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. [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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 set themselves upon a level with that honourable Body, or to pretend to equal Privileges thence with respect to the Lords, the Bishops. But they no where tell us, how far they will or may carry their Claims upon the foot of that Relation, nor assign any reason why it does not as well entitle them to all the other Privileges of that august Assembly, as to those they contend for at present. And the Friends of Episcopacy will hardly be content that our Constitution be perpetually expos'd to Ruin, whenever [Page 5] a majority of the Lower-House happens to be out of humour, and in a disposition to withdraw their Obedience, or invade the Rights of their Superiors, under a general pretence of their Parliamentary Relation. That they enjoy several Rights, unknown to the Presbyters of the primitive Times, is not deny'd; nor ought to be forgotten by those, who not content with that addition of Power and Privilege, were making larger Encroachments upon their Ecclesiastical Superiors; and which is worse, upon a Foundation that will raise them to what further degrees of Independence the Clergy may at any time be drawn to attempt, either out of a personal dislike of their Bishops, or a secret enmity to the Character it self.
These Innovations begun in 1689. Reg. Sup. Domus. These new Claims were set a-foot (with what design, or upon what grounds, I cannot say) in the Convocation of 1689. In the sixth Session whereof, the Upper-House drew up an Address of Thanks to his Majesty, for his Royal Licence, and a Gracious Message which he had sent that day to the Convocation. The Form being agreed on, was (according to Castom) sent down to the Lower-House for their consent; but they, instead of giving their consent, or signifying the Amendments they conceiv'd necessary, return'd an Answer to this effect, ‘"That they had resolved to Address in a Form of their own framing;’ and presently after, upon their Lordship's disapproving that Answer, they declared their Resolution more openly, ‘"That they intended to Address separately:’ Intendebant Supplicem Libellum separatim praesentare. An expression very agreeable to the Constitution of a House of Commons, but never heard of before in Convocation: And as the Practice was wholly [Page 6] New, so was it resisted and over-rul'd by the Right Reverend the present Lord Bishop of London, then President, and his Brethren the Bishops.
In the Tenth Session, Ibid. the Prolocutor having receiv'd certain Amendments from the President to be consider'd by the Lower-House, immediately ask'd the Question, Whether, in case the Lower-House agreed to those, their Lordships intended to make any more? Which would not perhaps have been thought a very proper or decent Offer, even from One House of Parliament to the other, in a like Case: And being so much more improper in Convocation, especially as coming from the Lower to the Ʋpper-House, would have justified their Lordships in a Resentment less mild and gentle, than they were pleased to express: Praeses, &c. declaravit quaestionem per cum propositam fuisse valde Irregularem, & talem cui nullo modo respondere queat aut tenetur.
Session 13th, Ibid. The President proposes to the Prolocutor the naming a Committee of the Lower-House, to meet a select number of the Upper, in order to inspect the Acts of both Houses. Upon this a double Irregularity ensu'd; (so I take the liberty to call them now, because they will be proved such hereafter in their proper place:) the first, in the Prolocutor, who return'd an answer, that I dare say no President ever met with before from a Prolocutor, se non posse ad id consentire sine Consensu Coetus domûs Inferioris Convocationis prius habito: The second, in the House, whose resolution was, not to appoint any Committee for that purpose, durante recessu Convocationis: As if by the establish'd Rules of Convocation, they had a negative upon the President in the appointment of Committees, or had any further share in it, than to receive his Directions, and; when [Page 7] the number and the Persons are left to their discretion, to confirm the Prolocutor's Nomination.
In that Convocation also, the new practice of sending the Resolutions and Opinions of their House, by other hands than the Prolocutor's, was first attempted; but presently taken notice of as an Innovation, and check'd by the President and Bishops.
I produce not these, as testimonies of any Design in the Clergy of that time to transgress the Rules of Convocation, or to gain new Privileges to their House. The tendency of Parliamentary Claims to a co-ordinate Power. Tho' it may be, some of the Members then had this notion of Parliamentary Rights in their Eye; and the manner of holding an English Convocation, not being near so thorowly consider'd as since it has been, the taking some of their Measures from the Proceedings in Parliament might (under that imperfect knowledge of things) be a pardonable Error. But the observation I would make upon these Practices, is, That they were plainly enough an Imitation of the Methods in the house of Commons; and being so, shew how the very beginnings of such an Imitation tend to divide and separate the Synod, and introduce a co-ordinate Power of Presbyters with their Bishops; and that therefore the safety of our Episcopal Constitution, at this juncture, depends upon a timely and stedfast opposition to those Parliamentary Claims, with the Establishment of all Proceedings in Convocation upon the only true bottom, the current usage of former Convocations, as contain'd in the remaining Registers of either House. These have been diligently examin'd since the year 1689. and being so opposite to the Claims that were then made (as will be shown at large from the Registers themselves) it might have been hop'd that some of the more inquisitive Members would have come together the last Convocation, in a [Page 8] disposition to recede from those groundless pretences. But whether they had not thoroughly examin'd the Books, or whether they suffer'd themselves to be misled by one whose Interest it was to draw a majority of the Clergy to act upon Principles that he had publickly advanc'd; whatever (I say) was the Cause, 'tis certain in Fact, that they were far enough from revoking the Innovations attempted in 1689. Some new Claims of the last Lower-House. So far, as upon the same Foundation to proceed to new Claims of Independence, as little warranted from the Ʋ sage of Convocation, and tending equally, if not more, to set up the Co-ordinate Power we are complaining of, and to destroy the fundamental Constitution of an English Synod. Such are, The Power they pretend over their own Members; Their sitting and acting in a Synodical Way, without their Metropolitan and Bishops; Their proceeding to Resolutions upon matters of the highest importance, without the previous knowledge and directions of the Ʋpper-House; Their refusing to return their Answer in Writing, and to appoint Committees, when requir'd by the President, &c. with other steps towards such an Independence from their Bishops, as the Commons in Parliament are possess'd of, with relation to the Lords. And if this must be their standing Pattern, and their Parliamentary Capacity a certain refuge whenever their Claims exceed the Custom of former Convocations; how far they will go I cannot say, nor will I judge with what Intention they pursue Measures so opposite to the State of the primitive Church; but this I am sure of, that the same Foundation upon which their late Claims are grounded, will equally justisie them in many more; that being once introduced would make the Frame of an English Convocation as inconsistent [Page 9] with Episcopacy, as the profess'd Enemies thereof can desire.
It will be objected, that the Persons who at present are in those Levelling Measures, have not formerly been thought in the Presbyterian Interest, and that now also they are more open and bitter than most other Men in their Invectives against them, and remarkably loud in a Concern for the Church.
All this is readily acknowledg'd, and 'tis no new thing with frail Mankind (such especially who are uneasie under Government) to rail at those the most, who are in the possession of what themselves most desire. But Words are empty Testimonies in comparison of Actions; and the hardest Names they can find for that Sect, will be no Conviction to Them nor Ʋs, either that these endeavours to lessen the Character of Bishops, are not an evident Service to their Cause, or that such Invasions by Presbyters upon the primitive Rights of Episcopacy, are not an evident undermining of our Establishment.
The design of this Book, to settle their Proceedings upon the Custom of Convocation. But when I speak of the primitive Rules, I would not be understood to propose the forms of the more ancient Synods, as the measure of my future reasonings upon the Privileges either of Bishops or Clergy in an English Convocation; but only to prevent its being thought, that any of the Powers they now claim, and the Bishops deny, are so much as pretended to receive support from the Condition of Presbyters in the primitive Church. So far from this, that many of their real Privileges peculiar to the Clergy of this Nation, and now grown into legal Rights, are much younger than the first Accounts we have of a Convocation properly so call'd; such are, Their debating in a separate Body; Their having a standing Prolocutor [Page 10] of their own, The share they have in framing Canons and Constitutions, Their Negative upon the Archbishop and Bishops in Synodical Acts of an Ecclesiastical Nature; and even their right to be summon'd in the present Form, or for Ecclesiastical Purposes. For their Civil Property could not be dispos'd of, but by their own consent; and the necessity of having this, gave them a Negative upon the Bishops in Subsidies, which was then the chief business of Convocation; the Canons and Constitutions of the Church being for many Ages after constantly made in Synods, consisting only of the Archbishop and his Provincial Bishops. But the Affairs of the Church, as they came to be transacted in Convocation, fell under the Rules and Methods that had been establish'd there upon Civil Accounts: By which means, the Inferiour Clergy came into the same share in the Ecclesiastical, that they had enjoy'd in the Secular Business; and as Custom has given them a legal Claim to several Privileges of that kind, unknown to the Primitive Presbyters, or even to the Presbyters of any other Episcopal Church at this Day; so (be their original what it will) it is no part of my Design to call in question any of their Claims, that the remaining Acts of Convocation will warrant. Their want of Authorities from the primitive Times, with the lateness of their coming to a share in the Canons and Constitutions of our own Church, and the secular Original of the Title they now have to bear a part in framing and passing them, will be a general Reason with all unprejudic'd Men why they should at least acquiesce in these, and not endeavour to build higher upon that secular Foundation. But in the present Controversie, I freely pass by all these disadvantages, and desire only that every Point may be determined by [Page 11] the Constitution and Customs of Convocation; resolving neither to assert any Authority to the Upper-House, nor deny any Privileges to the Lower, but as the Proceedings of former Convocations establish the first, and prove all Pretensions to the second groundless and illegal. All proofs fro [...] [...] Registers themselves. Nor do I propose to have the Reader depend upon my Assertions or bare Representations of things; but upon all Points that are either made a Question already, or can possibly bear one, the Evidences shall be produc'd at large; that so every Reader may be his own Judge, and none be able to contradict the Positions laid down, but by first denying the Authority of the Registers.
My accounts may perhaps seem too minute and particular to some, who are already skill'd in Convocation Affairs; but it is not for their Use that I write this, but for the sake of the Generality; many of whom, Eminent in other parts of Learning, may without reproach be presum'd Strangers to a Subject, that has so lately come under Consideration. Which will also be a fair Apology for their having been mis-led into a favourable Opinion of some Measures, not to be warranted by the Practice of Convocation; if they shew themselves ready to retire upon a clear Conviction from proper Authorities. In the producing of which, my multiplying Testimonies of the same kind, and to the same purpose, may possibly be thought a fault; but if it be, they who have so openly deny'd Truths establish'd upon Evidences so plain and numerous, are answerable for it.
The necessity of citing Authorities at large In Truth, the Errors and Prejudices arising from the notion of a Parliamentary Body, have been wrought into Men's Minds with so much Art and Diligence, that nothing under Originals, and a variety of Authorities from thence, can [Page 12] hope to dispossess them; nor will it upon any less Testimony be thought possible, that Persons in Holy Orders should contend so earnestly for meeting and acting in a Civil Capacity, about matters of an Ecclesiastical Nature; if they had any Pretence in Law or Custom, to meet and act under the Character or Appearance of a Sacred Synod: Especially when Subsidies, the great Business of a Secular Nature that ever belong'd to the Convocation, are not now granted in it. And since, even after the business of it is become purely Ecclesiastical, the Endeavours to make it a Civil Meeting, have been so remarkable: my design, in the following Papers, is to do Right to its Constitution, by restoring it to all the Spiritual Liberties and Advantages it may justly claim by the Laws of the Land, and its own perpetual Usage: From which, as convey'd to us by the Acts themselves, The general Design of this Book. I will shew in a plain and naked Relation of Matters of Fact, That an English Convocation, however laid under some Restraints from the Civil Constitution, is far from being so much transform'd into a Civil Meeting, as has been pleaded of late; That in the Summoning, Opening, and Acting, it appears what it is, an Ecclesiastical Synod of Bishops with their Presbyters, and neither a Parliamentary Body on the one hand, nor an Assembly of Presbyters on the other; That however the Papists slander the English Reformation, as if it had chang'd our Church into a Civil Constitution, yet 'tis evident (against all the Endeavours of some among our selves, to help the Church of Rome in that Objection) that, as to the Nature of our Synods at least, it left [...] in the same Ecclesiastical State as it found them.
[Page 13] To proceed regularly in this Design, it must be all along observ'd, what I hinted before, that the Corruptions which have been endeavoured of late in an English Convocation, are, in general, the Diminution of the Canonical Authority of the Metropolitan and Bishops, and the Clergy's claiming such Exemptions from that Authority, as makes the whole Body look more like an English Parliament, than a Sacred Synod. To this purpose it has been pleaded, Nar. p. 6. That the Convocation was divided into two Houses, in conformity to the Parliament: Answ. p 9. c. 2. That the Prolocuter is President of the Lower-House, as the Archbishop is of the Ʋpper: That the Acts and Declarations of both, are only the Effect of the Order or Consent of each House respectively: That the Prolocutor governs the Time of the Lower, in as full a manner, as his Grace does that of the Ʋpper, i. e. with the Consent of the House: Nar. p. 17. That their Debates are manag'd Independently from their Lordships: Nar. p. 61. That they have a general Negative upon the Ʋpper-House: That in virtue thereof, they have a Right to deny the Appointment of Committees, and even a sight of their Journals (in which, by the way, they exceed their Pattern; the Journals of the two Houses of Parliament being mutually open to the Members of each, at all times and upon all occasions): Nar. p 3. That without the Knowledge or Directions of their Lordships, they can enter upon and proceed in business of the highest Importance; and if any Point happen, that in the judgment of the Ʋpper-House may be most conveniently Debated in Writing, Nar. p. 50. they can insist upon a free Conference as the fittest Method, and if that be deny'd, are under no Obligation to be further accountable to their Lordships for any of their Practices or Proceedings: Nar. p. 49. Add to these, the Power they claim over their own Members, upon which they can require their Attendance, [Page 14] and (according to the known practice of the last Convocation) can discharge them from it by a Vote or Resolution of the House; with that other Claim which has been so much insisted on, their Right to adjourn to different Days, from the Metropolitan and Bishops, and to sit and act on these Days as a House.
In these Claims and Practices, I say, we have the view of an English Parliament, but lose that of an Ecclesiastical Synod, consisting of a Metropolitan, Bishops, and Presbyters. By these Rules, we see, the Debates (as to the matter, manner and time) are all separated at the pleasure of the Inferior Clergy; and as the Archbishop and the Upper-house are made to resemble the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Lords Temporal, so (to compleat the Parallel) the Prolocutor and the Lower-House (that is, as they term themselves, the Spiritual Commons) answer to the House of Commons and their Speaker. However, such Comparisons, if they went no further than Names, or the general Appearance of the two Bodies, might be innocent enough; but when upon these the Claims of new Privileges begin to be founded, and such Privileges too as are an apparent diminution of the Metropolitical and Episcopal Authority, separating the Synod and raising the Presbyters by degrees to a co-ordinate Power; then the Parallel is no longer safe, but the Governors of the Church, and all that love our Episcopal Constitution, are concern'd to enter upon proper Measures for the Preservation of it. And these, in our present Circumstances, I conceive to be, the opposing to those new attempts the Authority of former Convocations, and describing from thence (i. e. from the only true Rule) the Practice and Proceeding proper to each [Page 15] House. Which will not only shew, that their Lordships have insisted upon no Power but what their Character and the Usage of Convocation fully justifie, and that therefore the Clergy's Claims of Exemption from it are not to be warranted; but will also discover to the World how they have been impos'd on by those, who have grounded such Claims upon an imaginary Alliance between the Parliament and Convocation; two Bodies that will appear to be widely different both in Constitution and Proceedings. And since that difference (as I said before) consists chiefly in the Authority which belongs to the Metropolitan and Bishops over the Inferior Clergy and their Proceedings; 'tis my design to shew out of the Records themselves, how that Authority stands, and has always stood, in the several Ages and Instances, from the Summoning and Opening a Convocation, to the Dissolution thereof; with an Eye, all along, to the different Constitution, and manner of corresponding, in the two Houses of Parliament, and particularly to the late Claims of Independence built upon a Parliamentary Relation.
CHAP. I.
The Method of SUMMONING an English Convocation.
The Writ to the Archbishop. I. WHen his Majesty, by the Advice of his Council, resolves to Summon his Parliament, and with it a Convocation, he signifies his Royal Pleasure by Writ to the Archbishop, Rex, &c. Reverendissimo, &c. (then the generaI Causes of his calling a Convocation are recited) [Page 16] Vobis in fide & dilectione quibus nobis tenemini, rogando mandamus, quatenus praemissis debito intuitu attentis & ponderatis, universos & singulos Episcopos vestrae Provinciae ac Decanos Ecclesiarum Cathedralium, necnon Archidiaconos, Capitula & Collegia totumque Clerum cujuslibet Dioecesis ejusdem Provinciae, ad comparendum CORAM VOBIS in Ecclesia Cathedrali S. Pauli London—die, &c. VEL ALIBI prout melius expedire videritis, cum omni celeritate accommodâ, MODO DEBITO Convocari faciatis.
A Writ to this effect, and for some hundred Years in this very Form, has been all along directed to the Archbishop, whenever the King had resolved that a Convocation should be Summon'd. Upon the reception whereof, his Grace always proceeded to summon it in the fixt and Canonical Method, that he ever us'd in calling of Convocations upon his own motion, without that Writ. For tho' the King, as having a Right to the Assistance of the Clergy, had also a Right to be obey'd by the Archbishop, in calling them together for that end; yet in the dispatch of that business, he left them to proceed according to the known Rules of a Provincial Synod, viz. to be summon'd before their Metropolitan, and to the Place he should think fit to appoint, and in the manner that was usual in all other Convocations. For the Archbishop had a Right to call a Convocation at pleasure, till the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 19. absolutely restrained him from doing it, unless empower'd by the King's Writ: Which effected this Alteration in the Summons, that whereas before it was issu'd sometimes upon the Pleasure of the Prince signified to the Archbishop, and sometimes upon the Archbishop's alone, the Authority of the Summons in both, resting equally [Page] [Page] [Page 17] 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, [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 'tis 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 [Page 20] 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 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.
[Page 21] 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 Bisho [...] 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: Ʋnumquodque 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 [Page 22] 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 [...] bito Certificatorio super Executione ejusdem i [...]roducere, ac debita cum Reverentiâ eidem Reverendissimo Patri praesentare & tradere tenetur.—This Certificate under the Episcopal Seal, and directed [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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 Atte [...], 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 [Page 26] 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.
[Page 27] 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 [...]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.
[Page 28] 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, it is added, Et caeteris Coepiscopis Suffragancis nostris, Electis, et Vicariis praedictis similiter injungatis, ut Nos vel nostrum Commissarium eisdem die et loco singuli sigillatim modo debito certificent per literas suas patentes harum seriem et citatorum Nomina Dioeces. eorundem in Cedulâ consimili continentes.
And before the end of that Century, we find it the same with the present Form, excepting [Page 29] a very small variation of the words: So,
Anno 1396. Vobis etiam, ut suprá, injungimus et mandamus, quòd omnibus et singulis Venerabilibus Fratribus nostris, Coepiscopis vestris, vel Vicariis hujusmodi, injungatis seu faciatis injungi, quod singuli eorum singillatim de facto suo quatenus pertinet ad eosdem, Nos seu loca nostra tenentes vel Commissarios, dictis die et loco, per literas suas Patentes, Citatorum Nomina continentes, distinctè certificent et apertè.
The Clause at present, runs thus:
Et praetereà, Vobis, ut suprà, injungimus et mandamus, quòd omnibus et singulis Coepiscopis Suffraganeis Provinciae nostrae Cant. injungatis et 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, et loco, per literas eorum Patentes Nomina et Cognomina omnium et singulorum per eos respectivè Citatorum continentes, distinctè certificent et aperté.
The several Forms of these two Clauses, we see, are only different ways of expressing the self-same things: And I produce them thus distinctly, that they who have lately Acted against the Intent and Authority of them, may have no Opportunity to Suggest to their Friends, that as they stand in our Modern Mandates, they are not agrecable to the Sense and Language of Antiquity, i. e. that the Denouncing Canonical Censures against Absents, and the Returns from the several Bishops, to inform his Grace whose Attendance it was that he had a right to require, has not ever been, as now it is, the Method and Practice of an English Convocation. Since the Beginning [Page 30] of this Controversie, Assertions no less groundless have been given out and propagated, and have had their design'd effect, in misleading many honest and well-meaning Men; which is a warning for the future, not to leave Room for any Misrepresentations of that kind, and is also the reason why I take the same Method in the Explication of the next Clause, whereby the Lord Bishop of London, in particular, is oblig'd to Certifie the Archbishop that his Mandate has been transmitted to the Suffragan Bishops, and duly executed within his own Diocese.
In Archbishop Peckham's time, Anno 1281. Vos autem, praedictis die et loco, in forma praedicta Comparentes comite Sanitate, certificetis nos per Patentes vestras literas quid feceritis de praemissis.
The Dean of the Province requir'd to certifie to his Grace the Execution of the Mandate. Anno 1282. Vos autem, quos tunc praesentes adesse volumus, nobis rescribatis per vestras literas Patentes, harum seriem continentes, qualiter praesens Mandatum nostrum fueritis Executi.
Anno 1350/1. De die vero receptionis praesentium, et quid seceritis ac facere duxeritis in praemissis, Nos vel nostros Commissarios dictis die et loco Certificetis per literas vestras Patentes harum Seriem et Citatorum Nomina vestrae London. Dioeces. in Cedula separata, his Certificatoriis annectenda, plenarie continentes.—Which, after 3 Centuries and a half, continues the same in effect to this Day, viz.
De die vero receptionis praesentium, et quid in praemissis seceritis, Nos aut nostrum in hac parte, locum-tenentem sive Commissarium hujusmodi, dictis die, hora, et loco, debitè Certificari curetis per Literas harum seriem, unà cum nominibus omnium et singulorum [adding the several degrees, Episcoporum, &c.] in separata Schedula literis Certificatorum annectend. complectentes.
[Page 31] The Dean of the Province's Certificatorium or Return Exhibited. III. According to this precept of the Archiepiscopal Mandate, it is, and always has been the Usage of Convocation, for the Bishop of London to Exhibit his Certificatorium, or Return, to his Grace on the first Day of its Meeting. Which being read by some one of the Officers of the Archbishop's Court appointed by his Grace; certain Commissioners are directed to receive the Returns of all the other Bishops, and the Proxies of the Persons mention'd therein, i. e. the Procuratorial Letters of the Cathedral and Diocesan Clergy appearing in Person, and the Substitutions of Proxies made by the absent Members, upon reasonable Causes of Absence, offer'd and alleg'd according to the terms of the Mandate. Archbishops Com missioners to receive and inspect Proxies. Nor is the Commissioner empower'd only to receive, but also to inspect and examin the Proxies of both sorts; to see, that they be in due form, and the Causes alledged for absence, fit to be admitted.
The Proxies, as well of the Cathedral and Diocesan Clergy, as of the Absent Members, are ordinarily express'd under the Common Name Procuratoria, in his Grace's Appointment or Commission; but sometimes with express reference to the Absent Clergy. So, Feb. 7. 1452.—nec non quorumcumque absentium Procuratoria in dicto Concilio sive Convocatione comparere debentium.—Anno 1557. He is required to examin, among other things, causas Absentiarum; and in 1562 (the first after the Reformation, the Acts whereof remain entire) the Archbishop's Deputation is thus set down at large: Deinde dictus Reverendissimus Pater commisit vices suas Mro. Thomae Yale Cancellario suo, ac Magistro Willelmo [Page 32] Drurie Legum Doctori, Commissario ad facultates, ad recipiend. Certificatoria Episcoporum ac ad inspiciend. Procuratoria quorumcunq Absentium ac causas absentiarum suarum examinand. et approband. Answerable to which the Contumacy pronounc'd immediately upon this Inspection and Examination, is (in the ordinary Style of the Registers) against those who did Nullo modo comparere, that is, neither in Person, nor by Proxy: And yet more express in that of 1562.—monitos et citatos, ac per se aut Procuratores suos idoneos minime comparentes, For
Sentence of Contumacy against Absents, by the Archbishop or his Commissary. IV. The Certificates and Proxies being duly examin'd, and the Members particularly Preconiz'd; the Usage has ever been, to pronounce the Absents, Contumacious. Anciently, it was pronounc'd in the Name of the Archbishop, by the Person commissioned to receive and inspect the Certificates, &c. And in that Case, the punishment was reserv'd to the Archbishop, Poenâ Contumaciarum Domino reservata: But when his Grace pronounc'd it in Person (as he then did sometimes, and constantly afterwards) it ran, Poena sibi reservata, or in words to that effect, i. e. to be inflicted or not inflicted, with strictness or with abatements, as he himself should see convenient.
The Certificates, &c. were exhibited by his Grace's Appointment, not on a Convocation Day, but at an Intermediate Time; and so the Registers, tho' they constantly make mention of the Bishop of London's Certificatorium, and his Grace's Commission to inspect the rest, (both these being done in Convocation,) do yet seldom take notice of the Contumacy pronounc'd which was out of Convocation. But we find [Page 33] the manner of the Commissioner's proceedings, enter'd at large in the Convocation Acts of 1432. after the Business of the Day: Post Prandium dicti diei Lunae praefatus Venerabilis Vir Magister Thomas Bronus adivit dictam domum Capitularem, et ibidem recepit Certificatoria Episcoporum et Procuratoria Praelatorum ac Cleri et Capitulorum, et receptis Certificatoriis hujusmodi, idem Magister Thomas Praeconizari fecit omnes et singulas personas quarum nomina in Cedulis singulorum Episcoporum Certificatoriis annexis fuerunt annotata. Quibus sic Praeconizatis, idem Magister Thomas omnes et singulos ad illud Provinciale Concilium citatos, certificatos, et (ut praemittitur) praeconizatos, ac nullo modo seu minùs legitimè comparentes, pronunciavit Contumaces, Poena reservata Domino. Et mandavit idem Magister Thomas Procuratoria hujusmodi custodiri cum deliberatione examinanda, et prout juris fuerit, admittenda seu rejicienda.
At other times, the Archbishop himself pronounc'd the Absents Contumacious, at the meeting next after the Inspection of the Returns and Proxies: Which indeed, in the natural Order of things, seems to be more regular than the Practice that came after and still continues, of the Archbishop's pronouncing the Contumacy immediately upon his Appointment of a Commissioner to receive the Certificates.
The Sentence of Contumacy a written Instrument. I can't affirm (because the Registers don't say it) that this Act of his Grace and his Commissioner, was in a written Form from the beginning: But I find one as early as Archbishop Chichley, in the Year 1438. Tenor vero Decreti sive Sentenciae contra Absentes, ut praefertur, sequitur, et est talis, IN DEI NOMINE Amen. Henricus permissione divina Cantuar. Archiepiscopus, [Page 34] totius Angliae Primas et Apostolicae sedis Legatus, Omnes et singulos Abbates, Priores, Decanos Ecclesiarum Cathedralium, Archidiaconos, Custodes et Magistros Ecclesiarum Collegiatarum, et alios de Clero quoscumque ad praesentem Convocationem vocatos, citatos, praemunitos, et praeconizatos, diuciùsque expectatos, ac nullo modo aut non legitimé secundum tenorem Mandati nostri comparentes, Pronunciamus Contumaces, poenam Contumaciae in omnes et singulos praedict. infligend. nobis reservantes: Monemus insuper omnes et singulos praefatos Contumaces, quòd sexto die Octobris prox. futuro omnes et singuli Contumaces supradicti compareant coram nobis in loco praesenti poenas Contumaciarum hujusmodi auditur. et subitur. completur. et factur. prout justicia suadebit; et praesentem Convocationem usque in et ad diem praefatum Continuamus: Monentes insuper omnes et singulos jam praesentes, ut die praedicto compareant, et quilibet eorum compareat, coram Nobis aut nostris in hac parte Commissariis in Convocatione praesenti isto eodem loco processur. et [...]isur. factur. et subitur. quod in Conciliis Provincialibus faciend. ordinand. et providend. fuerit, et quod Canones et Jura suadebunt.
Afterwards, the Extracts out of the Register of the Upper-House in 1529. speak of it as a written Instrument; referring to the Register when it was enter'd at large: And in 1545. where the remaining Convocation-Acts in the Province of York begin, the Schedula contra Contumaces is set down at length, and said to be then and there Read by the Commissary:—Omnes et Singulas Personas Ecclesiasticas, ad hos diom et locum interessend. in hac sacra Convocatione vocat. praecenizat. expectatas et non comparentes, Pronunciamus eas et earum quamlibet Contumaces, et in poenam Contumaciarum suarum hujusmodi decernimus [Page 35] procedend. fore ad ulterior. Ipsorum Contumaciis sive absentiis non obstan. Et ulteriorem poenam Contumaciarum suarum hujusmodi per nos imponend. usque ad et in xxvi diem mensis Januarii prox. futurum reservamus in hiis scriptis.
Whatever Schedules of Contumacy had been from time to time deposited in the Registry of the See of Canterbury, were burnt in the Fire of London, with those of Continuation or Prorogation; and I find no one enter'd at large in any Acts since the Reformation: Only, at the opening of Convocations, the Pronouncing it is mention'd, and reference made to the original Schedule in writing. The Register of 1562. mentions it thus: Ac praeterea dictus Reverendissimus Pater pronunciavit omnes et singulos Decanos, Archidiaconos, Capitula ac Cleri Procuratores, et caeteros quoscunque ad interessend. in hujusmodi sacrâ Synodo sive Convocatione monitos et citatos ac per se aut Procuratores suos idoneos minimè comparentes notorie Contumaces; paenas Contumaciarum suarum hujusmodi usque in prox. Sessionem reservand. prout in Schedula per eum lectâ plenius continetur; cujus quidem Schedulae verus tenor sequitur in haec Verba, IN DEI NOMINE AMEN.
