the church dispersed. For as the bishops and pastors of the church have always the authority of successors of the apostles, whether they be assembled in synod or not as particular churches may accept and act on the decrees and regulations of synods in which they have not been actually represented: as the authority of the œcumenical synods themselves rests finally on their acceptance by the church dispersed; it follows that regulations of discipline in themselves lawful, and made by the authority of the crown, whether with or without the confirmation of parliament, may be adopted and executed by the church; and if they are so accepted, they are invested with the canonical authority of other ecclesiastical laws and customs. 3. The convocations or assemblies of the clergy in England, France, Germany, Sweden, were called together by the king for temporal purposes, chiefly in order to furnish pecuniary aids to the crown. The English convocations seem to have arisen in the following manner. After the Norman conquest the national councils, styled variously conventus, placitum, concilium, synodus, colloquium, and in the thirteenth century parlamentum, consisted of bishops, abbots, earls, and barons; the commons and inferior clergy being not yet summoned by the king's writ. It was in the thirteenth century when the Roman pontiff's began to demand taxes on ecclesiastical benefices, that the convocation, comprising the inferior clergy, took its rise'. Taxes were now to be imposed not only on lands, but on tithes and oblations, to which the consent of their owners was necessary. In 1246 See this subject discussed by Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. P. ii. 1. iii. c. 45-57. White Kennett, Eccles. Synods, p. 124. the archdeacons were called together by the king's writ to consult of a subsidy for the crusade, which the council of Lyons had ordered to be paid by all the clergy, and in 1256, on occasion of another exaction, they were ordered by the archbishop to bring procuratorial letters from the clergy'. It was not till about the end of the reign of Henry III. that the inferior clergy were called to parliament. In 1282, king Edward the first, having summoned to the parliament of Northampton, bishops, abbots, and the proctors of deans and chapters, they refused to grant aid unless a fuller assembly of the clergy was called "more debito ;" and in the meeting so called were deans, archdeacons, proctors of chapters and of the clergy". In 1295 they were again summoned to parliament, and for the first time by the clause "pramunientes" inserted in the writ of each bishop, by which he was admonished to bring certain clergy of his diocese to parliament'. When the bishops, deans, archdeacons, proctors of chapters and clergy attended the parliament, and when they sat in a congregation or chamber apart from the rest, the convocation, properly so called, was complete in its general outline. For a long time the convocation formed one house. On various occasions however from A. D. 1376, the inferior clergy were desired to withdraw, while the bishops deliberated on the grievances and other affairs of the church. In 1415 the inferior clergy seem first to have elected a prolocutor to be their spokesman with the bishops and others ". It became their custom to withdraw at the beginning of convocation into a lower house, being the chapel under the church of St. Paul's, to elect their prolocutor, and consider of their grievances; but they afterwards assembled in the chapterhouse of St. Paul's, with the bishops and abbots, and it does not seem that they formed a chamber permanently apart from the greater prelates till late in the fifteenth century. Though convocations were summoned for temporal objects, still when assembled they were virtually provincial synods, as they comprised all their members, and therefore they sometimes acted as such, and even took the title. In fact there seems no reason why bishops who are assembled for a temporal purpose, should be disqualified from taking cognizance of spiritual affairs if necessary, and thus acting in a synodical capacity. It is their authority as ministers of Jesus Christ and successors of the apostles, which gives them a right to make decisions in a synod; not the mere mode or reason of their assembling. Therefore it does not appear essential to a synod, that it should have been formally convened as a synod. We find that a convocation in 1400 judged in a case of heresy. Bishop Kennet says, that no canons were made by convocations till the reign of Henry VII. However the submission of the clergy and the act of parliament both suppose that convocations may make canons with the royal permission; and in fact, the various reformations made in these churches from that time, have been generally, if not always, effected by convocations, which were styled by themselves and by the temporal power, "provincial" or "national synods"." The same thing has also occurred in France. The power of the crown with regard to convocation is very great. It is its undisputed prerogative, not only to assemble convocation, but to prevent its deliberations, prorogue, and dissolve it at pleasure. The assembly of the Gallican clergy was subject to the same influence as ours. The king of France convoked it, prescribed the subjects of debate, and terminated it when he pleased. With regard to the constitution of convocation in England, I may perhaps be allowed to observe, that were it desirable that so large a body should be permitted to deliberate on the affairs of the church generally, and that the principle of a formal representation of the clergy of the second order should be adhered to, it would be necessary as a preliminary, to determine the respective privileges of the two houses of convocation: nor does it seem that under the constitution of that assembly at present, the parochial clergy are so fully represented, as the numbers, the learning, the orthodoxy, and the high principle of that admirable body of men so amply entitle them to be. In concluding these observations on the royal supremacy, I must again protest, that the doctrine of the church of England on this point is not to be determined by preambles of acts of parliament, by the assertions of lawyers, or by the sentiments and actions of princes in modern times. We are not bound to admit the soundness of all those doctrines, or the rectitude of all those acts. We subscribe only to the truth of the doctrine taught by the church of England in her articles and canons, and will not consent to be tried except by them and by the principles they lay down. gulations in discipline and doctrine in 1561 (see Fleury, liv. 157. s. 35, 36.) and in 1682. b Whatever we may have to complain of in such matters, is not peculiar to these churches. Those who claim greater independence than we do generally, have in fact been obliged to content themselves with less. Bouvier, bishop of Mans, may well say, "Whoever is not altogether ignorant of the ecclesiastical history of the last century, cannot be unaware of the many modes in which the civil authority injured the spiritual power of the (Gallican) church, under the name of Liberty.' The most zealous defenders of our liberties have more than once complained bitterly of the royal officers and magistrates, who thus transgressed their legitimate authority "." Bossuet wrote to cardinal d'Estrées, "I have proposed two things to myself; first, in speaking of the liberties of the Gallican church, to do so without diminishing the real grandeur of the holy see; secondly, to explain them as they are understood by the bishops, and not as they are understood by the magistrates." Fenelon said, "The king in practice is more the head of the church in France than the pope. Liberties with regard to the pope, servitudes with regard to the king. The authority of the king devolved to lay judges: those laymen rule the bishops. The enormous abuses of the appel d'abus," &c. Fleury says, "But the great servitude of the Gallican church, if I may say so, is the excessive extent of the secular jurisdiction." "A bad Frenchman might make a treatise on the servitudes of the Gallican church, as they have done on its liberties, and he would not be in want of proofs." d |