vocations in order to fupprefs their Oppofitions. Does he conceive that they denied any part of that juft Power he claims over them? Certainly it cannot be prudent to give up all his Power in Ĉonvocation rather than to have one point of it Difputed. However it is to be hoped that the fear of feeing no more Convocations in cafe there be not a better Agreement between the Two Houfes, may incline both Parties heartily to defire a Reconciliation, and endeavonr to effect it by all Peaceable Methods if ever they be permitted to fit again. And fhould they not be permitted to fit, who can tell what may be the Confequence? Should Convocations be difcontinued much longer, it may he too juftly feard that they will never be revived again. And fome Perfons may in Time make fuch use of this Difcontinuance, as to procure them to be laid afide altogether, and raife an Affembly of Divines in their ftead. But 'tis to be hoped that all due Care will be taken by our prefent Governors to prevent their Succeffors from having any Pretence to call fuch an Affembly: And I do not fee how it can be prevented but by reftoring to the Metropolitan, his Suffragans and the Inferior Clergy their Right of meeting in Convocation as well as of being Summoned to it with every Parlia

ment.

The

The Submiffion Act it felf has been looked upon as a Grievance, and a great hardfhip put upon the Clergy of this Realm, even by those that have been thought the most moderate Men in the Church of England. And yet this very Act does not bar the Clergy from meeting in Convocation when they have been Summoned by the Royal Writ. It only prohibits the Metropolitan from calling them together without fuch a Writ; and forbids their making Canons when affembled till they have a Royal Licenfe to do fo. And yet my Lord of Sarum in his incomparable Hiftory for which Vol. I. p. 49, he had the juft Thanks of both Houfes ofso. Parliament, has made this Reflection on this Statute; The extreme, fays he, of raising the Ecclefiaftical Power too high in the times of Popery, had now produced another of depreffing it too much: So feldom is the Counterpoife fo justly Ballanced, that extreams are reduced to a well-tempered Mediocrity. And Dean Kennett Fecles. Synods, very juftly reproves Dean Atterbury for faying that the Statute of Submiffion is none of their [the Clergies] Grievances, nor do they ask or wish a Repeal of it. He handfomely reprehends him for it, and fays, Note, he talks all this in the name of the Clergy, as if he were Prolocutor of a Lower-Houfe; when yet he does not Report fair, nor declare the Refolution according to Majority. For I fcarce think one half of the Clergy are fo very proud of their Forefathers Submission, as to take it for no Grievance at all, now so much as ask or with a Repeal of it. And a little after he adds, Ibid `p. 88. But what if Princes of another Communion, or

B

of

*

of no Religion fhould arife, and proclaim the Tenets of Herely or Blasphemy; and not fuffer the Clergy to meet for the common measures of Union, and holding faft the Faith: But dare the Governors of the Church into a Præmunire, and take the first advantage of it upon them and all their Clergy. Would not this Statute be then a little Grievance ? And would not wife Men wish well to Pofterity as well as intend their prefent Safety?

And I humbly conceive that the most effectual Method to provide for the fecurity of Pofterity in this particular, would be fo to con tinue the stated meetings of the Convocation that if hereafter a Prince of another Communion or of no Religion fhould arife (as the Dean expreffes it) he might not think it proper to break in upon an Establifh'd Cuftoni, nor however his Inclinations might be towards the Church, think it just and honourable to deny the Governours of the Church the Liberty of their Synodical Meetings which he hall find they have ever enjoyed in all former Reigns.

Neither is it Clergy-men alone that have thought the Submiffion Act a Grievance, nor is it only of late Years that it has been esteemed fo: For an hundred years ago, my Lord Bacon, the greateft Statefiman of his Age feems to have had the fame Opinion of it. Who mains, p. 240. Writing to Her Majefty's Royal Ancestor King James I. of happy Memory, touching the Edification and Pacification of the Church of EngLand, having fpoken fome things concerning

Bacon's Re

the

T

the reasonableness of Bishops making ufe of the affiftance of their Clergy in matters relating to their private Judicature in each Diocefe, according to the Custom of the primitive Church, which Paffage I have tranfcribed into this Book, he adds what follows. And Chap, 6. as I wish, fays he, this strength given to Bishops. by Council, fo it is not unworthy Your Majeftys Confideration, whether you fhall not think fit, to give Strength to the general Council of Your Clergy, (the Convocation Houfe) which was then reftrained, when the state of the Clergy was thought a fufpected part to the Kingdom, in regard of their late Homage to the Bishop of Rome; which ftate, now, will give place to none, in their Loyalty and Devotion to Your Majefty. It is plain that he speaks this with relation to the Submiffion Act, and that he thought the Clergy were too much restrained by it, yet then that Act had never been extended to restrain them from meeting when the Parliament did, together with which they were wont to be Summoned as they are to this Day. The restraint therefore which this noble Lord and most wife Statefman means must refer to that freedom of Debate and Power of Acting within their Sphere in which refpect he fuppofed them to be restrained further than was convenient. But what would he have said if they had been restrained even from meeting at all? That was a thing which in those days could not be thought poffible to come come to pafs. However the Clergy have always quietly kept themselves within the Limits of the Submission Act, and they may therefore humbly hope that it B 2 fhall

fhall not be stretched fo far as to bar them from that privilege which was never denied them for above 150 Years together, to meet in Convocation when the Parliament does, tho' they have no Money to give. For they had a Right to give their own Money which has never legally been taken from them, but only difufed.

Certainly there is very great occafion for the meeting of a Convocation at this time, and for their acting too. For tho', God be praised, the Tenets of Herefy and Blafphemy (as * Eccl Syn. p.86: Dean Kennet expreffes it) are not proclaimed by Authority, yet they are Published without Authority, in order to Poyfon the Youth of the Kingdom with pernicious Doctrines and deteftable Principles: And is it not convenient that the Clergy fhould meet together, if it be but to confult what may be the most proper Measures which they can take to put an effectual stop to fuch wickedness? To advife with their Metropolitan, and the rest of my Lords the Bishops, and to receive their Directions when they are in a Body together how to proceed in fuch Cafes: And if need be to offer their Petitions to the QUEEN and Her Parliament to beg their Protection and Affiftance in the Discharge of their Duties.

Remains, p.235, 426.

&

I would only ask († fays my Lord Bacon) why the Civil State fhould be purged and reftored, by good and wholfome Laws, made every third or fourth Year, in Parliament Affembled, devifing Remedies as fast as time breedeth Mifchief; and contrariwise, the Ec

• clefia