Full text of "Acts of the church, 1531-1885. 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"

See other formats

Digitized by

the Internet Archive

in 2015

https://archive.org/details/actsofchurch153100joyc

ACTS OF THE CHURCH
1531—1885

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, MA., 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 Bishop 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 Ven. 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.s 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.

ElUs, 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 Ven. 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.
Habfax, 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.
Hayrnan, The Rev. Canon, D.D., Aldinghain,TJlverston.
Hay ward, 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. V ilrnot, 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. Jarnes 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 Rev. T. Ayscough, M.A., Tenbury.
Smith, The Very Rev. 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., Kirkby Lonsdale.
Warner, The Rev. Prebendary C, M.A., Clun (two
copies).

Weyman, H. T., Esq., Ludlow, Salop.

Whitefoord, The Rev. B., M.A., Principal of Theolo-
gical College, Salisbury.

Whitefoord, The Rev. Caleb, M.A., Whitton, Tenbury.

Wight, The Rev. Alfred, M.A., Ludlow.

WiUiams, 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.

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

JAMES WAYLAND JOYCE M.A.

LATE STUDENT OP CH. OH, RECTOR OF Bt'RFORD [THIRD TORTION] CO. SALOP PREBENDARY OF HEREFORD
AND FORMERLY A PROCTOR IN CONVOCATION FOR THE CLERGY OF THAT DIOCESE

Author of " England's Sacred Synods" " Ecclcsia Vindicata" "The Sword and the Keys"
"The Latin Sermon" preached before the Provincial Synod of Canterbury Feb. 2,1800
in St. Paul's Cathedral London etc. tic. &c

HonUon

J. WHITAKER 12 WARWICK LANE PATERNOSTER ROW

1886

©ifovT)

PRINTED BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY.

TO THE RIGHT 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
RECEIVED AT HIS HANDS,
THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY ONE WHO WHEN IN HEALTH WAS HIS
EXAMINING CHAPLAIN

THE AUTHOR.

Burford Rectory, Tenbuuy,
October, 1885.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
PART I.

THE ORIGIN, CONSTITUTION, AND PROPER FUNCTIONS
OF THE CHURCH'S REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES.

PAGE

Ancient Territorial Divisions for 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 Rome .... 18

Locality of Interview between British Bishops and Augustine li)
Metropolitan Jurisdiction finally confined to Canterbury and

York 22

CONTENTS.

TAGE

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 S2

Enactment of Canons 32

Authorization of Liturgical Formularies 33

Statutable Jurisdiction of Convocations over " Kings' Causes " 35

IV.

Synods of the Exarchate.

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. 1531—1562-3.

The Reformation Inaugurated by Conyocatioxal
Action. ■

King Henry YIIL, his Courtiers and Favomites, unpromising

as Reformers 50

Royal Title — " So far as the Law of Christ permits, even

Supreme Head" 53

CONTENTS.

Yll

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

Convocational 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 Cypeitjm 79

II.

The Reformation Promoted 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 Refobmation 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

viii

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. 1562-3—1718.

General Review of Synodical Acts after the
Completion of the Reformation.

PAGE

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

Enactment of the 141 Canons of 1603-4.

Review of some Synodical Events in King James T.'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

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

PAGE

Parliamentary Flowers of Bhetoric 177

Parliamentary Precautions against Subsidies being voted by

the Convocations 181

Monetary Transactions between Parliament and the Scotch for

the Purchase of tbe King's Person 184

Nemesis of Fate overtakes this House of Commons . . 187

IV.

Compilation and Synodical Authorization of the
pbesent " Book of Common Peayee."

Authority of the present " Book of Common Prayer " . . 189

Bepublican tender Mercies 190

Schemes for Bestoring a " Book of Common Prayer" . . 192

First Essay at Liturgical Bevision, Savoy Conference . . 193

Second Essay at Liturgical Bevision, by Parliament . . 194

Parliamentary Prayer Book 195

Capacity of "Members of the Long Bobe" 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 Batification, Canterbury and York . . . 231

Civil Sanction accorded to the " Book of Common Prayer " . 240

Bejection of the "Comprehension" Liturgy.

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

of England 248

" Comprehension" Liturgy abandoned 249

Synodical Action suspended 250

CONTENTS.

VI.

Suspension of Synodical Action in the Church
of England.

PAGE

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 OF THE CONVOCATIONS
AFTER THE REVIVAL OF SYNODICAL ACTION.

1852—1885.
I.

Revival of Synodical Action.

Measures taken for the Revival of Synodical Action . . 264
Resistance of the two Metropolitans 265

II.

Summary of the most memorable Acts of the Convo-
cations since the Revival of Synodical Action.
Summary of Acts 266

III.

Convocations Convened 1852, Dissolved 1857.

Canterbury . 268

York 269

IV.

Convocations Convened 1857, Dissolved 1859.

Canterbury . . . . 271

York 271

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

Tori 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

Tori 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

Revision 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

Revision 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 310

Revision of Rubrics 310

Important Revision of a Rubric in the Communion Service . 312
Measure suggested for obtaining Ecclesiastical Legislation in

Parliament 313

York 314

xii

CONTENTS.

IX.

Convocations Convened 1880.

PAGE

Canterbury 315

Ac cession 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.

Convocations in Connexion with the Ceown.

Royal Writ for Convention 321

Letter of Business 322

Licence to enact Canons 322

Writ of Prorogation 322

Writ of Dissolution 323

Peoceedings befoee Assembly.

A peculiarity of English Provincial Synods .... 324
Privilege of Freedom from Arrest pertaining to Members of

the Convocations 325

Proceedings on Assembly 329

IV.

Peoceedings in Session.

Separation into two Houses 332

Proceedings in Upper House 333

Proceedings in Lower House 333

Conclusion 336

CONTENTS.

Xlll

APPENDIX.

Royal Writ for Convention.

PAGE

Writ of King Edward III 342

Writ of King Henry VIII 342

Writ of Queen Victoria 343

Metropolitan's Mandate and other Instruments
for 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

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

Royal Assent and Licence to Enact, Promulge, and
Execute Canons.

Explanation of the Instrument 359

xiv

CONTENTS.

PAGB

Synodical Bequest to Queen Elizabeth for Royal 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 hi this genera-
tion 370

Royal "Weit and Metropolitan's Mandate for
Prorogation.

Writ of Queen Victoria for Prorogation 373

Mandate of Metropolitan for Prorogation .... 374

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

"Submission of the Clergy," and Extracts from
"Clergy Submission Act."

Form of Submission 376

Comments thereon 377

Clergy Submission Act 378

Comments thereon 379

Royal 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

REFERRED TO IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES.

Atterbury. — Eights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Con-
vocation.
Ayliffe. — 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 Eeformation.
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 Rebellion.
Coke. — Institutes — Reports.
Colenso. — Pentateuch and Book of Joshua.
Collier. — Ecclesiastical History.
Comyn — Digest.

Concilia Magnae Britanniae, 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 — Synodus Anglicana.

Gladstone. — Church in its Relations to the State.

Godwin. — De Prassulibus.

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.

Hussey. — Church from the Beginning until Now.

Ignatius. — Epistles.

Inett. — Origines Anglicanae.

IrenjEus. — Adv. Haereses.

Johnson. — Canons — Vade Mecum.

Keeling. — Liturgies.

Kennett. — Ecclesiastical Synods — Complete History of EDgland.

King. — Primitive Church.

Labbe and Cossart. — Coimcils.

Landon. — Manual of Councils.

Lathbury. — History of Convocation.

Lyndwood. — Provinciale.

Matthew Paris.

Mosheim. — Ecclesiastical History.

MSS. and Collections. — In British Museum (inspected). — In
State Paper Office, now Polls (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 Centmy.

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 Britannicae.

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 tbe Clergy.

Warner. — Ecclesiastical History.

Wheatley. — On the Common Prayer.

Wilkins. — Epistolaris Dissertatio.

Woodeson . — Lectures.

Wordsworth.— Greek Testaments — Theophilus Anglicanus.

THE CHUKCH OF ENGLAND
HER OWN REFORMER.

INTRODUCTION.

The history of the Church of England, more es-
pecially as it relates to times since the Keformation,
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 Realm, Proclamations, Eoyal 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.

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 Magnas 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.

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

IXTRODUCTIOX.

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 Eeformation 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 Eeforma-
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 PROPER
FUNCTIONS OF THE CHURCH'S REPRE-
SENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES.

ANCIENT TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS FOR CHURCH
GOVERNMENT.

The ancient territorial divisions of the Church early

HISTOE1

for her government were — (1) Diocese (TrapoiKia).

(2) Province (exa^/a), a combination of Dioceses.

(3) Exarchate or Patriarchate (Siolicrio-is), 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.

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part I. 2.

II.

DIOCESAN SYNODS.

early In the Diocesan Svnod the Bishop sat in

HISTORY* "

' conjunction with all the Presbyters of his Dio-

tion of a cese. The earliest example we have is that
s^odSan 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 svnon vinous with Presbyters. Conformablv

DIOCESAN SYNODS.

with these facts, there is a vision recorded by early

HISTORY

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

form f

in England may thus shortly be described. The holding an
Priests of the Diocese went in solemn procession Diocesan
to the church appointed by the Bishop, taking Synofl
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, " Kise 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
" Veni 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

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part I. 2.

early then a solemn benediction. The benedictions

HISTORY.

were somewhat different at the close of each

tions. 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.
Eorromeo's 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.

" bonds of the closest union. But what are those early

HISTOR1

" who are here assembled ? Alas ! ray 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
" 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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part I. 2.

early " [they are our Lord's own words] shall agree

HISTORY. . J °

" 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 , . . ^

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 Synods held in England

Diocesan .

Synods. before the Reformation may be found abundantly
in the pages of the " Concilia Magnse Britanniae,"
and the forms with which they were celebrated

DIOCESAN SYNODS.

may be seen in Vol. iii. p. 681 of that work, early

HISTOR1

The book " Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum,'
compiled at the period of the Reformation, 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 Ridding at Southwell in 1885.

Of late years many Diocesan "Conferences" Diocesan
have assembled. Those are mixed assemblies of enceiT
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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part I. 3.

early the late most learned and revered Bishop Words-

HISTOKY. .

worth of Lincoln : " It is my intention," wrote

Bishop i -r> • i i • ... .

C. Words- the Bishop. " to have two distinct institutions m
Letter. " 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 emphaticallv

Provincial

organiza- that of the Church of England, may be traced to
the earliest, even to apostolic times. Timothy is

Horn. xv. in reported by St. Chrysostom to have been en-
trusted with the supervision of the whole of

PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

Proconsular Asia, in which were several Bishops, early

HISTORY

And it is affirmed moreover that Titus was
charged with the oversight of the Churches of Hon?!78'
Crete, and to have superintended the whole m 1 '
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 Csesarea pre-
sided ; in that of Rome, Victor ; in that of
France, Irenseus 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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part I. 3.

Ancient
form of
holding a
Provincial
Synod.

early " each Province ought to own him who is

HISTORY

' " 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."

The ancient forms of proceeding in holding
Provincial Synods may be found in full detail laid
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. Brums, 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.

" tlie Presbyters who have a right of entrance be eakly

" HISTORY

" 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
''silently with tears and lamentations. Let one
" 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, 'Rise 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

ACTS OF THE CHUECH.

[Part I. 3.

early "the Council, saving, 'See, most holy Priests,

HISTORY

' " ' from the 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.

tiou. Provincial organization was established here

PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

in England in verv early times. There were ori- early

. . HISTORY

ginally tliree 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, Restitutus 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

r . . Augustine.

a.d. 600 [Kanulplms gives as the date 599,
Angelocrator G01, Spelman 601, Balaeus 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

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part I. 3.

early were accompanied by many most learned Clergv ;

HISTORY.

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 Roman 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 Roman 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."
indepen- Eor the conditions he demanded of them were

deuce of

British not so much terms of brotherly communion as
on Rome, confessions of submission and inferioritv. " If,"
said he, "in these three things you will obey

rROYIN'CIAL SYNODS.

" me, then will I bear with all other things." early

HISTORY

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.

111 l n i Cone. i. 708,

" doubt unto you, that we all are and every from
" one of us obedient and subject to the Church mss5™
" of God, and to the Pope of Rome, and to every orfg^Brit.
" godly Christian, to love every one in his degree rp' ' ' seq'
'• 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
the seven British Bishops and Augustine the Monk Augustine.

d 2

ACTS OF THE CHUKCH.

[Part r. 3.

early took place has afforded matter for some discus-

[ISTORY.

' 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

PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

1732 that original trunk was certainly standing early

HISTORY

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 Rector of ' The Rock,' 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 Rock' is only a corruption
" of the old Anglo-Saxon ' Da3n 3!c ' — ' 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 :
" 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

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part I. 3.

early boundary between the Dioceses of Hereford and

"HISTORY

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'

1 1 1 'i i \ inns- t

diction " Oak," some of the Dioceses of the Welsh Bishops
finedlyto°n became subject to the Metropolitical See of Can-
IndTork7 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.

merged into the Southern Province. The Con- early

HISTORY

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 yno s<
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 Error touch-
been current in some quarters that these Pro- Sfgin of
vincial Synods originated in the reign of King tjong°';a"
Edward L, and by that monarch were created. munienteT
This error has been published chiefly by legal clause-'
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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part 1. 3.

early in 1 282, which proved a failure : and subsequently

ISTORY . . . .

m 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,
" Pnemunientes," a barbarism for " Preemonen-
"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" Praemunientes" 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 Sv-

PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

nods is manifest from the simple fact, not to early

HISTORY*

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 " Prgemunientes " 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 Eegistry at Wor-
cester Cathedral [Peg. 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.

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part I. 3.

early King Edward I. in calling the Clergv to tax

HISTORY. "

' them in 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 . »> i

called to liament by the " Prsemunientes clause in each
l>v the Bishop's writ of -summons to Parliament is con-
entes"nU tinued to this hour. And were any Bishop now
to execute the writ in accordance with the Koyal
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 Koyal commands
are not lightly respected. It might, perchance,
be pleaded by the bewildered officials, as an

PKOVINCTAL SYNODS.

excuse for not finding accommodation for the early

. HISTORY

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 Richard 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,

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Tart 1. 3.

early p. 4, pi. xviii. c. after Archbishops' and Bishops'

I STORY.

'summonses, folio 21. It is further here ob-
servable that in the Statutes 21 Eich. II. c. 2,
and 21 Eich. 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 " Prremunientes "
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 Svnods 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 clucta viros antiques ab origine gentis."

Vieg. .En. i. 641-2.

PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

As above said, from the time when the early

HISTORY

Province of Caerleon-upon-Usk was merged into

Canterbury, the two Provincial Synods of Can-

tion of the

terbury and York became the representatives of s^^or
the whole Church in England and Wales. From ^rIoT
a consideration of their ancient origin and extent ^York7
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 Svnod 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,

ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Tart I. 3.

early three Bishops not having territorial Sees, and

' one 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 officially of
the Chapter of Durham. But in one respect
York diners 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 Koyal Writ to summon to his Provincial

1 Not including Proctors for the Archdeaconry of Cleveland, omitted
in the official list, 1883.

PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

Synod " totum clerum." Under these circum- early

HISTORY

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, ciai synods

n i 11 i f ii or Convoca-

may generally be ranked under live heads — tions.
(1) 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 Prescrip-
Canons, in the 60th Canon of the Synod of Canon of
Laodicea, and in the 47th Canon of the Third Scnpture'
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 A rticles then ratified.

(2) The promulgation of symbols of doctrinal Promulga-
belief has been one of the prime duties of symbols of
Synods in all ages. It was a function here alt "
exercised in the promulgation of the 8th Article

32 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part T. 3.

early of the Church of England, which specifies the
history. j.jiree (3reec|s as symbols of faith which "ought

" thoroughly to be received and believed."
Condemna- (3) The condemnation of false doctrine by

tion of false . . . 1 • i i

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 Wins-
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. „ . 1 <» n

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.

Canon or Canons. Drafts made of the conclu- eaely

HISTORY

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
Clergy. Such Canons are thus " enacted " and
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 Eoyal 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 Authoriza-
of Provincial Synods is the authorization of Li - liturgical
turgies and Ritual. In early times, and notably lanes.

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part 1.3.

early in this country, liturgies sometimes varied in

' different Dioceses 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 1(366, 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
Con vocational 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.

by the York Synod to attend in London, as shall early

HISTORY

hereafter be shewn in detailing that event.

One jurisdiction which has been conferred on statutable

T> ■ • 1 CI" ' J ■ v i jurisdiction

our rrovmcial Synods is a peculiar one, not of Convoca-
common to Synods of the Church generally, but "Kings'*
here consequent on two Statutes of the realm — Causea-
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, AylifTe, 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 forementioned decisions

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part 1.4.

early of two of our law courts should be, to say the

' least, carefully 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
AioiKT]<ns 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.

arraigned, he shall have no appeal from the de- early

HISTORY.

cision of a Synod 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 of the3
our Provincial Synods into one body, that is, a Exarchate-
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 Romish 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 Canterbury and York Synods 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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Tart 1.4.

early 1562-3, when members of both Synods united

HISTORY. . .

for the ratification of the 39 Articles, as appears

from their heading.
Authority The authority to unite our two Provincial

to convene „ .

a synod of Synods into a Synod oi the Exarchate was spe-
Exarchate. 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 —
Conc.M. b. " So that if the Archbishop of Canterburj7 should
Coll. 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 siatutally 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 EXARCHATE.

should still be in force and executed, until a re- early

jj I STORY

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, UI>
to a Synod of the Exarchate, involves a some-
what 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 G34, 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, onCh^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, R.'^p.'ii.
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

ACTS OF THE CHUIiCH.

[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 Anselm to the See of Canterbury,
the instrument of his election was objected to
Godwin by the Metropolitan of York. This was Thomas I.,

de Prsesul. 1 ' i i • i

pt. 2, p. 23, who is represented as having been a very para-
Gu°iLU° gon, in body, of fine stature, comely in youth

Malmesbur. t t t • • 1 1 t t i •

and handsome m 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 Anselm's election,

SYNODS OF THE EXAECHATE.

inasmuch as it designated the Church of Canter- early

„ HISTORY.

