Entertainment that follows P. 84. He proposes this Question Whether the Prince should be allow'd a Power to alter or improve what a Synod has defin'd to add to or take from it and thus he resolves it Sure I am that this Princes have done and so I think they have Authority to do For since the Legislative Power is lodg'd in their hands so that they may make what Laws or Constitutions they think fit for the Church as well as the State since a Synod in matters relating to Discipline is but a kind of Council to them in Ecclesiastical Affairs whose Advice having taken they may still act as they think fit seeing lastly a Canon drawn up by a Synod is but as it were Matter prepar'd for the Royal Stamp the last forming of which as well as enforcing whereof must be left to the Princes Iudgment I cannot see why the Supreme Magistrate who confessedly has a Power to confirm or reject their Decrees may not also make such other Use of them as he pleases and correct improve or otherwise alter their Resolutions according to his Own Liking before he gives his Authoty to them †P. 85. He is speaking here I confess of the Power of the Prince at large without pointing his words particularly on England but since he asserts this Power to every Prince and does not except Ours it is manifest he means him as much as if he had particularly mention'd him And this he himself is not shy of owning for before the End of this Chapter he in plain terms tells us that by Our Own Constitution the King of England has all that Power over Our Convocation that ever any Christian Prince had over his Synods †P. 98. And goes on afterwards ⸪ P. 136. to shew that H. the VIII did this very thing in 1536 correcting and amending with his Own Hand the Articles of Religion then drawn up before they were publish'd He does not indeed expresly Iustify this Act of H. the VIII but which is all one he mentions it without a word to shew that he disapprov'd it I will be bold to say that were this single Doctrine true the Late King might have gone a great way toward subverting our Religion without breaking in upon the Constitution or doing any thing Illegal He might have assembled the Clergy and commanded their Iudgment upon such and such Points and then alter'd their Resolutions to his Own Liking and so have set up Rank Popery under the Countenance of a Protestant Convocation Especially if he had call'd this other Principle of Dr. W's into his Aid Some of our Princes he says have not only prescrib'd to our Convocations what they should go about but have actually drawn up before hand what they thought Convenient to have established and have requir'd them to approve of it without submitting it to their Iudgments whether they approv'd of it or not ‖ P. 110. Which Fact also he gives us as a Right without insinuating the least Dislike of it And a very Convenient Right it is for Princes that meditate New Schemes of Church Government Twelve Years ago enforc'd by the Pen of a Parker or a Cartwright it might have done great Service it would have helpt on all the Pious Designs then upon the Anvil and if the Asserter of it had not been a Bishop to be sure it would have made him one Can such Doctrines ever be Serviceable I say not Grateful to This Government which would have ruin'd our Establish'd Religion under the Former But his Conclusions are not worse than his way of coming at them which is in this and in every case first by shewing what has been practis'd by the Emperors and other Absolute Princes and by asserting the same Power to belong to Our King as a King not by vertue of the particular Laws and Usages of this Realm but by the Right of Sovereignty in general †See Appeal p. 111.112 upon which he expresly owns himself to found the Authority of our Princes in Matters Ecclesiastical †See Appeal p. 111.112 and says therefore as we have heard that they have the same Power over Our Convocations that ever any Christian Prince had over his Synods And accordingly makes it the whole Business of his second Chapter that is of a Fourth part of his Book to set out the Powers exercis'd by Absolute Princes and particularly by the Roman Emperors over their Synods in order to warrant the Use of like Powers here at home I know not how this Doctrine may relish now but in the 7th * Mr. Nicholson See Hist. Libr. part 3. p. 177. according to his Exactness in Dates places this 3 io Iacobi whereas the Book it self was not set out till two Years afterwards as if he had seen any Edition of it he might from the Date of the Preface have known But he unluckily met with a false Print to this purpose in the Posthumous part of Spelman 's Glossary in Voce Tenura and he is always an Implicit Transcriber Year of King James the I. as high as Prerogative then ran it did not I am sure go down well with the Parliament for then Dr. Cowel's Interpreter was censur'd by the Two Houses as asserting several Points to the overthrow and destruction of Parliaments ond of the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Kingdom And One of the Articles charg'd upon him to this purpose by the Commons in their Complaint to the Lords was as Mr. Petyt †Miscell Parl. p. 66. says out of the Journal this that follows 4thly The Doctor draws his Arguments from the Imperial Laws of the Roman Emperors an argument which may be urg'd with as great reason and with as great Authority for the reduction of the State of the Clergy of England to the Polity and Laws in the Time of those Emperors as also to make the Laws and Customs of Rome and Constantinople to be binding and obligatory to the Citys of London and York The issue of which Complaint was that the Author for these his Outlandish Politicks was taken into Custody and his Book condemn'd to the Flames Nor could the Dedication of it to his then Grace of Canterbury save it who did not think himself concern'd to countenance whatever Doctrine any Indiscreet Writer should take the Liberty to ascribe to him He that thinks a Prince Absolute in Spirituals thinks him no doubt as Absolute in Temporals and will when a Proper time shall come not stick to say so Dr. W. has given some significant Hints that way in the words already produc'd from him for what else can he mean by the Legislative Powers being lodg'd in the Princes hands so that he may make what Laws he pleases for the Church as well as the State if we consider him to speak as he does of the Prince exclusively to the Three Estates of the Realm And when he adds therefore a few Lines afterwards that a Canon is
to our purpose and ought once again to be remembred The rest of Dr. W.'s Particulars are Immaterial and need not stop us only on the Last of 'em a Line or two may be not improperly spent King Charles the First Directions concerning Preaching with respect to the Arminian Points These Directions were for the silencing both Parties and for preventing all Innovations upon the Doctrine of the Church already Established and such Directions it is not only the Christian Magistrates Priviledge but his Duty to prescribe provided always that he do it not with any such under-hand Views and Aims as my Lord of Sarum represents K. Charles the First to have had in publishing His All Divines says he were by Proclamation required not to Preach upon Those Heads but those that favour'd the New Opinions were encouraged and the others were depressed * Exposition on the XXXIX Article p. 152. I presume this is no part of the Regal Supremacy nor a Pattern fit to be imitated in succeeding Reigns especially if the case ever should be as his Lordship further informs us it was Then And unhappy Disputes continues He falling in at that time concerning the Extent of the Royal Prerogative beyond Law the Arminians having declared themselves highly for that they were as much favoured at Court as they were censured in Parliament If this were then really the case we of This Age have reason to thank Heaven for reserving us for better Times when the Interests of Prince and People are the same and it can never therefore be a recommending Qualification of a Man that he is for extending the Royal Prerogative beyond Law nor intitle him to the favour of a Court to be censured in Parliament These are the Instances in which Dr. Wake has shewn himself very willing to blast the Honour of the Reformation in order to assert an unreasonable Prerogative to the Crown for which no good Prince will thank him I have considered 'em throughout and have proved I hope that the History he brings to justifie his Principles is every whit as unjustifiable as the Principles themselves and that they deserve therefore to keep Company with one another In some of these Instances Truth was so easie to be come at that he must be thought to have missed it willingly and to have judged it pardonable to pervert History a little in order to make his Complement with the better Grace A Principle familiar to the Writers in this Controversie as I could shew by some Domestick Instances but since that is not proper shall content my self with a foreign one De Marca a Man excellently well read in this Debate and of Abilities of Mind equal to his Reading and like Dr. W. in nothing but in his Design of letting the Royal Power in upon the Church as far as he was able while he was writing his Famous Piece Baluzii Vita Petri de Marca c. in principio operis de Concordiâ Sacerd Imp. pp. 13 14. was named to the See of Thoulouse but not quickly setled there for want of his Bulls To obtain them he wrote a Letter to the Pope full of Submission and Respect and in it took occasion to compare his own advancement to the See of Tholouse with that of Exuperius formerly Bishop of that place whom he made the same with Exuperius the Spanish President on purpose that the Parallel might run the better He himself having for some time presided in Catalonia tho' he knew very well they were two different Men. When this was objected to him as an over-sight or rather as a piece of Art not very well becoming his Holy Character he laughed at the Objection and pitied the poor People that made it who were so scrupulously silly as to tye Men up to strict Truth in such cases as these and not able to distinguish between History and a Complement So that with the Writers in this Argument it has been it seems a Fashion all along to disguise Truth and the bending of matters of fact to by-purposes is a tried and approved Remedy for the Dispatch of Bulls As a Key to all the false Stories vouched by Dr. W. I have added this true one and should it happen not to be very pertinent or entertaining I have no Excuse to make to him on that head 't is but returning him a Freedom which he has often before-hand taken with his Reader I am sensible these Reflections of mine are running out into too great a Length and shall therefore only name two or three more without enlarging much upon ' em VII Dr. Wake makes no distinction between Absolute and Limited Princes but produces the Acts of the one to prove and justifie the Exercise of a like Power in the other His first Chapter is taken up in telling us what was done in relation to Ecclesiastical Synods and Affairs by the Roman and German Emperors and by other Princes of narrower Territory but not less Despotick in their Government as if what They did or had a Right to do were immediately the Right of every other Christian Prince without any regard to the Restrictions which the Power of that Prince might be under by the Constitution of his Country But now should he have told us what Acts of Absolute Authority were exercised by those Emperors in State-matters and how their Edicts had the force of Laws would this Plea justifie an English Prince in attempting the like things at home or be a Bar any ways upon the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament Indeed our Author seems sensible that these Instances are not very Conclusive where he confesses that Princes may by their own Acts Limit themselves and that such Limitations may alter the Case mightily and make that Lawful in one Country which is not so in another * P. 95. Pity it is that this Truth had not come into his Thoughts sooner than the 95 th Page of his Work it might then have prevailed with him to withdraw that huge Heap of Foreign Precedents which now take up so much room in his Work and which would have been left to sleep peaceably in his Common-place-Book without seeing the Light upon so improper an occasion For should what he has the Courage in his next Chapter to assert be true that by our own Constitution the King of England has all that Power at this day over our Convocation that EVER ANY Christian Prince had over his Synod †P. 98. yet the Power he has in this respect he derives from the Particular Rules of our Constitution not from any beyond-Sea-Customs and Usages He claims it not I suppose as Heir to the Imperial Authority of Constantine or Charles the Great but by vertue of that Prerogative which as King of England he has by the Laws of England and should the Power therefore happen to be equal here at home to what it is abroad yet there lyes no Proof from the one of these to the other Dr.
