but Bishops and Priests forasmuch as the Declaration of the Word of God pertaineth unto †Hist of the Ref. Vol. I. p. 174. them A Testimony that being given by those of the Higher Order in the Church in behalf of the Powers and Priviledges of the Lower must be allowed Considerable In the course therefore of our Provincial Synods the Inferior Clergy's Consent was expected and not that of the Suffragans only But still as we may observe the Archbishop alone is said to Decree and Ordain which is a stile of Authority peculiar to him Here and beyond what belonged Originally to his Character Indeed by the ancient Rules of the Church the Metropolitan's Consent was nenessary to make the Ordinance and He had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Stile and Power of the Archbishop of this Province might in this respect run higher because he challenged to be looked upon as something more than a simple ‖ Quasi velitis says Peckam in a Letter to the Bishop of London Jura Cantuariensis Ecclesiae ad Simplices Metropolitani Limites Coarctare Whart App. ad Hist. de Ep. Lond. p. 270. Metropolitan and had the Title of a Legat Born and in virtue of that Character he might take upon him to Decree and Ordain as the Pope did in Foreign Councils and as the King here at home used to do iâ— our elder Statutes And as these at the end of every Session of Parliament were used to be Enacted by the King so the Provincial Constitutions were published on the last Day of the Synod by the Archbishop He also some time afterwards enjoyning the Bishop of London and by him as Dean of the Episcopal College the other Bishops to see them Promulged and Executed as Acts of Parliament were ordered to be Proclaimed by the Comes at first and since by his Vicar-General the Sheriff This was the manner of holding Councils and making Canons neither was it necessary to have the King 's or Pope's leave to hold the one nor was their Authority requisite for Decreeing the other The Clergy were only to take care that they did not exceed their Limits either in the Matter or Manner of their Decrees and that their Constitutions were such as would not be Revoked and Annulled by either of those Supreme Powers The Metropolitans were by the Canons and by the Roman Law * Nov. 123. c. 10. where it had force Oblig'd to call those Synods Yearly Neither was Leave to be ask'd for their Summoning such Assemblâ—es then any more than there is now for a Bishop's Convening his Clergy and Church-Officers to a Visitation Not because those Canons were above the Law of our Country but because they were received into it and made a part of the Constitutions and Usages of the Kingdom 'T is true the Archbishop called them sometimes at the King's Instance signified to him by a Royal Writ Yet even then not in Virtue of 〈◊〉 Writ but by his Own Authority By which also whether called at the King's Instance or not he always Dissolved them And of this we have a very remarkable proof in the last Convocation under Henry the IVth ‖ Hen. IV. Writ for the Calling it bears date Jan. 19. 1412. It met â—n the 6 th of March He Died on the 20 th but the Convocation sat on to the 10 th of May when it was Dissolved which though Meeting at his Writ was yet so little thought to be held in Virtue of it that it Sat for near Two Months under his Successor Henry the Vth without a Dissolution Till Archbishop Chichley's time Convocations were frequently held even while Parliaments were sitting without any other Writ from the King but what was contained in the Bishops Summons with the Clause Praemunientes After the 8. of H. VI. the Clergy if they met by the King's Letter had the benefit of the Act of Parliament of that Year and therefore I suppose usually deâ—ired it to gain the Parliamentary Protection not as Fuller idly Conjectures * Ch Hist. Book 5. p. 290. and Dr. Wake from him p. 230. to avoid a Praemunire When they met †Mr. Nicolson Eng. Hist. Lib. part 3. p. 196. says They were Inhibited in their very Writs of Summons from Decreeing any thing to the Prejudice of the King or his Realms And for this he refers us to Dugdale 's Summons in the Reigns of E. 1. and E. 2. where there is not a word to this purpose nor can there be for Dugdale has no Writs for Convocations but only for the Parliament When the next Edition of his Work comes out he will be pleased to tell us from whence he drew this curious Remark I have seen many Convocation Writs but never that I remember one with a Prohibition in the Belly of it Writs were often sent to them by the King Forbidding them to attempt any thing against his Crown and Dignity and these Prohibitions are allowed to have been Tacit Permissions of such Assemblies provided they kept within their Bounds ‖ Bishop Stillingfleet 's Duties and Rights of the Parochial Clergy p. 371. And so indeed they certainly were for otherwise it had been as easy for the King to forbid their Meeting and Sitting as their Acting in such and such Instances which yet he appears very rarely to have done and to have been yet more rarely Obeyed when he attempted it * The Oldest Instance insisted on is a Prohibition of Geofry Fitz-Peter Lord Iustitiary to Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury But how it was obeyed the Annals of Lanercost in Bib. Cott. Claud. D. 7. declare Hub. Arch. Cant. celebravit Concil contra Prohibitionem Gaufridi c. in quo Concilio Archiepiscopus Subscripta promulgavit Decreta Ann. 1200. The Oldest Writ produced is 9 Joh. Ann. 1208. See it in Pryn. 3. Tom. Eccl. Jurisd p. 10. Whether comply'd with or not I do not find But suppose it was for it Issued out upon a Complaint of the whole Parliament A Third Instance I find in the 41 H. 3. Rot. Cl. M. 6. dors when the Convocation was forbid meeting at London because the King had at that very time Summoned all the Members of it that owed him Service to Attend his Army in Wales See the Writ Pryn. Ibid. Vol. II. p. 890. But though this Prohibition was so reasonable yet it was not Obeyed On the contrary when Archbishop Boniface at the Opening it proposed this Question to them among others Item Cùm Dominus Rex Prohibuerit Praelatis Ecclesiae sub forisfacturâ omnium terrarum suarum quas de eo tenent ne venirent ad hujusmodi Convocationem Auctoritate Domini Archiepiscopi factam an liceat deceat expediat tractare in hujusmodi Convocatione de Negotiis Ecclesiae vel potiùs quod absit Prohibitioni Regiae parere c. Ann. Burt. p. 383. it was carried that they should proceed notwithstanding and so they did as appears by the Roll of Grievances then
of all the States of this Lond c. I desire not to be misunderstood in the Recital of these Testimonies I have no other Aim in 'em than barely to shew that the Inferior Clergy tho' meeting and consulting apart from the Parliament yet were still reckon'd to belong to it and to be in some sense and to some Purposes a Member of it and together with the Prelates of the Upper House to compose not indeed one of the Three Estates of Parliament but however an Estate of the Realm assembling joyntly with the Parliament and oblig'd by the Rules of our Constitution to attend always upon it If my Proofs may be allow'd to reach thus far and I have no manner of Mistrust but that they will I give up willingly whatever beyond this they may seem to imply which neither my Argument nor my Inclination any ways leads me to maintain It is so far from being in my Intention that it is not in my Wishes to set up a Plea for any of those Old Priviledges and Preheminences of the Clergy which are long since Dead and Buried and which I think ought never to be reviv'd even for the sake o◠the Clergy themselves who have thriven best always under a Competency of Power and Moderate Pretences The Present Rights they stand plainly possess'd of by Law are sufficient to render them useful Members of the Common-wealth within their Proper Spheres and that these Rights may be well understood and secur'd is the great and only design of these Papers To that end I have vouch'd the Precedent Passages from the Records of Parliament and Convocation not to set up any vain Pretence to the utmost of that Parliamentary Interest which the Clergy sometime had but to secure only what remains of it to them by shewing that their Separation from Parliament did not cut them off from all manner of Relation to it but that still after that their Convocations though held at a distance from the Parliament were in their own nature as well as in the Acceptance of the Crown and in the Eye of the Law Parliamentary Assemblies These Parliamentary Meetings of the Clergy were at first Congregationes or Convocationes Cleri but not therefore Concilia Provincialia Which were Extraordinary Assemblies for Church Business only for the restoring laps'd Discipline and reforming Ecclesiastical Abuses whereas the Others were originally held for Civil Purposes alone and the Common Affairs of the State And when Archbishop Stratford therefore called a Council of his Province * By a Writ dated 10 Kal. Aug. 1341. which begins thus Quamvis sit Sacris Canonibus Constitutum quod Metropolitani Archiepiscopi Primates annis singulis Legitimo Impedimento cessante pro Excessibus corrigendis Moribus reformandis debeant Provinciale Concilium celebrare the Preamble of his Letters Summonitory owns both the Obligation he was under by the Canons of Assembling them Yearly and his having omitted to do it for Eight Years last past though doubtless he had often in that time Convened the Clergy of his Province to Parliament However this Distinction held not very long the Business of Provincial Councils being in tract of time done in the ordinary Congregations of the Clergy and these and those being promiscuously stiled Convocations Till at last Provincial Councils properly so called ceased altogether and Parliamentary Convocations came into their room The Frequency and fix'd Certainty of