13. ECCLESIASTICAL

ASSEMBLIES.

A. NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

§ 54.

a. Historical.a

UNTIL the conference of Streoneshalch (= Whitby), 664, there were in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms two schools of believers, the adherents of which had no communion with each other. Thus up to that time no church council could be held embracing all Anglo-Saxon Christians.

The first great ecclesiastical assembly of the Anglo-Saxons of 1 Cf. § 1, notes 13 ff.

1. Sources: The Schedules of Continuation and probably other documents relating to the convocations of older times were destroyed in a fire in 1666. Reports of some of the early debates of the convocations will be found in the collections cited in append. XIV, I, 1. For a conspectus of proceedings preserved see Cardwell, Introduction to Gibson's Synod. Anglic. Ed. 1854, pp. lv ff. The proceedings since the middle of the nineteenth century have been published by private persons, but with the co-operation of the prolocutors etc. :

For the provinces of Canterbury and York: From Nov. 1852 to June 1853, Synodalia, a Journal of Convocation, ed. Charles Warren, London, 1852, 53; from Aug. 1854 to Feb. 1857, The Journal of Convocation, by same editor (contains also many essays respecting convocation etc.).

For the province of Canterbury: In 1888, 9 there was printed by convocation a collection (by Joyce) of reports from the public journals on the proceedings in 1852 (1847) to 1857. Cf. Chron. of Conv. Cant. 1888, pp. 129, 180, 185; 1889, p. 123.-From 1858 onwards The Chronicle of Convocation, being a Record of the Proceedings of the Convocation of Canterbury, has appeared in numbers, each covering a session (3 or 4 days at most). With the year 1880 began the practice of prefixing a summary, containing the resolutions passed. Committee reports etc. are appended.

For the province of York: From 1859 to March, 1862 The York Journal of Convocation, containing the acts and debates of both Houses of the Convocation of the Province of York, edited from authorized sources by George Trevor. York, Durham, London, 1861.Since 1874 in 1-2 yearly numbers under the title: The York Journal of Convocation, containing the Acts and Debates of the Convocation of the Province of York. London, York. 2. Treatises, histories etc. :

Atterbury, Fr. The Rights, Powers and Priviledges of an English Convocation. London, 1700. With Addenda. Gibson, Edmund. Synodus Anglicana, or The Constitution and Proceedings of an English Convocation shown from the Acts and Registers thereof (Appendix contains reprint from the registers of upper house, 1562, 1640, 1661, and the Journals of lower house, 1586 and 1588, 1702, New Ed. Oxford, 1854, by Edward Cardwell.)-Hefele, Karl Joseph. Konziliengeschichte, 1st Ed. 7 vols. Freiburg i. Breisg. 1855 ff. Vol. 8 etc. continued by Hergenröther. 2nd Ed. 1873 ff.-Hody, Humphrey. A History of English Councils and Convocations and of the Clergy's Sitting in Parliament London, 1701.

3 parts.-Joyce, James Wayland. England's Sacred Synods. A Constitutional History of the Convocations of the Clergy from the earliest records to 1662. London, 1855.-Same author. Handbook of the Convocations or Provincial Synods of the Church of England. London, 1887. -Kennet, White. Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations in the Church of England. Historically Stated London, 1701.-Lathbury, Thomas. History of the Convocation of the Church of England from the earliest period to 1742. 2nd edition, London, 1853. (Rather, general church history in connexion with the proceedings of convocation.) -Pearce, Robert R. The Law relating to Convocations of the Clergy, with forms of proceeding in the Provinces of Canterbury and York, etc. London, 1848.-Trevor, George. The Convocations of the two Provinces, their origin, constitution, and forms of proceeding London, 1852. (Relates especially to convocation of northern province.)-Wake, William. The State of the Church and Clergy of England in their Convocations historically deduced with a large appendix of original writs and other instruments. London, 1703. For the Anglo-Saxon period compare Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 251 ff. c 8 § 87. On provincial councils in the Anglo-Saxon period see Hinschius, Kirchenrecht III, 478, note 3; on the mixed ecclesiastical and secular councils of the petty kingdoms and of the united Anglo-Saxon kingdom, l.c. III, 546, note; on the primatial, legatine and provincial synods from William I' to John, l.c. III, 572 ff.

which a record has survived, is the council of Herutford (= Hertford), held by archbishop Theodore in 673. Bishops from five kingdoms were present or represented at it. The council of Haethfelth, equally representative, followed in 680.3 At Herutford it had been resolved that a great council should be held annually; but the resolution was not, so far as is known, regularly carried into effect. Nevertheless, down to the time of the wars with the Danes great church councils are mentioned with comparative frequency. Afterwards, until the Norman conquest, such meetings fell into disuse."

