THE Rights, Powers, and Privileges, OF AN English Convocation, STATED and VINDICATED.  
IN ANSWER TO A Late Book of Dr. Wake's, Entitled, The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted, etc. AND TO Several Other PIECES.  
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the House of my Friends.  Zech. XIII. 6. 
Eâ Tempestate facies Ecclesiae foeda & admodùm turpis erat: non enim, sicut priùs, ab Externis, sed à Propriis vastabatur.  Ruffin. Eccles. Hist. L. 1. c. 21. 
LONDON: Printed for Tho. Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1700.   

THE PREFACE.  
BEtween three and four Years ago came out A Letter to a Convocation-Man, concerning the Rights, Powers, and Privileges of that Body; which, together with the Replies that were made to it by Dr. Wake, and some Other Writers, led the Author of these Papers to consider the Point in Debate with a Particular Care and Application. He confesses he came to Dr. W's Book, with expectations of finding there whatever was necessary to set this matter in a clear Light; The Bulk of the Work, the Appearance of Learning it carried, and the Great Authority by which it endeavoured to recommend itself, All seemed to promise Exactness. But upon perusing it, to his Surprise, he found, that it was a Shallow, Empty performance; written, without any Knowledge of our Constitution, any Skill in the Particular subject of Debate; upon such Principles as are destructive of all our Civil, as well as Ecclesiastical Liberties; and with such Aspersions on the Clergy, both Dead, and Living, as were no less injurious to the Body than his Doctrine.  
The Love I bear to Truth, to my Church, and Country, soon gave me Resolution of stating this matter anew, and of taking off the slight Colours under which Dr. W. had disguised it: if at least, I were not prevented by some Abler Hand, particularly by the Author of that Letter which first gave rise to this Debate; and who, it was expected, would have appeared once more upon it, and freed what he had advanced from all Exceptions. This, and some other Accidents were the Cause that the following Papers, though prepared early, saw the Light no sooner; and have indeed been deferred so long, till it is now grown absolutely necessary to say something in Defence of the Church's Rights, or to sit down contentedly under the Loss of them. For by this time Dr. W's Book, Weak as it is, has yet, by not being opposed, got strength, and made its way into the good Opinion of many who wish not ill to the Order. A Learned Adversary indeed has taken him to Task upon the General Principles of Church-Discipline and Government: but in the Domestic Part of the Dispute, which relates to our Own Laws and Usages, nothing has been said. For which reason, even from well meaning Men, we every day hear this Language, If the Dr. has indeed misrepresented the Constitution, why does not some body set it right again? If▪ he has given up the Liberties and Privileges of his Church, how comes the Body to be silent? They understand their Own Rights sure, and will not suffer themselves to be writ out of'em: we must believe therefore, that they have 'em not, if no body thinks fit to claim them. This indeed is the Natural Construction, which People must, and do make of our silence; and his Principles therefore must either quickly be disproven, or prevail. Nay upon these Principles, a suitable Practice may soon establish itself; and as Some New Customs first made way for his Doctrine, so the Doctrine itself may make way for Others; which when once taken up, will be difficultly laid down: for it is much easier to preserve a Constitution, than to retreive it.  
Already, since he wrote, it has so happened, that, upon the Calling of a New Parliament, the Writ for the Province of York has been dropped; through Forgetfulness, no doubt: however, for the same reason, it may so happen again, when another Parliament is called, that the Writ for the Province of Canterbury shall be forgotten too. And if it should withal be forgotten to be Claimed, as well as Issued, We should then be in the same case with our Neighbours of the Church of Ireland; among whom, as I am informed, Convocation-Writs are now grown out of Date; two New Parliaments having been successively summoned, without them.  
And by the same Degrees that the Convocations of the Established Church have declined in both these Countries, those of our Brethren of the Separation have begun to revive. The Summer after Dr. W's Book came out, a General Meeting of the Dissenting Ministers was appointed here in London, as appears by the Date of the Newbury-Letter, printed in the Appendix 
* Numb. 11. : and it is not long ago, since the Irish Nonconformists met publicly at Dublin, and printed a Sermon preached at the Opening of their Synod; tho' I think the Established Clergy there have never been Synodically convened, since the Revolution. And how affairs stand in Scotland, with relation to these matters, the Reader, if he desires Information, may in the 25th. Page of the following Papers, find it.  
Nor is it to be forgotten, that since this New Doctrine came abroad, a New Definition of Convocations has obtained; which we are now told, are only Occasional Assemblies, for such Purposes as the King shall direct 
* Nicolson Hist. Lib. Vol. 3. p. 200. . And even the New State of England- Man has upon it varied his Phrase: for his last Edition says, that they are to meet now and then, in Time of Parliament 
† Meige. N. S. of E. part. 3d. p. 64. . It may seem not Material to observe any thing that falls from such a Pen: but it shows how Common Opinion runs, as much as if a Wiser Author had said it.  
It was High time therefore to assert a Right, which was so far endangered. And this, unequal as I may be to the Task, yet rather than it should remain undone, I have resolved to do: not led so much by Inclination to studies of this kind, as pushed on by an Hearty concern for the Interests of Religion, and of my Order (as far as the Latter of these is subservient to the Former), and by an Eager Desire of doing somewhat towards supporting the Good Old Constitution I live under: which Dr. W. has, both in Church, and State, done his best to undermine. His Blow indeed is directly levelled at the Rights and Libertys of the Church only; but it glances often on those of the State, and wounds them sore, as far as His Arm was capable of putting strength into it: The Argument of his Book throughout turns upon such Maxims and Grounds, as equally affect Both of them. And because I am not willing to say any thing against him without good Proof, I shall here give the Reader a short Taste of his Principles, to prepare him for the larger Entertainment that follows.  
P. 84. He proposes this Question, Whether the Prince should be allowed a Power to alter, or improve, what a Synod has defined, to add to, or take from it?— and thus he resolves it— Sure I am, that this Princes have done; and so I think they have Authority to do. For since the Legislative Power is lodged in their hands, so that they may make what Laws or Constitutions they think fit for the Church, as well as the State: since a Synod in matters relating to Discipline is but a kind of Council to them, in Ecclesiastical Affairs; whose Advice having taken, they may still act as they think fit: seeing, lastly, a Canon, drawn up by a Synod, is but as it were Matter prepared for the Royal Stamp; the last forming of which, as well as enforcing whereof must be left to the Prince's judgement: I cannot see why the Supreme Magistrate, who confessedly has a Power to confirm, or reject their Decrees, may not also make such other Use of them as he pleases; and correct, improve, or otherwise alter their Resolutions, according to his Own Liking, before he gives his Authoty to them 
† P. 85. . He is speaking here, I confess, of the Power of the Prince, at large, without pointing his words particularly on England: but since he asserts this Power to every Prince, and does not except Ours, it is manifest he means him as much as if he had particularly mentioned him. And this he himself is not shy of owning: for before the End of this Chapter, he in plain terms tells us, that by Our Own Constitution, the King of England has all that Power over Our Convocation, that ever any Christian Prince had over his Synods 
† P. 98. . And goes on afterwards 
⸪ P. 136.  to show, that H. the VIII. did this very thing in 1536; correcting, and amending with his Own Hand, the Articles of Religion then drawn up, before they were published. He does not indeed expressly justify this Act of H. the VIII; but which is all one, he mentions it, without a word to show that he disapproved it.  
I will be bold to say, that were this single Doctrine true, the Late King might have gone a great way toward subverting our Religion, without breaking in upon the Constitution, or doing any thing Illegal. He might have assembled the Clergy, and commanded their judgement upon such and such Points, and then altered their Resolutions to his Own Liking; and so have set up Rank Popery under the Countenance of a Protestant Convocation. Especially if he had called this other Principle of Dr. W's into his Aid— Some of our Princes (he says) have not only prescribed to our Convocations what they should go about, but have actually drawn up before hand what they thought Convenient to have established; and have required them to approve of it, without submitting it to their judgements, whether they approved of it or not 
‖ [P. 110.] . Which Fact also he gives us as a Right, without insinuating the least Dislike of it. And a very Convenient Right it is for Princes, that meditate New Schemes of Church Government. Twelve Years ago, enforced by the Pen of a Parker, or a Cartwright, it might have done great Service: it would have helped on all the Pious Designs then upon the Anvil; and if the Asserter of it had not been a Bishop, to be sure it would have made him one. Can such Doctrines ever be Serviceable (I say not Grateful) to This Government, which would have ruined our Established Religion, under the Former?  
But his Conclusions are not worse than his way of coming at them; which is, in this, and in every case, first by showing what has been practised by the Emperors, and other Absolute Princes, and by asserting the same Power to belong to Our King, as a King; not by virtue of the particular Laws and Usages of this Realm, but by the Right of Sovereignty in general 
† See Appeal p. 111.112. , upon which he expressly owns himself to found the Authority of our Princes in Matters Ecclesiastical 
† See Appeal p. 111.112. ; and says therefore (as we have heard) that they have the same Power over Our Convocations that ever any Christian Prince had over his Synods: And accordingly makes it the whole Business of his second Chapter (that is, of a Fourth part of his Book) to set out the Powers exercised by Absolute Princes, and particularly by the Roman Emperors, over their Synods, in order to warrant the Use of like Powers here at home. I know not how this Doctrine may relish now: but in the 7th. 
* Mr. Nicholson (See Hist. Libr. part 3. p. 177.) according to his Exactness in Dates, places this 3 io jacobi, whereas the Book itself was not set out till two Years afterwards; as, if he had seen any Edition of it, he might from the Date of the Preface have known. But he unluckily met with a false Print to this purpose, in the Posthumous part of Spelman 's Glossary (in Voce, Tenura) and he is always an Implicit Transcriber.  Year of King James the I. (as high as Prerogative than ran) it did not, I am sure, go down well with the Parliament: for then Dr. Cowel's Interpreter was censured by the Two Houses, as asserting several Points to the overthrow and destruction of Parliaments, and of the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Kingdom. And One of the Articles charged upon him to this purpose by the Commons, in their Complaint to the Lords, was (as Mr. Petyt 
† Miscell. Parl. p. 66.  says out of the Journal) this that follows.  
4thly, The Doctor draws his Arguments from the Imperial Laws of the Roman Emperors, an argument which may be urged with as great reason, and with as great Authority for the reduction of the State of the Clergy of England to the Polity and Laws in the Time of those Emperors; as also to make the Laws and Customs of Rome, and Constantinople to be binding and obligatory to the Cities of London and York.  
The issue of which Complaint was, that the Author, for these his Outlandish Politics, was taken into Custody, and his Book condemned to the Flames: Nor could the Dedication of it to his then Grace of Canterbury save it; who did not think himself concerned to countenance whatever Doctrine any Indiscreet Writer should take the Liberty to ascribe to him.  
He that thinks a Prince Absolute in Spirituals, thinks him, no doubt, as Absolute in Temporals, and will, when a Proper time shall come, not stick to say so. Dr. W. has given some significant Hints that way in the words already produced from him: for what else can he mean by the Legislative Powers being lodged in the Prince's hands, so that he may make what Laws he pleases, for the Church as well as the State; if we consider him to speak, as he does, of the Prince, exclusively to the Three Estates of the Realm? And when he adds therefore, a few Lines afterwards, that a Canon is only matter prepared for the Royal Stamp, we are not at a loss to know, what further he aims at: This is doctrine, that at a Convenient Season, will serve as well for Acts of Parliament, as Canons. Let us hear some more of it.  
One great Position of Dr. W. is, that the Convocation cannot move a step, but as they are directed by the King, or debate of any thing but just what he empowers them to consider. And thus far he is safe in his Assertion, for un●itting Assemblies may be insulted at pleasure. But when he tells us further, that the Parliament itself is as much directed by the King in the main part of their Debates as the Convocation is 
† P. 289. , the Comparison gins to be saucy, and may prove Dangerous. He would seem to qualify it indeed by saying, that the Parliament are as much, though not as necessarily directed: but this does not much soften the Expression; for still it leaves the Parliament as much (though not as necessarily) Slaves in the Point of Freedom of Debate, as Convocations are said to be; and is, I dare say, such an Instance of Free Speech as was never yet practised towards a Parliament.  
Another of his Maxims is, that whenever a Synod meets, the King may give Direction for the Choice of the Persons that are to compose it, that so he may be satisfied, that they are such whose Piety and Temper has fitted them to serve the Church, and in whose Prudence and Conduct he himself may safely confide 
† P. 42. . And then, by virtue of his General Rule, [that gives to Our Princes all that Power which ever any Christian Prince had over their Synods] he brings it home to us, and says, that the Choice of the Persons composing our Convocation is thus determined by the King's Writ 
† P. 103. : which implys, that his Writ might determine the Choice otherwise, that he might order more, or fewer to be sent up; or New ones to be returned in the Room of those whose Temper he shall not approve of, and whose Prudence and Conduct he cannot safely confide in. And if he can deal thus with our Convocation-Writs and Members; what hinders but he that may deal thus also with those of Parliament? for his Writs alike determine the Choice, as to Both these Meetings; and then there's an End of our Constitution, whenever a Prince arises that has any Ill Designs upon it.  
The laying aside of Convocations is thus justified by Dr. W. in divers parts of his Book 
* Pp. 107.227, 250. etc. , that the Great and almost Only Use that has been made of them, was to raise Money; and that Use therefore being now out of Doors, there is no need of regularly assembling them. Let us apply this to Parliaments, and suppose, that the King's Revenue was so settled, and the Public Debts so far discharged, that there was no occasion for them to sit for the giving of Money; would there be no occasion therefore for their sitting at all, in order to assist the Crown with their Counsels, or to redress Grievances? This is unavoidably the Consequence of Dr. Wake's weigh of arguing; and he seems not to be ashamed of it: for p. 207. he thus accounts for the Rise and Birth of Parliaments, as now settled: They were to meet, he says, when required, and that as often as the Prince wanted Money, or expected a Supply from them. Can a Man talk at this rate, and pretend to be an Englishman? Or can true Englishmen stand by, and hear him talk thus, without resenting the Indignity?  
The Clergy therefore are not the only Persons concerned in this Dispute, the Laiety too have their share in it. For besides that, if Slavery be once established in the Church, it will quickly spread itself into the State, Dr. Wake's Principles, we see, are such as have an Immediate Tendency toward subverting Liberty in General; and would, if pursued through their just Consequences, give the Prerogative as high an Ascendant over Parliaments, as Convocations. And when such things are said therefore, not the Men of the Church only, but every Freeborn subject of England ought to take the Alarm; for their Birthright is endangered.  
The very best Construction that has been put upon Dr. W's Attempt by Candid Readers is, that it was an Endeavor to advance the Prerogative of the Prince in Church-matters as high, and to depress the Interest of the Subject Spiritual as low as ever he could, with any Colour of Truth. But surely this itself is no very creditable account of it. Those Casuists that have taken pains to instruct men, how near they may possibly come to a sin without actually sinning, have not been reckoned the honestest part of their Profession. And those Divines, who read Lessons to Princes, how to strain their Ecclesiastical Power to the utmost without exceeding it, and oppress their Clergy legally, are not surely the best Men of their Order. They are Church- Empsons', and Dudleys'; and usually find the fate of such Wretched Instruments, to be detested by the One side, and at last abandoned by the Other.  
Were all that Dr. W. says strictly true and justifiable, yet whether the labouring the point so hearty as he does, and showing himself so willing to prove the Church to have no Rights and Privileges, be a very Decent Part in a Clergyman, I leave his Friends to consider. The World, I fear, is so ill natured as to believe that seldom any Man is over busy in lessening the Public Interests of that Body to which he belongs, who does not hope to find his Private Account in it. But when all a Man advances is not only ill designed, but ill-grounded, and his Principles are as False as they are Scandalous (as I have evidently proved his to be) there are no Names, and Censures too bad to be bestowed on such Writers, and their Writings.  
Will it be said, in his Excuse, that he wrote his Book in the Dark, without a Competent Skill in the subject of it? and that his Mistakes therefore are the Effects of Pure Ignorance? allowing it; how came he then to write at all in a Matter that he was not (and could not but know, that he was not) Master of? How came he to express himself so peremptorily in such Tender Points, wherein the Great Privileges of his Church, and the Chief Interests of his Orders are concerned? Was there less of Wisdom, or Honesty in endeavouring to write down these, without being sure that he had good grounds for it?  
In truth, though the best thing that can be said for Dr. W. is, that he wrote at this rate, because he knew no better; yet I fear, that even this itself cannot be justly pleaded. For as little as he knows of these matters, he seems to have known yet more than he was willing to own; and enough to have kept him from engaging on that side of the Question he has done, if some very Powerful Motive had not come in to determine him. Those little shifting Equivocal Forms of Speech he is so full of, th●se save and softning he throws in every where, show, that the Thistles he was mumbling did not pass easily; and that he had not only no Assurance that he was in the Right, but a Shrewd Guests that he was in the Wrong; and laid in matter therefore for Evasion against he should have need of it. So that whenever he thinks fit to make a Reply, I question not but this will be one main part of it, That He, Good Man, is much misunderstood, and his Opinions ill represented; which are, at the bottom, and taken together, very Innocent and Blameless: since whatever he has said that may sound harsh, in any one part of his Book, he has unsaid again, explained, and qualified in another. I will not deny him to have, in several Instances, a Right to this Plea, such an one as it is: But He who makes use of it does, in effect, own, that he had taken upon himself the hard Task of maintaining a Point, which yet he saw was not defensible; and that his Conscience stared him in the Face, every step that he took: nevertheless, being in, he was resolved to go through with it. And if this Excuse will be of any service to him, by my Consent he shall be allowed it.  
Can we excuse his III Principles, yet what shall we say to those Injurious Reflections that accompany them? Those Slights, and Reproaches, he so Liberally casts on his Order, when it has the Ill Luck to come in his way? Many Actions of the Old Popish Clergy lie open enough in Conscience to censure: but he is sure always to give the Worst and most Invidious turns to them. He never distinguishes between the Men, and their Popery; but censures them in the gross, and in such a Manner sometimes as to leave the Reader in doubt, whether the Function itself were not in fault.  
The Clergy of his Own Time are dealt with yet worse by him. That part of them, which desire a Convocation (that is, by his Leave, the far Greater part of them) are so represented by him, as if they were Irregular in their Lives, Violent in their Tempers, and Factious in their Principles 
† 
That Little, Noisy, Turbulent Party, that now set themselves up as judges amongst us Ap. p. 119.  
Some Hot Men, for aught she knows her Enemies. Ib. p. 119.  
What shall we say of the Conversation and Examples of some of those who wait at the Altar?— Pride and Peevishness, Hatred and Evil Will, Divisions and Discontents prevail among those who should teach and correct others: and instead of improving a Spirit of Piety and Purity, etc. we mind little else but our several Interests and Quarrels and Contentions with one another, etc. Authority, etc. p. 333.  
Some there are of those that wait at the Altar, much fit to be cast out of the Church, than to Officiate in it. Pref. p. 8. Men, notorious for their Irregularitys,— who have scandalously departed from the Rules of their Holy Profession. Ibid.  
By these means the Busy Tempers of some Forward Men may be restrained.— But they are such Men and such Tempers, that make these Restrictions necessary. And their Unwillingness to submit to them, shows but the more clearly how fitting it is that Princes should have all that Power, to prevent them from doing both Themselves and the Church a Mischief. p. 43.  
It is probable, had not the Prince had this Tie upon us, we should before this time— in all appearance have exposed both Ourselves and the Church for a Prey to the Common Enemy, p. 271.  
I am fully persuaded, that nothing at this day preserves us from Ruin and Desolation, but that we have not Power of ourselves to do the Church a Mischief. Ap. p. 211.  
A new sort of Disciplinarians are risen up from within ourselves, who seem to comply with the Government of the Church much upon the same account that others do with that of the State; not out of Conscience to their Duty, or any Love they have for it: but because it is the Established Church, and they cannot keep their Preferments without it. They hate our Constitution, and revile all such as stand up in Good Earnest for it: but for all that, they resolve to hold fast to it; and go on still to Subscribe and Rail. App. Ep. Ded.  : and the Government is, in the very last words of his Book, excited to take Vengeance upon them, as Men embarked in a Separate Interest, and averse to all the Methods of supporting it 
* The only way to deal with with some Men is to treat them as they Deserve; and to let them know, that those are unworthy of the Protection of the Government, who are Embarked in an Interest different from it, and Refuse to contribute to the Necessities of it. Authority, etc. p. 355. . In a word, so Contumelious is his way of treating them, that had he not informed us who he was in his Title Page, we should have guessed him rather to have been of the Cabal against Priests and Priestcraft, than One of the Order.  
And this he has done at a time, when Religion is struck at every day, through the sides of its Ministers, and he could not but know that such Reflections, from such a Pen, would be greedily entertained, and ill employed. Can a Man pretend to Principles, and act at this rate? The very Swiss, that fight for pay, will not march against their Own Country; but whenever it is attacked, go home and defend it.  
Must we believe that the Friends of Convocations have been represented under the same Colours to his Majesty that they are to the Reader? as Enemies to his Government, Hot, Immoral; considerable neither for their Merit, Interest, nor Number? If so indeed, we have here an Easy account of the Distinguishing steps that have of late Years been taken. But sure they who talk at this rate, do not believe themselves. Hot, Busy men would not have sat still, and cool thus long under the Want of what they so earnestly desired; would not have waited the Good Pleasure of their Superiors, with so much submission and silence, in a Point of such tender Concern to them; but have taken other kind of steps than any that have been yet made use of towards obtaining it. Were a Convocation the Desire of a small Despicable Party only, and not of the Generality of the Clergy, how come such Assemblies to be laid aside, where a few Men, though never so furious, would make no figure, nor be able to disturb measures?  
And as to the Charge of Immorality, it runs high indeed; but 'tis to be hoped that it is groundless. For were there so many Men of scandalous Lives among the Clergy, sure the Fathers of the Church, who have the Inspection of their Manners, would ere this time have made Public Examples of several of them. I cannot think that their Lordships have been so far wanting in their Duty to God and the Church, as not to have let the Laws lose upon such Offenders, if they knew them. And till they do so, this Censure of Dr. Wakes must pass for a Scandalous Reflection both on their Lordships and his Brethren.  
But this is the Ordinary Cry of Designing Writers, who from hence raise to themselves a Character of Impartiality, of a singular Integrity, and Courage. Their Own Virtues also shine to advantage upon such a Comparison: and withal they intimate by it, how fit they are to be advanced to a Post, wherein they may correct such Enormitys. And when that happens, it will make some Amends, or Excuse for their not effectually doing the Duty of their station, if to their Complaints about the Lives of Churchmen they add others concerning the Church itself, and say that even her Canons and Constitutions want reforming.  
Dr. Wake seems to have hinted His Opinion in the case already, where he says, that the Church of England has a Peculiar Veneration for the Discipline and Doctrine of the Primitive Church, beyond most Churches in the World 
† Pref. p. 4. . Beyond most Churches! why, what Churches in the world have more, or so much? where are they planted? what are their Names? Is it the Scotch, the French, or the Dutch Church, he means? is it a Church, with Bishops, or without them? Let him speak out, and tell us the Church that has (a truer, or even) so true a Regard for the Doctrine and Discipline of the Primitive Church, as the Church of England has: and then we shall know, by what Model she is to be reform, and withal be let perhaps into the secret Reason of the Present Disuse of Convocations. Grotius, though a Foreigner, would have taught him better Language: Nullibi atque in Angl● (says he) tantus honor piae defertur Antiquitati 
† Ep. 2. . Should not an English Divine speak of our Constitution with at least as much respect as a Dutch Layman?  
The Liberty Dr. W. has taken in his Censures, is, considering his Present Rank in the Church, a little too early; nor will the Pattern, he follows in it, justify him. My Lord of Sarum indeed may freely have taxed the Vices of the Clergy, even in Books where he was defending the Orders of the Church of England, or the Truth of the Christian Religion: His High Station is his Warrant for whatever he has done of this kind lately, and a Bar to all manner of Reply. And his Former Reprehensions, should they have been somewhat too Free, are capable of this Excuse; that being a Stranger, he might not then have throughly acquainted himself with the state of our Church, or the Characters of its Members: And if he saw faults in them, it was not to be expected that he should conceal them with the same Tenderness, as if he had had his Birth and Breeding amongst them. But Dr. Wake is neither Above those he reproves, nor has drawn a different Air from them; He was Baptised and Educated in Our Communion, and received his first Impressions of Men and Things in an University, a Place that has not been thought apt to instill into its Members a Disesteem of their Holy Mother, or a love of blackening and betraying their Brethren. Methinks Men, who talk so much of Moderation and Temper, would do well to show it, in allowing a Common share of those Good Qualitys to some of their Neighbours, who can be contented well enough without Titles; but are however very loath to be stripped of their Good Names. The Comfort of such Good Men, whom his General and Undistinguishing Censures have thus aspersed, must be, to say to themselves, as St. Cyprian once did; Neque nobis Ignominia est pati à fratribus quae passus est Christus, nec illis Gloria est facere quae fecerit Judas.  
It was the Abhorrence I had of this Unworthy Treatment which the Reputation and Rights of the Order have found from Dr. W. and of the Slavish Tendency of his Principles, in respect both to Church and State, that gave me Resolutions of exposing the Weakness and Insincerity of his Attempt, and of doing Right to Truth, and an Injured Constitution.  
He has modestly wished this Argument a Better Hand, and a Better Head 
† Pref. p. VI  than his Own. How far in these respects I am fitted for the Service, I cannot say: However One Quality there is, unmentioned by Him, but no less requisite than either of these; a Better Heart, I mean; and that, I am sure, I have brought along with me to the Work: and should there be further Occasion for it, I trust, that it will not fail me. The Dr. I do not doubt (considering on which side he wrote) thought himself as secure in his Defiance as a Crown-Champion at a Coronation; and that No body would have been hardy enough to take up the Gaunt let he threw down. Something of this kind seems to have been in his Thoughts, when he said, that the Gentleman he attacks, had written in such a manner, as would not, he supposed, at all encourage any one to stand up in defence of him 
† Ib. p. 1. . But in this, as well as in a Thousand Other things, he finds his Mistake. There are, he sees, Those, who will not desert Truth when it grows out of fashion; and have Courage enough to espouse a Good Cause; though Great Names, and Great Interests are made use of to discountenance it. Not that the Author of these Papers is concerned any ways to vindicate the Manner of that Gentleman's Writing, whom the Doctor engages; it is his Argument only that he undertakes to defend: in which he thinks him to have dealt both Skilfully and Honestly, professes himself freely to be of his Opinion, has reasserted it here in this Book, and will, by the Divine Assistance, go on to maintain it.  
He matters not what Dirt may be thrown at him on this account; he expects to traduced by little Officious Pens (and by Dr. Wake's, the least of them) as Disaffected, and Undutyful. But as he is satisfied of the Uprightness of his Intentions, and knows how full his Heart is of Duty and Respect toward Those, whose Characters ought always to be, and shall ever be Sacred with him; so he thinks he has taken a very proper way of expressing it in what follows; where, it seems to him, that he pleads for his Majesty's Honour, and my Lord Archbishop's Interest more effectually than they can pretend to do who differ from him. It is certainly for the Honour of the Crown to be attended always with the Great Council-Spiritual of the Realm, as well as Temporal; and my Lord's Grace of Canterbury is never so Considerable, as when he is at the Head of the Clergy of his Province. The Author is persuaded that he cannot make a more welcome Present to good Governors, either in Church or State, than by affording them a True Account of the Wants and Rights of such as are entrusted to their Care; and an Opportunity, by that means, of exerting their Power to the Good Ends for which it was designed. And They who shall represent him as Disaffected, on this account, do not sure consider what a kind of Compliment they make to Those for whose Interests they pretend to be so warmly concerned.  
Disaffection to the Government, as the Charge is commonly managed, is a Word only, made use of by those that are in favour to keep others out; it is a Reproach taken up on purpose to justify premeditated Designs of oppressing Men: For so the Soldier said, that the Countryman whistled Treason, when he had resolved to plunder him.  
For my part, I am not shy of Owning to Dr. Wake my naked Thoughts on this Head; and he may make what Use he thinks fit of them. If then, to be a True Lover of England, its Monarchy, and Episcopacy; if, to have the Utmost Esteem for the Heroic Qualitys and Matchless Merits of our Prince, and to think no Instance of Respect and Duty that Subjects can pay him, too great, while they take care to preserve their Own Rights and Privileges; if to prefer the True Interests of the Protestant Religion, and the Preservation of our Civil Liberties, to all other Considerations, and for these (among other) Ends to pray hearty for the Continuance of our Present Government, both in Church and State; if these be Instances and Marks of Disaffection, than the Author of these Papers must own himself disaffected, and not otherwise.  
No, the Imputation is more justly to be laid at Their Door, who are for such New Methods and Practices, as naturally tend to alienate the Hearts and Affections of Subjects, and make Governments uneasy; who blast great Numbers of Good Men with Ill Names, and endeavour to make them (what they are not) disaffected, by so representing, and using them, as if they were: And at the same time that they would have others thought Unwilling to serve the Crown, take care effectually to disable themselves from serving it, by forfeiting all the Credit and Interest they have among their Brethren.  
For what can the Clergy think of such Men as bend all their Wit and Skill to dress up Schemes for suppressing their Parliamentary Assemblies? and even their Summons? for rendering their Body, as such, Useless to the State, and by consequence Contemptible? in a word, for introducing the Portugese Model of Church Government; by which, a late Author tells us 
† Account of the Court of Portugal p. 22. , the attendance of the Lower Orders is excused, and their Bishops, with the Assistance of the Pope, act for them, and conclude them? Can any Member of the Church, that has his Eyes open, think such Men Friends to it? or so treat them, and speak of them, as if they were?  
How is it to be expected that this Management should work on the Inferior Clergy? What else can it produce in them but Distrusts, Uneasinesses, Complaints, and Endeavours of Righting themselves as they are able? The Projectors of such Schemes may fancy them proper Methods of laying men's Passions asleep, but will in the End find, that they are the sure Ways of raising them. Nothing will by this Means be Effectually laid asleep, but the Churches Parliamentary Meetings; and it is well if the Dose given them be not so strong, as to make them sleep their Last.  
Does it at all soften the severity of this Usage, to tell the Clergy, That it is really for their true Interest and Service, if they would but understand it? That they are a Number of Men, too Warm, Indiscreet, and Unpractised in Business, to be sa●ely trusted together? and were they indulged the Liberty they claim, would soon ruin themselves by the use of it? These are Dr. W's Thoughts upon the matter; and are they not decent ones? This is not only oppressing, but insulting Men; the Reason given for the Usage is more provoking than the Usage itself.  
If, under a Sense of these Injuries, I have not so tempered my Pen every where, but that an Hard Word may now and then have escaped me, I need no Excuse for it. Dr. Wake's weigh of Dealing would, I am sure, have justified much rougher Returns than any I have made him. But what ever of this kind the Reader meets with, he may assure himself that it sprung not from any the least mixture of Private Prejudice, or Resentment. For I have no Quarrel with Dr. Wake but on a Public Account. On the contrary, the Good Services he did against Popery inclined me always to wish well to him, and to esteem him: Or, had I wished him ill, yet I would never have taken this way of expressing it: for Petavius 
† Petavius Croio responsurum se negat, ideò quod novit Annua augeri semper Ministris contra quos scribitur. Grot. Epist, 1742.  has taught me long ago, that to write against some Men, is the Way only to have their Pensions doubled. And the Experience of later Times than his has showed, that it is possible to write a Man out of Reputation, into Preferment.  
Much less can I be suppected to have engaged in this Design, out of Interest. The way to That, is not, by appearing in behalf of Councils; which (as Johannes Major 
† Johannes Major (c. XVIII. Comment. in Evang. Matth. Versùs finem) aït— Nemini mirum videri debere quod Plures Papam esse supra Concilium, quam contrà Concilium supra Papam esse doceant; cum Papa det Dignitates & Beneficia Ecclesiastica, Concilium verò det nihil— Richer. de Conciliis.  well observed) meet but seldom, and have no Dignitys to dispose of.  
No, it is neither from these, nor any such Low Inducements as these, that I have entered on this Work: but from a Desire only of Perpetuating to the Church the Use of her Parliamentary Assemblies, and of that Free Debate, which is inseparable from such Assemblies: Both which Rights were in great Danger of being lost by Popular Misapprehensions, and a Discontinuance.  
In the management of this Argument I have chief had an Eye to what Dr. Wake has advanced; without neglecting however what has been offered on the same side from Other Pens, particularly by the Author of the Letter to a Member of Parliament: One, who, to do him right, saw where the stress of the Dispute lay, and endeavoured here and there to write up to it, though, for want of fit Materials, he was not able. He has however in a Page or two of his Pamphlet said more for the Cause, than Doctor Wake has done throughout his Mighty Performance; which is really nothing more than a Series of Long, Flat, Impertinent Accounts, attended with suitable Reflections; but without One wise Word spoken, or True stroke struck in behalf of his point, from the beginning of the Book to the End of it. And were it not therefore on some Other Accounts, besides the mere Merit of the Work, it would have deserved no Answer but what the Friar in one of our Histories gave, in a Certain Contest with his Prior.— Et Frater Solomon de Ripple ad Monitiones dicti Prioris, respondit, sic dicendo, 
* And Old English word for Tri●●es.  Trufeles! Trufeles! Trufeles! 
† Thorn. c. 2064.  If Doctor Wake then has (as he says) received great Satisfaction from his Researches 
⸪ Pre●. p. 3 , he must needs be (what I had not thought him) very Easy to be satisfied: for I do not find, that his Researches have operated thus strongly on any body besides. Some Readers indeed have acquiesced in them, till they were better informed; and for want of that Information, have at length been inclined to think favourably of them: But Who they are, so near to Doctor Wake in their Make of Mind, as to be completely, or at all satisfied with them, I am yet to learn. And even as to him himself, whatever he may pretend, I dare say, a good part of his satisfaction is still to come.  
There is a Third Gentleman 
‖ Mr. Nich●lson. , who in a late Book of his has taken upon him to be a kind of Umpire in this Controversy. By what secret Motive he was invited to Undertake this Office, he best knows; sure I am that it was not out of any Peculiar Skill or Ability he had to discharge it. Since he has gone out of his way to mix in a dispute that did not belong to him, he must excuse me if I have not gone out of mine, to avoid seeing his Mistakes; which I have taken notice of no otherwise than as the Course of my Reflections, and the Particular Matter I was upon, led me to observe them: And even at this Rate, the Crop of Errors was plentiful.  
My Lord of Sarum too is a Name, that the Reader will find often mentioned in these Papers, on the account of some Historical Mistakes; in which if I shall seem to have acted too free a part, I must desire the Reader to remember, how his Lordship justifiys himself for observing a slight Fault in Mr. Selden, This, says he, I do not take notice of, out of any Vanity, or Humour of censuring so great a Man: my design is only to let Ingenious Persons see, that they are not to take things on trust easily, no not from the greatest Authors 
† Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 264. . I desire to have the Benefit of this Excuse: especially since few or none of his Lordship's Oversights, marked by me, are of less moment than That of Mr. Selden's, observed by his Lordship; and some of them are of very great Consequence. Wherever I have dissented from his Lordship, I have done it, I hope, with Good Manners; and I have taken care every where to produce my Vouchers.  
If in Reply to so many Writers I have drawn this Answer out to a great length, at the same time that I blame Dr. Wakes Tediousness, I hope I have more to say for myself than He had. Were I concerned with Him alone, it would have been but the just Return of a Book for a Book; whereas He answered a Pamphlet in a Volumn.  
In the several parts of this Work, I have endeavoured to carry my Enquiries as far, and tread as surely as I well could with that Leisure, and those Opportunitys I was master of. I wish the desire of being Exact and Full in my Accounts, has not spread a Dryness sometimes over them, which may disgust Readers not used to Disquisitions of this Nature. But I could with far less Trouble have made them more Entertaining.  
If after all my Care, some Mistakes have crept in (as I doubt not but there have) the Reader will consider, that I am striking out Paths hitherto untrodden, without Light, or Guide to direct me. Dr. Wake indeed pretended to cut a Passage through this Wood; but upon Trial found it too full of Thorns and Briars, to be cleared by his Hand: and therefore went about; leaving the direct Way itself as Intricate and Entangled as he found it.  
As to what I have produced from Registers, I did not always on this occasion, consult the Originals themselves, for Reason's obvious to the Reader; but was forced in several Instances to depend upon Collections, taken some time ago: in which however there will, I hope, be very little reason to tax my want of Exactness.  
The Copies of the Rolls of Parliament I used, were such as had gone through the Hands of Men very Skilful and Curious this way: Nevertheless a false Membrane, or even Year, may possibly have slipped either into Their Transcripts, 〈◊〉 Mine: for which (if it should so have happened) I do here beforehand desire the Readers Excuse. But wherever I cite the Abridgement of Records, I profess to go no further than That, and am not answerable therefore for the Mistakes of it.  
I have nothing further to tell the Reader, but that the Register of Henry de Estre, the Prior of Canterbury, which I so often appeal to in what follows, is a Manuscript in the Hands of my Lord Bishop of Norwich; and that I have used the two last London Editions of M. Paris, in composing these Papers, without saying, when I refer to the One, and when to the Other.   

ERRATA.  
PAage 5. l. 25. deal to. p. 12. l. 5. for They r. The Rural Clergies p. 26. l. 17. for Holy r. haly. p. 27. l. 28. for that meeting r. such meetings as that. p. 39 l. 25. for milibus r. militibus. p. 45. l. 5. for or r. and. p. 47. l. 23. for repugnant r. repugnant ' in Marg. l. 13. add. Abr. of Rec. p. 48. l. 27. after all, put a Comma. p. 54. l. 29. for 5 th'. r. 7 th'. p. 56. l. 11. for Extraordinary r. Occasional. l. 34. for ceased altogether r. grew into Disuse. p. 70. l. 4. for quoque r. quoquo. p. 92. l. 30. deal s●on. p. 125. l. 11. for Lambert r. Lambard. p. 127. l. 24. for Labbeé r. Labbe. p. 167. l. 29. r. Antenicene. p. 170. l. 14. for New r. View. p. 231. In Marg. for N. XV. r. N. XIV (a). and so again p. 232. p. 235. In Marg. for N. XVI. r. N. XIV (b). p. 244. l. 19 for always r. sometimes. l. 22. for always r. often. p. 245. l. 13. deal besides. p. 257. l. 26. deal just now mentioned. p. 276. l. 3. after us, add whether. p. 282. In Marg. deal Malmsbury, etc. p. 284. for consider r. conclude. p. 298. for Monarchici r. Monachici. p. 330. l. 3. for Henry r. Hervey. p. 342. l. 11. for 1391. r. 1421. p. 345. In Marg. for n. 19 r. n. 29. to 50. E. 3. n. add 198. ll. 25, 26. deal. Prov. Cant. p. 346. deal. ll. 21.22. p. 347. l. 6. for at length transcribe r. transcribe at length. p. 348. l. 4. for 50. E. 3. r. 51. E. 3. In Marg. for n. 18. r. n. 24. p. 352. l. 19 for Council learned in the Law r. Attorney General. p. 356. l. 4. for gratify r. qualify. p. 376. l. 17. for Cranmers r. Parkers. p. 413. l. 8. for as r. has. p. 457. l. 24. for owning r. owing.   

THE CONTENTS.  
CHAP. I. THE Clergies Right to Frequent Synods, by the Canons and Practice of the Universal Church, admitted and approved in this Realm. 
Pag. 4.  Chap. II. Their Legal Right of holding these Assemblies concurrently with every New Parliament. 
p. 28.  Chap. III. Their Right, when met, to Treat, Resolve, and Act in all Instances, and to all Degrees, under that of Enacting a Canon; without Qualifying themselves for it, by a Royal Licence. The sense of the 25▪ Hen. 8. c. 19 carefully enquired into. 
p. 78.  Chap. IU. Some General Reflections on Dr. Wake's Way of managing this Controversy; which set aside so much of his Book as is Immaterial and Foreign to the Point in Hand. 
p. 118.  Chap. V An Answer to some Objections made to the Clergies Right of meeting with every New Parliament: where the Rise, Nature, and Force of the Clause Praemunientes in the Bishops●Writ, and of the Convocation-Writ, that goes out with the Summons for the Parliament, are fully considered. 
p. 212.  Chap. VI Dr. Wake's Distinction between a Right of being Summoned, and a Right of Meeting and Sitting, Examined: together with a Reply to his Objection drawn from the Convocation having now left off to give Subsidies. 
p. 263.  Chap. VII. An Answer to what is objected from their being now no Member of Parliament: and an Occasion taken from thence to deduce an Account of the Lower Clergies Interest in the Great Councils of the Realm, through the several Periods of Time, from the Earliest Saxon Ages, downwards. 
p. 273.  Chap. VIII. The Second Point [of the Clergies Right of Treating, etc. without a Licence] strengthened against the Exceptions that are made to it, from Parallel Instances of a Like Restraint practised towards Other Bodies, from the Perpetual Practice of Convocations since the 25 H. 8. from the Opinion of Dr. Cousins, and the Resolution of the Judges 8vo. Jacobi, etc. 
p. 356.  Chap. IX. Some Instances of Dr. Wake's Extraordinary Skill in the Subject of Debate. 
   

Lately Printed for Tho. Bennet.  

A Complete History of the Canon and Writers of the Books of the Old and New Testament, by Way of Dissertation: with useful Remarks on that Subject. In Two Volumes. By L. E. Du Pin, Doctor of the Sorbonne, and Regius Professor of Philosophy in Paris. Done into English from the French Original.  
An Account of the Court of Portugal, under the Reign of the Present King Don Pedro the Second, with some Discourses on the Interests of Portugal, with Regard to other Sovereigns: Containing a Relation of the most Considerable Transactions that have passed of late between that Court, and those of Rome, Spain, France, Vienna, England, etc.  
Campania Foelix: Or, a Discourse of the Benefits and Improvements of Husbandry; Containing Directions for all manner of Tillage, Pasturage, and Plantation; as also for the making of Cider and Perry; with some Considerations (1.) upon the Justices of the Peace and Inferior Officers, (2.) on Inns and Alehouses, (3.) on Servants and Labourers, (4.) on the Poor. To which are added Two Essays, (1.) of a Countryhouse, (2.) of the Fuel of London.    

THE Rights, Powers and Privileges, OF AN English Convocation STATED and VINDICATED.  
THE Little Book which gave occasion to Dr. Wake's Voluminous Answer, proposed to Consider, First, What Need there was of a Convocation; and then, What were the Rights of the Clergy of the Church of England in relation to it: Presuming, I suppose, that a Claim of Right could never come so decently from Subjects to their Prince, as after showing, that they were under a Necessity of making that Claim. Dr. Wake, who is a great Master of Method, has thought fit to change the Order of the Questions; and to inquire first into the matter of Right, before he allows the Point of Expedience to be Debated. I shall be forced to descent from this Gentleman so often in very concerning Points hereafter, that I will not give myself the trouble of disputing a Trifle with him here; and shall therefore take the Method He has Prescribed me. I am so fully satisfied of the Truth and Reasonableness of what I contend for, that I care not at which end of the Argument I begin.  
The Two great Convocation-Rights chief insisted on in that Paper, and endeavoured to be set aside by Dr. Wake in his Answer to it, are these: 

I. A Right of Meeting and Sitting in Convocation as often as a New Parliament Meets and Sits.  
II. A Right of Treating and Deliberating about such Affairs as lie within their proper Sphere, and of coming to fit Resolutions upon them, without being necessitated antecedently to Qualify themselves for such Acts and Debates by a Licence under the Broad Seal of England.    
Indeed these Rights of the Clergy do, at present, lie under some Disadvantage; both, because they have not, of late years, been duly Claimed and Exercised; and because Some even of the Clergy themselves have freely given them up, and publicly owned and maintained the Church to be at the Absolute Mercy of the Crown in these Particulars. But, whatever Prepossessions Men may be under on this account; yet, if the Cause may be allowed a fair Hearing, I doubt not but in the following Papers clearly to prove, That the Church's Rights are, in both these Instances, plain and indisputable; and that therefore, whatever Concessions some of her Unwary or Designing Members may have made to her Prejudice, they must be accounted for on some other Bottom, beside that of the mere force of Truth; and how silent soever She herself may have been in the Vindication of these Rights, yet the reason of that silence was not, because she had nothing to say.  

CHAP. I.  
THE Way in which I intent to proceed, is, First, To State and Confirm the Two Points in Question, showing upon each of them, wherein the Right claimed seems to consist, and what I take to be the chief Evidences and Proofs upon which it is founded. After this I shall consider the Exceptions of all sorts that have been taken to this Claim by Dr. Wake, or any other Writer, who has appeared on the same side; particularly by the Author of the Letter to a Member of Parliament.  
Upon the first of the Two Points, in order to give ourselves a clear Account, What the present Right is, it will be requisite to step back a little, and inquire, What the former Usage has been; What the Custom of this particular Church and Realm in relation to such Assemblies; And what also the general Practice of the Church of God in all Ages.  
A Convocation, or Provincial Synod, (for so we now use the Word) may be considered, either Simply in itself, or as Attendant on a Parliament. I shall take these Two several Views of it; and the first of them in this present Chapter.  
That such Assemblies have been held frequently from the very beginning of Christianity, and under Heathen Emperors, appears abundantly from Eusebius 
* L. 5. c. 23, 24. , St. Cyprian 
† Ubique. , and 
‖ De Jejun c. 13.  Tertullian. They were necessary for deciding the Differences that might happen between one Diocese and another, or between those of the same Diocese, if they could not be composed at home; for the maintenance of sound Doctrine, and wholesome Discipline, and for the promoting of the general good of Christianity.  
The Authoritative part of these Meetings was composed of the Bishops and Presbyters, who sat; 
* 
Conc. Eliberit. in Proaem. Greg. L. 4. Ep. 44. 4. Conc. Tolet. Capit. 3.  
Cypr. Ep. 1. Graviter commoti sumus Ego & Collegae mei qui praesentes aderant, & Compresbyteri nostri qui nobis assidebant.   the Bishops (in a Semicircle) foremost, and the Presbyters behind them; before whom the Deacons and the People stood, being little more than Witnesses of what passed at the Synod.  
The Presbytery were in every City, a necessary standing Council to their respective Bishops; (whose Power in the Church was much like that of a King in one of our mixed Monarchies:) and together with their Bishops therefore they met in a Diocesan Synod, upon all great Causes; and without their Advice and Consent, nothing of Importance was, or could be determined. This was the settled Rule of the Primitive Church, and was kept up to here in England, when it had declined almost every where else; as the Constitutions of Egbert 
* Can. 44, 45, 46, 47, apud Spelman. Conc. T. 1. p. 258.  Archbishop of York, made in the middle of the Eighth Century, declare. And some Remains of this Ancient Discipline are yet visible in those Capitular Bodies planted in our Cathedral Churches; who, as they were Originally intended to be a Select Presbytery to the Bishop for all the Affairs of his Diocese; so have they still a Restraint upon his Authority in several Cases, by the known Customs of this Church, and Laws of the Realm.  
Some of their Presbyters the Bishops were obliged to carry along with 'em to the Council of the Province; and there, I say, they Sat, Deliberated, and Voted upon all Matters that came before the Assembly. Indeed to General Councils, the Inferior Clergy came not ordinarily in their Own Right; but as the Proxy's only of absent Bishops: which was necessary to hinder those Meetings from being too numerous, and to prevent Confusion. However, even the Bishops that were present in General Councils, were deputed thither by Provincial Synods; 
* See the Emperor's Letter to St. Cyril. Conc. Ephes. Part I. as also The Epistle of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage, excusing himself for sending no Bishops, because the War, which had broke out in those parts, hindered him from calling ● Provincial Synod, from whence they were to be deputed. Ib. pars 2. Act. 1.  and brought along with them the Resolution and Consent, of the several Churches from which they came: and the Presbyters therefore, having Voices in those lesser Synods, their Consent was also in the Definitions of the Greater presumed, and included.  
In one of these Provincial Synods, held in the Second or Third Century, was that, which is since called the 37th Apostolic Canon framed; which orders, that there shall be two of these Assemblies yearly, one in Spring, and the other in Autumn. The same thing (with some small variety, as to the exact time of Meeting) was by the Great Council of Nice decreed more solemnly; 
* Can. 5.  and their Decree enforced by the Council of Antioch 
† Can. 20.  first, and then by the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon. 
⸫ Can. 19  Afterwards by reason of the difficulty of convening in times of War and Confusion, these Synods were ordered to meet but once a Year, by the Sixth 
‖ Can. 8.  and Seventh General Councils 
* Can. 6.  in the East, and this Order was renewed here in the West, by the Fourth great Lateran Council, held under Innocent III. at the beginning of the Thirteenth Century. 
* Can. 6.  And thus the general Law of the Church stood in succeeding times; as to Us at least: For the Decree of the Council of Basil, 
† Sess. 15.  which made these Meetings Triennial, was not, I think, received here in England.  
The Rule set by these General Councils 
‖ All of ●em (but ●hat at Antioch) reputed such.  was prescribed also by the Roman Law, 
* Justinian. Nou. 123. c. 10.137. c. 4.  received into the Capitulars of Charles the Great in Germany, 
† Lib. 1. Tit. 13.  and provided for very early by special Canons in the Churches of Spain and France, 
‖ 3. Conc. Tolet. c. 18. Conc. Regiens. c. 7. 1. Conc. Araus. c. 29. 2. Conc. Aurel. c. 2. 2. Conc. Turon. c. 1.  and of those lesser Kingdoms that arose out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire; and particularly here in England, by a Canon of the Council of Herudford, 
⸫ Beda▪ I. 4. c. 5. Placuit convenire nos juxta morem Canonum Venerabilium.  held Anno 673 under Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury, and which took care not only to establish the Practice for the future, but also to affirm the ancient Usage; it being at the very entrance of the Acts of it, expressly said to assemble in Virtue of the Old Canons, as it was held also much about the Time, that those Old Canons prescribed. 
† Sept. 24.   
The Lateran Canon, that revived the use of Yearly Provincial Assemblies, was in force here (as john de Athon tells us 
‖ Proaem. Othob. ) tho' not so well observed, he says, as it ought to have been, for a Reason too reflecting to be 
⸫ 
Qualia Concilia Provincialia singulis annis celebrari ponitur sub praecepto: quod non est ergo negligendum— Sed hodiè de facto praetermittitur, quia fortè Lucrum Bursale Praelatis non acquiritur; sed potiùs tùnc Expensae apponuntur.  
He gives I find, the same free Reason in another place, for the neglect of some Provincial Constitutions. De facto perrarò servantur, quando servando Constitutionem Bursae Praelatorum vacuarentur. Sed aliae Constitutiones; quae Praelatis Bursales sunt, satis memoriae commendantur, & exequuntur ad unguem. Ad Constit. de Hab. Cler.   Englished. This must be understood of the time when Athon wrote, which was somewhat above an hundred Years after 
* For Pitts 's Account, which has been taken all along upon trust, (viz. that he Flourished in 1290) must be a mistake; since Athon was made Prebend of Lincoln in 1329, and died in 1350, as I find by unquestionable Authorities. ; when in France also it was grown into neglect; as appears by Durandus' Complaint 
† De modo Conc. Gen. cel. Rubr. 11. : But at first, no doubt, both here and elsewhere it was more strictly kept: and to it we own that Body of Provincial Constitutions which we have; the earliest of 'em, those of Stephen Langton, bearing Date 1222, a few Years after that Lateran Council.  
Innocent III. in his Rescript to the Archbishop of Sens 
* Decr. Greg. 3.10.10. Ecclesiarum Cathedralium Capitula per Procuratores suos admittidebent ad Tractatum in Concilio Provinc●ali. , directs, that the Proctors of Cathedral Chapters should be summoned to these Provincial Synods: From whence alone, without further enquiry, we might be satisfied, that the Priors of Cathedral Churches, Deans, and Archdeacon's, those Praelati Inferiores, had been admitted before; as indeed the Capitular Clergy, and even the Rural Presbyters had been; tho' the Practice might be now discontinued. For, 700 Years before the Date of this Rescript, in a Spanish Council at Taragone 
† An. 517. Epistolae tales à Metropolitanis sunt dirigendae, ut non solùm de C●thedralibus Ecclesiis Presbyteros, verùm etiam de Diaecesanis ad Concilium trahant. c. 13. , we find it particularly provided, that the Bishops should bring along with them to these Synods, Presbyters from their Cathedral Churches, and from the other Churches of their Dioceses.  
And in the account of a Domestic Council of our own, not full an hundred Years Elder than the Lateran, the Persons summoned to it are thus reckoned up by the Saxon Chronicle 
* Regis Consilio & Veniâ misit Willielmus Archiep. Cantuaraebyrig per Totam Anglorum Terram, & jussit Episcopos, & Abbates, & Archidiaconos; cunctos item Priores, Monachos, & Canonicos, qui essent in omnibus Cellis intra Anglorum Terram: omnes denique quorum Curae Religio erat commissa interest Londini ad Festum Michaelis, ut ibi colloquerentur de omnibus Negotiis ad Deum pertinentibus, etc. Chron. Sax. ad ann. 1129. The Saxon is, Ealle that thet Christendom ha●don to begemen, & to locen. , Bishops, Abbots, Archdeacon's; all the Priors, Monks, and Canons, who were in all the Religious Houses of England: Finally, All that had the care of Religion committed to them, i. e. I suppose the Parochial Presbyters.  
The Decree of Innocent was so well obeyed in France, that in a National Council, which met there about Ten Years afterwards 
† Anno 1226. Vide M. Par. ad ann. p. 329. where he has these Observable Words. Dedit Legatus in dolo Procuratoribus Capitulorum Licentiam ad propria revertendi, retentis tantum Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, & Abbatibus, & simplicibus Praelatis. Unde non immerito timuerunt, ne procuratâ eorum absentiâ qui majoris Prudentiae erant & Experientiae, & prae Multitudine potentiores ad contradicendum, aliquid statueretur in praejudicium, etc. , the Proctors of Chapters were Numerous and Resolute enough to quash an oppressive Demand there made by the Legate, and to rescue the Liberties of the Gallican Church, for that time, from Papal Encroachments. In England the way was, for the Dean, or Prior, to bring up Instruments of Proxy to the Synod, which enabled him to act for his Chapter, or Convent 
‖ 
Priores Installati tam sub Conventûs ●ui, vel Capituli, quam suo nomine Literas Procuratorias deferentes. M. Par. ad ann. 1237. p. 446.  
Priores Majores cum Literis suorum subditorum Procuratoriis. An. Burt. ad ann. 1258. p. 389.   in the same manner as the Archdeacon's 
⸫ Archidiaconi cum Literis Procuratoriis factis ex parte Clericorum qui subsunt eisdem-Ann. Burt. ad ann. 1257. p. 382. vide etiam pp. 373, 374, 355. & M. Par. p. 920.  also were impower'd to represent, and conclude the Diocesan Clergy; who were, in those Days, when Synods were frequent, willing enough to be excused the Expense and Trouble of Attendance. And this method was often practised throughout Henry III. his Reign, till the Council of Reading in the Seventh Year of Edward I. ordered 
* 
Item praecipimus, ut— veniant duo Electi ad minùs à Clero Episcopatuum singulorum, qui auctoritatem habeant una nobiscum tractare de his quae Ecclesiae communi utilitati expediunt Anglicanae, etiamsi de Conturbatione aliquâ vel Expensis oporteat fieri mentionem.  
In Cap. de Exeq. Epise. ad Finem Lynwood. p. 25.  , that the Clergy of the Diocese should appear by two Proctors of their own; which I suppose has ever since been constantly practised.  
Thus have much the same Persons been summoned all along, as now: But to what Ends, and with what Authorities they came, may be questioned. The Canonists, who never fail to depress the Bishops for the Service of the Pope, would make them some amends, in giving them as extravagant an Authority over their Inferiors. Lynwood therefore, in his Gloss upon that part of a Constitution of Archbishop Arundel, where mention is made of their Concurring to it 
† Const. ●inaliter. p. 300. , is trying how little he can make of them. The Words of the Constitution are these. [Ad supplicationem igitur Procuratorum totius Cleri nostri Cant. Prov. de Consensu & Assensu oranium Consratrum & Suffraganeorum nostrorum & aliorum Praelatorum, in hâc Cleri Convocatione praesentium, & Procuratorum absentium, etc. Statuimus & Ordinamus.] And his Comment upon them runs thus, Aliorum Praelatorum, sc. Abbatum, Decanorum, & Archidiaconorum: Praesentium, non dicit, Vocatorum: quia ad Provinciale Concilium non sunt Vocandi, ex necessitate, nisi Episcopi. Si tamen alii veniant, Admittendi sunt: imò vocandi sunt, quando de eorum Factis agitur, vel quia eorum Consilium est necessarium. Now here one cannot but observe, how small an occasion he takes for this strange Doctrine. For Praesentium in the Text, belongs as well to the Superior as the Inferior Prelates; and gave no room to him therefore thus to refine upon it. And then, when he has delivered it as his Opinion, Non alii sunt vocandi, etc. he is afterwards forced to retract it; Imò vocandi sunt. This indeed he would fain qualify, with a quando de eorum factis agitur; but is immediately obliged to add, vel quia eorum Concilium est necessarium. So that, at last, the Inferior Prelates are allowed by him to be Necessary Councillors in the Assembly; and to have not only Opportunity of Petitioning, but also Power of Advising: which however is not so much as the Text itself allows them; expressing the Assent and Consent of both sort of Prelates jointly, without any manner of Distinction.  
And tho' the Chief Business of the Proctors of Chapters and Dioceses was, to Petition for the Redress of Grievances; under which they chief groaned: yet that they came from the very beginning, with larger Powers, appears from the Constitution of Reading lately cited 
* Qui Autoritatem habeant unà Nobiscum tractare de hiis quae Ecclesae. etc. , and from the Ancient Forms of the Archbishop's Summonitory Letters, which ran, ad tractandum unà Nobiscum, exactly as that Constitution prescribes: An Instance of which I have seen, in an Old Register, as high as the 18 E. 1. that is, Eleven Years after the Council of Reading was held.  
Nay, even at such times, when they had no distinct Proctors of their own to represent them; but sent up only Procuratorial Instruments by their Archdeacon's (as the Custom was in the preceding Reign) yet still the Synodical Constitutions ran in their Name, and expressed their Consent and Approbation. 
† Thus in the Council of Merton 42 H. 3. the Constitutions there made are said to have passed, de Unanimi Assensu & Consilio Praelatorum Religiosorum, & totius Cleri Ecclesiae (Additamenta ad M. Par. p. 204.) and in the Close of them yet more plainly. Archiepiscopi & Episcopi de Consensu & Approbatione Inferiorum Praelatorum, Capitulorum Cathedralium, & Conventualium, nec non Universitatis totius Cleri Angliae haec praedicta communiter & concorditer providerunt. Ib. p. 209. See also Ann. Burt. p. 389. As also Constit. Provinc. ad ●inem Lynwood p. 15. where they are by mistake, placed at the Year 1261 instead of 1258. Lynwood has inserted some of them in his Provincial; and there in his Gloss upon the Preface to them, tells us, that by Inferior Prelates, are to be understood Abbots, Priors, Deans, and Archdeacon's: (p. 314.) and the Universitas Cleri therefore must signify the Lower Secular Clergy of the several Dioceses.   
Nor was this any late Privilege, but what was always understood to belong to their Character, even in the Saxon times; when mere Presbyters, we find, subscribed frequently to Councils, and sometimes in great Numbers: Witness the Synod of Cloveshoe in 803 
‖ Apud Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 325. , the Subscriptions of which Mr. Wharton, (a diligent Examiner of these kind of things) thought Authentic 
⸫ Ista non inanem Veritatis speciem prae se ferunt, & prae aliis omnibus fidem meruerunt, De Episcopis Londinens. p. 23.  beyond Exception: And there we find besides Twenty Six Abbots, near Forty simple Presbyters, Ranked regularly under their several Bishops according to the Dioceses from whence they came: And with them, some few of a Lower Order; who were admitted also, it seems, to these Synodical Debates, according to the moderate and gentle Form of Church-Polity which obtained in those Times. And in the Preface therefore to the Canons of an Elder Synod 
* An. 747.  held at the same place, we meet with these remarkable words: Sacri Ordinis Praesules, cum plurimis Sacerdotibus Domini, & minoribus quoque Ecclesiastici Gradûs Dignitatibus, ad Locum Synodalem, cum venerabili Archiepiscopo Cudberto convenerunt, & de Unitate Ecclesiae, & Concordiâ Pacis tractandâ, confirmandâque pariter Consederunt. 
† Spelm. Conc. T. 1. p. 245. E Codice, ut inquit, vetustissimè MS.   
Nor had the Inferior Clergy less Interest in the Convocations, even of Arundel's immediate Successor (and Lynwood's Patron) Archbishop Chichley; who in his Letters Mandatory to the Bishop of London, says, Regiis & Regni Incolarum hortatibus excitati, Confratrumque nostrorum & Cleri Provinciae nostrae ducti consiliis, quinimo & nostri Provincialis Concilii Robore ac Decreto suffulti, de expresso consensu Confratrum nostrorum & Cleri antedicti, Volumus, Statuimus, & 
‖ P. 69.  Praecipimus. In another, De Fratrum nostrorum & Cleri in eadem Convocatione praesentium Voluntatibus, Consilio. & 
⸪ P 70.  Assensu. In a Third, De nostrorum Fratrum ac Cleri Provinciae Consilio & Assensu 
(*) P. 72. : In a Fourth, De Venerabilium Confratrum nostrorum aliorúmque Praelatorum, & Cleri Provinciae Consensu pariter & 
(†) Ibid.  Assensu. And lastly, Nuper in Concilio nostro Provinciali celebrato ●oram Nobis, Vobis, Caeteris Confratibus & Coepiscopis nostris depositum fuit per Clerum nostrae Provinciae & graviter qu●relat●m quod, etc. Quare ex parte Cleri praedicti fuimus cum Instantiâ non modicâ requisiti, quatenùs hos Casus & Articulos Authoritate dicti Concilii publicè proponi & exponi debere decernere dignaremur. Nos idcircò ex Assensu vestro & aliorum Confratrum Coepiscoporum & Suffraganeorum nostrorum exponendos fore decrevimus prout etiam decernimus in 
† P. 73.  praesenti. This last Form agreeing exactly with those of the Acts of Parliament of the same date; where, Our Lord the King, by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and at the special Instance and Request of the Commons, Ordains and Establishes.  
Thus did the practice of Lynwood's own time, and the Style of those Constitutions, some of which probably he himself Penned, overrule the Assertion of his Gloss. But he seems to have been led into it, as other Canonists might be, by his knowing no more of Provincial Councils, than what was to be found in his Gratian (whom he there Cites in Dist. 18.) where Bishops only are mentioned. And from thence he might be induced to think, that the latter practice was from Condescentiion, and that even Pope Innocent's Decree was an Abridgement of the Episcopal Right, and to be Interpreted as strictly as possible. Whereas the Writings and Usage of the Primitive Church, and even the Elder Records of our Own, would have informed him, That this was no new Concession to the Presbyters, but an Affirmance only of their Original Right; as Gerson, and others of that Age knew very well, who therefore style them Hierarchae Minores; and as Lynwood himself might have reflected, where he observes, That in our Church-Constitutions the Word Praelati was applied often to some of the lowest, even of the Lower Clergy, the Presbyteri Plebani, or Rectors of Rural Parishes 
* De Sacr. iter. vel non. c. Ignorantia. v. Praelati De Foro Competenti c. Circumspect. v. Item si Praelatus. . I have made the best Excuse that I can for him; for I am not willing to believe, that the Dedication of his Book had any Influence upon the Doctrine of it; or that he studiously fell into such Opinions, as he knew would be grateful Above; though I must needs say, That he has decided in this Case more like a Dean of the Arches, than a Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation, which he sometimes was 
† Tit. de Decimis. c. quoniam. v. Provinciam. speaking of something done in a Convocation held under Chichley, he adds— Me tunc existen●e Prolocutore ipsius Cleri. : And perhaps One, that had less regard for his Character than I have, would be ready to suspect, that he might by this time have his Eye upon the Bishopric of St. David's.  
But our Bishops themselves have been more just to the Rights and Interests of the Inferior Clergy, allowing them not only a Consultive, but a Decisive Vote also in Synods, and that derived from Primitive Practice; for thus I find it laid down in a Paper Signed by Four of them, under Henry the Eighth's Reign; In all the Ancient Councils of the Church in Matters of Faith, and Interpretation of Scripture, no Man made Definitive Subscription, but Bishops and Priests; forasmuch as the Declaration of the Word of God pertaineth unto 
† Hist of the Ref. Vol. I. p. 174.  them. A Testimony, that, being given by those of the Higher Order in the Church in behalf of the Powers and Privileges of the Lower, must be allowed Considerable.  
In the course therefore of our Provincial Synods, the Inferior Clergy's Consent was expected, and not that of the Suffragans only. But still, as we may observe, the Archbishop alone is said to Decree and Ordain; which is a stile of Authority peculiar to him Here, and beyond what belonged Originally to his Character. Indeed by the ancient Rules of the Church, the Metropolitan's Consent was necessary to make the Ordinance, and He had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But the Style and Power of the Archbishop of this Province might in this respect run higher, because he challenged to be looked upon as something more than a simple 
‖ Quasi velitis (says Peckam in a Letter to the Bishop of London) Jura Cantuariensis Ecclesiae— ad Simplices Metropolitanis limits Coarctare. Whart. App. ad Hist. de Ep. Lond. p. 270.  Metropolitan, and had the Title of a Legate Born; and in virtue of that Character he might take upon him to Decree and Ordain, as the Pope did in Foreign Councils, and as the King here at home used to do i● our elder Statutes. And as these, at the end of every Session of Parliament, were used to be Enacted by the King; so the Provincial Constitutions were published on the last Day of the Synod, by the Archbishop. He also, some time afterwards, enjoining the Bishop of London, and by him, as Dean of the Episcopal College, the other Bishops, to see them Promulged and Executed; as Acts of Parliament were ordered to be Proclaimed, by the Comes at first, and since by his Vicar-General the Sheriff.  
This was the manner of holding Councils, and making Canons; neither was it necessary to have the King's, or Pope's leave, to hold the one; nor was their Authority requisite for Decreeing the other. The Clergy were only to take care that they did not exceed their Limits, either in the Matter or Manner of their Decrees, and that their Constitutions were such, as would not be Revoked and Annulled by either of those Supreme Powers.  
The Metropolitans were by the Canons (and by the Roman Law 
* Nou. 123. c. 10.  where it had force) Obliged to call those Synods Yearly. Neither was Leave to be asked for their Summoning such Assemblies then, any more than there is now for a Bishop's Convening his Clergy and Church-Officers to a Visitation: Not because those Canons were above the Law of our Country; but because they were received into it, and made a part of the Constitutions and Usages of the Kingdom.  
'Tis true the Archbishop called them sometimes at the King's Instance, signified to him by a Royal Writ: Yet even then, not in Virtue of 〈◊〉 Writ, but by his Own Authority; By which also (whether called at the King's Instance, or not) he always Dissolved them; And of this we have a very remarkable proof in the last Convocation under Henry the IVth 
‖ Hen. iv Writ for the Calling it, bears date, Jan. 19 1412. It met ●n the 6 th' of March. He Died on the 20 th', but the Convocation sat on to the 10 th' of May; when it was Dissolved. ; which, though Meeting at his Writ, was yet so little thought to be held in Virtue of it, that it Sat for near Two Months under his Successor, Henry the Vth, without a Dissolution.  
Till Archbishop Chichley's time, Convocations were frequently held, even while Parliaments were sitting, without any other Writ from the King but what was contained in the Bishop's Summons, with the Clause Praemunientes. After the 8. of H. VI the Clergy, if they met by the King's Letter, had the benefit of the Act of Parliament of that Year; and therefore, I suppose, usually desired it to gain the Parliamentary Protection; not, as Fuller idly Conjectures 
* Changed Hist. Book 5. p. 290. and Dr. Wake from him p. 230. , to avoid a Praemunire.  
When they met, 
† Mr. Nicolson (Eng. Hist. Lib. part 3. p. 196.) says, They were Inhibited in their very Writs of Summons from Decreeing any thing to the Prejudice of the King or his Realms: And for this, he refers us to Dugdale 's Summons in the Reigns of E. 1. and E. 2. where there is not a word to this purpose; nor can there be; for Dugdale has no Writs for Convocations, but only for the Parliament. When the next Edition of his Work comes out, he will be pleased to tell us, from whence he drew this curious Remark. I have seen many Convocation Writs, but never, that I remember, one with a Prohibition in the Belly of it.  Writs were often sent to them by the King, Forbidding them to attempt any thing against his Crown and Dignity; and these Prohibitions are allowed to have been Tacit Permissions of such Assemblies, provided they kept within their Bounds 
‖ Bishop Stillingfleet 's, Duties and Rights of the Parochial Clergy, p. 371. . And so indeed they certainly were, for otherwise it had been as easy for the King to forbid their Meeting and Sitting, as their Acting in such and such Instances; which yet he appears very rarely to have done; and to have been yet more rarely Obeyed when he attempted it 
* The Oldest Instance insisted on, is a Prohibition of Geofry Fitz-Peter, Lord justiciary to Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury: But how it was obeyed, the Annals of Lanercost [in Bib. Cott. Claud. D. 7.] declare, Hub. Arch. Cant. celebravit Concil. contra Prohibitionem Gaufridi, etc. in quo Concilio Archiepiscopus Subscripta promulgavit Decreta, (Ann. 1200.) The Oldest Writ produced is, 9 Joh. Ann. 1208. See it in Pryn. 3. Tom. Eccl. Jurisd. p. 10. Whether complied with, or not; I do not find: But suppose it was, for it Issued out upon a Complaint of the whole Parliament. A Third Instance I find in the 41 H. 3. Rot. Cl. M. 6. dors. when the Convocation was forbid▪ meeting at London, because the King had at that very time Summoned all the Members of it, that owed him Service, to Attend his Army in Wales. [See the Writ, Pryn. Ibid. Vol. II. p. 890.] But though this Prohibition was so reasonable, yet it was not Obeyed. On the contrary, when Archbishop Boniface, at the Opening it, proposed this Question to them, among others; Item, Cùm Dominus Rex Prohibuerit Praelatis Ecclesiae sub forisfacturâ omnium terrarum suarum quas de eo tenent, ne venirent ad hujusmodi Convocationem Auctoritate Domini Archiepiscopi factam; an liceat, & deceat, & expediat tractare in hujusmodi Convocatione de Negotiis Ecclesiae, vel potiùs (quod absit) Prohibitioni Regiae parere, etc. [Ann. Burt. p. 383.] it was carried, that they should proceed notwithstanding: and so they did, as appears by the Roll of Grievances then drawn up, and presented (M. Par. Addit. p. 199.) But afterwards in the 20 E. 2. the Archbishop having called a Convocation to meet at London in Quind. Mich. and the King a Great Council, at the same time, at Sarum; a Writ went out to the Archbishop in this Form, Vos rogamus ex affectu, Vobis nihilominùs in fide & dilectione quibus nobis te●emini firmiter injungentes; and upon this he Prorogued the Convocation for a Fortnight. .  
When therefore Archbishop Stratford 
† An. 1341.  held a Provincial Council on purpose to oppose some Arbitrary Proceed of Edward the IIId. (who pretended, by the Advice of his Great Council only, to Revoke what had been Enacted in Parliament) we find not that the King forbade the Assembly, but only their Treating and Agreeing of such things as were to the hurt of his Prerogative Royal; Prohibitions of this kind were sent to every Bishop of the Province, (Tested on the same day with the Writ of Revocation to the Sheriff, which is Printed very unbecomingly, I think, with our Statutes) and one of these Forms, for the Honour of that Archbishop, and the relation it has to the Point we are upon, I shall present the Reader with in the Appendix 
* See Numb. I. .  
The King had also his Proctors 
† Pat. 37. H. 3. m. 19 apud Pryn. Eccl. Jurisd. T. 2. p. 807. , or Commissioners, sometimes in these Meetings, who Proposed, Protested, and Appealed on his behalf; but they were ever Men in Holy Orders. His great Lay Lords, and Ministers indeed, carried frequently his Commands thither, but none stayed there 
‖ 21. H. 3. Concilio jam incaepto, missi sunt ex parte Domini Regis, Comes Lincoln. Johannes, & Johannes Filius Galfridi, & Will. de Rale Canonicus S. Pauli, ut dicto Legato ex part● Regis & Regni inhiberent, ne ibi contra Reginam Coronam & Dignitatem aliquid Statuere attentaret. Et remansit ibi, ut hoc observaretur, Will. de Rale, indutus Cappâ Canonicali, & Supellicio, aliis recedentibus. M. Par. p. 378,  to Act for him, but Clergymen only: Though sometimes the King himself has vouchsafed to Appear and Sat in Convocation; as in Arundel's 
⸪ In Conu. habitâ 23 Jul. 1408. in Causâ Unionis.  Register, Henry the IVth is once remembered to have done.  
In these Assemblies, the Gravamina Cleri, or Articuli Reformationis were constantly expected from the Lower House; and ran so high sometimes as to propose Reformanda per Dominum Papam, per Archiepiscopum & Suffraganeos, per Convocationem, per Parliamentum: And Solicitors were Appointed to prosecute such Reformations in Parliament. These the Organum Vocis suae, their Prolocutor, or Referendarius exhibited in a Schedule: and their Petitions had answers as those of the Commons were used to have from the King anciently. Harpsfield, and Antiquitates Britannicae, afford us many Instances of this Kind; but the Manuscript Acts of those Synods more; and this is one of them, Inter alia propositum fuit à Clero, ut Episcopi dignentur Canones executioni mandare. Imprimis, de Professionibus vestris, quòd legantur coram vobis ad minùs bis in Anno. 2. De Visitationibus. 3. De Residentiâ & Regimine Episcoporum. 4. De Regimine, Gestu, & Vestitu Familiarium vostrorum: Which Instance is not given so much for the Articles, as for the Answer to them; Omnia ista sunt ●romissa, statuta, ac concessa: & fiet Executio ●er quemlibet, ad quem pertinet, prout respondebit ●oram Deo, & proximo Concilio Provinciali 
* Regist. Arundel. . And ●n that very Convocation which submitted to H. the VIII. the Lower House, as dispirited as they were, took heart to complain to the Upper of the Practice of some Bishops, in those ●ays, who took Bonds of Resignation of all the Clerks they preferred in their Dioceses, in ●rder, as they said, to oblige them to Residence 
† Item petunt, quod Praesentati ad Ecclesiasticum Beneficium non ar●entur per Dioecesanos' Scripto aliquo Obligatorio aut Poenâ Tempo●li ad Residentiam— Acta Conu. incaeptae Nou. 5. 1529. in ●ess. 91. . The End was very good, but the Means was thought unjustifiable; and the Clergy in Convocation therefore thought it worth ●●eir while to endeavour a Redress; though I ●nd not whether they effected it, or what Answer was returned.  
But among all their Grievances I have never ●bserv●d the want of Convocations mentioned 〈◊〉 one of them. The Clergy indeed complain some times of their being called together too often, and kept sitting too long, and beg a Dismission; and the Archbishop excuses himself frequently on that Head in his very Letter of Summons. But I have seen no Intimation any where that they wanted an opportunity of Meeting; which is a certain sign that they never wanted one: never I believe from Anselm's days (who by the favour of H. the Ist. revived those Meetings, that had been suppressed by W. the IId. 
* Concilium non permisit [Rufus] celebrari in Regno suo ex quo Rex factus est jam per 13 Annos, says Anselm to Pope Paschal, L. 3. Ep. 46. And what the Consequence of this Intermission was, the Synod which met at the beginning of H. I. declares,— Multis verò annis Synodali Culturâ cessante, viciorum vepribus succrescentibus, Christianae Religionis Fervor in Anglia nimis refrixerat. Eadmer. p. 67. ) down to the very times that we live in.  
No more than this needs be said to furnish the Reader with an Account of Provincial Synods, and their Rights, as allowed and practised in this Realm: Such an Account, I mean, as is necessary to set the General part of this Dispute in a true Light, and to lead the way to matter which is more Pertinent and Particular; and which I shall go on to suggest, after I have added a Reflection or two that arise from what has been already delivered.  
It is plain that the Power lodged in the Metropolitan of calling together such Members of his Province, is likewise accompanied with a Right in those of his Province to be so called; and that the Vis Praecepti, of which Atho speaks 
† In Proaem. Othob. , lies as well upon the Superior, as on his Inferiors: The Bishops, for Instance, having as much Right by the Canon Law to demand such a Meeting for the Good of the Church, as the Metropolitan has Authority to Assemble it; and the Obligation running reciprocally, though the Power does not. It is indeed not so much a Power, as a Trust that is lodged in him; and for which therefore by the Ancient Canons of the Church 
* 7. Gen. Conc. Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Canonicis poenis Subjiciatur.  and by the Imperial Law 
† Nou. 123. c. 10▪  he was made accountable. 'Tis in this case, as in that of our great Lay Conventions, the Assembling of which is not only part of the Prince's Prerogative, but of the Subjects Right; and matter of Duty as well to those who Call, as those who are Called to them; and would oblige therefore, though there were no positive Law that fixed the times of such Meetings.  
Indeed Either of these Assemblies, in State, or Church, may sometimes have been intermitted for emergent Reasons, and such as the Members themselves that composed 'em might be presumed willing to allow; yet those Intermissions must not be supposed to take away the Right of meeting, except they are withal supposed to take away the Right of Convening. So that the Provincial Inferiors may well demand to be Assembled, as soon as those Reasons Impedient shall cease; and much more, when stronger Reasons shall arise on the other side, such as would justify the Clergies desire of an extraordinary Convention, if they had not an ordinary one to claim.  
And among many other Reasons which may occasionally move Inferiors to claim the Recontinuance of these Meetings, this may be one, That their Right gins to be questioned by the Discontinuance; especially if the Superior shall take care to assert his Own, at the same time that he sets aside Theirs; and Commanding them to Come, shall yet not suffer them to Assemble in Form; nor let them, instead of being a Convocation Legally to confer together, and to frame their Requests to their Lordships, the King, or Parliament, be so much as a Congregation, once to say their Prayers together, and hear a Sermon.  
Now as it is manifest that this Right of Assembling is Attested by the usage of our Church, and founded upon the Canon Law; so may it be remembered, that it is no Papal Grant, but derived from very ancient Christian Practice, established by the great Council of Nice, and other succeeding General Councils, and adopted particularly into the Body of the Canons of Most (I might say, All) Christian Nations. The Disuse, indeed, and Suppression of Synods, has been frequently charged upon the Arbitrary Proceed of the Papacy; but no Primate need fear lest he should be thought to take too much of the Legatus Natus upon him, if he pleases to convene them.  
For so far are the Clergy of England from being Unreasonable or Singular in their Desire of such Meetings, that there is no part of the Reformed Church beside, that does not duly hold them. They are constantly kept up in the United Provinces; and even in France they were never denied the Protestants by this King, as long as the use of their Religion was allowed them: These Assemblies having been always esteemed by all Christians as the best and most proper means for the Preservation of Unity, and suppression of Errors and Disorders in the Church of God.  
To draw nearer home; what we plead for has been allowed the present Scotch Kirk; nay, and something more than we plead for. I hope it will not be thought foreign to my Subject, if I stop to give some short account of it. Their Assembly has sat often since the Revolution, and done business, with a witness: if a through purging of Churches, and Universities; if exercising their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the whole Kingdom (as well over those who renounced their Government, as those who owned it) be, doing Business. If to Excommunicate, Suspend, and Deprive at Pleasure; if to be Patron's General of all the Live of the Kingdom, and to Induct, as well as to Eject what Persons they thought fit; if by an Act of theirs (for so the Style runs) to appoint National Fasts, and to settle General Rules for Church-Discipline and Government, without so much as ask leave of the Civil Power, be doing Business, then, I say, the Scotch Assembly have within these ten years last passed effectually done it. They have acted up to the utmost Extent of their pretended Divine Charter of Privileges, and have scarce been withstood in any one Branch of it: for tho' the King's Commissioner has sat with them, yet has he not been allowed either to interpose in their Debates, or to have a Negative upon their Resolutions; no nor so much as to confirm them. And when he pretended to adjourn or dissolve the Synod, they protested against it; and appointed a New Meeting by their own, without any regard to His Authority: and in the Intervals of their Sessions they have had a standing Committee of their Members, who have been, as it were, a Perpetual Assembly. These are the High Favours and Indulgences, that have with a Liberal Hand been bestowed on our Neighbours in Scotland; to the utter Abolishment almost of the Civil Magistrates Supremacy in Church-Affairs. Shall they who deny the Prince his Due, have more than their Due allowed them? and shall not those have so much as their Due, who allow him every thing that either the Law of God, or the Law of the Land allows him? Shall not the modest Claim of an Episcopal Church, which professes all due Subjection to the State, put in for as fair an Hearing, as the Unreasonable Pretensions of an Holy Kirk, that acknowledges no Superior but Christ jesus?  
Nor have those of the Presbyterial and Congregational way been less indulged here at home: for that They too have their Convocation in as Regular and Full, tho' not in so open a manner as the Members of the Church of England desire to have, appears from that Circular Summons, which about Eighteen Months ago was issued out, and casually came into an Hand that it did not belong to. The World has already had a sight of it: however it may not be amiss once more to Print it in these Papers 
* See the Append. N. II. .  
Nay the Privilege we claim is not denied to any the most Wild and Extravagant Sect among us: even Quakers themselves have their Annual Meetings for Ecclesiastical Affairs; and are known to have, and allowed to hold them. Shall Schism and Enthusiasm (to say no worse) have the free Liberty of these Consults, for the Propagation of their Interests? and shall an Apostolic and Established Church want it? God forbidden!  
In Popish Countries indeed these Synods are discountenanced, and out of use; notwithstanding the late Decree of the Council of Trent, which orders that they shall be Celebrated once at least in three years. But this Decree stands in the Acts of that Council to no other purpose, than as it is a Testimony of the sense that even that Corrupt Body of Men had of the necessity of these Assemblies; for the force of it vanished almost as soon as it was made: The Undersharers in Spiritual Dominion secretly agreeing to lay it asleep; and his Holiness (who alone can awaken it) conniving at their Neglect; because the less such Meetings as these obtain in the Church, the greater recourse will there be to his Chair, and his Empire will be the more Absolute.  
In France, particularly, though this Decree has been Authorized by the Edict of Blois, and by several others, yet have there not been any Provincial Synods held in virtue of it for above these Threescore and Ten Years last passed; that is, ever since the Council of 
* An. 1624.  Bourdeaux; unless we should call that Meeting of a few Prelates the other Day, to Condemn the Archbishop of Cambray's Book, a Provincial Council: And, if I mistake not, they called themselves so; by the same Figure, as my Lords the Bishops, who are of the Commission for Ecclesiastical Preferment, may be styled a Convocation.  
But true Protestants, and true Englishmen will like this Fashion the worse for being of Popish and French Extraction; and for coming from a Country, where both Civil and Ecclesiastical Liberty have expired long ago: As they are not any where observed to live long after one another.   

