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
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
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
from Eusebius * L. 5. c. 23 24. St. Cyprian †Ubique and ‖ De Jejun c. 13. Tertullian They were necessary for deciding the Differences that might happen between one Diocese and another or between those of the same Diocese if they could not be composed at home for the maintenance of sound Doctrine and wholsome Discipline and for the promoting of the general good of Christianity The Authoritative part of these Meetings was compos'd of the Bishops and Presbyters who sat * Conc. Eliberit in Proaem Greg. L. 4. Ep. 44. 4. Conc. Tolet. Capit. 3. Cypr. Ep. 1. Graviter commoti sumus Ego Collegae mei qui praesentes aderant Compresbyteri nostri qui nobis assidebant the Bishops in a Semi-circle formost and the Presbyters behind them before whom the Deacons and the People stood being little more than Witnesses of what pass'd at the Synod The Presbytery were in every City a necessary standing Council to their respective Bishops whose Power in the Church was much like that of a King in one of our mix'd Monarchies and together with their Bishops therefore they met in a Diocesan Synod upon all great Causes and without their Advice and Consent nothing of Importance was or could be determin'd This was the settl'd Rule of the Primitive Church and was kept up to here in England when it had declin'd almost every where else as the Constitutions of Egbert * Can. 44 45 46 47 apud Spelman Conc. T. 1. p. 258. Arch-Bishop of York made in the middle of the Eighth Century declare And some Remains of this Ancient Discipline are yet visible in those Capitular Bodies planted in our Cathedral Churches who as they were Originally intended to be a Select Presbytery to the Bishop for all the Affairs of his Diocese so have they still a Restraint upon his Authority in several Cases by the known Customs of this Church and Laws of the Realm Some of their Presbyters the Bishops were oblig'd to carry along with 'em to the Council of the Province and there I say they Sat Deliberated and Voted upon all Matters that came before the Assembly Indeed to General Councils the Inferior Clergy came not ordinarily in their Own Right but as the Proxy's only of absent Bishops which was necessary to hinder those Meetings from being too numerous and to prevent Confusion However even the Bishops that were present in General Councils were deputed thither by Provincial Synods * See the Emperor's Letter to St. Cyril Conc. Ephes. Part I. as also The Epistle of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage excusing himself for sending no Bishops because the War which had broke out in those parts hindred him from calling â— Provincial Synod from whence they were to be deputed Ib. pars 2. Act. 1. and brought along with them the Resolution and Consent of the several Churches from which they came and the Presbyters therefore having Voices in those lesser Synods their Consent was also in the Definitions of the Greater presum'd and included In one of these Provincial Synods held in the Second or Third Century was that which is since call'd the 37th Apostolick Canon fram'd which orders that there shall be two of these Assemblies yearly one in Spring and the other in Autumn The same thing with some small variety as to the exact time of Meeting was by the Great Council of Nice decreed more solemnly * Can. 5. and their Decree enforc'd by the Council of Antioch †Can. 20. first and then by the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon ⸫ Can. 19. Afterwards by reason of the difficulty of convening in times of War and Confusion these Synods were order'd to meet but once a Year by the Sixth ‖ Can. 8. and Seventh General Councils * Can. 6. in the East and this Order was renewed here in the West by the Fourth great Lateran Council held under Innocent III. at the beginning of the Thirteenth Century * Can. 6. And thus the general Law of the Church stood in succeeding times as to Us at least For the Decree of the Council of Basil †Sess. 15. which made these Meetings Triennial was not I think received here in England The Rule set by these General Councils ‖ All of â—em but â—hat at Antioch reputed such was prescrib'd also by the Roman Law * Justinian Nov. 123. c. 10.137 c. 4. received into the Capitulars of Charles the Great in Germany †Lib. 1. Tit. 13. and provided for very early by special Canons in the Churches of Spain and France ‖ 3. Conc. Tolet. c. 18. Conc. Regiens c. 7. 1. Conc. Araus c. 29. 2. Conc. Aurel. c. 2. 