to stigmatize S. Meletius in his presence as an Ario-maniac.1 Is it conceivable that the pope could have gone out of his way to recognize as joint-bishop of Antioch one whom he regarded as an Arian, or at least as an Arianizer? His whole history makes it clear that such a supposition is quite inconceivable. It is absolutely certain that Damasus in 375 recognized Paulinus as sole Bishop of Antioch. Such a decision involved a repudiation of S. Meletius' claim, and must have been based on the view that S. Meletius' institution to the see of Antioch was in some way illicit, and therefore null and void. There was not the least necessity for this judgement about S. Meletius to be formally expressed and promulgated. Rome had never recognized S. Meletius, and had never communicated with him. There was no change in her attitude towards him in 375. In Rome's view he remained where he always had been, namely, outside her communion, just as he was outside and always had been outside the communion of the Church of Alexandria. From 343 to 362 the whole Eastern Church had been outside the Roman communion. After the Council of Alexandria in 362, those bishops, who were allowed to avail themselves of the terms granted by that council, and wished so to avail themselves, were received into the communion of Rome and Alexandria. S. Meletius had never been so received.3 He therefore

1 S. Basil. Ep. cclxvi. ad. Petrum, § 2, Opp., iii. 412, 413.

2 An exception must be made in regard to those parts of the Eastern Church, with which Liberius communicated for a time after his fall. I have already pointed out that he never communicated with the Church of Antioch (see p. 232, n. 2).

It has been suggested that it can be proved that Damasus admitted S. Meletius to his communion, because Dorotheus, who was one of S. Meletius' clergy, on various occasions carried letters to Rome, some of which were signed by a number of Eastern bishops, of whom S. Meletius was one, and Damasus was willing to receive those letters from Dorotheus. But it is easy to show that there is no force in this argument, which is based on a misconception of the customs of the Church in the fourth century. For in the year 371, before carrying S. Basil's letter to Rome, Dorotheus had carried letters from S. Basil to Athanasius, and S. Athanasius received the letters and replied to them. Yet we know for certain that S. Athanasius was not in communion with S. Meletius (see p. 290). Similarly, in the beginning of Pope Liberius' episcopate the Eastern bishops, who had been excommunicated by his predecessor, sent letters to him, inviting him to enter into communion with them, and Liberius received these letters, read them to his own Roman flock, and also to the synod of the Italian bishops, and he further sent replies to the Easterns, but he refused altogether to communicate with them, cf. S. Hilar. Fragm. v. §§ 2 & 4 (P. L., x. 683, 684). If it be replied that the Roman Council of 374, in its synodical letter, speaks of Dorotheus as frater noster Dorotheus" (P. L., xiii. 352), I answer that Baronius has long ago shown that the use of the word "frater" does not prove that the person so denominated is in Catholic communion (cf. Baronii Annales, ad ann. 492, § 10, tom. vi. pp. 471, 472, edit. 1658). For an obvious example of such a use of the term "frater," reference may be made to S. Ambrose's letter to Theophilus (Ep. lvi. §§ 3, 5, 6, P. L., xvi. 1220, 1221), in which S. Ambrose gives the title "frater" both to S. Flavian and to Evagrius, the rival claimants of the see of Antioch, although it is quite certain that he was not in communion with S. Flavian, and it is doubtful whether he was in communion with Evagrius. Theophilus, to whom he writes,

remained where he was before. All that happened in 375, so far as S. Meletius was concerned, was that his non-recognition by Rome was emphasized and published abroad by the overt recognition of his rival, Paulinus. To acknowledge Paulinus was in effect to repudiate Meletius; because the normal rule of the Church is that there can be only one occupant of an episcopal see at one time. No doubt in some exceedingly rare cases, for the greater good of the Church, this fundamental rule has been suspended by conciliar (or in later times by papal) authority; but in 375 it was not suspended. If any one says that it was suspended, it is for him to prove it; and there is no proof possible. If such an unusual event had happened, specially in regard to such a see as that of Antioch, history would have rung with it; whereas history is silent, or rather utters her contradiction. Let us hear S. Basil. Writing to Count Terentius, he says, "The report has reached us that the brethren of Paulinus' party are entering on some discussion with your rectitude on the subject of union with us; and by 'us' I mean those who are supporters of the man of God, Meletius, the bishop. I hear, moreover, that they [the Paulinians] are at the present time (vv) carrying about a letter of the Westerns, which while it commits the bishopric of the Church of Antioch to them,' defrauds [of his due] the most admirable bishop of the true Church of God, Meletius."2 Evidently in S. Basil's view, to acknowledge Paulinus was in effect to refuse recognition to Meletius. The Benedictine, Dom Maran, that "most accurate writer of the life of Basil," as Merenda calls him, commenting on this epistle, correctly describes S. Basil's attitude in the following terms: "He [S. Basil] rightly denied that communion should be held with Paulinus, since in fact communion could not be held with

was certainly in communion with neither. On the subject of this note reference may also be made to the correspondence between Pope Symmachus and certain Illyrian bishops who were under the anathema of the Roman Church. That correspondence belongs to the year 512. On p. 411 I quote some sentences from the letter of the Illyrians.