which gave the Clergy a Regular Opportunity of doing all that for which the other Synods did but occasionally serve And when Warham therefore in 1509. did by his Own Authority call a Synod for the Redress of Abuses and Reformation of Manners his Mandate warn'd it to meet a few days after the Parliament * Parliament Met Jan. 21. Convocation Jan. 26. See Mandate in Bishop Burnet 's Collection of Records Vol. I. p. 6. and stiled it not a Provincial Council but a Convocation of the Clergy And this Word therefore afterwards in the submission-Submission-Act as I understand it was applied strictly to signify the Clergy's Parliamentary Meetings For otherwise it could with no colour of Truth have been affirmed as it is there That the Convocation had always been Assembled by the King 's Writ unless both the Submitters and Enacters had by the Word Convocation understood the Consults of the Clergy in time of Parliament which in some sense were held always by the King 's Writ that is by the Premunitory Clause in the Bishops Summons and let me add are so held still as good Lawyers own †Bagshaw in his Argument about the Canons and Bishop Ravis in his Paper of Reasons to Queen Elizabeth ‖ § 5. affirms and the whole Lower House did to the same Queen upon occasion solemnly declare Witness their Remonstrance in 1558 to justify the Freedom of which they in the Preamble of it suggest the several Authorities by which they Assemble The Instrument is Printed in Fuller ⸪ Ch. Hist. IX Book p. 55. but with the Omission of some words which in that part of it which we have occasion to mention may be thus supplied Nos Cantuariens Provinciae Inferior Secundarius Clerus in ano Deo sic disponente ac Serenissimae Dominae nostrae Reginae Iussu Decani Capituli Cantuariensis Mandato Brevi Parliamenti ac Monitione Ecclesiasticâ sic exigente convenientes partium nostrarum esse existimavimus c. And this Opinion also that Parliament was of which Voted the Canons of 1640. Illegal chiefly on this head because they were made in an Assembly which though it met by the Parliament Writ yet Sate and Acted after the Parliament was determined Nor were they contradicted in it by the Famous Judgment given under the Hands of his Majesty's Counsel and other Honourable Persons Learned in the Law if the Words of that Judgment be well considered which are these The Convocation being called by the King 's Writ under the Great Seal doth continue until it be dissolved by Writ or Commission under the Great Seal notwithstanding the Parliament be dissolved Troub Try Laud. p. 80. Which is all very true and yet it may be true too that such a Writ or Commission ought of course to issue from the Crown upon the Dissolution of the Parliament But this Point is not touch'd upon in the Judgement given and seems to have been purposely declined For otherwise it had been a clearer and fuller Determination of the Matter in Question if they had said That the King might by his Prerogative keep a Convocation sitting as long as he pleased notwithstanding the Dissolution of that Parliament with which it was called I will not say That the Parliament of 1660. were certainly of the same mind though it is probable they were and that this was One if not the Chief Reason why in the Act * 13 Car. II. c. 12. Restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction they so particularly and by Name excepted those Canons from a Parliamentary
very remarkable those words Attempt Alledge Claim and put in Ure are not recited A sure sign that the Attorney-Generals of those times 〈◊〉 those Times had Attorney-Generals that had both Skill and Will enough to carry the King's Prerogative as high as it would bear did not think that they could colourably be made use of to this purpose or that the Clergy were debarr'd by this Act from attempting New Canons to be made hereafter but such Old ones only as had been long ago pass'd and publish'd Dr. Wake therefore is Disingenuous in the Highest Degree where †Append. Num. V. p. 371. he pretends to Print this very Commission and when he comes to the Act of Parliament which it recites does not transcribe the Act as it is there recited which is in part only but refers us to his Extract of it Num. IV. and assures us that it is recited in the Commission as in the Extract Verbatim tho' the most Material words in his Extract and such as would be most Conclusive upon the Clergy's Convocational Acts and Debates if they really belong'd to 'em are as I have shewn designedly omitted in that Recital Such poor shifts is he forc'd to to maintain a Bad Cause which however even by these Ill Arts cannot be maintain'd The Proof drawn from these Commissions is farther confirm'd by a Proclamation of K. Charles the First in Iune 1644 * See it Biblioth Reg. pag. 331. which forbids the Assembly of Divines to Meet and Act upon these and these Accounts only Because by the Laws of the Kingdom no Synod or Convocation of the Clergy ought to be called and assembled within this Realm but by Authority of the King 's Writ and no Constitution or Ordinance Provincial or Synodal or any other Canons may be Made Enacted Promulg'd or Executed it says not Attempted Alledg'd Claim'd or puâ— in Ure which were words known to belong to Canons already made Unless with the King 's Royal Assent and License first obtain'd upon pain of every one of the Clergy's doing contrary and being thereof convict to suffer Imprisonment and make Fine at the King's Will as by the Statute of the 25 H. 8. declaring and enacting the same it doth and may appear Let me add to all these the Authority of the Convocation it self which set out the Institution of a Christian Man a few years after they had submitted In the Dedication of that Book the Prelates address the King after this manner Without your Majesty's Power and License we acknowledg and confess that we have none Authority either to assemble together for any pretence or purpose or to publish any thing that might by us be agreed on or compil'd Which words evidently imply a power of agreeing upon and compiling tho' they deny that of publishing any Determination or Doctrine It were endless after this to argue from the silence of the Authors of those times for then I must vouch All of them Only the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum being a Book of Great Note which was drawn up by Commissioners appointed by the King and where no Occasion is neglected of setting out and magnifying the Royal Power it may be worth our while to observe that there is not however in all that Book as far as I can find one Expression that implies the Composers of it to have thought that the Clergy's Synodical Debates lay under any Restraint from the Crown which is a very strong Presumption that they did not think the Clergy to lye under any The Reader will forgive me for laying together this Great Heap of Authorities if he either considers of how great Importance it is to my Cause that the sense I have given of the Act should be fully clear'd or how necessary Dr. Wake has made such a Collection by affirming that this sense of it was never allowâ—d of or for ought he knows so much as heard of I repeat his very words till the Gentleman against whom he writes enlighten'd the world with it P. 289. The Accounts I have given do I hope both sufficiently expose the Rashness and Vanity of this Assertion and also sufficiently prove the Truth and Justness of that Exposition To return to it therefore The Statute as far as it relates to the Power of the Clergy in Convocation plainly implies no more than that Canons should not from thenceforth pass and become Obligatory without the King's Leave and Authority given in that behalf without his Leâ—ve which was requisite to their Passing and his Authority which was afterwards to ratifie and give 'em force And to understand the words of the Law otherwise is as has appear'd to understand them against all Propriety and the Rules of Construction and which is still more unreasonable to do this in Materiâ minùs favorabili and where Ordinary Liberty is abridg'd and lastly which is intolerable where so grievous a Penalty as that of a Praemunire is to follow The 25 of H. 8. then has not in the least alter'd the Law of Convocations in relation to any of the Powers or Priviledges of the Inferior Clergy They can still freely Consult and Debate Petition or Represent propose the Matter or Form of New Canons and consider about the Inforcing or Abrogating old ones in a word act in all Instances and to all Degrees as they could before the passing of that Statute Indeed my Lord Archbishop's hands are ty'd by it for he cannot now call a Convocation without the King 's Writ which before this Act he might and in Elder Times frequently did He cannot now Enact and Constitute any thing by his own Authority as in Imitation of the Papal Power in Councils and of the Royal Power in Parliaments it was usual for him to do He must before he passes any Act of the Two Houses have the King's Assent to it and after it is pass'd there must be the King's License also to Promulge and Execute it In these several Respects the Metropolitan's Authority is considerably lessen'd by this Act the Exercise of which is now chiefly seen in Moderating the Debates of the Synod and giving his Vote last upon any Question propos'd there as Dr. Cousins Dean of the Arches to his Grace that then was does in his Tables express it * Ejus est moderari Synodum ultimò Suffragium ferre Tab. 3. But the Powers and Priviledges of All the other Members of Convocation continue whole and entire to 'em notwithstanding this Statute and were so understood to continue for a long time after it pass'd the Methods of proceeding in Convocation continuing the same for near Threescore and ten years after the Act as they had been before it the Clergy going on still to propose deliberate and resolve as they had been us'd to do without Qualifying themselves for it by any Precedent License under the Broad Seal the King the Parliament and People of the Realm allowing 'em so to do without opposing this Method as Illegal