5

To a fixed, consistent form these Anglo-Saxon councils did not attain. At them appeared sometimes representatives from one or more kingdoms, sometimes representatives from one archiepiscopal province; they were seldom national councils of the whole Anglo-Saxon church. Moreover, no strict division was drawn between temporal and ecclesiastical assemblies. The general Witenagemot, at which the bishops, abbots of larger monasteries, and sometimes the inferior clergy, also assisted, discussed alike secular and spiritual matters, and passed resolutions thereon. But side by side with the Witenagemot, after the councils, just mentioned, of Herutford and Haethfelth there were meetings at which ecclesiastical matters formed the sole subject of deliberation, whilst the majority of those who attended were of the clergy. Yet even such assemblies were not called by the archbishop independently: at least the co-operation of the king was required. As a rule, the

2 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils III, 118 ff. On smaller councils alleged to date from 605 see Hefele, Konziliengeschichte 2nd Ed. III, 64, and Hinschius III, 478, note 3.

3 Haddan and Stubbs III, 141.

Older church law, especially the resolutions of councils in the fourth and fifth centuries, required the holding of two provincial synods in the year. The various regulations to this effect are cited in Hinschius, Kirchenrecht § 173, III, 473, note 6. In and after the sixth century, once a year was the rule frequently laid down. Hinschius, l.c. III, 474, note 3. Richter, Kirchenrecht § 149, note 8. Council of Herutford, 673, c 7: it was the rule of the old canons ut bis in anno synodus congregetur: sed quia diversae causae impediunt, placuit omnibus in commune, ut Kalendis Augustis in loco, qui appellatur Clofeshoch semel in anno congregemur (Haddan and Stubbs III, 118). Perhaps a resolution of the synods of Pincahala and Celchyth, 787, c 3, is to be understood as meaning that in future two provincial synods are to take place annually. (Cf. § 57, note 1.)

5 Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 252 c 8 § 87. Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 263 c 8 § 89. Report of the resolutions of the national synod at London, 1075 (Wilkins I, 363): Et quia multis retro annis, in Anglico regno usus conciliorum obsoleverat ; So Consiliatio Cnuti (law-book, first half of 12th cent.), introduct. c 4: ecclesiastice vero institutiones sinodorumque conventus apud Anglos inusitati adhuc fuerant,

In regard to the council of Herutford, 673. Beda, it is true, says: Theodorus cogit concilium (Haddan and Stubbs III, 118); see, however, the text given by Beda of the resolutions of Haeth felth. The introduction runs: In nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi imperantibus dominis piissimis nostris Ecgfrido rege Hymbronensium et Aedilredo rege Mercinensium et Alduulfo rege Estranglorum Hlothario rege Cantuariorum praesidente Theodoro, gratia Dei

H.C.

A A

et

archbishop presided; but kings and the magnates of the land were frequently present as members of the councils.8

As the constitution of the Witenagemot in those days varied very considerably, so it appears that the officers of the church invited to ecclesiastical councils were not always the same. Bishops we find constantly present, and when the monasteries had gained in importance, abbots also; not always, it would seem, lower dignitaries,

quia

(Haddan and

Archiepiscopo Britanniae insulae filem rectam exposuimus (Haddan and Stubbs III, 141). --Report by papal legates of council of Pincahala (787): Rex (of Northumbria) longe in Borealibus commorabatur, misit Archiepiscopus (of York) missos suos ad regem, qui continuo omni gaudio statuit diem concilii Stubbs III, 447). Council of Clovesho, 798: Ego Athelhardus Doroberniensis ecclesiae metropolitanus, cum rege nostro Cenulfo, convocans universos provinciales Episcopos nostros, duces et abbates et cujuscunque dignitatis viros, ad synodale concilium (Haddan and Stubbs III, 512). On a council under Edgar (959-975) cf. Regularis Concordia [end of 10th century; Latin and Anglo-Saxon text in Selden, Notae ad Eadmerum, London, 1623, p. 145; the literature on the Reg. Conc. is brought together in Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen vol. 84 (year 1890) p. 1 and in H. Logeman (Early English Text Society), The Rule of St. Benet (London, 1888)]. Prooemium: Rex Synodale Concilium Wintoniae fieri decrevit Episcopi Abbates et Abbatissae

; present were On an ecclesiastical council held circ. 710-16 in Wessex without the co-operation of the archbishop of Canterbury see Willibald, Vita Bonifacii (written soon after 754): statim synodale a primatibus ecclesiarum (i.e. by the bishops) cum consilio praedicti regis (Ine of Wessex) servorum Dei factum est concilium (Monumenta Germaniae II, 338; Haddan and Stubbs III, 295).

