CHAP. I.

THO it be not very material in § 1. what Order we examine the Que­stions here proposed; nor shall I therefore pass any (ensure upon the Method, which our Author has taken, in handling of them: yet because I think the matter of Right, in this case, is of much greater Concern, in it self, than that of Expedience; and the Proof of [Page 2] which, if it stand good, will supersede the necessity of looking any farther: I shall take the liberty to begin with that Point, which, howsoever it be resol­ved, will go a great way towards a De­termination of this whole Controversie. For if the Convocation has a legal Right to Sit and Act, Independent upon the Will and Pleasure of the Prince; and if to de­ny them so to do, as often as the Parlia­ment is Assembled, is to violate that Right which, by vertue of our Constitution, they ought to enjoy; (as this Author doubts not to affirm:) Then whether there be any such present Occasion for their Sit­ting, as he pretends, or no; it must be confess'd that the Clergy have had wrong enough already done them; and ought not to be encroach'd upon by any farther Adjournments. On the contrary, If the Meeting and Acting of the Convocation, does depend upon the Grace and Pleasure of the Prince; so that they can neither Assemble nor Consult, without his Permis­s [...] nor is He any farther obliged to [...] of either, than he is persuaded [...] Meeting and Acting will be for the [...] Benefit of the Church and Kingdom: Then it must follow, that in pretending to judg of these Matters, our Convoca­tion-Man [Page 3] and his Friend have meddled with that which does not belong to them: And that in vain do they insist upon what seems agreeable to their Apprehen­sions; whilst they cannot tell but that His Majesty may have as Good, or Better, Reasons against their Sitting, under the present Circumstances of Affairs; as they can Imagine they have offer'd for it.

Indeed, if our Author be at this time § 2. a Member of the House of Commons, as in One passage of his Book he seems to inti­mate Let. p 28 that He is: And if His Concern for the Honour of Religion, and the Good of the Ib. p. 22. Church, be so Great, as he would have us think it to be; I cannot but wonder why he has so long suffered that Honou­rable House to neglect this matter so far, as never once to enter upon the Consi­deration of it. He knows the Commons have a standing Committee for Religion; and he seems to lay it to their charge, that notwithstanding this, nothing has [...] [...]. p. [...] been done by 'em, since the Revolution, in favour of it. But why then did not our Zealous Advocate chuse rather to Repre­sent the Injury that is done our Church, and the Invasion that has been made upon the very Fundamental Frame of our Consti­tution, [Page 4] to those worthy Gentlemen; and at such a Committee, where he had a Right to speak, and where this Point would have been properly debated; than to creep out into the World under the dis­guise of a nameless Author; and Expose both Himself and his Cause, to those Censures, which, by this means, are so justly pass'd upon Both.

We cannot suppose that he declined this out of any distrust of the Arguments he had to allege, to make good his Pre­tensions, in favour of the Convocation. No, we find he is so consident of their Clearness, that he asserts it again and a­gain, with much Assurance, that to Sit and Act, is their Right; and that the King cannot hinder them from doing Both, without Violating our Constitution, as well as Injuring the Convocation. And for his Opinion of the Readiness of the House of Commons to do us Justice, as to this matter, I shall need only to repeat his own Words to shew, that He had no reason to Except against That. ‘ For the same Reason (says he) that they are con­cern'd [...] p 16 to maintain the Rights and Privi­leges of Their own Body, They would be careful not to invade Those of Another. They are wise enough to know that the pre­serving [Page 5] the Constitution, as it is, is the best way to preserve their true and real Interests: and that the Constitution can no otherwise be upheld, than by the several parts of it being preserved in their just Rights and Powers; allow'd to Act in their proper Spheres, and Circumscribed within them. This I say they are wise enough to know; and withal just enough to own, That a Convocation is as much a part of the Constitution, as a Parlia­ment it self.’

But our Author has taken his own § 3. Way, and I must either follow him in it, or must leave one great part of his Letter unanswered: And it is not unlike­ly but that in doing this, some may be so far byass'd in his Favour, as to believe that it was unanswerable. And tho' I am sensible that in pursuing of these Consi­derations I shall meddle with such Mat­ters as do not at all belong to a private Debate; yet since others have had the Boldness to arraign the Government, for not suffering the Convocation to meet; and to tell the World, that both the Ho­nour of Religion, and the Good of the Church, are concern'd in it, and cannot be preserved without it: I hope I may [Page 6] take the liberty to examine what Ground there is for so invidious a Suggestion; and have as much Right to transgress in behalf of Authority, as this Gentleman has taken to offend against it.

And the Method that I shall choose, for the clearing of this Subject, shall be this:

First, I will enquire (as to the matter Letter. p. 1. 21. of Right) whether there be any Law, that Commands, or Permits, the sitting and acting of the Convocation; besides the absolute, free Pleasure of the Prince? And, if there be, What that Law is? And how far the Prince is obliged by it. Which being settled, I will,

Secondly, Consider, What Occasion there is at present for a Convocation? Ib p. 1. 2. And whether the Necessity of its Meeting and Acting be so great; and the Delay of it so dangerous, as our Author pretends it to be.

As for his Third Question, which re­spects the Validity of the Acts of a Con­vocation, any farther than they are Con­firm'd, and Approved of, by Parliament; that is not much insisted upon by our Author: And what is needful to be said [Page 7] to it, will incidentally fall in, in the Pro­secution of the other Two.

But tho' this therefore be the General Method which I shall Observe; yet I am sensible, that in order to the better clear­ing of the former of these Questions, I must take a much larger Compass than our Author's Design led him to do. And to the end I may not barely answer his Allegations, but may also give some tole­rable Account of the true Nature and Rights of our Convocation; (which, for all this Gentleman has yet done, may still continue to be as little understood as Letter, p. 20. those of a Jewish Sanhedrim:) I shall en­deavour to examine this Matter to the bottom, as far as my Skill will enable, and my Leisure permit me to do it. For Lett. p. 27. as our Author has rightly observed, that an exact, and full Account of this Matter, cannot be given but by one who has great Skill in our English Laws and Anti­quities; (I may add, and in the Laws and Antiquities of the Church too; which Dyet must be competently understood, o [...] this Subject can never be throughly handled:) so must I freely profess, that neither will my other Affairs allow me to be very exact; nor does my Profession, as a Di­vine, [Page 8] intitle me to so much Skill, as I am sensible is requisite, to the perfecting of such an Undertaking. But however, I will candidly offer what I have met with; and where I chance to be mistaken, (espe­cially in Matters of Law, which lie out of my Way,) I hope those who are more learned will make a reasonable Allow­ance for my Errors.

CHAP. II.

TO come then, without any more [...] 1. ado, to the Business in hand; the [Page 9] first and main Thing to be consider'd is this:

‘Whether there is any Law that commands or permits the Sitting and Acting of the Convocation; besides the absolute, free Pleasure of the Prince? And, if there be, What that Law is? And, How far the Prince is obliged by it?’

This I take to be the true state of the Question, and I shall treat of it in this following Method.

I. I will enquire, What Power, Christi­an Princes, in general, have claim'd over such Convocations; with respect both to their Assembling and Acting, and to the giving Force and Autho­rity to what is done by them?

II. I will consider, Whether our Kings have not the same Authority over our Convocation, that all other Chri­stian Princes have claim'd over their Synods? And

III. Upon this Foundation, I will Examine what this Author has al­ledged to the contrary; and offer what, I conceive, may fairly be re­plied to it.

[Page 10] And I. Let us enquire, What Power, Chri­stian Princes, in general, have claim'd, over their Synods; with respect both to their Meeting and Acting first; and to the giving Force, and Authority, to what is done by them?

That Christian Princes have a Right, § 2. not only to exercise Authority over Eccle­siastical Persons, but to interpose in the ordering of Ecclesiastical Affairs too; nei­ther our own Articles and Canons, nor Artic xxvii. Can. 1, 2. the Consent of the Universal Church, ever since the Empire became Christian, will suffer us to doubt. There is no one so great a Stranger to the History of the Holy Scriptures, as not to know what Au­thority the Jewish Princes, under the Law, pretended to, as to this matter. And how far the first Christian Emperors fol­low'd their Examples, were other Authors silent, yet that one Assertion of Socrates would not suffer us to be ignorant; where he affirms, That ever since they be­came H [...]st Eccl. praef. l. v p. 259 C. Christians, the Affairs of the Church have depended upon them: and the greatest Synods been assembled by their Order, and still (says he) continue to be assembled.

It was a famous Saying of Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, to his Bishops; [Page 11] That They indeed were Bishops in things Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib 4. cap. 24. within the Church, but that He was ap­pointed, by God, to be Bishop, as to Those without. And how far the succeeding Emperors continued to look upon the well ordering, and Governing of the Church, to be one great part of that Duty which God expected from them; The Epistle of Theodosius and Valentinian to to St. Cyril, and the rest of the Metropoli­tans, Vid Act. Conc. E­phes. I. Part. cap. 32. Adde Epist. ad Synod. Ibid. cap. 35. whom they summoned to meet in the General Council of Ephesus, abun­dantly shews.

Let us look into the several Collecti­ons of the Roman Laws: De feriis: de nu­p [...]is: de fide Cath. de H [...]reticis: de Episc. & Cleric. &c. The Code of Theodosius: Lib. I. Tit. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The Code and Novell. v [...]. cxxxvii, cxxxi, &c. Novels of Justinian: The yet later Basil. F [...]b [...]ot. lib. t, 3, 4, 5. Collection of Basi­lius, Leo, and Constantine, that followed after: How many Constitutions shall we find in every one of these re­lating to Ecclesiastical Affairs; to the Order and Government of the Church; to the Election, and Consecration of Bishops and Priests; to the Lives, Of­fices, and Privileges of the Clergy; to the Erection and Liberties of Churches; to the Service of them; nay, and even to the [Page 12] very Faith which was to be taught and profess'd in Them? And when the Empire began to be parcell'd out into several lesser States and Kingdoms, We find their several Princes still maintaining the same Authority, as to all these things, that the Emperors had done before: As from the Capitularies of the French and German Princes; the Collections of the Spanish Councils; our Own [...]eg. Ed. Conf. cap. 17. Leg. Can [...]. ca. 11. [...]. Praefat. cap. 2. Leg. Edw. & Guthr. cap. 3. Alfred. cap. 39 &c. Antient Laws, and the Histories which remain of the seve­ral Other Countries, does evidently ap­pear.

But of the Authority of Princes in Ec­clesiastical Matters, and over Ecclesiastical § 3. Persons, in general, there is no doubt. Nor should there, one would think, be any more; whether One great part of their Authority as to these Matters, has not al­ways been accounted to consist, in the Power to conven [...] Synods, and to order whatsoever relates both to the assembling, and acting of them. And for the better Proof of which, I shall now distinctly consider what their Power is, with respect

(1) To the calling of such Synods or Convocations.

[Page 13] (2) To the directing of their Proceed­ings, when they are Assembled. And,

(3) To the approving and confirming their Constitutions afterwards.

And (1) Let us consider, What the Power of the Civil Magistrate is, as to the Convening of Ecclesiastical Synods, and Convocations.

It has ever been look'd upon as one § 4. great part of the Prince's Prerogative, that no Societies should be incorporated, nor any Companies be allow'd to meet to­gether, without his Knowledge and Permis­sion. The Roman Law was, especially, ve­ry severe, as to this Particular: And tho' after the Conversion of the Emperors Pand [...]ct. lib. 47 tit. 22 l. 1. to the Faith of Christ, a provision was made for the Publick Assemblies of the Church for Divine Service: yet before that, Tertullian, who understood these Tertull. de Je [...]un. cap. 13. matters as well as any one of his time; tho' he excused their Meetings upon all Other Accounts, could not deny but that they fell under the Censure of this Law: And that having not the Prince's leave to meet together, they were, in Ib. Pand. [...]eg. 3. the construction of the Law, Guilty of Meeting against it.

[Page 14] Now a Synod being no Ordinary, or Sia­ [...]ed Convention; but which was assembled only upon Extraordinary Occasions, when the Necessities of the Church required the Meeting of it: As there was no General Provision, at the beginning, made by the Laws for them; so it was therefore ne­cessary that, in order to their meeting Lawfully, the express Command or Allow­ance of the Emperor, should be had for their so doing.

And if we look up to the History of the first and most famous Councils of the [...] 5. Church, we shall accordingly find, that They were All Convened by the Imperial Authority. Thus Constantine the Great, not only summon'd, Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 1. cap. 1, 2. but sat Himself in that of Nice. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 7. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 7, 8. Theodosius the Great both Assembled the Second General Council of Constanti­nople; and, at the desire of the Fathers, confirmed the Acts of it. The Council of Ephesus, the next General Council, was not only Vid. Act. Concil. Eph. par. [...]. cap. 32, 35, &c. Called by the Emperors Theodosiu [...] the Younger, and Valentinian; but that All things might be done decently and order­ly in it; they sent * Candidian, as Their Commissioner, to preside over the Bishops, [Page 15] and to direct their Proceedings, accor­ding to the Instructions which they had given Him for that purpose. And when the Heresy of Eutyches gave a new Occa­sion [...]o the same Emperors to Assemble a­nother Synod; Vid. Act. C [...] [...]d. [...] 1 They, in like manner, appointed it to meet at the same place: and Commanded Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to preside in it.

It was the same Authority, that had caused this Synod to meet at Ephesus, that, after the death of Theodosius, appointed a Review to be made of it, in another Ibid. Council, which was summon'd first to Nice, and from thence was Removed to Chalcedon. And this the Emperors did not only upon their Own Authority; But tho' Vid Ep. Leonis ad Theodos. Imp. Ep. 52. 54 &c Ed. Ques­ [...]ll. Pope Leo had desired, with all ima­ginable Earnestness, that it might have been held somewhere in Italy; to which they refused to Consent.

Such was the Authority, by which the Four first General Councils of the Church, were Assembled; Nor were the next Four call'd by any other. It was by the express Command of the Vid. Ep. Imp. Con­ [...] C [...]st. ii. Collat. 1 [...]. p. 419, [...]22, 423, Elder Justinian, that the Second General Council of Constantinople met: As it was by the like Summons of Vid. Act. Concil. Const. iii. Act. 1 pag 607. Tom. 6. Constantinus Pogonatus, that the Third in [Page 16] the same City was convened. And be­cause in these two, no Canons were made for the discipline of the Church, Concil. Trull. apud Bevereg. Pandect. Tom. 1 p. 153. E. F. Justi­nian the younger, call'd another Council to supply that defect; and confirm'd the Canons that were made by it.

The second Council of Nice, thô scarce right in any thing else, yet in this was Orthodox, that it was assembled by the Authority of Vid. Act. Conc. Ni­c [...]en. ii. Act. 1. pag. 50. Tom. Lab. 7. Irenè the Empress, and her Son Constantine. And lastly, the Fourth of Constantinople, the last of the Eight general Councils, was in like man­ner held by the consent of Act. Con. 4. Const. Act. 1. Tom. 8. pag. 1279. C. Basilius the Emperour, and Approved by Him.

This then was the Power, which the § 6. Christian Emperours claim'd over the Greatest Councils; and which those Coun­cils always acknowledged to be due to Them. If from these we pass on to the Lesser Synods that were assembled in those days, we shall find the Authority of the Civil Magistrate to be still the same: And that These also were either expresly con­vened by Them, or were summon'd by some Authority that was, derived from Them.

[Page 17] When the Donatists, being Angry that they could not gain their Ends upon Cae­cilian, desired that an Examination might be made of their Case, by some foreign Bishops; Constantine the Emperour granted their Request: And in Order thereunto appointed a meeting to be held at Rome, upon that Affair; and that three French Bishops, should be joyn'd to Fifteen out of Italy, for the Hearing of it. And These, together with the Bishop of Rome, by the Conc [...]. Rom. [...]ub Constant. To. 1. Lab. p. 1403. 1406. Emperours Command, judged of this Mat­ter. And when those turbulent Men were not yet satisfied; to put a final end to their Contentions, He caused a Greater Number of Bishops to meet in a Synod at Vid. Act. Conc. Are­lat. ib. pag. 14 [...]1. Et Euseb. Hist Eccl. lib. x. c. 5. Arles, and there Review the same Cause, and pass a final Judgment in it.

To enumerate all the several Instances that remain to us, of Councils call'd, in like manner, by the Imperial Authority; would be as Infinite, as it is Needless. It may suffice to say, that what Constantine, thus began, the succeeding Emperours constantly held to; And suffer'd not any Assemblies of the Clergy to be made, but by their leave, and according to their Direction.

'Tis true there was a General Order Vid. C [...]. N [...]. en. 1. Can. v. made by the Fathers of the Council of [Page 18] Nice, that for the better Regulation of the Churches Affairs, the Bishops of every Province should meet together, in a Pro­vincial Synod, under their Metropolitan, twice every Year. And this Council be­ing not only confirm'd by Constantine, who call'd it, but by almost all the Em­perors that follow'd after; and particu­larly, the Constitution now mention'd, be­ing [...]. Bal­ [...] in Can. provided for, and adjusted by the Civil Laws themselves; such Councils, from thenceforth, became Legal Assemblies; and were, of Course, allow'd of, tho' not ex­presly consented to by the Emperors.

And yet when Theodoret began to be Vid. Epist. Theodoret. 80, 81, 82. too busie in calling the Bishops together, Theodosius not only laid a Prohibition up­on him; but confined him to Cyrus, his own little See, as a Punishment for what he had before done. So little was it then thought a matter of Right, for the Clergy to meet, as often as they thought good, in Synods: Or that any Injury was done them by their Princes, when they refused to suffer them so to do.

But it may be these Emperors had some eminent Authority in them which ceased [...] 7. together with the Empire; and which other Princes, tho' of Sovereign Authority [Page 19] within their several Kingdoms, yet ought not to pretend to. That this is not so in Civil Matters, I shall leave it to the Wri­ters of Politicks to argue; and to the Municipal Laws of their several Kingdoms to shew. As for what concerns their Ec­clesiastical Authority; it is evident that in This, as in all other Respects, whatso­ever Power the Emperors heretofore laid claim to in the Whole, the same these Princes have continued to assert, within their own particular States and Domi­nions.

When the Vandals had over-run the greatest part of Africa; and by their Au­thority set up the Arrian Heresie, in Op­position to the Catholick Faith, which be­fore prevail'd in those Parts: Hunericus their King, at the desire of his Arrian Concil. Labb. To. iv. p. 11 7. ad An 484. Bishops, summon'd a General Convention of all the Catholick Bishops to meet at Car­thage; and there confer about the Point in difference between them. And accor­dingly, upon his Summons, they all came thither; and refusing to renounce the Terms of the Council of Nice, were de­prived of their Bishopricks, and sent into Banishment by him.

But better was the Success of the Or­thodox Bishops, in their next Conference, [Page 20] held by the like Authority, under Gunde­bald at Rome; An. 499: Who at the Re­quest of the Catholick Clergy consented to Vid. Col­lat. S. Avit. cum Ar [...]ian. ib. p. 1318. Ad Ann. [...]02. their Meeting, and was greatly satisfied at their Behaviour in it.

It was not long after this that, as Ba­ronius himself confesses, Theodorick sum­mon'd another Synod at Rome to judge of the Crimes alledged against Symmachus Bishop of that See; and submitted the Determination of that Affair to their Re­solution And when Caesarius, Bishop of Arles, desired to convene a Provincial Sy­nod in France; according to the directi­on of the Antient Canons, and the Allow­ance of the Laws to that purpose: Yet he did not think it sitting so to do, till he had obtained the Consent of Alaric the Goth for it; And it is expresly noted, that Concil. Agath. An. 506. Praef. Cum in nomine Domini, ex Permissu Domini nostri Gloriosissimi, Magnifi­centissi [...]ique Regis, in Civitate Agathensi, Sancta Synodus conce­nisset. it was held by his Allowance.

What Caesarius here did with respect to Alaric, an Arrian Prince; the same did Avitus, Bishop of Vienne, with regard to Sigismond, the Son of Gundebald, King of the Burgundians; whom he had not Vid Act. Conc. Epa­onens. An. 517. Prooem. long before converted to the Catholick Faith. He call'd even his Provincial Sy­nod, [Page 21] with the King's Consent: And tho' himself Metropolitan of that District, yet presided in it by the Prince's Order.

Such was the Authority by which these lesser Synods were wont to be held, imme­diately upon the breaking of the Empire. And that thus it continued, till the Preva­lence of the Papal Power began to over­throw the Prince's Right, will appear from a short View of this matter, in some of the principal States which arose out of the Ruins of it.

And, 1. That this was so, in the King­dom § 8. of Spain, the Councils of Toledo, the most eminent of Any in that Coun­try, both for Number and Authority; suf­ficiently demonstrate. That the Second Vid. Capit. Conc. To­let. ii. in sin. of these was call'd by the Permission of Amalaric, the Synod it self owns. But the Third, and I think the most conside­rable of them all, is yet more full to our present purpose. It was a General Council of that whole Nation: In it the Goths adjured their Heresie, and embraced the Catholick Faith. This Faith was first esta­blish'd in Spain, by the Authority of this Council; and several very useful Canons were framed by it, for the Government of the Church for the Time to come. And [Page 22] all this was done by the Command of Vid. Act. Conc. Tol. iii. An. 589 Reccaredus their King: Who with Badda, his Queen, subscribed to the Orthodox Faith in it; and made not only his Bi­shops, but the chief of his Nobility, and others, subscribe to it.