ferè totâ Nobilitate regni Magistrorum Clericorum M. Par. p. 372. 1247. Fecit Dominus Rex Magnates suos nec non Angliae Archidiaconos per Scripta sua Regia Londinum evocari Ib. p. 719. agen Convenerant etiam tùnc ibidem ut praetactum est Archidiaconi Angliae nec non totius Cleri pars non minîma cum ipsis Magnatibus conquerentes communiter super intolerabilibus frequentibus Exactionibus domini Papae Tandem de Communi Consilio provisum est ut Gravamina terrae domino Papae seriatim monstrarentur ex parte Communitatis totius Cleri Populi regni Anglicani pp. 720 721. 1255. Post festum S t. Mich. tenuit Rex Parliamentum suum apud Westminster convocatis ibidem Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Baronibus totius Regni Majoribus in quo petebat a Clero de Laïcis Foedis suis sibi Suffragium * Subsidium exhiberi disponens hoc priùs a Clero post eà à Populo Majori Minori extorquere Episcopi vero Abbates Priores Procuratores qui ibidem pro Universitate affuerunt nolentes huic exactioni adquiescere Gravamina summo Pontifici sub sigillis destinarunt Quorum Tenor Talis est De Archidiaconatu Lincolniae Articuli pro Communitate Procuratores Beneficiatorum Archidiaconatûs Lincoln pro totâ Communitate proponunt c. Ann. Burt. pp. 355 356. 1256. A Writ from the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry to the Archdeacon of Stafford commanding him to collect the Papal Procurations ipsam Pecuniam tali die in Parliamento Londoniensi nobis assignantes Ibid. p. 372. Which supposes the Archdeacons Then to have attended the Parliament And accordingly the next time it was assembled we again find them there For a Debate arising this Resolution was taken Commune Concilium super hoc resedit quod Decani Praelati Regulares ac Archidiaconi tractabunt cum suis Capitulis Clericis it a quod ad mensem post Pascha redeant per Procuratores instructos ad plenè respondendum Ann. Burt. p. 374. The meaning of which was that the Deans Priors and Archdeacons appeared in Parliament not for themselves alone but for the whole Clergy of the Body or District over which they presided bringing up from them Procuratorial Letters †See a Bishop's Mandate to this purpose in the next Year 1257 which runs ut praedicti Dicanus Prior dictarum Cathedralium Ecclesiarum Cov. Litchf Abbates alii Priores cum Literis Procuratoriis nomine Congregationum suarum confectis ac dicti Archidiaconi cum Literis similibus factis ex parte Clericorum qui subsunt eïsdem dictis die loco peronaliter intersint Ann. Burt. p. 382. This Summons was purely Synodical P. 9. of this Book I have given two Instances wherein the same method was at this time practis'd in relation to the Parliament in which their Powers were sometimes specify'd and limited and this made a Recourse to their Principals necessary as often as any thing was propos'd that exceeded the Limits of those Powers This was by way of Indulgence to the Lesser Clergy in times when Summons to Parliaments were very frequent and consequently Attendance there very Expensive and Troublesome And the constitution of Reading therefore so often cited which first made distinct Proctors from the Rural Clarks of every Diocese a fixt and necessary part of the Clergys Parliamentary Assemblys did it not as a Priviledge but a Burthen for it commands them to be return'd etiamsi de Conturbatione vel Expensis oporteat fieri mentionem i. e. notwithstanding the Trouble and Charge it might be to them This they felt not while the Archdeacons were Commission'd to act for them who being bound Themselves to attend in Person by taking Procuratoria from the Inferior Clerks lessen'd Their Charge without increasing their Own But assoon as the Clergy sent up Distinct Proctors they were oblig'd to maintain them The Laiety I find were at this time indulg'd in like manner but in an Higher Degree for in the Parliament of Oxford Ann. 1258. this Memorable Provision was made which I shall for more than one reason here insert intirely Si fet a remembrer ke le Commun esâ—ise XII prodes homes ke vendrunt as Parlemenz which by the last Article were to be held three times every Year autre fez quant mester serra quant Rei u sun Cunseil les mandera pur treter de bosoingnes del Rei del Reaume Et ke le Commun tendra pur estable cer ke ces XII frunt ceo serra fet pur esparnier le Cust del Commun †Ann. Burt. p. 416. These Words at first sight might pass well enough for a Proof that the Commons of England properly so call'd were now represented in Parliament But upon comparing the several parts of the Relation it appears that these very Twelve who are here said to be elected par le Commun are in another place mention'd as chosen by the Barons And therefore the Community here spoken of must be the Community of the Baronage or Military Tenants who the Highest as well as the Lowest did it seems impower this Committee of Twelve to act for them in the three Annual Parliaments then appointed to be held And These together with the King's Council of Fifteen at the same time chosen had Authority to make Acts and Ordinances as appears evidently from the Provisions publish'd the next Year in the Parliament at Westminster of which it is said Ces sunt les Purveances les Establissimentz â—aitz a Westmoster al Parlement a la seint Michel par le Rei sun Conseil †Who the King's Council were appears p. 413 les XII par le Commun Conseil esluz after which these remarkable Words follow par devant le Communance de Engleterre ke dunke fu a Westmuster le an del regne Henry le fiz le Rei Iohan quarantieme terz * Ibid. p. 435. The Community of England therefore as distinguish'd from the Community of Barons or Great Tenants in Chief represented here by the Committee of XII were at and of this Assembly though the Enacting part of the Provisions then pass'd did not run in Their Name whose proper Province it was to Represent and to Petition Accordingly at their Instance these very Provisions were made as the same Annals inform us Significavit Communitas Bacheleriae Angliae Domino Edvardo filio regis Comiti Gloverniae aliis Iuratis de Concilio Regis apud Oxoniam quòd dominus Rex totaliter fecerat adimplevit omnia singula quae providerant Barones sibi imposuerant facienda quòd ipsi Barones nihil ad utilitatem reipublicae sicut promiserant fecerunt nisi Commodum Proprium Damnum Regis ubique quòd nisi inde fieret Emendatio alia ratio Pactum reformaret Upon which it follows Tandem videntes Barones magis
Subjects Right and matter of Duty as well to those who Call as those who are Called to them and would oblige therefore though there were no positive Law that fixed the times of such Meetings Indeed Either of these Assemblies in State or Church may sometimes have been intermitted for emergent Reasons and such as the Members themselves that compos'd 'em might be presumed willing to allow yet those Intermissions must not be supposed to take away the Right of meeting except they are withal suppos'd to take away the Right of Convening So that the Provincial Inferiors may well demand to be Assembled as soon as those Reasons Impedient shall cease and much more when stronger Reasons shall arise on the other side such as would justify the Clergy's desire of an extraordinary Convention if they had not an ordinary one to claim And among many other Reasons which may occasionally move Inferiors to claim the Recontinuance of these Meetings this may be one That their Right begins to be questioned by the Discontinuance especially if the Superior shall take care to assert his Own at the same time that he sets aside Theirs and Commanding them to Come shall yet not suffer them to Assemble in Form nor let them instead of being a Convocation Legally to confer together and to frame their Requests to their Lordships the King or Parliament be so much as a Congregation once to say their Prayers together and hear a Sermon Now as it is manifest that this Right of Assembling is Attested by the usage of our Church and founded upon the Canon Law so may it be remembred that it is no Papal Grant but derived from very ancient Christian Practice established by the great Council of Nice and other succeeding General Councils and adopted particularly into the Body of the Canons of Most I might say All Christian Nations The Disuse indeed and Suppression of Synods has been frequently charged upon the Arbitrary Proceedings of the Papacy but no Primate need fear lest he should be thought to take too much of the Legatus Natus upon him if he pleases to convene them For so far are the Clergy of England from being Unreasonable or Singular in their Desire of such Meetings that there is no part of the Reformed Church beside that does not duly hold them They are constantly kept up in the United Provinces and even in France they were never denied the Protestants by this King as long as the use of their Religion was allowed them These Assemblies having been always esteemed by all Christians as the best and most proper means for the Preservation of Unity and suppression of Errors and Disorders in the Church of God To draw nearer home what we plead for has been allow'd the present Scotch Kirk nay and something more than we plead for I hope it will not be thought foreign to my Subject if I stop to give some short account of it Their Assembly has sat often since the Revolution and done business with a witness if a thorough purging of Churches and Universities if exercising their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the whole Kingdom as well over those who renounc'd their Government as those who own'd it be doing Business If to Excommunicate Suspend and Deprive at Pleasure if to be Patrons General of all the Livings of the Kingdom and to Induct