truly apostolical Church of Antioch." 1 But the Western bishops in their council at Rome took a different view of the matter. They had always supported Paulinus, and they continued to support him now. Sozomen tells us that "the bishop of the Romans and all the priests (i.e. bishops) of the West were not a little indignant; and they wrote the customary synodical epistles to Paulinus, as Bishop of Antioch, but they entered into no communication with Flavian; and they treated Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beroea, and those who acted with them,2 the consecrators of Flavian, as guilty persons, and they held them to be excommunicate."

Thus the old state of things went on. The orthodox of Antioch continued to be divided into two camps, as they had been divided ever since the banishment of S. Eustathius in 331. The great majority acknowledged S. Flavian as the true bishop, and he enjoyed the communion of the Catholic bishops throughout the Eastern empire, with the exception of those whose sees were situated in Egypt, Cyprus, and Arabia. The small body of the Eustathians still clung to Paulinus, who was recognized by Rome and the West. Of course, if the theories of the Vatican Council and of Cardinal Wiseman are true, S. Flavian and Diodorus and Acacius were excommunicated schismatics, and the Eastern bishops, who supported them and communicated with them, were fautores schismaticorum. However, the blessing of God seemed to rest upon them. It was at Antioch, in the midst of this nest of so-called schismatics, that S. Chrysostom was growing day by day in sanctity, and was becoming famous for the eloquence and unction and fruitfulness of his preaching. As may be supposed, when the fact that he was a great Eastern saint and doctor is remembered, he took no heed of the papal pronouncement against S. Flavian. Antioch was an Eastern see, and the Eastern bishops had sanctioned Flavian's consecration, and had determined that it was canonical, as in fact it was. In such a matter it was for the Eastern bishops to judge; and S. Chrysostom, being well versed in the Church's laws, threw himself heart and soul into S. Flavian's cause. His whole life had hitherto been spent out of communion

1 Theodoret. H. E., v. 9. 2 τοὺς ἀμφὶ Διόδωρον

καὶ ̓Ακάκιον.

3 Sozom. H. E., vii. 11. The excommunication seems to have extended to the bishops of the province and patriarchate of Antioch, who joined, as a body, in the consecration of S. Flavian. The new bishop himself, as having been a priest under S. Meletius, had never been in the communion of the West since the disruption which followed the Council of Sardica. There was, therefore, no need to excommunicate him by name. He remained where he was, namely, outside the communion of Rome and the West.

with Rome. In A.D. 369, when he was about twenty-two years old, he had been baptized by the great S. Meletius, and in the following year had been admitted by him into the minor order of readers. In 381, S. Meletius, just before leaving Antioch for the last time, had raised S. Chrysostom to the diaconate, and five years afterwards, early in the year 386, the saint was ordained priest by S. Flavian. It was not until twelve years later that S. Chrysostom, after his elevation to the episcopal throne of Constantinople, entered into communion with the see of Rome. He was then fifty-one or perhaps fifty-four years old, and the main bulk of his homilies and commentaries had been by that time written. When we are reading any of S. Chrysostom's works, or when they are being quoted controversially either on the one side or the other, it is desirable that we should remember that in the majority of cases what is being read or quoted was written by him at a time when, according to Cardinal Wiseman's theory, he was living in schism. The mere statement of such an absurd consequence appears to me to constitute in itself a disproof of the theory which logically leads to it.

I said that S. Chrysostom threw himself heart and soul into S. Flavian's cause. In many of his sermons he gives expression to the feelings of veneration and affection which he entertained for his saintly bishop and leader. On one occasion, after quoting the great promise to S. Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church," he says that the apostle inherited the name of Peter, "not because he did miracles, but because he said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."" "Thou seest," he continues, "that his very being called Peter took its beginning, not from working miracles, but from ardent zeal. But, since

I have mentioned Peter, another Peter occurs to me, our common father and teacher, who, being his successor in virtue, has also inherited his see. For this too is one of the privileges of our city, that it received at the beginning for its teacher the first of the apostles." Thus did S. Chrysostom regard S.