CHAP. II.  
THus does our Right to these Assemblies stand by the Law Ecclesiastical: Which Law has been considered by itself, for the clearer Evidence of the Argument, and not in any opposition to the Temporal Government: It not following from hence that such Assemblies should be held, contrary to the Will of the Sovereign Power; but that the Sovereign Christian Power should be desired to permit, or rather to encourage them: If in this Request we were not already prevented by the Law of the Land, which not only allows, but commands them; as will appear, if, as hitherto I have enquired only into the Rights of a Synod of the Province of Canterbury at large, so I go on now to consider it as Attendant upon a Parliament of England. For so the matter at present stands, and has stood for 400 Years and upwards; to speak at the lowest: Tho' in the Elder Ages it plainly enough appears, that the Clergy came at once from both Provinces, and joined Nationally with the Lay Assembly.  
That this was the usage of the Saxon Reigns is acknowledged from the remaining Monuments of those Times: But what the Order of these National Assemblies was, is not, as I see, yet clearly discovered. As therefore the most knowing and exact of our Antiquaries have thought it proper, for the better understanding of our Saxon Government, to go over into Germany, and consult the Laws and Manners of those Places from whence we came; so possibly we might not be much out of our way in this Argument, if we looked into France, and enquired how the Franks there governed themselves; those Fellow-Germans, and near Neighbours of our Ancestors; and who had much about the same time possessed themselves of Gaul, as these had of this part of Britain; especially if we consider the times of Charles the Great, that Renowned and Mighty Monarch; whose Example, had it varied from the Common Original Practice, would yet probably have been imitated by our Lesser Kings.  
And here we may content ourselves with what the judicious De Marca reports to us of this matter in his Excellent Work De Concordiâ Sacerdotii & Imperii 
* L.VI. c. 24, 25. : That in King Pepin's time, when the Kingdom began to recover itself from the Disorders it suffered before, it was resolved that two National Ecclesiastical Synods should be held every Year; the One in March in the King's presence, and wherever he should appoint; the other in October, at the Place where the Bishops, in their former Meeting should agree upon. That whereas this last was a pure Ecclesiastical Council, the other was a Royal One, to which the Great Men of the Kingdom resorted from all Parts of it, to take their Resolutions for the succeeding Year: As there was also towards the Winter, another Royal, but Privy Council, consisting only of the Great Ministers, and such others as the King thought fit to call; in which Matters, were prepared, and digested into Heads, to be proposed to the Greater Assembly in the Spring.  
This General Convocation of the Spiritualty and Laity, which was after by Pepin's Son, Charles the Great, appointed to meet on the first of May, was called indifferently Conventus, Flacitum, Concilium, Synodus, or Colloquium; and in Latter Times, Parliamentum, which word also is still retained. In it the Clergy and Laity deliberated sometimes together, and sometimes apart, according as the nature of the Business to be treated of was; whether purely Secular, Ecclesiastical, or mixed. When they were apart, as well as when together, the Great Persons; Earls, etc. were distinguished from those of a lower Degree; sitting by themselves, and on Honourable Seats. These too managed the Debates, and form the Conclusions: the Commoners assenting, and sometimes speaking; but so, as rather to signify their Opinion, than give a Vote. This we may suppose to have been the Method also on the Spiritual side: And so Hincmar (out of Adalbardas' Cousin and Councillor to this Charles) expresses it. 
* Ad Proceres pro Institutione Ca●olom Regis. c. 29.  Generalias (says he) Universorum tam Clericorum quam Laicorum conveniebat: Seniores [that is, the Magnates, whether Counts or Bishops] propter Consilium ordinandum; Minores [that is, the Lesser Barons, and Inferior, but qualified Clergy] propter idem suscipiendum, & interdum pariter tractandum; & non ex Potestate, sed ex proprio mentis intellectu vel sententiâ confirmandum. And after all, what was resolved on, in this Great Assembly, was presented to the Emperor: And what he in his Wisdom approved, was to be observed by all 
* c. 34. .  
Much after the same manner, I suppose, were the mixed Meetings of our Saxon Kings held. They were called by the same Name; being styled Synodi 
† Which the Learned Mr. Nicholson, with all his Saxon knowledge, seems not to have considered, where he asserts the Meeting at Twiford, in which St. Cuthbert was chosen Bishop, to have been no Synod, but a Parliament. [See his Notes on Northumberland, in the Engl. Cambden p. 859.] An Instance, which shows how fit he is for that Office he has taken upon himself of being an Umpire in this Controversy. , and Concilia; tho' Secular Persons joined, and Secular Affairs were transacted in them. They were composed of the same Persons: For there sat the Bishops, Counts, etc. and there attended the Lesser Thanes, and their Equals 
‖ LL. Athelst. §. 71. Missae Presbyteri & Saecularis Thani Jusjurandum in Anglorum Lege computatur aeque carum. LL. H. 1. c. 64. , the Priests, etc. the Spiritual and Temporal part of the Convention consulting together, or asunder 
⸫ See Council of Cloveshoe Ann. 747. where tho' King Ethelbald his Princes and Dukes were present, yet are the Canons said to be made by the Clergy alone; who went aside for that purpose. Spelm. Conc. I. 1. p. 245. And the same thing is observed in the Glossary, concerning the Laws of Athelstan, in voce Parliamentum.  as they saw occasion. They were convened, in like manner, twice a Year, by a Law of King Alfred's 
(*) Mirror c. 1. Sect. 3.  and one of those Meetings was fixed (if not in his time, yet afterwards) to the Calends of May, 
(†) LL. Edu. c. 35. Debent Populi omnes & Gentes Universae singulis annis Convenire, scil. in capite Calendarum Maii.  as it was in Germany: And to this all the Proceres regni & Milites, & Liberi Homines universi totius regni Britanniae 
(‖) 
LL. Edu. eod. cap. [Vide & Spelm. in Gemotum.] and in such a full Folcmote as this Earl Godwin was Outlawed in the Confessors time: For so is Knighton's account of it. Edwardus in Parliamento pleno God winum cum Filiis suis exlegavit. X. Script. p. 2331.  
There was another Full Folcmote, which was a County Court only.   resorted, and it was styled Plenus Folcmote, and distinguished from the other Folcmote where only the Episcopi, Principes, & Comites were present, which was the foundation of that difference that appears afterwards in our Records, between a Great Council and a Parliament; (or Full Parliament, as it is often Emphatically called) the one being a Select Convention of the Nobles and Great Men, the other a General Assembly of all the States of the Realm: And both the latter and elder Practice among us, as well as the Institution of Pepin and Charles the Great, were originally derived from the more ancient Usages of the Barbarous Germans, which Tacitus, in a well known passage thus describes; De Minoribus Rebus Principes consultant, de Majoribus Omnes, and adds, Ita tamen ut ea quoque quorum penes Plebem Arbitrium est, apud Principes praetractentur 
* De Situ Moribus & Populis Germaniae. : which is exactly the same account that Hincmar has given us of the Custom, as it stood revived Seven hundred years afterwards.  
The Members also of our Saxon Councils were alike distinguished into such as had right of Suffrage and Subscription, and such as were present chief in order to 
† 
Thus a Charter of K. Ina is passed, Consentientbus omnibus Britanniae Regibus, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Ducibus atque Abbatibus. And they Subscribed and Confirmed it, Cum Praesentiâ Populationis. Monast. Vol. 1. p. 14, 15.  
And so his Laws were made, Exhortatione & Doctrinâ Episcoporum & Seniorum Sapientum. And in Magna Frequentiâ Servorum Dei. i. e. of Inferior Churchmen. Jorval p. 761.  
And in relation both to the Lower Clergy and Laity, that Passage in one of Ingulphus 's Charters is very observable, Fidelium Infinitâ Multitudine, qui omnes Regium Chirographum Laudaverunt; Dignita●●s ●erò sua nomina Subscripserunt. p. 17.  
I cannot bring myself to think that these and such like Phrases, signify only a Rabble, or mixed Multitude that resorted to such Meetings as these of their own Accord; but must, till I am better informed, 〈◊〉 that some Order and Method was observed in Convening them.   Approve. And some Footsteps there are of this Difference still visible in the several Writs to the Lords, and for the Commoners; the one running, Quòd intersitis cum Praelatis & Magnatibus— tractaturi, vestrúmque Concilium impensuri; The other Ordering them to be sent, Ad faciendum & consentiendum hiis quae tunc ibidem de Communi Concilio contigerit ordinari de Negotiis antedictis: as the Inferior Clergy's Summons also was anciently worded; though since the Complete Separation of the two Bodies it has run, ad consentiendum only.  
And the same Distinction doubtless there was between their Manner of Attending those great Councils, which was such, as showed regard and distance; and is even now kept up to a Degree, when the Commons come to the Bar of the House of Lords at the Opening and Dismission of the Parliament, and on other solemn occasions. And so did the Inferior Clergy too; and that sometimes, even after their Separation, as the Rolls of 
* Rot. Par. 2. H. 4. n. 14.  Parliament, when produced in their proper place, will show.  
To all which I shall add one Remark made on these Saxon Meetings by Mr. Selden, which will bring what has been said of them nearer home to our present purpose. He observes 
† Notae in Eadmerum. p. 167. LL. Edgari Polit. c. 5. , That the Shiregemots, or Sheriffs Turns, were not only ordered by the Old Saxon Laws 
‖ LL. Ed. Conf. c. 35.  to be held Twice a Year, as Provincial Councils were by the Canons; but punctually at the same Time also that those Councils were to be Summoned (i. e. after Easter and Michaelmas) as the Thirty fifth Chapter of Magna Charta shows. And this he supposes to have been practised on the State side, in compliance with the Rules of the Church; That the Bishop and the Earl (or his Sheriff) might have an Opportunity of sitting together in Court, according to the mixed Policy of those times. This does not exactly square; because the Canons related to a Synod of the Province, whereas this was only a County Meeting: However I thankfully accept the Hint, and desire thus to improve it,— That the Two General Folcmotes, (not the Particular Shiremots) were adjusted to the Canonical Times of Assembling. For one of these we find, was to be held constantly at the beginning of May 
* Vide Spelm. in Gemotum. , that is, immediately after the Easter Turn was over (for at the same Time both could not be held, since the same Persons were obliged to Attend both) and therefore the other, we may presume, if it Met that Year, was held at the like Distance from the Michaelmas Turn. These County-Courts being Preparative to the National Assembly; either as to the Causes that were first to be Tried there, and then finally determined here 
† According to that Law of Canutus (Part 2. §. 18.) which allowed the Plaintiff an immediate Appeal to the King, if the Shire-Gemot delayed his Remedy above Four Court Days. ; or (if the Antiquaries would give me leave to say so) for the Return of Members. However that may be, certain it is, that in aftertimes, the Quindena Paschae, and Quindena Michaëlis, were Customary Periods of Assembling the Parliament; and are so often mentioned as such by our Histories, as to give us good ground to believe, they might spring from the old Saxon Usage, as That did from Ecclesiastical Practice.  
Thus our Church Then held her Synods concurrently with the Lay-Councils; not indeed according to the strict Letter of the Canons (for both Provinces Assembled together) but so however, as to satisfy the Intent of them, and to prevent other Synods, that were purely Provincial, from Assembling so often as they should, and would otherwise have done. And this therefore may be added to the Reasons that the most Learned De Marca has given 
* L. VI c. 5.  for the Intermission of those Meetings here in the West; notwithstanding the frequent Decrees of the Church for their Continuance or Revival.  
The Norman Revolution made no change in this respect: for though the Conqueror is known to have divided the Court of the Bishop and Earl, who before mixed Jurisdictions; yet he continued still to Assemble the Clergy Nationally with the Laity, here as in Normandy 
† Vide Orderic. Vital. ad an. 1080. p. 552. add an. 1095. p. 722. Where also it is said, Abbates totius Provinciae cum Clero & parte Procerum affuerunt. ; and united them more closely than before by his new Tenure of Knight-Service, which obliged all Persons that held of the Crown, whether Spiritual or Temporal, equally to Attend his Great Councils. And to These therefore were Summoned, not the Bishops, and great Abbots alone, but many others also of the Lower, and even of the Undignified Clergy; who, as Doomsday Book shows, held Lands of the King in every Shire 
† 4711. Knight's Fees were Vested in Parochial Churches, says the Author of Eulogium. ; and to be sure therefore were present, together with the other Crown-Tenants, even in the Conqueror's Curiae, held acourse at the Three great Festivals; and appeared no doubt in greater Numbers, at his more full and general Assemblies of all the States of the Realm. At such only, Church-Affairs seem to have been Transacted; not at his Ordinary Curiae, (though some of the Clergy of all Ranks might be present there:) unless when these Curiae, and those great Councils were co-incident, and the latter Summoned to meet extraordinarily at the same time that the former met acourse. As the Case was in that mixed Convention at Winchester, where Stigand was Deprived; and in another at Gloucester, where several Bishops were made.  
How long exactly the Saxon Manner of mixed Councils continued, is not easy to say. However that for several Reigns after the Conquest it obtained, is certain; and it is probable, that the Disuse of it might begin toward the middle of H. II. when the Clergy, we are told, Disjoined themselves from the Laity 
‖ Post Turonense Concilium (which was in 1163. about the Time of the Council of Clarendon) cum Omnibus penè in Rebus Clerus se a Populo disjunxisset. Antiqu. Britann. p. 131.  in every respect, and set up to be Independent; being encouraged in this Attempt by the Pope (whose Power was then very great) and by the Success which they had in their struggle with the Crown about the Affair of Archbishop Becket, and the Articles of Clarendon.  
And this Division of the Spiritualty from the Temporalty, which began in H. the IIds. time, took Root under his Successors, and was settled more and more by the Absence of Richard the First in the Holy Land, by King John's weak, and H. the IIIds. troubled Reign.  
Now therefore the Clergy seem to have declined Obedience to the Lay-Summons; except such of them only as were obliged to attend the Great Councils of the Realm by their Offices, or their Tenors; so that in the Sixth of King john, when the King had a mind to have all the Abbots and Prior's present in Parliament, he was forced to Cite them by the several Bishops of the Dioceses 
* Cl. 6. Jo. M. 3. dors. , and not by an immediate Summons. And in 49 H. 3. when every Abbot had his Distinct Writ, they are said to have been Voluntariè summoniti 
† Pat. 26. E. 3. PS. 1. M. 22. in Pryn's Reg. of Par. Writ. Vol. 1. p. 142. , i. e. by their own Consent; not as of Right, or as owing the Crown any such Service.  
To this Recess a way had been before opened by the Dispute between the Two Metropolitans, Thurstan Archbishop of York, refusing that Subjection to the See of Canterbury, which had been paid to it by his Predecessors from Lanfranks time; when in a great Council (held first at Winchester, and then at Windsor) it was solemnly determined, That the Archbishop of York, and his Clergy, should attend the Archbishop of Canterbury's Conciliary Meetings and Summons 
‖ Diceto de Archi. Cant. p. 685. . But this Rule was broke in upon in less than Fifty Years after it was settled; and the See of York, by the favour of the Pope made Independent. And now therefore, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Authority being confined to his own Province, and the Interest of the Crown in calling the Body of the Clergy together, afterwards lessening apace; the Affairs of the Church came at length to be transacted in Two separate Provincial Synods, and the Clergy seldom to Assemble Nationally, but at the Command of a Legate; who often called them together in H. the IIId's Reign; and that (to bring the Observation nearer to my Subject) at the very time of Parliament: And sometimes I find, that both the Regal and Legantine Authority joined in Convening them. 
* Compare M. Par. p. 915. with the Ann. of Burt. p. 355.   
But their ordinary way of attending the Parliament, was not in one National Council, but in two separate Assemblies of the Province, as is manifest from the Constitution of Reading formerly Cited; where Two Proctors are appointed to be sent from every Diocese, to appear in proximâ Congregatione nostrâ tempore Parliamenti proximi 
† Constit. Provinc. p. 25. . Here we see the Provincial Synods of the Clergy (for the Council of Reading was such) are spoken of in the 7th Year of E. I. (when this Council was held) as Meeting acourse together with the Parliament. And we may be sure therefore, that the Custom was of Elder date; though when it arose cannot be precisely determined.  
But this Wise and High-spirited Prince, finding the Clergy thus divided from the Laity, and from one another, hard to be dealt with, resolved to restore the old Practice, and to bring them Nationally to Parliament; which he did, by inserting into the Bishop's Writ that Clause which gins with the word Premunientes, and Summoning by the means of it, all the Secular Clergy under Bishops, either in Person, or by their Proxies; as also those Religious, who were so far Secular as to be Chapters to the Bishops, and placed in the Heads of the several Dioceses; such as the Priors and Convents of Canterbury, Winchester, Worcester, etc. were. The Mere Religious, as professing to be out of the World, had the Privilege also of being left out of those Summons; the Crown contenting itself to direct particular Writs to all the great Abbots and Priors, whether holding by Barony or not; without commanding the Attendance of their Convents.  
The Numbers of the Lower Clergy Cited by the Archbishop to his Parliamentary Convocations had born some proportion all along to those of the Lower Laity called at the same time to Parliaments 
* For this Reason the Constitution of Reading appointed two Proctors for every Diocese. And a Mandate of Peckam in 1290. (See his Register) Cited out of every Diocese, Duos vel tres Procuratores, when the Commons Writ of the same Year ra●, Duos vel tres de discretioribus milibus. Brady Introd. p. 149. ; and the Premunitory Summons therefore, when first practised by this King, still carried on the Parallel. By it some were ordered to appear for the Diocese (the County Christian) and some for the Cathedral Clergy of those Cities that sent Members to Parliament. And as the Welsh Shires returned but one Knight apiece 
† When this began I know not; for many Years after the Commons were Summoned as they are now, I find the Community of Wales appearing in Parliament, as those of Scotland sometimes did, by a certain Number returned for the Whole. , so their several Dioceses were to appear by a single Proctor 
‖ So I gather from the Usage of those Assemblies which were purely Ecclesiastical. To one of which (An. 1302.) the English Clergy were Summoned by Two, and the Welsh by One Proctor apiece. Registr. Winchel●ey. fol. 147. . And beside all these, the Archdeacon's 
(*) M. Par. ad Ann. 1247. p. 719.  and Deans 
(†) Idem p. 240. ad 15. Joh.  having been long before called to the Great Councils of the Realm, were not omitted now, but comprised in the same Writ of Summons.  
Nor were their Numbers only in some measure proportionable, but the Powers also with which they came, Originally the very same; so that their first Writs of Summons ran equally, ad Tractandum, Ordinandum, & Faciendum 
* 
22. E. 1. in Registro Henr. Prioris.  
23. E. 1. apud Dugdal. Summon.  ; and when the one Summoned ad Ordinandum only 
† Registr. Hen. Pr. Fol. 69. Dugd. Summ. p. 13. , or ad Faciendum & Consentiendum 
‖ 17. E. 2. Dugd. p. 92. Pryn. Reg. Parl. Wr. Vol. 2. p. 77. 5 E. 3. Dugd. p. 163. Pryn. Ibid. p. 86, etc. , so did the other: The Minute Alterations of these Forms taking place in both Writs at once, in various Instances; and the Procuratoria, which were framed upon those Writs for the Lower Clergy, answering almost in Terms the Returns that were made for the 
⸪ Pryn R. P. W. 4. Vol. p. 436.  Laity. To omit other Correspondencies which might be observed, if these were not sufficient, to show, That the Clergy brought to Parliament by the Premunientes, were to all intents and purposes, what they were long afterwards in the Rolls of Parliament called, The Commons Spiritual of the Realm.  
This Clause, how much soever to the real Interest and Advantage of the Lower Clergy, was yet thought a Burden by them, and an inroad upon their Privileges; and they tried all ways therefore of withstanding or declining it; but in vain: for the Genius of that mighty Monarch, who was not used to be baffled in any Attempt, carried it against all their Opposition. And the Ground he had thus gained upon them, he kept throughout all his Reign; as appears by the Records of the last Parliament (but the First, whose Proxy Roll is preserved) which Ryley has Printed at length in his Placita Parliamentaria 
* P. 321. . There the Proxy's are entered of every Bishop Abbot, Prior, Dean, and Archdeacon, that did not Personally appear in Parliament, as also of the Clergy of every Chapter and Diocese.  
But a weak Prince, and a disorderly Government succeeding, they laid hold of that favourable Opportunity to resume their pretences to Exemption. The wise Maxim was now forgotten by which they governed themselves, and made their stand against the Pope in Henry the Third's Reign [Regnum & Sacerdotium nullatenùs sint divisa 
† An. Burt. P. 307. ]: A Maxim, that never hurt the Clergy when they stuck to it, as it has never prospered with them when they departed from it; nor, I believe, ever will. They liked not the Premunientes at first, and the severe Taxes they had smarted under ever since it went out, made them like it still worse; and had quite altered their Mind and their Measures: So that now they thought, their Interest and Safety lay in Uniting as closely with the Pope, and Dividing as far as they could from the Laity. The Archbishop, no doubt, favouring this Opinion, with a prospect of sharing the Pope's Power over them; and under the Pretence that it would be more for the Honour of him and his Clergy to be still by Themselves in Two Assemblies of Convocation, answerable in some proportion to the Two Houses of Parliament; according to Bishop Ravis' just and impartial 
‖ In his Reasons for a Reunion presented to Q. Eliz. Hist. Ref. Part 2. Coll. of Records, n. 18.  Observation. The Separation therefore was resolved on; attempted in Edward the First's, advanced very far in Edward the Second, and fully settled in Edward the Third's Reign.  
Even under the former of these Princes, though the Clergy obeyed the Parliamentary Summons duly, yet were they backward to answer the Ends of it, unless they might do it in their own Manner; and therefore referred themselves more than once to a Fuller Assembly of the Province, to be gathered by the Archbishop; where they knew they should be joined by All the Religious, and by Their help be enabled either better to put off the Burden that might be laid upon them, or better to bear it.  
His easy Successor was prevailed with yet further, to mix Authorities, and to take the Archbishop's Power along with him in Convening them; so that under him the way was often, when the Bishop's Writ with the Clause Premunientes went out, to send Two other Writs to the Two Metropolitans, directing them to cite Those [and Those Only] of their Province by a general Mandate, which were Summoned severally by the Bishop's Writs. But because this, though a great Condescension of the Crown, was still an Hardship upon the Archbishop, out of whose Province the Parliament was held, who could not regularly bring his Subjects to any place not within his Jurisdiction; and because it was known to be more agreeable to the Rules of the Church, and found to be more conducive to the Peace of the State 
* In respect to the Controversy about the Supreme Bearing of the Archiepiscopal Crosses; which never raged so high, as when the Archbishops met one another at the Head of the Clergy of their Provinces. , that the Clergy of each Province should Assemble apart; therefore this Accommodation afterwards took place; That the Premunientes should still Summon them from the King to meet Parliamentarily, but that sufficient Obedience should be understood to be paid to it, if the Clergy met Provincially, though not at the same Place, yet about the same Time, and to the same Purpose, to be ready to hear what should be Proposed from the King; to give their Advice when asked, and their Consent when requisite; to offer their Aids, and their Petitions; and, in short, to answer the necessary Affairs of the King and Kingdom.  
Not that the Clause Premunientes now grew useless and insignificant: for still the Bishop (who executed the Royal Writs upon the Clergy of the Diocese, as the Sheriff did upon the Laity of the County) when he received his Summons to Parliament, transmitted it to those of the Lower Clergy concerned; and they still made their returns to it: Such of them as were not to Attend in Person, formally Impowering their Proctors to Appear and Consent for them in Parliament, according to the Tenor of the Bishop's Writ; though those Proctors sat afterwards and acted in Convocation. An instance of such a Procuratorium for the Parliament, I have seen as low as 1507. and another of an execution of the Premunientes by the Bishop; yet lower in the Reign of Edward the Sixth; though Returns had then Ceased, or at least were not Entered. Thus the Forms were kept up, and by that means the King's Right of Summoning the Clergy asserted and owned: And, so the State-ends of Summoning them were also answered, they were left to do it in an Ecclesiastical way; and to attend the Parliament and the Business of it, not in One Body, as they were called, but in Two Provincial Assemblies. This they did at first by the Connivance of the Crown, rather than any express Allowance; the Archbishop of his own accord sending out a Provincial Citation concurrently with the Bishop's Writs of Summons; which Method obtaining, and these Meetings of the Province being tacitly accepted in lieu of the Clergy's resort to Parliament; it grew necessary for the King to employ his Authority also in Convening them; for otherwise it had been at the Archbishop's Discretion, whether he would have any such Meetings or not; and so the Crown might have lost the Clergy's Assistance in Parliament. This gave birth to the custom of issuing out Two Convocation-Writs, when a New Parliament was to be Chosen; which though set on foot before, yet settled not into a Rule till some Years after Edward the Third was in the Throne; and than it was practised as duly and regularly, and in much the same manner as it is at this day: Take one Instance (and that not the Earliest which might be given) instead of many.  
In the Parliament Roll of his Eighteenth Year we read, That it had been agreed for the urgent Affairs of the Kingdom, to hold a Parliament at Westminster [on the Monday after the Octaves of Trinity] and that the Archbishop should call a Convocation of the Prelates and others of the Clergy of his Province, to the Church of St. Paul's, London, on the Morrow of Trinity, for the Dispatch of the said Affairs. To which Convocation none of the greater Prelates came on the said Morrow of Trinity, or in the Eight days ensuing, except the Archbishop, [or Two or Three other Bishops there named] as the King was given to understand; at which he much marvelled: As also that the Great Men were not come to the Parliament upon the Day to which they were Summoned:— And he charged the Archbishop therefore to do what belonged to him, in relation to those of the Clergy of his Province, who came not to the said Convocation, nor Obeyed his Mandate: And the King would do what belonged to himself, in relation to such as came not to Parliament, nor Obeyed his Commands. 
* Rot. Par. 18. E. 3. n. 1.   
If we supply this Record with the Writs extant on the Back of the Roll, it will appear that the Clergy were Summoned here just as they are now, by the Archbishop, at the King's Order, or Letter of Request, as it was then deemed and 
† Even by the Crown itself; for in the 25 E. 3. a Writ to the Archbishop of York, in the Close Roll of that Year recites, that the Archbishop of Canterbury had called his Clergy in Quindenâ Paschae, ad Rogatum Nostrum.  styled; though it ran, as now, Rogando Mandamus, and though the peremptory Time and Place of the Clergies Assembling were prefixed by it: and we see therefore that Punishment is Ordered in the Roll for their disobeying the Archbishop's Mandate; but not a word of their not complying with the King's Summons. But this was only the Language of Popery, by which they kept up their pretences to Exemption; and the Clergy were indulged in the Form, so the Thing were but effectually done; which was, to have them Meet together with the Parliament, and for the Dispatch of the same urgent Affairs of the Kingdom 
* Pur treter, Parlour, & ordeigner ce que soit miet, affaire pur l' esploit des dit busoignes— Are the Words of the Roll; and one of these words is that from whence the Name of Parliament is derived. ; for which the Parliament Met. And this was no new Practice, but a Method now Settled and Customary; of which, various Precedent Instances might, if they were needful, be given; but it is a short and sufficient Proof of it, that the Words of the the King's Writ to the Archbishop run, More solito convocari faciatis.  
We shall find also, that the Archbishop of York had a Writ for That Province, as the Archbishop of Canterbury had for This; only he was to Convene his Clergy about a Fortnight Later, than the other Province met 
† Province of Canterbury met on the Morrow of Trinity, i. e. May 31. Easter falling that Year on April 4. That of York the Wednesday after St. Barnabas, i. e. June 16. . And in this the way then taken varied a little from Modern Practice, which has made those Two Meetings perfectly Coincident. But the ancient Usage was, for the Clergy of Canterbury to Assemble first, in order to set the Precedent, which it was expected that the other Province should almost implicitly follow: and with reason; since, if the Two Provinces had continued to attend the Parliament in One Body, as they did of Old, the York Clergy would have had no Negative upon the Parliamentary Grants of the Clergy; being a very unproportioned part of the Assembly. When therefore they desired to Meet and grant Separately, the Crown had reason to expect, that what the greater Province did, should be a Rule to the less, or otherwise not to have consented to their Separation. Very early in the Rolls therefore this Passage occurs, That the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other Nobles [the King's Commissioners in his absence] should require the Archbishop of York to contribute for the Defence of the North, as They [i. e. I suppose, as the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Clergy] had done 
13 E. 3. n. 18. . And even in Church Acts, as well as State Aids, what had passed the one, was held to be a kind of Law to the other; so that in 1463 we find the Convocation of York adopting at once all the Constitutions made by that of Canterbury, and as yet not received 
† Memorand. quòd Praelati & Clerus in Convocatione 1463. Concedunt Unanimiter, quòd Effectus Constitutionum Provincialium Cantuar. Prov. ante haec tempora tent. & habit. Constitutionibus Prov. Ebor. nullo modo repugnant, seu prejudicial & non aliter nec alio modo admittantur. Et quòd hujusmodi Constitutiones Prov. Cant. & Effectus earundem, ut praefertur, inter Constitutiones Provinciae Ebor. prout indiget, & decet in serantur, & cum eisdem de caetero servandae incorporentur, & pro Jure observentur. Registrum Both. Arch. Ebor. f. 143. ; a Practice that I doubt not was often in elder times repeated, and we know is still continued.  
And as the time of the Convocation of Canterbury's assembling was, in this and in most oother Ancient Instances different from that of her Sister Province; so was it, we see, different also from that of Parliament. Here it preceded, 
‖ Seven Days.  but generally it followed the Parliament a Week or two; on purpose, as I apprehend, that the Bishops and Parliamentary Abbots might be at leisure to attend both those Meetings. And this was the usual Distance throughout Edward the Third, and Richard the Second Reigns, till Henry the Fourth began to enlarge it; in and after whose time the Clergy held their Assemblies during, and near the Sessions of Parliament, but not thoroughly concurrent with them; the Archbishop it seems, affecting Independency, and the King, who above all things desired to stand well with the Clergy, favouring him and them in that respect; and giving way to their being called later, or dismissed sooner than the Laity, as having been already answered in his Demands, at that, or some other Synod of the Province, called out of Parliament-time: Such Assemblies being frequent in those days, and transacting all Affairs that belonged even to Parliamentary Convocations.  
But this was only an Interruption of the Old Practice for a time, not a through alteration of it: for about the Entrance of the last Age, when the Prerogative began to recover the Ground it had lost to the Church, we find these Meetings of the Clergy and Laity more closely united; the Dates of Henry the Eighth's Convocation being all one, or a few days before, or after, (if not altogether the same with) those of his Parliaments: And from 1 Edw. 6. to this Reign the Clergy have, I think, met always and parted within a day of the Parliament; the day itself on which the Parliament sat and risen, being not judged so proper for this purpose, because the Bishops were then to attend the House of Lords. But since the late Revolution, the Business of these Two Meetings not interfering, the same day has served to open both of 'em; or rather to open the one, and shut up the other. There have been no Deviations from this Rule that I know of, except in a Legatin Synod or two; (which are no Precedents) and once in the Convocation of 1640: but that Experiment succeeded too ill to be ever tried a Second Time.  
The Clergy therefore, tho' by a Mistake in their Politics separated from the Parliament, yet continued still to attend it, in Two Provincial Assemblies, or Convocations: which, as they met for the same Purpose, and had the same Reasons of State inserted into their Writs of Summons, as the Parliament had; so did they (to manifest yet more their Origin and Alliance) keep closely up to the Forms, and Rules, and Manner of Sitting, and Acting, practised in Parliament. I cannot do right to my Subject, without pointing out several Particulars, wherein this Conformity was preserved; and I shall not therefore, I hope, be misinterpreted in doing it.  
The Two Houses of Parliament sat together Originally; and so therefore did the Two Houses of Convocation: of which, to omit other Proofs, I shall mention that only which may be drawn from the Inferior Clergy's being sent as Delegates from the Bishops to represent, and act for 'em in Convocation: an Usage, which tho' practised long after the Greater Prelates divided from the Less, yet must, in all Probability, have had its Rise, when they were together; as the like Custom also in Parliament had: whither the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being used to send Commoners to Vote for them, while the States were together, continued the Practice also, long after they were asunder; as appears, on the Spiritual Side, by Numerous Instruments of Proxy, yet remaining in the Bishop's Registers; and, on the Temporal, by some Probable Inferences of Mr. Elsing 
* Cap. 5. p. 126. ; though Direct Proofs of it are, together with the Proxy Rolls, lost 
† One I find, in the 5 H. 5. where Th. de la War, a Baron gives Letters of Proxy to two Commoners; and those (which is very particular) of the Clergy: but his case was particular for his Barony descended to him after he was in Orders; and he is styled therefore constantly Magister, and not Dom. de la War in his Summons to Parliament.   
As the Commons in Process of Time withdrew from the Peers, so did the Inferior Clergy from the Bishops and Abbats: Each having their Prolocutor in ordinary (the very Word, that is used every where in the Latin Rolls 
* And sometimes in the English journals. See Sir Symonds d'Ewe●, p. 15. & p. 328, etc.  for the Speaker) and not withdrawing only from the Great Lords upon occasion, for Liberty of Debate, and in order the better to agree, upon their Petitions, and Opinions, as I presume they always did even in the Old mixed Assemblies; but meeting together, at the very first in a Distinct Body, and joining with the Upper House only on Great Occasions.  
The Prolocutor was so chosen, as the Speaker, by the Body, whose Mouth he was; so presented to the Archbishop, and confirmed by him, as the other was by the King. His Office was much the same on either side; He moderated their Debates, kept them to Order, and attended the Lords sometimes with the sense of the House; and at the Entrance of his Office, disabled himself in form; several Instances of which occur in the latter Acts of Convocation 
* Act. MS. Conu. 1541 Sess. 2. & 1554. Sess. 3. & 1562. ad jan. 16. .  
Bills of Money, and Grievances, (but especially the latter) began usually in the Lower House, here, as well as there; had alike several Readins; and were Enacted at the Petition of that House, as Statutes anciently were: and the Successive Variations in the Enacting Forms of our Statutes were observed and transcribed generally into the Clergy's Constitutions.  
Their Subsidies were often given Conditionally, and with Appropriating Clauses; and Indentures drawn upon those Conditions, between the Archbishop and the King, if the Grant was to the Crown; or between the Archbishop and the Prolocutor of the Lower House 
† 
Scriptutura Indentata— inter Reverendissimum Tho— ex unâ parte, & Mag. Dogett Prolocutorem Cleri— & eundem Clerum ex alterâ testatur quòd dictus Clerus— concessit dicto Reverendissimo Patri Caritativum Subsidium— Registrum Wottonian. ad fin.  
And so the Commons granted, per quandam Indenturam Sigillo Prolocutoris Sigillatam.  , if to the Archbishop; just as the Way was in the Grants of the Commons.  
In Matters of Jurisdiction the Upper House gave Sentence, the Lower House prosecuted, as was usual in Parliament: for which reason the Act of H. 8. 
* 24 H. 8. c. 12.  which in all Causes relating to the King or his Successors, allowed an Appeal to Convocation, mentioned the Bishops, Abbats and Priors of the Upper House only, because They only were Judges.  
But over their Own Members both Houses of Convocation had Power, in like manner as those of Parliament; which they exercised, either jointly, or apart; by Mulcts 
(a) See an Instance An 1462. in Anth. Harmar. p. 32. , and Confinements 
(b) If you will not give place (quoth the Prolocutor to Archdeacon Philpot; being Commissioned, I suppose, so to speak, by the House) I will send you to Prison. This is not, quoth Philpot, according to your Promise▪ etc. not denying the House's Power, but the Justice only of exerting it in his Case. Fox.  sometimes: but chief, by inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures; by Excommunicating 
(c) See Instance of Bishop Cheyney, Excommunicated for departing the Convocation without Leave. Hist. of the Troubls. and Try. of Laud. p. 82. , Suspending 
(d) See Bancroft ' s Register, fol. 138, 139. for an Instance of a Dean, an Archdeacon, and a Proctor suspended, for deserting the Synod— Mandatis nostris licitis vel Prolocutoris dictae Convocationis minimè obtemperantes,— As the Archbishop's Sentence of Suspension runs. , Depriving 
(e) See an Instance of Bishop Goodman, Sentenced to be deprived by the Convoc. of 1640. for refusing to subscribe the Canons. Heyl. Life of Laud. Pag. 446. .  
My Lord of Sarum has suggested 
* Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 130.  another Branch of this Parallel; that as none were of the Lower House of Parliament, but such as came thither by Election, and all that had Personal Summons, sat Above; so the Lower House of Convocation was composed of those who were deputed thither from others, and the Upper of such as sat in their own Right. But this Conjecture contradicting not only the Records of the Convocations in Henry the Eighth's Reign (to which my Lord applies it) but all the Elder Accounts of our Synods in the Archbishop's Registers; where the Deans, and Archdeacon's are said always, as now, to sit together with the Proctors of the Clergy; I am sorry, that I cannot fall in with it: the rather, because it would give me an opportunity of adorning these Rude Collections with something drawn from his Lordship's Exacter Works, and of making him my Public Acknowledgements for it.  
His Lordship would perhaps have omitted this Guess, had he considered, that the Provincial Assemblies of the Clergy were (as I have shown) in lieu of that Parliamentary Attendance which the Crown challenged by the Premunientes; and their Session therefore in Two Houses was adapted to the Parliamentary Summons: so that between Them and the Laiety the Parallel in this respect ran, that, as all of the Laiety who were Summoned singly 
* Singillatim and in Generali, are the words of Art used to distinguish these Two sorts of Summons in K. John 's Charter.  by the King, sat in Parliament as Peers, and all who were Summoned generally by the Sheriff, as Commoners; so in the Convocation, all of the Clergy, who had been called immediately, and by Name to Parliament, belonged to the Bishop's house; but such as were used to be cited at second Hand only, and Mediante Episcopo (as Deans, Cathedral-priors' 
† These for a long time after the Distinction of the two Houses of Convocation, sat in the Lower House; but afterwards with the other Priors and Abbats in the Upper. , Archdeacon's, and the Proctors of the Clergy) sat apart by themselves.  
That which led his Lordship into this Opinion was it seems a Passage in joscelin 
* Ad Ann. 1532. , where a Question 
† About the Unlawfulness of the King's first Marriage.  is said to have been carried for the Crown by 216 in the Upper House; (i. e. by the whole Upper House, for there were none against it) whereas in the Lower, 23. only were present, and but 14. of those for it. Which Disparity of Numbers his Lordship is at a loss how to account for otherwise than by the Supposition laid down. But since that is plainly Erroneous, I may, I hope, without Presumption, endeavour to solve the Difficulty ●nother way. His Lordship knows very well, that the Bishops with those Abbats and Priors, who were of some consideration, amounted to several Hundreds in Number; out of which there is no doubt but 216 might be got to do the King's Business; especially at that Critical Juncture, when the General Dissolution of Monasteries was threatened, and already in part begun 
* For in June before this Convocation sat, the King procured a Bull from the Pope to suppress several. Hist. Ref. 1. Vol. p. 121.  and the Regulars had no way to escape the Storm which they saw gathering, but by complying with the King's Demands, tho' never so unreasonable: Whereas the Inferior Seculars having no such Fears, and lying generally out of the Reach either of the Awe or Bribes of a Court, were as backward to give their helping hand in this case as the Religious were forward; and but 14. therefore of the Lower House could be prevailed with to lend the King a Vote. This perhaps may be no improbable Solution of the Difficulty, if after all it ●e not a Numeral Mistake of the Transcriber, or Printer; such as I find sometimes in that Work (I mean in the Hanover Edition of it, which alone I have): for instance, the Convocation in 1536, is said to meet Nonis julii, instead of Nono [die] julii: for it met not on the 5 th'. but the 9 th'. of july, as the Writ still extant shows.  
But enough of this:— I return to those Marks of Resemblance which were between the Parliament and Convocation long after they separated; and by which, as by some common Ensigns of Honour, the One of these may be plainly discerned to be of the same Family and Descent, as it were, with the Other.  
The Instruments impowering the Proctors of the Clergy to act for the several Dioceses were drawn up, I have said, in the same Form almost with those for the Knights of Shires. I add, that they had equally Wages from those they represented: and those Wages were laid on the Diocese with the same Distinction that the Others were on the County; all such as came Personally to Parliament, either as Councillors, or Assistants, being excused from contributing to 'em: not to descend to yet minuter Differences, which were still on both sides alike observed  
And which is very Material, the Proctors enjoying these Expenses, are in the Writs and Records of that time expressly said to be entitled to 'em, on the account of their Service in Parliament: tho', strictly speaking, they sat not in Parliament; but only, as they do now; in a Convocation held concurrently with it. Of which I will stop to give the Reader here two very significant Instances: the One is, of a Discharge which the Abbot of Leicester obtained from Personal Attendance on the Parliament, on condition, as the Patent speaks, Quod dictus Abbas & successores sui in Procuratores ad hujusmodi Parliamenta & Concilia per Clerum mittendos consentiant, &, ut moris est, expensis contribuant eorundem 
† Pat. 26. E. 3. par. 1. M. 22. See it in Selden's Tit. of Hon. par. 2. c. 5. p. 607. . The other is, of a Writ in Fitz-herbert 
* Nat. Prev. §. 141. , forbidding the Archdeacon to compel the King's Clerks in Chancery attending his Parliaments, tho' Beneficed in the Diocese, ad contribuendum ratione beneficiorum suorum Expensis Procuratorum qui ad dictum Parliamentum pro Clero dictae Dioeces. venerunt, seu aliorum Procuratorum, quos ad alia Parliamenta, etc. per nos nunc tenenda venire continget. This Writ issued by Authority of Parliament; for it recites an Ordinance, made to this purpose in a Parliament held 4 R. 2. 
* Not 4 E. 3. as the Printed Writ in Fitzh. implies; for no Parliament met at Northampton in the 4 th'. Year of his Reign.  and is founded upon it.  
And that the Levy of these Expenses continued throughout the succeeding Reigns, to the very time of the Reformation, I have seen a good Proof, in a certain Bishop's Mandate 
† Anno 1543. , for collecting a Penny in the Pound to this purpose: which, it says, De laudabili legitiméque praescriptâ Consuetudine— in qualibet Convocatione hujusmodi contribui solebat, & solet, & ex aequitate, consideratis praemissis, debet. How long afterwards they were paid, or when first discontinued, I know not; but suppose, that the Disuse of them, as to the Deputed Clergy, might come on by much the same steps, and about the same time that it did in the House of Commons.  
In one thing however the Clergy Delegates differed from those of the Laity; that the first, tho' Proxys themselves, could, upon occasion, appoint other Proxies in their stead, if their Instruments ran, Cum potestate substituendi alium Procuratorem, as they often anciently did 
* And sometimes of late: for 1 E. 6. One of the Proctors for the Clergy of Hereford appointed Two others in his room. [See Synodalia.] And in his last Year the Procuratorium for the Dean and Chapter of Paul 's had that Clause in it: for so it stands entered in Bishop Ridley's Register. Fol. 294. . Whereas I find no Instance, that this was ever practised among the Commons: The reason of which I conceive to be, that the Clergy were to attend the Call, not only of the King in his Parliaments, but of the Pope, and the Archbishop also in their several Synods; and having therefore a Greater Burden in this respect than the Laity, were indulged also a Greater Liberty.  
Further, the Members of Convocation had not only Parliamentary Wages, but Parliamentary Privileges too; and those, I question not, from their first Separation: tho' we find, that they were solemnly settled upon them, long afterward, in the 8 H. 6. But that Act might be made, as well to affirm the Old Privileges, which, after the Clergy had been dismembered so long, might begin to be disputed; as to add the New, which had accrued, since the Separation: and withal to confer them both, not only on Parliamentary Convocations, but on Convocations in general, whenever meeting at the King's Summons.  
Nor was the Separation so complete, but that the Inferior Clergy joined Occasionally with the Laity, and attended the King together with the States of Parliament; either at the first Opening, or Dissolution of it, or at other solemn times, when the King came to the House of Lords, and something was to be done en plein Parliament, i. e. in a Full Assembly of the Clergy and Laity, as that Expression sometimes in the Elder Rolls seems to imply 
* 6 E. 3. n. 9 Something is said to be agreed, per touse en plein Parliament; and those are thus reckoned up before in the same Number,— Les Prelates, Counts, Baronns, & touse les autres Somons a mesme le Parliament: which includes the Inferior Clergy, for They were Summoned this time by the Premunientes. See Dugd. p. ●67▪ . That they appeared anciently in Parliament, the first day of its Session, the Roll of the first Parliament held 6 E. 3. is a clear Proof: where, after Sir jeffery le Scroop, had in the King's Presence; declared the Causes of calling it, it is said, that the Bishops, and Proctors of the Clergy, went apart to 
* Si alerent mesmes les Prelatz & les Procurators de la Clergy per eux mesmes, a conseiler de choses susdites.—  consult by themselves. That they came thither also on other Solemn Occasions, during the Session, the following Passage implies; where, upon the King's declaring the Bishop of Norwich's Pardon from the Throne, it is said, that the Archbishop, with his Brethren, the Abbats, and Priors, and the Clergy, there assembled 
† Ft lafoy 〈◊〉 illoneques esteant●— (Rot. Parl. 2 H. 4. n. 14.) By which, whether the Convocation-Clergy be meant, cannot, I think, well bear a Doubt; it being very improbable, that those few Inferior Clerks, who were of the King's Counsel, or otherwise called up to the House of Lords, s●ould be only intended. , most humbly kneeling, thanked his Majesty for his Royal Grace and Goodness. Which I mention the rather, because the Abridgement of the Rolls 
⸫ P. 405.  takes no notice of any but Bishops, on this occasion.  
But these are rare Instances: we have oftener Accounts of the Lower House of Convocation joining with that of Parliament, (not indeed in one Assembly, but however) in the same Parliamentary Requests; and there are many Instances, by which it appears, that they were in such Requests, and on other Occasions, still reputed, and called a part of the Community of the Realm. Witness that Petition in Parliament to Hen. the 4 th'. which gins, The Commons of your Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal 
* Suppliant humblement les Communes de vostre royalme, si bien Espirituelz come Temporelz. Rot. Parl. 7, & 8. Hen. 4. n. 128.  most humbly pray. And here again the Abridgement is remarkably silent. And this Style I can trace as low as the 35 H. 8. a Proclamation of which year recites, that, The Nobles and Commons both spiritual and Temporal assembled in our Court of Parliament have upon Goode Lawful and Virtuous Grounds, and for the Public Weal of this our Realm, by one hold Assent granted, and annexed, knit and unyed to the Crown Imperial of the same the Title, Dignity, and Style of Supreme Heed in Earth ymmediatelye under god of the Church of England.  
The Proclamation is in Bonner's Register 
† Fol. 42. , which tho' my Lord of Sarum perused, yet, it seems, he overlooked this Paper, and the Passage I have mentioned from it: I must believe so, because it is upon so Material a Point, and expressed in so Extraordinary a Manner, that, had his Lordship observed it, he would, methinks, have given his Readers notice of it.  
Many years therefore after the Clergy had submitted, they are, by their Supreme Head himself owned, to be the Commons Spiritual of Parliament. And when therefore in the O●d Rolls we find 'em not expressly mentioned as such, we must believe, that they lay hid often under the General Denomination of Commons; as the Case plainly was in the Petition just now produced, which is entered in the Rolls among the Petitions of the Commons, tho' the Clergy joined in it; and as it probably was in that mentioned by Mr. Elsing (pag. 275. but with false Numbers) where the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Et autres Gens de la Commonalty d'Engleterre, pray that they may let out to Farm the Wastes of Manors held of the King in capite, without his Licence,— which being the Case of many Inferior Clergymen, who held such Manors of the Crown, it is to be supposed that they also joined in the Petition, and are under the [Autres Gens de la Commonalty] included. But more express to this purpose is the Statute of the Clergy, 18 E. 3. which recites 
* I take the words of it from Rastal, with the more assurance, because Pryn says he has compared the Print with the Record, and that they agree. Abridg. of Rec. p. 44. , That the Prelates, Great Men, and Commons, had advised and aided the King— and afterwards— the Great Men aforesaid grant so and so— and the said Prelates and Procurators of the Clergy grant so and so: whereas there is no Previous Mention of the Procurators of the Clergy, but under the Title of Commons.  
To these many other Records might be added, which mention the Convocation-Clergy as of the Parliament, and in it: But, that I may not load the Reader, a few of these taken from the Beginning, the Middle, and the End of that Period, we are considering, shall suffice. The rest will find as proper a place in another part of these Collections: and thither therefore I shall refer the Reader for an account of them.  
In the 10 E. 3. a Writ issued to the Archbishop of York, reciting, that the Clergy of Canterbury-Province had given the King a Tenth in Parliamento nostro Westminster, and exciting Him and his Clergy to follow their Example 
† Cl. 10 E. 3. m. 36. dors. .  
The like Recitals are to be met with often in latter Writs, as particularly in 43 E. 3. Cl. m. 6. Dors. which gins, Rex Archᵒ. Cant. salutem. Qualiter negotia nostra tam Nos & Statum Regni nostri quam necessariam defensionem ejusdem concernentia ac onera nobis per hoc incumbentia Vobis & Aliis in ultimo Parliamento nostro existentibus plenius exposuimus vos non latet. Ad quorum onerum supportationem absque adjutorio fidelium nostrorum non sufficimus, sicut scitis; propter quod aliquod subsidium congruum in supportationem tantorum onerum à Vobis & Aliis de Clero Dioeceseos & Provinciae vestrarum in dicto Parliamento tunc existentibus nobis concedi petivimus, etc. And the same Passage in Terms recurs in another Letter of the same kind to the Archbishop two years afterwards, Cl. 45 E. 3. m. 35. Dors.  
The Great Deed of Entail in the 8 Hen. 4. by which the Crown was settled on his Heirs male, and which was witnessed by the Great Men, and by Sir I. Typtot the Speaker, in behalf of the whole Body of the Commons, recites, Quòd in Parliamento nostro apud Westminster, 7ᵒ. Die julii Anno Regni nostri 7ᵒ. per nos de consensu & avisamento omnium Praelatorum Magnatum & Procerum ac Cleri & Communitatis regni nostri Angliae fuerit Statutum & Ordinatum.— And proceeds to make void what had been so ordained in these Memorable words, Nos igitur— ad instantem Petitionem eorundem Praelatorum Magnatum Procerum, Cleri & Communitatis supradictae, & de eorum omnium & singulorum Voluntate & Assensu expressis, nec non nostrâ & praesentis Parliamenti nostri auctoritate Statutum & Ordinationem praedictam cassamus & adnullamus— Nec non ad eorundem Praelatorum Magnatum, Procerum, Cleri, & Communitatis praedictae Petitionem & Rogatum, ac de E●rum Consensu concordi & auctoritate, etc.  
And this too Pryn has abridged 
* See Abr. of Records, p. 454.  in his way, without taking notice of these Passages, which are so Material and Instructive. The Original Record with all its appendent Seals entire, (tho' the Deed itself be cancelled) is preserved still in the Cottonian Library 
† Inter Chartas in Pyxide Galba. ; and affords a manifest Proof of the Interest which the Convocation Clergy at that time had in Parliament: for it would be ridiculous to imagine that by Clergy in this Instrument, thus placed between the Lords and Lay-Commons, any other than the Convocation-Clergy are intended.  
For near 140 years afterwards, the Language I find continued the same in the Bishop's Mandates to their Archdeacon's for the Collection of Subsidies: for thus speaks one of Bonner's 
⸫ In Registro. , Cum Praelati & Clerus Prov. Cant. in Parliamento hujus regni Angliae nuperrimè apud Westminster tento, & celebrato quoddam Subsidium sub certis modo & formâ tunc expressis Illustrissimo, etc. Ex nonnullis rationabilibus causis dederint & concesserint, etc. Oct. 10. 1543.  
And if I should beyond all this affirm, that the Convocation attended the Parliament, as One of the Three States of the Realm, I should say no more than the Rolls have in express Terms said before me; where the King is mentioned as calling Tres Status Regni ad Palatium suum Westm. viz. Praelatos & Clerum, Nobiles, & Magnates, nec non Communitates dicti regni 
* Rot Parl. 9 H. 5. n. 15. . And when more than Three States are mentioned (as in the Ancient Piece of the Manner of Holding Parliaments) the Inferior Clergy is still reckoned as one of them. Judge Thirning therefore thus addresses himself to Richard the IId, at his Deposition 
† See the Roll of Parliam. Printed at the End of X. Script. p. 2760. .  
SIRE It is well know to zowe that there was a Parliament Somond of all the States of the Reaume for to be at Westmynstre, etc. because of the which Summons all the States of t●is Lond were there gadyred, the which States hole made thes same people that ben comen here to zowe now her Procuratours and gafen him full authority and Power and charged him for to say the words that we shall say to zowe in her name, and on their behalve; that is to wytten the Bishop of saint Assa for Ersbishoppes and Bishops; the Abbot of Gla●●enbury for Abbots and Priours, and all other Men of Holy Chirche, Seculers, and Rewelers, the Earl of Gloucestre for Dukes and Earls, the Lord of Berkeley for Barones and Banerettes, Sir Thomas Irpyngham Chamberleyn for all the Bachelors and Commons of this Lond be south, Sire Thomas Grey for all the Bachelors and Commons by North, and my fellow john Markham and Me to come with him for All this States; and so Sire these words and the doying that we shall say to zowe is not onlych our words bot the words and doying of all the States of this Lond, etc.  
I desire not to be misunderstood in the Recital of these Testimonies: I have no other Aim in 'em than barely to show, that the Inferior Clergy, tho' meeting and consulting apart from the Parliament, yet were still reckoned to belong to it, and to be (in some sense, and to some Purposes) a Member of it; and together with the Prelates of the Upper House to compose (not indeed one of the Three Estates of Parliament, but however) an Estate of the Realm, assembling jointly with the Parliament, and obliged by the Rules of our Constitution to attend always upon it. If my Proofs may be allowed to reach thus far, (and I have no manner of Mistrust but that they will) I give up willingly whatever beyond this they may seem to imply; which neither my Argument, nor my Inclination any ways leads me to maintain. It is so far from being in my Intention, that it is not in my Wishes, to set up a Plea for any of those Old Privileges and Preeminences of the Clergy, which are long since Dead, and Buried; and which, I think, ought never to be revived, even for the sake o● the Clergy themselves, who have thriven best always under a Competency of Power, and Moderate Pretences. The Present Rights they stand plainly possessed of by Law, are sufficient to render them useful Members of the Commonwealth, within their Proper Spheres, and that these Rights may be well understood, and secured, is the great and only design of these Papers. To that end I have vouched the Precedent Passages from the Records of Parliament and Convocation: not to set up any vain Pretence, to the utmost of that Parliamentary Interest, which the Clergy sometime had; but to secure only what remains of it to them, by showing, that their Separation from Parliament, did not cut them off from all manner of Relation to it; but that still, after that, their Convocations, though held at a distance from the Parliament, were, in their own nature, as well as in the Acceptance of the Crown, and in the Eye of the Law, Parliamentary Assemblies.  
These Parliamentary Meetings of the Clergy were at first Congregationes, or Convocationes Cleri; but not therefore Concilia Provincialia: Which were Extraordinary Assemblies for Church Business only; for the restoring lapsed Discipline, and reforming Ecclesiastical Abuses: whereas the Others were originally held for Civil Purposes alone, and the Common Affairs of the State. And when Archbishop Stratford therefore called a Council of his Province 
* By a Writ dated 10 Kal. Aug. 1341. which gins thus— Quamvis sit Sacris Canonibus Constitutum quod Metropolitanis, Archiepiscopi, & Primates annis singulis Legitimo Impedimento cessante, pro Excessibus corrigendis, & Moribus reformandis, debeant Provinciale Concilium celebrare. , the Preamble of his Letters Summonitory owns, both the Obligation he was under by the Canons of Assembling them Yearly, and his having omitted to do it for Eight Years last passed; though, doubtless, he had often in that time Convened the Clergy of his Province to Parliament. However this Distinction held not very long; the Business of Provincial Councils being in tract of time done in the ordinary Congregations of the Clergy; and these and those being promiscuously styled Convocations: Till at last Provincial Councils, properly so called, ceased altogether; and Parliamentary Convocations came into their room: The Frequency and fixed Certainty of which, gave the Clergy a Regular Opportunity of doing all that for which the other Synods did but occasionally serve. And when Warham therefore in 1509. did by his Own Authority call a Synod for the Redress of Abuses, and Reformation of Manners, his Mandate warned it to meet a few days after the Parliament 
* Parliament Met, Jan. 21. Convocation, Jan. 26. See Mandate in Bishop Burnet 's Collection of Records, Vol. I. p. 6. , and styled it, not a Provincial Council, but a Convocation of the Clergy: And this Word therefore afterwards in the Submission-Act (as I understand it) was applied strictly to signify, the Clergy's Parliamentary Meetings: For otherwise, it could with no colour of Truth have been affirmed, as it is, there, That the Convocation had always been Assembled by the King's Writ; unless both the Submitters and Enacters had by the Word Convocation understood the Consults of the Clergy in time of Parliament: which, in some sense, were held always by the King's Writ, that is, by the Premunitory Clause in the Bishop's Summons: and, let me add, are so held still; as good Lawyers own 
† Bagshaw in his Argument about the Canons. , and Bishop Ravis, in his Paper of Reasons to Queen Elizabeth 
‖ § 5. , affirms; and the whole Lower House did to the same Queen upon occasion solemnly declare, Witness their Remonstrance in 1558; to justify the Freedom of which, they in the Preamble of it suggest the several Authorities by which they Assemble. The Instrument is Printed in Fuller 
⸪ Ch. Hist. IX Book. p. 55. , but with the Omission of some words, which in that part of it, which we have occasion to mention may be thus supplied,— Nos Cantuariens. Provinciae Inferior [&] Secundarius Clerus in ano (Deo sic disponente, ac Serenissimae Dominae nostrae Reginae [jussu] Decani & Capituli Cantuariensis Mandato, Brevi Parliamenti, ac Monitione Ecclesiasticâ sic exigente) convenientes, partium nostrarum esse existimavimus, etc.  
And this Opinion also that Parliament was of, which Voted the Canons of 1640. Illegal, chief on this head, because they were made in an Assembly, which, though it met by the Parliament Writ, yet Sat and Acted after the Parliament was determined. Nor were they contradicted in it by the Famous Judgement given under the Hands of his Majesty's Counsel, and other Honourable Persons Learned in the Law, if the Words of that Judgement be well considered, which are these; The Convocation being called by the King's Writ under the Great Seal, doth continue, until it be dissolved by Writ, or Commission under the Great Seal, notwithstanding the Parliament be dissolved. (Troub. Try. Laud. p. 80.) Which is all very true; and yet it may be true too, that such a Writ, or Commission ought of course, to issue from the Crown, upon the Dissolution of the Parliament. But this Point is not touched upon in the Judgement given, and seems to have been purposely declined: For otherwise, it had been a clearer and fuller Determination of the Matter in Question, if they had said, That the King might by his Prerogative keep a Convocation sitting as long as he pleased, notwithstanding the Dissolution of that Parliament, with which it was called.  
I will not say, That the Parliament of 1660. were certainly of the same mind, though it is probable they were; and that this was One, if not the Chief Reason, why in the Act 
* 13 Car. II. c. 12.  Restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction they so particularly, and by Name, excepted those Canons from a Parliamentary Confirmation.  
However that may be, sure we are, That the Convocation of the Clergy have (as has been said already) for above 150 Years in every Instance (except that of Forty, and the Synods Legatin) Met and Risen within a day of the Parliament. And if Custom therefore be the Law of Convocations, as it is of Parliaments (and we have Dr. Wake's Word for it, that it is 
† Pp. 105, ●98. ) then is it Law, that the Convocation should meet Only, and Always in time of Parliament. The Learned Mr. Cambden knew no better, whose Words are, Synodus quae Convocatio Cleri dicitur, & semper simul cum Parliamento habetur 
‖ Britannia in Cap. de Tribunalibus. . Thus stood Britannia Then; though a late Paltry Compiler of the New State of England will have it, that it is an Assembly which now and then Meets, and that in time of Parliament 
* Miege 's New State of England. Part. III. p. 64. : Thanks to Dr. Wake for furnishing him with the occasion for such a Definition! which I trust however that the Doctor and all his Friends, shall not, in the Event, be able to prove a True One; not even by that only Argument which can ever possibly prove it so, Future practice.  
The very Warrant to the Keeper of the Great Seal for issuing out Writs for a Parliament, is a standing Testimony against these new Notions: It ran thus in james the First's time, and I suppose, runs so still: Whereas we are resolved to have a Parliament at, etc. These are to Will and Require you forthwith upon Receipt hereof, to Issue forth our Writs of Summons to all the Peers of our Kingdom; and also all other Usual Writs for the Electing of such Knights, Citizens, and Burg●sses, as are to Serve therein; and withal to Issue out all Usual Writs for the Summoning of the Clergy of both Provinces in their Houses of Convocation. And this shall be your Warrant so to do 
* H●c●er's Life of Bishop Williams, p. 173. . So that the Writs for the Convocation are, it seems, as Usual as those for the Commons; and the One Assembly therefore is as Customary as the Other.  
My Lord of Sarum seems to have had no other thoughts, where, in the Entrance of his History of our Reformed Synods, (for such every History of our Reformation is, or should be) he lays it down, That with the Writs for a Parliament there went out always a Summons to the Two Archbishops for calling a Convocation of their Provinces 
† Hist. Ref. I. Vol. p. 20. : Always, i, e. long before the times of H. VIII. of which his Lordship is Writing. I doubt not but his Lordship's Meaning then was, That these Writs went out to Purpose, and had their due and full Effect: for the Distinction, which some State-Logicians since have Coined 
‖ Dr. W. p. 106, 107, 14●, 141. , between a Right of being Summoned, and a Right of M●●●ing in Virtue of that Summons, was not then Invented. But I presume too far in venturing to guests at his Lordship's Thoughts, when his Words are such as may indifferently serve either Hypothesis, and can therefore, I must confess, be a good Authority for neither. Let us have Recourse therefore to Those who are more determined in their Expressions.  
Archbishop Cranmer in that Speech by which he opened the first Convocation under E. 6. affirms it to be 
* MS. Acta Synodi incoeptae, Nou. 5. An. 1547. , De more regni Angliae, primo quoque anno regni cujuslibet Regis citare Parliamentum, nec non & Convocare Synodum Episcoporum & Cleri; sicque fieri in praesenti de Mandato Regis. He speaks of a Custom only in the First Year of every Reign, because That was the Present Case: whereas Cardinal Pool at a Synod held in the latter end of Queen Mary, enlarges the Assertion, and says, 
† Act. MS. Syn. coeptae, jan. 21. 1557.  Quòd cum de antiquo more Rex Angliae ob aliquot arduas Causas Praelatos hujus Regni ad Concilium sive Parliamentum suum adesse jubet propter Regis Securitatem & Regni Statum— Concilia & Auxilia sua imp●nsuros: Ita Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis Episcopos suos Suffraganeos, Praelatos, etc. ad Sacrum Concilium evocare assolet, de iisdem Causis tractaturos, & auxilia sua consimili modo daturos.  
And to the same purpose the Good Martyr, Archdeacon Philpott, a Member of Convocation, and well skilled in the Rights of it: He, in his Supplication to the King, Queen, and Parliament, complains, That where there was by the Queen's Highness a Parliament called, and after the Old Custom a Convocation of the Clergy 
‖ Fox. Vol. III. p. 587. . Nor did those Lords of the Council, who disputed other Points with him, deny this; but agreed in Terms, That the Convocation-House was called by One Writ of Summons of the Parliament, of an Old 
⸪ Ibid. p. 552.  Custom. I lay no great weight upon their Opinion, because it was casually given, and by Persons, who, though of the King's Privy Council, yet might, perhaps, be as Ill informed of these Matters as Meaner Men: For a Seat at that Honourable Board does not necessarily imply a thorough knowledge of this part of our Constitution. I mention their Opinion, only to meet with Dr. Wake, who has produced it on the other side with as much Gravity and Deference, as if it were a Resolution of the Twelve Judges Assembled 
* P. 251. . He had been Reading, I suppose, in that Notable Book of the Law, The Attorney's Academy, where he found it thus formally vouched 
† P. 221. : And he thought he might safely Write after so Worthy a Pattern.  
To make amends for this slight Authority, I shall produce another of somewhat more force; even the Judgement of a whole Synod in Queen Mary's time, who introduce their Petition about the Confirmation of Abbey Lands to the Patentees, with this Preamble; 
‖ 1.2. P. & M. c. 8.  Nos Episcopi & Clerus Cant. Prov. in hâc Synodo, more nostro solito, dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur, congregati— Where we see they lay claim to an Old Immemorial Custom, not only of being Called, by the King's Writ, together with every Parliament, but of Meeting also upon that Call, by the same Custom. For unluckily it happens (to spoil Dr. Wake's New Scheme) that they place the Usage, in their being more solito Congregati; not Convocati, or Summoniti; as the Word should have been, to make Their Assertion consistent with His. But alas! they knew nothing of this new Doctrine, and their Expressions therefore are not so contrived as to favour it. They were then Assembled in a Synod, and Acting as a Synod, when they drew up this Petition▪ And 'tis of a Custom therefore of so Assembling and Acting that they speak; and not of being only Summoned. Nor was this the Sense of the Clergy alone, but of an Whole Parliament too, which recited this Petition Verbatim in a Statute; and by that means set their Seal, as it were, to the Truth of the Suggestion contained in it.  
It would be needless after this to argue from the Old Parliamentary Practice of appointing Convocation-days 
* Elsing. p. 112.  upon which the Temporal Lords Adjourned, that the Parliament-Prelates might be at Liberty to Consult with the Inferior Clergy: Of this Custom we have an Account, as high as the first Years of H. VIII. i e. as high as we have any journals of Parliament.  
To as little purpose would it be to urge the Decision of the Committee of Both Houses, 21 H. VIII. 
† Moor. Rep. p. 781. ; and of the House of Commons, 10. Mariae 
‖ Hist. Ref. II. Vol. p. 252, 3. ; that a Clergyman could not be Chosen into that House, 
* They determined also, That a Layman could not be of the Convocation: But in That, Practice is against them. For the Chancellor of York, though a Layman, is Now, and has been long, a Member of that Convocation: And whether Lamb and Heath (who are Mentioned as of the Convocation in 1640.) were not Mere Civilians, I leave to be considered. Heyl. Life of Laud. p. 438.  Because he was Represented in another House: Which implies, I think, that that other House was to sit concurrently with the Parliament; or else I see not what force there is in the Reason given.  
Much less will it, perhaps, after what I have said, be thought Material to observe, that 24 H. VIII. c. 12. in Matters touching the Crown allows an Appeal within Fifteen days, to the Upper House of Convocation, then being, or next ensuing: which supposes this Assembly to Meet often, and to have its Regular and Stated Returns; as the Parliament has.  
These, though good Presumptions of the Truth I contend for, yet arise not up to the fullness of several of those Proofs which I have before suggested: And because they may admit a Cavil therefore, I hint them only, without dwelling upon them. The Evidence already given is sufficient to clear the Practice, as it stood 150 Years ago, and had then stood, Time out of mind. And that it has not altered since, is too well known to need a Proof: There being no Instance to be given, I believe, from the time of the Reformation down to that of our late Revolution, wherein a New Parliament has sat, for any time, without a Convocation to attend it: Nor any one Author of Note, I verily think, to be produced, throughout that Period, who has given it as his Opinion, that the Former of these Meetings might by the Law of the Realm be held without the Latter. Dr. Wake is for aught I can find, the very first Writer that has ever Taught this Doctrine; with how much Truth or Probability, the Reader by this time gins to judge, and will, in the Course of these Papers more clearly see: Wherein I hope to set the Clergies Right to such Concurrent Meetings in so full and clear a Light, that as no One ever denied it before Dr. Wake, so neither shall any Man of tolerable Skill, or Honesty ever Dispute it after him.  
I have been large upon this Head, and I fear, by reason of the variety of the Matter, somewhat confused: It may be proper therefore, here at the close of it, to recollect the several Branches of the Proof there advanced: They stand in this Order.  
That, as far back as we have any Memoirs of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Affairs of this Kingdom, it appears that the Clergy and Laity Met together in the great Councils of the Realm: That this they did, in the Saxon times, and for some Reigns after the Conquest, Nationally; joining closely with the Laity in Civil Debates, and taking Their Sanction along with them in all Ecclesiastical Acts and Ordinances: That they divided afterwards from the Laity, and from one another; and attended the Parliament not in One Body, but in Two Provincial Synods, held under their several Archbishops: That, though it does not clearly appear, when this Practice first had its Rise, yet sure we are, that it is between 4 and 500 years old, and has for so long at least, regularly obtained; excepting only the Interruption that was given to it by the Premunitory Clause, inserted into the Bishop's Writs; which once again warned, and brought the Clergy Nationally to Parliament: That a strict Compliance with this Clause was at first exacted by the Crown, and paid by the Clergy; but that they soon found ways of being released from the Rigour of it, and prevailed upon the King to accept of their former manner of Assembling with the Parliament in Two Provincial Synods, in lieu of that Closer Attendance which the Premunientes challenged; the Forms however being still kept up, by which the King's Right of Summoning them immediately to Parliament was declared all along, and their Obligation to obey his Summons in the way it prescribed, was duly acknowledged: That these Provincial Assemblies, though held apart from the Parliament, yet belonged to it; Met by the Parliamentary, no less than the Provincial Writ; and were State-Meetings, as well as Church-Synods: In them Parliamentary Matters were Transacted, and Parliamentary Forms and Methods observed; the Members of them were Entitled to Parliamentary Wages, and enjoyed Parliamentary Privileges: That the Inferior Clergy, though divided in Place from the Lower Laity, yet joined with them often in the same Acts and Petitions, and were still esteemed and called the Commons Spiritual of the Realm; and what They and the Prelates in Convocation did, was long after the Separation spoken of in our Records, as done in Parliament: That these Parliamentary Conventions of the Clergy were held at first near the time at which the Laity met; afterwards with a Latitude: But that This Irregularity was Reform before the Reformation of Religion; and their Meeting and Departing fixed, within a Day of the Assembling and Dismission of the Parliament; and that this Custom has now for above an Age and Half continued: That for so long therefore (not to say how much longer) the Convocation has been a word of Art, which signifies a Meeting of the Clergy in time of Parliament: That such Meetings have by All that understood our Constitution been held Necessary; Dr. Wake being the First Writer, that has ever asserted them to be Precarious, and put it in the Prince's, or the Archbishop's Power, whether they will have such Assemblies, or no.  
The Result of All is This, That, if some Hundred Years Custom can make a Law, then may we, without Offence, affirm it to be Law, that the Convocation should Sat with every New Parliament: If the True Notion of a Convocation be, That it is an Assembly of the Clergy always attending the Parliament, then is it no Presumption to say, That we have the same Law for the Sitting of a Convocation, as we have for that of a Parliament. And by this Law the Clergy (as was said before in relation to the Canons of the Church) are not only under a Duty to attend, but have also a Right to meet; so that, as their Writs for Assembling concurrently with a Parliament, are not mere Letters of Grace and Compliment, but to be emitted ex debito justitiae, and whether the Government has any thing to propose to them or no; so likewise are their Assemblies at such times to be held by the same Law, notwithstanding it may be pretended that there is no Occasion for them. For although their Consent may not be necessary, nor their Advice seem wanting; yet, as they are bound to wait, if Either shall be asked; So may the Clergy themselves have some Informations and Remembrances to offer, and some Petitions to make concerning such things, as they may be supposed to take more particular notice of, or wherein they may be more peculiarly concerned. And this Liberty and Opportunity of representing what they may think necessary, is to be esteemed by them as their great Parliamentary Privilege; not to be Waved, like the Others, for the better course of common Justice; but to be Asserted and Confirmed for the Good of the whole Kingdom.  
Such a Liberty therefore and Opportunity is not only provided for by Canons, but secured, I say, by the Law: Both by the Law of Custom, which is the Law of Parliaments; and by Express Statute: an Act of Edward the Third appointing a Parliament, and consequently 
* Thus the Answerer of the Nine Reasons of the House of Commons against Bishop's Votes in Parliament Argued; alleging, That the Bishops were by the Triennial Act obliged necessarily to attend the Convocation once in Three Years: And the Examination of that Answer (40. 1641.) Printed by Order of a Committee of the House, grants the Allegation. p. 16, 17.  a Convocation to be held just within the Canonical distance, Yearly; and the present Law enjoining, That it shall be frequently held, and once at least in Three Years: Held, I say, and not only Called; for that is the Right we speak of: A Right, that has been all along owned by constant Practice; or, if perchance not exercised at some Particular time, through Forgetfulness, or Distraction (to allow the utmost, and more perhaps, than can be proved); yet never Purposely, and, if I may so speak, Regularly Neglected till Now.   

CHAP. III.  
HItherto we have considered only the First of the Two Points proposed, the Clergies Right of Meeting and Sitting in Convocation, as often as a New Parliament Sits: We will now address ourselves to the Second, which asserts their Right (when Met) of Treating and Deliberating about such Affairs as lie within their proper Sphere, and of coming to fit Resolutions upon them, without being necessitated antecedently to qualify themselves for such Acts and Debates by a Licence under the Broad Seal of England.  
That this is the Original Right of all Provincial Synods, incident to their nature, as such, claimed and practised by them in all Ages of the Church, and in all Christian Countries, and in our own particularly, from the time that we have any account of our Synods, till towards the beginning of the Reformation, is so certain, as to need no Proof; and Dr. Wake therefore is never more like himself (that is, never more Absurd) than when he would insinuate the contrary 
* P. 48, 288. . The only Question is, how far the Statute 25 H. VIII. has restrained this Right, and made a Licence from the Crown necessary? It being there Enacted, That the Clergy, ne any of them should from thenceforth presume to attempt allege, claim, or put in ure any Constitutions, or Ordinances, Provincial or Synodal, or any other Canons; nor should Enact, Promulge, or Execute any such Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinances Provincial, by what Name or Names they may be called, in their Convocations in times coming; unless the same Clergy may have the King's most Royal Assent and Licence to Make, Promulge, and Execute the same.  
Now that the Clergy are not by this Clause tied up altogether from acting Synodically, is allowed generally by Those who desire most to abridge their Powers. It cannot with any show of Reason be pretended, that the Convocation, however under a Restraint by this Act, is become such a Lifeless Body, as to have neither Sense nor Motion, till Animated by a second Royal Command: Unquestionably, and according to common Opinion and Practice, they have, even since this Statute, in virtue of the Writ by which they Meet, a Liberty of Addressing, as they shall see cause either with Thanks, or Requests, or other proper Representations— But it is presumed also, that they may go a great deal further, and that there is nothing in the Clause recited which hinders them even from Devising and Framing the Draught of a Canon; so it be done only in a Preparatory Way, and with Submission to the Royal Enacting Authority. This is what has been laid down in a late Treatise 
* Letter to a Convocation-Man. , briefly indeed, but convincingly; and with so much force of Reason, as yet has received no Reply: The Answerers of that Piece having slid over this part of it, where the Act is Explained, with a Seeming Neglect, but with a Real Distrust of their being able to say any thing to the purpose against what is there advanced. When they come to this Point, as important as it is, they dispatch it always in haste: Even Dr. Wake can allow it but a flight mention or two, in a Work, where he finds room amply enough to discuss every thing that is not Material. But he did well to tread lightly over the Ground, which, if he had stood never so little upon it, would have gone near to have sunk under him. To make this Point yet more manifest, and not to leave the least pretence for a Cavil, I shall here resume the Proof of it; bespeaking the Candour of those Gentlemen, whose studies particularly lie this way, if, (as the general Fate is of those that Writ out of their Profession,) I express myself now and then a little improperly. So the Thing I aim at be but clearly made out, though my Manner of doing it be not strictly according to Art, it will not concern me. I shall consider first the Occasion of the Act, and then the Act itself; and by a short account of the One lead the Reader into the true Sense and Meaning of the Other. Henry the VIIIth enraged both at the Pope and Cardinal Wolsey for their Delusions in the Affair of the Divorce, resolved with the Ruin of the Cardinal to lessen the Papal Authority. And for the better effecting this Design, which could not well be accomplished, without striking a Terror into Those who were then but too much the Pope's Vassals, the Clergy; especially the Monks and Friars; he involved them All in a Praemunire for submitting to Wolsey's Legatine Character, unauthorised by the Crown; not for Procuring, or making Use of Provisional Bulls, as Dr. Wake, in his usual Kindness to the Memory of the Clergy, and according to his deep Skill in English History has represented it 
* P. 248. : Nor yet merely for Appearing and Making Suit in his Courts, as a Greater Author 
† Bishop Burnet 's Hist. of Ref. Vol. I. p. 106. , (but in this Conjecture no less Unhappy) than He, seems to take it; for then All the Clergy could not have been concluded under the Penalty, for All had not Sued there. But that which made the whole Body at once Obnoxious was, their obeying his Mandates 
† Rigida enim Provisionum Jura (says Josceline upon this occasion) non modò eos puniunt qui Romanas Legationes sine Regis Licentia suscipiunt, sed qui iis parent. Ant. Brit. Eccles. in Warhamo. p. 325. , and appearing in his Synods Legantine; which the Clergy had often, and lately 
(*) An. 1527.  done.  
The Cardinal had been a Favourite beyond Example; the Sole, and Uncontrolled Minister of his Prince: He was at that time Lord Chancellor by the King's Commission, and had been made Legate with his Privity, and at his Special Instance, as Bishop Gardiner informs us 
(†) In a Letter to the Protector. Fox Vol. II. p. 2. col. 1. . What he did in one Capacity, as well as in the other, was presumed to be done by the King's Appointment; and whoever had opposed him, had certainly been crushed by the Royal Power. The Subject neither durst, nor thought it necessary to inquire, whether He had a Licence from the Great Seal, who had himself the keeping it. However their Obedience to his Unlicens'd Authority was Criminal even to the Loss of Liberty and Estate: And could they in any case have vouched the King's Command for their Obeying it, the Command would have been said to have been against Law, and no Warrant. Thus both the Clergy and Laity were unawares at the King's Mercy, and the Clergy not admitted to pardon Gratis (as the Laity afterwards were); but forced to ransom themselves by a good Round Sum 
* 100000 l. for the Province of Canterbury, and 18840 l. 10 d. for that of York; which was laid, as all other Convocation-Grants were, proportionably on the whole Clergy; as appears from the Assessments to be seen still in the Bishop's Registers; particularly in that of Hereford, An. 1531. And I wonder therefore that my Lord of Sarum should say, That he had not been able to discover whether the Inferior Clergy paid their Proportion of this Tax, or not (Vol. I. p. 115.) and again, That the Prelates had a great Mind to draw 'em in to bare a share of the Burden, Ib. p. 114. [He speaks of the Time, after the Convocation which made the Grant, was up.] For this was both Needless and Impracticable: Needless, because the Lower Clergy had already drawn themselves in, by consenting to the Grant in Convocation; and Impracticable, because if they had not, there was no way left of drawing 'em in afterwards.  for those times, and by an Acknowledgement in Convocation, that the King was Supreme Head, together with the Submission, and Petition recited in the Preamble of the Act we are discoursing of.  
There the Clergy first knowledge [and the Parliament add, according to the Truth] that the Convocation is, always hath been, and aught to be Assembled by the King's Writ. Which Acknowledgement however is not according to Truth, unless understood of Parliamentary Convocations; that is, of those which were summoned as well by the Praemunientes, as by the Archbishop's Mandate: And to Those therefore it must be restrained. And they had reason to Own and Avow this particularly, because the Cardinal had taken upon him to Convene Legantine Synods by his own Authority frequently during his Ministry; and particularly Once, (not long before his Fall, and the Time of this Submission) on Nou. 27. 1527. 
* As I gather from a Printed Sermon of Longland 's said to be Preached on that Day and Year, Coram Celeberrimo Conventu tùm Archiepiscoporum cùm Episcoporum caeteraeque multitudinis in Occidentalis Coenobii Sanctuario juxta Londinum. Though this Title, I confess, is somewhat Dubious. : And that Practise of his therefore might be opposed by this Declaration which prefaces the Submission.  
In the Submission, which follows, the Clergy promise in Verbo Sacerdotii, that they will never from henceforth presume to Attempt, Allege, Claim, or put in Ure; Or Enact, Promulge, or Execute any New Canons, Constitutions, Ordinance Provincial, or other, or by whatsoever other name they shall be called in the Convocation; unless the King's most Royal Assent and Licence may to them be had to Make, Promulge, and Execute the same: And that his Majesty do give his most Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf.  
Now here are Two several Things distinctly promised in Two Different Branches of the same Sentence, divided from Each other by the Particle, Or; They will not Attempt, Allege, Claim, or put in Ure, that is one part of their promise; Or Enact, Promulge, or Execute, that is another. The First of these respects Canons, as already made (whether by a Foreign, or Domestic Authority); the Second, as to be made, here at Home: The Former part of their Assurance is given in their Private and Ministerial Capacity, in relation to the Proceed in the Spiritual Courts; the Latter in their Public and Legislative Capacity, as they were Members of Convocation. In their Private Capacity, as they might be either Judges, or Litigants, they promise, not to Attempt, Allege, Claim, or put in Ure [i. e. not to be any ways Instrumental in acknowledging, or promoting the force of] any Canons made without the Royal Assent; such as the whole Text of the Foreign Canon Law, and all our Own Provincial and Legantine Constitutions were: In their Public Capacity, they promise further, not to Enact, Promulge, or Execute any such Canons for the Future, unless they may have the same Royal Licence for it. But here is no promise couched in any of these words, that they will not debate about the matter, or form the Draught of a Canon, without such a Licence: None of the Words (Enact, Promulge, or Execute] which alone relate to their Proceed in Convocation, including any such Promise; and the only word which can be pretended to imply it, the word [Attempt] being determinnd by its Situation to signify much the same thing as Allege, Claim, or put in Ure; and restraining the Persons promising only as they might Act in their Private or Ministerial Capacity, that is, out of Convocation.  
To Attempt a Canon therefore must signify to put it upon trial, or prove the force of it; and is a word of Art borrowed from the Civilians: However we need not go so far for an account of it; the very Act we are upon affording us an undeniable Instance of its being thus used: as will appear, if we consider the Petition of the Clergy which follows this Promise, and the Enacting Words in the Body of the Statute, which answer to that Petition.  
The Petition relates altogether to Canons already made, many of which were solely from the Pope, and many more from the Archbishop, without the Royal Assent; and the Clergy pray therefore that These may be Reviewed, and their Authority Suspended, during that Review. Accordingly the Authority of all the Old Canons was suspended; or rather Abrogated by this Act, as appears plainly from the Proviso 
* Which Dr. Wake in his pretended Recital of the Act, [N. 4. of his Appendix] has suppressed, very disingenuously; considering of how great Significancy this Proviso is, to lead us into the true Sense of the Word Attempt in the Body of the Act. , at the End of it, for their being in force, till such a Review, and from the Express words of a Later Act, 37 H. 8. c. 17. 
† Which says, That All the Decrees, Ordinances, and Constitutions [of the whole Canon Law] by a Statute made in the 25 th' of your most noble Reign be utterly abolished, frustrate, and of none effect. : And this Abrogation of the Old Canons was performed purely by those Words in the Enacting part of the Statute, that they shall not from henceforth Attempt, Allege, Claim, or put in Ure: All which words therefore the Parliament used Evidently of Canons already made; and must, for that reason, have understood the word Attempt, in the very sense that I have given it, for putting a thing upon Trial, or proving the force of it.  
No Restraint therefore is laid upon the Clergy in their Legislative Capacity, by the word, Attempt in their Promise: How far the following Words of it, [that they will not Enact, Promulge, or Execute any new Canons— unless the King's most Royal Assent and Licence may to them be had to Make, Promulge, and Execute the same] may be supposed to restrain them in that respect, is to be the subject of our next Enquiry. The word, Make, here in the Condition of the Promise must have the same Sense as the word Enact in the Promise itself, to which it plainly answers and refers: They will not Enact, Promulge, or Execute any New Canons; unless they may have the King's Assent to Make [i. e. to Enact] Promulge, and Execute the same. This is what the Phrase itself in Propriety of Speech implies: For to Make a Canon, is the same as, Canonem Condere, to constitute it, and give it force: And so, Testamentum Condere, [to make a Will] signifies not merely to prepare the Draught of it; but to make it with the Legal Forms, and Circumstances requisite; that is, to Sign, Seal, and Publish it. But (which puts this matter quite out of dispute) the Word is in this very sense employed in Two several places of the Act itself, and can there be strained to no other: For in the Entrance of the second Clause there is mention of such Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm; and in the Last Proviso, of Canons already made, which be not contrariant to the Laws. Canon's heretofore made, and Canons already made, must, I think, be such, as have been solemnly passed and Enacted, and not mere Draughts of 'em, lying ready to be passed: And to make a Canon therefore, does, in the sense of the Statute, signify to Enact it, and not merely to draw it up, and to form it.  
And this Way of Explaining the Act by itself, in the Use of the Present Phrase, is, I conceive, much more Authentic and Proper, than that which the Author of a Letter to a Member of Parliament 
* P. 26.  makes use of, who wisely sends us to Tully, and to Mr. Hooker for an account of it. Were not this Gentleman of the Law driven to very hard shifts, he would never go to a Classic Author, or a Book of Divinity for the Sense of an Act of Parliament.  
To clear this Point yet further (if there were any Room for it, or any Need of it) I might appeal to the several Forms of Submission which preceded this, that the Act recites, and were agreed to by the Clergy, but not accepted by the King; Copies of which, written in the very Hand of the time, are still preserved: And in every One of them, but the First, their Promise stands formally divided, in the same manner as I also have distinguished it, into Two several Branches or Articles; 
See Appendix, N. III.  One relating to Church Laws that had been (as they there speak) already made, the Other to such as were to be made hereafter. And of these last much the same words are there used, as in the Form recited by the Statute; They promising, That they will from thenceforth forbear to Enact, Promulge, or put in Execution, any such Constitution or Ordinance, to be by them made in time coming, unless his Highness by his Royal Assent shall Licence them to Make, Promulge, and Execute such Constitutions; and the same so made shall approve by his Highness' Authority. But as to the Former Article about Canons already made, none of their first Submissions were, it seems, thought full enough; and they were obliged therefore to draw up a New one, wherein they promised not to Attempt, Allege, Claim, on put in Ure the Ecclesiastical Laws then in force; but so long only, as till the King, by his Commissioners, should have reviewed, digested, approved, and Authorised them. It has happened oddly enough, that Those Forms of Submission, that were not accepted, are still in being; whereas That which passed, has, for aught I can find, perished 
* Unless preserved in my Lord Longvil 's Library, in the Printed Catalogue of which I find this Title, Instrumentum super Submissione Cleri coràm Domino Rege quoad celebrationem Conciliorum Provincialium. Vol. XII. f. 63. & Lib. XXV. f. 141. But I have not had the Opportunity of examining this Paper. : For the Recital of it in the Act of Parliament is not (as I conceive). Literal, but Imperfect, and somewhat Confused; mixing together all those Terms, which the Clergy used in relation either to Canons made, or to be made; and which, in all their other Forms of Submission, stand apart, and in Distinct Clauses: for it is not conceivable, that their Last Form of Submission, in which they were called upon to explain themselves yet further than they had done, should be less Methodical and Distinct 
† Archbishop Laud says (out of the MSS Acts) that it was divided into Three Articles, which were Proposed and Voted severally, (Try▪ and Troub. p. 82.) And if so, the Recital of the Submission in that Act cannot be Literal: For there is no Distinction of Articles in it.  than any of the Former.  
The Words then of the Clergy's Submission, which are in the Preamble of the Act, and have hitherto been the Subject of our enquiry, plainly amount to no more than this; Either, (10) that they will not, as Private Persons look upon, or make Use of any Canons as obliging, but such only as, upon a Review, shall have the stamp of Royal Authority given to them: Or (2dly) that in their Public Capacity, they will not Enact or Publish any such Canons for the future, without the same Royal Assent and Approbation.  
And that this was all their Promise meant, is no new Opinion, but the sense of Archbishop Parker, who understood these things as well as any Man: He in Antiqu. Eccles. Britann. (A Book composed under his Direction) gives this account of it, Totus in Synodo Clerus in Verbo Sacerdotii fidem dedit, ne ●llas deinceps in Synodo ferrent Ecclesiasticas Leges, nisi & Synodus Authoritate Regid Congregate, & Constitutiones in Synodo Publicatae eâdem Authoritate Ratae essent 
* P. 326. . And in this Exposition he is constant; for again in another place he thus expresses himself, Postquam Clerus in Verbo Sacerdotii Henrico Regi promifissent, fi●e Authoritate Regid in Synodo se nihil Decreturos 
† P. 339. . With this agrees my Lord Herbert's Abstract of the Submission, by which, he says, they promised his Majesty, that they would not Make or Allege any New Canons, without his Highness' Assent, and Licence 
* Life of H. 8. p. 399. . And again, more clearly, they promised for the future to make no Constitution, nor execute any without the King's Leave 
† Ibid. p. 349. . i e. to make no New ones, and to Execute, or Allege, neither New nor Old ones. To the same Purpose, my Lord of Sarum; They promised in Verbo Sacerdotii, that they would never Make nor Execute any New Canons or Constitutions, without the Royal Assent to them 
⸫ Vol. 1. p. 147. ; and before this, p. 113. of the same Volume, They promised for the future not to Make nor Execute any Constitution without the King's Licence. None of these Writers, it is clear, thought the Clergy restrained by their Submission from any Debates, or Resolutions, which were previous to the Establishing a Canon; for otherwise they would not, in their accounts of it, have omitted this Particular, which was above all others to be taken notice of: And none of 'em therefore, we may be sure, took the work Make in any other sense than to Enact; or thought the word Attempt applicable to any but the Old Unauthorised Canons.  
And the Judgement of these Persons is the more to be depended on, because the First of 'em lived at the time of the Submission▪ and must be well acquainted with the sense then given of it; the Second was a Layman, and one who was thought to have but little regard for the Priesthood; and the Third, tho' of the Clergy, yet is observed throughout his Works, wherever the Interest of the Order is concerned, to be under no degree of Partiality towards them.  
More Authorities of this kind might be given, if either these were not sufficient, or the stress of the Point lay upon the way of wording the Submission; which it does not, but on the Terms used in that part of the Statute, where the Submission is Enacted; and this we now come to consider.  
For after the Submission and Petition of the Clergy are thus recited in the Statute, it proceeds to Enact, that They, ne any of them from henceforth shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in Ure any Constitutions, or Ordinances Provincial, or Synodals, or any other Canons: Nor shall Enact, Promulge, or Execute any such Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinances Provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be called in their Convocations in Times coming, unless they may have the King's most Royal Assent and Licence to Make, Promulge, and Execute the same.  
Now whatever Ambiguity there may seem to be in the words Attempt, and Make, as they lie in the Recital of the Submission, yet here in the Body of the Statute itself it is perfectly cleared. For  
1. The words [Attempt, Allege, Claim, and put in Ure] are here manifestly divided from those [Enact, Promulge and Execute] and make a Distinct Member of the Period, having Substantives of their own, [Constitutions, Ordinances, etc.] which they govern, and in which their signification is determined.  
2. These words are plainly used to Enact the Petition of the Clergy, which prays a Suspension of the Force of the Old Canons; and by these words, and these alone (as I have shown) the force of those Canons is suspended: and therefore to attempt, as well as to allege, claim, and put in ure must be understood of Canons, as already made; and not of Canons, as [in fieri, or] making. And if so, then  
3. The Exception afterwards made, [Unless the said Clergy may have the King's most Royal Assent and Licence to Make, Promulge, and Execute] can no ways refer to their Attempting, Alleging, Claiming, or putting in Ure: for a Licence to be had in order to make Canons, cannot possibly affect words that are used only of Canons already made. And therefore,  
4. That Exception belongs purely to the words immediately foregoing, by which they are forbid to Enact, Promulge, or Execute: Two of the words of this Prohibition [Promulge, and Execute] being repeated in the Exception annexed; and the Third [Enact] being expressed by Make, a word of the same force and value.  
Whatever sense then the Submission (made in those difficult Times, and under so great a Terror 
* 
The Gentleman that published, Some Thoughts on a Convocation, insults the Learned Mr. Hill on this head, who had represented the Convocation which submitted, as then under the Las● of a Praemunire. But this (says he) is a Great Blunder; for the Praemunire was off at least three years before, and released by Act of Parliament in the 22 H. 8. the Convocation-Act being not till the 25th. (p. 8.) It seems, this Gentleman knows not (what one would have thought every body knew) that the Clergy made their Submission s●●e years before it was Enacted by Parliament, and that Then the Praemunire hung over them: yet, as unacquainted as he is with things of this nature, ventures at Random to bestow his Rude Language on the supposed Mistake of another Man. Under so great a Degree of Ignorance, a little more Modesty had become him.  
My Lord of Sarum's Expressions, I suppose, misled him, which (in the Year 1534.) are, As the Parliament was going on with th●se good Laws, there came a Submission from the Clergy then sitting in Convocation, to be passed in Parliament, (p. 147.) But this is one of those Nods that Great Men in Long Works are subject to: for his Lordship p. 113. of that Work seems to have soon known that the Submission was made by the Convocation in 1531 & 2, however he came to forget it here, and to place the Rise of it two Years lower. But whether his Lordship were ware of this, or not, it is certain the Submission was so much Older than the Act; as appears by the journal of the Convocation that framed it still remaining; tho' his Lordship (Ib. p. 147.) complains that it is lost; and excuses himself on ●his account for not being able to inform his Readers, what Opposition it met with from the Clergy, e'er it passed. I have seen the journal of that Synod, it is not so Large indeed as those Records of Convocation which Heylin saw, (Reformat. justified, Sect. 2.) and wherein, he says, the whole Debate with all the Traverses and Emergent Difficulties which appeared therein are specified at large: However, it is particular enough to show with what Difficulty, and by what steps the Clergy were drawn into a Compliance, and how Threatening Messages were sent 'em by the King before they could be brought to it: And I have already, from another Manuscript, promised the Reader the several Forms of Submission which they drew up, one after another; but could not get accepted. There is no Reason therefore to complain of want of Light in this case; for perhaps there is scarce any one thing done in any of H. the 8th's Convocations, of which we have a clearer and fuller account than of the Opposition which the Court-Form of Submission met with from the Clergy, before they came up to it. From the Inferior Clergy, I mean: for it does not appear that the Prelates were so very hard to be dealt with. On the contrary, it is said in the Acts, that but one Bishop [and not one Abbot or Prior] disagreed to it: but of the Lower Clergy 18, or 19 Voted against it to the very last; and 7. or 8. referred, that is, Voted neither against it, nor for it. See Troub. & Try. of La●d. p. 82.  ) may be drawn to import by the Ambiguous Relation of the word Attempt, as it now stands there; yet the Parliament, it is plain, would take it, and accordingly Enacted it, in no other sense than I have given of it; distinctly severing it, in the Body of the Act, from all those words that have any respect to the Making of a Canon, and confining it to that Branch of the Sentence, which suspends all the Old Canons already made. Then comes the other Branch, which prescribes the Method of making new ones; and forbids the Clergy to Enact, Promulge, or Execute any without the King's Assent: leaving them in the mean time to their Old Methods of Proposing and Deliberating; and reducing their Power only to the same Level with that of Parliaments: over which they had before great and sensible advantages; in as much as they Enacted Canons by their own Authority, without the Royal Concurrence, and in Synods oftentimes, which met without a Royal Summons.  
This, I question not, is the true and genuine Exposition of the Act; and this being the very Hinge on which the Second Article of the Dispute turns, I thought myself obliged to consider it with a very particular care, and to secure it, if possible, against all Exceptions. I hope, I have done so; and that the Reader is, by this time fully satisfied, that no Restraint is laid by it upon any Convocational Act of the Clergy, previous to the passing a Canon; but that they have still as much Liberty to Treat, Debate, and Conclude (so they do not Enact, Promulge, and Execute) since this Statute, as ever they had before it. Sure I am, that it has been thus understood all along by those who may be presumed to be best acquainted with its meaning; such as Poulton, and Rastal were: The one, in his Abridgement, puts this Title before the Act," That the Clergy in their Convocations shall Enact no Constitutions without the King's Assent: The other, in his Repertory, at the End of the Statutes, makes this to be the Purport of it, That the Clergy in their Convocations shall Enact nothing unless they have the King's Assent and Licence: Neither of 'em were ware, it seems, that their Liberty of Debate was cut off by it.  
My Lord Herbert took it just as they did, for his short Summary of it is, that in Convocations nothing shall be Promulged and Executed without the King's Leave 
* P. 399. .  
Mr. Fox was of the same mind; for thus he abridges it, That the Clergy shall not hereafter presume to assemble in their Convocation, without the King's Writ, or to Enact or Execute Constitutions without his Royal Assent 
† Vol. 2. p. 330. .  
Bishop Godwyn does not differ in his account of it, which is, In praedicto porrò Parliamento decretum est de abrogand● Synodi Authoritate in Canonibus Ecclesiasticis condendis, nisi quatenus Rex eos ratos habuisset 
* Annal. ad Ann. 1534. .  
Francis Mason, the Eminent Defender of our Orders, represents it after the very same manner in a small Piece of his about the Authority of the Church in making Canons and Constitutions concerning things Indifferent: There he says, It is Enacted by the Authority of Parliament, that the Convocation shall be assembled always by virtue of the King's Writ, and that their Canons shall not be put in Execution unless they be approved by the Royal Assent 
† P. 15. .  
Nor had the Enemies of the Church any other Opinion in this matter than its Friends: witness what the same Author in his Great Work mentions, as the sense of the whole Body of the Puritans: Ostendunt Puritani, sub sinem sui Examinis, Canon's prorsus nullos vigere aut valere in Angliâ, qui Regio Calculo ac Sigillo non sunt muniti 
* Fitz-Simon apud Masonum de Minist. Angl. p. 21. .  
And thus speaks one of them, in a Treatise of Oaths exacted by Ordinaries, etc. and He no inconsiderable Writer: It is Enacted, he says, and Provided, that no Constitutions or Ordinances should be made, or put in Execution within this Realm, until, etc. 
† P. 54.   
Nay thus speaks Mr. Bagshaw himself in his famous Argument concerning the Canons; where we may be sure he says nothing more to the advantage of the Clergy than he needs must; and yet he represents the Act to be only, that to the making of Canons there must be the King's Royal Assent 
* P. 12. . And when he is to produce the words of the Statute, by which the Clergy have power to make Canons, he says they are; That they shall not Enact, Promulge, or Execute any Canons or Constitutions, etc. unless they may have the King's most Royal Assent to Make, Promulge, and Execute the same 
† Ibid. . But as to Attempting, Alleging, Claiming, and putting in Ure, he never dreamt that These were in the Act applied, or were applicable to this purpose; and therefore does not mention them.  
Intruth he was a Lawyer, and a Man of Skill in his Profession, and so knew very well, that in the Omission of these words, as having no reference to the Clergy's Power of making Canons, he only traced the steps of the King's Commissions to the Convocations in 1603, and 1640. One of these is Printed at length in the 
* P. 285, 290.  Bibliotheca Regia; and there, All of the 25 H. 8. which relates to the Clergy's Power in Making Canons is inserted at large; and (which is very remarkable) those words [Attempt, Allege, Claim, and put in Ure] are not recited: A sure sign, that the Attorneys-general of those times (〈◊〉 those Times had Attorneys-general, that had both Skill, and Will enough to carry the King's Prerogative as high as it would bear) did not think, that they could colourably be made use of to this purpose; or that the Clergy were debarred by this Act from attempting New Canons, to be made hereafter, but such Old ones only as had been long ago passed and published. Dr. Wake therefore is Disingenuous in the Highest Degree, where 
† Append. Num. V p. 371.  he pretends to Print this very Commission; and when he comes to the Act of Parliament, which it recites, does not transcribe the Act as it is there recited (which is in part only) but refers us to his Extract of it, Num. IU. and assures us, that it is recited in the Commission, as in the Extract, Verbatim; tho' the most Material words in his Extract, and such as would be most Conclusive upon the Clergy's Convocational Acts and Debates, if they really belonged to 'em, are, as I have shown, designedly omitted in that Recital. Such poor shifts is he forced to, to maintain a Bad Cause; which however, even by these Ill Arts, cannot be maintained.  
The Proof drawn from these Commissions is farther confirmed by a Proclamation of K. Charles the First in june 1644 
* See it Biblioth. Reg. pag. 331. , which forbids the Assembly of Divines to Meet and Act, upon these, and these Accounts only; Because by the Laws of the Kingdom; no Synod or Convocation of the Clergy ought to be called and assembled within this Realm, but by Authority of the King's Writ; and no Constitution, or Ordinance Provincial, or Synodal, or any other Canons may be Made, Enacted, Promulged, or Executed, [it says not Attempted, Alleged, Claimed, or pu● in Ure; which were words known to belong to Canons already made] Unless with the King's Royal Assent and Licence first obtained: upon pain of every one of the Clergies doing contrary, and being thereof convict, to suffer Imprisonment, and make Fine at the King's Will, as by the Statute of the 25 H. 8. declaring and enacting the same it doth and may appear.  
Let me add to all these the Authority of the Convocation itself, which set out the Institution of a Christian Man a few years after they had submitted. In the Dedication of that Book the Prelates address the King after this manner, Without your Majesty's Power and Licence, we acknowledge and confess that we have none Authority either to assemble together for any pretence or purpose, or to publish any thing that might by us be agreed on, or compiled. Which words evidently imply a power of agreeing upon, and compiling, (tho' they deny that of publishing) any Determination, or Doctrine.  
It were endless after this to argue from the silence of the Authors of those times; for than I must vouch All of them. Only the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, being a Book of Great Note, which was drawn up by Commissioners appointed by the King, and where no Occasion is neglected of setting out, and magnifying the Royal Power; it may be worth our while to observe, that there is not however in all that Book, as far as I can find, one Expression, that implies the Composers of it to have thought, that the Clergy's Synodical Debates lay under any Restraint from the Crown; which is a very strong Presumption that they did not think the Clergy to lie under any.  
The Reader will forgive me for laying together this Great Heap of Authorities, if he either considers, of how great Importance it is to my Cause, that the sense I have given of the Act should be fully cleared; or how necessary Dr. Wake has made such a Collection, by affirming, that this sense of it was never allowed of, or, for aught he knows so much as heard of, (I repeat his very words) till the Gentleman against whom he writes enlightened the world with it. 
P. 289.  The Accounts I have given do, I hope, both sufficiently expose the Rashness and Vanity of this Assertion, and also sufficiently prove the Truth and Justness of that Exposition. To return to it therefore—  
The Statute (as far as it relates to the Power of the Clergy in Convocation) plainly implies no more than that Canons should not from thenceforth pass, and become Obligatory, without the King's Leave and Authority given in that behalf; without his Le●ve, which was requisite to their Passing, and his Authority, which was afterwards to ratify, and give 'em force. And to understand the words of the Law otherwise is, as has appeared, to understand them against all Propriety, and the Rules of Construction; and which is still more unreasonable, to do this in Materiâ minùs favorabili, and where Ordinary Liberty is abridged; and lastly, which is intolerable, where so grievous a Penalty as that of a Praemunire is to follow.  
The 25 of H. 8. then has not in the least altered the Law of Convocations, in relation to any of the Powers or Privileges of the Inferior Clergy: They can still freely Consult, and Debate, Petition, or Represent, propose the Matter or Form of New Canons, and consider about the Enforcing or Abrogating old ones; in a word, act in all Instances, and to all Degrees, as they could before the passing of that Statute. Indeed my Lord Archbishop's hands are tied by it; for he cannot now call a Convocation without the King's Writ, which before this Act he might, and in Elder Times frequently did: He cannot now Enact and Constitute any thing by his own Authority, as in Imitation of the Papal Power in Councils, and of the Royal Power in Parliaments, it was usual for him to do: He must, before he passes any Act of the Two Houses, have the King's Assent to it; and after it is passed, there must be the King's Licence also to Promulge and Execute it. In these several Respects the Metropolitan's Authority is considerably lessened by this Act; the Exercise of which is now chief seen in Moderating the Debates of the Synod, and giving his Vote last upon any Question proposed there; as Dr. Cousins (Dean of the Arches to his Grace that then was) does in his Tables express it 
* Ejus est moderari Synodum, & ultimò Suffragium far. Tab. 3. . But the Powers and Privileges of All the other Members of Convocation continue whole and entire to 'em, notwithstanding this Statute; and were so understood to continue for a long time after it passed: the Methods of proceeding in Convocation continuing the same for near Threescore and ten years after the Act, as they had been before it; the Clergy going on still to propose, deliberate, and resolve as they had been used to do, without Qualifying themselves for it by any Precedent Licence under the Broad Seal; the King, the Parliament, and People of the Realm allowing 'em so to do, without opposing this Method as Illegal, questioning it in the least, or calling 'em to an account for it. Indeed the Doubtful Wording of the Act might possibly give the Clergy some Alarm at first, and put them under Apprehensions that their Liberty of Debate was abridged by it; or at least that it might be construed so to be by Those who in those Distressing Times were willing enough to take any Advantage of them. But their Scruples (if they had any) cleared up in a little time, and their Fears vanished; and they afterwards fell to business with the same freedom, and under as little Restraint (for aught appears to the contrary) as any of their Predecessors had done before the Act of Submission. And thus the matter stood till the very End of Queen Elizabeth's Reign: there being no Instance, I believe, to be given of a Formal Commission to Treat and Debate, Older than the Convocation of 1603, in the first of King james; which shall hereafter be accounted for.  
In the mean time, we will suppose the utmost, that can by the severest Interpretation of the Act, be pretended; that the Clergy are by it cut off from forming the Draught of a Canon, or even deliberating about one, without being particularly impower'd to that purpose; yet are they still in several Inferior Instances of Acting left perfectly free. It is not to be doubted but that, notwithstanding the Act, they may by an Humble Representation lay before my Lords the Bishops, the King, or his Great Council, any Growing Inconvenicies and Disorders in the Church, any Dangerous Errors that may happen to arise and spread in their time, any Outrageous Excess of Vice and Impiety which they shall observe to prevail: and having made their Representations, they may venture to add their Requests for the Prevention or Suppression of such Disorders, Vices, and Errors; and even to point out the Methods of doing it. If they cannot move a step towards framing New Canons, yet at least they may interpose in behalf of the Old ones, and pray, that they may be vigorously Executed, and duly observed. In a word, whatever Hardships or Grievances they may lie under from their Ecclesiastical or Civil Superiors (as 'tis possible for 'em to suffer from either) they have in Convocation a Right, and an Opportunity to declare ' 'em. These Complaints it was heretofore their Custom to put up together with their Subsidies; and coming in such good Company therefore, they were for the most part favourably heard. Now they have left off to Tax themselves, they must no longer draw Occasions of Relief, from the Wants of the Crown, but from the Goodness and Justice of Him that wears it. It will be for the Honour of a Reign, founded in the Liberties of the People, and secured by maintaining 'em, to suffer All Bodies of Men to enjoy their Rights, tho' they give nothing for it: Nor will it be any Reflection upon our most Excellent Prince, if the World shall see, that the Advice of so considerable a part of his Subjects as the Clergy are, may be welcome to him, even without their Subsidies.  
It is the Opinion of some Men, that that Mystery of Iniquity, Popery, is now at work, and carrying on among us in a very dangerous manner; and it is their Fear, lest that which could never succeed, when it appeared barefaced, should prevail by making secret and unperceived Advances upon us; whether their Fears are just, or no, I shall not determine: but would it not be fit that the Clergy should be left to their wont Liberty of Assembling; that upon any such dangerous conjuncture, they might join their Counsels, Endeavours, and Requests, to give a stop to the Growing Mischief? and by a Due Representation of the Danger grounded on the sure Accounts that shall be brought to the Convocation by the several Members of it resorting thither from All parts of the Kingdom, excite the Civil Magistrate into a Degree of Care and Concern proportionable to the Danger?  
But should the Clergy have no Representations, no Complaints to make to the King and Parliament, yet They themselves may be complained of to either: and it is fit they should be ready to give answer to such Complaints. All other Bodies and Communities of Men, if any thing be moved in Parliament to their Prejudice, can immediately Assemble and Confer together, and lay before their Superiors the Consequences of it, as far as their Particular Interests are concerned: The Clergy alone have no such Liberty or Opportunity, if their Parliamentary Assemblies are not observed; and are in this respect therefore in a worse condition than the Pettiest Company or Corporation in the Kingdom.  
'Tis true, my Lords the Bishops are at hand always, to interpose in their behalf: but as they are no standing Committee of Convocation, upon whom the Care of the Clergy's Interest in Parliament has at any time been devolved; so neither is it proper, that it should be altogether lodged in their Hands; which are too full of other Business, to be able alone to discharge this to the best Advantage. As quicksighted as their Lordships may be to discern, and as Fatherly a Concern as they may have to remedy the Grievances of the Inferior Clergy; yet it is not to be expected, that they should either understand 'em so well, or represent 'em so fully, or interpose so hearty for their Redress, as those who feel ' 'em. men's Interests have been ever best taken care of by such as were most immediately concerned in ' 'em. Their Lordships, doubtless, want no Zeal for the Good of the Church, and of every the smallest Member of it. But in Men of their Age and Experience such Zeal is ever tempered with great Caution, and managed with nice Regards to the Probability of Success, and to the Passions, and Prejudices, and Various Interests of Men. Now these Restraints might, it is hoped, in some measure be taken off, and their Lordships encouraged into a Reasonable Prospect of succeeding in any Proposal they had to offer on our Behalf, if they were backed in it by the Joint Advice and Endeavours of the Clergy of the Province assembled. And as their Caution in Interposing would in this case it is likely be less, so would their Interposition itself perhaps be of somewhat greater Weight and Influence; especially in Times, when their Lordship's Actions may lie under any Prejudices, and their Characters be misunderstood. At such Seasons, they will have enough to do, to support and promote their Own Interests; and will not be able (however willing they may be) to stand in the Breach, and be a Screen to their Inferiors.  
Besides, their Lordship's Good Offices are confined to the Upper House, nor can They take notice of any Parliamentary Matter, till it comes regularly before 'em there: whereas the Clergy, as well as all other Bodies of Men, aught to have the Privilege of an Early Address to the House of Commons, where so many Bills of Importance begin, that nothing may pass there to their Disadvantage, without being opposed, or understood; since That itself would be a Misfortune to 'em, tho' they were sure to have it quashed elsewhere.  
The Bishop's Interest, Authority, Eloquence, 〈…〉, sufficient to plead the Church's 〈◊〉 and secure her Interests in the House of Lords; where all the Noble Members are under so favourable a Disposition towards Her, that they would certainly do Her Justice, tho' they were solicited by less Powerful Advocates: However, the Commons Spiritual think it very Proper and Reasonable, that they should in these cases have a Recourse to the Commons Temporal; whose Interests in the State running parallel with Theirs in the Church, and being nearly linked with them, seem mightily to encourage such an Application; and to make it a Point of Prudence, as well as Duty, in the Clergy to practise it, where it may be had.  
The Commons have a considerable Interest in the Lesser Clergy, by reason of their Patronage; They are their Protectors, and Guardians appointed by Law in relation to one part of their Maintenance; and will be extremely tender therefore of all their other Civil or Ecclesiastical Rights, and careful to cover them from any Attempts that shall be made upon their Privileges: That so they may be in Heart, and at Hand always, to stand up with them in behalf of Liberty, when it shall be attacked, and to resist a Growing Tyranny either in Church or State, as it may happen. For Arbitrary Government is a Spreading and Contagious Thing; and when once it is set up any where, there is no knowing where it will end.  
My Lords the Bishops therefore must excuse us, if, as great a Reverence as we bear to their Characters, and as high an Esteem as we have of their Personal Qualifications, their Integrity, Capacity, Courage; yet we think it fit, that other Helps should be called in (since All Helps are but little enough) to support the sinking Interests of Religion, and the Clergy; and judge the Great Concerns of the Church no where so secure, as, where the Wisdom of our Constitution has lodged 'em, in the Hands of a Convocation of the Province. We know the Enemies of the Church sleep not, tho' the Watchmen sleep too often— are the words of one, once an Active Presbyter of this Church, now a Vigilant Prelate 
* Dr. Burnet 's Fast-Sermon before the House of Commons. Anno 1681. p. 25.  We cannot, God be thanked, apply 'em to the Present Bench of Bishops; and would not, if we could, unless in a Case of the Utmost Necessity; because nothing less than that would justify such a freedom in Meaner Authors. However Times may come, that will deserve such Language; but when, if the Provincial Assemblies of the Church be, together with its Watchmen, laid asleep, it will be too late to use it.  
The Right Reverend Author of that Discourse (who should understand the Frame of our Church well, having written the History of it) observes, that it is happily Constituted between the Extremes of Ecclesiastical Tyranny on the one Hand, and Enthusiastical Principles on the other Hand 
† Ibid p. 9 . It is so; and the Happiness of this Constitution, in relation to one of these Extremes, lies in the Interest which the Lower Clergy have in Convocation; where they are associated with their Lordships in the Care and Government of the Church: Whereas out of Convocation, they are not, I think, advised with; and have little else to do, but to observe Orders: The Diocesan Synods of our Church being not for Counsel now, but for the Exercise of the Episcopal Authority. This Happy Frame therefore should by all means be kept up; and the rather, because it suits very happily with that of the State, and with the Constitution of Parliaments. And it is highly expedient for every Church and State, that the Ecclesiastical Polity should be adapted to the Civil, as nearly as is consistent with the Original Plan of Church-Government; which, in our Case, there will be no danger of departing from, by a Compliance with the State-Modell: For I am sure, and am ready, when ever I am called 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; and the nearer she comes up to Both these, the more likely will she be to Endure and Flourish.  
What the same Eminent Pen has said on this Occasion, I willingly subscribe to; That as in Civil Government, a Prince governing by Law, and having high Prerogatives, by which he may do all the Good he has a mind to, which yet he cannot abuse to act against the Law, and who is obliged often to consult with his People in what relates to common safety; by whose Assistance he must be enabled to put in Execution the Good Things he designs; is certainly the best Expedient for preventing the Two Extremes in Civil Society, Confusion and Slavery: So a Bishop that shall have the Chief Inspection over those whom he is to Ordain, and over the Labours of those already placed; whom he shall direct and assist in every thing; and who governs himself by the Rules of the Primitive Church, and by the Advice of his Brethren, is the likeliest Instrument both for propagating, and preserving the Christian Religion 
* Pref. to the Hist. of the Regal. . I add, and for the keeping up of this Particular Church in some Degree of Repute and Authority; which have ever been best secured to it, when her Prime Pastors have met their Clergy often in Synod, and by their Advice and Assistance managed the Great Affairs of it.  
But if that be thought too much, and sound too high for the Lower Orders to pretend to; who must be contented rather to be the Subjects of Ecclesiastical Government, than any Sharers in it; yet even Subjects themselves may Petition, and make known whatever Grievances, or Requests they have to offer, without Encroachment on any of their Superiors. And that the Liberty of such Addresses and Representations is still left to the Convocation, (to the Lower House alone, or to Both jointly) I have fully showed: The Statute of Submission, even under the most Rigorous Interpretation of it, being scarce pretended to abridge their Privileges in this respect. And because Practise in this kind is the best Proof, I shall here add a few Instances of it.  
In the Convocation of 1542 (33 Hen. 8.) the Acts say, that at the passing of the Subsidy, Clerus exposuit 4. Petitiones [to the Upper House, who when they presented the Subsidy, were to acquaint the King with them] 1. De Legibus Ecclesiasticis condendis. 2. De Conjugiis factis in Bethlehem abolendis. 3. De veneundis— Beneficiis. 4. De Decimis solvendis. Act. MSS. Sess. 20.  
The Two Petitions in the first Convocation of E. 6. (See 'em in Bishop Burnet's Hist. Vol. 1. p. 118.) Collect. of Records, whatever force they may have to prove a Licence necessary on other Occasions (which shall hereafter be fully considered) do yet certainly prove it not necessary in order to Petition.  
There are many Requests of the Clergy in Convocation to Queen Elizabeth.  
One Anno 1580, in behalf of the Archbishop, than out of favour, that she would be pleased to restore him. Fuller. IX. Book, p. 121.  
Another Anno 1587., about the Act said to be intended against Pluralities. Full. Ibid. pag. 191.  
A third to the same purpose, in some other Convocation of her Reign; which being yet unprinted, I shall insert in the Appendix 
* Numb. iv . It is a Paper very Remarkable both for the weightiness of the Matter, and closeness of the Expression; and for the spirit and freedom with which it is drawn: which however I propose not as a Pattern; but as a Great Argument of that Liberty they thought remaining to them.  
A fourth from the Lower to the Upper House of Convocation, to be presented in their Name to the Queen for the Pardon of Lapses and Irregularities. 'Tis in a Cotton MS. Cleop. F. 2. f. 123. and from thence I shall Transcribe it. 
See App. Num. V.   
A fifth against the Encroachments of Chancellors upon Archdeacon's. Ibid. p. 264.  
A sixth praying many Regulations in very weighty matters. Ibid.  
There is also extant in Fuller 
* IX. Book, p. 55. See the Preface to it, p. 66. of this Book.  a Remonstrance, of the Clergy of the Lower House, being a Declaration of their Judgements, made indeed in the very beginning of Queen Elizabeth, when this Statute was not yet revived, and about Popish Tenets; but which may, I presume, be safely imitated for the Assertion of truly Catholic Doctrines.  
Anno 1606, A Petition from the Lower House of Convocation to King james, against Prohibitions. This too the Reader will find with the others in the Appendix 
† Numb. VI .  
Nay, even the Assembly of Divines itself, tho' it was more strictly tied up by the Ordinance of Parliament 
‖ See it Rushw. 3. part, Vol. 2. p. 328. , than ever any Convocation was by their Commission (for there were Negative words in that Ordinance, which impower'd 'em to Treat and Confer of such Matters and Things as should be proposed to 'em, and no other) yet did not think themselves restrained from Petitioning, and proposing several Heads of Reformation to the Parliament. See 'em, Ibid. p. 344.  
The Clergy in Convocation were not used only to be Petitioners themselves, they were also some times addressed to in the same way by others; either by their Brethren of the Established Clergy, or by those of the Separation.  
Of the former I have seen an Instance in Manuscript, being a Petition from the London- Ministers 
* See Cat. MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. n. 8494. . The Direction of it is, To the Reverend Fathers in God the Lords Bishops, and the Rest of the Convocation. It is said in the Manuscript, to have been read and committed, Febr. 10. 1580.  
Of the Latter several Mentions, and Accounts remain, tho' the Petitions themselves be lost. For Example,  
In Queen Elizabeth's time those who were then called the Puritans, Petitioned the Convocation, as appears from a Passage in one of their Books, thus quoted by Bishop Bancroft 
* Dang. Posit. L. 4. c. 4. p. 140. , We have sought, say they, to advance the Cause of God by Humble Suit to the Parliament, by Supplication to your Convocation-house, etc.  
And whether it be this, or some other Petition of theirs that is referred to in a Manuscript Justification 
† See Cat. MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. n. 1987.  of the Mille-manus Petition to King james, I cannot tell; but these words occur in it,— We have often and in many Treatises declared, [our Objections against the Liturgy] at large, and namely in a Petition, which Four Godly, Grave, and Learned Preachers offered in our Names to the Convocation-house.  
A yet greater Liberty than any I have mentioned was taken by the Clergy in that Long Address [miscalled by Fuller 
‖ P. 208.  the Protestation] which the Lower House offered to Henry the Eighth himself, after the passing of the Statute; or in that other very long one to the Upper House in Queen Mary's time 
* Hist. Ref. part 2. B. 2. Coll. n. 16. . In the first we have an Instance of very Free Convocational Representations, and of yet freer Petitions in the Latter; for it attempts not only Canons, but Acts of Parliament; and particularly prays 
† Art. 10. , that the Statute of which we have been speaking, may be repealed.  
But the Clergy no more stand in need of these Instances, than they would join in these Designs and Petitions. The Statute of Submission is none of their Grievances, nor do they ask, or wish a Repeal of it: They desire only that it may not have an Unnatural and Illegal Construction put upon it; and that they may be bound up no otherwise by it, than the Submitters themselves were. They know indeed, that the Reflection which a Right Reverend Member of theirs once made upon this Statute was, That the Extreme of raising the Ecclesiastical Power too high in the Times of Popery, had now produced another of depressing it too much: So seldom is the Counterpoise so justly Balanced, that Extremes are reduced to a well-tempered Mediocrity 
* Bishop Burnet 's Hist. Vol. 2. pp. 49, 50. . But as they are not sure that this is his Lordship's present Opinion, so they are certain it is none of Theirs: for they think their Power as Great as it need to be, if it be not made less than it really is. Had they lived indeed in Henry the Eighth's time, they should not perhaps have humoured his Imperious Temper so far, as to have made that mean Submission, or tamely to have given up any one Legal Privilege, which belonged to the Body, and was not inconsistent with the Good of their Country. But since it was made, and Enacted, they know how, like Good Englishmen, and Good Subjects, cheerfully to obey it. Only they can never submit to such a sense of the Submission as was never intended, nor throughout that Age, wherein it was made, ever practised. This would be a much meaner part in them, than the first Act was in their Ancestors: whose Religion was all Submission and Slavery; and it is no wonder therefore that the Fetters prepared for them sat so easily upon them. But in a Protestant Clergy, the professed Assertors of the Just Freedoms and Rights of Mankind in Religious affairs, and who have been more than once Instrumental in shaking off Yokes of every kind from the Necks of Englishmen, such Illegal Compliances would be inexcusable. In short, they have, and they own that they have, great reason to be content with the Privileges which the Law has clearly marked out to them; and the Great Petition they have to offer is, that they may be permitted to enjoy them. If their Predecessors were struck with a Panic Fear, at the very sound of a Praemunire, in a Reign when the Laity too trembled at the Noise of Thunder from Above; yet their Present Successors may not be e'er the less Dutiful, tho' they are not quite so much frighted: as having the happiness to live in a Time when the Privileges and Rights of the English Subject are more clearly understood, and much better secured.  
Upon the whole than it appears,  
That the Clergy Commoners have all along had an undoubted Right of being frequently assembled, and particularly by the Law of England, as often as a New Parliament is called.  
That being assembled, they had anciently a Right of framing Canons, and doing several Synodical Acts (not inconsistent with the Law of their Country) without expecting the Prince's Leave for entering on such Debates, or making such Decrees.  
That the 25 H. 8. c. 19 has not in the least infringed this Right, as far as the Lower Clergy are concerned in it.  
That the Limitations there made to the Exercise of it chief concern the Archbishop of either Province, who is now restrained, as from calling a Convocation without the King's Writ, so from Passing or Ratifying any Canon without the Royal Licence, and from Promulging the same by his Own Authority.  
That the Inferior Clergy are no otherwise concerned, than to take care that they give their Consent to no Canon framed by themselves, or sent from the Upper House, otherwise than with Submission to the Royal Pleasure; if the King's Licence and Assent be not before obtained.  
That they are left therefore entirely at their Liberty to Confer and Deliberate even about New Canons; and also to Devise, Frame, and Offer them to the Upper House; if with a Protestation annexed, that they are neither intended nor desired to be enacted without the King's Licence.  
Much more, that there remains to 'em a Liberty of Petitioning, either that Old Canons may be executed, or New Ones made according to Law, and to such Purposes as the Petitioners shall suggest; or of representing their Humble Opinions concerning the Affairs of the Church, and of Religion; and, if need be, beseeching a Redress, at least in General Terms.  
This, I take it, is their Undoubted Privilege, and would be used by them on Great Occasions, with the same Prudence and Temper that their Predecessors are known to have practised; who, when they met without Interruption, were so cautious of giving no unnecessary Trouble either to Church or State, that they were more complained of, in some Reigns, for sitting still, than for stirring.  
By this time the Reader sees, that the Reason given for the Clergies not Meeting, because, when met, and form into a Body, they can do nothing, is a strange one. For, supposing 'em to be tied up never so strictly in their Decreeing Capacity, yet surely it does not follow, that they can do nothing, because they cannot Make or Attempt a Canon. Is it nothing to speak the sense of the whole Clergy of the Kingdom in matters proper for them to intermeddle in? is it nothing to Petition, Advise, Address, Represent; to give their Judgement, where it may be desired, or their Censure where it may be needful? Is it nothing, with a Dutiful and Discreet Zeal to suggest the fittest Methods of securing the Christian Faith, of preventing the Revival of Old Heresies and Errors, and the Growth of New Ones? Is it nothing to do that, which anciently, when Bills began by Petition, was the Great Privilege of one Great Part of the Legislature, the House of Commons? I had thought that, while they had this at least (tho' they should have no more than this) to do, they had not nothing to do; but rather a very Great and Necessary Work. And whether such Applications are necessary, should, I suppose, be left to the Convocation itself, to determine; tho' others afterwards may either second, or reject these Applications; who may in these Cases have the Power of Judging, but not of Prejudging the Actions of a Lawful Assembly: much less have they the Power of precondemning the very Being of such an Assembly, because they foresee not what may be done in it.  
In truth, whatever may be pretended of the Convocations being able to do nothing, yet their not being allowed to Meet is a shrewd sign, that they can, when met, do something; and that they of the Clergy, who oppose their Meeting, are themselves of that Opinion: for were their Mouths really shut, and their Hands tied to that Degree they are represented to be, there could certainly be no Inconvenience in trusting such an Harmless Body of Men together, nor would it be worth while to break through Ancient and Received Practice in order to prevent their Assembling.  
The Innovation made in these matters has begun within these Ten Years last passed. For tho' it has been usual to adjourn Convocations, a few days after they had met and sat, when there was little or no business to do; yet it was never till this time known that a Convocation was adjourned before it sat; that is indeed, before it was a Convocation. This New Practice (which Dr. Wake, in my Opinion, by as New Law justifies) we know the Date of; and have reason therefore to obviate it, while it is New; and to take some care that it may not in a little time be able to plead a Quiet Prescription.  
The Clergy betray their Privileges, if they lie still under the Publication of such Oppressive Schemes, without as Open a Disavowal of them, and without expressing their Detestation of the Meanness of the Publisher. They deserve to be used as ill as their Open Adversaries, or their False Friends would have them used, if they can suffer their most Valuable Right to be thus torn from 'em, in Print, without the least struggle for it. The Virgin in the Law of God was judged consenting to the Rape, who did not cry out, when Help was near, and was ordered therefore to be stoned together with her Ravisher. To prevent such an Imputation upon the Church, and the sad Consequences of it, her True Sons, were they as Rash as they are represented to be, would e'er this have showed themselves against this New Advocate, in a more Open Manner, and in somewhat Greater Numbers than they have hitherto done; and might perhaps, for that End (could they not otherwise be heard) have interposed a Subscribed Protestation from their whole Body. But if this way of gathering scattered Hands would seem disorderly, and unsuitable to their Characters, and prove dangerous, it may be, to the Persons engaging in it; the more reason still have they to esteem and assert the Privilege of being Legally assembled, and put into such a condition, as to be able duly and safely to make their just Complaints, and represent their Grievances.   

