Contra Palladium Arianum Libri Duo

THE TWO BOOKS OF VIGILIUS OF THAPSUS AGAINST PALLADIUS THE ARIAN.

BOOK ONE.

THE ACTS OF THE BISHOPS OF AQUILEIA AGAINST THE ARIAN HERETICS.

In the consulship of the most illustrious Syagrius and Eucherius, on the third day before the Nones of September, while the bishops were sitting together in the church at Aquileia—namely Valerianus, Ambrosius, Eusebius, Limenius, Anemius, Sabinus, Abundantius, Arlemius, Constanlius, Justus, Philastrius, Constantius, Theodorus, Almachius, Domninus, Amantius, Maximus, Felix, Bassianus, Numidius, Januarius, Proculus, Hetodorus, Jovinus, Felix, Exsuperantius, Diogenes, Maximus, Macedonius, Cassianus, Marcellus, and Eustathius, bishops of the city of Aquileia.

Bishop Ambrosius said: For a long time we have been deliberating without written records. And since such great sacrileges on the part of the father of Palladius and Secundianus are being brought to our ears that scarcely anyone could believe they could have blasphemed so openly—or else, lest by some cunning they should afterwards attempt to deny their own words, although there can be no doubt concerning the testimony of so many priests—nevertheless, since it pleases all the bishops, let records be made, so that each one may not afterwards be able to deny his own profession. What, then, holy men, pleases you must be declared.

All the bishops said: It pleases us.

Bishop Ambrose said: Our disputations must be confirmed by imperial writ, so that they may be cited.

Sabinian the deacon read aloud:

Lest priests should disagree through a scrupulous reverence for ambiguous doctrines, we had ordered the bishops, desiring as soon as possible to put this to the test, to assemble in the city of Aquileia, entrusted by the diocese to the merits of your Excellency. For doubtful controversies of uncertain judgment could not be more rightly settled than if we appointed the very prelates as interpreters of the dispute that has arisen; so that, clearly, from those from whom the principles of doctrine proceed, by the same the contradictions of discordant teaching might be resolved. Nor indeed do we now command otherwise than we commanded; not overturning the tenor of the precept, but reconsidering the superfluous multitude of those who have come. For in that Ambrose, a bishop conspicuous both by the merit of his life and by the favor of God, bishop of the city of Milan, suggests that a multitude is not needed there where the truth would not labor among many, if it were placed in a few; and he suggests that he himself, together with the priests of the neighboring cities of Italy, can sufficiently and abundantly suffice against the assertions of those who stand opposed: we have judged that the venerable men must be spared the fatigue, lest anyone, either weighed down by mature age, or worn out by bodily weakness, or of modest means through praiseworthy poverty, should seek out unfamiliar lands, and the rest.

Bishop Ambrose said: Behold what the Christian emperor has decreed. He was unwilling to do injury to the priests: he appointed the bishops themselves as interpreters. And therefore, since we have sat down in a sacerdotal council, answer the things that are put to you. The letter of Arius has been read; even now it shall be recited again, if it seems good to you. From the beginning it contains blasphemies: it has said that the Father alone is eternal. If it seems to you that the Son of God is not everlasting, then establish this very point however you wish; if you think it should be condemned, condemn the Gospel. The Apostle is present, all the Scriptures are at hand; establish it from whatever source you wish, if you think that the Son of God is not eternal.

Palladius said: It has been brought about by your zeal, as the reading of the sacred text produced by you indicates, that this was not a general and full council. Since our fellow priests are absent, we cannot answer.

Bishop Ambrose said: Who are your associates?

Palladius said: The Eastern bishops.

Bishop Ambrose said: For the present, because in former times a council was held in such a way that the Eastern bishops, established in the regions of the East, had their council, and the Western bishops in the West, we, established in the regions of the West, assembled at the city of Aquileia according to the emperor's command. Moreover, the prefect of Italy also issued letters, so that if they wished to assemble, they had it in their power. But because they made a custom of this kind, that in the East there should be a council of the Eastern bishops, and within the West of the Western bishops, therefore they thought they ought not to come.

Palladius said: Our emperor Gratian ordered the Eastern bishops to come. Do you deny that he ordered it? The emperor himself told us that he had ordered the Eastern bishops to come.

Bishop Ambrose said: Certainly he ordered it, since he did not forbid them to come here.

Palladius said: But your petition caused them not to come: under the guise of a false willingness you obtained this, and you put off the council.

Bishop Ambrose said: There is no need to wander further afield; answer now. Did Arius say rightly 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 disclose the freedom of your faith. If a gentile were to demand of you how you believe in Christ, you should not be ashamed to confess it.

Bishop Sabinus said: You asked that we answer today according to your will, and at your urging we assembled, and we did not wait for the other brothers who could have come. Therefore it is not open to you to wander further afield. Do you say that Christ is created? Or do you say that the Son of God is eternal?

Palladius said: Did I not tell you? We wrote to you for this reason, that we might come and convict you of having crept in to the emperor improperly.

Bishop Ambrose said: Let the letter of Palladius be read, to see whether he gave us this instruction; and it will be shown that even now he is deceiving.

Palladius said: Let it be read, clearly.

The bishops said: The present care was that an order be given at Sirmium; did you interrupt him, or did he 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. If the Easterners had not been convened, would we have convened?

Bishop Ambrose said: Let the case of the Easterners be set aside; I seek your sentence today. 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 require this of me.

Bishop Eusebius said: We do not believe that the religious emperor said anything other than what he wrote. He ordered the bishops to convene; he could not say to you alone, contrary to his own rescript, that the case should by no means be decided without the Easterners.

Palladius said: Were the Italians alone ordered to convene? Evagrius the presbyter, the legate, said: That four days beforehand, and two days beforehand, he would answer that he would be present. What then were you waiting for? As you say that the consensus of your Easterners must be awaited for the sentence, so you ought to have sent word, not promise a debate.

Palladius said: Because I had come as if to a full council, I saw that my colleagues had not assembled; so that I might assemble and speak, you acted according to the order, to the prejudice of the future council.

Bishop Ambrose said: You yourself demanded that we sit today. Moreover, even today you yourself said that we Christians have come to Christians. You have proved us to be Christians. You promised that you would dispute, you promised that you would bring forward an account. We therefore gladly received your preface. We desired that you would come as a Christian. I offered you the letter of Arius, which Arius wrote, on whose name you say that you frequently suffer injury. You say that you do not follow Arius. Today the judgment ought to be open. Either condemn him, or establish your case by whatever readings you wish. And he added: Therefore, according to the letter of Arius, is Christ the Son of God not eternal?

Palladius said: We said that we would prove ourselves Christians, but in a full council. We will not answer you at all, to the prejudice of the future council.

Eusebius the bishop said: You must set forth the profession of your faith without deceit.

Palladius said: And what do we reserve for the council?

Ambrose the bishop said: By every mouth condemnation has been made against him who would deny that the Son of God is eternal. Arius denied it; Palladius follows him, who is unwilling to condemn Arius. And so, whether his opinion is to be approved, consider; and whether he speaks according to the Scriptures or against the Scriptures, it is clear to understand. For it has been read: The eternal power of God and divinity. Christ is the power of God. If therefore he is the eternal power of God, Christ is certainly eternal, because Christ is the power of God.

Eusebius the bishop said: This is our faith, this is the catholic understanding. Whoever has not said these things, let him be anathema.

All the bishops said: Anathema.

Eusebius the bishop said: Does he say specifically that the Father alone is eternal, and that the Son at some point began to be?

Palladius said: I have neither seen Arius nor do I know who he is. Eusebius the bishop said: The blasphemy of Arius has been brought forward, in which he denies that the Son of God is eternal. Do you condemn this perfidy together with its author, or do you assert it?

Palladius said: Where there is no authority of a full council, I do not speak.

Ambrose the bishop said: Do you hesitate to condemn after the divine judgments, when he has cried out in the midst? And he added: For let the holy men, the legates of the Gauls, speak.

Constantius the bishop and legate of the Gauls said:

This impiety of that man we have always condemned, and now we condemn not only Arius, but also whoever shall not have said that the Son of God is eternal.

Ambrose the bishop said: What also does my lord Justus say?

Justus the bishop and legate of the Gauls said: Whoever does not confess that the Son of God is coeternal with the Father, let him be held anathema.

All the bishops said: Anathema.

Ambrose the bishop said: Let the legates of the Africans also speak, who have brought hither the opinions of all their citizens.

Felix the bishop and legate said: If anyone denies that the Son of God is eternal, and denies that he is coeternal, not I alone, the legate of the whole province of Africa, condemn it, but the entire priestly assembly that sent me to this most holy gathering has itself already condemned it.

Anemius the bishop said: The capital of Illyricum is none other than the city of Sirmium. I therefore am the bishop of that city. Him who does not confess that the Son of God is eternal and coeternal with the Father, which is sempiternal, I pronounce anathema; and also those who do not confess the same.

Ambrose the bishop said: Hear what follows. And it was read out: "The only eternal, the only one without beginning, the only true, the only one having immortality."

Ambrose the bishop said: And in this 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 does anyone say to this?

Palladius said: Who would not call the Son true? Ambrose the bishop said: Arius denied it. Palladius said: Since the Apostle says that Christ is God over all things, can anyone deny that he is the true Son of God?

Bishop Ambrose said: So that you may know how simply the truth is required of us, behold, I say it as you say it, but I hold it only half-full; for when you speak thus, you seem to deny that God is true. But if you confess simply that the Son of God is true God, set it forth in the order that I myself propose.

Palladius said: I speak to you according to the Scriptures; I call the Son of God true Lord.

Bishop Ambrose said: Do you call the Son of God true Lord?

Palladius said: Since I call him true Son, what more is there?

Bishop Ambrose said: I do not seek only that you call him true Son, but that you call the Son of God true Lord.

Bishop Eusebius said: Is Christ true God, according to the faith of all and the catholic profession?

Palladius said: The Son of God is true.

Bishop Eusebius said: For we too are sons by adoption, but he is Son according to the propriety of divine generation. And he added: Do you confess, therefore, that the true Son of God is true Lord, according to divinity and propriety?

Palladius said: I call the Son of God the only-begotten true [Son].

