state which require scarcely more than a touch to turn them into living activity?

Convocation, doubtless will be the organization which will first present itself to the reader's mind as the ancient and legitimate centre of union for the English Church; and there are many who have been seeking long and earnestly for a restoration of its active powers, with the very object in view on which we have been laying so much emphasis.

But although we quite sympathize with these in their earnest efforts to obtain a revival of Convocation, and to make the General Synod of the Church of England a reality, instead of an almost impious sham, we have our doubts, (and believe ourselves to share them with a large body of Churchmen) whether the benefit to the Church from its restoration would be so great as has been represented in some quarters. If there were anything in the constitution of that august body that looked essentially practical, we might be able to get up a larger amount of enthusiasm about it; or if even, in its proceedings hitherto, it had been shown that with its present formation it has really the power of discussing to good purpose the many questions which are stirring the Church at the present time. But one way or another there has been forced upon many Churchmen the uncomfortable feeling that Convocation is an assembly composed of an Upper House which will do nothing, and a Lower House whose members are some of the most estimable and most inexperienced parish-priests in the land. And as far as the element of supernatural grace can be omitted from our estimate of its value, there seems little, at present, to warrant us in hoping that it is a body fitted to contend with the practical difficulties of the Church. Perhaps it never was. Not indeed that we would wish to see the venerable Provincial Synod of Canterbury utterly reduced again to inanition. On the contrary we hope and trust that efforts will continue to be made for the revival of its working powers; feeling sure, as we do, that the Church can derive nothing but good from the resuscitation of a body strictly in accordance with Catholic principles. There are many questions which a Provincial Synod alone could have authority to touch; many matters of general legislation which might well originate with, or be primarily discussed by an assembly which represents, more or less perfectly, so large a portion of the English Church; and it is manifestly the most efficient existing machinery for obtaining that consensus of the Episcopal body which seems so desirable and even necessary for the Church. In modern government, too, Convocation might doubtless form a most useful link of attachment and communication between the Church and the State; and its deliberate advice, given with some solemnity to the heads of the State, would be an excellent substitute for those demi-semi-official communications which are occasionally made, we believe, on Church matters by some of

the Bishops to the Prime Minister of the day. Nor do we mean to say that what we have pointed out embodies the whole probable utility of Convocation. It is quite possible that other functions might develope themselves if only it were to attain any reasonable freedom of action, and that its value might prove greater than past experience has warranted us in supposing. It seems to us, however, that its direct and necessary connection with the Crown must always, with our present political constitution, limit the action. of Convocation to rather narrow bounds, and make its office somewhat perfunctory.

There is, however, another synodal organization, and one much more within the power of the Church, whose revival would, we conceive, give a great impetus to her progress; and which seems in many respects adapted to our present wants: we mean the Diocesan Synod.

;

Some years ago the Venerable Bishop of Exeter found it necessary to call his Clergy together in Synod on a very special occasion and so proved by experiment, what it seems exquisitely absurd to doubt, that a Bishop and his Clergy may meet together and consult on the affairs of their diocese without incurring the guilt of high treason, or the infringement of any lay person's privileges. The hopes of Churchmen were then turned towards a more general revival of this most excellent institution. Bishops were spoken of, some High Church and some Low Church, who contemplated an immediate return to the ancient usage of the Church, and were determined forthwith to give up the practical self-reliance which they had so long indulged in. We think Churchmen have some reason for discontent in the fact that none of these hopes have been realized. The ground was broken, the road was made, and no one has ever made use of it from that time to this, except indeed the earnest men who govern the Colonial Churches. If there were ever doubts about the legality of Diocesan Synods under our modern constitution, those doubts were entirely removed by the experiment of that held at Exeter after the Gorham Judgment. The governing powers of the State found themselves quite unable, even if they had wished it as eagerly as Lord Shaftesbury, to interfere. Even public opinion was conciliated by the dignity and quietness of the proceedings; and the very Times itself patted, the Synod on the back. Why then has not the successful experiment been repeated? Are the Clergy to meet their Bishop in a real and solemn consultive assembly only on great occasions like the Gorham controversy? Are there no ordinary practical wants of the Church for which such an assembly, and it alone, might provide? Have the Bishops of the English Church so great a reverence for their own individual judgment, and so little respect for the wisdom of their Clergy, that they think it quite superfluous to take counsel with them? It was not so always. "The Bishops in the early

ages," says a learned Canonist, " assembled their Clergy to obtain their advice on all important affairs, and nothing was carried into execution that had not been resolved by that august Senate, over which the Bishop presided. The Apostles themselves had given that example by assembling the disciples for the purpose of proposing to them to elect deacons: Convocantes autem duodecim multitudinem dixerunt; Non est æquum nos derelinquere verbum Dei et ministrare mensis. Considerate ergo, fratres, viros ex vobis boni testimonii septem plenos Spiritu sancto et sapientia quos constituamus super hoc opus. It was not till after that proposition had been approved by all those that the Apostles had assembled, that S. Stephen and the six others were elected deacons placuit sermo coram omni multitudine et eligerunt Stephanum. In the dispute that arose on the subject of circumcision, and the observance of the law of Moses with respect to the Gentiles who had embraced the faith of JESUS CHRIST, the Apostles assembled and the Priests with them conveneruntque Apostoli et seniores videre de verbo hoc. What S. James proposed, to relieve the Gentile converts from the yoke of the law of Moses, was approved by the Apostles, the Presbyters, and all the Church: placuit apostolis et senioribus cum omni Ecclesia. Again, S. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians and the Trallians, charges the faithful to be always submissive to their Bishops, and to the Presbytery as to JESUS CHRIST our only hope. Tertullian, describing ecclesiastical assemblies in his Apologetic, says, that in those assemblies those are excluded from communion who have committed offences deserving that punishment, and that the ancients, who are of approved virtue, preside over them.

