a term applied ambiguously both to purely ecclesiastical assemblies and to meetings of the clergy of a more political character. At the present day the distinction is not sufficiently recognised, and consequently meetings of the clergy for their own internal government and that of the church in its purely spiritual relations, are apt to be confounded with convocation, in a much stricter and more modern sense. From the earliest times until the reign of Henry VIII., the English Church, like all churches in Christendom, exercised the power, by means of its bishops, of convening the clergy; and what every bishop did in his own diocese, the archbishops had power to do in their provinces; they called together first the bishops, and afterwards their inferior clergy, as occasion required. These meetings constituted the diocesan synods and the provincial councils, and were confined entirely to the transaction of the spiritual affairs of the church. Afterwards the papal power introduced another element; and by means of legates sent from Rome, national church councils were formed. In all these respects England only acted as other churches did, exhibiting the order of universal Christianity.

But besides these assemblies, there were two others peculiar to ourselves, and springing out of our own peculiarities of government. These were of a mixed character, contemplating the good of the realm, as well as the interests of the church, and they were originated by the fact, that large possessions of land and money gradually fell into the hands of ecclesiastics. The first was the meeting of the bishops in parliament to consult and legislate with the laity; the second was the assembling of the clergy to tax themselves, that their large property might bear a portion of the public burdens. In Saxon times the church was expected to contribute largely to the service of the state, and the meetings called to grant these aids were called Convocations. This part of the constitution was more clearly defined and settled in the reign of Edward I., who wished to the clergy a third estate, so that the bishops should not only sit in the parliament for temporal purposes, but also with the inferior clergy in convocation. After many struggles from the indisposition of the clergy to meet on the authority of the king, the two ecclesiastical synods were agreed upon, under the summons of each of the archbishops: there the clergy sat, and made canons, by which each respective province was bound, and gave aids and taxes to the king. This convocation had great freedom, and was endowed with considerable powers: but its authority was much lessened by the statute of 25th Henry VIII., which made the king's consent necessary not only to give validity to any act, but also to enable the convocation to proceed to business. Thus the clergy form a convocation by the writ of summons; but they cannot form a council or act as such without the king's license to do so. This state of things continued until 13th Charles II., cap.4, when the clergy gave their last subsidy, and were afterwards taxed by a land-tax and poll-tax; and in 1664 the clergy waived the right of taxing their own body, and permitted themselves to be included in the money bills prepared by the commons. They then received the right to vote for knights of the shire, if freholders, like the laity,—a power they did not before possess.

It is thus evident, that although convocation meets at the assembling of parliament, it no longer possesses the functions for exercising which it was first called into existence. Stat magna nominis umbra; and even if the sovereign should give it power to proceed to business, it could only act as in the ancient provincial council. It thus appears that, the ancient forms remaining without their power, the church is really less at liberty to act than it should be, according to all theories of ecclesiastical government. It is still in the power of the archbishops and bishops to convene their clergy for religious purposes; and it is nothing but the lingering in a spot and among circumstances venerable with a hoar antiquity, and the use of a name long since inapplicable, that encumbers the government of the Church of England. As a theory, surely none can deny the desirableness of any religious body meeting to transact its own business; and in practice it would probably be found that the evils of synodical action predicted by many are no greater than what are incident to all deliberative bodies.

Those who wish to gain full information on the subject of convocation, in both its historical and moral bearings, should consult Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, and Bishop Wake's Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted: with particular respect to the Convocations of the Clergy and the Realm and Church of England. The latter work, from the interest attached to this question, is exceedingly scarce and dear.

(II. ii.)