and whither Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse, was ordered to bring with him at least two of the second throne,' i. e. at least two chosen presbyters. "At this point, then, we have chosen presbyters selected by their Bishops to sit in an English provincial Synod; and now, as was before remarked, the representative principle was gradually gaining ground in England. In accordance with it, Archbishop Robert Kilwarby appears to have come to the determination (and it may be reasonably supposed that this determination was agreeable to the general feelings of the Church) to make this alteration in his next mandate, viz., that the chosen presbyters from each diocese should no longer be selected at the discretion of the respective Bishops, but should be elected by the diocesan Clergy, according to that representative system which to this hour prevails in the English Church. For in the fourth year after the provincial Synod held at the New Temple, A.D. 1273, and to which the Bishops were to bring from each diocese, according to their own selection, chosen presbyters,' another Synod, of a like character, was ordered to meet in London, A.D. 1277. By the mandate issued for this latter provincial Synod, the next in succession to that before mentioned, the Clergy proctors were specially summoned. The representative principle was here clearly established, and the record which asserts it is as plain as words can well be. The objects of this meeting were for ecclesiastical purposes; and it was evidently a pure provincial Synod, for the writ recites that 'sundry business touching the usefulness and honour of the whole English Church had been proposed . . . . but still remained unfinished, and that certain fresh circumstances had arisen also, which threatened the overthrow of her rights, customs, and liberties, and were full of great danger to her.' To remedy such evils, this provincial Synod of London was called, and among the members are specially mentioned in the mandate the proctors of the Clergy, i. e. the chosen presbyters, selected on the representative principle. The Bishops were ordered to meet in London, together with some of the GREATER PERSONS OF THEIR CHAPTERS, the Archdeacons of the several archdeaconries, and THE PROCTORS OF ALL THE CLERGY OF EACH DIOCESE, in order to treat with the Archbishop more effectually on the aforesaid and on other business.' From this time, then, we may date the present constitution of the Convocations or Provincial Synods of England, settled on its existing basis by pure ecclesiastical authority. Those provincial Synods are in their united capacity the 'true Church of England by representation.' Long may they so continue as the authorized interpreters of her doctrine, and the bulwarks of her holy faith!"-Pp. 235-239. We think we shall hear no more of Convocation owing its origin to Edward I. "To assert that we derive the benefit of the constitution of the English Church, previously settled on its present foundation, from the subsequent policy and acts of King Edward I., is to take a like liberty with historical truth, as though one should ascribe Magna Charta to the Long Parliament, date the Bill of Rights from the accession of the Hanoverian dynasty, or refer the present constitution of the House of Commons to the next ensuing session of the imperial legislature. It requires an understanding more than commonly improved to comprehend how the acts of King Edward I. in 1282 and 1295 could have affected the constitution of the Church's Synods in 1273 and 1277!"-P. 241. It is really, we had almost said, amusing, to find after all, that instead of Convocation copying parliament, King Edward formed his parliament upon the model of Convocation, when he added the "præmunientes" clause to the writ of summons.1 If then our Convocation is ever to do its work, and act with the confidence of the clergy, the election of the proctors must be free, -the episcopal selection of the proctors nominated by the clergy must be done away-all clergy beneficed or not must be eligible for election—and all presbyters duly licensed must vote. As it is, the matter of receiving or rejecting votes, rests with the Archdeacons, who as far as our experience goes, seem to have no settled rule to guide them. But the matter cannot rest as it is. If we may use political terms to express our meaning, we must aim at radical reform of the lower house, we must have the property qualification done away, and universal suffrage established. These are the points of our charter. This is, however a digression, though suggested by the evident hold the representative system has on the English mind, and something of this kind must, we suppose, be done, to adapt the system to the nineteenth century. But there are one or two other points much agitated at the present day, and closely connected with our subject, on which Mr. Joyce's book throws some light, and which must be settled, if ever the English Church is to enjoy her own again, and meet in Synod. Of these, the most important is the question of the addition of lay representatives to the clerical, who shall sit on an