2. Conc. Turon c. 1. and of those lesser Kingdoms that arose out of the Ruines of the Roman Empire and particularly here in England by a Canon of the Council of Herudford ⸫ Beda I. 4. c. 5. Placuit convenire nos juxta morem Canonum Venerabilium held Anno 673 under Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and which took care not only to establish the Practice for the future but also to affirm the ancient Usage it being at the very entrance of the Acts of it expresly said to assemble in Vertue of the Old Canons as it was held also much about the Time that those Old Canons prescrib'd †Sept. 24. The Lateran Canon that reviv'd the use of Yearly Provincial Assemblies was in force here as Iohn de Athon tells us ‖ Proaem Othob tho' not so well observed he says as it ought to have been for a Reason too reflecting to be ⸫ Qualia Concilia Provincialia singulis annis celebrari ponitur sub praecepto quod non est ergo negligendum Sed hodiè de facto praetermittitur quia fortè Lucrum Bursale Praelatis non acquiritur sed potiùs tùnc Expensae apponuntur He gives I find the same free Reason in another place for the neglect of some Provincial Constitutions De facto perrarò servantur quando servando Constitutionem Bursae Praelatorum vacuarentur Sed aliae Constitutiones quae Praelatis Bursales sunt satis memoriae commendantur exequuntur ad unguem Ad Constit. de Hab. Cler. Englished This must be understood of the time when Athon wrote which was somewhat above an hundred Years after * For Pitts 's Account which has been taken all along upon trust viz. that he Flourished in 1290 must be a mistake since Athon was made Prebend of Lincoln in 1329 and died in 1350 as I find by unquestionable Authorities when in France also it was grown into neglect as appears by Durandus's Complaint †De modo Conc. Gen. cel Rubr. 11. But at first no doubt both here and elsewhere it was more strictly kept and to it we owe that Body of Provincial Constitutions which we have the earliest of 'em those of Stephen Langton bearing Date 1222 a few Years after that
of Hon. par 2. c. 5. p. 607. The other is of a Writ in Fitz-herbert * Nat. Prev §. 141. forbidding the Archdeacon to compell the King's Clerks in Chancery attending his Parliaments tho' Benefic'd in the Diocese ad contribuendum ratione beneficiorum suorum Expensis Procuratorum qui ad dictum Parliamentum pro Clero dictae Dioeces venerunt seu aliorum Procuratorum quos ad alia Parliamenta c. per nos nunc tenenda venire continget This Writ issu'd by Authority of Parliament for it recites an Ordinance made to this purpose in a Parliament held 4 R. 2. * Not 4 E. 3. as the Printed Writ in Fitzh implys for no Parliament met at Northampton in the 4 th Year of his Reign and is founded upon it And that the Levy of these Expences continu'd throughout the succeeding Reigns to the very time of the Reformation I have seen a good Proof in a certain Bishop's Mandate †Anno 1543. for collecting a Peny in the Pound to this purpose which it says De laudabili legitiméque praescriptâ Consuetudine in qualibet Convocatione hujusmodi contribui solebat solet ex aequitate consideratis praemissis debet How long afterwards they were paid or when first discontinu'd I know not but suppose that the Disuse of them as to the Deputed Clergy might come on by much the same steps and about the same time that it did in the House of Commons In one thing however the Clergy Delegates differ'd from those of the Laity that the first tho' Proxys themselves could upon occasion appoint other Proxys in their stead if their Instruments ran Cum potestate substituendi alium Procuratorem as they often anciently did * And sometimes of late for 1 E. 6. One of the Proctors for the Clergy of Hereford appointed Two others in his room See Synodalia And in his last Year the Procuratorium for the Dean and Chapter of Paul 's had that Clause in it for so it stands enter'd in Bishop Ridley's Register Fol. 294. Whereas I find no Instance that this was ever practis'd among the Commons The reason of which I conceive to be that the Clergy were to attend the Call not only of the King in his Parliaments but of the Pope and the Archbishop also in their several Synods and having therefore a Greater Burthen in this respect than the Laity were indulged also a Greater Liberty Further the Members of Convocation had not only Parliamentary Wages but Parliamentary Priviledges too and those I question not from their first Separation tho' we find that they were solemnly setled upon them long afterward in the 8 H. 6. But that Act might be made as well to affirm the Old Priviledges which after the Clergy had been dismembred so long might begin to be disputed as to add the New which had accru'd since the Separation and withal to confer them both not only on Parliamentary Convocations but on Convocations in general whenever meeting at the King's