THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
But the origin of the orthodox tradition and the
bearing of the faithful followers of Meletius would
be alike inexplicable if he had not, before he left
Antioch for his home, given a decided anti-Arian
impulse to those whom he could
2. Origin influence. The most logical interpreof the tation of the accounts is that when he
Schism, was replaced by Euzoius, an open Arian, he warned his followers to hold no communion with this man. Part of the Antiochian church followed this admonition, and a state of schism was created. The Meletian party were not the only anti-Arians in Antioch. Ever since the deposition of Eustathius in 330, there had been a small Eustathian party there, whose leader at this time was the presbyter Paulinus. Taking the homoousios of the Nicene creed in the sense of mia hypostasis e ousia, they considered the Meletian use of treis hypostaseis as Arian; and thus, although the Meletians were more and more inclined to accept the homoousios as the later "young Nicene "party held it, the two groups were unable to act together. The accession of Julian made it possible for Meletius, as for Athanasius, to return to his see, but he had apparently not availed himself of the permission when the synod of Alexandria met in the spring of 362. It sent Eusebius of Vercelli and Asterius of Petra to Antioch to arrange a basis of agreement; but their task was rendered more difficult by the fact that Lucifer of Calaris arrived before them and consecrated Paulinus as bishop. There were then three claimants for the see; and the continued antagonism between Eustathians and Meletians may be partly understood from the fact that when (363) Meletius, with a synod at Antioch, accepted the homoousios in the sense of homoios kat' ousian and condemned the view that the Holy Ghost was a creature, the decree of the synod was signed also by a man so suspected by the whole Nicene party as Acacius. The Eustathians accordingly regarded the synodal decree as a repudiation of the Nicene faith; Athanasius recognized Paulinus, and when he came to Antioch in the end of 363 held communion with him alone. When the Emperor Valens in 365 banished anew from Antioch all who had been exiled under Constantine, Meletius was again driven out, to return on his own responsibility, taking advantage of the political complications of the time, in 367. A third exile began when Valens visited the East in the winter of 371-372, and lasted until the death of Valens (Aug. 9, 378) completely changed the situation. During this third exile Euzoius died (376), but he was immediately succeeded by another Homoian, the Thracian Dorotheus, and the threefold schism continued until Dorotheus was expelled by the government in 380. In fact, there was even a fourth claimant after 375, in which year Vitalius, a former adherent of Paulinus and then converted to Apollinarianism, was consecrated by Apollinaris; some of his followers were still traceable in the time of Sozomen (Hist. eccl, VI., xxv., NPNF, 2 ser., ii. 362).
Between his second return and his third exile Meletius had been in correspondence with Basil of Ca;sarea, to whose view of him he owes the high position which he takes in the traditions of the
" young Nicene " party. Through Basil his position in the controversies of the moment became a decisive one. The West, like Athanasius, had recognized Paulinus, whom the " young 3. Strength- Nicene " party suspected, as they did ening of the entire " Old Nicene " view, of Meletius' Sabellian or Marcellian tendencies. The Position, recognition of Meletius in the West thus became an object of primary importance for the young Nicene party. But though the negotiations brought them a little closer to the West, nothing more could be obtained for Meletius than that the western bishops recognized the orthodoxy of Meletius, saving the rights of Paulinus, and recommended an agreement which would at least provide against the continuance of the schism on the death of either. The renown of Meletius in the East, however, was all the more increased by this, and when he returned from Armenia to Antioch in 379 he was the most prominent of all the eastern orthodox leaders. Under his presidency assembled in Antioch (Sept. or Oct., 379) a synod attended by 153 bishops which attested the doctrinal unity between East and West. He had a hand in the appointment of Gregory Nazianzen to the see of Constantinople, and presided over the ecumenical council of 381, being singled out for special favor by Theodosius, the new ruler of the East. He died, however, soon after the council began its work.
The schism would soon have been ended if the Meletians of Antioch and the " young Nicene " party in general would have acknowledged Paulinus, as Gregory Nazianzen warmly urged at the council of Constantinople. But his appeal fell on deaf ears, and the schism was perpetuated by the election of Flavian. The West regarded 4. Contin- his position as wholly indefensible; a uance of synod held in Milan (381) under Schism Ambrose's presidency pronounced after His strongly against him, and another Death. in Rome (382) excommunicated Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Bercea who had consecrated him. Theodosius, who was anxious for an agreement between East and West, apparently did not approve the new election. On the death of Paulinus (c. 388) the Eustathians elected Evagrius, the friend of Jerome, who was recognized scarcely anywhere outside of Antioch, and toward whom the West assumed a friendly but non-committal attitude. Theodosius had a synod called at Capua in the winter of 391-392 to decide the controversy. This gathering committed the question as between Flavian and Evagrius to Theophilus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops, hitherto neutral. Flavian won the confidence of the emperor, and made a successful protest against any investigation of his title; and when Evagrius died (c. 393) he succeeded in preventing the election of another contestant. The Eustathians, however, still maintained their schismatic attitude, and Flavian was not recognized by Rome or Alexandria. Peace was finally made by the efforts of Chrysostom, himself a native of Antioch, who on his consecration as bishop of Constantinople (Feb. 26, 398) induced Theophilus of Alexandria to plead for Flavian at