The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 18
CHAP. 18. Of the things happened in the II. Council of Epheſus, and who preſided in it.
THis Council, though juſtly infamous, and called by the Grecians foreign, the thieviſh Council, becauſe in the ſame, Flavianus was not only unjuſtly condemned, and Eutychianiſm eſtabliſhed, but Flavianus was alſo cruelly beaten, of which he dyed a year after in exile. Yet that Council had all that was requiſite to make an Univerſal Council: For it was Convocated by the Emperour from all parts of the Empire; and there all the Patriarchs met, either in perſon, or by their Deputies. Leo Biſhop of Rome had there his Deputies; and Dioſcorus of Alexandria, Flavianus of Conſtantinople, Domnus of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jeruſalem, were there in perſon.
It happened that the Deputies of the Biſhop of Rome, paſſing by Conſtantinople, were feaſted by Flavianus Patriarch of Conſtantinople, which furniſhed Eutyches and his faction with a cauſe of recuſation of the ſaid Deputies: This with other conſiderations, was the cauſe that Theodoſius poſſeſt with the perſwaſions of Chryſaphius Prefect of the Imperial Pallace, gave order that Dioſcorus ſhould have the precedence among the Biſhops: To which alſo the Council conſented. So Dioſcorus Patriarch of Alexandria was elected Preſident, and the Deputies of the Biſhop of Rome put under him. This Hiſtory is related in the firſt Action of the Council of Chalcedon, where the things paſſed at Epheſus were examined and made void. There an Epiſtle of Theodoſius to Dioſcorus is recorded, where he tells him, We give the authority and the primacy to your beatitude. Of which we find not that the Deputies of the Biſhop of Rome made any complaint, or that they took it as a contempt or an injuſtice, that the Primacy ſhould be deferred to any but the Biſhop of Rome: For Liberatus an African Deacon, and a flatterer of the Biſhops of Rome, who writ about twelve hundred years after, is not a credible witneſs, when he ſaith that Leo's Deputies would not ſit, becauſe the precedence was not deferred unto them. For the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, made for the advantage of the Biſhop of Rome, are more to be credited in this matter. And Leo an aſpiring man, and deſirous to raiſe the dignity of his See, would not have forgotten to expoſtulate of the wrong done to him. Liberatus himſelf ſaying, that the Deputies of Rome oppoſed all that was done in the Council, and proteſted againſt it, thereby preſuppoſeth their preſence. It is falſe alſo (though(d)Ch. 37. of the 1. book p. 298. M. du Perron affirms it as true) that the Primacy which Dioſcorus had uſurped was declared a tyrannie. That cannot be found, and the teſtimony which he alledgeth to prove that, ſaith nothing of it; but ſaith only that Dioſcorus by his tyrannie abſolved Eutyches, and reſtored to him his dignity, and roſe againſt the Biſhop of Rome: which was, when he excommunicated Leo. Beſides, that place is taken from the Greek Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which are but a Collection of lyes: As that which is ſaid in that place, that Leo depoſed Eutyches; for that was done by Flavianus, before that Leo was made acquainted with it. Depoſing a man who is already depoſed, is ſtripping a naked man: Though Leo would have reſtored Eutyches, he could not have done it.
Beſides Dioſcorus Preſident of the Council, the Emperor had there Count Helpidius, with ſome other Patritii and Officers that repreſented his perſon, and preſided as for the exteriour order. To that Helpidius the Emperor ſent letters, where theſe words are found. I command thee, that if thou ſeeſt any factious and raiſer of tumults, to the prejudice of the truth, that thou commit him priſoner, and reſerve unto me the knowledge of the cauſe. From that penalty he excepteth not the Legats of the Biſhop of Rome, who were no leſs obnoxious to be puniſht by the Emperors then the other Biſhops.