ACTS OF THE CHURCH 
 15311885 

 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 St. Alban's, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of (two 
 
 copies). 
 
 Ainger, The Rev. Canon G. H., D.D., Rothbury. 
 Ainslie, The Rev. Prebendary, M.A., Langport, Taunton. 
 . Allen, The Very Rev. James, M.A., Dean of St. David's. 
 Argles, The Rev. Canon Marsham, M.A., Barnack, 
 
 Stamford. 
 
 /Ashley, The Rev. G. E., M.A., Stretton, Hereford. 
 Atkinson, Ven. P. R., M.A., Archdeacon of Surrey. 
 
 Bangor, The Right Rev. the Lord B.ishop of. 
 Baldwyn-Childe, The Rev. Prebendary, M.A., Kyre 
 
 Park, Tenbury. 
 
 Balston, The Ven. Archdeacon, D.D., Bakewell. 
 Bardsley, The Ven. John W., M.A., Archdeacon of 
 
 Warrington. 
 
 Bevan, The Rev. Canon W. L., M.A., Hay. 
 Bickersteth, The Very Rev. E., D.D., Dean of Lichfield. 
 Blenkinsopp, The Rev. E. C. L., M.A., Springthorpe, 
 
 Gainsborough. 
 Blew, The Rev. W. J., M.A., Warwick Street, Pall 
 
 Mall. 
 Bonnor, The Very Rev. R. B. M., M.A., Dean of St. 
 
 Asaph. 
 
 Boyd, The Ven. Archdeacon, M.A., Arncliffe, Skipton. 
 Boyle, The Very Rev. G. D., M.A., Dean of Salisbury. 
 Bree, The Rev. Canon William, M.A., Allesley, 
 
 Coventry. 
 Brewster, The Rev. Waldegrave, B.A., Middleton-in- 
 
 Chirbury, Salop. 
 
 Bright, The Rev. Canon William, D.D., Ch. Ch., Oxford. 
 Bromfield, The Rev. George H. W., M.A., St. Mary- 
 
 the-Less, Lambeth.
 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 Buchanan, The Yen. T. B., M.A., Archdeacon of Wilts. 
 Burgon, The Very Rev. J. W., B.D., Dean of Chichester. 
 Burrough, The Rev. Chas., M. A., Eaton Bishop, Hereford. 
 Burrows, The Rev. Canon H. W., B.D., Rochester. 
 Burton, The Rev. J. R., Woodfield, Kidderminster. 
 Butler, The Very Rev. W. John, D.D., Dean of Lincoln.' 
 
 Canterbury, The Most Rev. the Lord Archbishop of. 
 Chichester, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. 
 Carr, The Rev. Canon, LL.D., St. Helen's, Lancashire. 
 Chatfield, The Rev. A. W., M.A., Much Marcle. 
 Church, The Very Rev. R. W., D.C.L., Dean of St. 
 
 Paul's. 
 
 Clay, The Rev. G. Hollis, M.A., Aston Rectory, Ludlow. 
 Clayton, The Rev. Prebendary, M.A., Rectory, Ludlow. 
 Clements, The Rev. J., M.A., Sub-Dean of Lincoln. 
 Cobbold, The Rev. Prebendary R. H., M.A., Rectory, 
 
 Ross. 
 
 Cook, The Rev. Canon F. C., M.A., Exeter (two copies). 
 Cooke, The Rev. Canon William, M.A., F.S.A., Clifton 
 
 Place, Sussex Gardens. 
 
 Cowie, The Very Rev. B. M., D.D., Dean of Exeter. 
 Cranbrook, Lord, 17, Grosvenor Crescent. 
 Crawley, The Ven. Archdeacon Wm., M.A., Bryngwyn. 
 Cundill, The Rev. Canon, D.D., St. Margaret's, Durham. 
 
 Darwall, The Rev. L., M.A., Criggion, Shrewsbury. 
 Davis, The Rev. Edmund, M.A., Longtown, Aber- 
 
 gavenny. 
 
 Day, The Rev. T. T., LL.D., Benthall, Broseley. 
 Douglas, The Rev. Canon W. W., M.A., Salwarpe. 
 
 Ely, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of (two copies). 
 
 Echalaz, The Rev. T. S., Surbiton (two copies). 
 
 Edmondes, The Ven. Charles Gresford, M.A., Arch- 
 deacon of St. David's. 
 
 Ellis, The Rev. P. C., M.A., Llanfairfechan. 
 
 Ellis, W. H. M., Esq., M.A., Monkstown, Dublin. 
 
 Ellison, The Rev. Canon H., M.A., Melsonby, Dar- 
 lington. 
 
 English Church Union (ten copies). 
 
 Evans, The Rev. Canon T. S., M.A., Durham. 
 
 Ffoulkes, The Ven. Henry Powell, B.D., Archdeacon 
 of Montgomery.
 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 Fletcher, The Rev. E. S. B., M.A., Tenbury. 
 
 Fuller, The Rev. Morris, M.A., Ryburgh, Fakenham. 
 
 Gibbs, Henry Hucks, Esq., St. Dunstan's, Regent's 
 
 Park 
 
 Gifford, The Yen. E. H., D.D., Archdeacon of London. 
 Gladstone, Rev. Stephen E., M.A., Hawarden. 
 Green, The Rev. C. E. Maddison, M.A., Lyonshall, 
 
 Hereford. 
 
 Gregory, The Rev. Canon Robert, M.A., St. Paul's. 
 Gresley, Charles, Esq., The Close, Lichfield (for 
 
 Cathedral Library). 
 Grey, The Hon. and Rev. Francis R., M.A., Morpeth 
 
 (two copies). 
 Gurney, The Rev. Augustus W., M.A., Little Hereford, 
 
 Tenbury. 
 
 Hereford, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. 
 Halifax, The Right Hon. Viscount, 88, Eaton Square. 
 Hampton, The Rev. J., M.A., Tenbury. 
 Hannah, The Ven. John, D.C.L., Archdeacon of Lewes. 
 Hawkins, The Rev. Canon Edw., M.A., Newport, Mon. 
 Hayman, The Rev. Canon, D.D., Aldingham, Ulverston. 
 Hayward, The Ven. Henry R., M.A., Archdeacon of 
 
 Cirencester. 
 Hessey, The Ven. J. A., D.C.L., D.D., Archdeacon of 
 
 Middlesex. 
 
 Hewitt, The Rev. T. Swinton, M.A., Leysters, Tenbury. 
 Hill, The Rev. W. Wilmot, M.A., Ocle Pychard, 
 
 Hereford. 
 Hobhouse, The Ven. Reginald, M.A., Archdeacon of 
 
 Bodmin. 
 
 Hockin, The Rev. Canon, M.A., Phillack, Hayle. 
 Hodson, The Rev. Prebendary Geo. H., M.A., Enfield. 
 Holbech, The Ven. C. W., M.A., Archdeacon of 
 
 Coventry. 
 
 Holland, The Rev. Canon F. J., M.A., Canterbury. 
 Holloway, The Rev. E. J., M.A., Clehonger, Hereford. 
 Hopkins, The Rev. Canon, B.D., Littleport, Ely. 
 Hornby, The Rev. Canon Edw. J., M.A., Bury, Lane. 
 Howell, The Rev. Canon Hinds, M.A., Drayton, 
 
 Norwich. 
 Hubbard, Right Hon. J. G., M.P., 24, Princes' Gate 
 
 (two copies).
 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 lies, The Ven. J. H., M.A., Archdeacon of Stafford. 
 Ince, The Rev. Canon William, D.D., Ch. Ch., Oxford. 
 
 Jellicorse, The Rev. W., B. A., Clunbury, Aston-on-Clun. 
 Joyce, The Rev. F. Hayward, M.A., Rural Dean, 
 
 Harrow (three copies). 
 Joyce, The Rev. James B., B.A., Coreley, Tenbury. 
 
 Kelly, The Rev. Canon James Davenport, M.A., Old 
 
 Trafford, Manchester. 
 Kempe, The Rev. Prebendary J. C., M.A., Merton, 
 
 Beaford. 
 Knight, The Rev. Charles R., M.A., Tythegston Court, 
 
 Bridgend. 
 Knowles, The Rev. Canon, M.A., St. Bees (three copies). 
 
 Lichfield, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. 
 Liverpool, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. 
 Lake, The Very Rev. W. C., D.D.; Dean of Durham. 
 Lambert, The Rev. W. H., M.A., Stoke Edith, Hereford. 
 Lewis, The Very Rev. Evan, M.A., Dean of Bangor. 
 Lewis, The Rev. Canon D., M.A., St. David's. 
 Lightfoot, The Ven. R. P., M.A., Archdeacon of 
 
 Oakham. 
 
 Lloyd, The Rev. Prebendary T. B., M.A., Shrewsbury. 
 Lonsdale, The Rev. Canon J. G., M.A., Lichfield. 
 Lowe, The Rev. Canon E. C., D.D., Uttoxeter. 
 Lowndes, The Rev. E. Spencer, M.A., Little Comberton, 
 
 Pershore. 
 
 McDougall, The Right Rev. Bishop, Archdeacon of the 
 Isle of Wight. 
 
 McLaughlin, Colonel, The Crescent, Plymouth. 
 
 Maddison, The Ven. G., M.A., Archdeacon of Ludlow. 
 
 Male, The Rev. Arthur S., M.A., More, Bishopscastle. 
 
 Maltby, The Ven. Brough, M.A., Archdeacon of Not- 
 tingham. 
 
 Marshall, The Rev. H. B. Derham, M.A., Norton Canon, 
 Weobley. 
 
 Mather, The Rev. Canon F. V., M.A., Clifton. 
 
 Medd, The Rev. Canon P. G., M.A., North Cerney, 
 Cirencester. 
 
 Mence, The Rev. Richard, M.A., Bockleton, Tenbury. 
 
 Miller, The Rev. Edward, M.A., Bucknell, Bicester. 
 
 Mills, The Rev. H. Holroyd, B.A., Burford, Tenbury.
 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 Mitchell, The Rev. Jos., M.A., Alberbury, Shrewsbury. 
 More, R. Jasper, Esq., M.P., Linley, Bishopscastle. 
 Mount-Edgcumbe, The Right Hon. the Earl of, 
 
 Devonport. 
 Musgrave, The Rev. Canon, M.A., Hereford. 
 
 Newcastle, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. 
 Nevill, The Ven. H. R., M.A., Archdeacon of Norfolk. 
 North, The Rev. Henry, B.A., Wentnor, Bishopscastle. 
 
 Oldham, The Rev. A. L., M.A., Bridgnorth. 
 
 Ouseley, The Rev. Sir F. A. G., Bart., LL.D., Tenbury. 
 
 Owen, The Rev. Canon R. D., M.A., Boroughbridge. 
 
 Palin, The Rev. E., B.D., Linton, Ross. 
 
 Palmer, The Rev. C. S., M.A., Eardisley, Hereford. 
 
 Palmer, The Ven. Edwin, D.D., Archdeacon of Oxford. 
 
 Palmes, The Rev. J., M.A., Escrick Rectory, York. 
 
 Pardoe, Mrs., The Priory, Cheltenham. 
 
 Parker, James, & Co., Oxford. 
 
 Perry, The Rev. Canon Thomas W., Ardleigh. 
 
 Phelps, The Rev. Thomas P., B.A., Ridley, Wrotham. 
 
 Phillips, The Rev. W. D., B.A., Crunwere, Byelley. 
 
 Phillott, The Rev. Prebendary H. W., M.A., Staunton- 
 
 on-Wye. 
 
 Pott, The Ven. Alfred, B.D., Archdeacon of Berks. 
 Powis, Earl of, Powis Castle, Welshpool. 
 Pownall, The Ven. A.. M.A., Archdeacon of Leicester. 
 Puckle, The Rev. Canon John, M.A., Dover (two copies). 
 
 Randall, The Ven. J. L., M.A., Archdeacon of Buck- 
 ingham. 
 
 Rawlinson, The Rev. Canon, M.A., Precincts, Can- 
 terbury. 
 
 Rayson, The Rev. W., M.A., Lindridge, Tenbury. 
 
 Salisbury, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. 
 
 Southwell, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. 
 
 Salmon, The Rev. Prebendary E. A., M.A., Martock. 
 
 Salt, Thomas, Esq., Weeping Cross, Stafford. 
 
 Savory, The Rev. Canon E., M.A., Binfield, Bracknell. 
 
 Scott, The Very Rev. Robert, D.D., Dean of Rochester. 
 
 Sheringham, The Ven. John William, M.A., Arch- 
 deacon of Gloucester. 
 
 Sidebotham, The Rev. J. S., M.A., Kingsland, Hereford. 
 
 Smart, The Ven. Edward, M.A., Archdeacon and Canon 
 Resident of St. Asaph.
 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 Smith, The Eev. T. Ayscough, M.A., Tenbury. 
 
 Smith, The Very Kev. R. Payne, D.D., Dean of 
 Canterbury. 
 
 Stamer, The Ven. Sir Lovelace T., M.A., Archdeacon 
 of Stoke. 
 
 Stanhope, The Right Hon. the Earl, 20,Grosvenor Place. 
 
 Stooke-Vaughan, The Rev. F. S., M.A., Wellington 
 Heath, Ledbury. 
 
 Sumner, The Ven. Geo. H., M.A., Archdeacon of Win- 
 chester. 
 
 Swayne, The Rev. Canon R. G., M.A., Salisbury. 
 
 Talbot, John G., Esq., M.P., Falconhurst, Edenbridge. 
 Talbot, The Rev. E. S., M.A., Warden of Keble College, 
 
 Oxford. 
 Thicknesse, The Ven. F. H., D.D., Archdeacon of 
 
 Peterborough. 
 Thomas, The Rev. Canon D. R., M.A., F.S.A., Meifod, 
 
 Welshpool. 
 Twells, The Rev. Canon H., M.A., Waltham, Melton 
 
 Mowbray. 
 
 Vere-Bayne, The Rev. Thomas, M.A., Ch. Ch., Oxford. 
 
 Walker, The Ven. J. Russell, M.A., Archdeacon of 
 Chichester. 
 
 Walters, The Rev. Thomas, D.D., Llansamlet, Glamorgan. 
 
 Ware, The Rev. Canon Henry, M.A., Rirkby Lonsdale. 
 
 Warner, The Rev. Prebendary C., M.A., Clun (two 
 copies). 
 
 Weyman, H. T., Esq., Ludlow, Salop. 
 
 Whitefoord, The Rev. R, M.A., Principal of Theolo- 
 gical College, Salisbury. 
 
 Whitefoord, The Rev. Caleb, M.A., Whitton, Tenbury. 
 
 Wight, The Rev. Alfred, M.A., Ludlow. 
 
 Williams, The Rev. Canon D., B.D., Llanelly. 
 
 Williams, The Rev. J. D., B.A., Farlow, Cleobury 
 Mortimer. 
 
 Wilton, The Rev. Charles Turner, M.A., Foy, Ross. 
 
 Winton, The Ven. Henry de, M.A., Archdeacon of 
 Brecon (two copies). 
 
 Wintour, The Rev. G., Ironbridge.
 
 0f tint 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 HER OWN REFORMER 
 
 AS TESTIFIED BY THE RECORDS OF HER 
 CONVOCATIONS 
 
 WITH APPENDIX CONTAINING LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ANCIENT 
 AND MODERN CONNECTED WITH THOSE ASSEMBLIES 
 AND COMMENTS THEREON 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES WAYLAND JOYCE M.A. 
 
 LATE STUDENT OP CH. CH. RECTOR OF BURFORD [THIRD PORTION] CO. SALOP PREBENDARY OF HEREFORD 
 AND FORMERLY A PROCTOR IN CONVOCATION FOR THE CLERGY OF THAT DIOCESB 
 
 Author of "England?* Sacred Synods" "Eccksia Vindicate," "The Svcord and the Keys" 
 
 "The Latin Sernwn" preached before the Provincial Synod of Canterbury Feb. 2, 1866 
 
 in St. PauFs Cathedral London <tc. d-c. &c. 
 
 Uonfcon 
 
 J. WHITAKEB 12 WARWICK LANE PATERNOSTER ROW 
 
 1886
 
 iforto 
 
 PRINTED BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY.
 
 TO THE BIGHT REVEREND 
 
 JAMES LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD, 
 
 WITH A DEEP SENSE OF HIS FATHERLY CARE 
 
 FOR THAT ANCIENT DIOCESE, AND AN 
 ABIDING REMEMBRANCE OF MUCH PERSONAL KINDNESS 
 
 BY ONE WHO WHEN IN HEALTH WAS HIS 
 
 EXAMINING CHAPLAIN 
 
 THE AUTHOR 
 
 BURFORD RECTORY, TBNBURT, 
 October, 1885. 
 
 207257O
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE ORIGIN, CONSTITUTION, AND PROPER FUNCTIONS 
 OF THE CHURCH'S REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES. 
 
 I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ANCIENT TEREITOEIAL DIVISIONS FOB CHURCH GOVERN- 
 MENT 5 
 
 II. 
 DIOCESAN SYNODS. 
 
 Constitution of a Diocesan Synod 6 
 
 Ancient Form of holding an English Diocesan Synod . . 7 
 
 Benedictions and Duration 8 
 
 Borromeo's Address to his Eleventh Diocesan Synod . . 8 
 
 Objects of a Diocesan Synod 10 
 
 English Diocesan Synods 10 
 
 Diocesan Conferences 11 
 
 Bishop C. Wordsworth's Letter 12 
 
 III. 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 
 
 Primitive Provincial Organization 12 
 
 Ancient Form of holding a Provincial Synod .... 14 
 
 British Provincial Organization 16 
 
 Mission of Augustine 17 
 
 Independence of British Church on Eome .... 18 
 
 Locality of Interview between British Bishops and Augustine 19 
 Metropolitan Jurisdiction finally confined to Canterbury and 
 
 York . 22
 
 VI CONTENTS. 
 
 Error touching the Origin of Convocations .... 23 
 Constitution of the Provincial Synods or Convocations of 
 
 Canterbury and York 29 
 
 Proper Functions and Duties of Provincial Synods or Con- 
 vocations 31 
 
 Prescription of the Canon of Scripture 31 
 
 Promulgation of Symbols of Faith 31 
 
 Condemnation of False Doctrine 32 
 
 Enactment of Canons 32 
 
 Authorization of Liturgical Formularies 33 
 
 Statutable Jurisdiction of Convocations over " Kings' Causes " 35 
 
 IV. 
 
 SYNODS or THE EXABCHATE. 
 
 English Synods of the Exarchate 37 
 
 Authority to Convene a Synod of the English Exarchate . . 38 
 
 Subordination of York to Canterbury 39 
 
 Resistance of York to Jurisdiction of Canterbury ... 41 
 
 Present State of the Case 45 
 
 Forms of Proceeding in a Synod of the English Exarchate . 47 
 Various Methods for Securing the Authority of a Synod of the 
 
 English Exarchate 48 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE INAUGURATION, PROMOTION, AND COMPLETION 
 OF THE REFORMATION IN DOCTRINE, RITUAL, AND 
 DISCIPLINE BY THE CONVOCATIONS OF THE CHURCH 
 OF ENGLAND. 15311562-3. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE REFORMATION INAUGURATED BY CONVOCATIONAL 
 ACTION. 
 
 King Henry VIII., his Courtiers and Favourites, unpromising 
 
 as Reformers 50 
 
 Royal Title " So far as the Law of Christ permits, even 
 
 Supreme Head" 53
 
 CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Continual Resistance of the Church of England to the En- 
 croachments of Rome 55 
 
 Convocation invokes aid of the Civil power for repressing 
 
 Roman exactions 68 
 
 " Submission of the Clergy " 70 
 
 Parliamentary Legislation 71 
 
 Con vocational Jurisdiction in Causes " touching the King " . 72 
 
 Queen Catharine of Arragon's Divorce 73 
 
 Queen Anne Boleyn's Divorce 74 
 
 Nullification of the Marriage of Anne of Cleves ... 75 
 Odd Announcements in the Courts of Common Pleas and 
 
 Exchequer 76 
 
 Formal Rejection of the Papal Supremacy by the Convoca- 
 tions of Canterbury and York the chief corner-stone of 
 
 the Reformation 77 
 
 Rejection of Papal Supremacy warranted by the Jus CYPRIUM 79 
 
 II. 
 
 THE REFORMATION PEOMOTED BY CONVOCATIONAL 
 ACTION. 
 
 Ecclesiastical corroborated by Civil Authority in early times 82 
 Summary of Synodical Acts promoting and completing the 
 
 Reformation 85 
 
 Comparison of the Dates of Synodical Acts and Civil Ratifi- 
 cations 86 
 
 III. 
 
 THE REFORMATION COMPLETED BY CONVOCATIONAL 
 ACTION. 
 
 Seven events which completed the Reformation . . . 103 
 
 (1) Restoration of the Cup to the Laity .... 104 
 
 (2) Compilation of the first English " Communion Office " . 105 
 
 (3) Abrogation of the Ccelibacy of the Clergy . . .110 
 
 (4) First English " Book of Common Prayer "... 113 
 
 (5) Second English " Book of Common Prayer " . . . 122 
 
 (6) Forty-two " Articles of Religion " 127 
 
 (7) Thirty-nine " Articles of Religion " .... 132 
 York Assent to the Thirty-nine " Articles of Religion " . . 134
 
 Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 . PART III. 
 
 SURVEY OF SOME MEMORABLE ACTS OF THE CON- 
 VOCATIONS FROM THE DATE OF THE COMPLETION 
 OF THE REFORMATION TO THE SUSPENSION OF 
 SYNODICAL ACTION. 1562-31718. 
 
 I. 
 
 GENERAL KEVIEW or SYNODICAL ACTS AFTER THE 
 COMPLETION or THE REFORMATION. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Review of some Synodical Events in Queen Elizabeth's reign 136 
 
 Ecclesiastical Essays in Parliament 138 
 
 Summary of Synodical Acts from the Accession of King 
 
 James I. to the Suspension of Synodical Action . . 141 
 
 II. 
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE 141 CANONS OF 1603-4. 
 
 Review of some Synodical Events in King James I.'s reign . 143 
 
 Canons of 1603-4 145 
 
 Constructions of Law to the Disadvantage of the Church by 
 
 the Learned Profession 146 
 
 York Synod enacts the 141 Canons . . . . . . 149 
 
 An odd Announcement in the House of Lords .... 151 
 
 Legal Obligation of Canons 152 
 
 Contradictory Decisions of the learned Judges .... 152 
 
 III. 
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 
 
 An evil Augury . . 158 
 
 Three more evil Omens 159 
 
 Sessions at Oxford . 161 
 
 Ecclesiastical Aspirations in the House of Commons . .162 
 
 Assembly of the Canterbury Synod 165 
 
 Subsidies voted to the Crown 167 
 
 Controversy as to whether Convocations are necessarily Dis- 
 solved by a Dissolution of Parliament .... 167 
 
 Riots in London 169 
 
 A Pontifical for the Church of England contemplated . . 171 
 
 Enactment of the Seventeen Canons of 1640 .... 171 
 
 The " &c." Oath 172 
 
 York Convocation enacts the Seventeen Canons and votes Sub- 
 sidies . 175
 
 CONTENTS. IX 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Parliamentary Flowers of Rhetoric 177 
 
 Parliamentary Precautions against Subsidies being voted by 
 
 the Convocations . 181 
 
 Monetary Transactions between Parliament and the Scotch for 
 
 the Purchase of the King's Person 184 
 
 Nemesis of Fate overtakes this House of Commons . . 187 
 
 IV. 
 
 COMPILATION AND^SYNODICAL ATTTHOKIZATION OP THE 
 PBESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PBAYEB." 
 
 Authority of the present " Book of Common Prayer " . . 189 
 
 Republican tender Mercies 190 
 
 Schemes for Restoring a " Book of Common Prayer" . . 192 
 
 First Essay at Liturgical Revision, Savoy Conference . . 193 
 
 Second Essay at Liturgical Revision, by Parliament . . 194 
 
 Parliamentary Prayer Book . 195 
 
 Capacity of "Members of the Long Robe" for Theological 
 
 engagements. A Digression 198 
 
 A Lord Chancellor . 203 
 
 Other Lord Chancellors 205 
 
 Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench 206 
 
 Justices of the Court of Common Pleas 207 
 
 Barons of the Court of Exchequer ...... 208 
 
 Judicial Committee of Privy Council 209 
 
 Dr. Peter Heylin's Letter 217 
 
 Canterbury Convocation, May, 1661 220 
 
 York Convocation, May, 1661 221 
 
 The Canterbury and York Convocations, Nov. 1661 . . 222 
 
 York Convocation, Nov. 1661 222 
 
 Appointment of Proxies by York to appear in the Canterbury 
 
 Synod 223 
 
 Canterbury Convocation, Nov. 1661 227 
 
 Methods adopted in compiling the present " Book of Common 
 
 Prayer" 227 
 
 Instruments of Ratification, Canterbury and York . . . 231 
 
 Civil Sanction accorded to the " Book of Common Prayer " . 240 
 
 V. 
 
 REJECTION OF THE " COMPEEHENSION" LTTUBGY. 
 
 A " Comprehension " Liturgy proposed 243 
 
 Canterbury Convocation meets, Nov. 1689 .... 245 
 
 Court Intrigues to secure a pliant Prolocutor .... 246 
 Vain attempt to impose the title " Protestant" on the Church 
 
 /| ofEngland 248 
 
 " Comprehension " Liturgy abandoned 249 
 
 Synodical Action suspended 250 
 
 b
 
 X CONTENTS. 
 
 VI. 
 
 SUSPENSION OF SYNODICAL ACTION IN THE CHURCH 
 OF ENGLAND. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Suspension of Synodical Action not justly chargeable on the 
 
 Civil Power 253 
 
 Real Causes of the Suspension of Synodical Action . . 255 
 
 Lack of Harmony between Bishops and Presbyters . . 256 
 
 General Lethargy in the Church 259 
 
 Unreasonable Exaltation of Personal Authority . . . 260 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OP THE CONVOCATIONS 
 AFTER THE REVIVAL OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 
 
 18521885. 
 
 I. 
 
 REVIVAL OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 
 
 Measures taken for the Eevival of Synodical Action . . 264 
 Resistance of the two Metropolitans . . . . . 265 
 
 II. 
 
 SUMMABY OF THE MOST MEMOEABLE ACTS OF THE CONVO- 
 CATIONS SINCE THE REVIVAL OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 
 Summary of Acts 266 
 
 m. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1852, DISSOLVED 1857. 
 
 Canterbury 268 
 
 Tork . 269 
 
 IV. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1857, DISSOLVED 1859. 
 
 Canterbury . 271 
 
 York . . . . 271 
 
 V. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1859, DISSOLVED 1865. 
 Canterbury 272
 
 CONTENTS. XI 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Harvest Thanksgiving Service 274 
 
 Synodical Condemnation of Dr. Colenso's Volume . . . 274 
 
 Synodical Condemnation of "Essays and Reviews" . . 276 
 
 Clerical Lawbreaking 278 
 
 New Canons enacted 279 
 
 Excursion of the " Crown Office " 280 
 
 York 281 
 
 Accession of Dr. C. T. Longley to the See of Canterbury . 281 
 
 VI. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1866, DISSOLVED 1868. 
 
 Canterbury 282 
 
 Dr. Colenso not in Communion with the Church of England . 283 
 
 York 284 
 
 VII. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1868, DISSOLVED 1874. 
 
 Canterbury 284 
 
 Summary of Acts 286 
 
 Decrees on Vatican Council 286 
 
 Canterbury Decrees on Vatican Council transmitted to other 
 
 Churches 289 
 
 Eevision of " the Authorized Translation " of Holy Scripture . 290 
 
 The Revised Lectionary 290 
 
 A Lord Chancellor's exposition of Law 291 
 
 Shortened Services authorized 293 
 
 Act of Supererogation in Crown Office . . . . 294 
 
 Eevision of Rubrics 296 
 
 York 298 
 
 New Lectionary 298 
 
 Rubrical Revision . . 298 
 
 Revised New Testament 299 
 
 VIII. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1874, DISSOLVED 1880. 
 
 Canterbury 303 
 
 Manuals of Private Prayer 305 
 
 Summary of Debates 306 
 
 Public Worship Regulation Act 307 
 
 A Crown Office Excursion 
 
 Revision of Rubrics 
 
 Important Revision of a Rubric in the Communion Service . 
 Measure suggested for obtaining Ecclesiastical Legislation in 
 
 Parliament 313- 
 
 York , 314
 
 Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 IX. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1880. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Canterbury 315 
 
 Accession of Dr. Benson to the See of Canterbury . . . 316 
 Amazing Announcement made by the Judicial Committee of 
 
 Privy Council 317 
 
 Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioners' Report .... 318 
 
 Manuals of Private Prayer 318 
 
 York 320 
 
 Summary of Proceedings . 320 
 
 PART V. 
 
 PRESENT REGULATIONS AND METHODS OF PROCEED- 
 ING IN THE CONVOCATIONS OF CANTERBURY AND 
 YORK, THE PROVINCIAL SYNODS OF THE CHURCH 
 OF ENGLAND. 
 
 I. 
 CONVOCATIONS IN CONNEXION WITH THE CROWN. 
 
 Royal Writ for Convention 321 
 
 Letter of Business 322 
 
 Licence to enact Canons 322 
 
 Writ of Prorogation 322 
 
 Writ of Dissolution 323 
 
 n. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 A peculiarity of English Provincial Synods .... 324 
 Privilege of Freedom from Arrest pertaining to Members of 
 
 the Convocations 325 
 
 ni. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS ON ASSEMBLY 329 
 
 IV. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN SESSION. 
 
 Separation into two Houses 332 
 
 Proceedings in Upper House 333 
 
 Proceedings in Lower House 333 
 
 CONCLUSION.. ...336
 
 CONTENTS. Xlll 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 ROYAL WHIT FOB CONVENTION. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Writ of King Edward III 342 
 
 Writ of King Henry VIII. . . . . ... 342 
 
 Writ of Queen Victoria .343 
 
 B. 
 
 METKOPOLITAN'S MANDATE AND OTHEB INSTEUMENTS 
 FOB CONVENTION. 
 
 Mandate of Archbishop Kilwarby 343 
 
 Mandate of Archbishop Howley .- 344 
 
 Citation issued by the Provincial Dean of the Canterbury 
 
 Province . 346 
 
 Citation directed by a Diocesan Bishop to a Dean and Chapter 347 
 
 Citation directed by a Diocesan Bishop to Archdeacons . 347 
 
 Citation directed by an Archdeacon to the Clergy . . . 348 
 Citation sent by the Archdeacon's Apparitor to each Beneficed 
 
 Clergyman 349 
 
 Return of the Provincial Dean of the Canterbury Province . 350 
 
 Return of a Suffragan Bishop 351 
 
 Return of a Dean and Chapter 352 
 
 Return of an Archdeacon certifying the Election of Proctors . 352 
 
 Comments on a proposed Method for Reforming a Convocation 354 
 
 c. 
 
 ROYAL LETTER OF BUSINESS. 
 
 Letter of Business of King Edward 1 355 
 
 Letter of Business of King William III 356 
 
 Letter of Business of Queen Victoria 356 
 
 Comments on a Letter of Business 357 
 
 D. 
 
 ROYAL ASSENT AND LICENCE TO ENACT, PBOMULGE, AND 
 EXECUTE CANONS. 
 
 Explanation of the Instrument . 359
 
 XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Synodical Request to Queen Elizabeth for Eoyal Assent and 
 
 Licence 360 
 
 Royal Assent and Licence of Queen Elizabeth's Reign . . 361 
 Unstatutable Excursions of Judges and Legal Officers . . 363 
 Precautions taken in this generation against those Aggressions 365 
 Synodical Request to Queen Victoria for a Royal Licence . 366 
 Royal Licence of Queen Victoria's Reign .... 367 
 Comments on the Excursions of Legal Officials in this genera- 
 tion 370 
 
 E. 
 
 ROYAL WRIT AND METROPOLITAN'S MANDATE FOB 
 PROROGATION. 
 
 Writ of Queen Victoria for Prorogation 373 
 
 Mandate of Metropolitan for Prorogation .... 374 
 
 F. 
 
 ROYAL WRIT FOR DISSOLUTION. 
 
 Writ of King Henry VIII. for Dissolution . . . .375 
 Writ of Queen Victoria for Dissolution . . . . . 375 
 Dissolution by Commission from Metropolitan . . . 376 
 
 G. 
 
 "SUBMISSION OF THE CLERGY," AND EXTRACTS FROM 
 "CLERGY SUBMISSION ACT." 
 
 Form of Submission 376 
 
 Comments thereon 377 
 
 Clergy Submission Act 378 
 
 Comments thereon 379 
 
 H. 
 
 KOYAL WRIT SUMMONING CLERGY TO PARLIAMENT. 
 
 Writ of King Edward I. for Summoning Parliament . . 380 
 Writ of Queen Victoria for Summoning Parliament . . 381 
 Comments on the above . 382
 
 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF 
 
 SOME WORKS AND AUTHORITIES 
 
 EEFERBED TO IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES. 
 
 ATTERBTTRY. Eights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Con- 
 vocation. 
 
 AYLLFFE. Parergon. 
 
 BACON. Works. 
 
 BARROW. Works. 
 
 BELLARMINE. De Conciliis. 
 
 BENNETT. Essay on XXXIX. Articles. 
 
 BILSON. Perpetual Government of Christ's Church. 
 
 BINGHAM. Antiquities of the Christian Church. 
 
 BLACKSTONE. Commentaries. 
 
 BRETT. Account of Church Government. 
 
 BRODRICK AND FREMANTLE. Ecclesiastical Judgments of the Privy 
 Council. 
 
 BULLET. Variations of Liturgies. 
 
 BURN. Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 BURNET. History of the Rejbrmation. 
 
 CANONS. Canons of (Ecumenical Councils. 
 
 CARDWELL. Synodalia Two Liturgies. 
 
 CHRONICLE. Chronicle of Convocation. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM. De Sacerdotio Homilies. 
 
 CHURTON. Early English Church. 
 
 CLARENDON. History of the Eebellion. 
 
 COKE . Institutes Reports . 
 
 COLENSO. Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. 
 
 COLLIER. Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 COMYN Digest. 
 
 Concilia Magnae Britannise, passim. 
 
 CYPRIAN. Epistles. 
 
 D'EwES. Journal. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' COMMISSIONERS. Report. 
 
 ECHARD. History of England. 
 
 Essays and Reviews. 
 
 EUSEBIUS. Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 FIELD. Of the Church. 
 
 FOXE. Acts and Monuments. 
 
 FROUDE. History of England. 
 
 FULLER. Church History. 
 
 GIBSON. Codex Synpdus Anglicana. 
 
 GLADSTONE. Church in its Relations to the State. 
 
 GODWIN. De Praesulibus. 
 
 HANSARD. Parliamentary Debates. 
 
 HEYLIN. Ecclesia Vindicata Examen Help to English History 
 History of the Reformation Life of Laud Miscellaneous 
 Tracts. 
 
 History of Later Puritans. 
 
 HODY. History of English Councils. 
 
 HOOK. Church Dictionary. 
 
 HOOKER. Ecclesiastical Polity.
 
 XVI LIST OF WORKS AND AUTHORITIES. 
 
 HUME. History of England. 
 
 HDSSEY. Church from the Beginning until Now. 
 
 IGNATIUS. Epistles. 
 
 INETT. Origines Anglican. 
 
 IEEN^EUS. Adv. Haereses. 
 
 JOHNSON. Canons Vade Mecum. 
 
 KEELING. Liturgies. 
 
 KENNETT. Ecclesiastical Synods Complete History of England. 
 
 KING. Primitive Church. 
 
 LABBE and COSSART. Councils. 
 
 LANDON. Manual of Councils. 
 
 LATHBUBY. History of Convocation. 
 
 LYNDWOOD. Provinciale. 
 
 MATTHEW PARIS. 
 
 MOSHEIM. Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 MSS. AND COLLECTIONS. In British Museum (inspected). In 
 
 State Paper Office, now Rolls (inspected). Private Collections 
 
 since revival of Convocation. 
 NALSON. Collections. 
 NEANDER, ed. BRUNS. Canons. 
 NICHOLLS. History of Common Prayer. 
 ORIGEN. Contra Celsum. 
 PALGRAVE. History of Anglo-Saxons. 
 Pamphlets, Collection of 18th Century. 
 PARRY. Parliaments and Councils of England. 
 PEARCE. Law of Convocation. 
 POTTER. Church Government. 
 Reformatio Legum. 
 RITUAL COMMISSIONERS. Report. 
 ROSE. Biographical Dictionary. 
 SHARON TURNER. History of Anglo-Saxons. 
 SOUTHEY. Book of the Church. 
 SOZOMEN. Ecclesiastical History. 
 SPARROW. Collections Rationale. 
 SPELMAN. Concilia Glossary. 
 Statutes at Large, passim. 
 STILLINGFLEET. Irenicon Origines Britannicse. 
 STRYPE. Life of Cranmer Life of Parker Life of Whitgift 
 
 Memorials Annals. 
 Student's Hume. 
 TAYLOR, JEREMY. Works. 
 THEODORET. 
 
 THIERRY. Norman Conquest. 
 TREVOR. The Two Convocations. 
 VATICAN COUNCIL. Decrees. 
 
 WAKE. Authority of Christian Princes Present State. 
 WALKER. Sufferings of the Clergy. 
 WARNER. Ecclesiastical History. 
 WHEATLEY. On the Common Prayer. 
 WILKINS. Epistolaris Dissertatio. 
 WOODESON . Lectures. 
 WORDSWORTH. Greek Testament Theophilus Anglicanus.
 
 THE CHUECH OF ENGLAND 
 HER OWN REFORMER. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE history of the Church of England, more es- 
 pecially as it relates to times since the Reformation, 
 has been for the most part represented exclusively 
 from two points of view: the first a secular one, 
 discovering legal enactments and civil ordinances ; the 
 second a personal one, unveiling biographical details 
 of individual character. In the first case Statutes of 
 the Eealm, Proclamations, Royal Injunctions and Adver- 
 tisements, and the political Acts of Sovereigns and 
 Statesmen have been the principal objects submitted 
 to notice. In the second case the virtues or vices, the 
 wisdom or folly of those who have taken prominent 
 parts in public affairs have been specially commended 
 to the reader's attention. 
 
 B
 
 2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 But there is a third point of view from which the 
 history of the Church of England, and especially the 
 later part of it, may be more reasonably regarded. And 
 that is the one which opens out the prospect of the 
 records of her own Acts and of her own Decrees as 
 ratified in her own proper representative assemblies. 
 This is a position of outlook which, if discovered, has 
 certainly not been usually adopted, but, on the other 
 hand, almost wholly deserted. 
 
 Acts of Parliament and State papers have been most 
 sedulously studied and reproduced by historians; the 
 records of the Church's Synods have either not been 
 seen or have been cast aside as uninstructive. The 
 pages of Atterbury, Brett, Hody, Kennett, King, Potter, 
 and such like writers ; the folios of Lyndwood, Spel- 
 man, and Wake; and the elephantine tomes of the 
 " Concilia Magnce Britannia?," have been sadly disre- 
 garded. But if it should appear, as most surely 
 hereafter will be shewn, that the Acts and Decrees 
 of the Church herself in her representative assemblies 
 have in such restorations or reformations as have been 
 accomplished in her structure preceded the civil 
 sanctions accorded to them, then it is a perversion 
 of facts to regard the latter as having originated those 
 re-edifications. Such a method of regarding history 
 is to assume the condition of a spectator who views
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 objects through a lens which inverts his vision, or who 
 looks at a picture turned upside down. 
 
 Nor is the study of the biographical records of 
 individuals more likely to exhibit a true view of the 
 Church's history. No doubt minute details of the 
 lives of men who have been prominent in Church or 
 State among their contemporaries are highly interesting, 
 and instructive too; the lives of good men holding up 
 patterns for imitation, of bad ones examples for warning. 
 But however interesting and instructive such a method 
 of treating the historic past may be, even if personal 
 characters are faithfully represented [which, by the 
 way, is not always the case, for all historians have not 
 wholly emancipated themselves from servile hero-wor- 
 ship on the one hand, and unreasoning prejudice on the 
 other], yet neither the virtues nor the vices of indi- 
 viduals can reasonably be adopted as reliable factors in 
 working out the problem of the Church's history. For 
 true results we should rather employ the Acts of the 
 Church herself. 
 
 The main object, then, of the following pages will be 
 directed to shew that the Reformation of the Church of 
 England was inaugurated, promoted, and completed by 
 her own Acts in her proper representative assemblies, 
 i.e. the Provincial Synods of Canterbury and York, or, 
 as we now term them, Convocations that in spiritual
 
 4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 matters Synodical Decrees have preceded civil ratifica- 
 tions and that the whole structure, as existing at the 
 present hour, has been built up from the foundations 
 mainly by her own hands. 
 
 For distinctness sake the subject will be treated 
 under five heads : 
 
 I. The Origin, Constitution, and proper Functions 
 
 of the Church's representative assemblies. 
 II. The Inauguration, Promotion, and Completion 
 of the Reformation in doctrine, ritual, and 
 discipline by the Convocations of the Church 
 of England. 
 
 III. A Survey of some of their memorable Acts 
 
 the date of the completion of the Reforma- 
 tion to the suspension of Synodical action 
 in England. 
 
 IV. A Survey of their history after the revival of 
 
 Synodical action. 
 
 V. A Digest of the present regulations and methods 
 of proceeding in the Convocations of Canter- 
 bury and York, the Provincial Synods of the 
 Church of England.
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE ORIGIN, CONSTITUTION, AND PEOPER 
 FUNCTIONS OF THE CHURCH'S REPRE- 
 SENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES. 
 
 I. 
 
 ANCIENT TEEEITOEIAL DIVISIONS FOR CHUECH 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 THE ancient territorial divisions of the Church EARLY 
 for her government were (1) Diocese (TrapoiKia). 
 
 (2) Province (e-Trap-^la), a combination of Dioceses. 
 
 (3) Exarchate or Patriarchate (Slogans), a com- 
 bination of Provinces. Each division had its 
 proper Synod, the Bishop presiding in that of the 
 Diocese, the Metropolitan in that of the Province, 
 the Patriarch, Exarch, or Archbishop [for these 
 words appear to have been used synonymously] 
 in that of the Exarchate or Patriarchate. 
 
 Of (Ecumenical Councils, to which of course 
 the Decrees of all other Synods are subor- 
 dinate, it is not needful here to write, as not 
 being immediately connected with our present 
 subject.
 
 6 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part I. -2. 
 
 II. 
 
 DIOCESAN SYNODS. 
 
 EARLY In the Diocesan Synod the Bishop sat in 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 ' conjunction with all the Presbyters of his Dio- 
 
 tionofa" cese. The earliest example we have is that 
 synod mentioned in Acts xxi. 18 25, when St. James, 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, convened his Presbyters, 
 and when the previous decisions of the Apo- 
 stolic Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts xv. 
 were recited and enforced. In the Primitive 
 Church, though the Bishop had a ruling supe- 
 riority, yet he was wont in all weighty matters 
 to consult his Presbyters, as we know from the 
 example of St. Cyprian. So it is that St. Ig- 
 natius describes Presbyters as "the Counsellors 
 " and Assistants of Bishops ; " St. Chrysostom as 
 " the Court and Sanhedrim of the Presbyters ; " 
 St. Cyprian as the "Venerable Bench of the 
 " Clergy ;" St. Jerome as " the Church's Senate ;" 
 and Origen as "the Council of the Church." 
 As the Bishop was thus wont to sit in council 
 with his Presbyters, special places of honour 
 were assigned to them in those early assemblies. 
 The Bishop sat in the centre on a high throne, 
 and the Presbyters on either side of him on 
 somewhat lower thrones. And so universal was 
 this custom, that the expressions "they of the 
 " second throne," or the " Corona Presbyterii," 
 were synonymous with Presbyters. Conformably
 
 DIOCESAN SYNODS. 7 
 
 with these facts, there is a vision recorded by EARLY 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, poetically describing his Dio- 
 
 cesan Synod, of which he writes thus: " I thought 
 
 " I saw myself sitting on the high throne, and 
 
 " the Presbyters, that is, the guides of the Chris- 
 
 " tian flock, sitting on both sides by me on lower 
 
 " thrones, and the Deacons standing by them." 
 
 The ancient forms of holding Diocesan Synods Ancient 
 in England may thus shortly be described. The holding an 
 
 Priests of the Diocese went in solemn procession 
 to the church appointed by the Bishop, taking * yno ' 
 their seats there according to the priority of their 
 respective ordinations. Deacons were then ad- 
 mitted, and laity who might have grievances to 
 present, or who might be allowed to witness the 
 proceedings. When the Bishop had entered and 
 taken his seat, a Deacon exclaimed, "Pray ye;" 
 and after prayer again exclaimed, "Rise up." 
 Then the Bishop, turning towards the East, said 
 in subdued tones, " The Lord be with you." The 
 appointed Deacon then read a portion of Scrip- 
 ture taken from the Gospels, after which the hymn. 
 " Yeni Creator " was sung. The Bishop addressed 
 an allocution to the assembly, after which a ser- 
 mon was preached. The Clergy then submitted 
 their complaints to the Bishop, and the laity after- 
 wards submitted theirs. In the next place the 
 Bishop laid before the Synod Constitutions for 
 Diocesan Government. A Pastoral exhortation of 
 the Bishop addressed to the Clergy followed, and
 
 8 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part I. 2. 
 
 EARLY then a solemn benediction. The benedictions 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 were somewhat different at the close of each 
 1C day's session ; that for the first day will give a 
 
 sufficient idea of their spirit and language, and 
 was as follows : " May He Who gathereth toge- 
 ther the dispersed of Israel defend you, both 
 "here and everywhere. Amen. And not only 
 "may He defend you, but make you faithful 
 " shepherds of His sheep. So that with Christ 
 " the Chief Shepherd ye may rejoice in heaven, 
 " being of the pasture of His flock. Amen. 
 " Which may He deign to grant." 
 
 Duration. Three days were assigned for the duration of 
 these early Diocesan Synods in England, though 
 the assembly separated earlier if all necessary 
 business had been sooner completed. 
 
 The eloquent and touching address of Borro- 
 
 meo to his Eleventh Diocesan Synod testifies to 
 the high estimation in which he held such an 
 assembly, and pourtrays the blessing which might 
 be expected to ensue if it were convened and 
 attended under the influences of like sentiments 
 with those which inspired the language of that 
 holy man. 
 
 " What do we here, my brethren ? " were his 
 words. " We hold a Synod ; and what does that 
 " name import ? A congregation and an assembly 
 " of whom ? Even of the most excellent and emi- 
 " nent in the Holy Church, such as her Bishops 
 " and the members who are joined to Him by
 
 DIOCESAN SYNODS. 9 
 
 " bonds of the closest union. But what are those EARLY 
 
 " who are here assembled ? Alas ! my speech 
 
 " faileth me. Who is able to conceive, much 
 
 " less to express, their dignity and their excellent 
 
 " greatness ! These are they which season all the 
 
 " people ; the fathers of the multitude ; the guides 
 
 " and teachers of those souls ; spiritual physi- 
 
 " cians ; in this militant condition generals of 
 
 " Christ their Lord ; suns to lighten and salt to 
 
 " give savour to these people. Christ indeed is 
 
 " the Sun of Kighteousness. Yet of these it may 
 
 " be said, ' Ye are the light of the world.' Clouds 
 
 " they are, charged and laden with the showers 
 
 / O 
 
 " of God's grace, which they shed over all. They 
 " are the consecrated property of Christ their 
 " Lord. Great indeed is such a congregation as 
 " this ! But these are not all ; for [what is 
 " greater still] with them is present the very 
 " Son of God Himself, the Lord Jesus, unless 
 " we put a bar against Him. For if, where two 
 " or three are gathered together in His Name 
 " He hath promised to be in the midst of them, 
 " how much rather will He be present in the 
 " midst, not of two, but of nine hundred and 
 " more, when we are not an indiscriminate mass, 
 " but His own Priests, united in one to His 
 " Name ; when our affection is one, and we 
 " shall breathe but as one ; when we shall 
 " direct all our aims and intentions to seek His 
 " grace and His Holy Spirit ! If two of you 
 
 c
 
 EARLY 
 
 10 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part T. 2. 
 
 " [they are our Lord's own words] shall agree 
 ' " on earth touching anything which they shall 
 " ask the Father in My Name, it shall be done 
 " for them how much more may not we hope 
 " to obtain in proportion to our being more 
 " eminently favoured of God, if we agree in one 
 " aim, and with one mind promote His honour 
 " and His glory, Who hath Himself enjoined us 
 " to invoke His Holy Spirit in these Congrega- 
 " tions of our Synods ! " 
 objects of One of the main objects of a Diocesan Synod 
 
 a Diocesan . . . 1 
 
 Synod. in early times was, that the .Bishop might make 
 known to his Clergy the Acts of the Synod of 
 the Province in which his Diocese was situated. 
 The absence of such information officially com- 
 municated has been a serious want in our times. 
 When in this generation, for instance, the lec- 
 tionary was revised, shortened services approved, 
 and Canons on Clergy Subscription enacted by 
 Convocation, it appears to speak softly short 
 of seemly that the Clergy should be apprized of 
 such events merely through the columns of the 
 ephemeral press. And as a fact many Clergy 
 long remained ignorant of the remodelling and 
 re-enactment of the Subscription-Canons, and 
 perhaps all are not yet aware of the fact. 
 
 English Records of Diocesan Svnods held in England 
 
 Diocesan 
 
 synods. before the Eeformation may be found abundantly 
 in the pages of the " Concilia Magnae Britanniae," 
 and the forms with which thev were celebrated
 
 DIOCESAN SYNODS. 11 
 
 may be seen in Vol. iii. p. 681 of that work. EARLY 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 The book " Keformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum," 
 compiled at the period of the Eeformation, di- 
 rected the annual convention of such assemblies 
 by the respective Diocesan Bishops ; but yet few 
 have been held in this country since that time, 
 and thus a valuable part of Church organization 
 has been disregarded. Some instances, however, 
 have occurred. For there is some casual evi- 
 dence of Diocesan Synods having been convened 
 in Durham and Norwich Dioceses since that 
 epoch. And some special instances are fully re- 
 corded, as Diocesan Synods were convened by 
 Bishop Davies at St. Asaph in 1561, by Bishop 
 Freake at Norwich about 1580, by Bishop Lloyd 
 at St. Asaph in 1683, by Bishop Wilberforce at 
 Oxford in 1850, by Bishop Phillpotts at Exeter 
 in 1851, by Bishop Wordsworth at Lincoln in 
 1871, by Bishop Maclagan at Lichfield in 1884, 
 and by Bishop Kidding at Southwell in 1885. 
 
 Of late years many Diocesan "Conferences" Diocesan 
 have assembled. Those are mixed assemblies of 6 nces. r 
 Clergy and laity. As these institutions, however, 
 do not come within the scope of the subject now 
 in hand, it is not here needful to write of them 
 at any length. It may be well, however, shortly 
 to point out the difference between these assem- 
 blies and Diocesan Synods. And this cannot be 
 better done than by transcribing the words of 
 an original letter, now before the writer, from
 
 12 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part I. 3. 
 
 EARLY the late most learned and revered Bishop Words- 
 ' worth of Lincoln : " It is my intention," wrote 
 the Bishop, " to have two distinct institutions in 
 "this Diocese (1) The Diocesan Synod, consti- 
 " tuted in the manner and on the principles 
 " received by the Church for seventeen centuries ; 
 " (2) The Diocesan Conference, a mixed body 
 " [conventus] of Clergy and laity. The Synod is 
 " to take its part in all matters concerning ' divine 
 " ' learning/ and the discipline and sacred offices 
 " of the Church ; the Conference to deal with 
 " mixed matters the relation of the State and 
 " the Church, finances Ecclesiastical, maintenance 
 " of the Clergy, &c." 
 
 III. 
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 
 
 In an ascending order the next Ecclesiastical 
 assembly to be considered is a Provincial Synod, 
 or Synod of combined Dioceses ; and as our Con- 
 vocations are of this character the subject requires 
 especial attention. 
 Primitive Provincial organization, which is emphatically 
 
 Provincial 
 
 organiza- that of the Church of England, may be traced to 
 
 tion. . . 
 
 the earliest, even to apostolic times. Timothy is 
 Hom. xv. in reported by St. Chrysostom to have been en- 
 trusted with the supervision of the whole of
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 13 
 
 Proconsular Asia, in which were several Bishops. EARLY 
 And it is affirmed moreover that Titus was 
 charged with the oversight of the Churches of Hom. IT' 
 Crete, and to have superintended the whole 
 island. In the Second Century there are some 
 further evidences of Provincial organization, 
 and of Metropolitical authority exercised over 
 Diocesan Bishops. Irenseus of Lyons, in the 
 year 177, superintended the Gallican Dioceses. 
 Philip of Gortyna was styled "Bishop of the 
 " Dioceses of Crete ;" and that there was at that 
 time more than one Diocese in the island is cer- 
 tain, from the fact that then Pinytus was 
 Bishop of Gnossus, the inevitable conclusion 
 being that Philip was Metropolitan. Towards 
 the decline of the Second Century the plainest 
 proofs of this Provincial organization and of 
 Metropolitical authority appear in one passage 
 of Eusebius' history (lib. 5, c. 23). Provincial 
 Synods were at this time convened to consider 
 the proper time for celebrating the Paschal festi- 
 val. And that historian informs us that in the 
 Synod of Palestine Theophilus of Caesarea pre- 
 sided ; in that of Home, Victor ; in that of 
 France, Irenaeus of Lyons ; in that of Pro- 
 consular Asia, Palmas as senior Bishop. This 
 arrangement of Provincial organization is, more- 
 over, canonically authorized by the 33rd, some- 
 times numbered the 35th, of the Apostolical 
 Canons, which runs thus : " The Bishops of
 
 14 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part I. 3. 
 
 EARLY "each Province ought to own him who is 
 
 *' " chief among them, and own him as their head, 
 
 " and to do nothing extraordinary without his 
 
 " consent, but each one those things only which 
 
 " concern his own parish [i. e. Diocese], and the 
 
 " country subject to it." And again, the Fifth 
 
 Canon of the Council of Nice decreed that " in 
 
 "each Province Synods should be held twice 
 
 "every year, so that, all the Bishops of the 
 
 "Province being gathered together to the same 
 
 " place, disputed questions might be investigated." 
 
 Ancient The ancient forms of proceeding in holding 
 
 holding a Provincial Synods may be found in full detail laid 
 
 Provincial 
 
 Synod. down in the Fourth Canon of the Fourth Coun- 
 cil of Toledo, A.D. 633. They are well worthy 
 of study, as they define the proper constituent 
 members of such assemblies, and the part which 
 the Deacons and laity took as spectators of the 
 proceedings or as complainants of injury; and 
 may be read in Neander, ed. Bruns. pp. 222 seq. 
 The Canon being translated decrees as follows : 
 
 " At early dawn, before sunrise, let the church 
 " where the Synod is to assemble be cleared of 
 "all manner of persons. And all the doors 
 "having been shut, let doorkeepers stand at 
 " one door through which the Priests may enter, 
 "and also all the attending Bishops may like- 
 " wise come in and take their places according to 
 "the dates of their consecrations. After all the 
 " Bishops have entered and taken their seats let
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 15 
 
 " the Presbyters who have a right of entrance be SABX.Y 
 
 "called in, but let no Deacon intrude among 
 
 "them. After these let the approved Deacons 
 
 " enter who have received order to attend ; and 
 
 " the Bishops sitting in a semicircle, let the Pres- 
 
 " byters sit behind them, and the Deacons stand 
 
 " in front of the Bishops. Then let the laity 
 
 " enter, who by election of the Council have 
 
 " been deemed worthy to be present. Then let 
 
 " the notaries enter, whom the order of business 
 
 " requires for reading or taking notes. Let the 
 
 " doors then be locked, and while the Clergy 
 
 "are sitting in continuous silence, having their 
 
 " whole minds fixed on God, let the Archdeacon 
 
 " say, ' Pray ye.' All shall immediately prostrate 
 
 " themselves on the ground, praying long and 
 
 "silentlv with tears and lamentations. Let one 
 
 tt 
 
 "of the Bishops then rise and pray aloud to 
 " God, all the rest still remaining prostrate. 
 " After this prayer is ended, and all having 
 "responded 'Amen,' again let the Archdeacon 
 "say, 'Kise ye up.' Let all then immediately 
 "rise up, and in the full fear of God, and in 
 " due order, let both Bishops and Presbyters 
 " take their seats. Thus while all are sitting 
 "in their proper places in silence, let a Deacon 
 "vested in an alb bring forward a volume of 
 " Canons, and read the Chapters on the hold- 
 " ing of Councils. When these titles have been 
 " finished, let the Metropolitan Bishop address
 
 16 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1. 3. 
 
 EARLY "the Council, saying, 'See, most holy Priests, 
 HISTORY. (( ( rom fa Q Canons of the Ancient Fathers the 
 "'regulations for holding a Council have been 
 " ' read ; if therefore any one of you is moved 
 " ' to action let him make his proposition in the 
 " ' presence of his brethren.' Then if any one 
 "shall have preferred any complaint in the 
 "audience of the priestly assembly of a breach 
 " of the Canons, let no other matter be entered 
 " on until the proposed matter be first concluded. 
 "Further, if any Presbyter, Deacon, cleric, or 
 " layman, who has not been admitted to the 
 "assembly, should think that he has cause of 
 "appeal on any matter to the Council, let him 
 " intimate his case to the Archdeacon of the 
 " Metropolitan Church, let him declare it to the 
 " Council, and then let leave be granted to the 
 "complainant to enter and state his case. No 
 " Bishop may depart from the common assembly 
 " before the regular hour for separation arrives. 
 " No one may dare to dissolve the assembly un- 
 " less every question shall have been settled. So 
 " that whatever has been decided on by common 
 " deliberation may be subscribed by the hands 
 "of the individual Bishops. Then may God 
 "be believed to have been present with His 
 " Priests, all tumult may carefully be avoided, 
 " and Ecclesiastical business be concluded with 
 
 British 
 
 Provincial " tranquillity." 
 
 organiza- 
 tion. Provincial organization was established here
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 17 
 
 in England in verv early times. There were ori- EARLY 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 ginally three Provinces before the Saxon inva- 
 sion, A.D. 445 (l) London; (2) York; (3) Caer- 
 leon-upon-Usk. Indeed it is certain that at 
 the Council of Aries, A.D. 314, these three Eng- 
 lish Prelates, Kestitutus of London, Eborius of 
 York, and Adelsius of Caerleon-upon-Usk, sub- 
 scribed to the Acts. 
 
 On the arrival of Augustine the Monk, about Mission of 
 A.D. 600 [Kanulphus gives as the date 599, 
 Angelocrator 601, Spelman 601, Balseus 602, 
 Vigornensis 603], Christians of the two first 
 named Provinces had been persecuted by their 
 invaders well-nigh to extermination, Theonas, 
 Metropolitan of London, and Thadiocus of York, 
 having fled to Wales and taken refuge there 
 from the Saxon conquerors about the year 586 
 or 587. But in the Western Province of 
 Caerleon-upon-Usk, or as sometimes called, St. 
 David's, Christianity still flourished. This is 
 plain from the fact that at the interview at 
 the Apostles' Oak, between Augustine and the 
 authorities of the British Church, seven Bishops 
 from the West attended, the Bishops of Ban- 
 gor, Hereford, Llanbadern, Llandaff, Margam, St. 
 Asaph, and Worcester. It is right here to inform 
 the reader that some antiquarians believe that 
 the Dioceses of Hereford and Worcester at that 
 time had other names. But however this may 
 be, the seven Bishops attending this meeting 
 
 D
 
 18 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part I. 3. 
 
 EABI.Y were accompanied by many most learned Clergy; 
 
 ' of these one of the chief was Dinoth, Abbot 
 
 of Bangor Iscoed. The points discussed referred 
 first to the time proper for the celebration of 
 the Paschal festival, which here differed from 
 the Koman calculation, and was originally de- 
 rived from the Eastern Church [though a mis- 
 calculation had been made after the Council of 
 Nice by the Britons] ; secondly to the proper 
 form for the administration of Baptism ; thirdly 
 to a union with Augustine for preaching the 
 Gospel to the Anglo-Saxons. 
 
 The points of difference between the British 
 and the Koman Church as discussed at this 
 interview, are conclusive as to the fact that 
 this Church of England is of Eastern and not 
 of Western origin, and that she rightly claims 
 as her Spiritual Mother the ancient Apostolic 
 Orthodox Church of the East. 
 
 Augustine disinclined the Britons from ac- 
 cepting his propositions, first by his haughty 
 demeanour in receiving them as he was sitting, 
 and then by insisting on their obeying him. So 
 finally they declined his proposals, saying that 
 they could not satisfy him "nor receive him 
 " for their Archbishop." 
 
 dencfoT For tlie con ditions he demanded of them were 
 
 church not so mucn term s of brotherly communion as 
 
 on Home, confessions of submission and inferiority. " If," 
 
 said he, "in these three things you will obey
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 19 
 
 " me, then will I bear with all other things." EARLY 
 And the decision of the assembly was tersely 
 summed up in the words of Dinoth above men- 
 tioned, who said, " Be it known and without Speim. ^ 
 " doubt unto you, that we all are and every from 
 "one of us obedient and subject to the Church MSS? 
 " of God, and to the Pope of Borne, and to every O rig. a it. 
 "godly Christian, to love every one in his degree PP- 370 > se< i- 
 " in perfect charity, and to help every one of 
 " them by word and deed to be children of God ; 
 " and other obedience than this I do not know 
 " due to him whom you name to be Pope, nor to 
 " be the father of fathers to be claimed and to be 
 " demanded. And this obedience we are ready 
 " to give and to pay to him and to every Chris- 
 " tian continually. Besides, we are under the 
 "government of the Bishop of Caerleon-upon- 
 " Usk, who is to oversee under God over us, and 
 " to cause us to keep the way Spiritual." In- 
 deed, to have transferred their allegiance to 
 Augustine from their own Metropolitan would 
 have been a grave offence, for to the ancient 
 Metropolitan See of Caerleon-upon-Usk they 
 owed obedience. And though that See had 
 been removed to St. David's about eighty years 
 previously, i.e. by the Council held at Llandewy 
 Brevi A.D. 519, vet the ancient title of Caerleon 
 
 Locality of 
 
 and its jurisdiction was still retained. interview 
 
 between 
 
 The exact spot where this interview between British 
 
 i -r i i i - T i Bishops and 
 
 the seven British Bishops and Augustine the Monk Augustine. 
 
 D 2
 
 20 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part T. 3. 
 
 EARLY took place has afforded matter for some discus- 
 *' sion. For it cannot fail to be a question of con- 
 siderable interest to those who anxiously main- 
 tain the right and original independence of the 
 English Church. Spelman thought that the 
 scene of this assembly was near a village named 
 " Ausric," as being a name contracted from 
 "Austin's-ric." Others have written of the place 
 as "Haustake" or "Ossuntree," i.e. the village of 
 " Martin Hussingtree," near Droitwich. 
 
 But there is, not far from the present high- 
 road leading from Ludlow in the County of 
 Salop to the city of Worcester, a spot called 
 " The Apostles' Oak," which local tradition marks 
 as the place of this memorable interview. On 
 the road above mentioned there is an old inn 
 named " The Hundred House," and about a mile 
 short of it as one approaches from the Ludlow 
 side is a hill called " The Apostles' Oak Bank." 
 At a little distance to the left of the ascent 
 stands now in a wood an oak tree, which is 
 known to have been planted during the earlier 
 half of the last century to mark the spot where 
 the hollow trunk of an exceedingly aged oak 
 formerly stood, but which had been burnt by a 
 fire carelessly lighted within it. That aged trunk 
 was known as " The Apostles' Oak," and was in 
 the neighbourhood always believed to have been 
 the remains of the tree under whose shadow the 
 seven British Bishops and Augustine met. In
 
 PKOVIXCIAL SYNODS. 21 
 
 1732 that original trunk was certainly standing EARLY 
 in a state of great decay quite hollow and in 
 it was placed a seat for the accommodation of 
 the keeper of an adjoining turnpike gate. The 
 gate was denominated the "Apostles' Oak Gate;" 
 and it is said that in a local Act of Parliament 
 passed for the management of the road, " The 
 Apostles' Oak" was nominally specified. The 
 present road is diverted from its former course, 
 so that a traveller does not see the spot unless 
 he purposely seeks it. 
 
 In a letter dated May 31, 1797, Dr. Percy, 
 Bishop of Dromore, after mentioning some of the 
 facts above stated, adds : " I remember being told 
 " this by the Eector of ' The Kock,' when I was 
 " on a visit at his Parsonage house. That parish, 
 "which originally extended to this celebrated 
 "oak, was called 'Aca' in Latin [so it is still in 
 " the ' Valor Beneficiorum ' from it], and the Eng- 
 " lish name ' The Kock ' is only a corruption 
 " of the old Anglo-Saxon ' Daen !Sc ' ' ther Oak,' 
 " or ' the Oak.' " Some objections have been 
 raised against this locality ; but in a MS. 
 copy of Dr. Percy's letter [which I have had 
 an opportunity of reading] that Bishop says: 
 t( I formerly considered the subject, and think 
 " I can answer every objection, and confirm the 
 "tradition." An auxiliary fact giving additional 
 credibility to the local tradition must not be 
 overlooked. That ancient oak marked the
 
 EARLY 
 
 22 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part I. 3. 
 
 boundary between the Dioceses of Hereford and 
 
 HI S TORY 
 
 " Worcester, and therefore was not unlikely to be 
 chosen as a spot where Bishops from different 
 Dioceses might assemble. This fact also may 
 readily account for the statement in Spelman, 
 "Cone." i. 107, and in the "Cone. Mag. Brit." i. 
 125, that this meeting took place on the borders 
 of Worcestershire and Herefordshire ; though, in 
 fact, the boundaries of the Dioceses and Coun- 
 ties not being here exactly conterminous, the 
 County of Hereford does not really approach 
 within a few miles of the place. 
 
 Metropo- Not long after this interview at " The Apostles' 
 dictum" 1 " Oak," some of the Dioceses of the Welsh Bishops 
 fined ^ n became subject to the Metropolitical See of Can- 
 terbury ; but it is plain that the Provincial juris- 
 diction was attached to the See of Caerleon or 
 St. David's through many subsequent centuries at 
 least over some of the Welsh Dioceses. And Gi- 
 raldus Cambrensis, a Welshman born, and one 
 whose evidence on this point may be accepted 
 without dispute, proves from authentic records 
 that the Bishops of St. David's consecrated Suf- 
 fragans and exercised all other branches of Metro- 
 political authority till the reign of King Henry I. 
 At that time Bernard, who had been Chaplain to 
 Adelais, that monarch's second queen, upon being 
 raised to the See of St. David's, submitted to the 
 Metropolitan of Canterbury ; and thus about A.D. 
 1115 the Western Province of Caerleon became
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 23 
 
 merged into the Southern Province. The Con- EARLY 
 vocations of Canterbury and York are conse- 
 quently now the Provincial Synods representing 
 the Church existing in England and Wales. By 
 them alone she acts in her corporate capacity ; by 
 them alone can her authoritative voice be heard. 
 
 That Provincial Synods consist exclusively of Constitu- 
 the Bishops of a Province with conjoined Pres- Provincial 
 byters, and that this was their constitution from yn( 
 the earliest ages of the Church, is plain from 
 manifest proofs too long to be here inserted ; but 
 the evidence is as clear as the evidence of any 
 fact can be. Such is the constitution of the 
 Convocations of the Church of England, and has 
 been from time immemorial. 
 
 There is, indeed, an absurd fallacy which has Errortouch- 
 been current in some quarters that these Pro- on^of 
 vincial Synods originated in the reign of King tions ' 
 Edward I., and by that monarch were created. T 
 This error has been published chiefly by legal 
 writers, never backward in endeavours to sub- 
 ordinate the Church to the State ; and credulous 
 members of another profession have been simple 
 enough to believe them and reproduce their blun- 
 ders. The confusion has arisen from the fact that 
 King Edward I. called the Clergy to Parliament 
 in order that they might there vote their subsi- 
 dies, which they had formerly assessed in their 
 Synods. This he did by citing the Clergy to par- 
 liamentary assemblies at Northampton and York 
 
 inunientea 
 clause."
 
 24 ACTS OP THE CHURCH. [Part 1. 3. 
 
 EARLY in 1 282, which proved a failure ; and subsequently 
 " in 1295, by a clause inserted in the writ which 
 summoned each Bishop to Parliament as a Peer 
 of the Kealm. That clause began with the word, 
 " Prsemunientes," a barbarism for "Prsemonen- 
 "tes," forewarning each Bishop to bring with 
 him some Clergy to Parliament. And those whom 
 he should so bring were specified in the same 
 order as they had before that time attended in 
 their Convocations. Hence the error; for it is 
 hardly necessary to remind anyone that Con- 
 vocations and Parliaments are very different as- 
 semblies. But this call to Parliament is in no 
 way further connected with our Synods. In 
 fact it can be shewn by authentic original re- 
 cords that King Edward I. had no more to do 
 with originating the Convocations of the Church 
 of England than he had to do with convening 
 an (Ecumenical Council, or constituting an as- 
 sembly of independent Tartars in Samarcand. 
 
 When the Sovereign in previous times had de- 
 sired a Provincial Synod to be convened, he di- 
 rected a writ to each Metropolitan requesting him 
 to cite his proper Convocation. But the writ above 
 mentioned, containing the"Pra3munientes" clause, 
 was directed personally to each Bishop, citing 
 him to attend with some of his Clergy in Parlia- 
 ment, being a wholly different instrument and 
 directed to a different end. Indeed, that King 
 Edward I. did not originate our Provincial Sy-
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 25 
 
 nods is manifest from the simple fact, not to EARLY 
 mention earlier proofs, which are abundant, that 
 even in his own time three Provincial Synods 
 had been convened under their present condition 
 before such call to Parliament as he was able 
 to enforce was ever issued. That is to say, one 
 in 1273 and one in 1277 by Archbishop Kilwarby, 
 and one in 1283 by Archbishop Peccham. And 
 it is at this point observable that Archbishop 
 Kilwarby's mandate for the Provincial Synod 
 of 1277 inclusively, exclusively, and exhaustively 
 prescribes the members who were to attend, 
 being men exactly the same as those who now 
 at this hour constitute our Convocations, i.e. the 
 Bishops, the greater persons of the Chapters, the 
 Archdeacons, and the Proctors for the Clergy. 
 But the writ containing the call to Parliament 
 by the " Praemunientes " clause was not issued 
 till eighteen years after, i.e. in the year 1295. 
 The original mandates calling together the Con- 
 vocations in 1273 and 1277, just mentioned, are 
 now preserved in the Diocesan Kegistry at Wor- 
 cester Cathedral [Reg. Giffard, folios 41-71], and 
 have been perused personally by myself. The 
 latter, precisely and exactly defining the present 
 constitution of our Convocations, proves con- 
 clusively and incontestably how unfounded is 
 the notion that our Convocations were inau- 
 gurated by King Edward I. 
 
 The conclusion of the whole matter is this. 
 E
 
 26 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part I. 3. 
 
 EARLY King Edward I. in calling the Clergy to tax 
 HISTORY. n Parliament, imitated exactly and pre- 
 
 cisely the order in which they had been pre- 
 viously called to their Convocations by their 
 Metropolitans. If anyone takes the trouble 
 to compare Archbishop E. Kilwarby's mandate 
 for Convocation in 1277 and King Edward the 
 Ist's writ for Parliament in 1295, it will be seen 
 that the persons summoned were exactly the 
 same, without the slightest variation whatsoever. 
 But as legal gentlemen who have treated this 
 subject one, by the way, a Lord Chancellor of 
 our own day pay greater respect to Parliaments 
 than to Synods, they have read the writs for the 
 former, but disregarded the mandates for the 
 latter; and to this method all their confusions 
 may be traced which ascribe the origin and con- 
 stitution of the Convocations to King Edward I. 
 The lower Curiously enough, this call of the Clergy to Par- 
 
 Clergy still J . &t/ . 
 
 called to liament by the " Praemunientes clause in each 
 by the Bishop's writ of summons to Parliament is con- 
 entes" tinued to this hour. And were any Bishop now 
 to execute the writ in accordance with the Royal 
 commands, and were the Clergy summoned by it 
 to attend, it would be interesting to know what 
 place would be assigned by the officials to the 
 Clergy who presented themselves at the doors 
 of Parliament, where usually Eoyal commands 
 are not lightly respected. It might, perchance, 
 be pleaded by the bewildered officials, as an
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 27 
 
 excuse for not finding accommodation for the EARLY 
 Clergy presenting themselves, that their exclu- 
 sion had been decided in Home Tooke's case, 
 and that provisions had been carefully made for 
 shutting out Clergymen below the rank of Bishops 
 from seats in Parliament, whatever privileges 
 may be allowed in this respect to Nonconformist 
 preachers. But this plea would constitutionally 
 be worthless. This prerogative of the Crown 
 to summon certain of the lower Clergy to Par- 
 liament is derived from a date anterior to 
 the reign of King Kichard II., the time of 
 legal memory, and has been exercised by the 
 Sovereign, as records prove, in comparatively 
 recent times. Under such circumstances it is 
 a maxim of constitutional law that no pre- 
 rogative of the Crown can be annihilated save 
 by specific statutable words, directed to that 
 particular effect. No such specific annihilation 
 of this Eoyal prerogative has in this case ever 
 taken place. The prerogative, therefore, to sum- 
 mon the Clergy to Parliament still abides; and 
 if the Royal prerogative still abides, I suppose the 
 duty of obeying it, when exercised, abides still also. 
 Any curious enquirer on this subject may find 
 information in Coke's IV. Inst. 4, 5, and also in 
 a treatise, "De modo tenendi Parliamentum," 
 signed R. Duddeley, Earl of Leicester [British 
 Museum Add. 15191, MS. Vellum of the 16th 
 century], and also in Bibl. Cotton. Julius. B. 4,
 
 28 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part 1. 3. 
 
 EARLY p. 4, pi. xviii. c. after Archbishops' and Bishops' 
 HISTORY. gummonseS) f ii 21. It is further here ob- 
 servable that in the Statutes 21 Bich. II. c. 2, 
 and 21 Kich. II. c. 12, the preambles state that 
 these Statutes were made by the assent of the 
 Procurators of the Clergy, as well as of the other 
 constituent members of Parliament [Pearce, 
 "Law Conv." p. 18]. 
 
 The reader must pardon this somewhat long 
 digression on the subject of the " Prsemunientes " 
 clause in the Eoyal writs of summons calling 
 the Bishops to Parliament, because reliance has 
 been placed on that clause, and on King Edward 
 the Ist's struggles to raise money by taxation, 
 in order to persuade simple people that the 
 Provincial Synods of this Church are of secular 
 origin, and to debase them to the level of the 
 Corporation of a chartered borough town. The 
 very stones in the wall may reasonably cry 
 out against such dishonour done to this Church 
 of England. No ; the Provincial Synods of 
 this Church most certainly did not originate 
 with King Edward I. They are of far, far 
 older date, as national records indisputably 
 prove. Their origin must be sought among the 
 deepest foundations of the British Church, in 
 the remotest ages of our country's history, 
 
 " facta Patrum, Series longissima rerum 
 
 " Per tot ducta viros antiquae ab origins gentis." 
 
 VIRG. JEn. i. 641-2.
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 29 
 
 As above said, from the time when the EARLY 
 Province of Caerleon-upon-Usk was merged into 
 Canterbury, the two Provincial Synods of Can- tioITof the 
 
 terbury and York became the representatives of 
 the whole Church in England and Wales. From 
 a consideration of their ancient origin and extent 
 of jurisdiction the reader may now pass on 
 to consider their present constitution, remem- 
 bering at the same time that while severally 
 representing the Church in their respective 
 Provinces, they constitute when acting in con- 
 cert to use the words of the 139th Canon 
 " the sacred Synod of this nation ; " " the true 
 " Church of England by representation." 
 
 The Provincial Synod of Canterbury consists Canterbury. 
 of the Archbishop and the Diocesan Bishops 
 within his jurisdiction ; with these assemble all 
 Deans of Cathedrals in the Province, the Dean 
 of Westminster, the Dean of Windsor, the Pro- 
 vost of Eton, all Archdeacons in the Province, 
 one Proctor elected by each Cathedral Chapter, 
 a Proctor for the Westminster Chapter [and old 
 records specify a Proctor for Wolverhampton], 
 and two Proctors elected by the beneficed Clergy 
 of each Diocese. On account of the addition 
 of new Dioceses this Provincial Synod has of 
 late slightly varied in respect of number. At 
 the present time [1885] it consists [including the 
 new Bishopric of Southwell] of the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, twenty-three Diocesan Bishops,
 
 30 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part I. 3. 
 
 EARLY three Bishops not having territorial Sees, and 
 ESTOBT. hundred and fifty-one Presbyters. 
 
 York. The Provincial Synod of York in like manner 
 
 consists of the Metropolitan, Bishops, Deans of 
 Cathedrals, Archdeacons, Chapter and Clergy 
 Proctors of the Dioceses within the Province, 
 together with two Proctors for the officialty of 
 the Chapter of Durham. But in one respect 
 York differs from Canterbury, as two Proctors 
 are elected by each Archdeaconry in the for- 
 mer Province, whereas in the latter two are 
 elected by each Diocese. The York Provincial 
 Synod at this time consists of the Metropolitan, 
 eight Diocesan Bishops, one Bishop not having a 
 territorial See, and sixty-eight Presbyters. 1 
 
 The Bishops not having Sees who are found 
 in the Convocations sit not as Bishops but in 
 virtue of Archdeaconries which they hold. Whe- 
 ther all Bishops actively engaged in these two 
 Provinces, even if they do not hold territorial 
 Sees, should be summoned to the Provincial 
 Synods and whether when appearing there 
 they should sit in the Upper Houses, respec- 
 tively are questions which, according to Eccle- 
 siastical principles, could only receive one answer, 
 and that is an affirmative one. So far as Civil 
 requirements go, each Metropolitan is requested 
 by the Eoyal Writ to summon to his Provincial 
 
 1 Not including Proctors for the Archdeaconry of Cleveland, omitted 
 in the official list, 1888.
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 31 
 
 Synod "totum clerum." Under these circum- EARLY 
 
 stances to omit the name of a Bishop, whether 
 
 an Archdeacon or not, in active work within a 
 Province would seem to be a solcecism on the 
 part of any Metropolitan when issuing the 
 mandates for convening his Provincial Synod. 
 
 Having now considered the origin and consti- 
 tution of the Provincial Synods or Convocations of 
 the Church of England, it is time to pass on to a 
 consideration of their proper functions and duties. 
 
 The proper functions and duties of our Pro- Proper 
 vincial Synods, and such as have been discharged and duties 
 by them in the Church of England in times past, dai synods 
 may generally be ranked under five heads 
 (l) Prescription of the Canon of Scripture. (2) 
 Promulgation of Symbols of Faith. (3) Condem- 
 nation of False Doctrine. (4)Enactment of Canons. 
 (5) Authorization of Liturgical Formularies. 
 
 (1) So early as in the 84th of the Apostolic 
 
 tion of the 
 
 Canons, in the 60th Canon of the Synod of Canon of 
 Laodicea, and in the 47th Canon of the Third 
 Council of Carthage, we find prescriptions of the 
 Scriptural Canon ; and so late as at the Convoca- 
 tion of both our Provinces held in London in 
 1562-3, we find the Canonical Scriptures defined 
 by the 6th of the Thirty-nine Articles then ratified. 
 
 (2) The promulgation of symbols of doctrinal Promuiga- 
 belief has been one of the prime duties of symbols of 
 Synods in all ages. It was a function here 
 exercised in the promulgation of the 8th Article
 
 32 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part I. 3. 
 
