This, not unnaturally, gave great offence to the English nation. However Burnet tries to take it with a smile:

He writes with just and due respect of the King, and of the present Constitution. This has come so seldom from that corner that it ought to be the more considered. I will not give that scope to jealousy as to suspect that this was an artifice, but accept its sincerity.'-Reflections, p. 4.

Kennet can hardly be called witty:

'When Mr. A. has "thankfully accepted this hint from Mr. Selden, he desires thus to improve it." Indeed, a story at second-hand is seldom told without improvement. But then such improvements commonly deserve another name.'-Ecclesiastical Synods, p. 235.

But the following quiz by Smalridge upon his style and his dedication certainly is :

For what else can he mean by this dedication, which, when rightly explained, runs naturally in this form,-May it please your Grace, Mr. A. has lately forced a dedication upon you, which savours too much of presumption or design. He has presumed to surprise you with an unexpected address, and appears very indecently before your Grace, because he has taken no care to express upon this subject a due respect and reverence to the Governors in Church and State, such as is suitable to the Christian religion, and his particular function. The reports and authorities in his books are the fruits of other men's collections, not the immediate effects of his own searches into registers and records. He imperiously summons your Grace, and my Lords the Bishops, to an immediate compliance, upon pain of being pronounced the betrayers of the Church. This, my Lord, is the character of the person I set up against. But as for me, I am quite another sort of man, I am very well bred, a great antiquary, beholding to nobody; "some wits and merry folks call me a tool and a plaything." (Pref. 8.) But I assure your Grace, that what freedom soever I may have taken in showing the vices of the inferior Clergy, (Pp. 77, 188) and "in reflecting upon the ambitious designs of dignified Presbyters" (196); yet "I am, however, tender and dutiful in treating the Governors of our Church." (78.) Especially "those of them who are of the Ecclesiastical commission for preferments." (311.) I have a very great respect and reverence for every body that will give me anything; and how resolute soever Mr. A. may be, your Grace may do what you please, with

'Your Grace's most humble and obedient Servant,

WHITE KENNET.'

'One who observes how many good words this author has here bestowed upon himself, and how few upon his Patrons, would be tempted to think that the Archbishop was here dedicating to Dr. Kennet, and not the Doctor to his Grace. Long panegyrics upon a man's self are always nauseous; but they are somewhat more unpardonable in this author, who, to show his judgment, has chosen so scurvy a subject to commend, when he had so eminent a one before him, upon which he might in justice, and ought in decency to have enlarged. He might, perhaps be encouraged to use this method by Dr. Wake's example, but he should have remembered the Fable, and have considered that the same freedoms are not alike proper to be taken by all creatures.'-Remarks on the Temper of Writers on Convocation.

The Convocation' had met on February 10th, 1701, for some

1 'A true and exact list of the members of both Houses of this present Convoon summoned to meet the 6th Feb. 1700, in the Chapter House of S. Paul's,' ublished March 4, 1701

few sessions; and the dispute between the Bishops and the Inferior Clergy became a prominent topic, and was the occasion of much writing and printing. The privileges of the two Houses, the forms of their intercourse, and the nature of their mutual relations were themes upon which indefatigable antiquaries and excited controversialists might argue to any conceivable extent. Directly a paper on the side of the Upper House came out, it was replied to by a defender of the rights of the Lower, and this in turn was answered by some eager advocate of the opposite cause. One pamphlet produced another, and this again a third; so that the history of this part of our Convocation. Literature-which seems to fall naturally enough into a series or group of its own-will read something like a literary genealogy, ὥσπερ εἰ λέγοις,

Ιππόνικος Καλλίου, καξ Ιππόνικου Καλλίας.

Atterbury, who had published a second and corrected edition of his 'Rights, Powers, and Privileges,' with his name, just before the Convocation met, and to whom the Clergy might justly be considered indebted for its meeting at all, as might be expected, took a leading part in all this. His object at first was to maintain, in accordance with the theory of his book, that those proctors only who had been returned upon the Præmunientes clause,' as some had been, were properly members of Convocation. But the principle which his party were most desirous of establishing was, that the Lower House were the Spiritual Commons of the Realm,' and that their rights and forms of proceeding were to be modelled upon those of the Temporal Commons. In order to bring the question to an issue, and to vindicate their own right to do business independently of the Upper House, they proceeded to hold separate sessions of their own, after they had been prorogued by the Archbishop's schedule on the 25th February: at the same time they claimed to be prorogued only by their own Prolocutor, and not by the President.

