that they "were all utterly separated from communion," 1 because they kept Easter on the day of the Paschal full moon, on whatever day of the week that event might happen to fall. This, as far as I remember, was the first occasion when, on any large scale, the Church had an opportunity of showing by her action whether she really held the principle enunciated by Cardinal Wiseman, that communion with the see of Rome is the test which enables Catholics to be distinguished from schismatics. The Asian brethren were

entirely" (äpdnv) cut off from the communion of the pope. The question arose, Were they entirely cut off from the unity of the Church? Eusebius tells us that "Victor endeavoured to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with the neighbouring churches, as heterodox, from the common unity."2 The pope endeavoured, but did not succeed. Separation from the communion of the pope did not decide the question of separation from the unity of the Catholic Church, even though the crime for which the Asians had been condemned was the most serious one of "heterodoxy." The pope decreed that they were heterodox, but the great majority of the bishops held them to be orthodox, and they maintained their communion with Polycrates of Ephesus and his colleagues, and somewhat sharply rebuked the pope for his obstinacy, until at last he or his successor gave way, and the peace of the Church was restored. Assuredly Cardinal Wiseman's theory is not borne out by the episode of the Paschal controversy.

In a previous lecture I have gone so fully into the history of the baptismal controversy in the time of S. Cyprian, that there is no need to traverse the ground again. I will only recall the fact that Pope Stephen cut off from his communion S. Cyprian and the whole North African Church, and also S. Firmilian and the churches of Cappadocia and of the neighbouring provinces; but those great saints maintained their ground, knowing well that they retained their membership in the Catholic Church, although deprived of the communion of the Roman see; and the whole Church, from their day to ours, has justified their view on this point, even though, in regard to some other aspects of the general controversy, the

1 Euseb., H. E., v. 24.

2 Dom Coustant (Romanorum Pontificum Epistt., tom. i. col. 100, edit. 1721) says, "Neque propterea secum pugnare credendus est Eusebius cum Victorem dicit conatum esse Asianos abscindere. Et abscidit enim re verâ Asianos, cum eos a communione suâ removit; et conatus est ab Ecclesiae corpore segregare, cum ceteris Episcopis ad idem praestandum et literis et exemplo auctor fuit. At plerique eum potius commonendum censuerunt, ut in proposito non permaneret.' Compare Additional Note 6, pp. 436, 437.

3

Pope Nicholas I. confessed that "Videamus Victorem papam totius Ecclesiae praesulibus pertinaciae redargutum" (Coleti, ix. 1360). See Appendix A, pp. 72-77.

paene a

Q

Africans and Asians would find few supporters at the present time, at any rate in the West. I hardly suppose that any one will be ready to come forward in defence of the notion that S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian and the churches of the East and of the South were all in schism after Stephen had cut them off from his communion; but undoubtedly they must be pronounced to be schismatics, if Cardinal Wiseman's principle is a trustworthy test.

LECTURE VII.

THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.-I.

The thirty years of promiscuous communion in the East.A.D. 331 TO A.D. 361.

IN illustration of the general thesis which I have undertaken to prove and illustrate in this second part of my book -the thesis, I mean, that communion with the Roman see is not a necessary condition of membership in the Catholic Church-I pass now to the consideration of the relation of the Church of Antioch and of other Eastern churches to the Church of Rome during the larger part of the fourth century; and I shall draw special attention to the case of S. Meletius of Antioch and to that of S. Flavian, his successor. The whole history seems to me to throw light on the way in which Cardinal Wiseman's principle would have been viewed by great saints of the early Church.

We have seen that, after the deposition of S. Eustathius of Antioch, some time during the winter of 330-31,1 the Church of Antioch was governed during thirty years by a succession of bishops who were, all of them, Arians, some secretly and others openly. Their names were Euphronius,8 who sat from 331 to 333; Flacillus, who sat from 333 to 342; Stephen, who sat from 342 to 344; Leontius, who sat from 344 to 357; and Eudoxius, who sat from 357 to 359. After the deposition of Eudoxius by the Council of Seleucia, in October, 359, the see was vacant for more than a year,1 until

1 See p. 158.

2 On the open Arianism of some of these bishops, see note 2 on p. 158.

I follow Bishop Lightfoot (Smith and Wace, D. C. B., ii. 315, note e) in making Euphronius the immediate successor of S. Eustathius, thus getting rid of Eulalius mentioned by S. Jerome and Theodoret, and of Paulinus of Tyre, mentioned by Philostorgius.

