2

illegally an intrusive consecration should be permitted."1 Now, a majority of those bishops present at the Council of Aquileia, whose sees are known, came from North Italy, the remainder coming from various provinces in different parts of the Western empire. It necessarily follows that the petition to Theodosius, to which reference is made in the above-quoted passage, must have emanated from a council, at which the bishops from North Italy were present. But having regard to the conciliar history of that epoch, we should be safe in saying that such a council would either be a general council of all Italy or of Italy and Gaul, presumably held at Rome, or else a council of the bishops of the province of Milan, presumably held at Milan. Now, there had been no council, attended by bishops from all Italy, held in Rome since the council held immediately before the Gothic irruption in the early part of the year 380. The Roman council, held at that time, had implied that S. Meletius was "alien from its communion," and had determined to send bishops to Antioch to try and make peace. It certainly did not ratify the Antiochene compact, which was not then in existence. The compact, as we have seen, did not come into existence until after Sapor's mission to Antioch in January, 381. Moreover, it would not be likely that a letter written to Theodosius by Damasus and S. Ambrose in January, 380, would have been left still unanswered in September, 381. It is clear, therefore, that the petition to which the Aquileian Fathers refer was written by a council held in North Italy not many months before the Council of Aquileia. If the Antiochene envoys arrived in Milan on or before May 21, 381, the council which sent the petition to Theodosius may well have been held either in the second half of May3 or in the beginning of June in that year. In fact, the opening of the Milanese council would approximately coincide in date with the opening of the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, which commenced its sittings in May. A letter written by the

1

Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. § 5, P. L., xvi. 989. "Sed quia studia nostra tunc temporis habere effectum per tumultus publicos nequiverunt, oblatas pietati vestrae opinamur preces nostras, quibus juxta partium pactum poposcimus ut altero decedente, penes superstitem Ecclesiae jura permanerent, nec aliqua superordinatio vi attentaretur." In the first two editions of this book I adopted without sufficient consideration the faulty translation of this passage, which is to be found in the Oxford translation of S. Ambrose's Epistles. I am indebted to Dr. Rivington for pointing out to me the mistake (see Prim Ch., p. 267). The true meaning of the passage, as might be expected, fits in far better with the general setting of the history, and equally helps forward my main argument.

2 See p. 332.

I hope to show later on that this council had to deal with another very important subject (see pp. 537, 538), and it is therefore quite possible that it was already in session when the envoys from Antioch arrived.

first-mentioned of these two councils would reach Constantinople in the middle or towards the end of the deliberations of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was taking in hand the settlement of the affairs of the Church of Antioch, and was setting aside the compact. Theodosius would not be likely to answer the North Italian letter until he could report something definite about the state of the Antiochene Church. He was still occupied by business arising out of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Council on July 30, when he published the law Episcopis tradi;1 and he probably did not hear how the new bishop, S. Flavian, had been received at Antioch until the beginning of September, at the earliest. As Milan is 1288 miles from Constantinople, it is easy to understand why no answer from Theodosius had reached S. Ambrose, when the Council of Aquileia met at the beginning of September. In point of fact, that council had received no information about any of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Council, nor had it even heard about the death of S. Meletius.

For further evidence, corroborating the conclusion that a council of the province of Milan was held towards the end of May or at the beginning of June in the year 381, the reader is referred to an Excursus dealing with this subject, which will be found at the end of the book.

If we now review the relations of the two bodies of orthodox believers at Antioch to each other and to the other churches, whether in the East or West, at the end of May 381, it would appear from what has been said that an inchoate personal agreement had been made between S. Meletius and Paulinus, which needed, however, to be ratified both in the East and in the West, before it could take such effect as to bring Paulinus and the Eustathians into communion with the great majority of the Eastern bishops, and also to bring S. Meletius and the Church of Antioch into communion with Rome and the West.

