caution should delay the reception of parties desirous of being joined to the Church, he had sent him a creed, not so much for his own signature, as he already was in communion with Damasus, as for those who, by subscription to it, desired to be united to him, in other words, to Damasus."

"Therefore, after the Nicene Council, and the council which has been convened in the city of Rome by Catholic bishops, they [who and when ?] added concerning the Holy Spirit, and because since then this heresy has arisen, so that certain persons dare impiously to say that the Holy Spirit is a creature, we anathematise," &c. Here follow anathemas for several pages, and then he returns to Vitalis. "Wherefore, if my before-mentioned son Vitalis, and those who follow him, wish to be joined to you, let them first subscribe the Nicene Creed. Then, since no one can apply a remedy to future wounds, that heresy is to be eradicated which is said to have since sprung up in the East. Whoever wishes to subscribe to this letter, having already subscribed to the ecclesiastical canons, which you know exceedingly well, and the Nicene Creed, you will openly and readily receive him. I have not written this as if you needed to know the sort of creed you ought to propose; but, by showing you our consent, you may feel more boldness in receiving them."* Independently of all the other objections against it, a letter like this is not nature, but resembles a soliloquy in the beginning of a

Holstein, "Collectio Romana bipartita veterum aliquot

play, to inform the spectators of things which it is necessary that they should know.

A portion of this letter, containing the anathemas, appears in that repository of forged documents, the history attributed to Theodoret.* It is there headed "A Confession of the Catholic Faith, which the Pope Damasus sent to Bishop Paulinus in Macedonia, when he was at Thessalonica ;" and this is explained to mean that, after Paulinus's imaginary journey to Rome, A. D. 382, when he was on his return home through Macedonia, Damasus sent the anathemas after him.

This fable, however, did not suit the taste of some later writer.† He therefore removed the first heading, and put a fresh head and tail-piece to the anathemas, and turned out the document as Holstein found it in the Vatican. Of course it has no date, nor any clue to one; therefore the time when Paulinus is supposed to have received this second edition of the anathemas cannot be decided, nor is it worth inquiry. The letter is uncanonical, and very absurd, not only in the way in which it makes the bishop of Rome speak to the bishop of Antioch, but also in whatever light Vitalis is viewed. When the anathemas were composed, or by whom, is unknown.

And this is all that is heard of Vitalis. He is

Hist. Eccl. v. 11.

The letter is written in a clumsy, barbarous style. In the first sentence the poetical bishop- the man" elegantis ingenii," as Jerome styles him-speaks of himself in the singular number, and in the next in the plural.

removed from the scene. His name, as will have been seen, never appears except in matters or documents where forgery is manifest.

Our attention must now be again directed to Paulinus.

§ 3. PAULINUS.

BEFORE we approach the Council of Constantinople, the reader may be curious to know what befel Paulinus during the persecutions under Constantius and Valens. The bishop whom Jerome, in his "Chronicle," is made to describe as an enemy of Christ, was, for Christ's sake, expelled by both emperors. What became, then, of the friend of Christ, who, amidst all the frowns and flatteries of the great, remained faithful to his master? Cyprian triumphantly referred to the persecution which the Catholics endured, while the Novatians were untouched, as indicating which party was Christ's Church. This might be a general rule, but in Paulinus's case there was an exception. The oddest fortune imaginable happened to him. The Arians had such an affection for him, he was so good and excellent a creature, that positively they made Meletius a bishop solely to convert him. And when that scheme failed, they had not the heart to expel him along with Meletius. Euzoius, the Arian prelate, let him have a church in Antioch all to himself. So that, in reality, nothing is heard of Paulinus during that stormy period; he had no adventures by flood or field. The figure is stuck up, and there it stands voiceless, motionless.

It is said, however, once to have had the power of resistance; but that is denied, and apparently on better authority. When Meletius returned from his exile under Valens, the story goes that his followers desired that he should sit, together with Paulinus, on the episcopal throne. This is strange conduct in his own party; a strange welcome, indeed, to their returning prelate to give him a rival in his chair. He had been sitting alone before his exile. Paulinus is said to have resisted, and the Meletians to have been compelled to take their acknowledged bishop, to whom all the Churches had been previously committed, who was, at this time, making bishops, holding synods, and in communion with all the East, while the figure Paulinus was motionless in the chair, and place him on an episcopal throne outside the walls, as if he had never been a bishop. A great disturbance then arose; and it is said that, to appease it, six of the presbyters of Antioch, who were the most likely to be chosen as successors on the death of either prelate, bound themselves by oath not to accept the office till the death of the survivor. Among these was Flavian, the successor of Meletius.

This story was invented to carry on the farce after Meletius's death. Flavian was to be regarded as forsworn. Of course there is no other authority than these spurious and corrupted documents for this most improbable tale.

This is only said by Socrates. Sozomen, we may suppose, knew better what Paulinus was. He makes no mention of his resistance (vii. 3.).

Such is the reported state of the parties at Antioch.

§ 4. COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

We now arrive at the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, over which Meletius is said to have presided. Paulinus was not summoned, nor was he present. But the reader shall learn what took place there. If Gregory of Nazianzum be the author of the "Carmen de Vita sua," Paulinus might console himself for the neglect shown him by reflecting upon the disturbances which he had caused.

All the East, says Gregory, was summoned, except Egypt. Meletius was president of the council. One of the first acts, after commencing their sessions, was to provide a bishop for Constantinople. The election fell on Gregory, and with cries and tears he was placed on the episcopal throne. Only one motive could have induced him to give his consent. He calls the Word to witness the truth of this declaration. He had but one object in accepting that important office. This was, no

doubt, the welfare of the Church he was to feed. Oh no! no such thing. "Witness, O Word!" he cries. Then what was it? That little sect at Antioch was at the bottom of it. There never was such a little sect since the first days of schism. It is the one thought of all mankind, high and low, rich and poor, clerk or laic, in peace and at home, in war or in exile, it matters not, that one little