Lury " Totius Anglise Metropolitana." And it must

he 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 Canterbury Coiiier.Kec.
lias 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
politan of York — a man youthful in age, and pro- jurisdiction
portionably vigorous in enterprize ; and though bury,
exceedingly fat, by no means lazy in action. ™T de
Indeed the preponderance of his bulk does not q^ting 28'
seem to have repressed the vaulting motions of ^inesbur
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,

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1.4.

early and there was a general consensus among those

HISTORY

' Prelates, that " they would rather part with all

" they had " than transgress the rights and
decisions of Anselm.
Godwin de However, about the year 1 1 1 9, the most vigorous
Pt. 2, p. 29, endeavours were made to emancipate the York
Guii. ° Province from any subordination to Canterbury.
net, nr. ^ 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 Ranulphus 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 Rheims. Thither
Thurstan proposed to betake himself, to secure a
victory over Ranulphus. 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- .

Neubri- In 1176 a somewhat exceptionable method for
Stubbesius. asserting his independence on the See of Can-

SYNODS OF THE EXARCHATE.

terbury was adopted by a York Metropolitan, early

HISTORY.

This was Koger, of whom an unfriendly writer

lias 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- pt^pp.
bishop of Canterbury was certainly somewhat odd. 112~13-
For being cited to attend at a Council at West-

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part 1.4.

early minster before Hugo, the Pope's Legate, a seat was

' designed for the York Metropolitan on the left of

that personage, one for Richard, the Archbishop
of Canterbury, being placed on the right. Eoger,
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
Pt. 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 EXAIiCHATE.

field in the very next vear, 1306, promulged at eaely

HISTOR1

Ripon a Canon, " excommunicating any of 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 Ripon, last mentioned, Present

. state of

manifestly [so far as it was of force] annini- 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 Royal." 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 Ripon 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,

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part 1.4.

early and whether or not the Metropolitan of York

[ISTOBY

' and his Provincial Synod would be bound to give

attendance3 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 Re-
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 1 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 Convocations sive Synodo
Prelatorum et cseteri Cleri seu Provincialis sen Nationalis in ipso
statim cujnslibet sessionis initio solemniter recitanda. Londini,
typis Car. Bill et Tho. Newcomb, Regia? Majeatati typogr. 1689. 4 to.

SYNODS OF THE EXAECIIATE.

The forms of proceeding in a Synod of the Ex- early

archate in England are specially described in va-

rions parts of the " Concilia Magnse Britannise," proceeding
and may thus be condensed: On arriving at the StL7*0
church, the place of meeting, where preparations EaLchate.
had been previously made by providing seats ris- f0™' ^8f'
ing in the form of steps from the ground, the mem- 493.
bers took their places in denned order. The Arp' /8G'
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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part T.4.

early explained the cause of the meeting ; formal

HISTORY

' 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 Svnod 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-
a Synod of rately, each in its usual place, for 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 EXAKCHATE.

A third method for securing the authority of early

HISTOS1

our two Provincial Synods has been to ratiiy —
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
July 5 next ensuing.

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.
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
pnges.

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.

1531—1562-3.

THE REFORMATION INAUGURATED BY CONYO-
CATIONAL ACTION.

Metro- IT ]ias been a somewhat exceptionable method

politans : _ m A

Warham, with historians, certainly an inconsiderate one,
ee* to refer the origin and progress of the Eeforma-
vm.^iSs tion of religion in this country solely to the
andfavour- humours of King Henry VIII., the influences
misinfTas0" °f n*s courtiers, and the proceedings of his
Reformers, favourites. 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

INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 51

and practice in the Church of England. And sovereign:
these methods of advancement appear to a com- K'Viii.ry
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-

ACTS OF THE CI1UECH. [Part II. 1.

Metro-
politans :
Warham,
Lee,

vice, and temples consecrated to His honour,
were very precious in 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 triie sovereign:
reformation in religion is surely not to be set K'v"ii.ry
to the account of such apostles as these. 1547"

That national blessing, fraught with treasure —
not of this world, must be ascribed to a very
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 Royal title,

J "So far as

as follows. the law of

r\ V l tit 1 i Christ per-

Lardmal Wolsey, when in favour with King mits, even
Henry, had received a pallium from Borne, and Head:"6

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1.

Metro- with the King's earnest and active help had,

politans :

warham, with that Papal flourish of legatine authority,
x*e' 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. Sd.,
and the Clergy of the Province of York £"18,840
0s. lOcl. 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 Kv"ii.ry
do so. After long and earnest discussions with

<-> 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

liii i i resistance of

of Papal Supremacy should have been expressed the church
on this occasion by the Convocations. For from to thneSlaml
the earliest times downwards continual protests ments of
against the encroachments of Rome had been Rome'
common on the part of this Church and her
chief authorities. The memorable refusal of Sup. pP. 17
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. p. 72.
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

ACTS OF THE CIIUECII. [Part II. 1.

Metro- National Synod of Osterfield, a.d. 701, under

politans : .

warham, Archbishop Berthwald, when Wilfrid, the cham-
I,ee' pion of the Pope's cause, reproached the members

Cotm^lssoi. °f the Synod with having openly opposed the

Co^'Ji. Papal authority for " twenty-two years together."

1382-5. But the National Synod of Osterfield, notwith-
standing this boastful flourish of reproach, de-
creed that " the See of Home 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 Roman Pontiff. These were meant
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. e. 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^ii.ry
to proclaim the independence of this National
Church.

A conspicuous instance of the determination
of this Church in Britain to maintain her in-
dependence on Rome may be found in the pro-
ceedings of a National Synod held a.d. 969. Cone. m. b.
Archbishop Dunstan had excommunicated a *' 8'
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

ACTS OF THE CITUKCH. [Part IT. I.

Metro- " the preservation of my own life." And the
warhTm, Archbishop maintained his determination until
1,661 the offender submitted to penance.

Not only in regard to discipline do we find
these examples of independence on Rome 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 Eoman authority, as may be seen
by reference to Johnson's " Canons," i. 362, and
S. Turner, to Hevlin's "History of the Sabbath." And, fur-

Hist v

Angio- ther, as regarded the translation of Holy Scrip-
iii. p?43i. ture into the vulgar tongue, the practice of this
Church was entirely opposed to that of Rome.
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 Ano-lo-Saxon Church differed widelv
inett, orig. from that of the Roman. The Roman doctrine

Ang. pp.350 . . tit

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

INAUGUBATION OF THE REFORMATION". 59

significance are found : " This sacrifice of the sovereign:
" Eucharist is not our Saviour's Body in which K"v*iii.ry
"He suffered for us, nor His Blood which He ™*y
" 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.

„ . . Ang. p. 355.

or " Low Mass," celebrated by a single priest,
as now practised in the Koinan 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

ACTS OF THE CUVEC'lI. [Tart II. 1.

Metro- Anglo-Saxon Church did differ from the Roman

politans :

warham, 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
Thierry, in his See, and exercised all his Archiepiscopal

Nor. Conq. _ x A

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. Gl

cause against the Anglo-Saxon nation and Anglo- sovereign.-
Saxon Church. Not only were the Anglo-Saxon KVrii.ry
Prelates, including the Archbishop of Canterbury
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.

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 Rome 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 Roman Legate.
King Henry III. forwarded the designs of the
Papacy by encouraging legatine Synods in this
country, ten of which were held during his

ACTS OF THE CTIUKCH. [Part II. 1.

Metro- reign. And he made himself notorious by tak-
warham," mg Par^ with the Legates Otho and Rustand 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

i. 647. ° .

the English Clergy were treated by these Roman
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

Hist. ii. . . . .

484. Paris describes m 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,

INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. C>3

no better than farmers and servants to the Court sovereign:
of Rome, who glean up the wealth of the country K'v?ii.ry
for the pride and luxury of their masters ; and \5^~
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 Roman tyranny.
Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, protested
vehemently against the aggressions made against
his Metropolitan See. Sewall, Archbishop of York, Coll. 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.
Rustand, 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

ACTS OF THE CHUECH.

[Part II. 1.

Metro-
politans :
Warliam,
Lee.

" to such an overthrow." And, further, against
this union of Koyal 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 Boman 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 Praemunire which forbid appeals to
Rome. With this request Chicheley absolutely
declined to comply, which so exasperated Pope

INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. C5

Martin V. that he issued a Bull to suspend the sovereign:
Archbishop from his office. But this document K'v^ii.ry
the Archbishop wholly ignored, and continued \5££r~

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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1.

Metro- of King Henry VI., a.d. 1439, when the Canter-
warhamj bury Provincial Synod met in London under
I,ee" Archbishop Chichelev, a Bull from Eome 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 Eome, and the pretensions of the
Eoman 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 Eome.

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 Rome. And it has been sovereign:
thought that this was done on occasion by the K v*rii.ry

connivance of our Sovereigns ; otherwise, in face

° ' 1547.

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 mau.

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 m" ?64'
" 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,

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1.

Metro- " as God hath willed for that purpose, who be
warham', " the Clergy." And again, when the Royal style
I,ee" and title was afterwards confirmed by Statute,
we learn the same from a MS. discovered by Mr.
Froude in the Bolls' Kecords. That MS. runs
Froude's as follows : The King does not " pretend there-
VoL iiEp° " by to take any power from the successors of the
" Apostles 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

invokes aid . . . ,

of the civil proposal was made, m a petition directed to the
repressing Crown by Convocation, that statutable measures
exactions, might be taken for emancipating this nation
from Koman 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 Roman 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 Roman
Curia. They complain to His Majesty, in a
somewhat satirical strain, that the fees exacted
for legal instruments sealed at the Court of Rome

INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. G9

and thence issued were excessive ; assuring the sovereign:
King that "parchment and lead be very dear K'v"ii.ry
"merchandize at Borne, and in some cases an }5J*}r

' 1547.

" hundred times more worth than the weight „ ~

J Strype s

" or counterpoise of fine gold." Further, they Mem. ^ ^
inform His Majestv that the Court of Rome p- 158.

Cleopatra,

" getteth by this means and many other much e. 6, P. 263.
" goods 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.

A.CTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1.

Metro- In the year 1532 an event occurred familiarly

wariam, known as " The Submission of the Clergy,"

1,661 which now requires attention. On April 12,

"Submis- m the year last mentioned, Archbishop Warham

sion of the <* I

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 Eoyal 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

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'Viii.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 Royal 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 Clergv "
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 Reformation 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-

lhe 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.

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1.

Metro- in 1533 and 1534 respectively. The 9th section

politans : _ v

cranmer, of the first, confirmed by the 3rd section of
lee' 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

tional juris- _ 1 . . _ . .

diction in .Ecclesiastical causes " touching the King- were

causes

" touching referred, not to any Ecclesiastical or Civil Court
e m°' 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
Cranmer brought into the Synod 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. K'v*rii.ry

The enquiry in the case of Catharine of Arra-
gon in truth succeeded immediately upon the 1 1

& . Queen

enactment of the clause in the " Great Statute Catharine ^

, . P l n t-i i • • i °^ 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.
" was unlawful to marry a deceased brother's
" wife ; " and that such a " prohibition of the

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1.

Lee,

Cone. M. B.
iii. 767.

Metro- " Divine law could not be dispensed with by

politans: . _ „ . .

cranmer, " the rope. 1 he same conclusion was arrived
at in the York Convocation by 51 votes to 2.
Subsequently, Archbishop Cranmer held a Court
at Dunstable 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
Vol. ix. in 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, but appear'd not."

Hen. VUL 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 YIII. 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's

divorce. Convocational jurisdiction in "Kings' Causes"
was exemplified in the case of Anne Boleyn's
subsequent divorce three years afterwards, in

INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 75

1536. In June of that year the sentence of sovereign:
divorce was agreed to in the Canterbury Convo- K'v"ii.ry
cation, and the necessary seals and signatures of
the members were attached to the instrument. Conc M B
A third instance of the exercise of this Con- iiL 803-

... . . > n " Nullifica-

vocational jurisdiction m " Kings Causes tion of the

_ - , marriage of

occurred m 1540. bo tar as the arrangements Anne of
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.

„ /N • m- 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. 852.
of Norfolk and Suffolk, the Lord High Admiral
Eussell, 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-

ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. [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

Hist vCC64 Thomas Cromwell's hand. Finally, after long
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

announce- . .

ments in somewhat surprising that the learned Justices
of Common of the Court of Common Pleas should have in

I^lscis unci

Exchequer, our times affirmed that, " after due enquiry and
Court c. p. « investigation, no instance has been found of

May 27, .

1850. " 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,

juTy8,i850. they announced to the world that it was a " fact

INAUGURATION OF THE REFORMATION. 77

" that no appeal to Convocation ever has taken sovereign:
"place during the three centuries which have K'v*rii.ry
" elapsed since the passing of these Statutes." \s^~
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. Formal
However, many late experiences in this respect rejection
may easily reconcile him to the belief. As we ^uptr®m£cy
proceed he will have such belief confirmed by vocations of

... . 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 fonnaw

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 1.

Metro- the Church of England was reallv laid bv the

lita s. ^ "

crammer 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 Rome 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 MSS., Ch. Ch. Library,
ad ann. 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
Reformation. 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. Bod. 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"^[ii.ry
Dioceses. That learned person also declared

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 the jus
were a rightful assertion of the principle known CYPB UM"
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 Roman Pontiffs. " Let no Bishops," runs that
Canon, "go beyond their Diocese [Exarchate]

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part H. 1.

Metro- " to Churches beyond their bounds, nor disturb

poli t an s :

cranmer, " tlie Churches. According to the Canons, let
I,eeV " 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 occuj)ation or seizure, let him make
" restitution, lest the Canons of the Holy Fathers
" be transgressed," &c.

It is here admitted that this last-mentioned

PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 81

Canon does not appear in all editions of the sovereign:
Ephesine Canons. But when it is remembered K"v"ii.ry
that to defend an unwarrantable usurpation in x8?l~

1 1547.

Africa a local Sardican Canon was impudently Neander
vouched by the Eoman Curia for an (Ecume- Ed\^r-,u?f

•/ pp. 157 D,

nical Canon of Nice, it is easier to believe that 160 r» 20'2-
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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro, of Christianity, was the practice adopted in
Cxanmer" tliis 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,

ca\ corro-
borated by from earliest times, themselves sought the help

t'lVll till- •

thoritv in of the Civil power to corroborate their Spiritual

early times. auj-]lor^y_ J{ wag |ne force 0f 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. iU. " that it was unlawful for him who was not in
pp. 443-4. u ^e holy order of the Episcopate to intermix
" in Ecclesiastical discussions." " Princes," we
learn from Justinian, the Nestor of Jurispru-

PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 83

dence, " have rightly promulged laws conform- sovereign:
"able to the Synodical Canons, indicating that K'v"ii.ry
" the sanctions of the Spiritualty are deservedly
" corroborated by the approbation of Royal 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

ACTS OF THE CHUECH.

[Part II. 2.

Metro- of King Henry VI., to a Parliamentary petition

politans :

cranmer, 011 an Ecclesiastical matter, that Sovereign re-
I,ee' plied tliat " 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 Eeformation 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.

In the reign of King Henry VIII., Convoca- sovereign:
tions compiled or sanctioned in 1536 the Ten KVm*ry
Articles of that year. In 1537, the " Institution 153i-
" of a Christian Man." In 1542, " The New and Smn^
" Expurgated Edition of the Sarum Use." In <* Synodicai

i o Acts pro-

1543, " The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition motins ^d

" completing

" of any Christian Man." In 1544, " The English the Refbr-

_ mation.

" Keformed 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 Coelibacy of the Clergy."
In 1548, "The Order of the Communion." In
1549, "The First Keformed Prayer Book." In
1552-3 the 42 Articles of Eeligion of that date.
In the same year, as ratified by the 35th of
those Articles, the Second Reformed Prayer Book.
And, finally, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in
1562-3, the present 39 Articles of Religion, 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 Reformation 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,

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro-
politans :
Cranmer,
Lee.

fications.

the decisions of the Spiritualty, and were
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 bea;in with the first Acts

of the dates . .

ofSynodicai of Parliament touching doctrine, ritual, or dis-

Acts and , . .

civil rati- ciplme, passed m the reign of King Henry VIII.,
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 Eome
and refer them to the Sovereign of this country ;
secondly, to subject the Clergy to these three

PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION.

disabilities: (l) That they should not be con- sovereign:
vened in their Convocations without the pre- K'v"ii.ry
vious issue of a " Koyal Writ." (2) That they i*JJ-

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,

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro- " then it was declared, interpreted, and shewed,

Cranmer, "ty that Par* °f the sa^ body politic Called

1,66 • " 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 Rome therein specified, and the
relegation of them to the Crown of England: that
was subsequent to and consequent upon the Acts
Coil. of the Canterbury Convocation on Feb. 11, 1531,
w?°i8?ls,t' and the Acts of the York Convocation on May 4,
Cone m b. 253i • 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 K,v^ii.ry
consented ; and, moreover, were defined in the

Statute — " ipsissimis verbis " — in the very words

which the Clergy had themselves used and au-
thorized in Convocation on May 15, 1532.

1{tThe 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
11th 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 Cono. m. b.
the King that such a course might be pursued. Ul" ' ' °~6'

1 A fuller detail of the following matter has already appeared
in "England's Sacred Synods," by the same author. (Rivingtons,
1855.)

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro- To the next Koval Proclamation, concerning

politans :

cranmer, " Heresies, ' the same argument wholly applies.
I,ee' 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,

"'• 719-54' 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. iii. the Articles of 1536], which had been subscribed

803—17

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
"Beligion" next followed in 1536. But this
document states upon the face of it that the

PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 91

King intendeth, " by advice of his Prelates and Sovereign:
" Clergy " [a term notoriously signifying Synodi- K'v^ii.ry
cal authority]. " to enforce uniformity." issi-

- J " 1547.

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 thev received Roval assent. But this
divorce, being a matter of Ecclesiastical cogniz-
ance, had been previously adjudged in Convoca- Cone, m. b.
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 Rome " 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. ts.
stated.

In the same session the Statute [28 Hen.
VIII. 16] " For the Release of such as have ob-
" tained pretended Licences, &c, from the Bishop
"of Rome" 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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro- should be placed on devotions paid to images.
cranmeV, But the Articles referred to had been previously
I,ee" ratified by Convocation, a fact to which these
Injunctions themselves bear witness, on the
Cone. m. b. preceding 11th 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 Synoclical authority on the preceding
Ibid. iii. 11th 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

803, 823.

817

FROJIOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 93

" whole realm, to be assembled in our Convoca- sovereign:
" tion, for the full debatement and determination K'v"ii.ry
" of the same."

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
1 9th 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
" and 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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Pan II. 2.

