by convincing them that they were only in a premunire. At the close of the debate the house came to the following resolutions:

Resolved nem. contradicente, "That the clergy of England convened in any convocation or synod, or otherwise, have no power to make any constitutions, canons, or acts, whatsoever, in matters of doctrine, discipline, or otherwise, to bind the clergy or laity of the land, without consent of parliament.

Resolved, "That the several constitutions and canons ecclesiastical, treated upon by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, presidents of the convocations for their respective provinces, and the rest of the bishops and clergy of those provinces, and agreed upon with the king's majesty's licence, in their several synods begun at London and York 1640, do not bind the clergy or laity of the land, or either of them.

Resolved, "That the several constitutions and canons made and agreed to in the convocations or synods above mentioned, do contain in them many matters contrary to the king's prerogative, to the fundamental laws and statutes of this realm, to the rights. of parliament, to the property and liberty of the subject, and matters tending to sedition, and of dangerous consequence.

Resolved, "That the several grants of benevolences or contributions, granted to his most excellent majesty by the clergy of the provinces of Canterbury and York, in the several convocations or synods holden at London and York in the year 1640, are contrary to the laws, and ought not to bind the clergy."

If the first of these resolutions be agreeable to law, I apprehend there were then no canons subsisting, for those of 1603 were not brought into parliament, but, being made in a parliamentary convocation, were ratified by the king under the great seal, and so became binding on the clergy, according to the statute of the 25th of king Henry VIII. In the Saxon times all ecclesiastical laws and constitutions were confirmed by the peers, and by the representatives of the people *; but those great councils, to which our

This Dr. Grey controverts, and says, “I should be glad to know what authority he has for this assertion." It is not for the editor to give the authority, when Mr. Neal has not himself referred to it; but he can supply the want of it by an authority, which, if Dr. Grey were living, would command his respect: viz. that of Dr. Burn, who tells us, that "even in the Saxon times, if the subject of any laws was for the outward peace and temporal government of the church, such laws were properly ordained by the king and his great council of clergy and laity intermixed, as our acts of parliament are still made. But if there was any doctrine to be tried, or any exercise of pure discipline to be reformed, then the clergy of the great council departed into a separate synod, and there acted as the proper judges. Only when they had thus provided for the state of religion, they brought their canons from the synod to the great council, to be ratified by the king, with the advice of his great men, and so made the constitutions of the church to be laws of the realm. And the Norman revolution made no change in this respect." This author farther says, that the convocation-tax did always pass both houses of parliament; since it could not bind as a law, till it had the consent of the legislature." Judge Foster, in his examination of Bishop Gibson's codex, appeals to the laws of Ethelbert and Withred, kings of Kent, and of Ina of Wessex; to the laws of Alfred, Edward the elder, Athelstan, Edmund, Edgar, and Canute, as proofs that the ecclesiastical and civil concerns of the kingdom were not, in the times of the Saxons, under the care

A

parliaments succeed, being made up of laics and ecclesiastics, were' afterward separated, and then the clergy did their business by themselves, and enacted laws without confirmation of king or parliament, during the reign of Popery, till the act of the submission of the clergy to king Henry VIII., so that the claim of making canons without the sanction of parliament, seemed to stand upon no other foundation than the usurped power of the pope: nor did the parliaments of those times yield up their right; for in the 51st of Edward III. the commons passed a bill, that no act or ordinance should be made for the future upon the petition of the clergy, without the consent of the commons; "and that the said commons should not be bound for the future by any constitutions of the clergy, to which they had not given their consent in parliament." But the bill being dropped, things went on upon the former footing till the reign of king Henry VIII.*, when the pope's usurped power being abolished, both parliament and clergy agreed, by the act of submission, that no canons should be binding without the royal assent; and that the clergy in convocation should not so much as consult about any without the king's special licence. But serjeant Maynard delivered it as his opinion in the house, that it did not follow, that because the clergy might not make canons without the king's licence, that therefore they might make them and bind them on the clergy by his licence alone; for this were to take away the ancient rights of parliament before the pope's usurpation, which they never yielded up nor does the act of submission of the clergy take away. Upon this reasoning the commons voted their first resolution, the strength of which I leave to the reader's consideration.

The arguments upon which the other resolutions are founded will be laid together, after we have related the proceedings of the convocation.

