Hereticks were privily got into England He commanded a Council of Bishops to meet at Oxford and to call them before them And being accordingly Convicted by them they were publickly punish'd by the Civil Power By whose Authority the next Convention of the Clergy was assembled the year following it do's not appear Certain it is that in the Election of the Archbishop of Canterbury for which they met all was managed to the King 's content and the person chose whom He recommended to them After the death of Becket Richard Archbishop of Canterbury held a Provincial Council At this the two Kings both Father and Son were present and all things were done not only under their Inspection but the very Council was held with their Consent and Good Will And the King with his Lords confirm'd the Decrees of it How these matters flood in the next Reign it will not be very easie to say In which the King was for the most part absent upon his Expedition to the Holy Land and by the means whereof the Affairs of the Kingdom suffered not a little at Home Yet Baldwyn the Archbishop designing to accompany the King before he set out assembled a Provincial Synod to settle the State of the Church and to take such care as he thought needfull to secure the Liberties of his See It was not long after that William Bishop of Eli held another Synod at Westminster But He being endued with the double Character both of Lord Justice of the Kingdom in Richard's Absence and of the Pope's Legate as we cannot tell by which Authority He called it so neither can it be doubted but that between Both he had a sufficient Authority so to do And the same was the Case of Hubert after Who being empower'd both by the King and Pope assembled a Synod at York Presided in it and made many useful Constitutions for the Government of the Church Thus stood the Affairs of our Convocations in these two Reigns We must now go on to another prospect to a Reign in which thro' the ill Circumstances of the Government and the Troubles that fell out by the means of it the Pope according to his Custom made farther Invasions upon the Prince's Right and at last rais'd up his Authority to the highest pitch that ever it arrived at in this Kingdom The King being absent upon his Affairs in France and Hubert still enjoying his Legatine Power by Vertue thereof call'd a Synod to Westminster Anno 1200 And tho' forbidden by Geoffry Earl of Essex whom the King had left as Lord Justice of England during his Absence yet nevertheless went on with it and made several Constitutions in it It was about six years after that Jo. Ferentinus being sent as Legate into England and having got together a vast Quantity of Money held a Synod at Redding and so took his leave of the Realm From henceforth all things began to run into Confusion The King Obstinately opposing the admission of Stephen Langton to the See of Canterbury and the Pope thereupon putting the Kingdom under an Interdict and at last Excommunicating the King himself But it was not long before the Pope and the King came to an Agreement dishonourable to Himself and derogatory to the Rights both of the Crown and Kingdom Insomuch that Stephen himself Opposed it and joyn'd himself to the Barons against both Pope and King in defence of his Countries Liberties It was upon this new Agreement between the King and Pope that John doing what He would with the Preferments of the Church the Archbishop held a Council at Dunstable Anno 1214 And deputed two of their number to go to the Legate whom the Pope on that Occasion had sent hither to stop both His and the King's Proceedings by putting in an Appeal against Them Both to the Court of Rome And the same year the said Legate having received full satisfaction from the King and being therefore to Relax the Sentence which had pass'd both upon Him and the Kingdom that He might do it with the more Pomp caused a solemn Council to be held