191. The Canons made in the Convocation of 1597. bear this Title Capitula sive Constitutiones Ecclesiasticae per Archiepiscopum Episcopos reliquum Clerum Cant. Provinciae in Synodo c. congregatos tractatae ac posteà per ipsam Regiam Majestatem approbatae confirmatae utrique Provinciae tam Cant. quam Ebor. ut diligentiùs observentur eà dem Regiâ Authoritate sub Magno Sigillo Angliae promulgatae †Sparrow p. 243. L. M. P. has been guilty of a piece of slight of hand in producing this Title for he has remov'd the Comma which should be after the word Tractatae backward to Provinciae omitting the Words between those Two that so tractatae may seem to belong to the Sentence which follows it and the Reader be by that means led into a belief that the Original Treating it self was as much from Royal Condescension and Grace as the Passing and Promulging afterwards I need not say how absurd this is and how contrary to the Rules of common Construction and common Sense It is true and Truth being the only thing I seek I shall not conceal it that in the Manuscript Collections of a Learned Man who liv'd before the Convocation-Registers were burnt I have seen a Memor in these following Terms Lib. Convocat ab anno 1584. usque c. 1597. Fol. 195. The Queens Letters Patents to confirm the Canons a Recital of the Writ of their Desire the Canons Confirmation and a Command to have them observ'd in both Provinces Which shews indeed that the Synod in 1597 desir'd and had leave for the Canons they pass'd and implys further that both their Request and the Answer to it were very probably in writing since it could not else have been recited in the Ratification of them But what this Leave was ask'd and given for whether only for the passing these Canons or even for the Previous Treating about them appears not from this Memorandum and must otherwise therefore be determin'd Our Publick Records will not ease us of this Doubt among which I am told this Instrument is not now to be found and the only way therefore we have left of clearing it is by a Recourse to the Title of the Canons which if it may be depended on evidently shews that their Desire was for Leave not to Treat but to Enact only And how Authentick and Significant the Titles of Canons are to this purpose our Adversarys in the next Instance will tell us for they produce †Appeal p. 24. L. M. P. p. 37. the Title of those in 1603. as a manifest Proof that that Synod had a Commission to treat We allow it had and it is the first Synod that ever had one from the 25 H. VIII down to that time L. M. P. indeed has found out one somewhat Elder for he tells us that a Proclamation on came out 5. March 1. Iac. 1. for the Authorizing of the Book of Common Prayer c. which recites that the King had issu'd out a Commission to the Archbishop and others according to the Form which the Laws of the Realm in the like Case prescribe to be us'd to make an Explanation of the Common Prayer c. So that in those days says he this Independent Freedom of Debate was not esteemed amongst the Libertys of the Church †P. 41. But had that Writer seen the Commission it self and not guess'd at the Contents of it from a Recital in a Proclamation he would have known that it was directed not to the Clergy in Convocation for they met not till some Months after the Date of it but to the High Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical authorizing the Alterations they had made in the Common-Prayer-Book by vertue of a Proviso in the Act of Uniformity 1 â— Eliz. How is this to his purpose or what possible use can he make of it It is indeed to my purpose to observe from hence how high the Prerogative then ran and what Unreasonable Powers were claim'd by it The Book of Common-Prayer was establisht by an Act of the 1 st of the Queen in which it was provided that if there should happen any Contempt or Irreverence to be used in the Ceremonys or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in that Book the Queens Majesty might by the Advice of her Commissioners or of the Metropolitan ordain and publish such further Ceremonys or Rites as might be most for the advancement of God's Glory the Edifying of his Church and the due Reverence of Christ's Holy Mysteries and Sacraments * Cap. 2. In vertue of this Proviso King Iames in his first Year gives Directions to the Archbishop and the rest of the High-Commissioners to review the Common-Prayer-Book and they accordingly made several Material Alterations and Enlargements of it in the Office of Private Baptism and in several other Rubricks and Passages added five or six new Prayers and Thanksgivings and all that part of the Catechism which contains the Doctrine of the Sacraments Which last Additions would not I conceive have been in the least warranted by that Proviso had the Powers there specify'd extended to the Queens Hâ—irs and Successors but as they were lodg'd peresonally in the Queen there could I presume be no Colour for K. Iames's exercising them in vertue of it The Drawer up of the Commission was aware of this and supplys therefore what was wanting in this Provisional Clause by some General Words and by a Recourse to that Inexhaustible source of Power the King 's supreme Authority and Prerogative Royall which it seems was at that time conceiv'd to extend so far as to enable the Crown to make Alterations of Great Importance in a Book establish'd by Act of Parliament to authorize the Book thus alter'd and to forbid the Use of the Other I question whether such a Proceeding would now be thought Legal but then it went down quietly and in vertue of it the Common Prayer-Book so alter'd stood in force from the 1 st of K. Iames till the 14 C. II. when upon a new Review it was again confirm'd by Parliament I shall place this Commission in the Appendix †N. XVIII that the Reader may have an Instance what the Doctrine of that time was concerning the Extent of the Prerogative in Church Matters and from thence cease to wonder that a Formal Commission to treat c. should be first granted to the Convocation a few Months afterwards I say first granted for there is no Suspicion of any preceding License of this kind but in 1597. only and that rises no higher than a Suspicion there being stronger Probabilitys against it than for it And thus I hope I have effectually remov'd Dr. W's Argument about the sense of the Act taken from the Constant Practise of All Convocations ever since the framing it which he appeals to so frequently and with so much Calmness and Security that one less acquainted with him than I am
Decrees of those four first General Councils for which both the Church and the Law of England * Canon Aelfrici Can. 33. 1 Eliz. c. 1. have and have always had a particular Veneration But of All the Instances he has pitched upon to shew that Synods can debate of nothing but what the Prince particularly proposes to 'em commend me to those he urges P. 54 55. from the Practice of Carloman at the Synod of Leptines and of Arnulph at that of Trebur The first of these says he had call'd his Clergy together to advise him how the Law of God and the Religion of the Church which had been suffered to fall into such decay in the days of his Predecessors might be restored The second desires them to consider what they thought was needful to be done for the Reformation of Mens Manners for the Security of the Faith and for the Preservation of the Unity of the Church How could these Emperors possibly have expressed themselves in words that left their Synods more at large or gave greater Scope to their Debates than these do which yet Dr. Wake produces on purpose to shew that the Prince prescribed to them the Particular Points on which they were to proceed These are Ill Proofs indeed but pity it is that such Bad Notions should ever be supported by better Under the Prince's Power of suggesting any Subject of Debate to a Synod I comprehend also his Power of proposing the Draught of a Canon to them for that too he has sometimes done but without confining 'em to pass such Canons in the Form prescribed which I conceive he has never done nor has any Right to do tho' Dr. Wake gives us very Broad Hints that he thinks otherwise and to that End produces the Three Ecclesiastical Constitutions which Marcian delivered to the Fathers of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon ready drawn up to be approved by them and they all he says gave their Unanimous Assent to 'em * P. 65. But he tells us not as he might that the Matter of these Canons was of such a mixt nature as made it proper for the Emperor to interpose in them nor does he inform us with what words of high Respect and Deference he offered 'em to the Synod There are says he Three Points which in Honour to your Reverences we have reserved for you judging it fit and decent that they should rather be by You in Synod Canonically defined than Enacted by our Temporal Laws †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 6. And in what manner the Synod passed 'em is worth our notice for it was neither in that Order nor exactly in those Terms in which they were proposed And one of them ‖ The Second they put into different words without any the least alteration of sense merely as it should seem to keep free of an Ill Precedent which by receiving the Emperor's Form they might have brought upon themselves So that this is a much better Proof that the Emperor could not prescribe the Form of a Canon to them than that he could Nor are his English Instances of this kind more to his purpose Some of our Princes he says have not only prescribed to their Convocations what they should go about but have actually drawn up before-hand what they thought convenient to be established and have required them to approve of it * P. 110. And for this he vouches King Iames's Letter to the Convocation in 1603 together with which he sent them the Articles of 1562 to be approved by ' em A notable Instance of the Prince's Power actually to draw up before-hand what they think convenient to be established by their Synods because King Iames sent a Message to one of 'em about Confirming the Thirty nine Articles which had been actually drawn up by another Convocation forty years before that Message was sent And that this Point may be sure to be well proved he adds a Second Instance of it every whit as concluding as the Former The same Prince he says to Another Convocation about four years after signified his Pleasure for Singing and Organ-service to be setled in Cathedral Churches without submitting it to their judgment whether they approved it or no †Ibid. He tells us not from whence he drâ—w either this or the former particular and so I am not able to say how he has disguised them But taking this last as he has represented it clear it is that the King in this case did not form or draw up any thing before-hand for the Convocation to Sign but only suggested the Matter of a Canon to them and of such a Canon as if necessary there was no doubt of their agreeing unanimously in since it was only to confirm a received Practice and therefore if he did not ask their Approbation it was because he was sure of it Dr. Wake is in this Observation all over Mistake For whereas he calls this Another Convocation from that in 1603 it was certainly the same That in 1603 being by Prorogations continued from Time to Time for seven years together as his own words are a few Pages afterwards * P. 142. Nor could the Import of this Message well be the Setling of Singing and Organ-service in Cathedral Churches for it was setled there long before †At the Reforming of the Church not only the King's Chappel and all Cathedrals but many Parochial Churches also had preserved their Organs to which they used to Sing the appointed Hymns i. e. the Te Deum the Benedictus the Magnificat the Nunc dimittis c. performed in an Artificial and Melodious manner Heylin Hist. of Presbyt p. 226. Only King Iames I suppose recommended to 'em the framing of a Canon in behalf of what was hitherto authorized by Practice alone and by the Queen's Injunctions ‖ Sparrow p. 80. But this the Synod thought needless the Thing being otherwise so well established already and therefore framed no Canon concerning it How Ridiculous then is it in Dr. Wake to say that the King signified his Pleasure to them in this matter without ever submitting it to their Iudgment whether they approved it or no when the Event shews that they disapproved and did not comply with the Motion for I never heard of any such Canon in behalf of Singing and Organ-service and which is more Bishop Sparrow never heard of it neither If this Message therefore make any thing for the King's Power of Proposing it makes as strongly for the Clergy's Priviledge of denying if they think fit which is the very thing Dr. Wake is endeavouring in this place to deprive them of VI. A Sixth Observation I have to offer on Dr. Wake 's way of managing this Controversie is that Those very Acts of Authority which were exercised by Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters to support and corroborate the Churches Power are by Him perversely made use of to undermine and destroy it He finds that the
Wake it seems has different notions of these things for he tells us that Whatever Priviledges he has shewn to belong to the Christian Magistrate they belong to him as such they are not derived from any Positive Laws and Constitutions but result from that Power which every such Prince has Originally in himself and are to be looked upon as part of those Rights which naturally belong to Sovereign Authority and that to prove any particular Prince entitled to these Rights it is sufficient to shew that he is a Sovereign Prince and therefore ought not to be denied any of those Prerogatives that belong to such a Prince unless it can be plainly made out that he has afterwards by his own Act Limited himself * Pp. 94 95. So that according to Dr. Wake 's Politicks All Kings in All Countries have an Equal Share of Power in their first Institution none of 'em being Originally Limited or subjected to any Restraints in the Arbitrary Exercise of their Authority but such as they have been pleased by after-after-acts and condescensions graciously to lay upon themselves Which Position how it can be reconciled with an Original Contract and with several Branches of the Late Declaration of Rights I do not see and how far it may appear to the Three States of this Realm to entrench on their share in the Government and on the Fundamental Rights and Liberties of the Free People of England Time must shew That all Bishops indeed are Equal is the known Maxim of St. Cyprian but which of the Fathers have said that All Kings are so too I am I confess as yet to learn For my part I should think it as easie a Task to prove that every Prince had originally the same Extent of Territory as that he had the same Degree of Power The Scales of Miles in several Countries are not more different than the Measures of Power and Priviledge that belong to the Prince and to the Subject But Dr. W. has breathed French Air for some time of his Life where such Arbitrary Schemes are in request and it appears that his Travels have not been lost upon him He has put 'em to that Use which a Modern Author * Moldsworth's Pref. to the State of Denmark observes to be too often made of 'em that they teach Men fit Methods of pleasing their Sovereigns at the Peoples Expence tho' at present I trust his Doctrine is a little out of season when we live under a Prince who will not be pleased with any thing that is Injurious to the Rights of the Least of his Subjects when duly informed of them Whereas then Dr. W. in great Friendship to the Liberties of his Church and of his Country asserts that by our Constitution the King of England has all that Power at this day over our Convocation that EVER ANY Christian Prince had over his Synod I would ask him one plain Question Whether the King and the Three States of the Realm together have not more Power in Church-matters and over Church-Synods than the King alone If so then cannot the King alone have All that Power which ever any Christian Prince had because some Christian Princes have had all the Power that was possible even as much as belongs to the King and the Three Estates in Conjunction There is one thing indeed which seems material to be observed and owned in this case 't is the Assertion of the Second Canon which declares our Kings to have the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the Christian Emperours in the Primitive Church had But this Canon must necessarily be understood of the King in Parliament for out of Parliament it is manifest that he is not so Absolute in Ecclesiastical Matters as those Emperors were In Parliament he can do every thing that is by the Law of God or of Reason lawful to be done out of Parliament he can do nothing but what the Particular Rules of our Constitution allow of And VIII This too is a Distinction which Dr. W. should have taken notice of had he intended to do Justice to his Argument For the Church here in England is under the Government both of the Absolute and Limited Sovereign under the Government of the Limited Sovereign within the Compass of his Prerogative under the Government of the Absolute Sovereign without any Restraints or Bounds except what the Revealed Will of God and the Eternal Rules of Right Reason prescribe The Pope usurped not only on the King the Limited but on the King and Parliament the Absolute Sovereign and what was taken from Him therefore was not all thrown into the Prerogative but restored severally to its respective Owners And of this Absolute Sovereign it is the Duty when Christian to act in a Christian manner to be directed in matters Spiritual by the Advice of Spiritual Persons and not lightly to vary from it By the same Rule the Limited Sovereign is to steer likewise within the Sphere of his Prerogative And he is also further obliged to preserve those Priviledges of the Church which belong to her by the Laws of the Realm Now Dr. Wake I say confounds these two Powers and the Subjections that are due to them speaking all along of the King as if He in Exclusion to the Three Estates had the Plenitude of Ecclesiastical Authority lodged in him and were the single Point in which the Obedience of the Church and of every Member of it centered This is a Fundamental Mistake that runs quite through his Book and is such an One as overturns our Constitution and confounds the Executive and Legislative parts of it and deserves a Reprehension therefore some other way than from the Pen of an Adversary Henry the Eighth 't is true in vertue of his Supreme Headship laid claim to a Vast and Boundless Power in Church-affairs had his Vicegerent in Convocation Enacted every thing there by his own Sole Authority issuing out his Injunctions as Laws at pleasure And these Powers whether of Right belonging to him or not were then submitted to by All who either wished ill to the Pope or well to the Reformation or wanted Courage otherwise to bear up against his Tyrannical Temper and Designs and were the more easily allowed of by Church-men because they saw him at the same time exercise as Extravagant an Authority in State-matters by the Consent of his Parliament However the Title of Supreme Head together with those Powers that were understood to belong to it was taken away in the â—â—â—st of Queen Mary and never afterwards reâ—ved but instead of it all Spiritual Iurisdictiâ—â— was declared to be annexed to the Imperial â—rown of this Realm 1 Eliz. c. 1. and the Queen enabled to â—xercise it by a Commissioner or Commissiâ—ners This Power continues no doubt in â—he Imperial Crown but can be exerted no â—therwise than in Parliament now since the â—igh Commission Court was taken away by â—he 17 Car. 1. It was attempted indeed to be
