Council of Aquileia¶
A.D. 381
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF AQUILEIA AGAINST THE HERETICS PALLADIUS AND SECUNDIANUS
THE official Record of the Proceedings of this Council seems to be inserted among S. Ambrose’s Letters, partly because S. Ambrose took the leading part in them, and partly because they form the subject of the next series of letters, directly of the four first, and more indirectly of the two next, all of which, though written in the name of the Bishops of Italy, we may presume to have been S. Ambrose’s composition. The Council was held in the year 381 A.D., the same year in which the Second General Council was held at Constantinople. It will be remembered that that Council, being summoned by Theodosius, then Emperor of the East, consisted of Eastern Bishops only. At this time Arianism, though rife in the East, seems not to have been prevalent in the West. S. Ambrose says, (Letter xi. 1.) ‘as regards the West, two individuals only have been found to dare to oppose the Council with profane and impious words, men who had previously disturbed a mere corner of Dacia Ripensis.’ These two men were Palladius and Secundianus. Palladius appears to have applied to Gratian to call a General Council, on the plea that he was falsely accused of Arianism, in 379 A.D. Gratian granted his request, but afterwards, as we learn from his letter read at the Council, on the representation of S. Ambrose that such a question as the soundness or heresy of two Bishops might be settled by a Council of the Bishops of the Diocese of Italy, he so far altered his original order as to summon only these, giving permission for others to attend if they pleased. This reconsideration, and perhaps also the troubles that prevailed in the Empire at the time, (Tillemont Vie de S. Ambr. ch. xxiii.) caused such delay that it was not till towards the end of 381 A.D. that the Council assembled under the presidency of S. Valerian Bishop of Aquileia. The Bishops of Italy, with deputies from Gaul, Africa, and Illyria, to the number of thirty two or thirty three (see note37) met at Aquileia at the beginning of September. The discussion recorded in the ‘Gesta’ took place probably on Septr. 3rd (see note18) but S. Ambrose’s words in § 2 imply that previous discussions had been held of which no Record had been taken, (diu citra acta tractavimus.)
The proceedings commence by the reading of the Emperor’s Mandate. Palladius then raises objections on the ground of the absence of the Bishops from the East, and charges S. Ambrose with having tricked the Emperor into summoning only a small Council, and declines to take part in a Council which is not General. After some discussion on this point S. Ambrose proposes that Arius’ letter from Nicomedia to S. Alexander should be read in detail, and Palladius called upon to condemn each heretical proposition. Palladius argues upon each, but eventually returns to his refusal to answer except in a General Council. In the end all the Bishops pronounce their decisions one by one, all agreeing that Palladius’ doctrine was heretical and that he should be deposed. Secundianus is then more briefly dealt with in the same way. It would seem that the Record is incomplete, as the number of Bishops who give their decision is only 25, and the account of Secundianus’ case ends abruptly without recording any decision. It may be from the same cause that the Record itself is in one or two places seemingly defective, and the sense confused.
Secundianus is not mentioned again in History. Of Palladius it is said by Vigilius, Bishop of Thapsus in Africa, who lived in the latter part of the 5th Century, that after S. Ambrose’s death he wrote a reply to his writings against Arianism, which Vigilius himself answered (Tillemont Vie de S. Ambr. xxvi.).
The genuineness of the Gesta has been disputed by Père Chifflet, who maintained that they were a forgery of the Vigilius mentioned above: his arguments however are satisfactorily refuted by Tillemont in an elaborate note. (Vol. x. p. 738. note 15. on S. Ambr. Life.)
1. IN the consulship of the illustrious SYAGRIUS and EUCHERIUS, on the 3rd day of September18, the under-mentioned Bishops19, sitting in council in the church at Aquileia, namely, VALERIAN, Bishop of Aquileia, AMBROSE, EUSEBIUS, LIMENIUS, ANEMIUS, SABINUS, ABUNDANTIUS, ARTEMIUS, CONSTANTIUS, JUSTUS, PHILASTER, CONSTANTIUS, THEODORUS, ALMACHIUS, DOMNINUS, AMANTIUS, MAXIMUS, FELIX, BASSIANUS, NUMIDIUS, JANUARIUS, PROCULUS, HELIODORUS, JOVINUS, FELIX, EXUPERANTIUS, DIOGENES, MAXIMUS, MACEDONIUS, CASSIANUS, MARCELLUS, and EUSTATHIUS, Bishops:
Ambrose, Bishop, said;
2. ‘We have long been dealing with the matter without any Records20, and now, since our ears are assailed with such sacrilegious words on the part of Palladius and Secundianus, that one can scarce believe that they could have so openly blasphemed, and that they may not attempt hereafter by any subtlety to deny their own words, though the testimony of such eminent Bishops does not admit of doubt, still as it is the pleasure of all the Bishops, let Records be made, that no one may be able to deny his own profession. Do you therefore, holy men, declare what is your pleasure.’
All the Bishops said, ‘It is our pleasure.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said, ‘Our discussions must be confirmed by the Emperor’s Letter, as the subject requires, so that they may be quoted.’
3. The Letter is read by Sabinianus a Deacon;
“Desirous to make our earliest efforts to prevent dissension among Bishops from uncertainty what doctrines they should reverence, we had ordered the Bishops to come together into the city of Aquileia, out of the diocese21 which has been confided to the merits of your Excellency. For controversies of dubious import could not be better disentangled than by our constituting the Bishops themselves expounders of the dispute that has arisen, so that the same persons from whom come forth the instructions of doctrine may solve the contradictions of discordant teaching.
4. “Nor is our present order different from our last: we do not alter the tenour of our command, but we correct the superfluous numbers that would have assembled. For as Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, eminent both for the merits of his life and the favour of God, suggests that there is no occasion for numbers in a case in which the truth, though in the hands of a few supporters, would not suffer from many antagonists, and that he and the Bishops of the adjoining cities of Italy would be more than sufficient to meet the assertions of the opposite party, we have judged it right to refrain from troubling venerable men by bringing into strange lands any one who was either loaded with years, or disabled with bodily weakness, or in the slender circumstances of honourable poverty;22 etc.”
5. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘This is what a Christian Emperor has ordained. He has not thought fit to do an injury to the Bishops: he has constituted the Bishops themselves Judges. And therefore since we sit together in a Council of Bishops, answer to what is proposed to you. Arius’s letter has been read: it shall be recited now again, if you think proper. It contains blasphemies from the beginning; it says that the Father alone is eternal. If you think that the Son of God is not everlasting, support this doctrine in what manner you please: if you think it is a doctrine to be condemned, condemn it. Here is the Gospel, and the Apostle23: all the Scriptures are at hand. Support it from what quarter you please, if you think that the Son of God is not everlasting.’