Bishop Eusebius said: Do you therefore think it is against the Scriptures if Christ is called true God?

And when Palladius was silent, Bishop Ambrose said: Whoever says that the Son of God alone is true, and is unwilling to say that the Lord is true, seems to deny it. So let Palladius confess in this order (if indeed he does confess), and let him say whether he calls the Son of God Lord?

Palladius said: Since the Son says, "That they may know you, the only true Lord, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3), [does he say this] 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: Since I call him to you the true Son, I profess also a true divinity.

Bishop Ambrose said: And in this is the fraud. For this is how you are accustomed to speak of one and true divinity, so that you say the true and one divinity is of the Father only, and not also of the Son. Therefore, if you wish to speak openly—since you challenge 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 is He not true God in your opinion?

Palladius said: He is the power of our God.

Bishop Ambrose said: You do not have the freedom to profess it, and therefore 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 has not called Christ the Son of God true Lord. Again he added: Only true, only having immortality.

Bishop Ambrose said: Does the Son of God have immortality, or does He not have it, according to His divinity?

Palladius said: Do you accept the Apostle, or not? "King of kings, who alone has immortality" (1 Tim 6:16).

Bishop Ambrose said: What do you say of Christ the Son of God?

Palladius said: Is Christ a divine name, or a human one?

Bishop Eusebius said: According to the mystery of the flesh indeed He is called Christ, but the same is God and man.

Palladius said: Christ is the name of the flesh, Chrislus is a human name, and answer me this.

Bishop Eusebius said: Why do you dwell on superfluous matters? When the impiety of Arius was being read—he who says this of the Father, that He alone has immortality—you brought forward a testimony in agreement with the impiety of Arius, from the Apostle, saying: Who alone has immortality, and dwells in inaccessible light (Ibid.). But if you understand, he expressed the dignity of the whole nature in the name of God; since indeed in the name of God the Father and the Son are designated.

Palladius said: And you were unwilling to answer what I asked.

Bishop Ambrose said: I ask your opinion plainly: does the Son of God have immortality according to divine generation, or not?

Palladius said: According to divine generation He is incorruptible; through the flesh He died.

Bishop Ambrose said: It is not the divinity that died, but the flesh that died.

Palladius said: First, you answer me.

Bishop Ambrose said: Does the Son of God have immortality according to his divinity, or does he not have it? But you have also betrayed your frauds and snares, not according to the profession of Arius. And he added: He who denies that the Son of God has immortality—what does he seem to you to be?

All the bishops said: Let him be held anathema.

Palladius said: Is the divine state immortal?

Bishop Ambrose said: You do this cunningly too, so that you may express nothing plainly about the Son of God. And I say: The Son of God has immortality according to his divinity. Or deny it, "who has immortality."

Palladius said: Did Christ die, or not?

Bishop Ambrose said: According to the flesh. Our soul does not die. For it is written: Do not fear those who can kill the flesh but cannot kill the soul (Matt. 10:28). Since, therefore, our soul cannot die, do you think that Christ died according to his divinity?

Palladius said: Why do you shrink from the word "death"?

Bishop Ambrose said: On the contrary, I do not shrink from it, but I confess it with respect to my flesh. For there is one through whom I have been freed from the bonds of death.

Palladius said: Death is 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 has immortality. Whoever denies this is the devil.

Palladius said: I have not known Arius.

Bishop Ambrose said: Therefore Arius spoke wrongly, since even the Son of God has immortality according to his divinity. And he added: Did he speak well, or badly?

Palladius said: I do not agree.

Bishop Ambrose said: To whom do you not agree? Anathema to him who does not openly declare the freedom of the faith.

All the bishops said: Anathema.

Palladius said: Say what you wish; his divinity is immortal.

Bishop Ambrose said: Whose? The Father's, or also the Son's? And he added: Arius has heaped up many impieties; let us pass to other matters. And there was read out, THE ONLY WISE.

Palladius said: The Father is wise of himself, but the Son is not wise.

Bishop Ambrose said: Therefore the Son is not wise, though he himself is Wisdom? For we too 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: Therefore he is wise, since he is Wisdom.

Palladius said: We will answer you according to the Scriptures.

Bishop Ambrose said: Indeed, Palladius has attempted to deny that the Son of God is wise (as far as I can see).

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 have 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: Therefore is Christ good?

Palladius said: Good.

Bishop Ambrose said: Arius therefore spoke wrongly of the Father alone, since the Son of God is also God to all.

Palladius said: He who does not say that Christ is good speaks wrongly.

Bishop Eusebius said: Do you confess that Christ is God, who is good? For I too am good. To me he said, "Well done, good servant" (Matthew 25:21). And, "A good man brings forth good things from his treasure" (Luke 6:45).

Palladius said: I have already spoken; I will not answer you now until the full council.

Bishop Ambrose said: The Jews were saying, He is good; and Arius denies that the Son of God is good.

Palladius said: Who can deny this?

Bishop Eusebius said: Therefore the Son of God is good God.

Palladius said: The good Father begot a good Son.

Bishop Ambrose said: We too were begotten 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 good God, which is what is being asked of you. And he added: Whoever does not confess that the Son of God is good God, let him be anathema.

All the bishops said: Anathema. Again he read out, ALONE POWERFUL.

Bishop Ambrose said: Is the Son of God powerful, or not?

Palladius said: He who made all things, is he not powerful? He who made all things, is he less powerful?

Bishop Ambrose said: Therefore Arius spoke wrongly. And he added: Do you condemn Arius even in this?

Palladius said: How do I know what he knows? I answer you on my own behalf.

Bishop Ambrose said: Is the Son of the Lord God powerful?

Palladius said: Powerful.

Bishop Ambrose said: Is God good?

Palladius said: I have already said that the only-begotten Son of God is powerful.

Bishop Ambrose said: The Lord powerful?

Palladius said: The Son of God powerful.

Bishop Ambrose said: The powerful are also men. It is written: Why do you glory in malice, you who are powerful in iniquity (Ps. 51:3)? And elsewhere: When I am weak, then I am powerful (2 Cor. 12:10). This I ask of you, that you confess that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, is powerful; or if you deny it, prove it. For I who say that the power of the Father and of the Son is one, thus say that the Son of God is powerful just as the Father also is. Do you hesitate, then, to confess that the Lord, the Son of God, is powerful?

Palladius said: I have already said that according to the discussion, as we are able, we answer you. For you alone wish to be the judges, you wish to be the litigants. We do not answer you now, but in a general and full council we will answer you.

Bishop Ambrose said: Anathema to him who denies that the Lord Christ is powerful.

All the bishops said: Anathema. Again it was read out: THE ONLY POWERFUL ONE, THE JUDGE OF ALL.

Palladius said: The Son of God is the judge of all. There is one who gives, and one who receives.

Bishop Ambrose said: Did he give by grace, or by nature? And judgment is given to men.

Palladius said: Do you say the Father is greater, or not?

Bishop Ambrose said: I will answer you later.

Palladius said: I will not answer you, if you do not answer me.

Bishop Eusebius said: Unless you condemn the impiety of Arius in order, we will not give you the opportunity to ask questions.

Palladius said: I do not answer you.

Bishop Ambrose said: The Son of God (as has been read) is 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 also this sacrilege that you are attempting.

Palladius said: You do not answer what I ask.

Bishop Eusebius said: We say that the Son of God is God, equal [to the Father].

Palladius said: You are the judge; your stenographers are here.

Bishop Ambrose said: Let your men write, whoever wish to.

Palladius said: The Father is greater, or not?

Bishop Eusebius said: According to his divinity, the Son is equal to the Father. You have it in the Gospel that the Jews were persecuting him because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God (John 5:18). What, therefore, the impious persecutors confessed, we who believe cannot deny.

Bishop Ambrose said: And elsewhere you have: Who, when he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, obedient even to death (Philippians 2:6). And he added: You see that in the form of God he is equal? And he took, he says, the form of a servant. In what, then, is he less? According to the form of a servant, certainly, 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: Either say that the Son of God is lesser according to his divinity.

Palladius said: The Father is greater.

Bishop Ambrose said: According to the flesh.

Palladius said: "He who sent me is greater than I." Was the flesh 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: "I give you my peace, I leave you my peace. Let your heart not 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, because the Father is greater than I" (John 14:27). He did not say, "He who sent me is greater than I."

Palladius said: The Father is greater.

Bishop Ambrose said: Anathema to him who adds anything to the divine Scriptures or takes away.

All the bishops said: Anathema.

Bishop Ambrose said: According to the flesh the Son is less than the Father, according to the divinity he is equal to the Father. I have therefore read that the Son of God is equal to the Father, as even the copies already produced testify. But according to the flesh, why do you wonder that he is less, when he said that he was a servant, when he said that he was a stone, when he said that he was 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 are asserting impious things: we will not answer you without hearers.

Bishop Sabinus said: Let no one require an opinion from him who has blasphemed with so many countless opinions.

Palladius said: We will not answer you.

Bishop Sabinus said: Palladius has 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, he said: Therefore Palladius has risen, because he sees that he must be convicted by the open testimonies of the Scriptures, as he has already been convicted. For thus it has been read, that according to the divinity the Son is equal to the Father. But let him accept that the Son of God according to the divinity has no one greater. It is written: When God had promised to Abraham, since he had no other greater one by whom to swear, he swore by himself (Heb. 6:13). You see, therefore, the Scripture, that he has no other greater one by whom to swear. But it is the Son of whom it is said that he himself was seen by Abraham.

Hence he also said: "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 no one 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 to him who denies that the Son is equal to the Father according to the divinity.

All the bishops said: Anathema.

Palladius said: The Son is subject to the Father, the Son keeps the Father's commandments.

Bishop Ambrose said: Subject according to the reckoning of the flesh. Moreover, you yourself remember that you have read, "No one comes to me unless the Father has drawn him" (John 6:44).

Bishop Sabinus said: Let him say whether he is subject to the Father according to the divinity or according to the incarnation.

Palladius said: Therefore the Father is greater.

Bishop Ambrose said: And elsewhere it is written: "God is faithful, through whom you were called into the communion of his Son" (1 Corinthians 1:9). I say that the Father is greater according to the assumption of the flesh, which the Son of God took up, not according to the divinity.

