antedictus cum Consensu Confratrum suorum Episcoporum praedict eò quòd eis constat duas Sententias Definitivas fuisse contra dictum Doctorem Cawley in eodem latas unam in almâ Curiâ Cant. de Arcubus alteram in supremâ Curiâ Delegatorum quòd Commissio pro Revisione dicti negotij fuit per Serenissimos in Christo Principes ac Dominos nostros Dominos Willelmum Mariam Dei Gratiâ Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae Regem Reginam fidei Defensores c. ad petitionem dicti Doctoris Cawley concessa quòd idem negotium per Judices Revisionis non est adhuc decisum dimisit dictum Magistrum Oldys ab omni ulteriori Judicij observatione The foregoing Instances are all the Light we have from our Books touching the Determination of Controverted Elections And I observe from them No question whether the Archbishop have a Right to determin Elections 1. That it is no part of the Question Whether the Metropolitan at the Head of his Suffragan-Bishops have a Right to receive Petitions touching controverted Elections or Whether he may proceed to the Examination and final Decision of them in the Upper-house The Exercise of all these appears evidently in the Instances of 1689 where we see a Petition is offer'd receiv'd and consider'd and of 1586 where Sentence is actually given by his Grace And what can be more reasonable than that the Archbishop who by his Mandate orders the Election of Members and has the Returns of all Elections made ultimately to him who also at the Opening appoints his Commissioners to examin those Returns and during the Convocation presides over the Lower as well as the Upper House what I say can be more natural than that he should have a direct and immediate Right to take Cognizance how far such Elections with the Returns thereupon are duly and regularly made But I could never learn how the Lower-house could have a Power to Interpose about Returns whether made unduly or not at all otherwise than by Petitioning the Metropolitan upon some extraordinary Occasion that he will please to demand or examin them as of right to be made to him and none else But in the Acts of the last Convocation Anno 1700. Sess 4. The Lower-house have no Right to intermeddle in Returns I find an Instance of the Lower-house's taking Cognizance of a Return and that in a very singular manner The Words are these Propositum fuit per Guil. Bincks S. T. P. c. ad effectum sequen That whereas there hath been no Return made from the Chapter of Litchfield of a Member to serve for them in this present Convocation and whereas the said William Bincks being a Member of that Chapter inform'd this House that the Defect of such Return was occasion'd by a Dispute that hapn'd before the said Chapter concerning the Election of a Proctor to represent them That therefore this House would order a Letter to be sent sign'd by Mr. Prolocutor in the name of this Lower-house to the Dean and Chapter of the said Cathedral Church of Litchfield desiring them forthwith to transmit the whole Proceedings concerning the said Election under their common Seal to this House Cui consensum fuit This so Solemnly pass'd and enter'd thus circumstantially may be a temptation to Presbyters if the same Spirit should hereafter arise to take the cognizance of Returns and thereby the Jurisdiction over the Members out of the hands of the Metropolitan But care I hope will be taken to leave some publick testimony of the offence it gave to his Grace and the Bishops whose Rights were jointly invaded by this Act of the Lower House For it is very plain both in Law Reason and Practice that the Enquiry after such a Return ought to have gone by the same Course or Chanel through which the Return it self if made was to have pass'd viz. from the Archbishop to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Dean 2. It is no part of the Dispute Whether the Metropolitan may enjoyn the Inferior Clergy to Examin and Determin Controverted Elections His Grace's Power to require their Assistance and their Obligation to pursue his Directions are both sufficiently express'd in that remarkable Instance from the second Convocation of 1640. 3. Nor can it be a question Whether his Grace having Commission'd the Prolocutor or Lower House to examin any doubtful Election may not take it out of their hands into his own immediate Cognizance if he see Cause This I think is a Rule in most Commissions and an Express Reservation to that purpose is made in this of 1640 empowering them to proceed donec aliter ordinatum fuerit Thus the Archbishop's Right to determine Controversies about Elections is uncontested But the Question is Whether the Right be solely in his Grace exclusive of the Inferior Clergy or Whether the Lower House have not a concurrent Right The Arguments for a concurrent Right in the Lower-house consider'd Anno 1586 In behalf of a Concurrent Right two Instances are pleaded I. That of 1586. Sess 3. 