for one, who presumably wished to honour the saints, to adopt and propagate a theory which imputes to two such glorious saints as S. Meletius and S. Eusebius a conspiracy of fraud. The facts require no such improbable explanation. The simple solution is that the Arianizers, or some of them, made a mistake. Probably they thought that, as S. Meletius did not belong to the semi-Arian party,1 he assuredly held the Homoean form of misbelief; whereas he was really Nicene in faith, and was soon to be Nicene in phraseology. For my part, I firmly believe that the clear-headed Acacius knew all along that S. Meletius was orthodox. It was his policy at that particular juncture to promote the appointment of orthodox bishops. He had already appointed Athanasius at Ancyra, and he was going shortly to appoint S. Pelagius at Laodicea, and it fits in perfectly with his general line of action at this time, that he induced the bishops, the majority of whom were possibly Arianizers,2 to confirm the election which had been made by the Church people of Antioch, the great majority of whom were certainly Catholic. It is quite conceivable that Acacius may have deceived his Arianizing brethren, and may have imputed to Meletius heretical opinions which he did not hold, but the wily intriguer himself doubtless knew what was the real state of the case, and was in no way astonished at S. Meletius' later career.s

(Infallibility, p. 185) of S. Jerome: "This holy Doctor's tendency to give too ready credence to unauthorized rumours is well known. Thus, as is pointed out by Zaccaria, .. he adopts the falsehoods spread abroad by the adherents of Paulinus to the prejudice of S. Meletius of Antioch." The passage from Zaccaria, himself a Jesuit, occurs in his Dissert. de Commentit. Liberii Lapsu, cap. vi., ap. Petav. Dogm. Theol., edit. 1865, tom. iii. p. 580. The whole passage is important.

The fact of his acceptance of the see of Sebaste after Eustathius' deposition would show that he did not belong to the semi-Arian group, and would keep him separate from it.

2 We know the names of only three of the bishops, who had gathered in considerable numbers at Antioch, and took part in the confirmation of S. Meletius' election. They were Acacius of Caesarea, George of Laodicea, and S. Eusebius of Samosata. These three were bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. George was also a bishop of what may be called the "home" province of that patriarchate, namely, Syria Prima (cf. Sozom., iv. 12). The first two were Arianizers, the third was orthodox. Hefele (Wetzer and Welte's Dictionary of Catholic Theology, French translation, 1861, tom. xiii. p. 492) seems to think that there were other orthodox bishops present. Whether that was so, I cannot say. The important point to notice for our present purpose is, that the three, whose names are known, were the canonical occupants of their sees. They had none of them been canonically deposed, although Acacius and George richly deserved that penalty. The proceedings at Seleucia in 359 had been annulled at Constantinople in 360. With reference to what has been said in this note, it may be well to add that in my opinion no weight ought to be attached to Sozomen's assertion (Soz., iv. 28) that Eudoxius took part in the election of S. Meletius. Eudoxius did not belong to the patriarchate, and Sozomen seems to have substituted his name for Acacius' in the account of the election.

* Even Stiltinck allows that S. Meletius was perfectly orthodox. He says

But it may perhaps be asked in reply, Why, then, did the Eustathians refuse to accept S. Meletius as their bishop? Does not their action show that they were convinced of his heterodoxy? To that I answer that his sermon and his consequent exile must have convinced them, if they needed convincing, that his faith was substantially orthodox. The objection, which the more moderate among them raised, was not in regard to S. Meletius' personal faith, but in regard to the fact that he had been elected by persons who had been baptized by Arianizers, and that his consecration to Sebaste had been performed, and his election to Antioch had been confirmed, by bishops, some of whom were actual Arianizers, and all of whom communicated with Arianizers.2 From the beginning the Eustathians had based what may be called their denominational existence on their assertion of the iniquity of promiscuous communion. I think that there was a great deal to be said in favour of their contention. But I confess that they were in too great a hurry, and that they were too absolute in their view. The Church is a large body, and must be allowed to take time. The Western Church waited twelve years before it broke off from all communion with (Acta SS., tom. iv. Septembr., p. 528): "Ille multis erat suspectus de haeresi Arianâ, licet revera probe esset Catholicus."

If we are to believe Sozomen (iv. 28), the Eustathians "shouted aloud and rejoiced and leaped" in their enthusiasm, when they heard S. Meletius' famous

sermon.

