The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 17
CHAP. 17. Occaſion of the ſecond Council of Epheſus, and by whom it was Convocated.
IN the year of our Lord 448. this occaſion of new trouble aroſe in the Churches of the Roman Empire. That Flavianus Biſhop of Conſtantinople, degraded and expelled a Prieſt named Eutyches, for confounding in one, the two natures of Jeſus Chriſt. Which was the cauſe that the Emperour Theodoſius convocated another Univerſal Council at Epheſus, and writ Letters about it to the Biſhops of all the Provinces of the Roman Empire. His Letters to Dioſcorus Patriarch of Alexandria, are to be ſeen in the firſt Action of the Council of Chalcedon, in which he ſpeaks thus,(a)Si quis vero tam neceſſariam & verè Deo amicam Synodum praetermiſerit, & non omni virtute ſecundum praedictum tempus ad praefinitum locum pervenerit nullam excuſationem neque apud Deum, neque apud noſtram inveniet pietatem. If any let paſs a Synod ſo neceſſary and truly pleaſing to God, and will not uſe all his endeavour to come to the appointed place, at the prefixed time, he ſhall find no excuſe, neither with God, nor with our piety.
The ſame Emperour writ Letters to the ſame purpoſe to Leo Biſhop of Rome: to which the ſaid Leo anſwereth in the 9. Epiſtle, where he ſaith, that he hath ſent to Theodoſius his Confeſſion of Faith: which in others is taken by our Adverſaries as a teſtimony of ſubjection. In that Epiſtle he endeavoureth to diſſwade the Emperour from aſſembling a Council at Epheſus, and beſeecheth him to aſſemble it rather in Italy. Wherefore (ſaith he) if your piety will do ſo much as to conſent to my counſel and ſupplication, that you command that a Council of Biſhops be held within Italy, &c. Theſe words teach us four things. 1. That this Council of Epheſus was not convocated by Leo Biſhop of Rome, ſince it ſate againſt his counſel, and notwithſtanding his humble ſupplication to the Emperour, that it might rather be in Italy. 2. That the Biſhop of Rome ſpeaks to Theodoſius, as to his Maſter, with ſubmiſſive entreaties, beſeeching him to command the aſſembling of a Council: and by conſequent, acknowledging that the right of Convocation belonged to the Emperour. 3. Above all it is notable, that Leo was denyed by the Emperour, who believed not that the conſent of the Biſhop of Rome was of neceſſity requiſite for the aſſembling of a Council. 4. It is to be noted alſo, that the Biſhop of Rome being denyed, obeyed nevertheleſs the Emperours Order, and againſt his own will ſent Legates to Epheſus.
(b)Leonis Epiſt. 12.Leo then writ the ſecond time to Theodoſius, That to obey his command, he had ſent three Legates to the Council: Julianus a Biſhop, Renatus a Prieſt, and Hilarius a Deacon, to repreſent his perſon, and to keep his place. And in another Epiſtle to the ſame Emperour, which is the 16. he ſaith,(c)Rationalibus cauſis ab indicenda Synodo fuiſſet abſtinendum, tamen in quantum Dominus juvare dignatur meum ſtudium commodavi, ut clementiae veſtrae ſtatutis aliquatenus pareatur. That although, for cauſes grounded upon good reaſon, it had been better not to call a Council, yet that he might in ſome manner obey the Emperours commands, he had ſent Legates to ſupply the defect of his preſence. Which he ſaith to excuſe himſelf for not coming in perſon, according to the Emperours command.
The ſame Leo writes to Flavianus Biſhop of Conſtantinople, and tells him that he thought it needleſs to have a Council, and yet that to obey the Emperour, he had ſent Legates to the Council.
It is then a thing out of queſtion, that Leo did not convocate that Council, ſince himſelf did diſſwade it; and yet by ſending his Deputies to it, he approved the Convocation of the ſame.
The cauſe why Leo did ſo much deſire that the Council ſhould rather be aſſembled in Italy, is, that Italy was of his Patriarchate, and that he could have gathered a great number of Occidental Biſhops; alſo that the language of the Council ſhould have been Latine, and the Preſident one that ſpoke Latine, who in all likelyhood could have been no other but the Biſhop of Rome: Whereas in Greece, the Grecians ſurpaſſing in number, all was done in Greek, and a Greek Preſident was choſen; and they made the Legates of the Biſhop of Rome, to ſit after many Biſhops: Which was the cauſe that the Biſhop of Rome never would be preſent in the antient Univerſal Councils.
Here then is juſtified the ſaying of Pius the II. in the firſt Book of the Acts of the Synod of Baſil; That in old time for the Convocation of Councils, the authority of the Popes was not much requiſite.