Accordingly, the Fathers of the council put together into one document the synodical letter, which had been sent to the East by the Roman Council of 371, and also portions of the two other synodical letters which had been sent, the one by the Roman Council of 374, the other by the Roman Council of 376 or 377. To this composite formulary the 153 bishops. present at the council affixed their signatures, together with an appended clause defining in each case what the signature meant. Thus the president, S. Meletius, signed first, and appended to his signature the following clause: "I, Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, consent to all the things which are written above, so believing and holding (sentiens): and if any one holds (sentit) otherwise, let him be anathema."1 S. Eusebius and S. Pelagius appended to their signatures a similar formula. The clauses appended to the signatures of the other bishops were shorter. This composite document contained the solemn judgements synodically pronounced by the West against all the heresies which had been troubling the East during the time when, owing to the persecution, the Eastern Church could hold no synods of her own. In particular the heresies of Arius, Marcellus, Macedonius, and Apollinarius were condemned. The fact that the document was synodically accepted and signed by the Fathers of Antioch was a demonstrative proof that the East and West were agreed as to the faith, and consequently that the accusations of heresy so persistently brought against S. Meletius by the Eustathians were calumnies.

There can be no doubt that another subject discussed at the Council of Antioch was the schism which separated the party of Paulinus from the main body of the Catholic flock in the city where the council was holding its meeting. We have no means of knowing whether any overtures were made at that time to Paulinus. If they were made, they were rejected, for no agreement between the parties was brought about during the sitting of the council. When the council. was over, embassies from both parties started for Rome, bearing letters dealing with the subject of the schism. These letters were laid before a council of bishops from the whole of Italy, which met at Rome under the presidency of

1 P. L., xiii. 353.

2 The Bollandist, Father Van den Bosche, has some good remarks on the impossibility of supposing that any compact was made between S. Meletius and Paulinus at the Council of Antioch (cf. Acta SS., tom. iv. Jul., p. 60, n. 266).

3

Pope Vigilius, in his Constitutum pro damnatione Trium Capitulorum (cap. xxvi., P. L., lxix. 176), implies that S. Ambrose was present at the Roman Council which sent to Paulinus of Antioch the confession of faith containing twenty-four paragraphs with a number of anathemas; and Merenda has, I think, shown that that council was held in 380 (cf. Merend., De S. Damas. Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xv. § 4, P. L., xiii. 197-200). It follows that the Roman Council

Damasus in the early part of the year 380. This Roman Council determined to send certain of its members to Antioch, as arbiters, to restore peace, if that should be possible. As it turned out, the execution of this charitable project was prevented by the arrival of the news that the Goths by a twofold irruption had invaded Western Illyricum and also the provinces south of the Balkans.1 It is clear that the news of the Gothic rising reached Rome, certainly after the beginning of the sessions of the council, most probably after its conclusion, and this fact indicates that the council was held some time during the first four months of the year, most probably before Lent. For the Gothic irruption took place when Theodosius was desperately sick at Thessalonica, and the crisis of his illness appears to have fallen in the month of February, though the effects of his illness were felt for five months afterwards. Theodosius did not leave Thessalonica until the early part of August, and by that time the war with the Goths was over, Gratian having bribed them to agree to a truce. It is evident, from what has been said, that peace had not as yet been made at Antioch when the Roman Council was in session during the early part of 380. The council would never have determined to send several bishops to Antioch to try and restore peace if peace had already been restored.

Merenda has, I think, given good reason for believing that the Antiochene Council of 379 sent to Rome as its envoy, or at least as one of its envoys, Acacius, the newly ordained Bishop of Beroea (now Aleppo), in Syria Prima.1 of 380 was attended by the bishops of North Italy as well as by the bishops of the suburbicarian dioceses.

The Fathers of the Council of Aquileia (A.D. 381), in their letter, Quamlibet, addressed to Theodosius (Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. §§ 4, 5, P. L., xvi. 989), say, "Utriusque partis dudum accepimus litteras, praecipueque illorum, qui in Antiochena Ecclesia dissidebant. Et quidem nisi hostilis impedimento fuisset irruptio, aliquos etiam de nostro numero disposueramus illo dirigere, qui sequestres et arbitri refundendae, si fieri posset, pacis exsisterent."