2 See Socrat., ii. 44, and v. 5. S. Eusebius of Samosata, orthodox as he was, made no difficulty about joining with Acacius and his Arianizing friends in the synod or episcopal meeting which confirmed S. Meletius' election. So long as the Arianizers remained a party within the Church, such a course was natural. No doubt it was a state of things which could not last permanently. The great Head of the Church was sure in the end to purify His Church from all communion with a party denying the fundamental truth of His equality with the Father. But S. Eusebius knew how to wait for God's time. It ought to be specially easy for Roman Catholics to understand the slowness of the Church in her dealing with the Arianizing party. The Roman Church had to bear with the presence of large bodies of Jansenists in her communion for more than a century after she had condemned their tenets as heretical. And again, after the Fifth Ecumenical Council had been accepted and confirmed by the Roman see, that see remained in communion with various Western churches which refused to be bound by the Fifth Council. Similar remarks may be made in regard to the action of the Roman see towards those Western churches which refused to acknowledge the ecumenicity of the Nicene Council of the year 787. Once more, Pius IX., in a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Munich on October 28, 1870, called the doctrine of papal infallibility, "ipsum fundamentale principium catholicae fidei ac doctrinae" (see Döllinger's Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees, English translation, 1891, p. 101), yet Rome allowed the Gallican Church to remain in her communion, notwithstanding that church's public repudiation of this "fundamental principle of the Catholic faith." One would be justified in saying that the plan of tolerating within her communion the co-existence of divergent views on questions of the highest importance, bearing on faith and morals, has been reduced to a kind of system by the Roman Church. It must be confessed that in regard to some departments of revealed truth the English Church has been too ready to follow the example set by her Roman

sister.

Arianizers. The Eastern Church waited thirty years before it came to a similar decision. It was the sectarian impatience of the Eustathians which led them to repudiate the saint whom God had raised up to be their bishop; and that repudiation must be regarded as a calamity for them, but not as a slur upon him.

Moreover the adverse judgement, which the Eustathians passed on the validity of S. Meletius' election is entirely outweighed by the favourable judgement which S. Basil passed upon it. In a letter written by him to S. Epiphanius in the year 377 or thereabouts, he said that his Church of Caesarea had always communicated with S. Meletius, and had had an ardent love for him on account of his staunch and unyielding opposition to Arianism. S. Basil went on to say that when "the most blessed Pope Athanasius" had come from Alexandria and was making a stay in Antioch, he greatly desired that intercommunion between himself and S. Meletius should be successfully established; but that, in consequence of the incapacity of S. Meletius' counsellors, this reunion was put off to another season. Here S. Basil inserts in his letter the exclamation, "Would that this had not happened." Then he adds, "We have never admitted the communion of those who came in afterwards "1-he means Paulinus and his followers, and perhaps also Vitalis and his followers-" not that we judged them to be unworthy, but because we had no reason for condemning him "2 (that is, Meletius). Of course, if S. Meletius' original consecration to Sebaste or his subsequent election to Antioch had been vitiated either by his personal heresy, or by the intervention of bishops who had been canonically deposed and excommunicated in consequence of heresy, S. Basil could not have written as he did. In that case there would have been good reason for regarding S. Meletius' position as unsatisfactory. But S. Basil knew well that such was not the case. I cannot indeed doubt that he would have admitted that it was unfortunate for Meletius that two such men as Acacius and George should have been

1 The consecration of Paulinus took place more than a year and a half after the accession of S. Meletius to the throne of Antioch.

2 Cf. S. Bas. Ep. cclviii., Opp., iii. 394. S. Basil had special opportunities for knowing all the circumstances connected with S. Meletius' election, because he was the bosom friend of S. Eusebius of Samosata, who had taken such a prominent part in that election. Moreover, all the great Eastern saints of that age shared in S. Basil's view of the matter.

3 One can gather what S. Basil's feelings would have been in such a case from a passage in his 240th epistle (Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 370), where he says, “I do not acknowledge as bishop, nor would I number among the priests of Christ, one who was put forward into the position of ruler by profane hands for the overthrow of the faith. This is my judgement." It is evident, from a passage like this, that S. Basil must have regarded S. Meletius' election to Antioch as having been substantially an election by Catholics, as in fact it was.

Their

mixed up with his election and institution to his see. intervention constituted a spot upon the transaction whereby S. Meletius attained to his high position; but that misfortune arose from the circumstances of the time, and from the state in which the Eastern Church then was. Though it gave a handle to S. Meletius' enemies, it in no way vitiated his own canonical status. He was, in S. Basil's view, the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch.