in Two Words have been dispatched by saying That the Clergy have certainly a Right of Meeting and Sitting in Convocation thus often because thus often they have for some hundred years met and sat And this is a plain short Answer which is capable of no Evasion Dr. Wake however has made some small Effort towards Eluding it and what he offers to this purpose shall in the next place be consider'd We find him Pp. 106 107 140 141 c. thus distinguishing That the Clergy have no Right to Meet and Sit but only to be Summon'd as often as a Parliament That having indeed for some hundreds of years been Summon'd always with the Parliament it may be question'd * P. 229. whether they have not he means it is not to be question'd but that they have now a Right to such a concurrent Summons but it is certain they have a Right to nothing besides and it were no Great Matter whether They had a Right to that or no †P. 107. This is Dr. Wake 's New Scheme for laying aside the Clergy's Parliamentary Meetings first and their Parliamentary Summons afterwards A very Honest Design if it could be effected and very fit to be first recommended to the world by the Pen of a Clergy-man God be thanked his Abilities are not Equal to his Good-will in the Case nor the Colours by him put upon this matter such as will ever tempt a wise Ministry to execute what he has Projected In answer to this New Distinction I desire to be satisfy'd why if Custom gives the Convocation a Right to be Summon'd as often as the Parliament meets and sits it does not give 'em a Right to Meet and Sit too since it is certain that they have the very same Custom to plead for the One as for the Other Time out of mind the Custom has been that whenever the Parliament has met the Convocation should not only be Summon'd but meet too and accordingly for some Ages now it has met with it and been open'd in Form by the Archbishop or in the Vacancy of his See by some Bishop Commission'd from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Divine Service has been said a Sermon preach'd and a Prolocutor chosen There are Instances indeed when they have gone no further than this and done no other Business but it was when they had no other Business to do for they were always put into a Posture of doing it and into a Capacity of making such Motions and Requests as they should judge proper for the Good of the Church or the Redress of Grievances Till late years it was never known that Convocations should meet purely in order to be adjourn'd that the Members of the Lower house should attend only to be told when they should attend next without being allowâ—d to offer their Advices or Complaints or even to put themselves into a Condition of offering them This Custom we know is but nine years old whereas the contrary Custom is as old as these Assemblies themselves are and if Custom be the Law of Convocations as Dr. Wake allows * P. 298.105 it to be he will be pleas'd to tell us how this Establish'd Custom can be broke in upon and set aside without a Breach of the Law and whether the Clergy's not being suffer'd to meet and form themselves into a Body according to the Intent of their Summons be not upon Dr. Wake 's Principles as plain a Violation of their Rights as it would be not to Summon them Queen Elizabeth one would think was under these Apprehensions for she suffer'd a Popish Convocation to sit and act together with her first Parliament at a Time when she was taking all manner of Legal Steps and Means to expel Popery and to introduce the Reformation which she would never I presume have done had she thought her Power extended so far over the Convocation as to adjourn them before a Prolocutor was chosen * There was indeed a Singularity practis'd at the Enâ—â—ance of this Convocation which I remember no Instance of in any other It was open'd without any Sermon The reason of which is thus given in the Acts Sess. 2. Episcopus London Commissarius evocatâ Domo Inferiori exposuit eis Causam Convocationis quod non futura sit concio pro more quia Sedes Episcopalis destituta existit quia Consiliarii Regis it should be Reginae in mandatis dederunt ne Conciones in Eâdem Ecclesiâ fierent donec de Beneplacito Reginae constaret The first of these Reasons is no reason but the last is sufficient according to the Doctrine of Those Times when our Princes in Vertue of their Supremacy were thought to have a Power of silencing any or even all the Pulpits of England at once which both King Edward and Queen Mary are said to have practis'd But that Doctrine being now out of Doors the Practise founded upon it can be no Warrantable Precedent for our Times Even the Acts themselves that give us an account of this Omission affirm the Custom and say the Sermon was a thing de more And if she did not think she had such a Power it would make one apt to believe that she had it not for whatever else has been said of her I never heard it laid to her Charge that she was ignorant of the Extent of her Prerogative or us'd it too tenderly 'T is true my Lord of Sarum informs us that left the Clergy might set out Orders in Opposition to what the Queen was about to do she sent and requir'd them under the Pains of a Praemunire to make no Canons †Vol. 2. p. 327. His Lordship gives us no Authority for this Particular and I must beg leave therefore to suspect the Exactness of it because the Submission-Act and that which confirm'd it were repeal'd in Queen Mary's time and as yet unreviv'd and the Queen could have no Pretence from any other Acts than these to threaten them with a Praemunire if they proceeded to make Canons However allowing this account of the Queen's Message to be just we may observe that tho' she prohibited 'em to make Canons yet she did not forbid them to Sit and Act in Inferior Instances because she thought it their Priviledge so to do and accordingly this very Convocation did business drawing up their Judgment upon five Important Points in five Articles by way of Protest to be deliver'd not to the Queen as his Lordship thinks * Ibid. but to the Keeper of the Great Seal and to the Lords of Parliament And this they did for the Disburthening of their Consciences †Ad exonerationem conscientiarum suarum as the Acts speak and were allow'd to do it without Check or Disturbance And if the Priviledges of a Popish Convocation were thus tenderly preserv'd to them by a Queen averse to their Principles we may be sure that the Protestant Clergy afterwards had not less Liberty or Worse
setling the Point between us But here he is as reserv'd as one would wish for from the beginning to the end of his Crude Work there is not a single Instance of this kind made out or so much as pretended †Except the Trite Instance of Exclus◠Clero Nay to see the fate of misapply'd Reading even of those twelve insignificant Instances which he has produc'd no less than eight are evidently mistaken as to the Dates either of the Parliaments or Convocations mention'd in them The Reader will rather take my word for it than allow me the liberty of interrupting the Course of my Argument so far as to prove it And I shall proceed therefore to consider and remove the several Objections that lie also against the second Point advanc'd in these Papers that the Clergy when met have a Right of Treating and Debating freely about such matters as lie within their proper Sphaere and even of coming to fit Resolutions upon them without being necessitated antecedently to gratify themselves for such Acts or Debates by a License under the Broad Seal of England CHAP. VIII IT had been argu'd from the General Nature of such Assemblys as these we are treating of that Freedom of Debate was their undoubted Right and Priviledge incident to them as such and inseparable from ' em To this I find these several Answers return'd Dr. W. assures us that the Debates of the most General and Famous Councils have been under as great Restraint as he supposes the Convocation to be †P. 288. L. M. P. adds that Poyning's Law has ty'd up even a Parliament in Ireland as strictly †P. 44. and the Author of the Postscript ⸪ At the end of a Book entituled An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate 8◠1697. fetches a third Instance from Scotland where the Three Estates he says can debate of nothing but what the Lords of the Articles have beforehand agreed on ‖ P. 198. As to the first of these supposing Dr. W's Allegation true yet he has been told that there is no arguing from the Powers claim'd or exercis'd by Emperors in those Great and Extraordinary Assemblys to what is fit to be done in lesser and stated ones and why such Inferences do not hold some Reasons have been given him which I need not now repeat But in truth he mistakes or misrepresents the Practise of the Emperors even in these General and Famous Councils which I have shewn him p. 125 6. went no further than to require a preference to that Particular Business for the Dispatch of which they were Summon'd not to exclude their debating on any thing but what the Emperor propos'd to them And of this the Canons of those Councils are an Evidence beyond Dispute which both as to Matter and Form took their Rise from the several Synods they were made in without any Imperial Leave or Direction for the framing them With what Face then can Dr. W. vouch the Practise of these Councils as Precedents for that Degree of restraint he would have laid on an English Convocation With what Truth or Conscience can he affirm that they acted intirely according to the Prescription of the Emperors †P. 288. and deliberated on nothing but what they were directed or allowed he means expresly and particularly allow'd by the Prince to deliberate on †P. 48. Whatever our Author may think of such Doctrine Now or whatever he may Hope from it sure I am that had he liv'd and utter'd it while those Holy Synods were in being it would not have been two or three Years afterwards before he had repented of it But Old Councils are Dead and Gone and any thing it seems may be said of them Let him not depend too much upon that for they have Friends still in the World that may happen yet before he dies to meet together and ask him a few Questions A living Synod may sometime or other think it for its Interest and find it in its Power to vindicate the Honor and Authority of the Dead ones Well if Old Councils cannot afford a Precedent Modern Parliaments shall Poyning's Law therefore is urg'd which provides that All such Bills as shall be offer'd to the Parliament of Ireland shall be transmitted hither under the Great Seal of that Kindom and having receiv'd approbation here shall be sent back under the Great Seal of England to be preferr'd to the Parliament of Ireland †L. M. P. p 44. But what have we to do with Instances fetch'd from Conquered Countrys who must receive what Terms the Victor pleases and be glad of any We live among another People always Jealous of their Libertys and careful to preserve them in a Land where slavery either in Church or State though sometimes planted could never thrive And those Fetters therefore which might perhaps justly be laid on an Irish Parliament may not fit an English Convocation so well which is therefore free because it is an English one But after all how far does this Law of Poynings reach Our Lawyer tells us that it leaves not the Parliament at Liberty to propose what Laws they please that the Irish look upon it as Conclusive upon their Debates and are satisfy'd and again that we have here an Instance of a Parliament without Liberty of Debate But this is too gross an Imposition upon the Credulity of his Readers few of which are so ignorant as not to be aware that Poyning's Law layes a restraint only on the Enacting Power of their Parliament but not on the Debates of it which notwithstanding this Act are left as free as ever They can still Treat and Conferr about all Matters and Causes that are of Parliamentary Cognizance they can Petition Represent and Protest Nay they can propose what Heads of Bills they please to be transmitted hither and sent back thither in Form of which we have had very late and frequent Experience And how therefore the Abridgment of the Convocations Liberty of Debate can be pretended to be justify'd by this Irish Precedent is I confess past my English Understanding For as I take it the Convocation desires no other Powers and Priviledges but just what this Parliament claims and practises and pleads only that the 25 H. VIII may not be extended to such a Rigorous and Unjustifiable Sense as will lay greater restraints upon Them than Poyning's Laws does upon Those of Ireland But our Letter-writer himself is sensible that this Instance is not to the purpose for at the close of it his Conscience gives a little and he is forc'd to confess that the Irish Parliament are not under an Universal Restraint nor wholly mute till the King gives them Power to Debate and Act †P. 44. Are they not Why then was it generally said that they were a Parliament without a Liberty of Debate or of proposing what Laws they please in the very next Lines to these where it is all unsaid
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
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
sat afterwards and acted in Convocation An instance of such a Procuratorium for the Parliament I have seen as low as 1507. and another of an execution of the Premunientes by the Bishop yet lower in the Reign of Edward the Sixth though Returns had then Ceas'd or at least were not Enter'd Thus the Forms were kept up and by that means the King 's Right of Summoning the Clergy asserted and owned And so the State-ends of Summoning them were also answered they were left to do it in an Ecclesiastical way and to attend the Parliament and the Business of it not in One Body as they were called but in Two Provincial Assemblies This they did at first by the Connivance of the Crown rather than any express Allowance the Archbishop of his own accord sending out a Provincial Citation concurrently with the Bishops Writs of Summons which Method obtaining and these Meetings of the Province being tacitly accepted in lieu of the Clergy's resort to Parliament it grew necessary for the King to employ his Authority also in Convening them for otherwise it had been at the Archbishop's Discretion whether he would have any such Meetings or not and so the Crown might have lost the Clergy's Assistance in Parliament This gave birth to the custom of issuing out Two Convocation-Writs when a New Parliament was to be Chosen which though set on foot before yet settled not into a Rule till some Years after Edward the Third was in the Throne and then it was practised as duly and regularly and in much the same manner as it is at this day Take one Instance and that not the Earliest which might be given instead of many In the Parliament Roll of his Eighteenth Year we read That it had been agreed for the urgent Affairs of the Kingdom to hold a Parliament at Westminster on the Monday after the Octaves of Trinity and that the Archbishop should call a Convocation of the Prelates and others of the Clergy of his Province to the Church of St. Paul's London on the Morrow of Trinity for the Dispatch of the said Affairs To which Convocation none of the greater Prelates came on the said Morrow of Trinity or in the Eight days ensuing except the Archbishop or Two or Three other Bishops there named as the King was given to understand at which he much marvelled As also that the Great Men were not come to the Parliament upon the Day to which they were Summoned And he charged the Archbishop therefore to do what belonged to him in relation to those of the Clergy of his Province who came not to the said Convocation nor Obeyed his Mandate And the King would do what belonged to himself in relation to such as came not to Parliament nor Obeyed his Commands * Rot. Par. 18. E. 3. n. 1. If we supply this Record with the Writs extant on the Back of the Roll it will appear that the Clergy were Summoned here just as they are now by the Archbishop at the King's Order or Letter of Request as it was then deemed and †Even by the Crown it self for in the 25 E. 3. a Writ to the Archbishop of York in the Close Roll of that Year recites that the Archbishop of Canterbury had called his Clergy in Quindenâ Paschae ad Rogatum Nostrum stiled though it ran as now Rogando Mandamus and though the peremptory Time and Place of the Clergy's