the Arch-bishop and Bishops debate about the same Matter Procuratores c. reintrarunt circa horam undecimam quibus per Dominum Archiepiscopum ad tunc mandabatur quòd citra proximum diem Convocationis exhibeant declarent Articulatim Gravamina sua in Scriptis redacta Accordingly Dec. 7. two of the Members nonnullas Inconvenientias Gravamina pro ex parte Cleri cujus gerebant Organa vocis exposuerunt quae in Scriptis redacta exhibuerunt Anno 1452. The Prolocutor having given the Upper-house an Account of what was done about the Subsidy is askt An quicquam voluisset pro parte Cleri in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Reformatione dignum proponere And he continuò quasi ex insperato quamplurima c. proposuit Et quia non erat facilè singula per ipsum ibidem exposita memoriae quae admodùm labilis est commendare idcircò admonuit eundem Prolocutorem dictus Reverendissimus Pater ut singula per eum in hac parte proposita redigeret in literas Concilio traderet pleniùs maturiùs super eisdem deliberaturo Anno 1452. Feb. 7. Praelocutor post explicationem declarationem nonnullorum Gravaminum Ecclesiae Anglicanae Clero ejusdem à Laicis illatorum super quibus petijt Reformationem debitam intimavit c. Anno 1460. May 13. Propositis ibidem coram dicto Reverendissimo Patre alijs in dictâ Domo Capitulari protunc ibidem existentibus quibusdam Articulis per Prolocutorem vivâ voce dictus Reverendissimus Pater decrevit hujusmodi Articulos sic vivâ voce declarat ' in Scriptis redigi Anno 1460. May 24. Reverendissimus c. auditis per eum pluribus Articulis coram ipso adtunc vivâ voce ministratis continuavit c. Anno 1541. Sess 8. Accessit Prolocutor cum quibusdam de Electis à Clero exposuerunt querelas suas Thus the usual Methods of entring upon the Grievances of the Clergy were either upon an express Command from the Arch-bishop and Bishops or by a general Representation thereof to their Lordships who being in that manner sollicited to redress them either by their own ordinary Power or by Intercession with the King or Application to the Parliament were the best Judges of the Methods most proper to be taken for that End and gave their Directions accordingly The Redress of Grievances The Grievances being reduc'd into Articles and read in the Upper-house by the Prolocutor were presented to the Arch-bishop and Bishops to be by them particularly consider'd and debated in order to their further Prosecution of such Measures as should appear most effectual to the Relief of their Clergy After mature Deliberation upon them with the Clergy or among themselves as seem'd most convenient the Articles were either suspended for some time as those in 1411. Dec. 7. Omnes isti suprascripti Articuli quorum Reformatio deliberationis dierum exegit Inducias de consilio assensu expressis Dominorum in Convocatione praesentium positâ— fuerunt adhuc in suspenso or being thought in all Respects just and reasonable they were approv'd and Measures taken by the President and Bishops in Convocation or by their Ordinary Authority if the Matters were such as came under their own Power in either of these Capacities Otherwise they convey'd them to the King in Person in his Council or in his Parliament according to the Nature of the Requests they offer'd The Reformanda frequently propos'd by the Arch bishop among the Causes of Convocation II. The Reformanda whether in Convocatione in Parliamento or per Regem were upon Matters that concern'd the Good of the Church and Religion in general and being therefore equally the Care and Concern as well of Bishops as Clergy were frequently mov'd and propos'd by the Arch-bishop at the Opening of the Convocation among the Causes of his Summons Anno 1400. Jan. 29. The Arch-bishop explains Causas negotia Celebrationis sui Concilij Provincialis Convocationis Cleri vulgariter nuncupat viz. pro defectibus ejusdem Provinciae tam in Clero quà m in Populo juxta Juris Exigentiam Canonicè Reformandis and then he descends to the Particulars Anno 1404. May 17. The first Day of Business the Arch-bishop continuing the Convocation to May 21. demandavit alijs Praelatis Clero tunc ibidem praesentibus quòd singulis diebus interim ad dictum locum Domum Capitularem convenirent laborarent circa Reformanda in Cantuariensi Provinciâ exinde Articulos conciperent in Scriptis redigendos ut cum Dei adjutorio adhibita corum Benevolentia in hac parte quaeque Reformanda hujusmodi possent reformari Anno 1416. Nov. 16. Expositâ per Reverendissimum Patrem Causa Convocationis eorum protunc factae celebratae communicató que inter eosdem viz. the Bishops and Clergy then present aliquamdiu de super varijs Reformandis in Provincia tandem Dominus Continuavit c. Anno 1419. Among the Causes of calling the Convocation particularly explain'd by the Archbishop the