6. PALLADIUS said; ‘You have contrived, as appears by the sacred document24 which you have brought forward, that this should not be a full and General Council: in the absence of our Colleagues we cannot answer.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said: ‘Who are your colleagues?’
Palladius said: ‘The Eastern Bishops.’
7. AMBROSE, Bishop, said: ‘Inasmuch as in former times the usage of Councils has been that the Eastern Bishops should be appointed to hold them in the East, and the Western Bishops in the West, we, having our place in the West, are come together to the city of Aquileia according to the Emperor’s command. Moreover, the Prefect of Italy has issued letters, that if the Eastern Bishops chose to meet, they should be allowed to do so; but inasmuch as they know that the custom is that the Council of the Eastern Bishops should be in the East and of the Western in the West, they have therefore thought fit not to come.’
8. PALLADIUS said: ‘Our Emperor Gratian commanded the Eastern Bishops to come: do you deny that he did so? the Emperor himself told us that he had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said: ‘He certainly commanded them, in that he did not forbid them to come hither.’
Palladius said: ‘But your prayer has prevented their coming: under a pretence of benevolence you have obtained this, and so put the Council off.’
9. AMBROSE, Bishop, said: ‘There is no occasion to wander any longer from the subject: answer now. Did Arius say rightly that the Father alone is eternal? and did he say this in agreement with the Scriptures or not?’
Palladius said: ‘I do not answer you.’
Constantius, Bishop, said: ‘Do not you answer when you have so long blasphemed?’
Eusebius, Bishop, said: ‘But you are under an obligation to express frankly the faith you claim the right to hold. If a heathen were to ask of you in what way you believe in Christ, you would be bound not to be ashamed to confess.’
10. SABINUS, Bishop, said: ‘It was your own request that we would answer: we come together this day according to your wish, and upon your own solicitation, and we have not waited for our other brethren, who might have come. It is therefore not open to you to wander from the subject. Do you say that Christ was created? or do you say that the Son of God is everlasting?’
Palladius said: ‘I have told you already: we said we would come and prove that you have not done well to take advantage of the Emperor.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said: ‘Let Palladius’s letter be read to shew whether he sent us this message, and it will appear that even now he is deceiving.’
Palladius said: ‘Let it be read by all means.’
The Bishops said: ‘When you saw the Emperor at Sirmium, did you address him, or was it he that pressed you?’ And they added: ‘What do you answer to this?’
Palladius answered: ‘He said to me, “Go.” We said: “Are the Eastern Bishops summoned to attend?” He said, “They are.” Should we have come if the Eastern Bishops had not been summoned?’
11. AMBROSE, Bishop, said: ‘Let the matter of the Eastern Bishops stand over. I enquire at present into your sentiments. Arius’s letter has been read to you: you are in the habit of denying that you are an Arian. Either condemn Arius now, or defend him.’
Palladius said: ‘It is not within the compass of your authority to ask this of me.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said: ‘We do not believe that the religious Emperor said other than he wrote. He has ordered the Bishops to meet: it is impossible that he said to you and no one else contrary to his own letter, that the case was not to be discussed without the presence of the Eastern Bishops.’
Palladius said: ‘He did, if the Italian Bishops alone were ordered to assemble.’
Evagrius, Presbyter and deputy, said:25 [It is plain] ‘that he promised to appear within four and even within two days. What then were you waiting for? was it, as you say, that you considered the opinion of your colleagues, the Eastern Bishops was to be waited for? Then you ought to have said so in your message, and not to have pledged yourself to discussion.’
Palladius said: ‘I had come, believing it to be a General Council, but I saw that my colleagues had not assembled. I decided however26 to come, in accordance with the summons, to bid you to do nothing to the prejudice of a future Council.’
12. AMBROSE, Bishop, said: ‘You yourself required that we should sit to-day, moreover, even this very day you have said yourself “we come as Christians to Christians.” You have therefore acknowledged us for Christians. You promised that you would engage in discussion: you promised that you would either assign your own reasons or accept ours. We therefore willingly accepted your opening, we wished that you should come as a Christian. I offered you the letter of Arius, which that Arius wrote, from whose name you say that you often suffer wrong. You say that you do not follow Arius. To-day your sentiments must be made clear; either condemn him, or support him by whatever passage you will.’
He went on; ‘Then according to Arius’s letter Christ the Son of God is not everlasting?’
Palladius said; ‘We said that we would prove ourselves Christians, but in a full Council. We do not answer you at all to the prejudice of a future Council.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘You ought to state your profession of faith straightforwardly.’
Palladius said; ‘And what do we reserve for the Council?’
13. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘He has been unanimously condemned who denies the Eternity of the Son of God. Arius denied it, Palladius, who will not condemn Arius, follows him. Consider then, whether his opinion is approved of; it is easy to perceive whether he speaks according to the Scriptures, or against the Scriptures. For we read: God’s eternal Power and Godhead. Christ is the Power of God. If then the Power of God is everlasting, Christ surely is everlasting; for Christ is the Power of God.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘This is our faith: this is the Catholic doctrine; who says not this, let him be anathema.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
14. EUSEBIUS, Bishop, said; ‘He says specifically that the Father alone is everlasting, and that the Son at some time began to be.’
Palladius said; ‘I have neither seen Arius, nor do I know who he is.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘The blasphemy of Arius has been produced, in which he denies that the Son of God is everlasting. Do you condemn this wickedness and its author, or do you support it?’
Palladius said; ‘When there is not the authority of a full Council, I do not speak.’
15. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Do you hesitate after the divine judgements to condemn Arius, when he has burst asunder in the midst?’ and he added; ‘Let the holy men too, the deputies of the Gauls, speak.’
Constantius, Bishop and deputy of the Gauls, said; ‘This impiety of that man we always have condemned, and we now condemn not only Arius, but also whoever does not say that the Son of God is everlasting.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘What says also my Lord Justus?’
Justus, Bishop and deputy of the Gauls, said; ‘He who does not confess that the Son of God is co-eternal with the Father, let him be accounted Anathema.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
16. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Let the deputies of the Africans speak too, who have brought hither the sentiments of all their countrymen.’
Felix, Bishop and deputy, said; ‘If any man denies that the Son of God is everlasting, and that He is co-eternal with the Father, not only do I the deputy of the whole province of Africa condemn him, but also the whole priestly company, which sent me to this most holy assembly, has itself also already condemned him.’
Anemius, Bishop, said; ‘There is no capital of Illyricum27 but Sirmium: I am its Bishop. The person who does not confess the Son of God to be eternal and co-eternal with the Father, that is, everlasting, I call anathema; and I also say anathema to those who do not make the same confession.’
17. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Hear what follows.’ Then it was read; “Alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, Who alone has immortality.”
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘In this also condemn him who denies that the Son is very God. For since He Himself is the Truth, how is He not very God?’ And he added; ‘What say you to this?’
Palladius said; ‘Who denies that He is very Son?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Arius denied it.’
Palladius said; ‘When the Apostle says that Christ is God over all, can any one deny that He is the very Son of God?’
18. Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘That you may see with how much simplicity we seek the truth, lo, I say as you say: but I have then only half the truth. For by speaking thus, you appear to deny that He is very God; if however you confess simply that the Son of God is very God, state it in the order in which I propose it to you.’
Palladius said; ‘I speak to you according to the Scriptures: I call the Lord the very Son of God.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Do you call the Son of God very Lord?’
Palladius said; ‘When I call Him very Son, what more is wanted?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘I do not ask only that you should call Him very Son, but that you should call the Son of God very Lord.’
19. EUSEBIUS, Bishop, said; ‘Is Christ very God, according to the faith of all and to the Catholic profession?’
Palladius said; ‘He is the very Son of God.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘We also are by adoption sons; He is Son according to the property of His Divine Generation.’ And he added; ‘Do you confess that the very Son of God is very Lord by His Birth and essentially?’
Palladius said; ‘I call Him the very Son of God, only-begotten.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Do you then think it is against the Scriptures, for Christ to be called very God?’
20. PALLADIUS being silent, Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘He who says only that He is the very Son of God, and will not say that He is very Lord, appears to deny it. Let Palladius then, if he does confess it, confess it in this order, and let him say whether he calls the Son of God very Lord.’
Palladius said; ‘When the Son says, That they might know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent, is it by way of feeling only, or in truth?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘John said in his epistle; This is the true God. Deny this.’
Palladius said; ‘When I tell you that He is true Son, I acknowledge also a true Godhead.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘In this also there is evasion; for you art wont to speak of one only and true Godhead in such manner as to say that it is the divinity of the Father only, and not that of the Son also, which is one only and true. If then you wish to speak plainly, as you refer me to the Scriptures, say what the Evangelist John said; This is the true God, or deny that he hath said it.’
Palladius said; ‘Besides the Son there is none other that is begotten.’
21. EUSEBIUS, Bishop, said; ‘Is Christ very God, according to the faith of all and to the Catholic profession, or in your opinion is He not very God?’
Palladius said; ‘He is the Power of our God.’
Ambrose, Bishop said; ‘You do not speak frankly; and so anathema to him who does not confess that the Son of God is very Lord.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Let him be accounted anathema, who will not call Christ, the Son of God, very Lord.’
22. The reader continued; “Alone true, Who alone hath immortality.”
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Has the Son of God immortality, or has He it not, in respect of His Godhead?’
Palladius said; ‘Do you accept or no the words of the Apostle, The King of kings Who alone hath immortality?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘What say you of Christ the Son of God?’
Palladius said; ‘Is Christ a divine Name or a human?’
23. EUSEBIUS, Bishop, said; ‘He is called Christ indeed according to the mystery of His Incarnation, but He is both God and Man.’
Palladius said; ‘Christ is a name of the flesh: Christ is a man’s name: do you answer me.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Why do you dwell upon useless topics? When Arius’ impious words were read, who says of the Father that He alone hath immortality, you cited a testimony in confirmation of Arius’ impiety, quoting from the Apostle, Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto. But if you understand it, he has expressed by the Name of God the dignity of the whole Nature, inasmuch as in the Name of God, both Father and Son are signified.’
Palladius said; ‘You also have not chosen to answer what I have asked.’
24. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘I ask you to give your opinion plainly, has the Son of God immortality according to His divine generation, or has He not?’
Palladius said; ‘In respect of His divine generation He is incorruptible; and by means of His Incarnation He died.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘His divinity died not, but His flesh died.’
Palladius said; ‘Do you answer me first.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Has the Son of God immortality in respect of His Godhead or has He it not? But have you not even now betrayed your fraudulent and insidious meaning according to Arius’ profession?’ and he added; ‘He who denies that the Son of God has immortality, what think you of him?’ All the Bishops said; ‘Let him be accounted anathema.’
25. PALLADIUS said; ‘A divine offspring is immortal.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘This also have you said evasively, to avoid expressing anything clearly about the Son of God. I say to you, the Son hath immortality in respect of His Godhead, or do you deny it and say that He has not.’
Palladius said; ‘Did Christ die or not?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘In respect of the flesh He did: our soul does not die: for it is written, Fear not them who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; seeing then that our soul cannot die, do you think Christ died in respect of His Godhead?’
Palladius said; ‘Why do you shrink from the name of death?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Nay, I do not shrink from it, but I confess it in respect of my flesh: for there is One by Whom I am released from the chains of death.’
Palladius said; ‘Death is caused by separation of the spirit (from the flesh), for Christ the Son of God took upon Him flesh, and by means of flesh he died.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘It is written that Christ suffered: He suffered then in respect of His flesh: in respect of His Godhead He has immortality. He who denies this, is a devil.’
Palladius said; ‘I know not Arius.’
26. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Then Arius said ill, since the Son of God also has immortality in respect of his Godhead.’ And he added, ‘Did he then say well or ill?’
Palladius said; ‘I do not agree.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘With whom do not you agree? Anathema to him, who does not frankly unfold his faith.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
Palladius said; ‘Say what you please; His Godhead is immortal.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Whose? the Father’s or the Son’s?’ And he added: ‘Arius heaped together many impieties. But let us pass to other points.’
27. Then was recited; “Alone wise.”
Palladius said; ‘The Father is wise of himself, but the Son is not wise.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Is then the Son not wise, when He Himself is Wisdom? For we also say that the Son is begotten of the Father.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Is there anything as impious and profane as this which he said, that the Son of God is not wise?’
Palladius said; ‘He is called Wisdom, who can deny that he is Wisdom?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Is He wise or not?’
Palladius said; ‘He is Wisdom.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Then He is wise, if He is Wisdom.’
Palladius said; ‘We answer you according to the Scriptures.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Palladius, as far as I can see, has attempted to deny also that the Son of God is wise.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘He who denies that the Son of God is wise, let him be anathema.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
28. EUSEBIUS, Bishop, said; ‘Let Secundianus also answer to this.’
Secundianus being silent,
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘He who is silent wishes to reserve his judgement.’ And he added, ‘When he says that the Father alone is good, did he confess the Son or deny Him?’
Palladius said; ‘We read, I am the good Shepherd, and do we deny it? Who would not say that the Son of God is good?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Then is Christ good?’
