Another letter by the Dean of St. Paul's (Dr. Church)
to the Archbishop of Canterbury has been published, respecting the wish to see the legislative power of Convocation substituted for the elaborate historical disquisitions of the Judges on the ritual practices of a past age ; and a very sensible letter it is. He warmly repudiates, on behalf of the Memorialists, any desire whatever to interfere with the authority of Parliament, or with the rights and privileges of the lay members of the Church. He insists that though Parliament has a per- fect right to reject any legislative changes affecting the Church carried by Convocation, he wants to obtain for Convocation the right to have its suggestions either completely accepted by Parliament, or referred back to Convocation for its assent to any alterations made. In fact, he wants the Church-body to have a suspensive veto on Parliamentary changes of Church law, as well to leave Parliament a veto on the changes proposed by Convocation. There is reason in all that, if Convocation were once made to represent the whole Church, and not merely the higher clergy. But the laity ought to have at least co-ordinate authority with the clergy, and this is what, in case of Disestablishment, they certainly would have. What, then, is the use of asking for a restoration of the full legislative rights of Convocation while Convocation remains what it is now, a narrow body representing a portion of the clergy alone ?
Previous page