The author of the Apostolic Constitutions, who shows the discipline of the first centuries, says, that the priests and deacons assist at the tribunal of the Bishop, and that they are bound to judge there according to the rules of justice, without acceptation of persons. S. Jerome proposes to Bishops the example of Moses, who, having the power of ruling alone the people of Israel, chose seventy persons to assist him in judgment. S. Cyprian was so strict an observer of this rule, that having been consulted by the priests of Carthage, whom he calls his associates in the ministry, he wrote to them that he had not been able to give them an answer, because it was his practice never to do anything without their advice, and the consent of his people. Such was the usage of Bishops in the days when the office of the Episcopate was most perfectly realized, when (to borrow a distinction from Dr. Cumming, and we are really indebted to him for it) there was more of Episcopacy and less of Prelacy in the Church. It seems to us that the modern system of Episcopal rule, with the absence of Diocesan Synods, is painfully discordant with that of SS. Jerome aud Cyprian.

It may be indeed, that even the strongest-minded among our spiritual pastors are not so self-reliant as they seem to be to the outward eye. It may be that there are cases in which their decisions seem to come from themselves alone, they really embody the matured collective wisdom of themselves, and some among their clergy whom they account wise and holy men, and whom it is their custom to consult in at least important matters. We quite believe that this is the case with some, and more or less with all.

It is reasonable to suppose, for instance, that resident chaplains and Rural Deans are selected with reference to these special qualifications, as well as to their active business habits; and that they are continually advising and consulting with their ecclesiastical superior on the matters which come before him. It is reasonable also to' suppose that the parochial clergy are often referred to for information and advice respecting local matters with which they must be acquainted better than any one else; and that their opinion forms the real foundation for what appear to be the mere dicta of their diocesan. It is reasonable also to suppose that in the practice of abundant hospitality-Δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον . · . · φιλόξενον—the rulers of the Church find many opportunities for consulting their clergy on these and other matters, for comforting and supporting them in their pastoral work, and aiding them, where they need advice, with their greater experience and wisdom. But no such methods of intercourse between the Bishop and the priesthood of a diocese can at all adequately supply the place of a collective assembly, in which the Bishop personally, and the whole diocese by representation, are gathered together in the Name of CHRIST for the Church's good. No individual counsellors can compensate for the absence of that "multitude" in whom the Wise Man says, "there is safety," and no private unheard of meetings can possibly carry into the diocese that moral weight which, as was shown in the case of the Exeter Synod, would be sure to attend a formal council of the Clergy assembled in Cathedral and Chapter-House, and leavening all their consultation with the offices of the Church. We most earnestly hope, therefore, that at this critical time, when all the wisdom and judgment of the Church is required to guide both Bishops and Priests aright, the comparatively easy, yet invaluable, expedient of Diocesan Synods will be again resumed by our spiritual Fathers; assured as we are that such consultations must end in the resolution of many doubts, the settlement of many disputed questions, and the promotion of unity among many between whom there is now much discord and want of love.

Before quitting the subject we may also refer to Ruridecanal Chapters, as another Synodal organization practically available in many dioceses, but which is put to very little good use by the clergy. Much has been said about these assemblies of late years, but, so far as we can see, there has not been much done beyond the

formal re-constitution of them in some places. Now, if we want to win back self-government for the Church, we must show statesmen that the Church contains all the elements of government, practical ability to combine them together, and energy to carry them out: that Synods are not mere meetings for meandering talk, but that they are really concerned in doing the work of the Church. It may be said, What work can Rural Synods do? It does indeed seem as if those who constituted them, considered them merely as a convenient machinery for an occasional protest, and a little harmless, but also aimless, discussion. But why should they not be the vehicles of a reporting system, by which general statistics of the state of each parish could be laid before the Bishop? Surely a plan might be contrived, for each parish priest to put into the hands of his Rural Dean once in three months some particulars of the preceding period which has elapsed since the last Synod. If nothing else were to be said, and there would not always be more important matter, at least reports might be made of the number of spiritual offices which have been performed in the parish church: so many Baptisms, Marriages, and Funerals; so many ordinary services, and celebrations of the Holy Communion; so many participators in the latter ordinance: reports which should be arranged in a definite tabular form, as far as possible, by the Rural Dean or clerk of the Synod, before being presented to the Bishop. Why should the Times be allowed to goad us with the want of responsibility which accompanies a clergyman's exercise of his vocation, and talk of reporting to government officers,—and after all, the charge and its remedy must seem not so very unreasonable to men of other professions, when we have already a machinery within the Church which would answer every purpose with a small outlay of trouble: and ultimately, we have no doubt, with a large amount of profit to Bishop, clergy, and people.

It is very easy to ridicule such demands as that lately made by the leading newspaper for a system of reports; but there is generally some element of truth in expressions of opinion which so manifestly chime in with public feeling; and it is far wiser to search where these elements of truth lie, and how far an acquiescence with the suggestions arising out of them would at the same time serve the spiritual interests of the Church, and promote its acceptableness with the people. We happen to know, at any rate, that a suggestion, very similar in character to that lately made by the press, was offered to a Ruridecanal Synod so long as a year ago. The chief objection then made was that all the Clergy do not approve of, or recognise any authority in, that body, or the ecclesiastical officer who presides over it; but we can see no reason why those who do should not strive to make it an efficient aid to the Church and even a partial carrying out of the system we propose would be good and valuable as far as it went; while there would be