Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Solomon is the wisdom which God poured out upon all His works,1 and is not to be identified with our Lord. According to the second interpretation, the Wisdom is explained as referring to our Lord in His Human Nature. According to the third interpretation, the "creation" of Wisdom is expounded to mean the eternal generation of the Son. Thus S. Thomas mentions as tenable the view held by S. Athanasius, and also the view held by S. Meletius. If any one is inclined to hold that S. Epiphanius is right in attributing some possible measure of blame to S. Meletius for applying the passage in the Book of Proverbs to our Lord in His Divine Nature, he had better consider first whether the adverse opinion of S. Epiphanius is not enormously outweighed by the favourable opinions of S. Dionysius, S. Thomas, and Petavius. Anyhow, whether or no a superfine criticism is able to pick holes successfully in two or three details of S. Meletius' phraseology, it is allowed on all hands that in the face of the heretical Emperor he proclaimed in substance the Catholic faith, and that in consequence he was banished to Armenia, where he remained for more than a year and a half.

As soon as the true bishop had been banished, some of the Arianizing court-prelates went through the form of deposing him, and then in concert with the Emperor intruded Euzofus, one of the original companions of Arius, into the patriarchal throne. Euzoïus was a condemned heretic. And even apart from that disability his pretended institution to

1 Cf. Ecclus. i. 9.

2 Cf. S. Thom. Summ. contra Gentiles, lib. iv. cap. 8. S. Thomas, when setting forth the third interpretation, says, Per hoc quod sapientia et creata et genita nuncupatur, modus divinae generationis nobis insinuatur."

Of course S. Meletius refrained from the use of the word dμooúσios. It is quite possible that he still shared the Eastern dislike of the term, as being one that was liable to be abused so as to favour the heresies of Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, and Marcellus. In any case, it would have been most unwise if he had used it under the circumstances; and such premature action would have been in every way blamable. The appropriate time for its official adoption at Antioch came two years later, as will be set forth further on (see pp. 291-293). S. Hilary dwells on the danger of the premature use of the word in his De Synodis (cap. 69, P. L., x. 526), where he says, "Dicturus unam Catholicus substantiam Patris et Filii, non inde incipiat: neque hoc quasi maximum teneat, tanquam sine hoc vera fides nulla sit." Similarly, S. Athanasius avoids using the word in his Orations against the Arians. Newman (Oxford translation of the Orations, p. 499; compare also Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, pp. 290-292) says that the duoovσov cannot be said to occur anywhere in the first three Orations, for "i. 9 is rather a sort of doctrinal confession than a part of the discussion." The so-called fourth Oration, though it was written by S. Athanasius, is a distinct work of a later date. The primitive saints thoroughly understood the principle of " reserve," and the duty of acting upon it, when the circumstances seemed to call for it.

4

✦ Euzoïus, who had in early life been a deacon of the Church of Alexandria, was anathematized and deposed from the diaconate by nearly a hundred Egyptian bishops in 320 or 321. The Council of Nicaea ratified the sentence against him; and he had never been restored by any competent authority.

the see of Antioch was absolutely uncanonical. S. Meletius had not resigned, and his deposition had been a mere farce, and therefore the see was occupied. It was impossible for the Catholics of Antioch to recognize as their bishop one who was schismatically invading the diocese which belonged to another; and though they had borne with a bishop like Eudoxius, who taught the full Arian blasphemy, but had not been formally condemned for his heresy, they rightly shrank from communicating with one who had been excommunicated nominatim by the bishops of his own province and afterwards by an Ecumenical Council. And so it came to pass that after thirty years of promiscuous communion the Church of Antioch heard and obeyed the Divine call to come out and be separate. Now it was seen how well the two zealous laymen, S. Flavian and Diodorus,' had done the work which they had undertaken-the work, I mean, of encouraging the Catholic people of Antioch to cling to the true faith during the tyranny of the Arian bishops; and it was also seen how striking had been the impression which Meletius had made during his month of residence; for the larger part of the Christian people of Antioch were content, for the sake of the truth of our Lord's Godhead, to give up the church-buildings, which they loved, to Euzoïus and his Arian followers, and to assemble for their solemn worship in the open fields outside the city. Assuredly such an act of faith, carried out on such a large scale, must have drawn down a rich blessing from God upon the church, which at such a cost was witnessing on behalf of the truth.

