the prolocutor, Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Overall, but slept undiscovered in manuscript till Archbishop Sancroft published them from Overall's book in the year 1699, in vindication of his own non-jurism. These extraordinary canons were singularly infelicitous in their destinies. The Convocation passed them in consequence of the Gunpowder plot, expecting that their ultra-prerogative style would delight the king; but he had the good sense to refuse to ratify them, alleging that they carried matters so high, that if their doctrine was sound, not his family, but some anterior dynasty, ought to rule in England. And when revived by Sancroft and his friends, so far from serving their cause, Bishop Burnet says, "There was a paragraph or two that they had not considered, which was plainly calculated to justify the owning the United Provinces to be a lawful government; for it was there laid down, that when a change of government was brought to a thorough settlement, it was then to be owned and submitted to as a work of the providence of God; and part of king James's letter to Abbot related to this; but what gave this book much consequence on its revival was, that the celebrated Dr. Sherlock acknowledged that he became reeonciled to take the oaths to the new government, at the Revolution, by the doctrines above mentioned in Overall's work."

There was not a great deal of business of a general nature transacted during the Convocations in the reign of Charles the First, previous to the year 1640; for Laud and the Star-Chamber controlled spiritual matters very much to their own mind; and if subsidies could have been raised from the clergy without synods, and taxes from the people without

parliaments, neither the king nor the archbishop would have been very anxious to fetter themselves by the conflicting opinions of deliberative bodies. The canons of 1640 we have considered in the paper before referred to; and therefore will not discuss anew the various questions connected with their enactment. The synod was originally convened in the usual manner; but its continuing to act after parliament was dissolved, in virtue of a special writ from the Crown, authorising it to sit during the king's pleasure, instead of in the accustomed form, during the present parliament, though it might not be illegal, was contrary to the spirit of the English Constitution, and in every way fatally injudicious; and was ruinous to the Church as a national institution. The decisions of this assembly were those of a party, whose leaders were then in power; and were not a just exposition of the true doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church. The canons passed under these peculiar circumstances were never acted upon; they were defunct from their birth; and at the Restoration they were expressly repudiated by the King, the Convocation, and Parliament; so that it argues either great ignorance, or greater prejudice and obstinacy, for any man now to appeal to them, as some among us are doing, in order to find a warrant for practices, which, whether good or bad, are unwarranted innovations in the Anglican communion. Mr. Lathbury, who is not wont to err on what would be called the Low-church side of questions, admits that these canons are not now binding.

"I cannot but consider that they were repealed by the act of the 13th of Charles II. The clause, in which these canons are mentioned, is as follows:-' Pro

vided always that this act shall not extend to give any power or authority to exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, censure, or coercion, which they might not by law have done before the year of our Lord 1639; nor to confirm the canons made in the year 1640, nor any of them, nor any other ecclesiastical laws or canons not formerly confirmed, allowed, or enacted by parliament, or by the established laws of the land, as they stood in the year of our Lord 1639.' It is clear, therefore, that these canons are of no force, though they may be viewed as expressing the sense of the Anglican Church."

The proceedings of ConvoIcation at the Restoration were very important; but they are so well known, especially in what

relates to the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, that a summary of them would be out of place in these desultory notices. We will, however, quote a few passages from Mr. Lathbury.

"On the 19th of December, 1661, the Book of Common Prayer being revised, the form of subscription was taken into consideration. It was committed to the management of two members of each house. On the 20th, the book was received, approved, and subscribed, by the members of both houses so that the space occupied in the review was one month. The following passage from Bishop Kennet will shew how rapidly the Convocation proceeded. And yet through haste and inadvertence, there were some escapes and omissions in the book sent from the Convocation to the Lords. Archbishop Tenison told me by his bed-side on Monday, February 12, 1710, that the Convocation book intended to be the copy confirmed by the Act of Uniformity had a rash blunder in the rubric after Baptism, which should have run, It is certain by God's word, that children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved.' But the words which are baptized were left out, till Sir Cyril Wyche coming to see the Lord Chancellor Hyde, found the book brought home by his lordship and lying in his parlour window, even after it had passed the two houses, and happening to cast his eye upon that place, told the lord chancellor of that gross omission, who supplied it with his own hand.'"