It would be needless for me, after so clear an Evidence, as this Synod has given us, of the Authority by which Councils were antiently Convened in Spain; to spend any long time, in the particular Ex­amination of the several Councils that follow'd after. It shall therefore suffice barely to say thus much; that the Fourth of Toledo (Another National Council, and of great Authority in those parts) met Act Conc. Praef. Et in conclus­ante sub­script. by the Order of Sisenandus, as the Third had done by that of Reccaredus. The Fifth by the Command of Cinthila, who also confirm'd the Acts of it. The Sixth Vid. Act. hor. Con­cil. apud Labb To. v. p. 1735. 1739. 1740. 1749. 1836. & To. vi. 394 1294. 1 [...]28. of Cinthilan: The Seventh of Chindas­wind: The Eighth of Recceswinthus: The rest by the Order of the several Princes which follow'd after: As from the Acts of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth, the last of these Synods, it does evidently appear.

As for their Provincial Synods, they were not indeed always summon'd by the express, particular Order, of those Princes. But yet even these were held [Page 23] by Vertue of that Authority, which the Third Great Council of Toledo, under Vid. Can. 18. Conc. iii. Tolet. Reccaredus, before mention'd, had given to them. It was by vertue of this Allow­ance that the Synods of Narbonne, and Sa­ragosa, Concil. Narbon. An. 58 [...]. in Pras. Et Caesar augustan. ii. An. 592. were assembled; and in Both which, for that Reason, it is said, that they met according to the Order of that Prince, and to the Appointment of that Council.

2. And the same Authority which these § 9. Kings used in Spain, did their next Neigh­bours, the Su [...]vian Princes, exercise in Galaecia, during the time of their Empire there.

The Second Council of Braga, the Me­tropolis Concil. B [...]acar. ii. An. 563. Praef. of that Country, is expresly de­clared to have met at the Command of Ariamirus, or as some have rather thought, of Theodimirus, their King. It was by the same Authority that the Synod of Lugo, not long after, was assembled; Concil. a [...] pud Lu­cum. An. 607. to divide the Country into several Pro­vinces, and to erect a greater number of Bishopricks in it. And when by Vertue of this Division, the Clergy of that Coun­try were come together in two Provincial Synods, under their respective Metropoli­tans, according to the ancient Canons in [Page 24] that behalf; Miro, his Successor, order'd V [...]d Act. Conc. Bra­car. iii. in Praefat. them to meet both together in a General Council at Braga; and there agree upon such Constitutions, as they should find the Necessities of the Church to require.

3. If from hence we cross over to the § 10. Kingdom of Burgundy; we shall find those Princes in possession of the same Rights over their Synods, that the other Kings have been shewn to have exercised.

The Inscription of the Second Council of Lyons, assembled about the Year 567, shews that it was call'd by the Command of Guntramn their King: who also not long after assembled another Synod at Challon, as Gregory of Tours informs us. Hist. lib. v. cap. 28. It was by the Order of the same Gun­tramn that the Great Council of Mascon Vid. Con­cil. Ma [...]s­con. 1. in Praef. An. 581. was held: And when that had not suffi­ciently restored the Discipline of the Church, he not only assembled another at Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. lib. vi. cap. 1. Lyons, but more in several other pla­ces; Vid Con­cil. Labb. To. v. pag. 976. 980. 1593. &c. at Valence, Poitiers, Mascon, &c. all whose Acts expresly avow the Autho­rity by which they met.

4. In Germany. Carloman first and then § 11. Charles the Emperor, as they were the [Page 25] great Restorers of Religion, and Asser­tors of the Discipline of the Church; so will they afford us a sufficient proof of the Prince's Authority, in this particular.

It was the former of these who, with the Advice of his Clergy and Nobles, Concil. Germ. i. apud Lab. To. vi Praef called the Council of Ratisbon, which is accounted among the First of Germany, An. 742. And how the Other continued, Lab. Conc. ib p. 1725, 1726. 1793. To. vii. p. 1151. 1152. by the same Authority, to summon the like Assemblies, the several Synods of Wormes; Valenciennes; Aix la Chappelle; but especially the two Great Councils of An. 8 [...]. vid. Act. Concil. in Praefat. Mentz and Vid. Ep. Syned [...]c. ad Praesul. Hisp num. iii. & in Canon i. Frankford; (in the latter of which not only the Bishops of Germany, but of France, and Aquitain, were assem­bled together, and over all Whom Charles the Emperor presided;) abundantly shew.

No sooner was this great Prince dead, but Ludovicus Pius, his Successor, after his Example, call'd together his Clergy to Aix-la-Chappelle; for the correction of Concil. A­quisgran. Praef. An. 816. the Negligence and Ignorance of the Bishops, and for the better regulating of the Lives of the Clergy. And having fully determi­ned Vid. Epist. Ludov. Imp. ad S [...]char. Arch. B [...]r [...]gal. ibid. whatsoever was thought expedient in Order thereunto; he commanded a strict Obedience to be paid to the Constitutions which had been made by them. And when this did not yet sufficiently correct [Page 26] the Abuses of those times; He not only summon'd a Second Council to meet at the Vid. Act Conc. Aquisgr. ii. An. 836. same place, but being met, he proposed to them such Heads as he conceived to be farther necessary, with respect both to the Lives, and Doctrine, of the Bishops and Clergy; and order'd the Synod to frame their Debates upon them.

When this Emperor was dead, and the Difference between his Sons appeased; Lewis (to whom the Government of Ger­many fell) after his Father's Example, call'd the Great Council of Mayence; to regulate those Disorders which the late Vid. Conc. Magunt. i. in Praef. Distractions had brought into the Church. And because many things remain'd which could not then be sufficiently provided for; He, the next Year after, assembled another Synod for the Determination of them. It was about twenty Years after this, that the same Lewis convened a Ge­neral Council at Wormes; and there, in Vid. Act. Conc. Wor­mat. An. 868. like manner, order'd many things relating both to the Faith, and Discipline, of the Church.

It was not long after, that Arnulph, his Vid. Conc. Trebur. apud Lab. To. ix. p. 440. 467. Nephew, having obtain'd the Empire, call'd together (in like manner) his Bi­shops to a Great Council at Trebur; presi­ded, and assisted in it: and caused what [Page 27] was done not only to be subscribed by the Bishops whom he had Assembled, but to be confirm'd by a great number both of the Inferior Clergy, and of the Laity of the Empire. And, lastly, not to me­tion any more; Henry the First, after the Example of his Predecessors, by his Princely Command, assembled the great Synod at Erpsford; with the Advice of Ibid p. 591. his great Men, and particularly of Arch­bishop Hildibert, who was chiefly consi­der'd by him.

5. And now having thus fully shewn § 12. what was the Practice of these Princes in Germany, I might spare my self, and Rea­der, the trouble, of enquiring into the Me­thods used in France; which was general­ly either in the same Hands, or Govern'd by Those of the same Family, that the Empire, in those days, was. Yet because I think the Ecclesiastical Discipline, was no where better kept up, or more exactly follow'd, than in that Country; and that I conceive our own Synods were very much framed by the pattern of Theirs; I will take a short View of their Conventi­ons also, and so conclude these first gene­ral Remarks.

[Page 28] To begin then with the first of their Christian Kings, Clouis the Great: And here we find that he not only Called the first Council of Orleans (and which has Vid. Act. Conc. Au­relian. i. Praef. A [...] ­no 511. ever been look'd upon as the Model and Pattern to all their succeeding Synods;) but moreover Prescribed to it the Points on which it was to debate: And all this at the Desire, and with the Advice, of St. Remigius; as Hincmarus, in the Histo­ry of his Life, informs Us.

It was by the like Command of Childe­bert, [...]. Au­ [...]. An. 533. Praef. and his Brethren, that the Second Council of the same Place was held. The Synod of Clermont, the next, of any Con­sequence, Con [...]. A [...] ­vern. An. 535. Praef. that met in France; assembled with the Consent of King Theodebert: And so did that of Tours afterwards, with [...]. Tur. [...]. A [...] 567. Praef. the like Consent, and Allowance, of Cha­ribert.

The Fifth Council of Paris, not only Conc. Pa [...]. v. Praefat. Cum in dei nomi­r [...], secun­dum SS. Patrum Constitu­t onem. Ex Evoca­tione [...] [...] & [...] Cor [...]o Synod [...]li convenissemus, &c. declares that it was Assembled by the Au­thority of Clotharius; but tells us that their Assembling by his Authority, was (as indeed it was) agreeable to the Consti­tutions of the Antient Fathers, who had gone before Them. And the Synod of Chalons Owns, in like manner, that it met together in Obedience to the Call and [Page 29] Command, of Clouis the Second, their Conc. Ca­bilon. An. 650. E [...] Evocatione vel Ordinatione Gloriosissimi Domini Clodovei Regis. King.

It was by the Royal Authority of Pepin, Vid. Conc. Vernens. in Praef. Concil. that a General Council was held in his Pa­lace at Vernis, Anno 755. Of Charles the Great, that the Second Council of Rh [...]m. ii. Anno 813 Praef. Con. Tur. iii. I [...]id. Praefat. Rhemes, and the Third of Tours, [...]ere convened. Of Louis the Emperor, and his Son Lotharius, that the Conc. Pa­ [...]is v [...]. An. 829. Praef. ap. Labb. Tom vii. p. 1594. 1596. Sixth Council of Paris was called. And lastly, not to instance in any more, of Charles the Bald, that the An. 849, [...] 53. Synod of Quierzy was assembled; for Reforming Mens Manners, and to put a Stop to that Corruption in point of Faith too, which was, about that time, sup­posed to be breaking out in those Parts.

Wha [...] the Practice of our own Country § 13. has been as to this matter, I shall parti­cularly consider, when I come to Enquire into the Rights of our Own Kings, in this Respect. In the mean time, from the Account which has hitherto been given of that Authority, by which the Bishops and Clergy have been wont to be called toge­ther into Synods, it Appears; that as, in Fact, no Councils have met without the Permission of the Civil Magistrate, ever [Page 30] since the Empire became Christian; So neither does it appear, that the Clergy have ever made any Complaints against Them, as usurping herein upon the Rights of the Church; or pleaded any Privilege, as of Divine Authority, for their Meeting, and Acting against their Consent.

But to the End it may the more Evi­dently Appear how far the Power of Chri­stian Princes has been accounted to Ex­tend, as to this Particular; I shall to that General Deduction, I have now made, of the Authority by which the Church has been accustomed, from the Beginning, to meet together in Councils; subjoin a few more particular Remarks, for the better clearing of this whole matter.

And (1st.) It may be observed, that § 14. tho' the Civil Magistrate has generally Ad­vised with his Bishops, and Clergy, upon these Occasions; and ask'd their Opini­on, whether it were fitting, or not, to call a Synod, before he has given Orders for the meeting of it: Yet was this never look'd upon as any matter of Right; but, on the contrary, Princes have oftentimes assembled such Councils, without ever con­sulting Them at All; and, at others, when their Bishops, have not only Advi­sed, but Desired them so to do, have yet, [Page 31] upon their Own Judgment, or by the Ad­vice of their Council, utterly refused to comply with their Requests.

If we look into the Acts of the seve­ral Synods I have before mention'd; we shall find indeed, sometimes, that the Advice of the Bishops was taken for their Meeting; but we shall oftner find them call'd by the Prince, with the Advice of his Great Men; and yet oftner, no notice at all taken of the Advice of Either.

How often did Liberius, and the Ca­tholick Vid. Frag. Hilarii p. 457, 485, &c. Bishops, in vain, petition Constan­tius, that a Free, and Orthodox Council might be Call'd to judge in the Case of Athanasius; but could never Obtain it. And tho' the method taken by that Em­peror, to manage that Affair in Favour of the Arians; and the Refusal of such a Council, as was desired, was the Effect of that Enmity he had conceived against Them, and their Doctrine; yet we do not find the Catholick Bishops any where complain, that, in this, the Emperor did any more than what he had Authority to do; or pretend to any Original, Ecclesia­stical Power, left them by Christ, to call such a Synod whether He would or no. But, on the contrary, notwithstanding the Urgency of that Affair, and the eager [Page 32] Desire they had to end it; neither Libe­rius, nor Any others, attempted to meet against the Emperor's Command; but quietly submitted to the Prohibition he had laid upon Them, not to do so. So little did the greatest Bishops of the Church, in those Days, think it lawful, to hold a Council against the Prince's Will; that being forbidden by an Here­tical Emperor, and that against all Right and Justice, on purpose that he might Oppress Them, so to Do; They yet submitted to his Commands, and chose rather to suffer by their Obedience, than to Usurp an Authority, which they were sensible did not belong to Them.

But lest this should be thought to have been only the Perverseness of an Hereti­cal Prince; we shall find the same Power, both Claim'd, and Exercised, by the most Orthodox Emperors; and such as were, in all Respects, the most zealous for the Churches Interest.

When Eutyches began to corrupt the Christian Faith, and it was thought ne­cessary, that a General Council should be call'd, to put a stop to his Errors; Leo, [...]. Bishop of Rome, petitioned Theodosius, with all imaginable Earnestness, that He would consent to let a Synod be assembled [Page 33] in Italy for the Judging of it. This the Emperor utterly Refused to do, and Or­der'd the Council to be held at Ephesus; and the Good Bishop was so far from Complaining of it, that he submitted to his Summons, and thank'd him that he would, at least, vouchsafe to have it there. And when, by the Practices of Dioscorus, that Council answer'd not what was Ex­pected from it; The same Leo, not only [...]. supplicated the Emperor again, with tears and groans, in the Name of all the Bi­shops of the West, that he would Com­mand another Council to be held some­where in the West, to determine that Af­fair; but moreover engaged Valentinian, and Eudoxia his Wife, with many others of the Greatest Note, to join in the same Request with him. But Theodosius not [...]. only now refused him as to the place, but deny'd him as to the calling of any O­ther Synod; nor would He be persuaded to suffer any other to meet as long as He lived.

And this brings me to a (2d.) Obser­vation, § 15. which ought to be taken notice of, upon this Occasion; viz. That whenever the Civil Magistrate has refu­sed to Call a Synod; tho' the Affairs of [Page 34] the Church have never so much seem'd to stand in need of One, and the Bishops have never so Earnestly desired One; yet have they quietly submitted to the Refu­sal; and not presumed, on any Pretence of Right which they had in Themselves, to meet together, without his Leave, or against his Consent.

So Liberius, and the Catholick Bishops, did to Constantius first; and Leo, and the Western Bishops, to Theodosius afterwards: And I believe it would be difficult in those best, and most early times of the Church, to find out any Instance, wherein the Orthodox Bishops have ever departed from this Rule: or (which is much the same thing) have ever been justified by the Church, in those Cases, in which they have departed from it.

Nay but (3dly.) Tho' the Council of Nice first, and, after that, several Other § 16. Synods, provided for the Constant Meet­ing of Provincial Councils, at a certain Season every year; and these being al­low'd of by the Emperors, and Other Princes, who confirm'd those Canons, and Approved of what They had Defined; may seem to have put these kind of Sy­nods, at least, out of their Power: Yet, [Page 35] even in these, we find Them still conti­nuing to Exercise their Authority; And not suffering even such Councils to be held, without their Leave, or against their Consent.

I have before observed how Theodosius the Emperor restrained Theodoret, when he thought him too buisy in calling to­gether the Bishops to these Lesser Synods. And when, in after times, Wolfolendus Bishop of Bourges, summon'd a Provincial Council, according to these Canons, to meet at the beginning of September; yet Epist. ad Desideri­um: Ca­pit. Baluz. Tom. 1. p. 143. having neglected to consult the King's Pleasure in it, we find Sigebert, for that Reason alone, sent a Prohibition to his Bishops to go to it. And it is worthy our notice, for what Reason he put a Stop to its assembling. ‘He professes he was well content that they should meet some Other Time; always provided that they first made Him acquainted with it; that so he might Consider whether he should allow of it, as pro­per either for the State of the Church, or for the Benefit of the Kingdom; or Otherwise fit to be consented to.’

[Page 36] And therefore when the Fifth Council Act C [...]c. [...]. lib. 1 cap. 26. of Paris had resolv'd, that it was Expedi­ent that Provincial Synods should be held every Year, according to the Orders of the Church, and the Canonical Custom e­stablish'd in it; They made it their Re­quest to Louis the Emperour, and Lotha­rius Ibid. l. 3. cap. 11. his Son, that they would consent, that at a fit Season every Year, they might be Assembled. This Request was again Renew'd, some Years after, in a­nother Synod: And yet, notwithstanding these General Permissions, before they did Conc. apud Sapo [...] par 6. cap. 7. come together, they were to have a par­ticular Warrant for their so doing; as is evident from the Acts of the Synod of Soissons, which was held about the same Capit. Sir. Ti [...]. 11. Episcopis [...] in­stituta Ca­n [...]um Sy [...]dum [...] [...] vo­lentibus▪ [...] 1. [...] R [...]x Caro [...]us, e [...]sque apud Urbem Sucssionum—Convenire p [...]pit. time that those very Orders, I have now mention'd, were made. So intirely has the Assembling of Synods, been look'd upon to depend upon the Will and Authority of the Christian Prince. But this is not all: For,

(4thly) When it was resolv'd that a §. 17. Synod should be held, the Prince ever­more either determin'd, or allow'd, both the Time, and Place, of their Meeting. [Page 37] This is evident from the very Acts of all those Synods of which any Perfect Ac­cout remains to Us; and is most appa­rently confirm'd, by the History of the most Antient Councils of the Church.

I have before observ'd how Theodosius not only Appointed the Council, which he had order'd to meet about the Affair of Eutyches, to assemble at Ephesus; but ut­terly refus'd the Request of Leo, and his Bishops, who earnestly desired it might have been held in Italy. But Marcian Vid. Leon. Epist 69. ad Ma [...]. Caes. p 568. the Emperor went farther: He not only Summon'd the Fourth General Council to Nice first, and then to Chalcedon; (tho' requested in like manner, as Theodosius had been, by the Bishop of Rome, and his Suffragans, that it might meet in Italy;) but when, being press'd in time, Leo petition'd the Emperor that he would de­fer it but a little while, for his greater Convenience, Marcian refus'd him That also; and the Good Man contentedly yielded to him in both.

Such Power did the antient Emperors assume to themselves, over their Bishops, as to these Circumstances: Nor did the Vi [...] [...]. Reg [...]. B [...] [...] [...]. [...]9. [...]. IV following Princes claim any less. When Pepin resolv'd that Two Synods should be held in France every Year; He not on­ly [Page 38] specify'd the time for Both, viz. the first of March, and of October; but re­serv'd the Nomination of the Place where the Former should meet to his own Ap­pointment; and for that of the latter, de­termin'd Cap. Ann. 8 [...]8. Tom. 1. Baluz. p. 624. that it should either be at Soissons, or at such other place, as the Bishops, should agree upon in their first Assembly. And Ludovicus Pius having thought fit, for the better settling of the Ecclesiastical disci­pline, to have Four Synods meet at Once; that so they might separately Consider of the State of the Church, and then their Opinions be altogether laid before him, in one Common View; not only Or­der'd this distribution of them, but de­termin'd withal both the Time, and Pla­ces of their Meeting, and after what Man­ner they should proceed, being Met.

But (5thly) And to conclude all: That nothing may be wanting to shew, §. 18. what an entire dependance the Synods of the Christian Church have ever had upon their respective Princes; I add; That not only the Convening of them, and the Time, and Place, of their Meeting, depend upon their pleasure; but that they have, morever, Authority to appoint what Persons shall come to them, and to [Page 39] direct the Choice that is to be made of them.

Thus Constantine the Great did, when Euseb. hi­st [...]r. Eccl. lib. 10. cap 5. 43. he call'd the Synods of Arles and Tyre; And thus his Successors continued to do, in the most General Councils that were held by them. When Theodosius had a­greed to call the General Council of Ephe­sus, He directed his Precept to the se­veral Vid. Act. Eph. Con [...] p. 1 c. 32 Metropolitans, and commanded them to choose such, and so many, of their Suf­fragans, as they thought convenient to draw out of their Provinces, and to bring them with them to the Council. And the same Method was observ'd in the Vid. Act. Con. Chal­ded. Act. 1. pag. 99. Ed. Labb. next Synod that met there. The Emper­ror commanded Dioscorus to Summon ten Metropolitans of his District, with such other Bishops as he thought convenient; and that none else should presume to come to it. And in another Letter, up­on the same Occasion; the same Theodo­sius Ibid. pag 103. 10 [...]. appointed Barsumas the Priest, to come to the same Council, and appear in it as Representative of all the Archi­mandrites of the East.

