discover that Rome, Alexandria, and the East were at one in rejecting Maximus' pretensions, though, for the present, Rome was still doubtful about the canonical status of Nectarius. The whole history of the support of Maximus' claims by S. Ambrose and his suffragans is of great interest, because it shows how very independent of Rome the see of Milan was in S. Ambrose's time. Damasus had been informed by S. Acholius of Thessalonica, perhaps as early as the year 380, of the baseless nature of Maximus' claims; and he had written strongly against Maximus some time in the first two or three months of 381. But S. Ambrose was supporting Maximus all through the year 381, from Easter or thereabouts onwards, holding synods, and writing to Theodosius in Maximus' favour, and claiming a substantial share in the settlement of the question, and threatening to withdraw his communion from the East if they persisted in regarding their condemnation of Maximus as final. It is clear that he did not think that it was in any way necessary that he should consult Damasus before taking these measures. Of course S. Ambrose recognized that the Apostolic see of imperial Rome was, as a matter of fact, first in order among the sees of the West and in the whole Church; and he was prepared at the present juncture to grant to that see through the medium of State legislation certain carefully defined judicial powers in relation to Western bishops and metropolitans. But, as Mgr. Duchesne has told us, there was practically at that time in the West "a double hegemony; that of the pope and that of the Bishop of Milan; "2 and S. Ambrose had no idea of merging that double hegemony into the single hegemony of the pope.3 In the particular case of Maximus, the pope, thanks to S. Acholius, had been better informed than the Bishop of Milan. But that accidental fact does not diminish the interest which attaches to S. Ambrose's view of his own position face to face with the occupant of the Roman see. Just because the Roman see was, in fact, the first see, it necessarily was the normal centre, which was in continual communication with all parts of the Church. So long as it remained the first see, to enjoy the communion of Rome would under normal circumstances carry with it the enjoyment of the communion of all other Catholic churches. It was, therefore, natural for the Western Council of Aquileia to speak of "the rights of venerable communion flowing forth to all" from the Church of Rome (cf. Ep. inter Ambrosianas xi. § 4, P. L., xvi. 986). A similar remark concerning the see of Canterbury might be made at the present time by an English Churchman, who should be speaking of that primatial church in its relation to other churches of the Anglican communion. But neither in the fourth century nor now would it be necessarily implied that such a position rested on any immutable divine sanction, or that it carried with it any monarchical jurisdiction. 2 Compare Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 32. 3 From what has been set forth in this Excursus it will be seen how curiously mistaken Dr. Rivington was, in thinking (see Prim. Ch., p. 478) that, when S. Ambrose and his colleagues tell Theodosius in their letter Sanctum animum tuum that, since Maximus was pleading his cause in the West, the Easterns "ought to have waited for our judgement concerning him," "they certainly meant "that the Easterns ought to have waited for the judgement of Rome." They assuredly meant nothing of the kind. There are occasions in the course of the history of the Early Church, when the expression "the West" may be regarded as practically almost equivalent to "Rome"; but it would be a great mistake to treat the two expressions as if ordinarily they were interchangeable. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE COUNCILS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS VOLUME. A.D. (circa) 50, Jerusalem, under S. James. (circa) 195, Caesarea, under S. Theophilus and S. Narcissus. (circa) 195, Ephesus, under Polycrates of Ephesus. (circa) 195, Rome, under Victor of Rome. (circa) 215, Carthage, under Agrippinus of Carthage. 