the Inferiour Clergy in Convocation 146 CHAP. XII The Share of right belonging to the Clergy in preparing and in presenting the Gravamina and Reformanda 147 The GRAVAMINA often consider'd and presented with the Subsidies 147 The Gravamina how address'd by the Clergy 151 The time when Grievances shall be propos'd at the discretion of the Vpper House ibid. Grievances first offer'd in a general Representation vivâ voce 152 The Clergy's Right to Redress and the manner thereof 154 The REFORMANDA frequently propos'd by the Archbishop among the Causes of Convocation 155 The Clergy's Right to propose Reformations 157 The Clergy's Right to bring in Schedules of Reformation 159 A short state of the Reformanda from the foregoing Accounts 161 The Care of the Reformanda in Parliamento usually left to the Archbishop and Bishops 162 Deputies appointed by Convocation to Assist in Soliciting ibid. CHAP. XIII The Clergy's Right to offer Petitions of other Kinds 164 The several sorts of Petitions particularly occurring in the Acts of Convocation not specified to restrain the Clergy from Petitions of other kinds 1. For making new Canons 164 2. For the revival of old ones 165 3. For the Abolition or Suspension of Laws ibid. 4. About Festivals 166 5. For the Archbishop's Intercession with the King ibid. 6. For the more strict Execution of Discipline 167 Petitions of several kinds An. 1555. 167 Clergy's Petitions of all kinds presented immediately to the Vpper-house 168 The usual Time of presenting such Petitions 169 CHAP. XIV The Part to which the Clergy have a Right in Judicial Cases in Convocation The Occasion of bringing Offenders ordinarily try'd in the Bishops Courts before the Convocation 169 Constitution for bringing Hereticks before the Convocation 170 Offenders usually said to be brought Coram Archiepiscopo Episcopis Clero as the Judicature 171 The Sentence ran in the Name of the Archbishop by authority of the Synod 171 This Account not oppos'd to any Restraints laid upon the whole Convocation by subsequent Statutes ibid. CHAP. XV. The Clergy's Right of a Negative or Final Dissent from the Vpper-house 172 The Original of the Clergy's Negative ibid. A Negative or Final Dissent a peculiar but yet establisht Right of the English Clergy 173 All Denials of the Clergy ever made with great Humility and Condescension ibid. This no prejudice to the Clergy's absolute Right to a final dissent 175 CHAP. XVI The manner of Passing business in Convocation 176 The manner of Consenting in the Lower-house ibid. The Circumstances of that Consent in some Instances reported to the Vpper-house 177 All Instruments read publickly and finally agreed to in the Upper-house 178 The Sanction of the Metropolitan ibid. Articles Canons c. pass'd otherwise viz. by Subscription 180 Why Articles Canons c. pass now by Subscription 182 CHAP. XVII Of Proroguing and Dissolving The Royal Writs for these purposes necessarily directed to the Archbishop 183 The Archbishop's Prorogations and Dissolutions upon these Writs Authoritative and Canonical 184 The Archbishop executes them by his own Metropolitical Power and in his own Name ibid. The Commissions to do the same things in Parliament express a Special Power and Authority from the King ibid. The Archbishop's Admonitions immediately before Prorogations or Dissolutions 185 The Schedules of Prorogation or Dissolution mention the Royal Writs but run in the name of the Archbishop 186 The English Reformation unjustly charg'd with destroying the Canonical Methods of transacting Ecclesiastical Affairs ibid. APPENDIX containing the Journals of five Convocations With Observations drawn from them concerning 1. The Right of CONTINUING or PROROGUING 2. The Right of determining controverted ELECTIONS 3. The Right of SUBSTITUTING a PROLOCUTOR 4. The AUTHORITY of the Summons to Convocation I. Of the Right of Continuing or Proroguing 223 The Schedule of Continuation constantly mention'd in the Vpper-house-Registers 224 The Antiquity of Schedules in Convocation ibid. The Inferior-Clergy Present at the Archbishop's Continuations 226 A Summary account of the Schedule 227 The deriving our Schedules from the Lateran-Council an improbable Scheme 228 The dispute depends not upon Proroguing by Schedule or otherwise 230 The heads upon which the dispute turns 231 The Schedule evidently comprehends both Bishops and Clergy ibid. The Clause Praelatorum Cleri a genuine part of the Schedule 232 The transmission of the Schedule only a circumstance in this dispute 233 Reasons to believe that the Schedule has been ever sent down 235 The Prolocutor is judge of the Time of Intimating when the President and Bishops don't interpose 234 The Form of Intimating to be taken from the most Exact Journals 235 The ordinary Phrase to be in reason the Establisht Form 236 Declaring by Intimation the ordinary Form ibid. The Prolocutor's Intimation has no reference to the Consent of the House 237 The Intimation given by Command of the President 239 A formal Intimation of the Prolocutor not necessary to Continue the Lower-house 240 The President 's Right to Continue the Clergy in the Upper-house 241 The Phrase Continuavit quoad hanc Domum no argument of a Separate Power in the Lower-house 243 Nor the Phrase in Parliament Dominus Cancell contin praesens Parliamentum 245 A Separate Power of Continuing in the Lower-house opens a way to perpetual Divisions of the Synod 248 Intermediate Sessions a great Irregularity and mischief to the Church 251 The Clergy of former times did not think of Intermediate Sessions 253 II. Observations touching the Right to determine Controverted Elections 256 Instances of such Elections occurring in the Acts. ibid. No question whether the Archbishop have a Right to determine Elections 261 The Lower-house have no Right to intermeddle in Returns 262 The Pretences to a concurrent Right in the Lower-house consider'd 263 The Prolocutor and not the House determin'd the Election in 1586. 265 The Instance of 1640. consider'd 266 III. An Additional account of the Substitution of a Prolocutor 268 The late Substitution in 1701. ibid. The account of it in a Paper markt Numb 1. 269 Orders made in Convocation against publishing the Debates while depending 269 Reasons why a Sub-Prolocutor ought to be confirm'd in the Vpper-house 273 Instances of Substitutions by Authority of the Vpper-house defended against the late Paper Numb 1. 272 The arguments for an Independent Power in the Lower-house answer'd 276 Instances where the Registers of the Vpper-house are Wanting of no force 277 The bare Silence of the Vpper-house-Books no Proof against Positive Evidences 279 The Precedent of 1640. particularly consider'd 280 The Paper Numb 1. speaks against the sense of the House in this matter 281 No difference between a Prolocutor and Referendary 282 The Duties belonging to the Office of a Prolocutor are all annext to that of Reporting as the Consequences of it 284 IV. Additional Observations touching the AUTHORITY of the Summons to Convocation 287 The Authority of Summoning apply'd both to the King and the Archbishop ibid. The Archiepiscopal Summons confess'd to be Authoritative
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
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
which the King gain'd and the Archbishop lost is express'd by the Statute in the word Always Which shall Always be assembled by Authority of the King 's Writ Before that Statute the Convocation had been sometimes call'd at the sole Motion and Pleasure of the Archbishop and sometimes upon the Royal Writ but since the Archbishop is confin'd to wait for the Direction of the Royal Writ The Intention therefore of directing the Royal Writ to the Archbishop is twofold 1. To signify the Pleasure of the Prince that at that particular time his Grace shall exert the summoning-Summoning-Authority inherent in his See as it has been ever exerted at the Command of the Kings of England 2. To be a legal Discharge from the Restraint of this Statute and a Security against the Penalties of Summoning without the Royal License The word Authority in the Statute only implys a le Leave or License For that the word Authority as it stands in the Act was intended for no more than a Leave or License to Summon is evident from the very Submission upon which the Act was immediately founded We will never from henceforth c. unless your Highness by your Royal Assent shall License us to assemble our Convocation And from the Dedication of the Clergy to the King prefixt to the Institution of a Christian Man Without your Majesty's Power and License we acknowledge and confess that we have not Authority to assemble together for any Pretence or Purpose c. And lastly from the Stile given to the Royal-Writ by Queen Elizabeth Cum Nos c. Archiepiscopo mandaverimus eidémque Licentiam Concesserimus quòd Convocari faceret singulos Episcopos c. As therefore the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation apprehensive of the Penalties of the Statute have taken care to use the very Expression of it with Reference to the Royal-Writ so that Expression being directly taken from the Statute is of course to be interpreted according to the Extent and Meaning thereof The Archbishop's Summons Authoritative from the Stile of the Mandate and Returns The Methods of Summoning antecedent and subsequent to that Statute are a clear Argument that the Archbishop's Authority therein remain'd entire That all his Summons before it tho' issu'd upon a Royal Writ and that expressly recited in the Mandate were yet Authoritative is not deny'd And if this Act of Submission had been intended to change the Archiepiscopal Summons into a Ministerial Office it would have given Directions for changing the Authoritative into a Ministerial Stile at least such a Change must of course have been made But no such Alteration appears either in the Mandate or the Dean of the Province's Certificate of the Execution The Writ comes to the Archbishop for it can be directed to none else in the same Stile and Manner as before the Statute it did and is now no otherwise inserted in the Archiepiscopal Mandate than was usual before the Reformation The Archbishop directing that Mandate to the Dean of the Province goes on Breve Regis c. recepimus in haec verba After a recital of the Writ he proceeds Quocirca i. e. having receiv'd this Royal Permission and Direction to exert the Summoning-Power inherent in the See Fraternitati vestrae COMMITTIMUS MANDAMUS VOLUMUS MANDAMUS INJUNGIMUS MANDAMUS All express Terms of Authority in his Grace's own Name and under the Archiepiscopal Seal Accordingly the Dean of the Province's Certificatorium or Return declares his Execution of every particular Branch thereof to have been in Virtue and by Authority of his Grace's Mandate Literas vestras Reverendissimas Citatorias Monitoriales jam dudum nobis sab sigillo vestro directas cum câ quâ decuit Reverentiâ humiliter recepimus Quarum literarum VIGORE pariter AUTORITATE AUTORITATE per receptionem Literarum vestrarum juxta VIM FORMAM EFFECTUM earundem secundum FORMAM TENOREM Literarum Vestrarum In like manner the Returns of all the other Suffragans are made immediately to his Grace and ultimately lodg'd where they ever were before the Submission-Act in the Registry of the Archiepiscopal See Whereas all Executions by the King's Authority are returnable of course into the Offices belonging to the Crown Right of the Archbishop p. 9. c. Hist of Con. p. 14. This Point of the Metropolitan's Authoritative-Summons has been more largely prov'd and explain'd elsewhere But the contrary Doctrine of its being Ministerial is attended with Consequences so very dishonourable to our Reform'd Church that I could not leave the Reader under any Danger of being missed into that Opinion by this general Expression of the Statute transcrib'd from thence into the Titles of our Acts and into some of the Instruments of Convocation For if that new Notion were true the Proceedings of Convocation would be so far from agreeing to the Principles of an Episcopal Church that they would not be the Proceedings of any Church at all The Ecclesiastical Power must then be swallow'd up in the Civil and the Methods of Proceeding would not be influenc'd by the ancient Synodical Rules or the Distinction of Bishops and Presbyters but founded entirely upon a Model fram'd and establisht by the State Enough I think has been said to expose and overthrow that Uncanonical Scheme but because it is come in my way I will take the Opportunity of adding an Observation or two 1. That at the Opening of Convocations as well since as before the Act of Submission the first step in certifying the due Execution of the Summons has been the Exhibiting and Reading the Dean of the Province's Certificatorium or Return directed to the Metropolitan alone in pursuance of whose Command and Authority every particular as we have seen is said to be duly executed Nor has any more Notice been taken of the Royal-Writ than as 't is recited in the Archiepiscopal Mandate just as it was before the Statute at the Opening of all Convocations which were Summon'd upon the Writ 2. The Contumacy pronounc'd thereupon is meerly for not attending according to the Tenor of his Grace's Mandates to the several Bishops with their Lordships Certificates to his Grace of the due Execution and the Censures for Absence being all purely Canonical shew them to be inflicted for an Act of Disobedience to the Authority of their Canonical Superior 3. Cardinal Pool held a Convocation in the Year 1557 the latter end of Queen Mary's Reign and the Title of it is Convocatio sive Sacra Synodus Convocata auctoritate Brevis Regis Philippi Mariae c. Now 't is not to be imagin'd that either the Queen or the Cardinal so remarkably tender of the Privilegdes and Immunities of the Church would have given way to a Convocation upon that Foot had it been the Opinion of those Times that the Authority of the Royal Writ destroy'd that Authoritative Summons which the Archbishops before the Reformation had always exercis'd The Case of the Convocation's being Dissolved by
