that judges him Whether he is to be judged by the Votes of the two Houses or whehe is to be judged by the upper House alone and the lower to stand in the nature of Prosecutors against him Or lastly Whether the Archbishop alone does properly judge and the rest concurr as Assistants to him and assent to what he does In answer to which Enquiry if I may be allow'd to offer my own Conjecture I do conceive that in such cases as these it is not so much the Convocation that judges as the Archbishop in Convocation For besides that it was never known that the inferiour Clergy were allow'd a Jurisdiction in such cases nor is there any reason why they should have it here First The very words of the Writ upon which Sautrey was burnt seem to speak in such a manner of his Conviction in Convocation as shew the power of Judicature to have been eminently in the Archbishop and that the rest were only of Council to him and consented to what he did Cum venerabilis Pater Thomas Archiepiscopus Cant. totius Angliae Primas Apostolicae sedis legatus de Consensu Assensu ac Consilio Episcoporum confratrum Suffraganeorum suorum necnon totius Cleri provinciae suae in Concilio suo Provinciali congregati per suam sententiam definitivam Haereticum manifestum pronunciavit declaravit c. Nor can this be sufficiently accounted for by looking upon the Archbishop as President of the Convocation and so acting as Speaker in it When the Lord Keeper in the House of Lords or the Lord High Steward in the Commission for Tryal of a Peer determine or give Sentence in any civil or criminal Cause we do not find it said That they with the Counsel and Assent of the Lords pronounce or award so or so but they deliver the Sentence of the Lords and declare that this or that is their Judgment And the same ought to have been the case here supposing that the Convocation or even the upper House had equally judged with the Archbishop The Writ must have run in the Name of the whole Body Whereas the Archbishop and Bishops with the rest of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury in Convocation assembled have by their definitive Sentence pronounced c. Nor can any good reason I believe be given why the Writ did not run in this manner but because the Archbishop even in Convocation still retain'd the power of Judicature which I shall presently shew was peculiar to him and by vertue thereof judged of him And this will yet more clearly appear Secondly From the acts of the Convocation under K. Henry the Fifth Anno 1413 and the Process made against the Lord Cobham therein For first Upon several Provocations given and Affronts put upon the Clergy by the Lollards and that at the very time that the Convocation was sitting The Archbishop was required in behalf of the whole Clergy that he would vouchsafe to proceed against the Lord Cobham upon and concerning the Premises In pursuance of this request the Archbishop with a great part of the Convocation apply to the King for leave to proceed against him both because he was a Person in great credit with his Majesty and to be consider'd upon the account of his Own Honour and Quality Having obtain'd leave of the King to proceed against him it is said all along that my Lord of Canterbury summon'd him to appear before him in Convocation That when the Summons could no otherwise be executed upon him he orderâ—d it to be fix'd upon the doors of the Church of Rochester That upon the eleventh of September the day appointed for his appearance the Archbishop excommunicated him and after a farther process at last came to a final Sentence against him 'T is true tho' this process began in Convocation yet it was carry'd on and ended out of it But withal it is plain that tho' the Convocation was risen yet still the Archbishop continued the same process that began in it He sate in the Chapter House of St. Paul's he took the Bishops of London and Winchester first and then to them added the Bishop of Bangor for his Assistants Besides these a great number of the inferiour Clergy was present And when at last the Lord Cobham was brought before him the Archbishop took notice to him how he had been discover'd and accused in Convocation i. e. had been accused to himself in Convocation when they first desired him to proceed against him To all which let me add the Preamble to the Sentence which the Archbishop at last pass'd upon him and which shews that both in and out of Convocation the judgment of this matter lay before him We Thomas by Divine Permission c. in a certain Cause or Matter of Heretical Pravity of and concerning divers Articles upon which Sir John Oldcastle Knight Lord Cobham was accused before Us in the last Convocation of the Clergy of our Province of Cant. c. Nor let any one think that in asserting such an Authority to the Archbishop in these matters any injury is done to his Suffragan Bishops but rather were it otherwise the Convocation must apparently have encroach'd upon that eminent power of judging which