Works 6

BOOK ONE. THE ACTS OF THE BISHOPS AT AQUILEIA AGAINST THE ARIAN HERETICS. In the consulship of the most noble Syagrius and Eucherius, on the third day before the Nones of September, while the bishops were sitting in council in the church at Aquileia, with Valerianus of the city of Aquileia, and the bishops Ambrose, Eusebius, Limenius, Anemius, Sabinus, Abundantius, Artemius, Constantius, Justus, Philastrius, Constantius, Theodorus, Almachius, Domninus, Amantius, Maximus, Felix, Bassianus, Numidius, Januarius, Proculus, Heliodorus, Jovinus, Felix, Exuperantius, Diogenes, Maximus, Macedonius, Cassianus, Marcellus, and Eustathius being present: Bishop Ambrose said: We have long debated this matter apart from the formal acts.

And since such great blasphemies of the father of Palladius and Secundianus are brought to our ears, that it is hard for anyone to believe they could blaspheme so openly: lest by any craftiness they should afterwards attempt to deny their own words, although there can be no doubt because of the testimony of so many priests: nevertheless, since it is the pleasure of all the bishops, let acts be drawn up, so that no one may afterwards be able to deny his own profession. What therefore is your pleasure, holy men, must be declared. All the bishops said: It is our pleasure. Bishop Ambrose said: Our disputes are to be confirmed by the imperial decree, that it may be cited. Sabinianus the deacon read it out:

Lest the priests, doubtful in their reverence for doctrines, should be at variance, We had ordered the bishops, desiring as soon as possible to make trial, to assemble in the city of Aquileia from the diocese entrusted to the merits of your Excellency. For matters of doubtful judgment in controversy could be settled in no more fitting way than if We should appoint as interpreters the very bishops from whom arise the established teachings of doctrine, so that by the same men the contradictions of discordant teaching might be resolved. Nor indeed do We now order otherwise than We have ordered; not departing from the tenor of Our precept, but considering that a superfluous multitude of those assembling is unnecessary.

For inasmuch as Ambrose, the bishop of the city of Milan, conspicuous both for the merit of his life and for God's favour, suggests that a multitude is not needed there where the truth would not labour among many, if it were established among few; and that he, together with the assertions of those who would stand against them, and the priests of the neighbouring cities of Italy, can amply and abundantly suffice: We have judged that the venerable men should be spared the fatigue, lest any one heavy with mature age, or worn out by bodily weakness, or of modest and praiseworthy poverty, should travel to unaccustomed lands, and so forth. Bishop Ambrose said: Behold what the Christian emperor has decreed. He has been unwilling to do injury to the priests: he has appointed the bishops themselves as interpreters.

And by this, since we sit in a council of priests, answer to those things which are put to you. The letter of Arius has been read: even now it shall be read again, if it seem good to you. From its very beginning it contains blasphemies: he has said that the Father alone is eternal. If it seem to you that the Son of God is not everlasting, prove this very thing however you wish: if you think it ought to be condemned, condemn the Gospel. The Apostle too is present, all the Scriptures are at hand; prove it from whatever you wish, if you think the Son of God is not everlasting. Palladius said: It has come about by your zeal, as the reading of the sacred letter brought forward by you indicates, that there was no general and full council. Our fellow-priests being absent, we cannot answer. Bishop Ambrose said:

Who are your associates? Palladius said: The Eastern bishops. Bishop Ambrose said: Meanwhile, since in former times the council was so arranged that the Easterners, established in the parts of the East, should hold a council, and the Westerners in the West, we, established in the parts of the West, have come together to the city of Aquileia according to the emperor's command. Moreover, the prefect of Italy also issued letters, that if they wished to assemble, it should be in their power. But since they have made a custom of this kind, that in the East there should be a council of the Easterners, and within the West one of the Westerners, therefore they thought they need not come. Palladius said: Our emperor Gratian ordered the Easterners to come.

Do you deny that he ordered it? The emperor himself told us that he had ordered the Easterners to come. Bishop Ambrose said: To be sure he ordered it, in that he did not forbid them to come here. Palladius said: But your petition brought it about that they should not come: under the appearance of a false willingness you obtained this, and you put off the council. Bishop Ambrose said: There is no need to wander further; answer now. Did Arius say well that the Father alone is eternal? And did he say this according to the Scriptures, or not? Palladius said: I do not answer you. Bishop Constantius said: Do you not answer, you who have blasphemed for so long? Bishop Eusebius said: But you ought simply to give forth the freedom of your faith.

If a pagan were to demand of you how you believe in Christ, you ought not to be ashamed to confess it. Bishop Sabinus said: You demanded that we should answer today according to your wish, and at your urging we assembled, and did not wait for the rest of the brethren who could have come. Therefore you are not free to wander. Do you say that Christ was created? Or do you say that the Son of God is everlasting? Palladius said: Did I say so to you? We wrote to you for this reason, that we might come and prove that you had not rightly acted in misleading the emperor. Bishop Ambrose said: Let the letter of Palladius be read, whether he commanded us this: and it will be shown that even now he deceives. Palladius said: Let it be read by all means. The bishops said:

When the emperor was present at Sirmium, did you appeal to him, or did he himself compel you? And he added: What do you answer to these things? Palladius said: He said to me, Go. We said, Have the Easterners been convened? He said, They have been convened. Surely, if the Easterners had not been convened, would we have assembled? Bishop Ambrose said: Let the cause of the Easterners be set aside; today I seek your own opinion. The letter of Arius has been read to you. You are accustomed to deny that you are an Arian. Either condemn Arius today, or defend him. Palladius said: It is not within your authority to demand this of me. Bishop Eusebius said: We do not believe that the religious emperor said anything other than he wrote. He ordered the bishops to assemble:

he could not have said to you alone, against his own rescript, that the case should by no means be tried without the Easterners. Palladius said: Were the Italians alone ordered to assemble? Evagrius the presbyter and legate said: Seeing that four days before, and two days before, you answered that you would be present, why then did you wait? As you say that the agreement of your Eastern associates was to be awaited, so you ought to have given notice, not promised a contest. Palladius said: Because I had come as if to a full council, I saw that my associates had not assembled: so that I might gather and declare that you had acted by command to the prejudice of the future council. Bishop Ambrose said: That we should sit today, you yourself demanded.

