Michael Williams - Auxentius of Milan: From Orthodoxy to Heresy

The aim of this paper is to re-examine the evidence for the position of Auxentius of Milan against the background of the ongoing debates and shifting definitions of orthodoxy and heresy in the middle decades of the fourth century AD. Our evidence regarding Auxentius’ doctrinal stance can be divided into two (overlapping) categories. Firstly there are the claims and accusations of Athanasius and those who aligned themselves with him, of which the pre-eminent example is the Contra Auxentium of Hilary of Poitiers; and secondly there is the identification of Auxentius as playing a leading role in the 359 Council of Ariminum, before his apparent condemnation by Damasus of Rome in 369. This, it must be admitted, is more than enough to suggest that Auxentius’ stated Christological beliefs were significantly different from what would become the orthodoxy of the western empire. Yet it may not be enough to establish him firmly as a standard-bearer for Arianism in the west. 

Thus recent work by Lewis Ayres and David Gwynn, among others, has recognised the instability and tendentiousness of many of the doctrinal labels applied to individuals in this period; and Gwynn in particular has emphasised the extent to which an idea of organised ‘Nicene’ or ‘Arian’ (and by extension ‘Neo-Arian’ or ‘Homoian’) parties or factions may be misleading. It is far from clear, therefore, that Auxentius can be regarded as having consciously adopted his doctrinal position in contradistinction to a predominant ‘Nicenism’ in the west, or indeed in Italy or in his own see of Milan. That he acquired his position with the support of the Arianising Constantius II is one thing; but that he retained it with the support of Valentinian I -- hardly a fierce supporter of the Arian interpretation -- would suggest that he had more than his beliefs in his favour. Similarly, we might pay less attention to Hilary’s claims in his Contra Auxentium than to his failure to persuade the people of Milan (or Valentinian) to dismiss their bishop. For all that hostile witnesses, in the fourth century and since, have sought to paint Auxentius as a fanatic, it seems possible that the evidence would allow a different image: of an Auxentius whose chief concern was not ideological but rather more pragmatic; whose doctrinal positions were those which were the most mainstream and authoritative of his time; and who enjoyed the support not only of emperors but perhaps also of a majority of his Milan congregation.