Summons Nor was the Separation so compleat but that the Inferior Clergy joyn'd Occasionally with the Laity and attended the King together with the States of Parliament either at the first Opening or Dissolution of it or at other solemn times when the King came to the House of Lords and something was to be done en plein Parlement i. e. in a Full Assembly of the Clergy and Laity as that Expression sometimes in the Elder Rolls seems to imply * 6 E. 3. n. 9. Something is said to be agreed per touz en plein Parlement and those are thus reckoned up before in the same Number Les Prelats Countes Baronns touz les autres Somons a mesme le Parlement which includes the Inferior Clergy for They were Summon'd this time by the Premunientes See Dugd. p. â—67 That they appear'd antiently in Parliament the first day of its Session the Roll of the first Parliament held 6 E. 3. is a clear Proof where after Sir Ieffery le Scroop had in the King's Presence declard the Causes of calling it it is said that the Bishops and Proctors of the Clergy went apart to * Si alerent mesmes les Prelatz les Procurators de la Clergie per eux mesmes a conseiler de choses susdites consult by themselves That they came thither also on other Solemn Occasions during the Session the following Passage implies where upon the King 's declaring the Bishop of Norwich's Pardon from the Throne it is said that the Archbishop with his Brethren the Abbats and Priors and the Clergy there assembled †Ft la 〈◊〉 illoneques esteantâ— Rot. Parl. 2 H. 4. n. 14. By which whether the Convocation-Clergy be meant cannot I think well bear a Doubt it being very improbable that those few Inferior Clerks who were of the King's Counsel or otherwise call'd up to the House of Lords sâ—ould be only intended most humbly kneeling thank'd his Majesty for his Royal Grace and Goodness Which I mention the rather because the Abridgement of the Rolls ⸫ P. 405. takes no notice of any but Bishops on this occasion But these are rare Instances we have oftner Accounts of the Lower House of Convocation joyning with that of Parliament not indeed in one Assembly but however in the same Parliamentary Requests and there are many Instances by which it appears that they were in such Requests and on other Occasions still reputed and call'd a part of the Community of the Realm Witness that Petition in Parliament to Hen. the 4 th which begins The Commons of your Realm as well Spiritual as Temporal * Supplienâ— humblement les Communes de vostre Roialme si bien Espirituelz come Temporelz Rot. Parl. 7 8. Hen. 4. n. 128. most humbly pray And here agen the Abridgment is remarkably silent And this Style I can trace as low as the 35 H. 8. a Proclamation of which year recites that The Nobles and Commons bothe Spyrytuall and Temporall assembled in our Court of Parliamente have upon Goode Lawfull and Vertuous Groundes and for the Publique Weale of this our Realme by oone hole Assente graunted and annexed knytte and unyed to the Crowne Imperyall of the same the Tytle Dignitye and Style of Supreme Heede in Erthe ymmediatelye under Godd of the Churche of England The Proclamation is in Bonner's Register †Fol. 42. which tho' my Lord of Sarum perused yet it seems he overlook'd this Paper and the Passage I have mention'd from it I must believe so because it is upon so Material a Point and express'd in so Extraordinary a Manner that had his Lordship observ'd it he would methinks have given his Readers notice of it Many years therefore after the Clergy had submitted they are by their Supreme Head himself own'd to be the Commons Spiritual of Parliament And when therefore in the Oâ—d Rolls we find 'em not expresly mention'd as such we must believe that they lay hid often under the
consider'd do yet certainly prove it not necessary in order to Petition There are many Requests of the Clergy in Convocation to Queen Elizabeth One Anno 1580 in behalf of the Archbishop then out of favour that she would be pleas'd to restore him Fuller IX Book p. 121. Another Anno 1587 about the Act said to be intended against Pluralities Full. Ibid. pag. 191. A third to the same purpose in some other Convocation of her Reign which being yet unprinted I shall insert in the Appendix * Numb IV. It is a Paper very Remarkable both for the weightiness of the Matter and closeness of the Expression and for the spirit and freedom with which it is drawn which however I propose not as a Pattern but as a Great Argument of that Liberty they thought remaining to them A fourth from the Lower to the Upper House of Convocation to be presented in their Name to the Queen for the Pardon of Lapses and Irregularities 'T is in a Cotton MS. Cleop. F. 2. f. 123. and from thence I shall Transcribe it See App. Num. V. A