had obeyed the imperial summons to come to Sardica, withdrew in a body from the council; and after their departure they went on to organize themselves as an opposition council at Philippopolis. At Sardica, after the withdrawal of the Easterns, there were left about ninety-six Western bishops and six Easterns. At Philippopolis there were about eighty Easterns. The Western council proceeded to depose from the episcopate and excommunicate the Arian ringleaders, namely, Stephen of Antioch, Acacius of Caesarea, and six others.1 On the other hand, the Eastern council at Philippopolis anathematized Marcellus, who really was a heretic, and along with him S. Athanasius and other Catholic Easterns; and further, it excommunicated S. Julius of Rome, Hosius of Cordova, S. Maximin of Trier, and other Westerns; and it went so far as to include in its condemnation all those who should communicate with the leaders who had been cut off by name.1

The Council of Philippopolis may roughly be said to have represented the provinces belonging to what were afterwards known as the patriarchates of Constantinople and Antioch.5 This large section of the Church withdrew its communion from the West, as it had already, for the most part, withdrawn it from Egypt. It is important to notice that the Eastern bishops did not accuse S. Julius and the Westerns of heresy; but they anathematized them for admitting to their communion S. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and others, who on various grounds had been condemned in Eastern councils. Thus it came to pass that the external unity of the Church was broken on a large scale in the year 343. From that time onwards Arians were excluded from communion in the West and in Egypt; but the combination of Catholics and Arians in one communion continued as before

The council also excommunicated Basil of Ancyra and two others, who were considered to have invaded sees which were already occupied.

2 See p. 231, note 2.

3 Cf. S. Hilar. Fragm. iii. 27, 28, P. L., x. 674, 675.

Cf. op. cit. iii. 24, P. L., x. 672.

There was, however, at least one Western bishop at Philippopolis, namely, the shifty Arian, Valens of Mursa (cf. S. Hilar. Fragm. iii. 29, P. L., x. 678). He signed the encyclical of the synod last, as being in some sense a stranger.

The majority of the Eastern bishops at Philippopolis were by no means Arian in doctrine; they held substantially the Nicene faith, though, like S. Cyril of Jerusalem, they probably, through fear of Sabellianism and through antagonism to the really heretical views of Marcellus of Ancyra, scrupled at the word dμvoúσios. The Council of Sardica carefully avoided bringing any charge of heresy against the Eastern Church as a whole. But there can be no doubt that some of the Eastern leaders, as, for example, Stephen of Antioch, and others of the rank and file, were real Arians. Yet the creed put out at Philippopolis expressly condemns some of the Arian positions. It was one of the creeds contained in the composite formula which was signed by Pope Liberius at Sirmium, in 358.

in the larger part of the East, and that combination did not begin to be dissolved until 361.1

The Council of Sardica had been convoked with the intention of its being an ecumenical council, but, owing to the secession of the Easterns, that intention failed. If it had really been ecumenical, its sentence of deposition and excommunication passed upon Stephen of Antioch, Acacius of Caesarea, and the six other Arian ringleaders would have taken effect; but, as it was in fact merely a Western council, while it could withdraw the communion of the West from those Easterns whom it condemned, it had no authority to depose them from their sees or to separate them from the communion of the Catholic Church. Similarly, the anathemas of the Council of Philippopolis resulted in the withdrawal of the communion of the greater part of the Eastern Church from S. Julius and his allies, but they could not affect the good standing of the Westerns in the Church of Christ. The holding of the two councils resulted in a disruption of communion between the East and the West, but they made no change in the ecclesiastical status of the individual bishops, who were condemned nominatim by either the one synod or the other. Assuredly Stephen, Acacius, and the other Arian leaders richly deserved to be deposed and excommunicated, but they escaped on that occasion, in consequence of the incompetence of the court which dealt with their case. No doubt, if the decisions of the Council of Sardica had been accepted afterwards by the East, they might have become effective as

1 Socrates (ii. 22), speaking of the result of the two councils of Sardica and Philippopolis, says, "The West was therefore separated from the East; and the boundary of communion was the mountain called Tisoukis [that is to say, the pass of Succi, the principal pass of Mount Haemus], which divides the Illyrians from the Thracians. As far as this mountain there was indiscriminate communion, although there was a difference of faith; but beyond it [i.e. in the West] the two parties [Catholic and Arian] did not communicate with one another." It should be noted that Mount Haemus formed the boundary between the Western Empire under Constans and the Eastern Empire under Constantius. The pass of Succi lay between Sardica and Philippopolis. Sozomen (iii. 13) says, "After this

synod [of Sardica] they ceased to hold intercouse with each other in the manner usual with those who agree in their belief, nor did they communicate together; the Westerns as far as Thrace separating themselves, and the Easterns as far as Illyricum."