third is Pro defectibus in Clero regnantibus auctoritate illius Provincialis Concilij reformandis And then he directs the Lower-Clergy to retire to their House quòd ibidem de super materijs praedictis tractarent communicarent ad finem quòd babitd deliberatione de super praemissis ad Dei laudem auctoritate Concilij finaliter concludi posset concorditer ordinari Anno 1434. The Arch-bishop reckons up several Grievances of the Church Et tunc babita Communicatione super bujusmodi Gravaminibus ordinatum erat tunc ibidem ut hujusmodi Gravamina ac alia quaecunque in quibus dictus Clerus se sentijt gravari nec non si quae forent Crimina Excessus infra Clerum usitat quae necessariâ Reformatione indigerent in Scriptis redigerentur ut super his omnibus ex communi consilio consensu auxilio Remendium posset debitum adhiberi Anno 1439. The Arch-bishop declares the Causes of the Convocation viz. qualiter Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica per Brevia Regia praecipuè per Brevia illa de Praemunire facias plus solito extitit perturbata impedita atque enormiter laesa Qualiter Personae Ecclesiasticae tam Seculares quà m Regulares per falsa Indictamenta alias vias Exquisitas plus solito vexatae gravaâ—ae sunt his diebus And the next Sesson Dominus mandavit Praelatis Clero quartenùs super praemissis alijs materijs quibuscunque Reformatione recessaria indigentibus viz. Qualiter illud Breve de Praemunire facias ipsa falsa Indictamenta quae hodiernis diebus falsò nequiter malitiosè usitantur continuantur in aliquo mitigari aut pro perpetuo deleri finaliter extingui valeant Billas alia Advisamenta in hac parte necessaria ad praemissa Reformanda conciperent Anno 1444. After the mention of the foresaid Writ among the Causes of Convocation the Arch-bishop adds Qualiter in
require Consideration The difference between former Methods and the late Practices and taking the Advice and Direction of their Lordships about the Expediency and Methods of proceeding in them To the same effect is that Language so familiar of late among some of the Inferior Clergy in Convocation That they have Business of their own to do That 't is generally different from what is transacted at the same time in the Vpper-House That their Debates are manag'd independently from their Lordships that the Archbishop with his Suffragans has no Right to take cognizance of or interpose in their Debates That there is no Necessity be the Matter never so important of previous Directions from the Vpper-House Principles somewhat ambiguously express'd perhaps not without a foresight of certain Objections but being interpreted by the late Practices their Tendency to a Division of the Synod and a Co-ordinate Power in the Church is no less plain than is their Opposition to all the Proceedings of former times One thing more I would observe upon this Head what little likeness there is between a Convocation and a Parliament in their very first Entrances upon Business Unless the Enemies of the Ecclesiastical Power will object as they who are so fond of a Parliamentary-Relation are like enough to do that the Archbishop in Convocation opening the Causes of their Meeting does only the same thing with the Lord Chancellor in Parliament whose Office it is to Convey and Enforce to the two Houses the Instructions he receives from his Majesty But they may understand that as oft as the King had occasion to solicit Business in Convocation he sent Commissioners of his own to do it as every one must know who casts his Eye upon our Convocation-Registers never so slightly These were said to come thither ex parte Domini Regis and their coming as occasion requir'd to represent the Desires of the King and the Condition of the Kingdom was a Custom so much known and establish'd that the Register takes notice of the Archibishop's doing it as a thing Singular and Extraordinary Anno 1380. Dec. 1. Et quia protunc Dominus meus Archiepiscopus erat Cancellarius Angliae nec comparuit alius pro parte Domini Regis qui exponeret Clero negotia regni sicut fieri Consuevit in aliis Convocationibus dictus Dominus meus negotia regni pericula imminentia satis clare exposuit Nor did it make any Difference in the Form of their Proceedings thereupon that the first Motion came from the Court but the Archibishop having given the Commissioners some such general Answer as this quod voluit super his mature communicare cum Confratribus suis Praelatis Clero he immediately proceeded to that Communication either with the Clergy and Bishops in a Body or directing the Clergy to debate in their own House with his Brethren alone If it be further said that the Necessity of a Royal-License before the Convocation can proceed to make Canons c. has restrain'd the President 's ancient Power of explaining the General Causes of the