thefe, muft be their, and not S. Peter's Succeffors ; as you cannot but be fenfible. What then can S. Peter's fuppofed regard to thefe places fignify, towards making their Bifhops his Succeffors? This is a Difcovery, not only new in itself; but befides, which is above my comprehenfion, and what you will never be able to maintain. But this is not all I have to offer againft you here. For thus our Author proceeds, though you have not thought fit to take notice of it; and fo the Vindicator told you, Let any one read the Writings of the Popes, Gregory, Gelafius, and Leo, and be will find they all acknowledge all good Bishops to be S. Peter's Succeffors. And was this likewife out of a fuppofed regard for the places where they prefided? I dare fay you will not pretend it. And yet farther, Tho' fometimes they have not failed to difcover ambitious Inclinations, and a defire of fubjecting other Bishops to them, yet not as Heads of the Church, and yet lefs by virtue of any Text of Scripture. Neither is it to be obferved for the first Five Centuries, that any ever had the face to alledge one fingle Paffage in the Sacred Writings, for eftablishing the Primacy of the BiShop of Rome. Here are three different Popes cited against you, and in fuch exprefs terms against your pretended Supremacy, that you had no better way to defend your felf against them, but by paffing them over in a profound filence, as if the Vindicator had never faid a word about them. This perhaps may be thought fair dealing on your fide; but if the Vindicator had done it, he muft have expected to hear of it with both Ears.

R. C. Objection IV. p. 44. In former times BiShops called the Pope Collegue, Brother, FellowMinifter, &c. p. 106.

C. E. This you cannot poffibly deny.

R. C. You fee I do not. But then I defire you to observe, that S. Paul calls the Corinthians

bis

bis Brothers, yet exercised a Jurifdiction over them, And S. Peter ftiles himself uurgroßúтtegy, a Fellow Elder.

C. E. I fee you are fadly put to it, that you can find no better an Answer than this. For the Queftion is not what either S. Peter, or S. Paul, or any other Superior ftiles himself, but whether his Inferiors and Subjects think it becoming them, to use the fame freedom with him. The Pope ftiles himself Servus Servorum Dei, A Servant of the Servants of God. But I dare answer for you, that if you were to write a Letter to him, you would not allow yourfelf to fend it fo fuperfcribed. And I challenge you to produce one Inftance of his being applied to by any Bishop, or other of the Clergy, under the Title of Brother, or Collegue, or any other like familiar Appellation, fince his Claim to an Univerfal Supremacy has been fet on foot. Till you can do this, you must own, the Cafe is very much altered now from what it was formerly; and that this Intimacy and Familiarity with the ancient Popes, is a good Evidence, that they were not then fo elevated above the reft of their Brethren, and Fellow Bishops, as they now take upon them to be.

R. C. Objection V. p. 47. If the Popes were Supreme Governors of the Church, the Vindicator urges, they would have had the Right of convening General Coun~ cils, which, fays he, it is certain they had not. And yet it is certain they had, p. 107.

C. E. So you affirm; but you do not undertake to prove it. The Fact, that the Emperors: convened the ancient Councils, you do not difpute, nor can you, after all the Evidence he has brought for it. But as you have an excellent Talent at fuppofing, where you cannot prove, fo here you fuppofe the Popes to have had a Right,

of doing it either alone, or together with the Emperors. That is, you would have it believed, without any manner of Proof, that the Popes had a Right of convening Councils, of some fort of other, though you know not what. But the Vindicator must be extreamly condescending, if he will take this for an Anfwer to all the Evidence he has brought to the contrary. Next, you admit the Fact, that this was executed by the Emperor's Letters; but plead, that yet the Lawfulness of it might arife, from the Defire of the Bifhaps themselves, and chiefly of the firft See Which is a ftrange fort of arguing, and thews your Cafe to be very bad. Firft you fay, It might arise from the Defire of the Bishops themselves, &c. Where you ought to have remembred, that a poffe ad effe non valet confequentia; what only may be, may as well not be, and fo you have in effect faid nothing for your Caufe. Next, If it only arofe from the defire of the Bishops themselves, and efpecially the Pope, it is a plain acknowledgment that the Power was not then looked upon to be folely in the Pope, as you would have it; for fo it would have been an Affront to his Holinefs, for the other Bishops to interpofe in what was his peculiar priviledge. And lastly, If it arofe from the Defire of the Pope, and other Bishops petitioning the Emperor, it evidently follows, that the Power of Convening was then acknowledged, by the Pope, as well as the other Bishops, to be in the Emperor, and not in the See of Rome. And fo instead of afferting this Right to the Pope, you have been pleased to own it to have been none of his. Farther, you tell us, the Bishops at Conftantinople, Anno 382, writing to Pope Damafus, thanked him for calling them to a Council by the Emperor's Letters. And it is very kindly done of you, to bring fuch an inftance against yourself. For if the Pope could