It was after the same manner, that Marcian the Emperour, Assembled the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon. He wrote to the Metropolitans to come to it, [Page 40] and left it to them to bring such of their Acta Con­cil. Chal­c [...]l. Chal­ced. ib. par. 1. num. 56. Suffragan Bishops, as they thought fit, a­long with them. And when the Princes, who follow'd after, summon'd their Na­tional Synods; they, in like manner, di­rected the Choice of those who were to come to them; as we see in the Synods of Vernis, and Aix la Chappelle; assembled Capit. Sy­nod. Ver­nent. n. iv. p. 170. To. 1. Baluz. Capit. Aquisgram. Ann. 816. Prosog. Imp. ibid. pag. 562. by Ring Pepin, and Charles the Emperor, An. 755. 816.

'Tis true the Metropolitans, in these Cases, did oftentimes call a Provincial Sy­nod; and therein agree, who among them should attend upon their Primate to the General Council. But neither did they al­ways take this Course; nor, when they did, had they any Direction from the Emperors so to do. They only sent their Orders to the Metropolitans; and com­monly left the rest to them, to chuse such Bishops, out of their Provinces, as they thought fit.

As for the lesser Synods, tho' the Prin­ces did not often interpose in them, yet neither was there any choice left to the inferiour Clergy, to nominate the Mem­bers of Them. To the Provincial Synods, all the Bishops of the Province were obli­ged, [Page 41] if able, to come. And they brought with them, for their Companions, such of their own Priests and Deacons as they thought fit. At the Diocesan Synod, eve­ry beneficed Priest of the Diocese, was re­quired to appear: And they had not so much a Right, as an Obligation, lying up­on them, to be present at them.

And thus have I shewn what the Au­thority § 19. of the Supreme Civil Magistrate is, as to the Business of Assembling Ecclesiasti­cal Synods, or Convocations. And the Sum of what I have proved, is, in short, this: * That it is the Right of Christian Princes to call such Assemblies; and that they cannot lawfully meet, but as they are ei­ther commanded, or allow'd of by Them. * That They, and not the Clergy, are Judges when it is proper to Convene them: * And ought not to be censured for not assembling of them, when they are per­swaded it is Needless, or would be Inex­pedient for Them so to do. * That even the Ordinary Synods, required by the Ca­nons, and allow'd of by Themselves, may yet upon just Grounds be stop'd by them: (And when there is a just Reason for them so to do, they are to judge:) And being so prohibited, cannot be lawfully Assembled. [Page 42] In short: * That when-ever they do meet, the Prince is not only to appoint, or at least to approve, of the Time, and Place, of their Meeting; but may give Directi­on for the Choice of the Persons that are to compose them: That so he may be satisfied that they are such, whose Piety and Temper, have fitted them to serve the Church; and in whose Prudence, and Con­duct, himself may safely confide.

It were an easie matter to argue the Reasonableness of every one of these Con­clusions, from the Ends of Civil-Govern­ment; and the Power that is necessary to be placed in the Hands of the Supreme Magistrate, in order to those Ends. And I need not say that Christianity came not to Usurp upon the Civil Power, but ra­ther to engage Men to be the more ready to render that Duty, which they owe, to it. 'Tis true, by these means, the busie Tempers of some forward Men may be restrain'd; and to such these Limitations may seem very Odious, and Unreasona­ble. But they are such Men, and such Tempers, that make these Restrictions necessary: And their Unwillingness to submit to them, shews but the more clear­ly, how fitting it is that Princes should have all that Power I have now mention­ed; [Page 43] to prevent them from doing both Themselves and the Church a Mischief.

That Princes may abuse this Power to the Detriment of the Church, is no more an Argument that they ought not to en­joy it; than it would be, that they ought not to be entrusted with a Civil Power, be­cause they may abuse that too, to the ruine of the State. But I am apt to believe, that were the Dangers to be weigh'd, it would be much more fatal both to the Church and State, to have some Men intrusted with an Immoderate Liberty; than others with a Soveraign Power to restrain them. And 'tis enough to answer all Pretences of this nature, to say, that whenever the Civil Magistrate shall so far abuse his Au­thority, as to render it necessary for the Clergy, by some extraordinary Methods, to provide for the Churches Welfare; that Necessity will warrant their taking of them. In the mean time, such an Authority as I have now shewn, the Prince has in these Matters; and till things come to such an Extremity, we must leave him, as of Right he ought, to enjoy it.

And this may suffice for the First thing proposed in this Enquiry; viz. To shew, What Power the Christian Prince has, in the calling of Ecclesiastical Synods or Con­vocations.

[Page 44] I go on (2dly) To consider, What Authority He has over Them, when They are Assembled?

Now that may, I conceive, be redu­ced to these (2) Particulars: § 20.

• [1st] Of his Authority to Direct, and Govern Them, in their Proceedings. And,
• [2dly] To sit with, and to preside over them, in Order thereunto.

[1st] Then, I affirm, That the Civil Magistrate has a Right to Direct and Govern Them in their Proceedings.

And that with Respect both to the Mat­ters on which they are to Debate; and to the Method which they areto take, in Debating upon Them.

1st. The Civil Magistrate has a Right, to prescribe to Them, the Matters, on which they are to Debate.

It is one great End which the Prince [...] 21. proposes to himself in calling of such As­semblies, to take their Advice in things pertaining to the Church. For the Prince being the Guardian of That, as well as of the State, and concern'd to provide for the Welfare of the One, no less than of the Other; ought accordingly to have his [Page 45] Council, with which to consult of the things pertaining to Both. Now as in Civil Matters he has his Ministers of State, and the Council of his Great Men, or People, to advise Him how to manage his Secu­lar Concerns: so in those things which are of a pure Ecclesiastical Nature, it has ge­nerally been the Method of Christian Princes, to take the Opinion of their Bi­shops and Clergy; either single, or conve­ned together; as the Importance, or Diffi­culty of Affairs, and the Circumstances of Times, have prompted them to do.

But then, if this be the main End for which Synods are call'd, it will follow, that the Prince must have a Right, not only by Vertue of his Supreme Authority, but from the very Nature of the Thing it self, to propose to Them the Subject on which they are to proceed. It being ab­surd to imagine, that either a Particular Person should be sent for, or a Body of Men be convened, on purpose to give the Prince their Advice; and the Prince not be left to propose his Doubts to them, and shew them wherein it is that He needs, Or desires, their Opinion.

Now the Direction of the Prince, as to the Subject of the Synods Debates, may be [Page 46] either General, or Particular; or it may be partly One, and partly the Other.

Sometimes the Prince has only decla­red § 22. to his Clergy, that he call'd them to deliberate, at large, either upon Matters of Faith, or Matters of Discipline; for the better demonstrating the Churches Do­ctrine, and Consent, in the One; or for the better establishing the Exercise of the Other.

Sometimes the Occasion of their Meet­ing, has been to examine some particular Controversie, that has risen up, to corrupt the Faith, or to divide the Unity of the Church: As was especially seen in the Ca­ses of Arius, and the other Hereticks, on whose account the first General Councils of the Church were called.

And in Both these, sometimes the Prince has limited their Business to the particular Consideration of that Matter alone, for which they were assembled; At other times, he has added to it such o­ther Incidental Affairs, as he has thought fit to propose to them; Or, it may be, has given them a General Liberty, after having done their main Business, to de­liberate on any thing else, that they should [Page 47] judge necessary, for the Glory of God, and the Good of the Church.

And as there is such a Variety in the Ends, for which Christian Princes have been moved to call such Synods; so may there be no less a Difference observed, in the Ways which they have taken, to com­municate their Wills to them.

Sometimes both the Design, and Sub­ject of their Meeting, have been fully set down in the Precepts, which have been sent to the Bishops, to require their coming together.

Sometimes only a Glance has, in ge­neral, been given, in Those, at their Bu­siness; and the rest been reserved to be more fully open'd to them at their Con­vention. And that also has been done, sometimes by a Synodical Epistle, or Com­mission sent to them; sometimes by Word of mouth: And that again, either by the Prince himself, if he has thought fit (as oftentimes Princes have) to sit with them; or by some other Person, whom he has deputed to declare his Will to them.

But how great a Variety soever there § 23. has been, in the Methods that have been taken to lay open their Business to them; this is certain, that as the calling of such [Page 48] Assemblies, has always depended upon the Consent, and Authority of the Prince; So, when they were assembled, the Subject of their Debates has been prescribed them by the same Power; and they have deli­berated on nothing, but what they have been directed, or Allow'd by the Prince to do.

When Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, being desirous to restore that Peace to the Church, which the Heresie of Arius, and the Difference between the Eastern and Western Churches, about the time of keeping Easter, had so dangerously broken, assembled the First General Coun­cil of Nice; Eusebius tells us that, at the Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib: 3. cap. 12. Opening of it, He earnestly Exhorted the Bishops, by their wise Resolutions, to settle all things in Quiet and Unity. And accordingly the Subject of their Debates turn'd upon those two Points; and Con­stantine himself both assisted at Them, Ibid. cap. [...] and consented to what was resolved con­cerning Them.

When this did not prevail, but that the Arian Faction was resolved, at any rate, to Ruine Athanasius; and since they could not corrupt the Catholick Faith, were determined, at least, to Overwhelm him who had been the main Supporter of it; [Page 49] And in Order thereunto another Synod was obtain'd of the Emperor to meet at Tyre: the same Constantine not only pre­scribed them their Business; viz. to exa­mine Ibid. lib. 4. cap. 42, 43. into the Dissensions of the Churches of Aegypt; but sent Dionysius, in his own stead, to be present at their Assemblies, and to take care that his Orders were in all things observed by them.

And the same was the Method which Constantius, his Son, observed, as to these Matters: As is evident from his Manage­ment of the Great Synod of Arminum, in Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 17. which above 400 Bishops were, by his Or­der, Assembled. He commanded Them, in the first place, to debate the Matter of Faith; then to judge the Causes of those Bishops, who complain'd that they had been unjustly either deposed, or banished: After that to Examine the Crimes laid to the Charge of certain Others: And, last­ly, having done what he had comman­ded Them to do, to send a certain num­ber of their Body to Him, to account to Him what had been resolved by Them.

But above all most plain was that Au­thority which the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian shew'd in this particular, Vid. Act. Conc. Eph. ap. Labb. To. iii. p. 436. at the General Council of Ephesus. They not only declared, at large, to the Fathers [Page 50] the Cause of their Meeting, in the Let­ters of Summons which they sent to the several Metropolitans: But when they were met together, they sent a Synodical Epistle to them, by Candidian, and ap­pointed him to preside over Them in their stead; both to preserve a due Free­dom of Voting, and Debating among them, and also not to suffer them to enter upon any Other Matter, till they had first come to a Resolution in that, for which they were called together. And when Candi­dian reported to the Emperors, that the Bishops had not stuck so closely, as they Ought, to their Prescription; The Empe­rors [...]d. par. 1 cap. [...]5. p. 442. Et [...]fr. Conc. Eph pag. 7 [...]4. not only severely reproved Them for their Presumption; but annull'd their Acts, and commanded them to have a better Regard, both to the Business, and Method, which They had Laid before Them.

It was the same Theodosius, who, both by the Precepts by which he Assembled the Second Council of Ephesus, in the [...]. Chalced. Act. 1. p. [...], 106, 107, 110. Cause of Eutyches; and in his Letters to the Fathers, when met; restrain'd the de­liberations of it, to that particular busi­siness, and appointed Elpidius and Eu­logius, his Commissioners, to see his Or­ders observed.

[Page 51] And when Valentinian and Marcian as­sembled Ibid. Et 37. the next Synod, which was af­terwards removed to Chalcedon; they, in like manner, determined both what they met for, and how they were to proceed in it. 'Tis true, when those Fathers had finish'd the Business for which they met; they enter'd upon several particular De­bates, which were not at first laid before Them. But then this does but the more Vid. [...] [...]. [...]. Act. 7, 9, 10, 11, &c. [...]. Evidently argue the Truth of what I am now Observing: For as much as we find every new Matter prefac'd with this De­claration, that they had obtained Leave of the Emperors for the Fathers to consider of it; and their Orders were delivered to their Commissioners, to authorize the Bishops to enter upon it.

But to put this Point out of all reason­able Doubt, I shall need only, to the Instances already alleged, to add that of the Council of Constantinople, held under Mena, against Anthimus and Severus, an­no 536. In which when Anthimus was Concil. Const. sub Mena Act. 4 Edit. [...]abb p. 61. deposed, by the general Consent of the Synod; and the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch, with the Monks and Clergy, desired that Severus and some Others might be Condemned; They were told by Mena, that nothing of that kind could [Page 52] be attempted, without the Emperor's Con­sent first had for the doing of it. Where­fore, says He, for the present, we desire that we may acquaint Him with what has been demanded by you. Upon this they drew up their Petitions to the Emperor, that he would Authorize Mena, and the Council, to proceed against them as Here­ticks. To this Justinian consented, and sent Directions accordingly to them: Ibid. Act. 5. p. 100, 101. And then the Council forthwith proceed­ed to take Cognizance of that Affair.

It would be endless for me to instance in all the other Examples that Occur, to shew, That it has been the General Me­thod of Christian Princes, to prescribe to their Synods what they were to debate up­on, and not to allow Them to meddle with any thing, but what they either called them for, or afterwards consented They should take Cognizance of. How clearly does the same Emperor, in his E­pistle sent by the same Theodorus, to the Vid. Epist Justin. Collat. 1. pag. 419, 422, 423. Ed Labb. Second General Council of Constantinople, prescribe the Particulars on which they were to Consult? That they should judge of the Doctrine of the Three Per­sons mention'd in his Letter, viz. Theo­dorus, Theodoret, and Ibas: and discuss that Question which some, it seems, had [Page 53] started in favour of the first of them; namely, Whether an Heretick might be anathematized after he was dead?

And if, from the Roman Empire, we § 24. pass on to Other particular Kingdoms, we shall find the Case to be still the same; and that their Princes have taken the same Course with their Synods, that the Emperors before them did with those of the Empire.

In France there is hardly any Synod more worthy our Regard, whether we consider the Dignity, or the Antiquity of it, than the First Council of Orleans. It was that which set a Pattern to all the following Synods of that Country: And in that the Fathers expres [...]ly tell the King, Secundum voluntatis vestrae Consulta­tionem & Titulo [...] quos de­distis, ea quae nobis vis [...]m est, definitione Respondimus. Con [...]. Aurel. 1. praefat. ad Clodovaeum Reg. that they had sent him what seem'd to Them most meet to be determined, con­cerning those Points which he had order'd them to debate upon.

Upon this Foundation, Ludovicus Pius, having resolved, for the better restoring of the Ecclesiastical Discipline in France, Capit. An. 828. To. [...]. Baluz. p. 654. to have Four Synods held at once in it; prescribed as well what they should de­liberate about, as at what Time, and Pla­ces [Page 54] they should meet. And Charles the Bald, having Assembled the Synod of C [...]. Sues. [...]. Act. [...]. La [...]b. To. [...]. p. 9 [...]. Soissons, proposed not only the Subject about which they should consult; but de­liver'd them a draught of what he thought fit they should determine, and the Synod only Approved of it. 'Tis true there were several other Matters transacted in that Synod; but They also were done at the Command of the King, as well as with the Consent of the Bishops, who fat, and acted from the Beginning in it.

That the same must have been the Me­thod in Germany; the Constant Union, and Intercourse, which it had with France, in these Times, will not suffer us to doubt.

When Carloman assembled the Synod at Liptines, about the year 743; He tells [...]. [...]. [...] P [...]. us the End of his doing it was, that They might advise him How the Law of God, and the Religion of the Church, which had been suffer'd to fall into such decay in the days of his Predecessors, might be Restored. And the same was the Design of the Emperor Arnulph, in conve­ning the Synod of Trebur: Who being sent Act. C [...]nc. [...]r [...]bur. a­pud Labb. Tom. 9. p. 441. to by the Fathers, from their Assembly, to know what Directions He would please to give Them; return'd his Com­missioners, with those of the Synod, to tell [Page 55] them, That they should consider what they thought was needful to be done, for the Reformation of Mens Manners, for the Security of the Faith, and for the Preserva­tion of the Unity of the Church.

As for the Kingdom of Spain, the Councils of Toledo, as they are the most Eminent of that Countrey, so do they sufficiently shew the same Course to have obtained there, that we see did prevail in all Other Parts. In the Sixth, we find the very Constitutions themselves, in some measure, drawn up by the Order of Cin­thilus their King, and only confirmed by the Synod. In the Rest, the Subject on which their Debates were to proceed, is set out to Them, and They accordingly Regulated their Acts by it.

Thus it was in the Fourth, assembled Act. Conc. Tolet. iv. An. 633. by Sisinandus, and the most regarded of any Synod in that Country. And in the Thirteenth, Egica deliver'd his Orders in Act. Conc. Tolet. xiii. An. 683. Ep. Regis ad Concil. Writing to the Bishops; and the Ibid. Un­de & has in Commune Sententias, quas Principis hortatu Construendas acce­pimus, Communi voto Edidimus. Labb. Tom. 6. p. 1255. E. Bishops accordingly framed their Constitutions, upon the Model that had been laid be­fore them by that Prince.

[Page 56] And the same Method he again took with the Sixteenth Synod, assembled in the same City. He deliver'd a Commis­sion to the Clergy, containing a Summary of what they were to deliberate upon; An. Conc. Tolet. xvi. An. 693. Ep. Regis ad Synod. and agreeably thereunto they framed their Canons and Constitutions.

I shall conclude these Remarks with the Words of Receswinthus, to the Eighth Council of Toledo; when he deliver'd the like Commission to the Fathers, there as­sembled, that his Predecessors were wont to do: These things, says He, I might Conc. Tol. 8. An. 653 Id magno precatu deliberati­onis Ex­hortans, ut quae [...]un (que) illic deti­nentur a­scripta, valido at­tendatis intuitu, sagaci perscrutemini studio; Ac de his quae [...]unque extiterint placita Deo, Vestri Oris, ad Nos, sacro Referantur Oraculo. Labb. pag. 395. have spoken to you, but I have chosen rather to comprehend them in Writing; earnestly Requesting this of you, that what you shall find therein contain'd, you [...]ould carefully at­tend to, and Examine with the utmost Dili­gence; and whatsoever you shall think to be most pleasing to God, with Relation to these Matters, you would Report it to Us with your own Mouths.

But, 2dly. The Civil Magistrate, has not only a Right to prescribe to His Synods the Matters, on which they are to Deliberate; but is moreover at Liberty to determine both the [Page 57] Manner, and the Method, of their Proceedings in Them.

Now this, as far as concerns the Peace and Order, both of the Members of every such Assembly, and of those who meet to­gether upon the Occasion, or Account, of it; is not to be doubted. It being a part of the Prince's Right, as he is a Civil Governour, to keep all his Subjects, Cler­gy as well as Laity, under a due Re­straint; and not permit any Tumults, or Disorders, to be raised by them.

But the Prince has an Authority, as to these Matters, beyond this: viz. to Pre­scribe not only the Subject, upon which Synods are to debate; but withal, after what Manner, and in what Order, they shall proceed to debate upon It. And to this End it was, (as well as for Peace, and Quietness sake,) that when They were not present Themselves, they commonly deputed some Commissioners in their stead, to hold the Fathers to the Rules by which they were order'd to proceed: And not suffer them to meddle with any Other Matters, than those which belong'd to Them; or with those, in any Other Man­ner, than the Prince had appointed them to do,

[Page 58] It was for this Reason, that Constantine, § 26. E [...] seb. de Vit Const. lib. 4. cap. 41. p. 452. who himself had moderated in the great Council of Nice, sent Dionysius to preside in that of Tyre; that he might overlook their Actions, and especially take care, that a due Order was kept amongst Them.

But most evident is the Account which we have of this part of the Prince's Pre­rogative, in the Acts of the famous Con­ference between the Catholicks, and Dona­tists, at Carthage, anno 411. For the Re­gulating of which, as Honorius and Theo­dofius, Collat. Carth. 1. cum Opt. [...]ilevit. num. x. p. 31. the Emperors, appointed Marcellinus to be their Commissioner; So the Orders which he thereupon publish'd to be ob­served in it, abundantly shew, how far their Authority, as to these matters, ex­tended.

For First, He declared to the Bishops of both Parts, that but seven of a side should speak: Yet so, that seven more should be present, with whom Those who spake might, at any time, Go aside, and Confer in private, about any thing that should a­rise to be debated at that Meeting.

Next, He appointed the Time, and Place of the Conference; and forbad any Consluence, either of the Bishops and Cler­gy, [Page 59] or of the Laity of either Part, to come to it.

And, lastly, To the End that this Con­ference might finally conclude these kind of Disputes; He oblig'd all the Bishops of each side to promise, under their hands, that they would Abide by whatever their Delegates did. And that no Exceptions might be taken at the Report of the Confe­rence, He order'd them to chuse Four Notaries, out of their Clergy, to transcribe what was spoken; and that Four Bishops of a side should be nominated, to Over­look those Notaries; and see what was transcribed, and digested, by them. And that whatsoever Any one said, should im­mediatly be signed, first by Marcellinus himself, and then by Him who spake it: that so there might be no Contradiction made to the Sincerity of that Account which should afterwards be given of it.