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
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
to the Canons of the Church are not only under a Duty to attend but have also a Right to meet so that as their Writs for Assembling concurrently with a Parliament are not mere Letters of Grace and Compliment but to be emitted ex debito Iustitiae and whether the Government has any thing to propose to them or no so likewise are their Assemblies at such times to be held by the same Law notwithstanding it may be pretended that there is no Occasion for them For although their Consent may not be necessary nor their Advice seem wanting yet as they are bound to wait if Either shall be ask'd So may the Clergy themselves have some Informations and Remembrances to offer and some Petitions to make concerning such things as they may be supposed to take more particular notice of or wherein they may be more peculiarly concern'd And this Liberty and Opportunity of representing what they may think necessary is to be esteemed by them as their great Parliamentary Priviledge not to be Wav'd like the Others for the better course of common Justice but to be Asserted and Confirmed for the Good of the whole Kingdom Such a Liberty therefore and Opportunity is not only provided for by Canons but secur'd I say by the Law Both by the Law of Custom which is the Law of Parliaments and by Express Statute an Act of Edward the Third appointing a Parliament and consequently * Thus the Answerer of the Nine Reasons of the House of Commons against Bishops Votes in Parliament Argued alledging That the Bishops were by the Triennial Act obliged necessarily to attend the Convocation once in Three Years And the Examination of that Answer 40. 1641. Printed by Order of a Committee of the House grants the Allegation p. 16 17. a Convocation to be held just within the Canonical distance Yearly and the present Law enjoyning That it shall be frequently held and once at least in Three Years Held I say and not only Called for that is the Right we speak of A Right that has been all along own'd by constant Practice or if perchance not exercised at some Particular time through Forgetfulness or Distraction to allow the utmost and more perhaps than can be proved yet never Purposely and if I may so speak Regularly Neglected till Now. CHAP. III. HItherto we have considered only the First of the Two Points proposed the Clergy's Right of Meeting and Sitting in Convocation as often as a New Parliament Sits We will now address our Selves to the Second which asserts their Right when Met of Treating and Deliberating about such Affairs as lie within their proper Sphere and of coming to fit Resolutions upon them without being necessitated antecedently to qualify themselves for such Acts and Debates by a License under the Broad Seal of England That this is the Original Right of all Provincial Synods incident to their nature as such claim'd and practised by them in all Ages of the Church and in all Christian Countries and in our own particularly from the time that we have any account of our Synods till towards the beginning of the Reformation is so certain as to need no Proof and Dr. Wake therefore is never more like himself that is never more Absurd than when he would insinuate the contrary * P. 48 288. The only Question is how far the Statute 25 H. VIII has restrained this Right and made a License from the Crown necessary It being there Enacted That the Clergy ne any of them should from thenceforth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodal or any other Canons nor should Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by what Name or Names they may be called in their Convocations in times coming unless the same Clergy may have the King 's most Royal Assent and License to Make Promulge and Execute the same Now that the Clergy are not by this Clause ty'd up altogether from acting Synodically is allowed generally by Those who desire most to abridge their Powers It cannot with any shew of Reason be pretended that the Convocation however under a Restraint by this Act is become such a Lifeless Body as to have neither Sense nor Motion till Animated by a second Royal Command Unquestionably and according to common Opinion and Practice they have even since this Statute in vertue of the Writ by which they Meet a Liberty of Addressing as they shall see cause either with Thanks or Requests or other proper Representations But it is presum'd also that they may go a great deal further and that there is nothing in the Clause recited which hinders them even from Devising and Framing the Draught of a Canon so it be done only in a Preparatory Way and with Submission to the Royal Enacting Authority This is what has been laid down in a late Treatise * Letter to a Convocation-Man briefly indeed but convincingly and with so much force of Reason as yet has received no Reply The Answerers of that Piece having slid over this part of it where the Act is Explained with a Seeming Neglect but with a Real Distrust of their being able to say any thing to the purpose against what is there advanc'd When they come to this Point as important as it is they dispatch it always in hast Even Dr. Wake can allow it but a flight mention or two in a Work where he finds room amply enough to discuss every thing that is not Material But he did well to tread lightly over the Ground which if he had stood never so little upon it would have gone near to have sunk under him To make this Point yet more manifest and not to leave the least pretence for a Cavil I shall here resume the Proof of it bespeaking the Candor of those Gentlemen whose studies particularly lie this way if as the general Fate is of those that Write out of their Profession I express my self now and then a little improperly So the Thing I aim at be but clearly made out though my Manner of doing it be not strictly according to Art it will not concern me I shall consider first the Occasion of the Act and then the Act it self and by a short account of the One lead the Reader into the true Sense and Meaning of the Other Henry the VIIIth enraged both at the Pope and Cardinal Wolsey for their Delusions in the Affair of the Divorce resolved with the Ruin of the Cardinal to lessen the Papal Authority And for the better effecting this Design which could not well be accomplished without striking a Terror into Those who were then but too much the Pope's Vassals the Clergy especially the Monks and Friars he involved them All in a Premunire for submitting to Wolsey's Legatine Character unauthorised by the Crown not for Procuring or making Use of Provisional Bulls as Dr. Wake in his usual Kindness to the
Memory of the Clergy and according to his deep Skill in English History has represented it * P. 248. Nor yet merely for Appearing and Making Suit in his Courts as a Greater Author †Bishop Burnet 's Hist. of Ref. Vol. I. p. 106. but in this Conjecture no less Unhappy than He seems to take it for then All the Clergy could not have been concluded under the Penalty for All had not Su'd there But that which made the whole Body at once Obnoxious was their obeying his Mandates †Rigida enim Provisionum Jura says Josceline upon this occasion non modò eos puniunt qui Romanas Legationes sine Regis Licentia suscipiunt sed qui iis parent Ant. Brit. Eccles. in Warhamo p. 325. and appearing in his Synods Legantine which the Clergy had often and lately (*) An. 1527. done The Cardinal had been a Favourite beyond Example the Sole and Uncontroul'd Minister of his Prince He was at that time Lord Chancellor by the King's Commission and had been made Legat with his Privity and at his Special Instance as Bishop Gardiner informs us (†) In a Letter to the Protectour Fox Vol. II. p. 2. col 1. What he did in one Capacity as well as in the other was presum'd to be done by the King 's Appointment and whoever had opposed him had certainly been crush'd by the Royal Power The Subject neither durst nor thought it necessary to enquire whether He had a License from the Great Seal who had himself the keeping it However their Obedience to his Unlicens'd Authority was Criminal even to the Loss of Liberty and Estate And could they in any case have vouch'd the King's Command for their Obeying it the Command would have been said to have been against Law and no Warrant Thus both the Clergy and Laity were unawares at the King's Mercy and the Clergy not admitted to pardon Gratis as the Laity afterwards were but forc'd to ransome themselves by a good Round Sum * 100000 l. for the Province of Canterbury and 18840 l. 10 d. for that of York which was laid as all other Convocation-Grants were proportionably on the whole Clergy as appears from the Assessments to be seen still in the Bishops Registers particularly in that of Hereford An. 1531. And I wonder therefore that my Lord of Sarum should say That he had not been able to discover whether the Inferior Clergy paid their Proportion of this Tax or not Vol. I. p. 115. and agen That the Prelates had a great Mind to draw 'em in to bare a share of the Burthen Ib. p. 114. He speaks of the Time after the Convocation which made the Grant was up For this was both Needless and Impracticable Needless because the Lower Clergy had already drawn themselves in by consenting to the Grant in Convocation and Impracticable because if they had not there was no way left of drawing 'em in afterwards for those times and by an Acknowledgment in Convocation that the King was Supreme Head together with the Submission and Petition recited in the Preamble of the Act we are discoursing of There the Clergy first knowledge and the Parliament add according to the Truth that the Convocation is always hath been and ought to be Assembled by the King 's Writ Which Acknowledgment however is not according to Truth unless understood of Parliamentary Convocations that is of those which were summoned as well by the Praemunientes as by the Archbishop's Mandate And to Those therefore it must be restrain'd And they had reason to Own and Avow this particularly because the Cardinal had taken upon him to Convene Legantine Synods by his own Authority frequently during his Ministry and particularly Once not long before his Fall and the Time of this Submission on Nov. 27. 1527. * As I gather from a Printed Sermon of Longland 's said to be Preached on that Day and Year Coram Celeberrimo Conventu tùm Archiepiscoporum cùm Episcoporum caeteraeque multitudinis in Occidentalis Coenobii Sanctuario juxta Londinum Though this Title I confess is somewhat Dubious And that Practice of his therefore might be oppos'd by this Declaration which prefaces the Submission In the Submission which follows the Clergy promise in Verbo Sacerdotii that they will never from henceforth presume to Attempt Alledge Claim or put in Ure Or Enact Promulge or Execute any New Canons Constitutions Ordinance Provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be called in the Convocation unless the King 's most Royal Assent and License may to them be had to Make Promulge and Execute the same And that his Majesty do give his most Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf Now here are Two several Things distinctly promised in Two Different Branches of the same Sentence divided from Each other by the Particle Or They will not Attempt Alledge Claim or put in Ure that is one part of their promise Or Enact Promulge or Execute that is another The First of these respects Canons as already made whether by a Foreign or Domestick Authority the Second as to be made here at Home The Former part of their Assurance is given in their Private and Ministerial Capacity in relation to the Proceedings in the Spiritual Courts the Latter in their Publick and Legislative Capacity as they were Members of Convocation In their Private Capacity as they might be either Judges or Litigants they promise not to Attempt Alledge Claim or put in Ure i. e. not to be any ways Instrumental in acknowledging or promoting the force of any Canons made without the Royal Assent such as the whole Text of the Foreign Canon Law and all our Own Provincial and Legantine Constitutions were In their Publick Capacity they promise further not to Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons for the Future unless they may have the same Royal License for it But here is no promise couch'd in any of these words that they will not debate about the matter or form the Draught of a Canon without such a License None of the Words Enact Promulge or Execute which alone relate to their Proceedings in Convocation including any such Promise and the only word which can be pretended to imply it the word Attempt being determinnd by its Situation to signify much the same thing as Alledge Claim or put in Ure and restraining the Persons promising only as they might Act in their Private or Ministerial Capacity that is out of Convocation To Attempt a Canon therefore must signify to put it upon tryal or prove the force of it and is a word of Art borrowed from the Civilians However we need not go so far for an account of it the very Act we are upon affording us an undeniable Instance of its being thus used as will appear if we consider the Petition of the Clergy which follows this Promise and the Enacting Words in the Body of the Statute which answer to that Petition The Petition
inform his Readers what Opposition it met with from the Clergy e'er it pass'd I have seen the Iournal of that Synod it is not so Large indeed as those Records of Convocation which Heylin saw Reformat justified Sect. 2. and wherein he says the whole Debate with all the Traverses and Emergent Difficulties which appear'd therein are specify'd at large However it is particular enough to shew with what Difficulty and by what steps the Clergy were drawn into a Complyance and how Threatning Messages were sent 'em by the King before they could be brought to it And I have already from another Manuscript promis'd the Reader the several Forms of Submission which they drew up one after another but could not get accepted There is no Reason therefore to complain of want of Light in this case for perhaps there is scarce any one thing done in any of H. the 8 th's Convocations of which we have a clearer and fuller account than of the Opposition which the Court-Form of Submission met with from the Clergy before they came up to it From the Inferior Clergy I mean for it does not appear that the Prelates were so very hard to be dealt with On the contrary it is said in the Acts that but one Bishop and not one Abbot or Prior disagreed to it but of the Lower Clergy 18 or 19 Voted against it to the very last and 7. or 8. referr'd that is Voted neither against it nor for it See Troub Try of Laâ—d p. 82. may be drawn to import by the Ambiguous Relation of the word Attempt as it now stands there yet the Parliament it is plain would take it and accordingly Enacted it in no other sense than I have given of it distinctly severing it in the Body of the Act from all those words that have any respect to the Making of a Canon and confining it to that Branch of the Sentence which suspends all the Old Canons already made Then comes the other Branch which prescribes the Method of making new ones and forbids the Clergy to Enact Promulge or Execute any without the King's Assent leaving them in the mean time to their Old Methods of Proposing and Deliberating and reducing their Power only to the same Level with that of Parliaments over which they had before great and sensible advantages in as much as they Enacted Canons by their own Authority without the Royal Concurrence and in Synods oftentimes which met without a Royal Summons This I question not is the true and genuine Exposition of the Act and this being the very Hinge on which the Second Article of the Dispute turns I thought my self oblig'd to consider it with a very particular care and to secure it if possible against all Exceptions I hope I have done so and that the Reader is by this time fully satisfy'd that no Restraint is laid by it upon any Convocational Act of the Clergy previous to the passing a Canon but that they have still as much Liberty to Treat Debate and Conclude so they do not Enact Promulge and Execute since this Statute as ever they had before it Sure I am that it has been thus understood all along by those who may be presum'd to be best acquainted with its meaning such as Poulton and Rastal were The one in his Abridgement puts this Title before the Act That the Clergy in their Convocations shall Enact no Constitutions without the King's Assent The other in his Repertory at the End of the Statutes makes this to be the Purport of it That the Clergy in their Convocations shall Enact nothing unless they have the King's Assent and License Neither of 'em were aware it seems that their Liberty of Debate was cut off by it My Lord Herbert took it just as they did for his short Summary of it is that in Convocations nothing shall be Promulg'd and Executed without the King's Leave * P. 399. Mr. Fox was of the same mind for thus he abridges it That the Clergy shall not hereafter presume to assemble in their Convocation without the King 's Writ or to Enact or Execute Constitutions without his Royal Assent †Vol. 2. p. 330. Bishop Godwyn does not differ in his account of it which is In praedicto porrò Parliamento decretum est de abrogandâ— Synodi Authoritate in Canonibus Ecclesiasticis condendis nisi quatenus Rex eos ratos habuisset * Annal. ad Ann. 1534. Francis Mason the Eminent Defender of our Orders represents it after the very same manner in a small Piece of his about the Authority of the Church in making Canons and Constitutions concerning things Indifferent There he says It is Enacted by the Authority of Parliament that the Convocation shall be assembled always by vertue of the King 's Writ and that their Canons shall not be put in Execution unless they be approv'd by the Royal Assent †P. 15. Nor had the Enemies of the Church any other Opinion in this matter than its Friends witness what the same Author in his Great Work mentions as the sense of the whole Body of the Puritans Ostendunt Puritani sub sinem sui Examinis Canones prorsus nullos vigere aut valere in Angliâ qui Regio Calculo ac Sigillo non sunt muniti * Fitz-Simon apud Masonum de Minist Angl. p. 21. And thus speaks one of them in a Treatise of Oaths exacted by Ordinaries c. and He no inconsiderable Writer It is Enacted he says and Provided that no Constitutions or Ordinances should be made or put in Execution within this Realm until c. †P. 54. Nay thus speaks Mr. Bagshaw himself in his famous Argument concerning the Canons where we may be sure he says nothing more to the advantage of the Clergy than he needs must and yet he represents the Act to be only that to the making of Canons there must be the King 's Royal Assent * P. 12. And when he is to produce the words of the Statute by which the Clergy have power to make Canons he says they are That they shall not Enact Promulge or Execute any Canons or Constitutions c. unless they may have the King 's most Royal Assent to Make Promulge and Execute the same †Ibid. But as to Attempting Alledging Claiming and putting in Ure he never dreamt that These were in the Act apply'd or were applicable to this purpose and therefore does not mention them Intruth he was a Lawyer and a Man of Skill in his Profession and so knew very well that in the Omission of these words as having no reference to the Clergy's Power of making Canons he only trac'd the steps of the King's Commissions to the Convocationâ— in 1603 and 1640. One of these is Printed at length in the * P. 285 290. Bibliotheca Regia and there All of the 25 H. 8. which relates to the Clergy's Power in Making Canons is inserted at large and which is