 EARLY of the Church of England, which specifies the 
 HISTORY. ^ ree Q reec j g ag symbols of faith which " ought 
 
 " thoroughly to be received and believed." 
 Condemna- (3) The condemnation of false doctrine by 
 doctrine. Provincial Synods is a duty which has been 
 discharged by them continually in past ages, 
 as all early Ecclesiastical records abundantly 
 prove. So late as in Queen Anne's time, on 
 application being made to the Judges of the 
 Civil Courts on this subject, eight out of the 
 twelve, together with the Attorney and Solicitor- 
 General, decided that this was a proper part of 
 the functions of our Convocations. It was then 
 exercised by the Sy nodical condemnation of Whis- 
 ton's book, and on late occasions in this genera- 
 tion by the condemnation of Dr. Colenso's volume 
 on " The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua," and 
 of the book entitled " Essays and Eeviews." 
 Enactment (4) The next office of Provincial Synods 
 
 of Canons. x J 
 
 the enactment of Canons requires rather fuller 
 consideration, on account of some peculiarities in 
 this country which affect such proceedings. Be- 
 fore the year 1534, our Provincial Synods en- 
 acted Canons at their will. In that year the 
 Statute 25 Henry VIII. 19 was passed, which 
 provided that Canons might not be here " enacted, 
 " promulged, executed, or put in ure " without a 
 licence from the Sovereign. The proceedings in 
 such a case are now as follows. First, the Sy- 
 nod debates the subject-matter of the proposed
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 33 
 
 Canon or Canons. Drafts made of the conclu- 
 sions arrived at are then submitted to the Crown. 
 If the Sovereign approves of the proposals, a 
 licence issues to " enact" On the receipt of this 
 instrument the Canons proposed are engrossed 
 on parchment and the Synod meets. In the 
 presence of the whole assembly, both houses 
 being joined in session for the purpose, the Me- 
 tropolitan, standing, holds the parchment in his 
 right hand ; the Prolocutor, standing on his left 
 side, holds it with his left hand. The contents 
 are then read out by the Metropolitan, and the 
 document being placed on the table, is signed, 
 first by himself, then by the Provincial Bishops 
 present, and lastly in order by the assembled 
 Clergr. Such Canons are thus "enacted" and 
 
 Ov 
 
 become law. No parliamentary approval is con- 
 stitutionally required, and they are " promulged " 
 to be " executed and put in ure " by the Eccle- 
 siastical Judges in Ecclesiastical Courts; and 
 their judgments founded on such Canons will be 
 sustained by the Civil Courts so long as the con- 
 tents do not contravene Koyal prerogative, com- 
 mon, or statute law. The above was the course 
 taken in the year 1865, when the 36th Canon 
 and others were remodelled and re-enacted in 
 the Convocation of Canterbury. 
 
 (5) The last general duty to be mentioned 
 of Provincial Synods is the authorization of Li- 
 turgies and Ritual. In early times, and notably
 
 34 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part 1.3. 
 
 EABI.Y in this country, liturgies sometimes varied in 
 HISTORY. different Di oceses of the same Province, as is 
 testified by the different "Uses" which here 
 prevailed. But it was, perhaps, more common 
 in the Church that each Province or combina- 
 tion of Dioceses should conform to one use, and 
 measures for this purpose were at times taken, 
 as history testifies. At the Keformation this lat- 
 ter principle was adopted in England, and the 
 first Prayer Book of 1549 was issued for the use 
 of both Provinces. The compilers were certainly 
 all members of Convocation ; but the records of 
 the Canterbury Synod having been burnt in the 
 disastrous fire in London in 1666, the authentic 
 records of the authorization of the first Eeformed 
 Prayer Book are not forthcoming. There is, 
 however, ample evidence of the fact from 
 other sources; and all trustworthy historians 
 who have written on the subject do not doubt, 
 but on the contrary positively assert, that it had 
 Convocational sanction. The second Eeformed 
 Prayer Book was distinctly authorized by the 
 35th Article of 1552-3. And our present Prayer 
 Book, compiled from the earlier ones, with ad- 
 ditions, had the sanction of both our Provincial 
 Synods in 1661, given in the most formal and 
 emphatic manner imaginable; that is, by the 
 personal signatures of all the members of the 
 Canterbury Synod, fortified by the signatures of 
 the Northern Prelates, and six delegates deputed
 
 PROVINCIAL SYNODS. 35 
 
 by the York Svnod to attend in London, as shall EARLY 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 hereafter be shewn in detailing that event. 
 
 One jurisdiction which has been conferred on statntabie 
 
 T i ci v , jurisdiction 
 
 our rrovmcial bynods is a peculiar one, not of Convoca- 
 common to Synods of the Church generally, but "Kings' r 
 here consequent on two Statutes of the realm 
 the 24 Hen. VIII. 12, as confirmed by 25 Hen. 
 VIII. 19. By the 9th section of the first-men- 
 tioned Act, as confirmed by the 3rd section of the 
 second and subsequently ratified by 1 Eliz. 1, it 
 was enacted that in all Ecclesiastical cases "touch- 
 ing the King " an appeal should lie to the Upper 
 House of Convocation of the Province in which 
 the cause arose, and thither only. Such causes 
 certainly came under Convocational jurisdiction 
 in the cases of the divorces of Catharine of Ar- 
 ragon, Anne Boleyn, and Anne of Cleves. Not- 
 withstanding the decisions of the Courts of Q. B. 
 and C. P. in the Gorham Case that this jurisdic- 
 tion has been superseded, it is impossible to re- 
 concile such a conclusion with the terms of the 
 statutes above quoted ; and it is moreover quite 
 contradictory to the positive assertions of our 
 text writers Dyer, Bacon, Comyn, Woodeson, 
 Blackstone, Ayliffe, and Burn who with one 
 voice affirm that the jurisdiction was never abo- 
 lished. Moreover, it is within the certain know- 
 ledge of the writer of these lines that in the 
 opinion of some of the highest legal authorities 
 in this generation, the foremen tioned decisions
 
 36 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1. 4. 
 
 EARLY of two of our law courts should be, to say the 
 HISTORY. care f u ]}y reconsidered. It is manifest that 
 
 the above jurisdiction might be a great safeguard 
 to the Church in the case of a man of unsound 
 doctrine being nominated to a Bishopric or a 
 benefice in the gift of the Crown. 
 
 IV. 
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAECHATE. 
 
 In an ascending order the next Ecclesiastical 
 assembly to be considered is a Synod of the 
 Exarchate. The constitution of Exarchates, or 
 combinations of Provinces, is of later date in the 
 Church than that of Provinces. But at any rate 
 as early as the beginning of the 4th century the 
 territorial division of Exarchate had been gene- 
 rally established. As the Bishop was Chief Ec- 
 clesiastical Officer in his Diocese and the Metro- 
 politan in his Province, so the Exarch, Patriarch, 
 or Archbishop was chief in his Exarchate ; and 
 under his presidency Synods of the Exarchate or 
 AioiKrjo-is were convened. That to these Synods 
 of the Exarchate the judgments of Provincial 
 Synods were subject, we have plain proof in the 
 6th Canon of the Second (Ecumenical Council, 
 which defines at length the order of jurisdiction, 
 and indeed enacts that in the case of a Bishop
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAKCHATE. 37 
 
 arraigned, he shall have no appeal from the de- EARLY 
 cision of a Svnod of the Exarchate, not even to 
 
 / 
 
 an (Ecumenical Council. The authority of Ex- 
 archs over the Metropolitan Bishops within their 
 Exarchate is very distinctly shewn by the letter 
 of summons convening the Second Council of 
 Ephesus, A.D. 449. To that Council Dioscorus, 
 Exarch or Archbishop of Alexandria, was bidden 
 to bring with him ten Metropolitans of that Ex- 
 archate. From this and other like circumstances, 
 the reader will understand why, throughout these 
 pages, a distinction is maintained between the 
 terms Archbishop and Metropolitan. 
 
 It is interesting to trace what has been our English 
 national practice in this respect. This union of O fth e 9 
 our Provincial Synods into one body, that is, a 
 Synod of the Exarchate, has been effected in 
 England on many occasions. An early and 
 very notable illustration is found in the Council 
 of Whitby A.D. 664, convened for the consideration 
 of the introduction of Eomish practices into the 
 Church here ; and from that time downwards as 
 many as forty-five occasions at least may be 
 reckoned when this union has occurred [on some 
 of those occasions a Legate presiding], ranging 
 down to the year 1540, when the members of 
 the Canterburv and York Svnods assembled to- 
 
 / / 
 
 gether in London for the investigation of the 
 legality of the marriage of Anne of Cleves to 
 King Henry VIII. ; and reaching on to the year
 
 EARLY 
 
 38 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1.4. 
 
 1562-3, when members of both Synods united 
 ' for the ratification of the 39 Articles, as appears 
 
 from their heading. 
 
 Authority The authority to unite our two Provincial 
 Synods into a Synod of the Exarchate was spe- 
 cially given to the Archbishop of Canterbury at 
 the Council of Windsor, A.D. 1072, and was con- 
 firmed by subsequent Synods, as may be learned 
 by consulting " Cone. Mag. Brit." vol. i. pp. 325, 
 391, 493 ; and vol. iv. app. 786. 
 
 The following is an extractfrom the Constitution 
 
 passed at Windsor, A.D. 1072, above referred to 
 
 Cone. M. B. " So that if the Archbishop of Canterbury should 
 
 coil. Rec. " wish to convene a Council, wherever to him 
 
 V bis 
 
 Vol. ix. 12. " may seem fit, then at his command let the 
 " Archbishop of York, with all those subject to 
 " him, present themselves, and be obedient to his 
 " Canonical directions." In order that this Con- 
 stitution might be fortified both by Ecclesiastical 
 and Civil authority it was subscribed not only by 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan 
 of York, and thirteen Bishops, but by the King and 
 Queen, with many other persons of high degree. 
 It is a grave question, moreover, whether its pro- 
 visions might not now be even statutally enforced 
 under the 7th Section of 25 Henry VIII. 19, which 
 enacts that such Constitutions and Canons as 
 " were not contrariant or repugnant to the laws, 
 " statutes, and customs of this realm, nor to the 
 " damage or hurt of the King's prerogative royal,"
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAKCHATE. 39 
 
 should still be in force and executed, until a re- EARLY 
 view of those instruments had been effected, and 
 certain acts done which have never been yet 
 concluded to this hour. A copy of an original 
 document of the Conqueror's time, referring to 
 this Constitution [if not the Constitution itself], 
 was exhibited at a meeting of the Royal Archae- 
 ological Institute at Canterbury in the year 1875. 
 
 The authority residing in the Archbishop of Subordina- 
 Canterbury to cite the Metropolitan of York and to Canter- 
 his Suffragans, with their associated Presbyters, my ' 
 to a Synod of the Exarchate, involves a some- 
 w r hat intricate historical enquiry. The story is 
 a very long one. It shall be here condensed 
 to the briefest possible space. As regards the 
 earliest period of the British Church, before 
 the Saxon invasion, there are no records to 
 guide enquiry. In 634, Pope Honorius I. 
 granted to his namesake, Honorius, Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, jurisdiction over all England ; 
 and this was confirmed by Gregory II. in 
 730. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, ex- Soames, 
 ercised authority over the whole of this country, onX p.Ts. 
 and convened three Synods of the English Ex- 
 archate in 673, 680, and 685 respectively. But Godwin 
 Egbert, succeeding to the throne of York in 731, Pt. -2, P . 14. 
 and being a man of somewhat enterprising genius, 
 and impatient of inferiority, obtained the pallium 
 from Rome, and so secured at least his own inde- 
 pendence ; whether, however, that passed beyond
 
 40 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1. 4. 
 
 EARLY the term of his natural life may, of course, be ques- 
 
 HISTORY! 
 
 ' tioned. For shortly after, without doubt in 796, 
 the Metropolitan of York did profess obedience 
 to Athelard, Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 After the Norman Conquest, the Constitution 
 of Windsor, A.D. 1072, above quoted, distinctly 
 confirmed the jurisdiction in question on the 
 See of Canterbury. And in 1075 Lanfranc, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, convened both Provinces 
 to a Synod of the Exarchate at St. Paul's, London, 
 when the decrees of the Council were signed by 
 himself, the Metropolitan of York, twelve Bishops, 
 and sundry Presbyters. Indeed, it is further 
 recorded by competent authority, that Lanfranc 
 convened five of these Synods of the Exarchate. 
 
 In the year 1092, when, after the death of 
 
 Lanfranc, a Synod of Bishops was held for the 
 
 consecration of Ansel in to the See of Canterbury, 
 
 the instrument of his election was objected to 
 
 Godwin by the Metropolitan of York. This was Thomas I., 
 
 dePWBBul. ' . . 
 
 Pt. 2, p. 23, who is represented as having been a very para- 
 Guii. gon, in body, of fine stature, comely in youth 
 
 Malmesbur. 111 , i -1-1 i 
 
 and handsome in age, with ruddy complexion, 
 and hair white as swan's-down; in philosophy, 
 comparable with the ancients ; in music, skil- 
 ful in composition and execution, both vocal 
 and instrumental, as he played the organ 
 well ; and withal affable in manner. But his 
 affability seems to have vanished when he ob- 
 jected to the instrument of Ansel m's election,
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAECHATE. 41 
 
 inasmuch as it designated the Church of Canter- EARLY 
 
 ITT STORY 
 
 bury " Totius Anglise Metropolitana." And it must 
 be confessed that Thomas I. had some grounds 
 for checking at this nomenclature, which would 
 logically have excluded his Church of York from 
 being Metropolitan at all. This was more than 
 Thomas Ist's temper, however fine, could bear ; 
 for even though his Metropolitan Church might be 
 subject to the See of the Exarchate of Canterbury, 
 yet to deny it the honour of Metropolitan, even by 
 implication, was noway justifiable. So reason 
 prevailed in Thomas Ist's favour, the objection- 
 able word " Metropolitana " was excised from the 
 instrument, and the word " Primas " substituted. 
 From that time the Archbishop of Canterburv CoiHer.Kec. 
 
 r J Vol. ix. 
 
 has been designated " Primate of All England ;" P. 12. 
 and Thomas I., as a fact, now that his mind was 
 set at rest, did afterwards make submission to 
 Anselm of Canterbury. 
 
 In 1109, Thomas II. was designated as Metro- Resistance 
 
 i ^ York to 
 
 politan oi York a man youthful in age, and pro- jurisdiction 
 portionably vigorous in enterprize ; and though bury, 
 exceedingly fat, by no means lazy in action. 
 Indeed the preponderance of his bulk does not 
 seem to have repressed the vaulting motions of 
 his ambition ; for he challenged independence, 
 and resisted the authority of the aged Anselm of 
 Canterbury, by refusing to signify obedience to 
 that See in prospect of consecration. Anselm 
 addressed the English Episcopate on the subject, 
 
 G
 
 42 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1.4. 
 
 BABI.Y and there was a general consensus among those 
 HISTORY. p relategj t h at t h ev wou ld rather part with all 
 
 "they had" than transgress the rights and 
 decisions of Anselm. 
 
 Godwin de However, about the year 1119, the most vigorous 
 pt. 2, p. 29, endeavours were made to emancipate the York 
 Gun mi Province from any subordination to Canterbury. 
 r ' At that time Thurstan, a man at least of a very 
 persevering if not obstinate character, being 
 designated for the See of York, was called on 
 before consecration by Eanulphus of Canterbury 
 to make profession of obedience to that See. This 
 Thurstan refused to do, and proceeded to Rome 
 to plead his cause in the matter. Pope Paul put 
 him off. His successor in the Papal chair, Calixtus, 
 was about to hold a Council at Eheims. Thither 
 Thurstan proposed to betake himself, to secure a 
 victory over Eanulphus. But the King, Henry I., 
 refused him transit, unless he would pledge 
 himself to " contrive nothing against the honour 
 "of the Church of Canterbury." Notwithstanding, 
 however, the assurances of Thurstan himself, and 
 the promise of the Pope's Vicar Apostolic that 
 the " dignity of the Church of Canterbury should 
 " not be humiliated," Thurstan was consecrated 
 to York by the Vicar Apostolic without making 
 submission to Canterbury, John, Archdeacon of 
 ibid. p. 35, Canterbury, making formal protest. 
 
 quoting- r . 
 
 Neubn- In 1176 a somewhat exceptionable method for 
 
 gensis and 
 
 sius. asserting his independence on the See of Can-
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAKCHATE. 43 
 
 terbury was adopted by a York Metropolitan. EARLY 
 This was Roger, of whom an unfriendly writer 
 has recorded that he was more intent on shear- 
 ing his flock than finding them pasture ; while 
 a friendly one maintains that his memory is 
 honourable on account of his having constructed 
 anew the choir of his Cathedral Church, and 
 also the Metropolitan Palace; for having built 
 anew St. Sepulchre's Chapel near that palace ; 
 and, further, for having endowed it with large 
 revenues, and founded a College of thirteen per- 
 sons to minister divine offices therein. It does 
 not, however, appear that these benefactions 
 were supplied from his own resources in largest 
 measure. At any rate, he seems not to have 
 been quite forgetful of his own personal in- 
 terests, as we are informed that he obtained 
 this privilege from Pope Alexander III., that if 
 any Clerk in the York Province should die 
 without distributing his goods with his own 
 hands, the assets should fall into the Metro- 
 politan Treasury. Indeed, his managements on 
 his own account were clearly somewhat effec- 
 tive, as at his death his coffers were found 
 to contain eleven thousand pounds of silver, 
 three hundred of gold, and a very large amount 
 of coined money. At any rate, this Prelate's Godwin de 
 method of asserting his equality with the Arch- p^pp. 
 bishop of Canterbury was certainly somewhat odd. 1 
 For being cited to attend at a Council at West-
 
 44: ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part 1. 4. 
 
 EABI.Y minster before Hugo, the Pope's Legate, a seat was 
 HISTORY. ( j eg -g lie( j or t he York Metropolitan on the left of 
 that personage, one for Richard, the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, being placed on the right. Roger, 
 indignant at this arrangement, endeavoured to 
 intrude himself between the Legate and Richard ; 
 but the latter not giving way, the Metropolitan 
 of York sat in the Archbishop of Canterbury's 
 lap. The Bishops present were amazed, and 
 remonstrated in vain, whereupon Richard's 
 servants dragged Roger from his resting place, 
 stamped on him, beat him with their fists, and 
 tore to rags his Episcopal vestments ; whereon 
 the Legate and the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 departed the place, leaving Roger prostrate 
 on the ground. On his personal complaint of 
 this usage to King Henry II., when the truth of 
 the matter transpired, that monarch burst into 
 irrepressible convulsions of laughter ; and when 
 Roger further appealed to Rome for satisfaction 
 he found no redress whatever there. And so 
 this proceeding was not favourable to the preten- 
 sions of York's equality with Canterbury. 
 
 Godwin de Improving on Thurstan's example, above 
 
 prasui. r 
 
 Ft. 2, p. 52. recorded, William de Greenfield, having through 
 
 two years been disappointed of consecration to 
 the See of York, after his election prevailed on 
 Pope Clement by a bribe of 9,500 marks to con- 
 secrate him at Ley den in 1305. Improving 
 again on this Papal authority, William de Green-
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAECHATE. 45 
 
 field in the very next year, 1306, promulged at EARLY 
 
 TV n -A- r i_- HISTOR 
 
 Ripon a Canon, "excommunicating any ot his 
 " flock who should make an appeal to Canterbury." 
 
 Of this matter such is the briefest possible 
 account, stress not having been laid on the United 
 Synods of the Exarchate held under foreign 
 Legates, such enquiry not being pertinent to the 
 present purpose. 
 
 Now the Canon of Eipon, last mentioned, Present 
 
 . ~ T r -, Btate of 
 
 manifestly [so far as it was of force] annihi- the case, 
 lated all subjection of York to Canterbury. At 
 the time when the Statute Hen. VIII. 19, now 
 "in viridi observantia," was passed, that Act 
 made all existing Constitutions and Canons sta- 
 tutably binding at the time of its enactment, 
 1534, which were not repugnant to "Sta- 
 " tute law, Custom, or Prerogative Koyal." Sta- 
 tutably, therefore, the real question now to be 
 decided is this, a very short one: Did 25 Hen. 
 VIII. 19 confirm the Windsor Constitution first, 
 above quoted, or the Kipon Canon? But, how- 
 ever short the question, the arguments, without 
 any doubt, would be alarmingly long which 
 would be addressed in the High Court of Jus- 
 tice on this matter, were gentlemen of the long 
 robe to be engaged upon it. And the answer, 
 if ever arrived at and pronounced by the learned 
 judges, would decide whether or not the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury could statutably convene a 
 Synod of the Exarchate whenever he thought fit,
 
 46 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1.4. 
 
 EARLY and whether or not the Metropolitan of York 
 * and his Provincial Synod would be bound to give 
 attendance, under penalty of being guilty of a misde- 
 meanour at Common Law for breach of Statute, in 
 case of disobedience to the Canterbury mandate. 
 Thus stands the case statutably. Looking at 
 it from an Ecclesiastical point of view, consider- 
 able light is thrown on the subject by the 
 two facts. First, that in the Canterbury Synod 
 which enacted the Thirty-nine Articles of Ke- 
 ligion in 1562-3 the Metropolitan of York and 
 the Northern Bishops of Durham and Chester, 
 if not other members of the York Convocation, 
 certainly did make their appearance. And, 
 secondly, that at the Canterbury Synod of 1661, 
 which authorized the present Book of Common 
 Prayer, the Metropolitan of York and the 
 Bishops of Durham and Carlisle, together with 
 eight delegates from the York Province, attended ; 
 and, further, that the book was subscribed sy- 
 nodically at Westminster by the three Prelates 
 and six of the delegates just mentioned. Nor 
 should it be overlooked that in the title page l of 
 the Form of Prayer to be used in Convocation, as 
 printed both in 1689 and in 1703, it is specified 
 that the form is meant either for one Provincial 
 Synod, or for the two Provincial Synods united. 
 
 1 Forma Precum in utraque domo Convocationis sive Synodo 
 Prelatorum et caeteri Cleri seu Provincialis seu Nationalis in ipso 
 statim cujuslibet sessionis initio solemniter recitanda. Londini, 
 typis Car. Bill et Tho. Newcomb, Eegiae Majestati typogr. 1689. 4to.
 
 p p c ' j 
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAECHATE. 47 
 
 The forms of proceeding in a Synod of the Ex- EABLY 
 
 . -r, , , n i MI- HISTORY. 
 
 archate in Jlmglana are specially described in va- 
 rious parts of the " Concilia Magnse Britannia," proceeding 
 and may thus be condensed: On arriving at the 5 the* 1 " 
 church, the place of meeting, where preparations 
 had been previously made by providing seats ris- 
 ing in the form of steps from the ground, the mem- JJJI'. 8 ^ 
 bers took their places in defined order. The App- 786- 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, as President, occupied 
 the chief seat. On his right hand was placed the 
 Metropolitan of York, and on his left the Bishop 
 of London. Next the Metropolitan of York sat 
 the Bishop of Winchester. But if the Metro- 
 politan of York was absent, then the Bishop of 
 London sat on the right of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, and the Bishop of Winchester on 
 his left. After these Prelates had taken their 
 places, the other Bishops seated themselves 
 according to the dates of their respective con- 
 secrations. These rules of precedence were 
 settled in the Synod of London, A.D. 1075, in 
 accordance with the tenor of some old Canons 
 and after consultation with aged and experienced 
 men who could remember the ancient practice 
 of the Anglo-Saxon Church. When the mem- 
 bers had taken their places, and silence obtained, 
 the Gospel " I am the Good Shepherd," &c., was 
 read. Collects were then offered up and the 
 hymn " Veni Creator " sung. Next followed the 
 sermon, at the end of which the Archbishop
 
 48 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part 1. 4. 
 
 EARLY explained the cause of the meeting; formal 
 
 ' business was introduced by the officials, and the 
 
 matters thus introduced discussed. After dis- 
 cussion the opinions of the members were taken, 
 their decisions reduced to writing, signed and 
 sealed by the Archbishop, and signed by the 
 other members of the assembly. 
 
 Should our authorities see fit at any time 
 hereafter to unite our two Provincial Synods for 
 any special purpose in a Synod of the Exarchate, 
 there may, as above stated, be found ample 
 precedents for the regulation of proceedings. 
 
 In imitation of the example of the early 
 Church, when not merely Provincial but more 
 extended interests have been concerned, the 
 two Provincial Synods of Canterbury and York 
 have, as above described, united in a Synod of 
 the Exarchate. But other methods have been 
 adopted to secure the authority of the Synodical 
 Exarchate. 
 Various A second method has been to hold the two 
 
 methods for -,-...,,-, , 
 
 securing the Provincial Synods simultaneously, though sepa- 
 
 authority of 1 ,.. -, -, PITT 
 
 a Synod of rately, each in its usual place, tor deliberation 
 Exarchate! on the same business. This plan was pursued 
 when the Canterbury and York Synods were 
 held concurrently and on the same business, the 
 one at Lambeth, the other at Beverley, in 
 1261 ; and also in this generation, when the 
 questions relating to the revision of rubrics were 
 discussed in both Convocations simultaneously.
 
 SYNODS OF THE EXAECIIATE. 49 
 
 A third method for securing the authority of EARLY 
 our two Provincial Synods has been to ratify 
 documents in one assembly and then to transmit 
 them to the other for its authorization. This 
 was the method adopted in passing the Decrees 
 abolishing the Papal Supremacy in 1534, here- 
 after to be specially detailed ; in the enactment 
 of the 141 Canons of 1603-4 ; in the enactment 
 of the 17 Canons of 1640 ; and more recently, 
 in our own time, when the Articles of Clergy 
 Subscription in the 36th and following Canons 
 were remodelled and re-enacted ; those Canons 
 having been enacted in the Canterbury Synod 
 on June 29, 1865, and in that of York on 
 Julv 5 next ensuing. 
 
 v C-/ 
 
 A fourth method has been for the Metropolitan 
 and Bishops of the Northern Province, together 
 with Delegates of the Lower House of their 
 Provincial Synod, to attend the Southern Synod, 
 and there to unite in joint deliberations. This 
 was the case in the review and authorization 
 of the present Prayer Book, when the Northern 
 Metropolitan and Bishops, with Delegates for 
 York, attended the Canterbury Svnod in London. 
 
 / v 
 
 To the act of authorization ratifying that book 
 their signatures, appended on December 20, 
 1661, appear after those of the Archbishop, 
 Bishops, and Clergy of the Canterbury Pro- 
 vince, as will be seen hereafter detailed in these 
 pages. 
 
 H
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE INAUGURATION, PROMOTION, AND COM- 
 PLETION OF THE REFORMATION IN DOC- 
 TRINE, RITUAL, AND DISCIPLINE, BY 
 THE CONVOCATIONS OF THE CHURCH 
 OF ENGLAND. 
 
 15311562-3. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE KEFOEMATION INAUGURATED BY CONVO- 
 CATIONAL ACTION. 
 
 Metro- I T ^as been a somewhat exceptionable method 
 
 politans : _ . - . 
 
 warfcam, with historians, certainly an inconsiderate one, 
 to refer the origin and progress of the Eeforma- 
 tion of religion in this country solely to the 
 humours of. King Henry VIII., the influences 
 of his courtiers, and the proceedings of his 
 f av ourites. But it is by consulting the records 
 of the Convocations of Canterbury and York 
 that we may discover a more reliable account of 
 the advances which were made towards a true 
 reformation, and a recovery of primitive faith
 
 VIII. 
 1531- 
 1547. 
 
 INAUGURATION OP THE REFORMATION. 51 
 
 and practice in the Church of England. And sovereign: 
 these methods of advancement appear to a com- K ' H 
 mon capacity to fall in better with Christian 
 maxims, and to square more exactly with the 
 measures of conscience than the managements 
 of King Henry VIII. and the proceedings of his 
 allies in public affairs, whose acts are strangely 
 supposed to have mainly secured the purifica- 
 tion of faith and practice. 
 
 When that monarch played away at one 
 throw of the royal dice, to Sir Miles Partridge, 
 the peal of "Jesus Bells" hanging in a steeple 
 not far from St. Paul's, London, and renowned 
 for their metal and tone ; or when he granted 
 the estates of a religious house to a person 
 who had pleased his palate with a dish of 
 puddings ; or when he made havoc for his 
 own purposes of the property of the Church 
 throughout this land, it can hardly be affirmed 
 that he shewed any special or tender regard 
 for the interests of religion. And again, when 
 his courtier the Duke of Somerset erected a 
 scaffolding round Westminster Abbey, with the 
 view of demolishing it for the sake of providing 
 building materials to enlarge his own mansion 
 for the erection of which, by the way, three 
 Bishops' houses [Coventry, Llandaff, and Wor- 
 cester] and the Church of St. Mary, Strand, had 
 been already pulled down it can hardly be 
 supposed that property dedicated to God's ser-
 
 52 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 etro- vice, and temples consecrated to His honour, 
 were V6I 7 P rec i us i n that nobleman's estimation, 
 at least for their proper uses. Most surely, had 
 not the Duke of Somerset's intentions been 
 diverted by timely gifts of land, this country 
 would have experienced, in the demolition of 
 one of her most cherished monuments of anti- 
 quity, some sadly sensible evidence of his re- 
 forming zeal. No doubt, by these self-appointed 
 reformers the religious were disfurnished in a 
 great measure of their worldly goods, and a vast 
 amount of consecrated property, formerly applied 
 to the promotion of the then received belief, was 
 diverted into profane channels. But it is noway 
 clear that the deprived persons, or indeed any 
 others, would thus be much mended in their 
 faith. Nor can it be reasonably supposed that 
 the people of England generally would be par- 
 ticularly encouraged in the cultivation and 
 improvement of Christian morals by the con- 
 spicuous examples of those reformers who, on 
 the comparison between treasures corruptible 
 and incorruptible, certainly made such a choice 
 as was disallowed by our Saviour Himself; and 
 who in practice, too, banished from their code 
 the second great commandment of the Christian 
 Law. And, further, it does not appear from 
 history that by any subsequent rejection of 
 their ungodly gains an example of such repen- 
 tance as even Judas manifested ever commended
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 53 
 
 their proceedings to public regard. A true sovereign: 
 reformation in religion is surely not to be set K ' v 3 iii. r7 
 to the account of such apostles as these. 153 l~ 
 
 1547. 
 
 That national blessing, fraught with treasure 
 not of this world, must be ascribed to a verv 
 
 p 
 
 different cause. It must be referred to more scru- 
 pulous agents and less suspicious hands. Indeed, 
 the whole career of King Henry VIII.'s own life 
 forbids even the supposition that he could be 
 any true reformer either of faith or morals. 
 Passing over his cruel condemnation to death 
 of those venerable men, Fisher and More ; of 
 his once cherished satellite, Thomas Cromwell ; 
 and of numerous other victims who failed to 
 bend before his imperious mandates for personal 
 self-assertion not dwelling now on his bar- 
 barous treatment of the inoffensive brethren in 
 the Charterhouse, on his sacrilegious pillages of 
 Church property, or his matrimonial enormities 
 there was one act of tyranny and avarice per- 
 petrated by him which is specially pertinent 
 to the present subject, and which, moreover, 
 hopelessly disqualifies him from deserving the 
 character of a reformer of religion ; at least, 
 if the most flagrant injustice and greedy seizure 
 of other people's goods constitute such incapa- 
 city. That act of tyranny and injustice was S 
 
 as follows. the law of 
 
 Cnnst per- 
 
 Cardinal Wolsev, when in favour with King mits, even 
 
 * . Supreme 
 
 Henry, had received a pallium from Rome, and Head."
 
 54 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- with the King's earnest and active help had, 
 
 Warham, 
 
 with that Papal flourish of legatine authority, 
 
 *** tyrannized over Archbishop Warham and the 
 
 / 
 
 whole English Clergy to an extent almost 
 unimaginable. But when Wolsey fell out of 
 favour at Court, and his fortunes sank, the King 
 espied a crafty method of enriching his own 
 pocket. So, relying on the Statutes of " Provisors 
 " and Praemunire," he brought an indictment in 
 the King's Bench against the whole body of the 
 Clergy for having submitted to Wolsey's legatine 
 authority an authority which King Henry him- 
 self had previously most strenuously encouraged. 
 However, he offered the Clergy this alternative, 
 that the prosecution against them should be 
 abandoned if the Clergy of the Province of 
 Canterbury would pay to him ,100,044 8s. 8d., 
 and the Clergy of the Province of York ;l 8,840 
 Os. Wd. To this graceful offer the Clergy were 
 obliged to accede, or otherwise they must have 
 been irretrievably all ruined ; for the penalties 
 under the Statutes he invoked in the King's 
 Bench were imprisonment and fine at the King's 
 will. But though the Clergy agreed in their 
 Convocations to submit to this imposition, they 
 checked at subscribing the instrument sent to 
 them by the King, which named the amount of 
 money he demanded. It contained these words : 
 " Of the English Church and Clergy, of which 
 " the King alone is Protector and Supreme Head."
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 55 
 
 This they absolutely declined to subscribe, and sovereign: 
 were prepared to hazard all results rather than K ' v ?i" 7 
 do so. After long and earnest discussions with 1531 - 
 
 1547. 
 
 the King's emissaries on this matter, the above 
 enormous grant, according to the then value of 
 money, being twenty times as large as would now 
 appear from the above recorded sums, was made, 
 the King's title, in the terms of the legal instru- 
 ment, being changed into these words : " So far 
 " as the law of Christ permits, even the Supreme 
 " Head." This event took place in the year 1531, 
 and inferentially discharged the Clergy from the 
 yoke of obedience to Rome by their own vote. 
 
 It is not surprising that a virtual abjuration Continual 
 of Papal Supremacy should have been expressed the church 
 on this occasion by the Convocations. For from to the 
 the earliest times downwards continual protests me nts of 
 against the encroachments of Rome had been 
 common on the part of this Church and her 
 chief authorities. The memorable refusal of Sup. pp. 17 
 
 J9_ 
 
 the Seven British Bishops to acknowledge the 
 Pope as their superior, when urged to do so by 
 Augustine on his first arrival in England, has 
 above been recorded. In rather more than half Speiman, __ 
 a century afterwards, at the National Council of Soames, 
 Whitby, A.D. 664, the most strenuous opposition ch g p72 X ' 
 was exhibited again by the representatives of 
 the British Church against the intrusion of Ro- 
 man usages. And this resistance was subse- 
 quently more successfully carried out at the
 
 56 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro. National Synod of Osterfield, A.D. 701, under 
 
 Warham, 
 
 Archbishop Berthwald, when Wilfrid, the cham- 
 
 pion of the Pope's cause, reproached the members 
 sioi. f the Synod with having openly opposed the 
 COM* \J Papal authority for " twenty-two years together." 
 i382-5.' But the National Synod of Osterfield, notwith- 
 standing this boastful flourish of reproach, de- 
 creed that " the See of Kome could not interfere 
 " with an Anglican Council," nor alter its de- 
 cisions. 
 
 In the year 747, Boniface, Archbishop of 
 Mentz, but an Englishman by birth, had for- 
 warded to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 a copy of a Code of Canons decreed at Augsburg, 
 which enforced with much emphasis the autho- 
 rity of the Eoman Pontiff. These were meant 
 
 w 
 
 to be in some sort a guide for Synodical pro- 
 ceedings in Britain. But, with these Augsburg 
 Canons before it, the National Council of Cliff-at- 
 Hoo, in the year last mentioned, enacted a Con- 
 Conc. M. B. stitution as follows : " Every Bishop should be 
 "earnest in defending the flock committed to 
 "him, and the Canonical institutions of the 
 "Church of Christ, with all his might against 
 "all sorts of rude encroachments." Now the 
 Canonical institutions here vouched seem mani- 
 festly to point to the Canons of Nice [vi.], 1 Con- 
 stantinople [ii.], and Ephesus [viii.], on the sub- 
 ject of the independence of Exarchates. And, 
 moreover, the Second Constitution now enacted at
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 57 
 
 Cliff-at-Hoo, notwithstanding Boniface's counsels, sovereign: 
 looks the same way, and seems directly intended K ' v *iii. ry 
 to proclaim the independence of this National 3i- 
 Church. 
 
 A conspicuous instance of the determination 
 of this Church in Britain to maintain her in- 
 dependence on Kome may be found in the pro- 
 ceedings of a National Synod held A.D. 969. Cone. M. B. 
 Archbishop Dunstan had excommunicated a *' 
 nobleman for an atrocious offence. This person, 
 by unworthy means, obtained on an appeal to 
 Rome a favourable decision in his case ; and the 
 Pope sent a communication commanding Dun- 
 stan to restore the offender to the bosom of the 
 Church. But our Archbishop defended his own 
 authority and the independence of this National 
 Church, rejecting all Papal interference, and de- 
 livering himself as became the occasion in the 
 following words : " When I shall see tokens of 
 "penitence in that person whose cause is now 
 "under consideration, I will willingly obey the 
 " precepts of the Pope ; but so long as the of- 
 " fender continues in his sin, and, claiming im- 
 " munity from Ecclesiastical discipline, insults 
 " my authority, and rejoices in his evil deeds, 
 "God forbid that I should do so. May God 
 " defend me from contravening that law which 
 " my Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has ap- 
 " pointed to be kept in His Church, in deference 
 " to any mortal man, even though it were for 
 
 i
 
 58 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Mtro- "the preservation of my own life." And the 
 
 Warham, 
 
 Archbishop maintained his determination until 
 
 ** the offender submitted to penance. 
 
 Not only in regard to discipline do we find 
 these examples of independence on Kome main- 
 tained in the British and Anglo-Saxon Church; 
 this independence extended also to doctrinal 
 questions. The seasons of some of the Church's 
 fasts here were quite different from those ap- 
 pointed by Koman authority, as may be seen 
 by reference to Johnson's " Canons," i. 362, and 
 s.Tumer, to Heylm's " History of the Sabbath." And, fur- 
 Angio- ther, as regarded the translation of Holy Scrip- 
 m. X p n 43i. ture into the vulgar tongue, the practice of this 
 Church was entirely opposed to that of Kome. 
 Aldhelm, Bede, and Elfric translated the Scrip- 
 tures into the vernacular, and Alcuin continually 
 in eloquent terms commended their perusal. 
 
 On the doctrine of transubstantiation, more- 
 over, the Anglo-Saxon Church differed widely 
 inett, Ong. from that of the Koman. The Roman doctrine 
 seq. on this subject is emphatically contravened by the 
 
 Canons attributed to Elfric, and usually assigned 
 to the year 957. In the 37th of that Code these 
 words occur : " That housel is Christ's Body, not 
 " corporally, but spiritually," &c.; and in like strain 
 this Canon proceeds. And the same doctrine is 
 taught in an Easter Homily of Elfric Putta, Me- 
 tropolitan of York ; and also in one of his let- 
 ters to his Clergy, in which these words of plain
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 59 
 
 significance are found : " This sacrifice of the 
 
 " Eucharist is not our Saviour's Body in which x viii.* 7 
 
 " He suffered for us, nor His Blood which He " 3 i~ 
 
 1547. 
 
 " shed upon our account ; but it is made His 
 " Body and Blood in a spiritual way, as the 
 " manna was which fell from the sky, and the 
 " water which flowed from the rock." And 
 here the reader may pause to consider how ex- 
 actly the doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist 
 held by the ancient Church of this land coincides 
 with that taught by the Church of England at' the 
 present hour. 
 
 Again, in the matter of solitary Communion, inett, Orig. 
 
 T *> 11 -i Ang. p. 355. 
 
 or "Low Mass, celebrated by a single priest, 
 as now practised in the Kornan Church, the 
 Anglo-Saxon Church was opposed to any such 
 service. This may be learnt from the 7th of 
 those called Theodulf s " Capitula," translated 
 into Anglo-Saxon by Elfric, Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, for the use of the National Church. 
 The words of that Canon are: "Mass Priests 
 "ought by no means to sing Mass alone by 
 "themselves without other men. . . . He ought 
 "to greet the bystanders, and they ought to 
 "make the responses. He ought to remember 
 "the Lord's declaration in the Gospel, 'When 
 "'two or three are gathered together in My 
 " ' Name, there am I in the midst of them.' " 
 
 From the above facts it may be seen that 
 both in discipline and doctrine the British and
 
 60 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- Anglo-Saxon Church did differ from the Eoman 
 
 War ham, 
 
 obedience, and did from time to time assert and 
 
 . *** maintain her independence. It is observable 
 that such manifestations of independence were 
 continued down to the time of the Norman Con- 
 quest, and just before that event were asserted 
 in a very conspicuous instance. For Stigand, the 
 last of the line of Anglo-Saxon Archbishops, vehe- 
 mently resisted the Pope's authority for eight years 
 consecutively ; and though interdicted by the 
 Conc.M.B. Roman Pontiff, maintained his just independence 
 
 ] . ' 1 i . 
 
 Thierry, i n hig jg e e, and exercised all his Archiepiscopal 
 
 Nor. Conq. 
 
 i. 144. functions until the arrival of William the Norman. 
 That conqueror of our land not only expelled 
 
 Conc.M.B. this last Anglo-Saxon Archbishop, but also his 
 brother Agelmar, Bishop of the East Angles ; and 
 also deprived many other Anglo-Saxon Bishops 
 of their Sees, and native Ecclesiastics of their 
 offices, in order to find places and preferment 
 for his Norman favourites, who were wholly 
 devoted to Rome. In truth, the Norman Con- 
 quest introduced and inaugurated that success- 
 ful and fatal Papal aggression which, by the 
 connivance and even assistance of English Sove- 
 reigns, subsequently assumed portentous dimen- 
 sions. Pope Alexander II. was engaged on the 
 side of King William I., and had conferred on 
 him a standard and a consecrated ring before 
 the attack on England was made; and thus Pope 
 and Conqueror were banded together in common
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 61 
 
 cause against the Anglo-Saxon nation and Anglo- sovereign: 
 Saxon Church. Not only were the Anglo-Saxon K ' v ?ii. ry 
 Prelates, including the Archbishop of Canterbury 153 i~ 
 and other high Ecclesiastics in office, expelled to 
 make room for Normans, but in the very first 
 Council held under the Conqueror, at Winchester, 
 A.D. 1070, in the place of a native Archbishop 
 there is found a Swiss Bishop with the flourish 
 of " Papal Legate " attached to his name. And, 
 as though this were not a sufficient humiliation 
 for the National Church, the names of two 
 " Presbyter Cardinals " are added as conspicuous 
 members of the assembly. t 
 
 For fresh aggressions of Eome on the inde- 
 pendence of this Church and nation some of our 
 subsequent Sovereigns were mainly chargeable. 
 These aggressions they countenanced for politi- 
 cal and fiscal reasons. Not only did William 
 the Conqueror call in the Pope's aid to eject the 
 Anglo-Saxon Prelates ; the usurper Stephen ob- 
 tained from Home the confirmation of his claim 
 to the throne. King Henry II., to promote his 
 ends, accepted at the hands of Pope Adrian the 
 title to the Kingdom of Ireland. King John, at 
 the bidding of Pope Innocent III., humbled him- 
 self in a manner as abject as can be imagined 
 before the feet of Pandulf, the Koman Legate. 
 King Henry III. forwarded the designs of the 
 Papacy by encouraging legatine Synods in this 
 country, ten of which were held during his
 
 62 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- reign. And he made himself notorious by tak- 
 wtrh^,' i n g P art w i tn the Legates Otho and Kustand on 
 Iiee - some of those occasions, against the loud and 
 honest remonstrances of the English Prelates. 
 Cone. M. B. Nothing could exceed the contumely with which 
 the English Clergy were treated by these Eoman 
 emissaries. On one occasion the English Pre- 
 lates, in company with all the Scholars of the 
 University of Oxford, were compelled to walk 
 from St. Paul's to the house of the Bishop of 
 Carlisle, and thence, having divested themselves 
 of their caps and gowns, to go in procession, not 
 only bareheaded but barefoot too, to the Legate's 
 Coil. Ecci. residence, a mile from the cathedral. Matthew 
 484. Paris describes in a most tragical strain the state 
 
 to which this Church was reduced by such a 
 course of policy. He laments " that the daugh- 
 " ter of Zion was become, as it were, an harlot ; " 
 that "persons of no merit or learning came 
 " menacing with the Pope's Bull into England, 
 " hectored themselves into preferment, trampled 
 " upon the privileges of the country, and seized 
 " the revenues designed by our pious ances- 
 " tors for the support of religion, and for the 
 "benefit of the poor, and for the entertainment 
 "of strangers." And then this chronicler con- 
 tinues his reasonable complaints by adding that 
 whereas formerly the offices in the Church were 
 held by natives of birth and character, the land 
 is now pestered with obscure rapacious persons,
 
 K ' v ?ii l . ry 
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 63 
 
 no better than farmers and servants to the Court 
 of Kome, who glean up the wealth of the country 
 for the pride and luxury of their masters ; and 
 that thus England, aforetime so illustrious, was 
 made a prey to foreigners, and sunk in igno- 
 minious degeneracy. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the royal patronage con- 
 ceded to these excesses, the English Clergy from 
 time to time resented this Koman tyranny. 
 Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, protested 
 vehemently against the aggressions made against 
 his Metropolitan See. Sewall, Archbishop of York, Coil. Ecci. 
 directed a sharp remonstrance on the like subject 548. 
 to Pope Alexander IV., taking occasion to remind 
 that Pontiff that "when our Saviour commissioned 
 " St. Peter to feed His sheep, He did not give him 
 " authority to flay or eat them." When the Legate Cone. M. B. 
 
 . i. 709-10. 
 
 Kustand, appearing in a Synod at London, A.D. 
 1255, attempted to exercise unwarrantable juris- 
 diction over this Church, Fulco, Bishop of Lon- 
 don, most unmistakably delivered his mind, after 
 several days' debate, as follows : " I will certainly 
 "bear to have my head cut off before I will 
 "consent to such slavery on the part of our 
 " Church, and to such injustice effected 'by in- 
 " tolerable oppression." Nor was his brother 
 Bishop of Worcester, Walter, less emphatic in 
 his language when he added : " I would sooner 
 "be condemned to be hanged than that the 
 "liberty of our holy Church should be subject
 
 64 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- " to such an overthrow." And, further, against 
 
 w^hTm' this union of Royal and Papal power for the 
 
 ** degradation of the Church, the Bishop of 
 
 London, declining pacific remonstrance, adopted 
 
 quite a martial tone. For when King Henry III. 
 
 made bold to say that neither the Bishop nor 
 
 any of those who acted with him loved their 
 
 King, and that "he would take good care that 
 
 "the Pope should both rebuke and punish such 
 
 " conduct," the Bishop, nothing daunted, replied : 
 
 Cone. M. B. " The Pope and the King, stronger than I, may 
 
 " deprive me of my Bishopric ; yet let them take 
 
 " my mitre, I shall change it for a helmet." 
 
 In the reigns of King Henry V. and King 
 Henry VI. we again see this resistance by the 
 Clergy to Roman aggression conspicuously shewn. 
 When it was proposed that the uncle of King 
 Henry V. should be made a Cardinal and 
 " Legate a latere " from the Pope, the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, Chicheley, forbade and prevented 
 this encroachment on his See ; for, in the words 
 of his letter to the King, " he was bound to 
 "oppose it by his ligeance, and also to quit 
 " himself to God and the Church of this land." 
 And, further, this Archbishop again maintained 
 his independence on Rome, when the Pope re- 
 quired him to endeavour to obtain a repeal of the 
 Statutes of Pramunire which forbid appeals to 
 Rome. With this request Chicheley absolutely 
 declined to comply, which so exasperated Pope
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE EEFOEMATION. 65 
 
 Martin V. that he issued a Bull to suspend the sovereign: 
 Archbishop from his office. But this document K '^ii. ry 
 the Archbishop wholly ignored, and continued isai- 
 in the discharge of his duty. And his coura- 
 geous conduct in this respect was so far gratify- 
 ing to the country at large, that the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, the University of Oxford, 
 and the Commons, addressed the King in favour 
 of one who had incurred the displeasure of the 
 Pope by opposing these aggressive inroads on 
 the independence of the National Church. Not 
 only did Archbishop Chicheley thus oppose 
 Martin V., but he equally defended the rights 
 of this Church against Pope Eugenius IV., by 
 refusing to consecrate to the Bishopric of Ely 
 a person nominated for the See by that Pontiff. 
 
 This resistance to Eoman aggression was not 
 merely manifested by the words and acts of 
 individual Archbishops, Bishops, and Eccle- 
 siastics, but sometimes also by more formal 
 Synodical action. In the Synod of London, 
 held under Archbishop Boniface, A.D. 1246, 
 the subject of Papal interference was brought 
 before the assembly, when, " as regards the state 
 " of the English Church" it was decided that 
 "contradiction should be signified to the Pope, 
 "and that an appeal should be made to the 
 "presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to 
 " a General Council, by God's grace " at some time 
 to be convened. And again, in the eighteenth year 
 
 K
 
 06 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 etro- of King Henry VI., A.D. 1439, when the Canter- 
 bury Provincial Synod met in London under 
 
 I ' ee - Archbishop Chicheley, a Bull from Kome was 
 laid before the assembly with a view to its 
 adoption by the English Church. But this 
 Papal instrument the Synod absolutely refused 
 to confirm or even to allow. 
 
 A return must now be made to our immediate 
 subject. Considering the constant remonstrances 
 which had been here made and persisted in, 
 both in Anglo-Saxon and later times, against the 
 aggressions of Kome, and the pretensions of the 
 Roman Pontiff to be the head of this Church, 
 it is not surprising that both Convocations in 
 1531 should have granted the style and title to 
 the Sovereign of this country, as before detailed, 
 which proclaimed the Church of England free 
 from usurped Eoman jurisdiction. The abolition 
 of that jurisdiction by the Convocations, so far 
 as Ecclesiastical authority reached, now put an 
 end to all appeals from the native Ecclesiastical 
 Courts of England to Rome. 
 
 The present was a notable era in our national 
 history. For, however strange it may appear, it 
 is nevertheless a fact, that notwithstanding the 
 Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, which 
 absolutely forbid such proceedings, English sub- 
 jects, when worsted here in their legal con- 
 tentions before their country's proper Eccle- 
 siastical Courts, did from time to time carry
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 67 
 
 appeals thence to Kome. And it has been sovereign: 
 thought that this was done on occasion by the * vxxi.* 7 
 connivance of our Sovereigns ; otherwise, in face "|J~" 
 of the stringent provisions of the Statutes just 
 mentioned, it is hard to understand how such 
 appeals to a foreign jurisdiction could have been 
 promoted. But, however this may be, it is clear 
 that from this time, 1531, by the grant of this 
 title to the Sovereign "so far as the law of 
 "Christ permits, even Supreme Head" the 
 Clergy, as far as they were concerned, declared 
 that all Curial jurisdiction was to be restrained 
 within the borders of the land. While at the 
 same time, by adding the proviso "so far as 
 " the law of Christ permits" they retained to 
 themselves all authority over doctrine and ritual, 
 which the law of Christ would allow them to 
 concede to no mortal man. 
 
 Indeed, that King Henry VIII., a monarch 
 not specially prone to construe anything what- 
 soever to his own disadvantage, did himself so 
 understand this grant of title with its proviso 
 is quite clear from his reply to the York Clergy 
 who interrogated him on the subject. His 
 Majesty's words were these : " As to spiritual Cone. M. B. 
 "things .... forasmuch as they be no worldly 
 " or temporal things, they have no worldly nor 
 " temporal head, but only Christ that did institute 
 " them, by Whose ordinances they be ministered 
 " here by mortal men, elect, chosen, and ordained,
 
 68 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- "as God hath willed for that purpose, who be 
 
 warham, " the Clergy." And again, when the Koyal style 
 
 ** and title was afterwards confirmed by Statute, 
 
 we learn the same from a MS. discovered by Mr. 
 
 Froude in the Bolls' Becords. That MS. runs 
 
 Fronde's as follows 4 . The King does not "pretend there- 
 
 Voi. u. p g " by to take any power from the successors of the 
 
 " A.postles that was given to them by God . . . ; " 
 
 nor did " the King's Grace, his nobles, or subjects, 
 
 " intend to decline or vary from the Congre- 
 
 " gation of Christ's Church in anything concern- 
 
 " ing the Articles of the National Faith." 
 
 Convocation It was about this time, moreover, that a direct 
 
 of the civil proposal was made, in a petition directed to the 
 
 DOWGF for 
 
 repressing Crown by Convocation, that statutable measures 
 exactions, might be taken for emancipating this nation 
 from Boman exactions. So that in that assem- 
 bly such measures were promoted as we shall 
 hereafter see were both synodically and statu- 
 tably taken for securing national independence. 
 The objection at this time of the English Clergy 
 to the imposition of Boman authority over them 
 was no less incisively expressed now than it had 
 been in earlier times, as before recorded. On the 
 present occasion the Clergy in their Convoca- 
 tion protested most vehemently against the un- 
 just and tyrannical exactions of the Boman 
 Curia. They complain to His Majesty, in a 
 somewhat satirical strain, that the fees exacted 
 for legal instruments sealed at the Court of Borne
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE KEFORMATION. 69 
 
 and thence issued were excessive ; assuring the sovereign: 
 King that "parchment and lead be very dear K ' v 3 jii. ry 
 "merchandize at Rome, and in some cases an 153 ;L~ 
 " hundred times more worth than the weight 
 
 Strype s 
 
 " or counterpoise of fine gold." Further, they Mem- 
 inform His Majesty that the Court of Rome p- iss. 
 
 Cleopatra, 
 
 "getteth by this means and many other much E. e, p. 263. 
 " goqfls and profits out of this Realm, and never 
 "departethwith any portion thereof hither again;" 
 and so the Convocation prays His Majesty to 
 cause such unjust exactions "to cease and to 
 " be foredone for ever by Act of this His Grace's 
 " High Court of Parliament." And, finally, the 
 Convocation prays His Majesty, in case the Pope 
 should take measures for continuing these ex- 
 actions, then, that " as al good Christen men be 
 " more bound to obey God than any man ; and 
 " forasmuch as St. Paul willeth us to withdraw 
 "ourselves from al such as walk inordinately, 
 "it may please the King's Most Noble Grace to 
 "ordain in this present Parliament, that then 
 " the obedience of him and the people be with- 
 " drawn from the See of Rome." Thus the 
 Clergy were manifestly willing to abjure any 
 obedience, and desired that such abjuration on 
 the part of the Crown and country should be 
 fortified by Act of Parliament. On this occasion 
 they sought subsequent Civil sanctions for the 
 aid of the Spiritualty a course common in the 
 Church in all ages, as will hereafter appear.
 
 70 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro. In the year 1532 an event occurred familiarly 
 known as "The Submission of the Clergy," 
 which now requires attention. On April 12, 
 j n the year last mentioned, Archbishop Warham 
 
 sion of the 
 
 clergy." introduced into the Canterbury Convocation 
 as a subject for discussion a supplication from 
 the Lower House of Parliament which had been 
 presented to the King. This supplication is by 
 some supposed to have been forged on the Eoyal 
 anvil by a workman who designed in the col- 
 lision of forces some advantage to himself. And 
 as to its presentation at a time when Parliament 
 so far demeaned itself as to agree that Koyal Pro- 
 clamations should override Statutes, no one can 
 be surprised that that assembly would present 
 anything which the Sovereign might provide. 
 But, however this may be, the contents of this 
 supplication were somewhat doleful; the chief 
 complaints of alleged grievance being, first, that 
 the old Ecclesiastical Canons in force were in- 
 jurious to the King's prerogative and burdensome 
 to the subject ; secondly, that the Clergy claimed 
 to enact Canons of their own sole authority. 
 
 Into the almost interminable discussions 
 which ensued between the representatives of 
 the Convocation and the emissaries of the King 
 on this subject it would be wearisome to enter. 
 They must be read in the pages of the " Cone. 
 " Mag. Brit.," if anyone is so much interested in 
 the subject as to engage in the task of wading
 
 v ii. 
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 71 
 
 through such controversial details. It must suffice sovereign: 
 here to say, that from April 12 to May 16, 1532, K ' ry 
 the conferences between the two parties and 
 the debates in the Synod continued ; and that 
 on the last-named day the Convocation finally 
 agreed to what is known in history as " The Sub- 
 " mission of the Clergy." This, to sum the 
 matter up shortly, consisted in the following 
 promise, viz.: That they would not enact any 
 new Canons without Koyal licence to do so ; 
 and that, as regarded the old Canons, they 
 should be revised by the King and thirty-two 
 persons to be chosen by him, sixteen to be Mem- 
 bers of Parliament and sixteen to be Clergymen. 
 Grounded on this " Submission of the Clergy," 
 the Statute 25 Hen. VIII. 19, commonly called 
 the " Clergy Submission Act," was enacted 
 rather more than a year and a half afterwards 
 in Parliament, as we shall hereafter see. 
 
 The events last recorded were preparations for 
 the coming Keformation in Religion, as regarded 
 doctrine and ritual. The ground was thus cleared 
 for the building, and active work for the erection 
 of the edifice soon after began in Convocation. 
 But some secular enactments in Parliament 
 must be first considered in their chronological 
 
 Order. Parliamen- 
 
 tary legis- 
 
 The two Acts named in the margin, and lation. 
 
 24 Hen. 
 
 denominated " The Great Statute of Appeals," vm. 12. 
 and " The Clergy Submission Act," were passed vm. 19.
 
 72 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- in 1533 and 1534 respectively. The 9th section 
 
 cran^eV, f the first, confirmed by the 3rd section of 
 
 I ' ee ' the second, must be shortly here considered, as 
 
 having a material bearing on the constitutional 
 
 powers of the Convocations, and also as having 
 
 given rise to three of the most important State 
 
 trials ever recorded in our country's annals. 
 
 Convoca- By Section 9 of the first-mentioned Statute, all 
 
 diction in Ecclesiastical causes " touching the King " were 
 
 causes 
 
 touching referred, not to any Ecclesiastical or Civil Court 
 in the realm, but in every case to Convoca- 
 tional jurisdiction. This provision took speedy 
 and notable effect, and was carried out in the 
 cases of the trials for divorce between King 
 Henry VIII. and three of his wives Catharine 
 of Arragon, Anne Boleyn, and Anne of Cleves. 
 Indeed, it is clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, 
 that the provision in question was introduced 
 and enacted specially with a view to the case 
 of Catharine of Arragon. This may be surely 
 learned from a comparison of dates and events. 
 The Parliament in which this provision became 
 law met on Feb. 4 [1533]. The Convocation 
 to which Queen Catharine's case was submitted 
 for judgment, met at St. Paul's on March 26 
 Cone. M. B. next following, and on that day Archbishop 
 
 iii. 756. . iii 
 
 Cranmer brought into the bynod the documents 
 necessary for the enquiry. Thus it is plain 
 that the clause above mentioned was introduced 
 into the Act in order to give statutable as well
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 73 
 
 as Ecclesiastical authority to the conclusions sovereign: 
 which should be arrived at in Convocation. * 
 
 The enquiry in the case of Catharine of Arra- 
 gon in truth succeeded immediately upon the 
 enactment of the clause in the " Great Statute Catharine 
 
 of Arragon's 
 
 " of Appeals," which referred all Ecclesiastical divorce, 
 causes "touching the King" to Convocational 
 jurisdiction. The chief question submitted to 
 the two Convocations was whether Queen 
 Catharine was the King's lawful wife, inas- 
 much as before her marriage to him she was 
 the widow of his elder brother, Prince Arthur. 
 Pope Julius II. had given King Henry VIII. 
 a dispensation to contract this marriage, not- 
 withstanding the affinity of Catharine ; and the 
 main question which the Convocations had to 
 try was whether this dispensation was beyond 
 the Pope's power. If it was " ultra vires," then 
 the marriage between King Henry and Queen 
 Catharine was illegal, and he was free to marry 
 another. If, on the other hand, the Pope's 
 dispensation was valid, then the King was 
 Catharine's lawful husband, and he could not 
 enter into another marriage contract. The 
 decision of both Convocations on the point 
 above mentioned was worthy of English Pro- 
 vincial Synods. It was decreed in the Canter- 
 bury Convocation, by 263 votes to 19, that "it Cone. M.B. 
 
 * J iii. 756-8. 
 
 "was unlawful to marry a deceased brother's 
 " wife ; " and that such a " prohibition of the 
 
 L
 
 74: ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part TI. 1. 
 
 Metro- " Divine law could not be dispensed with by 
 oraumer, "the Pope." The same conclusion was arrived 
 a>ee * 
 
 at in the York Convocation by 51 votes to 2. 
 ' B ' Subsequently, Archbishop Cranmer held a Court 
 at D unstable to pronounce the nullity of mar- 
 riage between King Henry and Catharine, which 
 was the direct result of these Convocational 
 Coil. decisions; and they were specially recited in 
 
 Voiix/m the body of the judgment. It was of this 
 Court that Shakspeare thus wrote: The Arch- 
 bishop 
 
 "Held a late Court at Dunstable, ten miles off 
 
 " From Ampthill, where the Princess lay ; to which 
 
 " She oft was cited by them, hut appear'd not." 
 
 HEN. VIII. Act iv. Sc. 1. 
 
 A State trial of more significant importance 
 than this can hardly be imagined ; for if it had 
 not been adjudged by competent authority that 
 King Henry VIII. was free to marry Anne 
 Boleyn, it is clear that Queen Elizabeth, their 
 daughter, would have been illegitimate, that the 
 English Crown in her person would have been 
 bastardized, and that the persistence of a writer 
 of this generation in designating that renowned 
 Sovereign of this realm as Miss Elizabeth Boleyn, 
 would be fully justified. 
 Q. Anne A second instance of the exercise of this 
 
 Boleyn a 
 
 divorce. Convocational jurisdiction in "Kings' Causes" 
 was exemplified in the case of Anne Boleyn's 
 subsequent divorce three years afterwards, in
 
 K ' ry 
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 75 
 
 1536. In June of that year the sentence of 
 divorce was agreed to in the Canterbury Convo- viii. 
 cation, and the necessary seals and signatures of "47" 
 the members were attached to the instrument. Conc M B 
 A third instance of the exercise of this Con- ui - 803 - 
 
 ,..,.. . -f, . , ,-i Nullifica- 
 
 vocational jurisdiction in " Kings Causes tion of the 
 occurred in 1540. So far as the arrangements An a <ff 6 
 for the prosecution of this matter [which 
 involved the question whether a pre-contract 
 of Anne of Cleves with a son of the Duke of 
 Lorraine annulled her marriage to King Henry 
 VIII.], and the high figure of the persons 
 examined as witnesses, a more imposing State 
 trial was perhaps never witnessed in this 
 country. Both Convocations were united in Cone. M. B. 
 
 iii. 851. 
 
 London for the purpose. A Committee was 
 appointed of Bishops and other Ecclesiastics 
 from both Provinces, who met at the Koyal 
 Palace, Westminster, for the examination of 
 witnesses. Those witnesses were the most 
 notable persons in the realm, comprising, among 
 others, the Lord Chancellor Audley, the Dukes ibid.iii.85-2. 
 of Norfolk and Suffolk, the Lord High Admiral 
 Russell, Sir Anthony Browne Master of the 
 Horse, Lord Southampton, Lord Cobham, with 
 others of high degree. These noblemen and 
 gentlemen put in written depositions, swearing 
 to the truth of their contents; and those docu- 
 ments were filed as schedules for the guidance 
 of the Convocations in coming to a final judg-
 
 76 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- ment. To add solemnity of circumstance, among 
 
 cranmer', the papers was a deposition of the King himself, 
 
 ***_ with a declaration upon the matter under 
 
 Coii. Ecci. Thomas Cromwell's hand. Finally, after long 
 
 Hist. v. 64. * 
 
 investigations, it was decided by the united 
 Convocations, and by an overwhelming vote, that 
 the King's marriage to Anne of Cleves was 
 
 Cone. M. B. not binding ; and the instrument to that effect, 
 sealed with the seals of the Archbishops of 
 Canterbury and York, and subscribed by the 
 hands of the other members of the Synod, bears 
 date July 9, 1540. 
 
 odd Bearing the foregoing facts in mind, it is 
 
 somewhat surprising that the learned Justices 
 
 announce- 
 
 of Common of the Court of Common Pleas should have in 
 Exchequer, our times affirmed that, " after due enquiry and 
 
 P " investigation, no instance has been found of 
 i860. " an appeal in such cases [i.e. Kings' Causes] to 
 " the Convocation." The enquiry, one imagines, 
 must have been of a very superficial character 
 which did not discover some of the most im- 
 posing State trials ever witnessed in the country, 
 both as regards their circumstances and their 
 consequences. Nor was the announcement of 
 the learned Barons of the Exchequer less as- 
 tonishing, especially considering that they had 
 affirmed that they should themselves carefully 
 examine the subject before giving judgment on 
 it. However, after this promised examination, 
 July 8, 1850. they announced to the world that it was a " fact
 
 X. Henry 
 
 vxxx. 
 
 1531- 
 1547. 
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 77 
 
 " that no appeal to Convocation ever has taken sovereign: 
 " place during the three centuries which have 
 "elapsed since the passing of these Statutes." 
 As this due enquiry and careful examination 
 produced such remarkably slender results, in 
 presence of some of the most important national 
 events that ever occurred, it must be presumed 
 that this enquiry and examination was confined 
 to the records of the Law Courts. But some 
 people will be apt to remember that those 
 records do not wholly exhaust the historic 
 annals of England. 
 
 It would not condone the above judicial 
 misapprehensions to plead that these cases 
 "touching the King" were not tried by the 
 Convocations on appeal from a lower Court, but 
 in first instance ; because, as is well known in 
 Ecclesiastical jurisprudence, applications are often 
 made to the higher Court " prima vice." 
 
 If the world was not pretty well accustomed 
 to strange deliverances from the secular tribu- 
 nals on Ecclesiastical subjects, the reader would 
 hardly give credit to the fact that the foregoing 
 announcements have been judicially pronounced. Fonnal 
 However, many late experiences in this respect rejection 
 may easily reconcile him to the belief. As we Supremacy 
 
 J J . by the Con- 
 
 proceed he will have such belief confirmed by vocations of 
 
 . i Canterbury 
 
 some very assuring and instructive examples. and York, 
 
 The chief corner-stone of a true reforma- corner-stone 
 tion in the doctrine, ritual, and discipline of formation.
 
 78 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- the Church of England was really laid by the 
 
 Cranmer, 
 
 ' Convocations of Canterbury and York in the 
 
 ** year 1534. On March 31 in that year the 
 Canterbury Convocation, with only four dis- 
 sentients in the Lower House; and on May 5 
 the Convocation of York unanimously, decreed 
 that 
 
 " THE POPE OF EOME HAS NO GREATER JURIS- 
 " DICTION CONFERRED ON HIM BY GoD IN HoLY 
 " SCRIPTURE IN THIS KINGDOM OF ENGLAND THAN 
 "ANY OTHER FOREIGN BISHOP" ["Cone. Mag. 
 " Brit." iii. 769, and Wake's MSB., Ch. Ch. Library, 
 ad anri. 1534]. 
 
 Thus by the Synodical Decrees of our two 
 Convocations the Papal Supremacy in England 
 was formally discharged, and thus the primitive 
 independence of the British Church was ca- 
 nonically restored. 
 
 It is impossible to overestimate the importance 
 of this fact, as it was the real foundation of the 
 Eeformation. The renunciation of the Papal Supre- 
 macy, after these Synodical Decrees on the subject 
 had been promulged, became general throughout 
 the English Church and nation. Original De- 
 crees and transcripts of those Decrees declaring 
 such renunciation remained for many genera- 
 Coii. Ecci. tions preserved in the Exchequer. The learned 
 267. Mr. Wharton had no less than one hundred and 
 
 seventy-five authentic copies thence obtained. 
 Those transcripts contained the subscriptions
 
 INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 79 
 
 of all the Bishops and Members of Chapters, sovereign: 
 Monasteries, Colleges, and Hospitals of thirteen K '^JJ. ry 
 Dioceses. That learned person also declared 1531 ~ 
 
 1547. 
 
 that he had certain knowledge that the original 
 
 subscriptions from the remaining Dioceses were 
 lodged elsewhere. So universally did the mass 
 of the national Clergy and people join in formally 
 protesting against the Papal Supremacy as soon 
 as it had been synodically renounced by the 
 authority of the two Convocations. 
 
 This renunciation of the Papal Supremacy, and Rejection 
 this vindication of the primitive independence Supremacy 
 of the British Church by her Provincial Synods, by tLTjus 
 were a rightful assertion of the principle known 
 in Ecclesiastical history as the Jus CYPRIUM, and 
 were strictly warranted by those Canons and rules 
 governing Ecclesiastical territorial jurisdictions 
 which were decreed by (Ecumenical Councils. 
 
 Thus the Sixth Canon of the first (Ecumenical 
 Council [Nice] specially confirms the inde- 
 pendent rights of the Egyptian, Lybian, Penta- 
 politan, and Antiochian Exarchates, as being in 
 conformity with the "ancient customs, which 
 " should prevail." 
 
 Again, the Second Canon of the Second (Ecu- 
 menical Council [Constantinople, I.] is very clear 
 on this head, forbidding usurpations such as 
 the English Church had been subjected to by 
 the Koman Pontiffs. " Let no Bishops," runs that 
 Canon, "go beyond their Diocese [Exarchate]
 
 80 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1. 
 
 Metro- " to Churches beyond their bounds, nor disturb 
 jran^el', " the Churches. According to the Canons, let 
 lee * " the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs 
 " of Egypt ; and the Bishops of the East govern 
 " the East alone ; the rights and privileges of the 
 " Church of Antioch sanctioned by the Nicene 
 "Canons being preserved inviolate. Let the 
 " Bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the 
 "Asian affairs only; and the Bishops of the 
 " Pontic Diocese the affairs of Pontus only ; and 
 "they of Thrace the affairs of the Thracian 
 "Diocese only. But let not Bishops go out of 
 "their Diocese for ordination or any other 
 "Ecclesiastical administration uninvited. The 
 " superscribed Canon touching the Dioceses being 
 " observed, it is manifest that in each Province 
 " the Synod of the Province will rule, according 
 " to the Decrees which were defined at Nice." 
 
 And still again, the Eighth Canon of the 
 Third (Ecumenical Council [Ephesus], as quoted 
 by high authorities, is very clear on this head. 
 It runs thus : " The same rule shall be observed 
 " in all other Dioceses and Provinces whatsoever, 
 " so that no Bishop shall occupy another Pro- 
 " vince which has not been subject to him from 
 " the beginning ; and if he shall have made any 
 "such occupation or seizure, let him make 
 " restitution, lest the Canons of the Holy Fathers 
 " be transgressed," &c. 
 
 It is here admitted that this last-mentioned
 
 X. Henry 
 VIII. 
 1531- 
 1547. 
 
 PROMOTION OP THE BEFOEMATION. 81 
 
 Canon does not appear in all editions of the sovereign: 
 Ephesine Canons. But when it is remembered 
 that to defend an unwarrantable usurpation in 
 Africa a local Sardican Canon was impudently Neander 
 vouched by the Koman Curia for an CEcume- Ed - ,???? 
 
 f. pp. 157 D, 
 
 nical Canon of Nice, it is easier to believe that 16 J 202 - 
 this Eighth Canon of Ephesus has under the 
 like influences been surreptitiously excised, than 
 to imagine that it could by any influences what- 
 soever at any time have been surreptitiously 
 inserted into the Ephesine Code. 
 
 A true reformation having been thus inau- 
 gurated by the Convocations, the next step is to 
 trace the course of events by which that refor- 
 mation was promoted. . 
 
 II. 
 
 THE REFORMATION PROMOTED BY CONVOCATIONAL 
 ACTION. 
 
 It will at this point be needful to enter into 
 a somewhat long enquiry, shewing by compari- 
 son of dates that Synodical Acts preceded Civil 
 sanctions during the reign of King Henry VIII. 
 in matters connected with doctrine, ritual, and 
 discipline. But, before doing so, it is desirable 
 to point out that this principle of confirming 
 preceding Acts of the Church by subsequent 
 Civil sanctions was familiar to the early ages 
 
 M
 
 82 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- of Christianity, was the practice adopted in 
 
 Cranmer, 
 
 this country, and had been continued without 
 
 I ' ee - intermission down to the times now under con- 
 sideration. And it is the more needful to do 
 this because the most fanciful misapprehensions 
 are in our own times current on this head, some 
 people oddly supposing, in their undistinguish- 
 ing conclusions, because they find Ecclesiastical 
 matters the subjects of Civil ordinances, and of 
 Acts of Parliament, that therefore the matters 
 involved were originated by secular authority. 
 We will, then, take a retrospect of this matter. 
 Ecciesiasti- The heads of the Church have frequently, 
 boratedby from earliest times, themselves sought the help 
 thority in of the Civil power to corroborate their Spiritual 
 s ' authority. It was to add the force of Civil to 
 Ecclesiastical authority that Ambrose appealed 
 to Theodosius I. The words of that Father, 
 among others, were these : " My words will not 
 "have such force as your Edict." The Count 
 Candidian was despatched by Theodosius the 
 Younger and Valentinian III. to the Ephesine 
 Council, for the very purpose that Imperial 
 authority might fortify the proceedings there. 
 That emissary was yet strictly charged by the 
 Labb. Emperors not " to enter into any disputations, for 
 Tom. iii. " that it was unlawful for him who was not in 
 "the holy order of the Episcopate to intermix 
 "in Ecclesiastical discussions." "Princes," we 
 learn from Justinian, the Nestor of Jurispru-
 
 PROMOTION OF THE EEFOEMATIOX. 83 
 
 dence, " have rightly promulged laws conform- sovereign: 
 "able to the Synodical Canons, indicating that *'** 
 " the sanctions of the Spiritualty are deservedly isai- 
 " corroborated by the approbation of Eoyal Ma- 
 "jesty." Our own Sovereigns have followed in 
 the same course as that laid down by Justinian. 
 William I. by his charter distinctly superadded 
 Royal authority to antecedent Ecclesiastical ju- 
 risdictions ; and, further, commanded by Edict 
 "that every Sheriff should execute justice for 
 "the Bishop and for God, according to the 
 " Canons and Episcopal laws, so that if after 
 "excommunication satisfaction was not made 
 "to the Church, the power and justice of the 
 " Crown should be exercised." 
 
 It is equally clear that in spiritual matters it 
 was not the practice to permit Civil intervention 
 to precede Ecclesiastical action. In King Ed- 
 ward III.'s reign, when the Commons desired an 
 Act of Parliament to remedy an alleged grievance 
 in an Ecclesiastical matter, that monarch's reply 
 was : " The King will charge the Bishops to see 
 " it remedied." And again, when a similar pe- 
 tition was presented to King Richard II., his 
 reply was that "he will charge the Clergy to 
 "amend the same." In the eleventh year of 
 King Henry IV., on a similar occasion, the 
 Royal answer was : " This matter belongs to 
 " Holy Church, and has been remedied in the 
 "last Convocation." Again, in the third year
 
 84 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- of King Henry VI., to a Parliamentary petition 
 ' on an Ecclesiastical matter, that Sovereign re- 
 
 *** plied that "he had delivered the Bill to the 
 "Archbishops of Canterbury and York, charg- 
 " ing them to provide means of remedy." 
 
 This practice of committing matters Ecclesi- 
 astical to the jurisdiction of the Spiritualty, 
 and corroborating their Acts by Civil sanction, 
 having been adopted in this country from early 
 ages, and continued down to the time we are 
 considering, was not now abandoned. For the 
 Ecclesiastical laws enacted in the reign of King 
 Henry VIII. had not their first rise in Parlia- 
 ment, but to use the words of our most 
 learned Ecclesiastical historian " It is mani- 
 fest, by the dates of the Acts in Convocation, 
 " that they had first in that place their originals." 
 Of the absolute truth of this statement any unpre- 
 judiced reader must be convinced who has patience 
 to peruse the statement of facts now following. 
 
 The chief corner-stone of the Eeformation 
 having been, as before said, laid by our Con- 
 vocations in the matter of jurisdiction, it is 
 interesting to trace how in matters of doctrine, 
 ritual, and discipline the Keformation was car- 
 ried on by degrees, and promoted under the 
 sanctions of the same authority. The summary 
 of that progress shall be here first set down in 
 brief, and then some details respecting the most 
 important matters specified shall follow.
 
 PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 85 
 
 In the reign of King Henry VIII., Convoca- sovereign: 
 tions compiled or sanctioned in 1536 the Ten K ' v ?ii. ry 
 Articles of that year. In 1537, the " Institution i- 
 
 > 1547. 
 
 " of a Christian Man." In 1542, " The New and Sm ^y 
 " Expurgated Edition of the Sarum Use." In f synodicai 
 
 Acts pro- 
 
 1543, "The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition moti s ? nd 
 
 completing 
 
 " of any Christian Man." In 1544, " The English the Kfi>r- 
 
 mation. 
 
 " Eeformed Litany." In the reign of Edward 
 VI., in 1547, the authority "to administer the 
 " Communion in both kinds." In the same year 
 - " The Abrogation of the C celibacy of the Clergy." 
 In 1548, "The Order of the Communion." In 
 1549, "The First Keformed Prayer Book." In 
 1552-3 the 42 Articles of Keligion of that date. 
 In the same year, as ratified by the 35th of 
 those Articles, the Second Keformed Prayer Book. 
 And, finally, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in 
 1562-3, the present 39 Articles of Eeligion, at 
 which date the English Reformation may be said 
 to have culminated. 
 
 Such is a brief summary of the acts and events 
 which really constituted the Eeformation in doc- 
 trine, ritual, and discipline in the Church of 
 England. But, as in such a national movement 
 Civil authority of necessity was frequently in- 
 volved, it shall be shewn by a comparison of 
 dates that in spiritual matters at this epoch 
 of our history Acts of Parliament, Royal 
 Proclamations, and Civil Ratifications did 
 not precede, but followed in point of time,
 
 86 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- the decisions of the Spiritualty, and were 
 
 Cranmer, 
 
 merely ancillary to the Acts of the Convo- 
 
 ** cations. This will be plain to any reader 
 who has patience enough to peruse the fol- 
 lowing very dry details. 
 Comparison This enquiry shall begin with the first Acts 
 
 of the dates J . . 
 
 ofsynodicai of Parliament touching doctrine, ritual, or dis- 
 
 Acts and . 1-1 p TT' TT TTTTT 
 
 civil rati- ciplme, passed in the reign ot King Henry VllL, 
 and be carried on chronologically through the 
 series of Civil instruments connected with re- 
 ligion to the last hour of that monarch's life. 
 Of course, notice need not be taken of those 
 Statutes which merely affected the temporal 
 interest, and legalized the sacrilegious pillage 
 of Church property, as these do not come 
 directly within the scope of an enquiry into 
 the circumstances attending a reformation in 
 doctrine, ritual, and discipline. 
 
 The first two Statutes of this reign connected 
 with the present subject affected discipline only. 
 These were "The Great Statute of Appeals," 
 24 Hen. VIII. 12, and " The Clergy Submission 
 Act," 25 Hen. VIII. 19. The first of these Sta- 
 tutes recognized in its preamble, in the most 
 emphatic language imaginable, the authority of 
 the Spiritualty over all matters spiritual. The 
 effect of the two Acts in combination was, first, 
 to withdraw all Ecclesiastical appeals from Home 
 and refer them to the Sovereign of this country ; 
 secondly, to subject the Clergy to these three
 
 PEOMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 87 
 
 disabilities : (l) That they should not be con- sovereign: 
 vened in their Convocations without the pre- 
 vious issue of a "Koyal Writ." (2) That they 
 
 should enact no new Canons without a "Li- 
 "cence" from the Crown. (3) That the old, 
 Canons should be subjected to a revision by a 
 Commission of sixteen Clergy and sixteen lay- 
 men but that meanwhile those Canons should 
 abide in force until such revision should be 
 completed. 
 