4. Where we find the Prolocutor examining Witnesses upon Oath appointing the Parties a time of Appearance and then giving the final Sentence or Judgment But we must observe as to the Point before us 1. That the Upper-House-Books of that time are not in being nor can it possibly be known whether he had not such a Commission from his Grace as we are sure was given afterwards to the Prolocutor and Lower House in 1640. Two Elections of the same Diocese were determin'd the same day one by the Archbishop the other by the Prolocutor And I think it is not likely that one of these Appellants should make original Application to the Upper and the other to the Lower House but much more probable that the Petition in both Cases was first offer'd to his Grace and that he divided the Work of Examining and Determining between himself in the Upper and the Prolocutor in the Lower House 2. The Prolocutor we see examins the Witnesses upon Oath and the very Writer who in all other respects is the main Advocate for the Independence of the Lower House solves the Prolocutor's giving an Oath by an Authority deriv'd immediately from the Archbishop The Words are these Pâ—…er of the Lower-house p. 7. c. 2. The Prolocutor was on that Day put into the Archbishop's Commission for Proroguing the Upper House in order I suppose to empower him to give Oaths as he did at the trial of an Election that day below I know the Narrative says P â—4 in the Name of the Majority That they are well assur'd that the Prolocutor has this Power by Virtue of his Office This is roundly spoken but to make others also assur'd it had been kind to offer some Reasons why the Prolocutor of the Spiritual Commons is in this Particular above the Speaker of the Commons Temporal And such Reasons had been the more necessary when they took upon them to
the known Rules of a Provincial Synod viz. to be summon'd before their Metropolitan and to the Place he should think fit to appoint and in the manner that was usual in all other Convocations For the Archbishop had a Right to call a Convocation at pleasure till the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 19. absolutely restrained him from doing it unless empower'd by the King 's Writ Which effected this Alteration in the Summons that whereas before it was issu'd sometimes upon the Pleasure of the Prince signified to the Archbishop and sometimes upon the Archbishop's alone the Authority of the Summons in both resting equally in his Grace Now he is restrain'd from the Exercise of that Authority till he receive leave or direction from the Prince The Summons upon that intimation of the Royal Pleasure being still issued in his Grace's Name and under the Archiepiscopal Seal that is remaining as properly Authoritative as before * See this point proved more largely in Right of the Archbishop 9 c. II. For whereas in the late comparisons of a Convocation and Parliament the parallel lies between the Archbishop in the first and the Lord Chancellor in the second the share they have in the Summoning these two Bodies is very different The Warrant to the Lord Chancellor who acts Ministerially The Lord Chancellor or Keeper receives a Warrant from the King whereby his Majesty signifies his Resolution to call a Parliament In which case divers and sundry Writs are to be directed forth under our Great Seal of England c. Wherefore we Will and Command you forthwith upon the receipt hereof and by Warrant of the same to cause such and so many Writs to be made and sealed under our Great Seal for the accomplishment of the same as in like cases hath been heretofore used and accustom'd c. What the King in this case requires of the Lord Chancellor is in a way purely Ministerial his Lordship being commanded to act only in his Majesties Name and under his Seal i. e. solely by his Authority while the Archbishop is only Licens'd or Directed to Exert a Power and Authority which belongs to him as well in the common Right of a Metropolitan as by the antient Laws and Customs of this Realm In virtue whereof he directs his Mandate to the Bishop of London whose Office it is as his Grace's Dean of the Province to Execute that Mandate and whose part therefore in the calling a Convocation answers to that of the Lord Chancellor in the Summons of a Parliament Both of them Act Ministerially in the Name and by the Authority the one of his Civil and the other of his Ecclesiastical Superior The Writ for a Parliament issu'd in the King's Name by the Lord Chancellor summons the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Personally to attend his Majesty on a certain day at Westminster Vobis in side legiantia quibus nobis tenemini firmiter