At the time of S. Meletius' election there can be no question that the Church of Antioch was predominantly catholic. There was indeed an Arianizing party,2 but they were in a minority. It was the Catholic majority which had secured the happy choice; and the instrument of election was consequently entrusted to S. Eusebius, who was the leading Catholic prelate in the synod of bishops. S. Chrysostom tells us of the joy with which S. Meletius was received by the body of the faithful on his entry into the city. From that day forward "Meletius" became the favourite name which parents gave to their children. Moreover, they engraved his likeness on their seals and rings, and they carved it on their bowls, and painted it on the walls of their bedchambers. Rather less than a month after his entry he was banished by the Emperor, who was indignant at his outspoken orthodoxy. But within the limits of that short time he had "delivered the city from the error of heresy, and had cut off the putrefying and incurable members from the rest of the body, and had brought back vigorous health to the multitude of the Church." 4

1 S. Gregory Nazianzen, who had the highest admiration for S. Meletius, and was in full communion with him, touches very gently in one line of his Carmen de Vita sua (line 1523, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 754) on the damage wrought "by the alien hand." But this line occurs as the foil to the fervent panegyric of our saint, in the midst of which it is embedded. The close union of the two saints appears from the fact that it was partly in consequence of S. Meletius' exhortations that S. Gregory undertook his mission work in Constantinople, and that it was by S. Meletius' hands that S. Gregory was installed in the episcopal throne of the church in that city.

2 In the election of S. Ambrose to the see of Milan there seems to have been a similar concurrence of the two parties, the Catholics and the Arians. S. Ambrose's secretary and biographer, Paulinus, speaking of the people of Milan, says (Vit. Ambr., § 6, P.L., xiv. 31) quite plainly, "ita qui antea turbulentissime dissidebant, quia et Ariani sibi et Catholici sibi episcopum cupiebant, superatis alterutris, ordinari, repente in hunc unum mirabili et incredibili concordia consenserunt." We may gather from S. Hilary (Lib. contra Auxent., § 12, P. L., x. 616) that in 364 there were Catholics in Milan, who communicated with Auxentius. Such communion was, however, exceptional in the West.

Dr. Gwatkin (Studies of Arianism, p. 133), speaking of the state of things during the episcopate of Leontius, whose death occurred in 357, says, “The Arians were in a minority even in the larger congregation which adhered to Leontius."

S. Chrys. Hom. in S. Melet., Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 519. S. Chrysostom had been an eye-witness of what he here describes ; for he was born and brought up

I have already referred several times to the great sermon which drew down on S. Meletius the wrath of the Emperor. It was preached in his presence; and even Dr. Rivington admits that "it was a splendid piece of bravery in defence of the Catholic faith." But Dr. Rivington goes on to mention as a set-off on the other side that there were in it "expressions which would not have passed muster with S. Athanasius." As he gives no references, one is compelled to guess at the expressions which he deems reprehensible, or at any rate nonAthanasian. Probably he is referring to some criticisms of the sermon hazarded by S. Epiphanius, whose principal objection seems to be based on the fact that S. Meletius applied to our Lord in His Divine Nature the celebrated passage, in which the Septuagint translator of the Book of Proverbs represents Wisdom as saying, "The Lord created (or begat) me a beginning of His ways for His works."3 It is no doubt true that S. Athanasius was accustomed to apply this passage to our Lord in His Manhood. But, as Petavius observes in his note, "Meletius ought not to be condemned because he interpreted that text from Prov. viii., as referring to the uncreated Wisdom and to the Word of God; for many of the Fathers have done the same."4 Certainly, if S. Meletius erred, he erred in good company. For example, Pope S. Dionysius of Rome has always been considered a specially accurate writer on all matters connected with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and with the doctrine of our Lord's true Godhead. But S. Dionysius agreed with S. Meletius in interpreting Prov. viii. 22 as referring to our Lord in His Divine Nature. So again S. Thomas Aquinas, in his explanation of the Scripture passages adduced by Arius in defence of his heresy, sets forth three interpretations of Prov. viii. 22, as being in his opinion tenable. According to the first interpretation, the wisdom spoken of by by his Christian mother in Antioch. If the Bollandists are right, he would be seventeen years old in the year of S. Meletius' election; and with the Bollandists agrees Mgr. Batiffol (La Littérature Grecque, p. 240). Others suppose that S. Chrysostom was fourteen in the year 361.

The Appeal to History, p. 12.

2 S. Epiph., Haer. Ixxiii. cap. 35, P. G., xlii. 468.

Prov. viii. 22 in the LXX. The Emperor Constantius had required that the sermon should be preached on that text.

Cf. S. Epiph., loc. cit. Migne has reprinted Petavius' edition of S. Epiphanius' works in the Patrologia Graeca.

Cf. Fragment. Op. Dionys. Pap. adv. Sabellianos, § 2, P. L., v. 116. Father Bottalla, speaking of this fragment, goes so far as to say that "the declaration of Pope Dionysius was really an infallible utterance" (Bottalla, Infallibility of the Pope, p. 160). S. Dionysius' interpretation of the passage in Proverbs differs from S. Meletius' interpretation, and in fact stands quite alone among patristic explanations of the verse; but, as I have said in the text, it agrees with S. Meletius' view in applying the Greek version of the inspired words to our Lord in His Divine Nature.