2 Compare Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, 2nd edit., vol. i. part i. p. 303. 3 The Gothic historian, Jordanes (Getica, capp. 27, 28, ed. Mommsen, 1882, p. 95), says, "Theodosio principe pene tunc usque ad disperationem egrotanti datur iterum Gothis audacia divisoque exercitu Fritigernus ad Thessaliam praedandam, Epiros et Achaiam digressus est, Alatheus vero et Safrac cum residuis copiis Pannoniam petierunt. Quod cum Gratianus imperator, qui tunc a Roma in Gallis ob incursione Vandalorum recesserat, conperisset, quia Theodosio fatali desperatione succumbente Gothi majus saevirent, mox ad eos collecto venit exercitu, nec tamen fretus in armis, sed gratia eos muneribusque victurus, pacemque, victualia illis concedens, cum ipsis inito foedere fecit. Ubi vero post haec Theodosius convaluit imperator repperitque cum Gothis et Romanis Gratiano imperatore pepigisse quod ipse optaverat, admodum grato animo ferens et ipse in hac pace consensit.' The statements of Jordanes are confirmed by S. Prosper, who in the second part of his Chronicum integrum (P. L., li. 585), under the year 380, says, "Procurante Gratiano, eo quod Theodosius aegrotaret, pax firmatur cum Gothis."

Cf. Merend., De S. Damas. Opusce. et Gestt., cap. xv. § 2, P. L., xiii. 195,

He no doubt carried with him the synodical letter, in which the claims of S. Meletius to the see of Antioch were set forth, and also the composite Western formulary, to which the Antiochene Fathers had appended their signatures. That document was obviously one of the highest importance, and there is proof that it was laid up in the archives of the see of Rome. I have already shown that in the fourth century the reception by the pope of letters from bishops out of communion with his see in no way proved that he had admitted them or meant to admit them to his communion. Still less did such reception necessarily restore them to his communion ipso facto. In fact, this practice of receiving letters from persons not in communion was by no means peculiar to the fourth century. History makes it clear that such action was not unknown at Rome fourteen centuries later than the time of Damasus. I give details in a note.3

I referred just now (see p. 330, n. 3) to a certain confession of faith, divided into twenty-four paragraphs and including a number of anathemas, which was sent by the Roman Council of 380 to Paulinus, the bishop of the Antiochene Eustathians. There is one paragraph in that confession, which remarkably corroborates the conclusion that, whatever may have been the case with other members of the Council of Antioch held in 379, at any rate the president, S. Meletius, was not in communion with the West. I allude to the ninth paragraph, which runs as follows: "Those also, who have. migrated from churches to churches, we regard as alien from our communion, until they shall have returned to the cities in which they were first established [as bishops]. But if one bishop has migrated and another has been ordained to fill his place during his lifetime, let him who has deserted his city cease to enjoy the dignity of a bishop until his successor

1 See P. L., xiii. 354.

2 See p. 320, note 3.

3 During the pontificate of Clement XIV., when the Jesuits were straining every nerve to prevent the beatification of Juan de Palafox, a certain letter, bearing date December 15, 1770, and purporting to be signed by Peter John Meindaerts, Archbishop of Utrecht, was fabricated by the Jesuits, or by their allies, and forwarded to Rome. In this letter the archbishop was made to suggest that the beatification of Palafox would be equivalent to a retractation of the bulls against the five propositions of Jansenius. As a matter of fact, Archbishop Meindaerts had died on October 31, 1767, more than three years before the date of the forged letter. His successor, Archbishop Michael van Nieuwenhuisen, and his suffragans drew up a formal act in which they disavowed this piece, and showed that it could not have emanated from the Church of Utrecht. Clement XIV. was much gratified by the disavowal, and ordered that the original act should be deposited in the archives of the Apostolic Chamber. See Dr. Neale's History of the so-called Fansenist Church of Holland, pp. 334, 335. It will, of course, be remembered that from 1723 to the present time the Archbishops of Utrecht and their suffragans have been out of communion with the see of Rome; and Archbishop van Nieuwenhuisen had been excommunicated nominatim.