CHAP. IU.  
HAving largely showed what the Two Great Convocation-Rights are, which I proposed to Treat of, and withal offered the several Chief Evidences and Proofs on which I build 'em; my Method laid down leads me in the next place to consider the Exceptions of all sorts which have been made to this Claim, by some Late Writers, pretending to answer the Letter to a Convocation Man; particularly by the Author of a Letter to a Member of Parliament, and by Dr. Wake, in his Book entitled, The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted, etc. This Book being written by a Person of some Station in the Church, and, as is pretended, under the Cover of a Great Authority, deserves to be examined with a more than ordinary care; which accordingly I have resolved to bestow upon it. Dr. Wake indeed has a Peculiar Talon at enlarging on a Controversy; the shortest Point, when it comes under his Fruitful Pen, immediately improves into a Volume. I shall not so far follow his Example, as to trace all he has said▪ step by step, and Page by Page; and take every Opportunity that he has given me of laying open his misapplied Reading, and mistaken Reasonings: That would be an Endless Task, which I have no leisure for, neither does the Cause require it, nor would the Reader bear it. I shall endeavour therefore, as much as I am able, to shorten this Debate; and in order to it, shall first of all make some General Reflections upon his way of managing it: wherein I shall show, how very little there is in his Tedious Work, that really concerns the Point disputed; and how much of it is written against no body, and for no End in the World, that I can see, but the Pleasure of Emptying his Common-Place-Book. I may very aptly apply to him, what Bishop Andrews said of a much Greater Adversary: Etsi nobis lis nulla de Regiâ in Ecclesiasticis Potestate— tamen exorari non potest Tortus quin in Campum exeat istius Controversiae; &, ubi quaestio nobis nulla de eâ re, ostendat tamen nobis Testes minimè necessarios. Explicare scilicet voluit Opes suas, & ostendere quae habebat in Adversariis suis. Habebat autem ad hanc rem nonnulla, si incidisset alicubi: jam quia non incidit, occasionem arripit non valdè idoneam ea quoquo modo proferendi. Vult enim Lectorem videre quàm Cupressum pingat eleganter 
* Tortura Torti, p. 169, . I shall not, I hope, be thought impertinent in displaying these Impertinences of his; which I shall do in as narrow a compass, and under as few Heads of Observation, as the variety of the matter will admit of. And  
I. I observe, that Dr. Wake has put himself to a great deal of needless pains to prove a Point, which he might, if he pleased, have taken for granted; that every Christian Prince, and Ours in particular, has an Ecclesiastical Supremacy; and that the Clergy are not, by a Divine Right entitled to transact Church-affairs in Synods, as they please, and as often as they please, without any regard to the Civil Christian Power that they live under. Many of those numerous Instances he has produced of Princes intermeddling with Church-matters, here at home, or abroad, are designed only to assert this Great Truth: which however is a Point that he needed not to have laboured so hearty, because no Church of England man ever denied it: not the Man he writes against, I am sure; who says only (and what he says I shall not fear to say after him) that the Civil and Spiritual Powers are distinct in their End and Nature, 
Lett. to a Conu. Man, pp. 17, 18.  and therefore aught to be so in their Exercise too. The One relates to the Peace, Order, Health, and Prosperity of the Man in this Life, as a Sociable Creature; the other concerns his Eternal State, and his Thoughts, Words, and Actions preparative thereto: The first is common to all Societies, whether Pagan, or Christian; the Latter can rightly be exercised among Christians only; and among them, not as enclosed within any Civil State or Community, but as Members of a Spiritual Society, of which jesus Christ is the Head; who has also given out Laws, and appointed a standing Succession of Officers under himself for the Government of this Society. And these Ministers of his did actually govern it by these Powers committed to them from him, for near 300 years before any Government was Christian. From whence, says he, it follows, that such Spiritual jurisdiction cannot be in its nature necessarily dependent on the Temporal: for than it could never have been lawfully exercised, till Kings, States, and Potentates became Christian. And again in another place,— This Power having been claimed and exercised by the Apostles and their Successors, without any Regard, nay in Opposition to the Heathen Temporal Authority, is therefore, we say, not necessarily in its own nature dependent on such Authority 
† P. 19, 20. . Than which Reasoning nothing certainly can be more just; nor could that Writer have expressed himself with more Caution and Guard upon so nice an Occasion. Dr. Wake seems here to have apprehended him, as if he had affirmed, that Princes have nothing to do in Church-matters; the Management of which lies without their Sphere, and no ways depends on Their Authority. But no Man living could have struck this sense out of his words, that was not either very Blind, or very willing, for some small End or other, to misunderstand him. Cannot this mighty Controvertist distinguish between Denying the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Power to be necessarily dependent on the Temporal, and affirming it to be necessarily independent upon it? Does he not see a difference between saying, that the Church may subsist without the State, and that the State has nothing to do in the Government of the Church? If he does not, he ought to forbear tampering in Disputes of this kind, till his Judgement is better, and his Head clearer. But if, seeing this difference, he yet resolved to take no notice of it; either because he had made Collections some time of his Life about the Supremacy, and was resolved to take this Opportunity of giving himself the Credit of them; or because he saw it would be of use to him, to have the Writer he appears against represented under as Invidious Colours, and his Opinions loaded with as much weight as was possible: if this were the Case, it must be allowed him, that there was some little Art, tho', I think, no very great share of Honesty in his Management.  
'Tis true, the Letter to a Convocation-man, immediately after the last words I transcribed from it, adds, And if we should say further, that this Society has an Inherent and Unalterable Right to the Exercise of this Power; it would be no more than what every Sect or Party among us claims, and practices, etc. But Dr. Wake could not with any colour lay hold of this Passage as asserting the Independency of the Church on the State: for, besides that it is only a way of arguing drawn from other men's Principles; it is a few Lines afterwards expressly retracted, and qualifyed: But this, says he, is what at the present we neither do, nor need say. Notwithstanding which Dr. Wake is resolved that this he shall say, and maintain; and supposing it therefore to be his avowed Opinion, draws down all his strength, and sets his Quotations in Array against it. From Fathers and Councils, from Ancient and Modern Writers, our Own and Foreign Historians he learnedly proves, that the Church-power in a Christian Commonwealth is to be exercised in Subordination to the State; that Princes have of right all along called Counsels and dissolved them, have hindered the Execution of some Ecclesiastical Canons which were prejudicial to their Kingdom, and given the Civil Sanction to others— and a great deal more of this kind they have and may do; and must be allowed therefore a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs, and over Ecclesiastical Persons. And what if they be? Is there a Line in that Book he opposes, but what will stand good, notwithstanding all this were made out never so irrefragably? This is bringing the Great Engines of Battery against a Place, which he might have marched directly into without Opposition 〈◊〉 Enemy having never undertaken to defend 〈◊〉 Qui operosè probant, etc. (says Grotius or some such sly Dealers in this very Controversy) stultum sibi fingunt Adversarium, de quo facilè triumphent 
* De Imp. Summar. Pot. circa Sacra. . Dr. Wake, with great Modesty advises his Learned Adversary, Not to increase the Necessary Bulk of their Dispute by alleging passages out of the Ancient Fathers, to prove that which neither of 'em make any doubt of 
† Appeal. Pref. p. XXI. . Had he given this Advice first to Himself, and taken it, his Huge Performance had shrunk away into a few Pages, and been as inconsiderable for its Bulk, as it is for the Importance of the matter contained in it.  
II. A second Instance, wherein Dr. Wake has spent his Learned Pains to no purpose, is in the Tedious Account he has given us of the Power exercised by Princes, in relation to General Councils, and the Greater Church-Assemblies. These Researches (as he calls 'em) might well have been spared, upon a double account; both because the matter of 'em lies not very deep, and can be no News to any Man that has but once touched on this Controversy 
‖ Veteramenta omnia, detrita jam & repetita millies, says Bishop Andrews, (Tort. Tort. p. 173.) of some of those very Instances, which 90 Years ago, it seems, were grown stolen; though Dr. Wake produces 'em now with such Pomp and Pleasure. ; and because his Reading of this kind, tho' never so hard to come at, yet is nothing to the purpose. For the Dispute turns on Provincial Synods only, and the Rights which the Church lays claim to in relation to Them: and it is no Proof, or Disproof of these Rights to show, what the Practice of Princes has been in convening and presiding over General Councils, which are Meetings of another Nature, and Original, and subject to quite different Laws and Usages.  
By Provincial Councils the Church was governed, and in such Councils all the Great Affairs of it were transacted for some hundreds of Years before the Empire became Christian; whereas General Councils own their very Being to the Civil Power, without the Express Allowance and Encouragement of which, after Christianity had once spread itself wide, they never did, or could assemble.  
The Times when Provincial Synods were to meet, the Persons that were to compose them, and preside in them, the Causes that were to come before them, and the manner of deciding those Causes, and of enforcing Obedience to their Decisions by Spiritual Censures, etc. these were all things fully agreed on and determined by the Rules of the Church, while it subsisted independently of the State: and when Constantine therefore by embracing the Faith became its Protector, he only confirmed those Ancient Usages to the Church, which she was in possession of; He left the Practice of the Church just as he found it: only what was before an Ecclesiastical Rule, he made a Civil Right, and a Law of the Empire.  
Not so, as to General Councils; the Church had no Custom, no Prescription to plead, in relation to Them; they were Then first to be set up by the Civil Power, framed, and moulded 
* L. M. P. Proves a Convocation not to be incident to a National Church, by a passage in the Preface to Aelfricus is Canons; where he finds it said, that the Christian Church for the first 300 years had no Convocation, p. 46. Can one imagine it possible for a Man to be in the Dark to that Degree, as not to know, that this was meant of General Councils? But his Skill in Ecclesiastical History, it seems, goes no further than Lambert. : and no wonder therefore if the Method of their Meeting and Acting was regulated, in some of its chief Circumstances, by that Power which gave Birth and Establishment to them.  
The First of these Assemblies that ever sat, provided by a Canon for the continuance of Provincial Synods upon the Foot they had always stood: and this Canon was reinforced by several succeeding General Councils, was ratified by the several Emperors, in whose Times these Councils were held, and inserted at last into the Code of the Imperial Laws: and from thenceforth the Synod of every Province was as Legal an Assembly as the Senate itself; had a right, at stated Times, to be Summoned as duly, and to act within its proper Sphere as freely, as any Civil Convention whatever.  
But General Councils, even after they were set up, were not by any Law thus provided for; they were in their nature, and Institution Occasional Meetings, which had no fixed time allotted to them; but were to be called together in Extraordinary Cases only, and when the Pressing Exigences of the Church required them: And no Bishop Then pretending to an Authority over All the Rest, even on that account it fell acourse to the Emperor's share to Convene them.  
The Assembling of so many Men of Rank and Character from so many Quarters of the Empire was a Power that could safely be lodged in no Hands but his that ruled it: He was to be Judge, when such a vast Confluence was fit to be allowed, and how far it consisted with the Peace of the State; at what Place and Time the Session should be opened, and how long it should continue. He by his Officers provided for the safe Conduct of the Father's going to the Council, and returning from it; at his Expense they had Reception and Entertainment on the way, and under the Security of his Protection they met and consulted. The Debates of such a Numerous Assembly must have been very disorderly and tumultuous, unless conducted by a Rule; which not single Bishop had a Right to prescribe to the rest, and which could not therefore come so properly from any one as from Him that Summoned them. And that this Rule might be sure to be observed, it was requisite, that the Emperor should have a Place in their Assembly, should preside over, and moderate their Debates, either in Person, or by his Deputies, as he saw occasion. After the Fathers had come to Resolutions, and framed their Canons, it was of vast Importance to 'em to have the Secular Power ratify what they had agreed on. They could Authoritatively declare, what was the General Sense of the Church on such and such Articles; but to procure that these Decisions should be generally received and obeyed in all Christian Countries, could no ways be so effectually brought about as by Civil Sanctions and Penalties.  
On all these accounts, and many more, it was highly reasonable, and just, nay necessary almost, that the Imperial Power should exert itself in Appointing the Meetings, and Governing the Debates, and Confirming the Acts of General Councils. But was there the same Reason and Necessity for its interposing as particularly in Provincial Synods also, which were Ordinary Meetings, of perpetual and standing Use in the Church, not Numerous, or Composed of Equals, but of Persons living at no Great Distance from one another, and all Subordinate to one Ecclesiastical Superior? Dr. Wake knows in his Conscience, that these Circumstances make a Wide Difference between them: and if so, why does he amuse us with Large Accounts of what Emperors have done, and been allowed to do, in relation to those Great and Extraordinary Meetings, the Custom of which makes neither for nor against the Rule that was to be observed in these Ordinary Stated ones? To what purpose was it for him nauseously to transcribe Labbée for fifty Pages together upon a Common-place, which has been so often and so thoroughly exhausted by the Writers of the Last Age; and which besides is of no manner of use towards determining the present Dispute? Does he think to cover the want of proper and apposite matter by such lose and General Reflections as these? Does he hope to make his Readers lose sight of the Point they are in quest of, in that Mist of Impertinent Quotations, with which he surrounds ' 'em?  
The Learned Mr. Hill had rightly observed, that what Dr. Wake produces 
* P. 10.  from Socrates 
† Hist. Eccl. Praef. l. iv.  about the Emperor's interposing in the Greatest Councils, was of no weight in the present Argument; where we are enquiring, what the Usage and Rights of the Church are, not in the Greater, but Lesser Synods; which go by quite another Rule, and are much more exempt from the Interposition of the Civil Authority. Dr. Wake makes a Scornful mention of this Distinction in the Preface to his Appeal 
* P. xxi. , without vouchsafing to give any Reply to it: which was discreetly done, for it would not admit of any. The Distinction is just and well applied; and had it been considered by Dr. Wake, when he wrote, must have prevailed with him to withdraw above half the History that his first Chapter is filled with, and have made that part of his Work look no more Learned, than it really is.  
Socrates might well say, that the Greatest Synods were held always at the Emperor's Direction; but he knew the Lesser were not, and therefore omitted the mention of them. And the same Caution is observed in one of our XXXIX. Articles 
† Art. 21. ; where it is affirmed indeed, that General Councils may not be gathered [upon any Occasion, in any Circumstances] without the Commandment and Will of Princes: But of Provincial Councils nothing is said. However the Church's Caution in Wording her Decision is not greater than Dr. Wake's in citing it, who has, thoughout his first Book, made, as I remember, but one slight and General mention 
‖ P. 10.  of this Article, without producing the words of it; which he knew would go near to suggest a Distinction, that it was not to his purpose to have observed.  
Indeed the Canons of 1640 seem, and only seem, to go further; for in truth they do not. 
Art. 1.  They affirm, that the Power of calling both National and Provincial Councils is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms and Territories; but say not, that this is the Right of Kings alone, so that no other Person or Persons can in any Circumstances whatever claim or use it: on the contrary, they plainly teach, that where the Prince is not Christian, the Prelates of the Church may rightfully use this Power; so it be with Submission to the Civil Penalties and Punishments that may attend 'em on that account! and they intimate the Case to be the same under a Christian Persecuting Prince, tho' it was not so Decent openly to express it. The Canon and the Article therefore are perfectly consistent, and both are drawn up with that Moderation, and Guard, as to give the Prince what is His Due, and yet not to deprive the Church of what may be Hers; but to leave the way open to the Exercise of the same Power that she claimed and practised, before Princes came in to the Faith, if there should ever be the fame Occasion for it; which I hope there never will.  
And this Canon too was not, it seems, thought worthy to accompany Dr. Wake's Other Collections; where Foreign and far fetched Authorities take up his Pen so much, that he had not room to consider what had been said here at Home upon the Subject; no, not in a Work written on purpose to clear and to assert the Doctrine of the Church of England. But we are not to wonder at it: for the same Happy Talon of Mind, which makes a Man abound in what is Trivial, makes him Defective also in what is Material.  
All that Dr. Wake can say for his way of arguing is, that he has in it traced the Steps of some of our Greatest Writers, who treating of the Supremacy, derive the Proofs of it from the same Sources he has done, and frequently give Instances of the Powers exercised by Princes over the Greatest and most General Assemblies; as appears from that Collection of Authorities which he has made in his Appeal. But this will not justify him: for those Writers, whose Pattern he pretends to follow, had to do with such Adversaries as quite shut out the Civil Power from interposing in Church-matters: Most of'em being engaged either against the professed Defenders of the Papacy, [as jewel, Bilson, Nowell, Mason, etc.] or against those of the Rigid Presbyterial way [as Whitgift, Hooker, Bancroft, Bramhall, etc. were] In Opposition to these therefore it was proper to show, how far the Practice of the first Christian Emperors was consistent with such Principles. And whether their Instances to this purpose were taken from the Greater or Lesser Church-meetings, from Provincial or General Councils, it was all one to the point in hand, and made equally against Those whose Doctrine they were to disprove. Not so in Dr. Wake's Case, who, when he wrote his First Book, had no such Adversary to deal with; but One who argued altogether upon the Bottom of a Civil Right, and drew his Plea purely from our Domestic Constitution, and the approved Laws and Usages of the Realm. When Dr. Wake therefore by the Authorities produced in his Last Piece would excuse the Doctrine laid down in his former, he deals unfairly with us: for those Authorities justify only that part of his Doctrine which was foreign to the Argument; they being Declarations chief of the General Rights and Interests of Supreme Christian Powers in Ecclesiastical Affairs; without entering into the Various Restrictions of that Right, which the Spiritual Subjects may in several Places be entitled to by the Concessions of Princes and States, and by their particular Privileges and Immunities; and without considering nicely, Where that Supremacy may in different respects be said to be lodged; and Who therefore must be taken in as Sharers in several Acts and Branches of it. Which Considerations nevertheless are necessary to determine the just Extents of our Prince's Rights in this Case, and the Measure of our Obedience; as will hereafter, in Due Place, more clearly appear.  
In these Opinions our Old Writers had an Eye to the Act, and Oath of Supremacy; to maintain which was the business of that Age, in which they wrote: and their words therefore must be understood, as that Oath is drawn up, Negatively, not Positively; that is, as denying the Usurpations in Ecclesiastical Matters, that have been made, or attempted, from without, upon the Crown of England, not as settling the exact Boundaries and Limits of that Supremacy within, in relation either to those who are to govern, or those who are to be governed by it: which is a Controversy, that there has hitherto been but little said of, and indeed but little Occasion to consider; and which could not therefore be settled and determined by such Writers, as lived and died before it was started.  
Dr. Wake's Cloud of Witnesses therefore, which he produces in his Appeal, are very properly such; for they serve only to darken and confound the Point we are in pursuit of, not at all to clear it. They are such a Nubes Testium as we had in the Late Reign for Transubstantiation [and other Romish Articles] where the Old Fathers were vouched by wholesale for a Doctrine, that came not upon the Stage, till they were gone off it. And much the same Usage have the Fathers of our own Church had from the Pen of this Appellant; who has cited 'em, if pertinently, to Points that perhaps they never heard of, and to purposes that to be sure they never dreamt of; and to which had those Excellent Persons foreseen that their words would have been stretched, they would certainly have renounced such Consequences, or rather have prevented 'em, by expressing themselves more warily. They were to plead for the Supremacy of Princes against Those who were for allowing them no manner of Interest in Church-matters: and what wonder is it, if in the warmth of this Dispute they should, as the Fate is in All Controversies, have sometimes a little over-thought or over-expressed themselves, and have laid down such Positions, as, tho' of sound Sense, when opposed to the Principles of those against whom they contended; yet when applied in other Cases and Circumstances (than out of their Thoughts, and the Debate) might need some little softening? Their Great Concern was to secure the Royal Prerogative; and when that was done, they thought their own Rights and Privileges would be secure under the Shadow of it. These they were then in a full Uninterrupted Possession of, without apprehensions that a Time might come, when they should be put to prove their Title to 'em; and when that Power, which they so warmly, and with reason, pleaded for, should be turned upon them, and made use of against the Maintainers of it. Much less did they suspect, that ever any pretended Son of the Church of England would amass together all the Highest Assertions of the Regal Supremacy, scattered up and down in their Writings, in order to furnish out a Plea for suppressing the Liberties of that Church; and on purpose to prove, that Convocations were (what the Letter to a Member of Parliament saucily says, 
* P. 26.  Bishops are) the Creatures of the Crown; which therefore as it created, so it may annihilate at its pleasure. Such kind of Books indeed were written Twelve Years ago, by some False Members of our Communion, to make way for those Ill Designs that were then on foot, but to the Eternal Infamy of the Writers of them; who thought to find their particular account in the General Ruin of that Church and Constitution to which they belonged; but were, God be thanked, every way defeated in Their Expectations. There is not, 'tis true, so much Hazard now, as there was then, in exalting the Regal Power; when we live under a Prince, who is too Just and too Clear sighted, to be flattered into a Misuse of his Authority. However, no Thanks are due for this to the Flatterers, who have marked out the Arbitrary Scheme; and it is no fault of theirs, if it be not afterwards followed.  
My Indignation at such Unworthy and Mean Attempts has carried me away into Considerations, not so proper for this place, and led me a little from a strict pursuit of my Argument. I left it, where I was showing, how weak Dr. Wake's weigh of reasoning is, from the Powers exercised by Princes over the Greatest Synods, to their interposing equally in the Less. He himself seems to be sensible of it; and therefore, to prevent this Long Chapter of his being One Entire Impertinence, has sprinkled up and down in it a few Instances of the Authority of Princes over their Provincial Synods: which being the only Instances there, that any ways affect our Argument, I shall not think much to consider ' 'em. And in order to it, I observe,  
III. That in those Few Historical Facts, which seem apposite and proper, he either manifestly mistakes National, for Provincial Synods; or Extraordinary Assemblies, for Ordinary and stated one's; or conceals some Circumstances relating to the Story of those Meetings, which when known, give an Easy Account how the Royal Power came so particularly to interpose in ' 'em. Several of the Synods which he calls Provincial, were undoubtedly not so: Others, which were, yet were called by Princes upon Extraordinary Emergences, and do no ways prejudice the Right which the Church then had of assembling ordinarily at set times, without a Lay Summons. For wh●n Princes admitted the Canon of the Nicene Council to take place in their Kingdoms, and allowed the Synods of every Province to meet twice a Year in virtue of it, they did not by that preclude themselves from calling those Synods together at other times, when the Circumstances of the Church or State should require them. They parted with no Power that they had to Convene such Assemblies, but only gave a Liberty to the Clergy of the Province to meet at appointed Times, whether they had a Royal Command for it, or no.  
Besides, had Dr. Wake intended a fair state of this Point, he would have set aside all those Instances of Provincial Councils Summoned by Princes, where those Princes exerted their Power, only to make Metropolitans, who were remiss, do their Duty, and obey the Canons: or, where they interposed only to revive the Use of such Meetings, which had been under a long Discontinuance in their Kingdoms; and when they had done so, lest them afterwards to their Ordinary Course. In these Cases, whatever the Prince did, he did in behalf of the Church's Rights, and his Act ought not therefore to be alleged, and cannot fairly be construed to their prejudice. Nay, in the most Ordinary and Regular Assemblies of the Province, should any mention be made in their Acts of their Meeting by the Civil Authority; yet it ought to be considered, whether at the same Time, and in the same Acts their Right of meeting by the Canons also be not claimed. For if it be, the Exercise of the Regal Power in such Instances is no Bar to those Liberties of the Church, which are at the same time expressly asserted and maintained. King's may order their Bishops to meet, when those Bishops would have met, tho' unordered: and all therefore that such Bishops, when met, could do, to secure their Ecclesiastical Right of Meeting, was to mention it together with the Royal Precept: and this we may presume 'em purposely to have done, to prevent those Precedents being drawn into Consequence, and under a Prudent Foresight of the Ill Uses that might be made of them by such Betrayers of the Church-Rights as our Author, in Future Ages. These Circumstances should have been considered by him; and, where they take place in any of the Instances of Provincial Councils he alleges, acknowledged. But it was not agreeable either to his Design, or his Temper, to inquire into matters thus carefully, or to state 'em thus candidly and fairly. It was enough, if upon a Superficial View of the Acts of Provincial Synods, or those that passed for such, he found at the Entrance of any of 'em a mention of the Royal Power: This he knew would have the Look of a Proof; and, whether it had more than that, he knew not, and cared not, and hoped other People would not give themselves the Trouble to inquire. To come to Particulars.  
The First Instance he has produced of the Authority of Princes over Provincial Synods, is this: When Theodoret (says he) began to be busy in calling the Bishops together, Theodosius not only laid a Prohibition upon him; but confined him to Cyrus, his own little See, as a Punishment for what he had done before. P. 18. I question whether Dr. Wake ever gave himself the Trouble of reading those three Epistles 
* Epist. 79, 80, 81. , which he citys on this occasion, tho' not with right Numbers. For there he would have found, that Theodoret, when thus prohibited by the Emperor, was at Antioch, where he had no more Authority to call the Bishops together, than at Rome, or Constantinople. He had been called up thither from his Little See, to reside with john the Patriarch; and whatever of this kind he did therefore, he did by his Order, and as his Substitute. But Theodosius finding the Peace of the East hazarded by these Assemblies, and the Nestorian Heresy favoured by them, sent an Order to Theodoret, upon whose Advice the Patriarch acted, to retire to his own Diocese, and live there. This is the true account of that matter, which how it makes for or against any Point in Dispute between Dr. Wake and his Adversaries, is to me hard to apprehend.  
The next Provincial Synod he mentions is that of Agatha, called by Caesarius Bishop of Arles; but not (says the Dr.) till he had obtained the Consent of Alaric the Goth for it; and it is expressly noted that it was held by his Allowance 
† P. 20. . What if it were? was it not a mighty favour that thirty five Catholic Bishops (for so many were present 
‖ Vide Conc. Meld. c 73 ) should be allowed to meet under an Arian Prince; tho' the Rules of the Church were on their side? and was not this favour fit to be acknowledged in their Acts? especially, since at the same time they took care to assert their Ecclesiastical Right to such Meetings, and to ordain 
* Can. 71.  that for the future, in obedience to the Canons, Provincial Synods should be held yearly. The Permission of the Prince would be sufficiently accounted for this way, had this Synod been both Ordinary, and Provincial; but it was really neither: not Ordinary, for it was called after a long Intermission of Councils in those parts, to restore the Decayed Discipline of the Church; not Provincial, for De Marca has observed 
* L.VI. c. 17. §. 1.  that no less than five Metropolitans, and the Proxy of a sixth, subscribe to it. But the Doctor found it styled Provincial in the Tomes of the Councils, and he looked no further.  
Such another Provincial Council is the very next he insists on 
† Ibid. p. 20. , that of Epaon: it was composed of the Bishops of Two Distinct Provinces, those of Vienne, under their Archbishop, Avitus, and of Lions, under Viventiolus; as the Subscriptions, if he had not been too much in haste, would have informed him.  
Among the Spanish Councils, he meets with Two that were Provincial, the Synods of Narbonne, and Saragosa: and of both these, he tells us, it is said, that they met according to the Order of Recaredus. 
Pag. 23.  But by his favour, this is said of neither. In that of Narbonne, they affirm 
‖ Concilia Sanctorum Patrum vel Decreta observare cum timore Dei cupientes, Nos in Urbe Narbonî, secundum quod Sancta Synodus per ordinationem Gloriosissimi nostri Recaredi Regis in urbe Toletanâ finivit— in unum convenimus.  themselves to meet in virtue of the Ancient Canons, and of the Decree of the third Council of Toledo, which met by Recaredus' order. In that of Saragosa, they own themselves indeed to meet by the Permission, but not by the Order of Recaredus: and this Permission might be, and probably was no more than what was contained in the Canon of that Council of Toledo, which had revived the use of Provincial Synods in Spain, but just before; and the Acts of which Recaredus had confirmed.  
In Gallicia he finds the Second Synod of Braga (which was Provincial) to have assembled at the Command of Arianirus 
* P. 23. . It did so: but it must be considered, that no Synod had been held in those parts for many years before 
† Diu est (says the Metropolitan in his Speech by which he opened it) Sanctissimi Fratres quòd secundum Instituta Venerabilium Canonum & Decreta Catholicae & Apostolicae Disciplinae, desiderabamus Sacerdotalem inter nos fieri debere Conventum: quia non solùm Ecclesiasticis Regulis & Ordinibus opportunum est, sed stabilem etiam semper efficit Charitatis Fraternae Concordiam, dum congregati simul in nomine domini Sacerdotes ea inter se salutiferâ collatione requirunt, quae secundum directionem Apostolicam Unitatem Spiritûs in Vinculo Pacis obtineant. . He restored the Catholic Faith, and the Use of Councils; both which were lost in that Country by a Long Succession of Arian Princes (as both of 'em are usually lost together.) And to this End he ordered his Bishops to meet, which could be no otherwise than Provincially; for his whole Kingdom was then under one Metropolitan. Is it any wonder, that after so long an Intermission, the first Provincial Synod that met, should gratefully own that Prince's favour, by whom they were allowed and encouraged to assemble? which yet they do, in such a manner, as to declare also, that by the Canons of the Church, they had a Right to meet, and that their being debarred of that Right was a Violence upon ' 'em.  
The Council of Lugo afterwards (which sat in 569, or thereabouts; not, as Dr. Wake says 
* P. 23. , in 607; mistaking grossly the Spanish Aera, for the Year of our Lord) professes itself to have met at the Command of Theodimirus; but it was upon an Extraordinary Occasion, the Erecting the See of Lugo into an Archbishopric; in which the Civil Power was nearly interested, and to which it was requisite therefore that it should concur. But after that was over, the Two Metropolitans of Braga, and Lugo, Convened their Provincial Synods apart, according to the Canons, and without the King's Order, as far as appears; and needed his Command only to unite these Two Synods into One National Assembly.  
As to the Seven Burgundian Synods, whose Acts, he says, avow the Authority by which they met 
* P. 24. ; tho' he would insinuate, yet he does not directly affirm any of them to have been Provincial; and I shall not therefore stay to prove that they were not so. That Five of them were not, is certain; and that the Two Others were, if not more than Provincial, yet at least Extraordinary, it will be time enough to prove, when he has told us, which he gives up, and which he insists on.  
But Pag. 35. he professes to speak only of the Power of Princes over their Lesser Synods; let us see by what Instances he chooses to make it good. He tells us, that when Wolfolendus Bishop of Bourges Summoned a Provincial Council according to the Canons, yet having neglected to consult the King's Pleasure in it, we find Sigebert, for that reason alone, forbade his Bishops to go to it.  
This Story indeed would be something to his purpose, were it rightly represented; but nothing can be more insincere than his manner of telling it. For the proof of this I appeal to the account which De Marca has given us of this matter, L. VI c. 19 Sect. 5. there he informs us, that Bourges of which Wolfolendus was Archbishop, was in Clovis' Realm, Neustria; not in Sigebert's, Austrasia; which was all out of the Province of Bourges: That He nevertheless, at the Desire of the Austrasian Bishops, designed to come with his Suffragans out of his own Province, into some City of Austrasia, to have a Meeting there with the Bishops of that Kingdom; and pretended to do this, by virtue of some Ancient Canons, without so much as consulting Sigebert in it; who for this reason resolved, as he justly might, to oppose him. We see here, that this Synod was not Provincial, but the Meeting of an Archbishop and his Suffragans of one Kingdom with the Bishops of another; and this appointed to be in the Territories of a Prince, where that Archbishop had no Jurisdiction, and without so much as acquainting him with it. What wonder if Sigebert made use of his Royal Power to hinder such a Meeting? or what Instance could Dr. Wake have pitched upon, less to his purpose; without it be that which follows?  
When the Fifth Council of Paris, he says, had resolved it to be Expedient, 
P. 36.  that Provincial Synods should be held every year, according to the Orders of the Church, and the Canonical Custom established in it: They made it their Request to Lovis the Emperor, and Lotharius his Son, that they would consent that at a fit season every year they might be assembled. This Request was again renewed some years after in another Synod. Thus far he is of our side; for what can be more to the advantage of Provincial Synods than this Decree of the Council of Paris, and their Request in consequence of that Decree, to the Civil Powers, that they would suffer it to take effect according to the Canons? It follows, Yes, notwithstanding these General Permissions, before they did come together, they were to have a particular Warrant for their so doing; as is evident (says he) from the Acts of the Synod of Soissons. Which Synod of Soissons, one would think now, was certainly Provincial▪ and yet it was composed of the Bishops of no less than Five Provinces, as De Marca assures us 
* L.VI. c. 26. §. 2. ; and the Names of several Metropolitans are now fairly legible in the Front of it; which is that part of the Acts, with which Dr. Wake is usually best acquainted.  
I thank him here for mentioning this Decree of the Council of Paris; for it gives me an occasion of supplying his account, and of adding the Reasons, by which the Authors of that Decree governed themselves in the passing it, viz. Because, if Provincial Councils were held Annually, the Honour of the Ecclesiastical Order would be supported, Ill Clergymen would be discouraged, many Offences which escape now with Impurity, would be taken notice of, and many Instances of Church-Discipline, now superseded, would, by the blessing of God be restored 
† Quoniam si haec semel in Anno per unamquamq●e Provinciam celebrata fuerint, & Honour Ecclesiasticus Vires Ordinis sui obtinebit, & Impudentia quorundam Clericorum quae passim authoritate Canonicâ calcatâ Auribus Imperialibus molestiam ingerit, ce●sabit; & Impunitas diversorum Plagitiorum locum delitescendi quem nunc habet, non hab●bit; & multa alia, quae hactenùs secùs quàm Ecclesiastica Disciplina docet, incess●runt, ordinem suum Deo Auxiliante servabunt. L. 1. c. 26. . Which Reasons, whether they will not serve as well to prove the Expedience of Convening frequently the Synods of Canterbury and York, I leave the Reader, who understands the state of this Church and Nation, to determine.  
These, I think, are all the Instances of Provincial Councils, which he expressly produces as such, throughout his first Chapter: and I appeal now to the most Partial of his Friends, whether any one of 'em does in the least countenance that Extravagant Principle which he sets up for, That the Calling, or not calling of Convocations (i. e. Provincial Synods) the allowing, or not allowing them to meet and sit, was a Thing always at the Free and Absolute Pleasure of the Prince; even where the Nicene Canon was admitted, as a perpetual Law of the Church. I do not wrong him, in representing this as the Design of that large Historical Account of the Authority of Princes over their Councils, which he has given us: for besides that he must either have had this design, or none (nothing less than this being of any service to that side of the Debate which he espouses); Besides this, I say, the very Terms in which he expresses himself show this to be the true and only End he aims at: Tho', 
Pag. 34▪  says he, the Council of Nice first, and, after that, several other Councils provided for the constant meeting of Provincial Synods every year; and these being allowed of by the Emperors and other Princes who confirmed those Canons, and approved of what they had defined, may seem to have put these kind of Synods at least out of their power; yet even in These we find 'em still continuing to exercise their Authority; and not suffering even such Councils to be held, without their Leave, or against their Consent.  
To confirm which, he produces two o● three Stories, which I have shown to be utterly wide of the mark; and then concludes: So entirely has the assembling of [these Provincial] Synods been looked upon to depend on the Will and Authority of the Christian Prince 
* P. 36. ! A Conclusion that has no Premises, nor any one clear and full Instance in all his Long Bead-roll of Councils to support it.  
The Doctor had kindly prepared us in his Preface, to expect Digressions; but withal promised us, in his nice manner, that they should be rather not directly to the purpose than altogether distant from it. However I find not that he has kept his word with us, or that they deserve to be thus gently dealt with. In the first of 'em, that meets me here, I have shown nine parts in ten of it [i. e. whatever he has said about General Councils] to be altogether distant from the purpose; and that the other poor Scantling [about Provincial Synods] which seems to be, yet is really not, to the purpose: and I conclude therefore that the whole is not only not directly to the purpose, but altogether distant from it. The Doctor must forgive me if I tell him, that these Historical Unedifying Accounts of his put me in mind of the Honest Confession of William Caxton the Chronicler; the words of which will become Dr. Wake's mouth as well every whit as they did His; and I cannot help thinking that I hear him in the close of his first Chapter thus addressing himself to his Reader:  
If I could, says he, have found me stories I would have set in it moo; but the substance that I can found and know I have shortly set them in this book; prayeinge all them that see this simple work of mine to pardon me of my simple writing.  
And indeed I for my part should have been very ready so to do, had it been as Harmless as it is Simple; and were it not likely, as Simple as it is, to be produced hereafter for a Testimony against the Church's Rights, if it be not now opposed and disowned. For which reason, how Simple soever the performance is, it deserves to be examined; and I go on therefore to observe,  
IU. That Dr. Wake distinguishes not between the Powers in Fact exercised by Princes, and those of Right belonging to them, by virtue of their Office. Good Princes have been allowed often to extend their Authority in Spirituals very far, and Ill Princes have often usurped an Authority beyond what they were entitled to. Dr. Wake troubles not himself with these Considerations; but what ever Powers he can find any Prince, (whether Good or Bad) to have exercised over the Church, Those he proposes, as Patterns, which all other Princes may safely copy, and as the true Bounds and Measures of the Royal Supremacy, When in the Story of our Convocations some Acts of theirs come cross him, that he does not like, than his Maxim is, That they did take upon them to do this is no proof that they had a Right to do it 
* P. 296. . But the most Extravagant Pretensions of Princes in the Ordering Church-matters are admitted by him without any such Guard or Distinction; without considering Who it was that did this or that, and in what Circumstances, and for what Reasons they were submitted to in the doing it. Charlemain in Germany, and Recaredus in Spain, ordered Ecclesiastical Affairs with a very high hand, and had certainly somewhat more than their Share came to in the management of them. But this was tacitly yielded to by their Bishops, who saw, that to whatever Degree their Power was carried, it would all be employed for the Establishment of the Church, and Advancement of the Christian Religion. What They did therefore must not, because they did it, be presently presumed to be the Common Right of every Christian Ruler; but oftentimes an Instance only of a Discreet Compliance, in the Clergy, with such Intrenchments on the Liberties of the Church, as might redound to the benefit of it. Good Princes, who had the Hearts of their People, and were known to be entirely in their Interests, have been permitted to carry their Prerogative in Civil Matters to an height, that has been withstood and retrenched in more suspected Reigns. Were the Measure of our English Constitution to be taken from those Excesses of Regal Power, which have been winked at sometimes when well employed; what would become of the Liberty of the Subject, or the Freedom of Parliaments?  
Dr. Wake finds perhaps in the Acts of some Councils Expressions of Great Duty and Respect used to Pious Princes by their Clergy; These presently he lays hold of as Authentic Synodical Decisions. The Council of Tours, it seems, did once upon a Time, tell Charles the Emperor 
* See p. 92. , that they left their Decrees to Him to do what he pleased with them; and the Council of Arles begged him, if he thought fit, to amend and alter them 
† Ibid. : This is Handle enough for Dr. Wake to annex such an Altering Power to the Kingly Character, and to represent the Business of Synods to be only the preparing of matter for the Royal Stamp, which may be improved, corrected, enlarged, shortened at the Prince's Pleasure; as (in p. 84, and 85. of his Honest Performance) he is pleased to express himself; and therein to entitle the King, de jure, to a more Extravagant Authority, than ever the Pope himself, I believe, with all his Plenitude of Power, de facto exercised, or claimed. But surely this is a Doctrine of too great Importance to be established on so slight a bottom: and of such dangerous consequence to the Church, that nothing less than the Universal Practice of the Church can sufficiently authorise it. The Doctor may remember, when he wrote against Prayers for the Dead, in a late Reign, his way of arguing was, that Doctrines of that weight were not to be built on the Figurative Apostrophe's and Rhetorical Flights of the Fathers: but now he is of another mind; every Submissive word, every Respectful Form of Expression that he finds to have dropped at any time from the Mouths of the Members of a Synod, when addressing to their Prince, is Ground sufficient to rear a proof of his Prerogative upon. But thus it is, when Princes are to be complimented at the Expense of their Subjects Rights, Compliments shall pass for Arguments!  
As Dr. Wake has furnished himself with a Plea for the boundless Authority of Sovereigns in Church-matters, from such Extraordinary Acts of Power, as have been submitted to in good Princes; so can he argue as well from the Unjust and Violent Encroachments of Ill ones. Henry the Eighth was such, if ever any Prince upon Earth was; and Sir Walter Raleigh therefore says of him, that, if all the Pictures and Patterns of a Merciless Prince were lost in the World, they might all again be painted to the Life out of the Story of this King 
* Pre●. to hi● Hist. of the World. . And yet the Acts of this King, the most Exorbitant and Oppressive Acts of Power which he exercised towards the Clergy, are produced by Dr. Wake as good and lawful Precedents, which all his Successors are allowed and incited to follow. Particularly that Instance of his Correcting and Amending the Determinations of the Clergy in Synod, even upon Doctrines of Faith, is given us 
† See pp. 136, 137, 138, 139.  without any Intimation that such a practice exceeded the Bounds of the Kingly Power. And in this he is followed by Mr. Nicholson 
‖ Hist. Lib. ●ol 3. p. 196, 197 . And both these Gentlemen are so eager to assert this Power to the Crown, that they have not given themselves leisure to inquire how far the Authorities they in this case cite, are to be depended on. Dr. Wake quotes my Lord of Sarum for it, whose words are, These Articles [in 1536] being thus conceived, and in several places corrected and tempered by the King's Own Hand were subscribed by Cromwell and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Seventeen other Bishops, Forty Abbots and Priors, and Fifty Archdeacon's and Proctors of the Lower House of Convocation 
* Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 217. . And in the Addenda to his first Volume 
† P. 364.  his Lordship further says, that He has had the Original, with all the Subcriptions to it, in his Hands. I have had it too, and can assure the Reader, that there is not a single Correction by Henry the Eighth's hand, or any others, in that Original. 'Tis a Copy fairly Engrossed in Parchment 
‖ See it Bibl. Cotton. Cleop. ●. 5. , without any Interlineations or Additions whatever. My Lord Herbert indeed, who is Mr. Nicholson's (and I suppose my Lord of Sarum's 
* I suppose so, because my Lord of Sarum 's account of the Subscriptions is exactly the same as my Lord Herbert 's, and with the same mistakes: no Deans being mentioned by either, nor any Consideration had of those of the Lower House, who subscribed in double Capacities; which makes the Subscriptions more numerous than they are represented to be. ) Authority, says, that the Bishops and Divines who consulted upon these Articles were divided in their Opinions, some following Luther, and some the Old Doctrine; whose Arguments on either side the King himself took pains to peruse and moderate, adding Animadversions with his own Hand, which are to be seen in our Records 
† Hist. H.S. p. 469. . But these words I must be bold to say, are mistaken both by my Lord Bishop, and Mr. Nicholson, if they infer from thence, that the King made any Alterations in the Articles after they were drawn up; since the Animadversions plainly were, not on the Articles themselves, but on the Arguments urged on either side of the Questions determined in ' 'em. These Arguments, or Opinions, were, it seems according to the known way of that time, offered in Writing, and subscribed by the Parties maintaining 'em: And the King took upon him to temper and soften the Expressions on either side, till he had brought both to a Compliance. But this is a very different thing from his Correcting and Amending the Articles themselves; even as different, as assisting in the Debates of a Synod, before the Conclusion is form; and altering the Conclusion itself, after it has been unanimously agreed on.  
This is truly the Case of those Amendments of Henry the Eighth, which Dr. Wake is so full of: However had it been such as he represents it; yet no Argument of Right, I say, can be advanced on such Facts as these; and it had become Dr. Wake therefore, when he related 'em, to have told us withal, that they were unjustifiable. Many of the Actions of that Supreme Head of the Church were such, as cannot justly, (and will therefore, I hope, never) be imitated by any of his Successors. For instance, he made his Bishops take out Patents to hold their Bishoprics at pleasure; tho' I suppose my Lords the Bishops that now are, do not think such a Power included in the Notion of the King's Supremacy.  
William the Conqueror is another of the Pious Patterns he recommends; who would suffer nothing, he says, to be determined in any Ecclesiastical Causes, without Leave and Authority first had from him 
* P. 179. & L.M.P. p. 34. : for which he citys Eadmerus; and might have told us from thence, if he had pleased, more particularly, that he would not let any of his Noblemen, or Ministers, tho' guilty of Incest, and the Blackest Crimes, be proceeded against by Church-Censures and Penalties 
* Nulli Episcoporum permittebat ut aliquem de Baronibus suis, seu Ministris, sive Incestu, sive Adulterio, ●ive aliquo Capitali Crimine denotatum publicè, nisi ejus praecepto, implacitaret, aut Excommunicaret, aut ullâ Ecclesiastici rigoris poenâ constringeret. Eadmer. pag. 6. ; that he made his Bishops, his Abbots, and Great Men out of such as would be sure to do every thing he desired of 'em; and such, as the World should not much wonder at for doing it; as knowing, who they were, from whence he took 'em, and for what end he had raised 'em: and that all this he did, in order to make way for his Norman Laws and Usages, which he resolved to establish here in England 
† Usus atque Leges quas Patres sui & ipse in Normanni● habere solebant in Angliá servare volens, de hujusmodi Personis Episcopos, Abbates, & alios Principes per totam terram instituit, de quibus indignum judicaretur, si per omnia suis Legibus, postpositá omni aliâ consideratione, non obedirent, & si ullus corum pro quávis terrenâ potentiâ caput contra eum levare auderet; scientibus cunctis Unde, Qui, & ad Quid assumpti sunt. Cuncta ergo Divina & Humana ejus Nutum expectabant▪— Ibid. ! This I say, and more than this he might have given us from the very Page of Eadmerus he mentions: by which it is clear, that that Prince was as Absolute in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Affairs: and his Acts therefore are, I hope, no Precedents to any of his Legal and Limited Successors. His Present Majesty is not William the Conqueror; and can no more, by our Constitution, rule absolutely either in Church or State, than he would, even if he could: His Will and Pleasure is indeed a Law to All his Subjects; not in a Conquering sense, but because his Will and Pleasure is only, that the Laws of our Country should be obeyed; which he came over on purpose to rescue, and counts it His Great Prerogative to maintain▪ and contemns therefore, I doubt not, such sordid Flattery, as would measure the Extent of His Supremacy from the Conqueror's Claim.  
Intimations of this kind have been thought so Heinous as to be purged only by Fire; a Punishment which our Gentle Laws, tho' they have taken it off from Men, have still reserved for Books, and applied it now and then to repress a State-Heresie, and secure the Fundamentals of our Constitution, against All its Underminers.  
This Conqueror, and his Family are much in request with our Writer; and again therefore of his Son William Rufus, he tells us (not without a Glance on more Modern Times) that he would suffer no Ecclesiastical Synod to be held during the thirteen years of his Reign 
* P. 185. : But let me ask our Man of History, which of all those Historians in whose Works he has so happily spent his Researches, represent this part of Rufus' Character to his advantage? which of 'em that mention the thing, do not also complain of it, as one of the Greatest Hardships of that Cruel and Oppressive Reign? and to be ranked with that other Righteous Practice of his, by which he kept Vacant, and set to Farm all the Bishoprics and Abbeys, as they fell, and had by that means, when he died, no less than Twelve of them in his Hands 
* jorvall. apud X. Script. Col. 996. : and of these the small Bishoprics of Canterbury, Winchester, and Sarum were Three. These are sad Stories, but (God be thanked) they were done a great while ago, and do not therefore much concern us. For we live now neither under William the First, nor William the Second, but under William the Third: A short Answer to an Hundred such Old Tales as these; but every good Englishman will think it a full one. Less have we to do with his Outlandish Instances of Ecclesiastical Tyranny; such as the Dealing of Constantius was with the Council of Ariminum: A very Righteous and Laudable Act which Dr. Wake proposes for the Instruction of future Princes; and was, as follows: When the four Hundred Fathers assembled there, had finished the business for which they met, and determined the disputed Points clearly against Arius, they begged of Constantius, that they might return home, and attend their Flocks: but he refused 'em, ordering his Officers to keep the Synod together by force, till they had revoked their former Decision, and subscribed an Arian Form that he transmitted to them; upon which, those who were resolved not to comply, made their Escape as well as they could, and even without his Permission went back to their Dioceses. But Constantius not having given them his Leave, neither will Dr. Wake give them His; and does as good as say, they did Ill to separate without the Emperor's Order, and deserved his Resentments for so doing 
* See p. 77. .  
I know in his Appeal 
† P. xviii.  he pretends to fosten this Censure, and to take off several Invidious Instances of the same kind, by saying, that we are to distinguish between what he relates as matter of History, and what he delivers as his own Opinion. But how should the Reader distinguish, where the Writer does not? nay, where the Writer has left no possible room for a Distinction, tho' the Reader should be never so willing to employ it? For it is certain that Dr. Wake produces these Facts, purely to establish Rights upon them; and having laid down his Historical Grounds therefore does, in every Instance, proceed to draw his Conclusions from them: particularly in This we are upon [the Instance of a Tyrannical Power exercised by Constantius over the Fathers at Rimini]; after he has told the Story, and added Two other accounts of the Imperial Authorities exerting itself on the like Occasions, he thus concludes: It is therefore the Duty of All Synods, as they are convened by the Prince's Authority, so to tarry, till they have the same Authority for their Dissolution 
* P. 79. .  
Let him not hope then, after amassing together all the Instances of an Ungodly Usurpation in Princes upon the Liberties of the Church, to come off by saying, that we are to distinguish between what he relates as matter of History, and what as matter of Opinion; and by leaving it in his own Power afterwards to apply this General Plea to any particular Instances in his Book, as he shall have need of it; for these Two in Works of this Nature cannot be separated. Where an enquiry is made, what Princes may lawfully do, and in order to it an History drawn up of what they have actually done; there all the Accounts the Historian gives us of their Acts he must be supposed to approve too, unless he has taken care to warn us to the contrary, and to express his Abhorrence of them. Should a Man pretend to mark out the Bounds of the King's Prerogative in Civil Affairs, and to that End deduce an account of all the most Arbitrary and Illegal Acts of our Princes, by which they have trampled on the Liberties of their Subjects, and the Power of Parliaments; would it avail him afterwards, in abatement, to say, that he intended these Instances by way of History only, and not to express his own sense of things; when his own sense of things is manifestly built on those Historical Accounts, his Conclusions deduced from them, and supported by ' 'em? Such a poor Excuse would not be admitted in behalf of such a Chronique Scandaleuse; Every Good Englishman would still see through, and detest the Design; and the Author, under all his shifts, would be as scandalous as his History. But to proceed in our Remarks. I observe,  
V That Dr. Wake, in his accounts of Ancient Councils often confounds two things that are widely different, the Prince's power of proposing any Subject of Debate to his Synods, and his Power of confining 'em to debate of nothing but just what he proposes. As to the First of these, no body questions the Prince's Right in all Synods, from the Greatest to the Smallest: but as to the Latter, he has neither Right or Practice on his side; not even in the most General Councils (where the Civil Authority always exerted itself most), whatever Dr. Wake may pretend to the contrary. 'Tis true, in those Larger Synods, which met at the Call of Princes, upon Extraordinary Occasions, the way generally was, that the Business for which they were called should be first handled: and from the Acts of those Councils it appears, that the Emperor, or his Commissioners, interposed sometimes to prevent their entering on any foreign matter, till That was dispatched; called 'em back to it, when they wandered; and made 'em begin their Debates anew, when they had proceeded irregularly. But after This was over, that they never entered on any new Point without his express Direction, and in every step of their other Debates expected his Order, is an Assertion worthy of Dr. Wake 
† See p. 48. , and every way becoming his Cause and his Character. Let us see how he proves it: He instances first in the Great Council of Ni●e, whose Acts were either never drawn up in form, or quickly lost; and one would think it therefore pretty difficult to give a Punctual ac●count of their manner of Proceeding: But Dr. Wake, by the help of some History, and more Divination, ventures upon it: It was called, he says, to restore the Peace of the Church which the Heresy of Arius, and the Oriental and Western Churches about the time of keeping Easter had so dangerously broken; and Eusebius tells us, that Constantine, at the opening it, earnestly exhorted the Bishops, by their wise Resolutions to settle all things in Quiet and Unity. And accordingly (says he in his new manner of Speech) the Subject of their Debates turned upon these Two Points. 
P. 48.  But his History is every whit as new as his Language: for it has been hitherto thought, that (the Subject of their Debates, or rather) their Debates had turned on several other Points, beside these Two, particularly, that there were Twenty Canons framed and published by them; and, whatever becomes of the Arabic one's, yet that these were of confessed Authority. And as willing as Dr. Wake is to overlook these Canons, I must take the liberty to put him in mind of them, especially of the Fifth, which provides for the frequent Sessions of Provincial Councils; without any Previous Application to the Emperor for his Leave to make such Provision. Nay, I find not in any of these Canons a word mentioned, either of the Arian Controversy, or that about Easter; the Decision of which was comprised in their Synodical Epistle: Does the Doctor think that they debated on nothing but what was the Subject of that Letter? or has he some secret History of their Acts, by which he can prove that Constantine offered these Canons to 'em ready drawn up, and that they passed the Synod by way of form only, without being discussed? If he can make this out, the Instance will be somewhat to his purpose; otherwise, it is fit to keep Company with those that follow.  
Viz. the Instances of the two General Council of Ephesus 
* P. 49. , and Chalcedon 
† P. 51. , where the Roman Emperors had their Commissioners to preside in their stead. They had so; but in what manner, and to what Ends, let those Emperors themselves, in their Commissional Letters speak: it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to secure Order and Regularity in their Proceed, and with an Express Prohibition of their interposing in Matters Doctrinal, and such Points as were properly of Church-cognizance. This is so beaten a Theme, and the Answers to these objected Instances are so well known, that I should be ashamed to give 'em, were I not obliged to it by Dr. Wake; who is not ashamed to produce the Instances themselves without taking any notice of the Answers that have been an hundred times over made to ' 'em.  
Our Learned Mason long ago thus accounted for these very Instances: The Lay-Presidency, he says, in these Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon was made use of for four Reasons.  

(1.) To hinder Strangers, who flocked thither and had no Right to Vote, from breaking in upon the Assembly.  
(2.) To keep all the Members of the Synod together, till they had dispatched the business for which they met.  
(3.) To see that Business first concluded, before any new Point was started, and pursued.  
(4.) To take care, that the private Piques and Resentments of any of the Members should not interrupt the Public Work.   
These were the Chief Ends, for which the Emperors had their Commissioners at those Meetings; and not, for the proposing to the Fathers the several successive Matters which they were to Deliberate on; much less, for the Confining 'em to deliberate on nothing but what they proposed. So far was that from being the Case, that the Eighth Canon of the Ephesine Council [occasioned by a Dispute about the Cyprian Privileges] was plainly brought in, debated, and concluded, by the Synod, without the least Interposition of the Civil Power: And which of the Thirty Canons passed by the Council of Chalcedon 
* Act. 15.  were not so, I desire Dr. Wake at his Leisure to inform us; and withal, with what assurance he could say, that every New Matter [in that Council of Chalcedon] is Prefaced with this Declaration, that they had obtained leave of the Emperors for the Fathers to consider of it, and that the Emperor's Orders were delivered to the Commissioners, 
Pag. 51.  to authorise the Bishops to enter upon it.— When not one of these Thirty Canons were thus Prefaced, or authorized? tho' some of them were of the Greatest Weight and Consequence; particularly the 28. which put the See of Constantinople upon the Level with that of Rome; and which the Fathers were so far from being authorized beforehand to Treat on, and to pass, that the Commissioners knew nothing of it till it had passed; and had it therefore read to 'em at their next Meeting, in order to their considering, and approving it.  
To support this Gross Falsity, he quotes the 7 th'. 9 th'. 10 th'. and 11 th'. Actions of this Synod, where the New Matter, on which their Debates proceed, is, he says, Prefaced with the Emperor's Leave: but it was not to his purpose to speak more plainly. For that New Matter was such, in which, it is likely, the Emperor had beforehand been applied to, and interested himself: in which case, it was decent, if not necessary, to have his Consent, before it was presented to the Synod. It related to some Bishops, who had (as They urged) been Uncanonically deprived, and had probably sought the Emperor's Protection in the case. When the Council sat, he referred 'em thither for Justice; and they might therefore, on this account, fitly mention the Imperial Leave, when their Business first came on. But let this be as it will, it is a Point of jurisdiction, with which we are not at present concerned: The Canons of that Council it is certain had New Matter in them; and it is as certain, that none of that New Matter was Prefaced with the Emperor's Leave; and how Dr. Wake came to forget, both these and the Nicene Canons is matter of wonder. I had thought, the Decrees of Councils were the most Important and Sacred Part of their Acts; especially the Decrees of those four first General Councils, for which both the Church, and the Law of England 
* Canon. Aelfrici. Can. 33. 1 Eliz. c. 1.  have, and have always had a particular Veneration.  
But of All the Instances he has pitched upon to show, that Synods can debate of nothing but what the Prince particularly proposes to 'em, commend me to those he urges (P. 54, 55.) from the Practice of Carloman, at the Synod of Leptines, and of Arnulph, at that of Trebur. The first of these says, he had called his Clergy together to advise him how the Law of God, and the Religion of the Church, which had been suffered to fall into such decay, in the days of his Predecessors, might be restored. The second desires them to consider what they thought was needful to be done, for the Reformation of men's Manners, for the Security of the Faith, and for the Preservation of the Unity of the Church. How could these Emperors possibly have expressed themselves in words that left their Synods more at large, or gave greater Scope to their Debates than these do? which yet Dr. Wake produces on purpose to show, that the Prince prescribed to them the Particular Points, on which they were to proceed. These are Ill Proofs indeed; but pity it is, that such Bad Notions should ever be supported by better.  
Under the Prince's Power of suggesting any Subject of Debate to a Synod, I comprehend also his Power of proposing the Draught of a Canon to them; for that too he has sometimes done; but without confining 'em to pass such Canons in the Form prescribed: which I conceive, he has never done, nor has any Right to do, tho' Dr. Wake gives us very Broad Hints that he thinks otherwise; and to that End produces the Three Ecclesiastical Constitutions which Marcian delivered to the Fathers of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon ready drawn up, to be approved by them; and they all (he says) gave their Unanimous Assent to 'em 
* P. 65. . But he tells us not, as he might, that the Matter of these Canons was of such a mixed nature, as made it proper for the Emperor to interpose in them: nor does he inform us, with what words of high Respect and Deference he offered 'em to the Synod. There are (says he) Three Points which in Honour to your Reverences we have reserved for you; judging it fit and decent, that they should rather be by You in Synod Canonically defined, than Enacted by our Temporal Laws 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 6. . And in what manner the Synod passed 'em is worth our notice: for it was neither in that Order, nor exactly in those Terms in which they were proposed. And one of them 
‖ The Second.  they put into different words, without any the least alteration of sense, merely, as it should seem, to keep free of an Ill Precedent, which by receiving the Emperor's Form they might have brought upon themselves. So that this is a much better Proof, that the Emperor could not prescribe the Form of a Canon to them, than that he could.  
Nor are his English Instances of this kind more to his purpose: Some of our Princes (he says) have not only prescribed to their Convocations what they should go about, but have actually drawn up beforehand what they thought convenient to be established, and have required them to approve of it 
* P. [110.] . And for this he vouches King James' Letter to the Convocation in 1603, together with which he sent them the Articles of 1562, to be approved by ' 'em. A notable Instance of the Prince's Power actually to draw up beforehand what they think convenient to be established by their Synods! because King james sent a Message to one of 'em, about Confirming the Thirty nine Articles, which had been actually drawn up by another Convocation, forty years before that Message was sent.  
And that this Point may be sure to be well proved, he adds a Second Instance of it, every whit as concluding as the Former, The same Prince, he says, to Another Convocation, about four years after, signified his Pleasure for Singing and Organ-service to be settled in Cathedral Churches, without submitting it to their judgement, whether they approved it, or no 
† Ibid. . He tells us not from whence he dr●w either this, or the former particular, and so I am not able to say how he has disguised them. But taking this last as he has represented it, clear it is that the King in this case did not form, or draw up any thing beforehand for the Convocation to Sign, but only suggested the Matter of a Canon to them; and of such a Canon, as (if necessary) there was no doubt of their agreeing unanimously in, since it was only to confirm a received Practice: and therefore if he did not ask their Approbation, it was because he was sure of it.  
Dr. Wake is in this Observation all over Mistake: For whereas he calls this Another Convocation from that in 1603, it was certainly the same; That in 1603 being by Prorogations continued from Time to Time for seven years together, as his own words are, a few Pages afterwards 
* P. 142. . Nor could the Import of this Message well be the Settling of Singing and Organ-service in Cathedral Churches; for it was settled there long before 
† At the Reforming of the Church, not only the King's Chapel and all Cathedrals, but many Parochial Churches also had preserved their Organs, to which they used to Sing the appointed Hymns, i. e. the Te Deum, the Benedictus, the Magnificat, the Nunc dimittis, etc. performed in an Artificial and Melodious manner.— Heylin. Hist. of Presbyt. p. 226. . Only King james, I suppose, recommended to 'em the framing of a Canon in behalf of what was hitherto authorized by Practice alone, and by the Queen's Injunctions 
‖ Sparrow, p. 80. . But this the Synod thought needless, the Thing being otherwise so well established already; and therefore framed no Canon concerning it. How Ridiculous then is it in Dr. Wake to say, that the King signified his Pleasure to them in this matter, without ever submitting it to their judgement whether they approved it or no? when the Event shows, that they disapproved, and did not comply with the Motion: for I never heard of any such Canon in behalf of Singing, and Organ-service; and which is more, Bishop Sparrow never heard of it neither. If this Message therefore make any thing for the King's Power of Proposing, it makes as strongly for the Clergy's Privilege of denying, if they think fit; which is the very thing Dr. Wake is endeavouring in this place to deprive them of.  
VI A Sixth Observation I have to offer on Dr. Wake's weigh of managing this Controversy is, that Those very Acts of Authority which were exercised by Princes in Ecclesiastical Matters, to support and corroborate the Church's Power, are by Him perversely made use of to undermine and destroy it. He finds that the Canons of the most General Councils have been confirmed by the Civil Power, and confirmed at the Instance and Petition of the Synods themselves 
* P. 80. . And from hence he infers therefore that their Definitions are no farther Obligatory, than as they are ratified by the Civil Authority 
† P. 79. . And this Point he is so sure of, that he conceives it to be allowed on all hands; whereas I on the contrary conceive, that it is allowed on no hands; and is a Conclusion I am-sure, that neither agrees with the Principles of our Church, nor can ever be drawn from the Premises on which he pretends to establish it.  
If this Doctrine be good, then is that of our Twentieth Article stark naught, which determines, that the Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and Authority in Matters of Faith. But how has she Power and Authority to this purpose, if her Synodical Decisions are in no case farther Obligatory, than as they are ratified by the Civil Authority? The Magistrate at this rate, will have Power, but the Church herself can have none. For she speaks only by her Synods, in matters of this nature: and if therefore her Synodical Decrees have not any Authority of their own, till confirmed by the Prince, then under an Heathen or Heretical Prince, the Church has not, I say, any Authority, tho' the Article expressly says, that she has.  
It is very observable, that Dr. Wake has not in either of his Books mentioned this Article; which yet surely in a Controversy of this nature deserved to have been taken notice of. Such an Omission could not be by chance: and we must believe therefore, that he is of the Opinion of those Back-friends of ours in Charles the First's time, who would allow the former part of the Article no more Authority than Dr. Wake allows to the Church; but said it was deceitfully inserted by Archbishop Laud, and wanting in the Original. He might be ashamed to take up with this Reproach, after that Solemn Appeal, which the Archbishop in his Speech in the Star-chamber 
* Anno 1637. See Heylin 's Life of Laud, p. 339.  made to the Records of Convocation, for the disproof of it. If he have any Suspicions still left in this matter, my Lord of Sarum, in his Late Exposition 
† P. 26. , will clear them. In the mean time let me put him in mind of the Fate of Dr. Mocket's Book de Doctrinâ & Politeiâ Ecclesiae Anglicanae 
‖ In 4 to. London, 1617. , which tho' writ by Archbishop Abbot's direction, yet was Burned publicly; and that chief on the account of this very Omission, if Dr. Heylin's History 
⸫ Life of Laud, p. 76  may be relied on.  
But how comes he to dream it to be allowed on all Hands that Synodical Definitions are no farther Obligatory than they are ratified by the Civil Power? What Church upon Earth ever determined or allowed this Doctrine? Because the Fathers of many Synods desired the Prince, under whose Direction they met, to enforce their Decrees by Civil Sanctions and Penalties, does it follow, that therefore these Decrees without the Addition of the Civil Sanction would have had no Authority, no Force to oblige the Consciences of Christians? Does the Subsequent Authority destroy the force of the precedent one? Is the one of these lost and swallowed up in the other? At this rate, what will become of Excommunication, when confirmed, as it is here with us, by a Civil Penalty? Has the Church Sentence in this case no Authority, because the Writ de Excommunicate capiendo is linked to it, and issues out upon it? Such arguing would have become a Disciple of Erastus much better than a Son of the Church of England.  
But he will tell me Canons lose no Authority in this case which they ever had, because indeed they never had any: the Great Privilege of the Church being only to prepare Draughts of Canons, and Dead Matter as it were for the Royal Stamp afterwards to put Life into. But if so, How shall we account for the Acts of Church-power exercised by Synods, from the first Planting of the Christian Religion, till the Empire turned Christian? It is plain, that the Governors of the Church for three hundred years before the Civil Power came in to assist them, met in Synods, and made Laws, which were universally submitted to, not only as Councils or Advices proceeding from Men whose Character was had in great Reverence, but as the Commands of Lawful Superiors towards their Spiritual Subjects: and as such, they were understood to oblige the Consciences of all good Christians in those Ages. And if they had such an Authority before Constantine's time, how came they to want it afterwards? As the Church could get no New Power by coming under the Protection of the State, so how does it appear that she lost any Old one? The Emperors indeed by turning Christians gained something, to wit an Interest in the management of Ecclesiastical Affairs: but their Gains were not built on the Church-governors Losses; the Power that by this means accrued to 'em was Accumulative not Privative; i. e. it gave them some Authority which they had not, but it took not that away which the Spiritual Pastors and Governors had. A Distinction, that I am not afraid to make use of, notwithstanding the Quarter it comes from!  
If Dr. Wake therefore denies the Definitions of Synods [held under the Civil Power] to have any other Authority than what they derive from that Power, he by consequence denies that the Anti● Nicene Fathers assembled in Synod, had any Right to prescribe Rules to those Christians that lived within the District over which they presided; or that those Christians were bound to obey 'em: He affirms in effect the several Canons that these Assemblies passed, the Censures that they pronounced, all the Acts of Synodical Authority which they exercised to be in themselves Null and Void, and mere Usurpations upon the Liberty of Christians. And whether he will take up with these Scandalous Notions, or not, we shall see, when he blesses the World with his Next Performance: Sure I am that without 'em, his Scheme cannot be consistent, and of a piece.  
Again, Dr. Wake is also very faulty on this Head, when in order to depress the Power of the Church, he promiscuosly enumerates all the Laws, framed by Princes about Ecclesiastical Affairs, without informing us which of those Laws only traced the steps of precedent Canons, and which of them proposed New Matter of Obedience, beside, or contrary to those Canons; which would in this case have been a very Material and Pertinent Distinction. He is full of the Edicts relating to Church-matters, that are to be met with in the Code of Theodosius, the Code and Novels of justinian, etc. 
* P. 11.  But it would have been very honest of him here to have told us (as the Truth is) that there were scarce any of these Edicts, to which some Canon had not beforehand led the way; and that All therefore that those Princes generally did, was to re-enact by the Civil what had been before enacted by the Ecclesiastical Authority; and to give the Church Decisions more weight and force by inserting 'em into the Body of the Imperial Laws, and annexing further Penalties to the Breach of them. This is so certain and known a Truth, that even at this day we can point out the several Canons upon which almost all the Civil Constitutions of those Princes were founded; and in which the matter of 'em was either particularly and in Terms, or at large, and in general determined. And if in some few Instances we should not be able to do this, what wonder is it? when it is considered at what a Vast Distance of Time we live from the first Rise of these things, and how many Ancient Church-Monuments that would have given light in these matters, have in the course of so many Ages perished? justinian in his Laws appeals frequently to the Canons, and professes to follow them 
* Nou. 6. c. 1. Ibid. §. 8. Nou. 58. sub finem. Nou. 123. c. 36. . And by this Pattern the French and Germane Princes in aftertimes framed their Capitularies, taking the Subjects of them from the Resolutions of antecedent Synods 
† Decrevimus juxta Sanctorum Canonum Regulas— Caroloman. in Syn. Leptin. Anno 747. , and even referring themselves thither, for the more clear understanding of what their Law only briefly and in General delivered 
‖ P. 91. . A Truth so Notorious, that Dr. Wake himself durst not dissemble it! And it would puzzle a man therefore to show, how such Laws should any ways derogate from the Authority of Synods, which they took their rise from, and were made on purpose to support, and confirm. I must put the Doctor in mind here of a way of arguing made use of by one of his Seconds in this Controversy, where he is disputing against the Universities Authority to declare Heresy: there he lays down this Position; That, the Convocation of the University of Oxford have never forbidden any Doctrine to their Scholars, before that very particular Doctrine was first declared Erroneous, or Heretical by some Persons who were then reputed to have Power to declare Heresy 
* L. M. P. p. 69. . The Truth of this Assertion I at present trouble not myself with; but supposing it true, the Inference that arises from it has weight, I own; and when applied to our Present Argument, is of use to inform us, what Secular Decrees in Church-matters are no ways prejudicial to the Power of the Church, and the Authority of Synods. And this was an Head, I say, upon which Dr. Wake should have explained himself largely and openly, if he had intended a fair state of this Controversy, or had had any other New in what he wrote than merely to serve a Turn, and to advance some colourable kind of Plea for a Practice, which, if he knew any thing of these matters, he must know, was indefensible, and be writing all the while for his Point, against his Conscience: and if he knew nothing of it, with what Conscience could he undertake to determine it? These are words that I do not easily persuade myself to bestow on any Man: but his Gross Prevarications and Disguises of Truth in Doctrines of so great moment, wherein the Interests of his Order, and of Religion are so nearly concerned, force this hard Language from me.  
Nor stops he at General Reflections in this case, but brings them home also to our own Church and Constitution; pretending in his Appendix 
† Num. seven.  to give us an Abstract of several things relating to the Church, which have been done since the 25 Hen. 8. by Private Commissions, or otherwise, out of Convocation. In which Abstract many of the Points mentioned had certainly the Authority of Convocation, tho' he would fain have us believe they had not; and that, antecedently to the Civil Injunction: Others are such Acts of Ordinary Power, as by the consent of All Churches and Parties of Men every Christian Prince is confessedly entitled to: and some few perhaps might be owing to the Necessity of Affairs which would not then admit of more Regular Methods; and should not therefore be vouched as reasonable Precedents, and settled Rules and Standards of acting in more quiet times; which is manifestly Dr. Wake's End in producing them.  
The Reader must forgive me, if I detain him so long, as to run through the Particulars of this List, and show upon each of 'em, how far the Ecclesiastical Power concurred and led the way to it. It will be a dry unpleasing Task, but is of use to clear the Orderliness of some steps taken in those times, which are generally misunderstood; and is necessary to wipe off the Dirt thrown by Dr. Wake on the English Reformation: the Process of which, I am satisfied, was very Regular, and Canonical in most Cases, tho' in some, by reason of the Loss of Records, it cannot easily be proved so. Of this we are in General assured by such as lived at the time when those Records were in being, particularly by Sir Robert Cotton, and Mr. Fuller. The first in his Posthuma 
* P. 215. , has these words, If any shall object that many Laws in Henry the Eighth's time had first the Ground in Parliament, it is manifested by the Dates of their Acts in Convocation, that they All had in that place their first Original. The Latter speaks, as follows: Upon serious Examination it will appear, that there was nothing done in the Reformation of Religion, save what was acted by the Clergy in their Convocations, or Grounded on some Act of theirs precedent to it, with the Advice, Counsel and Consent of the Bishops, and most Eminent Churchmen; confirmed upon the Post-fact, and not otherwise; according to the Usage of the best and purest Times of Christianity 
* Church-Hist. xuj. Cent. p. 188. . To which I shall add the Testimony of one, who must be allowed a Good Witness in this case, my Lord of Sarum: He assures the Bishop of Meaux, in the Answer he made to his Variations, that Our Parliaments and Princes have not meddled in matters of Religion any other way, but that they have given the Civil Sanction to the Propositions made by the Church: and this is that which Christian Princes do in all Places 
† P. 35. . And in 1604, I find a Puritan Writer making this Challenge: Let them, if they can, show any one Instance of any Change or Alteration, either from Religion to Superstition, or from Superstition to Religion to have been made in Parliament, unless the same freely and at large have been first agreed upon in their Synods and Convocations 
‖ Assertion of True and Christian Policy. P. 168. . Which is no otherwise considerable, I own, than as it comes from the Pen of an Adversary. These are General Proofs, which would go a good way towards setting aside the Particulars in Dr. Wake's Abstract, if we had nothing more to say against 'em: But they shall be further and more distinctly considered.  
The Doctor took 'em, he says, out of his Collections as they lay there: and for these Collections, I find, he scarce ever goes further than Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation; which tho' a very Excellent Work, and meriting the Thanks of Parliament, which it had; yet, as to the Proceed of Convocation, and the share which the Ecclesiastical Authority bore all along in those Changes, is extremely defective; partly from the want of Records, and partly from his Lordship's omitting to set down All even of that Little that is left us, on this Head, in the Manuscript Memoirs of that time: So that it is no Proof that nothing was done by the Clergy in such or such a Case, because his Lordship says nothing of it. Besides, that History is by its very Method apt to misled an unwary Reader in Inquiries of this nature; the way of it being, to set down first the Proceed of Parliament in every case, and then those of Convocation: which makes it look oftentimes, as if the Parliament had led the way to the Convocation, in their Debates, when the contrary to that is most certainly true; and would have appeared so to be, had his Lordship thought fit to follow the Pattern set by Antiquitates Britannicae, and given the Precedence always to the Acts of Convocation, when the Business was first agitated there, and afterwards brought into Parliament: which, in a Church-Historian, had, I presume, been a method not improper or unbecoming. At least, since his Lordship could not but know, that our Reformation had suffered by being misunderstood in these respects, it might not have been amiss to have given us warning, when things were told out of the Natural Order of time in which they happened, and in what Instances the Leading steps were from the Convocation, tho' the Course of his History seemed to place the rise of 'em elsewhere. The want of this notice has occasioned Dr. Wake's mistakes in some cases, and in others he has not made use even of the Light which this History would have afforded him. I shall examine every Instance, any ways material, the Injunctions only excepted; which, it must be confessed, were by Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, in virtue of their Supreme Headship, and under the shelter of that Act, which made the King's Proclamations equal to an Act of Parliament, Issued out in a very Arbitrary manner; and continued so to be, as long as our Princes could in their High Commission-Court take notice of the Breach of them. But since that Court has been put down, and the Extraordinary Acts of Spiritual Jurisdiction, annexed to the Imperial Crown of England by the First of Elizabeth, Chap. 1. can now be exercised only in Parliament▪ how far any Royal Injunction is valid, unless where by the Advice of the Metropolitan it order such things as that Act directs and allows, or seconds some Authentic Canon, or Received Practice; and whether it has any greater force in Ecclesiastical, than the King's Proclamation has in Civil Affairs, I leave to the Gentlemen of the Long Robe to determine. The Clergy, I am sure, are not the only Persons concerned in this point; for the Princes of those days carried their Power further than Them, and issued out Injunctions alike for the Clergy, and Laity 
* See Edward the Sixth's Injunctions, To all and Singular his Loving Subjects, as well of the Clergy, as of the Laity. Sparrow, p. 1. And Q. Elizabeth 's, Anno 1559. Ibid. p. 65. . If the Professors of the Law think that the Crown has still such a Power of sending out Commands at pleasure, the Clergy will, I dare say, be concluded by Their Opinion.  
An Abstract of several Things relating to the Church, 
P. 381.  which have been done since the 25 Hen. 8. by Private Commissions, or otherwise, out of Convocation.  
25 Hen. 8. Thirty two Persons appointed to review, etc. the Canons of the Church, and to gather out of them such as should from thenceforth alone be of force in it. See the Act. c. 19  
Dr. Wake might, if he had pleased, have said, See the Petition of the Clergy in Convocation, which preceded this Act, and wherein this Review of the Canons is by Them desired. What was done in this matter, was done at Their Instance, and therefore had Their Authority.  
1536. Order for the Translation of the Bible. B●rn. Hist. Ref. p. 195, 249, 302.  
This too was in consequence of a Petition from the Convocation, a Memorandum of which is entered in their Acts Decemb. 19 1534. Heylin 
* Reform. justified, p. 8.  seems to say, that it was put up by Both Houses▪ However that which came from the Upper House is still extant in a Cotton Manuscript 
† Cleopatra, E. 5. fol. 339. : and in it the Bishops, Abbots, and Prior's request the Archbishop to be instant with the King, Ut dignaretur decernere quòd Sacra Scriptura in Linguam Vulgarem Anglicanam per quosdam Praelatos & Doctos Viros per dictum Illustrissimum Regem nominandos transferatur. And this Dr. Wake could not well be ignorant of, because his very Guide in one of the places he himself quotes from him 
‖ P. 195.  on this occasion, mentions this Petition 
* But places it in 1536. i e. Two Years later than it was really made. , as an Act of Both Houses, and let's us know, the Translation of the Bible took its rise from it.  
1538. Explication of the Chief Points in Religion, published at the Close of the Convocation, but not by it. Ibid. p. 245.  
He means the Book called The Institution of a Christian Man; but mistakes both the Time of its coming out, and its Title, and the Authority by which it was published. And in the first and last, of these that very Passage he citys, would have set him right, if he had heeded it. For thus it speaks: Tho' there was no Parliament in the Year 1537, yet there was a Convocation; upon the Conclusion of which there was Printed an Explanation of the chief Points of Religion, Signed by Nineteen Bishops, Eight Archdeacon's, and Seventeen Doctors of Divinity and Law 
† Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 245. . Here is no Intimation of its not passing the Convocation, but rather the contrary; Twenty five of the Lower House subscribing it: which might well be a Majority of the Members, when not many years before, in the great Debate about the Divorce of Queen Cathari●e, Twenty three only (as we have heard already 
* P. 53. ) were present; and Fourteen of these Votes therefore made a Majority of that House. But Heylin, who had the Opportunity of examining the Registers, puts this matter beyond a Probability; for he speaks every where 
† Ref. just. p. 11. & p. 549.  of this Book as having passed the Convocation, and of these Twenty five as Subscribing it in the Name of all the rest of the Members. At least, if Heylin's word may not be taken for it, yet Dr. Wake's, I hope, may: And he, in his Appeal 
‖ P. 28.  calls the Clergy's Dedication of this Book an Address of the Convocation to the King; and says, it was Subscribed by both Houses.  
1539. A Committee of Bishops appointed by the Lords, at the King's Command, to draw up Articles of Religion. Ibid. pag. 256.  
This was in a Preparatory way only, and in order to their being considered by the Convocation and Parliament. However this Committee did nothing ⸫, 
‖ Bp. Burn. Ibid.  and should not therefore be made an Instance of Things relating to the Church, done out of Parliament. And which is more, the Convocation did the very business, which this Committee was appointed to do; as we shall learn from the next Particular.  The Six Articles on which the Act passed▪ brought in by the Duke of Norfolk, and wholly carried on by the Parliament. Ibid. p. 256, etc. 
This is News to that Parliament, by which Dr. Wake says it was wholly carried on; for They in the Preamble of the Act of the Six Articles, say, That the King considering, etc. had caused his most High Court of Parliament to be Summoned; and also a Synod and Convocation of all the Archbishops, and Bishops, and other Learned Men of the Clergy of this his Realm.— In which Parliament and Convocation, there were certain Articles set forth, etc. and after a great and long, deliberate and advised disputation and consultation had and made concerning the said Articles, as well by the Consent of the King's Highness, as by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and other Learned Men of his Clergy in this Convocations and by the Consent of the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, it was and is finally resolved, accorded and agreed in manner and form following 
† 31 H. 8. c. 14. .  
We see these Articles were so far from being wholly carried on by Parliament, that the Parliament itself thought not fit to Enact 'em, without expressing in their Bill the previous Consent of the Clergy in Convocation.  
Some Body seems to have told the Doctor thus much, before he wrote his Appeal; in a corner of which, among the Errata, he desires that these four Lines may be blotted out. Why he was so Particular in his Requests I cannot tell: but sure I am, that there are very few Lines in this whole Article of his Appendix, that do not deserve blotting out as much as They.  1540 A Committee of Divines employed to draw up the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man. Ibid. p. 286. 
In saying they were employed to draw it up, he speaks unaccurately; for that implys it to be then first drawn up, whereas this Book was in the main the same with that which was published in 1537, under the Title of the Institution of a Christian Man. This I have already shown, passed the Convocation: The Members of which, that were employed in composing it, do in their Dedication of it to the King, Most humbly submit it to his most Excellent Wisdom, and Exact judgement— to be recognized, overseen, and corrected, if his Grace shall find any Word or Sentence in it meet to be changed, qualified, or further expounded, etc.  
The Liberty thus given by the Clergy, was made use of by the King, who in 1540 committed it to several Bishops and Divines. (All Members of Convocation) to be reviewed, and made afterwards some Alterations in it with his own Hand (to be seen still in the Original in Sir I. Cotton's Library 
* Heylin. Ref. justif. p. 549. ) and finally published it anew in the year 1543 
† There was an Edition in 1540 which differs not considerably from that in 1543; and therefore I give no Distinct Account of it. , with this Title 
‖ Which the Exact Mr. Nicholson has changed into a Necessary Defence for all sorts of People. Hist. Libr. Vol. 3. p. 197. Where he tells us also, that the King drew up these Articles in 1543; meaning, that he made some Marginal Amendments to the Book after it was drawn up. This he mentions at large, as an approved Instance of the King's Power in such cases without intimating his Dislike of it: and without letting us know (how should be? for he knew it not himself) that what the King did here, was not only at the previous Permission, but Desire of the Clergy; and was afterwards once again by them in Convocation confirmed. Such accuracy is there in the Accounts of Books given us by this Historical Librarian! , A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any christian Man, set forth by the King's Majeste of England. There is no mention here of the Concurrence of the Clergy in Convocation to this Book; and yet it is certain that all the new Alterations and Additions in it, as they sprang at first from a Request of theirs, so passed 'em again solemnly afterwards. This appears from some short Memorandums 
* 
Sess. 25. Apr. 25. Reverendissimus tractavit de Sacramentis (of which that Book treats at large) & ibi examinati sunt quidam Articuli.  
Sess. 26. Ult. Apr. Reverendissimus exposuit Articulum Liberi Arbitrii (which is another Head there) ubi Prolocutor, etc. exposuerunt suas Sententias.   of the Acts of Convocation in 1543, from Heylin's Express Testimony 
† Ibid. See also (in his Quinquartic. Controu. p. 569.) some other Passages out of the Acts of that Convocation, which prove manifestly that these Alterations underwent their Review. , and from those words in the King's Preface prefixed to the Book; that he had set it forth with the Advise of his Clergy— the Lords both Spiritual and Temporal, with the Nether House of Parliament, having both seen and liked it well.  Another Commission appointed to Examine the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. Ibid. p. 294. 
This Committee of Bishops and Divines, for reforming the Rituals and Offices of the Church, was settled at the same Time with That which reviewed the Institution; and was composed therefore, as That was, of the Members (and probably of the same Members) of Convocation, which was sitting now at the Time, when this Committee was appointed; as appears by the Subsidy 
* 32 H. 8. c. 23. , and the Sentence of Divorce 
⸫ 32 H. 8. c. 25. , that passed 'em, compared with the Act of Parliament of the same Session 
† Rastall, p. 690. , that mentions this Committee as sitting. From hence alone we might have been satisfied, that this Committee was impowered by the Convocation to act, had we no other Evidence for it. But, as it happens, we have: for in the short Remains of Edward the Sixth's first Convocation, this Committee is said to have met ex Mandato Convocationis 
* In a Petition of theirs, where they pray, Ut Opera Episcoporum & aliorum, qui alias ex Mandato Convocationis Servitio Divino Examinando, Reformando, & Edendo invigilarunt, proferantur, & hujus Dom●s Examinationem subeant. Synodalia. .  
And something of the same nature seems to be intimated in the Statute I mentioned, which Enacts, that whatever should be Ordained and set forth by the Archbishops, Bishops, and Doctors now appointed, or other Persons hereafter to be appointed, by his Royal Majesty, or else by the whole Clergy of England, in and upon the matter of Christ's Religion, and the Christian Faith 
† This relates to the Institution of a Christian Man, then to be reviewed. , and Lawful Rites and Ceremonies 
‖ This to the Rituals, at the same time to be altered. , and Observations of the same, shall be in all and every point, limitation, and circumstance thereof by all his Grace's Subjects, etc. fully believed, obeyed, observed, and performed.  
Here the words [by the whole Clergy of England] do most naturally refer to the Last Verb [appointed,] and under that Construction imply, that this, and such like Committees, were consented to by the Convocation, as well as named by the King: and so they certainly were. And the reason of establishing 'em was, because the matters to be discussed requiring (as this very Act speaks) ripe and mature deliberation were not rashly to be defined, nor restrained to this present Session, or any other Session of Parliament: as they must have been, if they had been considered only in Convocation; which Then sat, and risen always, within a few days of the Parliament.  
These Committees therefore were appointed to sit in the Intervals of Parliament: and tho' they had a Power of concluding finally, yet they seldom, I suppose, did more than prepare business to be laid before the Convocation, when it sat. Accordingly what was done by this Committee for reforming the Offices, was reconsidered by the Convocation itself, two or three years afterwards; as a Manuscript Note 
* Sess. 19 21. Feb. 1542, & 43. Reverendissimus dixit Regem velle Libros quosdam Ecclesiasticos examinari & corrigi. Ubi Reverendissimus tradidi● hos Libros examinandos quibusdam Episcopis.  I have met with, taken from the Journals of Convocation, implies. These Committees indeed are spoken of sometimes in our Statutes, and elsewhere, as appointed by the King, without any mention of the Convocation-Clergy: which was partly owing to the Doctrine of those times, by which the King in virtue of his Supreme Headship, was said to do, decree, and order every thing, tho' the previous Steps and Resolves were from the Convocation; and was withal not improper, considering how much was left to the Royal Power in such matters: for the Clergy often only Petitioned the King for a Committee, and referred the Nomination of it to him; of which a clear Instance has been given before, in the Request for the Translation of the Bible. Indeed, when the Committee was composed of Members from both Provinces, (as it was in the Present case 
* The Act styles them, The Archbishops, and sundry Bishops of Both Provinces, of Canterbury and York, within this Realm, and also a great Number of the best Learned, Honestest, and most Virtuous sort of Doctors of Divinity, Men of Discretion, and judgement, and Good Disposition, of this said Realm. ) it could not sit and act by a bare Order of the Clergy; but was necessarily to have the King's Commission, before it could be a Legal Assembly: and no wonder therefore, if, tho' both Convocations consented to it, and perhaps sometimes named it, yet the King only be said to empower them.  
And here I must once for all observe, that whatever was done by such Select Committees, appointed, or approved by Convocation, tho' done out of Convocation, must be reckoned done by it; as carrying the stamp of its Authority: For so the way has been in all manner of Assemblies, both Ecclesiastical, and Civil. The Catechismus ad Par●chos, among the Papists, is accounted to have the Authority of the Council of Trent, tho' that Council never passed, or saw it; because it was drawn up, and published by Order of the Pope, to whom that Council had referred it. The like is to be said of the Oxford 
† Bp. B●●●. Vol. 1. p. 85. , and Cambridge 
‖ Ibid. p. 87.  Resolutions, concerning the Invalidity of King Henry's first Marriage; which carried the Authority of those Universities, because drawn up by Committees, which were in full Convocation appointed by them. Nor want we Precedents of a Delegation of the Power even of Parliaments to Committees, in ancient times. For 1 Hen. 6. some Lords and Others of the King's Council were impowered to determine all such Bills and Petitions, as were not answered in Parliament 
* Rot. Parl. n. 21. ; and so again 6 Hen. 6. n. 45, 46. and several Times before, and after. And Henry the Eighth had frequently the whole Power of Parliament Translated upon him: We are not to wonder therefore if the Convocations of his Reign did something like this, when they had so Great Patterns to follow, and were so much more at his Mercy than Parliaments were.  1542. The Examining of the English Translation of the Bible, being begun by the Convocation, is taken by the King out of their Hands, and committed to the two Universities. Ibid. p. 315. 
Were the Translating of Scripture a Work appropriated to Synods, (as sure it is not) yet the Petition of the two Houses in 1534 to the King, to take care of a New Translation of the Bible, would have been Warrant enough for him to have put it into whose hands he pleased. Especially, since it is probable, that this very Synod in 1542 complied at last with the King's Proposal. I find indeed in some Minutes of their Acts, that the Bishops at first disagreed to it 
† Sess. 9 Mart. 1541, 42. : but they were, I suppose, over-rul●d▪ for Parker's account is only, Aliquandiu quibus Biblia transferenda committerentur, ambigebant 
‖ P. 338. ; which shows, that the dispute was soon over.  1544. The King order the Prayers for Processions, and Litanies to be put into English, and sends them to the Archbishop, with an Order for the Public Use of them. Ibid. p. 331. 
This was done by a Royal Injunction 
* So it is styled in Bonner 's Reg. f. 48. , then equal to an Act of Parliament, and need not therefore by me here be accounted for. However, there is reason to believe, that the Committee for Reforming the Offices, or the Convocation itself, might have an hand in it: for about this time, it is plain, they composed the Little Book of Prayers, called the Orarium 
† Orarium, sive Libellus Precationum, per Regiam Majestatem & Clerum Latinè editus. Ex Officina Rich. Grafton. 1545. , which was set out by the King the Year afterwards.  1547. The King order a Visitation over his whole Kingdom, and thereupon suspends all Episcopal jurisdiction while it lasted. Vol. II. p. 26. 
The King Visited by virtue of his Supreme Headship, recognized first in Convocation, and established afterwards in Parliament. And while this Royal Visitation lasted, all Inferior Jurisdictions ceased a course; as they do, even when an Archbishop visits 
‖ Pendente Visitatione Atchiepiscopali tam Suffraganei quam Inferiores Praelati ordinari● su● Jurisdictione abstinent, omniaque per Archiepiscopum ejusque Commissarios expediuntur.— Ant. Brit. p. 29. . But what would Dr. Wake infer from this Instance? that the King took to himself a Power, which has been thought regularly to belong to the Convocation? Why, was ever any Man wild enough to say, that the Convocation were the Visitors-General of all Ecclesiastical Bodies in England?  The Homilies composed. Ibid. 
He should say, reviewed, and altered: for they were composed many years before, in the Convocation of 1542, as the Acts declare 
* jan. 1541, & 42. Tractavit Reverendissimus de Homiliis conficiendis. 16. Feb. 1542, & 43. Presentatae sunt Homiliae compositae per quosdam Praelatos de diversis materiis. . And by virtue of this Convocational Authority which they had, Archbishop Cranmer sent 'em 1 E. 6. to Bishop Gardiner requiring him to publish 'em throughout his Diocese. Thus Bishop Gardiner himself in his Letters to the Protector 
† Fox. Vol. 2. p. 1. ; the first words of the first of which are, After most humble Commendations to your Grace, I have received this day Letters from my Lord of Canterbury, touching certain Homilies, which the Bishops in the Convocation holden Anno Dom. 1542. agreed to make for stay of such Errors, as were then by Ignorant Persons sparkled among the People.  
The Second gins thus: I have received other Letters from my Lord of Canterbury, requiring the said Homilies, by virtue of a Convocation holden five years past: [He does not allow indeed, that the Homilies formally passed that Synod, for he adds] Wherein we communed of That, which took none effect then, and much less needeth to be put in Execution, ne in my judgement cannot. But Cranmer, we see, was of another opinion, and thought these Homilies sufficiently authorised by the Convocation of 1542; and that they wanted only to be confirmed, and recommended by the King; as they were in the Injunctions of that year. But should there be any thing wanting to the Authority of these Homilies, when first set out, that want was made up, when they were subsequently ratified by the Clergy in Convocation 
* See Art. of 1552, & 1562. .  
L. M. P. has increased Dr. Wake's Collections by an Instance or two of this date, which must not be neglected: Parliaments, he says, without the Concurrence of Convocations have learnedly argued and determined the Questions about the Lawfulness of Priest's Marriage, and Communion in one kind 
† P. 16. . As to the first of these, the Stat. 2 & 3 E. 6. c. 21. does indeed determine this point; but it is in consequence, and almost in the very words, of the Determination of the Clergy in Convocation made the year before, which Arth. Harmar has Printed 
‖ P. 170. , and my Lord of Sarum has given a short account of 
⸫ Vol. 2. p. 50. , tho' with some mistakes in the Circumstances of it. For whereas his Lordship makes but Thirty five to have affirmed the Question, and but Four●een to have denied it; there were many more in either case, Fifty three in the first, and Twenty two in the latter 
* Synodalia. . The Name also of the Prolocutor, who gathered these Votes, is mistaken: for it was Io. Taylor Dean of Lincoln, not I Tiler; who had been Prolocutor Thirty two years before in the Convocation of 1515: where his Lordship takes notice of him 
† Vol. 1. p. 14.  with Indignation, for making a Partial Entry in the Journals of Parliament, on behalf of the Clergy, then contending with the Lay-power, about their Ecclesiastical Privileges, which his Lordship says, is no wonder; the Clerk of the Parliament being at the same Time Speaker to the Lower House of Convocation— tho', had not his Lordship thus judged, I should have been apt to have thought this Entry Impartial, for the very same reason; because the Man that made it, belonged equally to both the contending Parties: Unless it shall be said, that Clergymen are so blindly devoted to the Interests of their Order, that no other Ties, or Views whatsoever can make 'em think indifferently, where That is concerned. But of this his Lordship's own Works are an Effectual Disproof.  
As to the other Point, about the Communion in both kinds, neither did the Parliament establish that, without the Concurrence of Convocation: for tho' the Clause concerning it was brought into the House of Lords (by Bishop Cranmer, I suppose) Novemb. 24 
* Bishop Burn. Vol. 2. p. 41. , yet it lay upon the Table, without being called for again, till the Clergy Decemb. 2. had Voted it in Convocation; after which, the very next day 
† Synodalia. , it had a Second Reading.  1548. A Committee of Select Bishops and Divines appointed to Examine and Referm the Offices of the Church. Ibid. p. 61, 71. 
To such a Select Commit I have shown that the reforming the Offices was by Convocation entrusted in Henry the Eighth's time; so that this was but continuing that business in the same method into which the Convocation had formerly put it. And there is Great Reason to believe that it was thus continued by this Convocation itself; and that the Petition of the Lower House to the Bishops 
‖ Mentioned by me p. 181. out of the Acts of this Convocation.  for a Review of the Books prepared by the former Committee to this purpose, ended in an Address of Both Houses to the King for a New one. Thus, it is plain, Bishop Burnet 
* See Vol. 2. p. 50.  understood this matter, and Bishop Stillingfleet too, who first produced that Petition in his Irenicum 
† See p. 386. where he terms it a Petition for calling an Assembly of Select Divines, in order to the settling Church-affairs. Not that this was the Direct Purport, but only the Result of it; and occasioned by it. .  A New Office of Communion set forth by Them, [i. e. by the Select Committee.] Pag. 64. 
And it was therefore Authorized by that Convocation which we have reason to think, consented to this Committee. However, sure we are, that it was established soon afterwards, by another Convocation; which passed the whole Service-Book, where this Communion-Office was, with some Alterations inserted.  
There is a Deep silence all along in my Lord of Sarum's History, as to the Convocational Authority of this Service-Book; which he seems to represent as the Work of a Committee 
‖ See Vol. 2. p. 71, 93.  only, confirmed afterwards by Parliament. His Lordships' History has that Credit in the World, that his very Omissions may in time pass for Proofs, if they be not observed and supplied; especially in the Present Case, where it will be naturally enough concluded, that the Church-Authority did not intervene, if a Church-Historian of his Lordship's Rank takes no notice of it. For which reason, and because I think the Point to be of Importance, and withal related nearly to the Article we are upon, I shall here produce some Passages from the Papers and Records of that time, which fully clear it.  
King Edward's Answer to the Devonshire-mens' Petition 
* Fox. Vol. 2. p. 666. , Assures 'em, that for the Mass, no small Study or Travel hath been spent by All the Learned Clergy therein 
† p. 667. b. . And again, That whatsoever is contained in our Book, either for Baptism, Sacrament, Mass, Confirmation, and Service in the Church, is by our Parliament established, by the whole Clergy agreed, yea by the Bishops of the Realm devised, by God's Word confirmed 
‖ P. 668. a. .  
The Council's Instructions to Dr. Hopton how to discourse the Lady Mary 
⸫ Fox. Vol. 2. p. 701. , affirm the same thing, somewhat more forcibly. The first of these is, Her Grace writeth that the Law made by Parliament is not worthy the Name of a Law, meaning the Statute for the Communion, etc.  You shall say thereto. 
The Fault is great in any Subject to disallow a Law of the King, a Law of the Realm, by long Study, free Disputation, and uniform Determination of the whole Clergy consulted, debated, concluded.  
But above all most Express and Full to this purpose is the Assertion in a Letter of Edw. 6. dated july 23. Regni tertio, and entered in the Register of Bonner 
* F. 219. a. ; it runs thus: That one Uniform Order for Common-Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments hath beyn and is most Godly set fourthe not only by the Common Agreement and full Assent of the Nobility and Commons in the late Session of our late Parliament; but also by the like Assent of the bishops in the same Parliament, and of all other's the Learned Men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial.  
I thought it worth my while to make good this Point, because it has by some been much doubted, and their Doubts have been countenanced by the Act 2 & 3 Edw. 6. c. 1. which establishes the Service-Book; and wherein there is mention only of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most Learned and Discreet Bishops and other Learned Men of this Realm, appointed to compile it; but no Formal notice is taken of the Convocation that passed it. And the Proof I have given in this single Instance, will suggest to the Reader, that it might be so in General; and that several other Things done by this Select Committee, were probably approved afterwards in Convocation; tho' the Statutes, and other Records of that time should seem to mention the Committee only. The Convocation-Records, which alone could have given us Full Light in this case are destroyed; and the chief way we now have of supplying this Defect is by Parallel Instances, and Probable Reasonings: which Fair Men therefore will admit as good Evidence, for want of better; and not take advantage, as Dr. Wake does from the Destruction of such Records to deny that there ever were any. This is as if a Man should pretend to prove, that none of the People of such or such a Parish were, in the Reign of Edward the Sixth Christened, because perhaps the Old Parish-Registers are lost.  This made way for the Act of 1548, p. 93. and 1551, p. 189. 
He means King Edward's two Acts of Uniformity, which established the first and second Service-Book; and way therefore was made for them, not by this New Office of Communion, but by the Service-Books themselves: These, I have shown, tho' the Work of a Committee, yet had the Authority of Convocation, inasmuch as the Convocation approved this Committee beforehand, and confirmed what was done by it afterwards. I have shown it, I mean, of the One; and the Reader therefore, will easily believe, that the same Steps and Measures were observed as to the Other.  1549. An Order of Council forbidding Private Masses. Ibid. p. 102, 103. 
As contrary to the Statute of Uniformity, and to the Determinations of the Clergy in Convocation: and the Council therefore, who sent this Order, do afterwards, in a Letter of theirs to the Lady Mary 
* june 4. 1551. , call her Chaplains saying Mass, a contempt (not of Their, but) of the Ecclesiastical Orders of this Church of England 
† Fox Vol. 2. p. 709. .  The Forms of Ordination, appointed by Act of Parliament, ordered to be drawn up by a special Committee of Six Bishops, and Six Divines to be named by the King. Ibid. p. 141, 143. 
The true account of this is, that the Council had already appointed this Committee, at the Instance (as we may from former Precedents reasonably collect) of the Convocation itself then sitting: and of the Members of Convocation therefore this Committee was composed, according to my Lord of Sarum's account of it. Some Bishops and Divines (says he) brought now together by a Session of Parliament, were appointed to prepare a Book of Ordination 
* Vol. 2. p. 140. . The Session was likely to end, before these Forms could be prepared, and the Parliament passed therefore a previous Confirmation of them, as they had done in the case of the Necessary Erudition, in 1540 
† See Stat. 32 Hen. 8. cap. 25. . Dr. Wake must have a very uncommon way of arguing, if he can draw any thing to the Prejudice of the Church's Power from such Instances as these, where such an Implicit Deference was paid to the Resolutions of the Clergy, as to Enact 'em, before the Parliament had seen 'em, and indeed before they were made.  
Dr. W. we see, does in this, and in every other step of this Article, appeal to my L. of S.'s Book, and would under the cover of his Lordship's Name put off all his Bad History, and Worse Opinions. It may not be amiss therefore to give him the judgement of this Right Reverend Prelate clearly expressed, and avowed, in another Piece 
‖ Vind. of the Ord. of the Ch. of Engl. ; and with that, to balance all these Doubtful and Uncertain Authorities.  
His Lordship, speaking of the English Ordinal (the Point we are upon) and of the Alterations that were afterwards made in it, has these words, It was indeed confirmed by the Authority of Parliament, and there was good reason to desire That, to give it the force of a Law: but the Authority of [the Book and] those Changes, is wholly to be derived from the Convocation, who only consulted about them, and made them. And the Parliament did take that care in the Enacting them, that might show, they did only add the force of a Law to them: for in passing them it was ordered that the Book of Common-Prayer and Ordination should only be read over, (and even that was carried upon some Debate; for many, as I have been told, moved that the Book should be added to the Act, as it was sent to the Parliament from the Convocation, without ever reading it: but that seemed Indecent and too Implicit to others) and there was no change made in a Tittle by Parliament. So that they only Enacted by a Law what the Convocation had done 
* Pp. 74, 75. . And again, As it were a Great Scandal on the first General Councils to say, that they had no Authority for what they did, but what they derived from the Civil Power; so is it no less unjust to say, because the Parliaments impowered 
† Here I must beg leave to say, that his Lordship's Expression is not Exact. The Parliament did not empower, but approve of them.  some Persons to draw Forms for the more pure Administration of the Sacraments, and Enacted that these only should be lawfully used in this Realm, which is the Civil Sanction; that therefore these Persons had no other Authority for what they did. Was it ever heard of, that the Civil Sanction, which only makes any Constitution to have the force of a Law, gives it another Authority than a Civil one? The Prelates, and other Divines, that compiled our Forms of Ordination, did it by virtue of the Authority they had from Christ, as Pastors of his Church, which did empower them to teach the People the pure Word of God, and to administer the Sacraments, and perform all other Holy Functions, according to the Scripture, the Practice of the Primitive Church, and the Rules of Expediency and Reason; and this they ought to have done, tho' the Civil Power had opposed it: in which case their Duty had been to have submitted to whatever Severities and Persecutions they might have been put to, for the Name of Christ, or the Truth of his Gospel. But on the other hand, when it pleased God to turn the Hearts of those which had the Chief Power, to set forward this good Work, than they did, as they ought, with all thankfulness acknowledge so great a Blessing, and accept and improve the Authority of the Civil Power for adding the Sanction of a Law to the Reformation, in all the Parts and Branches of it. So by the Authority they derived from Christ, and the Warrant they had from Scripture and the Primitive Church, these Prelates and Divines made those Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal; and the King and the Parliament, who are vested with the Supreme Legislative Power, added their Authority to them, to make them obligatory on the Subjects 
* Pp. 53, 54. .  
I have produced these Passages at length, not so much for any Light they give to the Particular we are now concerned in, the Authority of the English Ordinal, as for the General Use they may be of in settling the Dispute between Dr. W. and the Church, about the Distinction of the Two Powers Ecclesiastical, and Civil; and the Obligations we are under to the Decisions of the one, antecedently to the Sanctions of the other. I subscribe to his Lordship's state of it, and think nothing can be said more justly and truly.  1552. The Observation of holidays ordered by Act of Parliament. Ibid. pag. 191. 
This Act traced the Steps of the Rubric, in the Common-Prayer-Book, relating to holidays; and ordered none to be kept Holy, but what had beforehand been so ordered to be kept by the Clergy in Convocations, only it added New Penalties.  1553. A New Catechism, by the King's Order required to be taught by Schoolmasters. Ibid. p. 219. 
This Catechism was published with the Articles of 1552. and had, I suppose, the very same Convocational Authority which those had. It was compiled indeed by Poynet, but is said, in the King's Patent annexed, to have been afterwards perused and allowed by the Bishops, and other Learned Men; by which we are to understand either the Convocation itself, or a Grand Committee appointed by it, and upon which its Power was devolved. That the whole Convocation have been by these, or such like Terms about this time often expressed, the Instances given in the Margin 
* 
The Six Articles in the Act 31 H. 8. c. 14. are said to be agreed to by the Archbishops, Bishops, and other Learned Men of the Clergy; who a little before are styled a Synod, or Convocation.  
In the Articles of 1536. (See 'em in Bishop Burn. Vol. 1. Coll. of Rec. p. 305.) the Convocation is expressed by the Bishops, and others, the most Discreet and Learned Men of the Clergy.  
The Articles of 1552. are in the Title said to be such, de quibus in Synodo Londinensi inter Episcopos, & alios Eruditos viros convenerat. And i● will scarce, I think, bear a Reasonable Doubt, whether these Articles passed the Convocation.  
Finally, The Act about Holidays, (as 'tis called) is in the Canon itself. (See it in Sparrow, p. 167.) said to be decreed by the King, with the Common Assent and Consent of the Clergy in Convocation assembled. But in the King's Letter to Bonner about it, the words are, By the Assents and Consents of all you Bishops, and others, Notable Personages of the Clergy of this our Realm in full Convocation and Assembly had for that purpose.   will evince.  
And that this Catechism was generally understood to have the Authority of Convocation, is plain even from the Exception made to it by Dr. Weston 
† For that, said he, there is a Book of late set forth, called the Catechism, bearing the Name of this Honourable Synod, and yet put forth, without your Consents, as I have learned, etc. ●ox. Vol. 2. p. 19 , in the first Synod of Queen Mary; but plainer still from Philpot's Reply to that Exception; which discovers also to us somewhat of the Manner, by which the Convocation came to be Entitled, not to this Catechism alone, but to several other Pieces, that seem to carry the Name of a Committee only upon them. His words are, that This House [of Convocation] had granted the Authority to make Ecclesiastical Laws unto certain Persons to be appointed by the King's Majesty; and whatsoever Ecclesiastical Laws They, or the most part of them, did set forth, according to a Statute in that behalf provided, it might be well said to be done in the Synod of London, although such as be of this House now had no notice thereof before the Promulgation. And in this Point be thought the setter forth thereof nothing to have slandered the House— since▪ they had our Synodal Authority unto them committed to make such Spiritual Laws as They thought convenient and necessary 
* abide. p. ●0. .  
The Knowledge of the Time and Circumstances of appointing this Committee, we have lost, together with the Acts themselves: however, plain it is from this Assertion of Mr. Philpot, made in open Convocation, that such a Committee there was, named by the Crown, at the Instance of the whole Clergy; and that this Catechism, among other things, passed them; and had on that account, as He judged, the Authority of Convocation. It is left to the Reader, by whom in this ca●e he will be guided, the Church's Martyr, or her Betrayer. And here the Instance of the Catechismus ad Parochos is very pat to our purpose, and ought once again to be remembered.  
The rest of Dr. W.'s Particulars are Immaterial, and need not stop us: only on the Last of 'em a Line or two may be not improperly spent.  
King Charles the First.  
Directions concerning Preaching with respect to the Arminian Points.  
These Directions were for the silencing both Parties, and for preventing all Innovations upon the Doctrine of the Church already Established; and such Directions, it is not only the Christian Magistrates Privilege, but his Duty to prescribe: provided always, that he do it not with any such underhand Views and Aims, as my Lord of Sarum represents K. Charles the First to have had in publishing His,— All Divines (says he) were by Proclamation required not to Preach upon Those Heads: but those that favoured the New Opinions were encouraged, and the others were depressed 
* Exposition on the XXXIX. Article, p. 152. . I presume, this is no part of the Regal Supremacy, nor a Pattern fit to be imitated in succeeding Reigns: especially, if the case ever should be, as his Lordship further informs us, it was Then,— And unhappy Disputes (continues He) falling in at that time, concerning the Extent of the Royal Prerogative beyond Law, the Arminians having declared themselves highly for that, they were as much favoured at Court, as they were censured in Parliament. If this were then really the case, we of This Age have reason to thank Heaven for reserving us for better Times, when the Interests of Prince and People are the same; and it can never therefore be a recommending Qualification of a Man, that he is for extending the Royal Prerogative beyond Law; nor entitle him to the favour of a Court, to be censured in Parliament.  
These are the Instances, in which Dr. Wake has shown himself very willing to blast the Honour of the Reformation, in order to assert an unreasonable Prerogative to the Crown, for which no good Prince will thank him. I have considered 'em throughout, and have proved, I hope, that the History he brings to justify his Principles is every whit as unjustifiable as the Principles themselves; and that they deserve therefore to keep Company with one another. In some of these Instances, Truth was so easy to be come at, that he must be thought to have miss it willingly, and to have judged it pardonable to pervert History a little, in order to make his Compliment with the better Grace. A Principle, familiar to the Writers in this Controversy, as I could show by some Domestic Instances; but, since that is not proper, shall content myself with a foreign one.  
De Marca, a Man excellently well read in this Debate, and of Abilities of Mind equal to his Reading, (and like Dr. W. in nothing, but in his Design of letting the Royal Power in upon the Church as far as he was able) while he was writing his Famous Piece, 
Baluzii Vita Petri de Marca, etc. in principio operis de Concordiâ Sacerd. & Imp. pp. 13, 14.  was named to the See of Thoulouse, but not quickly settled there, for want of his Bulls. To obtain them, he wrote a Letter to the Pope, full of Submission and Respect; and in it, took occasion to compare his own advancement to the See of Tholouse with that of Exuperius, formerly Bishop of that place: whom he made the same with Exuperius, the Spanish Precedent, on purpose, that the Parallel might run the better (He himself having for some time presided in Catalonia); tho' he knew very well, they were two different Men. When this was objected to him, as an oversight, or rather as a piece of Art, not very well becoming his Holy Character, he laughed at the Objection, and pitied the poor People that made it; who were so scrupulously silly, as to tie Men up to strict Truth in such cases as these, and not able to distinguish between History and a Compliment. So that with the Writers in this Argument, it has been, it seems, a Fashion all along, to disguise Truth; and the bending of matters of fact to by-purposes, is a tried and approved Remedy for the Dispatch of Bulls. As a Key to all the false Stories vouched by Dr. W. I have added this true one: and should it happen not to be very pertinent, or entertaining, I have no Excuse to make to him on that head; 'tis but returning him a Freedom, which he has often beforehand taken with his Reader.  
I am sensible these Reflections of mine are running out into too great a Length, and shall therefore only name two or three more without enlarging much upon ' 'em.  
VII. Dr. Wake makes no distinction between Absolute and Limited Princes, but produces the Acts of the one to prove and justify the Exercise of a like Power in the other. His first Chapter is taken up in telling us, what was done in relation to Ecclesiastical Synods, and Affairs by the Roman, and Germane Emperors, and by other Princes, of narrower Territory, but not less Despotic in their Government: as if what They did, or had a Right to do, were immediately the Right of every other Christian Prince, without any regard to the Restrictions which the Power of that Prince might be under, by the Constitution of his Country. But now should he have told us, what Acts of Absolute Authority were exercised by those Emperors in State-matters, and how their Edicts had the force of Laws; would this Plea justify an English Prince in attempting the like things at home, or be a Bar any ways upon the Rights and Privileges of Parliament? Indeed our Author seems sensible, that these Instances are not very Conclusive, where he confesses, that Princes may by their own Acts Limit themselves, and that such Limitations may alter the Case mightily, and make that Lawful in one Country which is not so in another 
* P. 95. . Pity it is, that this Truth had not come into his Thoughts sooner than the 95 th'. Page of his Work: it might then have prevailed with him to withdraw that huge Heap of Foreign Precedents, which now take up so much room in his Work; and which would have been left to sleep peaceably in his Common-place-Book, without seeing the Light, upon so improper an occasion. For should, what he has the Courage in his next Chapter to assert, be true; that, by our own Constitution, the King of England has all that Power at this day, over our Convocation, that EVER ANY Christian Prince had over his Synod 
† P. 98. : yet the Power he has in this respect, he derives from the Particular Rules of our Constitution, not from any beyond-Sea-Customs and Usages. He claims it not, I suppose, as Heir to the Imperial Authority of Constantine, or Charles the Great; but by virtue of that Prerogative, which, as King of England, he has by the Laws of England: and should the Power therefore happen to be equal here at home to what it is abroad, yet there lies no Proof from the one of these to the other. Dr. Wake it seems has different notions of these things; for he tells us, that Whatever Privileges he has shown to belong to the Christian Magistrate, they belong to him as such; they are not derived from any Positive Laws and Constitutions, but result from that Power which every such Prince has Originally in himself, and are to be looked upon as part of those Rights which naturally belong to Sovereign Authority: and that, to prove any particular Prince entitled to these Rights, it is sufficient to show, that he is a Sovereign Prince; and therefore ought not to be denied any of those Prerogatives that belong to such a Prince, unless it can be plainly made out, that he has afterwards, by his own Act, Limited himself 
* Pp. 94, 95. . So that, according to Dr. Wake's Politics, All Kings, in All Countries, have an Equal Share of Power, in their first Institution; none of 'em being Originally Limited, or subjected to any Restraints, in the Arbitrary Exercise of their Authority, but such as they have been pleased, by after-acts and condescensions, graciously to lay upon themselves. Which Position how it can be reconciled with an Original Contract, and with several Branches of the Late Declaration of Rights, I do not see: and how far it may appear to the Three States of this Realm, to entrench on their share in the Government, and on the Fundamental Rights and Liberties of the Free People of England, Time must show. That all Bishops indeed are Equal, is the known Maxim of St. Cyprian; but which of the Fathers have said, that All Kings are so too, I am, I confess, as yet to learn. For my part, I should think it as easy a Task to prove, that every Prince had originally the same Extent of Territory, as that he had the same Degree of Power: The Scales of Miles in several Countries are not more different, than the Measures of Power and Privilege that belong to the Prince, and to the Subject. But Dr. W. has breathed French Air for some time of his Life, where such Arbitrary Schemes are in request; and it appears that his Travels have not been lost upon him. He has put 'em to that Use, which a Modern Author 
* Moldsworth's Pref. to the State of Denmark.  observes to be too often made of 'em, that they teach Men fit Methods of pleasing their Sovereigns at the People's Expense: tho' at present, I trust, his Doctrine is a little out of season; when we live under a Prince, who will not be pleased with any thing that is Injurious to the Rights of the Least of his Subjects, when duly informed of them.  
Whereas then Dr. W. in great Friendship to the Liberties of his Church, and of his Country, asserts, that by our Constitution the King of England has all that Power at this day over our Convocation, that EVER ANY Christian Prince had over his Synod; I would ask him one plain Question, Whether the King and the Three States of the Realm together have not more Power in Church-matters, and over Church-Synods than the King alone? If so, then cannot the King alone have All that Power which ever any Christian Prince had; because some Christian Princes have had all the Power that was possible; even as much as belongs to the King and the Three Estates in Conjunction.  
There is one thing indeed which seems material to be observed and owned in this case; 'tis the Assertion of the Second Canon, which declares our Kings to have the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church had. But this Canon must necessarily be understood of the King in Parliament: for out of Parliament it is manifest, that he is not so Absolute in Ecclesiastical Matters, as those Emperors were. In Parliament, he can do every thing, that is by the Law of God, or of Reason lawful to be done; out of Parliament he can do nothing, but what the Particular Rules of our Constitution allow of. And,  
VIII. This too is a Distinction which Dr. W. should have taken notice of, had he intended to do Justice to his Argument. For the Church here in England is under the Government both of the Absolute, and Limited Sovereign: under the Government of the Limited Sovereign, within the Compass of his Prerogative; under the Government of the Absolute Sovereign, without any Restraints or Bounds; except what the Revealed Will of God, and the Eternal Rules of Right Reason prescribe. The Pope usurped not only on the King, the Limited; but on the King and Parliament, the Absolute Sovereign: and what was taken from Him therefore was not all thrown into the Prerogative, but restored severally to its respective Owners.  
And of this Absolute Sovereign it is the Duty, when Christian, to act in a Christian manner; to be directed in matters Spiritual by the Advice of Spiritual Persons, and not lightly to vary from it. By the same Rule the Limited Sovereign is to steer likewise, within the Sphere of his Prerogative: And he is also further obliged, to preserve those Privileges of the Church which belong to her by the Laws of the Realm. Now Dr. Wake, I say, confounds these two Powers, and the Subjections that are due to them; speaking all along of the King, as if He, in Exclusion to the Three Estates, had the Plenitude of Ecclesiastical Authority lodged in him, and were the single Point, in which the Obedience of the Church, and of every Member of it centred. This is a Fundamental Mistake that runs quite through his Book; and is such an One as overturns our Constitution, and confounds the Executive and Legislative parts of it; and deserves a Reprehension therefore some other way than from the Pen of an Adversary.  
Henry the Eighth, 'tis true, in virtue of his Supreme Headship, laid claim to a Vast and Boundless Power in Church-affairs; had his Vicegerent in Convocation, Enacted every thing there by his own Sole Authority; issuing out his Injunctions as Laws, at pleasure. And these Powers, whether of Right belonging to him, or not, were then submitted to by All, who either wished ill to the Pope, or well to the Reformation; or wanted Courage otherwise to bear up against his Tyrannical Temper and Designs: and were the more easily allowed of by Churchmen, because they saw him at the same time exercise as Extravagant an Authority in State-matters, by the Consent of his Parliament.  
However the Title of Supreme Head, together with those Powers that were understood to belong to it, was taken away in the ●●●st of Queen Mary, and never afterwards reaved: but instead of it, all Spiritual Iurisdicti●● was declared to be annexed to the Imperial ●rown of this Realm, 
1 Eliz. c. 1.  and the Queen enabled to exercise it by a Commissioner, or Commissioners. This Power continues, no doubt, in ●he Imperial Crown; but can be exerted no otherwise than in Parliament, now, since the ●igh Commission Court was taken away by ●he 17 Car. 1. It was attempted indeed to be restored in the Last Reign; but was then universally disallowed, and has since been solemnly condemned by the Declaration of Rights, as ●ne cause of the Abdication. Whatever therefore Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth ●id, in virtue of their Supreme Headship, whatever the Three succeeding Princes did by their Ecclesiastical Commissions, is not therefore, because Their Act, or Right, a present Branch of the Regal Supremacy: all those Extraordinary Powers and Jurisdictions, which were peculiar to that Title, or that Court, being now returned to the King in Parliament. And When Dr. Wake therefore tells us, that he is not ●ware of any Law that has debarred the King from ●aving his Commissioner, or Vicar General in Convocation now, as Henry the Eighth before had 
* P. 114. , ●e shows how unfit he is, under such a deep ●gnorance of our Constitution, to write on ●his Argument: for a very moderate share of skill in these things was, methinks, sufficient to have made him ware of the Illegality of King James' Commission. I shall beg leave not to think, that this is a Principle approved by ●his Grace of Canterbury, or that his Grace would ●ow give place to such a Vicar General.  
IX. One thing more I have to offer, and with that shall shut up these General Remarks Dr. W. distinguishes not between those Pours in which the Crown is Arbitrary, and those in which it is purely Ministerial; between Royal Acts that are Free, and such as are Necessary, so that by the Rules of our Constitution the King cannot omit them. For example, he tells us, That the King determines what Persons 
* P. 103.  shall meet in Convocation, at what Time 
† P. 103. , and in what Place. And this he talks of in such a manner, as if the Prince were perfectly and equally at Liberty, in all these Respects; and under no manner of Tie from the Laws and Usages of this Kingdom. 'Tis true, as to the Place of their Meeting, he is free, and may appoint their Session in what part of his Country he thinks fit; just as he may that of the Lords and Commons. But as to the Time, he is so far restrained, that some Times there are when he ought to call them together, by the Fundamental Rules of our Constitution; and those are as often as Writs for a New Parliament go out. As for the other Convocations in the Intervals of Parliament (if our Constitution now, after an hundred and fifty years' disuse, knows any such thing, which I shall not here dispute;) 'tis as to These only, that the Issuing out Writs for the Clergy can be matter of Grace and Favour, or become the Subject of Deliberation. But as to the Persons that are to meet, the Crown has no Power of determining who, or how many they shall be; for the Law has determined this beforehand. The King may indeed name whom he pleases to Deaneries and Bishoprics: but when he has done so, Those, and no other must be Summoned to Convocation. And in this he does not seem to have left himself at so much Liberty, as he still has in relation to the House of Lords, to which he can by Writ call whom he pleases, whereas it may be questioned, whether his Writ can give place to any one in the Upper House of Convocation, but Bishops only.  
The Truth is, the King appoints the Persons that are to come to Convocation, just as he does those that are to come to Parliament: some have a Right of sitting there in Person, and to those therefore he directs Particular Writs; Others have a Right of being represented there, and those therefore he order to send up their Proxies; that is indeed, the Constitution appoints, what Persons, or Communities shall be Summoned; and the King, according to that Rule, does, as often as he is pleased to call a Parliament, by his Ministers, Execute that Summons. And if Convocations are upon the Level with Parliaments in this respect, as 'tis certain they are, Dr. Wake had best have a care how he attempts to prove, that it is the King's Right to appoint who shall come to those meetings, because this implies, that if he should think fit not to appoint 'em, they would have no Right to come: which is a Doctrine of very dangerous consequence, and not likely to recommend the maintainer of it to the Thanks of either House of Parliament.  
Dr. Wake is not content to assert this Power to the King, unless he does it upon the bottom of an Imperial Power: for after he has proved, as he thinks, in his First Chapter, that the Emperors of Rome and Germany were Absolute in all these respects, he goes on in his Second to show, that by our own Constitution, the King of England has all that Power at this day over our Convocation, that ever any Christian Prince had over his Synods 
* P. 98. ; and immediately in the same Particulars of Time, Place, and Person, draws the Parallel between ' 'em.  
'Tis true as to Place, the Kings of England are as Arbitrary as those Emperors were: however his way of making out this both of the One and the Other is somewhat singular. Abroad, Pepin's determining the Place of his Synods meeting is proved, from his determining that they should meet either at Soissons, or at such other place as the Bishops should agree upon 
† P. 38. . At home, the same thing manifestly appears, because our Princes leave their Synods, with a Great Latitude, to be held either at St. Paul 's, or at any other Place, which the Archbishop shall judge to be more convenient 
‖ P. 103. . Which is very true, for the words of the Writ to the Archbishop have for some hundred years run, ad conveniendum in Ecclesia, etc. vel alib●, prout melius expedire videritis, which is just such a Determination of the Place they are to meet in, as Dr. Wake's Book is of the Point in question.  
He has much such another Argument to prove that the Emperors determined the Persons too, that were to come to their Great Councils; because in Three of them (which he there mentions) they left it to the Metropolitans, when they came, to bring such of their Suffragan Bishops as they thought fit along with ' 'em. And when the Princes (says he) who followed after, Summoned their National Synods, They in like manner directed the Choice of those who were to come to them 
* Pp. 39, 40. . If they directed the Choice in like manner, I may venture to say, that they did not direct it at all: for those Emperors gave no Directions for the Choice, but, as He says, left it entirely to the Discretion of the Metropolitan; or rather, as the Truth is, left it to the several Provincial Synods to determine, what Bishops should wait upon their Archbishop to the Council. Were Dr. Wake's Congee d'estire to be so drawn up, as to leave the Chapter to which it shall be sent, at as great a Liberty as these Princes left their Metropolitans, he would not think it, I believe, a sufficient Direction of their Choice, because, I dare say, he would not find it so. In the mean time, what Bungling Work is this for an Old Controvertist, that has encountered the Bishop of Meaux, and half persuaded him to be a Protestant? The Dr. indeed lets us know plainly enough, what he would be at, in the Positions he lays down; but by the Instances he sometimes brings to back 'em, one can hardly tell, which side he is retained on.   