Metro- " of England " was next issued. But this
cranmeV, instrument declares upon its face that all such

Lee.

rites and ceremonies are enjoined " as have
" heen 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-
Conc 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.

doctrines and ceremonies, to settle a point of sovereign:
discipline, and to obliterate from the Calendar K'vxi"y
Thomas a Becket's day. But Convocation had "3i-

1547.

applied previously to the Crown, on Dec. 19, 1534, c^ B
on the subject of restraining suspected books, m. 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.803,

* 8^0 8*21—2

and as to the " putting down the day of Thomas

" Becket " his canonization, " made only by the

" Bishop of Home," 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 Beligion," 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,

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part II. 2.

Metro- 1540. But the question of this nullification, being
Cranmer, 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-
SuP. 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
" Eecords 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 thev 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

19 tli of December, 1534. That translation had sovereign:
subsequently appeared, and had been set up K'v*iii.ry
in churches. An improved translation had Jg'J-
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.
11th 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 Royal letter
must then have been subsequent to the debate ibid. Hi.

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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro- be forbidden in accordance with the decision
cranmer", arrived at in the Canterbury Convocation pre-

Lee- viously, on Feb. 3, 1542, N.S.
cone. m. b. The Statute [35 Hen. VIII. 3l " For the Eati-

m. 860-1. L J

"fieation 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 Canterbun7, on the
11th 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

PROMOTION OF THE REFORMATION. 99

ancillary to a provision in 25 Hen. VIII. 19, sovereign:
respecting a review of the Canon Law, which K'v?ii.ry
had previously been agreed to by the Clergy isai-
in Convocation, on May 15, 1532. Moreover,

0 Cone. M. B.

the subsidy lately voted on Feb. 23, 1543, .N.b., m. 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. in.

863

" 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. Hi.
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 Eoyal 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.
on March 31, 1544. f!ws'. &°'

" An Injunction given by the King ... for the

100 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro- " Autorisvng and Establish yd £ the Use of his

polit aiis 1 "

cranmer, " Primer," was issued on the 6th of May, 1545.

Holg-ate.

The chief complaint here insisted on was — " that
" the youthe by divers persones are taught the
" Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, Crede, and Ten
" Comniaundements, all in Latin and not in En-
" glyshe ;" and this Primer was chiefly intended
Cone. m. b. to rectify such disadvantage. But on the 17th
and 24th of February, 1542, this subject had
been debated iu 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 Coyerdale'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
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'v?ii.ry
books referred to in this Proclamation, the \5££~

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- Cone, m. b,

, • iii. 770-6.

tion, before mentioned, was issued at the express
request of the Convocation, made on the 19th strype's

Grimmer,

of 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 CHUKCH. [Part II. 2.

Metro-
politans :
Cranmer,
Holg-ate,

Burnet's
Hist. Re-
form. Eec.
in loco.

Church
Hist.
Bk. v.
p. 188.

" to adopt your judgment in the other more
" weighty matters of this English Church which
" affect discipline and religion, have thought fit
" to take care that explanation and communi-
" cation should be made to you, so that what
"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 "Kecapitulated," 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
who yet writes as follows : — " Upon serious con-
" 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 Reformation from 1534 to ' vi.
the end of the reign of King Henry VIII., it is 15i7-
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 Sy nodical Restoration 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 Ccelibacy of the
Clergy. (4) The Compilation and Synodical
Authorization of the First English " Book of
" Common Prayer." (5) The Review of that
Book, and the Synodical Authorization of the
Second English " Book of Common Prayer."
(6) The Synodical Authorization of the 42
"Articles of Religion" 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 CHJJECH. [Part II. 3.

Metro- will be found Con vocational authority primarily

cranmer, and fully exercised.

Holgate.

(l) The first event under this head to be
ofethercupn consi^ered is the return to primitive practice
Laity *n or(^ermg ^ne administration of the Holy
Communion in botli 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-
pone, 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
p.197!' °' 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 sovereign:

t.Edw.V]
1547-8.

writer of some celebrity, that " Act of Parlia- B

"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.
" advice of his higher Council and the Clergy of
"this Realme, shall define, declare, and set forthe
"an open doctrin thereof." It may also be
observed that in the Public Eecord 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 English *
the Communion should be administered in both office!^011
kinds, measures were taken, with the Eoyal
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 CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro- sively of members of the Convocations of
cranmeri Canterbury and York, an important fact which
Hoigate. jiag genera]iy 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 : —

CoiLEcci. i. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Cran-
216-8. 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 (Sump- sovereign:

K.Edw.VI.
1548.

6. Bishop of Ely (Goodrich).

7. Bishop of Hereford (Skyp).

8. Bishop of Lincoln (Holbeach).

9. Bishop of Norwich (Rugg. al. Repps).

10. Bishop of Rochester (Ridley).

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 (Thirl by).

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. Hey nes (Dean of Exeter).

22. May (Dean of St. Paul's).

23. Redmayn (Master of Trinity College,

Cambridge).

24. Robertson (Archdeacon of Leicester).

son)

108

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro- As before said, nothing can be clearer than

politaus : , , . .

cranmer, that this was a joint Committee, selected from

Hoigate. Qonvoca^ons 0f Canterbury and York.

Heyiin, The Committee met in due course, to "consult

Hist. Ref. . .

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, beino- unwilling

Hist. v. -n i

247 seq. needlessly to offend those of the Eoman 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 ^f!^"
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 Bing. 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 Rome. The Christian laity were not
generally denied their right to a participation in
" the Communion of the Blood of Christ " until
after the Chapter denning the Roman doctrine Landon's
of transubstantiation was presented by Pope p. 295.
Innocent III., at the Lateran Council, a.d. 1215.
William the Conqueror caused his army to Heyiin,
communicate in both kinds, according to the p^o.116*"
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 Roman Church.

110

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part II. 3.

Metro- Meanwhile, all history proves how modern this

politans :. . .,. ,, i • i i»

cranmer, innovation comparatively is, and how little of
Holgate- primitive practice, or ancient authority, can be

pleaded for its adoption.
Abrogation (3) The third important event, under the pre-
Coelibacy of sent head to be considered, is the Abrogation of the
the clergy. Q^-^jacy 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
"Strype's " all such Canons, Laws, Statutes, Decrees, Usages,
p. 156. ' " 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 EEFOEMATION. Ill

" earnestly sifted in the Convocation." On this sovereign:
second occasion, a greater number of the Lower K'^5^1'
House than before voted for the relaxation of
the coelibacy of the Clergy. The former number strype's

i Mem.Vol.ii.

of fifty-three supporters of 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 Synodical 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 Ecd. 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

politans : , _ .

cranmer, " cu^ short, it was at their choice to increase
Hoigate. u \\XqXX 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
3si.P ' in England and Wales which had been sup-
pressed and their estates mostly confiscated to
Hume, private uses, amounted to 645, to which must
eh. 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,
ist. ^ . _8. fum^urej p}ate> cllurch 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 sovereign.-
this pillage, the poor were relieved or maintained K'fg^V '
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
place in the year 1548, and is the compilation pr^Tr."
and authorization of the First Eefurmed Prayer
Book of Edward Vlth's reign. The orieina-
tion, prosecution, and completion of this work
must be certainly attributed to Convocational
action.

It should be remembered that, more than six
years before the time now under consideration,

114

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro- i.e. on Feb. 24, 1542, N. S., Archbishop Cranmer
cranmej/ had moved in the Upper House of the Canter-
Holgate- bury Convocation that " Portuises, Missals, and
mn86iM' B' " otner Service Books should be reformed." In
uf 863 ^onowmg year ^his 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:

.Edw.V
1548.

as follows : " That the work of the Bishops and B

" 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 Keformed Service
Book, might be brought to a speedy issue — " the Rights, &c.
" business being continued in the same method," p' 198"
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 Boyal 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

11G

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro- the second Committee for compiling a Eeformed
cranmer", Prayer Book are as follows : —
Holgate- 1. 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 Bochester (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. Eedmayn (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. Eeci. 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 K'ig48VI'
with the superintendence of the faith of Chris- H lin
tendom, offered his services on this occasion Ecc}- 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 Eeformed Prayer
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 lv' 35'
" 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

politans :

cranmer", " late session of our late Parliament, but also
Hoigate. (t^j ^]ie j-j^g asgent 0f the Bishops in the said

" Parliament, and of all other the learned men of
" this our Realm, in their Convocations and Synods
" Provincial."

His Majesty also gave a second assurance to
the same effect 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/i^!' C "for Baptism, Sacrament, Mass, Confirmation,
" and Service of the Church, is by our Parlia-
"ment established, ly the whole Clergy agreed,
" yea, by 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 Eeformed 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 EEFOEMATION. 119

" free disputation, and uniform determination of sovereign:
"the whole Clergy, consulted, debated, concluded." *"f_T£ "

A second item of evidence contributed by His
Majesty's Council on tliis bead 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- Atterbury,
" tical orders of the Church of England." Now if P. 202.'
the First Prayer Book of this reign, which in-
cluded a Eeformed 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. 3.

Metro- writes : " The first Liturgy set forth in the begin-

poli t ans : , v

cranmer, " ning 0I> King Edward's reign was carefully com-
Hoigate. u p^ej an^ confirmed by a Synod,"

Hilt viCl" -^r* George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury
277- i 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 Vjyper and Lower House. Yet
"not so but that the more material points icere
" disunited and debated in the Convocation House by
" 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
rbid. and he wrote : " The consideration and preparation

i. 133.

" of this Book of Common Prayer, together with
"other matters in religion, was committed first

COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 121

" of all to divers learned Divines, as was shewn sovereign-,
"before, and what these had concluded upon ivas K'j5^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 Eegisters,
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 synodic-ally authorized
in the most formal manner imaginable. The
Act which gave Civil authority 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

122

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro-
politans :
Cranmer,
Holg'ate.

Second
English
" Book of
Common
Prayer."

Hist. Eef.
p. 107.

Collier,
Eccl. Hist,
v. 397.

and to take a brief retrospect. The reflection
is, that the very heart's core of the Keformation
of the Church of England is found in these four
particulars: (1) 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, synodic-ally, and in accord-
ance with the principles inherited from the
Primitive Church.

(5) The fifth event to be considered here is
the compilation of the Second Book of Common
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
"by agents in Court," as Heylin tells us, "the
" 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.

However, Archbishop Cranmer applied to
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 "549. '
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- V.C397.
" 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- v" 4°6'

124

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro- dence which passed between them, agreed with

politans: . .
Cranmer, nim*

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
Heyiin, 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-

COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 125

days in the Calendar should be retained, and Sovereign:
which should be abrogated. (2) The form of K'i550VI"
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 Heylin,
" sufficiently considered of the points proposed, p/107.
" 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- v. 434.
" eluded on a great many alterations."

This second review of the Reformed Prayer
Book was chiefly managed by Archbishop Cran-
mer, Ridley [at this time Bishop of London], and
some associated Divines, but who those were is
not certain. It is, however, believed by Fuller,
Heylin, 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 CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro- considered ; and, in the opinion of many people
cranmer cluue well qualified to judge, those labours no-
Hoigate. way men(Je(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

Heylin, . 1

Examen. respecting the Second Reformed Prayer Book,

pp. 121-2. . , *

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 Svnodical
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 OF THE REFORMATION. 127

" are godlie, and in no poincte repugnaunt to Sovereign:
"the holsome doctrine of the Gospel, but agre- K'fg]£VI"
"able thereunto, ferthering and beautifying the

Card. Syn.

" same not a little, and therfore of al faithfull i. si.
" membres of the Churche 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."

(G) The sixth event here to be considered is the Forty-two

1 • • » "Articles of

adoption of the " Forty-two Articles of 1 552-3. At Religion."
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 Eoman Curia in 1870; and whether the
Three Creeds of the Universal Church are not
sufficient symbols of unity 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 IT. 3.

Metro- them. Suffice here to say, that it seemed de-
cranmer", sirable to our authorities to put forth " Articles
Hoigate. «0£ 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:

the last touches of his pen, and, as Collier ^g^-I1

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

State

" 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.
" cles agreed on by the Bishoppes and other learned
" menne in the Synode at London, in the yere
" of our horde Godde MDLIL" [0. S.], "for the
" avoiding of controversie in opinions, and the esta-
" llishment of a godlie concorde in certaine niatiers
" 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 Royal authority ap-

130

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part II. 3.

Metro-
politans :
Cranmer,
Holgate,

Hist. Ref.
p. 122.

Card. Syn.
i. 5, note.

Wake,
State,
p. 599.

Atterb.
Rights, &c.
p. 408.

pended, and so pledged the King to the ve-
racity of the title of the code as above
given ; and 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,
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 EEFOEMATION. 131

" the Synod of London in the late reign of sovereign:
" King Edward VI."

During the following reign of Queen Mary 155S-
it is plain that no true Provincial Synods or interrup-
Convocations of the Church of England could Provincial
be convened, inasmuch as shortly after her Synods"
accession to the throne the two Metropolitans Warner's
were committed to prison, eleven Diocesan n.C347Hlst'
Bishops deprived or forced to resignation, and Con. Ecci.
at least nine thousand, some authorities say 63-4.
twelve thousand, Clergy suffered the like fate. 0f Great'
The proper Provincial Synods of this Church p. i85.'
being thus silenced, the Crown and the Par- Gladstone

° Church and

liament seized the opportunity to reform back- st»^
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 CHUIiCH.

[Part II. 3.

Metro- with which this nation was then favoured ; these

politans :

Parker, were events which in their results have left
Y<mng- 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 (7) The seventh event for consideration under
Ke\i^ion."0f 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-
nodic-ally 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.,
pamr;' and at St. Paul's Cathedral. Archbishop Parker
presided. Mr. William Dave, 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 Now ell, 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 Svnod of the Exarchate.

COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION. 133

In the fourth session, held Jan. 19, the sovereign:
business of a review of the Forty-two Articles ^'-^l™*'
of 1552-3 was begun in the Upper House, and 1562~3-
on the same day a report was brought up Syn. Aug.
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.
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 hj the Arclthishoppes and Bishops of 53'

134

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part II. 3.

metro- " both the Provinces and the whole Clear yie, in the

politans :

Parker, " Convocation holden at London in the yere of our
"Lorde God MBLXII." [O.S.], "according to the
" computation of the Cliurche 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 must be added as regards the

to the

"Thirty- assent 01 the Lower House of York to these
des." 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
ajjproved 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."

At this point the Keformation of the Church 1562~3<
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.

SUEVEY OF SOME MEMORABLE ACTS OF THE
CONVOCATIONS, FROM THE DATE OF THE
COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION TO
THE SUSPENSION OF SYNODICAL ACTION.

GENERAL REVIEW OF SYNODICAL ACTS AFTER THE
COMPLETION OF THE REFORMATION.

Metro-
politans :
Parker,
Grindal,
Wnit^ift.
Grindal,
Sandys,
Piers,
Hntton.

Review of
some Sy-
nodical
events in
Q. Eliza-
beth's

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 Religion 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 proinulged, which were also signed by the toeth.a"
Prelates of the Northern Province. In 1576, "it"

J 1603.

fifteen more Articles were synodically ratified, Conc M B
on the " admission of apt and fit persons to the iv- 263- ,

. Sparrow's

*' Ministry, and the establishing good order m Collections,

p. 223.

" the Church." iStrype's

In 1584, one Hilton was convened for a most p.Twf'and
scandalous offence before the Canterbury Synod. p" 59,
This renegade Clerk had preached a sermon in
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.

In the same year, 1584, six Articles on p8!^.3™'
Church Discipline were promulged ; and in 1597 J£i.PP' W'
twelve more Constitutions on the same subject. ^252-^'

138

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 1.

Metro-
politans :
Parker,
Grindal,
Whitgift.
Grindal,
Sandys,
Piers,
Hutton.

Ecclesiasti-
cal Essays
in Parlia-
ment.
Prophetic
mutterings
of a future
tempest.

Throughout the whole of Queen Elizabeth's
reign there were constantly heard the distant
mutterings of that desolating storm which burst
over this Church and nation in the second
succession of the Crown after that monarch's
death. Well-nigh without intermission these
warning sounds ominously echoed within the
walls of the House of Commons. They were
the voices of those members who constituted
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

Q. Eliza-
beth.
1558
1603.

their proper functions as to endeavour to intro-
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'

. - 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 R. 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 CHURCH. [Part III. 1.

tomary liberty of speech was requested for the
Commons by Sir E. Coke, then Speaker, this

" ' 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 bv 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,
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 ^'g^*1'
our own than those of Queen Elizabeth. ieas.

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

. Synodical

of the 141 Canons of 1603-4, and the trial Acts from
of Crashaw for false doctrine in 1610, took sion of King
place. In King Charles I.'s reign, the enactment the suspen-
of the Seventeen Canons of 1640. In King synodical
Charles II.'s reign, the compilation and Syno- ActI011,
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 jjroposed 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 CHUECH. [Part III. 1.

Metro- " usage of this kingdom." In Queen Anne's

politans :

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 REIGN. 143

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-
ness transacted at this time, does not call for 1625-
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

some Syno-

was convened before the Canterbury Svnod for dicai events

i ■ i i • i . . in King

having published a book containing erroneous James i.'a
doctrine. This performance was entitled, " News strype's
" from Italy of a Second Moses." The volume £*S
was a translation of the life of the Marchese ^j^Ju"
Carraccioli, an Italian, who, having abjured the
Roman 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. [Paxt III. 2-

Metro- Marquis and the Jewish Lawgiver. But on

politaus : x °

Bancroft, the most cursory inspection of Mr. Crashaw's

' 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

iv. 445.

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,
ch. Hist, and again in the ensuing year by Dr. James,
p. io8! the learned writer on the texts of the Fathers,
ii^V, 1St* 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. 145

formed the Lower House of Canterbury that sovereign:
the plan had been submitted to the King, who ^go^81'
approved it. And the Deans, Capitular Proctors, 162S-
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 MSS. 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 10° '
enactment of the 141 Canons of 1603-4.

The Convocation of Canterbury which enacted Cone. M. B.
the present Code of Canons of the Church 0flv'3'8'
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;" Bk8x.i>.28.

14G

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 2.

