Slike stranica
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

said that National Synods had constantly been held before the Reformation, cited the 139th Canon as an unanswerable proof of his argument, and affirmed that nothing was required but the Queen's writ, and it was not likely it would be refused.'1 Having already disposed of the archdeacon's precedents, we will only remark that to our mind nothing is more certain than a refusal, if the primates were so rash as to make an unprecedented application. The Archbishop of Canterbury knows how often he has been refused the much more moderate request for power to make a canon for a reform of his Lower House, of which no one disputes the necessity. Meantime it is remarkable that, with all this passion for united action, not a word is said for the resumption of the true constitutional usage of united deliberation by the two Upper Houses. That the archbishop should choose to be first in the north, rather than second in the south, is intelligible enough, but why his suffragans do not fly from the hyperborean atmosphere to the calmer Olympus in Dean's Yard is to us inexplicable. They require neither royal writ nor archiepiscopal permission. They have only to leave their proxies to answer the citation at York, and the Great Northern will swiftly bring them to the haven where they would be.

It is impossible not to sympathize with the Lower House of York, beating its wings so pathetically against the bars of its cage. Partly from its distance from the capital, and partly from circumstances on which we have twice commented before,2 it fails to maintain its place in the National Synod, and is in danger of being left in sterile isolation. The position is so humiliating that we hear threats of abandoning Convocation altogether unless it is speedily changed; this would be to despair of the republic. Our friends in the north must remember that, in Synods especially, Heaven helps those who help themselves. Of the gallant band who fought and won the battle of the revival only one or two now survive, and hardly receive due recognition. It cannot be denied that among those who reap the fruits of their victory many are wanting in the seriousness indispensable to synodal success. The constituencies show too little regard to the qualifications of the candidates; the elections are allowed to degenerate into party conflicts or coalitions as the case may be. Men of proved synodical ability are set aside for nonentities, and the consequence is that the large representation of the Northern Convocation has less weight and influence than the scant but 1 York Journal of Convocation, 1886, p. 148.

2

C.Q.R. October 1884, Art. ix.; January 1887, Art. x.

It is not the

earnest modicum in the Jerusalem Chamber. archbishop's fault that the Northern Convocation is content to meet but once a year; that the bishops can only spare a couple of days, and that the clergy are eager to get away from the York hotels. Judging from the Reports, the archbishop gives more time and thought to Convocation than any other member. He speaks upon every question, interrupts other speakers, corrects their motions and amendments, and is always eager to guide the Synod to his own conclusion. If he were less combative and imperious, he would be Speaker, Chairman of Committees, and Leader of both Houses, all in one. As it is, he only leads the Opposition.

The Bishops, affecting a Lucretian indifference to the storm, have reduced the Upper House to a cipher.1 The Lower, with plenty of courage and ability, lacks industry and persistence. It appoints committees and overcrowds them with members; but the attendance is lamentably scant, and Reports are few and feebly followed up. Now, this committee work is the most valuable part of the labours in the southern province, and the northern clergy may rest assured that they will never enjoy their proper share in the councils of the Church till they rise above personal and party views, and emulate the serious appreciation of synodical work by which the Southern Convocation has earned its power. No reform of procedure can make up for constitutional apathy.

It is time to come to the practical propositions. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been understood to suggest a free conference of the two Convocations in both Houses. This implies no organic change, no royal writ, no submission of York to Canterbury. It only extends to the Lower Houses the ordinary course of intersynodical deliberation in the Upper Houses. The suggestion is simple, feasible, and effectual. The Conference would not be a Synod; it would debate, agree, and conclude, but the synodical Decree would follow in the respective provinces apart. This would afford opportunity for reconsidering conclusions arrived at by chance majorities. Where

1 The majority is actually entered in the Division List, February 15, 1882, Ayes o, Noes I! The explanation is that the President and the Bishop of Manchester kept a house, when the others had gone, to enable the Bishop of Liverpool to defeat a large majority of the Lower House.

2 In the Committee of Privileges, consisting of sixteen members, the attendance seldom exceeds six and sometimes sinks to three. When the Prolocutor nominated Canon Trevor on a committee to confer with the Canterbury Committee on the Relations of Church and State, the archbishop called attention to the 'balance of parties,' and two tame elephants were added to outvote the formidable animal.

the mind of each province was clearly ascertained, the synodical act would be a matter of course. It is no small advantage that the experiment might be tried whenever and for as long only as might be desired. If combined, as it would be, with intersynodical committees on particular questions, it would leave nothing wanting to joint and harmonious action.

