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-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
scil in capite Calendarum Maii. as it was in Germany And to this all the Proceres regni Milites Liberi Homines universi totius regni Britanniae (‖) LL. Edv. eod cap. Vide Spelm. in Gemotum and in such a full Folcmote as this Earl Godwin was Out-law'd in the Confessors time For so is Knighton's account of it Edwardus in Parliamento pleno God winum cum Filiis suis exlegavit X. Script p. 2331. There was another Full Folcmote which was a County Court only resorted and it was stil'd Plenus Folcmote and distinguish'd from the other Folcmote where only the Episcopi Principes Comites were present which was the foundation of that difference that appears afterwards in our Records between a Great Council and a Parliament or Full Parliament as it is often Emphatically called the one being a Select Convention of the Nobles and Great Men the other a General Assembly of all the States of the Realm And both the latter and elder Practice among us as well as the Institution of Pepin and Charles the Great were originally derived from the more ancient Usages of the Barbarous Germans which Tacitus in a well known passage thus describes De Minoribus Rebus Principes consultant de Majoribus Omnes and adds Ita tamen ut ea quoque quorum penes Plebem Arbitrium est apud Principes praetractentur * De Situ Moribus Populis Germaniae which is exactly the same account that Hincmar has given us of the Custom as it stood revived Seven hundred years afterwards The Members also of our Saxon Councils were alike distinguished into such as had right of Suffrage and Subscription and such as were present chiefly in order to †Thus a Charter of K. Ina is passed Consentientbus omnibus Britanniae Regibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Ducibus atque Abbatibus And they Subscribed and Confirmed it Cum Praesentiâ Populationis Monast. Vol. 1. p. 14 15. And so his Laws were made Exhortatione Doctrinâ Episcoporum Seniorum Sapientum And in Magna Frequentiâ Servorum Dei i. e. of Inferior Churchmen Jorval p. 761. And in relation both to the Lower Clergy and Laity that Passage in one of Ingulphus 's Charters is very observable Fidelium Infinitâ Multitudine qui omnes Regium Chirographum Laudaverunt Dignitaâ—â—s â—erò sua nomina Subscripserunt p. 17. I cannot bring my self to think that these and such like Phrases signify only a Rabble or mixt Multitude that resorted to such Meetings as these of their own Accord but must till I am better inform'd 〈◊〉 that some Order and Method was observed in Convening them Approve And some Footsteps there are of this Difference still visible in the several Writs to the Lords and for the Commoners the one running Quòd intersitis cum Praelatis Magnatibus tractaturi vestrúmque Concilium impensuri The other Ordering them to be sent Ad faciendum consentiendum hiis quae tunc ibidem de Communi Concilio contigerit ordinari de Negotiis antedictis as the Inferior Clergy's Summons also was antiently worded tho since the Compleat Separation of the two Bodies it has ran ad consentiendum only And the same Distinction doubtless there was between their Manner of Attending those great Councils which was such as shew'd regard and distance and is even now kept up to a Degree when the Commons come to the Bar of the House of Lords at the Opening and Dismission of the Parliament and on other solemn occasions And so did the Inferior Clergy too and that sometimes even after their Separation as the Rolls of * Rot. Par. 2. H. 4. n. 14. Parliament when produced in their proper place will shew To all which I shall add one Remark made on these Saxon Meetings by Mr. Selden which will bring what has been said of them nearer home to our present purpose He observes †Notae in Eadmerum p. 167. LL. Edgari Polit. c. 5. That the Shire-Gemots or Sheriffs Turns were not only ordered by the Old Saxon Laws ‖ LL. Ed. Conf. c. 35. to be held Twice a Year as Provincial Councils were by the Canons but punctually at the same Time also that those Councils were to be Summoned i. e. after Easter and Michaelmas as the Thirty fifth Chapter of Magna Charta shews And this he supposes to have been practised on the State side in compliance with the Rules of the Church That the Bishop and the Earl or his Sheriff might have an Opportunity of sitting together in Court