Metro-
politans:

Cant,
vacant.
Hutton.

by which somewhat dark metaphor that worthy
meant that this Provincial Synod was held
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. Eavis
was elected Prolocutor of the Lower House.
Constn c- The Canons of Discipline enacted in the later
Law' to the part of Queen Elizabeth's reign were confirmed
tageoftte only for the term of her natural life by that
Ae learned monarch. And here it should be remarked, that
pro.ession. ^ jg 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 Royal " 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 sovereign:
the first licence ever issued in compliance with ^go™^1
the terms of the Act. Subsequently, however, At^~~
legal ingenuity, favourable to Royal jurisdiction ^j^ts' &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 Royal "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 "
any 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 have had a decision of the judges that

Hutt on, J o

■ a Convocation cannot " confer to constitute

Coke, Rep.

xii. 70 ; " any Canons without ' license del Eov,' " an asser-

Wake, .....

Auth. c.p. tion widely different from the terms contained
Wake,' a in the Statute. Of course, the absurdity of this

State

p. '534. decision is patent on its face. For how can a
Rights' &c Convocation propose Canons in precise terms to
p. 637. f]ie 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, . . . cm

iv. 396. Bancroft, acting as President, the see of Canter-
bury being still vacant, took measures for the

141 CANONS OF 1603-4.

14(J

enactment of Canons, and on May 2 lie delivered sovereign:
to the Frolocntor a Book of Constitutions, col- K"f^*s

1604.

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
after some clashing on the subject had taken
place in the Upper House, a joint Committee of
both Houses was eventually ajopointed 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 approved, 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
" Hons and Canons Ecclesiastical, treated upon by p0^'
" 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 Bom. 1 603" [O.S.],
" and in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord
" J ames, by the grace of God, King of England,
" France, and Ireland, the first, and of Scotland
" the thirty-seventh." York Synod

enacts the

In the Royal ratification [i.e. the unstatutable mcanons.
"assent" above referred to] appended to these 141 pp. 146 ~.

150

ACTS OF THE CHUKCH.

[Part III. 2.

Metro- Canons enacted by the Convocation of Canter-
Bancroft,

bury, King James I. inserted this clause, that
Hutton. they " should be diligently observed, executed,
Codex?8 "and equally kept by all our loving subjects of
pp. 993-5. ct this our kingdom, 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

State

p. 507. King himself on due recollection discovered his
error, and made just reparation for his incautious
and hasty confusion between Ecclesiastical and
Kegal 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

iv. 426-8.

" 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 sovereig-n:
on account of the illness of the Metropolitan jg^g1"
Hutton, 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
dav 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 mav 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, menthT
1851, at a time when in both Houses of the ofLm-ds!6
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 CHURCH.

LPart III. 2.

Metro-
politans :
Bancroft.
York

vacant.

Legal obli-
gation of
Canons.
Contra-
dictory
decisions of
the learned
J udges.
Cory v.
Pepper,
Levinz,
ii. 222.

nouncement, as for very shame it has been ex-
punged ; but it was most assuredly made, as
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.

(1) In the 30th year of King Charles II.,
the Court of Queen's Bench decided that these
Canons " are good, by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII.,
" 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 Realm." 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 1G03-4.

153

which governs the whole case, and which they sovereign:
themselves quoted ; and it is hard to see how 16Q™*g '

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

° . Cod. p. 995.

" 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 Eealm.
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.a?85e.w'
" 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

154

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 2.

Metro- too, in our own times. But no man ever yet
Bancroft, heard or read of a Canon on Ecclesiastical Dis-
Tork cipline being confirmed bv Parliament, or even

vacant. x o *

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 laitv."

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 1605_6. '
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 " offence 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 bv a learned

156

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 2.

C'omm.i. 83.

Metro- judge to be considered on this subject, is that of
Bancroft. Sir William Blackstone, who thus writes of these
vlcant Canons : "Where they are not merely declaratory
" of the ancient Canon law, but are introductory
" 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 1C03-4.

157

metrically from each other, it can, I hope, be no sovereign:
offence to differ at least from some of them. ^enT^1'

1605-6.

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 Eoyal, or
to the Customs, Laws, or Statutes of this Kealm,
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

' Charles I., a slight event, but one of evil augury,

tagurj occurred, which seemed to portend coming
Fuller, Ch. ill. When that monarch sent the officials of the
p.1 109. ' X 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."

Shakspeaee : 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 Majestv replied, " If sovereign :

K Clias. I*

"you will not do it, another shall." Mr. Acton, "1625I
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 ev' °mens'
before had occurred, in 1621, which was equally
inauspicious for the Church. Being engaged in Collier,
deer-shooting at Bramshill Park, Archbishop vii. 416.
Abbott, using a crossbow, and aiming at a iv. 462. B"

160

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part III. 3.

Metro- buck, unfortunately struck Peter Hawkins, Lord

politans : _ - , . _ . . . „

Abbott, Zouch s keeper, with an arrow under the lelt
Matthews. arm^ which caused the death of the unhappy
sufferer about an hour afterwards. This was
sad enough, but 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

vii. 418. this dispensation was sought is m a high degree
surprising. It wras 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 164.0. 161

ignored, and Koyal Supremacy burlesqued — these sovereign:
signified four sad warnings of coming calamities K'^5_Z
to Church and State. So these were noway good 1649-
omens for the future.

During the earlier part of King Charles the Sessions at

. . . , in' Oxford.

1st 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,

Ch. Hist

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 m" 6*
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

1G2

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 3.

Metro- and rebellious principles which at this time
iaua, ' inspired the House of Commons, and betrayed
yeile' 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- 1 At this period of our country's history the
tions in the House of Commons seems to have been seized
Commons. "VN 'ith an irrepressible desire to usurp the func-
vid. sup. tions of a National Synod. Such aspirations, as
PP history testifies, were emphatically rejDressed 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 Leighton, 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 1G40. 163

calling, for he advised the Commons, as regarded sovereign:
the Bishops, "to smite them under the fifth rib/' K" l6**"
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.

tit t-> i n • • Hist. viii.

was Mr. rym, who, m 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 CHUECH. [Part III. 3.

Metro- man vouched the " Lambeth Articles " for the
Laud, ' doctrine of the Church of England, and seems
Keile- 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

SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1G40.

1(35

request of the Secretary being considered ex- sovereign:
cessive, surprised the Commons and disturbed K" "
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 Owic. k. b.
hymn " Te Deum Laudamus " had been sung 1V' 538'
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. 1G]. That Divine certainly chose Fuller, ch.
a very apt theme for his discourse, considering p. w.
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

1G6

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 3.

Metro- by comparison to otliers who were more justly
P°Laud,S ' severe in their managements ; and so he put
Keile- 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
Syn. Ang. Cathedral, for the election of a Prolocutor. Their
choice fell on Dr. Richard Steward, Dean of
Chichester.

ibid. p. 17. 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. Richard 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
Fuller, so soon to be realised, his eyes were scarcely
Bk. xi. pp. 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 tliem sovereign:
to alter old Canons and frame new ones, theK-°^"1-

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 the Crown,
subsidies of four shillings in the pound, " for Syn. Ang.

ii. 21,

" the support of His Majesty's Eoyal 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 Eoyal Exchequer might countermine.

After the vote of the subsidies the Svnod Controversy
turned its attention to the enactment of Canons whether
needful, as was thought, for those uneasy times. tionI°are

t» i i •! ii • i ' • necessarily

.but while tins business was m progress, a con- dissolved
stitutional question was raised which caused il^)
considerable controversy. As was above said,
the Parliament which was convened acourse
with this Convocation was dissolved on May 5.
So when the Convocation met on May 6, the

1SSO-

Parliament.

168

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 3.

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
thought that the Convocations were necessarily
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 " Eoyal 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 1040.

169

about him. These learned persons returned an- sovereign:
swer and subscribed an opinion which knocked K'°64o.'1-
down the dispute. Their subscribed opinion
ran as follows : —

" The Convocation called by the King's Cone. m. b.

iv 540

" Writ under the Great Seal doth continue
" 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. Ralph Whitfield.
" John Bramston. Jo. Bankes.
" Ro. 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 Royal
" 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 OF THE CHUIiL'H. I Part III. 3.

Metro- bishop Laud became the special object of the

poli tan 3 : n

Laud, fury of a London mob. A rabble rout of Ana-
yeile' baptists, Brownists, and other sectaries, num-

iifii^ iu*. bering more than five hundred, attacked his
palace at Lambeth on the 11th 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
Clergy had most certainly a right to vote their
own money for the public needs, and to enforce

SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1G40.

171

payment of it, too, without any parliamentary sane- sovereign:
tion. And, as a matter of fact, they had exercised

K Chas. I.
1640.

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 contend
Eoyal Coronations, an Office for Consecrating c^mepd Hist
Churches and Churchyards, and a Form for j^'J11'
Reconciling Penitents, which, together with the Cyp. Ang.
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 i640.ns °f
as the "Canons of 1640." These Canons had Pon5:,M- 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 Til. 3.

Metro-
politans :
Laud,
Neile.

Syn. Aug.
ii. 54.

The "&c."
Oath.

Cone. M. B.
iv. 549.

munion Tables to the east end of the Churches,
from which they had been removed in some
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
the 29th of May, Archbishop Laud holding a
copy in his hand conjointly with the Prolocutor,
Dr. Richard 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 : —

" I, A. B., do swear that I do approve
" the doctrine and discipline or government
" 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

SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1G40.

173

" of this Church by Archbishops, Bishops, sovereign:
"Deans, and Archdeacons, &c, as it stands 1640
" 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
" Rome. 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.

ii. 123.

oath clamorous outcry was raised. It was coil. Ecci.
said to be the "greatest mystery of iniquity ym'
" 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

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3.

on Horace is connected with a translation of
the Vedas. In the Third Canon preceding the
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 Canons of
York, Dr. Eichard Neile, presided; and Dr. Henry M B
Wickam, Archdeacon of York, was elected Pro- iv- 553-
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 Eoyal 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.

ACTS OF THE CHUBCH.

[Part III. 3.

Metro- Finally, the Seventeen Canons received from the

P<Laud,S' Canterbury Convocation were unanimously ac-
Keile' 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. Aug. 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

Naiaon's to the King for securing the safety of the coun-

C 11 i 56** *

* try and repressing the rebellious Scots 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
ul!^88. " 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 CEdipus to divine that the grant
of the subsidies by the Convocations was the spark
Pariia- which reallv kindled this flaming rhetoric.

mentary •> 0

flowers of Qu Nov. 3, 1640, that Long Parliament met

rhetoric. 0

Echard's to whose account may be set down torrents of
hliW. 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 1

1640.

years. This Parliament had not long begun its
sessions when Mr. Pym, Sir B. Rudyard, Mr. NaWs
Bagshaw, Sir J. Holland, Lord Digby, Sir J. Cul- collier,
peper, Mr. Harbottle Grimston, and others of like ritt!i90seq.
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 Rome to Herod, and Archbishop NaiWa

(Joll i r*64

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 Peer-
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. 3.

Metro- " hoped his Grace would either have more grace
Laud. ' "or 110 grace at all, for our manifold griefs do
York « fin a mighty and vast circumference, vet so

vacant. ° -

" that from everv part our lives of sorrow do

Eehard, . .

Hist. Eng. " lead to him and point to him as the centre

iii. 198. . .

" 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 bv 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
Comp. 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 wras 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

SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640. 179

to the offensive outbuilding which he invoked, sovereign:
In fact, the coarse railleries and vulgar abuse *"1640"
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. Hist,
terms by which he thought fit to designate the m
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," m* '
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.

their subsidies to the King after the Parliament
had been dissolved. When this subject was re-
sumed, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr. Nathaniel Fiennes, Sir
Edward Deering, 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 Eoyal 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-

SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640.

181

lution: " That the several grants of the benevo sovereign:
" lences or contribution granted to His Most K\e±Q
" Excellent Majesty by the Clergy of the Pro-
" vinces of Canterbury and York, in the several ComP. hw.

J m in. 112-13.

"Convocations or Synods holden in London
"and York, 1G40, 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- Parfia-
wards took precautionary measures to jjrevent precautions
any more subsidies to the Crown from being subsidies
hereafter thus voted, at least, while this Parlia- by thJcon-
ment ruled the destinies of England. Those vocatlons-
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-11-
Maxwell, Usher of the Black Rod, on Dec. 18,

1G40, by order of the House of Commons ; and, ibid,
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

1S2

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 3.

Metro-
politans :

Laud,
Williams.

Walker's
Sufi', p. 7.

Comp. Hist,
iii. 124.

Ibid,
iii. 125.

the Clergy, was taken by " proceeding to a Bill
"for punishing and fining the members of the
" Convocations of the two Provinces " who had
enacted the Seventeen Canons. The proposed
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, £"1,000 ; each Proctor, ,£1,000, &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 monevfor their Sovereign's needs.

(3) The third precaution taken by the House of
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
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,
El y, Gloucester, Hereford, Lichfield and Coventry,

SEVENTEEN CANONS OF 1640.

183

Llandaff, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, and St. sovereig-n:
Asaph, merely for having signed a petition assert- '
ing their constitutional rights. And here it is c Hiat
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^I'e-s.
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 mav
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-
politans :

Laud,
Williams.

as the subject of their complaint, when the real
offence in their hearts was the subsidies to the
Crown ? 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,
andthe611* in its sequel not wholly unconnected with the
thfpur*-01 Church, and which is not calculated to exalt the
king's °ftlie 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
Comp. Hist, their guest at Newcastle. And at this juncture
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'^l[ '
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

180

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part III. 3.

metro- and righteously draw a comparison overwhelm-

politans: c

taud, ingv in their own iavour.

wmiama. xiie ready-money 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.ffist. 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 antecedentern scelestum
" Deseruit pede poena claudo."

Hoe. 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, Nemegisof
was " purged " by the drastic remedies of one of ^ke^this
Oliver Cromwell's creatures who had formerly House of

J 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.l435.
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 eoi.2i°. '
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 CHURCH. [Part III. 3.

Metro- skulked away in dispersed rout from their posts ;
laud, and who, after all their airy flights and soaring
wiiiiams. am|){tion, crawled contemptibly to their end like
on'<7Hlst' insects, and went out in smoke and smoulder.

111. 207,

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,

" Nec fera tempestas toto tamen horret in anno,
" Et tibi, crede niihi, tempora veris erunt."

Ov. Fast. I. 495-6.

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 189

IV.

COMPILATION AND SYNODICAL AUTHORIZATION OF
THE PRESENT BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

We next approach an event to English sovereign:

K Chas,II.

Churchmen of this day the most interesting i649-
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

0 of the

mind is not wont to investigate causes of things, present

& *=> ' "Book of

but is mostly satisfied with effects and results. Common

-11 -i 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 phe-
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,

politans :

juxon, or because his forefathers had accepted and
rrewen- 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 Republican institutions, which
are sometimes the reverse of gentle, were sensibly

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 191

experienced. Eespect for the rights of property sovereign:
was exemplified by the expulsion of at least K'i649'_1'
seven thousand of the Clergy, with their families, 1685,
from their homes, as nominally specified in de- j^^ef.
tail by Walker, in his well-known book, " The xviii-
" 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 Republican 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

politans :

juxon, " °f Common Prayer." Thus was the Common
rrewen- Prayer Book of the Church of England, so far as
Bepublican 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 Eestoration
BooiToT a of the Monarchy were set on foot for restoring,
Pra^r.11 but meanwhile remodelling, the Prayer Book, in

PEESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 193

order that it might be made more acceptable to sovereign:
the Puritan and Presbyterian dissenters, and "iesi. '
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 slwy
of London's lodgings in the Savoy, by the Conference'
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 Frewen], Comp. Hist,
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. Kichard
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

c c

194

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[Part III. 4.

Metro-
politans :

Juxon,
Frewen.

Coll. Eccl.
Hist. viii.
417-42.

Second
essay at
Liturgical
Revision, by
Parliament.

Commons'
Journals,
viii. 247.

Ibid. p. 279.

instructive to enter now upon an examination
of his "Keformed Liturgy," which, though drawn
up by his single hand, no sense of decency or
modesty prevented him from offering as fit to
supersede the Liturgy of the Church of England.
It may suffice here to say, that the labours of
the Savoy Conference came to a most impotent,
not to say absurd result, as in effect exj?ressed
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.

The next effort to provide a Prayer Book for
the Church of England was made in 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 11th of
that month it was ordered in the House of Com-
mons that "A Committee for Religion should meet
" every Monday." A committee was accordingly
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
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:

K.Chas.II.
1661.

clusively to gentlemen of " the long robe," at
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 viii. 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. xi^os.3'

To the Bill sent up from the Commons to Pariiamen-
the Lords there was attached a book which the BookPrayer
" Committee for Keligion " 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 vear 1834.

196

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro-
politans :
Juxon,
Prewen.

Eccl.
Courts'
Cora. Rep.
p. 154.

Duplicate
copy in
Brit. Mus.

Eccl.
Courts'
Com. Rep.
p. 154.
Extract
from

Commons'
Journals,
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 Religion " —
(l) 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

FRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 197

by the House of Commons' " Committee for Ee- 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, they were better

198

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. i.

Metro- lawyers than they were poetical critics, or judges

politans: „ ' , ,

juxon, °i Unurcn music.

Prewen. rj\-^Q -g-jj an(j j^qq]^ as before said, were sent up
from the Commons to the Lords. But this ses-
sion of Parliament soon coining 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
Noyember following. And during that session
we shall learn more both of Bill and Book.
Capacity of Now, inasmuch as the wisdom of this House

"members on i r i • • i

of the long ot Commons chose lor the reyision, or at least

theological the provision of a Liturgy for the Church of

menS?" a England, exclusively those members in that

digression. agggjQ^jy w]10 were " 0f the long robe ; " and

inasmuch as a Eoyal Commission has lately,
in 1883, improyed 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

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 199

too prove an instructive one, to enquire some- sovereign:
what carefully how tar our own experiences ot 1661
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
juxon, ' these days at least, really a somewhat embar-
rrewea. raggmg qxiestion. 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 Religion" 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.

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PR AY EE." 201

Let us then pursue some enquiry on this sovereign:
head, and, confining ourselves strictly to our K'^^[>1 '
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
juxon, among the members of the learned profession
prewen. ^se|£ ^n(j one 0tner 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

iv. 323

" 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." Be}*ond 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

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PEAYEK." 203

which have in our own limes been commended sovereign:
to notice by the very highest members of the ^legi"
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 clown as they stand
now stereotyped in those national records,
Hansard's Eeports. 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 tl 10 tary
" Law of Marriage. Throughout the whole Debates,"
" of Christendom there was no religious vol xvH.p!
" ceremony connected with marriage till the Ji41^ seq.
" time of the Council of Trent."
From this announcement in the House of
Lords it is abundantly clear that this exalte I
member of the learned profession was sadly

204

ACTS OF THE CHUKCII.