CHAP. V.  
HItherto, I have made only some General Remarks on Dr. Wake's weigh of managing this Controversy, and by that means showed the Reader, how much there is in his Lose Work utterly wide of the Mark he should have aimed at; and how unfair he is in his Representations, and defective in his Proofs, even on those Points which are not pertinent, and where Truth had been of little or no disservice to his Cause. I might go on, and in the same manner lay open his Fourth Chapter also, which he calls a Short View of the State of our Convocation in times past 
* P. 147. ; and which is just as short a View, as it is a True one: it being drawn out to the length of an hundred tedious Pages; in which there is scarce One (I speak what I have considered) that would not, upon a careful Review, yield a manifest Proof of his Insincerity or Ignorance. So slight and partial are the accounts he there gives of the Business of Convocations, and the Ends of assembling them; so false are his Allegations often times, and so weak the Inferences he draws from them; such an Implicit Reliance has he on every Relation he meets with in any of the Monkish Chroniclers, and so willing is he to think it as Exact and Full, as if the Authors had written Just Histories of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and not Lean Journals only; so thoroughly in the dark does he appear every where to be as to all those Manuscript Papers and Records that might be of use to clear up this Controversy; so base and untrue are the Aspersions he casts on some of the best Clergymen of those times, and (where he can) on his Whole Order; so mean and fulsome is the Flattery he bestows on the Memory of some of our Worst and most Arbitrary Princes: Upon all these Accounts, I say, and many more than these, Dr. Wake has left so much room for Censure, that it would be the business of one entire Book to set out the Mistakes and Prevarications of that single Chapter. But in this, I shall rather trust the Reader to believe as he pleases, than tyre him with a proof of it: especially, since opportunity will be given me of displaying some of them, here and there, under the following Heads of Matter I have marked out, and according to the Method I have resolved to proceed in. By That I am now led to consider the Exceptious of all sorts that have been taken at the Two Points asserted in the Entrance of this Work, by any of those Writers who have pretended to answer the Letter to a Convocation-man We have hitherto done little more than set aside what in Dr. Wake's Book is foreign to the Argument he treats of; let us see now, what there is either in That, or any other Piece, written on the same side, that can be thought Material: I shall conceal nothing that may seem in the least to affect the Truth I contend for, or the Proofs which I have brought to support it.  
In Relation to the first Point laid down we are told, that the Provincial Writ, by which a Convocation is Summoned, has no relation to the calling of a Parliament, nor does so much as mention it 
† L. M. P. p. 29, 30. ; That by such Writs the Clergy may be assembled, when no Parliament is in being, may meet before the Parliament, and be continued after the Dissolution of it; That as to the Clause, Praemunientes, in the Bishop's Writ, it is matter of Form only, having stood there these three hundred Years without any manner of use 
‖ Ibid. p. 32. , and referring to a Convocation, which for many Years past has had no Existence 
* W. p. (284.) ; That it was first inserted upon some Particular Occasion, and continued after the Cause was determined 
† L. M. P. p. 32. ; and that, merely by the neglect of a Clerk, as my Lord of Sarum conjectures 
‖ Hist. Ref. Vol. 2. p. 49. ; That upon the whole therefore the Time of the Convocations meeting is no ways fixed, but Precarious 
* L. M. P. p. 27. , and it's Just Definition is, an Occasional Assembly for such Purposes as the King shall direct, when they meet— as a late Little Author 
† Nicolson. Hist. Libr. Vol. 3. p. 200.  has told us out of a Great one.  
But let the Definition come from what Hand it will, I must be bold to say, that it is unskilfully drawn. For from the Accounts already given in these Papers it appears, that the Convocation is not an Occasional, but a Stated Assembly; in some measure Stated, as a Provincial Synod, simply in itself considered; much more so, as a Synod attendant on a Parliament. As a Provincial Council, the Rules of the Church, received in all Christian States, and particularly in ours, direct that it should be Annual: As a Synod attendant on the Parliament, it has the same stated times of assembling that the Parliament has. And such Parliamentary Meetings of the Clergy ought the rather to be kept up, because it was from These that the Disuse of yearly Provincial Councils, here and elsewhere, originally sprung. For when through the Piety of our Saxon Ancestors the Clergy were called to the Great Councils of the Realm, and made a constant and necessary part of them; they were obliged so frequently to attend in that Capacity, that they had neither Leisure, nor Need to observe the set times of their Provincial Assemblies. The Ordinary Business of These was dispatched at those State-meetings; which were frequent, and gave the Clergy the Opportunity of an easy Recourse to the Civil Power for a Confirmation of their Decrees. And this, by degrees, brought on a discontinuance of Provincial Synods, which from thence began to meet only on Great Emergencies, and for Extraordinary Occasions. Thus the matter stood throughout the Saxon Times, and for some Reigns after the Conquest: The Clergy of the whole Realm met Nationally with the Laity, and did Church-business at the same Time and Place that the Great Affairs of the State were transacted. Afterwards it was thought more Regular, that they should attend the Parliament, not in one Body, but in Two Provincial Synods; which would equally answer the State-Ends of assembling them, and would withal be more strictly agreeable to the Canons. Accordingly they have for near 400. years passed constantly thus attended; and are therefore in this respect as stated an Assembly, as the Parliament itself. 'Tis true, there have been during this Period, Other Meetings also of the Clergy out of Parliament time, when the Necessities of the Church so required; and these Assemblies indeed (and these alone) were properly Occasional. But these were rare in comparison of Parliamentary Synods, even in Popish times: and since the Reformation there has been no Instance of 'em, the Convocation of 1640. only excepted; which is no Complete Instance neither: for it was called, and sat together with the Parliament, tho' it continued after it. And what Reflections and Votes this Continuance produced in the Succeeding Parliament, is sufficiently known. Setting aside therefore what was done in this disputed Instance, it is certain, that All the Business of the Church has for these hundred and fifty years' last been transacted purely in Parliamentary Convocations: and these therefore (which are the only Synods now in use) being Stated, and not Occasional, it can be no part of the Definition of a Convocation, that it is an Occasional Assembly. By the Universal Rules and Practice of the Church there are Set-times allotted for Provincial Synods to meet; and these Times are by our Constitution adjusted to those of Parliament. And the Clergy-Meetings therefore thus appointed concurrently with Parliaments can no more be said to be Precarious, or Occasional than They are. 'Tis true, their Acting is Occasional, tho' their Meeting and Sitting be not: for they may possibly, when met, have no Business to do; and then, as they met a course, so they adjourn, or are adjourned a course: but the Chance of their acting, or not acting, ought not any ways to hinder their Meeting and Sitting, both because it cannot certainly be known till they are met, whether there be any Business for 'em, or no; and should there not be any, yet they preserve a Right to do Business, when there shall be occasion for it, by thus assembling when there is none. Archbishop Parker, Mr. Cambden, Sir Robert Cotton, all that have been Eminent for their skill in our Constitution, have constantly represented the Convocation to be a fixed and stated Assembly, and never once dreamt that it was Occasional: and one would wonder therefore how our Young Antiquaries came to be wiser in this respect than the Old ones. No! this Meeting is not Occasional, but the Notion is taken up purely to serve a Turn, and do Business: for there must be New Notions to justify New Usages. But (to speak a plain word) I cannot for my heart like these Men of Occasional Principles: for I remember well that Those were thought thoroughly Honest by neither side, who were for Occasional Communion.  
Thus much in answer to the General Part of the Objection, which would persuade us, that 'tis of the Nature of a Convocation to be a Precarious Assembly: what is further urged to support this Notion, shall be considered under Two Heads, wherein I shall show,  
1. That the Praemunientes in the Bishop's Writ, is not an Idle Useless Clause (as we are made to believe) inserted only on a Particular Occasion, and continued by Accident; but a Real, and (heretofore at least) an Effectual Summons of the Clergy to Parliament; such as they constantly made Formal Returns to, as often as it went out, and did expressly obey.  
2. That the Writ to the Two Archbishops to convene the Clergy of their Provinces, tho' it does not expressly mention a Parliament, yet has an immediate Reference to it: the Original Design of its issuing out together with the Bishop's Writ being only to secure an Obedience to the Premunitory Clause of it, and to make the Clergy's Parliamentary Assemblies more full and certain.  
Upon the first of these Points I shall not content myself barely to make good what I propose; but shall extend my Inquiries further, and endeavour to give some account of the Original of the Premunitory Clause, as it now stands in the Bishop's Writ, of the true Grounds of inserting it, and of the steps by which it prevailed.  
Something not unlike it I find practised as early as the Sixth of King john, when a Writ, yet to be seen among our Records 
† Cl. 6 Joh. m. 3. dors. , went out, calling the Bishops to Parliament, and by them all the Conventual Abbots and Priors of the Diocese; that is, it may be, all those of the Clergy below Bishops, who might, in this Instance, be Summoned to Parliament. Ten years after this the Charter of Runnymead obliged the Crown to Summon every Bishop, Baron, Abbat, and Prior, Singillatim, that is, by a Distinct Writ: and accordingly in the 26 H. 3. 
* Cl. m. 13. dors.  the Archbishop of York's Summons has no such Clause in it; the Abbot's being then, we may presume, Summoned severally; as we are sure they were in the 41st. of the same Prince, from the Abbot of Burton's Summons, preserved in the Annals of that Monastery 
‖ P. 371. , and as the Deans appear to have been in the 49 H. 3. 
* Dugd. Summ. p. 2.  And whether the Clergy of yet Lower Rank came to that Famous Meeting in some proportion answerable to that of the Lower Laity, and in what manner they were Summoned thither, can be matter of Guess only; for our Records are silent.  
Edward the First, a Martial Prince, having great Designs abroad, had consequently need of Great Supplies at home; and in order to obtain them quietly, found it requisite to get the Express Consent of as many of his Subjects as he could to the Parliamentary Grants; and for that End resolved to make the Lower Clergy and Laity a constant and standing Part of All his Parliaments.  
In his first year, while he was yet abroad in his Expedition, we find the Commons (as we now understand the word) present in Parliament 
* de quolibet Comitatu Quatuor milites, & de qualibet Civitate Quatuor. Ann. Wav. p. 227. ; and that in a greater number than they were in the 49 th'. of his Father. But it does not appear, that the Inferior Clergy were at this Meeting; who, it seems, standing upon their Privileges and Exemptions, were not so easy to be dealt with in this respect as those of the Laity were. In his third year therefore we hear only of the Pontifices, & Cleri Majores in Parliament [i. e. of the Bishops, Abbats, Priors, and Archdeacon's]; of whom the King demanding a Subsidy was answered by the Bishops, that they could not agree to it, without consulting the Clergy of their Dioceses; 
Wykes, ad Ann. 1275  which they promised to do against the next Parliament met, and to bring their Resolutions along with them to it.  
In his Seventh year the Council of Reding met, wherein it was ordered that two Proctors should be Elected by the Clergy of every Diocese, and sent up to represent them in the next Congregation of the Clergy to be held with the next Parliament 
* This is according to the Edition of the Canons of that Council, at the End of Lynwood. From what Copy it was taken, is not said: But those Copies which Sir Will. Dugdale Transcribed into the Second Volume of our English Councils [See p. 320.] differed from it, it is clear; if at least Sir William 's Transcripts are Exact, and to be depended on. . Whether Archbishop Peckam found, that the King had resolved to bring these Proctors to Parliament by his Own Authority, and therefore prevented him by this Constitution, or whether he did it, to have their Counsel and Assistance in opposing the Statute of Mortmain, which he foresaw would be attempted in that Parliament (and was accordingly carried); or upon what other View he acted, I pretend not to say. But from thence forward I take it for granted that such Proctors were constantly returned to all the Clergies Parliamentary Meetings; and that purely upon an Ecclesiastical Call at first, tho' the King soon let himself into a share in Convening them.  
For in his Ninth year, His and the Archbishop's Authority were jointly and interchangeably employed in it; the Archbishop signifying the King's Pleasure in his Letters Mandatory to the Clergy, and the King on the other side Executing the Archbishop's Mandate by his Own Ministers. The Case (if my Collections deceive me not) was thus: The Bishops [and their Clergy] were Summoned to a Synod at London by an Injunction from the Archbishop in which they were commanded also to meet at another Time and Place appointed by the King: and that they might be sure so to do, Letters of Citation are directed (not to the Bishop of London, but) to the King himself, to be by him communicated to the several Bishops by Royal Messengers. This odd Precedent we have an account of in the Register of P●ckam 
* The Citatory Letters are dated Kal. Apr. 1281▪ . And the same Formality, I suppose, was used in Convening the Clergy of York Province, who met about this time at York, as appears from a Writ extant in Pryn 
† Eccl. Jurisd. T. 3. P. 275. , impowring the Bishop of Carlisle, to collect the Tenth of his own Diocese, granted at that Provincial Assembly.  
Next year the Prerogative got ground a little, for the King holding his Parliament at Northampton, commanded the Archbishop by Writ to Summon his Clergy thither, to meet Coram Nobis, vel coram fidelibus nostris quos ad hoc duximus deputandos, 
See App. Num. VII.  ad audiendum & faciendum ea quae pro Republicâ Vobis & eye super his ostendi faciemus, etc. But the Persons which the Archbishop is directed to Summon are only Bishops, Abbats, Priors, and other Heads of Religious Houses, together with the Proxies of Deans and Chapters, without any mention of Archdeacon's, or of the Diocesan Clergy; who, it may be, were by a Particular Writ to be applied to afterwards, and required to follow the Pattern which the Superior Clergy should set, according to the way sometimes practised in former Reigns 
‖ See an Instance, A. D. 1207 80. Joh. in Pryn 's Parl. Writ. Vol. 1. Pref. . So that this Meeting was just such another as that in the third of his Reign, where the Majores Cleri only were present. And yet at the Synod called on the same occasion by the A.B. of York, in His Province, we find the Diocesan Clergy appeared: and (which is very remarkable) the Laity of York-Province under Barons, [Milites, Liberi Homines, Communitates, & omnes alii de singulis Comitatibus ultrà Trentam] had also their Summons to the same Time and Place with the Clergy. So I gather from the Writ sent jointly to both, which being of a curious and uncommon Form, will deserve a place in the Appendix 
* Numb. VIII. where the Reader will find also another directed to the Clergy and Laity of the Bishopric of Durham; who tho' meeting with the rest of York- Province, yet had, it seems, distinct Messages and Messengers sent to them, and made likewise their separate Returns. (See Regist. Joh. Romani ad Ann. 1286. fol. 99 Regist. Grenefield ad Ann. 1310. f. 180.) and something of this Privilege I think, that See even yet retains. .  
Hitherto than the Clergy were so far from meeting Nationally with the Parliament, that the Lower part of the Parliament seems to have divided sometimes to accommodate itself to the Provincial Meetings of the Clergy.  
How the King was obeyed in this Instance as to the Province of Canterbury appears from Peckam's Register, where we find his Mandate 
† See App. Num. IX.  to the Bishop of London, reciting the King's Writ, and commanding all the Bishops of his Province, and all the others mentioned in it, to assemble dictis die & loco ob Reverentiam Regiae Majestatis, de expedientibus reipublicae tractaturi; but with words also that intimated his sense of the Hardship which this New Precedent laid 'em under, and which the Clergy, I suppose, so understood, as if he would not be very severe upon them, tho' they should not comply with it. Accordingly their Meeting at Northampton was but thin, and they broke up immediately, referring themselves to a Fuller Convocation; to be called in the usual Form by the Archbishop, and refusing to answer the King's Demands till such an one were Summoned; as it was soon afterwards 
‖ See App. Num. IX. : and that being a Regular Assembly, both as to the Place 
* Nou. Templ. Lond.  at which, and the Authority 
† The Archbishop's.  by which they met, and the Persons 
‖ Totus Clerus are said to be called i e. beside those Summoned to Northampton, the Archdeacon's also, and Diocesan-Clergy.  composing it, the King's Business did there receive an Easy Dispatch.  
Had the King's Writ, which called the Clergy before his Commissioners at Northampton been obeyed readily, the way had been opened towards his bringing the whole Body of 'em afterwards to Parliament. But having failed in this, and such like attempts, and finding that the Archbishop and his Clergy understood one another, and were secretly agreed to defeat him, he afterwards went more roundly to work, and without ask help from the Church, was resolved to use only his Own Authority; and accordingly Summoned all the Great Abbats and Priors to Parliament Personally, as well those who did not hold of him by Barony, as those who did; and the Lower Clergy by a Premunitory Clause inserted in the Writ to every Bishop. At what time precisely this Method was first set on foot, I cannot be positive: but sure I am that a year before the 23 Edw. 1. (the common Aera of the Praemunientes) it was practised. Peckam was now dead, and Winchelsey not yet returned with his Pall from Rome; and the See of York filled with an Obnoxious Person 
* joh. Romanus. , Fined lately Four thousand Marks by Parliament 
† Ryley's Placita. p. 141. ; and on that, and some other accounts 
‖ See Ibid. p. 173.  now at the King's Mercy. This lucky Juncture the King seems to have laid hold of, to bring the Clergy to a compliance with his Will, when they had no body to head them in their opposition to him 
* Vacabat Ecclesia Cant. (says Knighton) & membra sine capite in consilio dispersa sunt; Eboracensis uèro johannis Romanus, Regis timore perterritus, eò quòd in magnâ pecuniae summâ regi tenebatur, quasi dissimulando destituit, etc. p. 2502. . He Summons the Prior and Chapter of Canterbury therefore, as Guardians of the Spiritualties of that See, during its Vacancy, and by Them the Archdeacon of Canterbury, and two Proctors for the Diocese 
† See the Writ Append. Numb. X. .  
The Clause in this Writ differs in nothing from what was afterwards practised, except that it gins with the word Vocantes, instead of Praemunientes, and mentions not the Prior and Chapter of Canterbury, they being indeed the Persons written to, and having already in the former part of the Writ been cited under another Capacity. Only still we may observe that tho' the Call were really to Parliament, yet it is not mentioned throughout the Summons; either in that part of it, which commands the Bishop to attend, or in that which warns the Lower Clergy to accompany him; but they are cited only to treat and to consult among themselves.  
Knighton 
* Eodem Anno (MCCXCIV.) Vocavit Rex per Literas suas Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Decanos Ecclesiarum Cathedralium & Archidiaconos in propriis personis suis Clerumque uniuscujusque Diocesis per duos Procuratores, etc. X. Script. col. 2501. , and the Annals of Worster 
† Die XIX. Sept. Rex habuit Colloquium Londoniae cum omnibus Episcopis, & Archidiaconis, & Abbatibus. Et Clerus ibi similiter habuit Procuratores. Ann. Wig. apud Ang. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 516. , and Eversden 
* Rex Parliamento die crastino Sti Michaelis [it should be Matthaei] habito— Universos & singulos Angliae Praelatos cum Clero, nec non & Religiosos omnes possessiones obtinentes ad ipsum Parliamentum vocatos, ad praestationem, etc. induxit. M. S. in Off. Arm. ad Ann. 1294.  mention the Clergy as present in this Parliament, and the two first of these tell us particularly, who were Summoned. Neither of their Enumerations are just indeed, but both together complete the Account. And from the notice thus taken of the Clergy's attendance, and from the Particular given of the Persons attending, we may be satisfied, that the Summons was Extraordinary; and from thence may conclude, that before this it had not, probably, been practised; to be sure, not obeyed. But now it was effectually: for, upon the receipt of the King's Writ, the Prior and Chapter sent out their Letters Mandatory (in which they recite it) One to the Archdeacon of the Diocese, and another to the Commissary of their Separate Jurisdiction, ordering them to bring the Clergy of their several Districts together at a Place, and Time appointed; as They did: and the Clergy thus met, deputed two Common Proctors, to represent the whole Diocese. And these Proctors sat and acted for them in Parliament, i. e. in that Assembly of the Clergy which was Summoned by the same Writ, to meet at the same Time and Place that the Laypart of the Parliament were 
* Ad ipsum Parliamentum vocatos, says Eversden, above. ; and accordingly did thus meet at the opening of it promiscuously 
† So I gather from Mat. Westm. who says, Coädunatis apud— Clero & Populo. P. 422. and so Knighton 's Relation, (Col 2502.) manifestly implys. , tho' they afterwards debated and resolved separately 
* This too appears from Knighton (ibidem) and from the manner in which their Orders in relation to the Grant are spoken of in Registr. Henr. Prioris, fol. 63. There a Writ recites, that in sesto beati Matthaei, etc. quaedam ●unt Ordinata per Praelatos & Cleri Procuratores, exclusively to the Laity. And the Clergy's Proctors are there also impower'd to consent to what the Prelates, Archdeacon's, and other Proxies of the Clergy should do in common. . And one of the Resolutions they came to was to give the King a moiety of their Goods for one year. This Gift however was by the Province of Canterbury alone; for the Clergy of York-Province, if present in this meeting, yet did not make their Grant in it, as appears from the King's Letters Patents transmitted to them by the Dean of York, immediately upon the rising of the Clergy of Canterbury 
† The Parliament sat on Sept. 20 th'. or 21 th'. and risen in a few days, the Letters-Patents to the York- Clergy are dated Septemb. the 28 th'. , wherein they are commanded to do as the King's Agent shall direct, i. e. as the Clergy of the other Province had done before them. It appears indeed from the Register of joh. Romanus 
‖ Ad Ann.  that his Clergy were Summoned to this Parliament by the very same Writ that those of Canterbury were: but whether they declined appearing there, or only delayed their Grant till they met Provincially at home, I cannot say: sure we are, that the next year 
* 23 E. 1.  they were again Summoned, the Praemunientes being inserted into the Writs of all the Bishops of York-Province, as Pryn 
† Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. p. 7.  informs us. And the year after that, we know that it was not only inserted 
‖ Dugd. Summ. p. 13. , but obeyed by them. For Rex Angliae apud Sanctum Edmundum in crastino Animarum Parliamentum suum tenuit, & vocati ibidem venerunt per Regias Literas Praelati & Totus Clerus, says the Manuscript Chronicle of Canterbury written at this time, of which a Fragment is published by Mr. Wharton (Angl. Sac. Vol. 1. p. 50.) and so Thorn. Rex apud S. Edm. tenuit Parliamentum, Convocato illùc Toto Clero. Col. 1965. Now therefore the Praemunientes became an Usual Part of the Bishop's Writ, and had a place there, not as Matter of Form only; for as often as it was repeated, it was expressly complied with. The Bishop, upon the Receipt of his Writ, transmitted it in a Letter of his own to the Dean or Prior of his Cathedral Church, and to the Archdeacon or Archdeacon's of his Diocese, commanding them to appear in Person at the Time and Place prefixed by the Writ, and to warn the Chapter to send one of their Body, and the Clergy of the Diocese Two thither; and moreover to transmit an account to him of what they had done, or would do in this matter. To this the Deans, Priors, or Archdeacon's, made answer by their Certificatorium; which recited the Bishop's Writ, as that recited the King's, and concluded always either that they had done, or would do, as commanded. Upon this the Chapter met and deputed One, and the Clergy of the Diocese Two to appear for them in Parliament. The Persons so deputed had Procuratoria (or Letters of Substitution, 
Literae de Rato.  and Ratihabition) given to 'em from the Persons they represented: These ran always in the same Terms with the Writs of Summons, and varied according to them; so that when the One was ad tractandum, ordinandum, & faciendum; or ad faciendum & consentiendum, or ad consentiendum only, so was the Other. These Instruments they exhibited the first day of the Session, or at least of their Appearance there; and Memorandums of them were entered, together with the other Proxies, by the Clerk of the Parliament.  
This was the Method in which the Praemunientes was Executed upon the Inferior Clergy, and obeyed by them: a Method, not practised once, or twice, upon an Exigence only (as our Adversaries ignorantly talk); but for two hundred years and upwards, at least, after the first framing it.  
Several times it was inserted in the Latter Years of Edward the First, as the Writs Printed by Pryn, and Dugdale show, and sometimes when they take no notice of it 
* For instance, the Writ for the Parliament in Quindena Purific. 33 E. 1. is Printed in Dugdale (p. 45.) without the Praemunientes: whereas both That, and the Writ of Prorogation certainly had it; as appears from a Certificatorium relating to the one, and a Procuratorium to the other; both entered in a Register of Henry the Prior of Canterbury. . And I have seen either the Certificatories, or Letters of Proxy, that were drawn up by some Capitular Body or other, in relation to every one of these Meetings. Three or four of these for the Convent of , Pryn 
† Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. Pp. 116, 117, 118.  has given us as Rarities; and indeed they are All that I have seen Printed any where, (for That which he mentions out of Selden is a Deputation for an Abbot only): However in the Old Chapter-Books they are very commonly to be met with; and from thence therefore I shall take the Forms of some Few 
‖ See Append. Numb. XI. , and the Dates of as many more as will be requisite to continue the Succession of them down to Henry the Eighth's Reign.  
All Edward the First's time, I have said, that this Clause had its due effect; the Clergy, by virtue of it, resorting from Both Provinces to Parliament. Of this the Evidence is very Full and Convincing, in relation to his Last Parliament at Carlisle, the Records of which Ryley has Printed at length in his Placita Parliamentaria; and amongst them, the Names of all those Proctors that appeared for every Capitular Body, and for the Clergy of Each Diocese of the Kingdom. 'Tis the only thing of the kind that is extant, or perhaps preserved; and the Book where it lies is in the Hands of Few but the Professors of the Law: for which reason I shall place a Specimen of it in the Appendix 
* See Num. XII. .  
Nor did any Change happen in this respect, all Edward the Second time: Indeed the Weakness of that Prince (who was given up to his Favourites and his Pleasures), and the Ascendant which Archbishop Winchelsey had over him, after his Return from Exile, encouraged, the Clergy to slacken a little in their Obedience to this Clause, at the Beginning of his Reign: and once or twice under Archbishop Reynolds they attempted to free themselves wholly from the Authority of a Lay-Summons. But they could not bring it to pass; and after a short struggle therefore soon returned to their Duty, and made their Representatives regularly, according to the Tenor of it, throughout all the Latter part of his Reign. It will be at least a curious, if not an useful piece of knowledge, to give ourselves some Account of the Steps taken by the Lower Clergy, to get rid of the Praemunientes, and of the little Varieties made use of in convening them, at this Critical Time.  
In the first and third years of this Prince, when it went out, it was complied with 
* Vide Procuratoria data 3. Apr. 1307. & 25. Apr. 1309. in Registro Henrici Prioris. : but the Clergy afterwards fell off, so that in his fifth year, he found himself obliged to insert a Clause of a different nature into the two Archbishops Writs 
* See the Form in Dugd. Summoit. Pp. 77, 78. , ordering them to bring the Clergy (not of their several Dioceses only, but) Provinces to Parliament. And here (for aught I can find) the Foundation was laid for that Practice of a Double Summons of the Clergy, both by the Provincial, and Bishop's Writ, which grew afterwards the settled Course, and does even to this day (with some small Variety as to the Form) obtain.  
Two years afterwards a New Attempt was made by the Crown, to bring Each Province apart before the King's Commissioners, out of Parliament time, but by Writs in a Parliamentary Form to the several Suffragan Bishops, and by others to the two Archbishops 
† See Append. Numb: XIII. , ordering them to convene their Clergy Provincially at two different Times and Places therein mention, Prout in proximo Parliamento nostro apud Westminster habito tam per Clerum quam per Communitatem regni nostri extitit concordatum 
† This refers to the Parliament in Quindenâ Paschae, (Dugd. p. 95.) which was Summoned with the Praemunientes, and that Clause was (as appears by these words) obeyed. . The Direction of it was, Venire faciatis coram dictis fidelibus nostris Suffraganeos vestros, Decanos, Priores Ecclesiarum Cathedralium, Archidiaconos, Abbates Exemptos & non Exemptos Provinciae vestrae in propriis personis; Capitula etiam— per unum— & Clerum— per duos Procuratores, ad tractandum & consentiendum unà Vobiscum, etc. And because the Exempt Abbats might be backward in obeying the Archbishop's Mandate, They too had the same Writ sent 'em, as the Suffragans had, the Clause Praemunientes only excepted. Had this Method succeeded, it would have brought the Clergy more effectually, and in fuller Numbers to Parliament than the Praemunitory Clause did. When met therefore, they took the Alarm, and remonstrated against it, as a Novelty, never before practised, in formâ quâ nunc scribitur. They complain also of the Total Insertion of the King's Writ into the Archbishop's Mandate, as tending to a manifest Subversion of their Privileges, and desire a Revocation of it; and that they may be resummoned in a Regular Manner, by the Archbishop, without any Interposition of the Civil Authority; which was granted. The Remonstrance 
* See it Append: Numb. XIV.  is set down in an Old Cotton-Manuscript 
† Faustin. A. 5. , but with a false Date: for it is there supposed to be made at a Convocation in 1322, to which it no ways belongs.  
The Alteration this produced was, that the next year [of this Prince's reign, but the same of our Lord] the Archbishop had two several Writs directed to him, when the Parliament was Summoned; the One, as he was Bishop of the Diocese, with the Usual Clause for the Lower Clergy; the other 
‖ See it Append. Num. XV. , as Metropolitan, to cite those very Clergy, and no others, Provincially, who were called up by the Writs to their several Diocesans. But neither would this Method take easily, for the Clergy, when assembled, protested against such sort of Citations by the Archbishop, as calling a part of the Body only; and those ad Curiam Saecularem, puta Domini Regis Parliamentum quod in Camerâ ejusdem inchoatur; and therefore tam ratione Fori, quam Loci, Uncanonical; and say, that for the future they will not obey them 
* See their Protestation, Appen. Num. XV. .  
For which reason when the year after 
* 9 E. 2. 1315. , Both these Writs went out again, the Archbishop varied a little from both in his Letters Mandatory 
† Dated 15. Kal. Jan. 1315. in Registro Reynolds. ; for he called not only those specified in the Praemunitory Clause, but the Whole Clergy of his Province; to appear, not in Parliament, but before himself, in a Sacred Place, the Day before the Time prefixed by the King's Writ: Nor does he in his Mandate recite, or mention this Clause; but refers himself to that Other Writ, which the King sent out at the same time to enforce the Praemunientes; and mentions it, as a Request 
‖ Cum nos Rex suis Rogatibus excitaverit— Nos Regiae Majestatis hujusmodi Precibus eò facilius inclinamur.—  only on the Crown-side, and a Condescension on His; but not as a Legal Command, issued by a Competent Authority. The Clergy thus convened stood by him in what he had done, and made their Excuse for not appearing at the Place the King directed; praying the Archbishop and his Suffragans to be instant with the King, that he would not insist on his Summons, but give them the Liberty of declining it. So I gather from a Petition of theirs (in an Old Book in the Cotton-Library 
* Faustin. A. 8. , said to be made tempore Edvardi 2 di, without any further Date; but seeming by its Place in the Manuscript, and some other Coincidences to belong to this year, and to this Assembly. The Reader will find it in the Appendix 
† Numb. XV. . Whether they carried their Point, at this time, I know not, but soon after we find, the Writ with the Praemunientes inserted in the Archbishop's Mandate 
‖ Vide Registr. Henr. Prioris, f. 227. & fol. 263. where it appears that the two Writs with the Praemunientes of the 15 E. 2. & 20 E. 2. Printed by Dugdale, (Pp. 122.136.) were formally obeyed. , and formally complied with by the Clergy.  
When the Procuratoria were drawn, in relation to the Praemunientes alone, they ran (as that did) ad faciendum & consentiendum, or ad consentiendum only: when the Provincial Summons went out also, the Clergy's Powers ran ad tractandum cum Venerabili Patre— Praelatis & Clero, necnon ad Consentiendum; which answered Both the Citations. And sometimes Double Instruments of Prexy were framed both for the Parliament and Convocation, and different Proctors appointed for each of ' 'em. And this, I conceive, was as often as the Parliament was held out of the Province, and the Clergy were at the same time to meet Provincially at home 
* An Instance of such a Double Procuratorium is to be seen in Registro Henr. Prioris, fol. 202, 203. naming different Proctors to represent the Chapter of Canterbury in the Parliament to be held at York, à die Paschae in mens●m, and in the Convocatio Cleri London in Quindena Paschae. It was in the Year 1319.  and do business; for they could not then assemble with the Parliament, or near it; and sent their Proctors therefore to testify their Consent to what should be done in it. And the same thing I have observed to be done sometimes even in that Province where the Parliament met, if the Archbishop of it did then solemnly hold his Provincial Council: for in this case also different Proxies were returned to these several Meetings 
† An Instance of this kind also I have met with Ann. 1323, when the Parliament was held in die Purisic. and the Archbishop's Provincial Council about the same time: The Dean and Chapter of Lincoln send Proctors to both of them. Vide Registr. penes Dec. & Cap. Linc. ab Anno 1321, ad 1339. fol. 33. .  
Now then, tho' the Praemunientes was obeyed Nationally, yet the Clergy that met with the Parliament acted Provincially, i. e. the Clergy of that Province where the Parliament was held, acted as a Synod convened by their Metropolitan, and the Clergy of the Other Province sent their Deputies to the Lay-Assemb●y to consent for them, but taxed themselves, and did all manner of Ecclesiastical Business at home 
* Thus in the Instance before given An. 1321, The Clergy of York- Province, (where the Parliament was held) are only said to have made their Grant in Parliament. For a Writ (tested July 19 that Year) to the Archbishop of Canterbury recites, how in Parliamento nostro ultimò apud Eborum summonito— Xa Cleri in Prov. Ebor. XVIIIva. Bonorum Mobilium Communitatis regni & XIIa. in Civitatibus Burgis & Dominicis nostris fuerunt concessae: But the Clergy of Canterbury- Province are not said to have granted in Parliament, tho' they met at the same time Provincially, and Consented to the Grant of a Tenth, which the Pope had imposed upon them, as the same Writ afterwards recites. See it Reg. Henr. Pr. fol. 211.  in their Own Province. And this was pitched upon as a Mean of complying with the Canons of the Church, which required frequent Provincial Councils, and yet paying their attendance in Parliament: the Archbishop's Mandate Summoned them to the One, and the Praemunitory Clause to the other, and Both were obeyed.  
Nay, so great stress was laid on this Clause, that when an Archbishop died 
† There was the same Reason for it, when a Bishop died, and therefore the Practice, I suppose, was the same. , after it went out, and before the Return of it, a New Summons was sent to the Guardian of the Spiritualties commanding him again to warn the already premonished Clergy; and a particular Writ directed over and above to the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, enforcing that second Summons; the Tenor of which Writ was, Nos Nolentes per mortem praefati Archiepiscopi dicta Mandata nostra differri, set ea potiùs per Vos executioni debitae demandari, Vobis Mandamus, etc. I take this to be very material to prove, how strictly the Praemunientes was executed upon the In●erior Clergy, and obeyed by them; and shall therefore among the Instruments 
* Append. Numb. XVI.  Print it at large, as Pryn 
† Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. Pp. 152, 153.  has given it us. Mr. Elsing 
‖ P. 50.  therefore makes this the formal Reason of Summoning the Guardians of the Spiritualties, and the Vicar's General, when the Bishops of such Sees were either dead, or in Foreign Parts, [He might have added also why Bishops Elect were Summoned before Confirmation, and even the Vicar's General of Elect Bishops, when those Bishops were abroad] because they were (says he) Praemunire Clericos, i. e. that the Inferior Clergy might be sure to have their Summons. This may have been one Reason of that Practice, but I do not think it the only one 
* It could not be the Only one, because long before the Praemunientes was inserted, the Custom was, to Summon the Chapters of Vacant Sees to Parliament: of which take this Instance from M. Paris, who tells us that in the Parliament of the 38 H. 3. there were Pr●curatores t●ium Sedium Vacantium, ex parte scilicet Capitulorum. P. 643. , because it does not account for the Summons of Elect Abbats also, before their Instalment; and I doubt not therefore but this Custom had its Rise chief from the Double Capacity in which the Greater Clergy attended the Parliament, both as Spiritual Prelates, and Barons of the Realm: on which account when they had not a right to a Summons as Barons, yet as Ecclesiastical Prelates, they had. However, They who make this Supposition, make it mightily to the advantage of the Lower Clergy, and suppose their Presence in Parliament to have been indispensably necessary. And thus stood the Clergies Obligations in relation to the Praemunientes, throughout Edward the Second Reign.  
Edward the Third continued this Practice upon the very same Foot that he found it: the only difference was, that whereas before his Time the Praemunientes was inserted, or left out, at the King's pleasure, in his Reign it grew a constant and necessary part of the Bishop's Writ; so that no Parliament ever met without one, after his sixth year; that is, indeed, after the Complete Settlement of Parliaments upon the Foot on which they do now, and will, I hope, for ever stand. And this Observation alone is sufficient to show, that the Clause in the Bishop's Writ was not grown Useless; for if it had, it would not then have been most regularly inserted, and have grown most in request, when its Use and Significancy (if some men's word were to be taken) had utterly vanished.  
In the year before it was fixed, tho' there were several Summons to Parliament, yet it was inserted but in One of them, and in that One it was obeyed. For the Records of Parliament tell us, that upon a Debate, the Bishops and Proctors of the Clergy went by themselves 
* Abr. of Rec. p. 11. . And that These were Proctors of the Inferior Clergy, according to the strict sense of the word, and not the Proxies only of Absent Bishops, Abbats and Priors, (as L. M. P. dreams 
† P. 32. ) does from hence appear, that in the other Parliaments of this year, when the Praemunientes was not practised, no mention is made of the Proctors of the Clergy; the Phrase then being, that the Bishops went by themselves, the Lords by themselves, and the Knights by themselves 
‖ P. 12. . Neither is there ever in those Records any mention of the Proctors of the Clergy at a Great Council, but at Parliaments only: the reason of which is, that Parliament-Writs only had the Praemunientes in them, but the Summons for Great Councils had not.  
And now therefore the Clergies Returns for the Parliament are frequently to be met with in our Old Registers, Parliaments themselves being frequent. If in the succeeding Reigns we find not so many of these Procuratoria on Record, it is not to be wondered at: for the Archbishop's Writ, which went out concurrently with the Praemunientes, being understood to be a Summons to Parliament (which it was in Effect, tho' not in Terms) and being strictly executed upon the Inferior Clergy, might in time bring on a Disuse of the Forms practised in Executing the Other. The Bishops, through whose Hands both the Parliamentary and Provincial Summons came, might sometimes, either by the Neglect of their Officers 
* To this Neglect of their Officers that Clause seems to have referred▪ which was an usual part of the King's Writ to the Archbishop in E. 2. & 3ds time, Nos nolentes negotia nostra pro defectu Praemunitionum antedictarum, si forsan minùs ritè factae fuerint, aliqualiter retardari. , or as thinking it sufficient, transmit the first of them only; or, if Both were transmitted, might wink at the Clergies Omission in making their Return but to the One: as not being unwilling to soothe up the Lower Orders in their Averseness to comply with a Lay-Summons; because that sensibly increased the Greatness and Power of the Parliament Prelates; and by degrees brought the Clergies Interest in State-matters all into their Hands. Besides oftentimes, when the Bishop executed the Praemunientes, and the Clergy certified upon it, yet no notice might be taken in our Registers of Forms which returned so very frequently, and which were not stood much upon, while the Provincial Mandate, that went out on the same Occasion had its certain and Regular Course. These and several other Accidents might, I say, conspire to make the Entry of such Procuratoria in Chapter-Books less frequent in aftertimes: however neither are they sowed so thinly there, but that we can make a shift from the Helps of this kind that are left to continue the Succession of them down from the 22 E. 1. to the Latter End of Henry the Seventh's Reign, as low as whose 19 th'. year 
* Anno 1503.  I have seen a Deputation 
† See App. Num. XI.  made to a Monk, to represent a Capitular Body in Parliament; and that, drawn up in such a manner, as to be at once a Joint-Proxy both for the Parliament and Convocation. I question not, but that there are more of a Lower Date (tho' I have not had Opportunity, or Leisure to search for them) for I find that the Praemunientes was executed in form, as low as the 33 d and 36 th'. years of Henry the Eighth 
‖ See Registr. Bonner. fol. 33, 65. ; and Returns therefore were for some part of his Reign very probably made to it.  
Not many years after this, the Custom of returning Proxies to Parliament in Form, did, I believe, cease: and if a Conjecture may be allowed in a matter of this nature, where with some care and search one might be certain, I should choose to fix the Time of this Total Disuse, not far off of the 6 th'. or 7 th'. of Henry the Eighth, when the Disputes between the Spiritualty and Temporalty about the Exemption of Clerks, growing loud and warm, and the Clergy with an high hand asserting their Privileges, might take up thoughts of setting themselves free also in another Instance than that which they contended about, and agree generally to frame no more Instruments of Proxy in Obedience to the Lay-Summons. And this Guests of mine falls in well enough with the Tradition my Lord of Sarum mentions as prevailing in Queen Elizabeth's time, that the Inferior Clergy departed from their Right of being in the House of Commons, when they were all brought under a Praemunire in Cardinal Wolsey 's time 
* Hist. Ref. Vol. 2. p. 48. ; if we understand this of the first Praemunire they fell into upon the Citation of Standish, and not (as his Lordship does) of that from which they ransomed themselves by a Tax and a Submission, fourteen years afterwards; and if by departing from their Right of being in the House of Commons we do, as we must, suppose his Lordship to mean, that they declined sending up those Deputations to Parliament, which manifested their Ancient Right of sitting in it, and being part of it. For there could not possibly be any Tradition in Queen Elizabeth's time of the Inferior Clergy's sitting in the House of Commons, in the middle of Henry the Eighth's Reign, because there were probably many Persons then alive, who remembered the contrary, and there were certainly some who understood the Old Constitution of Parliaments well enough to contradict so absurd an Opinion, and prevent its spreading: a very small degree of skill in our English Antiquities sufficing to have informed 'em that the Lower Clerks had no place in the House of Commons, not only at the Period assigned, but for an hundred years before it. The truth is, I am the worse satisfied with this Guests of mine, because I do not find what Ground his Lordship had to say, that there was in Queen Elizabeth ●s time, such a Tradition. For he seems to have taken up this Opinion from the fourth Article of Bishop Ravis' Paper 
* See it Coll. of Rec. Vol. 2. p. 121.  which he there quotes: whereas I must take the Liberty to say, that his Lordship misunderstood that Article, if he thought it related to any thing done in Henry the Eighth's Reign. For the Separation there spoken of is plainly of ancient Date, and refers (as there is good reason to think) to the Times of Edward the First, and Archbishop Winchelsey. But whatever was the precise time at which the Clergy desisted wholly to make their Returns to the Bishop's Writ, it is certain they did not think, that upon that failure the Effect and Influence of the Praemunitory Clause ceased, but looked upon themselves as still Summoned by it, and meeting in virtue of it, in their Parliamentary Assemblies. Of this their Remonstrance in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, is a Solemn and Authentic Proof; the words of it have been produced already, Page 66. of these Papers, and thither I shall refer the Reader. If after this we hear of no Formal Claim made by the Church in this case, it was because there was no need of it; Common Opinion, and Common Practice being all along of her side; and no Instance to be given of a New Parliament Summoned, without a Convocation to attend it, from the Times of the Reformation, till some years after the late Revolution. And no wonder therefore that a Claim was not frequently put in, which was never till lately denied, or disputed.  
Thus have I given the Reader some account of the Praemunientes, its Rise, and Use, and of the Methods which all along have been taken by the Bishops in Executing it, and by the Lower Clergy in obeying it. An imperfect Account indeed! however such an one, as does, I am sure, sufficiently expose the Letter-writers pretence 
† P. 32. , that it was a Clause added only upon a Particular Occasion, and continued after the Business was determined, and has stood in the Bishops Writ these 300. years without any manner of Use. Assertions that, I might by this time be allowed to tell him, could flow from nothing but the Depth of Ignorance or ill will to the Function, were I not restrained by considering whence 
* Hist. Ref. Vol. 2. p. 48.  it is that he borrows his Light, and Who therefore would be understood to share the Reflection.  
Indeed strange it is, that any Man in the least versed in our Antiquities should doubt, whether the Clergy came to Parliament by the Praemunientes; and stranger still that he should imagine that Clause to have been preserved in the Writ by Accident, after its first Insertion, and think to account for this merely by the neglect of a Clerk 
‖ Ibid. . A neglect, that must have continued now for above four hundred years; and yet could not possibly have continued One, if it were a neglect, without being observed, and amended. No Forms were more nicely worded, or more Religiously kept to, in the main Frame and Substance of them, than Writs of Summons to Parliament. After they first issued out, they received not any the minutest Alteration but by the Command of the Prince, signified by his Chancellor; and after they were fully fixed, not any that was Material, but by Consent of Parliament. How many Ordinances of Parliament were there in Later Times for the several Successive Changes in the Writs for Electing the Commons? Particularly that New Circumstance, that the Knights should be girded with Swords 
* Gladiis cincti. , and the Clause of Nolumus autem quod Tu, nec alius Vicecomes, etc. inserted in the 13 th'. and 46 th'. of E. 3. had they not the Authority of the three Estates to warrant them? And when afterwards Richard▪ the Second added to the Commons Writs this Particular, that the Persons returned should be in Debatis Modernis Indifferentes 
† Cl. 11. R. 2. m. 23. dors. See Pryn. P. W. Vol. 2. p. 121. , was he not forced to retract it immediately, and issue out New Writs in the Old Form before the Session came on? When Edward the Third in the fourteenth of his Reign, made an Addition to his Regal Titles in the Writs of that year, he excused his so doing in the Writs themselves 
‖ See ●em Pryn. Par. Wr. Vol. 1 p. 5. , and referred himself to what the Parliament, when met, should order in that matter. And in the first of Queen Elizabeth there was, we know, a warm dispute, whether the Omission of the Title of Supreme Head in the Writs of Summons (tho' it had not been then practised thirty years) did not null the Proceed of those Parliaments where it was wanting 
‖ Sir Symonds d'●wes, p. 38. . At such times as these, when the Parliament appears to have been so jealous of any Alterations in these Forms, can we imagine that the Praemunitory Clause, had it been kept in by the neglect of a Clerk, would not have been retrenched? They that can suppose this, may as reasonably suppose also, that some have grown Barons by Writ by the Neglect of a Clerk, who finding them Summoned once or twice to Parliament, continued to Summon them on, without the Prince's Privity or Consent, and so made them Lords of Parliament. For if the Neglect of a Clerk can account for any Material Clause or Part of a Writ, it may as well account for an Whole one. 'Twill be a more reasonable way of applying this Supposition, and more honourable to the Maker of it, to suppose, as I am willing to do, that the Passage which contains it, was a part only of the Rude Draught of his Lordship's Work, and expunged by him upon a Review, but kept in by the Neglect of the Transcriber; 
Lett. to Bp. of Cou. & Litch. in 1693.  upon whom I find his Lordship lays very great Blame: And indeed, if he stands answerable for All the Neglects that are, and may be charged, I think, very deservedly.  
But should many mistakes of this kind be found in that Celebrated Work, yet would they receive an Easy Excuse. The Composer of it, having his Thoughts busied chief in that Period of Time to which his History reaches, might, when he steps backward, and takes a greater Compass, overlook Truths sometimes that lay hid in our Elder Records, where his Lordship had not leisure to search for them. If the Main Facts he professes to relate, and the Colours he gives to those Facts are right; if there be no premeditated Omissions, or Disguises of Material Truths; no Designed Compliances with Popular Mistakes and Prejudices; if that Air of Impartiality which at first sight seems to run through the Relation be undissembled, and not only a more Artificial Way of conveying false Principles and Characters into the mind of the Reader: if, I say, in These, which are the most Essential Virtues and Beauties of good History, his Lordship's Labours will bear the Test (which his Lordship's Friends do not much doubt)— tho' it should after this be granted, that Mistakes of a Lesser Size and Importance abound there without number, and particularly, that the Digressive Part of the Book has little of Exactness in it; this would not however sink the Reputation of the Work: it is what, considering the Hast of the Composure, is not to be wondered at, and may easily be excused. All that One could have wished in the Case is, that where Light on these, and such other Accounts as these was wanting, and Mistakes therefore were necessary, his Lordship had been so happy as to have mistaken always on the Side, and to the Advantage of the Clergy; which, some Readers will tell us▪ his Lordship has not always done. But let this be as it will— The Plea here advanced in behalf of that Eminent Historian cannot be made use of to excuse our Letter-Writer, who has no manner of Title to it. It was His Chief Business to have considered with care the Rise of the Praemunientes, and the Reasons of its continuance, the Obligation it was all along understood to lay on the Inferior Clergy, and their Methods of complying with it; this being one Great Article upon which the Dispute, that he was so willing to thrust himself into, turned. And his Ignorance therefore of every thing that relates to it is inexcusable; but his Confidence, under so Gross a degree of Ignorance yet more inexcusable. For these are his Peremptory Words— That the Clergy were ever a part of the Parliament, or sat in it, is very uncertain; the Affirmative being supported only by Conjectures, without any Record or Authentic Memorial to maintain it 
* P. 31. . Words, which no Learned Man could ever have said, and no Wise Man, conscious of his want of Skill in this point, would ever have ventured to say. But it seems neither of these Qualities hindered our Letter-writer from falling into them, and by that means affording us a clearer Proof of his own utter Unfitness to meddle in this Argument, than he has given of any One Point besides that he pretends to maintain. For it is certain (as certain as that these Words were thrown out by this Gentleman at Random) that the Inferior Clergy were a part of the Parliament, were Summoned, and repaired to it as such, and as such sat in it, both when the Praemunientes first went out, and many years afterwards— sat in it, I say; not under the same Roof, indeed, with the Laity (I mean not Ordinarily); but asunder, as a separate State; and as the Lords now sit (and even then, for the Greater part of this Period, sat) asunder from the Commons. And he who makes this matter of Conjecture, and pronounces it Uncertain, puts it beyond a Conjecture, how far in things of this kind, his word is to be taken. I have shown him, that there are many Unquestionable Records, and Authentic Memorials yet left (some Printed, but more in Manuscript) which prove the Clergy to have been once in the strictest sense of the word, a Member of Parliament: and if the Church part of these Records lay out of his way (tho' they were as open to Him, I dare say, as they were to me) yet as a Lawyer, methinks, he should have had some Acquaintance with Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria.  
As for Dr. Wake, he resolves to be as little out as he can on this Head, and therefore wisely says nothing of it. For from the Beginning to the End of his Book you shall not find a word to inform us, how the Praemunientes, after its first Insertion, was executed upon the Inferior Clergy, and obeyed by them. He seems indeed to be of Opinion, that the Clergy were a Part of Parliament, in Edward the Third, and Richard the Second Reigns; and he means, I suppose, that they were a Part of it, as Summoned thither by the Praemunientes, tho● he does not say so. However, that the Virtue of that Clause has long since ceased, so that it is now become utterly useless, in That he is positive 
* Pp. 213, 214. : and modestly therefore proposes a Retrenchment of i● from the Bishop's Writ; thinking it advisable to reduce that Writ to its first Form, when the Proctors of the Clergy not coming, neither were they Summoned to Parliament 
† P. 253. . A very free piece of Advice indeed! which not only his Order, but the Great Council of the Realm have reason to thank him for! Who for some hundred years have been under the Mistake of thinking this Clause an Essential Part of the Writ, till their Eyes were opened at last by this Wise Observer! While our Constitution was unsettled, these Writs were so too; but they are now as Immovable as That. Let them have been Letters of Grace, or Badges of Duty at first, they have since grown to be Charters of Right and Privilege by long Use and Continuance. The King, Lords and Commons indeed may alter them, if they please, (for they may do any thing); but I humbly suppose that no One Part of the Constitution can do it without the Other. Some of our Princes indeed have attempted to make some slight Changes in them; but scarce sooner entered on the Attempt, than they disclaimed it. Had Dr. Wake known in the least, how Sacred those Forms are held by our Law, and of how great Importance it is to the Constitution to preserve them, he would never have dared to recommend such an Alteration as this; but Ignorance is fearless! We may see here, how the Love of Alterations creeps upon a Man, and how far in time it may carry him; from mending the Model of the Church (which was the work Ten years ago) to the Improving that of the State: without considering, that the One of these may be tampered with, and practised upon more easily than the other, and more securely. When such Bold Proposals as these come from Private Unauthorised Hands, they deserve a Public Censure; and, (because I am for every thing's having what it deserves) I hope, will find it.  
Dr. Wake it seems, does not understand to what purpose this Clause is retained in the Writ, and proposes therefore a Retrenchment of it. An hard Case this, that the Writ should be altered, because he does not understand it! for at this rate, what Old Forms are secure? I have endeavoured however to help his Understanding a little, and to show him, that it is retained there to very good Purpose; that it declares the King's Right of Summoning the Clergy to attend his Parliaments in Body, the Lords and Commons Right of being thus attended, and the Clergies Right also to be Summoned, and to attend accordingly. And that These are very great and weighty reasons for keeping it there, appears from what has happened already, and may happen hereafter. The Time is now come when the Clergy find themselves obliged to put in their Claim to a Parliamentary Attendance, because it is disputed: and according to the Natural Vicissitudes of things, a Time may possibly come, when the Crown, or the Lords and Commons shall want the Parliamentary Attendance of the Clergy, and be willing to claim it. Equal Provision is made against each of these Inconveniences, by continuing the Praemunitory Clause in the Bishop's Summons: where, I hope, it will ever continue▪ even tho' a Sett of Future Bishops should arise (which God forbidden) that would be contented to be Summoned without it; as not considering, that it is as much Their Interest, as the Inferior Clergies, ●o keep this Form whole and entire, and that if the one part of the Writ goes, the other may not stay long behind it.  
Were this Alteration at any time to take place, it had been well for Dr. Wake that it had happened, before he wrote his Book; for then, had the Clause been left out of the Writ, he might have left it out of his Appendix too, and by that means saved himself the shame of those Childish Mistakes which he has committed in Reciting it; and which shall in due Time and Place be made known 
* See p. 427, 8, 9 of these Papers. .  
Nothing could have taken off from the Extravagantness of Dr. Wake's Proposal, but as wild an Assertion of a certain Acquaintance of his, who is not afraid to tell us, that Parliamentary Writs prove ●othing of the Constitution 
* L. M. P. p. 32. ; and this in words at length, and not in Figures! A Glorious Maxim● which the Lords and Commons at Oxford knew nothing of, who declare that the Writs of Summons are the Foundation of All [Parliamentary] Power 
† Declaration of the Treaty, p. 15. . I shall say not one word to disprove it; for Parliamentary Writs and Constitutions are able to take care of themselves. Only I cannot but observe how wise a way he has taken of making this Maxim good: For (continues he) a Writ of Summons in the Time of Edward the First upon occasion of War with France, had 〈◊〉 Chiuse, [Q●●d omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur.] And it may with as much reason be concluded from that Writ, that the King cannot make War without the Approbation of his Parliament, 〈◊〉 from the Present Writ that he cannot hold a Parliament, without calling the Clergy to it. That is, the King's known Prerogative may with as much reason be barred by an Expression once inserted in the Preamble of a Writ, as the Clergy's Right and Privilege can be grounded upon a Clause in the Body of a Writ, which has stood there for above four hundred years. What a wonderful way of arguing is this? how can we choose but surrender upon such Proofs, as soon as they are produced? Dr. Wake, I remember, has an Axiom, that Logic is one thing, and Law another 
‖ P. 252. , (which, by the by, is all he knows of either). And I must needs say, that I never in my life met with a better Instance of the Truth of that Axiom, than in this Gentleman's Law-Reasonings.  
Thus far of the Inferior Clergy's Summons to Parliament by the Clause in the Bishop's Writ; the Rise, Nature, and Force of which I have fully explained, and pro●'d that it is not even at this time so insignificant a Form, as we are made to believe; much more, that it has not been so now for some Hundreds of years. But there is also another Summons of the Clergy; tho' not to Parliament, yet to meet in Parliament-time, under the Two Archbishops, in their several Provinces. And This too has been regularly issued out, as often as a New Parliament was called from the Latter End of Edward the Second till now, with Few Exceptions to the contrary; and with None, from the first Dawn of the Reformation in Henry the Eighth's Reign, down to this present. And from this Ancient Custom (as Ancient as the Complete Settlement of our Constitution) the Clergy think themselves entitled to be Summoned, to assemble, and to sit Provincially, when ever a New Parliament meets.  
But here it is objected, that the King's Writ to the Two Archbishops to call the Clergy of their Provinces together has no relation to the calling of a Parliament, nor does so much as mention it 
* L. M. P. p. 29, 30. , that a Convocation is not in its Nature and Constitution at all dependent upon a Parliament; that its Summons is distinct from that of a Parliament, and so is its Dissolution: and, admitting therefore that the Clergy ought to be called to Parliament (which is all that can be inferred from the Bishop's Writ), yet doth it not follow therefore that the Convocation ought to be Summoned, when the Parliament meets; for that is plainly a Distinct Assembly, and Summoned by a Distinct Writ 
* P. 32. . And much to the same purpose Dr. Wake, p. 226. (284.) and elsewhere, has stated the matter. I think this needs no Answer, but what it has already received. For allowing the Objection in its full force, yet since Custom is the Law of Parliaments, and it has perpetually been the Custom to issue out these Writs to the Archbishops, whenever Writs went out for the Parliament; it is certain that the Clergy have a Right to these Provincial Assemblies in Parliament time, on the account of this Ancient Prescription, tho' the Convocation-Writ itself should neither mention a Parliament, or any ways refer to it. For if a Custom of three or four hundred years standing, will not create a Right, I know not what will. However, that I may not seem to neglect any thing that has the Look of an Objection, I will give a further and more distinct Answer to it; going on (as I proposed) in the  
2 d Place to show, that the Writs to the Two Archbishops to convene the Clergy of their Provinces, tho' they do not expressly mention a Parliament, yet have an Immediate Reference to it; the Original Design of their Issuing out together with the Bishop's Writ being only to secure an Obedience to the Praemunitory Clause, and to make the Clergy's Parliamentary Assemblies more Full and Certain. This is so Indubitably true, and so capable of being made out clearly from the Elder Convocation-Writs yet remaining, that had Dr. Wake, or the Letter-Writer seen any one of them they would have foreborn starting this Objection, for very fear of receiving the true Answer to it; than which nothing can more expose the Weakness of that Cause they plead for, or of the Arguments they bring to maintain it. The Case was truly thus—  
From the time that the Praemunientes was first gra●ted into the Bishop's Writ, the Popish Clergy, who out of a false Policy studied all ways of dividing themselves from the Laiety, were, as I have said, very uneasy under it, and cast about how to evade it. When it went out therefore in the 33 Edw. 1. Archbishop Winchelsey took this way of salving in some measure the pretended Privileges of the Clergy, without disobeying it 
* See Append. Numb. XIV (c). . In his Letter to the Prior and Chapter of Canterbury, he recites not the whole Summons sent him by the King, but the substance only of the Warning Clause, and then commands them (as he did I suppose the Clergy of his Diocese by the Archdeacon, and all the rest of his Province by the Dean of it, the Bishop of London) to appear before himself at Lambeth, a Day or two earlier than the Parliament was to meet, in order to treat with Him, (as a Provincial Council) and to do afterwards in Parliament what the Holy Canons of the Church should allow of.  
A weak Government succeeding, the Rigour of this Clause was so far relaxed, that tho' the King still kept it in his Writs, yet was he forced (as I have observed) to call the Archbishop to his help, in order to get it obeyed; and to comply with the Clergy so far as to let the Provincial go out hand in hand with the Parliamentary Summons; accepting their Obedience to the One, as a Constructive Obedience to the Other; upon Condition, that the Forms should still be kept up, that Execution should be duly made of the Praemunientes, and Letters of Proxy sent up and Registered, as often as it went out. And these Acknowledgements being paid, they were allowed to meet, and do all manner of Business in their Provincial Assemblies, according to the Tenor of the Archbishop's Summons▪ This I apprehend to have been the Method of obeying Both Writs, which was then pitched upon, and afterwards obtained.  
The first Instance of this kind, wherein I remember such a Double Writ to have been plainly practised, is 8 Edw. 2. In which year it went out twice for Two several Parliaments. The Tenor of it was, that whereas the King had Summoned a Parliament to such a Time and Place, he did r●gando mandare the Archbishop Then and There to convene such of the Clergy of his Province, as He and the Bishops were by Distinct Writs ordered to premonish; 
See Append. Nu. XIV (d).  ad tractandum & consentiendum hiis quie in praemissis tunc ibidem contigerit ordinari. It was rested the same day with the Ordinary Bishops Writ, and transmitted at the same time with it to the Archbishop.  
In the 14 Edw. 2. (if not sooner) it received some Alteration; for the Preamble of it recited the Bishops Writ with the Clause Praemunientes entirely, 
See App. Numb. XIV (e).  and then added; Nos nolentes negotia nostra in dicto Parliamento tractanda propter absentiam dictorum Decanorum, Priorum, Arc●idiaconorum retardari, Vobis Mandamus rogantes, etc. And thus the Form, with some little Variety, continued, for many years afterwards; particularly I have seen the several Writs with this, or the like Clause, for the several years of E 2. and E. 3. mentioned in the Margin 
* 17 E. 2. Cl. m. 27. dors. 20 E. 2. Cl. m. 4. dors. 1 E. 3. Cl. ps. 2. m. 16. dors. & m. 3. dors. 2 E. 3. Cl. m. 22. dors.— and so in his 3 d, 4 th', 6 th', 7 th', 8 th', 9 th', 10 th', 13 th', and 14 th'. years. See Pryn 's Register of Parl. Writ. Pp. 34, 36, 37, 43, 44, 46, 98, 99 where many of these Writs are Printed. . With this, or the Like Clause, I say; for from the End of E. 2. downwards, it ran nearly in these Terms: Et licet Injunxerimus singulis Episcopis praedictis qu●d quilibet eorum praemuniri faciat, etc. nolentes tamen dicta negotia nostra pro defectu praemunitionum praedictarum, si forsan minùs ritè factae fuerint, aliqualiter retardari: Vobis mandamus rogantes, etc.  
Hitherto therefore the Writs for a Convocation went not out only together with those for a Parliament, but were designed purely to Second and Enforce them, and to be a Double Tie upon the Clergy to come to Parliament, being called thither both by the Bishop's Writ, and by a Provincial Citation from their Metropolitan. And the same Members therefore, we may observe, neither more nor fewer, are ordered to be resummoned by the Provincial Writ, which had been before Summoned by the Premonishing Clause; Deans, Cathedral-priors', Archdeacon's, and the Clergy of Chapters and Dioceses, being the only Persons cited both by the One and the Other, without any mention of Bishops, Abbats, or other Priors, who had Personal Summons to Parliament; and there being not so much danger therefore of Their not attending, the Archbishop had no Commands in Relation to them. Accordingly his Mandate was usually drawn just as this Form directed, citing those of the Clergy, and no other than those which it mentioned, and exactly to the Time and Place prescribed. I shall present the Reader with a Copy of this Mandate, among the other Records, as it was practised Anno 1321, to execute the Writ of the 14 E. 3. just now mentioned, and in it he will find also Expressions which show, 
Append. Numb. XIV (f.)  that the same Course had for a good while before this obtained.  
'Tis true, when the Archbishop Summoned in Obedience to this Second Writ, he did not do always just what that Writ exacted, and no more; but took occasion 
† Thus Anno 1323. when the Parliament met in Octabis S. Hil. and the Praemunientes went out (for the Writ has it, whereby that Parliament was Prorogued. See Dugd. Summ. p.) the Archbishop at the King's Instance expressed in his Second Writ, with the Clause Nos nolentes, etc. (a Copy of which for the Prorogation of this Parliament is in Pryn, Vol. 1. p. 98.) Summoned not the Parliament-Clergy alone, but all such as composed a Provincial Synod. See Reg. Henr. Prioris. f. 234.  sometimes from thence to cite all those Abbots and Priors who had no place in Parliament, in order to complete the Numbers of the Clergy, and form a Provincial Assembly. And he cited 'em to appear (after Winchelsey's Pattern) not before the King, and among the other States; but before Himself, in the Chief Church of the Place. But this was at his Choice; for the King's Writ directed him only to command the Attendance of the Parliament-Clergy. And with this the Crown had reason to be content, while the Defects of these General Summons by the Provincial and Bishop's Writs were supplied by Particular Writs directed to great Numbers of Abbats and Priors, as the way was in Edward the First's and Second time; the former of these citing Personally to his Parliaments, after the Praemunientes went out, often sixty, or seventy, and sometimes above eighty Regular Prelates; and the Latter usually Summoning about fifty of them, till the Declining Part of his Reign. But this being esteemed an Hardship on those Regulars, who were not by Tenure obliged to attend the King's Summons (as holding nothing of him by Barony), they were in time omitted, and the Number of Abbats and Priors, who had Personal Writs, reduced to about thirty; the Archbishop's General Mandate then calling the rest to his Parliamentary Convocations, and that being allowed and accepted by the Crown as a sufficient Attendance in Parliament. But what the Archbishop did of himself at first, That he did afterwards at the King's Instance; who took occasion from this Practice to enlarge his own Letters of Direction to him, and by them at last to require him to Summon all those Regular Prelates he was used to Summon without such a Direction. This, as it was a Natural Step, so indeed it was necessary, after the Crown had foreclosed itself from Summoning the greatest part of the Abbats Personally to Parliament: for than it lay purely in the Archbishop's Breast, whether he would call the Unsummoned Abbats by his General Mandate or no; and so, upon any Dispute between the Spirituality and Temporalty, the Crown might have been defeated of their Parliamentary Attendance.  
At what Time precisely these Writs to the Archbishop for a Full Convocation to be held concurrently with a Parliament, began to be practised, I have not found. The Eldest that has yet come to my hands is of the 10 th'. of Edw. 3. when the Parliament was called to meet at Nottingham die Lunae prox. post Festum S. Matthaei 
† See Dug. p. 186.  by a Writ dated Aug. 24. And the same day another Writ issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury to call all the Clergy of his Province to Leicester, ad diem Lunae prox. post Festum S. Michaelis, that is seven days afterwards 
* See Cl. 10 E. 3. m. 16. dors. . And the next year again the same thing was practised; the Archbishop being ordered to Summon the Convocation to St. Paul's, two or three days after the Parliament was to meet at Westminster 
* See Pryn. Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. p. 39, 40. . And still (which is observable) the Style of Authority in these Fuller Convocation-Writs was the same as it was in those where the Premonished Clergy only were mentioned; it being a Mixture of a Command and a Request [Rogando Mandamus] as it continues to be in all Writs for a Convocation to this very Day.  
This also deserves notice in many of them, that they went not out only at the same time with the Parliament Writs, but mention the holding of a Parliament in their Preambles as the Ground of their issuing; that so the Clergy, according to their Duty, might resort to it. Thus it was in the Writ of the 11 Ed. 3. 
* Ps. 2. m▪ 40. dors.  just now mentioned. And so again in his 29 th'. year another Writ 
† Cl. m. 8. dors.  runs, Cùm pro arduis & urgentibus Negotiis Nos & Statum Regni nostri Anglicani ac necessariam defensionem ejusdem Regni concernentibus ordinaverimus Parliamentum nostrum apud Westmonasterium tenere, etc. Quia expedit quòd praedicta Negotia quae Salvationem & Defensionem Regni nostri contingunt salubriter & efficaciter cum bonâ & maturâ deliberatione deducantur, Vobis mandamus rogantes, etc. to call the Clergy of Canterbury-Province to St. Paul's die Lunae prex. post Festum S. Martini, ad tractand ' & consulend ' super praemissis unà Vobis●um & aliis per Nos illùc mittendis, & ad consentiend ' hiis quae tùnc, etc. T. R. apud Westm. 25. Sept. The same Form recurs 31 E. 3. Cl. m. 21. dors. and in divers other Instances. And when the Convocation-Writs did not mention a Parliament in Terms, yet the Matter and Tenor of them showed that they belonged to one: for as long as the Reasons of State were continued in the Parliament-Writs, so long we find 'em inserted in those to the Archbishops for a Convocation; and after the Particular Causes of Summons, came to be omitted in the Convocation-Writs, and They, as well as Those for a Parliament, were reduced to a Fixed Form, which returned constantly, with little or no Variation (which happened, I think, about the middle of R. the 2 d 
* There are later Instances of Parliament-Writs, where the Reasons of Summoning are declared specially (as 7 H. 4. Cl. dors. m. 29.) but they are rare ones. ); yet even Then the General Reasons of convening them left in the Writ, and still a part of it, show that they were called not only for Ecclesiastical, but Civil Affairs, and such as concerned the Peace, Public Good and Defence of the Kingdom; in a word, to the very same Intents and Purposes for which the Parliament itself was assembled.  
These Writs for a Full Convocation grew now the Common Form, it being matter of Ordinary Practice to send them out concurrently with those for a Parliament, in Edward the Third, and Richard the Second Reigns; and still the Convocation was (as in the preceding Instances) generally ordered to attend a few days sooner or later than the Parliament did, and not precisely on the Spot, where the Parliament opened, but at some Church, or Chapterhouse near it. And sometimes the Archbishop was left wholly at large as to both these Circumstances, the Place being mentioned with a vel alibi prout melius expedire videritis, and the Time no otherwise prefixed than by the words, cum omni celeritate accommodâ, or, ad breviorem diem quam poteritis, or such other Equivalent Expressions: which yet were so understood as to oblige the Archbishop to join the Assemblies of the Clergy both in Place and Time closely to those of the Laiety. A yet Greater Liberty was indulged and taken in some of the succeeding Reigns; till in Henry the Eighth's time 
* My Lord of Sarum (Vol. 1. Coll. o● Rec. Num. 3.) Prints a Convocation-Writ as the Pattern of all those which were issued out in his Reign; whereas the Forms were different. Before the Submission Act the Writ was so worded as to leave the Archbishop at Liberty both as to Time and Place; but after, it was restrained often in both these respects; and more narrowly in the last, that it is now at present, running without the words vel alibi, as appears by the Writs for the Convocation 20. Jan. 1541. 30. Jan. 1544, 45. in the Register of Bonner, fol. 33. 65. This Omission hindered the Clergy from meeting in, not from adjourning to, any other place than that mentioned in the Writ: and therefore when the Convocation of the 13 Nou. 1554. adjourned to Henry the Seventh's Chapel, I find this Note thus entered by their Registrary, Memorandum quòd in Brevi Regio precis● convocatur Clerus in Ecclesiam D. Pauli, & non alibi, quamvis hic prorogatur ad Ecclesiam Westminst. , things came about again into their Original Course; and the Old Method took place of opening the Convocation very near at the same time with the Parliament.  
Upon the whole therefore it is manifest, that the King's Writ for a Convocation, when it went out with that for the Parliament was originally only a Second Summons of the same Persons that were called by the Praemunientes, and to the same Ends and Intents for which they were called by it; that it was employed at these times only to secure an Obedience to the Praemunitory Clause, and to leave the Clergy (thus doubly Summoned both by the Provincial and Bishop's Writ) without Excuse, if they did not attend the Parliament: That it was made use of afterwards (when it took in Abbats and Priors) to bring those Regulars to it by the Assistance of the Archbishop, who declined appearing there upon an Immediate Summons from the King, as holding nothing of him by Barony; and to render, by this means, the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Clergy so much in proportion fuller, as the Number of the Abbats and Priors decreased, who were used to be Summoned, and to sit with the Laiety: That this little Diversity between the Persons Summoned by the Provincial and Bishops Writ ceased at length upon the Dissolution of Monasteries; the Old Usage then returning of addressing both the Writs precisely to the same Persons, and ever since continuing: That the Letter-writer therefore is utterly mistaken when he pretends that the Writ for a Convocation (tho' it went out constantly with every New Parliament, yet) has no Relation to it 
* P. 29. , because, forsooth, it does not now mention it expressly (tho' at first, for many years after it was practised, it did): and that Dr. Wake is yet further from Truth, when, in his Fantastic way of Speech, he tells us, that the Convocation called by the Provincial Writ is consisted of another sort of Persons 
† P. (284.)  than the Parliamentary Assemblies Summoned by the Praemunientes were; since it is certain, that Both those Assemblies were originally consisted of the very same Persons, and were really but one Assembly of Men, meeting under a Double Capacity; and as certain also that they have been again thus consisted, for the last one hundred and sixty years. I am really at a Loss to determine, which of the Two  more absurdly false, the Doctrine he here lays down, or his manner of expressing it.  
That Air of Assurance which Dr. Wake takes up every where on this Article would be very Amazing to a Man that did not consider, how Doubts dwell usually in knowing Breasts, and that those who have the least skill in things are most apt to be Positive. It is as plain (says he) as any thing can well be, That the Convocation of the Clergy considered as called by the Parliamentary Writs, and sitting by virtue of them; and the Convocation considered as Summoned by the Convocation-Writ, and the Order of the Archbishop consequent thereupon, are, in their Nature and Constitution two different Assemblies; and which, by no means, aught to be confounded together 
* P. 226. . By no means indeed, if Dr. Wake's Cause must right or wrong be upheld: for the confounding these two Assemblies, and making them but one, confounds all his Little Aims and Reasonings. However, I have shown, that they must necessarily be, and have always been thus confounded together, when ever the Praemunientes, and a Royal Writ for the Convocation went out jointly; and it will puzzle Dr. Wake, I believe, out of his Plentiful store of Useless Collections to furnish us with a single Proof to the contrary, where the Convocation-Clergy called by the Archbishop at the King's Writ, and those Summoned by the Praemunientes, have met, sat, and acted in the same Province distinctly; all which they must have done, to be, what he tells us they were, two different Assemblies. Nothing but a continued Series of such Instances as these, carried through the several Reigns in which this Double Summons was practised can justify Dr. Wake's Notion; and therefore I am very sure, it can never be justified: for They that that are versed in these things know, that when these two Summons issued concurrently from the King, the Clergy called up by the Praemunientes formed not distinct Assembly, but after making their Returns to it, sat and acted Provincially; and this, as I have often times said, was reputed, and accepted as a Parliamentary Attendance. At these Times therefore the Convocation of the Clergy praemonished by the Bishop's Writ, had, as Dr. Wake says rightly, no Existence, i. e. no separate Existence from the Convocation of the two Provinces; but was involved in it, and represented by it, and acted through it. 'Tis true, Two sort of Writs going out to call the Clergy in Time of Parliament, there is room for a Nice Head to distinguish (as Dr. Wake does) between the Nature and Constitution of that Assembly which relates to the One, and the Nature and Constitution of that Assembly which relates to the Other. But these two Assemblies being in fact but one Assembly, it does us no Harm, as to the Argument we are upon, to consider that One Assembly under as many different Views and Respects as Dr. Wake pleases. So he will allow it to have but One Existence (to keep to his Phrase) we will not dispute its having Two Essences; that is, its convening under two different Formalities: for Metaphysical Speculations ought to make no Quarrels among Friends.   