The present Schedule, of the same import with the former, is as follows: Nos, Archiepiscopus—omnes et singulos Decanos, Archidiaconos, Capitula et Cleri Procuratores, ac caeteros quoscunque ad interessendum nobiscum in hâc praesenti sacra Synodo Provinciali &c. legitimé et peremptorié monitos et citatos, ncc per se nec per Procuratores suos idoneos comparentes, nec ullas causas Absentiarum suarum hujusmodi sufficienter allegantes, Pronunciamus Contumaces, et eorum quemlibet Contumacem; sed poenas eorum Contumaciae usque ad et in diem—reservando reservamus.
[Page 36] The Execution of the Sentence of Contumacy suspended every Session by the Archbishop. IV. By this Sentence, all the absent Members fall under the Guilt of Contumacy; and that rests upon them till they give satisfaction to his Grace, either by their Personal Appearance, or the transmitting some such reasonable Cause of Absence, as he shall approve. In expectation whereof, the Canonical Punishment is usually suspended, in aliquem diem competentem pro bene-placito ipsius Reverendissimi, according to Archbishop Parker's Form; and the day that is usually fixt by his Grace, is to that of his Continuation. For in the tenor thereof, we find this Suspension of Punishment for Absence particularly expressed in our most early Acts of Convocation. Archiepiscopus Continuavit, &c. & decrevit Absentes fore expectandos, & ipsos expectavit usque in diem—Continuavit, &c. de gratia expectando absentes—Fecit Continuationem & Expectationem—Here, the Expectatio Absentium is properly the same Suspension of the Punishment of Absence, that has been constantly express'd in the Schedule of Continuation, viz. nec non omnia & singula Certificatoria, hactenus introducta & introducenda & non-introducta, in eodem statu quo nunc sunt, usque ad & in diem—Continuamus & Prorogamus, in hiis scriptis. The Certificatoria thus continued, are the foremention'd Returns made by every Bishop to his Grace at the Opening of the Convocation, and deposited in the Office of the Archiepiscopal See: As the Continuation of them, is a Decree, suspending both the Praeconization of the Persons therein return'd, and the infliction of the Punishment that would thereupon belong to the Absents. And so, in the year 1554. Sess. 5. where it is said, that the President Continu'd the Convocation to such a day, 'tis added, Et etiam continuavit [Page 37] Certificatoria contra Absentes usque ad & in—
The Archbishops have frequently exercis'd their Authoriry over the Members in the middle of Convocation. V. But the Declaration of Contumacy at the Beginning only, as well as the Continuation of the Returns from time to time, are purely Acts of Grace and Favour in the Archbishop: Who therefore, as the Members appear'd to be slack in their Attendance, has solemnly declared them Contumacious, and in the several Instances actually inflicted the Punishment of Suspension, in the middle of Convocations. Which I the rather observe, because I remember at the meeting of the last, they who contended for a Power in the Lower-House over their own Members, went upon a groundless distinction, 'That the Archbishop's part was only to pronounce Contumacy at the Beginning, and either to execute or take off the Sentence at the End of Convocation; but as to the Time between these, i. e. in the whole course of their Proceedings, he had never interpos'd. Whereas, that his original Right to require or dispense with their Attendance, has been frequently, and in several ways, shown and exerted in the middle of Convocations: As,
In Preconizations, and solemnly declaring Contumacy. 1. In Praeconizations, and solemn Declarations of Contumacy: Of which sort there are several Instances, but none so particularly affecting the Lower-House, or so fully represented under all the circumstances, as that of the Convocation in 1562. It begun January the 11th, and sat till it was Prorogu'd by the Queens Writ, April 14th. Between these, on February the 19th. Venerabilis Vir. Magister Thomas Yale Legum doctor Vicar. in Spiritualibus Generalis dicti Reverendissimi Patris, ac Commissarius in hac parte specialiter deputatus, in Capellâ Beatae Mariae infra Ecclesiam [Page 38] Cathedralem divi Pauli London scituat. Domo, viz. Inferioris Convocationis praedict' in praesentiâ (ut dicebatur) Magistri Willelmi Saye notarii publici dictae domus Inferioris Registrarii et actorum Scribae, judicialiter sedens, legit quandam Schedulam contra omnes et singulos Decanos, Capitula, Archidiaconos, et Cleri Procuratores, ac caeteros quoscun (que) in dictâ Convocatione juxta monitionem legitimam in hac parte factam non comparentes, aut ab eadem sine licentiâ, &c. recedentes. Cujus quidem Schedulae verus tenor sequitur et est talis. In dei nomine Amen.
So also, ann. 1605. The Extracts out of the Upper-House-Books have this note in the middle of the Session: Nothing of moment more than Suspension of Contumacious Non-Comparents, and Absolution of some.
Again, in the same Convocation, ten Sessions at least before the conclusion of it, the same Extracts, referring to the Acts of the Upper-House, say, Nothing more than the Absolution of Dr. Tooker Dean of Lichfield, and Mr. Robotham, from Suspension at Non-Comparents, and the Suspension of Dr. Stern, Suffragum Bishop of Colchester, for not appearing.
Ann. 1588. In the Convocation whereof there were 22 Sessions, it is said in the Extracts, Sess. 19. Archbishop suspends Absents and Departers without leave; particularly the Bishop of Litchfield for going without leave.
2. Another effect of the Archbishop's Power over the Members in point of Attendance, is his giving License to be Absent: So,
Ann. 1438. May 10. Dominus continuavit Convocationem suam, &c. Licentia prius datâ dictis Religiosis recedendi, constitutis per eos certis Procuratoribus, [Page 39] prout de facto constituerunt, ad Interessend. consentiend. & faciend. in ipsa Convocatione, quae ipsi facerent si personaliter interessent.
Ann. 1586. Sess. 10. The Lower-House Book: The Prolocutor coming from the Upper-House, intimates the Continuation—& moniti sunt omnes supra-nominati ad tunc ibidem interessend. &c. Mri. Nowell, Walker, Humfrey, Bysse, Powell & Say, ex Relatione Domini Prolocutoris isto die fuerunt Licentiati quoad corum personalem comparitionem.
In the List of the Members before the Lower-House Minutes in 1640. at the Arch-deacon of Canterbury's Name, I find this Note: Abs. ex Licentiâ domini Archiepiscopi.
So also, in the Catalogue of the Members before the Minutes of 1662. at the Dean of Sarum's Name it is said, Excusatio per licentiam Archiepiscopi. And at the same Name in the next List, the Bishop of London Presiding, Excusatus per Episcopum London. ut informatur.
With reference to this Right in the Archbishop to require the Presence of all the Members during the Convocation, we find his Dissolution of it anciently express'd by his giving them leave to depart.
Ann. 1371. The Bishop of London Presiding, Procuratores Religiosorum & Cleri ibidem comparentes ad recedendum Licentiavit per Decretum.
Ann. 1373. Commissarius dictos Procuratores ex praecepto Domini, ut dixit, ad recedendum Licentiavit.
Ann. 1379. Et tandem idem dominus Archiepiscopus dictis Praelatis & Procuratoribus Licentiam recedendi à dictâ Convocatione dedit, & ipsam Convocationem dissolvit.
[Page 40] Ann. eod. Et sic idem Dominus Cant. Archiepiscopus dictam Convocationem dissolvebat, & legitimam dictis Praelatis & Procuratoribus Cleri Licentiam recedendi à Convocatione hujusmodi concessit.
Ann. 1400. Reverendissimus Pater, &c. Convocationem praedictam & Concilium suum Provinciale consummavit & dissolvit, omnibus praebens Licentiam recedendi.
3. His Grace's Admonitions to the Clergy, not to depart before the End of the Convocation, is another direct Testimony of his Power over them in this particular.
Ann. 1379. 16 Kal. Jan. Et Dominus post tractatum hujusmodi moneri fecit ibidem publicè Procuratores dictorum Praelatorum & Cleri, ne quis ipsorum recederet a Civitate London, ante dictae Convocationis negotium finitum, sub poenâ a missionis Procurationum Suarum, & aliae multae eis per eum imponendae.
Ann. 1541. Sess. 2. The Prolocutor and Clergy being in the Upper-House, Monuit Reverendissimus, ut nemo se subduceret a Convocatione ob ullam causam nisi priùs approbatam à Sc.
Ann. 1557. Sess. 1. Et moniti sunt tam Patres quam totus Cleri chorus ad Interessendum in hoc sacro Concilio usque ad Dissolutionem ejusdem ad singulos Actus expediendos.
And therefore, Archbishop Parker, describing the several Branches of the Prolocutor's Office, makes this One: Ejusdem Prolocutoris est, etiam monere omnes ne discedant à Civitate London. absque Licentia Reverendissimi.
To these Admonitions not to depart, I will joyn a remarkable Reproof from the Archbishop to the Lower-House, occasion'd by the negligence of the Clergy in not duly attending the Convocation. It is upon their own Book in [Page 41] 1588. Sess. 12. Dominus Prolocutor praeconizari fecit citatos ad comparendum in hac parte, & Praeconizatione hujusmodi minimè finita, Reverendissimus Pater Dominus Cant. Archiepiscopus, caeterique Domini Praelati, accersiverunt ad se integrum Coetum hujus Domûs, eosdèm (que) Dominos Praelatos adierunt—ibìque dictus Reverendissimus Pater reprehendit negligentiam sive contumaciam nonnullorum citatorum & monitorum ad comparendum in hac Domo & non comparentium, ac expresse affirmavit se velle propter eorum Contumacias procedere juxta Juris Exigentiam, &c. Et mox omnes Supranominati in inferiorem Domum praedict. reversi sunt, & tunc ibidem finita fuit Praeconizatio, ut praefertur, Citatorum.
The Archbishop absolves or punishes the Absents at the conclusion of the Synod. 4. Pursuant to his Power of requiring the Attendance of the Members, with putting the Absents under the Censure of Contumacy, and the Exercise of that Inherent Power, while the Convocation continues; the Archbishop at the Conclusion thereof usually calls for a Catalogue of the Members who have either not appear'd at all, or departed without his Special Leave; and the Punishment having been all along reserv'd to himself, he absolves or punishes them, as he sees reason.
Upon some Occasions, the Registers particularly mention the Pardon of their Contumacy, as an Act of Favour in his Grace.
Ann. 1417. Dominus omnibus & singulis ad ipsam Convocationem vocatis, & nullo modo seu minus lgitimè comparentibus, ad rogatum Praelatorum & Cleri ibidem praesentium, ex suâ gratiâ specialï remisit.
Ann. 1419. Dominus, ad petitionem & rogatum Confratrum suorum Coepiscoporum & aliorum Praelatorum & Cleri ibidem praesentium, omnes & singulos ad ipsam Convocationem vocatos, minùs ligitimè [Page 42] seu nullo modo comparentes, pro illâ vice duntaxat habuit excusatos.
Ann. 1422. Dominus, ad petitionem Procuratorum Cleri ibidem tunc praesentium, quibuscunque ad dictam Convocationem vocatis & nullo modo seu minus legitimé comparentibus, ex gratia remisit.
At other Times when the Non-Attendance of the Members put him under a Necessity of using other Methods less mild and gentle; he continued them in a State of Contumacy, and proceeded to Canonical Censures, sometimes reserving the Punishment to himself, but frequently declaring the Punishment publickly in Convocation.
Ann. 1356. The first Convocation, of the Acts whereof we have any Accounts remaining, concludes thus: Dominus Archiepiscopus omnes citatos ad idem Concilium, qui illo die non comparuerunt, ut tonebantur, pronunciavit Contumaces, poenâ sibi reservatâ.
Ann. 1386. In domo Capitulari, idem Dominus Cant. praeconizari fecit Suffraganeos suos, Abbates, Priores, Decanos, Archidiaconos, & Procuratores Cleri, ad eandem Convocationem citatos; & omnes absentes Praelatos praeconizatos, & nullo modo comparentes, pronunciavit Contumaces; & in poenam Contumaciae eorundum sequestravit fructus & proventus omnium Ecclesiarum eisdem Praelatis vel eorum Beneficijs approprietarum.
Ann. 1404. Reverendissimus Pater Archiepiscopus ad promotionem & excitationem Cleri praedict. & de consilio & avisamento Praelatorum Dioeces. Cant. Provinciae sibi assidentium & circumsedentium, omnes ac singulos Abbates, Priores, ac alios quoscun (que) dictae Cant. Provinciae, qui ad comparendum in dicta Convocatione per loci Ordinarios, prout in eorum liquet Certificatoriis, citati fuerunt, & non comparentes, pronunciavit Contumaces, & in poenam Contumaciae [Page 43] eorum hujusmodi Sequestravit fructus, redditus, & proventus omnium Monasteriorum, Prioratuum, & aliorum locorum hujusmodi, & praesertim Exemptionum, & decrevit exinde fieri Publicationem in partibus. Et post aliquot dies posteá, idem Reverendissimus Pater Archiepiscopus scripsit Suffraganeis suis pro intimatione hujusmodi Sequestri, & pro eodem sequestro custodiendo.
Anno 1416. we meet with another Execution of the same kind: Archbishop Chichley directs it to the Bishop of London's Vicar-General, and reciting how they had been Summon'd to Convocation, and did not obey (nec in dicto Concilio personaliter comparere, aut Procuratores sufficientes, saltem qui causas rationabiles ipsorum absentiae allegare possent aut vellent, mittere curaverunt) he signifies his Declaration of their Contumacy, and the Punishment he had inflicted, In poenam Contumaciae suae hujusmodi, fructus quoscunque omntum et singularum Ecclesiarum non exemptarum personis Exemptis et corum Monasteriis ubicunque infra nostram Provinciam Appropriatarum, cujuscunque Ordinis existunt, duximus Sequestrandos; prout tenore praesentium Sequestramus. Alios vero Abbates, et Priores, at Praelatos non exemptos, et Archidiaconos ab ingressu Ecclesiae in his scriptis suspendimus—Afterwards, we find nineteen Absolv'd from the Sentence, upon their Submission and an Oath taken by every particular Person, quòd ipse in singulis Convocationibus Praelatorum et Cleri Cant. Provinciae de caetero celebrand. juxta vim, formam et effectum Citationis sibi fiendae fideliter comparebit, nisi impedimento legitime fuerit praepeditus; et in eventum quod citatus fuerit ad personaliter comparendum, parebit Citationi, nisi impedimento legitimo, ut suprà, detineatur; in quo casu mittet unum ex confratribus suis cum sufficienti Procuratorio tam ad allegand. causas [Page 44] Absentiae sue et eas proband. quam ad comparend. nomine suo in Convocationibus hujusmodi, nec non hiis que ibi sieri, statui, concedi, vel ordinari contigerit, consentiend. ibique durantibus Convocationibus hujusmodi remansurum, nisi abinde recedendi Licentiam obtinere valeat Specialem.
Anno 1428. Dominus, ex assensu Confratrum suorum, pro eo quod complures Abbates, et Praelati ac alii Religiosi qui in Convocatione debuerant comparere nullo modo comparuerunt, ipsos omnes non Comparentes Pronunciavit Contumaces, poenâ sibi reservatâ.
Anno 1437. May 14. Dominus omnes citatos ad dictum Provinciale Concilium nullo modo vel juxta tenorem Mandati non comparentes, Pronunciavit Contumaces—Monemus insuper omnes et singulos Contumaces quod sexto die Octobris—compareant coram nobis in loco praesenti, poenas Contumaciarum hujusmodi audituri et subituri, &c. prout Justitia suadebit.
At the Conclusion of another Meeting of the same Year.—Dominus omnes et singulos ad hujusmodi Convocationem legitimè citatos, ac non comparentes, juxta tenorem Mandati eis in hac parte facti, Pronunciavit Contumaces, poenâ sibi reservatâ.
Anno 1541. Sess. 15. before a Prorogation, Dom. Cox [the Archbishop's Commissary] omnes Praelatos non comparentes seu non Licentiatos, suspendebat à celebratione divinorum et ingressu Ecclesiae. The Praelati were the Lower-House Members (the Dignitaries at least) who under that Style are commanded to retire and chuse a Prolocutor in the Convocation that immediately preceeds.
Anno 1586. Dec. 2. in the Extracts out of the Registers of the Ʋpper-House it is said in short, upon a Prorogation—Non comparents, Contumacious, suspended. And before the Dissolution——Suspension of Absents, or Departers without leave.
[Page 45] Anno 1601. in the same Extracts, we meet with the like Hint, immediately before the Dissolution—Contumacious suspended.
Of which Act we have a full and particular account in the Lower-House Journal Sess. 14. Mar. 24.—That the Prolocutor (according to Custom) might be able to lay before his Grace a Schedule of the Absents in the Lower-House, de mandato Domini Prolocutoris facta fuit publica Praeconizatio omnium Citatorum ad comparend. in hac domo, juxta consuetudinem alias usitatam, & juxta tenores Mandatorum & Certificatoriorum alias respectivè coram ipso Reverendissimo Patre Domino Cant. Archiep. &c. exhibitorum & introductorum: The Prolocutor and the whole House being immediately sent for, Reverendissimus querelatus est de incurià, negligentiâ & contumacia citatorum, &c. & non comparentium &c.—& tunc, porrecta sibi Schedula Suspensionis, unà cum Schedula continente nomina & cognomina contumaciter Absentium ab hac Sacra Synodo, idem Reverendissimus eos omnes & singulos in hujusmodi Schedula nominatos, á Celebratione Divinorum & omnimodo Exercitio Ecclesiasticae Jurisdictionis suspendit; prout in ipsa Schedula penes Registrarium ipsius Reverendissimi quoad Superiorem Domum remanen. continetur.
The Substance of the Arguments for the Archbishop's Power over the Members. These therefore, in short, are the Grounds which give the Archbishop an undoubted Power over the Members of the Lower-House exclusive of the House it self. It is an inherent Right of the See to require the Attendance of the Inferior Clergy in his Provincial Convocation: And a right to require Attendance, includes and supposes a Power of enforcing it when requir'd: That Right has been ever exercised, and this Coercive Power express'd, in the Archiepiscopal Mandate or Summons: The Returns of the Persons Summon'd [Page 46] are made immediately to him, that he may know upon whom the obligation of attending lays; and also rest ultimately with him, as a testimony of his Right to such Attendance, during the Convocation; his Summons being not simply to appear before him, but with the addition of such further Days as he shall see convenient, cum continuatione dierum prout convenit. According to the several Returns, it has ever been the Custom, at the opening of the Convocation, to call over all the Members, and to pronounce the Absents Contumacious. In the Course of their Proceedings, his Grace as Presiding in Person over the whole Body has either suspended the Punishment from time to time, or inflicted it upon particular Persons, as he saw Occasion: Sometimes, when Business of great moment was under Consideration, giving general Admonitions not to depart before the Conclusion; at other times, Licensing particular Members to go away upon reasonable Causes alledg'd and approv'd, and at the end, either by way of Grace remitting the Penalties threatn'd, or confirming them by a formal Execution.
The Claim of the Lower-House to a concurrent Power confuted. All these, belonging to the Archbishop and to him alone upon the Foundation of Law and Practice; it has been wonder'd how his Power over the Inferior Clergy in point of Attendance could be made a question: Especially, when those of the Lower-House, who claim a concurrent Right (tho'some of the Departers acted the last Session as if it had been solely in that House) The Lower-House have no Coercive Power over their Members. don't pretend any Coercive Power over their own Members: And yet I take a right to grant leave, to suppose a right of Refusing it; and a right to refuse, without an enforcing Power in case the Member depart, to be somewhat singular both in Law and Reason. Suppose one or more Members to be [Page 47] necessary to some Purposes depending in Convocation, neither the Prolocutor nor the Lower-House can oblige him to come up or attend longer; nor have they any way to bring him thither or to keep him there, but by Application to the Archbishop (in whom the Coercive Power rests) and by his Grace's Admonition, and Censure in case he will not readily comply. So that what the Narrative means in saying that they have a Power of demanding the Attendance of their Members, Nar. p. 49. I am yet to learn; because (as I understand the word) all Power of Demanding necessarily supposes a Right in Law to prosecute upon refusal; and they have not aim'd at the proof of such a right in themselves, tho' they could not but see the necessity of clearing that point before their way could be made to the other.
Nar. p. 34. The Prolocutor reserves Punishment only in the Presidents Name. I know, they observe in another Place, that the Prolocutor has a Power to reserve the Punishment (meaning the Punishment of Contumacy pronounc'd against the Absents) as well as the Archbishop, in whose Schedule it is always, immediately after the Sentence, added, poenâ sibi reservatâ. And it is easie to imagin, how the Person, upon whose Sentence the Guilt is contracted, reserves the Execution of that Sentence in his Power; but how a Man can suspend the Infliction of the Punishment, who had no part in pronouncing the Guilt (which is the Prolocutor's case,) is not so easily comprehended. They say indeed (to avoid this Absurdity I suppose) that they don't mean reserving in the first Instance the Punishment to himself, Ibid. according to their Lordships Construction of reservata poena; but reserving the Punishment for a Synodical Act, which the words they conceive will bear as well. But before they induce others to conceive so, it will be necessary to [Page 48] show in what instance any one Member of their House was ever punisht for Absence by a Synodical Act, or any other way, than by a Sentence of Suspension solemnly pronounc'd by his Grace, of whose Authority in Summoning a Convocation their Absence is a Contempt: And the Punishment can certainly be reserv'd to no other Power, than that which has always finally inflicted it. Accordingly, in the very first place where that Journal speaks of the Prolocutor's reserving the Punishment, it expresly mentions it as done by the direction of his Grace.—Anno 1586. Sess. 1. The Prolocutor and the whole House being call'd up, Reverendissimus Pater Dominus Cant. Archiepiscopus, ob paucitatem Comparentium, &c. intimavit Domino Prolocutori absentes ob eorum Contumacias Suspendend. fore debere, &c. Upon this they go back, and having call'd over the House, Dominus pronunciavit eos & eorum quemlibet Contumaces, &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 [Page 49] 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, Monuítque 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 'tis 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 [Page 50] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 51] 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 [Page 53] 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 the Register of the Upper House. Agreeable to the Law of Convocation, the Practice has been, as to apply to the President for leave to depart and Substitute a Proxy, so to enter Proxies of that kind in the Register of the Ʋpper-House. In that of 1640. (the Catalogue whereof, at the beginning, is the chief Light we have of this kind) frequent mention is made of Archdeacons appearing by Proxies, with the Name of the Persons substituted by them. Mr. Wade was then Register of the Upper-House, and in the List before the Minutes of the Lower-House, we find it often added over against the Names of Absent Members, Wade habet Procuratorium; and W. (for Brevity's sake) habet Procuratorium: As the Memorandum enter'd at the Archdeacon of Derby's Name, is remarkable to the present Purpose; Comparuit per Prol.—Mr. Prol. habuit Procuratorium & exhibuit Mro. W. But there are Entries of this kind yet more distinct, in the Catalogue before Mr. Mundy's Minutes of 1661. where the Actuary of the Lower-House notes thus:
[Page 54] Archidiaconus Col. constituit Dom. Porey ejus Procuratorem, & reliquit Procuratorium penes Registrum.
Archidiaconus Wellen. constituit Magistrum Franklin. S. T. P. in Procuratorem; & reliquit Procuratorium penes Registrum.
Archidiaconus Huntingdon comparuit, & constituit Do. Layfield ejus Procuratorem; & reliquit Procuratorium penes Registrum.
The entring of Proxies in the Lower-House-Book, no Argument of their Right to admit them. 'Tis true, several of the Proxies we meet with in the Upper-House-Book of 1640. are likewise taken notice of in the Catalogue before the Minutes of the Lower; and the Reason is obvious, because they were to be produc'd and exhibited there, whenever the House were occasionally to divide upon any Point. Others also are set down in the Minute-Book, without any mention of them in the Register; because his Grace's leave is frequently given in the Intervals of Sessions, and may not therefore directly come to the notice of the Upper-House-Register, but cannot escape the Knowledge of the Actuary in the Lower; where the Proxy left behind is to be consider'd upon all Divisions.
But that the receiving of Proxies exhibited, belongs Properly and Solely to the Register in the Upper-House, appears from these three remarkable Circumstances: 1. That by Archbishop Whitgift's Table, he alone has a right to the Fee assign'd for Exhibiting such Proxies. 2. That this Fee is constantly pay'd to him, and none to the Actuary of the Lower-House. 3. That when [Page 55] the Actuary either receives an Instrument of Proxy or the Fee of Exhibiting it; the Instrument is always deliver'd and the Fee accounted for, to the Register of the Upper-House.
Nor was it material in which Book the Entry was made, so long as the Member had the President's leave to depart and substitute; the Notaries of each House being equally under the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop, and Members of his Court: As the Books themselves at the end of every Convocation, are equally deposited in the Registry of his See. The Actuary of the Lower-House, an Officer of the Archbishop. For that the Actuary of the Lower, as well as the Register of the Upper, is properly the President's Officer, cannot be deny'd, when the very Original Table of Fees for the Vicar-General's Office, establisht by Archbishop Whitgift, appoints among the rest Feoda Actuario Domus inferioris Convocationis solvenda. According to which Table, the Fees of the Lower, as well as the Upper-House, are demanded and pay'd; and a Copy of that Table, so far as it concerns the Convocation, is enter'd at the beginning of the Act-Books of each. And so I find in 1640. that he in whose Book the Proxy was first enter'd, commonly receiv'd the whole Fees, and the other only enter'd a Memorandum that they were pay'd (Sol. Wade 7s. 8d. or 7s. 4d. is the usual Note in the Minutes) because they were the Fees of the same Court, and the respective Proportions were assign'd by the same Authority.
Add to this, what we meet with in their own Accurate Journal of 1586. Sess. Ult. where the Notary having observ'd his Grace's Suspension of the Absents, says, prout in ipsa Schedula, penes Registrarium [Page 56] ipfius Reverendissimi Patris quoad Superiorem domum remanen. continetur; which surely can imply no less, than that the President had a like Officer also in inferiore Domo.
That therefore the Names of Proxies appear upon the Journal of the Lower-House, shows no more, than that 'tis fit that Substitutions made by the President's Authority, should be recorded by an Officer of his own, and then deposited in the Registry of his See. But the bare bringing in and exhibiting of Proxies, or even the Lodging the Instruments in the Actuarie's Hand, is far from proving a Right in the House to admit them: For that must include a Power of denying, and as we have shown that the President has frequently licens'd Members of their House to go away upon Substitutions, so it lays upon them to produce any such Instance attended with the least mark either of the Members asking their concurrent leave, or of any Doubt or Scruple, whether those Members should depart, or their Proxies be admitted. What they claim in this Case, is a Negative upon the President; but what can support that Claim besides such Testimonies of Denial or Scruple, I cannot see.
There is (I confess) a Clause in the Lower-House Journal of 1586. Sess. 3. that seems at first sight to imply a concurrent Power with the President in this Business of Proxies: Et tunc Ego Notarius antedictus [i. e. Tho. Barker, Actuary of the Lower-House] ex mandato Domini Prolocutoris, monui omnes isto die comparentes ad exhibend. & introducend. Procuratoria, si quae habeant, ad comparend. pro Absentibus citatis ad comparend. in hac sacra Synodo prox. Sessione. That [Page 57] the Prolocutor could give this Admonition by his own Authority, is inconsistent with their Claim in behalf of the House; the Power whereof would doubtless be contended for upon this Precedent, were we not sure that what he did was by Order of the Archbishop. At their first meeting after a Prorogation, the President intimates to the Prolocutor the offence he took at the thinness of the House, and his Resolution to proceed against the Absents. Sess. 3. we find this Note in the Extracts out of the Upper-House-Books, Archbishop orders all Proxies of the Lower-House to be brought in: And in the very same Session it is, that the Prolocutor admonishes all ad exhibend & introducend. Procuratoria.
From these Accounts (and these are all I can meet with in the Registers) it appears that the President as in Law so in Practice also, hath the sole Right to admit or deny Proxies; and their giving leave for Absence, being grounded upon the supposition of a concurrent Power in the Lower-House to admit Proxies, these two Claims must of course fall together. The late Irregularities in this Business of Proxies. But, that some late Practices may not grow into Precedents, it seems to be a necessary Enquiry (and I hope they who are concern'd, will make it in time) how the Instances recorded in the Acts of the late Lower-House are to be reconcil'd to the Constitution or Ʋsage of an English Convocation.
Sess. 16. May 5. Et postea Georgius Fulham S. T. P. exhibuit Procuratorium Speciale sub manu & Sigillo Thomae Sayer S. T. P. Archidiaconi Archidiaconatûs Surriae, concedens potestatem dicto Georgio Fulham, nec non Samueli Palmer, comparendi pro eo in Convocatione hac die. Quod Domini admiserunt.
[Page 58] Sess. 27. Jan. 13. Mr. Bridges pray'd his Proxy might be admitted.—
Add to these, the Orders they took upon them to make in relation to Proxies, as within their own Power and Cognizance.
Sess. 7. Et tunc motâ quaestione de numero Procuratoriorum per quodlibet membrum in hac Domo exhibendorum, decreverunt, nemini licitum esse, de caetero, ultra a numerum trium in hujusmodi domo exhibere.
Sess. 8. Decreverunt & declararunt, ‘'That the Proctors for the Clergy may make Proxies, pursuant to the former Practice of this House, tho' such Proctors have not appear'd personally.'’
