one start away ten thousand times, and let him join them. And I speak not only of those who have sinned, but if there be any one free from imputation, and he has a mind to depart, let him depart. I am grieved indeed at it, and bewail and lament it, and am cut to the very heart, as though I were being deprived of one of my limbs; and yet I am not so grieved as to be compelled to do anything wrong through such fear as this. . . . I assert and protest that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy. . . . Of what hell shall he not be worthy, who slays Christ and plucks Him limb from limb?... Speak, ye women that are present-for this generally is a failing of women-relate to the women that are absent what I have mentioned, startle them. . . . Those who, forsooth, seem to be in earnest, these are the very persons who work this mischief. Yet surely, if it is for these things ye are in earnest, it were better that ye also were in the ranks of the indifferent; or rather it were better still that neither they should be indifferent, nor ye such as ye are. I speak not of you that are present, but of those who are going over. The act is adultery.

One of the two [sets of clergy] must have been appointed contrary to law. If, therefore, you suspect [the rightfulness of our position], we are ready to yield up the government to any one you like. Only let the Church be one. But if we have been lawfully appointed, persuade those to resign who have illegally mounted the throne. . . . Be earnest, I entreat you, in establishing yourselves firmly henceforward, and in bringing back those who have seceded, that we may with one accord lift up thanksgiving to God." 2

If there are any English Churchmen who are tempted to "go over" to the Anglo-Roman body, it might be well for them to read carefully the whole of the preceding extract. The forcible reasoning, which S. Chrysostom employed against the Romanizers of his day, is entirely applicable to their representatives in the present generation. There is, no doubt,

This sentence shows that S. Chrysostom's main objection to the Eustathian position was the unlawfulness of the consecration of Paulinus, rather than the additional irregularities which made the consecration of Evagrius still more uncanonical than it would have been if he had merely inherited Paulinus' status. The irregularities which were peculiar to Evagrius were independent of the canonical position of S. Flavian; but the irregularities which were common to both Paulinus and Evagrius would only be regarded as irregularities by those who recognized the canonicity of the status of S. Meletius and S. Flavian.

2 S. Chrys. Hom. xi. in Epist. ad Ephes., Opp., ed. Ben., xi. 86-89. In the Benedictine preface to the Homilies on the Ephesians, Dom Montfaucon shows clearly that they were preached at Antioch, and he draws his primary argument from this very passage; concerning which he says, “Omnino loqui videtur de schismate Eustathiano, tunc Antiochiae perseverante." The preface to the Oxford translation gives a summary of Montfaucon's other arguments. Compare also Tillemont, xi. 628, 629.

one great difference in the situation. In those days, the days of Pope Siricius, the papal idea was only the germ of a germ. It was not completed as a germ until the time of S. Leo and his immediate successors. Now the Leonine germ has reached an enormous development,' and will no doubt develop much more as time goes on. The Eustathians themselves would have been amazed if they could have foreseen the future.

I have already said that after the death of Evagrius no bishop was appointed to carry on the Eustathian succession. However, the Eustathians still kept up their separate assemblies for worship under the leadership of their presbyters. It was not until 398, after S. Chrysostom's consecration to the bishopric of Constantinople, that the long breach between Rome and Antioch was brought to an end. This happy result was effected by the mediation of S. Chrysostom.

The Emperor Arcadius, the son and successor of Theodosius, had summoned Theophilus of Alexandria to Constantinople, to take part in S. Chrysostom's consecration, and Theophilus was in fact his principal consecrator. In this way it came to pass that S. Chrysostom, for the first time in his life, was admitted to the communion of the see of Alexandria. It was also at this time of his consecration that he negotiated the reunion of Theophilus with S. Flavian.2 Thus the three great sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch entered into a league of peace with each other. It only remained to bring Rome and the West into the confederation, and then the complete visibility of the Church's unity, which had been so long in abeyance, would be once more restored. Accordingly Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, one of S. Flavian's consecrators, was sent to Rome by S. Chrysostom, and S. Isidore, a priest of Alexandria, was sent with him by Theophilus. Acacius carried with him the decree of S. Chrysostom's election to the episcopal throne of Constantinople, and the two legates, who travelled together, took to the pope documentary proof of the fact that S. Flavian was in full communion with Theophilus. Pope Siricius seems to have made no difficulty about receiving S. Flavian and S. Chrysostom to his communion. There is not the smallest

Bishop Lightfoot (Leaders in the Northern Church, p. 51) says, “The claims of Rome in this early age were modest indeed compared with her later assumptions. It is an enormous stride from the supremacy of Gregory the Great to the practical despotism claimed by Hildebrand and Innocent III. in the eleventh and succeeding centuries, as it is again a still vaster stride from the latter to the absolute infallibility of Pius IX. in the nineteenth century."

