acquainted with the facts, but having done what they liked, desired that the Roman Church, which had never condemned Athanasius, should join in their decision. Such was not the order of Paul; such was not the tradition of the Fathers.

Here is an allusion to the forgery about the two Dionysiuses already noticed, and which was no doubt written by the man that wrote this letter. And then peeps out the forger barefaced. "I beseech you gladly bear with me. The things I write are for the public good. What we have received from the blessed Peter the apostle, that I make known to you, and I would not have written, as I think that these things are publicly known to all men, if what has happened had not disturbed us."

To induce a belief that such proceedings as are here inculcated were sanctioned by the canon law of the early part of the fourth century, was the object of this letter; and the facts of the Athanasian documents are skilfully interwoven to give it an appearance of truth and nature.

At the time when this letter was supposed to be written, bishops had been deposed everywhere without any known reference to the Roman see Two bishops of Antioch, one only ten years previously to the supposed date of this letter, had been deposed; and the bishop of Rome, if he knew of it at all, had only known of the decision, like other prelates, after the event. And there had been no instance of any trial or deposition of an

From the beginning to the end the letter is false. But it is very instructive as to the early nefarious policy of Rome, the object of it being to induce a practice of appeal from the provincial synods to the Roman bishop, by pretending to show that it had been from early time a practice founded on canon law; a practice equally insisted upon afterwards in the spurious Isidorian letters. This claim was resisted when first published, and the contest was maintained for centuries; but the victory was won at last over the Western Churches, by political causes combining with the persevering and unscrupulous acts of Roman policy and

ambition.

We have now approached the council itself. Let us attend to what is said of it. It was summoned from thirty-five provinces, from Spain to Mesopotamia, from Gaul to the Thebais. One hundred and seventy bishops attended it from all these provinces. Not only did nearly one hundred present acquit Athanasius, but other bishops, without having heard the evidence, assented, by letters afterwards sent from their homes, to his acquittal. The total number of signatures was three hundred and forty-four. Six belonged to Spain, thirty to Gaul, thirty-six to Africa, and fifteen to Palestine; while about eighty Orientals, to say nothing of those who were ill and left on the road, were pre.sent to support his condemnation. Before the council separated, the two parties, into which it is said that it divided, sent letters, also, into all

countries, to the bishops everywhere, stating the result of their deliberations.

It seems to me the news of this council must have penetrated into every diocese of Christendom; and that the importance of the inquiry, proved by the imperial summons of an œcumenical council, and the dignity of the accused, to say nothing of one of the emperors himself being almost a defendant, must have powerfully attracted the attention of the Church. And yet by one of those extraordinary fatalities which seem to haunt our investigations, the people of the fourth century, who lived in this stirring time, knew no more of the Sardican Council than they had known of Victor and Stephen's excommunications, with the councils and disturbances which they had occasioned.

If we look into the Greek writers in the fourth century for some account of it, it is in vain. Neither Basil, bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia ; nor the two Gregories (although Gregory of Nazianzum is said to have published a life of Athanasius, in the form of an oration); nor Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, make any allusion to it.

If we look into the Latin writers it is the same. Jerome never mentions it, not even in his "Chronicle," nor in that voucher for doubtful reputations, the work on "Ecclesiastical Writers; " nor Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (except in the smaller and fragmental works attributed to him, the genuineness of which I shall presently have to investigate); nor Ambrose, bishop of Milan; nor

S

Optatus, bishop of Milevi; nor Philastrius, bishop of Brescia; nor even Ruffinus, a presbyter of Aquileia, who, in the first quarter of the fifth century, wrote a history of the Church from the time of Constantine to the death of Theodosius; and yet he had been at Alexandria in the lifetime, it is said, of Athanasius; at any rate, he had been above twenty years in Palestine before he returned home into Italy, and wrote his history. No important event affecting the Church generally, and so celebrated a prelate as Athanasius in particular, can be imagined to have escaped his knowledge. But although he relates the proceedings of the Nicene, Tyrian, Milan, Rimini, and Alexandrian councils, there is not a word in his history of this extraordinary and œcumenical Council of Sardica.

I think I have now shown quite sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt respecting the existence of this council; and I hope the reader will feel inclined to accompany me in some further investigation of the authority on which it rests.

In the first place let us compare the statements in other writers respecting the exiles of Athanasius with those which we find in the Athanasian documents, and we shall, perhaps, by that means ascertain the time before which these documents had not appeared.

It will have been seen that the Athanasian documents give four exiles to Athanasius:

I. After the Tyrian Council, A. D. 335, lasting till A.D. 338.

II. When Gregory was sent from the Council of

Antioch, A.D. 341, lasting till after the Sardican Council, that is, to A. D. 349.

III. When George was sent, lasting till Julian, A.D. 362.

IV. Under Julian, lasting till Jovian, A. D. 363. The two last are admitted on all hands; the question to be examined is, whether Athanasius was exiled at Tyre under Constantine, sent home by Constantine his son, and afterwards driven by Constantius into a second exile, and restored after the Sardican Council.

I will now present, in as chronological an order as I can, the statements of the different writers who have detailed or mentioned any of the events connected with these exiles.

The first writer whom I shall notice is Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus; an eminent prelate of the fourth century, cotemporary with Athanasius, and, if he wrote the book that goes under his name, acquainted with him. The portion of that book relating to this subject professes to have been written a little after the death of Athanasius.

He states that Athanasius with the best intentions, but with more zeal than was agreeable to the Meletians, sought to bring them into his communion; that they, viewing his conduct as persecution, complained of it to Constantine; they said that, in the visitation by Athanasius of his diocese, one of his deacons, with some other persons, had violently broken into one of their