These were the Rules, which Marcelli­nus, by the Emperor's Authority, prescri­bed for the proceeding in that Conference; and according to these Measures, both Parties were obliged to proceed in it.

It would betray a Desire to Cavil, ra­ther than assord any solid Exception to this Instance, to dispute, Whether this Meeting might properly be called a Sy­nod, [Page 60] seeing it is plain it was a meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons, upon an Ecclesia­stical Affair: And there can no reason be given, why, if the Emperor has so much Authority over such an Assembly, He should not have as great a Power, over any other of the like kind. But yet that all possible Exception may be Removed, as to this particular; I will further shew, from the Instances of several undoubted, and even General Synods, that he has the same Right to direct their Proceedings, as those of any Other Convention.

When Theodosius appointed Candidian, to take care of the Acts of the Fathers, in the General Council of Ephesus: his Commission was limited, and he was Act. Conc. Eph p. 1. cap. 35. Order'd only to see that the Monks, and Laity, raised no Disturbances in the City; that the Bishops did not fall into any Quarrels among themselves; and that e­very one had his liberty to Vote freely in it.

But much larger was the Commission which the same Emperor gave to Elpidius, Vid. Act. 1. Concil. Chal Sacr. Com. Elp. pag. 105. Ed. Labb. in the next Synod, which met at that place. He appointed him not only to look to the Peace of the Synod; but if he should perceive any one go about to raise any Tumults, or Disorders, to the Prejudice [Page 61] of our Holy Faith, he should commit him to safe Custody, and send an Account of it to the Emperor. He further com­manded him to take Care, that the Fa­thers proceeded in Order, upon the Matters that came before them: That he should be present when they judged of them, and use his utmost Endeavours, to bring the Holy Synod to a speedy, and Circumspect Examination, of the Business which they met about.

This is a Commission that comes fully up to our present purpose: And how ex­act Elpidius, and his Companion Eulogi­us were, in holding the Fathers to the Rules deliver'd to them; the Acts of this Synod, when remov'd to Chalcedon, do a­bundantly shew. But I shall content my self, in so clear a Point, to Represent this in the Practise of the First Council of Ephesus, before mention'd, and so con­clude this Consideration.

Theodosius having Summon'd a General Vid. Act. Conc. Eph. adv. C [...]r [...]l. Ed Labb. p. 404 &c. Council to meet at Ephesus, and (as was before observ'd) appointed Candidian to be his Commissioner at it; the greatest part of the Bishops who were order'd to come to it, accordingly arriv'd at Ephesus, at the time appointed them by the Emperor. But it happen'd [Page 62] that John, the Patriarch of Antioeh, be­ing hinder'd Fifteen days in coming to Ephesus; wrote to Cyril, Patriarch of Alex­andria, and President of the Council, not to tarry any longer for him, but to pro­ceed in his Business without him. The Synod thereupon Summon Nestorius to ap­pear before them. This Nestorius refuses; and, in his Excuse, pleads that the Patriarch of Antioch, with his Metropolitans, was not yet arriv'd. The Fathers not accept­ing this Excuse, after several Summons sent to him, proceed to Examine his Do­ctrine, and unanimously agree to his de­position. It was but a very little while after this, that John, the Patriarch of An­tioch, arriv'd at Ephesus: And being an­gry that the Council had ended this mat­ter without him, form'd another Synod, consisting of about Thirty Metropolitans that came with him; and depos'd Cyril, President of the Council, and Memnon Bi­shop of Ephesus, for what they had done: In requital whereof Cyril, and the Coun­cil, Suspend both John, and his Synod, for proceeding by themselves; in so Un-cano­nical, and unjustifiable a Manner.

Candidian, who in all this had favour­ed the Patriarch of Antioch, reports what had been done, on both sides, to Theo­dosius: [Page 63] And Theodosius immediately re­scinds all that had pass'd, upon this Ac­count, That they had not proceeded ac­cording to the Method he had prescribed to them; and commands them not to proceed to any farther Censures, until they had settled the doctrine of Faith, and receiv'd some New Directions from him­self; which he promis'd to send by ano­ther Commissioner, whom he design'd to depute together with Candidian, to look after them.

The Answer of the Council to this Or­der of the Emperor is very remarkable, and clearly settles the Princes Right as to this particular. They pretend not that he had no Power, thus to Limit their Proceedings; or to annul their Acts, upon this pretence, that they had not proceed­ed according to his Directions. No, but they beg leave to inform him, that Can­didian had not made a fair Report of their Actions to him: and therefore intreat the Emperor that he would order Candi­dian, with Five of the Fathers, to come to him; who should satisfie him that all things had been done Canonically by the Council.

The Emperor, hereupon, sends another Commissioner to them: Who having ex­amined [Page 64] both Parties, and discover'd the Design of the Patriarch of Antioch; gave leave to Seven Bishops, of each side, to go to Theodosius, and inform him of their Proceedings. This they did, and the Emperor was satisfied that the Council had proceeded regularly against Nestorius: In testimony whereof, he approved of what they had done; allow'd of their Acts, and confirm'd them with his own Edict.

Such Authority has the Christian Prince to direct the Acts of the most General Councils; and to require an Observance of their Directions. I proceed,

[2dly] To shew, That for the better § 27. Exercise of this Authority, He has also a Right, if he pleases, to sit in them, and to preside over them.

So Constantine, the first Christian Em­peror, Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. iii. c. 10. 13. 17. Socrat. l. i. c. 9. did, in the first General Council of Nice: He not only sate with the Fathers, but moderated in their Disputes; and at last concurr'd with them in their Desini­tion. And though, after his Example in the Synod of Tyre, the following Emperors chose rather to preside by their Commissi­oners, than to come Themselves in Per­son, and sit among them: yet oftentimes, we know they did vouchsafe their Pre­sence [Page 65] to them; and it was their Civil Affairs that prevented them, when they did not.

Thus Marcian not only removed the Fourth General Council to Chalcedon, on Act Conc. Chalced. par. i. Ep. 41, 41. purpose that he might have it nearer to Him; but was Himself present in the Sixth Action of it, both to confirm what the Fathers had determined, and to settle by their Judgment the Faith of the Church to After Ages. And when, by Order of the Council, their Determination was read Ibid. Act. vi. p. 577. Edit. Lab. to him, he not only approved of it, but added this farther Sanction to it; ‘That if any Private Person, Military Officer, or Clergy-man, should, under pretence of any farther Dispute concerning those Matters, cause any Disturbance; if he were only a private Laick, he should be banish'd; if a Military Officer, or Cler­gy man, he should be degraded from his Employ; and be liable to such far­ther Punishments, as in such Case should be thought requisite.’

And having done this, he deliver'd to the Fathers Three Ecclesiastical Constituti­ons, ready drawn up, to be approved of by Them; and they all gave their una­nimous Assent to them.

[Page 66] But more frequent was the Custom of § 28. those Kings, who Govern'd in those States which arose out of the Dissolution of the Roman Empire, to sit, and act, with their Synods.

If we look to the Kingdom of Spain, I Vid. Act. Concil. To­let. iil. An. 589. have already observed, how great a Ve­neration that Country has always paid to the Third Council of Toledo. There were present at it five Metropolitans, and seventy-eight Bishops subscribed to it. Now at this Meeting Reccaredus was not only himself present, but caused his Sub­jects, who were before Arians, to sub­scribe to the Catholick Faith in it. And having done this, He went on with the Fathers, to settle the Discipline of the Church; and acted rather like a Patriarch, than a Prince, among them.

For to instance only in a Canon or Two of that Council: In the Second they tell us, that the Bishops order'd so and so, by the Advice of their most Glorious King Ibid. Can. i [...]. Consul­t [...] P [...]ssimi & Glorio­sissimi Do­mini no­stri, Rec­careds Regis.— Jubente atque Consentiente: Can. viii.—An­nuente: Can. x.—Flavius Reccaredus Rex, hanc deliberatio­nem, quam cum S. desinivimus Synedo, confirmans subscripsi. Ibid. Reccaredus: In the Eighth; by his Com­mand and Consent. In the Ninth; by his Assent. And lastly, when all was [Page 67] done, He thus subscribed the Acts of the Council, together with the Bishops: I Fla­vius Reccaredus, King; confirming this Deliberation which I have defined, with the Holy Synod, have subscribed to it.

It is impossible to imagine any thing § 29. more full to this purpose, than what these Acts have afforded us. As for the Ger­man Emperors, they also sate in like man­ner with their Bishops. In the famous Synod of Frankford, (one of the most emi­nent that was ever held, after the first Antient, and General Councils;) we read Act. Conc, Francof. An. 794. ap. Labb. To. vii. p. 1032. that it was assembled, Praecipiente, & Praesidente Carolo Rege. And whereas there were three great Points debated in it, namely, first, Whether they should con­firm the Sentence of Condemnation, which had before been pass'd upon Elipan­dus Bishop of Toledo; who held, that our Saviour Christ was the Son of God only by Adoption, and according to the Flesh; not as if He were of the same Nature with God: Secondly, What they should resolve con­cerning the Second Council of Nice, as to the Business of Image-Worship: And, Thirdly, How to end some Secular Af­fairs: It may be observed, that in the Two first of These, which related to Mat­ters [Page 68] of Doctrine, we find nothing of the Vid. Can. i, ii. Emperor's defining with the Bishops; as nei­ther of the Bishops concurring with Him, in the Third: But in all the Other Ca­nons, which concern the Discipline of the Ibid. Can. iii, iv. Church, the King, and the Synod, join to­gether; and the Phrase runs in these Terms, Statutum est, Definitum est, à Do­mino Rege, & à Sanctâ Synodo.

I might to this add many other Instan­ces of the like nature, but I shall take notice only of one; and that of a Synod held under another Emperor, lest any one should think that Charles the Great, had taken more upon him, than did of Right belong to him: And it shall be of the Synod of Trebur, called by Arnulf the Em­peror about the Year 895. At the head of the Subscriptions made to which there is this remarkable Passage: In this Holy Council, the most Glorious King Arnulf, Vid. Act. Conc. Tre­bur. apud Labb. To. ix. our pious Prince presiding, and assisting; sate the Holy Fathers which came together, with the Venerable Pastors of the Church: And what they establish'd, agreeably to the Catholick Faith, they, by a like profession, con­firm'd, and with one accord subscribed to.

In short, that the Princes of whom I have now been speaking did no more, than all the other Emperors have been con­fest [Page 69] to have a Right to do, is manifest from the Constitution made to this pur­pose, in a full Synod, An. 742. Where af­ter a long Debate of the Prince, with his Bishops and Priests, how the Law of God, and the Discipline of the Church, might best be restored; it was, in the very first place resolved, that a Synod should be held every Year; and that the Emperor Capit. Dat. An. Christi 742. in plenâ Sy­nodo. n. 1. Statuimus per Annos singulos Synodum Congregari, ut Nobis praesentibus Ca­nonum decreta, & Ecclesiae Jura restaurentur, & Religio Chri­stiana emendetur. Capit. To. 1. pag. 145. being present, the Decrees of the Canons, and the Rights of the Church should be renew'd. and the Christian Religion be a­mended.

And how far the Design of this Canon was to extend, may at large be seen in the Injunction made thereupon by the Emperour; which we find in the Collecti­on of the same Capitularies, according to the Edition of Benedictus Levita, pag. 823. Num. ii. ibid.

And now, if from Germany we pass in­to § 30. France, we shall there also meet with the like Practice. It was the constant Method of Charles the Great, in that King­dom, as well as in the Empire; to preside over his Clergy. Thus we see he did in [Page 70] most of those Synods, whose Acts remain to Us: And in an Antient MS. of St. Vid. Not. Baluz. in Capit. A­quisgran. To. 2. pag. 1036. Germains, wherein the Canons of the Bishop of Langres are transcribed, the first Chap­ter carries this Inscription; Out of the Council of Bishops, where Charles the Em­peror Presided. And Charles the Bald not Ap. Labb. To 8 pag. 80. only Sate in the Second Council of Soissons, anno 853: but proposed to the Fathers what He desired they should debate a­bout; and oftentimes prescribed to their very Resolutions also.

From what has been said, I may now, I conceive, take it for granted, That the § 31. Prince has a Right either to preside over his Synods in Person; Or (if he rather thinks fit,) to appoint his Commissioner to do it in his stead. The only difficulty will be to determine how far he may be accoun­ted a Part of the Synod; and be allow'd not only to Preside over it, but also to Sit, and Vote in it.

And, 1st. As I have observed, that One great End of his Sitting there is, to keep the publick Peace, and to see that all things be Regularly, and Quietly, transa­cted, by the Bishops and Clergy in them; So it must also be allow'd, that He has all that Power over Them, that is neces­sary for the obtaining of this End. He [Page 71] may therefore, without Controversie, Commend the Modest and Ingenuous; Re­prove the Factious; May keep all to their proper Business; and not suffer them to Wander into other Matters, or pursue a­ny other Method, than what He has pre­scribed to Them. And, if any shall be­come so disorderly as to need it, He may, as the antient Emperors did, not only commit such turbulent, seditious Persons, to safe Custody, and punish them according to the Nature of their Offence; but, if need be, may annul the Acts that were so tumultuously and irregularly done by Them.

2dly. In the Debates of every such Sy­nod, of whatever kind they be, the Prince may freely join with the Synod; and offer any Objections, or propose any Difficulties, He shall think fit; in order to his being better convinced of the Truth of what is to be believed; or of the Expediency of what is determined by it. For Princes are Men of Reason and Capacity, as well as Bishops and Priests; And, when a Matter is debated, may be as capable of making a sound Judgment, as any One that is there Assembled.

It has, I know, been speciously Obje­cted against this, that Princes have com­monly [Page 72] Other things to do than to study Divinity; to read Commentators, Fathers, Councils, and the like Books; which are the proper Subjects of the Clergies Medita­tions. This indeed is true, nor shall I go about to deny it: But are they sure it is necessary that the Prince should have study'd all these Books, to be able to make a sound Judgment of what may be al­leged out of Them? May not a Point be proposed, and Scripture be Quoted, and Antiquity Alleged; and Learned Men canvas these Matters so long, till a Stan­der by, who is endued with a good Na­tural Judgment, shall be able very evi­dently to discern, on which side the Truth and Authority lies? If not, I am sure the Generality of Christians will be left under very hard Circumstances; who must, at last, believe as the Church be­lieves; and pin their Faith upon the Au­thority of their Clergy; and neither be al­ow'd to judge of the Grounds of it, nor, if once in an Error, be capable of ever being convinced of it. But if therefore it must be confess'd, that an Argument may be managed by Learned Men, in such wise, as to convince those that are not Learned, on which side the Truth lies; then certainly the Prince may also be ca­pable [Page 73] of discerning whether his Synod has Reason for their Definitions, or not; tho' He has not perhaps himself Read so much Divinity, as to be able to enter into the Learned Part of the Debate with the Fathers of it.

Whether therefore it be a Matter of Faith, or a Matter of Discipline; I see no Reason why the Prince, if he think fit, may not only be present when the Synod debates about it; but may not also enter into the Merits of the Cause with Them: and propose his Doubts, and manage his Ar­guments, and do whatsoever is requisite to his full Information, and Satisfaction Concerning it.

And having done this, I add 3dly. That as Charles the Emperor did in the Great Synod of Frankford, so may Every Other Christian Prince, if he please, do still; I mean, may Vote with Them in such things as concern the Discipline of the Church: Because in these both the Rights of the People, and the Power of the Prince, are, for the most part, very near­ly concerned.

Whether the Prince may judicially concur with the Clergy, in their Decisions in Matters of Faith, I do not think it worth the while to dispute. Thus much [Page 74] I dare confidently affirm, That if He may not judge with them; He not only may, but must, judge after them. For as much as He is not only concern'd in Common, with his Subjects, to believe aright; but, as a Christian Prince, ought to assert the Right Faith too: And do what in Him lies, to promote the belief, and profession of it in his Dominions.

For, give me leave thus far to antici­pate, what I shall presently have Occa­sion more particularly to Consider: When the Synod has settled the Doctrine of Faith, and framed, as they conceive, a just and Orthodox Confession of it; Is it the Duty of the Prince to Receive and give Coun­tenance to their Definition, or is it not? To say that it is not, is to sink the Cre­dit of such Meetings very low indeed, and to make their Assembling of very little Consequence; if, when They have done all they can to fix the Doctrine of the Church, neither the Prince has any Ob­ligation to support their Definition, nor the People to Receive it.

But if, when the Synod has done, and their Sentence is pass'd, and perhaps their Anathema's too have been thunder'd out against all that shall presume to call their Decisions in Question: the Prince [Page 75] is obliged to add his Sanction to their De­finition: Then, I hope, They will think it to be their Duty, in order to his con­firming their Decrees with a Good Consci­ence, to convince him of the Truth of them; and not Expect that he should not only believe Himself, but should ob­lige Others to Believe, what neither He, nor They, see any Reason to Receive. For whatever, in some Mens Opinion, a General Council may be; yet I hope no One will pretend that we must believe every particular Convocation, to be infal­lible, in its Definitions.

Let this then be the Result of our se­cond Enquiry; viz. * That the Christian Prince has a Right to prescribe to his Sy­nods the Work they are to go upon; and to Restrain them from meddling with such things as do not belong to Them. * That he may Direct, not only the Subject, but the Order, and Method, of their De­bates. * That He may, if He please, Sit, and Deliberate, with his Clergy in them: And interpose his Judgment, not only in Matters of Discipline, but in Matters of Faith too. * That it is not only his Right, but his Duty to Examine what they have concluded upon: and either to Confirm, or Rescind their Decisions, according as He [Page 76] shall remain satisfied, or not; of the Truth, the Justice, and the Expediency of Them.

And this brings me to the Third, and last Question proposed to be Consider'd, § 32. viz.

[3dly.] What the Authority of the Prince is, with Relation to these Conven­tions, after They have Ended what was to be done by Them.

Now that may be Consider'd in a double Respect:

• 1st. With Reference to their Persons. And,
• 2dly. To their Acts.

1st. With Reference to their Persons.

I have before shewn, that no Synod can Regularly be assembled, without the Con­sent § 33. of the Civil Magistrate. I now add; That neither, being assembled, can They dissolve Themselves, and depart from any such Council, till Licensed by him so to do. This is a Right that has ever been Acknowledged by the Clergy, to belong to the Christian Prince; And therefore I shall need to insist the less upon the Proof of it.

[Page 77] When the Fathers, who were call'd by Constantius to Ariminum, had done the Business for which they were Convened; and sent their Delegates to attend the Emperor, with an account of their Procee­dings; They finally besought Him that Athan. de Synod. He would give them leave to return to their Churches; lest they should seem, by their Longer Stay, to have been forsa­ken by their Bishops. 'Tis true we are told, by Sozomen, that the Emperor, be­ing Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 4 cap. p. 568. displeased at their firm Adherence to the Catholick Faith, Refused to give any Answer to them: Whereupon, Growing weary of staying any longer, at a Place where they had nothing to do, they Re­turn'd, of their Own Accord, to their several Churches. But then he tells us withal, that this the Emperor Resented as a very Great Affront which they put up­on him; and when he had an Opportuni­ty, he express'd his Resentments accor­dingly against Them.

But Theodosius and Valentinian took more Care of the General Council assem­bled by them at Ephesus. For having appointed Candidian to look after it; one part of that Instruction which they gave to him was this, that he should by all means take Care that none of the [Page 78] Bishops left the City, till all things were Act. Conc. Eph. p. 1. cap. 35 E­pist. Imp. per Candid ad Synod. Vid. part. 3. cap. 15. [...]. finish'd for which they came together: And particularly, till they had, with all Exactness, settled the Catholick Faith, in Opposition to the Heretical doctrine of Nestorius; upon whose account that Sy­nod was Assembled.

Such was the Right which the Emper­ors claim'd over their Bishops in this par­ticular: And for the Exercise of it, we Act 6. Con Cal [...]ed. in [...]n. [...]. shall need look no farther than to the next General Council. Where when Mar­cian the Emperor came into the Synod, and approv'd what the Fathers had done; after their other Acclamations, they all unanimously requested, We beseech thee dismiss, or dissolve us. To this the Em­peror return'd, that they should tarry yet Three or Four days; and move whate­ver they would, and they should receive all due Encouragement from him. And then concluded the Session with these Words, ‘see that none of you depart from the Holy Synod, before all things [...]. [...]. be fully completed.’

[Page 79] It is therefore the duty of all Synods, as they are Conven'd by the Princes Au­thority, so to tarry till they have the same Authority for their Dissolution. As for the last particular, wherein we are to consider the Power of the Christian Ma­gistrate, viz.