as well as to Eject what Persons they thought fit if by an Act of theirs for so the Style runs to appoint National Fasts and to settle General Rules for Church-Discipline and Government without so much as asking leave of the Civil Power be doing Business then I say the Scotch Assembly have within these ten years last past effectually done it They have acted up to the utmost Extent of their pretended Divine Charter of Priviledges and have scarce been withstood in any one Branch of it for tho' the King's Commissioner has sat with them yet has he not been allow'd either to interpose in their Debates or to have a Negative upon their Resolutions no nor so much as to confirm them And when he pretended to adjourn or dissolve the Synod they protested against it and appointed a New Meeting by their own without any regard to His Authority and in the Intervals of their Sessions they have had a standing Committee of their Members who have been as it were a Perpetual Assembly These are the High Favours and Indulgences that have with a Liberal Hand been bestow'd on our Neighbours in Scotland to the utter Abolishment almost of the Civil Magistrates Supremacy in Church-Affairs Shall they who deny the Prince his Due have more than their Due allow'd them and shall not those have so much as their Due who allow him every thing that either the Law of God or the Law of the Land allows him Shall not the modest Claim of an Episcopal Church which professes all due Subjection to the State put in for as fair an Hearing as the Unreasonable Pretensions of an Holy Kirk that acknowledges no Superior but Christ Iesus Nor have those of the Presbyterial and Congregational way been less indulg'd here at home for that They too have their Convocation in as Regular and Full tho' not in so open a manner as the Members of the Church of England desire to have appears from that Circular Summons which about Eighteen Months ago was issu'd out and casually came into an Hand that it did not belong to The World has already had a sight of it however it may not be amiss once more to Print it in these Papers * See the Append. N. II. Nay the Priviledge we claim is not deny'd to any the most Wild and Extravagant Sect among us even Quakers themselves have their Annual Meetings for Ecclesiastical Affairs and are known to have and allow'd to hold them Shall Schism and Enthusiasm to say no worse have the free Liberty of these Consults for the Propagation of their Interests and shall an Apostolick and Establish'd Church want it God forbid In Popish Countries indeed these Synods are discountenanc'd and out of use notwithstanding the late Decree of the Council of Trent which orders that they shall be Celebrated once at least in three years But this Decree stands in the Acts of that Council to no other purpose than as it is a Testimony of the sense that even that Corrupt Body of Men had of the necessity of these Assemblies for the force of it vanished almost as soon as it was made The Undersharers in Spiritual Dominion secretly agreeing to lay it asleep and his Holiness who alone can awaken it conniving at their Neglect because the less such Meetings as these obtain in the Church the greater recourse will there be to his Chair and his Empire will be the more Absolute In France particularly though this Decree has been Authorized by the Edict of Blois and by several others yet have there not been any Provincial Synods held in virtue of it for above these Threescore and Ten
too which recited this Petition Verbatim in a Statute and by that means set their Seal as it were to the Truth of the Suggestion contained in it It would be needless after this to argue from the Old Parliamentary Practice of appointing Convocation-days * Elsyng p. 112. upon which the Temporal Lords Adjourned that the Parliament-Prelates might be at Liberty to Consult with the Inferior Clergy Of this Custom we have an Account as high as the first Years of H. VIII i. e. as high as we have any Iournals of Parliament To as little purpose would it be to urge the Decision of the Committee of Both Houses 21 H. VIII †Moor. Rep. p. 781. and of the House of Commons 10. Mariae ‖ Hist. Ref. II. Vol. p. 252 3. that a Clergyman could not be Chosen into that House * They determined also That a Layman could not be of the Convocation But in That Practice is against them For the Chancellor of York though a Layman is Now and has been long a Member of that Convocation And whether Lamb and Heath who are Mentioned as of the Convocation in 1640. were not Mere Civilians I leave to be consider'd Heyl. Life of Laud. p. 438. Because he was Represented in another House Which implies I think that that other House was to sit concurrently with the Parliament or else I see not what force there is in the Reason given Much less will it perhaps after what I have said be thought Material to observe that 24 H. VIII c. 12. in Matters touching the Crown allows an Appeal within Fifteen days to the Upper House of Convocation then being or next insuing which supposes this Assembly to Meet often and to have its Regular and Stated Returns as the Parliament has These though good Presumptions of the Truth I contend for yet arise not up to the fulness of several of those Proofs which I have before suggested And because they may admit a Cavil therefore I hint them only without dwelling upon them The Evidence already given is sufficient to clear the Practice as it stood 150 Years ago and had then stood Time out of mind And that it has not altered since is too well known to need a Proof There being no Instance to be given I believe from the time of the Reformation down to that of our late Revolution wherein a New Parliament has sate for any time without a Convocation to attend it Nor any one Author of Note I verily think to be produced throughout that Period who has given it as his Opinion that the Former of these Meetings might by the Law of the Realm be held without the Latter Dr. Wake is for ought I can find the very first Writer that has ever Taught this Doctrine with how much Truth or Probability the Reader by this time begins to judge and will in the Course of these Papers more clearly see Wherein I hope to set the Clergy's Right to such Concurrent Meetings in so full and clear a Light that as no One ever denied it before Dr. Wake so neither shall any Man of tolerable Skill or Honesty ever Dispute it after him I have been large upon this Head and I fear by reason of the variety of the Matter somewhat confus'd It may be proper therefore here at the close of it to recollect the several Branches of the Proof there advanc'd They stand in this Order That as far back as we have any Memoirs of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Affairs of this Kingdom it appears that the Clergy and Laity Met together in the great Councils of the Realm That this they did in the Saxon times and for some Reigns after the Conquest Nationally joining closely with the Laity in Civil Debates and taking Their Sanction along with them in all Ecclesiastical Acts and Ordinances That they divided afterwards from the Laity and from one another and attended the Parliament not in One Body but in Two Provincial Synods held under their several Archbishops That though it does not clearly appear when this Practice first had its Rise yet sure we are that it is between 4 and 500 years old and has for so long at least regularly obtain'd excepting only the Interruption that was given to it by the Premunitory Clause inserted into the Bishops Writs which once again warn'd and brought the Clergy Nationally to Parliament That a strict Compliance with this Clause was at first exacted by the Crown and paid by the Clergy but that they soon found ways of being released from the Rigor of it and prevail'd upon the King to accept of their former manner of Assembling with the Parliament in Two Provincial Synods in lieu of that Closer Attendance which the Premunientes challenged the Forms however being still kept up by which the King 's Right of Summoning them immediately to Parliament was declar'd all along and their Obligation to obey his Summons in the way it prescribed was duly acknowledged That these Provincial Assemblies though held apart from the Parliament yet belong'd to it Met by the Parliamentary no less than the Provincial Writ and were State-Meetings as well as Church-Synods In them Parliamentary Matters were Transacted and Parliamentary Forms and Methods observed the Members of them were Entitled to Parliamentary Wages and enjoyed Parliamentary Priviledges That the Inferior Clergy though divided in Place from the Lower Laity yet join'd with them often in the same Acts and Petitions and were still esteem'd and called the Commons Spiritual of the Realm and what They and the Prelates in Convocation did was long after the Separation spoken of in our Records as done in Parliament That these Parliamentary Conventions of the Clergy were held at first near the time at which the Laity met afterwards with a Latitude But that This Irregularity was Reformed before the Reformation of Religion and their Meeting and Departing fixed within a Day of the Assembling and Dismission of the Parliament and that this Custom has now for above an Age and Half continued That for so long therefore not to say how much longer the Convocation has been a word of Art which signifies a Meeting of the Clergy in time of Parliament That such Meetings have by All that understood our Constitution been held Necessary Dr. Wake being the First Writer that has ever asserted them to be Precarious and put it in the Prince's or the Archbishop's Power whether they will have such Assemblies or no. The Result of All is This That if some Hundred Years Custom can make a Law then may we without Offence affirm it to be Law that the Convocation should Sit with every New Parliament If the True Notion of a Convocation be That it is an Assembly of the Clergy always attending the Parliament then is it no Presumption to say That we have the same Law for the Sitting of a Convocation as we have for that of a Parliament And by this Law the Clergy as was said before in relation
