letters written on this occasion by the provincial synod of Epirus Vetus and by its president, John, Metropolitan of Nicopolis, have been preserved. In his letter the Metropolitan John makes profession of his desire to agree in all things with Hormisdas, and he mentions (with special honour the four Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Hormisdas, in his reply, commends John and his brethren for their desire to become once more "sharers in the inheritance of the Fathers," and he makes no adverse comment on John's treatment of the Council of Constantinople. It is clear, therefore, that as early as the year 516, the Roman Church, when receiving a whole province to its communion, was willing to allow it to make an open profession of its acceptance of the council of 381 as an Ecumenical Council. If Hormisdas had not already recognized the ecumenicity of the Council of Constantinople, the question was at any rate now fairly brought before him, and in view of the future reunion of the whole Eastern Church, for which he was labouring, he must have been carefully considering what line he ought to take in regard to this matter.

After the death of the Emperor Anastasius in July, 518, the cause of reunion made rapid progress. The Patriarch John of Constantinople sent to the pope in September of that year a preliminary confession of faith, in which he proclaimed his acceptance of the Four Councils.3 Hormisdas, in his reply, written in January, 519, says, "Dilectionis tuae confessionem gratanter accepimus, per quam sanctae synodi comprobantur." I can hardly think that Hormisdas would have written such words in answer to such a letter if he had not already, on behalf of his church, accepted all the Four Councils as ecumenical. In fact, he must have done so. For the five legates who carried this letter to Constantinople, writing five months later to the pope, told him that, in reply to certain Scythian monks, they had, both in the presence of the Emperor and also in the presence of the senate, spoken as follows: “Extra synodos quattuor, extra epistolas papae Leonis, nec dicimus nec admittimus; quidquid non continetur in praedictis synodis, aut quod non est scriptum a papa Leone non suscipimus." 5 And the legate-deacon, Dioscorus, addressed later on to the pope a Suggestio, dated October 15, 519, in which he described a meeting held at the house of the Patriarch John; and he mentioned that in the course of the proceedings at this meeting, the legates said, “Quod non est in quattuor conciliis definitum, nec in epistolis beati papae Leonis, nos nec dicere possumus nec addere.” 6 It is quite inconceivable that papal legates writing to the pope should speak of "the Four Councils" in this way, if at that time Rome only recognized Three Councils. To me it seems perfectly evident that the ecumenicity of the Second Council was recognized at Rome by Hormisdas, no doubt in a synod, some time between his accession in July, 514, and his sending the five legates in January, 519.

1 Cf. P. L., lxiii. 387.

* Cf. Hormisd. Ep. vii. ad Joannem, P. L., lxiii. 388, 389.

3 Cf. P. L., lxiii. 429.

P. L., lxiii. 430.

5 Collect. Avellan. Ep. 217, ed. Günther, p. 678, et P. L., lxiii. 474.
Ibid., Ep. 224, ed. Günther, p. 686, et P. L., lxiii. 478.

This conclusion may be confirmed by an independent argument. We have good evidence for believing that Hormisdas republished Gelasius' decree, De libris recipiendis, with additions and modifications, and that one of the changes which he made was the insertion of the Constantinopolitan Council of 381 into the list of the General Councils.1

Thus it came to pass that on this very important point Rome gave way to the East, and more especially to Constantinople; and from the time of Hormisdas onward she has venerated with supreme honour, as she venerates the books of the Gospel, a council,2 the first president of which lived and died out of her communion. It does not look as if the early Church regarded membership in the Catholic body as being dependent on communion with Rome.