the Death of the Prince The same Convocation is said in the Extracts out of the Upper-house Books to be Soluta per mortem Reginae Mariae as we find afterwards Anno 1624. that the Convocation was dissolv'd by the Death of King James the First On the contrary before the Reformation Anno 1412. we find that Archbishop Arundel summon'd a Convocation in Obedience to the King 's Writ and yet it was continu'd for some time after the Death of Henry the Fourth Again Anno 1460. Archbishop Bourchier issu'd his Summons in a like Obedience to the Royal Writ but the same Convocation not expiring with the Death of Henry the Sixth continu'd in the Reign of Edward the Fourth The difference in this Matter before and since the Reformation naturally arises from the foregoing Construction of the Submission-Act Before that was made the Archbishop had a Right to hold Convocations independent of the Prince and was by consequence under no Obligation to discontinue them upon the Death or Demise of the Prince He was bound to obey the Royal Writ as oft as it was sent him by exerting the summoning-Summoning-Authority according to the Tenor thereof but he was not absolutely confin'd to wait for and receive such Writ in order to Summon or Hold nor was a Convocation holden by the Archbishop independent of the King an illegal Assembly by the Laws then in being But by the Statute of Submission interpreted in its most genuine Meaning an absolute Restraint is laid upon the Archbishop from holding his Convocation unless authoriz'd so to do by the Royal Writ By this means any such Meeting of the Bishops and Clergy holden by the Archbishop without such Writ is become an illegal Assembly Now the Force of the Writ directed to the Archbishop to take off the Restraint laid upon him by the Statute must cease and expire with the Prince in whose Name and under whose Seal it was issu'd And when that happens the Archbishop is by Law reduc'd to the same Inability to hold a Convocation as he was under before the Reception of such Writ A Dissolution by the King's Death no Prejudice to the Archiepiscopal Authority That therefore a Convocation dies in Law with the Prince resolves wholly into that Incapacity which is acknowledg'd both in this Section and elsewhere to be laid upon the Ecclesiastical Power by the Statute of Submission And so the most that such a Dissolution can infer is that the Archbishop is now uncapable in Law to hold a Convocation unless authoriz'd by the King 's Writ to hold it or in other words that without the Force and Warrant of such Writ he cannot now as before the Statute he could give Subsistence to a Convocation But to argue from hence That the Convocation subsists by the sole Authority of the Crown and that the Authority of the Archbishop is wholly lost and so his share in summoning and holding is purely Ministerial these Inferences are a direct Violence to the Statute such as one would naturally expect from some Advocate of an Erastian-Church or a declar'd Enemy to our Reformation but 't is strange to see a profess'd Member and which is more a Minister of our Reform'd Church wresting the Statute into a Sense so very injurious to her Liberty and her Honour The Statute as it lodges in the Civil Power the sole Right of judging when our Synods shall be held is an Abridgment of the Liberties of the Church and we must be content But let us bless God that the Power of the Church is not so affected either by this or any other Statute but that the Metropolitans of both Provinces have a Right after the Writ has given them the Liberty of exerting their Power first to Summon their Convocations in an Authoritative or Canonical way and then to hold them by the ancient Ecclesiastical Rules A Blessing for which they are very ungrateful who can so much delight in saying and even pleading that the Convocation subsists by the Royal Writ exclusive of the Archiepiscopal Authority when the Dean of the Province's Certificatorium or Return with the exhibiting whereof the Convocation properly opens declares and recognizes in every particular the immediate Authority by which they assemble The Archiepiscopal Authority directly recogniz'd in the Dean of the Province's Certificatorium I have before repeated some of the Terms in which that Instrument recognizes the Archiepiscopal Authority but for a more full Satisfaction to the Reader I will here subjoin it at large REverendissimo in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Thomae Providentia Divina Cantuar Archiepiscopo totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano vestrove in hac parte Locum tenenti sive Commissario vel Commissariis Henricus permissione Divina London Episcopus omnimodam Reverentiam Obedientiam tanto Reverendissimo Patri debitam cum Honore Literas vestras Reverendissimas Citatorias Monitoriales jamdudum Nobis sub sigillo vestro direct cum ea qua decuit Reverentia humiliter recepimus exequend sub tenore verborum sequentium videl Thomas Providentia Divina c. See the Form of the Mandate p. 9 57. Quarum quidem Literarum vigore pariter authoritate Nos praefatus Henricus London Episcopus omnes singulos Confratres nostros Co-Episcopos Ecclesiae vestrae Christi Cant. constitutos peremptorie citari premoneri ac per eos Decanos Ecclesiarum Cathedralium Collegiatarum singula Capitula earundem Archidiaconosque alios Ecclesiarum Praelatos Exemptos non Exemptos Clerumque cujuslibet Dioec Provinciae vestrae Cantuar. antedictae peremptorie citari praemoneri respective fecimus Quòd iidem Episcopi Decani c. compareant coram Peternitate vestra Reverendissima aut vestro in hac parte Locum tenente sive Commissario vel Commissariis die loco in eisdem vestris Literis Reverendissimis plenius specificat designat cum Continuatione Prorogatione dierum extunc sequentium locorum si quatenus expediat Ad tractandum super arduis urgentibus negotiis c. ut prius in Mandato Ulteriusque Authoritate per Receptionem Literarum Destrarum Reverendissimarum Citotoriarum Monitorialium praedictarum fatemur Nos Henricum London Episcopum antedictum peremptorie fore esse citatum ad comparendum coram vestra Reverendissima Paternitate aut vestro in hac parte Locum tenente sive Commissario vel Commissariis hujusmodi die loco praecitatis de super Negotiis memoratis tractatur ' Et nos iisdem Literis vestris Reverendissimis hujusmodi juxta vim formam tenorem effectum carundem debite parebimus Intimavimus insuper denuntiavimus intimari denuntiari fecimus dictae Provinciae vestrae Cantuar. Co-episcopis c. quòd eos a personali comparitione in hujusmodi negotio Convocationis Congregationis dictis die loco ut praemittitur divina favente clementia excusatos Reverendissima vestra Paternitas non habere intendit ista vice nisi
directed to proceed upon particular Business by the Archbishop and Bishops 5 20 22 24 37 39 40 42 50 68 70 72 85 87 91 104 118 210. Lower-house go up voluntarily 22 37 41 45 46 50 174 207 213 214 215. Lower-house bring up and return Business 27 35 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 47 49 51 91 92 112 119 155 160 173 206 213 214 215. M Mandates from the Archbishop for Summoning a Convocation 9 57. N Notice given to the Upper-house of Persons chosen for Committees in the Lower V. Committees O Oblations unjustly detain'd from the Clergy 35. Offertory at the Opening of Convocation 2. Ogleby's Bible 70. Ordinations determin'd to the 4 Seasons 109. not to be perform'd out of the Diocese without Letters dimissory from the Archbishop 109. P Parliament Prayer for it made in Convocation 23 27. Thanks from the Lords in Parliament to the Bishops and Clergy for their Care and Labour in Revising the Common-Prayer 106. Point whether lawful for Bishops to sit in Parliament in Cases of Blood consider'd 99. Petition presented to the Lower-house laid before the Upper 45 50. from the Clergy in the Isle of Wight 123. by the Bishop of Norwich 124. from the Lower-Clergy to the House of Lords in the Case of a Money-Bill 176 177. Pluralities 172 2. Praeconizations 139 163 167 170. Prayer Common revis'd 84 85 86 87 92. Preface to it 90 93. General Thanksgiving 93. General Revisal of the whole 93. Subscriptions to it with the Preparation of a Form 94 95. Act of Parliament for establishing the Common-Prayer debated in Convocation 98. Alterations made by Parliament in the Common-Prayer debated in Convocation 103. Orders for Printing the Book of Common-Prayer 104. Appointment of a Supervisor and Correctors 105. Thanks to the Bishops and Clergy from the House of Lords for their Care and Labour in Revising the Common-Prayer 106. Method of dispersing the Books of Common-Prayer 108. Prayer Form of for the King's Restoration 67. for the 30th of January 67. for the 5th of November 110. The three â—oregoing Forms brought in and approv'd 110. Prayers at Sea 89 90. Prayer before Sermon unica Forma Precum 90. Privilege Breach of 39. Prolocutor or Referendary chosen by Order or Leave from the Archbishop at the beginning of Convocation 3 4 5 16 63 137 165 196. chosen in the middle of Convocation upon the Promotion of another 101. chosen upon Death 126. Prolocutor recommended by the Archbishop 196. presented to the Archbishop and Bishops 19 67 101 126 139 166 199. Office 6. Assessors appointed by him 139 151 153 168 170. comes alone to the U. house 23 35 37 155. confers in private with the President 46 47. confers with the Presid and Bish 157. Prolocutor sent for alone with a certain number or with the whole House to the Upper-house Reverendissimus c. Voluit mandavit Prolocutorem ad se accersiri Fecit ad se accersiri Jussit Prolocutorem coram se Confratribus suis vocari Nunciatum fuit Domino Prolocutori de voluntate Reverendissimi c. quòd ad se accederet c. 18 21 31 33 36 38 40 42 46 48 67 68 69 71 75 76 83 85 87 91 101 104 105 118 122 125 126 146 147 150 152 153 154 157 159 167 168 170 171 175 176 170 2 172 2 198 206 210. Prolocutor dismis'd by the Archbishop and Bishops Dimisso Prolocutore Eis dimissis c. 20 22 23 24 27 32 35 37 38 39 41 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 51 53 67 72 75 83 85 87 91 92 101 102 119 124 126 199 210. acting by a Deputy 147 148 212. Protestation 44 Proxies order'd to be brought in by the Archbishop 154. Psalms revis'd 88. R Recusants Canon against them 39 45. Residence enjoin'd 172 2. S Schedules of Continuation At the Conclusion of every Session in the Upper-house-Books Schedules of Reformation 140 149 167 193. Silence enjoin'd 24 26 169. Socinians Canons against 41. Subsidies 20 21 118 120 206 212. Subsidy-Bills review'd and corrected by Committees 23 26 118 151 154. read 156. pass'd in Form 212. Subscription to the Book of Common-Pray 94 95. Subscriptions to the 39 Articles debated 108. Substitution of a Presid 24 62 192 193 205 217. V Visitational-Articles 75 102 104. W Welsh Common-Prayer 45. Westminster Dean of protests his Appearance in Convocation to be with a Salvo jure to the Rights of his Church 196. Protestation of the Church of Westminster 18 65 192. Writ of Prorogation 113 122. of Dissolution 163. Y York the Archbishop and Bishops of that Province in the Convocation of 1661. 75 76 c. Addenda Emendanda IN the Catalogue of Convocation Acts add 1st after the Year 1380. 1382 Nov. 18. Courtney fol. 33. a. 2 ly At the Year 1554. add The Acts of the Upper House are Enter'd in Bishop Bonner's Register 3 ly At the Year 1562. add A fragment of the Proceedings in the Lower House Febr. 13. 1562. is in the hands of Mr. Petyt 4 ly Concerning the Index in Dr. Atterbury's hands it is to be observ'd that the few passages Cited in this Book are immediately taken out of a late Extract from thence of such things as concern the present Controversy Pag. 34. After the Sentence of Contumacy by Archbishop Chichele add But a much elder than this is enter'd in the Register of Archbishop Courtney Anno 1391. Dominus contra Absentes sub hac Formâ processit Nos Willelmus permissione Divina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus totius Angliae Primas Apostolicae Sedis Legatus c. omnes singulos ad praesens Concilium nostrum legitimè peremptoriè citatos praeconizatos diucius expectatos non comparentes reputamus pronunciamus Contumaces in paenam Contumaciarum suarum hujusmodi Decernimus Declaramus Pronunciamus omnia singula in praesenti Concilio habita atque facta suum debitum sortiri debere effectum ipsorum Contumacijs in aliquo non obstantibus in hac parte poenam aliam Canonicam eis eorum singulis infligendam Nobis seu Commissario nostro quem ad id duxerimus deputandum nihilominùs specialiter Reservantes Pag. 47. lin 23. Paenâ sibi reservatâ is not the express language of the present Schedule but sufficiently appears to be the meaning of it both from the frequent mention in the Registers of such Reservations to the Archbishop singly and the no less frequent Inflictions of such Canonical Punishment upon the Lower Clergy and that by the President without any interposition or concurrence of the Bishops or Clergy Pag. 53. lin 16. Add To which purpose the Extracts out of the Upper House Books Anno 1541. conclude with the following Note ' Memorandum in fine Libri Inseruntur Constitutiones Substitutiones in Convocatione praedictâ ex Licentiâ Reverendissimi ubi habentur Scripta diversarum Absolutionum eorum qui Absentes erant Pag. 61. lin 19. for Suspend read Supersede Pag. 183. lin 12. To the Chapter Of the manner of Passing Business in Convocation add And even in Canons and all other matters Passing by Subscription the Metropolitan's ancient Authority remains thus far entire that without his Concurrence the Agreement of all the rest is not the Act of Convocation nor can be presented as such to the Prince for his Royal Confirmation Pag. 186. lin 12. For 1434. read 1534. App. p. 131. For 1686 and 1688. read 1586 and 1588. Pag. 233. lin antepeâ—… I am since assur'd That in York-Province the Archbishop or his Commissary always Sign the Instrument of Continuation after Reading Pag. 295. lin 8. Read their Church lin 13. add They knew the Kings of England had often directed their Writs to the Archbishop before the Act of Submission was thought of and were as constantly obey'd And the Writ being an immediate Direction to the Archbishop and not to any particular Member of Convocation they were so far from thinking that a Summons upon the Authority of such Writ destroy'd his Grace's authoritative Summons that we see they use the Term even while the Act was repeal'd and they were by consequence under no Obligation to use it ☞ Throughout the Book wherever mention is made of the Last Convocation 't is to be understood of that which began Febr. 10. 1700 1 wherein these unhappy Differences between the two Houses first arose P. 138. l. 32. read Domum Superiorem P. 165. l. 1. read de uniendis parvis Beneficiis P. 169. l. 1. read Not but. P. 228. l. 13. for Julius XI read Julius II.
