chose to bear them ill will. You, however, have all the more credit with the populations, in proportion to the distance which separates your dwelling-place from theirs, besides the fact that you are helped by God's grace for the bestowal of care on those who are in distress.1 If more of you concur in uttering the same opinions, it is clear that the large number of those who express them will make it impossible to oppose their acceptance." Why do not the bishops add, "Above all you have for your president the monarch of the Church, whose commands will impose on all loyal men the duty of implicit obedience"? As usual, they mention every reason except the one which would rise first to the lips of a modern ultramontane.

The bishops go on to describe the tergiversations of Eustathius and the Judaic follies and damnable heresies of Apollinarius, and finally they deal seriously but in a somewhat less trenchant fashion with the case of Paulinus. In regard to him they say, "As to whether there was anything objectionable about the ordination of Paulinus, you can speak yourselves. What grieves us is that he should show an inclination for the doctrines of Marcellus, and should without discrimination admit his followers to communion. You know, most

Dr. Rivington (loc. cit.) detects in these words the expression of a "consciousness of a charisma attaching to the Apostolic see which made it the proper caretaker of the troubled East"!!

2 Ep. ad Occidentales, inter Basilianas cclxiii. § 2, S. Basil. Opp., iii. 405. The Eastern bishops ingeniously indicate their own dissatisfaction with Paulinus' consecration, without entering into an argument about it, which under the circumstances would have increased the tension between them and the West.

66

* Dr. Rivington (Prim. Ch., pp. 222, 223), evidently misled by Merenda (De S. Damas. Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. vi. §4, P. L., xiii. 149), thinks that "ultimately" S. Basil changed his view about Marcellus. Merenda bases his theory on a complete misconception of the meaning of a passage in S. Basil's 266th epistle, which is addressed to Peter of Alexandria (S. Basil. Opp., iii. 412). Speaking of the Marcellians of Galatia, S. Basil says in that epistle, which was written in 377, "Now, if the Lord so will, and they will be patient with us, we hope to bring the people over to the Church in such a way, as that we may not be reproached for going over to the Marcellians, but that they may become members of the body of the Church of Christ." Merenda paraphrases this sentence in a most astounding fashion. He says that S. Basil desires that the Marcellians may be so received as to make it clear that they have never departed from the Church." In the next sentence he tries to confirm his view by following Zaccagni in rendering TòV Tovпρov yoyov by the words "malitiosa calumnia; whereas the Benedictines rightly translate them, "malum dedecus." As soon as these two mistakes have been corrected, there ensues a complete collapse of the whole of Merenda's theory about S. Basil's final change of view in regard to the heretical nature of Marcellus' teaching. He never retracted the statement which he made somewhat earlier in the year about Marcellus, namely, that "On account of his impious doctrines he went out from the Church" (cf. S. Basil. Ep. cclxv. ad Aegypti episcopos exules, § 3, Opp., iii. 410). After Marcellus' death a number of his followers gave up his heresies, and were finally reconciled to the Church. It is interesting to notice that the Council of Chalcedon in its Allocution, addressed to the Emperor Marcian, which seems to have been either pronounced in his presence at the sixth session or sent to him in writing just before that session (Hefele, E. tr., vol. iii. p. 351), expressed itself as follows: "Photinus and Marcellus invented a new

honourable brethren, that the emptying of all our hope is involved in the doctrine of Marcellus, for it does not confess the Son in His proper Hypostasis, but represents Him as having been uttered, and as returning again to Him, from whom He came forth. Neither does it admit that the Paraclete has His proper Hypostasis. . . . Of these things we implore you to take due heed. This will be the case, if you consent to write to all the churches of the East to the effect that those who have perverted these matters are, if they amend, to be admitted to communion; but that, if they contentiously determine to abide by their innovations, they are to be excommunicated by the churches. We are ourselves well aware that it had been fitting for us to sit in synod with your sagacities, and to settle these points by a common decree. But this the time does not allow." 1

To me it seems probable that Dorotheus and Sanctissimus started for Rome, carrying with them the letter of the Eastern bishops, soon after Easter in the year 376. Some time after their arrival in the capital of the Empire, there was held, probably in the course of the year 376, but possibly not till 377, a council, at which not only Damasus and his suburbicarian suffragans and, it may be, other Western bishops were present, but also Peter of Alexandria, who was still kept out of his own city by the Arians. At this synod both Apollinarius and his disciple, Timothy, were anathematized by name.2 The council also sent back to the East a synodical epistle in reply to the letter of the Oriental bishops. Two fragments of this synodical epistle have been preserved, in which the Apollinarian tenets are blasphemy against the Son." The council goes on to describe this blasphemy, which seems to be practically identical with Sabellianism (cf. Coleti, iv. 1760, 1761). The allocution must have been sanctioned by the papal legates, who were presiding. Hefele, following Tillemont and Dom Ceillier, thinks that it was actually drawn up by them (Hefele, E. tr., iii. 352, 353). The legates would certainly not have sanctioned such a treatment of Marcellus' name, if he had died in the communion of the Roman see.

