all inward hesitation and discussion, and communicated with the bishop, and ceased from their grief.1

S. Basil's hesitation about communicating with his own bishop, when that bishop had signed what was really a heretical formula, adds force to the fact that he remained in full communion with the Eastern Church, notwithstanding her breach with the pope and the West, and that he was linked in bonds, not only of communion, but of friendship and religious co-operation with Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste, leaders of the Semi-Arian section of the Eastern middle party. He accompanied the first of these to Constantinople in 359, and seconded his efforts in the disputations which he held with the Arian champions.2 With Eustathius of Sebaste S. Basil was on the most intimate terms for many years. His friendship with him began as early as 358. Later on we find them taking a journey together to visit "the blessed Silvanus" of Tarsus. In 364 Eustathius and other semi-Arian bishops, who were on their way to hold a council at Lampsacus, summoned Basil to meet them at Eusinoe. He obeyed the summons, and had much talk with them concerning the faith. Eustathius' most intimate disciples were continually coming to stay with Basil, and Eustathius himself used to spend days and nights in friendly colloquies with him at his mother's house. The friendship came to an end in 373 in consequence of Eustathius' unworthy conduct and his manifestation of heretical opinions.

I think that what I have said shows incontestably that during the reign of Constantius, and even afterwards, S. Basil looked on the bishops of the so-called Semi-Arian section of the middle party as orthodox in their faith, and as being the legitimate Catholic occupants of their respective sees.5

But there were other orthodox and saintly members of

1 S. Basil. Ep. li., ut supra.

Dom Maran, Iit. S. Bas., cap. vii. § 1, Opp. S. Bas., ed. Ben., tom. iii. p. Ivi. 3 тdy μakáρiov Ziλovavóv.-S. Bas. Ep. ccxxiii., Opp., iii. 339.

Cf. S. Bas. Ep. ccxxiii., ut supra.

On the substantial orthodoxy of the majority of the Semi-Arians, see Jungmann (Dissertationes Selectae in Hist. Eccl., ed. 1881, ii. 13) and the President of the Bollandists, Father De Smedt (Dissertationes Selectae in primam aetatem Hist. Eccl., ed. 1876, pp. 276, 277). The latter, speaking of the Semi-Arians, says (u. s.), "Qui quidem, quoad rem ipsam, orthodoxam omnino fidem profitebantur, Verbum non creatum, sed ex Substantia Patris genitum affirmantes, at respuebant vocem Sμooúσios et rectius Filium Patri dμolobolov dicendum contendebant. Eos autem Patres illius temporis non haereticos sed orthodoxos reputabant, ut habetur ex testimoniis Athanasii, Hilarii et Basilii." See also p. 295 of the same work. Father De Smedt would of course not deny that a certain section of the SemiArians ultimately adopted, under the leadership of Macedonius, heretical opinions in regard to the Holy Ghost. But the majority were Catholic in belief, and ultimately accepted the full Nicene terminology. Stiltinck (Acta SS., tom. vi. Septembr., p. 626) takes a similar view.

the Eastern middle party, who were bound by no special ties to the leaders of the Semi-Arian group. Such an one was S. Eusebius of Samosata. He was a bishop advanced in years, and was regarded by the younger generation of Catholics with extraordinary veneration. S. Gregory Nazianzen, writing to him in 370, calls him "a pillar and foundation of the Church," "a light in the world," "a crown of glorying for the sound party among Christians," "a gift of God," "a rule of faith," "an ambassador of truth," "all these things at once and more than all put together."1 S. Basil says that in the midst of the afflictions of the Church his one consolation was to think of S. Eusebius ; 2 and that to enjoy his company for one day would be a viaticum sufficient to bring a man to salvation. And one might quote much more to the like effect. S. Eusebius passed four years in banishment on account of his opposition to Arianism; and he met his death at the hands of an Arian woman, who hated him for his labours and sufferings on behalf of the faith. The Church honours him as a martyr.

