century.1 As regards the summoning of patriarchal synods, I know of no instance of such a proceeding on the part of the pope during the times anterior to the rescript of Gratian.2 In those earlier times the Roman see had always been the head of the West. It was the only Western apostolic see. It was being continually consulted, as being for the West the great repository of apostolical traditions. Moreover, the pope was, as a rule, the representative and spokesman of the West in all dealings with the East. But all this honour and influence did not amount to what in later times would be called patriarchal jurisdiction. The germ of such a jurisdiction was created by the Council of Sardica; and a substantial instal· ment of the fulness of such jurisdiction was conferred on the Roman see by the Emperors Valentinian and Gratian. The Eastern patriarchates were created by the synodical legislation of the Church.4 The Roman patriarchate was really created by the Emperors. No doubt the provisions of the final rescript of Gratian had been sanctioned by the council of Italian bishops, which met at Rome in May or June, 382. But an Italian council had no power to speak in the name of the churches of Gaul, or of Africa, or of Britain, or of Ireland, and therefore it is no wonder that the new patriarchal jurisdiction, claimed by Rome, met with a determined resistance both in Africa and in Gaul, and that it was ignored in Britain and Ireland. As we shall see, it needed further imperial legislation before this new jurisdiction was really accepted in Gaul. It was repudiated by the African Church in the time of S. Augustine; and centuries would have to elapse before the Celtic Churches of Great Britain and of Ireland bowed their necks to the Roman yoke.

Ecclesiastically, the new legislation, so far as it applied to countries outside of Italy, was null and void. Still, it was

1 See Dom Ruinart's Disquisitio Historica de Pallio Archiepiscopali, cap. xi., in the Ouvrages Posthumes de D. Jean Mabillon et de D. Thierri Ruinart, edit. 1724, tom. ii. pp. 457-460.

* The Roman council, over which Pope Damasus presided in 371, was attended by 93 bishops from Italy and Gaul; but it was a council held "ex rescripto imperiali" (cf. Coleti, ii. 1043), and therefore it affords no proof that Damasus was accustomed to convoke the bishops of the whole West to assemble in patriarchal synod.

On the question whether Gratian enlarged the jurisdiction given to the Roman bishop by Valentinian, see the Additional Note 66, p. 487.

Compare the second canon of the second Ecumenical Council (Hefele, ii. 354, 355), and also the sixth canon attributed to the same council (Hefele, ii. 363-365), but really emanating from the Council of Constantinople of the year 382. Compare also the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon (Hefele, iii. 410, 411), and the action by which the Council of Chalcedon created the patriarchate of Jerusalem (Hefele, iii. 382).

5 Ireland was outside the limits of the Roman empire, and therefore in that country the new Roman patriarchate had not a basis even in civil legislation. It was not until the twelfth century that the Irish Church became Romanized.

law, and the powers given to the pope were capable of being enforced by the whole might of the Roman empire. Was I not right in saying that the pontificate of Damasus forms a new point of departure in regard to all matters connected with the growth of the papal jurisdiction? I sometimes think that the Roman pontiffs, having acquired this vast extension of jurisdiction by the act of the civil power without any proper concurrence of the Church, were driven to devise some presentable theory which should constitute a religious basis for the new authority which they had acquired. Their vague claim to be successors of S. Peter would be an obvious basis to put forward. That claim, in the sense in which they made it, being really unhistorical and baseless, there could be no definition of the privileges conferred by it, either in Scripture or tradition. This absence of authoritative definition would leave them free to plead their succession from S. Peter as a religious basis for a jurisdiction derived from the Emperor. Whether Damasus did so plead it I cannot say, but I find in the decretals of Siricius, the successor of Damasus, a new way of speaking about the privileges supposed to be inherited by the Roman see from S. Peter. I must, however, finish what I have to say about Damasus before passing on to Siricius.