Palladius said: For what comparison is there of the Son of God? Even the flesh can say, God is greater than I. Was it the flesh speaking, or the divinity, since the flesh was there?

Bishop Ambrose said: The flesh does not speak without a soul.

Bishop Eusebius said: God was speaking in the flesh 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 the divinity, and is man according to the flesh.

Palladius said: He took up flesh.

Bishop Eusebius said: Therefore did he use human words?

Palladius said: He took up human flesh.

Bishop Ambrose said: Let him say that the Apostle did not call him subject according to the divinity, but according to the flesh. For it is written: He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death (Philippians 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 subjected. And he added: Did Arius say well or badly that he was a perfect creature?

Palladius said: I do not answer you, who have no authority.

Bishop Ambrose said: Profess what you wish.

Palladius said: I do not answer you.

Bishop Sabinus said: Do you not answer on behalf of Arius? Do you not answer the questions?

Palladius said: I have not answered on behalf of Arius.

Bishop Sabinus said: You have answered to such an extent that you denied the Son of God to be powerful, denied him to be true God.

Palladius said: I do not endure you as a judge, whom I accuse of impiety.

Bishop Sabinus said: You yourself compelled us to sit.

Palladius said: I ordered you to sit, so that I might accuse you. Why did you steal in upon the emperor? So that there would not be a full council, you crept in.

Bishop Ambrose said: When the impieties of Arius were being covered up, your impiety was likewise condemned, which consented to the Arian impiety. It pleased you to set forth in the middle of the reading of the letter what you wished. Answer was made to you, how the Son of God said the Father is greater, in that according to the assumption of the flesh the Son said the Father is greater. You also proposed that the Son of God is subject, and in this answer was made to you, that the Son of God is subject according to the flesh, not according to the divinity. You have our profession; now hear the rest.

Since you have been answered, respond to what is being read.

Palladius said: I do not answer you, because whatever I have said has not been written down. Only your words are written down. I do not answer you.

Bishop Ambrose said: You see that everything is being written down. Moreover, what has been written is abundant as evidence 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.

Bishop Ambrose said: Less than an hour ago, when it was read that Arius said Christ is a creature, you denied it. It was offered to you that you might condemn the perfidy; you were unwilling. At least now say whether Christ was born of the Father or created.

Palladius said: If you wish, let our shorthand writers come, and so let the whole matter be taken down.

Bishop Sabinus said: Let him bring his own shorthand writers. Palladius said: We will answer you in a full council.

Bishop Ambrose said: Auxentius subscribed in the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea. Let him deny that it happened, since 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 fell silent, Bishop Ambrosius said: Attalus the presbyter, although he is among the Arians, nevertheless has the authority to speak. Let him freely declare whether he subscribed to 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 Ambrosius said: Did you subscribe to the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea, or not?

Attalus said: I do not answer you.

Palladius said: Do you now wish the proceedings to be held in full, or not?

Chromatius the presbyter said: You did not deny that he is a creature. You denied his power; you denied everything that the catholic faith professes.

Bishop Sabinus said: We are witnesses that Attalus subscribed at the Council of Nicaea, and now he refuses to answer. What does it seem to everyone?

And when Attalus fell silent, Bishop Ambrosius said:

Let him say whether he subscribed to the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea, or not.

Palladius said: Let your stenographer and ours stand, and let them write everything down.

Bishop Valerianus said: Everything you have said and denied has already been written down.

Palladius said: Say what you wish.

Bishop Ambrosius said: Since Palladius, who has already been condemned frequently, wishes to be condemned all the more often, I read the letter of Arius, which he refused to condemn. Declare what seems right to you.

All the bishops said: Let it be read.

And it was read: BUT BORN NOT IN APPEARANCE ONLY, and the rest.

Bishop Ambrosius said: I have answered you concerning the greater matter, I have answered you also concerning the subordinate matter; now you answer in turn.

Palladius said: I will not answer unless the authorities come after the Lord's day.

Bishop Ambrosius said: You had come to conduct the proceedings, but after I raised objections against you, you saw the letter of Arius, which you were unwilling to condemn, yet you cannot maintain your position; therefore you now shrink back and quibble. Read it out in full: give an answer to each point. Whether Christ appears to be created, or whether there was a time when Christ was not, or whether the only-begotten Son of God truly always was. When you have heard the letter of Arius, either condemn it or approve it.

Palladius said: Since I charge you with impiety, I do not use you as judge. You are a transgressor.

Bishop Sabinus said: What impieties do you bring against our brother and fellow-priest Ambrose? Say.

Palladius said: I have already told you: I will answer in a full council, with the authors present.

Bishop Ambrose said: In the assembly of my brothers I desire to be confuted and refuted. Therefore say what I have impiously said. But I seem impious to you, who establish piety.

Bishop Sabinus said: Then does he seem impious to you, who convicts the blasphemies of Arius?

Palladius said: I have not denied the good Son of God.

Bishop Ambrose said: Do you then say that Christ is good God?

Palladius said: I do not answer you.

Bishop Valerianus said: Do not press Palladius too much; he cannot simply confess our truths. For his conscience is confounded by a double blasphemy. For he was ordained by the Photinians, and with them he has been condemned; and now he will be more fully condemned.

Palladius said: Prove this.

Bishop Sabinus said: He could not have denied the true Christ in any other way than by following his own authorities.

Bishop Ambrose said: You have charged me with being impious: prove this.

Palladius said: We are bringing our exposition. When we have brought it, then the dispute will be held.

Bishop Ambrose said: Condemn the impiety of Arius.

While Palladius was making excuses, Bishop Eusebius said: We are lingering over superfluous matters. Palladius has been unwilling to condemn so many impieties of Arius; indeed, by asserting them he has rather confessed them. Whoever does not condemn this man is like him, and is rightly to be called a heretic.

All the bishops said: Let Palladius be anathema from us all.

Bishop Ambrose said: Do you agree, Palladius, that the rest be read?

Palladius said: Give us hearers; let recorders come from both sides. You cannot be judges if we have no hearers; and unless those who are to hear have come from both sides, we will not answer you.

Bishop Ambrose said: The hearers whom you seek.

Palladius said: There are many honored men here.

Bishop Sabinus said: After so many blasphemies, do you seek hearers?

Bishop Ambrose said: Priests ought to judge laymen, not laymen priests; but nevertheless, say whom you seek as judges.

Palladius said: Let hearers come.

Chromatius the presbyter said: Saving the condemnation by priests, let even those who are Palladius's own men be read out in full assembly.

Palladius said: Let the hearers not be permitted to speak; let them come, and let there be recorders from both sides, and these men will answer you in a general council.

Bishop Ambrose said: Even if he has been caught in many impieties, we are ashamed that one who claims the priesthood for himself should seem to be condemned by laymen. And for this reason, since in this very matter he is to be condemned—he who awaits the sentence of laymen—when rather priests ought to judge concerning laymen, in accordance with what we have heard today Palladius professing, and in accordance with what he refused to condemn, I pronounce him unworthy of the priesthood, and provision must be made that a catholic be ordained in his place.

All the bishops said: Anathema to Palladius.

Bishop Ambrose said: The most clement and Christian emperor has entrusted the case to the judgment of the priests, and has appointed that they themselves should be the arbiters of the dispute, in whatever matter we had established. Since, therefore, the judgment appears to have been referred to us, the Scripture is our interpreter: let us condemn Palladius, who refused to condemn the sentence of the impious Arius. And because he himself denied the eternal Son of God, and the other things which are attached to the acts, therefore let him be held anathema.

All the bishops said: Let us all condemn him: let him be held anathema.

Bishop Ambrose said: Since all stand here as Christian men, brothers approved by God, and our fellow priests, let each one say what seems right to him.

Bishop Valerian 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 that a man of this kind is alien to the fellowship of priests.

Palladius said: Have you begun to play games? Play on: without an Eastern council we will not answer you.

Anemius, bishop of Sirmium, said: Whoever does not condemn the Arian heresies must necessarily be an Arian. Therefore we decree that this man be again deprived, as one alien even from our communion and from the priestly assembly.

Constantius, bishop of Orange, said: I decree that Palladius, a disciple of Arius, whose impieties were long ago condemned by our fathers in the Council of Nicaea and have now today been brought forth—since, when each of them was being read out to Palladius, he was not confounded, in that he confesses the Son of God to be alien from God the Father along with the creature, and in that he calls him temporal, he denies the true Lord—is to be condemned forever.

Justus the bishop said: I decree that Palladius, who refused to condemn the blasphemies of Arius but even appears rather to confess them, can no longer be called a priest, nor be reckoned among the bishops.

Eventius, bishop of Ticinum, said: I judge that Palladius, who refused to condemn the impiety of Arius, has been removed from the priestly fellowship forever.

Abundantius, bishop of Tridentum, said: Since Palladius defends evident blasphemies, let him know that he has been condemned by the council of Aquileia.

Eusebius, bishop of Bononia, said: Because Palladius not only refused to condemn the impieties of Arius written with a diabolical pen, which it was not lawful even to admit to the ears, but also stood forth as their defender, denying that the Son of God is the true Son, the good Lord, the wise Lord, the eternal Lord, I judge that by my sentence and by the judgment of all catholics he has rightly been condemned from the priestly assembly.

Sabinus, bishop of Placentia, said: Since it has been made clear to all that Palladius is a promoter of Arian perfidy and holds to its impiety, which comes against the evangelical and apostolic institutions, the sentence of the whole council has been justly pronounced against him: and he, although already deprived of the priesthood by the sentence of his depravity, is rightly to be expelled from this sacred assembly.

Felix and Numidius, legates of the Africans, said: The sect of the Arian heresy, in which Palladius was declared at the synod of Aquileia, is anathema. But also those who strive against the truth of the Nicene synod, we condemn.

Limenius, bishop of Vercellae, said: It is manifest that the Arian doctrine has often been condemned; and therefore Palladius, assembled in this holy synod of Aquileia, since he was unwilling to correct or amend, but rather approved, has entangled himself in the reprehensible perfidy which he publicly professed to hold; him, by my sentence, I also declare to be deprived of the priestly fellowship.