fifth against the Encroachments of Chancellors upon Archdeacons Ibid. p. 264. A sixth praying many Regulations in very weighty matters Ibid. There is also extant in Fuller * IX Book p. 55. See the Preface to it p. 66. of this Book a Remonstrance of the Clergy of the Lower House being a Declaration of their Judgments made indeed in the very beginning of Queen Elizabeth when this Statute was not yet revived and about Popish Tenets but which may I presume be safely imitated for the Assertion of truly Catholick Doctrines Anno 1606 A Petition from the Lower House of Convocation to King Iames against Prohibitions This too the Reader will find with the others in the Appendix †Numb VI. Nay even the Assembly of Divines it self tho' it was more strictly ty'd up by the Ordinance of Parliament ‖ See it Rushw. 3. part Vol. 2. p. 328. than ever any Convocation was by their Commission for there were Negative words in that Ordinance which impower'd 'em to Treat and Confer of such Matters and Things as should be propos'd to 'em and no other yet did not think themselves restrain'd from Petitioning and proposing several Heads of Reformation to the Parliament See 'em Ibid. p. 344. The Clergy in Convocation were not us'd only to be Petitioners themselves they were also some times address'd to in the same way by others either by their Brethren of the Establisht Clergy or by those of the Separation Of the former I have seen an Instance in Manuscript being a Petition from the London Ministers * See Cat. MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. n. 8494. The Direction of it is To the Reverend Fathers in God the Lords Bishops and the Rest of the Convocation It is said in the Manuscript to have been read and committed Febr. 10. 1580. Of the Latter several Mentions and Accounts remain tho' the Petitions themselves be lost For Example In Queen Elizabeth's time those who were then call'd the Puritans Petition'd the Convocation as appears from a Passage in one of their Books thus quoted by Bishop Bancroft * Dang Posit L. 4. c. 4. p. 140. We have sought say they to advance the Cause of God by Humble Suit to the Parliament by Supplication to your Convocation-house c. And whether it be this or some other Petition of theirs that is refer'd to in a Manuscript Justification †See Cat. MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. n. 1987. of the Mille-manus Petition to King Iames I cannot tell but these words occur in it We have often and in many Treatises declar'd our Objections against the Liturgy at large and namely in a Petition which Four Godly Grave and Learned Preachers offer'd in our Names to the Convocation-house A yet greater Liberty than any I have mention'd was taken by the Clergy in that Long Address miscalled by Fuller ‖ P. 208. the Protestation which the Lower House offered to Henry the Eighth himself after the passing of the Statute or in that other very long one to the Upper House in Queen Mary's time * Hist. Ref. part 2. B. 2. Coll. n. 16. In the first we have an Instance of very Free Convocational Representations and of yet freer Petitions in the Latter for it attempts not only Canons but Acts of Parliament and particularly prays †Art 10. that the Statute of which we have been speaking may be repealed But the Clergy no more stand in need of these Instances than they would joyn in these Designs and Petitions The Statute of Submission is none of their Grievances nor do they ask or wish a Repeal of it They desire only that it may not have an Unnatural and Illegal Construction put upon it and that they may be bound up no otherwise by it than the Submitters themselves were They know indeed that the Reflection which a Right Reverend Member of theirs once made upon this Statute was That the Extreme of raising the Ecclesiastical Power too high in the Times of Popery had now produced another of depressing it too much So seldom is the Counterpoize so justly Ballanced that Extremes are reduced to a well-tempered Mediocrity * Bishop Burnet 's Hist. Vol. 2. pp. 49 50. But as they are not sure that this is his Lordship's present Opinion so they are certain it is none of Theirs for they think their Power as Great as it need to be if it be not made less than it really is Had they lived indeed in Henry the Eighth's time they should not perhaps have humoured his Imperious Temper so far as to have made that mean Submission or tamely to have given up any one Legal Priviledge which belonged to the Body and was not inconsistent with the Good of their Country But since it was made and Enacted they know how like Good Englishmen and Good Subjects chearfully to obey it Only they can never submit to such a sense of the Submission as was never intended nor throughout that