JUVENALIS

JUVENALIS

6 l Jr>

see of Rome ” (Labbe, Concil. in. 642). Thesefalsehoods he did not scruple to support withforged documents (“insolenter ausuB per com-mentitia scripta firmare,” Leo. Mag. Ep. 119[92]), and other disgraceful artifices. Scarcelyhad Juvenal been consecrated bishop of Jerusa-lem when he proceeded to assert his claims tothe metropolitan rank by his acts. In theletter of remonstrance against the proceedingsof the council of Ephesus, sent to Theodosius bythe Oriental party, they complain that Juvenal,whose “ ambitious designs and juggling tricks ”they are only too well acquainted with, hadordained in provinces over which he had nojurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii. 728). Thisaudacious attempt to set at nought the Nicenedecrees, and to falsify both history and traditionwas regarded with the utmost indignation bythe leaders of the Christian church. Cyril ofAlexandria shuddered at the impious design(“ merito perhorrescens,” Leo, m. s.), and wrote toLeo, then archdeacon of Rome, informing him ofwhat Juvenal was undertaking, and begging thathis unlawful attempts might have no sanctionfrom the apostolic see (“ ut nulla illicitis cona-tibus praeberetur assensio, ,, «. s.). Juvenal,however, was far too useful an ally in his cam-paign against Nestorius for Cyril lightly to dis-card. When the council met at Ephesus,Juvenal was allowed, without the slightest re-monstrance, to take precedence of his metropo-litan of Caesarea, and to occupy the position ofvice-president of the council, coming next afterCyril himself (Labbe, Concil. iii. 445), and wasregarded in all respects as the second prelate inthe assembly. The arrogant assertion of hissupremacy over the bishop of Antioch, and hisclaim to take rank next after Rome as anapostolical see, provoked no open remonstrance,and his pretensions were at least tacitly allowed.At the next council, the disgraceful “ Latro-vinium” Juvenal occupied the third place, afterDioscorus and the papal legate, having beenspecially named by Theodosius, together withThalassius of Caesarea (who appears to havetaken no umbrage at his suffragan being pre-ferred before him), as next in authority toDioscorus (Labbe, Concil. iv. 109), and he took aleading part in the violent proceedings of thatassembly. When the council of Chalcedon met,one of the matters which came before it for set-tlement was the dispute as to priority betweenJuvenal and Maximus bishop of Antioch. Thecontention was long and severe. It ended in acompromise agreed on in the Seventh Action,p* tA iroAA-ljv <pi\ovGinlav. Juvenal surrenderedhis claim to the two Phoenicias and to Arabia,on condition of his being allowed metropoliticaljurisdiction over the three Palestines (Labbe,Concil. iv. 613). The claim to patriarchalauthority over the bishop of Antioch put for-ward at Ephesus was discreetly dropped. Thedifficulty presented by the Nicene canon doesnot appear to have presented itself to thecouncil, nor was any one found to urge the un-doubted claims of the see of Caesarea. Theterms arranged between Maximus and Juvenalwere regarded as satisfactory, and received theconsent of the assembled bishops (ibid. 618).Maximus, however, was not long in repenting ofhis too ready acquiescence in JuvenaPs demands,and wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo,

who replied by the letter which has beenalready quoted, dated June 11, 453 a.d., inwhich he upheld the binding authority of theNicene canons, and after commenting in thestrongest terms on the greediness and ambitionof Juvenal—who allowed no opportunity of for-warding his ends to be lost—declared that asfar as he was concerned he would do all hecould to maintain the ancient dignity of the seeof Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maximum, 119[92]). No further action, however, seems tohave been taken either by Leo or by Maximus.Juvenal was left master of-the situation, and thechurch of Jerusalem has from that epochpeaceably enjoyed the patriarchal dignity ob-tained for it by such base means.

We must now return to the part taken byJuvenal in the council of Ephesus and the suc-ceeding councils of the church. Celestine ofRome, having held a synod which had pro-nounced the dogmas published by Nestoriusheretical, wrote to the leading bishops of theChristian world, including Juvenal, informingthem that he had excommunicated Nestoriusand all who thought with him. This letter isdated Aug. 10, 430 A.D. At the same timeCelestine wrote to the same effect to Cyril(Baluz. Concil. Nov. Coll. c. 15, p. 438). Onthe receipt of the pope’s letters Cyril at oncewrote to Juvenal, John of Antioch, and others,calling upon them to join him in defence of thecommon faith. He begged Juvenal to makecommon cause with him, and send a commonitoryletter to Nestorius, warning him of the con-sequences of his obstinacy, and also to write tothe emperor, to the officers of the court, and thepeople of Constantinople, to dispose them toconsent to the deposition of Nestorius if heshould refuse to yield (Labbe, Concil. iii. 386,Baluz. p. 443, c. 19). On the opening of thecouncil at Ephesus, June 22, 431, Juvenal, ashas been mentioned, occupied the second placeafter Cyril, and took a prominent part in thecondemnation of Nestorius. At a later periodJuvenal was one of the eight legates deputed bythe council, together with the same numberfrom the Orientals ki compliance with theorders of Theodosius, and aided in the consecra-tion of Maximian in Nestorius’s room, Oct. 25,431 (Labbe, iii. 780; Baluz. 571 sq.). As anact of retaliation, John of Antioch and theOrientals on their way back from Ephesus helda synod at Tarsus, which condemned and ex-communicated Cyril, and the deputies of thecouncil, Juvenal at their head (Baluz. 939).

When, in 449, the council stigmatized as the“ Latrocinium ” met at Ephesus, we find Juvenalagain playing an officiously prominent part.For this the letter of Theodosius to Dioscorusassigning the presidency of the council to him,t)}V avdevriau teal ra irpcoreta, and namingJuvenal and Thalassius of Caesarea as second inauthority, afforded a sufficient warrant (Labbe,iv. 109). On the opening of the council onAug. 8, Juvenal occupied the third place afterDioscorus, and Julius of Puteoli, the papal legate.In the shameful acts directed against thevenerable Flavian, by which Dioscorus followedup his triumph, Juvenal was the first to signthe instrument of his deposition for havingadded to and taken from the Nicene faith (ibtf306), and helped to force the unhappy bishopBi