The Sessions of the whole Convocation were but few; and a complaint respecting Toland's 'Christianity not Mysterious,' and a representation against Burnet's 'Exposition of the thirty-nine Articles,' were the only noticeable transactions.

A new writer now appeared in the controversy. Edmund Gibson, chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and not at that time a member of the Convocation, undertook to refute the claims of the Lower House. His 'Letter to a friend in the country

1 Bishop Sprat writes to Bishop Trelawney, Jan. 14, 1701 :- My Lord of London and I have summoned our Clergy by our parliament writ, according to the clause Præmunientes, as well as by the Convocation writ: we doubt not but your Lordship will do the like.'-Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 63.

concerning the proceedings of this present Convocation' was written with a thorough freedom from the usual acerbity of controversy. It displayed a tone of candour, and a studied moderation of style, which his opponents ridiculed, as if he had intended to put himself forward as the model controversialist. Gibson had much learning and much perseverance; and the theory of Convocation which he upheld, and which he afterwards worked out at greater length, was, that the Convocation is a true and proper ecclesiastical Synod, and that all the precedents which exist prove that in all cases it is, and has been, governed by the laws which regulate Church Synods in the Church Catholic. Atterbury replied to Gibson in 'The Power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself,' and insisted strongly on the parliamentary origin of Convocation, and the analogy arising from it :

It is true, we are told, that there is no arguing from "a parity in constitution between a Parliament and a Convocation." I grant there is not in all cases; but surely in some there is: and particularly, wherever the constitution of one is known to be derived from, and adapted to that of the other; as the case is in respect of the division of the Convocation into two Houses. This particular frame of an English Synod was doubtlessly taken from the model of an English Parliament: because no Synods in the world but English ones are so constituted. And therefore the argument from parity of constitution must thus far be allowed to hold; that since the distinction of the Convocation into two Houses was borrowed from the Parliament, those Houses must be truly and properly such in the Parliamentary sense of the term. Not that the two Houses of Convocation must needs upon this bottom, have exactly the same rights and privileges with those of Parliament; in this there may be a great variety: but all those rights and privileges that are absolutely and indispensably necessary to the being of a House, in the parliamentary sense of the word, they must have by virtue of their origin and alliance. And these can be no fewer, I have said, than the rights of separate debates, of a negative, and of adjournment.'-The Power of the Lower House, p. 2.

In addition to this answer a reply to Gibson was drawn up by the order of the Lower House itself, although it was not published by its authority, under the title of A Narrative of the Proceeedings of the Lower House of Convocation.' The preface to this was written by Aldrich and Delaune, and the narrative itself was put together by Dr. Hooper, then Dean of Canterbury and Prolocutor. In 'The Right to the Archbishop to continue the whole Convocation,' Gibson met these two pamphlets with his usual temperateness of manner and fulness of research. The principle he lays down is, that the Upper and Lower House in reality are only one Synod or Convocation, of which the Archbishop is the president, and has the entire control. This pamphlet was replied to by Hooper in The Narrative of the Town House Vindicated,' and 'The Vindication of the Narrative ontinued;' and Gibson defended himself in A Summary of he Arguments for the Archbishop's Right.'

Before the expiration of the year, a new Convocation was to be called together, and the election of the members excited no small attention.' An attempt was again made to get the Parliament writ more generally executed, and thus to give the Convocation a more thoroughly parliamentary character. In 'The Case of the Præmunientes considered' Dr. Kennet entered into the history, and argued the question of the writs with considerable clearness, and did much towards setting it at rest, by proving that, whatever might be the power of the Præmunientes writ, and the intention of the Constitution in retaining it, the Proctors of the Clergy, and the other members of the Convocation, were, and always had been, returned in obedience to the mandate of the Archbishop, and in accordance with the Royal writ which had been directed to him. The Lower House, however, did altogether relinquish their claim to be summoned by the Parliament writ in conjunction at least with the other.

Before the Convocation met an attempt was made at a compromise, on terms which seemed then no doubt more advantageous to the Upper House than they do now. 'An Expedient proposed," was written by Binckes, partly in reply to Gibson's argument in 'The Right of the Archbishop,' and partly with a view to marking out some principles on which mutual concessions

1 The following are the pamphlets on this question, of which the first two and sixth are by Atterbury, and the fourth, fifth and last by Dr. Trimnell :

'A Letter to a Clergyman in the country, concerning the choice of members and the execution of the Parliament Writ for the ensuing Convocation.' Nov. 17, 1701. 'A second Letter to a Clergyman in the country about the execution of the Parliament Writ for the ensuing Convocation.' Dec. 10, 1701.