Point he would have set aside all those Instances of Provincial Councils Summoned by Princes where those Princes exerted their Power only to make Metropolitans who were remiss do their Duty and obey the Canons or where they interposed only to revive the Use of such Meetings which had been under a long Discontinuance in their Kingdoms and when they had done so lest them afterwards to their Ordinary Course In these Cases whatever the Prince did he did in behalf of the Churches Rights and his Act ought not therefore to be alledged and cannot fairly be construed to their prejudice Nay in the most Ordinary and Regular Assemblies of the Province should any mention be made in their Acts of their Meeting by the Civil Authority yet it ought to be considered whether at the same Time and in the same Acts their Right of meeting by the Canons also be not claimed For if it be the Exercise of the Regal Power in such Instances is no Bar to those Liberties of the Church which are at the same time expresly asserted and maintained Kings may order their Bishops to meet when those Bishops would have met tho' unordered and all therefore that such Bishops when met could do to secure their Ecclesiastical Right of Meeting was to mention it together with the Royal Precept and this we may presume 'em purposely to have done to prevent those Precedents being drawn into Consequence and under a Prudent Foresight of the Ill Uses that might be made of them by such Betrayers of the Church-Rights as our Author in Future Ages These Circumstances should have been considered by him and where they take place in any of the Instances of Provincial Councils he alledges acknowledged But it was not agreeable either to his Design or his Temper to enquire into matters thus carefully or to state 'em thus candidly and fairly It was enough if upon a Superficial View of the Acts of Provincial Synods or those that passed for such he found at the Entrance of any of 'em a mention of the Royal Power This he knew would have the Look of a Proof and whether it had more than that he knew not and cared not and hoped other People would not give themselves the Trouble to enquire To come to Particulars The First Instance he has produced of the Authority of Princes over Provincial Synods is this When Theodoret says he began to be busie in calling the Bishops together Theodosius not only laid a Prohibition upon him but confined him to Cyrus his own little See as a Punishment for what he had done before P. 18. I question whether Dr. Wake ever gave himself the Trouble of reading those three Epistles * Epist. 79 80 81. which he cites on this occasion tho' not with right Numbers For there he would have found that Theodoret when thus prohibited by the Emperor was at Antioch where he had no more Authority to call the Bishops together than at Rome or Constantinople He had been called up thither from his Little See to reside with Iohn the Patriarch and whatever of this kind he did therefore he did by his Order and as his Substitute But Theodosius finding the Peace of the East hazarded by these Assemblies and the Nestorian Heresie favoured by them sent an Order to Theodoret upon whose Advice the Patriarch acted to retire to his own Diocese and live there This is the true account of that matter which how it makes for or against any Point in Dispute between Dr. Wake and his Adversaries is to me hard to apprehend The next Provincial Synod he mentions is that of Agatha called by Caesarius Bishop of Arles but not says the Dr. till he had obtain'd the Consent of Alaric the Goth for it and it is expresly noted that it was held by his Allowance †P. 20. What if it were was it not a mighty favour that thirty five Catholick Bishops for so many were present ‖ Vide Conc. Meld c 73 should be allowed to meet under an Arian Prince tho' the Rules of the Church were on their side and was not this favour fit to be acknowledged in their Acts especially since at the same time they took care to assert their Ecclesiastical Right to such Meetings and to ordain * Can. 71. that for the future in obedience to the Canons Provincial Synods should be held yearly The Permission of the Prince would be sufficiently accounted for this way had this Synod been both Ordinary and Provincial but it was really neither not Ordinary for it was called after a long Intermission of Councils in those parts to restore the Decayed Discipline of the Church not Provincial for De Marca has observed * L.VI. c. 17. §. 1. that no less than five Metropolitans and the Proxy of a sixth subscribe to it But the Doctor found it styled Provincial in the Tomes of the Councils and he look'd no further Such another Provincial Council is the very next he insists on †Ibid. p. 20. that of Epaon it was composed of the Bishops of Two Distinct Provinces those of Vienne under their Archbishop Avitus and of Lyons under Viventiolus as the Subscriptions if he had not been too much in hast would have informed him Among the Spanish Councils he meets with Two that were Provincial the Synods of Narbonne and Saragosa and of both these he tells us it is said that they met according to the Order of Recaredus Pag. 23. But by his favour this is said of neither In that of Narbonne they affirm ‖ Concilia Sanctorum Patrum vel Decreta observare cum timore Dei cupientes Nos in Urbe Narbonî secundum quod Sancta Synodus per ordinationem Gloriosissimi nostri Recaredi Regis in urbe Toletanâ finivit in unum convenimus themselves to meet in vertue of the Antient Canons and of the Decree of the third Council of Toledo which met by Recaredus's order In that of Saragosa they own themselves indeed to meet by the Permission but not by the Order of Recaredus and this Permission might be and probably was no more than what was contained in the Canon of that Council of Toledo which had revived the use of Provincial Synods in Spain but just before and the Acts of which Recaredus had confirmed In Gallicia he finds the Second Synod of Braga which was Provincial to have assembled at the Command of Arianirus * P. 23. It did so but it must be considered that no Synod had been held in those parts for many years before †Diu est says the Metropolitan in his Speech by which he opened it Sanctissimi Fratres quòd secundum Instituta Venerabilium Canonum Decreta Catholicae Apostolicae Disciplinae desiderabamus Sacerdotalem inter nos fieri debere Conventum quia non solùm Ecclesiasticis Regulis Ordinibus opportunum est sed stabilem etiam semper efficit Charitatis Fraternae Concordiam dum
of Eadmerus he mentions by which it is clear that that Prince was as Absolute in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Affairs and his Acts therefore are I hope no Precedents to any of his Legal and Limited Successors His Present Majesty is not William the Conquerour and can no more by our Constitution rule absolutely either in Church or State than he would even if he could His Will and Pleasure is indeed a Law to All his Subjects not in a Conquering sense but because his Will and Pleaâ—ure is only that the Laws of our Country should be obeyed which he came over on purpose to rescue and counts it His Great Prerogative to maintain and contemns therefore I doubt not such sordid Flattery as would measure the Extent of His Supremacy from the Conqueror's Claim Intimations of this kind have been thought so Heinous as to be purged only by Fire a Punishment which our Gentle Laws tho' they have taken it off from Men have still reserved for Books and applyed it now and then to repress a State-Heresie and secure the Fundamentals of our Constitution against All its Underminers This Conqueror and his Family are much in request with our Writer and agen therefore of his Son William Rufus he tells us not without a Glance on more Modern Times that he would suffer no Ecclesiastical Synod to be held during the thirteen years of his Reign * P. 185. But let me ask our Man of History which of all those Historians in whose Works he has so happily spent his Researches represent this part of Rufus's Character to his advantage which of 'em that mention the thing do not also complain of it as one of the Greatest Hardships of that Cruel and Oppressive Reign and to be ranked with that other Righteous Practice of his by which he kept Vacant and set to Farm all the Bishopricks and Abbies as they fell and had by that means when he died no less than Twelve of them in his Hands * Iorvall apud X. Script Col. 996. and of these the small Bishopricks of Canterbury Winchester and Sarum were Three These are sad Stories but God be thanked they were done a great while ago and do not therefore much concern us For we live now neither under William the First nor William the Second but under William the Third A short Answer to an Hundred such Old Tales as these but every good Englishman will think it a full one Less have we to do with his Outlandish Instances of Ecclesiastical Tyranny such as the Dealing of Constantius was with the Council of Ariminum A very Righteous and Laudable Act which Dr. Wake proposes for the Instruction of future Princes and was as follows When the four Hundred Fathers assembled there had finished the business for which they met and determined the disputed Points clearly against Arius they begged of Constantius that they might return home and attend their Flocks but he refused 'em ordering his Officers to keep the Synod together by force till they had revoked their former Decision and subscribed an Arian Form that he transmitted to them upon which those who were resolved not to comply made their Escape as well as they could and even without his Permission went back to their Dioceses