according to the mixt Policy of those times This does not exactly square because the Canons related to a Synod of the Province whereas this was only a County Meeting However I thankfully accept the Hint and desire thus to improve it That the Two General Folcmotes not the Particular Shiremots were adjusted to the Canonical Times of Assembling For one of these we find was to be held constantly at the beginning of May * Vide Spelm. in Gemotum that is immediately after the Easter Turn was over for at the same Time both could not be held since the same Persons were obliged to Attend both and therefore the other we may presume if it Met that Year was held at the like Distance from the Michaelmas Turn These County-Courts being Preparative to the National Assembly either as to the Causes that were first to be Tried there and then finally determined here †According to that Law of Canutus Part 2. §. 18. which allowed the Plantiff an immediate Appeal to the King if the Shire-Gemot delayed his Remedy above Four Court Days or if the Antiquaries would give me leave to say so for the Return of Members However that may be certain it is that in after-times the Quindena Paschae and Quindena Michaëlis were Customary Periods of Assembling the Parliament and are so often mentioned as such by our Histories as to give us good ground to believe they might spring from the old Saxon Usage as That did from Ecclesiastical Practice Thus our Church Then held her Synods concurrently with the Lay-Councils not indeed according to the strict Letter of the Canons for both Provinces Assembled together but so however as to satisfy the Intent of them and to prevent other Synods that were purely Provincial from Assembling so often as they should and would otherwise have done And this therefore may be added to the Reasons that the most Learned De Marca has given * L. VI. c. 5. for the Intermission of those Meetings here in the West notwithstanding the frequent Decrees of the Church for their Continuance or Revival The Norman Revolution made no change in this respect for though the Conqueror is known to have divided the Court of the Bishop and Earl who before mix'd Jurisdictions yet he continued still to Assemble the Clergy Nationally with the Laity here as in Normandy †Vide Orderic Vital ad an 1080.
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
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
have done amiss in this Application yet nothing that they did afterwards needs an Excuse Their Refusal to comply with the King 's Excessive Demands was not only faultless but honourable and the Proceeding against them upon that refusal was altogether Illegal and Barbarous For we must not think that this sentence of Outlawry was built on any Legal Forfeiture they had incurr'd by adhering to the Pope against the Crown no it was founded purely on their denying to supply the King according to his Demands for three years before this when they delay'd to grant the Moiety ask'd he threatned †Audiens Rex indignatus est per suos satellites comminatus est se extrà Protectionem suam Clerum velle ponere nisi medietatem omnium bonorum concederent Knight c. 2502. So also Eversden before cited to do what he actually did now to put them out of his Protection and Then the Prohibitory Bull of Pope Boniface was not in being It would be some Mitigation indeed of the severity of this Process if it had been as Dr. W. would perswade us †P. 351. carried on in Parliament But that is highly improbable and inconsistent with the best accounts we have of those times The Barons it is plain were now very uneasy under the King's Exactions and it is not credible therefore that They should joyn with him in oppressing the Clergy nor had they for ought I can find any Opportunity of doing it For the Clergy were put out of the King's Protection Ian. 30 ‖ 310. Cal. Feb. tale fuit Regis Consilium quòd praeciperet praescriptam duriti em fieri contra Clerum Ann. Wigorn. apud Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 520. 129 6 which was long after the Parliament of St. Edmundsbury ⸪ Held Nov. 3. 1296. was up and before the Council of Sarum ⸫ Which met Feb. 24. 