passes to his rest in peace." Now, when it is remembered that this confession of faith is addressed to S. Meletius' rival, Paulinus, and, further, that S. Meletius had undoubtedly been consecrated to the see of Sebaste, and had afterwards been instituted to the see of Antioch, it is impossible to doubt that the case of S. Meletius was very prominently in the mind of the Fathers of the Roman Council of 380, when they inserted in their confession of faith that ninth paragraph, which publicly notifies the fact that all bishops who have migrated from one church to another are outside the communion of the West. I do not say that the scope of the paragraph is to be restricted to S. Meletius, but I do say that it was aimed very specially at him. Merenda himself expresses the opinion that what he chooses to call S. Meletius' "frequent migration from church to church," 2 was in all probability one of the reasons which moved Damasus to side with Paulinus. Even if per impossibile the Council of Rome had not had the case of S. Meletius definitely in its mind, its notification that migrating bishops were not in its communion being perfectly general, and no exception being made in favour of S. Meletius, that holy man would necessarily have been included within the sweep of the council's declaration. Merenda, in his note on this paragraph, twice over speaks of it as an "anathematismus," 3 and tries unsuccessfully to exclude S. Meletius from the effect of its operation. Occurring as the paragraph does in the midst of a series of anathemas, it is possible that Merenda is right in his view of the extreme gravity of the penalty pronounced in it against migrating bishops, though I confess that I do not feel sure on that point. What does appear to me to be absolutely certain is, that whatever the penalty may have involved, it was incurred by S. Meletius, and, moreover, was primarily meant to apply to him; and this is the view which is generally taken by learned Roman Catholics. It is the view taken by Tillemont, by the Benedictines, Dom Maran,5 and Dom Coustant, by the very learned Ultramontanes, the brothers

1 P. L., xiii. 360, 361. "Eos quoque, qui de Ecclesiis ad Ecclesias migraverunt tamdiu a communione nostra habemus alienos, quamdiu ad eas civitates redierint, in quibus primum sunt constituti. Quod si alius alio transmigrante in locum viventis est ordinatus, tamdiu vacet sacerdotis dignitate, qui suam deseruit civitatem, quamdiu successor ejus quiescat in pace."

2 Merend. De S. Damas Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. x. § 2, P. L., xiii. 169.

3 P. L., xiii. 360, 361.

Tillemont, vii. 619.

5 Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxiii. § 6, S. Basil., Opp., tom. iii. p. cli. (cf. Op. cit., P. 321, n.d.).

6

Epistolae Rom. Pontt., edit. 1721, col. 514, n.

Ballerini, and even by Rohrbacher.2 It will be enough to quote the Ballerini. Speaking of the paragraph containing the condemnation of migrating bishops, they say, "This pope [viz. Damasus], who was in communion with Paulinus of Antioch, inserted this decree against Meletius, who had passed from the Church of Sebaste to that of Antioch." "8

I think that it will be admitted that good reason has been given for believing that in the early part of the year 380 peace had not been established between S. Meletius and Paulinus, nor between S. Meletius and the Roman Church. On the contrary, a fresh condemnation of him. had been promulgated at Rome, which made it clear to all the world that he was separated from the communion of the West.

At this point in the narrative it seems desirable to speak of some of the laws in favour of the faith of Nicaea, which were enacted about this time by the Emperor Theodosius. In the early part of February, 380, while at Thessalonica, he was attacked, as we have seen, by a dangerous illness, and it was during this illness that he received instruction from S. Acholius, the bishop of that city, and was baptized by him. One may feel morally sure that it was under the influence of S. Acholius that the Emperor published, on the 28th of February, an edict addressed to the people of Constantinople. In that edict he expressed his desire that "all the various nations subject

1 Codex Canonum Eccles. et Constitutorum S. Sedis Apostol., cap. lv., n.g., P. L., lvi. 688.

2 Histoire Universelle de l'Église Catholique, livre 35, 5leme edit., 1868, tom. iv. p. 72.

As a matter of fact, S. Meletius was not, strictly speaking, translated from one see to another. He had been consecrated to Sebaste, but he had not been able to remain there. The people did not recognize the deposition of his predecessor, Eustathius (see p. 242). He had therefore retired to Beroea, and was in the position of a bishop without a see. Now, the great Antiochene Council of the Dedication (A.D. 341) had decreed in its sixteenth canon as follows: "If a bishop without a see forces himself into a vacant one, taking possession of it without the consent of a regular synod, he shall be deposed, even if he has been elected by the whole diocese into which he has intruded. A regular synod is one held in the presence of the metropolitan" (see Hefele, E. tr., ii. 71). The canons of this Council of Antioch, a "synod of saints," as S. Hilary calls it, were certainly good law at Antioch at the time of S. Meletius' institution to the bishopric of the church in that city. Later on, these canons became the law of the whole Eastern Church, and finally they were admitted into the codes of the West as well as of the East. S. Meletius' election was ratified by a numerously attended council of bishops belonging to the province and the patriarchate, and consequently no objection can be brought against the canonicity of his institution on the score of translation. The requirements of the canons had been fulfilled in his case.

Cf. Sozomen., H. E., vii. 4. On the date of the baptism, compare Gwatkin's Studies (p. 259, n. 2) and Rauschen's Jahrbücher (pp. 61, 67).

Cod. Theod., xvi. 1, 2. The edict begins with the words Cunctos populos.