Arians have had possession of the Church to the present day; that is to say, Eulalius, Eusebius, Euphronius, Placillus, Stephanus, Leontius, Eudoxius, Meletius, Euzoius, Dorotheus, again Meletius; of whom I have given no notices, because I consider them enemies of Christ, rather than bishops."

This, from its wording, is evidently an insertion after the completion of the work, and contains, perhaps, much error. Its statement as applied to Meletius points out why it was inserted.

"A.D. 364. Meletius, bishop of Sebaste, in Armenia, is transferred by Acacius and George, Arian bishops, to Antioch; and, after no great while, when he had received presbyters, who had been deposed by his predecessor Eudoxius, and had justly deserved exile by a change of creed, he made it appear that he was exiled for his faith." I believe this to be the intended meaning; the statement is quite gratuitous and unsupported.

"A.D. 366. Eusebius and Lucifer return from exile; one of whom, Lucifer, with two other confessors, makes Paulinus, presbyter of the bishop Eustathius, who had never polluted himself with heretical communion, bishop of the Catholics at Antioch."

"A.D. 367. A synod was held at Antioch by Meletius and his partizans, in which, having rejected the homoousian and Anomaan creeds, they adopt the homoiousian, the Macedonian dogina."

§ 2. VITALIS.

We will now leave Paulinus, and direct our attention to the other imaginary personage who appears before us as Apollinaris's, bishop of Antioch. It will have been seen, according to the "Tomus ad Antiochenses," that Apollinaris, styled a bishop, sent some monks to the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362. He was the founder of a heresy respecting the incarnation of our Lord, which is said to have assumed, at different times, different forms. At first he declared that the body which our Lord took had no living soul. To this it was replied that our Lord himself affirmed that he had a soul;-" My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." He then changed his ground, and said that our Lord did not take a rational soul, but that the Word supplied its place. Ruffinus states that this heresy was first condemned at Rome by Damasus, when the Alexandrian prelate Peter was there in exile, which would be between A.D. 373-377; afterwards it was condemned at Alexandria, and again at Constantinople, A. D. 381. After this latter council, those who had embraced the opinion left the Church, and had bishops, and doctrines, and churches of their own.* Such is the outline of the heresy to which Vitalis is made to belong.

Vitalis is described as being originally a pres

* Ruff. Hist. Eccl. ii. 20.

byter of Meletius at Antioch, illustrious for his life and conversation, and for his care over his people, and on these accounts greatly beloved by them; but, from not having been allowed by his brother presbyter Flavian to see his bishop Meletius in the customary manner, he turned Apollinarian. A story less worthy of belief can hardly be imagined. It is added that, owing to the excellency of his character, he had many followers, and that these were called Vitalians; while he is also said at this time to have been consecrated bishop of Antioch by Apollinaris. The two stories seem inconsistent. Besides, there is a very strong probability that Apollinaris was only a Reader in the church, and never attained the office of bishop, and consequently that he could not make one. Such is the story respecting Vitalis and his bishopric. The only time in which he appears, or rather is supposed to be present on the stage, was during the five months in which Gratian was virtually sole emperor. The story is thus detailed by Theodoret*: -Gratian had passed a law that the exiled prelates should be restored to their people, and that the churches should be given to those who communicated with Damasus. Along with this law he sent Sapor, one of his magistri militum, to put it in force. Sapor, thus commissioned, came to Antioch (it is the only place he is known to have approached for this purpose, such was the absorbing attraction of Paulinus's little sect), and there he

* Hist. Eccl. v. 3.

found the Church divided into three parts: the Paulinians, the Meletians, and the Apollinarians. He published the law, and, to his distress, found that three parties appeared, each claiming this desired communion. What was to be done? The presbyter Flavian cut the knot. He said to Paulinus, "How can you be in communion with Damasus? He confesses one ousia and three hypostases, and you say that there is only one hypostasis." Paulinus makes no reply. Flavian turns to Apollinaris; but Apollinaris, not being bishop of Antioch, could not have claimed the churches for himself, but only as agent for Vitalis, conscious, I suppose, that his bishop was but a make-believe: "And you, my friend, with what face can you claim to be in communion with Damasus, when you know that Damasus believes that our Lord took perfect man, while you exclude our rational soul from salvation." Apollinaris has not a word to say; he is as dumb as Vitalis. Meletius, then, turning to the figure Paulinus, graciously says, "Suppose that we neither of us sit upon the episcopal chair. Let us put the bible upon it, and sit on either side; and let us, during our lives, each rule our own flock, and the survivor rule the whole." Paulinus, again, makes no answer; and Sapor immediately gives the churches to Meletius.

Of course this absurd story is a fabrication. Not only did Gratian make no such law, but at this time he proclaimed freedom of worship to all

* Socr. Hist. Eccl.

sects and parties, except the Eunomians, Photinians, and Manichees. Sapor, therefore, never could have been sent to Antioch on such a business, even if we could imagine that at such a time, and amidst such dreadful difficulties as the empire was involved in, Gratian could have concerned himself about a little sect at Antioch, contemptible even on their own showing, and of no more importance in the commonwealth than a conventicle in one of our larger towns. The attempt to force a belief of the existence of Paulinus, independently of the fabulous character of the stories and documents with which his name is inseparably connected, is too laboured not to excite the gravest suspicion. We have seen that the moment the Western bishops are recalled from years of exile, their first thought is made to be the little sect at Antioch. Again: when the Barbarians are ravaging the empire, and Gratian's throne is tottering under him, the little sect carries away one of his superior officers to Antioch. But still, for all that, the reader will observe that now, as then, Meletius remains undisputed possessor of the churches. He is in full communion with all the East. All things go on just as they would have done had there been no Paulinus or Vitalis. They have not a word to say in the drama. When Meletius leaves the stage, the scene-shifters enter, and remove the figures.

Let us now proceed out of the "Histories," and see, as we have done in the case of Paulinus, what other testimony there can be adduced to give