Maximinus, bishop of Emona, said: Palladius, who was unwilling to condemn the blasphemies of Arius, but rather himself confessed them, has been justly and deservedly condemned, as God knows, and the conscience of the faithful has condemned him.

Exsuperantius, bishop of Dertona, said: Palladius, who was unwilling to condemn the sect of Arius or his doctrine, but defended it, just as my other colleagues have condemned him, I also condemn.

Bassianus, bishop of Lauda, said: I have heard, as have also my other fellow-priests, the impieties of Arius, which Palladius not only did not condemn but confirmed. Let this man be anathema and be deprived of the priesthood.

Philaster, bishop of Brescia, said: I have condemned together with all the blasphemies and iniquity of Palladius, who follows and defends the Arian doctrine.

Constantius, bishop of Siscia, said: Palladius, who did not condemn the blasphemies and impieties of Arius, I likewise, as have my other fellow-priests, judge to be condemned.

Heliodorus, bishop of Altinum, said: The perfidy of Arius and of all the heretics whose associate Palladius is, and the foolish heart of this man, who has not yielded to the truth, I condemn equally together with my other fellow-priests.

Felix, bishop of Jadera, said: Palladius, who blasphemed the Son, as Arius did, I condemn together with all equally.

Theodore, bishop of Octodorum, said: Palladius, who denied that Christ is true God, coeternal with the Father, we judge to be in no way either a Christian or a priest.

Domninus, bishop of Gratianopolis, said: Palladius, remaining in the perfidy of Arius, I too judge to be condemned forever, just as the brothers also have condemned him.

Proculus, bishop of the Massilians, said: Palladius, who defends the blasphemies of Arius under a certain impious inheritance by not condemning them, just as the sentence of very many venerable priests has already designated him a blasphemer and deemed him alien to the priesthood, so too my sentence likewise designates him condemned forever.

Diogenes, bishop of Genava, said: Palladius, who, while he does not confess Christ the Lord, true God, like and equal to the Father, has denied him, I judge to share the condemnation with my other brothers and fellow-priests.

Amantius, bishop of Nicaea, said: Palladius, who did not destroy the sect of Arius, in accordance with the judgment of my fellow-priests, I also condemn.

Januarius the bishop said: Just as all my fellow priests have condemned Palladius, so I too judge that he is to be condemned by an equal judgment.

And when Secundianus had murmured, Ambrose the bishop said: You have heard, Secundianus, what kind of sentence Palladius in his impiety has received, condemned by the council of priests. Although it has displeased us that you did not shudder at his—that is, Palladius'—madness, nevertheless I ask you something specifically about yourself: whether you say that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is not true God.

Secundianus said: Whoever denies that the Lord, the Father of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, is true, is not a Christian, nor is he who denies that the Son is true Lord.

Ambrose the bishop said: Do you confess that the Son of God is true God?

Secundianus said: I say that the true Son of God, the only-begotten Son of God, is true.

Ambrose the bishop said: Do you say that He is true God?

Secundianus said: Who denies that the true only-begotten Son is the true Son of God?

Eusebius the bishop said: It is not enough that you confess the only-begotten Son of God; for all confess this; but what is troubling is that Arius said that the Lord Father alone is alone true, and denied that the Son of God is the true Lord. Do you simply confess that the Son of God is true God?

Secundianus said: I do not know who Arius was, nor what he said; you are speaking with me, a living man to a living man. I say this, which Christ said: He asserts that the only-begotten Son is of the Father, the only-begotten Son: the Son of God is the true God.

Ambrose the bishop said: He is true God, the true God, the Son, God. And he added: In the divine Scriptures it is written, "that those who swear upon the earth shall swear by the true God" (Isa. 65:16). And there is no doubt that this is certainly about Christ. We therefore confess the true God, and this is our faith and profession, that the only-begotten Son of the Father, that is, the true God. Say you also concerning the true God, that the Son of God is true God.

Secundianus said: Concerning the true God.

Ambrose the bishop said: Is the Son of God the true God?

Secundianus said: Then he is a liar.

Ambrose the bishop said: In this you are committing a fraud, in that you do not call him the true God, but the only-begotten God, and by this say simply: The only-begotten Son of God is the true God.

Secundianus said: I have called the only-begotten Son of God. Eusebius the bishop said: Photinus does not deny this, Sabellius confesses this.

Ambrose the bishop said: And whoever does not confess this is rightly condemned. And by this I often confront you, although by cavilling you have denied the truth. I do not ask that you say only that the only-begotten of God is the Son of God, but also that he is the true God.

Secundianus said: I profess myself a servant of the truth. The things I say are not written down, and the things you say are written down. I say that Christ is the true Son of God. Who denies that the Son of God is true?

Ambrose the bishop said: Whoever denies the only-begotten Son of God, let him be anathema.

Secundianus said: The true God, the only-begotten Son of God? What do you gain for me by that which is not written?

Ambrose the bishop said: It is open sacrilege, when Arius denied that Christ the Son of God is the true God.

Secundianus said: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God, who as Christ is called the true Son—I call him the Son of God.

Ambrose the bishop said: You have not yet come to your senses. And he added: Lest anything seem to have been stolen from him, let him confirm his own opinion. Let him therefore say that the only-begotten Christ, the Son of God, is the true God.

Secundianus said: I have already said it. Why do you wish to extort more from me?

Ambrose the bishop said: What have you said? Surely if you had said so great a thing, which is gloriously spoken, it must often be repeated.

Secundianus said: It has been said: “Let your speech be yes, yes; no, no” (Matt. 5:5).

Ambrose the bishop said: He who says that the Father himself is the Son is sacrilegious. This I ask of you, that you say concerning the true God that the true God, the Son of God, was born.

Secundianus said: I say that the Son, begotten of God—as He Himself says, "I have begotten you" [Ps. 109:3]—the Son who confesses Himself to have been begotten.

Ambrose the bishop said: Is the true God from the true God?

Secundianus said: Even when you add "true" to the name as well, do you hear what kind of faith is in you, and yet you are a Christian?

Eusebius the bishop said: Who denied that He is the true God? Arius and Palladius denied it. If you believe that He is the true God, you ought to state it plainly.

Ambrose the bishop said: If you do not say that the true God was born of the true God, you have denied Christ.

Secundianus said: When asked about the Son, I gave my answer: as I ought to profess, I have answered. We have your exposition; we shall bring ours; let it be read.

Ambrose said: You ought to have brought it today; otherwise you are trying to evade. Demand a profession from me, and I demand a profession from you. Is the Son of God the true God?

Secundianus said: The only-begotten is God, the Son of God. And I ask: is He the only-begotten?

Ambrose the bishop said: Your impiety and folly should move us by reason. When you say "true only-begotten God," you are not saying "true God," but "true only-begotten"; and therefore, so that you may remove this question, answer thus: Is the true God from the true God?

Secundianus said: Therefore did God not beget God? That true God who is, begot what He is; He begot one true only-begotten Son.

Ambrose said: You do not confess the 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 that the one begotten of the Father is truly begotten; I say it to all.

BOOK TWO.

ON THE FAITH, IN THE PERSON OF AMBROSE.

CHAPTER ONE.

Ambrose the bishop said: We know indeed that many and grave heresies have boiled up from very many, and like poison pour the venom of their cancer into the inmost breast (II Tim. 2:17). But those can easily be conquered, or easily avoided, whose whole counsel of heart is betrayed by their first proposition. Yet those who share many things in common with us can easily strike innocent minds dedicated to God alone by their fraudulent fellowship, while they defend the venom of their evils through our good qualities. For nothing can be more dangerous than these heretics, who, though they run through everything soundly, nevertheless by one word, as if by a drop of poison, infect that pure and simple faith of the Lord's tradition and thence of the apostolic tradition.

Therefore we must be exceedingly on guard lest something of this kind secretly insinuate itself into our senses or our ears: because nothing drives a person to death so much as to violate the integrity of the faith itself under the pretext of faith. For just as gypsum mixed with water counterfeits the color of milk, so through a plausible confession an enemy tradition is suggested. For this reason it is not the likeness of the confession but the sense of the mind that must be weighed, by which the confession itself is confirmed. Finally, if you attend more diligently and carefully, as to 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 prove that the Arian heresy has been introduced by a subtle compendium, now that this name has been briefly removed. Nor do I affirm this as something gathered from suspicion or opinion; nor (as they themselves think) do I stand forth as an Academic disputant, so as to twist simple senses of words by subtlety, but so as to expose twisted and depraved senses, composed by a thin argument, into the light of knowledge, so that the iniquity, once known and discovered, may more easily be avoided by all.

For what cause, or what reason, has there existed that what was to be taught and what was to be believed had been handed down to all the Churches, and that our fathers, apostolic men, against all heresies, and especially the Arian, as a kind of barrier of truth, by which they might block all the approaches of pestilential doctrine, inundated with the Holy Spirit, established by catholic reasoning—[what reason exists] that it should be labored to be taken away, not without great effort, by those who are now devoted to the praise of the Arian stain, unless so that they may contrive that the Son of God consisted as mutable and convertible, as being not from the proper substance of the Father: to whom they may now already freely and securely and without hesitation hand down and insinuate to the Churches both 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 often been condemned)?

CHAPTER II.

You see, therefore, that in their treatise they have set down all things, not by evangelical faith, but by crafty malice, to seduce the simple. It ought now to be not so much suspect as manifest to all that they have thus set down God from God, as Arius was accustomed to hand down, so that He was made from God, not born from God. For if He is born, He is of one substance: if He is made, He is not a true Son, and if He is not a true Son, neither is He true God. Or if He is true God and is not from the Father, there are two of us having each our own wills and diverse dominions.

Or if they are one only by concord and fellowship, and not also by substance, then he is not true God, as I have already said; and so he will be God as Moses was to Pharaoh: by power, not by nature. The Son too must be believed to be such as was said to the people through Isaiah: I have begotten sons and exalted them, and elsewhere: You are gods, and all sons of the Most High. But he will be held as firstborn in the way that Israel too was called by God a firstborn son. And indeed also firstborn of all creation, as if he were held firstborn in the order of things made, so that from this they may assign a certain sequence to the things of the world that were to be created. Finally, when the term of one substance has been removed, that is, they have set him as like his Maker, since one thing is likeness and another is truth. For man too was made to the image and likeness of God, and yet he is not God; nor must man be believed to have existed as what God is. So too they wish the Son of God to be like, saying that he is like from elsewhere, not from that one holy and blessed substance of the Father. But if he is not from the substance of the Father, he is, that is, from things that do not exist, as the same Arius handed down. For when that which the Father is has been removed, wherever the Son is from, he must needs have both a beginning from nothing and an origin from time. For nothing is without a beginning except God alone. Whence also the Son, as the Lord himself says: I and the Father are one.

