consecration of Euphemius seemed to be providentially ordered, with the view of giving to the Church an opportunity of getting the schism healed. He was a courageous and holy man, full of zeal for the Catholic faith, and ready to suffer in its defence. Before his enthronement a synodical letter arrived from Peter Mongus, addressed to Fravitas; but, when Euphemius perceived that Mongus in this letter anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, he cut him off from his communion and expunged his name from the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople. Mongus died shortly afterwards, and was succeeded in the see of Alexandria by one who bore the honoured name of Athanasius. Unfortunately, this successor was also a Monophysite in doctrine, and Euphemius refused to hold communion with him. For the same reason Euphemius refrained from communicating with Palladius of Antioch; while, on the other hand, he admitted to his communion Sallustius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who accepted the decrees of Chalcedon. Euphemius, on his accession, wrote a synodical letter to Pope Felix, having first replaced his name on the diptychs of his church.1 The pope accepted the letter, and, having read it, felt assured of Euphemius' doctrinal orthodoxy, and was well inclined towards him; but he would not grant to him episcopal communion, because Euphemius had not expunged the names of Acacius and Fravitas from the diptychs.2 Thus the schism between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople continued. Assuredly the responsibility lay now entirely on the pope. There could be no pretence of supposing that Euphemius was inclined to tamper with the faith. But he was not prepared to acknowledge the validity of Acacius' deposition, which had been the act of an Italian council without any participation of the Eastern Church. Whether Acacius was worthy of censure or not, he had remained free from any valid censure during his lifetime, and now Euphemius was entitled to argue that he had passed away from the judgement of men. The real 1 It had been removed by Acacius, after his so-called deposition by Felix. 2 Niceph. Callist. H. E., xvi. 19, Patrol. Graec., cxlvii. 153. 3 Euphemius seems to have laid stress on the fact that the pretended deposition had been the act of only one man, viz. the pope (see Gelas. Commonitor. ad Faustum, Coleti, v. 295). Nicole and other Roman Catholic writers, who uphold the righteousness of the cause of Euphemius, allege, as a further justification of his proceedings, that dictum of S. Augustine in which he deprecates the excommunication of those who are likely to draw after them a multitude of persons ("qui habent sociam multitudinem"). I will quote one paragraph of Nicole's argument: "Quoiqu' on ne puisse douter qu' Acace ne fut coupable, il n'est pas certain néanmoins que tout coupable puisse être déposé et excommunié par toutes sortes de juges. Les Orientaux prétendoient qu'un Patriarche de Constantinople ne pouvoit être jugé ni déposé que par un concile auquel l'Église d'Orient eût part. D'ailleurs la règle point which divided the churches was no longer the duty of safe-guarding the true faith of the Incarnation, and the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, but the claim of the pope to depose an Eastern patriarch, who was not personally heretical, and to cut him off from the number of the faithful. If Euphemius had given way on that point, he would have betrayed the Catholic system of Church government, and he would have been worthy of all censure. The pope was fighting for his own baseless claim to autocracy, and it was the duty of every well-instructed Catholic to resist him. Our information in regard to this breach of communion between the East and the West is mainly derived from the letters of the popes and from the acts of Roman councils, who of course regard it from the Roman point of view. It may therefore be well to quote an account of the matter from an Eastern writer; and one could not go to a better authority than to Cyril of Scythopolis, the friend and biographer of several of the saints who lived during the period of the schism. Cardinal Baronius says of him that he was the most accurate and trustworthy writer of saints' lives that he knew, always excepting S. Athanasius and S. Jerome. He also says of him that he was "illustrious on account of his sanctity." Alban Butler refers to him as "one of the best writers of antiquity." This Cyril of Scythopolis, speaking in his life of S. Sabas about S. Elias of Jerusalem, says, "When the Patriarch Elias had obtained