Archbishop 18 The Summons not less Ecclesiastical because requir'd by the Prince 19 The Clergy not summon'd in the same manner from the beginning as at present 20 Inferences from the foregoing Testimonies 21 CHAP. II. The manner of Opening an English Convocation 23 The President 's coming to S. Paul's ibid. The Dean of the Province's Certificatorium Exhibited ibid. Other Certificates and Proxies 24 Contumacy Pronounc'd 25 These a clear foundation of the Archbishop's Power over the Members in point of Attendance and therefore more particularly treated of 25 1. By the tenor of the Mandate none to be excus'd but who shall shew reasonable Cause to the Archbishop ibid. 2. In pursuance hereof all Returns ever made directly to his Grace 28 The Dean of the Province more particularly requir'd to do it 30 3. The Dean of the Province's Certificatorium with his Grace's Commission to receive and inspect Proxies 31 4. Sentence of Contumacy against Absents 32 The Sentence of Contumacy a written Instrument 33 The Suspension of it by the Archbishop 36 5. The exercise of the Archbishop's Authority over the Members in the middle of Convocation 37 1. In Praeconizations ibid. 2. In giving Licence to be absent 38 3. In admonitions not to depart 40 The Archbishop absolves or punishes the Absents of the Lower-house at the Conclusion of the Synod 41 The Substance of the Arguments for the Archbishop's Power over the Members 45 The Claim of the Lower-house to a concurrent Power confuted 46 The Prolocutor cannot reserve punishment but in the President 's name 47 The Prolocutor cannot give leave of Absence but as empower'd by the President 49 The Practices of the last Lower-house in this particular 50 CHAP. III. Of Admitting or Denying Proxies The Lower-house have no Power to admit or deny Proxies 52 All Proxies lodg'd with the Register of the Upper-house 53 The Entry of Proxies in the Lower-house Book no argument of their Right to Admit them 54 The Actuary of the Lower-house an Officer of the Archbishop 55 Certain Irregularities lately committed in this business of Proxies 57 The Lower-house's additional Leave to depart an Invasion of the President 's Authority 59 The Vpper-house the Protectors of the Persons and Privileges of the Lower 60 CHAP. IV. Of the Election and Office of a Prolocutor Prolocutors at the first chosen only upon some single occasions 63 When they came to be chosen at the beginning of Convocation 65 The first instance of Presenting a Prolocutor 66 Of the Admission and Confirmation by the President and Bishops 67 The Office of a Prolocutor or Referendarius ibid. The immediate End to Report the Answers of the Lower-Clergy 68 The bringing back the Instructions of the President and the Bishops ibid. The moderating in the Debates of the Lower-house 69 The Prolocutor properly supplies the President 's Place among the Lower Clergy ibid. The Prolocutors at the beginning usually Officers of the Archbishop's Court. ibid. Prolocutor sometimes recommended by the President 71 Neither of these Observations intended to prejudice the Freedom of their Election ibid. The Order or Leave of the President necessary before they proceed to the Choice 71 In case of death or promotion the President 's Order necessary to a new Election 72 Always presented to the Vpper-house for Confirmation 73 The Prolocutor's Application to the Vpper-house for Protection ibid. The Prolocutor cannot Substitute a Deputy but by Leave from the Vpper-house 74 The Prolocutor's Office when present to convey all Messages from the Clergy to the Vpper-house 76 CHAP. V. By what degrees the Inferior Clergy became a Separate House from the Bishops 78 The false account of the late Narrative ibid. Retirement of the Clergy to consider business in their united State was by direction from the Archbishop and Bishops 79 The Place to which they retir'd uncertain for a long time 80 The Lower Clergy have a separate House for Debate only 81 The Place of Debate has been ever assign'd by the Archbishop 82 The Separation of the Bishops and Clergy stated upon the foregoing Accounts 83 The Accounts given of this Matter in the Narrative c. groundless 84 CHAP. VI. The manner of Entring upon Business in Convocation 85 The Archbishop's Right to declare the Causes of the Convocation ibid. The Clergy usually order'd to retire and debate about the business of Convocation as declar'd by the Archbishop ibid. Inferences from the Testimonies brought to confirm the foregoing Heads 93 The difference between the former Methods and the late Practice of Convocation in these respects 95 CHAP. VII The Right of the President and Bishops to require the Clergy to consider any particular Business throughout the Convocation 97 The necessity of showing this ibid. The Separation of the two Houses made no difference in this Point 98 Inferences from the Testimonies alledg'd upon this Head 106 CHAP. VIII The Right of the President and Bishops to Order Committees of the Lower-house 107 Committees of the Clergy to attend Committees of Bishops 108 Committees of the Clergy alone order'd by the Vpper-house 112 The names of the Persons chosen in the Lower-house Reported to the Vpper 115 The Right of the Vpper-house to appoint Committees of the Lower-Clergy never question'd but in 1689 and 1701. 116 The Refusal in 1689. 117 And in 1701. both irregular 118 The Reasons alledg'd in the Narrative particularly answer'd 119 Committees chosen by the Lower-Clergy for purposes of their own 123 The Lower-house never Consent to the Chosing when requir'd by their President but only to the Persons or Numbers 124 The last Lower-house justly chargeable with all the Consequences of that Refusal 126 CHAP. IX The Right of the President and Bishops to prescribe a Time for the Return of Business committed to the Clergy 127 The time for such Return expresly prescrib'd ibid. The Clergy's Answers call'd for by the President and Bishops and longer time granted at the request of the Clergy 129 Inferences from the foregoing Testimonies 131 CHAP. X. The Right of the President and Bishops to require the Answers of the Clergy in Writing 133 The last Lower-house's refusal to answer in Writing ibid. Prov'd irregular from the practice of Convocation ibid. The State of this Case between the two Houses the last Convocation 137 Free-Conference a new term in Convocation 138 No such Free Conference ever insisted on by the Clergy before ibid. Inferences from the foregoing Accounts 139 CHAP. XI The Right of the President and Bishops to take to them the Assistance of Persons learned in our Laws c. 140 Application of the foregoing Testimonies to the Transactions of the last Convocation 143 The necessity of having Recourse to Council about the Censure of Books in the last Convocation 143 Their Lordships in recommending the Case to the Bishop of the Diocese acted agreeably to the Practice of Convocation 144 Thus far of the DVTY of the Inferiour Clergy as acting in Subordination to their Metropolitan and Bishops Next of the RIGHTS of
before the Act of Submission 288 The notion of a Civil Summons an argument for the Papists against our Reformation 289 The intent of the Statute no more than to restrain the Archbishop from Exerting his Authority without the Royal-License 290 The word Authority in the Statute implies a Leave or Licence 291 The Archbishop's Summons Authoritative from the style of the Mandate and Return 292 The Case of the Convocation's being dissolv'd by the death of the Prince 295 A dissolution by the King's death no prejudice to the Archiepiscopal Authority as giving Subsistence to a Convocation 296 The Archiepiscopal Authority recogniz'd in the Dean of the Province's Certificatorium set down at large 297 V. Observations upon the Table of Fees and the Catalogue of Members presixt to the Registers of Convocation 301 Inferences from the Table of Fees 1. That the Officers of Convocation are under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Archbish 303 2. That the Admission of Proxies of the Lower-Clergy belongs to his Grace ibid. 3. That none could make Proxies but who were personally Cited ibid. Catalogues of Convocation-Members and Inferences from them 304 1. That the Entry of the Lower-Clergy in the Upper-house-Books shows the Convocation to be one Body under one common Head 304 2. That the Lower-house is Included in the Clause Convocatio Prael Cleri in Continuations ibid. 3. That the Members of both Houses in the Convocations of 1640 and 1661 were eminent Assertors of the RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of the CHURCH ibid. 4. That therefore our present Prelates in Convocation have been unjustly traduc'd for proceeding by the same Rules 306 THE CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF AN English Convocation c. INTRODUCTION The Occasion and Design of the following Discourse AMong the pretences that have been fram'd of late to gain the Clergy in Convocation some new Exemptions from their Metropolitan and Bishops no one has been insisted on so much as a Parliamentary Capacity suppos'd to belong to them And it was an artificial Management in those who set the design a-foot to make this the chief ground of their Claim not only because such Exemptions could have no Colour from their Ecclesiastical Capacity and the Constitution of the Primitive Synods but also because an Alliance to the Parliament in Constitution was the most likely way to lead the generality of Men to take the measures of their Proceediegs from thence Every one knows that the Parliament consists of two Houses and they have withal an Opportunity of observing out of the publick Votes the Separate Methods whereby the Commons Act and Govern themselves And little more of the nature of a Convocation being ordinarily understood than that It also consists of two Houses debating a-part this without recourse to the Primitive Times or opportunity to know our own Establisht methods of acting prepar'd Men's minds to favour the late Claims of some of the Clergy to such Privileges as the Commons enjoy In which Error they have been industriously confirm'd by the Endeavours of the same Persons to bring the Parliament and Convocation to such an alliance as was never thought of before the publication of some late Books The late Principle of Parliamentary Alliance That the Members of the Lower-House are the Clergy Commoners and Spiritual Commons that the whole Convocation subsists by the King's-Writ and not by the Archiepiscopal Mandate that the Clergy thereof are ATTENDANT on the Parliament as the Parliament has a Right to be ATTENDED by them is the ordinary Language of a late Book Atterb Rights c. which yet is pretended to be written in Defence of the Church's Liberties and censures the Principles of its Adversary as of a Slavish tendency From this Principle others of the same kind relating to their Constitution and Privileges have since sprung Answer to 1st Letter p. 2. Col. 2. That the Model of an English Convocation was doubtless taken from the Model of an English Parliament Ibid. p. 6. c. 1. That an English Synod was form'd upon the Plat-form of an English Parliament Nar. p. 6. That the Synodical Rights peculiar to the Lower-Clergy of the Church of England are owing to a Conformity to the Parliament Nar. p. 8. That the distinct Capacity of the Lower-house of Convocation was deriv'd from an imitation of the Lower-house of Parliament The ill consequence thereof to Episcopacy The two last Passages acknowledge in effect that some of the Privileges they are already in possession of were unknown to the more ancient Synods And as to the other Exemptions for which they contend if they had any countenance from those Early Times That I suppose would be thought a more decent Pleain a Case of Ecclesiastical Government than laying their model in the imitation of a Parliament For I take it to be new Doctrine that a late Author delivers with great assurance to take off the ill appearance of Contending and that with so much warmth for Ecclesiastical Rights upon a Secular Foundation Atterb Rights c. p. 138. I am sure and am ready whenever I am call'd upon particularly to prove that the more our Church shall resemble the State in her temper and manner of Government the nearer still will she approach to primitive Practice This is a Position that will require Proof when he is at leisure to go about it not being half so evident in my opinion as that the Rights and Privileges of the House of Commons if vested in the Lower-House of Convocation would give the Clergy a co-ordinate Power with their Bishops and so remove our Church still further from primitive Practice But all along on one side of this Controversie the Church seems to signifie no more than the Inferiour Clergy exclusive of the Metropolitan and Bishops as if the giving Presbyters new degrees of Exemption from their Ecclesiastical Superiors were the way that primitive Practice has trac'd out for the perfection of an Episcopal Church An Opposition to the Liberties of the Church has an odious sound and sounds no worse than it really is when the Bishops as well as Inferior Clergy acting regularly and peaceably within their proper Spheres are allow'd to be the constituent Members of that Church But the present claim of Parliamentary Rights is only in other Words a diminution of the Canonical Authority of the Archbishop and Bishops over their Clergy which being diminished as far as Parliamentary Exemptions would do it must evidently destroy the Subordination of Presbyters to their Bishops that is it must bring us by degrees to a state of Presbytery Now no Law has determin'd how far these which they call their Parliamentary Rights may be carried or which is the same thing how near the Claims upon that Foundation may bring us to Presbytery The late Narrative of the Lower-House p. 8. speaking of their distinct Capacity as deriv'd from an Imitation of the Lower-House of Parliament does indeed say that they are far from presuming to
