However, S. Meletius, as we have seen, did not remain long at Sebaste. He soon retired to Beroea. His real work as a bishop began in January, 361, when he was chosen to fill the great see of Antioch. We must proceed to consider the circumstances connected with his election to that see.

Among the prelates who met at Antioch in January, 361, to take part in the appointment of a bishop to preside over the church in that city, the most influential was without doubt Acacius. He had been the pupil of the historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, and after the death of his master in 338 he had succeeded him in his bishopric. He was able, clear-headed, energetic, but without convictions, and entirely unscrupulous. He has been called with good reason "the greatest living master of back-stairs intrigue."1 So far as Acacius had any theological sympathies, they were probably with the Semi-Arians; but he was alienated from that party by circumstances connected with his official position. He was, as has been already mentioned, Metropolitan of Palestine; and it was natural for a man of his character, holding such an office, to quarrel with the bishop of the apostolic see of Jerusalem, which was situated within the limits of his province. It was his quarrel with S. Cyril which seems to have determined Acacius to set himself in antagonism to the Semi-Arian leaders, who were bound by various ties to his rival. Acacius therefore resolved to make the attempt to organize a new party which should combine various elements. He wished to gather into it those who, without using the full Nicene language, substantially held the Nicene faith; and he wished also to ally himself with the Arianizers. For this purpose he selected as the test word, which was to become the bond of union and the symbol of his party, the term öμotoç ("like"). The orthodox might understand this word to mean like in substance, which, with a benignant interpretation, might be explained as practically equivalent to consubstantial. The Arianizers might understand it of a likeness of character, combined with a real unlikeness of substance. Thus the öuotov, as understood by Arianizers, while seeming to contradict the avóμotov (unlike), really paved the way for it, and was in fact identical with it. 1 Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 179.

2 There is, I think, no reason to suppose that S. Meletius ever accepted the Ouotov. It was imagined by many in later times that he belonged to the Homoean party; but I believe that the rumour arose from the fact that Acacius presided at his enthronement at Antioch. Even when the great majority of the bishops, both in East and West, signed the creed of Ariminum, he probably escaped the test, as at that time he was living as a private person at Beroea. Dom Maran (Vit. S. Bas., cap. x. § v., Opp. S. Bas., tom. iii. p. lxxii.), speaking of certain bishops, who were accused of having signed the formula of Ariminum, says, "Nec S. Meletius videtur umquam hanc culpam commeruisse nec S. Cyrillus."

Of course Acacius did not state his plans explicitly. He was a master of intrigue, and he knew well how to put forward one side of his formula when speaking or writing to one set of men, and another side when speaking or writing to a different set. He made a special point of his avoidance of non-scriptural terms, such as ovoía.

At the Council of Constantinople in 360 Acacius seized the reins and managed everything. He cast out of the Church the extreme Anomoean wing of the Arianizers; and, as we have seen, he deposed and procured the exile of the Semi-Arian leaders, and he persuaded the Emperor to enforce on all the bishops of the empire, whether in East or West, the signing of the formula of Ariminum, which sanctioned the oμotov and condemned the use of the term oùsía. The action of the council was practically all in favour of the more moderate Arianizers. Then Acacius set to work to propitiate the orthodox. The Arian historian, Philostorgius, says that Acacius, "when he had deposed and exiled Basil [the Semi-Arian Bishop of Ancyra] on account of private enmities, and Aetius [the Anomoean champion] on account of discrepancy of dogmas, returned to Caesarea, and on his way back appointed in the widowed churches bishops who professed the ouooúotov." Philostorgius mentions that at Ancyra Acacius substituted in the place of [the SemiArian] Basil a certain Athanasius; that at Antioch he set up Meletius; and that at Laodicea he consecrated Pelagius; 1 and he adds that "wherever Acacius had the power, he advised and urged that those who most openly professed the ouoouσiov should be appointed in the place of the exiled "[bishops]." It may, perhaps, be doubted whether so early as 361 the test word ouooúolov had been adopted by these bishops whom Acacius was appointing. But Philostorgius is no doubt substantially accurate in what he says about them. The nominees of Acacius at this juncture belonged to what may be called the extreme right of the middle party. They all took a leading part in the winning of the final victory of Nicene orthodoxy over Arianism in the East. For example, S. Basil speaks of Athanasius of Ancyra as being "a bulwark of

Philostorgius also mentions that Acacius appointed Onesimus to Nicomedia, and a man of his own name, Acacius, to Tarsus; but nothing is known of these

persons.