Palladius said; ‘He is good.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Arius then was wrong in asserting it of the Father alone, since the Son of God also is a good28 God.’
Palladius said; ‘He who says that Christ is not good, says ill.’
29. EUSEBIUS, Bishop, said; ‘Do you confess that Christ is a good God? For I also am good. He has said to me; Well done, thou good servant; and, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good.’
Palladius said; ‘I have already said, I do not answer you until there is a full Council.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘The Jews said He is a good man; and Arius denies that the Son of God is good.’
Palladius said; ‘Who can deny it?’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Then the Son of God is a good God.’
Palladius said; ‘The good Father begat a good Son.’
30. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘We also are begotten of Him and are good, but not in respect of Godhead. Do you call the Son of God a good God?’
Palladius said; ‘The Son of God is good.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘You see then that you call him a good Christ, a good Son, not a good God; which is what is asked of you.’ And he added; ‘He who does not confess that the Son of God is a good God, Anathema to him.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
31. The reader likewise continued; “Alone mighty.”
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Is the Son of God mighty or not?’
Palladius said; ‘He Who made all things, is He not mighty? He Who made all things, is He deficient in might?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said: ‘Then Arius said ill.’ And he added; ‘Do you even in this condemn Arius?’
Palladius said; ‘How do I know who he is? I answer you for myself.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Is the Son of God the mighty God?’
Palladius said; ‘He is mighty.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Is the Son of God the mighty God?’
Palladius said; ‘I have already said that the only-begotten Son of God is mighty.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘The mighty Lord.’
Palladius said; ‘The mighty Son of God.’
32. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Men also are mighty; for it is written, Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, thou mighty man? and in another place, When I am weak, then am I strong. I ask you to confess that Christ the Son of God is the mighty Lord; or if you deny it, support your denial. For I speak of one Power of the Father and of the Son, and I call the Son of God mighty in the same way as the Father. Do you hesitate then to confess that the Son of God is the mighty Lord?’
Palladius said; ‘I have already said, we answer you in discussion as we can; for you wish to be sole judges, and at the same time parties to the case. We do not answer you now, but we will answer you in a General and full Council.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Anathema to him who denies that Christ is the mighty Lord.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
33. It was likewise recited; “Alone mighty, Judge of all.”
Palladius said; ‘The Son of God, the Judge of all. There is Who gives, there is who receives.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Did He give by grace or nature? Men also have judgement given them.’
Palladius said; ‘Do you call the Father greater or not?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘I will answer you afterwards.’
Palladius said; ‘I do not answer you, if you do not answer me.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Unless you condemn in order the impiety of Arius, we will give you no power of asking questions.’
Palladius said; ‘I do not answer you.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Is the Son of God, as has been read, Judge or not?’
Palladius said; ‘If you do not answer me, I do not answer you, as being an impious person.’
34. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘You have my profession, whereby I will answer you. In the mean time, let Arius’ letter be read through.’ And he added: ‘In that letter you will find that sacrilegious argument also which you are endeavouring at.’
Palladius said; ‘When I ask, do you not answer?’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘We call the Son of God equal God.’
Palladius said: ‘You are Judge: your note-takers are here.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Let any of yours write, who please.’
35. PALLADIUS said; ‘Is the Father greater or not?’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘In respect of His Godhead the Son is equal to the Father. You have it in the Gospel that the Jews persecuted Him because He not only broke the sabbath, but also called God His Father, making Himself equal with God; what then impious men confessed while they persecuted, we who believe cannot deny.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘And in another place you have: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself29 and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and became obedient unto death. You see that in the form of God He is equal to God. And he took, S. Paul says, the form of a servant. In what then is He less? In respect surely of His form of a servant, not of the form of God?’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Just as, being established in the form of a servant, He was not less than a servant; so being established in the form of God, He could not be less than God.’
36. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Or say that in respect of Godhead the Son of God is less.’
Palladius said; ‘The Father is greater.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘In respect of the flesh.’
Palladius said; ‘He who sent me, is greater than I. Was the flesh sent by God or was the Son of God sent?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘We prove this day that the holy Scriptures are falsely cited by you, for thus it is written: Peace I leave unto you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid: If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I. He did not say, He Who sent me is greater than I.’
Palladius said; ‘The Father is greater.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Anathema to him, who adds to or takes from the holy Scriptures.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
37. PALLADIUS said; ‘The Father is greater than the Son.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘In respect of the flesh the Son is less than the Father: in respect of Godhead He is equal to the Father: I read therefore that the Son of God is equal to the Father, as also the instances that have been adduced testify. But why should you wonder that He is less in respect of the flesh, when He has called Himself a servant, a stone, a worm, when He has said that He is less than the angels, for it is written: Thou madest him a little lower than the angels.’
Palladius said; ‘I see that you make impious assertions. We do not answer you without arbiters.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘Let no one ask for an opinion from him who has blasphemed in such countless opinions.’
Palladius said; ‘We do not answer you.’
38. SABINUS, Bishop, said; ‘Palladius has now been condemned by all. The blasphemies of Arius are much lighter than those of Palladius.’
And when Palladius rose, as if he wished to go out, he said; ‘Palladius has risen, because he sees that he is to be convicted by manifest testimonies of the Scriptures, as indeed he has been already convicted: for thus it has been read, that in respect of Godhead the Son is equal to the Father. Let him admit that in respect of His Godhead the Son of God has no greater: it is written: When God made promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, he swear by himself. You see therefore the Scripture, that He could swear by no greater. But it is the Son of Whom this is said, since it was He Who appeared to Abraham, whence also He says, He saw my day and was glad.’
Palladius said; ‘The Father is greater.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘When He spake as God, He had no greater; when He spake as man, He had one greater.’
39. PALLADIUS said; ‘The Father begat the Son; the Father sent the Son.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Anathema to him, who denies that in respect of His Godhead the Son is equal to the Father.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema.’
Palladius said; ‘The Son is subject to the Father; the Son keeps the commands of the Father.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘He is subject in respect of His Incarnation. But even you yourself remember that you have read; No man can come unto me, except the Father draw him.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘Let him say whether the Son is subject to the Father in respect of His Godhead, or in respect of His Incarnation.’
40. PALLADIUS said; ‘Then the Father is greater.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘In another place also it is written; God is faithful, by Whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son. I say that the Father is greater in respect of the assumption of the flesh, which the Son of God took upon Him, not in respect of the Son’s Godhead.’
Palladius said; ‘What then is the comparison of the Son of God? And can flesh say, God is greater than I? Did the flesh speak or the Godhead because the flesh was there?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘The flesh does not speak without the soul.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘God in the flesh spoke according to the flesh, when He said, Why do ye persecute30 me, a man? Who said this?’
