No. IX. AUXENTIUS, BISHOP OF MILAN.

THE position of Auxentius at Milan (A.D. 355374) seems, in after times, to have given great offence to the Roman party. That the bishop of Rome should have allowed the second great see of Italy to be occupied by an Arian, was such a mark of weakness, and so irreconcilable with his supreme control and active superintendence over the Universal Church, as to be altogether unintelligible. And yet, if the current history is true, he must have done this, or something very like it.

Two ways of meeting this difficulty seem to have been invented. One, which is, in fact, rather a vindication of the Church than of the bishop of Rome, is contained in a document to be found in that nest of forgeries, the minor works of Hilary, and styled a "Book against Auxentius." And, although Jerome says, or is made to say, that Hilary wrote such a work, and although its style is very different from many of the others, still I have no doubt that it is spurious. It is said by the Benedictine editor to have been written A.D. 364. Hilary, like Eusebius of Vercelli, is represented as having no narrow-minded taste for home. We find both as lights, burning lights, irradiating every diocese but their own. Among the first acts of Valentinian's sovereignty (according to this letter) must have been an injunction against disturbing Auxentius. When Hilary, who was in

Italy, heard of this, he was highly indignant, and told the emperor that the man was a blaspheming Arian, and had a very different creed from what the emperor, or any one else, suspected. Valentinian, startled at this intelligence, ordered a quæstor and a magister (that is all Hilary says of them) to summon Hilary and Auxentius before them (Eusebius is present also), and question them as to the truth of what Hilary had said. This took place in the presence of about (fere) ten bishops; and a very singular looking ecclesiastical court it must have been, at which to try the metropolitan of north Italy for heresy. The result was, that Auxentius declared himself a Catholic, presented a creed which satisfied the quæstor and magister, but which was, Hilary says, an ambiguous creed, Catholic or Arian, according to the punctuation. Hilary, dissatisfied with the inquiry, is represented as attempting to create more disturbance; on which he receives an order to leave Milan. This is one mode of explaining the difficulty; Valentinian is deluded by an ambiguous creed, and Auxentius is not allowed to be displaced. As this story does not affect the Roman bishop directly or materially, I shall not further inquire into it. Perhaps, if we knew positively who he was, there were doctrinal and personal reasons why he left the vindication of the Nicene faith to the bishop of Poitiers. Another and a much bolder method of relieving the Roman prelate was to assert that he actually convened a synod and deposed Auxentius. We will now examine the documents which allude to this story.

Among the writings of Athanasius is a letter from him and ninety Egyptian and Libyan bishops to the bishops in Africa. If genuine, it would, I believe, be the very first instance of any intercourse taking place between the Egyptian and African dioceses. The editor of Athanasius dates it, A. D. 369. It is, I imagine, a fancy date, with no facts to support it.

Being the first Roman letter, it was perhaps the first step towards a correspondence; and this may account for its having no special direction. It is a general circular, addressed "to the most honoured bishops of Africa." Athanasius, probably, was acquainted with none of their names, for the Sardican generation had passed away. One omission is, however, singular; he forgot to state whether it was with the Catholic or the Donatist bishops that he wished to be in correspondence. The probable consequence would be, that, when the letter reached Africa, both parties would claim it; that is, if they could decipher it, which is perhaps doubtful, as it is written in Greek.

But let us turn our attention to its contents. What induced Athanasius to write? It will be found that it was nothing affecting himself, or the ninety bishops assembled in council with him. Neither had the letter any thing to do with the African Church in particular. It was no more than a warning voice. But it makes some extraordinary statements, and such as are not to be found elsewhere.

And first, the council state "that the decrce of

their beloved fellow minister Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and of the bishops who were assembled with him, and not less the decrees of the other synods in Gaul and Italy, concerning the salutary faith which Christ has given to us, and Apostles preached, and the Nicene Fathers assembled from the whole world have delivered to us, are quite sufficient; so great was their anxiety on account of the Arian heresy, that those who had fallen into it should be drawn back, and that its authors should be made manifest. To this [the Nicene Council] the whole world has already assented; and at this time, in the many councils which have been held, all have approved of it; those in Dalmatia, Dardania, Macedonia, the Epiri, Greece, Crete and the other islands, Sicily and Cyprus, Isauria, Pamphylia, Lycia, and the whole of Egypt and Libya, and also the most part of the Arabians. And they have honoured the subscribers, because, although something, a bitter offshoot of Arianism, had been left, Auxentius, namely, Ursacius and Valens [but who they are, the Africans are not informed; they are supposed to know]; still by these decrees they had been cut off and cast away. Sufficient therefore, amply sufficient, are the Nicene decrees for the overthrow of all heresy, and for the support and maintenance of evangelical teaching. But [now comes the object of this letter] since we have heard that certain persons (Tès), wishing to oppose it, are in the habit of quoting a certain (Tv) synod of Rimini, and wish to exalt it above the Nicene, we [Athanasius and the ninety Egyptian bishops] have

thought it good to write and exhort you [the Africans] not to endure such people; they are nothing else than another school of the Arian heresy."

I must pause here, and ask the reader to call to mind for a moment what was the state of the East and West from A.D. 366-373, between which dates this letter must have been written. In the West, where Africa was situate, Arianism was crushed; and, moreover, there is no genuine evidence that Arianism had ever made any progress in Africa. If Athanasius had been the universal bishop, which Basil would make him, his nuncio at Carthage must have reported to him that the Africans were too busy in repressing their own indigenous fancies, without troubling themselves about the inventions or heresies of foreign Churches; while in the East, from the Hellespont to the borders of Egypt, the Nicene faith was so far from being satisfactorily established, by the holding of this profusion of synods which this letter imagines, that it was trampled under foot in every portion of it, and Arianism was triumphant. In such a state of the world, I ask the reader, is it likely that Athanasius would have written to the African Church to warn them against certain persons who were quoting a certain synod of Rimini against the Nicene as if these persons were but few in number; as if the Council of Rimini was not as well, if not better, known than the Nicene; as if the Arians were infecting Africa; as if Africa was the weak point of Christendom? If Athanasius had seen fit to write encouraging and instructing