It remains to investigate what the nature of the compact was. It appears to have contained at least two stipulations. Probably there may have also been a third. But, whereas we have direct evidence of what was contained in the first two clauses of the treaty, the existence and contents of the third can only be established by inference.

(1) It is quite certain that S. Meletius and Paulinus. agreed together that, as far as they could bring it about, whenever either of them should be removed by death, the survivor should be regarded as sole Bishop of Antioch, and that no successor of the dead bishop should be consecrated during the lifetime of the surviving bishop.1

(2) It was also agreed that S. Meletius should apply once more to the Western bishops to be admitted to their communion, a privilege which had hitherto been refused.2 And we may feel morally sure that Paulinus promised to support S. Meletius' request; though it was no doubt provided that Paulinus should not be expected to communicate with S. Meletius, nor his followers with S. Meletius' followers, until it was ascertained that the Western bishops would be willing to grant their communion to the great body over which S. Meletius presided.

(3) As it is obvious that S. Meletius could not possibly bind by his sole action the other bishops of the province and patriarchate of Antioch, it seems to me to be in the highest degree probable that he undertook to do what he could to obtain from his fellow-bishops, whose dioceses were situated

Jul., p. 60) they say, "Pax aliqua tandem affulget circa A.C. 381." They are speaking of peace between S. Meletius and Paulinus. The Duc de Broglie (L'Église et l'Empire au ive siècle, III. i. 424, 425, edit. 1868) in like manner holds that the compact was made after Sapor's visit and just before S. Meletius' departure for Constantinople in 381.

1 In September, 381, the Fathers of the Council of Aquileia in their letter, Quamlibet, which was nominally addressed to the three Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II., and Theodosius, but was really intended for Theodosius only, wrote as follows: "We suppose that our petition has been presented to your Pieties, in which, in accordance with the compact of the parties, we have requested that on the death of either of them the rights of the Church should remain with the survivor, and that no intrusive consecration should be forcibly attempted' (Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. § 5, P. L., xvi. 989).

2 The Fathers of Aquileia, in their letter, Quamlibet, quoted in the previous note, speak of the followers of S. Meletius as being "persons who have sought our communion according to the compact, which we wish should stand" (Ep. cit., § 6).

3 It will be remembered how S. Basil cautiously refrained from deciding to admit the penitent Marcellians of Ancyra to his communion, until he had heard from Peter of Alexandria concerning his intentions in reference to the same set of people (compare p. 326, n. 1).

The title "patriarch" had hardly come into use; but the sixth Nicene canon shows that Antioch had for a long time possessed special privileges, such as were afterwards called "patriarchal." Cf. S. Hieron, Lib. contra Joann. Ferosol., § 37, P. L., xxiii. 389. See also Duchesne's Origines du culte, pp. 19-21.

within the circumscription, subject to the Comes Orientis, their formal assent to the compact.1

We have no reason to suppose that there was any revival of the proposal that the two orthodox bodies at Antioch should be immediately merged into one, and that the two bishops should govern that one body in common. Apparently, if the compact had been finally ratified, the two bodies would have been in communion with one another, but would have retained their separate organizations until the death of one or other of the bishops. A state of things would have resulted which would not have lasted long, but which, while it did last, might be compared, as regards some of its features, with the co-existence at the present time of Latins and Uniat Orientals, living side by side in the same city, and enjoying in common the communion of the papal see, but governed respectively by their own bishops.

It

From the very nature of the case it is impossible to suppose that the compact could take effect at once. needed to be ratified both in the East and in the West: in the East, because without such ratification there would be no security as to the fundamental stipulation being carried out, in case S. Meletius should die first; and in the West, because, Paulinus' adherents in the East being relatively so very few, he would compromise his whole position if he were to take any definite step without the consent of his Western allies ; and, moreover, there would be a danger of those allies appointing a successor to Paulinus, in the event of his dying first, if they had not been consulted on the subject of the compact. It is to my mind out of the question to suppose that the two bodies at Antioch were brought into communion with each other by the mere fact that the two bishops had agreed to a compact, which, until it was ratified, remained in a purely inchoate condition.2 Even if we could imagine that per

1 S. Gregory Nazianzen tells us (Carmen de Vita sua, 1576–1579, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 756) that up to the moment of his death S. Meletius" recommended many things tending to agreement, which things he had previously been accustomed to pour out on his friends, and thereupon he departed to the choirs of the angels." In the immediate context, both before and after this passage, there are allusions to the Antiochene dispute, the rèp Opóvwv ěpis. S. Meletius died at Constantinople in May or June, 381, about three months after the compact was made.