1296 7. was called Nay 12 days before this Council the Sentence was not only pronounc'd but executed even in the remote parts of England for the Writ of Seizure to the Sheriff of Worcestershire bears date Feb. 12 * Vid. eosdem Ann. Wigorn. ibid. And this agrees very well with the Observation made by the Writers of that time § Eversden Knighton Westminster Ann. Wigorn. that the King's Army was beat in Gascoign on the same day that the Clergy were outlawed here in England for the News of this Defeat it appears from Matthew of Westminster †P. 429. reach'd the King sometime before he met his Barons at Sarum Indeed Knighton ⸪ Col. 2491 and Walsingham ⸫ Ypod. Neustr. speak of a Parliament at Hillary 9â— where this Sentence may seem to have pals'd but there is great reason to suspect their Exactness in this particular The Eldest of them liv'd an 100 Years after the Time they here write of whereas there is no one Cotemporary Author ‖ Rex Angliae Edwardus in crastino animarum apud Sâ—um Edmundum Parliamentum suum tenuit vocati ibidem venerunt per Regias Literas Praelati totus Clerus Sed quoniam Clerus vocatus fuit ibidem ad mandatum regis non auctoritate Ecclesiasticâ noluit ibidem finaliter respondere Sed prorogata dies fuit quoad Clerum usque in Crastinum S. Hilarii A Laïcis tamen ibidem duodecimam partem bonorum-suscepit c. In festo verò S. Hil. Rex petebat à Clero tùnc Londoniae eâdem causa congregatis auctoritate Ecclesiasticâ Auxilium c. Excerpta è Chron. MS. Eccl. Cont. apud Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1 â—p 51. Generalis Convocatio Cleri facta est apud Londoniam in Octavis S. Hil. ad tractandum de pace Sanctae Eccl. c. Iohn de Eversden MS. The Sentence of Excommunication denounc'd by the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation A. D. 1298. see it Spelman Concil Vol. 2. p. 428. style this meeting Quaedam Convocatio Praelatorum Cleri London celebrata post Festum S. Hil. A. D. 1296. The Writ also for summoning it see it Registr Winchelsey fol. 205. the Returns to that Writ see One Registr Henr. Prioris fol. 70. and the Procuratoria drawn in relation to it ibid. mention a Meeting of the Clergy alone without any the least Intimation of a Parliament that I have seen either in Print or Manuscript and I have perus'd several that mentions such a Parliament or speaks of this meeting at St. Hilary any otherwise than as a Provincial Council of the Clergy agreed upon indeed in the preceding Parliament of St. Edmundsbury but not held concurrently with any Session of it Nor is there a Writ of this date either of Summons or Proâ—ogation in our Rolls or Registers So that the word Parliamentum in these two Historians must be taken loosly and in the same Latitude that it is made use of at this very time by Westminster †Barones Angliae Parleamentum suum per se-statuerunt ad ann 1297. and Eversden †Comites Barones tenuerunt Parliamentum suum apud Northampton de discordiâ ortâ inter Regem Ipsos ad ann eund when they apply it to the Barons Voluntary Meetings without and in Opposition to the King's Authority Accordingly we may observe that in the Praecept to the Sheriff for-seizing the Estates of the Clergy by me lately mention'd there are no words that imply the Sentence to have pass'd de Consilio Baronum or to have had the Consent of Parliament It says only Propter aliquas certas Câ—usas Tibi praecipimus qùod omnia Lâ—â—ca Fâ—eda totius Cleri in Ballivâ tuâ sine dilatione capiaâ—is in manum vestram c. †Annal. Wig. p. 520 and by the Tenor of it one would guess that it was a mere Arbitrary Command of the Prince not built on any Judicial Process whatever I have been very Liberal therefore in allowing that it might spring from a Iudgment in Court led to it by some Expressions that look that way in the Relations of Thorn and Knighton However the Judge who pronounc'd it will not be excus'd by this allowance for he pass'd an Unrighteous Sentence in a very Infamous Cause and meanly prostituted the Law to gratify the King's Resentments For which reason we may be sure that Sir Roger Brabazon * Dr. W. pretends to tell this Story with great Exactness and yet mistakes both the Name of the Person and his Office there being no such Iudge at that time as Robert Brabazon and the Person he means being neuer either second Iudge or Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas as Dr. W. will have him to have been if Dugale 's Chronica Juridicialia may be relied on The Dr. it seems found there Justitiarius ad Placita corum Rege and Justitiarius de Banco oppos'd to one another and wisely thought that the first of these signify'd the Common Pleas and the second the King's Bench just as they sounded was not the Man as my Lord Coke too