2dly. With Relation to the Acts of their Synods: It is, I conceive, allow'd on all hands, that their definitions are no farther obligatory, than as they are Ratified, and Confirm'd by the Civil Au­thority. For though the Faith of Christ neither depends upon the Authority of Man, nor is subject to the Power either of Synods, or Princes, as to what concerns the Truth of it: Yet what that Faith is which shall be allow'd to be profess'd, in every Community, by the Laws of it; and receive not only Protection, but Encou­ragement, from the Civil Power, must be left to the Prince to determine: And the definitions of Synods in favour of it, will signifie very little, till what they have determin'd to be the right Faith, be also allow'd by the Civil Magistrate, to be publickly profess'd and taught; and be receiv'd into his favour, and under his Patronage, as such. But much more rea­sonable [Page 80] as well as necessary, is the Con­firmation of the Prince, to give Authori­ty to those Canons which regard the di­scipline, and politie, of the Church. Be­cause in these the interest of the State is Concern'd: And an Authority usurp'd; and Mens civil Interests either directly, or by consequence, affected: And to all which as the Consent of the Prince is re­quir'd, so the nature and ends of Govern­ment will not permit, that any thing of this kind should be done, within the State, without his Consent first obtain'd for the doing of it.

Hence it is that, from the Beginning, Christian Princes have not only taken up­on them to confirm the Acts of their Sy­nods, if they have thought fit; but have been petition'd to by their Synods, that they would do so. Thus Constantine the Great was desired, by the first General Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 3. Theo­doret. l. 2. cap. 4. Council, to ratifie, by his Authority, what the Fathers had Determin'd. Vid. Ep. Concil. ad Theod Im. The same was Demanded of Theodosius, by the Se­cond General Council of Constantinople. Act. Con. Eph. Act. 6. p. 764. &c. Item part. 3. c. 15. 47. In the Third General Council of Ephesus, the Fathers in like manner address'd to the younger Theodosius and Valentinian, for the Ratification of what had been done by Them: And so did Those of the [Page 81] Council of Chalcedon, to Marcian the Em­peror, Vid. Act. Concil. Chalced. par. 3. cap. 4. for the same purpose. And all these Emperors answer'd their Desires; and Confirm'd their Acts accordingly.

It were an Easie Matter to shew, that the same Method still continued in all other Countries, and Kingdoms after; so that no Princes ever suffer'd any Canons to be put in Execution, till they had first been View'd, and Approv'd of by them, as no way prejudicial to their Royal Power and Dignity. But because this is a Point, that is not, I conceive, at all deny'd among us; and that I look upon the Power of the Christian Prince to extend much farther, than to the bare Confirmation of what the Synod has determined; I will proceed more particularly to shew, what his Authority in this Respect, is; and how the final Determinations of such Assemblies, fall at last under the Power of the Prince's Judgment.

And 1st; As it would be absurd to § 23. suppose that he should, so it is certain that the Prince is not obliged, at all Ad­ventures, to confirm whatsoever the Cler­gy shall think [...]it to determine. This were not only to give an immoderate Pow­er to the one, but unreasonably to con­fine [Page 82] and limit the other. It were in truth to hood-wink the Prince, and not allow him the common Privilege of a Rational Creature; to know and examine his Acti­ons, and proceed with Reason and Dis­cretion in Them. And it were as well plainly to say that Synods have a Supreme Authority; and are no way accountable to any Civil Power in what they do: As to pretend that the Prince shall be obliged, at all Adventures, to Ratifie, and the People (by consequence) to submit to, whatsoever it shall please them to deter­mine.

It were indeed to be wish'd, that such Venerable Assemblies might always be composed of Men so Wise, and Prudent; and that they would proceed in all things so calmly and impartially; that the Prince might evermore find it to be both Just, and Honourable, for Him, to take upon him the Protection and Guardian-ship of their Definitions. But because such is the Condition of Humane Nature, that Pas­sion and Prejudice, Ignorance and Interest, Noise and Clamour, oftentimes break in, and confound the Proceedings of these, as well as of all Other Assemblies; and many things are debated hastily, carried on with Faction, and concluded Unrea­sonably; [Page 83] 'tis very fit and just, that the Prince should give Direction to have their Actions carefully Review'd, and Con­sider'd, before He assents to Them: That so he may not be imposed upon, nor do either the Church, or Himself a Prejudice, by a blind complyance with the Dictates of his Clergy.

And for the same Reason that He ought to have a Power of Examining the Councils Acts; it follows,

2dly. That he must also be allow'd to have a Power of Annulling, and Rejecting what they have done, if it shall appear to be Hurtful, or Unjust; as well as a Power to Ratifie and Confirm it; if they shall be found to have proceeded canoni­cally, and to have acted for the Good, and Benefit, of the Church. It being in vain to allow the Prince a Liberty of Examina­tion, if there be not left him a Liberty of Choice and Resolution: And an Authority in­differently either to confirm, or reject their Definitions; according to the Judgment which He shall finally pass upon Them.

But because, where many things are Done, and several Constitutions made; it is possible a different Judgment may fi­nally Remain in the Mind of the Prince concerning Them; so that He may Ap­prove [Page 84] of some part of what the Synod has determined, and dislike the Rest: It will from hence farther follow,

3dly. That he ought to have a Power not only to confirm, or reject, the whole of what the Synod has done; but to confirm that part of their Acts which he is per­swaded will be for the Churches Benefit; and to annul that, which he thinks would be otherwise.

Whether it will be thought to be as Reasonable, 4thly, That the Prince should be allow'd a farther Power to alter, or im­prove, what the Synod has defined; to add to, or to take from it; so as to render it, in his Opinion, more useful to the End for which it was design'd, I cannot tell. But sure I am that this Princes have done; and so, I think, they have Authority to do. For since the Legis-lative Power is lodged in their hands, so that they may make what Laws, or Constitutions, they think fit, for the Church, as well as for the State: Since a Synod, in matters re­lating to Discipline, is but a kind of Coun­cil to them, in Ecclesiastical Affairs; whose Advice having taken, they may still act as they think fit: Seeing, lastly, a Canon, drawn up by a Synod, is but as it were Matter prepared for the Royal [Page 85] Stamp; the last forming of which, as well enforcing whereof, must be left to the Prince's Judgment: I cannot see why the Supreme Magistrate, who confessedly has a Power to confirm, or reject, their Decrees, may not also make such other Use of them as he pleases; and correct, improve, or otherwise alter their Resolutions, accor­ding to his own liking, before he gives Authority to them.

'Tis true, in this Case, the Prince will not so much confirm what the Synod has done, as take Occasion from that which the Synod has done, to make another Ec­clesiastical Law of his Own. But still this Power the Supreme Civil Magistrate has: And if this be all the Use he shall think fit to make of his Synod, viz. to suggest to him fit matter for the making of some seasonable and good Laws; I do not see wherein he can be accounted to abuse his Authority: And sure I am, 'tis no small Service done the Church, to suggest such Thoughts to the Prince, as otherwise per­haps might never have entred into his Mind.

And as the Prince has this Authority § 36. over the Canonical Resolutions of his Sy­nods, so has he no less, over their Judi­cial Determinations: Which,

[Page 86] 5thly. He may either confirm, suspend, or totally annul; as he thinks they have proceeded either fairly, and impartially, and with good Judgment; or else hastily, and partially, and with Prejudice in them. For the Prince, as He is the supreme Foun­tain of Justice in the State, so does it ap­pertain to him to rectify the undue Pro­ceedings of inferiour Judges: And to his Conscience there will always lie an Appeal, let the Synod determine how it will.

These are the Rights of Christian Prin­ces, with respect to the Actions of Synods, after they have done their Business; and that these have All been confirm'd and allow'd of to them by such Assemblies, I shall now proceed, from a brief History of this Matter, to shew.

When Nestorius had infected the Church with his Heresie, he was by two of the Greatest Patriarchs of the World, Cele­stine Bishop of Rome, and Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, in their several Provincial Sy­nods, justly condemn'd; unless he should repent of his Error within ten days. Be­ing inform'd of these Sentences, thus pass'd against him, he applied himself to Theodosius the Emperor; complain'd of their Proceedings, and desired that a Ge­neral Council might be call'd, to judge of this Matter.

[Page 87] Theodosius, who at the same time was moved by Others to the same purpose; Resolves upon a General Council to meet at Ephesus; and in the mean time, sus­pends the Decrees of the two Provincial Synods, and orders that nothing should be innovated till that Council should meet. And when the Council was met, the Fathers were so far from complaining of this Suspension, as a hard thing; that they appointed the Emperor's Order to be inserted into their Acts, and thereby gave a kind of Conciliary Authority to it. Or if this be not yet plain enough, let it farther be observed, that the Council here­upon treated Nestorius, both in Words and Actions, as a Catholick Bishop; and invited him to come, and sit among them as such. Which evidently shews, that the Council made no doubt, but that the Emperor had sufficient Authority to suspend those Sy­nods Decrees; and that by his Suspension, their Sentence had not yet taken place against him.

And the same was done in the Case of Eutyches, the next great Heretick that in­fested the Church. Who being condemn'd by Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, and his Council; obtain'd of Theodosius another General Council to meet at Ephe­sus, [Page 88] under the Presidence of Dioscorus Pa­triarch of Alexandria. In this Council, by the Power and Fury of Dioscorus, all was tumultuously transacted; and Fla­vian was condemn'd, as having deposed Eutyches contrary to the Canons.

Against this Sentence, Flavian appeals; and Pope Leo being applied to, calls a Synod at Rome, and therein rejects the Acts of the Ephesine Council; in which all things had been carried in a very disorder­ly, and [...]ncanonical Manner. For the bet­ter repealing of which, Leo applies to Theodosius for help: He intreats him, that he would by his Authority res [...]ind all that had been done, either by Flavian against Eutyches, or by Dioscorus against Flavian; or at least would suspend it, till a General and Free Council should deter­mine the Matter.

'Tis true, this Theodosius would not consent to; tho' Leo had interested no less Persons than Valentinian, and his Em­press, in the Cause with him. But yet Leo's Request shews that he thought the Em­peror had Power to res [...]ind the Acts of Both those Councils: And his Refusal con­vinces us, that he himself thought he was no way concluded by what Leo, and his Synod, had resolved: in Opposition to the [Page 89] Council of Ephesus. However, what The­odosius refused, Marcian assented to. He caused a General Council to be held at Cal­cedon; and when he found Flavian to be justified by it, he revoked both the Defi­nition of the former Synod, and the Con­stitution of Theodosius against him.

Such an Authority were the Emperors wont to exercise over the Acts of the most General Councils, in confirming, suspending, or annulling their Sentences! And so un­doubtedly did the Bishops in those times believe that they ought of Right to be allow'd such an Authority.

Nor has the Prince any less Power to § 37. judge of their Constitutions, than to en­quire into their Sentences; and either to confirm, or reject them, as he approves, or not, of their Decisions.

When Reccaredus confirm'd the Canons of the Third National Council of Toledo; he gave this Reason why he did it, That Edict. Reg. de Confirm. Conc [...]ii Tol. iii. Cum enim sensus ma­turitate, & intelligentiae Gravitate, constant esse digesta, nostra pro­inde Authoritas jubet, &c.—Capitula enim quae nostris sensi­bus placita, & disciplinae Congrua, à praesenti conscripta sunt Sy­nodo; in omni Auctoritate—observentur, & maneant. they were composed with great maturity of Sense and Understanding; that they were agreeable to his Judgment, and conformable to the Discipline of the Church.

[Page 90] It was the same Perswasion that mo­ved Ervigius to confirm the Acts of the Thirteenth Synod, held in the same City. Vid. leg. in Consir Concil. Editam. He specially recited, and approved of their Decrees; and by his Royal Authority form'd their Canons, into an Ecclesiastical Law, for all his People to observe. The same did Egica, in the Seventeenth Council: Vid. leg. in Confir. istius Con­cil. Edit. He recited the several Heads of what the Fathers had done; and upon a mature Consideration, a full Knowledge, and Ap­probation of their Acts, he gave force to them.

The truth is, it seems to have been the usual Method of the Princes about this time; not so much to confirm the very Acts of their Synods, as to form the Substance of their Definitions into a Law; and to take Occasion from their Decrees, to determine such things as concern'd the Church. Thus the Spanish Kings, now mention'd, did: and so Clotharius the Third, did, with Respect to the Fifth Council of Paris, An. 615. He publish'd his Edict in the Close of it; and therein expresly establish'd what the Fathers, in the Synod, had agreed to.

It was after the same manner, that a great part of the Capitulars of the French Kings were composed. They took the [Page 91] Substance of what their Synods had agreed Capit. 1. An. 813 sive Capi­tula xxviii. de Confir­matione Constitu­tionum quas Epis­copi in Sy­nodis, Au­ctoritate Regiâ nu­per habitis, constituerant.— Et capit. An. 814. cap. xiii. Has omnes Constitutiones ecclesiasticas, quas summatim, breviterque perstrinximus, sicut plenius in Canone continentur, manere p [...]ren­ni stabilitate sancimus. Col. 530 Tom. 1. Baluz. to; and having examined, and form'd it, according to their own liking, they pub­lish'd it for a Law to their Subjects. Inso­much that sometimes they have even re­ferr'd to the Canons of their Synods, for the more clear understanding of what the Law had only briefly, and, in general, de­liver'd.

Such, in particular, was the Use which both Carloman, and Charles the Emperor, made of his Synods. They call'd them, as their Council, to advise them in Ecclesia­stical Matters; and their Synods look'd Vid. Praef. Synod. [...]iptinens. An. 743. upon themselves no otherwise. They submitted their Decrees to their Examina­tion; and pretended not to expect that They should confirm them, any farther than they appear'd to them to deserve it. Thus the Fathers, in the Third Council of Tours, declare, that they met to assist the Praef. Con­cii. Turon. To. vil. p. 1260. Emperor by their Remarks of what they judged to need some Amendment. And having drawn up their Opinions in Fifty one Canons, they thus finally conclude [Page 92] All: These things we have thus debated in Haec nos in Conven­tu nostro ita Venti­la [...]imus: sed quo modo de­inceps pi­ [...]ssimo Principi nostro de his Agendum placebii, nos sideles Ejus samuli, libenti animo, ad Nutum, & voluntatem ejus parati sumus. Ib. p. 1270. Our Convention: But how it will please our most Pious Prince hereafter to Act, with Re­lation there unto; we, his faithful Servants, are Ready, with a willing Mind to submit to his Pleasure.

And the same was the Deference which the Council of Arles, which met the same Year, paid to his Authority. These things, say the Fathers, which we found Conc. Are­lat. vi. post Can. 26. Haec igi­tur sub brevitate, quae E­mendatio­ne digna perspexi­mus, quàm bre­vissimè annotavi­mus, & Domino Imperato­r [...] presentanda decrevimus; Ut siquid hic minus est, ejus prudentia suppleatur: siquid secus quàm se Ratio habet, ejus judicio emen­detur: siquid Rationabilier taxatum est, ejus ad [...]utorio, divina o­pi [...]ulan [...]e Clementia, perficiatur. to need Amendment, we have in a few words, after the shortest manner, observed, and de­creed to present to our Lord the Emperor: Beseeching his Clemency, that if Any thing be found wanting, it may be supplied by his Prudence; If any thing be designed otherwise than in Reason it ought to have been, by his Judgment it may be Amended; if any thing be Well and Rationally decreed, it may thro' his Help, by the Blessing of God, be brought to Perfection.

Such a Submission did these Synods pay to their Emperor: And this makes good [Page 93] what Eginhart, a Contemporary Author, of the Life of Charles the Great has ob­served, as to this Matter: That Councils, Eginhart. de Vit Ca­rol. Magn. by his command, were held throughout all France, for correcting the State of the Church; And the Constitutions which were made in Each of Them, were All to­gether Compared, and Examined by Him, in the Convention of Aix la Chappelle, An­no 813.

I might farther confirm this, from the Instances of many other Synods, which have in like manner, own'd the same Authori­ty: But I shall conclude all with the Words of that Council, which gave Pat­tern to all the Rest of that Country; I mean the First Council of Orleans, under King Clouis, Anno 511: whose Epistle to the King runs in these Terms: To their Lord, the Son of the Catholick Church; the most Glorious King Clouis, all the Priests whom you have commanded to come to the Council.

For as much as so great a Care of our Quia tan­ta ad Reli­gionis Ca­tholicae Cultum Gloriosae fidei: Cura Vos exci­tat, ut Sa­cerdotalis Mentis affectu Sacerdotes de rebus necessariis tractaturo [...]. tractatu­ros in u­num colli­gi justeri­tis; secun­dum—Volunta­tis vestrae Consulta­tionem, & Titulos quos de­distis, ea quae nobis visum est definitione Respondimus: Ita utisi ea quae no­statuimus. etiam vestro Recta esse Judicio comprobantur, tanti Consensus Regis ac Domini, majori auctoritate servandam tantorum fi [...]met sententiam Sacerdotum. Inter Act. Concil. Aurelian. 1. Anno 511. Glorious Faith stirs you up, to the Honour of the Catholick Religion, that with the Af­fection of a Priestly Mind, you have com­manded your Priests to be gathered together into one Place, to treat of such things as are [Page 94] Necessary; We have, according to the Pur­pose of your Will, and the Heads which you gave to us, answer'd in Our Definiti­on, as to us seem'd Good: So that if those things which we have Established, are also approved of, as Right, by your Judgment; The Consent of so great a King, and Lord, may Confirm the Sentence of the Priests, to be observed with the Greater Authority.

And thus have I done with the First § 38. Thing which I proposed to Consider. I have shewn what Authority the Christian Prince has always been accounted to have over Ecclesiastical Synods; with respect to the Assembling of them; to their Pro­ceedings whilst they are Sitting; and to the Confirming, or Annulling, their Decrees afterwards. I shall make only an Obser­vation or two upon the whole, with Re­spect to our present purpose; and so con­clude this Chapter.

And, 1st. I must take notice, that whatever Privileges I have here shewn to belong to the Christian Magistrate; they belong to Him as such: They are not [Page 95] derived from any positive Laws and Con­stitutions; but Result from that Power which every such Prince has Originally in Himself; and are to be look'd upon as part of those Rights, which naturally be­long to Sovereign Authority.

Hence we find, that All Princes, in All wountries, how different soever they have been in other Respects, have yet ever­more claim'd an Equal Authority in these Matters. And the little Kings of Suevia, and Burgundy, accounted themselves to have as good a Title to Them, as the Ro­man Emperors, in their most flourishing Estate, had.

Which being so, it will follow 2dly: That every Sovereign Prince, has a Right to Exercise this Authority, within his Do­minions: And that to prove this Right, it is sufficient to shew, That he is a So­vereign Prince; and therefore ought not to be deny'd any of those Prerogatives, which belong to such a Prince; among which this Authority is One.

'Tis true, such Princes may, by their own Acts, limit themselves, as they think fitting. And these Limitations may give such Assemblies a Privilege in One Country, beyond what they have in Another. But then these Limitations must be plainly [Page 96] proved to have been made in their fa­vour: And till they are so, the Prince must be accounted to have a Right to that Power, which, as a Prince, belongs Him; and is not yet proved to have been given away by Him.

And therefore 3dly: Whereas it is now to be Enquired, What the Authority of our Kings is, over our Convocations; We have thus far proceded towards the disco­very of it, that we have shewn what Power They had Originally over Them, and, as Christian Princes, ought still to Enjoy. And those who will Restrain Them with­ narrower Bounds, must first shew, how they came to lose that Power, which they would take from Them; and which, till This shall be cleared, they must be Pre­sumed still to have a Right to.

CHAP. III.

WE have now seen what Autho­rity § 22. all Other Christian Prin­ces have claim'd and Exerci­sed over their Clergy, from the first Con­version of the Empire to Christianity; till the Prevalence of the Papal Power, began to deprive Them of that Supremacy, which, of Right, belong'd to Them. Let us go on, upon this Foundation, to Enquire.

II. Whether our Own Kings, have not as Great an Authority over their Con­vocations; as any Other Princes have ever pretended to, over their Councils?

That this, of Right, they Ought to have, I have before observed: The only Question is, whether our Own particular Constitution has interposed, to deprive [Page 98] Them of that Authority, which, we have already shewn, did originally belong to Them.

And here I might justly leave it to Those who advance such Pretences, to produce their Proofs, and shew us upon what Grounds they do it: And account the Right of our Kings to this Authority, to have been sufficiently established, in that common Claim, which I have al­ready proved all Christian Princes, as such, have ever made to the Exercise of of it. But that nothing may be wanting to the clearing of this Matter, beyond all reasonable Exception; I shall, to the Ge­neral Argument I have before made use of, add those particular Confirmations, which our own Laws and Customs afford us, of this Truth: And shew, that, by our own Constitution, the King of Eng­land has all that Power, at this day, over Our Convocation; that ever any Christian Prince had, over his Synods.

(1st.) Then, if we consider His Autho­rity, as to the first thing before-mention'd, viz. of Calling together of the Clergy, in Convocation.

We are told by One of the most Emi­nent Professors of our Laws, that it was, [Page 99] among other Points, Resolved by the Two Chief Justices, and other Judges, at a Committee of Lords in Parliament; Trin. 8. Jac. 1. That a Convocation can­not Assemble, at their onvocation, without the Assent of the King. And One would think such Persons should not only be very well Qualified to know what our Law is; but should also be very Careful, (especially at such a Time, and in such a Place,) not to deliver any thing for Law, which They were not very well assured was so.