Summons the Answer is this That the Persons whose present Endeavours it is to diminish the Metropolitical and Episcopal Authority affirm that a great Variety of Ecclesiastical Matters may not only be begun but transacted and concluded without the Authority of such a License and so far the President 's Right of proposing the General Matters stands where it did And as to Canons and Constitutions if they may not be actually enter'd upon without a License yet his Grace at the opening of the Convocation may deliver his own Judgment as to the Expedience of them and refer it to the Consideration of the Bishops and Clergy Whether it be adviseable to desire the Royal-License for that end CHAP. VII The Right of the Archibishop and Bishops to require the Clergy to consider any particular Business throughout the Convocation THE foregoing Chapter shows the Right of the President after consultation had with his Brethren the Bishops first to lay before the Clergy the general Causes of his Summons and then to require them to Retire and Deliberate thereupon But the Scene of Business opening and enlarging it self many unforeseen difficulties will unavoidably occur and new Designs also for the Benefit of the Church must naturally arise from the mutual Debates of the Governors thereof assembl'd in Convocation And accordingly when any such Occasions requir'd the Inferior Clergy have been ever enjoyn'd to Debate and Examine all Matters proposed by their Ecclesiastical Superiors for that purpose from the beginning to the end of Convocation The instances hereof are very numerous The necessity of showing this to prevent an objection from the explication of the General Causes at the opening of a Parliament but necessary to be added to the Testimonies contain'd in the last Chapters which without those would leave room for an Objection that as to the General Causes at the beginning those are equally explain'd to the two Houses of Parliament and yet the Honourable Members of the Lower House there are under no such Restraint or Subordination in their subsequent Proceedings An Objection I say of this sort is like enough to be started considering how industriously those Fancies about a Parliamentary Relation have been insinuated into the minds of Men. I will therefore show that what the Archibishop does in opening the general Causes of his Summons and directing the Clergy to deliberate about it at the beginning of Convocation the same thing he and his Suffragans have a Right to Do upon all emergent Occasions during the whole course of their Proceedings And this will manifest to the World how the Constitution and Proceedings of an English Convocation to the glory of it are exactly model'd according to the Primitive Distinction between Bishops and their Presbyters in point of Order and Authority while from the most early Accounts of Convocations to this day we see the Metropolitan and Bishops as the Governors of the Church Propesing and Directiing in Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Presbyters at hand with their Advice and Assistance in Subservience to the same Ends. The separation of the two Houses made no difference in this point Nor do we find any difference in this Point between the Times before and after the Separation of the Bishops and Clergy excepting this one that before it they all took the directions immediately from the President and retir'd in a Body and since his Grace upon those Occasions has either sent up for the whole House or which is more ordinary for the Prolocutor with Five or Six more Reverendissimus cum consensu Confratrum voluit jussit mandavit ad se accersiri Prolocutorem and by him conveys to his Brethrem below the Pleasure and Instructions of the Upper House But as to the manner end or authority of these occasional Directions their Division into two Houses made not the least difference in them as will appear beyond contradiction from the
Contumacy to another time Reservando poenam eorum Contumaciae in aliquem diom competentem pro beneplacito ipsius Reverendissimi This is a short and general Account of the Opening a Convocation enough to convince any Indifferent Man of his Grace's Right as to Preside over the whole Body so to dispense with the Absence or require the Attendance of every particular Member according to the reasons and circumstances of Things The Archbishop's Jurisdiction over the Members as to their Atteâ—… asserted But because in the last Convocation the Power of the Archbishop over the Members of the Lower-House was not only call'd in Question but in effect directly deny'd by the departure of several without applying to his Grace for leave and not only so but in contempt of the Metropolitical Authority several Applications were directly made to the Lower-House and the leave of the