Assembling were prefixed by it and we see therefore that Punishment is Ordered in the Roll for their disobeying the Archbishop's Mandate but not a word of their not complying with the King's Summons But this was only the Language of Popery by which they kept up their pretences to Exemption and the Clergy were indulged in the Form so the Thing were but effectually done which was to have them Meet together with the Parliament and for the Dispatch of the same urgent Affairs of the Kingdom * Pur treter Parler ordeigner ce que soit miet affaire pur l' esploit des dit busoignes Are the Words of the Roll and one of these words is that from whence the Name of Parliament is derived for which the Parliament Met. And this was no new Practice but a Method now Settled and Customary of which various Precedent Instances might if they were needful be given but it is a short and sufficient Proof of it that the Words of the the King 's Writ to the Archbishop run More solito convocari faciatis We shall find also that the Archbishop of York had a Writ for That Province as the Archbishop of Canterbury had for This only he was to Convene his Clergy about a Fortnight Later than the other Province met †Province of Canterbury met on the Morrow of Trinity i. e. May 31. Easter falling that Year on April 4. That of York the Wednesday after St. Barnabas i. e. June 16. And in this the way then taken varied a little from Modern Practice which has made those Two Meetings perfectly Coincident But the ancient Usage was for the Clergy of Canterbury to Assemble first in order to set the President which it was expected that the other Province should almost implicitly follow and with reason since if the Two Provinces had continued to attend the Parliament in One Body as they did of Old the York Clergy would have had no Negative upon the Parliamentary Grants of the Clergy being a very unproportioned part of the Assembly When therefore they desired to Meet and grant Separately the Crown had reason to expect that what the greater Province did should be a Rule to the less or otherwise not to have consented to their Separation Very early in the Rolls therefore this Passage occurs That the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Nobles the King's Commissioners in his absence should require the Archbishop of York to contribute for the Defence of the North as They i. e. I suppose as the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Clergy had done 13 E. 3. n. 18. And even in Church Acts as well as State Aids what had passed the one was held to be a kind of Law to the other so that in 1463 we find the Convocation of York adopting at once all the Constitutions made by that of Canterbury and as yet not receiv'd †Memorand quòd Praelati Clerus in Convocatione 1463. Concedunt Unanimiter quòd Effectus Constitutionum Provincialium Cantuar. Prov. ante haec tempora tent habit Constitutionibus Prov. Ebor. nullo modo repugnant seu prejudicial non aliter nec alio modo admittantur Et quòd hujusmodi Constitutiones Prov. Cant. Effectus earundem ut praefertur inter Constitutiones Provinciae Ebor. prout indiget decet in serantur cum eisdem de caetero servandae incorporentur pro Jure observentur Registrum Bothe Arch. Ebor. f. 143. a Practice that I doubt not was often in elder times repeated and we know is still
continu'd And as the time of the Convocation of Canterbury's assembling was in this and in most oother Ancient Instances different from that of her Sister Province so was it we see different also from that of Parliament Here it preceded ‖ Seven Days but generally it followed the Parliament a Week or two on purpose as I apprehend that the Bishops and Parliamentary Abbots might be at leisure to attend both those Meetings And this was the usual Distance throughout Edward the Third and Richard the Second's Reigns till Henry the Fourth began to enlarge it in and after whose time the Clergy held their Assemblies during and near the Sessions of Parliament but not thoroughly concurrent with them the Archbishop it seems affecting Independency and the King who above all things desir'd to stand well with the Clergy favouring him and them in that respect and giving way to their being call'd later or dismiss'd sooner than the Laity as having been already answer'd in his Demands at that or some other Synod of the Province call'd out of Parliament-time Such Assemblies being frequent in those days and transacting all Affairs that belong'd even to Parliamentary Convocations But this was only an Interruption of the Old Practice for a time not a through alteration of it for about the Entrance of the last Age when the Prerogative began to recover the Ground it had lost to the Church we find these Meetings of the Clergy and Laity more closely united the Dates of Henry the Eighth's Convocation being all one or a few days before or after if not altogether the same with those of his Parliaments And from 1 Edw. 6. to this Reign the Clergy have I think met always and parted within a day of the Parliament the day it self on which the Parliament sat and rose being not judg'd so proper for this purpose because the Bishops were then to attend the House of Lords But since the late Revolution the Business of these Two Meetings not interfering the same day has serv'd to open both of 'em or rather to open the one and shut up the other There have been no Deviations from this Rule that I know of except in a Legatin Synod or two which are no Presidents and once in the Convocation of 1640 but that Experiment succeeded too ill to be ever try'd a Second Time The Clergy therefore tho' by a Mistake in their Politicks separated from the Parliament yet continu'd still to attend it in Two Provincial Assemblies or Convocations which as they met for the same Purpose and had the same Reasons of State inserted into their Writs of Summons as the Parliament had so did they to manifest yet more their Origin and Allyance keep closely up to the Forms and Rules and Manner of Sitting and Acting practis'd in Parliament I cannot do right to my Subject without pointing out several Particulars wherein this Conformity was preserv'd and I shall not therefore I hope be misinterpreted in doing it The Two Houses of Parliament sat together Originally and so therefore did the Two Houses of Convocation of which to omit other Proofs I shall mention that only which may be drawn from the Inferior Clergy's being sent as Delegates from the Bishops to represent and act for 'em in Convocation an Usage which tho' practis'd long after the Greater Prelates divided from the Less yet must in all Probability have had its Rise when they were together as the like Custom also in Parliament had whither the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being us'd to send Commoners to Vote for them while the States were together continu'd the Practice also long after they were asunder as appears on the Spiritual Side by Numerous Instruments of Proxy yet remaining in the Bishops Registers and on the Temporal by some Probable Inferences of Mr. Elsyng * Cap. 5. p. 126. tho' Direct Proofs of it are together with the Proxy Rolls lost †One I find in the 5 H. 5. where Th. de la Warre a Baron gives Letters of Proxy to two Commoners and those which is very particular of the Clergy but his case was particular for his Barony descended to him after he was in Orders and he is styl'd therefore constantly Magister and not Dom. de la Warre in his Summons to Parliament As the Commons in Process of Time withdrew from the Peers so did the Inferior Clergy from the Bishops and Abbats Each having their Prolocutor in ordinary the very Word that is us'd every where in the Latin Rolls * And sometimes in the English Iournals See Sir Symonds d'Ewe◠p. 15. p. 328 c. for the Speaker and not withdrawing only from the Great Lords upon occasion for Liberty of Debate and in order the better to agree upon their Petitions and Opinions as I presume they always did even in the Old mixt Assemblies but meeting together at the very first in a Distinct Body and joyning with the Upper House only on Great Occasions The Prolocutor was so chosen as the Speaker by the Body whose Mouth he was so presented to the Archbishop and confirm'd by him as the other was by the King His Office was much the same on either side He moderated their Debates kept them to Order and attended the Lords sometimes with the sense of the House and at the Entrance of his Office disabled himself in form several Instances of which occur in the latter Acts of Convocation * Act. MS. Conv. 1541 Sess. 2. 1554. Sess. 3. 1562. ad Ian. 16. Bills of Money and Grievances but especially the latter began usually in the Lower House here as well as there had alike several Readings and were Enacted at the Petition of that House as Statutes antiently were and the Successive Variations in the Enacting Forms of our Statutes were observ'd and transcrib'd generally into the Clergy's Constitutions Their Subsidies were often given Conditionally and with Appropriating Clauses and Indentures drawn upon those Conditions between the Archbishop and the King if the Grant was to the Crown or between the Archbishop and the Prolocutor of the Lower House †Scriptutura Indentata inter Reverendissimum Tho ex unâ parte Mag. Dogett Prolocutorem Cleri eundem Clerum ex alterâ testatur quòd dictus Clerus concessit dicto Reverendissimo Patri Caritativum Subsidium Registrum Wottonian ad fin And so the Commons granted per quandam Indenturam Sigillo Prolocutoris Sigillatam if to the Archbishop just as the Way was in the Grants of the Commons In Matters of Jurisdiction the Upper House gave Sentence the Lower House prosecuted as was usual in Parliament for which reason the Act of H. 8. * 24 H. 8. c. 12. which in all Causes relating to the King or his Successors allow'd an Appeal to Convocation mention'd the Bishops Abbats and Priors of the Upper House only because They only were Judges But over their Own Members both Houses of Convocation had Power in like manner
Memory of the Clergy and according to his deep Skill in English History has represented it * P. 248. Nor yet merely for Appearing and Making Suit in his Courts as a Greater Author †Bishop Burnet 's Hist. of Ref. Vol. I. p. 106. but in this Conjecture no less Unhappy than He seems to take it for then All the Clergy could not have been concluded under the Penalty for All had not Su'd there But that which made the whole Body at once Obnoxious was their obeying his Mandates †Rigida enim Provisionum Jura says Josceline upon this occasion non modò eos puniunt qui Romanas Legationes sine Regis Licentia suscipiunt sed qui iis parent Ant. Brit. Eccles. in Warhamo p. 325. and appearing in his Synods Legantine which the Clergy had often and lately (*) An. 1527. done The Cardinal had been a Favourite beyond Example the Sole and Uncontroul'd Minister of his Prince He was at that time Lord Chancellor by the King's Commission and had been made Legat with his Privity and at his Special Instance as Bishop Gardiner informs us (†) In a Letter to the Protectour Fox Vol. II. p. 2. col 1. What he did in one Capacity as well as in the other was presum'd to be done by the King 's Appointment and whoever had opposed him had certainly been crush'd by the Royal Power The Subject neither durst nor thought it necessary to enquire whether He had a License from the Great Seal who had himself the keeping it However their Obedience to his Unlicens'd Authority was Criminal even to the Loss of Liberty and Estate And could they in any case have vouch'd the King's Command for their Obeying it the Command would have been said to have been against Law and no Warrant Thus both the Clergy and Laity were unawares at the King's Mercy and the Clergy not admitted to pardon Gratis as the Laity afterwards were but forc'd to ransome themselves by a good Round Sum * 100000 l. for the Province of Canterbury and 18840 l. 10 d. for that of York which was laid as all other Convocation-Grants were proportionably on the whole Clergy as appears from the Assessments to be seen still in the Bishops Registers particularly in that of Hereford An. 1531. And I wonder therefore that my Lord of Sarum should say That he had not been able to discover whether the Inferior Clergy paid their Proportion of this Tax or not Vol. I. p. 115. and agen That the Prelates had a great Mind to draw 'em in to bare a share of the Burthen Ib. p. 114. He speaks of the Time after the Convocation which made the Grant was up For this was both Needless and Impracticable Needless because the Lower Clergy had already drawn themselves in by consenting to the Grant in Convocation and Impracticable because if they had not there was no way left of drawing 'em in afterwards for those times and by an Acknowledgment in Convocation that the King was Supreme Head together with the Submission and Petition recited in the Preamble of the Act we are discoursing of There the Clergy first knowledge and the Parliament add according to the Truth that the Convocation is always hath been and ought to be Assembled by the King 's Writ Which Acknowledgment however is not according to Truth unless understood of Parliamentary Convocations that is of those which were summoned as well by the Praemunientes as by the Archbishop's Mandate And to Those therefore it must be restrain'd And they had reason to Own and Avow this particularly because the Cardinal had taken upon him to Convene Legantine Synods by his own Authority frequently during his Ministry and particularly Once not long before his Fall and the Time of this Submission on Nov. 27. 1527. * As I gather from a Printed Sermon of Longland 's said to be Preached on that Day and Year Coram Celeberrimo Conventu tùm Archiepiscoporum cùm Episcoporum caeteraeque multitudinis in Occidentalis Coenobii Sanctuario juxta Londinum Though this Title I confess is somewhat Dubious And that Practice of his therefore might be oppos'd by this Declaration which prefaces the Submission In the Submission which follows the Clergy promise in Verbo Sacerdotii that they will never from henceforth presume to Attempt Alledge Claim or put in Ure Or Enact Promulge or Execute any New Canons Constitutions Ordinance Provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be called in the Convocation unless the King 's most Royal Assent and License may to them be had to Make Promulge and Execute the same And that his Majesty do give his most Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf Now here are Two several Things distinctly promised in Two Different Branches of the same Sentence divided from Each other by the Particle Or They will not Attempt Alledge Claim or put in Ure that is one part of their promise Or Enact Promulge or Execute that is another The First of these respects Canons as already made whether by a Foreign or Domestick Authority the Second as to be made here at Home The Former part of their Assurance is given in their Private and Ministerial Capacity in relation to the Proceedings in the Spiritual Courts the Latter in their Publick and Legislative Capacity as they were Members of Convocation In their Private Capacity as they might be either Judges or Litigants they promise not to Attempt Alledge Claim or put in Ure i. e. not to be any ways Instrumental in acknowledging or promoting the force of any Canons made without the Royal Assent such as the whole Text of the Foreign Canon Law and all our Own Provincial and Legantine Constitutions were In their Publick Capacity they promise further not to Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons for the Future unless they may have the same Royal License for it But here is no promise couch'd in any of these words that they will not debate about the matter or form the Draught of a Canon without such a License None of the Words Enact Promulge or Execute which alone relate to their Proceedings in Convocation including any such Promise and the only word which can be pretended to imply it the word Attempt being determinnd by its Situation to signify much the same thing as Alledge Claim or put in Ure and restraining the Persons promising only as they might Act in their Private or Ministerial Capacity that is out of Convocation To Attempt a Canon therefore must signify to put it upon tryal or prove the force of it and is a word of Art borrowed from the Civilians However we need not go so far for an account of it the very Act we are upon affording us an undeniable Instance of its being thus used as will appear if we consider the Petition of the Clergy which follows this Promise and the Enacting Words in the Body of the Statute which answer to that Petition The Petition
