308 THE CASE OF NESTORIUS VAINLY ALLEGED. wise and considerate persons, such as Theodosius M. [the Great] was.' De Marca represents the matter somewhat otherwise out of So- crates;' but take the matter as Socrates has it, and it signifies no more than that both Theophilus and Damasuswould not entertain communion with Flavianus, as being incapableof the episcopal order, for having violated his oath and caused a division in the church of Antioch. What is this to judicial deposition? Andhowdid Damasus more depose him than Theophilus, who, upon the same dissatisfac- tion, in like manner forbore communion? whenas, indeed, a wiser and better man than either of them, St Chrysostom, held commu- nion with him, and at length, says Socrates (not agreeing with Theodoret), reconciled him to them both. They allege the deposition of Nestorius. But whoknows not that he was for heretical doctrine deposed in and by a general synod? Pope Celestine, indeed, threatened to withdraw [from] his communion if he did not renounce his error;' but had not any other bishopsuffi- cient authority to desert a perverter of the faith? Did not his own clergy do the same, being commended by Pope Celestine for it?' Did not Cyril, in writing to Pope Celestine himself, affirm that he might before have declared that he could not communicate with him?' Did Nestorius admit the pope's judgment? No; as the papal legates complained, " he did not admit the constitution of the apos- tolical chair."6 Did the pope's sentence obtain effect? No, not any; for, notwithstanding his threats, Nestorius held his place till the synod. The emperor severely rebuked Cyril (and implicitly the pope) for his fierceness, and ordered that no change should be made till the synod should determine in the case, not regarding the pope's judgment. So that this instance may well be retorted, or used to prove the insignificancy of papal authority then. They allege also Dioscorus of Alexandria, deposed by Pope Leo. But the case is very like to that of Nestorius, and argues the contrary to what they intend. He was, for his misdemeanours and violent countenancing of heresy, solemnly in a general synod accused, tried, 1 Theod. v. 9. 07Ts ,;:ís ÉzrapxíaÇ, za( TIs aYaTOxrxnÇ Slorx oEWÇ ,7v4 pa/SÓYTEÇ Y.aYO- ,,x&Ç {xsrpoTÓVnoav ... I vcrEp gyAsq.cov zsrpoTOvíaY ÉSégatO %a% TÚ Tñs euvá1ou xorváv. 2 Socr. v. 15; Marc. iii. 14, § 1. s ro..n , TOI, Ir, xÚTÓs 'AV 3p vripav xocYOlv3aY °IVA, oÚ Sr/ Veda,, 11v ¡rñ, &o. P. Celest. ad Cyril. in Cone. Eph., Act. p. 281. naYTEx3ç icrs TO3ovveSpíou 371.c01v, xai Tñs Täv Xprr.ravxv ova. áxsxxsíçAn;, LA, IA siAéws Tá xaxw"; sipsa'sva úzró ooi; SropOxiI. Ibid, Ep. adNest., p. 186. 'Azró Tñs 3,*evr pas xorvwvias ázroxapíiopvsv. Ad. Joh. Ant., p. 196. Maxapía I) öp4OYs i áy'Exn, ñ aapáoxsv ó xúpros xp,vuY zrspi rig iIías Yopzñs P. Celest. ad Clerwn,, 4-c.; Const. Act. Eph., p. 190. 5 'Er:, I) 41E3x3yc» xai Tor ßouxnAsïg oEasI,q ypa'pp4a?r xarao.ñoal, 7r TavTa xéyovrr xai Opovzúvrr xorvxvsiv si Suvápcsia. Cyril. Ep. adCelest. Act. Eph., p. 177. s Táv Túaov Tñs &,,roçr,xrxñ; xaiíIpa; six iSé aTS.Cone. Eph., Act. iii., p. 331. Vid. Theodos. ii. ; Ep. in Conc. Eph., pp. 224, 225.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=