purpose,) but upon the authority and intention of the arch. bishop, as president of the assembly, to continue both the meetings, and the affairs of them, from time to time, ‘in statu quo nunc sunt.’ “5. That the queen by her writ does not either assemble, prorogue, or dissolve the convocation, but direct and require the archbishop so to do. "6. That the royal writ of prorogation having no words in it that require the archbishop to put an end to the business of the convocation, but requiring him on the contrary to prorogue it' modo debito ;' i. e. as we conceive, according to the received custom, and usage of convocation; his grace is in full possession of his ancient and undoubted right to continue the business and treating of the convocation; as his predecessors have, time immemorial, done. "7. That the archbishop continuing the convocation upon the royal writ 'in statu quo nunc est,' as he does in all his other prorogations, the convocation must thereby meet under the same right and capacity of going on with the business, as it would have done, if the prorogation had been made without any such writ. "All which being so; it is lastly the opinion of this house; "8. That it is our duty to support the true and ancient constitution of our ecclesiastical synods or convocations; which however we willingly acknowledge to be subject both in their assembling and acting to the royal supremacy, (as they always were before the statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, and ought to have been, though that statute had never been made,) yet we cannot so far consent to alter the nature and condition of them, as to deprive them of that ecclesiastical authority they confessedly had before the making of that statute, and we conceive ought still to enjoy, notwithstanding what has been thereby done to limit or restrain the exercise of it." Another difficulty which befel convocations incidentally, affecting their character at all times, and at last contributing to shorten their existence, was the office of condemning heretical publications. At an earlier period this office had been discharged by the court of high commission; and the state of public feeling at the time, conspiring with the supreme authority and the matchless vigour of that court, made such offences of rare occurrence, and prevented them, whenever they с occurred, from being brought before other tribunals. But when the court of high commission was abolished, and the spirit of the times removed much of the restraint which had previously been imposed upon the press, occasions were constantly arising for the interference of some church authority, and a spiritual judge was wanted, whose arm could reach to every part of the kingdom, and strike terror into every species of offender. This duty, which the bishops' courts, however adequate to their own respective dioceses, were too restricted or too feeble to discharge, was undertaken by the convocation; but the case of Toland, a case that occurred as early as the year 1701, and seemed likely to try their strength to the uttermost, soon furnished them with reasons for doubting whether they possessed any jurisdiction in such matters. Their doubts were confirmed by several legal opinions that were given against them; and it was not till the year 1711, when the memorable case of Whiston had roused the spirit and strengthened the resolution of the clergy, that the twelve judges were commanded by the queen to give their opinion on the subject, and eight of their number, together with the attorney and solicitor general, declared themselves in favour of the authority of convocation. In the midst of the warfare then raging between the two houses, these questions led to further discord in some instances, and to a zealous cooperation in others. Among the most remarkable were the cases of bishop Burnet and doctor Samuel Clarke; but the most formidable and fatal opponent was bishop Hoadly, whose “Preservative against the non-jurors" and "Sermon on the kingdom of Christ," written in defence of the existing government, and shielded by their public approbation, led to the virtual extinction of convocations. In the year 1717, the lower house drew up a hostile representation respecting those books; but it had not yet been laid before the bishops, when the king's government sent down a writ of prorogation, being warned by the great scandal of some former controversies, and determined to protect a prelate, who was the earnest advocate of their own opinions. From that day the convocation appears to have been doomed to a perpetual silence. After this general narrative some observations would seem to be required respecting the relations of the two houses to each other, and of the whole body to the great authorities of the state. Each subject indeed is attended with its own difficulties, and the latter of them is of such a nature as to involve conflicting principles, and to lead onward into dangerous speculations. But the statement may be sustained by a constant reference to facts, and with such a limitation will recommend itself by its own natural importance. The house of bishops uniformly asserted and maintained their superiority over the lower house. The archbishop as president of the whole body possessed his own individual privileges; but the upper house, with the president at its head, had the right of determining the sittings of the lower clergy, of assigning the business to be prepared by them, of calling for their assistance in committee, and confirming their election of a prolocutor. The lower clergy could present petitions containing complaints or suggestions, could offer amendments on the propositions of the bishops, or render them of no effect by finally dissenting from them. And this disparity resulted naturally from the authority possessed by the bishops individually