But Constantius not having given them his Leave neither will Dr. Wake give them His and does as good as say they did Ill to separate without the Emperor's Order and deserved his Resentments for so doing * See p. 77. I know in his Appeal †P. xviii he pretends to fosten this Censure and to take off several Invidious Instances of the same kind by saying that we are to distinguish between what he relates as matter of History and what he delivers as his own Opinion But how should the Reader distinguish where the Writer does not nay where the Writer has left no possible room for a Distinction tho' the Reader should be never so willing to employ it For it is certain that Dr. Wake produces these Facts purely to establish Rights upon them and having laid down his Historical Grounds therefore does in every Instance proceed to draw his Conclusions from them particularly in This we are upon the Instance of a Tyrannical Power exercised by Constantius over the Fathers at Rimini after he has told the Story and added Two other accounts of the Imperial Authorities exerting it self on the like Occasions he thus concludes It is therefore the Duty of All Synods as they are conven'd by the Prince's Authority so to tarry till they have the same Authority for their Dissolution * P. 79. Let him not hope then after amassing together all the Instances of an Ungodly Usurpation in Princes upon the Liberties of the Church to come off by saying that we are to distinguish between what he relates as matter of History and what as matter of Opinion and by leaving it in his own Power afterwards to apply this General Plea to any particular Instances in his Book as he shall have need of it for these Two in Works of this Nature cannot be separated Where an enquiry is made what Princes may lawfully do and in order to it an History drawn up of what they have actually done there all the Accounts the Historian gives us of their Acts he must be supposed to approve too unless he has taken care to warn us to the contrary and to express his Abhorrence of them Should a Man pretend to mark out the Bounds of the King's Prerogative in Civil Affairs and to that End deduce an account of all the most Arbitrary and Illegal Acts of our Princes by which they have trampled on the Liberties of their Subjects and the Power of Parliaments would it avail him afterwards in abatement to say that he intended these Instances by way of History only and not to express his own sense of things when his own sense of things is manifestly built on those Historical Accounts his Conclusions deduced from them and supported by ' em Such a poor Excuse would not be admitted in behalf of such a Chronique Scandaleuse Every Good Englishman would still see through and detest the Design and the Author under all his shifts would be as scandalous as his History But to proceed in our Remarks I observe V. That Dr. Wake in his accounts of Antient Councils often confounds two things that are widely different the Prince's power of proposing any Subject of Debate to his Synods and his Power of confining 'em to debate of nothing but just what he proposes As to the First of these no body questions the Prince's Right in all Synods from the Greatest to the Smallest but as to the Latter he has neither Right or Practice on his side not even in the most General Councils where the Civil Authority always exerted it self most whatever Dr. Wake may pretend to the contrary 'T is true in those Larger Synods which met at the Call of Princes upon Extraordinary Occasions
the way generally was that the Business for which they were called should be first handled and from the Acts of those Councils it appears that the Emperor or his Commissioners interposed sometimes to prevent their entring on any foreign matter till That was dispatched call'd 'em back to it when they wandered and made 'em begin their Debates anew when they had proceeded irregularly But after This was over that they never entred on any new Point without his express Direction and in every step of their other Debates expected his Order is an Assertion worthy of Dr. Wake †See p. 48. and every way becoming his Cause and his Character Let us see how he proves it He instances first in the Great Council of Niâ—e whose Acts were either never drawn up in form or quickly lost and one would think it therefore pretty difficult to give a Punctual acâ—count of their manner of Proceeding But Dr. Wake by the help of some History and more Divination ventures upon it It was called he says to restore the Peace of the Church which the Heresie of Arius and the Oriental and Western Churches about the time of keeping Easter had so dangerously broken and Eusebius tells us that Constantine at the opening it earnestly exhorted the Bishops by their wise Resolutions to settle all things in Quiet and Unity And accordingly says he in his new manner of Speech the Subject of their Debates turned upon these Two Points P. 48. But his History is every whit as new as his Language for it has been hitherto thought that the Subject of their Debates or rather their Debates had turned on several other Points beside these Two particularly that there were Twenty Canons framed and published by them and whatever becomes of the Arabick ones yet that these were of confessed Authority And as willing as Dr. Wake is to overlook these Canons I must take the liberty to put him in mind of them especially of the Fifth which provides for the frequent Sessions of Provincial Councils without any Previous Application to the Emperor for his Leave to make such Provision Nay I find not in any of these Canons a word mentioned either of the Arian Controversie or that about Easter the Decision of which was comprized in their Synodical Epistle Does the Doctor think that they debated on nothing but what was the Subject of that Letter or has he some secret History of their Acts by which he can prove that Constantine offered these Canons to 'em ready drawn up and that they passed the Synod by way of form only without being discussed If he can make this out the Instance will be somewhat to his purpose otherwise it is fit to keep Company with those that follow Viz. the Instances of the two General Council of Ephesus * P. 49. and Chalcedon †P. 51. where the Roman Emperors had their Commissioners to preside in their stead They had so but in what manner and to what Ends let those Emperors themselves in their Commissional Letters speak it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to secure Order and Regularity in their Proceedings and with an Express Prohibition of their interposing in Matters Doctrinal and such Points as were properly of Church-cognizance This is so beaten a Theme and the Answers to these objected Instances are so well known that I should be ashamed to give 'em were I not obliged to it by Dr. Wake who is not ashamed to produce the Instances themselves without taking any notice of the Answers that have been an hundred times over made to ' em Our Learned Mason long ago thus accounted for these very Instances The Lay-Presidency he says in these Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon was made use of for four Reasons 1. To hinder Strangers who flocked thither and had no Right to Vote from breaking in upon the Assembly 2. To keep all the Members of the Synod together till they had dispatched the business for which they met 3. To see that Business first concluded before any new Point was started and pursued 4. To take care that the private Piques and Resentments of any of the Members should not interrupt the Publick Work These were the Chief Ends for which the Emperors had their Commissioners at those Meetings and not for the proposing to the Fathers the several successive Matters which they were to Deliberate on much less for the Confining 'em to deliberate on nothing but what they proposed So far was that from being the Case that the Eighth Canon of the Ephesine Council occasioned by a Dispute about the Cyprian Priviledges was plainly brought in debated and concluded by the Synod without the least Interposition of the Civil Power And which of the Thirty Canons passed by the Council of Chalcedon * Act. 15. were not so I desire Dr. Wake at his Leisure to inform us and withal with what assurance he could say that every New Matter in that Council of Chalcedon is Prefaced with this Declaration that they had obtained leave of the Emperors for the Fathers to consider of it and that the Emperors Orders were delivered to the Commissioners Pag. 51. to authorize the Bishops to enter upon it When not one of these Thirty Canons were thus Prefaced or authorized tho' some of them were of the Greatest Weight and Consequence particularly the 28. which put the See of Constantinople upon the Level with that of Rome and which the Fathers were so far from being authorized before-hand to Treat on and to pass that the Commissioners knew nothing of it till it had passed and had it therefore read to 'em at their next Meeting in order to their considering and approving it To support this Gross Falsity he quotes the 7 th 9 th 10 th and 11 th Actions of this Synod where the New Matter on which their Debates proceed is he says Prefaced with the Emperor's Leave but it was not to his purpose to speak more plainly For that New Matter was such in which it is likely the Emperor had before-hand been apply'd to and interested himself in which case it was decent if not necessary to have his Consent before it was presented to the Synod It related to some Bishops who had as They urged been Uncanonically deprived and had probably sought the Emperor's Protection in the case When the Council sat he referred 'em thither for Justice and they might therefore on this account fitly mention the Imperial Leave when their Business first came on But let this be as it will it is a Point of Iurisdiction with which we are not at present concerned The Canons of that Council it is certain had New Matter in them and it is as certain that none of that New Matter was Prefaced with the Emperor's Leave and how Dr. Wake came to forget both these and the Nicene Canons is matter of wonder I had thought the Decrees of Councils were the most Important and Sacred Part of their Acts especially the