Age wherein it was made ever practised This would be a much meaner part in them than the first Act was in their Ancestors whose Religion was all Submission and Slavery and it is no wonder therefore that the Fetters prepar'd for them sat so easily upon them But in a Protestant Clergy the profess'd Assertors of the Just Freedoms and Rights of Mankind in Religious affairs and who have been more than once Instrumental in shaking off Yokes of every kind from the Necks of Englishmen such Illegal Complyances would be inexcusable In short they have and they own that they have great reason to be content with the Priviledges which the Law has clearly marked out to them and the Great Petition they have to offer is that they may be permitted to enjoy them If their Predecessors were struck with a Panick Fear at the very sound of a Premunire in a Reign when the Laity too trembled at the
but all such as compos'd a Provincial Synod See Reg. Henr. Prioris f. 234. sometimes from thence to cite all those Abbots and Priors who had no place in Parliament in order to compleat the Numbers of the Clergy and form a Provincial Assembly And he cited 'em to appear after Winchelsey's Pattern not before the King and among the other States but before Himself in the Chief Church of the Place But this was at his Choice for the King 's Writ directed him only to command the Attendance of the Parliament-Clergy And with this the Crown had reason to be content while the Defects of these General Summons by the Provincial and Bishops Writs were supply'd by Particular Writs directed to great Numbers of Abbats and Priors as the way was in Edward the First 's and Second's time the former of these citing Personally to his Parliaments after the Praemunientes went out often sixty or seventy and sometimes above eighty Regular Prelates and the Latter usually Summoning about fifty of them till the Declining Part of his Reign But this being esteem'd an Hardship on those Regulars who were not by Tenure oblig'd to attend the King's Summons as holding nothing of him by Barony they were in time omitted and the Number of Abbats and Priors who had Personal Writs reduc'd to about thirty the Archbishop's General Mandate then calling the rest to his Parliamentary Convocations and that being allow'd and accepted by the Crown as a sufficient Attendance in Parliament But what the Archbishop did of himself at first That he did afterwards at the King's Instance who took occasion from this Practice to enlarge his own Letters of Direction to him and by them at last to require him to Summon all those Regular Prelates he was us'd to Summon without such a Direction This as it was a Natural Step so indeed it was necessary after the Crown had foreclos'd it self from Summoning the greatest part of the Abbats Personally to Parliament for then it lay purely in the Archbishop's Breast whether he would call the Unsummon'd Abbats by his General Mandate or no and so upon any Dispute between the Spirituality and Temporalty the Crown might have been defeated of their Parliamentary Attendance At what Time precisely these Writs to the Archbishop for a Full Convocation to be held concurrently with a Parliament began to be practis'd I have not found The Eldest that has yet come to my hands is of the 10 th of Edw. 3. when the Parliament was call'd to meet at Nottingham die Lunae prox post Festum S. Matthaei †See Dug p. 186. by a Writ dated Aug. 24. And the same day another Writ issu'd to the Archbishop of Canterbury to call all the Clergy of his Province to Leicester ad diem Lunae prox post Festum S. Michaelis that is seven days afterwards * See Cl. 10 E. 3. m. 16. dors And the next year again the same thing was practis'd the Archbishop being order'd to Summon the Convocation to St. Paul's two or three days after the Parliament was to meet at Westminster * See Pryn. Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. p. 39 40. And still which is observable the Style of Authority in these Fuller Convocation-Writs was the same as it was in those where the Premonish'd Clergy only were mention'd it being a Mixture of a Command and a Request Rogando Mandamus as it continues to be in all Writs for a Convocation to this very Day This also deserves notice in many of them that they went not out only at the same time with the Parliament Writs but mention the holding of a Parliament in their Preambles as the Ground of their issuing that so the Clergy according to their Duty might resort to it Thus it was in the Writ of the 11 Ed. 3. * Ps. 2. m 40. dors just now mention'd And so again in his 29 th year another Writ †Cl. m. 8. dors runs Cùm pro arduis urgentibus Negotiis Nos Statum Regni nostri Anglicani ac necessariam defensionem ejusdem Regni concernentibus ordinaverimus Parliamentum nostrum apud Westmonasterium tenere c. Quia expedit quòd praedicta Negotia quae Salvationem Defensionem Regni nostri contingunt salubriter efficaciter cum bonâ maturâ deliberatione deducantur Vobis mandamus rogantes c. to call the Clergy of Canterbury-Province to St. Paul's die Lunae prex post Festum S. Martini ad tractand ' consulend ' super praemissis unà Vobisâ—um aliis per Nos illùc mittendis ad consentiend ' hiis quae tùnc c. T. R. apud Westm. 