Philostorg. H. E., v. I. In using the testimony of Philostorgius one must always remember that he was a bitter Arian of the most extreme type, and that he was utterly unscrupulous when relating the acts of those whom he disliked. I do not, however, see any reason for supposing that he either invented or coloured the facts for which I cite him in the text. And, indeed, the truth of Philostorgius' presentment of the case is thoroughly confirmed by what S. Epiphanius says in Haer. Ixxiii. 28 (P. G., xlii. 456).

orthodoxy," ," and "a pillar and foundation of the Church;"" and S. Gregory Nyssen praises him as "valuing the truth above everything." " And similarly Pelagius of Laodicea is venerated as a saint both by East and West. He suffered banishment for the faith in 367, and after the second Ecumenical Council he was designated by the Catholic Emperor, Theodosius, as one of the bishops, communion with whom was to be a test of orthodoxy.

Thus, if it was a misfortune for S. Meletius, and in some sense a blot upon his record, that Acacius was mixed up with his election to the see of Antioch, yet those who lay stress on this blot should in all fairness mention the fact that his appointment took place at a time when Acacius found it convenient to choose out the most orthodox men in the Eastern Church for promotion to the episcopate; and that S. Meletius had as companions in misfortune a saint like Pelagius of Laodicea, and a "bulwark of orthodoxy" like Athanasius of Ancyra.

At this point in the narrative it seems desirable to consider the question of S. Meletius' complicity with Arian teaching. Dr. Rivington, writing on this subject, says, "Meletius had mixed himself up with the Arians to such an extent that they were justified in supposing that they were electing one of their own party. All the historians agree in speaking of his complicity with Arian teaching. It is supposed that Eusebius of Samosata had converted him." 4 Now, it must of course be admitted that S. Meletius had been and was in communion with a considerable number of the Eastern Arianizers; but the same might be said of the whole Eastern Church and of all its many saints, including S. Eusebius of Samosata himself. The fact of such communion did not constitute a personal lapse on the part of Meletius, though

1 S. Bas. Ep. xxv., Opp., iii. 104.

2 Ep. xxix., Opp., iii. 109.

3 Contra Eunomium, lib. i. cap. 6, P. G., xlv. 260.

4

The Appeal to History, a Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, 1893, p. II.

5 I, of course, do not include Egypt in the Eastern Church at this time. During the Arian controversy S. Athanasius and Egypt constituted the centre of the Nicene party, and the West usually adhered to Egypt. But at the time of S. Meletius' election to Antioch the major part of the West had been ensnared into communion with the Arians, as the result of the Council of Ariminum in 359. Promiscuous communion was a more serious matter in the West than in the East. In the West it was a backsliding, after the Arians had been cast out at Sardica and at Milan. In the East events were tending towards a separation between the orthodox and the Arianizers, but the separation had not yet taken place, and therefore promiscuous communion was not necessarily a mark of declension from a higher level. As regards my use of the term Eastern Church, I follow Newman, who says (Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, 1874, p. 199): "Under the name of East I include the countries from Thrace to the borders of Egypt." One may compare S. Basil (Ep. lxx., Opp., iii. 163), who gives an exactly similar definition of the term.

one can easily imagine that the Eustathian party at Antioch did their best to affix a stigma to his name, as if he were in some special way responsible. S. Basil mentions that the followers of Paulinus were accustomed to make untruthful and partisan reports to the Westerns about the matters connected with S. Meletius;1 and it happens that some of the earlier authorities for the history of the Antiochene schism would be in the way of hearing chiefly the Eustathian account of that schism. I refer specially to S. Jerome and Rufinus, and in a measure to S. Epiphanius. The historians of the fifth century, who lived at a time when within the limits of the Roman empire Arianism had been completely vanquished and cast out, would find it difficult to realize that for thirty years the Arianizers had been a party within the Church rather than a sect outside of it. This difficulty of realizing the actual state of things would facilitate their acceptance of the Eustathian tradition as giving a true account of the matter.8

But among the historians of the fifth century there was one-I mean the Blessed Theodoret-who was specially well informed about the affairs of the Church of Antioch. Now, Theodoret tells us that, when the episcopal election at Antioch took place in January, 361, "the maintainers of apostolic doctrine were well aware of the soundness in the faith of the great Meletius, and they had clear knowledge of his bright innocence of life and of his wealth of virtue, and they came to a common vote, and took measures to have the instrument of election (poμa) written out and subscribed