at St. Paul's London and there Released the Realm from its Interdict and Restored the King to his Royal Authority And here we must put an End to these Enquiries during this troublesome Reign For from henceforth the Kingdom was in a continual disorder in the midst of which the King at last died But tho' by the Wise Management of the Earl of Pembrook his Governour King Kenry the 3d. soon brought things into a better posture in the State yet still the Usurpations were maintain'd in the Church and the Archbishop as Legate continued to Summon the Clergy to his Synod So did Stephen Langton Anno 1222 In which He held his famous Synod at Oxford and publish'd those Constitutions which still pass under his Name About four years after Otto the Legate coming hither to enlarge the Pope's Revenues before too great in this Kingdom held a Council at Westminster the day after Hilary and proposed to the Clergy the project upon which He came To avoid the design He had upon them the Bishops made answer that the King being indisposed was Absent and several of their Brethren were not come to the Synod and so they could Resolve upon nothing for want of Them The Legate who understood the meaning of this proposed to them that They should at least Agree to another Meeting about Mid-lent and he would undertake that the King should come to it But the Bishops replied That without the Consent of the King and their Brethren who were absent they could not Agree to any such Proposal And the King Himself forbad all who held any Baronies of Him to do any thing in prejudice of His Rights So zealous were these Men for the King's Prerogative when they needed it to guard them against the Encroachments of the Pope And so little do Men value how differently they behave themselves when their interests lead them to shift their Party and their Opinions But tho' the King now joyn'd with his Clergy against the Pope yet it was not very long before He himself invited the same Otho to come again as Legate into England Who being accordingly come hither held a Legantine Council at St. Paul's London in the Octaves of St. Martins to Reform the abuses of Pluralities and some other Enormities that were crept into the Church And there proposed his Constitutions to the Clergy that so by their Suffrage and Consent they might be establish'd for the Reformation of the State of the Church of England I insist not upon the two fresh Attempts that were made by this Legate upon the Clergy for Money and in Both which He was constantly refused by Them As was also Rustandus who succeeded him and by the like authority call'd another Synod to fleece the Clergy for the Pope's Advantage About three years after Boniface
is a Convocation that for many years past has had no Existence And the Convocation of which we are now disputing is quite another thing Is summon'd by another kind of Writ and consisted of another sort of Persons As by comparing the ancient Writs of both may evidently be discern'd So that this invincible Argument has one terrible defect in it that whether it could otherwise be answer'd or not yet 't is evidently nothing at all to the purpose But here our Author objects against himself That once upon a time the Archbishop call'd a Synod by his Own Authority without the King's License and was thereupon prohibited by Fitz-herbert Lord Chief Justice but the Archbishop regarded not his Prohibition What this is to his purpose I cannot tell nor do I see wherefore he brought it in unless it were to blame Rolls for quoting Speed for it And therefore in behalf of Both I shall take the liberty to say thus much That I know not what harm it is for a Man in his Own private Collections for such Rolls's Abridgment was tho' afterwards thought worthy of a publick View to note a memorable passage of History and make a Remark of his Own upon it Out of one of the most faithfull and judicious of all our Modern