In short, even today you yourself said that we Christians have come to Christians. You have proved us Christians. You promised that you would contend, you promised that you would bring forward reasoning. Gladly therefore have we accepted your preface. We desired that you might come as it were to Christians. I have offered you the letter of Arius, which Arius wrote, by whose name you say you frequently suffer reproach. You say that you do not follow Arius. Today the opinion ought to be made plain. Either condemn him, or prove it from whatever passages you wish. And he added: Therefore, according to the letter of Arius, is Christ the Son of God 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 the future council. Bishop Eusebius said: Without craftiness you ought to set forth the profession of your faith. Palladius said: And what then do we reserve for the council? Bishop Ambrose said: With one voice condemnation has been pronounced upon him who would deny that the Son of God is everlasting. Arius denied it; Palladius follows him, who is unwilling to condemn Arius. Therefore consider whether his opinion is to be approved: and whether he speaks according to the Scriptures, or against the Scriptures, it is plain to understand. For it has been read: The eternal power of God and his divinity (Romans 1:20). The power of God is Christ. If therefore the power of God is eternal, then surely Christ is eternal, since Christ is the power of God.

Bishop Eusebius said: This is our faith, this is the catholic understanding. Whoever shall not say these things, let him be anathema. All the bishops said: Anathema. Bishop Eusebius said: Does he expressly say that the Father alone is everlasting, and that the Son at some time had a beginning? Palladius said: I have neither seen Arius, nor do I know who he is. Bishop Eusebius said: The blasphemy of Arius has been brought forward, in which he denies that the Son of God is everlasting. This perfidy do you condemn together with its author, or do you assert it? Palladius said: Where there is not the authority of a full council, I do not speak. Bishop Ambrose said: Do you hesitate to condemn it after the divine judgments, when he has burst in the midst? And he added: Let the holy men, the legates of the Gauls, speak. Bishop Constantius, legate of the Gauls, said:

This impiety of that man we have both always condemned, and now condemn, not only Arius, but also whosoever shall not say that the Son of God is everlasting. Bishop Ambrose said: What also says my lord Justus? Justus, bishop and legate of the Gauls, said: Whoever does not confess the Son of God to be coeternal with the Father, let him be held anathema. All the bishops said: Anathema. Bishop Ambrose said: Let the legates of the Africans also speak, who have brought hither the opinions of all their fellow-citizens. Felix, bishop and legate, said:

If anyone shall deny that the Son of God is everlasting, and shall deny that he is coeternal, not only I, the legate of all the African province, condemn him, but also the whole choir of priests which sent me to this most holy assembly has likewise condemned him beforehand. Bishop Anemius said: The capital of Illyricum is none other than the city of Sirmium. I therefore am the bishop of that city. Whoever does not confess the Son of God to be eternal and coeternal with the Father, which is to be everlasting, I declare anathema; and likewise upon those who do not confess the same. Bishop Ambrose said: Hear what follows. And it was read: 'The Father alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality.' Bishop Ambrose said:

In this too condemn him, who denies that the Son is true God. For since he himself is the truth, how is he not true God? And he added: What say you to this? Palladius said: Who does not say that the Son is true? Bishop Ambrose said: Arius denied it. Palladius said: Since the Apostle says that Christ is God over all (Romans 9:5), can anyone deny that he is the true Son of God? Bishop Ambrose said: That you may know how simply the more truthful confession is required of us by you, behold, I say as you say, but I hold it as only half-complete: for when you so speak, you seem to deny true God: but if you simply confess the Son of God to be true God, prove it in the order in which I myself propose. Palladius said: I speak to you according to the Scriptures: I say the Lord is the true Son of God.

Bishop Ambrose said: Do you say the Son of God is true Lord? Palladius said: Since I say he is the true Son, what more? Bishop Ambrose said: I do not ask merely that you say he is the true Son, but that you say the Son of God is true Lord. Bishop Eusebius said: Is Christ true God, according to the faith of all and the catholic profession? Palladius said: He is the true Son of God. Bishop Eusebius said: For we too are sons by adoption, but he is so according to the property of his divine generation. And he added: Do you then confess that the true Son of God is true Lord, according to his divinity and property? Palladius said: I say he is the true only-begotten Son of God. Bishop Eusebius said:

Do you then think it against the Scriptures, if Christ be said to be true God? And when Palladius kept silent, Bishop Ambrose said: He who says the Son of God is true only, and is unwilling to say true Lord, seems to deny him. Let Palladius therefore confess in this order (if indeed he confesses), and let him say whether he calls the Son of God Lord. Palladius said: Since the Son says: 'That they may know thee the only true Lord, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent' (John 17:3), is it with affection or in truth? Bishop Ambrose said: John said in his Epistle: This is the true God (1 John 5:20). Deny this. Palladius said: When I say to you 'the true Son,' I profess also true divinity. Bishop Ambrose said:

And in this lies the fraud. For you are accustomed so to speak of one and true divinity, as to say it is the true and one divinity of the Father only, not also the true and one divinity of the Son. Therefore if you wish to speak openly, since you appeal me to the Scriptures, say what the evangelist John said: 'This is the true God,' or deny that it was said. Palladius said: Apart from the Son, no other has been begotten. Bishop Eusebius said: Is Christ true God according to the faith of all and the catholic profession, or in your opinion is he not true God? Palladius said: He is the power of our God. Bishop Ambrose said: You have not the freedom to profess it, and by this, anathema to him who does not confess the Son of God to be true God. All the bishops said:

Let him be held anathema who shall not say that Christ the Son of God is true Lord. Again he added: 'Alone true, alone having immortality.' Bishop Ambrose said: Does the Son of God have immortality, or does he not, according to his divinity? Palladius said: Do you admit the Apostle, or not? 'The King of kings, who alone hath immortality' (1 Timothy 6:15-16). Bishop Ambrose said: What do you say concerning Christ the Son of God? Palladius said: Is the name Christ divine, or human? Bishop Eusebius said: According to the mystery of the flesh indeed he is called Christ: but the same is both God and man. Palladius said: The name Christ is the name of the flesh, the name Christ is a human name, and do you answer me. Bishop Eusebius said:

Why do you delay over superfluous matters? When the impiety of Arius was read out, who says of the Father that He alone possesses immortality, you brought forward, in agreement with the impiety of Arius, a testimony from the Apostle, saying: 'Who alone has immortality, and dwells in light inaccessible' (1 Tim. 6:16). But if you understand it rightly, he expressed the dignity of the whole nature in the name of God; for in the name of God both the Father and the Son are signified. Palladius said: And what I asked you, you have refused to answer. Bishop Ambrose said: I ask you plainly for your verdict about yourself: does the Son of God possess immortality according to His divine generation, or does He not possess it? Palladius said: According to His divine generation He is incorruptible; through the flesh He died.