the Archbishop heretofore had For tho' since the Statute of the 23 of Henry the Eighth the power of the Archbishop is very much restrain'd and he cannot now call whatever causes he pleases to his own judgment but only under the Limitations provided in that Act and therefore since that time the right of judging in this case would in the first instance have belonged to the Bishop of Rochester and to the Archbishop no otherwise than either by way of Appeal or upon some negligence or defect in the Diocesan to judge of it yet before that Statute the Archbishop had a power to call any cause immediately before himself and when therefore in his Syned he did do so we ought not to question but that it was he who properly speaking did judge and that the rest of the Bishops were only his Assistants in it I conclude then that tho' the person in such a case were try'd in Convocation yet precisely speaking it was the part of the lower House to discover and accuse of the Bishops to counsel and assist but of the Archbishop to hear and judge But still the main question remains to be consider'd namely Whether the Convocation howsoever it be that it judges may proceed in these cases without the King's leave or whether his Commission be necessary to justifie them in it That they are not restrained by vertue of that Statute which has so much retrench'd their power in other respects is confidently affirm'd Nor shall I deny but that the intention of that Act seems rather to restrain them from making any New Canons or Constitutions than from judging in causes Ecclesiastical according to the Canons already made That they had heretofore a power to judge
times they have appear'd there as Spiritual Assistants to consider consult and consent Only he affirms that they never had Voices there because they were no Lords of Parliament the force of which Argument I shall leave to the House of Commons to answer In the mean time I must observe that in the case of Bird and Smith Trin. 4. Jac. 1. upon a Deprivation made of Smith by the High Commissioners for not Conforming to the Canons of the Church the Lord Chancellour having call'd Popham Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench Coke of the Common Pleas and Fleming Lord Chief Baron to his assistance it was agreed to by all the three without any Exception That the Canons of the Church made by the Convocation and King without the Parliament shall bind in matters Ecclesiastical as well as an Act of Parliament Because the Convocation of the Clergy was once a Member of the Parliament but afterwards for Convenience separated and therefore does carry its peculiar Jurisdiction along with it in the Convocation House For which reason also a Clergy-man cannot be chosen a Member of the House of Commons nor a Lay-man of the Convocation as Coke then declared had been resolved in a Conference of the two Houses 21 Hen. 8. And as concerning the other part of my Lord Coke's Assertion that the Proctors of the Clergy never had Voices in Parliament because in the Writ of Summons it is said that they were call'd Ad consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem de communi consilio dicti regni nostri contigerit ordinari it may suffice to observe that tho' this be indeed the present Form yet when both the Clergy and Commons were first called to this great Council they were both summon'd to another purpose and in words that did expresly intitle them to act in it In the 23d Edw. 1. the first Summons for ought appears that was ever regularly issued out for them they were called Ad Tractand Ordinand Faciend nobiscum cum caeteris praelatis proceribus aliis incolis Regni nostri In the 4th Edw. 3. Ad Faciend Consentiend And this continued to be the usual Form afterwards And these are the very Words that were used in the Commons Writs in the same Parliament 4 Edward 3 And which tho' alter'd about the 26th of that King into others of greater force Ad Tractand Consulend Faciend Yet that Form lasted not very long but in the 46 of the same King it again was worded Ad Faciend Consulend and so has continued to this day And a more ancient Authority than this in my Lord Coke's Account has told us that the Clergy were call'd Ad Tractand Deliberand That their names were call'd over the beginning of every Parliament that they had a Voice in it and made a part of the Commons there But because this is a point that will best be clear'd by matter of Fact we will enquire a little what the Clergy were wont heretofore to do there For as for the Forms of Summons tho' I conceive at first they were very properly drawn and do mark out to us the undoubted Rights of those to whom they were sent as they were allow'd of in those ancient times yet how little they may signifie now the Form of our Parliamentary Writs in the Praemonentes to the Bishop does alone too evidently shew In the 6 Edw. 3. after the Archbishop of Cant. and Bishop of London had declared how that the French King designing an Expedition