Historians I have before taken notice of this passage and that not from Speed but from Roger Hoveden from whom I suppose Speed may also have taken the Relation I shall therefore only beg leave to set this Gentleman to whom all our Historians are I doubt equally unknown right in two particulars by telling him that neither was Fitz-herbert the Man who prohibited the Archbishop nor was he Chief Justice when he did it His Name was Geoffrey Fitz-Peter He was Earl of Essex and a very Eminent Man in those days And his Place was much greater than this Author represents it even Lord Justice of England which he was first made by King Richard Anno 1198. And held in the King's absence to his death Anno 1213 In which year K. John going over into France constituted Peter Bishop of Winchester Lord Justice in his Place And now we are come to a low Ebb indeed the description of the Convocation as it stands in our Law-Dictionaries and that too like all the rest nothing to the purpose The Convocation is by them described to be a meeting of the Clergy in Parliament-time And some there were in the Long Parliament of 1641 who thought it could not lawfully be held but while the Parliament sate Well what follows Why therefore the Convocation has a Right to sit and act as often as the Parliament meets For a close Reasoner let this Author alone In the mean time I have before shewn that tho' the Convocation be Summon'd together with the Parliament yet it may sit when the Parliament do's not And we are like to have a hopefull time of it to answer such proofs where there is neither Law in the Antecedent nor Reason in the Consequence These then are the Arguments which this Author has offer'd to establish his first assertion namely That the Convocation has a Right to sit and act not only upon all such Occasions as the Necessities of the Church or Realm require it should but generally and without regard to any thing there is for them to do as often as the Parliament is Assembled I proceed II dly To consider What he has alledged for his Other Position Viz. That being met they have no need of any License from the King to empower them to act but may conferr debate and make Canons and do any other Synodical business which they think fit by their Own Authority And that either no Commission at all is needfull to enable them to do this or that if there be it ought of Course to be granted to Them In order whereunto I must in the first place observe that those who affirm that the King's License is necessary to warrant the Convocation to act do not sound their Opinion either upon the Power he has to assemble it or upon the Form of the Writ by which he Summons Them tho' that do's plainly seem to imply that some such Commission is to be expected from him But either first in General Upon that supreme Authority which Every Christian Prince as such has in Ecclesiastical Matters And by vertue whereof whenever they have admitted their Clergy to meet in Synods they have still prescribed to them the Rules by which they were to proceed in Them Or else 2dly In Particular Upon the Statute of the 25 Hen. VIII which has expressly declared this Power to belong to the King and forbidden the Clergy to presume to act Otherwise than in subordination thereunto But against this our Author excepts For first Is the Case be so Then is the Convocation an Assembly to little or no purpose whatsoever If their Tongues be entirely at the King's Will 't is improper to give their Resolutions any Title but the King's Rules and Ordinances They are to all intents and purposes His upon whose Will not only their Meeting but their very Debating depends In answer whereunto I reply First That either there is really no Inconvenience in all this Or if there be it follows not from what I am now asserting For certain it is that this was the Case of the most General and famous Councils that were ever held in the