The convocation was opened November 4, 1640. Dr. Bargrave, dean of Canterbury, preached the sermon, and Dr. Steward, dean of Chichester, was chosen prolocutor, and presented to the archbishop's acceptance in king Henry VII.'s chapel, when his grace made a pathetic speech, lamenting the danger of the church, and exhorting every one present to perform the duty of their places with resolution, and not to be wanting to themselves or the cause of religion; but nothing of moment was transacted, there being no commission from the king; only Mr. Warmistre, one of the clerks for the diocess of Worcester, being convinced of the invalidity of the late canons, moved the house that they might cover the pit which they had opened, and prevent a parliamentary inquisition, by petitioning the king for leave to review them; but of two separate legislatures, and subject to different administrations; but blended together, and directed by one and the same legislature, the great councils, or in modern style, the parliaments, of the respective kingdoms during the heptarchy, and of the united kingdom afterward. Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, vol. 2. p. 22. 26.

8vo. An Examination of the Scheme of Church Power laid down in the Codex, p. 120, &c. En *Fuller's Appeal, p. 42.

his motion was rejected, the house being of opinion that the canons were justifiable; nor would they accear

nean as

condemn themselves before they were accused. Mr. Karnisze suffered in the opinion of his brethren within doors ir ma Deardly speech; and was reproached from vinout as an emy the church, and a turncoat, because he had wiveled se articles which now he condemned. This orged him a paten his speech to the world, wherein, after having testared his acis faction in the doctrine, discipline, and government, of the charan of England, as far as it is established by av, he go on to win there had been no private innovations introduced; for though be approves of an outward reverence in the worship of God, te is against directing it to altars and images. He appretends it reasonable, that such innocent ceremonies as have a proper tendency to decency and order should be retained, but wishes the removal of crosses and images out of churches, as scandalous and superstitious, having an apparent tendency towards idolatry; and that there might be no lighted candies in the day-time; he then gives his reasons against the oath in the sixth canon, and concludes with these words: "If my subscription be urged against what I have said, I was persuaded it was the practice of synods and councils, that the whole body should subscribe to those acts which are passed by the major part as synodical acts, notwithstanding their private dissent; if my subscription implied any more, I do so far recant and condemn it in myself, and desire pardon both of God and the church, resolving by God's grace to be more cautious hereafter." Mr. Warmistre's behaviour showed him to be a wise and discreet clergyman; and his being sequestered from his livings some time after, for not submitting to the parliament, shows him to have been a man of principle, not to be moved from his integrity by the resentments of his friends, or the flatteries of his enemies. And though the convocation was so sanguine at their first coming together, as to despise Mr. Warmistre's motion, yet when they saw the vigorous resolutions of the house of commons against the canons, and the articles of impeachment against the metropolitan for high treason, one of which was for compiling the late canons, they were dispirited, and in a few weeks deserted their stations in the convocation-house; the bishops also discontinued their meetings, and in a few weeks both houses dwindled to nothing, and broke up without either adjournment or prorogation.

To return to the parliament. It was argued against the late convocation, that they were no legal assembly after the dissolution of the parliament; that his majesty had no more power to continue them than to recall his parliament; nor could he by

Archbishop Laud, to exculpate himself from blame in this matter, declared, that "this sitting of the convocation was not by his advice or desire; but that he It was set up in defence of this measure humbly desired a writ to dissolve it." (and the argument has since been adopted by Dr. Warner), that the parliament and

his letters patent convert them into a national or provincial synod, because the right of their election ceasing at the expiration of the convocation, they ought to have been rechosen before they could act in the name of the clergy whom they represented, or bind them by their decrees. It is contrary to all law and reason in the world, that a number of men met together in a convocation, upon a summons limited to a certain time, should after the expiration of that time, by a new commission, be changed into a national or provincial synod, without the voice or election of any one person concerned. The commons were therefore at a loss by what name to call this extraordinary assembly, being in their opinion neither convocation nor synod, because no representative body of the clergy. The words convocation and synod are convertible terms, signifying the same thing, and it is essential to both that they be chosen by (if they are to make constitutions and canons to bind) the clergy. Some indeed have thought of a small distinction, as that a convocation must begin and end with the parliament, whereas a synod may be called by the king out of parliament, but then such an assembly cannot give subsidies for their brethren, nor make laws by which they will be bound.