2 Tillemont, x. 809.

3 Constantinople had been given precedence over Alexandria by the second Ecumenical Council.

Tillemont, loc. cit.

reason to suppose that they expressed any sorrow for their previous line of action, or any acknowledgement of any divinely appointed primacy in the see of Rome. There is no trace of any such notion in S. Chrysostom's voluminous writings. S. Flavian and S. Chrysostom appear to have maintained the ground which they had always taken, and they were received on their own terms; and so the Church was, after many years of division, restored to a state of peace. Acacius and S. Isidore returned from Rome to Egypt together; and Acacius was able to carry on to Antioch "letters of communion for S. Flavian and his flock from the bishops of Egypt and of the West." A certain number of the Eustathians still kept up a separation, although, after the reunion of the Church, a great many were received by S. Flavian into the Catholic fold. The schism finally came to an end about the year 415, during the pontificate of Alexander, Bishop of Antioch. S. Flavian himself had died, about the year 404, at the great age of ninety-five. For fifty-five years, that is to say, from the time when he was thirty-four to the time when he was eighty-nine, he had lived outside the Roman communion. As we have seen,

there is no reason to suppose that, when peace was restored, he made any act of reparation for what Cardinal Wiseman would consider to be a life spent in schism. Nevertheless the learned Ultramontane, Pietro Ballerini, describes him as "a most celebrated bishop, who was the master of S. John Chrysostom, and whose name was enrolled in the register of the saints.'

"2

APPENDIX I.

S. Chrysostom's view of S. Peter's position in connexion with the election of S. Matthias to the apostolate (see p. 366).

I HAVE admitted that it is quite possible that S. Chrysostom, though he never connects the primacy of S. Peter with any prerogatives of the see of Rome, may nevertheless have been so filled with veneration for the apostle whom he regarded as the founder of the Church of Antioch, as to be led to speak of him occasionally in an exaggerated way. But the

1 Sozomen. H. E., viii. 3; compare Socrat. H. E., vi. 9. Notice how Sozomen mentions the bishops of Egypt before those of the West, although the latter included the pope. How could he have expressed himself in that way if he had

accepted the papal theory?

"Episcopus celeberrimus, qui S. Joannis Chrysostomi magister extitit, et in Sanctorum album relatus fuit " (Petr. Ballerin. de vi ac rat. primat. Rom. Pont., edit. 1845, p. 135).

reader must be warned against accepting the account given by Dr. Rivington of S. Chrysostom's views about S. Peter's position in relation to the election of S. Matthias to the apostolate.1 Dr. Rivington says that "when S. Chrysostom asks the question, Might not Peter by himself have elected?' he answers categorically, emphatically, 'Certainly."" In this passage Dr. Rivington has fallen into two mistakes. He has, in the first place, been misled by the corrupt Benedictine text, which, in the case of S. Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts, is entirely untrustworthy.2 But in the second place, even if it were possible to accept the Benedictine text,3 Dr. Rivington has misunderstood S. Chrysostom's teaching, as there set forth. I will take these two points in their order. The first is perhaps rather a matter of form than of substance. The second is substantial.

1. The Oxford translators, having before them "the old text," that is to say, the genuine text of these Homilies on the Acts, translate the passage, from which Dr. Rivington quotes, as follows: "Then, why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? What was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favour. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit." The question, "Might not Peter by himself have elected?" and the categorical, emphatic answer, Certainly," are not to be found in the genuine text. There is no trace of them in the New College manuscript; and evidently there was no trace of them in the Paris manuscripts used by the Oxford translators. But to this it may be answered that even the Oxford translation implies that conceivably Peter might have made the election himself, though in that translation there is no such categorical statement of the fact as appears in the Benedictine text. That is true, but S. Chrysostom's real meaning will be better understood by a consideration of what I have to say about Dr. Rivington's second mistake.

