*

Baluz. Nov. 507, 515.

Col. Concil. P

Bishops in the place of that Bishop for whom they Subscribed: Thus in the Council of * Ephefus one of the Pope's Legates who was but a Presbyter fubfcribed thus, Philippus Presbyter & Legatus Apoftolica Sedis Subfcripfi: And fome other Presbyters fubfcribed only thus, Hypatius Presbyter Subfcripfi,Synefius Presbyter Subfcripfi, Paulus Presbyter Subfcripfi; but then these Presbyters fubfcribed in the middle of the Bishops, that is there were feveral Bishops fubfcribed before, feveral after and feveral between each of these Presbyters, which is a good Argument to think that they did fubfcribe in the place and stead of their Bishops, tho' it be not particularly expressed that they did fo. But the cafe is very different when we have a long Catalogue of Subscriptions of the Bishops, and the Proxies of fome alfo mentioned among them, and after that another Catalogue of Presbyters only, fubfcribing by the particular Titles of their own Parochial Churches: If when Presbyters are found to fubfcribe in this manner, it be not a manifest Proof that they subscribed in their own Names, then I must acknowledge that I know not what a manifest Proof is. Thus in the Council of Rome under Symmachus, A. D. 499. The Bishops all Subfcribed together, Ibid. p. 1460. and fome of them Subfcribed not only for &c. themselves, but also as Proxies for their abfent Brethren, and after they had all Subscribed, then almost as many Presbyters Subfcribed altogether, and named the Parochial Titles to which they belonged, as Martianus Presbyter tituli Sancta Cecilia, Gordianus Presbyter tituli Pammachii, Petrus Presbyter tituli Sancti Clementis, &c. And can there be the leaft fhadow of Pretence to fay that these Presbyters fubfcribed in the ftead of their respective Bishops? How was it poffible

• Concil of

ed at Burdeaux

poffible for them more plainly to express that they fubfcribed in their own Names? This and feveral other like Subfcriptions are evident Teftimonies that Presbyters did as well Subscribe Synodical Acts in their own Names as in the ftead of their proper Bishops, and I fuppofe they would not have done it if they had no Right to do fo.

Again, It is objected that Presbyters were indeed called to Synods and fate there if they pleased, but they had no decifive Votes there. So in fome Foreign Epifcopal Churches, even in Popish Countries Presbyters are fummoned to Provincial Synods, but are not allowed to Vote in them. Thus in the Council of Bur* Burdeaux, Print- deaux, An. 1582, Summoned by Antony Prevot in 8vo. An. 1623. fanfac, Primate of Aquitain, the Clergy were all called to it, as we find from the Epistle to the Clergy and People of his Province, where he tells them that he had called a Council of his Fellow-Bishops and all the Clergy of that Province. Yet it appears from the Canons of that Council that the Inferiour Clergy had no Votes in it. For in the XXXIV. Canon concerning Provin cial Synods it is declared, That the Chapters of Cathedral Churches fhall be particularly called to the Synod, and they may delegate fome of their Canons to reprefent them, who may be present in the Synod, and declare what the Chapters have given them in. Charge: But they are to know that they have only a deliberative, not a decifive Voice in the Synod. And if it be fo now in fome Churches, why might it not be fo in the Ancient Church? Tho' the Presbyters were called to Synod and fate there, yet what Proof is there that they ever had any decisive Voices there? It may be answered, that appears from their Subfcripti

ons.