House thought a sufficient Discharge from their obligation to attendance Upon these Accounts and the Inferences that are made on the Supposition of such a Right in the Lower-House it becomes necessary to be full and clear in the Explication of these Certificates or Returns which as made in pursuance of the Archiepiscopal Mandate are the foundation of his Grace's Power in that point over all the Members indifferently To show on the one hand the Antiquity of them that no room may be left to suspect 'em Innovations and on the other their real force and effect as appearing from the Archbishop's frequent Exercise of this Power that they may not be thought a matter of Form or the appearance only of a legal Title without the Authority of Practice to support and confirm them By the Tenor of the Mandate none to be excus'd but who shall shew reasonable cause I. In the Archbishop's Mandate for the Summoning a Convocation it is and always has been usual for his Grace to require the Dean of the Province among other things to acquaint the Bishops and by them the Inferior Clergy that he will excuse no member from attending according to the Tenor thereof but who shall show such cause as his Grace shall judge reasonable This Notice is given in the antient Mandates under different Forms but all to the same effect with the present Clause Anno 1281. After an Enumeration of all the Members to be cited Denunciantes eisdem quòd contra absentes in Formâ Canonica procedemus Nec debilitatis Excusationem sufficere reputamus illorum qui per Maneria sua juxta Dioceses suas extra ad alia loca per Cant. Provinciam se faciunt pro familiaribus negotiis in quibuscunque vehiculis deportari Anno 1296. Compareant eodem die sequentibus opportunis Sub poena Excommunicationis Majoris Interdicti quae meritò poterunt formidare qui in forma praenotatâ contumaciter omiserint seu contempserint comparere quae contra eosdem qui sic comparere detrectaverint sine delectu Personarum intendimus Executioni debitae demandare Anno 1297. Vos etiam praemunimus caeteros sic citandos praemuniri Mandamus quod absentes in Citatione praedicta msi Evidens inevitabile impedimentum per probationes certas superesse docuerint tanquam Inobedientes offensores notorios graviter punicmus And another the same Year Denunciantes dictis Coepiscopis per eos suos subditos sic vocandos faciatis idonee praemuniri quod absentes in citatione praedicta nisi Evidens inevitabile impodimentum sufficienter probetur tanquam inobedientes graviter puniemus Much of the same Form and wholly to the same purpose is this Clause in the Mandates Anno 1333. and 1327. Anno 1356. Intimantes eisdem quod contra absentes in formâ Canonicâ procedemus nullius sic absentis excusationem penitus admissuri nisi quatenùs ad hoc nos arctaverint Canonicae Sanctiones Anno 1359. Volumus intimamus quòd intimetis seu denunciari faciatis dictae Provinciae Coepiscopis Confratribus ac Vicariis hujusmodi Decanis Abbatibus Prioribus caeteris Ecclesiarum Praelatis supradictis quòd cos à personali comparitione in hujusmodi Congregatione dictis die loco per nos seu nostra Auctoritate Deo annuente celebranda habere non intendimus excusatos ista Vice nisi ex causa necessaria tunc ibidem alleganda probanda sed eorum Contumacia si qui forsitan absentes fuerint secundum juris exigentiam Canonice punietur From thence to this Day the same Clause continues a part of the Archiepiscopal Mandate with a very small variation of the Words and none at all of the Sence or Intention Volumus insuper et mandamus quatenus intimetis et denuncietis seu intimari et denunciari faciatis dictae Provinciae nostrae Cantuar Coepiscopis Decanis Archidiaconis ac caeteris Ecclesiarum Praelatis suprascriptis quod eos à Personali comparitione in hujusmodi negotio Convocationis et Congregationis dictis die et loco ut praemittitur divina favente Clementia celebrand excusatos non habere intendimus ista Vice nisi ex causà necessariâ â—…nc et ibidem allegandâ et proponendâ et per nos approbandâ sed Contumacias eorum qui Absentes fuerint Canonice punire I know not how clearer Testimonies can be given of any Point than these are of a constant right in our Metropolitan the same that Metropolitans have always enjoy'd to require Attendance according to the tenor of his Mandate and to judge of the Reasonableness of all Excuses of Absence and to punish the Contumacy of those who are Absent without sending Reasons that in his Grace's Judgment are good and sufficient All Returns ever made directly to the Archbishop II. In pursuance of his General Summons and that particular Admonition the Archbishop in the same Mandate and in the Clause immediately following commands the Dean of the Province to Intimate to every Suffragan Bishop that he Exhibit to his Grace at the Day appointed