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
docto pio fideli in Prolocutorem suum assumendo consultantes unanimiter consentiant eligant sicque electum ipsi R mo in eâdem domo Capitulari prox insequente Sessione debitâ cum solennitate praesentent His dictis descendunt omnes in inferiorem domum ad effectum praedictum Forma Eligendi Praesentandi Prolocutorem SOlet observari ut postquam ingressi fuerint Inferiorem Domum in sedibus se decenter collocent si aliqui ex iis sint Consiliarii sive Sacellanâ— Regiae Majestatis ut hi superiores sedes occupent atque inde unus ex iis propter dignitatem Reverentiam seu in eorum absentiâ Decanus Ecclesiae Cath. Divi Pauli London sive Archidiac Lond. Presidentis officio in hujusmodi Electione fungatur Atque ut ad hoc â—iâ—e procedatur primùm jubebit nomina omnium citatorum qui tunc interesse tenentur à dictae inferioris Domûs recitari praeconizari Notatisque absentibus alloquatur praesentes atque eorum sententiam de idoneo procuratore eligendo sciscitetur Et postquam de eo convenerint quod semper quasi statim absque ullo negotio perfici solebat mox conveniant inter se de duobus Eminentioris Ordinis qui dictum electum R mo D o. Cant. in die statuto debitâ cum Reverentiâ Solennitate praesentent Quorum alter sicut cum dies advenerit ipsum Prolocutorem cum Latinâ doctâ oratione praesentare tenetur sic etiam idem praesentatus habitu Doctoratûs indutus consimilem Orationem ad dictum R mum Patrem ac Praelatos caeteros praesentes habere debet Quibus finitis praefatus R mus Oratione Latinâ tam Electores quam Presentatorem Praesentatum pro suâ gratiâ collaudare ac demùm ipsam Electionem suâ Arch. authoritate expresse confirmare approbare non dedignabitur Et statim idem R mus Anglicè si placeat exponere solet ulteriâ—s beneplaeitum suum hortando Clerum ut de rebus communibus quae Reformatione indigeant consultent referant die statuto Ac ad hunc modum de Sessione in Sessionem continuabitur Convocatio quam diu expedire videbitur ac donec de eâdem dissolvendâ Breve Regium eidem R mo praesentetur Et sciendum est quòd quotiescunque Prolocutor ad praesentiam R mi causâ Convocationis ac Tempore Sessionis â—ccesserit utatur habitu praedicto ac Ianitor sive Virgifer dictae Inferioris Domûs ipsum reverenter antecedat Ejusdem Prolocutoris est etiam monere omnes ne discedant à Civitate London absque Licentiâ R mi Quodque statutis diebus tempestive veniant ad Conv. Quodque salaria Clericorum tam superioris quam Inferioris Domûs Ianitoris Inferioris Domûs juxta â—â—tiquam taxationem quatenus eorum quemlibet â—â—ncernit fideliter persolvant Synodalia fol 3. XVIII JAMES by the Grace of God See p. 385. c. To the most reverend Father in God our right trusty and well beloved Counsellor Iohn Archbishop of Canterbury of all England Primate and Metropolitan the reverend Fathers in God our trusty and well beloved Richard Bishop of London Anthony Bishop of Chichester and to the rest of our Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical Greeting Whereas all such Jurisdictions Rights Priviledges Superiorities and Prehemynences Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Authority have heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction as well of the same as of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of Virtue and the conservation of the Peace and Unity of this our Realm of England are for ever by authority of Parliament of this our Realm united and annexed unto the Imperial Crown of the same And whereas also by Act of Parliament it is provided and enacted that whensoever we shall see cause to take further Order for or concerning any Ornament Right or Ceremony appointed or prescribed in the Book commonly called the Book of Common Prayer Administration of the Sacraments and other Rights and Ceremonies of the Church of England and our Pleasure known therein either to our Commissioners so authorized under the great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical or to the Metropolitan of this our Realm of England that then further Order should be therein taken accordingly We therefore understanding that there were in the said Book certain things which might require some Declaration and enlargement by way of Explanation and in that respect having