consecration so as to get it done before the legates of the council arrived.1

S. Eusebius, when, after his arrival, he discovered the hopeless condition into which affairs had been brought, was filled with shame and indignation, and, refusing to communicate either with the followers of S. Meletius or with the Eustathians, he took his departure for the Cappadocian Caesarea, accompanied by the Antiochene priest, Evagrius, and probably also by the Italian, S. Honoratus, afterwards one of his successors at Vercellac. As for Lucifer, when he saw that S. Eusebius refused to recognize the bishop whom he had consecrated, and when he learnt with disgust what had been decreed by S. Athanasius and his colleagues at Alexandria in favour of the bishops who had become tainted with Arianism, "he broke away from the communion of the Catholic bishops," and retired to his diocese in Sardinia. Cardinal Baronius assures us that he died "absque pace Ecclesiae, in schismate perseverans."

The Council of Alexandria was one of the most important ecclesiastical assemblies that ever met for deliberation and legislation. The master-mind of S. Athanasius may be recognized in its decrees and in its synodical letter. As Newman well says, "All eyes throughout Christendom were . . . turned towards Alexandria, as the Church, which, by its sufferings and its indomitable spirit, had claim to be the arbiter of doctrine, and the guarantee of peace to the Catholic world.” 5

But in the inquiry which we are pursuing, the question

1 Duchesne (Églises Séparées, p. 180) says, “À Antioche on soutenait contre la grande église une petite coterie, pourvue d'un évêque par Lucifer, le fanatique évêque de Cagliari, au mépris de toutes les règles de la prudence et du droit ecclésiastique.

2 Cf. Rufin. H. E., i. 30, P. L., xxi. 500.

I quote from the History of the Church, by the learned Roman Catholic scholar, Dr. Funk (French translation by the Abbé Hemmer, with a preface by Mgr. Duchesne, 1891, p. 216). Hefele (E. tr., ii. 279) makes a similar

statement.

✦ Annales Ecclesiastici ad ann. 362, § ccxxv., edit. 1654, tom. iv. p. 90. Compare also what Baronius says, ad ann. 371, § cxxi., tom. iv. pp. 312-314. The fact that Lucifer fell into schism is acknowledged by all the best historians. It is guaranteed to us by S. Ambrose (De Excessu Fratris, i. 47, P. L., xvi. 1362, 1363), Pope Innocent (S. Innocentii, Ep. iii. cap. i., P. L., xx. 487), S. Augustine (Ep. clxxxv. ad Bonifacium, cap. x. § 47, P. L., xxxiii. 813), Sulpicius Severus (Hist. Sacr., ii. 45, P. L., xx. 155), and others. Dr. Rivington, on the other hand, following Stiltinck and some other papalist writers, makes unsuccessful efforts to clear him from the charge, and goes so far as to speak of him as "Saint Lucifer." It is to be feared that Lucifer's claim to be recognized as a saint is even less arguable than that of the "renegade" Liberius, who also appears in Dr. Rivington's book as "Saint Liberius." The questions connected with Lucifer's schism are too remote from my main argument to make it necessary for me to discuss them.

• Newman's Arians, edit. 1871, p. 364.

immediately presents itself, What share had Liberius in this great work of pacification? If we are to believe Dr. Rivington, Liberius had the chief share. After mentioning Julian's edict allowing the banished bishops to return to their dioceses, Dr. Rivington goes on to say, "Liberius, ever foremost in the faith, at once entered upon the work of pacification and ecclesiastical discipline. He proceeded to lay down the rules by which the Church should be guided in reconciling those who had in any way compromised themselves by complicity with the manifold forms of Arianism. Antioch was naturally one of his chief cares; and he influenced and authorized the great Bishop of Alexandria to convene a council to consider the position of affairs in that central see of the East. The Council of Alexandria adopted the rules laid down by the sovereign pontiff, and did its best to conciliate the differences that divided the Catholics at Antioch." All this is highly interesting and of the utmost importance, if it is true. On the other hand, if it is not true, it is one of the most audacious attempts to substitute romance for history in the interest of an indefensible theological position, that it has ever been my lot to read.