Church And which were not only call'd by the Emperour's Authority but being met acted intirely according to their prescription But indeed I cannot perceive that any of those hard things this Author so much complains of do at all follow from this supposition For what tho' the King do's propose to them the Subject of their Debates What they are to consult about and draw up their Resolutions upon Are They not still free to deliberate conferr resolve for all that Will not their Resolutions be their Own because the King declared to them the General Matter upon which they were to consult Is a Counsellor at Law of no use or has he no freedom of Opinion because his Client puts his Case to Him Or do's our Law unsitly call the Answer of a Petit-Jury its Verdict because the Judge Summ'd up the Evidence to them and directed them not only upon what points but from what proof they were to Raise it What strange Notions of things must a Man have who argues at such a Rate as this And might upon as good Grounds affirm the Parliament its self not to be free as he has deny'd the Convocation to be so because that in the main parts of their Debates That also is as much tho' not so necessarily directed by the King in what He would have them consult about I have insisted the more upon this particular because it is one of the most popular Arguments he has offer'd in defence of his Opinion tho' alas 't
and Fortune to Grandeur 12 o. Moral Maxims and Reflections written in French by the Duke of Rochfoucault now made English 12 o. Of the Art both of writing and judging of History with Reflections upon Ancient as well as Modern Historiant By Father Le Moyne 12 o. An Essay upon Reason by Sir George Mackenzie 12 o. A Divine Antidote or an Answer to an Heretical Pamphlet entituled an End to the Socinian Controversy By Dr. Francis Gregory 8 o. The Doctrin of a God and Providence vindicated and asserted 8 o. Discourses on several Divine Subjects 8 o. Both by Thomas Gregory late of Wadham College Oxford and now Lecturer of â—ulham near London Death made comfortable or the way to dye well By John Kettlewel a Presbyter of the Church of England 12 o. The Parson's Counsellor or the Law of Tyths By Sir Simon Degg 8 â— The Unlawfulness of Bonds of Resignation 8 o. Price 6 d. Let. p. 40 Let. p. 28 § 1. § 2. Let. p 28 Ib. p. 22. 〈◊〉 p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 16 § 3. Letter p. 1. 21. Ib p. 1. 2. Letter p. 20. Lett. p. 27. 〈◊〉 1. § 2. Artic xxvii Can. 1 2. Hâ—st Eccl. praef l. v p. 259 C. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib 4. cap. 24. Vid Act. Conc. Ephes I. Part. cap. 32. Adde Epist. ad Synod Ibid. cap. 35. * De feriis de nupâ—â—is de fide Cath. de Hâ—reticis de Episc. Cleric c. †Lib. I. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5. * Novell vâ— cxxxvii cxxxi c. | Basil. Fâ—bâ—ot lib. t 3 4 5. * â—eg Ed. Conf. cap. 17. Leg. Canâ—â— ca. 11. 〈◊〉 Praefat. cap. 2. Leg. Edw. Guthr cap. 3. Alfred cap. 39 c. § 3. § 4. Pandâ—ct lib. 47 tit 22 l. 1. Tertull. de Jeâ—un cap. 13. Ib. Pand. â—eg 3. 〈◊〉 5. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 1. cap. 1 2. * Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 7. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 7 8. * Vid. Act. Concil Eph. par 〈◊〉 cap. 32 35 c. * Vid. Act. C 〈…〉 〈…〉 d. 〈◊〉 1 †Ibid. ‖ Vid Ep. Leonis ad Theodos. Imp. Ep. 52. 54 c Ed. Quesâ—â—ll * Vid. Ep. Imp. Con 〈…〉 Câ—â—st ii Collat. 1 〈◊〉 p. 419 â—22 423 †Vid. Act. Concil Const. iii. Act. 1 pag 607. Tom. 6. * Concil Trull apud Bevereg Pandect Tom. 1 p. 153. E. F. †Vid. Act. Conc. Nicâ—en ii Act. 1. pag. 50. Tom. Lab. 7. ‖ Act. Con. 4. Const. Act. 1. Tom. 8. pag. 1279. C. § 6. * Concâ—â— Rom. â—ub Constant. To. 1. Lab. p. 1403. 1406. †Vid. Act. Conc. Arelat ib. pag. 14â—1 Et Euseb. Hist Eccl. lib. x. c. 5. Vid. C 〈…〉 N 〈…〉 en 1. Can. v. 〈◊〉 Balâ—â—â— in Can. Vid. Epist. Theodoret. 80 81 82. 