signed, by way of further precaution, an additional declaration drawn up by S. Athanasius. Thus Paulinus purged himself of the suspicion of heresy, and was admitted to communion by S. Athanasius.

But that great saint, though he was naturally vexed at being refused communion by S. Meletius, retained the desire of seeing the breach between them healed. Only he did not think it right to expose himself to the risk of another refusal, and he therefore made it a sine quâ non that the next step should be taken by S. Meletius, and not by himself. However, in the Lent season of 372, about a year before his death, he privately let S. Basil know that he was most anxious to be brought into fellowship with the saint of Antioch. No doubt the fact that he had admitted Paulinus to his communion had very much complicated matters, and had made it exceedingly difficult for S. Meletius to take the initiative in any negotiations for reunion.

It is not possible for us, who have only a partial knowledge of the facts, to pass judgement on the actions of these great saints; but it certainly seems very unfortunate that S. Meletius should have felt himself obliged to refuse S. Athanasius' request to be admitted to his communion in the autumn of 363;5 and it also seems very unfortunate that upon that refusal S. Athanasius should have thought it right to grant his communion to Paulinus. One must add that it seems, perhaps, still more unfortunate that S. Athanasius

1 Cf. S. Epiph., Haer. lxxvii. capp. 20, 21, P. G., xlii. 672. The declaration signed by Paulinus refers more than once to the tome of the Council of Alexandria, and forms an appendix to it. Any one who signed the declaration committed himself also to the tome.

2 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. lxxxix. ad Meletium, § 2, Opp., iii. 180, 181. The observations of Dom Maran on the expression Aéyera should be noted (cf. Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxii. § 2, S. Basil. Opp., tom. iii. p. cx.).

* S. Basil, in a letter to S. Athanasius, written in 371 (S. Basil. Ep. Ixvii. ad Athanasium, Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 160) had sketched out a plan for reunion at Antioch. S. Meletius was to preside over the whole body; and in virtue of the dispensing power of the Church, some arrangement was to be made which would satisfy and pacify the Eustathians, who were to be joined to the main body of the Church, as lesser streams flow into great rivers.

The difficulty arising from S. Athanasius' communion with Marcellus had been overcome. Dom Maran has, I think, successfully shown (Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxvii. § 6, S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., tom. iii. pp. clxvii., clxviii.) that in the last years of his life S. Athanasius withdrew his communion from Marcellus. See also p. 325, note 4.

saint.

S. Basil had not felt that S. Athanasius' communion with Marcellus in 363 was a reason which compelled him to refrain from communicating with that He no doubt greatly regretted S. Athanasius' relations with Ancyra, and he finally succeeded in persuading the Bishop of Alexandria to withdraw his communion from the Galatian heretic. But S. Basil would have wished S. Meletius to adopt his own milder line at the critical moment in 363, when Antioch and Alexandria might have been reunited. Of course S. Basil himself refrained from all relations with Marcellus.

should have allowed Marcellus to remain in his communion for so long a time.1

3

During the year 363 a large number of synods were held in both East and West, for the purpose of establishing the Nicene creed in its due place of honour, and for the purpose of extricating the churches from the results of the very general acceptance of the formula of Ariminum, into which they had been coerced or cajoled three years before. S. Athanasius, in a letter to Jovian, has given a list of some of the provinces in which such synods had been held.2 In accordance with the general trend of opinion, a synod was held at Antioch during Jovian's stay in that city, for the purpose of accepting the Nicene creed as authoritative. The leaders of the synod were S. Meletius of Antioch and S. Eusebius of Samosata, and along with them were associated S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Irenion of Gaza, and other orthodox bishops, and also priests who represented that "bulwark of orthodoxy," Athanasius of Ancyra. These bishops belonged to the extreme right of the middle party of the Eastern Church. They had always accepted the substance of the Nicene faith, and they now proposed to accept the Nicene terminology. But there came also to the synod bishops, who had formerly belonged to the Homoean party, such as Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, Zoilus of Larissa in Syria, and others. If it be asked what place such men had in an assembly of the saints, it may be replied that these Homoean bishops were still in canonical possession of their sees; they had, moreover, in past times, made a profession of rejecting the full Arian teaching of the Anomoeans; and they had now come to Antioch for the very admirable purpose of accepting the Nicene creed, and of explicitly repudiating the teaching of Arius as being impious. It might therefore be held that, even according to the principles laid down by the Council of Alexandria, they ought to be welcomed.5

1 Duchesne (Revue du Monde Catholique, tom. lxiv. p. 535), speaking of Marcellus, says, "Les orthodoxes le défendent, et malheureusement le défendent trop longtemps; ce malencontreux protégé nuit étrangement à la bonne cause: il fait croire à beaucoup d'Orientaux que Rome et Alexandrie enseignent au fond pure doctrine de Sabellius."

la

2 Cf. S. Athan. Ep. ad Jovianum, § 2, Opp., ed. Ben., 1777, i. 623.

3 The signatures of these two occupy the places of honour in the collection of signatures at the end of the synodical epistle to Jovian (cf. Socrat. H. E., iii. 25); and the whole synod is described in one document as οἱ περὶ Μελέτιον καὶ Εὐσέβιον Tov Zaμooαréa (cf. Refut. Hypocr. Melet. et Euseb., S. Athan. Opp., ed. Ben., 1777, ii. 24).