 Before giving detailed proofs that in questions 
 of doctrine, ritual, and discipline, the Synodical 
 Acts of Convocations preceded at this period of 
 our history the Civil Acts of the State, it is well 
 to quote the preamble of the first Act just men- 
 tioned, 24 Hen. VIII. 12 ; and for this reason. 
 It is " The Great Statute of Appeals," acknow- 
 ledged on all hands to be one of the fundamen- 
 tal Constitutional Statutes of the realm. Now 
 nothing can be plainer than the language of 
 its preamble, as testifying what was the sense 
 of the nation at that time on the subject before 
 us, and what, it may be added, its sense would 
 be now, if reason instead of silly prejudices pre- 
 vailed among us. Here, then, are the words of 
 the preamble of that Great Statute, 24 Hen. VIII. 
 12, when treating of this "Kealm of England:" 
 " The body spiritual whereof, having power 
 "when any cause of the law Divine happened 
 "to come in question, or of spiritual learning,
 
 88 ACTS Or THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- "then it was declared, interpreted, and shewed, 
 ran^TeV, " by that P ar * ^ the sa ^ ^ody politic called 
 *** "the Spiritualty, now being usually called the 
 "English Church, which always hath been re- 
 " puted and also found of that sort that both 
 "for knowledge, integrity, and sufficiency of 
 "members it hath been always thought, and is 
 " also at this hour sufficient and meet of itself, 
 " without the intermeddling of any exterior per- 
 "son or persons, to declare and determine all 
 " such doubts, and to administer all such offices 
 "and duties as to their rooms spiritual doth 
 " appertain." 
 
 Let us see, then, by comparison of dates, how 
 the principle here emphatically laid down was 
 adhered to in public managements at this epoch. 
 The two Statutes above mentioned were passed 
 respectively in the spring of the years 1533 
 and 1534. Now first, as regards the withdrawal 
 of appeals from Kome therein specified, and the 
 relegation of them to the Crown of England : that 
 was subsequent to and consequent upon the Acts 
 Coii. of the Canterbury Convocation on Feb. 11, 1531, 
 an d the Acts of the York Convocation on May 4, 
 ' 1531 ; for on those occasions each Convocation 
 respectively subscribed an instrument recogniz- 
 ing the Sovereign of this realm to be "of the 
 " English Church and Clergy . . . Supreme Head, 
 " so far as the law of Christ permits." Se- 
 condly, as regards the disabilities to which the
 
 PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 89 
 
 Clergy, as above specified, were subjected : those sovereign: 
 were disabilities to which they had themselves ^'^JJ. 17 
 consented : and, moreover, were defined in the "31- 
 
 .... 1547. 
 
 Statute " ipsissimis verbis " in the very words 
 
 which the Clergy had themselves used and au- 
 thorized in Convocation on May 15, 1532. 
 
 1 " The King's Proclamation for the Abolishing Cone. M. B. 
 of the Usurped Power of the Pope " was signed 
 by His Majesty on the 9th day of June, 1534. 
 But the Papal authority had been already sy- 
 nodically discharged in the most emphatic form 
 imaginable on the 31st day of March preceding 
 by the Convocation of Canterbury, and on the 
 5th day of May preceding by the Convocation 
 of York, as above recorded. Sup. p. 78. 
 
 The Statute authorizing the King's Grace to 
 be " Supreme Head," was enacted in that 
 Parliament which met at Westminster, Nov. 3, 
 1534. But the title, "Supreme Head, so far as 
 " the law of Christ permits," was accorded to His 
 Majesty in the Convocation of Canterbury, on the 
 llth of February, 1531, and in that of York on 
 the 4th of May in the same year, as above stated. Sup. p. 88. 
 
 At the end of the year 1534, the King's 
 Proclamation " to bring in seditious books " was 
 issued. But the Convocation of Canterbury had 
 previously, on the 19th of December, addressed Cone. M. B. 
 the King that such a course might be pursued. 
 
 1 A fuller detail of the following matter has already appeared 
 in "England's Sacred Synods," by the same author. (Rivingtons, 
 1855.) 
 
 N
 
 90 ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- To the next Koyal Proclamation, concerning 
 cranmer', " Heresies," the same argument wholly applies. 
 
 Lee. 
 
 The Statute 27 Hen. VIII. 15, giving the 
 King authority to nominate thirty-two persons 
 of the Clergy and Laity for making of Ecclesi- 
 astical Laws, was enacted in the Parliament held 
 between Feb. 4, 1536, N.S., and the follow- 
 ing April. But the provisions of this Act were 
 merely ancillary to 25 Hen. VIII. 19, passed in 
 1534, N.S. And the authority specified in both 
 
 Cone. M. B. was accorded in Convocation finally on May 15, 
 
 "' 749 - 54 ' 1532. 
 
 The Koyal Letters to the Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury " Against Preachers " were signed by the 
 King on July 12, 1536. But these letters were 
 directed to enforce such doctrines as were con- 
 tained in the Ten Articles [familiarly known as 
 
 ibid. HI. the Articles of 15361, which had been subscribed 
 
 80317 
 
 on the previous day, that is, on July 11, 1536, by 
 both Houses of the Canterbury Convocation. Nor 
 did His Majesty forget to recite their Synodical 
 authority, for in the body of the document issued 
 by him these words occur : " We have caused 
 "all you, the Bishops with the Clergy of our 
 "realm, in solemn Convocation, deliberately 
 "disputing and advising the same, to agree to 
 " certain Articles, most Catholic," &c. 
 
 The King's Proclamation ' ' For Uniformity in 
 "Eeligion" next followed in 1536. But this 
 document states upon the face of it that the
 
 PEOMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 91 
 
 King intendeth, " by advice of his Prelates and sovereign: 
 " Clergy " [a term notoriously signifying Synodi- K \^J ry 
 cal authority], "to enforce uniformity." 1531- 
 
 The Statute [28 Hen. VIII. 7] concerning the 
 " Succession of the Crown," passed in conse- 
 quence of Queen Anne Boleyn's divorce, was 
 enacted in that Session of Parliament which 
 ended July 18, 1536, and Acts of Parliament 
 then took effect from the last day of session, 
 when they received Koyal assent. But this 
 divorce, being a matter of Ecclesiastical cogniz- 
 ance, had been previously adjudged in Convoca- Cone. M. B. 
 
 T J- "i- 803 " 
 
 tion, that is to say, on June 21 preceding. 
 
 In the same session of Parliament, 153 6, the Sta- 
 tute [28 Hen. VIII. 10] for " Extinguishing the 
 " Authority of the Bishop of Kome " was enacted. 
 But that authority had been Synodically extin- 
 guished two years previously, in the months of 
 March and May, 1534, respectively, by the 
 Convocations of Canterbury and York, as before Sup. P . 78. 
 stated. 
 
 In the same session the Statute [28 Hen. 
 VIII. 16] " For the Kelease of such as have ob- 
 " tained pretended Licences, &c., from the Bishop 
 "of Kome" was passed. But in this case the 
 argument under the last head wholly applies. 
 
 In this same year, 1536, " The King's Injunc- 
 " tions " were put forth, proclaiming that certain 
 Articles should be declared, that certain holidays 
 should be abrogated, and that certain restraints
 
 92 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- should be placed on devotions paid to images. 
 
 cralmeV But ^ ne Articles referred to had been previously 
 
 lee * ratified by Convocation, a fact to which these 
 
 Injunctions themselves bear witness, on the 
 
 Cone. M. B. preceding llth of July ; the question of holidays 
 ' had been previously settled in the same assem- 
 bly, July 19 ; and devotion to images had been 
 previously restrained, under the same authority, 
 by the Sixth of the Articles above mentioned. 
 
 The Injunctions published later in this year, 
 1536, were chiefly supplementary to the last- 
 mentioned Injunctions. The principal points 
 contained were, that the translation of the Bible 
 should be set up in every church, and that 
 superstitious regard to images should be sup- 
 pressed. But the translation of the Scriptures 
 had been previously requested by Convocation 
 
 ibid. iii. on Dec. 19, 1534, and had now lately been com- 
 pleted in accordance with that request. And 
 the question of images had been previously 
 settled by Synodical authority on the preceding 
 
 ibid. in. llth of July in this year, as just above stated. 
 
 "Articles about Keligion . . . published by the 
 "King's authority," were issued in 1536. But 
 their very heading states that they were "set 
 "out by the Convocation." Moreover, in the 
 preamble, the King bears this personal testimony 
 
 ibid. iii. to their Synodical authority : We " have caused 
 " our Bishops, and other the most discreet and 
 "best learned men of our Clergy, of this our
 
 PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 93 
 
 "whole realm, to be assembled in our Convoca- sovereign: 
 " tion, for the full debatement and determination K '^J. ry 
 " of the same." "*i- 
 
 1547. 
 
 The King's " Strait Commandment . . . for the 
 " Abrogation of certain Holy Days, sent to all 
 " Bishops," was also issued in 1536. But these 
 documents were only transcripts of the Decree 
 made in Convocation on the subject, on the 
 19th of July preceding. Cone. M. B. 
 
 " The King's Letter against too many Holi- 
 " days " was signed by His Majesty, Aug. 11, 1536. 
 But this document merely desired that the late 
 Decree agreed to on the subject by Convocation 
 should be enforced. And, moreover, this instru- 
 ment declares on the face of it, that " The 
 " superfluity of holidays we have, by the assents 
 " arid consents of all you the Bishops and other 
 "notable personages of the Clergy of this our 
 "realm, and in full congregation and assembly 
 " had for that purpose, abrogated." 
 
 " A Letter written by the King to his Bishops, 
 " directing how to instruct the people," was pub- 
 lished on Nov. 19, 1536. But this document is 
 simply a declaration of Episcopal duties, in 
 accordance with the then existing Ecclesiastical 
 law ; some reference being also made to the Ten 
 Articles previously agreed upon by the Canter- 
 bury Provincial Synod, on July 11, 1536. 
 
 "A Proclamation concerning Kites and Cere- 
 " monies to be used in due form in the Church
 
 94 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- " of England " was next issued. But this 
 * instrument declares upon its face that all such 
 
 1>ee - rites and ceremonies are enjoined "as have 
 "been laudably accustomed in the Church of 
 "England." 
 
 The Act [31 Hen. VIII. 14] of the Six Articles, 
 "for abolishing diversity of opinions," &c., was 
 the last Statute enacted in that session of Parlia- 
 ment which ended on June 28, 1539. But 
 the whole of the doctrinal matter which that 
 Statute respected had been previously submitted 
 formally to the Canterbury Synod for their de- 
 
 . M. B. cision on the second day of that month ; and 
 answers to the several points proposed having 
 been thence returned in detail, the Act was 
 framed in Parliament in accordance with those 
 answers. This has been usually denominated 
 as the "Whip with six strings." And as there 
 was here no progress towards a true reformation 
 in religion, this matter was not included in the 
 condensed summary above given, which was 
 confined to those Acts of the Convocations which 
 tended to such a result. 
 
 In 1539, Injunctions were published, by " the 
 "authority of the King, against English Books, 
 " Sects,- and Sacramentaries ; also the putting 
 "down the day of Thomas Becket." A perusal 
 of these Injunctions shews that they were 
 intended to stop the publication of heretical 
 writings, to promote the observation of certain
 
 PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 95 
 
 doctrines and ceremonies, to settle a point of sovereign: 
 discipline, and to obliterate from the Calendar ^-^JiiT 7 
 Thomas a Becket's day. But Convocation had "3i- 
 
 applied previously to the Crown. on Dec. 19, 1534, 
 
 , . - . . Conc - M - B - 
 
 on the subject of restraining suspected books, ill. 770-6. 
 
 As to the doctrines, ceremonies, and points of 
 discipline alluded to, they had severally been 
 synodically settled previously, that is to say, on 
 July 11, 1536, and on June 2, 1539, respectively; ibid.iii.sos, 
 
 820 8212 
 
 and as to the " putting down the day of Thomas 
 
 " Becket " his canonization, " made only by the 
 
 " Bishop of Kome," was necessarily extinguished 
 
 by the discharge of the Papal Supremacy, under 
 
 the Synodical authority of the two Provincial 
 
 Synods of the Church of England in 1534, as Sup. P . 78. 
 
 above specified. 
 
 The Statute [32 Hen. VIII. 15] " Concerning 
 " Archbishops, Bishops, &c., to be in the Com- 
 " mission . . . concerning the Abolition of Erro- 
 " neous Opinions in the Christian Keligion," was 
 enacted between April 28 and July 24, 1540. 
 But this Act was merely ancillary to the "Act 
 " of the Six Articles " above mentioned, in respect 
 of which, as has been said before, the whole 
 doctrinal matter contained had been previously 
 submitted to Convocation, and the Act was framed 
 in accordance with the answers thence returned. 
 
 The Statute [32 Hen. VIII. 25] for " Dissolu- 
 " tion of the King's pretended Marriage with the 
 "Lady Anne of Cleves" was passed July 12,
 
 96 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 1540. But the question of this nullification, being 
 cran^eV a matter of Ecclesiastical cognizance, had been 
 I ' ee - previously decided in a National Synod, or Synod 
 of the Exarchate, that is to say, on July 9, 
 1540, when the judgment was signed by the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan of 
 York, and the other members of the assem- 
 bly, as above described. This conclusion was 
 arrived at after a most imposing trial, the 
 two Convocations of Canterbury and York hav- 
 Su P . p. 75. ing been united for the purpose. The num- 
 ber of voters in favour of the nullification of 
 this marriage appears altogether to have been 
 294 ; those against it, 25 ; in all 319 [Pocock's 
 " Records of the Reformation," ii. 449-59]. 
 
 The Statute [32 Hen. VIII. 38] " Concerning 
 " Pre-contracts of Marriages " was passed in this 
 same session of Parliament. But it was wholly 
 framed upon the principle enforced by the two 
 Convocations assembled in united Synod on 
 the 9th of July previously, viz. that pre-con- 
 tracts only rendered marriages void in cases 
 where they had not been consummated. For on 
 this point the greatest stress was laid in the 
 associated Synods. 
 
 A Proclamation for the " Bible of the largest 
 " and greatest volume to be had in every Church" 
 was issued on the 6th of May, 1541. But, as has 
 before been said, a translation of the Bible had 
 been previously requested by Convocation on the
 
 PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 97 
 
 19th of December, 1534. That translation had sovereign: 
 subsequently appeared, and had been set up 
 in churches. An improved translation had 
 
 more recently come out, under the auspices 
 
 of Archbishop Cranmer, in 1539, and this last 
 edition was to be substituted for the former 
 one. 
 
 The King's Letter " For taking away Shrines 
 "and Images," dated from Hull, is attributed 
 to October 4, 1541. But the reform of such 
 abuses as were here ordered to be removed 
 had been previously initiated by the Sixth of 
 the Articles agreed to in Convocation on the Cone. M. B. 
 llth of July, 1536. Furthermore, it is not clear 
 that this letter does not really belong to the 
 year 1542. At any rate, it is dated the "thirty- 
 " fourth yere of our reign." In this case the 
 present contention is fortified, as this Koyal letter 
 must then have been subsequent to the debate ibid. in. 
 
 . . . 861. 
 
 which took place on this subject in Convocation, 
 on Feb. 24, 1542, N.S. 
 
 The Statute [34 & 35 Hen. VIII. l] "For the 
 " Advancement of True Religion, and for the 
 "Abolishing of all False Doctrines," was enacted 
 in the spring of 1543, N.S. But the very first 
 section of the Act gives us this very salutary 
 information: "Recourse must be had to the 
 " Catholic and Apostolic Church for the decision 
 " of controversies." This Statute, therefore, very 
 justly directs that " Tyndale's translation " should 
 
 o
 
 98 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- be forbidden in accordance with the decision 
 cran^TeV, arrived at in the Canterbury Convocation pre- 
 
 1<ee - viously, on Feb. 3, 1542, N.S. 
 cone. M. B. The Statute [35 Hen. VIII. 3l " For the Eati- 
 
 iii. 860-1. . L J 
 
 "fication of the King's Majesty's Stile" was 
 enacted in the spring of 1544, N.S. By this 
 Act, to mention the only point which concerns 
 our present enquiry, the title of "Supreme 
 Head" was ratified by Parliament. But this 
 title, as before has been mentioned, had been 
 accorded, with a qualification, thirteen years 
 ibid. iii. before by the Convocation of Canterbury, on the 
 llth of February, 1531, N.S., and by the Con- 
 ibid, iii. vocation of York, on the 4th of May in that year. 
 The Statute [35 Hen. VIII. 5] "Concerning 
 "the Qualification of the Statute of the Six 
 " Articles " was passed in the spring of 1544, 
 N.S. But this Act was merely declaratory of 
 certain modes of proceeding to be taken under 
 the provisions of 31 Hen. VIII. 14; and upon 
 the doctrinal matter contained in the last-men- 
 tioned Act though, happily, certainly not upon 
 its cruel provisions the decisions of Convoca- 
 ibid. iii. tion had been given, as above stated, on the 2nd 
 of June, 1539, and that moreover at the express 
 request of the King and his Vicar-General. 
 
 The Statute [35 Hen. VIII. 16] "Concerning 
 "the Examination of the Canon Laws by two 
 " and thirty persons " was also enacted in the 
 spring of 1544, N.S. But this Act was only
 
 K ' v ?ii. ry 
 
 PROMOTION OF THE REFOEMATION. 99 
 
 ancillary to a provision in 25 Hen. VIII. 19, sovereign: 
 
 respecting a review of the Canon Law, which 
 
 had previously been agreed to by the Clergy 
 
 in Convocation, on May 15, 1532. Moreover, 
 
 the subsidy lately voted on Feb. 23, 1543, N.S., 111.749-754'. 
 
 by the Canterbury Convocation, had been ac- 
 
 companied by a request, which, taken with its 
 
 substantial concomitant, was not unlikely to meet 
 
 with the King's and the Parliament's very 
 
 favourable joint consideration. This request 
 
 was, " for the Ecclesiastical laws of this realm ibid. m. 
 
 O *O 
 
 " to be made according to the Statute made in 
 " the 25th year " of this reign. And, still further, 
 the question of a review of the Canon Law had 
 been discussed in Convocation in this very year, 
 on Feb. 1, 1544, N.S., and deliberation had been ibid. m. 
 
 O /Q 
 
 then held upon an address to the King in 
 furtherance of the specific purpose which the 
 Statute before us contemplates. 
 
 " The King's Letters to the Archbishop of 
 " Canterbury, for publishing Koyal Injunctions " 
 for using "certayne godly prayers and suffrages 
 " in our natyve Englyshe tongue," were put forth 
 June 11, 1544. But these Injunctions without 
 doubt refer to that Eeformed Litany in English, 
 very similar to the one now in use, in regard to 
 which there is internal evidence to prove that 
 it was sanctioned by the Convocation which rose Atterb. 
 
 it - n Rights. &c. 
 
 on March 31, 1544. P .i93. 
 
 " An Injunction given by the King . . . for the
 
 100 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- "Autorisyng and Establishing the Use of his 
 
 cr^Te^ "Primer," was issued on the 6th of May, 1545. 
 
 Hoigate. rp]^ ^faf complaint here insisted on was " that 
 "the youthe by divers persones are taught the 
 "Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, Crede, and Ten 
 " Commaundements, all in Latin and not in En- 
 " glyshe ;" and this Primer was chiefly intended 
 
 Conc.M. B. to rectify such disadvantage. But on the 17th 
 and 24th of February, 1542, this subject had 
 been debated in the Convocation of Canterbury, 
 and on the latter day Archbishop Cranmer had 
 treated with the Upper House on the advisa- 
 bility of the "people's learning and reciting in 
 " the vulgar tongue the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, 
 "and the Ten Commandments." And all this 
 leaves little doubt that the Primer was the 
 result of those debates. 
 
 On the 8th of July, 1546, King Henry 
 VIII. 's last Proclamation connected with re- 
 ligion was published. It was directed against 
 Wiclif's, Tyndale's, and Coverdale's translations 
 of the Scriptures ; and also against some other 
 books containing matter contrary to the Statute 
 
 ibid. Hi. 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. 1. But on the 3rd of 
 
 *77ft 
 
 February, 1542, N.S., the Bishops in the Can- 
 terbury Convocation had decided against those 
 earlier translations of Scripture, and joint Com- 
 mittees of both Houses of Convocation had sub- 
 sequently been appointed for amending them. 
 The intention, therefore, of this Proclamation
 
 PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 101 
 
 was to enforce the use of such a translation only sovereign: 
 as had proper authority. And, as regards the K ' H 
 
 VIZI. 
 
 books referred to in this Proclamation, the I53 i~ 
 language of the Act invoked plainly specifies 
 that they were such as impugned the established 
 religion, or were contrary to the previous Pro- 
 clamation on the subject. And that Proclama- Core. M. B, 
 tion, before mentioned, was issued at the express 
 request of the Convocation, made on the 19th strype's 
 
 Cramner, 
 
 01 December, 1534. P. 24. 
 
 Now, from the date of the Synodical discharge 
 of the Papal Supremacy by our Provincial 
 Synods in 1534 down to the death of King 
 Henry VIII., the foregoing list contains the 
 principal Civil Acts which touched religious 
 faith and practice. And if any patient reader 
 has been so persevering as to peruse the matter 
 contained in it he will see good reason to 
 be convinced that on such occasions the Acts 
 of our Convocations preceded those of the Civil 
 power; that Eoyal Proclamations were only 
 the embodiment of preceding Convocational 
 determinations; and that Acts of Parliament 
 were merely the Civil authority conceded to 
 antecedent Convocational Decrees. 
 
 As matter of fact, we have King Henry VIII.'s 
 own testimony on this head. In his commis- 
 sional letter of business to the united Convoca- 
 tions of Canterbury and York, in London, July 6, 
 1540, these words occur: "We, who are wont
 
 102 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 2. 
 
 Metro- "to adopt your judgment in the other more 
 
 cran^TeV, " weighty matters of this English Church which 
 
 Hoigate. a ff ec t discipline and religion, have thought fit 
 
 Bumet's to take care that explanation and communi- 
 
 Hist. Re- 
 form. Eec. cation should be made to you, so that what 
 
 in loco. 
 
 "you may have decreed to be lawful by the 
 " laws of God We may, by the authority of our 
 " whole Church, venture lawfully to do and carry 
 " out." The testimony of Jewell in his " Apology" 
 is to the same effect [See "Apol." pp. 115, 138; 
 also"Eecapitulated,"p. 153. London, 1852]. This 
 matter, finally, may be summed up in the words 
 of the Church historian Fuller, an author not pecu- 
 liarly favourable to Ecclesiastical authority, but 
 Church who yet writes as follows : " Upon serious con- 
 Bk. v. " sideration," are his words, " it will appear that 
 "there was nothing done in the Eeformation 
 " of religion save what was acted by the Clergy 
 " in their Convocations, or grounded upon some 
 " act of theirs precedent to it, with the advice, 
 "counsel, and consent of the Bishops and most 
 " eminent Churchmen, confirmed on the postfact, 
 "and not otherwise, by the Civil sanction, ac- 
 " cording to the usage of the best and happiest 
 " times of Christianity."
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 103 
 
 III. 
 
 THE REFORMATION COMPLETED BY CONVO- 
 CATIONAL ACTION. 
 
 HAVING traced the history of the inauguration sovereign: 
 and promotion of the Keformation from 1534 to " viT" 
 the end of the reign of King Henry VIII., it is 1547 - 
 time now to turn attention to the completion of 
 that movement. This completion was effected 
 by seven several events, which shall be here 
 presented in their chronological order. 
 
 (l) The Synodical Kestoration of the Cup to Seven 
 the Laity in Holy Communion. (2) The Compila- which 
 tion of a Liturgical Office for the Administration the Re- 
 of the "Holy Communion in the English Tongue, 
 " under both Kinds, of Bread and Wine." (3) The 
 Synodical Abrogation of the Coelibacy of the 
 Clergy. (4) The Compilation and Synodical 
 Authorization of the First English "Book of 
 " Common Prayer." (5) The Keview of that 
 Book, and the Synodical Authorization of the 
 Second English " Book of Common Prayer." 
 (6) The Synodical Authorization of the 42 
 "Articles of Keligion" of 1552-3. (7) The Sy- 
 nodical Authorization of the 39 "Articles of 
 "Religion" of 1562-3. Each of these seven 
 events shall be treated of in order, and in each
 
 104 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- will be found Convocational authority primarily 
 cranmer, and fully exercised. 
 
 Holgate - (1) The first event under this head to be 
 5 e the r cu ion cons idered is the return to primitive practice 
 to the i n ordering the administration of the Holy 
 Communion in both kinds. On Nov. 30, 1547, 
 an ordinance received from Archbishop Cranmer, 
 which had been promoted among the Bishops 
 of the Upper House, was read in the Lower 
 House of the Canterbury Convocation, for the 
 receiving of the Body of our Lord under both 
 kinds. It there received some signatures; and 
 in the following session, Dec. 2, a Synodical 
 Act on this point was carried without a dis- 
 Conc. M. B. sentient voice. " This session, all this whole 
 "session, in number sixty-four, by their mouths 
 "did approve the proposition made in the last 
 "session of taking the Lord's Body in both 
 " kinds, ' nullo reclamante.' " 
 
 Thus this ordinance received first and full 
 Synodical sanction ; and on the very next day, 
 Dec. 3, a Bill brought into the House of 
 Atterb. Lords by Archbishop Cranmer was read a 
 !' " second time, which subsequently passed into 
 the Act 1 Ed. VI. c. 1, in which it was enacted 
 that the Communion should be administered in 
 both kinds. Never was a more distinct proof 
 that Synodical decisions at this period of our 
 national history preceded Civil ratifications in 
 matters of religion than this event supplies.
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 105 
 
 We have indeed been assured by a modern 
 writer of some celebrity, that " Act of Parlia- "J^If" 
 "ment in 1547 alone ordered the giving of the 
 " Cup to the laity." How false such an assertion 
 is our national records [to say nothing of trust- 
 worthy historians, as Strype and Collier] abun- 
 dantly prove. King Edward VI. himself had a 
 much truer conception of the exigencies of the 
 case. In his Proclamation, issued about this time, 
 that King forbids all contentions on the subject, 
 " until such tyme as the King's Majesty, by th' Cone. M. B. 
 
 iv 19 
 
 "advice of his higher Council and the Clergy of 
 " this Eealme, shall define, declare, and set forthe 
 "an open doctrin thereof." It may also be 
 observed that in the Public Kecord Office there 
 is a letter from the Privy Council to the Bishops, 
 dated March 15, 1548, requesting them to direct 
 the Clergy to administer the Communion in both 
 kinds. This letter of the Council succeeded the 
 Synodical Decree in Convocation by rather more 
 than three months, another proof of the point 
 before us. 
 
 (2) Consequently upon the above Synodical compilation 
 decision, as ratified by the Civil Legislature, that 
 
 the Communion should be administered in both 
 kinds, measures were taken, with the Koyal 
 sanction, for the preparation of an Office for 
 the purpose. The work was entrusted to a 
 Committee of twenty-four persons, and that 
 Committee was composed entirely and exclu-
 
 106 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- sively of members of the Convocations of 
 Canterbury and York, an important fact which 
 
 g enera i}y been overlooked. This is manifest 
 from the styles and titles of the names as given 
 in common histories, with the exception of two, 
 i. e. Robertson and Redmayn. But Robertson 
 was a member of the Canterbury Convocation, 
 
 / 
 
 as being Archdeacon of Leicester, a fact which 
 may be learned from Sparrow's " Rationale," 
 p. 136. And that Redmayn was also a member 
 is plain, from the fact that he is represented as 
 
 Cone. M. B. having delivered his opinion in writing about 
 this time on the subject of the ccelibacy of the 
 Clergy, because he was not in his place in 
 Convocation at the time when that question was 
 debated. Thus it is plain that this Committee 
 for compiling the first English Communion 
 Service was a joint Committee selected from 
 the two Convocations of Canterbury and York. 
 So unfounded is a fallacious and prevalent 
 notion that it was merely an ordinary Royal 
 Commission selected at large. That the reader 
 may satisfy himself on this point without doubt, 
 a list of the names of this Committee is here 
 given : 
 
 Coil. Ecci. i. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Cran- 
 
 216-s. ' mer). 
 
 2. Bishop of London (Bonner). 
 
 3. Bishop of Bristol (Bush). 
 
 4. Bishop of Chichester (Day).
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 107 
 
 5. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (Samp- sovereign: 
 
 \ K. Edw.VI. 
 
 S0n )' 1548. 
 
 6. Bishop of Ely (Goodrich). 
 
 7. Bishop of Hereford (Skyp). 
 
 8. Bishop of Lincoln (Holbeach). 
 
 9. Bishop of Norwich (Rugg. al. Bepps). 
 
 10. Bishop of Kochester (Bidley). 
 
 11. Bishop of Salisbury (Salcot al. Capon). 
 
 12. Bishop of St. Asaph (Purfew al. Warton). 
 
 13. Bishop of St. David's (Barlow). 
 
 14. Bishop of Westminster (Thirlby). 
 
 15. Bishop of Worcester (Heath). 
 
 With the foregoing Prelates of the Canterbury 
 Convocation were joined from the York Convo- 
 cation these, viz. : 
 
 16. The Metropolitan (Holgate). 
 
 17. Bishop of Durham (Tunstall). 
 
 18. Bishop of Carlisle (Aldrich). 
 
 With the above Prelates there were associated 
 in this Committee the following members of 
 the Lower House of the Canterbury Convo- 
 cation : 
 
 19. Taylour (Dean of Lincoln, and Prolocutor 
 
 of the Canterbury Convocation). 
 
 20. Cox (Dean of Ch. Ch.). 
 
 21. Heynes (Dean of Exeter). 
 
 22. May (Dean of St. Paul's). 
 
 23. Bedmayn (Master of Trinity College, 
 
 Cambridge). 
 
 24. Robertson (Archdeacon of Leicester).
 
 108 ACTS OF THE CHTJECH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- As before said, nothing can be clearer than 
 
 politans : 
 
 cranmer, that this was a joint Committee, selected from 
 Hoigate. Convocations of Canterbury and York. 
 
 The Committee met in due course, to "consult 
 P. 57. " about one uniform Order for administering the 
 " Holy Communion in the English tongue, under 
 "both kinds, of bread and wine." They pro- 
 Coii. Ecci. ceeded tenderly in their work, being unwilling 
 
 Hist. v. " 
 
 247 seq. needlessly to offend those of the Koman per- 
 suasion. It was therefore arranged that the 
 older Office should be used in the Latin tongue 
 up to the point where the celebrant received 
 the Communion himself. A new portion was 
 there added in English, beginning with an 
 Exhortation [in effect the same as the second 
 of those now existing in our present Prayer 
 Book], and containing the Invitation, the General 
 Confession, the Absolution, the Comfortable Sen- 
 tences, the Prayer of Humble Access, the form 
 of the distribution of the elements to the people, 
 together with a dismissal in the peace of God. 
 A rubric was also added respecting the bread, 
 and another for consecrating more wine, if 
 needful. This Order of the Communion was 
 published on March 8, 1548, N.S., together with 
 the King's Proclamation, giving Civil sanction 
 for its use. 
 
 Thus, by a formal Synodical Act in the first 
 place, there was restored to the Church of 
 England the primitive practice of Communion
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 109 
 
 in both kinds ; and, in the second place, an sovereign: 
 Office for the purpose was prepared by a joint "Jjjj* 1 " 
 Committee, selected exclusively from the two 
 Convocations of Canterbury and York. 
 
 This Synodical emancipation of this Church 
 from the comparatively modern corruption of 
 denying the Cup to the laity, is an era in her 
 history which calls for thankfulness. The inno- 
 vation of half Communion was of comparatively Bmg. Ant. 
 recent date, and its rejection by the authority c . Vi. 27. 
 of the English Church bears her testimony 
 against one of the strangest abuses of the 
 Church of Kome. The Christian laity were not 
 generally denied their right to a participation in 
 " the Communion of the Blood of Christ " until 
 after the Chapter defining the Koman doctrine Landon's 
 
 *-' * 
 
 of transubstantiation was presented by Pope p . 2*95. 
 Innocent III., at the Lateran Council, A.D. 1215. 
 
 William the Conqueror caused his army to 
 communicate in both kinds, according to the p . 30. 
 usage of his time, immediately before the battle 
 of Hastings, A.D. 1066. Thomas Aquinas, about 
 A.D. 1260, says that in his time the Cup was ibid. p. 50. 
 not given to the people in some Churches, and 
 by thus limiting the practice his evidence 
 proves that the general practice of the Western 
 Church was then otherwise. It was not till the 
 Thirteenth Session of the Council of Constance, 
 begun A.D. 1414, that this abuse finally passed 
 into a Synodical Decree of the Koman Church.
 
 110 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- Meanwhile, all history proves how modern this 
 cranmcr', innovation comparatively is, and how little of 
 Hoigate. p r i m itive practice, or ancient authority, can be 
 
 pleaded for its adoption. 
 
 Abrogation (s) The third important event, under the pre- 
 Cceiibacy of sent head to be considered, is the Abrogation of the 
 lergy> Ccelibacy of the Clergy. On Dec. 17, 1547, the 
 following resolution was submitted to the Lower 
 Cone. M. B. House of the Convocation of Canterbury : " That 
 stiype's " all such Canons, Laws, Statutes, Decrees, Usages, 
 P . r i5e! er ' " and Customs, heretofore made, had, or used, 
 "that forbid any person to contract matrimony, 
 "or condemn matrimony already contracted by 
 " any person, for any vow or promise, of priest- 
 " hood, chastity, or widowhood, shall henceforth 
 " cease, be utterly void, and of none effect." To 
 this resolution fifty-three members subscribed in 
 the affirmative, and twenty-two in the negative. 
 Thus the compulsory ccelibacy of the Clergy was 
 synodically abrogated by a majority of more 
 than two-thirds of the whole number voting. 
 This matter, however, slept for a while, so far 
 as Civil ratification was concerned, for though a 
 Bill on the subject was brought into Parliament 
 and carried in the Commons, it lay unfinished 
 in the Lords for want of time, their session 
 ending a few days after the subject was sub- 
 mitted to their deliberations. 
 
 However, in the following year, 1548, the for- 
 mer Synodical decision was again " debated and
 
 COMPLETION OF THE KEFOKMATION. Ill 
 
 " earnestly sifted in the Convocation." On this sovereign: 
 
 .Edw.V 
 1548. 
 
 second occasion, a greater number of the Lower K - Edw - VI - 
 
 House than before voted for the relaxation of 
 
 the ccelibacy of the Clergy. The former number strype's 
 
 ecc , .. J %,, Mem.Vol.ii. 
 
 of mty-three supporters 01 the measure was now p. 134. 
 increased to seventy ; and most of the Bishops 
 in the Upper House also subscribed a document 
 in favour of annulling the restraint. In accord- 
 ance with this second Sy nodical decision on the 
 matter, the Statute [2 & 3 Ed. VI. 21] was 
 enacted, giving Civil force to the Convocational 
 Act. Thus again we see Civil ratification ac- 
 corded to antecedent Synodical determinations, 
 and indeed in this Statute the Convocational 
 decision on the subject-matter is specially 
 recited. 
 
 As regards this Act of Parliament last men- 
 tioned, and its successor on the same subject 
 [5 & 6 Ed. VI. 12], that learned historian 
 Jeremy Collier, an accomplished master of subtle 
 humour, thinks fit to be somewhat merry. While 
 generally commending the object of the Statutes, 
 his view seems to be that it was, to say the least, 
 odd management on the part of Parliament to 
 dispossess the religious, as it had done, of a great 
 part of their incomes, and then to legalize an 
 increase of their expenditure. " When," he Bed. Hist, 
 writes, "the tithes were taken away in many 
 " places, and the parish duties lessened, they 
 " had the freedom of engaging in a more expen-
 
 112 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- " sive way of living. When the revenues were 
 
 cranmer," " cu ^ short, it was at their choice to increase 
 
 Hoigate. "their charge; they had the opportunity of 
 
 " wanting more things, when the means of pro- 
 
 " curing them were more slender than ever. 
 
 " Thus they had liberty without much property. 
 
 " They might, if they pleased, be legally undone 
 
 " and starve by Act of Parliament." 
 
 And this author's complaint of the extent to 
 which the religious had been despoiled seems 
 noway unfounded, considering that, by the 
 management of the last Sovereign and his 
 Bib. Cott. sycophant Parliaments and courtiers, the abbeys 
 38i. ' in England and Wales which had been sup- 
 pressed and their estates mostly confiscated to 
 Hume, private uses, amounted to 645, to which must 
 
 Hist. Eng. 1111 i i i 
 
 ch. xxxi. be added 110 hospitals, 2,374 chantries, and 90 
 colleges. The whole yearly revenue of these esta- 
 blishments is computed to have been ,161,000 ; 
 and, besides this, the sums realised upon the stock 
 
 Coil. Ecci. on the farms, the timber, and other materials, 
 furniture, plate, church ornaments, jewels, and 
 bells, must have mounted to an almost incalcul- 
 able sum. Nor should it be forgotten, consider- 
 ing all the circumstances connected with these 
 valuations, that these revenues from land, upon 
 modern computations and according to present 
 management, would probably rise nearly twenty- 
 fold. While courtiers were thus enriched by the 
 spoil of the religious, it may also be remembered
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 113 
 
 that these were not the only sufferers. Before 
 this pillage, the poor were relieved or maintained * 
 by the religious houses. After their revenues 
 had been transferred to private pockets, it soon 
 became necessary to establish a rate on all real 
 property for the relief of the poor. That has 
 in our time amounted to fourteen millions per 
 annum. So that, however sensibly private 
 families may have been enriched by these 
 managements, it is pretty clear that the nation 
 cannot feel any high regard for the memory of 
 those who were engaged in them, or persuade 
 itself that public interests were greatly promoted 
 by such sacrilege. These proceedings were cer- 
 tainly no sign of zeal for promoting religion, nor 
 any recommendation of such reformers to a 
 nation's gratitude or respect 
 
 "And yet this act, to varnish o'er the shame 
 " Of sacrilege, must bear Devotion's name." 
 
 DENHAM : Cooper's Hill. 
 
 (4) The fourth event, and one of an important First 
 character, to be considered under this head, took "Book of 
 
 ., , . .-. -1 i* Common 
 
 place in the year 1548, and is the compilation p raye r." 
 and authorization of the First Keformed Prayer 
 Book of Edward Vlth's reign. The origina- 
 tion, prosecution, and completion of this work 
 must be certainly attributed to Convocational 
 
 V 
 
 action. 
 
 It should be remembered that, more than six 
 years before the time now under consideration, 
 
 Q
 
 114 ACTS OP THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- i.e. on Feb. 24, 1542, N. S., Archbishop Cranmer 
 cranmeri na( l moved in the Upper House of the Canter- 
 Hoigate. Convocation that " Portuises, Missals, and 
 
 '' "other Service Books should be reformed." In 
 . the following year this matter was again pressed 
 
 upon the attention of the Synod. For on Feb. 
 21, 1543, N. S., the Archbishop again suggested 
 an examination and correction of all " Mass 
 " books, Antiphoners, and Portuises," and the 
 desirableness of framing public services " out of 
 "the Scripture and other authentic doctors." 
 Upon this suggestion an order was made that 
 the revision of the Service Books should be 
 committed to Goodrich, Bishop of Ely, and the 
 Bishop of Sarum, with six members to be chosen 
 by the Lower House. That House, however, 
 waived the privilege of appointment, and left 
 the matter in the hands of the Bishops. In 
 the meanwhile the business of a reform in the 
 services was carried on actively and with- 
 out delay, the Convocation having in the same 
 session ordered that a chapter of the Old or 
 New Testament should be read in English 
 during Divine Service, and having also devoted 
 two succeeding sessions to the prosecution of 
 the same subject. That those to whom the 
 matter was entrusted had now made consider- 
 able progress in reforming the Service Books 
 is plain from the contents of a petition sent up 
 last year [Nov. 22, 1547] to the Archbishop
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 115 
 
 from the Lower House of Canterbury. It ran sovereign: 
 as follows : " That the work of the Bishops and "^J 1 ' 
 " others, who, by the command of Convocation, have Conc M B 
 " laboured in examining, reforming, and publish- iv - 15 - 
 " ing the Divine Service, may be produced and laid 
 " before the examination of this House." As the 
 reform of Divine Offices had been entrusted to 
 a Committee of the Convocation of Canterburv, 
 
 / * 
 
 as above stated, on Feb. 21, 1543, N. S., and as the 
 Lower House had now given an impulse to the 
 enterprize by their late petition [Nov. 22, 1547], 
 measures were taken that the desired event, the 
 completion and publication of a Eeformed Service 
 Book, might be brought to a speedy issue " the Rights, &c. 
 " business being continued in the same method," 
 to use Atterbury's words on the subject, "into 
 " which the Convocation had formerly put it." 
 
 A body of Divines was therefore now selected 
 and fortified by Koyal authority for the purpose. 
 This was a smaller Committee than that which 
 had just settled the " Order of the Communion." 
 That Committee consisted of twenty-four per- 
 sons, as above stated, and was composed of 
 members of both Convocations. The Committee 
 now under consideration consisted of thirteen 
 persons only, and was selected solely from the 
 Convocation of Canterbury. But on comparison 
 of the two lists given, it will be seen that all 
 those engaged in the second Committee had 
 served on the first. The names of members of
 
 Metro- 
 
 116 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 the second Committee for compiling a Keformed 
 cranmer', Prayer Book are as follows : 
 Hoisate. i Archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer). 
 
 2. Bishop of Chichester (Day). 
 
 3. Bishop of Ely (Goodrich). 
 
 4. Bishop of Hereford (Skyp). 
 
 5. Bishop of Lincoln (Holbeach). 
 
 6. Bishop of Kochester (Kidley). 
 
 7. Bishop of Westminster (Thirlby). 
 
 8. Dr. Cox (Dean of Ch. Ch.). . 
 
 9. Dr. Heynes (Dean of Exeter). 
 
 10. Dr. May (Dean of St. Paul's). 
 
 11. Kedmayn (Master of Trinity College, Cam- 
 
 bridge). 
 
 12. Kobertson (Archdeacon of Leicester). 
 
 13. Taylour (Dean of Lincoln, and Prolocutor 
 
 of the Canterbury Convocation). 
 
 The Committee met on Sept. 1, 1548. Their 
 
 object was to compile an Order for Morning and 
 
 Evening Public Prayer, together with forms for 
 
 celebrating other religious offices in conformity 
 
 Coil. Ecci. with the faith of the early Church. The "Uses" 
 
 272-6. ' of Sarum, York, Bangor, and Lincoln, as well as 
 
 diversities in some parts of Divine Service, were 
 
 to be discontinued, and uniform offices to be pro- 
 
 vided for the whole kingdom. The Committee 
 
 laid down these rules for their own guidance: 
 
 that nothing should be changed for the sake of 
 
 novelty; that their work should be grounded 
 
 on the Word of God, and fashioned according
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 117 
 
 to the best precedents of the Primitive Church, sovereign: 
 Calvin, it is said, who thought himself charged "gj^ 1 
 with the superintendence of the faith of Chris- He Hn 
 tendom, offered his services on this occasion ~ Eccl - Vind - 
 
 p. 69. 
 
 to Cranmer ; but the Archbishop at this time 
 was too wise to accept them, and happily 
 declined the offer. Had he availed him- 
 self of it, we should doubtless have had some 
 baser metal introduced into the composition ; 
 but, as Cranmer refused such aid, the work was 
 on this occasion saved from foreign alloy. 
 Martyr and Bucer were indeed about this time 
 invited to come hither to season our Universities, 
 but these foreigners did not arrive till this First 
 Book of Common Prayer was completed. 
 
 The Convocation records of the formal Sy- 
 nodical sanction of this First Keformed Praver 
 
 */ 
 
 Book are not forthcoming, as the fire of London 
 in 1666 unhappily consumed the Acts of the 
 Canterbury Synod. But the fact that the book 
 was formally and synodically sanctioned can 
 be positively proved by other evidence, and that 
 indisputable. 
 
 The first evidence to be produced is that of 
 King Edward the Vlth himself. In his letter 
 to Bishop Bonner, dated July 23, 1549, His 
 Majesty thus writes : " One uniform Order for Cone. M. B. 
 " Common Prayer and Administration of the 
 " Sacraments hath been and is most godly set 
 " forth, not only by the common agreement and
 
 118 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- " full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the 
 cranmer', " late session of our late Parliament, but also 
 negate. b y the like assent O f the Bishops in the said 
 
 " Parliament, and of all other the learned men of 
 " this our Realm, in iJieir Convocations and Synods 
 " Provincial" 
 
 His Majesty also gave a second assurance to 
 the same eifect in his answer to a petition of 
 the Devonshire men, who were displeased at the 
 new Service Book, and indeed had gone so far 
 as to rise in insurrection, being moved to great 
 indignation on the subject. In his reply to 
 these malcontents his words were as follows : 
 Atterbury, "Whatever is contained in our book, either 
 P*i99.' " "for Baptism, Sacrament, Mass, Confirmation, 
 "and Service of the Church, is by our Parlia- 
 "ment established, ly the whole Clergy agreed, 
 " yea, ly the Bishops of the Realm devised, by God's 
 " Word confirmed." 
 
 To prove that this First Prayer Book of 
 Edward Vlth's reign was synodically autho- 
 rized, the next evidence to be produced is an 
 order of His Majesty's Council by which Dr. 
 Hopkins, the Lady Mary's [afterwards Queen 
 Mary] Chaplain, was instructed to acquaint that 
 Princess with the insufficiency of her reasons 
 for demurring to the Reformed Liturgy. The 
 ibid. Council bid him to use these words : " The fault 
 " is great in any subject to disallow a law of 
 "the King, a law of the Realm by long study,
 
 COMPLETION OF THE KEFOEMATION. 119 
 
 "free disputation, and uniform determination of sovereign: 
 "the whole Clergy, consulted, debated, concluded." K>Ed ^ vl 
 
 A second item of evidence contributed by His 
 Majesty's Council on this head is to be found in 
 a letter indited by them to the Lady Mary her- 
 self, on the subject of her Chaplain's saying Mass 
 in a manner not consistent with the Keformed 
 Communion Office. That letter declares that 
 such -a proceeding: is " a contempt of the Ecclesias- Atterbmy, 
 
 . Eights, &c. 
 
 " tical orders of the Church of England." Now if p. 202. 
 the First Prayer Book of this reign, which in- 
 cluded a Keformed Communion Service, had 
 not been established regularly by proper Sy- 
 nodical authority, we must here pay His Ma- 
 jesty's Council the ill compliment of believing 
 from their expressed language that they lay 
 under an incapacity of distinguishing between 
 Ecclesiastical and Civil sanctions a vulgar fail- 
 ing far less common in those times than in these 
 or we must bear more hardly on their memory 
 by supposing that though cognizant of so patent 
 a distinction, they yet wilfully misstated the facts 
 of the case in hand. 
 
 But we have not only the foregoing evidence 
 of King Edward VI. on two occasions, and of his 
 Council on two occasions also, but we have fur- 
 ther the evidence of two Archbishops that the 
 Prayer Book before us was synodically autho- 
 rized. Archbishop Bancroft, who was born be- 
 fore this book was compiled and promulged, thus
 
 120 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 8. 
 
 Metro- writes : "The first Liturgy set forth in the begin- 
 . 
 
 cranmer, " ning of King Edward's reign was carefully com- 
 Hoigate. (( pjj e( j an ^ confirmed ly a Synod." 
 
 Hut vS* 1 ' ^ r> George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury 
 277 - ? next in succession, also contributes the clearest 
 Mem. ii. evidence on this subject. Thus he wrote : " The 
 " religion which was then and is now established 
 "in England is drawn out of the fountains of 
 " the Word of God, and from the purest orders 
 "of the Primitive Church, which for the or- 
 " dinary exercise thereof, when it had been col- 
 "lected into the Book of Common Prayer by 
 "the pains and labour of many learned men 
 "and of mature judgment, it was afterwards 
 " confirmed by the Upper and Lower House. Yet 
 "not so but that the more material points were 
 " disputed and debated in the Convocation House ly 
 " men of both parties. . . . And then, it being in- 
 " tended to add to Ecclesiastical decision the cor- 
 " roboration of Civil Government, according to the 
 " ancient custom of this kingdom (as appeareth 
 " by records from the time of King Edward III.), 
 " the Parliament, which is the most honourable 
 " Court of Christendom, did ratify the same." 
 
 One more witness must be produced, the 
 
 learned and accurate historian Strype, whose 
 
 language is plain on the point before us. Thus 
 
 ibid, and he wrote : " The consideration and preparation 
 
 i. 133. 
 
 " of this Book of Common Prayer, together with 
 "other matters in religion, was committed first
 
 1549. 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 121 
 
 " of all to divers learned Divines, as was shewn sovereign: 
 "before, and what these had concluded upon was K<Bdw - VI - 
 " offered the Convocation; and after all this the 
 " Parliament approved it, and gave it its ratifi- 
 " cation." 
 
 Now, notwithstanding the disabling circum- 
 stance of the loss of the Convocation Registers, 
 we thus have the evidence of King Edward VI. 
 on two occasions, of his Council on two occasions, 
 of two Archbishops, and of a most accurate his- 
 torian, that this First Prayer Book of King Ed- 
 ward the Vlth's reign was synodically authorized 
 in the most formal manner imaginable. The 
 Act which gave Civil authoritv to this book 
 
 > ** 
 
 [2 & 3 Ed. VI. l] takes notice that it was 
 set forth by " the aid of the Holy Ghost," enjoin- 
 ing upon the authorities of cathedral and parish 
 churches the duty of providing copies for use 
 before Whitsuntide, 1549, and of using the book 
 within three weeks after such copies were 
 obtained. The book was published in March, 
 1549, N.S., and was used in some of the London 
 churches on Easter Day, which in that year fell 
 on April 21. And here we have another con- 
 spicuous instance that at this period of our 
 country's history Civil ratifications on Spiritual 
 matters were subsequent to Synodical determi- 
 nations, and consequent upon them. 
 
 At this point it is pardonable to ask the reader 
 to make a pause, in order to make a reflection 
 
 R
 
 122 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- and to take a brief retrospect. The reflection 
 cranmer, i g ; that the very heart's core of the Reformation 
 Hoigate. Q k e Q] lurc ] 1 o j] n gl ail( J J g found in these four 
 
 particulars: (l) The Rejection of the Papal Su- 
 premacy. (2) The Restoration of the Commu- 
 nion in both kinds. (3) The Abrogation of the 
 Ccelibacy of the Clergy. (4) The Compilation 
 and Promulgation of a Reformed English Prayer 
 Book. The retrospect is this: that these four 
 particulars were originated, carried forward, and 
 concluded, as above shewn, by the action of 
 our Convocations, synodically, and in accord- 
 ance with the principles inherited from the 
 Primitive Church. 
 Second (5) The fifth event to be considered here is 
 
 English V ' 
 
 "Book of the compilation of the Second Book of Common 
 Prayer." Prayer. The Prayer Book of 1549 had not 
 long been in use when some of the more un- 
 easy spirits of the day pressed for a revision 
 of that work. These designs were pressed on 
 Hist. Ref. "by agents in Court," as Heylin tells us, "the 
 
 p. 107. J . . . 
 
 "country, and the Universities." Fuel was 
 added to this flaming desire for revision by 
 those foreigners, Peter Martyr and Bucer, who 
 had lately arrived in this country, though it is 
 noway clear why the authorities of the English 
 Church should have indebted themselves for ad- 
 vice to those who did not belong to her. 
 Collier, However, Archbishop Cranmer applied to 
 
 v. 397. Bucer for his thoughts on the subject. Now
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 123 
 
 Bucer did not understand the English language sovereign: 
 sufficiently for the purpose in hand; and this *'*g^ VI ' 
 
 at first view appears a considerable disquali- 
 
 fication for his interference. The volume was, 
 however, translated for his information into 
 Latin, by one Aless, a Scotchman. Bucer being 
 thus qualified, as he supposed himself, for the 
 undertaking, wrote to the Archbishop at length. 
 At the outset of his communication he gave 
 this remarkable commendation to the book, de- 
 claring that " upon perusal of the Service Book collier, 
 " he thanked God Almighty for giving the Eng- T . 397. ' 
 "lish grace to reform their ceremonies to that 
 " degree of purity ; and that he found nothing 
 " but what was either taken out of the Word of 
 " God, or at least not contrary to it, provided 
 "it was fairly interpreted." Now, if the First 
 Prayer Book was in this commendable state, 
 according to Bucer's own shewing, it seems, to 
 say the least, very odd that he should have 
 begrudged no pains to recommend alterations, 
 for which purpose he lengthened out his stric- 
 tures to no less than twenty-eight chapters. 
 And it has been thought that his animadver- 
 sions were somewhat overstrained, and that his 
 mind was overcharged with scruples. Nor do 
 his remarks in the body of his discourse agree 
 tolerably with the concessions made at its 
 beginning. Notwithstanding this, however, ibid. 
 Peter Martyr, as appears from a correspon-
 
 124 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- dence which passed between them, agreed with 
 
 politaus: . . 
 Cranmer, him 
 
 Hoigate. There was still another foreigner, of a far 
 more fiery disposition than either of those last 
 mentioned, who did his best to stir up a con- 
 flagration. One who deemed himself wiser than 
 the ancients, more authoritative than the Fathers 
 of the Primitive Church, and who, from never 
 having the slightest misgiving as to the correct- 
 ness of his own singular views, deemed himself 
 qualified " to dictate religion to all Christendom," 
 notwithstanding the horribly immoral doctrines 
 which he taught, shortly condensed in that his- 
 torical traditional exhortation to his disciples, 
 " Pecca fortiter." That he should contribute very 
 combustible materials on this occasion is no won- 
 der, considering that he did not hesitate to em- 
 ploy the material appliances of fire and faggot for 
 the correction of such as declined to accept his 
 frantic singularities. This foreigner was Calvin, 
 
 P. 107. who in his writings at this time took unwarrant- 
 able freedoms in making use of very coarse 
 and offensive language with reference to the 
 First Reformed Prayer Book. 
 
 In consequence of this agitation, the question 
 
 of a revision of the book was brought forward 
 
 in Convocation in the year 1550. The first 
 
 debate on the subject among the Prelates of 
 
 Collier, the Upper House, so far as records inform us, 
 
 v. 435. ' referred specially to two points : (l) What holi-
 
 K.Edw.VI. 
 155O. 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE EEFOEMATION. 125 
 
 days in the Calendar should be retained, and sovereign: 
 which should be abrogated. (2) The form of 
 words to be used, and the manner to be adopted 
 in administering the Holy Eucharist. To a 
 communication from the Upper House the Lower 
 House returned answer " that they had not yet 
 " sufficiently considered of the points proposed, p/ioV. e 
 "but that they would give their Lordships 
 " some account thereof in the following session." 
 Their exact final answer is, unfortunately, not 
 on record ; but that some agreement was come 
 to seems proved by the evidence of Peter Mar- 
 tyr, who, writing in the early part of 1550, N.S., 
 states that " Archbishop Cranmer told him they Collier, 
 " had met about this business, and had con- T . 434. 
 " eluded on a great many alterations." 
 
 This second review of the Keformed Praver 
 
 t/ 
 
 Book was chiefly managed by Archbishop Cran- 
 mer, Eidley [at this time Bishop of London], and 
 some associated Divines, but who those were is 
 not certain. It is, however, believed by Fuller, 
 Heyiin, and Sparrow, that they were in the 
 main, if not wholly, the same Committee as that 
 which compiled the First Prayer Book. If such 
 is the case, the remarks above made as to the 
 Synodical character and composition of that 
 Committee will here also apply. This Com- 
 mittee, in September, 1551, brought their la- 
 bours to an end, with the exception of some 
 emendations which were subsequently to be
 
 126 ACTS OF THE OHUECH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- considered ; and, in the opinion of many people 
 Cramer', ^ U ^ Q we ^ qualified to judge, those labours no- 
 Hoigate. wav men( j e( j the original First English Prayer 
 Book, but rather the reverse. 
 
 The Canterbury Synod met on Oct. 14 and 
 Nov. 5 next ensuing [1551], and it looks very 
 much as if these meetings were called for the 
 special purpose of considering the foresaid emen- 
 dations with a view of having the whole work 
 ready for final confirmation by the Synod which 
 met acourse with Parliament in January next 
 following. The Convocation then meeting seems 
 to have held continuous sessions, but the records 
 Fuller, having been miserably kept, there is no evidence 
 
 Ch. Hist. J r ' 
 
 vii. 420. as to the final measures adopted at this moment 
 Examen. respecting the Second Keformed Prayer Book, 
 though it may fairly be presumed that those 
 sessions were devoted to the conclusion of so 
 important a matter. And this presumption is 
 fortified by the fact that in the preamble to the 
 Act of Uniformity [13 & 14 Car. II. 4] it is recited 
 that this book was "compiled by the reverend 
 " Bishops and Clergy." 
 
 But if the official record of the Synodical 
 authorization at this moment of the Second 
 Prayer Book is not forthcoming, yet it was 
 distinctly and unmistakeably so authorized 
 very shortly afterwards by the 35th Article of 
 1552-3, N.S., which, treating of this book and 
 the ordinal attached to it, declares that they
 
 COMPLETION OP THE KEFOEMATION. 127 
 
 " are godlie, and in no poincte repugnaunt to sovereign: 
 "the holsome doctrine of the Gospel, but agre- K ' Bdw ' VI ' 
 "able thereunto, ferthering and beautifying the 
 " same not a little, and therfore of al faithfull i. 31. 
 " membres of theChurche of Englande,and cheiflie 
 " of the ministers of the Worde, thei ought to be 
 " received and allowed with all readiness of minde 
 " and thankes geving, and to bee commended to 
 " the people of God." 
 
 (6) The sixth event here to be considered is the Forty-two 
 
 "Articles of 
 
 adoption of the " Forty-two Articles 01 1 552-3. At 
 this period it seemed good to the highest autho- 
 rities here in Church and State that definitions 
 on certain points of faith and discipline should 
 be promulged. Whether modern definitions on 
 such subjects, specially as touching belief, are 
 desirable or the reverse ; whether the cause of 
 religion in Christendom would not have been 
 better served if such instruments had never 
 seen the light, as, for instance, the Augsburg 
 Confession, the Helvetic Confession, the Nurem- 
 burg Confession, the Westminster Confession, 
 the Wurtemburg Confession, or the dogmas of 
 the Koman Curia in 1870; and whether the 
 Three Creeds of the Universal Church are not 
 sufficient svmbols of unitv for Christians, and, 
 
 */ * 
 
 when accepted, ample warrant for their claims 
 to the Sacraments and privileges of the Church 
 Catholic these are very grave questions ; but 
 it is beyond the present purpose to discuss
 
 128 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- them. Suffice here to say, that it seemed de- 
 sirable to our authorities to put forth " Articles 
 f Religion." The business here is to shew 
 that, such a course having been decided on, the 
 enterprize was carried out under proper Eccle- 
 siastical and Synodical authority. The history 
 of these Articles is briefly as follows : 
 
 strype's In the year 1551, Archbishop Cranmer under- 
 
 P. 272. ' took to frame a Book of Articles for the preser- 
 vation of peace and unity in the Church. The 
 Archbishop, in due course, delivered his draft 
 for approbation to his Suffragans, as is clear 
 from a letter addressed to him on May 2 of 
 the following year, 1552, by the Lords of the 
 Council. In this letter reference is made to the 
 
 ibid. Articles which were delivered last year to the 
 " Bishops." The Archbishop sent his answer to 
 the Lords of the Council, and in September, 
 1552, was engaged in putting the whole work 
 into shape, affixing titles to the Articles, and 
 making some additions. On the 19th of Sep- 
 tember, the Archbishop consulted by letter Sir 
 William Cecyl and Sir John Cheke, the former 
 being His Majesty's principal secretary, the latter 
 His Majesty's tutor, as to whether they should 
 lay the matter before the King, or whether the 
 Archbishop himself should open that business. 
 
 ibid. p. 273. The latter course was preferred. Cranmer him- 
 self delivered the Articles to the King, and His 
 Majesty returned them to the Archbishop on
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 129 
 
 Nov. 20, 1552, in order that they might receive sovereign: 
 
 fc.atw.vi 
 
 1658-3. 
 
 the last touches of his pen, and, as Collier K - Edw - vl 
 
 tells us, that "they might pass the Convo- 
 
 " cation " and so be published. The Archbishop Ecci. Hist. 
 
 made his last remarks upon them, and on the 
 
 2nd of March following, according to Wake, Present 
 
 " this Book of Articles was laid before Convo- p . 599. 
 
 "cation," and the result was "that the whole 
 
 "body agreed upon them and subscribed to 
 
 "them." And these statements of Collier and 
 
 Wake agree perfectly with the title of the 
 
 Articles themselves, which thus runs : "Arti- Card. Syn. 
 
 " des agreed on ty the Bishoppes and other learned 
 
 " menne in the Synode at London, in the yere 
 
 "of our Lorde Godde MDLIL" [0. S.], "for the 
 
 " avoiding of controversie in opinions, and the esta- 
 
 " Uishment of a godlie concorde in certaine matiers 
 
 " of religion." 
 
 With all this evidence before the world, it is 
 nothing short of very strange that doubts should 
 have been raised in some quarters as to the Sy- 
 nodical authorization of these Forty-two Articles 
 of 1552-3. One would have thought that their 
 very title had been conclusive on the point, 
 because the expression " the Synode at London " 
 would notoriously mean, in that age, Convocation, 
 as may be shewn from like expressions elsewhere 
 used. But further than this, there is ample 
 confirmatory evidence on the point. The Arti- 
 cles were promulged with Koyal authority ap-
 
 1 30 
 
 ACTS OP THE CHUECH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro, 
 
 cranmer,' 
 Hoigate. 
 
 Hist. Eef. 
 
 Card. Syn. 
 
 i. 5, note. 
 
 Wake, 
 
 State, 
 
 P. 599. 
 
 Atterb. 
 
 pended, and so pledged the King to the ve- 
 racity of the title of the code as above 
 gj ven . an( j were that untrue, then, in Hey- 
 lin's words on this subject, " a most pious and 
 "religious prince must needs be looked on as 
 " a wicked and most lewd impostor, in putting 
 "such a horrible cheat on all his subjects by 
 "fathering these Articles on the Convocation, 
 "which begat them not, nor ever gave consent 
 " unto them." 
 
 But not only is there thus the King's evidence 
 on the subject ; when the Articles were sent for 
 subscription to the University of Cambridge it 
 was particularly specified that they had been 
 concluded on in the Synod of London." Again. 
 
 * 
 
 in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, in 
 a dispute connected with the London Ministers, 
 
 L 
 
 the Synodical authority of these Articles was 
 admitted on all hands and by both parties ; 
 and this matter, having occurred so soon after 
 the promulgation of the documents in question, 
 must have found those engaged in discussion fully 
 possessed of all the facts needful for coming 
 to a true conclusion. And, lastly, we have the 
 evidence of the Synod which, in 1563, N.S., 
 reduced these Forty-two Articles to the present 
 tale of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church 
 of England. For in the session held Jan. 19 
 of that year, these Articles of 1553, N.S., are 
 specially designated as " Articles published in
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 131 
 
 " the Synod of London in the late reign of sovereign: 
 "King Edward VI." Q ' Mary< 
 
 1553- 
 
 During the following reign of Queen Mary 1558 - 
 it is plain that no true Provincial Synods or inten-up- 
 Convocations of the Church of England could Provincial 
 be convened, inasmuch as shortly after her ync 
 accession to the throne the two Metropolitans wamer'a 
 were committed to prison, eleven Diocesan ^ C ^ l8i ' 
 Bishops deprived or forced to resignation, and Co . u - E ? cl - 
 at least nine thousand, some authorities say 63-4. 
 twelve thousand, Clergy suffered the like fate. O f Great 
 
 The proper Provincial Synods of this Church p 
 being thus silenced, the Crown and the Par- 
 
 Church and 
 
 liament seized the opportunity to reform back- state 
 . p- 121 - 
 
 wards to a surprising degree, and took some 
 
 gigantic strides into the region of exploded error. 
 And it is worth observation, that under like 
 circumstances just a century afterwards, when 
 the voice of the Church in her Provincial 
 Synods was silenced, Oliver Cromwell and his 
 Parliament made an equally sensible retrogres- 
 sion, but in a worse direction still the 
 members of the House of Commons then swear- 
 ing, in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, to the 
 " Solemn League and Covenant " with hands up- 
 lifted to heaven ; and the Westminster Assembly, 
 that ricketty, ill-favoured offspring of Parliament, 
 promulging dogmas of faith to supersede by a 
 novel " Confession " the Christian Creeds of the 
 Church Universal. These were the blessings
 
 132 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- with which this nation was then favoured ; these 
 
 politans s 
 
 Parker, were events which in their results have left 
 Youug ' indelible stains on the character of this nation, 
 which ages cannot obliterate nor time bury in 
 oblivion. But more of this hereafter. And so 
 we pass on to the times of Queen Elizabeth. 
 Thirty-nine (?) The seventh event for consideration under 
 Religion." the present head is the Synodical authorization 
 of the Thirty-nine Articles of 1562-3. Au- 
 thentic records so indisputably prove that these 
 Articles of the Church of England were sy- 
 nodically authorized in due Canonical form that 
 for the present purpose it is unnecessary to dwell 
 long on the subject. The history of that event, 
 which on many accounts is one of interest to 
 English Church people, is shortly as follows. 
 Syn. Ang. The Synod which authorized those Articles 
 strype's assembled on Wednesday, Jan. 13, 1563, N.S., 
 and at St. Paul's Cathedral. Archbishop Parker 
 presided. Mr. William Daye, B.D., Provost of 
 Eton, preached the Latin Sermon, on the text, 
 "Feed the flock of God which is among you," 
 &c. [l Pet. v. 2]. The Holy Communion was 
 administered by Grindal, Bishop of London ; and 
 Dr. Alexander Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's, was 
 elected Prolocutor. And it is observable that 
 on this occasion the Metropolitan of York, to- 
 gether with the Bishops of Durham and Chester, 
 attended, so that the assembly assumed the cha- 
 racter of a Synod of the Exarchate.
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 133 
 
 In the fourth session, held Jan. 19, the sovereign: 
 business of a review of the Fortv-two Articles Q \,S?*" 
 
 / DGbH. 
 
 of 1552-3 was begun in the Upper House, and 1S6a ~ 3 - 
 on the same day a report was brought up Syn. Ang. 
 by the Prolocutor of the Lower House, stating P< 
 that a Committee had been there appointed, 
 and that copies of the last-named Articles 
 had been supplied to it, with a view to re- 
 construction and consideration by the whole 
 House. On the following day the Upper House 
 was engaged on the copy submitted to it, and 
 after three more sessions devoted to the dis- 
 cussion, the body of Articles, i.e. the Thirty-nine 
 now received by the Church of England, was 
 agreed to unanimously, and there subscribed by 
 Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, together with 
 eighteen Diocesan Bishops of the Southern 
 Province, and by Young, the Metropolitan of 
 York, together with the Bishops of Durham and 
 Chester, from the Northern. The document was Cone. M. B. 
 
 iv. 287-8. 
 
 transmitted to the Lower House, and on the 
 5th of February following was returned to the 
 Upper, bearing upwards of one hundred signa- 
 tures of the Lower Clergy, a number which was 
 increased by a large list of subscribers presented 
 to their Lordships on Feb. 10. The Thirty- 
 nine Articles were thus synodically authorized 
 duly in the proper Canonical manner, and were 
 published with this title : "Articles whereupon it Card. Syn. 
 " was agreed ty the Archbishoppes and Bishops of
 
 134: ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part II. 3. 
 
 Metro- " both the Provinces and the whole Clearqie, in the 
 
 politans : 
 
 Parker, " Convocation holden at London in the yere of our 
 
 Young'. 
 
 "Lorde God MDLXIL" [O.S.], "according to the 
 " computation of the Churche of Englande, for the 
 " auoydyng of the diversities of opinions, and for 
 " the stablishying of consent touchyng true religion. 
 " Put foorth by the Queenes aucthoritie." 
 York assent A few words musjb be added as regards the 
 "Thirty- assent of the Lower House of York to these 
 cies." Articles. It appears from the " Concilia Mag. 
 " Brit." iv. 243, that that assembly had at this time 
 " weighty business " on hand " concerning the 
 " public good, the order of the Church, and the 
 " glory of God ; " and that it was there deter- 
 mined "that their Metropolitan should be con- 
 " suited upon certain Articles "touching the matter. 
 It is therefore pretty certain that the Thirty- 
 nine Articles were then and there debated, and 
 we must suppose that the members of the York 
 Synod must either have sent up their signatures 
 [which have not been recorded], or, if not so, that 
 they must have signified their assent to their 
 Metropolitan, who signed on their behalf. This 
 much is quite certain, that the York Clergy 
 approved of these Articles, or we should have 
 heard more of the matter. And if the York 
 Clergy had not agreed to them, the titles of 
 these Articles, both in the English and Latin 
 copies, would not have declared, as they do, that 
 they were " agreed upon by the Archbishops
 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 135 
 
 " and Bishops of both the Provinces, and the sovereign: 
 "whole Clergy." Q ' Ellza - 
 
 beth. 
 
 At this point the Keformation of the Church 156a ~ 3 - 
 of England may be said to have culminated ; and, 
 on consideration of the facts above recorded, it 
 will appear to an unprejudiced mind that its 
 Inauguration, Promotion, and Completion must 
 be set to the account of her representative 
 assemblies, the Convocations or Provincial 
 Synods of Canterbury and York. 
 
 If, however, the main structure was now 
 completed, some subsequent additions have been 
 made, and some further improvements effected, 
 which shall hereafter be considered.
 
 PART III. 
 
 SURVEY OF SOME MEMORABLE ACTS OF THE 
 CONVOCATIONS, FROM THE DATE OF THE 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION TO 
 THE SUSPENSION OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 
 
 Metro- 
 politans : 
 Parker, 
 Grindal, 
 Wnitffift. 
 Grindal, 
 Sandys, 
 Piers, 
 Hntton. 
 
 Review of 
 some Sy- 
 nodical 
 events in 
 Q. Eliza- 
 beth's 
 reign. 
 
 I. 
 
 GENEBAL REVIEW OP SYNODICAL ACTS AFTER THE 
 COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 
 
 THE Reformation of the Church of England, 
 as above detailed, was now completed. But, as 
 castles and houses ever and anon require some 
 repairs, so it is with the structure of the visible 
 Church. Thus in Queen Elizabeth's long reign 
 from time to time regulations were made for 
 Ecclesiastical government by Convocational au- 
 thority. A brief summary shall here be given 
 of some Synodical events which took place be- 
 tween the date of the ratification of the Thirty- 
 nine Articles of Eeligion and the close of that 
 Sovereign's life, omitting the ever -recurring 
 business of subsidies which does not touch our 
 special subject.
 
 ACTS IN QUEEN ELIZABETH'S REIGN. 137 
 
 In 1571, ten Canons on Church Discipline sovereign: 
 were promulged, which were also signed by the Q \,^*~ 
 Prelates of the Northern Province. In 1576, "*- 
 
 . 16O3. 
 
 fifteen more Articles were svnodically ratified, _ 
 
 * * ' Cone. M. B. 
 
 on the " admission of apt and fit persons to the iv - 263 - 
 " Ministry, and the establishing good order in Collections, 
 " the Church." 
 
 In 1584, one Hilton was convened for a most 
 scandalous offence before the Canterbury Synod. ^' p> 59 ' 
 This renegade Clerk had preached a sermon in s ^P e !l 
 
 Whitgift, 
 
 the Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, in which PP- 210-11. 
 he depraved the Bible, blasphemed our blessed 
 Lord's Name, and, in fact, proclaimed himself a 
 heathen. For this hideous misbehaviour he was 
 cited before the Canterbury Synod. There he 
 confessed his impiety, and in writing abjured 
 his errors. Besides an admonition, the penalties 
 imposed on him were, that he should attend 
 during the delivery of a sermon at St. Paul's 
 Cross on the following Sunday, there stand- 
 ing with a faggot on his shoulders before the 
 preacher ; and also that he should make in the 
 church, where he had proclaimed his heathen- 
 ism, a recantation of his blasphemous teaching 
 in presence of the Lower House of the Con- 
 vocation. Further, he was forbidden again to 
 preach without a licence from the Archbishop. 
 
 T . , . -i Card. Syn. 
 
 In the same year, 1584, six Articles on p . 139. 
 Church Discipline were promulged ; and in 1597 i6i PP ' 
 twelve more Constitutions on the same subject. 
 
 T
 
 138 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part III. 1. 
 
 Metro- Throughout the whole of Queen Elizabeth's 
 
 Parker,' reign there were constantly heard the distant 
 
 TO.tSft. niutterings of that desolating storm which burst 
 
 orindai, over this Church and nation in the second 
 
 Sandys, 
 
 piers, succession of the Crown after that monarch's 
 
 Button. 
 
 . death. Well-nigh without intermission these 
 
 Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Essays warning sounds ominously echoed within the 
 
 in Parlia- J 
 
 ment. walls of the House of Commons. They were 
 
 Prophetic PI i 
 
 mutterings the voices of those members who constituted 
 tempest. themselves the champions of the disloyal and 
 disaffected section of malcontents out of doors. 
 Their assaults were not so directly delivered 
 against the Crown as against the Church. The 
 Church was the constant object of their attack ; 
 and it may be a warning to Sovereigns to re- 
 member at what point the assault was first made 
 which resulted in the murder of an Archbishop, 
 the martyrdom of a King, the temporary wreck 
 and ruin of the happiness of a great nation, and 
 the miseries inflicted on a long-suffering people 
 by hypocritical and fierce fanatics. 
 
 However, our heroic virgin Queen during her 
 lifetime repressed these agitators with becoming 
 fortitude and perfect success. Indeed, that 
 monarch constantly and unmistakeably deliver- 
 ed her mind to the Commons on the subject of 
 their Ecclesiastical enterprizes. She treated with 
 undisguised contempt and deserved scorn those 
 restless and meddling members of that House 
 who were continually seeking a vulgar popularity
 
 EVENTS IN QUEEN ELIZABETH'S REIGN. 139 
 
 by proposing measures for reforming religion, sovereign: 
 and, indeed, so far transgressing the bounds of 
 their proper functions as to endeavour to intro- 
 
 f * t , 16O3. 
 
 duce new liturgical forms of public worship. 
 
 It is not uninteresting to contemplate some of 
 the extinctions which these firebrands in Parlia- 
 ment had to endure at the Queen's hands. In 
 1572, on May 22, the Speaker brought down a 
 message to the Lower House from Her Majesty, 
 declaring that it was Her Highness's pleasure 
 that " no Bills concerning religion shall be pre- Commons' 
 
 r Journals, 
 
 " ferred or received into this House unless the i. 97. 
 " same should be first considered and liked by P . 213. 
 " the Clergy." Notwithstanding this, in 1587, Dewes, 
 on Feb. 27, one Mr. Cope had the modesty to p 
 commend a liturgy of his own composition, so 
 far as appears, or at least of his own selection, 
 for adoption ; and he was seconded in his en- 
 deavours for such Ecclesiastical reform by Mr. 
 Lewknor, Mr. Harleston, Mr. Bainbrigg, and 
 Mr. Wentworth. And this notwithstanding 
 that a message had been sent by the Queen to 
 the Lower House that they " should not meddle 
 " in such matters." 
 
 In 1593, one Mr. Morrice, entering on the 
 same forbidden ground, had again to be re- 
 minded by Sir E. Cecil of Her Majesty's injunc- 
 tions on the matter. And in the same year 
 the Queen somewhat rose in her language when 
 deprecating such essays. For when the cus-
 
 140 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 1. 
 
 Metro- ternary liberty of speech was requested for the 
 
 wnitsift] Commons by Sir E. Coke, then Speaker, this 
 
 pier8 ' answer was returned in Her Majesty's name 
 
 journal by the Lord Keeper Puckering: "Privilege of 
 
 P. 460. " speech is granted ; but you must know what 
 
 "privilege you have, not to speak every one 
 
 "what he listeth, but your privilege is 'yea' or 
 
 "'no.' Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, your privilege 
 
 "is, that if you perceive any idle heads . . . . 
 
 " which will meddle with reforming the Church 
 
 "and transforming the Commonwealth, and do 
 
 "exhibit any Bills for such purpose, that you 
 
 "receive them not until they be viewed and 
 
 "considered by those who it is fitter should 
 
 "consider of such things, and can better judge 
 
 "of them." 
 
 And subsequently, when the Queen had been 
 advertised of some approaches in the House of 
 Commons towards these forbidden subjects, she 
 sent for the Speaker himself, Sir E. Coke, into her 
 presence, and commanded him to deliver a mes- 
 sage to the Commons, which he did on Feb. 28, 
 Dewea, 1593, in the following words : " Her Majesty's 
 "present charge and express commandment is, 
 " that no Bill touching the said matters of State 
 "or reformation in causes Ecclesiastical be ex- 
 " hibited." "And upon my allegiance," added the 
 Speaker, " I am commanded, if any such Bill 
 " be exhibited, not to read it." 
 
 It is by no means clear that the justice at
 
 SUMMARY OF ACTS. 141 
 
 least of such reproofs might not on occasion sovereign: 
 have found proper place in times much nearer K - JamesI - 
 
 *. * A 16O3- 
 
 our own than those of Queen Elizabeth. lgas - 
 
 During the years which elapsed between the 
 accession of King James I. and the suspension 
 of Synodical action in the Church of England 
 [1603-1718], events occurred of much import- 
 ance connected with the Convocations. A few 
 of the most memorable of those events shall 
 be now briefly summarized ; and the most 
 important of them hereafter considered in 
 detail. 
 
 In King James I.'s reign, the enactment Summary of 
 
 /-H f t Synodical 
 
 of the 141 Canons of 1603-4, and the trial Acts from 
 of Crashaw for false doctrine in 1610, took sionofKing 
 place. In King Charles I.'s reign, the enactment the 
 of the Seventeen Canons of 1640. In King Synodic 
 Charles II.'s reign, the compilation and Syno- 
 dical authorization of our present Prayer Book in 
 1661. In King William III.'s reign, the rejec- 
 tion of the " Comprehension Liturgy," which 
 would have reduced the Prayer Book to a 
 Puritan standard, and was proposed by that 
 monarch and some of his sycophant Bishops in 
 1689. On this occasion it is observable that, 
 even at this somewhat unpropitious season for 
 Church authority, a joint address of both 
 Houses of Parliament was presented to the 
 Crown requesting that Convocation should be 
 consulted, " according to the ancient practice and
 
 142 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 1. 
 
 Metro, "usage of this kingdom." In Queen Anne's 
 various.' reign, a letter of business from Her Majesty 
 having been directed to Archbishop Tenison, 
 expressing a desire that Convocation would re- 
 press loose principles, Whiston's book, " An 
 "Historical Preface," &c., was brought before 
 the Canterbury Convocation and synodically 
 condemned in 1711. In King George I.'s reign, 
 in 1717, Bishop Hoadley's books, " The King- 
 "dom of Christ" and "The Preservative," and 
 his " Sermon " before the Court, were delated. 
 The above brief summary of some events, which 
 it would require volumes to describe in full, will 
 suggest what are the proper functions of our 
 Convocations, what duties they have discharged 
 in past times, what engagements are proper for 
 them now, and what will continue to be so 
 while the Church of England abides in her pris- 
 tine character. 
 
 Among the events mentioned in the above 
 summary there are four which demand here 
 special attention, (l) The Enactment of the 
 141 Canons of 1603-4. (2) The Enactment 
 of the 17 Canons of 1640. (3) The Compilation 
 and Synodical Authorization of the present Book 
 of Common Prayer of the Church of England. 
 (4) The Rejection of the " Comprehension 
 " Liturgy " by the Canterbury Convocation. 
 These shall be considered in their order.
 
 EVENTS IN KING JAMES I. S EEIGN. 
 
 II. 
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE 141 CANONS OF 1603-4. 
 
 The continual recurrence of the voting of sovereign: 
 subsidies, and of the ordinary Sy nodical busi- *'*J^ X " 
 ness transacted at this time, does not call for 162S - 
 any special attention. But the enactment of 
 the 141 Canons, being the groundwork of the 
 present proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, 
 must be considered at some length. 
 
 Before, however, entering on that enquiry, 
 it may be worth while to take a brief survey 
 of some other events which occurred during 
 King James I.'s reign. 
 
 In 1610, Mr. Crashaw, Preacher at the Temple, Review of 
 
 A some Syno- 
 
 was convened before the Canterbury Synod for dicai events 
 having published a book containing erroneous James i.'s 
 
 reign. 
 
 doctrine. This performance was entitled, " News strype 
 " from Italy of a Second Moses." The volume 
 was a translation of the life of the Marchese 
 Carraccioli, an Italian, who, having abjured the 
 Eoman persuasion, adopted the cruel and 
 fanciful singularities of Calvin. In a dedica- 
 tion prefixed to his work, Mr. Crashaw took 
 occasion to draw a parallel between this Italian
 
 144 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 2. 
 