injungendo Mandamus quod consideratis Dicto die loco personaliter intersitis nobiscum And another also in his Majesty's Name to the Sheriff of each County commands him to take care that the Knights Citizens and Burgesses duly Elected pay their Attendance to the King at the same Place But the Archbishop in his Mandate executed by the Bishop of London first reciting the Royal Writ to shew that the Restraint of the Statute is taken off Summons the Bishops and Clergy of his Province to appear before himself in his Provincial Convocation at St. Pauls Quod iidem Episcopi Decani Archidiaconi caeteri Ecclesiarum Cathedralium Praelati c. compareant coram nobis aut nostro in hac parte locum tenente sive Commissario in Domo Capitulari Ecclesiae Cathedralis Divi Pauli London The Returns to Parliament to the King The Sheriff of each County is directed in the Royal Writ to make a due Return of his Election to the King in his Court of Chancery Et Electionem tuam in pleno Comitatu tuo factam distinctè apertè sub sigillo tuo sigillis eorum qui Electioni illi interfuerint nobis in Cancellariâ nostrâ ad diem locum in Brevi Contentum certifices indilatè In Convocation to the Archbishop By the Archbishop's Mandate the Bishop of each Diocese to whom the immediate Execution thereof belongs is directed to make the Return to his Grace or his Commissary Et praeterea vobis ut supra injungimus quòd omnibus singulis Coepiscopis Suffraganeis Provinciae nostrae Cant. injungatis injungi faciatis ut singuli eorum sigillatim de facto suo quatenus pertinet ad eosdem Nos seu locum-tenentem sive Commissarium unum vel plures dictis die horâ loco per literas eorum Patentes Nomina Cognomina omnium singulorum per eos respectivè Citatorum continentes distinctè certificent apertè These Returns are ultimately deposited in their proper Offices the Parliamentary in his Majesties Court of Chancery and those to Convocation in the Register of the See of Canterbury That is the due Execution of each being immediately certified to the Person from whom the Command comes and in whose Power it is to punish the default the Testimonies of that Execution rest and stop at the Authority The Summons not less Ecclesiastical for its being enjoined by the Prince from whence the Summons in both cases immediately flow'd Thus far to the Honour of our Reform'd Church nothing appears in the manner of an English Convocation but what is truly Ecclesiastical or in other Words suitable to the Constitution and Government of an Episcopal Church as well as the Degrees and Order of the Members whereof it consists Bating I mean that one Restraint which the Statute has laid upon the Archbishop from calling a Convocation at pleasure as the antient Metropolitans and our own here in England before that Statute had a right to do For as to the Archbishop's exercising his Summoning Authority at the Command of the King this is so far from changing our Convocations into Civil Meetings that 't is no more than an obedience which has been ever paid to Christian Princes by the Governours of National Churches planted and establish'd under their Influence and Protection Nor in our own did the Archbishop's calling his Clergy upon the King 's Writ or without it ever make the least Alteration in the stated Ecclesiastical Methods of Summoning All these God be thank'd are still pretty entire and I hope safe enough against the Endeavours of some restless Men who would perswade us that they are pleading the Cause of the Church in doing all they possibly can to make her a meer Creature of the State The Clergy not Summon'd in the same manner from the beginning This has ever been the Method of Summoning a Convocation but as to the Members summon'd the Cathedral and Diocesan Clergy were not from the beginning represented as now they are by Persons of
Retirements The President commands the Clergy Vt ad locum eis ab clim in hujusmodi actibus solitum consuetum viz. locum inferiorem subtus dictam domum Capitularem ad electionem sive nominationem futuri Prolocutoris Cleri ritè processuri unanimiter insimul declinarent The Separation of the Bishops and Clergy stated upon the foregoing Acounts From the Particulars of this Chapter there arises this natural Account of the Separation of the two Houses While they met abode and debated together in the Chapter-House their Separations were rare because the Occasions requiring the Retirement of the Clergy were so too As the Business of Convocation increas'd these Retirements and by consequence the Separations became more ordinary and frequent 'Till by degrees upon the evident Inconvenience of the Clergy's going up in a Body with all their Answers and Petitions for so they did at the first notwithstanding their choice of a Prolocutor the Archbishop and Bishops on