8

S. Meletius of Antioch seems to have belonged to the same section of the middle party as S. Eusebius of Samosata. He was born at Melitene, the capital of the province of Armenia Secunda; and it was probably at the Council of Melitene in 357 that he was consecrated to the see of Sebaste in Armenia Prima. That see had been held by the SemiArian leader, Eustathius, of whom I have spoken already. Eustathius was deposed twice during the reign of Constantius, once by the Council of Melitene in 357, and once by the Council of Constantinople in 360; and at one or other of these councils S. Meletius was appointed to be his successor. Various reasons make me think that the earlier of these two dates is most probably the true date of S. Meletius' consecration.5 In the first place, Melitene was the saint's native city. He seems to have belonged to a wealthy family of that place. The Council of Melitene, when it had deposed Eustathius, would naturally look about for a successor; and a man of piety and position and popular gifts, who was living on the spot, would be just the sort of person whom they

S. Greg. Naz. Ep. xliv., Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 39.

2 S. Bas. Ep. xxxív., Opp., iii. 113.

3 S. Bas. Ep. clxviii., Opp., iii. 258. Dr. Hort (Two Dissertations, pp. 131, 132) says, "Basil's correspondence throughout his episcopate shows Eusebius [of Samosata] as his most intimate and trusted friend."

Cf. S. Bas. Ep. cclxiv., Opp., iii. 406.

5 I must ask the reader's forgiveness for the length of the discussion as to the date of S. Meletius' consecration, on which I enter at this point. I am, however, anxious to clear S. Meletius from the suspicion of having been appointed to the see of Sebaste by the Homoean Council of Constantinople, held in 360.

• Tillemont, viii. 342.

R

needed. It would be much less likely that the Council of Constantinople would fix upon an inhabitant of distant Melitene and give to him the equally distant see of Sebaste. But, again, it seems to me to be certain that S. Meletius, before his appointment to Antioch, resigned the see of Sebaste, "disgusted," as Theodoret says, "at the refractoriness of the people under his rule." Theodoret adds that, when he was elected to Antioch, he "was living without occupation elsewhere." Socrates seems to confirm this account by telling us that Meletius "was translated " from Sebaste to Beroea in Syria. It is true that Socrates was undoubtedly mistaken in his notion that S. Meletius occupied the see of Beroea. All other ancient writers speak only of the two sees of Sebaste and Antioch as having been successively held by him. But Socrates, at any rate, confirms the statement of Theodoret that S. Meletius had removed from Sebaste before being elected to Antioch. One can easily see that, if the consecration to Sebaste took place at Melitene in 357, the people of Sebaste, or at any rate a considerable section of them, would be likely to be refractory, because we have no reason to think that on that occasion Eustathius was banished, and we have good evidence that he treated his deposition as invalid. No doubt he remained at Sebaste, and was supported by his flock, and S. Meletius, when he got there, would soon discover that the position was an impossible one. It would be the most natural thing in the world that he should retire to Beroea or elsewhere. But after the Council of Constantinople in 360, the Semi-Arian leaders, Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius, and the rest, who had been deposed by the council, were banished by the Emperor to various places.* Eustathius was probably sent to Dardania,5 where he remained until the death of Constantius in November, 361. If, therefore, S. Meletius had been appointed to Sebaste by the Constantinopolitan council of 360, he would have found no rival on the spot to dispute his authority; and though he might have encountered some opposition from the partisans of Eustathius, a man with S. Meletius' gifts might hope to live down anything of that sort. It would, anyhow, be most unlikely that he would have resigned within a few months, 2 Socrat., ii. 44.

1 Theodoret, H. E., ii. 27.

3 Among these writers may be mentioned S. Jerome, Rufinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, Philostorgius, and by implication S. Epiphanius. Socrates himself, in a passage (vii. 36) where he is giving a list of bishops who had been translated, says that "Meletius, after having presided over the Church of Sebaste, subsequently governed that of Antioch," thus omitting all mention of any intermediate translation to Beroea.

Philostorg. H. E., v. I.

See S. Bas. Ep. ccxxvi., Opp., iii. 347; and observe the Benedictine note in loc.

although such a speedy resignation must be assumed to have taken place, if he was consecrated in 360; for some space of time must be allowed for his residence at Beroea, and he was elected to the see of Antioch in January, 361.