2 So the Bollandist, Father Van den Bosche (Acta SS., tom. iv. Jul., p. 61), declares that this compact was 66 non universale et numeris omnibus absolutum ; sed particulare quoddam, informe, inchoatum et quasi solemnioris prodromum.' On the other hand, Merenda holds that the compact was universally binding; and he tries to show (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xiv. § 1, et cap. xviii. § 2, P. L., xiii. 190, 221) that when, after S. Meletius' death, an effort began to be made in the Ecumenical Council to bring about the election of S. Flavian as his successor, S. Gregory Nazianzen delivered an oration to the assembled Fathers, in which he expressed his grief that compacts made publicly and confirmed by oaths should be treated as of no account, and he thinks that S. Gregory is referring to

impossibile such was the case, it would still remain the fact that no transaction between the two bishops could of itself bring Paulinus into communion with the rest of the episcopate of the Eastern Church, nor S. Meletius into communion with the West.1

As soon as the compact was made, steps must have been taken to get it ratified. S. Meletius certainly, and Paulinus probably, sent envoys to the West to explain the personal agreement which had been made between the two bishops at Antioch, and to request the Western bishops to accept the compact in all its parts and to admit to their communion the great Church of Antioch with its bishop at its head.

The envoys almost certainly went first to Rome. But we hear of no council being held there in 381. The fact is that during that year the Roman Church was passing through a time of great distress, owing to the machinations of the emissaries of the anti-pope Ursinus. A false accusation of a most offensive kind had been brought against Pope Damasus.3 Later on, an investigation into the truth of this accusation was held by the Prefect of the city, Valerius Severus, who pronounced no sentence of acquittal, but sent in a report of the results of his investigation to the Emperor Gratian. A sense of insecurity pervaded the whole city. Either before or after the investigation, or perhaps both before and after, there appear to have been riots, for we read that "the blood of innocent persons was shed." 5 The Church of Rome was almost completely deprived of the offices of religion “ the compact made between S. Meletius and Paulinus. Merenda is alluding to a passage in the first paragraph of S. Gregory's twenty-second Oration (S. Greg. Naz. Opp., ed. Ben., i. 414); but he mistranslates the passage (cf. cap. xviii. § 2), which has nothing to do with the compact made at Antioch, and he entirely misapprehends the occasion and purport of the twenty-second Oration, which was delivered two years before the date of the Ecumenical Council. As Dr. Rivington has adopted Merenda's theory (Prim. Ch., p. 231, note), I have discussed the matter in Additional Note 74, p. 501.

It will be remembered that, about a year before the compact was made, the bishops of Italy had put forth a synodical declaration, in which it was implied that S. Meletius was "alien from their communion" (see pp. 332-334). No private compact with Paulinus could undo the effect of such a declaration.

2 All the other embassies from the East, as for example those sent in 365, 371, 374, 376, and 379, went to Rome, and therefore we may assume, until the contrary is proved, that the envoys in 381 went first to Rome. If any one, however, should think it more probable that S. Meletius' envoys went direct from Antioch via Sirmium to Milan, I am quite ready to waive my own opinion.

3 On the date of this conspiracy against Damasus, see the Excursus on the date of the Roman Council, which petitioned Gratian on the subject of the trial of bishops in the letter, Et hoc gloriae vestrae, pp. 519-521.

Cf. Ep. inter Ambrosianas xi. § 6, P. L., xvi. 987.

Rom. Concil. Ep. ad Gratianum et Valentinianum, § 8, P. L., xiii. 580: "sanguis innocentium funderetur."

Ep. cit., "spoliaretur prope ecclesia omnibus ministeriis." Possibly the word ministeriis may be used for ministris, as the word servitium is used in some passages for servi.

(ministeria). The crisis still continued in the early part of September, when the Council of Aquileia was being held. I cannot say whether it had begun when the Antiochene envoys arrived in Rome; but it certainly must have begun soon after their visit, if not before; and when it had once begun, it would entirely prevent the possibility of holding a council in the city, so long as it lasted.1

The envoys had no doubt been instructed to proceed from Rome to Milan, and to bring the matter of the Antiochene compact before S. Ambrose. The extraordinary influence which the see of Milan acquired during the episcopate of that great saint, had by this time made itself felt even as far as Antioch. Duchesne has shown that during the latter part of the fourth century "the episcopate of the West seems to recognize a double hegemony: that of the pope and that of the Bishop of Milan."2 No doubt this influence of the see of Milan was mainly felt in the West; but it was also felt, as Duchesne points out, "in the affairs of the Eastern Church, at Antioch, at Caesarea, at Constantinople, at Thessalonica," 8