are us'd only pro Honore Regio etiamsi ad id de Iure teneatur But I pay too great a Regard to his trifling Remarks in pursuing them thus minutely and go on therefore to remove the rest of the Exceptions taken at our way of expounding the Statute In my account of the Practise of Convocations since the 25 H. VIII I slipp'd over some Requests of the Lower House of Convocation to the Upper a few years after this Act pass'd and promis'd to make a distinct Head of them which I shall now therefore consider and explain It is objected against that sense I have given of the Statute that the Clergy of those times did themselves understand it otherwise for in a Petition put up by them to the Bishops 1 o E. VI. they recite some part of the Submission-Act and of the 27 H. VIII that confirms it and then desire that being presently assembled in Convocation by auctority of the King 's Writ the King's Majestys License in Writing may for them be obtain'd and granted according to the Effect of the said Statues auctorising them to attempt entreat and commune of such matters and therein freely to give their Consents which otherwise they may not do upon Pain and Peril premis'd This indeed seems Material and for this Reason I suppose Dr. W. takes no notice of it But L. M. P. insists upon it and styles it an Authentick Exposition of that statute which without any other Evidence is sufficient to shew that it was the Intention of that Act that the Treating and Resolving as well as the Meeting of a Convocation should depend upon the Mere Good-will of the Prince †Pp. 39 40 The Reader may observe how wondrous kind this Gentleman can be to the Clergy upon occasion and what a profound respect he has for their Opinion when it is for his Turn He allows a Petition of the Lower House of Convocation to be an Authentick Exposition of an Act of Parliament an Honor which the most solemn Decisions of both Houses would not much less do the Petitions and Requests of any one deserve and least of all the particular Requests we are at present concerned with For It is probable that the Petition it self is not Authentick and then the Exposition it gives to be sure cannot be so There are two Papers printed by my Lord of Sarum †2. Vol. Coll of Rec. n. 16 17. which he calls Petitions of the Lower House of Convocation 1 o E. VI. to the Upper The Former of these †N. 16. is not a single Petition but four several Requests or rather the Minutes of four joyn'd together with a certain Query annex'd in the Close of them Of these the First relates to the Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws appointed by Act of Parliament to be made in H. the VIII th's time The Second is a Proposal for adjoyning the Lower House of Convocation to that of Parliament The Third concerns the Committee for reforming the Offices The Fourth is about the Statute of First fruits and Tenths The Query added is Whether the Clergy of the Convocation may liberally speak their mind without danger of Statute or Law The Latter is a Petition in form from the Lower Clergy to the Bishops enforcing the second of those Requests put up in the former Paper and praying a License in Writing in the Terms already recited †P. 399. Now this last Paper I say seems never to have been approv'd or presented by the Lower Clergy and I say it upon these Grounds 1. Because the short Acts of this Convocation preserv'd in the Book call'd Synodalia †In Bennet Coll. Library short as they are ‖ These Acts short as they are give an account of the Business that was done and the Motions that wee made every single Day that the Convocation sat from Nov. 5 to Decem. 1â— except in the 4th Session only which was Nov. 25. where my Transcript of the Acts is a Blank And there is but this One Day therefore in which it can be suppos'd that this Petition might have been drawn and presented do yet I find mention the first Paper and the four several Articles of it ⸪ Sess. 3.22 Nov. Istâ die convenientibus in inferiori Domo concordatum suit ut Dominus Prolocutor nomine totius Domûs referal R mo subsequentes Petitiones Viz. 1 o. Quòd provideatur ut Ecclesiasticae Leges Examinentur Promulgentur juxta statutum Parliamenti editum 35 H. VIII 2. Item ut pro nonnullis urgentibus causis Convocatio hujus Cleri si fieri possit assumatur cooptetur in Inferiorem Domum Parliamenti sicut ab antiquo fieri consuevit 3. Item ut Opera Episcoporum Alicrum c. as before p. 181. 4. Item ut Rigor statuti de Primitiis Domino nostro Regi solvendis aliquantisper in certis urgentibus Clausulis moderetur reformetur si commodè fieri possit in the Order they there lie but give not the least Hint of this Second nor does Archbishop Parker in Antiquitates Britannicae where he speaks ⸪ P. 339. largely of matters agitated in this Convocation say a syllable of it On the Contrary both He and Bishop Burnet give us some Particulars that do not seem very consistent with the supposal of such a Petition Bishop Burnet's words are That the Act which repeal'd the Statute of the six Articles was occasion'd by a Speech that Archbishop Cranmer had in Convocation in which he exhorted the Clergy to give themselves much to the study of Scripture and to consider seriously what needed Reformation c. upon which some intimated to him that as long as these Six Articles stood in force it was not safe for them to deliver their Opinions This he reported to the Council upon which they order'd this Act of Repeal †Hist. Ref. Vol. 2. p. 40 his Lordship means agreed that the Repeal of this Statute should be propos'd in Parliament Thus his Lordship out of Archbishop Parker's Papers and thus the Archbishop himself out of the Records of Convocation * Ex Archivis he himself says In Synodo Cranmerus Archiepiscopus habità oratione de religione ex verbo Christi institutâ— populo tradendâ c. consulendum duxit Sed Legum adhuc de Sex Articulis Henrico Rege regante latarum severitas plerosque terruit quò minûs suas de Religione resormandà Sententias libere dicerent Itaque impetravit à Rege Cranmerus ut interim dum illae Leges Parliamento abrogentur Praelatis de Religione in Synodo disserentibus atroces illae rigidaeque paenae laxarentur Quod concâ—ssum est A clear account is given here of the Clergys fears in relation to the Statute of the six Articles and of their care to screen themselves from the sad Penaltys of it but not a word of any Apprehensions they were under in reference to the Submission-Act And with these
against the Necessity of that Exemption from the Penaltys of the six Articles which the Clergy continu'd to pray and which was now granted according to their Prayer as Bishop Parker †Quod concessum est See above p. 4 2. assures us But had we been in the dark as to the Event of this Petition yet the very Time and Circumstances in which it was fram'd would sufficiently have accounted for it and shew'd us the Unreasonableness of setting up this Instance as a Precedent The Nation was then in an high Ferment and the Popish Party both in the Convocation and out of it strong and to be sure watchful to make use of all Advantages against the Reforming Clergy in whom therefore it might be prudent to arm themselves for the Great Work they were going about a thourough Alteration of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church with the Largest Powers they could procure whether in strictness of Law they needed them or not They themselves could not well doubt whether they had such a Freedom oâ— Debate as they were permitted to enjoy by H. the VIII th himself a Prince jealous to the utmost of every the least Encroâ—chment on his Prerogative and careful to put every method he fairly could in practise which might be of use to humble the Clergy This Petition therefore cannot be supposed to express their Sense of the Act but their Fears rather of the Construction which some of the Men in Power might put upon it And under this View a License might appear though not necessary in it self yet useful to prevent the Malice of their Enemies and to allay the Doubts of their Friends to take away all Excuse from those who pretended to be under the Aw of that Statute and every way to encrease and animate their Party It was no new thing in that and the preceding Reign for freedom of Speech even when it had Right on its side to ask Leave a Practise stoop'd to by the Laiety of those times as well as the Clergy For it was we know in the 33 d. Year of H. the VIII th †〈◊〉 Syâ—mâ—nds d' Ewes Jour p. 43. 