Which former Practice, I fear, consists not of above one Instance; and yet even that is more than they have, to warrant this interposing in the Regulation of Proxies. In the Extracts out of the Ʋpper-House-Books, Anno 1584. we meet with an Order, 'That none be hereafter Proxy for a Dean or Archdeacon, but one of the Lower-House: And a question mov'd at the same time, Whether fit that a Dean or Archdeacon of the Lower-House should be Clerk of the Convocation. In the Lower-House-Books, we likewise find Orders made for preserving Decency and Regularity in their own Debates, Dec. 2. 1640. and May 22. 1661. But that they have in any one Instance before the last Convocation, undertaken to give leave for Absence, or to admit Proxies, or to interpose, in any kind, about the Attendance of Members, is more than I have yet been able to [Page 59] discover. For I cannot think, that those Substitutions in the first of Queen Mary, and the Order then pass'd for a Liberty to chuse any Members of the two Universities to sit with them in Convocation, will be regarded in the present Case; Especially, when the Business of that Convocation was under the immediate direction of the Court, and acted in some Respects by Commission from thence, and when the want of the Upper-House-Register leaves it uncertain, whether these Appointments (as all others of that kind have done) came not Originally from thence.
The additional leave of the House, an Invasion of the Presidents Authority If it be said (as it was by some at the beginning) that tho' the additional Leave of the House be not necessary, it can however do no harm; it may be remember'd, that in the Eye of the Law no kind of Possession is so tender as that of Jurisdiction, nor any Invasions so strictly forbidden, as the unwarrantable Exercise of another's Authority. And every good Man will concur with the Laws, in a more than ordinary Zeal for the preservation of an Authority, that has been always enjoy'd by his Prodecessors, of which he is not the Proprietor, but rather the Guardian; of a thing, not at his own disposal, but that which he is bound in Conscience to transmit entire to Posterity. And when the same Laws have moreover vested in him a Coercive Power, sufficient to defend that Jurisdiction; he must be excus'd (when Men will not be otherwise kept within their proper Bounds) if he be forc'd into a Resolution not to lose the one for want of using the other.
[Page 60] The Members who departed silently without Leave, either from his Grace or their own House, might presume upon the known Tenderness of the President, and the improbability of any such Business as might make their further Attendance serviceable to the Church. But the asking Leave of the House, especially in those who departed upon that without attending on his Grace, was a plain and open Contempt, which nothing but a very great degree of Goodness and Clemency could have overlook'd. In that, even their own Principles forsake them: which, with a Power in the House to give Leave, assert the necessity of having the President's too.Narr. P. 49.
Thus have I consider'd at large the Power of the President to require the Attendance of the Inferior Clergy in Convocation; who therefore when their Privileges were either endanger'd or actually invaded, have apply'd to the Upper-House as the known Guardians thereof. In the Year 1486. Feb. 17. I find the Prolocutor making his Request in Form, that the Clergy may enjoy their ancient Privileges: Et Petitum erat per praefatum Prolocutorem, ut Praelati & Clerus ad Convocationem evocati, suis gaudeant antiquis Privilegiis & Libertate. Cui Reverendissimus Pater respondebat, quòd in quantum poterit, voluit ea observari. In the same Manner, at the opening of the Convocation, Ann. 1488. Mr. Humfridus Officium [Prolocutoris] in se assumens, humiliter petiit ut Sancta Mater Ecclesia, ac eorum Clerus, ad dictam Convocationem congregatus, suis Juribus, Immunitatibus, & Privilegiis hactenus sibi indultis gaudere possint.
[Page 61] But more near and direct to the Point in Hand, are the Applications of the Lower-Clergy to the Upper-House, upon Interruptions in their Attendance; praying Protection, according to the Statute 8 H. 6. C. I. which gives them a freedom from Arrests, &c. equal with the Members of Parliament.
Anno 1603. The Prolocutor had two Subpoena's served upon him: He complain'd to the President (Sess. 19.) and care was taken, to have one of the Offenders Arrested in a Legal Way; and then being conven'd before the Bishops, he was sent down to beg pardon of the Prolocutor and Lower-House; as the other was brought upon his Knees in the Ʋpper-House.
Anno 1624. May 28. The Extracts out of the Ʋpper-House Register have this Note: ‘'A petitory Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Keeper, to suspend a Subpoena serv'd upon Mr. Murrel, Archdeacon of Norfolk, by reason of his Privilege of Convocation.’
Anno 1640. Sess. 13. May 18. Prolocutor querelatus est Breve de Subpoena è Curia Scaccarii esse executum in Doctorem Burgis Archidiaconum Roffen. & petiit Privilegium Convocationis. Ʋnde Reverendissimus Pater Dominus Archiepiscopus voluit ipsum Prolocutorem cum consensu Domûs Inferioris ad concipiendum Actum quid eis in hoc negotio expedire videbitur, & ad transmittendum istum Actum ad hanc Domum Superiorem, ut ipse & Confratres sui de eodem considerent.
[Page 62] The only observation I shall make upon these Instances, is, that the Honourable House of Commons having a Power to require the attendance of their Members, and to protect them in it, are known to make no Applications of this kind: Nor would there have been occasion for them in the Lower-House of Convocation, if the Members thereof had a separate Right in themselves to take cognizance of these Matters.
CHAP. IV.
The Election and Office of a Prolocutor.
WHile the Archbishop, Bishops, and Clergy, were us'd to Debate in a Body, the Clergy upon any Emergency that requir'd separate Consultation, were directed to Retire for that end. The Result of their Debates was to be reported Above; and that made it necessary to fix upon some one of the Members to represent the Opinions or Resolutions of the rest; the whole Body being all the while present, and he only distinguisht by speaking in their Name. From thence he had the Stile of Prolocutor and Organum Cleri; and, from his relating to the President and Bishops the Effect of their Debates, that of Referendarius.
Prolocutors at first chosen only upon some single occasion. I. At first, they were chosen only for particular Occasions; for these being over, we find no Marks of a further design in the Choice, or a longer continuance in the Office.
Anno 1394. Febr. 17. The Clergy present their grant to the Upper-House, per Venerabilem Virum Magistrum Johannem Barnet, Offic. Curiae Cant. ad hoc specialiter electum.
Anno 1399. Oct. 13. Dominus Archiepiscopus misit pro caeteris Praelatis & Procuratoribus Cleri—quod venirent de Domo Capitulari ad Capellam Beatae Mariae coram eo & dictis Suffraganeis suis, Grava [Page 64] mina, siquae haberent, de & super quibus praetendebant se gravatos, ac Reformanda si quae scirent, proposituri. Quibus ad dictam Capellam venientibus, surrexit quidam Venerabilis Vir Mr. Johannes Maydenheth nomine Cleri Provinciae antedictae, & certos Articulos ex parte Cleri Provinciae antedictae conceptos & quamplurima Gravamina continentes perlegebat.
Anno 1400. Nov. 10. The Archbishop calls for the Articles of the Clergy; and ex eorum communi consensu per manus Venerabilis viri Mri. Roberti Hallum Archid. Cant. dictos Articulos in scripta redactos coram dicto Reverendissimo Patre & Suffraganeis suis unanimiter produxerunt.
Anno 1408. The Opinion of the Clergy having been requir'd, ipsi de Clero eodem, nomine & vice suis, per Venerabilem Virum Magistrum Henricum Ware Officialem Curiae Cant. in legibus Licentiatum, praefatis Majoribus Praelatis, &c.
Three Years after (Anno 1411. Dec. 7.) we find mention made of Two Prolocutors representing the Clergy, in the same Business, and at the same Time: Archiepiscopo cum Confratribus suis in domo Capitulari congregatis, Venerabilis vir Magister Henricus Ware Curiae Cant. Officialis & Philippus Morgan utrinsque Juris Doctor, nonnullas Inconvenientias & Gravamina pro & ex parte Cleri, cujus gerebant Organa Vocis, exposuerunt, quae in scriptis redacta exhibuerunt.
And not only the Lower-Clergy in general, but the Proctors of the Religious Houses in particular, are said to offer their Resolutions per Prolocutorem; the Name, as well as the Extent [Page 65] of the Office, agreeing equally to any Person representing the sense of a Body—Anno 1437. May 10. Concesserunt ijdem Religiosi &c. Sub certis modis & formis, in quadam Cedula, per Abbatem Gloucestriae Prolocutorem ipsorum Religiosorum porrectâ, content.
When the Prolocutors were chosen at the beginning of Convocation. II. The first Instance we meet with of a Prolocutor regularly chosen at the beginning of the Convocation, was that of William Lyndwood the famous Canonist; the manner of which Election is thus represented in the Register:
Ann. 1425. April 24. Reverendissimus Pater Causas Convocationis suae exposuit & explanavit. Quibus expositis, Decani, Archidiaconi, & Procuratores Capitulorum & Cleri, de mandato dicti Reverendissimi Patris traxerunt se in Domum Inferiorem sub Domo praedictae Capitulari, ut de hujusmodi Causis tractarent, & unum Referendarium sive Prolocutorem ex seipsis eligerent, qui vice eorum omnium & singulorum Causas exponeret & responsa. Qui in Domum praedict. se recolligentes, Mag. Willelmum Lyndewode, utriusque Juris Doctorem, Officialem Curiae de Arcubus, in Referendarium & Prolocutorem hujusmodi elegerunt.
After this, we meet with several Persons in several Convocations exercising the original Office of a Prolocutor; that is, occasionally reporting the Answers and Desires of the Lower-Clergy to the Archbishop and Bishops: Anno 1433. Nov. 12. Reverendissimus &c. fecit ad se vocari Clerum Provinciae suae antedictae. Quo Clero comparente, dictus Reverendissimus Pater interrogavit Venerabilem Virum Mag. Thomam Bekyngton Prolocutorem Cleri, si Clerus communicasset & [Page 66] conclusisset super istis punctis five dubiis—Anno 1438. Idem Clerus per Magistrum Thomam Prolocutorem suum de contribuendo ad Expensas transmittendorum ad Concilium petiit & dictis Dominis supplicavit humiliter excusari—Ann. cod. They make another excuse from a Subsidy per Magistrum Johannem Lyndefeld suum Praelocutorem.—Anno 1439. Richardus Andrew, Cariae Cant. Officialis, tho' not chosen at the first, is mention'd four Times, as doing the Office of a Prolocutor, viz. Reading their Schedules in the presence of the Archbishop and Bishops, and laying before them the Petitions of the Clergy. The same things that we find John Byconil, the Archbishop's Official, executing under that Style in the Year 1444.
All these executed the Office; but after Lyndemood we meet with no regular Choice before the Year 1452. when the Archbishop, as in that other Instance, explain'd to them the Causes of the Convocation, and then commanded them to retire to their House and chuse a Prolocutor. The first Instance of Presenting a Prolocutor. But as that is the very first instance of chusing, so is this of presenting him—Egregiúmque Virum in Prolocutorem Clori, ut praemittitur, electum Reverendissimo Patri, Reverendisque Patribus Praesentando. He declin'd the Office, usque adeò quòd dictus Reverendissimus Pater sibi in virtute Obedientiae praedictum Onus ut assumeret, injunxit. Quo audito dictus Electus &c. onus hujusmodi in se nolens volens assumpsit. So again,
Ann. 1460. we meet with the same Circumstances,—Reverendissimus demandavit omnibus de Inferiori Domo, quòd illuc accederent, & Prolocutorem eligerent—They chose the Archbishop's Official, ac ipsum (ut moris est) coram Archtepiscopo & aliis Confratribus & Praelatis praesentabant—Tandem, [Page 67] ad mandatum dicti Reverendissimi Patris, hujusmodi onus in se suscepit.
The next Convocation opens with the Choice of a Prolocutor, under all the foregoing Circumstances; only, instead of the Obligation to accept it, laid upon the other two by the Archbishop, it is said, The Admission and Confirmation of a Prolocutor by the President, and Bishops. Quam Praesentationem Dominus Admisit; as in some of the Convocations that follow, the Style is Admisit & Acceptavit; and yet nearer to our own times, Approbavit & Confirmavit, de Consensu Confratrum: Which Consent is generally express'd or at least imply'd, (in that he is said to be Presented to both President and Bishops,) from the first Instance of Confirmation in 1452.
By these degrees, we are come to the very Method of Chusing and Confirming, which Archbishop Parker lays down as an Establisht Custom in his time, and is the standing Rule at this Day—Reverendissimus solet eosdem ex Inferiori Domo monere atque hortari, ut statim se conferant in dictam inferiorem Domum, ibiqúe de viro docto, pio, & fideli in Prolocutorem suum assumendo consultantes unanimiter consentiant & eligant, sicque Electum ipsi Reverendissimo in eadem domo Capitulari prox. insequen. Scssione, debita cum solempnitate praesentent.—And when they come to Present him, Reverendissimus, &c. ipsam Electionem sua Archiepiscopali auctoritate expresse confirmare & approbare non dedignabitur.
The Office of a Prolocutor. III. The Office also of a Prolocutor, with the End of its Institution, are exactly describ'd by the same Archbishop, according to the constant usage of the Times before him—Quoniam, si in rerum tractandarum serie unusquisque ex Inferiori domo suam ipse sententiam, quoties visum esset, diceret, aut si omnes aut plures simul loquerentur, pareret [Page 68] confusionem, igitur semper hactenùs observatum fuit, ut unus aliquis doctus & disertus ex gremio dictae Inserioris domûs in eorum omnium locum ad hoc munus assumatur, ut is intellectis & scrutatis caeterorum omnium votis tanquam unum eorum omnium Os & Organum loquatur, & consonam eorum sentenciam eidem Reverendissimo, cum ad hoc rogatus seu missus suerit, caeteris silentibus, fideliter referat. Qui ex hoc munere Referendarius sive Proloquutor comuniter denominatur. The immediate End, to report their Answers. This, as we have shown, and the Name implies, was the immediate End of making it an Office in Convocation, viz. the reporting the Resolutions of the Clergy to the Archbishop and Bishops, by whom they were directed, as occasion requir'd to Confer about particular Matters and return their Answers thereupon. While therefore the Clergy's ordinary Place in Convocation was the Chapter-House, the same wherein the Bishops also fat; they came back thither in a Body, and the Prolocutor (styl'd by them Organum Cleri, and Vocis suae Organum) had no more to do but to deliver the general Sense of the Clergy in the Presence of all the rest. And in this united State, whatever Directions the President and Bishops had to deliver to the Clergy, were given immediately to the whole Body. But as the Debates grew by degrees more Separate, and they also had a title to send up their Opinions and Resolutions by the Person whom upon the Archbishop's special Order they had chosen, and his Grace had confirm'd and allow'd to be their standing Prolocutor; this of course drew on a new Addition to that Office, the reporting to the Lower-House the Commands and Admonitions of the Upper. The bringing back the Instructions of the President and Bishops. Which Branch, omitted by Archbishop Parker in his Form of a Convocation, when he had only the original [Page 69] Institution in his Eye, is afterwards mention'd in his Speech, An. 1572. Qui [Prolocutor] vestra nobis desideria, nostraque vobis vicissim monita exponat atque referat. He conveys to the Bishop the Petitions and Opinions of their Clergy, and carries back to the Clergy the Advice and Direction of their Bishops; and so by this Office, the Inconveniences of debating together are avoided, and yet the Synod remains, in effect, as Ʋnited as ever.
Again, as Canons and other Ecclesiastical Affairs (which before had been no where consider'd but in a Synod of Bishops) came to be pass'd and fram'd in Convocation; the Business of the Lower-Clergy, as well as of the Bishops, encreas'd, and upon both these Accounts the Retirements of the Clergy became more frequent; 'till at last, preserving the same Ʋnion they had ever done as to the Matter and Method of their Business and Debates, as to the Place thereof they became wholly separated. And (being now remov'd from the immediate Government of the President as moderating the Debates of the whole Body) this brought on the Necessity of a standing Moderator in the Debates of the Lower-House; His moderating in their Debates. whom the foresaid Archbishop describes in the Office of a Prolocutor, Qui & vestras diceptationes, ne aut longiùs producantur, aut acriùs vehementiúsque tactentur, temperet.
The Prolocutor only supplies the President's place. This being a true State of the Office and Institution of a Prolocutor, it is strange how that Fancy of making the Prolocutor a President by his own Authority in the Lower-House, could enter into the Thoughts of any one who had ever look'd into our Acts of Convocation. The several Branches of this Office, it is plain, are only Executions of what the President formerly did [Page 70] in Person, and now does by the Prolocutor, solemnly admitted and confirm'd for these Ends. While the Bishops and Clergy acted together, the President moderated the Debates of both; and the Clergy being removed to another Place, the Care of Order and Decency there was by him intrusted with the Prolocutor. In that united State, his Grace deliver'd his Directions immediately to the Clergy themselves; which he now transmits, as they do their Answers, by the Mouth of the Prolocutor. And yet this very Office has been made one main Argument to settle the Lower-House in greater degrees of Independence; tho' it was so evidently instituted to convey to them the Authority of the President and Bishops, and in all their Proceedings to preserve as strict a Union, as is possible in different Places of Debate.
The Prolocutors at the beginning, Omcers of the Archbishop's Court. To this purpose (I mean, the Prolocutor's supplying the Archbishop's Place among the Inferior Clergy) it is observable, that Lyndewood and six of the Prolocutors who came after, viz. Bekyington, Lyndefeld, Andrew, Byconill, Stokys, and Pykenham, were all Officers immediately under the Archbishop; the 1 st, 2d, 4th, and 5th, his Officials; the third, Decanus Curiae Cant. the sixth, Auditor Causarum, and the last his Chancellor. And I find some others to be the the very same Persons who were Commission'd to receive and examine the Returns of the Bishops; a Business, that was ordinarily perform'd by the Officers of his own Court: But these, not being directly taken Notice of in the Registers under the particular Characters they might bear in his Grace'd Court, I add not to the rest, whose Offices are expresly mention'd. Nor is my Observation upon these seven (successively Prolocutors [Page 71] and at the same time Officers under the Archbishop) intended to prejudice the Freedom of Election in the Lower-House; but only to suggest the Regard they then had to the President in the Choice of a 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. Ʋnde 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, 'tis certain that the Clergy have never us'd [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] 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. [Page 74] 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 Ʋpper-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 [Page 75] the Speaker of the House of Commons, nor the House it self, have the Power of a Substitution, in case of Sickness or Business; who yet Act in a much more Independent State than the Lower-House of Convocation.
These Presumptions are seconded by the Authority of the Registers; assuring us that the Prolocutor has actually desir'd Leave of the Ʋpper-House to make such a Substitution.
Anno 1533. Sess. 3. In the Upper-House; Ibidem Dominus Prolocutor D. Wolman, affirmavit se aegrotum esse, & petiit ut durante infirmitate ejus, Magister Fox, si vellet adesse, vel Magister Bell exerceret Officium suum; & consensum est.
Anno 1554. At the end of the Acts of the Ʋpper-House we find this Note enter'd. Memorandum, quòd Vicesimo octaio Novembris, Dominus Prolocutor substituit loco suo, durante ejus absentiâ, Magistros Hugonem Weston, Nicolaum & Johannem Harpesfield conjunctim & divisim ad exercendum Officium Prolocutoris; which could no way have come into that Register, but that the Ʋpper-House had their Share in the Substitution.
The same Year, certain Minutes of the Lower-House mentioning the Presentation and Admission of the Prolocutor, and after that, a Debate with the Bishops in the Upper-House; immediately adds, Et cùm praedictus Prolocutor (who had been presented just before) non potuit adesse dictae Convocationi, Substituit N. Harpesfield & Johannem Wimbleseys (the two Persons who had just then presented him, and stay'd there with him) conjunctim & divisim in loco suo.
On the other Hand; Ann. 1555. it is said, Dec. 16. Quo die, Dominus Prolocutor substituit loco suo Magistros Cole & Harpesfield: But this was in a Legatin Council of both Provinces, and not [Page 76] in Convocation; nor have we any contemporary Accounts of the Upper-House, where some such Memorandum as we find in the foregoing Year might probably be made. But in the Year, 1640. May 2d. the Minutes make mention of a Substitution, no notice whereof is taken by the Register of the Upper-House, tho' in other Respects full and exact: Only, as to the Notice there, the Instance has this Disadvantage that the Bishops did not meet and act that Day.
Here therefore the Qustion rests; Whether a Certainty that the Prolocutor has actually apply'd for leave to make a Substitution, be not a stronger Argument of his Obligation to do it; than the bare want of an Entry thereof (in one Instance, in the absence both of the Archbishop and Prolocutor, on a Day when no Business was done besides the Continuation) is any Ground of a Right to do it without such Leave. Thus the Case stands; and under these Circumstances the Right of the Upper-House may (I think) be trusted to the decision of any Impartial Man.
No Messages can regularly be carry'd up but by the Prolocutor, when present. The next Question is, Whether the Prolocutor being present, Messages may be regularly sent up to the Bishops by any other Hand? For in the last Convocation (Session 14.) a Message was sent by Dr. Finch, but rejected by the President as irregular, because not brought up by the Prolocutor: Which occasion'd a Vote of the Lower-House, That the Prolocutor himself should carry it, but salvis juribus hujus domûs.
It is true, that some Messages had been so sent up in the Convocation of 1689. but in the 9th Session the Irregularity was observ'd; and the Bishop of London the then President declar'd to the Lower-House, Quòd apparet per Recorda Domûs Superioris Convocationis, quòd quoties & quando aliquid [Page 77] fuit per dictam Domum Inferiorem superiori Domo Convocationis propositum, Prolocutor semper comparuit in propria sua persona, aliis dictae Domûs secum comitantibus.
Hereupon, a Committee of both Houses was appointed to inspect the Registers: And tho' no Report be enter'd in the Journal of that Year, and the late Narrative affirm that they brought in none; Nar. p. 45. yet the Bishops who were of that Committee very well remember, that those of the Lower-House were satisfy'd, that all their Messages ought to be sent by the Prolocutor; the Books affording no one Instance of the contrary.
I know, upon the revival of that Difference in the last Convocation, and the Censure thereof as Irregular, an Attempt was made in one of their Answers to vindicate it upon the Authority of a Precedent in the Year 1444. When, the Clergy after the grant of one Tenth, being desir'd by the Keeper of the Privy Seal to give another, sent up a Doctor of Laws and the Archdeacon of Canterbury for direction from the Bishops, whether they should proceed to the consideration of that Request; tho' William Byconyll, the Archbishop's Official, was Prolocutor at that time.
But, 1. In that Convocation we read of no Prolocutor as chosen by the Clergy or confirm'd by the Archbishop; and therefore tho' Biconyll made two several Reports from the Lower-Clergy, that must be upon a particular Choice for those purposes; such as we know was made of the Persons whom they styl'd their Prolocutors. 2. It does not appear, that Biconyll (who had done the Business of a Prolocutor before) was then in the House: On the contrary, the Circumstances make it much more probable that he was not. This Message was carry'd up on a Munday; and the [Page 78] Saturday before, the Clergy had granted a Subsidy, on condition that the Archbishop would dissolve the Convocation. His Grace promis'd that he would; upon which, as the Register has it, Plures Procuratores Cleri eo praetextu ad partes suas recesserunt. And it was actually dissolv'd on the same Monday.
However, its not appearing that he was there, is reason enough why it can be no Precedent in the present Case; and no other Testimony has yet been aim'd at. Indeed the Drawers of the Narrative seem to have been apprehensive that the Acts would afford none, and that therefore they should be forced to relinquish their Claim: If (say they) Nar. p. 45. the Precedents over-rule this Matter, 'twill become us to submit.
CHAP. IV.
By what degrees the Inferiour Clergy became a Separate House from the Bishops.
The false Account of the late Narrative, of the L. H. p. 6. THE late Narrative of the Lower-House observes, serves, what was too plain to be deny'd, that in elder Times the whole Body of the Convocation us'd to sit together in the same Room. But when afterwards the same Narrative comes to speak of the manner of their occasional Retirements, and of the Division into two Houses; the Accounts are agreeable to no Ʋsage but that of the last Convocation. For in the Registers of these ancient Times whereof they speak, there is not the least ground for what they say about the [Page 79] Retirement of the Bishops from the Clergy, or the Clergy from their Bishops at their own Motion, and upon distinct Business that belong'd properly to their Consideration: Nor does it appear, that the Division into two Houses, or the Settlement of a Prolocutor did at all arise from an imitation of the Parliament; but, on the contrary, came in gradually, and, as the occasion of them encreas'd and the convenience appear'd, improv'd by little and little into an Establishment.
Two Reasons for the Retirement of the Clergy. While the Bishops and Clergy debated together (as they frequently did a long time after the regular Election of a Prolocutor) we find the Clergy occasionally directed to retire upon two Accounts. 1. When the Archbishop and Bishops found it necessary to debate any Matter in secret: As, Anno. 1376. 5. Id. Febr. Dominus cum confratribus suis, exclusis omnibus a [...]s personis, secrete deliberavit—And the next day, Exclusis omnibus aliis personis, super praemissis deliberavit. In these cases, not only the Clergy but the lesser Prelates also who beloug'd to the Upper-House, retir'd; as these latter are said to have done again upon the same Occasion, Anno. 1428. Nov. 16.—Aliis Praelatis ad tunc ibidem in multitudine copiosâ existentibus, de mandato Praesidentium se interim retrahentibus ad partem domus Capitularis hujusmodi.
Retirement of the Clergy to consider Business, was always by the Direction of ABs and Bishops. But the ordinary Occasion of their Retirement was, the Business from time to time refer'd to their Consideration by the President and Bishops. That this was the constant Method as oft as the Archbishop thought fit at the beginning of Convocation to lay before them the Causes of his calling it, will be plain to any one who shall cast an Eye upon the next Chapter: And the frequent Instances of the same kind throughout the [Page 80] Course of their Proceedings, to be produc'd in the Chapter following that, will sufficiently prove their Retirement in those Days to have been the sole effect of Business propos'd to them by the Archbishop and Bishops; and not of their own Pleasure or Occasions. Nor have the Registers left us to infer this, from their separating immediately upon Business propos'd; but they mention it frequently as done at the express Command of the Archbishop: Anno. 1369. 4. Kal. Febr. Injunxit Procuratoribus Cleri quòd se ad partes transserrent—Anno 1379. 5. Id. Maii, Praecepit quòd Procuratores praedicti exirent—And on many other Occasions, their departing is said to be de mandato, ad mandatum, and juxta assignationem Domini; as will appear from the Passages quoted at large in the two next Chapters about the Entrance upon Business in Convocation. Nor can I remember any Instance of their Retiring, in which the Circumstances thereof leave room for a Supposition, that it was at their own Motion, or upon distinct Business of their own: so far was any such thing from being (according to that Account in the Narrative) the Ʋsage of Convocation in those days.
The Place to which they retir'd uncertain for a long time. The Place also to which they retir'd in such Cases, was not the same from the beginning, but settl'd by degrees. So,
Anno 1369. II Kal. Febr. Rogavit dictos Religiosos, quòd se insimul traherent ad aliquam partem Ecclesiae & Clerum suae Dioeceseos & Prov. quòd ad aliam partem ejusdem Ecclesiae se traherent, tractarent, & deliberarent.—4 Kal. Febr. the same Year—Injunxit Procuratoribus Cleri Relig. hujusmodi, exhortando eosdem quòd se ad partes in dicta Ecclesia transferrent, & concordarent, &c.
[Page 81] Anno 1382. Nov. 19. the Place is left to their own Choice; Quòd convenirent in aliquo loco decenti & honesto, & de praemissis tractarent invicem.
Anno 1383. Dec. 3. The Proctors are directed, Quòd ad aliquem locum in tali negotio hactenus consuetum se declinarent.
Anno 1384. May 24. Procuratores in Domo Scholarum in Caemiterio dicte Ecclesiae situatâ ad invicem denegotiis ipsis tractarent.
Anno 1394. Feb. 6. After a debate super principali causa Convocationis between the Bishops and Clergy; separato Clergo ad Claustrum subtus eandem Domum Capitularem, they there consider'd of a Subsidy.
Anno 1402. Oct. 30. The Archbishop directed them, for the Choice of a Committee, ut in aliquo privato loco convenirent; and when they chose that Committee, they are said to be in Basso sub dicta Domo Capitulari insimul congregati—And Nov. 10. ad dictum Bassum sub Domo Capitulari secesserunt—Again, Anno 1404. Clero seorsim separato ad Domum Bassam sub Domo Capitulari. And 1408. Dicto Clero in valto inferius sub eadem Domo Capitulari, &c. Where their Meeting is said, some Years before this to be, more solito Accordingly,
Anno 1419. the Deans, Archdeacons, and Proctors are directed to retire in Domum suam solidam: And two Years after (May 7. 1421.) in Domum suam Inferiorem.
Anno 1422. The Direction is, Quòd recederent de Domo Capitulari & adirent Domum Inferiorem: Under which name, Simply, we find it mention'd in the succeeding Convocations.
But here, two Things are to be observ'd,
[Page 82] The L. C. have a House for Debate only. 1. That this was not styl'd the Domus solita, or Domus sua with reference to their constant meeting and sitting there; for many Years after we find them ordinarily with the Bishops in the Upper-House at the beginning of the Sessions, and present at the Debates there; the same that we also meet with now and then, in some of the latest Acts of Convocation, recorded in the old Registers, which end with the Year 1488. inclusive. It was therefore Their House, only for such Occasional Debates, as those for which they retir'd in the manner already hinted, and to be explained more at large in the two following Chapters.
The Place always assign'd by the Archbishop. 2. That this place of Debate, after Custom and the Name seem'd to have appropriated it to the Use of the Clergy, was always thought and said to be assign'd them by the Archbishop.
Which two Heads are clear from the following Instances:
Anno 1408. Clerus Inferior in loco sibi Deputato constìtutus.