 Metro- Marquis and the Jewish Lawgiver. But on 
 
 politans : 
 
 Bancroft, the most cursory inspection of Mr. Crashaw's 
 
 Matthews. ., . - . , r 
 
 pages the comparison between Moses and the 
 
 Italian does not hold good; and this indeed 
 the author must have himself discovered, at 
 least if his retractation was honest which he 
 made when he expressed contrition for his 
 publication and abjured the tenets contained 
 in the work. Upon his confession of error this 
 preacher at the Temple was dismissed by the 
 Cone. M. B. Archbishop. In like manner, in the following 
 year, one Griffin, who had been guilty of some 
 horrid blasphemies, recanted, confessed his im- 
 pieties, and submitted himself to the Synod. 
 
 ibid.iv.469. In 1624, by Dr. Young, Dean of Winchester, 
 
 Fuller ' 8 ^ *i. i, -n T 
 
 ch. Hist, and again in the ensuing year by Dr. James, 
 
 P . ios! the learned writer on the texts of the Fathers, 
 HLefV, 1S a proposition was made in the Canterbury 
 Synod which unfortunately was never carried 
 into practical effect. It was this that the 
 most remarkable scholars of Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge should be selected by Convocation for 
 the purpose of collating with the best MSS. 
 the Greek and Latin editions of the Fathers, 
 the records of Councils, and the works of ancient 
 Ecclesiastical writers. It was the purpose of 
 this examination to compile an index which 
 might assist in determining the true reading 
 of passages where doubt had existed, or where 
 fraud had been practised. The Prolocutor in-
 
 EVENTS IN KING JAMES I/S REIGN. 14."* 
 
 formed the Lower House of Canterbury that 
 the plan had been submitted to the King, who 
 approved it. And the Deans, Capitular Proctors, 16as - 
 as well as other members of the Synod, were 
 requested to search the libraries of their re- 
 spective churches, and to prepare catalogues of 
 their MS 8. and best editions for presentation 
 to the assembly, with a view to the prosecution 
 of the enterprize. An examination of the " In- 
 dices Expurgatorii " also formed part of the 
 plan. Had this scheme been carried out, it 
 would have contributed much to strengthen 
 the cause of the Church of England. For 
 though this country, by the sacrilegious enor- 
 mities of King Henry VIII. and his followers, 
 and by the plunder of the abbeys, had more MSS. 
 destroyed than any kingdom of like size ever 
 possessed ; yet still, enough were left here to 
 have furnished, if rightly made use of, the evi- 
 dence of truth to the world and to posterity. 
 The enterprize, however, from some unknown 
 cause, was unhappily abandoned. 
 
 The most important Synodical act, however, Canons of 
 of this reign, at least in its results, was the 
 enactment of the 141 Canons of 1603-4. 
 
 The Convocation of Canterbury which enacted Cone. M. B. 
 
 * -! ~ Q 
 
 the present Code of Canons of the Church of 
 England met on March 20, 1604, N. S., and is 
 reported by the quaint historian Fuller to have church 
 "been shot between the joints of the harness;" Bk.x. p. 23. 
 
 u
 
 146 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 2. 
 
 Metro- by which somewhat dark metaphor that worthy 
 
 politans : . 
 
 Cant> meant that this Provincial Synod was held 
 
 V utt<m between Archbishop Whitgift's death and the 
 
 promotion of Bancroft, Bishop of London, to 
 
 the See of Canterbury. In consequence of the 
 
 vacancy in this Metropolitan See, Bishop Ban- 
 
 croft presided in this Convocation, under a 
 
 Commission issued by the Dean and Chapter of 
 
 Canterbury as being guardians of the Spiritual- 
 
 ities. There was no Latin sermon preached at the 
 
 opening session, an event contrary to usual cus- 
 
 tom, the appointment of the preacher on such 
 
 occasions resting with the Archbishop. Dr. Kavis 
 
 was elected Prolocutor of the Lower House. 
 
 Construe- The Canons of Discipline enacted in the later 
 
 Law to the part of Queen Elizabeth's reign were confirmed 
 
 tageofthe only for the term of her natural life by that 
 
 monarch. And here it should be remarked, that 
 lon ' it is noway clear that such confirmation is con- 
 stitutionally necessary subsequent to enactment 
 by a Convocation. At least it does not appear to 
 be so, if the provisions of the Statute [25 Hen. 
 VIII. 19] are rightly interpreted, which alone 
 governs this whole matter. The Act in question 
 provides that the Convocations, for the purpose of 
 enacting Canons, shall have Koyal " Assent and 
 " Licence." This means one instrument ; it 
 specifies one proceeding, i. e. permission to enact. 
 And so the matter was understood at the time 
 this Statute was passed and for many years after,
 
 141 CANONS OF 1603-4. 147 
 
 and this method was adopted on the occasion of 
 
 the first licence ever issued in compliance with jgJ^J, 
 
 the terms of the Act. Subsequently, however, t 
 
 " Atterb. 
 
 legal ingenuity, favourable to Eoyal jurisdiction Rights, &c. 
 but not equally zealous for the protection of pp- 642-5. 
 Ecclesiastical authority, in construing this Statute 
 transposed its terms, and converted " Assent and 
 " Licence" into "Licence and Assent," and so made 
 two proceedings needful, first, " Licence," and 
 secondly, " Assent " afterwards. Thus the Crown 
 Office secured, without warrant of law, a double 
 action: (l) The issue of the Eoyal "Licence" 
 before enactment ; (2) The issue of an instru- 
 ment of " Assent " after enactment. What larger 
 amount of legal fees accrued by this management 
 it would be impossible for one not versed in 
 official and Crown Office secrets to divine. At 
 any rate, the contrivance was more subtle than 
 honest. However, let this pass, though it is 
 only a fair example of the disabling encum- 
 brances to which the Church has been on occasion 
 subjected by the ingenious performances of the 
 learned profession. 
 
 As another instance of the same character, 
 it may here be remarked that the Statute 
 [25 Hen. VIII. 19] governing the whole of 
 the relations between the Crown and the Con- 
 vocations, specifies that those assemblies shall 
 not " enact, promulge, execute, or put in ure " 
 anv new Canons without licence from the
 
 148 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 2. 
 
 Metro- Crown. This, again, has by legal ingenuity been 
 
 Cant- ' improved backwards to the Church's detriment. 
 
 vacant. ^ n( j we ^ ave j^ a d ec i s j on o f the judges that 
 
 Hntton. ' < 
 
 a Convocation cannot " confer to constitute 
 
 Coke, Rep. 
 
 xii. 70 ; " any Canons without ' license del Rov,' " an asser- 
 
 Wake, . . . 
 
 Auth. C.P. tion widely different from the terms contained 
 Wake,' in the Statute. Of course, the absurdity of this 
 P. 534. decision is patent on its face. For how can a 
 Rights,' & c . Convocation propose Canons in precise terms to 
 P. 637. the Crown, requesting a licence to enact them with- 
 out having previously " conferred " on the con- 
 tents of the documents to be presented? What 
 King in his senses would grant his licence before 
 the precise words of the proposed Canons were 
 submitted to him ? And who ever heard of two 
 licences being needful for the same set of Canons ? 
 If the above decision of the judges was correct, 
 
 I am afraid the Lower House of Canterbury, and 
 
 ./ ' 
 
 large and important committees of that body, 
 have been over and over again subject to all the 
 pains and penalties of praemunire in very late 
 years indeed. 
 
 As above said, the Canons passed in the later 
 part of Queen Elizabeth's reign were only con- 
 firmed for that monarch's natural life. It was 
 therefore thought fit by the legal authorities 
 that a Code should now be re-enacted in Convo- 
 strype'a cation. Consequently, on April 13, 1604, Bishop 
 
 Annals, , . 
 
 iv. 396. Bancroft, acting as President, the see of Canter- 
 bury being still vacant, took measures for the
 
 141 CANONS OF 1603-4. 149 
 
 enactment of Canons, and on May 2 he delivered sovereign: 
 to the Prolocutor a Book of Constitutions, col- x - jamesl - 
 
 16O4. 
 
 lected, it is said, by the Bishop himself, out of 
 Articles, Injunctions, and Synodical Acts pre- 
 viously passed and published, especial regard 
 being had to the Canons of. 1571 and 1597. 
 After a Committee of the Lower House had Cone. M. B. 
 been appointed for considering this draft, and 
 &fter some clashing on the subject had taken 
 place in the Upper House, a joint Committee of 
 both Houses was eventually appointed to prose- 
 cute the matter. Sundry conferences having taken 
 place, and many sessions having been devoted to 
 the subject, the whole Code of Canons, numbering 
 141, was finally approvedj confirmed, and "de- 
 livered from the hands of the Synod to the 
 " care of the printers." These Canons were ibid. iv. 
 published with the following title : " Constitu- Gibson's 
 " tions and Canons Ecclesiastical, treated upon by 
 " the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation 
 "for the Province of Canterbury, and the rest of the 
 " Bishops and Clergy of the said Province, and agreed 
 "upon with the King's Majesty's Licence, in their 
 " Synod, begun at London, Anno Dom. 1603" [O.S.], 
 " and in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord 
 " James, by the grace of God, King of England, 
 " France, and Ireland, the first, and of Scotland 
 "the thirty-seventh." 
 
 In the Eoval ratification [i.e. the unstatutable 141 Canons. 
 
 J Supra, 
 
 "assent" above referred to] appended to these 141 pp. 1*6-7.
 
 150 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 2. 
 
 Metro- Canons enacted by the Convocation of Canter- 
 laaoroft, bury, King James I. inserted this clause, that 
 Hutt<m ' they "should be diligently observed, executed, 
 "and equally kept by all our loving subjects of 
 
 pp. 993-5. fa^ our ki n gd onlj both within the Provinces of 
 " Canterbury and York." Now, considering that 
 at this time the York Convocation had not only 
 never enacted, but had not even viewed these 
 Canons, His Majesty appears for the moment 
 to have been guilty of very great inadvertence, 
 to have disabled the authority of the York Pro- 
 vincial Synod to a very unreasonable extent, and 
 to have overstepped the bounds of the regale 
 in a manner most undistinguishing. The York 
 Bishops and Clergy, as might be expected, checked 
 at this aggression on their ancient rights. They 
 thought if they submitted that they would 
 always be held obliged to approve and be 
 governed by whatsoever the Southern Synod 
 
 wake's should think fit to determine. And, indeed, the 
 
 p. 507. King himself on due recollection discovered his 
 error, and made just reparation for his incautious 
 and hasty confusion between Ecclesiastical and 
 Regal authority. This he did by sending down a 
 licence to the Northern Convocation to enact such 
 
 Cone. M. B. Canons as should seem "fit and convenient for the 
 
 " honour and service of Almighty God, the good 
 
 " and quiet of the Church, and the better govern- 
 
 " ment thereof," within the Province of York. 
 
 The York Convocation, to which this licence
 
 141 CANONS OF 1603-4. 151 
 
 was sent, met on Nov. 9, 1605, but was prorogued sovereign: 
 
 C.James I 
 16O6-6. 
 
 on account of the illness of the Metropolitan K - JamesI - 
 
 Button, whose end was approaching. In conse- 
 quence of his death, which occurred about the end 
 of the year, Dr. Thornborough, Bishop of Bristol 
 and Dean of York, was chosen to act as Presi- 
 dent of the Northern Synod; and shortly 
 afterwards Dr. William Goodwin was appointed 
 Prolocutor, on March 5, 1606, N. S., on which 
 day the licence for the enactment of Canons was 
 produced. And in subsequent sessions, the 141 
 Canons of the Canterbury Synod were examined 
 and considered, and finally, with unanimous 
 assent and consent, ratified, and commanded to 
 be " observed in and throughout the Province 
 "of York." The nominal subscription of the 
 President and other members may be seen in 
 " Cone. Mag. Brit.," iv. 428. 
 
 Notwithstanding these patent facts of history, An odd 
 it was stated in the House of Lords, July 11, 
 
 announce- 
 
 1851, at a time when in both Houses of the O f Lords. 
 Legislature the most unreasonable jealousy of the 
 revival of the Convocations was, one may say, 
 ridiculously manifested, that these Canons never 
 received the sanction of the Northern Province. 
 And this announcement was received with 
 approving and joyous cheers by the assembled 
 peers. The reader will, I fear, look in vain 
 into "Hansard," vol. cxviii., under the date 
 above given, for a record of this odd an-
 
 152 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 2. 
 
 Metro- nouncement, as for very shame it has been ex- 
 Bancroft, punged ; but it was most assuredly made, as 
 York every contemporary report of the debate testi- 
 fied, even to the consenting cheers which rang 
 through the House. 
 
 While on the subject of these Canons, it may 
 be excusable to make a short digression from the 
 main argument and to insert here a few remarks 
 on a matter of interest connected with them 
 that is, the extent of authority and amount of 
 obligation which belong to them. Now there 
 are several decisions and announcements of 
 learned judges on this subject, which appear 
 to sum up sufficiently the views on either side 
 which have been held. 
 Legal obii- (i) I n the 30th year of King Charles II., 
 
 gation of v ' J 
 
 canons. the Court of Queen's Bench decided that these 
 
 Contra- 
 dictory Canons " are good, by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII., 
 
 decisions of - .. is* 
 
 the learned " so long as they do not impugn the Common Law 
 " or the Prerogative Koyal." And these judges 
 appear to have more exactly stated the truth of 
 the case than any others who have approached 
 the subject. Their position would have been 
 absolutely impregnable if only their sentence had 
 been supplemented by a few words, and had 
 concluded thus "impugn the King's Preroga- 
 " tive Koyal, or the Customs, Laws, or Statutes 
 " of this Kealm." For their judgment would have 
 then been in strict and absolute accordance with 
 the very letter of the 2nd section of the Statute
 
 141 CANONS OF 1603-4. 153 
 
 which governs the whole case, and which they sovereign: 
 
 C.James I 
 1605-6. 
 
 themselves quoted ; and it is hard to see how K ' Jam< 
 
 anyone with reason could then have gainsaid their 
 conclusion. 
 
 (2) The second judgment noticeable is that of 
 Chief Justice Vaughan, whose words were : " A Gibson's 
 " lawful Canon is the law of the kingdom as 
 
 " well as an Act of Parliament ; and whatever is 
 "the law of the kingdom is as much the law 
 "as anything else that is so, for what is 
 " law doth not ' suscipere magis aut minus.' " 
 But this Chief Justice certainly assigned too 
 
 / 
 
 extensive a power to a Canon, when he de- 
 clared it to be " as much the law as anything 
 " else that is so ; " because on all hands it is 
 admitted that it cannot prevail if contrariant 
 among other things to a Statute of the Kealm. 
 And, consequently, a Canon is not as much the 
 law as a contrariant Statute. 
 
 (3) Thirdly, Chief Justice Holt thus delivered 
 
 his mind : " 'Tis very plain that all the Clergy Bishop of 
 " are bound by the Canons confirmed by the King; v. Lucy. 
 " but they must be confirmed by Parliament to P . 485. 
 " bind the laity." How this learned person could 
 have been misled to trouble his brain with the 
 odd idea of a Canon of Church Discipline being 
 confirmed by Parliament, it is really hard to 
 imagine. Canons of Discipline have existed 
 and have been enforced from a date far beyond 
 the time of legal memory, and very incisively 
 
 x
 
 154 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 2. 
 
 Metro- too, in our own times. But no man ever yet 
 
 Bancroft. near d. or read of a Canon on Ecclesiastical Dis- 
 
 Tork cipline being confirmed by Parliament, or even 
 
 vacant. J 
 
 submitted to that assembly for such an opera- 
 tion. There is something so whimsical in this 
 fanciful excursion of Chief Justice Holt that it 
 may be discharged from future consideration in 
 the prosecution of the subject before us. 
 
 (4) The fourth decision to be considered is 
 that united judgment of the Queen's Bench thus 
 delivered by Lord Chief Justice Hardwicke : 
 Bum. ii. 26. " We are all of opinion that, ' proprio vigore,' 
 "the Canons of 1603 do not bind the laity." 
 Now, with all respect to the united judgment 
 of the Queen's Bench, it must be said that this 
 judgment, like that of Chief Justice Vaughan 
 above quoted, which looked quite the other way, 
 cannot be accepted without very considerable 
 latitude of reserve. To say that a Canon in no 
 case, " proprio vigore," binds a layman, is alto- 
 gether too expansive a proposition. Not now 
 to enter upon the question as to how far lay 
 members of the learned profession practising in 
 Ecclesiastical Courts, and other laymen connected 
 with them, are bound by Canonical regulations, 
 let us take a simple case of one noway con- 
 nected with those Courts as an illustration. 
 Suppose, for instance, an aggrieved lay parish- 
 ioner to libel his Clergyman in the Ecclesiastical 
 Court for a breach of the 68th Canon [the only
 
 141 CANONS OF 1603-4. 155 
 
 law which could be invoked for some specified sovereign: 
 clerical shortcomings in official duty] ; and *ieoB-e. X< 
 suppose that, in adjudicating on the complaint, 
 the Court should find that the Clergyman had 
 not committed under the terms of the Canon 
 any breach of duty, and should consequently 
 pronounce him guiltless of the "oifence against 
 "the laws Ecclesiastical" charged against him. 
 It is then abundantly clear that in such case 
 the lay complainant would experience a very 
 perceptible assurance of the "proprius vigor" 
 of the Canon under which he had proceeded, 
 combined with the " proprii vigores " of the 
 Canons governing the practice and proceedings 
 of Ecclesiastical Courts, by an appeal to his 
 pocket for the payment of costs incurred. And, 
 further than this, if he did not defray them in 
 due course, the well-known process under the 
 Canon law of a sentence of " Contumacy," 
 followed by a second half Ecclesiastical and half 
 Civil process denominated " Significavit," and 
 by a third wholly Civil one designated "De 
 " contumace capiendo," would impress on his 
 mind, by the stern arguments provided by the 
 walls of a city or county gaol, as the case might 
 be, that the " proprius vigor " of the Canon 
 under which he at first proceeded, and others, 
 had exerted a binding force in which he was 
 himself somewhat sensibly concerned. 
 
 (5) The fifth announcement by a learned
 
 156 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 2. 
 
 Metro- judge to be considered on this subject, is that of 
 
 Bancroft. Sir William Blackstone, who thus writes of these 
 
 vacant Canons : "Where they are not merely declaratory 
 
 , " of the ancient Canon law, but are introductory 
 
 Comm.i. 88. 
 
 " of new regulations, they do not bind the laity, 
 " whatever regard the Clergy may think proper 
 "to pay them." Now it must be said that 
 this is altogether an inadequate and a very 
 clumsy representation of the obligatory force of 
 these Canons as regards the Clergy. Their 
 measures of obedience are most certainly not 
 limited by the confines of that regard which 
 they may "think proper to pay." The matter 
 does not lie within their own discretion. That 
 is quite certain, as any one of them would have 
 very incisively commended to his attention by 
 suspension from his benefice [if he had one], 
 under circumstances easily conceivable, though 
 needless here to dilate on. 
 
 On a general review of the announcements 
 above recited of the learned in the law, it will 
 be observed that some are contrariant to others. 
 Now contraries cannot both be true together, as 
 Lord Macaulay's familiar schoolboy could very 
 confidently and rightly assert. But contraries 
 may be false together, as the very alphabet of 
 the seductive art of logic assures us. And I 
 venture to think, with all submission, that such 
 . is the fate in considerable measure of these legal 
 
 announcements before us. If judges differ dia-
 
 141 CANONS OF 1G03-4. 157 
 
 metrically from each other, it can, I hope, be no sovereign: 
 offence to differ at least from some of them. "i?!^*! x< 
 
 XoOo o* 
 
 It must further be remembered in considering 
 this question, that the force of a Canon may die 
 out by desuetude. It is a principle of Ecclesi- 
 astical Jurisprudence never to repeal a Canon, 
 and that for reasons quite comprehensible, on 
 which it is not needful here to dwell. But the 
 execution of a Canon is sometimes, from various 
 causes and reasons, allowed to lapse, and then it 
 would not subsequently be enforced. 
 
 On a review of the whole matter, the follow- 
 ing would seem, at least to a common capacity, 
 to state the truth of the case as it stands at the 
 present time. A Canon under licence from the 
 Crown enacted by Convocation, and not being 
 contrariant to the King's Prerogative Koyal, or 
 to the Customs, Laws, or Statutes of this Eealm, 
 and further, not having fallen into desuetude, is 
 binding directly on the Clergy, and, in certain 
 cases, incidentally on the laity also.
 
 III. 
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE SEVENTEEN CANONS 
 OF 1640. 
 
 Metro- King James I. died on the 27th of March. 
 
 politans : 
 
 Abbott, 1625 ; and on the accession of his son, King 
 
 TMT a.t.'t-.'h e* in q 
 
 ' Charles I., a slight event, but one of evil augury, 
 
 An evil occurred, which seemed to portend coming 
 Fuller, ch. ill. When that monarch sent the officials of the 
 Q. ' ' Court to survey the regalia, it was discovered 
 that the left wing of the golden dove upon the 
 sceptre had been broken off : this ornament being 
 one of the emblems among others required for 
 the coming coronation 
 
 "As holy oil, Edward Confessor's crown, 
 
 " The rod, and bird of peace, and all such emblems." 
 
 SHAKSPEABE : K. Hen. VIII. Act iv. Sc. 1. 
 
 Upon this discovery the King sent for Mr. Acton, 
 a goldsmith, whose son reported the circumstance 
 to the contemporary historian Fuller, and desired 
 that the casualty might be repaired, and that the 
 very same broken wing of the dove might be 
 restored and again set on in its place. This the 
 goldsmith affirmed that it would be impossible 
 to effect so fairly as to leave no mark of the
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 159 
 
 accident. Upon which His Majesty replied, " If 
 " you will not do it, another shall." Mr. Acton, K ' 1 ^ a B 8 l X " 
 being unwilling thus to be superseded in his 1649 - 
 art, carried home the sceptre and had another 
 new dove of gold set upon it. So the ancient 
 emblem of peace was removed from the royal 
 sceptre of England, and some novel work sub- 
 stituted. Upon its return the King was well 
 pleased with the artificer's supposed success, as 
 not discovering the change. This removal of 
 the emblem of peace was no good omen for the 
 future. That evil genius of discord seems to 
 have been already on the wing which soon after- 
 wards launched itself with malignant fury on 
 this land, and goaded on a misguided people to 
 deeds of unbridled barbarism and fratricidal 
 atrocities which have rarely been equalled in 
 the world's history. For those national horrors 
 the self-constituted parliamentary leaders of the 
 populace were mainly responsible ; and for their 
 crimes, aggravated as they were by fantastical 
 cant and revolting hypocrisy, all succeeding 
 generations of honest and good men do ever de- 
 test their names and execrate their memories. 
 
 The foregoing incident was no propitious Three more 
 omen for the State. An event about four years 
 before had occurred, in 1621, which was equally 
 inauspicious for the Church. Being engaged in 
 deer-shooting at Bramshill Park, Archbishop vii. 416. 
 
 .,, . , . . Cone. M.B. 
 
 Abbott, using a crossbow, and aiming at a i v . 462.
 
 160 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- buck, unfortunately struck Peter Hawkins, Lord 
 Abbott,' Zouch's keeper, with an arrow under the left 
 Matthews. which caused the death of the unhappy 
 
 sufferer ahout an hour afterwards. This was 
 sad enough, hut another result followed which 
 presaged badly too. As homicide on the part 
 of one in holy orders might be charged by ill 
 friends to amount to "irregularity," which in 
 Ecclesiastical regards lays the sacerdotal powers 
 to sleep, forfeits preferments, and renders the 
 person incapable of any for the future, it was 
 thought right, on advice being taken by the 
 Archbishop, that dispensation should be sought, 
 " ad majorem cautelam," for his deplorable act, 
 however involuntary. 
 Collier, After advice obtained, the source from which 
 
 Eccl. Hist. . . . . i.i! 
 
 vii. 418. this dispensation was sought is in a high degree 
 surprising. It was none other than from the 
 Crown! and that, too, on the advice of those 
 who ought to have known better. For by the 
 instrument issued from the Crown Office, "the 
 " Canons, in case there was need, are overruled 
 " and dispensed with," the Archbishop's sacer- 
 dotal character is revived, and he is fully re- 
 stored to his sacred functions. This is a mar- 
 vellous relief beyond question from the Crown, 
 as it "supposes a Patriarchal at least, if not a 
 "Papal authority, vested in the Sovereign." 
 The dove of peace broken and removed, a man 
 killed by an Archbishop, Spiritual authority
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 161 
 
 ignored, and Royal Supremacy burlesqued these sovereign: 
 signified four sad warnings of coming calamities *'i*'_ ] 
 to Church and State. So these were noway good 1649 ' 
 omens for the future. 
 
 During the earlier part of King Charles the Sessions at 
 Ist's reign there is not much to record relating 
 to the Acts of the Convocations. On account of 
 the plague then raging in London, both the 
 Canterbury Convocation and the Parliament re- 
 moved to Oxford in 1625. The Convocation Fuller, 
 first met at Christ Church, and afterwards held Bk. ix. 
 sessions in the Chapel of Merton College, the comp. Hist. 
 Parliament then assembling in the magnificent "' 
 Hall of Christ Church. The Canterbury and 
 York Synods subsequently met from time to 
 time, though with very considerable intermis- 
 sions ; the business for subsidies being on occa- 
 sion transacted, but no events occurring worthy 
 here of special mention until the enactment of 
 the Seventeen Canons of 1640. 
 
 It will not be improper under the present 
 head to take some special notice of the Convo- 
 cations which enacted the Seventeen Canons of 
 1640, not on account of any influence which 
 those instruments have exercised over subse- 
 quent Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence, but on ac- 
 count of the circumstances which attended their 
 enactment. These circumstances are highly in- 
 structive, as recording the temper of the times, 
 and as illustrating the germs of those mutinous 
 
 Y
 
 162 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- and rebellious principles which at this time 
 
 land, ' inspired the House of Commons, and betrayed 
 
 geile - the symptoms of that national disease which 
 
 soon after entailed the most malignant and 
 
 fatal consequences on this land. The poet's 
 
 exhortation, " Discite justitiam moniti," here finds 
 
 place for acceptance. 
 
 Ecciesias- ' At this period of our country's history the 
 tions in the House of Commons seems to have been seized 
 Commons, with an irrepressible desire to usurp the func- 
 Vid. sup. tions of a National Synod. Such aspirations, as 
 
 pp. 138-40. 
 
 history testifies, were emphatically repressed in 
 Queen Elizabeth's time by some remarkably 
 incisive messages sent down to the Commons 
 by that determined Sovereign, and there not 
 only delivered, but very sternly carried into 
 effect by their own Speaker. But in the pre- 
 sent reign, notwithstanding King Charles the 
 Ist's prohibition of disputes in that assembly 
 about religion, the members took leave to debate 
 on the subject with remarkable freedom. In- 
 deed, that the House of Commons might be 
 incited to ramble beyond the bounds of its 
 proper functions in this direction, a book en- 
 Cyp. Ang. titled " Zion's Plea " was dedicated to that body 
 by one Leigh ton, a Scotchman, by profession a 
 Doctor of Physic, in practice a fiery Puritan. 
 In this frantic performance dedicated to the 
 Commons this professor of the healing art must 
 have sadly forgotten the true ends of his proper
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 163 
 
 calling, for he advised the Commons, as regarded sovereign: 
 the Bishops, " to smite them under the fifth rib," K< Cha8 ' I- 
 
 * 164O. 
 
 and indeed went so far as to recommend the 
 murder of those Prelates. The Sovereign's 
 Consort, Queen Henrietta, he designated as 
 "an idolatress," "a Canaanite," and "a daugh- 
 ter of Heth." However acceptable such san- 
 guinary exhortations and coarse railleries may 
 have proved to those to whom they were dedi- 
 cated, it cannot be said that they reflect much 
 credit on their author, or on the character of 
 that assembly to which any man would dare 
 to address such barbarous and profane expres- 
 sions. 
 
 Notwithstanding the constant affectation by 
 this House of Commons of functions which one 
 would have thought only pertained to Synods 
 of the Church, it seems that its members were 
 very slenderly qualified for engaging in theolo- 
 gical discussion. At least so this appears from the 
 example of one of them, who certainly supposed 
 himself to have been one of the most competent 
 for the purpose in the whole assembly. This Coil. Ecci. 
 
 V. Hist. viii. 
 
 was Mr. Pym, who, in wandering out into topics 42. 
 of this character [instead of confining himself 
 to the subjects of tonnage and poundage then 
 rife enough, and with which he was probably 
 quite familiar], missed his way to a remarkable 
 degree, and so lost himself in a labyrinth of 
 some very perplexing mistakes. That gentle-
 
 164 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- man vouched the " Lambeth Articles " for the 
 Laud, * doctrine of the Church of England, and seems 
 yeile ' to have thought that a contradiction of them 
 was sufficient to subject a man to the charge 
 of heresy. Thus Mr. Pym's essay in divinity 
 discovered overwhelming disqualifications for 
 his enterprize. For it is beyond question that 
 the " Lambeth Articles " were never adopted by 
 the Church of England as exponents of her 
 doctrine; and, further, it is most devoutly to 
 be hoped that such Calvinistic symbols never 
 will be by her accepted, whatever Hibernian 
 stamp of authority may have been conceded to 
 them elsewhere. In fact, this orator floated in 
 discussion, aimed without precision, and struck 
 without force. His arguments resembled those 
 delusive weapons which revert on their pro- 
 jector, and certainly left on Mr. Pym's memory 
 indelible scars of ignorance and incompetence. 
 Comp. Hist. While such humours were dominant as above 
 recorded, Parliament met on April 13, 1640; 
 but it only sat for about three weeks. The 
 King sent a message to the Commons re- 
 minding them of supplies, at the same time 
 taking notice of the intolerable conduct of which 
 the Scotch had been guilty. It is said that Sir 
 ibid. H. Vane, one of the principal Secretaries of 
 State, being desired to propose six subsidies, 
 asked for twelve; and this is a matter not 
 unconnected with our particular subject. The
 
 164O. 
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 165 
 
 request of the Secretary being considered ex- sovereign: 
 cessive, surprised the Commons and disturbed K< c 
 their temper. Consequently, as they proceeded 
 to engage in some very unserviceable debates, 
 heaping up complaint on complaint, this Par- 
 liament was dissolved by the King, on the 
 advice of his Council, on May 5. 
 
 Concurrently with the meeting of the Par- 
 liament just mentioned, the Convocations of 
 Canterbury and York met which enacted the 
 Seventeen Canons of 1640. 
 
 On the 14th of April the Canterbury Synod Assembly 
 assembled at St. Paul's Cathedral, under the Canterbury 
 presidency of Archbishop Laud. After the cc. 'M. B. 
 hymn " Te Deum Laudamus " had been sung 1V 
 by the Choir, Dr. Thomas Turner, one of the 
 Canons residentiary, preached an eloquent ser- 
 mon in polished Latin on the text, "Behold, I 
 " send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves," 
 &c. [Matt. x. 161. That Divine certainly chose Fuller, ch. 
 
 - . Hist.Bk.xi. 
 
 a very apt theme for his discourse, considering p. 167. 
 the menacing attitude towards the Church which 
 Parliament was then adopting, and the savage 
 character of the popular temper, which was then 
 beginning to exhibit itself unmistakeably, as will 
 soon be seen. At the close of his discourse the 
 preacher took notice that while some Bishops 
 affected popular applause for qualities of meek- 
 ness and mildness, it happened that the impu- 
 tation of rigour and even of tyranny attached
 
 166 
 
 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- 
 politans : 
 
 Land, 
 Neile. 
 
 Syn. Ang. 
 ii. 16. 
 
 Ibid. p. 17. 
 
 Fuller, 
 Ch. Hist. 
 Bk. xi. pp. 
 167-8. 
 
 by comparison to others who were more justly 
 severe in their managements ; and so he put 
 his hearers in mind that it was desirable that 
 all, with equal care, should secure a like con- 
 formity. After the end of the sermon and the 
 
 > 
 
 singing of an anthem the assembly met in the 
 Chapter House, whence, by the direction of the 
 Archbishop, the Clergy retired to the Chapel of 
 St. Mary-the-Virgin, at the east end of the 
 Cathedral, for the election of a Prolocutor. Their 
 choice fell on Dr. Kichard Steward, Dean of 
 Chichester. 
 
 The next session of the Synod took place 
 three days afterwards, April 17, in King Henry 
 Vllth's Chapel at Westminster, and after some 
 formal preliminaries, and the confirmation of 
 Dr. Kichard Steward as Prolocutor, Archbishop 
 Laud proceeded to address the assembly in a 
 Latin speech. His speech lasted for nearly 
 three-quarters of an hour; it was gravely ut- 
 tered, and, as though the speaker foresaw the 
 impending desolations of this Church and nation 
 so soon to be realised, his eyes were scarcely 
 restrained from weeping. Towards the end of 
 his address the Archbishop called attention to 
 the " Licence " which had been sent down from 
 the Crown for the enactment of Canons for the 
 regulation of the Ecclesiastical state. And he 
 put the members of the Synod in mind of the 
 confidence which His Majesty had placed in
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 167 
 
 their ability and integrity by encouraging them sovereign: 
 to alter old Canons and frame new ones, the *' Chas ' *' 
 
 1640. 
 
 like of which had not for many years been 
 done. 
 
 The Clergy shewed their affection to the Subsidies 
 throne so substantially, that they voted six 
 
 subsidies of four shillings in the pound. " for Syn. Ang. 
 
 ii 21 
 
 " the support of His Majesty's Koyal estate, and 
 "the furtherance of his most royal and extra- 
 " ordinary designs abroad." And, indeed, they 
 promised a more ample supply to the Exchequer 
 if they had power to make a larger levy. This 
 was the act on the part of the Clergy which 
 soon afterwards brought down upon their heads 
 a storm of parliamentary indignation one may 
 rather say, a storm of parliamentary fury. The 
 House of Commons viewed with no equanimity 
 the supply of the King's needs ; the members 
 of that assembly had then schemes under hand, 
 or at least in their heads, which this supply to 
 the Royal Exchequer might countermine. 
 
 After the vote of the subsidies the Synod Controversy 
 turned its attention to the enactment of Canons whether 
 needful, as was thought, for those uneasy times, tions are 
 
 T, i ! 1 1 i necessarily 
 
 .But while this business was in progress, a con- dissolved 
 
 stitutional question was raised which caused i 
 considerable controversy. As was above said, p 
 the Parliament which was convened acourse 
 with this Convocation was dissolved on May 5. 
 So when the Convocation met on May 6, the
 
 168 
 
 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- 
 politans : 
 
 Neile. 
 
 Fuller, 
 Ch. Hist. 
 Bk. xi. 
 p. 168. 
 
 183. 
 
 day following the dissolution of Parliament, 
 this question was immediately raised whether 
 a dissolution of Parliament necessarily involved 
 a dissolution of the concurrent Convocations. 
 This question was argued with more heat than 
 learning, on the side at least of those who 
 Coil. Ecci. thought that the Convocations were necessarilv 
 
 Hist. viii. & 
 
 dissolved when Parliament was placed under 
 such a disability by the Crown. In answer to 
 these objections it was shewn that there was a 
 wide distinction between the " Koyal Writ " for 
 summoning Convocations and a "Licence" to 
 enact Canons ; and, even admitting that the 
 "Licence" expired with the Parliament [for 
 this "Licence" was for some unexplained rea- 
 son so limited], yet that the " Writ of Summons " 
 remained in force until the assembly was dis- 
 solved by another document for that purpose. 
 This distinction between a " Writ of Summons " 
 and a "Licence" to enact Canons, which, by the 
 way, seems above the comprehension of some 
 people even in our own day, was so patent, that 
 most of those engaged in the discussion were, at 
 least on that point, convinced and satisfied that 
 the Convocations were still in a condition to 
 deliberate, notwithstanding the dissolution of 
 Parliament. 
 
 However, as some uneasy spirits were not yet 
 amenable to reason, His Majesty determined to 
 refer the question to some of the chief lawyers
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 169 
 
 about him. These learned persons returned an- sovereign: 
 swer and subscribed an opinion which knocked 
 down the dispute. Their subscribed opinion 
 ran as follows : 
 
 X. Chas. Z. 
 164O. 
 
 " The Convocation called by the King's pone. M. B. 
 " Writ under the Great Seal doth continue iv- 54 ' 
 " until it be dissolved by Writ or Commission 
 " under the Great Seal, notwithstanding the 
 " Parliament be dissolved. 
 
 "Jo. Finch, C. S. Edward Littleton. 
 " H. Manchester. Kalph Whitfield. 
 "John Bramston. Jo. Bankes. 
 " Bo. Heath." 
 
 The first of these subscribers was Lord 
 Keeper; the second, Lord Privy Seal; the 
 fourth, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas ; and 
 the sixth, Attorney-General. Supported by such 
 grave authority, the continuance of the Convo- 
 cation appeared warranted by the Constitution; 
 so that it proceeded with the business before it. 
 But a fresh " Licence " to enact Canons was pre- 
 pared, which was to continue during the Koyal 
 " will and pleasure." 
 
 Just at this time, when the business of pre- Riots in 
 paring the proposed Canons was in progress, the 
 Church and all those connected with her were 
 assailed with violence. Some fanatics broke into 
 St. Paul's Cathedral, tore down the furniture, and 
 raised tumultuous shouts of " No Bishops." Arch-
 
 170 ACTS OP THE CHUECH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- bishop Laud became the special object of the 
 
 tana, * fury of a London mob. A rabble rout of Ana- 
 
 e baptists, Brownists, and other sectaries, num- 
 
 iifii^il. Bering more than five hundred, attacked his 
 palace at Lambeth on the llth of May for 
 two hours. As these malcontents were, how- 
 ever, unable to carry that position, they deter- 
 mined to divert the assault and play off their 
 batteries on the Convocation. But sensible means 
 of defence were provided for that assembly, 
 and a guard, consisting of some companies of 
 the trained bands of Middlesex, commanded by 
 Endymion Porter, a man well affected to the 
 Church, his country, and his King, were marched 
 down to Westminster for the purpose. Thus 
 fortified, the Synod proceeded with its business 
 and prepared their Canons, despatching that 
 matter with speed and courage. 
 
 Comp. Hist. The six subsidies of four shillings in the 
 pound were finally concluded on and ratified, 
 with provisions for levying them under Eccle- 
 siastical censures; and here great offence was 
 given, because these subsidies were ratified with- 
 
 Coii. Ecci. out any confirmation by Parliament. On many 
 
 192.' occasions since the 37th year of King Henry 
 VIII. Parliament had confirmed the Convoca- 
 tional subsidies, but not always. According to 
 
 Cyp. Ang. the ancient constitution of this country the 
 
 ii. 123. . J 
 
 Clergy had most certainly a right to vote their 
 own money for the public needs, and to enforce
 
 1640. 
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 171 
 
 payment of it, too, without any parliamentary sane- sovereign: 
 tion. And, as a matter of fact, they had exercised K ' C1 
 this right, without any parliamentary interference, 
 so lately as in the twenty-ninth year of Queen 
 Elizabeth's reign. However, if they were capable 
 of any such honest recollections, perhaps some 
 members of the late Parliament felt reasonable 
 shame that the Clergy had shewn a substantial 
 respect for their Sovereign which they themselves 
 had refused to pay. And hence the ill will. 
 
 It may be observed by the way, that this A Ponti- 
 Synod intended to provide a Pontifical for the church of 
 
 English Church, consisting of a Form for 
 Eoyal Coronations, an Office for Consecrating Higt 
 Churches and Churchyards, and a Form for jj 'J n> 
 Reconciling Penitents, which, together with the Cyp. Aug. 
 
 . ii. 122. 
 
 Confirmation and Ordination Services, were to 
 be bound up in one volume. But this design 
 unhappily came to nothing; if augmented and 
 perfected it would have supplied a want seriously 
 felt to this day in the Church of England. 
 
 The most important work, however, of this Enactment 
 Convocation was the compilation and ratifica- seventeen 
 tion of the Seventeen Canons, popularly known 1540. 
 as the "Canons of 1640." These Canons had 9*- R 
 reference to the Royal power, the suppression 
 of Popery, Socinianism, and Sectarianism, the 
 prevention of innovations in doctrine and Church 
 government, the regulation of some rites and cere- 
 monies by enforcing the restitution of the .Com-
 
 
 172 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- munion Tables to the east end of the Churches, 
 land, ' from which they had been removed in some 
 yeile ' places, and finally to some particulars touching 
 parochial management and the proceedings of 
 Ecclesiastical Courts. These Canons having been 
 reduced to form, and engrossed, were enacted on 
 . Ang. the 29th of May, Archbishop Laud holding a 
 
 4 
 
 copy in his hand conjointly with the Prolocutor, 
 Dr. Kichard Steward, and reading aloud to the 
 assembled Synod the contents, which were signed 
 by the members, according to the constitutional 
 method of enacting such instruments. On the same 
 day this Synod was dissolved by the Archbishop. 
 It was against the Sixth of these Canons that 
 popular and parliamentary fury was soon after- 
 wards directed. That part of the Canon which 
 is needful for the purpose shall be precisely 
 here set down in full, that the reader may 
 judge of the reasonableness of such commotions. 
 It contained an oath to be taken by the Clergy, 
 and the oath was as follows : 
 
 The "&c." " I> A.. B., do swear that I do approve 
 
 nc MB " ^ e doctrine an( i discipline or government 
 
 iv. 549. established in the Church of England, as 
 
 "containing all things necessary to salva- 
 
 " tion ; and that I will not endeavour, by 
 
 " myself or any other, directly or indirectly, 
 
 "to bring in any Popish doctrine contrary 
 
 " to that which is so established ; nor will 
 
 " I give my consent to alter the government
 
 164O. 
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 173 
 
 " of this Church by Archbishops, Bishops, sovereign: 
 " Deans, and Archdeacons, &c., as it stands M 
 " now established, and as by right it ought 
 "to stand, nor yet ever to subject it to the 
 " usurpations and superstitions of the See of 
 " Kome. And all these things I do plainly 
 " and sincerely acknowledge and swear, ac- 
 " cording to the plain and common sense 
 "and understanding of the same words, 
 " without any equivocation or mental eva- 
 "sion or secret reservation whatsoever. 
 " And this I do heartily, willingly, and 
 " truly, upon the faith of a Christian. So 
 " help me God in Jesus Christ." 
 
 In opposition to the " &c." contained in this Cyp. Ang. 
 oath clamorous outcry was raised. It was coil. Ecci. 
 said to be the " greatest mystery of iniquity i^' 
 " which had ever been invented, at least among 
 " modern generations of men." It was accused 
 of involving such "unfathomable depths of 
 " Satan " as that no man could discover the 
 bottom of it. In fact, it was proclaimed that 
 swearing a man to an " &c." was imposing a 
 mysterious latitude of restraint, tying up the 
 conscience to hidden meanings, and obliging the 
 juror by undiscovered particulars. 
 
 All these ebullitions of rhetoric, however, were 
 merely the flashes of party heats. The " &c." had 
 no more to do with interpreting the sense of the 
 oath than one of Bentlev's eccentric criticisms
 
 174 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- on Horace is connected with a translation of 
 land, ' the Vedas. In the Third Canon preceding the 
 yeile ' one now under view these words had been used 
 in describing the gradation of Church govern- 
 ment, viz. : " Archbishops and Bishops, Deans, 
 " Archdeacons ; all having exempt or peculiar 
 "jurisdiction, with their several Chancellors, 
 " Commissaries, and Officials ; all persons en- 
 " trusted with the cure of souls." When, there- 
 fore, the Sixth Canon was drafted, containing 
 the oath above mentioned, this "&c." was in- 
 serted after the word "Archdeacons" to signify 
 those officials who had previously been nomi- 
 nally described at length, and to avoid need- 
 less tautology. Thus we learn how minute a 
 spark may kindle a devastating conflagration. 
 
 It may not be out of place to mention that 
 a contemporaneous copy, if not the very copy 
 enacted, of these Canons which caused such 
 national commotions both in and out of Par- 
 liament was a few years ago preserved in the 
 old State Paper Office, now pulled down. That 
 copy, one would think, was an instrument of 
 considerable historical interest and value. It is 
 a small quarto volume, dated May, 1640, and 
 stitched with three leather straps and thread. 
 A parchment is attached with the names of the 
 members of Convocation who subscribed. At any 
 rate, whatever its value, it was tied up in a not 
 very cleanly piece of common brown paper, to-
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 175 
 
 getber with some other not uninteresting records, sovereign: 
 In truth, the whole packet externally looked more *'%' x " 
 fitting for the housemaid's box, and suitable as 
 materials for fire-lighting, than an envelope con- 
 taining papers of high historical interest. Now 
 that the papers are transferred to the Kolls, it 
 is to be hoped that the packet above mentioned 
 is clad in more suitable garb than when I saw it. 
 
 This Convocation, having finished the business 
 connected with the subsidies and the Seventeen 
 Canons, was dissolved by Archbishop Laud on 
 the 29th of May, 1640. 
 
 On the 14th of April, 1640, the York Convo- YorkCon- 
 cation assembled concurrently with the Canter- enacts the 
 bury Synod last recorded. The Metropolitan of calons of 
 York, Dr. Kichard Neile, presided; and Dr. Henry Conc " M B 
 Wickam, Archdeacon of York, was elected Pro- iv - 55S - 
 locutor. A "Licence" to enact Canons was re- 
 ceived on the very day on which Parliament was 
 dissolved, May 5 ; and, as was the case in the 
 Southern Synod, a second and amended "Li- 
 " cence " was introduced on May 29, empowering 
 the Synod to proceed to Canonical legislation, not 
 limited by the words " present Parliament," but 
 " during the Koyal will and pleasure." This 
 York Synod granted subsidies to the King, as 
 had been done in the Southern Province, and 
 they were collected without any parliamentary 
 confirmation, in conformity with the precedent 
 laid down in the 29th year of Queen Elizabeth.
 
 176 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- Finally, the Seventeen Canons received from the 
 
 P i,aud, S ' Canterbury Convocation were unanimously ac- 
 geile - cepted and subscribed in the York Synod, and 
 enacted as obligatory throughout the Northern 
 Province. The last session appears to have been 
 held on June 26, and shortly after this Convo- 
 cation was dissolved. 
 
 The Seventeen Canons thus having received 
 full Synodical authority in both Provinces were 
 confirmed by Letters Patent under the Broad 
 
 via. sup. Seal [though it may be fairly doubted whether 
 this was constitutionally necessary] on June 13, 
 
 Cyp. Ang. and were promulgated on the 30th of that month. 
 
 ibid. p. 123. Shortly after this was done, a perfect hurri- 
 cane of outcry arose. But the subsidies granted 
 
 Naison's to the King for securing the safety of the coun- 
 
 Coll. i. 562. ' J 
 
 try and repressing the rebellious bcots was the 
 real offence, as may be gathered from the lan- 
 guage used. Mr. Pym and Mr. Hampden were 
 the leaders of the malcontents. Some went so 
 Echard's far as to say, " that their party was then strong 
 iii. 188. " enough to pull the King's crown from his head, 
 " but the Gospel would not suffer them." It is no 
 Theban puzzle to discover what this meant, nor 
 does it need an (Edipus to divine that the grant 
 of the subsidies by the Convocations was the spark 
 Pariia- which really kindled this flaming rhetoric. 
 
 mentary 
 
 flowers of Qn Nov. 3, 1640, that Long Parliament met 
 
 rhetoric. 
 
 Echard's to whose account may be set down torrents of 
 iii. 194. fratricidal bloodshed, the murder of an Arch-
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 177 
 
 bishop, the martyrdom of a King, and the misery sovereign: 
 of this country lasting for well-nigh twenty K ' x ' 
 years. This Parliament had not long begun its 
 sessions when Mr. Pym, Sir B. Kudyard, Mr. 
 
 Bagshaw, Sir J. Holland, Lord Digby, Sir J. Cul- C oiiier, 
 
 peper, Mr. Harbottle Grimston, and others of like J-Li 
 temper, launched their bolts of invective against 
 the Church and Clergy with nothing short of 
 frenzied fury. The records of the parliamentary 
 speeches of the day must be studied if anyone 
 would gain a true knowledge of the extravagance 
 of language indulged in. It would be impossible 
 here to follow out the frantic rambling of the 
 speakers, or give in any detail an account of 
 the strained flourishes of rhetoric which likened 
 
 the Pope of Eome to Herod, and Archbishop N 
 
 . . Coll. i. 564. 
 
 Laud to Pontius Pilate. Suffice it to say, that 
 these parliamentary orators dashed off nume- 
 rous figures of speech equally as discreditable 
 as the above to their character for precision 
 in comparisons or skill in expression. In truth, 
 they indulged in the last excesses of coarseness 
 and vituperation, and dealt more profusely in vul- 
 gar raillery and pothouse abuse than in accurate 
 learning or persuasive logic. Sir Edward Deer- 
 ing indulged himself in language of all-embrac- 
 ing extension when, in making a frantic attack 
 on the character of Archbishop Laud, he gar- 
 nished his metaphorical peroration with these 
 graceful words: "Before the year ran out he 
 
 A A
 
 178 
 
 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 8. 
 
 Metro- 
 
 York 
 
 vacant. 
 
 " hoped his Grace would either have more grace 
 iaua. ' " or no grace at all, for our manifold griefs do 
 "fin a mighty and vast circumference, yet so 
 
 t> J > J 
 
 "that from every part our lives of sorrow do 
 
 Echard, J L 
 
 Hist. Eng. " lead to him and point to him as the centre 
 "from which our miseries in this Church, and 
 " many of them in the Commonwealth, do flow." 
 
 The fairest and sweetest contribution, how- 
 ever, to the garland of parliamentary rhetoric 
 at this time, was made by Mr. Harbottle Grim- 
 stone. The delicacy of language and aptness of 
 metaphor acceptable to this House of Commons 
 was exemplified by that gentleman's address 
 when he announced that Archbishop Laud was 
 Hist. " the sty of all pestilential filth " " the great 
 " and common enemy of all goodness and of all 
 "good men" "a viper near His Majesty's per- 
 " son to distil poyson into his sacred ears," &c. 
 
 Upon consideration, however, it seems that 
 Mr. Grimstone's heat of temper made his lan- 
 guage overboil. His first metaphor, however 
 much it may have been approved of by those 
 to whom it was addressed, can no way hold good. 
 A man under certain conditions might possibly 
 be likened opprobriously to the occupant of a 
 sty, without doing any great violence to lan- 
 guage; but even the speaker himself on this 
 occasion, though quite worthy of an unsavoury 
 comparison, could by no one, without the vul- 
 garest perversion of thought and word, be likened 

 
 K. Chas. X. 
 1640. 
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 179 
 
 to the offensive outbuilding which he invoked, sovereign: 
 In fact, the coarse railleries and vulgar abuse 
 indulged in by the members of this House of 
 Commons have rarely, if ever, been equalled, 
 certainly never surpassed ; save by the profane 
 language subsequently delivered to the same 
 assembly by Oliver Cromwell, and the obscene Comp.mst. 
 terms by which he thought fit to designate the 1L 
 
 i/ O O 
 
 members, and that, moreover, to their very faces. 
 The above niceties, however, of simile, metaphor, 
 and illustration, were applied only individually 
 to the Archbishop. The more noisy explosions of 
 parliamentary rhetoric were reserved for assaulting 
 the Convocations. The " &c." in the Sixth of the 
 Seventeen Canons they had enacted in the pre- 
 vious spring was the special object of attack. 
 And here Lord Digby, Sir John Culpeper, and 
 Mr. Grimstone distinguished themselves re- 
 markably in the field. The " &c." was defined ibid, 
 as a " bottomless perjury," as " gross and absurd," 
 as " reaching numberless fathom deep " in mys- 
 tery, and as containing "neither divinity nor 
 "charity." These were lively sallies; but the 
 heroic champions in parliamentary warfare were 
 not satisfied with vituperation only, they took 
 more practical measures. So an order was ibid, 
 made that Mr. Selden, Sir Thomas Widdrington, 
 and Mr. Whistler should procure the formal 
 document under which the Convocations had 
 last spring been continued and had confirmed
 
 180 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- their subsidies to the King after the Parliament 
 Laud. ' na d teen dissolved. When this subject was re- 
 York sumed, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr. Nathaniel Fiennes, Sir 
 
 vacant. 
 
 Edward Peering, and some others, took the op- 
 portunity to renew their noisy declamations. 
 
 All these explosions, however, were nothing 
 but theatrical thunder ; these flashes of rhetorical 
 display were no more than the pyrotechnics of 
 a pantomime. No man can believe, after a 
 moment's reflection, that the " &c. " as above 
 explained could be any real cause of offence. 
 No ; it was the six subsidies of four shillings in 
 the pound, voted in both Convocations and ex- 
 tending over both Provinces, with a promise also 
 of more to the King if possible, that rankled in 
 the patriotic hearts of these parliamentary 
 orators. Those supplies to the Crown threatened 
 to thwart some dark designs now imminent, and 
 very dear to some at least of these rhetoricians. 
 And had it not been for those supplies, it is but 
 likely we might have heard of an earlier 
 mutinous occupation of Hull, of an earlier 
 assumption of parliamentary possession of the 
 arsenal of Portsmouth, of an earlier acquisition 
 of authority over the Royal armoury in the 
 Tower of London. The subsidies were the real 
 offence ; not the " &c." And that they were so is 
 proved by the evidence of the House of Commons 
 itself, which, after all this fire and fury, passed 
 this very plain, practical, and ungarnished reso-
 
 K ' Clia8 ' x " 
 
 164O. 
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 181 
 
 lution : " Tliat the several grants of the benevo sovereign: 
 
 " lences or contribution granted to His Most 
 
 " Excellent Majesty by the Clergy of the Pro- 
 
 " vinces of Canterbury and York, in the several Com P . Hist. 
 
 iii. 112-13. 
 
 " Convocations or Synods holden in London 
 "and York, 1640, are contrary to the laws, and 
 " ought not to bind the Clergy." Now this was 
 a downright palpable falsehood ; but let that pass, 
 in party heats truth is not always paramount. 
 
 This Parliament, moreover, very soon after- Pariia- 
 wards took precautionary measures to prevent precautions 
 any more subsidies to the Crown from being subsidies 
 hereafter thus voted, at least, while this Parlia- by tJLTcon- 
 ment ruled the destinies of England. Those vocationB - 
 measures were certainly of a. somewhat stringent, 
 one may say outrageously cruel character, being 
 three in number. 
 
 (1) The first precaution taken was the com- cyp. Ang. 
 mittal of Archbishop Laud to the custody of p * u * 
 Maxwell, Usher of the Black Kod, on Dec. 18, 
 
 1640, by order of the House of Commons ; and, ibid. 
 
 MF i c 11 i PP 1 * ^ ^' 
 
 on March 1 following, the prisoner was conveyed 
 amid the railing of a rabble rout to the Tower. 
 There he languished in prison nearly four years, 
 and on the 10th of January, 1645, N.S.,was brought 
 to the scaffold, where he died, a pattern of manly 
 courage and Christian constancy, a martyr to the 
 rancorous hostility of this Parliament. 
 
 (2) The second parliamentary precaution against 
 any more subsidies being voted to the Crown by
 
 182 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- the Clergy, was taken by "proceeding to a Bill 
 ' " f r punishing and fining the members of the 
 
 Williams. Convocations of the two Provinces " who had 
 Wajkr' enacted the Seventeen Canons. The proposed 
 
 Suff. p. 7. 
 
 fines are reported to have been as follows: The 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, ,20,000 ; the Metro- 
 politan of York, 10,000; Bishop Wren, ,10,000; 
 the Bishop of Chester, 3,000 ; the Dean of 
 Canterbury, l,000 ; each Proctor, l,000, &c. 
 It has been computed that the total of the fines 
 would amount to 200,000, a sufficient burden, 
 one would think, on the Clergy to prevent their 
 ever being in a condition during their natural lives 
 to vote anymore money for their Sovereign's needs. 
 Comp. Hist. (3) The third precaution taken by the House of 
 
 iii. 124. v ' r J , 
 
 Commons for its purpose was the impeachment 
 of thirteen Prelates of the Church, viz. the 
 Bishops of Bangor, Bath and Wells, Bristol, Ely, 
 Exeter, Gloucester, Hereford, Llandaff, Lichfield 
 and Coventry, Peterborough, Rochester, St. Asaph, 
 and Winchester, who were put to their answer 
 Nov. 12, 1641. 
 
 This impeachment, however, of thirteen 
 Bishops, and the imprisonment of Archbishop 
 Laud, did not satisfy the ardour of this 
 Ibid> House of Commons. That assembly soon 
 afterwards committed Williams the new Metro- 
 politan of York and eleven Bishops to the Tower, 
 viz. the Bishops of Bath and Wells, Durham, 
 Ely, Gloucester, Hereford, Lichfield and Coventry,
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 183 
 
 Llandaff, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, and St. 
 Asaph, merely for having signed a petition assert- ' 164 *.' 
 ing their constitutional rights. And here it is c Hist 
 observable that in this proceeding the House of m - 124 ~ 5 - 
 Commons had at least the acquiescence, and in 
 a measure the actual help, of the House of Lords. 
 Upon which it seems not out of place to remark, 
 that it would be but common prudence on the 
 part of the exalted members in our own times of 
 that august assembly to remember what speedy 
 fate overtook their noble predecessors at the 
 hands of this House of Commons, when its 
 members afterwards discovered that their spleen 
 against their betters had neither been satisfied 
 nor appeased by the imprisonment of two Metro- 
 politans, the execution of one, and the sufferings 
 of eleven Bishops who had groaned in prison by 
 the tyrannical act of that popular assembly. The ibid, 
 historical records of January 6, 1649, and of the student's' 
 first week of February in that year, may supply pp . 436-8. 
 some instructive matter for consideration to noble 
 Lords, before they again join with the House of 
 Commons in dishonouring Bishops of the Church 
 of England. 
 
 The reader may here fairly pause for a few 
 moments of recollection and reflection. It may 
 reasonably be asked, What can be said for 
 the honesty of men who, with such powers 
 of parliamentary oratory as they possessed, 
 fictitiously represented a perfectly innocent " &c."
 
 184 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- as the subject of their complaint, when the real 
 land, ' offence in their hearts was the subsidies to the 
 
 wiiiiama. Q rown ? What can be said for the justice of men 
 who proposed and proceeded far in a scheme 
 for mulcting the Clergy in a sum certainly ap- 
 proaching, if not amounting to, ,200,000, because 
 they had voted subsidies for the needs of their 
 King ? What can be said for the loyalty of men 
 who proceeded to impeach thirteen Bishops, be- 
 cause they had been instrumental in promoting 
 a grant of a benevolence to the Sovereign of the 
 Eealm ? And what can be said for the humanity 
 of men who committed to the walls of a prison 
 a Prelate personally most religious, kept him 
 languishing in that confinement nearly four 
 years, and then consigned him to the axe of 
 the executioner ; and who also committed to the 
 Tower another Metropolitan and eleven Bishops, 
 merely for the offence of having signed a peti- 
 tion asserting their constitutional rights ? 
 
 Monetary Not long after the barbarous parliamentary 
 
 transactions ... , -, . -, 
 
 between seventies above recorded another event occurred, 
 and the en in its sequel not wholly unconnected with the 
 
 Church, and which is not calculated to exalt the 
 fs 0f te character of this Long Parliament, which first saw 
 person. light on Nov. 3, 1640, at least in most people's 
 estimation. King Charles the First had invoked 
 the hospitality of the Scotch, and was indeed 
 their guest at Newcastle. And at this juncture 
 
 163. . . 
 
 a commercial transaction between his hosts and
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 185 
 
 the English Parliament was floated for the sale sovereign: 
 of the King to his enemies. The huckstering of K '^ *" 
 the Caledonian Commissioners, whose national 
 caution in monetary affairs did not on this occa- Comp. Hist, 
 sion fail them, and the haggling for rebate in 
 price on the part of the English Parliament, is 
 not altogether an edifying study. In truth, an 
 illustration of the sacred rights of hospitality by 
 the disposal of a guest on the part of the sellers, 
 and a wrangle over a future money payment for 
 his delivery to the purchasers on the part of the 
 buyers, are short of being pleasant subjects for 
 contemplation by any one. Nor would the dis- 
 satisfaction in perusing such an account be any 
 way lessened, in case the reader were a Briton, 
 by the reflection that the parties to this bargain 
 were Scotch Commissioners and an English 
 Parliament. He need not scrupulously weigh 
 out the proportions of disgrace to be allotted to 
 each, but he may well blush with deepest blood- 
 red shame at the retrospect of such a foul 
 national stain as Clytemnestra's invoked ocean 
 of oblivion can never wash out. He would 
 devoutly hope and pray that the fact may be 
 as far as possible concealed from all civilized 
 peoples in both hemispheres ; and further, that 
 it may not hereafter become known to any 
 savage tribes in our Colonial possessions, who, in 
 contrasting the parliamentary progenitors of their 
 new masters with themselves, might most fairly 
 
 B B
 
 Metro- 
 
 186 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 and righteously draw a comparison overwhelm- 
 
 politans: , . , . 
 
 laud, m gv in their own favour. 
 
 rea( jy_ mone y payment for the bargain 
 above mentioned included some outstanding 
 book debts ; and the sum agreed on, after much 
 haggling, was .200,000. This sum was raised 
 by a loan from the City of London, and was 
 placed on deposit at Goldsmiths' Hall on Nov. 
 Comp.Hist. 27, 1646. It was soon after transmitted to the 
 Scots ; but whether in hard cash, by notes, or by 
 a bill payable on demand, or postdated, does not 
 appear. However, the security on which the loan 
 was raised is observable. It was none other 
 than a lien on the credit of the sale of 
 Church lands. But whether the original donors, 
 in a more pious generation, of gifts dedicated to 
 Almighty God, and bestowed to promote the 
 message of "peace on earth" and "good will 
 "towards men," would have approved of this 
 devotion of those benefactions to the purchase 
 of a victim for the axe of the executioner 
 may be gravely questioned ; and had they fore- 
 seen this application of their offerings, it may 
 well be doubted if ever they would have been 
 made. 
 
 This House of Commons did not eventually 
 escape the proverbial fate of evil doers. Surely 
 
 "Raro antecedentem scelestum 
 "Deseruit pede poena claudo." 
 
 HOB. Car. III. ii. 31-2.
 
 SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 187 
 
 For let it be remembered that this was the very sovereign: 
 same House of Commons which, after all its magni- K '^4o. * 
 loquent flourishes of rhetoric and high pretence, Ne ^i a of 
 was " purged " by the drastic remedies of one of ^keslnia 
 Oliver Cromwell's creatures who had formerly ** ouse of 
 
 * Commons. 
 
 served the menial office of a drayman, but who 
 now, being promoted to the dignity of arbiter of 
 the destinies of these senators, incarcerated 52 
 of them in a chamber profanely denominated 
 H 1, and drove above 160 more from the House student's 
 like a rabble rout. This was the House of Com- p. U 435'. 
 mons whose members sat tamely in their seats 
 and submitted there to be railed at in language 
 so profane and obscene that it is impossible to 
 defile these pages by recording it ; and that, too, 
 from the lips of a man who, clothing himself in 
 a robe of sanctimonious hypocrisy, usually de- 
 livered himself in phrases of religious cant, but 
 yet thought the members of this assembly fit to be 
 addressed in such opprobrious terms as could not Comp. Hist, 
 be exceeded by the coarsest abuse of a Billingsgate "of. i. ' 
 fish fag. These were the men who submitted to see 
 their Speaker's mace carried off for a fool's "bauble," 
 and to be themselves a second time ignominiously 
 thrust out into the street, the doors meanwhile 
 being locked against their possible return. These 
 were the men who, after all their hectoring 
 display and vaulting ambition, instead of stand- 
 ing to their position in some manly form and 
 flashing the last grain of powder in defence,
 
 188 ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. [Part III. 3. 
 
 Metro- skulked away in dispersed rout from their posts ; 
 tana, ' an d who, after all their airy flights and soaring 
 ambition, crawled contemptibly to their end like 
 insects, and went out in smoke and smoulder, 
 col. 2. Nor did the ignominy of this House of Commons 
 end with its existence ; for this was the House 
 of Commons which, having cumulated all the 
 above dark catalogue of disgraces upon its me- 
 mory, was eventually stigmatized at its latter 
 end by a base and contemptuous epithet which 
 will perpetually cover its name with ridicule 
 and contumely so long as national records shall 
 last or English history be read. 
 
 But enough of these tempestuous times, and so 
 we may hail the advent of a more genial season, 
 
 " Nee fera tempestas toto tamen horret in anno, 
 " Et tibi, crede mihi, tempora veris erunt." 
 
 Ov. Fast. I. 495-6.
 
 PKESENT " BOOK OF COMMON PEAYEK." 189 
 
 IV. 
 
 COMPILATION AND SYNODICAL AUTHOKIZATION OF 
 THE PRESENT BOOK OF COMMON PEAYEE. 
 
 We next approach an event to English 
 Churchmen of this day the most interesting ' 
 
 of all those which have been considered. That 1685 ' 
 is, the compilation and authorization of the pre- 
 sent Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Now it must be confessed that the English Authority 
 
 of the 
 
 mind is not wont to investigate causes of things, present 
 
 & & ' "Book of 
 
 but is mostly satisfied with effects and results. Common 
 
 Prayer." 
 
 To this may be ascribed very much of the 
 Gnosticism, Humanitarianism, Scepticism, and, 
 what is more common, the Indifferentism of 
 the present day. Tangible and visible phse- 
 nomena are scientifically investigated and vo- 
 lubly enough discussed : the causes and originals 
 of things are sadly ignored. This national habit 
 of mind accounts for the fact and it is a fact 
 indubitable that if an ordinarily well-disposed 
 Churchman is asked on what authority he ac- 
 cepts the Prayer Book and honours it as a 
 manual of devotion, he will either tell you 
 that he never contemplated the matter, or that 
 he does not know, or that he accepts and
 
 190 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- honours the book because he found it in existence, 
 juxon, ' or because his forefathers had accepted and 
 
 Frewen. 
 
 honoured it before him. And this, to my cer- 
 tain personal knowledge is true, that any rea- 
 sonable answer to the above question could not 
 in any one instance be obtained, though con- 
 stantly sought from those very persons who 
 above all others ought to be in condition to 
 make reply. Of course, the two first answers to 
 the query above suggested are self-condemnatory. 
 To the two last the plain rejoinder is, How 
 then did it happen that you found it in exist- 
 ence, or that your forefathers accepted and 
 honoured the book ? And of these facts as ad- 
 mitted there is but one simple explanation, and 
 it is this at least in the mind of any reasonable 
 being because the book was rightly and duly 
 authorized by proper authority, i.e. the Pro- 
 vincial Synods or Convocations of the Church 
 of England. That this was the case shall here- 
 after be abundantly shewn ; and the reader 
 must forgive, on account of the importance of 
 the subject, a somewhat long discussion of it and 
 of its surrounding circumstances. 
 Republican During the time which elapsed between the 
 
 tender mer- 
 
 cies. martyrdom of King Charles I. and the return of 
 
 his son King Charles II., Constitutional govern- 
 ment was banished from this country, and the 
 tender mercies of Kepublican institutions, which 
 are sometimes the reverse of gentle, were sensibly
 
 PRESENT " BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 191 
 
 experienced. Respect for the rightsi of property sovereign^ 
 was exemplified by the expulsion of at least '' 
 
 1649 _ 
 
 seven thousand of the Clergy, with their families, 1685 ' 
 from their homes, as nominally specified in de- 
 
 tail by Walker, in his well-known book, " The xyiii - 
 
 " Sufferings of the Clergy." Humane regard for 
 
 the liberty of person was signified by commit- 
 
 ting large numbers of the Clergy to prison ; and 
 
 a project indeed was set on foot, with which ibid. xvii. 
 
 gentle purpose considerable progress was made, 
 
 for selling some of the most eminent of them, 
 
 and some Masters of Colleges, as slaves to the 
 
 Turks. Furthermore, a very keen sensibility 
 
 to the claims of liberty of conscience was sig- 
 
 nalized when their Wisdoms in Parliament en- 
 
 acted a Statute which provided not only that 
 
 it should be a punishable offence to use the Book 
 
 of Common Prayer publicly in church, but that 
 
 if any person should read it in any private house Walker's 
 
 or family within this kingdom of England, penal- 
 
 ties should be imposed amounting to five pounds 
 
 for the first offence, ten pounds for the second, 
 
 and for the third one year's imprisonment with- 
 
 out bail or mainprize. This Eepublican Parlia- 
 
 ment had, moreover, a peculiar method of dealing 
 
 out distributive justice. It voted on one occasion 
 
 " liberty to tender consciences, by way of indul- 
 
 gence;" and within two days, upon mature 
 
 consideration of the extent of this concession, 
 
 added a proviso, "that the indulgence as to
 
 192 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- " tender consciences shall not extend to the Book 
 juxon, " "f Common Prayer." Thus was the Common 
 rrewen - Prayer Book of the Church of England, so far as 
 Eepublican amenities and parliamentary enact- 
 ment could go, suppressed. 
 
 On the Eestoration of the Monarchy in 1660, 
 and the return of King Charles II. to England, 
 the English Clergy who had been with their 
 families expelled from their Cures, into which 
 dissenting preachers had been intruded, were 
 restored to their homes. On some occasions in 
 late years most doleful complaints have been 
 uttered by persons in very high quarters about 
 this proceeding. It has been execrated as an act 
 of exceeding cruelty, and recorded with wailing 
 most dismal. But this is really nothing short of 
 a fantastical display of perverted feeling. It re- 
 quires a capacity more than commonly improved 
 to discover any cruelty in restoring men to their 
 rightful possessions, of which they had been for- 
 cibly and unjustly deprived. The charge of 
 cruelty seems to a common understanding to lie 
 quite the other way, and to be more fairly charge- 
 able on those who had in the first place deprived 
 the Clergy of their property, and had then so 
 long continued to sanction and uphold such 
 confiscations. 
 
 Schemes for Several schemes shortly after the Kestoration 
 of the Monarchy were set on foot for restoring, 
 but meanwhile remodelling, the Prayer Book, in
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 193 
 
 order that it might be made more acceptable to sovereign: 
 the Puritan and Presbyterian dissenters, and \ e ^ m 
 might become a manual for public worship ac- 
 ceptable to all. 
 
 The first endeavour towards this end was First essay 
 made by assembling the Savoy Conference, so gicai Re- 
 called because this company met at the Bishop savoy 
 of London's lodgings in the Savoy, by the 
 Strand, in London. The scheme was not a hope- 
 ful one, nor was the event other than might 
 have been reasonably expected. This assem- 
 bly met under a Eoyal Commission issued for 
 the purpose, and bearing date March 25, 1661. 
 The Metropolitan of York [Accepted Frewenl Comp. Hist. 
 
 . . . . iii. 258-4. 
 
 eleven Bishops, and twenty-nine so-called Divines 
 were appointed, nine of the latter being mem- 
 bers of the Church of England, and twenty be- 
 longing to the Presbyterian or Puritan platform. 
 It would be tedious here to pursue the debates 
 of these Commissioners, through the exceptions 
 taken by one party against the existing Prayer 
 Book and the defences set up for it by the other. 
 And it would be beyond anyone's power, un- 
 less he had a remarkably penetrating intellect, 
 and that too uncommonly improved, to unravel 
 the fine-drawn distinctions in which Mr. Eichard 
 Baxter entangled the company. Indeed, no one 
 could possibly follow that gentleman with any 
 hope of satisfaction through his misapplication of 
 the rules of logic. Nor would it be any way 
 
 o c
 
 194 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- instructive to enter now upon an examination 
 ' f hi 8 "Reformed Liturgy," which, though drawn 
 ^ j^ j^ single hand, no sense of decency or 
 modesty prevented him from offering as fit to 
 supersede the Liturgy of the Church of England. 
 Coil. Ecci. It may suffice here to say, that the labours of 
 
 Hist. viii. 
 
 417-42. the bavoy Conference came to a most impotent, 
 not to say absurd result, as in effect expressed 
 in their own report, which assured the King 
 that they were most anxious to comply with 
 His Majesty's wishes, but that the only con- 
 clusion they could come to was that they could 
 agree on nothing at all. 
 
 Second The next effort to provide a Prayer Book for 
 
 Liturgical the Church of England was made in Parliament, 
 Parliament, an odd assembly, one would think, to under- 
 take the functions of a National Synod, or at 
 least a Synod of the Exarchate. This Parlia- 
 ment met on May 8, 1661, and on the llth of 
 that month it was ordered in the House of Com- 
 mons that "A Committee for Religion should meet 
 Commons' " every Monday." A committee was accordingly 
 viii. 247.' appointed of all the members of that House 
 that were of "the long robe," this being the 
 emphatic and particular direction of the House ; 
 and the preparation of a Bill for authorizing 
 a Public Liturgy was especially commended to 
 ibid. p. 279. the care of Mr. Serjeant Keeling. 
 
 Certainly it is somewhat puzzling to under- 
 stand why the duty of providing a Liturgy for
 
 PRESENT " BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 195 
 
 the Church of England should be confided ex- sovereign: 
 clusively to gentlemen of "the long robe," at ' 166 i'. 
 least, if we may judge from our later experiences 
 of the theological acquirements of members of the 
 learned profession, and from the performances 
 of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council and 
 of other high legal authorities in our own times. 
 However, after sundry discussions, the result was 
 that on July 9 " A Bill for the Uniformity of Commons' 
 " Public Prayers and the Administration of the vin. 296.' 
 " Sacraments," having been engrossed, was read a 
 third time in the Commons, and was sent up to Lords' 
 the House of Lords on the following day. . 305. ' 
 
 To the Bill sent up from the Commons to 
 the Lords there was attached a book which the B<2k. 
 " Committee for Eeligion " proposed should be- 
 come by Statute the Prayer Book for the Church 
 of England. It would be highly interesting to 
 be informed with absolute certainty what were 
 the exact contents of this parliamentary volume. 
 This, however, is a desire which cannot be ab- 
 solutely satisfied. The most earnest and dili- 
 gent search has been made for this liturgical 
 performance of the "members of the House 
 " which were of the long robe," but, unhappily, 
 without any success. Indeed it has been learned 
 from a librarian of the House of Lords that 
 this accession to liturgical literature perished in 
 the fire which destroyed the Houses of Lords 
 and Commons in the year 1834.
 
 196 
 
 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- 
 politans : 
 
 Juxon, 
 Frewen. 
 
 Eccl. 
 Courts' 
 Com. Rep. 
 p. 154. 
 
 Duplicate 
 copy in 
 Brit. Mus. 
 
 Eccl. 
 
 Courts' 
 Com. Eep. 
 p. 154. 
 Extract 
 from 
 
 Commons' 
 J ournals, 
 viii. 295-6 
 
 But, notwithstanding this deplorable loss of 
 the volume itself, some interesting particulars 
 about it may be surely derived from collateral 
 sources which are still accessible. It was cer- 
 tainly a Prayer Book of the edition of 1604, 
 as we learn from the House of Commons' Journals 
 themselves ; and, happily, a duplicate of the same 
 edition is now preserved in the British Museum. 
 At the end of the Commination Service, and im- 
 mediately preceding the Psalter in that volume, 
 there are two " godlie prayers " one " A Prayer 
 " necessarie for all Persons ; " and secondly, " A 
 " Prayer necessarie to be said at all times." 
 Immediately after the Psalter are ten prayers ; 
 and following them are the Metrical Psalms, ver- 
 sified by Sternhold and Hopkins, " with tunes." 
 This then we can consequently learn with abso- 
 lute certainty as to the Prayer Book commended 
 for adoption by " The Committee for Eeligion " 
 (1) that a duplicate of the book now existing 
 in the British Museum was the book attached 
 to the Bill ; (2) that the reviewers decided that 
 the two prayers "before the reading Psalms" 
 should be excised, to which fact the House of 
 Commons' Journals testify; and also (3) that 
 Sternhold and Hopkins' Metrical Version of the 
 Psalms, " with tunes," should be included in the 
 Liturgy of the Church of England. 
 
 This very meagre information as to the liturgical 
 provision proposed for the Church of England
 
 K.Chas.II. 
 1661. 
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 197 
 
 by the House of Commons' " Committee for Ke- sovereign: 
 " ligion," composed exclusively of gentlemen " of 
 " the long robe," is no doubt sadly disappoint- 
 ing, as fuller revelations might have supplied 
 some interesting studies for theologians. But 
 two things under these disabling circumstances 
 are yet quite clear. First, that any Committee, 
 which could have been guilty of employing such a 
 vulgar barbarism as "reading Psalms" to describe 
 the divine poetry of the sweet Psalmist of Israel, 
 must have been sadly unfit for the duties com- 
 mitted to its charge. And secondly, that it may 
 be a matter of unmingled thankfulness to all 
 Englishmen that Sternhold and Hopkins' doggrel 
 burlesques, " with tunes," of King David's divine 
 poetry did not become, under the auspices of 
 these gentlemen " of the long robe," part of the 
 liturgical formularies of the Church of England. 
 A learned author, indeed, once expressed a de- 
 vout hope that Sternhold and Hopkins were 
 " better Christians than they were poets." In this 
 aspiration every humane mind must cordially 
 join ; to which also an equally earnest hope may 
 be added, and it is this : that the members of 
 the House of Commons " that were of the long 
 " robe " in the " Committee for Eeligion " were 
 also better Christians than they were adepts at 
 the proprieties of rubrical language ; and further, 
 in more mundane regards, that for the sakes of 
 their clients and themselves, thev were better
 
 198 ACTS OF .THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- lawyers than they were poetical critics, or judges 
 
 politans: ~, , 
 
 jum, * Church music. 
 
 Prewen. rpj^ -j^jj an( j Book, ag "b e f ore ga i ( J ) W6 re Sent Up 
 
 from the Commons to the Lords. But this ses- 
 sion of Parliament soon coming to an end 
 on July 30 [1661], nothing was done in the 
 Upper House during this summer. Thus the 
 matter, as far as Parliament was concerned, 
 slept till the next session, which began in 
 November following. And during that session 
 we shall learn more both of Bill and Book. 
 Capacity of Now, inasmuch as the wisdom of this House 
 of the long of Commons chose for the revision, or at least 
 theological the provision of a Liturgy for the Church of 
 ments. A England, exclusively those members in that 
 assembly who were " of the long robe ; " and 
 inasmuch as a Eoyal Commission has lately, 
 in 1883, improved on that example by recom- 
 mending to the Crown that five lawyers, 
 without any necessary reference for advice 
 to spiritual authority, should be constituted 
 as arbiters of faith and doctrine over both 
 Metropolitans, all the Bishops, and the whole 
 Clergy of the Church of England, the reader 
 must here pardon a digression. And the 
 reader must further concede his pardon if 
 that digression should appear long, and have 
 a whole section of that part of the volume in his 
 hand specially devoted to this subject. For it is 
 really a very interesting engagement, and may
 
 X.Chas.II. 
 1661. 
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 199 
 
 too prove an instructive one, to enquire some- sovereign: 
 what carefully how far our own experiences of 
 the present time commend as salutary this choice 
 of Parliament in 1661, and this recommendation 
 of the Koyal Commission in 1883. 
 
 The appointment by the House of Commons 
 of a Committee of gentlemen " of the long 
 "robe" exclusively, with Sergeant Keeling as 
 their Chairman, for liturgical preparation and 
 the introduction of a Prayer Book for the use 
 of the Church of England, as before said, is some- 
 what surprising. Indeed there is not a more 
 odd episode, if indeed any one so odd as this, in 
 all English history. It transcends the whimsical 
 choice of the name "Defender of the Faith;" 
 which was appended to the styles and titles of 
 that fleshly monarch King Henry VIII. It is 
 more comical than the event which has been 
 historically and graphically represented of that 
 very questionable personage, Lord Howard of Es- 
 rick, being pulled heels forward from a chimney 
 in which he had endeavoured to escape from the 
 punishment of his ill-doings. 
 