not

not fummon them, but by the Emperor's Letters, I may fafely refer it to yourfelf, where the Power of fummoning them was owned by all at that time to lye. Your next Citation from Rufinus is parallel to this, That the Emperor called it, Ex facerdotum fententiâ, by the Advice of the Bishops. Where one would be tempted to think you were writing booty; for if the Emperor were the Convener, by whatfoeyer Advice it were, then not the Pope. You ask farther, Why bad not Bishops as much Right of convening by their own Authority in the Fourib Century, as they had in the First, Second, and Third? And now I would beg leave in my turn to ask another Queftion, and leave it with you; which is, Whether this be pleading for the Pope's Supreme Power, or for the Bifhops against it? Hereunto you fubjoin two Cautions of Hofius and S. Ambrofe to the Emperors Conftantius and Valentinian, against meddling to promote the Arian Intereft. Which can never prove the Pope's Right to convene Councils, to which they have no more relation, than to the Conftitution Unigenitus, or Prince Eugene's paffing the Danube.

R. C. Objection VI. p. 47. The Pope did not prefide in the first general Councils, p. 109.

C. E. So the Vindicator told you. And not only told you fo, but referred you (a) to Richerius, Labbe and Coffartius, Sozomen, Evagrius, Pho tius, and Du Pin, for the proof of it. And it was to be hoped you would take effectual care to confute all these, and let the Reader fee they are quite in the wrong. Whereas on the contrary you pass over them all, as if nothing had been faid of them. And fo all of them still bear witness against you.

R. C. However, I have brought counterEvidence, and that is as well.

(a) Cafe truly stated, p. 47.

C. E. You

C. E. You ought first to have cleared the. way by removing the Vindicator's Teftimonies, before you undertook to affert the contrary. Buc this I find is not your way, And if you are re-. folved to write to no purpofe, who can help it? This may cut out work for an Anfwerer, but can be for no one's Satisfaction, unless it be by letting the World fee, you could not answer them. However, though nothing is faid to thefe, let us hear, if you pleafe, what you have to fay besides.

R. C. (a) As to the Fifth Council, Anno 553. Eutychius, Bishop of Conftantinople, desired of Vigilius it might be held, Præfidente nobis veftrâ beatitudine, Your Holiness prefiding over us. Ibid.

C. E. I need not tell you, that Vigilius did not prefide in it. Nor could he poffibly, fince he would not be prevailed with to appear there, (b) He confented to the Council by Letter, but would not fit amongst them; and fo cannot fo much as be pretended to have prefided over them.

"R. C. As to the Sixth Action of the Council of Chalcedon, Pafchafinus, the Pope's Legate, fubfcribed the Definition of Faith, in this manner; Prefiding over the Council, I have approved it, confented to it, and fubfcribed it, Ibid.

C. E And what if the Pope be fuppofed to have prefided in that Council? The Vindicator did not fay, that he might not at any time do it, as well as any other Bifhop, when called to

(4) P.Maimbourgb,in his Prerogatives of the Church of Rome, and her Bishops, p. 54. acknowledges the Pope not to have prefided in the First Council of Conftantinople, which perhaps neither did he call; and that it is most probable he did not call the Fifth, nor prefided in it, though he was at Conftantinople, where that Council was held.

(6) Βιγίλιθ μὲν ἐν ἐγγράφως συνθέμενο συνεδρεύειν xel. Evagr. Hift. Ecc. 1. 4. c. 38. See allo Du Pin Nouv. Bibl. To. 5. p. 197, 198. in Quarto.

it,