230, Iconium. 251, Carthage, first under S. Cyprian of Carthage. 254 or 255, Carthage, fourth under S. Cyprian. 256 (spring), Carthage, sixth under S. Cyprian. 256 (September), Carthage, seventh under S. Cyprian 300, Elvira, under Felix of Acci. 313, Rome, under S. Miltiades of Rome. 314, Arles, under Marinus of Arles. 320 or 321, Alexandria, under S. Alexander of Alexandria. 325, Nicaea, under Hosius, First Ecumenical. 339, Antioch. 340, Antioch. 341, Antioch (Council of the Dedication). 343, Philippopolis, under Stephen of Antioch. Soon after 343, Carthage, under S. Gratus of Carthage. 344, Antioch. 358, Sirmium. 359 (May), Sirmium. 359, Ariminum, under Restitutus of Carthage. 360, Constantinople, under Acacius of Caesarea. 362, Alexandria, under S. Athanasius of Alexandria. 363, Antioch, under S. Meletius of Antioch. 364, Lampsacus. 367, Tyana. 371 (December), Rome, second under Damasus of Rome.1 374, Valence. 375, in Western Illyricum. 376 or 377, Rome, fourth under Damasus. 379, Antioch, under S. Meletius. 380, Rome, fifth under Damasus. 381 (May), Constantinople I., under S. Meletius, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and Nectarius, Second Ecumenical. 381 (May or June), Milan, under S. Ambrose of Milan. 381 (September), Aquileia, under S. Valerian and S. Ambrose. 381 (December), Milan, under S. Ambrose. 382 (April), Milan, under S. Ambrose. 382 (May or June), Rome, sixth under Damasus. 394, Constantinople, under Nectarius. 397 (June), Carthage, second under S. Aurelius of Carthage. 397 (August), Carthage, third under S. Aurelius. 398 (September), Turin. 401 (June), Carthage, fifth under S. Aurelius. 401 (September), Carthage, sixth under S. Aurelius. 1 I agree with Dr. Bright in thinking that this was "the second of Damasus' councils (Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, p. 45). It was apparently at this council that Auxentius of Milan was anathematized (Bright, Op. cit., p. 43, and cf. S. Athanas. Ep. ad Epictetum, § 1). There had been an earlier council in or about 369, at which Ursacius and Valens had been cast out of the Church, but Auxentius had apparently been spared (cf. S. Athanas. Ep. ad Afres, § 10, and compare Bright, Op. cit., p. 40). A.D. 404, Carthage, ninth under S. Aurelius. 407, Carthage, eleventh under S. Aurelius. 408 (June), Carthage, twelfth under S. Aurelius. 415, Diospolis, under Eulogius of Caesarea. 416, Carthage, under S. Aurelius.1 416, Mileum, under Silvanus, the Primate of Numidia. 418 (May), Carthage, sixteenth under S. Aurelius. 418, Telepte. 418 (December), Carthage, under S. Aurelius.2 419 (May), Carthage, seventeenth under S. Aurelius. 421, Carthage, eighteenth under S. Aurelius. (circa) 423, Carthage, nineteenth under S. Aurelius. 426, Carthage, twentieth under S. Aurelius. 431, Ephesus, under S. Cyril of Alexandria, Third Ecumenical. 442, Vaison. 444, Besançon, under S. Hilary of Arles. 448, Constantinople, under S. Flavian of Constantinople. 449 (August), Ephesus, under Dioscorus of Alexandria, the Latrocinium. 449 (October), Rome, under S. Leo of Rome. 451, Chalcedon, under S. Leo's legates, Fourth Ecumenical. 484, Rome, under Felix III. of Rome. 485, Rome, under Felix III. 495, Rome, under Gelasius of Rome. 518, Jerusalem, under John III. of Jerusalem. 518, Tyre, under Epiphanius of Tyre. 518, Constantinople, under John II. of Constantinople. 525, Carthage, under Boniface of Carthage. 531, Rome, under Boniface II. of Rome. 535, Carthage, under Reparatus of Carthage. 536, Constantinople, under S. Mennas of Constantinople. 553, Constantinople II., under S. Eutychius, Fifth Ecu menical. 680, Constantinople III., under Agatho's legates, Sixth Ecumenical. 691, in Trullo, under Paul III. of Constantinople. 743, Rome, under Zacharias of Rome. 787, Nicaea II. 826, Rome. 833, Compiègne. 844, Thionville. 845, Meaux. 1869, 1870, Vatican, under Pius IX. of Rome. 1 A provincial council of the Proconsularis. 2 Probably a provincial council of the Proconsularis. |