But because some have excepted a­gainst the Authority of this Report; as a Piece that was published after the Death of the Author, and in Suspected Times; (Tho' I cannot see what Interest any One should have, to falsifie his Relation in the Instance before Us;) We will take his Opinion from a Book which we are sure is Authentick, and lies open to no Exceptions. 4. Instit. pag. 322. Where treating expresly about the Court of Con­vocation, He affirms, that the Clergy were never Assembled, or Call'd together, at a Convocation, but by the King's Writ. And in which, tho' I am sensible He has spoken a little too Generally, as to mat­ter of Fact; yet in point of Law, (and [Page 100] in which only I make use of his Autho­rity,) I cannot but look upon him to have been absolutely in the Right: It being certain that the Clergy not only now can­not, but never could be, lawfully, call'd together in Convocation, but by the King's [...]rit, or with his Consent.

And in assirming this I say no more, than what was the joint Opinion of the whole Representative Body of the Nation; as well of the Clergy in their Convocation, as of the rest of the Realm, in Parliament; 25 Hen. 8. And from whence, if from any Authority, we may certainly the best take our Measure to judge, Whether a thing does, of Right, belong to the King, and is a part of his Royal Prerogative, or No.

For, 1st. As for the Clergy; We are told in the Preamble to the Act of the 25 Hen. 8. chap. 19. That the Clergy of this Realm of England, had acknowleged, that the Convocation of the same Clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be, Assembled, only by the King's Writ.

And, 2dly. As for the Laity, the Par­liament in the same Act not only concurs in the same opinion with Them, in the Preamble before-mention'd; that this [Page 101] their Acknowledgment was according to the Truth: But in the Body of the Act it self, have Provided thereupon, that from thenceforth They never should meet in Convocation, without the King's Leave, to Empower them so to do: Be it enacted (say They) by the Authority of this present Parliament, according to the said Submissi­on, and Petition of the said Clergy; That They, ne any of Them, from henceforth, shall presume to Attempt, &c. Nor shall E­nact, &c— in their Convocations, in time Coming; Which always shall be assem­bled by Authority of the King's Writ. And from all which it is Evident, that in the Opinion both of that Parliament, and of that Convocation; the King not only ought to have, and by Law, now has, the sole Authority of Calling the Clergy together in Convocation; but that this is such a Power as did always of Right belong to Him; and that no Convocation ever could be lawfully assembled, without his Permission, or against his.

Hence it is that not only our Present Convocations are all summoned by the King's Writ, directed to the Archbishop of Each Province, for that purpose; but if we look back to the times preceeding this Statute, we shall find the same to [Page 100] have been the antient manner of summon­ing of Them. And tho', in a matter of this Nature, it is not to be expected we should be able to produce the very Co­pies of the Writs, by which our Convo­cations were called, from the beginning; yet I shall hereafter plainly prove, that, from the beginning, they did meet by the King's Command: And we have the very Writs of Summons as far back as the 9 Edw. 2; that is to say, for above 200 years, before this Acknowledgment of the Clergy, and Act of Parliament, were made.

Such Right have our Kings to Call their Convocations: Nor is their Authority § 4. any less, in all those Circumstances which I have shewed, were wont to Accompa­ny their Calling Them.

If we consider the Time, and Place of their Meeting, they are expresly limi­ted in the Writ, by which They are Sum­mon'd. And tho' Custom has, of late, so far prevail'd, that the Convocation has generally met at the same Time that the Parliament has done; and at St. Paul's Church, or Chapter House in London; yet have not our Kings ever been so far con­fined in either of these Particulars, as not [Page 103] to have it still in their Power, to call the Convocation at any other time, or to any other place, which they shall think sit.

In that antient Summons I before men­tion'd; (perhaps the most antient of any we have now remaining;) of the 9th. of Edw. II. The Convocation was call'd to meet Febr. 9. but the Parliament sate October 16. foregoing. And in the Writs of these latter times, though the Convo­cation be call'd, and its Session confin'd to that of the Parliament; yet still, if the King pleases, he may continue the See the Hist. of A B. Land pag. 80. sitting of the one, after the other is pro­rogued, or even dissolv'd: And for the Place, it is sometimes determin'd to be See the Writs of Summons, Append. St. Paul's, London; but for the most part is left, with a Greater Latitude, to be held at any other Place, which the Archbishop shall judge to be more convenient for it.

And the same is the Case as to the § 5. Persons, who are to come to the Convoca­tion; and the Choice of whom as it is still determin'd by the King's Writ, so must it be allow'd to have Originally de­pended upon it. For having first decla­red, in General, the Reason, wherefore he had resolv'd to call his Clergy together; He next goes on to specifie, in particu­lar, whom he required the Archbishop to [Page 104] summon to the Convocation: That he should Order first the Bishops of his Pro­vince, with the Deans, and Archdeacons, to come in Before the disso­lution of our Mona­steries, the Abbots and Priors were to meet [...] Person likewise: See the old Sum­mon [...]. Ap­pend. Person; and, secondly, the Chapters, and Archdeaconries, to send their several Proxies, to represent them; the Chapters, one of their body; and every Archdeaconry two, to be chosen by them for that purpose.

I shall not need to enquire, how this came to be the settled number that was to make up our Provincial Synods, or Convocations. Whether this manner of Choice was deriv'd from the antient man­ner of holding Convocations, into the Par­liamentary Writs; or from the Parliamen­tary Writs of King Edward I. into the sum­mons of Convocations, which from thence­forth usually met together with the Par­liament. Howsoever this were, thus much is evident; that since the Power of As­sembling the Clergy in such Convocations is seated Originally in the King; so that they have no Authority to come together. but what he gives them. It must fol­low, that neither can any other Persons have a just Right to come to these As­semblies. than such only as are commissio­ned by him; or are chosen by such Rules as he has preserib'd, for the choise of those whom he allows to be sent to them.

[Page 105] It remains then, that not only the cal­ing § 6. of our Convocations, but the deter­mination of the Time, and Place of their sitting; of the Persons who are themselves to come to them, and of the manner of choosing Representatives for those who are not; all depend upon the Authority of the Prince, and were originally deriv'd from thence. And so, lastly, does their very sitting too. For however Custom, (which in time becomes a kind of Law) has in this, as well as in some of the foregoing Circumstances, so far prevail'd, that when soever a Parliament is held, a Convocation is call'd together with it; yet is this ra­ther a matter of Form, than any effectu­al Summons: And the King still keeps his Antient Power, to all intents and purpo­ses, in his own hands; and suffers them not either to sit, or act, but when, and as often, as he thinks fit so to do.

Nor is this to be look'd upon as any Encroachment upon the Liberties of the Clergy, but as the Assertion of a Power, which always did; and, of right, ought to belong to the Prince. For though it has now, for some Ages, been the Cu­stom to Convene the Clergy, as often as the Parliament meets; yet, as it is ma­nifest that when this Custom first began, they met not so much as an Ecclesiastical [Page 106] Synod, as a part of the Parliament of the Realm: So all the Use that was generally made of Them, was to concur with the Other Estates in granting of Money to the King; which having done, they were commonly dismiss'd, without entring up­on any other Business.

The Convocation then, tho' it consisted of Ecclesiastical Persons, was yet assem­bled for a Civil End, and seems rather to have been a State Convention, than a Church Synod. And however the King usually added a Conciliary Summons, to his Parliamentary Writ, and thereby not only assembled the Proctors of the Clergy, under another Character; but with them many Others of the Regular Clergy, who had no place in the Parliament Writ: yet still the Design was, in Both, the same; viz. That they might thereby more ef­fectually confirm what had, in Parlia­ment, been granted to the King; and the Monks and Friers, become engaged, by their own Consent, not to oppose the levying of it.

Now this being the true Ground of the Convocation's being call'd together with the Parliament; Custom, and, if you will, the Constitution of our Government founded thereupon; does indeed give them a Right to be summon'd, when the [Page 107] Parliament is; and accordingly they are still summon'd together with it: But as they have no Custom to warrant them to deliberate, or enter upon Business, unless the King pleases to allow them so to do; so neither have they any Right in that Particular; but the King is still as much at Liberty, in that respect, as if there had never been any such Custom esta­blished for the Calling of them.

In short; were it still the Method, as formerly it was, for the Clergy to Assess themselves; but much more, were the Case so now, as antiently it seems to have been, that they were a part of the Great Council of the Nation, and whose Consent was requisite to the passing of Parliamentary Acts; it would then be ve­ry evident wherefore they were Called, and what they had to do. But this be­ing altered, and yet the Antient Summons still continued; it makes some Men think it an odd Thing, that the Convocation should be Called to no purpose: Not con­sidering, that but for those Ends, which are now ceased, they never had been wont either to be summon'd to Parliament, or at the same time with it; and that those be­ing determined, they have a Right to no­thing but a Summons, and it were no great Matter, whether they had a Right to that, or no.

[Page 108] And this may suffice to shew what Au­thority our King has, by the particular Laws of our Own Constitution, to assem­ble the Convocation: and that without his Writ, they neither now can, nor ever could, regularly, come together, by any other Way.

I proceed (2dly) To enquire, What Power he has to direct their De­bates, when they are Assembled?

And here we are again told by the same Person, whose Authority I before alleged; that the second Point agreed up­on by the Chief Justices, and Judges, at the Committee of the Lords, was; That the Convocation, after their Assembly, can­not confer, to constitute any Canons, without License de l'Roy. Nor is this any more than what the Statute of the 25 Hen. 8. has directly establish'd: When having re­cited the Promise which the Clergy had, in their Petition, made to the King; That they would never, from thenceforth, presume to Attempt, Allege, Claim, or Put in Ure; Enact, Promulge, or Execute, any new Canon, Constitution, Ordinance Provin­c [...], or Other; or by whatsoever Name they shall be called, in Convocation; unless the King's most Royal Assent, and Licence, may by them be had, to MAKE, PROMULGE, and EXECUTE the same, and that his Majesty [Page 109] do give his most Royal Assent and Authori­ty in that behalf: They thereupon Enact, That ne They, nor any of Them, frow hence­forth, shall presume, to Attempt, Alledge, Claim, or put in ure, any Constitutions, or Orders Provincial, or Synodal; or any Other Canons: Nor shall Enact, Promulge, or Exe­cute, any such Canons, Constitutions, or Ordi­nances Provincial, by whatsoever Name, or Names, they may be called, in their Convo­cation in Time coming;—Unless the same Clergy may have the King's most Royal Assent, and Licence, to MAKE, PROMULGE, and EXECUTE, such Conons, Constitutions, and Ordinances, Provincial, or Synodal.

I have transcribed this Paragraph of that Act at large, to the End it may the more evidently appear, that the Intenti­on of it was, as well to Restrain the Clergy from MAKING, as from PROMUL­GING, and EXECUTING any Canons; with­out the Assent, and Licence of the King, first had, for their so doing. And which is indeed so plain, that had not the con­stant Practice of all following Convocati­ons, and the Opinions of the most Learned in Our Laws, so expounded the Sense of it, yet we could not have been easily mistaken in it. For besides that it was apparently the Design of this Act, to Re­str [...]ain the Clergy from doing somewhat [Page 110] which they had been wont to do in their Convocation: the Statute it self interprets its own Expressions; and tells us that by presuming to Attempt, &c. was meant as well presuming to MAKE, as to Promulge, and Execute, any Canons, or Constitutions; without the Assent, and Licence of the King, first had by Them, so to do.

Whether the Convocation may not, with­out the King's Writ, deliberate of such § 8. things, as may be fit to be done by Them, for the Service of the Church, I shall not undertake to say. Certain it is, that they may not so deliberate, as to come to any Authoritative Resolution upon any par­ticular Point; or to frame any Order, or Constitution, of what kind soever it be, without the King's Leave; which is in Effect to say, that they may not debate, Synodically, at all, without it. To delibe­rate of what might usefully be consider'd by Them, and to Petition the King there­upon, for Leave so to do; This, as it is no Attempting to make a Canon, &c. so does it not, I conceive, come within the Design of that Prohibition, which this Act has laid upon them. And if the King allows the Convocation to sit, I do not see wherein they would transgress, in framing such an Address; supposing [Page 111] that his Commission had not before pre­vented all Occasion for such an Applica­tion. But then still this is but asking Leave to act as a Synod; And it will, after all, remain in the King's Breast what Answer to make to such a Request; and whether he will grant them that Leave which They desire, or no?

As therefore the Convocation cannot Meet but by the King's Writ; so neither, being Met, can they proceed to any Ca­nonical Debates, or Resolutions, without it. For by vertue of this Act, they are for­bid, not only to Make, but to Attempt; that is, as I understand it, to do any thing that tends towards the making of any Canons, without his Warrant for their Doing of it. And therefore, when the King sends out his Writs for the Convocation to meet; he therein reserves to himself the Privilege of Naming the Subject, which they are to deliberate, and resolve upon. For having mention'd, by way of Form, in the beginning of the Writ; That for certain urgent Affairs, of great Concern both to the Church and King­dom, He had commanded the Arch-bishop to summon the Clergy to come together, to such a certain Place, and at such a certain Time: He thus declares what they were to do, when they met; Ad Tra­ctand. [Page 112] &c. Namely, That they were To Treat, Consent, and Conclude upon the Premises; and such other Matters, as should more clearly be declared to them, when they came together, in the Kings behalf.

The Affairs then which the Convocation is, in general, to debate about, and con­sent to, are the Urgent Affairs which con­cern the King, the Church, and the Realm. And these therefore are the constant In­troduction of every Convocation Writ. But what those Affairs are, with Reference to Any, or All of These, which every par­ticular Convocation is call'd to consider; That the King reserves to himself to de­clare to Them; and they are, when met, to expect his special Direction, and not to ramble, after their own Fancies, on any Matter, within this general Com­pass, without his Warrant.

It has indeed been questioned by a Late Author, Whether this Clause was § 9. Letter to a Convoc. Man. p. 43. antiently inserted into these Writs; and he would fain have it thought, that herein also the Clergy have, of late, been encroach'd upon. But the Forms of Pub­lick Instruments are not so easily altered: If they were, we might rather have ex­pected, that some other Expressions, which relate to those Privileges which [Page 113] the Clergy formerly enjoy'd, but which have now, for a long time, been utterly laid aside; should have been omitted, or changed; than this, which is perfectly agreeable both to the Laws of the Realm, and to his Majesty's Royal Prerogative, in these Matters. But, indeed, this Clause, if not as antient as the Writ it self, is yet of very great Antiquity: And we have at this day Writs as far back as Vid. Conv. Wri [...]s, 28 Hen. VI. and 23 Fd. IV. King Henry the Sixth's Time, in which this Clause is found in the very same Words that it is continued in at this day.

But were there any doubt to be made § 10. concerning the Authority of this Clause; yet that Method that has always been taken by the King to set the Convocation on Work, would be more than enough to shew how intirely their Deliberations depend upon his Direction. When the last Convocation, under his present Ma­jesty, was met; the King, by his Prin­cipal Secretary of State, sent his Commis­sion to Them: In which having taken notice of the Statute of Henry the Eighth before mentioned, and the Obligation which was, thereby, laid upon Them, not to proceed to any Business, without his Licence first had, so to do; he does therefore, in order to their proceeding [Page 114] with Safety to Themselves, and pursuant to the true Purpose, and Intent of that Law; particularly declare upon what Points he allow'd Them to Consult, and under what Conditions he gave them Authority so to do. That they should con­sider of any Alterations which they thought proper to be made, in the Form, Rites, or Ceremonies, of our Divine Service: That they should Review the Book of Canons: Should consider, What Defects, or Abuses, might be found in the Ecclesiastical Courts: How the Manners, both of the Ministers and People, might more effectually be Re­form'd; And such Provision be made, that None should hereafter be Admitted into Ho­ly Orders, but such as were duly qualified both in their Lives, and Learning, to be received into the same.

These are the Heads, on which the Clergy of that Convocation were directed to debate: And even upon these they were to deliberate, under these following Restrictions. 1st. That the President, and Greater Number of the Bishops, were to be always present. And 2dly. That even upon these General Heads, they should consider only such particular Points, Matters, Causes, or Things, as his Majesty should propose, or cause to be propo­sed, by the President of the Convocation to Them.

[Page 115] Such was the Commission by which the last Convocation was set on work: And to prepare the particular Matters which the King reserved to himself to propose to Them; and upon which alone They were allow'd to debate; His Majesty, some time before the Convocation was to meet, appointed a Select Committee of the Bishops and Clergy, to consult about the same Matters; and to draw up such Resolutions, as they should think most fitting for him to lay before the Convoca­tion, when it should be Assembled.

Nor was this any New Invention; any Unusual Restraint laid upon the Clergy, in these days of Doubt and Distrust: but the constant Method which had before been pursued, ever since the 25 Hen. 8.

It cannot be deny'd but that whatever § 11. his present Majesty may, in some Mens Opinions, be said to be; yet, without all Question, King Charles the First was a true Friend to the Episcopal Clergy. Nor can it any more be doubted, whether Archbishop Laud had not both Care e­nough to Examine into the Rights of the Convocation; and Interest enough with that Prince to assert the Privileges of it. Let us therefore, to avoid all Exceptions in this Case, enquire how things pass'd [Page 116] in that Famous Convocation of 1640; wherein much was done, and great Of­fence given to those who Resolved not to be pleased with any thing that either that King, or that Archbishop did; but nothing that can justly be found fault with by such, as we are now especially con­cerned, if it may be, to convince.

Now that Convocation being met, by vertue of the same Writ that is still made use of in these Cases; the King sent his Special Commission to them, to impower them to Act; bearing date April 15. 1640.

In this Commission, he first at large Re­cites See it in the App [...]n. the Statute of the 25 Hen. 8. as from the time that it was made, it had always been the Custom, in the like Com­missions, to do: to shew the need they had of his Royal Licence, and Assent, to enable them to go on with safety in their Debates, and Resolutions.

Having done this, He (in the next place) prefaces the Permission he was a­bout to grant to them with these very Words, which ought not to be omitted: Know ye therefore, that We, for divers ur­gent and weighty Causes and Considerations Us thereunto moving, of our Especial Grace, certain Knowledge, and Meer Motion, have by vertue of our Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Authority in Causes Ecclesiasti­cal, [Page 107] given and granted, and by these Presents do give and grant, full, free, and lawful Liberty, Licence, Power, and Authority, to the most Reverend Father in God, &c.

I shall not need to make any Remarks upon this Preamble, which fully answers all the Pretences of those, who fancy not only the Sitting, but the Acting too, of the Convocation, to be a matter of Right, naturally belinging to Them; And that either no Commission at all is needful to Authorize them so to do; or, that if there be, the King is, of Course, obliged to Grant it to them.

For, first, That without the King's Commission they cannot proceed to any Business of Themselves, (without Vio­lating an Act of Parliament, and encroach­ing upon the King's Prerogative. Royol, and Supreme Authority in Cases Ecclesiasti­cal,) is here directly asserted. And that such a Commission, the King may lawfully Grant, or refuse, as he thinks conveni­ent, not only the constant Custom of our Princes, in adjourning their Convoca­tions, (excepting only at such times as they had something for them to do,) as­sures us; but the very words of the present Commission, directly imply. For how came the King to grant this Allow­ance to them? Was it because they had [Page 108] a Right to demand it; Or, that He had no Right to refuse it? Was it because it had always been Customary for them to Sit, when the Parliament met; and to have such a Commission sent to them, as often as they sat? Nothing of all this: But for divers Urgent and Weighty Causes, and Considerations, Him thereunto especially mo­ving: Out of his especial Grace, and meer Motion: That he granted it by virtue of his Royal Prerogative; and of that Su­preme Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical, which gave him the same Power over his Clergy, that all other Christian Princes were wont to exercise over Theirs: And which how Great it was, as to these mat­ters, I have before particularly shewn.

But to go on with this Commission: The King having thus asserted his Authority; now by virtue thereof gives leave to that Convocation (Always provided that the President, and greater number of the Bishops were present;) during the Session of the Par­liament then Assembled; to Propose, Confer, Treat, Debate, Consider, Consult, or Agree, upon the Exposition, or Alteration of any Canon, or Canons, then in force; and of, and upon any such other New Canons, Or­ders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, as they should think necessary, fit, and convenient, for the Honour and Service of Almighty [Page 109] God; the Good and Quiet of the Church, and the better Government thereof; to be from time to time observed, fulfill'd, and kept, &c.— And further to Confer, De­bate, Treat, Consider, Consult, and Agree, of and upon such other Points, Matters, Cau­ses and Things, as himself from time to time should deliver or cause to be deliver'd unto the said Lord Bishop of Canterbury, Pre­sident of the said Convocation, under his Sign Manual, or Privy Signet, to be Deba­ted, Consider'd, Consulted, and Concluded upon.