I take no account of Anianus, who was appointed as successor to Eudoxius by the Council of Seleucia. He does not seem to have ever actually occupied the see.

the election of Meletius in the beginning of 361. The great majority of the Catholics of Antioch, following the advice of their unjustly deposed bishop, S. Eustathius, remained in communion with the heretical bishops who succeeded him;1 but a small body of zealous Catholics refused to hold any fellowship with bishops who were unsound on such a central article of the faith as the dogma of our Lord's Divinity, and held their assemblies apart, under the leadership of their priest, Paulinus. These dissidents were commonly called Eustathians. It must be thoroughly understood that the breach between the Eustathians and the Church of Antioch was complete. From the Eustathian point of view, the Church of Antioch was committed to deadly heresy by its acceptance of a succession of Arian bishops, and by the admission of other Arians to communion, which resulted from such acceptance.

I think that, considering the central character of the dogma which was in dispute, the Eustathians cannot be regarded as having fallen into a state of schism in consequence of their act of separation in 331. But still less can it be maintained that the great body of Antiochene Catholics lost their catholicity because, in accordance with S. Eustathius' counsel, they accepted, as their chief pastors, bishops who were in fact heretical. These successors of S. Eustathius remained in communion with the Catholic episcopate of both East and West for several years, and afterwards, when they lost the communion of the West, they still retained that of the East. It appears, therefore, that, as the result of the events of 331, the Church of Antioch was divided by a schism, but that neither party in the dispute was in schism. It happened then, as so often before and since, that the external social unity of the Church was in abeyance, while the fundamental unity remained.

However, even though it be admitted that the Eustathians, after their secession in 331, were not schismatics, it must be confessed that they were in an unfortunate position. They were a very small body, and they were apparently out of

1 Cf. S. Chrys. Hom. in S. Eustathium, § 4, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 609.

2 Tillemont (vii. 28), after speaking of the Arianizing successors of S. Eustathius, says that the followers of Paulinus "se crurent obligés de se séparer de leur communion;" and Professor Gwatkin (Studies of Arianism, p. 74) says that S. Eustathius' "departure was followed by an open schism, when the Nicene party refused to communicate with Euphronius." It should be observed that, although the Eustathians may be called "the Nicene party," as using the full terminology of the Nicene definitions, yet it must not be supposed that the great mass of the Antiochene Catholics were other than Nicene in their faith. They held the faith, although, in common with most Eastern Catholics, they in all probability refrained from using some of the Nicene expressions. They certainly did not regard the acceptance of those expressions as of vital importance.

Duchesne (Églises Séparées, p. 180), contrasting the Church of Antioch

communion with the bishops of the whole world. Euphronius, the first successor of S. Eustathius, from whose communion the Eustathians had withdrawn, enjoyed the communion of the Churches of Rome and of Alexandria, and generally of the West and of Egypt and of the East. Flacillus, the successor of Euphronius, took part in the Council of Tyre, which deposed and excommunicated S. Athanasius for supposed sacrilege. It would follow that from the date of that council, namely, 335, the Church of Antioch ceased to be in communion with the Church of Alexandria. But it still retained the communion of the great majority of the bishops both in East and West.

"2

So far as the East is concerned, one may refer to the synods held at Antioch in 339, 340, and 341, and especially to the great Council of the Dedication 1 held at midsummer in the last of these years. S. Hilary of Poitiers describes that council as a "sanctorum synodus.' The larger number of the Fathers present at it seem to have belonged to the conservative middle party, to which were attached the majority of the Eastern bishops; but there were some Eusebian intriguers, who, however, were also in Catholic communion. Flacillus of Antioch "probably presided." 8

That the Church of Antioch during the episcopate of Flacillus enjoyed the communion of the West is shown by its intercourse with S. Julius of Rome. Bishop Hefele says, "Even Pope Julius himself, although he strongly blames the Eusebians for their deposition of S. Athanasius, in no wise treats their assembly as an Arian cabal, but repeatedly calls them his 'dear brethren.' And did he not also invite them to a common synod to inquire into the charges made against Athanasius ?" Similarly, Stephen, the successor of Flacillus, and other Eastern bishops, who were in fact heretics, were summoned to the Council of Sardica in 343, as bishops of the Catholic Church.

This combination of Catholics and Arians in one communion continued both in the East and West until the time of the above-mentioned Council of Sardica. But the state

of things was changed by what took place at that council. It will be remembered that most of the Eastern bishops, who

with the Eustathian community, speaks of the one as "la grande église," and of the other as 66 une petite coterie." Similarly, Dom Maran, in his Preface to the third volume of the Benedictine edition of S. Basil's Works (§ ii., p. xi.), contrasts the "magna Meletii ecclesia" with the "pusillus Paulini conventus."

The council was so called, because it was assembled on the occasion of the

dedication of the "Golden Church" at Antioch.

2 S. Hilar. Lib. de Synodis, cap. xxxii., P. L., x. 504.

3 Hefele, ii. 58, E. tr.

4 Ibid., ii. 66.