inform his Readers what Opposition it met with from the Clergy e'er it pass'd I have seen the Iournal of that Synod it is not so Large indeed as those Records of Convocation which Heylin saw Reformat justified Sect. 2. and wherein he says the whole Debate with all the Traverses and Emergent Difficulties which appear'd therein are specify'd at large However it is particular enough to shew with what Difficulty and by what steps the Clergy were drawn into a Complyance and how Threatning Messages were sent 'em by the King before they could be brought to it And I have already from another Manuscript promis'd the Reader the several Forms of Submission which they drew up one after another but could not get accepted There is no Reason therefore to complain of want of Light in this case for perhaps there is scarce any one thing done in any of H. the 8 th's Convocations of which we have a clearer and fuller account than of the Opposition which the Court-Form of Submission met with from the Clergy before they came up to it From the Inferior Clergy I mean for it does not appear that the Prelates were so very hard to be dealt with On the contrary it is said in the Acts that but one Bishop and not one Abbot or Prior disagreed to it but of the Lower Clergy 18 or 19 Voted against it to the very last and 7. or 8. referr'd that is Voted neither against it nor for it See Troub Try of Laâ—d p. 82. may be drawn to import by the Ambiguous Relation of the word Attempt as it now stands there yet the Parliament it is plain would take it and accordingly Enacted it in no other sense than I have given of it distinctly severing it in the Body of the Act from all those words that have any respect to the Making of a Canon and confining it to that Branch of the Sentence which suspends all the Old Canons already made Then comes the other Branch which prescribes the Method of making new ones and forbids the Clergy to Enact Promulge or Execute any without the King's Assent leaving them in the mean time to their Old Methods of Proposing and Deliberating and reducing their Power only to the same Level with that of Parliaments over which they had before great and sensible advantages in as much as they Enacted Canons by their own Authority without the Royal Concurrence and in Synods oftentimes which met without a Royal Summons This I question not is the true and genuine Exposition of the Act and this being the very Hinge on which the Second Article of the Dispute turns I thought my self oblig'd to consider it with a very particular care and to secure it if possible against all Exceptions I hope I have done so and that the Reader is by this time fully satisfy'd that no Restraint is laid by it upon any Convocational Act of the Clergy previous to the passing a Canon but that they have still as much Liberty to Treat Debate and Conclude so they do not Enact Promulge and Execute since this Statute as ever they had before it Sure I am that it has been thus understood all along by those who may be presum'd to be best acquainted with its meaning such as Poulton and Rastal were The one in his Abridgement puts this Title before the Act That the Clergy in their Convocations shall Enact no Constitutions without the King's Assent The other in his Repertory at the End of the Statutes makes this to be the Purport of it That the Clergy in their Convocations shall Enact nothing unless they have the King's Assent and License Neither of 'em were aware it seems that their Liberty of Debate was cut off by it My Lord Herbert took it just as they did for his short Summary of it is that in Convocations nothing shall be Promulg'd and Executed without the King's Leave * P. 399. Mr. Fox was of the same mind for thus he abridges it That the Clergy shall not hereafter presume to assemble in their Convocation without the King 's Writ or to Enact or Execute Constitutions without his Royal Assent †Vol. 2. p. 330. Bishop Godwyn does not differ in his account of it which is In praedicto porrò Parliamento decretum est de abrogandâ— Synodi Authoritate in Canonibus Ecclesiasticis condendis nisi quatenus Rex eos ratos habuisset * Annal. ad Ann. 1534. Francis Mason the Eminent Defender of our Orders represents it after the very same manner in a small Piece of his about the Authority of the Church in making Canons and Constitutions concerning things Indifferent There he says It is Enacted by the Authority of Parliament that the Convocation shall be assembled always by vertue of the King 's Writ and that their Canons shall not be put in Execution unless they be approv'd by the Royal Assent †P. 15. Nor had the Enemies of the Church any other Opinion in this matter than its Friends witness what the same Author in his Great Work mentions as the sense of the whole Body of the Puritans Ostendunt Puritani sub sinem sui Examinis Canones prorsus nullos vigere aut valere in Angliâ qui Regio Calculo ac Sigillo non sunt muniti * Fitz-Simon apud Masonum de Minist Angl. p. 21. And thus speaks one of them in a Treatise of Oaths exacted by Ordinaries c. and He no inconsiderable Writer It is Enacted he says and Provided that no Constitutions or Ordinances should be made or put in Execution within this Realm until c. †P. 54. Nay thus speaks Mr. Bagshaw himself in his famous Argument concerning the Canons where we may be sure he says nothing more to the advantage of the Clergy than he needs must and yet he represents the Act to be only that to the making of Canons there must be the King 's Royal Assent * P. 12. And when he is to produce the words of the Statute by which the Clergy have power to make Canons he says they are That they shall not Enact Promulge or Execute any Canons or Constitutions c. unless they may have the King 's most Royal Assent to Make Promulge and Execute the same †Ibid. But as to Attempting Alledging Claiming and putting in Ure he never dreamt that These were in the Act apply'd or were applicable to this purpose and therefore does not mention them Intruth he was a Lawyer and a Man of Skill in his Profession and so knew very well that in the Omission of these words as having no reference to the Clergy's Power of making Canons he only trac'd the steps of the King's Commissions to the Convocationâ— in 1603 and 1640. One of these is Printed at length in the * P. 285 290. Bibliotheca Regia and there All of the 25 H. 8. which relates to the Clergy's Power in Making Canons is inserted at large and which is
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
questioning it in the least or calling 'em to an account for it Indeed the Doubtful Wording of the Act might possibly give the Clergy some Alarm at first and put them under Apprehensions that their Liberty of Debate was abridg'd by it or at least that it might be constru'd so to be by Those who in those Distressing Times were willing enough to take any Advantage of them But their Scruples if they had any clear'd up in a little time and their Fears vanish'd and they afterwards fell to business with the same freedom and under as little Restraint for ought appears to the contrary as any of their Predecessors had done before the Act of Submission And thus the matter stood till the very End of Queen Elizabeth's Reign there being no Instance I believe to be given of a Formal Commission to Treat and Debate Older than the Convocation of 1603 in the first of King Iames which shall hereafter be accounted for In the mean time we will suppose the utmost that can by the severest Interpretation of the Act be pretended that the Clergy are by it cut off from forming the Draught of a Canon or even deliberating about one without being particularly impower'd to that purpose yet are they still in several Inferior Instances of Acting left perfectly free It is not to be doubted but that notwithstanding the Act they may by an Humble Representation lay before my Lords the Bishops the King or his Great Council any Growing Inconvenicies and Disorders in the Church any Dangerous Errors that may happen to arise and spread in their time any Outragious Excess of Vice and Impiety which they shall observe to prevail and having made their Representations they may venture to add their Requests for the Prevention or Suppression of such Disorders Vices and Errors and even to point out the Methods of doing it If they cannot move a step towards framing New Canons yet at least they may interpose in behalf of the Old ones and pray that they may be vigorously Executed and duly observ'd In a word whatever Hardships or Grievances they may lye under from their Ecclesiastical or Civil Superiors as 't is possible for 'em to suffer from either they have in Convocation a Right and an Opportunity to declare ' em These Complaints it was heretofore their Custom to put up together with their Subsidies and coming in such good Company therefore they were for the most part favourably heard Now they have left off to Tax themselves they must no longer draw Occasions of Relief from the Wants of the Crown but from the Goodness and Justice of Him that wears it It will be for the Honour of a Reign founded in the Liberties of the People and secur'd by maintaining 'em to suffer All Bodies of Men to enjoy their Rights tho' they give nothing for it Nor will it be any Reflection upon our most Excellent Prince if the World shall see that the Advice of so considerable a part of his Subjects as the Clergy are may be welcome to him even without their Subsidies It is the Opinion of some Men that that Mystery of Iniquity Popery is now at work and carrying on among us in a very dangerous manner and it is their Fear lest that which could never succeed when it appear'd bare-fac'd should prevail by making secret and unperceiv'd Advances upon us whether their Fears are just or no I shall not determine but would it not be fit that the Clergy should be left to their wonted Liberty of Assembling that upon any such dangerous conjuncture they might join their Councels Endeavours and Requests to give a stop to the Growing Mischief and by a Due Representation of the Danger grounded on the sure Accounts that shall be brought to the Convocation by the several Members of it resorting thither from All parts of the Kingdom excite the Civil Magistrate into a Degree of Care and Concern proportionable to the Danger But should the Clergy have no Representations no Complaints to make to the King and Parliament yet They themselves may be complain'd of to either and it is fit they should be ready to give answer to such Complaints All other Bodies and Communities of Men if any thing be mov'd in Parliament to their Prejudice can immediately Assemble and Confer together and lay before their Superiors the Consequences of it as far as their Particular Interests are concern'd The Clergy alone have no such Liberty or Opportunity if their Parliamentary Assemblies are not observ'd and are in this respect therefore in a worse condition than the Pettiest Company or Corporation in the Kingdom 'T is true my Lords the Bishops are at hand always to interpose in their behalf but as they are no standing Committee of Convocation upon whom the Care of the Clergy's Interest in Parliament has at any time been devolv'd so neither is it proper that it should be altogether lodg'd in their Hands which are too full of other Business to be able alone to discharge this to the best Advantage As quick-sighted as their Lordships may be to discern and as Fatherly a Concern as they may have to remedy the Grievances of the Inferior Clergy yet it is not to be expected that they should either understand 'em so well or represent 'em so fully or interpose so heartily for their Redress as those who feel ' em Mens Interests have been ever best taken care of by such as were most immediately concern'd in ' em Their Lordships doubtless want no Zeal for the Good of the Church and of every the smallest Member of it But in Men of their Age and Experience such Zeal is ever temper'd with great Caution and manag'd with nice Regards to the Probability of Success and to the Passions and Prejudices and Various Interests of Men. Now these Restraints might it is hop'd in some measure be taken off and their Lordships encourag'd into a Reasonable Prospect of succeeding in any Proposal they had to offer on our Behalf if they were back'd in it by the Joint Advice and Endeavours of the Clergy of the Province assembled And as their Caution in Interposing would in this case it is likely be less so would their Interposition it self perhaps be of somewhat greater Weight and Influence especially in Times when their Lordships Actions may lye under any Prejudices and their Characters be misunderstood At such Seasons they will have enough to do to support and promote their Own Interests and will not be able however willing they may be to stand in the Breach and be a Screen to their Inferiors Besides their Lordships Good Offices are confin'd to the Upper House nor can They take notice of any Parliamentary Matter till it comes regularly before 'em there whereas the Clergy as well as all other Bodies of Men ought to have the Priviledge of an Early Address to the House of Commons where so many Bills of Importance begin that nothing may pass there to their Disadvantage without
congregati simul in nomine domini Sacerdotes ea inter se salutiferâ collatione requirunt quae secundum directionem Apostolicam Unitatem Spiritûs in Vinculo Pacis obtineant He restored the Catholick Faith and the Use of Councils both which were lost in that Country by a Long Succession of Arian Princes as both of 'em are usually lost together And to this End he ordered his Bishops to meet which could be no otherwise than Provincially for his whole Kingdom was then under one Metropolitan Is it any wonder that after so long an Intermission the first Provincial Synod that met should gratefully own that Princes favour by whom they were allowed and encouraged to assemble which yet they do in such a manner as to declare also that by the Canons of the Church they had a Right to meet and that their being debarred of that Right was a Violence upon ' em The Council of Lugo afterwards which sat in 569 or thereabouts not as Dr. Wake says * P. 23. in 607 mistaking grosly the Spanish Aera for the Year of our Lord professes it self to have met at the Command of Theodimirus but it was upon an Extraordinary Occasion the Erecting the See of Lugo into an Archbishoprick in which the Civil Power was nearly interested and to which it was requisite therefore that it should concur But after that was over the Two Metropolitans of Braga and Lugo Convened their Provincial Synods apart according to the Canons and without the King's Order as far as appears and needed his Command only to unite these Two Synods into One National Assembly As to the Seven Burgundian Synods whose Acts he says avow the Authority by which they met * P. 24. tho' he would insinuate yet he does not directly affirm any of them to have been Provincial and I shall not therefore stay to prove that they were not so That Five of them were not is certain and that the Two Others were if not more than Provincial yet at least Extraordinary it will be time enough to prove when he has told us which he gives up and which he insists on But Pag. 35. he professes to speak only of the Power of Princes over their Lesser Synods let us see by what Instances he chooses to make it good He tells us that when Wolfolendus Bishop of Bourges Summoned a Provincial Council according to the Canons yet having neglected to consult the King's Pleasure in it we find Sigebert for that reason alone forbad his Bishops to go to it This Story indeed would be something to his purpose were it rightly represented but nothing can be more insincere than his manner of telling it For the proof of this I appeal to the account which De Marca has given us of this matter L. VI. c. 19. Sect. 5. there he informs us that Bourges of which Wolfolendus was Archbishop was in Clovis's Realm Neustria not in Sigebert's Austrasia which was all out of the Province of Bourges That He nevertheless at the Desire of the Austrasian Bishops designed to come with his Suffragans out of his own Province into some City of Austrasia to have a Meeting there with the Bishops of that Kingdom and pretended to do this by vertue of some Antient Canons without so much as consulting Sigebert in it who for this reason resolved as he justly might to oppose him We see here that this Synod was not Provincial but the Meeting of an Archbishop and his Suffragans of one Kingdom with the Bishops of another and this appointed to be in the Territories of a Prince where that Archbishop had no Jurisdiction and without so much as acquainting him with it What wonder if Sigebert made use of his Royal Power to hinder such a Meeting or what Instance could Dr. Wake have pitched upon less to his purpose without it be that which follows When the Fifth Council of Paris he says had resolved it to be Expedient P. 36. that Provincial Synods should be held every year according to the Orders of the Church and the Canonical Custom establisht in it They made it their Request to Lovis the Emperor and Lotharius his Son that they would consent that at a fit season every year they might be assembled This Request was agen renewed some years after in another Synod Thus far he is of our side for what can be more to the advantage of Provincial Synods than this Decree of the Council of Paris and their Request in consequence of that Decree to the Civil Powers that they would suffer it to take effect according to the Canons It follows Yes notwithstanding these General Permissions before they did come together they were to have a particular Warrant for their so doing as is evident says he from the Acts of the Synod of Soissons Which Synod of Soissons one would think now was certainly Provincial and yet it was composed of the Bishops of no less than Five Provinces as De Marca assures us * L.VI. c. 26. §. 2. and the Names of several Metropolitans are now fairly legible in the Front of it which is that part of the Acts with which Dr. Wake is usually best acquainted I thank him here for mentioning this Decree of the Council of Paris for it gives me an occasion of supplying his account and of adding the Reasons by which the Authors of that Decree governed themselves in the passing it viz. Because if Provincial Councils were held Annually the Honour of the Ecclesiastical Order would be supported Ill Clergy-men would be discouraged many Offences which escape now with Impurity would be taken notice of and many Instances of Church-Discipline now superseded would by the blessing of God be restored †Quoniam si haec semel in Anno per unamquamqâ—e Provinciam celebrata fuerint Honor Ecclesiasticus Vires Ordinis sui obtinebit Impudentia quorundam Clericorum quae passim authoritate Canonicâ calcatâ Auribus Imperialibus molestiam ingerit ceâ—sabit Impunitas diversorum Plagitiorum locum delitescendi quem nunc habet non habâ—bit multa alia quae hactenùs secùs quà m Ecclesiastica Disciplina docet incessâ—runt ordinem suum Deo Auxiliante servabunt L. 1. c. 26. Which Reasons whether they will not serve as well to prove the Expedience of Convening frequently the Synods of Canterbury and York I leave the Reader who understands the state of this Church and Nation to determine These I think are all the Instances of Provincial Councils which he expresly produces as such throughout his first Chapter and I appeal now to the most Partial of his Friends whether any one of 'em does in the least countenance that Extravagant Principle which he sets up for That the Calling or not calling of Convocations i. e. Provincial Synods the allowing or not allowing them to meet and sit was a Thing always at the Free and Absolute Pleasure of the Prince even where the Nicene Canon was admitted as a