1 S. Bas. Ep. ccxiv., Opp., iii. 321.

2 Compare Dr. Gwatkin's words quoted on p. 235.

We have already seen (see p. 243) that Socrates wrongly supposed that S. Meletius had put his name to the Homoean creed set forth by Acacius at the Council of Seleucia, and signed by the blasphemer, Eudoxius, and about thirty-six others. This mistake of Socrates probably misled Sozomen, who numbers S. Meletius and that "bulwark of orthodoxy," Athanasius of Ancyra, among the members of "the Eudoxian party" (Sozom. iv. 25). Sozomen, as appears from his account of the election of S. Meletius (iv. 28), entirely misconceived the state of things at Antioch. He speaks of the multitude who flocked around S. Meletius on his arrival, as being composed of Arians and of those who were in communion with Paulinus; whereas the majority was neither Arian nor Eustathian, but was composed of the Catholics who, under the guidance of S. Flavian and Diodorus, had remained in communion with the Arianizing bishops. Moreover, Sozomen says nothing about the presence of Acacius, although he was the chief person concerned with the election.

Cf. Acta SS., tom. ii. Febr., p. 586. Theodoret was a genuine son of the Antiochene Church. He was born and baptized and brought up at Antioch, and at an early age was ordained a reader in the church there. During the thirty years of his episcopate at Cyrrhus he made twenty-six preaching visits to his native city. Thus he had every opportunity of gathering up the traditions of the Church of Antioch about S. Meletius. Moreover, he took special pains to collect particulars about S. Eusebius of Samosata. Cyrrhus lay between Antioch and Samosata (cf. Hort, Two Dissert., p. 131).

1

by all without delay." No doubt Theodoret had previously said that "the Arian faction imagined that Meletius was of the same way of thinking as themselves, and that he was an upholder of their doctrines." But S. Meletius' famous sermon, in which, three or four weeks after his election, he confessed the true faith in the presence of the heretical Emperor, and his consequent exile, and his whole subsequent life make it perfectly clear that the orthodox of Antioch were well informed, and that the Arianizers were badly informed. Dr. Rivington suggests 2 that S. Meletius had been an Arian in the past, and that S. Eusebius of Samosata "had converted him," and that "his conversion was kept a secret," and that consequently the saint entered on his Antiochene episcopate "under false pretences." Dr. Rivington must, one would think, have known very well that there is not a word of all this in the ancient writers. It seems a most extraordinary thing

Theodoret. H. E., ii. 27. The term pioua, as used in connexion with the election of bishops, denoted the decree of election passed by the electoral assembly, consisting of the clergy and people of the church whose see was vacant. The term was also used, as here, of the instrument recording the decree. Compare Bishop Rattray's Works, pp. 382-392 (ed. G. H. Forbes, 1854). After the decree had been written out and subscribed, it was submitted to the synod of bishops, that the election might be confirmed (see Bingham's Antiquities, IV. ii. 6).

2 The Appeal to History, p. 11; compare also Prim. Ch., p. 191, where occurs the following scandalous account of the pioua, which recorded S. Meletius' election: "In view of what might happen, when his [S. Meletius'] conversion [to Catholicism] became known, the Catholics had a written document drawn up concerning his appointment by the Emperor Constantius."

3 S. Meletius was, in all probability, living quietly at Beroea, and there is no reason to suppose that he took any part in the election or that he knew anything about it, until the fact that he had been elected was announced to him. He seems to have received that announcement in a message from the people of Antioch (Socr., ii. 44) and by a summons from the Emperor (Theodoret. H. E., ii. 27), and we may well believe that he also received a communication from the bishops who had confirmed his election. Is it credible that a conversion, fraudulently concealed for the purpose of obtaining a bishopric, could have been so blessed by God as to be followed up by that magnificent confession of the faith in the presence of the Emperor, and by the long life of sanctity which ensued?

* S. Jerome accuses S. Meletius of hypocritical fraud, but he does not bear out Dr. Rivington's statement in any particular. According to him, S. Meletius was elected as an Arian, and was exiled "most justly" because he had received back the priests whom Eudoxius, his predecessor, had deposed; whereupon S. Meletius suddenly changed his belief, in order that it might be supposed that he was being exiled for the faith (cf. S. Hieron., Chronic. ad ann. 364, P. L., xxvii. 691). Considering that Eudoxius was the worst of all the Arians, it would almost certainly be a laudable act on the part of S. Meletius to restore any priests deposed by his predecessor. But the charge of fraud is absolutely inconsistent with what Theodoret relates about S. Meletius' election, and with his whole subsequent life, and with the fact of his intimate friendship with S. Eusebius of Samosata and with S. Basil and with the other great Eastern saints of that age. It is a sad instance of the lengths to which the partisan spirit of the Eustathians went in their hatred of the holy man whom they calumniated. S. Jerome, who joined the Eustathians, and was ordained priest by Paulinus, no doubt learnt this tale from Paulinus' followers. I will repeat here what the Jesuit, Father Bottalla, says