Bishop Ambrose said: It was not the divinity that died, but the flesh that died. Palladius said: First, you answer me. Bishop Ambrose said: Does the Son of God according to His divinity possess immortality, or does He not possess it? Indeed, you have betrayed your frauds and snares in a manner not even according to the profession of Arius. And he added: He who denies that the Son of God possesses immortality—what is your judgment of him? All the bishops said: Let him be held anathema. Palladius said: Is the divine state immortal? Bishop Ambrose said: This too is cunningly put, so that you may express nothing clearly about the Son of God. And I say: the Son of God possesses immortality according to His divinity. Either deny it, '[He] who possesses immortality.' Palladius said:

Did Christ die, or not? Bishop Ambrose said: According to the flesh. Our soul does not die. For it is written: 'Fear not those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul' (Matt. 10:28). Since therefore our soul cannot die, do you suppose that Christ died according to His divinity? Palladius said: Why do you shudder at the word 'death'? Bishop Ambrose said: On the contrary, I do not shudder at it, but I confess it according to my own flesh. For it is the means by which I have been loosed again from the bonds of death. Palladius said: Death is brought about by the separation of the spirit. For Christ the Son of God took flesh, and through the flesh He died. Bishop Ambrose said: It is written that Christ suffered.

Therefore He suffered according to the flesh; according to His divinity He possesses immortality. Whoever denies this is a devil. Palladius said: I do not know Arius. Bishop Ambrose said: Then Arius spoke wickedly, since the Son of God too possesses immortality according to His divinity. And he added: Did he speak well, or ill? Palladius said: I do not consent. Bishop Ambrose said: With whom do you not consent? Anathema upon him who does not declare the freedom of the faith. All the bishops said: Anathema. Palladius said: Say what you will; His divinity is immortal. Bishop Ambrose said: Whose? The Father's, or the Son's also? And he added: Arius has heaped up many impieties; let us pass on to the others. And there was read out: THE ONLY WISE ONE.

Palladius said: The Father is wise of Himself, but the Son is not wise. Bishop Ambrose said: Then the Son is not wise, although He Himself is Wisdom? For we also say that the Son was born of the Father. Bishop Eusebius said: Is there anything so impious, so profane, as what he has said—to deny that the Son of God is Wisdom? Palladius said: He is called Wisdom. Who can deny Wisdom? Bishop Ambrose said: Is He wise, or not? Palladius said: He is Wisdom. Bishop Ambrose said: Wise, therefore, since He is Wisdom. Palladius said: We will answer you according to the Scriptures. Bishop Ambrose said: Palladius has tried (as far as I can see) to deny that the Son of God is even wise.

Bishop Eusebius said: Whoever denies that the Son of God is wise, let him be anathema. All the bishops said: Anathema. Eusebius said: Let Secundianus also answer to this. And when Secundianus kept silent, Bishop Ambrose said: He who is silent wishes to keep his judgment intact. And he added: When he says that the Father alone is good, has he confessed the Son, or has he denied Him? Palladius said: We read, 'I am the good shepherd' (John 10:11); and do we deny it? Who would not call the Son of God good? Bishop Ambrose said: Then Christ is good? Palladius said: Good. Bishop Ambrose said: Arius therefore spoke wickedly about the Father alone, since the Son of God too is God to all. Palladius said: Whoever does not call Christ good, speaks wickedly.

Bishop Eusebius said: Do you confess Christ to be God, and good? For I too am good. He said to me, 'Well done, good servant' (Matt. 25:21); and, 'A good man brings forth good things out of his treasure' (Luke 6:45). Palladius said: I have already spoken; now I will not answer you until the full council is assembled. Bishop Ambrose said: The Jews used to say, 'He is good'; and Arius denies that the Son of God is good. Palladius said: Who can deny this? Bishop Eusebius said: Then the Son of God is good God. Palladius said: The good Father begot a good Son. Bishop Ambrose said: He has begotten us also good, but not according to divinity. Do you call the Son of God good God? Palladius said: The Son of God is good.

Bishop Ambrose said: You see, then, that you call Christ a good Son, but not a good God—which is precisely what is being asked of you. And he added: Whoever does not confess the Son of God, God, to be good God, let him be anathema. All the bishops said: Anathema. Again it was read out: THE ONLY MIGHTY ONE. Bishop Ambrose 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 less mighty? Bishop Ambrose said: Then Arius spoke wickedly. And he added: Do you condemn Arius at least on this point? Palladius said: How do I know who knows? I answer you for myself. Bishop Ambrose said: Is the Son of the Lord God mighty? Palladius said: Mighty. Bishop Ambrose said: Is God good? Palladius said:

I have already said that the only-begotten Son of God is mighty. Bishop Ambrose said: The mighty Lord? Palladius said: The mighty Son of God. Bishop Ambrose said: Men too are mighty. It is written: 'Why do you boast in malice, you who are mighty in iniquity?' (Ps. 51:3); and elsewhere: 'When I am weak, then am I mighty' (2 Cor. 12:10). This I require of you: that you confess Christ, the Son of God, to be the mighty Lord; or, if you deny it, prove your case. For since I declare one power of the Father and the Son, I thus declare the Son of God to be mighty even as the Father. Do you then hesitate to confess that the Lord, the Son of God, is mighty? Palladius said: I have already said that, according to the disputation, as far as we are able, we answer you.