ordinary Occasions accepted the Attendance of a Prolocutor regularly chosen and confirm'd instead of all the rest returning their Pleasure and Instructions by the same Hand From hence there ensu'd a gradual Separation as to the Place of Debate the Vnion and Communication in other respects remaining entire and the Correspondenee about the Business of the Synod continuing such as is suitable to the known Subordination of Presbyters to their Metropolitan and Bishops Nor are the Debates themselves so separated but that the Archbishop and Bishops as oft as they saw cause for debating together have always sent for the Inferior Clergy to the Upper-House either in a Body or by the Prolocutor with some few of the Members Reverendissimus c. fecit ad se vocari Clerum Accersito Clero c. Who coming up and conferring with their Lordships as long as the Occasion of sending for them requir'd were dismiss'd from further Attendance at that time and being dismiss'd return'd to their own House Dimisso Prolocutore c. is the ordinary Style of the Registers in all such Cases as appears from those two of 1640. and 1661. c. which are publish'd at large in the Appendix If this be a true Account as no Account from the Registers themselves can be otherwise it is hard to believe that the Acts of Convocation were ever seen by those who have lately disputed the President 's Right of Assigning them a Place and have talk'd so much of their distinct Capacity as deriv'd from an Imitation of the House of Commons and rais'd so many Uncanonical Exemptions with I know not what degrees of Inherent Power from the Denomination of a House and their seperate Debates Nar. p. 41. Nar. p. 40. 41. Answ to 1st Let. p. 2. Nar. p. 17. Power of L. H. p 2. CHAP. VI. The manner of ENTRING upon Business in Convocation The Archbishop declares the Causes of the Convocation THE Members of Convocation being setled by the Returns of the Bishops made and exhibited to his Grace he in virtue thereof has a Right to their Attendance as they have to proceed with him in the Business of Convocation And therefore the Bishops and Clergy being together in one Body at the opening thereof it has been the Usage of Convocation especially when met upon Business of great Moment for the President to explain to them the Causes and Ends of his Summoning it at that time So Archbishop Parker explains the Custom of his own and former Ages Forma Conv. Reverendissimus ad Episcopos Clerum tunc praesentes Anglicè sive latinè Causam sui Adventûs ac dictae Convocationis inchoatae exponit And another more early Directory for the first day of Convocation in Edward VI.'s Time The Clergie of thinferior House to be called up to the Chapitour his Grace to declare the Cause of this Convocation The Clergy order'd to Retire and debate about the Business of Convocation as declar'd by the Archbishop At the same time that the Registers speak of the President 's declaring the Causes of the Convocation in this solemn manner they generally add that the Clergy were thereupon requir'd to go down to their House and confer about the matter propos'd to them by his Grace who also very frequently enjoyn'd the Return of their Answers within a certain time Anno 1369. Kal. Febr. The Archbishop assidentibus confratribus c. Procuratoribus Cant. Provinciae coram eo c. explains to them the Necessities of the Kingdom and proposes a Supply And then it follows Et super petitione praedictâ rogavit dictos Religiosos quòd se insimul traherent ad aliquam partem Ecclesiae praedictae Clerum suae Dioeceseos Prov. quòd and aliam partens ejusdem Ecclesiae se traherent tractarent delibearent de petitione praedict quid quantum concedere velint deliberatione habitâ per cosdem sibi referre intimare de voluntate corum in dictâ domo Capitulari super praemissis die crastino Anno 1379. May 9. The Archbishop explains the Occasions of the Meeting Reformation and Subsidy And then Habitâ in Domo Capitulari inter Praelatos Procuratores quadam deliberatione super materiâ Convocationis idem Pater injunxit singulis Procuratoribus quòd eodem die post prandium in dicto loco comparerent tractaturi super materia antedictâ Anno 1383. Dec. 2. The Archbishop explains the Cause of the Convocation's meeting And the next Session Praecepit Procuratoribus quòd ad aliquem locum in tali negotio hactenùs consuetum se declinarent ac de super negotio c. per ipsum eis exposito diligenter tractarent super deliberatione suâ in eâ parte Responsum sibi Confratribus suis ibidem protunc personaliter existentibus mellori modo et forma quibus poterant praeberent Anno 1399. Oct. 8. Coram Domino comparuerunt personaliter Reverendi in Chisto Patres c. Praelatorum Cleri Provinciae antedictae Procuratores expositâ ibidem per Dominum Causa Convocationis tractabant ipse Dominus