ARCHDEACON

In the English branch of the united Church, and most European Churches, each diocese is divided into archdeaconries and parishes. Sometimes a diocese has but one archdeaconry; sometimes four or five. But in Ireland there is but one archdeacon to each diocese (several dioceses being often united under one bishop); and archdeaconries, as ecclesiastical divisions, are there unknown. The dioceses of Dublin and Ardfert may be regarded as exceptions, but not with justice: as the archdeaconry of Glendaloch in the former, and of Aghadoe in the latter, belonged originally to separate dioceses, which have been drawn into the adjacent ones: so that the dividing boundaries are now unknown. ( Jebb. ) Over the diocese the bishop presides; over the archdeaconry one of the clergy is appointed by the bishop to preside, who must be a priest, and he is called an archdeacon; over the parish the rector or vicar presides. An archdeacon was so called anciently, from being the chief of the deacons, a most important office at a very early period in the Christian Church. The antiquity of this office is held to be so high by many Roman Catholic writers, that they derive its origin from the appointment of the seven deacons, and suppose that St. Stephen was the first archdeacon: but there is no clear authority to warrant this conclusion. Mention is also made of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, who suffered A. D. 260; but although he was called archdeacon, (according to Prudent i us,) he was no more than the principal man of the seven deacons who stood at the altar. “ Hic primus è septem viris qui stant ad aram proximi. ” (Prudent. Hymn. de St. Steph.) At Carthage the office appears to have been introduced within the last forty years of the third century, as St. Cyprian does not mention it, whereas in the persecution of Diocletian Cecilian is described as archdeacon, under the bishop Mensurius. St. Jerome says, “that the archdeacon was chosen out of the deacons, and was the principal deacon in every church, just as the arch presbyter was the principal presbyter.” But even in St. Jerome’s time, the office of archdeacon had certainly grown to great importance. His proper busine was, to attend the bishop at the altar; to direct the deacons and other inferior officers in their several duties, for their orderly performance of Divine service; to attend the bishop at ordinations, and to a ist him in managing and dispensing the revenues of the Church: but without anything that could be called “ jurisdiction ,” in the present sense of the word, either in the cathedral or out of it. After the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 360, when it was ordained that no bishop should be placed in country villages, the archdeacon, being always near the bishop, and the person mainly intrusted by him, grew into great credit and power, and came by degrees, as occasion required, to be employed by him in visiting the clergy of the diocese, and in the despatch of other matters relating to the episcopal care. He was the bishop’s constant attendant and a istant, and, next to the bishop, the eyes of the whole Church were fixed upon him; it was therefore by no means unusual for him to be chosen the bishop’s succe or before the presbyters, and St. Jerome records, “that an archdeacon thought himself injured if he was ordained a presbyter.” (“ Certe qui primus fuerit ministrorum, qui a per singula concionatur in populos, et a pontific is latere non recedit, injuriam put at si presbyter ordinetur. ”—Hieron. Com. in Ezek. c. 48.) The author of the “Apostolical Constitutions” calls him the Ὁ παρεστὼς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ ; and St. Ambrose informs us, in the account which he gives of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, that it belonged to him “to minister the cup to the people when the bishop celebrated the eucharist, and had administered the bread before him.”— Ambros. de Offic. lib. i. c. 41. At the beginning of the seventh century, he seems to have been fully po e ed of the chief care and inspection of the diocese in subordination to the bishop. But the authority of the archdeacon, in ancient times, was chiefly a power of inquiry and inspection; and the gradual growth of his “ jurisdiction ,” properly so called, during the middle ages, is a subject of difficult inquiry. Pope Clement V. gives an archdeacon the title of “ oculus Episcopi ,” saying that “he is in the bishop’s place, to correct and amend all such matters as ought to be corrected and amended by the bishop himself, unle they be of such an arduous nature, as that they cannot be determined without the presence of his superior the bishop.” Regularly, the archdeacon cannot inflict any punishment, but can only proceed by “ precepts ” and “ admonitions .” Beyond this, all the rights that any archdeacon enjoys, subsist by grants from the bishop, made either voluntarily , or of nece ity , or by composition . (See the case of composition made between the bishop of Lincoln and his archdeacons, in Gibson’s Codex , vol. ii. p. 1548.) As to the divisions in England of dioceses into archdeaconries, and the a ignment of particular divisions to particular archdeaconries, this is supposed to have begun a little after the Norman conquest. We meet with no archdeacons vested with any kind of jurisdiction in the Saxon times. Archbishop Lanfranc was the first who made an archdeacon with power of “jurisdiction,” in his see of Canterbury, and Thomas, the first archbishop of York after the Conquest, was the first in England that divided his diocese into archdeaconries; as did also Remigius, bishop of Lincoln. When the Norman bishops, by reason of their baronies, were tied by the Constitutions of Clarendon to strict attendance upon the kings in their parliaments, they were obliged, for the administration of their dioceses, to grant larger delegations of power to archdeacons, who visited when they did not ( de triennio in triennium ). Archdeacons, therefore, with us, could not have this power of jurisdiction by common right, or by immemorial custom; the power which the archdeacon has is derived from the bishop, although he himself is an ordinary, and is recognised as such by the books of common law, which adjudge an administration made by him to be good, though it is not expre ed by what authority, because, as done by the archdeacon, it is presumed to be done “ jure ordinario .” In the 22nd of Henry I. we have the first account of their being summoned to convocation; and in the 15th of Henry III., and in the 32nd year of the same king, they were summoned by expre name . This being the original of archdeacons, it is impo ible for them to prescribe to an independency on the bishop, as it was declared in a court of law they might, and endeavoured to be proved by the glo on a legatine constitution, where we read that an archdeacon may have a customary jurisdiction distinct from the bishop, and to which he may prescribe. But the meaning of it is, not that there can be an archdeaconry by prescription, and independent of the bishop, but that the archdeacon may prescribe to a particular jurisdiction, exempt from the ordinary; which jurisdiction has customarily been enjoyed by him and his predece ors time out of mind. The archdeaconries of St. Alban’s, of Richmond, and Cornwall, are cases of this kind; these jurisdictions are founded upon ancient customs, but the archdeacon is still subordinate to the bishop in various ways; he being, in our law, as he is according to the canon law, vicarious episcopi . According to Lyndwood and other canonists, he can inquire into crimes, but not punish the criminals; he has, in one sense, according to the casuists, a cure of souls, by virtue of his office, though it is in foro exterior i tantum et sine pastorali cur a ; and has authority to perform ministerial acts, as to suspend, excommunicate, absolve, ., therefore by the ecclesiastical law he is obliged to residence. And that may be one reason why he may not be chosen to execute any temporal office that may require his attendance at another place; another reason is because he is an ecclesiastical person. But he has no parochial cure, and therefore an archdeaconry is not comprehended under the name of a benefice with cure; for if one who has such benefice accepts an archdeaconry, it is not void by our law, though it is so by the canon law. And yet, though he has not any parochial cure, he is obliged to subscribe the declaration pursuant to the statute, 14 Charles II. It is true, he is not expre ly named therein, but all persons in holy orders are enjoined to subscribe by that statute; and because an archdeacon must be in those orders, therefore he must likewise subscribe, . And as he has a jurisdiction in certain cases, so, for the better exercising the same, he has power to keep a court, which is called the Court of the Archdeacon, or his commi ary, and this he may hold in any place within his archdeaconry. With regard to the Archdeacon’s Court, it was said by the justices of the Common Pleas, 2 & 3 William and Mary, in the case of Woodward and Fox, that though it might be supposed originally that the jurisdiction within the diocese was lodged in the bishop, yet the Archdeacon’s Court had, “time out of mind,” been settled as a distinct court , and that the statute 24th of Henry VIII. chap. xii. takes notice of the Consistory Court, which is the bishop’s, and of the Archdeacon’s Court, from which there lies an appeal to the bishop’s. (See Appeal .) There is an officer belonging to this court, called a registrar, whose office concerns the administration of justice, and therefore the archdeacon cannot by law take any money for granting it; if he does, the office will be forfeited to the queen. Regarding parochial visitations by archdeacons, see “Articles and Directions to the Incumbents and Churchwardens within the Archdeaconry of Surrey,” in Gibson’s Codex , vol. ii. p. 1551–1555; and see post , “Visitation.” By 1 & 2 Vict. c. cvi. s. 2, an archdeacon may hold, with his archdeaconry, two benefices under certain restrictions; or a benefice and a cathedral preferment. He is also, whilst engaged in his archidiaconal functions, considered to be resident on his benefice. In cathedrals of the old foundation, the archdeacons of the diocese, how numerous soever, were members of the greater chapter, and had stalls in the choir. This was the universal custom on the continent, and is uniformly the case in Ireland, as it was also in Scotland. In the diocese of Dublin, the archdeacon of Dublin has a stall in both of the cathedrals there, the archdeacon of Glendaloch however only in that of St. Patrick’s. The archdeacons of Ireland have not for a long time exercised any jurisdiction. It is however evident from old documents that they did exercise it in ancient times. The bishops hold annual visitation.