 The gist of the comedy was, that this theo- 
 logical Committee was to be confined exclusively 
 to gentlemen "of the long robe." No one 
 other member of the House of Commons was 
 deemed a sufficiently expert theologian to be 
 included in the composition. But why mem- 
 bers of this particular profession should have been
 
 200 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4, 
 
 Metro- exclusively singled out for the purpose is, in 
 jnxon, these days at least, really a somewhat embar- 
 rrewen. raggm g question. Why the wisdom of this House 
 of Commons should not have, with equal if not 
 greater reason, deemed it essential that all mem- 
 bers of their "Committee for Keligion" should be 
 exclusively medical men, or exclusively agricul- 
 turists, or exclusively bankers, or exclusively 
 merchants, or exclusively members of even some 
 meaner craft, is altogether mysterious. Indeed, if 
 we may judge from the experiences of our own 
 days, either one of such restrictions would appear 
 to have been preferable for the purpose in hand. 
 It is universally supposed that the highest 
 authorities of the law are the best qualified for 
 their engagements. And so, to omit for the 
 present the wearers of stuff, or even of silk 
 gowns, such as were members of this theologi- 
 cal Committee, and to pass upwards to the very 
 highest grades of the learned profession, to the 
 wearers of Chancellors' robes and ermine that 
 is, to Lord Chancellors, to the rank of a Lord 
 Chief Justice, to Justices of the Queen's Bench 
 and Common Pleas, to Barons of the Exchequer, 
 and to the members of the Judicial Committee 
 of Privy Council What preferential claim could 
 they maintain for discharging the duty of li- 
 turgical reformers ? Their excursions into the 
 theological region surely have not always proved 
 happy or successful.
 
 PKESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 201 
 
 Let us then pursue some enquiry on this 
 head, and, confining ourselves strictly to our 
 own times, and not making search one year 
 further back [though I assure the reader that 
 such retrospect would be very helpful for the 
 purpose], some very interesting information may 
 be obtained. 
 
 It is doubtless needful, in approaching such 
 an enquiry, to be very careful that merely facts 
 should be recorded, and that no opinion on any 
 question of law should be ventured upon for a 
 moment, on any consideration whatever, by one 
 who has not the advantage himself of belonging 
 to the learned profession. Indeed, every word 
 shall be written with a vivid remembrance of 
 Sir E. Coke's warning in this respect, when he 
 affirmed, to use his own words, " that he never 
 "knew a Divine meddle with a matter of law, 
 " but therein he committed some great error." 
 
 Now one would not venture for an instant to 
 doubt the truth of this assertion of experiences 
 contributed by an authority generally so pre- 
 cisely accurate. So this wholesome warning 
 shall be most carefully kept in mind. While in 
 all reason it must in the meantime be remem- 
 bered, on the other hand, that, as regards the co- 
 herence of dates and the existence of matters of 
 fact, other people, and even those who may hap- 
 pen to be Divines, do not labour under any 
 greater incapacity for arriving at the truth than 
 
 D D
 
 202 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part ITT. 4. 
 
 Metro- those who are so fortunate as to be numbered 
 ' among the members of the learned profession 
 ^self. jS Ln( j one o ther remark, too, may not be 
 here out of place, in reference to Sir E. Coke's 
 affirmation above quoted, and it is this. If 
 that learned writer had substituted the word 
 " Lawyer " for " Divine," and the words " Eccle- 
 " siastical History " for " Law," he would then 
 have made an announcement not one whit less 
 credible than his original assertion. Indeed, 
 Sir E. Coke himself has contributed consider- 
 ably to its credibility in his own person, when 
 Coke's inst. he wrote of Convocation, that " As there be two 
 "Houses, so there be two Prolocutors: one of 
 "the Bishops of the Higher House, chosen by 
 "that House; another of the Lower House, 
 " and presented to the Bishops for their Pro- 
 " locutor." Beyond all question, to adopt the 
 learned jurist's own expression, certainly "there- 
 " in he committed some great error." 
 
 Bearing then in mind the above caution, it 
 shall be carefully observed. Meanwhile, it is 
 moreover to be remembered throughout this 
 enquiry that the most exalted members of the 
 learned profession are generally held to be more 
 fully equipped for the high functions they are 
 called upon to discharge than those of inferior 
 grade. Let us then prosecute this essay by 
 contemplating only the examples of proficiency 
 in Ecclesiastical history and theological learning
 
 PEESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PEAYEB." 203 
 
 which have in our own times been commended sovereign: 
 
 .Chas. I 
 1661. 
 
 to notice by the very highest members of the K ' ch 
 
 legal profession. And let us never in this 
 enquiry descend below the august rank of Lord 
 Chancellors, Lord Chief Justices, and the Judges 
 of the Superior Courts. 
 
 To begin, then : A very distinguished Lord A Lord 
 Chancellor of our own times, in a highly 
 elaborated historical speech, informed an admir- 
 ing House of Lords that there was no religious 
 ceremony connected with marriage before the 
 Council of Trent, that is to say, before the year 
 of our Lord 1545. That announcement is so 
 surprising that the reader may be inclined to 
 suspect that some error may here be made in 
 representing the speaker's affirmation. So, to 
 remove all doubt on that head, his Lordship's 
 words shall be precisely set down as they stand 
 now stereotyped in those national records, 
 Hansard's Keports. And that authority recites 
 this Lord Chancellor's words as follows : 
 
 " With their Lordships' permission he Hansard's 
 " would advert briefly to the history of the tary 
 " Law of Marriage. Throughout the whole Debates,' 
 " of Christendom there was no religious vSTarrfLp!! 
 " ceremony connected with marriage till the ^^ geq 
 " time of the Council of Trent." 
 From this announcement in the House of 
 Lords it is abundantly clear that this exalted 
 member of the learned profession was sadly
 
 204 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- uninstructed in the records of the religious 
 juxon, ' ceremonies which accompanied marriage in the 
 rrewen. j] ar }y Church and throughout subsequent ages. 
 He could never even have heard of the " arrse " 
 and " arrabones," the earnests of marriage ; of 
 the " annulus pronubus," of the " kiss," the 
 " ccelestial veil," the " loosing of the woman's 
 "hair," the "joining of hands," the "frequentia 
 " amicorum," the " presence of God's minister," 
 of " his benediction," or of the final " crown of 
 " myrtle." This Lord Chancellor could further 
 never have cast the most cursory glance over the 
 pages of those authors who have treated on the 
 subject of Christian marriage ; among whom may 
 be reckoned Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Optatus, 
 Gothofred. Nor could his Lordship ever have 
 paid the smallest attention even to the writings 
 of his own fellow-countryman, Mr. Selden, on 
 marriage. And indeed, even further still, within 
 his own sphere of learning, this highest authority 
 in English judicature could never have troubled 
 himself to consult on this subject the laws of the 
 Emperor Leo the Wise in the East, or of Charles 
 the Great in the West. 
 
 That a Lord Chancellor should labour under 
 these disqualifications for deciding on the law 
 of Christian marriage is perhaps in itself no great 
 marvel. But it is marvellous in the highest 
 degree that anyone so miserably ill-informed
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 205 
 
 in the matter should venture to dogmatize upon sovereign: 
 it before such an august assembly as a British K 'J5JJJ" 
 House of Peers. Nor is it credible that any- 
 one unconnected with the learned profession 
 would venture under the like disabling condi- 
 tions to undertake such an enterprize before any 
 audience whatsoever. However, as we proceed 
 we shall see like performances frequently re- 
 peated under equally disqualifying conditions. 
 
 Another notorious Lord Chancellor, sitting in other Lord 
 one of the two highest tribunals in the land, iors. nc 
 from which unfortunately there is no appeal, 
 announced [without any intentional profanity, 
 at least on this occasion] that two Prelates were 
 
 " created Bishops by the Queen, in the exercise Judgment, 
 " of her authority as Sovereign of this Kealm 
 " and Head of the Established Church." 20,' 
 In preparing this allocution, this Lord Chan- 
 cellor had the valuable help of another Lord 
 Chancellor, of an associated noble Lord high in 
 the learned profession, thirdly of a Master of the 
 Kolls, and fourthly of an assisting learned Judge. 
 So this announcement was delivered with the 
 highest accumulated legal authority. However, 
 being unfortunately inexhaustive in its terms, it 
 failed to inform the world whether the Sovereign 
 of this Eealm has power to " create " Priests and 
 Deacons, as well as Bishops ; and omitted more- 
 over to state that the style and title " Head of 
 the Church," as applied to the Sovereign, had
 
 206 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- been for well-nigh three centuries abolished by 
 juxon, ' Statute and by Koyal declaration conjoined. 
 
 Frewen. 
 
 Still strictly adhering to records of judicial 
 announcements occurring in our own times on 
 BendT 11 ' 8 Ecclesiastical subjects, we must now descend 
 from the august authority of three Lord Chan- 
 cellors to the ermined presence of a Lord 
 Chief Justice and the Court of Queen's Bench. 
 From the chief seat in that tribunal a Lord 
 Chief Justice, assisted by his learned brethren, 
 on the 25th of April, 1850, when treating of 
 Ecclesiastical matters, and specially of Ecclesias- 
 tical history, imparted to an amazed auditory 
 Queen's some very startling information. That high 
 judgment, legal authority assured the Court and the 
 1850. ' audience there present, that the venerable 
 Sir Thomas More was Lord Chancellor when 
 most certainly he was not ; that the pliant 
 Audley was not Lord Chancellor when as 
 certainly he was ; and that King Henry VIII. 
 and Queen Anne Boleyn were unmarried when 
 their daughter Queen Elizabeth was at least five 
 months old. And all this was embellished with 
 other " picturesque " fancies which it would be 
 tedious here to recite. In short, facts, dates, 
 history, and truth were trampled down into a 
 mass of inextricable confusion ; and, as one may 
 say, their mangled remains were pelted out of 
 Court with supercilious contempt. Nor can one 
 fail to observe that by this judicial performance a
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 207 
 
 sweeping and far-reaching judgment was passed sovereign: 
 on the Crown of England. For I have been told ^^fi'"' 
 
 &OOl 
 
 that it is held in the learned profession as an 
 inexorable rule, that judgments of Courts, until 
 reversed by a higher tribunal, must unhesitating- 
 ly be held as governing precedents for all lower 
 jurisdictions. Now beyond dispute the Crown 
 was by this judgment bastardized in the person 
 of our renowned Sovereign Queen Elizabeth. 
 This certainly was a lively performance for the 
 Court of Queen's Bench of all places in the world. 
 And one hopes, for the sake of the nation's credit, 
 though this judgment never has been reversed, 
 yet that in this instance at least some exception 
 may be made to the stern professional rule of 
 faith above referred to. Indeed, so far as the Court of 
 outer world is concerned, the truth must be con- pieas, 
 fessed that the recital of this judgment was after- 1350. ' 
 wards in another Court irreverently greeted with 
 explosive outbursts of irrepressible laughter. 
 
 Still adhering to our own times, and taking Justices of 
 leave of the august wearer of the S.S. chain, of Common 
 we arrive in order at the Justices of the Court 
 of Common Pleas. But as their excursions into 
 the Ecclesiastical domain have been twice before 
 recorded, the reader is referred to the margin. Supra, 
 And as it is not needful again here to advert to 
 their researches, we will listen to the deliverances 
 of the learned Barons of the Court of Exchequer 
 when engaged in an Ecclesiastical enquiry.
 
 208 ACTS OP THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- Now, still confining ourselves strictly to mat- 
 ters which have occurred in our own times, 
 
 prewen. we g n( j ^^ ^hose learned Barons, on the 8th 
 j 1850 > when approaching the Ecclesias- 
 
 region, lost themselves hopelessly in a very 
 wilderness of error, and that, too, in a matter 
 peculiarly within their own province. In dis- 
 25 Hen. coursing on the effects of the Statute which gave 
 
 VIII. 19. 
 
 all final Ecclesiastical appeals to the King in 
 
 this country, their exact words were as follows, 
 
 for one fears lest any misrepresentation might 
 
 creep into a paraphrase. This Act, they said, 
 
 court of "did but restore the ancient law of the 
 
 judgment, "land, as settled on this point by the Con- 
 
 July8,1850. ... . n , j - xV C 
 
 " stitutions oi Clarendon in the reign ot 
 "Henry II., Anno Domini 1164." 
 Now here, in these few words, are contained two 
 several deceptive phantoms as false as ever emerged 
 from the ivory gate. As to the first, respecting the 
 ancient law of the land, if the learned Barons had 
 given the most cursory attention to the very first 
 Constitution of one of the earliest Councils recorded 
 
 Spei. Cone, in this country's history, the Council of Brasted, 
 A.D. 696 ; to the records of the Council of Cliff- 
 
 ibid. pp. at-Hoo, A.D. 747 ; or of the Wittenagemote at 
 
 205 242 
 
 Leges Grately, A.D. 928 ; to the laws of King Edgar, 
 Cofc/M.B. or to that King's declaration to Archbishop 
 i. 246. Dunstan ; to King William the Ist's Great Char- 
 Spei. Cod. ter, A.D. 1085 ; or to the oath of King Stephen, 
 they never could have delivered from the Bench
 
 PRESENT " BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 209 
 
 this astounding announcement, that in Ecclesi- 
 astical causes an appeal lay to the King, "and no 
 " further," " by the ancient law of the land." The 
 statement is absolutely false. As to the second 
 affirmation, that such was an effect of the Constitu- 
 tions of Clarendon, it can only be said that what 
 the Vlllth Constitution the only one of the sixteen Matt. Par. 
 
 ad an. 1164. 
 
 Articles ratified at Clarendon which touches this Gone. MB. 
 subject did settle was this : that all Ecclesiasti- c oll Eccl _ 
 
 cal controversies within the Kealm " should be 
 "finally decided in the Archbishop's Court." And 
 that is directly contradictory to the learned 
 Baron's solemn and deliberate affirmation. For 
 the sake of their own credit it was a great pity 
 that they did not strike a light, and, proceeding 
 by way of regular discovery, consult authentic 
 copies of these Constitutions of Clarendon, which 
 they might have found in " Matthew Paris " and 
 the " Concilia Magnse Britannia." However, by 
 neglecting such obvious precautions, and by 
 rambling about in the dark, they unfortunately 
 stumbled over a mutilated extract given in Mr. Jus- 
 tice Blackstone's Commentaries fortuitously lying Comm. m. 
 in their way, and so plunged themselves into a 
 hopeless pitfall of error, and became an easy 
 prey to a Chimaera from which no Pegasus can 
 possibly devise for them any means of escape. 
 
 But all these Ecclesiastical performances by Judicial 
 the exalted members of the learned profes- of Privy 
 sion, in Parliament, and in what must now be 
 
 E E
 
 210 
 
 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- 
 politans : 
 Juxon, 
 
 Frewen. 
 
 Judgment, 
 Jud. Com. 
 Privy 
 Council. 
 Liddell v. 
 Westerton. 
 
 termed the several divisions of the High Court 
 of Justice, are outshone by the exhibitions pre- 
 sented to view in the Whitehall Chamber of 
 the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. To 
 schedule in brief the interminable self-contra- 
 dictions, historical misstatements, and flagrant 
 inconsistencies of that ill-starred tribunal would 
 swell a list intolerably tiresome to peruse. The 
 proceedings of that Court have been sufficiently 
 exposed, and indeed somewhat cruelly submitted 
 to reproach by the contents of the very first 
 page of the Koyal Commission on Ecclesiastical 
 Courts in 1883. It may therefore be enough 
 to say here, that there now lie before me seven 
 and a-half closely-printed octavo pages contain- 
 ing specific records of the mishaps of the Judi- 
 cial Committee, and consisting of one hundred 
 and fifty-seven items. The natural consequence 
 of all this is that the tribunal has become a " lu- 
 " dibrium pagi." The world is not so polite as 
 the Koman, who seems to have endeavoured at 
 least to conceal any outburst of laughter 
 
 " Varius mappa compescere risum 
 
 "Vixpoterat." 
 
 However, two of its odd performances, one 
 a very early one, and the other its very last 
 essay in Ecclesiastical regards, shall be here 
 recorded merely by way of specimens. The 
 early exploit was this : In an Allocution [for as 
 this tribunal assumes to be an Ecclesiastical
 
 PRESENT " BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 211 
 
 Court, I am fain to use Ecclesiastical termi- sovereign: 
 nology] pronounced on March 21, 1857, in the K 'i^i'. I] 
 Privy Council Chamber in Whitehall, and which 
 also, by the way, had the aid of a Lord Chancel- 
 lor in compilation, a surprising piece of liturgical 
 information was imparted to the world. This 
 Allocution pronounced that there was no " Conse- 
 " cration Prayer " in the Second Eeformed Prayer 
 Book published in King Edward the Vlth's 
 reign. But this is directly contradictory to mat- 
 ter of fact. For the " Consecration Prayer " in 
 that book is all but identical word for word 
 with the Consecration Prayer as existing in 
 the present Book of Common Prayer of the 
 Church of England. In later reprints of this 
 Allocution the passage has been mutilated; so 
 that, to use Ecclesiastical language again in refe- 
 rence to an Ecclesiastical proceeding, what now 
 appears in the Conciliar Acts of Whitehall is a 
 " False Decretal." 
 
 The last essay of the Judicial Committee in 
 Ecclesiastical regards has been to promulge its 
 latest dogma, which is this : that its judgments 
 are 
 
 " STANDARDS OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE Merriman 
 
 ^.Williams. 
 
 ADOPTED BY THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Judgment, 
 
 Privy 
 
 And with this dogmatic announcement we chamber. 
 may take leave of this tribunal. Only I com- 
 mend to the reader's notice, and, if he is an
 
 212 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- English Churchman, request his earnest at- 
 
 politaus : . 
 
 tention to the " Standards of Faith and Doo 
 
 prewen. trine " which the Judicial Committee of Privy 
 Council solemnly declares to be imposed on 
 his conscience. And here our enquiry ends. 
 
 To write the plain truth without disguise, it 
 does seem as though the atmosphere of the 
 Ecclesiastical region was fatal to the healthy 
 exercise of the legal brain ; and so long as it 
 remains exposed to those influences it appears 
 doubtful whether all the remedies contributed by 
 both Anticyras could give relief to the ailment. 
 
 If the densest Cleric in either Province of 
 Canterbury or York were to address one of 
 the divisions of the High Court of Justice on 
 an intricate question of barred remainders, or 
 to deliver himself before a Scientific Society on 
 the comparative potency of physical force, as 
 contrasted with natural force acting inversely 
 as the square of the distance, he could not dis- 
 play more melancholy incapacity for handling 
 the subjects he approached than the legal au- 
 thorities above recorded have revealed when 
 dogmatizing on theology and dealing with Ec- 
 clesiastical history. For at the very worst he 
 could do no worse than affirm as fact what is 
 demonstrably false. And yet, forsooth, in face 
 of all this, a Eoyal Commission has lately re- 
 commended to the Crown that, as was before 
 said, five judges, selected in rotation from the
 
 1661. 
 
 PKESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PEAYER." 213 
 
 Bench, without any reasonable regard either to sovereign: 
 qualification or character suitable for the pur- K ' ci 
 pose, or any necessary reference to spiritual 
 authority, should be constituted as arbiters of 
 faith and doctrine over the two Metropolitans, 
 the Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole 
 Clergy of the Church of England. " Quousque 
 "tandem" may be well exclaimed by all her 
 true and faithful children, 
 
 " Di talem terris avertite pestem." 
 
 But what makes the matter more alarming is 
 this: It is held as an inexorable rule by 
 the legal profession, that the judgment of a 
 superior Court is absolutely binding on inferior 
 tribunals where a like case subsequently arises. 
 And it may be observed that this professional 
 etiquette for it can rightly be described by no 
 other words being wholly insular, unknown to 
 Roman law, unknown to foreign law, unrecog- 
 nized by Statute law, and confined exclusively 
 to our Imperial Bench and Bar, is capable 
 of introducing abuses intolerable into Ecclesi- 
 astical Jurisprudence, and may hereafter prove 
 disastrous to the best interests of the Church of 
 England. From the Judicial Committee of Privy 
 Council there is no appeal ; nor would there be 
 any from the tribunal proposed by the Royal 
 Commission. And if Ecclesiastical Judges, both 
 in Provincial Courts and in all the Consistory 
 Courts throughout England, are to be bound
 
 214 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- by the antecedent judgments of such tribunals 
 juxon," as the Judicial Committee, or the Court pro- 
 prewen ' posed by the Eoyal Commission of 1883, it is 
 impossible to say what contradictions of facts 
 or what heresies in doctrine may be the govern- 
 ing rules for judgments. And even though the 
 Church's Courts are not in the same " Ordo 
 " Judiciorum," the Judicial Committee being a 
 Civil Court, the Ecclesiastical Courts being Spi- 
 ritual Tribunals, yet still we know from ex- 
 perience that the etiquette above mentioned is 
 even in them, though without just reason, to be 
 retained at least for the present inviolable. 
 
 How dear this worship of insular etiquette 
 has become to the legal mind of this country 
 may be gathered from the following facts. 
 I enquired personally of a renowned Professor 
 of Law in our elder University whether, if he 
 were a Vice-Chancellor, he should feel himself 
 personally bound, supposing a Lord Chancellor 
 had delivered a judgment when both mad and 
 drunk, to follow such judgment in every like 
 case in any future litigation. And I received 
 a most emphatic affirmative reply. I enquired 
 of an Attorney-General whether an inferior tri- 
 bunal was absolutely and inexorably bound in 
 every subsequent case to follow the judgment of 
 a superior Court, however wrong, until reversed. 
 The same affirmative reply, without doubt, hesi- 
 tation, or qualification, was returned. The like in-
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 215 
 
 formation has been also received from less exalted 
 legal authority. And more than this, there have 
 been several announcements in very recent times 
 indeed, from the Judicial Bench, that the judges, 
 though entirely dissenting from previous rulings, 
 still felt themselves bound to abide by them in 
 new cases coming before them. On all this it 
 can only be remarked, that to argue that because 
 injustice has been done to a suitor in the past, 
 therefore all future generations of suitors are to 
 suffer injury, seems a very questionable philoso- 
 phy. And it would further seem that such a 
 principle is no very attractive encouragement 
 to a conscientious man to accept the high office 
 of a judge, or even to enrol himself in a profes- 
 sion which would subject him to such immoral 
 slavery if the highest object of his ambition 
 were attained. 
 
 There is, however, one comforting reflec- 
 tion, and it is this : that the late Sir G-. Jessel, 
 thought by many to have been one of the most 
 acute and learned lawyers of this century, pub- 
 licly gave the world very unmistakeable assur- 
 ance that he would never consent to be bound 
 in such ignominious bonds. And further, it 
 may be justly deplored and very deeply re- 
 gretted that he did not live to give the world 
 some practical and incisive assurance that he 
 could be as good as his word; and that, too, 
 for the credit of our country's common sense.
 
 216 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- However, as matters now stand, what will be 
 juxon, ' the judgments of Ecclesiastical Judges with such 
 Prewen. p rece( j en ts to guide their decisions as the Ju- 
 dicial Committee has contributed, so long as the 
 above-mentioned professional etiquette of Secu- 
 lar Courts prevails in Ecclesiastical Tribunals ? 
 
 And now to return to our special subject from 
 this long digression. The superiority of Lord 
 Chancellors, Lord Chief Justices, and the highest 
 judges of the land, to the common rank and file 
 of the profession, is esteemed great. But if, 
 meanwhile, the first-named highest authorities 
 manifest, as we have just seen, such hopeless 
 incapacity when they approach Ecclesiastical 
 subjects : what can be thought of the wisdom 
 of the House of Commons of 1661, which en- 
 trusted the provision of a Liturgy exclusively 
 to gentlemen "of the long robe;" and those 
 too who, from the fact of their presence in that 
 House, certainly were not Lord Chancellors nor 
 Chief Justices, nor even Puisne Judges, and who 
 were moreover to be presided over in their 
 deliberations not even by a King's Counsel, but 
 only by a Sergeant-at-law ? Truly, a more 
 ridiculous farce was never conceived by the 
 funniest of comic writers. 
 
 King Charles the Ilnd's method with his Par- 
 liament, in reference to their proposed Prayer 
 Book, was something milder than that of our 
 138-140. ' heroic Queen, recorded in a former part of this
 
 PKESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYEB." 217 
 
 volume, but was nevertheless eminently success- sovereign: 
 ful. And we must now turn to the part taken \^ m 
 by King Charles II. and by the Convocations in 
 the matter of compiling and authorizing the 
 present Prayer Book of the Church of England. 
 
 A dislike of the expedient of the Savoy Con- Dr. Peter 
 ference, which, as we have seen, proved abortive, letter. 
 and a fear of the parliamentary essays at litur- 
 gical composition, seem greatly to have disturbed 
 the mind, among others, of the learned Dr. Peter 
 Heylin, who directed a well-timed letter at this 
 time to one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries 
 of State on this matter. After the introduction 
 of his subject, Dr. Heylin gave his correspondent 
 to understand that if Synodical authority should 
 be overlooked, the rights entailed by Magna 
 Charta would be disregarded; and that, if Parlia- 
 ment should be called without its concurrent 
 Synod, an innovation on the Constitution would 
 be inaugurated. And this he maintained by suffi- 
 cient examples. " If it be objected," to use the 
 Doctor's own words, " that the Commission now Comp. Hist. 
 " on foot " [meaning the Savoy Conference] " for 
 " altering and explaining certain passages in the 
 " public Liturgy may either pass instead of a 
 " Convocation or else be thought to be neither 
 " compatible nor consistent with it ; I hope far 
 " better for the one, and must profess that I can 
 " see no reason in the other. For first, I hope 
 " that the selecting some few Bishops and other 
 
 F F
 
 218 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- " learned men of the lower Clergy to debate on 
 
 politans s 
 
 juxon, " certain points contained in the Common Prayer 
 rrewen. e( j$ 00 fe. ^ s no f. intended for a representation of 
 " the Church of England, which is a body more 
 "diffused, and cannot legally stand bound by 
 "their acts and counsels. And if this Confer- 
 " ence be for no other purpose, but only to pre- 
 " pare matters for a Convocation [as some say it 
 " is not], why may not such a Convocation and 
 " Conference be held at once ? For neither the 
 "selecting of some learned men out of both 
 "Orders for the composing and reviewing of 
 "both Liturgies digested in the reign of King 
 " Edward VI. proved any hindrance in the call- 
 "ing of those Convocations which were held 
 "both in the second and third and in the fifth 
 " and sixth of the said King's reign ; nor was 
 "it found that the holding of a Convocation 
 " together with the first Parliament under Queen 
 "Elizabeth proved any hindrance to that con- 
 ference or disputation which was designed 
 "between the Bishops and some learned men 
 "of the opposite parties. All which considered, 
 "I do most humbly beg your Lordship to put 
 " His Majesty in mind of sending out his man- 
 " dates to the two Archbishops for summoning 
 " a Convocation [according to the usual form] in 
 " their several Provinces, that this poor Church 
 "may be held with some degree of veneration 
 "both at home and abroad." After this reason-
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYEK." 219 
 
 able application the learned writer craves par- sovereign: 
 don for his presumption, lamenting that no one \gg\\ 
 of higher figure and worth than himself had 
 undertaken to press the matter; and at the same 
 time assuring the noble Secretary that nothing 
 but a zeal of God's glory, and an affection for the 
 Church, would have forced the present letter 
 from its author. 
 
 Whether it was in consequence of this letter 
 it is impossible now to say, but certainly shortly 
 after this very seasonable and well-supported 
 application the necessary measures were taken 
 for convening the two Convocations. These 
 assemblies had not met for nearly twenty-one 
 years, having been silenced since the year 1640 
 by those rebellious commotions which made 
 havoc of our national institutions both in Church 
 and State. During part of that period the Con- Coil. Ecci. 
 vocations had been superseded by that amphibious 253. 
 apparition the Westminster Assembly, which, pre- 
 tending to usurp no less than the functions of a 
 National Synod, exhibited to the world a spectacle Comp. Hist. 
 of impotence and absurdity which is calculated 
 only to excite contemptuous ridicule. Its parent Hist. Later 
 was the Parliament ; and the Parliament cruelly 
 strangled its own offspring, as in that day was 
 likely enough. However, as this nation had 
 now recovered some measures of common reason, 
 one of the most ancient of her institutions was 
 restored and the Convocations were convened.
 
 220 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- On the 8th of May, 1661, concurrently with the 
 " meeting of Parliament, whose proceedings have 
 
 described, the Synod of Canterbury 
 assembled at St. Paul's Cathedral. The Bishop 
 
 Si May> ^ Condon [Sheldon] presided, Juxon, the Arch- 
 Conc. M.B. bishop, being in weak health. After the Te Deum 
 
 iv.565. ^ 
 
 Syn. Ang. had been sung, prayers onered up, and an 
 anthem sung, a polished and eloquent discourse 
 was delivered in Latin by Dr. Thomas Pierce, 
 on the text, " For it seemed good to the Holy 
 " Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater 
 " burden than these necessary things " [Acts 
 xv. 28]. The assembly, after service, adjourned 
 to the building then used as a Chapter House, the 
 goodly old house having been rendered unfit for 
 occupation by the impious barbarities of some of 
 Oliver Cromwell's troopers. And there the usual 
 formalities having been gone through, Dr. Fern, 
 Dean of Ely, was elected as Prolocutor of the 
 Lower House. Subsequent sessions were held 
 in King Henry Vllth's Chapel in Westminster 
 Abbey. In these sessions measures were taken 
 for providing a service for the anniversary of the 
 martyrdom of King Charles I., another for the 
 restoration of the present Sovereign, and another 
 for a day of public humiliation. The Canons 
 and Constitutions were also reviewed, with an 
 intention of publishing a new Code, an intention 
 which unfortunately has never been carried out, 
 and which, it is said, at that time was obstructed
 
 1661. 
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 221 
 
 by one or two persons on whom the matter de- sovereign: 
 pended. And so those who should have been a 
 most forward in promoting and defending re- 
 ligion were the chief impediments in the way 
 of its advancement. Finally, this group of 
 sessions having completed, on July 27, the busi- 
 ness of a benevolence voted to the King, was 
 brought to a close on July 31, and prorogued 
 to the 21st of November next following 
 [1661]. 
 
 Concurrently with the above, the York Synod York Con- 
 
 . vocation, 
 
 assembled on May 8, 1661. This Synod was open- May, 
 
 ed under the presidency of Dr. Kichard Marsh, 
 Dean of York, Archdeacon John Neil, D.D., and 
 Dr. Anthony Elcocke, as Commissioners for their 
 Metropolitan Accepted Frewen, who was absent. 
 After service in the Cathedral, the singing of the 
 hymn " Veni Creator," and the delivery of a 
 sermon, the members adjourned to the Chapter 
 House. There, after some formal business had 
 been transacted, and the Clergy prasconized, the 
 President, having said the Lord's Prayer, offered 
 up a Latin prayer, imploring a blessing upon 
 the Synod. And it is here remarkable, that this vide MSS. 
 prayer, which was of some length, was almost cieop. viu. 
 identical, word for word, with a prayer which cone. M. B. 
 was used at Synods in the Anglo-Saxon Church. " 
 Thus was commended to notice by this York 
 example the connexion between the earlier and 
 later Church of this land. And thus it is
 
 222 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- quite clear that at this time some authority in 
 the York Synod was not unacquainted with the 
 anc i en t Ecclesiastical records of his country. By 
 the unanimous choice of the Clergy, Archdeacon 
 Neil, D.D., was elected Prolocutor, and so the 
 Synod was put into a condition for proceeding 
 to active business. 
 
 This Synod held a group of six sessions ; and 
 meanwhile a Koyal Licence, dated July 23, was 
 sent down to it, authorizing the enactment of 
 Canons. This measure was adopted by the 
 Crown in conformity with the course pursued at 
 this time relating to the Southern Province, where, 
 as we have seen above, a project for reform of 
 the Ecclesiastical laws had been promoted. This 
 York Synod, shortly after the arrival of this Li- 
 cence, was continued, on the 8th of August [1661], 
 to Nov. 21 next ensuing, the same day as that 
 to which the Canterbury Synod had been con- 
 tinued. 
 The Canter- The two Synods next assembled on the same 
 
 bury and , _ T _ _ 
 
 YorkCon- day, Nov. 21 [1661]. These were the most 
 NOV. i66i. important in their results namely, the establish- 
 ment of the present Prayer Book of the Church 
 of England of any Synods which ever met in 
 this country, save perchance those of the year 
 1534, which synodically discharged the Papal 
 Supra, p. 78. Supremacy over this Church, as before recorded. 
 York Con- It will be convenient on this occasion to trace 
 NOV. i66 in the first place the Acts of the York Convoca-
 
 PKESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PBAYER." 223 
 
 tion, and then to turn in the second place to sovereign: 
 those of the Convocation of Canterbury. 
 
 On the day above specified [Nov. 21, 1661] Conc MB 
 the York Convocation assembled, and was con- iv - 567 - 
 tinued to the 30th of that month. But before 
 the last-named day arrived, some important 
 communications were made to the officers of the 
 Synod. For on the 22nd of November, the day Wake's 
 after the Synod met, a " Letter of Business " Append, 
 from the King was directed to the York Metro- 
 politan [Accepted Frewen], requesting that his 
 Provincial Synod should " review the Book of 
 " Common Prayer and the Ordinal ; " and a 
 further instruction was contained in the letter, 
 that the Synod should " make such additions 
 " or alterations in the said books, respectively, as 
 " to them shall seem meet and expedient." 
 
 At the time of the receipt of this " Letter of Appoint- 
 " Business," the Metropolitan of York, with his three Proxies by 
 Suffragans, the Bishops of Durham [John Cosin], appear 
 Chester [Bryan Walton], and Carlisle [Richard 
 Sterne], were in London; and measures were 
 immediately taken for transmitting this instru- Cone. M.B. 
 ment to the York Synod, which had now assem- 
 bled. Together with the Royal letter of business 
 those Prelates sent a letter of their own to York, 
 directed to Dr. John Neil, Prolocutor of that 
 Convocation. The contents of that letter were 
 to the effect that the authors of it were joining 
 in consultation with the Bishops of the Southern
 
 224 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- Province on the business referred to ; that the 
 " time available for settling the matter was brief; 
 
 &n( j ^^ i nconven i en t delay would arise if the 
 ordinary course was pursued of transmitting for 
 concurrence documents from the Southern to the 
 Northern Synod. Under these circumstances 
 they desired the York Convocation to appoint 
 proxies, who should be empowered to assent and 
 consent to the acts of the Canterbury Convoca- 
 tion at Westminster, so far as they related to the 
 business under hand. Urging expedition, the 
 Northern Prelates committed their correspondents 
 to God's protection, and appended their signa- 
 tures Accept. Ebor, Jo. Duresme, Rich. Carliol, 
 Bri. Cestrien. 
 
 Wake's In addition to the " Letter of Business" and that 
 
 Append, of the four Prelates just mentioned, the Northern 
 
 Metropolitan enclosed a note of his own also, 
 
 dated Nov. 23, to Mr. George Aisleby, the Kegis- 
 
 trar of the York Convocation. In this com- 
 
 munication his Grace requested that the business 
 
 referred to might be hastened with the greatest 
 
 despatch, as being of " great and general concern- 
 
 " ment ; " and he also took notice that in case 
 
 delays should occur the rights and privileges of 
 
 the York Synod might be endangered. 
 
 Cone. M.B. On the 30th of November, the day to which 
 
 Kennett's the York Convocation, as before stated, had been 
 
 p * e fj s 5 ter ' continued, an earnest debate took place on the 
 
 matters above mentioned. After careful delibera-
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 225 
 
 tion, an instrument of proxy was, by unanimous 
 consent, drawn up, deputing the following per- 
 sons as delegates on behalf of the Convocation 
 of York to act in that of Canterbury, viz. : 
 
 Dr. John Barwick, Dean of St. Paul's. 
 
 Dr. John Earles, Dean of Westminster. 
 
 Dr. Henry Fern, Dean of Ely, Prolocutor 
 [Canterbury]. 
 
 Henry Bridgeman, Dean of Chester. 
 
 Robert Hitch, Archdeacon of Leicester. 
 
 Matthew Smalwood, Proctor for the Arch- 
 deaconry of Chester and Richmond. 
 
 Andrew Sandeland, Proctor for the East 
 Riding. 
 
 Humphrey Floyd [? Lloyd], Proctor for the 
 
 York Chapter. 
 
 It will, however, appear hereafter that only six 
 of the above afterwards signed the Synodical 
 Act confirming the Prayer Book the names 
 of Dr. John Earles and Henry Bridgeman, from 
 some cause unexplained, not appearing. 
 
 The above-named eight persons were intrusted 
 with very large powers by the instrument of 
 proxy. They were authorized to assent and Cone. M. B. 
 consent, or to dissent and oppose, on behalf of 
 the Lower House of York, in regard to all pro- 
 positions which might be made. A general 
 power was given to transact all such business as 
 might be executed by the members of the. York 
 Lower House if personally present in London. 
 
 G G
 
 226 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- A formal reservation was added of the liberties 
 juxon, " an( i customs of their Province, as well as of the 
 
 grewen. Dignity and honour of their Cathedral Church. 
 The House also finally bound itself to the acts of 
 its proxies, under recognizances reaching to the 
 value of their goods and chattels. And the 
 Chapter Seal of the Cathedral Church of York 
 having been appended to the document, this 
 business came to an end on the 30th of Novem- 
 ber, 1661. 
 
 However, notwithstanding these very large 
 powers conceded to their proxies, the Lower 
 House of York did not deem itself precluded 
 from entering, during some subsequent sessions, 
 upon deliberations and discussions on the sub- 
 
 Conc. M. B. ject of the review of the National Liturgy. Six 
 propositions were brought forward by Dr. Sam- 
 ways, a Proctor for the Clergy of Chester and 
 Kichmond, and colleague of one of the deputed 
 proxies above mentioned. Dr. Samways' pro- 
 positions were certainly conceived with much 
 wisdom, and drawn up with considerable dex- 
 terity. Indeed, they so far commended them- 
 selves to that part of the Synod sitting at York 
 that an order was made that they should be 
 transmitted to their Metropolitan and his Suf- 
 fragans in London, with the view of their being 
 commended [if it should so seem fit to the 
 Northern Prelates] to the consideration of the 
 joint Canterbury Synod.
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 227 
 
 Such were the proceedings in the Northern 
 Convocation with regard to the review of the 
 Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We 
 must now return to a consideration of the Acts 
 of the Canterbury Convocation, fortified as it 
 was by the presence of Prelates of the Upper 
 House and delegates from the Lower House of 
 the Northern Province. 
 
 The Canterbury Convocation met on the same Canterbury 
 day with that of York last mentioned, on Novem- tion, 
 ber 21, 1661 ; and to the Synod at this time 
 convened the Church of England is indebted for 
 her Book of Common Prayer. The measures 
 taken for a review of the Liturgy and Ordinal 
 
 Oi/ 
 
 were as follows. A Book of Common Prayer Kennett's 
 
 , . ., 11-11 Register, 
 
 printed in the year 1636 was used, which has p . 565. 
 lately been photozincographed by Major-General 
 Sir H. James, E.E., under the authority of the 
 Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury, and is now 
 published. 
 
 In the volume interlineations were made, Methods 
 according to the alterations and the addi- compiling 11 
 tions agreed upon in Synod. Several books 
 and papers were made use of in pro- 
 secuting the work. The first of these were 
 some MS. notes in an interleaved Common 
 Prayer Book belonging to the Bishop of Dur- 
 ham's library, and which were believed to have 
 been extracted from the collections of the learned 
 Bishop Overall. The second were some MS.
 
 228 ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- notes in another Prayer Book, collected by Bishop 
 
 jnxon ' Cosin him self, than whom no man ever was 
 
 rrewen. j n a con( Jition to render on the subject in hand 
 
 more wholesome advice. The third were some 
 
 supplementary Latin notes of the same Prelate, 
 
 written in his own hand, and belonging to the 
 
 Bev. C. Neil, Eector of North Allerton. The 
 
 fourth were MS. notes of Bishop Andrews, 
 
 of revered memory, partly borrowed from the 
 
 Bishop of Durham's library, and partly from 
 
 the collections of Mr. Neil, before mentioned. 
 
 Syn. Ang. A Committee of Bishops was appointed by the 
 
 Upper House to prosecute the work ; these were 
 
 in number eight, namely : 
 
 1. Bishop of Durham (Cosin). 
 
 2. Bishop of Ely (Wren). 
 
 3. Bishop of Gloucester (Nicholson). 
 
 4. Bishop of Lincoln (Sanderson). 
 
 5. Bishop of Oxford (Skinner). 
 
 6. Bishop of Eochester (Warner). 
 
 7. Bishop of Sarum (Henchman). 
 
 8. Bishop of Worcester (Morley). 
 
 It was arranged that these Prelates should 
 meet daily, except Sundays, at 5 o'clock p.m., at 
 the Bishop of Ely's house, until their labours 
 should be completed. And it appears that this 
 Committee were assisted in their work by aid 
 supplied from time to time by sessions of the 
 Upper House. When portions of the book were
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 229 
 
 there agreed to, they were delivered to the Pro- sovereign: 
 locutor with directions that the Lower House K - Chas - 13t - 
 
 1661. 
 
 should revise and amend the matter sent down 
 as might seem needful. Matters progressed 
 speedily as regarded the body of the work, and on 
 the 2nd of December they were so far advanced 
 that the Preface [a production which, though 
 standing in the forefront of a book, is usually writ- 
 ten last], which had been composed by Sanderson, Lathbury, 
 and from the contents of which we learn that P . 301. 
 many frivolous and vain alterations in the 
 Liturgy had been suggested during the revision, 
 was committed to the Bishops of Ely, Oxford, Syn. Ang. 
 Sarum, and St. Asaph, that it might receive the 
 final touches of their hands. The reformation Kennett's 
 of the Calendar was mainly the work of one p . 574. 
 Mr. Pell, associated with Dr. Sancroft, who after- 
 wards became Archbishop of Canterbury, and 
 has left a name to be honoured by all posterity, 
 as having sacrificed all worldly interests to the 
 dictates of his conscience, and as having, with 
 the saintly Ken, accompanied by four other 
 Bishops, preferred deposition from earthly ho- 
 nours by our Dutch Monarch to a breach 
 of his sacred obligations to another Sove- 
 reign. 
 
 The Mr. Pell above mentioned was wisely 
 chosen to make the calculations required for a 
 reformation of the Calendar, as he was a most 
 acute and accomplished mathematician. He
 
 230 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- must have been a man of penetrating genius, 
 diligence, and great learning, as he was ac- 
 q uam t e d w ith nine languages besides his own. 
 Kenuett's jji g advancements in learning, however, appear 
 
 Kegister, 
 
 P. 575. to have been more remarkable than his provi- 
 dence for his own worldly needs. For he was 
 more than once in prison [presumably for debt], 
 wanted the commonest necessaries of life at 
 least, the life of a scholar even pens and ink, 
 and was at last buried by the charity of his 
 friends. 
 
 Syn. Ang. On December 9, Forms of Prayer to be used 
 at Sea, Emendations in the Commination and 
 Churching Services, and in the Office for Burials 
 at Sea, were introduced. 
 
 ibid. p. 93. By the 13th of December the work of revision 
 had so far proceeded that the Prayer Book of 
 1636, above mentioned, in which the interline- 
 ations and emendations had been made, had 
 been fairly transcribed into a MS. copy, which 
 was committed for final revision to a joint 
 Committee of both Houses. This Committee 
 consisted of the Bishops of Carlisle, Gloucester, 
 Salisbury, and St. Asaph, associated with Drs. 
 Robert Pory, John Pearson, and Anthony Spar- 
 row. By this Committee the last touches appear 
 to have been accorded to the work, some small 
 emendations being made in the Preface, some 
 few Collects revised, it is said, by Sanderson, 
 and the General Thanksgiving added, which
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 231 
 
 was composed by Reynolds, Bishop of Nor- sovereign: 
 
 wich. 
 
 1661. 
 
 Matters being now ripe for a conclusion of 
 the whole business, a form of subscription by 
 the members of the Synod had to be prepared. 
 This was a matter of importance and delicacy ; Syn. 
 
 ii 9395 
 
 and so the careful preparation of an instru- Kennett' 
 ment for the purpose was committed, on the 3f e fj 8 9 ter 
 19th of December, to the hands of Drs. Cosin 
 and Henchman respectively, Bishops of Durham 
 and Salisbury. These Prelates were to be as- 
 sisted in their work by Dr. Chaworth, Vicar- 
 General of the Bishop of London, and Dr. Bur- 
 rell, who held that office in the Diocese of Dur- 
 ham. They met on the afternoon of the day 
 on which the business was committed to them, 
 at the office of the principal Kegistrar of the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury ; and there, after in- 
 specting some ancient documents preserved in 
 the archives, unanimously agreed to a form of 
 subscription suitable for the purpose under hand. 
 This consultation took place in the presence of 
 two public notaries, Mr. William Fisher and Mr. 
 Francis Mundy, so that no pains were spared 
 for securing an unexceptionable instrument. 
 The following day, Dec. 20, 1661, is a day 
 
 certainly memorable in the annals of the Church ratifica- 
 of England, even though it may be little com- 
 memorated. On that day her two Convocations 
 or Provincial Synods [the Northern Synod united
 
 232 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- by delegation with the Southern] adopted and 
 juxon, ' authorized her Book of Common Prayer. But 
 rrewen. h er faithful children value that manual 
 
 B> f Devotion they very scantily acknowledge the 
 source to which they are indebted for the bless- 
 ing. Copies of the instruments of subscription, 
 and a list of the names of the members of the 
 two Provincial Synods who signed them, are 
 here appended in full, as they are attached to 
 the original document from which all our Com- 
 mon Prayer Books have been printed. The 
 document itself is a MS. consisting of 544 
 pages, copied from the book of the edition of 
 1636, in which the interlineations and additions 
 were made, as above described ; and the instru- 
 ments of subscription run as follows. 
 
 canter- LiBKUM PiiECUM PuBLiCAKUM, Administrationis 
 
 Sacramentorum aliorumque Bituum EcclesifB 
 
 Common Anglicange, vna cum forma, et modo ordinandi, 
 
 preOo-12. et consecrandi EPISCOPOS, Presbyteros, et Diaco- 
 
 Rep rt Rituai nos iuxta Literas Kegise Majestatis nobis in hac 
 
 40 tts PP 39> P ar te directas KEVISUM, et quingentas, quadra- 
 ginta, et quatuor paginas continentem, NOS Gu- 
 LIELMUS providentia Divina Cantuariensis Ar- 
 chiepus, totius Anglise Primas et Metroponus, et 
 NOS Episcopi ejusdem Provincial in Sacra provin- 
 ciali Synodo legitime congregati, unanimi assensu 
 et Consensu in hanc formam redegimus, recepi- 
 mus, et approbavimus, eidemque subscripsimus,
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 233 
 
 Vicesimo die mensis Decembris Anno Dni sovereign: 
 Millesimo sexcentesimo sexagesimo primo. 
 
 W. CANT: 
 
 GILB: LONDON. GEORGIUS VIGORNIENSIS 
 
 GULIELMUS BATH. ET GEORGIUS ASAPHENSIS. 
 
 WELLENS. p. cura- GULIEL: MENEVENSIS. 
 
 torem suu Ko. Oxon. Ko : LINCOLN. 
 MATTH^EUS ELIEN. B : PETRIB 
 Ko. OXON. HUGO LANDAVENSIS 
 
 GUIL. BANGOR : Ion 8 EXONIENSIS. 
 
 Jo : KOFFENS. GILB BRISTOLIENSIS 
 
 HEN : CICESTRENSIS. GUIL. GLOUCESTRENSIS 
 HUMPHREDUS SARUM. ED : NORVIC : 
 
 Nos ETIAM Universus Clerus inferioris Domus 
 ejusdem Provincia3 Synodic^ congregat dicto 
 Libro publicarum precum, Sacramentorum et 
 Kituum, una cum forma et modo ordinandi et 
 consecrandi Episcopos Presbyteros, et Diaconos 
 unanimiter consensimus et subscripsimus Die et 
 Anno prsedictis. 
 
 Henr. Fern Decan. Eliens. et Prolocutor. 
 
 Guil : Brougb. Decan. Glouc r . 
 
 Tho : Warmstry Decanus Wigorn : 
 
 lo. Barwick S. Pauli London Decan. 
 
 lo. Earles Dec. Westmonasterii. 
 
 Alex : Hyde Dec : Win ton : 
 
 Herbert Croft Dec : Hereford : 
 
 Jo. Croftes Dec : Norvicensis : 
 
 Micbael Honywood. Decan. Lincoln. 
 H H
 
 234 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- Edv : Eainbowe : Dec : Petriburgensis. 
 ' Guilielmus Paul. Decan. Lichfield. 
 
 Prewen. 
 
 Seth Ward : Decan. Exon. 
 
 Griff: Ossoriensis Decanus Bangor. 
 
 Johan : Fell Decan : 2Ed : Christ! Oxon. 
 
 Guil : Thomas Prsecentor Menevensis. 
 
 Geo : Hall Archidiac Cantuar. 
 
 Thomas Paske Archidiac. Londin. per Pro- 
 
 curatorem suum Petrum Gunning. 
 Eobertus Pory Archidiac. Middles. 
 Johes Hansley Archidiac : Colcest : 
 Marcus Franck. Archidiac S. Alban. 
 Johannes Sudbury Procurator Capituli Eccles. 
 
 Westmonaster 
 
 Tho : Gorges Archidiac Winton. 
 Bernardus Hale Archidiac : Eliensis. 
 Grindallus Sheafe. Archidiac. Wellensis. 
 lohes Selleck Arc^us Bathon. 
 loannes Pearson Archidiaconus Surriensis. 
 Gulielmus Pierce Archidiaconus Tanton per 
 
 Procuratorem suum Ki : Busby. 
 Gulielmus Creede Archidiaconus Wilts. 
 lo : Kyves Archidiaconus Berks 
 Tho : Lamplugh Archidiaconus Oxon 
 Gulielmus Hodges Archidiaconus Wigorn. 
 Franc. Coke Archidiaconus Staffordise. 
 Edvardus Young Archidiaconus Exoniensis 
 Kaphael Throckmorton, Archidiaconus Lincoln. 
 Jasper Mayne Archidiaconus Cicestrensis.
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 235 
 
 Geo. Benson; Archidiac; Heref: sovereign: 
 
 .Chas. I 
 1661. 
 
 Antonius Sparrow Archidiacomis Sudburiensis. 
 
 Kobertus Hitch Archidiaconus Lecestrensis. 
 Guil : lones Archidiaconus Carmarthen. 
 Edvardus Vaughan Archid: Cardigan, p Pro- 
 
 curatorem suum Guil : Tones. 
 Guilielmus Gery Archidiaconus Norvicensis. 
 Guilielmus Fane Procurator Diceceseos Bathon. 
 
 & Wellens: 
 Gualterus F foster Procurator Diceceseos Bathon. 
 
 & Wellens. 
 
 Petrus Mews Archidiaconus Huntingdon 
 Nicolaus Preston Procurator Capituli Winto- 
 
 niensis. 
 losephus Loveland Procurator Capituli Nordo- 
 
 vicens : 
 
 Henricus Sutton Procurator Vigorn. Diceces : 
 Eicus Harwood Procurator Diceces. Glocestrens. 
 Franciscus Davis Archmus Ladaven : 
 Kob'tus Morgan Archidiac : Merion. 
 Mich : Evans Capituli Bangor P'curator. 
 Kodol. Bridcooke Dioeces. Oxon. Procurator. 
 Joh : Priaulx Procurator Capituli Sarisbur : 
 Guilielmus Mostyn Archidiaconus Bangor. 
 Edoardus Wynne Diceces. Bangor Procurator. 
 Edoardus Martin Procurator Cleri Eliensis 
 Herbertus Thorndike Procurator Cleri Dicec. 
 
 Londinensis 
 Johannes Dolben Capit : Eccl : Cath. Christ. 
 
 Oxon. Procurator
 
 236 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- Guilielmus Haywood Cleri Dicec. Londinensis 
 
 polltans : 
 
 Procurator. 
 
 Ri . Bugby , Q^ Ecclesise. Wellens Pro- 
 
 curator 
 Edvardus Cotton Archidiaconus Cornubiens. 
 
 per Procuratorem suum Ei : Busby. 
 Gulielmus Dowdeswell Procurator Capituli 
 
 Wigorniensis 
 
 Josephus Crowther Procurator Cleri Wigorn 
 Bad. Ironside Procurator Dioeces. Bristoll 
 Ed : Hitchman Proc : Cleri Glocest : 
 Johannes Howorth Procurator Capit: Eccles. 
 
 Petrob : 
 
 Thomas Good Procurat. Diceces. Hereford. 
 Gualt : Jones Procurator Capit : Eccles. Cathed : 
 
 Cicestrensis. 
 Petrus Gunning Procurator Dioecesis Petribur- 
 
 gensis 
 Jacobus Ffletwood Capituli Co: et Lich. Pro- 
 
 curat : r * 
 Gualterus Blandford Capituli Glocestr : Pro- 
 
 curator 
 Henricus Glemham Decanus Bristol per pro- 
 
 curatorem suum Gualt Jones. 
 Gulielmus Herbert Procurator Cleri Suffolci- 
 
 ensis 
 losephus Maynard Procurator Cleri Diceceseos 
 
 Exoniensis. 
 lohan : Pulleyn Procurator Capituli Lincolni- 
 
 ensis
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PBAYER." 237 
 
 Richardus Ball Procurator Capituli Eliensis : sovereign: 
 Basilius Beridge Procurator Diceces. Lincoln!- K - cliaB - 11 - 
 
 1661. 
 
 ensis. 
 Georgius Stradling Cleri Dioces. Landavensis 
 
 Procurator. 
 Humphredus Lloyd Procurator Cleri Diceces : 
 
 Asaphensis : 
 Timotheus Halton Capituli Ecclesise Cathe- 
 
 dralis Menevensis Procurator. 
 Egidius Aleyn Procurator Cleri Diceces 
 
 Lincoln : 
 
 Guil. Foulkes Capituli Asaphensis Procurator. 
 Richardus Clayton Cleri Diceces. Sarisburiensis 
 
 Procurator, 
 losephus Goulston Cleri Diceces : Winton : 
 
 Procurator. 
 Guil. Rawley Cleri Eliens. Procurator. 
 
 LIBRUM PRECUM PUBLIC ARUM Administrationis York. 
 Sacramentorum, aliorumque Rituum Ecclesise 
 Anglicanae, una cum forma, et modo ordinandi, et 
 consecrandi Episcopos, Presbyteros, et Diaconos, 
 iuxta Literas Regies Majestatis nobis in hac parte 
 directas, REVISUM, et quingentas quadraginta et 
 quatuor paginas continentem, NOS ACCEPTUS Pro- 
 videnti^, divina Eboram Archipus Anglige 
 Primas, et Metroponus, et NOS EPISCOPI ejusdem 
 Provincise in sacra provinciali Synodo legitimd 
 congregati, unanimi Assensu et Consensu in hanc 
 formam redegimiis, recepimus et approbavimus,
 
 238 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- eidemque subscripsimus, vicesimo die Mensis 
 DECEMBRIS Anno Dni millesimo sexcentesimo 
 
 Freweu. 
 
 sexagesimo pnmo. 
 
 ACC: EBOR. 
 
 lo: DUNELMENSIS. ElCH. CAKLIOL. 
 
 Nos ETIAM Vniversus Clerus inferioris Domus 
 ejusdem Provincise Ebor Synodice congregati 
 per ntros respective Procuratores sufficienter et 
 legitime' constitut et substitut dicto Libro Publi- 
 carum Precum, Administrationis Sacramentorum 
 et Kituum, una cum forma et modo ordinandi et 
 consecrandi Episcopos, Presbyteros et Diaconos 
 unanimiter consensiinus et subscripsimus die et 
 Anno prsedictis. 
 
 HENR. FERN 
 lo BARWICK. 
 KOB: HITCH. 
 MATT. SMALWOOD 
 HUMPHREDUS LLOYD 
 AND. SANDELAND 
 
 It is observable that this Synodical authoriza- 
 tion of the Prayer Book was signed by two 
 Metropolitans and by twenty Bishops from the 
 two English Provinces, by eighty-six members 
 of the Lower House of Canterbury, under their 
 own hands or by proxy, and by six delegates for 
 the Lower House of York. In truth, nothing
 
 PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 239 
 
 could be more complete than the Synodical sovereign^ 
 authorization of the Book on Dec. 20, 1661. K '?^!,' 11 ' 
 
 Xoo2* 
 
 It may here be added that while the Bill for Uni- 13&14Car 
 formity was passing subsequently through Parlia- IL 4 - 
 ment for authorizing this Book of Common Prayer, 
 some verbal corrections in the Book were commit- 
 ted by the Upper House of Convocation for con- 
 sideration to the Bishops of St. Asaph, Carlisle, Syn. Ang. 
 and Chester. Their revisions were sent down 
 to the Lower House, where the members unani- 
 mously agreed to the corrections of the Prelates 
 aforesaid. The superintendence of the press was 
 placed in the hands of Dr. Sancroft, Mr. Scatter- ibid. p. 105. 
 good, and Mr. Dillingham. Order was taken for 
 a clerical alteration, by which the word " chil- 
 " dren " was inserted in the place of " persons " 
 [not baptized] ; for the printing of the book be- 
 fore the 24th of August, 1662 ; and for supply- 
 ing the work, when completed, to the parochial 
 churches in the several Dioceses under the in- 
 spection of the respective Bishops. The Forms of 
 Prayer for the 5th of November, the 30th of Ja- 
 nuary, and the 29th of May were introduced into 
 the Synod, publicly read, and unanimously ap- 
 proved; and for translating the whole work into 
 Latin, Dr. John Earles, Dean of Westminster, and ibid. p. no. 
 Dr. Thomas Peirson were appointed by the Upper 
 House. 
 
 In the prosecution of this whole business the 
 labours of the Synod gave so much satisfaction
 
 240 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro- that Bishop Sheldon, as President, intimated to 
 assembled members the gratitude with which 
 Upper House of the Imperial Legislature had 
 Lords' received the Prayer Book. He also added that 
 
 Journals, 
 
 xi. 408. the Lord Chancellor, in his own name, as well as 
 in the names of the Peers in Parliament assem- 
 bled, had given thanks to the Archbishops and 
 Bishops of both Provinces for the care and in- 
 dustry which they had displayed in the revision 
 
 Syn. An g . of the Liturgy. Bishop Sheldon was, moreover, 
 charged with a message from the Lord Chancellor 
 to the Lower House of the Synod, declaring the 
 sense of gratitude felt by the House of Lords, not 
 only towards the English Prelates, but towards 
 the Lower Clergy also, for the zeal displayed by 
 them in prosecuting the important work on 
 which they had been engaged. 
 
 And here any reader who is a faithful member 
 of the Church of England may well pause to look 
 back upon the 20th of December, 1661, as a memo- 
 rable era, and to reflect on the debt of gratitude 
 due from him to the Convocations or Provincial 
 Synods of the Church of England, for having 
 provided him with that inestimable blessing, the 
 " Book of Common Prayer." 
 
 Cmisanc- At the same time with the sessions of the 
 
 tion accord- 
 
 edtothe bynods just recorded, Parliament assembled on 
 
 Common Nov. 20, 1661. And shortly after the subject of 
 
 the rival parliamentary Book of Common Prayer 
 
 before described, as prepared by the House of
 
 PRESENT " BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 241 
 
 Commons' " Committee for Keligion," which was sovereign: 
 composed exclusively of gentlemen "who were of K '![gg2 "' 
 " the long robe," was brought before the notice of 
 the House of Lords. A message was sent from 
 the Commons on Jan. 28, 1662, to put their Lord- Commons' 
 ships in mind of "the Bill." On Feb. 13, the Earl viT^.' 
 of Dorset, seemingly in a doubtful mood, asked 
 whether the Upper House desired to proceed on 
 the book embodying Sternhold and Hopkins' 
 poetry, "with tunes," which was sent up from 
 the House of Commons, " or stay until the other Lords' 
 " book be brought in." By " the other book " xi. 383. ' 
 his Lordship meant our present Prayer Book, 
 which had been synodically ratified by the au- 
 thority of both Convocations on the preceding 
 20th of December, as has been above abun- 
 dantly shewn. To the House of Lords, upon 
 this question being asked, the Bishop of London 
 [Sheldon] signified that "the book" [i.e. the Con- 
 vocations' book] " will very shortly be brought 
 " in." That book was brought in on February 25, 
 with a message from the King reciting that it Lords' 
 had been reviewed by the Presidents, Bishops, . 393. ' 
 and Clergy of both Provinces, and commend- 
 ing it for adoption. Parliament took His Ma- 
 jesty's prudent advice, and shewed its wis- 
 dom, at least on this occasion, by giving Civil 
 sanction to the Convocations' book i.e. the MS. 
 before described, consisting of 544 pages, with 
 its Synodical ratification which was adopted 
 
 i i
 
 242 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4. 
 
 Metro, both by Lords and Commons and attached to 
 juxon, " ^ ne Act f Uniformity. 
 prewen. ^ g we h ave seeilj the endeavours of the Savoy 
 
 Conference to construct a Liturgy for the 
 Church of England came to an absurd and 
 impotent conclusion. The same fate befell the 
 Book provided by the House of Commons' "Com- 
 "mittee for Keligion," consisting exclusively of 
 gentlemen that " were of the long robe." And 
 the present Book of Common Prayer of the 
 Church of England, compiled and authorized 
 synodically by her Convocations, was happily 
 established by the Civil power as the Manual 
 of National Public Devotion, on May 19, 1662, 
 when the Act of Uniformity [13 & 14 Car. II. 4] 
 received Eoyal assent, and provided that the 
 Book should be used on and after St. Bar- 
 tholomew's Day, August 24th, then next en- 
 suing. 
 
 A curious fact connected with the original MS. 
 copy of the Prayer Book, which was attached to 
 i3&i4Car. the Act of Uniformity, may here be mentioned. 
 On search being made for it some few years since 
 among the records of the House of Lords, 
 it could not be found. In fact, it had mys- 
 teriously disappeared ; and as mysteriously 
 again appeared on another search being made. 
 Nor do I believe that the mystery has ever 
 been cleared up. Use of this" MS. Book was 
 made in 1870 by the Koyal Commissioners
 
 K.Clias.II. 
 1662. 
 
 " COMPEEHENSION " LITURGY. 243 
 
 appointed to enquire into the Kubrics, who sovereign: 
 
 have published, in their fourth report, its 
 
 Sy nodical authorization with the signatures of 
 
 the Metropolitans, Bishops, and Presbyters ap- port, pp. 
 
 , , . * ,, 39-40, bis. 
 
 pended in lull. 
 
 V. 
 
 REJECTION OF THE "COMPREHENSION" LITURGY. 
 
 The next memorable event connected with the sovereign: 
 Convocations during the time now under view was K ' 
 the rejection of the " Comprehension Liturgy." 
 
 Soon after that balmy breeze so pathetically A "Com- 
 recorded by Burnet had wafted, in 1688, our Liturgy 
 
 Dutch Sovereign King William III. from the 
 
 dull flats of Holland into Torbay, a scheme Hi 8 8 ^ Conv - 
 
 was set on foot for propitiating the Dis- notes - 
 
 senters of various denominations. This propi- 
 
 tiation was to be effected by the mutilation 
 
 of the Book of Common Prayer which we 
 
 now happily possess, and by substituting in 
 
 its place other forms of Divine Offices. A cpmp. Hist. 
 
 Company was consequently appointed by Eoyal 
 
 Commission, composed of nine Bishops and 
 
 twenty Divines, with Lamplugh, Metropolitan 
 
 of York, at their head, to prepare a scheme. 
 
 Burnet, Tillotson, and Tenison were moving 
 
 spirits; and among chief advisers for the 
 
 dissenting interest was Mr. Kichard Baxter, 
 
 that same gentleman who at the Savoy Con-
 
 244 ACTS Otf* THE CHURCH. [Part III. 5. 
 
 Metro- ference had the assurance to commend for 
 
 politans : , . , . . 
 
 Bancroft, adoption a Liturgy 01 his own private compo- 
 
 . gition for tbe uge of the Cllurcb of England. 
 
 O 
 
 It would take up here too much space to specify 
 all the so-called improvements which it was 
 proposed by this Company to make in the 
 Prayer Book. A few will serve as specimens 
 Lathbury, of the whole. These were, in effect, that the 
 
 Hist. Conv. 
 
 PP. 323-4. Calendar should be purified by omitting the 
 legendary Saints' Days that the use of the 
 surplice should be left to the discretion of 
 the Bishop, who should have regard in that 
 matter to "the desires of the people" that 
 children should be baptized without sponsors, 
 if the parents so desired that the signing with 
 the Cross in Baptism should be only recom- 
 mended, not commanded that the Communion 
 should be administered to persons not kneeling, 
 if they objected to do so, and " in their pews " 
 that the word " Priest " in the rubric before the 
 Absolution should be changed to " Minister " 
 that the words "remission of sins" should be 
 left out of the Absolution, " as not very 
 " intelligible " that most of the Collects should 
 be changed and enlarged for forms "more 
 "sensible and affecting" that chanting in Cathe- 
 drals should be discontinued. These, with others, 
 were the professed improvements in the Prayer 
 Book of the Church of England to be recom- 
 mended.
 
 " COMPREHENSION '* LITUEGY. 245 
 
 It was thought in many quarters that this sovereign: 
 method of altering the Prayer Book by a Eoyal K - ^J^" 
 Commission would fall short of satisfaction, 168& - 
 and indeed this conviction prevailed in both 
 Houses of Parliament. For on a " Comprehen- 
 " sion " Bill being introduced for bringing Dis- 
 senters within the Church of England, both 
 Houses of the Legislature demurred, and address- 
 ed the Crown thus : " That, according to the an- Comp. Hist. 
 " cient practice and usage of this kingdom in time 
 " of Parliament, His Majesty would be graciously 
 "pleased to issue forth his Writs, as soon as 
 "conveniently might be, for calling a Convo- 
 " cation of the Clergy of this kingdom, to be 
 "advised with on Ecclesiastical matters." The 
 Canterbury Convocation was accordingly con- 
 vened in 1689, and immediately on its assembly 
 there was foreshadowed an augury of the 
 reception which would there be given to a 
 proposition for mutilating the English Prayer 
 Book. That augury was the selection of their 
 Prolocutor by the Lower House. 
 
 Bancroft was under suspension by King Canterbury 
 William III. from the Archbishopric of Canter- meets, NOV. 
 
 1689 
 
 bury when this Convocation met. Bancroft is a 
 name which can never be mentioned without 
 reverential honour, as being that of a man who 
 was content to be deprived of the worldly emolu- 
 ments of his Fellowship at Emmanuel College, 
 Cambridge, because he would not conform to the
 
 246 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 5. 
 
 Metro- Republican standards of doctrine in 1649, and 
 Bancroft,' ^ those of his See of Canterbury in 1691 
 [whether he could thus be deprived of his spi- 
 ritual office is quite another question], because 
 he would not abjure allegiance to the very 
 Sovereign who had previously committed him 
 to the Tower for refusing to abandon his proper 
 duty. Five other Bishops, too, are worthy of 
 the same honourable mention, and on the same 
 account. These were five out of those six 
 formerly imprisoned by King James II., namely, 
 Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells ; Lake, Bishop 
 of Chichester; Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph; 
 Trelawny, Bishop of Bristol ; Turner, Bishop 
 of Ely; and White, Bishop of Peterborough. 
 These men are indeed worthy of all honour, 
 who, having been formerly imprisoned by King 
 James II. for adhering to their duty, were now 
 suspended by King William III. because they 
 would not abjure the allegiance they had sworn 
 to the very man who had so barbarously treated 
 them. A noble example this of conscientious 
 principles paramount! 
 Court in- However, Archbishop Sancroft being, as above 
 said, under suspension when the Canterbury Con- 
 vocation met, Nov. 21, 1689, Compton, Bishop of 
 
 . Hist. London, who had crowned William III. on the 
 refusal of Sancroft to do so, presided in his place. 
 Great endeavours, it is said, were made by the 
 ibid. p. 591. Court party to secure the election of a Prolocutor
 
 " COMPREHENSION " LITUKGY. 247 
 
 suitable to their views and favourable to the sovereign: 
 " Comprehension Liturgy." Now, if there is an *-^i am 
 assembly in the world where such back-stairs less. 
 influences would be futile, and indeed indig- 
 nantly resented, that assembly is the Lower 
 House of the Canterbury Convocation 
 
 " domus Me nee purior ulla est 
 
 " Nee magis his aliena malis." 
 
 HOB. Sat. I. ix. 49, 50. 
 
 Tillotson, one of the King's Chaplains, and 
 Clerk of the Closet, was the Court favourite. 
 But all the influences brought to bear in his 
 behalf were wholly impotent. The choice of 
 the Clergy, by a very large majority, as was 
 likely enough, fell on a man of very different 
 stamp; This was Dr. Jane, Eegius Professor of 
 Divinity in the University of Oxford. This 
 champion of the old Liturgy, on being presented 
 for approbation to the President, Compton, Bishop 
 of London, on Nov. 25th, made the usual Latin 
 speech, in which he extolled the Church of Comp. Hist. 
 
 iii 591 
 
 England ; and, implying that no alterations were 
 needed in her Liturgy, wound up his oration 
 with the words of historical fame addressed 
 by the Barons to King Henry III., " Nolumus 
 "leges Angliae mutari." Bishop Compton in reply 
 told the Clergy, among other things, that they 
 should shew " some indulgence and charity to 
 " the Dissenters under King William ; " thus, by 
 the way, not unreasonably, though perhaps unin-
 
 248 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part III. 5. 
 
 Metro- tentionally, designating that Sovereign himself as 
 a P r P er object of charitable indulgence. 
 
 At the next meeting the Bishop of London, 
 becoming sensibly aware that the Lower House 
 would not consent to the mutilation of the 
 Liturgy, for the avowed purpose of pacifying 
 dissenting cavils, made an excuse for proroguing 
 
 Hist. the Synod. Subsequently, on the 4th of Decem- 
 
 . 
 
 ber, both Houses sitting in united Synod, in 
 Henry Vllth's Chapel in Westminster Abbey, 
 the Earl of Nottingham brought down a Royal 
 Licence, and also a message from His Majesty. 
 In the latter document, King William III. as- 
 sured the Convocation that he doubted not that 
 they would " assist him in promoting the welfare 
 " of " the Church of England, and in effect com- 
 mended to them the adoption of the " Compre- 
 " hension " scheme. 
 Vain at- Immediately there arose some clashing between 
 the Bishops and the Lower House as to the 
 
 testant"on address to be presented to the Crown, the former 
 of EngiTnd. desiring to append the designation " Protestant " 
 to the Church of England, to which the Lower 
 House demurred, and finally succeeded in ex- 
 punging that misnomer so far as this Church was 
 concerned. For the word " Protestant " is only 
 rightly applied to such as protested against the 
 Diet of Spires, the Diet of Spires having repudi- 
 ated the "Augsburg Confession." But happily, 
 the Church of England having no way con-
 
 "COMPREHENSION" LITUEGY. 249 
 
 cerned herself with either Augsburg or Spires, sovereign: 
 the Lower House was unwilling that a flourish K -' 1 JJ^ am 
 of nomenclature wholly inapplicable, and more- 1689 - 
 over very absurd in this connexion, should be 
 appended to her time-honoured name. For 
 how can the Church, as teacher of a definite 
 faith, discharge her duty by contradictions? 
 Protesting at best signifies but bald negation. 
 To protest against all the false beliefs which 
 have ever pestered the world, from Confucius 
 to Calvin, from the Vedas arid Zendavesta 
 to the latest Mormon apostacy, may be the 
 negation of a vast bulk of error, but can 
 never mount to the assertion of one single simply- 
 defined truth. 
 
 As regards the "Comprehension" Liturgy, after "Compre- 
 hension " 
 sundry sessions the counsels of the Lower House Liturgy 
 
 of Convocation prevailed, and the Comprehension comp. Hist. 
 
 iii 595 
 
 scheme was abandoned, having proved a hope- 
 less failure, notwithstanding its Koyal and 
 courtier parentage. Had it not been for the 
 determination of the Lower House of the 
 Canterbury Convocation on this occasion, the 
 English Prayer Book would have been mutilated 
 beyond recovery. That assembly deserves the 
 sincere gratitude of all English Churchmen. 
 The members stood to their position like men, 
 defended their citadel with courage and con- 
 stancy, and left a worthy example which 
 assuredly their successors will imitate, and resist 
 
 K K
 
 250 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 5. 
 
 Metro- attacks, from whatever quarter they may be 
 , directed, against the integrity of the Prayer Book 
 .' of the church of England. 
 
 Lamplng-h, 
 
 Black- During the years which elapsed between the 
 date of the rejection of the " Comprehension 
 
 " Liturgy " and the date of the suspension of 
 suspended. Synodicai action in this country, many events of 
 interest connected with the Convocations occurred, 
 such as the condemnation of Winston's writings, 
 and other matters connected with the privileges 
 of the two Houses, respectively. It is not, how- 
 ever, needful for the present purpose to call special 
 attention to these. It shall here suffice to write, 
 Lathbury, that in the year 1716, Hoadly, Bishop of Bangor, 
 pp.45i-460. published a book entitled, " The Preservative," &c. 
 He was also author of another book, on " The 
 "Kingdom of Christ;" and in the year 1717 
 he preached a sermon before King George I. 
 at St. James's. Both books and the sermon were 
 accused of false doctrine, and so were delated 
 before the Canterbury Synod in 1717. A warm 
 controversy, known as the Bangorian contro- 
 versy, was kindled, and the Whig Government 
 of the day, being friendly to Hoadly's principles, 
 was induced for the time to suspend Convocational 
 ibid. p. 463. action by prorogation on the 14th Feb., 1718. 
 From that date Synodicai action of any impor- 
 tance was suspended down to the year 1852. 
 For though Convocations met and transacted 
 some business in 1728 and 1741, yet their meet-
 
 SUSPENSION OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 251 
 
 ings were generally, in the interval above named, 1718- 
 merely pro forma. They did indeed assemble 
 contemporaneously with the meeting of every 
 Parliament, solemnly opened their sessions, 
 formed a Lower House, elected a Prolocutor, 
 and were then dismissed, being continued from 
 time to time by prorogations of the Metropolitans. 
 The blame, however, of this suspension of action 
 must not be laid to the Civil power, as is some- 
 times done, but to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and 
 Clergy themselves. For by the Koyal Writs 
 always issued acourse with the Writs for Parlia- 
 ment, the Convocations were uninterruptedly 
 placed in a condition to proceed to business 
 without let or hindrance, so far as Civil authority 
 was concerned. 
 
 Before the year 1664 it was impossible that 
 the Convocations after assembly should separate 
 without proceeding to active work, because until 
 that year they taxed themselves in their Con- 
 vocations and were not generally amenable to 
 parliamentary taxation. In Saxon times the 
 lands of all Clergy were held by frankalmoigne, 
 that is, were free from all other taxation except 
 for the support of castles, bridges, and ex- 
 peditions. William the Conqueror turned the 
 frankalmoigne tenures of the Bishops into baronies, 
 which became thenceforward subject to escuage, 
 a money payment in lieu of supplying soldiers. 
 But the lower Clergy not possessing baronies,
 
 252 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 5. 
 
 1-718- still held their lands in frankalmoigne, and were 
 
 in a great measure exempt from the charges 
 
 which fell on other subjects. It was conse- 
 quently deemed right that they should contribute 
 more equitably to the public burdens; and after 
 several methods for this purpose had been tried, 
 the practice at last obtained that they should tax 
 themselves in their Convocations and there vote 
 " subsidies " or " benevolences " to the Crown. 
 Comp. Hist. This practice continued, as above said, to the 
 
 iii. 274-5. . . 
 
 year 1664, when by a private agreement between 
 Archbishop Sheldon, the Lord Chancellor 
 Clarendon, and some other of King Charles II.'s 
 ministers, it was concluded that the Clergy 
 should waive the privilege of taxing their own 
 body, and should permit themselves to be in- 
 cluded in the money bills prepared by the 
 House of Commons. So great a constitutional 
 change has perhaps never before or since been 
 effected by a private arrangement. Jeremy 
 Collier prophesied that after the Clergy ceased 
 to tax themselves, their opinions and interests 
 would be more slenderly regarded. And he 
 seems to have been, from subsequent experiences, 
 no false prophet.
 
 SYNODICAL ACTION SUSPENDED. 253 
 
 VI. 
 
 SUSPENSION OF SYNODICAL ACTION IN THE 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 After the prorogation of the Canterbury Con- i-ns- 
 vocation as above mentioned, in 1718, the 
 necessity for the active work of our Provincial 
 Synods in reference to subsidies having ceased, 
 it seems that the Metropolitans and Bishops 
 came to the unwarrantable conclusion that there 
 was consequently no necessity for active work in 
 maintaining the fair fabric of the Church and 
 repairing breaches in her spiritual outworks. 
 Thus they paid slender heed to a very wise Bacon, 
 man's deliberate conviction and declaration, that np. 510? ' 
 as material castles and bridges require repairs 1326. 
 and renovations, no other is the case with the 
 edifice of the Church. And so, by the neglect 
 of her own master builders, the active operations 
 of her Synods remained in abeyance. 
 
 No misapprehension more groundless can Suspension 
 exist, no historical misstatement more transpa- LtiS not* 
 rently false can be made, than that the long 
 abeyance of Synodical action in the Church of 
 England is due to the interference of secular 
 authority, or even to any neglect of constitutional
 
 254 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 6. 
 
 1718- duty on the part of the Crown. No doubt the 
 
 '- Convocation of Canterbury was prorogued by 
 
 Koyal authority in May, 1717, and Feb., 1718, 
 on account of the " representation " made by the 
 Lower House to the Upper, complaining of the 
 doctrines taught by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly in his 
 books entitled " The Nature of the Kingdom of 
 " Christ," and " The Preservative against the 
 " Principles and Practices of the Non-jurors" that 
 Bishop being a favourite of the Whig Ministry 
 of the day. But those prorogations were but 
 ephemeral acts. They were only ebullitions of 
 political parti zanship of the hour. They were 
 merely the invocations of regal power by a 
 Cabinet, to shelter, under the provisions of the 
 " Submission Act," a Prelate acceptable to the 
 Ministry of the day. These prorogations could 
 have no reference, and had none, to subsequent 
 reigns ; nor had they any effect on succeeding 
 practice as adopted by the Crown. 
 
 As a fact, the Koyal Writs for convening the 
 Convocations have always, since King George I.'s 
 time, issued acourse with the Writs for summoning 
 Parliament. Nothing could be more true to the 
 Constitution in this respect than our Sovereigns 
 have ever been, in each succeeding reign. These 
 have been one and all, since the time above 
 specified, uninterruptedly mindful in this respect 
 of their Coronation Oath, and jealously regardful 
 of their princely duty to seek the counsels of the
 
 SYNODICAL ACTION SUSPENDED. 255 
 
 Convocations for the welfare of this Church and 
 Realm. There certainly has been no omission 
 of Royal duty in this matter since the political 
 interventions of Whig advisers. It is a perver- 
 sion of historical fact, it is an absolute contradic- 
 tion of truth, to cast on the memory of our 
 English Monarchs the reproach of the long 
 abeyance of Synodical action in the Church of 
 England. On the contrary, that long discon- 
 tinuance has been in absolute contravention 
 of successive Sovereigns' direct and emphatic 
 requests. 
 
 To what causes, then, is that abeyance to be Eeai causes 
 ascribed ? I do not think a question more diffi- pension of 
 cult of solution could be asked in reference either 
 to the Ecclesiastical or Secular history of this 
 nation; nor does it seem that any perfectly satis- 
 factory answer can be given. Any answer must 
 appear inadequate. That a Church, consisting of 
 Dioceses and Provinces, in fact an Exarchate in 
 the Christian world, meanwhile wholly auto- 
 cephalous, wholly independent of any external 
 authority or even influence [short of an (Ecu- 
 menical Council], should continue for more than 
 a century and a quarter without any active 
 Synodical or corporate action, is a phenomenon 
 well-nigh inexplicable. It seems contrary to 
 the experience derived from the previous history 
 of all ages of Christianity. 
 