To Milan, therefore, the Antiochene envoys went. If they started from Antioch as early as February 14, they might easily arrive at Milan by May 4. If their departure

4

1 If pope Damasus had ratified the compact and had admitted S. Meletius to his communion on the occasion of the Antiochene envoys' visit to Rome, the news of his action would have been carried by the envoys to Milan. In that case the bishops of North Italy would surely have referred to such action when writing to Theodosius about the schism at Antioch in various letters during the course of the year. But we find no trace of any allusion to any such proceeding on the part of Damasus, either in the letter Quamlibet or in the letter Sanctum animum tuum or in any other document of authority. Moreover, if Damasus had admitted S. Meletius to the communion of the Roman Church, how do Ultramontanes account for the fact that S. Ambrose and the Fathers of Aquileia petitioned Theodosius for an ecumenical council, to be held at Alexandria, which should decide whether or no communion should be granted to S. Meletius and to his flock?

2 Origines du Culte Chrétien, 2nd edit., p. 32.

Loc. cit.

* Vallarsi (P. L., tom. xxii. col. 1.) says that it would take at least two months for news to go from Milan to Antioch. As Antioch is 2004 English miles from Milan by the direct road via Sirmium, Constantinople, and Ancyra, that gives 33 miles per diem as an average rate of travelling. If S. Meletius' envoys started from Antioch on February 14, and travelled at that average rate via Constantinople, Heraclea, Aulona, Hydruntum, and Capua, they would reach Rome after a journey of 1876 miles on April 12. Allowing them ten days for their stay in Rome, and twelve more for their journey to Milan, which was 389 miles distant from Rome, they would be with S. Ambrose on May 4. As the determination of the average rate of travelling in the fourth century is a point of considerable importance, it may be well to corroborate the opinion of Vallarsi by that of other learned men. I will therefore refer to statements made by Tillemont and Stiltinck, In his life of Liberius (§ viii. n. 133, Acta SS., tom. vi. Septembr., p. 602) Stiltinck, speaking of Tillemont, says, "Integrum mensem requirit, et merito, ut legati Ancyra Sirmium pervenirent." Stiltinck is no doubt referring to Tillemont's 56th note on the Arians (vi. 774), where, however, it should be noted that by a misprint Easter is wrongly stated to have fallen on April 22 in the year 358;

from Antioch be put as late as March 3, they would at the same rate of travelling reach Milan by May 21. It is clear to me that at some date not very long after their arrival a council of the bishops of the province of Milan was held, if indeed it was not sitting when they arrived, and that that council ratified the first clause of the compact, so far as S. Ambrose and his comprovincials were concerned. It is also clear to me that the council wrote to Theodosius, begging him to use his influence, so that there should be agreement between S. Meletius and Paulinus in respect to peace and concord without violation of ecclesiastical order, or at least that, whenever one of the two Antiochene bishops should come to die, the rights of the Church should remain with the survivor, and that no attempt to carry out illegally an intrusive consecration should be permitted. As regards the request of S. Meletius to be admitted to the communion of the Western bishops, I shall show later on that the council deferred giving any answer. S. Ambrose evidently felt that it would be imprudent for him to take action in such a delicate matter (Egypt and the West being already committed to Paulinus) until he had consulted Rome and Alexandria.

In the preceding paragraph I have assumed that a provincial council of the Milanese province was held soon after the arrival of the Antiochene envoys at Milan. I proceed to justify this assumption. That the bishops of North Italy met in council at some time between the arrival of the news of the Antiochene compact in Milan and the first week in September, 381, the date of the opening of the Council of Aquileia, is clear from a passage in the letter Quamlibet, addressed by the Aquileian Council to Theodosius. In that letter the Fathers of the council had been speaking of the irruption of the Goths into Pannonia and Epirus in February or March, 380, and of how that irruption had prevented the execution of the plan of sending some Western bishops as arbitrators to Antioch. They go on to say, "But because the desires, which we formed at that time, failed to be accomplished owing to the troubles of the State, we suppose that our petition has been presented to your Pieties, in which, in accordance with the compact of the parties, we have requested that on the death of one [of the two bishops] the rights of the Church should remain with the survivor, and that no attempt to carry out

whereas it really fell on April 12, as Tillemont has rightly stated in another place (cf. vi. 430). The distance from Ancyra to Sirmium is 973 English miles, and if it took a month to traverse that distance, the average daily rate of travelling must have been 32 or 33 miles. This result agrees with that derived from the statement of Vallarsi.