"All the corrections in the Liturgy

were made by the convocation, the two houses of parliament not venturing on any alterations, but merely confirming the book.

"The Prayer for the Parliament was now introduced into the Liturgy. It has formed a fruitful topic for animadversion to Dissenters from that time to the present; and it has been declared, that the words 'most religious and gracious king' were introduced as a compliment to Charles II. Like many other assertions, it has no foundation to rest upon. The prayer had been in use for years, though it had not been incorporated in the Liturgy. It was first used in an occasional form in the year 1625; and in this prayer the words are found. I have now before me a collection of occasional forms from the commenceperiod of the civil wars: the form for ment of the reign of James I. to the

1625 is one of the number. In two others, in the same collection, for the years 1628 and 1640, the prayer also occurs. There are others between the above dates in which it is not found; but the omission is easily explained. These forms were published for particular occasions, to be used only once or twice; consequently, if the parliament were assembled at the time, the prayer was inserted; but if otherwise, it was omitted. In 1661 the prayer was inserted in a special form, and was afterwards placed in the Book of Common Prayer. Such is the history of this prayer, respecting which so many misrepresentations have been circulated.

"In the canons of 1640, the communion table was ordered to be placed at the east end of the chancel, close to the wall, and within rails, at which the communicants were to receive the elements. Previous to the Reformation, the altar stood near the wall at the east end of the chancel. Tables were substituted at the Reformation; and by King Edward's second book they were appointed to stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel. The custom was, therefore, to remove the table, at the time of communion, into the most convenient part of the church. By Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, A.D. 1559, it was ordered to be placed where the altar had stood except at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, when it was to be removed into the most convenient part of the chancel. Laud, and several of the bishops, wished to reduce all churches to one uuiform mode; and in many places the table was placed at the east end and inclosed with rails. The charge of popery was alleged against the archbishop on the ground of

mighty God wrought for us by your means, in making you the blessed instrument of preserving us from falling under the cruelty of popish tyranny.' It was not approved, however, by the lower house, who contended for the privilege of a separate address from their own body. The upper house did not admit that they had any such right, upon which the clergy proceeded to make amendments in the address, alleging, in justification of their proceeding, that they wished to confine themselves to such things only in his Majesty's message as concerned the Church of Eng

land. A conference was therefore proposed, which was managed chiefly by the Bishop of Salisbury and the prolocutor. The words Protestant religion

were objected to, but the bishops contended for the expression; first, because it was the known designation of the common doctrine of the western part of Christendom, in opposition to the corruptions of the Romish Church; secondly, because the omission would be liable to strange constructions; thirdly, because it agrees with the general reasons offered for amendments by the clergy.

The lower house, however, resolved to substitute Protestant Churches for Pro

testant religion..... The amendments were returned by the bishops with this alteration, We doubt not the interest of the Protestant religion in this and all other Protestant Churches.' The lower house requested the omission of the words this and and, lest the Church of England should suffer diminution in being joined with foreign Protestant

Churches. These were at last omitted. The passage relative to the deliverance from popish tyranny was also omitted. In short, the address, in its amended

form, was quite different from that which was originally framed by the bishops. There was no allusion in the amended address to his Majesty's zeal for the Protestant religion, nor was there any expression of thanks for his Majesty's commission."

"Tillotson was elevated to the see of Canterbury after the deprivation of Sancroft, and during his primacy no business was transacted in convocation.

Ten years elapsed without any synodical proceedings beyond the mere meeting and adjourning. They were kept,' says Burnet, from doing mischief by prorogations for a course of ten years.' The government were afraid of their meetings. For a time, too, both parties were silent respecting the convocation; the advocates of the changes hoping that opposition would subside after an interval, and the opponents being content not to revive a question on which

such strong feelings were entertained. Under these circumstances the convocation was prorogued from time to time, until the year 1700."