very remarkable those words Attempt Alledge Claim and put in Ure are not recited A sure sign that the Attorney-Generals of those times 〈◊〉 those Times had Attorney-Generals that had both Skill and Will enough to carry the King's Prerogative as high as it would bear did not think that they could colourably be made use of to this purpose or that the Clergy were debarr'd by this Act from attempting New Canons to be made hereafter but such Old ones only as had been long ago pass'd and publish'd Dr. Wake therefore is Disingenuous in the Highest Degree where †Append. Num. V. p. 371. he pretends to Print this very Commission and when he comes to the Act of Parliament which it recites does not transcribe the Act as it is there recited which is in part only but refers us to his Extract of it Num. IV. and assures us that it is recited in the Commission as in the Extract Verbatim tho' the most Material words in his Extract and such as would be most Conclusive upon the Clergy's Convocational Acts and Debates if they really belong'd to 'em are as I have shewn designedly omitted in that Recital Such poor shifts is he forc'd to to maintain a Bad Cause which however even by these Ill Arts cannot be maintain'd The Proof drawn from these Commissions is farther confirm'd by a Proclamation of K. Charles the First in Iune 1644 * See it Biblioth Reg. pag. 331. which forbids the Assembly of Divines to Meet and Act upon these and these Accounts only Because by the Laws of the Kingdom no Synod or Convocation of the Clergy ought to be called and assembled within this Realm but by Authority of the King 's Writ and no Constitution or Ordinance Provincial or Synodal or any other Canons may be Made Enacted Promulg'd or Executed it says not Attempted Alledg'd Claim'd or puâ— in Ure which were words known to belong to Canons already made Unless with the King 's Royal Assent and License first obtain'd upon pain of every one of the Clergy's doing contrary and being thereof convict to suffer Imprisonment and make Fine at the King's Will as by the Statute of the 25 H. 8. declaring and enacting the same it doth and may appear Let me add to all these the Authority of the Convocation it self which set out the Institution of a Christian Man a few years after they had submitted In the Dedication of that Book the Prelates address the King after this manner Without your Majesty's Power and License we acknowledg and confess that we have none Authority either to assemble together for any pretence or purpose or to publish any thing that might by us be agreed on or compil'd Which words evidently imply a power of agreeing upon and compiling tho' they deny that of publishing any Determination or Doctrine It were endless after this to argue from the silence of the Authors of those times for then I must vouch All of them Only the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum being a Book of Great Note which was drawn up by Commissioners appointed by the King and where no Occasion is neglected of setting out and magnifying the Royal Power it may be worth our while to observe that there is not however in all that Book as far as I can find one Expression that implies the Composers of it to have thought that the Clergy's Synodical Debates lay under any Restraint from the Crown which is a very strong Presumption that they did not think the Clergy to lye under any The Reader will forgive me for laying together this Great Heap of Authorities if he either considers of how great Importance it is to my Cause that the sense I have given of the Act should be fully clear'd or how necessary Dr. Wake has made such a Collection by affirming that this sense of it was never allowâ—d of or for ought he knows so much as heard of I repeat his very words till the Gentleman against whom he writes enlighten'd the world with it P. 289. The Accounts I have given do I hope both sufficiently expose the Rashness and Vanity of this Assertion and also sufficiently prove the Truth and Justness of that Exposition To return to it therefore The Statute as far as it relates to the Power of the Clergy in Convocation plainly implies no more than that Canons should not from thenceforth pass and become Obligatory without the King's Leave and Authority given in that behalf without his Leâ—ve which was requisite to their Passing and his Authority which was afterwards to ratifie and give 'em force And to understand the words of the Law otherwise is as has appear'd to understand them against all Propriety and the Rules of Construction and which is still more unreasonable to do this in Materiâ minùs favorabili and where Ordinary Liberty is abridg'd and lastly which is intolerable where so grievous a Penalty as that of a Praemunire is to follow The 25 of H. 8. then has not in the least alter'd the Law of Convocations in relation to any of the Powers or Priviledges of the Inferior Clergy They can still freely Consult and Debate Petition or Represent propose the Matter or Form of New Canons and consider about the Inforcing or Abrogating old ones in a word act in all Instances and to all Degrees as they could before the passing of that Statute Indeed my Lord Archbishop's hands are ty'd by it for he cannot now call a Convocation without the King 's Writ which before this Act he might and in Elder Times frequently did He cannot now Enact and Constitute any thing by his own Authority as in Imitation of the Papal Power in Councils and of the Royal Power in Parliaments it was usual for him to do He must before he passes any Act of the Two Houses have the King's Assent to it and after it is pass'd there must be the King's License also to Promulge and Execute it In these several Respects the Metropolitan's Authority is considerably lessen'd by this Act the Exercise of which is now chiefly seen in Moderating the Debates of the Synod and giving his Vote last upon any Question propos'd there as Dr. Cousins Dean of the Arches to his Grace that then was does in his Tables express it * Ejus est moderari Synodum ultimò Suffragium ferre Tab. 3. But the Powers and Priviledges of All the other Members of Convocation continue whole and entire to 'em notwithstanding this Statute and were so understood to continue for a long time after it pass'd the Methods of proceeding in Convocation continuing the same for near Threescore and ten years after the Act as they had been before it the Clergy going on still to propose deliberate and resolve as they had been us'd to do without Qualifying themselves for it by any Precedent License under the Broad Seal the King the Parliament and People of the Realm allowing 'em so to do without opposing this Method as Illegal
some Late Writers pretending to answer the Letter to a Convocation Man particularly by the Author of a Letter to a Member of Parliament and by Dr. Wake in his Book intitled The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted c. This Book being written by a Person of some Station in the Church and as is pretended under the Cover of a Great Authority deserves to be examined with a more than ordinary care which accordingly I have resolved to bestow upon it Dr. Wake indeed has a Peculiar Talent at enlarging on a Controversie the shortest Point when it comes under his Fruitful Pen immediately improves into a Volume I shall not so far follow his Example as to trace all he has said step by step and Page by Page and take every Opportunity that he has given me of laying open his misapplied Reading and mistaken Reasonings That would be an Endless Task which I have no leisure for neither does the Cause require it nor would the Reader bear it I shall endeavour therefore as much as I am able to shorten this Debate and in order to it shall first of all make some General Reflections upon his way of managing it wherein I shall shew how very little there is in his Tedious Work that really concerns the Point disputed and how much of it is written against no body and for no End in the World that I can see but the Pleasure of Emptying his Common-Place-Book I may very aptly apply to him what Bishop Andrews said of a much Greater Adversary Etsi nobis lis nulla de Regiâ in Ecclesiasticis Potestate tamen exorari non potest Tortus quin in Campum exeat istius Controversiae ubi quaestio nobis nulla de eâ re ostendat tamen nobis Testes minimè necessarios Explicare scilicet voluit Opes suas ostendere quae habebat in Adversariis suis. Habebat autem ad hanc rem nonnulla si incidisset alicubi Iam quia non incidit occasionem arripit non valdè idoneam ea quoquo modo proferendi Vult enim Lectorem videre quà m Cupressum pingat eleganter * Tortura Torti p. 169 I shall not I hope be thought impertinent in displaying these Impertinences of his which I shall do in as narrow a compass and under as few Heads of Observation as the variety of the matter will admit of And I. I observe that Dr. Wake has put himself to a great deal of needless pains to prove a Point which he might if he pleased have taken for granted that every Christian Prince and Ours in particular has an Ecclesiastical Supremacy and that the Clergy are not by a Divine Right intitled to transact Church-affairs in Synods as they please and as often as they please without any regard to the Civil Christian Power that they live under Many of those numerous Instances he has produced of Princes intermedling with Church-matters here at home or abroad are designed only to assert this Great Truth which however is a Point that he needed not to have laboured so heartily because no Church of England man ever denied it not the Man he writes against I am sure who says only and what he says I shall not fear to say after him that the Civil and Spiritual Powers are distinct in their End and Nature Lett. to a Conv. Man pp. 17 18. and therefore ought to be so in their Exercise too The One relates to the Peace Order Health and Prosperity of the Man in this Life as a Sociable Creature the other concerns his Eternal State and his Thoughts Words and Actions preparative thereto The first is common to all Societies whether Pagan or Christian the Latter can rightly be exercised among Christians only and among them not as inclosed within any Civil State or Community but as Members of a Spiritual Society of which Iesus Christ is the Head who has also given out Laws and appointed a standing Succession of Officers under himself for the Government of this Society And these Ministers of his did actually govern it by these Powers committed to them from him for near 300 years before any Government was Christian. From whence says he it follows that such Spiritual Iurisdiction cannot be in its nature necessarily dependent on the Temporal for then it could never have been lawfully exercised till Kings States and Potentates became Christian. And agen in another place This Power having been claimed and exercised by the Apostles and their Successors without any Regard nay in Opposition to the Heathen Temporal Authority is therefore we say not necessarily in its own nature dependent on such Authority †P. 19 20. Than which Reasoning nothing certainly can be more just nor could that Writer have expressed himself with more Caution and Guard upon so nice an Occasion Dr. Wake seems here to have apprehended him as if he had affirm'd that Princes have nothing to do in Church-matters the Management of which lyes without their Sphere and no ways depends on Their Authority But no Man living could have struck this sense out of his words that was not either very Blind or very willing for some small End or other to misunderstand him Cannot this mighty Controvertist distinguish between Denying the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Power to be necessarily dependent on the Temporal and affirming it to be necessarily independent upon it Does he not see a difference between saying that the Church may subsist without the State and that the State has nothing to do in the Government of the Church If he does not he ought to forbear tampering in Disputes of this kind till his Judgment is better and his Head clearer But if seeing this difference he yet resolved to take no notice of it either because he had made Collections some time of his Life about the Supremacy and was resolved to take this Opportunity of giving himself the Credit of them or because he saw it would be of use to him to have the Writer he appears against represented under as Invidious Colours and his Opinions loaded with as much weight as was possible if this were the Case it must be allowed him that there was some little Art tho' I think no very great share of Honesty in his Management 'T is true the Letter to a Convocation-man immediately after the last words I transcribed from it adds And if we should say further that this Society has an Inherent and Unalterable Right to the Exercise of this Power it would be no more than what every Sect or Party among us claims and practises c. But Dr. Wake could not with any colour lay hold of this Passage as asserting the Independency of the Church on the State for besides that it is only a way of arguing drawn from other Mens Principles it is a few Lines afterwards expresly retracted and qualifyed But this says he is what at the present we neither do nor need say Notwithstanding which Dr.
and moderate their Debates either in Person or by his Deputies as he saw occasion After the Fathers had come to Resolutions and framed their Canons it was of vast Importance to 'em to have the Secular Power ratifie what they had agreed on They could Authoritatively declare what was the General Sense of the Church on such and such Articles but to procure that these Decisions should be generally received and obeyed in all Christian Countries could no ways be so effectually brought about as by Civil Sanctions and Penalties On all these accounts and many more it was highly reasonable and just nay necessary almost that the Imperial Power should exert it self in Appointing the Meetings and Governing the Debates and Confirming the Acts of General Councils But was there the same Reason and Necessity for its interposing as particularly in Provincial Synods also which were Ordinary Meetings of perpetual and standing Use in the Church not Numerous or Composed of Equals but of Persons living at no Great Distance from one another and all Subordinate to one Ecclesiastical Superior Dr. Wake knows in his Conscience that these Circumstances make a Wide Difference between them and if so why does he amuse us with Large Accounts of what Emperors have done and been allowed to do in relation to those Great and Extraordinary Meetings the Custom of which makes neither for nor against the Rule that was to be observed in these Ordinary Stated ones To what purpose was it for him nauseously to transcribe Labbée for fifty Pages together upon a Common-place which has been so often and so thoroughly exhausted by the Writers of the Last Age and which besides is of no manner of use towards determining the present Dispute Does he think to cover the want of proper and apposite matter by such loose and General Reflections as these Does he hope to make his Readers lose sight of the Point they are in quest of in that Mist of Impertinent Quotations with which he surrounds ' em The Learned Mr. Hill had rightly observed that what Dr. Wake produces * P. 10. from Socrates †Hist. Eccl. Praef. l. iv about the Emperor's interposing in the Greatest Councils was of no weight in the present Argument where we are enquiring what the Usage and Rights of the Church are not in the Greater but Lesser Synods which go by quite another Rule and are much more exempt from the Interposition of the Civil Authority Dr. Wake makes a Scornful mention of this Distinction in the Preface to his Appeal * P. xxi without vouchsafing to give any Reply to it which was discreetly done for it would not admit of any The Distinction is just and well applyed and had it been considered by Dr. Wake when he wrote must have prevailed with him to withdraw above half the History that his first Chapter is filled with and have made that part of his Work look no more Learned than it really is Socrates might well say that the Greatest Synods were held always at the Emperor's Direction but he knew the Lesser were not and therefore omitted the mention of them And the same Caution is observed in one of our XXXIX Articles †Art 21. where it is affirmed indeed that General Councils may not be gather'd upon any Occasion in any Circumstances without the Commandment and Will of Princes But of Provincial Councils nothing is said However the Churches Caution in Wording her Decision is not greater than Dr. Wake 's in citing it who has thoughout his first Book made as I remember but one slight and General mention ‖ P. 10. of this Article without producing the words of it which he knew would go near to suggest a Distinction that it was not to his purpose to have observed Indeed the Canons of 1640 seem and only seem to go further for in truth they do not Art 1. They affirm that the Power of calling both National and Provincial Councils is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms and Territories but say not that this is the Right of Kings alone so that no other Person or Persons can in any Circumstances whatever claim or use it on the contrary they plainly teach that where the Prince is not Christian the Prelates of the Church may rightfully use this Power so it be with Submission to the Civil Penalties and Punishments that may attend 'em on that account and they intimate the Case to be the same under a Christian Persecuting Prince tho' it was not so Decent openly to express it The Canon and the Article therefore are perfectly consistent and both are drawn up with that Moderation and Guard as to give the Prince what is His Due and yet not to deprive the Church of what may be Hers but to leave the way open to the Exercise of the same Power that she claimed and practised before Princes came in to the Faith if there should ever be the fame Occasion for it which I hope there never will And this Canon too was not it seems thought worthy to accompany Dr. Wake 's Other Collections where Foreign and far fetched Authorities take up his Pen so much that he had not room to consider what had been said here at Home upon the Subject no not in a Work written on purpose to clear and to assert the Doctrine of the Church of England But we are not to wonder at it for the same Happy Talent of Mind which makes a Man abound in what is Trivial makes him Defective also in what is Material All that Dr. Wake can say for his way of arguing is that he has in it traced the Steps of some of our Greatest Writers who treating of the Supremacy derive the Proofs of it from the same Sources he has done and frequently give Instances of the Powers exercised by Princes over the Greatest and most General Assemblies as appears from that Collection of Authorities which he has made in his Appeal But this will not justifie him for those Writers whose Pattern he pretends to follow had to do with such Adversaries as quite shut out the Civil Power from interposing in Church-matters Most of 'em being engag'd either against the professed Defenders of the Papacy as Iewel Bilson Nowell Mason c. or against those of the Rigid Presbyterial way as Whitgift Hooker Bancroft Bramhall c. were In Opposition to these therefore it was proper to shew how far the Practice of the first Christian Emperors was consistent with such Principles And whether their Instances to this purpose were taken from the Greater or Lesser Church-meetings from Provincial or General Councils it was all one to the point in hand and made equally against Those whose Doctrine they were to disprove Not so in Dr. Wake 's Case who when he wrote his First Book had no such Adversary to deal with but One who argued altogether upon the Bottom of a Civil Right and drew his Plea purely from our
