priest, on behalf of Meletius, impugned the faith of Paulinus, because he differed as to the use of the term hypostases, and asked how he could hold his communion, without harmonizing in faith. It is in reference to these claims that Jerom speaks in his letter to Damasus, wherein he states that, to avoid mistake, he held communion with the Egyptian confessors, that is with Peter, patriarch of Alexandria, who was then an exile in Syria, and who had assisted at the Roman council with Damasus: "I follow here your colleagues, the confessors of Egypt, and amidst the merchant vessels, I lie hid in a little boat. I know nothing of Vitalis-I reject Meletius-I care not for Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you scatters; that is, whoever is not of Christ is of Antichrist."* St. Jerom looked on Meletius with the suspicion with which he was generally viewed in the West, and therefore rejected his communion, although he had succeeded in obtaining from the civil officer the possession of the churches, having satisfied him that he held the communion of Damasus. The perplexity of the Saint led him to address a second letter to the Pontiff: "The Church here being split into three parties, each hastens to draw me to itself. The venerable authority of the monks who dwell around assails me. In the meantime I cry aloud: WHOEVER IS UNITED WITH THE CHAIR OF PETER IS MINE. Meletius, Vitalis and Paulinus affirm that they adhere to you if one only made the assertion, I could believe: but in the present case either two of them deceive me, or all of them. Therefore, I beseech you, Blessed Father-by the cross of the Lord, by the necessary ornament of our faith, by the passion of Christ,- -as you succeed the apostles in dignity, so may you rival them in merit,—so may you sit on the throne of judgment with the twelve,-so may another gird you like Peter in your old age,—so may you gain the franchise of the heavenly city with Paul,-declare to me by your letter, with whom I should hold communion in Syria. Do not disregard a soul for which Christ died." This is the language of a man who feels that it is the duty of a disciple of Christ, in whatever part of the world he may be, to hold communion with the Bishop of Rome, by communicating with the local prelate who enjoys the communion of this Bishop. It is unquestionable, however, that Paulinus and not Meletius, received from Damasus the tokens of communion, and yet St. Basil the Great was a strenuous asserter of the rights of Meletius. This is easily understood. Basil knew that his ordination was prior to that of Paulinus, and that his faith was sound, so that the only grounds for rejecting his

* Ep. xv.

† Ep. xvi. Damaso.

communion were suspicions, having a strong colouring, but no reality. He remarked that those of the West, including, although not mentioning him, Damasus himself, did not know the real state of things in the East, and when Paulinus boasted of letters of communion received from the Pope, he replied: "I am not surprised at it, since they are utterly unacquainted with the state of things here." Thus resting on the facts of the case, he maintained that the reserve of Damasus could not prejudice the rights of Meletius, and he continued to support his friend, whilst he himself cherished and enjoyed the actual communion of the Pontiff.

It is worthy of the truly liberal spirit of the Holy See to render homage after death to a bishop whom it treated with distrust in life, under false impressions which time has removed. Damasus did not regard him as undoubtedly orthodox, and legitimately ordained. It was an error of fact, from which the Pope is guaranteed by no divine privilege. The integrity of the faith of Meletius, the legitimacy of his ordination, and the eminence of his virtues were soon recognized after his death, when rival pretensions and interests could no longer cast a cloud over them. The successors of Damasus have united with the East in the celebration of his virtues, and his name has been inscribed on the records of the illustrious prelates of the Church, who in difficult times labored faithfully in the good cause. His example proves that a man may attain to sanctity and salvation, although, from misconception and misrepresentation, he be not favored with the special marks of communion with the Chief Bishop: but it offers no security to such as persevere in sects separated from the Church, contrary to the divine law, which enjoins submission to our lawful pastors, and contrary to the divine constitution of the Church, the distinctive principle of whose organization is unity. Meletius was neither the leader nor member of a sect. He held the truth as it is in Christ; he received with docility the teaching of the Chief Bishop; he claimed and professed adhesion to his authority, and it was his misfortune, not his fault, that he could not succeed in dissipating the suspicions that deprived him of the encouraging smile of the successor of Peter.