Flights of the Fathers but now he is of another mind every Submissive word every Respectful Form of Expression that he finds to have dropped at any time from the Mouths of the Members of a Synod when addressing to their Prince is Ground sufficient to rear a proof of his Prerogative upon But thus it is when Princes are to be complimented at the Expence of their Subjects Rights Compliments shall pass for Arguments As Dr. Wake has furnished himself with a Plea for the boundlâ—â—s Authority of Sovereigns in Church-matters from such Extraordinary Acts of Power as have been submitted to in good Princes so can he argue as well from the Unjust and Violent Encroachments of Ill ones Henry the Eighth was such if ever any Prince upon Earth was and Sir Walter Rawleigh therefore says of him that if all the Pictures and Patterns of a Merciless Prince were lost in the World they might all again be painted to the Life out of the Story of this King * Preâ— to hiâ— Hist. of the World And yet the Acts of this King the most Exorbitant and Oppressive Acts of Power which he exercised towards the Clergy are produced by Dr. Wake as good and lawful Precedents which all his Successors are allowed and incited to follow Particularly that Instance of his Correcting and Amending the Determinations of the Clergy in Synod even upon Doctrines of Faith is given us †See pp. 136 137 138 139. without any Intimation that such a practice exceeded the Bounds of the Kingly Power And in this he is followed by Mr. Nicholson ‖ Hist. Lib. â—ol 3. p. 196 197 And both these Gentlemen are so eager to assert this Power to the Crown that they have not given themselves leisure to inquire how far the Authorities they in this case cite are to be depended on Dr. Wake quotes my Lord of Sarum for it whose words are These Articles in 1536 being thus conceived and in several places corrected and tempered by the King 's Own Hand were subscribed by Cromwell and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Seventeen other Bishops Forty Abbots and Priors and Fifty Archdeacons and Proctors of the Lower House of Convocation * Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 217. And in the Addenda to his first Volume †P. 364. his Lordship further says that He has had the Original with all the Subcriptions to it in his Hands I have had it too and can assure the Reader that there is not a single Correction by Henry the Eighth's hand or any others in that Original 'T is a Copy fairly Engrossed in Parchment ‖ See it Bibl. Cotton Cleop. â— 5. without any Interlineations or Additions whatever My Lord Herbert indeed who is Mr. Nicholson's and I suppose my Lord of Sarum's * I suppose so because my Lord of Sarum 's account of the Subscriptions is exactly the same as my Lord Herbert 's and with the same mistakes no Deans being mentioned by either nor any Consideration had of those of the Lower House who subscribed in double Capacities which makes the Subscriptions more numerous than they are represented to be Authority says that the Bishops and Divines who consulted upon these Articles were divided in their Opinions some following Luther and some the Old Doctrine whose Arguments on either side the King himself took pains to peruse and moderate adding Animadversions with his own Hand which are to be seen in our Records †Hist. H.S. p. 469. But these words I must be bold to say are mistaken both by my Lord Bishop and Mr. Nicholson if they infer from thence that the King made any Alterations in the Articles after they were drawn up since the Animadversions plainly were not on the Articles themselves but on the Arguments urged on either side of the Questions determined in ' em These Arguments or Opinions were it seems according to the known way of that time offered in Writing and subscribed by the Parties maintaining 'em And the King took upon him to temper and soften the Expressions on either side till he had brought both to a Compliance But this is a very different thing from his Correcting and Amending the Articles themselves even as different as assisting in the Debates of a Synod before the Conclusion is formed and altering the Conclusion it self after it has been unanimously agreed on This is truly the Case of those Amendments of Henry the Eighth which Dr. Wake is so full of However had it been such as he represents it yet no Argument of Right I say can be advanced on such Facts as these and it had become Dr. Wake therefore when he related 'em to have told us withal that they were unjustifiable Many of the Actions of that Supreme Head of the Church were such as cannot justly and will therefore I hope never be imitated by any of his Successors For instance he made his Bishops take out Patents to hold their Bishopricks at pleasure tho' I suppose my Lords the Bishops that now are do not think such a Power included in the Notion of the King's Supremacy William the Conquerour is another of the Pious Patterns he recommends who would suffer nothing he says to be determined in any Ecclesiastical Causes without Leave and Authority first had from him * P. 179. L.M.P. p. 34. for which he cites Eadmerus and might have told us from thence if he had pleased more particularly that he would not let any of his Noblemen or Ministers tho' guilty of Incest and the Blackest Crimes be proceeded against by Church-Censures and Penalties * Nulli Episcoporum permittebat ut aliquem de Baronibus suis seu Ministris sive Incestu sive Adulterio â—ive aliquo Capitali Crimine denotatum publicè nisi ejus praecepto implacitaret aut Excommunicaret aut ullâ Ecclesiastici rigoris poenâ constringeret Eadmer pag. 6. that he made his Bishops his Abbots and Great Men out of such as would be sure to do every thing he desired of 'em and such as the World should not much wonder at for doing it as knowing who they were from whence he took 'em and for what end he had raised 'em and that all this he did in order to make way for his Norman Laws and Usages which he resolved to establish here in England †Usus atque Leges quas Patres sui ipse in Normanniâ— habere solebant in Angliá servare volens de hujusmodi Personis Episcopos Abbates alios Principes per totam terram instituit de quibus indignum judicaretur si per omnia suis Legibus postpositá omni aliâ consideratione non obedirent si ullus corum pro quávis terrenâ potentiâ caput contra eum levare auderet scientibus cunctis Unde Qui ad Quid assumpti sunt Cuncta ergo Divina Humana ejus Nutum expectabant Ibid. This I say and more than this he might have given us from the very Page
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
Dr. Wake 's Abstract if we had nothing more to say against 'em But they shall be further and more distinctly considered The Doctor took 'em he says out of his Collections as they lay there and for these Collections I find he scarce ever goes further than Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation which tho' a very Excellent Work and meriting the Thanks of Parliament which it had yet as to the Proceedings of Convocation and the share which the Ecclesiastical Authority bore all along in those Changes is extremely defective partly from the want of Records and partly from his Lordship's omiting to set down All even of that Little that is left us on this Head in the Manuscript Memoirs of that time So that it is no Proof that nothing was done by the Clergy in such or such a Case because his Lordship says nothing of it Besides that History is by its very Method apt to mislead an unwary Reader in Enquiries of this nature the way of it being to set down first the Proceedings of Parliament in every case and then those of Convocation which makes it look oftentimes as if the Parliament had led the way to the Convocation in their Debates when the contrary to that is most certainly true and would have appeared so to be had his Lordship thought fit to follow the Pattern set by Antiquitates Britannicae and given the Precedence always to the Acts of Convocation when the Business was first agitated there and afterwards brought into Parliament which in a Church-Historian had I presume been a method not improper or unbecoming At least since his Lordship could not but know that our Reformation had suffered by being misunderstood in these respects it might not have been amiss to have given us warning when things were told out of the Natural Order of time in which they hapned and in what Instances the Leading steps were from the Convocation tho' the Course of his History seemed to place the rise of 'em elswhere The want of this notice has occasioned Dr. Wake 's mistakes in some cases and in others he has not made use even of the Light which this History would have afforded him I shall examine every Instance any ways material the Injunctions only excepted which it must be confessed were by Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth in vertue of their Supreme Headship and under the shelter of that Act which made the King's Proclamations equal to an Act of Parliament Issued out in a very Arbitrary manner and continued so to be as long as our Princes could in their High Commission-Court take notice of the Breach of them But since that Court has been put down and the Extraordinary Acts of Spiritual Jurisdiction annexed to the Imperial Crown of England by the First of Elizabeth Chap. 1. can now be exercised only in Parliament how far any Royal Injunction is valid unless where by the Advice of the Metropolitan it orders such things as that Act directs and allows or seconds some Authentick Canon or Received Practice and whether it has any greater force in Ecclesiastical than the King's Proclamation has in Civil Affairs I leave to the Gentlemen of the Long Robe to determine The Clergy I am sure are not the only Persons concerned in this point for the Princes of those days carried their Power further than Them and issued out Injunctions alike for the Clergy and Laity * See Edward the Sixth's Injunctions To all and Singular his Loving Subjects as well of the Clergy as of the Laity Sparrow p. 1. And Q. Elizabeth 's Anno 1559. Ibid. p. 65. If the Professors of the Law think that the Crown has still such a Power of sending out Commands at pleasure the Clergy will I dare say be concluded by Their Opinion An Abstract of several Things relating to the Church P. 381. which have been done since the 25 Hen. 8. by Private Commissions or otherwise out of Convocation 25 Hen. 8. Thirty two Persons appointed to review c. the Canons of the Church and to gather out of them such as should from thenceforth alone be of force in it See the Act. c. 19. Dr. Wake might if he had pleased have said See the Petition of the Clergy in Convocation which preceded this Act and wherein this Review of the Canons is by Them desired What was done in this matter was done at Their Instance and therefore had Their Authority 1536. Order for the Translation of the Bible Bâ—rn Hist. Ref. p. 195 249 302. This too was in consequence of a Petition from the Convocation a Memorandum of which is entred in their Acts Decemb. 19. 1534. Heylin * Reform justified p. 8. seems to say that it was put up by Both Houses However that which came from the Upper House is still extant in a Cotton Manuscript †Cleopatra E. 5. fol. 339. and in it the Bishops Abbots and Priors request the Archbishop to be instant with the King Ut dignaretur decernere quòd Sacra Scriptura in Linguam Vulgarem Anglicanam per quosdam Praelatos Doctos Viros per dictum Illustrissimum Regem nominandos transferatur And this Dr. Wake could not well be ignorant of because his very Guide in one of the places he himself quotes from him ‖ P. 195. on this occasion mentions this Petition * But places it in 1536. i. e. Two Years later than it was really made as an Act of Both Houses and let 's us know the Translation of the Bible took its rise from it 1538. Explication of the Chief Points in Religion published at the Close of the Convocation but not by it Ibid. p. 245. He means the Book called The Institution of a Christian Man but mistakes both the Time of its coming out and its Title and the Authority by which it was published And in the first and last of these that very Passage he cites would have set him right if he had heeded it For thus it speaks Tho' there was no Parliament in the Year 1537 yet there was a Convocation upon the Conclusion of which there was Printed an Explanation of the chief Points of Religion Signed by Nineteen Bishops Eight Archdeacons and Seventeen Doctors of Divinity and Law †Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 245. Here is no Intimation of its not passing the Convocation but rather the contrary Twenty five of the Lower House subscribing it which might well be a Majority of the Members when not many years before in the great Debate about the Divorce of Queen Cathariâ—e Twenty three only as we have heard already * P. 53. were present and Fourteen of these Votes therefore made a Majority of that House But Heylin who had the Opportunity of examining the Registers puts this matter beyond a Probability for he speaks every where †Ref. just p. 11. p. 549. of this Book as having passed the Convocation and of these Twenty five as Subscribing it in the
invigilarunt proferantur hujus Domâ—s Examinationem subeant Synodalia And something of the same nature seems to be intimated in the Statute I mentioned which Enacts that whatever should be Ordained and set forth by the Archbishops Bishops and Doctors now appointed or other Persons hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England in and upon the matter of Christ's Religion and the Christian Faith †This relates to the Institution of a Christian Man then to be reviewed and Lawful Rites and Ceremonies ‖ This to the Rituals at the same time to be altered and Observations of the same shall be in all and every point limitation and circumstance thereof by all his Grace's Subjects c. fully believed obeyed observed and performed Here the words by the whole Clergy of England do most naturally refer to the Last Verb appointed and under that Construction imply that this and such like Committees were consented to by the Convocation as well as named by the King and so they certainly were And the reason of establishing 'em was because the matters to be discussed requiring as this very Act speaks ripe and mature deliberation were not rashly to be defined nor restrained to this present Session or any other Session of Parliament as they must have been if they had been considered only in Convocation which Then sat and rose always within a few days of the Parliament These Committees therefore were appointed to sit in the Intervals of Parliament and tho' they had a Power of concluding finally yet they seldom I suppose did more than prepare business to be laid before the Convocation when it sat Accordingly what was done by this Committee for reforming the Offices was reconsider'd by the Convocation it self two or three years afterwards as a Manuscript Note * Sess. 19. 21. Feb. 1542 43. Reverendissimus dixit Regem velle Libros quosdam Ecclesiasticos examinari corrigi Ubi Reverendissimus tradidiâ— hos Libros examinandos quibusdam Episcopis I have met with taken from the Journals of Convocation implies These Committees indeed are spoken of sometimes in our Statutes and elsewhere as appointed by the King without any mention of the Convocation-Clergy which was partly owing to the Doctrine of those times by which the King in virtue of his Supreme Headship was said to do decree and order every thing tho' the previous Steps and Resolves were from the Convocation and was withal not improper considering how much was left to the Royal Power in such matters for the Clergy often only Petitioned the King for a Committee and referred the Nomination of it to him of which a clear Instance has been given before in the Request for the Translation of the Bible Indeed when the Committee was composed of Members from both Provinces as it was in the Present case * The Act styles them The Archbishops and sundry Bishops of Both Provinces of Canterbury and York within this Realm and also a great Number of the best Learned Honestest and most Vertuous sort of Doctors of Divinity Men of Discretion and Iudgment and Good Disposition of this said Realm it could not sit and act by a bare Order of the Clergy but was necessarily to have the King's Commission before it could be a Legal Assembly and no wonder therefore if tho' both Convocations consented to it and perhaps sometimes named it yet the King only be said to impower them And here I must once for all observe that whatever was done by such Select Committees appointed or approved by Convocation tho' done out of Convocation must be reckoned done by it as carrying the stamp of its Authority For so the way has been in all manner of Assemblies both Ecclesiastical and Civil The Catechismus ad Parâ—chos among the Papists is accounted to have the Authority of the Council of Trent tho' that Council never passed or saw it because it was drawn up and published by Order of the Pope to whom that Council had referred it The like is to be said of the Oxford †Bp. Bâ—â—â— Vol. 1. p. 85. and Cambridge ‖ Ibid. p. 87. Resolutions concerning the Invalidity of King Henry's first Marriage which carried the Authority of those Universities because drawn up by Committees which were in full Convocation appointed by them Nor want we Precedents of a Delegation of the Power even of Parliaments to Committees in antient times For 1 Hen. 6. some Lords and Others of the King's Council were impowered to determine all such Bills and Petitions as were not answered in Parliament * Rot. Parl. n. 21. and so agen 6 Hen. 6. n. 45 46. and several Times before and after And Henry the Eighth had frequently the whole Power of Parliament Translated upon him We are not to wonder therefore if the Convocations of his Reign did something like this when they had so Great Patterns to follow and were so much more at his Mercy than Parliaments were 1542. The Examining of the English Translation of the Bible being begun by the Convocation is taken by the King out of their Hands and committed to the two Universities Ibid. p. 315. Were the Translating of Scripture a Work appropriated to Synods as sure it is not yet the Petition of the two Houses in 1534 to the King to take care of a New Translation of the Bible would have been Warrant enough for him to have put it into whose hands he pleased Especially since it is probable that this very Synod in 1542 complied at last with the King's Proposal I find indeed in some Minutes of their Acts that the Bishops at first disagreed to it †Sess. 9. Mart. 1541 42. but they were I suppose over-rulâ—d for Parker's account is only Aliquandiu quibus Biblia transferenda committerentur ambigebant ‖ P. 338. which shews that the dispute was soon over 1544. The King orders the Prayers for Processions and Litanies to be put into English and sends them to the Archbishop with an Order for the Publick Use of them Ibid. p. 331. This was done by a Royal Injunction * So it is stylâ—d in Bonner 's Reg. f. 48. then equal to an Act of Parliament and need not therefore by me here be accounted for However there is reason to believe that the Committee for Reforming the Offices or the Convocation it self might have an hand in it for about this time it is plain they composed the Little Book of Prayers called the Orarium †Orarium sive Libellus Precationum per Regiam Majestatem Clerum Latinè editus Ex Officina Rich. Grafton 1545. which was set out by the King the Year afterwards 1547. The King orders a Visitation over his whole Kingdom and thereupon suspends all Episcopal Iurisdiction while it lasted Vol. II. p. 26. The King Visited by vertue of his Supreme Headship recognized first in Convocation and established afterwards in Parliament