Thus at the council of Clovesho, 747, there was present king Aedilbald of Mercia cum suis principibus ac ducibus (Haddan and Stubbs III, 362); report of the legates on the council of Pincahala, 717 (Haddan and Stubbs III. 459, 460) Haec decreta, beatissime Papa Hadriane, in concilio publico coram Rege Aelfuualdo, et Archiepiscopo Eanbaldo, et omnibus Episcopis et abbatibus regionis, seu senatoribus, et ducibus, et populo terrae proposuimus Then there also sign judices optimates et nobiles. At the legatine council of Celchyth, 787, there was present Offa cum senatoribus terrae (Haddan and Stubbs III, 460). So we read of a council of Celchyth (almost certainly in 801): . in synodali conciliabulo coram rege [Cenulf] Mercionum et praesulibus Ecclesiarum Dei, necnon et ducibus seu principibus (Kemble, Cod. Dipl. No. 116; Haddan and Stubbs III, 531, note.) At the council of Celchyth in 816 archbishop Wulfred presided and bishops are mentioned as assessors, as also king Cenulf cum suis principibus, ducibus et optimatibus (l.c. III, 579). From the fact that kings and temporal magnates were generally present even at councils at which legates or archbishops presided, and subscribed the resolutions, their assent was inferred. But such assent was apparently not necessary to the validity of the resolutions. So Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 252 c 8 § 87 and Hinschius, Kirchenrecht III, 478, note 3; a contrary view is maintained by Philipps, Engl. Rechtsgesch. I, 105. The addition confirmo sometimes joined to the king's signature is also found with the signatures of other persons, and only attests the correctness of the report of proceedings.

"They were present e.g. at Herutford, 673 (Theodorus cogit concilium episcoporum, una cum eis, qui canonica patrum statuta et diligerent et nossent, magistris ecclesiae pluribus. Haddan and Stubbs III, 118), Haethfelth, 680 (collecto venerabilium sacerdotum doctorumque plurimorum coetu. Haddan and Stubbs III, 141), Pincahala, 787 (His quoque saluberrimis admonitionibus presbyteri, diaconi ecclesiarum, et abbates monasteriorum, judices optimates et nobiles, unopere, uno ore consentimus et subscripsimus. Haddan and Stubbs

priests and deacons. However, as a general rule, spiritual persons of these classes did take part in the councils.10

Not until the twelfth or thirteenth century did the provincial and national councils gradually gain a definite constitution by the exclusion of laymen from membership, by a new regulation of the mode of summons and by a development of internal organization. The complete and fundamental detachment of the ecclesiastical assembly from the temporal is made clear by the sitting, frequent under Henry I, of the two bodies separately at the same place." But the prelates remained members of the general national council though they sometimes, even in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, deliberated apart from the laity.12 Moreover, both in the reign of Henry I and later, down to the middle of the thirteenth century, meetings of the clergy and the laity jointly are recorded under various names. Therewith are to be connected the efforts of the kings (1254, 1283, 1295 ff.) to bring about, mainly for the purpose of granting taxes, a combined gathering of the two bodies. 13 Just, however, as the attendance of laymen at ecclesiastical councils had gradually ceased, so now the lower clergy opposed the endeavour to compel their presence at national assemblies composed on the basis of temporal property. They did, indeed, appear in parliament in answer to the king's summons, but immediately detached themselves from the rest. These separate assemblies of the clergy apparently became fused, at latest with the reign of Edward III, with the church councils, which meanwhile had continued in their old form. Or perhaps there was not so much a fusion as a gradual decay of the parliamentary church gatherings, whilst part of their rights passed to the ecclesiastical councils. In any case we have

III, 460), Celchyth, 816 (undique sacri ordines [ordinis?] praesules cum abbatibus, presbiteriis [presbiteris?] diaconibus pariter, tractantes Haddan and Stubbs III, 579).