to the Holy Land had desired our King to go along with him and that this was the cause of calling that Parliament Sir Jeffery le Scroop added by the King's Commandment that the same was called as well to redress the Breach of the Laws and Peace as for the King 's going to the Holy Land The Bishops answer'd That it did not properly appertain to them to counsel in matters of Peace and to prescribe for the punishment of Evils And so together with the Proctors of the Clergy they went apart to consult about the Matters proposed to them In the 13th of the same King the King appointing Commissioners in his stead to begin and continue the Parliament we find the Dean of York as Treasurer standing next to the Archbishop in the Commission And in the Parliament which met the Michaelmas before it being resolved to hold another upon the Octaves of Hilary the Archbishops were order'd to summon their respective Convocations to be ready to meet with it In the 18th of the same Edw. 3. at the opening of the Parliament complaint was made that sundry of all Estates were absent whereat the King did no less muse than he was thereat offended Wherefore he charged the Archbishop for his part to punish the Defaults of the Clergy and he would do the like touching the Parliament And in the same Session the Resolution being taken that the King should end the War he was engaged in either by Battle or an Honourable Peace the King agreed And in order thereunto the Clergy of Cant. granted him a Triennial Disme and the Commons two fifteens of Counties and two Dismes of Cities and Towns It was the usual custom of the Commons in those days to begin such Bills as they thought necessary to have pass'd by Petition to the King in Parliament Thus they did in this Parliament 18 Edw. 3. which being ended the Bishops and Clergy exhibited their Petitions also being in number seven whereto the King answer'd and the same comprized in the Statute for the Clergy still extant In the Preamble of which the King takes notice of the Triennial Disme granted to him by the Prelates and Procurators of the Clergy of both Provinces In the 1 Rich. 2. we again find the Clergy petitioning in like manner And in the 21st of the same King the Commons by Sir John Bussey their Speaker pray the King that forasmuch as divers Judgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present therefore they pray'd the King that the Clergy should appoint some to be their common Proctor with sufficient Authority thereunto And the Bishops thereupon appointed Sir Thomas Piercie their Proctor to assent in the name of the Clergy And by vertue whereof when the Parliament took a new Oath to the King the Bishops and Abbots themselves took it and Sir Thomas Piercie as Proctor for the Clergy was sworn to the same And when in the same Parliament Sir John Bussey offer'd the King a Subsidy from the Commons and thereupon desired his general Pardon the Clergy gave the like power to Sir William â—e Scroop of Wilts to answer for them that they late did to Sir Thomas Piercie And when finally upon the advice of Sir John Bussey the Lords were required again to swear not to alter any thing of what was done in this Parliament not only the Bishops and Temporal Lords did so but sundry
himself On the 11th of July in the same Convocation the Bp of Hereford produced a certain Book containing the Articles of Faith and Ceremonies of the Church Which being read by the said Bishop the said Honourable Thomas Cromwel the Archbishop and other Prelates with the Prolocutor and Clergy of the Lower House by their Subscriptions Approved of the said Book On the 15th of July It was agreed by the Lord Cromwel the Archbishop and Convocation as to certain Ordinances c. And lastly On the 20th of July the Bishop of Hereford produced a certain Book containing the Causes why the King ought not to appear at the General Council then to be held Which Book the aforesaid Honourable Lord Thomas Cromwel the Archbishop and the Rest of the Convocation by their Subscriptions approved of Thus did the King's Commissioner not only sit but act with the Bishops in their Convocation And I am not aware of any Law that has debar'd the King if need were to do that again now which King Henry 8. heretofore did And this may suffice to shew what Authority the King has over Our Convocation both by the Statute and Common Law by his own Prerogative as a Christian Prince and by the Particular Concessions of our own Parliaments and Convocations But we are told that the Convocation must be consider'd by Us not only as an Ecclesiastical Synod but as an Ecclesiastical Court too and which as such has Jurisdiction to deal with Heresies Schisms and other meer Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Causes juxta legem divinam Canones S. Ecclesiae And herein their Power is not at all Restrain'd by any particular Statute but still remains whole and entire to Them In this respect therefore the Convocation may at least act without