a Schedule under his Episcopal Seal containing the Names and Sirnames of all the Persons he has cited to appear The words of this Clause have not always been the same they are now but such as express the same meaning and had the same effect for instance Anno 1281. Mandantes insuper singulis Episcopis quòd secum deferant in scriptis nomina omnium in forma praedicta de suis Dioecesibus ad Concilium vocatorum And more distinctly the very next Year viz. Anno 1282. De nominibus vero Abbatum Priorum et aliorum Religiosorum Decanorum Archidiaconorum Procuratorum tam Cleri cujuslibet Dioecesis quam Capitulorum singuli Episcopi pro suis Dioecesibus ad dictos diem et locum per suas literas distincte nos certificent et aperté In the next Century it comes yet nearer to our present Form As Anno 1350. After direction given to the Dean of the Province to bring a particular Return or Certificate of the due Execution of the Mandate
dissent from the express Judgment of a Writer who understands the Value of his own Opinions too well to be easy under Contradiction But leaving that Point to be disputed between this Author and the Majority of the House the Circumstance upon which I chiefly insist in this Matter is It was not the House but the Prolocutor who determin'd the Election 3. That those of the Lower Clergy contend not for this Power of determining Elections as lodg'd in the Prolocutor but in their House and not the least Mention is made of the House or any Member of it in determining this Election of 1586. but the Proceeding and Sentence run solely in the name of the Prolocutor The Question therefore is By whose Authority was that Sentence given It must be either from his Grace or from the House The Journal tho' very exact and particular makes not the least mention of the House's interposing which Silence is the stronger Argument that they had no Right to interpose the Matter in all appearance being committed to the Prolocutor alone because in the other Instances of 1640. when the Prolocutor and Lower Clergy were all equally concern'd the whole Proceeding was carry'd on in the name of the House Coram Dominis Praelatis Cleris comparuerunt Domini and Domini Praelati interrogârunt determinationem continuà runt consenserunt censuerunt rebus sic stantibus nihil statuendum c. And when they came to Sentence Domus ad eorum finale decretum processit and Post Suffragia Domûs in eâ parte fact declararunt ordinarunt Suffragiis in eâ parte promulgatis Dominus Prolocutor de cum consensu c. pronunciavit Considering how distinctly the Minutes of 1640. express the part which the House had in these Proceedings I leave it to the Opinion of every Reader whether the compleat Journal of 1586. would not have left us some Foot-steps at least of the Houses's Concern at that time either in the Course of the Proceeding or at least the final Sentence if the Cause had not been committed to the sole Examination and Decision of the Prolocutor And if the Power was solely in him it can be no Question whether he deriv'd from the House who were present and might as well have proceeded by their own immediate Authority if any such had been lodg'd in them or from the Archbishop who could not be there in Person whose Absence the Prolocutor supplies in all other Respects and who was also hearing a like Cause in the Upper-house at the same time The Instance of 1640. consider'd II. The other Instance of a Right in the Lower-house to take Cognizance of Elections concurrent with that of his Grace is in some respects more full to their purpose than the foregoing Testimony In the Year 1640. Nov. 11. the House appointed a Committee upon a controverted Election in Lincoln-Diocese which Committee met Nov. 12. and yet the Archbishop appears not to have interpos'd till Nov. 14. nay the Preface to the Order he then gave shews that to have been the first time of his interposing Reverendissimus eis significavit quòd ipse audivit esse quasdam discrepantias c. As far then as a single Instance can affect the Rights of a Judicial Court and alter the natural Course of legal Proceedings and establish a concurrent Jurisdiction so far is this Instance before us a Testimony of the Lower-house's Right to enquire into the Circumstances of doubtful Elections I say to Enquire It goes no farther than Enquiring for this Precedent goes no farther than an Enquiry about the Custom of the Diocese in their Election of Proctors and a Right founded upon a single Precedent can never be extended beyond that Precedent It proceeds not to a formal Examination of Witnesses upon Oath and much less to a final Judgement These and all the other marks of a Judicial Proceeding commence upon his Grace's Special Order to the Prolocutor and House ut examinarent determinarent juxta Juris Exigentiam Consuetudines