He said this so as to show the terms for two persons in the majesty of one Godhead, just as the prophet also says from the voice of God: "My heart has uttered a good Word; I speak my works to the king" (Ps. 44:2). You see, then, that this good Word is the Son of God, whom we believe to have been born from no other source than the Father's breast and, so to speak, from the womb of God's heart. And therefore he calls him king, because he himself is King of kings; God and Lord, to whom all divine works are subject; who said: "All things that the Father has are mine" (John 16:15). Concerning this 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 nothing was made" (John 1:1). Therefore what was in the beginning must be believed to have always existed. But neither is it from any other source than from him who has no beginning, that is, from the heart of the Father, because "my heart," he says, "has uttered 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 out, you will have it settled beforehand, because "in the beginning," he says, "he 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 was born from the Father. And accordingly, he whose origin has no beginning must be believed to be eternal, because neither can the Father ever be named without the Son, nor the Son be called without the Father, and by this very fact the Son is always, because the Father is always.

And the Word, he says, was God. What is God always is; otherwise, if he had not always been, he 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 Cor. 1:24). "I," he says, "came forth from the mouth of the Most High" (Sir. 24:5). Not therefore from anywhere else than from the Father, because he is 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 is described in Solomon as the beginning of the ways of God—whether founded or begotten or created (Prov. 8)—which nevertheless he says was so founded that it was always with God. For what beginning will you give to God, such that you can mark out a beginning of his Wisdom? For God did not so found his Wisdom as if he had at some time been without Wisdom. But when he calls it the beginning of his ways, he shows the beginning of the movement of some work, so that the Wisdom of God has this beginning—that it proceeded from God to found all things, both heavenly and earthly—not that it began to be in God. Wisdom was therefore created—or rather begotten—not for itself, which always was, but for those things which had to be made by it; so that, since it could not be known how great and of what kind it was, its virtue and power might be known from the effect of its works, so that while we estimate the Creator from the things created, we may then fear him more when we marvel at the things he has made.

But if you say that Wisdom was created in such a way that you understand the Son of God to be a creature, the Apostle confronts you, condemning those who worship the creature, saying: For this cause God gave them up unto the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, so that they dishonor their own bodies in themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed God for ever (Rom. 1:24). This, I say, is that Wisdom of God which says: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Sir. 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 established, in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or powers, or principalities, or authorities; all things were created through him and in him, and he is before all things, and all things consist in him (Col. 1:16). Hence also Solomon: Since, he says, being one, she can do all things, and remaining in herself, she renews all things, and through the nations she passes into holy souls (Wis. 7:27). Confirming this, the Apostle says that Christ dwells in the inner man, so that through him through whom all things were made from the beginning, through him also in the end all things may be saved (Eph. 3:16).

CHAPTER III.

But you say to me that the name "of one substance" ought not to be used for this reason, that it is not contained in the divine Scriptures. I ask you in turn, O man who forbid this: is it because it ought not to be named since it is not written, or because it is not lawful so to believe? For if it is to be believed, why is it not to be professed? For with the heart, says the Apostle, man believeth unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom. x, 10). Or if it is not to be named for the reason that it is not even to be believed, then the assertion of the Arian plague has prevailed—which denied that the Father and the Son are of one substance, because it brings in the Son of God as made now from nothing, now from the Father but from another substance, when he willed and as he willed and from whence he willed—provided only that it contrive that he existed from some other source and not from that whereby he is Father. For even if it calls him begotten, this is only in word, because it again understands everything that is begotten as made; inasmuch as we too are called begotten of God, who are plainly a creature. Or if you are not an Arian, and you acknowledge the true Son begotten of the true Father, not made, why do you not say that he is one substance with the Father? In vain, O man, do you fear to profess what you believe; or in vain do you believe, if you do not so believe, and you are deservedly called a heretic.

And although you have not altered the statement by which you are thought to have forbidden the Son of God to be called a creature, yet when you add, "as one of those things that are made," you openly show that you did not wish the word "creature" to be avoided for this reason, as though he ought not to be understood as made; but you do not wish him to be made in the way that one of those things that are made is, yet nevertheless made. For you say he was made in another way, as being a perfect creature, through whom all things were made; provided that you understand him also to be made, though not as the rest. But to return to what you say, that in the divine Scriptures, that is, the term "of one substance," is not found, suppose for the moment that it is so; on the ground that wherever "substance" is read, the thing of God is taken, not God; what then of the fact that you equally profess another thing that is not written, namely, God from God, and light from light? What do you say to these things? Either hold with me in all, or omit all. For if you refuse to say the term "of one substance" because it is not written, you ought likewise to fear to profess God from God, and light from light. But I prove that God from God, and light from light, and the term "of one substance" are contained in the divine Scriptures. For since the Son of God himself, who is God, says in his Gospel: I came forth from the Father: rightly and deservedly we profess God from God, because we know that the Son of God, true God from true God, was born of God the Father. But not in that kind in which we are called gods.

Or as Moses is called God of Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1); but because He is the true Son, born of the true Father, not made, He must truly and confidently be called God from God. So too you say with me, "light from light" (which is not written); but you do not at all agree with me. And because it is written of the Father: "God is light"; and of the Son: "He was the true light which enlightens every man coming into this world" (1 John 1:5); and: "The light shines in the darkness," that is, Christ in the world, "and the darkness did not overtake it" (John 1:9). These, namely, are the men whose heart is blinded by the darkness of ignorance, who did not recognize Christ as true God and the true Son of God. But the Lord Himself says: "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12). Therefore, since the Father is light and the Son is light, rightly "light from light." But you assert "light from light" as if from the Father, who is the true light, another light has been made, which is not of the Father's own substance; but like any other light, although it is made by God, is nevertheless far different from Him who made it; and therefore you say "light from light," not "of light." Since, then, I have said these things beforehand; although you do not understand with me, yet however you pronounce these very words, since they are not written—do you not also equally with me confess the term "of one substance," which you think is not contained in the Scriptures?

unless because there you had a way to conceal your malignant senses in both by hidden fraud, so that you might express the very same thing with me in the sound of the voice, yet separate far the understanding of the saying. As also those heretics who deny the resurrection of the flesh, to deceive the souls of the simple, say "woe" to those who do not rise again in the flesh. But if you examine them as to why they said this, since you know that they altogether deny the resurrection of the flesh, they will say to you: "Woe indeed will be to him who has not been baptized in the flesh, so that his soul, while it is in the body, may rise again in the same body through baptism from the death of its sins, as from the tomb of crimes." For they defend the resurrection in the flesh of the soul alone, through the grace of the washing that has been avoided; for they also exclude the salvation of the flesh itself. And these, through a plausible confession, seduce the minds of the innocent by hidden fraud. And as a deadly draught tempered with the sweetness of honey, by its deceiving pleasantness, usually kills; so also this evil, through the flattery of the ears, contaminating the senses of the hearers with a certain stain, infects them with the contagion of the clinging vice.

CHAPTER IV.

Finally, even now they could name it in word only, as they do the rest, if they had a way to pervert it to another understanding with their savage sense. But when they saw that they were hemmed in by this word, they wished no mention at all to be made of it, lest either by professing it they should believe it, or, believing it, they should seem to have professed it: excusing it with subtle ingenuity, on the ground that either it was not written, or that God ought not to be called substance, lest he be believed to be corporeal. For God, they say, brings it about that substance exists, yet not that God himself is reckoned as substance. Indeed (they say), since every substance admits of a contrary, but God, who can admit nothing diverse, ought not to be called substance. I would forgive you if you said this simply, if you wished to know the reason of the matter, if you came to this question as a novice, if you were not the very one who always asserted the Son of God to be either of another substance, or of no existing things. But since you are the same man who, often convicted on this point, often confessed, often denied, and more often by changing otherwise have been condemned, who even now by force, ambition, and power agitate and throw all things into confusion: how do you think I can forgive you as you repeatedly take up the same things again? But lest this perversity should seem to be condemned as prejudged rather than examined, let me briefly answer you concerning this objection. You therefore forbid substance to be named in God, as though everything that is called substance were held to be the very thing of one kind.

Are you unaware that heavenly things and earthly things exist in different ways, and that there is a great difference even among the heavenly and worldly things themselves? For the angels received the substances of their constitutions in one way, and each of the powers in another, as the Apostle says: There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars (1 Cor 15:41). So too in this world, as there are diverse kinds of things, so there are diverse bodies of living creatures, and each kind has its own substance, as the Apostle says: Not all flesh is the same flesh (ibid., 39). If, then, the things made by God have diverse qualities of their own substances, do you think that in God there is such a substance as one of these things that has been made has, so that it could receive contraries? Far be it. For what is the substance of God except that very thing which God is—simple, singular, pure, mixed with nothing by any compounding, clear, good, perfect, blessed, whole, entirely holy? Or do you think that what God is is something empty and void? For to say this is blasphemy, that he through whom all things stand, who brought forth all things by his word, composed them by reason, perfected them by his power, by whose nod and command all things are governed and all things serve—that he should be thought empty. And well is it written in the law concerning God: I am who I am; and: He who is sent me (Exod 3:14). And the Savior and Lord himself says: This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3).