their own immediate Choice The Deans Priors and Abbots were requir'd by the Archbishop to bring Procuratorial Letters from the respective Bodies over whom they were placed as the Archdeacons were to do from the Parochial Clergy within their District Anno 1257 the Archiepiscopal Mandate runs thus In virtute obedientiae praecipiendo ut praedicti Decanus Prior dictarum Cathedralium Ecclesiarum Abbates alii Priores cum literis Procuratoriis nomine Congregationum suarum confectis ac dicti Archidiaconi cum literis similiter factis ex parte Clericorum qui subsunt eisdem c. dictis die loco personaliter debeant interesse Anno 1258 to the same purpose Vocetis eciam Decanos Cathedralium et aliarum Ecclesiarum nec non etiam Abbates Priores Majores insuper et Archidiaconos vestrae Diaecesis universos ut cum literis suorum subditorum Procuratoriis loco et die antedictis compareant And the Bishop's Order upon that Mandate to the Archdeacon Ac nihilominus Vos ipsi compareatis dictis die et loco cum literis Procuratoriis Cleri totius Archidiaconatûs vestri Anno 1279. The Archbishop's Mandate directs the Bishops to call their Clergy together and excite them to contribute liberally to the King's Necessities and then leaves them at liberty whether they will send their Resolutions by the Bishoâ—… or their Proxies or by Proctors of their own Hujusmodi autem Servitii vel Subsidii quantitatem per Vos aut Procuratores vestros vel certe per Procuratores proprios ad hoc si expedire videritis destinandos nobis intimare studeant in Congregatione nostrâ London c. The same Method I mean of the Bishops calling together the Clergy is prescrib'd by the Archiepiscopal Mandates of 1282. and 1283. when the Clergy appear to have been represented in both by two Proctors But afterwards Anno 1296. we find the Diocesan Clergy requir'd to appear by one Proxy Vnumquodque Capitulum seu Conventus per unum Clerus quoque cujuslibet Dioecesis per unum similiter Procuratorem idoneum et instructum And Anno 1311. either by one or two Clerus autem per unum vel duos Procuratores consimiles communiter destinandos Inferences from the foregoing Testimonies I produce not these Instances to invalidate the Right of the Cathedral Clergy to be constantly represented by one or the Diocesan by two Proctors of their own choice For that they have now an undeniable Custom of almost four hundred years as they have a Prescription of half that time and upwards for the part they bear in framing and passing Ecclesiastical Constitutions But such Observations came naturally into this Historical Account of the Archiepiscopal Summons and the Inferences I would draw from them are ' That an Interest in Convocation much more a concern in Affairs Ecclesiastical is far from belonging to the Lower Clergy Originally even by the Customs of our own Nation and those Customs Modern if compared with Primitive Practice ' That the present Frame and Establishment first arose from the Command of the Metropolitan to send two Proctors and from a Custom growing thereupon That the Figure they now make in Convocation and much more the Figure that some of the Members would make is far beyond any thing that these their Predecessors pretended to That the Exercise of the Archbishop's Authority in Convocation has been much greater than it is and yet the Church and her Rights did not prosper the less That therefore even waving the Practice of Convocation upon which the Claims of the Upper-House are immediately grounded the late Clamours of Danger and Ruin to the Church from thence can in Reason be regarded by none who will look back to the Condition of the Presbyters in the Primitive Times or even in our own Nation and that not many Centuries ago CHAP. II. The manner of Opening a Convocation All the Members to be ready at St. Pauls ON the day prefixt in the Archbishop's Mandate for the Convocation's meeting all the Members cited thereby are obliged to be ready at St. Pauls for the coming of his Grace Thus it is and ever has been according to Archbishop Parker's account of the establisht Form of Opening a Convocation Sciendum est quòd omnes qui authoritate Reverendissimi citantur ad comparendum coram eo in domo Capitulari Ecclesiae Cathedralis D. Pauli London die tenentur praefixo tempore interesse atque in eadem Ecclesiâ Cathedrali praestolari adventum dicti Reverendissimi The President 's coming to St. Pauls His Grace waited on at his Landing by all the Advocates and Proctors of his Court is by them and his own Retinue conducted to the Church of St. Pauls at the Door whereof the Bishops and Clergy meet and receive him and all walk in Procession to the Quire Prayers and Sermon ended he with the Bishops and Clergy go into the Chapter-House The Dean of the province exhibits his Certificatorium where the Lord Bishop of London Dean of the Province exhibits a Certificate that the Mandate has been duly executed Reverendissimo ac caeteris suis Coepiscopis in suis sedibus ordine consedentibus ac reliquo Clero circumstante Reverendus Dominus Episcopus London Mandatum sibi a dicto Reverendissimo ad Convocationem hujusmodi Summonend directum una cum â—…bito Certificatorio super Executione ejusdem iâ—…roducere ac debita cum Reverentiâ eidem Reverendissimo Patri praesentare tradere tenetur This Certificate under the Episcopal Seal and directed to the Archbishop first acknowledging the receipt of his Grace's Mandate recites it and then signifies how by Virtue and Authority thereof the Bishops of his Province and by them the Deans c. have been regularly Summon'd That he owns himself duly Cited by the Authority of the same Mandate That he has intimated to them his Grace's Resolution not to hold any excus'd but upon good Reasons to be then and there alledg'd That he has also enjoyn'd every Bishop to bring with him a Certificate of the Execution of the foresaid Mandate in his own Diocese And then adding how he has executed it particularly in the Diocese of London he subjoins a Catalogue of the Members therein In like manner every Bishop makes his Return immediately to the Archbishop in a formal Instrument under his Episcopal Seal certifying the Summons of his Dean Archdeacons and Clergy in Virtue of his Grace's Letters Mandatory transmitted by the Lord Bishop of London and adding their several Names and Sirnames By the Archbishop's Order the Bishop of London's Certificate is publickly Read and one or more Officers of his Court appointed by him Other Certificates and Proxies to receive in his Name the Certificates of the other Bishops and all the Letters of Proxy Then a wiritten Schedule is put into his Grace's Hand by which he pronounces all Members cited and not appearing Contumacious Contumacy Pronounced Forma Convocat reserving the Punishment of their
Contumacy to another time Reservando poenam eorum Contumaciae in aliquem diom competentem pro beneplacito ipsius Reverendissimi This is a short and general Account of the Opening a Convocation enough to convince any Indifferent Man of his Grace's Right as to Preside over the whole Body so to dispense with the Absence or require the Attendance of every particular Member according to the reasons and circumstances of Things The Archbishop's Jurisdiction over the Members as to their Atteâ—… asserted But because in the last Convocation the Power of the Archbishop over the Members of the Lower-House was not only call'd in Question but in effect directly deny'd by the departure of several without applying to his Grace for leave and not only so but in contempt of the Metropolitical Authority several Applications were directly made to the Lower-House and the leave of the House thought a sufficient Discharge from their obligation to attendance Upon these Accounts and the Inferences that are made on the Supposition of such a Right in the Lower-House it becomes necessary to be full and clear in the Explication of these Certificates or Returns which as made in pursuance of the Archiepiscopal Mandate are the foundation of his Grace's Power in that point over all the Members indifferently To show on the one hand the Antiquity of them that no room may be left to suspect 'em Innovations and on the other their real force and effect as appearing from the Archbishop's frequent Exercise of this Power that they may not be thought a matter of Form or the appearance only of a legal Title without the Authority of Practice to support and confirm them By the Tenor of the Mandate none to be excus'd but who shall shew reasonable cause I. In the Archbishop's Mandate for the Summoning a Convocation it is and always has been usual for his Grace to require the Dean of the Province among other things to acquaint the Bishops and by them the Inferior Clergy that he will excuse no member from attending according to the Tenor thereof but who shall show such cause as his Grace shall judge reasonable This Notice is given in the antient Mandates under different Forms but all to the same effect with the present Clause Anno 1281. After an Enumeration of all the Members to be cited Denunciantes eisdem quòd contra absentes in Formâ Canonica procedemus Nec debilitatis Excusationem sufficere reputamus illorum qui per Maneria sua juxta Dioceses suas extra ad alia loca per Cant. Provinciam se faciunt pro familiaribus negotiis in quibuscunque vehiculis deportari Anno 1296. Compareant eodem die sequentibus opportunis Sub poena Excommunicationis Majoris Interdicti quae meritò poterunt formidare qui in forma praenotatâ contumaciter omiserint seu contempserint comparere quae contra eosdem qui sic comparere detrectaverint sine delectu Personarum intendimus Executioni debitae demandare Anno 1297. Vos etiam praemunimus caeteros sic citandos praemuniri Mandamus quod absentes in Citatione praedicta msi Evidens inevitabile impedimentum per probationes certas superesse docuerint tanquam Inobedientes offensores notorios graviter punicmus And another the same Year Denunciantes dictis Coepiscopis per eos suos subditos sic vocandos faciatis idonee praemuniri quod absentes in citatione praedicta nisi Evidens inevitabile impodimentum sufficienter probetur tanquam inobedientes graviter puniemus Much of the same Form and wholly to the same purpose is this Clause in the Mandates Anno 1333. and 1327. Anno 1356. Intimantes eisdem quod contra absentes in formâ Canonicâ procedemus nullius sic absentis excusationem penitus admissuri nisi quatenùs ad hoc nos arctaverint Canonicae Sanctiones Anno 1359. Volumus intimamus quòd intimetis seu denunciari faciatis dictae Provinciae Coepiscopis Confratribus ac Vicariis hujusmodi Decanis Abbatibus Prioribus caeteris Ecclesiarum Praelatis supradictis quòd cos à personali comparitione in hujusmodi Congregatione dictis die loco per nos seu nostra Auctoritate Deo annuente celebranda habere non intendimus excusatos ista Vice nisi ex causa necessaria tunc ibidem alleganda probanda sed eorum Contumacia si qui forsitan absentes fuerint secundum juris exigentiam Canonice punietur From thence to this Day the same Clause continues a part of the Archiepiscopal Mandate with a very small variation of the Words and none at all of the Sence or Intention Volumus insuper et mandamus quatenus intimetis et denuncietis seu intimari et denunciari faciatis dictae Provinciae nostrae Cantuar Coepiscopis Decanis Archidiaconis ac caeteris Ecclesiarum Praelatis suprascriptis quod eos à Personali comparitione in hujusmodi negotio Convocationis et Congregationis dictis die et loco ut praemittitur divina favente Clementia celebrand excusatos non habere intendimus ista Vice nisi ex causà necessariâ â—…nc et ibidem allegandâ et proponendâ et per nos approbandâ sed Contumacias eorum qui Absentes fuerint Canonice punire I know not how clearer Testimonies can be given of any Point than these are of a constant right in our Metropolitan the same that Metropolitans have always enjoy'd to require Attendance according to the tenor of his Mandate and to judge of the Reasonableness of all Excuses of Absence and to punish the Contumacy of those who are Absent without sending Reasons that in his Grace's Judgment are good and sufficient All Returns ever made directly to the Archbishop II. In pursuance of his General Summons and that particular Admonition the Archbishop in the same Mandate and in the Clause immediately following commands the Dean of the Province to Intimate to every Suffragan Bishop that he Exhibit to his Grace at the Day appointed a Schedule under his Episcopal Seal containing the Names and Sirnames of all the Persons he has cited to appear The words of this Clause have not always been the same they are now but such as express the same meaning and had the same effect for instance Anno 1281. Mandantes insuper singulis Episcopis quòd secum deferant in scriptis nomina omnium in forma praedicta de suis Dioecesibus ad Concilium vocatorum And more distinctly the very next Year viz. Anno 1282. De nominibus vero Abbatum Priorum et aliorum Religiosorum Decanorum Archidiaconorum Procuratorum tam Cleri cujuslibet Dioecesis quam Capitulorum singuli Episcopi pro suis Dioecesibus ad dictos diem et locum per suas literas distincte nos certificent et aperté In the next Century it comes yet nearer to our present Form As Anno 1350. After direction given to the Dean of the Province to bring a particular Return or Certificate of the due Execution of the Mandate
