The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 15
CHAP. 15. Of the order of ſitting in the firſt Council of Epheſus. And in what quality Cyrillus did preſide in it. How M. du Perron corrupteth this Hiſtory.
THE Acts of the Council of Epheſus ſhew that the Comes or Count Candidianus, Officer of the Emperour Theodoſius, did preſide in it with abſolute authority, as repreſenting the Emperours perſon: and that he commanded the Biſhops of the Council to proceed with order, and not to take a matter in hand before they had decided the precedent; and forbad them to treat of any Civil or criminal matter, reſerving to himſelf the knowledge of ſuch caſes.
But among the Biſhops, Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, a man of great authority, both for his courage and learning, and becauſe of the dignity of his See, had the precedence. He was elected Preſident by the Council, eighteen dayes before the comming of the Legats of Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome. An evident proof that in thoſe dayes they thought not that for the keeping of an Univerſal Council the preſence of the Biſhop of Rome or his Legats was neceſſary.
(a)See the ſubſcriptions of the Biſhops to the Council, and Baron. an. 431. Sect. 51.When the three Legats of the Biſhop of Rome were come, their place was aſſigned unto them. Arcadius the firſt Legat ſate after Cyrillus: after Arcadius, was Juvenalis, Patriarch of Jeruſalem, after Juvenalis, Projectus ſecond Legat of the Biſhop of Rome; after him Theodorus Biſhop of Ancyra: and after Theodorus Philippus the third Legat of Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome. For in that Age, although one was a Legat of the Biſhop of Rome, he might be placed after many Biſhops.
It is a thing out of all controverſie, that Cyrillus of Alexandria preſided in that Council. This is certified by the Acts and ſuperſcriptions of the Council, and by the firſt Action of the Council of Chalcedon, where many things of that Council are repeated. In the preamhles of the ſame, Flavianus Patriarch of Conſtantinople ſaith, that the Council of Epheſus was held under Cyrillus of holy memory; and Evagrius towards the end of the ſecond book;(b)foreign. The Council of Epheſus where Cyrillus Primat of Alexandria (who is among the Saints) preſided.
But the diſpute is under what name, and in what quality Cyrillus had the precedence: whether in his own name, and as a Patriarch of Alexandria, or as a Lieutenant of Celeſtinus, and holding his place by his conceſſion, as Cardinal du Perron will have it, in chap. 36. of book 1. For we muſt know that about a year before the ſitting of the Council, Celeſtinus had writ to Cyrillus, exhorting him to proceed vigorouſly againſt Neſtorius, and deſiring him to act both for him, and for himſelf, and to deal for him in his abſence. The like had never been done by any Biſhop of Rome. But in that time there was no ſpeech as yet of the Council of Epheſus: And they are deceived that ſay that Celeſtinus deſired Cyrillus to hold his place in that Council. Yet it is manifeſt that ſo much as Celeſtinus deſired of Cyrillus, was done in policy. For knowing the authority of Cyrillus, and foreſeeing that in all that ſhould be done againſt Neſtorius, Cyrillus ſhould have the chief hand and the principal honour, he deviſed to yield the place to Cyrillus of his own accord, and to deſire Cyrillus to act for him againſt Neſtorius, and to do all Acts in his name in his abſence. Howſoever, it was by entreaties that Celeſtinus prevailed with Cyrillus to do ſo much, not by any authority that he had over him; and Cyrillus accepted of that Commiſſion before the Council of Epheſus was called or ſpoken of. But though Cyrillus had received a Proxie from Celeſtinus to deal for him in the Council in his abſence, that could not have taken from the Council of Epheſus the liberty of chooſing ſuch a Preſident, as they judged to be fitteſt to moderate. And by all the Acts of the Council, it appears not that the Council had deferred that precedence to Cyrillus in conſideration of his Commiſſion from Celeſtinus. In effect, Cyrillus was elected Preſident many dayes before the coming of the Legates of Celeſtinus, to which Legates it belonged to declare upon that point, the will of him that ſent them. And ſure, if ſuch a thing had been, the Letters of Celeſtinus to the Council, would have mentioned it. But in thoſe Letters, which are extant, he ſaith only that he had ſent Arcadius, Projectus and Philippus, to repreſent his perſon in that Council; without any mention of the Commiſſion given to Cyrillus to hold his place in the Council. Wherefore alſo in the Greek Acts(c)In the Epiſtle of the Council to Theodoſius, whereby they deſire him to releaſe Cyrillus and M…mnon Biſhop of Epheſus, who were priſoners. of that Council, Cyrillus and Memnon are often called foreign, Preſidents of the Council. But as for Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome, the Biſhops ſay, foreign, that he ſits with them: That is to be ſeen eſpecially by the ſubſcriptions added to the Acts of that Council;
Cyrillus Epiſcopus Alexandriae ſubſcripſi,
Arcadius Legatus ſedis Apoſtolicae ſubſcripſi.
Juvenalis Epiſcopus Jeroſolymitanus ſubſcripſi,
Projectus Epiſcopus Legatus ſedis Apoſtolicae ſubſcripſi.
Had Cyrillus preſided as Legate or Vicar of Celeſtinus, had he not ſubſcribed as a Legate of Celeſtinus, would he have omitted in his ſubſcription that quality whereby he had preſided in the Council? And if the title of Legate of the Biſhop of Rome, gave neceſſarily the precedence in the Council, had Juvenalis Biſhop of Jeruſalem, been preferred before two Legates of Celeſtinus? And whoever heard that in the antient Councils, the Biſhop of Rome abſent, deferred the Preſidency of the Council by Commiſſion to any? In all the Council, Cyrillus ſpeaks alwayes in his own name, not as a Lieutenant or Vicar of Celeſtinus. Leo himſelf in the 47. Epiſtle 3. chap. ſaith that(d)Epheſinae Synodi cui ſancta memoriae Cyrillus Epiſcopus tunc praeſedit. Cyrillus of holy memory preſided in the Synod of Epheſus. Had he preſided there in quality of Legate of the Roman Prelate, Leo would not have forgotten it.
To ſo many and ſo ſtrong proofs, taken from the Council it ſelf, Cardinal du Perron oppoſeth the teſtimony of Marcellinus Comes, a Latine Author, and a favourer of his Patriarch, who writ a hundred years after that Council. Alſo Balſamon and(e)Nicephor. l. 14. c. 34. Nicephorus, new Authors, who tell tales to this purpoſe, which Baronius laughs at: But with M. du Perron Fables go for grave Hiſtories, if they concur with his ends: All his other witneſſes, as Liberatus and Theophanes, and the Acts of the Council, ſpeak of the Deputation given to Cyrillus by Celeſtinus, long before the Council of Epheſus, and ſpeak not of that imaginary Commiſſion to hold his place in the Council of Epheſus.
The truth is, it was a legerdemaine of Celeſtinus, like to that which the Biſhops of Rome have oftened practiſed ſince the time of Gregory the VII. which was to give to a Prince, that which they could not take from him; or to give ſome Countrey or Kingdom to a King, upon condition that he ſhall conquer it, as if the ſame Princes would have preſented the Pope with the Moon, upon condition that he ſhould go and take it. If a Prince ſo preſented by the Pope, ſuffers ſome harm for going about to obey the Pope, and comes ſhort of his undertaking; his Holineſs doth not bear him harmleſs. But if the enterpriſe is atchieved, as when Charles of Anjou effected the conqueſt of the Kingdom of Naples, and atchieved it, then the Pope will have that Prince to hold the conquered Kingdom in Fee from the Papal See, and to make homage for it to the Pope, as to his Landlord and Leige.