[Part III. 4.

Metro- uirinstructed in the records of the religious

politans : , . . . .. -

juxon, ceremonies winch accompanied marriage in the
rrewen- Early Church and throughout subsequent ages.
He could never even have heard of the " arras "
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 PKAYER." 205

in the matter should venture to dogmatize upon sovereign:
it before such an august assembly as a British ^gei'."'
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 otter Lord
one of the two highest tribunals in the land, iors.
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 t he exercise Judgment,
" of her authority as Sovereign of this Kealm Privy Coun-

• ci 1 JVltircli

" and Head of the Established Church." 20,' 1865.
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
Rolls, 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 Realm 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

200

ACTS OF THE CHUBCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro-
politans :
Juxon,
Prewen.

J ustices of
the Court
of Queen's
Bench.

Queen's
Bench
Judgment,
A]iril 25,
lt50.

been for well-nigh three centuries abolished by
Statute and by Royal declaration conjoined.

Still strictly adhering to records of judicial
announcements occurring in our own times on
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
some very startling information. That high
legal authority assured the Court and the
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 K igei
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- lsso.2'
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

Pleas

we arrive m 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 P1
their researches, we will listen to the deliverances
of the learned Barons of the Court of Exchequer
when engaged in an Ecclesiastical enquiry.

20S

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IIT. 4.

Metro- Now, still confining ourselves strictly to mat-

politans : - . .

juxon, ters which have occurred m our own times,

prewen. we £n(^ those learned Barons, on the 8tl

thTcourt of °^ *^ubT' 1850, when approaching the Ecclesias-
Exchequer. ^ca] region3 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

Exchequer . _ _ *

judgment, " land, as settled on this point by the Con-

Julv8,1850. ... .. „ - . . „

stitutions ot Clarendon m 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

<>05 242. y.

Leges Grately, a.d. 928 ; to the laws of King Edgar,
ConCVM 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,
p' 31°' they never could have delivered from the Bench

PRESENT " BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 209

this astounding announcement, that in Ecclesi- sovereign:
astical causes an appeal lay to the King, " and no

K.Chas.II,
1661.

" 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.
Articles ratified at Clarendon which touches this Cone. m.-b.
subject — did settle was this : that all Ecclesiasti- qo11 jccl
cal controversies within the Eealm " should be S^*"6U'
"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 Magnae Britannia." However, bv
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. iii.
in their way, and so plunged themselves into a 6°'
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 J uilicial
the exalted members of the learned profes- of Privy
sion, in Parliament, and in what must now be uncl '

E E

210

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro-
politans :

Juxon,
Prewen.

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 Royal 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 Roman, who seems to have endeavoured at
least to conceal any outburst of laughter —

" Varius niappa compescere risum

" Vix poterat."

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 ^legi"'
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 Reformed 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

„ v. 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-

>olitans :

juxon, tention to the " Standards of Faith and Doc-
Frewen. (c " -^^j^ 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 Royal Commission has lately re-
commended to the Crown that, as was before
said, five judges, selected in rotation from the

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 213

Bench, without any reasonable regard either to sovereig-n:
qualification or character suitable for the pur- "leel" "
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
Eoman 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 Boyal
Commission. And if Ecclesiastical Judges, both
in Provincial Courts and in all the Consistory
Courts throughout England, are to be bound

211

ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Tart III. 4.

Metro- by the antecedent judgments of such tribunals

>olit&ns s

juxon, as the Judicial Committee, or the Court pro-
Frewen. p0ge(} ^.jie J^0yal 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 PKAYEIi." 215

formation lias been also received from less exalted sovereigm:
legal authority. And more than tins, there have " , 1X'

O J > 1661.

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 CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro- However, as matters now stand, what will be
juxon, ' the judgments of Ecclesiastical Judges with such
Frewen. prece^en^s {0 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
i3s-i4u.P' heroic Queen, recorded in a former part of this

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 217

volume, but was nevertheless eminently success- sovereign:
ful. And we must now turn to the part taken 166i. "
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 m- "
" 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

iolitans ■

juxon, " certain points contained in the Common Prayer
Frewen. « p>00k js noj. 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 *\^* '
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 ppnue-7.
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 CHUBCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro- On the Stli of May, 1661, concurrently with the
PjuIon^ meeting of Parliament, whose proceedings have
prewen. \)een ljefore described, the Synod of Canterbury

convoca"7 assembled at St. Paul's Cathedral. The Bishop
i66i May' °^ London [Sheldon] presided, Juxon, the Arch-
Conc. m.b. bishop, being in weak health. After the Te Deum
Syn. Ang. had been sung, prayers offered up, and an
anthem sung, a polished and eloquent discourse
was delivered in Latin bv 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 Tilth'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

TEESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 221

by one or two persons on whom the matter de- sovereign:
pended. And so those who should have been

K.Clias. II.
1661.

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].

Concurrentlv with the above, the York Synod York c.m-

vocation,

assembled on May 8,1661. This Synod was open- May, i66i.
ed under the presidency of Dr. Richard Marsh, ivfew. ' '
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 Cleop. viii.
identical, word for word, with a prayer which conc.^R
was used at Synods in the Anglo-Saxon Church. 1v App-784-
Thus was commended to notice by this York
example the connexion between the earlier and
later Church of this land. And thus it is

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro-
politans :

J 11X011,

Prewen.

The Canter-
bury and
York Con-
vocations,
Nov. 1661.

Supra, p. 78,

York Con-
vocation,
Nov. 1661.

quite clear that at this time some authority in
the York Synod was not unacquainted with the
ancient 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 Royal 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 two Synods next assembled on the same
day, Nov. 21 [1661]. These were the most
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 synodic-ally discharged the Papal
Supremacy over this Church, as before recorded.

It will be convenient on this occasion to trace
in the first place the Acts of the York Convoca-

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 223

tion, and then to turn in the second place to sovereign:
those of the Convocation of Canterbury. K" "

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'1 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 in

Chester [Bryan Walton], and Carlisle [Kichard bu^Synod.
Sterne], were in London ; and measures were
immediately taken for transmitting this instru- Cone. m.b.

iv 566

ment to the York Synod, which had now assem-
bled. Together with the Boyal 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 CHUECH. [Part III. 4.

Metro-
politans :

Juxon,
Prewen.

Wake's
State,
Append.
No. 158.

Cone. M.B.
iv. 568-9.
Kennett's
Register,
p. 565.

Province on the business referred to ; that the
time available for settling the matter was brief ;
and that inconvenient 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, Eich. Carliol,
Bri. Cestrien.

In addition to the "Letter of Business" and that
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.

On the 30th of November, the day to which
the York Convocation, as before stated, had been
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 sovereign:

.Chas.I
1661.

consent, drawn up, deputing the following per- 1

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 Briclgeman, 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 Kennett's
the Lower House of York, in regard to all pro- p ef^ter'
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 CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro- A formal reservation was added of the liberties

politans :

juxon, aud customs of their Province, as well as of the

Frewen.

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. A ad 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. iect of the review of the National Liturgy. Six

iv. 569 . .

propositions were brought forward by Dr. Sam-
ways, a Proctor for the Clergy of Chester and
Eichmond, 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 PPAYEP." 227

Such were the proceedings in the Northern sovereign:
Convocation with regard to the review of the ", **"

O 1661.

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 Nov- 1661-
convened the Church of England is indebted for
her Book of Common Prayer. The measures
taken for a review of the Liturgy and Ordinal
were as follows. A Book of Common Prayer Kennett's
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"
tions agreed upon in Synod. Several books "Book^"*
and papers were made use of in pro- p™yer°"
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 CHUECH. [Part III. 4.

Metro- notes in another Prayer Book, collected by Bishop
Pjuzon!" Cosin himself, than whom no man ever was
rrewen. -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, Rector 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 Kochester (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 KCh*sZI-

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, Lathbm-y,
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. Aug.

jj 83—90

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 CHURCH. [Part TTI. 4.

Metro-
politans :

Juxou,
Prewen.

Kenuett's
Register,
p. 575.

Syn. Ang.
ii. 89-90.

Ibid. p. 93.

must have been a man of penetrating genius,
diligence, and great learning, as he was ac-
quainted with nine languages besides his own.
His advancements in learning, however, appear
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.

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.

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.
Eobert 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:

• i K.Chas.II.
W1Ch« 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. Aug.
and so the careful preparation of an instru- Kennett's
ment for the purpose was committed, on the p6^61
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 Registrar 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 Instru-
certainly memorable in the annals of the Church ratifica-
of England, even though it may be little com- tlon'
memorated. On that day her two Convocations
or Provincial Synods [the Northern Synod united

232

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part III. 4.

Metro- by delegation with the Southern] adopted and
Pjuxon^' authorized her Book of Common Prayer. But
rrewen. w]^}e faithful children value that manual
i^H666I'B' °^ 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- Libeum Peecum Publicaeum, Administrationis

Sacramentorum aliorumque Eituum Ecclesiaj

Common Anglicanse, vna cum forma, et modo ordinandi,
p^fTo-12. et consecrandi Episcopos, Presbyteros, et Diaco-
Eep. Kituai nos> iuxta Literas Eegia? Majestatis nobis in hac
40bisPP'39' Parte directas Revisum, et quingentas, quadra-
ginta, et quatuor paginas continentem, nos Gu-
lielmus providentia, Divina Cantuariensis Ar-
chiepus, totius Anglia3 Primas et Metroponus, et
nos Episcopi ejusdem Provincial in Sacra provin-
ciali Synodo legitime congregati, unanimi assensu
et Consensu in banc 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.

K.Chas. II.
1661.

W. CANT:
Gilb : London. Georgius Vigorniensis

Gulielmus Bath, et Georgius Asaphensis.

Wellens. p. £cura- Guliel: Menevensis.

torem suu Ko. Oxon. Ro : Lincoln.
Matth^eus Elien. B : Petrib
Ro. Oxon. Hugo Landavensis

Guil. Bangor : Ioh8 Exoniensis.

Jo : Eoffens. Gilb Bristoliensis

Hen : Cicestrensis. Guil. Gloucestrensis
Humphredus Sarum. Ed : Norvic :

Nos etiam Universus Clerus inferioris Domus
ejusdem Provincial Synoclice congregat dicto
Libro publicarum precum, Sacramentorum et
Rituum, una cum forma et modo ordinandi et
consecrandi Episcopos Presbyteros, et Diaconos
unanimiter consensimus et subscripsimus Die et
Anno prgedictis.

Henr. Fern Decan. Eliens. et Prolocutor.

Guil: Brough. Decan. Gloucr.

Tho : Warmstry Decanus Wigorn :

Io. Barwick S. Pauli London Decan.

Io. Earles Dec. Westmonasterii.

Alex : Hyde Dec : Winton :

Herbert Croft Dec : Hereford :

Jo. Croftes Dec : Norvicensis :

Michael Honywood. Decan. Lincoln.

H H

234

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Edv : Rainbowe : Dec : Petriburgensis.

Guilielmus Paul. Decan. Lichfield.

Xatli: Hardy Decan. Roff:

Setli Ward : Decan. Exon.

Griff: Ossoriensis Decanus Bangor.

Jolian : Fell Decan : 2Ed : Christi Oxon.

Guil : Thomas Precentor Menevensis.

Geo : Hall Archidiac Cantuar.

Thomas Paske Archidiac. Londin. per Pro-

curatoreni suum Petrum Gunning.
Robertus Poiy Archidiac. Middles.
Johes Hansley Archidiac : Colcest :
Marcus Franck. Archidiac S. Alban.
Iohannes Sudbury Procurator Capituli Eccles.

Westmonaster
Tho : Gorges Archidiac Winton.
Bernardus Hale Archidiac : Eliensis.
Grindallus Sheafe Archidiac. Wellensis.
Iohes Selleck Archus Bathon.
Ioannes Pearson Archidiaconus Surriensis.
Gulielmus Pierce Archidiaconus Tanton per

Procuratorem suum Ri : Busby.
Gulielmus Creede Archidiaconus Wilts.
Io : Ryves Archidiaconus Berks
Tho : Lamplugh Archidiaconus Oxon
Gulielmus Hodges Archidiaconus Wigorn.
Franc. Coke Archidiaconus Staftbrdire.
Edvardus Young Archidiaconus Exoniensis
Raphael Throckmorton, Archidiaconus Lincoln.
Iasper Mayne Archidiaconus Cicestrensis.

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PEAYER." 235

Geo. Benson; Archidiac; Heref: sovereign:
Antonius Sparrow Archidiaconus Sudburiensis. K'°gg°'11-
Robertus Hitch Archidiaconus Lecestrensis.
Guil : Iones Archidiaconus Carmarthen.
Edvardus Vaughan Archid : Cardigan, p Pro-

curatorem suum Guil : Iones.
Guiliehnus 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.

Iosephus Loveland Procurator Capituli Nordo-
vicens :

Henricus Sutton Procurator Vigorn. Diceces :
Ricus Harwood Procurator Diceces. Glocestrens.
Franciscus Davis Archmus Ladaven :
Rob'tus Morgan Archidiac : Merion.
Mich : Evans Capituli Bangor P'curator.
Rodol. Bridcooke Diceces. Oxoh. 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 CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Juxon,
Frewen,

Metro- Guilielmus Haywood Cleri Dioac. Londinensis

politans : _

Procurator.

Ri : Busby Capit. Ecclesiae. Wellens Pro-
curator

Edvardus Cotton Archidiaconus Cornubiens.

per Procuratorern suum Ri : Busby.
Gulielmus Dowdeswell Procurator Capituli

Wigorniensis
Joseplius Crowtber Procurator Cleri Wigorn
Rad. Ironside Procurator Diceces. Bristoll
Ed : Hitcbnian Proc : Cleri Glocest :
Iobannes Howortb Procurator Capit : Eccles.
Petrob :

Thomas Good Procurat. Diceces. Hereford.
Gualt : Jones Procurator Capit : Eccles. Cathed :

Cicestrensis.
Petrus Gunning Procurator Dicecesis Petribur-
gensis

Jacobus Ffletwood Capituli Co : et Lich. Pro-
curat :r>

Gualterus Blandford Capituli Glocestr : Pro-
curator

Henricus Glembam Decanus Bristol per pro-
curatorern suum Gualt Jones.
Gulielmus Herbert Procurator Cleri Suffolci-
ensis

Iosephus Maynard Procurator Cleri Diceceseos
Exoniensis.

Iohan : Pulleyn Procurator Capituli Lincolni-
ensis

PRESENT "BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER." 237

Richardus Ball Procurator Capituli Eliensis : sovereign:
Basilius Beridge Procurator Diceces. Lincolni- ' ***'x "

O 1661.

ensis.

Georgius Stradling Cleri Dioces. Landavensis
Procurator.

Huraphredus Lloyd Procurator Cleri Diceces :

Asaphensis :
Timotheus Halton Capituli Ecclesice Cathe-

dralis Menevensis Procurator.
Egidius Aleyn Procurator Cleri Diceces

Lincoln :

Guil. Foulkes Capituli Asaphensis Procurator.
Riehardus Clayton Cleri Diceces. Sarisburiensis
Procurator.

Iosephus Goulston Cleri Diceces : Winton :

Procurator.
Guil. Rawley Cleri Eliens. Procurator.

Librum Precum Publicarum Administrationis York.
Sacramentorum, aliorumque Rituum Ecclesia3
Anglicanse, una cum forma, et modo ordinandi, et
consecrandi Episcopos, Presbyteros, et Diaconos,
iuxta Literas Regime Majestatis nobis in hac parte
directas, Re visum, et quingentas quadraginta et
quatuor paginas continentem, nos acceptus Pro-
videntia divina Eboruni Archigpus Angliaa
Primas, et Metroponus, et nos Episcopi ejusdem
Provincise in sacra provinciali Synodo legitime
congregati, unanimi Assensu et Consensu in hanc
formam redegimus, recepimus et approbavimus,

238

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro- eidemque subscripsimus, vicesimo die Mensis

politans : .

juxon, Decembris Anno Dm millesimo sexcentesimo

Prewen.

sexagesimo primo.

ACC: EBOR.

10 : DUNELMENSIS. RlCH. CARLIOL.

Nos etiam Vniversus Clerus inferioris Donius
ejusdem Provincise Ebor Synodice congregati
per ntros respective Procuratores sufBcienter et
legitime constitut et substitut dicto Libro Publi-
carum Precum, Administrationis Sacramento-rum
et Rituum, una cum forma et modo ordinandi et
consecrandi Episcopos, Presbyteros et Diaconos
unanimiter consensimus et subscripsimus die et
Anno praedictis.

Henr. Fern
Io Barwick.
Rob: Hitch.
Matt. Smalwood
Humphredus Lloyd
And. Sandeland

It is observable that this Sy nodical 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.

It may here he added that while the Bill forUni- _„ 77777

J 13 & 14 Car.

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. 110.
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 CHUKCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro-
politans ;
Juxon,
Prewen,

Lords'
Journals,
xi. 408.

Syn. Ang.
ii. 106.

Civil sanc-
tion accord-
ed to the
Book of
Common
Prayer.

that Bishop Sheldon, as President, intimated to
the assembled members the gratitude with which
the Upper House of the Imperial Legislature had
received the Prayer Book. He also added that
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
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."

At the same time with the sessions of the
Synods just recorded, Parliament assembled on
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

K.Chas. II.
1662.

composed exclusively of gentlemen "who were of
" 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'

Journals

ships in mind of "the Bill." On Feb. 13, the Earl viii. 352.'
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, xi. 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

1 1

242

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 4.

Metro- both by Lords and Commons and attached to
Pjultn! ' the Act °f Uniformity.

rrewen. ^g we naVe seen, 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 Koyal 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 Royal Commissioners

" COMPREHENSION " LITUEGY. 243

appointed to enquire into the Bubrics, who sovereign:
have published, in their fourth report, its K-°lia*-11'

Synodical authorization with the signatures of ■ —

ti/t i ■ ~. Fourth Ee-

the Metropolitans, Bishops, and Presbyters ap- port, PP.

39-40, bis.

pended m mil.

E EJECTION OF THE " COMPEEHENSION " LITUEGY.

The next memorable event connected with the sovereign:
Convocations during the time now under view was K* m. am
the rejection of the " Comprehension Liturgy." 1689-

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 *i|JgConv'
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 Comp. Hist.
Company was consequently appointed by Koyal
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. Eichard Baxter,
that same gentleman who at the Savoy Con-

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 5.