God, therefore, exists in his own substance, the knowledge of whom is eternal life, and who is as great as cannot be spoken. He is then worthily esteemed when he is called inestimable—whether you will or not. Therefore that very thing which he is, this is the substance of the matter which is asserted to exist; yet, as has already been said, how great and of what kind it is can neither be conceived by the mind, nor estimated by the senses, nor defined by the soul. Provided only that it be established that he exists, who is believed to exist; so that from that very thing which God is, the Son is thence, so that the Son is true, and the Father is true in the Son, and the Son in the Father. This will be, that is, of one substance with the Father. As the Lord himself says, I am in the Father, and the Father in me (John 14:11). I and the Father are one (John 10:30); and: I came forth from the Father (John 16:28); and: He who sees me sees also the Father (John 14:9). Not undeservedly, because the Son of God was born of God the Father; and therefore they are one in the unity of substance and in the majesty of the Godhead, as Jeremiah also prophesied: Who shall stand in the substance of the Lord, and shall see the word of the Lord (Jer. 23:18)? And again: If they had stood in my substance, and if they had heard my words, I would have turned them away from their most wicked pursuits (Ibid., 22). And in Solomon: My substance is my sweetness (Wis. 16:31).

CHAPTER V.

Since, therefore, you recognize this unity of substance in the Father and the Son not only by prophetic but also by evangelical authority, how do you say that it is not found in the divine Scriptures? As if it were something other than what he says: I came forth from God the Father (John 16:28); and, I and the Father are one (John 10:30); or what the prophets declared openly concerning the substance of God? But this is the meaning of the name, that you believe the unity of substance in the Father and the Son, although you cannot define the thing itself (which is ineffable); so that whether you say light from light, or word from word, or spirit from spirit, or Lord from Lord, whatever you say of him, you nevertheless believe the Father and the Son to be of one essence, and from that very fact that he is Father, you understand the Son. For if you make any comparison in him from these things which are seen, by the very dissimilarity of things you will not show the reason, but will introduce a quarrel of disputations. And because it is written from the voice of God: To whom will you compare me (Isaiah 46:5)? and therefore God, to whom nothing can be likened, let it suffice to believe what he himself is perceived to be, because he willed himself to be believed, not pointed out. Finally, if concerning this very thing which you profess with me, you wish to bring some likeness to God, I do not know whether you can define more expressly what you have compared. For example, when you say light from light, if you are compelled to explain it by a scrupulous narration, I ask how you believe light from light.

Whether as a lamp from a lamp, or as a sun from a sun, so that under this example you introduce either two lamps or two suns as though two gods. Or the splendor of the light of the same lamp, or the brightness of the sun shining from the same sun, you mark out as light from light, so that you liken the Father to the source of light and show the Son as the splendor of brightness; as the prophet said of him: With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light. Or Solomon, when he says: She is the brightness of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of his goodness. Or the Apostle here proclaimed that our Savior is the image of the invisible God, in that the image of the sun is its own light which proceeds from the same sun. But how much can be answered to these things which generate disputes (which the Apostle forbids), it is long to say: since indeed it is established that that light which God is cannot be estimated, comprehended, or defined; nor can anything truly from those things which are in this world be compared to the divine majesty, because nothing of all those things which are seen or spoken can be estimated by a worthy likeness according to what God is; since he is greater than minds and senses themselves. Therefore I warned beforehand that you should believe the divinity of the substance, and know the true Son from the true Father: but concerning the quality of the thing you ought not to inquire, because you cannot know what sort or how great it is.

For this the prophets, this the apostles preached.

CHAPTER VI.

Finally, according to our capacity, our strength, our faith, let us consider what God is, and let us see whether anything can be compared to him. Surely this is he of whom even when he is spoken of, he cannot be spoken of; when he is estimated, he cannot be estimated; when he is compared, he cannot be compared; when he is defined, he grows by his very definition. He who covers the heaven with his hand, encloses the whole circuit of the world in his fist. Whom all things wholly do not know, and yet know by fearing him. To whose name and power this world is subject, and the momentary succession of the elements themselves bears witness. See, therefore, whether there can be anything to which the Father and the Son can be compared; because the Son is such as the Father also is. For he would not have said that he is one with the Father, unless he knew himself to be such as the Father is. There is a certain ratio which among the Greeks is named, which distinguishes the persons or terms between the Father and the Son: because the Son himself is also called ratio: which ratio nevertheless is called by many names. Now the Word, now power, now wisdom, now the right hand, now the arm, now the pearl, now the treasure, now the nets, now the plow, now the fountain, now the rock, now the cornerstone, now the field, now the man, now the vine, now the eagle, now the lion, now the way, now the truth, and the life: since he is God all in all, so that through these terms the mysteries of the divine dispensations may be known, not that the majesty itself of the Son of God may be shown to be properly defined.

For what else is this concerning him than that he is the Father? Another, the same. For he is also called the Word for this reason, because he proceeded from the divine mouth itself, and the Father without him neither commanded nor did anything. He is called Virtue, because he is truly from God and always with God, and all the power of the Father consists in him. He is called Wisdom, because coming from the bosom of the Father, he revealed heavenly secrets to believers. He is called the Right Hand, because through him all divine works were perfected. He is called the Drachma, because all things are contained by him. He is called the Pearl, so that nothing may be held more precious than he. He is called the Treasure, so that in him all the wealth and riches of the heavenly kingdoms may be acknowledged as stored up. He is called the Net, because through him and in him, from the sea of this world, a diverse multitude of nations like fish, through the water of baptism, is gathered into the Church, where the distinction between good and evil is recognized. He is called the Plow, because by the sign of his cross hard hearts are subdued, so that they are prepared for the necessary seed. He is called the Fountain of living water, because from him thirsty hearts are irrigated by the grace of the water of life. He is called the Rock, because he grants strength to believers and hardness to unbelievers. He is called the Cornerstone, because, containing both walls of the New and Old Testament in himself, he joined them together as one and mediator. He is called the Lamb, so that the innocence and passion of Christ may be shown. He is called Man, because according to the flesh he deigned to be born for us men.

He is called a calf, because for our salvation he endured to suffer. He is called an eagle, because after his venerable resurrection, like the king of birds, he flies back to the Father's throne. He is called a lion, because he is himself the King of kings, who by the power of his own might crushed death and the devil. He is the Way, because through him is the ascent. The Truth, because he knows not falsehood. He is the Life, because he himself gives life to all things. You see, therefore, that through these terms the meanings of the divine dispensations and works are foretold, yet he himself is not properly defined as God? Therefore the Father is God, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, inestimable. There is also his Son, our God and Lord, as great as the Father is, but not from any source other than the Father; for he says, I came forth from the Father, that is, light from light (John 16:28).

CHAPTER VII.

But lest the heretic seize any occasion from this, when I set forth two names or two persons, that is, of the Father and the Son, as if I were speaking of two gods, as they imagine two from a diversity: we, however, so name the Father and the Son that we mark one God in these persons and names. Let the philosophers see to it, let the heretics see to it, their disciples who are varied by the diversity of powers. To us, however, there is one God, the Father, as the Apostle said, from whom are all things, and we from him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, through whom are all things, and we through him.

For what else are the two understood to be, than the substance of two divided into parts, and a nature separated along with the names themselves, and both the will to act and the commands to command divided? Further, the Father and the Son, although they are believed to be two persons, are yet one in reason and substance. For the appearance of unequals is an offense to the better, and he is compared to the injury of him who is true God, while another is not true. He who unjustly compares God violates him. But when I set forth the Father and the Son, I assign the unity of their kind. And if I divide that unity among persons, yet the distinction of persons, by the law of a natural covenant, again seals the same names into their unity. Whence also the Son is as great as the Father shall be seen to be, whole from whole, entire from entire, perfect from perfect and consummate virtue: as the Apostle says: In whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). For Jeremiah also, most accepted of the prophets, knowing this unity of the Godhead in the Father and the Son, says: This is our God, and no other shall be reckoned besides him: who found out every way of prudence, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. After these things he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men (Baruch 3:36-38).

And Isaiah proclaims this very thing, saying: Thus says the Lord God: Egypt is wearied, and the trade of the Ethiopians, and the Sabaeans, lofty men, shall pass over to you: they shall be your servants, and shall walk after you bound in fetters, and shall pray to you; because God is in you, and there is no other God besides you; for you are God (Isa. 45:14). And lest you think I have said this with that arrogance which is attributed to Sabellius, who professes that the Father himself is the Son himself, we do not so force everything into one meaning as to be caught by the fraud of other heretics. But because by that very name of persons the authority is recognized as undivided, and the Son is named from the Father not by kind but personally, therefore we ascribe to the Father everything that is the Son's, and to the Son everything that is the Father's. Nothing will seem not to be the Father's which is judged to be the Son's; nor the Son's, which is defended as the Father's: because the unity of majesty does not allow gods to be called by a plural word: since indeed it is established that the Father and the Son are of one substance; whence each is called one God. We fear this before all things, lest if the Father and the Son are not one, the interpolated nativity should redound to the discredit of the author. For this has pleased the heretics, that that God almighty, invisible, immeasurable, should degenerate in the Son; not only with power but also with condition changed, as though the Father could not have from himself such a Son as he himself is.

Therefore we defend the true Son from the true Father, who always was and is of one substance with the Father. And this is what the Greeks call [homoousion], that is, one thing with another, so that the hearing of the names might produce persons, not that the terms might separate the substance.

CHAPTER VIII.

But so that I may expose the whole mystery of the Arian heresy—why they are unwilling that the Son be believed to be from the substance of the Father—I will briefly set it forth. For they say: Since God the Father is almighty, invisible, unchangeable, immutable, perfect, always the same, eternal; but the Son is visible, because he was often seen by the fathers; and changeable and mutable, because he showed himself in various figures to each individual. If he were, they say, of the substance of the Father, it could never happen that before the assumption of the flesh he would be perceived as either visible or mutable; but rather he would have remained in the equality in which the Father is, from whose substance he was: because what is from the Father must be believed to be able neither to be seen, nor to be changed, nor to be altered. It adds to the case that when he came into Mary, when he filled the womb of the Virgin, something other than what had come was certainly born from her. Hence now, they say, the substance being corrupted has turned its state, has lost its order, being formed by that very change from God into man, from spirit into flesh. And indeed all translation is the destruction of what was before.