perpetual Law of the Church I do not wrong him in representing this as the Design of that large Historical Account of the Authority of Princes over their Councils which he has given us for besides that he must either have had this design or none nothing less than this being of any service to that side of the Debate which he espouses Besides this I say the very Terms in which he expresses himself shew this to be the true and only End he aims at Tho' Pag. 34 says he the Council of Nice first and after that several other Councils provided for the constant meeting of Provincial Synods every year and these being allowed of by the Emperors and other Princes who confirmed those Canons and approved of what they had defined may seem to have put these kind of Synods at least out of their power yet even in These we find 'em still continuing to exercise their Authority and not suffering even such Councils to be held without their Leave or against their Consent To confirm which he produces two o◠three Stories which I have shewn to be utterly wide of the mark and then concludes So intirely has the assembling of these Provincial Synods been looked upon to depend on the Will and Authority of the Christian Prince * P. 36. A Conclusion that has no Premisses nor any one clear and full Instance in all his Long Beadroll of Councils to support it The Doctor had kindly prepared us in his Preface to expect Digressions but withal promised us in his nice manner that they should be rather not directly to the purpose than altogether distant from it However I find not that he has kept his word with us or that they deserve to be thus gently dealt with In the first of 'em that meets me here I have shewn nine parts in ten of it i. e. whatever he has said about General Councils to be altogether distant from the purpose and that the other poor Scantling about Provincial Synods which seems to be yet is really not to the purpose and I conclude therefore that the whole is not only not directly to the purpose but altogether distant from it The Doctor must forgive me if I tell him that these Historical Unedifying Accounts of his put me in mind of the Honest Confession of William Caxton the Chronicler the words of which will become Dr. Wake 's mouth as well every whit as they did His and I cannot help thinking that I hear him in the close of his first Chapter thus addressing himself to his Reader Yf I cowde says he have founde mee storyes I wolde have sette in it moo but the substaunce that I can fynde and knowe I have shortly sette theim in this boke prayeinge all theym that see this symple werke of myne to pardon me of my symple writynge And indeed I for my part should have been very ready so to do had it been as Harmless as it is Simple and were it not likely as Simple as it is to be produced hereafter for a Testimony against the Churches Rights if it be not now opposed and disowned For which reason how Simple soever the performance is it deserves to be examined and I go on therefore to observe IV. That Dr. Wake distinguishes not between the Powers in Fact exercised by Princes and those of Right belonging to them by vertue of their Office Good Princes have been allowed often to extend their Authority in Spirituals very far and Ill Princes have often usurped an Authority beyond what they were intitled to Dr. Wake troubles not himself with these Considerations but what ever Powers he can find any Prince whether Good or Bad to have exercised over the Church Those he proposes as Patterns which all other Princes may safely copy and as the true Bounds and Measures of the Royal Supremacy When in the Story of our Convocations some Acts of theirs come cross him that he does not like then his Maxim is That they did take upon them to do this is no proof that they had a Right to do it * P. 296. But the most Extravagant Pretentions of Princes in the Ordering Church-matters are admitted by him without any such Guard or Distinction without considering Who it was that did this or that and in what Circumstances and for what Reasons they were submitted to in the doing it Charlemagne in Germany and Recaredus in Spain ordered Ecclesiastical Affairs with a very high hand and had certainly somewhat more than their Share came to in the management of them But this was tacitly yielded to by their Bishops who saw that to whatever Degree their Power was carried it would all be employed for the Establishment of the Church and Advancement of the Christian Religion What They did therefore must not because they did it be presently presumed to be the Common Right of every Christian Ruler but oftentimes an Instance only of a Discreet Complyance in the Clergy with such Intrenchments on the Liberties of the Church as might redound to the benefit of it Good Princes who had the Hearts of their People and were known to be intirely in their Interests have been permitted to carry their Prerogative in Civil Matters to an heigth that has been withstood and retrenched in more suspected Reigns Were the Measure of our English Constitution to be taken from those Excesses of Regal Power which have been winked at sometimes when well employed what would become of the Liberty of the Subject or the Freedom of Parliaments Dr. Wake finds perhaps in the Acts of some Councils Expressions of Great Duty and Respect used to Pious Princes by their Clergy These presently he lays hold of as Authentick Synodical Decisions The Council of Tours it seems did once upon a Time tell Charles the Emperor * See p. 92. that they left their Decrees to Him to do what he pleased with them and the Council of Arles begged him if he thought fit to amend and alter them †Ibid. This is Handle enough for Dr. Wake to annex such an Altering Power to the Kingly Character and to represent the Business of Synods to be only the preparing of matter for the Royal Stamp which may be improved corrected enlarged shorten'd at the Prince's Pleasure as in p. 84 and 85. of his Honest Performance he is pleased to express himself and therein to intitle the King de Iure to a more Extravagant Authority than ever the Pope himself I believe with all his Plenitude of Power de facto exercised or claimed But surely this is a Doctrine of too great Importance to be established on so slight a bottom and of such dangerous consequence to the Church that nothing less than the Universal Practice of the Church can sufficiently authorize it The Doctor may remember when he wrote against Prayers for the Dead in a late Reign his way of arguing was that Doctrines of that weight were not to be built on the Figurative Apostrophe's and Rhetorical
Flights of the Fathers but now he is of another mind every Submissive word every Respectful Form of Expression that he finds to have dropped at any time from the Mouths of the Members of a Synod when addressing to their Prince is Ground sufficient to rear a proof of his Prerogative upon But thus it is when Princes are to be complimented at the Expence of their Subjects Rights Compliments shall pass for Arguments As Dr. Wake has furnished himself with a Plea for the boundlâ—â—s Authority of Sovereigns in Church-matters from such Extraordinary Acts of Power as have been submitted to in good Princes so can he argue as well from the Unjust and Violent Encroachments of Ill ones Henry the Eighth was such if ever any Prince upon Earth was and Sir Walter Rawleigh therefore says of him that if all the Pictures and Patterns of a Merciless Prince were lost in the World they might all again be painted to the Life out of the Story of this King * Preâ— to hiâ— Hist. of the World And yet the Acts of this King the most Exorbitant and Oppressive Acts of Power which he exercised towards the Clergy are produced by Dr. Wake as good and lawful Precedents which all his Successors are allowed and incited to follow Particularly that Instance of his Correcting and Amending the Determinations of the Clergy in Synod even upon Doctrines of Faith is given us †See pp. 136 137 138 139. without any Intimation that such a practice exceeded the Bounds of the Kingly Power And in this he is followed by Mr. Nicholson ‖ Hist. Lib. â—ol 3. p. 196 197 And both these Gentlemen are so eager to assert this Power to the Crown that they have not given themselves leisure to inquire how far the Authorities they in this case cite are to be depended on Dr. Wake quotes my Lord of Sarum for it whose words are These Articles in 1536 being thus conceived and in several places corrected and tempered by the King 's Own Hand were subscribed by Cromwell and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Seventeen other Bishops Forty Abbots and Priors and Fifty Archdeacons and Proctors of the Lower House of Convocation * Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 217. And in the Addenda to his first Volume †P. 364. his Lordship further says that He has had the Original with all the Subcriptions to it in his Hands I have had it too and can assure the Reader that there is not a single Correction by Henry the Eighth's hand or any others in that Original 'T is a Copy fairly Engrossed in Parchment ‖ See it Bibl. Cotton Cleop. â— 5. without any Interlineations or Additions whatever My Lord Herbert indeed who is Mr. Nicholson's and I suppose my Lord of Sarum's * I suppose so because my Lord of Sarum 's account of the Subscriptions is exactly the same as my Lord Herbert 's and with the same mistakes no Deans being mentioned by either nor any Consideration had of those of the Lower House who subscribed in double Capacities which makes the Subscriptions more numerous than they are represented to be Authority says that the Bishops and Divines who consulted upon these Articles were divided in their Opinions some following Luther and some the Old Doctrine whose Arguments on either side the King himself took pains to peruse and moderate adding Animadversions with his own Hand which are to be seen in our Records †Hist. H.S. p. 469. But these words I must be bold to say are mistaken both by my Lord Bishop and Mr. Nicholson if they infer from thence that the King made any Alterations in the Articles after they were drawn up since the Animadversions plainly were not on the Articles themselves but on the Arguments urged on either side of the Questions determined in ' em These Arguments or Opinions were it seems according to the known way of that time offered in Writing and subscribed by the Parties maintaining 'em And the King took upon him to temper and soften the Expressions on either side till he had brought both to a Compliance But this is a very different thing from his Correcting and Amending the Articles themselves even as different as assisting in the Debates of a Synod before the Conclusion is formed and altering the Conclusion it self after it has been unanimously agreed on This is truly the Case of those Amendments of Henry the Eighth which Dr. Wake is so full of However had it been such as he represents it yet no Argument of Right I say can be advanced on such Facts as these and it had become Dr. Wake therefore when he related 'em to have told us withal that they were unjustifiable Many of the Actions of that Supreme Head of the Church were such as cannot justly and will therefore I hope never be imitated by any of his Successors For instance he made his Bishops take out Patents to hold their Bishopricks at pleasure tho' I suppose my Lords the Bishops that now are do not think such a Power included in the Notion of the King's Supremacy William the Conquerour is another of the Pious Patterns he recommends who would suffer nothing he says to be determined in any Ecclesiastical Causes without Leave and Authority first had from him * P. 179. L.M.P. p. 34. for which he cites Eadmerus and might have told us from thence if he had pleased more particularly that he would not let any of his Noblemen or Ministers tho' guilty of Incest and the Blackest Crimes be proceeded against by Church-Censures and Penalties * Nulli Episcoporum permittebat ut aliquem de Baronibus suis seu Ministris sive Incestu sive Adulterio â—ive aliquo Capitali Crimine denotatum publicè nisi ejus praecepto implacitaret aut Excommunicaret aut ullâ Ecclesiastici rigoris poenâ constringeret Eadmer pag. 6. that he made his Bishops his Abbots and Great Men out of such as would be sure to do every thing he desired of 'em and such as the World should not much wonder at for doing it as knowing who they were from whence he took 'em and for what end he had raised 'em and that all this he did in order to make way for his Norman Laws and Usages which he resolved to establish here in England †Usus atque Leges quas Patres sui ipse in Normanniâ— habere solebant in Angliá servare volens de hujusmodi Personis Episcopos Abbates alios Principes per totam terram instituit de quibus indignum judicaretur si per omnia suis Legibus postpositá omni aliâ consideratione non obedirent si ullus corum pro quávis terrenâ potentiâ caput contra eum levare auderet scientibus cunctis Unde Qui ad Quid assumpti sunt Cuncta ergo Divina Humana ejus Nutum expectabant Ibid. This I say and more than this he might have given us from the very Page
of Eadmerus he mentions by which it is clear that that Prince was as Absolute in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Affairs and his Acts therefore are I hope no Precedents to any of his Legal and Limited Successors His Present Majesty is not William the Conquerour and can no more by our Constitution rule absolutely either in Church or State than he would even if he could His Will and Pleasure is indeed a Law to All his Subjects not in a Conquering sense but because his Will and Pleaâ—ure is only that the Laws of our Country should be obeyed which he came over on purpose to rescue and counts it His Great Prerogative to maintain and contemns therefore I doubt not such sordid Flattery as would measure the Extent of His Supremacy from the Conqueror's Claim Intimations of this kind have been thought so Heinous as to be purged only by Fire a Punishment which our Gentle Laws tho' they have taken it off from Men have still reserved for Books and applyed it now and then to repress a State-Heresie and secure the Fundamentals of our Constitution against All its Underminers This Conqueror and his Family are much in request with our Writer and agen therefore of his Son William Rufus he tells us not without a Glance on more Modern Times that he would suffer no Ecclesiastical Synod to be held during the thirteen years of his Reign * P. 185. But let me ask our Man of History which of all those Historians in whose Works he has so happily spent his Researches represent this part of Rufus's Character to his advantage which of 'em that mention the thing do not also complain of it as one of the Greatest Hardships of that Cruel and Oppressive Reign and to be ranked with that other Righteous Practice of his by which he kept Vacant and set to Farm all the Bishopricks and Abbies as they fell and had by that means when he died no less than Twelve of them in his Hands * Iorvall apud X. Script Col. 996. and of these the small Bishopricks of Canterbury Winchester and Sarum were Three These are sad Stories but God be thanked they were done a great while ago and do not therefore much concern us For we live now neither under William the First nor William the Second but under William the Third A short Answer to an Hundred such Old Tales as these but every good Englishman will think it a full one Less have we to do with his Outlandish Instances of Ecclesiastical Tyranny such as the Dealing of Constantius was with the Council of Ariminum A very Righteous and Laudable Act which Dr. Wake proposes for the Instruction of future Princes and was as follows When the four Hundred Fathers assembled there had finished the business for which they met and determined the disputed Points clearly against Arius they begged of Constantius that they might return home and attend their Flocks but he refused 'em ordering his Officers to keep the Synod together by force till they had revoked their former Decision and subscribed an Arian Form that he transmitted to them upon which those who were resolved not to comply made their Escape as well as they could and even without his Permission went back to their Dioceses But Constantius not having given them his Leave neither will Dr. Wake give them His and does as good as say they did Ill to separate without the Emperor's Order and deserved his Resentments for so doing * See p. 77. I know in his Appeal †P. xviii he pretends to fosten this Censure and to take off several Invidious Instances of the same kind by saying that we are to distinguish between what he relates as matter of History and what he delivers as his own Opinion But how should the Reader distinguish where the Writer does not nay