CHAP. VI  
I Have in the Preceding Chapter examined carefully into the Rise, Nature, and Force of the Praemunientes, and of the Convocation-Writ that goes out with it; and have fully considered whatever may be objected from either of these against the Clergy's right of Meeting and Sitting in Convocation together with every New Parliament: more fully indeed than the Objection itself deserves, had I intended barely to pull down what was advanced on the other side, without giving some further Light into this Intricate, and as yet untrodden Subject. For the Objection itself might in Two Words have been dispatched by saying, That the Clergy have certainly a Right of Meeting and Sitting in Convocation thus often, because thus often they have for some hundred years met and sat: And this is a plain short Answer, which is capable of no Evasion. Dr. Wake however has made some small Effort towards Eluding it; and what he offers to this purpose shall in the next place be considered.  
We find him (Pp. 106, 107, 140, 141, etc.) thus distinguishing: That the Clergy have no Right to Meet, and Sat, but only to be Summoned as often as a Parliament: That having indeed for some hundreds of years been Summoned always with the Parliament, it may be questioned 
* P. 229.  whether they have not (he means, it is not to be questioned but that they have) now a Right to such a concurrent Summons; but it is certain they have a Right to nothing besides; and it were no Great Matter whether They had a Right to that or no 
† P. 107. . This is Dr. Wake's New Scheme for laying aside the Clergies Parliamentary Meetings first, and their Parliamentary Summons afterwards. A very Honest Design, if it could be effected! and very fit to be first recommended to the world by the Pen of a Clergyman! God be thanked his Abilities are not Equal to his  in the Case, nor the Colours by him put upon this matter such, as will ever tempt a wise Ministry to execute what he has Projected! In answer to this New Distinction, I desire to be satisfied, why, if Custom gives the Convocation a Right to be Summoned as often as the Parliament meets and sits, it does not give 'em a Right to Meet and Sat too; since it is certain that they have the very same Custom to plead for the One, as for the Other. Time out of mind the Custom has been, that whenever the Parliament has met, the Convocation (should not only be Summoned, but) meet too; and accordingly for some Ages now it has met with it, and been opened in Form by the Archbishop, or in the Vacancy of his See, by some Bishop Commissioned from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; Divine Service has been said, a Sermon preached, and a Prolocutor chosen. There are Instances indeed when they have gone no further than this, and done no other Business; but it was when they had no other Business to do: for they were always put into a Posture of doing it, and into a Capacity of making such Motions and Requests as they should judge proper for the Good of the Church, or the Redress of Grievances. Till late years, it was never known, that Convocations should meet purely in order to be adjourned; that the Members of the Lower house should attend only to be told when they should attend next; without being allowed to offer their Advices, or Complaints, or even to put themselves into a Condition of offering them. This Custom, we know is but nine years old, whereas the contrary Custom is as old as these Assemblies themselves are: and if Custom be the Law of Convocations (as Dr. Wake allows 
* P. 298.105.  it to be) he will be pleased to tell us, how this Established Custom can be broke in upon, and set aside, without a Breach of the Law; and whether the Clergies not being suffered to meet and form themselves into a Body, according to the Intent of their Summons be not (upon Dr. Wake's Principles) as plain a Violation of their Rights, as it would be, not to Summon them Queen Elizabeth, one would think, was under these Apprehensions; for she suffered a Popish Convocation to sit and act together with her first Parliament, at a Time when she was taking all manner of Legal Steps and Means to expel Popery, and to introduce the Reformation: which she would never, I presume, have done, had she thought her Power extended so far over the Convocation as to adjourn them before a Prolocutor was chosen 
* There was indeed a Singularity practised at the En●●ance of this Convocation, which I remember no Instance of in any other: It was opened without any Sermon. The reason of which is thus given in the Acts, Sess. 2. Episcopus London Commissarius— evocatâ Domo Inferiori exposuit eis Causam Convocationis, & quod non futura sit concio pro more quia Sedes Episcopalis destituta existit, & quia Consiliarii Regis [it should be Reginae] in mandatis dederunt, ne Conciones in Eâdem Ecclesiâ fierent, donec de Beneplacito Reginae constaret. The first of these Reasons is no reason, but the last is sufficient, according to the Doctrine of Those Times; when our Princes in Virtue of their Supremacy, were thought to have a Power of silencing any, or even all the Pulpits of England at once; which both King Edward and Queen Mary are said to have practised. But that Doctrine being now out of Doors, the Practice founded upon it can be no Warrantable Precedent for our Times. Even the Acts themselves that give us an account of this Omission, affirm the Custom, and say the Sermon was a thing de more. . And if she did not think she had such a Power, it would make one apt to believe that she had it not: for, whatever else has been said of her, I never heard it laid to her Charge, that she was ignorant of the Extent of her Prerogative, or used it too tenderly.  
'Tis true, my Lord of Sarum informs us, that left the Clergy might set out Orders in Opposition to what the Queen was about to do, she sent and required them under the Pains of a Praemunire to make no Canons 
† Vol. 2. p. 327. . His Lordship gives us no Authority for this Particular, and I must beg leave therefore to suspect the Exactness of it; because the Submission-Act, and that which confirmed it, were repealed in Queen Mary's time, and as yet unrevived: and the Queen could have no Pretence from any other Acts than these to threaten them with a Praemunire, if they proceeded to make Canons. However allowing this account of the Queen's Message to be just, we may observe, that tho' she prohibited 'em to make Canons, yet she did not forbid them to Sat and Act in Inferior Instances, because she thought it their Privilege so to do; and accordingly this very Convocation did business, drawing up their Judgement upon five Important Points in five Articles, by way of Protest, to be delivered (not to the Queen, as his Lordship thinks 
* Ibid. ) but to the Keeper of the Great Seal, and to the Lords of Parliament: And this they did, for the Disburthening of their Consciences 
† Ad exonerationem conscientiarum suarum. , as the Acts speak; and were allowed to do it without Check or Disturbance. And if the Privileges of a Popish Convocation were thus tenderly preserved to them by a Queen averse to their Principles, we may be sure that the Protestant Clergy afterwards had not less Liberty, or Worse Usage; but were allowed freely to sit and declare their Grievances, as often as they were understood earnestly to desire it in the Succeeding Reigns: there being no Instance of such a Liberty denied by any of our Princes to any of their Synods, when the Prince and the Synod were of the same Judgement in Religion. I have shown that it has been granted even when they differed in Principles, let Dr. Wake prove to us, that ever it was withheld when they agreed; and he will somewhat lessen the Opinion the Clergy have of the Hardship they at present lie under.  
If Custom therefore creates a Right, we are sure that the Clergy have a Right to somewhat more than a Bare Summons; they have a Right actually to assemble, to be formed into a Body, and to fill the Chair of the Lower House; and if they have any Petitions or Motions to make in Church-matters, they have a right to sit so long as till they have made them; for thus they have been always accustomed to do; and when they were adjourned without it, it was upon a Presumption, that they had nothing of this kind to offer, and were themselves consenting to such Adjournments.  
Dr. Wake himself is forced in good measure to agree to this, for he owns, that whilst the Clergy were wont to assess themselves, and their sitting upon this account was necessary for the support of the Government; they were not only Summoned to meet, but were wont actually to assemble; and sit so long as it was requisite for them to do for this purpose 
* P. 141, 249. . Now 'tis not forty years ago since the Clergy were in the undisputed Possession of this Privilege of Assessing themselves; and till That time therefore, even by Dr. Wake's Confession, they had Custom, and consequently Right of their side, even for Assembling, and Sitting, as well as being Summoned. And the Late Discontinuance of this Custom cannot yet have infringed that Right, as being not yet Immemorial. There is no Custom therefore for the Methods lately taken; and it is the Clergies great desire that there never may be any: and for that reason among others it is that a Convocation is so earnestly called for, to prevent this Pretence of Dr. Wake's from growing up into an Argument; for tho' it have now no manner of strength in it, yet twenty or thirty years hence perhaps it may.  
But tho' Dr. Wake is out, as to the Clergies having no Right, because no Custom to sit; yet at least he can prove, he thinks, that 'tis very fit and reasonable they should have none, upon Two Accounts: the One, drawn from the True End and Design of calling the Clergy to Parliament; the Other, from the Alteration that has happened in the Original Constitution of those Meetings. As to the First of these, he tells us, that the True End and Design of the Clergies Assembling with the Parliament was to raise Money; and that End therefore now ceasing, since they have left off to assess themselves, the Right grounded upon it ought to cease too 
* 
All the use that was generally made of them was to conconcur with the other Estates in granting Money to the King, which having done, they were commonly dismissed without entering on any other Business. Pp. 106, 107.  
However the King usually added a Conciliary Summons to his Parliamentary Writ— yet still the Design was in Both the same that they might thereby more effectually confirm what had in Parliament been granted to the King, etc. Ibid.  
The Main Design our Princes seem to have had in assembling these Convocations either at the same time they did their Parliament, or not long after, was to get Money from them. P. 227.  
This was the Great Use the King was wont to make of our Convocations, and from thence it came to be the Custom to Summon them for the most part as often as the Parliament met. P. 229.  
For the most part what was done by the Convocation when they met, was only to confirm or make an order for Money. P. 228.  
For the most part the Great End our Kings had in Summoning them was to get Money from them. P. 245.  
As long as the Clergy in Convocation have continued to assist the Government by granting Subsidies, it has been allowed to sit as often as it was necessary to that purpose, tho' it has seldom done any thing besides. P. 250.  . As to the Second, That the Convocation, when it used to sit at the same Time with the Parliament, was a Member of Parliament; but not being so now, there is no reason why it should sit with it 
† Pp. 105, 106, 107. .  
The first of these is so False and Scandalous a Reflection upon our Princes, and those Meetings, and upon the Constitution itself, that I wonder how it could drop from the Pen of an English Divine, that had any Regard left for his Church, or his Country; and how even This Writer, as meanly as he may think of Synods, and their Powers, could yet prevail with himself to say it. He says it, not once or twice only, but often, and with the utmost Assurance; of Convocations called out of Parliament time, as well as of those which met in it; and seems to be afraid only, lest this Decent Maxim should escape the Reader's Eye; and has therefore taken care to instill it so often, and on so different Occasions, that one cannot read long in his Book without meeting it. Let us see, how he attempts the Proof of it.  
Why, he tells us, that in the accounts of our Elder Synods, little more is said to have been done by them, than that they gave the King such and such Supplies; and tho' they met often in former times, yet as for Ecclesiastical Business, for aught he can find, they did as little with their often meeting then, as they do with their seldom meeting now 
† P. 283. . But first, allowing all this to be true, does it follow from hence that the End of the Convocations sitting was to give Money? might not frequent Opportunities be taken of pressing the Clergy to Grants, and yet That not be the End of their Meeting? Money has been as frequently given by Parliaments as by Convocations, and has been as much the Design of calling them; so that once upon a Time 
† Cl. Rot. 21 E. 3. ps. 2. m. 9 dors.— Et scire Vos volumus quod dictum Parliamentum non ad Auxilia seu Tallagia à Populo dicti regni nostri petenda, vel ad alia Onera eidem Populo imponenda, set duntaxat pro Justitiâ ipsi Populo nostro super Dampnis & Gravaminibus sibi illatis faciendâ— See Pryn. Parliam. Writ. Vol. 1. p. 53. , when the King inserted a Clause in the Commons Writs to assure them, that That Parliament was not called in order to a Supply, it is taken notice of by our Antiquaries as a Wonder: Nevertheless the Reason and End of those State-meetings is not, I suppose, to be fetched purely from Money, but Redress of Grievances, according to the honest Doctrine of the Mirror 
* Pur Oyer & Terminer les playntes de tort de le Roy, de la Roigne, & de lour Enfans, & de eux specialment, de que●x Torts lun ne poet aver autrement common droit. Cap. 1. . Further, had the accounts we have left of Convocations mentioned little more than the Supplies they gave, yet it might have become Dr. Wake to suspect that those accounts were Defective, and that much besides might have been done, tho' little else was recorded. The Proportion that the Clergy bore in the Taxes, being a matter in which the State, as well as the Church was nearly concerned, might be set down in our Annals with a more than Ordinary Care; on the Crown-side it might be taken notice of, that the King for the future might be sure of as much; on the Clergy's side, that they might be sure of giving no more: Both might think it prudent to arm themselves with Precedents for a Demand, or a Denial, as the Case might happen; and for this reason, among others, the Article of Subsidies might have been supposed to make so considerable a Figure in the Story of those Synods, had Dr. Wake been inclined in the least to embrace any accounts that were for the Honour or Interest of his Order. But after all, the very Bottom he goes upon is false; an injurious, and groundless Misrepresentation: For that the Clergy, when met, had a great deal of other Business to do, besides Raising Money, appears from Numerous and Undeniable Testimonies. And if Dr. Wake cannot find 'em, as he says, 'tis because he has not looked where they ought to be found, or at least not with that care he ought to do, in order to find them. Had he looked into Spelman or Lynwood, methinks, he might have found, that they made Provincial Canons and Constitutions all along for the good Government of the Church; and by means of 'em repressed now and then an Aspiring Clergyman, that was making a False Court by betraying the Interests of his Body, and endeavouring to build his Fortune upon the Ruin of their Liberties. Had he looked into our Historians, as nicely as he would be thought to have done, particularly into Harpsfield, and Antiquitates Britannicae, he would have found, that they were taken up often in Foreign, and more often in Domestic Affairs of the utmost Importance; in Deputing some of their Members to General Councils 
* Harpsf. p. 610, 611. , and preparing their Instructions; in restoring Peace to the Church, when it was broken by the clashing of Popes with Councils 
† Ant. Br. p. 227. , or by the Contentions of Rival Popes about the Lawfulness of their Titles 
‖ Harpsf. p. 608. ; in resisting Papal Encroachments and Provisions 
⸫ Harpsf. p. 618, 654. , in exercising their Jurisdiction, in Reforming Abuses among themselves, or Petitioning for the Redress of them above; that they opened their Mouths to their Superiors, as well as their Purses; and gave Dutiful Advice sometimes that was as serviceable and welcome to a Good Prince as their Money. But above all, had he looked into the few Old Acts and Journals of Convocation saved out of the General Wreck, and yet remainining, he would have found, that the Articuli Reformandi, or Gravamina Cleri were put up almost at every Session, that Subsidies were seldom given without them, and that they were suggested often, when no Subsidies were given; the Clergy in those Days being allowed sometimes to approach their Prince Empty-handed, and to beg of him what was their Due without paying for the Liberty of doing it. Reforming Grievances was so much the End of the Clergies Conciliary Meetings, that the Archbishop mentioned it oftentimes in his very Provincial Mandate 
* In one of Archbishop Mepham 's Anno 1328. there is this Clause, Proviso quod singuli Episcopi antequam Dioceses suas versus dictum Concilium egressi fuerint, cum suo Clero deliberent & inquirant sagaciter de Gravaminibus & Defectibus dicti Concilii studio reformandis— and to the same purpose another of Stratford's Dated 10. Kalend. Aug. 1341. These were for Provincial Councils, strictly so called. ; the Bishops being there directed to consult with the Clergy of their several Dioceses, about the particular Grievances they lay under, in order to their being laid before the Assembly. And the Lower Clerks have now and then observed these Directions of their Metropolitan so well as to complain to him of the Inabilities, or Exactions of those who had jurisdiction under Him, or under any of the other Bishops 
† Duck. Vit. Chichleii, ad Ann. 1421, 1432. . As they were always sure of his Good Offices, so sometimes it has so happened that He himself has stood in need of Theirs; and accordingly the Subject of their Debates has been how to screen an Archbishop from the Displeasure of his Prince 
‖ Heylin's Hist. of Presbyt. p. 250. . Sometimes they have consulted of measures for the Advancement of Learning, and Encouragement of Universities 
⸫ Concilium Provinciale ad reparationem splendidarum Universitat. Oxon. & Cant. ac Graduatorum in eadem proficientium promotionem— Ann 1417. Registr. Bubwith. Ep. B. & W. , and have come to resolutions very much to the Honour and Advantage of those Famous Bodies 
* Spelm. Conc. Vol. 2. p. 677. Ant. Brit. p. 214. ; and have by that means made way for them, when under a Cloud, to the Favour and Bounty of Others. At some times the Regulation and Improvement of Grammar-Schools 
† Acta MSS. Synodi tentae, An. 1555— ad Jan. 7. 1555, 56. ; at Others, the Looseness and Disorders of the Stage 
‖ Febr. 24. 1541, 42. Episcopi consultârunt de Publicis Dissolutis Comaediis corrigendis— Act. MSS.  have been the Subject of their Debates: and it has been known, when even Matters of Common justice and Traffic have felt the Influence of their Resolves, and the Kingdom been generally benefitted by the Spiritual Censures they have denounced on the Use of False Weights and Measures 
* Constitutio facta— in Convocatione— 1430. pro abolitio Ponderis vocati Le auncel Weight. Spelm. Vol. 2. p. 687. . A Late Writer 
† Nicholson, Hist. Lib. p. 196.  has found out yet another Employment for the Clergy in Convocation, to pass the Finales Concordiae, or Levies of Fines, as we now call them; and this upon no less an Authority than Sir Henry Spelman's; who says 
‖ In voce Finis. , it seems, that such Matters were transacted sometimes coram Episcopo, & in Synodali Conventu: and so they might be, without however being ratified by a Convocation properly so called: for the words of Sir Henry refer to those Mixed Assemblies, where the Clergy and Laiety sat together. Would Mr. Archdeacon afford us an Instance of a Fine thus passed in a Pure Ecclesiastical Meeting, after the two Jurisdictions were completely separated, it would be a very Curious Particular, worth acquainting the World with. But this is not the Only Instance 
* See another p. 31. of these Papers.  he has given of his knowing no other sense of the word Synodus, but that of a Church-Assembly.  
Many other ways the Clergy assembled in Synod had of employing themselves to the Adtage of the Church and the Commonwealth; too many to be Enumerated, and too well understood to be insisted on: if Dr. Wake knows nothing of these things, he is to be pitied for his Ignorance; if he does, and yet dissembles his knowledge of them, he is to be detested for a much worse Quality. But can this Gentleman be in Earnest when he says, that the Convocation had little else at any time to do but to give Money? does not He himself own in several places 
* Pp. 286, 287, 236, 237. , that the King frequently sent his Prohibitions thither, commanding 'em not to enter or proceed upon Business that he did not approve of? This implies, I think, that they were often otherwise employed than in Money-matters: for Dr. Wake, I believe, will not pretend that it was Usual with our Princes to prohibit the Clergy from giving them Money. Nay, he tells us further out of Coke, that the King did often appoint Commissioners by Writ to sit with the Clergy in Convocation, and to have Conusance of such things as they meant to establish, that nothing might be done in prejudice of their Authority 
† P. [111.] . And if so, he could not but see, that they were used to do some other Business beside Taxing themselves; for here again I humbly conceive, that neither were these Commissioners sent to restrain the Clergy's Liberality. To convince the Reader yet further, that the Clergy, when met, had other things beside Taxes to consider of, I shall direct him to those very Instances brought by Dr. Wake to show they had not: I shall examine All his Proofs of this kind drawn from the Practice of Modern Synods, and by Them shall leave the Reader to judge how fairly he has dealt with the Ancient ones.  
That I may not be thought (says he 
* P. 142. ) to speak at all Adventures, I will offer an Instance or two of it. The Convocation that met the first of King james the First, was by Prorogation continued from time to time for seven years together. Yet except it were in his first year, we do not hear of any great Business that was done by them more than that of granting Subsidies. But I am well satisfied that he speaks at all adventures from this very Instance. For 
* Book X. p. 28.  Fuller seems to say, that the Acts of this Convocation were lost even in his time; and if so, Dr. Wake must needs be a Bold Adventurer, to pretend to say what was, or was not done in it. Besides, had he spoken out, and told us plainly, what that Business was they did in their first year, it would have given us some account why they might possibly have lain still a good while afterwards. For that Business was no less than the settling the whole Discipline of the Church in a Body of an hundred and forty one Canons then drawn up, which was one of the Greatest Works that ever any English Convocation had before them: and having finished it therefore, it would have been no wonder, if they had discontinued their Debates for some time without entering on any thing that was Material. If they had no Business to do, we cannot expect that they should have made Business on purpose to do it. But after all it so happens that we can certainly prove this Convocation to have sat and done Business, and that of a very Important Nature: for in 1606 Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book passed it; a Work, considerable in itself; but made yet more considerable by the Event that attended the Publication of it. And throughout all the rest of the Time, that they were Employed, or at least sitting, and in a Readiness to do Business, as it should happen, appears from the Bishop of St. David's Speech in 1604, about the Use of the Cross 
* There is mention of this Speech in the Preface to Pool 's Sermon about Spiritual Worship. He speaks of it as made in 1604; tho' otherwise I should have placed it at the Time when the Canons were passing. The Speech itself, and some Account of it is among the Manuscripts Bodl. Bibl. n. 8069▪ From which Paper we might certainly learn when it was spoken, but I have not consulted it. , (which shows that matter was then re-debated); from the strict Attendance paid by the Members of the Lower House (Three of which were Excommunicated by Archbishop Bancroft in 1605, on the account of their Absence, and absolved from that Sentence the year afterwards 
† See Registr. Banc. oft. fol. 138, 139▪ ); from the Messages sent by King james at several times to them (with Two of which relating to the Articles of 1562, and Cathedral Service, Dr. W. himself has kindly furnished us 
‖ P. 110. ); and from the Applications made by the Clergy to the King; One Instance of which [their Petition against Prohibitions 
* Append▪ Numb. VI ] I have already given the Reader. So that no Instance could be more unfortunately pitched upon by Dr. Wake than this: Let us see whether he is more lucky in that which follows.  
His next Words are, In King Charles the First's time there were but Few Parliaments, and therefore we are not to look for Convocations in that, 
† P 142. . In the first sixteen years of King Charles the First there were five New Parliaments chosen, and as many Convocations; and every One of those Convocations met, and sat, and we know who were the Prolocutors in each of them. The first of these five 
* Anno 1625. See Fuller. C. H. Book. XI. p. 108.  was hindered from doing much Business by the Plague which then reigned; and the Last, by a Select Committee for Alterations, which sat in the jerusalem-chamber of the Deanery of Westminster, and was set on foot to supplant the Use of Synods. And yet even in these Two, Motions were made 
† Some Instances of this kind Fuller takes notice of. Ibid. & p. 172. , and Debates held, tho' no Synodical Conclusions were formed; and in all the Five 
‖ In the Convocation of 1628.: Pryn says, that Dr. Jackson was accused of Arminianism, Append. to Anti-Arminianism.  at least so much Business was done, as made their Title good to do more, if they thought fit: for I must here and every where put this Gentleman in mind, that there is a great deal of Business for Convocations to do, besides framing Constitutions. However even That Business itself was done in One of these Assemblies, the Convocation of 1640; where also their Jurisdiction was exercised in a very Notable Instance, the Suspension of the Bishop of Gloucester 
* See Heylin. Cyprian. Angl. . Dr. Wake takes no notice of these things, but slips quietly over this Reign to the next.—  
In which, he says, upon King Charles the Second Return, the Famous Convocation of 1660 met, to remedy those Disorders which the Civil Wars had occasioned. In order whereunto it was necessary for them at first to settle the Affairs of the Church: but that being done, they were by the King's Writ Prorogued Eighteen times successively; and it does not appear by the Journal of it, which I have seen, that any thing Material was done in it afterwards. He has seen a Journal, it seems, where there are no Memorandums of any thing done; and from that Empty Journal One would think that he had learned all his skill in the Business of Convocations. But had not something else been as Empty as that Journal, he would sure have foreborn giving this as an Instance how Convocations have been employed, whilst they were used to assess themselves (which is his professed Design in producing it 
* See Pag. 141. ), when all these Eighteen Prorogations were after they began to be Taxed by Parliament; and all of them were with the Good will and Consent of the Clergy, who by the Favour of their Prince, and the Assistance of the Parliament, had in the first year of their Sitting done so much, that little or no Church-work might remain upon their Hands for several succeeding years. And yet in All those years they were not Idle for want of an Opportunity of being otherwise; for they observed their Forms all along, met with every Parliament, and said their Prayers together, and when their Prolocutor died, chose a new one; as even that Journal the Doctor perused, as Empty as it was, would have taught him; if I guess right at the Quiver from whence this Blunt and Harmless Arrow was drawn. Now the observing these Forms, whatever Apprehensions Dr. Wake may have of it, yet several of his Brethren of the Clergy think to be very Material; as being a step to that which is confessedly so, and preserving the Body in their Legal Capacity of Acting, as there shall be Occasion. Particularly that part of the Solemnity, the Opening of the Assembly with Prayers and a Sermon, as it is a matter of great Decency, so is it of some Use also; the uttering of these Discourses from the Pulpit having been generally the Province of the Lower Clergy, who took the liberty at such times to lay the State of the Church before the Fathers and Governors of it very nakedly and plainly, and freely to expostulate with them about any Neglects or Mismanagements, they might observe to prevail. I shall give the Reader a few Instances of the Freedom practised on that occasion, which may satisfy him that it had its Uses in some special Junctures; and may be as serviceable again, when the same Corruptions shall have got into the Church; as it is possible that they sometime or other may, tho' at present we are never so free from them.  
The Passages of this kind I shall take notice of, are in Pieces not easy to be met with; and should therefore my Transcripts from thence be somewhat large, I hope they will not be thought tedious; the Christian Courage, Integrity, and Zeal that animates these Awakening Discourses will be my Apology for producing so much of them, and for doing it here in the Body of the Book, without referring the Reader for a sight of them to an Article in the Appendix.  

Oratio habita a D. joanne Colet Decano S. Pauli ad Clerum, in Convocatione, Anno M. D. XI.  
Pag. 1. Accessi hodie, Patres, admonendi vestri gratiâ, ut de reformatione Ecclesiae, in illo vestro Concilio toto animo cogitetis.  
5. In ipsis Dignitatibus qui sunt, plerique corum incedunt vultu adeo erecto, & oculis tam sublimibus ut non in humili Praesulatu Christi, sed in alto dominatu mundi positi esse videantur, non agnoscentes, nec animadvertentes, quidnam magister humilitatis Christus dixerit discipulis suis, qu●s vocavit ad Praesulatum; Principes Gentium, etc. vos autem non sic. Quibus verbis docet plane Magisterium ●● Ecclesiâ nihil aliud esse quàm Ministerium, & Primatum in Ecclesiastico homine nihil esse aliud quam humilem Servitutem.  
7. Oh Avaritia! ex te onerosae Visitationes Episcoporum, ex te Corruptiones Curiarum, & inventiones istae quotidiè novae quibus miser populus devoratur. Oh Avaritia mater omnis iniquitatis! à te procacitas, & petulantia Officialium, ex te in Ordinariis illud ardens studium amplificandae suae jurisdictionis, ex te in Ordinariis ista insana & rabiosa contentio de Insinuatione Testamentorum, ex te Intempestivae Sequestrationes, ex te ista superstitiosa observatio Legum earum quae Lucrosae sunt, posthabitis iis quae ad Emendationem Morum spectant.  
8. Faciem Ecclesiae maculat assidua Occupatio Secularis, in qua se implicant multi Sacerdotes & Episcopi, Servi magis Hominis quam Dei— nihil audent nec facere, nec dicere, nisi ea quae noverint suis Principibus grata & placentia: hinc Ignorantia & Caecitas, quando obcaecati tenebris hujus seculi nihil vident nisi terrena.  
12. Quare vos, Patres, vos, Sacerdotes, vos, omnes Clerici expergiscimini aliquando ex isto vestro somno in hoc mundo Lethargico, & evigilantes tandem audite Paulum Clamantem vobis, Nolite conformari huic seculo, sed reformamini in novitate sensûs vestri 
* The Text. . Haec autem Reformatio & Restauratio Ecclesiastici Statûs oportet incipiat à Vobis Patribus nostris, & sic deinceps in nos Sacerdotes vestros derivetur. Ad Vos spectamus tanquam ad Signa directionis nostrae, in vobis & in vitâ vestrâ cupimus legere, tanquam in vivis libris, quonam pacto ipsi vivamus: Quare si volueritis videre Festucas nostras, priùs tollite Trabes de oculis vestris.  
13. Nullum est erratum cui Patres optima remedia non providerunt. Non est opus ergo ut novae Leges & Constitutiones condantur, sed ut serventur conditae. Quare in vestrâ illâ Congregatione recitentur leges quae sunt editae: imprimis recitentur leges quae admonent vos Patres ne manus vestras citò alicui imponatis— Recitentur leges quae jubent ut Beneficia Ecclesiastica dignis conferantur. Recitentur Leges quae militant contrà Simoniacam Labem.  
16. Ante omnia verò recitentur Leges quae pertinent & spectant ad Vos reverendos Patres & dominos Episcopos; Leges de justâ & Canonicâ Electione Vestrâ in capitulis Ecclesiarum cum invocatione divini spiritûs: nam praeterea quod hoc non fit his diebus, & quia saepe eliguntur Praelati magis favoribus hominum quam Dei gratiâ, idcirco habemus certè nonnunquam Episcopos parum Spirituales, homin●s magis Mundanos quam Coelestes, sapientes magis spiritum hujus Mundi quam spiritum Christi.  
17. Recitentur Leges de residentiâ Episcoporum in diaecesibus suis— Renoventur postremò istae Leges & Constitutiones patrum de celebratione conciliorum, 
☜  quae jubent ut Provincialia Concilia frequentiùs pro reformatione Ecclesiae celebre●tur: nam nunqu●m accidit Ecclesiae Christi res magis detrimentosa quam omissio Conciliorum, tum Generalium, tùm Provincialium.  
18. Quâ quidem in re vos potissimum debitâ reverentiâ, Patres, appello; nam ista legum Executio à vobis incipiat oportet— Vos autem si servaveritis leges, sique ad normam & regulam Canonum vitam vestram imprimis reformaveritis, tùna dabitis nobis lumen in quo quid nobis faciendum sit videamus, lumen videlicet optimi exempli vestri; nosque videntes Patres nostros servare leges, libenter Patrissabimus.  
21. Considerate miseram Ecclesiae formam & Statum, & in ejus reformatione totis animis incumbite; Nolite, Patres, nolite sinere istum vestrum tam celebrem Conventum abire in vanum; nolite pati istam vestram congregationem elabi in nihilum: congregamini quidem saepe, sed (ut vestrâ pace quod verùm est dicam) quis adhùc fructus praesertim Ecclesiae ex istiusmodi conventibus est consecutus? ite modo in Spiritu, quem invocastis, ut ejus auxilio adjuti in isto vestro Concilio possitis ea excogitare, statuere, decernere, quae sint Ecclesiae utilia, quae vobis laudi, quae Deo honori.   

Oratio ad Pontifices Londini in Aede Paulinâ An. Dom. 1553.17. Id. Apr. per Nic. Grimoaldum. Impressum 1583. Londini.  
7. Nescio quo fato fieri dicam, Patres praeclarissimi, etiam vobis praesidentibus, qui eruditionis gloriâ floretis, in quâvis Diocesi plures ut inveniantur Legum Sacrarum expertes Sacrifici quam intelligentes. Num vos etiamdum, Praesules, ad hunc honestissimum ordinem atque pulcherrimum, illiberale & imperitum genus hominum aggregatis?—  
8. Vestrarum hoc partium est, Pontifices, fovendo gnaros, repudiando rudes, efficere ut vel vulgus hominum intelligat, quid sit bonis artibus excoli.  
10. Cogitate Vos esse eos unde sibi & Populus, & Reges, & Cives omnes consilium de maximis gravissimisque rebus expectant: loquendum est liberè, & admonendum; debere Reges erudiri rectam ut sententiam ferre possint; debere Principes viros convenire, Domino ut inserviant; debere eos sanciendis promulgandisque legibus ostendere se fidem habere Deo, se Remp. & quidem Christianam tueri, amplificare, & confirmare: Scilicet summum Deum odisse malorum Ecclesiam, eòsque qui non stant ab illius partibus, contrarios illi & adversarios esse, & plane perduellionis reos.  
11. Quò minor est rerum bonarum cura, quo major est doctorum virorum paucitas, eò vos haec ipsa def●ndite diligentiùs. In Patriam & Remp. intuemini, Patres, cui dati estis à Deo Gubernatores. Scelerati & flagitiosi omnia referre solent ad utilitatem propriam, nec facile possunt animum inducere ut agant emninò aliquid gratui●ò: Vir pius tamen & religiosus non commoditates suas quaerit, sed totus est in juvandis aliis occupatus— Estis Sal terrae, condite caeteros: Estis Lux orbis, lucete aliis: Estis Duces, praeite viam reliquis. Estis Angeli Dei Op. Max. nunciate ingentem laetitiam futuram toti Populo. Estis divinorum arcanorum dispensatores, scienter id facite, & fideliter. Reverendi Patres Episcopi, facile est Episcoporum habere nomen, rem praestare profectò difficile: vestro si vultis officio perfungi, oportebit docendo, monendo, emendando, suadendo, deterrendo, disputando, aliisque multiplicibus ministeriis, obire labores maximos, tolerare vigilias, excubare, animis concoquere longa taedia, pati contumelias improborum, & versari etiam in vitae discrimine— quare jam inde ab hoc tempore usque ad occasum vitae, extremúmque spiritum nunquam divelli vos à tam praeclaro instituto patiamini.  
Non ita multos abhinc annos in eo fuistis multi, ut quos possetis ab Operum Nitelis averteretis, à Peregrinatione Religionis ergô, à Lucernis ad Statuas affigendis, à Lustrali Aqvulâ, Missa Papisticâ, & id genus aliis rebus: superest, Patres, sicut anteà disceptatum est cum Superstitione, nùnc ut cum Impietate certetur; sicut antè disceptatum est de ma●e collocatis Operibus, nùnc querela fiat de amissis benefactis, & nusquàm ferè comparentibus; sicut anteà declamatum est in Idola, & Cultus execrabiles, nùnc in illum pestilentissimum Deastrum Mammonem declamitetur. Nam quod Tempus simile Temporum nostrorum? Quot ●odiè solent alienas invadere facultates? eatenùs amplectuntur plerique Religionem, quatenùs quaestum ex eâ commodúmque faciant. Ut distrahuntur Opes Ecclesiasticae! Sacerdotiorum quam frequens est Nundenatio! Venalia Templa sunt, Venales Ecclesiae.  
14. Nam quid ad haec dicemus Auditores optimi? Scholarum & magistrorum quibus carere Christianae civitates nullo modo possunt, cur dilaniari sinitis alimoniam & viscera? quid de vobis judicabit atque sentiet Posteritas, tantam audaciam si non coercebitis? quoüsque conceditis hanc licentiam? Quousque comprobabitis quae Avarissimus quisque concupivit? Si potestis parùm, saltem cohibete Assensiones, ne participetis eorum facta. Si potestis ampliùs extinguite crescentem flammam, ne deinde Victrix ad Domorum & Templorum Tecta subsiliat.— Agite, O Praesides, & Procuratores Ecclesiae, per Deum Immortalem agite.—  
16. Vident certè multi quî possit ex hisce malis eripi Ecclesia, sedent tamen compressis manibus, secúmque (ut dicitur) vivunt.  
19 Si estis Episcopi, circumspectate quid à famulis, quid à liberis, quid à ministris Ecclesiasticis, quid à Magistratibus, quid agatur à populo. Si estis exploratores, Exquirite Papistas, investigate Anabaptistas, Libertinos, & Haereticos omnes deprehendite, corrigite, fugate, fundite. Si Legati estis, Imperata peragite; Si Custodes omnium, custodite Domini vestri Ovilia, & quidem integra, ut ne partim foveantur, partim deserantur.  
23. jam nùnc penes vos erit vestróque in arbritrio positum, aut Ecclesiae Proceres praeclarissimos, aut Custodes inertes & negligentes in perpetuum appellari. Quapropter excitate Spiritus; Erigite capita; aures, oculos, animósque advertite; omnia collustrate; in toto regno religionem confirmate; Literas, Leges, virtutesque conserite. Vos si in speculis forte stetistis Episcopi, jamdudum sentire potuistis pleraque in Ecclesiâ agi raptim, atque turbatè, sine more, sine ordine. Quid ergo? quid existimatis, gravissimi viri? desiderari nullas Leges Ecclesiasticas?  
24. Necesse habetis pro eâ conditione in quâ positi estis maleficia palàm patrata palàm arguere, neque personarum in eâ re discrimen habere ullum.— Vos cùm excluseritis eos è Christianorum conventiculo, docebitis populum ea sancta credere, quae ab istis violari solent.  
26. Contra horum Luporum omnium incursus quam paratis defensionem, Patres? & quos tandem opponitis adversarios? O rem miseram, atque miserandam▪ ad Ecclesiarum procurationem admoventur non Patroni, Tutores, Defensores; sed praedones, hostes, proditores; Qui non quàm ipsi boni sint curant, sed quàm bonum Sacerdotium.— Mirer si est vana ferè vestra, Pontifices apud plebem authoritas? Vos elevatis eam. Quippe quia muneribus & emolumentis Ecclesiasticis dum vultis vobis devincire nescio quos ex alieno genere atque ordine, efficitis ut minùs possitis ipsi, & estis majori despicatui. Qui aliis Exemplo esse debetis, aliorum Exemplo peccabitis potiùs quàm alii vestro rectè faciant? His ego jucundiora & plausibiliora dictu alia esse scio, sed me vera & seria pro jucundis & plausibilibus loqui, etsi meum ingenium non juberet, necessitas Cogit.  
29. Ipsa Patria sic vobiscum, Pontifices, agit & quodammodo tacita loquitur.— Quid agitis Antistites? Vobis non modo inspectantibus, sed etiam assentientibus labefactabitur Ecclesia vera?  
31. Veniat in mentem, vestra quid polliceatur professio, quid noti, quid ignoti, quid expectent à vobis omnes; quid Regia Majestas, quid ejus Consiliarii, quid ipsa Resp. postulet.— Vae vobis, si aut ignaviâ vestrâ, aut vitio pusilli animi, aut quovis alio modo perdideritis Oviculas-Date diligenter operam, timete Mortalium neminem.   

Concio ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali Cantuariensis Provinciae ad D. Pauli, Die XX. Febr. A. D. MDXCIII. per Lancelotum Andrews Theol. Doct. Inter Opuscula, Edit. Lond. 1621.  
Act. XX. 28. Attendite Vobis, & Universo Gregi in quo Vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos, etc.  

P. 27, 28.  NEque verò haec Apostolus— Viderat procul dubio, viderat alicubi in Synodo remissas quorundam manus, soluta genua: Viderat nonnullos in Asiâ, quorum nos hic in Angliâ non paucos videmus, ad Munus suum vel non satis attendentes, vel non satis acri tendentes animo— Ita ferè animati sumus, ita (ut eleganter Augustinus) secum quisque loquitur, Quid ad me pertinet? quisque quid velit, agat; Victus meus ●alvus erit, & Lac & Lana; Satis est mihi, eat Ecclesia quà potest. Hoc malum sub Sole est, Patres; ab hoc verò malo est quicquid usquam est mali. Cladem Ecclesiae sic orditur Christus in Parabolâ Zizaniorum, cùm Dormirent Homines. Scio quidem accessit Invidia Daemonis; sed substrata illi causa, Desidia Hominis. Nam certè quae fuerunt unquam Gregis Dispersiones, aut agri Zizaniis oppleti, vel luxatae in Ecclesiâ trabes, & tecta perstillantia, ab hoc malo fuerunt omnia. Etiam Nos, Patres, dum▪ semisomnes hic sedemus, (quanquam somnu non fuit, vidimus enim); dum videmus ergo, sed tamen tepidi & tacentes sede●us, nescio quae portenta Opinionum invaluerunt hic apud Nos, nulli priscorum a●dita vel visa, & vulgi a●res animósque occuparunt; ac jam Zizania scilicet Zizania non sunt; Fruges sunt. Cura certè nobis, si non Cor defuit; & eodem redit, venienti malo vel non attendere per oscitantiam, vel non contra tendere per vecordiam.  
P. 29. Neque verò laeta magis Ecclesiae facies, aut quam videre malles, quàm cùm Timotheos habuit, qui rem Gregis germanè accurabant; neque verò tetra magis aut funesta facies Ecclesiae, quàm cùm Galliones habuit, quibus nihil illorum curae, quibus súsque déque quid fieret Ecclesiae.  
P. 31. Et est in Vobis Cura, est Attentio vestri; quis negat? Satis enim Vos vobis attendere, & rei vestrae, populi V●x est; satis Vos strenuè ditandis filiis, dotandis filiabus attendere: tam verò Vos hâc ex parte attentos esse, ut Haeredum magna sit Vobis attentio, Successorum exigua (etsi quae exigua est, aliqua est); [imò] ut prae Haeredum attentione, nulla sit Successorum. Attendere, hoe quidem est; sed vereor ut Pauli sit.—  
P. (31.) Omnium in Vos Oculi atque Or● conversa sunt— Quod si quis in vestro illo tam sancto ac venerando Ordine malae frugis, si quis Dilapidator Aerarii sacri, si quis Polygamus, s● Nepos, si Falsarius, si F●●nerator, si caupo Beneficiorum; latè se spargit Exemplum, & nimis facile responsum, Idem hoc Episcopus noster factitavit.—  
P. 32. Haec ad Vos de Vobis. De Grege jam vestro superest sermo alter.— Omninò auditur Susurrus iste in vulgo (utinam falsò); Ubi Vestra res agitur, si quid in Titulos, in Statum, in Dignitatem Vestram tentatur, si periclitatur pars vestra in redargutionem venire; ut ille, praecedenti capite, pro Dianâ sud, itidem & Vos mirum in modum satagere; non labori, non sumptui parcere, non attentioni ulli: de Grege verò non perinde sollicitos esse. Etiam hoc quoque dicitur, ad illos Consessus vestros & Consistoria, si vestrûm cujusquam privata res agatur, sive lucrum est, sive vindicta, alacres, ●●rectos, attentos advolare Vos, ac vehementer quidem perorare: sin aliquid in commune tractandum▪ si collatis sententiis deliberandum, vel nequid Ecclesia detrimenti capiat, vel cùm quid Ecclesia detrimenti c●pit, si res gregis prae manibus est, concidere illicò attentionem vestram, subducere se quemque, vel non interesse, vel, si interest, tepidum & tacentem sedere & obtorpescere.  
P. 37. Attendite, inquam, idque perpetuò facite; Domi quisque in speeuld, Foris in Visitatione vestrâ, tùm verò in Synodo hìc hodiè, vel maximè. Synodorum enim vel uno hoc attentionis nomine in Ecclesiâ illustre semper nomen, & cùm celebris tùm salubris Authoritas; in quibus— magnum semper remedium extitit ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae. Si quando enim Murmur in eâ exortum, hìc sedatum est (cap. 6.); si quando emersit Haeresis, hic profligata est (cap. 15.); si quando quid ullâ in re cuiquam Indulgendum fuit, hìc dispensatum fuit (cap. 21.). Benedictus Deus, qui dedit talem Potestatem Hominibus! Beati verò Homines, quibus Potestate hâc datâ legitimè uti fas!  
P. 40. Proximè post hos Attentionem vestram requirit scelerata illa Simonis & Judae fraternitas; Judae, quid datis mihi? quaerentis; Simonis, vel pecuniam, vel pejorem pecuniâ conditionem offerentis. Nec hoc solum in Nobis Minoritis, qui sic Rectorias nostras feri paciscimur; sed & apud Vos Majoritas, quos sic Cathedras vestras, nempe vel Pecuniarum summis, vel Ecclesiarum spoliis foedè cauponari vulgò dictitant. Quo morbo malè jamdiu habet & audit Ecclesia nostra? nunquid non est Resina in Gilead? quare itaque non est obducta Cicatrix Leprae hujus?   
These Three Instances, taken at three several Distances, from the times before the Reformation down to the Latter End of Queen Elizabeth, will convince the Reader, that the Solemnity of opening a Convocation, is itself a matter of some Importance, and which would deserve carefully to be kept up, even tho' there were nothing Material to be done in Synod afterwards. We live in a Preaching Age, when the Devotion of People runs much that way, and they are mightily indulged in it. Pity it is, that whilst so many New Discourses of this kind are set up for the Laiety, this One good Sermon ad Clerum should be put down; which, besides that it has some Hundred years' Prescription to plead for itself, is at least as edifying an Exercise as any of those that are more encouraged.  
I have examined all the Modern Instances produced by Dr. Wake in behalf of his Darling Point, That the Chief End of Convocations is to give Money: His Elder Accounts would afford as much room for Reflection, if it were worth the while to pursue 'em as minutely. But I suppose there is no great need of proving to the Reader, that a Writer has misled him in Facts of an Ancient Date, when I have shown that he has done it in things that have happened within our Memories, and under our Noses. For he that will impose upon a Man before his Face, will certainly do it behind his Back; and the more out of his Reach he is, the more he will do it.  
It is said, his Superiors have employed him in an Edition of these Old English Councils. If he deals with them as ill in that Edition, as he has done in this account, it will, I am sure, be the faultiest Book in the kind, that ever was Printed; and so far from mending Sir Henry Spelman's Collections on this Head, that it will be worse than Mr. Baxter's. However, should he discharge the Task never so well, his Hand, I think, is not proper to be employed in it: for the World will judge it a Preposterous thing for the same Pen to be used in preserving the Memory of Old Canons, and writing down the Privileges and very Being of Convocations. I suppose he thinks the Mortal Blow is now given to the Church, and that she will never hereafter speak by her Provincial Assemblies; and therefore, as the way is to give accounts of Men when they are Dead, he thinks it time to collect the Acts of a Departed Convocation. But he ought to be sure, that it is departed, before he enters on this Task: for should it ever revive and sit again, one of the first Requests it would make, might possibly be, that the Work should be taken out of his Polluted Hands: Since the Church cannot hope, from what she knows of him, that his Account of her Synods will be given with any other View, than the Learned Friar wrote the History of that of Tre●t; on purpose to expose ' 'em. But this is a Distant Concern; Our Business at present is with him only as to the Treatment which these Ancient Councils have found from him, in the Work we are upon: and upon this Head, I shall for the Reasons already given, trust the Reader, without entering into the Retail of it; adding only to what has been already said in this Chapter, one short Remark— That from Henry the Eighth down to the last Unhappy Prince, no King has sat on the Throne, who did not allow and encourage these Meetings of the Clergy. King James' Late Reign made the first Exception of this kind; when Popery and Arbitrary Power being determined to be set up, consequently Parliaments and Convocations were laid aside, from whence the Greatest Hindrance to those Designs was most likely to come: for tho' the Clergy wrote Popery out of the Kingdom, in a smaller time than they could be expected to have done it in that Method; yet, had they been allowed to sit in Convocation, they had probably dispatched the Work somewhat sooner. But the Oppressive Pattern than first set, will not, we dare say, by our Generous Deliverer be followed. Frequency of Parliaments has been the distinguishing Mark and Glory of his Reign; and it will add some small Lustre to it, if it may be said in our Annals, that the Liberties of Convocations too were no less tenderly preserved. We question not, but so Good and Gracious a Prince, and so great a Pillar of the Protestant Religion, will in this respect yield to the Just and United Desires of his Clergy, when they are sufficiently made known to him. No Men resisted the Encroachments of the Late Reign more than They; no Men by their Labours and Zeal contributed more to our present happy Establishment; and they have reason therefore to hope for their share in the Common Benefit of it.   

CHAP. VII.  
BUt to return to our Business— Another Objection made by Dr. Wake against the Reasonableness of the Clergys' Assembling with every New Parliament, is, That when this was Customary, they were a Member of Parliament; but not being so Now, neither is there the same reason that they should assemble with it 
* P. 106, 107, & (284.) . To this I answer, that the words Member of Parliament, may be taken differently, as they signify either an Essential Part of the Legislature, whose Consent and Authority is necessary to all Laws; or a part of the Great Body of Parliament, assembled by the same Writs, at the same time with it, but to some special Intents and Purposes prescribed by our Constitution. In the former Sense, the Clergy are not, nor for some hundred Years have been; in the latter, as they always were, so they still, I presume, are a Member of Parliament: Not an Intrinsic Member, if I may be allowed so to speak, or Estate of Parliament; but only an Extrinsic Part of it, or an Estate of the Realm, called with the Parliament always, and attending upon it; who have a Parliamentary Right of Petitioning, and Advising within their proper Sphere, and at whom Decrees about Matters Spiritual ought regularly to begin. They are a Lesser Wheel in the Machine of Government, that is acted by the same Springs and Weights, and therefore moves and ceases together with the Greater, but has peculiar Ends and Offices of its own to which it serves. Nor is this to be wondered at, for even the States of Parliament themselves have different Powers and Privileges, and peculiar Orbs of their own, as it were, within which they move; the Lords are distinguished by their jurisdiction, and the Commons by their Money Bills: so that the being Member, Part, or Parcel of Parliament, does not necessarily imply the very same Parliamentary Interests and Powers. And the Clergy therefore, though no part of the Civil Legislature, nor concerned directly in the great Affairs of State transacted in Parliament, may yet in other Respects, and to other Purposes, be properly reputed and styled a Member of Parliament. And accordingly I have shown, that they have been thus esteemed, and spoken of, from the time of their separation downwards; and even by Henry the VIII. himself, many Years after their submission to him. One instance of this kind has been given already 
† P. 59  from a Proclamation in the 35 th'. of his Reign: and because the way of Wording these State-Papers is a matter of great Weight and Importance, I shall here add another, from an Original Direction of the same Prince to his Judges, than about to go their Summer Circuit. It gins thus—  
By the KING.  
Henry R.  