Rome had the right of deciding which of two contending claimants she would acknowledge as Bishop of Antioch. But her decision was not the decision of the Catholic Church. It did not, for example, bind S. Basil, who went on recognizing the claimant rejected by Damasus. The pope did not in this case exercise any primatial jurisdiction over Antioch. He simply gave the recog nition and communion of his own Church to Paulinus. No doubt Damasus' decision carried great weight in the West, but it only bound the Church of Rome. Similarly, four years later, when S. Gregory Nazianzen began to act as a missionary bishop in Arian Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria "established S. Gregory" by his letters" and "honoured him by the tokens of his recognition' (cf. S. Greg. Naz. Carmen de Vita sua, 859, 862, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 718). Of course the Bishop of Alexandria had no jurisdiction in Constantinople, but his recognition carried great weight throughout the Church, and specially in the East. 2 S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv. ad Terentium, § 2, Opp., iii. 321.

3 Cf. P. L., xiii. 170.

Y

him without Meletius being rejected, who was the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch." 1 In S. Basil's view, S. Meletius was bishop of "the true Church of God" in Antioch,2 while Paulinus was head of a sect, a substantially orthodox sect, no doubt, but still a sect. Damasus by recognizing Paulinus had "defrauded Meletius" of his due, or, in other words, had rejected him. It is as clear as noon-day that in 375 Damasus had made no suggestion that the two bishops should occupy the see conjointly.

Having, I hope, cleared up the question as to what Damasus had tried to effect and what he had not attempted to effect in regard to the status of S. Meletius and Paulinus by his letters to the latter, I proceed next to consider what effect these letters had on the views and actions of S. Basil. According to Dr. Rivington, S. Basil attributed to Damasus the right to exercise "lordship over the universal Church."3 And according to the Vatican Council, all the pastors and all the faithful are bound to the authority of the pope "by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world," and the council adds that "no one can deviate from this teaching without the loss of his faith and salvation." Did, then, S. Basil feel that he was bound to yield true obedience to the pope in a matter so closely connected with the discipline and government of the Church, as was the determination of the question as to who was the true occupant of the apostolic see of Antioch, the primatial see of the whole East? Let his own words give answer. In his letter to Count Terentius he says, " However, since we accuse no one, but on the contrary wish to be in charity with all men, especially with those who are of the household of the faith, we congratulate those who have received the letter [or

1 Praefat. in S. Basil. Vit., § ii. sect. 2, S. Bas. Opp., tom. iii. p. xi.

2 It is necessary to protest against Dr. Rivington's attempt to escape from the crushing force of this expression. In order that his attempt may be understood and its enormity perceived, I must quote the context. Dr. Rivington says (Prim. Ch., p. 220), "He [Basil] numbers them [the Paulinians] amongst the household of the faith. But he is not prepared on that account to ignore Meletius, or to forget for his part the Church under him.' For this also, he says, 'is the true Church of God.'" I have italicized the word "also," by the use of which Dr. Rivington leaves the impression that S. Basil regarded the Paulinians as being, no less than the Meletians, members of the true Church of God. But S. Basil does not use the word "also," or any word which could be paraphrased by "also," as will be evident to any reader who will study the passage. This is not fair treatment of readers who cannot refer to the original.

Prim Ch., p. 222.

* Constitut. Dogmatic. de Ecclesia Christi, cap. iii., Collect. Lacens., vii. 484. The Eustathians, unlike the Arians, were firm believers in our Lord's true Godhead, they therefore belonged to "the household of the faith," if that expression be taken in its wider sense.