For you alone wish to be the judges, you wish to be the disputants. We do not answer you now, but in a general and full council we will answer you. Bishop Ambrose said: Anathema upon him who denies that Christ the Lord is mighty. All the bishops said: Anathema. Again it was read out: THE ONLY MIGHTY ONE, JUDGE OF ALL. Palladius said: The Son of God is judge of all. There is one who gives, there is one who has received. Bishop Ambrose said: Did He give by grace, or by nature? Judgment is given to men also. Palladius said: Do you say the Father is greater, or not? Bishop Ambrose said: I will answer you afterward. Palladius said: I will not answer you, if you do not answer me. Bishop Eusebius said:

Unless you first condemn the impiety of Arius in due order, we will give you no opportunity to ask questions. Palladius said: I do not answer you. Bishop Ambrose 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 an impious man. Bishop Ambrose said: You have my profession, by which I will answer you. Meanwhile let the letter of Arius be read through. And he added: In the letter of Arius you will find this very sacrilege which you are contriving. Palladius said: To what I ask, you give no answer. Bishop Eusebius said: We say that the Son of God is God, equal. Palladius said: You are the judge, and your recorders are here. Bishop Ambrose said: Let your own men write, whoever wish. Palladius said:

Is the Father greater, or not? Bishop Eusebius said: According to divinity the Son is equal to the Father. You have in the Gospel that the Jews persecuted Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal to God (John 5:18). What therefore the impious confessed in persecuting Him, we who believe cannot deny. Bishop Ambrose said: And elsewhere you have: 'Who, although He was in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, obedient unto death' (Phil. 2:6-8). And he added: You see that in the form of God He is equal? 'And He took,' it says, 'the form of a servant.'

In what, then, is He less? Surely according to the form of a servant, not of God. Bishop Eusebius said: Just as, being established in the form of a servant, He was not inferior to a servant, so, being established in the form of God, He could not be inferior to God. Bishop Ambrose said: Or else say that according to His divinity the Son of God is less. Palladius said: The Father is greater. Bishop Ambrose said: According to the flesh. Palladius said: 'He who sent me is greater than I.' Was it the flesh that was sent by God, or the Son of God? Bishop Ambrose said: We prove today that the divine Scriptures are being falsified by you. For thus it is written: 'My peace I give to you, my peace I leave with you. Let not your heart be troubled. Not as this world gives do I give to you.'

'If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I' (John 14:27-28). He did not say, 'He who sent me is greater than I.' Palladius said: The Father is greater. Bishop Ambrose said: Anathema upon him who adds anything to, or subtracts anything from, the divine Scriptures. All the bishops said: Anathema. Bishop Ambrose said: According to the flesh the Son is less than the Father; according to His divinity He is equal to the Father. I have therefore read that the Son of God is equal to the Father, as the very copies already produced bear witness. But according to the flesh, why do you marvel that He is less, since He called Himself a servant, since He called Himself a stone, since He called Himself less than the angels, because it is written, 'You made Him a little lower than the angels' (Ps. 8:6)?

Palladius said: I see that you make your assertions impiously; we do not answer you without hearers. Bishop Sabinus said: Let no one require a verdict from him who has blasphemed with so countless verdicts. Palladius said: We do not answer you. Bishop Sabinus said: Palladius has already been condemned by all. The blasphemies of Arius are far less than those of Palladius. And when Palladius had risen and wished to go outside: For this reason, he said, Palladius has risen, because he perceives that he must be convicted by the open testimonies of the Scriptures, as he has already been convicted. For it has thus been read that, according to divinity, the Son is equal to the Father. Let him accept also that the Son of God, according to His divinity, has none greater. It is written:

'When God made promise to Abraham, since He had no other greater by whom to swear, He swore by Himself' (Heb. 6:13). You see therefore the Scripture, that He has no other greater by whom to swear. But it is the Son of whom it is said that He Himself was seen by Abraham. Whence also He says, 'Abraham saw my day, and rejoiced' (John 8:56). Palladius said: 'The Father is greater.' Bishop Eusebius said: When He spoke as God, He had none greater; when He spoke as man, He had one greater. Palladius said: The Father begot the Son, the Father sent the Son. Bishop Ambrose said: Anathema upon him who denies that the Son is equal to the Father according to His divinity. All the bishops said: Anathema.

Palladius said: The Son is subject to the Father; the Son keeps the commandments of the Father. Bishop Ambrose said: Subject according to the principle of the flesh. Moreover, you yourself remember that you have read, 'No one comes to me unless the Father draw him' (John 6:44). Bishop Sabinus said: Let him say whether He is subject to the Father according to His divinity, or according to His incarnation. Palladius said: Then the Father is greater. Bishop Ambrose said: And elsewhere it is written: 'God is faithful: by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son' (1 Cor. 1:9). I say that the Father is greater according to the assumption of the flesh which the Son of God took on, not according to His divinity. Palladius said: For what comparison is there with the Son of God?

Even the flesh can say, 'God is greater than I.' Was it the flesh that spoke, or the divinity, since the flesh was there? Bishop Ambrose said: Flesh without a soul does not speak. Bishop Eusebius said: God in the flesh spoke according to the flesh, when He said, 'Why do you persecute me, a man?' (John 8:40). Who said this? Palladius said: The Son of God. Bishop Ambrose said: Therefore the Son of God is God according to His divinity, and man according to the flesh. Palladius said: He took flesh. Bishop Eusebius said: Then He used human words? Palladius said: He took human flesh. Bishop Ambrose said: Let him say that the Apostle called Him subject not according to His divinity, but according to the flesh.

For it is written: 'He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death' (Phil. 2:8). In what, then, did He taste death? Palladius said: Because He humbled Himself. Bishop Ambrose said: It was not the divinity, but the flesh, that was humbled and made subject. And he added: Did Arius speak well when he called Him a perfect creature, or did he speak ill? Palladius said: I do not answer you, who have no authority. Bishop Ambrose said: Profess what you will. Palladius said: I do not answer you. Bishop Sabinus said: Do you not answer for Arius? Do you not answer the questions put to you? Palladius said: I have not answered for Arius. Bishop Sabinus said: You have answered to this extent—that you have denied the Son of God to be mighty, denied Him to be true God.

