^Tj^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^7 A^ 
 
 ml'' ' 
 i; jsfM MM 
 
 
 '/ari-r/ff/i''.
 
 
 L I B R.ARY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N 1 V t R.5ITY 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 s 
 
 ^gnotialia: 
 
 A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF CONVOCATION. 
 NOVEMBER 1852. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Of all the thoughts which have recently roused to action large 
 masses of our countrymen, not one has spread wider or sunk 
 deeper than that of the necessity of synodical action in our 
 Church. 
 
 The clergy have in the late Convocation elections spoken 
 out their mind plainly. The colonial churches, under the pre- 
 sidency of their admirable bishops, are, some of them at least, 
 even beforehand with u.s in England. 
 
 V^e have societies for the revival of Synods and Convoca- 
 tions ; there is no subject more frequently handled- than this 
 in clerical societies ; and above all, we have witnessed the cele- 
 bration of a Diocesan Synod, the Christian wisdom and practical 
 spirit of which extorted the admiration even of the unwilling. 
 There is a reality of purjiose, a truthfulness and vigour about 
 the whole movement, which is pregnant with the most momentous, 
 and we trust with the very best results. 
 
 Under the impulse of this thought, of the necessity of 
 synodical action, churchmen have turned their attention to the 
 various forms which Church assemblies may assume, and are 
 bent upon ascertaining the peculiar office of each, its authority, 
 its capacity for business, in order that they may be combined in 
 such form and manner as may best meet the varied exigencies 
 of our times. Of the history and working of our Convocations 
 in particular, men are becoming diligent students. The igno- 
 rance which has till lately prevailed on this subject has been most 
 remarkable. 
 
 It will be in our annals, that for a hundred and forty years 
 the voice of the Church's council was silenced ; but in a few 
 years it will hardly be believed, unless recorded with equal 
 plainness, that with a canon in their hands declaring the sacred 
 
 NO. I. B
 
 2 Introductio7i. 
 
 Synod of this nation to be the true Church of England by repre- 
 sentation, churchmen, excepting only a few antiquarians, knew 
 only of this Synod that it had once been active ; but that of late 
 a few clergymen, chosen they knew not how, met two or three 
 bishops they knew not when, and presented an address to the 
 Crown, for what purpose they could not tell. 
 
 It is now a hundred and fifty years since Atterbury wrote, 
 " We are hastening on, I find, into so thorough 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/' His words, whether 
 prophecy or guess, have been verified. No one can call to mind 
 conversations of twenty years ago without remembering how 
 often ignorance was held to be a valid excuse for inactivity. 
 This shameful ignorance and this culpable inactivity are, indeed, 
 fast passing away ; but still the opinions and thoughts of men 
 shew that they are at work on a subject comparatively new to 
 them. There is, it must be confessed, much of the crudeness of 
 early thought, the awkwardness of first attempts, the strangeness 
 of new speculation, in what is said and done in the matter.* 
 This is in the natural course and order of things. What we 
 have to provide is, that we do not act prematurely under the 
 influence of these early thoughts. Churchmen have not been 
 trained to act synodically ; and to gain their experience with 
 as little inconvenience as possible will need much patient me- 
 ditation, to get rid of modern habits of platforms and com- 
 mittee-rooms, which are but a sorry preparation for chajDter- 
 houses and council- chambers. Above all, the wisdom that 
 sweetly ordereth all things is to be sought in the holy discipline 
 of love. 
 
 To ensure success, then, in the approaching period of councils 
 and reform, there are required beforehand not only these times 
 of private meditation and self-discipline, but also a free inter- 
 change and collision of thought, with an accurate knowdedge of 
 the past. " It is excellently said by the prophet, ' State super 
 vias antiquas et videte quajnam sit via recta et vera et ambulate 
 in ea.' So as he doth not say, ' State super vias antiquas et am- 
 bulate in eis.' For it is true that with all wise and moderate 
 persons custom and usage obtaineth that reverence as is sufficient 
 matter to make a stand, and discover, and take a view ; but it is 
 no warrant to guide and conduct them : a just ground I say it is 
 of deliberation, but not of direction" (Bacon, Pacification of the 
 Church). This observation applies not only to the despatch of 
 business, but also to variations in the forms of the governing 
 
 * It appears to us to be an example of hasty speculation, that among the many 
 who have advocated the admission of the laity to Synods, no one, so far as we have 
 seen, has included in his speculations the admission of deacons. Surelj' de.icons 
 have a prior claim. Will no deacon stand up for his order? ^'"^^ 
 
 UIUC 
 
 A
 
 Introduction. 3 
 
 powers. " In Church matters the substance of doctrine is im- 
 mutable, and so are the general rules of government ; but for 
 rites and ceremonies, and for the particular hierarchies, policies, 
 and disciplines of Churches, they be left at large. In these things, 
 so as the general rules be observed, that Christ's flock be fed, 
 that there be a succession of bishops and ministers, which are 
 the prophets of the New Testament, that there be a due and 
 reverent use of the power of the keys, and the like, the rest is 
 left to the holy wisdom and spiritual discretion of the master- 
 builders and inferior builders of Christ's Church." 
 
 As an organ, therefore, of deliberation, founded on a know- 
 ledge of the old ways, our Journal is established; and we trust 
 that, if our design is favourably received by the Church, the 
 contributions and researches of our friends will render the know- 
 ledge of the old ways more accessible than it is at present, and 
 will also present such a record of the wants and claims of church- 
 men as may at least be a foundation on which to rear a design 
 for the future. 
 
 From books easily procured, a general knowledge of the 
 subject, sufficient for all ordinary purposes, is readily obtained. 
 Thus the law relating to English Convocations has been col- 
 lected and published by Mr. Pearce ; Dr. Cardwell's valuable 
 works give the Constitutions, Canons, and Acts ; our historians 
 Collier and Burnet, Tindal and Kennett, narrate proceedings. 
 
 But when we have to deal with the subject practically, when 
 we are about to set in motion the council of the Church, and 
 enter upon such questions as the reform of the Lower House, 
 and the position and rights of our colonial churches towards both 
 Houses, we find that we need other information than these writ- 
 ings supply ; more minute and accurate knowledge of a special 
 kind, and for a special purpose. At the outset we need to study 
 the " origin of English Synods, the relation they bore to the 
 State on the one hand and the Church on the other, and the dif- 
 ferent powers and duties attaching to them as Councils or Con- 
 vocations." These subjects were beyond the limits of Dr. Card- 
 well's plan, and could only be partially treated of by the general 
 historian. Further, we need to ascertain precisely the rights of 
 the archbishop in Convocation, the rights of the Upper and 
 Lower Houses, the forms of proceeding, the value and signifi- 
 cance of each form. 
 
 All such knowledge must be sought in the works of Wake, 
 Hody, Gibson, Potter, Kennett, whose statements must be com- 
 pared with the statements of Atterbury and Hooper. The par- 
 ticular information we are in search of must often be hunted out 
 m the pages of a voluminous and dreary controversy. Now, 
 the works of all these authors are scarce, the best of them hardly 
 to be procured; and if they were at hand, they are painfully dis- 
 figured by so much of a contentious spirit, that one knows not
 
 4 Tnlroduction. 
 
 how far to trust their facts, and is always on the look-out for dis- 
 ingenuousness in their re asonings. 
 
 We shall be doing gool service, then, we believe, if the esta- 
 blishment of our Journal shall lead to a series of articles detailing 
 historically the points which yet require elucidation. Neither 
 must it be forgotten that there is information yet to be collected, 
 of less importance indeed, but which must by no means be ne- 
 glected as a part of the data on which we are to proceed in the 
 revival of Convocation, such as the various customs of our dio- 
 ceses. Another subject of great interest is a comparison of the 
 forms of proceeding in the two provinces. In the one, the pres- 
 byters form a separate house ; in the other, they sit in the same 
 house with the bishops. How the original rights of the pres- 
 byters as such, and their due subordination to their bishops, are 
 worked out in the two cases, and how the pecviliar privileges of 
 English presbyters are maintained in York, is a matter requir- 
 ing carefid research ; and much light will be thrown upon the 
 subject in general by a comparison of the two. Those who are 
 familiar with the proceedings of Canterbury seldom know much 
 of the proceedings of York. 
 
 We apprehend also that the records of Irish Synods will 
 present matter peculiarly instructive. The older Synods are 
 referred to in the pages of our Convocation writers ; and for 
 modern proceedings, the notice in Palmer's Treatise on the 
 Church (vol. ii. p. 355*) is sufficient to make us wish that such 
 information should be made more easily accessible. The Sy- 
 nods of our brethren in Scotland have already attracted much 
 attention. 
 
 And as it is true generally that he that seekcth findeth, it 
 not the very thing he was in search of, yet something else it 
 may be of greater value, so is this true especially of historical 
 research. It may well be, that in prosecuting our inquiries, we 
 shall light upon historical information regarding kindred matters 
 well worthy to be brought prominently forward. Froude wrote, 
 " It is a remarkable fact, that from the restoration of Charles II. 
 to the present day Calvinism, Erastianism, and Arminianism have, 
 like Herod and Pontius Pilate, been made friends together to 
 carry on a joint war against apostolical Christianity. In this war 
 the last acts of Convocation are a very important stage, and at 
 
 * The paragrajjli is worth transcribing : " In Ireland the clergy made no such 
 submission, and provincial Synods have continued to be held by the metropolitans, 
 without the King's writ, even to the present day. I learned from the late eminent 
 metropolitan Archbishop Magee, that the provincial Synod of Dublin has usually 
 been assembled at intervals of thirty or forty years to exercise the right ; and that 
 he had himself held such a Synod, which in his opinion even possessed the power of 
 making canons. Bishop Bedel made canons in the Diocesan Synod of Kilmore, 
 A.D. 1638; for which see Wilkins, Conc.iv. 537. The Lord-deputy of Ireland, it 
 seems, was unable legally to 2)revent this or to trouble the bishop." — See Burnet's 
 Life of Bedel.
 
 Inirodtict'lon. 5 
 
 the present crisis deserve particular attention, especially consi- 
 dered in connexion with the previous history of the contending 
 parties." He would be a bad Convocation student who should 
 confine himself to the text of acts and proceedings, as he is a bad 
 lawyer who reads statutes but not history. 
 
 Again, with regard to Diocesan Synods. It is well known 
 that in Spelman, Wilkins, and Howell are the forms of holding 
 a Synod, and records of several Synods, and canons and consti- 
 tutions regarding them. From these sources, and from scat- 
 tered notices in historians and writers on Church antiquities, 
 those who had leisure might doubtless obtain a competent in- 
 sight into these Synods ; but such leisure and opportunity fall 
 to the lot of few in these days ; and the members of the Society 
 for the Revival of Synods have shewn what good service is done 
 by separate treatises on this and kindred subjects. While, how- 
 ever, we gladly refer to this interesting series of tracts, and shall 
 record with pleasure the proceedings of the society, we may 
 observe that a journal may do that which a series of tracts can 
 hardly do ; it may bring together, and print in their integrity, 
 documents which the writers of tracts can only refer to for their 
 own purposes. For example, every reader of Mr. Pound's tract, 
 The Ancient Practice and proposed Revival of Diocesan Synods 
 in England, regrets that his limits and plan did not permit 
 him to give the whole form tenendi Synodos, which he refers 
 to in page 30. The more we read, the more we vahie entire 
 documents. 
 
 We have read also that in our manuscript libraries exist 
 records, hitherto unpublished, of many Synods. Every student 
 of Church history will desire to be informed regarding these ; 
 and it will be no slight advantage that there should exist a 
 journal to which any notice may be sent of their contents. For 
 example, the catalogue of the Parker INISS., vol. lix. 10, has 
 the following entry, " De Synodis nonnullis." There may be 
 valuable information lurking here ; if not, it would at any 
 rate be satisfactory to know that these Synods are of such 
 and such a date, and the records are printed in such and such 
 books. 
 
 Of the importance of bringing together the accounts of 
 modern proceedings, which are in some cases, as in the diocese 
 of Sydney, assuming an extraordinary interest, it can hardly be 
 necessary ,to speak. We will only say that we trust to meet with 
 a correspondent in each diocese, to whom we may look for early 
 and faithful tidings of every movement. 
 
 Such is in general our plan and purpose. 
 
 We shall not think it necessary to spend much time and 
 space in arguing the necessity of synodical action in the Church. 
 Men will now be better employed in preparing for it. We look 
 upon the restoration of Synods as an event which must come in
 
 6 Introduction. 
 
 the course of the Church's progress, as surely as that a function 
 of life will be performed unless life be ebbing away. To effect 
 it wisely, temperately, this must be our care. 
 
 That a Church such as ours is, with such a theology, such a 
 liturgy, such a hold upon the affections of many of our country- 
 men, such dependencies, and above all with so great a work in 
 view, — that such a Church should stand still upon the dregs of 
 a hundred and fifty years, and remain passive under Erastian 
 attacks upon her faith, without a shew of discipline over her 
 proper members, and with a population around her of utter un- 
 godliness, — this is inconceivable, unless on the supposition that 
 she is sinking never to rise again, succumbing, and at her last 
 gasp. Let the reader turn his thoughts to the great features 
 which have characterised the last hundred and sixty-five years — 
 the weakening the Church by the loss of the nonjurors — the 
 sinking down of the Platonic school of divines into the latitudi- 
 narian — the injury done to our theology by the mode in which 
 the contest with infidelity was conducted — the growth of worldly- 
 mindedness, avarice, and selfishness — the schism of Wesley — the 
 development of the Evangelical school — and, lastly, the recur- 
 rence to the principles of Apostolical Christianity which has 
 marked our days, and let him ask himself whether it is possible 
 that when the inconveniences attending this revulsion shall have 
 worked off, churchmen should not meet in council for the great 
 work which lies before them. 
 
 For a while a Church which has a settled creed and liturgy 
 and discipline, which needs only the powers of the executive 
 and not of the legislative body, may go on well. Our liturgy, 
 we trust, is safe, and we thank God for it ; but a great article of 
 our creed has been tampered with ; and for discipline, the very 
 word is a reproach to us. There are deeper matters at stake 
 than can be settled by Acts of Parliament, even, were Parliament 
 what it ought to be, or by ecclesiastical commissions, or con- 
 sultations of' archbishops with prime ministers, or private assem- 
 blies of bishops at Lambeth. The Church must meet in council, 
 in faith in Him who manifests His presence where His members 
 convened in His Name in Him become one. 
 
 The great questions on which so momentous an issue is 
 hanging are these : first, whether churchmen will be prepared 
 by the discipline of godliness, by learning, ripeness of judgment, 
 and temper of mind, for acting synodically; and secondly, whether 
 statesmen will be in power who, knowing that all things must 
 and will accommodate themselves to the state of religion in a 
 country, and believing that the Church is of divine origin, shall 
 in i'aith throw themselves and the people on powers that are 
 divine, and set the Church at liberty to do her proper work ; 
 who shall exercise, too, in a fitting manner, their high trust of 
 the selection of bishops.
 
 Introduction. 7 
 
 But we believe that the time is passed for debating whether 
 there shall be Synods or not ; the time is come to prepare for 
 them. 
 
 And the first great matter that presents itself is the suffi- 
 ciency of the present Convocations, as Synods, for legislative 
 pui'poses. 
 
 It is possible that the Church may acquiesce in their suffi- 
 ciency; but judging from the usual organs of information, and 
 we may now add from the letters we have lately received, this 
 does not appear at all probable. 
 
 Next it may be that Convocation will declare its own incom- 
 petency as at present constituted, and that its first and only 
 step on its revival will be to prepare a plan of reform. This ap- 
 pears to us by no means improbable. Lastly, it may be that 
 Convocation will not take this view of its own unfitness, but will 
 insist on its rights, and set itself against the general voice of the 
 Church. This could not but induce a period of ecclesiastical 
 anarchy. 
 
 It appears to us, on considering these several alternatives, 
 that the only course open to the Church is to recognise the 
 claims of our Convocations, and work through them ; to meet 
 fairly and fully the question of the necessity of a reform ; and to 
 let the Synod be the reformed Convocation (if a reform be 
 desirable), and not an entirely new body called by the original 
 and inherent right of the archbishop. 
 
 For the case is this : 
 
 The different meetings of clergy which have been held or 
 might be held in England are of two kinds, — those of a purely 
 spiritual or ecclesiastical, and those of a political character. 
 Thus considering the archbishops and bishops simply as gover- 
 nors of Christ's Church, the former hold their archiepiscopal 
 Synods, consisting of their suffragan bishops, with certain pres- 
 byters, and it may be certain of the faithful laity ; the latter, 
 their diocesan Synods of their officials and clergy, with or with- 
 out certain of the laity. The king, considering the Church to 
 be a great estate of the realm, summons its prelates and certain 
 representatives of its inferior clergy to parliament, and that assem- 
 blage is the parliamentary convention of the clergy. The Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, as Primate of all England, might preside 
 at a deliberation of these parliamentary clergy meeting sepa- 
 rately, and constitute them an archiepiscopal convention of all 
 the clergy of the realm ; or the archbishop of each province 
 may summon his suffragans and clergy for state purposes, and 
 hold his provincial Convocation. It is evident that the pro- 
 vincial Synod and provincial Convocation may easily pass one 
 into the other; but the objects and functions of each were dis- 
 tinguished in old times. The separate meetings of the bishops 
 and clergy passed into a proper Church Synod by the arch-
 
 8 Introduction. 
 
 bishop authorising it to proceed to ecclesiastical business, and 
 considering the presbyters, who had been before summoned, to 
 be assessors in the council. '' Et ista congregatio fuit quasi 
 Synodus," is the expression of one of our old historians re- 
 garding such a transition. Now our present Convocations 
 take their form, indeed, from state conventions, but they have 
 been adopted and solemnised as Church Synods ; and their 
 function as Synods has been so unequivocally recognised by 
 the Church, that they are become our only legitimate and 
 proper Synods. This position we hope to trace and open out 
 historically. 
 
 Allowing, then, or rather insisting, on the claims of our Con- 
 vocations to be at present the true Synods of the Church, ac- 
 cording to the declaration of Canon lo9, we allow the question 
 of the reform of these Convocations to be an open one, a fair sub- 
 ject for discussion and inquiry. It divides itself into two heads : 
 what clergy shall be in the Lower House ? and shall the laity be 
 admitted, and with what privileges ? If on these difficult ques- 
 tions it be necessary to announce an opinion, we say that while 
 we throw open our pages to all fair and moderate discussion, we 
 believe ourselves, that the reform needed as regards the clergy 
 is very slight. We look forward to a restoration of the cathe- 
 dral bodies to their proper functions, and we consider that the 
 cathedral clergy and the parochial clergy should be balanced in 
 the Lower House — they are nearly balanced now — and that there 
 should be somebody to hold the scales or give the casting vote ; 
 and to what body of men could this be better assigned than to 
 the archdeacons, whose duties give them so large an insight into 
 the wants of the Church, and who are connected with both the 
 parochial and cathedral clergy ? jSTor is it to be hastily assumed 
 that their appointment by bishops who are appointed by the 
 Crown opens the door to Erastian influence. That the Church 
 has suffered grievously in the bishops that have at different 
 times been imposed upon her, is too true ; but whether the in- 
 fluence reaches to the next appointment must be judged by 
 history and experience. And will it not be found that our 
 truest and best Churchmen are among the archdeacons ? 
 
 The admission of the laity pre-supposes the admission of 
 deacons : a matter this is of great nicety. We will only remark, 
 that it becomes more necessary to entertain the question from 
 the tendency there is now to ordain deacons who shall not for 
 a long course of years, if at all, be advanced to the priest- 
 hood. 
 
 The admission of the laity we are disposed to advocate, under 
 restrictions similar to those which the Bishop of Sydney has pro- 
 posed. The difficulty of this matter is very obvious — namely, 
 that hitherto our parliament has had the voice and privilege of 
 the laity of the Church, and that the admission of representatives
 
 Introduction. 9 
 
 of the laity to Synod might tend, more than any thing else, to 
 complete the separation of Church and State. There are those 
 who advocate it on this very ground. We do not ourselves ; but 
 it appears to us that an arrangement might be effected, in virtue 
 of which parliament should recognise the existence of the lay 
 representatives, and reserving to itself the ultimate decision in 
 all cases where statutes are required which affect the people at 
 large, should allow them to have their voice in all matters that 
 are to rest on purely Synodical authority, or on Synodical autho- 
 rity backed by statutes affecting only the Church. 
 
 So much regarding the reform of Convocation. We will not 
 hesitate to say, that a great reason why we should cling to Con- 
 vocation, and not break off from it and form an entirely new 
 Synod, is, that in Convocation presbyters have the power of 
 giving a final negative. The connexion with the State, which 
 gave the appointment of bishops to the Crown, and has de- 
 prived the Church of a voice in the matter, has also given to the 
 presbyters this peculiar privilege ; and it is in some measure a 
 safeguard against an undue State influence. The Convocation 
 of 1689 is a memorable instance of this. Should we not lose 
 this privilege if the voice of the Church called upon our primate 
 to exercise his inherent right, and to call, irrespectively of old 
 forms, a pure archiepiscopal Synod ? 
 
 But to proceed in our chapter of hints and suggestions. 
 Things are commonly determined in practice rather by the offer- 
 ing of occasions and opportunities than by the measures of reason 
 and judgment ; but this is no good reason against considering 
 those measures. It is an important consideration, which should 
 precede in order of time, in the revival of Synods, the Provin- 
 cial or the Diocesan Synod ? 
 
 It is true that a great part of the office of the Diocesan Synod 
 is to execute the determination of the Provincial ; but it is by 
 no means limited to this. And if men ought to be trained to act 
 synodically, the best training surely for the Provincial Synod 
 would be the Diocesan. 
 
 And this observation will apply not only to the inferior 
 clergy, but to the bishops too — perhaps to them more particu- 
 larly. Can a bishop gain in any other way the knowledge of 
 the working of men in his diocese, which he should have before 
 sitting in the archbishop's Synod. 
 
 Such are in general the views we take, and which we shall 
 advocate in such articles as we make ourselves responsible for; 
 but, as is usually stated, for the opinion of correspondents we 
 do not make ourselves responsible : and correspondence will be 
 freely admitted, in the belief that the whole subject needs a 
 thorough discussion. 
 
 On one point we have thought long and anxiously, whether, 
 namely, it would be possible to ignore altogether the long Con-
 
 10 Introduction. 
 
 vocation controversy of the last century — to treat it as a thing 
 passed by ? and we have come to the conclusion that we cannot 
 do so, that the controverted points must be fairly stated, and, if 
 possible, set at rest before Convocation meets for serious business. 
 We are not influenced by the stale objection to Convocation, 
 that it would do nothing but quarrel. People are beginning to 
 doubt what has been so long believed, that clergymen are only 
 safe when kept in separate cages ; and we do not ask for refuta- 
 tions of this objection, or for proofs of the peaceableness of pres- 
 byters. But our Convocation literature is almost entirely of the 
 date of this controversy; and it may easily happen that those 
 who are beginning to study the subject may fall in first with 
 writers on one side, and learn of them exclusively : especially 
 when they find Wake insisting on so stringent an interpretation 
 of the Act of Submission, they may be led to choose Atterbury 
 for their guide, and follow him where his guidance is wrong. On 
 this point we do not speak entirely without experience. The 
 writer was a proctor in the year 1842, and then heard claims 
 advanced which he believes to be entirely unfounded and sub- 
 versive of the very notion of a Synod. 
 
 Nothing injures the cause which Churchmen have now at 
 heart so much as this. It appears, therefore, to be necessary to 
 put the controverted points forward, and set them in their true 
 light, that they may be finally adjusted before any opposition 
 can take place between the two Houses. 
 
 We believe that, as far as the arguments go, the case is 
 already decided. It needs only that the arguments be known. 
 
 One word more, and we have done. The great cause of the 
 necessity for Church councils is the want of discipline. It is a 
 most grave truth, and leads to many trains of thought, that the 
 increased earnestness and devotion of our clergy not only makes 
 the want of discipline more glaring, but absolutely increases the 
 necessity for it. 
 
 The more the holy Sacraments are valued, the more knowledge 
 is spread, the more the Bible is read, so much the more do we 
 need fences to guard those who are so trained, and correction 
 for them if they err. 
 
 Many more young people are now confirmed than in the last 
 generation, many more admitted to be communicants. If we 
 use more largely the means of grace and strength, and use the 
 keys for remission of sins, the more do we need to exercise the 
 power of correction, and use the keys of discipline and retaining 
 sin. The Church is unfaithful to her trust so long as she neglects 
 discipline. The promise, " Where two or three are gathered 
 together in My name, there am I in the midst of them," follows 
 upon " Tell it to the Church. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth 
 shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven."
 
 Forma sive Descriptio Convocationis Celehrandce. 
 
 11 
 
 So much it is right to say. If our thoughts be erroneous, our 
 attempts will speedily fail, and we shall be supplanted in the 
 office we have ventured to undertake by worthier agents. But 
 it seemed to us that there was room and need for such an organ 
 of information and deliberation as we have announced, and we 
 would fain do our best to supply it. 
 
 FORMAL SIVE DESCRIPTIO CONVOCATIONIS 
 CELEBRANDM, 
 
 Prout ah antiquo^^ ohservari consuevit. 
 
 Sciendum est quod omnes qui autoritate^ Reverendissimi Do- 
 mini Archiepiscopi Cantuar' citantur ad comparendum coram eo 
 in domo capitulari ecclesise cathedralis Divi Pauli London' duo- 
 
 1 This Formulary of holding a Convo- 
 cation, as by ancient custom it used to 
 be held, was drawn up by Archbishop 
 Parker from all the precedents before 
 and at the Reformation : for a rule to 
 himself in opening his first Convocation, 
 Jan. \'2, 156"2, and for a standing pattern 
 to his successors. — Kennett. 
 
 A considerable portion of it is em- 
 bodied in the Acts of that Convocation, 
 Sess. 2 & 3 ; but we are not aware that 
 the form itself has been lately reprinted. 
 Inasmuch as it is the rule to which 
 appeal is always made, and as the books 
 in which it is found are becoming scarce, 
 we think it right to jjrint it in our first 
 Number. 
 
 The notes are added to put the reader 
 in possession of the different views that 
 have been taken of its several directions, 
 and to indicate subjects for future and 
 fuller consideration. 
 
 The correct mode of viewing these 
 debated points, and concluding upon 
 them, appears to be to consider what 
 additional customs and practices must 
 be engrafted on the primitive type of a 
 Church Synod, in consequence of the 
 peculiar privileges of English presbyters, 
 as necessai'y for the due exercise of those 
 privileges. The debate cannot be settled 
 by reference to times and cases when 
 those privileges did not exist or were in 
 abeyance. 
 
 ^ Dr. Atterbury contended, " that 
 the Act of Submission entirely altered 
 the method and very nature of our Eng- 
 lish Convocations ; being before sum- 
 
 moned by the archbishop, governed, pro- 
 rogued, and dissolved by him, but since 
 entirely subject to the King ; and the 
 archbishop now made a ministerial officer 
 and a pure instrument of the Crown." If 
 our Reformation liad been built on this 
 fatal Erastian principle, the form of 
 holding Convocations must have needs 
 altered with the constitution of them. 
 
