morum in the latter Claufe, is fet in plain Oppo fition to the unum in the former. By which it appears, what an entire Synodical Right and Power this Roman Clergy attributes to the Bishops in that Council, and what an occafional and prudential Reason they affign for so many others being prefent there alfo; which agrees with S. Cyprian's own Account of the fame Council; who, as often as he wrote about the vast Number of the Lapfed, the Importance of that Cafe, and the publick Intereft of all the Churches in it, allured his People and all his Correfpondents, that every Order of the Church fhould be prefent at the folemn Trial of thofe Lapfed Brethren. But when he acquainted Jubaianus, how that Trial was carry'd on, he expreffes himfelf only thus; Anumerous Affembly of us Bishops (says he) met after the Perfecution was over,and fuch and fuch moderate Decrees we paff'd there, and if Such a Number of Bifhops in Africa (as he farther relates the Matter) † may not seem to be fufficient, (placing the Sufficiency of the Council, you fee, in the Number of the Bishops there) we wrote. alfo to Cornelius of Rome, who, holding a Council with many of his Fellow-Bifhops, fully agreed with us. The Councils therefore (as fuch) are familiarly ftyled a pure Convention of Bishops only, in S. Cyprian's

* Perfecutione refopità in unum convenimus copiofus & Epifcoporum numerus, & temperamentum libravimus. Cypr. Ep. 55. § 3. Edit. Oxon.

+Ac fi minus fufficiens Epifcoporum in Africa numerus videbatur, etiam Romam fuper hac refcripfimus ad Cornelium qui ipfe cum plurimis Co-epifcopis habito concilio confenfit. Cypr. Ep. 55. § 4. Edit. Oxon.

an's Language; as we faw they were in that of the accurate Eufebius alfo: Tho' the learned Enquirer has been as careful to conceal this, as his own Authors are clear in it. For quoting many Canons from S. Cyprian's Works here, he barely tells us, that fuch and fuch things were declared in Synods, and notwithstanding S. Cyprian is as clear in telling us, they were Synods of Bishops who decreed them, as that they were decreed at all; yet in no one Canon which he quotes in this Place, was he willing we should hear that: As for inftance, S. Cyprian (in his first Ep. Edit. Oxon.) tells us, § it was long fince decreed in a Council of Bishops, that no Clergyman Should be Trustee of any Man's Will. The Enquirer had Occasion to cite this Canon, but only tells us [ftatutum fit] it was fo decreed, tho' [in Concilio Epifcoporum] in a Council of Bishops, be Part of the fame Comma; and there are four Canons more, quoted in the fame Page, which I don't fay the learned Enquirer had any Neceffity to tell us what Sort of Synods they were made by, but he must be fenfible himself, by perufing the feveral Places from whence he cites them, that in S. Cyprian's Account they were Synods of BiShops only, who made them; and therefore I chiefly take Notice of them, for a farther Confirmation of that Holy Father's Senfe of the Synods in his Time.

That Presbyters, more or lefs in Number, were generally prefent with their Bishops in those Provincial

X.4

§ Cum jampridem in Concilio Epifcoporum ftatutum fit. Cypr. Ep. 1. Ed. Oxon. Pamel. Ep. 66.

+ See Eng. p. 149.

Provincial Synods, is not to be doubted; that they fhould all of Right be there, we may be fure the Neceffities of the Churches could not admit of; and that there were any stated Representatives affign'd for them, by the Ufage or Appointment of the Church, (as neceffary Members of a Synod) we find no Evidence in Antiquity for it: And lastly, that they had no Right of Suffrage in paffing any Canons or Cenfures when they fat there, I think is manifeft by what is faid before. All which Particulars confider'd, feem to point out this Determination for us, that they came to Councils, in thofe Primitive Times, according as each Bishop of the feveral Dioceses in the Province chose out fome one or more of them to be proper Counsellors and Affiftants to them, in fuch Synodical Debates and Confultations as fhould come before them, whofe judicious Opinions were of eminent Advantage and confiderable Weight (no doubt of it) with the venerable Fathers themselves,who alone fate as neceffary Members, proper Judges, and fole Legiflators there.

As to the Peoples Part or Intereft in all Frimitive Councils, because we read they were prefent in fome, I fhall only observe,

Firft, That their being prefent only in fame, and not in all, is a fair Argument against their Right of Seffion in any; for Right and Claim are feldom wanting to themselves, and Popular Rights the leaft of any Yet how often we hear nothing of them amongst the many Synods we meet with in Antiquity, their greatest Advocates must be very well aware of. And,

Secondly,

Secondly, Where we hear the most of them, there are fpecial Reafons given for the particular Occafions of their being there, and fuch as little related to the Effence or Constitution of the Council itself, for fuch, we find, S. Cyprian and the Roman Clergy gave for the standing Laity's coming to that extraordinary Council, where their Lapfed Brethren were to be tried. And,

Thirdly, Tho' this learned Author has produced two or three Inftances where Lay-Brethren were present in the Primitive Councils, (and we have feen what fort of Inftances they were) yet in his general Account of them (which is more material by far) you may remember he told us from the great Authority of Firmilian, that the Eastern Synods of thofe Times confifted of* BiShops and Presbyters, who met every Tear to difpofe thofe Things which were committed to their Charge; and can we think that excellent Father could be fo defective in his Account of S. Cyprian, or fo injurious to all the Laity of thofe Churches, as to give no Intimation in the leaft of their meeting with the reft; if either Perfonally, or by Reprefentatives, they were Members of thofe Synods, as well as any of the others who met there?

To close this Point then, fince we neither meet with the Name nor Notion of Lay-Reprefentatives in any Synod of the Primitive Church; nor any Foot-steps of a Claim of Right, pretended by the People, to fit and act in the Councils of thofe Times; nor fo much as a fingle Father bearing

*See Enquiry, P. 148.

bearing Witnefs to any fuch Right invested in them; but barely read, that in fome particular Councils, Lay-Brethren were prefent, (which is accounted for above) and in the most we read of, they are not fo much as mention'd at all ; and no where affirm'd, that they either came or acted in a true Synodical Capacity there. Since Antiquity (I fay) goes no farther than this, I muft take leave to differ from this learned Enquirer here, who has placed fuch Members in the Provincial Synods of thofe Times (as the Synods themselves no where own'd for proper Members of their Body) under this modern Title of deputed Laymen, in behalf of the People of their respective Churches.

There are other Circumftances, relating to thefe Primitive Synods, wherein this learned Author and other Antiquaries do not agree; but they are lefs material, and may the fooner be difmifs'd.

And firft,as to the Extent or first Division of Ecclefiaftical Provinces,he Sconcludes that depended wholly upon the meer Conveniencies, or accidental Circumftances of the Churches they confifted of: Whereas approved Antiquaries affign a more regular Original of them. The judicious Du Pin's Opinion is, that || after the Apostles Deceafe,

* See Enquiry, p. 143. Eng. p. 141.

Du Pin Speaking of the Civil Diftribution of the Roman Empire, Simile aliquid (inquit) in rebus Ecclefiafticis fecere Chriftiani, & five cum ordinandus aut deponendus erat epifcopus, five cum aliqua divifio erat in Ecclefià, &c. cum jam non amplius fupereffent Apoftoli, per quos hæc antea componebantur, urbis metropoleos epifcopum adire par fuit, idq; paulatim per confuetudi