1

Ep. cit., § 5, S. Basil. Opp., iii. 407. The opinion of the whole West on the question of how Eustathius, Apollinarius, and Paulinus were to be treated would, of course, have great weight with the various Eastern churches, who could not meet in synod either among themselves or with the West, because of the persecution. In his 265th epistle S. Basil tells the Egyptian confessors in Palestine that they ought to have been slow in admitting the Marcellians to communion, until they knew whether such action would be acceptable to the Eastern churches, with whom they communicated, and to the Western churches, so that their action might be "the more confirmed by the consent of many." Similarly in his 266th epistle S. Basil says that he had not sent his answer to the Marcellians, because he was waiting to know the decision of Peter of Alexandria. In none of these cases was there any question of the exercise of jurisdiction by any bishop or bishops outside his or their proper sphere.

2 See the letter of Damasus to the Easterns, preserved by Theodoret (H. E., v. 10).

They are the fragments Illud sane miramur and Non nobis quidquam (P. L., xiii. 352, 353).

repudiated with considerable detail of argument, and the Pneumatomachian and Marcellian heresies are rejected in briefer terms. But no names are mentioned in those

fragments of the letter, that have come down to us.

In the letter which the Eastern envoys had brought to Rome, the Western bishops had once more been requested to send some of their number to the East to comfort and help the Easterns in their manifold trials. But this request, which had been fruitlessly made so often before, was again refused by Damasus and his colleagues.1 It appears as if the West had allowed its sympathy for the suffering East to be chilled by listening to the malevolent insinuations which the Eustathians were accustomed to make in the course of their correspondence with Rome. It was during the session of this Roman council of 376 (or 377) that Dorotheus was pained and shocked by hearing S. Meletius and S. Eusebius of Samosata called Ariomaniacs in the very presence of Damasus, who seems to have made no protest and given no reproof. S. Basil, writing in 375, says, "Those persons [the Westerns] are altogether ignorant of affairs here; and these [the Eustathians], who are supposed to be acquainted with them, relate them to the others in a partisan rather than in a truthful way." 3 Cardinal Baronius alludes to this passage in his notes to the Roman Martyrology, where, speaking of the Roman bishop's dealings with the Church of Antioch, he says, "It is clear from the testimony of S. Basil that, as often happens, S. Damasus was deceived by certain false reports." 4 The Bollandists quote and adopt Baronius' statement. Similarly Dom Maran says that S. Basil's soul "was stirred by the unjust judgements about S. Meletius, which were passed at Rome, after no examination of the affair and on the mere reports of partisans." 6

We have thus traced the history of the long negotiations between the East and Rome, which were carried on under the guidance of S. Basil from 371 to 376 or 377. They ended unsatisfactorily, and left matters rather worse at the conclusion than they had been at the beginning; for the West was now committed to the wrong side, and the Catholic East, which was enduring a bitter persecution at the hands of the Arians, had the mortification of seeing an intruder in its primatial see enjoying the communion of the West, while its own

See the first sentence of the fragment, Non nobis quidquam (P. L., xiii. 353). 2 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. cclxvi. ad Petrum Episc. Alexandriae, § 2, Opp., iii. 412, 413.

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

Martyrolog. Rom., edit. Antverp., 1589, p. 80.

5 Cf. Acta SS., tom. ii. Febr., p. 595.

Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxiii. § 6, S. Basil. Opp., tom. iii. p. clii.

saintly leaders were flouted at Rome as Ariomaniacs. It would appear that S. Basil came to the conclusion that no advantage would be gained by continuing the negotiation, and we hear of no more embassies to the West during his lifetime. He died on January 1, 379.1 But he lived long enough to see the dawn of the brighter day which was coming. On August 9, 378, was fought the battle of Hadrianople. In that battle Valens fell, and his body was never found. The Catholic Gratian became the master of the whole empire, in the East as well as in the West. The Arian persecution was at an end.

For the date of S. Basil's death, see Rauschen's Jahrbücher der Christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen, pp. 476, 477.

LECTURE X.

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

The Compact between S. Meletius and Paulinus.

WITHIN a very few weeks of the death of Valens, Gratian issued an edict which enabled all exiled Catholic bishops to return to their sees. We may well suppose that S. Meletius would hurry back, as soon as he could, to his beloved flock at Antioch. S. Chrysostom has given an eloquent description of the enthusiastic reception which he received, when "the whole city"1 came out to welcome him.

In September, 379, he presided at a great synod which was held in Antioch. In consequence of the prolonged persecution under Valens, this was the first Catholic synod which had been able to meet in the East for many years. It was attended by 153 Eastern bishops. The fact that S. Meletius acted as president shows how entirely the Catholic East recognized his claim to be the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, and how completely it repudiated any binding force in Damasus' decision in favour of Paulinus. It was not simply that the Eastern bishops adhered to their primate, notwithstanding the fact that he was not in communion with Rome; but it was more than that: they adhered to him, notwithstanding the fact that a rival bishop, who was in communion with Rome and was supported by her, claimed to be the legitimate Bishop of Antioch and the legitimate Primate of the East.

We have already seen that among the bishops who took part in this council were S. Eusebius of Samosata, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Eulogius of Edessa, and S. Gregory of Nyssa. One great work, which the council had to undertake, was to do what it could to promote a thoroughly friendly intercourse between the East and the West; and with this object in view, to remove the absolutely unfounded suspicions which were entertained at Rome concerning the orthodoxy of the two great leaders, S. Meletius and S. Eusebius of Samosata. 1 Cf. S. Chrys. Hom. in S. Melet., § 2, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 521. 2 See p. 160, note.