this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
And it appears that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right received him to Communion And Stephen urges that Flavianus of Constanstinople expelled him afterwards And therefore it is remarkable that in the twefth Action where the Sentence was to be pronounced Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Legates and is always named before them in all that Session where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church which was specially under his jurisdiction by which it appears the principal Person in the deposing of Bassianus was the Patriarch of Constantinople who probably desired the other great Patriarchs concurrence for the better credit of his Sentence Moreover it is to be noted that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council The Popes favour did him no service for his Cause was tried over again and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus and this by the consent of the Popes Legates who notwithstanding their big words did not believe it unlawful for a general Council to contradict a determination of the Popes The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern only the Causes of private Bishops who had complained to the Emperor not to the Pope of injury done them and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council and so the Bishop of Nichomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan And in the fourteenth Action Athanasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea and Sabinianus who claimed it ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church as the Patriarch of Antiooh should direct Nothing is remarkable in them but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree and not the Popes Legates and then the Synod consent The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Emperor to be formed into Canons So that in obedience to the Emperor they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules And one of these is the fourth Canon which decrees that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess wherein their Monastery is built which being a genuine Canon of a General Council not objected against by the Popes Legates it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it but daily and openly break it in defiance of the Primitive Discipline by exempting all Monasteries from due subjection to their own Bishop and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope and serve his interests The ninth Canon ordains that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop and not in Secular Courts and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropolitan he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess or appeal to the See of Constantinople Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest and so ridiculously expounds the Primate of the Diocess is meant the Bishop of Rome who is Primate of all Dioceses Turrian as boldly expounds it the Primate of the universal Diocess And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them because the Canon gives leave to the Party injured to complain either to the Bishop of Constantinople or to the Pope at his own choice which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch but above a Metropolitan and the Canon expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primates who had Jurisdiction over the Province or to the Patriarch of Constantinople which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World And if any question why the Pope is not here named at least for the Western Churches Appeals as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern I take the true reason to be the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session consisting only of Oriental Bishops for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in the West leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason We may add that the Latin Version of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word confitentes into the Body of the Canon which is not in the Original but Labbè leaves out this corruption But that which hath occasioned the greatest Controversie is the twenty eighth Canon wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Priviledges of that See For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges because it was the Imperial City for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs to be advanced to the second place And they order that the Bishop of Constantinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thrace The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon The Editors put a Note before it that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts but that is no wonder since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon is apparent not only from the sixteenth Action where it was read at large and allowed by the whole Council and confirmed by the Lay-Judges notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon writ above 900 year ago and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter who put out the Canons before Dionisius exiguus that is soon after the year 500 So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon but quotes it out of the sixth General Council wherein there are almost the same words but his old Editions which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up had grosly corrupted the main words of it and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extolli c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa which quite alters the sense and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges whereas they speak of no other but
