Western exile, Lucifer of Caralis, who had shared with him his banishment in the Thebaid, to accompany him to the Alexandrine Synod.' But Lucifer did not care to wait for the decisions to which the assembled Fathers would be guided. He had his own clear view of what the situation demanded, and he hurried off to Antioch to carry out his short-sighted policy. He however, sent two of his deacons to represent him at the synod. Two deacons were also sent from Antioch by Paulinus, the leader of the Eustathians; and certain monks from Laodicea attended the synod on behalf of Apollinarius.

The Council of Alexandria, though small in numbers, did a work of the highest importance. The band of confessors who were there assembled defined the terms on which they would receive into their communion the bishops who had in any way been polluted by Arianism. In point of fact, almost the whole episcopate of the Catholic Church both in East and West, had been, ever since the Council of Ariminum, in a tainted condition, when judged from the strict standpoint of S. Athanasius and of the other Fathers of the Council of Alexandria. I have already referred to the fact that, from the standpoint of the Eastern confessors the Fathers of Alexandria were themselves tainted because of their communion with Marcellus. At the Alexandrine Synod opinions were divided. Some were in favour of a narrow exclusive policy, admitting only to lay communion bishops who had in any way contracted the Arian taint. Others took a broader and more generous line. They would reduce to lay communion only those converts who had been leaders of the heretical party and defenders of the heresy. Other tainted bishops should be allowed to retain their sees and their episcopal dignity, on condition that they abjured the Arian heresy and signed the decrees of Nicaea. It need

S. Hilary in Gaul and Gregory of Elvira in Spain were too far away to be able to attend the Council of Alexandria.

2 Dom Montfaucon (Vit. S. Athanasii, ad ann. 362, § 13, Opp. S. Athan., ed. Ben., 1777, tom. i. p. lxxxi.) expresses the opinion that Lucifer refused to attend the Council of Alexandria because he foresaw that it would deal generously with the bishops who were tainted by communion with Arians.

It will be remembered that from the year 346 onwards Paulinus and his little flock had been in the communion of S. Athanasius. They were still outside the communion of Rome, from which indeed they would, no doubt, have shrunk in consequence of Liberius' fall. Paulinus and his followers must have modified the rigidity of their principles after their acceptance of the decrees of the Council of Alexandria. However, there is no reason to believe that they ever, in fact, communicated directly with Liberius.

A vivid account of some of the things which took place at the Council of Ariminum, and of the results of that council, is given by S. Jerome in his Dialogus contra Luciferianos, §§ 17-19 (P.L., xxiii. 170-174).

5 Rufin. H. E., i. 28, P. L., xxi. 498.

not be said that this more generous policy was supported by S. Athanasius. And it was in accordance with this policy that the decrees, which finally received the assent of the council, were shaped.1

There was one great church, in connexion with which the Alexandrine Fathers foresaw that the application of the decrees of the council might not improbably meet with special difficulty. In the Church of Antioch, as has been explained at length in a previous lecture, the orthodox were themselves divided into two communions. The smaller body, under the leadership of Paulinus, had for sixteen years enjoyed the communion of the Church of Alexandria. The main body of the Antiochene Church, under the episcopal rule of the glorious confessor, S. Meletius, though it had disentangled itself from all communion with the Arians, and was in communion with the Eastern saints, was not in communion with the Church of Alexandria. On the supposition that S. Meletius should be willing to accept the Nicene terminology, there was nothing to hinder intercommunion between him and S. Athanasius on the basis of the decrees of the Alexandrine Council, except perhaps the outstanding difficulty about Marcellus, a difficulty which could surely have been surmounted by the exercise of a little of that wisdom and tact which both saints possessed in an eminent degree. There were, therefore, two pacifications to be carried on at the same time in regard to the Church of Antioch. There was, in the first place, the healing of the breach between the main body of the Antiochene Church and the Church of Alexandria, and there was also the reunion of the Eustathians with the main body of the Antiochene Catholics. It was the necessity for this double pacification which constituted the special difficulty in connexion with Antioch.