2 Similarly, Marcellus of Ancyra, on the other side, deserved the most severe censures of the Church. As he was an Eastern, it may be held that the anathema fulminated against him at Philippopolis was valid. Duchesne (Églises Séparées, p. 180) says of him that his "doctrine ne différait que par des nuances de l'ancien sabellianisme." Duchesne also suggests that Marcellus must have exhibited to the Council of Sardica a very expurgated edition of his treatise, De Subjectione Domini Christi, for otherwise the council's acquittal of him would be inexplicable (see the passage quoted from Duchesne in Mgr. Batiffol's La Littérature Grecque, pp. 272, 273 [Anciennes Littératures Chrétiennes]). For further details about the heresy of Marcellus, see pp. 480, 481. Dr. Gwatkin (Studies of Arianism, p. 81), speaking of Marcellus, says, "As far as doctrine went, there was not much to choose between him and Árius." See also p. 291, note 1, and p. 351, note 2.

representing the morally unanimous judgement of the whole Church; but, though great efforts were made to get the Sardican encyclical signed by the universal episcopate, these efforts failed in those provinces which in later times composed the patriarchates of Constantinople and Antioch.1 Stephen, therefore, for the present remained the legitimate Bishop of Antioch. However, in a few months' time he was canonically deposed by the bishops of his province and patriarchate (if by anticipation I may use that term), in consequence of the "diabolical" plot by which he had endeavoured to blast the character of Euphrates of Cologne, one of two episcopal envoys sent by the Council of Sardica to the Eastern Emperor, Constantius. The synod, which deposed Stephen, substituted Leontius in his place.

Thus through the action of the two councils of Sardica and Philippopolis the great Church of Antioch became separated from the communion of Rome; and it remained in that state of separation for the space of fifty-five years, that is to say, from 343 to 398.2 The small body of the Eustathians, which had seceded in 331 from the communion of the Antiochene bishops, and so from the communion of the rest of Christendom including Rome, remained out of fellowship with the pope until 375, that is to say, for forty-four years. If I have stated the facts accurately, the conclusion follows that between the years 343 and 375 neither of the two rival communions at Antioch was recognized by the Roman Church.

It is true that twice during the reign of Constantius efforts were made by the Church of Antioch and by other Eastern churches to heal the breach; but the Westerns very properly insisted that as a preliminary the Easterns should condemn Arianism in an unequivocal manner, and that the Easterns would not do. The first of these attempts took place immediately after the consecration of Leontius to the throne of Antioch in 344. He and the council which elected

1 One must except the province of Palestine, which at that time was in some degree subject to the see of Antioch, though afterwards it became a separate patriarchate. In 346 sixteen of the Palestinian bishops, that is to say, all of them except some two or three (cf. S. Athan. Hist. Arian., § 25), signed the decrees of Sardica, and communicated with S. Athanasius, and probably maintained cordial relations with him until the accession of S. Cyril to the see of Jerusalem in 350.

It may, perhaps, be suggested that intercommunion between Rome and Antioch may have existed after the fall of Pope Liberius in 357, during the time when the Roman Church was out of communion with S. Athanasius, and communicated with some of the Orientals. But Eudoxius was Bishop of Antioch from 357 to 359, and we have no reason to think that Liberius ever sank so low as to communicate with that blasphemer. After 359 there are no traces of any communication between Liberius and the East until after the Council of Alexandria in 362. Even then there was no renewal of communion with Antioch.

him sent to the West a deputation of four bishops,1 one of whom was the notorious Eudoxius, who afterwards succeeded Leontius in his see. These Eastern legates appeared at the Council of Milan, which was held in 345, and they succeeded in inducing that council to condemn Photinus of Sirmium, the disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra. But as the Eastern envoys refused to anathematize the heretical opinions of Arius, the effort to reunite the East and West in one communion failed, the legates retiring in anger.

