andria were given to George, a native of Cappadocia, an Arian, who had been elected bishop in his room.

FELIX (A.D. 357).

Felix is said to have been elected on the deposition of Liberius, and consecrated by Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea, in Palestine. His doctrinal opinions are variously reported. Some report that he was himself orthodox, but, as might be expected, received into his communion persons who did not subscribe to the Nicene Creed; while he is elsewhere styled an Arian.

The only fact known relating to him during his episcopate, is the direction to him of an imperial prescript, dated the sixth day of December, A. D. 357.* The contents clearly prove his favour with the emperor, and his exertions for the temporal benefit of his clergy.†

That Felix was bishop of Rome, A.D. 357, there can be no doubt; but what had occurred previously to his election, or what occurred afterwards, is not so clear. The exile of Liberius appears in no work on which any confidence can be placed; while it appears in many works that are manifestly spurious, or manifestly corrupted. The same may be said of his recal: there is no intimation of it in any genuine writing. And it is not the least singular part of his history that †Theod. Hist. Eccl. ii. 14.

* Theod. Cod. xvi. 2. 14.

the Roman Church, in general so remarkably jealous of the orthodoxy of its prelates, should have originally permitted such disgraceful and palpable forgeries as his letters to have contaminated his fame. Moreover, among the many writers who name these events, scarcely two agree in their statements. Some say his exile occurred after the Council of Rimini; others, immediately after the Council of Milan. Some say he was compelled to sign an Arian Creed before he could regain his see; others, that he did not: one writer cannot say whether he did or no. His return is ascribed, in one place, to a sedition of the Roman populace; in another, to the influence of the Roman ladies. The stories with respect to Felix are equally conflicting. He is stated to have been expelled from Rome before Constantius gave his assent to the recal of Liberius; and also to have been at the time in Rome. One writer states that the decree of the Council at Sirmium was, that the prelates should jointly rule the Church during their lives; and he states further that God, to prevent dishonour to the Roman Church by this disorderly arrangement, soon removed Felix from this world. Others say he retired from his office, or to another city, not saying what city, still, however, preserving the name of bishop. Another says he was ejected immediately on Liberius's return with the clergy who had joined him; while another says that he lived eight years afterwards, having with him, it would seem, a large portion of the Roman clergy; and that he was from time to time making attempts to

regain the chair, but was expelled by the people; and that he died about ten months before Liberius; and also that Damasus, the next bishop, was one of his clergy.*

One of two things is very plain, either that nothing was known, or that something was not to be told. These conflicting statements on so serious a fact relating to so important a see, are very singular; and perhaps they have effected their object, to prevent the real truth from being ascertained. I will suggest, however, two or three views of what may possibly have been the history. It may have been the usual story that Liberius was exiled and recalled after signing an Arian creed and receiving Arians into his communion, and that Felix either retired or was driven out of the city.

It may have been that the two prelates lived in Rome governing their respective parties; Liberius the Catholics, and Felix the Arians, to which party he probably belonged; and that, dying about the same time, successors to each were elected: and thus the strife arose which is heard of at the commencement of the episcopate of Damasus.

Or it may have been that there was no exile at

*For the authorities, see Hilar. Fragm. ex Opere historico; Ruffin. Hist. Eccl. x. 22. 27.; Socr. Hist. Eccl. ii. 37.; Soz. Hist. Eccl. iv. 11. 15.; Theod. Hist. Eccl. iv. 15, 16, 17.; Philost. Hist. Eccl. iv. 3.; Hieron. in Chron. et in lib. de Eccl. Scriptor., or de Viris Illust., under the name of "Fortunatian;" Athan. Hist. Arian. § 41.; and the Preface to the Libellus Precum Marcellini et Faustini.

all (there is no authority for it of any weight), but that Liberius died somewhere between A.D. 353 and 357; and Felix was elected and consecrated bishop of Rome by the Arians.

Or it may have been that there was an exile but no return. Either he was never recalled or had died, or the chair being full there was no room for him; and that, in both these last cases, Felix lived and died bishop of Rome, as Auxentius lived and died bishop of Milan.

The recal of Liberius being said to be early in A.D. 358, countenances the idea that we have no true facts. He could not be restored previous to the date of the rescript directed to Felix, which was late in A. D. 357. But he is said to have been restored immediately after, which looks like management.

There is nothing to overthrow any of the suppositions I have been making; each and all are as likely to be true, so far as facts are concerned, as any others that may be imagined. There is a perfect blank in the history of the Roman Church for these eight years*: no one then or after alludes to this painful history of Liberius. And that something was wrong may be suspected from our ignorance of the proceedings of the Roman bishop in the Council of Rimini.

The historians, when describing the Eastern Council, can tell us of the orthodox prelates, who

* See Proofs and Illustrations, under the title, "COUNCIL OF

the leaders were, and what they said; but of the leading Western prelates at Rimini not a particle of information is given. The council was held in Italy, and yet nothing is known of the Roman bishop. I own that this silence leads me to suspect that the records of this period have been withdrawn, or tampered with, and that something worse even than the exile-an exile so managed that he was always bishop of Rome, and a lapse immediately recovered from- was behind, namely, an Arian bishop in direct succession.* Damasus, the next bishop, is said, in one of the spurious documents, to have been one of his clergy.

If the reader will now take a survey of the Church as it appeared in the year 359, he will find all the principal sees occupied by Arians, or by bishops who had rejected the word, "of the same substance." There was Saturninus at Arles, in Gaul. In Italy, there were the bishops of Rome, Milan, and Aquileia. Between Italy and the Hellespont, there were Germinius at Sirmium, Macedonius at Constantinople, and George at Alexandria. There were the bishops of Jerusalem and Cæsarea, in Palestine; Eudoxius at Antioch, and Basil at Ancyra; beside many very influential prelates, occupying less noted sees, all of whom were rejecting the word, "of the same substance." In all probability the Nicene Creed was not publicly recited in any of these Churches. At the same time, it is

* If he was an Arian, it must have been to him a piece of unexpected fortune to have been canonised in the sixteenth century.