“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 diocese[21] 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 Apostle[23]: 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
document[24] 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 however[26] 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?’
Sidenote: Rom. i. 20.
Sidenote: 1 Cor. i. 8.
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.’
Sidenote: Acts i. 18.
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 Illyricum[27] 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.’
Sidenote: S. John xvii. 3.
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?’
Sidenote: 1 S. John v. 20.
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.’