where the Writer has left no possible room for a Distinction tho' the Reader should be never so willing to employ it For it is certain that Dr. Wake produces these Facts purely to establish Rights upon them and having laid down his Historical Grounds therefore does in every Instance proceed to draw his Conclusions from them particularly in This we are upon the Instance of a Tyrannical Power exercised by Constantius over the Fathers at Rimini after he has told the Story and added Two other accounts of the Imperial Authorities exerting it self on the like Occasions he thus concludes It is therefore the Duty of All Synods as they are conven'd by the Prince's Authority so to tarry till they have the same Authority for their Dissolution * P. 79. Let him not hope then after amassing together all the Instances of an Ungodly Usurpation in Princes upon the Liberties of the Church to come off by saying that we are to distinguish between what he relates as matter of History and what as matter of Opinion and by leaving it in his own Power afterwards to apply this General Plea to any particular Instances in his Book as he shall have need of it for these Two in Works of this Nature cannot be separated Where an enquiry is made what Princes may lawfully do and in order to it an History drawn up of what they have actually done there all the Accounts the Historian gives us of their Acts he must be supposed to approve too unless he has taken care to warn us to the contrary and to express his Abhorrence of them Should a Man pretend to mark out the Bounds of the King's Prerogative in Civil Affairs and to that End deduce an account of all the most Arbitrary and Illegal Acts of our Princes by which they have trampled on the Liberties of their Subjects and the Power of Parliaments would it avail him afterwards in abatement to say that he intended these Instances by way of History only and not to express his own sense of things when his own sense of things is manifestly built on those Historical Accounts his Conclusions deduced from them and supported by ' em Such a poor Excuse would not be admitted in behalf of such a Chronique Scandaleuse Every Good Englishman would still see through and detest the Design and the Author under all his shifts would be as scandalous as his History But to proceed in our Remarks I observe V. That Dr. Wake in his accounts of Antient Councils often confounds two things that are widely different the Prince's power of proposing any Subject of Debate to his Synods and his Power of confining 'em to debate of nothing but just what he proposes As to the First of these no body questions the Prince's Right in all Synods from the Greatest to the Smallest but as to the Latter he has neither Right or Practice on his side not even in the most General Councils where the Civil Authority always exerted it self most whatever Dr. Wake may pretend to the contrary 'T is true in those Larger Synods which met at the Call of Princes upon Extraordinary Occasions
Decrees of those four first General Councils for which both the Church and the Law of England * Canon Aelfrici Can. 33. 1 Eliz. c. 1. have and have always had a particular Veneration But of All the Instances he has pitched upon to shew that Synods can debate of nothing but what the Prince particularly proposes to 'em commend me to those he urges P. 54 55. from the Practice of Carloman at the Synod of Leptines and of Arnulph at that of Trebur The first of these says he had call'd his Clergy together to advise him how the Law of God and the Religion of the Church which had been suffered to fall into such decay in the days of his Predecessors might be restored The second desires them to consider what they thought was needful to be done for the Reformation of Mens Manners for the Security of the Faith and for the Preservation of the Unity of the Church How could these Emperors possibly have expressed themselves in words that left their Synods more at large or gave greater Scope to their Debates than these do which yet Dr. Wake produces on purpose to shew that the Prince prescribed to them the Particular Points on which they were to proceed These are Ill Proofs indeed but pity it is that such Bad Notions should ever be supported by better Under the Prince's Power of suggesting any Subject of Debate to a Synod I comprehend also his Power of proposing the Draught of a Canon to them for that too he has sometimes done but without confining 'em to pass such Canons in the Form prescribed which I conceive he has never done nor has any Right to do tho' Dr. Wake gives us very Broad Hints that he thinks otherwise and to that End produces the Three Ecclesiastical Constitutions which Marcian delivered to the Fathers of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon ready drawn up to be approved by them and they all he says gave their Unanimous Assent to 'em * P. 65. But he tells us not as he might that the Matter of these Canons was of such a mixt nature as made it proper for the Emperor to interpose in them nor does he inform us with what words of high Respect and Deference he offered 'em to the Synod There are says he Three Points which in Honour to your Reverences we have reserved for you judging it fit and decent that they should rather be by You in Synod Canonically defined than Enacted by our Temporal Laws †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 6. And in what manner the Synod passed 'em is worth our notice for it was neither in that Order nor exactly in those Terms in which they were proposed And one of them ‖ The Second they put into different words without any the least alteration of sense merely as it should seem to keep free of an Ill Precedent which by receiving the Emperor's Form they might have brought upon themselves So that this is a much better Proof that the Emperor could not prescribe the Form of a Canon to them than that he could Nor are his English Instances of this kind more to his purpose Some of our Princes he says have not only prescribed to their Convocations what they should go about but have actually drawn up before-hand what they thought convenient to be established and have required them to approve of it * P. 110. And for this he vouches King Iames's Letter to the Convocation in 1603 together with which he sent them the Articles of 1562 to be approved by ' em A notable Instance of the Prince's Power actually to draw up before-hand what they think convenient to be established by their Synods because King Iames sent a Message to one of 'em about Confirming the Thirty nine Articles which had been actually drawn up by another Convocation forty years before that Message was sent And that this Point may be sure to be well proved he adds a Second Instance of it every whit as concluding as the Former The same Prince he says to Another Convocation about four years after signified his Pleasure for Singing and Organ-service to be setled in Cathedral Churches without submitting it to their judgment whether they approved it or no †Ibid. He tells us not from whence he drâ—w either this or the former particular and so I am not able to say how he has disguised them But taking this last as he has represented it clear it is that the King in this case did not form or draw up any thing before-hand for the Convocation to Sign but only suggested the Matter of a Canon to them and of such a Canon as if necessary there was no doubt of their agreeing unanimously in since it was only to confirm a received Practice and therefore if he did not ask their Approbation it was because he was sure of it Dr. Wake is in this Observation all over Mistake For whereas he calls this Another Convocation from that in 1603 it was certainly the same That in 1603 being by Prorogations continued from Time to Time for seven years together as his own words are a few Pages afterwards * P. 142. Nor could the Import of this Message well be the Setling of Singing and Organ-service in Cathedral Churches for it was setled there long before †At the Reforming of the Church not only the King's Chappel and all Cathedrals but many Parochial Churches also had preserved their Organs to which they used to Sing the appointed Hymns i. e. the Te Deum the Benedictus the Magnificat the Nunc dimittis c. performed in an Artificial and Melodious manner Heylin Hist. of Presbyt p. 226. Only King Iames I suppose recommended to 'em the framing of a Canon in behalf of what was hitherto authorized by Practice alone and by the Queen's Injunctions ‖ Sparrow p. 80. But this the Synod thought needless the Thing being otherwise so well established already and therefore framed no Canon concerning it How Ridiculous then is it in Dr. Wake to say that the King signified his Pleasure to them in this matter without ever submitting it to their Iudgment whether they approved it or no when the Event shews that they disapproved and did not comply with the Motion for I never heard of any such Canon in behalf of Singing and Organ-service and which is more Bishop Sparrow never heard of it neither If this Message therefore make any thing for the King's Power of Proposing it makes as strongly for the Clergy's Priviledge of denying if they think fit which is the very thing Dr. Wake is endeavouring in this place to deprive them of VI. A Sixth Observation I have to offer on Dr. Wake 's way of managing this Controversie is that Those very Acts of Authority which were exercised by Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters to support and corroborate the Churches Power are by Him perversely made use of to undermine and destroy it He finds that the
Dr. Wake 's Abstract if we had nothing more to say against 'em But they shall be further and more distinctly considered The Doctor took 'em he says out of his Collections as they lay there and for these Collections I find he scarce ever goes further than Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation which tho' a very Excellent Work and meriting the Thanks of Parliament which it had yet as to the Proceedings of Convocation and the share which the Ecclesiastical Authority bore all along in those Changes is extremely defective partly from the want of Records and partly from his Lordship's omiting to set down All even of that Little that is left us on this Head in the Manuscript Memoirs of that time So that it is no Proof that nothing was done by the Clergy in such or such a Case because his Lordship says nothing of it Besides that History is by its very Method apt to mislead an unwary Reader in Enquiries of this nature the way of it being to set down first the Proceedings of Parliament in every case and then those of Convocation which makes it look oftentimes as if the Parliament had led the way to the Convocation in their Debates when the contrary to that is most certainly true and would have appeared so to be had his Lordship thought fit to follow the Pattern set by Antiquitates Britannicae and given the Precedence always to the Acts of Convocation when the Business was first agitated there and afterwards brought into Parliament which in a Church-Historian had I presume been a method not improper or unbecoming At least since his Lordship could not but know that our Reformation had suffered by being misunderstood in these respects it might not have been amiss to have given us warning when things were told out of the Natural Order of time in which they hapned and in what Instances the Leading steps were from the Convocation tho' the Course of his History seemed to place the rise of 'em elswhere The want of this notice has occasioned Dr. Wake 's mistakes in some cases and in others he has not made use even of the Light which this History would have afforded him I shall examine every Instance any ways material the Injunctions only excepted which it must be confessed were by Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth in vertue of their Supreme Headship and under the shelter of that Act which made the King's Proclamations equal to an Act of Parliament Issued out in a very Arbitrary manner and continued so to be as long as our Princes could in their High Commission-Court take notice of the Breach of them But since that Court has been put down and the Extraordinary Acts of Spiritual Jurisdiction annexed to the Imperial Crown of England by the First of Elizabeth Chap. 1. can now be exercised only in Parliament how far any Royal Injunction is valid unless where by the Advice of the Metropolitan it orders such things as that Act directs and allows or seconds some Authentick Canon or Received Practice and whether it has any greater force in Ecclesiastical than the King's Proclamation has in Civil Affairs I leave to the Gentlemen of the Long Robe to determine The Clergy I am sure are not the only Persons concerned in this point for the Princes of those days carried their Power further than Them and issued out Injunctions alike for the Clergy and Laity * See Edward the Sixth's Injunctions To all and Singular his Loving Subjects as well of the Clergy as of the Laity Sparrow p. 1. And Q. Elizabeth 's Anno 1559. Ibid. p. 65. If the Professors of the Law think that the Crown has still such a Power of sending out Commands at pleasure the Clergy will I dare say be concluded by Their Opinion An Abstract of several Things relating to the Church P. 381. which have been done since the 25 Hen. 8. by Private Commissions or otherwise out of Convocation 25 Hen. 8. Thirty two Persons appointed to review c. the Canons of the Church and to gather out of them such as should from thenceforth alone be of force in it See the Act. c. 19. Dr. Wake might if he had pleased have said See the Petition of the Clergy in Convocation which preceded this Act and wherein this Review of the Canons is by Them desired What was done in this matter was done at Their Instance and therefore had Their Authority 1536. Order for the Translation of the Bible Bâ—rn Hist. Ref. p. 195 249 302. This too was in consequence of a Petition from the Convocation a Memorandum of which is entred in their Acts Decemb. 19. 1534. Heylin * Reform justified p. 8. seems to say that it was put up by Both Houses However that which came from the Upper House is still extant in a Cotton Manuscript †Cleopatra E. 5. fol. 339. and in it the Bishops Abbots and Priors request the Archbishop to be instant with the King Ut dignaretur decernere quòd Sacra Scriptura in Linguam Vulgarem Anglicanam per quosdam Praelatos Doctos Viros per dictum Illustrissimum Regem nominandos transferatur And this Dr. Wake could not well be ignorant of because his very Guide in one of the places he himself quotes from him ‖ P. 195. on this occasion mentions this Petition * But places it in 1536. i. e. Two Years later than it was really made as an Act of Both Houses and let 's us know the Translation of the Bible took its rise from it 1538. Explication of the Chief Points in Religion published at the Close of the Convocation but not by it Ibid. p. 245. He means the Book called The Institution of a Christian Man but mistakes both the Time of its coming out and its Title and the Authority by which it was published And in the first and last of these that very Passage he cites would have set him right if he had heeded it For thus it speaks Tho' there was no Parliament in the Year 1537 yet there was a Convocation upon the Conclusion of which there was Printed an Explanation of the chief Points of Religion Signed by Nineteen Bishops Eight Archdeacons and Seventeen Doctors of Divinity and Law †Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 245. Here is no Intimation of its not passing the Convocation but rather the contrary Twenty five of the Lower House subscribing it which might well be a Majority of the Members when not many years before in the great Debate about the Divorce of Queen Cathariâ—e Twenty three only as we have heard already * P. 53. were present and Fourteen of these Votes therefore made a Majority of that House But Heylin who had the Opportunity of examining the Registers puts this matter beyond a Probability for he speaks every where †Ref. just p. 11. p. 549. of this Book as having passed the Convocation and of these Twenty five as Subscribing it in the
