328 BELLARMINE'S CASES OF APPEAL REFUTED. rather conceived all such foreign judicatures to be unreasonable and unjust, for the argument which he darts at Theophilus does as well reach the papal jurisdiction upon appeals: for, " It was," says he, " not congruous that an Egyptian should judge those in Thrace."' Why not an Egyptian as well as an Italian? And, "If," says he, " this custom should prevail, and it become lawful for those whowill to go into the parishes of others, even from such distances, and to cast out whom any one pleases, doing by their own authority what they please, know that all things will go to wreck."3 Why may not this be said of a Roman as well as of an Alexandrian? St Chrysostom also, we may observe, not only applied himself to the pope, but to other western bishops,' particularly to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia, whom he called " Beatissimi domini;" did he appeal to them? He alleges Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, appealing to Pope Leo ;4 but let us consider the story. Flavianus, for his ortho- doxy, or upon other accounts, very injuriously treated and oppressed by Dioscorus, who was supported by the favour of the imperial court, having in his case no other remedy, appealed to thepope, who alone among the patriarchs had dissented from those proceedings. The pope was himself involved in the cause, being of the same persua- sion, having been no less affronted and hardly treated (considering their power, and that he was out of their reach), and condemned by the same adversaries. To him, therefore, as to the leading bishop of Christendom, in the first place interested in defence of the common faith, together with a synod, not to him as sole judge, Flavianus appealed. " He," says Placidia, in her letter to Theodosius, " appealed to the apostolic see, and to all thebishops of these parts; "` that is, to the rest of Chris- tendomwhich were not engaged in the party of Dioscorus. And to whom else could he have appealed? Valentinian, inhis epistletoTheodosius in behalf ofPope Leo, says that he appealed xar& e-ò '¿ oç swv suv6?av, p. 25," according to the mannerof synods:" and whateverthese words signify, that could not be to the pope as a single judge; for before that time in what synod 1 O¿ yáp ár.áT.ouBov >v móv Aiyúm'mctv moi; tv H)páx;f SsxdZ"v. 2 Ei yá? mavma ,aramñout mó Vat xai iVv<yÉVOlmo mais ßoLT.apaÉVLI; tl> áx7.ompfas ávlrévai a'apolxias, xai Éf5 maoaúmmv SlaomnKámaJr, oús äv ÉAfi.i.al 715, xaT ÉgoLPlar iiar srpámmovmas Zlsrap áv lpixarolv, 7oma öma srávma oixrloamay &c.Ep. cxxii. 8 Scripsimus ista et ad VeneriumMediolanensem, et ad Chromatium Aquilegiensem episcópum.Pallad. cap. ii. Flavianus autem contra se prolata sententia per ejus legatos sedem apostolicam appellavit libello.Liber. cap. xii. Necessitate,coactus fuit ita agere, eo quod reliqui patriarchæ adessent, &c.Marc. vii. 7. 5 `ns srpoay4.4tvov, &c.Placidia. npát máv icsroomallxór &pávov r.ai srpás srávmas :xloxú- srous TL's pat¡ar mcGmar. Syn. Chalo., Act. i. p. 26.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=