For which reason and because I think the Point to be of Importance and withal related nearly to the Article we are upon I shall here produce some Passages from the Papers and Records of that time which fully clear it King Edward's Answer to the Devonshire-Mens Petition * Fox Vol. 2. p. 666. Assures 'em that for the Mass no small Study or Travel hath been spent by All the Learned Clergy therein †p. 667. b. And agen That whatsoever is contained in our Book either for Baptism Sacrament Mass Confirmation and Service in the Church is by our Parliament established by the whole Clergy agreed yea by the Bishops of the Realm devised by God's Word confirmed ‖ P. 668. a. The Council's Instructions to Dr. Hopton how to discourse the Lady Mary ⸫ Fox Vol. 2. p. 701. affirm the same thing somewhat more forcibly The first of these is Her Grace writeth that the Law made by Parliament is not worthy the Name of a Law meaning the Statute for the Communion c. You shall say thereto The Fault is great in any Subject to disallow a Law of the King a Law of the Realm by long Study free Disputation and uniform Determination of the whole Clergy consulted debated concluded But above all most Express and Full to this purpose is the Assertion in a Letter of Edw. 6. dated Iuly 23. Regni tertio and entred in the Register of Bonner * F. 219. a. it runs thus That one Uniform Order for Common-Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments hath beyn and is most Godly sette fourthe not onely by the Common Agreement and full Assent of the Nobility and Commons in the late Session of our late Parliament but also by the lyke Assent of the Bysshopps in the same Parliament and of all other 's the Learned Men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial I thought it worth my while to make good this Point because it has by some been much doubted and their Doubts have been countenanced by the Act 2 3 Edw. 6. c. 1. which establishes the Service-Book and wherein there is mention only of the Archbishop of Canterbury and certain of the most Learned and Discreet Bishops and other Learned Men of this Realm appointed to compile it but no Formal notice is taken of the Convocation that passed it And the Proof I have given in this single Instance will suggest to the Reader that it might be so in General and that several other Things done by this Select Committee were probably approved afterwards in Convocation tho' the Statutes and other Records of that time should seem to mention the Committee only The Convocation-Records which alone could have given us Full Light in this case are destroyed and the chief way we now have of supplying this Defect is by Parallel Instances and Probable Reasonings which Fair Men therefore will admit as good Evidence for want of better and not take advantage as Dr. Wake does from the Destruction of such Records to deny that there ever were any This is as if a Man should pretend to prove that none of the People of such or such a Parish were in the Reign of Edward the Sixth Christned because perhaps the Old Parish-Registers are lost This made way for the Act of 1548 p. 93. and 1551 p. 189. He means King Edward's two Acts of Uniformity which established the first and second Service-Book and way therefore was made for them not by this New Office of Communion but by the Service-Books themselves These I have shewn tho' the Work of a Committee yet had the Authority of Convocation inasmuch as the Convocation approved this Committee before-hand and confirmed what was done by it afterwards I have shewn it I mean of the One and the Reader therefore will easily believe that the same Steps and Measures were observed as to the Other 1549. An Order of Council forbidding Private Masses Ibid. p. 102 103. As contrary to the Statute of Uniformity and to the Determinations of the Clergy in Convocation and the Council therefore who sent this Order do afterwards in a Letter of theirs to the Lady Mary * Iune 4. 1551. call her Chaplains saying Mass a contempt not of Their but of the Ecclesiastical Orders of this Church of England †Fox Vol. 2. p. 709. The Forms of Ordination appointed by Act of Parliament ordered to be drawn up by a special Committee of Six Bishops and Six Divines to be nam'd by the King Ibid. p. 141 143. The true account of this is that the Council had already appointed this Committee at the Instance as we may from former Precedents reasonably collect of the Convocation it self then sitting and of the Members of Convocation therefore this Committee was composed according to my Lord of Sarum's account of it Some Bishops and Divines says he brought now together by a Session of Parliament were appointed to prepare a Book of Ordination * Vol. 2. p. 140. The Session was likely to end before these Forms could be prepared and the Parliament passed therefore a previous Confirmation of them as they had done in the case of the Necessary Erudition in 1540 †See Stat. 32 Hen. 8. cap. 25. Dr. Wake must have a very uncommon way of arguing if he can draw any thing to the Prejudice of the Churches Power from such Instances as these where such an Implicit Deference was paid to the Resolutions of the Clergy as to Enact 'em before the Parliament had seen 'em and indeed before they were made Dr. W. we see does in this and in every other step of this Article appeal to my L. of S.'s Book and would under the cover of his Lordship's Name put off all his Bad History and Worse Opinions It may not be amiss therefore to give him the Iudgment of this Right Reverend Prelate clearly expressed and avowed in another Piece ‖ Vind. of the Ord. of the Ch. of Engl. and with that to ballance all these Doubtful and Uncertain Authorities His Lordship speaking of the English Ordinal the Point we are upon and of the Alterations that were afterwards made in it has these words It was indeed confirmed by the Authority of Parliament and there was good reason to desire That to give it the force of a Law but the Authority of the Book and those Changes is wholly to be derived from the Convocation who only consulted about them and made them And the Parliament did take that care in the Enacting them that might shew they did only add the force of a Law to them for in passing them it was ordered that the Book of Common-Prayer and Ordination should only be read over and even that was carried upon some Debate for many as I have been told moved that the Book should be added to the Act as it was sent to the Parliament from the Convocation without ever reading it but that seemed Indecent and too Implicit to
their Iurisdiction and the Commons by their Money Bills so that the being Member Part or Parcel of Parliament does not necessarily imply the very same Parliamentary Interests and Powers And the Clergy therefore though no part of the Civil Legislature nor concern'd directly in the great Affairs of State transacted in Parliament may yet in other Respects and to other Purposes be properly reputed and styl'd a Member of Parliament And accordingly I have shewn that they have been thus esteem'd and spoken of from the time of their separation downwards and even by Henry the VIII himself many Years after their submission to him One instance of this kind has been given already †P. 59. from a Proclamation in the 35 th of his Reign and because the way of Wording these State-Papers is a matter of great Weight and Importance I shall here add another from an Original Direction of the same Prince to his Judges then about to go their Summer Circuit It begins thus By the KING Henry R. Cleop. E. 6. fol. 214. TRusty and Right Well-beloved We grete you well And whereas heretofore as ye know both upon most just and vertuouse Fundations grownded upon the Lawes of Almighty God and Holly Scripture and allso by the deliberate Advice Consultation Consent and Agreement as well of the Bishops and Clergie as by the Nobles and Commons Temporall of this our Realme assembled in our High Courte of Parliament and by Auctorite of the same the Abuses of the Bishop of Rome his Auctoritie and Jurisdiction of long tyme usurped against Us have been not only utterly Extirped Abolish'd and Secluded but also the same Our Nobles and Commons both of the Clergie and Temporaltie by another several Acte and upon like fundation for the publique Weal of this our Realme have united knytte and annexed to Us and the Corone Imperiall of this Our Realme the Title Dignite and Stile of Supreme Hed in Erthe immediately under God of the Church of England as undoubtedly evermore we have been Which things also the said Bishops and Clergy particularly in their Convocations have wholly and entirely consented recogniz'd ratify'd confermed and approved autentiquely in Writing Sign'd June 25. And that this Doctrine was still good and the Language much the same as low as the Restauration of C. the II. the Office then set out for the 5 th of November shews where mention is made of the Nobility Clergy and Commons of this Realm then assembled in Parliament †Prayer the 2 d. For to say that by the Clergy of this Realm my Lords the Bishops only are intended were so absurd a Gloss that even Dr. Wake 's Pen would I believe be asham'd of it And if they were then rightly said to be assembled in Parliament they may as rightly be said to be so assembled still and if assembled in Parliament why not a Member of Parliament to those Intents and Purposes I mean for which they are assembled in it Dr. Wake will be pleas'd to answer this Question at his Leisure and withal to inform us among his late Meditations on the Day †Serm. on the 5 th of Nov. 1699. this had not been a proper one His Function may be some excuse for his being a stranger to the Language of the Statute Book or of our Manuscript Records but not to have so much Law as even his Common Prayer-Book would have furnish'd him with is let me tell him inexcusable Dr. Wake 's Foundation therefore failing the Inference he builds upon it falls accourse and the Argument will now run quite the other way that because the Clergy are a Part or Member of Parliament in a qualify'd Sense therefore they ought to Assemble with it However since that Expression is invidious and liable to be misconstru'd I willingly wave it and content my self to say that though the Clergy are now no Member or Estate of Parliament as they once were not the Third as Dr. W. ignorantly talks †P. 151. but the First Estate of it yet are they still an Estate of the Realm necessarily attendant on the Parliament and have attended as such whenever a new Parliament was called from the time that they left off to be an Estate of Parliament till within a few Years past with few Exceptions to the contrary and with none from the Reign of Henry the VII to that of his present Majesty And this prescription of some hundred Years has given them an undoubted Right of being summon'd and sitting as often as a Parliament is summon'd and sits though they are not a Member or Estate of Parliament No more than this need be said to remove the Objection But I design not barely to answer Dr. Wake but moreover to give the Reader every where as Comprehensive a View of the Subject in Debate as the short compass of this Work will allow of and shall take occasion therefore from hence to deduce an Account of the Interest which the Lower Clergy have had all along in these State Meetings 'T is a point that well deserves our Reflections and Dr. Wake therefore according to his instructive way has said nothing of it No body had gone before him and common plac'd our Historians and Manuscript Authorities to his hand on this Argument and he never ventures to break the way or to give us any part of Learning but what has born the test of Time and is warranted by at least an hundred Years usage A compleat State of this point is not to be expected in a Digression all I can do here is to lay before the Reader some of the most Material Passages to this purpose that have occurr'd to me in our Histories and Records and to add here and there a few cursory Remarks upon them which will throw some small Light into things as we pass and may suggest matter of juster and sounder Reflections to others who shall write after me on this Argument The Proofs taken singly may few of them perhaps seem full and convincing however when united I perswade my self they will carry such an evidence in them as is not easily to be withstood The Saxon times are overspread with Darkness and yet Light enough is still left us to discover that the Inferior Clergy as well as Laâ—eâ—y were then oftentimes call'd to the Great Councils of the Realm Much has been Written on this Point as to the Laiety but I do not remember that I have met any where an account of the Lower Clergys Interest in those Meetings and therefore I shall produce some Proofs of it here without entring into the Civil part of the Dispute any further than may be of use to give Light to the Ecclesiastical and to clear the Ancient Rights and Priviledges of the Commons Spiritual which I am satisfy'd ran even all along with those of the Commons Temporal and proportionably grew declin'd or reviv'd with them The first Instance I shall take notice of to this purpose is
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
otherwise some of them could be reckon'd of the Parliament being not that I can find call'd up thither either as the King 's Great Officers or by Writ of Assistance I have already mention'd †P. 62. a Mandate of Bonner's in 1543. very observable for the way in which it is worded There is another issu'd about two Years before this 32. H. VIII the first time for ought appears that the Clergys Subsidys were confirm'd by Parliament and there the Phrase differs a little for the Prelates and Clergy of Cant. Prov. are said to have granted a subsidy tam in ultimâ— ipsorum Praelatorum Cleri dictae Prov. Cant. Convocatione apud D. Paul Lond. quà m etiam in Parliamento hujus regni tùm apud Westm. sacrâ regiâ auctoritate respectivè tentis †Registr Bonner f. 21. a. and so again in another dated 10. Decem. 