Dr. Hort (Two Dissertations, p. 128) describes the synod as having been 66 a gathering of scattered bishops, including men like Acacius, assembled to express acquiescence in the terms of communion arranged by Meletius.”

5 Whether Acacius and his friends were sincere in their adherence to the

Hitherto the difficulty, which had been felt in regard to the acceptance of the Nicene terminology by Eastern Catholics, such as were S. Meletius and S. Eusebius, lay in the possible Sabellianizing interpretation which could be put upon the word ouoovorov. Before they committed themselves to that term, they wished to have some guarantee that the Sabellian meaning was excluded. The fact that the Sabellianizing Marcellus was still in communion with Egypt and the West might well excite their fears. However, of late some declarations had been made on the Western side, which would tend to reassure them. S. Hilary had frankly faced the difficulty in his De Synodis, and had acknowledged that the word in debate was open to a Sabellian interpretation; and in the name of the West he had repudiated that interpretation.1 S. Athanasius also, the head and centre of the Nicene party, had explained that the term óμooúσov was equivalent to the two expressions ὁμοιούσιον and ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας taken together.2 S. Athanasius and S. Hilary had a right to speak in the name of the Nicenes. And so it came to pass that, when S. Meletius and his colleagues met in council in the autumn of 363, they felt that, on the basis of S. Athanasius' interpretation, they could safely accept the Nicene language. This they did in a synodical letter addressed to the Emperor.

The most important sentence in their letter runs thus : "We report to your Religiousness that we embrace and steadfastly hold the creed of the holy synod formerly convened at Nicaea; especially since the term which in it seems to some to be unusual-we mean the term ouoovσlov -has received from the Fathers a safe interpretation, according to which it denotes that the Son was begotten of the Father's Substance (ik The ovσíaç Toû Tатρós), and that He is like the Father as to Substance” 3 (ὅμοιος κατ ̓ οὐσίαν τῷ Nicene formula is a question into which we need not enter; because it has no bearing on the orthodoxy of the leaders of the council, S. Meletius and S. Eusebius, nor on that of their like-minded colleagues, S. Pelagius, S. Irenion, and others. It is probable that in all (or almost all) the Eastern synods of the year 363 there were some who accepted the Nicene formula, and who afterwards, in the time of Valens, fell back into Arianism. Two years later, Eustathius of Sebaste was received into communion by Pope Liberius on the basis of the Nicene creed, yet in 376 he is described by S. Basil as "a ringleader of the Pneumatomachi" (S. Basil. Ep. cclxiii. ad Occidentales, § 3, Opp., ed. Ben., iii.

406).

iS. Hilar. Lib. de Synodis, §§ 69-71 et § 88, P. L., 526, 527, 540, 541. 2 S. Athan., De Synodis, § 41, Opp., ed. Ben., 1777, i. 603.

In The Appeal to History (p. 17) Dr. Rivington attacks S. Meletius and S. Eusebius for this letter, on the ground that in it "they explained the terms [? term]' 'Consubstantial' used of the Son, as equivalent to 'similar in Substance.'" Dr. Rivington omits to tell his readers that in the explanation of the duoovolov, given by the two saints and their colleagues, the formula, èk TŶs ovσías, finds a place. Dr. Hort (Two Dissertations, p. 70, n. 1), speaking of the clause, èk tŷs

Tаτρí1). Here we have the synod accepting S. Athanasius' interpretation of the oμooúotov as being equivalent to the two terms oμolovolov and έk rŶs ovσías taken together, and we also find them appealing to the Fathers as having authorized this interpretation. Nothing could be more satisfactory. Dom Montfaucon rightly describes this crucial sentence of the council's letter, as being "Catholic words assuredly, so that no one may deny it."

