Read an account of the _Proceedings of the Synod of Nicaea_,[465]
in the form of a history, in three volumes. The author states
that Hosius,[466] bishop of Cordova, and Viton and Vincent, two
Roman priests, were present as legates on the part of Silvester,
pope of Rome,[467] together with Eustathius,[468] patriarch of
Antioch, while Alexander the priest represented Metrophanes of
Constantinople; Silvester, who was more than a hundred years old, in
consequence of his great age was unable to be present. Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria,[469] also attended, together with Athanasius,
who afterwards succeeded him in the episcopate, Macarius,[470] bishop
of Jerusalem, and a number of other bishops and priests. The synod
was summoned in the sixteenth year of the reign of Constantine, and
its proceedings lasted six years, until he had reigned twenty-one
years and six months.
The author relates that Arius was condemned and anathematized, but
again endeavoured to obtain admission to the Church, in which he
was supported by Eusebius,[471] bishop of Nicomedia, and Eutocius
the Arian, an ordained priest, whom the emperor’s sister Constantia
commended to her brother on her deathbed. Although these endeavoured
to bring back Arius to the Church, divine justice did not permit its
enemy to insult its temple and its shrine. He was condemned to die in
the latrines on the very day when he and his supporters had resolved
to profane the Church of God and His holy rites by his entrance.
His death took place in a public place, the latrines being near the
forum. The author states that Constantine the Great rejoiced that the
incorruptible judge God had solved the question by his sentence, and
wrote a number of letters, recording his opinion of the justice of
the end that had overtaken Arius. In this the author’s account agrees
with those of Athanasius the Great, Theodoret, and many others. Some,
however, think that Arius came by his disgraceful end, not in the
reign of Constantine, but in that of his son Constantius.
Such is the contents of this book. In another copy, containing the
same account, the title gives the name of the author as Gelasius,
bishop of Caesarea[472] in Palestine. The style is mean and common.
Who this Gelasius was, I have been unable to discover for certain,
since up to the present I have met with three bishops of Caesarea
named Gelasius, and have at least read the works of two. One of these
works is a polemic _Against the Anomoeans_,[473] the two others, one
of which we have just referred to, deal with ecclesiastical matters.
The title, where we have found it, is _Three Books of Ecclesiastical
History by Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine_.
The work begins as follows: The proceedings of the holy, great, and
universal synod of bishops, assembled, so to speak, from all the
provinces of the Roman empire and Persia, and so on. It ends with
the death of Constantine the Great, at the time when he received
remission of sins by divine baptism, whereby the stains of guilt
such as all men contract in life were washed off. The author says
that he was baptized and initiated into the holy mysteries by an
orthodox priest, not, as some state, by a heretic. His baptism was
delayed, because he had earnestly desired to be baptized in the
waters of Jordan. The writer states that he lived in the time of
Basiliscus,[474] who seized the throne after Zeno had been driven
out, and that he found and read the account of the proceedings of the
council written on an old parchment, while living in his father’s
house. From his recollections of this, and with the aid of other
writings which supplied him with useful information, he compiled his
history. He also mentions and cites some passages from a certain
Gelasius, whom he also calls Rufinus. He says that he was a native of
Cyzicus, and that his father was a priest in the same place. So says
the author of this work, and such is its contents.