Palladius said; ‘The Son of God.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Then the Son of God is God in respect of His Godhead and is man in respect of His flesh.’
Palladius said; ‘He took flesh upon Him.’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Accordingly He made use of human words.’
Palladius said; ‘He took man’s flesh upon Him.’
41. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Let him say that the Apostle did not call Him subject in respect of His Godhead, but in respect of His flesh; for it is written, He humbled himself and became obedient unto death. In what then did He taste death?’
Palladius said; ‘In that He humbled Himself.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Not His Godhead but His flesh was humbled and subject.’ And he added; ‘Did Arius well or ill in calling him a perfect creature?’
Palladius said; ‘I do not answer you, for you have no authority.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Profess what you please.’
Palladius said; ‘I do not answer you.’
42. SABINUS, Bishop, said; ‘Do you not answer on behalf of Arius? do you not answer to what has been asked?’
Palladius said; ‘I have not answered on behalf of Arius.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘You have answered so far as to deny that the Son of God is mighty, to deny that He is true God.’
Palladius said; ‘I do not allow you to be my judge, whom I convict of impiety.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘You yourself forced us to sit.’
Palladius said; ‘I gave in a request that you might sit, in order that I might convict you. Why have you practised upon the Emperor? You have gained by intrigue that the Council should not be a plenary one.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘When Arius’ impieties were read, your impiety also, which harmonized with his, was condemned equally. You have thought fit while the letter was in the midst of being read, to bring forward whatever passages you would: you were told in answer in what way the Son has said that the Father is greater, because in respect of His taking flesh upon Him, the Father is greater than He. You have urged also that the Son of God is subject; and on this head you were answered that the Son of God is subject in respect of His flesh, not in respect of His divinity. You have our profession. Now hear the rest. Since you have been answered, do you answer to what is read.’
43. PALLADIUS said; ‘I do not answer you, because what I have said has not been recorded; only your words are recorded. I do not answer you.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘You see that every thing is recorded. Moreover, what has been written is abundant for the proof of your impiety.’ And he added; ‘Do you say that Christ is a creature or do you deny it?’
Palladius said; ‘I do not answer you.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘An hour ago, when it was read that Arius called Christ a creature, you denied it: you had an opportunity offered you of condemning his perfidy; you would not. Say now at last whether Christ was begotten of the Father or created.’
Palladius said; ‘If you please, let my reporters come and so let the whole be taken down.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘Let him send for his reporters.’
Palladius said; ‘We will answer you in a full Council.’
44. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Attalus subscribed the formula31 of the Council of Nicæa. Let him deny it, as he has come to our Council. Let him say to-day, whether he subscribed the formula of the Council of Nicæa or no?’
Attalus remaining silent,
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Though the presbyter Attalus is an Arian, yet we give him permission to speak: let him frankly state whether he subscribed the formula of the Council of Nicæa under his Bishop Agrippinus, or no.’
Attalus said; ‘You have already said that I have been several times condemned. I do not answer you.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Did you subscribe the formula of the Council of Nicæa or no?’
Attalus said; ‘I do not answer you.’
45. PALLADIUS said; ‘Do you now wish the formula to be regarded as general or no?’
Chromatius, presbyter, said; ‘You have not denied that He is a creature, you have denied that He is mighty. You have denied every thing which the Catholic Faith professes.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘We are witnesses that Attalus subscribed the Council of Nicæa, and that he now refuses to answer. What is the opinion of all?’
As Attalus did not speak,
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Let him say whether he subscribed the formula of the Council of Nicæa or no.’
46. PALLADIUS said; ‘Let your reporter and ours stand forward and write down every thing.’
Valerian, Bishop, said; ‘What you have said and what you have denied is already all written.’
Palladius said; ‘Say what you please.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Since Palladius who has been already many times condemned, wishes to be condemned still oftener, I am reading the letter of Arius which he has not chosen to condemn: do you state whether you approve of my doing so.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Let it be read.’
Then the words were read. “But begotten not putatively,” &c.
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘I have answered you on the Father’s being greater: I have answered you also on the Son’s being subject: do you yourself answer now.’
47. PALLADIUS said; ‘I will not answer unless arbiters come after the Lord’s day.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘You were come with a view to discussion, but since I have charged you with its doctrines, you have seen the letter of Arius which you have not chosen to condemn and which you cannot support: you now therefore shrink back and cavil. I read it to you fully point by point. Tell me whether you believe Christ to have been created; whether there was a time when he was not; or whether the only begotten Son of God has always existed. When you have heard Arius’ letter, either condemn it or approve of it.’
48. PALLADIUS said; ‘Since I convict you of impiety, I will not have you for judge. You are a transgressor.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘Say, what impieties you object to our brother and fellow-bishop Ambrose.’
Palladius said; ‘I have already told you, I will answer in a full Council, and with arbiters present.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘I desire to be confuted and convicted in the assembly of my brethren. Say then what I have said impiously; but I appear impious to you because I support piety.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘Does then he seem impious to you, who censures the blasphemies of Arius?’
49. PALLADIUS said; ‘I have not denied that the Son of God is good.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Do you say that Christ is a good God?’
Palladius said; ‘I do not answer you.’
Valerian, Bishop, said; ‘Do not press Palladius so much: he cannot confess our truths with simplicity. For his conscience is confused with a twofold blasphemy: he was ordained by the Photinians and was condemned with them, and now he shall be condemned more fully.’
Palladius said; ‘Prove it.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘He would not have denied that Christ is true if he were not following his own teachers.’
50. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘You have objected to me that I am impious: prove it.’
Palladius said; ‘We will bring forward our statement, and when we have brought it, then the discussion shall be held.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Condemn the impiety of Arius.’
Palladius being silent,
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘He dwells upon useless subjects. There are so many impieties of Arius, which Palladius has not chosen to condemn, nay rather has confessed by supporting. He who does not condemn Arius is like him, and is rightly to be called a heretic.’
All the Bishops said; ‘On the part of us all let Palladius be anathema.’
51. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Do you consent, Palladius, that the other statements of Arius be read?’
Palladius said; ‘Give us arbiters: let reporters come on both sides. You cannot be judges unless we have arbitrators and unless persons come on both sides to arbitrate, we do not answer you.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘What arbitrators do you wish for?’
Palladius said; ‘There are here many men of high rank.’
Sabinus, Bishop, said; ‘After such a number of blasphemies do you wish for arbitrators?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Bishops ought to judge of laymen: not laymen of Bishops. But tell me what judges you wish for.’
Palladius said; ‘Let arbitrators attend.’
Chromatius, the Presbyter, said; ‘Without prejudice to condemnation by the Bishops, let those also who are of Palladius’ party be heard at full length.’