If

The Archbishop of York's plan is more complex and doubtful. It proposes a 'delegation' of the Northern Convocation, comprising all the Upper House and one half the Lower, with the President at its head, to meet either a similar delegation or the whole Convocation of Canterbury-we are not sure which—on such questions as may be determined by the two presidents. This scheme has no support in the proxy of 1661. It begins by depriving the Northern Convocation of its best distinction; it disfranchises half the Lower House at a blow. Next it perpetuates in the Conference the dual headship, which is the cause of all present want of harmony. the Archbishop of York is to keep the delegation under his own direction, and within such limits as he may approve, the advantage of mutual discussion will be seriously curtailed. Lastly, the plan retains a demi-house at York, who, not having been at the Conference, will be ready to help the archbishop or other dissatisfied members to refuse the synodical ratification. The two Houses at York may jump at such crude proposals in their impatience of the 'ills they have.' But we should be very much surprised if the Convocation of Canterbury should admit such a thorn in its side. It is one thing to open one's doors to a party of friends and neighbours, and quite another to receive a Highland chief 'with his tail on.'

On the whole, the Archbishop of Canterbury's suggestion seems to meet all the requirements of the case, and we should be glad to see the experiment tried. It would be a fitting memorial of the Jubilee, in which her Majesty has taken opportunity to rectify a strange anomaly in the treatment of the two portions of the National Synod. Everybody knows that the Convocation of Canterbury, like the Houses of Parliament and the Universities, is privileged to carry its addresses to the foot of the throne and be received by her Majesty in person. But this privilege, strange to say, has till now been denied to the Convocation of York, though extended to several Nonconforming bodies. Archbishop Thomson's application was rejected by a Home Secretary not famous for courtesy, on the ground of want of precedent. The fact is that the only address from York on record was to Queen Anne on the occasion of the Royal Bounty, and it could not be shown how it was pre

sented. Canon Trevor having discovered that it was received by the Queen in person, and answered from her own lips, brought the fact before the House last year, and it was unanimously resolved to request the President to apply to the Queen for a restoration of the privilege. We have reason to know that the subject came under her Majesty's notice in the newspapers, and the result was that by Royal command the Convocation attended at Windsor on July 6, and were admitted to the Presence with their Address. This is another proof of what may be done by steady persistence on established lines.

ART. VIII.-RELIGION IN IRELAND: PAST
AND PRESENT.

1. Ireland and the Celtic Church. A History of Ireland from St. Patrick to the English Conquest in 1172. By GEORGE T. STOKES, D.D., Vicar of All Saints, Blackrock, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin. (London, 1886.)

2. The Reformed Church of Ireland (1537-1886). By the Right Hon. J. T. BALL, LL.D., D.C.L. (London, 1886.) THE disestablishment of the Irish Church and the social troubles which, to those who regard them from law-abiding England, look something very like a revolution, have not, strange to say, smitten the sufferers under these events with literary unproductiveness. On the contrary, the Irish contributions to literature have been more important during the period since disestablishment than during any previous seventeen years that we can remember; and Trinity College has lost all title to the name of the Silent Sister. Our business at present, however, is only with the department of Irish ecclesiastical history to which the books at the head of this article strictly belong.

These works form a most creditable contribution from the Irish Church to its country's history and to its own. And without anticipating what we have to say of the merits of each individually, we would point out one characteristic common to both, which is under the circumstances equally surprising and hopeful. We mean their extreme moderation

and fairness of statement. Neither of them aims at the imaginative eloquence which has often been found in the speaking and writing of Irishmen, but in neither of them, on the other hand, is there the slightest tinge of that exaggeration which has so frequently marred this richness of language. These Irish gentlemen we may be sure have suffered severely both in purse and in position from the late changes in Ireland; but they treat the history of the country with far less passion than Mr. Froude, who belongs neither to the persecutors nor to the persecuted-to whichever Irish party we may consider those terms respectively applicable.

Perhaps some of this moderation may be due to the political impotence into which the Irish Church has fallen. Her members must be conscious that there is no class of persons either in England or Ireland whose utterances matter so little in the struggle of 'the classes and the masses' as theirs. They can return but two Members to Parliament, and, this primary condition being awanting, their comments on the situation have no more practical effect upon events than the remonstrances of some peaceful clergyman in the midst of a battle. They have so much the less temptation to be unfair that unfairness in their case is of no use. But none the less it is of excellent augury that members of the Irish Church look this state of facts in the face and accept with dignity the place of non-combatant spectators which fate has assigned to them. It is a position very different from that to which they were used and to which a few of their brethren still hopelessly cling. It is not every one who when fighting has proved useless can abstain from scolding. But to those who can, time may bring a reward at last. If ever peace should come in Ireland, it will be a just source of pride for Irish Churchmen that in this period of distress her members were found to bear their burdens so patiently and say and do so little that was unworthy of their profession, and that her writers were able to view the chequered history of the past, full as it is of causes of offence, with a truthfulness so conspicuous as these authors display.

The work of Professor Stokes leads the way as referring to the earlier period. It consists of lectures delivered in the Divinity School of Trinity College, Dublin, in discharge of the author's functions as Professor of Ecclesiastical History. Attendance upon these lectures is not compulsory, and the voluntary system has certainly worked well in this instance by producing a style of teaching in which the profit is so mingled with pleasure that we do not wonder it has proved attractive to the class. At the same time genuine research

« PrethodnaNastavi »