The Case of the Præmunientes considered, in answer to the Letter concerning the choice of members and the execution of the Parliament Writ for the ensuing Convocation.' 1701.

"The late Pretence of a Constant Practice to enter the Parliament as well as the Provincial Writ in the front of the Acts of every Synod, considered in a Letter to the author of the Assertion.' Dec. 11, 1701.

"The late Pretence of a Constant Practice, &c. further considered and disproved in a second Letter.' Dec. 16, 1701.

'A third Letter to a Clergyman in the country, &c. in defence of the two former." Jan. 8, 1702.

'An Answer to a third Letter to a Clergyman in the country, &c.' March 6, 1702. Other publications, chiefly by Atterbury, were these

'A Letter to a Clergy-Man in the city, concerning the Instructions given to the Proctors for the Diocese of Worcester.' 4to. Jan. 26, 1702.

A faithful Account of some Transactions in the three last Sessions of the present Convocation.' 4to. Feb. 14th, 1701. Numb. 1.

A faithful Account of what passed in Convocation.' 4to. Feb. 19. Numb. 2. A true Copy of the Arch-Bishop's Speech in Jerusalem Chamber, on Thursday, Feb. 19, 1701.' 4to. 1701.

A Continuation of the faithful Account of what passed in Convocation. March 7, 1702. Numb. 3.

4to.

2 An Expedient proposed, or the occasions of the late Controversy in Convocation considered, and a method of adjournment pointed out consistent with the claims of both Houses, in a Letter to the author of a late book, intituled, The Right of the Archbishop, by a Country Divine.' Dec. 30, 1701.

might perhaps be arranged between the two Houses. He thus states the grounds of the dispute, and the complaints of the Lower Clergy:

'And now you have a full view of the true causes and occasions of the late controversy in Convocation, which, though they may have branched themselves into several particulars, yet they all sprang from the same root, and are, owing to the suspicion and jealousy, which the inferior Clergy have laboured under, for some years together, that their constitution, as to Convocations, is at stake; and this they impute to the contrivance of some persons, who do not mean well to the Established Church, and are afraid a Convocation would not only discover, but expose their designs.

'From what has been said, it very evidently appears that the occasions of the present controversy are chiefly these.-I. Such an unusual discontinuance of Convocational Meetings, though the Clergy have been called by the Royal Writ, as is not to be met with throughout the course of many ages; there being scarce any precedent, except in the extraordinary case of the Oxford Parliament in 1681, of a Prolocutor not being chosen. II. The unprecedented method of adjourning which the Upper House thought fit to begin the first Session with, by sending a commissary to adjourn the Lower House in the presence of the Prolocutor, and this, seconded by the Registrar being sent soon after to do the like. This way of adjourning is never to be met with throughout the books, and was taken up by an accidental mistake very lately. III. The two motions sent by the Upper House to the Lower concerning their putting a stop to all business upon the receipt of a schedule from the Archbishop, and requiring their attendance at the Jerusalem Chamber, before they met in their House, very plainly appeared to be a ready way to make all meetings and consultations of the Lower House to be precarious, and to depend entirely upon the pleasure of the Archbishop. IV. That which made it right for the Lower House to assert a right of meeting upon intermediate days-for the which they have precedents-was an adjournment of a month; which, while the Parliament sits and is neither adjourned nor prorogued, is without precedent, the adjournments upon the books very rarely exceeding a week or ten days, unless by Royal Writ.'-P. 15.

The

Binckes then proceeds to make seven propositions for adjusting these differences, and setting the question at rest. most important of these were-II. That the Lower House should have a place of meeting of their own. III. That a committee of both Houses should be appointed to decide the matter in debate, and that in the meantime the Lower House shall always meet on the days on which the Bishops sit. V. That adjournments should generally be not for more than a week. VI. That the schedule shall adjourn the Lower House, but not so as to break short or interrupt the business they are engaged upon. The Expedient," met with considerable opposition, and had no effect beyond making an addition to the contro

1 History of the Convocation which met, Feb. 6, 1700.' 4to. 1702. "The Narrative of the Lower House vindicated from the exceptions of a Letter intituled, The Right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue the whole Convocation.' 4to. 1702.

'Vindication of the Narrative continued.' 1702. These two are by Hooper.