 But as really there was no other change 
 in the nature of our Synods, but only as 
 the archbishop was restrained from call- 
 ing them without the King's license and 
 letters, so this little change did not at 
 all affect the manner of their sitting and 
 acting under the government and presi- 
 dency of the metropolitan. And, there- 
 fore, this solemn form does nowhere drop 
 an old custom, or advance a new prac- 
 tice, or adapt any thing to the Act of 
 Submission, but refers all to antecedent 
 usage and long prescription. Prout ab 
 antiquo consuevit ... ex more ... ex lau- 
 dabili et antiqua ordinatione . . . solet oh- 
 servari, &c. — Kennett. 
 
 ^ The objection is now often made, 
 that Convocation is not a proper Synod, 
 inasmuch as it assembles by virtue of 
 writs from the Crown. The objection 
 would be fatal, if well founded. The 
 clergy are said by the form to be cited 
 by tire authority of the archbishop to 
 appear before him. 
 
 And the writ runs," We command you 
 ... to call together ... to appear before 
 you." 
 
 The regal supremacy calls into action 
 the archiepiscopal authority. — Editor.
 
 12 Forma sive Descriptio Convocationis Celehrandce. 
 
 decimo die Januar' prox' tenentur pra?fixo tempore intcresse, 
 atquc in cadera ccclesia cath' praestolari adventuni dicti revercn- 
 dissimi. Qui ex more paulo post octavam ante meridiem illius 
 diei solet cum celebri comitatu apud Portum Thamisis vocatum 
 Paul's Wharf, in terram descendere, atque exinde prseeuntibus 
 advocatis et procuratoribus curiae Cantuar' certisque reverendis- 
 simi generosis ac virgifero Convocationis, ad ecclesiam cath' 
 Divi Pauli London recta tendere, atque in choram ibidem in- 
 gredi. Ubi postquam in stallo decani collocatus I'uerit, ac preces 
 dixerit, tam ipse quam reliqui episcopi prsesentes habitu Convo- 
 cationis togati ex utroque chori latere in suis stallis sese consti- 
 tuant et mox incipiunt preces/ quibus Spiritus Sancti gratia 
 invocatur, ac communio subsequitur. Ac tempore oiFertorii tam 
 dictus reverendissimus quam cteteri sufFraganei episcopi rem 
 divinam celebranti ordine progredientes oblationem ofFerre ex 
 more debent, Peracta in hunc morem re divina, solet doctus 
 aliquis ex ccetu Convocationis sive Superioris sive Inferioris 
 Domus ad hoc selectus e suggestu in medio chori concionem^ 
 ad clerum ibidem congregatum Latine proferre : qua absoluta, 
 reverendissimus statim se confert in domum capitularem dictae 
 ecclesiffi ; sequentibus episcopis et toto clero. Quibus ingressis 
 ac seclusis extraneis, reverendissimo ac cseteris suis co-episcopis 
 in suis sedibus ordine considentibus, ac reliquo ciero ^ circum- 
 
 * The service and sacrifice of the mass 
 was reformed into purer Latin prayers 
 and a right communion of the Blessed 
 Sacrament. 
 
 For the use of the Synod there was 
 drawn up by the arclibishop only, and 
 by him alone prescribed, — " Forma pre- 
 cum in utraque domo," &c. 
 
 And according to this prerogative of 
 the archbishop at the head of his pro- 
 vince, this ancient form has received 
 some alterations and additions, with new 
 occasional hymns and collects, at the 
 discretion of our successive archbishops, 
 without any express consent or active 
 concern of the lower clergy, who herein 
 submitted to the judgment and authority 
 of the archbishop, who is presumed, 
 indeed, not to act in these matters with- 
 out counsel and consent of his suifragans. 
 — Kennett. 
 
 1700-1, Sess. 2, Feb. 21. The Upper 
 House ordered the Form of Prayer to be 
 used in Convocation, with some emen- 
 dations, to be published, 
 
 " Ac communio subsequitur." Will 
 the approaching Convocation obey the 
 formulary ? 
 
 ^ The choice of the preacher is with 
 the archbishop. It was commented upon 
 
 as an unusual thing, that in 1701 the 
 Lower House appointed one of their 
 members to preach before them on a 
 fast-day during Convocation. 
 
 ® It much explains the true nature of 
 our provincial Synods to observe that the 
 archbishop is always represented " pro 
 tribunali sedens,'' and sometimes " in 
 throno suo collocatus." 
 
 The bishops are described to be " or- 
 dine consedentes," and " secum (i.e. 
 cum archiepiscopo) assidentes." But 
 the prolocutor and lower clergy are ever- 
 more found in the L^pjier House, or 
 presence of the archbishop and bishops, 
 to be "stantes" and " circumstantes." 
 Dr. Atterbury, indeed, would make this 
 decency to be an innovation ; for he 
 describes the old provincial Synods to 
 have presbyters always sitting with the 
 bishops, and the deacons and the people 
 only standing. Yet as this was not the 
 figure of provincial but of diocesan Sy- 
 nods only, where the priests were, and 
 still are, co-assessors with their bishop, 
 so he does not in any part of his writings 
 offer one instance where the sitting of 
 presbyters in presence of the bishops was 
 ever allowed in any one English pro- 
 vincial Synod. — Kennett. 
 
 It aj)pears that it was an ancient privi-
 
 Forma sive Descriptio Convocaiionis Celebrandce. 13 
 
 stante, llcvercndus Domiiius EpiscopusLonclon mandatum" sibi 
 ii dicto rsverendissimo ad Convocationem hujusmodi subeuiidam 
 [submonendam] alias directum una cum debito certificatorio 
 super executione ejusdem introducere, ac debita cum reverentia 
 eideiii reverendissimo patri presentare et tradere tenetur. Quo 
 quidem certificatorio perlecto, statim porrigitur eidem reveren- 
 clissimo scbedula descripta, per quam pronuntiat omnes ad eosdcm 
 horam et locum non comparentes ^ contumaces, reservando pa?nam 
 eoruni contumacise in aliquem diem competentem pro beneplacito 
 ipsius reverendissimi. Prcemissis sic expeditis dictus reverendis- 
 simus ad episcopos et clerum tunc prcesentes Anglice sive Latine 
 
 lege of presbyters to sit and deliberate 
 with bishops both in their consistorial 
 and provincial councils. 
 
 We shall find matters always thus 
 transacted in the church a/i oriyine; as 
 appears from Ignatius. 
 
 There are undeniable evidences of 
 their enjoying tliis privilege within the 
 compass of the fourth century, and after- 
 ages also. In the Council of Eliberis, 
 which was held in the beginning of the 
 fourth age, there were no less than thirty- 
 six presbyters sitting with the bishops, as 
 is expressly said in the Acts of the 
 Council : " Cum consedissent sancti et 
 
 religiosi Episcopi in ecclesia Elib 
 
 item presljyteri ; residentibus 
 
 cunctis, adstantibus diaconibus et omni 
 plebe, Episcopi universi dixerunt." — 
 Bingham, b. 2, ch. xix. sect. 12 ; where 
 see other examples. 
 
 This disparity between the two houses 
 resulted naturally from the authority 
 possessed by the bisliops individually 
 over their respective presbyters ; from the 
 higher kind of sacredness attaching to 
 their order, which, though not openly 
 maintained till near the end of Eliza 
 beth's reign, was one of the constant 
 principles of her conduct; and from the 
 constitutions of early Synods, consisting 
 as they did of bishops and prelates only, 
 the lower clergy having been called to- 
 gether originally for advice iind counsel, 
 and not acquiring a distinct and per- 
 manent interest till they were found 
 useful for the purpose of granting subsi- 
 dies. It was observed, accordingly, in 
 Queen Mary's reign, " with what lofti- 
 ness the bishops, few as they were in 
 number, carried it towards the Lower 
 House" (Strype); and the canons of 1571, 
 " upon which it was fully agreed in the 
 Synod by the Lord Matthew, Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, and all the rest of the 
 bishops of his province," speak expressly 
 of constitutions as made by the sole au- 
 thority of the archbishop and his suffra- 
 gans. — Cardwell, Synod, pref. xix. 
 
 ^ It will be observed that Archbishop 
 Parker does not direct the King's writ 
 to be read. This is now done " to justify 
 the calling and holding of the Convo- 
 cation." 
 
 The returns made from the dean of 
 the province, and from the other suffra- 
 gans, either do not recite the King's 
 writ, because they execute only the arch- 
 bishop's mandate ; or when they do 
 recite the King's writ, it is only as they 
 find it included in the mandate, and so 
 recite it as part of that mandate. 
 
 The Bishop of London does not at all 
 refer himself to the Royal writ, but 
 purely to the archiepiscopal mandate, 
 which alone he here introduces, and of 
 which alone he certifies the execution, 
 with no manner of return to the King, 
 nor of immediate respect to any Royal 
 writ. — Kennett 
 
 The several forms referred to are given 
 in Pearce's Law relating to Convocations 
 of the Clergy, a book of which a notice 
 will be given f>resently. 
 
 ^ It was asserted in the last century, 
 that the members of the Lower House 
 are accountable for their absence to the 
 House, and not to the jiresident. 
 
 But non-aopearance at first, or after- 
 wards withdrawing without his grace's 
 leave, is reputed a contumacy, the ca- 
 nonical punisliment or censure of which 
 the archbishop reserves to himself. 
 
 Accordingly, Dr. Cardwell states, that 
 the archbishop has the right of giving 
 leave of absence to the members of the 
 Lower House, and of absolving or pu- 
 nishing them for their absence in other 
 cases. — Pref. xix 
 
 But if the Lower House has business 
 peculiar to itself (see next article), it 
 must surely follow that it has the right 
 of requiring the attendance of its mem- 
 bers to do that business, and that so far 
 it must have a concurrent right with the 
 ]iresident of giving or refusing leave of 
 absence. — Ed.
 
 14 
 
 Forma sive Descriptio Convocationis Celebraiida;. 
 
 causam sui adventus ac dictce Convocationis inchoatse^ exponit : 
 quodque ex laudabili et antiqua ordinatione eadem Convocatio 
 in duo^*^ membra dividitur, nempe in Superiorem atque Inferi- 
 
 * It is clear that the archbishop has 
 the right of directing the course of busi- 
 ness. 
 
 His scheme of business must, however, 
 include that which the Lower House has 
 the privilege of entering upon ; which is 
 {Synod. Angl.) — 
 
 I. To prepare and present the Gra- 
 vamina and Reformanda. 
 
 II. To offer petitions of other kinds. 
 The several sorts of petitions particularly 
 occurring in the Acts of Convocation 
 (not specified to restrain the clergy from 
 petitions of other kinds) are, — 
 
 1. For making new canons. 
 
 2. For the revival of old ones. 
 
 3. For the abolition or suspension 
 
 of laws. 
 
 4. About festivals, 
 
 5. For the archbishoji's intercession 
 
 with the King. 
 G. For the more strict execution of 
 discipline. 
 
 I find in the year 1555, at the end of 
 the Journal, an abstract of the petitions 
 offered by the inferior clergy to the 
 Upper House 
 
 Item concerning spiritual lands in tem- 
 poral men's hands. 
 
 Item for schools and hospitals pro- 
 mised in the statute of suppression of 
 colleges. 
 
 Item of preachers, of books, of plu- 
 ralities, &c. ; of liberties of the Church 
 in Magna Charta, of praemunire, of the 
 statute of submission of the clergy, &c. 
 
 Item of schoolmasters, of exempt ju- 
 risdiction and peculiar places in laymen's 
 hands, of chancels decayed. 
 
 Item, that ecclesiastical persons which 
 spoiled churches and plucked down cer- 
 tain edifices, may be compelled to resti- 
 tution.— P. 168. 
 
 We have lately seen a proposal for 
 another petition, namely, that candidates 
 for holy orders may not be driven to 
 put up at common inns, in the very 
 vicinity of a noble palace. 
 
 "Anglice sive Latine." The present- 
 ment and confirmation of the prolocutor 
 are to be made with Latin speeches. 
 The communications between the two 
 Houses are carried on in English ; nor is 
 it customary for the deliberations to be 
 in Latin, as I heard it suggested in 1841 
 they ought to be. — Ed. 
 
 '" The division of Convocation into 
 two houses is at the verv root of the 
 
 controversies of the last century. The 
 account of it given by the majority of 
 the Lower House, 1701, is as follows : 
 
 Here the reader will be pleased to 
 take notice that in elder times the whole 
 body of Convocation used to sit together 
 in the same room ; and the lower clergy 
 having, besides the common business, 
 distinct rights and interests of their own, 
 were wont to separate from the bishops 
 (as their lordships for the same reason 
 used upon the like occasions to separate 
 from them) to debate and conclude their 
 own business among themselves. And 
 they brought back their conclusions to 
 the bishops by an Organum Vocis, as 
 he was called, occasionally chosen by 
 themselves for that present purpose. At 
 the same time the practice was much the 
 same in the state assemblies, to which 
 we find the clergy meetings endeavoured 
 to conform ; and to which conformity we 
 suppose we owe those Synodical rights 
 which are peculiar to the lower clergy of 
 the Church of England. But in after- 
 times the Convocation was in like con- 
 formity divided into two distinct houses; 
 and the prolocutorship became a settled 
 office, with a power of presiding in the 
 Lower House to manage their debates, 
 and report their resolutions to his grace, 
 who till then was supposed to have no 
 notice of them. And such has been the 
 usage for now nearly 300 years. And the 
 right of the inferior clergy thus to sit 
 and act in a distinct room of their own, 
 apart from the bishops, and as a distinct 
 house from them, has never been so much 
 as questioned, that we know of, since 
 they first did so to this day. — Narrative 
 of proceedings of Lower House, 1701. 
 
 Gibson remarks, that this account 
 is agreeable to no usage but that of 
 the last Convocation. He denies that 
 the division into two houses, or the 
 settlement of a prolocutor, arose from an 
 imitation of Parliament, asserting that 
 these practices " came in gradually; and 
 as the occasion of them increased, and 
 the convenience appeared, improved by 
 little and little into an establishment." 
 
 He finds two reasons for the retire- 
 ment of the clergy : 
 
 1. When the bishops found it neces- 
 sary to debate any matter in secret, e.g. 
 1428 : " Aliis preelatis . . . . de mandato 
 prsesidentium se interim retrahentibus," 
 &c. 
 
 But (2) the ordinary occasion of their
 
 Forma sive Descriptio Convocationis Celebraiidie. 
 
 15 
 
 orem Domum. Uncle reverendissimus et cseteri co-episcopi Su- 
 periorem Domum efficiunt ; Inferior vero Domus ex decanis 
 ecclesiarum catli' archidiaconis collegiorum magistris et capitu- 
 lorum oath.' ecclesiarum necnon cleri cujuscunque dioceseos pro- 
 curatoribus constat. 
 
 Et quoniam si in rerum tractandarum serie unusquisque ex 
 Inferiore Domo suam ipse sententiam quoties visum esset diceret, 
 aut si omnes aut plures simul loquerentur, pareret confusionem. 
 Igitur semper hactenus observatum fuit, ut unus aliquis doctus 
 et disertus ex srremio dictse Inferioris Domus in eorum omnium 
 locum ad hoc munus assumatur;^^ ut is intellectis et scrutatis 
 CEEterorum omnium votis, tanquam unum eorum omnium os et 
 organum loquatur, et consonam eorum sententiam eidem rever- 
 endissimo, cum ad hoc rogatus seu missus fucrit, cseteris silenti- 
 bus fideliter^- referat : qui ex hoc munere Referendarius sive 
 Prolocutor communiter denominatur. Cujus eligendi libera fa- 
 cultas semper penes dictam Inferiorem Domum remanet. 
 
 retirement was, the business from time to 
 time referred to their consideration by 
 the president and bishops. 
 
 I cannot remember any instance of 
 their retiring in which the circumstances 
 thereof leave room for a supposition, 
 that it was at their own motion, or upon 
 distinct business of their owii : so far was 
 any such thing from being (according to 
 that account in the Narrative) the usage 
 of Convocation in those days. — Sy- 
 nod. 79- 
 
 Gibson gives examj^les of the inferior 
 clergy retiring, which range from J3()9 
 to 1452, and concludes, " there arises 
 this natural account of the separation of 
 the two houses. 
 
 While they met, abode, and debated 
 together in the chapter-house, their sepa- 
 rations were rare, because the occasions 
 requiring the retirement of the clergy 
 were so too. As the business of Convo- 
 cation increased, these retirements, and 
 by consequence the sej^arations, became 
 more ordinary and frequent, till by de- 
 grees, upon the evident inconvenience of 
 the clergy's going up in a body with all 
 their answers and petitions (for so they 
 did at the first, notwithstanding their 
 choice of a prolocutor), the archbishop 
 and bishops on ordinary occasions ac- 
 cepted the attendance of a prolocutor 
 regularly chosen and confirmed, instead 
 of all the rest ; returning their pleasure 
 and instructions by the same hand. 
 
 From hence there ensued a gradual 
 separation as to the place of debate; the 
 union and communication in other re- 
 spects remaining entire, and the corre- 
 spondence about the business of the 
 
 Synod continuing such as is suitable to 
 the known subordination of presbyters 
 to their metropolitan and bishoj)s. 
 
 '' It has been suggested that the lower 
 clergy have, by inherent right, always 
 had a prolocutor as an original president 
 over them. But certainly there was a time 
 when archbishops, bishops, and clergy 
 made but one house. When the lower 
 clergy were by degrees formed into a 
 more settled state of separation from 
 their lordships, the archbishop allowed 
 them a distinct a2:)artment, which soon 
 came to be their locus solitus, and a fixed 
 prolocutor to be chosen at the beginning, 
 and continue to the end of every Convo- 
 cation or Synod. But this ministerial 
 officer in the Lower House did by no 
 means exempt the clergy from their 
 canonical subjection to the archbishop. 
 He asserted his own authority, by not 
 suffering them to choose without his 
 leave and admonition ; he took care 
 that the elect should be presented to 
 him for his consent and approbation ; 
 and when actually in the ofhce he must 
 be subservient to the archbishop and the 
 whole Synod. — Kennett. 
 
 ^- In 1689, Sess. ix„ the Upper House 
 entered upon their acts, that they found 
 upon their books that heretofore all 
 messages from the Lower House had 
 been brought up by the prolocutor. 
 
 In 1701 the Upper House refused to 
 receive a message brought by an ordi- 
 nary member. 
 
 The Lower House agreed that the 
 prolocutor, with a salvo jure.) should 
 carry up the message.
 
 16 
 
 Forma Eligendi et Prcssenlatidi Prolocutor em. 
 
 Uncle ipse revcrendissimus solct eosdem ex Inferiori Domo 
 monere et hortari, ut statim se conferant in dictam Inferiorein 
 Donium,'-^ ibique de viro docto pio etfideli in Prolocutorcm suum 
 assunicndo consultantes, unanimitcr consentiant et eligant, sicque 
 electum ipsi rcverendissimo in eadem domo capitulari prox' in- 
 sequente sessioue debita solemnitate prsesentent. His dictis de- 
 scendant omncs in Inferiorem Domum ad effectura praedictum. 
 
 FORMA ELIGENBI ET PR.ESENTANDI PROLO- 
 CUTOREM. 
 
 SoLET observari, ut postquam ingressi fuerint Inferiorem Do- 
 mum in sedibus se decenter collocent,** et si aliqui ex iis sint 
 consiliarii sive sacellani Regias majestatis, ut hi superiores sedes 
 
 '3 'Tis observable that, though the 
 body of the Synod soon divides into 
 two members, an Upper and a Lower 
 House, yet the place where the arch- 
 bishop and bishops assemble is always 
 the place of the Synod ; which whole 
 Synod of the prelates and clergy of the 
 2irovince is prorogued "in hunc locum," 
 i.e. to the room where the archbishop is 
 then sitting " pro tribunal!, " and his suf- 
 fragans as co-assessors with him. And as 
 at the opening of the Synod, the lower 
 clergy attended the president in the very 
 same place with the bishops, so at the 
 beginning of every session they are pre- 
 sumed to pay the same attendance coram 
 archiepiscopo ; though to save unneces- 
 sary trouble, the president does com- 
 monly accept the attendance of the 
 prolocutor and two or three principal 
 members as equivalent to the whole 
 house, and may often excuse even their 
 absence, if it be not in contempt or 
 affected separation. 'Tis further ob- 
 servable, that while the lower clergy are 
 so attending the archbishop and bishops, 
 they are never found to be at their own 
 will, but at the president's monition. — 
 Kennett. 
 
 In 1701 the Lower House interpreted 
 the words "in hunc locum" of the 
 schedule of prorogation to mean West- 
 minster Abbey generally; and the Up- 
 per House, consequently, several times 
 worded the schedule, "in hunc locum, 
 vulgo vocatum Jerusalem Chamber." 
 
 When these latter words did not ap- 
 pear, the Lower House agreed to meet 
 in their own house without first going to 
 Jerusalem Chamber. When the words 
 were added, they obeyed with a salvo 
 jure. 
 
 The Lower House also continued to 
 sit after the arrival of the schedule. 
 This the bishops condemned ; but some 
 at least of their usual supporters de- 
 serted them. 
 
 Feb. 9, 1701-2. Beveridge, then arch- 
 deacon of Colchester, proposed the ques- 
 tion, Whether, upon the supposition 
 that the House may sit upon Sy nodical 
 business after the coming down of the 
 schedule, the schedule shall then be 
 executed, and the House prorogue in 
 obedience to it. 
 
 He shewed that the transmission of 
 the schedule of prorogation does not 
 interrupt the debates of the clergy, but 
 leaves them at liberty to proceed with 
 business during the synodical day, and 
 adjourn when they think fit. He owned 
 that the right of meeting concurrently 
 with every parliament, and of treating 
 on some points of great importance 
 without license, is demonstrated. — Faith- 
 ful Account, 1701-2. 
 
 This schedule is as follows : 
 
 " In nomine Dei. Amen. Nos J. pro- 
 
 videntia Divina rite procedentes, 
 
 praesentem sacram Synodum sive Con- 
 vocationem prselatorum et cleri Cantu- 
 ariensis provincise alias usque ad et in 
 ios diem horam et locum continuatam 
 et prorogatam ; nee non omnia et singula 
 certificatoria hactenus introducta et in- 
 troducenda et non introducta, in eodem 
 statu quo nunc sunt usque ad et in diem 
 .... inter boras .... ad hunc locum, 
 una cum ulteriori continuatione dierum 
 et locorum, si oporteat, in ea parte 
 ficndis, continuamus et prorogamus in 
 his scriptis. — From Sitmmury of the Ar- 
 (jianents, i^c. A. D. 1670. 
 
 ^* See note 6. last form.
 
 Forma Eligendi et Prasentandi Prolociitorem. 
 
 17 
 
 occnpent ; atque ut imus ex iis propter dignitatem et reveren- 
 tiam, sen in eorum absentia, decanns^^ ecclcsiae oath' D. Pauli 
 London' sive archidiaconus London' pra^sidentis officio in hujus- 
 modi electione fungatur. Atque ut ad hoc rite procedatur, pri- 
 mum jubebit nomina omnium citatorum et qui tunc interesse 
 tenentur a clerico dicta; Inferioris Domus recitari etpra^conizari.'^ 
 Notatisq. absentibus, alloquatur prajsentes atque eorum senten- 
 tiam de idoneo procuratorc eligendo sciscitctur. Et postquam 
 de eo convenerint (quod semper quasi statim et absque tdlo 
 negotio perfici solebat) mox conveniunt inter se de duobus emi- 
 nentioris ordinis, qui dictum electum reverendissimo Domino 
 Cantuar' in die statuto debita cum reverentia et solennitate pra^- 
 sentent. 
 
 Quorum alter sicut, cum dies advcnerit, ipsum prolocutoreni 
 cum Latina et docta oratione prasscntare tenetur, sic etiam idem 
 prajsentatus liabitu cloctoratus indutus consimilem orationem ad 
 dictum reverendissimum patrem ac praelatos et ca?teros prsesentes 
 habere debet. Quibus finitis praefatus reverendissimus oratione 
 Latina tarn ekctores quam pra^sentatorem et presentatum pro 
 sua gratia collaudare, ac demum ipsam electionem sua archie- 
 piscopali authoritate expresse confirmare et approbare non de- 
 dignabitur. Et statim idem reverendissimus AngHce (si placeat) 
 exjDonere solet ulterius bene placitum suum ; hortando clcrum, 
 ut de rebus communibus qure reformatione indigent, consultent 
 et referant die^~ statuto. Ac ad hunc modum de sessione in ses- 
 
 15 The Dean of St. Paul's, if a king's 
 chaplain, has a right to preside within 
 his own church over his brethren the 
 clergy assembled by the archbishop's 
 leave, in order to choose a jirolocutor. — 
 Kennett. 
 
 And when they meet elsewhere. In 
 107.9, when the election was at West- 
 minster, Archbishop Sancroft directed 
 the Dean of St. Paul's to preside " ex 
 veteri more et consuetudine ecclesiee 
 Paulinas" There is no authority, it is 
 said (^Pretended Independence, 'p- 98), 
 except this direction of Archbishop Par- 
 ker, for giving any other person a pre- 
 tence to the right of presiding. 
 
 The members who are to present the 
 prolocutor elect are also to be chosen 
 under the same presidency. 
 
 1® The ancient way of preconising was 
 thus : The dean of the province having 
 exhibited his return, the archbishop 
 deputed one or more commissaries to 
 receive the certificates of the other 
 bishops, at a certain place and time 
 appointed, and from the names annexed 
 to each certificate to preconise the clergy 
 and make their reports. How long this 
 custom lasted I know not; but do sup- 
 NO. I. 
 
 pose that the disuse of it brought on 
 those preconisations in the Lower House, 
 which cannot possibly be done till the 
 archbishop has given them a list of the 
 members, from the several returns of the 
 bishops, nor can have any eft'ect but as 
 reported to his grace, in whom the power 
 of pronouncing contumacy for aljsence is 
 known to rest. — Pretend. Indepen. p. 41. 
 
 '^ The Gravamina et Reformanda are 
 the chief subject of a separate paper. 
 
 The Lower House (1701) read these 
 words: "Consultent — et referant die sta- 
 tuto." Their opponents: ''Consultent et 
 referant — die statuto." 
 
 Whereupon Kennett writes: "And 
 yet after all, granting the consultation 
 must have intervening days before the 
 final day of report, might not the arch- 
 bishop direct them, or allow them, to let 
 c'l part or committee of them meet and 
 advise in the meanwhile, that they may 
 be ready for a report against the regular 
 day of session. This is a method frequent 
 in the registers, where the archbishop 
 commits business to a select company, 
 in order to adjust and oflTer it in some 
 appointed session. 
 
 But in all our records we meet not
 
 18 
 
 What may he done this Convocation ? 
 
 sionem continuabitur Convocatio quamdiu expedire videbitur, 
 ac donee de eadem dissolvenda breve regium eidem reverendis- 
 sirao prseseutetur. 
 
 Et sciendum est qnod quotiescunq. prolocutor ad prsesentiam 
 reverendissimi causa Convocationis ac tempore sessionis acces- 
 serit, utatur habitu pnedicto, ac janitor sive vii-gifer dictae In- 
 ferioris Domus ipsum reverenter antecedat. 
 
 Ejusdem prolocutoris est etiam monere omnes ne discedant 
 a civitate London' absq. licentia reverendissimi, Quodque 
 statutis diebus tempestive veniant ad Convocationem. Quodque 
 salaria clericorum tam Superioris quam Inferioris Domus, et 
 janitoris Inferioris Domus juxta antiquam taxationem, quatenus 
 eorum quemlibet concernit, fideliter persolvant. 
 