required you our Metropolitan and you the Bishops of London and Chichester and some others of our Commissioners authorized under our great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical according to the Intent and meaning of the said Statute and of some other Statutes also and by our Supream Authority and prerogative Royal to take some care and pains therein have sithence received from you the said particular things in the said Book declared and enlarged by way of Explanation made by you our Metropolitan and the rest of our said Commissioners in manner and form following Then come several Alterations in the Calendar Rubricks and Offices of Private Baptism and Confirmation an Addition about the Sacraments at the Close of the Catechism A Prayer for the Royal Family and six new Forms of Thanksgiving for Rain Fair Weather c. and after these inserted at length it follows All which particular points and things in the said Book thus by you declared and enlarged by way of Exposition and Explanation Forasmuch as we having maturely considered of them do hold them to be very agreeable to our own several Directions upon Conference with you and others and that they are in no part repugnant to the Word of God nor contrary to any thing that is already contained in that Book nor to any of our Laws or Statutes made for Allowance or Confirmation of the same We by virtue of the said Statutes and by our supream Authority and Prerogative Royal do fully approve allow and ratify All and every one of the said Declarations and Enlargements by way of Explanation Willing and requiring and withal Authorizing you the Archbishop of Canterbury that forthwith you do Command our Printer Robert Barker newly to Print the said Common Book with all the said Declarations and Enlargements by way of Exposition and Explanation above mentioned And that you take such Order not only in your own Province but likewise in our Name with the Archbishop of York for his Province that every Parish may provide for themselves the said Book so Printed and Explained to be only used by the Minister of every such Parish in the Celebration of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments and duely by him to â—e observed according to Law in all the other parts with the Rites and Ceremonies
was requir'd of them On the 10th the Archbishop of Cant. reported it to the Lords and Commons On the 11th the King let the Queen then at Richmond know what was done and had her Consent to it and on the 12th a Bill was brought into the House annulling the Marriage which says my Lord of Sarum Vol. 1. p. 282. went easily through both Houses for the Summer was now far come on and the Parliament of Necessity soon to disperse it could not therefore be committed separately to the Convocations of either Province there to be transacted in a Regular manner But all the Bishops of the Province of York being present in Parliament and all the Clergy of that of Canterbury being ready hard by in their Convocation the King took this way of joyning both together by his Commission and forming One National Assembly To these he recommended the Discussion of his Case so that what should be by them determin'd id demùm says he Totius Ecclesiae nostrae Autoritate innixi licitè facere exequi audeamus It is manifest that this Commission to Treat or rather to Sit †The Clergy are said in the Instrument to be Congregati Convocati virtute Commissionis c. but there is no formal Mention of their Treating in vertue of it was here necessary to be issu'd out for such Reasons as sufficiently distinguish both this Meeting and their Business from those we are discoursing of To proceed therefore to the times of E. VI. In his first Year I have shewn the Custom still continu'd for the President to declare the King's good Pleasure to the Houses Orally without producing any License under the Broad Seal 'T is true there is the Draught of a Petition of this Year preserv'd which seems at first sight to imply the contrary and shall be fully consider'd under a separate Head All I shall here say to it is that should the Sense of the Inferior Clergy be justly express'd in this Petition at the opening of this Convocation yet 't is certain they continu'd not long of this Opinion but were soon satisfy'd either from the Answer made to them by the Bishops or some other way that their Fears of incurring a Premunire if