Name of all the rest of the Members At least if Heylin's word may not be taken for it yet Dr. Wake 's I hope may And he in his Appeal ‖ P. 28. calls the Clergy's Dedication of this Book an Address of the Convocation to the King and says it was Subscribed by both Houses 1539. A Committee of Bishops appointed by the Lords at the King's Command to draw up Articles of Religion Ibid. pag. 256. This was in a Preparatory way only and in order to their being considered by the Convocation and Parliament However this Committee did nothing ⸫ ‖ Bp. Burn. Ibid. and should not therefore be made an Instance of Things relating to the Church done out of Parliament And which is more the Convocation did the very business which this Committee was appointed to do as we shall learn from the next Particular The Six Articles on which the Act passed brought in by the Duke of Norfolk and wholly carried on by the Parliament Ibid. p. 256 c. This is News to that Parliament by which Dr. Wake says it was wholly carried on for They in the Preamble of the Act of the Six Articles say That the King considering c. had caused his most High Court of Parliament to be Summoned and also a Synod and Convocation of all the Archbishops and Bishops and other Learned Men of the Clergy of this his Realm In which Parliament and Convocation there were certain Articles set forth c. and after a great and long deliberate and advised disputation and consultation had and made concerning the said Articles as well by the Consent of the King's Highness as by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and other Learned Men of his Clergy in this Convocations and by the Consent of the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled it was and is finally resolved accorded and agreed in manner and form following †31 H. 8. c. 14. We see these Articles were so far from being wholly carried on by Parliament that the Parliament it self thought not fit to Enact 'em without expressing in their Bill the previous Consent of the Clergy in Convocation Some Body seems to have told the Doctor thus much before he wrote his Appeal in a corner of which among the Errata he desires that these four Lines may be blotted out Why he was so Particular in his Requests I cannot tell but sure I am that there are very few Lines in this whole Article of his Appendix that do not deserve blotting out as much as They. 1540. A Committee of Divines employed to draw up the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man Ibid. p. 286. In saying they were employed to draw it up he speaks unaccurately for that implys it to be then first drawn up whereas this Book was in the main the same with that which was published in 1537 under the Title of the Institution of a Christian Man This I have already shewn passed the Convocation The Members of which that were employed in composing it do in their Dedication of it to the King Most humbly submit it to his most Excellent Wisdom and Exact Iudgment to be recognized overseen and corrected if his Grace shall find any Word or Sentence in it meet to be changed qualified or further expounded c. The Liberty thus given by the Clergy was made use of by the King who in 1540 committed it to several Bishops and Divines All Members of Convocation to be review'd and made afterwards some Alterations in it with his own Hand to be seen still in the Original in Sir I. Cotton's Library * Heylin Ref. justif p. 549. and finally published it anew in the year 1543 †There was an Edition in 1540. which differs not considerably from that in 1543 and therefore I give no Distinct Account of it with this Title ‖ Which the Exact Mr. Nicholson has changed into a Necessary Defence for all sorts of People Hist. Libr. Vol. 3. p. 197. Where he tells us also that the King drew up these Articles in 1543 meaning that he made some Marginal Amendments to the Book after it was drawn up This he mentions at large as an approved Instance of the King's Power in such cases without intimating his Dislike of it and without letting us know how should be for he knew it not himself that what the King did here was not only at the previous Permission but Desire of the Clergy and was afterwards once again by them in Convocation confirmed Such accuracy is there in the Accounts of Books given us by this Historical Librarian A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Chrysten Man set furthe by the Kinges Majeste of England There is no mention here of the Concurrence of the Clergy in Convocation to this Book and yet it is certain that all the new Alterations and Additions in it as they sprang at first from a Request of theirs so passed 'em agen solemnly afterwards This appears from some short Memorandums * Sess. 25. Apr. 25. Reverendissimus tractavit de Sacramentis of which that Book treats at large ibi examinati sunt quidam Articuli Sess. 26. Ult. Apr. Reverendissimus exposuit Articulum Liberi Arbitrii which is another Head there ubi Prolocutor c. exposuerunt suas Sententias of the Acts of Convocation in 1543 from Heylin's Express Testimony †Ibid. See also in his Quinquartic Controv. p. 569. some other Passages out of the Acts of that Convocation which prove manifestly that these Alterations underwent their Review and from those words in the King's Preface prefix'd to the Book that he had set it furthe with the Advise of his Clergy the Lordes bothe Spirituall and Temporall with the Nether House of Parliament having both seen and lik'd it well Another Commission appointed to Examine the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church Ibid. p. 294. This Committee of Bishops and Divines for reforming the Rituals and Offices of the Church was setled at the same Time with That which reviewed the Institution and was composed therefore as That was of the Members and probably of the same Members of Convocation which was sitting now at the Time when this Committee was appointed as appears by the Subsidy * 32 H. 8. c. 23. and the Sentence of Divorce ⸫ 32 H. 8. c. 25. that passed 'em compared with the Act of Parliament of the same Session †Rastall p. 690. that mentions this Committee as sitting From hence alone we might have been satisfied that this Committee was impowered by the Convocation to act had we no other Evidence for it But as it happens we have for in the short Remains of Edward the Sixth's first Convocation this Committee is said to have met ex Mandato Convocationis * In a Petition of theirs where they pray Ut Opera Episcoporum aliorum qui aliàs ex Mandato Convocationis Servitio Divino Examinando Reformando Edendo
invigilarunt proferantur hujus Domâ—s Examinationem subeant Synodalia And something of the same nature seems to be intimated in the Statute I mentioned which Enacts that whatever should be Ordained and set forth by the Archbishops Bishops and Doctors now appointed or other Persons hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England in and upon the matter of Christ's Religion and the Christian Faith †This relates to the Institution of a Christian Man then to be reviewed and Lawful Rites and Ceremonies ‖ This to the Rituals at the same time to be altered and Observations of the same shall be in all and every point limitation and circumstance thereof by all his Grace's Subjects c. fully believed obeyed observed and performed Here the words by the whole Clergy of England do most naturally refer to the Last Verb appointed and under that Construction imply that this and such like Committees were consented to by the Convocation as well as named by the King and so they certainly were And the reason of establishing 'em was because the matters to be discussed requiring as this very Act speaks ripe and mature deliberation were not rashly to be defined nor restrained to this present Session or any other Session of Parliament as they must have been if they had been considered only in Convocation which Then sat and rose always within a few days of the Parliament These Committees therefore were appointed to sit in the Intervals of Parliament and tho' they had a Power of concluding finally yet they seldom I suppose did more than prepare business to be laid before the Convocation when it sat Accordingly what was done by this Committee for reforming the Offices was reconsider'd by the Convocation it self two or three years afterwards as a Manuscript Note * Sess. 19. 21. Feb. 1542 43. Reverendissimus dixit Regem velle Libros quosdam Ecclesiasticos examinari corrigi Ubi Reverendissimus tradidiâ— hos Libros examinandos quibusdam Episcopis I have met with taken from the Journals of Convocation implies These Committees indeed are spoken of sometimes in our Statutes and elsewhere as appointed by the King without any mention of the Convocation-Clergy which was partly owing to the Doctrine of those times by which the King in virtue of his Supreme Headship was said to do decree and order every thing tho' the previous Steps and Resolves were from the Convocation and was withal not improper considering how much was left to the Royal Power in such matters for the Clergy often only Petitioned the King for a Committee and referred the Nomination of it to him of which a clear Instance has been given before in the Request for the Translation of the Bible Indeed when the Committee was composed of Members from both Provinces as it was in the Present case * The Act styles them The Archbishops and sundry Bishops of Both Provinces of Canterbury and York within this Realm and also a great Number of the best Learned Honestest and most Vertuous sort of Doctors of Divinity Men of Discretion and Iudgment and Good Disposition of this said Realm it could not sit and act by a bare Order of the Clergy but was necessarily to have the King's Commission before it could be a Legal Assembly and no wonder therefore if tho' both Convocations consented to it and perhaps sometimes named it yet the King only be said to impower them And here I must once for all observe that whatever was done by such Select Committees appointed or approved by Convocation tho' done out of Convocation must be reckoned done by it as carrying the stamp of its Authority For so the way has been in all manner of Assemblies both Ecclesiastical and Civil The Catechismus ad Parâ—chos among the Papists is accounted to have the Authority of the Council of Trent tho' that Council never passed or saw it because it was drawn up and published by Order of the Pope to whom that Council had referred it The like is to be said of the Oxford †Bp. Bâ—â—â— Vol. 1. p. 85. and Cambridge ‖ Ibid. p. 87. Resolutions concerning the Invalidity of King Henry's first Marriage which carried the Authority of those Universities because drawn up by Committees which were in full Convocation appointed by them Nor want we Precedents of a Delegation of the Power even of Parliaments to Committees in antient times For 1 Hen. 6. some Lords and Others of the King's Council were impowered to determine all such Bills and Petitions as were not answered in Parliament * Rot. Parl. n. 21. and so agen 6 Hen. 6. n. 45 46. and several Times before and after And Henry the Eighth had frequently the whole Power of Parliament Translated upon him We are not to wonder therefore if the Convocations of his Reign did something like this when they had so Great Patterns to follow and were so much more at his Mercy than Parliaments were 1542. The Examining of the English Translation of the Bible being begun by the Convocation is taken by the King out of their Hands and committed to the two Universities Ibid. p. 315. Were the Translating of Scripture a Work appropriated to Synods as sure it is not yet the Petition of the two Houses in 1534 to the King to take care of a New Translation of the Bible would have been Warrant enough for him to have put it into whose hands he pleased Especially since it is probable that this very Synod in 1542 complied at last with the King's Proposal I find indeed in some Minutes of their Acts that the Bishops at first disagreed to it †Sess. 9. Mart. 1541 42. but they were I suppose over-rulâ—d for Parker's account is only Aliquandiu quibus Biblia transferenda committerentur ambigebant ‖ P. 338. which shews that the dispute was soon over 1544. The King orders the Prayers for Processions and Litanies to be put into English and sends them to the Archbishop with an Order for the Publick Use of them Ibid. p. 331. This was done by a Royal Injunction * So it is stylâ—d in Bonner 's Reg. f. 48. then equal to an Act of Parliament and need not therefore by me here be accounted for However there is reason to believe that the Committee for Reforming the Offices or the Convocation it self might have an hand in it for about this time it is plain they composed the Little Book of Prayers called the Orarium †Orarium sive Libellus Precationum per Regiam Majestatem Clerum Latinè editus Ex Officina Rich. Grafton 1545. which was set out by the King the Year afterwards 1547. The King orders a Visitation over his whole Kingdom and thereupon suspends all Episcopal Iurisdiction while it lasted Vol. II. p. 26. The King Visited by vertue of his Supreme Headship recognized first in Convocation and established afterwards in Parliament
And while this Royal Visitation lasted all Inferior Jurisdictions ceased a course as they do even when an Archbishop visits ‖ Pendente Visitatione Atchiepiscopali tam Suffraganei quam Inferiores Praelati ordinariâ— suâ— Jurisdictione abstinent omniaque per Archiepiscopum ejusque Commissarios expediuntur Ant. Brit. p. 29. But what would Dr. Wake infer from this Instance that the King took to himself a Power which has been thought regularly to belong to the Convocation Why was ever any Man wild enough to say that the Convocation were the Visitors-General of all Ecclesiastical Bodies in England The Homilies composed Ibid. He should say reviewed and altered for they were composed many years before in the Convocation of 1542 as the Acts declare * Ian. 1541 42. Tractavit Reverendissimus de Homiliis conficiendis 16. Feb. 1542 43. Presentatae sunt Homiliae compositae per quosdam Praelatos de diversis materiis And by vertue of this Convocational Authority which they had Archbishop Cranmer sent 'em 1 E. 6. to Bishop Gardiner requiring him to publish 'em throughout his Diocese Thus Bishop Gardiner himself in his Letters to the Protector †Fox Vol. 2. p. 1. the first words of the first of which are After most humble Commendations to your Grace I have received this day Letters from my Lord of Canterbury touching certain Homilies which the Bishops in the Convocation holden Anno Dom. 1542. agreed to make for stay of such Errors as were then by Ignorant Persons sparkeled among the People The Second begins thus I have received other Letters from my Lord of Canterbury requiring the said Homilies by vertue of a Convocation holden five years past He does not allow indeed that the Homilies formally passed that Synod for he adds Wherein we communed of That which took none effect then and much less needeth to be put in Execution ne in my judgment cannot But Cranmer we see was of another opinion and thought these Homilies sufficiently authoriz'd by the Convocation of 1542 and that they wanted only to be confirmed and recommended by the King as they were in the Injunctions of that year But should there be any thing wanting to the Authority of these Homilies when first set out that want was made up when they were subsequently ratified by the Clergy in Convocation * See Art of 1552 1562. L. M. P. has increased Dr. Wake 's Collections by an Instance or two of this date which must not be neglected Parliaments he says without the Concurrence of Convocations have learnedly argued and determined the Questions about the Lawfulness of Priests Marriage and Communion in one kind †P. 16. As to the first of these the Stat. 2 3 E. 6. c. 21. does indeed determine this point but it is in consequence and almost in the very words of the Determination of the Clergy in Convocation made the year before which Arth. Harmar has Printed ‖ P. 170. and my Lord of Sarum has given a short account of ⸫ Vol. 2. p. 50. tho' with some mistakes in the Circumstances of it For whereas his Lordship makes but Thirty five to have affirmed the Question and but Fourâ—een to have denied it there were many more in either case Fifty three in the first and Twenty two in the latter * Synodalia The Name also of the Prolocutor who gathered these Votes is mistaken for it was Io. Taylor Dean of Lincoln not I. Tyler who had been Prolocutor Thirty two years before in the Convocation of 1515 where his Lordship takes notice of him †Vol. 1. p. 14. with Indignation for making a Partial Entry in the Journals of Parliament on behalf of the Clergy then contending with the Lay-power about their Ecclesiastical Priviledges which his Lordship says is no wonder the Clark of the Parliament being at the same Time Speaker to the Lower House of Convocation tho' had not his Lordship thus judged I should have been apt to have thought this Entry Impartial for the very same reason because the Man that made it belonged equally to both the contending Parties Unless it shall be said that Clergy-men are so blindly devoted to the Interests of their Order that no other Tyes or Views whatsoever can make 'em think indifferently where That is concerned But of this his Lordship 's own Works are an Effectual Disproof As to the other Point about the Communion in both kinds neither did the Parliament establish that without the Concurrence of Convocation for tho' the Clause concerning it was brought into the House of Lords by Bishop Cranmer I suppose Novemb. 24 * Bishop Burn. Vol. 2. p. 41. yet it lay upon the Table without being called for again till the Clergy Decemb. 2. had Voted it in Convocation after which the very next day †Synodalia it had a Second Reading 1548. A Committee of Select Bishops and Divines appointed to Examine and Referm the Offices of the Church Ibid. p. 61 71. To such a Select Committe I have shewn that the reforming the Offices was by Convocation intrusted in Henry the Eighth's time so that this was but continuing that business in the same method into which the Convocation had formerly put it And there is Great Reason to believe that it was thus continued by this Convocation it self and that the Petition of the Lower House to the Bishops ‖ Mentioned by me p. 181. out of the Acts of this Convocation for a Review of the Books prepared by the former Committee to this purpose ended in an Address of Both Houses to the King for a New one Thus it is plain Bishop Burnet * See Vol. 2. p. 50. understood this matter and Bishop Stillingfleet too who first produced that Petition in his Irenicum †See p. 386. where he terms it a Petition for calling an Assembly of Select Divines in order to the setling Church-affairs Not that this was the Direct Purport but only the Result of it and occasioned by it A New Office of Communion set forth by Them i. e. by the Select Committee Pag. 64. And it was therefore Authorized by that Convocation which we have reason to think consented to this Committee However sure we are that it was established soon afterwards by another Convocation which passed the whole Service-Book where this Communion-Office was with some Alterations inserted There is a Deep silence all along in my Lord of Sarum's History as to the Convocational Authority of this Service-Book which he seems to represent as the Work of a Committee ‖ See Vol. 2. p. 71 93. only confirmed afterwards by Parliament His Lordships's History has that Credit in the World that his very Omissions may in time pass for Proofs if they be not observed and supplied especially in the Present Case where it will be naturally enough concluded that the Church-Authority did not intervene if a Church-Historian of his Lordship's Rank takes no notice of it