 However, without for a moment pretending
 
 
 256 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 6. 
 
 1718- that a fully satisfactory answer can be given to 
 this question, some considerations shall be 
 suggested, which, if not removing, may some- 
 what tend to soften, the difficulty of reply. 
 Lack of St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 
 between thus writes : " The Presbytery, worthy of all 
 Presbyters. " honour and of their heavenly calling, are 
 . " attached to their Bishop even as cords to a 
 "lyre. Thus, by blended concord and sweet 
 "harmony, the honour of Jesus Christ is cele- 
 "brated," &c. That this concord and harmony 
 was much marred in the first half of the last 
 century and this is written with shame and 
 sorrow must, I fear, be put down as one pro- 
 bable cause for the discontinuance then of active 
 Synodical action. The reasons for that lack of 
 concord, however, are patent, and must rather 
 be ascribed to political statecraft, exercised by 
 other interested and somewhat unscrupulous 
 people, than to any natural infirmities inherent 
 in the Clergy themselves. 
 
 When King William III. ejected from the See 
 of Canterbury the heroic Sancroft [that Christian 
 exemplar of forgiveness of injury], and thrust 
 into his place the pliant Court Chaplain Tillotson, 
 it is not likely that the Clergy of the Southern 
 Province would feel themselves in harmonious 
 relations with the intruded Metropolitan. When 
 that same monarch substituted such a man as 
 Kidder for the saintly Ken, in the Diocese of
 
 SYNODICAL ACTION SUSPENDED. 257 
 
 Bath and Wells, it is no wonder that the concord 
 
 1852. 
 
 between the Clergy and Bishop of that Diocese -^ 
 should be marred. And further, as five Dio- 
 cesan Bishops were at this time extruded, and 
 successors more acceptable to Dutch proclivities 
 thrust into their Sees, it would be marvellous 
 if harmony throughout this Church had been 
 promoted. Hence the introduction of some 
 discords. 
 
 But this is not all. At the several changes in the 
 succession to the Crown in those times, there was 
 further reason for lack of harmony between the 
 Bishops and their Clergy. The former were more 
 than once for the most part complaisant enough, 
 and more than complaisant, apparently Welcom- 
 ing with much gladness the rising dawns of new 
 eras in our country's history. But quite the re- 
 verse was the case generally with the lower Clergy. 
 There was then sad havoc among the most 
 learned and most prominent of their ranks who 
 rnisliked the prospects. The portentous learning 
 of Collier, the deep and solid counsels of the 
 golden -penned Brett, and a roll of such men as 
 Johnson and Kettlewell, whose names are too 
 numerous to write down here, were lost to the 
 brotherhood of the Clergy, and that, too, on 
 grounds of conscience. And if some Bishops did 
 not mourn over the loss of their spiritual sons, 
 but rather the reverse, the Presbyters did bewail 
 the loss of their spiritual brothers. The lack of 
 
 LL
 
 258 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part III. 6. 
 
 1718- concord between Bishops and Clergy hence en- 
 
 '- gendered was as sad as it was natural. Indeed, 
 
 the discords arising, and the secret methods of 
 spying investigations consequently adopted in 
 the very highest Ecclesiastical quarters to 
 detect the Clergy's incompliance with Archi- 
 episcopal proclivities, are abundantly testified 
 by the Wake MSS. in the Christ Church 
 Library, Oxford; never yet, I believe, given 
 to the world, but which I have had the ad- 
 vantage of seeing by the extreme courtesy and 
 kindness of a former Canon of that house, the 
 late learned Bishop of Chester, Dr. Jacobson. 
 And this havoc made among the most esteemed 
 of the ranks of the Clergy, certainly with no dis- 
 approbation of some Bishops at least, did not 
 promote harmony, but alas! rather discord, 
 between the chief Pastors of the Church and 
 their Presbyters. 
 
 Some minor, more personal matters may be 
 added on this subject. Archbishop Tenison, of 
 whom the Jesuit Pelton said it seems not with- 
 out reason that he was like a certain artisan's 
 goose, "at once hot and heavy," helped to in- 
 crease discord, for he treated the Clergy in Con- 
 vocation with considerable contempt, and their 
 Prolocutor, Dr. Hooper, with marked rudeness. 
 Nor did Bishop Burnet promote concord between 
 the Bishops and Clergy, either by his treatment 
 of his own Clergy of Sarum, or by his unseemly
 
 SYNODICAL ACTION SUSPENDED. 259 
 
 language addressed to the Canterbury Prolocutor, 
 or by the language of one of his Visitation 
 Charges, in which he insinuated, if he did not 
 categorically affirm, that the members of the 
 Lower House of the Canterbury Convocation 
 were "enemies to the Bishops, the Queen, and 
 "the country." 
 
 It is not here intended to defend all the pro- 
 ceedings of the Lower Clergy in the Canterbury 
 Convocation at this time, who certainly did on 
 occasion arrogate privileges too expansive for the 
 Lower House. But the above-recorded facts will 
 shew that at this period of our history there was 
 unfortunately engendered a spirit very diiferent 
 from that recorded by St. Ignatius, and arising 
 from various and very dissimilar causes, which 
 would render the assembly of Bishops and Pres- 
 byters for common deliberation distasteful to 
 
 / 
 
 themselves, and perhaps the reverse of beneficial 
 to the interests of the Church. And it may have 
 been that for a time this discord was responsible 
 for the discontinuance of Synodical action in 
 England. 
 
 Another fact did most likely help to perpetuate General 
 abeyance of Synodical action, after the first the Church, 
 immediate cause above mentioned had passed 
 away. This fact also is a sad one to recount, 
 but unhappily too patent. During the last half 
 of the last century there was a lethargy 
 throughout the Church of England, and that
 
 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 6. 
 
 perhaps the natural effect of the lack of concord 
 
 1858 
 
 '- between Bishops and Clergy above mentioned. 
 Cathedral services had fallen to the lowest 
 standard, the services in Parish Churches were 
 scanty in number and meanly performed, the 
 Church fabrics were in a melancholy state of 
 disrepair, and the Churchyards perfect scandals 
 for slovenliness and disorder, thoroughly un- 
 worthy the name of " God's acre." It was not 
 until some years of the present century had 
 passed away that a general improvement in 
 these respects took place. It must be in the 
 memory of many now alive, that the inheritance 
 of negligence handed down to the first gene- 
 ration of this century was in the matters above 
 recorded a miserable one indeed. And as the 
 outward manifestations of worship and the 
 material accessories of religion were neglected, 
 it is perhaps no great wonder that the Ecclesias- 
 tical fabric of the Church's Constitution should 
 have been neglected too. 
 Unreason- And, once again, one other cause may be 
 
 Vvl 1 ^^ 
 
 tation of suggested as having contributed to the abeyance 
 wtharity. of Synodical action. Men of the character of 
 Wesley and Whitfield to whom all honour 
 is due for their labours in stirring up the 
 careless to a sense of personal religion and 
 the practice of Christian virtues were not the 
 most likely to encourage any return to corporate 
 action in the Church, nor was the spirit of
 
 SYNODICAL ACTION SUSPENDED. 261 
 
 their teaching. It was wholly personal, and they i7is- 
 had vast influence over some of the most 
 religiously-disposed minds in this country. 
 But that influence would certainly not be 
 exerted to recommend the revival of Synods. 
 Quite the reverse : individual personal influence, 
 by the appliances of pulpit rhetoric and the 
 unlimited exercise of private judgment, were 
 far more congenial to their natures, and much 
 more likely to be commended by them to others 
 than any dogmatic teaching enunciated by the 
 quiet but authoritative voice of the Church's 
 Councils. 
 
 It is again here repeated that I do not think 
 all the above causes united are sufficient to 
 account adequately for the phenomenon for 
 it is nothing less that all Synodical and 
 corporate action in this Church of England 
 was suspended for well-nigh a century and 
 a-half. The matters, however, above stated may 
 go a little way towards solving the mystery, 
 which, if it can in any measure be accounted for, 
 must be primarily set to the account of political 
 complications not over creditable to those con- 
 cerned in them. 
 
 Seeing, however, that this suspension is a 
 matter of fact, it may perhaps occur to some 
 minds that, however unaccountable it is, it may 
 have been ordered in God's providence for this 
 Church's good. Had the Church's Synods been
 
 262 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part III. 6. 
 
 1718- actively engaged in the latter part of the last 
 - century there were then political principles 
 prevalent, infidel doctrines propagated in quar- 
 ters not on the score of intellect to be despised, 
 a disregard of Church ordinances abounding, 
 and a general laxity as regards religion per- 
 vading the nation, which might have found 
 some reflection in the Church's counsels, and 
 entailed consequences most disastrous. And of 
 these not the least might have been a stamp of 
 Erastianism that very pestiferous and at the 
 same time silliest of all hallucinations im- 
 pressed upon the Church of England, fatal to 
 her integrity as a Spiritual Kingdom founded 
 on a commission higher than any which the 
 powers of this world can give or take away.
 
 PART IV. 
 
 SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CONVO- 
 CATIONS AFTER THE REVIVAL OF 
 SYNODICAL ACTION. 
 18521885. 
 
 I. 
 
 REVIVAL OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 
 
 IT is recorded of Dr. Johnson that his respect 
 for churches was so great that he never passed 
 one without taking off his hat ; but it is at the 
 same time affirmed that it was not a habit of his 
 to take it off when entering one. The paradox, 
 however, may be accounted for by the fact that 
 it was not his practice to attend public worship. 
 But, however negligent he may have been in 
 respect of personal religious duty, he professed a 
 high regard for the Church as an institution of 
 the country, and as a proof of that regard this 
 unromantic lexicographer affirmed that he 
 would " face a battery of cannon " to see Convo- 
 cations restored. However, if such was his devo- 
 tion to the cause when Parliament, which affected 
 to legislate for the Church, was composed of her 
 professing members, how vastly would that devo-
 
 264 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part IV. 1. 
 
 Metro- tion have been intensified had he lived to see the 
 doors of our secular legislative assembly opened 
 
 &Q w {ft e \y ag ^ o a( J m it professors of all religions 
 
 and of none ! 
 
 Measures After the admission of Jews and other aliens 
 the revival from the Church's faith into Parliament, a 
 
 ofSynodical f ,. , ., ,, 
 
 action. feeling began to prevail generally among 
 Churchmen, and indeed among all reasonable 
 people, and rapidly spread, that that assembly 
 was not a fitting or seemly arena for the 
 discussion at least of spiritual matters affecting 
 the Church. It was most deeply felt that the 
 Church should herself speak on such matters, 
 and that her voice could only be rightly heard 
 through her Provincial Synods or Convocations. 
 Consequently, as the first half of this century 
 approached completion strenuous efforts were 
 made for the revival of their active functions. 
 Among the most active promoters of this object 
 were the late Dr. Samuel Wilberforce, then Bi- 
 shop of Oxford, the late Mr. Henry Hoare, and a 
 society established for this special purpose. Al- 
 though our two Metropolitans at that time, Dr. 
 Sumner and Dr. Musgrave, were not favour- 
 able to the movement, still the general feeling 
 in the Church finally prevailed, and from the 
 year 1852 Convocations have resumed their 
 active and proper functions. They now meet 
 acourse with every session of Parliament, and 
 usually each Provincial Synod holds two or
 
 OPPOSITION TO REVIVAL. 205 
 
 three groups of sessions in every year during 
 the parliamentary session. 'laBrS*" 
 
 However, the first efforts for the revival ,, ~~ 
 
 .Resistance 
 
 of Svnodical action were not immediately sue- S^ 6 two 
 
 Metro- 
 
 cessful, mainly on account of the opposition poiitans. 
 of the two Metropolitans. 
 
 At the formal opening of the Canterbury Con- canter- 
 vocation, on Feb. 5, 1851, endeavours were made 
 by some of the members to enter upon active Collections, 
 business after the usual preliminaries were com- 
 pleted, but Archbishop Sumner at once repressed 
 those endeavours by ordering his Kegistrar, Mr. 
 Dyke, to read a schedule of prorogation. 
 
 On Feb. 4, in the following year, 1852, the ibid, 
 like endeavours were made, many of the Bi- 
 shops of the Southern Province being favour- 
 able to the revival of the action of their Pro- 
 vincial Synod, and many petitions from all parts 
 of the Province being presented with like in- 
 tention. Still, again Archbishop Sumner brought 
 all business to an abrupt close by ordering his 
 schedule of prorogation to be read. 
 
 In the Province of York, at the times last York, 
 mentioned, the Metropolitan, Dr. Musgrave, did Private 
 not even attend, nor were the members who MSS Ac. 8 * 
 assembled allowed to enter the Chapter House. 
 Some of them, however, sent a representation 
 to their Metropolitan on the subject. His Grace 
 curtly replied by letter that, in the absence of 
 a " Licence " from the Crown no active business 
 
 M M
 
 266 ACTS OF THE CHTJKCH. [Part IV. 2. 
 
 Metro- would be entered on. By which reply this 
 
 politans : 
 
 stunner, Metropolitan seems to have been insensible to 
 
 already 
 
 received a " Royal Writ," requiring him to con- 
 vene his Synod in order to consult for the 
 " defence of the Church and peace of the king- 
 dom," a Writ which he disobeyed in his own 
 person. The second fact being, that such an in- 
 strument as a " Eoyal Licence" is never required 
 save for enacting Canons, a process at this time 
 by no one contemplated. 
 
 In the same year, 1852, there was a new 
 Parliament, and consequently new Convocations, 
 and from this time we may date the real re- 
 vival, after an interval of 134 years, of Synodi- 
 cal action in the Church of England. 
 
 II. 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE MOST MEMORABLE ACTS OF 
 
 THE CONVOCATIONS SINCE THE REVIVAL 
 
 OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 
 
 Summary The most prominent Acts of the Convocations 
 since the revival of their active functions have 
 been the promulgation of a Harvest Service; 
 the Synodical condemnation of Dr. Colenso's 
 volume on the Pentateuch and the Book of 
 Joshua; the Synodical condemnation of the 
 volume entitled " Essays and Eeviews ; " the re- 
 modelling and re-enactment of the Canons on
 
 SUMMARY OF SYNODICAL ACTS. 267 
 
 Clergy Subscription ; the promulgation of Sy- sovereign: 
 nodical Decrees on the Vatican Council of 1870 ; ^'^ga!. 1 *' 
 the appointment of a Committee for revising 1885> 
 the authorized translation of the Scriptures; 
 the revision of the Lectionary in the Prayer 
 Book ; the provision for Shortened Services [and 
 it is encouraging to observe that the Act of 
 Parliament for this purpose, 35 & 36 Viet. c. 35, 
 amending the Act of Uniformity, recites, ac- 
 cording to ancient and time-honoured practice, 
 a reference to the Convocations in its preamble] ; 
 the revision of the Kubrics; the compilations 
 of Forms of Prayer for Seamen, and of a Ser- 
 vice for asking a Blessing on Missions; the 
 compilation of a Manual of Family Prayer, and 
 two Manuals of Private Prayer for English 
 Church-people. One of these is intended for 
 those who live by the honest and honourable 
 labour of their hands, the other for those who 
 are not engaged in bodily labour. Numerous 
 reports, also of the highest interest, on Clergy 
 Discipline and other cognate subjects, have been 
 issued recommending measures which, if canonic- 
 ally enacted, would prove of incalculable benefit 
 to the Church. 
 
 Moreover at this time, 1885, the Lower House 
 of Canterbury is engaged in providing a Manual 
 of Private Prayer for devotion at the seven ca- 
 nonical hours. And it is to be hoped that in due 
 time the Convocations will provide other Offices
 
 268 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. Part IV. 3. 
 
 Metro- emphatically needed in this Church. Such are 
 ' Offices for the Consecration of Churches and 
 
 f or ^ ne Reception of Eenegades ; for 
 the Confirmation of those who have been Bap- 
 tized as Adults ; for the Dedication of Bells ; for 
 the Appointment of Lay Deacons and Deaconesses, 
 and for other like purposes. Such additions 
 to our authorized formularies are much needed, 
 and to supply them would be but to imitate the 
 example of the Eastern Church [the mother of this 
 Church], which supplies Offices in her " Eucholo- 
 " gion" for the manifold contingencies of the Chris- 
 tian life. But the proceedings of these Convoca- 
 tions shall now be considered in fuller detail. 
 
 III. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1852, DISSOLVED 1857. 
 
 canter- The Canterbury Convocation assembled at 
 
 bury. 
 
 St. Paul's Cathedral on November 5, 1852. The 
 
 I*nvJit/6 
 
 Collections, President was Archbishop Sumner, and the 
 
 MSS., &c. 
 
 preacher 01 the Latin sermon was Dr. Jeremie, 
 Eegius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, who 
 took for his text," Tarry ye here and watch" [Mark 
 xiv. 34]. Dr. Peacock, Dean of Ely, was elected 
 Prolocutor of the Lower House, and a group of 
 sessions was forthwith held, in which sundry 
 heads of business were transacted, and matters 
 placed in a train for future action. On the day
 
 ENGLISH PROVINCIAL SYNODS, 1852-7. 269 
 
 first above mentioned, the revival of Synodical 
 
 action in England was practically inaugurated. i 8 5 2 % a 
 
 Groups of sessions of this Convocation were ' 
 held in February, 1853; in February and July, 
 1854 ; in February and June, 1855 ; in February 
 and April, 1856; and in February, 1857, in which 
 year the Convocations were dissolved. During the 
 whole of this time matters progressed favourably 
 for the revival of Synodical action ; for though there 
 were some of the Bishops either lukewarm in the 
 matter or absolutely adverse to it, and also a small 
 and not very learned party in the Lower House 
 who threw such impediments as they could invent 
 in the way, yet this opposition was absolutely 
 impotent, and the revival of the active functions 
 of this Provincial Synod of the English Church 
 became an accomplished fact. 
 
 There were also some uneasy spirits in both 
 Houses of Parliament, who at the beginning of 
 this Convocation endeavoured to create difficul- 
 ties, but their ignorance of Constitutional Law, 
 and of the whole subject into which they ram- 
 bled, was so crass, that they completely missed 
 their way as well as the object at which they aimed, 
 and, to tell the truth, made themselves ridiculous. 
 
 The concurrent York Convocation met on York. 
 
 November 5, 1852, the same day as that on Private 
 which the Canterbury Convocation above re- MSS^ &c. 8 ' 
 corded first assembled. The Metropolitan, Dr. 
 Musgrave, again absented himself, having con-
 
 270 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 3. 
 
 Metro- stituted as his Commissioner to act vicariously 
 *he Eev. Canon Hawkins. There was a large 
 attendance of members of the Lower House, 
 but the Commissioner, acting, it must be pre- 
 sumed, on counsels from a higher quarter, not 
 only fell again into the absurd error of suppos- 
 ing that a "Koyal Licence" was required for 
 entering on business, but also forbade any dis- 
 cussion, and that too in a manner the reverse 
 of courteous. The next session was held on 
 May 18, 1853, when the Metropolitan again ap- 
 pointed the Eev. Canon Dixon as his Commis- 
 sioner to preside. This gentleman improved 
 backwards on the example of the former Com- 
 missioner by declaring to the members present 
 Private " that he would answer no question " and " listen 
 
 Collections, 
 
 MSS., &c. to no argument ; and so he prorogued the as- 
 sembly. A session was again held on Feb. 1, 
 1854, the Metropolitan, Dr. Musgrave, still ab- 
 senting himself, having constituted on this oc- 
 casion the Kev. Vernon Harcourt as his Com- 
 missioner, who again, labouring under the error, 
 or at least seeming to do so, that a "Licence" 
 was required before any practical business could 
 be entered on, prorogued the assembly. The 
 above course was repeated at York till 1857, 
 when on Feb. 4 in that year Canon Vernon 
 Harcourt again presided as Commissioner, and 
 again repeated the process of prorogation before 
 any useful business could be accomplished.
 
 ENGLISH PROVINCIAL SYNODS, 1857-9. 271 
 
 IV. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1857, DISSOLVED 1859. 
 
 A new Canterbury Convocation, concurrently sovereign: 
 with a new Parliament, assembled on May 1, ^Jjjj^' 
 1857, under the presidency of Archbishop Sum- 
 ner, at St. Paul's Cathedral. After the Latin fcury. 
 Litany had been read by the junior Bishop chron. 
 present, Dr. Jackson of Lincoln, the anthem vict. Reg. 
 " pray for the peace of Jerusalem " was sung. 
 Then followed the Latin sermon, preached by 
 the Kev. W. Hayward Cox, Prebendary of Here- 
 ford, on the text, " And the servant of the Lord 
 "must not strive," &c. [2 Tim. ii. 24, 25]. At , 
 the end of the sermon the " Gloria in Excelsis " 
 was sung, and the Archbishop pronounced the 
 Benediction. The Dean of Bristol, Dr. Gilbert 
 Eliot, was elected Prolocutor of the Lower House, 
 and throughout the sessions of this Convocation 
 the time was mostly employed in getting matters 
 into working order. Groups of sessions were 
 held at Westminster in May and July, 1857 ; in 
 February, 1858,and February, 1859; and on April 
 25, 1859, this Convocation was dissolved. 
 
 This York Convocation was again forbidden York, 
 by the Northern Metropolitan, Dr. Musgrave, to
 
 272 
 
 ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. 
 
 [Part IV. 5. 
 
 metro- 
 
 proceed to business. It was prorogued from 
 stunner,' time to time, on one occasion by the Dean of York, 
 Musgrave. p r c oc kk urn ^ acting as Commissioner for the 
 ejections, Metropolitan the Dean not adopting the most 
 MSS., &c. cour teous manner imaginable. In fact, nothing 
 was practically done in this Northern Convocation, 
 and nothing worthy of record occurred, except 
 that again and again to the very last the old 
 fanciful notion of the necessity of a " Koyal Li- 
 cence" for proceeding to business was paraded by 
 the Commissioners and legal officials. Together 
 with the last-mentioned Canterbury Synod, the 
 York Convocation was dissolved in 1859. 
 
 Canter- 
 bury. 
 
 Chron. 
 Conv. vi. 
 Viet. Reg. 
 pp. 1 seq. 
 
 V. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1859, DISSOLVED 1865. 
 
 On June 1, 1859, a new Canterbury Convo- 
 cation assembled at St. Paul's Cathedral. The 
 President was Archbishop Sumner. The Litany 
 in Latin having been said by the junior Bishop, 
 the anthem, " pray for the peace of Jerusalem," 
 was sung. The usual Latin sermon was then 
 preached by the Hon. and Kev. Samuel Walde- 
 grave, M.A., the " Gloria in Excelsis " sung by 
 the choir, and the Benediction in Latin pro- 
 nounced by the Archbishop. Formal business 
 having then been transacted in the Chapter 
 House, the Clergy were desired to withdraw to
 
 SUMMAKY OF PKOCEEDINGS. 273 
 
 the chapel at the north-west end of the Cathe- sovereign: 
 dral to elect their Prolocutor. This they did, 
 and their choice fell again on the Very Kev. 
 Gilbert Eliot, D.D., Dean of Bristol, who had 
 filled the office during the last Convocation. 
 This Convocation held groups of sessions at 
 Westminster in June, 1859; January, February, 
 and June, 1860 ; in February and March, 1861 
 [on which last occasion the Ven. E. Bickersteth, 
 Archdeacon of Buckingham, was appointed De- 
 puty Prolocutor to serve for Dr. Gilbert Eliot, 
 Dean of Bristol]; in June and July, 1861; in Feb- 
 ruary and May, 1862 ; in May and July, 1863 ; in 
 February and April [on which occasion the Ven. 
 Archdeacon Bickersteth was elected Prolocutor, 
 on the resignation of the Dean of Bristol], and in 
 June, 1864 ; in February, May, and June, 1865, 
 in which year this Convocation was dissolved. 
 
 9 
 
 In this Canterbury Convocation many matters 
 were discussed and deliberated upon of great 
 moment to the Church, and the proceedings, an 
 account of which may be read in the " Chronicle 
 " of Convocation," cannot fail to be instructive to 
 those who take an interest in the Church's work 
 and welfare. Such discussions and deliberations 
 had reference, among other subjects, to Home and 
 Foreign Missions, the Preparation of Occasional 
 Services, Missionary Bishops, the Diaconate, Train- 
 ing for Holy Orders, Keligious Sisterhoods, In- 
 crease of the Episcopate, the Burial Service, the 
 
 N N
 
 274: ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 5. 
 
 Metro- Final Court of Ecclesiastical Appeal, Clerical 
 Subscription, and the Ke vision of the 29th 
 Q anori) wn ich relates to sponsors in Baptism. 
 
 There are, however, four Acts of this Convo- 
 cation which demand special attention. 
 Harvest The first of these Acts was the preparation 
 
 ing Service, of a Harvest Thanksgiving Service, which has 
 proved a great boon to the Church, and it is to be 
 hoped will be the forerunner of other Occasional 
 Services and Liturgical Offices, much required 
 as supplementary to the Prayer Book for special 
 occasions. 
 
 Synodicai The second of these Acts was the Synodical 
 tion of Dr. condemnation of a book entitled " The Penta- 
 " teuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. 
 "By the Bight Rev. William Colenso, D.D., Bi- 
 " shop of Natal. Parts I. and II." At the outset 
 of his work this Prelate frankly confessed that 
 he was brought up in the belief that not only 
 every word but every letter in the English 
 translation of the Bible was given us by inspi- 
 ration, his attention, it would seem, not having 
 been directed to variations in codices and trans- 
 lations. When this belief was shaken, as he in- 
 formed his readers, the " loaded shell shot to the 
 " fortress of his soul," which may well be believed. 
 Being more of a mathematician than a theologian, 
 and having been disturbed by the queries of an 
 enquiring Zulu, this Bishop set himself to work 
 out some very puzzling and intricate arithmetical
 
 DR. COLENSO'S VOLUME. 275 
 
 calculations connected with Bible history. After sovereign: 
 having applied abstruse calculations, even calling 
 logarithms to his aid, to a vast number of parti- 
 cular instances, and having supplemented his 
 labours by application for help to some German 
 writers, he came finally to the conclusion that 
 the Bible history was untrue. Being satisfied 
 in his own mind on this point, instead of resign- 
 ing his Bishopric, he still retained his style, title, 
 and income, and yet published to the Diocese of 
 Natal, and indeed to the world at large, his book 
 recording his convictions. Now, as Natal was a See 
 in the Province of Capetown [or South Africa], 
 and as that Province, if not in the Exarchate, is 
 at least most intimately associated with the Pro- 
 vince of Canterbury, it would have been a great 
 omission in duty if the Synod of this last-named 
 Province had not taken notice of a book of such 
 tendency, and written by a Bishop holding such 
 relations to this Church. Accordingly, the Upper 
 House of Canterbury directed the Lower House 
 to appoint a Committee for examination of the 
 book. That Committee examined the book with 
 great care, and reported to the Upper House. 
 The Archbishop and Bishops there assembled 
 passed this formal judgment : " That the said 
 "book does in our judgment involve errors of 
 " the gravest and most dangerouTcharacter, sub- 
 " versive of faith in the Bible as the Word of 
 
 Viet. Reg. 
 
 " God." This judgment having been communi- p- 1204.
 
 276 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part IV. 5. 
 
 Metro- cated to the Lower House, the Presbyters there 
 lonffiey, resolved : That we " do hereby accept and concur 
 
 Thomson. c j udgment ' Q f the Upper HoUSC." Thus 
 
 was this mischievous book synodically condemn- 
 
 ed on Ma 3" 20 > 1863 > tlie Synod exercising one 
 of those functions proper to Provincial Synods, 
 Supra, p. 32. as before described. And it may be observed 
 that the formal Synodical condemnation of a 
 Bishop's writings had not taken place before 
 this occasion since the Eeformation. 
 
 The third Act of this Convocation specially 
 
 nation of worthy of record was the condemnation of a 
 
 nd B? book entitled " Essays and Keviews." This was 
 a volume consisting of seven essays. One 
 of the writers was a former Head Master of 
 Rugby, now a deservedly honoured, beloved, 
 and devoted Bishop, whose contribution to the 
 work has been entirely withdrawn, as announced 
 
 chron. in the Canterbury Synod, Feb. 9 and 11, 1870. 
 
 Viet. Reg'. The other six writers were, the Rev. Dr. Rowland 
 Williams, Professor of Hebrew, St. David's 
 College, Lampeter; Baden Powell, M.A., F.R.S., 
 Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University 
 of Oxford ; the Rev. H. Bristow Wilson, Vicar of 
 Great Staughton ; C. W. Goodwyn, M.A. ; the 
 Rev. Mark Pattison, B.D. ; and the Rev. Ben- 
 jamin Jowett, M.A., Regius Professor of Greek 
 in the University of Oxford, The book sug- 
 gested numberless difficulties against a humble 
 reception of the Christian faith. These diffi-
 
 ESSAYS AND REVIEWS. 277 
 
 culties were, most of them, such as are familiar sovereign -. 
 
 Q.Victoria. 
 1859-65. 
 
 to any thoughtful mind. They had all been - Vlctoria - 
 
 worn threadbare long ago by such writers as 
 Blount, Bolingbroke, Chubb, Collins, Gibbon, 
 Hobbes, Hume, Morgan, Paine, Toland, and 
 Woolston. Moreover, in this book there was an 
 imported contingent from foreign allies one of 
 the essays, at least, owing a considerable debt of 
 gratitude for its contents to a treatise by Lessing. 
 The book, however stale its contents, yet in 
 modern garb directly tended to suggest to half- 
 educated and simple minds doubts and difficul- 
 ties which, but for its appearance, never would 
 have occurred to them, and so was calculated 
 to work cruel mischief. Had not the great 
 majority of contributors been Clergymen, no 
 Synodical notice of the book would probably 
 have been taken. But, that five Clergymen 
 in the Province should unite in the publi- 
 cation of so mischievous a volume was rightly 
 thought a sufficient reason for notice to be 
 taken of it by the Canterbury Synod. Con- 
 sequently, Committees both of the Upper and 
 Lower Houses were appointed to examine the 
 book. They severally reported ; and on June 
 22, 1864, the Archbishop and Bishops resolved: 
 " That the Upper House of Convocation .... 
 " doth hereby synodically condemn the said vict. Reg. 
 " volume, as containing teaching contrary to p 
 " the doctrine received by the United Church
 
 278 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 5. 
 
 Metro- " of England and Ireland, in common with the 
 " whole Catholic Church of Christ." This con- 
 
 d emna ti on of the book was transmitted to the 
 Lower House, and the Presbyters there assem- 
 bled resolved, on June 24, 1864, that "This 
 
 vict! Reg. "House respectfully and heartily tenders its 
 "thanks to his Grace the President and the 
 "Bishops of the Upper House for their care 
 "in defence of the Faith, and that this House 
 " does thankfully accept and concur in the con- 
 " demnation of the book by the Upper House, to 
 " which their concurrence has been invited by the 
 " Upper House." Thus the Synodical condemna- 
 tion of this volume was in due form completed. 
 
 clerical This volume, as will be seen hereafter, was 
 
 lawbreak- 
 
 in g- also synodically condemned at York. And it is 
 
 here observable that some of the English Clergy 
 have lately, in very high quarters, been publicly 
 denounced as "lawbreakers" because they de- 
 clined to conform to some eccentric judgments of 
 the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. How- 
 ever, if there was on this ground the slightest 
 justification for such denunciation [which there 
 is not], it is indisputably clear that Archiepiscopal 
 and Episcopal authority had previously quite 
 wilfully and very conspicuously commended to 
 imitation an example of " lawbreaking." For 
 as a volume was synodically condemned of which 
 the most peccant parts had previously been 
 judicially absolved by the Whitehall Tribunal, it
 
 ENACTMENT OP NEW CANONS. 279 
 
 is beyond all question certain, on the above 
 theory of obedience, that those who ioined in 
 
 " 185965. 
 
 the condemnation, specially if ranking as Metro- 
 
 politan or Bishop, very ostentatiously signalized 
 themselves as marching in the first forefront of 
 the most flagrant " lawbreakers." 
 
 The fourth Act of this Convocation worthy of NewCanon 
 special record was the alteration and re-enact- 
 ment of sundry Canons, the 29th, 36th, 37th, 
 38th and 40th Canons of 1603-4. The oath 
 which had been taken under the older Canons 
 mentioned before ordination, and by the Clergy 
 on appointment to Ecclesiastical offices, was now 
 revised and remodelled, and cast in the form 
 of the following declaration : 
 
 " I, A. B., do solemnly make the following 
 
 " declaration : I assent to the Thirty-nine 
 
 "Articles of Keligion, and to the Book of 
 
 " Common Prayer, and of Ordering Bishops, 
 
 " Priests, and Deacons. I believe the doc- 
 
 " trine of the United Church of England and 
 
 " Ireland, as therein set forth, to be agreeable 
 
 " to the Word of God ; and in Public Prayer 
 
 "and Administration of the Sacraments I 
 
 "will use the form in the said Book pre- 
 
 " scribed, and none other, except so far as 
 
 " shall be ordered by lawful authority." 
 
 Also the oath against simony at institution 
 
 into a benefice, as previously required by Canon 
 
 40, was changed into a declaration.
 
 280 
 
 ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. 
 
 [Part IV. 5. 
 
 Metro- 
 politans : 
 
 Long-ley, 
 Thomson. 
 
 Chron. 
 Conv. vi. 
 Viet. Reg. 
 pp. 2398 
 seq. 
 
 Excursion 
 of the 
 " Crown 
 Office." 
 
 Chron. 
 Conv. vi. 
 Viet. Reg. 
 p. 2354. 
 
 These new Canons were enacted in due Sy- 
 nodical form [before described in Part I., pp. 
 32, 33], in a chamber in Dean's Yard, West- 
 minster, in presence of the Upper and Lower 
 Houses, assembled in full Synod on June 29, 
 1865. It is to be observed, that during the 
 process of enactment on that day, the Tower guns 
 sent forth a salute which re-echoed through the 
 Metropolis. It is not here meant to suggest 
 that this salute was given in honour of the new 
 Canons it was, I believe, intended for another 
 purpose. But it was a curious fact. Some may, 
 perhaps, think it an ominous one that the ratifica- 
 tion of the first Canons enacted in the Church 
 of England, after an interval of 225 years, took 
 place during the thunders of a Eoyal salute. 
 
 It is moreover observable that the officers 
 of the Crown Office who drew the Koyal 
 Licence for the enactment of these Canons 
 missed their way to such a degree as to pro- 
 duce a document which was bad law and worse 
 sense. Among other confusions, these learned 
 persons provided in the Licence that the Canons, 
 after being made, "promulged, and executed," 
 should be set down in writing and exhibited for 
 the approval of the Crown. Thus the whole 
 order of things would be inverted. It was cer- 
 tainly a whimsical idea that the Canons should 
 be first put into " execution " in the Ecclesiastical 
 Courts, and, after having been there enforced,
 
 YORK ACTS, 1859-65. 281 
 
 should then be submitted subsequently for the sovereign: 
 approval of the Crown. But the methods which ^^Jjj^ 
 the learned in the law adopt in Ecclesiastical 1865 ' 
 proceedings are not always wholly intelligible. 
 
 In the York Convocation summoned in the York - 
 year 1859, and concurrent with the Canterbury 
 Convocation last recorded, so long as Dr. Mus- 
 grave occupied the See of York no active 
 business was entered upon. The old hallu- Private 
 
 . Tk 'i Collections. 
 
 cmation respecting the necessity of a Royal 
 Licence for entering on deliberations still be- 
 wildered the Northern Ecclesiastical authorities. 
 But on the advancement of that most amiable Accession of 
 
 Dr. C. T. 
 
 and beloved Prelate, Dr. C. T. Longley, to the Longiey. 
 throne of York, whose confirmation as Metropo- 
 litan took place on July 1, 1860, matters in this 
 respect underwent a complete change. 
 
 On the 6th of Februarv, 1861, the Provincial Sy- Private 
 
 Collections. 
 
 nod of the Northern Province, after a suspension 
 of Synodical action for 143 years, entered on ac- 
 tive business. On that day Archdeacon Thorpe 
 was elected as Prolocutor of the Lower House. 
 On March 20, 1861, debates were carried on, 
 and on the following day, March 21, the book 
 entitled " Essays and Eeviews " was synodically 
 condemned, as was the case also in the Can- 
 terbury Synod. This book, therefore, having 
 been synodically condemned in both Provinces, 
 may be said to be under the ban of the Eng- 
 lish Exarchate. 
 
 o o
 
 282 ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. [Part IV. 6. 
 
 Metro- j n j une 1865, a "Licence" was sent by 
 
 politaus : * 
 
 iongriey, the Crown to the Northern Synod for the enact- 
 ment of the new Canons on Clergy Subscription. 
 
 Collections. In July following the Synod assembled at York 
 Cathedral, and on the 5th of that month the 
 above-mentioned new Canons were decreed, six 
 days after the same process had taken place in 
 the Canterbury Synod, as above described. 
 
 VI 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1866, DISSOLVED 1868. 
 
 canter- The new Canterbury Convocation summoned 
 * nry ' to meet on February 2, 1866, assembled at St. 
 . Paul' 8 Cathedral on that day, under the presi- 
 g - dency of that amiable and revered Prelate, Dr. 
 Charles Thomas Longley, worthily promoted from 
 the See of York to that of Canterbury. The 
 Latin Litany of Convocation was said by the 
 Eight Kev. Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Walter Kerr 
 Hamilton, after which the anthem, " pray for 
 "the peace of Jerusalem," was sung. The 
 preacher of the Latin sermon, who took for 
 his text, " And the apostles and elders came to-* 
 " gether for to consider of this matter " [Acts xv. 6], 
 was the Eev. James Wayland Joyce, M.A., late 
 Student of Christ Church, Oxford, and one of the 
 Clergy Proctors for the Diocese of Hereford.
 
 ENGLISH PROVINCIAL SYNODS, 1866-8. 283 
 
 The Synod then adjourned to the Chapter House, sovereign: 
 and after the usual formalities had been there ^'Ti ^' 1 *' 
 
 looo 
 
 gone through, the Clergy returned to the chapel , 1868> 
 at the north-west end of the Cathedral, and 
 then elected for a second time as Prolocutor the 
 Venerable Edward Bickersteth, Archdeacon of 
 Buckingham. 
 
 This Convocation held groups of sessions 
 at Westminster in February, May, and June, 
 1866; in February and June, 1867; in Feb- 
 ruary, June, and July, 1868 ; and was dissolved 
 on Nov. 13 in the year last named. 
 
 The most important events connected with 
 this Convocation were the debates on Kitualism, 
 and on the questions then disturbing the Pro- 
 vince of Capetown [or South Africa], arising out 
 of the relations between Dr. Gray the Metropolitan 
 of Capetown and Dr. Colenso of Natal. Dr. Colenso r>r. Coien- 
 had been excommunicated on account of his communion 
 book before mentioned, and deposed from his church of 
 office as a Bishop by the South African Pro- gai 
 vincial Synod. And the question now arose 
 whether Dr. Colenso or the South African 
 Metropolitan and Bishops were to be considered 
 in communion with the Church of England. 
 This of course could only be answered in one Chron. 
 way, that the Church of England was in com- 
 munion with the South African Prelates ; and 
 it was so resolved by both Houses. The l^~ 
 account may be seen of this Act in the "Chro-
 
 284 
 
 ACTS OP THE CHUKCH. [Part IV. 7. 
 
 Metro- 
 politans : 
 
 Cant, 
 vacant. 
 
 Thomson. 
 
 Chron. 
 Conv. vii. 
 Viet. Reg. 
 pp. 692, 
 800, 1081 
 seq. 
 York. 
 
 Private 
 Collections. 
 
 "nicle of Convocation," June 29, 1866. De- 
 bates also took place on the question of a Synod 
 of the Anglican Communion, which resulted 
 afterwards in a Convention of a Pan-Anglican 
 Synod at Lambeth. 
 
 On Feb. 2, 1866, the Convocation of York met 
 at the Cathedral, under the presidency of the 
 Metropolitan, Dr. William Thomson. After Di- 
 vine Service in the Choir at 8 A.M. the mem- 
 bers assembled in the Chapter House. The 
 Lower House then retired to the Vestry for the 
 election of their Prolocutor, and their choice fell 
 unanimously on the Hon. and Very Kev. Dr. 
 Duncombe, Dean of York, who had previously 
 discharged the same office. This Convocation 
 held sessions from time to time, but was of 
 short duration, being dissolved in 1868, so that 
 no business was transacted which need specially 
 be recorded. 
 
 VII. 
 
 canter- 
 bury ' 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1868, DISSOLVED 1874. 
 
 On Dec. 11, 1868, a new Convocation met 
 at St. Paul's Cathedral. The See of Canterbury 
 being now vacant on account of the lamented 
 death of Archbishop Longley, the Bishop of 
 London, Dr. Tait [Archbishop Designate of
 
 ENGLISH PROVINCIAL SYNODS, 1868-74. 285 
 
 Canterbury], presided, under a Commission from sovereiam: 
 the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, as guardians ^'^egl 1 *' 
 of the Spiritualties during a vacancy. The Latin 
 Litany was said by Dr. William Connor Magee, 
 Bishop of Peterborough, as being the junior Pre- 
 late present. The anthem, " pray for the peace 
 " of Jerusalem," was then sung, after which the 
 Latin sermon was preached by Dr. James Ami- 
 raux Jeremie, Dean of Lincoln, upon .the text, 
 " Let us therefore follow after the things which 
 " make for peace, and things wherewith one may 
 "edify another" [Bom. xiv. 19]. At the end of the 
 sermon, the " Gloria in Excelsis " was sung, and 
 the Benediction pronounced by the President in 
 Latin. After the usual formalities had been sub- 
 sequently gone through in the Chapter House, 
 the lower Clergy returned to the chapel at the 
 north-west end of the Cathedral, and there, by 
 a unanimous vote, under the presidency of Dr. 
 Henry Longueville Mansel, the Dean, elected as 
 their Prolocutor for the third time Dr. Edward 
 Biekersteth, Archdeacon of Buckingham. 
 
 This Synod was then prorogued to February 2 
 following, and held groups of sessions in 
 February and June, 1869 ; February, May, and 
 July, 1870 ; in February and June, 1871 ; in 
 February, March, April, May, and July, 1872 ; 
 and in February, May, and July, 1873. After 
 which group of sessions this Convocation was 
 dissolved on January 29, 1874.
 
 286 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7. 
 
 Metro- In this Convocation matters of the deepest 
 interest to the Church of England were dis- 
 cusge( ^ an( j some concluded on. Among instruc- 
 Debates were those on Clergy Discipline 
 
 chron. Communication with the Eastern Church the 
 
 Conv. vin. 
 
 yict. Reg. Athanasian Creed Home Missions Final Court 
 
 in loc. 
 
 of Appeal Eeform of Convocation Ke-marriage 
 of Divorced Persons, and Increase in the Episco- 
 pate. But some matters besides the above re- 
 quire particular consideration. These are five 
 in number. 
 
 Decrees on The first of these is the action taken with 
 Council. regard to the Vatican Council, which finally 
 promulgated, with much pomp, at Eome, four 
 Canons which it had decreed. The fourth of 
 these Canons declared the personal infallibility of 
 the Pope of Eome, and pronounced his definitions, 
 without consent of the Church, to be "irreformable." 
 Chron. The question before this Convocation arose upon 
 vict. Reg! a "gravamen" presented by one of the Clergy 
 Proctors for the Diocese of Hereford, and signed 
 by twenty-seven members of the Lower House, 
 setting forth that the Council assembled in the 
 City of Eome, by assuming the name and 
 claiming the authority of an (Ecumenical Council, 
 wholly ignored the due Canonical rights of all 
 the Dioceses, Provinces, and Patriarchates of the 
 Christian Church which do not submit to the 
 Eoman obedience. And as a " reformandum," it 
 was prayed that His Grace the President and
 
 CANTEKBUBY DECBEES ON VATICAN COUNCIL. 287 
 
 their Lordships the Bishops would take such 
 measures as to them might seem fit for vindi- 18 68 * a 
 eating the independent position of the Church of 1874< 
 England, and for addressing a remonstrance 
 against the present assumption of the Eoman 
 Curia to other Churches of Christendom. 
 
 When this document was presented to the Upper 
 House, the late most learned and revered Bishop 
 Wordsworth of Lincoln threw his whole heart 
 
 into the matter. The Archbishop of Canterbury, vict. Reg. 
 having expressed a strong repugnance against p ' 
 proceeding in the matter, was from ill health 
 absent from the first debate on the subject, 
 which took place in the Upper House, when 
 Bishop Wordsworth proposed that action should 
 be taken in the matter. But Dr. Jackson, Bishop 
 of London, who presided in his Grace's absence, ibid. pp. 
 and Dr. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester and 
 Bristol, agreeing with the Archbishop, who had 
 previously written a letter deprecating action, 
 endeavoured to prevent any measures being 
 taken. Their reasons were not altogether in- 
 telligible, nor did they carry any weight with 
 the Upper House, as all the other Bishops 
 present supported the Bishop of Lincoln. A ibid. 
 joint Committee of both Houses was appoint- p ' 
 ed to consider what should be done. When 
 their report was presented, on June 16, 
 1871, the Archbishop and the two Bishops ibid.voi. m 
 above mentioned had changed their minds, and pl
 
 288 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7. 
 
 Metro- supported the recommendations of the Com- 
 Taitf ' mittee. The result was that the following 
 Thomson. p ecreeg were Synodically adopted by both 
 cSiv n 'iii. Houses of the Canterbury Provincial Synod 
 
 Viet. Keg. 
 p. 450. 
 
 I. 
 
 ibid. " That the Vatican Council has no iust 
 
 A 1 1 ** 
 
 p. 44J.4 
 
 "right to be termed an (Ecumenical or 
 "General Council, and that none of its 
 " Decrees have any claim for acceptance as 
 " Canons of a General Council." 
 
 II. 
 
 " That the Dogma of Papal infallibility 
 " now set forth by the Vatican Council is con- 
 trary to Holy Scripture, and to the judg- 
 " ment of the ancient Church Universal." 
 
 III. 
 
 " That the assumption of supremacy by 
 " the Bishop of Home in convening the late 
 " Vatican Council contravenes Canons of the 
 "Universal Church." 
 
 IV. 
 
 " That there is one true Catholic and 
 "Apostolic Church, founded by our Lord 
 "and Saviour Jesus Christ; that of this true
 
 CANTEEBUKY DECKEES ON VATICAN COUNCIL. 289 
 
 " Catholic and Apostolic Church the Church sovereign: 
 
 "of England and the Churches in com- 
 
 " munion with her are living members ; and 
 
 " that the Church of England earnestly de- 
 
 " sires to maintain firmly the Catholic faith 
 
 "as set forth by the (Ecumenical Councils 
 
 " of the Universal Church, and to be united 
 
 "upon those principles of doctrine and 
 
 " discipline in the bonds of brotherly love 
 
 " with all Churches in Christendom." 
 
 These four Decrees, with fitting superscrip- Canterbury 
 tions, were translated into Greek, according Vatican 
 to the ancient manner of the Eastern Church, transmitted 
 and into Latin, according to the ancient man- churches, 
 ner of the Western Church, by the present Jo l in e t S^. 
 writer, with a view to their transmission to the 
 Eastern Orthodox Churches and others. Copies * c 
 were first sent, with an explanatory Latin letter, 
 to the Archbishop of Utrecht, and to his Suffragans 
 of the Trajectine Church in Holland. The 
 Archbishop of Utrecht, Henry Loos, and the 
 Bishop of Daventer, H. Heykamp, in whose 
 Diocese Eotterdam is situated, replied with 
 thanks in Latin epistles, the latter complaining 
 in the bitterest terms of the treatment to which 
 the Trajectine Church had been subjected by the 
 imperiousness of the Vatican. This Prelate's letter 
 
 Chron. 
 
 was read in the Lower House of this Convocation Conv. viii. 
 on Feb. 13, 1872. The Canterbury Decrees were PP. 235-7.' 
 
 p P
 
 290 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part. IV. 7- 
 
 Metro- eventually printed on large paper, with rubricated 
 Tait> " margins, in very splendid type and form, at the Cam- 
 
 University Press, and were forwarded to 
 the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Eastern Church. 
 The second important event connected with 
 authorized this Convocation was the appointment of a joint 
 
 Committee for the Kevision of the English 
 translation of Holy Scripture. This was inaugu- 
 chron. rated by Dr. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of 
 Viet? Reg! Winchester, on February 10, 1870. The joint 
 202 S eq S . eq ' Committee was eventually appointed, and power 
 was given to the members to conjoin with them- 
 selves persons who they believed might assist 
 the work. Two Companies thus composed were 
 constituted, one for the revision of the Old 
 Testament, the other for a revision of the 
 Revised New. Their work began on June 22, 1870. 
 
 N. T. Pref. 
 
 P. x. In consequence of a resolution passed by both 
 
 Houses of this Convocation, scholars in America 
 were invited to assist, and there also two 
 Companies were formed to co-operate with 
 those in England. The Kevised New Testament 
 was completed in 1880, and the book, printed 
 at the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 
 was published in 1881. The Kevised Old Testa- 
 ment, there also printed, is now [1885] published. 
 
 The Revised The third important event connected with 
 
 Lectionary. . 
 
 this Convocation was the adoption of a " New 
 "Lectionary" for the Book of Common Prayer. 
 The principal alterations now made from the
 
 REVISION OF LECTION ARY. 291 
 
 former book were : first [not to specify minor sovereign: 
 details], that an alternative First Lesson was Q '^g C *g' is 
 appointed for Evensong on Sundays; secondly, 1874> 
 that for the first half of each year the Second Les- 
 son for the Morning should be taken from the 
 Gospels, and the Second Lesson for the Evening 
 from the rest of the New Testament ; but that 
 for the second half of each year the Second 
 Lesson in the Morning should be taken from 
 other parts of the New Testament, and the 
 Second Lesson in the Evening from the Gospels. 
 This Lectionary was recommended by the Third 
 Keport of the Eoyal Commission on Kitual. 
 It was submitted to the Metropolitans and Bi- 
 shops of England and Ireland, to the Deans of 
 Cathedrals, and the Theological Professors in the 
 Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and 
 Dublin. A joint Committee of the two Houses chron. 
 of the Canterbury Convocation was appointed vio*. Reg. 
 to consider it, and that Committee recommended ?%, 241,' 
 its adoption. Both Houses then agreed to an 399/450, 
 address to the Crown, requesting that measures 
 necessary to give legal effect to the New Lee- 
 tionary should be taken. Such measures were 1870; June 
 
 J 16, 1871. 
 
 taken, and a Bill was brought into Parliament 
 for the purpose. 
 
 And here an incident occurred well worthy of A Lord 
 remark, and one which the reader may usefully exposition 
 
 bear in mind. The Bill for the Civil authoriza- 
 
 * 
 
 tion of the New Lectionarv was introduced
 
 292 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7. 
 
 Metro- first into the House of Commons as a Govern- 
 Tait> " ment measure. In the preamble was recited 
 Thomson. ^ Q previous approval of that Lectionary by 
 Convocation. But in the House of Lords, an 
 ex Lord Chancellor prevailed upon his hearers 
 to have that recital excised. As his Lordship 
 had held the most exalted legal office, the noble 
 peers supposed that his statements of law were 
 correct. In so supposing, however, they were 
 sadly mistaken, as his statements were merely 
 fictions of his own imagination, and fictions, too, 
 exactly the contraries of truth. He told their 
 listening and credulous Lordships, to use his 
 own words, that 
 
 " Now, for the first time they had in that 
 " Bill a recital of the approval of Convoca- 
 tion without any mention of the Licence 
 "of the Crown to express that approval." 
 Now in the first place, his Lordship, as a law- 
 yer, ought to have known [and in such a learned 
 person of course one cannot suspect any looseness 
 of expression] that a Licence from the Crown is 
 not needed, and never ought to be issued but 
 for one solitary purpose, namely, the enactment 
 of Canons, a matter not now even contemplated. 
 And, in the second place, his Lordship might 
 have discovered by very cursory search, that in 
 great Constitutional Statutes of the Eealm, 
 such as 26 Hen. VIII. 1, 32 Hen. VIII. 25, 
 5 & 6 Ed. VI. 12, 8 Eliz. 1, 13 Eliz. 12,
 
 REVISION OF LECTIONAEY. 293 
 
 the approval of the Convocations is recognized, sovereign: 
 while most certainly on no one of those occasions 18 ^_ ' 
 had any Licence of the Crown been granted. 1874> 
 No doubt Writs for assembling those Convo- 
 cations had been issued, just as the Writs had 
 been issued for assembling the Convocations 
 now in session, and of which his Lordship spoke. 
 But most certainly Licences in none of those 
 cases were issued, for in none of them was the 
 enactment of Canons contemplated. However, 
 the Church and the world are tolerably well 
 accustomed to strange deliverances on the part 
 of the learned profession when Ecclesiastical 
 matters are concerned. Indeed, many very in- 
 structive and surprising instances in this respect 
 may be derived from a perusal of the Ecclesias- 
 tical judgments of the Judicial Committee of 
 Privy Council. Thus was the recital of the ap- 
 proval of Convocation excised from the Lectionary 
 Bill on account of a statement wholly false. 
 
 The fourth remarkable event connected with shortened 
 this Convocation was the authorization of some authorized, 
 alterations and explanations made with regard to 
 the Prayer Book. These were directed generally 
 to effect the following results : (l) That the chron. 
 Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion Office v?ct Reg. 
 might be used as separate Services, and that 10^ 151, ' 
 without a sermon. (2) That Additional Services, 225' 299' 
 approved by the Ordinary, might be introduced. 801 
 (3) That Special Services, approved by the Or-
 
 294 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7. 
 
 Metro- dinary, might be used. (4) That sermons might 
 Tait, ' be preached, without a previous Service. 
 Thomson. ^ Cathedral or Collegiate 
 
 Churches, the Order for Morning and Evening 
 Prayer might be shortened by certain specified 
 omissions. These provisions had been recom- 
 mended in the Fourth Eeport of the Eitual 
 chron. Commissioners, and a Eoyal Letter of Business to 
 
 Conv. viii. 
 
 Viet. Eeg. this Convocation was read in the Upper House, 
 on Feb. 8, 1872, requesting the Synod to take the 
 matters above mentioned into consideration. 
 
 Act of Oddly enough, together with this Eoyal Letter 
 
 of Business there was transmitted to the Con- 
 vocation from the Crown Office a " Eoyal 
 Licence." This is a portentous instrument, 
 
 Conv. viii. 
 
 ViC 23?-fb f r tifi e( l with a seal of imposing size larger 
 than an ordinary plate. But the instrument 
 was no way required ; there was no question 
 about enacting a Canon, nor any thought in 
 anyone's mind of proposing such a proceeding. 
 This Eoyal Licence was therefore a mere act 
 of supererogation on the part of the Crown 
 Office lawyers. But let this pass ; 'tis only another 
 specimen of the manner in which the learned 
 profession, and those too in high place, perplex 
 themselves in Ecclesiastical engagements. 
 
 The Eoyal Letter of Business having been 
 received, the Synod took measures for consider- 
 ing the matters commended to its notice by the 
 Crown. The subject having first been con-
 
 SHORTENED SERVICES. 295 
 
 sidered separately in both Houses, the two united sovereign: 
 met in one body, on Feb. 13, 1872, and there ^Tl ,?! 11 *' 
 
 i 1868 
 
 by common voting agreed upon the measures 
 desirable for the purpose in hand, as above re- 
 
 corded. Here Archbishop Tait, by assembling vkt. Reg! 
 both Houses into one Synod for discussion and P1 
 deliberation, shewed a wise discretion. On such 
 a matter as that before this Convocation it was 
 most desirable that the Presbyters should hear 
 the arguments of the Bishops, and no less de- 
 sirable that the Bishops should hear the argu- 
 ments of the Presbyters, in accordance with the 
 practice of Synods (Ecumenical in the earlier 
 ages, and in Synods Provincial in all ages of 
 the Church. 
 
 Again, on Feb. 29, the two Houses sat together ibid. pp. 259 
 in Synod, and discussed the resolutions which 
 had been come to in the Northern Convocation 
 on the matters of the Shortened Services and 
 the cognate subjects. Finally, on the 6th day ibid. PP . 
 of March, the two Houses, again united in Synod, 
 canonically ratified the resolutions arrived at in 
 both Provinces on these subjects, and those reso- 
 lutions were duly signed as Decrees by the Arch- 
 bishop, six Bishops, one Bishop by proxy, and 
 by thirty-seven members of the Lower House, 
 either under their own hands or by proxy. 
 The management of this business by Arch- 
 bishop Tait was such as to deserve the grati- 
 tude of succeeding generations in the Church
 
 296 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7. 
 
 Metro- of England, as in this matter he re-established 
 ' the wholesome practice of joint discussion be- 
 ^ we en the two Houses of the Canterbury Synod, 
 and was moreover careful that the Decrees ar- 
 rived at should be properly and canonically 
 confirmed. These resolutions were subsequently 
 embodied in the Statute 35 & 36 Viet. 135, 
 in the preamble of which the Convocational au- 
 thority is recited in a manner as constitutional 
 as can be imagined. And this, be it remembered, 
 was the first occasion, since the ratification of 
 the present Prayer Book in 1661, that any 
 Sy nodical authority had been given for amend- 
 ing its order of Divine Service. 
 
 Revision of The fifth event to be specially recorded 
 as connected with this Convocation is as fol- 
 lows : The Koyal Letter of Business sent to 
 the Archbishop not only had reference to the 
 Shortened Services with the cognate matters, 
 but to the contents of the Fourth Keport 
 of the Kitual Commissioners, which involved a 
 revision of the whole of the Kubrics of the 
 Prayer Book. Consequently, a Committee of 
 the Lower House of this Convocation was ap- 
 pointed for such revision. Having the revision 
 of the Commissioners before them, they prepared 
 with great labour and research a report, which 
 was printed in parallel columns with that of 
 the Commissioners. This matter was long and 
 earnestly discussed through many sessions of
 
 PARLIAMENTARY INACTION. 297 
 
 this Convocation. The compilation of an Ad- sovereign: 
 ditional Service at Evening Prayer was also : 
 begun, and a declaration agreed upon as fit to 
 be appended to the Athanasian Creed. 
 
 1868 
 1874. 
 
 The measures for a revision of the rubrics vict. Reg. 
 
 t> i i e> i-\ Ann. 1873, 
 
 were now far advanced, in consequence 01 the pp . 219-232. 
 Koyal Letter of Business addressed to this Con- 
 vocation, but were deferred for completion to the 
 next Convocation, and have not as yet [1885] 
 been carried into legal effect. This indeed 
 could not be compassed without having recourse 
 to an Act of Parliament directed to supersede 
 the stringent provisions of the Act of Unifor- 
 mity, 13 & 14 Car. II. 4. A Bill to inaugu- 
 rate such an Act as that now required was 
 drafted by a Committee of Convocation subse- 
 quently in 1878. But it could with no hope 
 of success be introduced into Parliament ex- 
 cept by the Government of the day. And here 
 lies the difficulty, arising from the unhappy 
 system in this country of government by party 
 deeply ingrained into English political life, 
 and, moreover, hopelessly ineradicable. Those 
 who are in office are, on the one hand, so 
 busily engaged in plans for keeping in, and 
 so fearful of giving their adversaries a point 
 of leverage for hoisting them out ; and, on the 
 other hand, those who are out are so deeply oc- 
 cupied with schemes for tripping up their oppo- 
 nents and getting into power, that there seems 
 
 QQ
 
 298 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part IV. 7 
 
 Metro- but little time left or opportunity allowed for 
 Tait> ' any beneficial legislation whatever, much less for 
 
 Thomson. guc j 1 ag wou } c [ fa secured if the measures initi- 
 ated by this Convocation and completed in the 
 next were statutably adopted. 
 York. Concurrently with the last-mentioned Convo- 
 
 Private cation of Canterbury the York Convocation was 
 
 collections. convene( j j n isQS. Its sessions in March, 1871, 
 require some special mention. The members of 
 the Upper and Lower Houses assembled in Arch- 
 bishop Zouch's Chapel in the Minster, under the 
 presidency of their Metropolitan, Dr. William 
 Thomson ; the Hon. and Very Kev. Augustus 
 Duncombe, Dean of York, being Prolocutor. 
 
 New On this occasion the Prolocutor moved and 
 
 Lectiouary, 
 
 the Eev. Canon Eden seconded a resolution that 
 their Committee's report on the New Lectionary 
 as proposed by the Eitual Commissioners should 
 be adopted. This resolution was carried, and a 
 rider was appended to it, moved by Canon Sim- 
 mons and seconded by the Dean of Chester, 
 which was also carried, that the Northern Con- 
 vocation should address the Crown, praying Her 
 Majesty that the use of the New Lectionary 
 might be authorized by Act of Parliament. 
 Thus the New Lectionary was approved by the 
 York Synod, as was the case also in the Synod 
 Supra, of Canterbury above mentioned, and so was 
 
 p. 291. . . " 
 
 sanctioned in both Provinces. 
 
 Rubrical 
 
 revision.. This York Convocation was also engaged in
 
 EEVISED NEW TESTAMENT. 299 
 
 revising the rubrics, a work contemporaneously sovereign: 
 being carried on in the Canterbury Synod. Q Ises^* 
 
 This Convocation refused to join the Canter- 18?4 - 
 bury Synod in its enterprize above mentioned Revised 
 [p. 290] for promoting a revision of the Autho- Testament, 
 rized Version of the Scriptures. And as the Eng- 
 lish Company of Eevisers of the New Testament 
 have dealt with several passages in the volume Acts riv. 
 
 23 TTT 28 
 
 in the same unhappy manner as they have 
 dealt with Acts xv. 23, the members of the 
 Northern Synod have some good reason now 
 to congratulate themselves on their refusal. 
 
 As the mistranslation of Acts xv. 23 most vitally 
 affects the whole subject dealt with in these pages, 
 it is not out of place here to remark on the 
 havoc made by the revisers with that verse. It 
 contains the superscription of the Apostles and 
 Presbyters to the Decrees of the Apostolic Coun- 
 cil of Jerusalem, the first Council of the Church, 
 the model and prototype of Church Councils in 
 all subsequent ages of Christianity. This su- 
 perscription in our authorized translation, no 
 doubt, is generally acknowledged to be wrong. 
 It is not warranted by the most trustworthy 
 MSS. or by the best authorities, as will be 
 specified hereafter in the concluding section 
 of these pages. So our present translation 
 wanted reforming. But the revisers have re- 
 formed backwards, and in place of mending it 
 have made a far worse rent in the texture.
 
 300 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part IV. 7. 
 
 Metro- The authorized translation renders the passage 
 
 politans : 
 
 Tait, thus : " The Apostles and elders and brethren 
 Thomson. sen( j greeting," &c. But the best authorities 
 do not warrant the introduction of the word 
 "and" between the words "elders" and "bre- 
 thren." According to the best scholars, such 
 as Irenseus and Origen in early times, Bishop 
 Wordsworth of Lincoln, Bishop Jacobson of 
 Chester, and that master of exegesis Dean Alford 
 N. T. in later times [Constantine Tischendorf approv- 
 
 Tauchnitz, . L V . 
 
 Leipsic, ing the text they have adopted], the superscription 
 to the Jerusalem Encyclical Letter runs thus: 
 " The Apostles and Elders, brethren, send greeting 
 "unto the brethren," &c. But the late revisers, 
 in opposition to the authorities above named, 
 . N. T. and in opposition to the recorded dissent of the 
 American Company of Kevisers, have rendered 
 the superscription thus : " The Apostles and the 
 " elder brethren unto the brethren .... greeting." 
 This method of translation is as mischievous as 
 it is surprising, and that for manifold reasons. 
 
 (l) As regards scholarship. The word Trpea-fiv- 
 repo? has already occurred four times in this chap- 
 ter [vv. 2, 4, 6, 23] as a substantive, and now on 
 its fifth occurrence, and in the same connexion 
 as before, it is changed into an adjective. And 
 further, it rests with the revisers to produce an 
 instance of the word TT pea /3ur epos being used as 
 an adjective immediately antecedent to its con- 
 nected substantive in Hellenistic Greek. It may
 
 REVISED NEW TESTAMENT. 301 
 
 suffice to say that between forty and fifty pas- sovereign: 
 sages where the word occurs have been lately Q '^g C gg^ 
 referred to. But not one has been discovered to 1874 - 
 justify the reviser's method. 
 
 (2) As regards common reason. According 
 to this novel method of interpretation, though 
 the mission from Antioch was sent to the 
 Apostles and Presbyters only [ver. 2], and 
 although the Apostles and Presbyters only met 
 for deliberation [ver. 6], yet when the Decrees 
 of the Council came to be authenticated the 
 Presbyters are excluded from the superscrip- 
 tion, and some other persons not before men- 
 tioned are substituted in their place. 
 
 (3) As regards example. In accordance with 
 the translation hitherto adopted by scholars, the 
 apposition of two nominatives at the beginning 
 of an Epistle seems to have been the normal 
 form in the Early Church. At least fifteen Epi- 
 stles in the New Testament so begin ; and this 
 apposition of the very word in question, a8e\<pol, 
 actually occurs twice [w. 7, 13] in the chapter 
 before us. Moreover, this form of apposition is i Cor. xv. 
 
 20 23 
 
 quite familiar to the humblest scholar both in Heb. xu. 9 ; 
 Classical as well as in Hellenistic Greek. u. 
 
 (4) As regards correspondence of texts. And a d cor. xiv., 
 here more serious objections against the Kevised XLIII. 
 Version arise. In accordance with the trans- 
 
 lation hitherto adopted by scholars, the super- 
 scription of the Encyclical Letter corresponds
 
 302 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7- 
 
 Metro- exactly with the description of its contents 
 Tait, when they were afterwards delivered by St. 
 
 Thomwn. 
 
 this is quite the reverse with the revisers' 
 translation. For according to the translation 
 hitherto adopted by approved scholars, the Apo- 
 stles and Presbyters superscribed the letter; 
 and its contents are afterwards described as the 
 Decrees " ordained by the Apostles and Presby- 
 " ters " [Acts xvi. 4]. But according to the trans- 
 lation of the English Company of Kevisers two 
 difficulties are introduced: (1) the Presbyters did 
 not superscribe the letter, though the Presbyters 
 afterwards are specially named as among those 
 who decreed its contents ; (2) and, on the other 
 hand, the " elder brethren " did superscribe the 
 letter, though no elder brethren afterwards ap- 
 pear in the description when its contents were 
 delivered to the cities. And what is more 
 strange still is this, that the revisers' rendering 
 of this text, Acts xv. 23, excluding Presbyters, 
 is diametrically contradicted by their own transla- 
 tion of Acts xxi. 25, where we are informed that 
 the Presbyters were among those who "wrote" the 
 judgment of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem. 
 
 (5) And, lastly, as regards history. The re- 
 visers have here introduced " elder brethren," 
 i.e. in plain English, Lay Elders as authorita- 
 tive members of the Apostolic Council. But it 
 is a grave question whether the revisers could
 
 1865- 
 1874. 
 
 REVISED NEW TESTAMENT. 303 
 
 discover any precedent for such introduction in sovereign: 
 examples derived from Jerusalem, Alexandria, 
 Antioch, Ephesus, the island of Crete, or indeed 
 from any other part of the Early Church, what- 
 ever modern practice in this respect may be dis- 
 covered by researches at Edinburgh or Glasgow. 
 It is satisfactory to reflect that the American 
 Company of Kevisers repudiate this excursion of 
 the English Company, as may be seen recorded 
 at p. 559 of the Kevised New Testament. And 
 the members of the York Convocation may 
 at all events derive some consolation from the 
 reflection that they certainly are free from any 
 responsibility in this matter, as having declined 
 to join with the Canterbury Synod in the 
 original enterprize for a revision of the Eng- 
 lish translation of the Bible. At any rate, if 
 Lay Elders were ever authoritative members of 
 Church Councils, I fear that the main bulk of 
 the contents of the volume now in the reader's 
 hands must be condemned as misleading, and 
 the principles maintained in it as wholly false. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1874, DISSOLVED 1880. 
 
 Canter- 
 bury. 
 
 On March 6, 1874, the ninth Convocation of 
 
 Chron. 
 
 Queen Victoria's reign assembled at St. Paul's Conv - 
 
 . Viet. Reg. 
 
 Cathedral, under the presidency of Archbishop pp. 1^-25.
 
 304 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part IV. 8. 
 
 Metro- Tait. The Latin Litany was said by Dr. James 
 Tait, ' Russell Woodford, Bishop of Ely, the junior 
 Thomson. present. The anthem, " pray for 
 
 "the peace of Jerusalem," having been sung, 
 the Dean of Ely, Dr. C. Merivale, preached the 
 Latin sermon, on the text, " Then they that 
 "feared the Lord spake often one to another" 
 [Mai. iii. 16]. The " Gloria in Excelsis " having 
 been sung at the end of the sermon, and the 
 usual formalities in the Chapter House having 
 been gone through, the Clergy, under the di- 
 rection of the Very Eev. R. W. Church, Dean 
 of St. Paul's, returned to the chapel at the 
 north-west end of the Cathedral, and there 
 unanimously elected for the fourth time as 
 their Prolocutor the Venerable Edward Bicker- 
 steth, D.D., Archdeacon of Buckingham. 
 
 This Synod held groups of sessions in March, 
 April, May, and July, 1874 ; in April, June, and 
 July, 1875 ; in February, March, and July, 1876 ; 
 in April and July, 1877 ; in February and May, 
 1878 ; in February, June, and July, 1879 ; and 
 was dissolved on March 24, 1880. 
 
 Among the events of interest which occurred 
 during this Convocation, the principal ones were 
 as follows : 
 chron. In 1876 the practice was first introduced of 
 
 Conv. ii. 
 
 Viet. Reg. celebrating the Holy Communion in Westminster 
 P. 3. ' Abbey, on the first assembly of the members there 
 for a group of sessions.
 
 MANUALS OF PEIVATE PEAYEK. 305 
 
 During this Convocation the Venerable Ed- sovereign: 
 ward Bickersteth, Archdeacon of Buckingham, ^'^874- 
 who had four times been elected Prolocutor, 188 - 
 was promoted to the Deanery of Lichfield, an 
 address of both Houses having been presented 
 to the Crown requesting that his great services 
 might receive some special acknowledgement. 
 Had this Prolocutor's advancement been a still 
 higher one it would have been well deserved 
 by his diligent and useful labours in guiding for 
 so long a time, and so successfully, the course 
 of the Lower House of Convocation ; but hap- 
 pily for its best interests it did not at this 
 time lose from the helm the advantage of his 
 skilful and experienced hands. 
 
 In one of the earliest sessions, May 8, 1874, Manuals of 
 of this Convocation, a motion was made by one Prayer, 
 of the Clergy Proctors for the Diocese of Here- 
 ford, and seconded by the Archdeacon of Ely, 
 which inaugurated an enterprize entailing much 
 labour and research, but which, it may be hoped, 
 will produce most beneficial results. This mo- 
 tion was " That the President be requested to chron. 
 " direct the appointment of a Committee of this" vict. Keg. 
 [the Lower] " House, with instructions to prepare p 
 " a Manual of Private Prayers for members of the 
 " Church of England," &c. The motion was car- 
 ried unanimously. Consequently, the President 
 directed the appointment of such a Committee, 
 and the duty was committed to the " Committee 
 
 E E
 
 306 ACTS OP THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 8. 
 
 Metro- "on the Third Service" of preparing such a 
 
 politans : 
 
 Tait Manual. This Committee has given long and 
 
 M* V > <_J O 
 
 Thomson. Diligent labour to the subject, and has enlarged 
 on the original intention by compiling three 
 Manuals for private devotion. The supply of 
 such Manuals, should they hereafter be authorized 
 by the Canterbury Synod, will, by God's blessing, 
 prove a comfort and a help to many devoted 
 sons and daughters of the Church of England. 
 The results of the labours of this Committee shall 
 be hereafter stated in their proper place. 
 
 A Form for a Third Service to be used at 
 Evensong, Forms of Prayer for Seamen in Danger 
 and of Thanksgiving after Dangers Past, and a 
 Form of Service for Intercession on establishing 
 Missions, were prepared in this Convocation. 
 
 Summary of Many important debates took place on the re- 
 Debates. > x i 
 
 form of Convocation ; on Ecclesiastical Appeals, so 
 
 unfortunately decided by a tribunal unqualified 
 for the purpose the Judicial Committee of Privy 
 Council; on a second forthcoming Pan-Angli- 
 can Synod ; on the Laws of Burial, a subject then 
 much discussed, as an Act of Parliament was 
 passed at this time admitting Nonconformist 
 ministrations into churchyards ; and on Clergy 
 Discipline. There were also most interesting 
 discussions and reports presented on inter-com- 
 munion with the Orthodox Church of the East, 
 communications having been thence received, 
 among which was a most kindly letter from
 
 PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT. 307 
 
 the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury offering the use of coeme- 
 teries for the interment of such of our country- 1880> 
 men as might die within the jurisdiction of 
 himself or of the Bishops in his Patriarchate, and 
 adding that all necessary ornaments and acces- 
 sories needful for funerals should be supplied. 
 
 There was also in this Convocation much dis- Public 
 cussion on the Public Worship Kegulation Bill, 
 a measure most unhappily introduced into the ctt 
 House of Lords, and carried through Parlia- 
 ment, notwithstanding the most earnest and 
 constant protests against it in the Lower House 
 of Convocation, and also in the Upper House, 
 eloquently urged by the late revered and 
 learned Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln. These 
 protests were unavailing, notwithstanding their 
 reasonableness. And it is certain that many of 
 those who supported the measure in Parliament 
 are now heartily ashamed of that performance, 
 and are well satisfied that a more unwise and 
 mischievous act of legislation has seldom been 
 perpetrated. 
 
 The intention of the Act was to repress 
 excess of ritual ; but it was so unwisely framed, 
 without the least regard either to Constitu- 
 tional or Ecclesiastical principles, that while 
 seeking to obtain one object it produced results 
 wholly different and most disastrous. By its 
 heedless provisions, (l) the Crown was, under
 
 308 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part IV. 8. 
 
 Metro- certain circumstances, empowered to appoint a 
 P Tait! S ' single judge to preside in the Metropolitan 
 Thomson. Q our t s o f "both Provinces. But how a judge 
 appointed by Secular authority was to adjudge 
 and execute Spiritual penalties, such, for in- 
 stance, as suspension from sacred offices, or ex- 
 communication, and the like, has never to this 
 hour been explained, nor can it be. (2) This 
 Act robbed each Metropolitan, under all cir- 
 cumstances, of half of his prerogative of ap- 
 pointing his own Provincial Judge, for both 
 Metropolitans were compelled to appoint the 
 same person, and neither could make such 
 appointment without the other's consent. (3) 
 This Act robbed every Diocesan Bishop in 
 England of the right to have questions of 
 ritual, arising within his Diocese, adjudicated 
 in his own Consistory Court, unless both parties 
 in the case assented. Thus was this solcecism 
 in jurisprudence introduced, that the proper 
 jurisdiction could be ousted at the will either of 
 the accuser or the accused in a case. (4) Lastly, 
 the whole Clergy of England were by this Act 
 subordinated to a new jurisdiction, in the person 
 of a single judge appointed under the Statute, 
 who had never had the least experience in Ec- 
 clesiastical law, but only in a Court [the Divorce 
 Court] established on principles directly opposed 
 to the Word of God. 
 
 What made the matter worse was this :
 
 PUBLIC WOESHIP REGULATION ACT. 309 
 
 Some years before, a joint Committee of both sovereign: 
 Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury had ^'^|JJ^ 
 elaborated to the minutest details a scheme of 188 - 
 Clergy discipline with a view to legislation. 
 That Committee contained the late Dr. Henry 
 Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter, the late Archdeacon 
 James Eandall, who was bred to the Bar and 
 was a most acute and learned lawyer, the late 
 Chancellor Massingberd, with some others quite 
 capable of giving help in such an undertaking. 
 This Committee reported, and twice their re- 
 port was earnestly pressed on the Upper House 
 by the Lower, with requests that measures 
 might be taken for giving it effect. But all to 
 no purpose. These requests were completely 
 ignored, and a Bill wholly and diametrically 
 opposed to the principles of the report was 
 brought into the House of Lords, hurried with 
 the most indecent haste through the Commons, 
 and was enacted, having as its title The Public 
 Worship Eegulation Act. Its almost immediate 
 effects were that three Clergymen of unblemished 
 character were incarcerated within the walls 
 respectively of Chester, Warwick, and Horse- 
 monger-lane gaols. And should this Act be 
 allowed to remain on the Statute Book even 
 more disastrous results may be expected to 
 ensue, not merely entailing sufferings on indi- 
 viduals, but calculated to sap the very founda- 
 tions of all Church Government.
 
 310 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 8. 
 
 The business, however, which engrossed the 
 
 politans: . . 
 
 Tait, largest amount of attention in this Convocation 
 Thomson. wag ^ Q jft ev i s i on o f the Kubrics. Considerable 
 
 progress in this work had been made in the 
 last Convocation before its dissolution in 1874. 
 But the work not having been completed, a 
 fresh Koyal Letter of Business was now sent to 
 
 Conv. ix. J 
 
 Viet. Reg. request that the rubrics, as recommended in 
 
 pp. 298-30. 
 
 the Fourth and final Keport of the Eitual Com- 
 missioners, should be considered by the Synod. 
 Again, as before, with this " Letter of Business " 
 from the Crown came also a "Koyal Licence." 
 For what purpose it was sent no seer could 
 divine, unless, perchance, some fees for drawing 
 it may accrue in some quarters. If this be so, 
 it can only be said that the money was very 
 ill earned. For the Licence not only was not 
 required, but even if required would have been 
 most improperly drawn for any purpose what- 
 soever. There certainly does seem a Nemesis 
 of fate which is ever dogging the steps of the 
 learned profession, and misleading its members 
 into error when they approach the Ecclesiastical 
 region. To say nothing of the Ecclesiastical 
 judgments of the Judicial Committee of Privy 
 Council, here is the third labyrinth of error in 
 which, within a very few years, the Crown 
 Office has lost itself when approaching Con- 
 vocation. 
 Rubrics. However, the Royal Letter of Business having
 
 KUBEICAL BE VISION. 311 
 
 been received, requesting a revision of the sovereign: 
 rubrics, this Synod set itself industriously to ^'^^ 
 work on the matter. The labours of the last I88 - 
 Convocation in the matter were most carefully 
 revised, the assistance of the York Convocation 
 was invoked, and by means of Committees of 
 the Synods of both Provinces constant com- 
 munications on the subject were kept up. 
 
 The two Houses of the Canterbury Convocation, 
 
 Conv. ix. 
 
 in united Synod [July 19 and 20, 1876 ; and on vict. Reg. 
 
 T 1 IT 1 11 > , 
 
 July 1, 1879J, discussed in common, and by com- pp.376-389, 
 mon voting settled the rubrics for the Prayer Book; 
 and finally the whole work being completed, the 
 official return was made to the Crown, signed by 
 the Archbishop and Prolocutor, July 1, 1879. 
 
 If this revision of the rubrics, first drafted in 
 the Fourth and final Keport of the Ritual Com- 
 missioners, as subsequently reviewed and im- 
 proved by the two Convocations, should be 
 authorized by Statute, a great boon would be 
 conferred on the Church of England. Autho- 
 rization by Statute is needed, because as the 
 Prayer Book itself is an integral part of the 
 present Act of Uniformity [13 & 14 Car. II. 4], its 
 rubrics cannot be constitutionally altered without 
 a relaxation for this purpose of that Act. That 
 a great boon would accrue by the adoption of 
 these revised rubrics might be shewn by many 
 instances where the old rubrics were either 
 obscure or inconvenient, but have now been
 
 312 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 8. 
 