The Alexandrine Council determined to send its two illustrious members, S. Eusebius of Vercellae and S. Asterius of Petra, to Antioch, in order that they, in conjunction with the three confessor-bishops, Lucifer of Caralis, Kymatius of Paltus, in Syria Prima, and Anatolius of Euboea, who were

1 Cf. S. Athan. Ep. ad Rufinianum, Opp., ed. Ben., i. 768, 769; et Rufin. H.E., i. 28, 29, P. L., xxi. 499; et S. Basil. Ep. cciv. § 6, Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 306; et S. Hieron. Dialog. contra Luciferian., § 20, P. L., xxiii. 174, 175. The mode of dealing with bishops tainted with the Arian taint, adopted by S. Athanasius and by the Council of Alexandria in 362, agreed with the measures taken by S. Hilary in Gaul six years before (cf. S. Hilar., contra Constantium Imperat., § 2, P. L., x. 578, 579). He seems to have submitted those measures to the exiled confessors for their approval. We have no information as to whether they took any action at the time. If they did take any action in 356 or 357, it must have been individual and not synodical. Now, in 362, the confessors of the communion of S. Athanasius, as a body, ratified S. Hilary's policy in the most solemn

manner.

already there,1 might investigate the state of things on the spot and might take order for the healing of the local breach, so that the whole body of the Antiochene Catholics might acknowledge one bishop, and might be brought into communion with S. Athanasius and with the confessors who communicated with him. Moreover, the council addressed a synodical epistle or "tome" to these five bishops, which informed the three who had not been present at its sessions concerning its decisions, and gave instructions to all the five as to the main lines which should be followed in carrying out the work of pacification. The council directs that its epistle shall be publicly read in the place where the five bishops are wont to hold their meetings for worship. As the Eustathians are described in the document as "they who have ever remained in communion with us," it may be reasonably supposed that the council intended that the public reading of the epistle should take place in the Eustathian place of worship. Other persons, who are as yet not in communion with the five bishops, are to be invited to come to their assembly, in order that "there those who desire and strive for peace should be reunited." 8 The council, still addressing the bishops, goes on to say that, when the lovers of peace "have been reunited, then in whatever spot is most agreeable to all the laity and in the presence of your Excellencies the public assemblies for worship should be held, and the Lord be glorified by all together." It should be observed that S. Meletius had not yet returned to Antioch from his exile in Armenia. The programme drawn up at Alexandria presupposed that the Eustathians would have five bishops among them, while the bulk of the Antiochene Catholics would be represented by no bishop. It was therefore not unnatural that S. Athanasius and his brethren should expect the partisans of S. Meletius to come at the outset to the bishops, rather than that the bishops should go out to the church in the old city, where S. Meletius' flock was accustomed to worship. Moreover, some few satisfactions might well be given to the Eustathians in connexion with the preliminary arrangements, because it was obvious that, as soon as reunion was accomplished, the direction of affairs would pass into the hands of the followers of S. Meletius, who were very much

1 How it came to pass that Kymatius and Anatolius were already in Antioch is not known.

2 Tom. ad Antiochens. § 4, ap. S. Athan. Opp., ed. Ben., i. 616.

The council takes pains to direct that a special invitation shall be sent to "those who meet for worship in the Old City," that is to say, to the followers of S. Meletius.

Cf. Socrat. H. E., iii. 9, et Sozom. H. E., v. 13.

more numerous than their rivals.1 As we have seen, S. Meletius' flock was devoted to him, even before his exile; and now that he had confessed the faith so bravely in the presence of the Emperor, and had endured banishment because of his loyalty to the true doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, their enthusiasm for him would know no bounds. Whatever objection might have been formerly raised by S Athanasius and his followers on the score of S. Meletius having communicated with Arianizers, and of his having been partly elected by Arianizers, had now been got rid of by the decrees of the Alexandrine Council, which had no doubt been drafted with his case very prominently in view. The action of S. Athanasius and his colleagues had made it certain that the Catholics of Antioch, if they could be brought together into one body, would have S. Meletius for their bishop. As the substantial advantages of the Alexandrine arrangement were to be wholly conferred on S. Meletius, his followers might well be asked to allow certain quasi-ceremonial honours to be given to S. Athanasius' old allies, the Eustathians. And it can hardly be doubted that S. Meletius, if he could have been consulted, would have been the first to accede to such an arrangement. He might possibly have insisted that Marcellus should be anathematized before he admitted Paulinus to his communion; but he was not the man to haggle over questions

1 Compare the words of Duchesne on the relative size of the two sections, quoted in note 3 on p. 228.

Even Stiltinck, speaking of S. Eusebius' view of the situation, after he had come to Antioch, admits (Acta SS., tom. vi. Septembr., p. 620) that "it might seem contrary to the Alexandrine decrees to deprive Meletius of his bishopric, since he was at that time a Catholic." The learned Ultramontane, Pietro Ballerini, declares that, if it had not been for Lucifer's headlong action, all Catholics would have received S. Meletius into communion and would have recognized him as the Bishop of Antioch (cf. Petr. Ballerin., De vi ac ratione primatus Romanorum pontificum, Append. i. edit. 1847, pars i. p. 332).