the King's Licence and as of Right against any Bishop Priest or Deacon for such Offences This is the Doctrine of our Late Author but is not so clear to me as he would make it That Provincial Synods heretofore did look upon Themselves as endued with a sufficient Authority to proceed against any of their Own Body who by any of the Crimes before mentioned had deserved their Censure is not to be deny'd The Provincial Councils of old did so but especially in the Case of Heresie wherein the Church has ever Accounted it self to be particularly Concern'd But then it must be remember'd too that when they had so proceeded against Any One the Prince still judged whether they had acted Canonically or no And if he found a just Reason to move Him so to do he did oftentimes suspend their Sentence and order a new Enquiry in some other Synod to be made of such a Matter and after all determined it at last as He saw Cause Thus Theodosius did in the Case of Nest orius after he had been Condemn'd in two several Provincial Councils And thus Constantius before him had done in the Case of Photinus a worser Heretick He received his Appeal from the Council of Sirmium and order'd a new Examination to be made of his Case and then confirm'd the Sentence of the Synod and concurr'd in the Deposition of him And when Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople had in like manner condemned Eutyches for his Heresie the Emperor not only referr'd the Matter to the Council of Ephesus to be re-heard by it but when by the indirect Management of Dioscorus that Synod instead of Confirming his Sentence against Eutyches condemn'd Flavian himself tho' Orthodox and Innocent Theodosius not only refused to suspend the Sentences of Both till another Free Council might be call'd to judge of the Matter but left the Sentence of this last Council to remain in force and would not suffer any other Synod to be called about this Affair as long as He lived As for our own Convocation it is not deny'd but that antiently They were wont to judge of Heresy in it The first Instance that occurs of this and that the case of Pelagianism excepted as antient as the first coming of Heresie into our Country is that of the Council of Oxford held about 1260 and the Occasion of which was this It had happen'd some time before that about 30 Persons came over hither out of Germany and held secret Meetings differing from the common Opinion of the Church in several Particulars but chiefly as to the points of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist To prevent the spreading of their Errors the King commanded that Council to meet at Oxford and there to judge of them Being convened before this Synod and convicted of their Errors and refusing to abjure them they were pronounced Hereticks by it and deliver'd back to the King to be punished by the Civil Power It is in a Provincial Council held by Steph. Langton that we meet with the next Instance we have of the like Proceedings In this we are told of two Impostors upon one of whom were found the five Wounds of the Crucifixion convicted and condemn'd by the Judgments of the Church But Bracton adds to these another and a more notable Instance He tells us of a certain Deacon who out of Love to a Jewish Woman apostatiz'd from the Faith of Christ and was thereupon sentenc'd and degraded by the Synod and deliver'd over to the Secular Power to be Burnt for it And the same was the manner by which Sautre was condemn'd as appears not only by the Writ still extant for his Execution but from the Rolls of the Parliament 2 Hen. 4. in which the order was given for issuing out the Writ to the Sheriffs of London for it Feb. 26. He was first examined and condemned by the Clergy in Convocation and by them deliver'd up to the Civil Magistrate to be burned And tho' the Lord Cobham was not finally sentenced in Convocation but by the Archshop of Canterbury assisted by the Bishops of London and Winchester after it was risen yet was this Cause first brought on there and he was therein both Adjudged an Heretick and Excommunicated as such The Truth is so great is the Scandal and so severe in those days was the Punishment too of Heresy that it has moved some very Learned Men to think that before the 2 Hen. 4. no one could be otherwise convicted of it than in a Provincial Synod or Convocation And tho' my Lord Coke maintains this to be a Mistake and affirms that the Bishop always had as He still has Power to convict of Heresy and to proceed by the Censures of the Church against such as are guilty of it yet this is no Argument why the Convocation should not still retain its antient Authority and have the Power of doing that which any single Bishop alone may do But here then a question may arise that will deserve to be consider'd on this occasion and that is When any one is to be convicted of Heresie or of any other the like Ecclesiastical Crime in Convocation who it is
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