 WHAT MAY BE DONE THIS CONVOCATION? 
 
 The concluding note of the last paper introduces the only answer 
 which we can give to the question, " What may be done this 
 Convocation?" It is at this juncture a question of paramount 
 interest, and we shall therefore examine it in detail. 
 
 We ventui'e to suggest to the members of the Lower House 
 the adoption of a measure, which in words may appear small, 
 but which will be found, we believe, to be a real step in advance, 
 and of considerable importance in the revival of Convocation. 
 The measure is this, that the Lower House, immediately upon 
 the confirmation of the prolocutor, appoint two standing commit- 
 tees, of grievances and of rights and privileges, with directions 
 to prepare schedules or reports, and present them for the adop- 
 tion of the House. Then, that a petition be presented to the 
 archbishop, asking that his grace would determine, or give the 
 Lower House instructions to determine, the controverted elec- 
 tions. 
 
 Committees, from their very nature, of course meet and do 
 their work between sessions. However few these sessions be, 
 therefore, the appointment of committees provides for a certain 
 amount of work, and that in the best manner, by engaging in it 
 the fittest men that the House afibrds. 
 
 We greatly fear that the Lower House will be obliged to 
 
 with one single instance before 1701, 
 where the Lower House, after the pro- 
 rogation by the archbishop, formally ad- 
 journ themselves to an intermediate day, 
 and call that meeting a session, and there 
 consult business of their own choosing, 
 independently from the bishops." 
 
 We are glad to meet with this further 
 authority for a measure which we shall 
 suggest, and to find that Kennett speaks 
 of the appointment of such committees 
 as a thing which no archbishop would 
 object to.
 
 What may he done this Convocation ? 19 
 
 confine itself within these scanty limits. It seems to us needless 
 to attempt an answer at the pi'esent moment to the general ques- 
 tion, What could Convocation do if a royal license were granted ? 
 or to the narrower question, What could Convocation do without 
 a license ? These questions are better reserved for times of 
 more leisure than the present, which allow only such thoughts 
 as may at once be put in practice ,- and there is little hope that 
 the ministry which rejected Mr. Gladstone's bill for the colonial 
 churches will advise Her Majesty to issue her license, or that 
 the president of this Convocation will take any other than the 
 strictest interpretation of the terms of the Act of Submission. 
 Doubtless the president will act, as nearly as he can, upon the 
 principle that consultation is business, and that business is for- 
 bidden. Still things are much better and forwarder than they 
 were. It is only eleven years ago, even under the presidency 
 of the lamented Howley, that there was no Upper House at all 
 on the first day of meeting at Westminster. The prolocutor 
 could not then be confirmed ; the Lower House, therefore, was 
 not regularly constituted, and even the limited step we are now 
 advocating could not be taken. There is no danger now of such 
 an entire strangling of all proceedings, and we may be sure that 
 all just con vocational privileges will be accorded to the Lower 
 House. What the Upper House may do, in the case we are 
 supposing, of the president refusing, as far as his power goes, 
 all business whatever, it is not for us to conjecture. We will 
 limit our view to the rights of the Lower House. And we are 
 anxious to state explicitly, before entering on the consideration 
 of the measure we have proposed, that in this matter we are not 
 following the guidance of Atterbury and his colleagues. We 
 shall use Atterbury's writings freely, glad to obtain information 
 and to have trains of thought suggested by one of so much power 
 and so wide reading ; but our authorities will be his opponents, 
 Gibson and Kennett and Wake. 
 
 Nothing would injure the cause which churchmen have at 
 heart so much as the assertion of claims inconsistent with the 
 duties of presbyters to their bishops. And there is still a good 
 deal of misgiving in men's minds on this point. They have heard 
 of the controversy of the beginning of the last century, and fancy 
 that they who advocate the revival of Convocation are about to 
 assert the claims then advanced by the majority of the Lower 
 House. There is a notion abroad that Convocation was silenced 
 simply on account of its quarrels, that from 1710 to 1717 it did 
 nothing but quarrel, as it had quarrelled from 1701 to 1705. 
 
 It is true that the animosity did not altogether subside : such 
 a feud could not be stopped all at once and entirely. But if any 
 one thinks that the last days of Convocation were useless, a 
 glance at Cardwell's later pages will convince him of his error ; 
 and God forbid we should not honour the men who, at such a
 
 20 What may he done this Convocation ? 
 
 period, and with so many temptations to silence, did not flinch 
 from the duty of denouncing Hoadly, 
 
 But there are jealous eyes vipon us now, and too great care 
 cannot be taken to keep well within the limits of established 
 rights and due subordination. On this head, however, we be- 
 lieve that there is no real danger. 
 
 The members of the present House are not men to advance 
 undue claims, any more than they are men to flinch from their 
 duty or to be cajoled out of their rights ; neither are they men 
 to yield to the unworthy infirmity of refusing to do the little 
 they may do, because the more which they would do is denied 
 them. 
 
 We hope that we shall be acquitted of presumption in pro- 
 posing a measure for the adoption of the Lower House. So far 
 as we know, this particular step was not proposed in the late 
 Convocations, although there was every desire to do all that the 
 rules of the House would allow. The measure was suggested 
 by the following paragraph in the history of the Convocation, 
 1710-11: 
 
 " The Convocation being met again on the last day of Janu- 
 ary, after the Lower House had appointed the three standing 
 committees of grievances, rights and privileges, and elections, 
 they were sent for up to the Jerusalem Chamber, when the 
 Queen's second letter to the president was read over." — His- 
 tory of present Parliament and Convocation, 1711, p. 124. 
 
 [We do not propose the appointment of a committee of elec- 
 tions without leave of the president, and we will presently give 
 our reasons.] 
 
 The appointment of these committees is named as an ordi- 
 nary occurrence, entirely within the power of the Lower House. 
 It is true that it occurs after the general license to proceed to 
 business had been received. The second letter from the Queen 
 gave the heads of matters proper for the consideration of Convo- 
 cation. The first was the license " empowering them to proceed 
 in their consultations about affiiirs of the Church." These letters 
 may be seen in Cardwell, who does not give the appointment of 
 the standing committees ; and it appears to us to be an example 
 of the minute knowledge we require of Convocation proceedings 
 to guide us right at the present time. 
 
 So far, then, we grant the precedent is against the proposed 
 step ; and we must meet the question whether the royal license 
 is necessary for the appointment of such committees. 
 
 Now in 1661, under the presidency of Juxon, "the prolo- 
 cutor being confirmed, committees of both Houses were ordered 
 in the Upper House to compose services for the 29th May and 
 30th January. And when afterwards , by the coming of the 
 royal license, they thought themselves at liberty to enter upon 
 the business which was the chief cause of their meeting, the
 
 What may be done this Convocation ? %\ 
 
 archbishop directed the Lower House to proceed in it." — Gibson 
 Sf/n. Ang, 93. 
 
 The register of that Convocation, printed by Gibson, shews 
 that in the first session the prolocutor was appointed; in the 
 second (May 16), confirmed, and the committees appointed; in 
 the third (May 18), the bishops brought up the proposed forms 
 of prayer, Avhich were then delivered to the prolocutor for the 
 consideration of the Lower House. A committee was then ap- 
 pointed to draw up the form for the baptism of adults. In the 
 seventh session (May 31) this form was presented; and in the 
 eighth session (June 7) the royal license was delivered. 
 
 Here is a very satisfactory specimen of business transacted 
 without royal license, an invaluable precedent for an archbishop 
 in these days. 
 
 In the last paper we gave Beveridge's authority — and surely 
 Beveridge was a moderate man, no asserter of extravagant claims 
 — for saying that the right of treating on some points of great 
 importance without license is demonstrated. (See Atterbury's 
 chapter on this head.) At present we argue from the precedent 
 of 1661, that if the Lower House has in any case the right of 
 appointing committees, without orders from the president, to 
 do its own peculiar business, it is warranted in appointing them 
 without license. The committees of 1661 were not meetings 
 extraneous to Convocation — they were not commissions to pre- 
 pare business for Convocation — they were committees of the 
 two Houses, formally ordered and chosen, and formally present- 
 ing their reports. 
 
 And if the Lower House was right in appointing them at 
 the archbishop's command for such a work as compiling new 
 services for the Church, much more are they warranted in ap- 
 pointing them for work which it is their inalienable privilege to 
 undertake, for preparing the Gravamina et Refor?nanda Ecclesice. 
 
 It follows, then, that the example of 1711 does not prove the 
 royal license necessary for the appointment of committees. 
 
 Let us examine, then, more particularly the part of the case 
 just now put conditionally. Has the Lower House the right of 
 appointing its own committees for its own business ? That the 
 general direction of business is with the president, and that he 
 has a right of ordering committees, there can be no doubt ; and 
 it is equally certain that the Lower House has business of its own, 
 which it is at liberty to despatch after its own manner. Gibson, 
 in the chapter on the right of the archbishop and bishops to 
 order committees of the clergy, writes, *' When they appoint 
 committees of their own, and upon business depending in their 
 own house, they are then at liberty to give what instructions 
 they think fit, because as the matters to be debated, so also the 
 methods and ends of debating them are all within their own 
 power. . . . Indeed, if matters were to be finally determined in
 
 22 What may he done this Convocation ? 
 
 committees, then it would be necessary for the clergy (who 
 would in that case be concluded by their act) to put their mem- 
 bers under restraints agreeable to the sense and intention of the 
 house. And this they might do in virtue of their final nega- 
 tive upon the archbishop and bishops. But committees are well 
 known to be only for debate and preparation ; and if the Lower 
 House think themselves concerned in the matter or tendency 
 of their lordships' inquiries, they are wholly free (after the 
 discharge of their duty there) to make what further searches 
 or resolutions they please ; and that, also, in the manner they 
 think most proper, i. e. either in the whole hoiise or by a com- 
 mittee of their own voluntary choice." — Synod. Any. 128. 
 
 It was, indeed, customary for the president at an early stage 
 of the Convocation to direct the clergy to proceed with the pre- 
 paration of the Gravamina et Reformanda, — so customary, indeed, 
 that we may safely assert it to be a neglect of duty in the presi- 
 dent to omit this direction ; and it would be very satisfactory if 
 his Grace should shew his sense of the rights of the Lower House, 
 or rather his sense of the importance of their duty, by enjoining 
 them to its due discharge ; still more satisfactory if their lord- 
 ships should require a joint committee, that bishops and presby- 
 ters in common might consult on matters of common interest ; 
 but if neither of these be done, the duty and right of the pres- 
 byters is not vacated, and Ave trust that it is in the hands of men 
 who will perform it faithfully. It this matter, duty seems to 
 us a more correct word than right. To propose the things 
 which, according to their experience, need reform, is not a privi- 
 lege to be claimed or laid aside at pleasure ; a right it is as 
 regards their relations to the Upper House, and a duty — a most 
 solemn one — to God and His Church. And we very much 
 mistake the temper of the present race of clergy, ay and of 
 laity too, if the proctors of the clergy, the diocesan proctors 
 more especially, will not be expected to give an account of the 
 mode in which they shall have discharged this duty, or of the 
 causes which prevented the discharge. It may be that the 
 diocesan proctors are not delegates* sent to Westminster with 
 
 • Among the many letters and pamphlets which the late elections occasioned, 
 we do not remember one touching the very important point of the relation in which 
 the proctors stand to their constituents. 
 
 We said above, that it may be the proctors are not delegates sent with particular 
 instructions We believe, however, that in the seventeenth century there were 
 examples of proctors receiving instructions. It is a point which requires careful con- 
 sideration. In the late elections there were instances of proctors denying they 
 were delegates, much in the same tone, if we may judge from the reports, which a 
 member of the House of Commons would use who refused to give pledges to his 
 constituents. If the words were used fully in that sense, we hesitate before we can 
 accept them. 
 
 We must not be misled by parliamentary thoughts and usages. In Parliament 
 elections the voters are of the governed ; in Convocation elections the voters are, 
 as presbyters, members of the government. Presbyters have a certain right to be 
 of eoimcil with their bishops, and all presbyters have this right equally.
 
 What may be done this Convocation ? 23 
 
 particular instructions ; but at any rate they are commissioned 
 by their brother presbyters to perform in their name this among 
 other duties — this one being the most definite, and at present the 
 only one which they can perform. The importance of the sub- 
 ject, and the matters at stake in the present juncture, render it 
 necessary to examine in detail the particular business for which 
 we propose the appointment of committees, or presentation of 
 petitions : 1 . The Gravamina et Reformanda ; 2. Rights and 
 Privileges ; 3. Elections. If in treating of these subjects we 
 draw largely on the pages of the Synodus Anglicana, it is that 
 while Bishop Gibson is as trustworthy a guide as can be selected, 
 his book is so scarce that it can be in the hands of a few only of 
 the members of Convocation. 
 
 Of the four heads to which Gibson reduces the rights to 
 which the clergy are entitled by the constant practice of Con- 
 vocation, the fii'st is, to present their own and the Church's 
 grievances to the president and bishops. " From the most early 
 accounts of proceedings in Convocation, it appears to have been 
 usual for the clergy to lay before the president and bishops the 
 grievances under which they laboured, and with a dutiful sub- 
 mission to the judgment of their lordships to pray a redress. 
 These were styled the Gravamina or Articuli Cleri, and chiefly 
 concerned matters relating to jurisdiction and their civil pro- 
 perty — viz. the encroachments of the lay officers, the exactions 
 and other irregularities of ecclesiastical courts, and such-like, 
 called frequently upon that account injurice. Sometimes, there- 
 fore, the redress of them made an express condition of the sub- 
 sidies they granted ; and accordingly, in some instances, we find 
 them presented to the court, together with the Subsidy Bill and 
 the King's answer, afterwards reported by the president." The 
 presentation of the Gravamina with the Subsidy Bill ensured a 
 favourable hearing. Now, probably enough it was a wise mea- 
 sure in Sheldon to relinquish the right of self-taxation ;* but it 
 must be borne in mind that this voluntary submission to parlia- 
 mentary taxation is a perpetual claim to a like favourable hearing. 
 Perhaps it would have been prudent, by some occasional form, to 
 have kept up the right to self-taxation, as men shut their gates 
 once a year to prevent a right of way being obtained. However 
 
 That which it is impossible they can execute in person they commit to deputies. 
 " Proctors are proctors," is a pregnant sentence. 
 
 The clergy choose from their own number those who shall be, in their names, of 
 council with the bishops ; and they entrust to them the discharge of certain duties 
 which originally belong to all presbyters alike. 
 
 We propose the subject for inquiry and discussion. 
 
 * By the 16 & 17 Car. II., cap. 1, the clergy were first taxed by Parliament, 
 ogether with the laity ; and since then they have been allowed to vote in electing 
 members of the House of Commons, which in former times they did not. 
 
 Sect. 36 provides, that nothing in the said act contained shall be drawn into an 
 example to the prejudice of the ancient rights belonging unto the Lords spiritual or 
 temporal, or clergy of this realm. — Pearce, p. 46.
 
 24 What may he done this Convocation ? 
 
 this be, every visit from a tax-gatherer ought to remind a clergy- 
 man that the state is bound to listen to his representations in 
 Convocation. 
 
 We may mention one or two Gravamina. The first is the 
 injury which many of the clergy have sustained in the commu- 
 tation of tithes ; for which we may cite a most unexceptionable 
 witness, Mr. Pashley (Patfperism). 
 
 The second is matter of notoriety, — the insufficient stipends 
 allowed by the holders of tithes granted on the condition of 
 maintaining the curate. 
 
 Such Gravamina the clergy " have an undoubted right to 
 present ; but as they are to be laid immediately before the Upper 
 House, so the archbishop and bishops have a right to direct (as 
 oft as they see cause) at what time they shall be jiroposed and 
 offered in form." It was not unusual to make a viva voce state- 
 ment of the Gravamina first of all, upon which the president 
 directed that they should be reduced to writing, and presented 
 on a certain day. It can hardly be necessary to argue that the 
 president's omitting to ask for these articles cannot vacate the 
 right of the Lower House to prepare and present them. 
 
 But important as the Gravamina may be, the Reformancla 
 rise in importance immeasurably above them. The Reformanda 
 (whether in Convocatione, in Parliamento, or per Regem) were 
 upon matters that concerned the good of the Church and religion 
 in general ; and being therefore equally the care and concern as 
 well of bishops as clergy, were frequently moved and proposed 
 by the archbishop at the opening of the Convocation among the 
 causes of his summons. {See Note 9, Forma Conv. Celchr-) 
 In compliance with such general directions from his Grace, or 
 (though these were not expressly giten^ in pursuance of one great 
 end of these synodical meetings of the bishops and their presby- 
 ters, we find the lower clergy (1) making general representa- 
 tions to the president and bishops {viva voce) of such things as 
 they conceived to want reformation ; (2) bringing in schedules 
 of particular abuses, that in their opinion were injurious to the 
 honour and interest of the Church. 
 
 1. For the general representations it is sufiicient to give the 
 example of Parker's first Convocation (1562, Jan. 19). The 
 prolocutor, with certain of the Lower House, comes up to ac- 
 quaint the president and bishops, " quod quidam de dicta domo 
 exhibuerunt quasdam diversas schedas de rebus reformandis 
 per eos respective excogitatas et in scrij^tis redactas. Quae 
 quidem schedae de communi consensu traditee sunt quibusdam 
 viris gravioribus et doctioribus de coetu dictte Domus Inferioris 
 ad hoc electis perspiciendse et considerandee. Quibus sic eleclis 
 (ut asseruit) assignatum est ut hujusmodi schedas in capitula 
 redigant, ac in proxima sessione exhibeant coram eodem prolo- 
 cutore. Et tunc Reverendissimus hujusmodi negotia per dictum
 
 What may he done this Convocation ? 25 
 
 prolocutorem ct clcrum incepta approbavit, ac in eisdem erga 
 proximam sessionem juxta eorum determinationeni procedere 
 voluit et mandavit." 
 
 It is particularly to be noticed that the appointment of the 
 committee precedes the general representation to the president. 
 In the session before, the archbishop had required the Lower 
 House to consider what things needed reformation, and to pro- 
 pose them at the next session ; but he had not directed the ap- 
 pointment of a committee. This was the voluntary act of the 
 Lower House, and the archbishop approved it. 
 
 But (2) we find the clergy (?. e. every particular clergyman) 
 required to bring in their schedule of abuses, for the information 
 of the Synod, and the enabling of the bishops and clergy to pro- 
 ceed jointly to a reformation. 
 
 £Jx. Anno 1586, Sess. 2. Habita est per dom. prol. ad- 
 monitio omnibus ex hoc coetu &c. si nt si qui sint qui aliquas 
 schedulas proferre vcllcnt de rebus in hujusmodi Convocatione 
 reformandis easdem sibi traderent in proxima sessione. 
 
 Gibson's account, then, of the Reformanda, in short, is this: 
 " While the bishops are consulting in the Upper House, the 
 clergy in the Lower House have a right, either jointly or sej^a- 
 ratehj, to lay before their lordships an account of any disorderly 
 practices they know ; and this either vied voce by the prolocutor, 
 or in schedules put into the prolocutor's hands, in order to be 
 severally laid before the archbishop." 
 
 May we say that we trust the precedents which we have 
 quoted will be exactly followed ; that the prolocutor, in discharge 
 of his duty, will immediately, upon the formation of the Lower 
 House, require the members to present their schedules ; that a 
 committee will be appointed to draw them up in form ; that the 
 president will be informed of the measure, and asked when it 
 will please him they shall be presented ? We can scarcely con- 
 ceive any president refusing to allow so undoubted a right, if it 
 be claimed in proper form. 
 
 We have, probably, said as much as is necessary on the sub- 
 ject, and we turn to another question which may occur. Has 
 the Lower House a right of presenting petitions to the Queen or 
 to Parliament independently of the Upper House ? or must they 
 be transmitted through the president? 
 
 We find, 1588, a petition to the House of Lords against a 
 bill obliging the clergy to a provision of arms. 
 
 1606. The Lower House petitioning King James against 
 prohibitions. — Cardwell, p, 588. 
 
 1710. Messages passing between the Lower House and 
 House of Commons. — History, by H. P., p. 108. They were 
 conveyed by the prolocutor and certain members to the Speaker. 
 
 It may well be that there are not many instances of the 
 exercise of this privilege; but we know not how soon the time
 
 26 What may he done this Convocation ? 
 
 may come when the Lower House may feel it their duty to 
 claim it.* 
 
 Regarding the second committee we have proposed, that of 
 rights and privileges. There can be no doubt of the power of 
 the Lower House to appoint such a committee. Whatever their 
 rights be, they must have the power of consulting regarding 
 them in their own manner. Indeed, the passage we quoted 
 above from Gibson, concerning committees, has particular refe- 
 rence .to such cases. It relates to the committees chosen in 1701 
 to inspect the records, and make reports on the debated points. 
 Now there is certainly some truth in the observation, that Avhen 
 men begin to inquire into the limits of obedience they are on 
 the point of transgressing them. But the observation touches not 
 U8 at present ; it does not apply to the present case, in which the 
 Houses are about to enter upon business after a lapse of many 
 years' inactivity, and with the terms of compromise of a long and 
 violent discussion certainly not familiarly known, perhaps not 
 clearly ascertained. It is of the highest importance that the 
 conditions on which the two Houses engaged in business in 1710 
 should be inquired into, and after revision be finally accepted as 
 the basis of future proceedings. And such we venture to pro- 
 pose as the business of the second committee. 
 
 Regarding the third head, the business of deciding contro- 
 verted elections. This requires careful consideration. We have 
 lately seen it taken for granted, that the Lower House has the 
 power of determining such questions. But it will be easily seen 
 that this power involves the principle of the dependence or inde- 
 pendence of the Lower House; and the independence of the 
 Lower House is inconsistent, we maintain, with the true notion 
 of a provincial Synod. It is argued that the archbishop, who by 
 his mandate orders the election of members, and has the returns 
 of all members made idtimately to him, who at the opening 
 appoints his commissioners to examine those returns, must have 
 also a direct and immediate right to take cognisance how far 
 such elections, with the returns thereupon, are duly and regu- 
 larly made. Such arguments appear to be well founded. 
 
 The only ground, then, on which the Lower House could 
 claim the power in question is that of an uninterrupted custom, 
 
 * The question is discussed in the Parliamentary Original and Rights of the 
 Lower House, and in the answer to it. Pretended Independence of the Loiver 
 House. The advocate of the right advances it only in matters " where their 
 own interests are peculiarly concerned." His opponent urges only that such 
 petitions must first be laid before the Upper House. 
 
 By "their own interests" we must clearly understand their rights and duties as 
 English presbyters. And it must be supposed that if by the rules of Convocation 
 the jietition must go through the. archbishop, as president, he is bound ex officio 
 to present it. 
 
 In 1702, the Lower House, during a recess, presented a petition to the Crown. 
 The petition was received. The bishops afterwards spoke of " the irregularity of 
 addressing her Majesty separately from the Upper House." — Comphiiner further 
 Reproved.
 
 What may he done this Convocation ? 27 
 
 shewing a delegation of power from the president. But this 
 ground is not made good by the records. The facts upon which 
 a judgment is to be founded are these : 
 
 Anno 1586. Dey v. Knewstuhhs. The prolocutor examines 
 witnesses upon oath, and decrees in favour of Dey. At the same 
 time, in the Upper House, another case was decided (from the 
 same diocese), and the index of proceedings (the acts them- 
 selves being lost) merely mentions, " Decided for Mr. Thorow- 
 good against Mr. West, in a cause of election to be clerks in 
 Convocation." The Lower House journal for that day states, 
 that the prolocutor having notice by the registrar of his grace's 
 sentence, " Intimavit hrec omnibus presentibus et monuit eos ad 
 recipiendum einidem M. West in coctum hujus domus." 
 
 1640. Thorogood v. Porter. A committee is appointed by 
 the Lower House to hear the case. In the next session, the 
 archbishop takes the case into his own hands, and directs it to 
 be tried by the House : " donee aliter ordinatum fuerit." The 
 House determines; and, in accordance with the majority, the 
 prolocutor pronounces for the election of Thorogood. 
 
 Sanderson v. Hirst. Upon a petition for a review of the 
 election for Lincoln, the Lower House takes the statements into 
 consideration ; inquires whether the parties will acquiesce in 
 the sentence upon that review, and upon their consent proceeds 
 to a final decree. 
 
 1689. Cawley v. Oldys. A case of claims to sit as arch- 
 deacon, determined by the Upper House. Petitions were pre- 
 sented to both Houses. 
 
 It is argued that in the first case there must have been a 
 commission to the prolocutor to try the case, such as was given 
 in 1640 to the prolocutor and House; that the case of 1640 
 shews only a right in the Lower House to inquire into the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, that it may proceed by petition if neces- 
 sary : the right of the archbishop being shewn by his assuming 
 the direction of the case, and ordering how it should be tried. 
 
 Into such arguments, however, it is not necessary to enter. 
 The cases cited do not establish a claim to a delegated aixthority, 
 and we apprehend that an original right cannot be asserted con- 
 sistently with the constitution of a Synod. 
 
 It follows that the precedent of 1711, in appointing a com- 
 mittee of elections, cannot safely be followed, unless it is ex- 
 pressly declared to be simply for inquiry, that the cases may be 
 referred, if it is thought fit, by petition to the UpjDcr House. 
 This course might be adopted, or that which we suggested above, 
 namely, a petition to the president to try, or direct to be tried, 
 the controverted elections. 
 
 Dr. Cardwell unhesitatingly states that the archbishop has 
 the right of determining controverted elections. 
 
 Let us now suppose these committees appointed, their reports
 
 28 What may he done this ConvGcatiun ? 
 
 presented and accepted by the House. The measure appears a 
 slight one ; certainly it is not much that the Lower House alone 
 can do. But in the present posture of aiFairs the effect of the 
 measure would be very considerable. 
 
 There is a general and strong persuasion that Convocation 
 ought to proceed to business ; but men are by no means so 
 well agreed on the particular business it ought to undertake. 
 There is also, in some quarters, an impression that to revive 
 Convocation would be to revive controversy. Burke's words 
 about conjuring up that spirit, if men choose to abide the conse- 
 quences, are not forgotten. Now, if such representations as we 
 might expect from well-chosen committees were made public, 
 clear statements of the causes why it is desired that Convocation 
 should proceed to business,* definite proposals of the objects to 
 be attained, with rules for the mode of conducting business be- 
 tween the two Houses, these doubts and fears and jealousies 
 would surely be much if not entirely allayed. It would be seen 
 that churchmen are actuated simply by the desire of managing 
 their own affairs their own way, without intruding into the pro- 
 vince or trenching on the rights of others ; that their wish is to 
 consult for the good of the members of the Church, and to -meet 
 the " occasions offered through variety of times and things during 
 the state of this inconstant world, which bringing forth daily 
 new evils, must of necessity by new remedies be redressed.^' 
 
 The moderation and sound practical wisdom of the Exeter 
 Diocesan Synod called forth the praise even of the prejudiced. 
 If the claims of Convocation were made, and the purposes of its 
 members stated with like wisdom and moderation (as we entirely 
 believe they would be), it would be difficult — impossible — to 
 resist the appeal longer. 
 