equality with them, and form one house. There are certain shallow writers who profess to discover traces of this lay element in the ancient councils of England, because civil and ecclesiastical matters were often debated at the same time and place. "It is desirable again to remind the reader that during the present period of our history, as well as during the last, ecclesiastical and civil matters were frequently treated of at the same places, and upon the same occasions. Such was the common practice during the period in which the assemblies here recounted were held. Not, indeed, that the laity gave conclusive voices in the definition of doctrine or the decision of matters purely spiritual; but they were in the habit of adding legal force to such conclusions as were arrived at by the Clergy on those subjects, when the civil authority deemed them desirable to be enforced by public sanctions. But though the laity did not join in the definition of doctrinal matters, yet the Clergy were always called in to treat of civil matters, and to add the weight of their authority in the enactment of secular laws. For these reasons, it is not always easy during this pe 1 Vide Joyce, p. 278. riod to discover at first sight a marked and specific difference between the ecclesiastical and civil assemblies, nor to determine at once whether to any given assembly the term 'Synod' or 'Council' should be applied. The negligence of writers in not marking this difference with sufficient distinctness has given rise to much misapprehension. Mixed Councils have been represented as 'Synods; and thus superficial readers have been led to infer and argue that laymen, in the earlier ages of our history, were constituent members of our ecclesiastical assemblies than which nothing can be more untrue, or more subversive of the principles of the Christian Church. Though accurate writers and common custom, both among the ancients as well as in more modern times, apply the word 'Synod' specifically to an ecclesiastical assembly, yet it is very certain that through carelessness this word has sometimes been applied to a civil council, in which, besides ecclesiastics, the whole body of lay nobles were constituent members. For instance, King Eadmund convoked what has been described as a 'large Synod' in London, composed both of ecclesiastics and laymen, and which should, therefore, undoubtedly in strictness have been denominated a mixed Council. And on the other hand we find instances in which those ecclesiastical assemblies have been called 'Councils,' which nevertheless were really 'Synods.'"-Pp. 126–128. The truth is there is no evidence whatever to warrant such an innovation as that now proposed. Even in the Witan, where questions purely spiritual were discussed, the bishops and clergy consulted separately, and their deliberations received the assent of the assembled council. This is the principle of our constitution to this day, the clergy to define in matters spiritual, the laity to add civil sanction. With what face our lay brethren (whose real rights we would be the very last to infringe) can claim to sit in the Church's synod, in a country like this, where nothing can become law against the will of the Lower House of Parliament, which must be composed exclusively of laymen, we are at a loss to conceive. Considering what the powers of parliament are, they surely need not be afraid of being ridden over roughshod by the clergy. Our present constitution gives quite enough scope for the expression of the sentiments of the laity; if we concede them more, we fear they will reduce below its proper weight, the authority of those who in a special manner bear rule in the kingdom of CHRIST. Nor can any thing be urged in its defence, from the working of this novelty in America. Even if it were perfectly successful (which we strongly suspect it is not) it must be remembered that our laity have a way of making themselves felt according to the constitution of this country which the laity of America have not. Moreover, as Mr. Joyce says, "We do not date the origin of our holy faith from the West, so neither can we be expected to seek therein the pattern of our Church government." 1 We may fairly ask our lay brethren before admitting them into Synod, to settle among themselves what constitutes a layman of the English Church. They must devise some test, for, as matters stand now, it is difficult to know who are laity. If lay delegates are to be elected by all who profess membership with the Church of Another point which demands a settlement, is the power of the metropolitan over his synod. The tendency at the present time is to reduce it within as narrow limits as possible, and it is absolutely necessary under present circumstances to do so. The good effect of the bold attitude assumed by certain suffragans has been seen in the altered tone of the primate, and his seemingly ready acquiescence in the movement. It is necessary however to proceed with caution. If future times should see a repetition of what has been, (there is nothing new under the sun,) and the rule of Abbott be again succeeded by that of a man of the stamp of Laud, we might regret having deprived our chief bishop of a powerful and sharp weapon. Mr. Joyce has some remarks (p. 59) on this point, but is not satisfactory. The other point to which we would draw attention, is the necessity of devising some plan by which the whole Anglican communion, including the Anglo-Irish and Scotch Churches, and the various Colonial dioceses may be represented in one synod. There are four ways pointed out by Mr. Joyce,-in which the two English provinces have at different times worked together. 