No further attempt to heal the breach was made by the Easterns during the lifetime of S. Julius, whom they had excommunicated at Philippopolis; but in 352 that pope died and was succeeded by Liberius. When the news of his accession reached the East, a synod appears to have been convoked, and letters were written to the new pope, inviting him to enter into cordial relations with the Eastern church. But this Liberius refused to do. In writing about his refusal to the Emperor Constantius two years later, the pope explained that it was impossible for him to communicate with the Easterns, since more than eight years before their four legates had refused to condemn at Milan the heretical opinion of Arius.2 It will be noticed that, whereas the Council of Sardica in 343 had excommunicated only certain ringleaders of the Arians, Liberius in 354 regarded the whole of the Eastern Church as being external to his communion. There must have been some authoritative act, subsequent to the close of the Council of Sardica, which broke all the remaining bonds of union between the East and the West. The anathemas of the Council of Philippopolis constituted such an act on the Eastern side; but there seems to have been also some general anathema pronounced against the East by the Roman Church. A record of this excommunication of the East is to be found, I think, in the chronicle known as the Festal Index. In § xv. of that document the following passage occurs: "In this year [342-43] the synod of Sardica was held; and when the Arians had arrived, they returned to Philippopolis, for Philagrius gave

1 This more conciliatory policy was probably adopted in deference to Constantius. He was disgusted for the time by the scandal connected with Stephen, and he was frightened by the letters of his brother Constans, who threatened war if S. Athanasius and the other Eastern exiles were not restored to their sees.

2 These are Liberius' words: "Significant Orientales paci nostrae velle conjungi. Quae est pax, clementissime imperator, cum sint ex partibus ipsis quatuor episcopi Demophilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, Martyrius, qui ante annos octo, cum apud Mediolanum Arii sententiam haereticam noluissent damnare, de concilio animis iratis exierunt" (S. Hilar. Fragm. v. 4, P. L., x. 684).

The Alexandrine author of the Festal Index naturally speaks of the whole body of bishops present at the Council of Philippopolis as Arians."

66

them this advice there. In truth they were blamed everywhere, and were even anathematized by the Church of Rome, and having written a recantation to Pope Athanasius, Ursacius and Valens were put to shame." The events of several years are compressed into this sentence, after the fashion of the author of the Festal Index. The Council of Sardica took place in 343, and the letter of Valens and Ursacius was written to S. Athanasius in 347. The anathematizing of the Easterns by the Roman Church must have taken place between these two dates. Thus the general anathema, which had been pronounced against the West by the East at Philippopolis, was met by a counter-excommunication of the East, emanating from Rome.

Although both parties among the orthodox believers at Antioch remained out of the communion of the Roman Church until 375, the Eustathians under their priest, Paulinus, were admitted to the communion of the Alexandrine Church in 346. S. Athanasius stopped at Antioch to pay his respects to Constantius, before making his triumphal entry into Alexandria after his seven and a half years of exile. It would have been impossible for S. Athanasius to communicate with an Arian like Leontius, who no doubt held the saint to be a deposed and excommunicated person, and it would be no less impossible for Leontius to communicate with S. Athanasius. The Eustathians, as I have already observed, were Catholics, and quite within their rights in keeping apart from the heretical bishop; and S. Athanasius naturally communicated with them while in Antioch, and kept up communications with their leader from that time onwards.1

' Dr. Robertson's Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, p. 504, E. tr.

2 See Robertson's Athanasius, p. 501.

3 It seems to me probable that the excommunication of the Easterns took place after the abortive legation of the four Eastern bishops to the Council of Milan in 345. If those bishops had been already under the ban of excommunication, they would have hardly been allowed to communicate to the Fathers at Milan the fact that Photinus had been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 344. They evidently did make known at Milan this Eastern condemnation of Photinus, with the result that Photinus was also condemned at Milan by the Westerns. As the Eastern delegates refused to condemn Arius, they were no doubt excommunicated, and then, as Liberius informs us, they retired from the council in wrath. They represented the Eastern Church, and one can easily imagine that S. Julius may have thought the occasion opportune for fulminating an anathema against the whole East. Nine years afterwards Liberius grounded his refusal to communicate with the Easterns on the behaviour of their legates at Milan.

I think, however, that it is highly probable that S. Athanasius suspended his friendly relations with the Eustathians during the first twelve months of Paulinus' episcopate, that is to say from September, 362, to September or October, 363. S. Eusebius of Vercellae, the representative of S. Athanasius and of the Council of Alexandria, refused to communicate with Paulinus after his unfortunate