Reverendi Patres Episcopi per se de negotiis communibus Ecclesiae aliis Praetit Procuratoribus Cleri scorsim separatis Anno 1408. July 23. The Archbishop explains the Causes of their Meeting and then Clero verò Inferiori à praefatis majoribus Praelatis seorsim separato in Scolis Theologiae sub domo Capitulari praefatâ juxta assignationem Archiepiscopi conveniente more solito iidem Venerabiles Patres c. Anno 1415. Nov. 18. Reverendissimus Pater conveniens in domo Capitulari Ecclesiae S. Pauli cum Suffraganeis suis Abbatibus Prioribus Decanis Archidiaconis Procuratibus Cleri suae Provinciae in multitudine copiosâ exposuit eis Causas suae Convocationis quibus expositis Decani Archidiaconi Procuratores Capitulorum Cleri de mandato dicti Reverendissimi Patris traxerunt se in domum inferiorem sub domo praedict Capitulari intra tempus
dissent from the express Judgment of a Writer who understands the Value of his own Opinions too well to be easy under Contradiction But leaving that Point to be disputed between this Author and the Majority of the House the Circumstance upon which I chiefly insist in this Matter is It was not the House but the Prolocutor who determin'd the Election 3. That those of the Lower Clergy contend not for this Power of determining Elections as lodg'd in the Prolocutor but in their House and not the least Mention is made of the House or any Member of it in determining this Election of 1586. but the Proceeding and Sentence run solely in the name of the Prolocutor The Question therefore is By whose Authority was that Sentence given It must be either from his Grace or from the House The Journal tho' very exact and particular makes not the least mention of the House's interposing which Silence is the stronger Argument that they had no Right to interpose the Matter in all appearance being committed to the Prolocutor alone because in the other Instances of 1640. when the Prolocutor and Lower Clergy were all equally concern'd the whole Proceeding was carry'd on in the name of the House Coram Dominis Praelatis Cleris comparuerunt Domini and Domini Praelati interrogârunt determinationem continuà runt consenserunt censuerunt rebus sic stantibus nihil statuendum c. And when they came to Sentence Domus ad eorum finale decretum processit and Post Suffragia Domûs in eâ parte fact declararunt ordinarunt Suffragiis in eâ parte promulgatis Dominus Prolocutor de cum consensu c. pronunciavit Considering how distinctly the Minutes of 1640. express the part which the House had in these Proceedings I leave it to the Opinion of every Reader whether the compleat Journal of 1586. would not have left us some Foot-steps at least of the Houses's Concern at that time either in the Course of the Proceeding or at least the final Sentence if the Cause had not been committed to the sole Examination and Decision of the Prolocutor And if the Power was solely in him it can be no Question whether he deriv'd from the House who were present and might as well have proceeded by their own immediate Authority if any such had been lodg'd in them or from the Archbishop who could not be there in Person whose Absence the Prolocutor supplies in all other Respects and who was also hearing a like Cause in the Upper-house at the same time The Instance of 1640. consider'd II. The other Instance of a Right in the Lower-house to take Cognizance of Elections concurrent with that of his Grace is in some respects more full to their purpose than the foregoing Testimony In the Year 1640. Nov. 11. the House appointed a Committee upon a controverted Election in Lincoln-Diocese which Committee met Nov. 12. and yet the Archbishop appears not to have interpos'd till Nov. 14. nay the Preface to the Order he then gave shews that to have been the first time of his interposing Reverendissimus eis significavit quòd ipse audivit esse quasdam discrepantias c. As far then as a single Instance can affect the Rights of a Judicial Court and alter the natural Course of legal Proceedings and establish a concurrent Jurisdiction so far is this Instance before us a Testimony of the Lower-house's Right to enquire into the Circumstances of doubtful Elections I say to Enquire It goes no farther than Enquiring for this Precedent goes no farther than an Enquiry about the Custom of the Diocese in their Election of Proctors and a Right founded upon a single Precedent can never be extended beyond that Precedent It proceeds not to a formal Examination of Witnesses upon Oath and much less to a final Judgement These and all the other marks of a Judicial Proceeding commence upon his Grace's Special Order to the Prolocutor and House ut examinarent determinarent juxta Juris Exigentiam Consuetudines cujuslibet Dioeceseos donec aliter ordinatum fuerit From which Order I think these