Palladius said: I will not endure you as judge, whom I accuse of impiety. Bishop Sabinus said: You yourself compelled us to sit. Palladius said: I gave order that you should sit, so that I might accuse you. Why did you go behind the emperor's back? You acted by stealth, so that there should not be a full council. Bishop Ambrose said: When the impieties of Arius were uncovered, your own impiety was likewise condemned, which has consented to the Arian impiety. It pleased you, in the middle of the reading of the letter, to propose what you wished. You have been answered as to how the Son of God called the Father greater, namely because, according to the assumption of the flesh, the Son called the Father greater.

You also proposed that the Son of God is subject, and on this point you have been answered: that the Son of God is subject according to the flesh, not according to His divinity. You have our profession; now hear the rest. Since you have been answered, answer to the things that are being read. Palladius said: I do not answer you, because whatever I have said is not written down. Only your words are written down. I do not answer you. Bishop Ambrose said: You see that everything is being written. Indeed, the things that have been written are abundant enough as evidence of your impiety. And he added: Do you call Christ a creature, or do you deny it? Palladius said: I do not answer. Bishop Ambrose said: A while ago, when it was read that Arius called Christ a creature, you denied it.

You were offered the chance to condemn the perfidy, and you would not. Or at least now say whether Christ was born of the Father, or created. Palladius said: If you wish, let our recorders come, and so let everything be taken down. Bishop Sabinus said: Let him bring forward his own recorders. Palladius said: In a full council we will answer you. Bishop Ambrose said: Attalus subscribed in the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea. Let him deny that he came to the council. Let him say today whether he subscribed in the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea, or not. And when Attalus kept silent, Bishop Ambrose said: Attalus the presbyter, although he is among the Arians, nevertheless has the authority to speak.

Let him freely profess whether he subscribed in the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea under his own bishop Agrippinus, or not. Attalus said: You have already said several times that I am condemned; I do not answer you. Bishop Ambrose said: Did you subscribe in the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea, or not? Attalus said: I do not answer you. Palladius said: Do you wish the proceedings to be held in full, or not? Chromatius the presbyter said: You did not deny the creature; you denied the power; you denied everything that the catholic faith professes. Bishop Sabinus said: We are witnesses that Attalus subscribed in the Council of Nicaea, and now refuses to answer. What seems good to all? And when Attalus kept silent, Bishop Ambrose said:

Let him say whether he subscribed in the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea, or not. Palladius said: Let your recorder and ours stand by, and let them write everything down. Bishop Valerianus said: The things you have already said and denied are all written down. Palladius said: Say what you will. Bishop Ambrose said: Since Palladius, who has already frequently been condemned, more often wishes to be condemned, I read the letter of Arius, which he refused to condemn. Profess what seems good to you. All the bishops said: Let it be read. And it was read out: 'BORN, MOREOVER, NOT IN APPEARANCE,' and the rest. Bishop Ambrose said: I have answered you concerning the 'greater,' I have answered you also concerning the 'subject'; now you yourself answer. Palladius said:

I will not answer, unless the authorities come after the Lord's day. Bishop Ambrose said: You had come to dispute, but after I confronted you, you saw the letter of Arius, which you refused to condemn, yet you cannot defend it: therefore you now take flight and quibble. Read it through in full: answer point by point. Whether Christ is seen to be created, or whether there was a time when Christ was not, or rather whether the only-begotten Son of God always was. When you have heard the letter of Arius, either condemn it, or approve it. Palladius said: Since I accuse you of impiety, I do not use you as judge. You are a transgressor. Bishop Sabinus said: What impieties do you charge against our brother and fellow-priest Ambrose? Tell us. Palladius said: I have already told you:

In a full council I will answer, and in the presence of the authorities. Bishop Ambrose said: In the assembly of my brethren I desire to be refuted and confuted. Tell me, then, what I have said impiously. But I seem impious to you, who build up true religion. Bishop Sabinus said: So he seems impious to you who refutes the blasphemies of Arius? Palladius said: I have not denied that the Son of God is good. Bishop Ambrose said: Do you say, then, that Christ is good God? Palladius said: I do not answer you. Bishop Valerianus said: Do not press Palladius too hard; he cannot simply confess our truths. For his conscience is confounded by a double blasphemy. For he was ordained by the Photinians, and was condemned together with them;

and now he will be more fully condemned. Palladius said: Prove this. Bishop Sabinus said: He could not deny the true Christ in any other way except by following his own authorities. Bishop Ambrose said: You have charged that I am impious: prove this. Palladius said: We bring forward our exposition. When we have brought it forward, then the disputation will be held. Bishop Ambrose said: Condemn the impiety of Arius. And when Palladius hung back, Bishop Eusebius said: We are delaying over superfluous matters. So many impieties of Arius Palladius has refused to condemn—indeed, he has rather confessed them by his assertions. He who does not condemn this man is like him, and must rightly be called a heretic. All the bishops said: From all of us, let there be anathema upon Palladius. Bishop Ambrose said:

Do you agree that the rest be read, Palladius? Palladius said: Provide hearers; let recorders come from both sides. You cannot be judges if we have no hearers; and unless men come from both sides to listen, we do not answer you. Bishop Ambrose said: What hearers do you seek? Palladius said: There are many men of rank here. Bishop Sabinus said: After so many blasphemies, do you ask for hearers? Bishop Ambrose said: Priests ought to judge concerning laymen, not laymen concerning priests; but nevertheless tell us what judges you seek. Palladius said: Let the hearers come. Chromatius the presbyter said: Saving the priestly condemnation, let those things also which are of Palladius be read in full. Palladius said:

Let the hearers not be permitted to speak; let recorders come from both sides also, and these men will answer you in a general council. Bishop Ambrose said: Even though he has been caught in many impieties, we are nevertheless ashamed that one who claims the priesthood for himself should be seen to be condemned by laymen. And on this account, since on this very point also he is to be condemned who awaits the verdict of laymen—whereas priests ought rather to judge concerning laymen—in accordance with the things which we have heard today Palladius professing, and in accordance with the things which he refused to condemn, I pronounce him unworthy of the priesthood, and that care be taken that a catholic be ordained in his place. All the bishops said: Anathema upon Palladius. Bishop Ambrose said:

The most clement and Christian emperor entrusted the case to the judgment of the priests, and that they themselves should be arbiters of the dispute in whatever we might determine. Since therefore the judgment seems to have been delegated to us, Scripture is our interpreter: let us condemn Palladius, who refused to condemn the sentence of the impious Arius. And because he himself has denied that the Son of God is eternal, and the other things that cleave to the acts, let him therefore be held anathema. All the bishops said: Let us all condemn him; let him be held anathema. Bishop Ambrose said: Since all here present are Christian men, and brethren approved by God, and our fellow-priests, let each one say what seems good to him. Bishop Valerianus said: To me indeed it seems that whoever defends Arius is an Arian;

whoever does not condemn his blasphemies, is himself a blasphemer. And therefore I judge a man of this sort to be a stranger to the fellowship of priests. Palladius said: Have you begun to play games? Play on: without the Eastern council we do not answer you. Anemius, bishop of Sirmium, said: Whoever does not condemn the Arian heresies must necessarily be an Arian. This man therefore we judge to be once again deprived even of our communion and the priestly assembly, as a stranger to it. Constantius, bishop of Orange, said:

Palladius, the disciple of Arius—whose impieties were long ago condemned by our fathers in the Council of Nicaea, and now today brought forward—was not put to shame when they were recited to him one by one, since he confesses that the Son of God is alien from God the Father, classed with the creature, since he calls Him temporal and denies Him to be the true Lord: him I judge worthy to be condemned for ever. Bishop Justus said: Palladius, who refused to condemn the blasphemies of Arius, but rather seems even to confess them, I judge can no longer be called a priest, nor be reckoned among the bishops. Eventius, bishop of Pavia, said: Palladius, who refused to condemn the impiety of Arius, I deem to be removed for ever from the fellowship of priests.

Abundantius, bishop of Trent, said: Since Palladius defends manifest blasphemies, let him know that he is condemned by the Council of Aquileia. Eusebius, bishop of Bologna, said: Because the impieties of Arius, composed with a diabolical pen—which it was not even lawful to admit to the ears—Palladius not only refused to condemn, but even proved himself an advocate of them, denying the Son of God to be the true Son, the good Lord, the wise Lord, the eternal Lord: this man, by the judgment of the priestly assembly, both by my own verdict and by the judgment of all catholics, I deem rightly condemned. Sabinus, bishop of Piacenza, said:

Since it has been made plain to all that Palladius is an author of the Arian perfidy, and that he holds its impiety, which runs counter to the evangelical and apostolic ordinances, a just sentence of the whole council has been passed against him: let him, deprived once again of the priesthood by the sentence of his depravity (other reading: of his pettiness), be rightly expelled from this most sacred assembly. Felix and Numidius, the legates of the Africans, said: Anathema upon the sect of the Arian heresy, in which Palladius was declared to belong at the synod of Aquileia. But we also condemn those who set themselves in opposition against the truth of the Council of Nicaea. Limenius, bishop of Vercelli, said: It is manifest that the Arian doctrine has often been condemned;

and therefore Palladius, brought before this holy synod of Aquileia, since he refused to correct or amend it, but rather approved it, has entangled himself in a perfidy that can be plainly detected, which he has publicly professed to hold: this man, by my own sentence, I too profess to be deprived of the fellowship of the priesthood. Maximinus, bishop of Emona, said: Palladius, who not only refused to condemn the blasphemies of Arius, but rather confessed them himself, both God knows him to be justly and deservedly condemned, and the conscience of the faithful has condemned him. Exsuperantius, bishop of Tortona, said: Palladius, who refused to condemn the sect of Arius or his doctrine, but defended it, as my other colleagues have condemned him, I too condemn. Bassianus, bishop of Lodi, said:

I have heard, as have my other fellow-priests, the impieties of Arius, which Palladius not only did not condemn, but confirmed. Let this man be anathema, and let him be deprived of the priesthood. Philaster, bishop of Brescia, said: The blasphemies and iniquity of Palladius, who follows and defends the Arian doctrine, I have condemned together with all. Constantius, bishop of Siscia, said: Palladius, who did not condemn the blasphemies and impieties of Arius, like my other fellow-priests I too judge to be condemned. Heliodorus, bishop of Altinum, said: Whoever follows the perfidy of Arius and of all heretics—of whom Palladius is a partner—this man's foolish heart, who has not confessed the truth, I condemn together with my other fellow-priests alike.

Felix, bishop of Zadar, said: Palladius, who blasphemed the Son, as Arius did, I condemn together with all alike. Theodorus, bishop of Octodurum, said: Palladius, who denied that Christ is true God, coeternal with the Father, we deem in no way to be a Christian, nor a priest. Domninus, bishop of Grenoble, said: Palladius, remaining in the perfidy of Arius, I too judge to be condemned for ever, as the brethren also have condemned him. Proculus, bishop of Marseille, said:

Palladius, who defended the blasphemies of Arius under a certain impious inheritance by not condemning them, just as the verdict of very many already venerable priests has marked him out as a blasphemer and deemed him a stranger to the priesthood, my own sentence likewise marks out as condemned for ever. Diogenes, bishop of Geneva, said: Palladius, who, in not confessing Christ the Lord, true God, like and equal to the Father, denied Him, I judge to share in condemnation with my other brethren and fellow-priests. Amantius, bishop of Nice, said: Palladius, who did not destroy the sect of Arius, according to the judgment of my fellow-priests, I too condemn. Bishop Januarius said:

Just as all my fellow-priests have condemned Palladius, so I too by equal judgment deem that he must be condemned. And when Secundianus had slipped in, Bishop Ambrose said: You have heard, Secundianus, what kind of sentence the impious Palladius, condemned by the priestly council, received. Although it has displeased us that you did not recoil from his—that is, Palladius'—madness, nevertheless I ask you in particular some things: whether you call the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God, or not. Secundianus said: Whoever denies that the Father of our Lord and God Jesus Christ is true Lord, is not a Christian; nor is he who denies that the Son is true Lord. Bishop Ambrose said: Do you confess the Son of God to be true God? Secundianus said:

I say that He is the true Son of God, the only-begotten true Son of God. Bishop Ambrose said: Do you say He is true God? Secundianus said: As for the true only-begotten Son, who denies Him to be the true Son of God? Bishop Eusebius said: It is not enough that you confess the Son of God to be only-begotten; for all confess this. But this is what troubles us: that Arius said the Father alone is Lord, alone is true, and denied that the Son of God is true Lord. Do you simply confess the Son of God to be true God? Secundianus said: Who Arius was, I do not know; what he said, I do not know. You are speaking with me, living to a living man. This I say, which Christ said: He asserts Himself to be the only-begotten Son of the Father, the only-begotten Son: God is the true Son of God. Bishop Ambrose said:

He is true God; the Son is true God, God. And he added: In the divine Scriptures it is written, 'that those who swear upon the earth shall swear by the true God' (Isaiah 65:16). And there is no doubt that this is said of Christ. We therefore confess the true God, and this is our faith and profession: that the only-begotten Son of the Father is true God. Say you too concerning the true God that the Son of God is true God. Secundianus said: He is of the true God. Bishop Ambrose said: Is the Son of God true God? Secundianus said: Then he is a liar. Bishop Ambrose said: In this you commit a fraud, in that you do not say 'true God' but 'only-begotten God'; and therefore say plainly: the only-begotten Son of God is true God. Secundianus said:

I said the only-begotten Son of God. Bishop Eusebius said: This Photinus does not deny, this Sabellius confesses. Bishop Ambrose said: And whoever does not confess this is justly condemned. And on this account I press you often, although by quibbling you have denied the truth. I do not ask only that you call him the only-begotten of God, the Son of God, but also true God. Secundianus said: I profess myself a servant of the truth. What I say is not written, and what you say is written. I say that Christ is the true Son of God. Who denies that the Son of God is true? Bishop Ambrose said: Whoever denies the only-begotten Son of God, let him be anathema. Secundianus said: The only-begotten Son of God, true God? Why do you make me profess what is not written? Bishop Ambrose said:

It is open sacrilege, when Arius denied that Christ the Son of God is true God. Secundianus said: I say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God, who as Christ is called the true Son, the Son of God. Bishop Ambrose said: You have not yet come to your senses. And he added: Lest anything should seem to have been smuggled in upon him, let him confirm his own statement. Let him therefore say that Christ is the only-begotten, the Son of God, true God. Secundianus said: I have already said it. What more do you wish to wring out of me? Bishop Ambrose said: What have you said? Surely, if you had said so great a thing, what is spoken to one's glory ought to be repeated often. Secundianus said: It is said: 'Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay' (Matthew 5:37). Bishop Ambrose said:

Whoever says that the Father himself is the Son is a sacrilegious man. This I ask of you: that you say concerning the true God that the Son of God was born true God. Secundianus said: The Son begotten of God (since he himself says, 'I have begotten thee' [Psalm 110:3]), the Son confessing himself to have been begotten—him I confess. Bishop Ambrose said: Is he true God of the true God? Secundianus said: And when you add to the name even the word 'true,' do you hear what sort of faith is in you, and are you a Christian? Bishop Eusebius said: Who denied him to be true God? Arius and Palladius denied it. If you believe him to be true God, you ought to declare it plainly. Bishop Ambrose said: If you will not say that the true God was born of the true God, you have denied Christ. Secundianus said: Being questioned concerning the Son, I gave my answer:

as I ought to profess, I answered. We have your exposition; we will bring it, let it be read. Ambrose said: You ought to have brought it today; but for the rest you try to slip away. Demand a profession from me, and I demand a profession from you. Is the Son of God true God? Secundianus said: The Son of God is only-begotten God. And I in turn ask: Is he only-begotten? Bishop Ambrose said: Let your impiety and folly move us by reason. When you say 'only-begotten true God,' you do not say 'true God' but 'true only-begotten'; and therefore, that you may settle this question, answer thus: Is he true God of the true God? Secundianus said: Then did not God beget God?

That true God who is, begot what he is; he begot one true only-begotten Son. Ambrose said: You do not confess 'true God,' but you wish to say 'true only-begotten.' I too say 'only-begotten,' but I also say 'true God.' Secundianus said: I say the Son truly begotten of the Father; I say this to all. ON THE FAITH, IN THE PERSON OF AMBROSE. CHAPTER ONE. Bishop Ambrose said: We have indeed known many and grave heresies to boil up from very many men, and like venom to pour the poison of their canker into the inmost breast (cf. 2 Timothy 2:17). But those can either easily be overcome or easily avoided, whose whole counsel of heart is betrayed in their first proposition.

But truly those who have many things in common with us can easily strike harmless minds, devoted to God alone, with a fraudulent fellowship, while they defend the poison of their evils by means of our good things. For nothing can be more dangerous than these heretics, who, while they run their course soundly in all respects, yet with one word, as if with a drop of poison, infect that pure and simple faith of the Lord's and thence the apostolic tradition. Hence we must beware vehemently lest anything of this sort should secretly insinuate itself into our minds or ears; for nothing so drives a man to death as to violate, under the pretext of faith, the integrity of that same faith. For just as gypsum mixed with water counterfeits milk in color,

so here, through a plausible confession, an inimical tradition is insinuated. Concerning which matter, not the likeness of the confession, but the sense of the mind by which the confession itself is established must be weighed. Finally, if you attend more diligently and accurately, why they wished the name of 'one substance' to be removed from the evangelical and apostolic faith and from the tradition of the Fathers, you will without doubt find that the Arian heresy was introduced by a subtle shortcut, once this name had been taken away. Nor indeed do I affirm this as gathered by suspicion or opinion;

nor (as they themselves suppose) do I stand here as an Academic disputant, so as to twist simple meanings by subtlety of words; but in order that meanings that have been twisted and made crooked, composed by a flimsy argument, I may set forth into the light of knowledge, so that the iniquity, once recognized and discovered, may more easily be avoided by all.