1 Cf. Ballerin., De Antiq. Collection. et Collector. Canonum, pars ii. cap. xi. § 5, n. 10, P. L., lvi. 178. See also the Admonitio of Dom Coustant, published by Andreas Thiel in his De Decretali Gelasii Papae (ed. 1866, pp. 2–14). Thiel himself agrees with the Ballerini and with Coustant in their view that the Gelasian decree was modified by Hormisdas, and that it was he who introduced into it the mention of the Council of Constantinople. I find myself quite unable to follow Duchesne and Mommsen, who hold that it was not until the pontificate of Vigilius (537-555) that the ecumenicity of the Second Council was recognized at Rome (cf. Lib. Pontif., ed. Duchesne, Introduction, p. xxxviii., et Lib. Pontif., ed. Mommsen, Prolegom., p. xxi.). Such a view is, I think, sufficiently disproved by the considerations set forth in the text, but out of respect for the surpassing authority of the two great critics, from whom I have the misfortune to differ, I will add here one more argument, which seems to me to be destructive of their theory. Pope John II. in his letter, Olim quidem, addressed to certain senators, which was written in the year 534, says, "Tomum vero papae Leonis, omnesque epistolas, necnon et quatuor synodos, Nicaenam, et Constantinopolitanam, et Ephesinam primam, et Chalcedonensem, sicut Romana hactenus suscepit et veneratur ecclesia, sequimur, amplectimur atque servamus" (Mansi, viii. 806, et P. L., lxvi. 23).

2

Among all the councils which are regarded as ecumenical, both by the Easterns and by the Latins, the Second Council is the only one which was not summoned as an Ecumenical Council. The attribute of ecumenicity was not simply confirmed to it, but rather was conferred upon it by the after-action of the Church. Fundamentally, that after-action was taken at the Council of Chalcedon; but the effect of the council's action in respect of this matter was recognized more tardily in the West than in the East. Finally, however, the West submitted itself, and thenceforth the ecumenicity of the Second Council has been unanimously recognized by Catholics.

LECTURE XI.

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

The episcopate of S. Flavian.

As we have seen, S. Meletius died either in May or June, 381, before his personal compact with Paulinus had been accepted and ratified by the bishops, either of East or West. The Ecumenical Council was sitting and had to take into consideration the needs of the Antiochene Church, the primatial Church of the Oriens. Neither the council nor the bishops of the patriarchate and province of Antioch were in any way bound by the compact. They could not be bound in such a matter by the personal action of S. Meletius and Paulinus. It was their duty to take into consideration the whole situation, and to decide whether they would recognize Paulinus as Bishop of Antioch, or direct that S. Meletius' throne should be filled in the regular way. Arguments were not wanting in favour of either alternative. In favour of the recognition of Paulinus the main argument would be the prospect of immediate peace, internal peace at Antioch between the two rival sections, and peace between East and West, which would be strengthened by the acceptance of Paulinus, whereas it would be imperilled by the election and consecration of a new bishop. On the other hand, from the point of view of the bishops assembled at Constantinople, the Eastern Church, to whom it belonged to settle the matter, had long ago decided that Paulinus was a schismatical intruder, and it would seem a strange thing, involving in the future a loosening of the bonds of all discipline, if the members of the Catholic hierarchy of the East were to set over the great patriarchate of Antioch "the head of a little sect," who for nineteen years had been defying their authority. And as for peace with the West, that no doubt was a very desirable thing, but it would be best brought

1

1 I use the Duc de Broglie's expression (see L'Église et l'Empire au ive siècle, III. i. 429, edit. 1868).

1

about by the West humbling itself for its unfraternal action in the past, and ceasing in the future to disturb the East by first listening to the calumnies of schismatics and then supporting them in their rebellion against their legitimate superiors. After much debating the council decided that the compact should not be ratified, and that a successor to S. Meletius should be elected and consecrated. I confess that I do not see how it could have acted otherwise without betraying the dignity of the Church and very seriously imperilling its discipline. It was one thing for a humble person, like S. Meletius, to be willing to sacrifice his own rights, if the Church should permit him to do so; it was another thing for the bishops of the East, assembled in a great council of the East, to sacrifice the rights and dignity and discipline of the Church, and to enthrone with acclamation in one of the great primatial chairs of Christendom one whom they regarded as an obstinate rebel. Even if the West should raise difficulties, no permanent effect was likely to result from its opposition. Paulinus was a very old man, and must in the nature of things soon pass away; and then the West would have to come to terms. It would have no means of keeping up the schism, even if it should wish to do

so.

As far as man could judge, the ultimate victory of right and order was secure; and so the event proved. After some

I do not doubt that the lying stories put about by the Eustathians concerning S. Meletius, some of which, one is sorry to say, are retailed by S. Jerome, and the wrongness of which is candidly admitted by Baronius, the Bollandists, the Benedictines, Montfaucon, Maran, and Touttée, the Jesuit Zaccaria, and others, had something to do with making the Fathers of the Second Council feel that Paulinus was an impossible person to be chosen as a successor to the glorious saint whom his followers, if not himself, had persistently maligned.