Cleop. E. 6. fol. 214.  TRusty and Right Wellbeloved, We  you well. And whereas heretofore, as ye know, both upon most just and virtuous Fundations, grounded upon the Laws of Almighty God, and Holly Scripture, and also by the deliberate Advice, Consultation, Consent and Agreement as well of the Bishops and Clergy, as by the Nobles and Commons Temporal of this our Realm, assembled in our High Court of Parliament, and by authority of the same, the Abuses of the Bishop of Rome, his Authority and Jurisdiction of long time usurped against Us, have been not only utterly Extirped, Abolished and Secluded, but also the same Our Nobles and Commons, both of the Clergy and Temporalty, by another several Act, and upon like foundation, for the public Weal of this our Realm, have united, knit, and annexed to Us, and the Corone Imperial of this Our Realm, the Title, Dignity and Style of Supreme Head in Earth, immediately under God of the Church of England, as undoubtedly evermore we have been: Which things also the said Bishops and Clergy, particularly in their Convocations, have wholly and entirely consented, recognised, ratified, confirmed and approved autentiquely in Writing.  
— Signed June 25.  
And that this Doctrine was still good, and the Language much the same, as low as the Restauration of C. the II. the Office then set out for the 5 th'. of November shows; where mention is made of the Nobility, Clergy and Commons of this Realm, then assembled in Parliament 
† Prayer the 2 d. : For to say, that by the Clergy of this Realm, my Lords the Bishops only are intended, were so absurd a Gloss, that even Dr. Wake's Pen would, I believe, be ashamed of it. And if they were then rightly said to be assembled in Parliament, they may as rightly be said to be so assembled still: and if assembled in Parliament, why not a Member of Parliament? to those Intents and Purposes, I mean, for which they are assembled in it? Dr. Wake will be pleased to answer this Question at his Leisure; and withal to inform us, among his late Meditations on the Day 
† Serm. on the 5 th'. of Nou. 1699. , this had not been a proper one. His Function may be, some excuse for his being a stranger to the Language of the Statute Book, or of our Manuscript Records: but not to have so much Law as even his Common Prayer-Book would have furnished him with, is, let me tell him, inexcusable.  
Dr. Wake's Foundation therefore failing, the Inference he builds upon it falls accourse, and the Argument will now run quite the other way; that, because the Clergy are a Part, or Member of Parliament (in a qualified Sense) therefore they ought to Assemble with it. However, since that Expression is invidious, and liable to be misconstrued, I willingly wave it, and content myself to say, that, though the Clergy are now no Member or Estate of Parliament, as they once were (not the Third, as Dr. W. ignorantly talks 
† P. 151. , but the First Estate of it) yet are they still an Estate of the Realm, necessarily attendant on the Parliament; and have attended as such, whenever a new Parliament was called, from the time that they left off to be an Estate of Parliament, till within a few Years past, with few Exceptions to the contrary; and with none, from the Reign of Henry the VII. to that of his present Majesty. And this prescription of some hundred Years has given them an undoubted Right of being summoned, and sitting as often as a Parliament is summoned and sits, though they are not a Member, or Estate of Parliament.  
No more than this need be said, to remove the Objection. But I design not barely to answer Dr. Wake, but moreover to give the Reader every where as Comprehensive a View of the Subject in Debate, as the short compass of this Work will allow of; and shall take occasion therefore from hence to deduce an Account of the Interest which the Lower Clergy have had all along in these State Meetings. 'Tis a point that well deserves our Reflections; and Dr. Wake therefore, according to his instructive way, has said nothing of it: No body had gone before him, and common placed our Historians, and Manuscript Authorities to his hand on this Argument; and he never ventures to break the way, or to give us any part of Learning, but what has born the test of Time, and is warranted by at least an hundred Years usage.  
A complete State of this point is not to be expected in a Digression; all I can do here is, to lay before the Reader some of the most Material Passages to this purpose, that have occurred to me in our Histories and Records, and to add here and there a few cursory Remarks upon them: which will throw some small Light into things as we pass, and may suggest matter of juster and sounder Reflections to others, who shall write after me on this Argument. The Proofs taken singly, may few of them perhaps seem full and convincing; however, when united, I persuade myself, they will carry such an evidence in them, as is not easily to be withstood.  
The Saxon times are overspread with Darkness; and yet Light enough is still left us to discover, that the Inferior Clergy, as well as La●e●y, were then oftentimes called to the Great Councils of the Realm. Much has been Written on this Point as to the Laiety, but I do not remember that I have met any where an account of the Lower Clergys' Interest in those Meetings; and therefore I shall produce some Proofs of it here, without entering into the Civil part of the Dispute, any further than may be of use to give Light to the Ecclesiastical, and to clear the Ancient Rights and Privileges of the Commons Spiritual; which, I am satisfied, ran even all along with those of the Commons Temporal, and proportionably grew, declined, or revived with them.  
The first Instance I shall take notice of to this purpose, is that known Preface to King Ina's Laws, which says, they were made (in the Rude, but Faithful Translation of jorvallensis) exhortatione & doctrinâ Ceonredi Patris mei, Heddae Episcopi mei, & Erkenwoldi Episcopi mei, & omnium Senatorum meorum, & seniorum sapientum Regni mei; multâque Congregatione Servorum Dei 
† X. Scrip. p. 761. . That the Servi Dei here mentioned were Clergy, bears no doubt; and that the Words are further to be understood chief of the Inferior Orders of the Clergy, appears both from their Numbers (for the West-Saxon Bishops and Abbats were but few), and from the like use of the Phrase in other places: for instance, in the Council of Cloveshoe, A. C. 824. (another mixed Assembly) the Dei Servi, then present, are thus in the next words explained; Presbyteri, Dia●oni, & Plurimi Monachi 
** Ibid. p. 335. And in a Charter of Milred, Bishop of Worster (A. D. 774.) he makes his grant cum Licentiâ Servorum Dei, qui sub meo regimine Dei Providentiâ constituuntur (Monast. Vol. 1. p. 122.) i. e. of all the Clergy of his Diocese. . And when therefore Athelstan's Laws are said to be drawn up at one of these State-Meetings 
‖ For thus we read a● 〈◊〉 close of it. Totum hoc— 〈◊〉 Magnâ Synodo apud— 〈◊〉 Arch. Wl●inus inter●uit● & omnes Optimates, & S. p. 〈◊〉 tes quos Adelstanus rex potuit congregare. joru. p. 84●.  Consilio Wolfelini Archiepiscopi mei, & omnium Episcoporum, & Dei Ministrorum, 
† Ibid. p. 841.  those Ministri Dei also are to have the same Interpretation. Something of this Dr. W. seems to have been ware of, and therefore slid over these three Instances in haste as it were, and touched them tenderly: His account of the first is, That Ina made his Laws with the consent of his Bishops and all his Aldermen 
* P. 171. ; of the last, That Athelstan published his Ecclesiastical Laws with the Council of his Bishops 
† P. 162. ; and as to the third, he tells us, There was such a Council at Cloveshoe, Anno 824. 
(⸪) P. 172.  and that's all. Very succinct indeed! especially, coming from the Pen of so prolix and tedious a Writer; who fails not to tyre us with Circumstantial Accounts of things, when they are unenlightning: But here a punctual Relation might have opened Eyes, and made Discoveries; and in such Cases Dr. W's. communicative Temper always fails him.  
I shall supply his Defects as to one of these Instances, a little further than I have done, by transcribing a Passage or two from an old Charter granted to the Church of Worster, and entered in the Register of it. There this Meeting at Cloveshoe (Anno 824.) is called Pontificale & Sinodale Conciliabulum, at which the King, the Bishops, Abbats, & Universi Mercensium Principes, & multi Sapientissimi viri were present. Statut [a] est autem atque decret [a] ab Archiepiscopo, 
['em]  & ab omni Sanctâ Sinodo illâ consentienti▪ ut Episcopus, qui Monasterium & Agellum cum libris haberet, cum juramento Dei Servorum, Presbiterorum, Diaconorum, & plutimorum Monachorum, sibi in propriam possessionem terram illam cum adjuratione adjur [asset], 
[art]  etc. Quaproptersiquis, etc. contra Decreta Sanctorum Canonum sciat se facere; quia Sancti Canones decernunt quicquid Sancta Synodus Universalis cum Catholico Archiepiscopo suo adjudicaverit, nullo modo fractum vel irritum esse faciendum.— The Charter is subscribed by the King, Bishops, Abbats and great Men of the Laiety; and then comes this Note in Saxon, thus Translated by Dugdale 
* Monast. vol. 1. p. 125 : Eidem juramento apud Westmonasterium praestito aderant 50 Sacrifici 
† The Saxons is Masse-preosta [i. e. Missales Presbyteri] in both places. , & 10 Diaconi, & ex omnibus aliis Presbyteris, 160. And after that, this other: Haec sunt Sacrificorum nomina qui juramento illi astiterunt, & idem praestiterunt,— which is followed by the Subscription of 3 Abbats, 47 Presbyters, and 6 Deacons. The Book which furnishes us with this Instrument, is a venerable Monument of Antiquity, reposited in the Cotton Library 
† Tiberius' A. 13. ; it was written about the Conquest, that is, within 250 Years of the Date of this Council, whose constituent parts it thus reckons up; and the Account therefore it gives is as Authentic, as it is Considerable: which are two reasons why Dr. W. should pass it by unobserved.  
The only instance of this kind, I think, which he has prevailed with himself to mention at length, is the Council of Becanceld in 694. where together with the Deuces, Satrapae, Abbates, Abbatissae, there met also Presbyters, and Deacons, who are said in unum glomerati de statu Ecclesiarum Dei pariter tractare; and accordingly in the Subscriptions of that Council yet remaining, there are the Names of 8 Presbyters 
* Spelm. Conc. v. 1. p. 19●.  to be seen. This is so clear a proof of what I am contending for, that allowing the matter of Fact true, there is no evading it. Dr. W. therefore would fain, if he could, have the Account thought Fabulous; if (says he) the Relation be true, it was indeed an Assembly of an Extraordinary Composition 
(a) P. 171. . But if he suspected it not to be true, he would have done well to acquaint us with some of the Grounds of his Suspicions; all which he has discretly kept to himself. And indeed, I cannot imagine what Ground there can be to suspect the Truth of it: There are no Marks of Imposture in it, nothing that disagrees with the Story, or manners of that time. Sir H. Spelman printed it from five good Manuscripts, and one of them, near as Old as the Saxon Age. In the Ancient Saxon Chronicle, there is at the Year 694. a very large and particular account of this Council: and, lest the Dr. should startle at the Abbesses being found in such Company, they are expressly mentioned also by that Chronicle as present. Nor can this be matter of surprise to any one in the least acquainted with the State of those times, when it was not unusual for Women to assist at their Synods, and great Councils; witness the Synod of Nidde 
* Eddius in Vitâ Wilfredi. c. 58. , and that of Streanshealeh, mentioned by Dr. W. 
† P. 166.  as held in the Monastery of Hilda, and in which (though he does not mention it) she herself sat, Argued, and Voted 
‖ See Eddi. c. 10. and Beda Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 25. . Ingulphus who understood the manner of these Saxon Assemblies somewhat better than Dr. W. does, did not suspect a Charter passed in one of them, because he found several Abbesses subscribing their Names to it 
(⸪) P. 17. . And there is reason to be●lieve that this Practice was not confined to the times before the Conquest, but continued long after it; if at least an expression in M. Paris may be relied on, who tells us, That in the Year 1210. venerunt ad Generalem Vocationem [Regis] Abbates, Priores, Abbatissae 
* P. 230. , without any Intimation that the latter of these came by Proxy only, and not Personally to this Meeting.  
What is it then that makes Dr. W. think this to be an Assembly of an Extraordinary Composition? it must be, because he finds Presbyters and Deacons there: but that this is no such Extraordinary Thing, appears from the instances I have already produced, and yet further from these that follow. For,  
In the Year 697. the constitutions of Withered were made by the Bishops, & caeteri Ordines Ecclesiastici illius gentis 
* In a Mixed Council; for the Viri Militares are said to be there. Spel. Conc. V 1. p. 194. ; in which several of the Clergy under Abbats must be included.  
In 747. at another Council at Cloveshoe, together with the King and the Great Men of the Laiety, there are said to meet Praesules, & Plurimi Sacerdotes Domini, & Minores quoque Ecclesiastici Gradùs Dignitates; and these did all (the lowest as well as the highest) de Unitate Ecclesiae, ac statu Christianae Religionis & concordiâ Pacis tractandà confirmandâque pariter considere 
† Malsmb. l. 1. p. 197. .  
In the Legates Relation to Pope Adrian of what passed at the Synod of Calchyth (A. C. 787.) it is said, That every thing was done in Concilio publico coràm Rege Aelsvaldo, & Archiepiscopo Eanbaldo, & omnibus Episcopis & Abbatibus Regionis, seu Senatoribus, & Ducibus, & Populo Terrae 
* Spelm. ibid. p. 300 . And at the Close of the subscriptions we find these words; Hijs quoque saluberrimis Ammonitionibus Presbyteri, Diaconi Ecclesiarum, & abbots Monasteriorum, judices, Optimates, & Nobiles unopere uno ore consentimus, & subscripsimus 
† P. 301. . Which words occur also in a Charter of the Year 996, granted to the Dean of Wolverhampton, in a great Council of the Realm 
⸪ Monast. v. 1. p. 991.   
In a second Synod at Calchyth (Anno 816.) we find the King cum suis Principibus, Ducibus, & Optimatibus: tum undique sacri Ordinis Praesides cum Abbatibus, Presbyteris, Diaconibus, pariter tractantes de necessarijs & utilitatibus Ecclesiarum 
‖ Spelm. 16. p. 328. .  
At the Coronation of King Edgar (Anno. 973.) the Saxon Chronicle tells us, Conrenerat Sacerdotum Caetus, ingens Monachorum turba, sapientumque Concilium 
(⸪) P. 122. .  
By the Sapientes here mentioned, the Laiety are chief to be understood: But in other places, where the lower Clergy are not distinctly named, the Word comprehends Them also, and is designed to express them; of which that passage in Simeon Dunelmensis, where he speaks of the Synod of Finchale (and probably speaks out of the very Acts of that Synod) is a clear Proof: His words are, In diebus justorum Regum, & Ducum bonorum, atque sanctorum Episcoporum, aliorumque Sapientum, Monachorum scil. atque Clericorum, quorum prudentiâ, etc. 
†† X. Script. p. 114.  Lastly,  
At the great Council of Westminster, convened Anno 1066. by Edward the Confessor, upon the Consecration and endowment of that Abbey, there was Generalis totius ferè Nobilitatis Angliae Conventus 
† Hist. Ramseyens c. 120. ; and, on the Church part, Episcopi & Abbates totius Angliae, & Monachi, & Clerici 
† Spelm. ibid. p. 629. , who went aside to excommunicate the Infringers of the Privileges then granted.  
These Instances are so plain as to need no Comment, and to admit no fair Reply. Dr. W. indeed seems to have laid in matter for an Evasion, where he speaks of Ecclesiastical Synods properly so called, at which the King, and his Nobility were present; insinuating, that we are to distinguish these from those mixed Saxon Councils, composed originally, and equally of the Clergy and Laiety. But this is an imaginary Distinction, for which there is no foundation in History. There were indeed in these times Ecclesiastical Synods properly so called, without any intermixture of the Laiety; but there was no Business appropriated particularly to these; the most solemn Church affairs being transacted generally at the State-meetings by the Clergy then assembled; who went aside and consulted among themselves, and then laid the result of their Debates before the great Council of the Realm, in order to be confirmed by them. And wherever therefore we find the several Orders of the Laiety present, we must consider, that that Assembly, where they were present, was a State Council, though matters properly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance were transacted in it. Besides, several of those Councils I have instanced in, had Civil as well as Church-affairs before them, and made Laws in both equally; which is a sure sign that they were not pure Ecclesiastical Synods.  
It may perhaps further be urged, that the Lower Clergy present at these State-Councils, were no part of them, but called only to a Synod by their Metropolitan, at the same time and place that the great Council of the Realm met. But they who shall thus pretend, must produce some good Evidences and Authorities to support this pretence, and not expect that we should take their bare word for it; the common appearances of History being on the other side. However, allowing this Scheme true, yet is it some proof of the Interest which the Inferior Clergy had in those State-meetings, if they were used to assemble together with them, though not in them; this being the only Interest they at present claim.  
Not that I believe them to have had place in all (even the most ordinary and stated) Assemblies, but only in the Greater and more Extraordinary ones; the Wittena-gemots, and Mycel-Synods, the Magna Concilia, and Pleni Folcmoti, which are plainly destinguished from the less Solemn and Numerous Councils; and which met together only ex arduis contingentibus, and legum condendarum Gratiâ, as Sir H. Spelman observes 
† In Voce Gemotum p. 261. ●. : The foundation (as I have said) being laid thus early of that difference, which afterwards more plainly appeared, between Councils, and Parliaments, properly so called; which was no new Institution set up first by the Normans, but the old usage of our Saxon Ancestors, Time without Memory.  
Nor do I suppose that the Clergymen of lower Rank called to these Full Conventions treated always as freely, and acted as authoritatively as the constant and standing Members did: No, I take them as to this, to have been much in the same case with the inferior Laiety, who are said oftentimes to have been present at such great Councils, and to have consented to, and approved what was done there, but not often to have deliberated or determined; just as the Lesser Members of the Germane Colloquia, or Synods (the Patterns of our English ones) are represented by Hincmar 
† In the passage mentioned p. 30. of ●his Book.  to have interposed in them.  
The Doctrine here laid down is no new Scheme of mine, contrived to serve a Turn, but what has in the main been long ago asserted by the Learned Mr. Sheringham, in his Book of the Supremacy. In the Saxon Times (says he) Laws were commonly made by the Approbation and Consent of the Nobles, Archbishops, and Bishops, in a Public Synod or Parliament: sometimes the Queen was present, sometimes the Inferior Clergy, and sometimes also the Commons; but that happened very seldom 
† P. 52. . Which coming from the Pen of one of known skill in our English Antiquities, and in a Treatise not at all designed to assert the Liberty of the Subject, does on both these accounts carry a particular weight with it; and will with those who have a due regard for that excellent Writer, be a strong presumption of the truth of all I have offered on this Argument.  
Another clear proof of the Lower Clergys assisting frequently at those Great Councils, may be drawn from the Subscriptions of Charters, where we frequently meet with Capellani and Presbyteri, and sometimes with simple Deacons, among the other Witnesses. One instance or two have been given already, to which these following one's may be added.  
A Charter of King Ethelred 
(⸪) So it should be, though the MS. by the mistake of the Scribe, puts Edgar instead of Ethelred.  to the Church of Paul's (Ann. 867.) is subscribed by several Ministri, Abbates, & Presbyteri intermingled 
† Lib. MS. Paul. Eccl. notat. B. f. 20. a. .  
In another of the same Prince to the same Church, after the Bishops, Deuces & Satrapae, two Presbyters and a Deacon follow. 
* Ib. fol. 21.   
The Saxon Chronicle affords us one of these Instruments (with all the subscriptions at length) which belonged to the Church of Peterborough, and was framed A. D. 664. and to this also Eoppa Presbyter, and Wilfridus Presbyter are Witnesses 
† P. 37. .  
But the two Charters of King Edgar to the Monasteries of Westminster and Ramsey, are in this respect most observable. To the first, after the King, his Sons, 14 Bishops, and 11 Abbats, 9 Presbyters subscribe; and the last of these thus Writes, Ego Oswardus Presbyter cum supradictis, & cum aliis 107 Presbyteris, infractores hujus firmitatis excommunicavi. Nine Deuces follow, and after them this Note: Ad ultimum itaque unà cum Rege & Filiis ejus nos omnes Confratres & Coepiscopi, & cum totâ hâc populosâ & sanctâ Synodo ejusdem loci, omnes futuros Abbates, etc. contestamur— Quatenus, etc. Quod si aliquis praesumpserit, illum sicut Violatorem atque Transgressorem hujus Nostri Decreti, imò Apostolici, ante summum judicem, cùm venerit saeculum judicare per ignem, responsurum super hâc re invitamus 
† Cartularium Caenobii Westm. in tit. Sulcardus. Bibl. Cot. Faustina. A. 3. fol, 11. . That to the Monastery of Ramsey is signed by fix Presbyters, and the last of the six adds also, Ego Aethelsi Presbyter cum supradictis & aliis quamplurimis Presbyteris infractores hujus firmitatis excommunicavi. It passed in a mixed Council of those times, cùm in Natali Dominico (as the Charter speaks) omnes Majores totius regni mei, tam Ecclesiasticae Personae quam Saeculares, ad Curiam meam celebrandae mecum festivitatis gratiâ convenissent. The Alii Quamplurimi Presbyteri are also mentioned once again in the Body of it; and in the Close this Passage occurs, Post hujus itaque Privilegii donationem excommunicaverunt omnes Episcopi, Abbates, Presbyteri, qui in plurimâ numerositate eodem die affuerunt, eos qui hoc institutum in fringerent, etc. 
† Monast. vol. 1. pp. 235, 236.   
To which I shall add a like Passage from the Confessor's Privilege to the Church of Westminster; Post hanc Donationem excommunicaverunt omnes Episcopi & Abbates totius Angliae, & Monachi, ac Clerici, eos qui hoc constitutum infringerent 
‖ Ibid. p. 61 .  
I could multiply Instances of this kind, but I forbear; because these, I think, are sufficient to show, that the Inferior Clergy were an usual Part of the great Saxon Councils; since their Names are often either added to, or mentioned in those Charters, which passed in such Councils, and which were not otherwise held Valid and Binding; as appears by a remarkable Instance, briefly set down in the Evidentiae Cantuarienses 
* X. Script p. 2218. , but more largely explained by the Monasticon 
† Egbertus & Athelwolf filius ejus dederunt Ecclesiae Christi, etc. quod Manerium priùs eïdem Ecclesiae dedit Baldredus Rex: Sed quia non fuit de consensu Magnatum regni, donum id non potuit valere. Et ideò isto anno in Concilio apud Kingstone celebrato ab Archiepiscopo ●eolnotho restauratum est Ecclesiae antedictae. Vol. 1. p. 20. , out of another Writer. And if in the Subscriptions to many other such Privileges and Muniments, we find none of the Clergy under Abbats, that is not to be wondered at; since the Members only of highest Rank and Dignity were used to sign, though all consented; as we have already 
* See p. 32. of this Book.  heard from Ingulphus, and may from the following Passages in some of the Conqueror's Charters further learn. One of them made in the 15 th'. Year of his Reign thus concludes, Convenientibus in unum cunctis Patriae Primatibus in Nativitate domini, etc. Scripta est haec Charta & auctorisata, & ab Excellentioribus Regni Personis Testificata, & Confirmata, & Corroborata 
* Sulcardus f. 42. . In another of the Year 1075, passed in an Universal Synod, as the word there is, the Conqueror decrees, Communi Consensu, maximè Episcoporum, Abbatum, & aliorum in signium nostrorum Procerum 
(⸪) Ib. fol. 39 . And in a third, granted A. D. 1077. the subscriptions are but few: However the Members composing that Synod where it passed (the Charter itself tells us) were Numerous, and all these are said Hanc eandem [Chartam] cooperante sibi in omnibus Divin â Pietate honorific è perficientes complevisse. Quorum igitur Memoriam & Nomina singulatim exprimere, & huic Paginulae longum & fastidiosum videtur exprimere 
† Ibid. p. 38. . So that tho' the Subscriptions of Charters inform us clearly who were Members of those great Councils, yet do they not show us also who were not; since Multitudes were Present at such Meetings, who yet did not Subscribe.  
It is not however improbable, that under the Title of Ministri, some of the Inferior Clergy might often be comprehended; especially when these Ministri signed, as they sometimes did, in great Numbers, and so as to bear no Proportion to the other Ranks of Witnesses, either of the Clergy, or Laiety 
† Thus a Charter granted to the Monastery of Abingdon is attested by 60 Ministri, 7 Deuces, and 8 Bishops. Monast. v. 1. p. 103. . This will seem a Paradox; however, there is more to be said for it, than at first sight may be imagined. For as Minister, and Thane, were words Equivalent, so it is certain that the latter of these was applied frequently to Spiritual Persons; sometimes to Bishops 
† Adeò ut multi de Nobilissimis Thanis mortem obirent.— Eorum unus fuit Swithulfus Episcopus de Hrofceaster. Chron. Sax. p. 97. , but more often to Presbyters, who in Athelstan's Laws, are termed 
* Apud Jorval. pp. 845.846.  Messe-Thegnes, [or Thanes Spiritual] in opposition to Woruld Thegnes [or Thanes Temporal] and were at other times called Ministri Dei 
‖ Ibid. p. 841. , and Theo-Thayni, if the Manuscript Note of a learned Person does not deceive me. In a certain Charter I find one Ethelwald thus signing, Wintoniensis Ecclesiae Minister & Glastoniae Monachus 
† Monast. vol. 1▪ p. 17. ; in another, Ego Ingvaldus Presbyter, & humilis Minister vocatus audivi 
* Ingulph. p. 4. . Sir H. Spelman further says, that the Religiosi are sometimes in old Books called Ministeriales 
(⸪) Glossar. in voc Minister. , and that in doomsday the Terra Tainorum Ecclesiae is often expressly mentioned 
* Reliq. Spelman n. p. 42. . Dr. Brady adds, that under the Title of Terra Tainorum Regis, the Lands of Priests, and other Inferior Clergymen are often included 
* Introd. App. p. 21. . However, this I propose as a Conjecture only, to be admitted or refused, as the Men of more skill in these Matters shall agree upon it: That which I insist on, is, that the Attestations and Style of these Charters make it manifest, that many of the Lower Clergy had place in those great Councils which confirmed them. How, and in what Capacity they were summoned thither; whether as representing any part of the Spiritualty, or as the King's immediate Servants and Dependants, (his Hand-Preosts, and Hir'd-Cleres, as the Capellani and Presbyteri Regis are in the Saxon Chronicle oddly called) is another Enquiry, which it is not very easy, nor very necessary at present to determine.  
Nor matters it much, whether the Charters I have vouched be all Genuine, or not: for supposing them forged, they must be allowed at least to be well counterfited; or else they would not have passed upon knowing Men, when first produced. The Monks, who Coined them, were no Bunglers; but understood very well the state of those Times to which they adjusted these Instruments, and drew them, no doubt, according to authentic Forms and Patterns. And a Testimony therefore taken from thence concerning the Customs and Usages of those times holds near as well, as if they were confessedly Genuine, and of the very Age they pretend.  
At the bottom of these Instruments 
* See Evidentiae Cant. col. 2212. , and of some Ecclesiastical Synods 
† See Spelm. Conc. V 1. pp. 328. & 325. , among the other Inferior Clerks, Archdeacon's now and then appear; and those not Titular ones only, but such as had Authority, and held their Courts for Matters Spiritual, even in the Saxon times; whatever a late Writer 
⸪ Nicolson Hist. Lib. Vol. 3. p. 207.  pretends to the contrary, who both as an Antiquary, and an Archdeacon, should have understood this point better. The Words of the Conquerors Writ, whereby he separated the two Jurisdictions, are a plain Proof of this; for they run— Nullus Episcopus, vel Archidiaconus de Legibus Episcopalibus ampliùs in Hundret Placita teneat, etc. which implys the Archdeacon's to have exercised Jurisdiction in the Hundred Courts before the Conqueror came in; especially, if we add the Praefatory Words of that Writ, where he styles these Usages such as had obtained in regno Anglorum usque ad mea tempora. But because this matter is with so much assurance denied by that Writer, and is generally so much mistaken, it may not be amiss, to add a few Instances more; some of which carry the Proof of it above an hundred Years higher than the Aera pretended. Sir H. Spelman's Opinion in this Case is of Great Weight, and may go for a General Proof: His Words are, The Archdeacon, in the Saxon times, had a superintendent Power over all Parochial Parsons in every Deanery of his Precinct 
* Rel. Spelm. p. 50 . The Acts of the Synod of Worster, Printed by Mr. Wharton 
† A. S. vol. 1. p. 543. , recite a Constitution of St. Dunstan and Archbishop Oswald, made about the middle of the X th'. Century, which ordains, qùod nullus Decanus, nullus Archidiaconus de Monachorum Ecclesiis vel Clericis se intromittat, nisi per Priorem Ecclesiae [Wigorn]. And there is an Elder Charter of this Dunstan, while Bishop of London, still preserved 
* In Cartulario Westm. Faustina A. 3. f. 13  whereby he grants a burying place to the Church of Westminster, so that whosoever petierit se ibi sepeliri, non impediatur vel ab Episcopo, vel ab Archidiacono, vel à Parochiano suo Presbytero. The Northumbrian Canons also, framed not much after, set this point beyond dispute: Two of these are,  
6. Si Presbyter Edictum Archidiaconi non exequatur, XII Oris eluito.  
7. Si Presbyter reus criminis contra Archidiaconi Prohibitionem Missam celebraverit, XII Oris dependito. 
† Spelm. Conc. V 1. p. 496.  And methinks this Last Instance at least might have been known to a man who professes to have made the Antiquitys of our Northern Countys his Peculiar Study; and has ventured to add his insipid Remarks to those of the Learned Cambden, particularly in that of Northumberland.  
'Tis true, the Great Man he mentions, places the Rise of the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction no higher than He does: but That was in favour to his Own Order; in which cases the Best and Greatest Men are not always so Discerning, or so Indifferent as they ought to be. It was a slip of that truly Great Man's Memory, who had not then the words of the Conquerors Writ in his View, which prove the contrary: whereas our Archdeacon sleepily produces those very words 
† P. 207.  but a Page or two before he espouses this Opinion.  
Nor can he pretend, that he is speaking only of the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction, when it became Independent of the Bishops; whereas till the Conquest, he acted merely as a Deputy: for besides that this is more than He knows, his Words are plain, that the Archdeacon's had no jurisdiction in the Saxon times, their whole Business being to attend the Bishops at Ordinations, and other Public Services in the Cathedral 
* P. 209. . And the same is said, but in more forcible Terms, by the Great Man whose Opinion he implicitly transcribes, and approves. But we are not to wonder, that He who so Liberally gives up the General Rights of his Church, should be as ready to quit any Particular Point that is to the Advantage of his Own Office and Authority.  
He makes amends however a little afterwards 
* P. 210. , and learnedly proves, that the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction must be somewhat older than the Council of Clarendon, from some Trite Passages in those Constitutions, so notoriously known, that they have not escaped even Dr. W's Enquiries 
† See p. 125 . But if he must needs have produced a Proof of this lower than the Conquest, why was not the Council of London under H. the I. thought of? where it was decreed 
* Eadmer. Hist. Nor. L. 4. p. 95. , that the Archdeacon's should take an Oath about the Execution of the Canons then made; not to connive at the Breach of them for Money, but severely to punish Offenders. This would have carried his Proof between 30 and 40 Years higher than the Council of Clarendon, and would have showed his Reader, that he did, not upon such Heads as these, content himself barely to transcribe those, who had transcribed others; but conversed with Original Authors.  
To make all he says on this occasion of a Piece, he further adds, That we should not have known that the Bishops and Archdeacon's were forbidden by the Conqueror to mix jurisdiction with the Earl, etc. in the Hundred, or Shiregemots, but for an Inspeximus, 1. R. 2. m. 12. n. 5 
† P. 72. . Not have known it! Why, there are divers Authentic Manuscript Copies, or Accounts of it yet in being, writ long before the time he talks of. Particularly one entered in the Register of Winchelsey 
† Fol. 1. , where the Clergy in their Roll of Grievances recite it. Sir R. Twysden saw another of the Hand of E. the I. 
⸪ Hist. Vind. p. 99  Dugdale, in the Instruments relating to Paul's, 
* A●p. p. 196.  has Printed a third of the same Age: And a much Ancienter Copy than any of these is to be found in one of the Old Books of that Church, 
‖ Lib. B. versùs finem.  writ about the Reign of R. I. between which, and that of R. II. there is almost 200 Years distance, as my Almanac tells me. Mr. Archdeacon might have modestly said indeed, that He himself had not known of this Charter, without that Inspeximus; and some People would be apt to add, nor with it neither, if he had been to fetch his Intelligence from the Records of the Tower: With which had he been acquainted, he would have known, that this Inspeximus was of the 2 d. not of the 1st. Year of R. II. as he imagines.  
This, I am sensible, is a Digression; but I shall make no Apology for it, either to Mr. Nicholson, or the Reader: The One of these, I hope, will overlook it, if he does not like it; and the other may censure it in what manner he pleases.  
Having shown, that there was by our Original Constitution a difference between the Greater and Lesser Councils of the Realm in the Saxon times; and this Distinction being yet more Evident in the Latter Ages, from the middle of E. the I. downwards; as our Records, preserved pretty well throughout this space of time, abundantly testify: We cannot doubt, but that the same Distinction is applicable also to the Intermediate Period; and that the Conqueror, and his nearest Successors had also their Magna Concilia (called afterwards Full Parliaments) to which the Summons of their Subjects, both of the Clergy and Laiety was more General, and the Resort more Numerous, than to their Ordinary Courts and Councils, which were held the more, for the dispatch of common Business, and at stated Times. And in such Extraordinary Meetings it is, that we must chief expect to hear of the Inferior Clergys' appearance.  
Accordingly in one of them, held in the 11 th'. Year of William the I. we find, that a Charter then granted to the Monastery of Westminster is subscribed by Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Comites, & alii Seniores, etc. multis praeterea Illustrium Virorum Personis & Regni Principibus diversi Ordinis omissis, qui similiter suae Confirmationi piissimo affectu Testes & Fautores fuerunt. Hii etiam illo tempore à Regiâ Po●estate è diversis Provinciis & Urbibus ad Universalem Synodum, pro causis cujuslibet Sanctae Ecclesiae audiendis & tractandis ad praescriptum celeberrimum Canobium, quod Westmonasteriense dicitur, convocati 
* Spelm. Conc. Vol. 2. p. 14. . It is plain, this was a mixed Meeting of the Temporalty, and Spiritualty, such as were in use among the Saxons. Who were there on the Lay part, it is not my Business to inquire: however, They who restrain the words most as to Them, yet allow, that they must be understood to take in Deans, Archdeacon's, and other Dignifyed Persons of the Clergy 
† Dr. Brady Introd. p. 302. . This was an Extraordinary Assembly; the Conqueror is known also to have had his more Ordinary Courts, which were held every Year at the Three Great Festivals, and at which he appeared, Crowned and Robbed, in great State and Splendour. And of what Persons, These were composed we learn from the Saxon Annals, where they are thus reckoned up; Archbishops, Bishops and Abbots, Earls, Thanes and Knights 
* P. 190. , i. e. all who held by Knight-service. And among These, that several of the Lower Clergy had place, appears from the Survey of Doomsday; upon which, we are told, there were found in England 60215 Knights Fees; and of these the Religious possessed 28015, the Vills 1080, and Parochial Churches 4711 
† Author Eulogii MS. apud. Selden. Tit Hon. . There is no doubt, but the Priests of these Parochial Churches, as well as the King's Tenants in those Towns and Burroughs, were present, or represented in his Curiae, whenever they assembled. And among Those who are termed Religious, and who had in them near half the Knights-Fees of all England, there were, to be sure, some of the Saecular Clergy above Parish Priests, and below Bishops. And these too appeared among his Tenants in chief, at such Assemblies; and are comprehended in that General account given of one of these Courts in a Cotton-Manuscript— Convenerunt ad Regalem Curiam 
† An. 1072.  apud Civitatem Wentanam in Paschali Solemnitate Episcopi, Abbates, caeteri ex Sacro & Laïcali Ordine 
* Cleop. E. 1.7. . Whether more of the Clergy than these, even some who held in Frank-almoigne, might not be present at that Extraordinary Convention at Sarum, to which all the [Terrarii] or Landholders of note in England, repaired, cujuscunque Foedi fuissent, (as M. Paris 
† Ad ann. 1084. Cujuscunque feudi vel tenementi fuissent. , the Waverly-Annals 
† Ad ann. 1086. , and Huntingdon 
⸪ P. 370. But he places it in the Conqueror's 19 th'. Year.  expressly speak) may be worth an Enquiry.  
In his Son H. the I's time▪ a Parliament met at London 
⸪ An. 1102 , and there the Spiritualty went aside, and made several Ecclesiastical Constitutions 
† Eadmerus p. 67. . The Lower Saecular Clergy therefore were there, whose consent to the framing of Canons was requisite; and so Hemingford's Relation of it plainly implys; statuerunt (says he) Archiepiscopi, & Episcopi cum Clero— which word, Clerus, when opposed to Archbishops, and Bishops, must signify some of the Inferior Saeculars or Regulars, and not merely Abbats and Priors.  
In the Council of Gloster, Ann. 1123. (which Hemingford has confounded with the former) William de Corboyl was chosen Archbishop of Cant. 
Sim. Dunelm p. 247.  But not being a Religious, as all the Archbishops of Cant. from Austin down to his time had been, the Prior and Monks of Cant. opposed his Election, and so did all the other Monks of the several Orders there present; with whom most of the Earls and Thanes also sided; if the Monk of Peterborough be not partial in his Story 
† Prior & Monachi de Cantwarabyrig, omnesque alii Monarchici Ordinis Viri, qui ibi fuerunt, oppugnarunt illud integrum biduum, etc. Tunc elegerunt quendam Clericum W. de Curboil nomine, etc. & Rex dedit ei Episcopatum: ac omnes Episcopi eum susceperunt— verùm rejecerunt Monachi, & Comites, & Thani pene omnes qui interfuerunt. Chron. Sax. p. 225. . Monks only are mentioned here, because They only were engaged in the Struggle.  
In King Stephen's time the Lower Clergys' Interest in these State-meetings is set in something a better Light by a Passage in a Charter of his to the Church of Westminster, which recites, that in his third Year 
* An. 1138.  there was at Westminster, Universals totius Angliae Concilium, at which affuerunt quidam Comites Regni mei, & Barones mei quam plurimi, & innumera Multitudo Cleri & Populi 
* The Historians speak of this Meeting in the very same words, particularly Gervasius; who after saying, there were 17 Bishops, and 30 Abbats there, adds, cum Cleri & Populi multitudine numerosâ. X. Script. p. 1347. So also Continuator Florentii, ad ann. & Hagustald. p. 327. , qui hiis omnibus interfuerunt, & religioso favore Voluntatem & Assensum Auctoritatis, nostrae Paginae & Privilegio praebuerunt 
† Sulcard. fol. 60. .  
M. Paris' Expressions relating to the following Reign, are yet Clearer. There were summoned, he says (2 H. 2.) Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, multarumque Ecclesiarum Praelati, cum Comitibus, & Baronibus totius regni, ut negotia Regni & Ecclesiae pertractarent 
† V Abb. S. Aug. p. 79. . And these last Words are probably those of the Writ itself, by which they were summoned; and which lay before Paris, in the Register of St. Alban, that he was then transcribing. In 1162, he tells us that the Universitas Episcoporum, Abbatum, & aliorum Magnatum met at Westminster 
† V Abb. S. Aug. p. 79. : and these Alii Magnates are in his History explained by Comites, Barones, Archidiaconi, & innumera turba regni 
* P. 99 l. 1. . And to the Articles of Clarendon, in 1164, he says there swore Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Clerus, cum Comitibus, ac Baronibus, & Proceribus cunctis; and this, not afterwards, but upon the spot, Viuâ voce, in that very meeting where these Constitutions were made.  
With these accounts agree those which Gervase of Dover has given us of some Great Councils in the same Reign. That at Northampton in 1157, was composed, he says, of the Praesules & Principes regni, Abbates nonnulli, aliaeque inferioris ordinis personae. And of another in 1168 he particularly observes, that the Subprior and Monks of Cant. had their Writ to come to it 
† Convocati sunt, illicò apud London Praesules & Praelati & Proceres, ut contra mandata Alexandri Papae & Archiepiscopi omnes appellarent. Sed & Monachi Cant. ad idem sunt Evocati. Act. Pontif. p. 1671. And to this, or some such other Meeting, the following passage in his Chronicle refers. Congregatio Episcoporum & Abbatum, & aliarum personarum Ecclesiasticarum apud Londonias facta est. Sed & Subprior & Monachi Cant. Ecclesiae Imperio Regis jussi sunt etiam adesse. p. 1404. . He mentions Those only, because He himself was one of their Number.  
And in the last Year of this Prince 
* An. 1188  we are by Hoveden told, that he did Magnum celebrare Concilium Episcoporum, Abbatum, Comitum, & Baronum, & aliorum multorum tam Clericorum quam Laicorum 
† P. 642. .  
In the 6 R. I. the same Writer informs us that the Bishops, Earls and Barons were called to the Commune Concilium regni; and the first day that they met, the Archbishops, the Bishops, Abbats, & Clerici multi Cant. Diocese. 
* i e. Province.  went aside into the Chapel of the Infirmary at Westminster, and Excommunicated Earl john, and all his Adherents †.  
5 to. joh. Military Aids were given the King by his Great Men in a Colloquium at Oxford: Nec etiam Episcopi & Abbates, sive Ecclesiasticae Personae, sine promissione recesserunt 
‖ M. Par. p. 209.52. .  
17 o. joh. Convocatum est Parliamentum Londoniis, praesidente Archiepiscopo cum toto Clero, & tota Secta Laïcali 
⸪ Author Eulogii apud Selden. Tit. Hon. part 2. c. 5.  Which Expression, how forcible soever, yet being General, I should not have mentioned, had not the Learned Sir R. Cotton made use of it before, to show, that the Inferior Ministers of the Church, as well as Bishops, had suffrage in Parliament 
† Remains p. 209. .  
Indeed some of this Princes Great Councils seem, as to the Spiritual part of them, to have been composed only of Bishops, Abbats and Priors; as may probably be collected from a Writ in his 8 th'. Year 
† Pat. 8. joh. m. 1. apud Pryn. Parl. Wr. 1 Vol. Praef. , reciting, that these Great Clergymen had granted him an Aid in Parliament; and demanding the like Aid of the Saecular Clergy of the Province of Cant. below Bishops, then assembled in Convocation. However in others of them, more of the Clergy were plainly present; particularly in one 15 to. joh. at London, to which Stephanus Cant. Arch. cum Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Decanis, & Baronibus regni is said to have come *. And the Archdeacon's, though not specified were probably there; for the Clergy we find, went Synodically apart, and made Canons; which implys the Presence and Concurrence of the Archdeacon's, who were a necessary part of every Synod; and had therefore, almost an 100 years before this, been summoned particularly by the Archbishop to the Council of London 
† An. 1125 See the Archbishops Writ of Summons in Spelm. Conc. Vol. 2. p. 33. taken out of the Codex Landavensis. 'Tis the most ancient Summons of any kind that I have ever observed. .  
In the next Reign, the Archdeacon's presence in Parliament is frequently taken notice of by our Historians, as may appear from the following Passages in M. Paris, and the Annals of Burton.  
1231 1231/2 2 XVI. Cal. jan. habitum est apud S. Albanum ingens Consistorium Abbatum, Priorum, Archidiaconorum, cum ferè totâ Nobilitate regni, Magistrorum, & Clericorum— M. Par. p. 372.  
1247. Fecit Dominus Rex Magnates suos, nec non & Angliae Archidiaconos per Scripta sua Regia Londinum evocari. Ib. p. 719. & again, Convenerant etiam tùnc ibidem, ut praetactum est, Archidiaconi Angliae, nec non & totius Cleri pars non minîma, cum ipsis Magnatibus conquerentes communiter super intolerabilibus & frequentibus Exactionibus domini Papae.— Tandem de Communi Consilio provisum est, ut Gravamina terrae domino Papae seriatim monstrarentur ex parte Communitatis totius Cleri & Populi regni Anglicani. pp. 720, 721.  
1255. Post festum S t. Mich. tenuit Rex Parliamentum suum apud Westminster, convocatis ibidem Episcopis, Abbatibus, & Prioribus, Comitibus, & Baronibus, & totius Regni Majoribus, in quo petebat a Clero de Laïcis Foedis suis sibi [Suffragium] 
* Subsidium.  exhiberi— disponens hoc priùs a Clero, & post eà à Populo Majori & Minori extorquere. Episcopi vero, Abbates, Priores, & Procuratores qui ibidem pro Universitate affuerunt, nolentes huic exactioni adquiescere— Gravamina summo Pontifici sub sigillis destinarunt, Quorum Tenor Talis est.  
De Archidiaconatu Lincolniae Articuli pro Communitate. Procuratores Beneficiatorum Archidiaconatûs Lincoln, pro totâ Communitate proponunt, etc. Ann. Burt. pp. 355, 356.  
1256. A Writ from the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry to the Archdeacon of Stafford, commanding him to collect the Papal Procurations, ipsam Pecuniam tali die in Parliamento Londoniensi nobis assignantes (Ibid. p. 372.) Which supposes the Archdeacon's Then to have attended the Parliament. And accordingly the next time it was assembled, we again find them there: For a Debate arising, this Resolution was taken; Commune Concilium super hoc resedit, quod Decani, Praelati Regulares, ac Archidiaconi tractabunt cum suis Capitulis & Clericis ita quod ad mensem post Pascha redeant per Procuratores instructos ad plenè respondendum (Ann. Burt. p. 374.) The meaning of which was, that the Deans, Priors and Archdeacon's appeared in Parliament, not for themselves alone, but for the whole Clergy of the Body, or District over which they presided; bringing up from them Procuratorial Letters 
† See a Bishop's Mandate to this purpose, in the next Year (1257) which runs, ut praedicti Dicanus & Prior dictarum Cathedralium Ecclesiarum [Cou. & Litchf.], Abbates, & alii Priores, cum Literis Procuratoriis nomine Congregationum suarum confectis, ac dicti Archidiaconi cum Literis similibus factis ex parte Clericorum qui subsunt eïsdem— dictis die & loco peronaliter intersint. Ann. Burt. p. 382. This Summons was purely Synodical. P. 9 of this Book, I have given two Instances, wherein the same method was at this time practised in relation to the Parliament. , in which their Powers were sometimes specified, and limited: and this made a Recourse to their Principals necessary, as often as any thing was proposed, that exceeded the Limits of those Powers. This was by way of Indulgence to the Lesser Clergy, in times, when Summons to Parliaments were very frequent, and consequently Attendance there very Expensive and Troublesome. And the constitution of Reading therefore (so often cited) which first made distinct Proctors from the Rural Clarks of every Diocese, a fixed and necessary part of the Clergys' Parliamentary Assemblies, did it not as a Privilege, but a Burden: for it commands them to be returned, etiamsi de Conturbatione vel Expensis oporteat fieri mentionem, i. e. notwithstanding the Trouble and Charge it might be to them. This they felt not, while the Archdeacon's were Commissioned to act for them; who being bound Themselves to attend in Person, by taking Procuratoria from the Inferior Clerks, lessened Their Charge, without increasing their Own: But assoon as the Clergy sent up Distinct Proctors, they were obliged to maintain them.  
The Laiety, I find, were at this time indulged in like manner, but in an Higher Degree: for in the Parliament of Oxford (Ann. 1258.) this Memorable Provision was made, which I shall for more than one reason here insert entirely.  
Si fet a remembrer ke le Commun es●ise XII prodes homes ke vendrunt as Parlemenz (which by the last Article were to be held three times every Year) & autre fez quant mester serra, quant Rei, u sun Cunseil, les mandera pur treter de bosoingnes del Rei & del Reaume. Et ke le Commun tendra pur estable cer ke ces XII. frunt: & ceo sirrah fet pur esparnier le Cust del Commun 
† Ann. Burt. p. 416. .  
These Words, at first sight, might pass well enough for a Proof, that the Commons of England, properly so called, were now represented in Parliament. But upon comparing the several parts of the Relation, it appears, that these very Twelve, who are here said to be elected par le Commun, are in another place mentioned as chosen by the Barons. And therefore the Community here spoken of, must be the Community of the Baronage, or Military Tenants, who (the Highest as well as the Lowest) did, it seems, empower this Committee of Twelve to act for them in the three Annual Parliaments then appointed to be held. And These, together with the King's Council of Fifteen (at the same time chosen) had Authority to make Acts and Ordinances; as appears evidently from the Provisions published the next Year, in the Parliament at Westminster, of which it is said— Ces sunt les Purveances & les Establissimentz ●aitz a Westmoster all Parliament, a la saint Michael, par le Rei & sun Conseil 
† Who the King's Council were, appears p. 413 , & les XII par le Commun Conseil esluz, (after which these remarkable Words follow) par devant le Communance de Engleterre, ke dunke fu a Westmuster, le an del regne Henry le fiz le Rei johan quarantieme terz 
* Ibid. p. 435. . The Community of England therefore, as distinguished from the Community of Barons, or Great Tenants in Chief, (represented here by the Committee of XII) were at, and of this Assembly; though the Enacting part of the Provisions then passed, did not run in Their Name, whose proper Province it was to Represent, and to Petition. Accordingly at their Instance these very Provisions were made, as the same Annals inform us,— Significavit Communitas Bacheleriae Angliae Domino Edvardo filio regis, Comiti Gloverniae, & aliis juratis de Concilio Regis apud Oxoniam, quòd dominus Rex totaliter fecerat & adimplevit omnia & singula quae providerant Barones, & sibi imposuerant facienda; & quòd ipsi Barones nihil ad utilitatem reipublicae sicut promiserant fecerunt, nisi Commodum Proprium & Damnum Regis ubique; & quòd nisi inde fieret Emendatio, alia ratio Pactum reformaret.— Upon which it follows— Tandem videntes Barones magis expedire promissa sua per seipsos adimpleri quàm per alios, publicè fecerunt Provisiones suas promulgari subsequentes 
* pp. 427, 428. . Here the Communitas Bacheleriae Angliae are the same with the Communance de Engleterre before mentioned: And that These were no Tumultuary Rabble, but a Constituent Part of the Parliament, who had an Interest there, and a Power of acting within their proper Sphere, is manifest from their threatening the Barons, that if they did not publish the Provisions agreed on at Oxford, they would do it themselves; that is, they would step out of their Circle, and Ordain, whereas they were used only to Represent, or to Petition.  
And that this word, Bachelors, was then applied to the Commonalty, as we now understand the word, may be gathered, I think, from another Writer 
* Wykes. , who a few Years after this tells us, that the Inferior sort of People, who in every Town and Borough, did without, and against the Governing part of it combine together for the Redress of Grievances, styled themselves by this Name; in imitation, I suppose, of the great Communitas Bacheleriae Angliae, who pushed on this Reformation in Parliament. Indeed Wykes, a Warm Advocate for the Crown, uses the word there in an angry and reproachful Sense; the Licentiousness, and Disorders of those Times having distasted him: but that it had a more Honourable Meaning some Years before this M. Paris shows 
† Ad Ann. 1244. ; and that it recovered its Credit again, and was long afterwards employed to signify those Commoners of Lower Rank, who had place in Parliament, take these two Instances out of many.  
Rex die crastino Coronationis suae de assensu Baronum sibi assistentium delegit & per Literas suas Patentes vocavit & constituit duos Episcopos, duos Comites, duos Barones, duos Bannerettos, & quatuor Bachiliers de Consilio, Statu, Honore, & Emolumento Regis & Regni procurando & ordinando, etc. Rot. Pat. 1. R. 2. p. 2. m. 16.  
And again in the last Year of this Prince, the Lower House of Parliament are, in the Instrument of his Deposition 
* See it ad calcem X Script. , more than once called The Bachelors and Commons of this Land.  
Upon the Whole therefore I must needs, till I am better informed, think this a clear Proof, that the Commons, properly so called, had Interest in Parliament, before the 49 H. III; notwithstanding what has been said to the contrary by some Learned Persons, whom for their great Skill in our English Antiquitys I honour. And with due Reverence to Them, I shall (since I am upon this Head) beg Leave further to say; That had such a Change happened all at once, in this Point of time which they have pitched upon, some of our English Annals would to be sure have taken notice of it: which yet I do not find that any One of them has done. On the contrary, several of them speak of the Parliaments preceding this in Terms that imply them to have been at least as Numerous. For instance, a Parliament in the 48. H. III. is thus described by Matth. of Westminster, Maxima cöadunatur Congregatio Londini Procerum & caeterorum Praelatorum regni, quanta non est visa longo tempore in Angliâ 
* P. 384. To this Parliament the Record (printed by Mr. Petyt Miscell. Parl. p. 41.) refers, which contains a Form of Peace à Domino Rege, & Domino Edmundo, Praelatis & Proceribus, & Communitate totâ regni Angliae communiter & concorditer approbata. It was sealed in Parliament, de consensu, voluntate, & praecepto domini Regis, nec non Praelatorum, Procerum, ac etiam Communitatis, tunc ibidem praesentium. Rot. Parl. 48. H. III. pars. unic. m. 6. dors. in Scaccario. ; and of another in the same year, he says, M●gnum celebratum est Parliamentum Londini 
† Ibid. : the very word that is used of that in the 49 II. III. by the, Annals of Waverley 
⸪ P. 216. ; which Wykes passes over with this mention only, Convocatio non mimima Procerum Anglicorum 
† P. 65. . This was, I know, a very busy and bloody Year, and bred much business for the Pens of our Historians: However no Passage in it could be more Considerable than this of the Enlargement of our Great Councils, had it then newly happened; nor would have deserved better to be recorded. When the Clause, Premunientes, was first inserted into the Bishop's Writ, our Histories take notice of it 
⸪ Knighton. Annal. Winton. Chron. Abendon. ; and so they would (some of them at least) of these New Writs for the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, had they than first issued out. 'Tis true, the same Objection lies against fixing the Date of this Change in any Year, if it were necessary to fix it in any, which I suppose it is not: the Alteration being, as I apprehend, not made all at once, by any sudden and Violent Shock in the Government; but introduced leisurely, and by easy degrees, according as the Exigences of the Times, and the Designs of the Parties th●n contending either for Empire, or Liberty would allow of it: the Barons favouring the growth of the Commons Interest in Parliament, as promising themselves from thence an assistance toward making their stand against the Crown; and the King hoping also by Their Means to be the better able to curb his Troublesome Barons. And the steps by which their Parliamentary Interest grew to the full Height wherein we find it, toward the Latter End of H. the III, were such as These. Sometimes the King wanted an Account of the Ancient Customs and Usages of the Realm, and directed Writs therefore to the Sheriffs, to return a certain Number of Knights for every County, to inform Him, and his Great Council concerning them: This was practised in the Conqueror's Reign 
† Chronic. Litchfeld. apud Selden. in Eadm. p. 172. . At other times, when the People had lain under Great Oppressions and Grievances, the Shires were ordered to send up each their Representatives, who should lay the Particulars before the King and his Nobles: Such a Summons went out in the 15 th'. Year of King john 
* M. Par. p. 239. . And the same Year also there was a more General General Call of Quatuor Discreti Milites de quolibet Comitatu, ad loquendum nobiscum de Negotiis regni nostri 
† Cl. 15. joh. pt. 2. m. 7. dors. apud Seld. T. H. p. 587. ; without specifying the Particular Business about which they were summoned. Sometimes these Knights were, together with the Sheriffs, to appear in Parliament, and account for their several Shires, in relation to some Subsidies formerly granted, the Collection of which they had been appointed to take care off 
(⸪) Cl. 4. H. 3. m. 5. dors. : sometimes they were called up in order to a Grant; ad providendum (as the Words of the Writ are 
⸫ Cl. 38. H. 3. m. 7. & 12. dors. ) unà cum Militibus aliorum Comitatuum, quos ad eundem diem vocari fecimus, quale Auxilium nobis in tantâ necessitate impendere voluerint. They were to take their Instructions from a Country-Meeting, where the Busyness of this Assembly was previously to be debated, and the Result of those Debates was to be laid before the King and his Great Council, by these special Messengers, quos iidem Comitatus elegerint, vice omnium & singulorum eorundem. By these, and such steps of these, the Commons recovered their Privileges, which the Norman Conquest seems to have eclypsed a little, without extinguishing; and not only recovered, but enlarged 'em: till they came at last, about the End of H. the III. to that Height of Parliamentary Power and Interest which they now enjoy. And by the like steps, I question not, the Lower Clergy risen also; bearing the Commons Company on all these Occasions, as they remarkably did in the Last Instance produced: where, at the same time that Precepts went out to the Sheriffs to return duos Legales & Discretos Milites for every Shire, Writs went out also to the Bishops to convene the Clergy of each Diocese, and propose the King's busyness to them, and from that Diocesan Meeting, to send up certain discreet Men by them Chosen; who should attend at the same Time and Place, and for the same Purposes that the Knights of Countys did 
† Pryn. Reg. Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. p. 4, 5. .  
It cannot therefore be said, that the Commons were first called to Parliament in the 49 H. III; but that they then, or there abouts, began to be Summoned thither uninterruptedly, and to grow a fixed and necessary part of the Meeting. The Learned Advocate, I know, on the other side has doubted (and Dr. W. therefore is very pardonable in doubting after him) whether from the 49. H. III. to the 18 E. I. any Summons went out, because the Writts are lost. But this, I think, will bear no doubt: for that Loss is, as it happens, pretty well supplied by our Histories; and I shall produce the Passages from thence that prove it.  
The Parliament of the next Year which met after the E. of Leicester was slain, and the King set at Liberty, is just so spoken of as that in the 49 th'. Factum est Parliamentum Magnum Wintoniae 
* Ann Waverl. p. 220. ; and so is that in 1266, at Kenilworth 
⸪ jibid. p. 224. , and another in 1268, at Northampton 
(⸫) Ibid. p. 222. . In which Year also Wykes' words are, that the King convened all the Praelates and Great Men, nec non cunctarum Regni sui Civitatum Pariter & Burgorum Potentiores-confluente pariter Plebeiae Multitudinis (i. e. of the Commonalty of every County) Turbâ non modicà 
† Chronic. p. 85. .  
But more express are the words of the former Annalist, in the 1. E. I. when, he says, Convenerunt Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Comites, Barones, Abbates, Priores, & de quolibet Comitatu Quatuor Milites, & de quâlibet Civitate Quatuor 
* Ann. Waverl. p. 227. The ●ame words occur also into the Annals of Worster, apud A. S. Vol. 1. p. 499. and in annal Monasterii Hidae extra Winton. MS. Bibl. Bodl. 1891. .  
1274. The Assembly that met per Evocationem Regiam, upon E. the I's Return into England, was composed of Comitum, Baronum, & Militum Copiosa Caterva, besides the Representatives of the City of London, & caeterarum Civitatum, & Oppidorum totius regni 
* Wykes p. 187. ; to wit, of such as sent Members to Parliament.  
1275. The Statute of Westminster was made by the Assent of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, Counts, & tout la Cominaltie de la Terre illonques summone●s.  
1282. The King's Writ to the Archbishop recites, that he had begun the War with Lewellin, de Consilio Praelatorum, Procerum, & Magnatum regni, nec non & totius Communitatis ejusdem. Dat. apud Rotholan. Nou. 22. regni 11 
* Registrum Peckam. .  
1285. Circa festum S. Mich. rex convocari fecit apud Salopesbiriam Majores regni sui & sapientiores tam de Civibus quàm de Magnatibus 
† Wykes p. 111. .  
1288. Convocatis Edicto publico regni magnatibus— Episcopus Eli, Regis Thesaurarius, petiit Subsidium à Comitibus & Baronibus, imò & generaliter ab Omnibus Incolis regni. Which last words are applied to the Commons, in the Writs 
† Writ of 23 E. I. summons ad trac●and cum Praelatis, Proceribus, & aliis Incolis regni. Dugd. Surm. p. 10.  and Histories 
* M. Westm. ad ann. 1297. Exigendo pro hâc concessione ab Incolis octavum denarium. Qui mox concessus est a Plebe in suâ tunc Camerâ circumstante. p. 430.  of those times.  
This Collection of Authoritys is Material, not only as it affords us a proof, that from the 49 H. III. to the 18. E. I. the Commons continued to be Summoned; but as it is a strong Presumption also, that they were so summoned before it. For had they first been called, when the King was under a Force, and in the hands of Simon Momfort, as soon as that Force had been removed, and the King at Liberty, such a Practice, so ill begun, would certainly have been discontinued: whereas we find on the contrary, that the Last Eight Years of H. the III. and the first Seventeen of E. the I. afford us frequent Instances of it. And (which deserves our Notice) it then grew to be most frequently used, and most unalterably fixed, when E. the I. one of the most Potent and Glorious Monarches that ever swayed the English Sceptre, was arrived at the utmost pitch of his Power and Grandeur. So far is that Excellent Constitution of Parliaments, we at present live under from owing its rise to the Weakness of our Princes, and the Encroachments made by Rebellious Subjects upon their Royal Authority.  
As for the Appeal made to our Records, it has, I presume, no manner of weight: for what wonder, if in such times of War and Confusion all the Writs of Summons to the Commons before this Aera should be lost? The same thing has happened to the Writs for the Temporal Lords also; none of which Elder than this date are preserved: but I hope, it follows not from hence, that they were never before this Summoned.  
How Beaten a point soever this may be, I could not forbear saying something to it, as it fell in my way; especially since it bears so near an alliance to the subject I am upon: For it is certain (as I have said often, and shall once again repeat) that the Parliamentary Interests and Privileges of the Commons Spiritual and Temporal ran even always; or, at least, were never far a sunder: and they do therefore, when made out, mutually prove each other.  
And now, having said so much in this case myself, I may the more freely venture to show the weakness of an Argument that has been lately offered on the same side, by Mr. Nicholson. He has discovered a Record (where indeed one would hardly look for it) in a Dictionary; which, he thinks, plainly proves that the People had their Representatives in Parliament before the Aera commonly assigned; and he wonders that none who have written on this Argument, should have taken notice of it 
* Hist. Lib. Vol. 3. p. 60 . To Ease him of his wonder, I will whisper the reason of it to him in his Ear; it was, because those Knowing Gentlemen saw it was frivolous, and not worth the mentioning. The Words, as they stand in Somner's Translation are,— Consiliarii qui fuerint electi a Nobis & à gentis Plebe in regno nostro, etc. I have no skill in the Tongue, Mr. Somner had certainly a great deal, and Mr. Nicholson has some, if at least we may take a Friends 
† Praef. Chronic. Saxonic.  word for it. However in opposition to both, I must bég leave to say, that either the Original is faulty, or the Translation not proper: and I do this, upon very good Grounds, because it differs from the Translation which the Parliament itself made of this Record: for, as Mr. Nicholson ought to have known, it was published by them in three several Languages, English, Latin, and French; and the French Copy of it we have in the Printed Annals of Burton 
† P. 417. , which were written at the very Time when this Charter was framed. And there the words are, Nostre Cunseil— ke est eslu par nous, ou par la Commun de nostre Reaume. It was, it seems, at that Oxford Parliament agreed, that the Kingdom should be governed by a Council of Twenty Four, Twelve of which should be chosen by the King, and Twelve by the Community, i. e. by the Baronage, not by the Commons properly so called; as is manifest from the whole Course of the Story, and particularly from that Branch of it, where the Names of the Twenty Four are set down 
* All but One. , under these Titles; Electi ex parte Domini Regis, and Electi ex parte Comitum & Baronum 
† P. 412. . And not the Electors only, but every one of the Twelve also, who were thus Elected, were Barons. It is sufficiently evident from hence, that the words, Electi à Plebe, give us no true account of that part of the Record they pretend to Translate; and that our Historical Librarian therefore might have kept this Rarity to himself, and the World not have been injured by his Reservedness.  
Mr. Archdeacon fitly puts me in mind of the point from whence I wandered. I was proving, that there is frequent mention of his Order, as called to Parliament, in H. the iii Reign; and of this I gave several Instances: there are others, which prove the yet Lower Ranks of the Clergy to have been present there. For Example,  
1229. 13. H. III. Fecit Rex convenire apud Westm— Dominos Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Priores, Templarios, Hospitalarios, Comites, Barones, Ecclesiarum Rectores, & qui de se tenebant in Capite, ad Locum praefixum & diem, ut audirent Negotia memorata, & de rerum Exigentiis communiter tractarent ibidem 
* M. Par. p. 367. . By Ecclesiarum Rectores here I understand, not Deans, and Archdeacon's only, but some of the Rural Rectors of Parishes; the words being employed in this sense frequently in the Records of this Reign 
† See Pat. 11. H. III. m. 10. apud Pryn Eccl. Juris. T. 2. p. 406. Cl. 32. H. III. m. 12. dors. ibid. p. 718. .  
1232. A Tax is said to be given by the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, & Clerici terras habentes quae ad Ecclesias suas non pertinent 
⸪ Cl. 16. H. III. m. 2. dors. Which M. Par. seems to have copied, where he says, that at this Meeting there was given the King a 40th. ab Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Clericis & Laïcis, p. 318. , to which are joined, on the Laypart, Earls, Barons, Knights, and Freemen, & Villani de Regno. A Learned Person 
† Dr. Brady Introd. p. 220.  says these Clergymen were such as had Lands, the Fee of which was in the Crown, and not in the Church: and if so, we must suppose 'em to be the Parochial Priests of some of those Churches, which upon the Doomsday-Survey were found to have 4711 Knights Fees in them. However that may be, again five Years after this, we hear of these Clerks 
* Cl. 21. H. III. m. 7. dors. : only now the Record varies a little; for the Earls, Barons, Knights, and Freemen give pro se, & suis Villanis; whereas still the Clerici terras habentes, etc. are said to give for themselves.  
Between these Two we have a Writ 
‖ Pat. 20. H. III. m. 8. in tùs apud Pryn, Eccl. Jurisd. T. 2. p. 475. , wherein the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, & aliae Ecclesiasticae Personae de regno are said to have granted an Aid de omnibus Foedis suis, tam de illis de quibus nobis respondent quando Scutagium datur, quam de aliis quae retinent ad Opus suum: and that this was a Grant in Parliament, we learn from the Teste of it (which is, May 4.) compared with M. Paris in this Year, where he tells us, that 4. Kal. Maii (i e. 8 days before) congregati sunt Magnates Angliae Londini ad Colloquium, de Negotiis Regni tractaturi 
† Ad ann. 1236. p. 429. . And in the same History we are told of a Parliament 32. H. III, that there came to it Edicto, Regio, totius regni Angliae Nobilitas; and among them, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, & Clericorum multitudo copiosa. 
(⸫) M. Par. p. 743.   
These Testimonies are, I think, sufficient to show, that from the Conquest down to E. the I. the Inferior Clergy had Place, and Interest in Parliament; being there sometimes in Body, and as representing the Whole, sometimes in Part only, and as entitled by their Tenors: the Lower Regulars and Saeculars appearing now and then by distinct Proctors of their own, but more frequently by their Priors and Archdeacon's, particularly impower'd to that purpose. Nor matters it much, whether they were thus called up immediately by a Royal Writ, or by an Ecclesiastical Summons only, issued out at the King's Instance; since, whether cited this way or that, the Effect of their Citation was to attend the Parliament: and accordingly the Memoirs of those times speak of them as being of the Parliament, and as acting in it. They might be summoned often, as they sat, Apart from the Laiety; but as they sat in Parliament, though separately; so were they called to Parliament, though perhaps after a different manner from the Laiety; and did there, together with the Greater Prelates, compose a Full Representative of the Clergy, and the first Estate of the Realm.  
This meeting of the Clergy with the Parliament was at first in One National, but afterwards in two Provincial Assemblys. When such Synods of the Province, held concurrently with the Parliamentary Sessions, began, is hard to say: but, to be sure, they were Older than E. I. in the beginning of whose Reign they are, we find, by the Constitution of Reading mentioned, as Established Customary Meetings: the Archbishop there, with the consent of the Synod, ordaining, quòd in Congregatione nostrâ tempore Parliamenti proximi post festum S ti. Mich. ad Tres Hebdomadas per Dei gratiam futurum, praeter Personas Episcoporum veniant duo Electi ad minus à Clero Episcopatuum singulorum, qui Auctoritatem habeant unà nobiscum tractare de hiis quae Ecclesiae communi utilitati expediunt Anglicanae 
† Constitt. Prov. ad finem Lynwood. p. 25. .  
It appears from hence, both that the Clergy were now used to attend the Parliament in their Synods Provincial, and that the Parliament itself was now used to sit after Michaelmas; since it could not else well have been spoken of here as an Assembly that would at that time certainly convene. For this Council of Reading sat down 29 july, and therefore (as Synodical Sessions were then very short) risen in the beginning of August: at which time, there could be no notice of the approaching Parliament (not yet summoned) but from common Custom and Usage. And the same received Custom there was also, it seems, for the Clergy at That and Other times to attend the Parliament; their Congregatio tempore Parliamenti being not now first ordered, but spoken of as an ancient and authorised Practice. These Clergy-Meetings however, tho' concurrent in Time with those of Parliament, yet were not necessarily to be held at the same Place also, where the Parliament was opened; but assembled oftentimes at some other, either in the Neighbourhood of it, or more Remote from it; as the Archbishop thought fit, or the Church's Occasions required. Thus in 1290 (18. E. I.) The Parliament met after Michaelmas, at Clipston 
† See Ryley's Placita Parliament▪ p. 63. ; but the Convocation, that was held concurrently with it, at Ely, upon the Consecration of the Bishop of that Place 
* Wikes ad ann. .  
And what the Form of the Archbishop's Summons to these Parliamentary Synods was, we may learn from a Procuratorium, relating to this very Meeting at Ely; the most Ancient Instrument of the kind I have ever seen: and by it the Proxys sent have power ad tractandum vobiscum & aliis Venerabilibus Patribus suffraganeïs Provinciae Cant. ac etiam totius Cleri Procuratoribus in Civitate Eliensi, super his quae Dei honorem & publicam Utilitatem respiciunt, & ad consentiendum hiis quae ibidem ad pacem & consolationem Ecclesiae, Dominique Regis & Regni Angliae, Cleri Communitas inspirante Deo providebit 
† Regi. strum Henrici Prioris. f. 146. . The first part of which seems to refer to this Assembly, as a Synod of the Province; and the Latter, as a Convention of the Clergy, held for State-Ends, in time of Parliament.  
Thus stood matters, when the Clause Premunientes was first inserted, and by it the Clergy of both Provinces were again called Nationally to Parliament, and required strictly to attend at the very Time and Place at which the Parliament assembled. How this Clause was executed upon the Inferior Clergy, and obeyed by them, and what Interest it gave them in Parliament, has been already considered so fully, that I need enter into no New Account of it.  
But here, in the very Entrance of this Period, a famous Interruption of this New Practice happened: the whole Body of the Clergy fell under the Displeasure of the King, were put out of his Protection first, and out of his Parliament afterwards; and a Great Council of the Realm was held, Excluso Clero, without summoning any One of the Spiritualty to it. This Instance some Modern Writers, willing to reduce the Parliamentary Interest of the Clergy as low as they can, are very full of; and Dr▪ Wake, among the rest, has very amply 
† P. 232, 233. from p. 348. to 355. , and often dilated upon it: nor does it seem to have been rightly understood, even by Those 
* Grand. Quest. p. 182. Heylen Refor. Iustify'd, etc.  who on the Clergy's behalf have undertaken to account for it. For which Reasons it will, I hope, be no unacceptable Entertainment to the Reader, if I digress so far as to set this Piece of History in a Truer Light than it has hitherto appeared; and show, that neither were the Clergy in this Instance to be blamed so much, nor was the Exclusion of them carried so far, as is commonly imagined.  
Edward the First was the most Expensive Prince that perhaps ever sat on the English Throne, and had by his Large and Frequent Demands almost exhausted all his Subjects; particularly those of the Spiritualty, upon whom the Burden still fell heavyest. His French, Welsh, and Scotch Wars, and Voyages to the Holy Land, in some of which he was constantly engaged, put him upon ask supplies every Year of his Reign, and upon extorting 'em sometimes, when denied, in a very Arbitrary and Illegal manner: and in these Demands he still grew upon the Clergy, so that in his 22 d. Year, he had no less than a Moiety of their Goods at once; which single Levy joh. de Eversden 
† MS. in Off. Arm. ad ann. 1294. §. 314. , a Cotemporary Writer, reckons to have amounted to 100100 l. A vast Sum, for those times, to be raised, in One Year, upon any One Body of Men, and indeed upon any One Kingdom! Nor was the Sum more Extraordinary, than the way of procuring it. The King first seized all their Wool, and all the Wealth that was laid up in any of their Churches or Monasteries: then calling 'em together, came himself in Person to them, and demanded Half of their Movables 
† Knighton Col. 2501. Joh. de Eversden thus relates the Story,— Rex tùm Precibus, tùm Exhortationibus, tùm etiam Comminationibus praemissis Universos & singulos Angliae Praelatos cum Clero, nec non & Religiosos omnes possessiones obtinentes— ad praestationem Medietatis omnium bonorum suorum Spiritualium ac Temporalium— compulit & violenter induxit. §. 314.  (rightly so termed, at present; for he had taken 'em violently out of their Owners hands, and put them safely under Lock and Key, in his Own Treasury at London 
* Knight. ibid. Wikes ad ann. ). Upon their demurring a little, they were threatened to be put out of his Protection 
⸪ Kn. col. 2502. , and a certain Blustering Knight stood up 
⸫ M. Wesim. ad ann. , and bad the Man amongst 'em, who durst dispute the King's Demands, come forth, that they might know him, and use him as he deserved. It was to no purpose for Them to pretend to deny him Half, who had already All under his Custody: and therefore at last they consented to it; and took out Letters of Protection, directed Capitaneïs' Marinariorum, & iisdem Marinariis, etc. who, it seems, at the beginning of the Dispute, had been sent to quarter upon them. The form of the Writ to those Captain-Mareeners is very remarkable, and to be seen among Ryley's Records 
† P. 462. ; who also gives us an account of near 300 Letters of this kind, that issued out for the Regular Praelats only. The very next Year to this, the King demanded a Third 
* M. West. pp. 425, 426.  of that Half that was left; and was, with great difficulty, and after a long Contest, prevailed with to accept the Disme 
* M. West. pp. 425, 426.  which they offered him. Wearied with these Exactions, and foreseeing no End of them, the Clergy resolved at last to take refuge in the Pope's Authority (as oppressed Men will seek Relief at any hand, where it is to be had); and, by Archbishop's Winchelsey's means, procured a Bull from Pope Boniface, forbidding them to give any further Aids, without Consent of the Holy See: and upon this Head, excused themselves in a Parliament held the next year at St. Edmundsbury 
† Nou. 3. 1296. ; where he again demanded a Fifth, after having (in Dr. Wake's Acquaint Expression) accounted his Circumstances to them 
* P. 350. : and that Excuse not being accepted, referred themselves, for their Final Answer, to a Full Convocation of the Province; which should be called by Ecclesiastical Authority; for now they met only upon a Lay-Summons. Respite accordingly was given Them till Hilary next; and in the mean time their Stores and Granaries all sealed up by the King's Officers, to be ready for Confiscation, if they persisted in their refusal: as they did, when on the Day prefixed they assembled at Paul's, by a Mandate from Archbishop Winchelsey 
* See his Register f. 205. , and after 8 days 
† M. West. p. 429.  fruitless debate separated. Upon which they were, as it should seem, prosecuted in the King's Bench, and judged out of the King's Protection; one of the Justices there, after sentence pronounced, adding openly, in terrorem, these Memorable Words 
* Vos domini Attornati Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Abbatum, Priorum, & caeterarum Personatum omnium ex Clero, nuntiate Dominis vestris & dicite, quòd de caetero in Curian domini Regis nulla flet eïs justitia de quâcunque re, etiam si illata fuerit iis injuria atrocissima. Justitia tamen de eïs fiet omnibus conquerentibus & e●m habere volentibus, Knighton. c. 2491. , You the Attornies of the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, and other Ecclesiastical Persons, tell your Masters, that from henceforth no Right shall be done on their Behalf, in the King's Courts, whatever Injurys they receive; but Justice shall be done upon them, at the suit of any Man. After this, their Lands were seized, their Goods confiscated, and their Persons subjected to all manner of Affronts and Indignities.  
While they were under this Outlawry, the King called his Lay Nobles to Sarum, and there held a Council, Excluso Clero; at which high Words arose, and great Heats happened between Him and his Barons; so that Roger Bigod, Earl Marshal, when upon his refusal to go in person to the Wars in Gascoigne, the King in passion told him, By God, Sir Earl, you shall either go or hang; made this sudden and stout reply, And by the same Oath, Sir, I will neither go, nor hang 
† Knight. p. 2493. . Upon which He, and many others, left the Place in Discontent, and wearied with the King's Oppression and Tyranny (I speak the Words of Westminster 
* Ad ann. 1297. p. 430. ) held a Parliament, in the Marches without him. The Meeting of Sarum being up, the Archbishop summoned another Provincial Council to meet at Paul's, in Midlent, 1297 
* Vide Procuratorium Subprioris & Capituli Bathon, apud Pryn. Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. p. 118. . But that too dispersed without coming to a Temper, or pitching upon any Expedient. And thus the matter rested, till the Counts and Barons came in openly to their Quarrel, as they did in a Parliament of that Year at Lincoln 
† Rex indixit Parliamentum apud Lincoln in Octavis S. joh. Bapt. in quo orta est dissensio inter ipsum & quosdam Comites & Barones regni, quòd tam Clerum quam Populum intolerabili onere conabatur opprimere. Petebat enim iteratò a Clero medietatem omnium bonorum suorum, à Laincis verò sextum Denarium. Responderunt ergo Comites & Barones, sine assensu Archiepiscopi Cant. & totius Cleri tam onerosam & importabilem Exactionem se nullo modo subire. Sed petebant instanter bona potiùs Ecclesiae Sanctae, & sua, injustè à Regiis Ministris communiter capta indilatè restitui, & Articulos & Punctos in Magnâ Chastâ contentos de caetero observari. Eversden, ad ann. 1297. ; jointly protesting against the King's Exorbitances, and insisting upon a Redress of Grievances. So that the King, who saw himself opposed on All sides, was forced at last to be reconciled to both, and to beg pardon of Both together; as he did, even with Tears, when he restored the Archbishop to his Temporalties, on the 14 th'. of july 
† Westm. ibid.  afterwards. And this struggle finally ended in a Confirmation of the Great Charter, and the Charter of the Forests, enlarged by a new Article, which provided, that no state for the future should be taxed separately, but only by Common Consent of Parliament.  
This is a faithful and full account of that Transaction between the King and his Clergy, which Dr. W. neither like a good Historian, a good Churchman, nor a good Englishman, has so represented, as if the Clergy had been altogether , and the King had done nothing but what the Laws of the Land allowed of. But in all that vast Heap of Mistakes, his Book, there is not any one Particular, further from Truth than this, or less becoming the Pen that it comes from. They were faulty indeed in applying to the Pope: but it was an Error of those times, when the Pope's Power over the Clergy was thought very great, and carried very far, even by the Consent of the Laiety. Besides, never Men could be more tempted than they were to make use of this Extraordinary Remedy. Accordingly they were so far from being blamed by their Country for procuring this Bull, that the Great Men all stood by them in it, and publicly approved it. For so I find it recorded in a List of Grievances, which were by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal presented to the King a Year or two afterwards, and entered in a Register of that time, together with the Answers to Each, as in a Roll of Parliament. At the close of these, the Prelates excuse themselves from consenting to the Contribution desired, by reason of the Bull of Pope Boniface; to which the Answer annexed is, Non placuit Regi, sed Communitas Procerum approbavit. However, allowing 'em to have done amiss in this Application, yet nothing that they did afterwards needs an Excuse: Their Refusal to comply with the King's Excessive Demands, was not only faultless, but honourable; and the Proceeding against them upon that refusal was altogether Illegal and Barbarous. For we must not think, that this sentence of Outlawry was built on any Legal Forfeiture they had incurred, by adhering to the Pope against the Crown; no, it was founded purely on their denying to supply the King, according to his Demands: for three years before this, when they delayed to grant the Moiety asked, he threatened 
† Audience Rex indignatus est, & per suos satellites comminatus est, se extrà Protectionem suam Clerum velle ponere, nisi medietatem omnium bonorum concederent. Knight. c. 2502. So also Eversden, before cited.  to do, what he actually did now [to put them out of his Protection]; and Then, the Prohibitory Bull of Pope Boniface was not in being.  
It would be some Mitigation indeed of the severity of this Process, if it had been, as Dr. W. would persuade us 
† P. 351. , carried on in Parliament. But that is highly improbable, and inconsistent with the best accounts we have of those times. The Barons, it is plain, were now very uneasy under the King's Exactions; and it is not credible therefore that They should join with him in oppressing the Clergy: nor had they, for aught I can find, any Opportunity of doing it. For the Clergy were put out of the King's Protection jan. 30 
‖ 310. Cal. Feb. tale fuit Regis Consilium quòd praeciperet praescriptam duriti. 'em fieri contra Clerum. Ann. Wigorn. apud Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 520.  129 ⁶; which was long after the Parliament of St. Edmundsbury 
⸪ Held Nou. 3. 1296.  was up, and before the Council of Sarum 
⸫ Which met Feb. 24. 1296/ 7.  was called. Nay 12 days before this Council, the Sentence was not only pronounced, but executed, even in the remote parts of England: for the Writ of Seizure to the Sheriff of Worcestershire bears date Feb. 12 
* Vid. eosdem Ann. Wigorn. ibid. . And this agrees very well with the Observation made by the Writers of that time 
§ Eversden, Knighton, Westminster, Ann. Wigorn. , that the King's Army was beat in Gascoign, on the same day that the Clergy were outlawed here in England: for the News of this Defeat, it appears from Matthew of Westminster 
† P. 429. , reached the King, sometime before he met his Barons at Sarum. Indeed Knighton 
⸪ Col. 2491 , and Walsingham 
⸫ Ypod. Neustr.  speak of a Parliament at Hillary 9●. where this Sentence may seem to have palsed; but there is great reason to suspect their Exactness in this particular. The Eldest of them lived an 100 Years after the Time they here write of; whereas there is no one Cotemporary Author 
‖ 
Rex Angliae Edwardus in crastino animarum apud S●um. Edmundum Parliamentum suum tenuit, & vocati ibidem venerunt per Regias Literas Praelati & totus Clerus. Sed quoniam Clerus vocatus fuit ibidem ad mandatum regis, & non auctoritate Ecclesiasticâ, noluit ibidem finaliter respondere. Sed prorogata dies fuit quoad Clerum usque in Crastinum S. Hilarii. A Laïcis tamen ibidem duodecimam partem bonorum-suscepit, etc. In festo verò S. Hil.— Rex petebat à Clero tùnc Londoniae eâdem causa congregatis auctoritate Ecclesiasticâ Auxilium, etc. Excerpta è Chron. MS. Eccl. Cont. apud Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. ●p. 51.  
Generalis Convocatio Cleri facta est apud Londoniam in Octavis S. Hil. ad tractandum de pace Sanctae Eccl. etc. john. de Eversden MS.  
The Sentence of Excommunication denounced by the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation A. D. 1298. (see it Spelman Concil. Vol. 2. p. 428.) style this meeting Quaedam Convocatio Praelatorum & Cleri London celebrata post Festum S. Hil. A. D. 1296. The Writ also for summoning it (see it Registr. Winchelsey fol. 205.) the Returns to that Writ (see One, Registr. Henr. Prioris fol. 70.) and the Procuratoria drawn in relation to it (ibid.) mention a Meeting of the Clergy alone, without any the least Intimation of a Parliament.   that I have seen, either in Print, or Manuscript, (and I have perused several) that mentions such a Parliament, or speaks of this meeting at St. Hilary any otherwise than as a Provincial Council of the Clergy; agreed upon indeed in the preceding Parliament of St. Edmundsbury, but not held concurrently with any Session of it. Nor is there a Writ of this date, either of Summons, or Prorogation, in our Rolls, or Registers. So that the word, Parliamentum, in these two Historians, must be taken loosely, and in the same Latitude that it is made use of at this very time, by Westminster 
† Barones Angliae Parleamentum suum per se-statuerunt ad ann. 1297. , and Eversden 
† Comites & Barones tenuerunt Parliamentum suum apud Northampton, de discordiâ ortâ inter Regem & Ipsos. ad ann. eund. , when they apply it to the Barons Voluntary Meetings, without, and in Opposition to the King's Authority. Accordingly we may observe, that in the Precept to the Sheriff for-seizing the Estates of the Clergy (by me lately mentioned) there are no words that imply the Sentence to have passed de Consilio Baronum, or to have had the Consent of Parliament. It says only, Propter aliquas certas C●usas Tibi praecipimus qùod omnia L●●ca F●eda totius Cleri in Balliuâ tuâ— sine dilatione capia●is in manum vestram, etc. 
† Annal. Wig. p. 520  and by the Tenor of it one would guests, that it was a mere Arbitrary Command of the Prince, not built on any Judicial Process whatever. I have been very Liberal therefore in allowing that it might spring from a judgement in Court (led to it by some Expressions that look that way in the Relations of Thorn, and Knighton): However the Judge who pronounced it, will not be excused by this allowance; for he passed an Unrighteous Sentence in a very Infamous Cause, and meanly prostituted the Law, to gratify the King's Resentments. For which reason we may be sure, that Sir Roger Brabazon 
* Dr. W. pretends to tell this Story with great Exactness, and yet mistakes both the Name of the Person and his Office; there being no such judge at that time as Robert Brabazon; and the Person he means being never either second judge, or Chief justice of the Common Pleas (as Dr. W. will have him to have been) if Dugale 's Chronica Juridicialia may be relied on. The Dr. it seems, found there Justitiarius ad Placita corum Rege, and Justitiarius de Banco, opposed to one another; and wisely thought, that the first of these signified the Common Pleas, and the second the King's Bench; just as they sounded.  was not the Man, as my Lord Coke too hastily thought; for He was too Great and Good a Person, to be employed in such Vile Offices. No, it was john de Metingham, a Clergyman, who uttered those words, as the Annals of Worster expressly tell us 
† P. 520. ; a fit Instrument, to be made use of in the Oppression of his Brethren! For look through all our History, and you shall find, that wherever the Clergy have smarted under any Great Hardship, some of their Own Order have been still at the bottom of it; without whose Helping Hand, the Rights and Privileges of the Church never were, and never would be invaded.  
Thus much, to take off the Aspersions, with which Dr. W. has loaded the Clergy of those times, very Indecently, and Untruly. Their Conduct I do not in every respect pretend to justify: However, I think it capable of a Fair Excuse, if their Circumstances be considered. And accordingly I observe, that among all our Historians of Note, Ancient or Modern, there is not One, that I know of, who has thoroughly taken the King's part in this Dispute; none, I dare say, that has represented it so much to the Disadvantage of the Clergy, as this Gentleman of the Function has done. And yet several of these were Laymen; particularly Daniel, the most sensible of the Moderns, calls the King's Proceeding in this Case, a strain of State beyond any of his Predecessors 
† P. 194. . It was a Debt I owed to Truth, to set this Story right; and I would have done it, had jews or Heathens been the Subject of it. Whatever the Popish Clergys' faults were, yet want of Love to their Country was none of 'em; the true Interests of which they understood, and espoused generally, and were ever fast Friends to the Liberties of it. They were bad Christians, but good Englishmen; which is more than can be said for some of their Successors, who, with a Purer Religion, have been worse Members of the Commonwealth than They. Their Dependence indeed on a Foreign Head misled 'em in Church affairs; but against the Exactions and Usurpations even of the Pope himself in Civil Matters, none declared more loudly, or made a more vigorous stand than They. Matthew Paris is an Instance of this kind, worth our notice; who, tho' of a Monastery that owed all its Immunities and Exemptions to the Pope, yet takes the English side all along against Papal Encroachments: and his Works therefore (the best part of our History) are a mere satire on the Court of Rome; written indeed, not in the mannerly way of later times, but however with a Spirit of great Honesty and Freedom. Disinterestedness, a Love of Truth, and a Generous Concern for the Public shine through every Page of him: Qualitys, which it were well, if some Modern Historians, who have spent a great many Popular Invectives against Monks, and Monkish Writings, had been pleased to observe, and imitate, Their Works (as well as Persons) would then have been in much greater Esteem with the Age wherein they lived, and have had a much surer Title to the Applause of Posterity. If what I have said of the Popish Clergy be suspected any ways, my Lord Coke will vouch for the Truth of it; who, with great Candour and Justice, observes of that very Reign we are upon, that albeit divers Judges of the Realm were Men of the Church, as Briton, Martin de Pateshull, William de Raleigh, Robert de Lexington, Henry de Stanton, and many others; and that the Honourable the Officers of the Realm, as Lord Chancellor, Lord Treasurer, Lord Privy Seal, Master of the Rolls, etc. were in those days Men of the Church; yet they ever had such honourable and truehearted Courage, as they suffered no Encroachment by any Foreign Power upon the Rights of the Crown, or the Laws and Customs of the Realm 
† Upon the Stat. of Westm. I. cap. 51. . Among so many Excellent Persons, what wonder is it, if a false hearted Clergyman or two were found; true neither to the Liberties of their Country, nor the Interests of their Order? Every Age, and every Body of Men has had (and will have) its john de Metingham's; it is enough if the Age, and the Body they were of has constantly abhorred them.  
From what has been before related, it appears that this Exclusion of the Clergy from Parliament, so much talked of, is as much misunderstood: for, in the first place, That was really no Parliament from whence they were excluded, but a Colloquium or Tractatus only, as the Writ of Summons 
† Dugdale Summon. p. 18.  expressly calls it. And the common Opinion, that this happened at the Parliament of St. Edmondsbury, in crastino Animarum, is a common mistake; for the Clergy were certainly both summoned thither 
⸪ Dugd. p. 13. , and present there throughout the whole Session 
† MS. Chron. Eccl. Cant. & Eversden ante citat. : But they were not so in the Council of Sarum, on St. Matthias' day; to which, it appears by our Rolls 
⸫ Dugdale p. 19 , that some particular Barons and Knights only were called, but not one of the Clergy. And here therefore Knighton 
‖ Col. 2492. , and Eversden 
* Rex Parliamentum suum apud Sarum cum Laïcis ad hoc tantùm vocatis in die cinerum tenuit.—  positively fix the Exclusion; and what they say, the whole course of the Story manifestly confirms. The Pretence for this Exclusion I suppose to have been, the Clergys' Outlawry, and the seizure of their Temporalties, which was judged a sufficient reason for denying 'em their Writs of Summons. And this also seems to have been the Ground of that famous Resolution of the Judges in Keilway's Reports 
† fol. 181. ; where it is affirmed, that the King might hold his Parliament without the Spiritual Lords, i. e. when those Lords Spiritual are in the case of Outlaws, and under a Praemunire, as they were, when that Judgement was given; and incapable therefore (as Opinions than ran) of their seats in Parliament. But later Times, and greater Authoritys have decided quite contrary; it being upon several solemn Debates in the House of Commons, 35. Eliz. resolved 
* See Sir Symonds d' Ewes Jour. p. 518. , that a Man under an Outlawry was capable of being elected a Member: and what does not disable a single Person from being chosen into Parliament, could be no sufficient reason for shutting the whole Spiritualty out of it, who are One of the Greatest Estates of this Realm 
† 1. Eliz. c. 1. . All therefore that this celebrated Instance amounts to, is, that the King, having put the Clergy under an Outlawry, against Law and Reason, held a select Council of the Laiety without them, against all Rule and Custom. And it must be remembered, that this was not only Excluso Clero, but Excluso Populo too; for neither had the Counties, Cities, and Burroughs any Representatives there: and such an Instance can, I am sure, no ways prejudice the Parliamentary Interest of the Clergy.  
To proceed therefore in our Account of it,— that is, in our Deduction of those particular Passages in our Histories and Records, which prove it all along, from the Insertion of the Premunientes down to the Times of the Reformation. Three sorts of these there are, that deserve to be taken notice of. First, Such as represent the Convocation to be a Meeting Coïncident with the Parliament. Secondly, Such as speak of the Convocation Clergy, as of the Parliament, and in it: And Thirdly, Such as declare the Particular Intents and Purposes, for which the Convocation Clergy were, and were esteemed to be, of the Parliament.  
The First of these points, as far as Ancient Practice is concerned, our Adversaries seem to grant: or, should they dispute it, yet it has already, in the former part of this Book, by many plain Evidences and Authoritys been made good. However, since it falls once more in my way, I shall here add a few Instances of the same kind, by way of Supplement.  
13 E. II. The King is said, ad requisitionem Praelatorum & Cleri regni nostri [then sitting] to have prorogued the Parliament 
† Dugd. Summ. p. 108. .  
5. E. III. In a Bishop's Summons to Parliament, we find this Clause,— Et quia ante haec tempora Communia Regni nostri negotia, propter aliquorum Praelatorum & Magnatum absentiam, qui ad Convocationes & Parliamenta hujusmodi, non ad dies statutos, sed diù post modùm venerunt, frequenter retardata fuerunt, ad commune damnum Populi regni nostri; volumus, etc. quod dicto Crastino omnimodò sitis apud Nos ad Locum praedictum; & praemuniatis Priorem Archidiaconos & caeteros, qùod ipsi similiter intersint; quia intentionis nostrae existit, quòd Parliamentum illud cum celeritate qu● poterit finiatur 
† Ibid. p. 163. , etc. This implys plainly, that these Two Assemblies, [the Convocation, and Parliament] were used [ante haec tempora] long before this time, to assemble concurrently; as also (which relates to the second point) that the Praemonished Clergy, so assembling in Convocation, were yet reckoned to be of the Parliament.  
13. E. III. Mention is made of Writs then to be issued, One to call the Convocation of the Province of Cant, and the Other, that of York, against the Time to which the next Parliament was Summoned 
* Abr. of Rec. p. 19 .  
20. E. III. The Bishops are commanded to certify into Chancery the Names of all Aliens, their Benefices, and Values, avaunt le jour de la Convocation de la Clergy, ou adonque à pl●s tard 
† Rot. Parl. n. 46. . i e. before, or at the next Convocation, which was to fit with the next Parliament.  
29. E. III. (Cl. m. 8. dors.) The King's Writ for a Convocation recites, that he had, pro arduis & urgentibus negotiis Nos & Statum Regni nostri Angliae & necessariam defensionem ejusdem regni concernentibus, called his Parliament to Westm●. die jovis, in crastino S ti Martini— and then adds,— Et quia expedit quòd praedicta negotia, quae salvationem & de●ensionem regni nostri sic contingunt, salubriter & efficaciter cum bonâ & maturâ deliberatione deducantur; Vobis mandamus rogantes,— to call the Clergy of Cant. Prov. to Paul's, die Lunae prox post festum S. Martini— ad tractandum & cons●lendum super praemissis— T. Rege apud Westmr. 25. Sept. The same Preamble literally recurrs in the Writ of the 31. E. III. (Cl. m. 21. dors.); and something Equivalent to it is to be found in several succeeding ones.  
1. R. II. The Clergy grant a X th'. on condition that the Commons give a XV th': 
† Registr. Sudbury f. 44. b.  and on the other side, (8. R. II.) the Commons offer two XV this, on condition that the Clergy shall give two X this 
* Registr. Courtney f. 81. b. , These Mutual Stipulations imply, that the two Assemblies were concurrent: They were practised frequently in the Entrance of this Reign 
⸪ See Rot. Par. IU. R. 2. n. 13. VII. R. 2. n. 13. VII. R. 2. n. 12. , but now, in this last Instance, a Check was given to them; for the Archbishop protesting, in behalf of the Clergy, that the Condition was against the Liberty of the Church, and insisting that it ought not to remain there, it was by the King's Order with-drawn. For which reason there is now no mention of it in the Rolls of this Parliament.  
More such Passages as these might be brought in each succeeding Reign; but I shall content myself to step an hundred Years forwards, and produce one only out of the Continuer of the Annals of Croyland. In his account of E. the ths last Parliament 
* Anno 1483. , he tells us, that the King, nihil a Communitate subsidii pecuniarii expetere ausus, betook himself to the Clergy, quasi (adds the Monk) semel comparentibus Praelatis & Clero in eorum Convocatione, quicquid Rex petit, id sieri debeat 
† P. 563. .  
These, I confess, are not Direct and full Proofs of the Convocations sitting ordinarily with the Parliament, but only intimate and suppose it; and are therefore mentioned here, not so much to strengthen that point, which is otherwise sufficiently secured, as to illustrate and explain it. The Passages of the second sort which represent the Convocation Clergy, as of the Parliament, and acting in it, have more Weight in them: Some of these I have already offered 
⸪ P. 60. etc. , and shall now add several others. The Reader, who considers that the very stress of the Debate lies here, and who has withal any Taste of these studies, will not, though I abound in Proofs of this kind, think me Tedious.  
The first Instance I shall give, is from the Articuli Cleri (10. E. II.) the Preamble of which recites, qùod cùm dudùm temporibus Progenitorum nostrorum quondam Regum Angliae in diversis Parliamentis suis, & similiter postquam regni nostri gubernacula suscepimus in Parliamentis nostris, per Praelatos & Clerum regni nostri plures Articuli continentes Gravamina Ecclesiae Anglicanae & ipsis Praelatis & Clero illata, ut in eïsdem asserebatur, porrecti fuissent, & cum in stantiâ supplicatum ut inde apponeretur remedium opportunum; ac nuper in Parliamento nostro ●p●d Lincoln, anno Regni nostri nono, Articulos subscriptos, & quasdam Respon●iones, ad aliquos eorum prius factas coram Concilio nostro recitari, ac quasdam responsiones corrigi, & caeteris Articulis subscriptis per Nos & dictum nostrum Concilium fecimus responderi, etc. 
† Spelm. Conc. Vol. 2. p. 483. . Words which show the Lower Clergy, as well as Prelates, to have been looked upon as of the Parliament, and acting in it; not then only, but long before also, in the Reigns of several of that Prince's Progenitors; to wit, in those of E. I. and H. the III. at least, if not higher. And I the rather produce them at length (as Sir William Dugdale copied them from a Cotton-Manuscript 
* Otho. A. 15. fol. 136. , and from the Archbishop's Register 
† Raynold, f. 76. ), because the Printed Statutes 
* See Rastal Vol. 1. p. 57  have given a different turn to them, and made them utterly insignificant to the purposes for which I urge them.  
In the 13 th'. Year of this Prince, a Writ to the Archbishop 
† Cl. m. 20. dors.  thus speaks— Cùm in Parliamento nostro ultimo apud Eborum summonito, per vestrum caeterorumque Praelatorum, & Procerum regni Consilium & Assensum, etc. X ᵃ Cleri in Provinciâ Eborum, XVIII va bonorum mobilium Communitatis, & XII ma in Civitatibus & Burgis & Dominicis nostris nobis— fuerint concessae 
† Registr. Henr. Pri. fol. 211. . Where we see the Clergy of that Province in which the Parliament was held, are said to have granted in Parliament; in like manner as the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses did.  
In a statute of the 25. E. III. 
* See it Rastall V. 1. p. 100  there is mention of a Dism, & Quindism, granted by the Commons: which is a clear proof of what I have before advanced 
(⸪) P. 59 , that the Commons Spiritual come often times under that Appellation; for the Dism here mentioned was given by the Spiritualty, and the Quindism by the Temporalty, as the Nature of the Grants speaks, and Knighton expressly informs us 
‖ Col. 2603 .  
And this Language meets us frequently in the Rolls; for again, 50. E. III. n. 168. The Commons of Tividal as well Religious as Saecular Prayen 
* Abr. of Rec. p. 137. I have not the Transcript of the Roll by me, but as I remember the French word there is Liges Gens— : and in the same Parliament, n. 162. The Commons of the Diocese of York complain of the Outrageous taking of the Bishop and his Clerks for admission of Priests to their Benefices 
† Ibid p. 136. , by which, as I conceive, the Commons Spiritual are most naturally understood.  
In the same Year a Constitution of Simon Islep is said to be made, de consilio & consensu Fratrum nostrorum in Parliamento praesentium, & Procuratorum absentium 
⸫ Spelm. Conc. Vol. 2. p. 598.  This Decree, we must believe, passed in Convocation; and that Meeting therefore was then esteemed Parliamentary: for why else, should the Bishops, when acting in their Convocational capacity, be spoken of as present in Parliament?  
And here also I must take notice of a Passage in that Ancient Piece, Modus tenendi Parliamentum; I call it Ancient, because Mr. Selden himself, who first discovered it not to be of the Age it pretends, says, he saw a Copy of it in an Hand of E. the III. And indeed younger than that it cannot well be, for it would not then have been entered (as part of it is) in Arundel's Register, for a piece of real Antiquity, without any suspicion of its Forgery. And it may therefore safely be produced as a General Evidence of the Practice in E. the iii time, at least of the Opinion which Men then had of the Lower Clergys' Parliamentary Rights and Interests in Elder Ages. The Passages in it which concern us, are— Ad Parliamentum summoneri & venire debent ratione Tenurae suae omnes & singuli Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, & alii Majores Cleri, qui tenent per Comitatum vel Baroniam, ratione hujusmodi tenurae; & nulli Minores, nisi eorum praesentia & adventus aliunde quam pro Tenuris suis requiratur; ut si sint de Consilio Regis, etc. 
† The Copy that Mr. Selden (Tit. Hon. part 2. c. 5.) and that which my Lord Coke (Inst. part 4. p. 4.47.) used, differed some what from this, and from each other; but those differences are not material.  Item Rex facere soleba● summonitiones suas Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, & aliis Exemptis Personis, ut Abbatibus, Prioribus, Decanis, & aliis Ecclesiasticis Personis quae habent jurisdictiones per hujusmodi Exemptiones & Privilegia separatim quod ipsi pro quolibet Decanatu & Archidiaconatu Angliae per ipsos Decanatus & Archidiaconatus eligi sacerent duos peritos & idoneos Pr●curatores [de proprio Archidiaconatu] ad veniendum & interessendum ad Parliamentum, ad illud subeundum, allegandum & faciendum idem quod facerent omnes & singulae personae ipsorum Decana tuum & Archidiaconatuum, si ibidem personaliter interessent. Et quod hujusmodi Procuratores veniant cum Warantis suis duplicatis sigillis superiorum suorum signatis, quod ipsi ad hujusmodi Procurationem Clerici missi sunt. Quarum Literarum una liberabitur Clericis de Parliament ad irrotulandum, & alia residebit penes ipsos Procuratores. Et sic sub istis duobus generibus summon●ri debet Totus Clerus ad Parliamentum 
* Dacher. Spicileg. T. 12. p. 557. . I know very well, that this Account in the Modus, is not suited to the exact manner of the Clergys' Summons to any Parliament, the Records of which are left us; and therefore I produce it only as a General Proof, that the Lower Clergy were some way or other called to Parliament, and were understood to have been so called for some Ages, at the time that this Modus was framed. My Lord Coke 
† Ibid. , from the first Lines of what I have cited, endeavours to l●ssen and bring down the Parliament-Rights of the Lower Clergy; but without considering, that the same words are afterwards used also of the Lay Commons.  
2. R. II. In the Register of Selby 
† Bibl. Cott. Cleop. D. 3. f. ●●. , the King's Letter to the Abbot of that Monastery takes notice, that divers reasons had been showed in Parliament, why the payment of the Disms and Quindisms, granted in the said Parliament by the Clergy and Laiety of the Kingdom 
† Les dimes & quindismes à nos grantez au di● Parliament per le Clergy, & per lez Lays de nostre Royaume.— , should be anticipated: and that accordingly the Archbishop of Cant. with the other Prelates and Clergy of his Province had agreed to it, as also the Archbishop of York, and those Prelates 
† No mention of the Lower Clergy of York Prov●n●e, because They at that time were not present, but holding a Convocation at Home, together with all the Prelates of th●● Province, who were not Barons of Parliament.  of his Province who were present. But that some of the Clergy of that Province delayed payment, as the King understood, at which he much marvelled, and was highly displeased 
* Encontre ce que feu●● acordez a nostre dit Parliament, dont nous avons grande merveil & d●sp●eser. Et sur ●eo escrivon● a dit l'ercevelque de Everwy●k empriant & requirant que consideres les choses sus●ites, & comment la Province 〈◊〉 Everwick à condiz ●●●s●umez en le temps [of E▪ III.] affere semblablement, & aussi bien come o●t fait ceux de la Province de Canterbiri, etc. : And had therefore written to the Archbishop of York, praying, and requiring him (in consideration of that Agreement in Parliament, and according to the Custom established in Edward the iii time, for the Province of York to do always as that of Cant. did) to take effectual Care that all his Clergy did their Duty in this respect. I have enlarged my Recital of this Letter thus far, because, beside the main purpose for which I have vouched it, ●t furnishes us also with the Proof of a By-point, which has been before laid down in these Papers 
‖ P. 46, 47. , that the Convocation of York was ●ook'd upon as under some kind of Obligation ●o follow the Pattern set by that of Canterbury.  
The Protestations of the whole Clergy against Divers Bills, are mentioned in the Rolls, and sometimes entered at length: a manifest Evidence that they had something to do in Parliament; for otherwise, I am sure, they could have had no Pretence to Protest against what was doing there; nor would the Parliament have accepted, and entered such Protestations. These ran indeed sometimes in the Name of the Archbishops alone, but were however made on the behalf of their Suffragans also, and of the whole Clergy of their Provinces; as the Rolls 
† Rot. Parl. 13. R. 2. n. 24.  expressly speak. And this is in general to be observed, that oftentimes, in matters Parliamentary, where the Bishop's names only are mentioned, yet it was not Their Act alone, but had the Concurrence also of the Convocation Clergy. Thus the Statute of the Clergy 25. E. III. 
* Rastall p. 93.  is in the Preamble said to have taken its rise from a Petition of the Bishops: but if we look into the Roll of that Parliament, we shall find that the Bishops petitioned for themselves, & tote la Clergy. And 15. E. III. n. 19 though Archbishops and Bishops only are named, yet in the Note of the King's answer (n. 26.) they are called Generally, Petitions of the Clergy. This well deserves our Notice, because it gives us a true account, how the Parliament Prelates came to act in Parliament for the whole State Spiritual: for that being at hand always, was consulted and advised with in every thing that related to them; and the Result of those Debates was by the Lords Spiritual laid before the Parliament.  
21. R. II. The Clergy of both Provinces appoint a Common Lay Proctor to consent for them to some Matters done in Parliament, which they could not Lawfully be present at; and the Form of the Power given by Them to this purpose in writing, is as follows. Nos Thomas Cant. & Robertus Eboracensis Archiepiscopi ac Praelati & Clerus utriusque Provinciae Cant. & Ebor. Jure Ecclesiarum nostrarum & Temporalium earundem habentes jus interessendi in singulis Parliamentis domini nostri Regis & Regni Angliae pro tempore celebrandis, nec non tractandi & expediendi in eïsdem— Quantum ad singula in instanti Parliamento pro Statu & Honore domini nostri Regis, nec non Regaliae suae, ac Quiete, Pace, & Tranquillitate Regni judicialiter justificandâ, Venerabili Viro Thomae de Percy Militi nostram plenariè committimus potestatem; ita ut singula per ipsum facta in praemissis perpetuis temporibus [rata] habeantur 
* Rot. Par. n. 10.  This Instrument is by order enroled, and the Right therefore which the Prelates and Inferior Clergy there claim, of being of every Parliament, and acting in it, is by the King, and his Great Council, who ordered this enrolment, admitted and affirmed.  
2. H. iv c. 15. The Statute against the Lollards sprung from a Remonstrance made to the King, ex parte Praelatorum & Cleri Regni sui Angliae in praesenti Parliamento, as the Preamble speaks: and again it is said, in the Body of it; super quibus quidem Novitatibus & Excessibus superiùs recitatis Praelati & Clerus supradicti, ac etiam Communitates dicti regni, in eodem Parliamento existentes dicto domino Regi supplicaverunt 
† Constitt. Prow. ad finem Lynwood. pp. 62, 63. . And at their Request, the King Enacts, ex assensu Magnatum, & aliorum Procerum ejusdem regni in dicto Parliamento existentium.— So that the Prelates, and Barons, the Commons, and Lower Clergy are alike here said to be present in Parliament.  
The Testimony of Walsingham also, who lived at this time is considerable: He appears to have been excellently well versed in our Records, and speaks properly always, though not Elegantly, of the matters he relates: And his Phrase, where he gives an account of any Grant, or Act of the Clergy in Convocation, usually is; Clerus in eodem Parliamento conce●●it, or Statuit. Of which take One very remarkable Instance. Anno 1391. (says he) Parliamentum incaeptum est intra mensem & faeliciter expeditum. Nempe praeter X am a Clero & XV tamburlaine a Populo concessam, multa alia sunt in Clero & Populo ad Regis Placitum reformata; & praecipu● in Ordine Nigrorum Monachorum, illic in maximo numero, Regis Edicto, insimul congregato. Fuerant itaque ibidem etiem 60 Abbates, & Priores Conventuales, & etium 300 & amplius Monachi, Doctores & Procurato●s— Statutum ●uerat etiam in eodem Parliamento, ad instantiam maximè domini Regis, ut asseritur, per clerum, ut tertium Beneficium, etc. It is the Convocation-Clergy, and Convocation-Business, that the Historian all along here speaks of; and yet he speaks of the first we see, as being of, and of the second, as done in Parliament: so closely were those Two Meetings then thought to be united and allied. And the same is Perpetually the Style 
† 
133●. Edvardus Parliamentum tenuit, in quo Archiepiscopus Cant. Concilio Cleri celebrato. Regi X am triennalem à Clero concedi obtinuit. p. ●22.  
1371. In h●c Parliamento Cleri Synodus ab Archiepiscopo celebrata est. p. ●●3.  
1344.— Parliamentum tenu●t In eo Clerus ei concessit X as triennales, ●●36. &   of the Author of that Excellent Book de Antiquitate Ecclesiae Britannicae; than whom none understood our Constitution better, or expressed himself with greater Exactness.  
To descend to Times nearer our Own. In the 21. H. VIII. The Summer before the Clergys' Submission, a Letter was written to the Pope, about the affair of the Divorce, by many Members of Parliament, 
Herbe●t's His●. p. 334  who subscribe it under eight distinct Ranks, or Classes; the last of which is, Milites & Doctores in Parliamento: Eleven of these there are, and several of 'em Clergymen; as particularly Wolman, Samson, Gardiner, Lee, etc. Who seem to have subscribed as Members of Convocation; for Wolman at this time was Prolocutor 
† Act. MS. Conu. 1529 . And I do not see how otherwise some of them could be reckoned of the Parliament, being not, that I can find, called up thither, either as the King's Great Officers, or by Writ of Assistance.  
I have already mentioned 
† P. 62.  a Mandate of Bonner's, in 1543. very observable for the way in which it is worded. There is another issued about two Years before this, 32. H. VIII. (the first time, for aught appears, that the Clergys' Subsidies were confirmed by Parliament): and there the Phrase differs a little; for the Prelates and Clergy of Cant. Prov. are said to have granted a subsidy tam in ultim● ipsorum Praelatorum & Cleri dictae Prov. Cant. Convocatione apud D. Paul. Lond. quàm etiam in Parliamento hujus regni tùm apud Westm. sacrâ regiâ auctoritate respectiuè tentis 
† Registr. Bonner f. 21. a. , and so again in another, dated 10. Decem. 1544. 
* Ibid. f. 66. a.  and in a Third of Bishop Ridley's, drawn 4 ●o E. VI 
† Ridley's Registr. f. 287. b. . So that all along from the Time when the Premunientes was first inserted, down to the Reformation, and below it, the Clergy assembling in Convocation have been still reputed and spoken of in our Records, and most Authentic Writers, as attending on the Parliament, being of it, and acting in it: To what Intents and Purposes they were so, and how far their Parliamentary Interest in these times extended, is to be our Third and Last Enquiry.  
'Tis upon many accounts too nice a Point, to be fully and exactly stated here: Something however, as it falls in my way, I shall say of it; desiring the Reader (as I have done already on other Occasions) to remember, that I meddle not in what follows, with what is, or aught to be the Clergys' Right, or Privilege now; but only with what it has been heretofore; and that I act the part of a mere Historian, not of an Advocate.  
Their Great Parliamentary Right was to Tax themselves, which they did always by separate Grants, and those anciently neither prescribed, nor confirmed by the Laiety in Parliament. 
⸪ till 32. H. 8.  When therefore in the 4 R. II. 
* Rot. Par. n. 13.  the Commons proffered a certain Sum, so the Clergy, who (they said) had the third part of the Realm, would give as much, it was answered by the Clergy; that their Grants never had been, nor aught to be made in Parliament [in that sense of the word, by which the Parliament is opposed to the Convocation] that neither could the Laiety constrain Them in this respect, nor They the Laiety: praying the King withal, that the Liberties of the Church might be still preserved, as they had hitherto been; and that the Commons might be required to do their Duties, as the Clergy would also certainly do Theirs, and had always done. Upon which the Commons Proposal was with-drawn, and they granted without that Condition. And the same Motion was made again, and quashed, after a very remarkable manner, in the Eighth Year of this King, as I have already had occasion to observe.  
This Privilege they enjoyed chief as to their Old Revenues, with which they were endowed before the Statute of Mortmain; but for what they acquired after that Act, they were rated together with the Laiety, notwithstanding their frequent Struggles against it. 
† See Abr. of Rec. 15. E. III. p. 33.14. E. III. p. 28.20. E. III. p. 51.1. R. II. p. 163.   
Another of their Great Parliamentary Privileges was, To begin Bills by Petition from themselves, in the same manner as the Commons did; and those Requests, when answered from the Throne, by the advice of the King's Great Council, grew Statutes, or Ordinances of Parliament. The Rolls are full every were of These; which are mentioned under a distinct Head from those of the Commons, and Receivers are now and then particularly appointed for them 
* 21. E. III. See Abr. of Rec. p. 51. . They came sometimes from both Provinces 
† Rot. Par. 1. R. II. n. 112.  jointly, but generally from the Province of Cant. alone; and the Style of them was— Supplicant vestri Humiles Oratores, Praelati, & Clerus 
† 4. H. IV. n. 19.2. H. 4. n. 48.  Prov. Cant. Or Humiles & Devoti Oratores Clerus totius Prov. Cant. 
‖ 50. E. III. n. . Vos assiduels Orators, & devotz Prelatz, & toute la Clergie de Province, etc. 
⸪ 51. E. III n. 80.  Vostre Chapelains, 
⸫  La Commune de la Clergy 
† 25. E. III n. 69. . These Requests for the most part began in the Lower House of Convocation; especially when they tended to the Redress of Grievances, in which the Lower Clergy were most nearly concerned: and took it therefore to be their peculiar Province to draw up Heads of these, and propose them either immediately to the King and Parliament, or to the Prelates of the Upper House, in order to their being proposed in Parliament.  
The Clergy further claimed, in those times, to have no Bills in derogation of any of their Privileges and Immunities pass without their Consent. And in favour to this Claim of theirs it was, that when such Bills were offered, they were enacted sometimes by the King, under a Condition, that the Clergy should thereto agree 
† Rot. Par. 9 R. II. n. 44. ; and at other times, referred to the Clergy in Convocation; and the Answers made by them to such Petitions reported in Parliament. Numerous Instances there are in both these kinds; I shall mention some few of them.  
11. H. IV. n. 70. A Petition from the Commons is thus answered; C●st matteire appertient a S. Eglise— & quant a la Residence remedy 'em ●ust purveu en le darrain Convocation. Another Petition of theirs (7. R. II. n. 53.) thus: The King will Charge the Clergy to amend the same. It related to the Extortions of Ordinaries for the Probates of Wills.  
18. E. I. The Commons desire Remedy de multimodis injustis Vexationibus eïs factis per Officiales, & alios Ministros Ecclesiae. The King replied, Cancellarius emendet in Temporalibus, Archiepiscopus in Spiritualibus 
* Sir Rob. Cotton Rem. p. 216 . i e. the Archbibishop in Convocation.  
21. E. III. n. 48. To a Petition of the Commons about the Tithe of Great Wood, claimed, as they say, by the Clergy, in virtue of a late Constitution, the King's answer is; L'ercev●● que de Canterbery & les auters Evesques on't ●●●sponduz que tiele disme nest demandee per res●● de la dit Constitution, forsque de s●bbois.  
27. H. 6. n. 25. The Commons pray a Pardon, in behalf of some of the Clergy, allowing the King a Noble an head for every one of the Priests so pardoned. The King's Answer is (what, for as much as there is no Intimation of it in the Abridgement, I shall at length Transcribe): At the Reverence of, and for the Love and Tenderness that the King hath to the Chirche, and to the Ministers of the same, he wool that this Bill as to th' Imposition that should bate the Secular priests of this royalme not beneficed as Stipendiaries and chantry priests, be committed to the Archbishops and Bishops in the Convocations of the Clergies of this royalme, because it toucheth the Immunity and Liberty of the Chirche, the which the King intendeth to keep without hurt or Prejudice in all wise. And as touching the Pardon contained in this Bill, in case the Nobles of the said priests be granted to him in the said Convocations, than the King wool that the said Pardon stoned in his virtue and strength, without fine or fee paying therefore, by authority of this present Parliament.  
And when in the same Session the Commons petitioned for the Perpetual Imprisonment of Felonious Clarks, they were thus answered, Forasmuch as the matter contained in this Petition pertaineth to Spiritueltie, the King wool that th' Archbishops and the Bishops of this royalme set such due Remedy thereynne as shall seem to their wisdom covenable and sufficient therefore hereafter, and that the Chirche have its freedoms and liberties. n. 22.  
45. E. III. n. 47. The Commons ask, that the Statutes of the Priests, by Assent of the Clergy may be observed 
† Abr. of Rec. p. 114. . Again,  
50. E. III. n. 46. They desire que nul statute, ne Ordnance soit faite ne grante au Petition du Clergy, si ne soit per assent de Voz Commenes; ne que vous dites Communes ne soient obligez per nulles constitutions quills font pur lour avantage, sanz assent de voz dites Commenes. The Reason of which Request follows; Car eux ne veullent estre obligez a nul de voz Estatutz ne Ordinances faitz sanz lour assent. i e. to none, made to their Hurt and Detriment, & pur avantage de Gens Lays. In the King's answer, the Truth of what is here asserted, is not denied; but the Request and the Imputation being too general, it was ordered— Soit ceste matter declaree en special.  
The Protestation of the Clergy against the Statute of Provisors 
† 13. R. II. n. 18.  runs, That they assent to no Act, made in that or any other Parliament, in restrictionem Potestatis Apostolicae, aut in subversionem, enervationem, seu derogationem Ecclesiasticae Libertatis.  
Nay even as low as the Year 1529 or 30, I find 'em asserting their supposed Privileges in this respect, and complaining of some Statutes 
† For an account of which See Hist. of Ref. Vol. 1. p. 82.  which passed in that Parliament to their Prejudice, ad quae facienda nec consenserunt per se, nec per Procuratores suos; neque super eïsdem consulti fuerunt. 'Tis in a Petition yet unprinted, and which I shall therefore from a Cotton-Manuscript transcribe into the Appendix 
† See N. XV. .  
And some things have been reckoned to be so properly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance, that even in Acts of Parliament made since the Reformation concerning them, the Previous Resolution, or Concurrence of the Clergy in Convococation has been expressly taken notice of. Thus 5 and 6 E. VI c. 12. The Learned Clergy of the Realm are said to have determined Priests Marriages to be most Lawful, by the Law of God, in their Convocation, as well by their Common Assent, as by the Subscription of their hands. And 1 Eliz. c. 1. allowed not the High Commissioners to order, determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy, but only such as have heretofore been determined, ordered, or adjudged to be Heresy, by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared Heresy by the express and Plain Words of the said Canonical Scriptures or such as shall hereafter be ordered, judged, or determined to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm, with the Assent of the Clergy in their Convocation. And so in several other Statates.  
Beyond all this, their Consent in Parliament has also, by way of Condescension, been sometimes asked, and admitted, even in matters where they were not particularly interested. For 9 H. V the whole Body of the Clergy (under the Style of Proelati & Clerus) concurred to the Ratification of a League by Parliament; wherein it is said, how the King Tres Status regni, viz. Praelatos & Clerum, Nobiles & Magnates, nec non & Communitates dicti regni— ad Palatium suum Westminster— ad majorem firmitatem & robur pacis praedictae; nec non propter alias causas suum statum, regnum, & regni utilitatem concernentes juxta morem & consuetudinem ejusdem fecerat convocari— Coram quibus tribus Statibus idem Serenissimus dominus Rex, etc. made this Treaty be read, and They confirmed it. n. 15.  
And the very same Method, I doubt not, was practised 35. E. III. when, according to Walsingham's account, in Parliamento Londoniis proponebatur cunctis Regni Statibus Concordia inter Reges Stabilita, placuitque 
* Yp. Neustr. ad ann. 1361.  cunctis dictam concordiam recipere & tenere 
* Yp. Neustr. ad ann. 1361. .  
6. H. VI n. 27. When it was Enacted, that no Man should contract or marry himself to any Queen of England, without the King's leave; the Record says, that the Bishops and Clergy agree to it, as far forth as the same swerveth not from the Law of God, and of the Church, and so as the same importeth no Deadly Sin. 
* Abr. of Rec. p. 589. .  
In all the Judgements of the Parliament 21. R. II. the Name and Assent of the Proctors of the Clergy is particularly alleged 
† Abr. of Rec. p. 381. , to countenance (as the Historian of our Reformation supposes 
‖ Part 2. p. 49. ) the Acts of that Meeting, wherein the whole Proceeding of a former Parliament was annulled; and to give a Collateral Assent, and Authority to them, as another Writer 
* L. M. P. p. 32.  (not much amiss, I think) distinguishes. And thus far I can agree with Both: but when his Lordship further adds, that this is the only time that they are mentioned as bearing a share in the Legislative Power, I must beg leave to believe the Records before him: One of which [the Instrument of Succession in H. IVth's time] has been already produced 
† P. 61, 62. ; and his Lordship upon a view of the Words cannot, I dare say, doubt whether the Clergy were, in that Instance, allowed a share in the Legislative Power; for the Succession is said to be settled, not only with their Consent, but by their Authority.  
Such have the Instances been, in which they either claimed, or were indulged a consenting Voice; and for the sake of which, as it should seem, their Summons ad consentiendum issued out all along, even after their Complete Separation. Not that the same Reasons still continue, though the same Summons does; for 200 Years Disuse has barred the Clergy from acting Parliamentarily in several Instances, which heretofore they were allowed to interpose in. Our Constitution is much altered in many of these respects: and (to say the Truth) it was fit, that in many of'em it should be altered; and that the Parliamentary Interest of the Lower Clergy should be reduced (as it is) to Matters Ecclesiastical, and such Things as concern either Religion, or their Order. And in this Sphere, I conceive, they still move, and are still a Parliamentary Assembly; whose Consent is regularly to be had to all Laws, relating to Faith, or Church-Discipline, when ever the Parliament shall please to enact any; and whose consent, when Previous to such Laws, is, I presume, most Regular. They have still a Right o● being summoned to▪ and with every new Parliament, and a Right of sitting by virtue of that Summons; in order, not to those High Affairs of State, which they once considered jointly with my Lords the Bishops, when they sat with them in Parliament; and which made the Constant Preamble of their Convocation-Writs, long after they separated: but for some Religious Ends, and Church Purposes; with which, however, the Safety and Peace of the State is closely interwoven. They are to be ready, to offer to the King and Parliament, what they shall Judge serviceable to the Interests of Piety and Good Manners; and to consider of what shall be offered to them; to remonstrate against what may be passing there to their Disadvantage; and to pray Help of the States, in such matters as may redound both to the Benefit of their Own Order, and to the good of the whole Kingdom. In these, and several such respects as these, the Clergy have still a Right of Attending on every New Parliament; and (which ought to be considered) the Parliament have also a Right of being attended by them, as their Proper Assistants, and Councelors in matters Ecclesiastical, whose Judgement is in many cases to be asked even where it may not be followed; and whose Resolutions are not without Weight, even when they are without Authority.  
'Tis in this case, as in that of the judges, the Masters in Chancery, and the King's Council learned in the Law; who have a Right of being called up to the House of Lords, and to that end can demand their Writs of Assistance: Nor is this all; for the Lords also have a Right of being thus assisted by them; and can therefore claim their attendance, though they themselves should be willing to forego it: The Privilege is mutual, and not to be waved on the one side, without Consent of the other. In like manner, I say, the Convocation-Clergy may be considered as the Council Spiritual of Parliament; to whose attendance therefore, that August Body is entitled; and in whose Summons and sitting consequently, it is in a near manner concerned. For should there not be frequent need of their Advice or Assistance, yet as it is for the Honour of the two Houses, that the Clergy should be ready always, against there shall be need of it; so is it for their Interest too, to keep up a Title to such Assisting Assemblies, by keeping up the Assemblies themselves. It is possible, that there may be no occasion of advising with the judges, throughout an whole Session of Parliament. Can the Lords certainly foresee this, yet they would not, I suppose, consent that their Summons should, for that time, be dropped, or even their Attendance excused.  
The Argument therefore advanced in these Papers must be looked upon, as a Plea for the Privileges, not of the Convocation-Clergy only, but of the Parliament itself also, to which they belong; and to whose Assemblies, Theirs, are now, and from the first settlement of Christianity among us have been, strictly united: not indeed constantly in the same Respects, and by the very same State-Tyes, and Ligaments; but sometimes by more, and sometimes by fewer; and always by such, and so many, as were needful to preserve, and prove the Union. An Account of these, regularly deduced through the several Periods of time, from the earliest Saxon Age downwards, has been the business of this Chapter: not with any Aim of retrieving lost Rights, or building New Pretensions on Old disused Practices; but merely to show, that the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Clergy, are of the Essence of our Government, have been practised from the foundation of it, and are woven into the Frame of it; and can never therefore without doing Violence to our good Old Constitution, be suppressed.  
The Ends and Uses indeed of these Conventions of the Clergy have been different; but under all those Varietys', the Right, and the Practice of Convening has still continued the same, without being ever, till now, interrupted, or disputed. And therefore (to repeat here at the close of this Chapter, what I have said already at the Entrance of it) it makes nothing against the Clergys' Right of Meeting with the Parliament, that they are now no Member, or Estate of Parliament (as Dr. W. objects): since they are, however, an Estate of the Realm, obliged and entitled by the fixed Rules of our Constitution to assemble with the Parliament; and which has, according to this Obligation, and by this Title, assembled with it, now for some hundred Years, since all Pretence of assembling, as an Estate of Parliament, vanished.  
And now, I have, I think, answered all Dr. W's Objections on this first Head; unless we should allow a certain poor Colour of his to pass for an Objection, where he tells us, that Our Kings have often been wont to hold Convocations when there were were no Parliaments sitting 
† Pp. 229. (286.) : from whence he would have it understood, that those two Meetings have no manner of dependence upon one another; and that the King therefore is as much at Liberty to hold a Parliament without a Convocation, as he has been to call a Convocation without a Parliament. To this End he has adorned his Appendix with a learned List of Convocations anciently held without Parliaments, or at different Times from them 
* Num. VI : an whole Dozen of which he finds in the Compass of 240 Years 
† From 1287. to 1538. . 'Tis a mercy, his knowledge is somewhat stinted in this way: for else, we should assuredly have had fifty Instances more of the kind; since so many at least, might, within that Compass of time, have been fetched from our Manuscript Registers, and Printed Historians. I could without difficulty number up the greatest part of them now, if it were either worth the Readers while to have such a List, or related any ways to the present Dispute; which turns not on the King's Prerogative of assembling Convocations out of Parliament (a Right undoubtedly belonging to the Crown in elder Times) but on the Spiritual Subject's Privilege of being assembled in it. Had Dr. W. given us a List of Parliaments anciently held without Convocations, That indeed had been to his purpose, and would have gone a good way towards settling the Point between us. But here he is as reserved as one would wish; for from the beginning to the end of his Crude Work, there is not a single Instance of this kind made out, or so much as pretended 
† Except the Trite▪ Instance of Excluse Clero. . Nay, to see the fate of misapplyed Reading, even of those twelve insignificant Instances which he has produced, no less than eight are evidently mistaken, as to the Dates either of the Parliaments, or Convocations mentioned in them. The Reader will rather take my word for it, than allow me the liberty of interrupting the Course of my Argument so far, as to prove it: And I shall proceed therefore to consider and remove the several Objections that lie also against the second Point advanced in these Papers, that the Clergy, when met, have a Right of Treating and Debating freely about such matters as lie within their proper Sphere, and even of coming to fit Resolutions upon them, without being necessitated antecedently to gratify themselves for such Acts or Debates, by a Licence under the Broad Seal of England.   