And therefore, they say, if the Son were of the Father's substance, then the Father would already appear to be lesser, either by the transmission or by the limitation of his own substance; and for this reason they preferred to believe that the Son is from another substance, because this can be turned and changed and seen, since it is not permissible to believe this of the Father's substance. This is the cause of error, this is the origin of the Arian heresy, while they do not understand the power of God, nor acknowledge the dispensation of so great a mystery, so as to compare God with human conditions. To these it must first be answered that the Son of God was not seen as God was, but as man could grasp concerning God. Then, in various figures, he is not mutable and changeable, but this is the dispensation of God, that when he deigns to reveal himself to individuals as he wills, he changes the appearance, not turning his substance; nor does he lose the property of his quality, but according to the merit of the one who sees, he applies a measure of majesty; yet he himself remains the same, as he always is, and abides in the property of his substance. As it is written: You shall change them and they shall be changed, but you are the same, and your years shall not fail.

For even though there are many things among those that are seen in this world which are changed from one thing into another, so that they cease to be what they were and become what they previously were not—as clay, when it is formed into a man, ceases already to be clay; as fish or birds, when they come forth from the water, are no longer water, because they are something else; as the potter's clay, when it is hardened into a potsherd; as stone, when being burned it is dissolved into lime; as sand, when it is changed into glass; and the rest, which it would be long to enumerate—yet there is a great difference, foolish heretic, between the things that were made and the one who made all things as he willed. The things that were made are subject to the condition assigned to them; but he who made them is of his own will and his own right. Nor can he be changed into something other than what he is by any compulsion, but as he wills and to whom he wills he shows himself. For if angels have often been seen in the form of men, and yet are not anything other than what they know themselves to be, nor do they change their substance when they assume the form of a human body, how much more our Lord himself, who made all things, who granted to the angels themselves by his own ordinance that they could do this? To this it is added that, as has already been said, we affirm that the Son of God was so seen by the Fathers that not everything in him that is God was seen, but that the dispositions of future things, which were to be fulfilled in their several times, were discerned in him through an image.

For who could have seen the Son of God before he assumed visible matter as it pleased him, or deigned to put on man himself? And though he was seen by Abraham (Gen. 18), yet he was seen in the form of a human body, so that it might be shown that he would later come in man in the last times. Jacob too is seen, in one place in an angel, in another likewise in a man (Gen. 28). He showed himself in an angel for this reason, that he might indicate himself as the messenger of the great counsel. But in a man, with whom he is also described as having wrestled, so that he might plainly indicate the image of the future wrestling that he was to have with Israel (Gen. 32:30) when he had come according to man. But so that he might believe him to be the Lord with whom he wrestled with such great struggle under the figure of a man, Israel—that is, a man seeing God—received the name. For he said, I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved (Exod. 3:2). And indeed he had seen the figure of a man, which the Son of God had put on. To Moses he appeared in the bush in a flame of fire, so that he might show himself as light to believers and judgment to unbelievers: because Christ is salvation to believers, but punishment to unbelievers, as the Apostle says: To some an odor of life unto life, to others an odor of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16). He went before the people of Israel by day in a column of cloud, and by night in a column of fire, as it were the leader of the journey (Exod.

For he showed the grace of baptism through the cloud and the gift of the Holy Spirit through fire, since the apostle Paul writes that the fathers were baptized in the cloud (1 Cor. 10:2). And that the Spirit is as fire, the Acts of the Apostles declares (Acts 2:3). You see, therefore, heretic, that through these figures the marks of the divine dispensations were shown beforehand to the fathers in honor of God, yet God himself was not properly revealed as he is. Finally, when Moses prayed that he might see the face of God purely, what did God say to him at once? You cannot, he said, see my face. For man shall not see my face and live (Exod. 33:20). By the very fact that the sight is denied, the glory is indicated—namely, it is as great as it must be believed to be, since it is declared invisible. Therefore, although Moses set forth, indicated, and expressed both the order of heaven and the courses of the world and the successions of the elements, and finally the ornaments of the whole globe, to whom the Lord himself bore witness, saying: There will be no one among the prophets like my servant Moses, to whom I spoke face to face, mouth to mouth (Num. 12:7), yet he could not see God purely. Rightly indeed was he worthy of all prophecy, but not to such a degree that he could behold God, because he was only a man.

And indeed here we defend all the words of the Son, whom we know spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai, who had come from the Father to accomplish and unfold these things; because it was fitting that all things from the beginning be ordered and unfolded and sustained through him, so that this principal account of the Son's nature might stand firm. And yet he is received as having been seen in such a way that he seemed visible by the arrangement of some visible matter, as I said, with his invisibility of course preserved, which the majesty poured around him set apart from the sight of all. For he was not revealed to human sight in such a way that the whole Godhead appeared in him, but after the manner of a mirror, when he encloses the features conceived within his own light as if to the full likeness of a man; thus, with the radiance of his majesty going before, he was seen within that which would show the image of the truth, not God himself properly. So too when he deigned to put on man, he brought no stain upon eternity, so as to change the spirit into flesh, but so as to bestow upon the man he took up immortality and the eternity of heavenly life. For even if the Apostle says that he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), we certainly do not understand him to have been so emptied that the same spirit became something other than what it was, but that, with the honor of his majesty set aside for a time, he put on a human body, and by taking it up, became the salvation of the nations.

For just as the sun, when it is covered by a cloud, has its brightness restrained, not blinded, and that light which, diffused through the whole world, pours over all things with clear splendor, is enclosed by a very small obstacle of cloud, not taken away: so also that man whom our Lord and Savior, that is, God and the Son of God, put on, did not extinguish the divinity in him, but concealed it. Finally, when he had raised himself a little beyond that man, the apostles were almost blinded by the flash of his light (Matt. 17) — for the men fell to the ground — and their life was in danger, unless the Lord, having again restrained the honor of his majesty, had come to their aid as the merciful one, according to that saying: No one has seen God and lived (Exod. 33:20). Therefore, just as the brightness of the sun, when it does not shine forth all the way to our sight, is safe in itself, because what is not seen is a matter of our weakness, whose eyes the darkness of clouds has covered: so also that divine majesty, which (as I said) had put on a body, proves that it lay hidden not to the detriment of its own radiance, but, as I said, by the benefit of the flesh, for whose sake the Son of God endured to be the Son of man. For indeed the Virgin conceived by the Spirit of God, and what she conceived, that she bore, that is, God joined to his man (as I have already said): just as he himself said: What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit, because God is Spirit, and he is born of God (John 3:6).

Just as the angel also says to Mary the virgin: The Spirit of God will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the holy one who will be born of you will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). Do you see, then, that the very Spirit, that is the Son of God, came to the Virgin, and that from her proceeded the Son of God and of man? And yet the Son of God was not changed by that garment of flesh, but the same one is in the man who was with the Father before the world, through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, as the evangelist says: The world was made through him, and the world did not know him (John 1:10). Otherwise it is the mark of a madman to believe that one can be set free by him who, in order to set free, was lost; who, in order to be born, was oppressed; who, in order to restore immortality, passed over to death. But far be it, far be it, heretic, that the sense of your iniquity be admitted by catholics. For we believe the Word and Spirit, that is the Son of God, to be unchangeable and inconvertible: who, when he put on man, did not change his state, did not lose his order, did not alter his substance, but illumined the floods of that same body with the eternal light of his divinity, so that through the path of his body the light of the Holy Spirit and the grace of eternal life might overflow to us. And although we believe him to have suffered and been buried, yet that man suffered whom the Son of God took up, whom he put on, whom he carried. But because whatever that man suffered was referred to the whole author, therefore the death and passion are declared to be the Lord's.

By nature it is also established that what belongs to God is immortal, and what belongs to man is perishable. On the third day, too, he rose again—not God into man, but rather man into God. He ascended into the heavens and offered to his Father that man as a most pleasing gift. He sat down at the right hand of the Father, according to what is written: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand (Ps. 109:1). He sent to us the Holy Spirit from his own and the selfsame one substance—the protector, sanctifier, and guide into eternal life; as it is written from the voice of God: I will pour out of my Spirit upon my servants and my handmaids (Joel 2:29). And again: The Spirit will proceed from me (Isa. 57:16). And the Lord and Savior himself says: He will receive from what is mine (John 16:14)—from that, surely, which the Son is, because the Son also is from that which the Father is. Thereafter, at the appointed time, he will come to judge the living and the dead, to render rewards to believers and punishments to unbelievers. His kingdom is eternal, immortal, and has neither beginning nor end; to him be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

LETTER OF THE COUNCIL OF AQUILEIA TO THE BISHOPS OF GAUL.

The council assembled at Aquileia, to the most beloved brothers, the bishops of the province of Vienne and of Narbonensis Prima and Secunda.

We give thanks to your holy unanimity, because in our lords and brothers Constantius and Proculus you brought to us the presence of all of you; and at the same time, following the prescriptions of our forefathers, you added no small weight to our judgments, with which the profession of your holiness also agrees, most beloved lords and brothers. Therefore, just as we gladly received the aforementioned holy men from your and our fellowship, so too we send them back with abundant thanksgiving. But how necessary this assembly was is made clear by the facts themselves, since the adversaries and enemies of God, the interpreters and defenders of the Arian sect, Palladius and Secundianus—the only two who dared to come to the council—received the sentence they deserved, being present and convicted of impiety. May our God almighty keep you safe and most flourishing, most beloved lords and brothers.

LETTER OF THE SAME COUNCIL TO THE EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN, AND THEODOSIUS

To the most clement emperors and blessed Christian princes, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, the holy council assembled at Aquileia.

Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave you the Roman empire; and blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who guards your kingdom by his loving-kindness, to whom we give thanks on your behalf, most clement princes, because you have shown your zeal for the faith as well, who decreed that a council of priests be gathered to remove disputes, and by your graciousness preserved honor for the bishops, so that no one who was willing should be absent, and no one should be compelled against his will. And so, in accordance with the statutes of your gentleness, we assembled without the ill will of the crowd and with a desire for discussion; nor were any bishops found among the heretics except Palladius and Secundianus, men of ancient perfidy, on whose account they were demanding that a council be gathered from the farthest part of the Roman world. Behold, no one weighed down by the years of old age, whose mere hoary head should be revered, was forced to come from the farthest bosom of the Ocean sea, and nothing was lacking to the council. No one dragging a weakened body, burdened by the wages of fasts, was compelled by the hardship of the journey to bewail the losses of lost strength. Finally, no one groaned over poverty, which is glorious among priests, being destitute of the means to come.