 And it would be well that men's minds should be directed 
 to some definite objects or line of action before the issuing a royal 
 license. Our statesmen would know precisely what is wanted, and 
 not })e thrown back upon general declarations of the necessity of 
 reformation ; the members of Convocation would have time to 
 weigh the matters that are to be debated ; and the members of 
 the Church generally an opportunity of expressing their- thoughts 
 by petition. It may be questioned, indeed, whether a full con- 
 sideration of the wants of the Church, and the inquiry how far 
 Convocation can deal with them, may not be as much as it is 
 expedient to attempt now; it would be the fittest preparation for 
 business. 
 
 One word we wish to add regarding the constitution of these 
 
 * Indeed, where the discipline and authority of the Church itself is defective, 
 and irregularities both in the clergy and laity abound for want of a power suf- 
 ficient to suppress them, a Convocation may be needful, to consider how a remedy 
 may be provided for this defect, and the Church be enabled more successfully 
 both to guard the faith and to reform the manners of its members.— TrrtA-e.
 
 Gravamina et Reformanda. 29 
 
 committees. It is the conviction of very many that the parochial 
 clergy are not adequately represented in the Lower House. 
 Without touching upon this question in general, it may be 
 remarked that in practice the parochial clergy have been much 
 deprived of their fair share of influence by the custom of forming 
 committees of an equal number of deans, archdeacons, capitular, 
 and diocesan proctors. The custom arose from the habit of 
 regarding the House as consisting of these four bodies, and 
 these bodies as equal, not numerically, but as the primary ele- 
 ments of the House. It seems to us much fairer to view the 
 House as made up of three bodies, archdeacons, cathedral clergy, 
 and parochial clergy; and these two latter bodies are in fact 
 nearly balanced, forty-eight to forty-two, the archdeacons being 
 fifty-six. 
 
 If then, in the choice of a committee, regard is had to the 
 diflTerent bodies which compose the House, it would be fairer, 
 and would give more nearly an epitome of the House, to take 
 equal numbers from these three bodies ; and it makes a vast dif- 
 ference whether, in a committee, a man be one of three or one of 
 four. Three archdeacons, three cathedral, three parochial clergy, 
 would make a good working committee ; or, if there be a hesi- 
 tation about the deans and capitular proctors, a committee of 
 twelve — four archdeacons, two deans, two capitular proctors, 
 four diocesan proctors — might be chosen. 
 
 GRAVAMINA ET REFORMANDA, 1702-3. 
 
 In the foregoing paper, " What may be done," &c., we did not 
 mention the most remarkable instance, perhaps, that can be 
 found of the presentation of Gravamina et Reformanda, that of 
 A.u. 1702-3. It seemed better not to appear to rest the case in 
 any measure on the authority of a Convocation which, after a 
 temporary cessation, renewed the strife between the two Houses. 
 It so happened, indeed, that this very schedule of grievances, 
 although the preparing it was not objected to by the bishops, and 
 although it was well received on its presentation, was yet made 
 the occasion of renewing the controversy publicly. " It was 
 generally hoped and believed," Gibson writes, " that the un- 
 happy disputes relating to the business of Convocation were in a 
 good measure laid asleep ; and though the two Houses could 
 not come to a final accommodation, that at least their proceedings 
 and resolutions would be confined to their own cognisance, and 
 be no longer the subject of public controversy." 
 
 But all good men, who reckoned this silence a considerable
 
 30 Gravamina et liejormanda. 
 
 step towards the peace and unity of our Churcli, have lately 
 found themselves disappointed in their hopes by the printing 
 and publishing a Representation tnade by the Lower House of 
 Convocation to the Archbishops and Bishops, with a preface of 
 the publisher's full of indecent and provoking reflections. 
 
 The Representatioti is printed by Dr. Cardwell. It is a 
 paper of considerable historical interest, as is also the answer 
 of the archbishop. Dr. Cardwell does not give the answer, 
 merely referring to it in a note. At a future time we hope to 
 print the answer at length in a revision of these later Convoca- 
 tions. At present we are concerned with it only as shewing the 
 reception of the schedule of Gravamina, prepared by a committee 
 during a long prorogation. 
 
 Convocation met Oct. 20, 1703. In consequence of an appli- 
 cation made by the Lower House to the Upper, to consider 
 some method of agreement, the Upper House ordered a com- 
 mittee, which was appointed; and the bishops who sat on it 
 proposed, according to the instructions they had received : 
 
 1. That the Lower House may meet in committees to prepare 
 business between the synodical prorogations 
 
 2. That when business shall be before the Convocation, the 
 archbishop, with the consent of his suflragans, will so order the 
 prorogations that there shall be sufficient and convenient time 
 allowed for the considering and finishing of it. 
 
 The Lower House resolved that these proposals did not 
 answer the design of their application. 
 
 Convocation was prorogued from December 15 to February 4, 
 and during the recess the Representation was drawn up.* It 
 begins thus : 
 
 " May it please your grace and your lordships, — Having 
 received a message from your grace by our prolocutor, in the 
 session December 15, by which we were encouraged to hope 
 that against our next meeting with your lordships on February 4, 
 sufficient powers might be procured for the joint despatch of 
 synodical business ; we then thought it our duty to employ 
 several of our members in preparing on our parts, during this 
 long recess of your lordships, such heads of matter as, being 
 debated and approved by us, might properly be offered to your 
 lordships' grave and wise consideration. Accordingly we have 
 duly weighed in our House the following articles, and do, with 
 all humility, represent to your lordships * •» * * 
 
 " We have chose to offer them in general, without specifying 
 on each head the particular facts on which they are grounded, as 
 
 * Dr. Cardwell states, " The paper was prepared by a committee, according 
 to the power recently conceded to the House." Surely it was rather a recog- 
 nition of a power previously possessed ; or did the bishops mean, and did Dr. 
 Cardwell understand by the instruction, that the whole House might meet in 
 committee ?
 
 Gravamina et Reformanda. 31 
 
 judging this method of application most decent and most agree- 
 able to ancient precedents. We shall be ready, nevertheless, to 
 bring, in due form, special proof of these general suggestions 
 wherever it shall be thought wanting, and whenever your lord- 
 ships shall be pleased to demand it." 
 
 The archbishop's immediate answer to this representation 
 was as follows : That an order had been given in the Upper 
 House for the making out copies, both for the present and absent 
 bishops ; and his grace trusted " that they would make the proper 
 vise of it at all times, and especially at their visitations." 
 
 The further and full answer was made April 3, 1704. From 
 it, as printed by Gibson, Complainer Heproved, we transcribe so 
 much as is necessary for our present purpose : 
 
 '' Though I am not able as yet to speak fully to all your arti- 
 cles, yet I would by no means at present pass by in silence a re- 
 presentation of such importance. In entering upon this matter 
 I woidd not, if I could well avoid it, take any notice of a sort of 
 stumbling-block which lays before me at the beginning of the 
 Hepresentation ; but I meet with it again at the end of it, and 
 the repetition of it seems to imply an intention that it should not 
 be passed over unobserved. The words to which I refer are these 
 at the beginning, ' during the long recess of your lordships ;' 
 and the like at the end, ' your lordships' long recess.' That 
 recess was,* or ought to have been, the effect of the synodical 
 prorogation of the whole body, and not merely of the superior 
 part of it, as those words seem to signify. . . . But to come nearer 
 to the Representation itself. It must be acknowledged that 
 you have a right to complain of real abuses and grievances in the 
 Church, and that it is the part and duty of us all, especially of 
 the bishops, deans, and archdeacons, to endeavour to redress 
 them as speedily and effectually as may be. Notwithstanding 
 which, it may not be amiss to observe," &c. &c. 
 
 It will be observed, first, that not only the consultations be- 
 tween the two Houses took place, but this long schedule was 
 drawn up without a license to proceed to business. The bishops 
 insisted that they had no license only when they wanted to 
 escape from the proposed declaration that episcopacy is of divine 
 and apostolical right, a proposal which is described by Dr. Card- 
 well as bearing the appearance of deference and submission, but 
 designed probably to embarrass their opponents. 
 
 Secondly, that the archbishop fully recognises the right of 
 the Lower House always, with or without license, to present 
 their grievances. 
 
 Thirdly, that he does not object to the mode in which they 
 were prepared. For, considering the instructions which had 
 
 * I fancy that the archbishop speaks so mildly on account of the Queen's 
 having received a petition from the Lower House, drawn up during the recess, 
 December 23.
 
 3r2 Latter Daijs of Cnnrocathn. 
 
 been given to the committee of bishops, we cannot but refei* the 
 words of censure in the reply solely to the instances in which 
 the clergy acted, during the recess, as a House, and not at all to 
 the sitting of the committee of grievances. 
 
 Gibson says, the publisher of the Hepresentation ought to 
 have acquainted his readers " fairly and honestly that, as the 
 clergy did their part in carrying up their grievances, the presi- 
 dent and bishops did theirs in receiving them courteously," <Src.* 
 And again, speaking of the absence of some of the members : 
 *' they whom he complains of for absenting themselves are very 
 sensible how little can be done for the real service of the Church 
 and religion, tiU our most gracious queen .... shall empower 
 them by her royal hcense. If grievances may be drawn up and 
 presented without such license, the members of one side are 
 numerous enough for that," &c. 
 
 Here, then, we have every thing which we contend for fully 
 allowed, and a stronger example cannot well be found. The 
 committee meets for work during a prorogation of seven weeks. 
 
 LATTER DAYS OF CONVOCATION. 
 
 NO. I. INTERMEDIATE SESSIONS. 
 
 Among the popular reasons assigned for the abeyance of synodi- 
 cal action since 1717, and against its revival at the present time, 
 none is more confidently relied upon than an alleged qu.arrel- 
 some disposition on the part of the clergy, which disqualified 
 them for its exercise, and must ever continue so to disquahfy 
 them. The time is come to dispose of this charge. 
 
 The charge is antecedently improbable, for quarrelling is not, 
 to say the least of it, a gentlemanly attribute ; and the training 
 of the English clergy is deemed, even by those who have little 
 sympathy with their order, eminently calculated to produce 
 gentlemen. For instance, the last niimber of the Edinburgh 
 Retieio, in the article on the University Commission Eeport, 
 says of such training, with not less eloquence than truth : " Con- 
 spicuous as are the shortcomings of the English Universities, 
 their excellences are of the highest order. Where else is the 
 training of the young carried on under influences so varied and 
 harmonious, so well calculated to be truly educating of what is 
 
 • So also in their reply to a subsequent pa))er, the bishops said : " We agree 
 with them, that the grievances of the clergy are legally and regularly to be offered 
 to us l)y their representatives in Convocation; and for that reason we received 
 them readily, and the president returned such an answer as was suitable to his 
 and our tender concern for the Church and clergy." — Complainer further Reproved.
 
 Latter Days of Convocation. S^ 
 
 best and noblest In man ? The youth of England are reared in 
 them amidst living memorials, which present to the eye of the 
 imagination, in undying freshness, the antiquity, the continuous 
 life, and the greatness of their country. The dead and the 
 living address the young together, and combine in moulding 
 the characters and sentiments of successive generations. The 
 splendour of the architecture, speaking with the voices of many 
 ages ; the munificence of founders, attesting the magnanimous 
 liberality of England's ancestors ; the solemn cloisters, the Gothic 
 halls, the venerable chapels, the intermixture of different ages, 
 the surviving fame of literary greatness, the union of subordina- 
 tion with independence in college life, inculcating the manly 
 self-reliance with the love of order which honour the British 
 people ; the intermingling of the flower of its aristocracy with 
 the scions of the great professions ; the gentlemanly tone of social 
 feeling and social habits ; in a word, the spirit of religion with 
 the spirit of antiquity and the spirit of modern life ; — lohere else 
 can powers of influencing — so rich, so inspiriting, and so genial 
 — be found training up the young in a discipline worthy of a 
 great and civilised people ? To violate or extinguish any of 
 these influences would be to commit treason against England. 
 To innovate in an uncongenial and unsympathising spirit would 
 be to mar and ruin, not to reform." And yet this same Review 
 would contend that Kirk ministers, confessedly educated less as 
 gentlemen, are not incapacitated by quarrelsome habits to delibe- 
 rate in Synod ; and that English priests, under a gentlemanly 
 training, confessedly unrivalled in Scotland or any where else, 
 are so disqualified ! 
 
 But, it will be said, there wet'e disputes. We freely admit 
 it ; we have no motive nor wish to deny it. On the contrary, 
 our aim and object in this series of papers will be to bring forth 
 those disputes into the broad glare of day, spreading them open 
 before men's eyes, inviting all who will to see and examine 
 them for themselves, feeling assured of doing good service to 
 our beloved Church by tracing such disputes to their true 
 sources, at a time when the light of past experience is so emi- 
 nently needful to guide us safely onward in the perilous (it 
 may be the inevitable, but not therefore the less perilous) path 
 of synodal reform. 
 
 Now, it is important to bear in mind that these disputes 
 were not so much among the clergy, as popularly understood, 
 as between the two Houses of Convocation. It could scarcely be 
 expected, even by an optimist, that the Lower House would at 
 any period be, on all questions Avhatever, unanimous. It was 
 part of a deliberative assembly, and a deliberative assembly pre- 
 supposes modifications of opinion, which such deliberation is 
 intended to reconcile and harmonise. But it is an historical 
 fact that, throughout the twenty-nine eventful years which inter- 
 
 NO. I. D
 
 34 Latter Days of Convocation. 
 
 vencd between the Revolution and the last meeting of Convoca- 
 tion (for business), the great majority of the Lower House were, 
 on all important questions, singularly united and agreed. With- 
 out supposing any more disunion than did really exist, it is 
 sufficiently afflicting to find that the disputes throughovit this 
 period were mainly and almost entirely between the Lower House 
 and the House of Bishops. 
 
 It were, however, an alike unmerited imputation, alike op- 
 posed to historical truth, to assume that these disputes, as between 
 the two Houses, arose from this alleged quarrelsome idiosyncracy 
 of the English clergy. It is clear that dissensions spread over 
 so long a period must be traced to causes which, though tempo- 
 rary and to some extent personal, involved grave temporary 
 embarrassments and complications. What these causes were we 
 shall not be expected to discuss in a single paper ; to discuss 
 these would be, in fact, to write the history of the period.* 
 
 Confining ourselves for the present to the single cause of 
 disagreement placed at the head of this paper, the question of 
 intermediate sessions, we find the whole dissension originating 
 in simple ignorance, as we conceive, of synodal law, or in an 
 endeavour to accommodate it to the practical exigencies of the 
 Church. We find it impossible to assign any other cause ; this 
 claim of the Lower House to a power of separate and independent 
 adjournment, or to an independent jurisdiction to whatever ex- 
 tent and in whatever manner exercised, viewed as an abstract 
 question and as of right, appearing to us utterly incompatible 
 with episcopal government. Ignorance of English synodal 
 uses was nothing surprising in men otherwise well-informed, 
 seeing that, since the Act of Submission (25 Hen. YIII. c. 19), 
 synodal action had been so constantly interrupted, and so large 
 a portion of the Act Books of Convocation, even when it did sit, 
 
 * The reader will find the causes stated in the History of the Church of England, 
 from the Revolution to the last Acts of Convocation, 1688-1717, by the Rev. Wm. 
 Paliii, M.A., Rector of StifFord. Rivingtons, 1 851. " There were," says the writer, 
 " dissensions in Parliament too. The two Houses had violent recriminations in 
 Somers's case, and afterwards in the Aylesbury case, and again in the reign of 
 George I., though that has not led to the closing of St. Stephen's for above a cen- 
 tury. As to the dissensions of Convocation, there were no difficulties which might 
 and would not have been got over, had the bishops been in a position to exercise a 
 little more of jiaternal forbearance and kindness. But their position was in every 
 respect most ditticult All these apparent causes of the suspension of Convo- 
 cation in 1717 were of a personal or temporary nature only It is not the 
 
 facts, but the prevailing ignorance of the facts, which must account for the present 
 abeyance of synodal deliberation ; there is nothing to deter from it now, nothing 
 now to frighten even the timid, when the same circumstances no longer exist." 
 — Introduction, pp. xix.-xxiii. The same writer says afterwards, " It would be un- 
 charitable and untrue to account for such dissensions in this way only, viz. by any 
 resentment or indignation felt by the Lower House. They who can disentangle 
 themselves (as few writers have done) from the party-colouring of the con vocational 
 history of that period by Burnet and Kennet and Tindal, may be able to detect 
 worthier motives and loftier inspirations iji the great body of the Lower House, 
 ii])on whom, on the credit of these authorities, it has been the fashion to throw the 
 whole obloquy, than these writers have awarded to them."' — P. 2-41.
 
 Latter Days of Convocation. 35 
 
 had been unhappily lost in the Fire of London. If the Lower 
 House persevei'ed in their mistake for a longer period than might 
 be expected of men so enlightened and learned as the great 
 majority of them unquestionably were, it is but reasonable and 
 right to take into account their undoubted zeal for the honour 
 and efficiency of the Church, which they deemed to be suffering 
 from their inability to hold such intermediate sessions ; Convo- 
 cation meeting so seldom, and, when met, obstructed, as they 
 alleged, by the indifference and temporising policy of prelates, 
 whom they did not view with more cordiality and confidence 
 for having supplanted the nonjurors, and who made especially 
 an oppressive use, as they thought, of this power of adjournment. 
 
 With these preliminary remarks, we proceed at once to give 
 the facts and documents connected with the case, in pursuance 
 of the plan Avhicli we propose to ourselves throughout these 
 papers, of enabling our readers to test the accuracy of our 
 conclusions. 
 
 In the earliest Synods of the English Church, bishops and 
 clergy (so far as the latter were present at all) sat together, each 
 retiring for separate deliberation as occasion arose. This lasted 
 till about the 14th century. 
 
 The custom then arose of the clergy taxing themselves for 
 an independent subsidy to the Crown ; and the constitution re- 
 quiring that they should have the fullest opportunity of express- 
 ing their assent, from this time the clergy were regularly sum- 
 moned, and, as a matter of convenience, sat in a separate house, 
 under the presidency of one elected by themselves, and known 
 first as the " Organum Vocis," afterwards as " Prolocutor." 
 
 When, under Charles II., the clergy ceased to vote an inde- 
 pendent subsidy, agreeing to place themselves under the secular 
 assessment, the Crown, finding they were no longer wanted for its 
 own secular purposes, made Convocation an empty form by with- 
 holding generally its license to act. The Lower House, resenting 
 what they deemed an oppressive construction of the Act of Sub- 
 mission, wished to make the utmost of the occasion when license 
 was given to act. The Upper House, on the contrary, saw, or 
 thought it saw, reasons for compressing synodal deliberation 
 within the narrowest limits. Upon this the Lower House claimed 
 a power to sit after the adjournment of the Upper, and alleged 
 certain supposed precedents for its power to do so, and, stranger 
 still, the analogy of the Lower House of Parliament. 
 
 These disputes began with the 18th century. Convocation 
 had now been suppressed for eleven years ; all kinds of conces- 
 sions had been made in the interval to Protestant dissenters ; 
 the Toleration Act had been passed ; and when the Lower House 
 met in 1701, it was indignant against the Crown for seizing the 
 opportu.nity to curtail, by such suppression, rather than enlarge 
 the prerogative of the Church, and against the Upper House for
 
 36 Latter Days of Convocation. 
 
 having assented, as was thought^ to such unconstitutional silenc- 
 ing of the Church's voice. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive how the fact of the two Houses sitting 
 separately for convenience could be thought to make any differ- 
 ence in the archbishop's jurisdiction, his form of prorogation re- 
 maining unaltered, continuing and proroguing the " prassens 
 Convocatio," or the ''' ha?c sacra Synodus," or the '' Convocatio 
 Prselatorum et Clcri Provinciae Cantuariensis," without any reser- 
 vation or qualification in favour of any separate and independent 
 power of prorogation lodged in the Lower House. However, 
 the Lower House did claim such power ; and further, to be re- 
 lieved of compulsory attendance on the Upper Llouse at the 
 opening of each session. The following extract, having reference 
 to the latter, will be read with a painful interest, as throwing a 
 strong light upon the whole question of the relations between 
 the two Houses. After stating its grounds for claiming to sit 
 independently, except during the three hours named in the 
 schedule for reassembling, they go on to say, in regard of this 
 last alleged grievance also : 
 
 " The other branch of our answer concerns place, and about 
 that we should not much dispute if it did not involve our time. 
 Now to set this matter in a clear light. We deny not but to 
 whatsoever general place (as St. Paul's or Westminster) the 
 prceseyis Convocatio is adjourned, the whole body may be obliged 
 to hold a session in that place at the time appointed. Nor do 
 their lordships deny that in every such general place there 
 ought to be assigned two particular places or rooms for the 
 separate meeting and sitting of the two Houses. But their lord- 
 shijis pretend, moreover, that the lower clergy are, of ordinary 
 course, first to wait upon them in the Upper House before they 
 go to sit in their own ; and this pretence we oppose as a thing 
 that has neither reason nor precedent to support it. 
 
 " For, first, this claim added to their former [against inter- 
 mediate sessions] only serves to make both more unreasonable. 
 The former allows us no time for business but what their lord- 
 ships shall appoint ; this robs us even of the time they have ap- 
 pointed, at least of so much of it as their lordships shall think 
 fit to employ otherwise, or spend in delays before their meeting ; 
 and at last it may happen that after we have long waited in 
 hopes of sitting, a commissioner only may come to prorogue 
 further, and tell us when we may again pay as long attendance 
 to as little purpose. And as we may from hence conclude that 
 such an attendance was never paid, so that it is absurd to sup- 
 pose it ever was or could be expected is manifest from the usual 
 appointments both of time and place. For as to time, there 
 is not, as (if their lordships' supposition were true) in reason 
 there should have been, a determinate hour fixed at which their 
 lordships obhge themselves to meet as well as they would us to
 
 Latter Days of Convocation. 37 
 
 attend ; but, on the contrary, the constant practice has allowed 
 a latitude of some hours, as from 8 to 1 1 or 9 to 1 2 ; of which 
 time, since their lordships think themselves at liberty to choose 
 any minute, even the very last, to meet in, it Avould be an un- 
 reasonable hardship for us to attend from the very first ; yet, 
 unless we do so, we cannot be in a readiness to wait upon their 
 lordships, as by virtue of this claim they expect. 
 
 " As to the place, had such an attendance been customary, 
 there would have been a customary room for it ; and the cour- 
 tesy of the constitution would never have left us to wait among 
 their lordships' footmen. Will it be said we may wait in their 
 lordships' room ? This, indeed, were more decent, and our 
 being adjourned to Jerusalem Chamber might seem to warrant 
 our entry. But we think it ill manners to intrude there, nor do 
 their lordships think fit to admit us ; if they did, we presu.me 
 they would rather invite us to take advantage of their prayers 
 than appoint us to Avait without doors to no manner of purpose, 
 but only to be so long hindered from saying of our own. But 
 if it be said that we may meet and wait in our own room, it may 
 be replied. And why not pray ? nay, even consult as soon as 
 we are met ? For what can be more absurd than to say that we 
 have not liberty at that time to do those things which, as we 
 have already proved, we may do in any other space of lime, 
 either before or after" [/. e. in intermediate sessions]. — Narra- 
 tive of the Proceedings of the Loioer House of Convocatioriy 
 relating to Prorogations and Adjournments, from Monday, 
 February 10, 1700, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701. Drawn 
 up by the order of the House. 
 
 During the period embraced in the above-mentioned " Nar- 
 rative," the Lower House had not only claimed, but exercised 
 its alleged right to adjourn itself. Thus, after prorogation by 
 the archbishop, April 8, 1701, " the prolocutor, with several of 
 the House, returned to Henry VII. 's Chapel (though divers 
 refused to do so, as believing and knowing the whole Convoca- 
 tion was prorogued), and sat there as a House for some time, 
 and then adjourned themselves to the next day" {History of 
 Convocation, from February 10, 1700, &c). " They all own," 
 says the same writer, " that when the archbishop prorogues by 
 the king's writ, the lower clergy are then included ; and yet the 
 prorogation is then made in no phrase more comprehensive than 
 at other ordinary times." — Ibid. p. 124. 
 
 In the following month this irregularity was thus rebuked 
 by the archbishop (Tenison), all concurring except the bishops 
 of London, Rochester, and Exeter, the Lower House having 
 been summoned : 
 
 " Mr. Prolocutor, we are satisfied that whatever has been 
 done in the Lower House, as a House, from the time that the 
 whole Convocation was prorogued in this place upon the 8th of
 
 38 Latter Days of Coiwocation. 
 
 April, is not only null, as being withoiit authority, biit of very 
 dangerous consequence to the constitution of our Church, and 
 to the sacred Synod of this province, and particularly to the 
 clergy whom that House represents. We have all possible ten- 
 derness for them, and shall ever join in any methods that may 
 appear just and proper for maintaining their true rights and 
 liberties, and for defending them from all difficulties and dan- 
 gers. And therefore we- cannot receive from you, either in 
 word or writing, any thing done by the said House, as a House, 
 in the interval aforesaid. 
 
 " We hope you will duly consider these things; and may 
 God so direct you that you may never engage in any proceeding 
 that may be prejudicial to our holy mother the Church of 
 England." 
 
 The Vindication then laid upon their lordships' table by the 
 Prolocutor is much too voluminous to be inserted here. 
 
 The relations between the two Houses were still in this un- 
 satisfactory state when Convocation met once more, October 20, 
 1702, when a committee appointed by the Lower House pre- 
 pared the following application : 
 
 " The humble Application of the Lower House of Convoca- 
 tion to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 and their lordships his suffragans, in Convocation as- 
 sembled. 
 
 " Whereas in the two late Convocations many differences 
 have arisen between the two Houses, concerning the manner of 
 synodal proceedings, and principally concerning the right then 
 claimed by the Lower House of holding and continuing their 
 assemblies in the intervals of the ordinary prorogations and con- 
 tinuations of the Convocation made in the Upper ; which prin- 
 cipal difference, as well as the other lesser and dependent, 
 remain yet undecided, to the great hindrance of the intention 
 and business of such Convocations, and to the great disturbance 
 of the order and peace of this provincial Church ; and whereas 
 we find that the course which, after other endeavours, was here- 
 tofore proposed by this Lower House, of adjusting the matters 
 in dispiite by a verbal conference, was not thought fit to be con- 
 descended to by your lordships, but became itself the subject of a 
 new question :* We, therefore, the clergy of the Lower House 
 of the present Convocation, out of our earnest desire to have all 
 such disputes at last composed and ended, do therefore make 
 this our first and humble request that your lordships would again 
 take the question in dispute into your wise and paternal con- 
 sideration, especially that concerning the right of the Lower 
 House before expressed, and would be pleased to suggest to us 
 some method whereby that controversy, at least, in which the 
 * See Palin''s History, pp. 197, 8.
 
 Latter Days of Convocation. 39 
 
 being, as we conceive, of the Lower House subsists, may come 
 to a speedy and final determination." 
 
 This elicited the following 
 
 ^^ Answer of the Archbishop and Bishops to the humble 
 Application of the Lower House of Convocation. 
 
 " We are desirous, as much as in us lies, to put an end to 
 all differences, and to preserve a good understanding between us 
 and you. 
 
 " As to the point of proroguing the whole Convocation by the 
 archbishop, tvith the consent of his suffragans, that is a right 
 wliich we are in possession of, and it has been derived to us 
 from our predecessors. 
 
