The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 14
CHAP. 14. Of the Patriarchs that were preſent in the firſt Council of Epheſus; and of the ſtrife between Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and John Patriarch of Antioch.
TO this Council of Epheſus, Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome came not. For the Biſhop of Rome would never come to any of the antient Univerſal Councils: Becauſe he feared that the precedence ſhould be deferred to ſome Patriarch of Conſtantinople, or Alexandria, or Antioch, who alſo bore it very high, and were not deficient in ambition. Which might have been done very eaſily, becauſe in thoſe Univerſal Councils all was done in Greek, which the Biſhops of Rome underſtood not.(a)Baron. an: 431. Sect. 80. Wherefore the Letters which Celeſtinus writ to that Council of Epheſus were Latin, and were read by an Interpreter.
Then Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome ſent three Legats to that Council, Arcadius, and Projectus Biſhops in Italy, and Philippus a Roman Prieſt, to repreſent his perſon: There alſo was Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and Juvenalis Patriarch of Jeruſalem, and Memnon Metropolitan of Epheſus. St. Auſtin was called to it by the Emperour, but he was then near his laſt gaſp, being fallen ſick while Bona his See was beſieged by Genſericus King of the Vandals.
John Patriarch of Antioch came alſo, but too late, the Synod having proceeded to the condemnation of Neſtorius Patriarch of Conſtantinople: Which the ſaid John interpreted as a contempt of his Patriarchat and Apoſtolick See, pretending that ſuch a judgement could not have been given without him; and that without him the Council could not ſit, nor do a deciſion that concerned the Univerſal Church, ſuch as the condemnation of a Patriarch. For that cauſe the ſaid John having aſſembled the Biſhops of Eaſt ſubject unto his Patriarchat, pronounced a ſentence of depoſition againſt Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and againſt Memnon Biſhop of Epheſus, and degraded them from their charge. Cyrillus alſo in revenge pronounced the like ſentence of depoſition againſt John. All that without expecting the advice of the Biſhop of Rome, which in thoſe dayes was not thought neceſſary. But by the intervention of ſome perſons that loved peace, theſe two Prelates were reconciled, and as Socrates ſaith(b)Socrat. lib. 7. c. 37. Depoſitis inimicitiis reconciliati ſibi invicem ſedes reſtituerunt. having laid down their quarrels, they reſtored the one to the other their Sees.
The example is worth obſerving; for it ſheweth that all the Patriarchs of the Roman Empire challenged the ſame right and power, as Julius Biſhop of Rome had aſſumed in the cauſe of Athanaſius, namely that Councils could not be aſſembled, nor Canons made without his advice. The ſame example teacheth how Sozomenus muſt be underſtood, when he ſaith that(c)Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7. foreign. Julius reſtored to Athanaſius his See, and to ſome other Biſhops diſpoſſeſſed from their places by Conſtantius and by the Oriental Biſhops. Alſo how the ſame Sozomenus muſt be expounded when he ſaith, that the Oriental Biſhops depoſed Julius Biſhop of Rome, and Oſius, and Maximus, from their charges. For neither were Athanaſius and the other Biſhops reſtored to their places by the decree of Julius, (for they were reſtored long after upon other occaſions) Nor was Julius diſpoſſeſt of his Biſhoprick by their cenſures. But that depoſition of Julius, as alſo that which John and Cyrillus pronunced the one againſt the other, were but declarations, whereby they declared that they would not acknowledge ſuch a one for a Biſhop, and as far as in them was, pronounced him deprived of his right to his Epiſcopacy. Likewiſe the reſtoring of Athanaſius by Julius, was but a declaration that he acknowledged Athanaſius to be a lawfull Biſhop,In chap. 2. of book 5. towards the end of the chapter. and worthy to be re-inſtalled. He put him in his charge as much as it was in him, although his judgement was without effect. The ſame was done by Maximus Patriarch of Jeruſalem, who having conſented to the depoſition of Athanaſius, reſtored him afterwards, as we ſaw before.