52. PALLADIUS said; ‘They are not allowed to speak. Let arbitrators attend and reporters on both sides, and then they will answer you in a General Council.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Though he has been convicted of many impieties, yet we should blush that a person who claims the priesthood for himself should seem to have been condemned by laymen, and on this very ground and in this very point he deserves condemnation because he looks to the sentence of laymen, when priests ought rather to be the judges of laymen. Looking to what we have this day heard Palladius professing and to what he has refused to condemn, I pronounce him unworthy of the priesthood, and I judge that he should be deprived32 thereof in order that a Catholic may be ordained in his place.’
All the Bishops said; ‘Anathema to Palladius.’
53. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘The most gracious and Christian Emperor has committed the cause to the judgement of the Bishops and has constituted them arbitrators of the dispute33. Since therefore the decision appears to have been made over to us, so that we are the interpreters of the Scriptures, let us condemn Palladius, who has not chosen to condemn the sentiments of the impious Arius, and because he has himself denied the Son of God to be everlasting, and made the other statements which appear in our proceedings. Let him therefore be accounted Anathema.’
All the Bishops said; ‘We all condemn him; let him be accounted anathema.’
54. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Since all who are met here are Christian men, brethren approved of God, and our fellow-bishops, let each individual say, what he thinks.’
Valerian, Bishop, said; ‘My sentence is that he who defends Arius is an Arian; that he who does not condemn his blasphemies is himself a blasphemer; and therefore I judge that such a man is alien from the fellowship of Bishops.’
Palladius said; ‘You have begun to play; play on. Without an Eastern Council we answer you not.’
55. ANEMIUS, Bishop of Sirmium, said; ‘Whoever does not condemn the heresies of Arius must of necessity be an Arian. Him therefore I judge to be alien from our communion, and to be without place in the assembly of Bishops.’
Constantius, Bishop of Orange, said; ‘As Palladius is a disciple of Arius, whose impieties have been long since condemned by our Fathers in the Council of Nice, but have this day severally, when recited, been approved of by Palladius, inasmuch as he was not disturbed at his acknowledging that the Son of God was not of the same Nature with God the Father, and at his calling Him a creature, and saying that He began to be in time, and denying Him to be true Lord, on these grounds, I judge that he should be condemned for ever.’
56. JUSTUS, Bishop, said; ‘Palladius who has refused to condemn the blasphemies of Arius, and who seems rather to acknowledge them, can in my judgement no longer be called a Priest or be reckoned among Bishops.’
Eventius, Bishop of Ticinum, said; ‘I think that Palladius who has refused to condemn the impieties of Arius, is removed for ever from the fellowship of Bishops.’
57. ABUNDANTIUS, Bishop of Trent, said; ‘Since Palladius maintains evident blasphemies, let him know that he is condemned by the Council of Aquileia.’
Eusebius, Bishop of Bologna, said; ‘Inasmuch as Palladius has not only refused to condemn the impieties of Arius, impieties written with the pen of the devil, and which it is not lawful so much as to listen to, but has also appeared as the maintainer of them by denying that the Son of God is true Lord, is good Lord, is wise Lord, is everlasting Lord; both by my sentence, and by the judgement of all Catholics I think that he is rightly condemned and excluded from the assembly of Bishops.’
58. SABINUS, Bishop of Placentia, said; ‘Since it has been proved to all that Palladius supports the Arian perfidy and maintains its impiety that was counter to the Evangelical and apostolical institutions, a just sentence of the whole Council has been passed upon him, and humble individual as I am, let him by my judgement be deprived once more of the priesthood and banished justly from this most holy assembly.’
Felix and Numidius, deputies of Africa said; ‘Anathema to the Sect of the Arian heresy to which by the Synod of Aquileia Palladius is pronounced to belong. But we condemn also those, who contradict the truth of the Nicene Synod.’
59. LIMENIUS, Bishop of Vercellæ, said; ‘It is manifest that the Arian doctrine has been often condemned: and therefore, inasmuch as Palladius having been appealed to in this holy Synod of Aquileia has refused to correct and amend himself, and has rather proved himself worthy of blame and defiled himself with the perfidy which he has publicly professed himself to hold, I too by my judgement declare that he is to be deprived of the fellowship of the Bishops.’
Maximus, Bishop of Emona, said; ‘That Palladius, who would not condemn, but has rather himself acknowledged, the blasphemies of Arius, is justly and deservedly condemned God knows, and the conscience of the faithful has condemned him.’
60. EXUPERANTIUS, Bishop of Dertona, said; ‘As the rest of my Colleagues have condemned Palladius who has refused to condemn the sect and doctrine of Arius, and on the contrary has defended them, I also likewise condemn him.’
Bassianus, Bishop of Lodi, said; ‘I have heard along with the rest of my Colleagues the impieties of Arius, which Palladius not only has not condemned but has confirmed. Let him be anathema and be deprived of the priesthood.’
61. PHILASTER, Bishop of Brescia, said; ‘The blasphemies and iniquity of Palladius, who follows and defends the Arian doctrine I in company with all have condemned.’
Constantius, Bishop of Sciscia, said; ‘As the rest of my brother Bishops, I also think that Palladius is to be condemned, who has refused to condemn the blasphemies and impieties of Arius.’
Heliodorus, Bishop of Altinum, said; ‘The man who maintains the perfidy of Arius, and of all the heretics with whom Palladius is partner, whose heart is foolish, and who has not confessed the truth, together with the rest of my brother Bishops I condemn.’
62. FELIX, Bishop of Jadera, said; ‘I also in like manner unite with all in condemning Palladius, who speaks blasphemies against the Son of God as Arius did.’
Theodorus, Bishop of Octodorum, said; ‘We judge Palladius, who has denied Christ to be true God, co-eternal with the Father, to be in no wise either a Christian or a priest.’
Domninus, Bishop of Grenoble, said; ‘As Palladius adheres to the perfidy of Arius, I also judge that he is to be condemned for ever, as my brethren also have condemned him.’
63. PROCULUS, Bishop of Marseilles, said; ‘Palladius, who by a kind of impious succession to the blasphemies of Arius has defended them in that he does not condemn them, as he has been already designated a blasphemer by the sentence of many venerable Bishops, and pronounced alien from the priesthood, so by my sentence also is marked out in the same manner as condemned for ever.’
Diogenes, Bishop of Genoa, said; ‘Palladius who while he does not confess has even denied Christ to be true Lord and God, like and equal to the Father, I together with the rest of my brethren and fellow Bishops adjudge to have the lot of condemnation.’
64. AMANTIUS, Bishop of Nice, said; ‘Palladius, who has refused to pull down the sect of Arius, according to the judgement of my brother Bishops, I also condemn.’