Thus closed the seventeenth century. The primate Tillotson's views of Church polity were for the most part shared by his successors Tenison and Wake; the former of whom was made Archbishop in 1694, upon the decease of Tillotson, and lived till 1715, when he was followed by Wake, who lived till 1737. Tillotson, in proposing terms of comprehension with the non-conformists, only followed the example of Archbishop Sancroft ; and indeed the scheme had been suggested long before by Lord Chief Justice Hale. Tenison was

as

anxious in the matter as Tillotson; and both these prelates thought with Bishop Burnet, that the Convocation "did mischief" by the intolerant spirit which it displayed; and that it was weakaffording ening Protestantism, encouragement to Popery, endangering the liberties of the nation, and exciting tempers which, by reaction, would lead to the destruction of the Anglican Church. All these three Archbishops thought that toleration ought to be afforded to Dissenters, though the scheme for their comprehension had failed; and they all urged, according to the title of Wake's well-known book in reply to the Sacheverellites, "The authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods ;"' which he followed up by “An appeal to all the true members of the Church of England, in behalf of the king's ecclesiastical supremacy, as by law established, by our Convocations approved, and by our most eminent bishops and clergymen stated and defended, against both the popish and fanatical opposers of it." We pause not at present to dis

cuss these questions. Our general view is that no scheme of comprehension could have been propounded which would have extensively united parties; though a few things which might have been conceded without injury would have reconciled some of the more moderate conscientious non-conformists to our communion. We also think that all these three archbishops inclined too much to Erastianism, a circumstance easily to be accounted for when we consider the peculiarities of the times in which they lived. Yet their opinions, broadly stated, were grounded on the 21st Article; which our modern Tractarians follow the Sacheverellites in endeavouring to read backward. A national established church ought not to be allowed to set the land in a flame by ecclesiastical and political excesses. In its own department, as a spiritual legislature, it ought to be unfettered; but when it seeks to interfere with national liberty, conscience, toleration, and justice, the civil power has a right to prevent its "doing mischief." Tillotson himself, it should be remembered, was the individual who suggested to the king that the question of a comprehension with the Dissenters ought to be submitted to the Convocation, and not to be decided by Act of Parliament.

We will now proceed with our extracts from Mr. Lathbury, from the commencement of the new century, in sequence to those already given up to the close of the preceding. We repeat that the author's own facts contravene his statement that the suppression of Convocation (as to any ecclesiastical procedure) was merely the consequence of its not being any longer necessary for voting supplies.

in 1700 another controversy arose, which was carried on with much warmth on the part of many of the disputants. Tenison succeeded Tillotson in 1694. Like his predecessor, he advised the Crown not to permit the convocation to act. At length, those who held the views of became impatient of the restraint imthe majority of the lower house in 1689 posed by the Crown. They complained that it was unjust not to allow the convocation to sit; nor can it be denied, whatever their conduct may have been, that they had, at all events, the appearance of justice on their side."

66

This year, however, the year 1700, the convocation was permitted to meet for business; and its proceedings will show that the members were influenced

by the views of the one or the other party in the controversy already mentioned. The archbishop's schedule for

proroguing the convocation was sent to the lower house; but, contrary to the previous practice, they continued their sessions, and proceeded with some unimportant matters, in order to bring the question relative to the right of the archbishop to prorogue to an issue. The custom had always been for the archbishop to sign a schedule, by which the upper house was immediately adjourned; the lower house was considered as it was then sent to the prolocutor, and prorogued. Now, however, the archbishop's right was disputed. They insisted on the right of adjourning themselves, in a paper which was afterwards laid before the bishops. After sitting some time to assert their right, the prolocutor signified an adjournment by consent, to meet in Henry VII.'s Chapel, though the archbishop had fixed the Jerusalem Chamber. On the 28th, the day fixed in the schedule, when the bishops assembled, the clergy did not attend, as had always been the practice."

"The lower house voted, on the 31st of March, that they had a right to adjourn themselves. A message was, therefore, sent to the bishops to this effect, that they had considered their lordships' reply to their paper, and that it was unsatisfactory. They asked, therefore, for a free conference. After the prolocutor had retired, the bishops proceeded to discuss the matter proposed by the clergy and on their return, the archbishop informed them that, as they had replied to their paper in writing, they also expected a written answer from the lower house. The prolocutor remarked that their answer would ocarchbishop replied, that he did not cupy twenty sheets, upon which the confine them to length and breadth, but expected their answer in writing.' Still

4 L

: