usurpation, which they never yielded up, nor does the act of submission of the clergy take away. Upon this reasoning the commons voted their first resolution, the strength of which I leave to the reader's consideration.

The arguments upon which the other resolutions are founded will be laid together, after we have related the proceedings of the convocation.

The convocation was opened Nov. 4, 1640. Dr. Bargrave, dean of Canterbury, preached the sermon and Dr. Steward, dean of Chichesr, was chosen prolocutor, and presented to the archbishop's acceptance in king Henry the Vilth's chapel when his grace made a pathetic speech, lamenting the danger of the church, and exhorting every one present to perform the duty of their places with resolution, and not to be wanting to themselves or the cause of relig ion; but nothing of moment was transacted, there being no commission from the king; only Mr. Warmistre, one of the clerks for the diocese of Worcester, being convinced of the invalidity of the late canons, moved the house that they might cover the pit which they had opened, and prevent a parliamentary inquisition, by petitioning the king for leave to review them; but his motion was rejected, the house being of opinion that the canons were justifiable; nor would they appear so mean as to condemn themselves before they were accused. Mr. Warmistre suffered in the opinion of his brethren within doors for his cowardly speech; and was reproached from without as an enemy to the church, and a turn-coat, because he had subscribed those articles which now he condemned. This obliged him to publish his speech to the world, wherein, after having declared his satisfaction in the doctrine, discipline, and government of the church of England, as far as it is established by law, he goes on to wish there had been no private innovations introduced; for though he approves of an outward reverence in the worship of God, he is against directing it to altars and images. He apprehends it reasonable, that such innocent ceremonies as have a proper tendency to decency and order should be retained, but wishes the removal of crosses and images out of churches, as scandalous and superstitious, having an apparent tendency towards idolatry; and that there might be

no lighted candles in the day-time; he then gives his reasons against the oath in the sixth canon, and concludes with these words: "If my subscription be urged against what I have said, I was persuaded it was the practice of synods and councils, that the whole body should subscribe to those acts which are passed by the major part as synodical 'acts, notwithstanding their private dissent; if my sub"scription implied any more, I do so far recant and con'demn it myself, and desire pardon both of God and the church, resolving by God's race to be more cautious hereafter." Mr. Warmistre's behavior shewed him to be a wise and discreet clergyman; and his being sequestered from his livings some time after, for not submitting to the parliament, shews him to have been a man of principle, not to be moved from his integrity by the resentments of his friends, or the flatteries of his enemies. And though the convocation was so sanguine at their first coming together, as to despise Mr. Warmistre's motion, yet when they saw the vigorous resolutions of the house of commons against the canons, and the articles of impeachment against the metropolitan for high treason, one of which was for compiling the late canons, they were dispirited, and in a few weeks deserted their stations in the convocation house; the bishops also discontinued their meetings, and in a few weeks both houses dwindled to nothing, and broke up without either adjournment or prorogation.

To return to the parliament. It was argued against the late convocation, that they were no legal assembly after the dissolution of the parliament; that his majesty had no more power to continue them than to recal his parliament;*

*Archbishop Laud, to exculpate himself from blame in this matter, declared, that this sitting of the convocation was not by his advice or desire; but that he humbly desired a writ to dissolve it." It was set up in defence of this measure, (and the argument has since been adopted by Dr. Warner) that the parliament and convocation being separate bodies, and convened by different writs, the dissolution of the former does not necessarily infer the dissolution of the latter, which could not rise till discharged by another writ. Dr. Burn has advanced this reason into a general principle, but on no other authority than that of Dr. Warner in this case. The lord-keeper, the judges, and king's council, assured the king, that the elergy might legally continue their sitting. But much allowance is to be made for the influence under which the

nor could he by his letters patent convert them into a national or provincial synod, because the right of their election ceasing at the expiration of the convocation, they ought to have been re-chosen before they could act in the name of the clergy whom they represented, or bind them by their decrees. It is contrary to all law and reason in the world, that a number of men met together in the convocation, upon a summons limited to a certain time, should, after the expiration of that time, by a new commission, be changed into a national or provincial synod, without the voice or election of any one person concerned. The commons were therefore at a loss by what name to call this extraordinary assembly, being in their opinion neither convocation nor synod, because no representative body of the clergy. The words convocation and synod are convertable terms, signifying the same thing, and it is essential to both that they be chosen by (if they are to make constitutions and canons to bind) the clergy. Some indeed have thought of a small distinction, as that a convocation must begin and end with the parliament, whereas a synod may be called by the king out of parliament, but then such an assembly cannot give subsidies for their brethren, nor make laws by which they will be bound.