three things are fairly infer'd 1. That if Archbishop Laud had thought the Lower-house to have an inherent Power of Examining and Determining Judicially he would not have interpos'd in that Matter after they were actually enter'd upon their Enquiries 2. That if the Clergy themselves had believ'd such a Power to be lodg'd in their House they would have declar'd against that Interposition as an Invasion of their own inherent Authority 3. That in Virtue of the Reservation donec aliter ordinatum fuerit it still remain'd in his Grace's Power to revoke that Order and either to put a stop to the Proceeding or to remove it as he should see cause to his own immediate Cognizance III. An Additional Account of the Substitution of a Prolocutor IN explaining the Election and Office of a Procutor Chap. IV. I took occasion to consider how far he had a Right to make a Substitution in cases of Sickness or Business For tho' the Speaker of the House of Commons as executing that Office upon a Royal Confirmation never pretended to depute another tho' also the Confirmation of the Archbishop and Bishops be no less necessary in order to execute the Office of a Prolocutor and tho' lastly it appear that Applications for leave to substitute in those Cases have been actually made to the Upper-house yet against all these it had been confidently affirm'd that the Deputations of this kind might be made without the Archbishop's Consent or Privity Power of the Lower-house p. 9. c. 1. and the manner of making them is farther urg'd to give the Prolocutor some such Figure in the Lower-house as the Archbishop is known to have in the Upper The late Substitution in 1701. That Writer had conceal'd all the Instances of Application for Leave made to the President and Bishops but he was afterwards put in mind of them by the Author of the Right of the Archbishop p. 66 67. Very lately a Substitution being made by the Prolocutor upon the Authority of a Precedent already consider'd in the Year 1640 V. Sup. p. 76. the Person so deputed was actually put into the Chair without the Approbation or Knowledge of the Archbishop and Bishops The Account of it in a Paper markt Numb 1. To justify the Proceedings of the Majority in this and some other Particulars a Paper came out markt Numb 1. in the way of a News-Letter and in Truth much of the same Authority both in the Relation of Facts and the Reasonings upon them with the flying Intelligence of other kinds Only there is this difference in the Case of our Ecclesiastical News-Writer and his Brother Intelligencers their imperfect Representations are usually the Effects of Ignorance and Haste but his savours too much of Partiality and Design God knows it is a sad Omen to our poor Church that any of her own Ministers can thus triumph in her Misfortunes and comply
directly upon themselves For it was in their own Power upon this Principle to become a House when they pleas'd and not the less so for his Grace's Delaying the Appointment of a Common Referendary But in truth since the Separation of the two Houses in their Debates the title of Prolocutor has comprehended all the Offices of the Place as the Confirmation of his Grace and the Bishops has been ever thought to Instate him in the Office and make the Lower Clergy a House to act in a due Subordination to those their Superiors And this new division of the Office is evidently fram'd to Support the notion of their being a Separate House and in a Condition to debate business of their own antecedent to this Act and the Authority of their Lordships Which being once allow'd would quickly establish them in a Co-ordinate State and open a way to any degrees of Independence they should hereafter please to insist on IV. Additional Observations touching the AUTHORITY of the SUMMONS to Convocation The Authority of Summoning appli'd both to the King and the Archbishop P. 189. The title of the Convocation of 1562. as of others since the Act of Submission runs thus Convocatio Praelatorum Cleri Cantuar. Provinciae inchoat in Domo Capitulari Ecclesiae Divi Pauli London Auctoritate Brevis Regij Reverendissimo c. in hac parte directi c. P. 1. App. The form of holding a Convocation drawn by Archbishop Parker for that of 1562. begins thus Sciendum est quòd omnes qui Auctoritate Reverendissimi Domini Archiepiscopi Cant. citantur ad comparendum coram eo in in Domo Capitulari Ecclesiae Cathedralis Divi Pauli London c. The Titles of our Convocations before and since the Reformation agree in the first Clause Convocatio Praelatorum Cleri Cantuarlensis Provinciae which shews that by our Protestant Constitution they are no less an Ecclesiastical and Provincial Synod of Bishops and their Clergy under one common head the Metropolitan of of the Province than in the times of Popery they were If