This was the Business for which that Convocation sat, and which they were, ac­cordingly, licensed to enter upon. But the Restrictions under which they were allowed to Act, are yet more narrow than Those which his present Majesty laid upon our late Convocation. For all this They were required to do, not only un­der the same Conditions that I have be­foreshewn were laid upon the Other; but with these further Limitations: namely, That the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, Constitutions, Matters and Things, or Any of Them, so to be Consider'd, Consulted and Agreed upon, as aforesaid, should not be con­trary, or repugnant to the Liturgy Establi­shed; or to the Rubricks in it; or to the 39 Articles; or to any Doctrine, Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England, already Established.

[Page 110] Thus did this Prince give such Orders for the Proceedings of this Convocation, as he thought expedient to be observed by Them. And when, for the more ef­fectual suppressing, and preventing of the Growth of Popery, He resolved an Oath should be framed for the Clergy to take, of their firm adherence to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; And that a Canon should be drawn, to en­force the taking of it: He sent a new Or­der to them, May 17, to empower them to enter on that Debate; and to require them to Prepare, and present such an Oath and Canon, to Him.

But other Princes have gone yet far­ther than this: They have not only pre­scribed §. 12. to their Convocations what they should go about, but have actually drawn up beforehand, what they thought con­venient to have Establish'd; and have re­quired them to Approve of it. In the Con­vocation which met May 18, 1 Jac. 1: The King sent his Letters with the Articles of 1562, to Them, to be Approved, and Allowed of by Them. And to another Convocation, about four Years after, the same Prince signified to both Houses his Pleasure, for Singing and Organ Service to be settled in Cathedral Churches, without ever submitting it to their Judgment, whe­ther they approved of it, or no.

[Page 111] I shall conclude these Remarks, with the Opinion which the Lower House of Convocation had, of the Necessity of the King's Authority, to Empower Them to enter with Security on their Debates a­bout Matters of Religion, in the first Year of King Edward the Sixth: At the first Meeting of which, we find this Or­der, among some others, made by them; That Certain be appointed to know, whether the Arch-bishop has obtain'd Indemnity, for the House to intreat of Matters of Religion, in Cases forbidden by the Statutes of this Realm to treat in.

But there is another Particular, in § 13. which I have before shewn, that Christi­an Princes had, upon Occasion, exercised an Eminent Authority over their Synods; Whilst, for the better Observance of the Orders which they gave to Them. They asserted a Right either in Person, or by their Commissioner, to sit with, and to preside over Them.

That our Kings heretofore, did meet, and sit together with their Clergy, is not to be deny'd. And our Great Oracle of the Law has told us, That they did often­times appoint Commissioners, by Writ, to 4 Inst. p. 323. sit with them at the Convocation, and to have Conusance of such Things as they meant to Establish, that nothing might be done in prejudice of their Authority.

[Page 112] 'Tis true, since the Restriction laid up­on 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. the Clergy by the Statute of K. Henry 8; the King is now become so secure of them, that He has no great need to send any such Commissioner to them, to regulate their Proceedings. For being neither at liberty to enter upon any Synodical Act, but what he gives them leave to go upon; Nor, when they have concluded upon any Point, being allow'd to Promulge or put it in Execution; unless it shall be ap­proved of, and confirmed by Him: He has nothing left to apprehend from them; but is, by his Commission, as effectually President over their Debates, as if he were present in Person, among them.

And yet tho' this Act has, therefore render'd the Exercise of such an Authori­ty less necessary than it was before; it has not depriv'd the King of it. For even after the passing of this Statute, K. Hen­ry 8, by his Vicar General, not only pre­sided, together with the Archbishop, over the Convocation; but Deliberated, Voted, and, to all intents and purposes, Acted, together with his Clergy, in it.

This is manifest from the Acts of the Convocation of the year 1536; and of which it may not be amiss to give a short account, upon this Occasion.

‘Upon the 9th day of June 1536. [Page 113] Mr. William Peter came into the Convo­cation and alleged, That for as much as this Synod was called by the Authority of the most illustrious Prince, K. Hen­ry 8; and that the said Prince ought to have the first Place in the said Convoca­tion; and in his Absence, the Honou­rable Master Thomas Cromwel, his Vice­gerent, being Vicar General in Ecclesia­stical Causes, ought to possess his Place: Therefore he desired, that the said Place might be assigned to Him. And at the same time presented his said Ma­ster's Letters, Sealed with the Seal of his Office, as Vicar General: Which being read, the most Reverend the Archbishop, assign'd him a Place besides himself.’

‘On the 11th of July, in the same Con­vocation, the Bp of Hereford produced a certain Book, containing the Articles of Faith, and Ceremonies of the Church. Which being read by the said Bishop, the said Honourable Thomas Cromwel, the Archbishop, and other Prelates, with the Prolocutor, and Clergy of the Lower House, by their Subscriptions Approved of the said Book.’

‘On the 15th of July, It was agreed by the Lord Cromwel, the Archbishop, and Convocation, as to certain Ordinan­ces, &c.’

[Page 114] ‘And lastly, On the 20th of July, the Bishop of Hereford produced a certain Book, containing the Causes why the King ought not to appear at the Gene­ral Council, then to be held. Which Book the aforesaid Honourable Lord Thomas Cromwel, the Archbishop, and the Rest of the Convocation, by their Subscriptions approved of.’

Thus did the King's Commissioner not only sit, but act with the Bishops in their Convocation. And I am not aware of any Law that has debar'd the King, if need were, to do that again now, which King Henry 8. heretofore did.

And this may suffice to shew, what Authority the King has over Our Convoca­tion, both by the Statute, and Common Law; by his own Prerogative, as a Chri­stian Prince, and by the Particular Con­cessions of our own Parliaments, and Convocations.

But we are told, that the Convocation must be consider'd by Us, not only as an § 14. Ecclesiastical Synod, but as an Ecclesiastical Court too; and which, as such, has Ju­risdiction 4 Instit. p. 322. to deal with Heresies, Schisms, and other meer Spiritual and Ecclesiasti­cal Causes, juxta legem divinam, & Canones S. Ecclesiae. And herein their Power is not at all Restrain'd by any particular Let. p. 59. [Page 115] Statute, but still remains whole, and en­tire to Them. In this respect therefore the Convocation may, at least, act, with­out the King's Licence, and, as of Right; against any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, for such Offences.

This is the Doctrine of our Late Au­thor; but is not so clear to me, as he would make it. That Provincial Synods, heretofore, did look upon Themselves as endued with a sufficient Authority to proceed against any of their Own Body, who, by any of the Crimes before men­tioned, had deserved their Censure, is not to be deny'd. The Provincial Coun­cils of old did so; but especially in the Case of Heresie, wherein the Church has ever Accounted it self to be particularly Concern'd. But then it must be remem­ber'd too, that when they had so pro­ceeded against Any One, the Prince still judged whether they had acted Canonical­ly, or no: And if he found a just Reason to move Him so to do, he did, often­times, suspend their Sentence, and order a new Enquiry, in some other Synod, to be made of such a Matter; and after all, determined it, at last, as He saw Cause. Thus Theodosius did in the Case of Nest o­rius, [...] [...] ii § [...]. [...]. after he had been Condemn'd in two several Provincial Councils: And thus Con­stantius [Page 116] before him, had done, in the Epiphan. Haer. lxxi. n 1. Case of Photinus, a worser Heretick. He received his Appeal from the Council of Sirmium; and order'd a new Examinati­on to be made of his Case: and then confirm'd the Sentence of the Synod, and concurr'd in the Deposition of him. And when Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople, had in like manner condemned Eutyches for his Heresie, the Emperor not only re­ferr'd the Matter to the Council of Ephe­sus, to be re-heard by it; but when, by the indirect Management of Dioscorus, that Synod, instead of Confirming his Sen­tence against Eutyches, condemn'd Flavian himself, tho' Orthodox and Innocent; Theo­dosius not only refused to suspend the Sen­tences of Both, till another Free Council might be call'd to judge of the Matter; but left the Sentence of this last Council to remain in force, and would not suffer any other Synod to be called, about this Affair, as long as He lived.

As for our own Convocation, it is not deny'd but that antiently They were § 15. wont to judge of Heresy in it. The first Instance that occurs of this, and that (the case of Pelagianism excepted) as antient as the first coming of Heresie into our Country; is that of the Council of Oxford, Neubri­gens. L [...]b. 2. cap. 13. held about 1260; and the Occasion of [Page 117] which was this. It had happen'd some time before, that about 30 Persons came over hither out of Germany, and held se­cret Meetings; differing from the common Opinion of the Church in several Particu­lars, but chiefly as to the points of Bap­tism, and the Holy Eucharist. To prevent the spreading of their Errors, the King commanded that Council to meet at Ox­ford, and there to judge of them. Being convened before this Synod, and convict­ed of their Errors; and, refusing to ab­jure them, they were pronounced Here­ticks by it, and deliver'd back to the King, to be punished by the Civil Power.

It is in a Provincial Council held by Steph. Langton, that we meet with the next Instance we have, of the like Pro­ceedings. In this we are told of two Im­postors, Mat. West. ad An. 1222. upon one of whom were found the five Wounds of the Crucifixion, con­victed and condemn'd by the Judgments of the Church. But Bracton adds to these Bract. l. 3. de Coron. c. 9 n. 2. Conf. Wals. Hyp. Neustr. ad An. 1222. p. 464. another, and a more notable Instance. He tells us of a certain Deacon, who, out of Love to a Jewish Woman, apostatiz'd from the Faith of Christ; and was thereupon sentenc'd and degraded by the Synod, and deliver'd over to the Secular Power, to be Burnt for it.

And the same was the manner by which [Page 118] Sautre was condemn'd; as appears not on­ly Fitzherb. Nat Brev. p. 269. by the Writ, still extant, for his Execu­tion; but from the Rolls of the Parliament 2 Hen. 4. in which the order was given for issuing out the Writ, to the Sheriffs, of London for it, Feb. 26. He was first exa­mined and condemned by the Clergy in Convocation, and by them deliver'd up to the Civil Magistrate to be burned. And tho' the Lord Cobham was not finally sen­tenced in Convocation, but by the Arch­shop Wals. Hyp. Neustr. ad An. 1413. of Canterbury, assisted by the Bishops of London, and Winchester, after it was risen; yet was this Cause first brought on there, and he was therein both Adjudged an Heretick, and Excommunicated, as such.

The Truth is, so great is the Scandal, and so severe, in those days, was the Punishment too of Heresy; that it has moved some very Learned Men to think, that before the 2 Hen. 4. no one could be otherwise convicted of it, than in a Provincial Sy­nod, or Convocation. And tho' my Lord 3. Instit. chap. 5. Coke maintains this to be a Mistake, and affirms that the Bishop always had, as He still has, Power to convict of Heresy, and to proceed, by the Censures of the Church, against such as are guilty of it; yet this is no Argument why the Convocation should not still retain its antient Authority, and have the Power of doing that, which any single Bishop alone may do.

[Page 117] But here then a question may arise §. 16. that will deserve to be consider'd on this occasion; and that is, When any one is to be convicted of Heresie, or of any other the like Ecclesiastical Crime, in Convocation; who it is that judges him? Whether he is to be judged by the Votes of the two Houses? or, whe­he is to be judged by the upper House alone, and the lower to stand in the na­ture of Prosecutors against him? Or lastly, Whether the Archbishop alone does properly judge; and the rest con­curr, as Assistants, to him, and assent to what he does?

In answer to which Enquiry, if I may be allow'd to offer my own Con­jecture; I do conceive, that in such cases as these, it is not so much the Convocation that judges, as the Arch­bishop in Convocation. For besides that, it was never known that the inferiour Clergy were allow'd a Jurisdiction in such cases; nor is there any reason why they should have it here: First, The very words of the Writ upon which Sautrey was burnt, seem to speak in such a man­ner of his Conviction in Convocation, as shew the power of Judicature to have [Page 118] been eminently in the Archbishop, and that the rest were only of Council to him, and consented to what he did. Cum venerabilis Pater Thomas Archiepisco­pus Cant. totius Angliae Primas, & Apo­stolicae sedis legatus, de Consensu & As­sensu, ac Consilio Episcoporum, & con­fratrum Suffraganeorum suorum, necnon totius Cleri provinciae suae, in Concilio suo Provinciali congregati—per suam sententiam definitivam Haereticum mani­festum pronunciavit & declaravit, & c. Nor can this be sufficiently accounted for by looking upon the Archbishop as President of the Convocation, and so acting as Speaker in it. When the Lord Keeper in the House of Lords, or the Lord High Steward in the Commission for Tryal of a Peer, determine, or give Sentence, in any civil or criminal Cause; we do not find it said, That they, with the Counsel and Assent of the Lords, pro­nounce, or award, so or so; but they deli­ver the Sentence of the Lords, and de­clare that this or that is their Judgment. And the same ought to have been the case here, supposing that the Convocati­on, or even the upper House, had equal­ly judged with the Archbishop. The Writ must have run in the Name of the [Page 119] whole Body; Whereas the Archbishop and Bishops, with the rest of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, in Con­vocation assembled, have by their defini­tive Sentence pronounced, &c. Nor can any good reason, I believe, be given, why the Writ did not run in this manner, but because the Archbishop, even in Con­vocation, still retain'd the power of Ju­dicature, which I shall presently shew was peculiar to him; and by vertue thereof, judged of him.

And this will yet more clearly appear, Secondly, From the acts of the Convo­cation under K. Henry the Fifth, Anno 1413: and the Process made against the Lord Cobham therein.

For first, Upon several Provocations See Wals. Hypod. Neustr. pag. 574. given, and Affronts put upon the Cler­gy by the Lollards, and that at the ve­ry time that the Convocation was sitting; ‘The Archbishop was required, in be­half of the whole Clergy, that he would vouchsafe to proceed against the Lord Cobham, upon, and concerning the Premises.’

‘In pursuance of this request, the Archbishop, with a great part of the Convocation, apply to the King, for leave to proceed against him; both [Page 120] because he was a Person in great cre­dit with his Majesty; and to be con­sider'd upon the account of his Own Honour and Quality.’

‘Having obtain'd leave of the King to proceed against him; it is said all along, that my Lord of Canterbury summon'd him to appear before him in Convocation. That when the Sum­mons could no otherwise be executed upon him, he order [...]d it to be fix'd upon the doors of the Church of Roche­ster. That upon the eleventh of Sep­tember, (the day appointed for his ap­pearance,) the Archbishop excommuni­cated him; and after a farther pro­cess, at last came to a final Sentence against him.’

'Tis true, tho' this process began in Convocation, yet it was carry'd on, and ended out of it: But withal, it is plain, that tho' the Convocation was risen, yet still the Archbishop continued the same process, that began in it. He sate in the Chapter House of St. Paul's; he took the Bishops of London and Winchester first, and then to them added the Bi­shop of Bangor for his Assistants. Besides these, a great number of the inferiour Clergy was present: And when at last, [Page 121] the Lord Cobham was brought before him; the Archbishop took notice to him, how he had been discover'd, and accused in Convocation; i. e. had been accused to himself in Convocation, when they first desired him to proceed against him. To all which, let me add the Preamble to the Sentence, which the Archbishop at last pass'd upon him, and which shews, that both in and out of Convocation, the judgment of this mat­ter lay before him: We, Thomas by Divine Permission, &c. in a certain Cause or Matter of Heretical Pravity, of and concerning divers Articles, upon which, Sir John Oldcastle Knight, Lord Cob­ham, was accused before Us in the last Convocation of the Clergy of our Pro­vince of Cant. & c. Nor let any one think, that in asserting such an Au­thority to the Archbishop in these mat­ters, any injury is done to his Suffragan Bishops: but rather, were it otherwise, the Convocation must apparently have encroach'd upon that eminent power of judging, which the Archbishop hereto­fore had. For tho' since the Statute of the 23 of Henry the Eighth, the power 23. II. 8. c. 9. of the Archbishop is very much restrain'd; and he cannot now call whatever causes [Page 122] he pleases to his own judgment; but only under the Limitations provided in that Act; and therefore since that time, the right of judging in this case would, in the first instance, have belonged to the Bishop of Rochester; and to the Arch­bishop, no otherwise, than either by way of Appeal, or upon some negli­gence, or defect in the Diocesan to judge of it: yet before that Statute, the Arch­bishop had a power to call any cause im­mediately before himself; and when therefore, in his Syned, he did do so, we ought not to question but that it was he, who, properly speaking, did judge; and that the rest of the Bishops were on­ly his Assistants in it.

I conclude then, that tho' the person, in such a case were try'd in Convocation; yet, precisely speaking, it was the part of the lower House to discover and ac­cuse; of the Bishops to counsel and assist; but of the Archbishop to hear and judge.

But still the main question remains §. 17. to be consider'd, namely, Whether the Convocation, (howsoever it be that it judges) may proceed in these cases with­out the King's leave; or whether his Commission be necessary to justifie them in it?

[Page 123] That they are not restrained by ver­tue Letter. p. 59. of that Statute, which has so much retrench'd their power in other respects, is confidently affirm'd: Nor shall I de­ny, but that the intention of that Act seems rather to restrain them from ma­king any New Canons or Constitutions; than from judging, in causes Ecclesiasti­cal, according to the Canons already made.

That they had heretofore a power to judge in such Cases, my Lord Coke deli­vers as certain in point of Law; and from thence calls it the Court of Convocation. Nor can I see what injury it would be to the Crown, to allow the same power to the Convocation still, that by Law may be exercised in any other Ecclesi­astical Court; and which must needs be inseriour in dignity to this.

But still the question is, Whether, of Right, the Convocation ever had a power to judge, any more than to make Canons, without the King's Assent? And by consequence, whether though the Statute of Henry the Eighth should not have deprived them of that power, yet the King's Prerogative be not against it? See Ch. II. Sect. 23. 36. For should this be so, then whatever Laws have restored the King to his su­preme [Page 124] Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters, will lie against this presumed Right of the Convocation too: and so, though that Law should not, yet some others may have limited their power in this respect also.

And here I shall not presume to de­termine See loc. supr. cit. any thing; but only offer these following Observations:

First, That in several of the Convo­cations, in which the persons before­mention'd were judged; the Process was made either by the express Command, or Leave of the King: And in all of them for ought we know, it may have been so. And,

Secondly, That in the Commissions, by which our Convocations are now enabled to act; the King gives them leave to conferr, debate, treat, consider, consult and agree, of Matters and Causes, as well as of Canons, Orders and Consti­tutions: and which seems to imply, that they need the King's License, as much to judge of the one, as to delibe­rate about the other.

[Page 125] But be this as it will; thus much §. 18. I take to be out of all doubt, that as by our Ancient Customs, recognized by the Lords Spiritual, as well as Tempo­ral, in the Great Council at Clarendon, Anno 1164; It was among other things resolved, that none of the Servants of the King, or of such as held of him in capite, might be Excommunicated with­out his leave: And again, that in Case of Appeals, any person, who thought himself injured, might appeal, from the Arch Deacon to the Bishop; from the Bishop to the Archbishop; and from him to the King; by whose order the affair was finally to be determined in the Court of Arches, and not be suffer'd to proceed any farther without leave of the King: so, in Conformity both to these Princi­ples, and to that power which I have Ch. II. Sect. 36 before shewn, has ever been claimed and exercised by Christian Princes in this respect, I do presume, that the King See the Pro­hibition of Edw. I. [...] this pur­pose, Spelm. Concil. Tom. II. p. 427. may not only lay a Prohibition upon the Convocation, not to proceed in judg­ment against any person whom he shall think fit to take into his special Prote­ction; but after they have judged any one, may receive an Appeal from them; [Page 126] and order an Enquiry to be made, whe­ther they proceeded Fairly and Canoni­cally with him; and either confirm, sus­pend, or annul their Sentence, as he shall find it reasonable for him to do.

This I am sure the ancient Emperors did; and the Bishops and Councils not only submitted to it, but allowed of it. And if this our Kings may not do; I shall be glad to be inform'd by what particular Law or Custom, this Power has been taken from them.

And this brings me to the last point §. 19. now to be consider'd:

(3dly.) What Authority our Kings have over their Convocations; after they have done what they were called for?

That the Convocation cannot meet without the King's Writ, I have before shewn from the express Authority of an Act of Parliament: And that the same Authority is required to the Dismission, as to the Calling of it, has been the de­clared opinion of our greatest Lawyers in this Case.

[Page 127] When a Question was raised by some Hist. of A. B La [...]d, pag. 80. few in the lower House of Convocation, Anno 1640. Whether they might law­fully continue to sit, after the Parliament was Dissolved: The Arch-Bishop be­sought His Majesty that, for their better Assurance, his learned Council, and some Other Persons of Honour, well acquain­ted with the Laws of the Realm, might deliver their Judgment upon it. This His Majesty Graciously Approved, and the Question was accordingly put to Them. They answer'd, as followeth, under their Hands: ‘ The Convoca­tion being called by the King's Writ, under the Great Seal, doth continue, untill it be Dissolved by Writ, or Com­mission under the Great Seal.’

And accordingly we know, that not only, upon their Dissolution, but for Every Prorogation that is made of it, there is a Writ sent by the King to the Arch-Bishop; and They cannot break up when they please; but must conti­nue to Sit, as long as the King shall think fit to Require Them so to do.