c. reservata corum poenâ in diem Mercurii the day to which the Archbishop's Schedule had Contina'd the Convocation and suspended the Certificates Sess 2 3 4. The Contumacy not being yet pronounc'd by the Archbishop the Prolocutor after coming in every Instance from the Upper-House and his delivery of other Messages from thence to the Lower reserves the Punishment in the same sense that after the Continuation Intimated from the Schedule he in virtue thereof admonishes all the Members to be present at the day according to Archbishop Parker's description of the Office Forma Con. Ejusdem Prolocutoris est monere omnes ne discedant Civitate London absque licentia Reverendissimi quodque Statutis diebus tempestivé veniant ad Convocationem Which shows the meaning of an Expression in the form whereby Archbishop Bancroft suspends three Members of the Lower-House for departing without Leave Bancr Register Cum nos c. omnes singulos alios Decanos c. alios quoscunque in dictâ Convocatione comparentes ab eadem sine Licentia nostra in ea parte obtenta recedentes aut mandatis nostris licitis vel Prolocutoris dictae Convocationis minimè obtemperantes pronunciaverimus Contumaces c. Here the Mandatum Prolocutoris can signifie nothing but the Admonition to attend regularly at the Day appointed by the Archbishop given always by the Prolocutor in pursuance of the Intimation thereof from his Grace's Schedule MonuÃtque omnes c. ad interessend A Clause that the Actuary of the Lower-House in the last Convocation ought not to have added to the Adjournments to Intermediate Days as well as others because he knew that the Archbishop had declar'd against their meeting on those Days and 't is plain from hence that no Authority but that of his Grace can warrant such an Admonition The Prolocutor can give no Leave but as empower'd by the President But as to the Leave to depart and the Place of Application in these we see the forecited Passage directs us solely to the Archbishop whose Licence either immediate or by the Prolocutor the conveyer of his Grace's Pleasure to the House in all other particulars is absolutely necessary In 1586. Sess 10. after the Admonition to be present according to his Grace's Schedule the Journal as I observ'd before mentions five who ex Relatione Domini Prolocutoris isto die fuerunt licentiati quoad eorum personalem comparitionem And not to omit the smallest Objection this teaches us how to interpret that short hint which is in the List before the Minutes of 1640. over against the Name of one of the Proctors for Glocester-Diocese Venia Mri. Prolocutor ratione mortis filii In other Parts of that Catalogue V. Supr we find the Archbishop's Leave in such Cases directly express'd and in this the Lower-House will as little own as his Grace that the Prolocutor could give it by his own Authority For when in the Narrative they assert a Power of giving Leave concurrent with that of his Grace Narr Pag. 49. they do not make the Prolocutor but the House the Subject of that Power If either the Archbishop or the Lower-House give a Leave of Absence it is of Course to be interpreted so far only as the Claim of them that give it is concern'd So that the Member is not perfectly at Liberty without Leave from both How groundless this Notion is I have prov'd at large but it shows however that in their Sense the Venia Prolocutoris can be no more than a Declaration of Leave given by another And nothing but a Resolution to be Obstinate can make it suggested that this other must be the House which before the last Convocation does not once appear to have interpos'd directly or indirectly in that Matter and not the Archbishop who as he has been prov'd to have the Legal Right to give Leave and to have frequently done it in Person so the Prolocutor's is the Hand whereby he conveys all his Messages to the Lower-House and by whose Relation as we are sure from an exact Journal of their own Five of the Members were formerly Licens'd to depart The groundless Practices of the last Lower-House in giving Leave to be absent and admitting Proxies But be the Claim of such a Power in the House as groundless and unprecedented as it will 't is in Fact certain that it was openly and frequently exercis'd by the Majority of the last Lower Clergy Sess 7. Et tune Venerabiles Viri Subsequentes petierunt licentiam sese absentandi ab hac Domo cui consensum fuit ab hac domo Sess 13. Two Persons desir'd Leave to go into the Country Sess 20. Mr. Archdeacon desir'd Leave to go into the Country to hold his Visitation In the 24 Session another Member askt the same Favour as in the 27th not only Leave for Absence was desir'd but also that a Proxy might be admitted which the following Chapter will show to be equally out of the Power of the Lower-House CHAP. III. No Power in the Lower-House to admit or deny Proxies The Lower-House have no Power to admit or deny Proxies Narr p. 50. IT is upon the Supposition of a Power in the House to admit or deny Proxies that they build their Claim of a Right to give or deny Leave So the Narrative represents it But the Power of the Lower-House to admit or deny Proxies which has been always exercis'd and never disputed what else is it but a Power of giving or denying Leave to be absent It was wisely done to obtrude this Doctrin upon the Reader as a self-evident Truth because particular Proofs of it were not to be had either from Law or Practice We have already explain'd how at the Opening of the Convocation the Archbishop appoints a Commissioner to inspect and receive Proxies of all kinds and to Judge of the fitness of the Person substituted to examin the Causes of Absence and to admit or reject the several Excuses for non-attendance those I mean that are then offer'd in pursuance of the Clause in his Grace's Mandate which declares that none shall be excus'd nisi ex causâ necessariâ tunc ibidem allegandâ probandâ ac per nos approbandâ This Summons to appear on a certain Day cum continuatione dierum prout convenit is not satisfied by a Personal Attendance at the Opening but evidently extends to the whole Time of his Grace's Continuing and the Convocation's sitting thereupon There is therefore the same Obligation in Law not to depart in the middle without the Archbishop's Approbation of the Cause as not to be absent at the beginning without sending it up and laying it before his Grace or his Commissioner And on the other Hand if his Grace's Approbation of the Cause be of it self a legal and entire Discharge from attending at all why is it not a sufficient Warrant to depart before the Attendance be entirely pay'd Proxies lodg'd with
Person by whom they were to appear before him and who was in effect to supply his Place among them whenever they debated apart from their Lordships Prolocutor sometimes recommended by the President With the same Design and no other I add the following Instances of the President 's recommending to the Lower-Clergy the Choice of particular Persons who were accordingly elected Anno 1562. Archbishop Parker order'd the Clergy to retire to the Choice Commendans illis maximè Decanum Ecclesiae Cathedralis D. Pauli London Alexandrum Nowel and we find him presented and confirm'd in form the next Session Anno 1588. the Dean of St. Paul's ex parte Reverendissimi Patris Joh. Cant. Archiep. significavit ut ad Electionem futuri Prolocutoris procedere licitè liberè valeant possint Commendavit eis Venerabilem Virum Magistrum Johannem Styll tunc ibidem praesentem Vnde omnes tunc praesentes uno ore eundem Magistrum Johannem Styll sine morâ in eorum dicti Coetûs Inferioris Domûs Cleri Prolocutorem Referendarium concorditer unanimi consensu nominarunt elegerunt nemine contradicente Anno 1605. The Extracts out of the Registers of the Upper-House say thus the Archbishop recommends Dr. Overal Dean of St. Paul's to be chosen Prolocutor in the room of Dr. Ravis made Bishop of Gloucester The Order or Leave of the President necessary before they can proceed to the Choice But whether the President recommended or no 't is certain that the Clergy have never us'd to proceed to their Election without the antecedent Order or Leave of his Grace Reverendissimus demandavit praecepit monuit has been and is the Language in which our Registers ordinarily express it And in the Convocation of 1586. as well as that of 1588. which I just now mention'd the Archbishop's Leave is directly express'd in the Journal of the Lower-House The Dean of St. Paul's ex parte Reverendissimi c. significavit ut ad Electionem futuri Prolocutoris procedere licite libere valeant possint but without any Recommendation accompanying the Notice In case of death or promotion no new Election but by the President 's Order And as in the beginning so in the middle of a Convocation in the case of the Death or Promotion of a Prolocutor a new Election is not yet pretended to be made without the President 's special Direction Thus Anno 1541. Reverendissimus evocari fecit Clerum Inferioris Domûs quibus exposuit illos debere eligere novum Prolocutorem per mortem D. Gwent Anno 1677. Cleri hujus domûs coram Reverendis Dominis Episcopis personaliter comparentes requisui ut recederent in domum suam propriam eligerent aliquam personam idoneam è gremio ipsorum in Prolocutorem sive Referendarium Convocationis praesentis loco ultimi nuper in Archiepiscopum Cant. promoti Anno 1661. Febr. 18. Praesidens c. voluit ad se accersiri Clerum Domûs Inferioris Convocationis quibus advenientibus dictus Dominus Praesidens antedictus in verbis latinis conceptis eosdem Cleros dictae Domûs Inferioris monuit quatinus ad solitum consuetum Conventûs sui locum sese conferentes unum virum gravem doctum peritum de gremio suo provideant eligant in eorum Prolocutorem Referendarium in loco Reverendi Viri Henrici Fearne sacrae Theologia Professoris ultimi Prolocutoris ratione promotionis suae ad Episcopatum Cestren jam vacan Anno 1664. Nov. 25. Dominus Episcopus London Cleros dictae Domûs Inferioris monuit quatenùs ad solitum consuetum Conventûs sui locum sese conferentes unum virum c. eligant in eorum Prolocutorem Referendarium in loco veneribilis viri Johannis Barwick sacrae Theologiae Professoris ratione ejus mortis jam vacan Prolocutor always Presented to the U. H. for Confirmation 2. The Person chosen upon the Order or Leave of the Archbishop is solemnly presented to his Grace and his Brethren for their Confirmation which our Registers always express in Terms signifying his Acceptance of him with the conveyance of Power and Authority for the Execution of the Office Cum consensu Fratrum admisit acceptavit approbavit ratificavit or confirmavit The Prolocutor's Application to the U. H. for Protection 3. As he receives his Authority from the Archbishop and his Brethren so upon a remarkable Invasion of that and of the Privileges of Convocation in his own Person we find him directly applying to the Upper-House for Protection The Case hapn'd in the Year 1604. Sess 19. and is thus represented by the Extracts out of the Registers of that House The Prolocutor complaims to the Bishop Presiding that he had two Subpoenas served upon him by Harrington and Walker notwithstanding his Privilege The President answers that the King was acquainted with it and that Walker was arrested for it by a Serjeant at Mace and a Warrant gone for Harrington Sess 20. Walker abovesaid convented before the Bishops sent to the Lower-House to beg Pardon of the Prolocutor and House which he did and was dismiss'd pro tempore Sess 32. Harrington brought upon his Knees for serving a Sub-poena upon the Prolocutor If the Inferior-Clergy of that Time had thought their House to have a sufficient Power in this Case they would I suppose have protected their own Prolocutor Or if they had reckon'd it consistent with their Duty as Members of the same Convocation with the Metropolitan and Bishops to seek for Refuge otherwise than by Recourse to their Lordships the Prolocutor would scarce have been suffer'd to bring in question the Independent Rights of the House by such an Application The Prolocutor cannot Substitute a Deputy but by Leave from the U. H. Two Questions remain concerning the Office of a Prolocutor 1. Whether he have Power in his Absence to Substitute another without leave from the Vpper-House 2. Whether the Prolocutor being present Messages may regularly be sent up to the Bishops by any other Hand I will not pretend to solve these Two purely from the Reasons of the Things which are no certain Rules in Questions of this kind but surely the solemn Confirmation of a particular Person for that Purpose to continue during the whole Convocation should imply an Obligation upon him when present to discharge a Duty to which He and He alone has receiv'd that general Appointment And his own Incapacity to convey such Messages till he be admitted and confirm'd and thereby publickly known to be the Mouth or in the Language of the Registers the Organ of the Lower-House seems to make it unreasonable that another shall be capable of exercising that Office without Confirmation that is without being known to their Lordships to be the Mouth of the Lower-House when yet the Messages are to come by him as such Especially if to this we add that neither the Speaker of the House of Commons nor the House it self