For what cause, what reason existed, that what had been handed down to all the Churches to be taught and to be believed, and what our Fathers, the apostolic men, against all heresies and especially the Arian—as if a kind of barrier of truth, by which they might block every access of pestilent doctrine—being filled with the Holy Spirit, established by catholic reason, is now being labored to be removed (not without great effort) by those who are now addicted to the slogan of the Arian taint, except that they might fabricate that the Son of God is mutable and changeable, as having subsisted not from the Father's own substance:

so that to him there is a beginning from time, and an origin from nothing, and a name from another—as they have always taught (on account of which they have also been often condemned)—they may now freely and securely and without hesitation be able to hand it down and insinuate it to the Churches? CHAPTER II. You see therefore that they have set down everything in their treatise, not by evangelical faith, but by crafty malice, to seduce any simple folk. It ought now to be not so much suspected as manifest to all that they have so set down 'God of God' as Arius was wont to hand down—that he was made from God, not born from God. But if he is born, he is of one substance; if he is made, he is not the true Son; and if he is not the true Son, neither is he true God.

Or if he is true God and is not of the Father, then there are two who each have their own wills and diverse dominions. Or if they are one only by concord and fellowship, but not also in substance, then he is not, as I have already said, true God: and thus he will be God as Moses was to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1)—by power, not by nature. The Son too will have to be believed in the way that it was said to the people through Isaiah: 'I have begotten sons and exalted them' (Isaiah 1:2), and elsewhere: 'Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High' (Psalm 82:6). But he will be reckoned firstborn only in the manner that Israel too was called by God a firstborn son (Exodus 4:22). And likewise the firstborn of all creation (Colossians

1:15), as if he were reckoned firstborn in the order of things made, so that from him they might assign a certain sequence to the things of the world to be created. Finally, having removed the homoousion—that is, the term 'of one substance'—they posited the homoiousion, that is, 'like his maker,' since likeness is one thing and truth another. For man too was made to the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26), yet he is not God; nor must it be believed that what God is, man has come to be. Thus too they wish the Son of God to be 'like,' so that they may call him like from some other source, not from that one holy and blessed substance of the Father itself. But if he is not of the Father's substance, he is 'ex ouk onton,' that is, from things not existing at all, as the same Arius handed down.

For once that which is the Father is removed, from whatever source the Son shall have come, it is necessary that he have both a beginning from nothing and an origin from time. For nothing is without a beginning except God alone. Whence the Son too, as the Lord himself says: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). He said this for the reason that he might show the names of two persons in the majesty of one Godhead, just as the prophet too, from the voice of God: 'My heart hath uttered forth a good Word,' he says, 'I tell my works to the king' (Psalm 45:1). You see therefore that this 'good Word' is the Son of God, whom we believe to have been born from no other source than from the paternal breast and (so to speak) from the womb of the heart of God. And accordingly he calls him king, because he himself is the King of kings:

God the Lord, to whom all divine works are subject; who said: 'All things that the Father hath are mine' (John 16:15). Concerning him the evangelist also says: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing' (John 1:1). Therefore that which was in the beginning must be believed always to have been. But to be from no other source than from him who has no beginning, that is, from the heart of the Father, because 'my heart,' he says, 'hath uttered forth a good Word.' For he did not say, 'In the beginning the Word was made,' but 'In the beginning,' he says, 'was the Word.' Whatever beginning of the Word you wish to mark, you will have it prejudged, because 'in the beginning,' he says, 'it was.'

Not that we speak of two beginnings from a diversity of things, but because the Word the Son is always with the Father, and is born of the Father. And accordingly, he whose origin has no beginning must be believed to be everlasting; because neither can the Father ever be named without the Son, nor can the Son be called without the Father, and thereby the Son is always, because the Father is always. 'And the Word,' he says, 'was God.' What is God always is; lest, if it were not always, it could not be true God: just as also in the name of wisdom, because according to the Apostle he himself is the wisdom of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24). 'I,' he says, 'came forth from the mouth of the Most High' (Sirach 24:5). Therefore from no other source than from the Father, because always with the Father.

And therefore he is called the Wisdom of God, so that the Father may never be believed to have been without wisdom, that is, without his Son. This is that ineffable wisdom which in Solomon is described as the beginning of the ways of God, whether founded or begotten or created (Proverbs 8): yet which he so calls 'founded' as to show that she was always with God. For what beginning will you give to God, that you might be able to assign a beginning to his very wisdom? For God did not so found his wisdom as though at some time he had been without wisdom. But when he says 'the beginning of his ways,' he shows the beginning of the motion of some work, so that the wisdom of God has this beginning—that it proceeded from God for the founding of all things, both heavenly and earthly—not that it began to be in God.

Wisdom therefore was created—nay rather, begotten—not for herself who always was, but for those things which were to be made by her; so that, because how great and of what kind she was could not be known, her power and might might be known from the effect of her works, in order that, while we estimate the Maker from the things made, we might then fear all the more when we marvel at the things made. But if you so say that wisdom was created as to understand the Son of God to be a creature, the Apostle confronts you, condemning those who worship the creature, saying: 'Wherefore God gave them up unto the lust of their heart unto uncleanness, that they should dishonor their own bodies among themselves:'

who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is God blessed for ever (Romans 1:24-25). This, I say, is that Wisdom of God which says: 'I came forth from the mouth of the Most High' (Sirach 24:5), the founder and maker of the universe, that is, the Son of God through whom are all things and in whom are all things: because, as the Apostle said: 'In him were all things created that are in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or virtues or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and in him, and he is before all, and all things consist in him' (Colossians 1:16-17). Hence Solomon too:

'Though she is one,' he says, 'she can do all things, and remaining in herself she renews all things, and throughout the nations she passes into holy souls' (Wisdom 7:27). Confirming which the Apostle says that Christ dwells in the inner man (Ephesians 3:16), so that through him by whom from the beginning all things were made, through him also in the end all things may be saved. CHAPTER III. But you say to me that the homoousion—that is, the name 'of one substance'—ought not to be named for this reason, because it is not contained in the divine Scriptures. I too ask you, O man who forbid this: if it ought not to be named because it is not written, is it because it may not be so believed? But if it must be so believed, why should it not be so professed?