We have no reason to suppose that the compact had been in any way ratified at Rome, where no synod could have been held owing to the critical state of affairs. But at Milan it was being so far ratified, that S. Ambrose and his suffragans, at the very time which we are considering, were petitioning Theodosius to use his influence to bring about an agreement between Paulinus and Meletius, "in respect to peace and concord without violation of ecclesiastical order," or, if such

1 Cod. Theod., xvi. 1, 3.

2 Tillemont (x. 528) holds that S. Flavian was not consecrated until August or September, 381. See also p. 364.

3 See Excursus II., pp. 529-540.

concord could not be effected, that "at least, if one of the two died before the other, no one should be put in the place of the deceased while the other lived." 1 It is clear that the compact was still a purely personal one between the two Antiochene bishops, and that their respective followings were not yet united in one communion. It remains to consider the question whether S. Meletius had been admitted to the communion of the West, so far at any rate as that could be done without the intervention of the Bishop of Rome.

On a priori grounds one would expect that admission to the communion of the West would not be granted until the negotiations about the compact had been brought to a happy conclusion, a result which could not be reached until the attitude of the Eastern bishops was known. And this surmise is converted into a certainty by a consideration of the words used in two passages of the letter Quamlibet by the Fathers of Aquileia. Those Fathers, addressing Theodosius in September, say, "We hear that [in the East] there are among the Catholics themselves frequent dissensions and warring discord; and we are disturbed in our whole state of mind, because we have ascertained that many innovations have taken place, and that persons are now being treated vexatiously who ought to have been supported, men who have always persevered in our communion. In a word [to make our meaning perfectly clear], Timothy, Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and Paulinus, Bishop of the Church of Antioch, who have always maintained the concord of communion with us inviolate, are said to be put in great anxiety by the dissensions of other persons, whose faith in former times was undecided. We would indeed wish that these persons, if it be possible, and if they are recommended by an unmutilated faith, should be added to our fellowship (ad consortia nostra); but yet in such a way that there be preserved to those colleagues, who have enjoyed our communion from of old, their own prerogative."

A little further on in their letter the Aquileian Fathers

1 Ep. inter Ambrosianas xiii. § 2, P. L., xvi. 990. For further remarks on this passage, see p. 537, note 2.

This seems to refer to Sapor's judgement in favour of S. Meletius, in consequence of which the latter, and not Paulinus, was recognized by the civil power as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch.

In my opinion reference is here made to S. Meletius and his followers, and to them only. Timothy had recently succeeded his brother Peter in the see of Alexandria. He no doubt wrote letters to S. Ambrose, announcing his elevation. In those letters he may well have referred to the anxiety which, as occupying the most important see in the Eastern empire, he felt with regard to the Antiochene schism. I do not think that there is any allusion to a corresponding schism at Alexandria. Of such a schism I find no trace in history.

4

Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. § 4, P. L., xvi. 988, 989.

say, "We beg of you, most clement and Christian Princes,1 to give orders that a council of all the Catholic bishops should be held at Alexandria, that they may more fully discuss among themselves and define the persons to whom communion is to be imparted, and the persons with whom it is to be maintained." 8

Nothing could be clearer than these passages. The state of "warring discord" is still going on and dividing into two camps the Eastern Christians who hold the Catholic faith. One party among these orthodox believers, the party of Paulinus, has "from of old" maintained communion with the West. The other party, that is, the party of S. Meletius, has in past times wavered in the faith-at least, that is the view taken of them by the Fathers of Aquileia. But the Aquileian Fathers are willing to admit them to their communion, if it can be shown that their faith is now full and unmutilated.1 However, before definite steps towards reunion are taken, they wish that an Ecumenical Council should be summoned to meet at Alexandria, in order that in a larger assembly the bishops of the whole Church may determine what persons are to be admitted to Catholic communion. Clearly, in the opinion of S. Ambrose and his brethren, S. Meletius and his followers have not yet been admitted to the communion of the West. It is perfectly impossible to suppose that a union between the Meletians and the West had already been effected and had afterwards been broken, and that nothing should be said in this letter Quamlibet about these events. Yet this is the astounding theory which Dr. Rivington has adopted. His notion is that S. Meletius was received into full communion by Damasus in the great council, held at Rome in 380, on the basis of a supposed compact made at the Council of Antioch in 379.5 He further thinks that this union was

The letter is pro forma addressed to the two Western Emperors as well as to Theodosius. * The expression more fully" (plenius) refers to the very limited number of bishops, not more than thirty-two, who attended the Council of Aquileia. The proposed Ecumenical Council at Alexandria would, of course, be on a very much larger scale. 3 Ep. cit., § 5

The words, "si fieri potest et fides plena commendat," should be noted. If, as Dr. Rivington supposes, the Meletians had been in the communion of Rome and the West from the Roman Council of 380 until the election of S. Flavian in the summer of 381, the West must have recognized their "full" orthodoxy during that time. What, one may ask, had happened since S. Flavian's election which could possibly throw doubt on the integrity of their faith, so as to necessitate the insertion of this conditional clause?

