Here Bishop Stubbs _includes_ Athelstan’s law among the examples he gives as regards the definite and distinct formula used to indicate the co-operation of the Witenagemót. And the Bishop’s opinion is the most important because Lord Selborne’s objection is founded on a technical point, viz., the _formula_ used. But the Bishop admits that the formula used in this case was an indication of the co-operation of the Witenagemót. (4) Dean Prideaux says, “This law was passed in a Parliament of all England, assembled at Grately, about the year 928, etc.”[133] Dr. Lingard calls the law a “Circular letter which the king sent to his officers. From the tenour of this circular it seems probable that numerous pleas of exemption had been set up in favour of the lands belonging to the Crown, the bishops and the ealdormen, and also of lands held under them by others.”[134] Lord Selborne then agrees with Dr. Lingard; the former calls it “a royal message to his reeves,” the latter, “a circular letter from the king to his officers.” If so, why should the Parliamentary _formula_ have been used? (5) Mr. Thorpe may also be added to the four. He clearly lays down the rule by which he was guided in classifying and separating the Laws from the _Monumenta Ecclesiastica_. “All ordinances,” he says, “proceeding from the king and Witenagemót, whether of a secular or ecclesiastical character, _are considered as Laws_. Those without such sanction, and of a nature strictly ecclesiastical, are placed among the _Monumenta Ecclesiastica_.”[135] He placed it among the Laws. The question here is, What constitutes a Witenagemót? The word means a meeting of the Witan or wise men. It was a counsel of wise men. Our information is indeed very vague as to its constitution. There is no law extant prescribing or defining the constitution of the Witenagemót. A synod with the king present would constitute a Witenagemót. There is no trace whatever that it was representative or elective, or that there was a property qualification. It is on record that the king named the members who were to attend.[136] But the members were the leading men of the country, viz., the archbishops, bishops, abbots, presbyters and even deacons (the priests and deacons doubtless attended on the bishops), princes, ealdormen and thanes. The formula used in this law is, “The king, with the council of his archbishops and other bishops.” This was a council of wise men presided over by the king. And whether it was called a synod or a council, the laws passed by such a meeting formed the general laws of the kingdom. The objections raised by some writers to the formula used in making Anglo-Saxon laws, and to the words Ordinance, Council and Synod, are groundless and have no force. Mr. Fuller in “Our Title-Deeds” is conspicuous for this sort of objections. He says, “It was _not_ an act of the Witan, but was an Ordinance made at a council or synod only, at the council of Greatanlea,” etc.[137]