The objections to the particular canons were these: I. Against the first canon it was argued, that the compilers of it had invaded the rights and prerogative of parliament, by pretending to settle and declare the extent of the king's power, and the subject's obedience.

By declaring the sacred order of kings to be of divine right, founded in the prime laws of nature and revelation, by which they condemned all other governments.

By affirming that the king had an absolute power over all his subjects, and a right to the subsidies and aids of his people without consent of parliament.

opinion of court lawyers is given; as in the case of ship-money. Mr. Neal's reasoning on this point, carries great weight with it. Lord Clarendon speaks of the continued sitting of the convocation as rather unprecedented; for he says, that this assembling of the clergy customarily began and ended with parliaments. It was evidently impolitic, in such a conjuncture of time, to deviate from the custom, and to stretch the prerogativeDr. Grey's Examination in loc. Nalson's Collections. vol. i. p 365. Warner's Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 535. Burn's Eccles. law, vol. ii. p. 27, and Lord Clarendon's Hist. vol. i. p. 148. Ed.

By affirming that subjects may not bear arms against their king, either offensive or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever, upon pain of receiving to themselves damnation.

By taking upon themselves to define some things to be treason not included in the statute of treasons.

And lastly, by inflicting a penalty on such of the king's subjects as shall dare to disobey them, in not reading and publishing the abovementioned particulars; in all which cases it was averred that they had invaded the rights of parliament, destroyed the liberty of the subject, and subverted the very fundamental laws and constitutions of England.

II. It was objected against the second canon that they had assumed the legislative power, in appointing a new holy day contrary to the statute, which says, that there shall be such and such holy days and no more.

IV. It was objected against the fourth canon,that whereas the determination of heresy is expressly reserved to parliament, the convocation had declared that to be heresy which the law takes no notice of and had condemned socinianism in general, without declaring what was included under that denomination, so that after all it was left in their own breasts, whom they would condemn and censure under that character.

VI. It was objected against the sixth canon, that it imposed a new oath upon the subject, which is a power equal if not superior to the making a new law.* It was argued likewise against the oath itself, that in some parts it was very ambiguous and doubtful, and in others directly false and illegal.

We are to swear in the oath,that we approve the doctrine, discipline, or government established in the church of England, and yet we are not told wherein that doctrine and

* The archbishop, in reply to this objection, referred to various canons, made in king James's time, and appointing different oaths, merely. by the authority of convocation, (viz. canons 40, 118, 103 and 127) as precedents, which had never been declared illegal, nor the makers of them censured by parliaments; and which justified, therefore, the power assumed by this convocation. His lordship in urging, and Dr. Grey in repeating this defence, did not perceive, that it is a bad and insuffi cient plea for doing wrong, that others had escaped the censure and punishment due to illegal conduct. Grey's Examination in loc. Ed.

discipline are contained; whether by the doctrine of the church we are to understand only the thirty-nine articles, or likewise the homilies and church catechism; and by the discipline, only the book of canons, or likewise all other ecclesiastical orders, not repealed by statute; for it is observable, that the words of the oath are, as it is established, and not, as it is established by law. And the ambiguity is further increased by that remarkable et cætera, inserted in the body of the oath; for whereas oaths ought to be explicit, and the sense of the words as clear and determined as possible, we are here to swear to we know not what, to something that is not expressed; by which means we are left to the arbitrary interpretation of the judge, and may be involved in the guilt of perjury before we are aware.

But besides the ambiguity of the oath, it contains some things false and illegal; for it affirms the government of the church by archbishops, bishops, deans, and archdeacons, to be of divine right; for after we have sworn to the hierarchy as established by the law of the land, we are to swear further, that by right it ought so to stand: which words are a mere tautology, or else must infer some further right than that which is included in the legal establishment, which can be no other than a divine right. Now, though it should be allowed, that the government of the church by bishops is of divine right, yet certainly archbishops, deans, and archdeacons, can have no pretence to that claim.

Besides, to swear, never to give our consent to alter the government of this church by archbishops, bishops, &c. as it stands now established, is directly contrary to the oath of supremacy, for in that oath we are sworn to assist his majesty in the exercise of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction or government, by his commission under the great seal, directed to such persons as he shall think meet; so that if his majesty should think fit at any time to commission other persons to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction than at present, we are sworn by the oath of supremacy, not only to consent, but to aid and assist him in it; whereas in this new oath we swear, never to consent to any such alteration.

Nothing is more evident, than that the discipline of the church is alterable; the church itself laments the want of godly discipline; and many of the clergy and laity wish.