CHAP. VIII.  
IT had been argued from the General Nature of such Assemblies, as these we are treating of, that Freedom of Debate was their undoubted Right and Privilege, incident to them as such, and inseparable from ' 'em. To this I find these several Answers returned.  
Dr. W. assures us, that the Debates of the most General and Famous Councils have been under as great Restraint as he supposes the Convocation to be 
† P. 288.   
L. M. P. adds, that poinding's Law has tied up even a Parliament in Ireland as strictly 
† P. 44. : and the Author of the Postscript 
⸪ At the end of a Book, entitled— An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, 8●. 1697.  fetches a third Instance from Scotland, where the Three Estates, he says, can debate of nothing, but what the Lords of the Articles have beforehand agreed on 
‖ P. 198. .  
As to the first of these, supposing Dr. W's Allegation true, yet he has been told, that there is no arguing from the Powers claimed, or exercised by Emperors in those Great and Extraordinary Assemblies, to what is fit to be done in lesser and stated one's: and why such Inferences do not hold, some Reasons have been given him, which I need not now repeat. But in truth he mistakes, or misrepresents the Practice of the Emperors, even in these General and Famous Councils, which (I have shown him p. 125, 6.) went no further, than to require a preference to that Particular Business for the Dispatch of which they were Summoned, not to exclude their debating on any thing, but what the Emperor proposed to them. And of this the Canons of those Councils are an Evidence beyond Dispute; which, both as to Matter and Form, took their Rise from the several Synods they were made in, without any Imperial Leave, or Direction for the framing them. With what Face then can Dr. W. vouch the Practice of these Councils as Precedents for that Degree of restraint he would have laid on an English Convocation? With what Truth or Conscience can he affirm, that they acted entirely according to the Prescription of the Emperors? 
† P. 288.  and deliberated on nothing, but what they were directed, or allowed (he means expressly, and particularly allowed) by the Prince to deliberate on 
† P. 48. ? Whatever our Author may think of such Doctrine Now, or whatever he may Hope from it, sure I am, that had he lived, and uttered it, while those Holy Synods were in being, it would not have been two or three Years afterwards before he had repent of it. But Old Councils are Dead and Gone; and any thing, it seems, may be said of them. Let him not depend too much upon that: for they have Friends still in the World, that may happen, yet before he dies, to meet together, and ask him a few Questions. A living Synod may sometime or other think it for its Interest, and find it in its Power, to vindicate the Honour and Authority of the Dead ones.  
Well, if Old Councils cannot afford a Precedent, Modern Parliaments shall. poinding's Law therefore is urged, which provides, that All such Bills as shall be offered to the Parliament of Ireland, shall be transmitted hither under the Great Seal of that Kingdom; and having received approbation here, shall be sent back under the Great Seal of England, to be preferred to the Parliament of Ireland 
† L. M. P. p 44. . But what have we to do with Instances fetched from Conquered Countries, who must receive what Terms the Victor pleases, and be glad of any? We live among another People, always Jealous of their Liberties, and careful to preserve them: in a Land, where slavery either in Church or State, though sometimes planted, could never thrive. And those Fetters therefore, which might perhaps justly be laid on an Irish Parliament, may not fit an English Convocation so well; which is therefore free, because it is an English one. But after all, how far does this Law of Poynings reach; Our Lawyer tells us, that it leaves not the Parliament at Liberty to propose what Laws they please, that the Irish look upon it as Conclusive upon their Debates, and are satisfied: and again, that we have here an Instance of a Parliament without Liberty of Debate. But this is too gross an Imposition upon the Credulity of his Readers; few of which are so ignorant, as not to be ware, that poinding's Law lays a restraint only on the Enacting Power of their Parliament, but not on the Debates of it; which, notwithstanding this Act, are left as free as ever. They can still Treat and Confer about all Matters and Causes that are of Parliamentary Cognizance; they can Petition, Represent, and Protest: Nay they can propose what Heads of Bills they please, to be transmitted hither, and sent back thither in Form; of which we have had very late and frequent Experience. And how therefore the Abridgement of the Convocations Liberty of Debate can be pretended to be justified by this Irish Precedent, is, I confess, past my English Understanding. For, as I take it, the Convocation desires no other Powers and Privileges, but just what this Parliament claims and practices; and pleads only, that the 25 H. VIII. may not be extended to such a Rigorous and Unjustifiable Sense, as will lay greater restraints upon Them, than poinding's Laws does upon Those of Ireland.  
But our Letter-writer himself is sensible, that this Instance is not to the purpose: for at the close of it, his Conscience gives a little, and he is forced to confess, that the Irish Parliament are not under an Universal Restraint, nor wholly mute, till the King gives them Power to Debate and Act 
† P. 44. . Are they not? Why then was it generally said, that they were a Parliament without a Liberty of Debate, or of proposing what Laws they please, in the very next Lines to these, where it is all unsaid again? What means this Absurd Writer, to place his Inconsistencies so near one another, that one Glance of the Eye discovers them? Even Dr. W. is in this respect a more Modest and Wary Manager: for His Contradictions usually keep their Distance, and may lie hid therefore, if the Reader do not think it worth his while (as few Readers do perhaps) to carry the several parts of his Book in their mind, and compare them one with another. Besides, if the Irish Parliament is not under an Universal Restraint, what have we to do with it here▪ where we are enquiring after Instances, to countenance the laying such an Universal Restraint on the Convocation in England? If this be not a Parallel of a Restraint in the same Degree, it is no parallel at all: there is no doubt, but such meetings may be restrained; how far, is the Question. Were Precedents Proofs of the Reasonableness of such and such ways of acting, yet those Precedents must be exact and full, or they prove nothing. Ay, but the same Power that disabled them so far, might have put them under an entire disability. It might so, if they were a Province won to the Crown by its Sword; for it might have allowed them no Parliament at all: but if it allowed them any, Freedom of Debate could not have been denied them; without which, in the Apprehensions of Us Englishmen, there can be no Parliament. 'Tis true, the French use the word otherwise: for with Them it signifies an Assembly, to which the King's Edicts are sent to be verified. But we are not yet acquainted with this Sense of the Word, and I hope never shall. We took the Term from them heretofore, when it signified something else; and we have taken care to preserve its Original Meaning. Dr. W. indeed bids far for introducing the French sense of the Word; for he tells us roundly, That the English Parliament are, 
P. (289.)  in the main parts of their Debates as much, though not as necessarily directed by the King in what he would have them consult about, as the Convocation itself. And how far the Convocation is, in his Opinion, to be directed by the King, his Book informs us. This is harsh Doctrine, to suppose any restraint upon the Parliaments Freedom of Debate, and may happen not to go down easily with Those that are concerned in it. But he thinks he has softened it, by saying, that the Parliament are in their Debates as much, though not as necessarily directed as the Convocation. What the meaning of that senseless Distinction is, I cannot see, or how it does him any service. Should we allow him, that his Doctrine curbs the Parliaments Freedom of Debate as much, though not as necessarily, as it does that of Convocation, would such an allowance mend the matter? or screen him a whit the more from the Just Resentments of Those, who will no more bear being told, that they are as much, than that they are as necessarily directed in their Debates, as the Convocation is? if indeed the Convocation can debate of nothing, till they are qualified for it under the Broad Seal of England. I am mistaken, if this be not, to wound the Liberties of Parliament, through those of Convocation.  
The Instance of the Lords of the Articles in Scotland is as little to the purpose. They were a Previous Committee, composed of some Members of the Estates of Parliament, through which every Act was to pass, before it could come before the States themselves. But they were no bar upon the Debates of Parliament; where any Subject might be started and discussed, any Requests or Proposals to the Prince might be drawn, whether these Lords had made way for such Considerations or no. However, the check which this gave to the Parliament in their Legigislative Capacity, was thought a Badge of slavery by the Scotch; and therefore towards the beginning of this Revolution, when the Chains were knocked off every where from his Majesty's Subjects, this Committee was abolished. And had the English Clergy then lain under any undue Restraint, They too might have hoped for a Relief from it, assoon as any men; since none had been more Instrumental than They in promoting the Common Deliverance. They might have expected a legal Relaxation of the Rigour of any Law that lay hard upon them: but instead of this, their only Request is, that an Act made in Abridgement of their Privileges may not be construed to an Illegal and Oppressive Sense; that they may enjoy their Old Rights, which they stand possessed of by Law; and that no New Encroachments may take place upon them. Which is so very Modest a Plea, as may be made by any Body of Men, even without Merit on their ●●de; and cannot when understood, be denied them without Injustice: and therefore, I am confident, when it is understood will not be denied them.  
Having taken off this General Colour, drawn from the Authority exercised over such Meetings as these, in other Times and Countries, I go on now to what has been objected more particularly and closely. And the first Exception of Weight that lies against the Claim made, is, That the Perpetual Practice of Convocations, ever since the 25 H. VIII▪ runs otherwise: and this indeed, were it true, would be a strong one. And if General Assertions without Proofs would have made it true, Dr. W. had done it: for he has over and over 
† 
Pref. p. II. pp. 26, 40, 43, 109, 113, 115, 116, etc. 293.  
L. M. P. p. 40, 43, 3●   affirmed this to be the case, with as much assurance as if he had perused the Journals of every Convocation since that Act, and seen the King's several Commissions entered there. By that time he is got to the second Page of his Preface, we have him affirming, that the Sense of the Act given is repugnant to the Constant Practice of our Convocations ever since the time of H. VIII. This is certain, he says, nor does he Himself (against whom he writes) deny it. Indeed 'tis just as certain, as it is that that Writer yields it; who says only [in answer to a Question there put, whether the Convocation may confer without a Licence?] that the Common received Opinion is in the Negative 
† P. 40. . But not a word has he there, or any where else, about the Practice consequent upon that Act: and he speaks only of the Opinion at present received, without entering into the Judgement of Elder times. So that Dr. W. represents his Adversaries Positions just as honestly as he argues against them. Indeed should that Author have allowed the stream either of Practice or Opinion to have been always contrary to his sense of the Act, he had been (as Dr. W. now is) under a Gross Mistake; for it is certain, that both General Opinion and Practice were on his side for many Years after the Act passed. Upon a strict Enquiry into the matter, I find no Instance of a Commission to treat, that is not Threescore and ten Years younger than the Statute itself. The several Convocations in the 12 last years of H. the VIII. those of E. the VI th'. of Q. Marry, and Q. Elizabeth all, for aught I can find, acted without any such Commission, or Licence in writing; and the first time we meet with it on Record, is, in 1603, when King James' first Synod met, to settle the Discipline of the Church, in that Body of Canons, which at present obtains. Nor is there any Opinion, I believe for the Necessity of such a Licence, elder than this Practice: at least I have not had the good fortune ever to meet with any, though I have diligently sought for it. 'Tis true, the Registers of most Convocations, summoned since this Statute, were lost in the Fire of London; however large Extracts out of several of them are preserved, and complete Transcripts of some: and in none of these is there the least Footstep of any Licence under the Broad Seal to be seen, but very plain Intimations to the contrary; as I shall now by some Remarkable Passages taken from thence, and from other Books and Papers of good Authority show. And if I am somewhat Larger in my Recitals of this kind than is absolutely necessary, the Reader, I hope, will easily forgive me: What does not directly tend to establish my Assertion, will serve at least to give some small Light into the Methods of Proceeding usual in Convocation, which the Author of the Letter to a Convocation-man rightly observes to be little known, or minded. And Dr. Wake, who smiles at his Remark, is himself a most Contemptible Instance of the Truth of it: since he has ventured to write a Book, about the Customs and Privileges of Convocations, without having perused the Acts of almost any One English Synod; and has from the beginning to the end of his wretched Performance, proved nothing effectually, but his own profound Ignorance of the Subject he is engaged in.  
I shall take the Rise of my Enquiries from the Convocation which sat, upon a Prorogation, Nou. V 1532. before which the Submission of the Clergy was made to the King, but not yet Enacted: so that though it obliged them not Then as a Law, yet it bond them as a Promise; by the Terms of which, if a Commission to Treat had been then held necessary, we may be sure, they would not so soon after the making that Promise have treated without one. And yet I find no Hint of a Commission in a Diary of that Meeting, where a great many things of much less moment are set down; and where, it being the first time the Clergy met after they submitted, had any such thing been practised, we should without fail have heard of it. Sess. 11. Martii 26. 1533. this Note is inserted,— Tunc vertebatur in dubium, an liceret disputare in Negotio Regio, eò quòd Negotium pendet coram summo Pontifice indecisum. Which Doubt the Precedent removed by producing the Apostolic Brief, that gave leave cuilibet Opiniones suas dicere; & Dominus Praesidens instanter rogavit omnes ut diligenter inquirerent de ista quaestione, & referrent quid sentirent. 
See Ant. Brit. ad ann. where the very same account is given of Stokesly ' s producing a Licence from the Pope, but no hint of any from the King.  They had no doubts, it seems, about the Lawfulness of Treating without a Royal Licence; which had they had, it would have been mentioned here together with the Papal Leave: and we may fairly therefore presume, they had none.  
In the Convocation begun june 9 1536. the first in which Cromwell sat as Vicegerent 
* The Bishop of Sarum tells us, that Cromwell came hither as the King's Vicar-General; but he was not yet Vicegerent. For he sat next the Archbishop; but when he had that Dignity, he sat above him. Nor do I find him styled in any Writing Vicegerent, for sometime after this, though my Lord Herbert says he was made Vicegerent the 18th. of July this Year, the same day on which the Parliament was Dissolved. Vol. 1. p. 213. In which Paragraph there are great Marks of Haste: For the Acts of this Convocation expressly call Cromwell Vicegerent, as well as Vicar-General, and show, that he both took place of the Archbishop, and signed before him; as he does in two Papers that passed this very Convocation, and which together with the Subscriptions his Lordship has given us. Vol. 1. Coll. of Rec. p. 157. p. 315. The Words of the Acts are— Magister Willielmus Petre allegavit, quòd ubi haec Synodus convocata ●it auctoritate illustrissimi Principis▪ & dictus Princeps Supremum Locum in dictâ Convocatione tenere debeat, ac eo absente honorandus Magister Tho. Cromwell Vicarius Generalis ad Causas Ecclesiasticas, ejus Vicemgerens, locum ejus occupare debeat; ideò petiit pradictum locum sibi assignari. Ac ibidem praesentavit Literas Commissionales dicti Domini sui, sigillo Principis ad Causas Ecclesiasticas sigillatas. Quibus perlectis Reverendissimus assignavit sibi Locum juxta se, i. e. the Place next above himself, which he demanded. Nor does my Lord Herbert say, that Cromwell was made Vicegerent July 18th. this Year; but July 9th. (see Hist. p. 466.) which is a manifest Misprint for June 9th. the very day on which this Convocation was opened, and on which, I suppose, his Patent bore date. Indeed, I question, whether the Powers of Vicar-General, and Vicegerent were different, and conveyed, as my Lord of Sarum thinks by different Patents, for I have seen no Good Ground any where for such a Distinction. In the Collection of Records at the End of the second Part (p. 303.) the Bishop has given us what he calls Cromwell 's Commission to be Lord Vicegerent in all Ecclesiastical Causes. But his Lordship had not time to peruse it; for upon reading it, he would have found, that it was only the Draught of a Commission to certain Persons deputed by Cromwell to execute the Vicegerents Power in several parts of the Kingdom: One of those Subordinate or Subaltern Commissions, which had respect to a Superior one, as his Lordship upon another occasion (Vol. 2. p. 347.) very properly distinguishes. , we are told, Comparuit Dominus Prolocutor unà cum Clero, & exhibuit Librum sub Protestatione, continentem mala Dogmata per Concionatores intra Prov. Cant. publicè praedicata. This List is Printed by Fuller 
† P. 208. ; and in it the Clergy, by way of Preface to their Articles, Protest, That they neither in Word, Deed, or otherwise, directly, or indirectly, intent any thing to speak, attempt, or do, which in any manner of wise may be displeasant unto the King's Highness, etc. and that they sincerely addict themselves to Almighty God, his Laws, and unto their said Sovereign Lord the King, their Supreme Head in Earth, and his Laws, Statutes, Provisions, and Ordinances, made here within his Grace's Realms. Had any General Commission been granted them, there had been no need of this Protestation; which was made, to guard against the Penalties of the Acts 25. and 27. H. VIII. and has therefore, we see a plain reference to them.  
The Convocation in which Alesius the Scot disputed with so much applause, sat the Year after this, Anno 1537: 
† Ant. Brit. p. 331. Fox Vol. 2. p. 504.  (though my Lord of Sarum 
† Vol. 1. p. 214. , I find, out of a laudable Eagerness to record the Honours done to his Countrymen, has placed this Dispute a Year earlier than it happened.) Cromwell opened the Meeting with a Speech, where he tells them, that they are called to determine certain Controversys in Religion, which at this time be moved, concerning the Christian Religion and Faith, not only in this Realm, but also in all Nations through the World. For the King studieth Night and Day to set a Quietness in the Church, and he cannot rest till all such Controversys be fully debated, and ended through the Determination of You, and of his Whole Parliament. For— he will suffer no Common Alteration but by the Consent of You, and of his Whole Parliament. And he desireth You for Christ's sake, that All Malice, Obstinacy, and Carnal Respect set apart, ye will friendly and lovingly dispute among yourselves of the Controversys moved in the Church, etc. These Fox tells us, were the very words of his Speech; and that, as soon as it was ended, the Bishops risen up altogether, giving thanks unto the King's Majesty, not only for his Great Zeal towards the Church of Christ, but also for his Godly Exhortation worthy so Christian a Prince [and then] immediately they went to Disputation. We may observe here, that neither Cromwell in his Speech to the Convocation, nor the Prelates in their Answer, mention any Commission to Treat, though it had been a Proper Head to have been enlarged on, in both Cases; and could not well have escaped the Clergy, when returning Thanks to the King for his Goodness to them, had any such Commission then issued. But that it did not, and that the Clergy were then under no Apprehensions that their liberty of Debating on what Subjects, and even of coming to what Conclusions they pleased, was abridged by the late Act, the Preface to the Institution of a Christian Man (a Book, which passed this Convocation) evidently shows. I have transcribed the Passage already from thence 
† See P. 97. , and shall here therefore only refer the Reader to it. No, the Practice then, and long afterwards, was only for the Precedent of the Synod to declare to 'em by word of Mouth 
* 
Thus in the Convocation of Jan. 1. 1557 The Acts say, that Card. Pool Causas hujus Synodi Verbo tenùs proposuit. And so divers times before, and after.  
1541. jan. 20. Reverendissimus exposuit iis ex parte Regis qùod intentio ejus erat, qùod ipsi inter se deliberarent de Reformandis Errotibus— & conficerent Leges de Simoniâ vitandâ, etc.  
1547. 1. E. VI Nou. 5. Rev mus exposuit i●s fuisse, etc. de mandato Regio & Procerum qùod Praelati & Clerus inter se con●●lerent de ver● Christi Religione probè instituendâ.  
With this agrees an Old Directory of Cranmers for the first Day of the Convocation, 7 E. VI May 1. 1552.  
§. 6. The Clergy of the Inferior House to be called up to the Chapitor; his Grace to declare the Cause of this Convocation, and to appoint them to Elect, etc.  
1555. 22. Oct. Episcopus London summariè & compendiosè Causam Synodi vocatae exposuit.  
jan. 13. 1562. Arch. Cant. brevem quandem Orationem Eloquentiae plenam habuit ad Patres & Clerum; perquam inter alia opportunitatem reformandarum rerum in Eccl. Anglic. jam oblatam esse aperuit, ac Propensos animos tam illustrissimae Dominae Nostrae Reginae quàm aliorum Magnatum hujus regni ad hujusmodi Reformationem habendam declaravit.  
I have laid these Instances together, that we may see clearly, what the Custom than was, and how a Message from the King by the Precedent supplied the place of a Commission under the Broad Seal, which was afterwards practised. Heylin and Fuller have translated some of these Passages in their Histories, but so loosely, as to accommodate them to the Current Doctrine and Practice of their time, when a Licence to Treat was held necessary. Which I mention, to warn the Reader, not to receive their Versions as Literal: For it is plain, they saw no other Acts of Convocation than those from whence these Transcripts were taken.   the King's Pleasure, for what Ends he had called them together, and what Business he would have them proceed upon. And this Verbal Intimation was all the Previous Leave that was either asked, or given in That, or several other succeeding Reigns.  
The only Instance in H. the VIII 's time that seems to contradict this, is the Divorce of Anne of Cleve in 1540, mentioned by L. M. P. 
* P. 40.  which he says, the Clergy could not take cognizance of, till the King's Commission impowered them to debate and consider it. And in their judgement therefore they recite that Commission at large, and by virtue of it declare, etc. They do so; and there were Two very good Reasons for it, arising from the Matter about which they were to give their Judgement, and from the Manner also in which they were to handle it. As to the first of these, the attempting any thing by Word or Deed against this Marriage of the King with Anne of Cleve, was High-Treason (or at least● Misprision of Treason) by the Laws of the Realm; as the Clause of Pardon in the Act 
† 32. H. 8. c. 25.  for dissolving this Marriage evidently shows. And the Clergy therefore had reason to desire a Commission from the Crown, to screen them from these Penealtys. But further, such a Commission was necessary, not only for their security in a point of this Importance, but in order to their very Assembling. For (which has not been hitherto observed) this Cause was adjudged, not in a Convocation properly so called, that is, in a Provincial Synod; but in a National Assembly of the whole Clergy of either Province: the King issuing out his Letters Commissional under the Great Seal (as the Sentence 
* See it Bishop Burnet. Vol. 1. Col. of Rec. p. 197.  speaks) to the Two Archbishops, All the Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, and Clergy of England, and commanding them in Universalem Synodum convenire, to debate, and determine this matter. The Lords and Commons then sitting had petitioned the King to refer it to his Clergy, with a design of grounding an Act of Parliament on Their Determination. The Business required Haste 
† The Commission was sealed the 6 th'. of July, the Clergy met by Virtue of it the 7th. The Cause was heard, judgement given, and Letters Testimonial of that judgement drawn up, and signed by all the Clergy on the 9th. such Dispatch was required of them. On the 10th. the Archbishop of Cant. reported it to the Lords and Commons. On the 11th. the King let the Queen, then at Richmond, know what was done, and had her Consent to it; and on the 12th. a Bill was brought into the House annulling the Marriage, which (says my Lord of Sarum Vol. 1. p. 282.) went easily through both Houses. , for the Summer was now far come on, and the Parliament of Necessity soon to disperse; it could not therefore be committed separately to the Convocations of either Province, there to be transacted in a Regular manner: But all the Bishops of the Province of York being present in Parliament, and all the Clergy of that of Canterbury being ready hard by in their Convocation; the King took this way of joining both together by his Commission, and forming One National Assembly. To these he recommended the Discussion of his Case, so that what should be by them determined, id demùm (says he) Totius Ecclesiae nostrae Autoritate innixi licitè facere & exequi audeamus. It is manifest, that this Commission to Treat (or rather to Sat 
† The Clergy are said in the Instrument, to be Congregati & Convocati virtute Commissionis, etc. but there is no formal Mention of their Treating in virtue of it. ) was here necessary to be issued out, for such Reasons, as sufficiently distinguish both this Meeting, and their Business from those we are discoursing of. To proceed therefore to the times of E. VI In his first Year I have shown the Custom still continued for the Precedent to declare the King's good Pleasure to the Houses, Orally, without producing any Licence under the Broad Seal. 'Tis true, there is the Draught of a Petition of this Year preserved, which seems at first sight to imply the contrary; and shall be fully considered under a separate Head: All I shall here say to it is, that should the Sense of the Inferior Clergy be justly expressed in this Petition, at the opening of this Convocation, yet 'tis certain they continued not long of this Opinion; but were soon satisfied, either from the Answer made to them by the Bishops, or some other way, that their Fears of incurring a Praemunire, if they treated without a Commission, were vain and groundless; because we are as sure as we can be of a Negative of this nature at this distance, that in all the Convocations for many Years after this they treated without one.  
In the 6 th'. of the same Prince (1552) that Convocation met in which the first 42 Articles passed, whose Title is, Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi Anno Dom. 1552▪ ad tollendam Opinionum dissensionem & consensum Verae Religionis firmandum, inter Episcopos & alios Eruditos Viros convenerat. Regià Authoritate in Lucem Editi. And here again the Omission of a Licence in form ought to satisfy us, that there was no such thing, because where we know it was granted, as in 1603. and 1640. there the Titles of the Canons than framed carry an Express mention of it.  
1 o. Mariae, The Prolocutor certified the [Lower] House [upon their first Meeting] that it was the Queen's Pleasure that the Company of the same House being Learned Men 
* This explains the Eruditi Viri in the Title of the Canons of 1552. And is another Instance of the Convocational Use of that Phrase, to be added to those I have given. p.  Assembled, should debate of matters of Religion, and constitute Laws thereof, which her Grace and the Parliament would ratify. 
† Philpot 's account in Fox Vol. 3. p. 19  And the same Intimation was given, I suppose, by Bonner, the Precedent of the Upper House, to the Bishops; or rather to both the Houses jointly, and his Speech reported afterwards by the Prolocutor to the Lower Clergy; as the Custom is for the Speaker to do in Parliament. The Business committed to this Convocation was very extensive we see; and yet no other Licence, but what was Verbal, either given, or required; tho' the 25. H. VIII. stood in full force, both then and the Year afterwards.  
When another Convocation met, Nou. 13. 1554. They too debated and acted, though Unlicens'd 
† As far as the Silence of the Acts in this case (good part of which I have seen) are an Evidence of it. ; and among other things solicited for a Repeal of this Statute. Twenty Eight Articles of Reformation the Lower House preferred; and in the Preface to those Articles assert the Power by which they did it, Accounting ourselves (say they) to be called hither— to treat with Your Lordships as well concerning the restitution of this Noble Church of England to the Pristin State and Unity of Christ's Church, as of other things touching the State and Quietness of the same Church in Doctrine and in Manners; we have for the furtherance of your Godly Do therein devised these Articles following 
† Bishop Burnet 2. Vol. Col. of Rec. p. 207 .  
The next Convocation Dr. iv 
* Appeal p. 30.  assure us out of the late Life of Cranmer, was assembled by Cardinal Pole in virtue of a Licence from the Queen, whereby he was impower'd also to make Canons. But this is according to his usual Exactness in these Matters. The Convocation in 1555. met Oct. 22. 
† Act. MSS ; the Cardinal's Licence to hold a Synod bears date Nou. 2. (
⸪ Anth. Harmar. p. 142. ) that Year; and that Convocation therefore could not possibly be assembled by him in virtue of this Licence. Besides, he was not consecrated till the Day after Granmers Death (22. March. 155● 
‖ Hist. of Ref. Vol. 2. p. 340. ) and could not therefore, as Archbishop, till than▪ summon a Convocation of the Province. The true account of this matter is, that the Parliament meeting this Year, Oct. 21. 
† D●dg. Sum. p. 517. , the Convocation also, in course, met the day after it at Paul's; being convened by the Dean and Chapter of Cant. 
‖ Heylin Hist. Q. Marry, p. 223.  as was usual in the Vacancy. The Cardinal, though in England, did not appear at it, but Bonner, by Commission from the Chapter presided. There they sat and did business till Oct. 30. 
* Act. MSS  when I find them coming to a Conclusion, and offering their Subsidies, and Complaints to the Queen. The second of the next Month, 
Anth. Harmar p. 141  the Cardinal had his Licence under the Broad Seal, to hold his Synod Legatin of both Provinces, and upon it issued out his Mandate to Bonner, Nou. the 8 th'. for the Prov. of Cant. to meet those of York, on the second of Decem. following. Accordingly both Provinces met in the King's Chapel at White-Hall 
† Act. MSS. Memorandum 〈◊〉 post incaeptam Convocationem in Ecclesiâ Divi Pauli, etc. Loco Capitulari ibidem, posteà [Episcopi] unà cum Inferiori Clero Prov. Eb●r comparuerunt in Synodo Reverendissimi in Christo Patris Domini Reginaldi, etc. inchoatâ in Sacello Regio apud Whitehall prope Westminster. W. Say. ; and from thence adjourned back again to Paul's, and afterwards to Lambeth; and continued sitting there till Feb. 11 th'. which was two Months after the Parliament was dissolved 
† Parl. dissolved Dec. 9 Journal. . Nor was the Synod even then dissolved; but prorogued only to the 10 th'. of October.  
All our Writers (my Lord of Sarum not excepted) have confounded Two things here, that are very distinct, the Convocation of this Year, and the Legatin Synod: For the Former of these no Licence was granted, or necessary; but it issued purely in relation to the Latter; wherein the Clergy of both Provinces were to meet N●tionally, by a Legatine Authority. For the Exercise of this Authority the Cardinal had before hand been impower'd by Letters Patents of Decem. 10. 1554. But this Licence being too General, and expressing matters of jurisdiction and Dispensation only; it was thought fit to add another, for the more ample Declaration of those Letters Patents (as the Words of it are); and therein to specify the Power of holding Synods, and framing Constitutions Legatine, and to indemnify the Clergy particularly for meeting and acting under that Authority. This (says the Bishop) was thought safe on both sides, both for Preserving the Rights of the Crown, and securing the Clergy from being afterwards brought within the Statute of Praemunire, as they had been upon their acknowledging Cardinal Wolsey's Legatine Authority 
† Vol. 2. p. 324. : For the Old Laws against Provisions, which brought the Clergy then under a Praemunire, were still in force. This was the Reason of the second Licence, which could have no manner of regard to the 25 H. VIII. for that Act was Then repealed. I shall give the Reader in the Appendix 
† Nurse XVI.  this Licence at large, as it is found in Pole's Register 
* Fol. 7. ; where (and it seems, in the Patent Rolls 
† Rot. Pat. 1. part 310. Reg. says Hist. Ref. ibid.  also) it is still preserved. The Observation naturally arising from hence is, That if any other Licence of this Nature had from the Time of these Legatin Synods down to that of james the I. been granted, it would also either in the Rolls, or Registers be found: But none such (that I can hear of) appearing there, we have all the Reason in the World to conclude, that none issued. In which Opinion we shall be further confirmed if we take a view of the Convocations in Q. Elizabeth's Reign.  
The first, met jan. 24. 1558/ 9 and were so far from being Commissioned to Treat, that they had not so much as any General Directions from the Precedent to proceed upon Business 
† See Fuller C. H. p. 54. Act. MSS. : for when he enquired, an Clerus Inferioris Domùs aliquid excogitavit qùod voluerunt exponere illo die, the Prolocutor, and the Rest made answer, se nescire ob quam causam, & quibus de rebus tracta turi sunt. I mention this particular, to show, that it was Customary for the Convocation to be directed to the subject of their Debates by the Crown, even when the 25 H. VIII. lay under a Repeal (as it now did): and such Directions therefore given at other Times, when the Statute was in force, must not be supposed to spring from this Act so much as from the King's known Prerogative, by which he ever proposed both to Parliaments and Convocations, at their first opening, the Reasons which He, on his Part 
* Super praemissis, & aliis quae ibidem ex parte nostrâ clariùs exponentur, are the Words of every Convocation-Writ. , had to assemble them. But this only by the buy.— The Protestant Convocations held after this Statute was revived, are a plain proof of the Truth of that Exposition I have given of it. For in a Directory of Archbishop Cranmers, prescribing the Method of opening them, though every step that is at such times to be taken be minutely set down, and the sum of whatever the Archbishop, or any other, is on that occasion to do, or say, be distinctly mentioned; yet of his producing a Commission to Treat, not a word is said: as 'tis natural to think there would have been, had such a Commission been practised. I shall give the Reader a Copy of this Directory among the other Papers 
† See Append. N. XVII. , because, if the Discontinuance of Convocations prevails, such Lights as these may in some time be necessary. We are hastening on, I find, into so Through an Ignorance of these matters, that it may, for aught I know, within a while, be urged as a Reason for not holding a Convocation, that we do not understand the Manner of holding it. I am sure this is as good a Reason as any that has been yet given for it. I call this Paper Archbishop Parker's, because by the Company I find it in, I have reason to conclude it so to be. However, it was certainly drawn up, since the Reformation, either in King Edward's, or in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign; for there is no mention in it of the Mass, or of Abbats, and Priors: and it is of use therefore to prove the Practice of those Protestant Conocations which we are enquiring after. But this is only a General Proof.  
More Particular and Express to our Purpose is the Synod of 1562. where Matters of Great Moment were transacted, the Articles of the Church, and the Catechism reviewed; and several Canons relating to Discipline framed, though some of these were not at that time published. And the Debates on these occasions were all entered upon, and managed without any Commission from the Queen; as is manifest beyond a Doubt, from the Acts of that Synod, of which I have seen an Exact and Entire Copy, written in an Hand of the Time, and taken from the Registers of that Convocation, soon after it sa●. These Acts are very Particular and Minute in giving an account of the Proceed of every Day, and do orderly specify all the Public Instrustruments that any way concern the Synod: But as to a Commission to Treat, they are perfectly silent. The Reader, who has any Curiosity this way, will not be displeased, I suppose, if I produce some Passages from thence, that show plainly how they were employed.  
jan. 16. The Archbishop himself said Prayers, reading the Litany, cum Collectis assuetis, ac Oratione [in] Synodo Provinciali dicenda noviter, ut adparuit, editâ. Which new Collect I take to be that in the Convocation Office, which gins, Domine Deus, Pater Luminum, etc. and in it they beseech God, ut Gratiâ Tuâ caelitùs adjuti ea omnia investigare, meditari, tractare, & discernere valeamus quae Honorem Tuum, & Gloriam promoveant, & in Ecclesiae cedant profectum. I can scarce believe that they would have chosen to address themselves to God in such a Form of Words as this, had they thought that they were under an utter Incapacity of entering on any particular Debate whatever, without being Qualified by a Broad Seal for it.  
It follows, Tùnc dimisso Clero Inferioris Domûs Reverendissimus rogavit Patres, quòd unusquisque eorum intra proximam Sessionem Excogitate velit ea quae in eorum specialibus Diaeces. reformatione indigeant, ac in proximâ Sessione proponere dignaretur.  
Jan. 19 Habitâ inter dictum Reverendiss. Patrem ac caeteros Episcopos— communicatione sive deliberatione de quibusdam Articulis ad Christianam fidem facientibus, tandem dictùs Reverendissimus accersiri jussit ad se Prolocutorem Domûs Inferioris. Qui quidem Prol. unà cum Sex aliis de Clero dictae Domûs Inferioris coram Patribus sui Copiam faciens proposuit & asseruit, quòd quidam de dictà Domo exhibuerant quasdam diversas Schedas de rebus reformandis per eos respectiuè Excogitatas & in Scripta redactas. Quae quidem schedae de communi consensu traditae sunt quibusdam Viris gravioribus & doctioribus de caetu dictae Domûs Inferioris ad hoc electis perspiciendae & considerandae. Quibus sic electis (ut asseruit) assignatum est, ut hujusmodi Schedas in Capitula redigant, ac in proximâ Sessione exhibeant coràm ipso Prolocutore▪ Et ulteriùs proposuit, quòd Articuli in Synodo Londinensi tempore nuper Regis Edvardi Sexti (ut asseruit) Editi 
† This is a sufficient Proof that the Articles of 1552. passed the Synod of that Year in form; however my Lord of Sarum, in his late Exposition, came to say the contrary. See Introd. p. 5. where his Lordship thinks it probable that they were prepared by Cranmer and Ridley, and published [without any Synodal Consent] by the Regal Authority. What were the Reasons inducing his Lordship to think this probable, I presume not to guests: The only Reason he has pleased to give, is, That the Major part of the Synod could not have agreed to 'em without a Miracle. However, since the Acts of another Synod Ten Years afterwards, assure us, that such a Miracle was done; we have reason, I think, to take Their Word before my Lord of Sarum 's Conjecture. , traditi sint quibusdam aliis Viris ex Caetu dictae Domûs Inferioris, ad hoc etiam electis, ut eos diligenter perspiciant, examinent, & considerent, ac proüt eïs visum fuerit, corrigant & reforment; ac in proximâ Sessione etiam exhibeant. Et tunc Rev mus hujusmodi Negotia per dictum Proloc. & Clerum incaepta approbavit, ac in iisdem juxta eorum determinationem procedere voluit, & mandavit.  
Jan. 20. Episcopi— de & super quibusd●m Articulis sacrosanctam Christi Religionem concernentibus— per spatium trium horarum aut circiter inter se tractarunt.  
Jan. 29. Post Tractatum aliquem inter Episcopos habitum, tandem super quibusdam Articulis Orthodoxae fidei inter Episcopos quorum nomina eïs subscribuntur, convenit. Deinde Electi fuerunt Reverendi Patres Domini Edmund Londin, etc. ad Excogitanda quaedam Capitula de Disciplinâ in Ecclesiâ habendâ.  
Feb. 5. Reverendi Patres Domini. Joh. Sarum, etc. assignati fuerunt ad examinandum Librum dictum the Catechism.  
Mart. 1. Comparuit coràm eïs Prolocutor— & allegavit qùod Caetus dictae Domûs Inferioris excogitavit quaedam Capitula Additionalia ad librum de Disciplinâ coràm patribus ultimà Sessione porrectum. Quae quidem Capitula dicto Libro (ut asseruit) addi cupit. Unde dictus Rev mus tradidit eidem dicto Prolocutori Librum praedictum, mandando quod additis hujusmodi Capitulis sic Excogitatis ipsum Librum cum Additionalibus praedictis denuò exhibeant coràm codem Rev more  
Mart. 3. Dominus Proloculor, etc. Nomine totius Caetûs praesentarunt eisdem Patribus quendam Librum nuncupatum Catechismus Puerorum; cui (ut asseruerunt) omnes de Caetu ejusdem Domûs unanimiter consenserunt.  
Mart. 5. Dom. Proloc. etc. comparuerunt, & exhibuerunt, etc. Librum de Disciplinâ unà cum quibusdam Capitulis Additionalibus ad eundem, viz. de Adulterio, etc.  
The Reader sees that the Business here gone upon was as great and weighty as perhaps ever employed any English Synod: The Doctrine of the Church was here settled in the Articles, and the Catechism, and new Rules of Discipline formed; and all this was done without any Previous Licence, except what was contained in that General Message delivered by the Archbishop in his Speech which I have already mentioned. It is further observable, that the Review of the Articles took its Rise from the Lower House; that the matter of the New Canons was There first suggested and drawn into Form; and that every thing almost that was done, came Originally from Them to the Upper House, and not from the Archbishop to Them: and was not the Effect therefore of any Royal Command, or Intimation, but a Free Act of the Body.  
The Articles set out by this Synod bear this Title— Articuli de quibus convenit inter Archiepiscopos & Episcopos utriusque Provinciae, & Clerum Universum in Synodo Londini Ann. 1562. Editi Authoritate Serenissimae Reginae.  
The Ratification of them afterwards in 1571. (when they were again with this Ratification Printed) runs thus— Hic Liber antedictorum Articulorum jam denuò approbatus est per Assensum & Consensum serenissimae Reginae Elizabethae Dominae Nostrae retinendus, & per totum regnum Angliae exequendus. Qui Articuli & lecti sunt, & denuò confirmati subscriptione D. Archiepiscopi & Episcoporum Superioris Domûs, & totius Cleri inferioris Domûs 
‖ My Lord of Sarum (Exposition p. 16.) doubts whether the Articles in 1571. passed the Lower House, at least, whether they were Subscribed by the Members of it. But these Words in the Ratification of them (Printed by his Lordship, p. XVI. though at present, I suppose, out of his mind) leave no Room or Colour for such a Doubt. His Lordship was betrayed into it, it seems, etc. by the Be●net College Manuscript, where the Subscriptions of the Bishops only appear. But it might have been presumed that the Bishops did in this Instance sign One Copy by themselves; and the Clergy of the Lower House another, which has since perished.  in Convocatione A. D. 1571 
* Sparrow p. 222. . In neither of these is there any hint of a Licence under the Broad-Seal; although it be expressly mentioned afterwards, where we know it was employed.  
The Speech wherewith Archbishop Parker opened a Convocation in 1572. I have seen and perused; and there is no Expression in it from whence we can suspect, that that Meeting was to Treat by Commission from her Majesty.  
In the Synod of 1584. the Style of the Articuli pro Clero then agreed upon is, Articuli per Archiepiscopum, Episcopos, & reliquum Clerum Cant. Prov. in Synodo, etc. Stabiliti, & Regi● Authoritate approbati & confirmati 
† Sparrow p. 191. .  
The Canons made in the Convocation of 1597. bear this Title— Capitula, sive Constitutiones Ecclesiasticae, per Archiepiscopum, Episcopos, & reliquum Clerum Cant. Provinciae in Synodo, etc. congregatos tractatae, ac posteà per ipsam Regiam Majestatem approbatae, & confirmatae; & utrique Provinciae tam Cant. quam Ebor. ut diligentiùs observentur eàdem Regiâ Authoritate sub Magno Sigillo Angliae promulgatae 
† Sparrow p. 243. .  
L. M. P. has been guilty of a piece of slight of hand in producing this Title: for he has removed the Comma, which should be after the word Tractatae, backward to Provinciae, (omitting the Words between those Two) that so tractatae may seem to belong to the Sentence which follows it, and the Reader be by that means led into a belief that the Original Treating itself was as much from Royal Condescension and Grace, as the Passing, and Promulging afterwards. I need not say, how absurd this is, and how contrary to the Rules of common Construction, and common Sense.  
It is true (and Truth being the only thing I seek, I shall not conceal it) that in the Manuscript Collections of a Learned Man, who lived before the Convocation-Registers were burnt, I have seen a Memor. in these following Terms.—  
Lib. Convocat. ab anno 1584. usque, etc. 1597. Fol. 195. The Queen's Letters Patents to confirm the Canons, a Recital of the Writ, of their Desire, the Canon's Confirmation, and a Command to have them observed in both Provinces.  
Which shows indeed, that the Synod in 1597 desired, and had leave for the Canons they passed, and implys further, that both their Request, and the Answer to it were very probably in writing; since it could not else have been recited in the Ratification of them. But what this Leave was asked, and given for; whether only for the passing these Canons, or even for the Previous Treating about them, appears not from this Memorandum; and must otherwise therefore be determined. Our Public Records will not ease us of this Doubt; among which (I am told) this Instrument is not now to be found: and the only way therefore we have left of clearing it, is, by a Recourse to the Title of the Canons; which, if it may be depended on, evidently shows, that their Desire was for Leave, not to Treat, but to Enact only. And how Authentic and Significant the Titles of Canons are to this purpose, our Adversaries in the next Instance will tell us: for they produce 
† Appeal p. 24. L. M. P. p. 37.  the Title of those in 1603. as a manifest Proof, that that Synod had a Commission to treat. We allow it had; and it is the first Synod that ever had one from the 25 H. VIII. down to that time.  
L. M. P. indeed has found out one somewhat Elder: for he tells us, that a Proclamation on came out 5. March 1. jac. 1. for the Authorising of the Book of Common Prayer, etc. which recites that the King had issued out a Commission to the Archbishop and others, according to the Form which the Laws of the Realm in the like Case prescribe to be used, to make an Explanation of the Common Prayer, etc. So that in those days (says he) this Independent Freedom of Debate was not esteemed amongst the Liberties of the Church 
† P. 41. . But had that Writer seen the Commission itself, and not guessed at the Contents of it from a Recital in a Proclamation, he would have known, that it was directed, not to the Clergy in Convocation, (for they met not, till some Months after the Date of it) but to the High Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical; authorising the Alterations they had made in the Common-Prayer-Book, by virtue of a Proviso in the Act of Uniformity 1 ●. Eliz. How is this to his purpose? or what possible use can he make of it? It is indeed to my purpose, to observe from hence, how high the Prerogative than ran, and what Unreasonable Powers were claimed by it. The Book of Common-Prayer was established by an Act of the 1st. of the Queen, in which it was provided, that if there should happen any Contempt, or Irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in that Book, the Queen's Majesty might by the Advice of her Commissioners, or of the Metropolitan, ordain and publish such further Ceremonies or Rites, as might be most for the advancement of God's Glory, the Edifying of his Church, and the due Reverence of Christ's Holy Mysteries and Sacraments 
* Cap. 2. . In virtue of this Proviso, King james in his first Year gives Directions to the Archbishop, and the rest of the High-Commissioners, to review the Common-Prayer-Book; and they accordingly made several Material Alterations and Enlargements of it, in the Office of Private Baptism, and in several other Rubrics and Passages; added five or six new Prayers, and Thanksgivings, and all that part of the Catechism, which contains the Doctrine of the Sacraments. Which last Additions would not, I conceive, have been in the least warranted by that Proviso, had the Powers there specified extended to the Queen's H●irs and Successors: but as they were lodged peresonally in the Queen, there could, I presume, be no Colour for K. James' exercising them in virtue of it. The Drawer up of the Commission was ware of this, and supplies therefore what was wanting in this Provisional Clause, by some General Words, and by a Recourse to that Inexhaustible source of Power, the King's supreme Authority and Prerogative Royal; which, it seems, was at that time conceived to extend so far, as to enable the Crown to make Alterations of Great Importance in a Book established by Act of Parliament, to authorise the Book thus altered, and to forbid the Use of the Other. I question whether such a Proceeding would now be thought Legal; but than it went down quietly: and in virtue of it, the Common Prayer-Book so altered, stood in force from the 1st. of K. james till the 14 C. II. when, upon a new Review, it was again confirmed by Parliament. I shall place this Commission in the Appendix 
† N. XVIII , that the Reader may have an Instance, what the Doctrine of that time was concerning the Extent of the Prerogative in Church Matters, and from thence cease to wonder that a Formal Commission to treat, etc. should be first granted to the Convocation a few Months afterwards. I say first granted; for there is no Suspicion of any preceding Licence of this kind, but in 1597. only: and that rises no higher than a Suspicion; there being stronger Probabilitys against it, than for it. And thus, I hope, I have effectually removed Dr. W's Argument about the sense of the Act▪ taken from the Constant Practice of All Convocations ever since the framing it; which he appeals to so frequently, and with so much Calmness and Security, that one less acquainted with him than I am would have been tempted to think, that he spoke upon good Grounds, and had well considered what he said: Whereas in truth he was merely upon the Conjecture; and having found that the Convocations of 1640. and 1603. acted by Commission, concluded presently that all the Precedent one's must have done so too; forgetting in the mean time that wise Maxim of his Own, with which he very fitly introduces as wise a Chapter. So great (says he) is that Uncertainty to which all Human Constitutions are exposed, that tho' I have before sufficiently shown, what the Nature of our Convocation at present is, and what Authority our King's have over it, yet we can by no means from thence conclude, that this was always the case 
† P. 147. . Which deep Remark, had it been in his View throughout his Book, would have instructed him not to determine so peremptorily upon the Course of Ancient Practice from some Modern Instances; it would have saved him the shame of slipping into so many false and groundless Assertions on this Head, and me the trouble of exposing them. When he resolved, for Reasons best known to himself, to set up for a Champion in this Cause, he should either have taken care fully to instruct himself in the matters he wrote of; or at least, where he was conscious of his want of Light, he should have had the Discretion to express himself a little more warily.  
The oldest Aera therefore of these Commissions, which empower the Convocation to Treat, etc. is 1. I. 1. how that New Precedent came then to be set, and what Restraints it may be conceived to have laid on the Clergys' Liberty of Debate, I shall now briefly inquire.  
It must be confessed that K. james, who had been somewhat less than a King in Scotland, took upon him to be somewhat more than a King, assoon as he came to the Crown of England; spoke of his Prerogative in a very high tone, looked upon it as some Innate Power, divinely annexed to the Kingly Character, and did not stick to call it so frequently in his Speeches and Messages 
† See his Speech to the Bishops and Ministers, Spotswood p. 534. Letter to the Assembly of Perth. ib. p. 537. ; and sometimes to talk even of a Sovereign and Absolute Authority, which he enjoyed as freely as any King, or Monarch in the World 
† See his Declaration in 1605. Spotswood p. 488. . Bishop Bancroft, who had corresponded with him formerly in Scotland, knew his Temper well: and, the Church having then Great Business to do, and He himself some, (for the See of Cant. was then void) contrived, we may imagine, how to humour it in the approaching Convocation, wherein He was to Preside; and to that end procured this Ample Commission, as an Instance of the great Deference and Submission which the Church of England paid to the Royal Authority. Indeed the Clergy had reason to show all the Marks of Duty and Respect that were fitting, to a Prince that had shown himself so fast a friend to them, as K. james in the Hampton-Court Conference, which immediately preceded this Convocation, had done: Where he had declared openly for All the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, against the Scruples of those, who were then called Puritans, and had peremptorily commanded them to Conform. This, I say, may be supposed to have wrought on the Clergys' Gratitude, and made them easier to accept such a Commission now, than they would have been in any other Juncture: especially since by it, though they might seem to abridge their Liberty in One Respect, yet they certainly enlarged it another. For whereas in Former Convocations, which were not thus Commissioned, the Custom had been to draw up their Rules and Canons in an Unauthoritative Style, and without denouncing Spiritual Penalties on the Infringers of them (according to the Pattern set by the Old Canons); here the Clergy first began solemnly to Decree and Ordain, and to annex the Sentence of Excommunication to the Breach of those Ordinances. The Canons of Q. Elizabeth's time, where they run most in the Style of Authority, do yet rise no higher than to a Cautum est nequis 
† See Sparrow p. 245. as before in 1584. p. 193. , Volumus etiam 
† Ibid p. 252. , and Decernendum censemus 
* Ibid. p. 247. : but in 1603, the very first Canon gins with Statuimus & Ordinamus 
‖ And so in those of 1640. We Ordain and Decree Can. 1. The Synod doth ordain and decree, Can. 2. ; and the Sanction of several of them runs thus— Excommunicetur ipso facto, non nisi per Achiepiscopum restituendus; idque postquam resipuerit, ac impium hunc errorem publice revocarit. The Previous Licence therefore qualifying them to Decree in form, and to bring their Canons up to the ancient Synodical Pattern, they might for this reason be inclined to make use of it; imagining (how justly, has since appeared) the Ground they got in one respect, to be an Equivalent for what they lost in another. Something too of this Caution might be owing to the Circumstances and Temper of the Times, when there was no good understanding between Them, and the Great Men of the Law, the Two Jurisdictions clashing mightily; and when those who underhand blew the Coals between Them and the Nonconformists, were uneasy under the Clergys' late Victory at Hampton-Court, and would not have been sorry to see them make an ill use of it, or to have had any Handle towards disputing the Legality of their after proceed. On this account a Licence under the Broad-Seal might be thought convenient, to cover them, not so much from the Law itself, as from Popular Complaint and Misconstruction. And if these Reasons may be supposed to be then of weight for the beginning this Practice, they were yet stronger afterwards for the continuance of it, in 1640. when the Passions and Prejudices of Men ran even higher against them than Now, and every thing they did was more likely to be misinterpreted.  
Thus far, by way of Enquiry into the particular Grounds and Motives from whence this New Precedent may be supposed to have sprung: let us now see how far the Clergys' Liberty of Debate was really affected by it; and we shall find this not to have been to such a Degree as is commonly imagined. For in relation to this Licence, there are Three things that deserve to be considered.  
1. That it was not granted the Clergy immediately upon their first coming together. The Convocation had sat from March 20. to April 12. that is, three full Weeks, without a Commission, and to be sure therefore had in that time Treated without one; and did not therefore think themselves unqualifyed for all manner of Synodical Debates, till they were so commissioned.  
2. It is very observable, that in the King's Letters Patents of Confirmation 
† See them in the English Edition of the Canons in 1603.  reciting this Licence, there is a plain difference made between his Prerogative Royal and Supreme Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical, and the particular Powers lodged in him by the 25 H. VIII. In virtue of the first of these, he is said to have granted the Clergy full free and lawful Liberty, etc. to confer, treat, debate, etc. upon Canons; but to have given his Royal Assent to those Canons, according to the form of a certain Statute, or Act of Parliament, made in that behalf, in the 25th. Year of the Reign of K. Henry the VIII. 
† And so in the Commission itself, (see it in Dr. W's Append. n. V) though the 25. H. VIII. be recited in the preamble of it; yet where Leave is granted to C●n●er, Treat, etc. such Grant is said to be by Virtue of our Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Authority in C●●se● Ecclesiastical, without any reference to the Statute.  which Statute is not where vouched in that Ratification, but with regard to such Royal Assent only. It cannot be inferred therefore that either the Givers or Takers of this new Licence understood the Submission Act in a Sense different from what we contend for, since it does not appear that the Grant of this Licence was really founded on that Statute. However, supposing it was, yet are we to consider in the  
3 Place, that it is not a bare Licence to treat that is there granted, but beyond this (as the words run) A full free and lawful Liberty, Licence, Power and Authority to confer, treat, debate, consider, consult, and agree of and upon such Canons, Orders, etc. Now though a Licence to debate of Canons was not necessary according to the Act, yet a Licence to agree upon them might be judged necessary; the Clergys' agreeing upon Canons (especially in such an Authoritative Form, and with such Sanctions and Penalties, as I have shown them now first to have practised) being liable to be construed to a sense equivalent to Enacting or Making them; which without the Royal Assent and Licence, they were by the Act expressly prohibited to do. The Licence to Treat therefore is not to be taken separately, but in conjunction with agreeing of and upon; and must be supposed necessary not otherwise, than as it qualified the Clergy so to treat of Canons, as to agree also, and come to a Conclusion upon them. And thus therefore the Latin Title of these Canons (which Dr. W. acknowledges to be truly Authentic and Legal 
† App. p. 25. ) runs.  
Constitutiones sive Canones Ecclesiastici per Episcopum Londinensem Praesidem Synodi pro Cantuariensi Prov. ac reliquos Episcopos & Clerum ejusdem Prov. ex Regiâ Authoritate Tractati & Conclusi.  
In ipsorum Synodo inchoatâ Londini, etc. Ab eâdem Regià Majestate deïnceps approbati, ratihabiti, ac confirmati, ejusdemque Authoritate sub magno Sigillo Angliae promulgati, per utramque Provinciam tam Cant. quam Ebor. diligentèr observandi.  
They are said to be ex Regiâ Authoritate tractati, & conclusi [jointly]: not ex Regiâ Authoritate tractati, & conclusi in ipsorum Synodo, etc. as L. M. P. has fallaciously pointed these words, on purpose that he may sever their Treating from their Concluding, and make the Royal Licence seem to have been necessary for the one without any Consideration of the other. But this is according to his usual Sincerity in these Matters; one Instance of which I have already observed to the Reader.  
The English Title of these Canons confirms what has been said, and gives us further Light in the case; it is thus worded.  
Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, Treated upon by the Bishop of London, Precedent of the Convocation for the Prov. of Cant. and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said Province:  
And agreed upon with the King's Majesties Licence in their Synod, begun at London, A. D. 1603, etc. and now Published for the due Observation of them by his Majesty's Authority, under the Great Seal of England.  
Here is no mention of the King's Licence for any Act previous to their agreeing upon these Canons; which is a good Evidence that the Framers of them thought there needed none: and though, by the form of their Commission, a free Liberty was granted them to treat, debate and agree; yet that really they had occasion for such a Grant, only as to the last of these Acts, but not as to the Former. For had the One been equally necessary with the other, they would have taken equal care to express it. Dr. W. indeed excepts against this English Inscription 
† App. p. 25. , and says, it is very imperfectly rendered from the Latin, and apt to lead men into mistakes about these matters; believing, it seems, that the Translation of these Canons into English, was the work of some Private Hand, unauthorised by the Convocation: whereas he should have known, that the way was for the Convocation to prepare both her Articles 
† The Articles of our Church were at the same time prepared both in Latin and English; so that both are equally Authentical. Bishop of Sarum 's Exposition, etc. p. X.  and Canons in Latin and English at the same time; and that the one of these therefore is every whit as Authentic as the other. And in the present case it may be questioned, whether the English Canons be not rather somewhat more authentical than the Latin one's; since it was That Copy of them, which seems particularly to have passed the Great Seal, and was, with the King's Ratification at length annexed, then published from the Press Royal. And as low an Opinion as Dr. W. has of Convocations, I hope he will allow them able to translate their Own Latin, and to understand their own meaning. But should there in rendering the Latin Title, any casual Mistake have happened, it would have been set right afterward in the Canons of 1640 
† See Sparrow Col. p. 235. , when it behoved the Clergy to tread warily, and to prevent all manner of Exceptions. And yet There again, the very same English Inscription returns; nor did that House of Commons, which was no ways unwilling to find fault with any thing in these Canons that could be laid hold of, except against this Title, but made use of it themselves in their Votes 
‖ Rushworth part 3. p. 1365.  of Dec. 1.5, 16, [1640] without questioning the Accuracy, or Legality of it.  
From all which I infer, that those very Convocations that took out these Commissions, did not however think that they treated in virtue of them, and much less that they could not have treated without them. They needed such Powers, only to draw up and pass their Synodal Decrees in form; and though more was inserted into them, even the Liberty of Debating, as well as Concluding; yet they accepted what was not necessary, for the sake of what was: taking care only in the Front of their Synodical Acts, to assert a Liberty of Debate to themselves, independently of any such Royal Grants or Commissions. All they wanted was a Commission to make or decree Canons; the Attorney General who had the drawing it, thought, it seems, that it would not harm them, if a little more than they wanted was given them; and knew, to be sure, that he should not hurt his Master's Prerogative by it: and so, that the Royal Grant, and the Clergys' Privilege might look Ample and Full enough, was pleased, as has been usual in such cases, to multiply Words without Occasion: But it no more follows from the Clergys' admitting such a Licence, that they needed every Part and Parcel of it, than it does, that a Criminal, who takes out a General Pardon, is guilty of every Individual Crime that is there specified. In the first seven Years of Q. Elizabeth, every New Bishop's Patent had this Clause in it,— Supplentes nihilominùs Supremâ Authoritate nostr● Regiâ, ex Mero Motu, & Certâ Scientià nostris, siquid aut in hiis quae juxta mandatum nostrum praedictum per Vos fient, aut in Vobis aut— Conditione, Statu, Facultate vestris ad praemissa perficienda desit aut decrit, eorum quae per Statuta hujus regni aut per Leges Ecclesiasticas in hâc parte requiruntur, aut necessaria sunt, temporis ratione, ac rerum necessitate sic postulante. These words sound high, and yet our Learned Mason pleads 
† de Minist. Angl. p. 329. , that it cannot from hence be collected, that there were any such Defects as are here said to be Pardoned; and likens this Clause to that in the Pope's Bulls, which absolves every Bishop â quibusvis Excommunicationis, Suspensionis, Interdicti aliisque Ecclesiasticis Censuris & Paenis a jure vel ab Homine qu●vis Occasione vel Causâ latis 
† P. 330. , without enquiring whether the Bishop had incurred any of these Censures, or needed this Absolution. It was given out, as he there distinguishes, Hypothetice, non Absolute 
† P. 331. , i. e. if they wanted it, there they had it; and if they did not want it, yet ad abundantem cautelam they might be willing to accept it; because others might Imagine both that they did want it, and that it was this way to be supplied: and it might be proper therefore to ward against these Supposed Defects, as well as more Real ones. Which is all as Applicable to the Convocation, that took out the Licence in the first of K. james.  
Does Dr. W. think, that every impowring Clause or Phrase in a Commission implys that the Persons Commissioned could not have done such or such a thing, without they had been so impower'd? The following Instance may satisfy him to the contrary.  
A Commission for the Repair of Paul's in 1631. gives full Power and Authority [to the Persons named in it] to consult, advise, and consider of meet Orders, Ordinances and Constitutions for the better preservation of that Church, and for the preventing Annoyances; and the same Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions being reduced into Writing, to present unto us to the intent that the same being perused by Us, and considered of, may receive our Royal Approbation and Allowance 
† Bibliotheca Regia p. 256. . The Powers here granted are much the same, and in much the same words with those in the Commission to the Convocation: but no body can be silly enough to think that Private Persons might not of their own Accord have done all this, have entered into such Considerations, and made such Proposals to the King, without a Commission. Commissions are ofttimes employed, not for the security of such as do the Business, but to secure its being done; they give the Countenance of Authority to Things, and promote the Dispatch of them. For Example,  
In the 21 H. III. A Writ issued to William de Perecat, the Court-Barber; which Mr. Pryn, out of his Zeal against Long-hair, has put into his Tomes of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
† T. 2. p. 479. , and may therefore become this place as well. It ran, as follows.  

Pat. 21. H. III. m. g. d●r●.  REX Willielmo de Perecat, Salutem. Sciatis quod concessimus & plenam Potestatem Vobis dedim●s scindendi Capillos Clericorum nostrorum qui sunt de Hospitio nostro & familia nostra longos crines habentium, & comas nutrientium, & ad Crocos capillorum suorum deponendos. Et ide● Uobis mandamus quatenus ad hoc modo debito intendatis; hujusmodi Potestatem nostram vobis concessam taliter exequentes circa predictos Capillos scindendos & Crocos deponendos, ne ad Capillos vestros scindendos forcipes apponere debeamus. Teste meipso apud Clyne 2 d o. die Septembris. Now though I doubt not but that William de Perecat went about his Business more nimbly, and to better effect, after this Message than before it; yet I cannot forbear thinking, that if these Clergymen and He had been agreed, he might have exercised his Office upon them, without having a Writ to show for it. This is a familiar Instance indeed, but may be as Instructive as a more solemn one; and if it serve withal to relieve a serious Scene, and make the Reader smile a little, I have my double end in it.  
What has been said, may be sufficient, I hope, to account for the Licence of 1603. and for any Word or Passage in it, that may be supposed to affect the Clergys' Liberty of Debate, which they were in an Unterrupted Possession of when that Practice first began, and have an Undoubted Right to still, notwithstanding the continuance of it.  
One Expression indeed there is in it, which Dr. W. catches at, and has not been yet considered. He observes, that the Liberty granted by that Commission is said to proceed, out of the King's Especial Grace, Certain Knowledge, and Mere Motion 
† P. 116. ; and does most invincibly from thence argue that it could not therefore be their Due, or belong to them ex debito justitiae 
† P. 290. (283.) . I agree with him thus far, that a Commission impowering them to Treat is not their Due, because I take it to be their unquestioned Right and Due to treat without one. But his Reason why they are not entitled to it of Right, I can by no means admit; because Learned Lawyers tell me, that those Phrases Especial Grace, and Mere Motion are used sometimes for forms sake, where the thing said to be thus granted is strictly of Right, and cannot be with Justice denied. For Instance, the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo, upon a Certification into Chancery, follows, we know, in course, and de jure Ordinario; and is therefore, in divers Precedents of it, said to issue secundùm Consuetudinem Angliae, i. e. according to the common Law of England; and yet in one Instance, Dr. Cousin 
† Apol. for Proc. Eccl. p. 8.  informs me, that it runs quòd hujusmodi breve nostrum de Gratià nostra procedat; and a Note therefore in the Register, upon these words in another Writ, says, that they are used only pro Honore Regio, etiamsi ad id de jure teneatur.  
But I pay too great a Regard to his trifling Remarks, in pursuing them thus minutely; and go on therefore to remove the rest of the Exceptions taken at our way of expounding the Statute.  
In my account of the Practice of Convocations since the 25 H. VIII. I slipped over some Requests of the Lower House of Convocation to the Upper, a few years after this Act passed, and promised to make a distinct Head of them; which I shall now therefore consider and explain.  
It is objected against that sense I have given of the Statute that the Clergy of those times did themselves understand it otherwise; for in a Petition put up by them to the Bishops 1ᵒ E. VI they recite some part of the Submission-Act, and of the 27 H. VIII. that confirms it; and then desire, that being presently assembled in Convocation by authority of the King's Writ, the King's Majesties Licence in Writing may for them be obtained and granted, according to the Effect of the said Statues; auctorising them to attempt, entreat, and commune of such matters, and therein freely to give their Consents, which otherwise they may not do upon Pain and Peril premised. This indeed seems Material, and for this Reason, I suppose, Dr. W. takes no notice of it. But L. M. P. insists upon it, and styles it an Authentic Exposition of that statute, which without any other Evidence is sufficient to show, that it was the Intention of that Act, that the Treating and Resolving, as well as the Meeting of a Convocation should depend upon the Mere  of the Prince 
† Pp. 39, 40 . The Reader may observe, how wondrous kind this Gentleman can be to the Clergy upon occasion, and what a profound respect he has for their Opinion, when it is for his Turn. He allows a Petition of the Lower House of Convocation, to be an Authentic Exposition of an Act of Parliament; an Honour, which the most solemn Decisions of both Houses would not (much less do the Petitions and Requests of any one) deserve; and least of all the particular Requests we are at present concerned with. For,  
It is probable that the Petition itself is not Authentic, and then the Exposition it gives, to be sure, cannot be so. There are two Papers printed by my Lord of Sarum 
† 2. Vol. Coll of Rec. n. 16, 17. , which he calls Petitions of the Lower House of Convocation (1o E. VI) to the Upper. The Former of these 
† N. 16.  is not a single Petition, but four several Requests (or rather the Minutes of four) joined together; with a certain Query annexed, in the Close of them. Of these the First relates to the Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws, appointed by Act of Parliament to be made in H. the VIIIth's time. The Second is a Proposal for adjoining the Lower House of Convocation to that of Parliament. The Third concerns the Committee for reforming the Offices. The Fourth is about the Statute of First fruits and Tenths. The Query added is, Whether the Clergy of the Convocation may liberally speak their mind, without danger of Statute, or Law? The Latter is a Petition in form, from the Lower Clergy to the Bishops, enforcing the second of those Requests put up in the former Paper, and praying a Licence in Writing, in the Terms already recited 
† P. 399. . Now this last Paper, I say, seems never to have been approved, or presented, by the Lower Clergy; and I say it, upon these Grounds.  
1. Because the short Acts of this Convocation, preserved in the Book called Synodalia 
† In Bennet Coll. Library. , short as they are 
‖ These Acts, short as they are, give an account of the Business that was done, and the Motions that we made, every single Day that the Convocation sat, from Nou. 5 to Decem. 1● except in the 4th. Session only, which was Nou. 25. where my Transcript of the Acts is a Blank: And there is but this One Day therefore in which it can be supposed that this Petition might have been drawn and presented. , do yet, I find, mention the first Paper, and the four several Articles of it 
⸪ 
Sess. 3.22. Nou. Istâ die— convenientibus— in inferiori Domo concordatum suit, ut Dominus Prolocutor nomine totius Domûs referal R more subsequentes Petitiones.  
Viz. 1 o. Quòd provideatur ut Ecclesiasticae Leges Examinentur & Promulgentur juxta statutum Parliamenti editum 35 H. VIII.  
2. Item ut pro nonnullis urgentibus causis Convocatio hujus Cleri, si fieri possit, assumatur & cooptetur in Inferiorem Domum Parliamenti, sicut ab antiquo fieri consuevit.  
3. Item ut Opera Episcoporum & Alicrum, etc. as before. p. 181.  
4. Item ut Rigor statuti de Primitiis Domino nostro Regi solvendis aliquantisper in certis urgentibus Clausulis moderetur & reformetur si commodè fieri possit.  , in the Order they there lie; but give not the least Hint of this Second: nor does Archbishop Parker, in Antiquitates Britannicae, where he speaks 
⸪ P. 339.  largely of matters agitated in this Convocation, say a syllable of it.  
On the Contrary, both He, and Bishop Burnet give us some Particulars, that do not seem very consistent with the supposal of such a Petition. Bishop Burnet's words are, That the Act [which repealed the Statute of the six Articles] was occasioned by a Speech that Archbishop Cranmer had in Convocation, in which he exhorted the Clergy to give themselves much to the study of Scripture, and to consider seriously what needed Reformation, etc. upon which some intimated to him, that as long as these Six Articles stood in force, it was not safe for them to deliver their Opinions. This he reported to the Council, upon which they ordered this Act of Repeal 
† Hist. Ref. Vol. 2. p. 40 , [his Lordship means, agreed that the Repeal of this Statute should be proposed in Parliament.] Thus his Lordship out of Archbishop Parker's Papers; and thus the Archbishop himself out of the Records of Convocation 
* Ex Archivis, he himself says. , In Synodo Cranmerus Archiepiscopus habità oratione de religione ex verbo Christi institut● populo tradendâ, etc. consulendum duxit. Sed Legum adhuc de Sex Articulis Henrico Rege regante latarum severitas plerosque terruit quò minûs suas de Religione resormandà Sententias libere dicerent. Itaque impetravit à Rege Cranmerus ut interim dum illae Leges Parliamento abrogentur, Praelatis de Religione in Synodo disserentibus atroces illae rigidaeque paenae laxarentur. Quod & conc●ssum est. A clear account is given here of the Clergys' fears in relation to the Statute of the six Articles, and of their care to screen themselves from the sad Penalties of it; but not a word of any Apprehensions they were under in reference to the Submission-Act. And with these Accounts that Passage in the Acts falls in  
Sess. 7. Dec. 9— The same day were likewise appointed Mr. Dean of Winchester, and Mr. Dr. Draycott to associate Mr. Prolocutor to my Lord of Cant. to know a Determinat Answer, what Indemnitys and Immunities this House shall have to treat in matters of Religion, in Cases forbidden by the Statutes of this Realm to treat in.  
They are concerned here we see to be indemnifyed to treat of matters of Religion in some Particular Cases forbidden by the Statutes of this Realm, i. e. by the Statute of the six Articles, and another (35 H. ●. c. 1.) enforcing it: But as for a General Licence, authorising them to treat in All Cases (such an one as this second Petition prays) they express no want, or desire of it. And yet had they wanted it at all, it was now high time to have had it; for five weeks of the Session were run out, when this Motion was made. Indeed  
2. Had such a Petition for Liberty of Debate been presented, it had, in all probability, been the First step, which the Convocation, after they sat down, would have taken: whereas we find by the Petition itself, that it could not be drawn up, till the Session had continued some time; for the first Clause of it mentions a former Suit of theirs made to the Bishops, in order to be by Them promoted with the King; of which the Clergy had hitherto been expecting some Account from their Lordships, without receiving any. Further  
3. The Paper itself (that part of it, I mean, which prays a Licence) has such manifest mistakes, in relation to the Submission of the Clergy, and the Statute enacting that Submission, as one cannot suppose the whole Lower House of Convocation could well fall into. For it confounds the Preamble of the Act with the Body of it; reciting that part of the Statute which declares the Penalties, and an whole Proviso at the End of it, as if they had been the very words of the Clergys' Submission; which it is manifest they were not, and could not be.  
My Lord of Sarum therefore not informing us, whether the Paper from whence he transcribed this form was an Original (as when it is so, he generally does) I must take leave to suspect that it was not; and to apply to it the words, which his Lordship himself uses about a Proclamaon of an Extraordinary Nature, printed by Faller. If he saw but a Copy, we have reason to doubt of it; for that might be only the Essay of some Projecting Man's Pen 
† Vol. 2. p. ●1. . The present Paper might be, and, it is likely, was no more than the first Draught of a Petition framed by some Private Hand, but never agreed to by the Lower Clergy: And (were it allowable to guests at his Lordship's Thoughts in this case) I should think that He himself had entertained some such Opinion concerning it. For though he has Printed this second Petition, together with the First, in his Collection of Records, yet in his History 
† Vol. 2. p. 47.  he makes but a very slight mention of it, and gives no Account but of the First only: and yet this Last contains New Matter in it, of great Importance, and which, were the Paper, where it is, Authentic, would very well have deserved a place in the Body of his Lordship's Work; and could not well have escaped the Pen of so Discerning a Writer. One would think therefore that his Lordship had some secret Suspicions of the inauthoritativeness of this second Paper, grounded either on a View of the Manuscript itself, from whence he transcribed it, or on some other reasons which his Lordship has not been pleased to acquaint us with.  
Indeed Bishop Stillingfleet, who first produced it, seems to say, it was found among Archbishop Cranmers Papers: which looks as if it had been lodged in his hands as Precedent of the Convocation; and consequently were not a mere Dra●gi● only, but agreed to, and presented by the Lower House. For which reason, notwithstanding all the Probabilitys there are to the contrary, I will suppose it Authentic; and if it were so, have this further to say to it: That if we allow this Petition to have been actually offered, yet it is certain that it had not its Effect, and that no Licence in Writing issued upon it. For if it had, we should never have heard of any such Memorandum in the Acts, as that I just now produced. It is manifest that at the Time of the Date of this Memorandum, the Clergy were 〈◊〉 Licenced: for they could not then have needed an Indemnity to treat in particular cases; since the General Powers contained in that Licence would have been to all Intents and Purposes their Warrant and Security. And if they had not a Commission in five Weeks from the time of their Meeting, it will be easily granted me, that they had none afterwards. Indeed for the same Reason that this Memorandum proves, that the Clergy had no Licence now, it proves also that they were to have none: for had they not laid aside all Thoughts of a General Licence, they would never have asked for a Particular one, to indemnify them in some special Cases. On the very day when they prayed this Indemnity, the Acts say also 
† Isto die communi consensu nominati & ●ssignati fuerunt Magister Roland Merrik, joh. ap Harry, joh. Williams & Elizeus Price Doctores, in Solli 〈◊〉 ad obtinendum Effectus sequentes, viz. That the Petition made, to have this House adjoined to the L●wer House of Parliament, may be obtained. , that they appointed some Members of their own to solicit their Conjunction with the Commons; which was plainly in consequence of the first Branch of their Petition, intimating a Design of appointing such Solicitors. But as to the Second Clause relating to the 25 H VIII. and a General Licence, they now take no notice of it; but instead of it, desire only to be Indemnifyed from the six Articles. Which is a manifest sign, that they had now dropped this Request, if they ever made it.  
The Petition therefore, if put up in form, was most certainly quashed above, by the Bishops, satisfying the Clergy, upon Advice had in the case, that such a Commission was needless. So that nothing can be more to the Advantage of the Clergys' Freedom of Debate, than this Petition, supposing it Authentic. For as the Preferring it shows that the Clergy doubted at first whether a Commission might not be necessary to enable them to attempt, entreat, and commune, etc. so their acting without such a Commission afterwards (for act they did) is a clear Evidence that those Doubts were overruled as soon as started, and does in effect amount to a Determination of the Point in question. For the judges, to be sure, or King's Councils (and, it may be, both) were consulted in the Case; and did therefore (as the Event shows) give their Opinion against the Necessity of such a Licence; but not▪ it seems, against the Necessity of that Exemption from the Penalties of the six Articles which the Clergy continued to pray, and which was now granted, according to their Prayer, as Bishop Parker 
† Quod & concessum est.— See above. p. 4 2.  assures us.  
But had we been in the dark as to the Event of this Petition, yet the very Time and Circumstances in which it was framed would sufficiently have accounted for it, and showed us the Unreasonableness of setting up this Instance as a Precedent. The Nation was then in an high Ferment, and the Popish Party both in the Convocation, and out of it, strong; and, to be sure, watchful to make use of all Advantages against the Reforming Clergy: in whom therefore it might be prudent to arm themselves for the Great Work they were going about (a thourough Alteration of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church) with the Largest Powers they could procure, whether in strictness of Law they needed them, or not. They themselves could not well doubt, whether they had such a Freedom o● Debate, as they were permitted to enjoy by H. the VIII th'. himself, a Prince jealous to the utmost of every the least Encroachment on his Prerogative, and careful to put every method, he fairly could, in practice, which might be of use to humble the Clergy. This Petition therefore cannot be supposed to express their Sense of the Act, but their Fears rather of the Construction which some of the Men in Power might put upon it. And under this View a Licence might appear (though not necessary in itself, yet) useful to prevent the Malice of their Enemies, and to allay the Doubts of their Friends; to take away all Excuse from those who pretended to be under the Aw of that Statute; and every way to increase▪ and animate their Party. It was no new thing, in that and the preceding Reign, for freedom of Speech, even when it had Right on its side, to ask Leave; a Practice stooped to by the Laiety of those times, as well as the Clergy. For it was, we know, in the 33 d. Year of H. the VIII th'. 
† 〈◊〉 Sy●m●nds d' Ewes Jour. p. 43. 〈◊〉 ch. 7.  that the Commons made their first Request for Liberty of Speech, which has been since continued. And in his Son's Time (the Time we are upon) they have petitioned even for Leave to Treat, in particular Cases; of which I shall give one Instance out of their Journals. In the Parliament begun 4. Nou. 3 E. VI the Commons,  they would attempt the Repeal of a Branch in a certain Act of Relief, made suit to the King, for Liberty to proceed in it. The Words of the Journal are 18. Nou. It is ordered, that Mr. Speaker with the King's Privy Council of the House, and twelve others of the House, shall be Suitors to know the King's Majesties Pleasure by his Council, if upon their Humble S●ite th●y may treat of the last Relief for  and Sheep, at four of the Clock in the Afternoon.  
Nou. 20. It is reported by Mr. Speaker, the King's Pleasure to be by his Counsel, that the House may treat for the Act of Relief, having in respect the Cause of the Granting thereof.  
N●v. 30. Mr. controller reporteth, that the King's Majesty is pleased with the Petition for the Relief, and giveth Licence to treat upon it.  
Dec. 11. A Bill was brought in for the Discharge of that Subsidy, and Repeal of the Branches wherein it was granted.  
We see here what a profound Submission was in those times paid to the Prerogative, in the Point of Liberty of Debate, even by Parliaments themselves; and have with all a clear Proof, that Men may Petition for what is unquestionably their Right; and (which is more) may continue so to do for long Periods of time, without prejudicing their Right by such repeated Petitions. Which however is far from being the case in respect of the Clergy: for I have shown it doubtful, whether the Petition alleged were ever presented; or, if it were, yet certain that it was overruled afterwards, no Licence issuing upon it; and that the Clergy neither had, nor thought they needed any such Licence for some succeeding Reigns. So that (to return to what led me into these Enquiries) no Authentic Exposition of the Submission-Act is to be had either from this Petition as L. M. P. imagines, or from the Uninterrupted Practice of Convocations, to which Dr. W. appeals. And if our sense of the Act therefore be not proved faulty by some better Mediums than these, it will remain unshaken.  
Little now is left behind to this purpose unconsidered, except the Opinion of Dr. Cousins, and Dr. Zouch, and a Resolution of some of the judges 
* Mentioned by L. M. P. p. 38, 39 : of Each of which some short Account shall be given.  
Dr. Cousins in his Tables (as they are now Printed) lays down these Three Assertions. 
Synodus Provincialis, vel Nationalis, convocari non debet absque Principis rescrip●o.  
N●c tractari, nec determinari potest aliquid in Synodo, nisi consentiente & assentiente Principe.  
Nihil habet Vim Legis, priusquam Regius Assensus sucrit adhibitus his quae Synodus decernenda censuerit.  Of these the first and last Positions are easily admitted; but I desire to be excused from believing that the second, as it is now worded, was of Dr. Cousins' drawing; since it contradicts the Practice of the Synods held under Parker, and Grindall, and his own Patron Archbishop Whitgift; and as far as we can learn, that of the Convocation in 1597, the Year before Cousins died. The Tables therefore being not published till after his Death, and after the Synod in 1603, 'tis reasonable to believe, that they had the General Fate of Posthumous Pieces, not to come out exactly as their Author left them; and particularly that they were, in the second Position, adjusted to the Practice of the Synod in 1603, either by the Editor, or by the owner of that Copy from whence the Edition was made. I should think that Cousins' Proposition ran thus, [Determinari non potest] aliquid in Synodo, nisi consulto 
* For the Change of Consentiente into Consulto I have good Authority. And under this Reading, it is employed, that both the Request and Consent were Verbal.  & assentiente Principe; which by some unskilful hand that had seen the Licence in 1603. was altered into [Nec Tractari nee Determinari potest]: I say, an Unskillful Hand: for it is clear, and I have shown it, that that Licence itself does not go so far as this second Assertion; the Instrument reciting only a leave given to Treat and Resolve jointly; that is, a Leave for the one, in order to the other: whereas here they are mentioned separately, and a Licence affirmed necessary to the first, without respect to the Latter. Dr. Cousins, who was a Man of Skill and Exactness in these things, would never have expressed himself thus injudiciously, had he indeed lived to see an Instance of such a Licence practised: and we may observe therefore how nearly he traces the Synodical Form in the third Position; where the Quae decernenda censuerit is plainly taken from the Decernendum censemus we meet with in the Canons of 1597, and which I have already observed to be the highest Expression of Authority used by That, 
P. 388.  or any other of our Synods, that treated without a Commission.  
Dr. Zouch relied implicitly on Cousins' Tables, and from them thus interpolated, transcribed these Positions Verbatim into his Descriptio juris & judicii Ecclesiastici: and therefore this is no new Authority.  
The Resolutions of the judges 8vo jac. in my Lord Coke XII th'. Report, have somewhat more of Authority in them. But these also are calculated to the Course that had been taken 1 o. jacobi, and which perhaps my Lord Coke himself might have directed: neither do they oppose the Interpretation that has been given of the Statute, if we look narrowly into them; they are to this purpose.  
1. A Convocation cannot Assemble without the Assent of the King.  
2. After their Assembly, they cannot confer to constitute any Canons, without Licence from the King.  
3. When upon conference they conclude any Canons, yet they cannot execute them without the Royal Assent. It is not said here, that they cannot confer about Canons, which the Tables grossly affirm (and Dr. W by placing the Comma between Confer, and Constitute 
† See p. 108. , would ●ain insinuate) but only that they cannot confer to constitute; which is very true, if the meaning of the words be, that they cannot so confer as to constitute: and that this sense was intended by the Judges, appears from their Third Resolution, where the Phrase is thus varied, When upon Conference they conclude. I submit to their Opinion, that the Convocation cannot confer to constitute (that is, as they explain themselves, upon Conference conclude) Canons; and I infer from hence, that neither the Submission-Act, nor the Licence in 1603. can fairly be extended to a further sense, and that this is the utmost Restraint which the Clergy now lie under. Dr. W. seems to have been sensible of this, and has produced these Resolutions therefore, not at once, but by Piece-meal; craftily dividing the second from the third, and placing them at a convenient distance 
† See p. 108 (129.) , that we might not have the Opportunity of explaining the One by the Other. L. M. P. has dealt more fairly, and aboveboard; for he has cited all Three of them together 
† P. 38. , though at the Evident Hazard of their appearing by that means to be nothing to his purpose. And, to give a further strength to these Decisions, he adds, That Godolphin citys and admits them in his Rep●rtorium Canonicum; a Book, which Dr. W. having mentioned with the utmost Contempt 
‖ P. 275. , 'tis much that one who comes after him on the same side, should urge as good Authority. The Dr. pity; poor Godolphin for depending on Sir E. Coke, in a matter of Antiquity; the Letter-writer brings this very Godolphin, to confirm St. E. Coke's Opinion in a Point of Law; so little are they ageeed upon the Character and Credit of their Witnesses! Poor as he is, Dr. W. it seems, has a Friend yet poorer than He; who would not else have vouchsafed to borrow from him. But why Poor Godolphin! he was as rich in Learning as his little Glean could make him; a Collector, and a Scribbler: and how then comes Dr. W. to despise him? Methinks We second-hand Writers should learn to speak more respectfully of one another; because if We ourselves do not, it is probable no body else will. Let Godolphin's Character be what it will, Dr. Wake could not have taken a more unlucky occasion of undervaluing him, than he at present makes use of. If I stop a little to, state the Case between them, I hope I shall have the Pardon of my Reader. Godolphin had said, that Church Gemot denoted anciently what we call a Convocation, and vouched Sir. Edward Coke for it: the Letter to a Convotion-Man had asserted the same thing, though without citing any Authority. Dr. W. who is deeply learned in these Researches, insults them all Three, upon this supposed mistake; and with a scornful Air tells his Adversary, I am confident be will be hard put to it to bring us any Author elder than Sir E. Coke, from whom as Poor Godolphin first, so as he now taken it at all adventures. 
† P. 275.  What Authority that Gentleman had, or had not in his View, I cannot say; for That, I am sure, would be to speak at all Adventures, since He himself vouches none. But that there is an Authority for this Elder than Sir E. Coke's, and that Dr. W's Confidence therefore misled him, when he pretended to be sure there was none, I can safely affirm. For the Learned Sir H. Spelman has said this very thing, and repeated it at least four several times 
* In the words Gemotum, Haligemot, and Chirchgemot: and not there only, but again in his Reliquiae too, where he has translated the passage in H. the I's Laws, into English, thus: And whomsoever the Church-Synod shall find at Variance, let them either make an accord between them in Love, or sequester them by their Sentence of Excommunication, p. 54.  in the 1st. (that is, the most Authentic) part of his Glossary, which came out in 1626. many Years before the IV th'. Book of Institutes appeared abroad in the World. From Him my Lord Coke probably had it; for he quotes, I find, the very same Passage for it, out of the Laws of H. the I. 
† Quoscunque Chirchgemot discordantes inveni●t, vel Amore congreget, vel sequestret Judicio c. 7.  where Sir Henry's Transcript read Cyricgemot instead of Scyresmot, as Wheelock afterwards from the Exchequer Manuscript itself Printed it 
‖ P. 180. . This seems to be the Correcter Reading; however I dare not determine it so to be, because Sir H. Spelman, I find, had the perusal of two other Manuscripts beside that of the Exchequer: and Wheelock's Edition, whether rightly Copied in this Instance, or no, yet is in several other respects faulty; particularly in the very next words to those Sir H. quotes, there is a manifest mistake: for instead of [Debet utem Scyresmot & Burgemotis, Hundreda, vel Wapentachia duodecies in anno Congregari, & Sex diebus anted submotum (which in the Margin is Summonitionem)] we ought to read, [Debet autem Scyresmot, & Burgmot ●is, Hundreda, & Wapentachia duodecies, etc. & 7 diebus anteâ summoniri] as the Passage is read in the Laws of E. the Confessor 
† Pp. 147.148. , from whence these of H. the I. were taken.  
But which soever of these be the true reading, we have Sir H. Spelman's word for it, that Chirchgemot is a good Saxon word, and did in that Language signify a Synod, or Convocation. Had he not known it to have been so used in other places, he would scarce have mended a corrupt Reading by the Use of it here; for he was not like some small Dabblers in Antiquity, that make two mistakes always, when they pretend to mend one; but a very sure, as well as a very modest Writer.  
This short Digression was but necessary to repress Dr. W's indiscreet Vanity, who has ventured to decide peremptorily upon the use of a Saxon Word, though, I believe, he understands as little of that Tongue, as he does of the true state of this Controversy: and has ushered in his Critical Remark with Language of good Assurance.— I am confident (says he) that this Gentleman will be hard put to it, to bring any Author, etc. Confidence, let me tell him, even where Men are certainly in the right, is not over becoming: but where they are as certainly in the wrong, and are reprehending others that are in the right; there, no Quality whatsoever sits so ill upon a Man, or looks so untowardly. Some Saxon Friend, I suppose, had blown Dr. W. up into this Degree of Assurance; and were not Mr. Nicholson a little too distant to Impart, I should pitch upon Him to this purpose, as soon as any Man. For the Assertion is all over like One of his, both as to the Assuming Air, and the Mistake of it. I have given the Reader one proof of this kind before 
† P. 313. ; and, since Skill in Saxon happens to be here once again my Theme, shall take this Opportunity to add another.  
Mr. Nicholson 
† Hist. Lib. Vol. 2 p. 112.  professes himself not satisfied with the Opinion of Cambden, Lambard, Spelman, and generally, of All our English Antiquaries and Historians, that there were in this Kingdom before the Conquest three Codes or Digests of Laws, which from the several Countries where they first prevailed, were rightly termed the West Saxon, the Mercian, and Danish Laws: This Conceit of theirs he imputes to a Mistake of Laga (in the Words Westsaxenalaga, Myrcenalaga, and Danelaga) for Law, whereas it signifys, he says, a Country, or District. Very Decisive indeed! But one would have thought that the Great Council of the Realm, which in H. the I's Reign re-enacted and enlarged the Confessors Laws, should have understood the Saxon Tongue, and Times pretty well; and yet they tell us,— Regnum Angliae tripartitum est in West saxons, & in Mercenos, & Dacorum Provinciam. Legis etiam Anglicae trina est Partitio ad eandem distantiam 
* Ll. H. I. p. 182. , and again,— Legis etiam Anglicae trina est Partitio ad superiorem modum. Alia enim West Saxiae, alia Mercena, alia Denelaga est 
† Ib. p. 180 . A Particular account is given of the several Shires, in which each of these Laws obtained by jorvallensis 
† X Script. col. 956. , who, though he had no great share of Latin, is known to have understood both our Saxon Tongue and Antiquitys perfectly well. Or if his skill should be doubted, yet sure Gervase of Tilbury's cannot; and thus he writes concerning the Conqueror.— Propositis Legibus Anglicanis secundum tripartitam eorum distinctionem h. e. Merchenlage, Denelage, & West-Saxonlage, quasdam reprobavit, quasdam autem approbans Transmarinas— Normanniae Leges adjecit 
‖ L. 1. c. 29. . And as to the Use of the Word Laga, a Charter of H. I. (drawn but Fourteen Years after the Conqueror's death) will sufficiently clear it. There this passage occurrs, Lagam Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis Emendationibus quibus eam pater meus emendavit 
* Archaion p. 176. & M. Par. ad ann. 1100. : Does Laga here signify the Confessors Law, or his Country? Whether all this Old Evidence laid together may be allowed to outweigh our Librarians New Guests, must be left to the Reader. If it does, it will be apt to raise in him no very advantageous Opinion, either of Mr. Nicholson's Skill in these particular matters, or of his Modesty in any.  
But to resume our Argument,— We are told further, that K. james the I. in his Declaration prefixed to the XXXIX Articles, and published with them, doth declare, That he is Supreme Governor of the Church of England; and that if any difference arise about the External Policy, concerning Injunctions, Canons, or other Constitutions, the Clergy in their Convocations is to order and settle them, having first obtained Leave under our Broad-Seal so to do 
† L. M. P. p. 41. . If King james declared this, he declared it some Years after he was in his Grave; for the Declaration meant came not out till 1628. But let the Doctrine be whose it will, it is very good; Leave under the Broad-Seal, it is confessed, must be had, to order and settle any difference arising about Old Canons and Constitutions, for that is in effect to make New ones: but for any other Acts previous to this Ordering and Settling, such a Leave is not necessary, nor does the Declaration say it is; though there are some words that look a little more this way, than any of those produced by this wise arguer; for it follows,— Out of our Princely Care that Churchmen may do the Work which is proper for them, the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation, upon their humble desire, shall have a Licence under our Broad-Seal to deliberate of, and to do all such things as being made plain by them, and assented unto by Us, shall concern the settled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Established, from whence we will not endure any Variance, or Departing in the least Degree. This latter Clause must be explained by the former, where the Doctrine in this point is professedly sta●ed; and there a Leave only to order and settle is made necessary. Besides even here Deliberating is not to be separated from Doing; nor a Leave supposed requisite for the one, but as it is to end in the other. This is a Form of Expression founded on the Licence practised in 1603, which I have already accounted for.  
And now nothing I think that carries the Face of an Objection has escaped me, unless it be a small Remark made by Dr. W. on the Form of the Convocation-writ; wherein the King, he says, reserves to himself the Privilege of naming the Subject, which they are to Deliberate and Resolve upon 
† P. 111. . 'Tis true, in another place he tells us, with his usual Consistency, that he does not found his Opinion of the Necessity of a Licence upon the Form of this Writ 
† P. 287. : however even there he affirms this Writ plainly to imply that some such Licence is to be expected from the King 
† P. 287. ; and though therefore his Opinion be not founded on the Writ, yet he thinks it is mightily strengthened, and countenanced by it. But this is a Construction that no man living could have made of it, that had a true Understanding either of the Writ itself, or of the Times wherein it was framed. His account of the Writ runs thus— In the beginning of it (says he) the King having mentioned by way of form, that for certain urgent Affairs of great Concern both to the Church and Kingdom, he had commanded the Archbishop to summon the Clergy to come together to such a certain place, and at such a certain time; he thus declares what they were to do, when met: Namely, that they were to Treat, Consent and Conclude upon the Premises, and such Other Matters which should be more clearly declared to them, when they came together, on the King's behalf. From hence he reasons in this manner,— that though the Urgent Affairs of the King, Church, and Realm, which the Convocation is in General to debate about, be the constant Introduction of every Convocation-Writ, yet this is by way of form only: for the King still reserves to himself to declare to them, and they are, when met, to expect his special Direction, and not ramble after their own fancies, or any matter within this General Compass without his Warrant 
* Pp. 111.112. . But how false and forced these Colours are, will appear if we consider,  
1. That the Writs which summon the Barons to Parliament, have much the same Introduction, with this for a Convocation; these also beginning with a [Quibusdam arduis & urgentibus negotiis, etc.] as this does; and proceeding to other Expressions, the same in sense with the subsequent Words in the Convocation-Writ; and in this only differing from them that they are not quite so Expressive and Forcible. Now Dr. W. will not, I hope, dare to say, that those Words are placed also in the Lord's Writs by way of form only: and if not, how come they to be used more by way of form Here than There? Nay,  
2. These words are so far from being placed in the Front of the Convocation-Writ by way of Form only, that they are expressly referred to in the Body of it; where the Clergy are said to assemble ad tractandum, consentiendum, & con●oncludendum super PREMISSIS, i. e. super ●rduis & urgentibus negotiis, before mentioned; even as the Barons are in the same▪ part of their Writ said to meet supper DICTIS negotiis tra●aturi, etc.] It is added indeed & aliis quae darius exponentur tune ibidem ex parte nostrâ: which intimates that the King will also on his part propose some particular subjects of Debate to them, but precludes them not from debating on any thing except what he proposes. Nor can any Man, who considers the Date of these Writs, possibly think that this Meaning is to be drawn from them. For  
3. They went in near the same Terms that they do now, 200 Years before the Submission-Act passed, when the King's Power of confining the Clergy to deliberate on nothing but what he offered to them, was a Doctrine never dream of. And I hope, since the Words of the Writ are the same Now as they were Then, the meaning of them must be the same too: for though the 25 H. VIII. abridged the Convocations Privileges in several respects, yet it could not make the Words of their Writ signify otherwise than they did, when they were first inserted. Dr W. himself happened to stumble upon this Truth though he wanted either sincerity, or skill to make use of it. The Grand Question 
⸪ P. 160.  had told him (what he tells us again 
† P. [113.] , as if it had been his Own Observation) that this Clause 〈◊〉 to be found in the Convocation Writs as far back as 28 H. VI after which, 
† It should be 38 H. VI The Writ is to be found Cl. m. 29. dors. (See Pryn. Parl. Wr. Vol. 1. p. 91.) Which shows from whence Dr. W. borrowed his knowledge, since he ●ook this Mistake also along with it.  a small share 〈◊〉 Logic methinks might hav● taught him, that this Claus● could never be intended to tie u● the Clergys' Debates to such Pa●●ticular subjects as the Kin● should allow them to delibera●● on. But he may be pleased to know, that it 〈◊〉 yet an 100 years Older than he thinks it is: fo● I have seen Writs in the beginning of E. the 〈◊〉 with these, or the like words in them; par●●●cularly Cl. 7. E. III. ps. 2. m. 15. dors. the Archbishop and his Clergy are summoned Super dictis negotiis quae Vobis ibidem ex parte nostrâ plenius exponentur tractaturi, vestrumque Consilium Impen●●ri, and 20. R. II. ps. 2. m. 12. dors. it ran almost in the same Syllables as it does now,— Ad tra●tandum [concordandum] consentiendum, & concludendum super praemissis, & aliis quae sibi per Nos vel Commissarios nostros in hâc parte clarius exponentur tunc ibidem. And a little acquaintance with the Old Acts of Convocation would have informed him, what this Phrase ex parte nostrà meant; it being the Custom always for the King, soon after the Convocation far down, to send his Nuntii Speciales thither, which were some of his Prime Nobility, his Great Officers, or Judges; and by them to intimate his Demands, or Desires to the Clergy. And these therefore are said to come ex parte domini Regis, every where throughout the Archbishop's Registers. Dr. W. cannot be ignorant enough to think that the Clergy had Then no Power of entering on any Deliberations except what those Honourable Messengers recommended to them.  
Prohibitions were at that time usual, sent sometimes in Writing, and sometimes denounced Viva Voce by the Judges, who came along with the Great Men that brought the King's Message. By These the Clergy were forbid to treat of any thing wherein the King's Crown and Dignity was concerned; which implys them at Liberty to treat of every thing in which they were not thus prohibited. Their Debates indeed were bounded by the Nature and Ends of the Assembly itself; which confined them to Matters properly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance, and such as related to their Own Order, and did no ways entrench on the King's Prerogative, and on the Laws of the Realm. But in all other respects, the Debates and Proceed of Convocation were then under as little restraint as those of Parliament.  
The form of the Convocation-Writ therefore is of no manner of service to Dr. W. and had been better let alone by him than produced; as indeed all his Learning of this kind had; in which he is very Improper and Unlucky, for he scarce ever medles with a Writ, without giving the Reader some occasion or other to pity his Ignorance, before he has done with it. This (having secured the Two Points laid down at the Any trance of these Sheets against all Exceptions) I am now at Leisure to make out upon him; and, by briefly running over what there is in his Book of this, or the like nature, to show, how unqualifyed a Man he was to meddle in the present Dispute, and how utterly a stranger he is to all that Knowledge that is requisite to frame a True Judgement upon it. This shall be the Business of the Next and Last Chapter; which I shall draw into as narrow a Compass as conveniently I can, having already, I fear, expatiated a little too much in the Others.   

CHAP. IX.  
DR. Wake has graced his Appendix with the Forms of several Writs; the First 
† P. 359.  of which is, he says, an Ancient Writ of Summons for an Abbot, and the second, for a Bishop 
† P. 361. , to come to Parliament. It seems, this Great Antiquary thinks that Bishops and Abbats were called to Parliament by Writs of a different form: whereas every one that is in the least acquainted with things of this nature knows, that whenever the Abbats had an Immediate and Personal Summons, their Writs ran in the very same Terms with those of the Bishops, the Clause Premunientes only excepted; and are therefore very seldom recited at length in the Rolls of Parliament, but entered only with an Eodem modo mandatum est, or Consimiles Literae diriguntur Abbatibus & Prioribus subscriptis. But had he a mind for the Honour of the Abbats, whose order is now extinct, to record Their Writ of Summons distinctly in his Immortal Work, and by that means to preserve the Memory of it to future Ages, yet that he should single out that particular Writ he has printed, as an Ancient one, and of the Reign of H. III. 
* See p. 359.  is a little unhappy; when it is certain that That Writ in all its forms never went out till the Middle or Latter End of R. II. i. e. till about an 120 Years after H. the III. was dead and buried. The Introductory words [Quia de avisamento consilii nostri] are scarce found in any Parliament-Writ before 12 E. III. when they are two or three times used, and not afterwards till the 46 E. III. when they begin to be employed pretty constantly. The Defence of the Church of England, mentioned in the Close of it, never had place in any Writ till 6 E. II. (says Pryn 
* P. W. Vol. 1. p. 115. ); was never ordinarily inserted, till the 49 E. III. and never in that manner in which it is expressed in this Writ, till towards the End of Richard the II's Reign. At which time, and so on downwards the Precise Form (Printed by Dr. W. for an Ancient Summons in the Time of H. the III.) with little or no difference, regularly obtained. However Dr. W's Writ cannot be yet so Old as R. II. for it gins with Henricus dei gratiâ, etc. and must belong therefore to One of the Three Harry's that immediately succeeded him. Impossible therefore it is, that the Abbot of Tavestoke should ever be summoned by this Writ, as he tells us 
† P. 360.361.  he was; since that Abbat was never called to Parliament after the 23 E. III. 
* Pryn P. W. ●. 1. p. 144.  when this Writ was not yet heard of, till 5 H. VIII, 
⸪ Godayn de Prasul. part 2. p. 180.  when it was in some Expressions altered.  
Dr. W. will perhaps lay the blame of all these Faults on Reynerius' Apostolatus Benedictinus, which he quotes there. But can it be any Excuse for him, who had so many near Domestic Helps towards clearing up these Mistakes, that One who wrote at a distance from all our Records has mistaken before him? However, even Reynerius himself, as much at a distance as he wrote, was better instructed than this comes to; for neither does he produce this as the Summons of an Abbot, distinct from that of a Bishop; nor as an Old one, much less as of the Time of H. III: nor does he say, that the List of Abbats given by Dr. W. were by this Writ ever Summoned. These are all Dr. Wakes new Lights, and Peculiar Improvements.  
After all, if he thought a Writ of Summons to an Abbot would look well in his Appendix, how came that in the Annals of Burton 
† P. 371.  to be overlooked; which is really of the age he pretends that the other is, and one of the most Ancient Writs extant, being sent out in the 41 H. III. Ao. 1256?  
In the next Number we meet with an Ancient Writ of Summons of a Bishop to Parliament 
† P. 361. . And here again, Dr. W. can rise no higher than the 49 H. III. whereas we have a Writ of this kind 6 to joh. i. e. 60 Years Older than this; and two others of the 26 and 38. H. III. still preserved in our Records, and not in our Records only, but in the Printed Pieces of Selden, Pryn, and Brady: so that they can be a secret to none but those to whom every thing almost of this kind is so.  
After the Abbats Ancient Summons, he sets down a List of 24 Abbats and one Prior anciently Summoned; believing this to be the fixed number of them, whereas it frequently varied. In the 49 H. III. by that very Writ he Prints, no less than 102 Abbats and Priors were Summoned; which Dugdale would have told him, had he transcribed that Writ out of Him, and not out of a Faulty Edition of Elsing. I suppose he took it from thence, because I find the same Error there that I do in Dr. Wake's Transcript; pro pace regni assensurandà, instead of assecurandâ: which in Elsing is only a Mistake of the Printer, but Dr. W. took it for an Old Term of Art, and was nicely careful therefore to preserve the Spelling. In Edward the I. and II's times, 50, 60, 70. and sometimes 80 Abbots and upwards 
† 28 E. I. Cl. m. 3. dors.  were Summoned; that the Number of the Regulars might be in some degree answerable to that of the Seculars, called up by the Premunientes, and the Parliament be a Full Representative both of the Clergy and Laiety. About the middle of E. II. when the Clergy got ground upon the Crown, the Number of Summoned Abbats decreased mightily, and was generally a few under, or above thirty, throughout Edward the iii Reign: when Convocations being now held a course concurrently with Parliaments, all the Abbats and Priors of note came up thither, upon the Archbishop's Mandate; and were there ready to receive the King's Commands: and were excused therefore from the Parliamentary Writ, which was sent out only to such Abbats and Priors as held by Barony. Afterwards from the Reign of E. III. to the Reformation, their number always exceeded twenty, and fell short of thirty, says one excellently versed in these Enquirings: whose Observation however is not Universally true; for the 12 H. VI 
† See Dugdale Sum. p. 424.  and 31 H. VIII. 
† Ibid. p. 501.  are Exceptions to it; in both which Instances the Number of Abbats called fell short of twenty. This Inequality in the Latter Reigns seems to have sprung chief from the Vacancy of Abbeys, or the Absence of Abbats, who were abroad either upon Embassys, or at General Councils; and had not in this case (as the Bishops had) their Vicar's general, to whom the Crown directed Writs in their stead.  
Nor Mistakes he only in the Numbers, but in the Titles also of these Abbats; for some that are not in his List (particularly the Abbats of Waltham-Cross, and Cirencester) were from the 49 H. III. downward, as constantly Summoned as almost any of the twenty four he has set down; and the Prior of S. John's of jerusalem, much oftener than the Prior of Coventry, whom alone he has mentioned.  
The next thing we meet with is a Bishop's Summons of the 23 E. I. 
† P. 363.  which is given us by the Dr. as the first Writ of the kind by which the Inferior Clergy were warned to Parliament 
† See p. 212. , where as I have shown that it went out in the 22 E. I. if not earlier; and have brought Vouchers for this, not from musty Manuscripts only, which are below the Dr's care, but even from his Old Friends and Acquaintants, our Printed Historians. And Methinks a Man so Historically inclined as He is, might have known what Knighton, and the Annals of Worcester say on this occasion.  
But to let this Error pass, as a common one; yet in his next Article, where he pretends to compare the Clause Premunientes as it was settled 15 E. II. with the same as it is now 
† P. 365. , his Mistakes are unpardonable. For whereas he tells us, that this Clause was settled 15 E. II. it is true neither ways; since long before this it was settled as much as now; going out in the same Terms often in the Latter End of E. the I. and beginning of E. TWO: And long after his 15 th'. Year it received an Alteration that has by some been thought Material; for the Words ad faciendum & consentiendum were not constantly employed, but turned sometimes into ad consentiendum, even in E. the iii Reign; and never, that I can find, used after 5 R. II. from which Time to Ours the Writ has run ad cònsentiendum only. The Clause Premunientes therefore was not perfectly settled till threescore years after 15 E. II. But that is not all; for neither in the 15 E. II. it self, was it so settled as Dr. W. represents it to have been, who makes it to premonish Priorem & Capellanum, Ecclesiae, instead of Capitulum; and repeats this senseless Mistake no less than thrice in the Compass of this short Clause; to show us that it was not the Error of his Pen, but the Effect of pure Ignorance. It seems, he found it thus set down in an III Edition of the Abridgement of Records 
† P. 2. ; and the Errors of that Book too are all sacred with him. Dr. W's Enemies, as meanly as they may think of his Abilitys in these sort of studies, must yet allow him to have One good Property of an Antiquary; for he copies every thing with great nicety, and religiously transcribes even the Verbal Mistakes of those Authors he deals with. Whateever Other Alterations he is for, You shall never find him venturing to alter a faulty Text: for as he knows no Truth, that is not in Print; so he takes every thing for true, that is.  
The same Evidences of his Skill meet us in every Article; for again, Num. III. we have him following such another Blind Guide, into a Mistake as gross every whit, as the former For he recites that part of the Old Convocation▪ writ, where the Constituent Members are reckoned up, after this manner— Universos & singulos Episcopos vestrae Provinciae, ac Decanos & Praecentores Ecclesiarum Cathedralium, Abbates, etc. Any Man that had ever read Two of these Writs must have known, that Praecentores here should be Priores; and without having seen a second Writ, might by dint of Common Sense have smelled out so plain an Error as this: but Dr. Wake found the word thus in Fuller 
† Ch. Hist. XVI. Cent. V Book p. 190. , and took it as he found it; without rasing any Scruples to himself, which it was not in his power to lay.  
After all, when Dr. W. makes these Praecentores Ecclesiarum Cathedralium to have place in Convocation, he speaks a greater Truth than he is ware of. For there are a Few Instances on Record, when they were really called up thither, with the rest of the Cathedral Dignitaries, the Chancellors, Treasurers, and Capitular Archdeacon's. Thus the Case was twice under Edward the III. in his 25 th'. 
† See Regist. Winchelsey f. 142.  and 29 th'. 
† Ibid. f. 147.  Years, when the Exigences of the Church required that the Clergys' Assemblies should be Numerous and Full; and when it was in the Archbishop's Power (as it Then was) to summon whom he pleased to the Convocation, in like manner as the King could to the Parliament.  
These small matters were not worth insisting on, but to satisfy the Reader how unacquainted Dr. W. is with the Forms of all sorts of Writs, either for the Convocation, or Parliament, i. e. indeed with the first Elements and Grounds of this Controversy; which can never be rightly understood, or stated, without an Exact knowledge of the Nature and Kind's of these Writs, and the several Alterations they under went in different Ages. For Dr. W. has rightly observed, that at first these Summons were very properly drawn, and do mark out to us the Undoubted Rights of those to whom they were sent, as they were allowed of in those Ancient Times 
† P. 214. , which holds not only of the first Draught, but of the several Changes made in them afterwards. And if so, it is very wonderful that our Author, when he was about to state the Rights and Powers of the Clergy in Convocations and Parliaments, should not above all things have studied and compared these Forms, and endeavoured to give us an Exact and Particular Account of them. A few Observations of this kind, drawn from our Manuscript Registers, would have been of more use towards settling the Point in Debate, than Volumes of such Common Trash as he has produced out of our Printed Historians. It has been my care in several parts of this Answer to make up this Defect of Dr. Wakes, as far as the Old Collections I had made, and the few New Opportunities I have had of improving my knowledge this way, would allow of. Had the Way to these Records been as open and easy to me as it was to Dr. W. I would have endeavoured that nothing should have been wanting on this argument.  
The Mistakes I have hitherto laid open in this Chapter, belong only to the Three First Articles in Dr. W's Appendix: of the Four remaining ones, the Last has been examined throughly already; and upon enquiry we have found, that from the beginning to the end, there is scarce a true Line in it. The same thing I have assured 
† P. 355.  the Reader concerning the VI also, though I waved the Proof of it, because it would be Tedious: but if Dr. W. demands it, it shall be forthcoming. The IV th'. and V th'. are barely Copies of the Submission-Act, and of K. Charles Commission to the Convocation in 1640; in which there was no room for Ignorance to show itself, and therefore the Mistakes he has there made must be wilful ones. And wilful ones therefore he has made, giving us such deceitful Transcripts 
† As I have shown p. 85. in the Margin, and p. 96.  of Both these Records, as omit some of the most Material Parts of them. In short then, among these several Vouchers, which Dr. W. has brought to credit his Work, there is not one that does not some way or other blemish it, and betray in him a manifest want of Skill at least, if not of a much better Quality: And the whole Appendix therefore is throughout of a Piece with itself, and with the Book it belongs to.  
Here his Mistakes lay collected to our Hand; but there are many more to the same purpose scattered through his Book; which should be brought together and represented in One View to the Reader. I am weary, and hastening to Close: however I shall give him a sight of some few of them.  
We have seen already how the Dr. out of his Especial Grace and Mere Motion has Summoned the Praecentors of Cathedral Churches to Convocation: which was very Obliging to Them; but not very kind to the Priors, whom he left out, to make room for them. He is as Liberal of his Favours to the Lower Clergy too, for he tells us, that the Convocation-Writ calls two of every Archdeaconry to the Synod; 
P. 104.  and the Clause Premunientes, as many out of every Archdeaconry to Parliament 
† P. 150. . His Own Writs in the Appendix, if he had read them, would have prevented this mistake, and have told him (what one would think a man should scarce need being told) that there come but two Proctors from the Clergy of any One Diocese (for Instance, that of London) though there happen to be never so many Archdeaconrys in it. The Archdeaconrys indeed choose two a Piece: but out of Them a New Choice is made of two to represent the whole Diocese.  
The only thing that can keep Dr. W. in countenance, is, that a certain Brother-Writer of his, a Member of Convocation, knows as little of these things as He does. For his account of the Bishop's Writ, is, that it commanded Them to attend, accompanied with the Priors, Archdeacon's, and Proctors of the Clergy 
† Nicolson Hist. Lib. Vol. 3. p. 66. : as if the Premunites had Summoned all the Priors, and no Deans! But how can we expect a true account of Writs from Him who gives us so false an one of the Books which they are contained in? For concerning Dugdale's Summons thus, in the same Page, he instructs us; that it is a perfect Copy of all Summons of the Nobility, etc. from the 49 H. III. to the present times; and therein also (he says) we shall find the like Mandates for the Clergy and Commons 
† Nicolson Hist. Lib. Vol. 3. p. 66. . Which shows evidently that he never saw the Book: for there are but Two Writs in it for the Commons, and not One for the Clergy, properly so called, that is, for the whole Body of them. But I remember his Words of Bale (such another Rash and Rude Writer), who had misjudged of a certain Piece— The Character might be true, say he, for any thing (perhaps) that He knew; but 'tis that Writers way, to give accounts of Men, and their Labours, at random 
‖ Vol. 1. p. 177. . Words, which had Mr. Nicholson carried in his Eye throughout the Course of his Work, it would have been much shorter, and much better than it is at present: the Three Parts of his Historical Library would have shrunk into one, had he confined himself to say nothing of Books, but what he knew of them. And this, I assure him, is a Character not given at Random! But not to lose sight of our Principal Author,—  
Dr. W's Nicety and Exactness in this part of knowledge appears again in his account of the Persons, of which the Lay part of the Parliament was anciently composed: for he tells us, that in the 6 E. III. the Dukes and Barons went aside to consult 
† P. 219. ; whereas it is famously known, that there was no Duke in England till the 11 th'. of E. III. when the Black Prince was first made Duke of Cornwall. How he came to quote the Abridgement of Records 
† P. 11.  for this mistake, I cannot divine; where there is not a word of Dukes mentioned, any more than there is of that Parliaments being called for the Affairs of Scotland, for which also Dr. W. very gravely vouches it. In Elsing 
⸪ P. 99  indeed these Two Mistakes are to be found; but I suppose they were none of His, but his Printers: And had Dr. W. consulted the Abridgement, as he pretends, he would have known so too; and have dropped this learned Remark about Dukes, and the Affairs of Scotland.  
If we ask this Knowing Gentleman, what the Inferior Clergy are Summoned to Parliament for, and impower'd by their Writ to do, he will tell us, that the Parliament-Writ Summons them to come to Parliament, there to Treat with the King, etc. The Convocation-Writ calls them to Consult only among themselves 
* P. 229. . Whereas again his Own Appendix, faulty as it is, would have truly taught him, that the Parliament-Writ, as it now stands, summons the Inferior Clergy ad consentiendum, not ad tractandum; and the Convocation-Writ ad tractandum, consentiendum & concludendum, not to consult only. The Last of these does expressly summon them ●o Treat, and yet he says, it does not; the First does not, and yet he tells us, it does.  
After this Wild Account of the Writs to the Clergy, we are not to wonder, if he mistakes as much in those to the Commons; the Impowring Words of which, he assure us, were about the 26 E. III. thus altered ad tractandum, Consulendum, & Faciendum, and ran so, on to the 46 th'. of the same King, when they were again worded, ad faciendum & consulendum, and so have continued to this day 
† P. 213. . Every particular of which account is false: for the Writ to the Commons 26 E. III. run ad tractand, consulend, & consentiend. 
* Pryn. P. W. V 2. pp. 92, 94. ; and so it did several Years before this, viz. in the 21 E. III. 
† Ibid. 95. . And between the 26 and 46 E. III. the Phrase frequently varied: for in the 36 th'. it was ad consentiendum only 
⸪ Ib. p. 107. , and so on the 44 th' 
⸫ Ib. p. 102. , when it changed into ad consulend. & consentiend 
‖ Ib. p. 106. . And in the 46 th'. it ran, ad faciend. & consentiend. (not consulend) 
(a) Ib. p. (113). . And thus indeed it has, for the most part, continued to this day: However not always; for as low as the 7 th'. of R. II. it called them ad consentiendum only 
(b) Ib. p. 117. . I defy any Man to make more Mistakes in so few Words as Dr. W. has done. One or Two of them, I find, he has with Great Industry picked out of the Grand Question 
(c) P. 156. ; but where he got all the rest, I cannot imagine.  
P. 104. He makes it a doubt, whether the settled number of the Inferior Clergy, called by the Bishop's Writ, was derived from thence into the Convocation-Writ, or from the Convocation-Writs into those of Parliament: which is, in effect, to doubt, whether the Deans, Archdeacon's, Capitular and Rural Proctors were called to Convocation, before the Bishop's Writ had that Clause in it. And he who doubts of this, puts it beyond a Doubt, how far He is qualified to write on this subject.  
The 49 th'. of H. the III. is not more famous for sheathing the Old Barons Swords, than for Exercising the Pens of our Modern Writers. Much has been said of it in relation to the Parliamentary Interest of the Commons Temporal; Dr. W. seems to make it the Aera of that of the Commons Spiritual too; for thus he speaks of it. Whereas before the 49 th'. of H. III. only the Bishops and Abbots, who held of the King by their Baronies were wont to be summoned to Parliament; in that Year, when the Commons began to be called, several of the Inferior Clergy were also called together with them; and that, for aught appears, in a larger Proportion than the Laity themselves were 
† P. 209. . Here are two Assertions, in the last of which he is kinder to his Function than will consist with Truth, and in the First not so just as he ought to be. For long before the 49 th'. of H. III. not Bishops and Abbots only, but (I hope) some Priors too, were called to Parliament. We will suppose him to have comprehended These, under Abbats; yet even thus his account is very defective. For not those Abbats and Barons only, who held by Barony, were called, but many more than these; and oftentimes the whole Order. The first Parliamentary Summons left 
† 6. joh.  calls all the Abbats and Priors of the Diocese together with the Bishop of it: and the Priores Installati, & plenum sub se Conventum habentes, are (I have shown already) several times mentioned by Paris, as having a General Call to Parliament. Who speaks also not seldom of the Decani, Archidiaconi, 
† And so Annals of Burton. See Pp. 301, 302. of this Book.  & aliae Ecclesiasticae Personae as present. Dr. W. who would be thought to know All our Historians so intimately, should methinks have had some sort of acquaintance with the best of them, M. Paris: at least he should not, till he had read him, have ventured to determine any thing concerning the Constituent Members of the Great Councils in H. the iii time, of which we have not where so just an account as in that accurate Writer. But he makes his Order amends in what follows: for in the 49 th'. H. III. (it seems) when the Commons began to be called, several of the Inferior Clergy were also called together with them, and that, for aught appears, in a Larger Proportion than the Laity themselves were. Were they so? How came then our Histories and Records not to have mentioned it? From none of which can it be certainly learned, that there were any of the Clergy called to this Meeting, below Abbats and Priors, but five Deans only. It may be, many of Inferior Rank might be summoned too: but if they were, 'tis more than can be proved; for there is not, I believe, the least Hint of such a Summons remaining: sure we are, that they could not be called up in the same way that was afterwards practised, for the Bishops Writ of that Year is on record, and has no Warning Clause in it. But it may be, the Abbats, Priors, (and Deans) that held not by Barony, are Dr. W.'s Inferior Clergy: let them be so, their Number in this Instance did not amount to above Eighty; whereas the Knights, Citizens, Burgesses, and Barons of the Cinque Ports must have been four or five times that Number. Whence he drew this Piece of History therefore, I cannot divine. The Learned Person, 
† Dr. Brady  I am sure, whom he vouches for it, in his Margin, has not a Letter this way, in the Pages cited: but he thought the Reverence Men had for the Character of that most Knowing Antiquary, would have made them take every thing implicitly for Truth, to which his Name was set, and have prevented all further Enquiries.  
In what Place the Clergy called to Parliament met, Dr. W. professes himself not to have found 
* P. 221. ; but he thinks it not improbable, that it may have been at St. Paul's, because their Other Convocations were usually held there 
* P. 221. . But I think it very improbable, that while they were, strictly speaking, a Member of Parliament, they should meet so far from the Place, where it opened and sat; as improbable, as that the Commons should have met at the same Distance from the Lords. Westminster Abbey was somewhat nearer, and more convenient; and if the Commons had the Use of the Chapter House there, we may reasonably believe, that the Clergy too were accommodated with some Other Room in that Monastery; as indeed they anciently were: for sometimes we hear of them in the Capella Monachorum infirmorum 
(a) Hoveden ad ann. 1194. p. 735. In Conc●lio Northampt. vide Benedict. Abb. Apud Cotton Reliq. p. 212. , which is called also Capella Sta. Catharinae. 
(b) Diceto inter X Scriptores c. 589. ; and sometimes in the Capella Sti. johannis Evangelistae. 
(c) M. Par. ad ann. 1244. p. 640. , when the Parliament, we find, was opened, and all the States of it came together, in Refectorio Monachorum 
(d) M. Par. ibid. , and continued so to do, for at least Fifty Years afterwards: for Math. of Westminster's Relation in 1294 implies, that that was Then the place, where the Spiritual and Lay part of the Parliament met one another 
(e) Congregatis in Refectorio Monachorum Westm. Surgens unus Miles joannes de Havering dictus in medio eorum, dicebat, Viri Venerabiles, etc. p. 422. . Upon the Division of the Two Houses, the Commons sat in the Chapterhouse of the Abbot of Westminster: Dr. W. observes that this is mentioned in the Abridgement of Records, 50 E. III; and might have observed, how it is mentioned there, as the accustomed (or rather, as the Roll itself speaks, the Ancient 
* Aunciene place. ) Place of their assembling; which implys them to have sat there probably from the time of their Separation. Not many Years after this, they seem to have exchanged this Place with the Clergy, and to have sat themselves in the Refectory of the same Abbey, for in the 9 H. V the Chapterhouse appears to have been the Place of Reception for the Convocation Clergy 
* See Wals. Hist. Angl. ad ann. 1421. ; and in the 4 H. V the Rolls say, Le Chanceleur per commandment du Roy assigna a les ditz Chivalers, citizens, & Burgeoises une Maison appellee le Froitour dedeinz L'abbee de Westminster, a tenir en y●elle leur Counseilles & Assemblees: and in the 6 H. VI it is said to be the place, where the Commons ordinarily sat 
‖ The Roll goes further, and says, Eorum Domus Communis antiquitùs usitata. , in a Manuscript of Mr. Petyt, printed by Bishop Burnet 
† Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. Coll. of Rec. p. 100 .  
But though the Place of their Meeting puzzles him, yet the Time, it seems, does not; for as to That, he informs us, that the Clergy who met by virtue of the Convocation-Writ in Parliament time, came together heretofore on some Other Day than that on which the Parliament began 
† P. 224. . He knows not, it seems, that they have done so a late too, and that the Custom for an Age and half was for them to assemble the Day after the Parliament. This Usage began in the time of H. the VIII th'. and was then often practised; but not regularly fixed till toward the latter End of his Reign: from which time to the late Revolution it held; and from thence the Parliament and Convocation-Writs have Summoned to the very same day; which has joined these two bodies yet more closely than formerly, in their Summons, though their Assemblies at the same time are more than ever divided. My Lord of Sarum therefore had not well considered this matter, when he said, that it was the Custom of all H. the viii Reign for the Convocation to meet two or three days after the Parliament 
† Vol. 1. p. 213. . For besides that it sometimes met before it, (for instance, in 1511/2. the Convocation came together, Feb. 2. 
* Registr. Hadr. de Castello.  the Parliament not till Feb. 4. 
† D●gd. Summ. 3 H. 8 th'. ) the very Instance upon which his Lordship produces this Observation, destroys it; for the Convocation of 1536. began june 9 th'. the Parliament, june the 8 th'. And indeed near half the Convocations in that Prince's time met (as they did till the present Reign) nicely the day after the Parliament, as will appear by particularly comparing the Dates of both of them.  

Parliament Met,  
1514 1514/5 5 Feb. 5. Dugd. Sum.  
1515 Nou. 12. Ibid.  
1536 june 8. Ibid.  
1540 Apr. 12. Bp. Burnet V. 1. p. 274.  
1544 1544/5 5 jan. 30. Dugd.  
1545 Nou. 23. Ibid.  
1546 1546/7 7 jan. 14. Ibid.   