The first point that I notice in regard to the theory accepted by Dr. Rivington, according to which Liberius was the true author of the legislation promulgated by the Council of Alexandria, is that historians, like Tillemont and Hefele, preserve a complete silence about it. It is not that they argue against it, but that they absolutely ignore it. They evidently regard it as being so entirely without foundation, that it is not worth their while to waste time by heaping up proofs of its inadmissibility. Under such circumstances, one would have expected that Dr. Rivington would have made an effort to justify his very dogmatic assertions by some show of argument. All that he does attempt in that way is to refer the reader to three paragraphs in Stiltinck's article on Liberius in the Acta Sanctorum. Not many readers have access to that great collection. Those who have, if they refer to Stiltinck, will find that even he does not profess to regard the theory as historically certain, but only as "very probable." There is nothing in his pages at all resembling the calm assurance which pervades Dr. Rivington's handling of the matter. It is necessary to warn readers, who might otherwise be deceived by Dr. Rivington's tone, that he has neither produced nor even indicated any such evidence as could conceivably justify his attitude of certainty.3

1 Prim. Ch., pp. 190, 191.

2 Acta SS., tom. vi. Septembr., pp. 618, 619.

3 I see that Dr. Rivington, in another note, refers to the interpolation inserted

It is desirable at this point to state that Stiltinck's main argument in favour of what he regards as a "very probable theory depends upon another theory, which he also regards as "very probable." According to this second theory, Liberius created S. Eusebius and Lucifer his legates to represent him in the East, the one at the Council of Alexandria, and the other at Antioch. Stiltinck is candid enough to tell us that he has nowhere found this supposed legation asserted by any ancient author in clear words. Thus the whole construction is a sort of inverted pyramid, in which theory is piled upon theory, without any substantial basis of fact. It will be well now to test these theories by comparing them with what we really do learn from the ancient writers.2

If it be true that Liberius “authorized" S. Athanasius to convene the Council of Alexandria, and that that council, when it met, "adopted the rules laid down by the sovereign pontiff," how is it that S. Athanasius, when he is promulgating the decisions of the council, never refers to their papal origin?

For example, in the synodical tome addressed by the council to Lucifer and the other bishops at Antioch, which was to be publicly read at a general meeting of the orthodox in that city, the decisions of the Alexandrine Council are fully set forth; but there is not a single word about the Roman pope from the beginning to the end of the document. Neither S. Eusebius nor Lucifer is described as papal legate, nor does the council claim that it had been convened by papal authority, nor is there a word to show that the council's decisions were in accordance with "the rules laid down by the sovereign pontiff." One is compelled to ask once more, Why is there always, in the records of these early councils, such a conspiracy of silence about the papal authority? In the history of no other kingdom do we find the authority of the sovereign so persistently ignored.

But it was not only in the synodical letter to the Antiochenes about the decisions of the Alexandrine Council, that S. Athanasius suppressed all reference to his brother of Rome. He appears to have done the same, when writing a little later on about those same decisions to S. Basil. S. Basil refers

into the copy of S. Athanasius' Epistle to Rufinianus, which was used at the second Council of Nicaea in 787. On the spuriousness of this interpolation, see p. 269, n. I.

1 See § 197, p. 618. Stiltinck says, "Etiamsi disertis verbis nullibi id assertum ab antiquis reperiam, non minus probabile existimo."

2 On the baseless theory which ascribes to S. Eusebius and to Lucifer the status of papal legates, see Additional Note 69, p. 493.

Dom Maran, in his Vit. S. Basil. (cap. viii. § viii., Opp. S. Basil., ed. Ben., tom. iii. pp. lxiv., lxv.), shows that this letter of S. Athanasius to S. Basil was written during the reign of Julian the Apostate-that is to say, soon after the Council of Alexandria, towards the end of 362 or in the early part of 363.

to this letter of S. Athanasius in his 204th epistle. He says, "For having received a letter from the most blessed father Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, which I still keep, and which I show to those who ask to see it, in which letter he clearly declared that, if any one wished to pass over from the Arian heresy, he was without hesitation to be accepted on his confession of the creed of Nicaea; and he moreover informed me concerning those who were associated with him in the acceptance of this decree, namely, all the bishops both of Macedonia and of Achaia; I, considering that it was necessary to follow so great a man on account of the trustworthiness of those who had made the law, and desiring to win the reward promised to peace-makers, began to number all who accepted that creed among those with whom I held communion." Now, I ask-Is it conceivable that S. Basil should refer to the acceptance of the Alexandrine decrees by the bishops of Macedonia and Achaia, and say nothing about their having been drawn up by "the sovereign pontiff," if they had in fact been drawn up by the pope? I certainly do not ascribe to the pope in the fourth century the position which Ultramontanes ascribe to him, but I should admit at once that in that century his deliberate judgement on an important question of general discipline would, under normal circumstances, have more weight in the Church at large than even the unanimous opinion of the bishops of Macedonia and Achaia. The fact that the assent of those bishops is mentioned, and that his assent is not mentioned, is proof positive to me that Liberius had neither drawn up the decrees nor had signified to S. Athanasius his assent to them, at the time when the latter penned his letter to S. Basil.