Metro- ference had the assurance to commend for
sancroft," adoption a Liturgy of his own private compo-
Lampiugh. sition for nie uge 0f t^ie church 0f England.

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 bv a Eoval K-W£liam
Commission would fall short of satisfaction, 1689-
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 Lathbury,
" of Parliament, His Majesty would be graciously ^321. v"
"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.

Sancroft was under suspension by King Canterbury
William III. from the Archbishopric of Canter- meets, Nov.
bury when this Convocation met. Sancroft is a 1689'
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.

Sancroft,
Lamplug'h

Metro- Republican standards of doctrine in 1649, and
of 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
s"cureSat0 said, under suspension when the Canterbury Con-
L^utor^0" vocation met, Nov. 21, 1689, Compton, Bishop of
Comp. 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. 59i. Court party to secure the election of a Prolocutor

" COMPREHENSION " LITURGY. 247

suitable to their views and favourable to the Sovereign :
" Comprehension Liturgy." Now, if there is an K-^1iUam
assembly in the world where such back-stairs 1689-
influences would be futile, and indeed indig-
nantly resented, that assembly is the Lower
House of the Canterbury Convocation —

" domus hac nee purior ulla est

" Nec 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 Anglige 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 CHURCH. [Part III. 5.

Metro- tentionally, designating that Sovereign himself as
slncroft' a ProPer object of charitable indulgence.
Lampiugh. ^ the next meeting the Bishop of London,

1689.

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
Comp. Hist, the Svnod. Subsequently, on the 4th of Decem-

iii. 592. " ...

ber, both Houses sitting in united Synod, m
Henry Tilth's Chapel in Westminster Abbey,
the Earl of Nottingham brought down a Eoyal
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
impose the the Bishops and the Lower House as to the
teatont" on address to be presented to the Crown, the former
of England, desiring to append the designation " Protestant "
to the Church of England, to which the Lower
Comp. Hist. 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" liturgy. 2-19

cerned herself with either Augsburg or Spires, sovereign:
the Lower House was unwilling that a nourish K-wiiiiam
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 and 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-
sundry sessions the counsels of the Lower House Liturgy
of Convocation prevailed, and the Comprehension Comp. Hist,
scheme was abandoned, having proved a hope- m' j95'
less failure, notwithstanding its Eoyal 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 CHURCH. [Part III. 5.

Metro- attacks, from whatever quarter they may be
Tiuotson, directed, against the integrity of the Prayer Book
Tenison.' of the Clmrcll of England.

Black- During the rears which elapsed between the

tmrne. .

date of the rejection of the " Comprehension

Synodicai " Liturgy " and the date of the suspension of

action _ . .

suspended, Synodicai action m this country, many events ot
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-46(i. 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 Con vocational

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 1711, vet their meet-

SUSPENSION OF SYNODICAL ACTION. 251

ings were generally, in the interval above named, 1718-
merely pro forma. They did indeed assemble la52m
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 CHURCH. [Part III. 5.

1718- 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. r . _ .

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- ms-

. -, 1852.

vocation as above mentioned, m 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 n°pkS5io° '

i-i ii • • Ed. Lond.

as material castles and bridges require repairs 1826.
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

• , i • i • i -ii i . ofSynodical

exist, no historical misstatement more transpa- action not
rently false can be made, than that the long chargeable
abeyance of Synodical action in the Church of power. °ivU
England is due to the interference of secular
authority, or even to any neglect of constitutional

254

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 6.

1718- duty on the part of the Crown. No doubt the

1852.

'- 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 Practicesof 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 partizanship 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 1718-

Kealm. There certainly has been no omission -

of Koyal 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 Real causes
ascribed ? I do not think a question more diffi- pension of
cult of solution could be asked in reference either action!0*1
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 CHURCH. [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 Presbvterv, worthy of all
Presbyters. " honour and of their heavenly calling, are
bob,^268. "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 saintlv Ken, in the Diocese of

SYNODICAL ACTION SUSPENDED. 257

Bath and Wells, it is no wonder that the concord
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
misliked 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

258

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [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, i7is-

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 different
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 th^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

260

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part III. 6.

1718-
1852.

Unreason-
able exal-
tation of
personal
authority.

perhaps the natural effect of the lack of concord
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.

And, once again, one other cause may be
suggested as having contributed to the abeyance
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 me-

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

202

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [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.
1852—1885.

EEVIVAL OF SYNODICAL ACTION.

It is recorded of Dr. Johnson that his respect sovereign:
for churches was so great that he never passed ^g*"13"

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 CHURCH. [Part IV. 1.

Metro- tion have been intensified had he lived to see the

politans : _ n

sumner, doors of our secular legislative assembly opened
Mnsgrave. g0 y^ely as ^0 adrtiit professors of all religions
and of none !

Measures After the admission of Jews and other aliens

t * i ] ■ for

the revival from the Church's faith into Parliament, a

ofSynodical „ , .

action. ieelmg 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

orrosiTioN to revival.

2G5

three groups of sessions in every year during sovereign

J.Victori
1851-2

, -i v • Q.Victoria.

the parliamentary session.

However, the first efforts for the revival Eesistance
of Synodical action were not immediately sue- ^^re0two
cessful, mainly on account of the opposition poiitaaa.
of the two Metropolitans.

At the formal opening of the Canterbury Con- canter-

bury ■

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 Eegistrar, 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

. , i ,1 . , Collections,

not even attend, nor were the members who mss., &c.
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 CHUECH.

[Pan IV. 2.

Metro- would be entered on. By which replv this

politans : .

sumner, Metropolitan seems to have been insensible to

Mnsgrave. ^WQ facj.s> -J^g ^g^g aljea(3y

received a " Eoyal Writ," requiring him to con-
vene his Svnod in order to consult for the
"defence of the Church and peace of the king-
" doin," a Writ which he disobey ed in his own
person. The second fact being, that such an in-
strument as a "Royal 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 MEMOBABLE ACTS OF
THE CONVOCATIONS SINCE THE EEVIVAL
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 Svnodical condemnation of the
volume entitled " Essays and Reviews ; " the re-
modelling and re-enactment of the Canons on

SUMMARY OF SYNODIOAL ACTS.

267

Clergy Subscription ; the promulgation of Sy- sovereign:
nodical Decrees on the Vatican Council of 1870 ;
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 Vict. 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 Eubrics ; 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
sumner," Offices for the Consecration of Churches and
tusgrave. Cemeteries ; for the Eeception of Renegades ; for
the Confirmation of those who have been Bap-
tized as Adults ; for the Dedication of Bells ; for
the Appointment of Lay Beacons 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

Private

Collections, President was Archbishop Sumner, and the

MSS., &c. . x .

preacher ot the Latin sermon was Dr. Jeremie,
Regius 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 sovereign:

J.VictoriE
1852-7.

action in England was practically inaugurated.

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
forthe 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.f &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 bis Commissioner to act vicariously
sumner," ^ne Rev- Canon Hawkins. There was a large
arusgrave. 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 " Eoyal 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 Rev. 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 Eev. 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:

J. Victoria
1857-9.

with a new Parliament, assembled on May 1, fl

1857, under the presidency of Archbishop Sum-
ner, at St. Paul's Cathedral. After the Latin b»ry.
Litany had been read by the junior Bishop chron.
present, Dr. Jackson of Lincoln, the anthem Vict. Reg.
" 0 pray for the peace of Jerusalem " was sung. PP q
Then followed the Latin sermon, preached by
the Eev. 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 CHURCH. [Part IV. 5.

Metro- proceed to business. It was prorogued from

politans: . . . _ _ .

sumner, time to time, on one occasion by the Dean of lork,
Musgrave. -p^ Cocy^.^ acting as Commissioner for the
collections, Metropolitan — the Dean not adopting the most
mss., &c. courteous 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 " Eoyal 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.

Cliron.
Conv. vi.
Vict. Reg.
pp. 1 seq.

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, " 0 pray for the peace of Jerusalem,"
was sung. The usual Latin sermon was then
preached by the Hon. and Rev. 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

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS.

273

the chapel at the north-west end of the Cathe- sovereign:
dral to elect their Prolocutor. This they did, j8B9_e5a"
and their choice fell again on the Very Rev.
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.

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, Religious Sisterhoods, In-
crease of the Episcopate, the Burial Service, the

N N

274

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 5.

Metro-
politans :
Stunner,
Longley,

Harvest
Thanksgiv-
ing Service,

Synodical
condemna-
tion of Dr.
Colenso's
volume.

Final Court of Ecclesiastical Appeal, Clerical
Subscription, and the Revision of the 29th
Canon, which relates to sponsors in Baptism.

There are, however, four Acts of this Convo-
cation which demand special attention.

The first of these Acts was the preparation
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.

The second of these Acts was the Synodical
condemnation of a book entitled " The Penta-
" teuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined.
" By the Eight Bev. 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 ^J^"*^1'
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 dangerous character, sub- chron
" versive of faith in the Bible as the Word of c°nv- vi-

Vict. Reg.

" God." This judgment having been communi- p- 1204.

276

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 5.

Metro-
politans :
Longley,
Thomson,

Chron.
Conv. vi.
Vict. Reg.
pp. 1237,
1285.

Supra, p. 32

Synodical
condem-
nation of
" Essays
and Re-

Chron.
Conv. viii.
Vict. Reg.
pp. 70-132.

cated to the Lower House, the Presbyters there
resolved : That we " do hereby accept and concur
" in the 'judgment ' of the Upper House." Thus
was this mischievous book synodically condemn-
ed on May 20, 1863, the Synod exercising one
of those functions proper to Provincial Synods,
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 Reformation.

The third Act of this Convocation specially
worthy of record was the condemnation of a
book entitled " Essays and Reviews." 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
in the Canterbury Synod, Feb. 9 and 11, 1870.
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 fl

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 . . . . Chron.
" doth hereby synodically condemn the said vict^Reg.
" volume, as containing teaching contrary to p' 1683'
" the doctrine received by the United Church

278

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 5.

Metro-
politans :
I.ongley,
Thomson.

Chron.
Conv. vi.
Vict. Reg.
p. 1830.

Clerical

lawbreak-

ing.

" of England and Ireland, in common with the
" whole Catholic Church of Christ." This con-
demnation of the book was transmitted to the
Lower House, and the Presbyters there assem-
bled resolved, on June 24, 1864, that "This
" 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.

This volume, as will be seen hereafter, was
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 OF NEW CANONS.

279

is beyond all question certain, on the above sovereign:
theory of obedience, that those who joined in j869_65 "

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 NewCanons
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 Eeligion, 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 CHURCH.

[Part IV. 5.

Metro-
politans :
Longley,
Thomson.

Chron.
Conv. vi.
Vict. Reg.
pp. 2398
seq.

Excursion
of the
" Crown
Office."

Chron.
Conv. vi.
Vict. Reg.
p. 2354.

These new Canons were enacted in due Sy-
nodical form [before described in Part L, 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 Eoyal
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 ^g^gl**'
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

Collections.

cination respecting the necessity of a Koyal
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 February, 1861, the Provincial Sy- Private

i p i -nt -r» r • Collections.

nod oi the .Northern Province, alter 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 Reviews " 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 CHUECH. [Part IV. 6.

Metro-
politans :
Longley,
Thomson.

Private
Collections.

In June, 1865, a "Licence" was sent by
the Crown to the Northern Synod for the enact-
ment of the new Canons on Clergy Subscription.
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-
bury.

Cliron.
Conv. vii.
Vict. Reg.
pp. 8 seq.

The new Canterbury Convocation summoned
to meet on February 2, 1866, assembled at St.
Paul's Cathedral on that day, under the presi-
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 Eev. Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Walter Kerr
Hamilton, after which the anthem, " 0 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 QTlc*°ria"

1866-

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 Dr. Coien-
had been excommunicated on account of his communion
book before mentioned, and deposed from his ch^ch of
office as a Bishop by the South African Pro- Englan '
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- victT'Reg.
munion with the South African Prelates ; and Zl%t 98'
it was so resolved by both Houses. The Be"-1565
account may be seen of this Act in the " Chro-

284

ACTS OF THE CHULCH.

[Part IV. 7.

Metro-
politans :
Cant.

vacant.
Thomson.

Chron.
Conv. vii.
Vict. 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 Yestry for the
election of their Prolocutor, and their choice fell
unanimously on the Hon. and Yery Rev. 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.

YIL

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

Canter-
bury.

Chron.
Conv. viii.
Vict. Reg.
pp. 7-12.

ENGLISH PROVINCIAL SYNODS, 1868-74. 285

Canterbury], presided, under a Commission from sovereign:
the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, as guardians Q'^8°68-ia
of the Spiritualties during a vacancy. The Latin 18T4,
Litany was said by Dr. William Connor Magee,
Bishop of Peterborough, as being the junior Pre-
late present. The anthem, " 0 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" [Eom. 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
Bickersteth, 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 CHUECH. [Part IV. 7.

Metro- In this Convocation matters of the deepest
¥°T^dt,S' interest to the Church of England were dis-
Thomson. ^ggg^ an(j some concluded on. Among instruc-
of ^TtT7 **ve debates were those on Clergy Discipline
c1""011- ... — Communication with the Eastern Church — the

Conv. vin.

vict. Keg. Athanasian Creed — Home Missions — Final Court

in loc.

of Appeal — Reform of Convocation — Re-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 Rome, four
Canons which it had decreed. The fourth of
these Canons declared the personal infallibility of
the Pope of Rome, and pronounced his definitions,
without consent of the Church, to be "iiTeforrnable."
Chron. The question before this Convocation arose upon
victVReg! a "gravamen" presented by one of the Clergy
pp. 513-14. 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 Rome, 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
Roman obedience. And as a " reformandum," it
was prayed that His Grace the President and

CANTERBURY DECREES ON VATICAN COUNCIL. 287

their Lordships the Bishops would take such sovereign:
measures as to them might seem fit for vindi- ^iges"*
eating the independent position of the Church of 18?4-
England, and for addressing a remonstrance
against the present assumption of the Koman
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 chron.
into the matter. The Archbishop of Canterbury, vic^ Reg'.
having expressed a strong repugnance against p' 50J'
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 60(Mi22-
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" 651 '
ed to consider what should be done. When
their report was presented, on June 16,
1871, the Archbishop and the two Bishops Ibid. vol. iii.
above mentioned had changed their minds, and pp' U7~S'

288

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7.

Metro-
politans:

Tait,
Thomson.

Chroii.
Conv. iii.
Vict. Reg.
p. 450.

supported the recommendations of the Com-
mittee. The result was that the following
Decrees were Synodically adopted by both
Houses of the Canterbury Provincial Synod —

Ibid,
p. 441.

" That the Vatican Council has no just
"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 Rome 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

CANTERBURY DECREES ON VATICAN COUNCIL. 289

" Catholic and Apostolic Church the Church sovereign:

" of England and the Churches in com- Q" i^gg*1*"

" munion with her are living members ; and 1874-

" 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

_ . . _ . Decrees on

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^com!*
writer, with a view to their transmission to the counc*
Eastern Orthodox Churches and others. Copies *0^ron'
were first sent, with an explanatory Latin letter, ^^^43
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.

Vict Reg

on Feb. 13, 1872. The Canterbury Decrees were pp. 235-7.'

p p

290

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part. IV. 7.

Metro- eventually printed on large paper, with rubricated
P°TaiCS ' margins, in very splendid type and form, at the Cam-
Thomson, bridge University Press, and were forwarded to
the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Eastern Church.
Revision The second important event connected with
authorized this Convocation was the appointment of a joint
of Holy Committee for the Revision of the English
cnpture. translation 0f Holy Scripture. This was inaugu-
Chron. rated by Dr. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of
viet. Keg! Winchester, on February 10, 1870. The joint
202 seq. Committee was eventually appointed, and power
328 seq. wag 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 Revised New Testament
was completed in 1880, and the book, printed
at the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses,
was published in 1881. The Revised Old Testa-
ment, there also printed, is now [1885] published.

The Revised The third important event connected with

ectunary. Qonvoca^on wag ^ue a(J0ption of 3i " New

" Lectionary " for the Book of Common Prayer.
The principal alterations now made from the

REVISION OF LECTIONARY. 291

former book were: first [not to specify minor sovereign:
details], that an alternative First Lesson was ^

1868-

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
Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual.
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 vktl Reg!
to consider it, and that Committee recommended 196, 24i|
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 Lec-
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

1 1 1 • i ii i p ii Chancellor's

remark, and one which the reader may usefully exposition
bear in mind. The Bill for the Civil authoriza- °flaw'
tion of the New Lectionarv was introduced

292

ACTS OF THE CHLT.CH. [Part IT. 7.

Metro- first into the House of Couiiiions as a Govern-

•olitans :

Tait, merit measure. In the preamble was recited
'homson. j-jjg previous approval of that Leetionary 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 thev had in that
" Bill a recital of the approval of Convoca-
tion without anv 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 Kealm, —
such as 26 Hen. VIII. 1—32 Hen. VIII. 25, —
5 & 6 Ed. VI. 12—8 Eliz. 1—13 Eliz. 12 —

REVISION OK LECTION AKY.

293

the approval of the Convocations is recognized, sovereign:
while most certainly on no one of those occasions Q

1868-

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 wras 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 vict Reg.
might be used as separate Services, and that 107,161/
without a sermon. (2) That Additional Services, 226 -299!
approved by the Ordinary, might be introduced. 301~2,
(3) That Special Services, approved by the Or-

294

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 7.

Metro- dinarv, might be used. (4) That sermons might

politans : „ .

Tait, be jDreached, without a previous Service.

Thomson. ^ That, except in 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 Ritual

chron. Commissioners, and a Royal Letter of Business to

Conv. viii.

Vict. 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 Royal Letter

Ration™ of Business there was transmitted to the Con-
Office?™ vocation from the Crown Office a " Royal
chron. « Licence." This is a portentous instrument,

Conv. Tin. A

Vict. Reg. fortified with a seal of imposing size larger

pp. 239-40. _ L b b

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 Royal 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 Royal 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 q'™°8^'
by common voting agreed upon the measures lsy4-
desirable for the purpose in hand, as above re- Chron.
corded. Here Archbishop Tait, by assembling vict.Reg!
both Houses into one Synod for discussion and pp' " '
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 1
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

politans :

Tait, the wholesome practice of joint discussion be-
Thomson. {ween -j^g |wo 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 Vict. 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
Synodical 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 Royal 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 Report
of the Ritual Commissioners, which involved a
revision of the whole of the Rubrics 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 Q ^g^g"*'
begun, and a declaration agreed upon as fit to 1874-
be appended to the Athanasian Creed. Chron.
The measures for a revision of the rubrics vict.Reg!