〈◊〉 7. Concil Labb To. iv p. 11 7. ad An 484. Vid. Collat S. Avit cum Arâ—ian ib. p. 1318. Ad Ann. â—02 Concil Agath An. 506. Praef. Cum in nomine Domini ex Permissu Domini nostri Gloriosissimi Magnificentissiâ—ique Regis in Civitate Agathensi Sancta Synodus concenisset Vid Act. Conc. Epaonens An. 517. Prooem § 8. Vid. Capit. Conc. Tolet ii in sin Vid. Act. Conc. Tol. iii. An. 589 Act Conc. Praef. Et in conclusante subscript Vid. Act. hor. Concil apud Labb To. v. p. 1735. 1739. 1740. 1749. 1836. To. vi 394 1294. 1â—28 Vid. Can. 18. Conc. iii. Tolet. Concil Narbon An. 58â— in Pras. Et Caesar augustan ii An. 592. § 9. Concil Bâ—acar ii An. 563. Praef. Concil a 〈…〉 pud Lucum An. 607. Vâ—d Act. Conc. Bracar iii. in Praefat. § 10. Hist. lib. v. cap. 28. Vid. Concil Ma 〈…〉 scon 1. in Praef. An. 581. * Greg. Turon Hist. Franc. lib. vi cap. 1. †Vid Concil Labb To. v. pag. 976. 980. 1593. c. § 11. Concil Germ. i. apud Lab. To. vi Praef Lab. Conc. ib p. 1725 1726. 1793. To. vii p. 1151. 1152. * An. 8â—â— vid. Act. Concil in Praefat. †Vid. Ep. Synedâ—c ad Praesul Hisp num iii. in Canon i. Concil Aquisgran Praef. An. 816. Vid. Epist. Ludov. Imp. ad Sâ—char Arch. Bâ—râ—â—gal ibid. Vid. Act Conc. Aquisgr ii An. 836. Vid. Conc. Magunt i. in Praef. Vid. Act. Conc. Wormat An. 868. Vid. Conc. Trebur apud Lab. To. ix p. 440. 467. Ibid p. 591. § 12. Vid. Act. Conc. Aurelian i. Praef. Aâ—no 511. 〈◊〉 Au 〈…〉 An. 533. Praef. Conâ— Aâ—vern An. 535. Praef. 〈◊〉 Tur. 〈◊〉 A 〈…〉 567. Praef. Conc. Paâ— v. Praefat. Cum in dei nomirâ— secundum SS Patrum Constitut onem Ex Evocatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cor 〈…〉 o Synodâ—li convenissemus c. Conc. Cabilon An. 650. Eâ— Evocatione vel Ordinatione Gloriosissimi Domini Clodovei Regis Vid. Conc. Vernens in Praef. Concil * Rhâ—m ii Anno 813 Praef. Con. Tur. iii. Iâ—id Praefat. †Conc. Paâ—is vâ— An. 829. Praef. ap Labb Tom vii p. 1594. 1596. ‖ An. 849 〈◊〉 53. § 13. § 14. Vid. Frag. Hilarii p. 457 485 c. 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 § 15. § 16. Epist. ad Desiderium Capit Baluz Tom. 1. p. 143. Act Câ—â—c 〈◊〉 lib. 1 cap. 26. Ibid. l. 3. cap. 11. Conc. apud Sapoâ— par 6. cap. 7. Capit. Sir Tiâ— 11. Episcopis 〈◊〉 instituta Canâ—â—um Sy â—â—dum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 volentibus 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 Râ—x Caroâ—us eâ—sque apud Urbem Sucssionum Convenire p 〈…〉 pit §. 17. Vid. Leon. Epist 69. ad Maâ—â— Caes. p 568. Vi◠〈◊〉 Reg 〈◊〉 B 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—9 〈◊〉 IV Cap. Ann. 8â—8 Tom. 1. Baluz p. 624. §. 18. Euseb. histâ—r Eccl. lib. 10. cap 5. 43. Vid. Act. Eph. Conâ— p. 1 c. 32 Vid. Act. Con. Chalded Act. 1. pag. 99. Ed. Labb Ibid. pag 103. 10â— Acta Concil Chalcâ—l Chalced ib. par 1. num 56. Capit. Synod Vernent n. iv p. 170. To. 1. Baluz Capit. Aquisgram Ann. 816. Prosog Imp. ibid. pag. 562. § 19. § 20. 〈◊〉 21. § 22. § 23. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib 3. cap. 12. Ibid. cap. 〈◊〉 Ibid. lib. 4. cap. 42 43. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 17. Vid. Act. Conc. Eph. ap Labb To. iii. p. 436. 〈…〉 d. par 1 cap. â—5 p. 442. Et â—â—fr Conc. Eph pag. 7â—4 〈◊〉 Chalced. Act. 1. p. 〈◊〉 106 107 110. Ibid. Et 37. Vid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7 9 10 11 c. 〈◊〉 Concil Const. sub Mena Act. 4 Edit â—abb p. 61. Ibid. Act. 5. p. 100 101. Vid. Epist Justin. Collat. 1. pag. 419 422 423. Ed Labb § 24. Secundum voluntatis vestrae Consultationem Tituloâ— quos dedistis ea quae nobis visâ—m est definitione Respondimus Conâ— Aurel. 1. praefat ad Clodovaeum Reg. Capit. An. 828. To. 〈◊〉 Baluz p. 654. C 〈…〉 Sues 〈◊〉 Act. 〈◊〉 Laâ—b To. 〈◊〉 p. 9◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P 〈…〉 Act. Câ—nc â—râ—bur apud Labb Tom. 9. p. 441. Act. Conc. Tolet. iv An. 633. Act. Conc. Tolet. xiii An. 683. Ep. Regis ad Concil †Ibid. Unde has in Commune