others and there was no change made in a Tittle by Parliament So that they only Enacted by a Law what the Convocation had done * Pp. 74 75. And agen As it were a Great Scandal on the first General Councils to say that they had no Authority for what they did but what they derived from the Civil Power so is it no less unjust to say because the Parliaments impowered †Here I must beg leave to say that his Lordship's Expression is not Exact The Parliament did not impower but approve of them some Persons to draw Forms for the more pure Administration of the Sacraments and Enacted that these only should be lawfully used in this Realm which is the Civil Sanction that therefore these Persons had no other Authority for what they did Was it ever heard of that the Civil Sanction which only makes any Constitution to have the force of a Law gives it another Authority than a Civil one The Prelates and other Divines that compiled our Forms of Ordination did it by vertue of the Authority they had from Christ as Pastors of his Church which did impower them to teach the People the pure Word of God and to administer the Sacraments and perform all other Holy Functions according to the Scripture the Practice of the Primitive Church and the Rules of Expediency and Reason and this they ought to have done tho' the Civil Power had opposed it in which case their Duty had been to have submitted to whatever Severities and Persecutions they might have been put to for the Name of Christ or the Truth of his Gospel But on the other hand when it pleased God to turn the Hearts of those which had the Chief Power to set forward this good Work then they did as they ought with all thankfulness acknowledge so great a Blessing and accept and improve the Authority of the Civil Power for adding the Sanction of a Law to the Reformation in all the Parts and Branches of it So by the Authority they derived from Christ and the Warrant they had from Scripture and the Primitive Church these Prelates and Divines made those Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal and the King and the Parliament who are vested with the Supreme Legislative Power added their Authority to them to make them obligatory on the Subjects * Pp. 53 54. I have produced these Passages at length not so much for any Light they give to the Particular we are now concerned in the Authority of the English Ordinal as for the General Use they may be of in setling the Dispute between Dr. W. and the Church about the Distinction of the Two Powers Ecclesiastical and Civil and the Obligations we are under to the Decisions of the one antecedently to the Sanctions of the other I subscribe to his Lordship's state of it and think nothing can be said more justly and truly 1552. The Observation of Holy-Days ordered by Act of Parliament Ibid. pag. 191. This Act traced the Steps of the Rubrick in the Common-Prayer-Book relating to Holy-Days and ordered none to be kept Holy but what had before-hand been so ordered to be kept by the Clergy in Convocations only it added New Penalties 1553. A New Catechism by the King's Order required to be taught by Schoolmasters Ibid. p. 219. This Catechism was published with the Articles of 1552. and had I suppose the very same Convocational Authority which those had It was compiled indeed by Poynet but is said in the King's Patent annexed to have been afterwards perused and allowed by the Bishops and other Learned Men by which we are to understand either the Convocation it self or a Grand Committee appointed by it and upon which its Power was devolved That the whole Convocation have been by these or such like Terms about this time often expressed the Instances given in the Margent * The Six Articles in the Act 31 H. 8. c. 14. are said to be agreed to by the Archbishops Bishops and other Learned Men of the Clergy who a little before are styl'd a Synod or Convocation In the Articles of 1536. See 'em in Bishop Burn. Vol. 1. Coll. of Rec. p. 305. the Convocation is expressed by the Bishops and others the most Discreet and Learned Men of the Clergy The Articles of 1552. are in the Title said to be such de quibus in Synodo Londinensi inter Episcopos alios Eruditos viros convenerat And iâ— will scarce I think bear a Reasonable Doubt whether these Articles passed the Convocation Finally The Act about Holidays as 't is called is in the Canon it self See it in Sparrow p. 167. said to be decreed by the King with the Common Assent and Consent of the Clergy in Convocation assembled But in the King's Letter to Bonner about it the words are By the Assents and Consents of all you Bishops and others Notable Personages of the Clergy of this our Realm in full Convocation and Assembly had for that purpose will evince And that this Catechism was generally understood to have the Authority of Convocation is plain even from the Exception made to it by Dr. Weston †For that said he there is a Book of late set forth called the Catechism bearing the Name of this Honourable Synod and yet put forth without your Consents as I have learned c. â—ox Vol. 2. p. 19. in the first Synod of Queen Mary but plainer still from Philpot's Reply to that Exception which discovers also to us somewhat of the Manner by which the Convocation came to be Intitled not to this Catechism alone but to several other Pieces that seem to carry the Name of a Committee only upon them His words are that This House of Convocation had granted the Authority to make Ecclesiastical Laws unto certain Persons to be appointed by the King's Majesty and whatsoever Ecclesiastical Laws They or the most part of them did set forth according to a Statute in that behalf provided it might be well said to be done in the Synod of London although such as be of this House now had no notice thereof before the Promulgation And in this Point be thought the setter forth thereof nothing to have slandered the House since they had our Synodal Authority unto them committed to make such Spiritual Laws as They thought convenient and necessary * â—bid p. â—0 The Knowledge of the Time and Circumstances of appointing this Committee we have lost together with the Acts themselves however plain it is from this Assertion of Mr. Philpot made in open Convocation that such a Committee there was named by the Crown at the Instance of the whole Clergy and that this Catechism among other things passed them and had on that account as He judged the Authority of Convocation It is left to the Reader by whom in this caâ—e he will be guided the Churches Martyr or her Betrayer And here the Instance of the Catechismus ad Parochos is very pat
â—estored in the Last Reign but was then uniâ—ersally disallowed and has since been solemnâ—y condemned by the Declaration of Rights as â—ne cause of the Abdication Whatever thereâ—ore Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth â—id in vertue of their Supreme Headship whatâ—ver the Three succeeding Princes did by their Ecclesiastical Commissions is not therefore beâ—ause Their Act or Right a present Branch of the Regal Supremacy all those Extraordinary Powers and Jurisdictions which were peâ—uliar to that Title or that Court being now â—eturned to the King in Parliament And When Dr. Wake therefore tells us that he is not â—ware of any Law that has debarred the King from â—aving his Commissioner or Vicar General in Convocation now as Henry the Eighth before had * P. 114. â—e shews how unfit he is under such a deep â—gnorance of our Constitution to write on â—his Argument for a very moderate share of â—kill in these things was methinks sufficient to have made him aware of the Illegality of King Iames's Commission I shall beg leave not to think that this is a Principle approved by â—his Grace of Canterbury or that his Grace would â—ow give place to such a Vicar General IX One thing more I have to offer and with that shall shut up these General Remarks Dr. W. distinguishes not between those Powerâ— in which the Crown is Arbitrary and those in which it is purely Ministerial between Royal Acts that are Free and such as are Necessary so that by the Rules of our Constitution the King cannot omit them For example he tells us That the King determines what Persons * P. 103. shall meet in Convocation at what Time †P. 103. and in what Place And this he talks of in such a manner as if the Prince were perfectly and equally at Liberty in all these Respects and under no manner of Tye from the Laws and Usages of this Kingdom 'T is true as to the Place of their Meeting he is free and may appoint their Session in what part of his Country he thinks fit just as he may that of the Lords and Commons But as to the Time he is so far restrain'd that some Times there are when he ought to call them together by the Fundamental Rules of our Constitution and those are as often as Writs for a New Parliament go out As for the other Convocations in the Intervals of Parliament if our Constitution now after an hundred and fifty years disuse knows any such thing which I shall not here dispute 't is as to These only that the Issuing out Writs for the Clergy can be matter of Grace and Favour or become the Subject of Deliberation But as to the Persons that are to meet the Crown has no Power of determining who or how many they shall be for the Law has determined this before-hand The King may indeed name whom he pleases to Deaneries and Bishopricks but when he has done so Those and no other must be Summoned to Convocation And in this he does not seem to have left himself at so much Liberty as he still has in relation to the House of Lords to which he can by Writ call whom he pleases whereas it may be questioned whether his Writ can give place to any one in the Upper House of Convocation but Bishops only The Truth is the King appoints the Persons that are to come to Convocation just as he does those that are to come to Parliament some have a Right of sitting there in Person and to those therefore he directs Particular Writs Others have a Right of being represented there and those therefore he orders to send up their Proxies that is indeed the Constitution appoints what Persons or Communities shall be Summon'd and the King according to that Rule does as often as he is pleas'd to call a Parliament by his Ministers Execute that Summons And if Convocations are upon the Level with Parliaments in this respect as 't is certain they are Dr. Wake had best have a care how he attempts to prove that it is the King 's Right to appoint who shall come to those meetings because this implies that if he should think fit not to appoint 'em they would have no Right to come which is a Doctrine of very dangerous consequence and not likely to recommend the maintainer of it to the Thanks of either House of Parliament Dr. Wake is not content to assert this Power to the King unless he does it upon the bottom of an Imperial Power for after he has prov'd as he thinks in his First Chapter that the Emperors of Rome and Germany were Absolute in all these respects he goes on in his Second to shew that by our own Constitution the King of England has all that Power at this day over our Convocation that ever any Christian Prince had over his Synods * P. 98. and immediately in the same Particulars of Time Place and Person draws the Parallel between ' em 'T is true as to Place the Kings of England are as Arbitrary as those Emperors were however his way of making out this both of the One and the Other is somewhat singular Abroad Pepin's determining the Place of his Synods meeting is prov'd from his determining that they should meet either at Soissons or at such other place as the Bishops should agree upon †P. 38. At home the same thing manifestly appears because our Princes leave their Synods with a Great Latitude to be held either at St. Paul 's or at any other Place which the Archbishop shall judge to be more convenient ‖ P. 103. Which is very true for the words of the Writ to the Archbishop have for some hundred years run ad conveniendum in Ecclesia c. vel alibâ— prout melius expedire videritis which is just such a Determination of the Place they are to meet in as Dr. Wake 's Book is of the Point in question He has much such another Argument to prove that the Emperors determined the Persons too that were to come to their Great Councils because in Three of them which he there mentions they left it to the Metropolitans when they came to bring such of their Suffragan Bishops as they thought fit along with ' em And when the Princes says he who followed after Summon'd their National Synods They in like manner directed the Choice of those who were to come to them * Pp. 39 40. If they directed the Choice in like manner I may venture to say that they did not direct it at all for those Emperors gave no Directions for the Choice but as He says left it intirely to the Discretion of the Metropolitan or rather as the Truth is left it to the several Provincial Synods to determine what Bishops should wait upon their Archbishop to the Council Were Dr. Wake 's Conge d'estire to be so drawn up as to leave the Chapter to which it shall be sent at as great a
Simonis vel pecuniam vel pejorem pecuniâ conditionem offerentis Nec hoc solum in Nobis Minoritis qui sic Rectorias nostras feri paciscimur sed apud Vos Majoritas quos sic Cathedras vestras nempe vel Pecuniarum summis vel Ecclesiarum spoliis foedè cauponari vulgò dictitant Quo morbo malè jamdiu habet audit Ecclesia nostra nunquid non est Resina in Gilead quare itaque non est obducta Cicatrix Leprae hujus These Three Instances taken at three several Distances from the times before the Reformation down to the Latter End of Queen Elizabeth will convince the Reader that the Solemnity of opening a Convocation is it self a matter of some Importance and which would deserve carefully to be kept up even tho' there were nothing Material to be done in Synod afterwards We live in a Preaching Age when the Devotion of People runs much that way and they are mightily indulg'd in it Pity it is that whilst so many New Discourses of this kind are set up for the Laiety this One good Sermon ad Clerum should be put down which besides that it has some Hundred years Prescription to plead for it self is at least as edifying an Exercise as any of those that are more encourag'd I have examin'd all the Modern Instances produc'd by Dr. Wake in behalf of his Darling Point That the Chief End of Convocations is to give Money His Elder Accounts would afford as much room for Reflection if it were worth the while to pursue 'em as minutely But I suppose there is no great need of proving to the Reader that a Writer has misled him in Facts of an Ancient Date when I have shewn that he has done it in things that have hapned within our Memories and under our Noses For he that will impose upon a Man before his Face will certainly do it behind his Back and the more out of his Reach he is the more he will do it It is said his Superiors have employ'd him in an Edition of these Old English Councils If he deals with them as ill in that Edition as he has done in this account it will I am sure be the faultiest Book in the kind that ever was Printed and so far from mending Sir Henry Spelman's Collections on this Head that it will be worse than Mr. Baxter's However should he discharge the Task never so well his Hand I think is not proper to be employ'd in it for the World will judge it a Preposterous thing for the same Pen to be used in preserving the Memory of Old Canons and writing down the Priviledges and very Being of Convocations I suppose he thinks the Mortal Blow is now given to the Church and that she will never hereafter speak by her Provincial Assemblies and therefore as the way is to give accounts of Men when they are Dead he thinks it time to collect the Acts of a Departed Convocation But he ought to be sure that it is departed before he enters on this Task for should it ever revive and sit again one of the first Requests it would make might possibly be that the Work should be taken out of his Polluted Hands Since the Church cannot hope from what she knows of him that his Account of her Synods will be given with any other View than the Learned Fryer wrote the History of that of Treâ—t on purpose to expose ' em But this is a Distant Concern Our Business at present is with him only as to the Treatment which these Antient Councils have found from him in the Work we are upon and upon this Head I shall for the Reasons already given trust the Reader without entring into the Retail of it adding only to what has been already said in this Chapter one short Remark That from Henry the Eighth down to the last Unhappy Prince no King has sat on the Throne who did not allow and encourage these Meetings of the Clergy King Iames's Late Reign made the first Exception of this kind when Popery and Arbitrary Power being determin'd to be set up consequently Parliaments and Convocations were laid aside from whence the Greatest Hindrance to those Designs was most likely to come for tho' the Clergy wrote Popery out of the Kingdom in a smaller time than they could be expected to have done it in that Method yet had they been allow'd to sit in Convocation they had probably dispatch'd the Work somewhat sooner But the Oppressive Pattern then first set will not we dare say by our Generous Deliverer be follow'd Frequency of Parliaments has been the distinguishing Mark and Glory of his Reign and it will add some small Lustre to it if it may be said in our Annals that the Liberties of Convocations too were no less tenderly preserv'd We question not but so Good and Gracious a Prince and so great a Pillar of the Protestant Religion will in this respect yield to the Just and United Desires of his Clergy when they are sufficiently made known to him No Men resisted the Encroachments of the Late Reign more than They no Men by their Labours and Zeal contributed more to our present happy Establishment and they have reason therefore to hope for their share in the Common Benefit of it CHAP. VII BUt to return to our Business Another Objection made by Dr. Wake against the Reasonableness of the Clergys Assembling with every New Parliament is That when this was Customary they were a Member of Parliament but not being so Now neither is there the same reason that they should assemble with it * P. 106 107 284. To this I answer that the words Member of Parliament may be taken differently as they signifie either an Essential Part of the Legislature whose Consent and Authority is necessary to all Laws or a part of the Great Body of Parliament assembled by the same Writs at the same time with it but to some special Intents and Purposes prescrib'd by our Constitution In the former Sense the Clergy are not nor for some hundred Years have been in the latter as they always were so they still I presume are a Member of Parliament Not an Intrinsick Member if I may be allowed so to speak or Estate of Parliament but only an Extrinsick Part of it or an Estate of the Realm call'd with the Parliament always and attending upon it who have a Parliamentary Right of Petitioning and Advising within their proper Sphaere and at whom Decrees about Matters Spiritual ought regularly to begin They are a Lesser Wheel in the Machine of Government that is acted by the same Springs and Weights and therefore moves and ceases together with the Greater but has peculiar Ends and Offices of its own to which it serves Nor is this to be wonder'd at for even the States of Parliament themselves have different Powers and Priviledges and peculiar Orbs of their own as it were within which they move the Lords are distinguish'd by