I am inclined to think that Dr. Rivington is right, when he suggests that S. Gregory of Nyssa is referring to Euzoïus, and not to Paulinus, in the passage in which he speaks of some person attempting to corrupt the chastity of the Church of Antioch, which Church, however, remained faithful to her pastor, S. Meletius, who was espoused to her. In the first

S. Flavian was afterwards ordained priest by S. Meletius, and finally succeeded him in the see of Antioch. Diodorus, later on in his life, became the instructor of S. Chrysostom and the friend of S. Basil, and, it must also be added, the teacher of Theodore of Mopsuestia. He died Bishop of Tarsus.

* It was in consequence of this circumstance that the Antiochene Catholics were during the greater part of S. Meletius' episcopate nicknamed the Campenses, or field-party. It was probably not until after the death of Constantius that they took possession of the Church of the Apostles in old Antioch (ev Tỷ Taλaia). See Tillemont, viii. 764. They were again driven out into the fields by Valens in 372, and there is a description of the hardships which they had to endure during the winter of 372-373 in the letter, probably written by S. Meletius, which is numbered 242 among the letters of S. Basil (Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 371, 372);

The Appeal to History, pp. 15, 16.

S. Gregory Nyssen (Orat. Funebr. in S. Melet., P. G., xlvi. 857), speaking of S. Meletius and of the Church of Antioch, says, Καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐνήθλει τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς

two editions of this book (p. 166), I explained the passage as referring to the consecration of Paulinus by Lucifer. I had good authority for my interpretation. It is supported by Tillemont,1 by Le Quien,2 and by the Bollandist, Van den Bosche. Dr. Rivington's arguments in favour of the reference to Euzoïus do not impress me; but on other grounds I think that his conclusion is correct. Euzoïus really did make an attempt to subject to himself the great Church of Antioch. He posed as the successor of S. Meletius, who, as he no doubt contended, had been canonically deprived; the church-buildings were handed over to him by the civil power; and the Catholics, if they were to avoid being contaminated by schism and heresy, had by a definite act to withdraw from his communion. There was a moment, immediately after Euzoïus' consecration, when the fidelity of the Antiochene church to her spouse, S. Meletius, might seem to tremble in the balance; and we may be morally sure that Euzoïus continued his efforts to ensnare S. Meletius' flock during the whole period of the saint's banishment. But Paulinus was at no time anything more than the bishop of the comparatively small body of the Eustathians. He was consecrated more than a year and a half after S. Meletius, and there was never any moment when there was the smallest chance of the Church of Antioch leaving S. Meletius for him. Consequently the figurative language of S. Gregory Nyssen is in every way more appropriate to the intrusion of Euzoïus than to the intrusion of Paulinus. As there is so much in Dr. Rivington's polemic, which seems to me to be based on a misreading of the history, I the more rejoice to find myself, in regard to this matter, in accord with him.

εὐσεβείας ἱδρῶσιν· ἡ δὲ ὑπέμενεν ἐν σωφροσύνῃ τὸν γάμον, φυλάττουσα. Χρόνος ἦν ἐν μέσῳ πολὺς, και τις μοιχικῶς κατεπεχείρει τῆς ἀχράντου παστάδος. Αλλ ̓ ἡ νύμφη οὐκ ἐμιαίνετο, καὶ πάλιν ἐπάνοδος, καὶ πάλιν φυγή· καὶ ἐκ τρίτου ὡσαύτως, ἕως διασχὼν τὸν αἱρετικὸν ζόφον ὁ Κύριος, καὶ τὴν ἀκτῖνα τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπιβαλὼν, ἔδωκεν ἀνάπαυσίν τινα τῶν μακρῶν πόνων ἐλπίζειν.

1 Tillemont, viii. 356.

2 Oriens Christianus, ii. 715.

Acta SS., tom. iv. Jul., p. 54.

[ocr errors]

LECTURE VIII.

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

The Council of Alexandria, held in the year 362.