cujuslibet Dioeceseos donec aliter ordinatum fuerit From which Order I think these three things are fairly infer'd 1. That if Archbishop Laud had thought the Lower-house to have an inherent Power of Examining and Determining Judicially he would not have interpos'd in that Matter after they were actually enter'd upon their Enquiries 2. That if the Clergy themselves had believ'd such a Power to be lodg'd in their House they would have declar'd against that Interposition as an Invasion of their own inherent Authority 3. That in Virtue of the Reservation donec aliter ordinatum fuerit it still remain'd in his Grace's Power to revoke that Order and either to put a stop to the Proceeding or to remove it as he should see cause to his own immediate Cognizance III. An Additional Account of the Substitution of a Prolocutor IN explaining the Election and Office of a Procutor Chap. IV. I took occasion to consider how far he had a Right to make a Substitution in cases of Sickness or Business For tho' the Speaker of the House of Commons as executing that Office upon a Royal Confirmation never pretended to depute another tho' also the Confirmation of the Archbishop and Bishops be no less necessary in order to execute the Office of a Prolocutor and tho' lastly it appear that Applications for leave to substitute in those Cases have been actually made to the Upper-house yet against all these it had been confidently affirm'd that the Deputations of this kind might be made without the Archbishop's Consent or Privity Power of the Lower-house p. 9. c. 1. and the manner of making them is farther urg'd to give the Prolocutor some such Figure in the Lower-house as the Archbishop is known to have in the Upper The late Substitution in 1701. That Writer had conceal'd all the Instances of Application for Leave made to the President and Bishops but he was afterwards put in mind of them by the Author of the Right of the Archbishop p. 66 67. Very lately a Substitution being made by the Prolocutor upon the Authority of a Precedent already consider'd in the Year 1640 V. Sup. p. 76. the Person so deputed was actually put into the Chair without the Approbation or Knowledge of the Archbishop and Bishops The Account of it in a Paper markt Numb 1. To justify the Proceedings of the Majority in this and some other Particulars a Paper came out markt Numb 1. in the way of a News-Letter and in Truth much of the same Authority both in the Relation of Facts and the Reasonings upon them with the flying Intelligence of other kinds Only there is this difference in the Case of our Ecclesiastical News-Writer and his Brother Intelligencers their imperfect Representations are usually the Effects of Ignorance and Haste but his savours too much of Partiality and Design God knows it is a sad Omen to our poor Church that any of her own Ministers can thus triumph in her Misfortunes and comply
that side of the Cause And considering that the present Disputes in Convocation have been chiefly owing to the want of Registers the Proprietor whoever he be had an oportunity of showing his affection to truth and unity by bringing forth these Extracts e're now in imitation of his Grace the Lord Archbishop who so freely laid before the two Houses an entire Register he lately retriev'd Till it be known in whose hands they are I must hope for no other light from them in this or any other particular besides the Citation he has been pleas'd to produce Supposing it therefore fairly and entirely repeated the Observations I make upon it are 1. That the Prolocutor evidently applys himself to his Grace and the Bishops for leave to make the Substitution 2. That we cannot conceive he would have made this Application if the Substitution had been valid without it or that he would have been suffer'd to make it had the Lower House thought their own Consent and Authority sufficient 3. That a Sub-Prolocutor is regularly constituted in the same manner as a Prolocutor i. e. by the concurrence and agreement of both Houses the formal Conveyance of the Authority belonging to his Grace This Writer may refine as nicely as he pleases upon the Prolocutor's dislike of Archbishop Cronmer but 't is no part of the question whether Sickness was the real Cause of his desire to make that Substitution or only a pretence for Absence Supposing it only a pretence it must be carry'd on in the usual form and 't is enough in the present Case that he actually apply'd to the Upper House and pleaded his Indisposition and had their express Leave to Substitute 2. The next Testimony of Application to their Lordships is grounded upon a Memorandum of a Substitution enter'd in the end of the Upper House Acts Anno 1554. which as I observe in the foremention'd Chapter Vid. supr p. 75. could no way have come into that Register but