et populo praescribendas. Eidem porro Synodo in- terfuisse dicitur Moriertachus O’Brien, rex Hiber- niae,”&c. 1152. A Synod was held at Kells, at which Car- dinal Paparo, Legate a latere, and Christianus, Bishop of Lismore, and totius Hibernise legatus, presided. 1157. A Synod was held at Mellifont, at which Christianus, Bishop of Lismore, and Legate of all Ireland, presided. Gelasius, Archbishop of Armagh, and seventeen Bishops, were present. b 2 20 CONVOCATION AND 1159. A Synod was held at Brigh-Thaigh,* in Meath, presided over by the same Bishop, at which Gelasius and twenty-five Bishops were present ; at this Synod the episcopal see of Derry was esta- blished. The Council at Cashel, in 1172, was presided over by Christianus, Bishop of Lismore, and Legate of the Apostolic See ; Donatus, Archbishop of Cashel ; Laurence O’Toole, Archbishop of Dublin ; Catholi- cus, the Archbishop of Tuam; and Commissioners sent by Henry II. from England were present. This Synod was convened by the King’s orders, and the canons made in it were confirmed by the King.f Gelasius, Archbishop of Armagh, was unable to at- tend from age and infirmity. 1176. A council was held at Dublin by Vivianus, the Pope’s legate. It was convened by the authority of the Pope and the King. 1186. A Synod was held in Dublin by Archbishop Comyn. The canons were confirmed by Pope Ur- ban III. 1192. A Synod was held in Dublin by Matthew O’Heney, Archbishop of Cashel, the Pope’s le- gate. * Bri-mic-Taidhg, i. e., The Hill of the Son of Tahdg. This was the name of a place near Trim. — O’Donovan, “ Annals,” vol.iv., 1129. f Ware’s Bishops, vol. ii., p. 313 ; Wilk. Cone., i., 473. PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 21 1217. A Synod was convened at Dublin by Henry de Londres, Archbishop of Dublin, as Pope’s le- gate. 1261. A Synod was held at Drogheda by Patrick O’Scanlan, Archbishop of Armagh. At it were present “ Justitiarius et quidam Magnates Hiber- nia?/’ 1523. A Synod was held at Galway. Thomas O’Mullaly, Archbishop of Tuam, presided. There were present Bishops from the provinces of Armagh and Cashel. Although it is not stated by what power he convened it, he must have acted in some other capacity than Archbishop of Tuam, inasmuch as the Bishops of the provinces of Armagh and Cashel were not his suffragans. No doubt there are several instances of Synods being held by Bishops and Archbishops in Ireland apparently without any authority but their own. But the instances above cited are sufficient to show that it was not unusual to have the authority either of the Pope or of the King. It would appear, then, that the declaration of the Clergy of England prefixed to the Act of Sub- mission, by which they “acknowledged, according to the truth, that the Convocation of the same Clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be assembled only by the King’s writ and their promise “ never from henceforth to presume to attempt, allege, claim or put in ure, enact, promulge or execute any new canons, 22 CONVOCATION ANI) constitutions, ordinances provincial, or other,” unless with the King’s assent, was no new dogma, springing from the principles of the Deformation, but was in fact the recognised doctrine and practice of the Church for some time before. The Archbishop of Dublin issues his mandate, sum- moning his suffragan Bishops, and the Proctors of his Clergy, &c., to a Provincial Synod every third year, immediately before he commences his trien- nial visitation, and this Synod meets accordingly. This would go very far to support Dr. Stephens’ opinion, that the Archbishops in Ireland can convene such Synods without any authority from the Crown. The origin of this custom I cannot discover. The first record of it is in 1705, in the time of Archbishop King. The mandate is pecu- liar in its form ; it recites the intention of the Arch- bishop to hold his triennial visitation, and it then proceeds to summon the Bishops and the Proctors of the Clergy very much in the form of the Con- vocation writ. I am disposed to think that this mandate originated with Archbishop King. The ordinary annual visitation of the Archbishop of Dublin of his own diocese for the year 1639, and many years after, was in the Acts styled “ Synodus ac Yisitatio Ordinaria and it would appear that all the Clergy met in St. Patrick’s Cathedral at a Diocesan Synod first, and afterwards the Arch- bishop visited the Cathedrals of Christ Church and PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 23 St. Patrick, and then held visitations in several churches of his diocese for particular districts ; thus, in St. Audoen’s, for the city of Dublin ; in Swords, in Wicklow, &c. In the books for 1704, and some following years, the heading is “ Synodus seu Visitatio Ordinaria.” The triennial visitation seems to have been held in the same way. There was first a Provincial Council in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then a sub- sequent visitation of the Provinces.