 " And, in fact, it was so far from destroying the being of 
 former Convocations, that in them business of the greatest 
 importance has been transacted and brought to a happy con- 
 clusion. 
 
 '' In the exercise of this right, you may assure yourselves 
 that, by God's blessing, all such methods shall be used by us as, 
 after the most impartial examination, will appear most conducing 
 to unity, and to the true ends of an English Convocation, and 
 of this in particular. 
 
 " To this purpose we have appointed a committee of seven 
 bishops to consider of such methods, and to meet with some of 
 your body, not exceeding fourteen, on the 14th inst., being 
 Saturday, in the Organ Koom, at 10 in the morning, to offer 
 and receive what may contribute to these ends." 
 
 After a debate, this committee of fourteen was appointed, to 
 whom the committee of bishops made the two follomng propo- 
 sals, as all which they had instructions to offer : 
 
 " The proposals given as instructions to the committee of 
 bishops, November 13, 1702 : 
 
 " 1. That the Lower House may meet in committees, to 
 prepare business, between the synodal prorogations. 
 
 " 2. That when business shall be before the Convocation, 
 the archbishop, with the consent of his suffragans, will so order 
 the prorogations, that there shall be sufficient and convenient 
 time allowed for the consideration and finishing of it." 
 
 One knows not which to deplore most, whether that such 
 reasonable concessions, so necessary to the exigencies of the 
 Church, should have been thus pertinaciously refused until ex- 
 torted ; or that, when made, the Lower House should reject 
 them. However mistaken in their proposed remedy of indepen- 
 dent sessions, the concessions seem to justify their long-resisted 
 claim of intermediate sessions. In other words, they prove the
 
 40 Latter Days of Convocation. 
 
 Lower House to have done well in claiming intermediate ses- 
 sions, but 9iot as of right. 
 
 After debate, the Lower House signified its rejection of the 
 terms of accommodation in the following 
 
 " Reply of the Lower House of Convocation to the two 
 Papers they have lately received in answer to their 
 humble Application : 
 
 " May it please your grace and your lordships, — Your lord- 
 ships' inclinations to peace, mentioned in your first paper, we 
 hope we have given no just occasion to think we ever dis- 
 trusted; neither did we ever question his grace's power (espe- 
 cially/ as he now claims to do it unth consent of his suffragans^ to 
 prorogue the whole Convocation, that is, to appoint a further 
 day on which the whole body should attend ; nor could we ima- 
 gine that such a power was destructive of the being of a Con- 
 vocation. But we humbly conceive that such a power is in no 
 way inconsistent with the right claimed by the Lower House, to 
 wit, the right of holding their assemblies, and continuing to act 
 as a House, in the intervals of his grace's ordinary prorogations. 
 Which right, in our humble opinion, is so indisputably necessary 
 to the being of the Lower House (for of our own House only we 
 spoke, and hoped to be understood), and has been of late so 
 openly opposed, and with so much pretence of authority denied, 
 that we think we cannot answer the trust reposed in us unless 
 we continue to insist upon the claim of it, and use our utmost 
 endeavours to bring this question to a speedy and final deter- 
 mination. A method of doing this is, what your lordships in 
 your last paper seem wholly to decline, though it be the thing 
 chiefly and plainly aimed at in our humble application. And 
 therefore we cannot but again make our humble request, that 
 your lordships would be pleased to offer something more effectual 
 to the purpose we intended." 
 
 To this was returned the following 
 
 " Answer of the Archbishop and Bishops to the Paper 
 brought up by the Prolocutor from the Lower House 
 upon November 18, 1702. 
 
 ** We wish that the proposals we sent you for the due order- 
 ing of the proceedings of both Houses of Convocation had satis- 
 fied you, as they did us, because we thought that in them we had 
 offered you what was sufficient towards the ending of the differ- 
 ences that have been between us. 
 
 " We cannot depart from the archbishop's right of proroguing 
 the whole Convocation of the Ujiper and Lower House, with 
 consent of his suffragans, according to the constant usage, as 
 it appears in our Act Books. This right you allow in general
 
 Latter Days of Convocation. 41 
 
 terms, while you own that the archbishop's prorogation is the 
 appointing a further day on which the whole body shall meet. 
 But you would do well to take notice that, by the same act by 
 which the Convocation is prorogued, the whole business of the 
 Convocation is likewise continued, in the state it is then in, to 
 that further day of the next session. And the right you claim of 
 continuing to act as a House between the days of the archbishop's 
 prorogations, as indispensably necessary to the being of the Lower 
 House, does (as we conceive) by immediate consequence over- 
 throw what you had just before allowed to the archbishop, whose 
 act cannot be said to prorogue the whole Convocation if a part of 
 it do, notwithstanding, remain in a condition of acting as a dis- 
 tinct House of Convocation. 
 
 " Nor can we see how it should be necessary to the being of 
 the Lower House to continue to act as a House between the 
 days of the archbishop's prorogation ; since all the business of the 
 Lower House, in former Convocations, and particularly the part 
 that they had in the revising of the Book of Common Prayer, 
 in 1661, was managed by them without any intermediate meet- 
 ings as a House. 
 
 " The premisses being well weighed, we do not find how we 
 can admit of your new claim, since it would be plainly to recede 
 from a right that we have always enjoyed. We must, therefore, 
 leave the proposals we sent you to your further consideration, 
 not doubting that the provision therein made for the exercise of 
 the rights of both Houses will be very sufficient for the doing of 
 any business that is to be done in Convocation." 
 
 Still dissatisfied, the Lower House, pleading that neither House 
 was a fair judge of its own cause, petitioned the Upper House 
 to join them in addressing the queen, '' praying that her majesty, 
 out of her tender regard to the peace and welfare of the Church, 
 would vouchsafe to take the controversy into her princely consi- 
 deration, and appoint such persons as she in her wisdom should 
 choose to hear and finally determine it." This the Upper House 
 declined to join in : " They could not think it proper to trouble 
 her majesty with the controversy, since they believed it unne- 
 cessary after the overtures they had already made, and which 
 they could not exceed, it being not in their power to part with 
 any of those rights which were entrusted to them by the consti- 
 tution of the Church and the laws and customs of the realm." 
 
 Upon this the Lower House addressed the queen singly; but, 
 as might be expected, their singular application led to no results. 
 It also consulted the Lower House in Ireland, in the same year 
 (1702), concerning the practice of the Irish Convocation in 
 regard of intermediate sessions, and the answer was deemed 
 favourable to its claims. It was laid before the English Lower 
 House in 1705. The Irish Lower House seems to have acted
 
 42 The Archbishop's Prorogation : 
 
 with the concurrence of the president and suffragans ; and this 
 derived power and authority appears to us to make all the differ- 
 ence between the two cases.* 
 
 Matters continued in the same unsatisfactory state until the 
 Bangorian presentment of the Lower House led to the extinction 
 of synodal action altogether ; the interval being marked by less 
 controversy and somewhat less irregularity, as proved by the 
 fact of intermediate sessions being less frequent, if not entirely 
 dropped, and by a letter addressed by the prolocutor to Dr. 
 Tenison, Archdeacon of Carmarthen, in 1718 : 
 
 " To my question. What you would have grounded your 
 protestation upon, your answer was. The Lower House proceed- 
 ing after the schedule came down. I replied to the effect that, 
 at that rate, you would have as many occasions of protesting as 
 there should be days in which the Lower House are engaged in 
 business — at least, so long as I continue prolocutor. During ten 
 years it has not been customary to break up the House immedi- 
 ately upon the receipt of the schedule. For (not to revive at 
 present any old disputes) the obligation of assisting in Parliament 
 oftentimes cuts my lords the bishops so short in their synodical 
 deliberations, and the practice of sending down the schedule at 
 what time soever they rise is so constant and so notorious, that 
 these have been generally acquiesced in as a manifest justification 
 of continuing the debate afterwards. So that this has been the 
 allowed practice of the Lower House for many years, when any 
 matters of moment were depending before them." 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOPS PROROGATION: WHETHER 
 " CUM CONSENSU FRATRUM." 
 
 In the Report of the meeting of Convocation, February 4, 1852, 
 published by the Society for the Revival of Convocation, it is 
 stated : 
 
 " In the Upper House, after certain petitions had been pre- 
 sented, an animated discussion ensued upon the questions arising 
 
 * The answer of the Irish Lower House was as follows : — 
 
 " The Lower House do not, upon such notice [of adjoiu-nment by the president] 
 ever break up their session, till a motion is made by some member of the House for 
 adjourning. 
 
 " The prolocutor, before he puts the motion, reports to the House what time the 
 bishops have adjourned to ; and then the Lower House adjourns itself to that time, 
 or to any time short of that, hy the authority and consent of the House ; which power 
 of the Lower House to adjourn itself was oivned and alloiocd hy the archbishops and 
 bishojis then in Dublin, in the answer to some queries sent to them by the Earl of 
 Nottingham, then principal Secretary of State in England, before the calling of this 
 Convocation. The Lower House here doth very frequently hold intermediate ses- 
 sions, which they look upon to be as regular as those which are concurrent with the 
 session of the bishops, and do in their books style them sessions, and number them 
 among others, without any discussion."
 
 whether " ciivi Consensu Fratrum''' 43 
 
 out of these petitions, and especially as to the propriety of the 
 Convocation being at once adjourned, as was proposed by His 
 Grace the President, till August next. In presenting the peti- 
 tions entrusted to himself, the Bishop of Oxford declared his 
 intention of moving that the House consider the prayer of the 
 petitions. Upon this the Queen's Advocate interposed. (The 
 conversation then turned upon the Act of Submission.) The 
 Bishop of Oxford pressed on His Grace the fitness of proroguing 
 for a definite and not veiy remote period. His Grace, declaring 
 that he thought it most unfit that the Church should be placed 
 in opposition to Her Majesty's Government, announced his pur- 
 pose to prorogue to the 19th of August. The Lower House was 
 sent for. The Prolocutor stated that he had to present an ad- 
 dress, which, with His Grace's permission, he would read. His 
 Grace said that they had been sent for in order that the Convo- 
 cation be prorogued. The Queen's Advocate declared that it 
 was contrary to all precedent that, under such circumstances, an 
 address from the Lower House should be received." 
 
 This opens two points : one, how far the concurrence of the 
 bishops is necessary to a prorogation ; and the other, whether it 
 was right to receive the address of the Lower House. This lat- 
 ter question was settled by the archbishop declaring his willing- 
 ness to receive it. The only wonder is, how there can possibly 
 have been the slightest doubt about it. But the former question 
 is perhaps the most delicate in the whole range of Convocation 
 inquiries. It has been brought to our notice just as we are going 
 to press, and it would be double presumption to attempt to dis- 
 cuss it hastily and on short notice ; but we will present our 
 readers with some extracts from Gibson on the subject, which 
 will, at least, serve as an opening of the question, as the begin- 
 ning of a collection of authorities and arguments. The point is 
 clearly one of extreme delicacy. 
 
 It requires for its solution these considerations : ] st, A con- 
 sideration of the relation of archbishops and bishops, viewed 
 simply as governors of Christ's Church, assembled in Synod ; 
 whether, namely, it is the archbishop's privilege, a Synod having 
 been summoned, to continue or dissolve it at his own pleasure, 
 without reference to his sufii'agans ; 2d, A consideration of the 
 peculiar rights and privileges of our bishops and prerogative of 
 our archbishop, in order to ascertain what customs not incon- 
 sistent with the original idea of a Provincial Synod there may be, 
 either peculiar to the province of Canterbury, or belonging to 
 the Church of England as a great estate of the realm ; and 3d, 
 An inquiry into the precedents of Convocation, to ascertain the 
 force and effect of the king's writ, and the archbishop's schedule 
 of prorogation issuing in obedience to it. 
 
 It is, perhaps, not unnecessary to remind some of our readers 
 that Convocation is prorogued by an archbishop's schedule, in
 
 44 The Archbishop's Prorogatioji : 
 
 obedience to a royal writ ; that there are no adjournments, dis- 
 tinct from prorog-ations, as there are in Parliament (and, by the 
 way, we protest against the vise of the word adjournment alto- 
 gether — the word has kept ill company) ; that a prorogation from 
 one day to the next day takes place exactly in the same manner 
 as a prorogation from February to August ; that the Lower House 
 is prorogued either by sending down to it the schedule which 
 has been read in the Upper House, signed by the archbishop, 
 or by summoning it to hear the schedule read in the Upper 
 House ; that of these two modes the former is generally adopted 
 when the prorogations are de die in diem, as we trust they soon 
 will be again ; that the only difference in such cases is, that when 
 sessions are frequent the prorogations naturally take place with 
 something less of formality, some clauses being perhaps omitted 
 in the schedule transmitted, but that there is no essential dif- 
 ference whatever. 
 
 Now, if the archbishop is bound to read the king's writ im- 
 mediately upon its receipt, and to follow it up instantaneously 
 with the schedule, and if the effect of this publication is that all 
 proceedings are instantly stopped, the matter is at an end. This 
 seems to have been the opinion of the Queen's Advocate, who, 
 when the Lower House was summoned to hear the prorogation, 
 asserted that it was contrary to all precedent that, under such 
 circumstances, an address from the Lower House should be re- 
 ceived. Contrary to all precedent ! Does the Queen's Advocate 
 think that clergymen cannot read ? or does his knowledge of pre- 
 cedents extend no further than to an acquaintance with the no- 
 things of the last 135 years ? Does the Queen's Advocate know 
 that it is an allowed right of the Lower House to finish the 
 synodical business of the day even after the prorogation has been 
 declared in the Upper House and the schedule transmitted to 
 the prolocutor ? If they may do this, surely, when summoned 
 to hear the prorogation, they may complete their business by 
 presenting their address. Contrary to precedent ! We are not 
 told whether the royal writ had been read ; we will suppose it 
 had been read, and that the Queen's Advocate was actuated by 
 a laudable and professional desire to do honour to it; still pre- 
 cedents are not wanting : " On the day of prorogation or dissolu- 
 tion the royal writ is produced and publicly read ; but that 
 being only a direction to the archbishop to prorogue or dissolve, 
 neither of these are effected by the publication of the writ. On 
 the contrary, the very first writ of prorogation we meet with 
 (Anno 1533, INLiy 15) was read in the morning: ' Keverendis- 
 simus ostcndebat quoddam breve regium sibi directum pro pro- 
 rogatione hujusmodi Convocationis : quod breve idem rever- 
 endissimus publice legebat ;' and yet the Convocation sat till 
 noon ; and after dinner (is it possible they can have had any 
 appetite, considering the enormity they had committed, and the
 
 ivhether " cum Consensu Fratrum.'" 45 
 
 further enormity tliey were about to commit?), — after dinner met 
 again. So also, anno 1434, March i31, the writ of prorogation 
 was brought in and read, and afterwards the resolutions of the 
 lower clergy touching the Pope's supremacy were delivered ; 
 and then the archbishop is said to continue to the day specified 
 in the writ. For so is the practice of Convocation. The plea- 
 sure of the prince is signified to the archbishop by the writ ; but 
 his grace pursues that royal order by a formal declaration out of 
 a schedule, mentioning, indeed, the royal writ, but running solely 
 in the archbishop's name, and by him pronounced in presence 
 of the bishops and clergy. The authors, therefore, of some late 
 schemes have done a manifest injustice to the constitution of our 
 Protestant Church in contending, against law and practice, that 
 the Reformation put an end to the ancient canonical ways of 
 transacting ecclesiastical matters, and introduced a new model, 
 inconsistent with the primitive distinctions between presbyters 
 and bishops, and unknown before either to this or any other 
 episcopal church" (St/nodus Anglic, p. 185). So much for the 
 Queen's Advocate's statement of precedents. But is it not a 
 monstrous thing that the rights and duties of the clergy should, 
 in any degree, be resting on the advice of those who can hazard 
 assertions so recklessly ? In the present case, the archbishop knew 
 Convocation practice better than his legal adviser ; but we might 
 have an archbishop in the chair of Canterbury Avho would think 
 himself bound to follow his lawyer's opinion. 
 
 We have only one word more to say, and it is this, that the 
 clergy have yet a great deal to learn about Convocation matters ; 
 no one is more aware of it than they are themselves ; but they 
 have at least begun to place a limit to the degree in which a 
 lawyer may venture with safety to trust to their ignorance. The 
 Queen's Advocate evidently considered their ignorance to be 
 boundless. 
 
 So far, then, our way is abundantly clear. A latitude is 
 allowed the archbishop in the use of the writ of prorogation. 
 And this agrees with what was noted on Beveridge's authority, 
 in a former paper, concerning the latitude allowed to the Lower 
 House on the receipt of the schedule. 
 
 We have noticed the two modes in which the Lower House 
 is prorogued ; and Gibson's account of the schedule is, that it 
 took its origin from the greater convenience of the one mode : 
 " Upon the whole, I see no cause to recede from my first opinion, 
 that the schedule in an English Convocation, considered as a 
 separate paper, was originally begun for the convenience of 
 transmitting it to the inferior clergy, that so the prolocutor 
 might be freed from the unnecessary trouble of constantly com- 
 ing up to receive the notice. For reference is several times 
 made to the form of continuation as entered at length in the 
 register itself, before any mention of a separate power ; and what
 
 46 The Archbishojy's Prorogation : 
 
 end or design there could be in changing the continuation out 
 of the register into a separate paper, besides the transmission of 
 it, I cannot conceive." — Schedule Recieived, p. 43. 
 
 And that the transmission of the schedule is not intended to 
 put an instant stop to business, we have the same high and unex- 
 ceptionable authority. (We are obliged to the Queen's Advo- 
 cate for sending us again to our books concerning this particular.) 
 " It must be premised that the publishing, signing, and sending 
 down the schedule are not intended immediately to put an end 
 to the debates of the Lower House. The clergy come thither in 
 obedience to the preceding prorogation of the president, and are 
 not discharged from their attendance before the legal notice of 
 another prorogation to a further day." And Gibson proceeds to 
 shew that this legal notice is the intimation by the prolocutor : 
 " The prolocutor is the person by whom his grace conveys all 
 his instructions and notices to the Lower House ; and accord- 
 ingly the schedule, signed and attested, is put into his hands to 
 be intimated to the House ; but unless the president signify his 
 pleasure at what time precisely they shall be discharged, which 
 he is not supposed ordinarily to do, it is left to the judgment and 
 discretion of the prolocutor, who is the moderator of their de- 
 bates, on what part of the day it is convenient that the intima- 
 tion, and by consequence the discharge, be given, with regard 
 to the length and nature of the business before them." — Schedule 
 Revieioed, p. 26. 
 
 The Lower House, then, is perfectly safe in continuing its 
 session after the transmission to it of a schedule of prorogation, 
 for the remainder of the synodical day, for the purpose of trans- 
 acting that business which it has a right to do, or rather which 
 it is its duty to do. 
 
 Is there, then, any difference as regards the proceedings of 
 the Lower House between the transmission of the schedule and 
 the summoning the House to the L^pper House to hear the oral 
 prorogation ? 
 
 The author of The Case of the Schedule Stated {Aitexhwxj , 
 we believe,) has a paragraph (p. 22) to shew that the nature and 
 extent of the schedule was the same as the archbishop's oral 
 adjournment ; and upon this Gibson remarks (^Schedule Revieioed, 
 p. 43) : "I agree with him that a continuation being by schedule 
 gives it no greater extent than it had when written in the register 
 or pronounced viva voce by the archbishop." The question at 
 that time, if any at all, was the other way, whether, — namely, the 
 transmission of the schedule were more stringent than the oral 
 prorogation ; and these two leaders of the opposite parties agree 
 that the effect and force of the two modes are identical ; so that 
 it is confessed on both sides that the Lower House is at liberty 
 to complete, at its own discretion, its synodical day. And yet 
 the Queen's Advocate declares it to be contrary to all precedent
 
 whether " cum Consensu Fratrum.'^ 47 
 
 to do so simple a thing as receive an address, because the schedule 
 of prorogation (not has been read, but) is about to be read. 
 
 Further, then (these details are tedious, but we must go 
 through the task so long as every possible mode is resorted to 
 in order to cripple, hamper, and confine the clergy), we ask, if 
 the Lower House has this latitude, has the Upper House no 
 latitude at all ? Are presbyters to have greater privileges than 
 bishops ? The presbyters of the metropolitan diocese rejoice in 
 the prerogative of their diocesan : are the suffragan bishops to 
 have less liberty than their presbyters ? We have proved that 
 a due and sufficient obedience is paid to the royal writ by a con- 
 tinuance to the day named in it from the close of the synodical 
 day in which it is delivered, and that the Lower House may 
 employ the remainder of that day, at their discretion, in prepar- 
 ing their Gravamina and Reformanda, receiving and passing the 
 reports of their committees, preparing their petitions ; in doing, 
 in short, all that it is their peculiar province to do in Synod. 
 And may not the bishops do their peculiar work — receive those 
 petitions, give their instructions to their clergy {episcopus moneat 
 clerum, doceat populum, is the language of the ancient form for 
 a provincial council), lay before their metropolitan and brother 
 bishops the state of their dioceses and of the Church at large, 
 take and seek counsel one of another, deliberate on supplying 
 what is wanted ? If the consent of Beveridge, Atterbury, and 
 Gibson be sufficient to prove a point in Convocation rules, the 
 synodical day may be completed ; and if bishops, as such, have 
 inalienable rights, and English bishops any privileges, it follows 
 that the archbishop is bound, by his office as president, no less 
 than by his duty as metropolitan, to allow the session to last its 
 natural time. 
 
 It shames us that we shoidd have to argue so for a few hours. 
 Yet such is the state of the English Church now, that even 
 liberty for one day, from matins to evensong, will be felt a gain ; 
 and those few hours well employed may produce incalculable 
 good. It may be that thus we get a definite and intelligible 
 construction, in one point at least, to the " consensus fratrum," 
 which our Convocation books are so full of; namely, that it is 
 not a mere expression of courtesy, a vain attempt to cover the 
 exercise of a despotic authority, but that it is, within the limits 
 allowed by law, an answer to the archbishop's inquiry. Whether 
 the members of the Synod, and particularly his suffragans, make 
 any further claim to exercise their inalienable rights, and an 
 expression of a concession that, within those limits, the president 
 is ready to allow that exercise. On this principle, it being 
 allowed by the customs of Convocation to complete the synodical 
 day, the archbishop would not close the session at an earlier 
 period without the consent of his brethren, but at the end of the 
 day would not ask that consent. And on this principle, referring
 
 48 The Archbishop's Prorogation : 
 
 to a long prorogation, the reading of the king's writ, at the 
 opening of the session, gives the opportunity of applying to the 
 Crown, in the course of the day, for a shorter prorogation ; and 
 the consent of the bishops implies that they have had such oppor- 
 tunity given them, and without it the prorogation is not made. 
 
 It is true that the present schedule does not contain the clause 
 " cum consensu fratrum ;" but here again Gibson comes to our 
 assistance. Writing against Atterbury, who asserted that the 
 consent of the LoAver House was necessary, Gibson {Schedule 
 Revietvecl, pp. 45 and 46) urges that the " schedule was solely 
 in the name of the archbishop, and is signed by him alone, 
 without the least mark of any consent whatsoever." And then, 
 sensible that this argument might be pushed further than he 
 intended, he proceeds, " I deny not but an instrument originally 
 intended to be the act of a singular person, and accordingly 
 running in his name alone, may be brought by subsequent cus- 
 tom necessarily to presuppose the consent of others. Thus, 
 though the schedule of continuation say nothing of the consent 
 of the bishops, yet there is reason to believe that ever since the 
 year 1563 the archbishop has not used to proceed to the publi- 
 cation of that act without the consent of his suffragans, when 
 present, as to the day to which he continued. And how far a 
 usage of that standing may now oblige the archbishop to consult 
 them, and give their lordships a right to be consulted as oft as 
 they are present, I cannot say, nor does it at all belong to the 
 present question. For a right accruing to the bishops from such 
 a custom can give no pretence of claim to the clergy, whose con- 
 sent was never asked, and who therefore have no such custom to 
 plead." Gibson proceeds to say, '' That the act of continuation 
 is not of such a nature as absolutely to require or presuppose 
 the consent of the bishops, appears from its being so often exe- 
 cuted by the archbishop, or his commissary, though no bishops 
 be present." This is very true ; but in the case we are now 
 dealing with we suppose the bishops to be present, and to be 
 demanding a prolongation of the session, according to the acknow- 
 ledged privileges of Convocation, for the discharge of certain 
 duties belonging to their sacred office. Where there are such 
 duties undischarged, in the opinion of those on whom they rest, 
 then the act of continuation is of a nature absolutely to require 
 the consent of the bishops. 
 
 In another tract. The Right of the Archbishoj) to continue the 
 whole Convocation, 1701, p. 121, Gibson gives a little more infor- 
 mation concerning the clause, "cum consensu fratrum." "'Tistrue, 
 the archbishop's schedule usually runs, ' cum consensu confratrum,' 
 and the forms of continuation in our more modern registers ex- 
 press it in the same language. But the author of the answer had 
 no reason to say that this is almost every where the language of 
 the books ; and when it is not, it is purely an omission of the
 
 Occasional Papers. 49 
 
 actuary. For in tlic acts of an elder date (those, I mean, which 
 are entered in the registers of the archbishop), the ' consensus 
 confratrum' is neither expressed nor implied in the ordinary 
 continuations, which were made by the sole power of his grace. 
 It is only mentioned sometimes in prorogations to a long dis- 
 tance, and in dissolutions." (This, we think, is very much in 
 favour of the supposition we made regarding the intent of asking 
 the consent.) " And though the consent of his brethren came 
 afterwards by degrees to be entered in the acts, and was almost 
 constant in 1562, yet it was no law, either ecclesiastical or civil, 
 that obliged him to it. The most probable account I am able to 
 give of this difference in style between the ancient and modern 
 registers is, that in former ages it was usual to sit de die in 
 diem, and then there was no need to debate about the time ; but 
 afterwards, as the sessions began to be more divided (one or two 
 in a week), it was natural for the archbishop, before he con- 
 tinued, to advise with his suffragans which day would be most 
 for the general convenience. But, as the ' Answer' observes, the 
 phrase ' cum consensu fratrum' is not used when the arch- 
 bishop prorogues upon the king's writ, because that absolutely 
 determined the day, and so there was no room for deliberation 
 about it." The omission of this clause, therefore, cannot be 
 quoted to favour a denial to bishops and clergy of the little 
 which prime ministers and lawyers have left them. 
 
 It is singular how exceedingly apt a commentary is furnished 
 by the best authority, Gibson, upon the proceedings of February 
 4th, 1852 ; and it may be that these thoughts will not be useless 
 with reference to proceedings now in contemplation. 
 
 OCCASIONAL PAPERS. 
 
 Under this title Ave shall print, from time to time, such papers 
 regarding the present movement as appear to us worthy either 
 to be recorded or to be laid before the Church for full consi- 
 deration. 
 
 It will be understood that beyond this we offer no opinion 
 upon them ; that their appearing in our pages is not a mark of 
 our agreement with their contents. 
 
 I. 
 
 {Sent by the Author.) 
 For the consideration of those who take an interest in the revival of 
 
 Convocation. 
 Rochdale, 1852. J. E. N. MoLESWORTH. 
 
 Preliminary Scheme for bringing the CJin,rch''s Claim of Synodal 
 Action to a practical issue. 
 