Januarius, Bishop, said; ‘As all my brother Bishops have condemned Palladius so also do I think that he ought to be condemned by a similar judgement34.’
65. SECUNDIANUS having withdrawn for a while, and then returned to the Council35,
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘You have heard, Secundianus, what sort of sentence the impious Palladius has received, having been condemned by the Council of Bishops: and though we have been displeased that you have not shrunk from his madness, I nevertheless make some special enquiries of you. Do you say that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is or is not very God?’
Secundianus said; ‘He who denies the Father of our Lord and God Jesus Christ to be true God is not a Christian, nor is he who denies that the Lord is the very Son of God.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘Do you confess that the Son of God is very God?’
Secundianus said; ‘I say that He is the very Son of God, the very only begotten Son of God.’
66. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Do you call Him very Lord?’
Secundianus said; ‘I call Him the very only-begotten Son of God. Who denies that He is the very Son of God?’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘It is not enough that you confess Him to be the only-begotten Son of God, for all confess this. But what influences us is that Arius said that the Father alone is Lord, alone is true, and denied that the Son of God is very Lord. Do you confess simply that the Son of God is very God?’
Secundianus said; ‘Who Arius was, I know not; what he said, I know not. You speak with me, living man with living man. I say what Christ said: The only begotten Son Which is in the bosom of the Father. Therefore He asserts Himself to be the only-begotten Son of the Father: the only-begotten Son is then the very Son of God.’
67. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; “Is the very Son of God also very God? It is written in the divine books: he that sweareth on the earth, shall swear by the true God, and that this applies to Christ there is no doubt. We therefore profess the true God, and this is our faith and profession, that the only-begotten Son of the Father is very God. Do you then say ‘of very God,’ and then that the Son is very God.”
Secundianus said; ‘Of very God.’
68. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Is the Son of God very God?’
Secundianus said; ‘Then would he be a liar.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘In this you practise an evasion to avoid saying very God, but instead thereof, God, very only-begotten, and therefore say simply, The only-begotten Son of God is very God.’
Secundianus said; ‘I called Him the only-begotten Son of God.’
69. EUSEBIUS, Bishop, said; ‘This Photinus does not deny, this Sabellus confesses.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘And he who does not confess this is justly condemned, and on this point I appeal to you many times though by cavilling you have denied the truth. I do not ask you to call Him merely the very only-begotten Son of God, but to call Him also very God.’
Secundianus said; ‘I profess myself the servant of truth. What I say is not taken down and what you say is taken down. I say that Christ is the true Son of God. Who denies that He is the true Son of God?’
70. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘He who denies that the only-begotten Son of God is very God, let him be anathema.’
Secundianus said; ‘The only-begotten Son of God, very God! why do you state to me what is not written?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said: ‘It is plain sacrilege, that Arius denied Christ the Son of God to be very God.’
Secundianus said; ‘Forasmuch as Christ is called the Son of God, I call the Son of God very Son36; but that He is very God is not written.’
71. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Have you not yet recovered your senses?’ And he added; ‘Lest it should appear that he has been unfairly treated, let him state his opinion. Let him then say that Christ the only-begotten Son of God is very God.’
Secundianus said; ‘I have already said. What more would you wring from me?’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘What have you said? certainly if you had said so great truths, what is said gloriously, may well be often repeated.’
Secundianus said; ‘It is written, Let your conversation be yea, yea, nay, nay.’
72. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘He who says that the Father Himself is the Son, is sacrilegious. This I ask of you that you would say that the Son of God is begotten very God of very God.’
Secundianus said; ‘I say that the Son is begotten of God, as He says Himself I have begotten Thee, and that He confesses Himself to be begotten.’
73. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘Is He very God of very God?’
Secundianus said; ‘When you add to the Name and call Him very [God], do you understand what the character of your own faith is, and are you a Christian?’
Eusebius, Bishop, said; ‘Who has denied that He is very God? Arius and Palladius have denied it. If you believe Him to be very God, you should simply express it.’
74. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘If you will not say that He is very God begotten of very God, you have denied Christ.’
Secundianus said; ‘When asked about the Son, I answered you: I have answered as to the manner in which I ought to make my profession. We have your statement: we will bring it forward; let it be read.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘You should have brought it forward to-day, but you are attempting a subterfuge. You demand a profession of me and I demand a profession of you. Is the Son of God very God?’
Secundianus said; ‘The Son of God is God only-begotten. I also ask him: Is He only-begotten?’
75. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; “Let reason move us: let us be moved too by your impiety and folly. When you speak of God very only-begotten, you do not apply the ‘very’ to ‘God,’ but to ‘only-begotten.’ And therefore to remove this question answer me this: Is He very God of very God?”
Secundianus said; ‘Did then God not beget God? He Who is very God begat What He is; He begat one true only-begotten Son.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said; ‘You do not confess Him very God but you would call Him very only-begotten. I too call Him only-begotten, but also very God.’
Secundianus said; ‘I say that he was begotten of the Father, I say to all that he was very begotten37.’
The Names of the Bishops and Presbyters who were present at the Council.
VALERIAN, Bishop of Aquileia38.
AMBROSE, Bishop of Milan.
EUSEBIUS, Bishop of Bologna.
LIMENIUS, Bishop of Vercellæ.
ANEMIUS, Bishop of Sirmium in Illyricum.
SABINUS, Bishop of Placentia.
ABUNDANTIUS, Bishop of Brescia.
CONSTANTIUS, Bishop of Orange, Deputy of the Gauls.
THEODORUS, Bishop of Octodurus.
DOMNINUS, Bishop of Grenoble.
AMANTIUS, Bishop of Nice.
MAXIMUS, Bishop of Emona.
BASSIANUS, Bishop of Lodi.
PROCULUS, Bishop of Marseilles, Deputy of the Gauls.
HELIODORUS, Bishop of Altinum.
FELIX, Bishop of Jadera.
EVENTIUS, Bishop of Ticinum39.
EXSUPERANTIUS, Bishop of Dertona.
DIOGENES, Bishop of Genoa.
CONSTANTIUS, Bishop of Sciscia.
JUSTUS, Bishop of Lyons, also Deputy of the Gauls.
FELIX, Deputy of Africa.
NUMIDIUS, Deputy of Africa.
EVAGRIUS, Presbyter and Deputy.
ARTEMIUS, ALMACHIUS, JANUARIUS, JOVINUS, MACEDONIUS, CASSIANUS, MARCELLUS, EUSTATHIUS, MAXIMUS, CHROMATIUS a Presbyter.