they treated without a Commission were vain and groundless because we are as sure as we can be of a Negative of this nature at this distance that in all the Convocations for many Years after this they treated without one In the 6 th of the same Prince 1552 that Convocation met in which the first 42 Articles pass'd whose Title is Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi Anno Dom. 1552 ad tollendam Opinionum dissensionem consensum Verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios Eruditos Viros convenerat Regià Authoritate in Lucem Editi And here again the Omission of a License in form ought to satisfy us that there was no such thing because where we know it was granted as in 1603. and 1640. there the Titles of the Canons then fram'd carry an Express mention of it 1 o. Mariae The Prolocutor certify'd the Lower House upon their first Meeting that it was the Queens Pleasure that the Company of the same House being Learned Men * This explains the Eruditi Viri in the Title of the Canons of 1552. And is another Instance of the Convocational Vse of that Phrase to be added to those I have given p. Assembled should debate of matters of Religion and constitute Laws thereof which her Grace and the Parliament would ratify †Philpot 's account in Fox Vol. 3. p. 19. And the same Intimation was given I suppose by Bonner the President of the Upper House to the Bishops or rather to both the Houses joyntly and his Speech reported afterwards by the Prolocutor to the Lower Clergy as the Custom is for the Speaker to do in Parliament The Business committed to this Convocation was very extensive we see and yet no other License but what was Verbal either given or requir'd tho' the 25. H. VIII stood in full force both then and the Year afterwards When another Convocation met Nov. 13. 1554. They too debated and acted though Unlicens'd †As far as the Silence of the Acts in this case good part of which I have seen are an Evidence of it and among other things sollicited for a Repeal of this Statute Twenty Eight Articles of Reformation the Lower House preferr'd and in the Preface to those Articles assert the Power by which they did it Accounting our selves say they to be called hither to treat with Your Lordships as well concerning the restitution of this Noble Church of England to the Pristin State and Unity of Christ's Church as of other things touching the State and Quietness of the same Church in Doctrine and in Manners we have for the furtherance of your Godly Doings therein devis'd these Articles following †Bishop Burnet 2. Vol. Col. of Rec. p. 207 The next Convocation Dr. IV. * Appeal p. 30. assure us out of the late Life of Cranmer was assembled by Cardinal Pole in vertue of a License from the Queen whereby he was impower'd also to make Canons But this is according to his usual Exactness in these Matters The Convocation in 1555. met Oct. 22. †Act. MSS the Cardinal's License to hold a Synod bears date Nov. 2. ⸪ Anth. Harmar p. 142. that Year and that Convocation therefore could not possibly be assembled by him in vertue of this License Besides he was not consecrated till the Day after Granmer's Death 22. March 155◠‖ Hist. of Ref. Vol. 2. p. 340. and could not therefore as Archbishop till then summon a Convocation of the Province The true account of this matter is that the Parliament meeting this Year Oct. 21. †Dâ—dg Sum. p. 517. the Convocation also in course met the day after it at Pauls being conven'd by the Dean and Chapter of Cant. ‖ Heylin Hist. Q. Mary p. 223. as was usual in the Vacancy The Cardinal though in England did not appear at it but Bonner by Commission from the Chapter presided There they sat and did business till Oct. 30. * Act. MSS when I find them coming to a Conclusion and offering their Subsidys and Complaints to the Queen The second of the next Month Anth. Harmar p. 141 the Cardinal had his License under the Broad Seal to hold his Synod Legatin of both Provinces and upon it issu'd out his Mandate to Bonner Nov. the 8 th for the Prov. of Cant. to meet those of York on the second of Decem. following Accordingly both Provinces met in the King's Chappel at White-Hall †Act. MSS. Memorandum 〈◊〉 post incaeptam Convocationem in Ecclesiâ Divi Pauli c. Loco Capitulari ibidem posteà Episcopi unà cum Inferiori Clero Prov. Ebâ—r comparuerunt in Synodo Reverendissimi in Christo Patris Domini Reginaldi c.