See the sentence from Montfaucon quoted on p. 159, n. 1, and the passage from Newman, to which reference is made in the note which immediately follows on the same page. The council, of course, takes care to avoid the mention of S. Meletius' name. It would have been very bad statesmanship if S. Athanasius and his Egyptian colleagues had openly taken the nomination of a bishop for the reunited Church of Antioch into their own hands. The mere fact that they say nothing against the admissibility of S. Meletius, either on the score of doctrine or of canonical status, implies that they were ready to recognize him, when the reunited church at Antioch should have accepted him as its chief pastor.

No doubt the Fathers of Alexandria had given directions to their representatives not to allow the followers of S. Meletius to impose as a condition of reunion any requirements beyond those that were laid down in the synodical epistle (cf. Tom. ad Antiochens. § 4, ap. S. Athan. Opp., ed. Ben., i. 616). But S. Meletius was not bound to accede to those directions. It would be for him to say whether he would receive into his communion any one who declined to anathematize Marcellus, a personage who undoubtedly deserved to be anathematized. If S. Athanasius had broken off all negotiations, on the ground that Marcellus must be defended at all costs, the responsibility for the prolongation of the breach would have rested on him.

of mere precedence, when there was a good hope of reuniting the Church of God.

The tome of the council was signed at Alexandria by S. Eusebius and by S. Asterius, the council's legates, as well as by S. Athanasius, who had presided, and by such other members of the council as had been able to remain until the conclusion of the proceedings.1 There can be no doubt that it was conveyed to Antioch by the two conciliar legates, or at any rate by S. Eusebius; for, strangely enough, we hear no more of S. Asterius.2

S. Eusebius must have entered Antioch full of hope that a happy reconciliation was going to take place. But he was destined to be grievously disappointed. The fanatical Lucifer, whose short-sighted narrowness stands out in such marked contrast with the generosity and statesmanship of the "royal-hearted" Athanasius, had "taken the improper course of consecrating Paulinus to be bishop for the Eustathians."8 Theodoret assures us that Lucifer's reason for acting in this way was that he saw that the Eustathians spoke in opposition to his proposal that they should come to an agreement with the followers of S. Meletius. It seems almost incredible that at such a crisis in the history of the Church Lucifer should have taken upon himself to settle irreversibly so grave a matter, when he must have known very well that the line to be taken in regard to Antioch was to be discussed by S. Athanasius and his brethren in the council that was sitting at Alexandria.5 His subsequent behaviour shows that he was completely out of sympathy with the wise policy of S. Athanasius and of S. Hilary, and he may have hurried on the

It was signed also by Lucifer's two deacons, and by the two Eustathian deacons, who had been sent by Paulinus.

2

Possibly he was taken ill on the voyage, and so was unable to accompany S. Eusebius from the port of landing to Antioch; or he may have died immediately after the conclusion of the council. He appended to the council's letter to the Antiochenes a short sentence expressing his assent to it.

Theodoret. H. E., iii. 2. S. Jerome (Chronic., P. L., xxvii. 691, 692) mentions that two confessors co-operated with Lucifer in the consecration. According to some manuscripts, the names of these confessors were Kymatius and Gorgonius.

The Eustathians no doubt raised the objection that S. Meletius had been ordained by Arians or by bishops who communicated with Arians. There is reason to think (cf. Socrat. H. E., ii. 44) that they also raised the still more fundamental objection that S. Meletius' adherents had been baptized by Arians, as no doubt many of them had. We know from S. Jerome that Lucifer would not have admitted the force of this latter objection (cf. S. Hieron. Dialog. contr. Luciferian., §§ 3 and 20, P. L., xxiii. 157, 175); and the Eustathians themselves, if they were logical, must have given it up after they had received the decrees of the Council of Alexandria. Compare note I on p. 454.

The criminality of Lucifer's action was increased by the fact that his consecration of Paulinus involved the breach of a promise made previously by him to S. Eusebius. Rufinus (H. E., i. 30) speaks of Lucifer's action as being contra pollicitationem."