The great solicitude of the bishops of Antioch to enjoy the communion of the Apostolic See, appears from the efforts made by St. John Chrysostom on his elevation to the See of Constantinople. He had been priest of that Church, and he charged the ambassadors whom he sent to notify the Pope of his own election, to use their influence to

Ep. ccxiv. Terentio comiti.

obtain the recognition likewise of Flavian, bishop of Antioch. Ambassadors also came from Flavian himself, as Innocent I. testifies : "The Church of Antioch, which the blessed apostle Peter illustrated by his presence, before he came to the city of Rome, as a sister of the Roman Church, did not suffer herself to be long estranged from her, The for having sent ambassadors, she sought and obtained peace."* misunderstanding had lasted seventeen years; but it implied no difference of belief, or breach of unity. It arose from the difficulty of putting facts in their true light, and dissipating prejudices honestly entertained against individuals. It is freely admitted that in such circumstances the want of direct communion with the Apostolic See may not be fatal to the claims of membership of the Catholic Church: but unity and catholicity manifestly forbid us to consider as members of the Church those who positively reject her communion. Hence John of Constantinople, in 515, addressing Pope Hormisdas, promised to cancel from the diptychs (sacred tablets) all who were not in entire harmony with the Apostolic See: "We promise that hereafter the names of such as are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, such as do not in all things harmonize with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited in the celebration of the sacred mysteries."+

* Ep. xxiii. Bonifacio col. 852, t. 1. Coustant.

† Conc. t. II. col. 1077.

CHAPTER VIII.

ANCIENT CONTROVERSIES.

§ 1. Disturbances at Corinth.

It is declared by St. Paul that heresies are attended with advantage, inasmuch as they serve to try men, and to distinguish the faithful and stable from the unsteady and perverse: "there must be also heresies, that they also who are approved, may be made manifest among you."* They serve, at the same time, to mark more clearly the faith of the Church, which is assailed, and to render it more illustrious. In like manner schisms and controversies, and scandals, become instrumental for good, in the designs of Providence, and afford us a salutary warning, and lead us to respect authority, and shun transgression. Thus in the history of the Church the evils which afflicted her roused the zeal of her prelates, whose authority is thereby more strongly marked for our respect and obedience.

Towards the end of the first century, before the death of St. John, the apostle, violent commotions broke out at Corinth, and the clergy suffered from the sedition of rash and misguided men. The persecu tions which about the same time raged at Rome, prevented immediate action on the part of the Church of this city, as is stated in the commencement of the letter of Clement; but as soon as an interval of peace was granted, an effort was made in the name of the Roman Church, and a letter of expostulation and exhortation was sent, which is justly valued among the most precious monuments of Christian antiquity. Messengers were despatched with it, charged to use all exertion to restore order, and re-establish harmony, and to report their proceedings on their return. The letter itself was so esteemed and venerated that long afterwards it was wont to be read publicly in the church of Corinth. The terms of the letter may not satisfy a critical mind, that superior authority was claimed by the writer, because persuasion is used without any appeal to personal authority: but the judi

* 1 Cor. xi. 19.

Dionys. Cor. apud Euseb. hist. eccl. 1. iv. c. xxiii.

cious reader will easily understand, that where passions are excited, reasoning, rather than authority, must be employed. The interposition of a distant prelate in the internal affairs of the church of Corinth cannot be accounted for satisfactorily unless by reference to his universal charge, which is sufficiently intimated by the excuse for delay in writing; especially as the apostle John, then residing at Ephesus, was much nearer to them, and could hope to exercise greater personal influence, besides the authority of his office. Had not Clement felt it to be his duty, he scarcely would have ventured, in such circumstances, to address the revolters. That he wrote the letter, although it bears the name of "the Church of God which is at Rome," is attested by Irenæus, a writer of the next age;* and the title is sufficiently accounted for by the ancient custom of assembling the clergy, and acting by their advice and with their concurrence, on occasions of great importance: yet the bishop and the church were identified in such acts, since, as St. Cyprian remarks, "the church is the people united with the priest and the flock following its pastor; whence you should know that the bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop."+

§ 2. Paschal Controversy.

The second century affords us more decisive proofs of the authoritative interference of the Bishop of Rome in the affairs of the Eastern churches. A difference of discipline in regard to the time of celebrating Easter existed from the commencement between the churches of Asia Minor and the Western churches. Those alleged the authority of St. John, the evangelist, for celebrating it on the same day as the Jews; thus changing the object of the festival, and commemorating the resurrection of our Lord, whilst these ate of the paschal lamb. The Western churches, especially the Church of Rome, and also the Church of Alexandria, celebrated it on the Sunday following the Jewish feast, not wishing to appear to retain any thing of the abrogated ceremonial. The matter in itself was indifferent, and the various usages may have been originally sanctioned by the respective apostles who founded the churches, since variety in discipline may be expedient, according to local circumstances. In places where the converts from Judaism formed the main body of Christians, their transition to Christianity was rendered less difficult by retaining the day of their solemnity; and thus the usages of the Asiatic churches may have had the sanction of St.

* L. III. ad v. hær. c. iii.

Ep. Ixix. ad Pupianum.