compiled at about the same time. I have examined the Sessorian manuscript, and am able to say that the rubric with the clause "ad petitum Hieronymi" occurs on fol. 209 b.

4. THE DIESSEN COLLECTION, or rather the appendix to that collection. The original collection was compiled in the course of the seventh century. The documents in the appendix have been copied from the Freisingen Collection (see Maassen, Op. cit., pp. 631, 632). The collection with its appendix is to be found in Cod. lat. Monac. 5508 (olim Diess. 8). See Maassen (Op. cit., p. 624).

5. THE COLLECTION OF THE COD. LAT. MONAC. 3860* (olim Cod. Aug. Eccl. 160"). This collection has a considerable similarity to the Sessorian Collection and to the Enlarged Hadriana, as will be seen by referring to Maassen (Op. cit., pp. 32, 51, 307, 351, 354, 394, 400, 402, 406, 955). But there are some documents in this collection which are absent from one or both of the other two. The latest document contained in it which is mentioned by Maassen, so far as I have observed, is an epitome of a Roman Council of the year 826 (see Maassen, Op. cit., p. 308). A table of its contents is given in the Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis (tom. i. pars ii., p. 126). From that catalogue I learn that on fol. 191 of the MS. is S. Jerome's letter to Damasus, that is to say, the letter Quoniam vetusto Oriens. Immediately after the entry of this letter in the table of contents is the following entry: "fol. 192-Rescriptum Damasi papae ad petitum Hieronymi ad Paulinum episc. Antiochiae." This entry bears witness to the clause "ad petitum Hieronymi," and assuredly implies the presence of the rubric, to which attention has been previously called. There is a catalogue of the popes in this collection, and the original scribe finishes with Nicholas I., who died in 867. See Maassen (Op. cit., p. 406).

6. THE ENLARGED DIONYSIANA OF BOBBIO. This collection is found in two manuscripts, viz. Cod. Ambros. S. 33 sup. and Cod. Vercell. cxi. See Maassen (Op. cit., p. 471). The latest document contained in it is the epitome of the Roman council of the year 826 (see Maassen, Op. cit., pp. 308, 475, 476). I have ascertained, through the very great kindness of Mgr. Ceriani, to whom I applied through my friend, the Rev. H. J. White of Merton College, that in the Ambrosian codex the rubric with the clause" ad petitum Hieronymi" occurs on fol. 153a. It is preceded by S. Jerome's letter (Quoniam vetusto) and is followed by the rescript of Damasus (Per filium meum). The manuscript was written in the ninth century.

The contents of the Ambrosian manuscript, in which this collection is found, are given by Amadeus Peyron, in his edition of the Inventory of the books of the monastery of S. Columbanus of Bobbio (pp. 137-155). This edition of the Inventory is prefixed to Peyron's Fragmenta Inedita Ciceronis Orationum (edit. 1824, Stuttgardiae et Tubingae).

It is, perhaps, worth noticing that in this Ambrosian codex, and also in the Freisingen Collection, and in the Vallicellan codex of the Enlarged Hadriana, and in the Sessorian Codex, the first words of Damasus' rescript are, "Et per ipsum filium meum." About the reading of this passage in the other manuscripts here mentioned, I have no information.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE X.

NOTE 74 (see p. 342). On the date of S. Gregory Nazianzen's 22nd Oration.-As Merenda has tried to show1 from a passage in S. Gregory Nazianzen's twenty-second Oration, that that Father regarded the compact between S. Meletius and Paulinus as having been thoroughly concluded and ratified, so as to be binding on the episcopate generally, I propose to investigate in this note the date of that Oration and the meaning of the passage on which Merenda bases his argument.

4

7

Merenda thinks that the Oration was delivered during the sitting of the Second Ecumenical Council. But the second chapter of the Oration 2 makes it clear that it was delivered during the Gothic war. It follows that, as it was certainly delivered in Constantinople, it must belong either to the year 379 or to the year 380, and cannot belong to the year 381.3 For the Gothic war was brought for a time to a conclusion in the summer of 380, and there is not the smallest trace, so far as I am aware, of its breaking out again so early as 381. In harmony with this conclusion, we find that in the eighth chapter of the Oration 5 S. Gregory implies that the churches of Constantinople were, at the time of the delivery of the Oration, occupied by the Arians. As the Arian occupation of the Constantinopolitan churches came to an end in November, 380, the Oration must have been delivered before that date. In the thirteenth chapter S. Gregory says that those whom he is addressing have such a superabundance of factiousness, that they lend it to the rivalries of others, and undertake private enmities on behalf of alien thrones; and in the sixteenth chapter he says that he will not add to what he has already observed any harsh remarks, "for it is a law that fathers should spare their children." He is obviously not addressing the bishops at the Ecumenical Council, who had, many of them, been bishops much longer than himself; but he is speaking to his children, that is to say, to his own flock in his beloved church of the Resurrection, who, at the time when the Oration was delivered, were divided into parties, sympathizing with one or other of the two claimants of the throne of distant Antioch. S. Gregory alludes to these party divisions, which seem to have broken out soon after his arrival in Constantinople, in his Carmen de Vita sua (vv. 679-683). The Benedictine editors, in their note to that passage, point out that under the names of "Paul” and “Apollos" S. Gregory is really referring to S. Meletius and Paulinus. S. Gregory's words imply that the Constantinopolitan partisans of both "Paul" and "Apollos" were orthodox Christians belonging to the congregation which met at the church of the Resurrection and recognized S. Gregory as its pastor. So that in 379, or possibly, though less probably, in 380, there was good

1 De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xiv. § I et cap. xviii. § 2, P. L., xiii. 190, 221.

* S. Greg. Naz. Opp., ed. Ben., i. 415.