therefore the Clergy as has been pleaded of late be not comprehended in that Phrase Convocationem Praelatorum Cleri in the form of Continuing they are by the same rule no Members of an English Convocation But whereas the Convocations before the Reformation are generally said in the Title to be Factae per Reverendissimum c. upon the Submission Act the Style seems to have been chang'd because the first title we have entire after that Act this I mean of 1562. makes the Convocation to be begun Auctoritate Brevis Regij Reverendissimo c. direct And yet we see that Archbishop Parker lookt upon the Convocation of that very Year to be Cited or Summon'd Auctoritate Reverendissimi c. Hereupon a question arises about the true meaning of the term Authoritas as us'd in these titles and on some other Occasions In what Sense the Bishops and Clergy are said to be Summon'd to Convocation by the King's Authority and in what by the Authority of the Archbishop The Archiepiscopal Summons Authoritative before the Act. It is agreed on all hands that before the Act of Submission an English Convocation was Summon'd by the Sole Authority of the Metropolitan Nor do we deny that Act to have been a confiderable Abridgment of the Liberties of the Church in the matter of holding Synods but only that it did not so far affect the Ecclesiastical Power as to change them into Civil Meetings i. e. Meetings Summon'd and acting in virtue of that Summons immediately upon a Civil Authority The Civil Summons an argument of the Papists against our Reformation This Civil Summons and the Authority of it has been warmly asserted by two sorts of Persons 1. By the Papists who ever since the Reformation have taken the Advantage of that Act of Submission to asperse our Protestant Synods as Civil Meetings and the Canons c. made in them as of a Secular Original 2. By some late Opposers of the Metropolitical and Episcopal Authority in Convocation One of whom forms this New and very Uncanonical Scheme of Summoning and Holding Synods upon that Expression in the Submission-Act The Authority by which the Convocation meets is now purely Royal Power of the Lower House p. 3. c. 1. The words of the Act are express in the case which shall always be assembled by Authority of the King 's Writ So that since this Statute the Archbishop's share in Convening them is not Authoritative but Ministerial And when therefore he frames his Mandate upon the King 's Writ he does it as the King's Instrument only and the proper Officer who is to execute the Royal Summons The Argument arising from hence is that his Grace has now no Authority to Convene the Body of the Clergy Again Ibid. p. 17. c. 1. 2. An English Metropolitan Presiding over a Synod c. call'd together not any way by his but purely by Royal Authority And in another place Ibid. p. 20. c. 2. The Convocation Subsists by the King 's Writ Let the most virulent Adversary of this Protestant Church frame if he can a description of its Synodical Meetings that shall be a deeper Reproach to our happy Reformation Against the first sort of Adversaries the Papists and Protestants one would think should be as easily answer'd a full Vindication of our Reform'd Church has been built upon the Genuine meaning of the Act of Submission interpreted according to the true intent thereof and the antecedent and subsequent Practice with other Circumstances all which we have been forc'd more particularly to Urge and enforce of late to defend the honour of our Constitution against the Second sort of Adversaries also As The intent of the Statute no more than to restrain the Archbishop from exerting his Authority without the Royal License That the Crown did not want the Assistance of any Act to have a Convocation at pleasure because the Right of enjoyning the Archbishop to Summon it in due form as our Princes saw Occasion was always thought a Power Inherent in the Crown and was all along practis'd in England both before and since the Reformation and is indeed a Right belonging to Christian Princes in general But till the Act of Submission the Archbishop also had a Power of Summoning Convocations according to the Exigencies of the Church without the permission or direction of the Royal Writ And King Henry VIII apprehending that the Archbishop Bishops and Clergy in Convocation might protest against or obstruct his Measures of Reformation got a sufficient Security against that danger by making himself in virtue of that Act the Sole Judge when a Convocation should be Summon'd As the King neither gain'd nor wanted more than this so nothing was taken from the Archbishop but the ancient Right of Exerting his Summoning Authority AT PLEASURE the Authority it self remaining Entire and as full and effectual as ever when that Restraint is taken off The Power