to call Peter the Rock and Ground-work of the Catholick Church For it was only the Popes Domesticks called him so and had the Council foreseen the consequence they would expresly have opposed that which they only silently passed by as frivolous In the next place we may observe that it is said in this Council that the Emperor confirmed the Acts of the second Council at Ephesus therefore it was usual then for the Emperor so to do since this is alledged to prove that a lawful Council Again when the Acts of this second Council at Ephesus were read at Chalcedon the Greek plainly saith the Emperor by his Letters exhorted the Pope to be present there but the Latin Version corrupts the Text and puts in supplicarunt as if the Emperor had humbly supplicated the Pope to be there whereas one of his Legates a few lines before owned that the Pope had the same Form of Summons sent him that was sent to the other great Bishops Moreover in Eutyches Petition read in that Council Cyril is called the President of the third General Council at Ephesus without any mention of the Pope And we may further observe that the Heretick Eutyches in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople which condemned him is called Pope Eutyches that being a name formerly given to all Eminent Clergy-men especially in the East I shall make no more remarks upon this first Session which was spent in reading over and reviewing the Council of Constantinople wherein Eutyches was condemned and the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus wherein Dioscorus absolved him because I have treated of both before It is sufficient to observe upon this full hearing the Council of Chalcedon condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus and the Lay-Judges summ'd up the Act but there seems to be a Roman addition in the end of this first Act where it is thrust in without choerence and sense that Leo writ an Epistle to Flavianus which though it be true comes in very impertinently here but the Forger thought when the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers were mentioned that of Leo ought by all means to be mentioned right or wrong In the second Action there is nothing considerable but the reading of this very Epistle of Leo to Flavianus after the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed being written expresly about the Eutychian Heresie the main Cause to be then decided which was therefore received there as other Orthodox Writings were with general Acclamations but the Notes citing these Acclamations quote them imperfectly no further than these words Peter speaks by Leo But the Council goes on and says The Apostles and Cyril taught thus by which we may see it was the consonancy of Leo's Doctrine to the writings of the Apostles and of St. Cyril not the infallibility of his See which procured his Epistle this general applause Wherefore the Prefacer need not have mentioned these Acclamations as if they were only given to Leo's Epistle or had been made upon some single excellency peculiar to the Bishop of that See for both the Creeds and two of Cyril's Epistles had been honoured with such like Acclamations a little before The third Action contains the canonical deposition of Dioscorus after the Bishops had heard all the complaints against him cited him thrice and could not prevail with him to appear Now there being nothing to be done at this Session but to proceed according to the Canons of which the Bishops were the proper Executors they only met without Lay Judges which saith Binius is the most evident note of a General Council but in truth it is no note of any such matter for if that were not a General Council wherein some of the Lasty were present then there never was any General Council till this time and this single Act would then be the sole Regular Act of this General Council to such absurd consequences doth these mens blind zeal lead them The next thing to be noted is a corruption in the Titles of the Petitions which some of the Aegyptian Clergy offered to the Council against Dioscorus for the Greek hath no more but this The Petition of Theodorus the Deacon exhibited against Dioscorus but the Latin Version thrusts in Pope Leo's name thus exhibited to Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon and the same corruption is in the Titles of the following Petitions of Ischyrion Athanasius and Sophronius If it be objected that the Superscriptions of all these Petitions both in Greek and Latin are To the most Holy c. Universal Patriarch of Great Rome Leo and to the Holy General Council c. I reply these Superscriptions seem to be forged also For first Eusebius his Petition before mentions not Leo and these Petitions are addressed only to the Council there being not the least sentence in them peculiar to Leo or supposing him to see or read them so that these Superscriptions to an absent Bishop are non-sense and in all probability added by some Roman Transcribers as may be guessed by the great swelling Titles with which the Pope is loaded Again in the Summons sent to Dioscorus the third time it is declared that the Emperor had commanded the Bishops to hear this Cause the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Latin softens it into permisit However whether the Emperor commanded or permitted the Bishops to hear this Cause it is plain that even in this Session consisting only of Clergy the Bishops had the Emperors leave and proceeded by his permission As to the Sentence it self the Preface the Notes and Baronius pretend it was pronounced in Leo's name and boast much of the Legates pronouncing it But if we consult the place we shall find that since no Lay-Judges were there the Popes Legates were as these Judges did in other Sessions to collect the Votes and then to sum them up and publish them and therefore after the enquiry was ended they ask what the Synod thought fit to be done which they do over and over again and till the Council expresly commanded them they did not pronounce the Sentence 'T is true these Legates had learned their Lessons so well at Rome that they contrive it in words very pompous The most Holy and Blessed Arch-Bishop of the Elder and Greater Rome Leo by us and by this present Synod with the most Blessed and Honourable Apostle Peter who is the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church and he that is the Foundation of the Orthodox Faith that is Jesus Christ hath deprived him of his Episcopal Dignity and degraded him from all Ministration therefore let this most Holy General Council decree concerning the said Dioscorus what is agreeable to the Canons But these Rhetorical Flourishes coming only from the Popes Domesticks give him no right to them it is more material what Cardinal Cusanus observes that the Legates as sitting first in this Council first pronounce Sentence by the