Anno 1421. May 7. Recedentibus tunc, de mandato Domini, Procuratoribus Cleri in Domum suam Inferiorem, pro tractatibus fiendis in hujusmodi Convocationibus consuetam.
Anno 1421. Dominus demandavit, &c. quòd adirent Domum inferiorem solitam pro Cleri Procuratoribus, & ab antiquo in Cleri Convocationibus Assignatam eisdem.
The next Convocation, Oct. 16. Recedentibus Procuratoribus in Domum Inseriorem Clero pro tractatibus habendis in Convocationibus antea celebratis solitam assignari de mandato Domini ad tractandum de & super materiis ipsis per Dominum declaratis.
In the same Convocation: The King's Commissioners being gone, Et finita expositione hujusmodi, [Page 83] Procuratores Cleri de mandato Domini recesserunt de Domo Capitulari in Domum inferiorem, ubi tractatus Cleri Procuratorum in talibus Conciliis fieri antiquitus consueverunt.
Anno 1452. Feb. 9. It is again mention'd as a Place intended only for those occasional Retirements: The President commands the Clergy, Ʋt ad locum eis ab clim in hujusmodi actibus solitum & consuetum, viz. locum inferiorem subtus dictam domum Capitularem ad electionem sive nominationem futuri Prolocutoris Cleri ritè processuri unanimiter insimul declinarent.
The Separation of the Bishops and Clergy stated upon the foregoing Acounts. From the Particulars of this Chapter, there arises this natural Account of the Separation of the two Houses. While they met, abode, and debated together in the Chapter-House, their Separations were rare, because the Occasions requiring the Retirement of the Clergy, were so too. As the Business of Convocation increas'd, these Retirements, and by consequence the Separations, became more ordinary and frequent: 'Till, by degrees, upon the evident Inconvenience of the Clergy's going up in a Body with all their Answers and Petitions (for so they did at the first, notwithstanding their choice of a Prolocutor) the Archbishop and Bishops on ordinary Occasions accepted the Attendance of a Prolocutor regularly chosen and confirm'd, instead of all the rest; returning their Pleasure and Instructions by the same Hand. From hence there ensu'd a gradual Separation as to the Place of Debate; the Ʋnion and Communication in other respects, remaining entire, and the Correspondenee about the Business of the Synod continuing such as is suitable to the known Subordination of Presbyters to their Metropolitan and Bishops.
[Page 84] Nor are the Debates themselves so separated, but that the Archbishop and Bishops as oft as they saw cause for debating together, have always sent for the Inferior Clergy to the Upper-House, either in a Body or by the Prolocutor with some few of the Members; Reverendissimus, &c. fecit ad se vocari Clerum; Accersito Clero, &c. Who coming up, and conferring with their Lordships as long as the Occasion of sending for them requir'd, were dismiss'd from further Attendance at that time; and being dismiss'd, return'd to their own House: Dimisso Prolocutore, &c. is the ordinary Style of the Registers in all such Cases; as appears from those two (of 1640. and 1661. &c.) which are publish'd at large in the Appendix.
If this be a true Account (as no Account from the Registers themselves can be otherwise) it is hard to believe, that the Acts of Convocation were ever seen by those, who have lately disputed the President's Right of Assigning them a Place, and have talk'd so much of their distinct Capacity as deriv'd from an Imitation of the House of Commons, and rais'd so many Uncanonical Exemptions, with I know not what degrees of Inherent Power, from the Denomination of a House and their seperate Debates.Nar. p. 41. Nar. p. 40. 41. Answ. to 1st Let. p. 2. Nar. p. 17. Power of L. H. p 2.
CHAP. VI.
The manner of ENTRING upon Business in Convocation.
The Archbishop declares the Causes of the Convocation. THE Members of Convocation being setled by the Returns of the Bishops made and exhibited to his Grace; he, in virtue thereof, has a Right to their Attendance, as they have, to proceed with him in the Business of Convocation. And therefore, the Bishops and Clergy being together in one Body at the opening thereof, it has been the Usage of Convocation, especially when met upon Business of great Moment, for the President to explain to them the Causes and Ends of his Summoning it at that time. So, Archbishop Parker explains the Custom of his own and former Ages; Forma Conv. Reverendissimus ad Episcopos & Clerum tunc praesentes Anglicè sive latinè Causam sui Adventûs ac dictae Convocationis inchoatae exponit. And another more early Directory for the first day of Convocation in Edward VI.'s Time—The Clergie of thinferior House to be called up to the Chapitour; his Grace to declare the Cause of this Convocation.
The Clergy order'd to Retire, and debate about the Business of Convocation as declar'd by the Archbishop. At the same time that the Registers speak of the President's declaring the Causes of the Convocation in this solemn manner, they generally add, that the Clergy were thereupon requir'd to go down to their House and confer about the matter propos'd to them by his Grace; who also very frequently enjoyn'd the Return of their Answers within a certain time.
Anno 1369. Kal. Febr. The Archbishop (assidentibus confratribus, &c. & Procuratoribus Cant. Provinciae coram eo, &c.) explains to them the Necessities [Page 86] of the Kingdom, and proposes a Supply;—And then it follows, Et super petitione praedictâ, rogavit dictos Religiosos quòd se insimul traherent ad aliquam partem Ecclesiae, praedictae, & Clerum suae Dioeceseos & Prov. quòd and aliam partens ejusdem Ecclesiae se traherent, tractarent, & delibearent de petitione praedict. quid & quantum concedere velint; & deliberatione habitâ per cosdem, sibi referre & intimare de voluntate corum in dictâ domo Capitulari super praemissis die crastino.
Anno 1379. May 9. The Archbishop explains the Occasions of the Meeting, Reformation and Subsidy: And then, Habitâ in Domo Capitulari inter Praelatos & Procuratores quadam deliberatione super materiâ Convocationis, idem Pater injunxit singulis Procuratoribus quòd eodem die post prandium—in dicto loco comparerent—tractaturi super materia antedictâ.
Anno 1383. Dec. 2. The Archbishop explains the Cause of the Convocation's meeting: And the next Session, Praecepit Procuratoribus quòd ad aliquem locum in tali negotio hactenùs consuetum se declinarent, ac de & super negotio, &c. per ipsum eis exposito diligenter tractarent, & super deliberatione suâ in eâ parte Responsum sibi & Confratribus suis, ibidem protunc personaliter existentibus, mellori modo et forma, quibus poterant, praeberent.
Anno 1399. Oct. 8. Coram Domino comparuerunt personaliter Reverendi in Chisto Patres, &c. & Praelatorum & Cleri Provinciae antedictae Procuratores; & expositâ ibidem per Dominum Causa Convocationis, tractabant ipse Dominus & Reverendi Patres Episcopi per se de negotiis communibus Ecclesiae, aliis Praetit & Procuratoribus Cleri scorsim separatis.
Anno 1408. July 23. The Archbishop explains the Causes of their Meeting; and then, Clero verò [Page 87] Inferiori à praefatis majoribus Praelatis seorsim separato, & in Scolis Theologiae sub domo Capitulari praefatâ juxta assignationem Archiepiscopi conveniente more solito; iidem Venerabiles Patres, &c.
Anno 1415. Nov. 18. Reverendissimus Pater conveniens in domo Capitulari Ecclesiae S. Pauli cum Suffraganeis suis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Decanis, Archidiaconis & Procuratibus Cleri suae Provinciae in multitudine copiosâ, exposuit eis Causas suae Convocationis; quibus expositis, Decani, Archidiaconi, & Procuratores Capitulorum & Cleri, de mandato dicti Reverendissimi Patris traxerunt se in domum inferiorem sub domo praedict. Capitulari, & intra tempus modicum redeuntes, &c. concesserunt Domino nostro Regi duas decimas.
Anno 1419. Archiepiscopo, Confratribus suis, Praelatisque & Clero praedictis in Domo Capitulari insimul congregatis, the Archbishop declares the Causes of his calling a Convocation; one whereof was, pro defectibus in Clero regnantibus, auctoritate illius Provincialis Concilii reformandis: Super quibus, idem Reverendissimus Pater assignavit Decanis, Archidiaconis & Cleri Procuratoribus, quòd recederent in domum suam solitam, & quòd ibidem de & super materiis praedictis tractarent & communicarent, &c. Ʋnde ipsi statim, ut eis fuerat assignatum, recesserunt de Domo Capitulari praedictâ; praefatis Reverendissimo Patre, Confratribus suis Episcopis, ac Abbatibus & Prioribus Provincae suae remanentibus, & insimul tractantibus de & super materiis antedictis.
Anno 1422. Dominus, cum Confratribus suis Praelatisque & Clero in domo Capitulari insimul congregatis—They debated for some time in Common about the Business of the Convocation; and at last, Dominus demandavit publicè & in genere omnibus Cleri Procuratoribus tunc ibidem praesentibus, quod recederent de domo Capitulari et adirent Domum inferiorem [Page 88] solitam pro Cleri Procuratoribus & ab antiquo in Cleri Convocationibus assignatam eisdem, ibidem insimul tractaturi de habendo subsidio praelibato; & dominus dixit se & confratres suos facere illud idem.
Anno 1424—Domino cum Confratribus suis nonnullis, Praelatisque & Cleri Procuratoribus in domo Capitulari, &c. Dominus Causas & modum Convocationis illius publicè declaravit; habitísque nonnullis communicationibus de & super Causis ipsis, recedentibusque Pro [...]atoribus in Domum Inferiorem Clero pro tractatibus ha [...]ndis in Convocationibus anteà celebratis solitam assignari de mandato Domini ad tractandum de & super materiis ipsis per Dominum declaratis.
Anno 1425. Comparentibus in domo Capitulari coram Reverendissimo, &c. Archidiaconis, Cleri que Procuratoribus in multitudine copiosâ ad tunc praesentibus; eisdem exposuit & explanavit. Quibus expositis, Decani, Archidiaconi, & Procuratores Capitulorum & Cleri, de mandato dicti Reverendissimi Patris traxerunt se in domum inferiorem sub domo praedictâ Capitulari, ut de hujusmodi Causis tractarent, & unum Referendatium sive Praelocutorem ex seipsis eligerent, qui vice corum omnium & singulorum Causas exponeret & responsa.
Anno 1426. Comparentibus coram Reverendissimo Patre, &c. Archidiaconis, Cleriquoque Procuratoribus in multitudine copiosâ—The Archbishop recited to them the Condemnation of William Russel, Ʋnde Dominus Petiit à Clero ut deliberarent per quam viam contra fautores haereticorum hujusmodi esset procedend. & habita aliquali Communicatione super hoc, Dominis assignavit Procuratoribus Cleri praedictus, ut post prandium ejusdem diei in Domum Inferiorem eisdem consuetam se collìgerent, & super hujusmodi negotio communicarent.
Anno 1428. The Archbishop, &c. Decanis, Archidiaconis, Clerique Procuratoribus tunc praesentibus, [Page 89] explains the Causes of calling the Convocation: And the next day he sends his Chancellor to the Convocation, qui intimavit quòd voluntas Domini erat, quòd Praelati pro parte sua & Clerus pro parte sua eligerent certas personas, &c. quae inter se communicarent & deliberatè viderent, quomodo & qua via esset melius & expeditius procedend. contra haereticos.
Anno 1428. The Archbishop, &c. cum Decanis quoque, & Archidiaconis, ac Praelatis aliis, & Cleri Procuratoribus, opens the Causes of the Convocation in the usual manner, prasertim pro aliqua provisione facienda contra hereticos, &c. Then, Clero & Procuratoribus in solitam Domurn Inferiorem de mandato Domini recedentibus, Dominus cum Confratribus suis & Praelatis communicationem habuit de & super Provisione seu Ordinatione hujusmodi facienda contra malitiam haereticorum.
Anno 1432. The Archbishop, as before, declares the Causes of calling the Convocation; one whereof was, how the Bishops and Clergy of England should carry themselves towards the Pope after he had dissolv'd the Council of Basil—Dominus mandavit Clero & Procuratoribus, quòd ad Domum suam solitam se diverterent, & insimul benè & maturè ac cum deliberatione se avisarent quomodo in materia praedicta & sub qua forma esset procedendum.
Anno 1433. Dominus, &c. exposuit Clero Causam Convocationis—Insuper Dominus movit coram codem Clero quaedam Dubia—Et post istas dubitationes motas, &c. quaesivit Dominus à Clero quid in his esset finaliter dicendum seu sentiendum—Et Clerus respondit, quòd cùm dicta Motiva essent talia, quae non fuerant à pluribus eorum peranteà perfectè communicata nec laborata, &c. oporteret eos de licentia Domini & suorum Confratrum, &c. quandam habere deliberationem & communicationem specialem: quod Dominus liberè concessit.
[Page 90] Anno 1438. Dominus—assidentibus sibi Confratribus suis Episcopis, ac aliis Praelatis & Clero ibidem existentibus, intimavit eisdem Causas Convocationis suae—De his Causis desideaavit dictus Reverendissimus Pater deliberationem habere communem, & super hoc mandavit Clero ut in Domo Inferiori convenirent & super istis diligentur communicarent.
The same Year, upon a Prorogation from May 14. to Octob. 6. Archiepiscopus, &c. recitando plura suadebat Praelatis & Clero tunc ibidem existentibus, quòd cùm eis non essent ignotae Causae ob quas convocati erant, super eis pro eorum celeri expeditione communicarent, &c. Ʋnde ex mandato Domini Clero in Domum Inferiorem se colligente, &c.—
Anno 1439. Archiepiscopus, &c. coram Confratribus suis Episcopis, aliisque Praelatis & Clero suae Provinciae Causas propter quas eosdem ea Vice convocaverat, declaravit—Then, the Pope's Collector Presents a Bull of Indulgence; qua tunc in publico prelecta, & habita Communicatione aliquali super eadem, Dominus decrevit Copias fieri, & ipsis de Clero Domus Inferioris liberari, ad effectum ut Communicatio habeatur inter cos de modo & forma Executionis & Publicationis ejusdem.
Anno 1444. Archiepiscopus, &c. Causas propter quas cosdem ea Vice convocaverat, declarabat. One was, Qualiter in Ecclesia Anglicana fuerant plurima Reformatione digna—Ʋnde communicante Domino cum Confratribus suis & Clero suae Provinciae super pramissis, continuavit &c.—And the next Day, Dominus praecepit Clero quatenus pro corrigend. & reformand. per hujusmodi Concilium inter se diligenter communicarent.
Anno 1452. Feb. 9. Archiepiscopus &c.—Episcopis, ac aliis Praelatis, nec non Procuratoribus de Clero &c. Causam Convocationis explicavit; and then (that they might be in a Condition to bear [Page 91] 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, [Page 92] & 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, [Page 93] & 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 [Page 94] 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 Ʋnity 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 require [Page 95] Consideration, The difference between former Methods and the late Practices. and taking the Advice and Direction of their Lordships about the Expediency and Methods of proceeding in them. To the same effect, is that Language so familiar of late among some of the Inferior Clergy in Convocation, That they have Business of their own to do; That 'tis generally different from what is transacted at the same time in the Ʋpper-House; That their Debates are manag'd independently from their Lordships: that the Archbishop with his Suffragans has no Right to take cognizance of or interpose in their Debates; That there is no Necessity) be the Matter never so important) of previous Directions from the Ʋpper-House. Principles, somewhat ambiguously express'd, perhaps not without a foresight of certain Objections; but being interpreted by the late Practices, their Tendency to a Division of the Synod, and a Co-ordinate Power in the Church, is no less plain, than is their Opposition to all the Proceedings of former times.
One thing more I would observe upon this Head; what little likeness there is between a Convocation and a Parliament, in their very first Entrances upon Business. Unless the Enemies of the Ecclesiastical Power will object (as they who are so fond of a Parliamentary-Relation are like enough to do) that the Archbishop in Convocation, opening the Causes of their Meeting, does only the same thing with the Lord Chancellor in Parliament; whose Office it is to Convey and Enforce to the two Houses the Instructions he receives from his Majesty. But they may understand, that as oft as the King had occasion to solicit Business in Convocation, he sent Commissioners of his own to do it; as every one must know who casts his Eye upon our Convocation-Registers never so slightly. These were said to come thither, ex parte Domini Regis; and their coming, as occasion requir'd, to represent the Desires [Page 96] of the King and the Condition of the Kingdom, was a Custom so much known and establish'd, that the Register takes notice of the Archibishop's doing it as a thing Singular and Extraordinary. Anno 1380. Dec. 1. Et quia protunc Dominus meus Archiepiscopus erat Cancellarius Angliae, nec comparuit alius pro parte Domini Regis, qui exponeret Clero negotia regni sicut fieri Consuevit in aliis Convocationibus; dictus Dominus meus negotia regni & pericula imminentia satis clare exposuit. Nor did it make any Difference in the Form of their Proceedings thereupon, that the first Motion came from the Court; but the Archibishop having given the Commissioners some such general Answer as this, quod voluit super his mature communicare cum Confratribus suis Praelatis & Clero, he immediately proceeded to that Communication, either with the Clergy and Bishops in a Body, or (directing the Clergy to debate in their own House) with his Brethren alone.
If it be further said, that the Necessity of a Royal-License before the Convocation can proceed to make Canons, &c. has restrain'd the President's ancient Power of explaining the General Causes of the Summons; the Answer is this, That the Persons whose present Endeavours it is to diminish the Metropolitical and Episcopal Authority, affirm that a great Variety of Ecclesiastical Matters may not only be begun, but transacted and concluded, without the Authority of such a License; and so far the President's Right of proposing the General Matters, stands where it did. And as to Canons and Constitutions, if they may not be actually enter'd upon without a License, yet his Grace at the opening of the Convocation may deliver his own Judgment as to the Expedience of them, and refer it to the Consideration of the Bishops and Clergy, Whether it be adviseable to desire the Royal-License for that end.
CHAP. VII.
The Right of the Archibishop and Bishops to require the Clergy to consider any particular Business throughout the Convocation.
THE foregoing Chapter shows the Right of the President, after consultation had with his Brethren the Bishops, first to lay before the Clergy the general Causes of his Summons, and then to require them to Retire and Deliberate thereupon. But the Scene of Business opening and enlarging it self, many unforeseen difficulties will unavoidably occur; and new Designs also for the Benefit of the Church, must naturally arise from the mutual Debates of the Governors thereof assembl'd in Convocation. And accordingly, when any such Occasions requir'd, the Inferior Clergy have been ever enjoyn'd to Debate and Examine all Matters proposed by their Ecclesiastical Superiors for that purpose, from the beginning to the end of Convocation. The instances hereof are very numerous; The necessity of showing this, to prevent an objection from the explication of the General Causes at the opening of a Parliament. but necessary to be added to the Testimonies contain'd in the last Chapters; which without those would leave room for an Objection, that as to the General Causes at the beginning, those are equally explain'd to the two Houses of Parliament, and yet the Honourable Members of the Lower House there, are under no such Restraint or Subordination in their subsequent Proceedings. An Objection, I say, of this sort is like enough to be started, considering how industriously those Fancies about a Parliamentary Relation have been insinuated [Page 98] into the minds of Men. I will therefore show, that what the Archibishop does, in opening the general Causes of his Summons and directing the Clergy to deliberate about it at the beginning of Convocation; the same thing he and his Suffragans have a Right to Do upon all emergent Occasions during the whole course of their Proceedings. And this will manifest to the World, how the Constitution and Proceedings of an English Convocation (to the glory of it) are exactly model'd according to the Primitive Distinction between Bishops and their Presbyters in point of Order and Authority: while, from the most early Accounts of Convocations to this day, we see the Metropolitan and Bishops as the Governors of the Church, Propesing and Directiing in Ecclesiastical Affairs, and the Presbyters at hand with their Advice and Assistance in Subservience to the same Ends.
The separation of the two Houses made no difference in this point. Nor do we find any difference in this Point, between the Times before and after the Separation of the Bishops and Clergy, excepting this one, that before it they all took the directions immediately from the President and retir'd in a Body; and since, his Grace upon those Occasions, has either sent up for the whole House, or, which is more ordinary, for the Prolocutor with Five or Six more (Reverendissimus, cum consensu Confratrum, voluit, jussit, mandavit, ad se accersiri Prolocutorem,) and by him conveys to his Brethrem below, the Pleasure and Instructions of the Upper House. But as to the manner, end, or authority of these occasional Directions, their Division into two Houses made not the least difference in them; as will appear beyond contradiction from the Registers themselves. [Page 99] Anno 1369. 10 Kal. Febr. The Clergy having granted a Supply, on condition to have their Grievances redressed; Archiepiscopus voluit, quod Clerus & Religiosi praedicti Petitiones suas, &c. in Scriptis redigerent, & sibi porrigerent die Veneris.
Anno eod. 4 Kal. Febr. The Archibishop having enlarg'd before the Clergy upon the necessity of a Decima triennalis which the Bishops had granted; Tunc injunxit Procuratoribus Cleri Relig. bujusmodi, exhertando eosdem, quòd se ad partes in dictâ Ecclesiâ transferrent, & concordarent pro dictâ decimâ triennali.
Anno 1376. Id. Febr. The Bishop having proposed certain matters for the benefit of the Church, Oneravit Clerum, in eorum Conscientiis, ut deliberarent inter se quid esset melius faciendum pro utilitate dictae Ecclesiae.
Anno 1377. Id. Nov. Dominus voluit quod Procuratores compararent simul in praefatâ Ecclesiâ [S. Pauli] dicto die post prandium, ad deliberand. ad invicem, utrum melius expediat concedere Decimas an Impositiones.
Anno 1379. 5 Id. Maij. Reverendissimus Pater praecepit, quòd Procuratores Praelatorum & Cleri exirent dictam domum Capitularem, imer se tractaturi super materiâ Convocationis praedictae: quibus exeuntibus, dictus Reverendissimus Pater cum Suffraganeis in câlem Domo [Capitulari] secretè tractavit super materiâ praedict. Et post tractatum hujusmodi, dictus Reverendissimus Pater praecepit Procuratoribus quòd die fovis tunc prox sequente, post Prandium, convenirent ad invicem, in Domo Capitulari praedictâ tractaturi ad invicem super materiâ Convocationis praedictae & dixit quòd ipse & alii Confratres sui revenirent die Veneris tunc prox. sequente ad Domum [Page 100] Capitularem praedictam, ad effectum tractandi materiam Convocationis praedictoe.
Anno eod. 16 Kal. Jun. Dominus, &c. moneri fecit ibidem publicè omnes Procuratores Praelatorum & Cleri, quòd die Mercurii prox. tunc sequente in dictâ Domo Capitulari comparerent simul ante boram nonam, deliberaturi & tractaturi de modo Subventionis.
Anno eod. 13 Kal. Jun. Dominus praefixit Procuratoribus ad comparendum in Domo Capitulari dictum diem Veneris post prandium, &c. ad pleniùs tractand. super praemissis.
Anno 1383 Decem. 4. The Pope's Subcollector comes to Convocation, and desires a Subsidy: The Archbishop having enforc'd his Request, praecepit Procuratoribus quod super codem Negotio diligenter tractarent, & finalem responsum sibi & Confratribus suis praeberent. Super quibius omnibus & singulis, habito inter ipsos tractatu diligenti, Procuratores eodem quarto die responsa sua in eâ parte finaliter in Scriptis redacta dicto Domino Cant. coram Confratribus suis, pretunc ibidem existentibus, exhibuerunt.
Anno 1404. May 17. Archiepiscopus, &c. continuavit—& demandavit aliis Praelatis & Clero tunc ibidem praesentibus, quod singulis diebus interim ad dictum locum convenirent, & laborarent circa Reformanda in Cantuariensi Provinciâ.
Eod. Anno Jun. 9. Conveniente Reverendissimo, &c. & expositis periculis & necessitatibus Regni, tandem Procuratores Cleri convenientes sub domo Capitulari more solito, & ibidem super proedictis per aliquantum tempus tractantes, tandem abinde secesserunt, & convenerunt coram dictis Reverendissimo Patre, & suis Suffraganeis, & concesserunt, &c.—and again in the [Page 101] same Year, June 16. upon the request of a Grant from the Pope's Collector.
Anno 1421. Maij 7. The Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge coming to Convocation, Reverendissimo Patri, & Confratribus suis, totique Concilio commendabant, &c. Rogantes assidue de aliquo congruo Remedio propromotione Pauperum Studentium in Universitatibus bujusmodi, auctoritate Concilij ad tunc inibi congregati, graciose & misericorditer provideri—Quam quidem Recommendationem Dominus & Confratres sui gratanter & benevolè (ut apparuit) acceptarunt; & recedentibus tunc de mandato Domini Procuratoribus Cleri in Domum suam Inferiorem pro tractatibus fiendis in bujusmodi Convocationibus consuetam, Dominus & Confratres sui remanserunt in Domo Capitulari praedictâ; & post Tractatam non modicum tam circa Promotionem Graduatorum, & Studentium in Universitalibus praedictis, quàm circa subventionem Domino Regi faciendam, Dominus tandem Continuavit, &c.
Anno 1428. Nov. 18. Clerici Seculares & Cleri Procuratores ad Domum suam solitam de mandato Domini recesserunt: Dominus vero & Confratres sui Episcopi in Domo Capitulari remanserunt per aliquod tempus, de & super certis materijs arduis Convocationem bujusmodi tangentibus simul tractantes.
Eod. Anno November 23. Lectoe suerunt in publico literae Apostolicae (Soliciting for a Subsidy, to suppress the Hereticks of Bohemia:) quibus lectis, Dominus, cum Confratribus suis, &c. de & super materiâ, in dictis literis Apostolicis contentd, communicavit, caeteris de Clero interim de mandato Domini se retrahentibus.
Anno 1433. Decemb. 1. Reverendissimus Pater injunxit Clero, quatenùs collaborarent & providerent [Page 102] quid fiendum seu dicendum esset de Subsidio concedendo. And again, Decem. 10. Clero Dominus mandavit quatenus circa Subsidium Domino Regi concedend. diligenter collaborarent.
Anno 1434. Oct. 20. Dominus mandavit Mro. Thomae Bekington & alijs diversis de Clero, ut Articulos illos de generali Sententiâ quae consueta est quater in anno per Curatos Ecclesiarum publicari & solemniter denunciari, conciperent in linguâ maternâ sub breviori modo quo possent.
Anno 1438. After the meeting of Oct. 6. upon a Prorogation: Dominus praecepit omnibus de Clero, quatenus in Domo Inferiori simul convenirent, & super illis pro quibus fuerant bac Vice convocati diligenter tractarent, viz. pro promotione in Universitatibus ordinandâ, & pro Subsidio pro trasmittendis ad generale Concil. Ferrar. & super his effectualiter responderent.
Anno eod. die Martis prox. Dominus mandavit Clero quantenùs super praemissis effectualiter communicarent; recitando eis qualiter & quomodo secerunt & concesserunt Praelati Religiosi pro expensis transmittendorum ad Concil. Generale Ferrar. & Suadendo ut, omni post positâ in ea parte divisione, ad consimiliter concedend. suos animos applicarent.
Anno 1439. Dec. 11. Cedulâ, &c. pro quadam Constitutione Augmentationis Pauperum & Exilium Vicariarum Provinciae Cant. auctoritate bujusmodi Conciliis Provincialis faciendâ; post aliqualem Communicationem babitam super eâdem inter Dominos Episcopos & Praelatos Religiosos de Domo Superiori, tandem ipsis de Clero Domûs Inferioris pro certis in câdem resormandis, neo non pro avisamento & deliberatione in hac parte capiend. extitit liberata.
[Page 103] Eod. anno Dec. 22. Clerus de mandato Domini ad tractand. pro subsidio & aliis materiis supradictis, ad Domum Inferiorem se divertebat; ubi babitâ inter cos Convocatione diutinâ super praemissis, tandem ad Domum Superiorem reversi sunt.
Anno 1444. Oct. 22. Dominus praecepit Clero, quatenùs pro Corrigend. & Reformand. per bujusmodi Concilium, inter se diligenter communicarent, usque ad adventum Dominerum ex parte Domini nostri Regis & Concilii sui illie in brevi adventurorum.
Anno 1529. Sess. 7. The Prolocutor in the Upper House; Monuit Reverendissimus, ut conciperentur Articuli contra haereticos.
Eod. Anno Sess. 20. Ingressi sunt Prolecutor cum diversis Archidiaconis; cum quibus Episcopus London. babuit secretam communicationem, & voluit cos redire in Domum Inseriorem, & ibi tractarent de bujusmodi negotio.
Eod. Anno Sess. 32. Reverendissiimus monuit Prolocutorem, &c. invicem consultare super Articulis ipsis super Opinionibus suis.
—Sess. 97. Reverendissimus putavit expediens ut Responsiones fierent ad bujusmodi querelas, [viz. to a certain Address presented to the King against the Arch-Bishop and Bishops] quem libellum tradidit Proloquutori ad perlegendum, ut ostenderet opiniones suas de codem.
—Sess. 104. Episcopus London. Commissarius recitavit voluntatem Reverendissimi super praedictà Supplicatione, & voluit Prolocutorem, &c. quod concipiant Responsa sua in scriptis.
—Sess. 105. The Arch-bishop's Commissary pressing for a Subsidy, monuit Prolocutorem [Page 104] ut alios consultaret de eadem materid, & rediret cum Responsis suis.
Anno 1534. Dec. 2. Reverendissimus voluit Prolocutorem ingredi, ut examinarent Libros praedictos, & Librum Tyndal; & ut ostendant Opiniones suas.
Anno 1541. Jan. 27. Reverendissimus ibi tradidit Prolocutori quosdam Libros examinand. & conficerent Leges de Simoniâ vitandâ.
Anno 1558. Feb. 10. The Prolocutor speaking to the Bishops, Episcopi responderunt, quòd eis expedire videtur, ut Clerus, &c. Preces faciant Dominae Reginae, ne quid oneris imponatur Clero in Parliamento illo.
Anno 1562. The Prolocutor being sent for, and coming-up with six others, Reverendissimus, de & cum consensu Confratrum suorum hujusmodi, tradidit quosdam Articulos in scriptis conceptos, mandando quatenus super contentis in dictis Articulis diligenter inquirerent, ac quicquid inde invenirint, in scriptis redigant, ac dicto Reverendissimo porrigant & exhibeant.
Anno 1640. Sess. 10. 1 Conv. Reverendissimus Pater Prolocutorem & alios de Donio Inseriori, Decanos Archidiaconos, & Cleri Procuratores ibidem praesentes voluit ut ipsi inter se convenirent & excogitarent de Benevolentid, &c. & deinde de Canonibus & Constitutionibus statum Ecclesiasticum, & Ecclesiae Utilitatem concernen. componendis, faciendis, & inter se consentiend.
—Ead. Sess. Prolocutore comparente cum acto Decanis eum comitantibus, Reverendissimus eos voluit ad conveniend. die veneris prox. tempestivè, & adtuno tractand. cum toto Coetu Domus Inferioris citra Benevolentiam sive Contributionem voluntariam dicto Domino nostro Regi concedend. [Page 105] & ut ipsi Formam Articulorum in Visitationibus imposterum ministrand. concipiant.
—Sess. 16. De mandato Reverendissimi, Prolocutor cum sex aliis è Domo Inferiori Domum Superiorem intravit; & Reverendissimus ei tradidit Canonem & forman Juramenti per totum Ca'tum Domûs Inferioris considerand. tractand. & consentiend.
Anno 1661. Nov. 23. Reverendus, &c. ad eum accersiri jussit Prolocutorem solum; quo adveniente, dictus Reverendus Pater tradidit ei partem libri publicarum Precum per hujusmodi Domum examinat' & revis', & in mandatis dedit, ut dictus Prolocutor unà cum Clero dictae Domus Inferioris dictam partem cum omni celeritate quâ potuit, revideat, & emendet si sit necessarium.
—Nov. 27. Praesidens dedit in manibus dicti Prolocutoris residuar. partem Libri Publicarum Precum, & requisivit dictum Prolocutorem, ut ille una cum Domo suâ eandem omni cum celeritate revideat, & post Revisionem hujusmodi Praesidenti retradat.
—Dec. 10. Reverendus Pater, &c. voluit ad se accersiri Dominum Prolocutorem ad revidend. Emendationes. Quo adveniente, &c. dictus Locum-tenens ostendit dictas Emendationes per Domum Superiorem fact. & iune & ibidem perlect. & ordinavit eum ad consulend. Domum suam Inferiorem de & super eisdem.
The Appointment of Committees reserv'd for the next Chapter. In drawing down these Testimonies of a Right in the Upper-House to direct the Business of Convocation, I have designedly wav'd the Committees of the Inferior Clergy, order'd by the President and Bishops, upon particular Matters wherein their Assistance was necessary. Instances [Page 106] of such Appointments are very numerous, and shall be produced at large in the next Chapter, which begins the Proof of a Right in the Arch-Bishop and his Suffragans, to direct the Manner, as well as the Matter, of Proceedings in Convocation.
The Inferences from the foregoing Testimonies. In the mean time, the foregoing Instances, from the most early Accounts we have of these things, till after the Restoration, may suffice to show a Right in the Upper-House, to send for the Inferior Clergy, either in a Body, or by the Prolocutor, and to direct them to consider or prepare all such Business as their Lordships shall think fit to reccommend to their Care: And that, not only at the beginning, but in the whole Course of the Convocation; nor only Business of an Ecclesiastical, but (while that lasted) of a Civil nature also: Nor was it by way of Request, or upon the foot of a mutual Agreement between the Bishops and Clergy, (as some late Writers have uncanonically represented the Correspondence between the two Houses of Convocation) but both their Retirement and Deliberation were the Effects of an express Command, grounded upon the Canonical Authority of the Metropolitan and Bishops, receiv'd by the Clergy with all the Marks of Duty and Obedience, and accordingly executed without the least Appearance of Refusal of Scruple in any one Instance.
It is needless to explain how unlike this is to the Communication between the two Houses of Parliament; 'tis enough, as we go along, to put the Reader in mind of making the Comparison; and to reflect withal, how well they had considered these things, who could first frame [Page 107] the Parallel, and then publish it to the World, with such a seeming Assurance.
CHAP. VIII.
The Right of the Arch-Bishop and his Suffragans to Order Committees of the Lower-House.
THE two last Chapters shew us, how the President, at the Head of his Suffragan Bishops, has at all times, as occasion requir'd, enjoin'd the Inferior Clergy to consider and prepare Matters according to the Instructions they receiv'd. But, because the joint Debates of the whole Body of the Clergy may in some Points be unnecessary and inconvenient in others; therefore the Arch-Bishop and Bishops (the proper Judges thereof) at the same time they refer'd. Business to the Clergy, have frequently determin'd it to be done by a Committee, and commanded a Choice immediately for that Purpose: On some Occasions, to debate alone; and on others, to attend a Committee of Bishops appointed for the same Purpose: At one time, confin'd as to the Number; and at another, left to their own Liberty: In some Instances, requir'd to signify to the Upper-House the Names of the Persons elected, (which we find accordingly done;) and in others, proceeding to their Business without such a Report. Which Variety of Circumstances accompanying the same Act, and all arising from the different Instructions of the Upper-House, are so many Confirmatious of a Right [Page 108] lodg'd there, to direct the Manner and Method of Proceedings in the Lower-House, as they see cause to interpose, and to recommend Business to their Consideration.
Committees of the Clergy to attend a Committee of Bishops. I. It has been usual for the Arch-Bishop to order the Choice of Committees out of the Inferior Clergy, to attend a Committee of Bishops appointed for the same Purpose: So I term it, in the Language of their own Actuary, Anno 1661. several times repeated, to express the Ends for which the Committees of the Lower Clergy were chosen. May 16. Chosen for attending the Bishops at Ely-House, four Deans, &c.—May 18. Chosen for the Review, &c. to attend the Bishops, three Deans, &c.—to attend the Bishops at the Savoy, &c. to consult about the Form of Baptizing Adults, two Deans, &c.—June 7. Form of Prayer, &c. refer'd to Eight of this House to attend four Bishops at Ely-House this Afternoon.—June 19. To attend the Bishops at the Savoy, &c. seven Deans, &c.—All these were as late as the Year 1661. but (as the following Testimonies shew) grounded upon the ordinary Usage of much elder Times.
Anno 1428. Nov. 12. Clero & Procuratoribus in solitam Domum Inferiorem de mandato Domini recedentibus, Dominus, &c. Communicationem habuit de & super Provisione seu Ordinatione faciendâ contra Malitiam Haereticorum; & statim extitit avisatum quòd certi Episcopi, Praelatique alii, & Clerici, tam in Theologia quam Jure Civili & Canonico Doctores, Provisionem hujusmodi seu Ordinationem conciperent, & Minutam exinde redigerent in Scripturom.
[Page 109] Eod. Anno Nov. 20. Dominus intimavit & in publico declaravit, quod diversa Negotia ardua, &c. in hujusmodi Convocatione tractari deberent; & ideircò pro acceleratione & celeriori Expeditione Negotiorum ipsorum, sibi & Confratribus suis videbatur expediens, quòd certi Praelati Religiosi, Decanique Ecclesiarum Cathedralum, Archidiaconi aliqui & Cleri Procuratores quidam magis providi & discreti nominarentur, qui communicare possent cum Episcopis de & super materijs illis; de quo ut (apparuit) omnes reputârunt se contentos. Et tunc Dominus assignavit eisdem Religiosis & alijs tunc ibidem praesentibus terminum ad eligend. personas hujusmodi.
Anno 1557. Jan. 24. Voluit Reverendissimus Statuta Ecclesiarum noviter erectarum, aut mutatarum à Regularibus ad Seculares, expendi per Episcopos Lincoln, &c. item & Nicolao Wotton, Cant. &c. Ecclesiarum Decanis & quae consideranda sunt, referri Reverendissimo quamprimûm commode poterunt.
Anno eod. Febr. 4. Upper-House Book: Quod negotium quo faciliùs expediri posset, electi sunt Episcopi London, Elien, Roffen, Lincoln, & Petriburg, quibus adjuncti sunt sex de Domo Inferiore; qui constituerent inter se tam de quantitate solvend. quàm etiam de modo & tempore Solutionis.
Eod. Anno Feb. 12 or 13. Deinde, quia Liber Concessonis nondum benè absolutus erat, rogavit Reverendissimus, ut dicti London, &c. cum Prolocutore & quatuor ex illis ex Inferiore Domo [accederent] ad Cubiculam Reverendissimi in Aulâ Regiâ apud Westm. circa horam Secundam, &c. ubi ulteriùs deliberarunt.
Anno 1586. Sess. 7. Mar. 10. The Prolocutor and all the Clergy being sent for to the [Page 110] Upper-house, Tandem omnes supra nominati in Domum hanc redierunt, excepto Domino Prolocutore qui cum eisdem Reverendis Patribus post dicessum reliquorum aliquantisper permansit. Ac deinde in hanc Domum revertens, cum consensu omnium ut praefertur praesentium, elegit Venerabiles Viros, &c. ad tractand. & communicand. unâ secum cum Reverendis Patribus de Constitutionibus & Decretis, licentiâ & vigore literarum Paten. per Dominam nostram Reginam in eâ parte concessarum, stabiliendis pro Collectione, &c.
Anno 1588. Sess. 3. Dominus Prolocutor significavit universo Coetui, consensum & concordatum fuisse & esse inter Dominos Praelatos Superioris Domûs, quod Reverendi Patres, Domini Winton, &c. Episcopi, tractarent, Statuerent, & deliberarent de Subsidio Dominae nostrae Reginae erogando: Et in eundem finem, Dominus Prolocutor nominavit & elegit Venerabiles Viros [Seven Deans, and Nine others there nam'd] ut similiter vice ac nominibus totius hujus Coetùs communicarent & tractarent de Subsidio hujusmodi.
Anno 1640. Sess. 3. Apr. 22. Reverendissimus in Examinatores & Correctores libri Subsidiorum nominavit [Three Bishops by Name] & voluit Prolocutorem & totum Coetum Domus Inferioris ad eligendum quatuor vel sex graviores viros de gremio suo, ad idem negotium cum dictis Reverendis Patribus expediend.
Anno cod. Sess. 5. Apr. 25. Reverendissimus, cum Confratrum suorum consensu, decrevit libitum fore, aliquibus duobus Episcopis, cum quatuor é Coetu Domus Inferioris aliquo tempore ad dictum librum examinand. & corrigend.
[Page 111] Anno eod. Sess. 22. May 23. Prolocutore dimisso, paulò post revertebat cum duobus vel tribus è Domo Inferiori: Et Reverendissimus in eorum praesentijs elegit Dominos Episcopos Winton. Exon. Elien. & Bristol. ad praesentand. cum ipso instrumentum Benevolentiae sive Contributionis Voluntariae Serenissimo Domino Regi; & voluit Dominum Prolocutorem ad eligend. Sex aut Octo alios Domus Inferioris ad similiter praesentand, cum ipso Prolocutore, dictum Instrumentum.
Anno 1661. May 16. Habito aliquandiu Tractatu inter Reverendum Patrem [Praesidem] & Reverendos Episcopos Suffraganeos de & super Precibus Specialibus pro die Nativitatis Domini nostri Regis, &c. 29. die mensis jam instantis Maij per quatuor Episcopos hujusmodi Dominos, viz.—in câ parlë respectivè elect. & per octo Praelatos sive Cleros Domus Inferioris, eligend. concipendis, &c. And another Committee was appointed, the same Session, and in the same manner, to Compile the Service of the 30th of January.
Eod. Anno Maij 18. Dominus Commissarius intimavit D. Prolocutori de Precibus specialibus & particularibus pro Baptizatione nonnullorum Adult. concipiend. & formand. Et pro conceptione earundem, dictus Reverendus Pater, cum consensu Fratrum, tres, &c. Episcopos elegit, & voluit dictum Prolocutorem Sex Cleros è Domo Inferiori eligere ad procedend. cum dictis Episcopis in dicto negotio.
Eod. Anno Jun. 7. A Resolution among the Bishops about a Service for the Fast Day (June 12) per quatuor Episcopos hujusmodi Domûs—in eâ parte respective electos, & per 8 Praelatos sive Cleros Domus Inferioris eligendos, concipiend.
[Page 112] Eod. Anno Jun. 19. The President and Bishops resolve upon a Committee of twelve Bishops, and twenty four of the Lower-Clergy, for the Examination of the Canons, &c. The Bishops being chosen, the President sends for the Prolocutor and all the Clergy, & omnia & singula praemissa dicto Prolocutori & Domui Inferiori significavit; & voluit dictum Prolocutorem ad eligendum viginti quatuor è gremio suo ad conveniend. cum dictis Reverendis Patribus sic ut praefertur electis.
Eod. Anno Dec. 13. Reverendus Pater unà cum Confratribus, &c. tractatum habuerunt de eligendo personas aptas & idoneas tam ab hujusmodi Domo quàm à Domo Inferiori pro diligenti Examinatione & Revisione Libri Publicarum Precum, &c. The President names three Bishops, and the Prolocutor, three of the Clergy.
Anno 1663. Jun. 27. The President names a Committee of Bishops to correct the Subsidy Bill, Et voluit Prolocutorem & totum Coetum Domûs Inferioris ad eligend. nonnullos graviores viros de gremio suo ad idem negotium cum dictis Reverendis Patribus expediend.
Anno 1664. May 4. A new Grammar being brought in, and a Committee of Bishops appointed for the Examination of it, the Prolocutor and Lower-house are sent for; Et Reverendissimus voluit eos ad eligend. certum numerum virorum gravium & discretorum è Gremio suo ad revidend. & examinand. dictum Librum Grammaticalem cum dictis Reverendis Patribus per Domum Superiorem nominatis.
Committees of the Clergy alone, ordered by the Upper-House. II. In the same manner, and by the same Authority, do we find Committees of the Lower Clergy, order'd for particular business, at times when no Committees of Bishops were chosen. [Page 113] During the Accounts of the Old Registers, the ordinary way was for the Archbishop and Bishops to refer or commit the consideration of such occasional Points to the whole Body of the Clergy, as appears at large from the VIth and VIIth Chapters. But,
Anno 1555. The Clergy in the Upper-house, Dominus Praeses eos remisit ad Inferiorem Domum, volens ut inter se eligant. viii. vel x. de gravioribus unà cum Prolocutore, ad audiend. quaedam Arcana non solùm ex parte Regis & Reginae, sed etiam Cardinalis Poli, bonum publicum Regni & Ecclesiae concernen.—At the same time,
Dominus Elien. vice omnium, (addressing himself to the Lower-Clergy) monuit, ut eligerent inter se Viros doctos, qui examinarent Canones omnes Ecclesiasticos quos utiles putarent; si antiqui non Sufficiant, novas constituant.
Anno 1603. May 2. In the Extracts out of the Upper-house Books, we meet with these Words: ‘"Bishop of London delivers the Prolocutor a Book of Canons, desiring him to take a Committee of Eight or Ten to consider of them.’
Anno 1640. Sess. 3. Apr. 22. Reverendissimus &c. de mandato Regio voluit divinam Dei gratiam implorari, ac Formulam Precis ad eundem effectum per duos doctos & graviores viros Coetûs Domûs Inferioris, ad hoc per Dominum Prolocutorem cum consensu totius Coetûs dictae Domûs eligendos, concipi.
Anno eod. Sess. 10. Maij 13. Reverendissimus Pater Prolocutorem & alios de Domo Inferior [...], Decanos, Archidiaconos, Capitula & Cleri Procuratores ibidem praesentes voluit, ut ipsi inter se convenirent, & excogitarent de Benevolentiâ, &c. & deinde de Canonibus & Constitutionibus [Page 114] Statum Ecclesiasticum & Ecclesiae Utilitatem concernen. componendis, faciend. & inter se consentiend. Et ut ipsi, pro meliori negotij istius Expeditione, quosdam graviores & doctiores Viros de gremio suo eligerent, dictum negotiunt de Canonibus concipiend. subitur.
Anno 1640. 2 Conv. Sess. 3. The Prolocutor and Six more sent for. Quibus comparentibus, Reverendissimus eis significavit, quòd ipse audivit esse quasdam discrepantias inter quosdam Clericos citra corum Electiones; & voluit eos, ut ipsi & alij dictae Domus easdem examinarent & determinarent juxta Juris Exigentiam & Consuetudines cujuslibet Dioeceseos, donec aliter ordinatum fuerit.
The Names of the Persons Elected, returned to the Upper-house. III. The Direction of the Upper-house to the Lower for the choice of Committees, has been also accompani'd with a further Order to return an Account of the Persons Elected; whose Names we find Enter'd also in the Registers of the Upper-house, with an express Approbation of the choice by the President and his Brethren.
Anno 1428. Nov. 20. After the Resolution for the choice of a Committee, Dominus assignavit eisdem Religiosis & alijs tunc ibidem praesentibus terminum ad eligend. Personas hujusmodi—Et ad praesentand. sibi Nomina hujusmodi Personarum nominandarum in Scriptis—which were presented accordingly, Nov. 23.—And some Years before, Viz.
Anno 1408. It is mention'd as a matter of Duty and Decency, tho' no particular order was given, Quarum 24. Personarum Electionem factum idem Inferior Clerus incontinenti Archiepiscopo & Praelatis in Domo Capitulari, ut decuit, retulit seu fecit referri.
[Page 115] Anno 1640. Sess. 3. Apr. 22. Dominus Prolocutor cum toto Coetu revertens, nomine suo & eorum dixit, se & totam Coetum Domûs Inferioris praedict. elegisse in Examinatores & Correctores libri Subsidiorum praedict. cum praefatis Dominis Episcopis—Venerabiles Viros [the Names particularly enter'd.] Quam Electionem Dominus Archiepiscopus & Confratres sui Approbarunt.
The same Session: Prolecutor venit & dixit, se, cum consensu Coetûs Domûs Inferioris elegisse Venerabiles Viros [their Names,] ad concipiend. Formulam Precis, &c.
Eod. Anno Sess. 10. Maij 30. After the direction to choose a Committee for the Canons: Et subsequentur Mr. Willelmus Fisher Netarius Pablicus & Domûs Inferioris Actuarius, mihi praefato Notario certificavit in fidem Notarij, Venerabiles Viros Dom. Prolocutorem [with three Deans, &c. all particularly Nam'd] esse electos cum consensu totius Domûs ad effectum praedict.
Anno 1661. Jun. 19. The President, &c. misit pro Prolocutore & Sex alias Domûs Inferioris ad introducend. Nomina è gremio suo elect. de & super Negotijs tunc tractat'. Quo Prolocutore unà cum sex alijs dictae Domûs Inferioris adveniente, dictus Prolocutor presentavit dicto Reverendo Patri Domina Episcopo London. Schedulam quandam in papiro Scriptam, continen. Nomina Praelator [...]m & Cleri Domi [...] Inferioris per eos elect. scil. [the Names all enter'd in the Upper-house Book.] Quibus nominibus per me Notarium publicum, de mandato Reverendi Patris Praesidentis antediuti publicè perlect. dictus Reverendus Pater acceptavit corum respective Nomina & Pers [...]s, & di [...]sit dictam Prolocutorem, &c.
[Page 116] Anno 1663. Jun. 27. The Prolocutor declares, quòd ipse & Coetus Domûs Inferioris de propositis diligenter tractarunt—séque & totum Coetum Domûs Inferioris elegisse in Examinatores & Correctores Libri Subsidiorum, &c. Venerabiles Viros, &c. [all the Names enter'd in the Upper-house Book.] Quam Electionem Dominus Praeses & Confratres sui Approbarunt.
The Right of the Upper-house to appoint Committees of the Lower, never question'd before 1689. and 1701. In this manner, have the Archibishop and Bishops in Convocation requir'd Committees of the Lower Clergy in order to treat of any Matters they had to lay before them; either by themselves, or in conjunction with a certain number of Bishops, as the Upper-house judg'd most convenient. Nor can I find, that Obedience to this their Lordships Authority and Appointment was ever Scrupl'd, much less deny'd by the Inferior Clergy of any Age, before the Convocation of 1689. (Sess. 13.) and the last in 1701. (Sess. 18.) Which Denials not countenanc'd from any one Precedent, nay, directly oppos'd by the Numbers we have produc'd above, ought certainly to be accompany'd with very singular Circumstances, and some very cogent Reasons arising from thence, to make them (I will not say Legal, for that nothing under a New Law can do against an Establisht Usage) but in any measure Excusable.
This Denial from the Lower-house the last Convocation, produc'd a Resolution in the Upper, not to receive any Papers from them till the Irregularity of refusing a Committee was set right: And this having been since so freely censur'd as a groundless Exception, and their Lordships thereupon, made the Authors of breaking [Page 117] the Communication between the Bishops and their Clergy, I will consider that Instance, and the other of 1689. to see whether they afford any Circumstances which may cast the Crime on their Lordships side, against the authority of so long and uninterrupted a Usage.
The Refusal in 1689 had no grounds from the Registers. 1. Anno 1689. Sess. 13. Upper-house Book: Dominus Reverendus Pater Praeses antedictus [Viz. Episcopus London] proposuit Prolocutori ad nominand. Coetum Selectum Domûs Inferioris Convocationis, ad conveniend. cum Coetu selecto Superioris Domûs Convocationis, in ordine ad inspiciend. Acta ambarum Domum Convocationis; sed dictus Prolocutor respondebat, se non posse ad id consentire sine Consensu Coetûs Domûs Inferioris Convocationis prius habito—A little after, Dominus Prolocutor, cum numero copioso Domûs Convocationis, comparuit & declaravit quòd dicta Domus noluit consentire ad nominandum Coetum Selectum eorum Domûs ad conveniend. cum Coetu praedict. Domûs Superioris Convocationis ad effect. supra mentionat. durante recessu Convocationis.
Now, the Archbishop and Bishops, having in their Synods an undoubted Right to the Advice and Assistance of their Presbyters; this act, upon the foundation of Primitive Practice, was a breach of their Canonical Obedience. Again, the Archbishop and Bishops in an English Convocation, having ever requir'd their Clergy's Asistance in this particular of Appointing Committees, and been as constantly obey'd without the least appearance of Scruple, that Refusal is further Aggravated by its opposition to the Establisht Customs of this National Church. Contrary to which, was the Prolocutor's suspending his Complyance, till [Page 118] he knew the Pleasure of the House: for this implys that the House had a power, if they thought fit, to refuse; but more directly so, was the final Resolution of the House it self. 'Tis true, that Refusal is represented by the Register under one Circumstance, which they seem to have offer'd as the ground of it, That it was appointed in a Recess of the Convocation. Which Recess, was no more than a Continuation in the common Form, from December 14. to January 24. and if the President and Bishops have a Right to order the Choice of Committees to sit in the Shorter Intervals of Sessions; by what law or Custom are they restrain'd from doing the same thing in the Longer. On the other hand, it was not only lawful, but at that juncture very necessary too for such a Committe to have sat upon the business propos'd by their Lordships, The inspecting the Registers of both Houses. Because some differences in point of Custom and Priviledge had then hapn'd between the two Houses; and that Recess was a proper opportunity to rectifie what was past, and by that inspection to prevent future misunderstandings.
The Refusal of a Committee in the last Convocation, prov'd Irregular. 2. Anno 1701. Sess. 18. Lower-House Book: ‘"The Arch-Bishop signifies, in Writing, the Appointment of a Committee of five Bishops, to meet with any Committee to be nam'd by the Lower-House, not exceeding the number often, to inspect the Acts of both Houses of Convocation to this time.’—Et super eare declarârunt & ordina ant, ‘"That they are of Opinion, that their Act-Books of this Session should not be freely inspected as yet; their Lordships not having expressed the Intention of any such Inspection.’—And then follows an Order, ‘"That [Page 119] Notice be given to their Lordships, that they have not thought fit to appoint such a Committee.’
The Reasons alledg'd in the Narrative, particularly answer'd. Supposing, that the Lower-House had a Right to judge, in what Circumstances it is fit, or unfit, that Committees be appointed; yet the Members refusing it at this time, seem to assign a Reason that is somewhat strange. Why not inspected as yet? and why were their Lordships to give previous Notice of their Intention? If it was, that the Lower-House might have time to frame them into Acts, and so make them more accurate; they afterwards alter'd their Opinion of Things, when in the Narrative, Nar. p. 35. they prize the Minutes of 1640, (more confus'd, I an sure, by many Degrees than theirs could be) even above regular Registers, in point of Credit. But, however the Minutes of 1701 might be industriously disparag'd, to give a Colour at least to this their Refusal; their own Journal says expressly, That the Acts of the foregoing Session were distinctly read at the opening of the next; which implies a regular Journal; and the fair Copy now in the Register's Office, is said to be (the greatest part of it, if not all) a Transcript from those Acts.
No inherent Power to admit or decline the Appointment of their Lordships. This therefore does not seem to be the Reason they abide by; but an Inherent Power of naming or not naming Committees at pleasure. Thus much the Journal intimates in the Notice to be given to their Lordships, ‘"That they have not thought fit to appoint such a Committee;’ and the Narrative speaks much more plainly; Nar. p. 61. We conceive our selves intirely at Liberty, to admit or decline their Appointments of Committes, as we shall think fit. This is a clear Declaration of their Principle; and, if I mistake not, the [Page 120] foregoing Account of Committees, is as clear a Proof, that there was no Ground to make it either their Principle, or their Practice. The Narrative derives this Power of Refusing, from being a distinct House; Ibid. but as the third Chapter of this Book shews the Vanity of their Claims in general upon that Foundation, so the Instances of Committees to meet the Bishops, appointed by express Order of the Upper-House, since as much as before their Separation, are a full Answer in this Particular.
No Power of a Negative, but only in final Resolutions. Nar. p. 61. Another Reason they add, is, their having Power to dissent from the Proposals of the Upper-House. But this is doubtfully expressed: If their Meaning be, That they have a Right to diagree finally from any Matters depending in Convocation, so as to hinder them from passing into Synodical Acts; I grant it: But that being confin'd to the passing of Business, does not help them in any Point antecedent thereto. Nor can they ever shew, either in this or any other Case, that the English Clergy in Convocation have not at all times readily and religiously comply'd with the Directions of their Metropolitan and Bishops, both as to the Matters recommended to their Consideration, and the Methods and Circumstances of considering them.
The Right of the Bishops to take Cognizance of the Transactions of the Lower-House. Ibid. In Vindication of themselves from this Charge of Irregularity, they say further; We conceive, the only regular way of their Lordships knowing the Transactions of our House, is by our own voluntary laying 'em before their Lordships. As if their Lordships had only a Right to direct the Consideration of Business, and not a Right also to prescribe the time of returning it, and to call upon them to know their Resolutions, or what Progress they have made. 'Tis a part also of [Page 121] the very Office of a Prolocutor, to report to the Upper-House the Result of their Debates, (as he has frequently explain'd the Grounds and Reasons of their Resolutions;) and, on the side of the Arch-Bishop, to do for him what his Grace formerly did in Person, that is, to deliver to them his Commands, and to moderate in their Debates; and (according to a former Observation) to maintain such an Intercourse as may effectually preserve the Synod in an United State, under one President the Metropolitan of the Province. Their Actuary also is an Officer of his Grace, and his Wages limited by an Archiepiscopal Decree, and their Journals finally deposited in the Office of the See, together with those of the Upper-House; where Recourse may be had equally to both, by all the Members of Convocation. What therefore they mean by the Arch-Bishop's detaining from them the Journals of the Lower-House, to which they had free Access upon all Occasions; Nar. p. 62. and what by their saying, The Journals belong to the Arch Bishop's Registry. That they conceive these Journals of Right to belong to them, I cannot imagin; much less account for them, either from Reason or Practice: Nor can I conceive in what Office they would deposit them, were they put into their own Possession. The Language they use in this Case may be proper in Parliament; but sounds strange in an English Synod of Bishops and Presbyters; the latter whereof (the Majority, I mean, of the Lower-House) have in this Denyal of a Sight of their Registers, even exceeded the Pattern they propose, the Honourable House of Commons. For as a mutual Freedom of Recourse to the Journals of each House, is well known to be the Custom of Parliament; so should any Jealousies arise between them, and [Page 122] should the one press for such an Inspection of the Journals; a Refusal from the other would make the Cause on that side suffer extreamly in the Opinion of the World.