The objections to the particular canons were these:

1. Against the first canon it was argued, that the compilers of it had invaded the rights and prerogatives of parliament, by pretending to settle and declare the extent of the king's power, and the subjects' obedience.

By declaring the sacred order of kings to be of divine right, founded in the prime laws of nature and revelation, by which they condemned all other governments.

By affirming that the king had an absolute power over all his subjects, and a right to the subsidies and aids of his people without consent of parliament.

By affirming that subjects may not bear arms against their king, either offensive or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever, upon pain of receiving to themselves damnation.

By taking upon themselves to define some things to be treason not included in the statute of treasons.

And lastly, by inflicting a penalty on such of the king's subjects

convocation being separate bodies, and convened by different writs, the dissolution of the former does not necessarily infer the dissolution of the latter, which could not rise till discharged by another writ. Dr. Burn has advanced this reason into a general principle, but on no other authority than that of Dr. Warner in this case. The lord-keeper, the judges, and king's council, assured the king, that the clergy might legally continue their sitting. But much allowance is to be made for the influence under which the opinion of court-lawyers is given; as in the case of shipmoney. Mr. Neal's reasoning on this point, carries great weight with it. Lord Clarendon speaks of the continued sitting of the convocation as rather unprecedented; for he says, that this assembling of the clergy customarily began and ended with parliaments. It was evidently impolitic, in such a conjuncture of time, to deviate from the custom, and to stretch the prerogative. Dr. Grey's Examination in loc. Nalson's Collections, vol. 1. p. 365. Warner's Eccles. Hist. vol. 2. p. 535. Burn's Eccles. Law, vol. 2. p. 27; and Lord Clarendon's Hist. vol. 1. p. 148.-ED.

as shall dare to disobey them, in not reading and publishing the above-mentioned particulars; in all which cases it was averred that they had "invaded the rights of parliament, destroyed the liberty of the subject, and subverted the very fundamental laws and constitutions of England."

2. It was objected against the second canon, that they had assumed the legislative power, in appointing a new holy day contrary to the statute, which says, that there shall be such and such holy days and no more.

4. It was objected against the fourth canon, that whereas the determination of heresy is expressly reserved to parliament, the convocation had declared that to be heresy which the law takes no notice of; and had condemned Socinianism in general, without declaring what was included under that denomination, so that after all it was left in their own breasts, whom they would condemn and censure under that character.

6. It was objected against the sixth canon, that it imposed a new oath upon the subject, which is a power equal if not superior to the making a new law *. It was argued likewise against the oath itself, that in some parts it was very ambiguous and doubtful, and in others directly false and illegal.

We are to swear in the oath, that " we approve the doctrine, discipline, or government, established in the church of England," and yet we are not told wherein that doctrine and discipline are contained; whether by the doctrine of the church we are to understand only the thirty-nine articles, or likewise the homilies and church-catechism; and by the discipline, only the book of canons, or likewise all other ecclesiastical orders, not repealed by statute; for it is observable that the words of the oath 66 are, as it is established," and not, as it is established by law. And the ambiguity is further increased by that remarkable et cætera, inserted in the body of the oath; for whereas oaths ought to be explicit, and the sense of the words as clear and determined as possible, we are here to swear to we know not what, to something that is not expressed; by which means we are left to the arbitrary interpretation of the judge, and may be involved in the guilt of perjury before we are

aware.

But besides the ambiguity of the oath, it contains some things false and illegal; for it affirms the government of the church by archbishops, bishops, deans, and archdeacons, to be of divine right; for after we have sworn to the hierarchy as established by the law of the land, we are to swear further, that "by right it

The archbishop, in reply to this objection, referred to various canons, made in king James's time, and appointing different oaths, merely by the authority of convocation, viz. canons 40, 118, 103, and 127, as precedents, which had never been declared illegal, nor the makers of them censured by parliaments; and which justified, therefore, the power assumed by this convocation. His lordship in urging, and Dr. Grey in repeating, this defence, did not perceive, that it is a bad and insufficient plea for doing wrong, that others had escaped the censure and punishment due to illegal conduct. Grey's Examination in loc.-Er.