 1. Her Majesty's license to the Convocations of Canterbury 
 
 NO. T. E
 
 50 Occasional Papers, 
 
 and York, jointly or separately, as they may think fit, to deli- 
 berate and report to her Majesty npon the alterations in the 
 constitution of Convocation itself, and in the laws, municipal and 
 ecclesiastical, required, for the purpose of rendering synodal 
 action of the Church practicable under the altered circumstances 
 of the present times, as compared with those in which Convoca- 
 tion formerly existed. 
 
 2. Concurrent with that license, the appointment of a Royal 
 Commission (of which only communicants of the Church shall 
 be members), consisting of privy councillors, peers, members of 
 the House of Commons, and men versed in municipal and eccle- 
 siastical law, to deliberate and report as aforesaid. 
 
 3. The deliberations of Convocation and the Commission to 
 be separate, but each to confer with the other as occasion may 
 require. 
 
 4. Each to call in the counsel or testimony of competent per- 
 sons, whether members of either or not. 
 
 5. The Commission and Convocation, if possible, to agree in 
 one report, but may make separate reports if deemed advisable. 
 
 Reasons in support of the foregoing Scheme. 
 
 1. License for Convocation to deliberate generally would only 
 exhibit its helpless debility, and cause its efforts to be wasted in at- 
 tempts to decree without power to enforce, and to work without 
 machinery adapted to the circumstances of the times. 
 
 2. But license restricted to a special question would give a prac- 
 tical direction to its labours, bring the subject in a business-like point 
 of view before the legislature and the public, and cause thorough scru- 
 tiny, on the one hand, into the difficulties and impediments (great and 
 complicated they are) which beset the question of synodal action, and 
 on the other hand, into the repeals and enactments necessary to over- 
 come those difficulties and impediments. A compi-ehensive view and 
 distinct classification of the obstacles, of the means proposed, and of 
 the sacrifices to be made for their removal, are obviously necessary for 
 a practical arrangement, and may be reasonably required before the 
 subject can be in a fit position to be dealt with by Parliament. 
 
 3. Though Convocation may claim to counsel or originate reform 
 in its own constitution, nevertheless the laity, as members of the Church, 
 have an interest therein ; and moreover, great changes in laws affecting 
 the laity would be indispensably necessary, to render it an effective in- 
 strument of synodal action. 
 
 Consequently the laity would require to have a voice in counselling 
 (this is not the place to discuss what voice they should have in the 
 reformed Convocation) the necessary changes. 
 
 4. The Royal Commission would give the required voice, and 
 tend to remove any jealousy respecting a desire of the clergy to ag- 
 grandise their own power, as separate from the lay members of the 
 whole body — the Church. 
 
 5. The joint operation of these two deliberative bodies would
 
 Occasional Papers. 51 
 
 spread general confidence, and allay that party-feeling which has 
 impeded unity of purpose among churchmen, in co-operating for the 
 attainment of well digested and regulated synodal action. 
 
 6. By this scheme there is a riddance of endless and unprofitable 
 controversies respecting the former functions and privileges of Convo- 
 cation. The claim of the Church is placed upon a broad and intelli- 
 gible basis, and brought to a practical issue. Change of times and 
 circimistances has called for changes in the constitution to remove 
 burdens from the consciences, and restrictions from the privileges, of 
 those not in communion with the Church. But this removal has caused 
 a transfer of those burdens and restrictions to the consciences and pri- 
 vileges of churchmen. On at least equal ground she demands similar 
 alterations for her deliverance, and the same freedom which is possessed 
 by every other religious body, — of not having her doctrine or discipline 
 subject to any other legislation or adjudication than that of her own 
 n, embers and tribunals. 
 
 Questions on the former constitution of Convocation are, in this 
 point of view, vain. If it was ever fitted for effective synodal action, 
 it is not so now. Entangled as the subject is with the altered religious 
 character of the population and legislature — with laws in which claims 
 of property are embarrassed by questions of fitness^ for spiritual offices 
 — with customs that render the royal patronage a fiction — with rules 
 which deny the Church all judgment on the qualifications of aspirants 
 to its highest and most sacred functions — and with other anomalies — we 
 have no concern with what Convocation was in times very different 
 from the present. The simple question is that propounded for die con- 
 sideration of the two bodies before mentioned, viz. what alteration in 
 the existing laws and in the constitution of Convocation are necessary 
 to make synodal action practicable — a reality, an effective instrument, 
 instead of a delusion and mockery. 
 
 II. 
 
 A Plan for establishing a Summary Adjudication of Eccle- 
 siastical Suits. 
 
 Under the sanction of a special license from the king, the Convocation 
 of the province of Canterbury, in the year 1603, treated of and agreed 
 upon divers constitutions and canons ecclesiastical, amounting to 141 
 in number, which were published by his Majesty's authority under the 
 Great Seal of England ; of which canons, forty-seven appertain to the 
 regulation of ecclesiastical courts. From the Convocation having, dur- 
 ing the last century, discontinued the practice of proroguing its sessions 
 from time to time, the superior court, invested with authority for en- 
 forcing the observance of its own constitutions, and for correcting abuses 
 and irregular proceedings in the adjudication of ecclesiastical suits, has 
 been rendered insufficient and incapable of exercising its proper func- 
 tions. In the meantime the grossest abuses have gradually crept into 
 the inferior ecclesiastical courts, to such an extent, that instead of an- 
 swering their original design in accomplishing the salutary administra-
 
 52 Occasional Papers. 
 
 tion of ecclesiastical law, they are too frequently converted into a 
 formidable engine of litigation, vexation, and oppression, and ruin to 
 one or both of the parties concerned, and as such are, in their present 
 disgraceful state, become the deserved object of reprobation to the 
 whole kingdom. As the dilatory proceedings of these courts, and the 
 want of competent information and liberal education on the part of the 
 proctors who are at present allowed to practise in them, constitute two 
 causes which greatly contribute to the abuses and corrupt proceedings 
 which prevail in them, it is proposed to guard against both these evils 
 by the enactment of additional canons ; and that for this purpose the 
 Convocation should petition the Prince Regent for granting to them, 
 with the advice of the Privy Coimcil, a special license to treat of and 
 agree upon such canons as may be expedient for the better regulations 
 of ecclesiastical courts. The principles which are proposed to consti- 
 tute the basis of the projected regulations of these courts are such as 
 harmonise with the genuine spirit of English jurisprudence, and con- 
 tribute to secure the liberty of the subject, — trial by jury, and assessors 
 to the judge invested with the authority of a quorum. These principles 
 appear to be not altogether unknown in proceedings of ecclesiastical 
 jurisprudence. The learned canonist Johnson, in his Clergyman s 
 Fade Mecum, ed. 1723, vol. i. p. 146, says, " When there is a con- 
 troversy concerning the right of presenting to a vacant church, it has 
 been, and still is in some cases, the practice to have the right tried by 
 a jury empannelled by the bishop or his vicar-general, whereof one 
 half are of the clergy, the other of the laity. Why should not all 
 matters ' wherein the Church's rights are concerned be tried in the 
 same manner ?' By one of the Legantine constitutions of Otlio, enacted 
 A.D. 1247, 22, § 3, ' De officio advocatorum et judicum,' it is provided 
 as follows : ' Judices vero juris ignari, si dubium aliquod emerserit, ex 
 quo possit alterutri partium praejudicium grave generari, expensis 
 utriusque partis alicujus advocent consilium sapientis.' " It is pro- 
 posed that the practice mentioned by Johnson as obtaining in one 
 description of spiritual causes shall be extended to others of a weighty 
 nature, to be specified by canon ; and such adoption of trial by a jury, 
 composed of six beneficed clergymen and six laymen possessing a 
 
 freehold of pounds per annum, coincides with the privilege which 
 
 is allowed by the courts of common law in causes where one party is 
 a foreigner and the other a native subject ; and as in such causes the 
 medietas linguce has long been observed in empannelling a jury, so it is 
 proposed that the medietas fraternitatis shall constitute the rule in 
 empannelling a jury in ecclesiastical courts. 
 
 In causes of a minor description, to be specified by canon, it is 
 proposed that adjudication shall be still more summary; and for this 
 purpose, that the ancient practice of holding rural chapters shall be 
 revived, to which the dean rural shall at stated times convene the 
 clergy of his deanerj% who shall, without the aid of a jury, be compe- 
 tent to hear and adjudge minor causes ; such as the neglect of the 
 churchwardens in regard to the dilapidation of churches, and of in- 
 cumbents in regard to the dilapidation of manses (under which 
 term are included both house and glebe), together with some other 
 causes. That to this court previous notification shall be made of the 
 intention to sue in the archidiaconal court, and that on there appear-
 
 Occasional Papers. 53 
 
 ing satisfactory ground for commencing such suit, the promoter to be 
 bound to proceed at the next archidiaconal court wliich shall be held, 
 unless the most urgent reasons shall be produced for letting the trial 
 stand over until the second court, which shall be held after previous 
 notice has been given : then at these rural chapters, no business but 
 that of adjournment shall be transacted, unless the dean, or his sub- 
 dean, with two other incumbents, be"present, as three shall constitute a 
 quorum, upon the ecclesiastical maxim that " tres faciunt collegium." 
 
 As these rural chapters will be somewhat analogous to the petty 
 sessions, and the grand jury in causes triable by magistrates at com- 
 mon law, so it is proposed that the analogy shall be preserved by an 
 appeal lying from the decision of the dean rural's court to the arcii- 
 deacon's court, which, like the quarter-sessions of magistrates, shall 
 be held four times in the year- — namely, in the Christmas, Easter, and 
 Whitsun holidays, and at Michaelmas : that these courts shall be held 
 by the archdeacon in person, unless prevented by ill health or other 
 urgent cause, and that cause not to be allowed to extend beyond the 
 
 number of different courts; in his absence, an official to preside, 
 
 who shall always be an ecclesiastic possessing a rectory ; that toge- 
 ther with the archdeacon, or his official, shall be two or more assessors, 
 being ecclesiastics and rectors of parishes, and that at that court also 
 three shall constitute a quorum ; that this court shall invariably em- 
 pannel a jury upon the principle of the medietas fraternitatis already 
 described. 
 
 That in the Consistorial Court the chancellor shall have two pre- 
 bendaries for his assessors ; and in the dean's court, that the dean, or 
 in his absence the president of the chapter, shall have also two pre- 
 bendaries for his assessors. That in the court of the custos and col- 
 lege of vicars choral of the cathedral, the custos have always two of 
 the senior vicars for his assessors. That in every court the assessors 
 have votes, as well as give their best advice to the [iresiding judge. 
 
 That in causes of a mixed nature, comprising questions relative to 
 temporal as well as spiritual matter, it shall be optional to the parties 
 either to try the spiritual part of the cause in these courts, and the 
 temporal in courts of common law, or else to try the whole cause more 
 expeditiously in these courts, by an augmentation of the quorum by 
 the addition of three barristers to the archdeacon, chancellor, or official, 
 and his two clerical assessors ; that in such mixed causes an appeal 
 shall lie to the court of delegates ; and that in that court causes shall be 
 heard and adjudged by a commission composed of an equal number of 
 members of Convocation and temporal judges or advocates. 
 
 That in causes purely spiritual an appeal shall continue to lie, as it 
 now does, to the Convocation. 
 
 That if modus causes continue to be tried in courts of common law, 
 a conference to be held between a delegation of the bisliops and judges, 
 for the purpose of preparing a bill and petition to the House of Lords, 
 to empower the sheriff of every comity to empannel a jury upon the 
 principle of the medietas fraternitatis above described, to proceed to 
 the trial of such causes in the courts of Nisi Prius. 
 
 That by such proposed bill provision be made for abolishing the 
 issue of prohibitions from the temporal courts, such prohibitions ap- 
 pearing to be rendered wholly inexpedient by the foregoing regulations.
 
 54' Occasional Papers. 
 
 That for tlie purpose of supply irifr the ecclesinstical courts with 
 persons well skilled in the science of ecclesiastical law, to act in the 
 capacity of judges, assessors, registrars, and proctors, a petition be 
 sent by the Convocation to the Crown, soliciting his Majestj', with the 
 concurrence of parliament, to found and endow a Regius professorship 
 of ecclesiastical law in each of the two Universities of Oxford and 
 Cambridge, the nomination to which to be vested in the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Archbishop of York for the 
 time being, subject, however, to her Majesty's approbation or rejection. 
 That such professors deliver each three courses of lectures in every 
 year, one of which courses to treat of the rites, ceremonies, and usages 
 of the Church in the administration of divine offices, with the history 
 of liturgies ancient and modern; the second to treat of the adminis- 
 tration of ecclesiastical law, with the sources from which that law is 
 derived ; a third to treat of the rules and usages of Convocation, with 
 the history of synods, oecumenical, national, provincial, and diocesan. 
 
 That after the expiration of a given time from the establishment 
 of these professorships, degrees be granted in each University in the 
 faculty of ecclesiastical law ; and that after a limited period no one 
 be eligible to the office of chancellor, archdeacon, official, or advocate, 
 who shall not be a doctor of ecclesiastical law ; and that no one be 
 eligible to the office of registrar or proctor who shall not be a bachelor 
 of ecclesiastical law ; that in the interim the present chancellors and 
 archdeacons shall, on their death or cession, be succeeded by none but 
 doctors of civil law, and the registrars and px'octors by none but ba- 
 chelors of civil law. 
 
 That in the proposed canons provision be made to preclude spiri- 
 tual courts from trenching on the province of temporal courts ; and that 
 in the proposed Act of Parliament pi-ovision be made to preclude tem- 
 poral courts from trenching upon the province of spiritual courts. 
 
 By the adoption of the })receding plan, abundant means would be 
 provided to check the gross abuses which prevail in ecclesiastical courts, 
 and which are owing partly to the want of information and to the in- 
 tention of those who practise in them, but principally to the dilatory 
 process of a series of written documents in lieu oi viva voce evidence; 
 a mode of proceeding first introduced into the civil courts of judicature 
 under the Roman emperors, in consequence of the impracticability of 
 obtaining the personal attendance of witnesses in causes of appeal to 
 Rome from remote tributary provinces, and which dilatory method of 
 trying causes was transferred from the courts of the emperor to those 
 of the pope, whose ecclesiastical dominion being scarcely less exten- 
 sive than the temporal dominion of the emperor, a series of written 
 documents presented the best mode of carrying on appeals to his court. 
 
 When the usurpation of papal authority in ecclesiastical proceed- 
 ings was rejected by this country, the dilatory, harassing, tormenting, 
 oppressive, ruinous mode of conducting spiritual causes should also 
 have been rejected, and constitutes that branch of the Reformation 
 which remains to be accomplished. 
 
 (From Gravamina Ecclesice. By the Rev. Jonas Dennis, Preben- 
 dary of Kerswell, Exeter. 1819.)
 
 Occasional Papers. 55 
 
 III. 
 
 Lay Co-operation in Synods : 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE 
 
 LONDON CHURCH UNION. 
 
 {From the Author.) 
 
 1. Whether the Union be not pledged not to intrude itself " into the 
 office of judge in spiritual matters," but to leave such matters " to the 
 authorities of the Church." 
 
 2. Whether, in the remonstrances made in the Gorham case, this 
 was not one of the main grounds of complaint, viz. that the matter had 
 not been left to the authorities of the Church. 
 
 3. Whether the question, "How far the bishops, by our Lord's own 
 appointment, are exclusive ordinary judges in points of faith and spiri- 
 tual discipline," be less than a " great spiritual matter," touching an 
 article of the creed. 
 
 4. And, therefore, whether the true way of faith be not to leave that 
 question entirely open for the consideration of a free synod, when such 
 may be had; not prejudging the question, nor interfering with the free 
 action of the synod, by previously declaring that we will not accept it, 
 unless it adopt a certain private view on this question. 
 
 5. Whether the rule by which either synods or individuals are 
 bound to be guided in regard to the aforesaid question be not this — 
 To ascertain as nearly as possible the mind of the early undivided. 
 Church upon it, and to conform ourselves thereto. 
 
 6. Whether it be not a notorious fact in Church history, that no 
 layman was ever admitted to sit and vote in a council of the Church, in 
 the times of the early undivided Church ; nor any presbyter, except by 
 special allowance of the bishops. 
 
 7. Whether there be not declarations of holy fathers, and also of 
 great Christian emperors, amply sufficient to shew that such an ar- 
 rangement was acknowledged to be grounded on an abiding principle, 
 which the Church could not innocently dispense with. 
 
 8. Whether it may not be unreal and inconsistent, and, if wilfully 
 done, likely to forfeit the blessing of God on our efforts for the 
 Church's freedom, and to bring them into scandal before men, if we 
 ignore and reject on so great a question the plain authority of the 
 times which we are constantly appealing to. 
 
 9. Whether, admitting the danger of what is called "priestcraft," and 
 the desirableness of checking it by admitting the laity to be represented 
 in Church councils, there be not an effectual way of answering that 
 purpose, in harmony both with our own constitutional notions and 
 with the principles and practice of the early Church universal, viz. 
 that the bishops, where the state does not appoint, should be elected 
 by the whole body of the communicants of the diocese. (As they are 
 at present appointed among ourselves, the influence of the laity would 
 seem to be rather more than sufficient.) 
 
 10. Whether there be not other conceivable arrangements which 
 might answer the same purpose, without interfering, or seeming to in- 
 terfere, with so high and sacred a matter as the prerogative of the 
 Apostles' successors in matters of doctrine. 
 
 11. Whether, under present circumstances, it be not desirable for
 
 56 Books on the subject of Convocation. 
 
 the London Church Union to refrain from committing itself on the de- 
 tails of this subject, and to be content with passing some such general 
 resolution as the following :— Tliat no plan will be satisfactory which 
 does not provide both for the sacred rights of the apostolical succes- 
 sion, and for the due influence of the Christian people, according to 
 Holy Scripture and primitive antiquity. 
 
 12. Whether any determination which may be made on this or 
 other kindred matters, in the present state of Christendom, by any 
 Church or portion of a Church, should not be expressly declared to be 
 provisional, until the whole Church in Synod assembled (should we 
 ever obtain such a blessing) may declare its mind. 
 
 John Keble. 
 
 Hursley, Trinity Sunday, 1852. 
 
 BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT OF CONVOCATION. 
 
 [The following is from a correspondent. Many readers, we believe, will be thankful 
 for the notices of these books. We are informed that Mr. Lathbury is engaged 
 in preparing an enlarged edition of his history.] 
 
 It has been laid down in the prospectus which has been issued of the 
 new publication of which the reader has now the first Number, " that 
 we must make ourselves masters of the past before we can safely take 
 one step in advance." This is true with regard to all human affairs. 
 If history be philosophy teaching by examples, we may also be sure 
 that without such teaching man is very soon led astray in his ignorance, 
 and that in deciding as to his present relations or his future duties he 
 •will fall into numerous and fatal mistakes which might otherwise have 
 been avoided. Whether attention be called to matters secular or 
 ecclesiastical, to the government of a country or to the well-being of 
 the Church, the same remark a;iplies alike. Those alone will direct 
 us aright, and are therefore to be trusted, who have enlarged their 
 knowledge and experience by converse with other times, and have 
 matured their judgment by observations thereon. It must frequently 
 become our duty, in conducting the present publication, to refer to and 
 quote largely from those works on the subject of the Synods of the 
 Church which have been written and published in times before, and 
 which give us the history and the reasons of each ecclesiastical mea- 
 sure. We are persuaded that in doing this we shall best assist in 
 guiding and informing, so far as we have the humble opportunity, the 
 minds of churchmen as to what should be done in our Synods in the 
 present time, and if reforms are necessary, as to the spirit by which 
 they should be conducted and regulated. Our true wisdom here will 
 be as elsewhere, neither blindly to worship nor ignorantly to despise 
 the principles and customs of antiquity; nor on the other hand to ne- 
 glect the peculiarities and requirements of the times in which we live, 
 nor to imagine that our present machinery is useless because ancient, 
 and to be altogether cast aside rather than adapted to present cir- 
 cumstances.
 
 Boohs on the subject of Convocation. 57 
 
 We congratulate our readers that a wise and moderate spirit of 
 this nature prevails to a great extent amongst those who desire to 
 see the restoration to the Ciiurch of her synodical powers. It has 
 already done much to diminish opposition, if not to secure approval, 
 from those who have before strongly objected to Convocation meeting 
 on the ground of the extreme or party measures which they feared 
 would of necessity be proposed and passed. We have often heard 
 the question asked, Where do we read about Convocation ? What are 
 the best books from which to gather information as to the laws and 
 practices of Church Synods. Tlie reason, we are persuaded, why 
 many object to the whole question of the revival of Synods, is because 
 they know nothing, for they have read nothing of them. The study 
 of the subject which we woidd recommend to all churchmen, and espe- 
 cially to the clergy, would do nmch to allay the fears which many en- 
 tertain, to moderate and render more practical the hopes and plans of 
 others, and would deepen in the minds of all the urgent necessity for 
 the assembling of our Synods, and the palpable advantages in our pre- 
 sent state to be expected from them. 
 
 With this conviction on our mind, we shall venture to make a few 
 remarks as to some of the most useful books to be read upon this 
 important topic, without professing to mention all, and we hope that 
 we may thus in some measure remove the difficulty as to the know- 
 ledge of the best works bearing thereon, which is so frequently felt by 
 those who have not hitherto much considered this matter in its histo- 
 rical relations. 
 
 To those who have the good fortune to be within the reach of a 
 large library, we would recommend strongly the study of Wilkins' 
 Concilia for our English Synods, a work most trustworthy and useful 
 to the English churchman, containing all necessary records bearing on 
 the history of the Church of England. Labbe's Councils, with Har- 
 duin's notes, another large work, will fully furnish him with informa- 
 tion as to foreign councils. Much of the matter contained in the 
 former of these works, illustrated by additional contemporary records 
 and papers derived from other sources, has been brought within the 
 range of ordinary libraries by the useful and accurate publications of 
 Dr. Cardwell. The Oxford University press has done a good work 
 in publishing these interesting voKmnes; and Dr. Cardwell deserves 
 the thanks of all churchmen for the full and correct records which 
 he has there collected and arranged, and for the pains, patience, and 
 learning which he has brought to bear upon the subject. We need 
 not say that we are now only speaking of the facts and historical mat- 
 ter which he has presented to us, and by no means intending to express 
 our concurrence with, or to recommend the adoption of his views and 
 opinions respecting ecclesiastical measures and parties in former times. 
 We need hardly mention that his works which specially bear upon 
 the subject before us are Synodalia (2 vols.), being a collection of 
 Articles of Religion, Canons, and Proceedings of Convocations in the 
 province of Canterbury from 1547 to 1717. 2. History of Confer- 
 ences and other Proceedings connected with the Revision of the Book 
 of Comynon Prayer, from 1558 to 1690. 3. Documentary Annals 
 of the Reformed Church of England; being a collection of Injunc- 
 tions, Declarations, Articles of Inquiry, from \5^Q to 1716. 4. The
 
 58 Books on the subject of Convocation. 
 
 Reformatio Legum, as attempted under our Tudor princes. The 
 study of these will well repay the student in English Church History ; 
 and what is this but the history of her provincial Synods ? 
 
 The next work relating to English synods we would mention and 
 recommend is Bp. Gibson's Synodus Anglicana, or a complete history 
 of Convocations from 1356 to 1689, with other matters bearing thereon. 
 In this book various points of interest connected with the customs and 
 practices of Convocation are discussed, many of them being those as to 
 which there was maintained, a century and a half ago, an ardent and 
 lengthened controversy, but which he treats with the good sense, learning, 
 and sound judgment which distinguished that eminent prelate. Here 
 the reader will find full information given him as to the method of 
 summoning an English Convocation (ch. 1.), as to the manner of open- 
 ing and conducting it (ch. 2), as to the election and office of a Prolo- 
 cutor (ch. 4), as to the relative position of the clergy and the bishops, 
 the Lower and the Upper House in Convocation (ch. 5, 6, 7), as to 
 the rights of the clergy in Convocation (ch. 12-16), and as to the 
 long-disputed question of the proroguing, continuing, and dissolving of 
 Convocation. His Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani is a testimony 
 of that learned prelate's methodical and clear understanding and treat- 
 ment of the laws and principles of the Church of England, and is, as 
 a book of reference, of great utility. Bishop Gibson is always to be 
 relied on in any matter on which he treats, — a remark which we wish 
 we could safely make as to other writers on Convocation, as, for in- 
 stance, to the two following, whom we will couple together. 
 
 Atterbury's Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convoca- 
 tion (8vo), was written in answer to Arclibishop Wake's The Autho- 
 rity of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted, with 
 'particular respect to the Convocations, 8fc., 1697. But though both 
 works are interesting as works of controversy, neither the one nor the 
 other are to be trusted when referring to a point disputed between 
 them ; and both writers were so blinded by their individual views, 
 and so influenced by the circumstances of their times, that they fur- 
 nish, perhaps, less matter for our guidance than might have been ex- 
 pected of them. These writers are alike remarkable for positive and 
 dogmatic statements in accordance with their respective opinions, for 
 a personal acquaintance with the forms of Convocation, of which, in- 
 deed, they were distinguished members; for an extensive study and 
 knowledge of its records ; and also, we regret to say, for a studied 
 suppression of such parts of them as made against their own views; 
 and for a laboured and strained "squeezing," like hired advocates, of an 
 historical witness, whose words are made to mean often far more than 
 any man of sense would have imagined. Yet, with all this, each 
 affected a virtuous and simple intention of honesty, and feigned an in- 
 dignant feeling of surprise and astonishment when his opponent could 
 be discovered in an historical error or falsehood, or in that which both 
 equally practised, a palpable suppressio veri. Atterbury's object 
 and argument was to make Convocation partake of a: parliamentary 
 character, and to resemble in its constitution the two Houses of 
 Parliament. The customs and laws of the latter he insisted should 
 be followed strictly in Convocation; an idea which, if carried out, 
 would (as has been often observed) overthrow episcopacy, and be
 
 Books on the subject of Convocation. 59 
 
 inconsistent with the subordination and obedience which is due from the 
 Presbyterate to the higher order in the ministry of Christ, Wake, how- 
 ever, in replying (often successfully) to Atterbury, travels frequently 
 beyond his subject. The argument of Bp. Gibson is sufficient as an 
 answer to his opponent, viz. that his view was inconsistent with epis- 
 copacy ; but Wake goes further, treating the matter in a folio volume, 
 going through our Convocations from early times, and shewing that 
 there is nothing to be found which would support the views of Atterbury. 
 But with this he mixes up other statements as to the Synods of the 
 Church, as to their authority and use, and facts connected with them, 
 which prevent our recommending him as a guide to be implicitly fol- 
 lowed. These two eminent persons may be compared to two gladiators, 
 or to two sharp-witted legal practitioners, each trying to take advan- 
 tage of the other and to win an apparent victory, and are not therefore 
 true and safe masters to direct us surely in the difficulties which in the 
 present day are in our path. The student should therefore read with 
 caution these two ecclesiastical writers. 
 
 Hodys History of English Councils and Convocations, and of the 
 Clergy's Sitting in Parliament (1701, 8vo), is a work far more to be 
 relied on than the last two we have mentioned. Conceived apparently 
 without bittei'ness or party-spirit, it is carried out in the same fair and 
 moderate temper of minil ; and its accuracy and abundant reference to 
 dates, facts, and records, demand attention from him who inquires 
 into the subject. 
 