〈◊〉 ch 7. that the Commons made their first Request for Liberty of Speech which has been since continu'd And in his Son's Time the Time we are upon they have petition'd even for Leave to Treat in particular Cases of which I shall give one Instance out of their Journals In the Parliament begun 4. Nov. 3 E. VI. the Commons e're they would attempt the Repeal of a Branch in a certain Act of Relief made suite to the King for Liberty to proceed in it The Words of the Journal are 18. Nov. It is order'd that Mr. Speaker with the King 's Privy Council of the House and twelve others of the House shall be Suitors to know the King's Majestys Pleasure by his Council if upon their Humble Sâ—ite thâ—y may treat of the last Relief for Cloaths and Sheep at four of the Clock in the Afternoon Nov. 20. It is reported by Mr. Speaker the King's Pleasure to be by his Counsel that the House may treat for the Act of Relief having in respect the Cause of the Granting thereof Nâ—v 30. Mr. Comptroller reporteth that the King's Majesty is pleased with the Petition for the Relief and giveth License to treat upon it Dec. 11. A Bill was brought in for the Discharge of that Subsidy and Repeal of the Branches wherein it was granted We see here what a profound Submission was in those times pay'd to the Prerogative in the Point of Liberty of Debate even by Parliaments themselves and have with all a clear Proof that Men may Petition for what is unquestionably their Right and which is more may continue so to do for long Periods of time without prejudicing their Right by such repeated Petitions Which however is far from being the case in respect of the Clergy for I have shewn it doubtful whether the Petition alledg'd were ever presented or if it were yet certain that it was overrul'd afterwards no License issuing upon it and that the Clergy neither had nor thought they needed any such License for some succeeding Reigns So that to return to what led me into these Enquirys no Authentick Exposition of the Submission-Act is to be had either from this Petition as L. M. P. imagines or from the Uninterrupted Practice of Convocations to which Dr. W. appeals And if our sense of the Act therefore be not prov'd faulty by some better Mediums then these it will remain unshaken Little now is left behind to this purpose unconsider'd except the Opinion of Dr. Cousins and Dr. Zouch and a Resolution of some of the Iudges * Mention'd by L. M. P. p. 38 39. of Each of which some short Account shall be given Dr. Cousins in his Tables as they are now Printed lays down these Three Assertions Synodus Provincialis vel Nationalis convocari non debet absque Principis rescripâ—o Nâ—c tractari nec determinari potest aliquid in Synodo nisi consentiente assentiente Principe Nihil habet Vim Legis priusquam Regius Assensus sucrit adhibitus his quae Synodus decernenda censuerit Of these the first and last Positions are easily admitted but I desire to be excus'd from believing that the second as it is now worded was of Dr. Cousins's drawing since it contradicts the Practise of the Synods held under Parker and Grindall and his own Patron Archbishop Whitgift and as far as we can learn that of the Convocation in 1597 the Year before Cousins dy'd The Tables therefore being not publish'd till after his Death and after the Synod in 1603 't is reasonable to believe that they had the General Fate of Posthumous Pieces not to come out exactly as their Author left them and particularly that they were in the second Position adjusted to the Practise of the Synod in 1603 either by the Editor or by the owner of that Copy from whence the Edition was made I should think that Cousins's Proposition ran thus Determinari non potest aliquid in Synodo nisi consulto * For the Change of Consentiente into Consulto I have good Authority And under this Reading it is imply'd that both the Request and Consent were Verbal assentiente Principe which by some unskilful hand that had seen the License in 1603. was alter'd into Nec Tractari nee Determinari potest I say an Unskillful Hand for it is clear and I have shewn it that that License it self does not go so far as this second Assertion the Instrument reciting only a leave given to Treat and Resolve joyntly that is a Leave for the one in order to the other whereas here they are mention'd separately and a License affirm'd necessary to the first without respect to the Latter Dr. Cousins who was a Man of Skill and Exactness in these things would never have expressed himself thus injudiciously had he indeed liv'd to
Chapterhouse appears to have been the Place of Reception for the Convocation Clergy * See Wals. Hist. Angl. ad ann 1421. and in the 4 H. V. the Rolls say Le Chanceleur per commandment du Roy assigna a les ditz Chivalers Citizeins Burgeoises une Maison appellee le Froitour dedeinz L'abbee de Westminster a tenir en yâ—elle leur Counseilles Assemblees and in the 6 H. VI. it is said to be the place where the Commons ordinarily sat ‖ The Roll goes further and says Eorum Domus Communis antiquitùs usitata in a Manuscript of Mr. Petyt printed by Bishop Burnet †Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. Coll. of Rec. p. 100. But though the Place of their Meeting puzzles him yet the Time it seems does not for as to That he informs us that the Clergy who met by vertue of the Convocation-Writ in Parliament time came together heretofore on some Other Day than that on which the Parliament began †P. 224. He knows not it seems that they have done so a late too and that the Custom for an Age and half was for them to assemble the Day after the Parliament This Usage began in the time of H. the VIII th and was then often practis'd but not regularly fix'd till toward the latter End of his Reign from which time to the late Revolution it held and from thence the Parliament and Convocation-Writs have Summon'd to the very same day which has joyn'd these two Bodys yet more closely than formerly in their Summons though their Assemblys at the same time are more than ever divided My Lord of Sarum therefore had not well consider'd this matter when he said that it was the Custom of all H. the VIII's Reign for the Convocation to meet two or three days after the Parliament †Vol. 1. p. 213. For besides that it sometimes met before it for instance in 1511 2. the Convocation came together Feb. 2. * Registr Hadr. de Castello the Parliament not till Feb. 4. †Dâ—gd Summ. 3 H. 8 th the very Instance upon which his Lordship produces this Observation destroys it for the Convocation of 1536. began Iune 9 th the Parliament Iune the 8 th And indeed near half the Convocations in that Princes time met as they did till the present Reign nicely the day after the Parliament as will appear by particularly comparing the Dates of both of them Parliament Met 1514 5 Feb. 5. Dugd. Sum. 1515 Nov. 12. Ibid. 1536 Iune 8. Ibid. 1540 Apr. 12. Bp. Burnet V. 1. p. 274. 1544 5 Ian. 30. Dugd. 1545 Nov. 23. Ibid. 1546 7 Ian. 14. Ibid. Convocation Met Feb. 6. Registr Warham Nov. 13. Registr Hadr. de Cast. Iune 9. Ibid. Apr. 13. Registr Cranmer Ian. 31. Ibid. Nov. 24. Ibid. Ian. 15. Ibid. And the same Distance of Time was often also observ'd both in Proroguing and Dissolving that Princes Convocations and Parliaments As to the Authority by which the Clergy were conven'd Dr. W. affords us as little light in That Point too as in any of the former He recites the Opinion of some who think that after the statute of Premunire in 1393. our Archbishops left off to summon Convocations by their Own Authority and call'd them only at the King's Command †Pp. 240 241. but in this account he says he is not altogether satisfied Had he any manner of Knowledge of these things he would not be at all satisfy'd with it For as in Fact it is certain that the Archbishop after this time summon'd Convocations frequently by his Own Authority so it is clear in point of Law that he had as much Right to do it after the Statute of Premunire as before it there being no Clause or Word in that Act that can be suppos'd to restrain His Power in this particular Indeed had the Archbishop whenever he call'd a Convocation without the King 's Writ done it by a Legatin Authority as Dr. W. represents him to have done * P. 241 199. there would have been some Ground to think that the Premunire Act might have laid a Restraint upon him But this is another of Dr. W's mistakes for the Archbishop needed no Help from his Legatin Character to convene the Clergy of his Province which he was sufficiently impower'd to do as Metropolitan by the Old Canons of the Church receiv'd and allow'd in this Kingdom And accordingly by this Metropolitical Power the Archbishops all along call'd Provincial Councils before any of them were the Popes Legates which from St. Austin down to Theobald say some * Ant. Brit. p. 127. to William de Corboyl say others †Gervasii Act Pont Cant. X Script col 1663. none of them were He indeed by vertue of his New Character summon'd the Archbishop of York and all the Clergy of that Province ⸪ Ibid. Continuator Florentii Wig. ad ann 1127. to his Councils and One of his Successors ‖ Hubert who is suppos'd by some to have got the Title of Legatus natus for ever annex'd to his See did Iure Legationis visit York Province †Hoveden ad ann 1195. And in order to these Extraprovincial Acts of Jurisdiction the Legatine Authority was indeed needful For tho' it had been solemnly determin'd in favour of Lanfrank by the Great Council of the Kingdom ⸫ Diceto de Archi. Cant. p. 685. that the See of York should be subject to that of Cant. and the Archbishop of the One obey the Conciliary summons of the other yet was not this Decision long observ'd the Archbishop of York soon finding means to get rid of it and to assert the Independency of his See But as to the Ordinary Acts of Metropolitical Power One of which was the calling of the Clergy of his Province together at Times prescrib'd by the Canons the Archbishop had no more want of a Legatine Character to qualify him for the Exercise of them than a Private Bishop had or now has for summoning a Diocesan Synod nor was it as the Law then stood any more an Encroachment upon the Royal Authority Dr. W. therefore is not very kind to the Memory of our Archbishops nor a Friend to the Antient Libertys of this Church when he asserts that all those Synods which the Metropolitan call'd without a Writ from the King were Legatine and upon that notion dates the Disuse of them at least as to their frequency from the Statute of Premunire which did no ways and could no ways affect them For after this Statute most of Arundel's Synods met by the Archbishop's Writ only as Dr. W. †P. 280. himself tells us from Harpsfield and might have told us yet more authentickly from that Archbishop's Register yet remaining This account of Harpsfield puts him upon fixing on a New Aera and now therefore he will have it that about the End of Arundel's time the King began wholly to assume this Power and this he