The Lower House not to give Instructions in such Committees. Nar. p. 61. One thing more they plead in their Justification; ‘"That since their Lordships neither mention any particular Acts they would inspect, nor assign any particular Reason for such Inspection; we could see no Ground for such a Committee, nor could we give Instructions for the Management of the Matter to be consider'd by it.’ Their seeing no Ground for such a Committee, resolves into their first Plea, confuted before, viz. Their Liberty to admit or decline their Lordships Appointment of Committees as they shall think fit, and their Right by consequence to judge in what Case there is Ground for Compliance or Refusal. But that which follows, their giving Instructions for the Management of the Matter to be consider'd by it, is a Stile familiar enough in Parliament, but utterly unknown to the Records of Convocation. For as the Upper-House (according to the fore-cited Testimonies, from Registers as well Ancient as Modern) have a Right to order Committees of the Lower, in Conjunction with those of their own; prescribing withall the Number, and the Time and Place of meeting, and all this, to consider Matters of their Lordships own proposing; so the only End of their appointing such joint Committees, is to have the Assistance of their Clergy in discussing or preparing those Matters: And in that Case, the Clergy's taking from the Metropolitan and Bishops their Instructions, what to do, and how to proceed, is exactly agreeable, both to the original Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, and to the share that [Page 123] each has ever had as a constituent part of an English Convocation. But if we suppose (according to their Scheme) a Right in the Clergy to refuse their Assistance, or (in case they think fit to comply) to send their Members under the Restraint of special Instructions, and by that means prepar'd rather to stand upon Terms with their Lordships, than to assist them; whether a Meeting in these Circumstances would not show us a Co-ordinate Power of Presbyters with their Bishops, let the World judge.
Instructions proper only when they appoint Committees of their own. When they appoint Committees of their own, and upon Business depending in their own House, they are then at Liberty to give what Instructions they think fit; because, as the Matters to be debated, so also the Methods and Ends of debating them, are all within their own Power. And in the present Case, had they thought fit, either before or after the Appointment by their Lordships, to chuse a Committee to give them Information from the Acts of either House in any Point whatsoever; that Choice, and their Instructions thereupon, had (without doubt) been very regular. But when the Arch-bishop and Bishops; in virtue of their original Right to require the Assistance of their Clergy, do call for it in the way of a Committee, to attend a certain number of their own Body; in that Case, the Directions belong solely to the Upper-House, and the Clergy have no other part besides Assisting and Advising.
Indeed, if Matters were to be finally determin'd in Committees, then it would be necessary for the Clergy (who would in that case be concluded by their Act) to put their Members under Restraints agreeable to the Sense and Intention of the House: And this they might do, in [Page 124] virtue of their final Negative upon the Archbishop and Bishops. But Committees are well known to be only for Debate and Preparation; and if the Lower-House think themselves concern'd in the Matter or Tendency of their Lordships Enquiries, they are wholly free (after the Discharge of their Duty there) to make what farther Searches or Resolutions they please; and that also, in the manner they think most proper, i. e. either in the whole House, or by a Committee of their own voluntary Choice.
The Lower House never consent to the chosing, but only to the Persons or Numbers. What I have observ'd and reply'd to, is all they urge to justify their Refusal of a Committee: And I know but one thing more, that gives any Colour to that Act, viz. Its being sometimes said in the forecited Passages about the Appointment of such Committees, that 'twas done among the Lower-Clergy, with the Consent of the House. It was so, after the Prolocutor (in pursuance of the Direction from the Upper-House) had nominated the Persons according to the Number prescrib'd; that is, 'twas consented and agreed to by the House, that those particular Persons should be the Committee; and the same Right of Consenting they had to the Number also, when that was not fixt and determin'd Above. But before 1689, it was never made a Question among the Lower-Clergy, whether they should comply with their Lordships in the Appointment of a Committee, or whether the Prolocutor should immediately proceed to the Nomination; or, lastly, whether they should chuse any other Number than that specify'd in their Lordships Order. The Course of such Choices, in the Lower-House, at the same time with the Upper, is distinctly describ'd in their Journal, 1588. Sess. 3. That Day's Extracts out of the [Page 125] Upper-House Books, say, A Committee of both Houses chosen to consider of a Subsidy. Accordingly, the Execution of it in the Lower-House is describ'd thus: Dominus Prolocutor [upon his coming from the Upper-House] significavit Universo Coetui, consensum & concordatum fuisse & esse inter Dominos Praelatos Superioris Domûs, quòd Reverendi Patres [three Bishops, nam'd] tractarent, statuerent, & deliberarent de Subsidio Dominae nostrae Reginae erogando: Et in eundem finem, Dominus Prolocutor Nominavit & Elegit Venerabiles Viros [seven Deans, with nine others, nam'd] ut similiter, vice ac nominibus totius hujus Coetûs, communicarent & tractarent de Subsidio hujusmodi. Necnon consensum & assensum omnium supra nominatorum hujus Domûs in Electionem suam hujusmodi petiit & sine morâ obtinuit. The Prolocutor, we see, proceeded immediately to the Nomination of the Persons; and no Consent was given or askt, but only to the Persons so nominated. But in the Year 1640. Sess. 10. May 13. when the Upper-House Register tells us, That in the Business of the Canons, the Clergy were only directed, in general, Quosdam graviores & doctiores viros de gremio suo eligere, and no particular Number was assign'd; then the Minutes mention the Houses Consent to the Number also, and to the Proportion of Deans, Arch-deacons, and Proctors: Consensum fuit ut Duodecim è dictâ Domo, viz. tres Decani, tres Archidiaconi, duo Procuratores pro Ecclesiis Cathedralibus, & quatuor Procuratores Cleri, Eligantur pro Examinatione Canonum; and then, giving the Names of the Persons nominated, they mention the Approbation of them as a distinct Act.
[Page 126] The Lower House chargeable with all the Consequences of refusing a Committee. This is a plain State, as of the general Power of the President and Bishops to order Committees of the Inferior Clergy, so particularly of the Right they had to make that Appointment, with which the Majority of the last Lower-House refus'd to comply; and by their Refusal, gave Rise to one unhappy Difference in that Convocation. But yet, as if the Blame evidently lay on the side of the Bishops, and nothing but Innocence on the other, their Lordships stand charg'd in the late Narrative with all the Consequences of this Irregularity. His Grace, who had it in his Power to censure an Act of Disobedience (so mischievous to Episcopacy, and to the Constitution of an English Synod) with the Severity it would have justify'd; was pleas'd to signify his own and his Brethrens Dislike of it in a milder way, by refusing to receive any thing at their hands till that Irregularity was set right: And their Lordships hop'd, such gentle Methods might bring them to a calmer Consideration of what they had done. Nat. p. 56, 58. But so far was this from having the intended Effect, that his Grace and the Bishops are openly accus'd of endeavouring, by that Act, to cut off all Communication between the two Houses. A Return, that good Nature and an obliging Treatment must sometimes expect to meet with in this World.
I know not whether it be worth while to take notice here of the Publisher of the Narrative, who tells the World of a Position laid down in the first Letter, Pag. 7. that I knew to be false, viz. the Power of the Arch-bishop to order the Choice of Committees, and the Number of which they shall consist. That Page and this Chapter compar'd, may make the Zealous Man more cautious for the future, how he charges others with speaking [Page 127] against their Knowledge. I will not therefore say, he wrote that Preface against Knowledge; I charitably believe, and am pretty sure, he wrote without it.
CAHP. IX.
The Right of the Archbishop and Bishops to prescribe a Time for the Return of Business committed to the Clergy.
WHen the President and Bishops have put Business into the hands of the Lower Clergy, in a Body or a Committee; their Lordships have frequently thought fit to appoint a certain time for the Return of it. In other Cases also, they have call'd upon the Clergy for their Answers; who as oft as they were not in a readiness to give it, have desir'd a further Day: a plain acknowledgment of their Lordships title to the disposal of their Time. All these will be prov'd from the Registers in a regular Deduction of Instances; according to the method in which their Right to direct the Matter and Manner of the Clergy's Proceedings, has been already explain'd.
The time for the return of the Clergy's Answers expressly prescrib'd. I. The President and Bishops have frequently prescrib'd a Time for the Return of the Clergy's Answers.
Anno 1369. 10. Kal. Febr. The Archbishop directs the Clergy to draw up their Petitions in Writing, & quòd sibi porrigerent die Veneris—ita quòd super eis cum suis Confratribus poterit consulere & deliberare.
[Page 128] Anno 1373. Decem. 2. Upon a like Order, 'tis added, quòd Responsiones darent die proximè sequenti.
Anno 1428. Nov. 20. Et tunc Dominus assignavit eisdem Religiosis & alijs tunc ibidem praesentibus terminum ad eligendum personas hujusmodi—& ad praesentandum sibi Nomina hujusmodi Personarum nominandarum.
Anno 1433. Nov. 10. Upon the Clergy's desire to consult among themselves about the Matter propos'd, Dominus liberè concessit; praecipiens eisdem quatenus circa eadem Motiva, cum alijs ab eisdem dependentibus, usque ad diem Jovis diligenter & unanimiter laborarent.
Anno 1434. Octo. 20. The Clergy being directed by the President to prepare business, receive this additional Order, quód ipsis coram eo & Confratribus suis ostenderent & exhiberent die Veneris prox.
Anno 1529. Apr. 15. Reverendissimus recessit à Convocatione, & commisit vices suas Episcopis London & Winton. qui fecerunt Responsiones [to a complaint of the Parliament] rursum legi coram Inferiore Domo; quae petijt Copiam earundem Responsionum; & assignatus est dies Veneris ad inferendas Opiniones suas super praemissis Responsionibus,
Anno 1541. Sess. 2. Reverendissimus tradidit Prolocutori quosdam Libros examinand. & conficerent leges de Simoniâ vitandâ; & referrent Judicia sua proximâ Sessione.
Anno 1555. Sess. 2. The Commissary puts a Copy of a Diploma into their hands, volens eos maturè consulere, & referre Opiniones proximâ Sessione.
Anno 1562. Martij 1. Reverendssimus tradîdit Domino Prolocutori Librum [de Disciplina] [Page 129] mandando, quód additis hujusmodi Capitulis sic excogitatis, ipsum Librum cum Additionalibus praedictis denuò exhibeat coram eodem Reverendissimo & Confratribus suis in proximâ Sessione.
The Clergy's Answers called for. II. When the Business committed to the Clergy was not voluntarily return'd within the Time expected, the President and Bishops have call'd for it; and have also granted a longer term for Consideration, at the Clergy's request.
Anno 1417. Decem. 3. Certain Persons out of every Diocese had been elected (Nov. 26.) to consider of methods how to promote the Students in the University of Oxford; and, Dec. 3. Dominus Archipiescopus petijt à Personis supra nominatis si aliquid effectualiter laborâssent circa materiam praetractatam, de Relevamine scilicet Studentium & Universitatum.
Anno 1426. Apr. 17. Dominus petijt á Clero utrum ad tunc plenê fuissent deliberati, quomodo foret procedendum in negotio eisdem, die praecedenti, per ipsum recitato; qui responderunt quôd protunc non plené fuerant advisitati in eadem; Dominus mandavit eis ut ad Domum Inferiorem redirent, ad tractandum & deliberendum.
Anno 1428. Nov. 18. Upon a Motion (Nov. 17.) that Hereticks might occasionally be receiv'd and imprison'd in the Religious-Houses, when sent thither by the Ordinary; the Religious desire time to consider: And the next Day, Dominus petijt á Religiosis, si deliberassent de & super materiâ supradictâ; qui responderunt, quód non; sed petierunt adhuc delationem deliberandi in hac parte usque in crastinum: Cui adhuc Petitioni Dominus ex consensu fratrum suorum annuit bono corde.
Anno eod. Nov. 20. Dominus petijt à Religiosis, si adhuc deliberâssent de & super Materia [Page 130] praelibatâ aliàs eis ministratâ pro deliberatione habendä: Qui respenderunt, se nondum plenariè deliberásse in hâc parte. Et quia (ut asseruerunt) Materiailla, ut eis videbatur, gravis erat, ac res quaedam insolita & inaudita, supplicârunt Domino pro deliberatione ulteriori in hac parte habendâ; ad finem, quòd possent communicare cum Jurisperitis, ne eis aut eorum Privilegijs seu Indultis Apostolicis praejudicium aliquod generaretur. Cui supplicationi Dominus adhuc annuens, eis ad plené deliberandum, & finaliter respondendum in hac parte terminum assignavit, viz. diem Martis prox. tunc sequentem.
Anno eod. Nov. 23. Dominus petiit à Religiosis finale responsum, &c. Qui responderunt, ipsos adhuc non deliberasse in hac parte: Unde Dominus eisdem assignavit terminum adhuc ad finaliter respondendum in praemissis, diem, viz. Jovis tunc prox.
Anno 1433. Nov. 17. Praesidente Reverendissimo Patre, &c. & examinato Clero quid adhuc in praefatis Motivis & dubiis cum suis Incidentibus esset finaliter sentiendum; responsum extitit per Magistrum Thomam Bekyngion Praelocutorem, non completè adhuc determinatum; and thereupon the Archbishop continu'd the Convocation to a further day.
Anno 1439. Dec. 22. Dominus petiit responsum finale à Clero reddend. quaiiter deliberati fuerint quoad Subsidium praelibatum concedend. Domino Regi: Et incontinenti Mr. Ricardus Prolocutor Cleri, nomine totius Cleri hujusmodi, Domino quandam Cedulam, &c. praesentavit.
Anno 1444. Oct. 24. Dominus petiit Responsum à Clero, qualiter deliberati fuerant, quantum ad Subsidium—& quid Sentirent de literâ Regiâ pro die Translationis S. Edwardi, &c. [Page 131] Upon which, the Prolocutor makes his Report to the President and Bishops.
Anno 1529. Sess. 33. Dominus Prolocutor petiit longiorem terminum ad consultandum de Articulis praedictis: Unde Reverendissimus assignavit horam primam ejusdem diei.
Anno eod. Sess. 34. Intravit Prolocutor & Clerus, dicentes, se non habere tempus consultandi, & petierunt longiorem terminum; & Reverendissimus concessit horam secundam ejusdem diei.
Anno eod. Sess. 45. Intravit Prolocutor, & petiit Dilationem super eisdem Constitutionibus legendis; & Reverendissimus concessit usque in proximam Sessionem: In the foregoing Session, there was put into the Prolocutor's hands, Libellus quarundam Constitutionum examinand.
Anno eod. Sess. 47. Prolocutor petiit longiorem terminum super Constitutionibus.
Anno 1557. Sess. 5. Praesidens, &c. advocato Prolocutore, rogabat quid Clerus deliberâsset de Subsidio: Qui eorum nomine respondit, omnes aequum sentire, &c. but that they had not agreed de modo & tempore Solutionis. Ideò rogarunt, ut alius dies ad deliberandum Statueretur, qui datus est, viz. dies Mercurij prox. sequens, horâ secundâ post meridiem.
Inferences from the foregoing Testimonies. The Inferences from these Appointments of Time by the Bishops, and Requests for a further day by the Clergy, will be obvious to every Reader, without my leading him to them. For there cannot be more plain and direct Testimonies of any thing, than these are of the general Influence and Authority of the Upper House over the business of Convocation, and particularly over the Debates and Consultations of the Inferior Clergy: Who would not have petition'd [Page 132] for a Respite of their Answer and Report, or offer'd Reasons why they could not be ready against the Time appointed them; but that they knew it was in the Power of their Superiors to require it then, and were desirous to satisfie their Lordships that their not being able to give it, was not want of duty, but purely of time. Nor would they have requested, in the last Instance, ut alius dies ad deliberandum Statueretur, had it been in their own Power to meet and deliberate on Intermediate Days: Which may deserve the consideration of those who have been such Zealous Advocates of late, not only for Meeting and doing business in the Intervals of Sessions (for that the Clergy have often done, and are bound to do at the command of the Upper-House,) but also for an Inherent Power in themselves to come together on those Days, to act in all respects as a House, and to compute such Meetings among the Synodical Sessions. Which (not only without their Bishops, but in defiance of them) are an uncommon Separation of a Synod, and cannot be seen or considered by any Impartial Man, without bringing to his mind a Presbyterian Assembly.
The same Persons may also please to observe, how ill these Instances of the Upper House's Authority in point of Time, agree with their new Scheme of Alliance between the Honourable House of Commons and the Lower House of Convocation. And particularly, the Publisher of the Preface may know from hence, Pref. p. 7. 1. Let. p. that I wrote not like him, at all Adventures, much less (as he lays the Charge) against my own Conscience, when I asserted this Power of prescribing a Time for the Return of their Answers.
CHAP. X.
The Right of the Archbishop and Bishops to require the Answers of the Clergy in Writing.
THat the Upper House have a Power to prescribe the Time within which the Answers of the Clergy shall be return'd, has been prov'd in the foregoing Chapter; and the design of this, is to shew their Right to direct the Manner of their Answers; particularly, to Require a Report either Verbal or in Writing, as their Lordships shall judge most suitable to the nature of the Business recommended to their Consideration. The last Lower House refus'd to answer in Writing. For upon this Point it is, that the Difference in the last Convocation about Continuations or Adjournments remains (as to the two Houses) undetermin'd to this day. The Archbishop and Bishops drew up the Reasons of their Claim in Writing, and deliver'd them to the Inferior Clergy; not only expecting, but directly insisting upon a written Reply. This was refused by the Majority of the Lower House; who resolv'd to return no Answer in Writing, but only viva voce at a free Conference with their Lordships: And there the matter rested upon this general Question, Whether the Upper House have a right to require of the Clergy an Answer in Scriptis; which I conceive the following Instances clearly determin.
The Clergy's obligation to answer in Writing when requir'd. Anno 1396. 10 Kal. Febr. The Clergy having granted a Supply on condition to have Grievances redress'd, Archiepiscopus voluit, quòd Clerus & Religiosi Petitiones suas super dictis Injurijs, [Page 134] Violentijs, & Gravaminibus, in Scriptis redigerent, & sibi porrigerent in die Veneris.
Anno 1411. Dec. 2. The Arch-bishop directs the Proctors of the Clergy, if they had any Grievances to offer, Quòd vellent & deberent citra diem Veneris extunc proximà futur, coran: Convocatione Dominorum in Domo Capitulari seriosius intimare.—And on Friday, Coram Archiepiscopo, &c. comparuerunt Procuratores Cleri, qui plura referebant Gravamina; allegantes quòd de tot & tantis se sentijt Clerus malis pergravatum, quòd nisi in Scriptis contineantur, non possent de facili recenseri.—They retire, and the Arch-bishop and Bishops debate about the Grievances. Returning about Eleven a Clock, Per Dominum Archiepiscopum adtunc mandabatur, quòd citra proximum diem Convocationis exhibeant & declarent articulatim Gravamina sua in Scriptis redacta. Grievances and Subsidies were the chief things that came from the Clergy in those Days; and this, with other Instances of the same kind upon that Head, shows, that it was not the ordinary way to offer their Grievances in Writing, Vid. Infra Cap. 12. except they were requir'd to do it by the Arch-bishop and his Brethren.
Anno 1428. Nov. 20. Dominus assignavit Religiosis, & alijs tunc ibidem praesentibus, terminum ad eligend. Personas [viz. a Committee] & ad praesentandum sibi nomina bujusmodi Personarum nominandarum in Scriptis.
Eod. Anno Dec. 7. Et quia Clerus Provincie, prout tunc ibidem recitatum erat, &c. sentijt se gravatum; ex communi deliberatione Domini & Confratrum suorum, ac totius Concilij, extitit avisatum, ut Gravamina bujusmodi concipi deberent, & redigi in Scripturam.
[Page 135] Anno 1434. Oct. 8. The Arch-bishop, in explaining the Causes of calling the Convocation, reckons up several Grievances of the Church: Et tunc habitâ Communicatione super bujusmodi Gravaminibus, ordinatum erat tunc ibidem, ut bujusmodi Gravamina, ac alia quaecunque in quibus Clerus se sentijt gravari, necnon si quae forent Crimina & excessus infra Clerum usitat'. quae necessariâ Reformatione indigerent, in Scriptis redigerentur.
Anno 1452. Feb. 15. Prolocutor interrogatus à Reverendissimo Patre, an quicquam voluisset pro parte Cleri in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Reformatione dignum proponere; continuò & quasi ex insperato quamplurima, &c. proposuit. Et quia non erat facile, singula per ipsum ibidem exposita, memoriae, quae admodum labilis cst, commendare, idcirco admonait eundem Prolocutorem Reverendissimus Pater, ut singula per eum in bac parte proposita, redigeret in Literas, & Concilio traderet pleniùs & maturius super eisdem deliberatur'.
Anno 1460 May 13. Propositis coram Reverendissimo Patre, & alijs in Domo Capitulari protunc ibidem existentibus, quibusdam Articulis per Prolocutorem viva voce, dictus Reverendissimus Pater decrevit bujusmodi Articulos sic vivâ voce declarat'. in scriptis redigi.
Anno 1529. Sess. 104. Episcopus London Commissarius recitavit voluntatem Reverendissimi super praelictâ Supplicatione, [viz. an Address of the House of Commons to the King] & voluit Prolocutorem, &c. quòd concipiant Responsa sua in Scriptis.
Anno 1557. Sess. 3. Deinde monuit Locum tenens Praelatos Inferioris Domûs, ut ipsi exhiberent in Scriptis quod Reformandum putarent.
[Page 136] Anno 1562. (when the 39 Articles were settled) Feb. 19. Reverendissimus, de & cum cansensu Fratrum suorum, tradidit quosdam Articulos in Scriptis conceptos; mandando quatenùs super contentis in dictis Articulis diligenter inquirerent, ac quicquid inde invenerint, in Scriptis redigant, ac dicto Reverendissimo porrigant & exbibeant.
Anno 1588. Dominus Prolocutor universo Coetui significavit volantatem Reverendissimi caeterorúnque Praelatorum Superioris Domûs esse, quòd si aliquis bujus Domûs noverit quenquam Ministrum de quo justè conqueri possit, quòd contra Leges Ecclesiasticas, nunc temporis auctoritate legitimâ receptas & approbatas, se gessit & gerit; aut si aliquis noverit quenquam qui Canones in ultimâ Convocatione approbatos & editos violoverit; eosdem in Scriptis denunciarent Reverendissimo Domino Cant. Archiepiscopo caeterisque Dominis Praelatis praedict. pro debitâ Correctione & Reformatione in eâ parte fiendâ.
Anno 1640. Sess. 2. Arch-bishop Laud having recommended to the Clergy the Consideration of certain Canons and Constitutions, adds, Et quicquid inde senserint sive excogitaverint, in Scriptis redigant, & coram ipso Reverendissimo & Confratribus suis Episcopis exhibeant.
Ead. Conv. Sess. 3. Reverendissimus, &c. Schedulas Domino Prolocutori tradidit, Coetui Domûs Inferior is proponendas, legendas, & publicandas; cum monitione, quòd Copias earum cuicunque tradere minimè praesumat. Et si aliquis dictae Domûs aliquid dictis Capitulis contrarium proponat, porrigat in Scriptis, & in manus Doproponat, Prolocutoris Domino Archiepiscopo & caeteris Episcopis Domûs Superioris exhibiturum, ut ipsi de eisdem consultarent.
[Page 137] The State of this Case between the two Houses, in the last Convocation. Thus has the Practice of Convocation stood; and 'tis certainly agreeable to the natural Reason of the thing, that they who have a Right to direct the Consideration of Business, and to prescribe a time for returning it, should also be the proper Judges, whether the Purposes they have in their Eye, be most effectually answer'd in Writing, or by a verbal Report. Not to insist therefore upon the evident Necessity of Writing in this case, (upon a Point wholly new, to be determin'd from Records, some of which are very obscure and imperfect, and where a diligent Examination and Comparison of all Particulars was absolutely necessary;) nor yet to observe, that the Refusal of so fair a Method, is a strong Presumption, that the Advocates themselves distrusted their Cause: Not, I say, to insist upon these (however of moment towards the Justification of their Lordships) the Case, and all the Consequences of it, depend principally upon this, Whether the Arch-bishop and Bishops have a Right to require the Clergy as oft as they judge it expedient, to bring their Answers in Writing? Because, if that Right be vested in them, the Refusal on the other side was a manifest Violation of it; and so the Refusers became obnoxious to the Censure of the Upper-House, and chargeable with all the Mischiess arising from that Act of Disobedience. For so I must beg Leave to call it, after so many plain Precedents of a Command to the Lower-Clergy, to put their Opinions in Writing, without any one Mark of Doubt or Scruple, whether it should be comply'd with, before the last Convocation. And then indeed it was not only a Scruple, but a flat Denial, and a peremptory Resolution, Not to descend to any Particulars upon the Point of [Page 138] Continuation, but in the way of a free Conserence. Upon the Proposal whereof by those of the Lower-House, (Sess. 12.) with a Declaration of their Lordships, that they insisted upon an Answer in Writing; it was put to the Question, (Sess. 13.) ‘"Whether the House would give their Answer in Writing at large, or desire a free Conference; and carry'd for a free Conference.’ Again, (Sess. 14.) it was resolv'd, that an humble Application be renew'd to their Lordships for a free Conference.
Free Conference, a Term unknown in Convocation. This is a new Term, borrow'd from the Proceedings of Parliament, and never known in any Convocation before the last. The Acts frequently speak of the Colloquia and Tractatus which the Arch-bishop and his Brethren had, in the Upper-House, with the Prolocutor and some of the Inferior Clergy; or (if their Lordships so order'd it) with the Prolocutor alone. No such free Conference ever desir'd by the Clergy. But I don't remember, in all the Registers before 1689. any Instance of the Clergy's desiring a Conference of any kind, except one in the Year 1661. the Circumstances whereof were widely different from the present Case; and they were then very far from insisting upon it, against the express Resolution of the Upper-House. The occasion was this: During the Consideration of the Liturgy, the Lower-House had certain Emendations ready to be carry'd up to their Lordships. Dec. 12. Dominus Prolocutor, cum consensu, ut asserebatur, totius Domûs Inferioris ad Praesidentem & Domum Inferiorem missus est, ad petend'. se cum tribus vel duobus alijs è Domo Inferiori admitti ad conferend' cum Dominis Episcopis in Domo suâ seden'. Dictoque Prolocutore, &c. admisso & adveniente, dictus Prolocutor praesentavit Domino Praesidenti, & tradidit in manibus suis, [Page 139] nonnullas Papiri Schedas, Emendationes alicujus labri pubiicarum Precum concernen. These were read, debated, and approv'd; and then the Prolocutor, &c. was dismiss'd. The occasion of their making this Request, seems to have been a necessity of their explaining to their Lordships the Grounds and Reasons of some of the Alterations they had then made. But what is all this to such a free Conference as is practis'd in Parliament and was now propos'd by the Inferior Clergy; in which Managers of both Sides were to be appointed, with special Instructions from each House. The Prolocutor in 1661. desir'd to confer with their Lordships, who thinking it in that particular a proper way of receiving the sence of the Lower House, immediately admitted him. But neither he nor the House insisted upon that, as the only way in which they would give their Opinions; much less did they resist an express command from their Lordships to put them in Writing; which was the Case in the last Convocation, and very unlike the Daciful Proceedings of the Clergy who assisted in that Revisal and Establishment of our Liturgy.
Inferences in vindication of their Lordships. As to the Case in hand, their Lordships had undoubredly a Right to require the Answers of the Lower House in Writing; and judging it a necessary method of coming to a true State of the point of Continuations then in dispute, did insist upon their right, and directly requir'd Obedience. On the other hand, the Clergy refus'd to do it, and persisted in that Refusal; and not only so, but proceeded also to the Irregularities of Adjourning to different Days and by the consent of their House. Afterwards, as if the Obstruction had laid wholly on their Lordships side, they passed a formal Vote (May 22.) for a Request [Page 140] to their Lordships, pressing them to put some end to the present difference between the two Houses in relation to their Prorogations and Adjournments. Considering how themselves were then in a State of Contempt, upon refusing to comply with the Lawful Commands of their Superiors, and that nothing but this their Refusal put a stop to the measures of Accommodation; I appeal to any imparial Man, whether that Motion, intended to be made to the Upper House, was fit to be offer'd any where but in the Lower, in which the Obstruction solely lay.
CHAP. XI.
The Right of the President and Bishops to take to them the Assistance of Persons learned in the Law, &c.
BEsides the Opinion and Assistance of the Inferior Clergy acting in conjunction with the President and Bishops, as Members of the same Convocation; their Lordships have a separate Power to advise with Counsel either in the Common or Civil Law, upon any difficulty in the Course of their Proceedings; in Cases, more especially, where there is any danger or appearance of their interfering with the Statutes and Customs of the Realm. The Manner of taking their Advice, has been either by admitting them to the Debates of the House, or appointing a Select number of Bishops to lay before them any Doubts or Difficulties that were in their way, and to desire the Opinion.
[Page 141] Anno 1419. Sess. 3. Coram Archiepiscopo, &c. adductus fuit quidam Ricardus Walker, &c. quem (ut asserebatur) Prior Ecclesiae Cath. Wigorn. tanquam Sortilegum, & de Sortilegio suspectum, &c. apprehenderat—Being examin'd, he was remanded to Prison, usque deliberari posset per Jurisperitos quâ poenâ talis Sortilegus esset per Jurisperitos puniendus.
Anno 1425. Jun. 8. Two Hereticks remanded in the same manner, Donec Reverendissimus Pater, de concilio & avisamento Confratrum suorum, ac Jurisperitorum, deliberaret quid cum eis faciend. censeret, & si in Poenam Relapsûs cecidissent neone.
Anno 1428. Upon the Question, Whether the Religious should receive Hereticks as Prisoners into their Houses, the Register adds, Et quia, ut asseruerunt, materia illa (ut eis videbatur) gravis erat, ac res quaedam insolita & inaudita, Supplicarunt Domino pro deliberatione ulteriori in hac parte habendâ, ad finem quòd possent communicare cum Jurisperitis, ne eis aut eorum Privilegijs seu Indultis Apostolicis praejudicium aliquod generaretur.