5 Compare Prim. Ch., pp. 250, 264. It should be noted that on p. 216 Dr. Rivington expresses the view that in 373 Damasus was withholding express and final sanction to either party," that is, to both S. Meletius and Paulinus. On p. 250 he implies that S. Meletius was "welcomed by Rome as Bishop of Antioch in her archives" in 380. On p. 276 he says that "S. Meletius before 379" (he means before 380) was "neither excommunicated nor adopted by Rome.'

broken by the election and consecration of S. Flavian to the see of Antioch as successor to S. Meletius in the summer of 381. But if so, why do the Fathers of Aquileia preserve complete silence about all these supposed facts? Why do they say nothing about S. Meletius having been fully admitted to the communion of Damasus in 380, or about the death of S. Meletius, or about the election of S. Flavian and the consequent rupture of communion with the West, or about the ratification of S. Flavian's election by the Second Ecumenical Council? Those were the very points which needed to be brought out and pressed upon Theodosius' consideration. Later on in the year, when news of the Council of Constantinople had reached North Italy, such of these events as had really taken place were pressed upon the Emperor's attention by S. Ambrose and his suffragans in the letter Sanctum animum tuum. But at Aquileia not a word is said about them. And the reason is that the news of these events, or of such of them as had really happened, had not reached Aquileia in September; 2 and as regards the supposed

1 Compare Prim. Ch., p. 265, where Dr. Rivington implies that the Fathers of Aquileia were, in September, 381, petitioning for a General Council to consider "whether they should extend their communion to the followers of Meletius now placed under Flavian.”

2 Dr. Rivington (Prim. Ch., p. 264, note 2) tries to prove that the Aquileian Fathers knew what had taken place in the Council of Constantinople by two arguments. First, he declares that "it is impossible to suppose that they would ask for a fuller council' at Alexandria. . . before they knew the issue of the council of Constantinople." But they had not mentioned the Council of Constantinople, and there is no reason to suppose that they knew anything about it. The word "fuller" refers, as I have already pointed out, to the relative smallness of the number of bishops gathered at Aquileia. But, secondly, Dr. Rivington argues that the Aquileian Fathers "knew of Theodosius' law of July, for they thank him for passing it, and this law was passed subsequently to the Council of Constantinople, and brings in the name of Nectarius, who was ordained at that council.' Dr. Rivington is referring to a passage in the first paragraph of the letter Quamlibet, in which the writers thank Theodosius, because "all the churches of God, in the East especially, have been restored to the Catholics." These words evidently refer to the concluding sentence of Theodosius' law, Nullus haereticis, published on January 10, 381, which has been quoted above on p. 336. They perhaps refer also to the carrying out of that law at Antioch and elsewhere. Reference to a law published in January cannot prove any knowledge of a council held five or six months later. No doubt, if we had any independent proof that the Fathers of Aquileia had received intelligence of the law published on July 30 (Cod. Theod., xvi. 1, 3), which renewed the final provision of the law promulgated in January, we might suppose that thanks were being given for the more recent constitution; but evidence of any knowledge of that law is completely wanting, and it is most unlikely that the bishops at Aquileia knew anything about it. In fact, when one takes account of times and distances, the probability that a copy of the law had not reached Aquileia during the sitting of the council becomes a moral certainty. This law was concerned solely with the Eastern Empire, and the probability is that weeks or even months would elapse before it would be notified to the West. But suppose that Theodosius sent a copy to Gratian on the day after its promulgation at Hadrianople, where the Emperor was sojourning. It would be sent to Milan, the city of Gratian's ordinary residence, and where, in fact, he probably was in September, 381. If