3 S. Gregory lived at Constantinople from the early part of 379 to July, 381.

4 See p. 331.

• See p. 336.

8

Opp., i. 425.

5 S. Greg. Naz. Opp., i. 419.

↑ Opp., i. 422.

9

S. Greg. Naz. Opp.,

ii. 710.

reason for the saint to urge his flock to put away factious party-spirit in some such an exhortation as we find in the twenty-second Oration.1

Any one who reads carefully the opening sentences of the Oration will see that the compact or covenant, of which S. Gregory fears the violation, is nothing else than the mutual invocation of peace, by which the preacher and the people saluted each other before the sermon began. S. Gregory had said, "Peace be to all," and the response had been made, "And to thy spirit." Then the sermon commenced as follows: "Dear peace! sweet in experience and sweet in name, which just now I gave to the people, and in turn received back from them. I am not certain whether the utterance of all was sincere and worthy of the Spirit; or whether a public covenant2 [of peace] is not being violated under the eyes of God the Witness, so that we fall into a more grievous condemnation." 3

"3

S. Gregory's words may be illustrated by a passage from a homily preached in the same city of Constantinople nineteen or twenty years later by S. Chrysostom. The preacher is commenting on Col. i. 20, and he says, "When he who presides over the church cometh in, he straightway says, 'Peace be to all;' when he preacheth, he says, 'Peace be to all;' when he blesseth, he says, 'Peace be to all;' when he biddeth to the kiss of peace, he says, 'Peace be to all;' when the Sacrifice is finished, he says, 'Peace be to all.' And again, in the middle, he says, 'Grace be to you and peace.' How then is it not monstrous if, while hearing so many times that we have peace, we are in a state of war with each other; and receiving peace and giving it back, are at war with him [the bishop] who giveth it to us? Thou sayest,' And to thy spirit;' and dost thou slander him abroad? Woe is me! that the majestic usages of the Church are become forms of things merely, and not a reality.”

NOTE 75 (see p. 350). Corroborations of the conclusion that S. Meletius died out of communion with Rome.-There is a remarkable passage in a letter of Pope S. Boniface I., addressed to Rufus of Thessalonica and to other bishops of Eastern Illyricum, which very notably confirms the conclusion that S. Meletius died out of communion with Rome. The pope is giving instances of Eastern bishops seeking help from Rome. He naturally writes from a Western or rather from a Roman point of view. He says, "When the Church of Antioch was for a long while in a state of distress, so that on account of this trouble journeys from thence were often undertaken, first under Meletius and afterwards under Flavian, it is manifest that the apostolic see was consulted. And every one knows that, after many things had been transacted by our Church, Flavian

1 Mgr. Batiffol (Littérature Grecque, p. 238) says that the Orations xx. to xxv. belong to the year 379. Rauschen (Jahrbücher, p. 53) also assigns Orat. xxii. to 379. So also do Tillemont and the Benedictines. If it were worth while, it would not be difficult to point out other passages in the Oration, which make it impossible to accept Merenda's theory that it was delivered in the presence of the Second Ecumenical Council.

2 Merenda's theory is based on the notion that the "covenant S. Gregory here refers is the compact between S. Meletius and Paulinus. 3 S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. cap. 1, Opp., i. 414.

to which

S. Chrys. Hom. iii. in Epist. ad Coloss., § 3, Opp., ed. Ben., xi. 348.

1

received by the authority of the said apostolic see the grace of communion, which grace he would never have obtained if letters of communion (super hoc scripta) had not issued from this place." Here the state of distress which afflicted the Church of Antioch is represented as continuing during the occupancy of the see by S. Meletius and by S. Flavian, and as being at last brought to an end by the admission of S. Flavian to the communion of the Roman Church. Not a word is said about any reconciliation of S. Meletius with Rome, and in fact the passage implies that S. Boniface knew of no such event having taken place.