Such Authority has His Majesty over §. 20. their Assemblies: nor has He any less over their Acts. It is, I think, agreed [Page 128] on all hands, that no Acts of Convoca­tion are of any force, untill they are Confirm'd by the Royal Authority. And that is all I am now concern'd to de­termine. How far, or, What persons, they will oblige, when Confirm'd by the King, without the Concurrence of the Parliament, is another Question; in which I am not, at present, concern'd to Engage.

But tho' of this therefore, in General, there be no doubt; yet I cannot tell whether some Men may be willing to allow the King all that Authority, which, I have before shew'd, Other Princes have claim'd, and which I see no Rea­son why our Own Kings should not Enjoy.

It is expressly provided by the 25th. of Hen. 8th, That the Convocation shall not only not presume to make any Ca­nons, without the King's permission; but that having made Them, ‘ They shall not presume to promulge or execute any such Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinances, Provincial, or Synodal, unless the same Clergy may have the King's most Royal Assent and Licence, to promuige and execute the same.’ And even then it is farther Provided [Page 129] by the same Act, That No Canons, Con­stitutions, or Ordinances, shall 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 to the Customs, Laws, or Statutes of this Realm. And from whence, as they 12 Report. Trin. 8. Jac. 1. pag. 72. are naturally deduced, so were these (two) Points deliver'd by the Judges before the Committee of the Lords, as the Law, with reference to this Matter; ‘1. That when, upon Conference, the Convocation has concluded any Canons, yet they cannot execute any of their Canons, without the Royal Assent. And, 2. That they cannot execute Any, af­ter Royal Assent, but with these Four Limitations.’

• ‘1st. That they be not against the Prerogative of the King.’
• ‘2dly. Nor against the Common-Law.’
• ‘3dly. Nor against any Statute-Law.’
• ‘4thly. Nor against any Custom of the Realm.’

[Page 130] ‘And this the learned Reporter tells us was but an Affirmance of what was the Law, before the said Statutes; as appears by the 19 Ed. 3. Title, Quare non Ad [...]isit, 7. Where it is held, That if a Canon-Law be against the Law of the Land, the Bishop ought to Obey the Commandment of the King, according to the Law of the Land.’

Now these two Things being suppo­sed, §. 21. and in which the Law, at the pre­sent, cannot be doubted to be very clear; That no Acts of Convocation can be put in Execution, or be promulged, in Order to a Publick Observance, with­out the King's Licence: And that the King's Licence cannot give the Convoca­tion any Authority, to promulge or exe­cute any Canons, but what are Agreea­ble to the Laws, and Customs, of the Realm; it must of Necessity follow;

[1st.] That the King has not only a Right to Review the Acts of Every such Convocation; but ought moreover to submit Them to the Examination of his Learned Council in the Law; That so he may the more securely be able to judge, Whether they be Consistent, with the Laws of his Realm, and (by Conse­quence) [Page 131] capable of receiving any En­forcement from Him: Forasmuch as it would be, not only too Rash, and Un­seemly, but even a Vain Thing, for the King to expose his Prerogative; by un­dertaking to give Authority to that, which, by being contrary to the Laws already Establish'd, has such a natural defect in its Original Constitution, as will not suffer it to be Capable of Any.

[2dly.] That notwithstanding the Resolution of the Clergy in their Convo­cation, yet still the King is to remain the last Judge, not only of the Lawful­ness, but of the Expediency too, of their Constitutions: and has Authority either to Ratifie, or Reject Them, as He, with the Advice of his Council, shall think Them either Usefull, or Otherwise, to the Church.

When His Majesty gave Liberty to our last Convocation, to consider of the several Points which, in his Commission, he proposed to Them; and permitted Them to draw into Forms, Rules, Orders, Ordinances, Constitutions, and Canons, such Matters as to Them should seem Necessa­ry, and Expedient, for the Purposes which He had before proposed to Them; and the same being set down in Writing, from [Page 132] time to time to Exhibit and Deliver, or to Cause to be Exhibited, and Delivered, to Him: He thus goes on to declare what was to be done, after such their Resolutions should be delivered in by Them;— To the End that We, as Occa­sion shall Require, may thereupon have the Advice of our Parliament; and that such, and so many, of the said Canons, Or­ders, Ordinances and Constitutions, Mat­ters, Causes and Things, as shall be thought Requisite and Convenient, by our said Par­liament, may be presented to us in due Form, for Our Royal Assent, if upon Mature Consideration thereof We shall think sit to Enact the same. And from whence it appears to have been His Ma­jesty's Intention, had that Convocation proceeded to any Resolutions, to have submitted the Examination of their Acts not only to his Parliament; but, that being done, to have Reserved the final Judgment of Them to his Own Consi­deration: And we cannot doubt but that it was upon the best Advice of his Learned Council in the Law, that He so Intended.

But more full and express to this pur­pose §. 22. is the Commission of King Charles [Page 131] the First to the Convocation of 1640, before mentioned. Wherein having granted the same Liberty, we here meet with, to his Clergy; To set down in Writing, and to Exhibit, or Cause to be Exhibited to Him, All and Every the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Con­stitutions, Matters, Causes, and Things, to be by Them from time to time, Con­ferr'd, Treated, Debated, Consider'd, Con­sulted and Agreed upon: He adds; To the end that We, upon mature Conside­ration by Us to be taken thereupon, may Allow, Approve, Confirm, and Ratifie; or Otherwise Disallow, Annihilate, and Make Void, such, and so many of the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Con­stitutions, Matters, Causes, and Things, or Any of Them; so to be by force of These Presents Consider'd, Consulted, and Agreed upon, as We shall think Fit, Re­quisite, and Convenient.

But this is not yet all; In the close of his Commission he again Reserves to Himself the same Power; in these Re­markable Words: Provided always, and our Express Will, Pleasure, and Command­ment is, That the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, Matters, Causes, and Things, or Any of Them, [Page 132] so to be, by force of These Presents, Consi­der'd, Consulted, or Agreed upon, shall not be of Any Force, Effect, or Validity in the Law, but only such, and so many of Them, and after such time, as We by our Letters Patent under our Great Seal of England shall Allow, Approve, and Confirm the same.

These are the Limitations under which that Convocation Acted; and from which these (three) Conclusions will Unavoidably follow.

1st. That the King, by granting the Convocation license to consider, and draw up any Canons, Orders, or Constitutions; or to determine any Matters or Causes; do's not give them any final, decisive Power, of Concluding those affairs: but Empowers them only to deliver their Judgment to Him, which He may either Approve, or Reject, as He shall after­wards see Cause to do.

2dly. That in determining concern­ing their Resolutions, He is not obliged either to Approve, and Confirm; or else to Reject, and Annihilate ALL that they have done; but may judge di­stinctly of Every particular Point, or Matter, debated by Them; and seve­rally pass his judgment upon Them: [Page 133] May give Force and Authority, to some things, and at the same time make Void, and disallow of Others.

And this, 3dly. Not only upon his Own private judgment, or upon the Ad­vice of any select persons of his Clergy, (tho' it be a matter Ecclesiastical:) but with the advice of his Council, who, by his Command, are also Empowred to judge of what the Convocation has done, and whose Opinion, if He approves of it, He may preferr to that of his Cler­gy.

But we will go on with the History of this Convocation; and see how these several Conclusions may be yet farther clear'd and confirm'd by it.

When, by Vertue of this Commission, the Convocation had drawn up such Ca­nons, and agreed upon such Orders, as to them seem'd most proper, to answer the Ends proposed by the King to Them; We are told by His Majesty, in His De­claration of June 30th. following, that, according to His direction, They had Offered, and Presented the same to Him, desiring Him to give His Royal Assent to what They had done.

[Page 134] Now as hereby they plainly ac­knowledged His Majesty to have all that Authority, as to this matter, which, in His Commission, he had pretended to; so we find the King still proceeded, accor­ding to the same measures he had first laid down, to the Ratification of what they presented to Him. For thus the Declaration goes on: ‘We, having di­ligently, with great Content and Comfort, Read and Consider'd, all the said Orders, Ordinances, and Constitu­tions, agreed upon, as is before ex­press'd: And finding the same such, as We are persuaded will be very pro­fitable, not only to Our Clergy, but to the whole Church of this Our King­dom; and to All the true Members of it (if they be well Observed:) Have therefore for Us, our Heirs, and law­full Successors, of our special Grace, certain Knowledge, and meer Mo­tion, given, and by these Presents do give Our Royal Assent, accor­ding to the Form of the said Sta­tute, or Act of Parliament afore­said; to All and Every of the said 25 H. 8. Canons, &c.’

[Page 135] But because in the Beginning of this §. 23. Declaration, the King alledges the Ex­ample of His Royal Father for what He did, whose Pattern he proposed to fol­low in this Particular; I cannot but observe that He did stick so closely to it, as to use the very same Form; (al­most the very same Words;) in confirm­ing these Canons of 1640; that the O­ther had done, in Ratifying of those of 1603. And from whence we may the more undoubtedly conclude, That as the Consequences before drawn from the Tenour of these publick Instru­ments, are, in point of Reason, plain and unavoidable; so is their Authority, in point of Law, Certain, and Indisputable: and that our Kings do not only in fact, Claim, and Exercise such a Power, as we have now seen, over their Convoca­tions; but have also an apparent Right to the Exercise of it.

Whether our Kings may not only §. 24. Confirm, such, and so many, of the Ca­nons, &c. of their Convocations, as they shall judge Expedient; and Refuse, and Reject the Rest; but may also, by their supreme Authority in Ecclesiastical Mat­ters, [Page 136] Correct, and Amend those which they do allow of, I shall not undertake to say. But so we are told King Henry the Eighth did, and that in a Case of the strictest nature; in framing the ve­ry Articles of Religion, which were after­wards Hp. Bur­net: Hist. Ref. p. 217. publish'd by his Authority, Anno 1536. Thus much I believe, may war­rantably be asserted; That as the King has Power, without a Convocation, to make, and publish such Injunctions as he shall think the Necessities of the Church to Require, and to Command the Obser­vance of Them; so may He, with the Advice and Consent of His Parliament, much more, not only make what Eccle­siastical Laws He shall think sitting, for the Discipline of the Church; but make such use of the Convocation, and the Re­solutions agreed to in it, in Order there­unto, as He shall think fit: And (as I have shewn the French King's heretofore to have done;) may not only confirm, or disallow; but may sometimes even al­ter, and correct, what is done by Them, according to His Own liking.

And now that I have mention'd this Convocation of King Henry the Eighth; [...] 15 [...]6. I will make a Reflection or two upon [Page 137] that King's dealing with that Assembly; and so conclude these Remarks.

It would be needless for me to ob­serve, after the account I have already given of the Act which was Pass'd but a few years before, by the same King, to that purpose; that this Convocation was call'd by his Writ. I will rather take notice, that the Articles of Reli­gion set forth by them, were not only corrected by that Prince, after they had been framed by the Convocation; but were drawn up by Them, according to the Method, and Directions which He gave to them for that purpose. So his Declaration, to all his loving Subjects, in Confirmation of these Articles, informs Us. ‘And for because we would the said See Fuller's Ch. Hist. pag. 214. An. 1536. Articles, and Every of Them, should be taken, and understanden of you, after such Sort, Order, and Degree, as apper­taineth accordingly; We have Caused, by the Assent, and Agreement of our Bishops, and Other learned Men, the said Articles to be divided into Two sorts; whereof the One part contain­eth such Things as be Commanded ex­pressly by God, and be Necessary to Sal­vation; and the Other containeth such Things, as have been of a long continu­ance, [Page 138] for a decent Order, &c. —tho' they be not expressly commanded of God, nor necessary to our Salvation.’

But that which I would principally observe in this Declaration, is, Upon what Grounds, and with what Exami­nation, the King gave his Assent to those Articles. I have before said, and, from the words now Quoted, it sufficiently appears; that the Articles here referr'd to did, at least in one great part of Them, relate to Doctrines of Faith; and that in the most necessary Points of it. And yet see what Liberty that King took, in judg­ing, as well as correcting, of what they had done. He was speaking of the design he [...]ller, ib. had in calling of that Convocation; and from thence proceeds, in these Words, to declare his sense of what the Clergy had done in it. ‘ Where after long and ma­ture Deliberation, had of and upon the Premises, finally They have Concluded, and Agreed upon, the most special Points and Articles; as well such as be Com­manded of God, and are Necessary to our Salvation; as also divers Other matters touching the Honest Ceremo­nies, and Good, and Politick Orders, as is aforesaid.—Which their Determina­tion, Debatement, and Agreement, for­somuch [Page 139] as WE THINK to have pro­ceeded of a Good, Right, and true Judg­ment, and to be Agreeable to the Laws, and Ordinances of God; and much profi­table for the stablishment of that Chari­table Concord, and Unity, in our Church of England, which we most desire; We have caused the same to be Publish'd; Willing, Requiring, and Commanding you to Accept, Repute, and Take them ac­cordingly.’

Such a Judgment did this Prince as­sume to himself, over those Acts of his Clergy, which the most properly fall under an Ecclesiastical Determination! And so little have our Princes thought Themselves obliged either to Receive Themselves, or to Impose upon Others, any of their Orders, or Decisions; but as they were finally persuaded that what they had done proceeded from a sound Judgment, and would be for the Benefit of their Church and Kingdom to be Observed.

And now from what I have before as­serted, §. 25. and I hope sufficiently proved, to be the Rights of all Christian Princes in General; and to be not only not contra­dicted, but rather to be expressly decla­red by our Own Laws and Customs, to be [Page 140] the Prerogative of our Own Kings in this Particular; It will be no hard matter to give a Clear and Positive Answer to the first General Question proposed to be Resolved, in all the Parts of it.

For, first: Whereas it is demanded, Whether there be any Law, that Com­mands, or Permits, the Sitting, and Acting of the Convocation, besides the Absolute, free Pleasure of the Prince? I Reply, That if by Sitting be meant their being Summon'd at such times as the Parliament is Assembled, there is a Continued, Immemorial Custom, which do's determine the Prince to Summon a Convocation at such Seasons, and leaves it not any longer to his free, and abso­lute Will, Whether he will Summon it, or no? When this Custom first began, or How long it has become the setled, and constant Method with us, to have a Convocation Call'd at the same time that the Parliament meets, it matters not to our present Purpose to Enquire. Sure we are, that this has been the Cu­stom ever since the 25th. of Henry the Eighth: And that is enough to shew that it ought not Easily to be neglected. And therefore, tho I know no Positive Law that do's determine the King's Ab­solute [Page 141] and free Will, as to this matter; yet I humbly conceive that so ancient, and setled a Custom ought to be held to; and our Princes accordingly still order the one to be summon'd, as often as the other is called.

But now, secondly, If by sitting be meant (as in the present question I sup­pose it is) their meeting to do Business; and being allow'd to come together for that purpose: Then I reply, that for such their sitting, I know no Law besides the absolute and free power of the Prince. Custom, we are sure is as much against this, as it has been for the other; and any Statute or positive Law for it, has not, that I know of, been pretended to.

Indeed whilst the Clergy were wont to assess themselves, and their sitting, upon that account, was necessary for the support of the Government; they were not only summon'd to meet, but were wont actually to assemble, and sit, so long as it was requisite for them to do for this purpose. But that being done, they were for the most part forth­with Adjourned, and met no more, till the King had some new occasion for their assistance.

[Page 142] And that I may not be thought to speak this at all adventures, I will offer an instance or two of it. The Convoca­tion which met the first of King James the First: was by Prorogations continu­ed from time to time, for seven years together. Yet, except it were in his first year, we do not hear of any great business that was done by them, more than that of granting Subsidies, which I have mention'd.

In King Charles the First's time, there were but few Parliaments, and therefore we are not to look for Convocations in that. When his Son, King Charles the Second return'd; the famous Convoca­tion of 1660 met, to remedy those dis­orders which the Civil Wars had occa­sion'd. In order whereunto it was neces­sary for them at the first to sit, and set­tle the Affairs of the Church: but that being done, they were by the King's Writ prorogued eighteen several times successively; and it does not appear by the Journal of it, which I have seen, that any thing material was afterwards done by it.

And as their sitting, so thirdly, I af­firm that their acting too does depend upon the Will of the Prince. They can­not [Page 143] enter upon any business without his special Commission for it: And whether he will grant them such a Commission or no, depends entirely upon his own Will.

But when I say, that the sitting and acting of the Convocation, does depend upon the absolute and free Will of the Prince; (and which terms I make use Letter. p. 1. of, only because they are prescribed to me by one, whom at present I am obliged to follow.) I must observe, that by his absolute and free will, I under­stand a Will not determined by any humane Law, to act otherwise than ac­cording to the Dictates of a Man's own Reason, and upon the last Result of his own Judgment, he would do. For other­wise there are Laws, which in this, as in all other cases of the like Nature, de­termine the most absolute Sovereigns in the World: and we do not deny our King, as well as all other Princes, to be subject to them.

The Law of Reason, is a Law by which every wise Man does, and every Man, as such, is obliged to act.

The positive Law of God, and the common Principles of Right and [...], are another Law, by which all Christi­ans (of what Bank or Authority [...]) [Page 144] both out of duty to God, and with re­gard to their own Consciences, are requi­red to attend.

And lastly, The publick Good and Welfare of the Community, is another Law, to which all Princes, even those who, in other respects, are the most absolute; are oblig'd to look: and with the observance of which they cannot dis­pence, tho' no human Constraint lies upon them, to force them thereunto, or to punish them if they do not.

By all these Laws, Princes are obli­ged: And the Will of the Prince regu­lated by these Laws, but not under the direction of any more particular Obliga­tions; is that Will on which I affirm the sitting and acting of the Convocation to depend. The Government has in­trusted him with the Power of giving them leave to sit and act when he plea­ses, and when he pleases, he may deny them to do either. But still it was sup­posed, when that trust was committed to him, that he should use it with Prudence and Moderation; and as he should from time to time be perswaded, would be most for the publick Good, both of the Church and State.

[Page 145] And therefore, fourthly, Notwith­standing any thing that has hitherto been said, I shall not doubt to affirm; that whenever the King is in his own Conscience convinced, that for the Con­vocation to sit and act, would be for the Glory of God, the Benefit of the Church, or otherwise for the publick Good and Welfare of his Realm; he is obliged both by the Law of Reason, as a Man; by his duty to God, as a Christi­an; and by his duty to his People, as a Ruler set over them for their Good; to permit, or rather to command his Clergy to meet in Convocation, and transact what is sit, for any or all these ends, to be done by them.

As on the other hand, whensoever he is clearly and evidently convinced, that for them thus to come together, would be needless, or hurtfull, to these ends; it is then his duty to restrain them from sitting; and that tho' he should be never so importunately desired by some, that they may sit; or rail'd at by others, for not allowing them so to do.

These I take to be the plain Conse­quences of the foregoing Discourse: And by them, I suppose, a clear and full [Page 146] Resolution is given, to the first general Question, viz.

‘Whether there be any Law that commands or permits, the sitting and acting of the Convocation, besides the absolute and free Pleasure of the Prince? And if there be, What that Law is? And how far the Prince is obliged by it?’

I might now proceed upon this foun­dation, without any more ado, to ex­amine what has been offer'd by our late Author to the contrary, and so pass on to the other part of my Discourse. But because it may be a matter of some Sa­tisfaction, as well as use, to those whose Enquiries have not lain this way, to know what has been the State of our Convocations, ever since we have any accounts, that we can rely upon, con­cerning them: I will therefore take leave to digress so far from my present business, as may suffice to shew this, in a short History of our Convoca­tions, from the first Conversion of the Saxons to Christianity, down to our present Times.

CHAP. IV.

SO great is the Uncertainty to which §. 1. all humane Constitutions are exposed, that tho' I have before sufficiently shewn what the Nature of our Convocation at present is, and what Authority our Kings have over it; yet we can by no means from thence conclude, that this was always the case of it; or that the Act of the 25th of King Henry the VIII. did only restore our Kings to their an­cient Rights over their Clergy; and not rather give them a greater Power than ever they before had; or than the Par­liament ought to have put into their hands.

To clear this matter, and withal to shew how Ecclesiastical Affairs have heretofore been transacted in this Realm; I shall here take a short View of the State of our Convocation in times past, [Page 148] and of the method that was wont to be observed in making of Canonical Orders and Constitutions; from the Conversion of the Saxons, to the settlement of it in that Form under which it continues to this very day.

And the Method I shall take for the better clearing of this matter, shall be this:

I. I will consider, how the Affairs of the Church were managed, from the first Conversion of the Saxons, to the time of the Norman Conquest.

II. From the coming in of K. William the Conquerour, to the 23d. of Edward the First: About which time both the Par­liament, and the Convocation, seem to have been fully setled upon the same foot, on which they have both conti­nued to stand ever since.

III. From the 23d. of Edward the First, to the 25th. of Henry the Eighth: When the Parliament and Clergy, restored the Crown to those Rights, which the Usur­pations of the Court of Rome had before, in great Measure, deprived it of. And,

[Page 149] IV. From the 25th. of Henry the Eighth, to our own times.