 Kemiett's Ecclesiastical Synods and Convocations Historically 
 Stated (8vo) is a controversial work written on Wake's side in reply 
 to Atterbury's views. Not so large or long as the Archbishop's folio, 
 and without the extraneous matter he has included, it argues fairly on 
 the matter in hand, but without the knowledge and research which 
 Hody manifests in his book. 
 
 Johnsons Collection of Cations and Ecclesiastical Larvs in the 
 Church of England from the Time of Gregory I. to the Reformation 
 (2 vols. 8vo) is of great value; and in it are given, together with the 
 proceedings of our earliest councils translated from the Latin, the con- 
 stitutions of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, which received 
 the previous sanction of our Provincial Synods before they were thus 
 publicly enforced upon the Clergy. 
 
 To those who wish to go deeper, Spelman's Concdia and Lynd- 
 wood's Provinciale will afford ample matter for study ; both are stand- 
 ard authorities, but perhaps not likely to be so popular or so generally 
 read amongst us as Gibson or Wake, as they are written in the Latin, 
 and would be considered by many of too di*y and legal a character in 
 their form and matter. 
 
 Amongst moderns, Mr. Lathbury is honourably to be mentioned, as 
 having compiled some years ago, before much, if any, public attention 
 was directed to the subject, a very useful and practical work in his 
 History of the Convocation of the Church of England. To those who 
 wish to gather in a small space and in a little time some general ideas 
 as to our Provincial Synods, we can safely recommend his work. No 
 modern publication that we have as yet seen is so adapted to our re- 
 quirements at the present time as this is. Written in a fair and tem- 
 perate spirit, and by one who has patiently and deeply inquired into
 
 60 Books on the subject of Convocation. 
 
 the subject, it is a useful manual, containing much and accurate matter 
 in a small and portable volume. 
 
 We have not had the good fortune to do more tlian occasionally 
 to refer to Mr. Pearce's book on Convocation. We may mention 
 there are in it to be found some forms and facts relating to Convocation 
 which are not to be found in other published works that we have 
 met with. 
 
 Another contribution on this subject is promised us from the Rev. 
 Canon Trevor, Proctor for the Archdeaconry of York, which we doubt 
 not will be ably written. We have reason to know that he has searched 
 very fully into the records of the Convocation of York, and has brought 
 to light by so doing much information which has not appeared before. 
 The Fire of London unhappily destroyed or injured the records of the 
 Convocation of Canterbury ; but those of York, preserved and neglected 
 in the Registry of York, met with no such casualty. Hitherto they have 
 laid undisturbed in their repose at York ; and we are much mistaken if 
 Mr. Trevor's researches will not be the means of extending more 
 knowledge as to the York Convocation than has hitherto been pos- 
 sessed by us, and of our being able to quote and point to some au- 
 thorities in former times which may guide or extricate the Churchmen 
 of the north in their present difficulties. It is not probable that much 
 more information can be given us as to the proceedings of tlie Canter- 
 bury Convocation than what we have already befoie us in the various 
 works which we have already mentioned ; but we have a strong suspi- 
 cion that there is much hitherto unbroken ground in the Registry of 
 that of York. 
 
 A thorough searching into the archives of the Northern Province 
 would be a very desirable and beneficial task. Many time-honoured 
 traditions, handed from mouth to mouth by successive generations, 
 would, we feel sure, be exposed, and for the future exploded. And 
 though Fuller says, that " in old times York is but the hand of a dial, 
 moving or pointing as directed by the clock of Canterbury," it might 
 possibly come to pass that, in this way, York might now direct Canter- 
 bury in some points, and cease for the future to be merely an echo of the 
 south. 
 
 To those who wish information respecting Diocesan Synods, we 
 would recommend the perusal of Gavantus de Synodo Dicecesand, and 
 the fuller work on the same subject by Benedict XIV. No one, we 
 are convinced, who has at heart a sincere desire for the practical 
 efficiency of the Church of England, and that through her, full spirit- 
 ual privileges should be extended to the neglected masses which are 
 nominally hers, can read these methodical and elaborate treatises with- 
 out admiring the order and rules there given by which such assemblies 
 have been conducted in another communion — without seeing an in- 
 finity of every- day difficulties in our system and state which might 
 there be resolved — and without wishing and hoping that some day it 
 may be permitted to our Church to hold them. What ignorance of 
 the past and of man it proves, for any to argue that Church assemblies 
 are not wanted, or would only prove causes of division, when every 
 civilised and free state and country — every prosperous society — every 
 profession and trade — has found and now finds similar assemblies their 
 strength and mainstay ! What overlooking of ecclesiastical history is
 
 Original Documents. 61 
 
 involved in such arguments, when, in active times, synods have been 
 the guardians of the Church ! What unbelief in the presence and 
 guidance of her Divine Head ! For though we find, undoubtedly, 
 that in many Churcli councils division and dispute marred or pre- 
 vented the good which might have been done, yet we must not forget 
 that good was done, — good mixed with imperfection maybe in some 
 cases, unmixed good in others. Surely it is not too much to expect 
 that, from the study of the proceedings of former Church assemblies, 
 we in our day, who in our secular parliaments have learned to avoid 
 the acknowledged faults and vices of former times, should also improve 
 upon the examples left us in deliberations on spiritual things ; that we 
 should follow what is worthy of imitation, and avoid that which has 
 been reprehensible. 
 
 Let us not be blind to good effected, nor unduly magnify past im- 
 perfections in our ancient Synods. Above all, let us not overlook the 
 evils and detriment arising from our present ecclesiastical position, in 
 which no united prayer is offered for a scattered people — no solemn 
 assembly of saints " to lift up the hands which hang down, and the 
 feeble knees ; to make straight paths for our feet ;'' — in which people, 
 priests, and bishops are isolated, the one from the other, in mutual 
 ignorance and consequent distrust; — in which spiritual matters and 
 interests are managed hap-hazard, without order or deliberation or 
 union ; — in which a mixed Parliament of Churchmen, dissenters, and 
 unbelievers alone attempt to legislate for the Church, and are deter- 
 mined to treat it on an Erastian principle, merely as a department of 
 the State. What a miracle that the Church has survived such a nurs- 
 ing ! Can any evils that have ever resulted from Church Synods in 
 past history be compared with the evils which at present exist, and 
 must of necessity flow from such a system of Church government as in 
 the present day is exercised over English Churchmen ? When will 
 our laity, our clergy, our bishops see that the present order of things 
 can only continue on one condition — which God forbid ! — the decay 
 and final destruction of the Church of England? 
 
 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Touching the Supremacie and Head of the Church. 
 
 DR. COSINS. 
 [Harl. Mss. No. 750, 15.— Plat, xxxvi. H. p. 290.] 
 
 Mr. Eobson and I discoursing of the canon law, the question 
 was putt. From whom the power of excommunication proceeded ? 
 I answered, that we had our power thereof from Christ. And 
 Mr. Pleasans interposing that we had it from the king, and that 
 he might excommunicate as well as we, this I said : Tliat no 
 man (who understood himself) had ever said so, that our Church 
 disclaimed it, and that it is a slander laid upon us by the
 
 62 Original Documents. 
 
 Papists ; that the exercise thereof was under the king, but the 
 power of it only from Christ, and that by virtue of holy orders ; 
 and, lastly, that our kings had never taken any such power upon 
 them. 
 
 The second question, upon occasion of the former, being 
 made by Mr. Pleasans, How the king, then, could be said to be 
 Head of the Church ? I demanded of him. Who it was that said 
 it ? and answered, that the laws said it not ; that the canons said 
 it not ; that our best writers said it not (at least in that sense 
 wherein he urged it) ; that Queen Elizabeth refused it ; that 
 our kings since her time liked it not ; that the oath of supre- 
 macie itself expressed it not; that in my judgment it was unfit 
 for us private men to set forth any other title of the king than 
 what he himself or his state had ordained ; that the style was 
 the more misliked (howsoever in a general sense it might be 
 well enough interpreted) because the Pope's flatterers had given 
 it unto him; and because it doth most properly belong unto 
 Christ, who was the only Head of His Church precisely taken, 
 which is but one body itself, and therefore not capable of many 
 heads. And, lastly, that they did but cause themselves either 
 to be pitied or contemned, whosoever did affirm that we gave 
 power of administering the sacraments, or excommunication, 
 unto princes themselves ; whom, nevertheless, we acknowledged 
 (and that this I would be as ready to maintain as any man) to be 
 supreme governor[s] both of Church and State ; and that by tliis 
 power of supreme dominion they might command churchmen at 
 any time to do their office, or punish them for their neglect of it. 
 I added further to Mr. Pobson, saying, that external co-action, 
 indeed, whereby men were forced to obey the jurisdiction of the 
 Church, was from the king ; but the power of spiritual jurisdic- 
 tion itself was fi'om Christ, who had given it to His apostles, and 
 they to their successors in ordination. This was the utmost of 
 that I said ; and I think I should have betrayed the truth if I 
 had said less : the whole company, or the best of them, often in- 
 terposing and assenting to what I spoke, unless it were Mr. 
 Pleasans and George "Walton, whose only difference fr-om me 
 then was that the acts of Parliament styled the king Head of the 
 Church; whereupon we laid a wager of half-a-crown for a pair 
 of gloves, all the whole company bearing witness thereof. But 
 as for any irreverent words of his Majesty, my most gracious 
 Lord and Sovereign, they yet did never, and never shall they, 
 come either out of my mouth or into my heart. 
 
 Jo. CosiNS. 
 
 De titulo supremi capitis Ecclesiae, vide Bp. Jewell's Defence of 
 
 the Apology, p. 570. 
 The View of the Pope's Bull, p. 14. 
 Anno 1 Beg. Eliz. stat. i. et Cambden in ejus vita. 
 Bp. Andrewes' Tortura Torti, pp. 170, 338.
 
 Original Documents. 63 
 
 Reynolds' Conference, cap, i, cli. 2, p. 52. in 4to. 
 
 Burhill contra Becanum pro Tortura Torti, cap. 10, per totum. 
 
 Bp. Barlo [Barlow] Ep. Lyncoln, contra Parsons, pp. 207 et seqq. 
 
 Politciam Eccles. Angl. s. 3, per totum. 
 
 Montague's Gagg, pp. 68, 69. 
 
 Irish Convocation, 1703. 
 
 Address or the Deans, Archdeacons, and Proctors of the 
 Lower Clergy in Dublin to the Archbishops and 
 Bishops of Ireland, 1703. 
 
 [Additional Mss. No. 5951, fol. 129 : British Museum.] 
 
 To the Most Reverend the Lord Archbishops and the Right Rev. 
 the Lord Bishops of Ireland, 
 
 The humble Address and Representation of the Deans, Arch- 
 deacons, and Proctors of the Lower Clergy, now in Dublin. 
 May it please your Lordships, 
 
 "When we first came to this town, in obedience to her 
 Majesty's writ, and your Lordships' mandate thereupon, we 
 hoped to have had the honour of being met by your Lordships 
 in a full and entire Convocation ; but we find that, notwithstand- 
 ing your Lordships' address to his Grace the Lord Lieutenant, 
 and his Grace's repeated interposition upon that address, we are 
 in danger of being delayed, till possibly it may be too late to 
 assert our rights during this Session of Parliament : wherefore 
 we humbly beg leave to represent to your Lordships the sense 
 and desires of the Lower Clergy in this extraordinary juncture. 
 
 My Lords, we do, with all duty and deference to your Lord- 
 ships, conceive that the clergy of this kingdom, when met in a 
 perfect and entire Convocation, do assemble in two difierent 
 capacities, viz. in a civil and ecclesiastical capacity. 
 
 In the first we apprehend ourselves called together by her 
 Majesty's writ in the clause Premonentes, and that in virtue of 
 this we have a right to be formed into a regular body ; to be 
 attendants upon, and counsellors to the Parliament in whatever 
 may relate to the temporal rights of the Church, as interwoven 
 with the State. 
 
 In our ecclesiastical capacity we look upon it absolutely 
 necessary to be empowered by the provincial writ, and your 
 Grace's metropolitical authority consequent upon that writ, which 
 forms us into a national and truly ecclesiastical synod, to frame 
 canons, to enforce and reform discipline, to censure heresy, and 
 to exert that jurisdiction which belongs to us, in conjunction 
 with your Lordships, as the representative members of a national 
 Church. We have, as we hope, applied for this writ with that 
 modesty and patience that becomes us : and we repeat our thanks 
 to your Lordships for your care and endeavours, and wish for an
 
 f>l' Corres2'iondence 
 
 opiiortnnity of returning our most humble thanks to his Grace 
 my Lord Lieutenant for his generous concern to obtain it. But 
 since we have not yet prevailed for the recovery of our rights in 
 a capacity purely ecclesiastical, we are unwilHng to lose the 
 benefit of those which, by your Lordships' vigilance and his 
 Grace the Lord Lieutenant^s favour, we are in possession of in 
 a civil capacity; and, therefore, we most hvnnbly pray your 
 Lordships to advise us what further methods we ought to pursue 
 in order to maintain our constitution, and to make our present 
 meeting effectual. 
 
 [This address is printed in Atterhuri/s Correspondence, vol. iii, p. 129 ; but we reprint 
 it on account of its importance, with thanks to our correspondent for sending it. 
 — Ed. Synod.] 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Election of Proctors for the Diocese of Chester, 
 
 The election of proctors for this diocese presents some pecu- 
 liarities which render it worthy of notice. The division of the 
 diocese into two, and the subdivision of the remaining portion 
 of Chester into two archdeaconries, made a considerable alter- 
 ation in the representation in Convocation. 
 
 The present diocese of Chester comprehends the whole 
 county of Chester, and so much of the county of Lancaster as 
 was contained in the old deanery of Warrington. This latter 
 part is now comprehended in the archdeaconry of Liverpool. 
 As all this had taken place since the last election, a new process 
 had to be issued. The clergy of which archdeaconry found 
 themselves summoned to Chester and Liverpool respectively, 
 to elect one proctor each. Many of the clergy were rather sur- 
 prised at finding the universal custom of the northern province 
 departed from, by which every other archdeaconry returned 
 two. Accordingly on the day of election proper notice was 
 taken of this matter. 
 
 At Liverpool, the clergy being summoned to St. Peter's Church, 
 a large number attended. The Archdeacon, having commenced 
 proceedings by calling over the names of the clergy, declared 
 himself ready to receive nominations. The Rev. E. Blenkin- 
 sopp. Perpetual Curate of St. James, Lathom, asked how it hap- 
 pened that the summons called for the election of only one proc- 
 tor ? The Archdeacon replied that he understood that the old 
 archdeaconry of Chester being now divided into two, it was ar- 
 ranged by the ecclesiastical powers at Chester to divide the 
 representation also. Upon this Mr. Blenkinsopp tendered a 
 written protest against the process, and the whole proceedings 
 of the election, as being irregular, and therefore invalid. This 
 protest the Archdeacon refused to receive ; but directed that it
 
 Revieivs. 65 
 
 should be sent to the Bishop, which was accordingly done the 
 same day. 
 
 The election then proceeded. Three candidates were pro- 
 posed, Mr. Powis, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Barker. The first 
 withdrew, the second was elected by a large majority. Mr. 
 Barker was brought forward by the party unfavourable for Con- 
 vocation resuming its active powers. Mr. Canrpbell, though 
 not expressing himself decidedly favourable to the resumption, 
 yet stated his intention to fulfil the duties incumbent on his 
 office, and would attend at York at the day of meeting. 
 
 A petition is now in the course of signature throughout the 
 archdeaconry, to Convocation, against the restriction of one 
 proctor ; and the whole matter is in the best hands for obtaining 
 justice. 
 
 At Chester a somewhat similar course was pursued : the 
 process was protested against, and a petition signed ; the latter 
 being put in the hands of Mr. Greenall, the proctor elected. 
 
 It will be seen from this that there will be plenty of business 
 for Convocation to do when it meets, without requiring the 
 Queen's writ. The grievance of Chester is a very great one, 
 inasmuch as it is now actually deprived of what it formerly pos- 
 sessed, viz. the privilege of returning two proctors. 
 
 REVIEWS, 
 
 The History of the Chtirch of England. By J. B. S. Carwithen, 
 B.D. Second Edition. 2 vols. J. H. Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Mr. Carw^ithen's history was originally published in three 
 volumes, the first two in 1829, the third, after the death of the 
 author, in 1833. The present edition is an extremely con- 
 venient one in two volumes. We are glad to see that a new 
 edition is required ; for we subscribe readily to the opinion of 
 the editor, who claims for the work the praise of faithfulness of 
 description and sound judgment. Perhaps this praise belongs 
 in a greater degree to the middle and latter part of the work. 
 The history of the Puritans and Presbyterians appears to us to be 
 better given than the history of the Reformation. But upon the 
 whole, there is no Church history of the 16th and 17th centuries 
 which we should prefer to this to put into the hands of a young 
 student ; and public verdict has been given so decidedly in its 
 favour, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon its merits. If we 
 are obliged to mention points on which Mr. Carwithen's state- 
 ments must be received with caution, we must remark that his 
 words regarding the lioyal Supremacy appear to us to need 
 some modification. Thus, " though the Act of Supremacy had 
 
 NO. I. F
 
 66 Reviews. 
 
 conferred on the Queen an absolute power in the Church" (vol. i. 
 p. 444), " Injunctions possessing a canonical force had been 
 constantly issued solely by the authority of the sovereign ; and 
 when they related to spiritual matters, without any infringement 
 on the liberties of the subject" (vol. ii. p. 113). The supre- 
 macy of the Queen rests mainly on the statute 1 Eliz. c. i, which 
 restored to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over " the estate 
 ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolished all foreign powers re- 
 pugnant to the same." By that statute it is enacted that " such 
 jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminences, spi- 
 ritual 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 of the same, 
 and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, 
 contempts, and enormities, shall for ever be united and annexed 
 to the imperial crown of this realm." By another statute of the 
 same period (1 Eliz. c. ii. § 26), the sovereign was empowered, 
 with the advice of commissioners, or of the metropolitan, " to 
 ordain additional rites and ceremonies, to be of equal force and 
 authority with those already ordained by Act of Parliament" 
 ( Car dwell, Preface to Documentary Annals. See the whole pre- 
 face). The powers are large enough, and largely did Elizabeth 
 exercise her powers ; still they can hardly be described with 
 strict propriety in the words used by Carwithen. 
 
 In one instance, also, we miss the plain statement of Church 
 of England doctrine, for which an opportunity was offered, or 
 rather where the statement was called for, in the comparison of 
 the Article on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with the cor- 
 responding Article of Edward VI. We look here for the state- 
 ment that the Church of England holds the doctrine of the Ileal 
 Presence (see Ridley and Hooker); that without this true doc- 
 trine the arguments of the Papists cannot be answered ; that to 
 use the terms Real Presence and Transubstantiation (or corporal, 
 i. e. material Presence) as convertible is Jesuitry or ultra-Pro- 
 testantism ; and that the article of King Edward was faulty in 
 this respect, and was properly amended by Parker. Mr. Car- 
 withen's notice of the change appears to us singularly unsatis- 
 factory. 
 
 These are blemishes, but among merits and excellences of a 
 high order. The notices of Convocation occurring in the work 
 are fair and satisfactory. Perhaps the sketch in the first chapter 
 leans too much to the analogy between Parliament and Convoca- 
 tion. There is no analogy whatever, we believe, beyond the 
 external resemblance that there are two Houses in Convocation 
 and two in Parliament. The members of the House of Com- 
 mons and the proctors of the Lower House of Convocation 
 stand in different relations to their constituents. The relations
 
 Reviews. 67 
 
 of the two Houses to each other and to the Crown are perfectly 
 different. " My kmgdom is not of this world." Convocation is 
 a Synod ; Parliament is of this world. We observe also in this 
 sketch, that Mr. Carwithen gives as genuine the decrees, said to 
 be of the Council of Reading, for the choice of diocesan proctors. 
 The only authority, we believe, for this is Lynwode. Wake 
 and Kennet have, we think, proved them to be of later date. 
 
 But the remark which follows is for all times, and is at the 
 present time peculiarly applicable : " No measure was so admi- 
 rably calculated to form a barrier against the usurpations of a 
 foreign spiritual power as a national and representative Con- 
 vocation." 
 
 No less important is his testimony to the evils arising from 
 the want of Synods. " Thus the meetings of Convocation for 
 the purposes of deliberating on the aifairs of the Church, and of 
 making regulations for its discipline, have been suffered to grow 
 into entire disuse. The grievances of the Church are unre- 
 dressed, and the corruptions which unavoidably attach to all 
 human institutions, unless met by prevention or remedial inter- 
 ference, have been permitted to accumulate. Whenever a re- 
 medy has been administered, either through its inefficacy or the 
 unskilfulness of its application, it has frequently aggravated the 
 disease." 
 
 The juxtaposition of this history with that which we are 
 about to mention leads to the thought that histories, the one 
 beginning where the other ends, generally overlap rather than 
 join on ; and that, consequently, we are apt to lose some impor- 
 tant reflections which depend on continuity of the narrative. 
 Thus in the period with which we are now concerned, while the 
 succession of true Church of England men is easily traced, and 
 is, perhaps, present to the mind of most readers, as e. g. from 
 Hammond and Taylor, Cosin, through San croft, and Ken, and 
 Kettlewell, and Nelson, Bull, and Beveridge, the connexion is 
 overlooked of the latitudinarian divines, through the link of Til- 
 lotson, with one of the most remarkable cluster of men that have 
 ever appeared in our Church, — Henry More, John Smith, Wor- 
 thington, Cudworth, Wilkins. Mr. Carwithen has a short notice 
 of this class of divines (he omits John Smith, a man by no means 
 tlie least remarkable of them), vol. ii. p. 268, and tells that Tillot- 
 son was educated among them ; but he does not, of course, pursue 
 the subject. 
 
 It appears to us that there is room for a very interesting and 
 instructive chapter of our Church history, which should ascertain 
 the position of these philosophical divines, their connexion with 
 the High-Church school on the one hand and the Puritans on 
 the other, their influence in forming the school of Tillotson, 
 and bring the subject down to the latitudinarians properly so 
 called.
 
 68 JReviews. 
 
 The History of the Church of England from the Revolution to 
 the last Acts of Convocation, a.d., 1688-1717. By the Rev. 
 William Palin. Kivington, 1851. 
 
 This history is the first instahneut of a history of the Church of 
 England from the Revolution to the present time. Historians 
 often end with the Revolution, at a time, INIr. Palin observes, 
 " when a new and untried class of difficulties, requiring as much 
 as ever, if not more than ever, friendly explanation and direction, 
 are presenting themselves to our view." " The circumstances of 
 the present day," he adds, " seem to render it necessary that 
 Churchmen should be at once more familiar with the interesting 
 and important period" he treats of. 
 
 This observation should have been expressed much more 
 strongly. For of all times, not excepting even the Reformation, 
 the times of the Revolution are, in the present crisis of Church 
 matters, the most important and instructive. 
 
 We are now approaching the completion of a distinct period 
 or orbit of our history, which commenced at the Revolution, the 
 limit of one of those oscillations in matters of doctrine and form 
 which are perpetually recurring in our Church, and which might 
 almost seem to be as much a condition of the stability of our 
 system as the eccentricity of a planet's orbit is of its safe revolv- 
 ing ; and the limit also, we hope, of one of those deep declen- 
 sions in religion which peril the very existence of a Church. 
 Accordingly the present times are often compared with the be- 
 ginning of the eighteenth century; and it is commonly observed, 
 that the practices and opinions prevalent among those who ap- 
 pear on the surface of the present movement in our Church are 
 but a reproduction of the practices and opinions of the non- 
 jurors. 
 
 This is true ; but it is an inadequate expression of the truth, 
 and taken alone is likely to mislead. In fact, the observation is 
 most often made by those who wish to throw a slur upon the 
 present recurrence to Church principles, and who insinuate a 
 comparison between the advocates of those principles and the 
 later nonjurors with their lamentable schism. Let the whole 
 truth be told, that after a century and a half, during which com- 
 paratively few adhered to the teaching of the Church, there is 
 now a general return to that distinctive teaching ; that in the 
 doctrine of the holy sacraments, the estimate of the value of 
 confirmation and absolution, and in all matters connected -with 
 public worship, there was a far larger body at the time of the 
 Revolution, and is a far larger body now, who hold the central 
 truth than at any intermediate time ; and this being stated, we 
 have no objection to carry the observation further, and to say 
 that then, as now, there were those who erred on the extreme 
 right no less than many erred, and now err, on the extreme left.
 
 Reviews. 69 
 
 Nor is it uninteresting or unimportant to observe liow faithfully 
 the old errors are reproduced. There was then a secession to 
 Komanism, as now ; then, as now, a going beyond the teaching 
 of the Church regarding absolution ; then, as now, decisions re- 
 garding lay baptism where the Church has abstained from decid- 
 ing ; then, as now, a harshness in judging the bishops of the 
 Keformation, and defences of Bonner and Gardiner, although we 
 confess that it was reserved to our days to discover that after all 
 Bonner was only a good-tempered, free-spoken humorist. It is 
 this resemblance which gives the period immediately succeeding 
 the Revolution such an extraordinary interest and importance. 
 Are we to go the round again ? Are we to have a contest with 
 infidelity out of the Church, and with latitudinarianism within 
 the Church ? Or will Churchmen be able to hold their own bet- 
 ter than the Lower House of Convocation did against Hoadly ? 
 Surely a study of that time will be a better guide to practice 
 than all the tracts and anti-tracts of our prolific presses. Divi- 
 nity and practical Churchmanship is best learnt in Church 
 history. And in the particular with which we are especially 
 concerned this period is of extreme importance. We are 
 advancing to a time of synodal activity, and on those synods 
 rests the issue whether the Church will hold her own or sink. 
 We must hold the faith, and discipline we must have, or we 
 shall be found untrue to our trust, and God's sentence will be 
 against us. 
 
 It cannot but be of the highest moment, therefore, to acquaint 
 ourselves with the cause of the comparative failure of the last 
 Convocations. 
 
 There was good work proposed to them, and something of 
 discipline might have been maintained had the opportunity been 
 wisely used ; they were invited to consider proceedings in ex- 
 communications and abuses by commutation money; how to 
 establish rural deans where they are not, and to render them 
 useful where they are. Now the last days of Convocation, 
 although by no means useless, certainly had no result at all com- 
 parable to the activity displayed, in one house at least, or to the 
 time they occupied. And if we would not mar the work before 
 us, we must thoroughly understand the cause of this. People in 
 general rest satisfied with assigning as a cause the controversy 
 between the two houses, and throw all the blame on the conten- 
 tiousness of the lower clergy. This was not the prime cause, 
 which is found in the appointment by the new government of 
 fifteen bishops, fourteen of them of the province of Canterbury, 
 in two years' time, or little more, of a school of theology widely 
 different from the school in which the majority of the Lower 
 House were educated. Both the prime cause, and the particular 
 mode in which the opposition between the two parties manifested 
 itself, require the closest consideration. May it not be that we
 
 70 Heviews. 
 
 shall in a few years find ourselves in a like situation : the Go- 
 vernment yielding to the general wish of the Church, and grant- 
 ing a license to proceed to business ; the liOwer House filled with 
 disciples of Hooker, and the Bench occupied by bishops ap- 
 pointed by preceding governments, successors of Travers ? We 
 must be prepared for such a contingency ; and the history of 
 1688-1717 will then be more than ever valuable, if we would 
 avoid the errors into which the Lower Houses of those days 
 fell. For even if we suppose the first and only step Convocation 
 takes to be its own reformation, the passing such canons of reform 
 must be done according to old usage ; and we must not shrink 
 from the task of acquainting ourselves with those usages for the 
 one purpose and act of laying them aside. For this reason we 
 cannot say with Mr. Molesworth, that questions on the former 
 constitution of Convocation are vain. With our 139th canon in 
 our hands, we feel that our new synod must be moulded synodi- 
 cally, and the process will require the most accurate knowledge 
 of old usage. 
 