1 S. Chrys. Hom. in Inscript. Actt. ii., Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 70. S. Chrysostom goes on to mention that, while Antioch had yielded up S. Peter's body to the imperial city of Rome, she had nevertheless kept S. Peter himself, because she kept S. Peter's faith. I think that it is quite possible that S. Chrysostom, in the ardour of his love and veneration for the apostolic founder of the Church of Antioch, may have been betrayed sometimes into an exaggerated tone, when speaking of S. Peter (but see Appendix I, pp. 372-375). It is, however, to be noted that he never connects the Petrine primacy with any supposed primacy of jurisdiction in the see of Rome. As has been mentioned already, he was, during the greater part of his life, out of communion with the see of Rome, and consequently he would not be likely to magnify the Roman claims. But he had a great devotion to S. Peter, and it is conceivable that in his homilies, when he is giving expression to that devotion, his fervid rhetoric may have carried him beyond the strict limits of accurate statement.

Flavian, though living in separation from the communion of Rome, as "another Peter," the successor of the apostle in virtue, as he was also, according to the belief of that age, Peter's successor in the episcopal throne of Antioch. In another homily he speaks of S. Flavian as his "tenderly loving father." In another, preached when the bishop was not present, he speaks of his "fervent, fiery, warm charity, which could not be restrained." 2 But such passages are too numerous to quote, and would become wearisome.

canons.

The Eustathian Bishop Paulinus seems to have died in A.D. 389. Before his death he consecrated Evagrius to be his successor. This act involved a most serious breach of the The consecration took place without the consent of the bishops of the province and patriarchate. It was performed with no assisting bishops; and, moreover, it was the case of a bishop consecrating his own successor, a proceeding which the Church has always forbidden. The fact was that towards the end of Paulinus' episcopate no single bishop in the patriarchate of the East supported him or communicated with him. The Western Council of Capua, held during the winter of 391-392, granted the communion of the West to all orthodox bishops of the East, with the exception of the rival bishops at Antioch, S. Flavian and Evagrius. The council committed to Theophilus of Alexandria and to the other Egyptian bishops the duty of arbitrating between these two. S. Flavian, however, very naturally declined to commit his cause, which had been canonically decided in his favour by his proper judges, the bishops of the East, to the arbitrament of the Egyptians, who had for years been communicating with the schismatic Eustathians, and had thus been fomenting division in his city and diocese. As it happened, the situation was, not many years afterwards, simplified by the death of

1 T TATρi piλooтópy. Hom. in illud In Fac. Petr. Rest., Opp., ii. 362. 2 Hom. i. de Incomprehensib., Opp., i. 445.

3 Paulinus' death is sometimes assigned to the year 388, but that date appears to be too early. Socrates (H. E., v. 15) and Sozomen (H. E., vii. 15) imply that he died about the time when Theodosius celebrated his victory over Maximus by a triumph at Rome. That triumph took place in June, 389. With regard to Paulinus, I notice that Mr. Richardson (What are the Catholic Claims? p. 117) entitles him "Saint Paulinus." I very much doubt whether he could produce any proof of the Church having ever commemorated him as a saint. The two Catholic bishops of Antioch, S. Meletius and S. Flavian, were canonized; but the Eustathian leaders, Paulinus and Evagrius, never attained to that honour. It is true that S. Flavian, with great wisdom and magnanimity, inserted their names in the diptychs, but that is a very different thing from canonizing them (compare note 2 on p. 424). S. Atticus, in a letter to S. Cyril of Alexandria, mentions that "Paulinus and Evagrius, who were leaders of the schism in the Church of Antioch, were inscribed after their death in the sacred diptychs with a view to the peace and concord of the people" (Opp. S. Cyril. Alex., ed. Aubert, vi. 203). The name of Paulinus of Antioch does not appear in the Roman Martyrology.

Evagrius. The great influence of S. Flavian prevented any bishop being appointed to carry on the Eustathian succession, and so at last a real prospect of peace dawned upon the Christian people of Antioch.