In January, 379, the Emperor Gratian joined Theodosius. to himself as a partner in the government of the empire, and he assigned the East to Theodosius, while he reserved the West as his own immediate share. The empire had been divided in this way on previous occasions, but Gratian's partition did not proceed exactly on the old lines. Hitherto, as a rule, Eastern as well as Western Illyricum had belonged to the West. Now Gratian gave up Eastern Illyricum and united it to that part of the empire, which he was committing to Theodosius.1 Damasus saw very clearly that there was great danger that Eastern Illyricum would pass away from his sphere of influence, or rather (to use what after the legislation of the Council of Sardica and of the Emperor Valentinian would be the more accurate expression) from his jurisdiction, unless something was done to safeguard his rights. We may be certain that, though eighteen years later the Catholic Council of Sardica seems not to have been known to S. Augustine, and though thirty-nine years later the Sardican canons were unknown to the bishops of the African Church generally, yet both the council and its canons were

1 Tillemont (Histoire des Empereurs, ed. 1701, tom. v. pp. 716-718) shows that Gratian gave Eastern Illyricum to Theodosius, when he made him Emperor, i.e. in 379. Compare Duchesne (Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 41).

2 Cf. S. August. Ep. xliv. cap. iii. § 6, P. L., xxxiii. 176.

well known in 379 in Eastern Illyricum. Sardica is itself situated in Eastern Illyricum, and three of the Sardican canons1 dealt with local matters connected with the Church of Thessalonica, the most powerful see in Eastern Illyricum. Moreover out of 77 bishops present at Sardica, whose sees are known, 42 came from Eastern Illyricum.2 If the canons of Sardica were in force there, then undoubtedly Damasus had a certain jurisdiction of a limited kind in the Eastern Illyrian provinces. But besides the jurisdiction conferred by the canons of Sardica, there was the newer and much fuller jurisdiction conferred by Valentinian. Damasus would be very loth to lose those fair provinces out of his patriarchate.1 At the same time, it would not be very easy for him to interfere otherwise than exceptionally in the affairs of provinces which belonged to the Eastern Emperor. He therefore gave a commission to Acholius, Bishop of Thessalonica, creating him his vicar in Eastern Illyricum, and authorizing him to exercise the powers which belonged to himself as Patriarch of the West.5 This was the first instance of the popes attempting anything of this kind. Until the Council of Sardica there would have been no ground for such action, because up to that time the popes had no jurisdiction of any sort or kind outside of Italy. But the legislation of Valentinian I., confirmed later on by that of Gratian, had made Damasus a very great potentate, a sort of spiritual prefect of the praetorium throughout the West; and as the prefects had their vicars, so the popes would think that it was natural for them to have vicars also. Accordingly Acholius of Thessalonica was empowered by Damasus to exercise whatever jurisdiction he, the pope, possessed in the provinces of Eastern Illyricum.6

1 Namely, the sixteenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth, according to Hefele's numbering.

2 Compare Gwatkin's Studies in Arianism, p. 121, note I.

It is worth mentioning that one of the Sardican canons on appeals to Rome, namely, the fourth, was proposed by a bishop of Eastern Illyricum, Gaudentius of Naissus in Dacia.

⚫ Cf. Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 41.

If Damasus had thought that there was any possibility of making good a claim to universal jurisdiction over the whole East, there would have been as much necessity for him to create vicars in Egypt and Syria and Asia Minor as in Eastern Illyricum.

The proof of this statement may be seen in the letters of Pope Innocent I. to Anysius and Rufus, two successive bishops of Thessalonica, in which he confirms to Anysius and imparts to Rufus vicarial powers over Eastern Illyricum, and refers to the similar action taken by his predecessors, Damasus, Siricius, and Anastasius, in favour of Acholius, the predecessor of Anysius, and of Anysius himself (cf. Coleti, Concilia, v. 845, 846). The letters of Damasus to Acholius and Anysius, to which Innocent here refers, are lost; for the two letters of Damasus to Acholius, which were read at the Roman Council under Boniface II., in A.D. 531, have