as the Upper House had their share in the Substitution Nor does the late Paper offer any thing to invalidate the Authority of this Testimony or my Inference from it besides a precarious Supposition that it might possibly be taken from the concurrent Lower House Books when in all the Acts of that Convocation there are no signs that the Extracter had ever seen a Lower House Book of that time much less that he had it then before him or that omitting all the other Matters he singled out this Substitution as the only thing worthy of his Notice 'T is a sign the Case is Desperate when Suppositions so very groundless are the best Defence that an Artful and Evasive Writer can find 3. I produce a third Instance from the Minutes of the Lower House in another Convocation of the same Year Die Jovis 5o. Aprilis Praesidente Episcopo Londo◠praesentatur praedictus Prolocutor per N. Harpsfield Jo. Wimblesey ubi tractarunt de Eligendis quibusdam de Clero qui Vice totius Cleri mitterentur Oxoniam ad tractand cum Domino Cranmero Domino Ridleo nuper praetenso Episcopo London Hugone Latymer de quibusdam Articulis Religionem concernentibus delecti sunt D. Weston Oglethorp Chedsey Seton Cole Jefery Fecknam Harpsfield ad effectum praedictum Et quum praedictus Prolocutor non potuit adesse dictae Convocationi Substituit N. Harpsfield Johannem Wimbleseys conjunctim divisim in loco suo The late Paper urges this instance in behalf of the Power of the Lower House because it was enter'd in the Acts of that House When the Writer could not but know that as oft as the Lower Clergy appear before the President and Bishops the business thereof particularly 〈◊〉 the Presentation of their Prolocutor is enter'd of Course in the Lower House Journal as well as that of the Upper And I have given the Acts of the Day entire which for good reasons he did not think fit to do that no doubt may remain with the Reader whether the Presentation of a Prolocutor the Choice of Persons for the Dispute and the Substitution immediately made upon the Prolocutor's being nam'd for one were not all done in the same Place that is in the Upper House I take these three Instances to be full for the Power of the Upper House especially the first as it is more circumstantial than the other two To these I will add a fourth which makes not directly for either side but is confidently urg'd by that Paper in favour of the Lower House Anno 1562. Feb. 24. The Archbishop and Bishops Surrogatum Prolocutoris dicto Prolocutore Absente ad se accersiri jusserunt It is not said that their Lordships sent for the Prolocutor and that he being absent his Surrogate came up but that they sent for the Surrogatus Prolocutoris which must imply that they knew the Prolocutor had made a Substitution and how can we more naturally account for that knowledge than from the usual Application for Leave to do it The Arguments for an Independent Power of Substitution in the Lower House answer'd The Arguments oppos'd to these Testimonies arise 1. from the Want and 2. from the silence of the Upper House Registers at times when the Journals or Minutes of the Lower House make mention of a Sub-Prolocutor But none of the Instances under either head speak of a Substitution as made by the Prolocutor one excepted which is already accounted for p. 75. and they did not therefore properly come into that Account of the Election and Office of a Prolocutor Nor are they at all serviceable to the Power of the Lower House unless they mention'd the House as the sole Authors of the several Substitutions For where the Registers of the Upper House are wanting 't is an equal doubt whether they did or did not Apply to their Lordships and I hope in some other Cases the bare silence or omission of the Books of the Upper House of the Debates whereof such Substitutions are not strictly a part will not be set against positive Testimonies proving an actual Application for Leave A bare Omission may be easily accounted for upon the Negligence or Forgetfulness of a Register or from his opinion that this matter as a thing of Form was not necessary to be inserted in the Acts or lastly which was the Case of three of these Instances they might not happen on days of business and so nothing was enter'd besides the Continuation in Form By all or any of these Suppositions the Confirmation of a Sub-Prolocutor by the President and Bishops becomes consistent with the Silence of the Registers But where the Journals speak of Substitutions actually made Above no room is left for Suspicion that they were not made there nor can any reason be assign'd why they should be made and enter'd there besides a perswasion in the Clergy of those times that of themselves they had no Power to make such Substitutions But to descend to the Particulars Instances where we want