1544. * Ibid. f. 66. a. and in a Third of Bishop Ridley's drawn 4 â—o E. VI †Ridley's Registr f. 287. b. So that all along from the Time when the Premunientes was first inserted down to the Reformation and below it the Clergy assembling in Convocation have been still reputed and spoken of in our Records and most Authentick Writers as attending on the Parliament being of it and acting in it To what Intents and Purposes they were so and how far their Parliamentary Interest in these times extended is to be our Third and Last Enquiry 'T is upon many accounts too nice a Point to be fully and exactly stated here Something however as it falls in my way I shall say of it desiring the Reader as I have done already on other Occasions to remember that I meddle not in what follows with what is or ought to be the Clergys Right or Priviledge now but only with what it has been heretofore and that I act the part of a mere Historian not of an Advocate Their Great Parliamentary Right was to Tax themselves which they did always by separate Grants and those antiently neither prescrib'd nor confirm'd by the Laiety in Parliament ⸪ till 32. H. 8. When therefore in the 4 R. II. * Rot. Par. n. 13. the Commons proffer'd a certain Summ so the Clergy who they said had the third part of the Realm would give as much it was answer'd by the Clergy that their Grants never had been nor ought to be made in Parliament in that sense of the word by which the Parliament is oppos'd to the Convocation that neither could the Laiety constrain Them in this respect nor They the Laiety praying the King withal that the Libertys of the Church might be still preserv'd as they had hitherto been and that the Commons might be requir'd to do their Dutys as the Clergy would also certainly do Theirs and had always done Upon which the Commons Proposal was with-drawn and they granted without that Condition And the same Motion was made again and quash'd after a very remarkable manner in the Eighth Year of this King as I have already had occasion to observe This Priviledge they enjoy'd chiefly as to their Old Revenues with which they were endowed before the Statute of Mortmain but for what they acquir'd after that Act they were rated together with the Laiety notwithstanding their frequent Struggles against it †See Abr. of Rec. 15. E. III. p. 33.14 E. III. p. 28.20 E. III. p. 51.1 R. II. p. 163. Another of their Great Parliamentary Priviledges was To begin Bills by Petition from themselves in the same manner as the Commons did and those Requests when answer'd from the Throne by the advice of the King 's Great Council grew Statutes or Ordinances of Parliament The Rolls are full every were of These which are mention'd under a distinct Head from those of the Commons and Receivers are now and then particularly appointed for them * 21. E. III. See Abr. of Rec. p. 51. They came sometimes from both Provinces †Rot. Par. 1. R. II. n. 112. joyntly but generally from the Province of Cant. alone and the Style of them was Supplicant vestri Humiles Oratores Praelati Clerus †4. H. IV. n. 19.2 H. 4. n. 48. Prov. Cant. Or Humiles Devoti Oratores Clerus totius Prov. Cant. ‖ 50. E. III. n. Vos assiduels Oratours devotz Prelatz toute la Clergie de Province c. ⸪ 51. E. III n. 80. Vostre Chapelains ⸫ La Commune de la Clergie †25. E. III n. 69. These Requests for the most part began in the Lower House of Convocation especially when they tended to the Redress of Grievances in which the Lower Clergy were most nearly concern'd and took it therefore to be their peculiar Province to draw up Heads of these and propose them either immediately to the King and Parliament or to the Prelates of the Upper House in order to their being propos'd in Parliament The Clergy further claim'd in those times to have no Bills in derogation of any of their Priviledges and Immunities pass without their Consent And in favor to this Claim of theirs it was that when such Bills were offer'd they were enacted sometimes by the King under a Condition that the Clergy should thereto agree †Rot. Par. 9. R. II. n. 44. and at other times referr'd to the Clergy in Convocation and the Answers made by them to such Petitions reported in Parliament Numerous Instances there are in both these kinds I shall mention some few of them 11. H. IV. n. 70. A Petition from the Commons is thus answer'd Câ—st matteire appertient a S. Eglise quant a la Residence remedie em â—ust purveu en le darrain Convocacion Another Petition of theirs 7. R. II. n. 53. thus The King will Charge the Clergy to amend the same It related to the Extortions of Ordinarys for the Probates of Wills 18. E. I. The Commons desire Remedy de multimodis injustis Vexationibus eïs factis per Officiales alios Ministros Ecclesiae The King reply'd Cancellarius emendet in Temporalibus Archiepiscopus in Spiritualibus * Sir Rob. Cotton Rem p. 216 i. e. the Archbibishop in Convocation 21. E. III. n. 48. To a Petition of the Commons about the Tithe of Great Wood claim'd as they say by the Clergy in vertue of a late Constitution the King's answer is L'ercevâ—â— que de Canterbery les auters Evesques on t â—â—â—sponduz que tiele disme nest demandee per resâ—â— de la dit Constitution forsque de sâ—bbois 27. H. 6. n. 25. The Commons pray a Pardon in behalf of some of the Clergy allowing the King a Noble an head for every one of the Priests so pardon'd The King's Answer is what for as much as there is no Intimation of it in the Abridgement I shall at length Transcribe At the Reverence of and for the Love and Tenderness that the King hath to the Chirche and to the Ministers
again What means this Absurd Writer to place his Inconsistencies so near one another that one Glance of the Eye discovers them Even Dr. W. is in this respect a more Modest and Wary Manager for His Contradictions usually keep their Distance and may lie hid therefore if the Reader do not think it worth his while as few Readers do perhaps to carry the several parts of his Book in their mind and compare them one with another Besides if the Irish Parliament is not under an Universal Restraint what have we to do with it here where we are enquiring after Instances to countenance the laying such an Universal Restraint on the Convocation in England If this be not a Parallel of a Restraint in the same Degree it is no parallel at all there is no doubt but such meetings may be restrain'd how far is the Question Were Precedents Proofs of the Reasonableness of such and such ways of acting yet those Precedents must be exact and full or they prove nothing Ay but the same Power that disabled them so far might have put them under an entire disability It might so if they were a Province won to the Crown by its Sword for it might have allow'd them no Parliament at all but if it allow'd them any Freedom of Debate could not have been deny'd them without which in the Apprehensions of Us Englishmen there can be no Parliament 'T is true the French use the word otherwise for with Them it signifies an Assembly to which the King's Edicts are sent to be verify'd But we are not yet acquainted with this Sense of the Word and I hope never shall We took the Term from them heretofore when it signify'd something else and we have taken care to preserve its Original Meaning Dr. W. indeed bids far for introducing the French sense of the Word for he tells us roundly That the English Parliament are P. 289. in the main parts of their Debates as much though not as necessarily directed by the King in what he would have them consult about as the Convocation it self And how far the Convocation is in his Opinion to be directed by the King his Book informs us This is harsh Doctrine to suppose any restraint upon the Parliaments Freedom of Debate and may happen not to go down easily with Those that are concern'd in it But he thinks he has soften'd it by saying that the Parliament are in their Debates as much though not as necessarily directed as the Convocation What the meaning of that senseless Distinction is I cannot see or how it does him any service Should we allow him that his Doctrine curbs the Parliaments Freedom of Debate as much though not as necessarily as it does that of Convocation would such an allowance mend the matter or screen him a whit the more from the Just Resentments of Those who will no more bear being told that they are as much than that they are as necessarily directed in their Debates as the Convocation is if indeed the Convocation can debate of nothing till they are qualify'd for it under the Broad Seal of England I am mistaken if this be not to wound the Libertys of Parliament through those of Convocation The Instance of the Lords of the Articles in Scotland is as little to the purpose They were a Previous Committee compos'd of some Members of the Estates of Parliament thro' which every Act was to pass before it could come before the States themselves But they were no bar upon the Debates of Parliament where any Subject might be started and discuss'd any Requests or Proposals to the Prince might be drawn whether these Lords had made way for such Considerations or no. However the check which this gave to the Parliament in their Legigislative Capacity was thought a Badge of slavery by the Scotch and therefore towards the beginning of this Revolution when the Chains were knock'd off every where from his Majesty's Subjects this Committee was abolish'd And had the English Clergy then lain under any undue Restraint They too might have hop'd for a Relief from it assoon as any men since none had been more Instrumental than They in promoting the Common Deliverance They might have expected a legal Relaxation of the Rigor of any Law that lay hard upon them but instead of this their only Request is that an Act made in Abridgment of their Priviledges may not be constru'd to an Illegal and Oppressive Sense that they may enjoy their Old Rights which they stand possess'd of by Law and that no New Encroachments may take place upon them Which is so very Modest a Plea as may be made by any Body of Men even without Merit on their â—â—de and cannot when understood be deny'd them without Injustice and therefore I am confident when it is understood will not be deny'd them Having taken off this General Colour drawn from the Authority exercis'd over such Meetings as these in other Times and Countrys I go on now to what has been objected more particularly and closely And the first Exception of Weight that lies against the Claim made is That the Perpetual Practise of Convocations ever since the 25 H. VIII runs otherwise and this indeed were it true would be a strong one And if General Assertions without Proofs would have made it true Dr. W. had done it for he has over and over †Pref. p. II. pp. 26 40 43 109 113 115 116 c. 293. L. M. P. p. 40 43 3â— affirm'd this to be the case with as much assurance as if he had perus'd the Journals of every Convocation since that Act and seen the King's several Commissions enter'd there By that time he is got to the second Page of his Preface we have him affirming that the Sense of the Act given is repugnant to the Constant Practise of our Convocations ever since the time of H. VIII This is certain he says nor does he Himself against whom he writes deny it Indeed 't is just as certain as it is that that Writer yields it who says only in answer to a Question there put whether the Convocation may conferr without a License that the Common receiv'd Opinion is in the Negative †P. 40. But not a word has he there or any where else about the Practise consequent upon that Act and he speaks only of the Opinion at present receiv'd without entring into the Judgment of Elder times So that Dr. W. represents his Adversarys Positions just as honestly as he argues against them Indeed should that Author have allow'd the stream either of Practise or Opinion to have been always contrary to his sense of the Act he had been as Dr. W. now is under a Gross Mistake for it is certain that both General Opinion and Practise were on his side for many Years after the Act pass'd Upon a strict Enquiry into the matter I find no Instance of a Commission to treat that is not Threescore and ten Years younger
need of this Protestation which was made to guard against the Penaltys of the Acts 25. and 27. H. VIII and has therefore we see a plain reference to them The Convocation in which Alesius the Scot disputed with so much applause sat the Year after this Anno 1537 †Ant. Brit. p. 331. Fox Vol. 2. p. 504. though my Lord of Sarum †Vol. 1. p. 214. I find out of a laudable Eagerness to record the Honors done to his Countrymen has plac'd this Dispute a Year earlier than it hapned Cromwell open'd the Meeting with a Speech where he tells them that they are call'd to determin certain Controversys in Religion which at this time be moved concerning the Christian Religion and Faith not only in this Realm but also in all Nations thorough the World For the King studieth Night and Day to set a Quietness in the Church and he cannot rest till all such Controversys be fully debated and ended through the Determination of You and of his Whole Parliament For he will suffer no Common Alteration but by the Consent of You and of his Whole Parliament And he desireth You for Christ's sake that All Malice Obstinacy and Carnal Respect set apart ye will friendly and lovingly dispute among your selves of the Controversys mov'd in the Church c. These Fox tells us were the very words of his Speech and that as soon as it was ended the Bishops rose up altogether giving thanks unto the King's Majesty not only for his Great Zeal towards the Church of Christ but also for his Godly Exhortation worthy so Christian a Prince and then immediately they went to Disputation We may observe here that neither Cromwell in his Speech to the Convocation nor the Prelates in their Answer mention any Commission to Treat though it had been a Proper Head to have been enlarg'd on in both Cases and could not well have escap'd the Clergy when returning Thanks to the King for his Goodness to them had any such Commission then issu'd But that it did not and that the Clergy were then under no Apprehensions that their liberty of Debating on what Subjects and even of coming to what Conclusions they pleas'd was abridg'd by the late Act the Preface to the Institution of a Christian Man a Book which pass'd this Convocation evidently shews I have transcrib'd the Passage already from thence †See P. 97. and shall here therefore only referr the Reader to it No the Practise then and long afterwards was only for the President of the Synod to declare to 'em by word of Mouth * Thus in the Convocation of Jan. 1. 1557 The Acts say that Card. Pool Causas hujus Synodi Verbo tenùs proposuit And so divers times before and after 1541. Ian. 20. Reverendissimus exposuit iis ex parte Regis qùod intentio ejus erat qùod ipsi inter se deliberarent de Reformandis Errotibus conficerent Leges de Simoniâ vitandâ c. 1547. 1. E. VI. Nov. 5. Rev mus exposuit iâ—s fuisse c. de mandato Regio Procerum qùod Praelati Clerus inter se conâ—â—lerent de verâ— Christi Religione probè instituendâ With this agrees an Old Directory of Cranmer's for the first Day of the Convocation 7 E. VI. May 1. 1552. §. 6. The Clergy of the Inferior House to be called up to the Chapitor his Grace to declare the Cause of this Convocation and to appoint them to Elect c. 1555. 22. Oct. Episcopus London summariè compendiosè Causam Synodi vocatae exposuit Ian. 13. 1562. Arch. Cant. brevem quandem Orationem Eloquentiae plenam habuit ad Patres Clerum perquam inter alia opportunitatem reformandarum rerum in Eccl. Anglic. jam oblatam esse aperuit ac Propensos animos tam illustrissimae Dominae Nostrae Reginae quà m aliorum Magnatum hujus regni ad hujusmodi Reformationem habendam declaravit I have laid these Instances together that we may see clearly what the Custom then was and how a Message from the King by the President supply'd the place of a Commission under the Broad Seal which was afterwards practis'd Heylin and Fuller have translated some of these Passages in their Historys but so loosly as to accommodate them to the Current Doctrine and Practise of their time when a License to Treat was held necessary Which I mention to warn the Reader not to receive their Versions as Literal For it is plain they saw no other Acts of Convocation than those from whence these Transcripts were taken the King's Pleasure for what Ends he had call'd them together and what Business he would have them proceed upon And this Verbal Intimation was all the Previous Leave that was either ask'd or given in That or several other succeeding Reigns The only Instance in H. the VIII 's time that seems to contradict this is the Divorce of Anne of Cleve in 1540 mention'd by L. M. P. * P. 40. which he says the Clergy could not take cognizance of till the King's Commission impower'd them to debate and consider it And in their Iudgment therefore they recite that Commission at large and by vertue of it declare c. They do so and there were Two very good Reasons for it arising from the Matter about which they were to give their Judgment and from the Manner also in which they were to handle it As to the first of these the attempting any thing by Word or Deed against this Marriage of the King with Anne of Cleve was High-Treason or at leastâ— Misprision of Treason by the Laws of the Realm as the Clause of Pardon in the Act †32. H. 8. c. 25. for dissolving this Marriage evidently shews And the Clergy therefore had reason to desire a Commission from the Crown to screen them from these Penealtys But further such a Commission was necessary not only for their security in a point of this Importance but in order to their very Assembling For which has not been hitherto observ'd this Cause was adjudg'd not in a Convocation properly so call'd that is in a Provincial Synod but in a National Assembly of the whole Clergy of either Province the King issuing out his Letters Commissional under the Great Seal as the Sentence * See it Bishop Burnet Vol. 1. Col. of Rec. p. 197. speaks to the Two Archbishops All the Bishops Deans Archdeacons and Clergy of England and commanding them in Universalem Synodum convenire to debate and determin this matter The Lords and Commons then sitting had petition'd the King to referr it to his Clergy with a design of grounding an Act of Parliament on Their Determination The Business requir'd Haste †The Commission was seal'd the 6 th of July the Clergy met by Vertue of it the 7th The Cause was heard Iudgment given and Letters Testimonial of that Iudgment drawn up and sign'd by all the Clergy on the 9th such Dispatch
