306 THE CASE OF MARCIAN VAINLY ALLEGED. a consequent of the excommunication, andwas to be the work of the clergy and people of the place; for when, by common judgment of catholic bishops, any bishop was rejected, the people applied them- selves to choose another I adjoin the resolution of a very learned writer of their com- munion in these words: " In this case of Marcian, bishop ofArles, ifthe right of excommu- nication belonged solely to the bishop of Rome, wherefore did Faus- tinus, bishop of Lyons, advertise Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who was so far distant, concerning those very things touching Marcian, which both Faustinus himself, and other bishops of the same pro- vince, had before sent word of to Stephen, bishop of Rome, who lived nearest, being moreover of all bishops the chief? It must either be said that this was done because of Stephen's negligence, or, what is more probable, according to the discipline then used in the church, that all bishops of neighbouring places, but especially those presid- ing over the-most eminent cities, should join their counsels for the welfare of the church, and that the Christian religion might not re- ceive the least damage in any of its affairs. Hence it was that in the case of Marcia'', bishop of Arles, the bishop of Lyons wrote letters to the bishops of Rome and Carthage; and again, that the bishop of Carthage, as being most remote, wrote to the bishop of Rome, as being his brother and colleague, who, by reason of his propinquity, might more easily know and judge of the whole matter.' The other instances are of a later date, after the synod of Nice, and therefore of not so great weight; yea, their having none more ancient to produce strongly makes against the antiquityof this right, it being strange that no memory should be of any deposed thereby for above three hundred years. But, however, such as they are, they do not reach home to the purpose. They allegeFlavianus, bishopofAntioch, deposedbyPopeDamasus, as they affirm.' But it is wonderful they should have the face to mention that instance, the story in short being this: " The great Flavianus,"' a most worthy and orthodox prelate, whom St Chrysos- I In hac Marciani episcopi Arelatensis causa si jus abstinendi sive excommunicandi competebat soli episcopo Romano, cur Faustinus episcopus Lugdunensis Cypriano epis- copoCarthaginiensi longe dissito semel atque iterum significat ea de Marciano, quad jam utique ipso Faustinus et alii ejusdem provincia episcopi nunciaverant Stephano proximiori, et omnium episcoporumprincipi ? Dicendum igitur factum id fuisse aut pernegligentiam Stephani; aut, quod magis videtur, per disciplinano qua tune in ecciesia vigebat, ut omnes quidem in circumpositis locis, sed prasertim urbium clarissimarum episcopi in commune consulerent ecciesia, viderentquene quid detrimenti res Christiana catholica caperet. Itaque super isto Marciani Arelatensis facinore, Lugdunensem epis- copumad Romanum et Carthaginiensem dedisse literas, istum vero ut remotissimum dedisse vicissim suas ad Romanum, ut fratrem et collegano, qui in propinquo facilius posset de negotio et cognoscere et statuere.Rigalt. in Cypr., Ep. lxvii. 2 Bell. de Pont. R. ii. 18. 3 Tm luyály $Xcenavei; xatsaralvarrst> &o.Theod.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=