Theodoret says (H. E., v. 23), “the choir of the bishops resisted" the wish of Paulinus to succeed to the bishopric. Tillemont (x. 138) says, 66 Tout le corps du concile qui passe aujourd'hui pour le second oecumenique ordonna qu'on donne. roit un successeur à S. Mélece." De Broglie (III. i. 430) says, "Seul Grégoire ... ne partagea pas la répugnance commune." De Broglie is speaking of the general repugnance to Paulinus becoming the successor of S. Meletius. It is quite probable that S. Gregory had learnt from S. Jerome to appreciate the good points in Paulinus' character. He certainly did his best to secure Paulinus' succession. His efforts were well meant, but they were bound to fail, and it was better for the Church that they should fail. The fact is that S. Gregory was a saint, a theologian, and a preacher, but not a leader of men. Mgr. Batiffol (Ancienne Littérature Chrétienne Grecque, p. 238) has given the following just description of him :-" Inférieur à Grégoire de Nysse comme homme de pensée, inférieur à Basile comme homme d'action, il est un homme de sentiment, pathétique, inconstant, attachant malgré tout." Notwithstanding my deliberate opinion that, in S. Gregory's dispute with the council about appointing a successor to S. Meletius, the council was right and S. Gregory was wrong, I am quite ready to subscribe to Dr. Hort's judgement that in this transaction "it was easy for good and high-minded men to take different sides at the time" (Two Dissertations, p. 98, note 1). Whatever view be taken of the wisdom of the council's decision, there can be no question that their action was canonically legitimate, and therefore my general argument is entirely unaffected by the different judgements which may be passed on the expediency of their proceedings.

years of tension and discord the West fell into line, and the schism was healed.

The priest who was actually elected to succeed S. Meletius was S. Flavian. He was born and had been brought up in Antioch, and had been present when S. Eustathius, just before his banishment in 331, had urged the Antiochene Catholics to remain steadfast in their allegiance to the great Church of Antioch, whatever wolves in the guise of bishops might be appointed to preside over that church.1 Even before his ordination S. Flavian had worked assiduously with the view of encouraging the Catholics in Antioch to remain true to the faith. He was ordained priest by S. Meletius, and during the later years of that saint's exile S. Flavian acted as his representative. He was now more than seventy years old, and was in every way qualified to be S. Meletius' successor in the see. He seems to have been consecrated at Antioch a few weeks after the conclusion of the Ecumenical Council.

S. Chrysostom describes how the sorrow of the faithful at the death of Meletius was changed into joy by the consecration of Flavian. It seemed to them that Meletius had risen from the tomb, and in the person of Flavian was seated once more in the pontifical chair.1 Flavian was acknowledged as the true bishop by all the suffragans of the Antiochene province and patriarchate, and also by the episcopate of the three exarchates of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. But Egypt, the province of Bostra in Arabia, Cyprus, and the West recognized Paulinus. In the summer of the year 382, the majority of the bishops who had attended the second Ecumenical Council met again in synod at Constantinople, and addressed a synodical letter to the Western bishops, who were about to hold a council at Rome. Theodoret gives the letter at full length, in proof, as he says, of the manly spirit and wisdom of the bishops. In the course of their letter they inform their Western brethren that the bishops of the province of Antioch and of the patriarchate of the East' "have canonically consecrated the most reverend and most God-beloved Flavian to be bishop of the very ancient and

1 Cf. S. Chrys. Hom. in S. Eustath., § 4, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 609. On the legendary story which attributes perjury to S. Flavian, see the Additional Note 76, p. 503.

On the place and date of S. Flavian's consecration, see the Additional Note 77, p. 505.

S. Chrys. Serm. cum Presb. fuit ordin., Opp., ed. Ben., i. 442.
Theodoret. H. E., v. 8.

The letter is addressed "to the very honoured lords and most reverend brethren and fellow-ministers, Damasus, Ambrose, Britonius, Valerian," etc.

1 τῆς ἀνατολικῆς διοικήσεως. The Constantinopolitan Fathers add that the whole of the local Church of Antioch was consenting to Flavian's ordination, and as it were with one voice gave him honour.