It is clear from what has been said that when S. Athanasius sent to S. Basil a summary of some of the decrees of the Council of Alexandria, information had reached him concerning the acceptance of those decrees by a synod in Greece. Some time afterwards news arrived at Alexandria of the acceptance of the same decrees by synods in Spain and Gaul. S. Athanasius, writing to the Bishop Rufinianus, says, "Know, most desired Lord, that to begin with, violence having ceased,2 a synod has been held [viz. at Alexandria], bishops from foreign parts being present; and another synod has been held by our fellow-ministers resident in Greece; and yet others by those in Spain and Gaul; and the same decision was come to here and everywhere, namely," etc. etc. Here,

1 S. Basil. Ep. cciv. ad Neocaesarienses, § 6, Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 306, 307.

? That is, when the persecuting Emperor Constantius had died.

3

Namely, S. Eusebius from North Italy and S. Asterius from Arabia.

4

S. Athan. Ep. ad Rufinianum, Opp., ed. Ben., i. 768.

again, there is not a word about the decrees having been drawn up by the pope.1 The presence of foreign bishops at the Council of Alexandria is mentioned, but Rufinianus is not told that a papal legate was one of them. And yet, if a legate of the great primatial see of old Rome had really taken part in the synod, S. Athanasius could hardly have failed to take notice of the fact, since his object in writing to Rufinianus was to urge him to observe the synod's decrees.

At the risk of being tedious, I will confirm the conclusion which has been deduced from the writings of S. Athanasius, by quoting S. Jerome's account of the Council of Alexandria. Of all the Fathers of the fourth century S. Jerome would be the least likely to slur over the share taken by the pope in the great restoration of the faith and of the Church, which took place after the death of Constantius. Yet this is what he

1 I make this assertion on the basis of the Epistle to Rufinianus, as it is printed in the Benedictine edition and in all the other editions of S. Athanasius' works. It ought, however, to be mentioned that a large part of the Epistle was publicly read at the first session of the second Council of Nicaea, which was held in 787, and that in the extract which was there read, as we find it in the Greek acts of the council (Coleti, viii. 721), an additional clause is inserted near the end of the letter, to the effect that "these things were written in Rome and were received by the Church of the Romans." The fact that there is nothing of this kind in S. Athanasius' tome to the Antiochenes, nor in his letter to S. Basil, nor apparently in any of the extant manuscript copies of his letter to Rufinianus, makes it absolutely certain that the clause is an interpolation. Possibly it may have been originally a marginal note written by some unknown scribe, which afterwards, per incuriam, crept into the text. The evidence of an anonymous scribe, who may have written four hundred years after the event, is obviously valueless when confronted with the silence of S. Athanasius himself and of all contemporary historians. There is no trace of the interpolation in such manuscript copies of the letter as I have been able to examine at the Bodleian, namely, Barocc. xci. (fol. 5 a), Barocc. clviii. (fol. 201 b), Barocc. clxxxv. (fol. 161 a), Barocc. cxcvi. (fol. 225 b), Barocc. ccv. (fol. 400 a), and Meerm. Auctar. T. ii. 6 (fol. 220 a). The last manuscript is also catalogued as Cod. Miscell. ccvi. The Benedictine editors, in a note (Õpp. S. Athan., i. 769), refer to the interpolation as found in the acts of the second Nicene Council. If they had known of any manuscripts containing the interpolation, they would certainly have mentioned them. Of course, the Benedictines exclude the interpolation from their text. On the other hand, Dr. Rivington, without giving any hint to the reader that the interpolation is absent from the manuscript copies of the letter and from the printed editions of S. Athanasius' Works, cites the interpolation in defence of his audacious statements (see Prim. Church, p. 191, n. 1). It is worth mentioning that, according to the ancient Latin version of the acts of the second Council of Nicaea (Coleti, viii. 1330), the interpolated clause should read as follows: "These things were written to Rome, and were received by the Church of the Romans." This reading gives a much better sense, and states what is no doubt the truth. Probably this reading represents the clause, as it was originally written by the scribe who first composed it. But its absence from the manuscript copies of the letter, and its awkward position, leave no doubt that it is an interpolation. Since writing the above, I have heard from Mr. Alfred Rogers, of the University Library at Cambridge, to whom my warm thanks are due, that the interpolation is absent from the only manuscript copy of the letter to Rufinianus which is in the Cambridge library, namely, Ee. 4. 29 (fol. 341 a). I have also ascertained by personal inspection that it is absent from the only two manuscript copies of the letter which I could discover in the library of the British Museum, namely, Additional 34060 (fol. 289 b) and Ar. 533 (fol. 347 a).