Anno 1460. Maij. 20. Administratis per Mr. Johannem Stoks Praelocutorem, &c. certis Articulis utilitatem Regis & Regni Angliae & defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae concernentibus, Reverendissimus Pater cum consensu suorum Confratrum in dictâ Convocatione praesentium, elegit certos viros praeeminentis Scientiae, viz. Magistros Rob. Styllington, &c. Legum Doctores, ad interessend. pertractand. & consiliand. cum cis de & super hujusmodi Articulis; coram dicto Reverendissimo Patre, & suis Confratribus, &c.
Anno 1586. Sess. 3. Mar. 3. Lower House Book, Dominus Prolocutor significavit praesentem [Page 142] Voluntatem Reverendissimi ac aliorum Dominorum Praelatorum de benevolâ Contributione, &c. & quód de bujusmodi Libello concipiendo maturior deliberatio cum Jurisperitorum consilio habeatur.
Anno 1640. Sess. 12. May 16. Upon a Debare concerning the Fees for Charchings, &c. Reverendissimus, cum Consilio & assensu Praelatorum & Confretrum suorum, negotium hujusmodi Attornato Generali Domini Regis significand, fore decrevit, ut ipse de aliquo Remedio pro eis in hac parte curaret.
Eod. Anno Sess. 13. Reverendissimus, cum Confratrum consensu, elegit Dominos Episcopos Elien & Bristol, ad consulendum cum utroque Dominorum Justiciariorum Primariorum citra certas Clausulas & Verba in Canonibus contra Recusantes. They make their Report, Sess. 15. that Sir Edward Littleton advis'd, ut quaedam verba in isto Canone expungerentur, & alia verba magis apta in loco eorum conscriberentur.
Eod. Anno Sess. 25. Reverendissimus in praesentijs Domini Johannis Lamb Militis, &c. qui ad informandum Reverendissimum & Episcopos vocati sunt, tractavit cum Domino Prolocutore citra Canones.
Anno 1661. Jan. ult. A Question arising, Whether the Bishops might be present in the House of Lords in Causes of Blood, Concordatum & ordinatum fuit, de & cum consensu totius Domûs [Superioris] ad censulend. Jurisperitos tam in Foro Seculari quàm in Curijs Civilibus & Ecclesiasticis versatos, de & super dictâ Quaestione sive Argumento, erga proximam Convocationem.
Anno 1662. Apr. 12. Habito tractatu de Subscriptionibus Clericorum Instituendorum, &c. Dominus Episcopus London Praesidens, &c. curam [Page 143] commisit Reverendis Patribus, &c. ad consulend. Jurisperitos de concipiendâ Formâ in Scriptis in & circa Subscriptionem praedict.
Application of these testimonies I produce these Evidences, to justifie their Lordships from the Reflections cast upon them, for declining to joyn the Lower House in the Censure of Toland's Book. The History of which Case, with the Reasonableness of what they did therein, is set forth at large in the History of the Proceedings of the Upper House; and comes no otherwise under my Consideration, than as their Lordships appear from hence to have acted agreeably to the Practice of Convocation, in advising with Council, and upon that Advice determining themselves.
The necessity of having recourse to Council about the Censure of Books. The Penalties of the Statute, 25 H. 8.c. 19. (upon the extent whereof, the Question depended) are very great; and if incurr'd in Convocation, would have affected the whole Body of the Clergy of this Province. And therefore my Lords the Bishops (the Governours of the Church) could not involve the Clergy, either of this or future times, in a difficulty of that nature, by omitting any methods of informing themselves whether the Act could be clearly warranted in Law. And who were so fit to be their Guides in that Point, as Council Learned in the Law? to whom Recourse has been ever had in all Doubts of the same nature; as it was particularly in the Convocation of 1689. and upon this very Question too, viz. the Power they had in Law to pass a Censure of this kind.
As their Lordships must be presum'd to have taken the Advice and Opinion of the Ablest Men in the Profession, and such withal whom they knew to be Persons of honour and integrity; so it becomes not me, or any other Person so [Page 144] little entitl'd to Accomplishments of that kind, to call in question either the Justness or the Conscience of that Opinion. The Narrative of the Lower House says, P. 53. that though some eminent Lawyers were against it, there were others perhaps as eminent, who are of a contrary Opinion. It may be so, but did my Lords the Bishops understand so much? or suppose they had, such a Difference in Opinions is no uncommon thing; nor must we in many cases ever determin our selves, if we stay till all Men be unanimous. Their Lordships therefore having appli'd to those of the Profession, in whom they thought they could entirely confide, had reason to acquiesce in the Judgment they gave; especially, when they were so expresly warn'd that the Effects of their Acting against it were to reach the whole Body, and so themselves became thereby much more inexcusable for endangering that Body, after a Caution given them by such competent Judges, and upon so much deliberation.
Their recommending the Case to the B. of the Diocese agreeable to the Practice of Convocation. But the Statute being a Restraint upon the Convocation only, and not upon the Ecclesiastical Courts of every Bishop, confirm'd and establisht by Law; their Lordships, desirous to discourage the publication of such Books by all methods consistent with the Clergy's safety, recommended that matter to the Bishop in whose Diocese the Offender resided, and who upon that account had a right to Summon and prosecute him in a Legal way. A method, that we find taken in Cases of that kind, even while the Convocation had an indisputable right not only to judge of Heretical Doctrines, but to convene, censure, and punish the Heretick.
Anno 1416. May 23. One John Barton, of the Diocese of Lincoln, was accus'd of holding [Page 145] Heretical Opinions: And, May 26. the Register says, Praefatus Dominus Johannes Barton, per Dominum Cantuariensem fuit deliberatus Reverendo Patri Philippo Lincoln Episcopo, ut ipse procederet contra eum Secundum Canonicas Sanctiones.
Again, at the conclusion of the same Convocation we find this Entry: Memorandum, quòd Ds. Robertus Chapell, &c. post dictam Convocationem finitam, etiam ex deliberatione & confilio Praelatorum inibi existentium, fuit remissus ad Episcopum Roffensem, ad effectum quòd ipse procederet contra eum, prout de jure fuerit procedend.
Anno 1428. July 16. The Rector of Heggely, of the Diocese of Lincoln, being examined in Convocation, tandem Dominus mandavit ut idem Robertus traheret se ad partem, & ordinavit ut Confrater suus Episcopus Lincoln, &c. procederet contra eundem, ut Ordinarius suus in hac parte.
Anno 1430. Mar. 2. In the Case of one Thomas Bagley accus'd of Heresy, Dominus videns quòd ipse & Confratres sui nihil possent proficere in eo ad aedificationem Animae suae, mandavit Domino London, ut ipsum reciperet, & contra eum procederet, Secundum quod in hac parte dictaverunt Sanctiones. And, Mar. 5. Dominus assignavit eidem Thomae diem Veneris tunc prox. ad audiend. Sententiam ferend. contra eum, per Dominum Willielmum London. Ordinarium suum, pro eo quòd in Diaecesi sua extitit Beneficiatus.
Anno 1463. July 16. An accusation being brought in against one of the Diocese of Winchester, Dominus commisit eum Confratri suo Willelmo Winton, Episcopo puniend.
[Page 146] And in the very Convocation of 1689 (the Right Reverend the Bishop of London Presiding, and the present Bishops of Rochester, Winchester, Exeter, and Worcester, being then Members of the Upper House) this method was markt out to them, as appears from the Declaration they then made, viz.
Anno 1689. Sess. 13. The Prolocutor and Lower Clergy being sent for to the Upper House, Reverendus Pater Praeses eis declaravit ad effectum Sequen. Scil. quòd conscij fuerunt diversas esse Clausulas perniciosas in Libris aliàs penes eos ex directione dictae Domûs relict. sed informati sunt per Juris-peritos utriusque Juris, proprias esse Curias Judiciales pro punitione delictorum hujusmodi.
I do not mention either this or the foregoing Instances, as agreeing in all respects with the present Case; but only to show the readiness of their Lordships (upon a reasonable Apprehension of Danger to the Church and Clergy from the measures propos'd) to enter upon such other methods as the Laws of the Land would permit, and they were sure the Practice of Convocation would justifie.
THus far we have seen the Clergy in Convocation debating, preparing and returning Matters immediately recommended to their care by the President and Bishops, and consider'd in the manner and to the purposes directed by their Lordships.
Our next business is, to shew the Rights to which the Clergy are entitl'd by the constant Practice of Convocation, and the Regard that upon the same ground is due from my Lords the [Page 147] to their Application and Advice; with the Interest they have in the final issue of all Synodical Acts.
These I think, come under the four following heads, viz. their Right
- I. To present their own and the Church's Grievances, to the President and Bishops.
- II. To offer to their Lordships their Petitions of any other kind.
- III. To be with them as a part of the Judicature, upon Persons conven'd and examin'd in Convocation.
- IV. To dissent finally from any Matter, so as to hinder it's passing into a Synodical Act.
CAHP. XII.
The Gravamina and Reformanda, in Convocation.
The Gravamina often consider'd and presented with the Subsidies. I. FRom the most early accounts of Proceedings in Convocation, it appears to have been usual for the Clergy to lay before the President and Bishops the Grievances under which they labour'd, and with a duitful submission to the judgment of their Lordships to pray a Redress. These were stil'd the Gravamina or Articuli Cleri, and chiefly concern'd matters relating to Jurisdiction and their Civil-Property, viz. The Encroachments of the Lay-Officers, the Exactions and other Irregularities of Ecclesiastical Courts, and such like, called frequently upon that account Injuriae. Sometimes therefore the Redress of them made an express Condition of the Subsidies they granted; and accordingly, [Page 148] in some Instances, we find them presented to the Court together with the Subsidy Bill, and the King's Answer afterwards reported by the President.
Anno 1369. Concesserunt Domino Regi decimam biennalem solvendam eidem Domino Regi insra biennium à tempore dictae Concessionis numerandum.—Sub istis tamen Conditionibus adjectis & additis per dictum Clerum, viz. quòd dictus Dominus Rex Injurias & Violentias ac alia Gravamina Viris Ecclesiasticis in enervationem libertatis Ecclesiasticae per Ministros Regios multipliciter attemptata, & per ipsum Clerum in Scriptis redigenda, & dicto Domino Archiepiscopo, & per cum Domino Regi porrigenda, corrigat & reformet. Et tunc Dictus Dominus Archiepiscopus voluit quòd Clerus & Religiosi praedicti Petitiones suas super dictis Injurijs, Violentijs & Gravaminibus in scriptis redigerent, & sibi porrigerent, &c. quòd super eis cum suis Confratribus poterit consulere & deliberare, & cas, habitá deliberatione hujusmodi, unà cum concessione decimae biennalis praedictae dicto Domino Regi intimare; & assignavit dictis Clero & Religiosis diem Sabbatti prox. seq. ad comparendum coram eo in dictâ Capellâ horâ primâ, voluntatem Regiam super dictis Petitionibus, & etiam grates regias pro dictâ Concessione, quas reportabit, audituris. Et ad hoc faciendum continuavit dictam Convocationem ad diem Sabbati supradictum.
Anno 1373. Dec. 2. Upon the Clergy's Motion to have their Grievances redress'd by the King, they were directed to consider of a Subsidy, & quòd interim Informarent Petitiones suas super Reformatione Injuriarum, ut eas conciperent in Scriptis, quòdque responsiones darent die prox. sequenti.
[Page 149] —Dec. 8. The Bishop of London Presiding, Coram eo Procuratores Cleri ibidem comparentes, Decimam, &c. concesserunt, ac dictam Concessionem in Scriptis dicto Domino London. Episcopo porrexerunt, unà cum quibusdam Supplicationibus pro Reformatione quarundam Injuriarum Ecclesiae Anglicanae illatarum in eadem Scripturâ content.
Anno 1376. Non. Febr. The Grievances were presented to the President and Bishops; and 12 Kal. Martij. we find the Archbishop making his Report to the King's Answer Praelatis & Clero,—& habita deliberatione per dictos Praelatos & Clerum super hujusmodi Responsione Dominus Continuavit, &c.
And again, 2. Kal. Martij (I suppose, upon some further Application made by the Clergy) the Archbishop acquaints them with the King's Readiness to comply with their Petitions, Eas salvo jure Coronae suae feliciter expedire.
Anno 1379. 4. Kal. Martij. Praelati & Clerus concesserunt Domino Regi, &c. rogando Dominum Regem, quód Injurias & Gravamina illata Ecclesiae & Viris Ecclesiasticis faceret revocari.
Anno 1384. At the end of the Convocation, Clerus porrexit certos Articulos, petendo Remedium; & Concessit Medietatem, &c.
Anno 1421. The Archbishop's Official, in the name of the rest, produxit unam Cedulam Papiri, formam Concessionis unius integrae Decimae continentem, &c. cum hoc quód per Dominum Regem, auctoritate Parliamenti tunc apud Westm. praesentis, posset adhiberi remedium cortis Gravaminibus eis illatis.
In these and other Instances, the Clergy (who had a Right to Petition for Redress) were willing [Page 150] those Petitions should accompany the Grant, because that made them sure of a favourable Answer. But this was not constantly observ'd; The Grievances to whom address'd. nor were all the Grievances address'd to the King, but many of them ultimately to the Archbishop and Bishops, when the Matter thereof concern'd their Courts, and so the Redress was in their Lordships Power. We find also (Anno 1399. Oct. 11.) mention made of such Articles offer'd to the Pope, in a Case (we may imagin) that was not otherwise to be reform'd. Decanus Ecclesiae Hereford. Articulos de mandato Domini Archiepiscopi palam & apertè perlegebat.—Et quia in dictis Articulis continebantur certa Gravamina per Sedem Apostolicam reformanda, visum fuit satis honestum & expediens Domino Archiepiscopo, &c. that the Pope's Collector should be sent for, and advis'd with: Whose Council was, That the King, the Archbishop and Bishops should write to the Pope pro Reformatione eorundem.
In like manner we meet with Applications of the same kind, as to the King singly, so to the King in Council, to the King in Parliament; as Redress was most probably and regularly to be had, either in the one or the other.
The Points of this kind, consider'd and debated in Convocation, were either General, when the Matters to be reform'd had Relation to the Common Good of the Church; and, equally affecting the Bishops and Clergy, were settl'd in a Synodical way, and address'd and presented in the Names of both; which the Registers call Reformanda in Convocatione, Reformanda in Parliamento, &c. Or else Particular, when the Bishops or Clergy had Grievances to offer that affected only their own Order respectively; and in [Page 151] such cases, tho' the Clergy presented theirs to the Upper-House for their Approbation and the Conveyance of them to the King or Parliament, yet the Form ran in their own Name only; which were properly what we call the Gravamina and Articuli Cleri.
The Upper house have a Right to direct at what time the Grievances shall be propos'd. These, the Clergy in Convocation have an undoubted Right to present; but, as they are to be laid immediately before the Upper-House, so the Arch-bishop and Bishops have a Right to direct (as oft as they see cause) at what Time they shall be propos'd, and offer'd in Form.
Anno 1356. 16. Kal. Jun. Archiepiscopus injunxit Religiosis & alijs de Clero, quòd die tunc crastinâ proponerent Petitiones suas.
Anno 1369. 10. Kal. Feb. Archiepiscopus voluit, quòd Clerus & Religiosi Petitiones suas super Injurijs, Violentijs, & Gravaminibus, in Scriptis redigerent, & sibi porrigerent die Veneris.
Anno 1373. The Clergy directed, Quòd interim informarent Petitiones suas super Reformatione Injuriarum, ut eas conciperent in Scriptis, quódque Responsiones darent die prox. Sequent.
Anno 1377. 2. Id. Nov. The President praemunivit quòd unus Clericus de quolibet Episcopatu dictae Provinciae Cant. veniret ad Ecclesiam S. Pauli London, & ibidem inter se post prandium, &c. deliberarent super Petitionibus formandis de singulis Gravaminibus communiter Clerum cujuslibet Episcopatù; tangentibus.
Anno 1399. Oct. 6. Quia videbatur Domino Archiepiscopo & alijs Episcopis sue Cant. Provinciae satis difficile omnes Praelatos & Procuratores Cleri in communi congregare ad concipiend. [Page 152] Articulos ex parte Cleri proponendos, propter hoc deputavit 5. Personas, viz. Mag. Thomam Stowe, &c. ad concipiend. Articulos ex parte Praelatorum & Cleri, super quibus praetendunt Ecclesiam & se gravatos.
Anno 1411. Dec. 2. Archiepiscopus mandavit Procuratoribus Cleri, quatenùs si aliqua essent Gravamina ex parte eorum Reformatione indigentia, quòd vellent & deberent citra diem Veneris extunc proximò futur. coram Convocatione Dominorum in Domo Capitulari seriosiùs intimare.
The Grievances first offer'd in a general Representation, vivà voce. At other times, when the Clergy had receiv'd no previous Direction to bring their Grievances in Writing, we find them first making a general Representation thereof, Vivâ voce, to the Archbishop and Bishops, and upon that, either leaving them to their Lordships Consideration, or receiving Directions, what was further necessary to be done.
Anno 1356. On the first Day of Business, they are directed only in general quòd die tunc crastinâ proponerent Petitiones suas: And the next Session 'tis thus express'd, Propositis quibusdam Petitionibus per Clerum tam vivâ voce quàm in Scriptis.
Anno 1373. Dec. 2. The Clergy, upon a general Motion for the Redress of Grievances by the King, are commanded Informare Petitiones suas super Reformatione Injuriarum bujusmodi.
Anno 1411. Nov. 4. The Clergy (according to the Order of Dec. 2. just now cited, that they should Gravamina, &c. S [...]ri [...]siùs intimare) did it on Dec. 4. in the following manner, Comparuerunt Procuratores Cleri, qui plura referebant Gravamina; allegantes, quòd de t [...]t & tantis se s [...]ntijt Clerus malis praegravatum, quòd nisi in [Page 153] Scriptis contineantur, non possent de facili recenseri. The Proctors retire, and the Arch-bishop and Bishops debate about the same Matter.—Procuratores, &c. reintrarunt circa horam undecimam; quibus per Dominum Archiepiscopum ad tunc mandabatur quòd citra proximum diem Convocationis exhibeant & declarent Articulatim Gravamina sua in Scriptis redacta.—Accordingly, Dec. 7. two of the Members nonnullas Inconvenientias & Gravamina pro & ex parte Cleri, cujus gerebant Organa vocis, exposuerunt, quae in Scriptis redacta exhibuerunt.
Anno 1452. The Prolocutor having given the Upper-house an Account of what was done about the Subsidy, is askt, An quicquam voluisset pro parte Cleri in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Reformatione dignum proponere. And he, continuò & quasi ex insperato quamplurima, &c. proposuit. Et quia non erat facilè singula per ipsum ibidem exposita memoriae, quae admodùm labilis est, commendare, idcircò admonuit eundem Prolocutorem dictus Reverendissimus Pater, ut singula per eum in hac parte proposita redigeret in literas, & Concilio traderet, pleniùs & maturiùs super eisdem deliberaturo.
Anno 1452. Feb. 7. Praelocutor, post explicationem & declarationem nonnullorum Gravaminum Ecclesiae Anglicanae & Clero ejusdem à Laicis illatorum, super quibus petijt Reformationem debitam, intimavit, &c.
Anno 1460. May 13. Propositis ibidem coram dicto Reverendissimo Patre & alijs in dictâ Domo Capitulari protunc ibidem existentibus quibusdam Articulis per Prolocutorem vivâ voce, dictus Reverendissimus Pater decrevit hujusmodi Articulos sic vivâ voce declarat'. in Scriptis redigi.
[Page 154] Anno 1460. May 24. Reverendissimus, &c. auditis per eum pluribus Articulis coram ipso adtunc vivâ voce ministratis, continuavit, &c.
Anno 1541. Sess. 8. Accessit Prolocutor cum quibusdam de Electis à Clero, & exposuerunt querelas suas.
Thus, the usual Methods of entring upon the Grievances of the Clergy, were either upon an express Command from the Arch-bishop and Bishops, or by a general Representation thereof to their Lordships; who being in that manner sollicited to redress them, (either by their own ordinary Power, or by Intercession with the King, or Application to the Parliament) were the best Judges of the Methods most proper to be taken for that End, and gave their Directions accordingly.
The Redress of Grievances. The Grievances being reduc'd into Articles, and read in the Upper-house by the Prolocutor, were presented to the Arch-bishop and Bishops, to be by them particularly consider'd and debated; in order to their further Prosecution of such Measures as should appear most effectual to the Relief of their Clergy. After mature Deliberation upon them, with the Clergy, or among themselves, as seem'd most convenient; the Articles were either suspended for some time, (as those in 1411. Dec. 7. Omnes isti suprascripti Articuli, quorum Reformatio deliberationis & dierum exegit Inducias, de consilio & assensu expressis Dominorum in Convocatione praesentium posit [...] fuerunt adhuc in suspenso) or, being thought in all Respects just and reasonable, they were approv'd, and Measures taken by the President and Bishops in Convocation, or by their Ordinary Authority; if the Matters were such as [Page 155] came under their own Power in either of these Capacities. Otherwise, they convey'd them to the King, in Person, in his Council, or in his Parliament, according to the Nature of the Requests they offer'd.
The Reformanda frequently propos'd by the Arch bishop among the Causes of Convocation. II. The Reformanda (whether in Convocatione, in Parliamento, or per Regem) were upon Matters that concern'd the Good of the Church and Religion in general, and being therefore equally the Care and Concern as well of Bishops as Clergy, were frequently mov'd and propos'd by the Arch-bishop, at the Opening of the Convocation, among the Causes of his Summons.
Anno 1400. Jan. 29. The Arch-bishop explains Causas & negotia Celebrationis sui Concilij Provincialis Convocationis Cleri vulgariter nuncupat. viz. pro defectibus ejusdem Provinciae tam in Clero quàm in Populo juxta Juris Exigentiam Canonicè Reformandis; and then he descends to the Particulars.
Anno 1404. May 17. (The first Day of Business) the Arch-bishop continuing the Convocation to May 21. demandavit alijs Praelatis & Clero tunc ibidem praesentibus, quòd singulis diebus interim ad dictum locum [Domum Capitularem] convenirent, & laborarent circa Reformanda in Cantuariensi Provinciâ, & exinde Articulos conciperent in Scriptis redigendos, ut cum Dei adjutorio adhibita corum Benevolentia in hac parte, quaeque Reformanda hujusmodi possent reformari.
Anno 1416. Nov. 16.—Expositâ per Reverendissimum Patrem Causa Convocationis eorum protunc factae & celebratae, communicató que inter eosdem, [viz. the Bishops and Clergy then present] aliquamdiu de & super varijs Reformandis [Page 156] in Provincia, tandem Dominus Continuavit, &c.
Anno 1419. Among the Causes of calling the Convocation, particularly explain'd by the Archbishop, the third is, Pro defectibus in Clero regnantibus, auctoritate illius Provincialis Concilij reformandis: And then he directs the Lower-Clergy to retire to their House, & quòd ibidem de & super materijs praedictis tractarent & communicarent, ad finem quòd babitd deliberatione de & super praemissis, ad Dei laudem auctoritate Concilij finaliter concludi posset & concorditer ordinari.
Anno 1434. The Arch-bishop reckons up several Grievances of the Church; Et tunc babita Communicatione super bujusmodi Gravaminibus, ordinatum erat tunc ibidem ut hujusmodi Gravamina ac alia quaecunque in quibus dictus Clerus se sentijt gravari, nec non si quae forent Crimina & Excessus infra Clerum usitat. quae necessariâ Reformatione indigerent, in Scriptis redigerentur; ut super his omnibus ex communi consilio, consensu, & auxilio, Remendium posset debitum adhiberi.
Anno 1439. The Arch-bishop declares the Causes of the Convocation, viz. qualiter Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica per Brevia Regia, & praecipuè per Brevia illa de Praemunire facias plus solito extitit perturbata, impedita, atque enormiter laesa.—Qualiter Personae Ecclesiasticae, tam Seculares quàm Regulares, per falsa Indictamenta & alias vias Exquisitas plus solito vexatae & grava [...]ae sunt his diebus.—And the next Sesson, Dominus mandavit Praelatis & Clero, quartenùs super praemissis & alijs materijs quibuscunque Reformatione recessaria indigentibus, viz. Qualiter illud Breve de Praemunire facias, & ipsa falsa [Page 157] Indictamenta quae hodiernis diebus falsò, nequiter, & malitiosè usitantur & continuantur, in aliquo mitigari aut pro perpetuo deleri & finaliter extingui valeant—& Billas & alia Advisamenta in hac parte necessaria ad praemissa Reformanda conciperent.
Anno 1444. After the mention of the foresaid Writ among the Causes of Convocation, the Arch-bishop adds, Qualiter in Ecclesiâ Anglicana fuerant plurima Reformatione digna, de quibus voluit & asseruit cum Confratribus suis pleniùs deliberare.—And in the next Convocation (when these things made a part of the Speech at the first Opening) we afterwards find the Reformanda in Convocatione, and Reformanda in Parliamento, at large.
The Methods of bringing in the Reformanda. In Compliance with such general Directions from his Grace, or (tho' these were not expressly given) in pursuance of one great End of these Synodical Meetings of the Bishops and their Presbyters; we find the Lower-Clergy, 1. Making general Representations to the President and Bishops, vivâ voce, of such things as they conceiv'd to want Reformation. 2. Bringing in Schedules of particular Abuses, that in their Opinion were injurious to the Honour and Interest of the Church.
The Clergy's Right to propose Reformations. I. The Clergy in Convocation have a Right to offer general Representations of such things as they conceive to want Reformation.
Anno 1412. At the Conclusion of that Convocation, Domino London. Praesidente, & tradante cum Praelatis & Clero Provinciae super quibusdam ordinand. ad honorem Dei & Ecclesiae, tandem certa proposita fuerunt pro parte Cleri super quibus ordinationes fieri jubebantur, & quae Clerus in Scriptis redegit.
[Page 158] Anno 1463. Jul. 6. Dominus, assidentibus sibi Episcopis, post communicationem inter eos diu habitam, factáque Supplicatione eisdem vivae vocis oraculo per Praelocutorem pro certis Reformationibus in Ecclesiá habendis, continuavit, &c.
Anno 1486. Feb. 17. Dominus communicavit cum Confratribus suis, Praelatisque & Clero, de pluribus Reformandis in Ecclesiâ. Et ibidem inter eosdem responsum erat, quòd Privilegia Priori Sancti Johannis Jerusalem in Angliâ & Fratribus suis concessa, malè & enormiter his diebus utebantur: Et quòd Praedicantes verbum Dei apud Crucem S. Pauli London. maximè clamant contra Ecclesiam & Ecclesiasticos in eorum absentiâ & in praesentiâ Laicorum, qui semper Clericis sunt infesti.
Anno 1529. Sess. 4. Ingressus est Prolocutor cum quibusdam de Clero, qui exposuit certa Capitula in vulgari concernen. utilitatem praedictae Synodi pro Reformatione Abusionum. Et ibi Reverendus monuit Prolocutorem ut rediret in Domum Inferiorem, & conciperet Articulos de Abusionibus. Accordingly,
—Sess. 6. Ingressus est Prolocutor cum Clero, & ibi exhibuerunt Articulos suos pro Reformatione; & Examinatio delata in prox. Sessionem: And, Sess. 7. Prolocutor exhibuit suos Articulos, deliberandos in proximâ Sessione.
The Bishops, &c. in the mean time, were also preparing their Articles of Reformation; for so the Register has it,
—Sess. 5. Reverendissimus voluit ut Suffraganei sui & alijt Praelati conciperent Reformationem, & exhiberent tales Articulos die Lunae prox.—On which Day,
[Page 159] Sess. 6. Episcopus Heref. exhibuit quosdam Articulos pro Reformatione Clericorum, & Episcopi Exon. Coven. & Lichf. Lincoln. Bathon. & Wellen. exehibuerunt Billas pro Reformatione Abusionum Ecclesiarum Appropriatarum Monasteriis, &c. de quibus deliberatio delata in prox. Sessionem.
Anno 1562. Jan. 19. The Prolocutor, with certain of the Lower House, comes up to acquaint the President and Bishops, Quòd quidam de dictâ domo exhibuerunt quasdam diversas Schedas de Rebus Reformandis per eos respective excogitat' & in Scriptis redact. Quae quidem Schedae de communi consensu traditae sunt quibusdam viris gravioribus & doctioribus de Coetu dictae Domûs Inferioris ad hoc electis perspiciend. & considerand. Quibus sic electis (ut asseruit) assignatum est, ut hujusmodi Schedas in Capitula redigant, ac in proxima Sessione exhibeant coram eodem Prolocutore—Et tunc Reverendissimus hujusmodi negotia per dictum Prolocutorem & Clerum incaepta approbavit, ac in eisdem erga prox. Sessionem juxta corum determinationem procedere voluit & mandavit.
The Clergy's Right to bring in Schedules of Reformation. II. We find the Clergy (i. e. every particular Clergyman) required to bring in their Schedule of Abuses for the information of the Synod, and the enabling the Bishops and Clergy to proceed jointly to a Reformation.
Anno 1586. Sess. 2. Lower House Book. Post aliquem tractatum inter Reverendos Patres & Dominum Prolocutorem, cum alijs ex Inferiori Coetu, de rebus quibusdam necessarijs, dictus Dominus Prolocutor cum Coetu suo praedicto in dictam Inferiorem Domum revertebatur: And after the House was settl'd in the accustom'd manner, Habita est per Dominum Prolocutorem Admonitio [Page 160] omnibus ex hoc Coetu, &c. ut si qui sint qui aliquas Schedulas proferre vellent de rebus in hujusmodi Convocatione Reformandis, easdem sibi traderent in proximâ Sessione.