1. The uniting the members of the provincial synods into one. 2. Transacting the same business concurrently in the provincial synods of Canterbury and York. 3. Sending the drafts of the proceedings of Canterbury for ratification to York, in which way the Canons of 1603 received the sanction of the Northern province. 4. The admitting proxies from York to be present at Canterbury, as was the case in 1662. We quite agree with Mr. Joyce the balance of advantage lies on the side of the last of these modes. But this must be left to our rulers, "It would, indeed, be the height of presumption in an individual to give any decided opinions upon matters of so great delicacy and such deep importance. But since the insufficiency of one provincial Synod to legislate for the whole National Church has been frequently and somewhat unnecessarily urged (for no one doubted the fact,) it is perhaps not presumptuous to suggest that these four modes of procedure deserve careful consideration not only on the part of the provincial Synods of England, but also on the part of the Irish Convocation, and of the ecclesiastical rulers of our Colonial Church. One of these modes might suggest an example useful for future imitation. And it is surely not an expectation too unreasonable to express, that the deliberations of those grave and learned authorities would arrive at such practical conclusions on this subject, as would best tend to secure the integrity. and maintain the just authority of the national Church of this great empire."-P. 92. England, there is nothing to prevent some eccentric parishes returning a Jew, as they have already done in the case of churchwardens-the nearest approach to the office of lay delegate we have at present. Dissenters we should have in abundance; for many "attached members of the Establishment" go to meeting as well as church. VOL. XVII. 2 R 4 The extracts we have made will give our readers some idea of the great learning and pains Mr. Joyce has brought to bear upon a subject attracting much interest at the present day, and which seems fast drawing towards a settlement. It cannot but be that the bishops and clergy will ere long apply for leave to deliberate on matters on which, by tyrannical laws, they are forbidden to consult-however pressing the wants of the Church-without permission of the Sovereign. It is true we have much to complain of at the hands of the state, yet justice compels us to admit that the chief difficulties in our way in the matter of synods have not as yet arisen from any act of the civil power. The Convocation of the Church of England has not up to this time asked for the royal licence. We have no right to suppose that our present Most Gracious Sovereign will be forgetful of her coronation oath, to preserve the liberties of the Church, or break the royal faith which a martyr pledged, "that the bishops and clergy, from time to time in Convocation, upon their humble desire, shall have licence under our broad seal to deliberate of, and to do all such things as being made plain by them and assented to by us, shall concern the settled continuance of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England now established.”1 That humble desire has never yet been expressed. A king's word is a sacred thing; we shall surely find it still considered so, when the Church has courage to remind the Sovereign of the promise. Till she does that, she has no right to complain that the royal prerogative is not actively exerted in her behalf. But we have wandered from our author, and in taking leave of him would particularly recommend all who have been disturbed by the wonderful discovery recently made, that our Articles and Prayer Book have merely parliamentary authority, and that the Reformation was entirely the work of the State, to ponder well Mr. Joyce's chapters on the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth. It will surpass the powers even of the Dean of Bristol, the great organ of this modern school, to shake his array of facts. But this is too wide a subject to enter upon now, and we have in a former number tried to estimate the respective amount of ecclesiastical and civil actions in the Reformation period.2 If Mr. Joyce's book should reach a second edition, (which we hope it may,) it might be as well to consider whether it would not admit of condensation, and whether there is not rather too much parade of scholarship in certain parts. No one can doubt Mr. Joyce's learning, but the abundance of classical quotations seems to us scarcely in good taste. 1 Vide Royal Declaration prefixed to the XXXIX. Articles. |