2. Dr. Rivington tells us that "S. Peter called on the apostles to elect one in place of Judas, to supply the number of twelve in the apostolic college." This account can hardly be considered accurate. S. Peter was addressing, not "the apostles," but "the brethren," or, as S. Chrysostom read in his copy of the Acts," the disciples," of whom there were about a hundred and twenty present. S. Chrysostom dwells on the fact that some of those who were addressed were women. Commenting on S. Peter's words, "Men and brethren," he says, see the dignity of the Church,

1 Authority, p. 73, 2nd edit.

2 See note 2, on p. 115.

66

3 The passages of S. Chrysostom, to which reference is made in this Appendix, occur in his third Homily on the Acts (Opp., ed. Ben., ix. 23-25, and in the Oxford translation, pp. 37-40).

Tom. i. fol. 65.

Authority, p. 72.

6 The italics are mine.

7 Acts i. 15. "In diebus illis exsurgens Petrus in medio fratrum dixit (erat autem turba hominum simul fere centum viginti) "-Vulgate. The Revised Version is in close agreement with the Vulgate.

S. Chrysostom accounts for S. Peter, rather than anybody else, having stood up in the midst of the hundred and twenty to address the others, by three considerations, namely, (1) the ardour of his character; (2) his apostolic office; "he

the angelic condition! No distinction there, neither male nor female. I would that the churches were such now." S. Chrysostom lays the greatest stress on the fact that the choice of the new apostle, or at any rate the selection of the two names, was committed "to the whole body" of the Church. S. Chrysostom nowhere in this passage contrasts S. Peter with the other apostles; but he contrasts the multitude of brethren, sometimes with S. Peter and sometimes with the whole choir of the apostles. According to the reading of the Benedictine editors, S. Chrysostom, speaking' of the apostles, asks the question, "Why of their own selves do they not make the election?" Thus, so far from saying that "S. Peter called on the apostles to elect," he draws attention to the fact that they did not elect. Further on S. Chrysostom says, “Observe how Peter does everything with the common consent [of the whole body of brethren], nothing autocratically, nor imperiously. And he did not say simply thus: Instead of Judas we elect this man.'"1 Notice how S. Chrysostom assumes that, if S. Peter had announced a name, he would have made the announcement on behalf of the apostolic body, of whom he was the mouthpiece. But he and the other apostles preferred to leave the whole body of the Church to make the election in complete freedom. When once it is perceived that in S. Chrysostom's mind there is no separation between S. Peter and the other apostles in regard to this transaction, all becomes clear. There was on the one side the apostolic college, with S. Peter as its leader and mouthpiece. There was on the other side the multitude of the brethren. S. Peter, as the leader of the apostolic college, might very naturally have made a mental selection of one or more names, and might have submitted it or them to his brotherapostles; but he preferred to "keep clear of all invidiousness," and "to defer the decision to the whole body" of the Church. That seems to me to be S. Chrysostom's view throughout this somewhat obscure passage.

It is a satisfaction to be able to quote the opinion of the great Bossuet, as agreeing with my conclusion and as supporting some points in my interpretation. He is replying to some anonymous writer, who had cited in favour of papal autocracy the very passage which gave rise to this discussion. Bossuet says, "In this passage our anonymous friend dreams that Chrysostom intended to say, that Peter by his own authority was able to settle the whole business, without any consultation with his brethren ; but that is far from the mind of Chrysostom, and from [the practice of]

had been put in trust by Christ with the flock;" (3) "he had precedence in honour" (two of the "old text" Paris manuscripts read pотIμÓTEроs, the other one and the New College manuscript and also the Catena read πротiμάμevos). The reference to the primacy of honour, coming as the climax after the reference to S. Peter's having been put in trust with the flock, fits in with S. Chrysostom's view that the injunction, "Feed My sheep," had to do with apostolic and not with primatial jurisdiction (compare what I have said on pp. 123-126).

The New College manuscript (tom. i. fol. 60) here agrees with the Benedictine reading, except that it reads, οὐδὲν ἀρχοντικῶς, instead of οὐδὲν αὐθεντικῶς, οὐδὲ apxik@s. It is fair to point out that the two passages translated in the text from the Benedictine edition, do not appear in the Oxford translation, and are therefore absent, I suppose, from the "old text" Paris manuscripts. However, they at any rate show how S. Chrysostom's meaning was understood by the mediaeval concocters of the text, which the Benedictines unfortunately adopted.