setling the Point between us But here he is as reserv'd as one would wish for from the beginning to the end of his Crude Work there is not a single Instance of this kind made out or so much as pretended †Except the Trite Instance of Exclus◠Clero Nay to see the fate of misapply'd Reading even of those twelve insignificant Instances which he has produc'd no less than eight are evidently mistaken as to the Dates either of the Parliaments or Convocations mention'd in them The Reader will rather take my word for it than allow me the liberty of interrupting the Course of my Argument so far as to prove it And I shall proceed therefore to consider and remove the several Objections that lie also against the second Point advanc'd in these Papers that the Clergy when met have a Right of Treating and Debating freely about such matters as lie within their proper Sphaere and even of coming to fit Resolutions upon them without being necessitated antecedently to gratify themselves for such Acts or Debates by a License under the Broad Seal of England CHAP. VIII IT had been argu'd from the General Nature of such Assemblys as these we are treating of that Freedom of Debate was their undoubted Right and Priviledge incident to them as such and inseparable from ' em To this I find these several Answers return'd Dr. W. assures us that the Debates of the most General and Famous Councils have been under as great Restraint as he supposes the Convocation to be †P. 288. L. M. P. adds that Poyning's Law has ty'd up even a Parliament in Ireland as strictly †P. 44. and the Author of the Postscript ⸪ At the end of a Book entituled An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate 8◠1697. fetches a third Instance from Scotland where the Three Estates he says can debate of nothing but what the Lords of the Articles have beforehand agreed on ‖ P. 198. As to the first of these supposing Dr. W's Allegation true yet he has been told that there is no arguing from the Powers claim'd or exercis'd by Emperors in those Great and Extraordinary Assemblys to what is fit to be done in lesser and stated ones and why such Inferences do not hold some Reasons have been given him which I need not now repeat But in truth he mistakes or misrepresents the Practise of the Emperors even in these General and Famous Councils which I have shewn him p. 125 6. went no further than to require a preference to that Particular Business for the Dispatch of which they were Summon'd not to exclude their debating on any thing but what the Emperor propos'd to them And of this the Canons of those Councils are an Evidence beyond Dispute which both as to Matter and Form took their Rise from the several Synods they were made in without any Imperial Leave or Direction for the framing them With what Face then can Dr. W. vouch the Practise of these Councils as Precedents for that Degree of restraint he would have laid on an English Convocation With what Truth or Conscience can he affirm that they acted intirely according to the Prescription of the Emperors †P. 288. and deliberated on nothing but what they were directed or allowed he means expresly and particularly allow'd by the Prince to deliberate on †P. 48. Whatever our Author may think of such Doctrine Now or whatever he may Hope from it sure I am that had he liv'd and utter'd it while those Holy Synods were in being it would not have been two or three Years afterwards before he had repented of it But Old Councils are Dead and Gone and any thing it seems may be said of them Let him not depend too much upon that for they have Friends still in the World that may happen yet before he dies to meet together and ask him a few Questions A living Synod may sometime or other think it for its Interest and find it in its Power to vindicate the Honor and Authority of the Dead ones Well if Old Councils cannot afford a Precedent Modern Parliaments shall Poyning's Law therefore is urg'd which provides that All such Bills as shall be offer'd to the Parliament of Ireland shall be transmitted hither under the Great Seal of that Kindom and having receiv'd approbation here shall be sent back under the Great Seal of England to be preferr'd to the Parliament of Ireland †L. M. P. p 44. But what have we to do with Instances fetch'd from Conquered Countrys who must receive what Terms the Victor pleases and be glad of any We live among another People always Jealous of their Libertys and careful to preserve them in a Land where slavery either in Church or State though sometimes planted could never thrive And those Fetters therefore which might perhaps justly be laid on an Irish Parliament may not fit an English Convocation so well which is therefore free because it is an English one But after all how far does this Law of Poynings reach Our Lawyer tells us that it leaves not the Parliament at Liberty to propose what Laws they please that the Irish look upon it as Conclusive upon their Debates and are satisfy'd and again that we have here an Instance of a Parliament without Liberty of Debate But this is too gross an Imposition upon the Credulity of his Readers few of which are so ignorant as not to be aware that Poyning's Law layes a restraint only on the Enacting Power of their Parliament but not on the Debates of it which notwithstanding this Act are left as free as ever They can still Treat and Conferr about all Matters and Causes that are of Parliamentary Cognizance they can Petition Represent and Protest Nay they can propose what Heads of Bills they please to be transmitted hither and sent back thither in Form of which we have had very late and frequent Experience And how therefore the Abridgment of the Convocations Liberty of Debate can be pretended to be justify'd by this Irish Precedent is I confess past my English Understanding For as I take it the Convocation desires no other Powers and Priviledges but just what this Parliament claims and practises and pleads only that the 25 H. VIII may not be extended to such a Rigorous and Unjustifiable Sense as will lay greater restraints upon Them than Poyning's Laws does upon Those of Ireland But our Letter-writer himself is sensible that this Instance is not to the purpose for at the close of it his Conscience gives a little and he is forc'd to confess that the Irish Parliament are not under an Universal Restraint nor wholly mute till the King gives them Power to Debate and Act †P. 44. Are they not Why then was it generally said that they were a Parliament without a Liberty of Debate or of proposing what Laws they please in the very next Lines to these where it is all unsaid
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
or of the Times wherein it was fram'd His account of the Writ runs thus In the beginning of it says he the King having mention'd by way of form that for certain urgent Affairs of great Concern both to the Church and Kingdom he had commanded the Archbishop to summon the Clergy to come together to such a certain place and at such a certain time he thus declares what they were to do when met Namely that they were to Treat Consent and Conclude upon the Premisses and such Other Matters which should be more clearly declar'd to them when they came together on the King's behalf From hence he reasons in this manner that though the Urgent Affairs of the King Church and Realm which the Convocation is in General to debate about be the constant Introduction of every Convocation-Writ yet this is by way of form only for the King still reserves to himself to declare to them and they are when met to expect his special Direction and not ramble after their own fancys or any matter within this General Compass without his Warrant * Pp. 111.112 But how false and forc'd these Colours are will appear if we consider 1. That the Writs which summon the Barons to Parliament have much the same Introduction with this for a Convocation these also beginning with a Quibusdam arduis urgentibus negotiis c. as this does and proceeding to other Expressions the same in sense with the subsequent Words in the Convocation-Writ and in this only differing from them that they are not quite so Expressive and Forcible Now Dr. W. will not I hope dare to say that those Words are plac'd also in the Lord's Writs by way of form only and if not how come they to be us'd more by way of form Here than There Nay 2. These words are so far from being plac'd in the Front of the Convocation-Writ by way of Form only that they are expresly referr'd to in the Body of it where the Clergy are said to assemble ad tractandum consentiendum conâ—oncludendum super PREMISSIS i. e. super â—rduis urgentibus negotiis before mention'd even as the Barons are in the same part of their Writ said to meet super DICTIS negotiis traâ—aturi c. It is added indeed aliis quae darius exponentur tune ibidem ex parte nostrâ which intimates that the King will also on his part propose some particular subjects of Debate to them but precludes them not from debating on any thing except what he proposes Nor can any Man who considers the Date of these Writs possibly think that this Meaning is to be drawn from them For 3. They went in near the same Terms that they do now 200 Years before the Submission-Act pass'd when the King's Power of confining the Clergy to deliberate on nothing but what he offer'd to them was a Doctrine never dream of And I hope since the Words of the Writ are the same Now as they were Then the meaning of them must be the same too for though the 25 H. VIII abridg'd the Convocations Priviledges in several respects yet it could not make the Words of their Writ signify otherwise than they did when they were first inserted Dr W. himself hapned to stumble upon this Truth though he wanted either sincerity or skill to make use of it The Grand Question ⸪ P. 160. had told him what he tells us again †P. 113. as if it had been his Own Observation that this Clause 〈◊〉 to be found in the Convocation Writs as far back as 28 H. VI. after which †It should be 38 H. VI. The Writ is to be found Cl. m. 29. dors See Pryn. Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. p. 91. Which shews from whence Dr. W. borrowed his knowledge since he â—ook this Mistake also along with it a small share 〈◊〉 Logick methinks might havâ— taught him that this Clausâ— could never be intended to tie uâ— the Clergys Debates to such Paâ—â—ticular subjects as the Kinâ— should allow them to deliberaâ—â— on But he may be pleas'd to know that it 〈◊〉 yet an 100 years Older than he thinks it is foâ— I have seen Writs in the beginning of E. the 〈◊〉 with these or the like words in them parâ—â—â—cularly Cl. 7. E. III. ps 2. m. 15. dors the Archbishop and his Clergy are summon'd Super dictis negotiis quae Vobis ibidem ex parte nostrâ plenius exponentur tractaturi vestrumque Consilium Impenâ—â—ri and 20. R. II. ps 2. m. 12. dors it ran almost in the same Syllables as it does now Ad traâ—tandum concordandum consentiendum concludendum super praemissis aliis quae sibi per Nos vel Commissarios nostros in hâc parte clarius exponentur tunc ibidem And a little acquaintance with the Old Acts of Convocation would have inform'd him what this Phrase ex parte nostrà meant it being the Custom always for the King soon after the Convocation far down to send his Nuntii Speciales thither which were some of his Prime Nobility his Great Officers or Judges and by them to intimate his Demands or Desires to the Clergy And these therefore are said to come ex parte domini Regis every where throughout the Archbishops Registers Dr. W. cannot be ignorant enough to think that the Clergy had Then no Power of entring on any Deliberations except what those Honourable Messengers recommended to them Prohibitions were at that time usual sent sometimes in Writing and sometimes denounced Viva Voce by the Judges who came along with the Great Men that brought the King's Message By These the Clergy were forbid to treat of any thing wherein the King's Crown and Dignity was concern'd which implys them at Liberty to treat of every thing in which they were not thus prohibited Their Debates indeed were bounded by the Nature and Ends of the Assembly it self which confined them to Matters properly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance and such as related to their Own Order and did no ways entrench on the King's Prerogative and on the Laws of the Realm But in all other respects the Debates and Proceedings of Convocation were then under as little restraint as those of Parliament The form of the Convocation-Writ therefore is of no manner of service to Dr. W. and had been better let alone by him than produced as indeed all his Learning of this kind had in which he is very Improper and Unlucky for he scarce ever medles with a Writ without giving the Reader some occasion or other to pitty his Ignorance before he has done with it This having secur'd the Two Points laid down at the En-I trance of these Sheets against all Exceptions I am now at Leysure to make out upon him and by briefly running over what there is in his Book of this or the like nature to shew how unqualify'd a Man he was to meddle in the present Dispute and how utterly a stranger he is to all that Knowledge that
Chapterhouse appears to have been the Place of Reception for the Convocation Clergy * See Wals. Hist. Angl. ad ann 1421. and in the 4 H. V. the Rolls say Le Chanceleur per commandment du Roy assigna a les ditz Chivalers Citizeins Burgeoises une Maison appellee le Froitour dedeinz L'abbee de Westminster a tenir en yâ—elle leur Counseilles Assemblees and in the 6 H. VI. it is said to be the place where the Commons ordinarily sat ‖ The Roll goes further and says Eorum Domus Communis antiquitùs usitata in a Manuscript of Mr. Petyt printed by Bishop Burnet †Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. Coll. of Rec. p. 100. But though the Place of their Meeting puzzles him yet the Time it seems does not for as to That he informs us that the Clergy who met by vertue of the Convocation-Writ in Parliament time came together heretofore on some Other Day than that on which the Parliament began †P. 224. He knows not it seems that they have done so a late too and that the Custom for an Age and half was for them to assemble the Day after the Parliament This Usage began in the time of H. the VIII th and was then often practis'd but not regularly fix'd till toward the latter End of his Reign from which time to the late Revolution it held and from thence the Parliament and Convocation-Writs have Summon'd to the very same day which has joyn'd these two Bodys yet more closely than formerly in their Summons though their Assemblys at the same time are more than ever divided My Lord of Sarum therefore had not well consider'd this matter when he said that it was the Custom of all H. the VIII's Reign for the Convocation to meet two or three days after the Parliament †Vol. 1. p. 213. For besides that it sometimes met before it for instance in 1511 2. the Convocation came together Feb. 2. * Registr Hadr. de Castello the Parliament not till Feb. 4. †Dâ—gd Summ. 3 H. 8 th the very Instance upon which his Lordship produces this Observation destroys it for the Convocation of 1536. began Iune 9 th the Parliament Iune the 8 th And indeed near half the Convocations in that Princes time met as they did till the present Reign nicely the day after the Parliament as will appear by particularly comparing the Dates of both of them Parliament Met 1514 5 Feb. 5. Dugd. Sum. 1515 Nov. 12. Ibid. 1536 Iune 8. Ibid. 1540 Apr. 12. Bp. Burnet V. 1. p. 274. 1544 5 Ian. 30. Dugd. 1545 Nov. 23. Ibid. 1546 7 Ian. 14. Ibid. Convocation Met Feb. 6. Registr Warham Nov. 13. Registr Hadr. de Cast. Iune 9. Ibid. Apr. 13. Registr Cranmer Ian. 31. Ibid. Nov. 24. Ibid. Ian. 15. Ibid. And the same Distance of Time was often also observ'd both in Proroguing and Dissolving that Princes Convocations and Parliaments As to the Authority by which the Clergy were conven'd Dr. W. affords us as little light in That Point too as in any of the former He recites the Opinion of some who think that after the statute of Premunire in 1393. our Archbishops left off to summon Convocations by their Own Authority and call'd them only at the King's Command †Pp. 240 241. but in this account he says he is not altogether satisfied Had he any manner of Knowledge of these things he would not be at all satisfy'd with it For as in Fact it is certain that the Archbishop after this time summon'd Convocations frequently by his Own Authority so it is clear in point of Law that he had as much Right to do it after the Statute of Premunire as before it there being no Clause or Word in that Act that can be suppos'd to restrain His Power in this particular Indeed had the Archbishop whenever he call'd a Convocation without the King 's Writ done it by a Legatin Authority as Dr. W. represents him to have done * P. 241 199. there would have been some Ground to think that the Premunire Act might have laid a Restraint upon him But this is another of Dr. W's mistakes for the Archbishop needed no Help from his Legatin Character to convene the Clergy of his Province which he was sufficiently impower'd to do as Metropolitan by the Old Canons of the Church receiv'd and allow'd in this Kingdom And accordingly by this Metropolitical Power the Archbishops all along call'd Provincial Councils before any of them were the Popes Legates which from St. Austin down to Theobald say some * Ant. Brit. p. 127. to William de Corboyl say others †Gervasii Act Pont Cant. X Script col 1663. none of them were He indeed by vertue of his New Character summon'd the Archbishop of York and all the Clergy of that Province ⸪ Ibid. Continuator Florentii Wig. ad ann 1127. to his Councils and One of his Successors ‖ Hubert who is suppos'd by some to have got the Title of Legatus natus for ever annex'd to his See did Iure Legationis visit York Province †Hoveden ad ann 1195. And in order to these Extraprovincial Acts of Jurisdiction the Legatine Authority was indeed needful For tho' it had been solemnly determin'd in favour of Lanfrank by the Great Council of the Kingdom ⸫ Diceto de Archi. Cant. p. 685. that the See of York should be subject to that of Cant. and the Archbishop of the One obey the Conciliary summons of the other yet was not this Decision long observ'd the Archbishop of York soon finding means to get rid of it and to assert the Independency of his See But as to the Ordinary Acts of Metropolitical Power One of which was the calling of the Clergy of his Province together at Times prescrib'd by the Canons the Archbishop had no more want of a Legatine Character to qualify him for the Exercise of them than a Private Bishop had or now has for summoning a Diocesan Synod nor was it as the Law then stood any more an Encroachment upon the Royal Authority Dr. W. therefore is not very kind to the Memory of our Archbishops nor a Friend to the Antient Libertys of this Church when he asserts that all those Synods which the Metropolitan call'd without a Writ from the King were Legatine and upon that notion dates the Disuse of them at least as to their frequency from the Statute of Premunire which did no ways and could no ways affect them For after this Statute most of Arundel's Synods met by the Archbishop's Writ only as Dr. W. †P. 280. himself tells us from Harpsfield and might have told us yet more authentickly from that Archbishop's Register yet remaining This account of Harpsfield puts him upon fixing on a New Aera and now therefore he will have it that about the End of Arundel's time the King began wholly to assume this Power and this he
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