made between his Prerogative Royal and Supreme Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical and the particular Powers lodg'd in him by the 25 H. VIII In vertue of the first of these he is said to have granted the Clergy full free and lawful Liberty c. to confer treat debate c. upon Canons but to have given his Royal Assent to those Canons according to the form of a certain Statute or Act of Parliament made in that behalf in the 25th Year of the Reign of K. Henry the VIII †And so in the Commission it self see it in Dr. W's Append. n. V. though the 25. H. VIII be recited in the â—reamble of it yet where Leave is granted to Câ—nâ—er Treat c. such Grant is said to be by Vertue of our Prerogative Royal and Supreme Authority in Câ—â—seâ— Ecclesiastical without any reference to the Statute which Statute is no where vouch'd in that Ratification but with regard to such Royal Assent only It cannot be inferr'd therefore that either the Givers or Takers of this new License understood the Submission Act in a Sense different from what we contend for since it does not appear that the Grant of this License was really founded on that Statute However supposing it was yet are we to consider in the 3 Place that it is not a bare License to treat that is there granted but beyond this as the words run A full free and lawful Liberty License Power and Authority to conferr treat debate consider consult and agree of and upon such Canons Orders c. Now though a License to debate of Canons was not necessary according to the Act yet a License to agree upon them might be judg'd necessary the Clergys agreeing upon Canons especially in such an Authoritative Form and with such Sanctions and Penaltys as I have shewn them now first to have practis'd being liable to be constru'd to a sense equivalent to Enacting or Making them which without the Royal Assent and License they were by the Act expresly prohibited to do The License to Treat therefore is not to be taken separately but in conjunction with agreeing of and upon and must be suppos'd necessary no otherwise than as it qualify'd the Clergy so to treat of Canons as to agree also and come to a Conclusion upon them And thus therefore the Latin Title of these Canons which Dr. W. acknowledges to be truly Authentick and Legal †App. p. 25. runs Constitutiones sive Canones Ecclesiastici per Episcopum Londinensem Praesidem Synodi pro Cantuariensi Prov. ac reliquos Episcopos Clerum ejusdem Prov. ex Regiâ Authoritate Tractati Conclusi In ipsorum Synodo inchoatâ Londini c. Ab eâdem Regià Majestate deïnceps approbati ratihabiti ac confirmati ejusdemque Authoritate sub magno Sigillo Angliae promulgati per utramque Provinciam tam Cant. quam Ebor. diligentèr observandi They are said to be ex Regiâ Authoritate tractati conclusi joyntly not ex Regiâ Authoritate tractati conclusi in ipsorum Synodo c. as L. M. P. has fallaciously pointed these words on purpose that he may sever their Treating from their Concluding and make the Royal License seem to have been necessary for the one without any Consideration of the other But this is according to his usual Sincerity in these Matters one Instance of which I have already observ'd to the Reader The English Title of these Canons confirms what has been said and gives us further Light in the case it is thus worded Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical Treated upon by the Bishop of London President of the Convocation for the Prov. of Cant. and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said Province And agreed upon with the Kings Majestys License in their Synode begun at London A. D. 1603 c. and now Publish'd for the due Observation of them by his Majesty's Authority under the Great Seal of England Here is no mention of the Kings License for any Act previous to their agreeing upon these Canons which is a good Evidence that the Framers of them thought there needed none and though by the form of their Commission a free Liberty was granted them to treat debate and agree yet that really they had occasion for such a Grant only as to the last of these Acts but not as to the Former For had the One been equally necessary with the other they would have taken equal care to express it Dr. W. indeed excepts against this English Inscription †App. p. 25. and says it is very imperfectly rendred from the Latin and apt to lead men into mistakes about these matters believing it seems that the Translation of these Canons into English was the work of some Private Hand unauthoriz'd by the Convocation whereas he should have known that the way was for the Convocation to prepare both her Articles †The Articles of our Church were at the same time prepar'd both in Latin and English so that both are equally Authentical Bishop of Sarum 's Exposition c. p. X. and Canons in Latin and English at the same time and that the one of these therefore is every whit as Authentick as the other And in the present case it may be question'd whether the English Canons be not rather somewhat more authentical than the Latin ones since it was That Copy of them which seems particularly to have passed the Great Seal and was with the King's Ratification at length annex'd then publish'd from the Press Royal. And as low an Opinion as Dr. W. has of Convocations I hope he will allow them able to translate their Own Latin and to understand their own meaning But should there in rendring the Latin Title any casual Mistake have happen'd it would have been set right afterward in the Canons of 1640 †See Sparow Col. p. 235. when it behov'd the Clergy to tread warily and to prevent all manner of Exceptions And yet There again the very same English Inscription returns nor did that House of Commons which was no ways unwilling to find fault with any thing in these Canons that could be laid hold of except against this Title but made use of it themselves in their Votes ‖ Rushworth part 3. p. 1365. of Dec. 1.5 16 1640 without questioning the Accuracy or Legality of it From all which I inferr that those very Convocations that took out these Commissions did not however think that they treated in vertue of them and much less that they could not have treated without them They needed such Powers only to draw up and pass their Synodal Decrees in form and though more was inserted into them even the Liberty of Debating as well as Concluding yet they accepted what was not necessary for the sake of what was taking care only in the Front of their Synodical Acts to assert a Liberty of Debate to themselves independently of any such Royal Grants or Commissions All they
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
thinks to be no Improble Conjecture of Fuller our Church-Historian ‖ P. 230. When the Authority of a Conjecture of Fuller's is appeal'd to one may be sure that both Authoritys and Reasons run low with him Let us ballance the Authority of a Conjecture of One Church Historian with the Records printed by another †Bishop Burnet at the End of his first Volumn Amongst which One of the first that meets us †P. 6. is a Mandate for a Convocation issu'd out by Archbishop Warsham in 1509 without the Recital or Mention of any Previous Writ from the King to that purpose This Instance I have particularly pitch'd upon because Dr. W. has strengthned this Guess of Fuller's by another of his Own concluding from the Assertion in the submission-Submission-Act that the Convocation certainly met by the King 's Writ all H. the VIII's time and for some considerable time before * P. 231. whereas this Synod in the first Year of that Prince met as far as appears by no Provincial Summons but what was from the Archbishop only How the Clergy when met either in Convocation or Parliament consulted is another Curious Part of Knowledge which Dr. W. endeavors a little and but a little to supply us with Something he says of the Spiritualty sitting and acting separately from the Lay-part of the Parliament †P. 221. and something he seems to hint of the Inferior Clergys sitting apart from the Bishops after they had a Prolocutor of their own †P. 220. And this is all he knows of the matter I will add a few Particulars on this Head which a man of his Research methinks should have been no stranger to That the Clergy in Synod whether meeting with a Parliament or at different times from it sat ordinarily together for many Reigns after the Conquest is pretty well agreed on the Like Practise of Parliaments proves it and the Phrase of our Elder Historians who speak of the Clergy always as meeting in some One Particular Place without giving us the Names of several Rooms in which they sat apart or intimating that they usually subdivided The Canon †See it in Malmsbury ad ann 1075. made in Lanfrank's time to restrain all under Abbats from speaking in Synod without the Metropolitans Leave implys that the Greater and the Lesser Clergy then sat together so does the Account in M. Paris * Ad ann 1256. of a Synod in his time call'd by Rustandus where Magister Leonardus an Inferior Clergyman is term'd quasi Cleri Advocatus Prolocutor Universitatis †P. 920. l. 10. And in another place it is said of him In cujus Ore posita fuerunt Verba Episcoporum exponenda p. 918. l. 6. It seems he was deputed to deliver the sense of the whole Synod both of the Upper and Lower part of it who therefore we may presume now sat and debated together The Custom also of Bishops sending Inferior Clergymen to represent them though it held long after the Convocation divided yet to be sure had its rise when they were together and proves that originally they thus sat Indeed when the Archdeacons came with Procuratoria from the Inferior Clergy as they often did till E. the first 's time 't is not to be believ'd that they separated from the Greater Prelates but deliberated and voted with them as the Knights of Shires did at first with the Barons ‖ See a Record to this purpose in Dr. Brady 's Introduction Ap. p. 29 and p. 37. Not that the several Ranks of the Clergy did not even then act separately upon occasion The Instance of the Council of Winchester in Malmsbury * Ad ann 1142. Hist. Nov. is a plain proof of this at which he tells us the Legat consulted with the Bishops the Abbats and the Archdeacons severally and informs us withal that He himself was present in this Council †Cujus Concilii Actioni quia interfui integram Veritatem Rerum Posteris non negabo From whence also one would guess that more of the Inferior Clergy were there than are in the General Division of the Members expressed unless we shall say that Malmsbury came as the Proxy of his Absent Abbat so that his account is to be depended on When the Proctors of the Capitular and Diocesan Clergy came to be a certain and standing part of these Councils as they did in the 13 th Century they too sometimes consulted a a part and made as it were a distinct State by themselves Thus we are told of Two several Convocations in the Year 1296. by the Chronicle of Dunstable †MS. in Biblioth Cotton Tiberius A. 10. written at that very time Congregatio divisa erat in Quatuor Ordines sive Turmas Episcopi scilicet eorum Procuratores seorsùm Decani Cathedrales Archidiaconi seorsùm Abbates Priores alii Praelati seorsùm Procuratores Communitatis Cleri seorsiùm Into such Committees as these the Convocation I suppose subdivided all along down from these Times to the very Reformation as often as there was occasion for it though for the greater part of that Period they ordinarily sat and consulted together in Two Bodys as they do I mean should do at this day In Arundel's Register * Archiepiscopus consultis separatim Episcopis ad Oct. 8. 1399. Iterùm ad ann 1396. therefore we find the Bishops often treating separately from the Abbats and Priors and in one of Chichley's Synods ‖ A o. 1438. See Duck 's Life of Chichley it appears that the Proctors of the Inferior Regular Clergy granted subsidys and therefore we may presume consulted about them apart from the Diocesan Clergy And as low as 1529. in the Acts of the Synod of that Year this passage occurs ‖ Sess. 4. Exclusis omnibus praeter Suffraganeos Reverendissimus habuit Communicationem * In MS o. Convocationem cum eïs Intraverunt postèa Abbates Illis Exeuntibus intraverunt Fratres Mendicantes quatuor Ordinum cum quibus Reverendissimus habuit seriam communicationem Posteà ingressus est Prolocutor cum quibusdam de Clero At what time the Two Houses of Convocation divided is not easy to say but it was not I believe till after the Commons had separated from the Lords and therefore in all E. the II's Reign and in the beginning of E. III. the Petitions are made to the Archbishops and Bishops and run in the name of Religiosi Clerus †See an Instance in Dene 's Hist. Ross. Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 363. and here in the Appendix Numb XV. under which style all of the Convocation below Bishops are comprehended In the last Year of Edward the III. some Expressions in Sudbury's Register †In Conv. 4. Nov. Feb. 1376. seem to intimate that this Division had obtain'd if at least my Extract do not mislead me but a formal mention of the Inferior Domus Convocationis and
than the Statute it self The several Convocations in the 12 last years of H. the VIII those of E. the VI th of Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth all for ought I can find acted without any such Commission or License in writing and the first time we meet with it on Record is in 1603 when King Iames's first Synod met to settle the Discipline of the Church in that Body of Canons which at present obtains Nor is there any Opinion I believe for the Necessity of such a License elder than this Practise at least I have not had the good fortune ever to meet with any though I have diligently sought for it 'T is true the Registers of most Convocations summon'd since this Statute were lost in the Fire of London however large Extracts out of several of them are preserv'd and compleat Transcripts of some and in none of these is there the least Footstep of any License under the Broad Seal to be seen but very plain Intimations to the contrary as I shall now by some Remarkable Passages taken from thence and from other Books and Papers of good Authority shew And if I am somewhat Larger in my Recitals of this kind than is absolutely necessary the Reader I hope will easily forgive me What does not directly tend to establish my Assertion will serve at least to give some small Light into the Methods of Proceeding usual in Convocation which the Author of the Letter to a Convocation-man rightly observes to be little known or minded And Dr. Wake who smiles at his Remark is himself a most Contemptible Instance of the Truth of it since he has ventur'd to write a Book about the Customs and Priviledges of Convocations without having perus'd the Acts of almost any One English Synod and has from the beginning to the end of his wretched Performance prov'd nothing effectually but his own profound Ignorance of the Subject he is engag'd in I shall take the Rise of my Enquirys from the Convocation which sat upon a Prorogation Nov. V. 1532. before which the Submission of the Clergy was made to the King but not yet Enacted so that though it oblig'd them not Then as a Law yet it bound them as a Promise by the Terms of which if a Commission to Treat had been then held necessary we may be sure they would not so soon after the making that Promise have treated without one And yet I find no Hint of a Commission in a Diary of that Meeting where a great many things of much less moment are set down and where it being the first time the Clergy met after they submitted had any such thing been practised we should without fail have heard of it Sess. 11. Martii 26. 1533. this Note is inserted Tunc vertebatur in dubium an liceret disputare in Negotio Regio eò quòd Negotium pendet coram summo Pontifice indecisum Which Doubt the President remov'd by producing the Apostolick Brief that gave leave cuilibet Opiniones suas dicere Dominus Praesidens instanter rogavit omnes ut diligenter inquirerent de ista quaestione referrent quid sentirent See Ant. Brit. ad ann where the very same account is given of Stokesly ' s producing a License from the Pope but no hint of any from the King They had no doubts it seems about the Lawfulness of Treating without a Royal License which had they had it would have been mention'd here together with the Papal Leave and we may fairly therefore presume they had none In the Convocation begun Iune 9. 1536. the first in which Cromwel sat as Vice-gerent * The Bishop of Sarum tells us that Cromwell came hither as the King's Vicar-General but he was not yet Vicegerent For he sate next the Archbishop but when he had that Dignity he sat above him Nor do I find him styl'd in any Writing Vicegerent for sometime after this though my Lord Herbert says he was made Vicegerent the 18th of July this Year the same day on which the Parliament was Dissolv'd Vol. 1. p. 213. In which Paragraph there are great Marks of Haste For the Acts of this Convocation expresly call Cromwell Vicegerent as well as Vicar-General and shew that he both took place of the Archbishop and sign'd before him as he does in two Papers that passed this very Convocation and which together with the Subscriptions his Lordship has given us Vol. 1. Coll. of Rec. p. 157. p. 315. The Words of the Acts are Magister Willielmus Petre allegavit quòd ubi haec Synodus convocata â—it auctoritate illustrissimi Principis dictus Princeps Supremum Locum in dictâ Convocatione tenere debeat ac eo absente honorandus Magister Tho. Cromwell Vicarius Generalis ad Causas Ecclesiasticas ejus Vicemgerens locum ejus occupare debeat ideò petiit pradictum locum sibi assignari Ac ibidem praesentavit Literas Commissionales dicti Domini sui sigillo Principis ad Causas Ecclesiasticas sigillatas Quibus perlectis Reverendissimus assignavit sibi Locum juxta se i. e. the Place next above himself which he demanded Nor does my Lord Herbert say that Cromwell was made Vicegerent July 18th this Year but July 9th see Hist. p. 466. which is a manifest Misprint for June 9th the very day on which this Convocatâ—on was open'd and on which I suppose his Patent bore date Indeed I question whether the Powers of Vicar-General and Vicegerent were different and conveyed as my Lord of Sarum thinks by different Patents for I have seen no Good Ground any where for such a Distinction In the Collection of Records at the End of the second Part p. 303. the Bishop has given us what he calls Cromwell 's Commission to be Lord Vicegerent in all Ecclesiastical Causes But his Lordship had not time to peruse it for upon reading it he would have found that it was only the Draught of a Commission to certain Persons deputed by Cromwell to execute the Vicegerents Power in several parts of the Kingdom One of those Subordinate or Subaltern Commissions which had respect to a Superior one as his Lordship upon another occasion Vol. 2. p. 347. very properly distinguishes we are told Comparuit Dominus Prolocutor unà cum Clero exhibuit Librum sub Protestatione continentem mala Dogmata per Concionatores intra Prov. Cant. publicè praedicata This List is Printed by Fuller †P. 208. and in it the Clergy by way of Preface to their Articles Protest That they neither in Word Deed or otherwise directly or indirectly intend any thing to speak attempt or do which in any manner of wise may be displeasant unto the King's Highness c. and that they sincerely addict themselves to Almighty God his Laws and unto their said Soverign Lord the King their Supreme Head in Earth and his Laws Statutes Provisions and Ordinances made here within his Graces Realms Had any General Commission been granted them there had been no