. p -i Pit Ann. 1873,

were now tar advanced, m consequence of 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

Q Q

298

ACTS OF THE CHUECH. [Part IV. 7

metro-
politans :

Tait,
Thomson.

York.

Private
Collections.

New

Lectionary.

Supra,
p. 291.

Rubrical
revision.

but little time left or opportunity allowed for
any beneficial legislation whatever, much less for
such as would be secured if the measures initi-
ated by this Convocation and completed in the
next were statutably adopted.

Concurrently with the last-mentioned Convo-
cation of Canterbury the York Convocation was
convened in 1868. 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 Eev. Augustus
Duncombe, Dean of York, being Prolocutor.

On this occasion the Prolocutor moved and
the Rev. Canon Eden seconded a resolution that
their Committee's report on the New Lectionary
as proposed by the Ritual 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
of Canterbury above mentioned, and so was
sanctioned in both Provinces.

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. ^Tses-1*'

This Convocation refused to join the Canter- 18?4-
burv Svnod in its enterprize above mentioned Revised

. . New

[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 Actsxiv.

23 • xx. 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 CHUP.CH. [Part IV. 7.

Metro- The authorized translation renders the passage

politans :

Tait, thus : " The Apostles and elders and brethren
Thomson. « gen(j greetmg," &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 \ .

Leipsio, mg the text they have adopted], the superscription
to the Jerusalem Encyclical Letter runs thus :
" Tlie Apostles and Elders, brethren, send greeting
" unto the brethren" &c. But the late revisers,
in opposition to the authorities above named,

Eev. n. t. and in opposition to the recorded dissent of the

Pica 8vo.ed. k ' n o t-» • l ii

p. 599. American Company oi 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.

(1) As regards scholarship. The word 7rpecr^v-
repos 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 x pea- (Sure pos 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'i8Cgg"a
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, aSeXcpol,
actually occurs twice [vv. 7, 13] in the chapter

before us. Moreover, this form of apposition is 1 Cor. xv.

20. 23 •

quite familiar to the humblest scholar both in Heb" x'ii. 9 ;
Classical as well as in Hellenistic Greek. 14. °

(4) As regards correspondence of texts. And ad CoTxiv.,
here more serious objections against the Eevised xliii. '
Version arise. In accordance with the trans- R0mn|xad
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.

Thomson, TimotllJ) and to fae cities. But

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 Eevisers two
difficulties are introduced: (l) 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 "icrote" 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

EEVISED NEW TESTAMENT.

303

discover any precedent for such introduction in sovereign:
examples derived from Jerusalem, Alexandria, 186BL
Antioch, Ephesus, the island of Crete, or indeed 18?4,
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 Eevisers repudiate this excursion of
the English Company, as may be seen recorded
at p. 559 of the Eevised 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

s\ tt- ■ j • Chron.

Queen Victoria s reign assembled at St. Paul's Conv. ix.
Cathedral, under the presidency of Archbishop pp- 14-2S!

304 ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 8.

Metro- Tait. The Latin Litany was said by Dr. James

politans : .

Tait, Russell Woodford, Bishop of Ely, the junior
Thomson. j^s]10p present. The anthem, " 0 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. hi. 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 Yerv Rev. 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 : —

ciu-on. In 1876 the practice was first introduced of

Vict. 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 PRIVATE PRAYER. 305

During this Convocation the Venerable Ed- sovereign:
ward Bickersteth, Archdeacon of Buckingham, Q-^g^ia"
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.Reg.
[the Lower] " House, with instructions to prepare P' ~87'
" 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

R R

30G

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 8.

Metro- " on the Third Service " of preparing such a

politaus : . .

Tait, Manual. This Committee has given long and
Thomson. c]j]jgen^ laDour 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. 1 . . r,

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 kindlv letter from

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT. 307

the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Arch- sovereign:
bishop of Canterbury offering the use of cceme- Q"'g,^lia"
teries for the interment of such of our country- 188°-
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 Eegulation Bill, plguLTion
a measure most unhappily introduced into the Act'
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 CHURCH. [Part IV. 8.

Metro- certain circumstances, empowered to appoint a
Taitj single judge to preside m the Metropolitan

■homson. £<om.ts 0f 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 :

TUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT. 309

Some years before, a joint Committee of both sovereign.-
Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury had 18V"
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 Randall, 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 Regulation 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.

Metro- The business, however, which engrossed the

politans: .

Tait, largest amount of attention m this Convocation

Thomson. wag ^e Revision of the Rubrics. Considerable

office°ex- progress in this work had been made in the

cursion. jag^. Convocation before its dissolution in 1874.

But the work not having been completed, a

chron. fresh Roval Letter of Business was now sent to

Conv. ix.

Vict. Reg. request that the rubrics, as recommended in

pp. 298-30. 1

the Fourth and final Report of the Ritual Com-
missioners, should be considered by the Synod.
Again, as before, with this " Letter of Business "
from the Crown came also a " Royal 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.

RubrkT ° However, the Royal Letter of Business having

RUBRICAL REVISION.

311

been received, requesting a revision of the sovereign:
rubrics, this Synod set itself industriously to ^g^"3''
work on the matter. The labours of the last 188°-
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, chron.

Conv. ix.

m united Synod [July 19 and 20, 1876 ; and on Vict. Reg.
July 1, 1879], 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 Report 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

3 12

ACTS OF THE CHUKCH. [Part IV. 8.

Thomson,

Important
improve'

Metro- either elucidated or rendered more suitable for

politans:

Tait, the direction of public worship.

One instance alone shall here be specified. It
touches the vital principles of Christian service,
™bric°fna and may serve to shew how beneficial this re-
muniou' 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 Q'^8^"a'
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 forgot.-*611
rubrics. But in this Convocation a Bill was Bcd^lLs-
drafted by which it was thought that the end lation^8*
might be accomplished. The principles of that Parhament-
proposed measure are as follows: (l) That the
Convocations of Canterbury and York should

s s

314

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 8.

Metro- approve of proposed alterations; (2) that a scheme
Tait, °f those alterations should be laid before the
Thomson. (]rown [n counci]j (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.
York. 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 Rev. 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

p' ' and Prolocutor, on July 1, 1879.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE CANTERBURY SYNOD. 315

IX.

CONVOCATIONS CONVENED 1880.

Concurrently with a new Parliament a newly- sovereign:
elected Convocation of Canterbury assembled at Q

1880-
1885.

St. Paul's Cathedral on April 30, 1880, under
the presidency of Archbishop Tait. Dr. William canter-

Dalrymple Maclagan, Bishop of Lichfield, as

junior Bishop [the Bishop of Salisbury, Pre- Conv. x.
centor of the Province, being absent], said the hnoCReS
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 ccelitus,

" Lucis tuse radium " —

as an anthem, in the place where it had previously
been the practice to sing the anthem, " 0 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 OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 9.

Metro- Mass of Weber's, was sung bv the choir, and the

politaus:

Benson, Archbishop then pronounced the Benediction. The
Thomson. ugUfj 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
Svnods.

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. Ill the See of Canterburv was Dr. Benson, first
Bishop of Truro, who presided over the Canter-
bury Synod on April 10, 1883, for the first time,
chron. when his Grace was Celebrant at the Holy
Vict! Reg. Communion in King Henry the Tilth's Chapel
'm loc- 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 ^g^"*'
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— Eeform 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

tt tt i> t • announce-

Upper 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 0f Privy
caused in some minds by an absurd judgment Counci1-
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 Merriman
" or Faith and Doctrine adopted by the 1 iams'
" Church of England." Such a preposterous

318

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [Part IV. 9.

Metro-
politans :
Benson,
Thomson.

Ecclesiasti-
cal Courts'
Commis-
sioners'
Report.

Vid. Official
Year-Book
of the
Church of
England,
1883, p. 339.

Manuals of

Private

Prayer.

claim and such puerile self-assertion is rather
calculated to excite ridicule than cause trouble
to anyone. Still 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
the Eeport of the Royal Commissioners on Ecclesi-
astical Courts. TheLower House, though generally
approving of that Report, 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.
But the Lower House considered the word " de-
" sirable " too feeble a form of expression under
the circumstances. And this decision of the
Lower House was certainly reasonable enough.

Some important Acts of this Convocation have
been the compilation by the Upper House of a

PKOCEEDINGS IN THE CANTEKBUKY SYNOD. 319

" Manual of Family Prayer ; " and by the Lower sovereign:
House of a " Form of Prayer for Kogation Days," Q'^gC3o"a'
and of a " Manual of Private Prayer for Working 188S-
"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-
politans :
Benson,
Thomson.

York.

Summary
of pro-
ceedings.

Official
Year-Book
of the
Church of
England,
1883, pp.
352-355.

The York Convocation convened concurrently
with the last-mentioned Synod of Canterbury has
continued to hold its sessions under the same Pre-
sident, the Most Kev.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 Rev.
Augustus Duncombe, removed by death; the
Very Rev. W. B. M. Cowie, formerly Dean of
Manchester, now transferred to Exeter ; and the
Very Rev. Arthur Perceval Purey-Cust, Dean of
York, who at present occupies the Prolocutor's
chair.

The subjects of chief interest which have
occupied the attention of this Northern Synod
have been — Marriage with a Deceased Wife's
Sister, the Imprisonment of the Rev. S. P. Green,
Rights of Patronage, Ecclesiastical Courts, Clergy
Discipline and Episcopal Authority, and the
wonderful proposition of the Ecclesiastical
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.

PRESENT REGULATIONS AND METHODS OF
PROCEEDING- IN THE CONVOCATIONS OP
CANTERBURY AND YORK, THE PROVINCIAL
SYNODS OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

CONVOCATIONS IN CONNEXION WITH THE
CROWN.

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 wTith the Writs tbn?011™*
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- " IL
vereign], " the security and defence of the Church
"of England, and the peace and tranquillity,

T T

322

ACTS OF 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. reqUesting him 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
Canons* particular purpose — to enable the Synod to
DPnnrv " enact> 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
Append. the same time as the Writs for the prorogation
of 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 writofDis-
any Parliament is dissolved the concurrent Con-

Append.

vocations are dissolved also, and a new election F' L 1 '
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- VIIL 19'
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 CHURCH. [Part V. 2.

■

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-
EngHsh byters as members of Provincial Synods is a
synods"al 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 " Tractorige "
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. Euseb.

=> Eccl. Hist.

two Presbyters. And this appears to have been Lib. x. c. 5.
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.

n i i t Vigorn.

1277; m a Canon, as quoted by Lyndwood, and foi. 71.
attributed to the Council of Readme; in 1279 ; Synod.

Rrov.

and also in a mandate of Archbishop Peccham, Pt. 111.
which convened his Provincial Synod at the Conc M B-
New Temple, London, in 1283. One thing, 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 deny them that right, even by a directed
Lord Chancellor, are absolutely fallacious. In fact, sIibo°me to
the evidence on this point is overwhelming. tZamifrt*
As soon as the Proctors for the Clergy are Gladstone!^
elected, they enjoy in common with all the Priv,nege of

" ° ^ freedom

other members of the two Convocations the pri- 6,0111 .ar.rest

• i pertaining

vilege of freedom from liability to arrest on to members

. .-. mi • °^ Oonvoca-

civil process, lhe origin of this privilege is an tion.
illustration of the truth that considerable results Inst. iv. 323.

326

ACTS OF THE CHURCH.

[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
Richard 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 Eealm 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. Aug.
with a subpoena by Harrington and Walker. p'
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' 467-
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 CHL'ECH. [Part V. 2.

of Chester, in order to stay some legal proceed-
Conc. m. b. ings then pending against that gentleman. The

iv. 468. ...

privilege was granted, and an instrument tor
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 Richard Collev, before the House

1(528. . .

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
Conc: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.
Richard 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.

PEOCEE DINGS 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.

u u

330

ACTS OF THE CHURCH. [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.

PROCEEDINGS 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 Saniozatenus was delated
for false teaching. At Nice, in the fourth cen-
tury, Atlianasius was chief champion of the
Spelm. orthodox faith. At our National Council of
c°nc! m.b! Whitby, in the seventh century, Wilfrid was
37' chief speaker, and from the result appears to
have been the most efficient advocate. But
neither Malchion, Atlianasius, or Wilfrid were
Bishops on the occasions referred to.

To come much nearer to our own times, it

PROCEEDINGS 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 Anglias 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- HouseP6r
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 CHUKCH. [Part V. 4.

a process denominated " prseconization " — 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

PKOCEEDINGS 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.

Beyond all cavil or dispute, it may surely be
affirmed, that this nation is indebted to the
Supra, P. 78. Convocations for the Synodical rejection of Pa-
Supra, pal Supremacy over this land ; for the Synodical
Supra, restoration of Communion in both kinds ; for
p* ' the Synodical abrogation of the ccelibacy of
Art. vi. the Clergy ; for the Article which defines the
p. 129. Canon of Scripture ; for the Article which
Suprj^111' commends the three Creeds as the symbols
p. 129. 0f 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
232~3.7' 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, ' 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.
" TJie 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 xv. 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 Irenasus "Adv.

p. 396, « Hasr./' nor by Origen " Cont. Cels." 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
Acta 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 x.

"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. lxxxvii.
Her children may well be contented to abide
by the prophetic exhortation :

" Mmtt m tin toaps, anti $tt, Jer. vi. ie.
" anti asfe for tlx oYH patOs,
"tofrm t$ tl)t gcioo
" foap, anli foalfe
" tibtttfxu"

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.

The Royal Weit for Convening a Convocation
or 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 Metropobtan 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 AVrit preceding, and of two Writs succeeding the
date above mentioned.

342

APPENDIX.

Copy of a Boyal Writ for Convention, issued by King
Edward III. a.d. 1339.

["Cone. Mag. Brit." ii. 653, citing Byiner's " Foed." v. 137 ]
" Eex venerabili in Christo Patri J. eadem gratia Archiepiscopo
" Cantuar. totius Anglia Primati, Salutem. Cum quadam alia et
"urgentia negotia nos et statum regni nostri ac expeditionem
"negotiorum nostrorum concenientia, etc. et nos in hiis vestris et
" caterorum Pralatorum et Cleri ejusdem regni consilio et auxilio
"indigentes, nos de vestra sinceritatis et benevolentia puritate
" fimiani fiduciam obtinentes, quod tarn pro defendendis et recupe-
" randis corona nostra regia juribus, quam dicta Sancta Ecclesia
" salvatione et tuitione nobis vigilanter velitis assistere, et quantum
"ad vos pertinet efficaciter in opportunitatibus suffragan, vobis
" mandamus rogantes, quatenus etc. totum Clerum vestra Cantuar.
" Provincia apud Londinium die Jovis proximo post festum Conver-
" sionis Saucti Paidi proxime fururum Convocari faciatis. Teste
" Custode Anglia apud Langele Yicesimo Octavo die Novembris.
" Per ipsum Begem 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. Beverendissimo in Cbristo Patri Tboma eadem
"gratia Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, Totius Anglia Primati et
" Metropolitano, Salutem. Quibusdam arduis et urgentibus nego-
"tiis nos securitatem et defensionem Ecclesia Anglicana ac pacem
" tranquillitatem bonum publicum et defensionem Begni nostri et
" subditorum nostrorum ejusdem concenien., Yobis in fide et di-
" lectione, quibus nobis tenemini, rogando mandamus, quatenus,
"pramissis debito intuitu attentis et ponderatis, universos et singu-
"los Episcopos Yestra Provincia, necnon Archidiaconos Decanos
" et omnes alias personas Ecclesiasticas cujuslibet Dioeceseos ejus-
" dem provincia ad comparend. coram Yobis in Ecclesia S. Pauli,
" London : vel alibi prout melius expedire videritis, cum omni
" celeritate acconnnoda, modo debito, convocari faciatis ad tractand.
" consentiend. et concludend. super pramissis, et aliis qua sibi
"clarius exponentur tunc ibidem ex parte nostra. Et hoc, sicut
"nos et statum Begni nostri ac honorem et utilitatem Ecclesia
"pradicta diligitis, nullateuus omittatis. Teste me ipso apud
" Westmonasterium Xono die Decembris Anno Beg:ii 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
" 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 clue 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
" 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 Reign."

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.

Copy of a Mandate for Convention, issued by Archbishop
Robert Kilwarby. A. D. 1277.
[Vigorn. Reg. Giffard. Fol. 71.]
" Robertus Cantuariensis, Archiepiscopus : H. L< mdinensi Episcopo,
" Salutem. Meminimus in congregatione nostra communi duduni

344

APPENDIX.

" habitS Norfhamptoniae negotia varia utilitatem pariter et bonorem
" totius Ecclesiae Anglicans? tangentia in medio fuisse proposita, in
"quorum executione, licet via? de communi consilio excogitatae
" fuissent, et executores Viarum prsedictanun varii deputati ; quia
" tamen in quibusdam negotiis seu executionibus eorundem nobis
" adbuc exitus est incertus, quaedam autem penitus inconsummata
" existunt ; emerserunt autem quaedam nova, qua? ad aversionem
" nostrorum jurium, eonsuetudinum libertatum et grave periculum
"Ecclesiae Anglicanae redundant ; Fraternitati vestrae per praesentia
"Scripta Mandamus, quatenus omnes fratres et coepiseopos seu
" Suffraganeos nostras auctoritate nostra faciatis peremptorie 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 singulaium,
" nobiscum super negotiis memoratis, turn praedictis quam instan-
" tibus efficacius tractaturi ; ut eisdem, eorundem communi mediante
" consilio, finis imponatur laudabilis, et ut ita incerta certitudinem
" et inconsummata consummationem et emergentia nova consilium
" debitum sortiantur. Qualiter autem hoc nostrum mandatum
"fueritis executi nos per vestras literas patentes harum seriem
" continentes certiticare 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
" Bight Beverend 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 Boyal 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

AFPENDIX.

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 ensuing 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
" Reverend 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 Reverend 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 tho
"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 Dioceso

Y Y

34G

APPENDIX.

"in a separate Schedule to be annexed to your Return. In Witness
"whereof we have caused our Archi episcopal 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 Suffrayan Bishops of
the Province of Canterbury.

[Pearce, " Law of Convocation," p. G2.]

" 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 rc-
" 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 Beign, 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."