It appears, therefore, that at the end of 363 the whole body of the orthodox at Antioch accepted not only the Catholic faith, but also the Nicene phraseology. Unfortunately, however, they were still divided into two parts, and these parts were headed by two rival bishops. There was the great Church under S. Meletius, in communion with all the saints of the East and with almost all the Eastern Catholic bishops, which, however, had refused to admit S. Athanasius to its communion, apparently lest it should seem in any way to condone the heresy of Marcellus. And there was the small Eustathian body under Paulinus, out of communion with the Catholic episcopate of the East, and with a bishop irregularly consecrated by a man who immediately afterwards broke away into schism. These Eustathians, however, had recently been much encouraged by having been readmitted to the communion of S. Athanasius and of the Egyptian churches. Neither section of the orthodox people of Antioch was as yet in communion with the Church of Rome and with the West.

Some writers have indeed supposed, though, as I think, without sufficient reason, that Liberius and the West granted ovolas TOÙ TαTрós, says, "Innumerable passages of his [Athanasius'] writings show that the form of language adopted in this clause was the test on which he relied above all others for the exclusion of Arianism." If it is permissible, when discussing the doctrinal accuracy of holy men, to omit the crucial expressions used in their declarations of faith, it would be easy to show that every saint in the calendar was a heretic. Dr. Rivington also cites, in connexion with this matter, a discreditable document, which is printed among the writings wrongly ascribed to S. Athanasius. On this document, see the Additional Note 70, p. 496.

1 Socrat. H. E., iii. 25. In order that it may be made clear that the Fathers of Antioch were basing their statement on S. Athanasius' explanation in his De Synodis (§ 41), I subjoin the two passages in parallel columns.

Synodical Letter to Jovian. Σημαινούσης ὅτι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς ἐγεννήθη, καὶ ὅτι ὅμοιος κατ ̓ οὐσίαν τῷ πατρί (this is the interpretation of the duoovolov which the Antiochene letter says has been sanctioned by the Fathers).

S. Athanasius (De Synodis, § 41).

Ὁ λέγων ὁμοούσιον, ἀμφοτέρων, τοῦ τε ὁμοιουσίου καὶ τοῦ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας σημαίνει τὴν διάνοιαν.

For a discussion of the attitude of S. Athanasius' mind towards the letter of the Antiochene Council of 363, see the Additional Note 71, p. 497.

2 Admonit. in Refut. Hypocr. Melet., S. Athan. Opp., ed. Ben., 1777, ii. 23, "Haec maxime verba, Catholica sane, ut nemo eat inficias, ad suspectum et pravum sensum detorquere nequicquam conatur scriptor iste."

their communion to S. Meletius in the winter of 365-366, but that, Liberius having died in September, 366, and Damasus having succeeded to the Roman chair, the latter, for what reason does not appear, withdrew from S. Meletius the communion which Liberius had granted.1 As there was no change in S. Meletius' theological and ecclesiastical position at the time of Damasus' accession or afterwards, one would require very clear proof of such wavering action, before one could impute it to the Roman see. Moreover, it would be impossible for the first see to withdraw its communion from the third see without such a rupture producing considerable excitement, traces of which would certainly be found in the ecclesiastical historians and in the voluminous correspondence of such an intimate friend of S. Meletius as was S. Basil. But there is absolutely no trace of any such excitement, and the proofs alleged in favour of Liberius having granted his communion to S. Meletius are either founded on mistakes or are very inconclusive.

In order that this may be made clear, it will be necessary to say something about the general course of events. The Emperor Jovian died by accidental suffocation in February, 364. He was succeeded by Valentinian, a Catholic, who, five weeks after his accession, made his brother Valens his colleague in the imperial dignity. Valentinian reserved to himself the West, and assigned the East to his brother. The Eastern Emperor soon came under the influence of Eudoxius, the Bishop of Constantinople, who, as we have already seen, was a blaspheming Arianizer. However, before Eudoxius' influence had become established, a considerable number of bishops belonging to the Semi-Arian group held during the latter part of the year 364, by permission of the Emperor, a series of synods in various provinces of Asia Minor, the most important of which deliberated for the space of two months at Lampsacus on the Hellespont. It was determined at these synods to send three bishops as ambassadors to the West, who were to satisfy Liberius concerning the faith of those whom they represented, to confirm the doctrine of the ouoobotov, and to enter into communion

1 Cf. Merend., De S. Damasi Opusculis et Gestis, cap. vi. § 3, P. L., xiii. 146. Dr. Rivington (Prim. Church, p. 250) says that S. Meletius was "recognized amongst the bishops of the East by the Pope Liberius." Dom Maran (Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxiii. § 6, S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., tom. iii. p. cli.) says that "discessit Damasus a Liberii decessoris sui vestigiis."

2 See p. 158, note 2.

It was because Valens was putting pressure upon them to enter into communion with Eudoxius, that these Eastern bishops determined to strengthen their position by sending an embassy to the Western Emperor and to the Western bishops.