over their respective presbyters, from the higher kind of sacredness attaching to their order, which, though not openly maintained till near the end of Elizabeth's reign, was one of the constant principles of her conduct, and from the constitution of early synods, consisting, as they did, of bishops and prelates only, the lower clergy having been called together originally for advice and counsel, and not acquiring a distinct and permanent interest till they were found useful for the purpose of granting subsidies. It was observed accordingly in queen Mary's reign" with what loftiness the bishops, few as they were in number, carried it towards the lower house;" and the canons of 1571, "upon which it was fully agreed in the synod by the lord Matthew, archbishop of Canterbury, and all the rest of the bishops of his province," speak expressly of constitutions as made by the sole authority of the archbishop and his suffragans. i f The archbishop had a veto on all measures, a privilege which he also retained for himself, whenever another bishop presided for him; he had the right of giving leave of absence to the members of the lower house, and of absolving or punish ing them for their absence in other 8 Strype, Mem. vol. iii. P. i. p. 75. C2 But a more important question was the relation subsisting between a convocation and a parliament. And here it must be remembered that two large parties in the commonwealth may set out in their views of government from two opposite principles, the one maintaining that by a law of Christianity, all questions relating to religion, whether in the way of doctrine. or of discipline, must be determined by the church, the other that by a law of nature, all questions whatever affecting the interests of society must be determined eventually by the supreme legislature. It is easy to conceive that occasions might arise from cases of a mixed nature when these two principles would be brought into dangerous conflict; and that in such cases no remedy could be found but the prudence, which trains and modifies them as they occur, and treats them throughout the whole period of their existence with extreme caution and mutual forbearance. And such appears to have been the conduct, that has generally been pursued with regard to the opposing claims of convocation and parliament. As early as in the year 1547 the lower clergy petitioned the house of commons " that according to the ancient custom of this realm and the tenor of the king's writs for the summoning of the parliament, ..... the clergy of the lower house of convocation may be adjoined and associate with the lower house of parliament; or else that all such statutes and ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of religion and causes ecclesiastical may not pass without the sight and assent of the said clergy." In the year 1571, when the XXXIX articles were under the consideration of the commons, and it appeared to be their wish to omit a certain number of them, archbishop Parker remonstrated with their committee, and suggested that in the whole of that matter they should defer to the judgment of the bishops. In like manner queen Elizabeth repeatedly ordered that bills regarding the church should first be approved by the clergy: king James I, when he found the commons dealing with the perilous subject of excommunication, desired that they would first confer with the convocation respecting it: and king Charles I. empowered the convocation of 1640 to continue sitting, after the parliament had been dissolved, and k Wake MSS. Misc. v. 40. p. 78. see also infra, p. 421. assented to those memorable canons, of which lord Clarendon says that "in the best of times they might have been questioned, and were sure to be condemned in the worst." The house of commons resisted, in some instances temperately, in all instances firmly, these varied solicitations. To the remonstrance of archbishop Parker their committee answered in the person of Mr. Wentworth, that they would pass nothing without examination. They replied to the orders of queen Elizabeth with assurances of dutiful submission, at the same time proceeding steadily in their measures of church reform. Become more bold under a weaker sovereign they declared the conference recommended by king James to be unprecedented and derogatory from their privileges, although they were willing to confer with the bishops as lords of parliament. But a better conclusion may be drawn from their conduct on two subsequent occasions, when the church and the state had been brought into actual collision, and the merits of the whole question were more distinctly understood. In the year 1662, when the changes made by the convocation in the book of Common Prayer were debated in the house of commons, it was decided, though only by a small majority, to adopt them without examination; and with a still greater deference to the authority of the church, in the year 1689, when the bill of comprehension was before the commons, they petitioned the king to summon a convocation, as the more proper assembly for discussing ecclesiastical questions. In this sentiment the lords afterwards concurred, and a joint address was presented to the throne praying that "according1 to the ancient practice and usage of this kingdom in time of parliament, his majesty would be graciously pleased to issue forth his writs, as soon as conveniently might be, for calling a convocation of the clergy of this kingdom, to be advised with in ecclesiastical matters." Nevertheless, although the reasonable claims of the convocation have been practically admitted, and the precedents that would be quoted in their favour are at once the most recent in their occurrence, and the most distinct in their declaration, it is clear from the nature of the case that the parliament possesses 1 Hist. of Confer. p. 410. |
