THE IRISH REQUEST FOR A CONVOCATION.
rriiti Irish Bishops seem to us, we confess, to have done something not very wise, let us even say a little stupid. They have requested the Queen, at a moment when, as they are well aware, it is of the highest moment that the Irish Protestant Church should be effectually represented by some deliberative body, to convoke the Irish Bishops and a representative body which may fairly express the views of the mere clergy, in their old-fashioned Convocation, and thus give them the opportunity of expressing an apparently authoritative opinion on pending questions, which would not really be the voice of the Church at all. Nothing that they could have asked could have been more inexpedient, either to ask or to grant. Here is a Convocation that has been silent entirely ever since the Union, that has no customary right to speak at all, that, if it spoke, would not represent the Church, though it would have a certain technical prestige derived from obsolete customs, and that would, therefore, certainly be both able and likely gravely to mislead both the public and itself, about the true wants and wishes of the Church. It seems to us to be an unfortunate omen for the statesmanship of the Irish Bishops that they should have asked for such a boon at such a time. What could they think of a Government that would be foolish enough, at such a crisis, to give an official sanction to discussions certain to misrepresent more or less the feelings of the laity of the Establishment, and to give a preposterously undue, because unqualified, weight to that of the clergy ? If the clergy wish to talk the matter over with their Bishops before sounding the laity on the subject, well and good, let them do so unofficially. But to claim an official status, as representative of the Church, for the clerical element in it taken alone, at the very moment of all others. when it would be most disastrous to admit that they ought to have any such exclusive right to be identified with the Church, seems to us the sort of blunder which we must regard as demonstrating those who make it to be peculiarly unfitted for broad political action. Some short time ago, in 1861, we believe, the Irish Bishops showed a greater sagacity. At that time there was no special peril for the Irish branch of the Church, and the Irish prelates then deprecated the convening of a separate Irish Convocation, on the ground that the action of separate provincial synods in Canterbury, York, and Dublin would have a tendency to break up the theological unity of the Church, and to facilitate if not promote schism. Consequently they prayed for the convocation of a synod of the whole United Church of England and Ireland. That shows precisely how far the Bishops are sagacious and how far they are what, with due respect, we must call stupid. They are sagacious as to the perils which threaten doctrinal unity, but they are stupid with respect to the perils which affect what we may call popular unity. If they understood their own position in the least, their one aim and policy now would be to do nothing without the laity, to interest the laity in all their consultations and all their plans. As a disestablished and disendowed Church,— and they must perfectly well know that the only question left is a mere question of degree how far disestablishment and disendowment will go,—they can do nothing without the heartiest lay co-operation and the warmest lay generosity. That will not only be their difficulty in the future, it will be their strength also. If once they get the laity of their Church to put their shoulders to the wheel, and to identify themselves in everything with the future of the Church, we shall soon see in Ireland a very different body indeed from the rather lifeless and lukewarm organization which, in spite of the truest piety and earnestness on the part of the clerical leaders, now goes by the name of the Irish Protestant Church. Is it not. the mere A B C of the policy of the present situation that the clergymen and bishops of that Church should recognize this as soon as possible, and set their minds at once to the duty of making the laity feel their responsibility, and, therefore, their power, for the future ? Could there be a more fatal mistake either in sentiment, or even mere tactics, than to petition just now for the right of deliberating in a Convocation which excludes the laity, on the prospects of a Church which, whatever happens, must, for the future, lean far more heavily on the laity than it has hitherto done ? The Bishops of Ireland seem to us deplorably wanting in the merest rudiments of political wisdom, and what is worse, in the tact and instinct needful to make a Church truly popular.
But the Government at least, in refusing this unwise request, have shown, so far as such an act could, that they understand the situation. The difficult question now before us is not, properly speaking, a question of theology or doctrine at all. So far as it relates to disestablishment and disendowment, it is simply a question of political equity, on which no opinion from mere clergymen would be of the least value. So fax as it is a question of the terms of disestablishment and disendowment, of the mode in which the change can be made with least injury to the interests of the now Established Church, and the best prospect of success to the voluntary Church which is to take its place, it is mainly a question of prudence, organization, and finance ; and this, again, is not a matter on which the opinion of the clergy taken alone would have any great weight. Of course the clergy will have a great, perhaps even a preponderating influence in determining the method of action to be adopted. The teachers cannot but have a great influence and a great interest in discussing a change which is, nevertheless, of ultimate importance chiefly to the learners. But that they should ever think of discussing it without constant reference to the views of the learners is to us amazing ; and clearly enough the Government could not regard the opinion of the clergy as the most momentous element in a question, which is one mainly of machinery, of money, of resources, and of administrative efficiency. To con
suit the clergy without the laity on such topics as these would be like taking the opinion of the lawyers without asking that of the public on questions of law—a course which would not, we suspect, lead to much wise legislation.
The mistake which the Irish Bishops have made is that of indolently falling back at such a time as the present on an obsolete and traditional constitution, instead rather of attempting to show Parliament, by a practical and spontaneous organization of their own, what kind of body it would be which might best be trusted to consult for the interests of the Church. They took refuge in an ancient constitution of no weight at all for present purposes, rather than attempt by any constructive effort to meet the wants of the present time. By this they have betrayed very needlessly that their own sympathies are not popular, that they shrink from that full confidence in, and willing co-operation with, the mass of the laity which is really requisite for the work before them. Doubtless, they would say that it is the very intention of episcopacy to protect the clergy against the danger of popular dictation. And we admit that its chief advantage is to hold some check over the dictatorial tendency to which an ill-educated popular body is liable on all theological subjects, and to create a sort of breakwater of learning and thought against the impatient bigotries of half-knowledge. But this, so far as it applies at all, applies only to theological and doctrinal subjects. It is perfectly clear that we cannot look to the laity for the economical means of spreading a faith without asking the full co-operation of the laity in all deliberations on the question of their distribution and expenditure of those means. The Societies for the Propagation of the Gospel and for Promoting Christian Knowledge would never think of falling back on such clerical bodies as these antiquated Convocations : they might as well shut up altogether. The Irish clergy must remember that as far, at least, as the outward constitution, and the economical sinews, of their work are concerned they are likely to be as dependent on the laity as either of these societies ; and, moreover, that so far as the previous question of political justice is concerned, lay opinion will count for twice as much as theirs. They ought, therefore, to be very thankful to the Government for stopping their foolish attempt to form a distinct body of clerical opinion on the Irish Church question, and would be wise if even at this late stage they took the hint, and set themselves seriously to the task of diffusing that sort of earnest fellowfeeling and hearty sympathy between clergy and laity which can alone issue—at least among Protestants—in a really thriving free Church.
Previous page