10 The resolutions of the council of Clovesho (803), for instance (in some of the resolutions king and nobles were also concerned; Haddan and Stubbs III, 542), are subscribed by one archbishop, twelve bishops, twenty-five abbots, forty-four priests, one archdeacon, four deacons (Haddan and Stubbs III, 546). We can hardly assume-with Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 254 c 8 § 87-that the constitution of this council was an extraordinary one; for in many other cases the presence of the inferior clergy also is mentioned (cf. note 9); though it is true they may not always have subscribed. But their influence in shaping the resolutions adopted was probably small.—Cf. below, note 28.

See more in Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 404 c 11 § 125. From the transition period cf. the report in Chronicon Saxon. anno 1085 (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 23) I, 352: ba to ham midewintre waes se cyng on Gleaweceastre mid his witan, and heold baer his hired V. dagas, and sidðan þe arcebisceop and gehadode men haefden sinoð þreo dagas . After pisum haefde se cyng mycel gedeaht and swive deope spaece wid his witan ("At midwinter was the king at Gloucester with his Witan and held there his court five days, and then the archbishop and clergy had a synod three days After this the king had

a great deliberation and very deep discussion with his Witan.") 13 Cf. § 21, near notes 13 ff.

12 Cf. § 21, note 30. The prevalent opinion now is that the convocations of the present day are to be regarded solely as the successors of the earlier church councils, and that the parliamentary assemblies of the inferior clergy simply became by degrees

here the final failure of the attempt to unite, if only, in the first instance, for a limited purpose, representatives of the clergy and the laity in one deliberative assembly.

The king, who in the twelfth century had still often assisted at the meetings of the clergy, now took no further part therein. If he wished to negotiate with convocation he despatched one or more persons with full powers to act for him in the special case. These agents did not by virtue of such powers become members of the body to which they were commissioned. After the passing of the supremacy act of Henry VIII in 1536, representatives of the king, who were empowered to exercise the rights involved in the supremacy, appeared at the convocation of Canterbury. On their demand they were allowed, although laymen, to preside,1 and thus the extinct. This opinion was last argued at length by Joyce, Sacred Synods. In its favour is the fact that in early times, for the most part, separate representatives were chosen for parliament and for convocation. Cf. § 21, note 23. Stubbs, Const. Hist. II, 210 c 15 § 200, advocates the same view. As proofs that the parliamentary representation of the clergy and convocation remained perfectly distinct bodies Stubbs urges: 1, the parliamentary representatives were one element of the general parliament and met in the same place, whilst the convocations were two provincial councils meeting generally at different places (London and York); [no case, however, is demonstrable in which a parliamentary assembly confined to the lower clergy met; on the other hand sometimes in the middle ages and more frequently after the reformation bishops of the northern province are mentioned as taking part in the deliberations of the southern convocation; it is thus not probable that in the transition period the chance presence of clergy of the northern province should be regarded as decisive of the parliamentary character of the assembly]; 2, the convocations contained the abbots and priors; these are not included in the praemunientesclause; [but abbots and priors appeared in parliament in virtue of special summonses and could therefore attend, no less than the bishops, the separate meetings of the clergy. Cf. further e.g. the summons of 8th Oct. 1312 in § 21, note 25]; 3, the convocations were called by the archbishop's writ, the parliamentary proctors by the king's; (but summons was afterwards in both forms at once]. In the transition period the archbishop summons sometimes 'to parliament,' sometimes to appear before himself, without, it would appear, any real difference. (It is, indeed, to be observed that until about the beginning of Edward III's reign neither the term parliamentum nor the term convocatio was used with strict limitation to any particular kind of assembly.) That the assemblies meeting under presidency of the archbishop but in obedience to royal ordinance were still for some time regarded as part of the representation of the nation (as temporarily the merchant assemblies were regarded; cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist. II, 201 c 15 § 195) is supported by the fact that it was usual to summon the convocations at the same time as parliament, and by the retention of the praemunientes-clause in the writs summoning bishops to parliament. At no time, moreover, have the English kings expressed in favour of provincial synods a renunciation of the right to impose taxes not granted. Edward I expressed such renunciation in 1297 only as regards the national representative body (par commun assent de tut le roiaume. Cf. § 4, note 97); nevertheless, the money grants of the clergy were afterwards made in convocation. (But grants of money had already taken place at the beginning of Edward's reign at the, then purely ecclesiastical, provincial synods.)-Cf. also § 21, notes 20 ff.

15 In Wilkins, Concilia III, 803 ('ex registr. convoc. et Excerpt. Heylin') it is expressly stated that the presidency was given to Petre, Crumwell's deputy, at his (Petre's) request. According to Collier, Eccles. Hist. IV, 336 and Burnet, Hist. of Reform. pt. III, p. 123, Crumwell himself presided at one of the follow