No question connected with the convocations is more problematic than their relationship to parliament. It is well known that from 1559 to 1966 the two bodies were summoned and dissolved together, with convocation usually meeting and dispersing a day later than parliament. There were some exceptions to this rule, most obviously during the commonwealth period (1641-60) when there were no ecclesiastical convocations at all, and initially no convocation was summoned alongside the so-called convention parliament of 1689. It was also the case that the convocations were dissolved on 2 May 1921, while parliament was still sitting, in order to elect a new body which would meet conjointly with the newly formed national assembly of the Church of England. But each of these cases was exceptional, and the general principle remains valid. It is also true that until 1848 the upper houses of the English convocations sat in the house of lords,107 and that since 1429 members of convocation have enjoyed the same privileges and immunities as members of parliament during the sittings of their respective bodies. Most importantly of all, after 15 May 1532 legislation passed in convocation had to be ratified by the king, which in effect means by parliament. Since 1921 this has been done by so-called ‘church measures’ which have the force of statute law, even though they have been composed by the church's synods, subject to parliamentary approval.

Do these facts allow us to conclude that the convocations are generically related to parliament, or even to say that the current general synod is the church's equivalent to it? That was certainly the belief of Francis Atterbury, who in his famous Letter to a convocation man of 1697 and subsequently, argued strongly for reclaiming what he thought were convocation's due rights and privileges as a parliamentary body. That belief was vigorously contested at the time, with considerable success, though Atterbury's claims launched a serious historical investigation into the origins of convocation which remains the starting point for research even today.

The facts appear to be as follows. Provincial synods were never tied to parliament. In principle they were much older, indeed older than England itself and operated as far as possible independently of the state. England has always had two ecclesiastical provinces but only one parliament, which makes equating the two institutions even more difficult. Furthermore, the provinces have seldom if ever been coterminous with the kingdom.