action or inaction he was entitled freely to criticize. If S. Jerome in his younger days thought otherwise, his opinion must be quoted for what it is worth, either as his own personal view, or at most as the theory which he had imbibed at Rome. It was not the general view of the saints or of the Church. It does not represent the tradition received from the apostles.

And practically what did S. Jerome gain by following the lead of Damasus? Why, this! that he joined himself to the separatist body of which Paulinus was bishop, and rejected the communion of S. Meletius, the true occupant of the apostolic see of Antioch. Six years after his letter to Damasus, he must have had his Romanizing views somewhat rudely shaken. By that time the Eastern Church had got out of its difficulties. The persecuting Emperor Valens was dead. The orthodox Theodosius was on the throne. The second Ecumenical Council was assembled at Constantinople, and S. Jerome himself was residing in that city. The Ultramontane historian, Cardinal Orsi, tells us that "perhaps there has not been a council in which has been found a greater number of confessors and saints." There were gathered S. Gregory of Nazianzus, S. Gregory of Nyssa, S. Peter of Sebaste, S. Amphilochius of Iconium, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Eulogius of Edessa, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, and many more. And who was the prelate who was recognized by all as worthy of presiding over this wonderful assemblage? Cardinal Orsi shall tell us. "But above all," he says, "S. Meletius was pre-eminent, both for the dignity of his see, and for the excellency of his virtue." We must remember that S. Meletius was still out of communion with Rome. Damasus still supported the separatist body under Paulinus, and still refused letters of communion to Meletius. However, that blessed saint, though rejected by Rome, was accepted with veneration by the Church; and by the agreement of all he took his seat in the presidential chair of the second Ecumenical Council. According to S. Jerome's youthful view, he was off "the rock," he was "outside the ark," he

"2

1 Orsi, Ist. Ecc., xviii. 63 (tom. viii. p. 135, ed. Rom. 1751): "Dimodochè non v'è forse concilio, nel quale si sia trovato un maggior numero di confessori e di santi."

2 "Sopra tutti però risplendeva sì per la dignità della sede, sì per l'eccellenza della virtù s. Melezio."

3 Orsi (xviii. 64, tom. viii. p. 137) says, "Il capo, il condottiere, il padre, e la guida di questa sacra adunanza finchè egli visse, fu s. Melezio, e dopo la sua morte s. Gregorio, e finalmente dopo la sua dimissione Nettario." Orsi here enumerates the three prelates, who in succession presided over the council, viz. S. Meletius, S. Gregory of Nazianzus, and finally Nectarius. Hefele (Councils, Eng. trans., ii. 344) says, "Meletius of Antioch at first presided, and after his death Gregory of Nazianzus."

was among "the profane." One may fairly suppose that this object-lesson on a large scale must have driven those fancies out of S. Jerome's mind. I do not think that he ever again recurs to them.1 While the council was still sitting, S. Meletius died, still out of communion with Rome. One may say that he was canonized there and then. The saints vied with each other in preaching his panegyric. We still possess S. Gregory Nyssen's discourse on the occasion. The people flocked to get strips of linen which had touched his body. That body was embalmed and transported with all honour to Antioch ; and five years afterwards, S. Chrysostom, preaching on his festival, tells us of the devotion which the faithful of Antioch felt towards their glorious saint.3 Even Rome had ultimately to alter her views; and though the pope repudiated him and allowed him to be insulted as an Arian during his life, the Roman Church invokes him as a saint now that he is dead. His name is entered in the Roman Martyrology on the 12th of February. I think that I was justified in saying that, however much Pope Damasus might have succeeded, with the help of the imperial power, in enlarging his jurisdiction in the West, the East continued firm in her traditional belief and practice, and acknowledged no jurisdiction, but only a primacy of honour, in the occupant of the papal chair.

APPENDIX D.

Did the Council of Chalcedon blame Dioscorus for presiding over the Latrocinium without papal authorization? Did Hosius preside at Nicaea as a papal legate? (see p. 138).