be in a Condition to bear their part in the Business he commands them to retire and chuse a Prolocutor Anno 1460. May 10. The Archbishop first directs the Choice of a Prolocutor and then confirms him after which he explains to them the Causes of the Convocation In these two last Instances the Clergy are not directed to Retire as they had usually been to debate apart about the Matters of Convocation laid before them by the Archbishop Because now they began as to their debating to be in a more separate State so that the bare Proposition of Business to be Prepar'd or Consider'd was notice enough that they were to Retire to their usual Place and set about it The old Registers have only the Acts of four Convocations more so that we have no light between the Years 1488 and 1529. nor any from thence to the Year 1562. besides certain Extracts out of the Registers of the Upper-House But the ancient Directory in Edward the sixth's time and Archbishop Parker's Form of holding a Convocation both of them written while the Registers of Covocation remain'd entire and both as above-cited setting down his Grace's declaration of the Causes of the Summons as a necessary part of their preparation for Business leave no Room to doubt whether in that Interval the same Usage continu'd which we have shown to be the Practiee of Convocation from the beginning of the most early Acts. Not but that even in these Extracts we find the Custom plainly enough tho' not express'd under all the Circumstances that appear in the Original Registers So Anno 1536. the Second in that Collection the Bishop of London's Return being exhibited Reverendissimus exposuit Causas hujusmodi Convocationis denide monuit omnes Praelatos quatenus conferrent se ad locum consuetum eligant unum virum in Referendarium Prolocutorem qui eorum nomine loqui possit Anno 1547. the next but one in which as well as in the first of that Book the Form of Opening is very much contracted by the Abridger and consists only of some short hints Archbishop Cranmer is there said in general to have acquainted them that the Convocation was then Summon'd quod Praelati Cleri inter se consulerent de vera Christi Religione probè instituenda tradenda popule that being the first Year of Edward the sixth Again Anno 1444. The Return being exhibited Episcopus London in the Vacancy of the Archbishoprick Summariè compendiosè Causam Synodi vocatae exposuit monuit Inferiorem Domum de eligendo sibi Prolocutorem Anno 1557. The Archbishop with the Consent of his Brethren having confirm'd the Prolocutor mox Causas hujus Synodi verbo-tenus proposuit which are there set down at large Anno 1558. Praeconizatione facta Inferiore Doino evocata exposuit Episcopus ibidem Causam Convocation is But more distinctly in the next which is an entire Register That I mean of Archbishop Parker in which the 39 Articles were made viz. Anno 1562. Reverendissimus Dominus Archiepiscopus Cant. brevens quandam Orationem Eloquentiae plenam habuit ad Patres Clerum per quam inter alia opportunitatem Reformandarum rerum in Ecclesia Anglicana jam oblatam esse aperuit ac propensos animos tam illustrissimae Dominae nostrae Regine quam allorum Magnatum hujus regni ad hujusmodi Reformationem habendam declaravit hortando praecipiendo mandando Praelatos Clerum Inferioris Domus in dicta domo capitulari coram co reliquis Patribus constitutos quatenus ad Conventus sui locum sese conferentes unum virum gravem c. eligant in eorum Prolocutorem Anno 1640. the next Convocation of which the Upper-House-Acts remain after the Prolocutor is confirm'd the Archbishop produces the King's License Et Reverendissimus Pater antedictus praefatum Prolocutorem alios de Domo inferiori Decanos Archidiaconos Capitula Cleri Procuratores ibidem praesentes voluit ut ipsi inter se convenirent mature excogitarent de Subsidiis Domino nostro Regi concedend Canonibus Constitutionibus Statum Ecclesiasticum Christi Religionem in Ecclesia Anglicana concernen concipiendis Et quicquid inde senserent sive excogitaverint in scriptis redigant coram ipso Reverendissimo Confratribus Episcopis exhibeant Anno 1661. The Prolocutor being confirm'd Committees of both Houses were order'd in the Upper-House to compose Services for the 29th of May and the 30th of January c. And when afterwards by the coming of the Royal License they thought themselves at liberty to Enter upon the Business which was the chief Cause of their Meeting the Archbishop directs the Members of the Lower-House to proceed in it in the self same words that Archbishop Laud had us'd in the Year 1640. The Inference from the Archbishop's declaring the Causes of Convocation I have been thus particular in my Deduction of Authorities to show the Right of the President to mark out a Scheme of Business to be transacted in Convocation Beause as by the Tenor of the Mandate his first step in Summoning we are led to the Foundation of his Grace's Power over the Members of the Lower-House so in this their Entrance upon Business we clearly see his Influence and Authority over their Proceedings That is we have the view of an Ecclesiastical Synod consisting of a Metropolitan Bishops and Presbyters all going on to Act within their proper Spheres and suitably to the Constitution of an Episcopal Church The Metropolitan having advis'd with his Suffragan-Bishops about the State and Condition of the Church of which He and They are constituted Governours recommends to the Synod the Consideration of such Improvements or Reformations as evidently tend to its Honour and Safety The Clergy are there in readiness to receive the Opinion and Directions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors and to offer their own Judgment as there shall be occasion with all Duty and Humility and in short to give their Assistance of every kind in a proper Subordination towards the ready and effectual Dispatch of all Business that shall be regularly propos'd for the Advancement of Religion The Archbishop and Bishops wee see deliberate Above And the Clergy debate the same Matters below to be ready with their Opinions and Resolutions when requir'd And thus they appear like one Body of Men met about the same common Business in which all in their several Stations are immediately concern'd Proceeding also with such a Paternal Affection on the one Hand and such Dutiful Obedience on the other as becomes their holy Function and is due to Measures for preserving the Order and Vnity of the Church But some late Principles and Practices have another Tendency For instance the Clergy's proceeding in Business of the greatest Moment and even coming to form'd Resolutions thereupon without ever acquainting their Ecclesiastical Superiors and much less offering them first in general as Points that in their Opinion deserve or
the Sincerity of his Recantation In Cases of this kind the Person was frequently brought before the next Convocation especially such as had relaps'd after an Abjuration of their Errors according to the Language and corrupt Opinions of those Times The whole Process in the Interior Courts was return'd into the Arch-bishop's to be deposited there against the next Convocation and when that came the Person was produc'd and a Relation of the former Prosecutions publickly given either by the Arch-bishop or the Diocesan Constitution for bringing Hereticks before the Convocation This was the ordinary Practice long before that Establishment of it by a Constitution under Arch-bishop Chichle Anno 1416. part of which I will here transcribe because it shews the manner and end of bringing Persons examin'd already in the Bishops Courts before the whole Body of the Clergy in Convocation After a general Direction to the several Bishops Archdeacons c. to be diligent in the Discovery and Prosecution of Hereticks Et si quas personas convictas forsan Curiae Seculari non reliquant ipsos ad carceres perpetuos sive temporales prout rei qualitas exegerit ad minus usque ad prox Praelatorum Cleri Cantuariensis Provinciae Convocationem duratur realiter committant in eisdem secundum Juris exigentiam servari faciant ac de omnibus singulis supradictis quomodo viz. inquisierunt reperierunt ac in Processibus se habuerunt personas hujusmodi convictas diligentiaque aut negligentijs Archidiaconorum siue Commissariorum praedictorum alijsque omnibus singulis circumstantijs praemissis quomodolibet concernen ac praesertim de Abjurationibus si quos interim haerses abjurare contingat in prox Praelatorum Cleri Convocatione sub forma publica distincte aperte Nos Successores nostros certificare curent eosdem Processus Officiali Curiae nostrae Cant. effectualiter liberent penes eundem seu in Registrario Curiae nostrae Cant. remansur sic videlicet quòd quemlibet cujus interest pro executione ulteriori corundem Processuum ad eundem Officialem recur habere poterit cum effectu Such was the Method of those Times Hereticks brought before the Arch-bishop Bishops and Clergy but that which I am chiefly to consider is the Judicature in Convocation and this was usually the Arch-bishop Bishops and Clergy in a Body before whom the Party accus'd is generally said to be brought Coram Reverendissimo Confratribus suis Clero in Concilio congregatis adductus fuit or words to the same effect is the ordinary Language of the Registers in those Cases Sentence in all their Names And the Sentence running in the name of the Arch-bishop is pass'd auctoritate de consilio assensu c. Praelatorum Cleri The Instances of both kinds are too numerous to be particularly set down nor can they be over-lookt by any one who shall cast an Eye upon the Convocation-Acts of those times when such Prosecutions hapned 'T is true they are sometimes said to be produc'd Coram Domino Confratribus without mention of the Clergy or only praesente Clero and in praesentiâ Cleri in which Cases the Arch-bishop and Bishops might probably act as a pure Provincial Council for into such we know they sometimes resolv'd themselves upon the Opportunity of coming together in Convocation But in the ordinary Stile of the Registers the Appearance is made before them and the Sentence ordinarily pronounc'd by their Authority in Conjunction with that of the Bishops and therefore in those Days and upon those Occasions they were ordinarily at least a part of the Judicature in Convocation As to any Restraints in this Matter that may have been laid upon the Convocation by subsequent Statutes I don't pretend to give a Judgment of them but only assert the Clergy's Rights by ancient Usage to a share in the Judicature with the Arch-bishop and Bishops supposing Cases of that nature to come actually before them CHAP. XV. The Clergy's Right of a Negative or Final Dissent from the Upper-House The Original of the Clergy's Negative THE greatest Power enjoy'd by the English Clergy in a Provincial Synod beyond the Presbyters of other Nations is a Negative upon the Metropolitan and Bishops none of whose Resolutions either in part or in whole can be pass'd into Synodical-Acts without the previous Approbation of the Inferior Clergy 'T is very true what we observ'd before that it was a Civil Account which brought them by degrees into this Extraordinary Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs Their Civil Property could not be dispos'd of but by their own Consent and this being the great Business of Convocation at the beginning the Negative of the Clergy became an establisht Rule there and so that Rule took place in Canons Constitutions and other Ecclesiastical Affairs when these also which before had solely belong'd to a Synod of the Archbishop and Bishops came to be consider'd and fram'd in Convocation A Negative or final Dissent an establisht Right of the English Clergy However it is now an establisht Right of the Lower-house and a part of the Constitution of this National Church Nor is it my Design to dimiâ—…sh it by the Observation I am about to add That tho' the Clergy's Negative as to Subfidies was directly founded in that common Right of English Subjects Not to be Tax'd but by their own Consent yet under that Right the Clergy of those Days preserv'd such a Sense of Duty to their Ecclesiastical Superiors All Denials of the Clergy made with great Humility that all their Denials were made with great Humility and often accompany'd also with a Request to be excus'd for that time and also with their particular Reasons why they could not come up to the Desires of the Arch-bishop and his Brethren For the granting of Subsidies was always propos'd by the President upon which the Clergy were directed to retire and Debate and return their Answers to him and his Brethren Generally they concurr'd with great Readiness and when they dissented they usually shew'd the Causes thereof with the utmost Humility Anno 1356. 12 Kal. Jun. They excus'd themselves in a formal Address to the Arch-bishop and Bishops Vobis Reverendis in Christo Patribus Dominis Die gratia Archiepiscopo Cant. vestrisque Suffraganeis ad celebrandum Concilium Provinc juxta sacrorum instituta Canonum congregatis supplicat humiliter devotè Clerus Cant. Provinciae quatenus pio sibi compatientes affectu Rationes suas Motiva infrà Scripta clementer auscultare dignemini eis in examine circumspectae discretionis vestrae diligentius ponderatis Petitiones ejusdem Cleri admittere gratiose they offer several Reasons and then conclude thus Placeat benignitati vestrae absque ulteriori onere hac vice Ecclesiae imponendo ipsum Clerum qui dicto Domino Regi semper devotus extitit ipsum nunc in quantum potuit ne deterioris conditionis existat quà m Communitos Laicorum habere
