326 BELLARMINE'S CASES OF APPEAL REFUTED. He alleges Marcion as appealing to the pope, anno 142. The truth was, that Marcion, for having corrupted a maid, was by his own father, bishop of Sinope, "driven from the church, ' whereupon he thence fled to Rome, there "begging admittance to communion, but none granted it;"' at which he expostulating, they replied, "We cannot without the permission of thy honourable father do this; for there is one faith and one concord, and we can- not cross thy father, our good fellow minister."' This was the case and issue. And is it not strange this should be produced for an ap- peal, which was only a supplication of a fugitive criminal to be ad- mitted to communion, and wherein is utterly disclaimed any power to thwart the judgment of a particular bishop or judge, upon account of unity in common faith and peace? Should the pope return the same answer to every appellant, what would become of his privilege? So that theymust give us leave to retort this as a pregnant instance against their pretence. He alleges the forementioned address of Felicissimus and Fortu- natus to Pope Cornelius, anno 252, which was but a factious circum- cursation [running about] of desperate wretches; which, or any like it, St Cyprian argues, the pope in law and equity obliged not to re- gard,' because a definitive sentence was already passed on them by their proper judges in Africa, from whom, in conscience and reason, there could be no appeal. So Bellarmine would filch from us one of our invincible arguments against him. He also alleges the case of Basilides; which also we before showed to make against him, his application to the pope being disavowed by St Cyprian, and proving ineffectual.' These are' all the instances which the first three hundred years afforded; so that all that time this great privilege lay dormant. He alleges the recourse of Athanasius to Pope Julius, anno 350; but this was not properly to him as to a judge, but as to a fellow- bishop, a friend of truth and right, for his succour and countenance against persecutors of him, chiefly for his orthodoxy.' The pope undertook to examine his plea; partly as arbitrator upon reference of both parties; partly for his own concern, to satisfy himself whether he might admit him to communion. And having heard and weighed things, the pope denied that he was condemned in a legal wayby competent judges, and that therefore the pretended sen- tence was null; and consequentlyhe didnot undertake the cause as 1 Epiph. Har. xlii. 'EEcoüma, Tñt lxxlnaíat. R'AoroB,ópáuxtu xai áv8ow si; Tñv'PwFcnv. S Ob auváFeaAa ävcv T>7t Éorrmpoa';jt Tell Tyeíou orampát ooú ToúTO omoeW Foia yáp icT, orlPTit, zaJ pico óFeóvoca, zoo) oú óuvá¡ccAa évavm,wAñvaI Tgr xaxr; vu.1.x"TOVpyá oraTpi TW Tii. 4 Cypr., Ep. lv. 6 Cypr., Ep. lxviii. 6 yóávxortt IA xaTa).ivtmt Tryt aivccmt Tát xaAarfiTS,t yEVíoFa,.SOCr. ii. 20.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=