Anno 1586. Sess. 7. (In the Extracts out of the Upper House Journal) Archbishop gives Intimation at a Conference with the Lower House, to Present if any had ‘'Ordain'd or Instituted any unworthy Persons, or of any breach of the Canons, that it may be Reformed.’
1586. Dec. 2. Extracts out of the Upper House Journal— ‘'Brought up by the Lower House 2 Schedules: 1. A complaint of Disorders in Norwich Diocese. 2. Another Schedule, intitul'd Suffolk-Archdeaconry.’
Anno 1586. Sess. 11. Lower House Book: Precibus finitis [Prolocutor] adiit Reverendissimum Patrem & caeteros Praelatos; & paulò pòst revertens, intimavit omnibus praesentibus consultum esse per eosdem Reverendissimum Patrem & Praelatos de Reformatione fiendâ quoad Schedulas eidem Reverendissimo ac Domino Prolocutori exhibitas. Et quòd conventum est inter dictos Reverendissimum & Praelatos de Exercitiis fiend. per Ministros infra Prov. Cant. Et quòd ijdem Reverendi Patres, cum redierint in Dioeceses suas, ordinem corundem significabunt omnibus quibus interest in hac parte.
Anno 1588. Sess. 2. Lower House Book: Dominus Prolocutor universo Coetui significavit, Voluntatem Reverendissimi caeterorumque Praelatorum esse, quòd si aliquis hujus Domûs noverit quenquam Ministrum de quo justè conqueri possit, quòd contra Leges Ecclesiasticas nunc temporis auctori. tate legitimâ receptas & approbatas se gessit & gérit; aut si aliquis noverit quenquam qui Canenes in ultimâ Convocatione approbatos & ed [...] [...]iolaverit, [Page 161] eosdem in Scriptis denunciarent Reverendissimo Domino Cant. Archiepiscopo, caeterisque Dominis Praelatis praedict. pro debitâ Correctione & Reformatione in eâ parte faciend. Accordingly,
The next Session, we find this Intimation of such a Schedule brought in: Isto die porrecta fuit Domino Prolocutori Schedula Reformand. per M. Coton.
Inferences from the foregoing Accounts. From the foregoing Passages, I infer this plain account of the Reformanda in Convocation. While the Archbishop and Bishops are suppos'd to be consulting in the Upper House whether any Regulations in the Church or in their particular Diocese, be necessary at that time; The Clergy in the Lower House (who are suppos'd to be Eye-witnesses of many things that don't ordinarily reach the notice of their Diocesan) have a right, either jointly or separately, to lay before their Lordships an account of any disorderly Persons or Practices they know: And this, either vivâ voce, by the Prolocutor, or in Schedules put into the Prolocutor's hands, in order to be severally laid before the Archbishop and Bishops, and to be compar'd and jointly consider'd with those of the same kind exhibited by their Lordships. These Reformanda, in many cases, could require no more than the strict Exercise of the Ordinary Jurisdiction in in every Diocese, and were therefore answer'd by a solemn Recommendation of them to the care of the Bishops respectively. But if the Abuses call'd for a new Law, and the Reformation of them requir'd the assistance of the Prince or the Parliament, these Schedules were reduc'd into Articles, and upon them (as containing the general sense and request of the Synod) such Sollicitations [Page 162] were set a foot, as were judg'd necessary to bring about the Reformation desir'd.
The Care of the Reformanda in Parliamento usually left to the Archbishop, &c. The Applications upon the Reformanda in Parliamento were usually left to the care of the Archbishop, Bishops, and the Parliamentary Prelates; one instance whereof I will set down at large, because it is more distinct and particular than the rest, and will give the Reader a clear apprehension of this matter.
Anno 1452. Mar. 3. Quia caetera Negotia quae in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Reformatione indigebant, Majestatem Regiam & Jura regni concernebant, & sic definitioni & Sententiae dicti Concilii nequaquam interim subjacebant; supplicatum fuerat ex parte Cleri, quatenus dictus Reverendssimus in Christo Pater, necnon dicti Reverendi in Christo Patres, caeterique Praelati ad tunc ibidem existentes in Parliamento, quod tunc in prox. diebus apud Radyng inchoand. fuerat, apud Regiam Celsiudinem, necnon Optimates, Proceres & Communitatem praedict. regni in codem Parliamento in unum congregando; pro Reformatione hujusmodi ritè faciend. efficaciter instarent. Cujus Supplicationi annuit idem Reverendissimus in Christo Pater, Reverendique in Christo Batres, promittentes sc curaturos & acturos apud Regiam Celsitudinem, necnon Optimates, Proceres, Communitatemque praedict. quoad in cis foret, pro felici cita & celeri Reformatione eorundem, sicut & in Parliamento praedict. pro viribus suis pro eadem Reformatione instarunt.
Deputies appointed by Convocation to assist the Bishops in Soliciting. On some other occasions, we find a certain number of the Clergy, deputed by Convocation, to assist the President and Bishops in soliciting their business.
Anno 1444. Octo. 22. The Clergy are directed, quatenùs pro corrigend. & reformand. [Page 163] &c. inter se deliberarent—Oct. 26. Clerus Domûs Inferioris desiderabat ab Episcopis & aliis Praelatis sentire suum super Cedulâ de Reformand. in ipsâ Convocatione per Clerum concept. & ad tunc Dominus Bathon [Commissarius] de Consensù Confratrum suorum Religiosorum & caeterorum Procuratorum Cleri, manu suâ proprlâ subscripsit singulos Articulos in eadem Cedulâ contentos.—Et quantum ad Reformanda per Parliamentum, nominati in dicta Cedulâ fuerunt Deputati ad solicitand. dictam Materiam.
Anno 1452. Mar. 15. Assignatis insuper quibusdam de Clero, viz. Magistris, &c. ad sollicitandum, instruendum, & pleniùs informandum Reverendissimum in Christo Patrem, Reverendos in Christo Patres, caeterosque Praelatos, in & desuper dictis Materiis & negotiis in Parliamento in proximis diebus inchoand. corrigend. & Reformand.
Anno 1460. The last day of Convocation, Pluribus Articulis lectis & recitatis, ad Supplicationem totius Cleri, Reverendissimus Pater aliique Reverendi Patres se penes Regiam Majestatem pro Reformatione eorundem promiserunt suos impendere labores. Deinde, certi Viri ex clero electi fuerunt, qui dictûm Reverendissimum Patrem & alios Reverendos Patres ad praemissa facienda solicitarent.
Thus much is sufficient, to show what part the Clergy in Convocation have always born, and may therefore justly claim, in Grievances and Reformation; distinguisht in Convocationlanguage from all other Business, by the known Names of Articuli or Gravamina Cleri and Reformanda. Their Petitions and Applications of other kinds, come next under Consideration.
CHAP. XIII.
The Clergy's Petitions of other kinds.
THE Clergy in Convocation have a Right not only to the Redress of their own particular Grievances, or to interpose of the Reformation for any disorders they may observe in the Church; but also to offer to the Archbishop and Bishops all such Measures as may in their Opinion tend to the honour and interest of Religion. This is regularly done by way of Petition; of which the Registers afford us a Variety, upon several matters and occasions: And my design in the following Enumeration is not (on the one hand) to lay any confinement either upon the matter or occasions of the Clergy's Petitions, nor yet (on the other) to extend them beyond the present Laws of the Realm; but only (in pursuance of my method all along) to give the clearest Insight that the Registers afford, into the Practice of former times: And when that is done, every Man is left to his own application.
PetitionsThe Petitions I have observ'd, are,
1. For making new Canons. I. For the making of new Canons or Ordinations; of which sort we meet with none in the more early times, because then the Clergy had no concern in them: But in the Year 1529. Sess. 7. it is said that the Prolocutor (applying himself to the Upper House) voluit ut Ordinatio fieret de Appropriationibus Ecclesiarum, & de Pensionibus Vicariis persolvendis.—Anno 1541. Sess. 20. Clerus exposuit iv. Petitiones, primò de [Page 165] legibus Ecclesiasticis condendis—3o de uniendis per jus Beneficiis. 4o. De Decimis solvendis.
2. For the revival of old Canons 2. For the revival of such ancient Canons and Constitutions, as were in force, but seem'd to be disus'd and forgotten: So, Anno 1412. Sess. 2. we meet with an Address at large from the Clergy to the Bishops, praying their Lordships to en force the Observation of certain Constitutions.—Anno 1419. The last day of the Convocation, Dominus, ad petitionem Cleri, quandam Constitutionem Provincialem per Rob. Wynchelse Praedecessorem suum editam, qua sic incipit, Capellani Stipendiarij, &c. cum omnibus suis Capitulis, verbis, clausulis & dictionibus in eadem, ad totam Provinciam suam Cantuariensem extendi & omnes artari debere, ex consensu Fratrum suorum & autoritate totius Concilij, declaravit & pronunciavit.
3. For the Abolition or Suspension of Laws. 3. For the Abolition or Suspension of Laws or Customs that appear'd to be burthensome or inconvenient.
—Anno 1428. The last day of Convocation: Dominus ex assensu Confratrum suorum, & ad Petitionem Cleri, poenam in Constitutione propter excessiva Stipendia Capellanorum, tam contra dantes quam recipientes latam, pro parte dantium suspendit usque ad proximam Convocationem, & ipsos hujusmodi poenâ minimè involutos fore decrevit:—Anno 1529. Sess. 91. Prolocutor intrans, &c. perijt quòd praesentati ad Ecclesiastica Beneficia non arctentar per Diecesanos scripto aliquo obligatorio aut poenâ temporali obligari ad Resi ientiam.—Anno 1541. Sess. 20. Clerus exposuit Pe [...]ionem de Conjugies sactis in Bethlem abolendis—Anno 1555. Sess. 3. The Clergy grant a Subsidy; & illie expoluit Clerus tres [Page 166] Petitiones; primùm, quòd omnes Beneficati qui spe Remissionis primorum fructuum ex communi rumore Sacerdotia assecuti sunt, non obligentur rependere duplos, &c. 2do, ut possint Diplomata Apostolica pro Sacerdotiis retinend. assequi: postremò, quòd Statutum tollatur pro Decimis solvendis, &c. & quòd Decimarum Causae emergentes coram Ordinatio examinentur & decidantur.
4. About Festivals. 4. For the appointment of new Festivals, or improving the Services of the old.— Anno 1434. Oct. 9. Dominus (ex consensu Confratrum suorum, & ad Petitionem Cleri) ordain'd that St. Frideswide's Day, cum novem lectionibus & aliis quae ad hujusmodi Festum cum Regimine Chori secundum usum Sarum pertinent, per totam Provinciam suam perpetuò celebraretur.—Anno 1444. Oct. 24. Magister Willelmus Byconil Offic. Curiae Cant. totius Cleri Praelocutor, Supplicabat Domino ex parte Cleri, ut dies Translationis S. Edwardi, &c. sub duplici Festo per suam Provinciam solempnizari posset, de Confratrum suorum consensu, concedere dignaretur.
5. For the Archbishops intercession with the King. 5. For the Archbishop's Intercession with the King, to restrain the Lay Officers from oppressing the Church; or to pray their assistance in the Enforcement of Ecclesiastical Laws—Anno 1394. Supplicatio Cleri, directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, Chancellour of England, that, for the Suppression of Lollardy, they will intercede with the King, ut dignetur extendere cum effectu brachium suae Majestatis.—Anno 1463. Jul. 18. Petitum fuit per Magistrum Johannem Stocks Prolocutorem, à Domino, ut ipse Regiae Majestati scriberet pro liberatione certarum Personarum Ecclesiasticarum in Custodià laicali incarceratarum & custoditarum; ut secundum Cartam alias [Page 167] per Regem viris Ecclesiasticis concessam, suis Ordinariis possint liberari.—Anno 1480. Apr. 3. A Petition presented by the Prolocutor to the Archbishop and Bishops, praying them, in the name of the Clergy, to intercede with the King for Protection to the Church, against the encroachments of Lay-Officers, molesting and imprisoning the Clergy.
6. For the Execution of Discipline. 6. For more strict Execution of Ecclesiastical Discipline: As, Anno 1586. March 15. (Extracts out of the Upper House Book) ‘'The Lower House beseech the Bishops to be careful of Ordinations, to restrain their Officers from Excessive Fees; and that they will force every Instituted Person within a certain time to take Induction, or else sequester the Profits?’
7. Petitions of several kinds. 7. In the Year 1555. I find at the end of the Journal, an Abstract of the Petitions offer'd by the Inferiour Clergy to the Upper House.
‘"Item, Supplication of the Lower House to the Bishops, concerning Spiritual Lands in Temporal Mens hands.—Item, for Schools and Hospitals promised in the Statute of Suppression of Colleges.—Item, for Mortmayn, Tythes, Appropriations; of Preachers, of Books, of Statutes and Jurisdiction, against Hereticks, of Pluralities, of Seminaries, of Liberties of the Church in Magna Charta, of Praemunire, of the Statute of Submission of the Clergy, of finding great Horses, of Usurers, of Violence against any of the Clergy, of Clarks Apparel, of Priests Married; of School-Masters, of exempt Jurisdiction and Peculiar Places in Lay-Mens hands, of the Cognition of Causes of Tythes before the Mayor of London; that Places exempted, may be allotted to certain Priests,—of Chancels decay'd, of Priests Marri [...] [Page 168] to be reconciled, of Payment for Tythes, of Religious Women Married to be Divorc'd; that in Divorces innocent Women may enjoy the Lands and Goods which were theirs before the Marriage.’
‘"That Wardens of Churches may make their Accompts; that Ecclesiastical Persons which spoiled Churches, and plucked down certain Edifices, may be compelled to restitution, and to Build them again.’
Petitions of the Clergy presented immediately to the Ʋpper House. All Petitions of this nature were delivered to the Archbishop and Bishops, and rested with them; as those others to the King or Parliament, were put into the hands of the Archbishop, singly or jointly with his Suffragans; that after Approbation, they might by their Lordships be convey'd and solicited according to the Intent and Tenor thereof. Nor do I remember to have met with any Petition in the Registers, delivered separately, or immediately by the Clergy themselves, except that one in 1588. Sess. 10. to the House of Lords. The Commons had sent up a Bill for a provision of Arms, &c. by the Clergy; it was therefore the single and immediate concern of the Lower House to prevent it; in order to which, they Address'd the Lords in Parliament, as in a matter of Property; and among the rest, the Petition was directed to the Archbishop and Bishops. Upon which Accounts, it cannot be extended to other Cases of an Ecclesiastical Nature, in all which the Bishops and their Clergy must be jointly concern'd.
The time of presenting such Petitions. The time of the Clergy's presenting their Petions to the Upper House, whether Vivâ voce or in Scriptis, was usually upon Delivery of their Grant, and at the end of Convocation. Not [Page 169] any but they had the same Right to offer them any other time, tho' no Supplies were given; but that being the most desirable opportunity of conveying their Grievances to the King, became thereupon the ordinary time of bringing in their Petitions of all other kinds.
CHAP. XIV.
The Part which the Clergy have had in Judicial Cases.
THE ordinary way of Trying and Convicting Hereticks and Offenders against the Canons, was in the Ecclesiastical Courts of every Diocese; where they proceeded according to the stated Rules of such Courts, and the severe Canons and Statutes then in force. But if the Bishop, upon Examination, did not see cause to deliver over the Party accus'd to the Secular Power, either the Degree or Evidence of the Crime falling short; the Suspicion was however reckon'd a sufficient Cause of Imprisonment: That if he had not abjur'd in Form, he might by that means be compell'd to it; or if he had, that he might not be trusted abroad till he had given sufficient Proofs of 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 [Page 170] 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.
[Page 171] 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.
'Tis 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 [Page 172] 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. 'Tis 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 dimi [...]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 [Page 173] 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 quàm Communitos Laicorum, habere se libeat Excusatum, & praemissa pro plenâ & finali responsione Cleri admittere, ipsi quoque Clero assistere, & ipsum erga [Page 174] Dominum nostrum Regem in hac parte excusare.
Anno 1424. Oct. 23. The Clergy being call'd upon for their Resolution, as to the Subsidy, gave in their Answer by W. Lyndewood, the Arch-bishop's Official, negatively; pleading the Poverty of the Clergy, and that the Livings were reduc'd to a smaller value than formerly; & ideò humiliter petierant, se à concessione hujusmodi quacunque excusari.
Anno eod. (After a Prorogation) Febr. 17. They excuse themselves again upon the poverty of the Clergy; quam ob rem ijdem Procuratores Domino & Confratríbus suis humiliter supplicarunt, quatenûs ipsi Dominus & Confratres sui Clerum praedictum à quacunque concessione hujusmodi protunc faciend. ex causis praeallegatis dignarentur babere pro illâ vice penitûs excusatum.
Anno 1425. May 4. Among the Causes of the Convocation, explain'd by the Archbishop; the third, was a Subsidy: The Clergy retire, and in answer to that point, Supplicant, &c. ut consideratis oncribus & Subsidiis quae antehac saepe Supportarunt, haberent ipsum Clerum protunc omninò excusatum propter insufficientiam ejustem & paupertatem ex argument is diversis luculenter approbatam.
And again, the same Year, Jun. 8. Clerus insufficientiam suam allegans & paupertatem, se de bujusmodi Subventione concedendâ eâ vice pro viribus instanter excusavit, & se protunc excusari petiit & humiliter Supplicavit.
Dec. 11. 1433. Clerus allegavit certas causas rationabiles, quibus consideratis, deberent meritò à concessione Subsidii eo tempore excusari.
Anno 1438. Oct.—The Clergy, urging among other things the great Dearth all over the [Page 175] Kingdom, per suum Prolocutorem Domino supplicarunt quatenùs eos ab aliquo Subsidio protunc concedondo haberet favor abiliter excusatos. And the like answer they return'd the Saturday following, upon a Second Application made to them.
These Applications, no prejudice to the Clergy's Right of a Negative. These Instances, as I said before, are not intended either to weaken the Clergy's Right of a Negative, or to Suggest in particular, that they who were immediately concern'd in those Cases, had not a legal Power of dissenting without either Reasons or Excuses: But by how much the greater liberty they were at, to dissent without these; the Applications of this nature are so much the higher testimony of ther Duty and Humility: They knew very well, that their Civil Property was by Law entirely in their own disposal; but yet they could not forget that their immediate concern was with their Ecclesiastical Superiors.
Upon their Refusals in this dutiful Manner, they were sometimes mov'd to consider of a more favourable Answer; and however stedfast their Resolutions were not to comply, yet they did not refuse further Deliberation, which (when enjoyn'd by their Metropolitan and Bishops) they knew to be a part of their Canonical Obedience. Nor could I ever find an Instance in all the Acts of Convocation, that did in the least countenance the late Notion of their general Negative upon the Upper House, as pleaded in express terms to excuse their Refusal of a Committee: Nar. p. [...]. We of the Lower House being a distinct House, and having power to dissent from the Proposals of the Upper House, conceive our selves entirely at liberty to admit or decline their Appointments of Committees, as we shall think fit. Before they made so large a Step towards an [Page 176] entire Independence, as a Negative in that extent would draw after it, methinks it might have been consider'd whether one Instance was to be met with (either before or since their Separation) from which they could fairly gather that the Lower Clergy had ever disobey'd the Upper House in the matter or method of their Deliberations, or ever attempted to carry their Right of a Negative beyond a power to hinder any business in Convocation from passing finally into a Synodical Act. This is their undoubted Right; but their further pretensions are as groundless in themselves, as they would be mischievous in their Effects, to the Constitution of our Episcopal Church.
CHAP. XVI.
The manner of Passing Business in Convocation.
AFter any matter in Convocation has been duly consider'd, read, and agreed to by the Bishops and Clergy severally; the Prolocutor and the Inferior Clergy are sent for to the Upper House, and there it is passed into a Synodical Act.
The manner of Consenting in the Lower House. The manner of consenting and agreeing in the Lower House, is particularly express'd in the 10th Session of 1586. where the Prolocutor coming from the Upper House, puts the Ordinances for Collecting the Contribution, into the hands of the Actuary: He reads it; quo facto, Dominus Prolocutor interrogavit omnes supra nominates, an Decreta & Ordinationes hujusmodi sibi [Page 177] placerent, eosque rogavit quatenus eorum consensum & assensum eisdem, si eis ita videretur, praeberent. Et tunc omnes easdem Ordinationes in omnibus approbarunt, atque consensum & assensum suos, tam nominibus eorum propriis quàm nominibus omnium aliorum quorum Procuratores in hac parte respectivè existunt, praebuerunt.
The Circumstances of that Consent have been reported to the Upper House. I know not whether the Lower House (who return the Instrument by the Prolocutor) did ever think themselves accountable to their Lordships for any Circumstances relating to their Consent, besides a general assurance by the Prolocutor that it is actually given. But I find, in the Year 1532. May 15. a Report was also made of the number and proportion of Votes. Intravit Prolocutor cum Clero, ubi Reverendissimus interrogabat, quid ipse sentiebat de quâdam Schedulâ sibi traditâ. Unde Prolocutor introduxit numerum affirmantium, numerum negantium & numerum Referentium, quantum ad tres Articulos praedictos. Again, in 1536. Sess. Ult. Prolocutor intravit Domum Capitularem, & praesentavit Reverendissimo Instrumentum continen. Sententiam Definitivam, quam dictus Prolocutor asseruit suisse per omnes Cleri Domûs Inferioris expresse approbatam.—Some Years before, Anno 1529. Sess. 29. when in the preceding Session the Clergy were directed to bring in their Opinions the Friday following about an Answer to a Petition presented by the House of Commons to the King; on the same Friday, the Answer was read in the Upper House: Et post introitum Prolocutoris rursum perlecta fuerunt responsa: tunc Reverendissimus interrogavit an ipsi consentirent, & conjentiere. But [Page 178] in 1533. not only a general Consent was given in the Upper House, but the Votes also in form, and the Names were praticularly enter'd in the Register thereof: So says the Abstract, Sess. 2. Quo die Reverendissimus convocavit Inferiorem Domum, ut audiret eorum Opiniones de Quaestione, viz. an ducere liceret uxorem cognitam à Fratre, &c. ubi (referring to the Original Book of the Upper House) exprimuntur Affirmantes, Negantes, & Dubitantes.
All Instruments read publickly, and finally agreed to in the Upper House. But however the Consent of the Clergy be given or signifi'd; 'tis certain, that the Instrument after being engross'd, was always read publickly in the Upper House, before the Archbishop, Bishops and Clergy; and by them finally agreed to, either vivâ voce or by Subscription, according to the Nature of the business they pass'd. The light we have from the Registers, concerning the circumstances of passing business, is but small; but this distinction (I think) is visible enough, since the Reformation at least, That Articles, Canons, and Constitutions have been ever pass'd by Subscription; but Instruments of other kinds, (Bills of Subsidy, Synodical Letters, &c.) have been enacted, with the consent of the Bishops and Clergy, by the Hand or Seal of the Archbishop (which was properly the Sanction) and the Atrestation of one or more Publick Notaries, of its being so Sign'd or Seal'd, or both. To which purpose,
The Sanction of the Metropolitan. As to the Sanction of the Metropolitan; Anno 1408. Jan 15. we find this account of Passing the Powers granted by Convocation, to those whom they had just before Elected for the Council of Pisa. In quorum omnium & singulorum [Page 179] fidem & testimonium, praesentes literas aut praesens publicum Instrumentum exinde ficri, ac per Magistrum Johannem Perch, Notarium & Registrarium infra scriptum subscribi & publicari, ejusque Signi consueti appositione: Ac nos Thomas Archiepiscopus, Primas & Legatus antedictus, nostri privati sigilli aurci, ad personales & speciales rogatus omnium dictorum Episcoporum Suffraganeorum nostrorum, ac de expressis consensu & assensu totius Cleri dictae Provinciae, appensione, mandavimus & fecimus fideliter communiri.
Anno 1557. Sess. 9. The Archbishop's Commissary Evocavit Prolocutorem & Clerum, ut Librum Concessionis Subsidii aliquâ ex parte correctum perlegi audirent; quo perlecto & diligenter ponderato, omnes tam Patres quàm Clerus contenti erant cum omnibus Clausulis, Conditionibus, & Provisionibus.—Tenor verò Instrumenti publici, de Subsidio praedicto confecti, de verbo in verbum illic sequitur, contestatum Subscriptione Thomae Sussex & Johannis Incent.
Anno 1562. Febr. 24. surrogatum Prolocutoris (Prolocutore absente) & Clerum Domûs Inferioris ad se accersiri jusserunt, ac coram eis publice legi fecerunt Librum de Subsidio Dominae nostrae Reginae concesso in pergameno conscript. ac Sigillo dicti Reverendissimi Patris Sigillat. Cut quidem Libro sie perlecto, ac omnibus & singulis Concessionibus, conditionibus, & provisionibus in eodem mentionatis, sub modo & forma supra Specificatis, Dictus Clerus Inferioris Domûs consensum & assensum suos unanimiter adhibuerunt.
[Page 180] Articles, Canons, &c. by Subscription. 2. Articles, Canons, and Constitutions, since the Reformation, have (so far as the Registers give any light) been ever pass'd in the Upper House by the joint Subscriptions of Archbishop, Bishops, and Clergy.
Anno 1536. Sess. 5. Jul. 11. Episcopus Hereford. produxit quendam Libellum continentem Articulos Fidei & Ceremoniarum. Qui libellus inseritur ad longum. Quo lecto per eundem Episcopum, Honorandus Thomas Cromewell, Reverendissimus, & alii Praelati, Prolocutor, & Clerus Domûs Inferioris, eundem Libellum approbando Subscripserunt.
Anno 1604. May 18. The Extracts out of the Upper House Journals say, ‘'The King's Letters with the Articles of 1562. to be by the Convocation approv'd and allow'd—The said Articles read, and Subscrib'd by both Houses; and the Book so Subscrib'd, was kept by the Bishop of London, President.’
Anno 1640. Reverendissimus in praesentiis Domini Prolocutoris & totius Coetûs Domûs Inferioris, protulit Librum Canonum in bác Sacrâ Synodo tractat. continen. 17. Capitula Canonum. Quem Reverendissimus in manibus suis tenens cum Domino Prolocutore, alta & intelligibili voce legebat. Quo perlecto, Reverendissimus & Reverendi Patres, &c. ac Dominus Prolocutor & totus Coetus Domûs Inferioris antedictae isto die comparen. nominibus suis & aliorum pro quibus constituti sunt, consensum & assensum suos eisdem Canonibus proestiterunt, & eorum nomina manibus suis propriis eisdem respectivè Subscripserunt.
Anno 1661 Dec. 19. Dominus Episcopus London Praesidens, cum Confratribus suis praed'. pro [Page 181] tribunali sedebant, & habito tractatu inter eos de Forma Subscriptionis Libro Publicarum Precum per eos faciend. tandem idem Reverendus Pater Dominus Episcopus & Praesidens antedictus, de & cum consensu Confratrum suorum praed'. commisit curam & considerationem concipiendi dictam Formam Reverendis in Christo Patribus, &c. Posteà, nempe inter boras secundam & quartam post meridiem ejusdem diei, Reverendi Viri Dominus Johannes Dunelmen. & Humfridus Sarum respectivè Episcopi unà cum dictis respectivè Cancellar & Vicarris in Spiritualibus generalibus praed. apud Officium Registrarii Principalis D. Arch. Cant. intra Parochiam S. Gregorii London. sit'. convenerunt, & in praesentiis mei Willelmi Fisher & Francisci Mundy Notariorum respectivè publicorum, inspectis priùs nonnullis Recordis & Libris antiquis & Archivis ibidem remanen. & fideliter custodit. dieti Reverendi patres formam Subscriptionis Libro publicarum Precum faciend. unanimi consensu & assensu conceperunt & desuper concordârunt.
—Anno eod. Dec. 20. Reverendus Pater Dominus Episcopus London, [Praesidens] &c. una cum Confratribus suis secum assiden'. pro Tribunali sedebat, & Librum Precum Publicarum, Administrations Sacramentorum, aliorumque Rituum Ecclesiae Anglicanae, unà cum Forma & Modo Ordinand. & Consecrand. Episcopos, Presbyteros, Diaconos, juxta literas Regiae Majestatis eis in hâc parte directas revisum, &
paginas continen. & per Reverendissimum in Christo Patrem & Dominum Dominum Gulielmum Providentiâ Divinâ Cant. Archiepiscopum totius Anglia Primatem & Metropolitanum priùs [Page 182] redact. recept'. approbat'. & subscript'. Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae in bac Provinciali Synodo legitime congregat'. unanimi assensu & consensu in formam redegerunt, receperunt & approbarunt, eisdemque subscripserunt: Et posteà omnes Episcopi praed. tunc praesen. & congregat'. exceptis Reverendis Patribus Oxon, Assaphen & Landaven. Ep. ad Domum Parliamenti sese contulerunt, & dictos respectivè Episcopos in dicta Domo Convocationis reliquer. ad vidend. Clerum Inferioris Domus Convocationis dicto Libro subscribere.
Thus the several sorts of Business in Convocation, however differently pass'd in some respects, agree in this, That the Inferior Clergy are sent for to the Upper-House, and there the whole Convocation (the Metropolitan, Bishops, and Presbyters, in a Body) give their final Consent.
Why Articles, Cations, &c. pass now by Subscription. 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 [Page 183] 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 [Page 184] 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, Dantes 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 [Page 185] praedictus praefatos Confratres suos, ut in inquisitione fienda contra Lollardos & Haereticos hujusmodi diligentiam interim omnimodam quam poterant adhiberent, & cù [...] 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: Revere [...]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: [Page 186] 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 [...]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.
[Page 187] 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 Reform'd Church.
FINIS.