48 – This Lucius the person who, after the death of
S. Athanasius, was forced upon the Church of Alexandria
as Bishop, in the place of Peter who had been duly elected,
by the Governor of the Province. His crimes and cruelties
are recorded at length by Eccl. Hist. iv. 21, 22. He was
eventually expelled from the see he had usurped, and is
mentioned by Socrates, Hist. Eccl. v. 7, as afterwards
dwelling at Constantinople and sharing the fate of
Demophilus.
49 – Demophilus was originally Bishop of Beroea, (probably
Beroea in Thrace,) and was deposed from his office for
Arianism. In A.D. 370, on the death of Eudoxius, he was
elected by the Arian party Bishop of Constantinople, in
opposition to Evagrius. He was supported by Valens who was
then Emperor, and Evagrius banished. In 380 A.D. after the
accession of Theodosius, matters were changed. Theodosius
offered to maintain him in his see, if he subscribed
the Nicene Confession, but he refused, and withdrew,
and maintained, in conjunction with Lucius and others,
Arian worship outside the walls of Constantinople. He died
A.D. 386. He is mentioned by S. Ambrose (De Fide 1. 6. 45.)
as a leader of one of the various forms of Arianism.
50 – This refers to the long schism which had existed in the
Church at Antioch, ever since 331 A.D. when Eustathius
was deposed by the Arian party: in 361 A.D. Meletius
was elected as successor to Eudoxius, having previously
subscribed the Creed of Acacius (Socr. ii. 44.); but on
his accepting the Nicene Creed, and acknowledging the
Homoousion, he was deposed, and banished by the Emperor
Constantius, and Euzoius, an Arian, appointed in his
stead, who was afterwards succeeded by Dorotheus, (who
was afterwards transferred to Constantinople, 385 A.D.)
Meanwhile Meletius had returned from exile, but the
extreme orthodox party refused to recognise him, because
he had at first been appointed as a Semi-Arian, and
elected Paulinus, though the Council of Alexandria had
urged them to submit to Meletius, so that, as Socrates
says, when recounting the Bishops of the chief sees in the
year 379, ♦the Church at Antioch τριχῆ διῄρητο. Paulinus
was supported by the Church of Alexandria and by the
Bishops of the West, and, as appears from the statements
of this letter, a compromise had been proposed, that
when either Meletius or Paulinus died, both parties would
acknowledge the survivor. The Bishops at Aquileia urge
the Emperor to enforce this, not aware that Flavian had
already been elected as Meletius’ successor at the Council
of Constantinople. The schism was thus perpetuated, and
continued till 415 A.D.
What the difficulty about Timotheus was, is not
certain. He had been consecrated Bishop of Alexandria
that same year, after the death of Peter, the successor of
S. Athanasius. Tillemont (vol. x. p. 139) suggests that it
was probably connected with the question of the succession
at Antioch.