ABOUT nine months after the banishment of S. Meletius, on the 3rd of November 361, Constantius died of fever at Mopsucrene, in Cilicia; and Julian the Apostate, who was already in rebellion against his imperial kinsman, succeeded to the throne of the Roman empire. The substitution of a heathen in place of a heretical emperor brought immediate relief to the Church. Within two months of his accession Julian gave permission to the bishops, who had been sent into exile by Constantius, to return to their sees. A new chapter in the history of the Church had begun.

The relief came none too soon. The state of things in Christendom was heart-breaking. Cardinal Newman has described it in eloquent words in a passage which has already been quoted. Two streaks of light had, however, appeared on the horizon, even before the death of Constantius. In the first place, there was the revival of orthodoxy in Gaul under the guidance of S. Hilary, after his return from Constantinople in 360. Many of the Gallican bishops, who had signed the Ariminian formula, were brought back by him to repentance and reformation; councils were held; and heretics, such as Saturninus of Arles and Paternus of Perigueux, were deposed. And then, secondly, there was the separation of

1 See p. 239.

Cf. Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr. ii. 45, P. L., xx. 155. Probably Sulpicius Severus condenses into a short statement the record of events which were really spread over two or three years. But the movement of revival in Gaul was at any rate begun before the death of Constantius. It is to be noted that S. Jerome, in his Chronicon (P. L., xxvii. 691), inserts the following entry: "Gallia per Hilarium Ariminensis perfidiæ dolos damnat." S. Jerome places this entry between his notice of the elevation of S. Meletius to the see of Antioch and his mention of the death of Constantius. In other words, he points to the year 361 as the central date connected with the restoration of Catholicism in Gaul. S. Hilary's work would probably be facilitated by Julian's open apostacy from Christianity during the spring or early summer of 361. This apostacy took place while Julian was still in Gaul.

the Catholics from the Arians at Antioch, the most important city of the East, which had come about, as we have seen, in consequence of the deposition of S. Meletius by the Arians, and their intrusion of Euzofus into his see. Elsewhere all was dark. S. Athanasius was hiding with the monks in the cells of Nitria or of the Thebaid. Liberius was, it is true, at or near Rome, but his return to his see had been purchased by a shameful subscription,1 so that, having fallen himself, he was not in a position to take the lead in rehabilitating others who had fallen. The bishops generally, both in East and West, were with few exceptions tainted with the taint of Ariminum. Such was the state of things when Julian's edict recalled the banished bishops to their sees.

It was on February 21, 362, that S. Athanasius got back to Alexandria, and he at once became the natural centre and leader for the main body of the little band of confessors, who had signed no heretical formula, and who desired now to do what they could to extricate the Church from the terrible condition into which she had fallen. To Alexandria naturally gravitated the bishops who had been banished by Constantius for their adherence to the Catholic faith. I speak, of course, of the exiles who belonged to the communion of S. Athanasius. Eastern confessors, such as S. Meletius of Antioch, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, and others, who in the East may have kept themselves clear of the taint of Ariminum, would look to Antioch rather than Alexandria as their centre; and, moreover, their former communion with Arianizers would make them objects of suspicion to Athanasius, just as his refusal to anathematize Marcellus made him an object of suspicion to them. It was impossible at this stage for the whole body of exiled confessors to meet in one synod. However, twentyone bishops did meet at Alexandria under S. Athanasius' presidency during the course of the summer of 362. Almost all of them belonged to the Alexandrian patriarchate; but there was one Eastern, S. Asterius of Petra, in Arabia, who had sided with S. Athanasius and the West ever since the split which followed the Council of Sardica; and there was one illustrious Western, S. Eusebius of Vercellae. It would have been well if S. Eusebius could have persuaded another

2

1 Cf. Sozom. H. E., iv. 15. Duchesne (Lib. Pont., i. 209), speaking of Sozomen's account of the Sirmian meeting in 358, says that that writer "a eu sur cette affaire des documents officiels et de première main." Every candid student of that account will, I think, come to the same conclusion. De Rossi also (Bulletino di Archeologia Christiana, 1883, pp. 54, 55) evidently attaches great importance to Sozomen's evidence about Liberius' signature. On the whole subject of Sozomen's account of Liberius' fall, see Appendix G, pp. 275-287.

S. Asterius had been exiled after the Council of Sardica to Upper Libya (S. Athan., Hist. Arian., § 18).

« ZurückWeiter »