25. Sept. The same Form recurs 31 E. 3. Cl. m. 21. dors and in divers other Instances And when the Convocation-Writs did not mention a Parliament in Terms yet the Matter and Tenor of them shew'd that they belong'd to one for as long as the Reasons of State were continu'd in the Parliament-Writs so long we find 'em inserted in those to the Archbishops for a Convocation and after the Particular Causes of Summons came to be omitted in the Convocation-Writs and They as well as Those for a Parliament were reduc'd to a Fix'd Form which return'd constantly with little or no Variation which happen'd I think about the middle of R. the 2 d * There are later Instances of Parliament-Writs where the Reasons of Summoning are declar'd specially as 7 H. 4. Cl. dors m. 29. but they are rare ones yet even Then the General Reasons of convening them left in the Writ and still a part of it shew that they were call'd not only for Ecclesiastical but Civil Affairs and such as concern'd the Peace Publick Good and Defence of the Kingdom in a word to the very same Intents and Purposes for which the Parliament it self was assembled These Writs for a Full Convocation grew now the Common Form it being matter of Ordinary Practice to send them out concurrently with those for a Parliament in Edward the Third and Richard the Second's Reigns and still the Convocation was as in the preceding Instances generally order'd to attend a few days sooner or later than the Parliament did and not precisely on the Spot where the Parliament open'd but at some Church or Chapter-house near it And sometimes the Archbishop was left wholly at large as to both these Circumstances the Place being mention'd with a vel alibi prout melius expedire videritis and the Time no otherwise prefix'd than by the words cum omni celeritate accommodâ or ad breviorem diem quam poteritis or such other Equivalent Expressions which yet were so understood as to oblige the Archbishop to joyn the Assemblies of the Clergy both in Place and Time closely to those of the Laiety A yet Greater Liberty was indulg'd and taken in some of the succeeding Reigns till in Henry the Eighth's time * My Lord of Sarum Vol. 1. Coll. oâ— Rec. Num. 3. Prints a Convocation-Writ as the Pattern
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
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
as those of Parliament which they exercis'd either joyntly or apart by Mulcts (a) See an Instance An 1462. in Anth. Harmar p. 32. and Confinements (b) If you will not give place quoth the Prolocutor to Archdeacon Philpot being Commission'd I suppose so to speak by the House I will send you to Prison This is not quoth Philpot according to your Promise c. not denying the House's Power but the Justice only of exerting it in his Case Fox sometimes but chiefly by inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures by Excommunicating (c) See Instance of Bishop Cheyney Excommunicated for departing the Convocation without Leave Hist. of the Troubl and Try of Laud. p. 82. Suspending (d) See Bancroft ' s Register fol. 138 139. for an Instance of a Dean an Archdeacon and a Proctor suspended for deserting the Synod Mandatis nostris licitis vel Prolocutoris dictae Convocationis minimè obtemperantes As the Archbishop's Sentence of Suspension runs Depriving (e) See an Instance of Bishop Goodman Sentenc'd to be depriv'd by the Convoc of 1640. for refusing to subscribe the Canons Heyl. Life of Laud. Pag. 446. My Lord of Sarum has suggested * Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 130. another Branch of this Parallel that as none were of the Lower House of Parliament but such as came thither by Election and all that had Personal Summons sat Above so the Lower House of Convocation was compos'd of those who were deputed thither from others and the Upper of such as sat in their own Right But this Conjecture contradicting not only the Records of the Convocations in Henry the Eighth's Reign to which my Lord applys it but all the Elder Accounts of our Synods in the Archbishop's Registers where the Deans and Archdeacons are said always as now to sit together with the Proctors of the Clergy I am sorry that I cannot fall in with it the rather because it would give me an