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 Beign,
" 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 Sectors, 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 Beverend 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 Archdeacon 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, by 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 Boom of the Parish Church of
" Saint Paul, Covent 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 a2ipear 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
" Archdeacomy of Middlesex, or his Official or Surrogate, at the
" Vestry Eoom of the Parish Church of Saint Paul, Covent

"Garden, in the Coimty 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

ATTENDIX.

"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 Reverend 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 be celebrated by
" God's help on the clay and place aforesaid, unless for some neces-
" sary cause then and there to be alleged and by you to be ap-
" proved, but will canonieally punish the conhmiacies 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 wre 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
" Eeverend 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.]

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 Reverend 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 Archdeacon's 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
" Bight Beverend 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 Sectors, Vicars, and others, as well exempt as not
" exempt, having and obtaining Benefices and Ecclesiastical Pro-
" 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 Boom 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 Beverend John Hume Spry, Doctor in Divinity,
" Sector of Saint Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, and the
" Beverend Thomas Bandolph, Bector 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 Bandolph were thereupon nominated and declared to
" be Brocurators 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 ahove 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 he found of the inter-
ference of Parliament or any like body with the Const it ution 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 solcecism in these later days. This fantastic
parliamentary vision, however, is but one of those strange
chimseras to which some learned persons in their Eccle-
siastical excursions on occasion fall a helplesB 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.

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.

Copy of a Letter of Business of King Edward I. A. D. 1283.
[Wake's " State," A pp. No. xxvii. p. 17.]

" Edwardus, Dei Gratia Eex Anglia?, Dominus Hyberninc et Dux
"Aquitaniae: Venerabilibus in Christo Patribus J. eadem gratia
" Cant. Arcbiepiscopo totius Anglioe Primati, Episcopis, Abbatibus,
" Prioribus, et aliis Domorum Keligiosarum Prmfectis, Decanis,
" Capitulis Ecclcsiarum 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 Cornubias, et dilectum nobis in
" Christo Abbatem Westmonasterii Thesaurarium nostrum, et Jo.de
" Kyrkeby Archidiaconum Covent. ad qusedam ardua et specialia
"ncgotia nos et vos et totum Eegnum nostrum tangentia vobis

356

APPEXDIX.

" nomine nostro exponenda, dilectiones vestras affectuose requirimus
" et rogamus, quatenils eidem Comiti, Abbati, et Johanni vel duobus
" eorum, quos praesentes esse contigerit, firmara fidem adbibentes 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 Eothelan V° die Januarii
"Anno Eegni nostri XI0."

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.

ILL

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, and tilings as We
" from time to time should deliver to you in writing under Our Sign
" Manual or Privy Signet to he 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 Rubrics, 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
" Report :

" Our pleasure therefore is, and We do hereby authorise you, the
" said Most Reverend 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 Report of Our said Commissioners ; and
" after mature debate, consideration, consultation, and agreement, to
" present to Us a Report or Reports 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 Reign.

" 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. Report 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 hy no one contemplated that any
Canon should he "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 hy the Upper House] to take notice of a super fluous
Royal Licence, needlessly issued from the Crown Office in
error. [See Chron. Conv. Lower House Cant., in loco
pp. 67, 98].

The Royal Assent and Licence to Enact, Pko-
mttlge, 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 1 874, 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.

Copy of a Synodical Request to Queen Elizabeth for Royal
Assent and Licence. A. d. 1586, 0. S.

[Extract. & Eegist. Prov. Seel. Archiep. Cantuar. Copies also in
York Becords, Paper Office, and Begisters of the Church of
Exeter. Atterb. " Bights," 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 Bealm generally hath and cloth
" 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 wi],
" 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 OKDAIN 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, 0. S.

[Atterb. " Eights," &c, Add. pp. 642-3.]

" Eegina, etc. Omnibus ad quos, etc. Salutem.

" Cum Praelati et Clerus Cantuar. Provincise nostra auctoritate in
" Synodo sua seu Convocatione congregati ex intima ex propensa
" animorum suorum affectione, quam erga nos gerunt, ultra et praeter
"suhsidium sex solidorum singularum Kbrarum annuarum, etiam
" quandani benevolam contributionem trium solidorum pro singulis
" libris annuis omnium et singulorum beneficioruni suorum Ec-
" clesiasticorum et promotionum spiritualium quorumcunque ac
"omnium possessionum et reventionum eisdem annexarum seu
" quovis modo spectantium et pertinentium, dederint et concesserint,
" prout per quoddam scriptum seu instramentum publiciun sigillo
" jiraedilecti 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 Prajlatomni nostrorum et Cleri
"antedicti prsefatee benevolaj contributionis concessionem appro-
" bamus et eandem confirmamus, ratificamus, et stabilimus, ac ei-
"dem omnibusque et singulis clausulis, sententiis, provisionibus,
"et exceptionihus in dicto instrumento contentis et specificatis
" regium nostrum assensum ex certa scientia et mero motu nostris
"prjEbemus per presentes. Ac insuper sciatis quod, ex gratia
" nostra speciali ac certa scientia et mero motu nostris licentiam
" facultatem et authoritatem PRiELATis nostris et clero predict.

" IN HAC PR^ESENTI SYNODO C0NGREGAT1S DECERNENDI ORDINANDI
"ET CONSTITUENDI QUjECUMQUE 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 justa
" colleetione et solutione diet, benevolo contxibutionis et eujuslibet
"inde parcella5, dedimus concessimus et confirmavimus ac etiam
" DAHD8 concedimus et con firmamus per presentes. In enjus
" 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.

3G3

" 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 cajiacity 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 bberties of the Church.
If public rights could be trampled out by judicial resolutions
I am afraid the vaunted bberties 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 bberties 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.

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 enterprizes, having heaped no less than five
accretions — "treat," "debate," "consider," "consult," and
"agree" — on the aggressive base "confer," unstatutably
and illegally laid by the Jacobsean 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. 1119—20],
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 Jacobeean 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 hoj>e 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.

HI.

Copy of a Synodical Bequest to Queen Victoria for a Royal
Licence, a.d. 1861.

[Chron. Conv. Upper House Cant., Feb. 26, 1861, pp. 326—7.]

" We, Tour 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 Tour
"Majesty's Royal Writ, we have conferred together and con-
"sidered of divers urgent matters concerning Tour Majesty, the
" security and defence of the Church of England, and the peace and
" tranquillity public good and defence of Tour 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 Tour Majesty's Eoyal Licence, to make,
" promulge, and execute such altered and amended Canon, or such
"new Canon accordingly.

"(Signed.)

"J. B. Cantfar., President.

"(A true copy.)

" H. Waddington.

" Whitehall, Feb. 19, 1861."

In reply to this request the following Licence was issued.

APrENDIX.

367

IV.

Copy of a Royal Licence of Queen Victoria's reign, a. d. 18G1.

[Chron. Conv. Upper House Cant., Feb. 26, 1861, p. 327.]

" Victoria, by tbe Grace of God of tbe United Kingdom of Great
" Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faitb, and so forth :
" To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting.

" Whereas in and by one Act of Parliament made at Westminster
" in tlie 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 ivre,
"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
" lioyal 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 bo
"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
"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
" 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 Canterbm-y 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 divei'S

'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 Royal
' 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-
firmed by Us, from time 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 [1 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 grant 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-
sulted, 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

AITEXD1X.

"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 [Cliron. 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 above-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 bimself 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, confirma-
" 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
" of Business " 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 applied, 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
serious injury of their intellectual organs — ■

"Nec lex est justior ulla,

"Quam necis artifices arte perire sua."

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 " Eights," &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.

Royal Writ and Metropolitan's Mandate for
Prorogation.

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 Chinch 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 Reign."

Convocations are by ancient custom prorogued by Royal
Writ to the day following that to which Parliaments are
prorogued.

II.

Copy of <i 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 Thur sday, 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. Cantuar."
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.

Royal Writ for 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. : Eevereudissimo in Christo Patri Thomae eadem
" gratia Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, totius Angliae Primati, et
" Metropolitano, Salutem. Cum praesens Convocatio Cleri vestras
" Cantuariensis Provincial 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 Luna>, duximus dissolvendam.
" Et ided Vobis mandamus quod eandem praesentern Convocationem
" hac instante die Lunae apud Sanctum Paulum praedietum 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 dictae vestrae Cantuariensis Provincial,
" quorum interest aut interesse poterit in hac parte, quod ipsi et
" eorum quilibet huic mandato 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
" Reverend 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 Eeign.

" E. Eomilly."

On the receipt of the above Writ by the Metropolitan, a
Commission under his Seal is sent to the Yicar-General of the
Province, who, at its accustomed place of meeting, duly dissolves
the Convocation in conformity with ancient j>ractice.

"Submission of the Cleegt," and Exteacts from
" Cleegt 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 2^arts of 25 Sen.
VIII. 19 which, as confirmed in Queen Elizabeth's reign,
alone Statutable/ govern the relations between the Convo-
cations and the Crown.

[From a Copy in Lord Longueville's Library, Cone. M. B. hi. 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
"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 Eoyal Assent, shall license us to assemble
" our Convocation, and to make, promuhje, 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
Licence, 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.

ccc

378

APrEXDIX.

Extracts from the "Clergy Submission Act,"
25 Hen. VIII. 19.
[Cone. M. B. iii. 770.]

"A ceste bille 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
" ahvay shal be assembled by auctorite of the Kyngis Wrytt, oneles
"the same Cleregy may have the Kingis moste BOIALL 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 w ill."

[Direction for Review of Ecclesiastical Laws hy thirty-two Commis-
sioners.]

[Saving Clause for Boyal Prerogative, Customs, Laws, and Statutes
of the Realm.]

" Provided also that suche Canons, Constitucions, Ordynannces
" Provincyall and Synodalls, beyng aUredy made, -which be not con-
" trariannt nor repugnant to the Lawes, Statutes, and Customes of this
" Bealme, nor to the damage or hmte of the King's Prerogative
" Boyall, sball 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 denned 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.

Royal "Writ containing the " Pejemunientes " Clause
for 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 Poj'al command, denominated the " Praemuni-
"entes" Clause [Vide supra, pp. 26-28]. And hy 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 hear 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.

Copy of a Writ summoning certain Clergy to Parliament,
as issued by King Edviard I. A.D. 1295.
[Cone. M. B. ii. 215. Wake's "Auth. Christ. Prin." 363-5.]
"Breve regium Archicpiscopo Cantuar., directum de Parliamento
" teuendo apud Westmonasterium cum clausula ' Praemunientes.' "
—Ex Eot. Claus. 23 Ed. I. M. 3, dorso.

" Bex venerabili in Ckristo patri B. eadern gratia Cant. Arcbiepis-
" copo totius Anglia? Primati, Salutem. Sicut lex justissima provida
" circumspectione sacrorum principum stabilita bortatur et statuit,
" ut quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur ; sic et innuit
" evidenter, ut commmiibus periculis per remedia provisa communiter
" obvietur. Sane satis nosti, et jam est, ut credimus, per universa
" mimdi climata divulgatum, qualiter Bex Franciae de terra nostra
" Yasconia? nos fraudulenter et cautelose decepit earn nobis nequiter
" detinendo : nunc vero pra?dictis fraude et nequitia non contentus,
"ad expugnationem regni nostri classe maxima et bellatorum
" copiosa multitudine congregatis, cum quibus regnum nostrum et
"regni ejusdem incolas bostiliter jam invasit, linguam AngUcanam,
" si concepts? iniquitatis proiiosito detestabili potestas correspondeat
" [quod Deus avertat] oumino de terra delere proponit. Quia igitur
" pra?visa jacula minus laedunt, et res vestra maxime sicut cseterorum
" regni ejusdem concivium agitur in bac parte ; Yobis mandamus in
" fide et dilectione, quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter injungentes quod
" die dominica proxime post festum Sancti Martini in byeme proxime
" futurum apild Westminster personaliter intersitis; 'Prasmmiientes'
" priorem et Caintulum Ecclesiae vestra?, Arcbidiaconum, totumque
" Clerum vestra? Dioeceseos ; facientes quod iidem Prior et Arcbi-
" diaconus in propriis personis suis, et dictum Capitulum per unuin,
"idemque Clems per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam et suffi-
" cientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulo et Clero babentes mia
" vobiscum intersint, modis omnibus tunc ibidem ad tractandum
" ordinandum et faciendum nobiscum, et cum cseteris Praslatis
" proceribus et aliis incolis regni nostri, quabter bujusmodi periculis
" et excogitatis malitiis obviandum.

" Teste Bege apud Wengebam, 30 die Septembris."

APPENDIX.

381

Like "Writs, from the year 1295 down to the year 1880,
when the present Parliament was convened, have heen 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 Oiu- 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 Realm :
"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 Reign."

This "Writ, containing the " Prsemunientes " 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 Riley'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 solcecism. 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

33p U)t same Slutfiov.

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: ElVINGTONS.

THE DUTY OF THE CIVIL POWER TO PRO-
MOTE THE FAITH OF THE NATIONAL CHURCH : an
Assise Sermon, preached at Shrewsbury, March 23, 1857.
London : ElVINGTONS.

THE NATIONAL CHURCH : an Answer to an Essay on
"The National Church" in Essays and Reviews. (1861.)
London : Saunders, Otlet, & Co.

ECCLESIA VINDICATA: a Treatise on Appeals in
Matters Spiritual. Dedicated, by permission, to the Earl of
Derby, E.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 : RlVINGTONS.

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: RlVINGTONS.

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: RlVINGTONS.

THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF IRELAND:

a Letter to the Bishop of Derry, on the Constitution of Diocesan
and Provincial Synods. (1869.)

London : RlVINGTONS.

ON THE INTRODUCTION OF LAITY INTO

SYNODS : a Letter to Lord Alwyne Compton, Prolocutor of
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 OF PEIVATE PRAYER: Short Forms of

Daily Prayer. Cloth, 6d. ; or neatly bound, with gilt edges, price Is. 6(2.

THE BOOK OP PRIVATE PRAYER: Forms of Prayer

for Use Twice Daily. Cloth, 2s. ; neatly bound, with gilt edges, 3s. 6d.

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 bij Direction of the itoujcr fiJOUSC Of CanfaOtattflll 0f tfjc $3rOUtltrC
of Catitfriuri?.

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 Eveiy 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. Luke and St. John.

St. Matthew and St. Mark. The Acts of the Apostles.

Also by the same Author.

ON PRAYING : The Necessity and Advantage of Diligent

Prayer. 18mo, cloth, red edges, 9d.

THE PATH OF DUTY : A few Plain Directions for more

worthily performing— I. Our Duty Towards God ; II. Our Duty Towards Our
Neighbour. 18mo, cloth, Is.

NEW WORKS ANT) NEW EDITIONS.

A New Edition, with Additions, revised by the Author.

RIDLEY OX 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. Part L Its Nature 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.

Canon Ridley'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, 6d. ; or neatly bound in Turkey roan, with gilt edges, Is. 6d.

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 tor
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." — Gotptller.

" I must thank you for the new editions of The
yarrow 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 Narrow 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 wUh 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 and
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 Clehgymax.

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, 6d.

THE RULE OF LIFE. Being an Easy Exposition of the

Ten Commandments. 32mo, cloth, Qd.

NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS.

THE DAILY BOUND

MEDITATION, PRAISE AND PRAYER,

mapttn to tfje Course of tijr Cfjristtan l>ear.

Ten Editions of this
Demy 48mo, Cloth, 3s. ; Morocco, 5*.
Demy 48mo, with Red Border lines and
Ked Initials, Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; Morocco,
5s. 6d.

Demy 32mo, Cloth, 3s. ; Turkey Roan,
gilt edges, 4s. ; Morocco, 5s. 6d.

4. Demy 32mo, with Red Border lines and

Red Initials, Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; Turkey roan,
gilt edges, 4s. 6d. ; Morocco, 6s.

5. *Imperial 32mo, Cloth, red edges, 3s. ;

Turkey Roan, gilt edges, 4s. 6c?. ; Mo-
rocco, 6s.

6. Royal 24mo, Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; Turkey

Roan, gilt edges, 5s. ; Morocco, 6s. 6d.

Work are noio ready :

7. Royal 24mo, with Red Border lines and

Red Initials, Cloth, 4s. Gd. ; Turkey
Roan, gilt edges, 6s. ; Morocco, 7s. 6d.

8. *Foolscap 8vo, Cloth, red edges, 4s. Gd. ;

Turkey Roan, gilt edges, 6s. ; Morocco,
9s.

9. Crown 8vo, Rubricated ; a beautiful

Presentation Volume, Cloth, 7s. 6rf. ;
Turkey Roan, gilt edges, 10s. ; Mo-
rocco, 14s.

10. Demy 8vo, Large Type, a most acceptable
Present to Aged Persons, Cloth, 10s. Gd.;
Morocco, 18s.

The Editions thus marked are ordinarily kept in stock by every Bookseller.

The late Bishop op Manchester in writing of the work snys : — " I have examined and tested ' The
Daily Round ' rather carefuliy.iand 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 1 than which the saintly author of the
1 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 op 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 Round " is also recommended by the present Archbishop of Canterbury.

The late Bishop op 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 11 Daily Round" is also recommended by the present Bishop of London.

" Nearly every Bishop of all Schools of the
Church of England has expressed approval of ' The
Daily Round.' 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 hai 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 eiich 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."— Ei-aminer.

" Those who feel the need for a manual of medi-
tation, prayer and praise for daily use will prize

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 tho reader to do his daily duty in
the spirit of the Word of God. 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
of the Christian year, and contains a passage of
Scripture, with a brief comment or mediiation, and
a verse 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 beloDgs. Issued
as it is in elegant binding, it forms a most suitable
present for a Christian friend."— Rock.

DAILY LIFE

ITS TRIALS, DUTIES AND DIFFICULTIES.
Shout Practical Essays. By the Author of "The Daily Round." Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4s. Gd.

NEW WORKS AND NSW EDITION*

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 Keferences, 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, down 8vo, pp. 607, price 7s. 6d. ; 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 Alexandria^ 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. Michf.ll, M.A. Two Volumes, fcap. 8vo, cloth,
with Map of Palestine, 6s.

" 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 rind 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. Whitakeii having purchased l7w Copyright of this popular Work, with the stock, is
now preparing an entirely New Edition, with about Five Hundred beautif ul Illustrations.

The New Edition will form Seventeen Volumes, large crown 8vo, and will be issued in a
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 Jessoi'. With numerous additions. {Forming Vol. XVII.
or Supplement to Baring -Gould.)

17750TB 170

11-13-03 32180 MS <§

1 1012 01280 7287

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Acts of the church, 1531-1885. 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"

See other formats