But before I speak of the healing of the breach, it seems desirable that I should try and throw light on the view which S. Chrysostom took of the Eustathian position, while the bishop, Evagrius, was still alive. In one of his homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians,' the great preacher warns his flock most earnestly against the dreadful sin of leaving the true Church of Antioch in order to "go over," if I may use a colloquialism, to the Eustathian body. That body, it will be remembered, had been in communion with the Roman Church from 375 to the winter of 391-2, the date of the Council of Capua; and I shall hope to show that the Eustathians had most probably recovered the communion of Rome before the time when the homily, to which I allude, was preached."

But the interest of that homily does not, for the most part, depend on the question whether at the precise moment of its delivery Siricius of Rome and "Pope Evagrius" of Antioch, as S. Jerome calls him, were united in the bonds of ecclesiastical fellowship. S. Chrysostom treats the Eustathians as schismatics, because their ecclesiastical status was vitiated by the unlawful consecrations of Paulinus by Lucifer and of Evagrius by Paulinus. The uncanonical character of those consecrations had been condoned at Rome in 375 and 389; but S. Chrysostom, when warning the Catholics of Antioch against the sin of joining the Eustathians, makes no allusion of any sort or kind to the action of Rome either for or against the separatist body. It is clear that in S. Chrysostom's mind the question, as to whether the Eustathians were schismatics or not, was in no way settled by their relation to Rome. The arguments, which he uses, prove that in his view they had been schismatics ever since Paulinus was intruded by Lucifer into a see which was already canonically and worthily occupied by S. Meletius. In other words, they were schismatics during the sixteen years when they were undoubtedly in full communion with the pope; they remained schismatics when, after the Council of Capua, Siricius withdrew from them his countenance; and they were still schismatics when the homily was preached, although in the meanwhile they had probably been restored to fellowship with the Roman

On the date of S. Chrysostom's Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians, see the Additional Note 78, p. 506.

2 On the date of the death of Evagrius, and on the question whether he was in communion with Rome, when S. Chrysostom preached his eleventh homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, see the Additional Note 79, p. 506.

see.

..

But it is time to quote S. Chrysostom's words. In his eleventh Homily on the epistle to the Ephesians, he says, "If we desire to partake of that Spirit which is from the Head, let us cleave one to another. . . . Nothing will so avail to divide the Church as love of authority. Nothing so provokes God's anger as the division of the Church. When the Church is warred upon by her own children, it disgraces her even in the face of her enemies. For it seems to them a great mark of hypocrisy that those who have been born in her, and nurtured in her bosom, and have learned perfectly her secrets, that these should of a sudden change, and treat her as an enemy. Let these remarks be taken as addressed to those who give themselves indiscriminately to those who divide the Church. For if, on the one hand, those persons have doctrines also contrary to ours,1 then on that account further it is not right to mix with them; if, on the other hand, they hold the same opinions, the reason for not mixing with them is greater still. And why so? Because then the disease is from lust of authority. . . . Shall it be said, 'Their faith is the same; they are orthodox as well as we'? If so, why then are they not with us? There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.' If their cause is right, then is ours wrong; if ours is right, then is theirs wrong. Dost thou think this is enough, tell me, to say that they are orthodox? Are then things connected with the ordination of the clergy past and done away? And what is the advantage of all things else, if this be not strictly observed? For as we must needs contend for the faith, so must we for this also. . . . How shall we bear the ridicule of the heathen? For if they reproach us on account of our heresies, what will they not say of these things? 'If the doctrines are the same, if the mysteries are the same, why does one of the two rulers invade the other church? (rivos ἕνεκεν ἕτερος ἄρχων ἑτέρᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπιπηδᾷ ;) See ye,' say they, 'how all things amongst the Christians are full of vain-glory.'

If any amongst us are convicted of deeds the most disgraceful, and are about to undergo some penance, great is the alarm, great is the fear on all sides, lest he should start away, people say, and join the other side. Yea, let such an

1 S. Chrysostom is doubtless referring to the disputes about the use of the word hypostasis, in connexion with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (see note I on p. 314).

2 TÀ TÊS XEIPOTOvías. There is obviously a reference to the uncanonical consecration of Paulinus by the firebrand Lucifer, when the see of Antioch was already occupied by S. Meletius (see p. 159), and also to the entirely uncanonical act by which before his death Paulinus consecrated, without any assisting bishops, Evagrius to be his successor, as bishop of the Eustathians.