 Metro- either elucidated or rendered more suitable for 
 Tait, ' the direction of public worship. 
 Thomson. Q ne i ng ^ ance a } one ghall here be specified. It 
 
 touches the vital principles of Christian service, 
 an( * ma 7 serve to shew how beneficial this re- 
 vision might prove if the whole were ultimately 
 Service. carried out. By the present rubrics, when there 
 is no Celebration it is ordered that the Com- 
 munion Office shall end with the Prayer for the 
 Church Militant, a Collect, and the Blessing. And 
 so the congregation in many churches departs 
 after the Prayer for the Church Militant. But 
 when there is a Celebration, no particular point 
 in the service is defined for the departure of 
 those who do not intend to communicate. Conse- 
 quently, following the practice to which they are 
 accustomed when there is no Celebration, they 
 abide in the church till after the Prayer for 
 the Church Militant has been read, and then de- 
 part. But be it remembered, that the Elements 
 are placed on the Altar before the Prayer for 
 the Church Militant. And it is against the 
 fundamental principles of Divine Service that 
 any departure should take place after that part 
 of the Office. This may be learnt from all the 
 Ancient Liturgies, from St. James's, St. Mark's, 
 the Clementine, St. Chrysostom's, and St. Basil's. 
 There are two distinctly defined proceedings in 
 the Old Liturgies, the "Little Entrance" and 
 the " Great Entrance." The " Little Entrance "
 
 RUBRICAL REVISION. 313 
 
 was when the Priest first went up with the sovereign: 
 books to the Altar; the " Great Entrance" when ^THUST**' 
 
 Io74 
 
 he subsequently placed the Elements there. Now 188 - 
 between the "Little" and the "Great Entrance" 
 pauses in all the Liturgies were prescribed for 
 departure of such as were about to leave without 
 participation, and the Deacon rose up and bid 
 them depart. But in no case was there ever a 
 departure after the " Great Entrance " had been 
 accomplished. Indeed, over and above all an- 
 cient precedent, which looks but one way, there 
 is much indecency involved in the bustle and 
 noise of a departing congregation, after the most 
 solemn part of the service has been begun. 
 This matter was anxiously discussed both in 
 Committee and in the Lower House, and a rubric 
 was remodelled authorizing a pause for departure 
 immediately after the Offertory Sentences and 
 before the Oblation of the Elements, i.e. the 
 " Great Entrance " of the Early Church. This 
 is one instance, given merely as a specimen, 
 in which the revised rubrics would secure a real 
 advantage if adopted. 
 
 Difficulties doubtless lie in the way of ob- Measure 
 taining parliamentary sanction to a revision of for ?b- 
 
 rubrics. But in this Convocation a Bill was 
 drafted by which it was thought that the end 
 might be accomplished. The principles of that P 
 proposed measure are as follows: (l) That the 
 Convocations of Canterbury and York should 
 
 s s
 
 314 ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part IV. 8. 
 
 Metro- approve of proposed alterations; (2) that a scheme 
 
 Tait, ' f those alterations should be laid before the 
 
 Thomson. Q rown j n (jo^nci^ (3) an( j subsequently before 
 
 Parliament ; (4) that if no address in opposition 
 to the scheme should be presented by either 
 House of Parliament within forty days, then 
 that an Order in Council should be made giving 
 such scheme legal validity. 
 
 Y Q**- The sessions of the York Convocation con- 
 vened in 1874 and dissolved in 1880 were 
 held under the presidency of the Metropolitan, 
 Dr. William Thomson, the Honourable and 
 Very Kev. Augustus Duncombe being again 
 elected Prolocutor. 
 
 Private This Convocation, being again invited by the 
 
 Crown to revise the rubrics, appointed a Com- 
 mittee on the subject, and actively engaged in 
 that work. The Northern Synod did not in 
 this matter conclude on a joint report with the 
 Southern Convocation, but made its own revision 
 of rubrics, which was completed August 1, 1879, 
 and made its separate report to the Crown on 
 the 19th of November in that year ; the Canter- 
 bury report on the same subject having been 
 
 Supra, officially signed, as above said, by the Archbishop 
 and Prolocutor, on July 1, 1879.
 
 PEOCEEDINGS IN THE CANTERBURY SYNOD. 315 
 
 IX. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1880. 
 
 Concurrently with a new Parliament a newly- 
 elected Convocation of Canterbury assembled at 
 St. Paul's Cathedral on April 30, 1880, under 188B - 
 the presidency of Archbishop Tail Dr. William canter- 
 
 flWVfl 
 
 Dalrymple Maclagan, Bishop of Lichfield, as 
 junior Bishop [the Bishop of Salisbury, Pre- conv. x. 
 centor of the Province, being absent], said the inldc. 6| 
 Latin Litany in monotone, kneeling at a fald- 
 stool in the choir. After the Litany was ended, 
 the choir sang the hymn 
 
 " Veni Sancte Spiritus, 
 " Et emitte coelitus, 
 
 " Lucis tuse radium " 
 
 as an anthem, in the place where it had previously 
 been the practice to sing the anthem, " pray 
 " for the peace of Jerusalem." After which a 
 most eloquent and polished Latin sermon was 
 preached by the Ven. Edward Balston, D.D., 
 formerly Head Master of Eton, now Archdeacon 
 of Derby, who took for his text, " For where two 
 or three are gathered together in My Name, there 
 am I in the midst of them " [St. Matt, xviii. 20]. 
 After the sermon the " Gloria in Excelsis," from a
 
 316 ACTS OP THE CHUKCH. [Part IV. 9. 
 
 Metro- Mass of Weber's, was sung by the choir, and the 
 Benson," Archbishop then pronounced the Benediction. The 
 Thomson. ugua j formalities having subsequently been gone 
 through in the Chapter House, the Lower Clergy 
 assembled, under the presidency of the Very Eev. 
 E. W. Church, Dean of St. Paul's, in the chapel 
 at the north-west end of the Cathedral, for the 
 election of a Prolocutor. The late Prolocutor, 
 Dr. Edward Bickersteth, Dean of Lichfield, 
 having declined to be again nominated, the choice 
 of the Clergy unanimously fell on Lord Alwyne 
 Compton, D.D., Dean of Worcester, who is 
 eminently qualified for the office, both by his 
 great abilities and by his intimate acquaint- 
 ance with the antecedents of our Provincial 
 Synods. 
 
 Groups of sessions of this Synod were held 
 in June and July, 1880 ; in May and July, 1881 ; 
 in February and May, 1882 ; in April and July, 
 1883 ; in February, May, and July, 1884. 
 Accession During the existence of this Convocation the 
 son to the death of Archbishop Tait occurred. His successor 
 Canterbury, in the See of Canterbury was Dr. Benson, first 
 Bishop of Truro, who presided over the Canter- 
 bury Synod on April 10, 1883, for the first time, 
 when his Grace was Celebrant at the Holy 
 g. Communion in King Henry the Vllth's Chapel 
 in Westminster Abbey. 
 
 The revision of the rubrics, which occupied the 
 attention of the two last Convocations, having
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN THE CANTERBURY SYNOD. 317 
 
 been now completed, and the result having been sovereign: 
 reported to the Crown, no Letter of Business was ^'Tl ^ 18 " 
 
 looO~* 
 
 addressed to this Convocation, so that all matters 1885 - 
 discussed by it were inaugurated in the Synod 
 itself. The most interesting and important dis- 
 cussions in this Convocation related to the 
 following subjects : Intercommunion with the 
 Eastern Orthodox Churches Diocesan Confer- 
 ences Keform of Convocation the Establish- 
 ment of a Board of Missions the Connexion 
 of Church and State as affecting Ecclesiastical 
 Judicature and Clergy Discipline the Marriage 
 Laws the Contagious Diseases Acts and to 
 the proposition for establishing a Provincial 
 House of Laymen to co-operate with the Can- 
 terbury Convocation. 
 
 An " Articulus Cleri " was also sent to the Amazing 
 
 -r-r TT P i T announce- 
 
 U pper House from the Lower, requesting their ment made 
 Lordships to take such steps as they might think Judicial 
 fit for allaying the trouble which had been O f Privy 
 caused in some minds by an absurd judgment 
 which had been lately delivered by the Judicial 
 Committee of Privy Council, the Final Court 
 of Ecclesiastical Appeal. That tribunal was so 
 slenderly informed in matter of fact, and in- 
 dulged itself in language so rambling, as to 
 pronounce solemnly that judgments of Courts, 
 including, of course, its own, were " STANDARDS Memman 
 
 _ -.-. v. Williams. 
 
 "OF JAITH AND DOCTRINE ADOPTED BY THE 
 " CHURCH OF ENGLAND." Such a preposterous
 
 318 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part TV. 9. 
 
 Metro- claim and such puerile self-assertion is rather 
 Benson," calculated to excite ridicule than cause trouble 
 Thomson. ^ anvone> g^ill it was well that such hallu- 
 cinations of brain, confusion of thought, and 
 prostitution of language especially as this lan- 
 guage was adopted by exalted authorities in the 
 learned profession should not pass unrebuked. 
 Most interesting discussions also took place upon 
 
 cal Courts' r , i n T^I- 
 
 Commis- the Eeport of the Koyal Commissioners on Ecclesi- 
 Report. astical Courts. TheLower House, though generally 
 approving of that Keport, demurred, as might be 
 expected, to the following marvellous proposi- 
 tion that the Final Court of Ecclesiastical Ap- 
 peal should consist of five Lay Judges, but that 
 they should not in a Spiritual case be bound to con- 
 sult any Spiritual authority unless one of them- 
 selves desired it. This the Lower House thought 
 no sufficient guarantee for such necessary in- 
 struction, and decided that they could not ac- 
 quiesce in such a proposition. The Upper House 
 resolved that it would be " desirable " that the 
 Court should refer Spiritual questions for advice 
 to the Bishops of the Province in which the 
 cause arose, or to the Bishops of both Provinces. 
 via. official But the Lower House considered the word " de- 
 
 Year-Book 
 
 of the " sirable " too feeble a form of expression under 
 England, the circumstances. And this decision of the 
 
 ' Lower House was certainly reasonable enough. 
 Manuals of Some important Acts of this Convocation have 
 
 Private 
 
 Prayer. been the compilation by the Upper House of a
 
 PEOCEEDINGS IN THE CANTERBUKY SYNOD. 319 
 
 " Manual of Family Prayer ; " and by the Lower sovereign: 
 House of a " Form of Prayer for Kogation Days," Q< ^sT*' 
 and of a " Manual of Private Prayer for Working 1885 - 
 "Men," to be used twice daily. The Lower House 
 has also sanctioned a second " Manual of Private 
 " Prayer," to be used twice a-day, for those who 
 do not live by the labour of their hands. And, 
 further, for the more devout members of the 
 English Church a " Manual of Private Prayer " 
 is fully drafted for seven hours' devotions in the 
 course of night and day : i. e. (l) In the night 
 watches ; (2) on rising up ; (3) at the third 
 hour ; (4) at the sixth hour ; (5) at the ninth 
 hour ; (6) at eventide ; (7) on lying down to 
 rest. By the Lower House this Manual has 
 not yet [1885] been finally adopted, but is 
 still under the consideration of the Committee 
 charged with its completion. Much of the 
 material of which it is constructed is derived 
 from writers of the early ages of Christianity, 
 and from the Liturgies of the Eastern Church, 
 the spiritual mother of the Church of England. 
 The original draft of this Manual has been 
 printed in very splendid form on large paper at 
 the Oxford University Press, and a copy in ap- 
 propriate binding was, by the liberality of the 
 publisher, presented to every member of the 
 last Convocations of the two Provinces. It is as 
 chaste a specimen of typography and binding as 
 can be imagined.
 
 320 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 9. 
 
 Metro- The York Convocation convened concurrently 
 Benson," with the last-mentioned Synod of Canterbury has 
 
 Thomson. con ^ nue( j ^o hold its sessions under the same Pre- 
 York ' sident, the Most Eev. William Thomson, the Metro- 
 politan, who has presided over its deliberations for 
 sixteen years. But three Prolocutors have presided 
 in the Lower House since the convention of this 
 Convocation in 1880, viz. the Hon. and Very Eev. 
 Augustus Buncombe, removed by death; the 
 Very Eev. W. B. M. Cowie, formerly Dean of 
 Manchester, now transferred to Exeter ; and the 
 Very Eev. Arthur Perceval Purey-Cust, Dean of 
 York, who at present occupies the Prolocutor's 
 chair. 
 
 Summary The subjects of chief interest which have 
 
 ceedinga. occupied the attention of this Northern Synod 
 have been Marriage with a Deceased Wife's 
 Sister, the Imprisonment of the Eev. S. F. Green, 
 
 official Eights of Patronage, Ecclesiastical Courts, Clergy 
 
 Year-Book . & & '. . 
 
 of the Discipline and Episcopal Authority, and the 
 
 Church of , - , . . ,. -r, 
 
 England, wonderful proposition of the Ecclesiastical 
 352-355. Courts' Commissioners, that in matters of faith 
 and doctrine, as well as discipline, the whole of 
 the Clergy of England, including Metropolitans 
 and Bishops, should be all subordinated to the 
 judgment of five Lay Judges taken in rotation 
 from the Chancery and Common Law divisions 
 of the High Court of Justice : and that too 
 without any necessary reference on their part to 
 any Spiritual authority whatsoever.
 
 CONVOCATIONS AND THE CROWN. 321 
 
 PART V. 
 
 PEESENT REGULATIONS AND METHODS OF 
 PROCEEDING IN THE CONVOCATIONS OF 
 CANTERBURY AND YORK, THE PROVINCIAL 
 SYNODS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 I. 
 
 CONVOCATIONS IN CONNEXION WITH THE 
 CEOWN. 
 
 THE Convocations are brought into connexion 
 with the Crown by (l) a "Writ for Convention," 
 (2) a "Letter of Business," (3) a "Licence" to 
 enact Canons, (4) a Writ of Prorogation, (5) a 
 " Writ of Dissolution." 
 
 (l) A " Writ for Convention " always issues Royal Writ 
 from the Crown Office acourse with the Writs tion. 
 for assembling Parliament. This instrument is 
 directed to each Metropolitan, " commanding and 
 " entreating " him to convene the members of 
 his Provincial Synod " to treat of, agree to, and Append. A. 
 " conclude upon" affairs concerning "Us" [the So- 
 vereign], " the security and defence of the Church 
 "of England, and the peace and tranquillity, 
 
 T T
 
 322 ACTS OP THE CHURCH. [Part V. 1. 
 
 "public good and defence of Our kingdom." 
 Before the year 1534, each Metropolitan could 
 convene his Provincial Synod at any time he 
 thought fit. The Sovereign sometimes requested 
 him to do so, but only on occasion. Since that 
 date, by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII. 19, such Writ 
 is necessary; but it is always issued with the 
 parliamentary Writs, and has become part of 
 the customary law of England, and so long as 
 Parliament sits the Metropolitans can convene 
 their Convocations as often as they please. 
 Letter of (2) A " Letter of Business " is an instrument 
 Append. directed by the Sovereign to either Metropolitan, 
 c.i. ii. in. re q ues ti n g hi m to direct the attention of his 
 Synod to any particular subject. This is an 
 instrument no way necessary for enabling the 
 Convocation to proceed to business, and is only 
 issued as occasion may arise. 
 
 Licence (3) A " Licence " is only required for one 
 
 particular purpose to enable the Synod to 
 " enac t, promulge, and execute " a Canon. This 
 instrument is only issued on occasion, and is 
 no way necessary for any other purpose than as 
 specified above. 
 
 writ of Pro- (4) A "Writ of Prorogation." This issues at 
 AppVnd. the same time as the Writs for the prorogation 
 . i. n. Q Parliament, and when Parliament is pro- 
 rogued the Convocations are generally prorogued 
 also; though not necessarily so, as was decided 
 in Charles the First's time a matter previously
 
 CONVOCATIONS AND THE CROWN. 323 
 
 recorded [pp. 167 169]. But it here must be 
 observed that though Parliamentary Committees 
 do not meet out of session, Committees of Con- 
 vocations, who really do the work of those assem- 
 blies, by custom meet at any time, the respective 
 Chairmen of those Committees convening them 
 at any time of the year at their discretion. 
 
 (5) A "Writ of Dissolution," by which when 
 any Parliament is dissolved the concurrent Con- Append', 
 vocations are dissolved also, and a new election F ' L I ' 
 of Proctors takes place. 
 
 There is also another instrument, which seems 
 to have been introduced without any warranty 
 of law or reason that is, one which intimates 
 the Eoyal " Assent " after a Canon has been 
 enacted and therefore it is not included in the 
 above list, as it seems not to agree with the 
 Statute governing the case, and to have been 25 Hen. 
 only a gratuitous introduction of a useless pro- 
 ceeding invented by some legal ingenuity for 
 adding a needless flourish of Secular authority, 
 or for increasing official fees. The Sovereign, by 
 the hypothesis, has already been made cognizant 
 of all the contents of the Canon or Canons pro- 
 posed, and has issued a " Licence " " to enact ; " 
 what possible need can there be then for sub- 
 sequent assent to that which the Crown has 
 previously sanctioned? This matter, however, 
 has been explained more fully in former pages 
 [pp. 146-7; and see Appendix D. II. ad fin.].
 
 324 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part V. 2. 
 
 II. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Upon the receipt of the Writ first above men- 
 Append, tioned, each Metropolitan directs his mandate [in 
 Canterbury through the Bishop of London, as 
 Dean of the Province] to the several Bishops 
 within his jurisdiction, warning them to attend 
 Supra, with the Clergy of their Diocese, as formerly 
 detailed, at a specified time and place. Each 
 Bishop then cites the Dean and Archdeacons of 
 Append, his Diocese personally, and directs his Cathedral 
 Chapter to elect one Proctor, and the Clergy of 
 his Diocese [or of each Archdeaconry in the 
 Append, case of a York Diocese] to elect two Proctors 
 
 B. IV. 
 
 to attend the Provincial Synod. The Chapter 
 and the beneficed Clergy of the Diocese then 
 respectively elect by suffrage their Proctors. 
 A pecuii- This method of appointing by election Pres- 
 EngttBh byters as members of Provincial Synods is a 
 Synods. practice which appears to be peculiar to Eng- 
 land. In early times the Presbyters who at- 
 tended Church Councils were appointed by their 
 respective Bishops. Thus in the " Tractorias " 
 or letter of summons directed to Chrestus, Bi- 
 shop of Syracuse, and warning him to attend the
 
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSEMBLY. 325 
 
 Council of Aries [A.D. 314], he is commanded to 
 bring with him " two of the second throne," i.e. 
 
 & Eccl. Hist. 
 
 two Presbyters. And this appears to have been Lib. x. c. 5. 
 
 D 392 D 
 
 the ancient practice. But in England Proctors 
 are elected by prescribed constituencies. When 
 this practice first arose is a question not easy of 
 solution. But at any rate such Clergy Proctors 
 are mentioned in a mandate of Archbishop 
 Kilwarby summoning his Provincial Synod in Reg. Giff. 
 
 Vigorn. 
 
 1277; in a Canon, as quoted by Lyndwood, and M. 71. 
 attributed to the Council of Heading in 1279 : Synod. 
 
 Prov. 
 
 and also in a mandate of Archbishop Peccham, Pt. in. 
 which convened his Provincial Synod at the Conc M B> 
 New Temple, London, in 1283. One thing, a - p - 93> 
 however, is clear the right of Presbyters to 
 have seats in Provincial Synods is certain, 
 and may be proved from unquestionable evi- 
 dence derived from all ages of the Church. The 
 Fourth Canon of the Fourth Council of Toledo 
 [above quoted at length, pp. 14-16] is conclusive 
 on this point, and any pretences which have Memo- 
 been made to denv them that right, even by a directed 
 
 ** V T J 
 
 Lord Chancellor, are absolutely fallacious. In fact, seibome to 
 the evidence on this point is overwhelming. an a Right 1 
 As soon as the Proctors for the Clergy are Gladstone. ' 
 
 elected, they enjoy in common with all the 8 of 
 
 other members of the two Convocations the pri- from . arrest 
 
 pertaining 
 
 vilege of freedom from liability to arrest on to members 
 
 of Convoca- 
 
 civil process. The origin of this privilege is an tion. 
 
 Cok 
 
 illustration of the truth that considerable results inst.iv.323.
 
 326 ACTS OF THE CHUEGH. [Part V. 2. 
 
 sometimes follow from seemingly inconsiderable 
 causes. 
 
 The privilege thus originated. In the fifth 
 year of King Henry IV., Thomas Broke, Knight 
 of the Shire for the County of Somerset, 
 on going to Parliament took along with him 
 Eichard Chedder as an attendant. During the 
 session of Parliament one John Salvage as- 
 saulted this Chedder, and this conduct seems 
 to have been so distasteful to the members of 
 our Legislature, being, one must think, some- 
 what jealous of their own dignity, that a Statute 
 [5 Hen. IV. 6] was passed by which it was enacted 
 that Salvage was to appear in the King's Bench, 
 and if found guilty of the assault charged was 
 to pay double damages, and make fine and ran- 
 som at the King's will. And further, that the 
 same penalties might overtake any future offend- 
 ers in like case, who should molest a member of 
 the Legislature or his attendants during the ses- 
 sion of Parliament, the Statute concludes with 
 these words : " Moreover, it is accorded in the 
 " same Parliament that likewise it be done in 
 "time to come in like case." Upon this foot- 
 stone was laid the parliamentary privilege of free- 
 dom from liability to arrest on civil process. 
 This same privilege was subsequently extended 
 to members of the two Convocations by the 
 Statute 8 Hen. VI. 1, which provided that " all 
 "the Clergy hereafter to be called to the Con-
 
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSEMBLY. 327 
 
 " vocation by the King's Writ, and their servants 
 " and families, shall for ever hereafter fully use 
 "and enjoy such liberty or defence in coming, 
 "tarrying, and returning, as the great men and 
 "commonalty of the Kealm of England, called 
 "or to be called to the King's Parliament, do 
 "enjoy and were wont to enjoy, or in time to 
 "come ought to enjoy." This matter is fully 
 treated in " Coke's Inst." iv. 323. 
 
 This privilege has been frequently asserted, 
 and on proper occasion never denied. During 
 the sessions of the Canterbury Convocation in 
 1603-4, the Prolocutor, Dr. Kavis, was served Syn. 
 with a subpoena by Harrington and Walker. 
 On this breach of privilege by these two men, 
 a warrant was issued against the former, and 
 the latter was arrested by a Serjeant-at-Mace. 
 Walker was brought before the Bishops, and sent 
 down to beg pardon of the Prolocutor and the 
 Lower House. As for Harrington, he was 
 brought upon his knees for his offence before 
 the Bishops themselves. During the sessions 
 of the Canterbury Convocation begun Feb. 13, Cone. M.B. 
 1624, N.S., a subpoena was served on Mr. Mur- 1V ' 46 ' 
 rell, Archdeacon of Lincoln ; but this instrument 
 was superseded by reason of Convocational 
 privilege. In the York Convocation contem- 
 poraneous with the last-mentioned Synod, an 
 application was made for the Convocational 
 privilege in favour of Thomas Mellory, Dean
 
 328 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part V. 2. 
 
 of Chester, in order to stay some legal proceed- 
 
 Conc. M. B. ings then pending against that gentleman. The 
 
 privilege was granted, and an instrument for 
 
 the purpose desired was executed, under the seal 
 
 of the Metropolitan, Matthew Hutton. In 1628, 
 
 Lords' the Under Sheriff of Hereford was ordered to 
 
 Journals, 
 
 April 29, attend, with Kichard Colley, before the House 
 of Lords, the said Colley having been illegally 
 arrested, being the servant of a Clerk of Convo- 
 cation, and so privilege having been breached. 
 It was subsequently ordered that Dyos, the 
 Under Sheriff, being brought up by the Serjeant- 
 at-Arms, should submit himself to the Lower 
 House of Convocation, and be discharged on 
 paying his fine. During the sessions of the 
 
 Cone. M. B. York Convocation which met Feb. 10, 1629, 
 this privilege of freedom from arrest was ob- 
 tained by no less than five of its members, viz. 
 Kichard Hunt, Dean of Durham ; Gabriel Clerk 
 and John Cosin, Archdeacons; W. James and 
 Ferdinand Morecroft, Prebendaries. That this 
 privilege was constitutionally recognized by 
 Parliament in comparatively late times we 
 have the evidence of a circumstance which 
 occurred in 1702. On Nov. 18 in that year, 
 the House of Commons addressed Queen Anne 
 on the subject of some interference in a Worces- 
 ter election, of which one Mr. Lloyd had been 
 guilty, who was a member of Convocation. 
 The address requested Her Majesty to order the
 
 PROCEEDINGS ON ASSEMBLY. 329 
 
 Attorney-General to prosecute Mr. Lloyd for 
 his offence. But his Convocational privilege was 
 acknowledged, inasmuch as the address specified 
 particularly that the prosecution was to be begun 
 after his "privilege as a member of the Lower 
 " House of Convocation was out." On Nov. 20, 
 the Lower House of Convocation, sensible of this 
 proper acknowledgement, assured, through their 
 Prolocutor and three Assessors, the Speaker of 
 the House of Commons of the sense entertained 
 for the regard which had been shewn to Convo- 
 cational privilege. On this the Commons re- 
 solved "That they would on all occasions 
 " assert the just rights and privileges of the Lower 
 "House of Convocation." Whether the same 
 spirit has actuated every House of Commons 
 since the date above given may be a query. 
 
 III. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS ON ASSEMBLY. 
 
 It will henceforth be sufficient to record the 
 mode of proceeding in the Province of Canter- 
 bury, as the reader will thus gain a sufficient 
 idea of the methods followed in the York 
 Province, the only difference worth recording 
 between the two being that the separation into 
 two Houses has been the general rule in the Can- 
 terbury Synod, the exception in that of York. 
 
 uu
 
 330 ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part V. 3. 
 
 The Canterbury Provincial Synod has been 
 for many years summoned to meet first at 
 St. Paul's Cathedral by the Archbishop's man- 
 date. On their assembly the proceedings are 
 as follows : The members, vested in their proper 
 habiliments, pass from the Chapter House in 
 formal procession to the choir of the Cathedral. 
 A Latin Litany is said by the junior Bishop, 
 and an anthem sung by the Choir. A Latin 
 sermon is then delivered by a preacher ap- 
 pointed by the Archbishop. After the sermon 
 the " Gloria in Excelsis " or a hymn is sung and 
 the Benediction pronounced. The Synod then 
 adjourns to the Chapter House, and after some 
 formal business has been transacted the mem- 
 bers of the Lower House retire to one of the 
 side chapels for the election of a Prolocutor. This 
 divine, on being presented to the Archbishop at 
 a subsequent session, if approved of by him 
 [and there is no instance, so far as the writer 
 is aware, of disapproval], becomes Chairman of 
 the Lower House. He not only there presides, 
 but is the channel of communication between 
 the two Houses, carrying messages from the 
 Upper to the Lower, and reporting the proceed- 
 ings of the Lower to the Upper. After the 
 Clergy have retired for the election of their 
 Prolocutor, the Synod is prorogued to some 
 future, generally not distant, day.
 
 PKOCEEDINGS IN SESSION. 331 
 
 IV. 
 
 PEOCEEDINGS IN SESSION. 
 
 Through many ages the subsequent sessions 
 were usually held at St. Paul's, until Oliver 
 Cromwell's cavalry defaced the goodly Chapter 
 House there, though sometimes at Westminster. 
 Now the Synod is on the occasion of its first 
 assembly at St. Paul's always prorogued to 
 some future day at Westminster Abbey. Of 
 late, on assembling there, Holy Communion 
 has been administered to the members in 
 Henry VII.'s Chapel, and at the conclusion 
 of the service the whole Synod meets in 
 the Jerusalem Chamber within the Abbey 
 precincts. The Archbishop there admits the 
 Prolocutor to his office, addresses the assembly 
 on any subject which to him may seem expe- 
 dient, and then retires with his Suffragans form- 
 ing the Upper House to the Bounty Board Office 
 in Dean's Yard, Westminster, where their ses- 
 sions are held, leaving the members of the 
 Lower House in the Jerusalem Chamber to 
 hold their sessions either there or in the Col- 
 lege Hall.
 
 332 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part V. 4. 
 
 Separation The separation of Provincial Synods respec- 
 Houses. tively into two Houses does not date from any- 
 remote antiquity. It seems to have originated 
 about the end of the fourteenth or the beginning 
 of the fifteenth century. The practice was at 
 first adopted only on special occasions, but in 
 later times, at least in the Canterbury Pro- 
 vince, has become the rule, not the exception. 
 Indeed it is plain from the history of the earlier 
 ages of the Church that while the " Corpus 
 " Synodi " was in the Bishops, yet that those 
 who were below the Episcopal order united with 
 them in common deliberation, and on some oc- 
 casions at least were on account of learning and 
 eloquence the chief champions in debate. Strik- 
 ing examples of this may be found in the records 
 of places and ages widely different. Thus at the 
 Council of Antioch, in the third century, Malchion 
 Ecci. Hist, was chief speaker, and as Eusebius writes, " he 
 "alone prevailed to detect the subtle-minded 
 "man," when Paulus Samozatenus was delated 
 for false teaching. At Nice, in the fourth cen- 
 tury, Athanasius was chief champion of the 
 Speim. orthodox faith. At our National Council of 
 Cone. M. B! Whitby, in the seventh century, Wilfrid was 
 chief speaker, and from the result appears to 
 have been the most efficient advocate. But 
 neither Malchion, Athanasius, or Wilfrid were 
 Bishops on the occasions referred to. 
 
 To come much nearer to our own times, it
 
 PBOCEEDINGS IN SESSION. 333 
 
 is to the learning and eloquence of a Presbyter 
 in the Canterbury Synod that the Church of 
 England is deeply indebted for the preservation 
 of her Liturgy in its integrity. In King Wil- 
 liam the Third's reign, endeavours were made 
 under Dutch influence, as has been before re- supra, 
 corded, to Puritanize the English Prayer Book. p ' ' 
 It was the brilliant and touching address of Dr. 
 Jane [then Prolocutor of the Lower House], 
 which he wound up with the words, quoted from 
 the Barons of old, "Nolumus leges Angliae mu- 
 " tari," that in great measure prevailed to sway 
 the assembly and avert the catastrophe. 
 
 When the two Houses have been thus con- Proceedings 
 stituted, as above mentioned, the delibera- Housed 
 tions and debates begin. It is not necessary 
 to describe the methods of proceeding in the 
 Upper House, as, the assembly being a small 
 one, there is nothing very peculiar to record in 
 their mode of conducting business. But the 
 Lower House, constituting a much larger body, 
 is necessarily subject to stringent rules of pro- 
 cedure. These are peculiar, having been tra- 
 ditionally handed down from earlier ages, and 
 may thus be briefly summarized. 
 
 At each of the sessions of the Lower House Proceedings 
 of Canterbury, which are held sometimes in the House. 
 Jerusalem Chamber, sometimes in the Westmin- 
 ster College Hall, the Latin Litany is first read. 
 The roll of the members is then called over
 
 334 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part V. 4. 
 
 a process denominated " praeconization " when 
 those present answer to their names. Except 
 on the first day of a group of sessions, the pro- 
 ceedings of the previous day having been fairly 
 transcribed are then read by the Actuary, i.e. the 
 officer entrusted with the documents of the as- 
 sembly, and by a vote of the House reduced to 
 "Acts." But on the last day of a group of sessions 
 this is done on the evening of the day itself. 
 The Prolocutor then nominates some members, 
 usually about six or eight, as his Assessors, 
 who accompany him whenever he proceeds to 
 the Upper House, and who are also consulted 
 by him, if he so desires, should any doubtful 
 question arise touching the proceedings of the 
 assembly. Notices of motion are then given, 
 and petitions and "gravamina" presented. As 
 regards the presentation of a "gravamen" 
 a practice of the highest antiquity it is the 
 statement of any evil touching the Church to 
 which the member presenting desires to call 
 attention, and to it is usually appended a "re- 
 "formandum," that is, a suggestion for the cor- 
 rection of the evil. Such a document may be 
 dealt with in four different ways (l) It may 
 be signed only by the presenter, (2) or may 
 receive the signatures of as many members as 
 agree with it, and so in either case be carried 
 by the Prolocutor to the Upper House; (3) or 
 it may be referred by a vote of the House to
 
 PBOCEEDINGS IN SESSION. 335 
 
 either of the Committees who are sitting on the 
 subject it involves ; (4) or by such vote it may 
 be discussed with a view to its being made an 
 " Articulus Cleri," that is, an "Act" of the Lower 
 House, and so be transmitted to the Upper. 
 Then follow the debates arising either from 
 messages sent from the Upper House, or upon 
 motions after proper notice of individual mem- 
 bers. But business sent from the Upper House 
 always takes precedence. Each day's sitting is 
 termed a separate session, and each day a pro- 
 rogation of the whole Synod takes place in the 
 Upper House and is formally communicated to 
 the Lower. When the Convocation meets for 
 several days consecutively, it is termed a group 
 of sessions. 
 
 As regards the procedure in the York Synod 
 there is nothing varying from the above 
 methods which demands special notice, save 
 that there the Houses have usually been united 
 in session, at least of late years. And it may 
 be a query whether Canterbury might not 
 profitably imitate the York example in this 
 respect by making the union of the two Houses 
 the rule, not the exception. That the Bishops 
 should hear the arguments of the Presbyters, 
 and that the Presbyters should hear those of 
 the Bishops, would seem highly desirable when 
 common determinations have to be arrived at.
 
 336 CONCLUSION. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Beyond all cavil or dispute, it may surely be 
 affirmed, that tliis nation is indebted to the 
 Supra, p. 78. Convocations for the Synodical rejection of Pa- 
 pal Supremacy over this land ; for the Synodical 
 
 Supra, restoration of Communion in both kinds; for 
 
 p ' 110> the Synodical abrogation of the ccelibacy of 
 
 Art. vi. the Clergy ; for the Article which defines the 
 
 p U ?29. Canon of Scripture; for the Article which 
 
 s^praT 111 ' commends the three Creeds as the symbols 
 
 P. 129. Christian faith ; for the Canons which are 
 
 Supra, 
 
 PP. 149, 151. the basis of the Code of Discipline for ministers 
 
 Supra, of the Church ; and for the compilation and 
 
 232-s. ' Synodical authorization of the " Book of Com- 
 
 "mon Prayer." This is the heritage which 
 
 those Synods have handed down to us from 
 
 of old. It is equally sure that the members of 
 
 this Church are indebted to those Synods in 
 
 Supra, our own times for the maintenance of the 
 
 Supra, %i 'faith against false teaching; for the boon of 
 
 304-319 5 ' Services for Public Prayer, and Manuals for 
 
 Private Devotion provided; and also for keep- 
 
 ing a watchful and constant supervision over 
 
 all the interests of the Church of England. 
 
 Such and such like are their proper duties 
 
 and proper functions, and these by God's bless- 
 
 ing we may hope and believe that they will,
 
 CONCLUSION. 337 
 
 both now and in time to come faithfully and 
 diligently discharge. 
 
 In conclusion, it is worthy of remark that 
 the constitution of our Convocations or Pro- 
 vincial Synods, consisting of Bishops and Pres- 
 byters, without any admixture of laymen with 
 voices decisive, is in accordance with the prin- 
 ciple which has governed the constitution of Sy- 
 nods in all ages of the Church. That principle 
 may be traced back even to Apostolic times. 
 
 The First Council of Jerusalem, recorded in 
 the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, has 
 always been considered in the Orthodox Church 
 to be the true prototype and model for the consti- 
 tution of such assemblies. The history, there- 
 fore, of that Apostolic Council is of the highest 
 possible interest, and is closely applicable to the 
 present subject. 
 
 A question had arisen in the Church at 
 Antioch on a matter of disciplinary ritual 
 whether circumcision was necessary or not 
 for Christians. For the settlement of doubts 
 it was decided that SS. Paul and Barnabas, 
 with others, should go up to Jerusalem " unto Acts xv. 2. 
 " the Apostles and Elders " about this question, ibid. xv. 6. 
 " The Apostles and Elders " only assembled to con- 
 sider of the matter. After discussion, St. James, ibid. xv. 13. 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, and so chief of the as- 
 sembly, delivered judgment. Messengers were ibid. xv. 22. 
 then despatched from the whole Church of 
 
 x x
 
 338 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Jerusalem to Antioch, bearing a letter thither 
 containing the results of the deliberations. 
 The superscription of the letter was that of 
 
 Acts rv. 23. " the Apostles and Elders " only, for the word 
 "and" before the word "Brethren," attached to 
 the superscription in our Authorized Version, is 
 not warranted by the most trustworthy autho- 
 rities. This introduction of the word "and" is not 
 supported by the Cod. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, 
 Ephraim Syri, Beza, or Sinaiticus : nor is it 
 
 Lib. iii. 14. warranted by the Vulgate, nor by Irenaeus "Adv. 
 
 p- 396, Hser.," nor by Origen " Cont. Gels." The most 
 
 ed. 1677. . . 
 
 reliable authorities give the superscription thus 
 "The Apostles and Elders, brethren, . . . send 
 " greeting," &c., thus confining the superscription 
 to the Apostles and Elders only. And it is 
 further observable that when St. Paul and Silas 
 subsequently journeyed through the cities, they 
 Acts xvi. 4. delivered them " the decrees for to keep that 
 "were ordained of 'the Apostles and Elders' 
 "which were at Jerusalem." Thus we see that 
 in this Apostolic Council the question under 
 discussion was submitted to the Apostles and 
 Elders only, that they only came together to con- 
 sider the matter, that they only signed the Ency- 
 clical Letter, and that to them only the Decrees 
 of the Council are subsequently attributed. 
 
 As the Apostolic band was chosen by the 
 Lord to constitute the first Order of the Ministry 
 in His Church, so the second Order of Presby-
 
 CONCLUSION. 339 
 
 ters or Elders was inaugurated when " the Lord st. Luke *. 
 "appointed other seventy also and sent them 
 "two and two before His face into every city 
 "and place whither He Himself would come." 
 Of these two Orders the first Apostolic Council 
 of Jerusalem was composed ; and in conformity 
 with the example of that model Council, and in 
 imitation of it as being the true prototype for all 
 subsequent Synods, Church Councils have in all 
 ages been convened consisting of the first and 
 second Orders of the Ministry of Christ 
 Bishops and Presbyters. Such is the consti- 
 tution of the two Convocations or Provincial 
 Synods of the Church of England. They fol- 
 low Apostolic precedent, and the example of the 
 First Council of Jerusalem. So of this Church 
 of England, as of Jerusalem of old, it may 
 truly be said in the words of the Psalmist 
 " Her foundations are upon the holy hills." PS. imvii. 
 Her children may well be contented to abide 
 by the prophetic exhortation : 
 
 ">tant pe m tfje toaps, attir see, jer.yi.ie. 
 
 " anlr as* for tfte oltr patjjs, 
 
 "tofrere fas t&e gooti 
 
 " toap, airti toalfe 
 
 "tfweuu" 
 
 FINIS.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 THIS Appendix contains copies of legal instruments, an- 
 cient and modern, employed in convening Convocations, in 
 carrying on the business there transacted, in proroguing those 
 assemblies, and in dissolving them ; and also a copy of the 
 " Submission of the Clergy," with the provisions of the Sta- 
 tute 25 Hen. VIII. 19 thereon founded. There is, moreover, 
 inserted a copy of a Royal Writ of high antiquity and 
 Constitutional interest, together with a copy of its successor, 
 issued at the present time by the Crown, though undutifully 
 now disregarded. Comments on some of the above instru- 
 ments are added. 
 
 A. 
 
 THE ROYAL WRIT FOB, CONVENING A CONVOCATION 
 OB PROVINCIAL SYNOD. 
 
 Before the year 1534, when the Statute 25 Hen. VIII. 19 
 was enacted, the Provincial Synods or Convocations of the 
 Church of England sometimes were convened at the sole 
 motion and pleasure of the respective Metropolitans ; and 
 sometimes were convened by them after the reception of a 
 Royal Writ, on those occasions when the Sovereign desired 
 that some special Ecclesiastical business should be transacted. 
 
 But since the year 1534, each Metropolitan is statutably 
 debarred from convening his Provincial Synod until he 
 receives a Royal Writ requesting him to do so. The Metro- 
 politan's authority for convention meanwhile is exercised in its 
 entirety, and it is to his mandate that the returns of his suf- 
 fragans are made and not to the Crown. Copies below are given 
 of a Royal Writ preceding, and of two Writs succeeding the 
 date above mentioned.
 
 342 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 Copy of a, Royal Writ for Convention, issued by King 
 Edward III. A.D. 1339. 
 
 ["Cone. Mag. Brit." ii. 653, citing Rymer's " Feed." v. 137.] 
 
 " Rex venerabili in Christo Patri J. eadem gratia Archiepiscopo 
 " Cantuar. tqtius Anglise Primati, Salutem. Cum qusedam alia et 
 "urgentia negotia nos et statum regni nostri ac expeditionem 
 "negotiorum nostrorum concernentia, etc. et nos in hiis vestris et 
 " caeterorum Praelatorum et Cleri ejusdem regni consilio et auxilio 
 "indigentes, nos de vestrae sinceritatis et benevolentise puritate 
 " firmam fiduciam obtinentes, quod tarn pro defendendis et recupe- 
 " randis coronae nostrae regiae juribus, quam dictae Sanctae Ecclesiae 
 " salvatione et tuitione nobis vigilantdr velitis assistere, et quantum 
 "ad vos pertinet efficaciter in opportunitatibus suffragan, vobis 
 " mandamus rogantes, quatenus etc. totum Clerum vestrae Cantuar. 
 " Provinciae apud Londinium die Jovis proximo post festum Conver- 
 "sionis Sancti Pauli proxime futurum Convocari faciatis. Teste 
 "Custode Arigliae apud Langele Vicesimo Octavo die Novembris. 
 " Per ipsum Eegem et dictum Custodem." 
 
 II. 
 
 Copy of a Royal Writ for Convention, issued by King 
 Henry VIII. A.D. 1545. 
 
 [Gibson's " Codex," App. p. 65.] 
 
 " Henricus, etc. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri Thomas eadem 
 "gratia Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, Totius Angliae Primati et 
 " Metropolitano, Salutem. Quibusdam arduis et urgentibus nego- 
 " tiis nos securitatem et defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae ac pacem 
 " tranquillitatem bonum publicum et defensionem Regni nostri et 
 "subditorum nostrorum ejusdem concernen., Vobis in fide et di- 
 " lectione, quibus nobis tenemini, rogando mandamus, quatenus, 
 " praemissis debito intuitu attentis et ponderatis, universes et singu- 
 "los Episcopos Vestrae Provinciae, necnon Archidiaconos Decanos 
 " et omnes alias personas Ecclesiasticas cujtislibet Diceceseos ejus- 
 " dem provinciae ad comparend. coram Vobis in Ecclesia S. Pauli, 
 " London : vel alibi prout melius expedire videritis, cum omni 
 " celeritate accommoda, modo debito, convocari faciatis ad tractand. 
 " consentiend. et concludend. super praemissis, et aliis quae sibi 
 "clarius exponentur tune ibidem ex parte nostra. Et hoc, sicut 
 "nos et statum Regni nostri ac honorem et utilitatem Ecclesiae 
 "praedictae diligitis, nullatenus omittatis. Teste me ipso apud 
 " Westmonasterium Nono die Decembris Anno Regni nostri Tri- 
 " cesimo Sexto."
 
 APPENDIX. 343 
 
 III. 
 
 Copy of a Royal Writ for Convention, issued by Queen 
 
 Victoria. A.D. 1847. 
 [Pearce, "Law Conv." p. 55.] 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great 
 1 Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith : To the Most 
 'Reverend Father in God, Our right trusty and well-beloved 
 
 ' Councillor , by the same Grace Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 
 'Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, Greeting. By reason of 
 ' certain difficult and urgent affairs concerning Us, the security and 
 ' defence of the Church of England, and the peace and tranquillity, 
 ' public good, and defence of Our Kingdom, and Our subjects of the 
 ' same, We command you, entreating you by the faith and love 
 ' which you owe to Us, that having in due manner considered and 
 ' weighed the premisses, you call together with convenient speed, in 
 ' lawful manner, all and singular the Bishops of your Province and 
 ' Deans of your Cathedral Churches, and also the Archdeacons, 
 ' Chapters, and Colleges, and the whole Clergy of every Diocese of 
 ' the same Province, to appear before you in the Cathedral Church 
 
 ' of S.Paul, London, on the day of next ensuing, or elsewhere, 
 
 ' as it shall seem most expedient, to treat of, agree to, and conclude 
 ' upon the premisses and other things which to them shall then at 
 1 the same place be more clearly explained on Our behalf. And this, 
 ' as you love Us, the state of Our Kingdom, and honour and good of 
 
 ' Our aforesaid Church, by no means omit. Witness Ourself, at , 
 
 ' the day of , in the Year of Our Eeign." 
 
 A like "Writ is transmitted to the Metropolitan of York. 
 
 B. 
 
 METROPOLITAN'S MANDATE, AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS FOR 
 CONVENING A CONVOCATION OR PROVINCIAL SYNOD. 
 
 In the Province of Canterbury this Mandate is executed 
 through the intervention of the Bishop of London, as Dean 
 of the Province. In the Province of York the Metropolitan's 
 Mandate is, " mutatis mutandis," sent directly to each com- 
 provincial Bishop for execution. 
 
 I. 
 
 Copy of a Mandate for Convention, issued by Archbishop 
 Eobert Kilwarby. A. D. 1277. 
 [Vigorn. Reg. Giffard. Fol. 71.] 
 
 " Eobertus Cantuariensis, Archiepiscopus : H.Londinensi Episcopo, 
 " Salutem. Meminimus in congregatione nostra communi dudum
 
 344 APPENDIX. 
 
 " habita Northamptoniae negotia varia utilitatem pariter et honorem 
 " totius Ecclesise Anglicanae tangentia in medio fuisse proposita, in 
 "quorum executione, licet viae de communi consilio excogitatae 
 " fuissent, et executores Viarum praedictarum varii deputati ; quia 
 "tamen in quibusdam negotiis seu executionibus eorundem nobis 
 " adhuc exitus est incertus, quaedam autem penitus inconsummata 
 " existunt ; emersenint autem quaedam nova, quae ad aversionem 
 "nostrorum jurium, consuetudinum libertatum et grave periculum 
 " Ecclesiae Anglicanae redundant ; Fraternitati vestrae per praasentia 
 " Scripta Mandamus, quatenus omnes fratres et coepiscopos seu 
 " Suffraganeos nostros auctoritate nostra faciatis peremptorid per 
 "vestras literas evocari ; quatenus nobiscum in civit. London in 
 " Crastino B. Hylarii in propriis personis conveniant, una cum 
 "aliquibus personis majoribus de suis Capitulis, et locorum Archi- 
 "diaconis, et Procuratoribus totius Cleri Diocaesium singularum, 
 "nobiscum super negotiis memoratis, turn praedictis quam instan- 
 " tibus efficacius tractaturi ; ut eisdem, eornndem communi mediante 
 " consilio, finis imponatur laudabilis, et ut ita incerta certitudinem 
 " et inconsummata consummationem et emergentia nova consilium 
 " debitum sortiantur. Qualite~r autem hoc nostrum mandatum 
 "fueritis executi nos per vestras literas patentes harum seriem 
 " continentes certificare curetis die et loco praedictis. 
 
 "Datum apud Mecblindon XVI. Kal. Decembris, 
 A. D. MCCLXXVII." 
 
 II. 
 
 Copy of a Mandate for Convention, issued by Archbishop 
 Howley. A. D. 1847. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 59.] 
 
 "William, by Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 " Primate of all England, and Metropolitan : To our Brother, the 
 " Eight Eeverend Father in God, Charles James, by the same 
 " Providence Lord Bishop of London, Health and brotherly love in 
 " the Lord. We have lately humbly received, with that reverence, 
 " obedience, and submission which became us, the Writ of Her Most 
 " Gracious Majesty our Sovereign Lady." [The Eoyal Writ given 
 above, A. III., is here recited in full.] "Wherefore we recommend 
 " to and require you, our said Brother, that you peremptorily cite all 
 " and singular the Bishops Suffragans of our Cathedral Church of 
 " Christ, Canterbury, constituted within the Province of Canterbury ; 
 " and will that by them you peremptorily cite and monish the Deans 
 " of the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and their several 
 " Chapters, and the Archdeacons and other Dignitaries of Churches, 
 " exempt and not exempt, personally, and each Chapter of the 
 " Cathedral and Collegiate Churches by one, and the Clergy of
 
 APPENDIX. 345 
 
 ' every Diocese within our Province aforesaid by two sufficient 
 ' Proctors, to appear before us, or our substitute or Commissary in 
 'this behalf, if we should happen to be hindered, in the Chapter 
 'House of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, London, on 
 ' Wednesday the Twenty-second day of September next ensiling the 
 ' date of these presents, with continuations and prorogations of days 
 ' then following, and places, if it be necessary, to be done herein ; 
 ' to treat upon arduous and weighty affairs which shall concern the 
 ' state and welfare, public good and defence of this Kingdom and 
 ' the subjects thereof, to be then and there seriously laid before 
 ' them, and to give them their good counsel and assistance in the 
 ' said affairs, and to consent to such things as shall appear to be 
 ' wholesomely ordered and appointed by their common advisement 
 ' for the honour of God and the good of the Church, and further, 
 ' to do and receive what shall be lawful, and the nature and quality 
 ' of this affair demand and require of them ; but that you, our Eight 
 ' Eeverend Brother, cause the said Mandate to be executed in all 
 'things as far as it concerns you and the Chapter of your Cathedral 
 ' Church and the City and Diocese of London, and that you obey 
 ' the same in all things with effect. Moreover, we do cite you by 
 ' these presents to appear on the said day and place before us, or 
 'one or more of our Substitutes or Commissaries in this behalf, 
 ' together with others, our Eight Eeverend Brethren, Bishops of our 
 ' said Province of Canterbury, to treat upon the said affairs before 
 ' mentioned, and also to do and receive what shall be lawful and 
 ' shall concern your Lordship, as above is contained. We will and 
 ' require you, moreover, to intimate and publish, or cause to be inti- 
 ' mated and published, to the Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and 
 'others, the before-mentioned Dignitaries of the Churches, that 
 ' you will not and do not intend to excuse them at this time from 
 ' appearing in this affair of Convocation and Congregation, to be 
 ' held, by God's help, the day and place aforesaid, unless for some 
 ' necessary cause to be then and there alleged and propounded, and 
 ' by us to be approved, but will canonically punish the contumacies 
 'of such as shall be absent: And furthermore, we do enjoin 
 'and require you as before, that you will enjoin or cause to be 
 ' enjoined all and singular the Bishops Suffragans of our Province 
 ' of Canterbury, that each of them do, under their Seal of what they 
 ' shall do, as far as it concerns them from the day of the reception 
 ' of these presents, certify us, or one or more of our substitutes or 
 ' Commissaries, the said day and place, by their Letters Patent 
 'containing the names and surnames of all and singular the 
 ' persons by them respectively cited : And what you shall do in the 
 ' premisses, you shall take care duly to certify us, or our substitute 
 ' or Commissary, on the same day and place, by your Letters Patent 
 ' containing the tenour of these presents, together with the names of 
 ' all and singular the Bishops of our Province of Canterbury, the 
 ' Deans, Archdeacons, and other the Dignitaries of your Diocese 
 
 Y Y
 
 346 APPENDIX. 
 
 ' in a separate Schedule to be annexed to your Return. In Witness 
 ' whereof we have caused our Archiepiscopal Seal to be hereunto 
 ' affixed. Given at Lambeth Palace, the Thirteenth day of August, 
 ' in the Year of our Lord 1847, and in the Nineteenth Year of our 
 ' Translation." 
 
 III. 
 
 Copy of Citation to a Provincial Synod, directed by the Bishop 
 of London, as Provincial Dean, to the Suffragan Bishops of 
 the Province of Canterbury. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 62.] 
 
 " Charles James, by Divine Providence Bishop of London : To 
 
 " our brother the Eight Eeverend Father in God , by the same 
 
 " permission Bishop of , Health and brotherly love in the Lord. 
 
 " By virtue and authority of certain Letters of the Most Eeverend 
 " Father in God John Bird, by Divine Providence Archbishop of 
 " Canterbury, Primate and Metropolitan of all England, lately re- 
 " ceived by us with all due reverence, of the tenour following, to 
 " wit." 
 
 [Here follows the Archbishop's Mandate, supra No. II. verbatim.] 
 
 " We, by the tenour of these presents, cite and peremptorily ad- 
 'monish you, the said Eight Eeverend Father, and by entreating 
 ' do require you peremptorily to cite and admonish, or cause to be 
 ' cited and admonished, the Dean and Chapter and the Archdeacons 
 ' of your Cathedral Church, and other the Dignitaries of Churches 
 ' exempt and not exempt, and the Clergy of your Diocese aforesaid, 
 ' that you and they appear before the said Most Eeverend Father or 
 ' his Substitute or Commissary [if he should happen to be hindered], 
 'in the Chapter House of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, 
 
 ' London, on the day of instant, with continuation and 
 
 ' prorogation of days then next following, and places if it be neces- 
 'sary to be done herein, to treat according to the force, form, and 
 ' effect above written, and tenour of such Letters of the said Most 
 ' Eeverend Father, and to give your and their good counsel and 
 ' assistance upon the said affairs, and further to do and receive what 
 ' the said Letters of the said Most Eeverend Father do denote and 
 ' require. We will and require you, moreover, that you take care 
 ' duly to certify the said Most Eeverend Father, or his Substitute 
 ' or Commissary, what you shall do in the premisses on the said day 
 ' and place by your Letters Patent and sealed with your Seal con- 
 ' taining the tenour of these presents, together also with a schedule 
 ' thereto annexed, containing the names of all and singular the 
 ' persons cited and admonished by you or your authority. Dated at 
 
 ' London, the day of , in the Year of our Lord One 
 
 ' thousand eight hundred and forty-eight."
 
 APPENDIX. 347 
 
 IV. 
 
 Copy of Citation to a Convocation or Provincial Synod, 
 directed by a Diocesan Bishop to a Dean and Chapter, 
 commanding the attendance of the Dean and one Chapter 
 Proctor. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 71.] 
 
 " A. B., by Divine permission Bishop of : To our beloved in 
 
 " Christ the Dean and Chapter of our Cathedral Church of , 
 
 " Health, grace, and benediction. By virtue and authority of certain 
 
 " Mandatory Letters of the Most Reverend Father in God , by 
 
 " Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all Eng- 
 
 " land, and Metropolitan, bearing date the day of ; also of 
 
 "a certain Writ or Mandate therein contained of our Most Gracious 
 
 " Sovereign , by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of 
 
 " Great Britain and Ireland , Defender of the Faith, and so forth, 
 
 " dated at Westminister the day of last, and in the Year 
 
 "of our Reign, issued out and directed to us for holding and cele- 
 " brating a sacred Synod and general Convocation of the Prelates 
 " and Clergy of the whole Province of Canterbury : We do perempto- 
 " rily cite and admonish you, the Dean and Chapter aforesaid, that 
 " you the Dean personally, and the said Chapter by one sufficient 
 " Proctor lawfully and sufficiently empowered by their Chapter, do 
 " appear before the said Most Reverend Father in God the Arch- 
 " bishop of Canterbury, or his Substitute or Commissary, in the 
 " Chapter House of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, London, on 
 
 " , the day of instant. Moreover, we command you as 
 
 " above, that you duly certify to us or to our Vicar-General by your 
 " Letters Patent, containing the name of the Procurator chosen and 
 " empowered in manner aforesaid by the said Dean and Chapter, on 
 
 " or before the day of instant, and without further delay. 
 
 " Dated at , the day of , in the Year of our Lord , 
 
 " and in the Year of our Translation." 
 
 V. 
 
 Copy of Citation to a Convocation or Provincial Synod, directed 
 by a Diocesan Bishop to Archdeacons, commanding their 
 personal attendance and the attendance of two Clergy 
 Proctors for the Diocesan Clergy. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 74.] 
 
 " Charles James, by Divine Providence Bishop of London : To our 
 "beloved in Christ the Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry of London, 
 " or his Official, Greeting. By virtue and authority of certain 
 " Mandatory Letters of the Most Reverend Father in God, John
 
 348 APPENDIX. 
 
 ' Bird, by Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate 
 ' of all England, and Metropolitan, bearing date the Second day of 
 ' May instant, also of a certain Writ or Mandate therein con- 
 ' tained of our Most Gracious Sovereign Lady Victoria, by the grace 
 'of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 ' Queen, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, dated at Westminster, 
 ' the Fifteenth day of April last, in the Eleventh Year of her Reign, 
 ' issued out and directed to us for holding and celebrating a sacred 
 ' Synod and general Convocation of the Prelates and Clergy of the 
 ' whole Province of Canterbury : We do peremptorily cite and 
 ' admonish you, the Archdeacon aforesaid, that you cause all and 
 ' singular the Rectors, Vicars, and others, as well exempt as not 
 ' exempt, having and obtaining Benefices and Ecclesiastical Promo- 
 ' tions within the Archdeaconry of London ; and also we command 
 ' you and them that you the Archdeacon personally, and the Clergy 
 'of your said * Archdeaconry, by two and sufficient Procurators 
 'lawfully and sufficiently empowered, do appear before the said 
 ' Most Reverend the Archbishop of Canterbury, or his Substitute or 
 ' Commissary, in the Chapter House of the Cathedral Church of 
 
 ' Saint Paul, London, on the 'day of instant. More- 
 
 'over, we command you as above that you duly certify to us, 
 'or our Vicar-General, by your Letters Patent containing 
 'the tenour of these presents, sealed with your Seal, the names 
 ' of all and singular the persons cited or admonished in this 
 ' behalf ; also the names of the Procurators chosen for the Clergy 
 ' aforesaid, and everything else you shall do in and about the 
 ' premisses, on or before the Sixteenth day of May instant, without 
 ' further delay. Dated at London, the Fifth day of May, in the Year 
 ' of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, and in the 
 ' Twentieth Year of our Translation." 
 
 The like Writ is sent to each Archdeacon. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Copy of a Citation directed by an ArcJideacon to the Clergy 
 to elect Diocesan Proctors. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 79.] 
 
 " John Sinclair, Clerk, Master of Arts, Archdeacon of the Arch- 
 "deaconry of Middlesex, lawfully constituted : To all and singular 
 " Clerks and literate persons whomsoever and wheresoever in and 
 " throughout the whole Archdeaconry of Middlesex, Greeting. 
 
 * There appears to be some inaccuracy of drafting here ; in the 
 Province of Canterbury the Clergy of each Diocese, not of each Arch- 
 deaconry, appearing by two Proctors. In York, two Proctors for each 
 Archdeaconry are cited.
 
 APPENDIX. 349 
 
 " Whereas we have with all due reverence received Mandatory 
 " Letters from the Eight Honourable and Eight Eeverend Father 
 " in God, Charles James, hy Divine Providence Lord Bishop of 
 " London, of the following tenour, to wit." 
 
 [Here follows the Bishop's Citation, supra No. V. verbatim.] 
 
 " We therefore, according to the tenour and effect of the said 
 " Mandate, charge and firmly enjoin you that you cite or cause to be 
 " cited peremptorily all and singular Eectors, Vicars, and all others, 
 "as well exempt as not exempt, having and obtaining Benefices and 
 " Ecclesiastical Promotions within our Archdeaconry, that they 
 "and every one of them appear before us or our Official or his 
 " Surrogate, in the Vestry Eoom of the Parish Church of 
 " Saint Paul, Co vent Garden, in the County of Middlesex, on 
 
 " , the day of next ensuing, at Two o'clock in the 
 
 " afternoon, then and there to nominate and elect two sufficient 
 " Procurators to appear for them on the day and place mentioned 
 " in the said Eoyal Writ, according to the force, form, tenour, and 
 "effect thereof and of the said Mandatory Letters of the said 
 " Lord Bishop, to consent to those things which shall then and 
 " there happen, by God's help, to be ordained by their common 
 " advisement for the honour of the said Kingdom and good of the 
 " Church. And what you shall do in these premisses you shall 
 "duly certify to us, our official, or some other competent judge in 
 " this behalf, together with these presents. Dated the Thirty-first 
 " day of August, in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred 
 " and forty-seven." 
 
 [Here follow the names of the Clergy and of their Parishes.] 
 
 VII. 
 
 Copy of a Citation sent by the Archdeacon's Apparitor to each 
 Beneficed Clergyman to attend for the Election of Proctors. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 80.] 
 
 " Eeverend Sir, 
 
 " By virtue of a Process under Seal you are cited to appear before 
 " the Venerable John Sinclair, Clerk, A.M., Archdeacon of the 
 " Archdeaconry of Middlesex, or his Official or Surrogate, at the 
 " Vestry Eoom of the Parish Church of Saint Paul, Covent 
 
 " Garden, in the County of Middlesex, on , the day 
 
 " of , at Two o'clock of the same day, then and there to 
 
 " nominate and elect two fit and sufficient Procurators to appear 
 " before the Most Eeverend Father in God, William, by Divine 
 " Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all 
 " England, and Metropolitan, or his Substitute or Commissary, in 
 " the Chapter House of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, 
 "London, on the day of , to treat, confer, and conclude
 
 350 APPENDIX. 
 
 "of and upon those things which then and there by mature 
 " deliberation shall be agreed upon for the honour of God and the 
 " good of the Church. . 
 
 " , Apparitor." 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Copy of the Return of the Bishop of London, as Dean of the 
 Province of Canterbury, to the Metropolitan's Mandate. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Conv.," p. 65. Gibson's " Syn. Ang.," p. 336.] 
 
 " To the Most Eeverend Father in God , by Divine Provi- 
 
 " dence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and 
 " Metropolitan, or your Substitute or Commissary in this behalf ; 
 
 " we, , by Divine permission Bishop of London, send Greeting, 
 
 " with all due reverence and obedience. Whereas we have lately 
 " humbly received your Mandatory and Citatory Letters to be put 
 "in execution, sealed with your Seal and directed to us in the words 
 " or of the tenour following, to wit." 
 
 [Here follows the Archbishop's Mandate, supra No. II. verbatim.] 
 
 " And by virtue and authority of which Letters we, , Bishop of 
 
 " London, have caused respectively all and singular our brethren 
 " the Suffragan Bishops of your Province of Canterbury constituted 
 " within your said Province to be peremptorily cited and admonished, 
 " and through them the Deans of the Cathedral and Collegiate 
 " Churches and every Chapter thereof, and the Archdeacons and 
 " Dignitaries of Churches exempt and not exempt, and the Clergy 
 "of every Diocese of your Province aforesaid, by two sufficient 
 " Proctors to appear before you, our said Most Eeverend Father, 
 " or your Substitute or Commissary or Commissaries, on the day and 
 " place more fully specified and declared in your said Mandatory 
 " and Citatory Letters, with continuation and prorogation of days 
 " and places, if it be necessary to be done in that behalf, to treat 
 " upon arduous and weighty affairs which shall concern the state 
 "and welfare, public good and defence, of this Kingdom and the 
 " subjects thereof, to be then and there more seriously laid before 
 " them, and thereupon to give their good counsel and assistance, and 
 " to consent to those things which shall happen to be wholesomely 
 " ordered and appointed by their common advisement for the honour 
 " of God and the good of the Church ; and further to do and receive 
 " what the nature and quality of this affair do demand and require 
 " of them ; and further, by the authority of and by the receipt of 
 
 " your Mandatory and Citatory Letters, we, , Bishop of London 
 
 "aforesaid, do acknowledge ourself to be cited peremptorily to 
 " appear before you, or your Substitute or Commissary or Commis- 
 " saries, on the day and place above recited, to treat upon the affairs 
 " above mentioned ; and we will obey your said Letters according 
 " to the force, form, tenour, and effect thereof. Moreover, we have 
 " intimated and declared, and caused to be intimated and declared, to
 
 APPENDIX. 351 
 
 " the Bishops, Deans, and Archdeacons, and Dignitaries of Churches 
 " aforesaid of your Province of Canterbury, that you do not intend 
 " to excuse them at that time from a personal appearance in this 
 " business of Convocation and Congregation, to he celebrated by 
 " God's help on the day and place aforesaid, unless for some neces- 
 " sary cause then and there to be alleged and by you to be ap- 
 proved, but will canonically punish the contumacies of such as 
 " shall be absent. Also, moreover, by virtue and authority of your 
 " said Letters, we have enjoined all and singular our brethren, the 
 "Bishops aforesaid, that each of them do distinctly and plainly 
 " certify to you, or your Substitute or Commissary or Commissaries, 
 " on the said day and place, by their Letters Patent containing the 
 "names and surnames of all and singular the persons by them 
 " respectively cited, of what they have severally done so far as 
 " relates to themselves. And, moreover, by virtue of the authority 
 " as aforesaid, we have caused to be peremptorily cited the Dean 
 " and Chapter of our Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, London, and 
 "all the Archdeacons and other Dignitaries of Churches, exempt 
 " and not exempt, and the whole Clergy of the City and Diocese 
 " of London, that they appear before you, the said Most Reverend 
 " Father, or your Substitute or Commissary or Commissaries, on the 
 " day and place above specified, according to the form and tenour 
 " of your aforesaid Letters and the effect thereof above mentioned. 
 " And we have so executed your said Letters as far as relates to us 
 " and is in our power, and the names of all and singular the Eight 
 " Reverend Fathers our brethren in your said Province of Canter- 
 " bury, and of others above named being in our said Diocese of 
 " London, cited and admonished in this behalf, together with the 
 " names as well of the Dean as the Proctor of the Chapter of our 
 " Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, London, as of the Archdeacons 
 "and Clergy of our whole Diocese of London, respectively nomi- 
 "nated, elected, and constituted, are here underwritten and set 
 " down. In testimony whereof we have caused our Episcopal Seal 
 
 " to be affixed to these presents. Dated the day of , in the 
 
 " Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, 
 " and in the Twentieth of our Translation. 
 
 " , Registrar." 
 
 [Here follow the names of the Bishops of the Province of Canter- 
 bury, the names of the Deans and Archdeacons cited, and also the 
 names of the Proctors elected within the Diocese of London.] 
 
 IX. 
 
 Copy of the Return of a Suffragan Bishop to the Metropo- 
 litan's Mandate for Convening a Provincial Synod. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 68.] 
 
 " To the Most Reverend Father in God , by Divine Providence, 
 
 " &c., and Metropolitan ; , by Divine permission Lord Bishop of
 
 352 APPENDIX. 
 
 ' , sendeth Greeting and brotherly love in the Lord. Whereas 
 
 ' with all due honour and reverence we lately received your Letters 
 ' Mandatory hereto annexed, we do acknowledge that we have been 
 ' cited by force and virtue of the same, and according to the tenour 
 ' and effect of the said Letters, and by virtue thereof we caused 
 ' peremptorily to be cited the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral 
 
 ' Church of , and the Archdeacon [s] and all the Clergy of the 
 
 ' Archdeaconry [ies] within our Diocese, and all and singular others 
 ' to be cited to appear before you or your representative on the day, 
 ' hour, and at the place and to the effect mentioned in your said 
 ' Letters ; and everything else which your said Letters demand and 
 ' require we have diligently done and executed ; and the names of 
 ' the persons cited, and of their Proctors rightly elected, are as 
 ' below described. In testimony whereof we have caused the Seal 
 
 ' of our Consistory Court to be put to these presents, this day 
 
 ' of , in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and 
 
 ' forty-seven, and of our Translation the Twentieth." 
 
 [Here follow the names of the persons cited and elected to appear 
 as above.] 
 
 X. 
 
 Copy of the Return of a Dean and Chapter to the Metro- 
 politan's Mandate for Convening a Provincial Synod. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 73.] 
 
 " To the Honourable and Most Eeverend Father in God , by 
 
 " Divine permission, &c., and Metropolitan ; we, the Dean and 
 
 " Chapter of the Cathedral Church of , send Greeting with all 
 
 " humility and reverence, and do hereby acknowledge that we have 
 " with all due honour and obedience received your Letters Man- 
 " datory hereunto annexed, and have elected and lawfully constituted 
 
 " the Reverend , Clerk, &c. , Proctor for the Chapter of 
 
 " the Cathedral Church of . In witness whereof we have caused 
 
 " our Chapter Seal to be hereunto affixed, this day of , in 
 
 "the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and forty- 
 " seven." 
 
 XI. 
 
 Copy of an Archdeacoris Return, certifying the Election of 
 Proctors by the Clergy. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 83.] 
 
 " John Sinclair, Clerk, Master of Arts, Archdeacon of the Arch- 
 " deaconry of Middlesex, in the Diocese of London, lawfully con- 
 " stituted : Whereas we have received certain Mandatory Letters of 
 " the Right Reverend Father in God, Charles James, by Divine
 
 APPENDIX. 353 
 
 " permission Lord Bishop of London, to us directed, in the words or 
 " to the effect following, to wit." 
 
 [Here follows the Bishop's Citation, supra No. V. verbatim.] 
 
 "In obedience to which Mandate, we, the Archdeacon aforesaid, 
 " as by these Letters Patent sealed with our Seal, certify to the said 
 " Eight Eeverend Father in God, Charles James, Lord Bishop of 
 " London, or his Commissary, Vicar-General, or other competent 
 "judge, that we have caused to be cited and admonished all and 
 " singular the Rectors, Vicars, and others, as well exempt as not 
 " exempt, having and obtaining Benefices and Ecclesiastical Pro- 
 4 'motions within the Archdeaconry of Middlesex, whose names are 
 " herein underwritten : " 
 
 [Here follow the names of the Clergy, and their Parishes.] 
 
 " to appear before us or our Official, his Surrogate, or other competent 
 
 "judge, on , the day of instant, at the hour of 
 
 " Two o'clock in the afternoon, in the Vestry Eoom of the 
 " Parish Church of Saint Paul, Covent Garden, within the Arch- 
 " deaconry aforesaid, for the purposes in the said Mandate men- 
 " tioned and specified : And we, the Archdeacon aforesaid, do further 
 " certify the Eeverend John Hume Spry, Doctor in Divinity, 
 " Eector of Saint Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, and the 
 " Eeverend Thomas Eandolph, Eector of Much Hadham, in the 
 " County of Herts, to be Procurators for the Clergy of the Arch- 
 " deaconry of Middlesex aforesaid ; and the said John Hume Spry 
 " and Thomas Eandolph were thereupon nominated and declared to 
 " be Procurators for the Clergy of the Archdeaconry aforesaid, and 
 " that they should be admonished to appear at the time and place 
 " and to the effect in the said Mandate mentioned and specified. 
 
 " Given under the Seal which we use in this behalf, the day 
 
 " of , in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and 
 
 "forty-seven." 
 
 By the execution of the foregoing instruments the Provin- 
 cial Synods or Convocations are constituted and convened, 
 and are then in a condition to proceed to active business. 
 The above proceedings before assembly in the Province of 
 Canterbury are virtually the same as those adopted in the 
 Province of York, with two exceptions, viz. : (1) in York 
 the Metropolitan's Mandate is directed personally to each 
 Bishop, and not through intervention of a Provincial Dean ; 
 (2) and two Proctors are cited and elected for each Arch- 
 deaconry, and not for each Diocese. 
 
 The Constitution of such assemblies dates from times far 
 beyond legal memory, and the most important instruments 
 
 z z
 
 354 APPENDIX. 
 
 connected with their convention, as above set down, will be 
 seen on comparison to be derived from very high antiquity. 
 That Constitution is conformable to the ancient practice of 
 the Primitive Church ; but from the loss of authentic records 
 before the Saxon invasion in the fifth century, students of 
 history will vainly seek for accurate information respecting 
 its first inauguration in Britain. A good deal has been said 
 in late years about the reform of Convocation, and some 
 marvellous suggestions invoking Parliamentary assistance for 
 the purpose have been made by several members of the 
 learned profession very high in office. Indeed, among other 
 official documents, a memorandum on this question was ad- 
 dressed not long since to an Archbishop and a Prime Minister 
 by a Lord Chancellor. This remarkable instrument has been 
 considered by a Committee of the Canterbury Convocation in 
 the present year 1885, and a report concluded on by which his 
 lordship's historical researches appear to have been the reverse 
 of successful or exhaustive. This report may be purchased at 
 the National Society's Office, price sixpence, and is highly 
 instructive. It is somewhat earnestly commended to the 
 reader's notice as illustrating the methods employed by the 
 learned profession in dealing with Ecclesiastical records and 
 Church history. For the noble writer of the memorandum 
 above mentioned, having laid an insecure foundation on two 
 false suppositions and seven false assertions, piled up a huge 
 edifice of error crowned with a grotesque conclusion which 
 the first breath of historical truth has swept into heaps of 
 ruin. Or to view the matter in another aspect, his lordship 
 made a false start, took a wrong direction, then missed his 
 way, and so finally lost himself hopelessly in a trackless wil- 
 derness of mistakes. 
 
 A considerable number of high legal authorities, how- 
 ever, in conformity with his lordship's view, have from 
 time to time, in answer to official enquiries, given of late 
 years formal opinions that the authority of Parliament 
 would be required for any reform in the Constitution of a 
 Convocation. But whence these learned persons derived 
 their Constitutional lore is a mystery insoluble. To say 
 nothing here of other Christian countries, whose history all
 
 APPENDIX. 355 
 
 looks the same way, if the records of our own land, at least 
 such as remain from the times of the Druids and the worship 
 of mistletoe down to this year of grace 1885, were ransacked 
 to the last syllable, no instance could be found of the inter- 
 ference of Parliament or any like body with the Constitution of 
 the Church's Synods. And anyone labours under serious error 
 who imagines that she will ever submit to the inauguration 
 of such a profane soloecism in these later days. This fantastic 
 parliamentary vision, however, is but one of those strange 
 chimaeras to which some learned persons in their Eccle- 
 siastical excursions on occasion fall a helpless prey. Their 
 disastrous miscarriages, occurring from time to time, recall to 
 mind the luckless lot of those Athenian innocents who be- 
 came periodically devoted victims to the monstrous progeny 
 of the unnatural Cretan Queen. 
 
 c. 
 
 ROYAL LETTER OF BUSINESS. 
 
 On some occasions when the Sovereign desires that 
 any particular matter should become the subject of delibe- 
 ration, a " Letter of Business " is directed to a Convocation 
 from the Crown. But this is not very frequently issued, nor 
 is it in any way required as antecedent to Synodical de- 
 liberations. 
 
 I. 
 
 Copy of a Letter of Business of King Edward I. A.D. 1283. 
 [Wake's " State," App. No. xxvii. p. 17.] 
 
 " Edwardus, Dei Gratia Eex Angliae, Dominus Hyberniae et Dux 
 " Aquitanise : Venerabilibus in Christo Patribus J. eadem gratia 
 " Cant. Archiepiscopo totius Angliae Primati, Episcopis, Abbatibus, 
 " Prioribus, et aliis Domoruin Eeligiosarum Praefectis, Decanis, 
 " Capitulis Ecclesiarum Cathedralium et Collegiatarum, de Pro- 
 " vincia Cant, et eorum procuratoribus apud Northampton in 
 " instantibus octavis S. Hilarii Con Venturis, Salutem. 
 
 " Cum mittamus ad vos dilectum consanguineum et fidelem 
 "nostrum Edmundum Comitem Cornubiae, et dilectum nobis in 
 " Christo Abbatem Westmonasterii Thesaurarium nostrum, et Jo. de 
 " Kyrkeby Archidiaconum Covent. ad quaedam ardua et specialia 
 "negotia nos et vos et totum Eegnum nostrum tangentia vobis
 
 356 APPENDIX. 
 
 " nomine nostro exponenda, dilectiones vestras affectuosd requirimus 
 " et rogamus, quatenus eidem Comiti, Abbati, et Johanui vel duobus 
 " eorum, quos prsesentes esse contigerit, firmam fidem adhibentes ea, 
 " quae ipsi omnes vel eorum [duo] vobis nomine nostro dicent, efficaciter 
 " explere et expedire curetis amore nostri, prout vobis scire faciant 
 " ex parte nostra. Teste me ipso apud Rothelan V 'die Januarii 
 "Anno Kegni nostri XI." 
 
 II. 
 
 Copy of a Letter of Business of King William III. A.D. 1689. 
 
 [Card. " Confer." p. 443.] 
 " William E. 
 
 " His Majesty has summoned this Convocation, not only because 
 " 'tis usual upon holding of a Parliament, but out of a pious zeal to do 
 "everything that may tend to the best establishment of the Church 
 " of England, which is so eminent a part of the Eeformation, 
 " and is certainly the best united to the Constitution of this Govern- 
 " ment, and therefore does most signally deserve and always shall 
 " have both his favour and protection ; and he doubts not but that 
 "you will assist him in promoting the welfare of it, so that no 
 " prejudices with which some men may have laboured to possess 
 "you shall disappoint his good intentions or deprive the Church 
 " of any benefit from your consultations. His Majesty therefore 
 " expects that the things that shall be proposed shall be calmly and 
 " impartially considered by you, and assures you that he will offer 
 "nothing to you but what shall be for the honour, peace, and 
 "advantage both of the Protestant Eeligion in general and par- 
 " ticularly of the Church of England." 
 
 "What was offered was the scheme for a " Comprehension " 
 Liturgy ; for which see above, pp. 243-50. 
 
 III. 
 
 Copy of a Letter of Business of Queen Victoria. 1872. 
 [Chron. Conv. Lower House Cant., Feb. 13, 1872, p. 240.] 
 " Victoria Eeg. 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great 
 " Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith : To the Most 
 " Eev. Father in God our right trusty and well-beloved Coun- 
 " cillor, Archibald Campbell, by the Grace of God Archbishop of 
 " Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, Greeting. 
 " Whereas, by Our Eoyal Licence to the present Convocation of the 
 " Province of Canterbury, We have amongst other things empowered 
 "and authorised them to confer, treat, debate, consider, consult,
 
 APPENDIX. 357 
 
 "and agree of and upon such points, matters, aud things as We 
 ' from time to time should deliver to you in writing under Our Sign 
 ' Manual or Privy Signet to be debated, considered, consulted, and 
 ' agreed upon ; And whereas our Commissioners for inquiring into 
 ' the differences of practice which have arisen from varying inter- 
 ' pretations put upon the Rubrics, Orders, and Directions for 
 'regulating the course and conduct of Public Worship, the 
 'Administration of the Sacraments, and the other Services con 
 ' tained in the Book of Common Prayer, according to the use of the 
 ' United Church of England and Ireland, and more especially with 
 ' regard to the Ornaments used in the churches and chapels of the 
 ' said United Church, and the Vestments worn by the Ministers 
 ' thereof at the time of their ministration, with a view of explaining 
 ' or amending the said Eubrics, Orders, and Directions, so as to 
 ' secure general uniformity of practice in such matters as may be 
 " deemed essential, have submitted to Us their Fourth and final 
 " Eeport : 
 
 " Our pleasure therefore is, and We do hereby authorise you, the 
 " said Most Eeverend Father in God, the said Archbishop of 
 " Canterbury, President of the said Convocation, and the Bishops of 
 " your said Province, and the Deans of the Cathedral Churches, and 
 " also the Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges, and the whole Clergy 
 " of every Diocese of your said Province, to debate, consider, con- 
 " suit, and agree upon the point, matters, and things contained in 
 " the said Fourth and final Eeport of Our said Commissioners ; and 
 " after mature debate, consideration, consultation, and agreement, to 
 " present to Us a Eeport or Eeports thereon in writing. And for so 
 " doing this shall be your Warrant. 
 
 " Given at our Court, St. James's, the Seventh day of February, 
 " 1872, in the Thirty-fifth Year of Our Eeign. 
 
 " By Her Majesty's command, 
 
 " H. A. BRUCE." 
 
 For a similar " Letter of Business " see Chron. Conv., July 7, 
 1874, p. 299. 
 
 The reader will observe that the " Letter of Business " 
 proper is contained in the second of the paragraphs above 
 printed. 
 
 As regards the first paragraph, the legal officials in the 
 Crown Office who drafted this instrument, and the law 
 officers of the Crown, if they were consulted in the matter, 
 instead of following the wholesome examples of such Letters 
 of Business as have been above set down, involved themselves 
 in some embarrassing confusions about a " Licence." [See 
 Chron. Conv., Feb. 9, 1872, pp. 103-4. Eeport signed, Feb.
 
