tion sat again for despatch of business, Cromwell had received his commission as vicegerent, and from that time till his own attainder he himself or his deputy became its virtual, if not actual, president and master. After this we have the Act extinguishing the power of the Bishop of Rome, Cromwell's injunctions, the King's proclamation about rites and ceremonies, the Act for the King to make bishops, the Act for the Six Articles and for the demolition of abbeys, and many other Acts affecting the discipline, ceremonies, and even doctrines, of the Church in a greater or less degree. It is scarcely too much to say that all these were the acts of the State and not of the Church. They were the acts of the King and Parliament, and Convocation was either not consulted at all or was allowed no free agency in the matter. It is clear, of course, that the warning with which Bishop Stubbs commences his work, in the Appendix IV. so constantly referred to, must be duly regarded, and that no argument can be drawn from the absence of records of Convocation that that assembly was not engaged on a particular measure at the time; but we may, on the other hand, fairly conclude that when a certain important bill was discussed and finally passed in Parliament, and when there is evidence of some other work done in Convocation, but no sign that it discussed this one, that it was not, in fact, consulted about it, and did not concur in it. Thus it appears that the Act of Appeals in 1533 did not come before Convocation at all; and though, in the following year, some clauses on this subject were appended to the bill in Parliament for the submission of the clergy, they were omitted from it as it appeared in Convocation. Take, again, the case of the famous Six Articles in 1539. Convocation was consulted in this case, as in a great