* The conven- ing of the Provincial Synod seems to be merely introductory to commencing the triennial visitation ; and it is certain that nothing was ever done at such Synods except to appoint the days upon which the Archbishop would hold his visitation of each dio- cese. By the Act of Union it is enacted, “ That the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called 4 The United Church of Eng- land and Ireland and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the United Church shall be and shall remain in full force for ever as the same are now by law established for the Church of England.” It has been doubted whether by this Act the * In the early books the Triennial Visitation is styled “ Syno- dus seu Concilium Provinciate. ” 24 CONVOCATION AND English canons were not made the canons for the United Church. There is not, however, any founda- tion for this doubt, inasmuch as the Act only makes the discipline and government of the United Church the same as they were then by law established for the Church of England ; but it does not impose upon Ireland all the laws or canons in England for enforc- ing that discipline and government. But any re- straint imposed upon the convening of Convocations or Synods, or upon their powers when convened, by the Act of Submission of the Clergy, was a very important part of the discipline of the Church of England at the time of the Union ; it was, in fact, an acknowledgment of a prerogative in the Crown, as clothed with the supreme ecclesiastical authority, and consequently it would appear to be now the discipline of the United Church, and therefore equally applies to those assemblies in Ireland. It would appear, therefore, that the Archbishops of Ireland cannot now convene Provincial Synods, at least for the purpose of enacting canons or con- stitutions, without license from the Crown. Indeed, Dr. Stephens does not give to Synods convened with- out such license that power. The powers he allows to a Provincial Synod are : — 1. To address the Queen upon any ecclesiastical subject ; 2. To discuss any question, and pass re- solutions directly or indirectly relating to the spi- ritual and temporal interests of the United Church PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 25 of England and Ireland, the Church in Ireland, or the Church within the province of Armagh, such as the state of the laws affecting the discipline of the Church, the propriety of assimilating the Irish canons to those of England, and the building and dilapidations of glebe houses, &c. ; 3, to enact ex mero motu by-laws regulating their own proceedings, and remodelling or setting aside the whole or any part of the old forms or mode of procedure ; and, 4, to lay down regulations, or revise existing regulations, with a view to uniformity of practice throughout the province in conducting ecclesiastical business ; in reference to the practice of the ecclesiastical registries ; the books in which candidates for holy orders should be examined ; the articles of inquiry to be issued to the rural deans preparatory to pro- vincial and diocesan visitations ; the equitable mode of apportioning between the parties the costs of com- missions of dilapidations, under 14 and 15 Viet., c. 73, s. 27, and other matters of a similar character. Dr. Stephens then adds : — “The Archbishop of Armagh, for just cause, can, in his Provincial Synod, deprive and degrade a Suffragan Bishop.” It has been al- ready shown that no such power now exists in a provincial Synod. The equitable adjustment of the costs of commis- sions of dilapidations is now, by the Act of Parlia- ment, intrusted to the Bishop or his Vicar-General, who decides, after an investigation of the merits of 26 CONVOCATION AND each case, — any fixed rule on such a subject would be oftener inequitable than equitable. The prac- tice of the Ecclesiastical Registries is also under the control of the Bishop or his Vicar-General. Nei- ther of these matters is within the province of a provincial Synod ; so that it would appear that the general nature of the business of a provincial Synod at the present day, according to Dr. Stephens, is resolved into merely petitioning the Queen, and dis- cussing questions affecting the spiritual and tem- poral interests of the Church, — powers which can be exercised by the Bishops and Clergy without the formalities of either a Synod or Convocation. Is it seriously intended, after a disuse of upwards of 300 years, to convene a Provincial Synod, or to summon a Convocation, after a lapse of nearly a century and a half, for such purposes as these? Was it to obtain the right to address the Queen, or the liberty of free discussion, or to fix the books in which candidates for holy orders should be exa- mined, or the articles of inquiry to be issued to rural deans, that all the Bishops of Ireland have memorialed the Queen to summon the Irish Con- vocation, or that the Archbishop of Armagh seeks to convene a Provincial Synod ? Moreover it may be asked, — How can the Primate compel the at- tendance of his Suffragan Bishops ? Is there to be a Provincial Synod also for the province of Dub- lin ? What if their discussions should tend to op- PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 27 posite directions — which is to prevail ? How are the resolutions of such Synods to be enforced ? What obligation have they ? Are these Synods to be mere meetings for discussion ? — A Provincial Synod was a judicial and correctional tribunal, not a place for debate and discussion, for preparing addresses to the Queen, or proposing amendments in the law of the Church. Its canons were made to enforce the law, not to make or alter it. The Bishops can now, if they wish, without any Synod, by a voluntary meeting among themselves, do all that it is here said they might do in Synod. These Provincial Synods have, for various reasons, fallen into disuse, not only in our Church, but, in all the Western Churches. As judicial