Reference may also be made to some lines in S. Gregory Nazianzen's Carmen de Vita sua. The saint is describing the dispute in the Ecumenical Council as to the succession to the see of Antioch after S. Meletius' death. He gives in verse the subject of the speech which he made, counselling that Paulinus should be left undisturbed. In this speech the following passage occurs: "As long as the divine bishop [Meletius] was in the midst, and it was not clear how ever they of the West would receive the man (тdv &vdpa déžovt'), for hitherto they had been wroth, it was in a way pardonable to grieve somewhat the defenders of the canons, as they call themselves” (τοὺς, ὡς λέγουσι, τῶν νόμων ἀμύντορας). The defenders of the canons are, of course, Damasus and the Western bishops, who so styled themselves. Merenda points out that the meaning of dégour' in this passage is to receive into communion. He says, "Norunt vero omnes, quae sit ecclesiastico stylo perpetua hujus verbi vis. Hinc dexTol, qui communionis jure utuntur, quibus &deкTo oppositi sunt. Vid. Can. Ap. 13, ac Suicerum. Vide etiam epistolam Julii ad Orientales n. 13."3 S. Gregory seems clearly to imply that the breach of communion with the West continued during S. Meletius' life; but on his death Paulinus, who was in communion with the West, was left sole bishop (μovó@povos, cf. 1586); and S. Gregory is anxious that the restoration of peace between the Churches of Rome and Antioch should not be prevented by the election of a successor to S. Meletius.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE XI.

NOTE 76 (see note 2 on p. 364). On the calumnious legend, attributing perjury to S. Flavian.-It would not be right to give expression to a favourable judgement about S. Flavian's qualifications for the episcopate, if it were possible to accept as true a story, which finds a place in the pages of Socrates, and which has been taken over from him by Sozomen. According to that story, at the time when S. Meletius and Paulinus made their compact, six of the clergy of Antioch, who seemed to have the best chance of being elected to the bishopric whenever the see should be vacant, solemnly swore that they would neither come 1 S. Bonif. Ep. xv. § 6, P. L., xx. 782, 783. This letter was probably written in the year 422.

2 S. Greg. Naz. Carmen de Vita sua, 1611-1615, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 758. De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xviii. § 4, n. c, P. L., xiii. 221, 222. 4 Cf. Socrat. H. E., v. 5.

5 Cf. Sozom. H. E., vii. 3.

forward as candidates nor accept the episcopate so long as either Meletius or Paulinus remained alive, but would leave the survivor in possession of the see. Moreover, Socrates and his copyist, Sozomen, assure us that one of the six who publicly bound themselves by this oath was Flavian. The story seems to me to be quite incredible. It is rejected by the Bollandists, and it is regarded by Tillemont as not well authenticated and as a tale which it is not easy to believe. If it were true, then S. Flavian owed his episcopal dignity to flagrant perjury; and surely, if that had been the case, he could never have been venerated in the way he was by a man like S. Chrysostom, who was ordained in Antioch to the diaconate just at the time when the oath was supposed to have been taken. S. Chrysostom was at that time thirty-seven years old, and he must have known of the incident of the oath, if it really took place. Moreover, if S. Flavian had been guilty of perjury when he accepted the bishopric, he could never have been enrolled in the catalogue of the saints; for he retained his see until his death, and therefore never made satisfaction for his abominable crime. And again, how is it that S. Gregory Nazianzen, who argued so earnestly against electing any successor to S. Meletius during the lifetime of Paulinus, and who has preserved for us the substance of what he said on that point, never alludes to this alleged oath-taking? And why does S. Ambrose, who wrote against S. Flavian's claim, make no reference to the perjury which had accompanied his consecration? 5 But above all, how is it possible to conceive that the diocese, province, and patriarchate of Antioch, and the whole episcopate of the East, gathered in the Second Ecumenical Council, could have made themselves parties to this atrociously wicked act? And finally, how could the Fathers, who met at Constantinople in the year 382, have had the audacity to write, in their letter to Damasus and to the other Western bishops, that the episcopate of the province and patriarchate of Antioch had "canonically consecrated the most reverend and most God-beloved Bishop Flavian” ? « Dr. Rivington no doubt ventures to say that "it is to be feared” that Flavian "had promised [why not sworn?] not to accept the bishopric.” 7 But he can only support his suggestion by charging half the Church, as well as saints like S. Chrysostom, with the crime of condoning and

1 Van den Bosche is, I think, mistaken when he argues (Acta SS., tom. iv. Jul., p. 60) that Socrates differs from Sozomen in that he does not represent the six clergymen as binding themselves to refuse the bishopric if it should be offered to them, but describes their action as limited to the taking of an oath to refrain from using any personal efforts to secure their election. On the contrary, Socrates expressly says that they swore to allow whichever of the two bishops should survive the other to retain undisturbed possession of the see. There is no real difference between Socrates' story and Sozomen's. Only the latter states explicitly what the former clearly implies. I gather from Merenda's statement (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xiv. § 1, P. L., xiii. 190) that he would agree with me on this point, as against Van den Bosche.

2 Cf. Acta SS., loc. cit.

3 Cf. Tillemont, x. 527, and see viii. 371.

Cf. S. Greg. Naz. Carmen de Vita sua, 1591-1679, Opp., ii. 758-762. 5 Cf. S. Ambros. Ep. lvi. ad Theophilum, P. L., xvi. 1220–1222.

Theodoret. H. E., v. 9.

7 Prim. Church, p. 253.