Convocation Met,  
Feb. 6. Registr. Warham.  
Nou. 13. Registr. Hadr. de Cast.  
june 9 Ibid.  
Apr. 13. Registr. Cranmer.  
jan. 31. Ibid.  
Nou. 24. Ibid.  
jan. 15. Ibid.   
And the same Distance of Time was often also observed both in Proroguing and Dissolving that Prince's Convocations and Parliaments.  
As to the Authority by which the Clergy were convened, Dr. W. affords us as little light in That Point too as in any of the former. He recites the Opinion of some who think that after the statute of Praemunire in 1393. our Archbishops left off to summon Convocations by their Own Authority, and called them only at the King's Command 
† Pp. 240, 241. : but in this account, he says, he is not altogether satisfied. Had he any manner of Knowledge of these things, he would not be at all satisfied with it. For as in Fact it is certain, that the Archbishop after this time summoned Convocations frequently by his Own Authority, so it is clear in point of Law, that he had as much Right to do it, after the Statute of Praemunire, as before it; there being no Clause, or Word in that Act, that can be supposed to restrain His Power in this particular. Indeed had the Archbishop, whenever he called a Convocation without the King's Writ, done it by a Legatin Authority (as Dr. W. represents him to have done 
* P. 241, 199. ) there would have been some Ground to think that the Praemunire Act might have laid a Restraint upon him. But this is another of Dr. W's mistakes: for the Archbishop needed no Help from his Legatin Character to convene the Clergy of his Province; which he was sufficiently impower'd to do as Metropolitan, by the Old Canons of the Church, received and allowed in this Kingdom. And accordingly by this Metropolitical Power, the Archbishops all along called Provincial Councils, before any of them were the Pope's Legates, which from St. Austin down to (Theobald say some 
* Ant. Brit. p. 127.  to) William de Corboyl (say others 
† Gervasii Act Pont Cant. X Script. col. 1663.  none of them were. He indeed, by virtue of his New Character, summoned the Archbishop of York, and all the Clergy of that Province 
⸪ Ibid. & Continuator Florentii Wig. ad ann. 1127.  to his Councils; and One of his Successors 
‖ Hubert. , who is supposed by some to have got the Title of Legatus natus for ever annexed to his See, did jure Legationis visit York Province 
† Hoveden ad ann. 1195. . And in order to these Extraprovincial Acts of Jurisdiction, the Legatine Authority was indeed needful. For tho' it had been solemnly determined in favour of Lanfrank by the Great Council of the Kingdom 
⸫ Diceto de Archi. Cant. p. 685. , that the See of York should be subject to that of Cant. and the Archbishop of the One obey the Conciliary summons of the other; yet was not this Decision long observed, the Archbishop of York soon finding means to get rid of it, and to assert the Independency of his See. But as to the Ordinary Acts of Metropolitical Power (One of which was the calling of the Clergy of his Province together at Times prescribed by the Canons) the Archbishop had no more want of a Legatine Character, to qualify him for the Exercise of them, than a Private Bishop had (or now has) for summoning a Diocesan Synod; nor was it, as the Law then stood, any more an Encroachment upon the Royal Authority. Dr. W. therefore is not very kind to the Memory of our Archbishops, nor a Friend to the Ancient Liberties of this Church, when he asserts, that all those Synods which the Metropolitan called without a Writ from the King, were Legatine; and upon that notion, dates the Disuse of them (at least as to their frequency) from the Statute of Praemunire, which did no ways, and could no ways affect them. For after this Statute most of Arundel's Synods met by the Archbishop's Writ only; as Dr. W. 
† P. 280.  himself tells us from Harpsfield, and might have told us yet more authentically from that Archbishop's Register yet remaining. This account of Harpsfield puts him upon fixing on a New Aera; and now therefore he will have it, that about the End of Arundel's time the King began wholly to assume this Power; and this he thinks to be no Improble Conjecture of Fuller our Church-Historian 
‖ P. 230. . When the Authority of a Conjecture of Fuller's is appealed to, one may be sure that both Authoritys and Reasons run low with him. Let us balance the Authority of a Conjecture of One Church Historian with the Records printed by another 
† Bishop Burnet.  at the End of his first Volumn. Amongst which One of the first that meets us, 
† P. 6.  is, a Mandate for a Convocation issued out by Archbishop Warsham in 1509, without the Recital or Mention of any Previous Writ from the King to that purpose. This Instance I have particularly pitched upon, because Dr. W. has strengthened this Guess of Fuller's by another of his Own; concluding from the Assertion in the Submission-Act, that the Convocation certainly met by the King's Writ all H. the viii time, and for some considerable time before 
* P. 231. ; whereas this Synod in the first Year of that Prince met, as far as appears, by no Provincial Summons, but what was from the Archbishop only.  
How the Clergy, when met either in Convocation or Parliament, consulted, is another Curious Part of Knowledge which Dr. W. endeavours a little, and but a little, to supply us with. Something he says of the Spiritualty sitting and acting separately from the Laypart of the Parliament 
† P. 221. , and something he seems to hint of the Inferior Clergys sitting apart from the Bishops after they had a Prolocutor of their own 
† P. 220. . And this is all he knows of the matter. I will add a few Particulars on this Head which a man of his Research methinks should have been no stranger to.  
That the Clergy in Synod, whether meeting with a Parliament, or at different times from it, sat ordinarily together for many Reigns after the Conquest, is pretty well agreed on: the Like Practice of Parliaments proves it, and the Phrase of our Elder Historians, who speak of the Clergy always, as meeting in some One Particular Place, without giving us the Names of several Rooms in which they sat apart, or intimating that they usually subdivided. The Canon 
† See it in Malmsbury ad ann. 1075.  made in Lanfrank's time to restrain all under Abbats from speaking in Synod without the Metropolitans Leave, implys that the Greater and the Lesser Clergy than sat together: so does the Account in M. Paris 
* Ad ann. 1256.  of a Synod in his time called by Rustandus, where Magister Leonardus (an Inferior Clergyman) is termed quasi Cleri Advocatus, & Prolocutor Universitatis 
† P. 920. l. 10. And in another place it is said of him. In cujus Ore posita fuerunt Verba Episcoporum exponenda p. 918. l. 6.  It seems, he was deputed to deliver the sense of the whole Synod, both of the Upper and Lower part of it; who therefore, we may presume, now sat and debated together. The Custom also of Bishops sending Inferior Clergymen to represent them, though it held long after the Convocation divided, yet to be sure had its rise when they were together, and proves that originally they thus sat. Indeed when the Archdeacon's came with Procuratoria from the Inferior Clergy (as they often did till E. the first's time) 'tis not to be believed that they separated from the Greater Prelates, but deliberated and voted with them, as the Knights of Shires did at first with the Barons 
‖ See a Record to this purpose in Dr. Brady 's Introduction Ap. p. 29 and p. 37. . Not that the several Ranks of the Clergy did not even then act separately upon occasion: The Instance of the Council of Winchester, in Malmsbury 
* Ad ann. 1142. Hist. Nou.  is a plain proof of this; at which he tells us, the Legate consulted with the Bishops, the Abbats, and the Archdeacon's severally; and informs us withal, that He himself was present in this Council 
† Cujus Concilii Actioni quia interfui, integram Veritatem Rerum Posteris non negabo. From whence also one would guests, that more of the Inferior Clergy were there, than are in the General Division of the Members expressed; unless we shall say that Malmsbury came as the Proxy of his Absent Abbot.  so that his account is to be depended on. When the Proctors of the Capitular and Diocesan Clergy came to be a certain and standing part of these Councils, (as they did in the 13 th'. Century) they too sometimes consulted a a part, and made as it were a distinct State by themselves. Thus we are told of Two several Convocations in the Year 1296. by the Chronicle of Dunstable 
† MS. in Biblioth. Cotton. Tiberius. A. 10. , (written at that very time) Congregatio divisa erat in Quatuor Ordines, sive Turmas; Episcopi scilicet & eorum Procuratores seorsùm, Decani, Cathedrales & Archidiaconi seorsùm, Abbates, Priores, & alii Praelati seorsùm, Procuratores Communitatis Cleri seorsiùm. Into such Committees as these the Convocation, I suppose, subdivided all along, down from these Times to the very Reformation, as often as there was occasion for it; though for the greater part of that Period, they ordinarily sat and consulted together in Two bodies, as they do (I mean, should do) at this day. In Arundel's Register 
* Archiepiscopus consultis separatim Episcopis— ad Oct. 8. 1399. Iterùm ad ann. 1396.  therefore we find, the Bishops often treating separately from the Abbats and Priors; and in one of Chichley's Synods 
‖ A o. 1438. See Duck 's Life of Chichley. , it appears that the Proctors of the Inferior Regular Clergy granted subsidies (and therefore, we may presume, consulted about them) apart from the Diocesan Clergy. And as low as 1529. in the Acts of the Synod of that Year this passage occurs 
‖ Sess. 4. . Exclusis omnibus praeter Suffraganeos, Reverendissimus habuit Communicationem 
* In MS o. Convocationem.  cum eïs. Intraverunt postèa Abbates— Illis Exeuntibus, intraverunt Fratres Mendicantes quatuor Ordinum; cum quibus Reverendissimus habuit seriam communicationem. Posteà ingressus est Prolocutor cum quibusdam de Clero.— At what time the Two Houses of Convocation divided, is not easy to say; but it was not, I believe, till after the Commons had separated from the Lords: and therefore in all E. the II's Reign, and in the beginning of E. III. the Petitions are made to the Archbishops, and Bishops, and run in the name of Religiosi & Clerus 
† See an Instance in Dene 's Hist. Ross. Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 363. and here in the Appendix, Numb. XV. ; under which style all of the Convocation below Bishops are comprehended. In the last Year of Edward the III. some Expressions in Sudbury's Register 
† In Conu. 4. Nou. Feb. 1376.  seem to intimate that this Division had obtained (if at least my Extract do not misled me): but a formal mention of the Inferior Domus Convocationis, and of a settled Prolocutor is not, I think, to be found in the Registers, till sometime afterwards: Though the Mere silence of such imperfect and scanty Records is by no means sufficient to establish a Negative; all the Notices we now have of this kind, being short Entries only, made by the Archbishop's Registrary; who was no more careful to record what related to the Honour or Privileges of the Inferior Clergy, than the Clerk of Parliament appears anciently to have been in relation to the Commons. For in those Days neither the Lower House of Convocation, nor Parliament kept distinct Acts of their own: and when the Clergy first began to do it, we know not certainly, though from the Acts of the Convocation 1 o. E. VI 
† In the Book called Synodalia.  it appears that they then had a Separate Actuary; which is as high as we have any journals for the Commons 
* Though Mr. Nicolson Vol. 3. p. 51. tells us of a journal of theirs, throughout H. the VIII. Reign, now in the Cotton Library: such a journal is, I dare say, in no other Library, but his Own Historical one, to be found, where there is indeed a Great Collection of such kind of Curiositys. , though 6 to Hci 8 vi, the Book of the Clerk of Parliament appointed, or to be appointed for the Common House, be in a statute 
† C. 16.  of that Year mentioned.  
After the Separation of the two Houses of Convocation was fixed, we scarce ever find them Treating and Resolving together in Body, upon any Occasion. But if any thing happened that required Joynt-Counsels, their way was to transact it in a Committee of both Houses; wherein the Number of the Inferior Clergy exceeded that of the Greater Prelates. For instance, a Grand Committee in 1408. jan. 25. 
‖ Registr. Arundel.  consisted of six Bishops, twelve Abbots and Priors, and of twenty four from the Lower House, i. e. I suppose of six from the four Ranks or Degrees of Clergy which composed it; Deans, Archdeacon's, Proctors of Chapters, and Dioceses. The Resolutions of the Lower House were communicated to the Upper by their Prolocutor, attended with some of their Members, More or Less, as the Importance of the Message seemed to require; and sometimes (for instance, when they presented their Subsidies, or Grievances; which they generally did together) the whole House came up with them. And whatever they had to offer in Writing, or by Word of Mouth, they did it standing always, the Prelates in the mean time being Seated. Most of the Business of Convocation took its Rise from the Lower House; there, regularly Taxes were first agreed on, there Articles of Reformation where drawn; in preparing which as they had a nearer Interest, so had they more Leisure for it, than those of the Upper House, who were called upon often to attend the Parliament, and were forced to adjourn often for that reason; the Inferior Clergy continuing to sit all that while, and do Business 
† Die Lunae praesens Archiepiscopus propter Parliamenti Negotia venerabilibus Fratribus sibi assidentibus prorogavit ad diem Veneris— & demandavit aliis Praelatis & Clero quòd singulis diebus interim ad dictum locum convenirent & laboratent circa reformanda & Articulos conciperent-Registr. Arundel in Conu. 10. Maii 1406.  And when they adjourned, it was sometimes their Own Act, but oftener at the Command of the Archbishop. This Power belonged to him acourse when the Two Houses were united; and he preserved it after they were separated.  
I have added these Particulars, that I might not barely trace Dr. W's Mistakes (which is too Dry, and too Humble a Task) but might with all make my Proofs of his Ignorance as instructive as I could to the Reader.  
Whether the Clergy called to Parliament by the Premunientes consulted with the Laiety, or by Themselves, is a Point that the Dr. has left doubtful. But the Great Record in Ryleys Placita 
† See part of it App. Numb. XII  will, I judge, go a good way towards clearing it. For as we may be pretty certain from thence, that the Clergy made their appearance in Parliament, upon the first Opening it (for why else should their Proxies be all Registered in the Records of that Meeting?) so have we good Ground also to believe from thence, that they divided afterwards, and consulted by themselves; since their Proxies are entered, not promiscuously, but apart from those of the Laiety. The Bishop of Winton therefore, we may observe, sends up the Archdeacon of Surry, as his Proxy; and yet tha● Archdeacon makes a Proctor for Himself: which he needed not to have done, had the Clergy and Laiety sat all in one House (as the common Opinion supposes them Now to have done); for then this Archdeacon might have Voted in a double Capacity. But if the Clergy sat a part from the Laiety, it was necessary for the Archdeacon, when he appeared for his Bishop among the Barons, to make a Proxy for himself among the Clergy. Besides, I find, the Bishops and Abbats do not give Procuratorial Letters exactly to the same Persons 
† Thus in the Diocese of St. Asaph, the Chapters▪ Dean, Archdeacon, and Clergy of the Diocese send the very same Proctors, but the Bishop's different ones. And when the Bishop of Hereford commissioned one Lugwardin (who was sent up also by the Archdeacon's of Hereford, and Salop, the Chapter of Hereford, and the Clergy of the Diocese) he joined another with him, who might be his separate Proxy upon occasion. The only Exception to this, that I have observed in the List of Proxys is, That the Chapter, and Bishop of Exon return the very same. But he might perhaps be (if the Transcript of the Record be exact here) the Chapters Proxy, and the Bishop's Messenger only, who brought his Letters of General Ratihabition, without any Power of Voting for him, in particular cases. For this Method, I find, was practised at that Meeting, v. g. Abbas de Cumbâ non misit Procuratorem, set promittit per Literas suas Patentes se ratum & gratum habiturum quicquid indicto Parliamento Rex decreverit salubriter ordinandum. The Reader, who has considered Dr. W's Book, finds, that the Spirit of this Implicit Abbot did not die with him; but has descended upon One, who makes the same offer with less Wariness, and puts not in so much as a Salubriter, to guard his Submissive Doctrine.  as are impower'd by any of the Inferior Clergy; but if one or two of them be the same, they add a Second or Third that is different: which I take not to have been Casual, but with Design, that so He who was Proxy for the Bishop alone, might separate from the Rest, and act for him among the Laiety, while the Others Voted for him among the Clergy. Which I apprehend also to be what chief gave birth to the Custom of the Clergys' sending more Proctors than One both to the Convocation and Parliament, by the Clause [Conjunctim & Divisim] in their Procuratoria; that so they might have some to vote for them in the One place, and some in the Other.  
Once more, the Time when the Crown began to issue out Writs for the Convocation (i. e. to command the Archbishops by Writ to assemble the Clergy of their Provinces) is another point, which Dr. W. would fain, if he could, determine; and in order to it, pitches upon a Writ of this kind in the 9 E. II. as the first that perhaps is extant 
* P. 101. , or (which is all One it seems) as the first he has ever met with 
† P. 225.  Which Learned Hint he takes care also to inculcate often 
† Pp. 100.103.225.228.  that he may be sure to have Justice done him for the Discovery. But in this he is a little too vain, because neither is the Remark his Own (for he met with it in the Grand Question, p. 159.); nor, if it were, would he have any reason to boast, since it is by no means a true one: for there are several Writs of this nature extant before the Date of this; particularly of the 7 th'. and 5 th'. Years of E. II. and as far back as the 11 th'. of E. 1. which I have already in the course of these Papers had occasion to take notice of. And even this Writ itself is misdated, as to the Time to which it Summoned: for whereas Dr. W. says, that it called the Convocation to meet Feb. 9 the Parliament sitting Oct. 16. foregoing, 
† P. 103.  the Truth was, that the Writ was dated Oct. 16. and summoned the Convocation to meet, not on Feb. 9 but jan. 27. i. e. in quindenâ Hilarii.  
But I offend, I fear in too nice a pursuit of his Errors, and shall close these Remarks 
† P. 244.  therefore, as He does his, with the Account of a Convocation, the Circumstances of which have been much misunderstood, not only by Dr. W. but by my Lord of Sarum too, and even by our Elder Historians. Henry the VIII th'. he says, having called a Parliament to Westminster, Anno 1529. [he should say, 1523. 
‖ April 15 th'. 1523. the Parliament met. April 20 th'. Warham's Prov. Synod. Apr. 22 d. Wolsey's is Legatin Synod.  commanded Warham to Summon a Convocation of the Clergy, to meet about the same time at St. Paul's. Cardinal Wolsey, who, as Archbishop of York, had no place in the Convocation, and was desirous to bring every thing to his Own Management, by his Legatin Power dissolves the Convocation held at the King's command by Warham, and orders the same Synod to appear before himself, as the Pope's Legate, the next day at Westminster; where having got a sufficient subsidy granted by them to the King, he soon dismissed the Assembly 
† P. 244. . Thus Dr. W. tells the Story out of Antiqu. Britan. My Lord of Sarum adds, that this Dissolution was May 2. and points to the Writ of this date in Tonstall's Register, issued out by the King to Tonstall for the Clergy of Cant. Prov. to meet at Westminster 
† Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 20 . But here (to use his Lordships Own Words of my Lord Herbert 
† Vol. p. 95. ) he had not applied his Ordinary Diligence, for the Writ he refers us to is quite another thing than his Lordship apprehends it to be; and the whole story of the Dissolution is a Mistake, as appears beyond doubt from the Preamble of the Act of Subsidy, printed by his Lordship himself among the Records 
* Vol. 1. p. 8 ; where we find these words. Nos Praelati & Clerus Cant. Prov. in hâc Sacrâ Synodo Provinciali, sive Praelatorum & Cleri ejusdem Convocatione in Ecclesià D. Pauli London, 20 die Apr. A. D. 1523. inchoatâ, ac usque ad & in 10. Aug. proximè ex tunc sequentis de diebus in dies continuatà, etc. Had his Lordship considered these words, he would have seen, that this Synod was so far from being dissolved May 2 d. that it sat, as a Provincial Synod, above three Months afterwards, and was continued from the first to the last Day of its Session, by Ordinary Adjournments. And had his Lordship further given himself the Trouble to peruse the Mandate to Tonstal, which he citys from his Register, he would have found that there is not a Syllable of a Dissolution, or a Reassembly mentioned in it; and would there have lit upon a true account of this mistaken Story. For that Mandate recites, that the Cardinal had sent out his Legatin Summons [concurrently with the Bishop of Cant's Provincial Citation] for the Clergy of Both Provinces to meet at St. Peter's Apr. 22 d. [two days after those of Cant. were Provincially to assemble]: that they did accordingly thus meet, the York-Clergy by Adjournment from York [where they met first March the 22 d 
* See Stat. 22 H. 8. c. 15. ] and those of Cant. by Adjournment from Paul's. But the Clarks of Convocation for Cant. Prov. being to appear first before their Own Archbishop, had brought up Powers to Treat with Him alone, without any mention of the Legate: for which reason the Cardinal issued out his Mandate of May the 2 d. to Tonstal for the Clergy of his Diocese [and so of all others] to meet and send up proper Forms to their Proctors; as they did, I suppose; and then the Business of the subsidy was debated, and the quantity of it agreed on before the Legate; but the formal Grant of it made afterwards in Two Provincial Assemblies. The Common Account therefore of this Legatin Synod is Fabulous, taken up in Hatred to the Cardinal, and too easily received by josceline himself, without inspecting the Registers for the Truth of it; Archbishop Parker, upon the Review of his Work, being not able to set this Story right by Memory alone, for he was but Eighteen Years Old, when it happened. Had indeed the Fact, as it is commonly handed down to us, been true, Dr. W. would have had reason to say, that it is not to be paralleled in all its Circumstances in any part of our History. But as it really stood, there was nothing but the Writ for New Powers, Extraordinary, or singular in it: Pool's Legatin Synods being afterwards Summoned and held with the very same Formalitys, particularly that in 1555, by the Acts of which it appears, that the Synods of Cant. and York were first convened apart (after the same manner that they were always used to be in Parliament time) and then Both called to an Exempt place [the Chapel Royal in Whitehall] and there united into one National Assembly. Besides, had Cardinal Wolsey by his Power Legatin dissolved a Convocation called by the King's Writ, we should certainly have heard of it, among the 44 Articles preferred against him in Parliament 
† See 'em Lord Herbert p. 293 : but it not being touched on, or so much as hinted there, we might without further Authority conclude that nothing of the kind was done  
Nor is the Usual Account of this Action of the Cardinal's worse than the Reason given for it; for he is made to dissolve the Convocation, because as Archbishop of York, he had no place there; But, I hope, as Bishop of Bath and Wells 
* He took Durham, and quitted B and W. while this Convocation was sitting; but the Exact Date of this Change I have not considered. , or Abbot of St. Alban he had; and might therefore in either of these Qualitys have been present in the Convocation of Cant. if that had been all he aimed at. But it was neither suitable to his Character, nor agreed well with his Temper, or his Business, to appear among the Clergy any otherwise than as a Legate: As such, he took place of Warham, and presided over the Debates of the whole Body; and had an opportunity by that means of poising the Refractory Part of the Clergy in Warham's District with Those of his Own Province, who would be more complying.  
Common Justice obliged me to say thus much in behalf of that Great Minister, who had Real Faults enough, not to be loaded with Untrue Ones. Dr. W. had much Nearer Obligations to have done this, who has eat the Bread of Wolsey (to use an Homely, but Authorised Phrase) near Half his Life, and now owes his Comfortable Summer-Retreat to that Cardinal's Bounty. But I find the Praemunire, that transferred all the Cardinal's Estate to the Crown, has transferred all the Doctor's Gratitude thither too: and with reason; for the Cardinal is Dead long ago, but Crowns are Immortal. He has His reason, and I have mine; which is, to do right to any injured Person, let his Character be what it will; and not to fall in with a Calumny knowingly, let it be never so Popular and Fashionable. They that defend the Dead, cannot be supposed guilty of Flattery, or Design; and with either of these, I thank God, there is not a Line in this Work that can reproach me.  
I have now offered all I think necessary, either to assert, explain, or justify that Double Right of the Clergy, which I at the Entrance of these Papers proposed to maintain, their Right of Meeting at set times, and Acting within such a Determined Compass as I have marked out. There is behind still a Second Consideration, which relates to the Need that the Church has of such Meetings, and which, according to the Method laid down, I should now enter upon. But this Book has grown too much under my hands, to allow room for any New Matter here; and all therefore that I shall say of it is, that if the Church has a Clear Right to such Meetings (which by this time, I hope, is past a Doubt) she has for that very Reason a Need of them; because her Right has been publicly questioned, and actually suspended for a Time: And she has Need therefore to exert it, that she may be sure to preserve it. Upon this Foot I shall leave the Point of Expedience at present, not without Intentions of returning to it, and giving the Reader as full and particular a View of the Debate on This side also, if it shall appear, that what has been already said, has not had its Due Effect on Those, whose Eyes the Author of these Papers is particularly concerned to open; and whose backwardness to keep the Church in possession of her Greatest Privilege, he cannot but impute chief to a mistaken Opinion they are in, that she has really no such Privilege to claim. And that Mistake therefore being cleared up, he hopes and believes, that they will be as ready to assert her Just Rights, and Espouse her True Interests as any Men. These are his present Apprehensions and Wishes, in which he shall be very sorry to find himself deceived; but if so it happen, has determined not to stop here, but proceed on to such further Enquiries and Considerations as he shall judge proper to promote the End that he aims at: the great Importance, and Reasonableness of which he is so fully satisfied of, that he shall think no Sacrifice, whether of his Time, his Ease, or his Fortune, too dear to be bestowed upon it. He is sure, that he has the Perpetual Practice of the Church of Christ, and the Law of his Country on his side; and he is conscious of no other Aims in what he has undertaken, than those of promoting the Honour of God, and his Religion, and supporting our Constitution▪ and these Assurances and Views will, he trusts, carry him on to the End of his Work, through whatever Difficultys and Discouragements.  
If he succeeds in his Design, he shall think that he has not lived in vain; if he fails, yet he will satisfy himself in having honestly attempted it, and done what in him lay to preserve to the Body he is of the poor Remains of their Ancient Legal Rights and Privileges: for he could not stand by and see the Great Rights of his Church ready to ●ink, without endeavouring to save them. The Events of things are not in our Disposal; it becomes private Men to do their Duty, without having a Demonstration that it shall be successful. And should it be determined to lay this Part of Our Constitution asleep, yet he is not without hopes, that the Truths delivered in this Book (for Truths they are) may in some Favourable Juncture contribute to awaken it. With this single Prospect, he would have undertaken the Work, had all others failed him; and in despair of being listened to by the Present Age, would have wrote, and appealed to Posterity.  
At the worst, what he has here offered, and shall further offer, if it have no other Effect, will yet be serviceable, as a Testimony against Dr. Wake's Book, and the Pernicious Principles of it: it will let our Successors see, that his Doctrine, whatever Boasts, or Pretences it might make, was not the Doctrine of the Church and the Age in which he lived; but was disowned and detested as soon as wrote: and that the Establishment of the Practice which he pleads for (if it must be Established) was not owning any ways to the Silence of those who were concerned to oppose it. Especially if so it fall out, that They of the Clergy, who are not of Dr. Wake's Mind, and in his Measures, shall, upon this occasion, take some way of owning publicly to the World their Dislike of them: this will justify the Body from having any Hand in stifling and betraying their Own Privileges, and will remove the Gild of any Present, or Future Innovation from Them, at whose Door soever it lays it.  
I have done with the Argument of Dr. Wake's Book, and have now only a short Address to make to the Writer of it; whom towards the latter End of it I find thus expressing himself. This, says he, brings us to the true way of deciding the point here before us. If by the Laws and Usages of this Kingdom, the Convocation has a Right to Sat and Act (as this Gentleman affirms) let those Laws be produced, and those Usages made out, and I submit 
† Pp. 285, 286. . I agree with him, that this is the true way of deciding the Point before us; and have accordingly taken this way, and no other, to decide it. I have produced the Laws and Usages of this Kingdom, that make out both these Rights, so incontestably and clearly, I think, as to leave no Room for a Cavil; and I call upon Doctor Wake therefore to Submit, or to show wherein I have mistake, or misrepresented those Laws and Usages. Let him not think to evade the Force of what has been said by Lose and General Reflections, by once again amusing us with Heaps of Foreign Precedents, and long Historical Tales nothing to the Purpose; in a word, by drawing fresh supplies from that Everlasting Magazine of Insignificant Authoritys, his Common-place-Book. All this Show of Reading (and God knows, it is but a Show) will be of no manner of weight with Discerning Judges: the short Point between Him and Me is, as He himself acknowledges, how our Own Constitution stands, and what are the Particulars Laws and Usages of this Kingdom. By these I affirm, (and have proved) That the Convocation has a Right not only to be Summoned, but to Meet with every New Parliament, and to be opened in Due Form by Divine Service, and a Sermon: That the Clergy of the Lower House, when thus met, have a Right of filling the Chair of it with a Prolocutor, and of being put into a Condition of doing Business: That if they have any Requests, any Motions to make, to my Lords the Bishops, the King, or his Great Council, for the Good of Religion, or the Redress of Church-Grievances, they have a Right to make them; to enter into what Debates, and come to what Resolutions they shall think fit (within their Proper Sphere) without being obliged to Qualify themselves for such Debates, or Resolutions by a Royal Licence; which is necessary to no Synodical Act, previous to that of Making, or Enacting a Canon: That in these Respects, and to these Purposes, the Convocation is still a Parliamentary Body, and an Essential Part of our Constituon; call●d both by the Clause in the Bishop's Summons, and by Writs directed to the Archbishop of either Province; which Clause, and which Writs, whenever a New Parliament is to meet, can no more by the Rules of our Constitution be omitted, than the Writs for any of the Lords or Commons can: In short, that the King has not only a Right of thus calling the Clergy to attend, but the Clergy also have a Right of attending, and the Lords and Commons a Right of being attended by them. This is the Doctrine briefly laid down in that Letter, which first gave rise to this Debate; and in these Papers more fully explained, and proved. If Dr. Wake can show, wherein any part of it disagrees with the Laws and Usages of this Kingdom, let him do it: if he cannot (as I am certain, he cannot) he is obliged by his Own Proposal to Submit, that is, to own himself utterly mistaken throughout this Dispute, and publicly to retract his Illegal and Slavish Opinions.    

APPENDIX.  

I.  
EDvardus dei gratia Rex Angliae, 
See p. 20.  & Franciae, & Dominus Hiberniae, Uenerabili in Christo Patri Radulfo, eadem gratia, Bath. & Well. Episcopo salutem. Cum pridem in Parliamento nostro apud Westm. in quindena Paschae convocato, quaedam Legibus & Consuetudinibus regni nostri Angliae expresse contratia, & Regiae Dignitati nostrae nedum va●de prejudicialia, sed probrosa, fuissent nimis importune petita; quae nisi per modum statuti tunc permisissemus consignari dictum Parliamentum fuisset sine omni Expeditione in Discordia dissolutum: & sic Guerrae nostrae Franciae & Scotiae quas de Consilio vestro, ut scitis, principaliter assumpsimus, fuissent, quod absit, verisimiliter in ruina: & Nos ad evitanda tanta pericula, praemissis protestationibus de revocando cum possemus provide quae sic a nobis quasi invitis extorta fuerint, illa sigillo nostro sigillari permiserimus ista vice, & postmodum ea de Consilio & Assensu Comitum & Baronum ac aliorum Peritorum ex Causis Legitimis, quia defecit Consensus noster, declaravimus esse nulla, nec nomen vel vim habere debere statuti: Ac jam accepimus, quod Uenerabilis Pater Arch. Cant. unum Concilium Provinciale in crastino S ti Lucae proxime futuro apud London convocare mandavit, in quo Uos & caeteros Praelatos Cant. Prov. contra Nos concitare, & aliqua nobis praejudicialia circa roboratinem dicti pretensi statuti & in Enervationem, Depressionem, & Diminutionem jurisdictionis, jurium, & Prerogativarum nostrarum regalium, nec non circa Processum inter Nos & Praedictum Archiepiscopum super quibusdam ex parte nostra eidem Archo oppositis pendentem statuere, declarare, & super hi●s Censuras Graves intenditis promulgare: Nos volentes tanto Prejudicio, ut convenit, obviare, Uobis districte prohibemus, ne quicquam quod in Derogationem seu Diminutionem Regiae Dignitatis, Potestatis, & jurium Coronae nostrorum, seu Legum, & Consuetudinum dicti regni nostri, aut in Prejudictum Processus memorati, vel etiam in roborationem dicti pretensi statuti, vel alias in contumeliam nostri nominis & honoris, aut in gravamen vel dispendium Cons●liariorum vel Obsequialium nostrorum cedere poterunt, in dicto Concilio vel alibi proponatis, statuatis, aut aliqualiter attemptetis, aut attemptari faciatis. Scituri quod si secus feceritis, ad Uos ut Inimicum nostrum, & nostrorum Uiolatorem jurium, gravius quo licite poterimus capiemus. Teste Rege apud Westmonast. 1. Oct. regni 15.   

II. For Mr. Sanders Minister of the Gospel at Oxford.  
Reverend Sir, Newbury June 7. 98.  
I Had a Letter last week by the Direction of the Committee of Ministers and Gentlemen, 
Sept. 26.  appointed at London for settling a Correspondence of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers, and Congregations throughout this Kingdom for the advancement of the Interest of Religion, and Reformation of Ministers, with the Articles there agreed upon in order thereunto, and a desire to communicate them speedily to the Brethren in these Parts, that, if possible, a General Meeting might be had this Summer in London.  
Pursuant hereunto it is desired that You would not fail to come yourself, and bring with you one prudent Person of your Congregation chosen for that End (according to the Method resolved on in London) to meet several of the Brethren and the Members of the Respective Congregations here at Newbury the 22 Instant, to consider of the said Proposals, which shall be laid before you, and the proper Method to obtain so desirable an End.  
You are desired to be here on Tuesday in the Evening, that we may enter on our Work on Wednesday Morning; resolving (God willing) to spend some time in Prayer, before we begin.  
I am, Sir, Your Affectionate Brother and Servant in the Lord, W. F.   

III.  

See p. 87.  1. ANd as concerning the requiring of your Highness' Royal Assent to the Authorising of such Laws as have been by Our Predecessors, or shall be made by Us in such Points and Articles, as we have by God Authority to rule and order by Provisions and Laws: We knowing Your Highness' Wisdom, Virtue, and Learning, nothing doubt but the same perceiveth how the granting thereunto dependeth not upon our Will and Liberty; and that We your most humble Subjects may not submit the Execution of our Charges and Duty certainly prescribed by God to Your Highness' Assent, although in very deed, the same is most worthy for Your most Princely and Excellent Virtues, not only to give your Royal Assent, but also to Devise and Command what we should for good Order and Manner provide in the Church. Nevertheless, considering we may not so in such sort restrain the doing of our Office in the feeding and ruling Christ's People, Your Grace's Subjects, We most humbly desire your Grace, as as the same hath done heretofore, so from henceforth to show Your Grace's Mind and Opinion to us, what Your Highness' Wisdom shall think Convenient; which We shall most gladly hear and follow, if it shall please God to imspire us so to do: with all submission and Humility beseeching the same, following the steps of Your most Noble Progenitors, and conformable to Your own Acts, to maintain and defend such Laws and Ordinances as We, according to our Calling, and by the Authority of God, shall for his Honour make, to the Edification of Virtue, and Maintaining Christ's Faith, whereof Your Highness is Defender in Name, and hath been hitherto in Deed a Special Protector.  
Bibl. Cotton. Cleop. F. 1. fol. 96.  
II. Forasmuch as the Answer lately made by Your Clergy unto Your Honourable Commons, for their satisfaction in their Bill of Complaint put up unto Your Highness, doth not please nor satisfy Your Highness in some Points concerning Your Own particular Interest, specially in that Point which concerneth Laws, either Now to be by Us made, or else Old, to be by Us reformed: for Your Highness' better Contentation in that behalf, We Your said most Humble Chaplains, do now more especially answer unto those Points as followeth.  
1. As touching New Laws to be by us Hereafter made, we say, that the Laws and Declarations of Christ's Holy Church, throughout all Christian Realms received and used, been clear and manifest; that the Prelates of the same Church have a special Jurisdiction and Judicial Power to Rule and Govern in Faith and Good Manners, necessary to the Souls health, the Flocks unto their Care committed; and that they have Authority to meet and ordain Rules and Laws tending to that purpose: which Rules and Laws hath and doth take effect in binding all Christian People as of themselves; so that before God, there needeth not of necessity any Temporal Power or Consent to concur with the same by the Way of Authority.  
Item, they say that this Power and Authority in making Laws in matters concerning the Faith and Good Manners necessary to the Soul's health, all Christian Princes hath hitherto reckoned themselves bound to suffer the Prelates to use within their Realms, and have not claimed of the same Prelates, that they should from time to time require their Consent or Licence by the way of Authority, more in making of such Laws, than they do claim, that they the said Prelates should from time to time, require their Consents autorysable in the giving of Holy Orders to any of their Subjects, or in the exercising any other Spiritual Act depending upon their Spiritual Jurisdiction; the Authority whereof immediately proceedeth from God, and from no Power or Consent Authorisable of any Secular Prince; except it be that Consent that is taken of the Princes own submission to the Faith Catholic, made not only by their Noble Progenitors, when they first admitted Christ's Faith, and the Laws of the Holy Church within their Realms; but also by themselves, first Generally at their Baptism, and after more specially and most Commonly by their Corporal Oaths at their Coronation.  
We say also, that this Power of making Laws aforesaid, is right well founded in many Places of Holy Scripture, now so much the less necessary here to be rehearsed, for as much as that matter is at large set out in a Book now by Us put up unto Your Highness, and Your Highness yourself in your Own Book most excellently Written against M. Luther for the defence of the Catholic Faith and Christ's Church, doth not only knowledge and confess, but also with most Vehement and Inexpugnable Reasons and Authoritys doth defend the same: Which Your Highness' Book we reckon that of Your Honour You cannot, and of Your Goodness You will not revoke.  
Yet these Considerations notwithstanding, We your most humble Chaplains and Bedesmen, considering Your High Wisdom, Great Learning, and Unfeigned Goodness towards Us and the Church, and having special Trust in the same, and not minding to fall into Contentions or Disputations with your Highness in any Manner of Matter what we may do; We be contented to make Promise unto Your Highness, That in all such Acts, Laws, and Ordinances as upon Your Lay Subjects, We, by the reason of our Spiritual Jurisdiction and Judicial Power shall hereafter make; we shall not Publish, nor put them forth, except first we require Your Highness to give your Consent and Authority unto them; and so shall from Time to Time suspend all such our Acts Ordinances and Laws hereafter to be made, unto such Time as Your Highness by Your Consent and Authority shall have authorised the same: except they be such as shall concern the maintenance of the Faith and Good Manners in Christ's Church, and such as shall be for the Reformation and Correction of sin, after the Commandments of Almighty God, according to such Laws of the Church, and laudable Customs as hath been heretofore made, and hitherto received and used within Your Realm. In which Points our Trust is, and in most humble manner we desire Your Grace, that it may so be, that upon the Refusal of Your Consent (which We [presume] that we need not fear, but yet if any such thing should fall) Your Highness will be then contented, we may exercise our Jurisdiction as far as it shall be thought necessary unto us for the maintenance of Christ's Faith, and for the Reformation of Sin, according to our Offices, and the Vocations that God hath called us unto.  
As for the Second Part, concerning Laws that in Time past hath been made by us, or by our Predecessors, contrary to the Laws of this Your Realm, and to your Prerogative, as it is pretended; to this Point We Your Highness' most humble Chaplains answer and say, that such our Laws by our Predecessors within this Realm made, as contain any matter contrary to your Laws or Prerogative, and be not now in use, and do not concern the Faith, nor Reformation of Sin, when we shall be advertised of them, we shall right gladly in that part revoke them, and declare them to be void, and of none effect. So that Your said right Honourable Commons shall now dare execute Your Laws, without any Fear, or Dread, or Danger of our said Laws, if any such there be.  
Ibid. fol. 101.  
III. First, as concerning such Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial, as be to be made hereafter by Us your most humble Subjects 
* B. Adds— of the Clergy of this your Realm. , we having our Especial Trust and Confidence in your most high and excellent Wisdom, your Princely Goodness, and Fervent 
‖ B. Virtuous  Zeal to the Promotion of God's Honour, and Christ's Religion 
⸪ Wanting in B. from the words, and especially, to, read of. , and especially in Your incomparable Learning, far exceeding in our Judgement the Learning of all other Kings and Princes that we have read of, and doubting nothing but that the same shall still continue, and increase in your Majesty, do offer and promise here unto the same, that from henceforth 
† B. Adds— During Your Highness' Natural Life (which we most hearty beseech God long to preserve.)  we shall forbear to Enact, Promulge, or put in Execution any such Constitution or Ordinance; so by Us to be made in time coming, unless Your Highness by Your Royal Assent shall Licence us to 
* B. adds, The contrary; and leaves out all from thence to the word, Authority.  Make, Promulge, and Execute such Constitutions, and the same so made shall approve by Your Highness' Authority.  
Seconde, Whereas Your Highness' Honourable Commons do pretend 
⸪ B. Surmise. , that divers of the Constitutions Provincial which have been heretofore Enacted, be not only much Prejudicial to Your Highness' Prerogative Royal, but also oovermuch Onerous to the said Commons, We Your most humble Subjects 
‖ B. Leaves out all with in this Parenthesis.  (for the Considerations aforesaid) be contented to refer and remit all and singular the said Constitutions to Your Highness' only Judgement and Examination; and which soever of the same shall finally be found, thought, and judged by Your Grace's most Excellent Wisdom to be Prejudicial and overmuch Onerous, as is pretended, we offer and promise your Highness to 
⸫ B. To abrogate, annul, and declare the same to be taken as of no force and strength.  moderate, or utterly to abrogate, and annul the same, according to the Judgement of Your Grace.  
Saving to Us always all such [Immunitys and Libertys of the Church of England, 
B. [Constitutions Provincial, as be conformable and do stand with the Laws of Almighty God, and of Holy Church, and be not repugnant to the Laws of the Realm; with all such other Immunitys and Libertys of the Church of England, as hath been granted and confirmed to the same, either by General Councils, or else by the Goodness and Benignity of your Highness, and other Your Noble Progenitors. Providing also, that until Your Highness' Pleasure herein shall be further declared unto us, all manner of O●dinarys may execute their jurisdictions, according to the said Constitutions, in like manner and form as they have used the same in Times passed.]  as hath been granted to the same by the Goodness and Benignity of your Highness and other Your Noble Progenitors; with all such Constitutions Provincial as do stand with the Laws of Almighty God, and of your Realm, heretofore made; which we most humbly beseech your Grace to ratify and approve by Your Royal Assent, for the better Executing of the same in times to come among Your Grace's People.]  
These Articles above Written be agreed in the Over-house, and the Lower-house is agreed to the same; so that in the first Article be added these words [and Holy Church] with a Proviso at the Latter End: and so the Articles, as they be agreed by the Lower-house, be of this Tenor following.  
Then follows another Copy, with these Alterations inserted, as I have placed them in the Margin. There is a Third Form also, [designed by the Letter B.] that has both these, and some other Differences; which I have placed also in the Margin.  
They seem to be of Archbishop Cranmers own Handwriting. The Copies I have taken are, I hope, exact in every respect, but that of the Spelling; which I have not always observed. There is a slight Difference also in a Word, or two; which not being Material, is not taken notice of.   

iv  
IN most humble wise complaining do show unto your Excellent Majesty Your poor distressed Supplicants the Whole Clergy, 
See p. 109.  that some in the Lower-house of Parliament have proposed often, and withal Eagerness do promote divers Bills against the— and namely one entitled, a Bill against Pluralitys: Which indeed impeacheth Your Majesty's Prerogative Royal, impaireth the Revenue of the Crown, overthroweth the Study of Divinity in both Universitys, depriveth Men of the Living they do lawfully possess, beggereth the Clergy, bringeth in a Base Unlearned Ministry, taketh away all hope of a Succession in Learning: will breed great Discontentment in the Younger sort of Students, and make them fly to Other Seminaries, where they may hope for more encouragement; will give the Adversary just Cause to rejoice and triumph, when they shall see the Clergy and Learning generally so much disgraced and vilifyed by the Gentry and Commons of this Land; abridgeth all Ability, either of keeping Hospitality, or of contributing to the State in case of necessity; and, that which is most lamentable, maketh way to Anarchy and Confusion.  
Great are the Indignitys, the Injuries, the Absurditys of this Bill, if with Religious Wisdom the Effects of it be truly considered; but as great is the Hypocrisy of the same: for it doth not Reform the things it pretendeth to Redress; it permitteth them, and increaseth them rather. The only thing it doth principally intent is the Impoverishing and Embasing the Clergy; whereupon will ensue the utter Contempt, both of their Persons and their Doctrine. All which we are ready (with Your Highness' Favour and Licence) to justify before any Competent Judge, if we be permitted an Indifferent Hearing. In the mean time, and always, most humbly committing our Poor Estate to Your Majesty's most Gracious and Princely Clemency, on which, next to the Goodness of Almighty God, it doth wholly depend; We do in all submission, both in respect of ourselves, and especially in regard of our Successors, most instantly pray such speedy Remedy in this behalf, as to Your most Excellent Wisdom, and wont Godly Care of Religion shall seem fit. And that the rather, because it would leave a Perpetual Blemish upon the Time of Your Highness' Government if there should appear to be such an Hatred of the Clergy, and of Learning in this Land, as that such an Act of Parliament should be now established.  
Cleop. F. 2. fol. 255.   

V  
WIth how great Hatred the Common sort of Men are inflamed against the Ministers of the Church, 
See p. 109.  how watchful they are for the halting of their Leaders, and how narrowly they sift every syllable of the Statute, by which Ecclesiastical Live become void, daily and continual Examples declare unto Us. If we compare the Charge of Ecclesiastical Persons in these our days with the Immunitys they have heretofore enjoyed, if it be considered with what cold Devotion all Tithes are paid, if you set before your Eyes how hard it is to wring a Free Presentation from a Lay-patron; if it be remembered, how much every Rectory wanteth of that it hath been worth heretofore, by reason of the taking of Offertories, laying down of Tillage, and nonpayment of Tithes Personal; it will appear that a Benefice of Twenty Pounds in the Queen's Books will now more hardly sustain the Incumbent, than heretofore a Benefice of Ten Pounds. Wherefore seeing the great Charge of Ecclesiastical Persons must needs increase, in regard of the Malice of the Foreign Enemy, and the Charity of Men toward our Calling is like to decrease; as also, for that unto many poor honest Ministers the encumbrance growing by pretended Lapses, grounded for the most part upon false surmises, hath been more hurtful than all their Payments to her most Excellent Majesty; May it please this Honourable Synod, that the Reverend Fathers and Lords, which present the Free and Voluntary subsidy of the Clergy to her Highness, may be humble suitors to her Gracious Clemency in the behalf of her Majesties most Faithful Subjects, the Clergy of England and Wales, that her Highness' free pardon may extend itself to the forgiving of all Lapses and Irregularitys of her Clergy whatsoever; except only in case of High, and Petty Treason, Wilful Murder and Felony, and other Enormous Faults: and Her Majesties most faithful Subjects, the Ministers of the Word of God shall continually pray unto God for Her Majesties Long, Gracious and Prosperous Reign.  
Ibid. fol. 123.  
This seems to be a Petition of the Lower Clergy out of Convocation, to the Convocation itself. However in that Manuscript (p. 264.) I find a Memorandum of it, as of a Petition presented by the Lower to the Upper House of Convocation.   

VI 1606. Petition of the Lower House of Convocation to His Majesty, against Prohibitions.  

See p. 110.  MOst humbly beseechen your most Excellent Majesty, your most Faithful Subjects, the Clergy of the Lower House of Convocation, for Themselves, and the rest of their Brethren in the Ministry; That whereas they have been very much of late Years defrauded of their Tithes, and debarred from obtaining their Right due unto them by Your Excellent Laws of this Church, through Prohibitions procured by Those which wrong them, out of Your Majesty's Temporal Courts, to your supplyants' great Hindrance, Molestation, and utter Impoverishing in time, if Remedy be not provided; besides the stopping of Justice, occasion of Perjury, and further Wrong, and overthrow of your Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as though it were an unjust Usurpation of Foreign Power, against Your Majesty and Crown, and not the due Execution of Your Majesties own Rightful Power and Just Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical: It may please Your most Excellent Majesty, upon due notice given, and in tender Consideration of our Grievances herein, to take some speedy Order for the Help and Relief of the same, in such manner as to your Highness' Wisdom, Piety, and Clemency shall seem just, fit, and convenient.  
And Your Majesties supplyants' shall ever more (as they are bound) with all due thankfulness pray unto God for Your Majesty's Long and Happy Life, and Prosperous Reign.  
Ibid. fol. 364.   

VII.  
REx venerabili in Christo Patri J. eâdem gratiâ Cant. Archiepiscopo totius Angliae Primati, 
See p. 221.  Sal. Quia Lewelinus filius Griffini, & Wallenses Complices sui, Inimici & Rebelles nostri, totiens temporibus nostris & Progenitorum nostrorum Regum Angliae pacem regni turbarunt, & rebellionem suam & maliciam jam resumptam continuare non desinunt animo indurato; propter quod, negotium quod incepimus de Consilio Praelatorum, Procerum & Magnatum regni nostri, nec non & totius Communitatis ejusdem, ad praesens proponimus, ad nostram & tocius regni pacem & tranquillitatem perpetuam, Domino concedente, finaliter terminare: Commodius etiam & decentius esse perpendimus, quod nos & Incolae terrae nostrae ad ipsius Maliciam totaliter destruendam pro communi utilitate laboribus & expensis fatigemur hâc vice, licet onus difficile videatur, quàm hujusmodi turbatione per Wallenses ipsos nunc habitâ pro voluntate suâ futuris temporibus cruciari, pröut tempore nostro & Progenitorum nostrorum contigit manifestè: Vobis mandamus rogantes, quatenùs Suffrageneos vestros, & Abbates, Priores, ac alios singulos domibus Religiosis praefectos, nec non & Procuratores Decanorum & Capitulorum Ecclesiarum Collegiatarum vestrae & Suffraganeorum vestrorum Diocesium venire faciatis coràm nobis apud Northampton in Octabis S ti Hilarii, vel coràm Fidelibus nostris quos ad hoc duximus deputandos: & Vos iisdem die & loco intersitis, ad audiendum & faciendum ea quae pro republicâ Vobis & Eïs super hiis ostendi faciemus, & ad praestandum nobis consilium & juvamen, praesertim cùm vestrâ sicut aliorum intersit, per quod Negotium jam incaeptum ad laudem & honorem dei, & magnificentiam nostram, sanè ac tocius regni nostri & populi pacem & tranquillitatem perpetuam valeamus hâc vice, ut intendimus, feliciter consummare, T. Meïpso apud Rothelan Nou. 22. regni 11.  
Rot. Walliae. 11 E. I. m. 4. dors. see Pryn T. 3. Eccl. Jurisd. p. 301.   

VIII.  

See p. 222.  REx Venerabilibus in Christo Patribus, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Capitulis Ecclesiarum Cathedralium, & Collegiatarum de Provinciâ Eborum, & eorum Procuratoribus, ac toti Communitati Cleri Provinciae ejusdem, Militibus, Liberis Hominibus, Communitatibus, & omnibus aliis de singulis Comitatibus ultrà Trentam apud Eborum in instantibus Octabis S ti Hilarii conventuris Sal. Cum nos occasione praesentis nostrae Expedicionis nostrae Walliae ad maliciam & rebellionem Wallensium Inimicorum nostrorum reprimendam, & ad perpetuam pacem regni nostri faciendam, ad quam toto corde intendimus, subsidio fidelium nostrorum regni nostri opus habeamus ad praesens: Nos de benevolentiâ venerabilis patris W. Eborum Archiepiscopi, Angliae Primatis, & de circumspectione dilecti Clerici & Secretarii nostri Antonii Beke, Archidiaconi Dunelmensis fiduciam gerentes specialem eïsdem Archiepiscopo & Antonio tenore praesentium plenam damus potestatem petendi & procurandi nomine nostro, juxtà formam per nos eis inde traditam & injunctam subsidium ad Opus nostrum à Fidelibus nostris singulorum Episcopatuum & Comitatuum regni nostri ultrà Trentam. Et ideò vobis mandamus rogantes▪ quòd iisdem Archiepiscopo & Antonio in hâc parte firmam fidem adhibentes ea quae circà praemissa vobis dicent, modis omnibus expleatis pro●t ipsi vobis scire facient ex parte nostrâ in cujus, etc. T. Rege apud Rothelan 1ᵒ die Jan.  
Ibid. p. 302.  
REx venerabili in Christo Patri R. Dunelmensi Episcopo, & Abbatibus, Prioribus, Decanis, Capitulis infrà Episcopatum Dunelmensem consistentibus, ac Militibus, Liberis Hominibus, Communitatibus Burgorum & Villarum ejusdem Episcopatûs Sal. Cum nos occasione, etc. [ut priùs] opus habeamus ad praesens. Nos de fidelitate & industriâ dilectorum & fidelium nostrorum Thomae de Mandevill, & Magistri Henrici de Newerk, Archidiaconi Richmund fiduciam gerentes specialem, eïsdem Thomae & Henrico tenore praesentium damus potestatem petendi & recipiendi nomine nostro subsidium ad opus nostrum tam a Clero quam a populo Episcopatûs praedicti in formâ per nos sibi traditâ & injunctâ. Et ideò vobis mandamus rogantes, quòd eïsdem Thomae & Henrico in hâc parte firmam fidem adhibeatis, & ea expleatis quae vobis dicent de praemissis, proüt ipsi vobis scire facient ex parte nostrâ. Et hoc, sicut de benevolentiâ [nostrâ] confiditis, nullatenùs omittatis. In cujus, etc. T. Rege apud Rothelan 6. jan.  
Ibid. p. 303.   

IX.  

See p. 222.  FRater J. etc. Venus li. in Christo Patri— Episcopo London sal. Literas Domini Regis recepimus in haec Verba [and then the Writ is recited as before 
* P. 476. ]. Quia igitur Regiae Majestati tenemur, quatenùs secundùm Deum passimus, obedire, quamvis Viarum & Temporum & aliorum Gravaminum multiplex Importunitas videatur huic negotio plurimùm adversari, Vobis, hiis non obstantibus, dolentes & inviti in virtute obedientiae mandamus, quatenus in formâ mandati Regii ad praefixos diem & locum venire curetis; citantes nihilominùs ad hoc ipsum Abbates, Priores, & alios singulis Domibus Religiosis Praefectos, Exemptos quidem in locis non exemptis, sitali● loca habeant, vel si non habeant, per aliam viam efficacem, & eodem modo Decanos & Capitula non Exempt. pariter & Exempt. vestrae Dioceseos, ut dictis die & loco compareant ob reverentiam Regiae Majestatis de expedientibus Reipublicae tractaturi. Citetis insuper omnes Suffraganeos ad hoc ipsum— quod personis Episcoporum eò debet esse faciliùs quòd, ut speramùs firmiter, circa id tempus Electus Heref. poterit in eorum praesentiâ facilè altissimo consecrari. Dat. Heref. 4. Id. Dec. 1282. Ord. nostrae 4 t●  
Registrum Peckam, fol. 82.   

Episcopo Lond. ad citandum totum Clerum. Dat. Northampt. 12. Cal. Feb. 1282.  
QUoniam in Congregatione— apud Northampt. habità coràm Nuntiis Domini Regis— tùm propter absentiam maximae partis Cleri tùnc temporis modo debito non vocati, 
See p. 222. This is not all the Mandate, but the Substance only of it.  tùm propter alia diversa non potuit ad plenum responderi, de Communi omnium tùm praesentium consensu extitit ordinatum, qùod Clerus Totus Cant. Provinciae ad certos diem & locum pro dandâ responsione hujusmodi congregetur. Quocircà Fraternitati vestrae— quatenùs Confratres nostros— nec non Abbates, Priores, ac alios quoscunque Praefectos— Exemptos & non Exemptos, Decanos Ecclesiarùm Cathedralium ac Collegiorum ac Archidiaconos universos— qùod conveniant apud Novum Templum Lond.— Singuli etiam Episcopi, sicut provisum fuerat— Clerum suae Dioceseos congregari faciant, & eïdem quae ex parte Regis nobis proposita fuerant diligenter exponi procurent, ita quod ad dictos diem & locum— de quâlibet Diocesi duo Procuratores, & de singulis Capitulis Ecclesiar. Cathedralium & Collegiatar. singuli Procuratores sufficienter instructi mittantur, qui plenam & expressam Potestatem habeant— tractandi & consentiendi hiis quae ibidem ad honorem Ecclesiae, consolationem Domini Regis, & Pacem Regni, Cleri Communitas providebit.  
Ibid. fol. 83.   

X.  

See p. 224.  REx Custodi Spiritualitatis Archiepiscopatûs Cant. sede Vacante, Sal. Qualiter Rex Franciae nos de Terrâ nostrà Vasconiae maliciose decepit & inde fraudulenter ejecit, eam nequiter detinendo, Vos credimus non latere. Cùm igitur ad Terram illam recuperandam de manibus dicti Regis vestrum Consilium & Auxilium, sicut & Praelatorum ac Cleri de regno nostro, quos communiter Negotium istud tangit, nobis quam plurimùm prospeximus profutura: ob quod apud Westmr. in festo S ti Matthaei Apostoli & Evangelistae proximè futuro personaliter esse disposuimus, d●o dante, ad Tractandum unà Vobiscum & Praelatis ac Clero ejusdem regni, & ad Ordinandum tunc ibidem super statu dictae terrae nostrae Vasconiae & Remedio in hoc contrà hujusmodi maliciam adhibendo: Vobis mandamus in fide & dilectione in quibus Nobis tenemini firmiter injungentes, quòd dictis die & loco personaliter intersitis; Vocantes prius Archidiaconum totúmque Clerum dictae Dioceseos, facientesque qùod idem Archidiaconus in proprià personà suâ, dictusque Clerus perduos Procuratores idoneos, plenam & sufficientem potestatem ab ipso Clero habentes unà Vo●iscum intersint modi● omnibus tunc ibidem ad tractandum, o●dinandum, & faciendum, pro ipso Clero, ac ejusdem nomine quod de Vestro, Praelatorum, Archidiaconi, Procuratorumque praedictorum communi Consilio provide●itur in praemissis. Teste meipso apud Portesmu●h 19 die Aug. regni 22.   

XI. Procuratorial Powers from the Inferior Clergy to the Parliament.  
1295. 
See p. 228.  OMnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos praesentes Literae pervenerint H. permissione Divinâ Prior & Capitulum Ecclesiae Christi Cant. Sal. in Domino sempiternam. Noverit Universitas vestra quòd nos facimus, Constituimus, & Ordinamus dilectos nobis in Christo fratres G. de Chyleham & R. de Clyve Commonachos nostros veros & legitimos Procuratores nostros conjunctim ac divisim, dantes eïsdem & eorum alteri potestatem tractandi, ordinandi & faciendi cum Praelatis & Proceribus & aliis Regni Angliae Incolis in instanti Parliamento domini E. Regis Angliae illustris, die Dominicâ proximè post festum S ti Andreae Apostoli proximè futurum apud Westmr. qualiter sit dicti Domini Regis & Regni sui ac etiam totius Communitatis ejusdem, periculis & maliciis excogitatis, quatenus est licitum, salubriùs obviandum. Ratum habituri quicquid per praedictos Procuratores nostros, seu alterum ipsorum tractatum, ordinatum, seu factum fuerit in praemissis. Dat. in Capitulo X. Kal. Dec.  
Reg. Henr. Prior f. 67.  
1296. OMnibus, etc. [ut priùs] potestatem ordinandi unà cum Praelatis & Procuratoribus Cleri totius Prov. Cant. in instanti Parliamento Domini E. Regis Angliae illustris in crastino Animarum apud S. Edmundum, de quantitate & modo subsidit eïdem Domino Regi, quatenùs est licitum, pro defensione regni ejusdem praestandi; Ratum habituri quicquid per praedictos Procuratores nostros seu alterum ipsorum ordinatum fuerit in praemissis.  
Dat in Capitulo nostro 14. Kal. Nou. A. D. 1296. Ibid. fol. 69. (b)  
1304. Universis praesentes Literas visuris vel audituris Henr. permissione divinà Prior Eccl. Christi Cant. & ejusdem Loci Capitulum Sal. in Dom ᵒ sempiternam. Noveritis qùod nos constituimus, facimus, & ordinamus dilectum nobis in Christo fratrem Joh. de Thaneto Commonachum & Praecentorem nostrum, verum & legitimum Procuratorem nostrum ad faciendum & consentiendum his quae in instanti Parliamento Domini Regis, Dominicâ prox. post festum S. Matthiae Apostoli de communi Consilio favente Deo contigerit ordinari, vel etiam pro communi Utilitate Regni Angliae provideri, ulteriusque faciendum unà cum Praelatis & Clero in dicto Parliamento quod permittunt sacrorum Canonum Instituta. In cujus rei Testimonium praesenti scripto sigillum nostrum commune duximus apponendum. Dat. in Cap lo nostro 4. Kal. Mart. A. D. 1304. Ib. fol. 103. (a)  
1307. Universis pateat per praesentes quòd Nos Henr. etc. & ejusdem Loci Capitulum, etc. Procuratores nostros conjunctim & divisim ad faciend. & consentiend. hiis quae in instanti Parliamento apud Nor●hampton prox. tenendo de communi Concilio Praelatorum Cleri & Magnatum Regni Angliae tam super Humatione corporis celebris memoriae Domini E di quondam Regis Angliae nuper defuncti, quàm super solennitate Sponsalium & Coronationis Domini Edvardi dei gratià nunc regis Angliae auctore domino celebrandâ, aliisque negotiis statum dicti regni contingentibus favente deo contigerit ordinari: Ratum habituri & Gratum quicquid per eosdem Procuratores nostros, vel alterum ipsorum actum fuerit in praemissis. Dat. 3. Oct. 1307. Ibid. fol. 108.  
1309. jidem constituunt, 2. Commonachos conj. & div. ad faciend. & consentiend. hiis quae in instanti Parliamento à die Paschae prox. praeterito in unum mensem de Communi Consilio favente domino contigerit ordinari super hiis quae Honorem Dei & Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ac etiam statum Domini nostri Regis Angliae illustris, & regni ejusdem contingunt. Dat. 25. Apr. 1309. Ibid. fol. 112. (a)  
1311. Noverint Universi, etc. quod Nos Henr. etc. & Capitulum— constituimus— Procuratorem nostrum ad comparendum die jovis 4 to Non. Dec. ●rox. futur. in instanti Parliamento apud Westminster tenendo, & ad consentiendum hiis quae ●● eodem de Communi Assensu Praelatorum & Cleri ordinabuntur & statuentur, ad honorem Dei ● Ecclesiae suae sanctae ac Utilitatem Domini ●egis & Regni sui. Dantes eïdem Procuratori ●ostro potestatem substituendi loco suo alium Pro●ratorem ad praemissa quotiescunque sibi viderit ●pedire. Ratum habituri quicquid per eundem ●rocuratorem nostrum, vel substitu●um ab eodem ●●um fuerit in praemissis. Dat. 4. Kal. Dec. 11. Ib. fol. 118. (b)  
1314.— Ad comparend. nomine nostro apud Ebor— coràm venerabili patre domino W. d. g. Cant. Archpo. & ad faciend ' & consentiend ' hiis quae ad animarum salutem ac Utilitatem Ecclesiae & Reipublicae de Communi Concilio praefati venerabilis Patris nostri, & alior ' Praelator ' ac totius Cleri Prov. Cant. favente domino tùnc contigerit ordinari. Dantes eïdem potestatem alium Procuratorem loco suo substituendi, etc. Dat. 16. Kal● Sep. 1314. Ib. fol. 161. (a)  
[It answers the Writ of Summons in Dugd. p. 97.]  
1318. Ad comparend. nomine nostro in Parlia●mento Ebor— & ad consentiend. hiis quae tun● ibidem de communi Consilio Praelatorum, Mag●natum, Procerum, & Cleri Prov. Cant. savent● Dom ᵒ contigerit ordinari— & ad substituendum etc. Dat. 8. Oct. f. 199. (a)  
1319. jidem constituunt Procuratores suos con● ac div. ad Parliamentum apud Ebor à die Pasch● in unum mensem tenend. Ib. fol. 203.  
1321. jidem constituunt Procuratorem suu● in Parliamento apud Westminst. à die Nativitat● beati Joh. Bapt. ad tres Septimanas celebrando● ad faciend. & consentiend. hiis, quoe de comm●●ni consilio & assensu ven. patris Domini W. Pra●●latorum, Magnatum, Procerum & Cleri Pro● Cant.— concorditer contigerit ordinari. Dat. Id. jul. Ibid. fol. 224.  
1322. jidem constituunt Procuratores sues Parliamento apud Ebor. à die Paschae in tres 〈◊〉 timanas tenendo. Dat. 25. Apr. 1322. Ibid. fol. 227.  
1323. Nos Capitulum Eccl. Lincoln— constituimus J. de Harington Concanonicum nostrum, verum & legitimum Procuratorem ad comparend pro nobis in Parliamento die Purif. beatae Mariae Virg. (to which day the Parliament was prorogued Dugd. p. 126.) Registr. penes Dec. & Cap. Linc. ab A o. 1321. ad 1329.  
132●/4. Prior & Capit. Cant. constituunt Procuratorem suum in instanti Parliamento [a die Purif. b. Mariae Virg. in 3. Sept. tenendo] ad tractandum cum venerab. Patre— & cum caeteris Praelatis & Clero super urgentibus Eccl. Angl. atque regni negotiis in Parliamento praedicto, nec non ad consentiend hiis omnibus quae ad honorem Dei & Ecclesiae suae sanctae ac Utilitatem totius reipublicae— divinâ disponente gratiâ ibidem contigerit ordinari. Dat. X. Kal. Mart. 1323. Reg. Henr. Pr. f. 236.  
1325. jidem constituunt Procuratores suos in Parliamento apud Westmr. in Octabis S. Mart. ad tractand ', & ordinand ' unà cum ven li. Patre, etc. & iisdem nomine nostro consentiend ' proüt Utilitati Ecclae. & Animarum Saluti Visum fuerit expedire. Dat. 16. Nou. Ibid. f. 146.  
1330. Capitulum Wellense mittit unum, item Bathoniense alterum Procuratorem ad Parliamentum apud Wynton Die Dominicâ prox ante fest. S ti. Greg. (4 E. 3.)  
Registr. Rad. de Salop. Episc. B. and W.  
1334. Prior & Capit. constituunt Procuratores suos— ad comparend— in Eccl. S. Pauli— die Lunae post festum Exaltationis S. Crucis— super Arduis— in Parliamento apud Westmr. dicto Die & Loco tenendo diffusiùs pertractandis, nec non ad consentiend.— Facimus etiam & constituimus dictos Fratres procurr. ad comparend— post festum S ti. Matth.— coràm Ven. Pre— in Eccl. S. Pauli. Dat. Sept. 1334.  
Titulatur— Litera de Parliamento & Congregatione.—  
Registr. Oxinden. f. 32.  
1335. Procuratorium eorundem ad Parliamentum apud Westmr. & Congreg. Cleri in Eccl. S ti. Pauli Lond. Dat. Feb. 1335. Ibid. p. 38.  
1337. Procuratorium eorundem ad comparend pro nobis & nomine nostro in Parliamento 5 Kal. Feb. 1337. Ib. f. 80 (b)  
1350. G. de Welton, & H. de Ingelby Electi Procuratores Capituli Ebor. in Parliamento. R●gistr. penes Dec. & Cap. Ebor. f. 74.  
1397. Procuratorium Decani & Capituli Ebor. pro Parliamento tenendo apud Westmr. die L●nae prox post festum Exalt. S t● Crucis. Dat. 27. Aug. 1327.  
Registr. penes Dec. & Cap. (nota●. Q.) ab A o. 1390 ad 1410.  
1425. Pateat Universis per praesentes quod no● Edmundus permissione div. Prior Eccl. Cath. Elyens. & ejusdem Loci Capitulum, ad comparendum pro nobis & nomine nostro in instanti Parliamento Domini Nostri Regis Hen. VI apud Westmr. in crastino S ●i Martini prox. futuro per Ipsum Dom. Reg. & Consiliwm suum celebran●● Dilectos nobis in Christo Venerabiles Viros, Magistros, etc. nostros veros & legitimos ordinamus & constituimus Procuratores, & Nuncios Speciales; dantes & concedentes eïsdem Procuratoribus nostris & eorum cuilibet Potestatem Generalem & Mandatum speciale pro nobis & nomine nostro in omnibus & singulis quae per dom. nostrum Regem & Consilium suum, ac caeteros Proelatos, Magnates, & Proceres dicti regni sui ad Utilitatem & Defensionem. regni Angliae & Eccl. Anglicanae in dicto Parliamento tractari & ordinari contigerit consentiendi, ac omnia alia & singula faciendi & expediendi quae per Procuratores expediri poterint. Ratum & firmum habituri quicquid iidem, etc. Dat. 8. Oct. 3. H. 6.  
Registr. Eccl. Elyens. f. 145.  
jidem iterùm constiwnt Procurr. suos— ad comparend ' pro nobis in instanti Parliamento— apud Westm. ult. die Apr. prox. fut. Dat. 24. Apr. 3. H VI Ibid.  
1503. Universis Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae filiis ad quos praesentes Literae pervenerint, Thomas Permissione, Divinà Prior— & Capitulum salutem in Domino. Noverit Universitas vestra nos ordinasse dil m. nobis in Christo Fratrem Joh. Menys Commonachum nostrum verum & legitimum Procuratorem, Negotiorum gestorem, & Nuntium Specialem, ad comparend ' pro nobis & nomine nostro coram Custode spiritualitatis Archiepiscopali sede Vacante 26. Jan. apud Westmr. ubi & quando metuendissimus in Christo Princeps & Dom s. noster Henr. d. g. R. A ae. & Fr. & Doms. Hibern. de Avisamento & Consensu Concilii sui pro quibusdam arduis & urgentibus negotii● statum Publicum & Commune Bonum Regni Angliae & Ecclesiae Anglicanae concernentibus quoddam Parliamentum suum teneri statuerit, ordinaverit, & decreverit; & ibidem cum Praelatis & Clero, Magnatibus & Proceribus dicti regni sui Colloquium habere & Tractatum; proüt per Literas dicti metuendissimi Principis nobis transmissis liquet manifestè. Damusque & concedimus eïdem Procuratori nostro Potestatem generalem & Mandatum Generale cum dicto Spiritualitatis Custode caeterisque Ecclesiasticis Viris, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, & aliis inibi convenientibus, de & super hujusmodi Arduis & urgentibus Negotiis Ecclesiam Anglicanam & Clerum ejusdem, ac praefatum metuendissimum Regem nostrum & Regnum suum Angliae concernentibus seriosiùs exponendi, tractandi, & hiis quae ex deliberatione communi ad honorem Dei, Utilitatem Ecclesiae, Regis, & Regni sui praedicti & totius Rei publicae concorditer & Canonicè ordinari contigerit consentiendi, ac omnia & singula faciendi, exercendi & expediendi in praemissis. Dat. 21. Jan. 1503.   

XII  

See p. 229. Ryley Pl. Parl. p. 321  MEmorandum quod Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Decani, Archidiaconi. [cum Clero] & Capitula diversarum Diocesium subscripta miserunt ad Parliamentum Regis E. apud Karliolum in Octabis S. Hilarii ann, etc. XXXV. Procuratores suos inferius nominatos, ad tractand ' come Praelatis, Magnatibus, & aliis Proceribus regni dicti Regis super Negociis pro quibus dictum Parliamentum summonitum fuit, & ad consentiend ' hiis quae in eodem Parliamento super negotiis illis contigerit ordinari, viz.  
Tho. Episc Exon misit, etc. Henr. de Pynke●ee Rectorem Ecclae. de Honyton.  
D. Episc. Meneu. misit, etc. Mag. Joh. Bussh Canonicum in Eccl. Meneu. & Warinum Martin Militem.  
Gervasius Archidiac. Cicestr. misit, etc. Nich. de Dynnesleye Vicarium in Eccl. de Boseham.  
Superior 
* It should be Supprior; which is a mistake that runs through the Printed Record  & Conventus Roffens. Miserunt, etc. Robertum Rectorem Ecclae. de Hoo.  
Capitulum Elyense misit, etc. Mag. Ric. de Dene Clericum.  
Abbas de Cumbâ non misit Procuratorem, sed promittit per Literas suas Patentes se ratum & gratum habiturum quicquid in dicto Parliamento Rex decreverit salubriter ordinandum.  
Abbas de S. Radegund juxtà Devorr. promittit per Literas Patentes quod ipse ratum habebit quicquid indicto Parliamento, etc.  
Clerus Dioc. Lincoln misit, etc. 2. Rectores.  
Clerus Archidiac. Cicestr. misit Nich. de Dynnislee Vicarium ●ut priùs].  
Clerus Archid. Surr. misit Mag. Rich. de Barton, & Hug. de Tychewell Clericos.  
Clerus London Diocese. misit, etc. Magistr. Will. de Melford, & Rog de Arewold Capellanos.  
Joh. de Wakerle Clericus, Procurator Cleri Archidiac. Surr. habens Potestatem alium Procuratorem substituendi, substituit Loco sui Joh. de Bray Clericum, etc. etc.   

XIII. Part of the King's Writ to the Archbishop 7 E. II.  
*** ET quia Vos, 
See p. 230.  & caeteri Prelati, ac Clerus de regno nostro in tam arduis Nos & Statum Ecclesiae Sacrae & Coronae nostrae tangentibus, non solùm Consiliis nobis tenemini assistere, sed etiam debetis extendere Manus Adjutrices, Auxilia Opportuna faciendo: Vobis mandamus rogantes quatenus aliis praetermissis sitis in propriâ personâ vestrâ apud Westmr. in Crast. Ascens. Dom. prox. futur .. Coram Fidelibus nostris ad hoc Deputandis, ad tractand. cum eisdem super competenti Auxilio a Clero Prov. vestrae Cant. nobis impendendo ex causis praedictis pro Utilitate Reipublicae & statu Ecclesiae sanctae relevand. à servitute praedictâ, proüt in proximo Parliamento nostro apud Westmr. habito tam per Clerum quam per Communitatem Regni nostri extitit concordatum; & proüt per praedictos Fidelos nostros ex parte nostrâ eritis requisiti. Et ad eundem diem Venire faciatis coràm dictis Fidelibus nostris Suffraganeos vestros, Decanos, Priores Ecclesiarum Cathedralium, Archidiaconos, Abbates Ex. & non Ex. Prov. vestrae in propriis personis suis, Capitula etiam singula dictarum Eccl. Cath. per singulares Procuratores, & Clerum cujuscunque Dioc. per duos Procurr. sufficientes, ad tractand ' & consentiend ' und Vobiscum hiis quae in praemissis ibidem contigerit ordinari. Et hoc sicut Nos & Honorem nostrum & vestrum, & Utilitatem Reipublicae, & Relevationem Eccl. Sacrae ab hujusmodi servitute diligitis, modis omnibus faciatis. T. Rege apud Westmr. 27. Martii.   

XIV.  

See p. 231:  VEstrae Paternitati, Reverende Domine D. G. Cant. Archp. totius A ae. Primas, Abbates, Priores, Ecclesiar. Cathedralium Decani, Archidiaconi, Capitulorùm & Cleri Cant. Prov. Procuratores, in instanti congregatione apud [] praesentes, Petitiones & Supplicationes porrigunt infra scriptas.  
Imprimis cùm in Eccl. Cant. tota Eccl. Angl. libera sit & fuit, ac tali hactenùs gavisa sit Libertate, quòd Clerus ejusdem Provinciae, ut Regni, Authoritate Regiâ convocari non consuevisset, nec debuisset de jure, Praesens tamen Citatio, cujus obtentu Clerus vocari dicitur supradictus, Domini Regis Mandatum [continet] proüt ex formà ejusdem Citationis, in quà breve Regium totaliter est insertum, evidenter apparet. Quod quidem ad subversionem Ecclesiasticae Libertatis tendere dinoscitur manifestè.  
Item cùm tempore Sanctae & Felicis Memoriae D o. Rob ti. nuper Archiep. habito quondam in Concilio Provinciali super eodem Articulo cum Episcopis suis suffraganeïs & Clero Tractatu diligenti, visum fuisset Mandatum hujusmodi Regium ad laesionem Libertatis Ecclesiasticae cedere manifestam, de concessu Fratrum & totius Cleri extitit declaratum consensum, & concorditer ordinatum quòd obtentu mandatorum hujusmodi ad Convocationem Cleri nullatenùs esset procedendum; praesertim cùm temporibus dominorum Archiepiscopor quorum memoria nùnc existit, id factum non fuit informâ quâ nùnc scribitur, vel aliquo tempore observatum.  
Item cùm in Eodem Mandato Regio contineatur expresse quòd Vos Venire faciatis Praelatos & Clerum ad faciend. proüt in eodem continetur; tantum ac tale Praejudicium ex hoc vestrae Ecclesia possit verisimiliter imminere, quòd si eïdem pareatur in praesenti, quoties domino Regi placuerit, possit Vobis Ecclesiae Cant. presidentibus consimilia mandata dirigere, praetendens ex scripto praesenti se esse in possessione praecipiendi & mandandi; & nisi Executio juxta Mandatum Regium sequeretur, non parentes graviùs puniret; proüt in Brevi Venire Facias contra singulares Personas impetrato aliquotiens dicitur esse factum.  
Item cùm non liceat Metropolitano cuicunque subditos suorum suffraganeorum extra Territoria sua nisi in casibus certis, de quibus ad praesens non existit— trahere, vel aliqualem jurisdictionem in eos exercere Mandatum hujusmodi, si eïdem pareatur, in enormem jurisdictionis suffraganeorum cedere possit futuris temporibus laesionem, & gravamen subditorum.  
Item cùm Laïci judices, Auditores, seu Cognitores Causarum vel Personarum Ecclesiasticarum esse non poterint ullo Casu, praedictum Mandatum, quo tam Vos quam suffraganei, & caeteri Praelati & Clerus vocari mandatur ad comparend. coram Fidelibus Domini Regis nullà Ecclesiasticà Authoritate fulcitis (prout in eodem mandato continetur, & ex lectis ac recitatis publicè coram vobis apparet manifestè) nedum Periculosum factum, sed & Ecclesiasticae Libertati contrarium, ac futuris temporibus perniciosum trahi possit in exemplum.  
Item cum Negotium de quo agitur omnes Personas Ecclesiasticas Cant. Prov. Possessiones habentes contingat, ac Priores Electivi per se Monasteria sua Gubernantes, & Conventus Abbatum & Priorum, quorum etiam Negotium aequè agitur sicut nostrunt, citari non mandantur; & ipsis non vocatis, licet fortassis diceretur ab aliquo in caeteris ritè processum, ad tractandum tamen & caetera facienda quae in dicto mandato continentur procedi non potest, ut decet, ne Unitas Ecclesiae in suis Ministris Divisionem patiatur; praesertim cùm Abbates hujusmodi vocari omissis suis Conventibus, & sine Consensu eorundem ipsorum Conventuum non possint.  
Item cùm in jure caveatur, quòd Clerus ad subventionem quae petitur, nisi cum quâdam juris Observantiâ minimè teneatur, sicut in sacris Canonibus est contentum; praedictam subventionem, quae tanquam ex debito fieri petitur, facere non valemus absque Libertatis Ecclesiasticae laesione & Sacrarum Constitutionum manifestâ Offensà, quamquam in casu aliquo hiis praetermissis licitè procedi aliqualiter potuisset.  
Supplicant igitur devoti vestri— Abbates— Priores & caeteri infrascripti vestrae Paternitati reverendae, humiliter & cum omni reverentiâ petentes, quatenus consideratis & ponderatis praemissis omnibus & singulis periculis quae ex hoc facto Libertati Ecclesiasticae imminere noscuntur, tam pro jure Ecclesiae Vestrae Cant. quam totius Ecclesiae▪ Anglicanae, & pro evitandis hujusmodi periculis in futurum revocationem Brevis Regii impetrare, & hujus revocatione habità praedictam Citationem tam periculosam & Ecclesiasticae Libertati plurimùm derogantem ex paternâ provisione dignetur— Paternitas vestra Reverenda. Vosque, Patres Reverendi, praedictae Ecclesiae Cant. Suffraganeï, pro conservatione Libertatis, sicut tenemini, apud Patrem praedictum unà nobiscum instare velitis, si placet, ut Petitionem nostram, tam licitam, tam rectam tamque honestam exaudire dignetur: pro firmo tenentes qùod absque Libertatis Ecclesiasticae laesione evidenti, vel potiùs subversione ejusd●m praemissa subsistere non possunt absque remedio competenti.  
The Cotton-Copy, from whence I took this, is very faulty, and I was forced to supply it in several places, by Guess. There is an Omission also of one Whole Article in it, about their being called to an Exempt Place. A more Correct Copy is to had in some Registers, particularly in those of the D. and Ch. of Cant. where I had no opportunity to search for it.   

XIV. (a)  

See p. 231.  CL. 8. E. II. m. 35. dors. Rex Venerabili, etc. Sal. Quia super diversis & arduis negotiis nos & statum Regni nostri, & maximè terrae nostrae Scotiae specialiter tangentibus, Parliamentum nostrum apud Eboracum die Lunae in crast. Nativ. beatae Mariae Virg. prox. futur. tenere, & vobiscum ac cum caeteris Praelatis, Magnatibus, & Proceribus dicti Regni habere proponimus Colloquium & Tractatum, Vobis mandamus rogantes, quaetenus Decanos, & Priores Ecclesiarum Cath. ac Archidiaconos tocius Provinciae vestrae in propriis personis suis, Capitula etiam singula dictarum Eccl. Cath. per singulares Procuratores, & Clerum cujuscunque Dioces. ejusdem Prov. per duos sufficientes Procuratores ad dictos diem & locum Venire faciatis, ad tractand & consentiend hiis quae in praemissis tunc ibidem contigerit ordinari. Et hoc nullatenùs omittatis. T. Rege apud Ebor. XXIX. jul.  

The Protestation of the Clergy, when met, against this Citation.  
LIcet Mandatum vestrum Citatorium, 
See p. 231.  Pater Reverende, Domine W. d. g. Cant. Archp. Totius Angliae Primas, ad Clerum Prov. vestrae convocandum, in eo quod ad Curiam Secularem, puta Domini Regis Parliamentum, quod in Camerâ ejusdem Regis fuit inchoatum, & per dies aliquot continuatum, sicque tam ratione fori quam etiam loci contrà Sanctos Canones & Sanctorum Patrum Instituta videatur esse conceptum, & per consequens Clerum artare non poterit taliter ad comparend. absque Ecclesiasticae Offensà Disciplinae, & Laesione Ecclesiasticae Libertatis manifestâ, quódque de Abbatibus & Prioribus per se suos Conventus regentibus, & suis Conventibus seu Collegiis, Prioribus Ecclesiarum Cathedralium duntaxat exceptis, nulla omninò habeatur mentio in eodem: quanquam iidem Religiosi sic omissi maximam partem Corporis Cleri vestrae Prov. faciant, & de communi Negotio sive necessitate agatur omnes communiter contingente, sicque sine ipsis taliter omissis de communi negotio sive necessitate ipsos omissos aeqùe principaliter contingente ut praesentes tractatus qualis haberi deberet & etiam expediret, haberi non valeat ipsis non vocatis, ne Unitas Ecclesiae ex processu hujusmodi Divisionem patiatur: Ut tamen subductâ Citatione predictâ vestris beneplacitis quatenus fieri poterit per nunc praesentes absque Ecclesiae & Absentium Prejudicio pareatur reverenter; & ne publicae Utilitatis Expeditionem ex non-paritione in tantâ necessitate impediri contingat, offerunt se praesentes paratos ad tractand. & faciend. prout eos attinet, quod justum fuerit & Canonicis conveniens Institutis. Supplicant igitur hii qui in hâc Congregatione praesentes sunt de Clero Vestrae Paternitati Reverendae, quatenùs in mandatis Vestris quae— consimiliter emanabunt in futurum, quoad praemissa & caetera omnia quae occurrunt facienda Ordo debitus & de jure licitus ac Ecclesiasticae Libertati non derogans per omnia observetur; protestants expresse coram Vobis in praesentiâ venerab. Patrum Episcopor. Suffraganeor. vestror. quod absque Libertatis Ecclesiasticae laesione & statûs sui periculo praefatus Clerus mandatis consimilibus parere non poterit aliqualiter in futurum.   

Petitio proposita per Religiosos & Clerum.  

See p. 232.  VObis Reverende Pater Domine Cant. Archpe▪ totius Angliae Primas & suffraganeïs vestris hic Congregatis supplicat Clerus Universus ad mandatum vestrum Dom. Cant. Archp. totius Angliae Primas, humiliter & obedienter comparens, quatenus vos eum excusare dignemini erga Dominum nostrum Regem qùod coram eo sine Offensa Dei & Ecclesiasticae Libertatis praejudicio modo quo praecipitur, seu oratur, parere non possit; prae●ertim cùm praetextu citationis vestrae, in Loco isto & non alibi, & coram Vobis comparere tenentur: Advertentes praecip●●e qùod hoc facto servitus inaudita, & jugum intolerabile Ecclesiae imponatur, quod nedum in Ecclesiae Cant. Prejudicium diceretur factum, sed Vobis, qui praeestis eïdem, Dedecus Sempiternum inferret.  
Bibl. Cotton. Faustina. A. 8.    

XIV. (b)  
I Shall rather refer the Reader to Pryn himself (Parl. Wr. V 1. p. 152.) then increase the Bulk of the Appendix by a Transcript of it. 
See p. 235.    

XIV. (c)  
R. Permissione divinâ Cant. Archp ' etc. dilectis filiis Priori & Conventui Eccl. nostrae Christi Cant. Sal. Gratiam & Benedictonem. Literas domini Regis nuper recepimus talis Tenoris vel consimilis in essentiâ, 
See p. 252.  quod pro quibusdam Negotiis quae regnum Angliae specialiter tangunt, nec non & stabilimentum Terrae Scotiae, nec non & pro aliis diversis Negotiis Vos praemuniri faceremus, qùod Vos Domine Prior in propriâ person●, Capitulum verò per unum procuratorem die Martis in quindenâ Purif. beatae Mariae Virg. prox. fut. in Parliamento suo apud Westmr. nobiscum intersitis, ad faciend ' & consentiend ' hiis quae tùnc de communi consilio favente deo ordinari contigerit, vel etiam pro Utilitate dicti regni provideri. Quocirca mandamus Vobis firmiter injungentes quatenus Vos, Domine Prior, in propri● personâ, & Capitulum per unum Procuratorem Die Dominicâ prox. ante dictum diem Martis ipsum diem Martis praeveniendo coram Nobis compareatis apud Lamethe circa horam primam, Nobiscum super quibusdam statum Ecclesiae contingentibus tractaturi, ulteriusque facturi un● Nobiscum in dicto Parliamento quod permittunt Sacrorum Canonum Instituta. Et quid feceritis seu facere decreveritis in praemissis nos dictà die Dominicâ certificare curetis per vestras Literas patentes harum seriem continentes. Dat. Wynton. Id. Jan. 1304. Consecr. 11ᵒ.  
Reg. Henr. Prioris fol. 103. (a)   

XIV. (d)  
This Form I have given before, Numb. XIV. (a)   

XIV. (e)  
Cl. 14. E. II. m. 5. dors.  

See p 253.  REx Venerabili, etc. Sal. Quia super diversis, etc. [as in the Writ with the Premunientes in Dugd. p. 119.]— Tractatum. Et mandavimus singulis Episcopis Prov. vestrae Cant. quod dictis die & loco, etc. impensuri; & qùod ipsi praemuniant Decanos, Priores, & Capitula Ecclesiar ' suar ', Archidiaconos, etc. antedictis. Nos nolentes negotia nostra in dicto Parliamento tractanda propter absentiam dictor ' Decanor ' Prior ' Archidiaconor ' retardari, Vobis mandamus rogantes, quatenus Decanos & Priores Ecclesiar ' vestrar ' Cath. & Archidiaconos totius Prov. vestrae in propriis personis suis, Capitula etiam singula dictar ' Ecclesiar ' Cath. per singulares Procc. & Clerum cujuscunque Dioc. ejusdem Prov. per duos sufficientes Procurat. ad dictos diem & locum venire faciatis ad tractand ' & consentiend ' hiis quae in praemissis tunc ibidem contigerit ordinari. Et hoc nullatenùs omittatis. T. Rege apud Westmr. 15. Maii.   

XIV. (f)  

See p. 255.  W. Permissione divinâ Cant. Arch.— dilecto H. Priori & Capitulo nostro Cant. Sal. Nuper Dominus Rex, vocatis ad se Praelatis quibusdam, Comitibus, ac Proceribus, ac aliis de Consilio suo peritis tunc praesentibus, Negotia sua ac regni sui diligentiùs pertractans pro feliciori Expeditione eorundem ex deliberato Consilio Parliamentum suum apud Westmr. à die Nativ. beati johannis Bapt. prox. futur. ad 3. Septimanas vocare decrevit, ac etiam ordinavit. Et quia pro Negotiis arduis statum totius regni sui & Incolarum ejusdem contingentibus praesentiam nedum Prelator ' sed etiam Decanor ' & Prior ' Ecclesiar ' Cath. singular ' & Cleri nostrae Cant. Prov. in agitatione eorundem necessariam reputavit; ne per ipsor ' absentiam contingat hujusmodi negotia retardari, suis ad Nos directis Apicibus rogav●t, ut Clerum totius nostrae Cant. Prov. in formâ praescriptâ convocari faceremus, ad diem & locum antedictos, ad tractand. super ipsis, & consentiend. hiis quae tunc salubriter ordinari contigerit in eodem. Nos igitur tanto promptiùs tantóque favorabilius Votis Regiis Inclinantes, qùo Negotium de quo agitur Ecclesiam Anglic. Regnum & Regni Incolas, tam personas Ecclesiasticas quam Laïcas omnes proculdubio contingit, proüt haec apud omnes fore credidimus notoriè divulgata; quóque ad id faciend ' ex necessitate curae nobis incumbentis novimus nos teneri; cum quibusdam Fratribus & Coëpiscopis nostris habito super hoc Tractatu pleniori Regio Rogatui more consueto duximus, ut debuimus, annuendum. Quo circà Tenore praesentium peremptoriè Vos citamus, qùod Vos Domine Prior Personaliter, & Capitulum per Unum sufficientem Procuratorem compareatis in dicto Parliamento apud Westmr. proüt hactenùs fieri consuevit, â die S ti Joh. Baptistae prox. fut. in 3 Septimanas, cum continuatione & prorogatione dierum subsequentium, ad tractand. unà Nobiscum super praemissis, & aliis urgentibus Ecclae. Anglic. atque Regni in hâc parte Negotiis, in Domini nostri Regis Parliamento ibid. celebrando, nec non consentiend ' hiis omnibus quae ad honorem Dei, & Ecclae suae sanctae & Utilitatem totius reïpublicae ac regni supradicti divinâ disponente Clementià ibidem contigerit salubriter ordinari. Dat. 8. Kal. jun. 1321.  
Reg. Henr. Prior. fol. 224.   

XV. Petitio Cleri Cant. Provinciae.  

See p. 358. This Petition from the Matter of it seems to have been made Aᵒ. 1529. See Bishop Burnet V. 1 p. 82.  UT Ecclesia Anglicana gaudeat & fruatur omnibus & singulis juribus, Libertatibus, Consuetudinibus antiquis & Privilegiis ac Immunitatibus concessis a Nobilis Memoriae Regiae Sublimitatis Progenitoribus, Regibus Angliae, proüt in Cartis & Concessionibus eorundem, praesertim in Cartâ magnâ, in Cartâ de Forestâ, in Cartâ Edwardi super Articulis Cleri, atque in brevi Circumspectè agatis, nec non Edwardi quarti; aliis item Immunitatibus suis quibuscunque.  
Et quia Clerus summopere affectat vitare offensam Regiae sublimitatis, & aequum non est ut aliquis paenam Violatae Legis incurrat, quam scire non potuit, ut dignetur sua sublimitas curare ac jubere ut certi ac praescripti Limites clarè designentur Casuum statutorum de Premunire, sicque extra illos casus declaratos aliqua non incurratur paena; & ne de caetero decernatur à Cur●â Regiâ emittendum contra ullum judicem Ecclesiasticum aut partes Litigantes Breve praefatum de Praemunire, nisi praemissiâ prohibitione regiâ, & in Casibus praescriptis.  
Praeterea cum Clerus multum Gravaminis ac Damni sustineat, ratione statutorum in praesenti Parliamento editorum, Libertatem Ecclesiasticam & sanctiones Canonicas enervantium, in animarum statuentium, & quorumcúnque Executioni demandantium periculum manifestum, sententiamque excommunicationis notoriè & damnabiliter incurrendo; ad quae facienda nec consenserunt per se, nec per Procuratores suos, neque super eïsdem consulti fuerunt; Ipsaque eadem statuta paenas tum graves, tùm inevitabiles in se contineant, non nihil etiam Iniquitatis habeant, contra Charitatem & Canonicas sanctiones edita, sintque in se adeo captiosa ut difficile sit ea non violare; Hospitalitati quoque non parùm derogantia, miseris Vicariis Rectoriarum suarum Conductionem, ut videtur, prohibentia: ut iidem Patres (quorum est Veritatem Canonum annuntiare) remedium opportunum in statutis praedictis provideant, tam praesenti quam futuris temporibus debitè consulentes.  
Postremò cum sine fide impossibile est placere deo, ut dignetur Regia sublimitas in fidei favorem aliquod statutum in praesenti Parliamento edere contra Haereticos, fautorésque Haereticorum, Defensores, & Receptatores eorundem, nec non contra Libros suspectos aut prohibitos tenentes, habentes, in regnum asportantes, per Ordinarios locorum non approbatos vendentes; unà cum bonorum quorumcunque de Haeresi primà vice per Ordinarios condemnatorum & indicatorum confiscatione Domino nostro Regi, & caeteris Clausulis opportunis.  
Bibl. Cotton. Cleopatra. F. 2.   

XVI.  

See p. 375.  PHilip and Mary by the Grace of God, King and Queen of England, France, Naples, jerusalem, and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Prince of Spain and Sicil, Archeduk of Austrie, Duke of Burgundy, Milan, and Brabant, Counties of Haspurg, Flaunders, and tyrol, To all Men to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting. Where we have granted to the most Reverend Father in God, and our most Trusty and Dearest Cousin Reynald Cardinal Pole, Legate the Latere to the Pope's Holiness, sent to Us and to our Realms and Dominions, our Letters Patents of our Will and Consent for the free using of his Faculties, Auctoritys and jurisdiction Legantine in form hear under following, that is to say, Philip and Mary by the Grace of God, etc. Greeting▪ Whereas it hath pleased our most Holy Father the Pope, july the 3 d. to send unto Us, and this our Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, the most Reverend Father in God, and our most trusty and dearest Cousin Reynold Cardinal Pole his Legate de Latere with certain Auctorities of jurisdiction, Grace, Faculties and Dispensations, to be ministered, exercised, and granted by authority of our said Holy Father and See Apostolic to the Subjects of our said Realm and Dominions of the same, as they shall for their Relief sue and make request to our said Cousin, executing his said Commission and Legacy aforesaid; We calling to our Remembrance and Understanding, the Godly Purpose and Intent of our said most Dearest Cousin his most honourable Legation, and that the same is most beneficial, and to the spiritual Solace and Consolation of Us and our said Subjects (whose good Order and right walking in the Laws of God and our Mother Holy Church we much desire) and therefore we are most glad of the Access and Repair of our said most dear Cousin, unto us and this our Realm, with the said Authority of Jurisdiction from our said Holy Father the Pope's Holiness and See Apostolic. And for the further Declaration thereof, we do by these our Letters Patents declare our Pleasures and good Contentments to be, that our said Cousin shall repair unto us, and into our said Realm and the Dominions thereof, with his said Authority of Jurisdictions, and to use and exercise his Authority Legantine by himself, or by his Officers and Ministers under him of whatsoever Nation, Country, State, or Condition soever they be, Denyzons, or not Denyzons; and that his said Repair with the said Auctorities is not only unto Us most acceptable, but we do also by these our Letters Patents signify unto all our Loving Subjects, as well Spiritual as Temporal, that we are pleased and contented that they shall make Suits and Requests to our said Dearest Cousin, and his Officers and Ministers, to obtain such Grace, Faculties and Dispensations as they shall have need of, and the same so obtained, to use and put in Execution according to the Nature and Quality thereof. Wherefore we Will and Command all and singular our Subjects to receive, honour, and obey the said Authority in such Cases▪ of Spiritual Jurisdiction for the Reformation of their Sowles, as in the Time of the said 20 th'. Year of the Reign of our said Father King Henry the Eight was, or with his Consent might have been used and executed in this Realm. In witness whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patents. Witness ourselves at Westminster the 10 th'. day of Nou. in the 1st. and 2 d. Years of our Reigns. Know ye for that so much the said most Reverend Father earnestly desiring that his Labour and Travail may take fruit to the Honour of God, and the Wealth of our Subjects hath now called a Synod of the Clergy of this Realm of England, to appear before him at our Palace at Westminster; We to avoid all Danger, doubt, and Ambiguitye which might arise in that case by reason of any Laws, Statutes, Customs or Prerogatives of Us, or this our Realm of England, and for the more Ample Declaration of our said Letters Patents, have granted, declared, and signified, and by these Letters Patents, do grant, declare, and signify, that our Will and Pleasure and Consent is, that as well the said most Reverend Father Card. Pole Legat de Latere of the Pope's Holiness, and the See Apostolic, may freely without  of Us, or danger of any our said Laws, Statutes, Customs, or Prerogatives, call and celebrate the said Synod, or any other Synod hereafter at his Will and Pleasure, and in the same Statute, Ordain, and Decree any wholesome Canons for the good lief and order of the Clergy of this our Realm of England, or of any other of our Realms and Dominions, and do any other thing for the better executing of their Office and Duitye; as also the said clergy may appear and be present at the said Synod or [any other] and consent to fulfil and obey all such Canons as shall be ordained in the same, or in any of them without Let or Impediment of Us, and without incurring any Danger, or Penalty, or Forfeiture of any of our Laws, or Statutes, any Act, Ordinance, or other matter contrary to the same notwithstanding. And hereunto we have given our full Power and Authority by these Presents. In Witness whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patents. Witness ourselves at Westminster 2 Nou. in the 2 d. and 3 d. Years of our Reign.  
Registr. Pole fol. 7.   

XVII. Forma sive Descriptio Convocationis cilebrandae, pr●ut ab antiquo observari decernitur.  
SCiendum est quod omnes qui [citantur] Auctoritate D ni. R mi. Arch. Cant. ad comparend ' coram eo in domo Capitulari Ecclae. Cath. Divi Pauli London, 
See p. 376.  12ᵒ die Jan. 
* It appears from hence, that this Directory was framed immediately before the Conu. of 1562. which me● jan. 12.  prox. tenentur prefixo tempore interesse, atque in Ecclesiâ Cath. praestolari adventum dicti R mi. Qui ex more paùlo post 8vam. ante meridiem illius diei solet cum celebri comitatu apud portam Thamisis vocatam Pawles Wharf in terram descendere, atque exinde praeeuntibus Advocatis & Procuratoribus Curiae Cant. certisque R mi. Generosis, ac Virgifero Convocationis, ad Eccles●am Cath. Divi Pauli London, rectà tendere, atque in Chorum ibidem ingredi. Ubi postquam in stallo Decani collocatus suerit, ac preces dixerit, tam ipse quam reliqui Episcopi praesentes ●abitu Convocationis togati, ex utróque Chori Latere in suis stallis sese constituunt; Et mox incipiunt preces, quibus S. Sancti gratia invocatur; ac mox Concio subsequitur. Ac tempore Offertorii tam dictus R mus. quam caeteri suffraganei Episcopo rem divinam celebranti ordine progredientes oblationem offerre ex more debent. Peractâ in hunc morem re divina, solet doctus aliquis ex Caetu Convocationis sive Superioris sive Inferioris domûs ad hoc selectus è Suggestu in medio Chori Concionem ad Clerum ibidem congregatum Latinè proferre. Quà absolutà R mus statim se con●ert in Dom. Capitularem dictae Ecclesiae, sequentibus Episcopis & toto Clero. Quibus ingressis, ac seclusis Extraneis, R mo. ac caeteris suis Cöepis in suis sedibus ordine consedentibus, ac reliquo Clero circumstante, R mus. Dominus Episc. London mandatum sibi à d to. R mo. ad Convocationem hujusmodi submonend ' aliàs directum unà cum debito Certificatorio super executione ejusdem introducere, ac debitâ cum reverenti● e●dem R mo. patri praesentare & tradere tenetur.  
Quo quidem Certificatorio perlecto, statim porrigitur eidem R mo. Schedula de scripta, per quam pronuntiat omnes ad eosdem diem, horam, & locum non comparentes contumaces, reservando paenam eorum contumaciae in aliquem diem competent. pro bene placito ipsius R mi. Praemissis sic Expeditis, dictus R mus ad Episcopos & Clerum tùnc praesentes Anglicè sive Latinè Causam sui adventûs ac dictae Convocationis Inchoatae exponit; Quódque ex Laudabili & Antiquâ ordinatione eadem Convocatio in duo Membra dividitur, nempe in Superiorem atque Inferiorem Domum. Unde R mus & caeteri Coëpiscopi Superiorem Domum efficiunt; Inferior verò Domus ex Decanis Ecclesiar ' Cath. Archidiaconis, Collegiorum Magistris & Capitulorum Cath. Ecclesiarum, nec non Cleri cujuscunque Dioceseos Procuratoribus constat.  
Et 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 confusionem, igitur semper hactenùs observatum fuit, ut Unus aliquis Doctus & Disertus ex gremio dictae Inferioris 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 sententiam eïdem R mo, cum ad hoc rogatus seu missus fuerit, caeteris silentibus fideliter referat: Qui ex hoc munere Referendarius sive Prolocutor communiter denominatur. Cujus eligendi Libera facultas semper penes dictam Inferiorem Domum remanet. Unde ipse R mus solet eosdem ex inferiori domo monere atque hortari, ut statim se conferant in dictam Inferiorem Domum, ibique de Viro docto, pio, & fideli in Prolocutorem suum assumendo consultantes unanimiter consentiant, & eligant; sicque electum ipsi R mo in eâdem domo Capitulari prox. insequente Sessione debitâ cum solennitate praesentent. His dictis, descendunt omnes in inferiorem domum ad effectum praedictum.   

Forma Eligendi & Praesentandi Prolocutorem.  
SOlet observari, ut postquam ingressi fuerint Inferiorem Domum, in sedibus se decenter collocent, & si aliqui ex iis sint Consiliarii, sive Sacellan● Regiae Majestatis, ut hi superiores sedes occupent, atque inde unus ex iis propter dignitatem & Reverentiam, seu in eorum absentiâ Decanus Ecclesiae Cath. Divi Pauli London, sive Archidiac. Lond. Presidentis officio in hujusmodi Electione fungatur. Atque ut ad hoc ●i●e procedatur, primùm jubebit nomina omnium citatorum & qui tunc interesse tenentur à [] dictae inferioris Domûs recitari & praeconizari. Notatisque absentibus, alloquatur praesentes, atque eorum sententiam de idoneo procuratore eligendo sciscitetur. Et postquam de eo convenerint (quod semper quasi statim & absque ullo negotio perfici solebat) mox conveniant inter se de duobus Eminentioris Ordinis, qui dictum electum R mo Do. Cant. in die statuto debitâ cum Reverentiâ & Solennitate praesentent. Quorum alter sicut, cum dies advenerit, ipsum Prolocutorem cum Latinâ & doctâ oratione praesentare tenetur, sic etiam idem praesentatus habitu Doctoratûs indutus consimilem Orationem ad dictum R mum Patrem ac Praelatos & caeteros praesentes habere debet. Quibus finitis, praefatus R mus Oratione Latinâ tam Electores quam Presentatorem & Praesentatum pro suâ gratiâ collaudare, ac demùm ipsam Electionem suâ Arch. authoritate expresse confirmare & approbare non dedignabitur. Et statim idem R mus Anglicè (si placeat) exponere solet ulteri●s beneplaeitum suum, hortando Clerum ut de rebus communibus quae Reformatione indigeant, consultent, & referant die statuto. Ac ad hunc modum de Sessione in Sessionem continuabitur Convocatio, quam diu expedire videbitur, ac donec de eâdem dissolvendâ Breve Regium eidem R mo praesentetur.  
Et sciendum est, quòd quotiescunque Prolocutor ad praesentiam R mi causâ Convocationis, ac Tempore Sessionis, ●ccesserit, utatur habitu praedicto, ac janitor sive Virgifer dictae Inferioris Domûs ipsum reverenter antecedat.  
Ejusdem Prolocutoris est etiam monere omnes ne discedant à Civitate London absque Licentiâ R mi; Quodque statutis diebus tempestive veniant ad Conu. Quodque salaria Clericorum tam superioris quam Inferioris Domûs, & janitoris Inferioris Domûs juxta ●●tiquam taxationem, quatenus eorum quemlibet ●●ncernit, fideliter persolvant.  
Synodalia fol 3.   

XVIII.  
JAMES by the Grace of God, 
See p. 385.  etc. To the most reverend Father in God, our right trusty and well beloved Counsellor, john Archbishop of Canterbury, of all England, Primate and Metropolitan, the reverend Fathers in God, our trusty and well beloved Richard Bishop of London, Anthony Bishop of Chichester, and to the rest of our Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical, Greeting. Whereas all such Jurisdictions, Rights, Privileges, Superiorities, and Prehemynences, Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual, or Ecclesiastical Power, or Authority have heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised, or used, for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons, and for Reformation, Order, and Correction, as well of the same, as of all manner of Errors, Heresies, Schisms, Abuses, Offences, Contempts, and Enormities, to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of Virtue, and the conservation of the Peace and Unity of this our Realm of England, are for ever by authority of Parliament of this our Realm united, and annexed unto the Imperial Crown of the same: And whereas also by Act of Parliament, it is provided and enacted, that whensoever we shall see cause to take further Order for, or concerning any Ornament, Right, or Ceremony appointed, or prescribed in the Book commonly called the Book of Common Prayer, Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rights and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and our Pleasure known therein, either to our Commissioners so authorized under the great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical, or to the Metropolitan of this our Realm of England, that then further Order should be therein taken accordingly: We therefore understanding, that there were in the said Book certain things, which might require some Declaration and enlargement by way of Explanation, and in that respect having required you, our Metropolitan, and you the Bishops of London and Chichester, and some others of our Commissioners authorized under our great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical, according to the Intent and meaning of the said Statute, and of some other Statutes also, and by our Supreme Authority and prerogative Royal, to take some care and pains therein, have since received from you the said particular things in the said Book declared, and enlarged, by way of Explanation, made by you our Metropolitan and the rest of our said Commissioners in manner and form following.  
[Then come several Alterations in the Calendar, Rubrics, and Offices of Private, Baptism, and Confirmation, an Addition about the Sacraments at the Close of the Catechism; A Prayer for the Royal Family, and six new Forms of Thanksgiving for Rain, Fair Wether, etc. and after these inserted at length, it follows.]  
All which particular points and things in the said Book thus by you declared and enlarged, by way of Exposition and Explanation, Forasmuch as we having maturely considered of them, do hold them to be very agreeable to our own several Directions upon Conference with you and others, and that they are in no part repugnant to the Word of God, nor contrary to any thing that is already contained in that Book, nor to any of our Laws or Statutes made for Allowance or Confirmation of the same, We by virtue of the said Statutes, and by our supreme Authority and Prerogative Royal, do fully approve, allow, and ratify All and every one of the said Declarations and Enlargements by way of Explanation, Willing and requiring, and withal Authorising you the Archbishop of Canterbury, that forthwith you do Command our Printer Robert Barker newly to Print the said Common Book, with all the said Declarations and Enlargements by way of Exposition and Explanation above mentioned; And that you take such Order, not only in your own Province, but likewise in our Name with the Archbishop of York for his Province, that every Parish may provide for themselves the said Book so Printed and Explained, to be only used by the Minister of every such Parish, in the Celebration of Divine Service, and Administration of the Sacraments, and duly by him to ●e observed according to Law in all the other parts, with the Rites and Ceremonies therein Contained and Prescribed for him to Observe. And these our Letters, Patents, or the Inrolment thereof, shall be your sufficient Warrant for all and every the Premises contained in them. Witness ourselves at Westminster, the 9 th'. day of Feb. in the first Year of our Reign, Per Ipsum Regem.  
N.B. There was a Commission in the 3 d. of Q. Elizabeth, for making Alterations in the Common Prayer Book, which This may seem to have traced: but those Alterations were slight ones, reaching no further than the Expunging some few Lessons in the Calendar, and appointing others in the room of them; which was justifiable upon the Terms of the Act of Uniformity. See the Commission in Parker's Register fol. 215. (a).   
FINIS.   

ADDENDA.  
PAge 6. l. 8. When I say, Styled it a Convoc. I mean only, that he used the word Convocare.  
P. 72. l. 28.— is now, and etc. I spoke this as supposing the Writ for the Prov. of York to have gone out, when the last Parliament was chosen: but it seems, it did not. The Reader however will allow me that this was a very pardonable Supposition.  
P. 262. l. 5. I mean, when the A p. did not at the same time solemnly hold his Provincial Council: for at such times I have shown (before p. 233.) that Distinct Proxies have been sent to the Provinc. Council, and Parliament.  
P. 366. l. 18. My Lord H. in another place (p. 566.) does, I find, date the Patent of his Vicegerency at july 18. But either that Date is mistaken; or that was not the first Patent constituting him Vicegerent.  
P. 381. l. 27. Upon further search it appears to me, that my Lord of Sarum had yet less reason than I thought he might have to doubt, whether the Lower Clergy subscribed the Canons in 1571; for their Original subscriptions in Parchment are still extant: sowed indeed to a Printed Copy of the Articles in 1562, by mistake; but manifestly appertaining to those in 1571; as is Evident from the Titles of several of the subscribing Dignitaries, compared with their Collations in the Bishop's Registers.  
P. 382. Upon second Thoughts, I cannot allow the Memorand. to intimate any thing contrary to what I have laid down. It falls in exactly with the Method, which I suppose in that Convoc. to have been taken.  
P. 385. l. 3. from the bottom, add— Dr. Heylin indeed, in the Summary he has given of King Charles' Letters Patents, confirming the Canons of 1640. (Cypr. Angl. p. 425.) represents that Prince as saying, That in Imitation of the Pious Examples of E. VI Queen Elizabeth, and King James— he had Licenced the Clergy to make Canons, etc. which seems to imply, that such a Licence as was then granted had been practised in all the Preceding Reigns. But the Instrument itself, if we consult it ('tis in Bibl. Reg. and Sparrow) sets this matter right. The Words of it are these, We therefore out of our Princely Inclination to Uniformity and Peace, in matters especially which concern the Holy Worship of God, proposing to ourselves herein the Pious Example of King E. the VI th'. and Q. Elizabeth, who sent forth Injunctions and Orders about the Divine Service, and other Ecclesiastical mat●ers; and of our Dear Father of Blessed Memory, King james, who published a Book of Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical;— have thought good to give them free leave to Treat in Convoc. and agree upon certain Other Canons, necessary for the Advancement of God's Glory, etc. The Example of the Two first of these Princes is vouched only in relation to their Issuing forth Orders and Injunctions about Divine Service, and other Ecclesiastical Matters: The last is proposed as a Pattern also for Commissioning the Convocation to Treat and agree upon Canons. The mentioning these Three Princes in the Course of the same Sentence, though for different Purposes, may create some Ambiguity; which will be cleared, if we observe, that in King James' Letters Patents confirming the Canons of 1603. (annexed to the Edition of them in 1604.) there is no Pretence of any Precedent for such a Licence as he then granted: though had any such before that time issued, King James' Instrument of Confirmation would have referred to it, no doubt, as King Charles the 1sts. did afterwards to his.  
The Drawer up of this Instrument seems on purpose to have contrived such an Artful Form of Words as might lead an Unwary Reader into a Belief, that the Practice of Licensing the Conu. was Older than really it was; and yet, when examined strictly, could not be laid hold of.  
This Objection has not been made hitherto by any that have written on this Subject. And I mention it therefore, only to prevent a Future Cavil.  
P. 461. As this Book was finishing, Dr. bradies late learned Work came to my hands; in whose Appendix I find printed the Instrument first placed in mine. Had I known it sooner, I would only have referred the Reader thither; for he took his Copy from the Record itself, I mine only from a Register. The Transcripts of that Knowing Person are Exact always, and securely to be relied on.