THERE is a passage in Dr. Rivington's book, in which he is arguing in favour of the notion that Hosius was acting as legate of Pope Silvester when he presided at the Council of Nicaea. In the course of his argument Dr. Rivington says, "Could the Council of Chalcedon have blamed Dioscorus for sitting as president in the presence of papal legates

1 See Additional Note 67, p. 488.

2 Tillemont (xxi. 662) says, "Si tous ceux qui meurent hors de la communion de Rome, ne peuvent meriter le titre de Saints et de Confesseurs, c'estoit à lui [Baronius] à faire effacer du Martyrologe S. Melece et S. Flavien d'Antioche, S. Elie de Jerusalem, et S. Daniel Stylite." I have discussed more fully the question whether S. Meletius died out of communion with Rome on pp. 346-350. 3 Hom. in S. Melet., Opp., ed. Ben., 1734, ii. 518-523.

by the express order of the Emperor at the Robber-council of Ephesus, and no one have pressed the point that at Nice even a lesser Western bishop had sat above even Rome, not to speak of Alexandria and Antioch ? "1

The answer to this argument is very simple. Dioscorus was never blamed by the Council of Chalcedon for presiding in the presence of the papal legates at the Robber-synod. And the fact of this absence of blame is all the more significant, because one of S. Leo's legates at Chalcedon, the Bishop Lucentius, did, in the very first session of the council, bring forward as a special accusation against Dioscorus that he had "held a council [the Latrocinium] without the permission of the Apostolic See," a thing, he said, "which never was done, and never was lawful." That point, therefore, was brought clearly before the notice of the council. It is consequently very important to observe that there is not the faintest allusion to this charge in any of the 193 sentences condemning Dioscorus, which have been preserved in the Latin acts of the council. The legates themselves, when they came to formulate their sentence of condemnation, did not venture to make any reference to this point. Nor is it mentioned in the various letters of the council, announcing the deposition of Dioscorus, and addressed respectively to the culprit himself, to the clergy of Alexandria, to the two Emperors, and to the Empress Pulcheria. The charge had been made in what seems to have been a passing remark of one of the legates, but it led to no result, and it was either tacitly withdrawn, or set aside by the council as inappropriate.

The fact is that S. Leo himself did not publicly claim any inherent right to preside at an Ecumenical Council; and he acted wisely, for he had no such right; and if he had made any claim of that kind, he would have run a great risk of seeing it disallowed.

It is interesting to compare the expressions used by S. Leo about the position to be occupied by the legates whom he was sending to the Robber-synod, with the parallel expressions which he used two years afterwards about the legates whom he was sending to Chalcedon. In the case of the Robber-synod, the Emperor, "following," to use his own words, "the rule of the holy Fathers," had appointed Dioscorus, who was at that time the universally acknowledged Pope of Alexandria, to preside. S. Leo, therefore, carefully avoided saying a word about his legates presiding. In various letters, addressed respectively to the Emperor, to Pulcheria, to Bishop Julian of Cos, and to the Robber-synod itself, he defines the function of his legates to be that of representing his own presence. These are his words: “qui ad vicem praesentiae meae pro negotii qualitate sufficerent; "7" qui vicem praesentiae meae implere 199 66 "8"qui praesentiae meae impleant vicem;"

sufficerent;

1 Prim. Church, p. 163.

3 Ibid., iv. 1303-1335.

5 Ibid., iv. 1348-1356.

quos ex latere

7 S. Leon. Ep. xxix. ad Theodosium Augustum, P. L., liv. 783.

8 Ep. xxx. ad Pulcheriam Augustam, P. L., liv. 789.

Ep. xxxvii. ad Theodosium Augustum, P. L., liv. 812. Similarly, in the commonitorium of Pope Zosimus, which was read at the Council of Carthage in

meo vice mea misi; "1 "qui vice mea sancto conventui vestrae fraternitatis intersint." 2 It will be noticed that there is not a word here about presidency.

After the conclusion of the Robber-council, amid all S. Leo's complaints about what had taken place there, he never once formulated any protest against Dioscorus having presided.3 That point had been settled by Theodosius, the convener of the council.

But when two years later, in June, 451, S. Leo had received Marcian's edict convoking the council which was ultimately held at Chalcedon, he pointed out to the Emperor that strong reasons existed, which made it desirable that at this new council his chief legate should preside. In his letter (Ep. lxxxix., P. L., liv. 930) he first names his legates and specially the chief legate, Paschasinus, "qui vicem praesentiae meae possit implere." Then he forecasts what the issue of the council is likely to be. And finally in cautious words he approaches the question of the presidency. He says, "But because certain of the brethren (I mention the matter with sorrow) have failed in maintaining catholic firmness in opposition to the whirlwinds of error, it is convenient (convenit) that my aforesaid brother and fellow-bishop [Paschasinus] should preside in my place over the synod." It was, in fact, the case that at that particular moment the occupants of all the great sees had either been mixed up with the Robber-council, or had been in close relations with those who had been leaders in that disastrous assembly, and it was eminently desirable that S. Leo's legates should May, 419 (Mansi, iv. 403), that pope, addressing his legates, Faustinus, Philip, and Asellus, says, "Vos ita ut nostra, imo quia nostra ibi in vobis praesentia est, cuncta peragite." The legates did not preside, although Zosimus' presence was regarded as being in them (see p. 185).