It is quite clear that Socrates supposed that S. Meletius was consecrated to Sebaste before the year 359; for he states that after his translation from Sebaste to Beroea he was present at the Council of Seleucia in 359, and there subscribed the Homoean creed set forth by Acacius.1 Undoubtedly Socrates is mistaken in his facts. We know the names of the bishops who signed Acacius' creed,2 and S. Meletius' name is not among them. Moreover, the signatories of the creed were all bishops occupying sees. But if Socrates is correct in his statement that S. Meletius had moved from Sebaste to Beroea before the meeting of the council, he must have been without a see; for, as we have seen, though he may very probably have lived for a time in retirement at Beroea, he was never Bishop of Beroea. He would, therefore, have had no locus standi in the council. He cannot have claimed to sit in right of the see of Sebaste, because Eustathius of Sebaste was one of the most prominent members of the council, and the question of Eustathius' right to his see would have been raised, if his rival had been present; but we hear nothing of any such controversy. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that Socrates was mistaken in supposing that S. Meletius took part in the Council of Seleucia; but it remains true that he believed that he was consecrated to the see of Sebaste, not after the second deposition of Eustathius in 360 by the Council of Constantinople, but at some date anterior to the year 359, and that date can only be the date of the Council of Melitene. Sozomen (iv. 25) seems to imply that Meletius was appointed to the Church of Sebaste after Eustathius' second deposition in 360; but it is quite possible that in saying what he does, he is founding on Socrates' vague

1 Cf. Socrat., ii. 44.

* Cf. S. Epiph., Haer. lxxiii. 26, P. G., xlii. 452, 453; and see Hefele's article on the Meletian Schism (Weltzer and Welte's Dictionary of Catholic Theology. French translation, 1861, xiii. 492).

3 In the preceding chapter (ii. 43) Socrates speaks of Eustathius' deposition by Eulalius of Caesarea, his own father. This must refer to a real or supposed deposition from the presbyterate (cf. Sozom. iv. 24). Socrates then goes on to say vaguely, "Let it be noted that Meletius was appointed bishop in place of Eustathius." It seems as if Socrates was not aware of the exact circumstances of Eustathius' first deposition from the episcopate. We, however, know from S. Basil that Eustathius' first deposition took place at the Council of Melitene (see the passage to which reference is made in note 5 on p. 237).

• Neither Socrates nor Sozomen suggests that S. Meletius was consecrated at or by the Council of Constantinople in 360. Even if one could suppose that he was appointed by that council, it would still remain probable that he was in any case consecrated in Armenia.

statement, which I have quoted in note 3 on the previous page, and that he is confusing Eustathius' first deposition with his second.

On the whole it seems to me most probable that S. Meletius was appointed and consecrated to Sebaste by the bishops who sat in the Council of Melitene.1 Who those bishops were, it is impossible to say. S. Cyril of Jerusalem is the only member of the council whose name is known;2 and, as he sided with Eustathius, he certainly took no part in consecrating Eustathius' rival. We cannot say for certain whether the bishops who formed the majority of the council were Arianizers, or whether they belonged to the middle party. Speaking generally, the middle party was in a large majority throughout the East during this period. Presumably, therefore, the majority of the bishops at Melitene were not Arians. Tillemont argues that the council was assembled for the purpose of deciding questions connected with ecclesiastical discipline. He says that there is no indication of there having been any discussion of matters pertaining to faith. If so, the majority and minority may have been divided rather by personal predilections than by dogmatic differences. Even supposing that the majority of the council in fact sympathized with Arian doctrine, it must be remembered that up to that time the Arianizing bishops had not been excluded from the communion of the Eastern Church. The "indiscriminate communion" between Catholics and Arianizers, which had existed both in East and West before the Council of Sardica, and had been brought to an end in the West by that council, still continued in the East. The Arianizers were still a party within the Church, not a sect outside of it." Technically, they were legitimate Catholic bishops, although, in so far as they were personally tainted by heresy, they deserved to be deposed. It would follow that S. Meletius' consecration may have been, and probably was, just as "canonical" as the consecration of S. Cyril of Jerusalem by Acacius seven years earlier.

1

The Dominican, Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, i. 423), arrives at the same conclusion.

3 Tillemont, ix. 82.

2 See p. 237. It is not at all probable that Eustathius was deposed on the ground of any supposed doctrinal unsoundness. Even at Constantinople in 360 the Semi-Arian leaders were all deposed on disciplinary pretexts.

5 Dom Touttée (Opp. S. Cyrill. Hierosol., col. xlv.), speaking of the year 358, says, "Semi-Ariani extra ecclesiae communionem non erant. Nullo publico ecclesiae judicio, quod quidem exsecutioni mandatum fuisset, damnati aut proscripti fuerant. In Oriente, ut vidimus, promiscua communio erat." What Dom Touttée says here of the Semi-Arians was true also of Acacius and his party. On this last point see Dom Maran's Dissertation sur les Semi-Ariens (Bibliothec. Hist. Haeresiolog., ed. J. Vogt, 1729, tom. ii. pp. 148, 149).

• See p. 237.