The Method of Passing Canons and Constitutions before the Statute 25. H. 8. c. 19. was the same that has ever been practis'd in Synodical Meetings viz. by the Authority of the Synod and with the Sanction of the Metropolitan and these two gave them their full Force and Effect But now they are fram'd in order to be laid before the Prince as agreed on by the Arch-bishop Bishops and Clergy and none to be of any Force Effect or Validity in Law but only such and so many of them as he by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England shall allow approve and confirm This is the Language of the Royal Licence the Necessity whereof in order to make promulge and execute Canons c. is an Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Power in these Respects and therefore the ancient Sanction which always signify'd a final Authority could not be continu'd in any Matters which were not to be promulg'd or executed without the Allowance Approbation and Confirmation of the King by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England But all Synodical-Acts to which the Royal Licence is not necessary receive their final Authority from the Sanction of the Metropolitan i. e. they still pass in the ancient Canonical way whatever some late Writers too much bent upon the Diminution of Ecclesiastical Power may suggest to the contrary CHAP. XVII Of Proroguing and Dissolving a Convocation AS the Arch-bishop upon receiving the Royal Writ for Calling a Convocation is bound by Law and agreeably to the Deference that has been ever paid to Christian Princes to exert his Summoning Authority so is he under the same Obligation to proceed to Prorogations and Dissolutions thereof in a Canonical way when the Pleasure of the Prince shall be signify'd by Royal Writs to those Purposes For how little Truth there is in the late Notion That the Arch-bishop in those Cases acts purely in a Ministerial way may appear by a Comparison of the Methods of Executing those Commands in Parliament and Convocation The manner of the A. bishop's Proroguing and Dissolving Authoritative For the the first the Prorogation of a Parliament the King by his Letters Patents constitutes such of the Nobility as he thinks fit his Commissioners for that end Dante 's vobis tenore praesentium plenam potestatem facultatem authoritatem c. ad praesens Parliamentum nostrum nomine nostro prorogand c. In the same Stile is the Commission for Dissolving as oft as his Majesty is not present in Person A Stile that is truly and evidently Ministerial But the Writs for doing the same things in Convocation can be directed to none but the Metropolitan himself and that without any Conveyance of Authority or Order to act in his Majesty's Name or any other Direction besides the Proroguing or Dissolving it according to the accustom'd Methods of Convocation Debito modo prorogetis and Dissolvetis seu dissolvi faciatis In pursuance of which Order the Archbishop Prorogues and Dissolves either in Person or by one or more Commissioners specially constituted by his Grace for those Purposes The Archbishop's Admonitions immediately before a Proragation or Dissolution Immediately before a Prorogation or Dissolution we find the Arch-bishop as he saw occasion publickly recommending to the Bishops and Clergy the due Execution of the Ecclesiastical Laws and the Reformation of any particular Abuses and Irregularities in the Church Anno 1428. Ulteriúsque rogavit hortatus est requisivit Reverendissimus Pater Dominus praedictus praefatos Confratres suos ut in inquisitione fienda contra Lollardos Haereticos hujusmodi diligentiam interim omnimodam quam poterant adhiberent cùâ—… revenerint quid contra eos fecerint ipsum pleniùs certificarent specialiter de illis quorum momina sibi detecta dictis Confratribus suis prout unumquemque in Dioc. suâ concernebant in Cedulis divisis conscripta circa tres Dies antea tradidit liberavit Anno 1601. Sess 18. The Extracts out of the Upper-house Books have this Note immediately before the Dissolution Arch-bishop exhorts the Bishops to be diligent in their Charge and careful to observe the Canons in the last Convocation Anno 1586. The Lower-house Book immediately before the Dissolution Revereâ—dissimus Pater Dominus Cant. querelatus est de pravâ immoderatâ luxuriâ ac minus verecundo gestu ac morum intemperie nonnullorum Clericorum Provinciae Cant. ad fora loca publica concurrentium Quare monuit Decanos Archidiaconos alios jam praesentes ad quos Correctio delinquentium hujusmodi pertinet ad severè procedend puniend obnoxios culpahiles si incorrigibiles perseveraverint ad implorand auxilium opem Episcopi Diocesani vel ipsius Reverendissimi Patris vel etiam ipsius Serenissimae Dominae nostrae Reginae ne actionum morum pravitas istorum obnubilet obscuret Dectrinam Evangelii quod verbis profitentur quo pluribus perniciosum siet pessimum eorum exemplum The Writs of Prorogation and Dissolution On the Day of Prorogation or Dissolution the Royal Writ is produc'd and publickly read But that being only a Direction to the Archbishop to Prorogue or Dissolve neither of these are effected by that Publication of the Writ On the contrary the very first Writ of Prorogation we meet with Anno 1532. May 15. was read in the Morning Reverendissimus ostendebat quoddam Breve Regium sibi directum pro Prorogatione hujusmodi Convocationis Quod Breve idem Reverendissimus publicè legebat and yet the Convocation sat till Noon and after Dinner met again So also Anno 1434. March 31. The Writ of Prorogation was brought in and read and afterwards the Resolutions of the Lower-Clergy touching the Pope's Supremacy were delivered and then the Arch-bishop is said to Continue to the Day specify'd in the Writ For so is the Practice of Convocation The Pleasure of the Prince is signify'd to the Archbishop by the Writ but his Grace pursues that Royal Order by a â—ormal Declaration out of a Schedule mentioning indeed the Royal Writ but running solely in the Arch-bishop's Name and by him pronounc'd in presence of the Bishops and Clergy The Authors therefore of some late Schemes have done a manifest Injustice to the Constitution of our Protestant Church in contending against Law and Practice that the Reformation put an end to the ancient Canonical Ways of transacting Ecclesiastical Matters and introduc'd a new Model inconsistent with the Primitive Distinctions between Presbyters and Bishops and unknown before either to this or any other Episcopal Church The foregoing Chapters I hope may vindicate our Reformation from the late Aspersions of that kind as well as the Ecclesiastical Government thereof from any such Repugnancy to the Primitive Rules and may withal make it more easily understood whether they who have carry'd on those new Measures or they who have oppos'd them are the truer Friends to the Rights Liberties and Honour of our
they were to consider against the next Session Dominus Praeses absentibus omnibus priùs praeconizatis nullo modo comparentibus pro Contumacibus pronunciatis continuavit Anno 1557. Sess 8. The Archbishop having admonisht Clerum Domûs Inferioris not to depart without leave inde continuavit in diem Mercurij 16. Februarij prox horâ 2. post-meridiem c. monuitque omnes c. ad interessendum Anno 1586. Dr. Awbrey as Commissary to the Archbishop Continues Hujusmodi Convocationem in Statu quo nunc est c. praesentibus tunc ibidem Venerabilibus Viris Mris. Mullyns Walker ex Coetu Inferioris Domûs necnon aliis testibus c. This was done in the Chapter-house of St. Paul's the Place of the Bishops and is enter'd in the Lower-house-Journal as the Continuation of that House Edward Say their Actuary being also present A short Account of the Schedule From the foregoing Observations upon the Form and Manner of Continuation this Account of it may in my Opinion be fairly collected While the Custom was to enter it at large in the Register as we see they did in 1529 and 1532. the Convocation was either Continu'd in a Body as it still is in the Province of York or notice thereof was given to the Inferior-Clergy by the Prolocutor or some other Authentick Hand But the Business of Convocations increasing and the Clergy growing thereupon into a more separate State as to their Debates the Prolocutor's coming up constantly to receive the Notice might appear troublesome and a proper Person by whom to convey it immediately to the Lower-Clergy might not always be in readiness and so the Form which the Actuary was wont to enter in the Register for the Archbishop's Reading began to be drawn upon a separate Paper or Schedule from whence as a Notice more certain and easy the Prolocutor should Intimate the Continuation to the Lower-house And then we find that the Notary instead of Transcribing it into the Register at length as he had done at the beginning thought it sufficient to refer to that original Schedule as ultimately deposited in the same Office with the Acts of both Houses of Convocation The deriving our Schedules from the Lateran-Council an improbable Scheme I have been told of a Scheme lately offer'd to shew that the Use of these Schedules in our English Convocation was derived from the same Method in the Lateran Council under Julius XI and Leo X. If this Scheme be made more publick we may expect that the Author thereof shew us either some particular Constitution in that Council establishing such a Rule for the future Proceedings of Provincial Synods or some notice in our Histories that Archbishop Warham out of a particular liking to the Model resolv'd to make it a Rule for his own Synods or at least some evident changes of the manner of holding an English Convocation in conformity to that of the Lateran Council upon the publication thereof by order of Pope Leo the Tenth These are proofs which will be naturally called for to support such a Notion And yet if I am not much mistaken the Author of that Scheme will not be able to confirm it by any one of them And the Form I am sure of those Schedules in the Lateran Council are as different in all respects from our most early Schedules of Continuation as two Instruments of the same design and tendency can well be conceiv'd The reason why so many Schedules appear in the Printed Acts of that Lateran Council is plainly this After it was over Pope Leo employ'd one of the Cardinals Antonius de Monte to draw up the Acts and Proceedings Entire taking every thing at large as they lay in the orial gin Instruments and were enter'd by the Notaries upon the place This was afterwards made publick by Authority of the Pope But I hope this new account of the Original of English Schedules depends not upon this strange Inference that because the same Schedules appear not in the Printed Acts of former Councils the Matter and Decrees whereof were only made publick without the Forms of Proceeding therefore such Schedules were not us'd in the holding of Councils before And as to those that came after had Pope Leo intended this we speak of for a Pattern to future Councils we might at least expect to find every thing in the Council of Trent exactly agreeable to that Model And yet these Methods don't appear there and so the same argument the silence of the Printed Acts which makes those in the Lateran Council the first of the kind will prove them also to be the last But as the thing appears to me at present I see no reason to doubt whether the Councils both before and after did not proceed in the same methods with those we see in the Lateran only the other Popes hapn'd not to be so curious as Leo the Tenth in publishing the Forms of Proceeding with the Decrees of their Councils Tho' as to this point of the Schedules even in the Year 1431. long enough before the Lateran Council we find the Legat and the other Prelates c. in the Council of Basil solemnly met in certâ Aulâ c. in quâ soliti sunt pro Conciliis tenendis in unum convenire and decreeing a Day for the first Session expresly by Schedule prout in Schedulâ cujus tenor inferiùs primo loco describitur pleniùs continetur However what is here said concerning Schedules in the Councils Abroad I offer only as my own present thoughts not knowing particularly enough how that Scheme deriving our Methods from the Lateran Council is laid The Dispute depends not upon Proroguing by Schedule or otherwise Nor would I have the foregoing account of the use of Schedules in an English Convocation to be so understood as if in the present Dispute it were at all material whether his Grace pronounc'd the Continuation from a separate Paper or from the Form written in the Register or yet whether the Prolocutor's Intimation to the Clergy be upon Notice by the Schedule or by any other Authentick Conveyance of his Grace's Act. I only propos'd according to my Method in explaining the other Heads to lay before the Reader whatever the Registers of Convocation afford upon this But in the Disputes depending between the two Houses the Conveyance of this Notice is no longer a Question since those of the Lower-Clergy have receded from their Independent Power of Adjourning to a Day beyond that of the Upper-house For as their owning an Obligation to attend at his Grace's time supposes a necessity of some kind of Notice to what Day and Hour the Continuation is made so if that Notice be but authentick 't is indifferent in what manner it comes The Heads upon which the Dispute turns The Questions therefore in short are these I. What is it that the Archbishop or his Commissary pronounces in the Upper-house II. What is it that is thereupon intimated or signified to