the see of Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of the Emperor Anastasius * [A.D. 493], the Church of God was thrown into confusion, being divided into three parts; for the bishops of Rome dissented from those of Byzantium because the name of Acacius, a former bishop of Constantinople, had been inserted in the sacred diptychs; and Acacius had not followed the preciseness (Tv aкpißuav) of the Romans. Moreover, the de Saint Augustin: Qu'il ne faut point excommunier ceux qui entraînent avec eux une multitude de personnes, qui habent sociam multitudinem,' étoit trés considerable à l'égard d'un Patriarche qui attiroit avec lui tout l'Orient. Ainsi les Évêques attachez [sic] à la cour s'étant unis à Acace, les plus saints Évêques d'Orient ne crurent pas se devoir séparer de sa communion, de peur d'augmenter le mal au lieu de la guérir" (Nicole, de l'Unité de PÉglise, liv. ii. chap. x. pp. 308 f., edit. 1708). This treatise of Nicole is styled by Mgr. Bouvier, Bishop of Le Mans, who died in 1854, an "exquisitum opus." 1 Annal., s.a. 491, tom. vi. p. 468, ed. Antverp., 1658. 2 See Baronius' annotated edition of the Roman Martyrology, in his notice of S. Sabas, who is commemorated on December 5 (p. 533, ed. Antverp., 1589). In the Life of S. Euthymius (January 20). The reign of Anastasius lasted from 491 to 518. There is, I think, a slight touch of irony in the application of the word akpíßeia to the Romans. So, more than 120 years earlier, S. Basil, in a letter to S. Eusebius of Samosata (see p. 304), with very marked irony describes Pope Damasus and the Roman clergy as aкpißéoтepo (Ep. cxxxviii., Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 230). And S. Gregory Nazianzen describes the pope and the Westerns as Byzantine bishops dissented from the Alexandrines, who were anathematizing the Council of Chalcedon, and were communicating with the memory of Dioscorus, who had been deposed by that synod. The result was that Elias was only able to communicate with Euphemius, the Bishop of Byzantium; for, as has been said, the Westerns had separated themselves, and Palladius of Antioch, in order to curry favour with the Emperor, was anathematizing the decrees of Chalcedon, and was embracing the communion of the Alexandrines." "2 It apparently did not occur to S. Elias that it would be his duty at all hazards to get into communion with Rome. From the Eastern point of view, "the Westerns had separated themselves." And this was strictly true. The separation was the act of the pope, and the responsibility for the schism lay on him. S. Elias was not a courtier bishop. If he had been, he would have communicated with the Monophysite bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who were favoured by the Emperor. He was an orthodox Eastern Catholic, and he therefore naturally embraced the communion of Euphemius. Nineteen years afterwards, in A.D. 513, he was driven from his see by the heretical Emperor, and was banished to the shores of the Red Sea, because he refused to communicate with the Monophysite Severus, who had been intruded by the Emperor into the see of Antioch. There he died in the year 518, ten days after the death of his persecutor. He died, as he had lived, out of communion with the Roman Church; but he is venerated by that church as a saint, and is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on July 4. The persecution of Euphemius had preceded that of S. Elias, for the former had been driven from his see by Anastasius in the year 495. He lived for twenty years in exile, dying at Ancyra in 515. His name ought to be had in honour throughout all generations as a confessor for the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation, and as a firm defender of Catholic liberty against papal usurpation. He also died, as he had lived, out of communion with the Roman see. His successor at Constantinople was S. Macedonius. During the whole of his episcopate this saint was being persecuted by the Emperor, because he maintained the true faith in regard to the Incarnation, and upheld the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. In the year 511 the Emperor banished him, as he had banished his predecessor; and he "the self-styled defenders of the canons" (see p. 503). There was a something about Roman ways, which made the great saints of the East shrug their shoulders. 