ons. In the Modern Synods in France, tho' (as appears from this Synod of Burdeaux cited in the Objection) Presbyters were Summoned, and might be present to hear or to be confulted with as there might be occafion, or to deliver a Charge or Meffage from their Principals which fent them thither, yet because they had no decisive Votes they were not admitted to Subscribe. Their names indeed are entred into the Acts of the Synod, but only the Bifhops Subfcribed, and the Archdeacon of Condom as Proctor for that Church in the Vacancy of the See. But in the ancient Synods we find the Presbyters Subfcribed in the very fame form and manner that the Bishops did. Thus in the Roman Synod, A. D. 499 abovementio ned, after the Metropolitan or Bishop of Rome had Subscribed in a particular Form (because he had the Definitive Vote the xugos in that Affembly) in this manner, Calius Symmachus Epifcopus Sanita Ecclefia Catholica urbis Roma his Conftitutis Synodalibus a me Probatis atque firmatis confentiens Subfcripfi; The other Bishops Subscribed thus, Calius Rufticus Epifcopus civitatis Meturnenfis Subfcripfi & confenfi Synodalibus conftitutis, atque in hac me profiteor manere fententia; And the Presbyters and Deacons in the fame form and manner, Calius Januarius Presbyter tituli Veftina his Confenfi & Subfcripfi Synodalibus conftitutis, atque in hac me profiteor manere fententia; Cyprianus Diaconus Ecclefia Sancta Romana Regionis 7. his Subfcripfi & Confenfi Synodalibus conftitutis, atq; in hac me profiteor manere fententia. Since then it is evident from this and other ancient Synods that Presbyters were admitted to Subscribe and confent as the Bihops did, even in the fame form and manner,

it

⚫F de Divers
Reg. Jur. 1. 3.

it is evident that they had decifive Votes there as well as the Bishops. For the Rule of the Civil Law is, ejus eft nolle qui poteft velle, He that can confent may also diffent. And therefore in thofe places where the Presbyters are deprived of their decifive Votes they are not allowed to teftify their confent by their Subfcrip tions.

Thirdly it is objected that if Subscriptions be an Argument for decifive Votes in a Synod, then the chief of the Laity as well as the Infe rior Clergy ought to have decifive Votes there, forafmuch as there are feveral Synods particu larly in this Realm to which they have fubfcribed and confented as well as the Bishops and Inferior Clergy. Nay there are fome Sy nods in which Abbeffes who were but Women have Subfcribed, and they had alfo decifive Votes? It may be answered to this that thefe were not properly Ecclefiaftical Synods, but Councils of a mixed nature compofed of Spiritual and Temporal Perfons and equally determining Spiritual and Temporal Matters. And forafmuch as Abbeffes had both Property and Jurifdiction they were fometimes admitted to Sit and Vote in them. And fuch mixed Synods it is on all Hands agreed most of our Councils were before the Conqueft; which were peculiar to that ftate of the Church which was first fettled after the Barbarous Nations which broke in upon the Roman Empire, received the Chriftian Faith. But both before and afterwards when State Affemblies were apparently distinguished from Synods, we find no Lay-men to have Subfcribed any Ecclefiaftical Decrees, unless the Soveraign Prince or his Commissioner. And the Subfcriptions of

the

the Laity to Ecclefiaftical Matters in the Saxon times, are no more an Argument that they ought now to Subfcribe to them, than the Votes which the Inferior Clergy gave to Temporal Matters then, are an Argument that they fhould now Vote in Parliament.

Fourthly it is to be objected that, If Presbyters have Right to fit in Provincial Synods, why are they excluded from general Councils? To this

८

As

of Chrift's

(b) Bishop Bilfon has returned this excellent (b) Perpet. Gov/ Anfwer. Many things are lawful which are Church, p. 394. not expedient. I make no doubt but all Pa ftors and Teachers may fit and deliberate in Council; yet would it breed a Sea of • Abfurdities to call the Pastors and Preachers of the World into one Place, as often as need fhould require to have any matter determined or ordered in the Church. therefore in Civil Policy when a whole Realm affembleth, not all the Perfons there living are called together, but certain chief over the reft or Chofen by the reft, to reprefent the State, and to confult for the good of the whole Common-wealth; fo in the Govern ment of the Church it were not only fuperfluous and tedious, but monftrous to fend forth all the Paftors and Presbyters of the ' whole World into one City, and there to Stay them from their Cures and Churches till all things needful could be agreed and con cluded. It is more agreeable to Reason, and as fufficient in Right, that fome of every place excelling others in Dignity, or Elected by general Confent, fhould be fent to fupply the rooms of the reft that are abfent, and to confer in common for the directing and ordering of the whole Church. And therefore Chriftian

A a