THE more the subject is considered, the more untenable will appear the claim set up by Convocation, to be considered a body in which is vested authority to originate and deliberate upon questions affecting the interests of religion, the services of the Church, or the arrangement of matters having reference to Ecclesiastical affairs.

It might be difficult to produce the original, or even a very early form of the Writ under which the great Council of the nation was assembled. The earliest form which we have met with is that dated the 6th of February, 1523, which was addressed by Henry VIII. to the Archbishop. Burnet says, "The summoning of Convocations he assumed by virtue of his legatine power, of which there were two sorts: the first were called by the king; for with the writs for the Parliament there went out always a summons to the two Archbishops for calling a Convocation of their province; the style of which will be found in the collection. It differs in nothing from what is now in use, but that the king did not prefix the day, requiring them only to be summoned to meet with all convenient speed. The king's writ is dated 6th February, anno regni 14 (1523), the Archbishop's mandate fixed the 20th of April as the day of meeting."

If the observation made by Dr. Burnet, that "the summoning of Convocations he (the king) assumed by virtue of his legatine power," is intended to apply to any other than the meeting in question, it is open to objection; because there is very conclusive evidence that the authority of the sovereign of

these realms to assemble the Great Council of the nation, calling the clerical and the lay members of the community to meet for the consideration of divers weighty and important matters, existed long before a papal legate, or papal authority, ventured to plant a foot in this country.

It is probable, when the sovereign issued his writ for assembling the temporal peers and the lay members of that Council, he might at the same time have issued another writ to the archbishops, or the higher ecclesiastical authorities, directing them to take the necessary steps for summoning the representatives of the clergy to meet at the same time and place, and that the two parties so assembled, probably the lords spiritual and temporal in one place, and the representatives of the people clerical and laic in another, to consider of such subjects as should be placed before them.

We understand the clergy form a part of the Council or Parliament of Sweden, one of that body being elected from the rural deanery of every ten parishes; and it is probable some similar arrangement may have prevailed in this country.

When, however, under the papal intrusion, it was decreedat the Council at Berghamsted in 696, and at that at Cloveshoo in 742, that the property of the Church should not be subject to the taxation imposed by Parliament, but that the clergy should themselves vote such subsidies as they might choose towards the expenses of the nation; when it became a question of taxation, the clergy withdrew, and in a separate locality agreed among themselves upon the amount they would contribute. This was the first occasion of the representatives of the clergy separating themselves from the representatives of the laity. Shortly afterwards they declined altogether to sit with their lay brethren; and, forming themselves into a separate society, laid the foundation of the present House of Convocation. "It is said that the clergy were allowed to recede from Parliament about the middle of the reign of Edward III., when their appearance in Convocation at the king's call was accepted as an equivalent." (Hody, Pt. ii. 224, 225.) In 1547, Edward VI., thinking themselves not sufficiently respected, and that the Parliament debated upon questions of church polity without consulting them, they petitioned to be permitted to reassemble with the lay members of the House of Commons; but that petition was not complied with, and they continued to assemble, and do still assemble, as a separate body. Yet the clergy are not unrepresented in the House of Commons, inasmuch as they have, equally with their lay brethren, the privilege of voting at the election of Members to sit in the Commons House of Parliament. That privilege was conceded to them in 1663, when they ceded the claim to be exempted from

the taxes imposed by Parliament. Whether, when separately assembled, and possessing the privilege of granting subsidies, and of being exempt from the general taxation of the country, the Convocation, as a church assembly, did or did not assume an authority to which they were not lawfully entitled, may be a question open to disputation between those who take different views of that assembly; but the measures which were subsequently taken will lead to the conclusion that they did trespass upon the Royal authority. The Act 25th Henry VIII. c. 19, expressly resumed to the Crown of this realm certain rights and prerogatives which had evidently been encroached upon by the clergy. By that Act it is set forth that the clergy of this realm of England have not only acknowledged that the Convocation of the same clergy is, always has been, and ought to be, assembled only by the king's writ; but also submitting themselves to the king's majesty, have promised that they will never from thenceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or execute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances provincial or other, or by whatsoever name they shall be called in Convocation, unless the king's most royal assent and license may to them be had to make, promulge, and execute the same, and that his majesty do give his most royal assent and authority in that behalf. (Rogers' Eccl. Law, 81; Burnet's Hist. of his Own Times, vol. i. 35, 3rd Edit., 384; Godol. Ab., 99; ibid. 858.)

By that Act the power of assembling the Convocation, or a Church Synod, which had previously been exercised by the Metropolitan, is now vested in the King, who, having by authority of his writ commanded the archbishops to summon the clergy for State purposes, may choose whether he will let them act as a Church Synod or no. (Rog. Eccl. Law, p. 281; Archbp. Wake's State of the Church; 2 Burn's Eccl. Law, 24.)