1 Τῶν δυτικῶν ὡς εἴρηται ἀποσχοινισάντων. Cf. S. Cyril. Scythop. Vit. S. Sab., cap. 1. died at Gangra in 515, and was buried in the church of the holy martyr Callinicus. S. Theophanes tells us that after his death many miracles of healing were wrought at his tomb. He died, as he had lived, out of communion with Rome; and in the year 519, when the breach was healed between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, Pope Hormisdas, regardless of S. Macedonius' sufferings for the faith and his sanctity, insisted on his name being expunged from the Constantinopolitan diptychs. This was done by the then Patriarch John, a poor-spirited man. But the exclusion did not last long. The Church of Constantinople soon replaced the name of her saintly patriarch on the sacred tablets, and he was reckoned among the saints. His feast is kept by the Eastern Church on the 25th of April. But there would be no end, if I were to go into full details in regard to all the saintly names which make glorious the annals of the Eastern Church during that period, when she was separated from the communion of Rome. I will, however, make a list of some of them, arranging them according to the patriarchates into which the greater part of the Eastern Church was divided. To each name I will prefix the day on which he is commemorated either in the Eastern servicebooks or in the Roman Martyrology, and in connexion with most of the names I will add a few historical notes. In the patriarchate of Constantinople. April 25.-S. Macedonius the Patriarch (died in A.D. 515). December 11.-S. Daniel the Stylite (died circa A.D. 494). In the patriarchate of Antioch. July 4.-S. Flavian II. of Antioch (died in A.D. 518). In the patriarchate of Ferusalem. January 11.-S. Theodosius the Coenobiarch (died in January 26.-S. Gabriel the Archimandrite (died in July 4.-S. Elias the Patriarch (died in A.D. 518). October 28.-S. John the Chuzibite (flourished during the schism). 1S. Theoph. Chronograph., A.C. 508. November 30.-S. Zosimas the Wonder-worker (flourished during the schism). December 5.-S. Sabas the Great (died in A.D. 532, at December 8 (but in Rom. Mart. May 13).-S. John the In the patriarchate of Alexandria. July 27. The 3911 Martyrs at Najrân (died in A.D. 522 or 523). October 24.-S. Aretas and his 340 companions (martyred October 27.-S. Elesbaan the King (was flourishing in October 27.-S. Pantaleon and his eight companions Some of these saints died before the healing of the schism, and therefore out of communion with Rome.1 Others did not die until after the schism was healed, but they had become illustrious by their sanctity, and in some cases by their miracles, while they were out of communion with Rome. I do not remember that in any case there is the smallest particle of evidence to show that they viewed their restoration to communion with Rome as an event of any personal importance to themselves. They doubtless rejoiced that the unity of the Church was once more rendered unmistakably visible, and that the breach of communion between the Eastern and Western bishops had come to an end; but there is not the least reason for supposing that they regarded themselves as having been outside the Church before the pacification, and as having been brought within the true fold by means of that event.2 I doubt if such an idea ever crossed the mind of any Eastern Catholic during the whole course of the controversy. The 1 Mr. Richardson (What are the Catholic claims? p. 118) has a curious passage, in which he speaks of S. Meletius' separation from the communion of the Roman see as being a "unique example in antiquity." What can Mr. Richardson mean? Does he really think that S. Meletius was the only saint recognized by the Church, who lived outside the Roman communion? If that is his opinion, he is under a complete delusion, and either he has forgotten what he learnt when he was sitting on the "hard bench," of which he speaks in the note, or the instruction given to him must have been very misleading. Various passages in his somewhat flimsy book tempt one to speculate as to which of these two alternative suggestions gives the truer account of the mistakes into which he falls. For example, on p. 61 he speaks of the "eternal Syncatabasis of the Son." If I had used such an expression when I sat on "hard benches " at Cambridge and at Cuddesdon, I should have been in some way made to understand that I was either grievously heretical or grossly ignorant. The Patriarch of Constantinople, S. Epiphanius, writing to Pope Hormisdas in 521, and speaking of the pope's arduous labours, says that by them his holiness "omnia catholicae ecclesiae membra in unum Domini et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi corpus cum prompto nititur animo conjungere" (P. L., lxiii. 506). 3 Among the Easterns I do not include the bishops of the provinces of Eastern |