 Mr. Palin, then, would have done service by the publication 
 of his history, if he had only called attention to the period it 
 embraces. But he has done more. He has proposed a just 
 judgment of the parties of that day, and estimates, in the main 
 correct, of men and measures. His work will contribute to an 
 accurate knowledge of those times. 
 
 In one respect his work difiers, much to his credit, from the 
 ordinary type of popular Church histories. These are often 
 made too exclusively histories of ecclesiastics. " The writer deems 
 it a mistake," Mr. Palin says, " to dress Church history always in 
 black. Churchmen wear red and blue coats and ruffles, and 
 frieze and fustian too ; and every history of the Church, to have 
 any reality in it, must be their history as well as the history of 
 bishops, presbyters, and synods." This is in the right direction. 
 
 It is " a knowledge of particular epochs, connected with 
 peculiarity and revolution in the state of societies, and especially 
 with modern revolutions," that " is chiefly valuable and indis- 
 pensable." " And all histories in which the lives and actions of 
 men are represented in minute detail will furnish knowledge of 
 human nature, and food for reflection. But summary histories, 
 such as those of Hume and Gibbon (Mosheim), though not 
 to be altogether dispensed with, should hardly be read in abun- 
 dance. They are useful as giving a framework of general know- 
 ledge, into which particular knowledge may be fitted. But as 
 to other uses, they commonly do but charge the memory with a 
 sequence of events, leaving no lively imjoressions or portraitures, 
 and consequently teaching little. It is from individualities that 
 we learn." — Stephen's Statesman, eh. 1. 
 
 The period 1688-1717 eminently deserves to be thus treated 
 of in detail. At the same time, it can only be handled properly
 
 Reviews. 71 
 
 when it is considered as the beginning of the longer period to 
 the close of which we are approaching. 
 
 Mr. Palin proposes to continue his history to the present times. 
 
 We have taken this the earliest opportunity of insisting on 
 the necessity of a knowledge of a time to which we shall fre- 
 quently refer. We must add a few words in our own depart- 
 ment, concerning Mr. Palin as a historian of Convocation. 
 We have said that we hold Mr. Palin to be correct in the main 
 in his estimate of men and measures. He has stated rightly the 
 relative positions of the upper and lower clergy, and properly in- 
 sisted on the new element introduced into the Upper House by 
 the appointment of the fifteen Bishops ; but regarding the Con- 
 vocation controversy in particular he has failed, for want of 
 attributing the several claims of the Lower House to the 
 common source, the claim of independence. Such claims as he 
 mentions he considers separately, rather as unconnected questions 
 of order than as all flowing from this one common principle. 
 Viewing them in this light, he naturally exaggerates the 
 " haughty tone" (p. 198) of the bishops, and the " unpaternal 
 repulses " (p. 202) which the Lower House experienced. And, 
 led by this opinion of the prevailing spirit of the bishops, he has 
 misinterpreted some of their actions. It is worth while to look 
 to these points. 
 
 Relating the proceedings of 1701, Mr. Palin writes: — " The 
 first stumbling-block arising from the long abeyance of synodal 
 action was, according to Burnet, a doubt as to the competency of 
 the Lower House to adjourn itself independently of the Upper 
 House." One would naturally imagine that this was the be- 
 ginning of the controversy. It began in 1689, with the refusal 
 of the Lower House to appoint a committee desired by the 
 bishops. This refusal involved the claim of independence much 
 more decidedly even than did the assumption of separate ad- 
 journments ; and from the false position in which the Lower 
 House then placed itself it never formally receded. Mr. Palin 
 mentions (p. 54) this refuscil, without any intimation of its being 
 contrary to the very first principles of synodical action, or of the 
 long train of evil that flowed from it. And hence we see why 
 so little notice was taken of the example of the Irish Convoca- 
 tions {Palin, p. 272) [we do not defend Burnet for omitting to 
 notice it] ; the example was not in point. In Ireland interme- 
 diate sessions were held as an allowed arrangement of business ; 
 in England they were claimed on the ground of the Lower House 
 being independent of the Upper. Had the question been merely 
 one of order, the refusal of the bishops would have been an " un- 
 paternal repulse ;" but claimed as it was, they could not yield it. 
 We will not say that there was nothing of haughtiness and want 
 of consideration on their parts. It will commonly be found that, 
 for the lower conception a bishop has formed of his office he is apt
 
 72 Reviews. 
 
 to atone by insisting on his authority. Latituclinarian bishops are 
 generally episcopis episcopiores. But Mr. Palin has not stated 
 with sufficient clearness the true ground of their proceedings. 
 And with this notion of their haughtiness, he has, we think, 
 misrepresented the reception of the Gravamina of 1702 as 
 "curt and crisp" (p. 238), some other circumstances regarding 
 which have already been detailed. He has also given a false 
 impression of the spirit of Beveridge and Bull (pp. .294-, 308), 
 by supposing that they did not incur the responsibility of the 
 disastrous measures adopted by the Upper House. A reader 
 would certainly from these words form a different conception of 
 the conduct of these distinguished men from that which he would 
 have formed had he been told that in the Lower House they 
 acted with the minority. (See What has been may he Again, 
 pp. 172, 181, 212; Account of Proceedings, 1702, p. 12; 
 Faithful Account, 170^, p. 1 ; Proceedings, 1705, p. 12. We 
 would beg Mr. Palin to re-consider this question. What ap- 
 pears to us erroneous does not run through the whole of his 
 history, it attaches itself merely to the chapters on Convocation. 
 We trust that he will soon be called upon for a second edition 
 of his work, and that he may speedily publish the remaining 
 portion. We beg him also, in the account of the Commission 
 and Convocation of 1689, to add a notice of the application to 
 Spannheim and the Judicium Expetitum which followed. It is 
 too important to be overlooked. English theology has suffered 
 too much from foreign interference for us to oinit any instance of 
 interference, and it may be that the nineteenth century will 
 reproduce its own version of this occurrence. It was currently 
 reported two or three years ago, and we believe not without 
 foundation, that Bunsen's opinion was taken as to alterations 
 in the Prayer-book, to gratify the Evangelicals within the 
 Church, and the three denominations without. 
 
 Sympathies of the Continent ; or, Proposals for a Netv Re- 
 formation. By John Baptist von Hirscher. Trans- 
 lated, with Notes and Introduction, by Rev. Arthur C. 
 CoxE. Oxford, Parker, 1852. 
 
 A Brief Account of Synodical Action in the American Church : 
 a Paper 'presented to the Provisional Committee of Synodal 
 Consultative Meeting, at Derby. By the Rev. Henry Cas- 
 WALL. London, Hatchard, Parker, 1851. 
 
 We reserve to another Number the consideration of the ex- 
 tremely interesting tract which Mr. Coxe has put into the hands 
 of the English reader. Mr. Coxe's introduction, occupying a 
 third of the volume, contains " some remarks upon the revival 
 of synodical action in the Church, with reference to the existing
 
 Reviews. 73 
 
 organisation of Synods in his own branch of the Catholic body." 
 On this account we have classed it with Mr. Caswall's tract. 
 Mr. Caswall is well and very favourably known as the author 
 of a work on America and the American Church ; in the second 
 edition of which the history is carried down to the General Con- 
 vention of 1850, and the personal narrative of the author to 
 1842. 
 
 The tract of which we have given the title is one of the 
 useful series of tracts published by the Committee who directed 
 the public meetings in the north of England for the revival of 
 Diocesan Synods. 
 
 In this tract, and in Mr. Coxe's preface, the reader will find 
 a succinct and clear statement of the organisation of the Ame- 
 rican dioceses, and we are most glad to be able to refer to books 
 so trustworthy and so easily procured. 
 
 The information in Mr. Caswall's tract is so condensed, that 
 we could put the reader in possession of it no otherwise than by 
 reprinting the whole tract, and this we have not authority to do. 
 But we may notice the contents. Mr. Caswall describes the 
 different organisations for synodical action in the American 
 Church as they are, parochial, diocesan, and general. Under 
 the first head, he tells of the formation of a parish, the election of 
 a clergyman, and of parish meetings for the election of deputies ; 
 under the second head, of the diocesan convention and its course 
 of business, and of the standing committee as a kind of diocesan 
 Chapter ; under the third head, of the General Convention, its 
 constitution, course of proceedings, and business. 
 
 Mr. Caswall has for many years been labouring to bring the 
 experience of America to bear upon the English Church, and is 
 a strong advocate for the revival of synods in England ; but we 
 should give a false impression if we did not add his words at the 
 close of the tract : " Let me not be understood as if I desired to 
 see the entire American system of Church polity transferred to 
 England. An attempt of this kind would not only be unwise, 
 but simply impracticable." There can be no doubt, however, of 
 the importance to English Churchmen at the present |time of a 
 careful consideration of the American system. 
 
 Mr. Coxe proposes and answers these questions, I. What is a 
 layman (as a representative) in the American Church? His 
 answer is, in brief. Generally a communicant in practice — not 
 by rule ; but the rule will probably be altered. II. How is the 
 Synod constituted ? III. How does all this work in fact ? Far 
 better than could have been anticipated. IV. What is the 
 character of the lay deputies in general, and how do they act 
 with the clergy ? The experiment with us has been a trium- 
 phant one in favour of lay representation in the synod. V. But 
 do laymen vote in doctrinal questions ? They do, and with no 
 other restriction than that which arises from the fact, that they
 
 74 Reviews, 
 
 could not, if they were disposed, effect any thing against the truth, 
 unless the clergy, and also the House of Bishops, should confirm 
 their iniquity. VI. What are Standing Committees? They are, 
 for many purposes, the chapter of the diocese ; but as American 
 bishops have no cathedrals, they are not precisely the same thing; 
 and in many dioceses the laity are members of the Standing 
 Committee. VII. Are the clergy subject to lay courts ? In this 
 matter the independence of the American clergy is absolute. It 
 is fully established in ecclesiastical law, that the clergy should 
 be tried in all cases by their peers ; and all ecclesiastical courts 
 are constituted of the clergy only. Nobody would dream of 
 proposing any other system of ecclesiastical justice, in a country 
 which inherits those notions of equal rights which the British 
 Constitution secures to all its subjects — except the clergy. 
 "We cannot choose but extract the paragraph that follows : 
 " It may be proper for the writer to confess that, after completing 
 his theological studies, he entered upon his ministry with strong pre- 
 judices against the lay element as existing in the American Church. 
 His impressions were derived from books alone. For eleven years he 
 has been actively engaged in the pastoral work, and has attended many 
 Synods and enjoyed rich opportunities of intercourse with the most 
 venerated members of the Church ; and thus much of experience with 
 facts and with men has sufBced to change his convictions entirely, while 
 he retains all the principles which originally made him timid as to lay 
 interference. For the sake of sacred and Catholic truth he doubted ; 
 for the sake of the same truth he doubts no longer, but fully agrees with 
 Hirscher, ' that if we would see it pass out of books and schools into 
 the hearts of all Christians, we must entrust the sacred deposit not only to 
 those who bear the ark, but to those also who are needed in troops and 
 battahons for its guard and its defence.' The people must be practi- 
 cally treated as a royal priesthood, and made to feel that their interests 
 are inseparable from those of the clergy." — P. 68. 
 
 Some Objections to the Revival of Ecclesiastical Synods answered 
 by a Reference to the Circumstances under which the Apos- 
 tolic Council in Jerusalem was assembled. By Rev. George 
 D. Wheeler. Parker. 
 If the reader of this sermon will excuse the style in which the 
 opening analogy is expressed, and push on to the body of the 
 sermon, he will be repaid. 
 
 Mr, Wheeler assumes the conciliar character of the Conven- 
 tion at Jerusalem. How far the several meetings of apostles 
 were Councils, and in what respects patterns for imitation, is a 
 subject of old discussion which will probably now be renewed. 
 The extreme views are given in the following quotation, which 
 we select for the purpose of calling attention to the discourse 
 from which it is taken : 
 
 " Natales conciliorum hi omnes ducunt a praxi Apostolica. Nume-
 
 Reviews. 75 
 
 ravitW. Eisengreinius usque ad duodecim concilia, quae tempore Apos- 
 tolorum fuissent habita, nempe Hierosolymitana decern, unum Anti- 
 ochenum, et unum Miletanum. Sed rem propius examinanti facile 
 ajjparet, eos conventus ita esse comparatos, ut nomen hoc non sus- 
 tineant. Neque consessus Hierosolyniitanus, cujus Act. 15, fit mentio, 
 et in quo conciliorum incunabula multi quagrunt, proprie concilium ea 
 quam indicavimus notione, vocari potest. Erat enim, qui tum congre- 
 gabatur, Apostolorum, presbyterii et fidelium unius Ecclesiae coetus, 
 non deputatorum e diversis Ecclesiis, quod tamen ad concilium con- 
 stituendum requiritur." — De Synodis, et speciatim Dicecesanis Aboensibus 
 Oratio, quam edi curavit Car. Fr. Mennander. Abose, 1773. 
 
 We believe that the position which Mr. Wheeler assumes is 
 perfectly defensible, and that his conclusions are just. The con- 
 tradictory propositions maintained by the two parties were re- 
 ferred to a council (the only form of council, we should add, 
 which the state of the Church then permitted) ; and the " much 
 disputing" there was in the council did not mar its usefulness. 
 We cannot refrain from the observation that there is a great 
 deal of mawkish sensitiveness about controversy and disputing. 
 In the name of the God of charity, let the rules of charity be 
 maintained ; but how we are to contend for the faith without 
 controversy, they should tell us who on every occasion cry out, 
 " Let us have no controversy." What is it that gives English 
 theology its peculiar value, but that its great masters were no 
 writers of brain-spun systems, but strong and practised contro- 
 versialists ? 
 
 Nay — and with reverence be it spoken — the canon of the 
 New Testament shews what the necessities of the Church will 
 ever lead to. How many epistles of St. Paul have we for those 
 of St. John. St. John was the apostle of the pure authority of 
 inspiration ; St. Paul, no less inspired, was the polemic. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler expresses, regarding the choice of representa- 
 tives in a National Synod, his trust that they would be chosen 
 " not for their fluency of speech or furiousness of zeal, but for 
 the maturity of their judgment, the moderation of their opinions, 
 and the discretion which tempers, while it does not attenuate, 
 their zeal." The late Convocation elections have shewn, we be- 
 lieve, that his trust is not misplaced. 
 
 The Law, Constitution, and Reform of Convocation. Parker. 
 
 1852. 
 
 It is not fair to expect from an author more than he himself 
 professes to give ; and the author of this tract styles it a cursory 
 glance for those who are anxious to know a little of a subject on 
 which others talk much. We hope that it will lead many to 
 study the subject, and for this end it is by no means ill calcu- 
 lated.
 
 T6 Editor's Postscript. 
 
 We protest against the assumption (p. 4), that it is necessary 
 to abolish church-rates in order to complete the era of religious 
 liberty, — against the proposal to abolish the representation of 
 Chapters in Convocation (p. 27).. — and against reforming Con- 
 vocation by act of Parliament in the first place. An act of Par- 
 liament must be added to the previous synodical measure. Nor 
 do we think that the laity of the Church will be, or ought to be, 
 satisfied with lay representatives chosen by clerical electors 
 (p. 31). 
 
 EDITOR'S POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 The writers of the foregoing articles have all proceeded on the 
 assumption that a royal license to act would not issue this Con- 
 vocation. 
 
 In the midst of our inquiries, then, as to the extent and 
 nature of the business which it is allowed to transact without a 
 license, we are startled by the announcement that the Prime 
 Minister has advised her Majesty to issue her royal license, and 
 that her Majesty has consented. Now we should have treated 
 this as an idle report if it were not that some journals are seriously 
 angry about it. And when certain people wax wroth, it is that 
 their time is short. It may be, then,that the period of the Church's 
 ignominious silence and servitude is coming to an end. It may 
 be so. We have no means whatever of judging of the correct- 
 ness of the report, and we can only throw ourselves on good old 
 Latimer's posy, " time will try all things." 
 
 But we can understand the possible conditions of its truth. 
 We can imagine a prime minister honestly believing that it is 
 for the Church's good that the Church should meet in synod, and 
 acting accordingly. Or, on the other hand, we can imagine a prime 
 minister, whose real wish is to keep the Church in her present 
 state of bondage, arguing with himself that the best way to do so 
 will be to allow Convocation a license, to throw down topics of 
 contention among them, to give occasion to animosities, to inter- 
 pose by a dissolution or long prorogation, and thus to furnish 
 himself with an argument of the unfitness of the clergy to be so 
 trusted. 
 
 By which of these two motives the present Government is 
 actuated (if the report we advert to is well founded) our readers 
 may judge. In either case the duty of the clergy is plain, — in 
 the first case to justify the confidence of the minister, in the 
 second case to defeat his intentions. And the way in both cases 
 is one and the same — to act with the utmost circumspection, 
 with perfect charity, with a due recognition of the rights of
 
 Editor^s Postscript. 77 
 
 others ; with careful inquiry into the right way, and the firm 
 resolution to walk therein, guided by the ancient marks of 
 catholic truth, and the pure luodels of primitive Christianity. 
 
 We have plainly expressed our conviction that our clergy 
 need to be trained to act synodically, nor will we conceal our 
 wish that ruridecanal and archidiaconal chapters and diocesan 
 synods should in their more limited sphere precede the provincial 
 council to afford us this necessary training, and that the business 
 of the provincial synods should for the present be limited to a 
 full and clear consideration of the wants of the Church, a survey 
 of the work to be done. Yet if our statesmen think otherwise, 
 and are disposed to put confidence in the learning, sobriety, and 
 discretion of the Church, in God's name let us not shrink from 
 the task. Only let us proceed to it with the humility that knows 
 its own deficiencies, with the sense of the utter importance of the 
 work, and the momentous alternatives depending on present 
 decisions, with the remembrance that they who stretch forth 
 unhallowed hands to support God's ark must look for Uzzah's 
 fate. 
 
 If, however, our statesmen's intention be different ; if they 
 are looking forward with complacency to the animosities they 
 hope to excite, as their justification for rivetting tighter and 
 drawing closer the chains of Erastianism, — it will be a glorious 
 triumph to defeat them on their own field, and to shew the world 
 that what was given with ill-will may be used righteously and 
 wisely. 
 
 If this be the future in store for England and her Church, 
 that Church may yet be the means of regenerating the nation ; 
 and if it be her lot to shew the world that in councils she can 
 unite the vigour of rekindled youth with the severity and gravity 
 of maturer age, it will, although possibly a new thing in the 
 history of a national Church, yet be not the first time that Eng- 
 land has set an example to the nations. 
 
 We are, however, inclined to rest ourselves on the prevalence 
 of God's law, that liberty must be fought for, and that ere we can 
 obtain freedom, we must contend for it in no fleshly gear, but in 
 faith, patience, and, it may be, suffering : a contest which is be- 
 ginning, of which no mortal eye can see the end.
 
 78 
 
 Claim of Curates to Vote. 
 
 We beg to call the attention of the revivalists of Convocation to 
 
 the following 
 
 TABLE OF FEES, 
 
 which we copied this morning, Oct. 22, out of one of the origi- 
 
 nal Registers 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 of Convocation at Lambeth Palace. For the 
 benefit of the door-keeper we put it into English. 
 
 To the Registrar — 
 
 Every Bishop who is present 
 Every Bishop who is not present 
 Every Dean 
 Capitular Proctor . 
 Diocesan Proctor 
 
 To the Apparitor — 
 
 Every Bishop .... 
 (and the same on every session of Convocation 
 prorogued by Royal writ). 
 
 To the Actuary* of the Lower House — 
 
 Every Dean .... 
 
 Archdeacon .... 
 
 Capit. Proctor .... 
 Diocesan Proctor 
 
 To the Door-keeper of the Lower House — 
 
 Every Dean . . . . 1 
 
 Archdeacon . . . .1 
 
 Capit. Proctor . . . .1 
 
 Diocesan Proctor . . .0 
 
 6 8 
 
 CLAIM OF CURATES TO VOTE. 
 Petition to Convocation. 
 
 [The following petition reached us too late for insertion in its proper place. 
 "We acknowledge the receipt of a communication from the diocese of St. Asaph on 
 the same subject. We shall be much obliged to our correspondents to inform us 
 if any case is discovered in which Curates have voted in the province of Can- 
 terbury.] 
 
 To the Most Reverend the Archbishops and the Right Reverend the 
 Bishops of the Province of Canterbury in Synod assembled. 
 
 The Petition of the undersigned Presbyters of the Church of Eng- 
 land, being Curates duly licensed in the diocese of Exeter, humbly 
 sheweth : 
 
 • Will one of our readers favour us with the name of this gentleman ?
 
 Petition from York. 79 
 
 That whereas we were, according to the custom heretofore observed 
 in this diocese, duly cited to appear at a Synod to be held at 
 Exeter on the 30th of July last for the election of two Convo- 
 cation Clerks, and did so appear : 
 
 And whereas we do claim, according to the tenour of our citation, 
 and as being presbyters officiating under the license of the dio- 
 cesan, to vote in such election : 
 
 And whereas our claim was disallowed, and our vote refused, by the 
 Rev. George Martin, Chancellor of the Diocese, presiding at the 
 said election : 
 
 We therefore humbly appeal to your Venerable House, and pray 
 you to take into your consideration, and define at an early op- 
 portunity, the claims and privileges of licensed curates, being 
 presbyters, in respect to sitting and voting in synodal assemblies 
 of the Church. And your petitioners will ever pray, 8rc. 
 
 The same to the Lower House of Convocation. 
 
 [About eight or nine signatures affixed.] 
 
 The following Petition was adopted at the York meeting of the 
 Society for the Revival of Convocation ; and we are informed that 
 above eight thousand copies have been circulated requesting signa- 
 tures : 
 
 (1) To the Most Reverend the Archbishop, and the Right Reverend the Bishops, of 
 
 the Province of Canterbury, in their Provincial Synod assembled: 
 
 (2) To the Very Reverend the Deans, the Venerable the Archdeacons, and the Reve- 
 
 rend the Proctors for the Cathedral Chapters and the Parochial Clergy, of the 
 Province of Canterbury, in their Provincial Synod assembled : 
 To the Most Reverend the Archbishop, the Right Reverend the Bishop, the Very 
 Reverend the Deans, the Venerable the Archdeacons, and the Reverend the 
 Proctors for the Cathedral Chapters and the Parochial Clergy, of the Pro- 
 vince of York, in their Provincial Synod assembled : 
 The humble Petition of the undersigned Clergymen and Laymen within the 
 in the Diocese of 
 Sheweth, — 
 That your Petitioners, whilst they acknowledge with gratitude to Al- 
 mighty God the many and singular blessings which it has pleased Him in His 
 goodness to bestow upon this Church and nation, are yet deeply sensible that, for the 
 due fulfilment of her high and holy mission, the Church of England requires a 
 development of her energies and resources beyond what is attainable in her present 
 state and position : and are persuaded that without the full and free exercise of her 
 synodal powers, she cannot hope to realise a state of efficiency commensurate with the 
 gifts and calling of her Divine Head. 
 
 That, as a branch of the holy Catholic Church, the Church of England has an 
 indefeasible right to the exercise of corporate action by means of the Apostolic 
 institution of Synods; and that, without such action, she cannot effectually guard 
 the deposit of the Faith. 
 
 That the said right is recognised by the constitution of this realm, the Sovereign 
 of which is solemnly pledged to " maintain and preserve hiviolably the Settlement of 
 " the United Church of England and Ireland, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, 
 " and Government thereof, as by Law established;" and to "preserve unto the
 
 80 Petition from Yorlc. 
 
 " Bishops and Clergy of England and Ireland, and to the Churches there committed 
 " to their Charge, all such lliglits and Privileges as by Law appertain to Them ;" of 
 which Rights and Privileges one of the mos,t important is thus expressed in the Royal 
 Declaration prefixed to tiie Thirty-nine Articles: — " That out of Our Princely care 
 " tliat the Churchmen may do the work which is proper unto them, the Bishops and 
 " Clergy, from time to time in Convocation, upon their humble Desire, shall have 
 " 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 now established, from 
 " which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least Degree." 
 
 That, called upon to minister to the spiritual wants of a rapidly increasing popu- 
 lation, and surrounded by a variety of hostile religious communities, not one of which 
 is debarred from the privilege of united action, the Church labours under grievous dis- 
 advantage in consequence of her corporate action being paralysed, as it now is, and 
 has been during a period of more than one hundred and thirty years. 
 
 That numerous evils resulting from the suspension of the power of self- regulation 
 in the Church call loudly for immediate redress, and that for their correction your 
 Petitioners must look to the authority of the Church herself; the more so, because 
 the temporal Legislature is now composed in part of persons belonging to various re- 
 ligious communities, which are more or less opposed to her principles, and inimical 
 to her welfare. 
 
 That it is difficult to imagine anything more injurious to the cause of our holy 
 religion, than that the Church should be placed in the invidious position of appear- 
 ing to uphold abuses, simply because compelled to resist their correction from with- 
 out, either by reason of the unsatisfactory character of the reforms proposed, or from 
 the necessity of vindicating her sacred rights. 
 
 That the wishes and prayers of a large and increasing number of Churchmen are 
 enlisted in favour of the revival of the active functions of Convocation, more especi- 
 ally with the prospect of such a reform in its structure as Convocation itself may con- 
 sider best suited to the present exigencies of the Church ; in proof whereof your Peti- 
 tioners would refer to the proceedings at the late elections of Proctors in the various 
 Dioceses of England and Wales, as well as to the sentiments on the subject of synodal 
 action which have been of late strongly and authoritatively expressed in other re- 
 formed branches of the Church Catholic. 
 
 That the humble desire of the Bishops and Clergy for license to proceed to busi- 
 ness has already been conveyed to the Crown by two successive Convocations of the 
 Province of Canterbury ; and that, in the very last session of the late Convocation of 
 that Province, an Address was, in accordance with the prayer of numerous Petitions, 
 presented by the Lower to the Upper House, which proves that such desire is far 
 from having suffered any abatement. 
 
 That your Petitioners venture to hope that our gracious Queen, relying on the 
 blessing of Almighty God upon your labours, will be induced to vouchsafe a favour- 
 able answer to a similar prayer from your venerable body. 
 
 Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly but earnestly and anxiously pray, that your 
 
 ■I Tj J ^ \ House will concur with the -j "^^^"^ L House in addressing to 
 
 her Majesty such prayer as you in your wisdom may deem most conducive to the re- 
 vival of synodal action, and thereby to the spiritual efficiency and general welfare of 
 the Church. 
 
 And your Petitioners will ever pray. 
 
 Levey, Uobson, and Franklyn, Great New Street and Fetter Lane.
 
 \^^0^>^,^ 
 
 
 \j0m' 
 
 
 -ssJ^