 358 APPENDIX. 
 
 13, 1873. Chron. Conv., July 8, 1874, p. 374]. For the 
 purposes specified in this " Letter of Business " no " Licence " 
 was required, as it was by no one contemplated that any 
 Canon should be "enacted, promulged, or executed." And 
 therefore the issue of any such instrument as a " Licence " 
 was on this occasion wholly superfluous, and the recital of 
 it altogether surprising and misleading. By the original 
 Royal "Writ [see A. III.] for convening this Convocation the 
 assembly had already, through its President, been required by 
 the Sovereign to " treat of, agree to, and conclude upon .... 
 "affairs concerning Us, the security and defence of the 
 " Church of England, and the peace and tranquillity, public 
 "good and defence of our Kingdom." The proper object 
 of a "Letter of Business," therefore, on this occasion, was 
 merely to specify some particular matters which should be 
 discussed and reported on touching such "security," "de- 
 fence," " tranquillity," and " public good." 
 
 These excursions, consequently, of the Crown Office officials 
 and their learned advisers, if they were consulted, both in the 
 matter first of issuing a needless " Licence," and secondly in 
 the needless recital of it, were flagrant instances of that per- 
 nicious practice denounced by the late Lord Westbury as 
 a bad professional habit, and fitly described by his lordship 
 as " writing by the yard." No doubt this practice of " writ- 
 "ing by the yard" is on all occasions when indulged in 
 to be deplored as a waste of official time, whatever the 
 value of that may be. But in this instance it was far more 
 deeply to be deprecated, as being also very misleading, and 
 indeed worse than misleading. It was here exceedingly mis- 
 chievous ; for it leads simple people by its verbiage to sup- 
 pose that the Convocations after their assembling are not 
 in a condition to " confer, treat, debate, consider, consult, and 
 " agree," on matters touching the security and defence of the 
 Church of England without the receipt of such instruments 
 as those now in question from the Crown. And that is a 
 supposition which is wholly unconstitutional, the reverse of 
 the truth, and quite contradictory to all experience and to 
 matter of fact. The conclusion of the Lower House of the 
 Convocation of Canterbury on this subject was emphatically
 
 APPENDIX. 359 
 
 expressed on April 28 and 29, 1874, when unanimously 
 it refused in an address to the Crown [very incautiously 
 worded by the Upper House] to take notice of a superfluous 
 Royal Licence, needlessly issued from the Crown Office in 
 error. [See Chron. Conv. Lower House Cant., in loco 
 pp. 67, 98]. 
 
 D. 
 
 THE ROYAL ASSENT AND LICENCE TO ENACT, PRO- 
 
 MULGE, AND EXECUTE CANONS. 
 
 The reader should understand distinctly that a "Royal 
 "Licence," so far as it regards new Canons, is legally issued 
 for one threefold purpose, and for that purpose only that 
 is, for the " enacting," " promulging," and " executing " them. 
 It is an instrument rendered necessary by the provisions of 
 the Statute 25 Hen. VIII. 19 ; and the terms " enact," "pro- 
 " mulge," "execute," have three distinct and well-defined 
 legal meanings, which the gentlemen of the long robe in 
 high official quarters have in our day hopelessly misunder- 
 stood, and indeed barbarously mangled, as will be seen 
 below in No. IV. of this Section. (1) The process of "en- 
 " acting" a Canon has been previously fully described in 
 this volume at pp. 32-33. (2) To " promulge " a Canon is 
 to make it public and transmit it to the Provincial and 
 Consistory Courts for the information and guidance of the 
 respective Ecclesiastical Judges. (3) To "execute" a Canon 
 is to enforce its provisions in an Ecclesiastical Tribunal. For 
 the above threefold purpose, and for that only as regards new 
 Canons, a Royal Licence is required. Such an instrument 
 has not very often been needed, and consequently not been 
 very frequently issued. Instances have occurred in the years 
 1587 N.S., 1603, 1606, 1640, 1661, 1689, 1710, 1713, 1716, 
 1861, 1865 ; and, by an odd misapprehension of the legal 
 advisers of the Crown, instruments purporting to be "Licences" 
 were issued in 1872 and in 1874, when the enactment of 
 Canons was not even contemplated by anybody whatsoever. 
 These instruments, however, being improperly drafted, were 
 not merely superfluous, but even if required would have been 
 worthless for any proper purpose.
 
 360 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 Copy of a Synodical Bequest to Queen Elizabeth for Eoyal 
 Assent and Licence. A. D. 1586, O.S. 
 
 [Extract. e" Regist. Prov. Sed. Archiep. Cantuar. Copies also in 
 York Records, Paper Office, and Registers of the Church of 
 Exeter. Atterb. " Rights," p. 638 ; Card. " Syn." p. 566.] 
 
 " Most Excellent and Most Gracious Sovereign Lady. We, the 
 " Prelates and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, now gathered 
 " together in a Convocation or Synod, calling to our minds and 
 " considering with al thankful remembrance the manifold and great 
 " benefits that every member of this Realm generally hath and doth 
 " daily receive, by the blessing of Almighty God, under Your 
 " Majesty's most happy and peaceable government : and we our- 
 " selves especially, by Your gracious and princely care over us, 
 " whereby we do not only enjoy our lives and livings in happy 
 " peace, but also the free exercise of our ministry and function, the 
 " true preaching of the Word of God, and the sincere administering 
 " of the Holy Sacraments, to us far more dear than our lives and 
 " livings : And further, seeing the infinite occasions that, through 
 " the execrable malice of the enemies of the Gospel of Christ, do 
 " daily arise whereby Your Highness is driven to many extraordinary 
 " and inestimable expences for the necessary defence of the Gospel 
 "and Your Highness' dominions; in token of our dutiful and 
 " thankful hearts to Your Majesty's most royal person, have with 
 " one joint consent and hearty good wil, over and above one subsidy 
 " of six shillings in the pound already granted to Your Highness, 
 "Your heirs and successors, in this our Convocation or Synod, 
 " yielded to give, and by these presents do give and grant to Your 
 " Highness' person a benevolence or contribution of three shillings 
 " of every full pound of al Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Promotions 
 " within the said Province of Canterbury, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 " And we, your said Prelates and Clergy, most humbly beseech 
 " Your Majesty to take in good part our loving minds and good wil, 
 " and not only to accept this smal gift of ours, tho' it be nothing 
 "answerable to our desires, but also, by Your Majesty's Letters 
 " Patent under Your Great Seal, TO ASSENT thereunto and TO LICENSE 
 " and authorize us, in this our Convocation and Synod, TO DEVISE, 
 "MAKE, AND OBDAIN SUCH ORDERS, DECREES, AND CONSTITUTIONS, 
 " PROVINCIAL AND SYNODAL, as we shall think most expedient for the 
 " more speedy and sure levying and payment of the same benevolence 
 " or contribution ; AND THEREBY ALSO TO GIVE AND TESTIFY YOUR 
 "MAJESTY'S ROYAL ASSENT TO SUCH ORDERS, DECREES, AND CONSTI- 
 "TUTIONS as in this our Synod or Convocation we shal make, 
 " decree, or ordain, for the speedy and sure levying and payment 
 " thereof to such persons as Your Majesty shal appoint for the receipt 
 " thereof, as is aforesaid."
 
 APPENDIX. 361 
 
 This request for a " Licence " was sealed with the Seal of the 
 Archbishop [John Whitgift] of Canterbury, in the presence of the 
 Bishops and representative Clergy of that Province, in St. Peter's 
 Church, Westminster, on the 4th of March, 1586, O.S. 
 
 The above request was in conformity with the Statute 
 25 Hen. VIII. 19 governing the case, and was drawn by the 
 hand of a person knowing what he was about. 
 
 To the above request answer was made by the issue of a 
 "Royal Assent and Licence" to enact, drawn likewise in 
 conformity with the Statute and by the hand also of a per- 
 son knowing what he was about, which certainly has not been 
 the case in our days under like circumstances. The following 
 was the Assent and Licence issued. 
 
 II. 
 
 Copy of Royal Assent and Licence of Queen Elizabeth's 
 Reign. A. D. 1586, (X S. 
 
 [Atterb. " Eights," &c., Add. pp. 642-3.] 
 
 " Eegina, etc. Omnibus ad quos, etc. Salutem. 
 
 " Cum Praelati et Clerus Cantuar. Provinciae nostra auctoritate in 
 " Synodo sud seu Convocatione congregati ex intima ex propensS 
 " animorum suorum affectione, quam erga nos gerunt, ultra et prseter 
 "subsidium sex solidorum singularum librarum annuarum, etiam 
 " quandam benevolam contributionem trium solidorum pro singulis 
 " libris annuls omnium et singulorum beneficiorum suorum Ec- 
 " clesiasticorum et promotionum spiritualium quorumcunque ac 
 "omnium possessionum et reventionum eisdem annexarum seu 
 " quo vis modo spectantium et pertinentium, dederint et concesserint, 
 " prout per quoddam scriptum seu instrumentum publicum sigillo 
 " praedilecti et fidelis consiliarii nostri Johannis, Arch. Cant. 
 " munitum et nobis exhibitum gerens datum 4 die Martii, A.D. juxta 
 " comp. Eccl. Angl. 1586, planius liquet, et apparet SCIATIS IGITUR 
 " QUOD NOS, ad humilem petitionem Praelatorum nostrorum et Cleri 
 "antedicti prsefate benevolae contributionis concessionem appro- 
 " bamus et eandem coufirmamus, ratificamus, et stabilimus, ac ei- 
 "dem omnibusque et singulis clausulis, sententiis, provisionibus, 
 " et exceptionibus in dicto instrumento contentis et specificatis 
 " REGIIJM NOSTRUM AssENSUM ex certa scientia et mero motu nostris 
 
 " PR.EBEMUS PER PRESENTES. Ac INSUPER SCIATIS QUOD, 6X gratifi 
 
 " nostra speciali ac certa scientia et mero motu nostris LICENTIAM 
 " facultatem et authoritatem PR^LATIS NOSTRIS ET CLERO PREDICT. 
 
 "IN HAG PRESENT! SYNODO CONGREGATIS DECERNENDI ORDINANDI 
 "ET CONSTITUENDI QU-SCUMQUE DECRETA ORDINATIONES ET CONSTI- 
 
 A A A
 
 362 APPENDIX. 
 
 " TUTIONES SYNODALES, AC EADEM SIC PER IPSOS DECRETA, ORDINATA, ET 
 
 " CONSTITUTA EXECUTIONI MANDANDi, et cum effectu exequendi quae 
 ' sibi commoda et opportuna videbuntur pro meliori, vera, ac justS 
 ' collectione et solutione diet, benevolse contributionis et cujuslibet 
 'inde parcellae, DEDIMUS CONCESSIMUS ET CONFIRMAVIMUS AC ETIAM 
 'DAMUS CONCEDIMUS ET CONFIRMAMUS per presentes. In cujus 
 'rei," etc. 
 
 As the above " Assent and Licence " is not conveyed in the 
 most polished Ciceronian Latin imaginable, the words which 
 really are needful for arriving at its purport are printed 
 in capitals to save the reader trouble. The words so printed 
 are quite sufficient to shew that the Royal "Assent and 
 " Licence " was one proceeding, as intended by the Statute 
 which governs the case, 25 Hen. VIII. 19. [See supra, pp. 
 146-7.] And it may here be observed that this was the 
 first " Licence " issued [at least the first of which there is 
 any record] after the passing of the Statute requiring such 
 an instrument, and therefore, being comparatively so nearly 
 contemporaneous with the Statute, it may be supposed that 
 the matter was then well understood by all concerned. At 
 any rate, as this is a document of the highest Constitutional 
 importance, it shall have the benefit of a translation here, 
 so far as is requisite for present purposes. 
 
 " The Queen, &c. To all to whom, &c. Greeting. 
 
 " Since the Prelates and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury . . . 
 " over and above a subsidy of six shillings in the pound . . . have 
 " granted a benevolence of three shillings in the pound, as more 
 " fully appears by a certain writing or public instrument, sealed with 
 " the Seal of Our well-beloved and faithful Councillor, John, Arch- 
 " bishop of Canterbury, and exhibited to Us, bearing date the Fourth 
 "day of March, in the Year of our Lord 1586, according to the 
 " computation of the Church of England : Now know all men that 
 " We, according to the humble petition of Our Prelates and Clergy 
 "aforesaid, accept, approve, CONFIRM, RATIFY, AND ESTABLISH THE 
 " GRANT OF THE BEFORESAiD BENEVOLENCE ; and of Our certain know- 
 ledge and mere motion WE GIVE OUR ROYAL ASSENT BY THESE 
 " PRESENTS to that instrument and to all and singular the clauses, 
 " sentences, provisions, and exceptions in the aforesaid instrument 
 " contained and specified. And moreover, know all men that of 
 *' Our special favour and certain knowledge and mere motion We 
 " have given, granted, and confirmed, and also do give, grant, and 
 " confirm by these presents, to Our Prelates and Clergy aforesaid, 
 "assembled in this present Synod, LICENCE, POWER, AND AUTHORITY
 
 APPENDIX. 363 
 
 ' TO DECREE, ORDAIN, AND CONSTITUTE CERTAIN DECREES, ORDINANCES, 
 'AND SYNODICAL CONSTITUTIONS, AND TO PUT INTO EXECUTION AND 
 ' CARRY OUT WITH EFFECT THE THINGS SO BY THEMSELVES DECREED, 
 ' ORDAINED, AND CONSTITUTED, as shall seem convenient and oppor- 
 ' tune for the better, true, and just collection and payment of the 
 ' said benevolent contribution and of each part thereof." 
 
 The reader will observe that the Clergy (1) consulted, con- 
 ferred together, and treated ; (2) decided on the contents of 
 the proposed Canons; (3) applied for "Assent and Licence," 
 in accordance with the Statute governing the case ; (4) re- 
 ceived " Assent and Licence " as one instrument. But 
 this has been in subsequent times improved upon backwards 
 by some ingenious people of the learned profession, and later 
 instruments have been dichotomized without any legal war- 
 ranty in more recent issues, and the unstatutable novelty has 
 been introduced of granting " Licence " before enactment, 
 "Assent" after. And thus the words "Assent and Licence" 
 in the first place have been reversed in order of words, and 
 in the second place one instrument has been converted into 
 two. So on the anvil of the learned profession, without the 
 least warranty of law, another link has been ingeniously forged 
 for Ecclesiastical fetters. 
 
 Meanwhile, it must be reasonably supposed that at the date 
 of the proceedings first above recorded [1586], i.e. only fifty- 
 two years after the enactment of the Statute, its provisions were 
 rightly understood. And those definite provisions were mani- 
 festly accurately then complied with, both by the Convocation 
 and by the Sovereign, as must be plain to anyone of common 
 capacity who will take the trouble to compare the several 
 documents. Further, should any reader [which is hardly 
 possible] fail to be convinced of this after such comparison, 
 he may set all doubt at rest by perusing an elucidation of 
 this subject to be found in Atterbury's "Rights," &c., pp. 
 99 seq. 
 
 However, in the year 1611 [Trin. Term, 8 Jac. I.] a sur- 
 prising resolution was announced by the Judges, that " as a 
 " Convocation cannot assemble without the assent of the King, 
 "so after their assembling they cannot confer to constitute 
 " any new Canons without ' Licence del Roy ' " [Coke's "Rep." 
 xii. 70]. This certainly was a marvellous affirmation wholly
 
 364 APPENDIX. 
 
 unwarranted by the terms of the Statute governing the case, 
 in no line of which does the word "confer" appear, nor as 
 regards new Canons does that Statute lay any restraint what- 
 ever on the Convocations, save in respect of " enacting, pro- 
 mulging, and executing." And, still further, this judicial 
 excursion was contradictory to the practice which had been 
 adopted from the date of the enactment of the Statute through 
 many subsequent years. The reader is here requested very 
 exactly to remark, and very carefully to remember, that this 
 was an impotent struggle on the part of the learned in the 
 law unstatutably to disable the Convocations in their de- 
 liberative capacity by a judicial resolution, to the same extent 
 as they were restrained in their legislative capacity by an 
 Act of Parliament [25 Henry VIII. 19] ; and that was 
 nothing short of an attempted outrage on the Constitution 
 of the country and on the rights and liberties of the Church. 
 If public rights could be trampled out by judicial resolutions 
 I am afraid the vaunted liberties of England would on occasion 
 fare very poorly indeed. 
 
 This aggressive resolution, however, of the Judges in 1611 
 was delivered at a time when the learned profession seem 
 to have been banded together, at least if we may credit 
 history, to magnify Royal prerogative beyond all Consti- 
 tutional limits, and that most sensibly if ever the rights 
 and liberties of the Church came into question. Still, 
 notwithstanding the palpable exaggeration and unstatutable 
 aggression of this judicial resolution, it produced subsequent 
 effects; and Licences from the Crown Office, ingeniously 
 contrived and drafted by the learned officials there, have on 
 occasion been since issued, giving permission not only to 
 " enact, promulge, and execute " Canons, but also to " confer, 
 "treat, debate, consider, consult, and agree" upon them. 
 Thus the official draftsmen of " Licences " have taken leave 
 to improve backwards, to the disadvantage of the Church, 
 on the judicial resolution in 1611 above quoted at an 
 alarming rate ; and without the least Constitutional warranty 
 whatever, while "writing by the yard," have contrived to 
 exaggerate and swell to a romantic bulk that indefensible 
 announcement. "When assaulting Olympus aforetime the
 
 APPENDIX. 365 
 
 assailants contented themselves merely with a double accu- 
 mulation. Pelion only was mounted on Ossa. But our 
 modern legal giants have contrived a fivefold agglomeration 
 for their enterprises, having heaped no less than five 
 accretions "treat," "debate," "consider," "consult," and 
 "agree" on the aggressive base "confer," unstatutably 
 and illegally laid by the Jacobaean Judges in Trinity 
 Term, 1611. 
 
 However, a joint Committee, consisting of six Bishops and 
 six members of the Lower House, presented a Report on 
 Feb. 13, 1863 [Vide Chron. Conv. in loco, pp. 111920], 
 to the Upper House of the Canterbury Convocation, setting 
 this matter in its true light. That Report, "On the Sta- 
 " tutable Mode of Enacting a Canon," shews that it is a notori- 
 ous fact and an unanswerable proposition that, as regards new 
 Canons, the Royal Licence is legally required only for the 
 purpose of enactment, promulgation, and execution, and that 
 meanwhile conference, debate, and agreement upon them 
 should precede their presentation to the Sovereign, who is 
 requested to grant a Licence for their enactment. Indeed, 
 not only is the law clear, but the reason of the thing is 
 manifest. 
 
 Consequently, when in this generation requests by the 
 Canterbury Convocation for Licences have been made to the 
 Crown, the method of proceeding warranted by Statute and 
 reason has been closely adhered to, as will be seen by an 
 inspection of the copy of a Synodical request below recorded. 
 Indeed, not only has that method been adhered to, but it 
 will be seen that in drafting the document very special care 
 was taken to declare emphatically that the Convocation had 
 already done the very thing which the Jacobaean Judges 
 had resolved could not be done a resolution which more 
 modern legal officials have, as above said, outrun with 
 nothing less than gigantic strides of aggression. And 
 this course was taken in Convocation, to my certain know- 
 ledge, with deliberate and settled purpose to contravene and 
 set at nought and repudiate the tyrannical and unconsti- 
 tutional restrictions which those learned persons had en- 
 deavoured to impose on the Provincial Synods, and to de-
 
 366 APPENDIX. 
 
 nounce those backward improvements to the disadvantage 
 of the Church which have been illegally superadded by the 
 learned in the law. 
 
 And here a very earnest hope is added, that in future 
 years the Convocations, if either of them should request a 
 Licence, will be equally careful in the terms of their appli- 
 cation. For most assuredly, if they make a slip in this matter 
 there are those who have skill and ingenuity enough, and the 
 will too, to turn it afterwards to the Church's disadvantage. 
 The reader will now see, if he should take the trouble to 
 peruse the following document, what careful precautions have 
 been taken by the Canterbury Convocation in this generation 
 on this subject. 
 
 III. 
 
 Copy of a Sy nodical Request to Queen Victoria for a Eoyal 
 Licence. A.D. 1861. 
 
 [Chron. Conv. Upper House Cant., Feb. 26, 1861, pp. 3267.] 
 
 " We, Your Majesty's faithful subjects, the Archbishops, Bishops. 
 ' and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, in Convocation assem- 
 ' bled, humbly represent to Your Majesty, that in obedience to Your 
 'Majesty's Eoyal Writ, WE HAVE CONFERRED TOGETHER AND CON- 
 ' SIDERED of divers urgent matters concerning Your Majesty, the 
 ' security and defence of the Church of England, and the peace and 
 ' tranquillity public good and defence of Your Majesty's kingdom 
 ' and subjects : And particularly WE HAVE CONFERRED TOGETHER AND 
 'CONSIDERED the Twenty-ninth Canon of 1603 of the said Church : 
 ' and we are desirous that the said Canon should be altered, or 
 ' amended, or repealed and a new Canon substituted in the place 
 ' thereof: and We humbly pray that your Majesty will be graciously 
 'pleased to grant to us Your Majesty's Eoyal Licence, to make, 
 ' promulge, and execute such altered and amended Canon, or such 
 ' new Canon accordingly. 
 
 "(Signed.) 
 
 " J. B. CANTUAR., President. 
 "(A true copy.) 
 
 " H. WADDINGTON. 
 
 "Whitehall, Feb. 19, 1861." 
 
 In reply to this request the following Licence was issued.
 
 APPENDIX. 367 
 
 IV. 
 
 Copy of a Royal Licence of Queen Victoria's reign. A. D. 1861. 
 
 [Chron. Conv. Upper House Cant., Feb. 26, 1861, p. 327.] 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great 
 " Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, and so forth : 
 " To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting. 
 
 " Whereas in and by one Act of Parliament made at Westminster 
 " in the Five-and-twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth, reciting 
 "that wherever the King's humble and obedient subjects, the 
 " Clergy of the Realm of England, had not only acknowledged 
 "according to the truth that the Convocations of the same Clergy 
 "were always, had been, and ought to be assembled only by the 
 "King's Writ, but also, submitting themselves unto the King's 
 ' Majesty, had promised in verbo sacerdotii that they would never 
 ' from thenceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, 
 'or exact, promulge, or execute any new Canons, Constitutions, 
 ' Ordinances, Provincial or other, or by whatsoever other name they 
 ' should be called, in the Convocation, unless the said King's most 
 ' Royal Assent and Licence might to them be had, to make, 
 ' promulge, and execute the same ; and that the said King did give 
 ' His most Royal Assent and authority in that behalf ; it was 
 ' therefore enacted by the authority of the said Parliament, accord- 
 ' ing to the said submission and petition of the said Clergy, amongst 
 ' other things, that they, ne any of them, from thenceforth should 
 'enact, promulge, or execute any such Canons, Constitutions, or 
 ' Ordinances Provincial, by whatsoever name or names they might be 
 ' called, in their Convocations in time coming, which always should be 
 ' assembled by authority of the King's Writ, unless the same Clergy 
 ' might have the King's most Royal Assent and Licence to make, 
 ' promulge, and execute such Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances, 
 ' Provincial or Synodal, upon pain of every one of the said Clergy 
 ' doing contrary to the said Act, and being therefore convict, to suffer 
 ' imprisonment and make fine at the King's will ; and further, by 
 ' the said Act it is provided that no Canons, Constitutions, or 
 ' Ordinances should be made or put in execution within this Realm, 
 ' by authority of the Convocation of the Clergy, which shall be 
 1 contrariant or repugnant to the King's Prerogative Royal, or the 
 ' Customs, Laws, or Statutes of this Realm, anything in the said Act 
 ' to the contrary thereof notwithstanding ; and lastly, it is also 
 'provided by the said Act, that such Canons, Constitutions, 
 'Ordinances, and Synodals Provincial which then were already 
 'made, and which were not contrary or repugnant to the Laws, 
 ' Statutes, and Customs of this Realm, nor to the damage or hurt 
 ' of the King's Prerogative Royal, should then still be used and 
 1 executed as they were afore the making of the said Act, till such
 
 368 APPENDIX. 
 
 " time as they should be viewed, searched, or otherwise ordered and 
 " determined by the persons mentioned in the said Act, or the more 
 " part of them, according to the tenour or form and effect of the said 
 " Act, as by the said Act, amongst divers other things, more fully 
 " and at large doth and may appear : And whereas We have lately 
 "received a humble representation and petition from the Arch- 
 " bishop, Bishops, and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury in 
 " Convocation, of the tenour following, to wit : ' We, Your Majesty's 
 " ' faithful subjects, the Archbishop, Bishops, and Clergy of the 
 " ' Province of Canterbury in Convocation assembled, humbly repre- 
 " ' sent to Your Majesty that, in OBEDIENCE TO YOUR MAJESTY'S ROYAL 
 
 " ' WRIT, WE HAVE CONFERRED TOGETHER AND CONSIDERED of divers 
 
 " ' urgent matters concerning Your Majesty, the security and 
 " ' defence of the Church of England, and the peace and tran- 
 " ' quillity public good and defence of Your Majesty's kingdom and 
 " ' subjects : And particularly WE HAVE CONFERRED TOGETHER AND 
 
 " ' CONSIDERED THE TWENTY-NINTH CANON OF 1603 of the Said 
 
 " ' Church, and we are desirous that the said Canon should be 
 " ' altered and amended, or repealed and a new Canon substituted 
 "'in the place thereof. And we humbly pray that Your Majesty 
 "'will be graciously pleased to grant to us Your Majesty's Eoyal 
 " ' Licence to make, promulge, and execute such altered and 
 " ' amended Canon, or such new Canon accordingly.' Know ye 
 " that We, for divers urgent and weighty causes and considerations 
 " Us thereunto especially moving, of Our special grace, by virtue of 
 " Our Prerogative Eoyal and supreme authority in causes Ecclesias- 
 " tical, have given and granted, and by these presents DO GIVE AND 
 "GRANT, FULL, FREE, AND LAWFUL LIBERTY, LICENCE, POWER, AND 
 " AUTHORITY unto the Most Eeverend Father in God, Our right trusty 
 "and well-beloved Counsellor, John Bird, Archbishop of Canter- 
 " bury, President of this present Convocation of the Clergy of the 
 " Province of Canterbury for this present Parliament now assembled, 
 " and to the rest of the Bishops of the same Province, and to all 
 "the Deans of Cathedral Churches, Archdeacons, Chapters, and 
 " Colleges, and the whole of the Clergy of every Diocese within the 
 "said Province, that they the said Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 " President of the said Convocation, and the rest of the Bishops of 
 " the said Province, or the greater number of them, whereof the 
 " said President of the said Convocation to be one, and the rest of the 
 " Clergy of this present Convocation, within the said Province of 
 "Canterbury, or the greater part of them, SHALL AND MAY, from 
 " time to time during the present Parliament, CONFER, TREAT, DEBATE, 
 " CONSIDER, CONSULT, AND AGREE OF AND UPON and concerning the 
 " altering, amending, or repealing the said Twenty -ninth Canon of 
 " 1603, of the said Church of England, all or any part of the same. 
 " And We do GIVE and grant full, free, and lawful liberty, LICENCE, 
 " power, and authority to them to substitute a new Canon in the 
 " place thereof, and TO MAKE, PROMULGE, AND EXECUTE such altered
 
 APPENDIX. 369 
 
 " and amended Canon or such new Canon accordingly, as they the 
 " said President and the Bishops, or the greater part of them, and 
 " the Clergy of the said Province, or the greater part of them, shall 
 " think necessary, fit, and convenient for the honour and service of 
 "Almighty God, the good and quiet of the Church and better 
 "government thereof, to be, when allowed, approved, and con- 
 " finned by Us, from tune to time observed, performed, fulfilled, and 
 " kept, as well by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops and 
 "their successors, and the rest of the whole Clergy of the said 
 " Province of Canterbury, in their several callings, offices, functions, 
 " ministries, degrees, and administrations, as also by all and every 
 " Dean of the Arches and other Judge of the said Archbishop's 
 " Courts, Guardians of Spiritualities, Chancellors, Deans and Chap- 
 " ters, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Officials, Registers [? Registrars], 
 " and all and every other Ecclesiastical Officers and their inferior 
 " Ministers whatsoever, of the same Province of Canterbury, in 
 " their and every of their District Courts, and in the order, manner, 
 " and form of their and every of their proceedings, and by all other 
 " persons within this Realm as far as lawfully being members of the 
 " Church it may concern them. And WE DO ALSO BY THESE PRESENTS 
 " GIVE AND GKANT unto the said Archbishop of Canterbury, President 
 " of the said Convocation, and to the rest of the Bishops of the 
 " Province of Canterbury, and unto all Deans of Cathedral Churches, 
 " Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges, and the whole Clergy of Our 
 " several Dioceses within the said Province, FULL, FREE, AND LAWFUL 
 " LIBERTY, LICENCE, POWER, AND AUTHORITY, that they the said Arch- 
 " bishop of Canterbury, President of the said Convocation, and the 
 "rest of the said Bishops of the same Province, or the greater 
 " number of them, the said Canon, all or any part thereof, so altered, 
 "amended, or repealed, or a NEW CANON MADE, PROMULGED, AND 
 " EXECUTED, altered, amended, or substituted in place thereof, so by 
 " them from time to time conferred, treated, debated, considered, 
 " consulted, and agreed upon, shall and MAY SET DOWN IN WRITING, 
 "IN SUCH FORM as heretofore hath been accustomed, and THE SAME 
 " so SET DOWN IN WRITING TO EXHIBIT and deliver, or cause to be 
 " exhibited and delivered unto Us, to the end that We, upon mature 
 " consideration by Us to be taken thereupon, MAY ALLOW, APPROVE, 
 
 " CONFIRM, AND RATIFY, OR OTHERWISE DISALLOW, ANNIHILATE, AND 
 " MAKE VOID THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE SAID CANON, SO to be 
 
 "by force of these presents altered or amended, considered, con- 
 " suited, MADE, PROMULGED, EXECUTED, and agreed upon, as We shall 
 " think fit and requisite and convenient. Provided always that the 
 " said Canon so to be altered or amended, considered, consulted, 
 " made, promulged, executed, and agreed upon, as aforesaid, be not 
 " contrary or repugnant to the doctrines, orders, and ceremonies of 
 " the Church of England already established. Provided also, and 
 " Our express will, pleasure, and command is, that the said Canon, 
 " or any part thereof, so to be by the force of these presents altered 
 
 B B B
 
 370 APPENDIX. 
 
 'or amended, considered, consulted, made, promulged, executed, 
 'and agreed upon, shall not be of any force, effect, or validity in 
 ' law, but only so much thereof as after such time as We by Our 
 ' Letters Patent under Our Great Seal shall allow, approve, and 
 'confirm the same, anything before in these presents contained 
 ' to the contrary thereof on any wise notwithstanding. In witness, 
 ' &c. Witness, &c., the Twenty-seventh day of June. 
 
 " By Her Majesty's Command, 
 
 " EDMUNDS." 
 
 A similar Licence [Chron. Conv. Upper House Cant., 
 June 28, 1865, pp. 2353-5] was issued in the year 1865. 
 And the reader's special attention is requested to the con- 
 tents of the ahove-recited Licence, as such an instrument is 
 of high Constitutional importance and very deep significance. 
 It must also be remembered that these documents, con- 
 structed in the Crown Office, have the advantage of being 
 drawn under the direction of the Attorney and Solicitor- 
 Generals, and moreover pass under the inspection of the 
 Home Secretary, an official who, by the way, at least of 
 late years, has been also himself a member of the learned 
 profession. So that very high legal authority is in such cases 
 accumulated. 
 
 Now it would be to impose too severe a strain on the 
 patience and perseverance of any reader to request him to 
 wade through the torrent of words and encounter the 
 hurricane of verbiage which pervades the above-recorded 
 instrument. In capital letters, therefore, those passages are 
 printed which his eye may catch at a glance, and which 
 will impart to him the information necessary for knowing 
 what are the contents of the document, though no amount 
 of perseverance and no application of the most improved 
 capacity could possibly enable him to reconcile the self- 
 contradictions contained in it. By surveying, then, the pas- 
 sages printed in capitals, the reader will learn as follows : 
 
 (1) That the Convocation, in obedience to the original 
 Royal Writ for Convention, had already " conferred together 
 "and considered" of the proposed new Canon, a truth to which 
 the Crown Office instrument bears testimony by the recital
 
 APPENDIX. 371 
 
 of the recorded fact " verbatim." But this notwithstanding, 
 the instrument proceeds to grant "liberty, licence, power, and 
 " authority," to " confer, treat, debate, consider, consult, and 
 " agree of and upon " the Canon in question. This certainly 
 was an odd imagination, to give licence to do that which 
 had already previously been done, and, having recited a past 
 performance, to grant prospective liberty of a future approach 
 towards acts already consummated. Nor was it indeed alto- 
 gether respectful to the Crown for its own officials to draft 
 an instrument giving leave to the Convocation to do that 
 which the Crown had previously by the Royal Writ for 
 convention required that assembly to do; that is, to " treat of, 
 "agree to, and conclude upon" "urgent affairs concerning 
 " Us, the security and defence of the Church of England " 
 [Vid. supra, Royal Writ, Append. A. III.]. 
 
 (2) The reader will also learn, from an inspection of the 
 passages printed in capitals, that Licence was granted to 
 " make, promulge, and execute " the new Canon, and that 
 after the new Canon was " made, promulged, and executed," 
 it should be " set down in writing," in its enacted form. And 
 further, the reader will learn that Licence was granted to the 
 Convocation "to exhibit and deliver" the Canon, "made," 
 " promulged," and " executed," to the Sovereign, to the end 
 that the Crown might "allow, approve, confirm, and ratify, 
 " or otherwise disallow, annihilate, and make void, the whole 
 " or any part of the said Canon." 
 
 These were beyond question curious methods of inversion, 
 as it is directed that the new Canon should be first " made," 
 that is " enacted," in due Synodical form, as described above, 
 p. 33; secondly, "promulged," that is transmitted to the 
 several Ecclesiastical tribunals throughout the land for the 
 guidance of the Judges there; thirdly, "executed," that is 
 enforced and carried into effect in the cases of litigants ; 
 and then subsequently should be " set down in writing " and 
 exhibited to the Crown for "allowance, approval, confinna- 
 " tion, and ratification," or for " disallowance, annihilation, and 
 avoidance." After these ingenious problems of inversion care- 
 fully worked out, and these odd retrograde excursions of a 
 Cabinet Minister and of members of the learned profession
 
 372 APPENDIX. 
 
 when engaged on Ecclesiastical matters of high Constitutional 
 importance, 
 
 "Quis neget arduis 
 "Pronos relabi posse rivos 
 "Montibus, et Tiberim reverti?" 
 
 The truth is, giving these learned persons the credit for 
 originally understanding the subject they dealt with, it is 
 plain that they subsequently lost themselves hopelessly in 
 their own mazes of verbiage, for they certainly contrived to 
 construct a labyrinth of circumlocution transcending the skill 
 of Daedalus, and defying human intelligence to discover either 
 means of ingress or of egress. But if, on the other hand, they 
 did not at the outset understand the subject they dealt with, 
 and if the same intellectual incapacity should afflict the Crown 
 Office officials and their legal advisers when the next Licence 
 is required, it would be no less than desirable that they should 
 seek some external aid for the proper performance of their 
 special duties. 
 
 It may here be added by way of sequel that two " Letters 
 w of Biisiness " and four " Licences " have been issued from 
 the Crown Office since the year 1861 inclusive, but in no 
 one of the six cases was the instrument rightly and consti- 
 tutionally constructed. To be specific on this head. The 
 two " Letters of Business " were overloaded with matter 
 wholly irrelevant, altogether misleading, and very mis- 
 chievous, as above shewn, Append. C. III. The two Li- 
 cences just above mentioned were self-contradictory by the 
 methods of inversion apph'ed, as we have seen. And the 
 other two Licences were noway required, and if required 
 would have been utterly worthless for any purpose whatso- 
 ever, as they contained no " Assent and Licence " to " enact," 
 " promulge," or " execute " [Chron. Conv. Lower House Cant., 
 Feb. 13, 1872, p. 239 ; Upper House, July 7, 1874, p. 298.] 
 Beyond all question, the Cyclopean blows delivered by the 
 legal artificers in their labours to forge disabilities for the 
 Church have recoiled ruthlessly on their own heads, to the 
 gerious injury of their intellectual organs 
 
 "Nee lex est justior ulla, 
 
 "Quam necis artifices arte perire su."
 
 APPENDIX. 373 
 
 These accumulated facts corroborate the truth of an as- 
 sertion made at page 212 of this volume, to the effect that 
 the Ecclesiastical atmosphere is uncongenial to the healthy 
 exercise of the legal brain ; and this is a truth in support of 
 which considerable evidence has been already produced in 
 pages 203-212 above inclusive. 
 
 There is an instrument to be mentioned in passing, by 
 which the Crown has on occasion given " Assent " to Canons 
 after " Enactment." But as this appears to be an unstatuta- 
 ble document, as before said [Supra, 146-7, and Append. D. II.], 
 being involved in the issue of the "Licence" as intended 
 by the Statute governing the case [25 Hen. VIII. 19], it 
 is not needful here to insert a copy. Any curious enquirer, 
 however, may find examples of such an instrument in Atter- 
 bury's " Rights," &c., pp. 601-2; Gibson's "Codex," pp. 993-4; 
 and Sparrow's " Collections," pp. 337-73. 
 
 The sum of the whole matter seems to be this. The origi- 
 nal Royal Writ for Convention [Supra, A. III.] is (1) not only 
 the permission but the " command " to " treat of, agree to, and 
 " conclude upon " " difficult and urgent affairs concerning .... 
 " the security and defence of the Church of England;" (2) the 
 "Assent and Licence" [Supra, D. II.] is one instrument, 
 giving permission to " enact, promulge, and execute " Canons ; 
 (3) the subsequent "Letters Patent," or new invention of 
 " Assent " following enactment, are an unnecessary appendage, 
 and an unstatutable flourish of addition contrived in times 
 since the enactment of the Statute governing the case, and 
 never intended by its provisions nor warranted by them. 
 
 E. 
 
 ROYAL WRIT AND METROPOLITAN'S MANDATE FOB 
 PROROGATION. 
 
 I. 
 
 Copy of a Writ of Queen Victoria for Proroguing a 
 
 Convocation. 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 108, and note, p. 109.] 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great 
 " Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith : To the Most 
 " Reverend Father in God, Our right trusty and well beloved
 
 374 APPENDIX. 
 
 ' Councillor, , by the same Grace Archbishop of &c., and 
 
 ' Metropolitan, Greeting. Whereas We have lately, by Our Writ 
 ' issued at Our command, ordered that the Convocation of the 
 
 ' Clergy of your Province of , at the Cathedral Church of , 
 
 'or elsewhere, as it should seem expedient, should be begun and 
 ' be holden on the Twenty-second day of September now next 
 ' ensuing : Nevertheless, for certain urgent causes and considerations 
 ' Us especially moving, We have thought fit that the said Convo- 
 ' cation be prorogued until Wednesday, the Thirteenth day of 
 ' October next, so that neither you Our Archbishop, nor the 
 ' Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, nor any other Ecclesiastical persons 
 
 ' of your Province of , whom it concerns in this behalf, may 
 
 ' by any means appear on the said Twenty-second day of September 
 
 ' next, at the Cathedral Church of aforesaid, or elsewhere, as it 
 
 ' should seem most convenient : We will also that you, the afore- 
 ' said Archbishop, and all and singular the Bishops, Deans, Arch- 
 ' deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical persons of your Province of 
 
 ' , whom it does or shall concern in this behalf, be therefrom to 
 
 ' Us wholly Discharged, commanding, and by the tenour of these 
 ' presents firmly enjoining and requiring you, the aforesaid Arch- 
 ' bishop, and all and singular the Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, 
 ' and all other Ecclesiastical persons whatsoever of your aforesaid 
 
 ' Province of , whom it does or shall concern in this behalf, that 
 
 'on the said Thirteenth day of October next, at the aforesaid 
 
 ' Cathedral Church of , or elsewhere, as it shall seem most 
 
 ' expedient, you and every one of you personally appear and be 
 'present, and that in doing, executing, and performing all and 
 ' singular the premisses, you be intent, advising, helping, and also 
 ' obedient, as it behoves you. Witness Ourself, at Westminster, the 
 ' Tenth day of August, in the Eleventh Year of Our Eeign." 
 
 Convocations are by ancient custom prorogued by Royal 
 "Writ to the day following that to which Parliaments are 
 prorogued. 
 
 II. 
 
 Copy of a Metropolitan's Mandate for Proroguing a 
 Convocation. 
 
 [Private Collections.] 
 
 "We, John Bird, by Divine Providence Archbishop of Canter- 
 ' bury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, President of the 
 ' present Provincial Synod or Convocation of the Bishops and 
 ' Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, do by this present writing 
 ' continue and prorogue the said sacred Provincial Synod or 
 ' Convocation, and continue and prorogue all and singular the 
 ' certificates or returns already made and delivered, and all others 
 ' which have not yet been made and delivered in the same state in 
 ' which they are now, until Thursday, the Nineteenth day of August
 
 APPENDIX. 375 
 
 " next ensuing, to a certain Upper Chamber, commonly called the 
 "Jerusalem Chamber, situate in the Deanery belonging to the 
 "Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, with further 
 " continuation and prorogation of days then following and places, 
 " if it shall be necessary to be done in this behalf. 
 
 " J. B. CANTUAB." 
 
 Each day's assembly of a Convocation is termed a Session ; 
 and on each day the Convocation is prorogued to some 
 future day at the Metropolitan's discretion by the foregoing 
 instrument. 
 
 P. 
 
 ROYAL WRIT FOB DISSOLUTION. 
 I. 
 
 Copy of a Writ of King Henry VIII. for Dissolving a 
 Convocation. A. D. 1544. 
 
 [Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. 109.] 
 
 " Henricus, etc. : Reverendissimo in Christo Patri Thomae eadem 
 " gratia Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, totius Angliae Primati, et 
 " Metropolitano, Salutem. Cum praesens Convocatio Cleri vestrae 
 " Cantuariensis Provinciae apud Sanctum Paulum, London, de 
 " mandate nostro per breve nostrum jam modo tent, et instans exstitit; 
 " certis tamen urgentibus causis et considerationibus nos specialiter 
 " moventibus de advisamento concilii nostri, ipsam praesentem 
 " Convocationem hac instante die Lunae, duximus dissolvendam. 
 " Et ide6 Vobis mandamus quod eandem prsesentem Convocationem 
 " hac instante die Lunse apud Sanctum Paulum praedictum debito 
 " modo, absque dilatione dissolvatis dissolvive faciatis, prout con- 
 " venit, significantes ex parte nostra universis et singulis Episcopis 
 " necnon Archidiaconis, Decanis, et omnibus aliis personis Eccle- 
 " siasticis quibuscunque dictoe vestrse Cantuariensis Provinciae, 
 " quorum interest aut interesse poterit in hac parte, qudd ipsi et 
 " eorum quilibet huic mandate nostro exequend. intendentes sint et 
 "obedientes prout decet. Teste Meipso apud Westmonasterium 
 " Tricessimo primo die Martii, Anno Eegni Nostri Tricessimo 
 " quinto." 
 
 II. 
 
 Copy of a Writ of Queen Victoria for Dissolving a 
 
 Convocation. A.D. 1874. 
 [Chron. Conv. Jan. 29, 1874, p. 2.] 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great 
 " Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith : To the Most 
 " Eeverend Father in God, Our right trusty and well-beloved Coun-
 
 376 APPENDIX. 
 
 "cillor, Archibald Campbell, by the same Grace Archbishop of 
 ' Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, Greeting. 
 ' Whereas, by the advice of Our Council, We have thought fit that 
 ' the present Convocation of the Clergy of your Province of Canter- 
 ' bury be this day dissolved, We therefore command you that this 
 ' present Convocation, at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, 
 ' or otherwise, as it should seem most convenient, in lawful man- 
 ' ner, without delay, you dissolve, or cause to be dissolved, as is 
 ' most convenient, signifying on our part to all and singular Bishops, 
 ' and also Deans, Archdeacons, and all other Ecclesiastical persons 
 ' whatsoever of your said Province of Canterbury, whom it does or 
 ' shall concern in their behalf, that they and every of them be 
 ' intent and obedient in the performance of this command, as it 
 ' behoves them. Witness Ourself, at Westminster, the Twenty- 
 ' sixth day of January, in the Thirty-seventh Year of Our Keign. 
 
 " E. ROMILLY." 
 
 On the receipt of the above "Writ by the Metropolitan, a 
 Commission under his Seal is sent to the Vicar-General of the 
 Province, who, at its accustomed place of meeting, duly dissolves 
 the Convocation in conformity with ancient practice. 
 
 G. 
 
 "SUBMISSION OF THE CLEBGT," AND EXTBACTS FBOM 
 "CLEBGY SUBMISSION ACT." 
 
 To the above documents shall be added here the " Submis- 
 "sion of the Clergy," and those parts of the "Submission 
 "Act" [25 Hen. VIII. 19] which govern the relations be- 
 tween the Convocations and the Crown, in order that the 
 reader may convince himself on perusal that the contents of 
 that Act have been rightly above interpreted. 
 
 The Submission of the Clergy, and those parts of 25 Hen. 
 VIII. 19 which, as confirmed in Queen Elizabeth's reign, 
 alone Statutably govern the relations between the Convo- 
 cations and the Crown. 
 
 [From a Copy in Lord Longueville's Library, Cone. M. B. iii. 749.] 
 "We .... Do offer and promise, in verbo sacerdotii, here unto Your 
 " Highness, submitting ourselves most humbly to the same, that 
 " we will never from henceforth enact, put in ure, promulge, or 
 1 ' execute any NEW Canons or Constitution Provincial, or any new NEW 
 " Ordinance Provincial or Synodal, in our Convocation or Synod in 
 " time coming [which Convocation is always, hath been, and must 
 " be, assembled only by Your high Commandment or Writ], unless
 
 APPENDIX. 377 
 
 ' Your Highness, by Your Koyal Assent, shall license us to assemble 
 ' our Convocation, and to make, promulge, and execute such Consti- 
 ' tutions and Ordinances as shall be made in the same, and thereto 
 ' give Your Eoyal Assent and authority. Secondarily, that whereas 
 ' divers of the Constitutions, Ordinances, and Canons Provincial or 
 ' Synodal which HATH BIN HERETOFORE ENACTED be thought to be not 
 ' only much prejudicial to Your Prerogative Eoyal, but also over 
 ' much onerous to Your Highness' subjects, Your Clergy aforesaid 
 ' is contented, if it may stand with Your Highness' pleasure, that it 
 ' be committed to the examination and judgment of Your Grace and 
 ' of thirty-two persons, whereof sixteen to be of the Upper and Nether 
 ' House of the Temporally, and other sixteen of the Clergy, all to 
 ' be appointed and chosen by Your Most Noble Grace. So that 
 'finally, whichsoever of the said Constitutions, Ordinances, or 
 ' Canons, Provincial or Synodal, shall be thought and determined by 
 ' Your Grace, and by the most part of the said thirty-two persons, 
 ' not to stand with God's laws and the laws of your Eealm, the same 
 'to be abrogated and taken away by Your Grace and the Clergy, 
 'and such of them as shall be seen by Your Grace, and by the 
 'most part of the said thirty-two persons, to stand with God's 
 ' laws and the laws of Your Eealm, to stand in full strength and 
 ' power ; Your Grace's most Eoyal Assent and authority once impe- 
 ' trate and fully given to the same." 
 
 This then was the Convocational "Submission of the 
 "Clergy" carried up to King Henry VIII., and accepted 
 by that Sovereign on Thursday, May 16, 1532. The pro- 
 mises contained in it amount briefly to this, that they would 
 not enact any NEW Canons without Royal Assent and 
 Lic&nce, and that the OLD Canons should be reviewed by 
 the King and a body of Thirty-two Commissioners, with 
 a view to a reform of the laws Ecclesiastical. This was the 
 footstone of the " Clergy Submission Act," 25 Hen. VIII. 
 19, which two years afterwards embodying these promises, 
 inaugurated that instrument, " the Royal Licence" which has 
 been above considered [Appendix D]. 
 
 In 1534, N. S., in consequence of a representation of the 
 House of Commons to King Henry VIII., and as a sequel 
 to the Synodical deliberations and conclusions above re- 
 counted, the Statute 25 Hen. VIII. 19 was enacted. And 
 of course its provisions must be read in the light of those 
 preceding events. So much of the Act 25 Hen. VIII. 19 
 as is pertinent to the present purpose is here given from 
 an authentic source. 
 
 C C
 
 378 APPENDIX. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE "CLERGY SUBMISSION ACT," 
 25 HEN. VIII. 19. 
 [Cone. M. B. iii. 770.] 
 
 " A ceste Mile avec une provision annexe" les seigneurs sont 
 " assentuz." 
 
 " Where the Kyngis humble and obedient subjects, &c. 
 [Preamble.] 
 
 " Be yt therefore nowe enacted by auctoritie of this present 
 " Parliament, according to the said submission and peticion of the 
 " said Cleregy, that they, ne enny of them, from hencefurth shall 
 " presume to attempt, alege, clayme, or put in ure any Constitucions or 
 "Ordinanncys Provinciall or Sinodalys, or any other Canons, nor 
 " shall enact, promulge, or execute any suche Canons, Constitucions, 
 " or Ordinannce Provinciall, by whatsoever name or names they 
 " may be called, in their Convocacions in tyme commyng, whiche 
 " alway shal be assembled by auctorite of the Kyngis Wrytt, oneles 
 " the same Cleregy may have the Kingis moste ROIALL ASSENT 
 "AND LICENCE to make, promulge, and execute suche Canons, 
 " Constitucions, and Ordinanncys Provinciall or Sinodall, upon pain 
 " of every one of the said Cleregy doyng contrary to this Act and 
 " being thereof convicte, to suffer empresonament and make fyne 
 " at the King's will." 
 
 [Direction for Review of Ecclesiastical Laws by thirty-two Commis- 
 sioners.] 
 
 [Saving Clause for Eoyal Prerogative, Customs, Laws, and Statutes 
 of the Realm.] 
 
 " Provided also that suche Canons, Constitucions, Ordynannces 
 " Provincyall and Synodalls, beyng allredy made, which be not con- 
 " trariannt nor repugnant to the Lawes, Statutes, and Customes of this 
 " Realme, nor to the damage or hurte of the King's Prerogative 
 " Royall, shall now still be used and executyd as thei were affore 
 " the makeing of this Act, tyll suche tyme as they be vewed, 
 " serched, or otherwise ordered and determined by the said xxxii. 
 "persons, or the more part of them, according to the tenour, 
 " fourme, and effect of this present Act. 
 
 " Soit bailie" aux communes. A cest provision les communes sont 
 " assentez."
 
 APPENDIX. 379 
 
 On a perusal of the "Submission" and the Statute above 
 quoted, when compared, it is manifestly plain that under the 
 terms of this Act, the " Royal Assent and Licence " is statu- 
 tably necessary only (1) for "attempting, alledging, claiming, 
 or "putting in ure," i.e. enforcing in the Spiritual Courts, 
 OLD Canons [with provisos as to their remaining " in viridi 
 "observantia" until reviewed] ; (2) for "enacting, promulging, 
 " and executing " NEW Canons. But that under the terms of 
 this Statute the "Royal Assent and Licence" is not required 
 for any other purposes whatsoever than for those defined in 
 the Act ; inasmuch as this is a highly penal Statute, entailing 
 penalties no less than fine and imprisonment at the Sovereign's 
 will, and therefore must be construed strictly within the 
 terms of the letter. And that this limitation of require- 
 ment has always been held to exist in past ages, is manifest 
 from the fact that on no occasion previous to the years 1872 
 and 1874 was a Royal Licence ever issued save for purposes 
 of Canonical legislation. And on those two recent occasions 
 its issue was merely the outcome of official blundering, and 
 of a total misapprehension of Constitutional Law by the 
 authorities in the Crown Office, by the Law Officers of the 
 Crown, and by the respective Cabinets of the day. 
 
 H. 
 
 ROYAL "WRIT CONTAINING THE " PR.EMUNIENTES " CLAUSE 
 FOB SUMMONING SPECIFIED CLERGY TO THE BRITISH 
 PARLIAMENT. 
 
 Here an instrument is appended which is noway connected 
 with Convocations, being a Writ for summoning Parliament, 
 but which is added here for two reasons : (1) Because it has 
 been ignorantly confused and identified with Convocational 
 history; and (2) because it is a Constitutional curiosity, 
 being still at this time continually issued by the Crown, but 
 as continually disobeyed by those to whom it is directed. 
 
 The following "Writ, whenever a new Parliament is sum- 
 moned, is directed to the two Metropolitans personally, 
 and to each Bishop personally who has a seat in Parliament, 
 citing each severally as a Peer of the Realm, to attend there.
 
 380 APPENDIX. 
 
 It contains a Hoyal command, denominated the " Prsemuni- 
 "entes" Clause [Vide supra, pp. 26-28]. And by it the 
 Sovereign directs that each Prelate should provide that 
 some specified Clergy and three elected Proctors should 
 give their attendance in Parliament. The reader is requested 
 to bear in mind that this instrument is in no way connected 
 with the Convocations, but is only inserted here because it 
 has been confusedly mixed up ignorantly with their history. 
 
 I. 
 
 Copy of a Writ summoning certain Clergy to Parliament, 
 
 as issued by King Edward I. A.D. 1295. 
 [Cone. M. B. ii. 215. Wake's "Auth. Christ. Prin." 363-5.] 
 "Breve regium Archiepiscopo Cantuar., directum de Parliamento 
 " tenendoapudWestmonasteriumcum clausula'Prsemunientes.'" 
 Ex Eot. Claus. 23 Ed. I. M. 3, dorso. 
 
 " Eex venerabili in Christo patri E. eadem gratia Cant. Archiepis- 
 ' copo totius Angliae Primati, Salutem. Sicut lex justissima provida 
 ' circumspectione sacrorum principum stabilita hortatur et statuit, 
 ' ut quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur ; sic et innuit 
 ' evidenter, ut communibus periculis per remedia provisa communiter 
 ' obvietur. Sane satis nosti, et jam est, ut credimus, per uni versa 
 ' mundi climata divulgatum, qualiter Eex Franciae de terra nostra 
 ' Vasconise nos fraudulenter et cautelose decepit earn nobis nequiter 
 ' detinendo : mine verd praxlictis fraude et nequitia non contentus, 
 'ad expugnationem regni nostri classe maxima et bellatorum 
 ' copiosa multitudine congregatis, cum quibus regnum nostrum et 
 ' regni ejusdem incolas hostiliter jam invasit, linguam Anglicanam, 
 ' si conceptse iniquitatis proposito detestabili potestas correspondeat 
 ' [quod Dens avertat] omnino" de terra delere proponit. Quia igitur 
 ' praevisa jacula minus laedunt, et res vestra maximt; si cut caeterorum 
 ' regni ejusdem concivium agitur in hac parte ; Vobis mandamus in 
 ' fide et dilectione, quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter injungentes quod 
 ' die dominica proxime" post festum Sancti Martini in byeme proximo 1 
 ' futurum apfld Westminster personaliter intersitis ; ' Praemunientes' 
 ' priorem et Capitulum Ecclesiae vestrae, Archidiaconum, totumque 
 ' Clerum vestrae Dioeceseos ; facientes quod iidem Prior et Archi- 
 ' diaconus in propriis personis suis, et dictum Capitulum per unum, 
 'idemque Clerus per duos Procuratores icloneos plenam et suffi- 
 ' cientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulo et Clero habentes una 
 ' vobiscum intersint, modis omnibus tune ibidem ad tractandum 
 ' ordinandum et faciendum nobiscum, et cum caeteris Praelatis 
 ' proceribus et aliis incolis regni nostri, qualiter hujusmodi periculis 
 ' et excogitatis malitiis obviandum. 
 
 " Teste Eege apM Wengebam, 30 die Septembris."
 
 APPENDIX. 381 
 
 Like Writs, from the year 1295 down to the year 1880, 
 when the present Parliament was convened, have been con- 
 tinuously issued, save during the time of the Great Rebel- 
 lion. Copies of such instruments, of various dates, are in 
 existence. One of the year 1537, issued by King Henry 
 VIII., may be seen in Wake's " State," &c., Append. 225. 
 One of the year 1571, issued by Queen Elizabeth, is given in 
 Wake's "Authority of Christian Princes," p. 365. Of one 
 issued by King William III. in 1702 I possess a copy, con- 
 tained in a bound volume of pamphlets of that time. And 
 a copy of one issued by Queen Victoria, and transcribed from 
 a House of Lords' official copy, is below given. They all are 
 virtually identical. 
 
 II. 
 
 Copy of a Writ summoning certain Clergy to Parliament, 
 as issued by Queen Victoria. A.D. 1866. 
 
 [House of Lords' Official Copy, in my possession.] 
 
 " Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great 
 " Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith : To the Eight 
 " Reverend Father in God, John, Bishop of Lichfield, Greeting. 
 " Whereas, by the advice and assent of Our Council, for certain arduous 
 " and urgent affairs concerning Us, the state and defence of Our said 
 " United Kingdom and the Church, We have ordered a certain 
 " Parliament to be holden at Our City of Westminster, on the 
 "Fifteenth day of August next ensuing, and there to treat and have 
 " conference with the Prelates, Great Men, and Peers of Our Eealm: 
 " We, strictly enjoining, command you, by the faith and love by 
 " which you are bound to Us, that the weightiness of the said affairs 
 " and imminent perils considered [waiving all excuses], you be, at 
 " the said day and place, personally present with Us and with the 
 " said Prelates, Great Men, and Peers, to treat and give your 
 " counsel upon the affairs aforesaid, and this as you regard Us and 
 " Our honour and the safety and defence of the said United King- 
 " dom and Church, and dispatch of the said affairs in no wise do 
 " you omit ; Forewarning the Dean and Chapter of your Church of 
 " Lichfield, and the Archdeacons and all the Clergy of your Diocese, 
 " that they the said Dean and Archdeacons in their proper persons, 
 " and the said Chapter by one, and the said Clergy by two meet 
 " Proctors, severally having full and sufficient authority from them 
 " the said Chapter and Clergy, at the said day and place be 
 " personally present, to consent to those things which then and there 
 " by the Common Counsel of Our said United Kingdom [by the
 
 382 APPENDIX. 
 
 " favour of the Divine clemency] shall happen to be ordained. 
 " Witness Ourselves, at Westminster, the Sixth day of July, in the 
 " Twenty-ninth Year of Our Eeign." 
 
 This Writ, containing the " Praemunientes " clause, though 
 now neglected by those to whom it is directed, was afore- 
 time respectfully obeyed. In the issue of this "Writ the 
 Sovereign makes no distinction as regards Provinces. It 
 is directed separately to each Metropolitan, and to every 
 Bishop in England and Wales having a seat in Parliament. 
 From the time of its first inauguration in 1295, the archives 
 of the different Episcopal Sees contain records of its constant 
 execution [See Atterb. " Rights," &c., pp. 248 seq., and 566 
 seq.]. Indeed, so instructive are these records that in some 
 instances they hand down to this day the very names of the 
 men who were elected as Parliamentary Proctors. Thus we 
 find, in various Dioceses, John de Theneto holding that office 
 in 1296, J. de Harrington in 1323, John Menys in 1503, 
 Henry de Pynkenee in 1535 ; and the author above quoted 
 asserts that in Biley's "Placita" more than a hundred of 
 these records, of later date, may be found ; in many such in- 
 stances the names being recorded of the Parliamentary Proc- 
 tors elected. Records subsequent to the dates above given of 
 these Parliamentary Proctors may also be found in many Dio- 
 cesan Registries. Such are records of the years 1536, 1539- 
 1541, and 1542. In the latter year, George .Carew and 
 Thomas Brerewood were elected in the Exeter Diocese ; and 
 proceeding onwards, in 1676 Richard Cumberland and John 
 Dobson were chosen as the Parliamentary Proctors for the 
 Diocese of Peterborough. 
 
 It appears that, at the discretion of the electors, the same 
 persons were elected as Proctors for Convocation and for 
 Parliament ; but this practice was clearly not universal, as 
 is plain from the York Register, which shews that in 1539 
 one set of Proctors was elected for attendance in Convoca- 
 tion, and another set for Parliament [Atterb. "Rights," p. 617]. 
 
 That this Royal Writ, so continuously issued through 
 many ages of English history, dating from the thirteenth 
 century to the year 1880, should now be obstinately dis- 
 obeyed is surely a Constitutional soloecism. One whole batch
 
 APPENDIX. 383 
 
 of "Writs for the assembly of the British Parliament is abso- 
 lutely ignored. And it is a reasonable enquiry, and no fair 
 mind can deny it, whether in the presence of such neglect 
 the Parliament at this day existing is fully and duly consti- 
 tuted. If the whole batch of Writs directed by the Crown 
 to Sheriffs of Counties, or the whole batch directed to Mayors 
 of Boroughs, was neglected, and no returns made, there is 
 but little doubt what reply would be made to such a 
 query. And as this parallel case is patently present, it 
 would be beyond measure instructive, to some people at 
 least, to hear this question fairly argued, with the interest 
 which might be added to it by the aid of all the ingenuity, 
 research, and learning, at least in secular respects, which 
 abound in the neighbourhood of the Temple and Lincoln's 
 Inn. 
 
 One of the acutest men of the last century, and one as 
 deeply versed in Constitutional history as ever held a pen, 
 thus wrote : " Not only has the King a right of thus calling 
 " the Clergy to attend, but the Clergy also have a right to 
 " attend, and the Lords and Commons have a right of being 
 " attended by them." And subsequently this author makes 
 a humble request to their Lordships the Bishops, that " they 
 " would please to consider of how great moment it is towards 
 " preserving the Constitution, and the rights of their Clergy, 
 " to preserve the regular execution of their Writs of Summons 
 " for the Parliament, and a remembrance of it in the records 
 " of their Sees." 
 
 Printed at the University Press, Oxford 
 
 By HORACE HART, Printer to the University
 
 tbe same 
 
 ENGLAND'S SACRED SYNODS : a Constitutional His- 
 tory of the Convocations of the Clergy, from the Earliest Records 
 of Christianity in Britain to the date of the Promulgation of the 
 present Book of Common Prayer. With a list of all Councils held 
 in England. (1855.) 
 
 London: RiviNGTONS. 
 
 THE DUTY OF THE CIVIL POWER TO PRO- 
 MOTE THE FAITH OF THE NATIONAL CHURCH : an 
 
 Assize Sermon, preached at Shrewsbury, March 23, 1857. 
 London : RiviNGTONS. 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH : an Answer to an Essay on 
 "The National Church" in Essays and Reviews. (1861.) 
 London : SAUNDERS, OTLEY, & Co. 
 
 ECCLESIA yiNDICATA: a Treatise on Appeals in 
 Matters Spiritual. Dedicated, by permission, to the Earl of 
 Derby, K.G., Chancellor of the University of Oxford. (1862.) 
 London : SAUNDERS, OTLEY, & Co. 
 
 CONCIO AD CLERUM: the Latin Sermon preached in 
 St. Paul's Cathedral, London, February 2, 1866, at the opening 
 of the Convocation of Canterbury. Printed by command of the 
 Archbishop. 
 
 London: RiviNGTONS. 
 
 THE KINGDOM NOT OF THIS WORLD : some Re- 
 
 marks on passages touching Church Government in the Charge of 
 the Bishop of St. David's. (1866.) 
 
 London: RiviNGTONS. 
 
 THE SWORD AND THE KEYS THE CIVIL 
 
 POWER IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH; with 
 
 Appendix containing the Statutes which give final Ecclesiastical 
 Appeal to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, and also all 
 Judgments delivered by that tribunal since 1865. (1869.) Second 
 Edition, published by E. C. Union, 1881. 
 London : RiviNGTONS. 
 
 THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF IRELAND: 
 
 a Letter to the Bishop of Derry, on the Constitution of Diocesan 
 and Provincial Synods. (1869.) 
 
 London: RiviNGTONS. 
 
 ON THE INTRODUCTION OF LAITY INTO 
 
 lwyne 
 the Canterbury Convocation. (1880.) 
 
 Oxford and London : PARKER & Co. 
 
 ON THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL, AS PRO- 
 POSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS ON ECCLESIASTICAL 
 COURTS. (1884.) 
 
 Oxford and London : PARKER & Co.
 
 ME. WHITAKEE'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE BOOK OP PRIVATE PRAYER: Short Forms of 
 
 Daily Prayer. Cloth, 6d. ; or neatly bound, with gilt edges, price Is. 6d. 
 
 THE BOOK OF PRIVATE PRAYER: Forms of Prayer 
 
 for Use Twice Daily. Cloth, 2s. neatly bound, with gilt edges, 3s. Qd. 
 
 THE BOOK OF PRIVATE PRAYER : Arranged for Use 
 
 Seven Times a Day. A New Edition in preparation. 
 
 %* Copies of the First Edition of the " Seven Times a Day " Book of Private Prayer may 
 still be obtained. Cloth, Is. ; or neatly bound, with gilt edges, price 2s. 6d. 
 
 The, above are issued by Direction of the 0&)r f|0USC 0f CottbOcattOH 0f fl)C JDrflfatlUC 
 of Cauttriwrg. 
 
 THE RULE OF PRAYER : An Easy Explanation of the 
 
 Lord's Prayer. Chiefly intended for the Use of Young Persons. 32mo, cloth, Is. ; or 
 neatly bound in Turkey roan, with gilt edges, 2s. 
 
 DEVOTIONAL READINGS FOR FAMILY PRAYER 
 
 Adapted to the Course of the Christian Year. With a Form of Responsive Devotions for 
 the Household for Every Day in the Week. By the Rev. J. J. DILLON, M.A., Rector of 
 Aghade, in Diocese of Leighlin. Vol. I. MORNING. Vol. II. EVENING. Two Volumes, 
 imperial 32mo, cloth, 6s. ; Turkey roan, gilt edges, 9s. 
 
 Post 8vo, cloth limp, each 2s. 
 
 BIBLE READINGS FOR FAMILY PRAYERS. By the 
 
 Rev. W. H. RIDLEY, M.A., Author of " Holy Communion." 
 
 GENESIS AND EXODUS. 
 
 ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK. 
 
 ST. LUKE AND ST. JOHN. 
 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 Also by the same Author. 
 
 ON PRAYING : The Necessity and Advantage of Diligent 
 
 Prayer. 18mo, cloth, reo edges, 9d. 
 
 THE PATH OF DUTY : A few Plain Directions for more 
 
 worthily perforv ling I. OUR DUTY TOWARDS GOD; II. OUR DUTY TOWARDS OUE 
 
 NEIGHBOUR, lomo, cloth, Is.
 
 NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS. 
 
 A NEW EDITION, with Additions, revised by the Author. 
 
 RIDLEY ON THE HOLY COMMUNION. Printed on fine 
 
 thick paper, cloth, red edges, Is. ; Turkey roan, gilt edges, 2s. 
 
 REVISED EDITION, in very large type and strongly bound in limp cloth, price Id. 
 
 THE HOLY COMMUNION. PAET I. ITS NATUEE AND BENEFITS. 
 
 With a Notice of some common Objections to receiving it. PART II. AN EXPLANATION 
 OF WHAT is REQUIRED OF THOSE WHO COME TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. In plain 
 Language. By the late Rev. W. H. RIDLEY, M.A., Rector of Hambleden, Bucks ; Hon. 
 Canon of Christ's Church, Oxford. 
 
 Cation Eidley's " Holy Communion " has now been many years in use in thousands of 
 parishes : no other work has been found so generally acceptable. The plain, forcible language 
 in which it is written and the sound practical advice it contains combine to render the book a 
 great favourite, especially among the poorer classes. 
 
 CONFIRMATION AND FIRST COMMUNION. PART I. 
 
 THE NATURE, ORIGIN AND BENEFITS OF CONFIRMATION. With Aids to Meditation 
 for Young Persons preparing for that Holy Rite. PART II. PREPARATION FOR CON- 
 FIRMATION. PART III. PREPARATION FOR FIRST COMMUNION. Uniform in size and 
 type with "Ridley on the Holy Communion." Cloth, 9d. ; Turkey roan, gilt edges, 2s. 
 
 THE NARROW WAY. A Complete Manual of Devotion. 
 
 With a Guide to Confirmation and Holy Communion. Two Hundred and Forty-fifth 
 Thousand. Price, cloth, Gd. ; or neatly bound in Turkey roan, with gilt edges, Is. Gd. 
 
 THE NARROW WAY. Printed in large type, upon good 
 
 paper, cloth, Is. ; Turkey roan, gilt edges, 2s. 
 
 " The two new editions of The Narrow Way will, 
 no doubt, make this deservedly popular manual of 
 doctrine and devotion more popular than ever. 
 Both are admirably printed and tastefully bound. 
 The book is too well known to need description or 
 praise. Intended specially for the use of the young, 
 and written in clear, simple language, it is suited for 
 persons of any age. There is, perhaps, no book of 
 the size and price which is so complete a guide in 
 doctrine and duty. It is valuable as a gift to 
 confirmation candidates or young communicants. 
 The sick find it all they need to help them in gain- 
 ing knowledge of the truth, and to guide them in 
 self-examination and prayer.''? Gospt-ller. 
 
 " I must thank you for the new editions of The 
 Narrate Way. I have used the book for years, 
 finding no book so useful for all purposes in parish 
 work. It has so much in it, and not too much upon 
 any one subject; and all is so well and clearly 
 
 stated that it suits all ages and all needs. Most 
 works have to be supplemented by some other 
 book ; but The Narrate Way goes over the ground 
 of Christian faith and duty with great complete- 
 ness. I give it to confirmation candidates, and to 
 persons preparing for Communion ; to enquirers 
 who wish to learn what to believe and do, and how 
 to pray. And I find it a most helpful companion 
 to the sick and troubled. The Introductions f 
 
 ana 
 
 Devotions are taken from the best sources; and 
 there is a good index which can be marked accord- 
 ing to the needs of those who use the book. The 
 great drawback hitherto, has been the rough bind- 
 ing and the poor printing. Now, the new books 
 are made attractive, and the clearness of the type 
 leaves nothing to be desired. I am glad to hear of 
 the number of thousands that have been sold, and 
 am sure that the sale must go on increasing." 
 From a CLEHGTMAN . 
 
 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER and THE NARROW 
 
 WAY. Bound in One neat Volume, price in Turkey roan, gilt edges, 2s. With gilt 
 cress stamped on side same price. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. Being an Easy Exposition of the 
 
 Apostles' Creed. Chiefly based upon the Work of Bishop PEARSON. 32mo, cloth, 'id. 
 
 THE RULE OF LIFE. Being an Easy Exposition of the 
 
 Ten Commandments. 32mo, cloth, Gd.
 
 NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS. 
 
 THE DAILY BOUND 
 
 MEDITATION, PRAISE AND PRAYER, 
 
 to flje Bourse of tije Christian 
 
 Ten Editions of this Work are now ready : 
 
 1. Demy 48mo, Cloth, 3s. ; Morocco, 5s. 
 
 2. Demy 48mo, with Red Border lines and 
 
 Ked Initials, Cloth, 3s. Qd. ; Morocco, 
 5s. Qd. 
 
 3. Demy 32mo, Cloth, 3s. ; Turkey Roan, 
 
 gilt edges, 4s. ; Morocco, 5s. Qd. 
 
 4. Demy 32mo, with Red Border lines and 
 
 Red Initials, Cloth, 3s. Qd.; Turkey roan, 
 gilt edges, 4s. Qd. ; Morocco, 6s. 
 
 5.*Imperial 32mo, Cloth, red edges, 3s. ; 
 Turkey Roan, gilt edges, 4s. Qd. .; Mo- 
 rocco, 6s. 
 
 6. Royal 24mo, Cloth, 3s. Qd. ; Turkey 
 Roan, gilt edges, 5s. ; Morocco, 6s. 6d. 
 
 7. Royal 24mo, with Red Border lines and 
 Red Initials, Cloth, 4s. Qd. ; Turkey 
 Roan, gilt edges, 6s. ; Morocco, 7s. 6d. 
 
 8.*Foolscap 8vo, Cloth, red edges, 4s. Qd. ; 
 Turkey Roan, gilt edges, 6s. ; Morocco, 
 9s. 
 
 9. Crown 8vo, Rubricated ; a beautiful 
 PRESENTATION VOLUME, Cloth, 7s. Qd. ; 
 Turkey Roan, gilt edges, 10s. ; Mo- 
 rocco, 14s. 
 
 10. Demy 8vo, Large Type, a most acceptable 
 Present to Aged Persons, Cloth, 10s. 6^.; 
 Morocco, 18s. 
 
 * The Editions thus marked are ordinarily kept in stock by every Bookseller. 
 
 The late BISHOP o* MANCHESTER in writing of the work says : " I have examined and tested ' The 
 Daily Round ' rather oarefuliy,.and find it to be a book after my own heart, calm, sober, well-proportioned, 
 and with an eminently healthy and firm grasp of Christian truth. It appears to me to be framed accord- 
 ing to that ' sound rule of faith ' and that ' sober standard of feeling ' than which the saintly author of the 
 'Christian Year' says 'there is nothing of so much consequence in matters of practical religion,' and 
 which are in such entire harmony with the spirit of the Church of England. It is a book likely to be of 
 much service to many souls, and I wish for it a circulation proportionate to its usefulness." 
 
 The late ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY: "I have examined the book with great interest, and I am 
 glad to be able to testify that those portions of it which I have read seem to me well suited for the purpose 
 for which they have been compiled. I wish the volume all success, and trust that by God's blessing it 
 may be found serviceable to many." 
 
 The " Daily Bound " t* also recommended by the present Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 The late BISHOP p* LONDON : " When I wrote before I was able only to thank you for sending ' The 
 Daily Round.' Having now used the book from time to time, I can from my own experience recommend 
 it'to those who find it helpful to have a note struck to lead their meditations and prayer at leisure, 
 moments." 
 
 The " Daily Round" is alto recommended by the present Bishop of London. 
 
 this work. Under the conviction that religion is 
 for the whole life, and for every hour of life, and 
 not for its close or stray hours, the author has 
 striven to help the reader to do his daily duty in 
 the spirit of the Word of CJod. The plan followed 
 is that suggested by the Church Calendar, so that 
 a systematic consideration of Divine things is 
 ensured." The Christian. 
 
 " This work is aptly described as consisting of 
 meditation, prayer and praise, adapted to the course 
 
 " Nearly every Bishop of all Schools of the 
 Church of England has expressed approval of ' The 
 Daily Hound.' To each day of the Church's year 
 is devoted a single page, not of a sermon nor of a 
 prayer, but of meditation ; and each page has five 
 parts some words of Scripture, a statement of 
 what those words mean, some thoughts and re- 
 flections on practical points, three or four lines of 
 a short and well-conceived collect, and a verse of a 
 hymn. Even a slow reader need not devote more 
 than five minutes per diem to each page; and we 
 shall not be surprised to find ' The Daily Round ' 
 growing into a companion to the Prayer Book, as 
 dearly loved in our times as ' The Whole Duty of 
 Man ' was esteemed in the days of our great grand- 
 fathers." Examiner. 
 
 " Those who feel the need for a manual of medi- 
 tation, prayer and praise for daily use will prize 
 
 of the Christian year, and contains a passage of 
 Scripture, with a brief comment or meditation, and 
 averse for each day in the year. It has been well 
 received, and may fairly be ranked amongst the 
 best works of the class to which it belongs. Issued 
 as it is in elegant binding, it forms a most suitable 
 present for a Christian friend." Bock. 
 
 DAILY LIFE 
 
 ITS TRIALS, DUTIES AND DIFFICULTIES. 
 SHORT PRACTICAL ESSAYS. By the Author of "The Daily Round." Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4s. 6d.
 
 NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS. 
 
 THE UNCANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL SCRIPTURES 
 
 Being the Additions to the Old Testament Canon which were included in the Ancient 
 Greek and Latin Versions ; the English Text of the Authorised Version ; together with 
 the Additional Matter found in the Vulgate and other Ancient Versions, Introductions to 
 the several Books and Fragments, Marginal Notes and References, and a General Intro- 
 duction to the Apocrypha. By the Rev. W. R. CHURTON, B.D., Fellow of King's 
 College, Cambridge ; Canon of the Cathedral of St. Albans, and Examining Chaplain to 
 the Bishop. Crown 8vo, pp. 607, price 7s. Qd. ; morocco, gilt edges, 14s. 
 
 "We strongly recommend to the notice of our 
 readers the scholarlike and most beautifully printed 
 edition of the Apocrypha which Canon Churton has 
 provided for us." Church Quarterly. 
 
 " The books of the Apocrypha were part of the 
 Canon of the Alexandrian Jews, and are found in 
 the Septuagint, not in a place by themselves, as if 
 they were there merely on sufferance, but freely in- 
 terspersed among the other books. Whether in this 
 form they were made use of by the writers of the 
 New Testament, as it is not improbable they would 
 be, has been disputed ; but the Epistle to the He- 
 brews at least seems to echo the ideas, and even the 
 very words, of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. 
 . . . In Scotland, it may be presumed that, ex- 
 cept to students, these writings are scarcely known : 
 
 but many will remember that, some years ago, the 
 selection of a text from the Apocrypha, under the 
 sanction of royalty itself, for the monument to the 
 Prince Consort at Balmoral, called forth a storm of 
 clerical indignation, and was strongly resented as 
 an insult to ' Bible-loving Scotland.' ... To 
 each book there is an introduction, telling all that is 
 known, or can be reasonably conjectured, as to its 
 date and authorship; while 'there is also an admir- 
 able introduction to the entire collection, containing 
 in a small compass much useful information. . . . 
 In every way the work seems complete : and it is 
 well printed and got up. The English reader could 
 not desire a better edition of the Old Testament 
 Apocrypha." Scotsman. 
 
 THE GOSPEL STORY : A Plain Commentary on the Four 
 
 Holy Gospels. Containing the Narrative of our Blessed Lord's Life and Ministry, in 
 simple Language. By the Rev. W. MICHELL, M.A. Two Volumes, fcap. 8vo, cloth, 
 with Map of Palestine, 65. 
 
 " Everyone who knows The Gospel Story will wel- 
 come the new edition. It is revised : it is improved 
 in type and in binding : and it is sold at a lower 
 price. The modest title of the book fails to give an 
 idea of the great store of information and of sound 
 theology that can be found in it. One of the fore- 
 most authorities in the English Church has declared 
 it to be the best commentary on the Gospels we 
 have. There are 907 pages in the two volumes, 
 which contain 463 chapters. Hardly a question 
 which would occur to an ordinary reader of the 
 Gospels does not find clear, full treatment. The way 
 in which deep matters of theology are dealt with so 
 as to set forth the truth in plain form is something 
 
 to thank God for. Those who use one book of re- 
 ligious reading can choose no better. Sunday School 
 teachers will find it a help in trying to bring home 
 to the young the lessons of our Lord's life and 
 words. It is suited to the unlearned and the learned 
 alike. It is so simple that no one can fail to under- 
 stand it, and it is so lull of matter so freshly and 
 forcibly put that no one can fail to learn from it. 
 There is a growing feeling of the value of the words 
 that Christ spoke, and the works that He did which 
 show Him to us. Those who wish for a trustworthy 
 guide through the pages of the Gospels cannot do 
 better than buy The Gospel Story." The Gospeller. 
 
 LIVES OF THE SAINTS. By Rev. S. BARING-GOULD, M.A. 
 
 Mr. "WHITAKER having purchased the Copyright of this popular Work, with the stock, is 
 now preparing an entirely New Edition, with about Five Hundred beautiful Illustrations. 
 
 The New Edition will form Seventeen Volumes, large crown 8vo, and will be issued in $ 
 handsome cloth binding. Each Volume contains the complete list of Saints for the month, 
 except July, October, and November, which are in Two Volumes. Of Vol. XVI. (the Index) 
 some copies will be printed on paper in tone and size uniform with the first edition, so that 
 persons wishing to complete their sets may do so. 
 
 EMBLEMS OF SAINTS, by which they are distinguished in 
 
 Works of Art. By the late Very Rev. F. C. HUSENBETH, V. G. Provost of Northampton. 
 Edited by the Rev. AUGUSTUS JESSOP. With numerous additions. (Forming Vol. XVII. 
 or Supplement to BARING-GOULD.)
 
 
 A 000123964 9