- 37(1,2)
The abrupt termination of the discussion with Secundianus, without any account of a decision in his case, seems to point to the same conclusion as the incomplete list of Bishops who give sentence on Palladius, that the Record is defective. Moreover the unusual number of various readings is generally a sign of a defective text. The force and cleverness of the evasions of Secundianus seem sometimes to be lost thereby.
- 18(1,2)
There can be little doubt that the true date is iii. Non. Sept. i. e. the 3rd of Sept., and not Nonis, the 5th. For in 381 A.D. the 5th of Sept. was on a Sunday, and it is hardly likely that a Council would have sat from daybreak till one o’clock (Ep. 10. 5) in the Church on such a day, and moreover it would not have been natural for Palladius to say, as he does in § 47. Non respondebo nisi auditores veniant post Dominicam diem, if he were speaking on a Sunday.
- 19
The reading of Ed. Rom. has been adopted, which omits the preposition ‘cum. ’ If this were correct, it would imply that the consuls were themselves taking a leading part in the Council; whereas it is clear that they are mentioned solely as the ordinary way of fixing the year; nor had the consuls at this time any other than such ornamental functions. See Gibbon’s description, ch. xvii. vol. ii. ed. Smith p. 206–208.
- 20
By ‘acta’ here are meant formal and official records taken down and published by authority. Thus Jul. Cæsar ordered the ‘Acta’ of the Senate to be regularly published. Suet. Cæs. 20.
- 21(1,2)
It is to be remembered that ‘diocese’ was then a civil and not an Ecclesiastical term. A ‘diœcesis’ was an aggregate of provinces, under the charge of a Vicarius, who was subordinate to one of the four Præfecti Prætorio, each Præfectus having under him a number of dioceses. Thus the Vicarius Italiæ, who was subordinate to the Præfectus Prætorio Italiæ, had in his diocese fourteen provinces, including both Liguria of which Milan was the capital, and Venetia in which Aquileia was situated. It is to be remembered also that Italia at this time meant only the north of Italy, the rest of Italy being now included in the Diocese of Rome, and under the Vicarius Urbis Romae. See the table given in Smith’s Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 315. taken from Marquardt. When the word diocese came into Ecclesiastical use, it was applied, first to “an aggregate not merely of several districts, governed each by its own bishop, but of several provinces (ἐπαρχίαι) each presided over by a metropolitan. The diocese itself was under an Exarch or Patriarch.” Dict. of Chr. Ant. sub voc. ‘Creditâ’ is here read for ‘creditam,’ as required by the order of the words.
- 22
It is not certain to whom the Emperor’s letter was addressed. Some have thought that it was addressed to the Pretorian Prefect of Italy. Tillemont maintained that it was addressed to Valerian, Bishop of Aquileia, in whose see the Council was held. The language, though not decisive, seems in favour of the former supposition. In § 7. the Prefect of Italy is spoken of as issuing letters in pursuance of it.
- 23
i. e. a copy of S. Paul’s Epistles.
- 24
i. e. the Emperor’s letter.
- 25
The text here seems defective, nor is there any thing to guide us to supply the lacuna. What is given in the translation is no more than a guess at the meaning of the sentence. The general connection is however clear enough even if it be omitted.
- 26
The reading of Ed. Rom. is here adopted, as alone furnishing a reasonable sense. The Benedictine text is unintelligible.
- 27
By Illyricum is here meant Illyricum Occidentale, which at this time was under the jurisdiction of the Vicarius Italiæ. (See the Table in Smith’s Gibbon, referred to in note21 p. 33.) Sirmium, which in the following Century was entirely destroyed by the Goths under Attila, was at this time a place of great importance both civil and ecclesiastical. It is spoken of by Justinian as capital of Illyricum both in civil and episcopal matters (Tillemont, note xv on the Life of S. Ambrose vol. x. p. 739). Its ecclesiastical importance is shewn by the contest in which S. Ambrose engaged with Justina, two years before the Council, 379 A. D. to bring about the election of Anemius as Bishop, when the Empress was using all her influence to cause an Arian Bishop to be appointed. Arianism had been rife there for some time, and Germinus a previous Bishop had been one of the leaders of that party. (Tillemont, S. Ambr. ch. xx.) Illyricum had been finally separated into two divisions, Orientale and Occidentale, by Gratian, in 379 A.D. who transferred the Eastern Division to Theodosius when he made him Emperor of the East, from which time it formed part of the Eastern Empire. (Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. vol. v. p. 716.)
- 28
The context requires the reading ‘bonus’ for ‘omnibus,’ which is that of one MS. The same MS. also inserts ‘Deum’ in Eusebius’ next speech, which is required by the argument.
- 29
made Himself of no reputation E.T.
- 30
But now ye seek to kill me, a man &c. E.V.
- 31
By ‘tractatus concilii Nicæni’ is meant simply the Nicene Creed. This is established by S. Ambr. De Fide iii. 15. 125 (518 Ed. Ben.) where, speaking of the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia read at the Council, in reference to the word ὁμοούσιος, he says, Hæc cum lecta esset epistola in Concilio Nicæno, hoc verbum in tractatu fidei posuerunt Patres, etc.
- 32
The reading in Ed. Ben. is ‘carendum.’ If it is genuine, the word must have acquired a sort of transitive sense and have come to mean ‘to be deprived.’ No traces of such an use is to be found in Facciolati or in Ducange. Ed. Ben. quotes a parallel use of ‘abstinendus’ but without any instances. Rom. reads ‘privandum,’ Chifflet ‘curandum,’ either of which give the required sense, but seem corrections without MS. authority.
- 33
The text in this passage is defective and confused: but the general sense, as given here, may fairly be made out of it as it stands.
- 34
It is to be noticed that the sentence of only twenty-five Bishops are here given out of thirty two or thirty three. It is probable therefore that the Record is defective, and that the sentences of the rest have been lost.
- 35
Ed. Ben. here reads, Et cum Secundianus subripuisset. As subripuisset by itself could have no sense, the reading of Ed. Rom. has been adopted, Et cum Secundianus se paullulum subripuisset et postea convenisset. This is adopted in Tillemont’s narrative, Il sortit mesme de l’assemblée, mais il revint quelque temps après.
- 36
This is according to the text of Ed. Rom.
- 38
With regard to the names of the sees, those of which the modern name is as familiar or more familiar than the ancient have been rendered by the modern name, those of which the modern name would be unfamiliar to general readers have been left in their ancient form. It would be affectation to call S. Ambrose Bishop of Mediolanum: on the other hand nothing would be gained by calling Felix Bishop of Jadera, Bishop of Zara.
- 39
This name is omitted in the list at the beginning, so that there are thirty three in this list, only thirty two in the other. The two presbyters were probably representatives of Bishops, but it is not stated of whom.