letters] from Rome; and if, moreover, he [Paulinus] should have some honourable and grand testimony in favour of himself and his followers, we pray that it may prove true and be confirmed by their actions. But not on this account shall we be able to persuade ourselves either to ignore Meletius, or to lose thought of the Church under him, or to consider the questions, about which from the beginning the separation arose, as small matters,1 or as having little importance in respect of the true aim of religion. As for me, if any one, having received a letter from men, should pride himself on it, not only shall I never suffer myself on this account to draw back [from the position I have taken up], but even if one should have come from heaven itself, but should not walk by the health-giving word of the faith, I cannot regard such a one as sharing in the communion of saints." In other words, S. Basil absolutely declines to allow Damasus' decision to have the smallest effect on his conduct. Damasus had acknowledged Paulinus and had rejected Meletius. S. Basil promptly informs Terentius that, as for himself, he will continue as before to acknowledge Meletius and to reject Paulinus. As we shall see, the Eastern Church, whose judgement was final in a matter such as this, which concerned the succession in the see of Antioch, ratified S. Basil's decision. It is clear that S. Basil, S. Meletius, and the whole Eastern Church were either consciously guilty of abominable rebellion against their divinely appointed head, or they did not acknowledge that view of the papacy, which is set forth in the Vatican decrees, and which has been summed up in the assertion that the pope, even in the fourth century, enjoyed a "lordship over the universal Church." The Church by the extraordinary veneration, which she has always manifested for the memory of S. Basil, has practically decided in favour of the latter alternative.

It should further be noticed that S. Basil and the Eastern Church of his time did not accept the principle laid down by Cardinal Wiseman, when he asserted that "According to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, it is easy at once to ascertain who are the Church Catholic, and who are in a state of schism, by simply discovering who are in communion with

'S. Basil is referring to the question whether it was right to speak of Three Hypostases in God or of One Hypostasis (compare note on p. 314). Dom Maran (Praefat. in S. Basil. Vit., § ii. sect. 2, S. Basil. Opp., tom. iii. p. xi.) has carefully drawn out the reasons which invested this question with grave importance in the East during the episcopate of S. Basil.

2 I am grateful to Dr. Rivington for his criticisms on the translation of this passage, which I adopted in the two earlier editions of this book. I gladly accept his view of S. Basil's meaning, which appears on consideration to be better than the one which I had previously taken, and better also than the view taken by the Benedictine editors of S. Basil's Works.

S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv. ad Terentium, § 2, Opp., iii. 321.

the see of Rome, and who are not." S. Basil, on the contrary, regarded the Church which acknowledged S. Meletius for its bishop, and was repudiated by Rome, as "the true Church of God" in Antioch; and he regarded the Eustathian body, which enjoyed the communion of Rome, as "having no share in the communion of saints," or, in other words, as being a schismatical sect.1

One can easily understand that S. Basil was exceedingly distressed when he heard of Damasus' action, which seemed to constitute a most serious obstacle in the way of that restoration of unity, for which he so longed. It was in the autumn of 375 and in the early part of 376 that he referred in two different letters to the haughtiness and inconsiderateness of Damasus. I have quoted one of these passages on p. 136, and the other on pp. 163, 164. He felt very doubtful whether it was of the smallest use to write any more to the West. However, the two priests of the great Church of Antioch, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, who had been to Rome as joint-envoys from the East in 374, were preparing to go there again; and ultimately a letter was written in the name of the Catholic bishops of the East, and addressed to the bishops of the West; and this letter was carried to Rome by the two envoys. The Eastern bishops urge their Western brethren to denounce by name to the Eastern churches certain men clad in sheep's clothing, who were unsparingly ravaging Christ's flocks. The men thus singled out for mention are the pneumatomachian ringleader, Eustathius of Sebaste, Apollinarius the heresiarch, and Paulinus the bishop of the Eustathians at Antioch. is important that we should notice the reasons which led to this request being preferred. No place is found among them for any reference to a supposed papal jurisdiction over the East. The bishops say, "Our own words are suspected by most men, as though on account of some private quarrels we

It

1 S. Basil in effect argues a fortiori. He would not regard Paulinus as sharing in the communion of saints, so long as he clung to the formula of the One Hypostasis, even if Paulinus were an angel from heaven; a fortiori S. Basil will not feel under any obligation to draw back from his repudiation of Paulinus merely because he had received an epistle from men, that is to say, a letter of communion from Rome. Similarly S. Basil, some time afterwards, writing to S. Epiphanius (Ep. cclviii. § 3, S. Basil. Opp., iii. 394), expresses his assurance that S. Epiphanius would never have entered into communion with the Eustathians, unless he had made sure that they accepted the formula of the Three Hypostases. In that same letter to S. Epiphanius, after declaring that his Church of Caesarea has communicated with S. Meletius ever since he became Bishop of Antioch, S. Basil goes on to say that he has never entered into communion with any of those who have since been introduced into the see [that is to say, with Paulinus or Vitalis], not because he counts them unworthy, but because he sees no ground for the condemnation of Meletius. This letter was written to S. Epiphanius more than a year after Paulinus had been recognized by Rome.

2 Dr. Rivington (Prim. Ch., p. 224) makes one of his hopeless attempts to show that there is such a reference.