tribunals, their places are better supplied by the ecclesiastical and civil courts of the country. The discipline and doctrine of the Church are already fully and clearly established, and they have no power to alter the one or the other : for the purposes of inquiry into abuses and enforc- ing the performance of clerical duties, they have been superseded by the visitations of the Arch- bishops and Bishops. The Irish Convocation has not met for nearly a century and a half. It ceased to act nearly a cen- tury before the abolition of the Irish Parliament. What is the necessity for reviving at the present day either of these assemblies ? Utterly destitute of all power or authority, tfiey would become mere 28 CONVOCATION AND assemblies for discussion and debate, the mischief of which would be much aggravated by the publicity which must at the present day be given to such de- bates by means of the public press. Is it desirable that the Bishops and Clergy of Ireland should an- nually meet to discuss what alterations should be made in the doctrine, discipline, or government of the Church ? Would not such assemblies and discus- sions foster and encourage a spirit of innovation and change, where all should be fixed and determined? The doctrine and discipline of the Church are at pre- sent sufficiently defined in her creeds, her articles, and her canons. Neither Convocation nor Synods can increase their obligation, or compel respect or obedience to them. — In the memorial of the Irish Bishops to the Queen they do not ask for a revival of Provincial Synods, but rather that the Irish Convocation should be assembled, or all matters involving any alteration in the doctrine, worship, discipline, or government of the Church should be referred to a general Synod of the United Church of England and Ireland. I am free to confess my- self one of those who do not desire any alteration in the doctrine, worship, discipline, or government of the Church. But if any such are desirable — if it would be better to abrogate some of the canons which have fallen into disuse, and to substitute others more suited to modern times and usages ; if there be any of the Thirty-nine Articles which PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 29 might be wisely dispensed with or improved in phraseology ; if it be desirable to define more accurately and explicitly what the Church has hitherto left at large ; if the Liturgy needs im- provement — it would undoubtedly be wiser to convene a Synod of the whole Church of Eng- land and Ireland to consider and treat of these matters once for all, and to suggest what alterations may be deemed desirable, — a Synod composed of all the Bishops of England and Ireland, and such other distinguished and learned divines as Her Majesty might select, and who should have Her Majesty’s commission for the purpose. The object of such a Synod would be finality , not change — to fix once for all what changes would be desirable. It cannot be concealed that there exist in the m Church two great parties, who at present subscribe her formularies and Articles, while they differ upon certain theological questions very widely, and yet adduce these Articles and formularies in support of their respective views. It cannot be denied, too, that their differences are upon questions of great importance — justification by faith, grace, the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, predestination, free will, are all questions of great, almost vital, impor- tance ; and yet it is upon these, and such like, that these two parties are divided. Is it desirable to alter the formularies or Articles of the Church so as to render it impossible for one or other of these 30 CONVOCATION AND great parties to subscribe them ? Would it be desirable to drive one or other of them out of communion with the Church ? Surely not. And yet one cannot but fear that any changes which would be introduced at the present day would have a tendency in that direction. What could be more injurious to the Church than to bring these two great bodies into annual collision in Convocation or Synods, in the authoritative assem- blies of the Church, convened to discuss the pro- priety of making alterations in her doctrine and discipline, exposing her formularies to change ac- cording to the temporary predominance of parti- cular opinions ? These objections apply equally to the Convoca- « tions of Canterbury and York. The Convocation of York has never been of much importance; the Con- vocation of Canterbury can in no sense be said to represent the Church of England, much less the United Church of England and Ireland. If the power of synodical action is to be continued to the Convocation of Canterbury, its constitution ought to be altered by enabling the provinces of York, Armagh, and Dublin to be represented in it. As at present constituted, it represents but a small por- tion of the Church, whose opinions obtain an undue weight from the publicity given by the press to its discussions. If the meeting of an authoritative eccle- siastical body is desirable for the purpose of discus- PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 31 sion, or of protecting the interests of the Church, it seems only reasonable that it should be so consti- tuted as to represent the whole, and not a small section of the Church. And there seems no reason why such an assembly should be constituted after the model either of Convocation or of Synods. THE END. ' f