In 1663, the Convocation ceased to grant subsidies, the purpose for which they originally assembled themselves, or were assembled in a separate body, therefore no longer existing; they were in fact an assembly without a lawful object, unless they were considered as a body to which the Parliament could appeal for advice when questions relating to ecclesiastical affairs were under consideration. Rogers, in his Ecclesiastical Law, says, "The Lords and Commons were sometimes wont to send to the Convocation for advice in spiritual matters; but only by way of advice, for the Parliament have always insisted that their laws, by their own force, bind the clergy, as the laws of all Christian princes did in the first ages of the Church." (p. 281.)

An attentive perusal of the proceedings of the general, national, or provincial councils, or even diocesan synods,

will show that the inferior clergy were not consulted at those assemblies. The Decrees or Acts were laid before them, not for their consideration, or even approval, but for their information and observance.

If such was the treatment to which the inferior clergy were subject in the general, provincial, and diocesan councils, it appears extremely improbable that an assembly, constituted as is the Parliamentary Convocation, should possess authority to originate, or even entertain, questions of a reforming, enacting, or legislative character, unless the subject, previously arranged, be placed before them by competent authority, for their information and concurrence.

The Convocation is the creature of circumstances; of circumstances which have passed away. It was not formed originally for ecclesiastical, but for secular, purposes; and the object for which it was formed no longer exists. Since the year 1663, when they ceased to grant subsidies, they have not passed any Synodical Act.

It is at this time, as it has been since the Reformation, assembled by virtue of a writ under the Great Seal, issued at the same time as the writ for the assembling of Parliament, directed to the archbishop who circulates it, accompanied by a mandate from himself. Whatever authority Convocation may possess is conferred and limited by such writ and mandate: it has no inherent prerogative; it is assembled at the pleasure and discretion of the sovereign; it cannot assemble without such authority, and when assembled it cannot legally entertain any question (except presenting to the president any gravamina) but such as may be by due authority placed before it, nor lawfully give an opinion upon any subject which has not been by similar authority submitted for its consideration.

The writ to the archbishop, under which it is assembled, says, " By reason of certain difficult and urgent affairs concerning us, the security and defence of the Church of England, and the peace and tranquillity, public good, and defence of the kingdom, and our subjects of the same, we command you, entreating you by the faith and love which you owe to us, that having in due manner considered and weighed the premises, you call together with all convenient speed in lawful manner all and singular the bishops of your province, the deans of your cathedral churches, and also the archdeacons, chapters, and colleges, and the whole clergy of every diocese of the same province, to appear before you in the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul's London, on or elsewhere, as it shall seem most expedient, to treat of, agree to, and conclude upon the premises and all other things which to them shall then at the same place be more clearly explained on our behalf."

Such is the form of the writ which since the Reformation has been and still is in use. It is probably a transcript, or at least framed upon that which was previously in use. During the time when Convocation had the privilege of voting subsidies, it is possible they may have assumed, and even trespassed upon, the Royal authority; but they have no such adventitious support at this time. The mandate of the archbishop is but an echo of the words of the Royal writ.

If the writ issued prior to the Reformation were in the same terms as the one before quoted, it was probably the original summons to the clergy to send their representatives to meet the representatives of the laity in the great Parliament of the nation, to consult upon such things ecclesiastical and secular as were necessary or desirable with a view to the public welfare; and if the same form were continued after the clergy had withdrawn themselves from the Commons House of Parliament, and were wont to meet in a separate locality, the directions in it would apply to the granting such subsidies as the exigencies of the nation might make necessary. Unless, being so assembled, the Crown or the Parliament should be inclined to ask their opinion upon any ecclesiastical question which might be at the time under consideration.

What is the Convocation of Canterbury? It cannot of its own authority legally communicate or exchange sentiments. with the Convocation of the Province of York, nor yet with the provincial Convocations in Ireland. A communication made by the Crown to any one province is not by that act lawfully made known to, nor is it lawfully cognizant by, the Convocation of another. How then is it possible to entertain the question, that a body so limited in authority, so restricted in power, so deficient in every accident calculated to attach credit or to give weight to anything it may suggest, can be profitably or beneficially, even if it could be legally, employed in entertaining or discussing questions of Church polity, and still less in suggesting rules which in their operation must apply to and affect the whole Church of the realm?

In reference to the change which took place in 1663—64, when the property of the Church again became subject to the taxes imposed by Parliament, Mr. Lathbury, in his work upon Convocation, p. 308, says, "The Act entitled, An Act for granting a Royal aid to the King's Majesty, contained a clause in the following words,- That nothing herein contained shall be drawn into example to the prejudice of the ancient rights belonging to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, or the Clergy of the realm;"" and he seems to infer that such proviso might have reference to the privileges and authority presumed to belong to Convocation; but the introduction of the words