1 Ep. xxxiv. ad Julianum Episcopum Coensem, P. L., liv. 802.

2

Ep. xxxiii. ad Ephesinam Synodum Secundam, P. L., liv. 799.

It may, perhaps, be asked whether any protest was made against Dioscorus presiding, by the pope's legates, at the Latrocinium. It must be stated in reply that the legates were undoubtedly present at and took part in the long proceedings of the first session, notwithstanding the fact that they did not preside. They probably did make a protest of some kind against the presidency of Dioscorus, and claimed for themselves that function, as representing the first see. The only question that can be raised is—whether they took their seats in the second place, next after the president, Dioscorus, or whether, by way of accentuating their protest against his presidency, they refused to take their seats, and stood during the whole session. Hefele (Councils, iii. 259) appears to favour the latter view. The idea that the legates stood rests mainly on an obscure passage of Liberatus (Breviar., cap. xii., P. L., lxviii. 1004), an archdeacon of Carthage, who wrote an historical account of the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, more than a hundred years after the date of the Latrocinium. The obscurity of the passage in Liberatus is admitted by the Jesuit Garnier, who edited his works (cf. P. L., Ixviii. 1008). Liberatus does not seem to have seen the Acts of the Latrocinium, but he undoubtedly had access to good documents; yet he occasionally makes mistakes. He speaks of Ibas being summoned three times to appear before the council, whereas Ibas was in prison at Antioch, and the Acts make no mention of his being summoned. It seems to me that Liberatus possibly based his statement about the legates on a misunderstanding of an exclamation, which was made by the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, who were present at the Council of Chalcedon, and which is recorded in the acts of that council (Coleti, iv. 896). The matter is of no real consequence, but my own impression is that the legates sat; and this seems to be Garnier's own view (u.s.), as it certainly is Tillemont's (xv. 904, 905).

preside at the council which was going to reverse the decisions of Dioscorus and his accomplices. There was no great commanding character like Hosius, occupying a lesser see, who could be appropriately raised to the presidency. The interests of Christendom demanded that the Emperor should come to a determination in favour of Paschasinus and his colleagues. But it is important to notice that Leo makes no claim of possessing any inherent right to preside. He does not venture to say that, as the divinely appointed monarch of the Church, he and none but he or his representatives could be thought of for the presidential chair. He argues the matter in a perfectly reasonable way, and his reasoning had its effect. His legates did preside.

Accordingly, in his letter to the council he names his legates, and adds, "Let your fraternities consider that in these brethren I am presiding over the synod, my presence not being separated from you, since I am with you in my representatives."1 Previously, when writing to the Robber-council, he had said concerning his legates, "In my place they are present in the holy assembly of your fraternities ;"2 but he had made no allusion to his presiding in his representatives over the council. The contrast between his language in the one case and in the other is clear. Whatever he may have thought in his heart of hearts about his own right to preside, he knew well that the Church at large was willing to accept a president from the orthodox Emperor, and that the urging of his own claim on the ground of inherent right would be a perfectly futile proceeding which could only end in disaster.

If this was the state of opinion in the Church in the time of S. Leo, we can well believe that in the time of the Council of Nicaea, 125 years earlier, Constantine, who convoked the council, would as a matter of course appoint the president. If S. Silvester had himself been present at the council, it seems probable to me that he would have been appointed president; but in Silvester's absence one would expect that the choice of Constantine would fall upon Hosius. S. Athanasius says that Hosius was "of all men the most illustrious ;"3 and the same great Father asks, "When was there a council held in which Hosius did not take the lead, and by right counsel convince every one"? When S. Athanasius is referring to the leading bishops of Christendom, he names Hosius before the pope. He says, "They have conspired against so many other bishops of high character, and have spared neither the great confessor Hosius, nor the Bishop of Rome, nor so many others from the Spains, and the Gauls, and Egypt, and Libya, and other countries." 5 Professor Gwatkin calls Hosius "the patriarch of Christendom." Moreover, he was Constantine's chief adviser in ecclesiastical matters. When the Emperor wished to facilitate the manumission of slaves by Christians, he addressed his edict to Hosius, as being the representative bishop of his time. When the Arian disturbance was first brought before the notice

Ep. xciii. ad Synodum, P. L., liv. 937.

2 Cf. Ep. xxxiii., quoted on p. 168.

S. Athan. Apol. de Fuga, § 5.

5 Op. cit., § 9.

Cf. Cod. Theod., iv. 7. 1.

4 Loc. cit.

• Studies of Arianism, p. 147.