opportunity of adorning these Rude Collections with something drawn from his Lordship's Exacter Works and of making him my Publick Acknowledgments for it His Lordship would perhaps have omitted this Guess had he consider'd that the Provincial Assemblies of the Clergy were as I have shewn in lieu of that Parliamentary Attendance which the Crown challeng'd by the Premunientes and their Session therefore in Two Houses was adapted to the Parliamentary Summons so that between Them and the Laiety the Parallel in this respect ran that as all of the Laiety who were Summon'd singly * Singillatim and in Generali are the words of Art us'd to distinguish these Two sorts of Summons in K. John 's Charter by the King sat in Parliament as Peers and all who were Summon'd generally by the Sheriff as Commoners so in the Convocation all of the Clergy who had been call'd immediately and by Name to Parliament belong'd to the Bishop's house but such as were us'd to be cited at second Hand only and Mediante Episcopo as Deans Cathedral-Priors †These for a long time after the Distinction of the two Houses of Convocation sat in the Lower House but afterwards with the other Priors and Abbats in the Upper Archdeacons and the Proctors of the Clergy sat apart by themselves That which led his Lordship into this Opinion was it seems a Passage in Ioscelin * Ad Ann. 1532. where a Question †About the Unlawfulness of the King 's first Marriage is said to have been carried for the Crown by 216 in the Upper House i. e. by the whole Upper House for there were none against it whereas in the Lower 23. only were present and but 14. of those for it Which Disparity of Numbers his Lordship is at a loss how to account for otherwise than by the Supposition laid down But since that is plainly Erroneous I may I hope without Presumption endeavour to solve the Difficulty â—nother way His Lordship knows very well that the Bishops with those Abbats and Priors who were of some consideration amounted to several Hundreds in Number out of which there is no doubt but 216 might be got to do the King's Business especially at that Critical Juncture when the General Dissolution of Monasteries was threatned and already in part begun * For in June before this Convocation sat the King procur'd a Bull from the Pope to suppress several Hist. Ref. 1. Vol. p. 121. and the Regulars had no way to escape the Storm which they saw gathering but by complying with the King's Demands tho' never so unreasonable Whereas the Inferior Seculars having no such Fears and lying generally out of the Reach either of the Awe or Bribes of a Court were as backward to give their helping hand in this case as the Religious were forward and but 14. therefore of the Lower House could be prevail'd with to lend the King a Vote This perhaps may be no improbabâ—e Solution of the Difficulty if after all it â—e not a Numeral Mistake of the Transcriber or Printer such as I find sometimes in that Work I mean in the Hanover Edition of it which alone I have for instance the Câ—nvocation in 1536 is said to meet Nonis Iulii instead of Nono die Iulii for it met not on the 5 th but the 9 th of Iuly as the Writ still extant shews But enough of this I return to those Marks of Resemblance which were between the Parliament and Convocation long after they separated and by which as by some common Ensigns of Honour the One of these may be plainly discern'd to be of the same Family and Descent as it were with the Other The Instruments impowering the Proctors of the Clergy to act for the several Dioceses were drawn up I have said in the same Form almost with those for the Knights of Shires I add that they had equally Wages from those they represented and those Wages were laid on the Diocese with the same Distinction that the Others were on the County all such as came Personally to Parliament either as Councellors or Assistants being excus'd from contributing to em not to descend to yet minuter Differences which were still on both sides alike observed And which is very Material the Proctors enjoying these Expences are in the Writs and Records of that time expresly said to be entitled to 'em on the account of their Service in Parliament tho' strictly speaking they sat not in Parliament but only as they do now in a Convocation held concurrently with it Of which I will stop to give the Reader here two very significant Instances the One is of a Discharge which the Abbat of Leicester obtain'd from Personal Attendance on the Parliament on condition as the Patent speaks Quod dictus Abbas successores sui in Procuratores ad hujusmodi Parliamenta Concilia per Clerum mittendos consentiant ut moris est expensis contribuant eorundem †Pat. 26. E. 3. par 1. M. 22. See it in Selden's Tit.