great Irregularity and Mischief to our Church but they have held several INTERMEDIATE SESSIONS without their Metropolitan and Bishops a short State whereof I will give the Reader out of a late Letter to the Author of the Expedient propos'd Reflect on Exped p. 11. You say p. 15. c 2. that you have Precedents for meeting on Intermediate Days and threaten to exert that Power except the Upper-house will submit to your Method of Continuing But is it a fair part in you to leave your Reader to imagin that such Meetings as a House are warranted by a Number of unexceptionable Precedents when you know in your Conscience that no more than two can be fairly pretended and that the Invalidity of these two has been shown at large The first that of May 9. 1640. as you very well know hapn'd at a time when neither Bishops nor Clergy were sure of their being a legal Convocation and will equally justify the Clergy's Adjourning to a Day beyond the Appointment of the Upper-house which yet is a Practice disown'd by the Advocates for Intermediate Sessions When the second Adjournment of this kind hapn'd the Archbishop was in Custody and the Bishops justly Apprehensive of Danger amidst the popular prejudices of those times against their Order could not think it safe to come together nor had they met in Convocation some Weeks before These together with the want of Authority in the Minutes and some other Exceptions have been urg'd so largely already that I am asham'd to see one who could not but know all this insisting upon them without any attempt to remove the Objections and also referring to these two in such general terms as may lead the Reader into a Belief of many more There is another Objection and that a very material one equally concluding against these two Precedents viz. That no Business appears to have been done on either of the Days to which the Adjournments were made when yet the Preparation for business is the only pretence upon which the Claim of Intermediate Days is advanc'd If therefore Men were serious in their Enquiries about the Usage of former Times in order to make it a Rule to their present Practice they would consider how the Sessions of the Lower House have stood with regard to those of the Upper at times when business of moment was depending in Convocation Because then we may suppose the Clergy would have Exerted this Power if they had thought themselves possess'd of it The Clergy of former times did not think of Intermediate Sessions Now this Notice is not to be had but from concurrent Journals of the two Houses the first of which are in the Years 1586 and 1588. when we have no more than Extracts out of the Registers of the Upper House but all the Sessions that are express'd above 20 in Number concur exactly with those of the Lower House without any Appearance of Intermediate Meetings The next concurrent Books that remain are those in the two Convocations of 1640 the Minutes whereof express the Days of several of the Sessions and they all appear to answer the Continuations of the Upper House except the two we just now mention'd which are so fully and particularly accounted for elsewhere The Compilers of the late Narrative p. 37. speaking of the two Instances in 1640 add We may fairly prefume we might have found more in other Convocations if the Books of both Houses had been extant to have been compared Two Instances so exceptionable and under such singular Circumstances could be no fair ground for such a presumption But if Intermediate Meetings were any where to be expected no time so likely as in the Convocation which begun May the 8th 1661. the first after the Restoration For in that the whole Common Prayer was Revis'd several Prayers and Services added many Canons and Constitutions compil'd and other Matters of great Importance tranfacted In all this work the Clergy under Direction of the A. B. and Bps had their constant share as appears distinctly from the Original Register of the Upper House from May 8. 1661 to Sept. 19. 1666. which has been all along thought to be lost but by great Providence was lately retriev'd The Constant Style of Continuations in this Register is the same with that of 1640. Dominus c. de cum Consensu Confratrum suorum Continuavit Prorogavit hujusmodi Convocationem sive sacram Synodum Provincialem The Book contains above 140 Sessions and all that while the Sessions of the Lower House are distinctly set down in Mr. Mundy's Minutes I have made an exact Comparison of them and find not the least footstep of an Intermediate Meeting though both the Nature and the Length of the business before them would have prompted them at that time more than any other to hold Intermediate Sessions had they dreamt of such an Inherent Power of Adjourning as some of their Successors have lately taken up And yet in the last Convocation several of these Intermediate Sessions were held by the Majority of the Lower House with all the appearance of Synodical Meetings Suppose then that the Members of some Presbyterian Assembly taking the Advantage of one of those Sessions had enter'd their Claim of Alliance to that Majority of the Lower House as meeting sitting acting and departing upon the sole Authority of Presbyters without any Appearance of a Superiour Order I fear they would hardly have been driven from their Claim except the Lower House Members could have pleaded that they met there by the Authority or at least the Permission of their Metropolitan and Bishops and yet these their Ecclesiastical Superiors it is well known had publickly declar'd against such Intermediate Sessions and against all the business transacted in them as Vnsynodical Tho' therefore an Inherent Power of Continuing with a Right thereupon to hold Intermediate Sessions had some countenance from the Practice of former Convocations as we see they have none yet it could be no decent part in Episcopal Divines to contend with all this Zeal for Privileges so favourable to the measures of Presbytery And I hope before the Majority of the present Lower House resume these Claims and return to the like Practices they will consider how little warrant they have from antecedent Practice and how mischievous they are in the Consequences to our Episcopal Constitution Observations touching the RIGHT to determine Controverted Elections Instances of Controverted Elections occurring in the remaining Acts. An. 1586. p. 140. App. THE first instances we find of determining Elections in Convocation are those two set down at large in the Journal of 1586 Sess 3 4. which need not therefore be transcrib'd in this Place Anno 1586. The Elections of both the Proctors for the Diocese of Norwich hapned to be controverted and being also different Choices in the two Archdeaconries they were thereupon two different Cases One was heard and determin'd by the Archbishop in the Upper House the other by the Prolocutor
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
ex causa necessaria tunc ibidem alleganda proponend per Paternitatem vestram Reverendissimam approband sed eorum contumacias qui absentes fuerint canonice punire Et sic Literas vestras Reverendissimas antedictas quatenus ad Nos attinet in nobis est fuimus Executi Dat. in Palatio nostro apad London ultimo die mensis Januarij Anno Domini stylo Angliae millesimo septingentesimo nostraeque translationis vicesimo sexto If this Instrument the Exhibiting and Reading whereof opens the Convocation be not a plâ—in Declaration of the Authority by which it is immediately summon'd and subsists I know not where Words will be found to declare or express it Nor can I conceive either how the issuing a Mandate in the Name and under the Hand and Seal of the Archbishop or the certifying to his Grace an Execution in Virtue and by the Authority of his Mandate can consist with the late Notion of his Grace's issuing that Mandate in a meer Ministerial way V. Observations upon the Table of Fees and the Catalogue of Members prefixt to the Registers of Convocation AT the beginning of the Upper-house Registers we generally find a Catalogue of Fees due to the Officers in Convocation from the Members of each House according to their several Degrees and Stations Which Catalogue is Copy'd word for word from a larger Table sign'd and establisht by Archbishop Whitgift containing the Fees due to the Officers of his Grace's Courts for every particular Business to be executed therein The Title of the Table is as follows A Table of Fees of the most Reverend Father in God John by the Providence of God Archbishop of Canterbury Primate and Metropolitan of all England his Grace's Chancellor Vicar-General Register-Principal Apparitor-General and other Ministers Among these the several Officers in Convocation belonging to the Lower as well as the Upper-house have their Fees assign'd as Members of his Grace's Court according to the Proportions which Archbishop Whitgift found to be their customary Allowance The part of that Table which relates to Convocation and is therefore usually transcrib'd into the Registers thereof is as follows ¶ Feoda Solvenda Registrario Primario Apparitori Generali Domini Archiepiscopi Cant. in Convocatione Provinciae Cant. juxta antiquum morem ejusdem Convocationis  Registrario  s. d. Inprimis Quilibet Episcopus Provinc Cant. Solvit Registrario praedicto 6 8 Et si absens fuerit toto 13 4 Item Quilibet Decanus comparens per Procuratorem 5 0 Item Quilibet Archidiaconus comparens per Procuratorem solvit 5 0 Item Procurator cujuslibet Capituli solvit 5 0 Item Quilibet Procurator Cleri solvit xx d. viz. duo Procuratores 3 4  Apparitori Item Quilibet Episcopus solvit Apparitori 6 8 Similia Feoda solvenda sunt qualibet Sessione cum Convocatio prorogetur authoritate Brevis Regij ¶ Feoda Actuario Domûs Inferioris Convocationis solvend  Actuario  s. d. Inprimis Quilibet Decanus solvit 2 8 Item Quilibet Archidiaconus 1 8 Item Quilibet Procurator Capituli 1 8 Item Quilibet Procurator Cleri 1 4 ¶ Ostiario Domûs Inferioris  Ostiario Inprimis Quilibet Decanus solvit 1 4 Item Quilibet Archidiaconus 1 0 Item Quilibet Procurator Capituli 1 0 Item Quilibet Procurator Cleri 0 8 Observations upon the Table of Fees 1. These Particulars as rankt among the Fees for the Office of Vicar-General and usually enter'd at the beginning of the Journals of each House shew all the Officers of Convocation to be under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Archbishop and Members of his Court. 2. We may observe also that in the Provision made for the Appearance of a Dean or Archdeacon by Proxy the Fee for exhibiting the Instruments is directly assign'd to the Archbishop's Register as it is the sole Right of his Grace to admit and by consequence of his proper Officer to receive them 3. Provision being only made for exhibiting the Procuratorial Letters of the Cathedral and Diocesan Proctors and none for Proxies in case of their Absence 't is plain that in those days none was thought to have a Right of substituting his Proxie but who had a Right to be Personally Cited viz. Bishops Deans and Archdeacons The Catalogues of the Members of Convocation II. The Table of Fees is usually follow'd by a Catalogue of the Members to which the General Title of the Convocation is prefixt The Title of that in 1640 is as follows Convocatio Praelatorum Cleri Cantuar. Provinciae inchoata in Domo Capitulari Ecclesiae Cathedralis Sancti Pauli London Autoritate Brevis Regij Reverendissimo in Christo Patri ac fideli Consiliario suo Domino Gulielmo Providentiâ Divinâ Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano in hac parte direct inchoata die Martis decimo quarto viz. die mentis Aprilis Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo quadragesimo Regnique Serenissimi in Christo Principis Domini nostri Domini Caroli Dei Gratiâ Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae Regis Fidei Defensoris c. Anno decimo sexto The same Title with the necessary Variations as to Time c. is also put before the Register of 1661. After which in both the Convocations the Members of the Upper-house are severally enter'd under the following Head Nomina Reverendorum Patrum Episcoporum modernorum Cant. Provinciae citatorum monitorum ad comparendum in Convocatione praedictâ And after them come the Members of the Lower-house according to their several Churches Dieceses and respective Stations therein under this Title Nomina citatorum ad comparendum in Inferiore Domo Convocationis Praelatorum Cleri Cant. Provinciae inchoat die loco praedict Observations upon the Catalogues Upon the foregoing Account of these Introductions to the Upper-house Acts I observe 1. That this Entry of the Inferior Clergy together with the Bishops in the Books of the Upper-house is the Consequence of that House's being properly the Locus Synodi and of the Convocation's being one Body consisting of Bishops and Presbyters as the Members and assembl'd under one common Head or President the Metropolitan of the Province Vid. Supr Cap. 2. It further implies a Right in the Archbishop to take Cognizance of the Members of the Lower-house as to their Attendance in Convocation For why else should the Names of the Persons cited upon the Archiepiscopal Mandate be so distinctly enter'd in the Registers of the Upper-house 2. The whole Convocation is not only express'd in general under the Name Convocatio Praelatorum Cleri Cantuariensis Provinciae but the Lower-house in particular as a Member thereof is stil'd Domus Inserior Convocationis Praelatorum Cleri Cant. Provinciae Upon what ground therefore it can be pretended that the Lower-house is not included in a Schedule of Continuation running in the self same Terms is to me very unaccountable 3. As in the Years 1640. and 1661. the English Clergy in