While the see of Rome was thus enlarging the bounds of its jurisdiction in the West by the help of the imperial power, its relations with the East remained unchanged, so far as jurisdiction was concerned. No doubt the East was conscious that a great ecclesiastical power was rising in the West, but it was a power to which it owed no allegiance, but only the debt of Christian brotherhood and charity, and the respect due to the see which had the primacy of honour. The attitude of the East towards Rome comes out very clearly in connexion with the schism of Paulinus at Antioch. The origin of that schism goes as far back as the year 330, or the beginning of 331, when S. Eustathius, the orthodox Bishop of Antioch, was deposed on false charges of Sabellianism and immorality, by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and other bishops, who sympathized in varying degrees with Arianism. The Emperor Constantine banished S. Eustathius from Antioch; but before departing, Eustathius enjoined on his people the duty of patiently continuing in the Church of Antioch, even though Arianizing bishops might be set over them. They were to remain and strengthen the faith of the poor and uninstructed, and to do what they could to resist the wolves who would otherwise ravage the flock.1 S. Chrysostom, who tells us this, adds that events showed the wisdom of the saint's counsel, for the great mass of the Catholics refused to set up any separate conventicles, but attended the principal churches of the city, even when the bishops thrust in by the Arianizing Emperors were heretical; and so the flock remained Catholic, though it had a succession of heretical chief pastors. At last, by the good providence of God, a saintly and orthodox bishop, Meletius, who had formerly occupied the see of Sebaste in the Lesser Armenia, was appointed Bishop of Antioch. Catholics and nothing to do with this particular subject. The original letter from Siricius to Anysius is also lost, but a second letter referring to some of the contents of the first is extant (cf. Coleti, ubi supr.). Duchesne, in an article entitled L'Illyricum ecclésiastique (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, erster Band, p. 543, 1892; see also his Eglises Séparées, p. 259, edit. 1896), seems to pass over the action of Damasus in this matter, and to suppose that the vicariate of Thessalonica was created by Siricius. I do not understand how the clear statement of Pope Innocent can be got rid of; but, whichever view is finally adopted, my argument remains unaffected.

were not

1 Cf. S. Chrys. Hom. in S. Eustathium, § 4, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 609. 2 Tillemont (x. 524) says that these Arianizing bishops of Antioch ". visibly separated from the communion of the universal Church, and most of them concealed their heresy somewhat." However, Stephen and Eudoxius were openly heretical. The former was anathematized by name at the Council of Sardica, as being one of the heads of the Arian heresy." And S. Hilary, in his Lib. contr. Constantium Imp. (cap. xiii., P. L., x. 591, 592), describes the horrible blasphemies which he heard Eudoxius utter in the church at Antioch, while he was bishop there. Baronius (Annall., ad ann. 362, § xlii., edit. 1654, iv. 24) calls Eudoxius "haereticorum omnium scelestissimus.'

66

Arians united in electing him, the Arians supposing him to be Arian, and the Catholics having reason to believe that he was Catholic. In a sermon, preached soon after his election, he plainly declared his sentiments, and openly professed the Catholic faith in its fulness in the presence of the Arian Emperor Constantius. Now, it happened that there was a small body of ardent Catholics in Antioch who had, ever since the banishment of S. Eustathius, held aloof from the main body of the Antiochene Church, and had worshipped separately, having as their leader a worthy priest named Paulinus. There was, no doubt, much to be said in justification of the course which they took, although it was in opposition to the counsel of S. Eustathius, whom they specially professed to follow, and after whose name they were commonly called Eustathians. But now that at length the bishop, accepted by the great majority of the Church people in the city, was thoroughly Catholic, there was a splendid opportunity for healing the schism. However, Paulinus and his party still held aloof. A few months after Meletius had been enthroned in the episcopal chair, the very celebrated and very influential Council of Alexandria was held under the presidency of S. Athanasius. This council carefully considered the position of affairs at Antioch, and it recommended that the whole body of Catholics in that city should unite together.1 It accordingly appointed a commission, headed by S. Eusebius of Vercellae, which was to proceed to Antioch and bring about the much-desired reunion. Unfortunately a hot-headed bishop from Sardinia, named Lucifer, who immediately afterwards broke away from the Church with his followers, reached Antioch before the commission sent by S. Athanasius and by the other Fathers of the Council of Alexandria. Instead of reuniting the two parties of Catholics, and inducing them all to acknowledge S. Meletius as bishop, which was obviously the right thing to do,2 Lucifer consecrated to the episcopate Paulinus, the priest of the Eustathians. Thus the schism was made tenfold more difficult to heal. Bishop was now pitted against bishop. But the blame of the accentuated schism, which ensued, must be laid on Lucifer who consecrated, and on Paulinus who allowed himself to be consecrated. This grievous scandal took place in the year 362. The great

1 Dom Montfaucon, the Benedictine editor of S. Chrysostom, in the Monitum to S. Chrysostom's homily De Anathemate (Opp. S. Chrys., ed. Ben., Venet., 1734, tom. i. p. 690), describes the action of S. Athanasius thus: "Athanasius in Synodo Alexandrinâ anno 362, totis viribus nitebatur, ut Eustathiani Meletianis adjungerentur, omnesque Catholici unum Meletium Episcopum agnoscerent."

2 See Cardinal Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century, 3rd edit., 1871, pp. 374, 375.