would have been tempted to think that he spake upon good Grounds and had well consider'd what he said Whereas in truth he was merely upon the Conjecture and having found that the Convocations of 1640. and 1603. acted by Commission concluded presently that all the Precedent ones must have done so too forgetting in the mean time that wise Maxim of his Own with which he very fitly introduces as wise a Chapter So great says he is that Uncertainty to which all Human Constitutions are expos'd that tho' I have before sufficiently shewn what the Nature of our Convocation at present is and what Authority our King 's have over it yet we can by no means from thence conclude that this was always the case †P. 147. Which deep Remark had it been in his View throughout his Book would have instructed him not to determin so peremptorily upon the Course of Antient Practise from some Modern Instances it would have sav'd him the shame of slipping into so many false and groundless Assertions on this Head and me the trouble of exposing them When he resolv'd for Reasons best known to himself to set up for a Champion in this Cause he should either have taken care fully to instruct himself in the matters he wrote of or at least where he was conscious of his want of Light he should have had the Discretion to express himself a little more warily The oldest Aera therefore of these Commissions which impower the Convocation to Treat c. is 1. I. 1. how that New Precedent came then to be set and what Restraints it may be conceiv'd to have laid on the Clergys Liberty of Debate I shall now briefly enquire It must be confess'd that K. Iames who had been somewhat less than a King in Scotland took upon him to be somewhat more than a King assoon as he came to the Crown of England spoke of his Prerogative in a very high tone look'd upon it as some Innate Power divinely annex'd to the Kingly Character and did not stick to call it so frequently in his Speeches and Messages †See his Speech to the Bishops and Ministers Spotswood p. 534. Letter to the Assembly of Perth ib. p. 537. and sometimes to talk even of a Sovereign and Absolute Authority which he enjoy'd as freely as any King or Monarch in the World †See his Declaration in 1605. Spotswood p. 488. Bishop Bancroft who had corresponded with him formerly in Scotland knew his Temper well and the Church having then Great Business to do and He himself some for the See of Cant. was then void contriv'd we may imagin how to humor it in the approaching Convocation wherein He was to Preside and to that end procur'd this Ample Commission as an Instance of the great Deference and Submission which the Church of England paid to the Royal Authority Indeed the Clergy had reason to shew all the Marks of Duty and Respect that were fiting to a Prince that had shewn himself so fast a friend to them as K. Iames in the Hampton-Court Conference which immediately preceded this Convocation had done Where he had declar'd openly for All the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church against the Scruples of those who were then called Puritans and had peremptorily commanded them to Conform This I say may be suppos'd to have wrought on the Clergys Gratitude and made them easier to accept such a Commission now than they would have been in any other Juncture especially since by it though they might seem to abridge their Liberty in One Respect yet they certainly enlarg'd it another For whereas in Former Convocations which were not thus Commission'd the Custom had been to draw up their Rules and Canons in an Unauthoritative Style and without denouncing Spiritual Penaltys on the Infringers of them according to the Pattern set by the Old Canons here the Clergy first began solemnly to Decree and Ordain and to annex the Sentence of Excommunication to the Breach of those Ordinances The Canons of Q. Elizabeth's time where they run most in the Style of Authority do yet rise no higher than to a Cautum est nequis †See Sparrow p. 245. as before in 1584. p. 193. Volumus etiam †Ibid p. 252. and Decernendum censemus * Ibid. p. 247. but in 1603 the very first Canon begins with Statuimus Ordinamus ‖ And so in those of 1640. We Ordain and Decree Can. 1. The Synod doth ordain and decree Can. 2. and the Sanction of several of them runs thus Excommunicetur ipso facto non nisi per Achiepiscopum restituendus idque postquam resipuerit ac impium hunc errorem publice revocarit The Previous License therefore qualifying them to Decree in form and to bring their Canons up to the antient Synodical Pattern they might for this reason be enclin'd to make use of it imagining how justly has since appear'd the Ground they got in one respect to be an Equivalent for what they lost in another Something too of this Caution might be owing to the Circumstances and Temper of the Times when there was no good understanding between Them and the Great Men of the Law the Two Jurisdictions clashing mightily and when those who underhand blew the Coals between Them and the Nonconformists were uneasy under the Clergys late Victory at Hampton-Court and would not have been sorry to see them make an ill use of it or to have had any Handle towards disputing the Legality of their after proceedings On this account a License under the Broad-Seal might be thought convenient to cover them not so much from the Law it self as from Popular Complaint and Misconstruction And if these Reasons may be suppos'd to be then of weight for the beginning this Practise they were yet stronger afterwards for the continuance of it in 1640. when the Passions and Prejudices of Men ran even higher against them than Now and every thing they did was more likely to be misinterpreted Thus far by way of Enquiry into the particular Grounds and Motives from whence this New Precedent may be suppos'd to have sprung let us now see how far the Clergys Liberty of Debate was really affected by it and we shall find this not to have been to such a Degree as is commonly imagin'd For in relation to this License there are Three things that deserve to be consider'd 1. That it was not granted the Clergy immediately upon their first coming together The Convocation had sat from March 20. to April 12. that is three full Weeks without a Commission and to be sure therefore had in that time Treated without one and did not therefore think themselves unqualify'd for all manner of Synodical Debates till they were so commission'd 2. It is very observable that in the King's Letters Patents of Confirmation †See them in the English Edition of the Canons in 1603. reciting this License there is a plain difference
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