Hence in you, most clement of princes Gratian, that which divine Scripture praised has been fulfilled: Blessed is he who understands concerning the needy and the poor (Ps. 40). But how grave a matter it would be if, on account of two men festering in perfidy, the Churches throughout the whole world should be deprived of priests? Even if these men could not come because of the length of the journey, yet nearly all from almost all the Western provinces were present by sending legates; and by clear disputations they indicated that they held what we assert and agreed with the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea, as the attached documents declare. Everywhere, therefore, now for your empire the vows of the peoples resound in harmony. Nor yet have the assertors of the faith been lacking at your judgment. For although the prescriptions of the ancestors were evident, from which it is impious and sacrilegious to deviate, nevertheless we offered the opportunity of disputing. And first we discussed the very beginning of the question that arose, and we thought that the letter of Arius himself should be read out, who is found to be the author of the Arian heresy. From him indeed the heresy received its name, for this reason namely, that since they had been accustomed to deny that they were Arians, they might either condemn the blasphemies of Arius by accusing them, or defend them by asserting them, or at least not refuse the name of him whose impiety and perfidy they followed.

But because they could neither condemn their author nor approve him, when they themselves had issued the challenge to debate three days beforehand and, at the appointed place and time, had not come out to the meeting they had agreed upon, suddenly those who had said that, since they were Christians, they would easily prove their case (which we gladly accepted and desired that they prove it) began at once to shrink from the encounter and to avoid the debate. Yet we had much discussion with them: the divine Scriptures that had been set forth were in the midst; opportunity for debating was given from the first hour of the day until the seventh; patience was extended. And would that they had said but a few things, or at least that we could erase what we heard. For by sacrilegious utterances (when Arius, by calling the Father alone eternal, alone good, alone true God, alone possessing immortality, alone wise, alone powerful, had wished the Son to be understood by impious suggestion as devoid of these), these men chose to follow Arius rather than to confess the Son of God as eternal God, and true God, and good God, and wise, and powerful, and possessing immortality. We spent many hours to no purpose. Their impiety kept growing, and could in no way be corrected.

Finally, when they saw themselves hard pressed by the sacrileges of Arius' letter (which we have therefore appended, so that your clemency too might shudder at it), resisting from the middle of the reading of the letter, they asked that we respond to their propositions, although it was neither in order nor reasonable that we should interrupt what had been set out beforehand; and it had been answered by us that they should condemn the impieties of Arius, and that, with order and place preserved, we would respond to their intentions concerning whatever they wished; nevertheless we complied with their preposterous will. Then, falsifying the writings of the Gospel, they set before us that the Lord said: He who sent me is greater than I: although the sequence of the Scriptures teaches that it is written otherwise. They were refuted concerning the falsity, so that they admitted it, and yet were not corrected by reason. For when we said that according to the assumption of the flesh the Son is called less than his Father; but according to the divinity, as the testimonies of the Scriptures prove, he is shown to be equal and co-equal; nor can there be any degree of distinction or of greatness where there is unity of power: not only did they refuse to amend their error, but they even began to increase their madness, so as to say that he is subject according to the divinity, as if there could be any subjection of God according to the divinity. Finally, they refer death not to the sacrament of our salvation, but to a certain weakness of the divinity. We shudder, most clement princes, at such dreadful sacrileges; and we have judged that the depraved teachers must be deprived of the priesthood, lest they deceive the peoples whom they held any further.

For it is not fitting that they claim the priesthood of him whom they have denied. We beseech your faith, we beseech your glory, that you defer reverence to the author of your empire, and that you decree that the assertors of impiety and adulterers of the truth, once the letters of your clemency have been given to the competent courts, are to be driven from the thresholds of the Church, so that in place of the condemned, through the envoys of our lowliness, holy priests may be substituted. Let the same sentence also overtake the presbyter Attalus, who has confessed to prevarication and openly clings to sacrileges. For what shall we say of his master Valens? who, when he was near, declined the priestly council, lest he be compelled to plead the causes of his own country and of ruined citizens before the priests; who also, defiled by Gothic impiety with a torc (as is asserted) and a bracelet, dressed in the manner of the gentiles, dared to go forth into the sight of the Roman army. Which is without doubt sacrilegious not only in a priest, but even in any Christian. For it is abhorred by Roman custom; unless perhaps the priests of idols are accustomed thus to go forth among the Goths. Let the priestly name move your piety, which that sacrilegious man defames; who is also accused of a nefarious crime by the voices of his own men, who can nevertheless survive.

Certainly let him return to his own house, let him not contaminate the most flourishing cities of Italy—he who now by illicit ordinations joins to himself men like himself, and seeks a seedbed of his own impiety and perfidy through certain ruined men, to abandon those whom he never even began to be bishop of. For at first he had been set over the holy man Marcus, of admirable memory, a priest, at Petavio; and after he was shamefully cast down from Petavio by the people, since he could not be there, he now at Milan, after the overthrow of the fatherland (not to say its betrayal), has ridden roughshod. Over all these matters, therefore, let your piety deign to console us, lest we, obeying the statutes of your tranquility, seem to have assembled in vain. For we must beware not only that our decrees be mocked, but also yours. We ask therefore that your clemency deign also to hear the holy men, the legates of the council, and command them to return more speedily with the accomplishment of the things we request: that you may receive a reward from the Lord God Christ, whose Churches you have purified from every stain of the sacrilegious.

We also ask that the Photinians, whom you have also censured by a previous law, decreeing that they ought to hold no assemblies, and whom you removed from the council convened for the gathering of priests—since we have learned that they are still attempting assemblies in the town of Sirmium—your clemency, now that assembly is again forbidden, may order them to show reverence first to the Catholic Church, and then also to your laws, so that you too, with God as your guide, may triumph, you who provide for the peace and quiet of the churches.

NAMES OF THE BISHOPS WHO SUBSCRIBED.

Valerianus,

Ambrosius,

Constantius,

Justus,

Abundantius,

Eventius,

Limenius,

Eusebius,

Savinus,

Exsuperantius,

Macedonius,

Bassianus,

Anemius,

Constantius,

Maximus,

Almachius,

Januarius,

Theodorus,

Domninus,

Diogenes,

Procidas,

Heliodorus,

Philaster,

Jovinus,

Felix,

Maximus.

Amatus,

Felix,

Viator,

Maximinus,

Ephesius,

Numidius,

Artemius, Felix, bishops, subscribed.

THE TREATISE ON THE NICENE FAITH OF VIGILIUS, BISHOP OF THAPSUS, AGAINST THE ARIANS, ASCRIBED BY SOME TO GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: WHICH IS THE SECOND EDITION OF BOOK II AGAINST PALLADIUS, WITH A NEW PREFACE.

F. Concerning the creed composed at Nicaea by three hundred and eighteen rightly believing bishops.

We believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father: God from God, light from light, true God from true God, born not made: of one substance with the Father, which the Greeks call homoousion: through whom all things were made, whether in heaven or on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, and became man, suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and from there will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: There was a time when he was not, and before he was born he was not: and that the Son of God is mutable or changeable; these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Amen.

Led by love of the catholic faith, I had long since published a little book against the Arians, which, when I had given it to a friend to read, since it pleased him, he believed it should be copied. From him I earnestly requested that, for the time being, with the author concealed, he read it to learned and prudent men, so that if anything in it seemed to anyone to have been set down either more or less than it should, it could be corrected by the counsel of many. For no one is so arrogant as to assume for himself the summit of heavenly doctrine as to think that he retains all the mysteries clearly comprehended, since the apostle Paul says: If anyone thinks that he knows something, he does not yet know how he ought to know (1 Cor. 8:2), and now we see through a glass in an enigma; then face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). But if all the things that were written there seemed to all to stand firm according to the true faith, then he himself would not deny it to those asking. That this was done is manifest. And because the matter, worthy both of catholic confession and of heretical response, was judged by the estimation of all, many wished either to conceal it or to transcribe it. But there was no lack of one who, either from zeal for doctrine or from the office of charity, might more scrupulously review the things that were said by us, and say that certain things there were either superfluous or ambiguous, which could be understood by some otherwise than they were said by me. Therefore I have again set forth those same things in clearer speech in this little book, so that I might both show the simplicity of my meaning and cut off the scruple of readers.

For this is what they say can be criticized: that when we have set down the Word of God in the person of the Son, we should think this word to be understood as the grammarians hand down—a sharp breath of the mouth, perceptible to hearing. But we know not the wisdom of this world, which is destroyed, but that which is from God, which intimates that the Word of God is God, when it says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing (John 1:1-3). Whence I confess I am amazed that this could have been understood in such a way, as if we denied the proper person of the Word, which is the Son. No one names someone merely by a word, whom he more often professes truly to exist in his own person; for how have we confessed either the true Son or the true Father, if we have not truly preserved the property of the persons of both the Father and the Son? But because we say the term of one God, we are thought to have denied the persons. And from this what we have set down has seemed plausible. We name the Father and the Son in such a way that we assign one God in these persons and names. Moreover, again the Father and the Son, although they are called two names, are yet one in reason and substance. And when I set down the Father and the Son, I assign the unity of their kind. All these things have been judged capable of being understood as if these terms were placed between the Father and the Son like a name and a surname, of one person only; although from the things said above or below this suspicion could not have been admitted.

For I had said that the Son of God was not born from any other source than properly from the Father—whole from whole, entire from entire, perfect from perfect, and consummate virtue—so how could I have set the Father himself as the Son to himself, and in this way called one person by two names? Especially since I also condemned this sect, that is, the Sabellian one, in the same book, and wrote of the distinction of persons according to the name. For no one can say "they are one" on behalf of one person, or assign unity of kind except to persons. But who among the catholics is ignorant that the Father is truly the Father, the Son truly the Son, and the Holy Spirit truly the Holy Spirit? As the Lord himself says to his apostles: Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This is the perfect Trinity subsisting in unity, which we profess to be of one substance. For we do not, according to the condition of bodies, make a division in God; but according to the power of the divine nature, which is not in matter, we believe that the persons of the names truly subsist, and we testify that there is a unity of divinity. Nor do we call the Son of God an extension of some part from the Father (as some have thought); nor do we receive the Word without substance, like the sound of a voice; but we believe that three names and three persons are of one essence, one majesty, and one power. And therefore we confess one God, because the unity of majesty forbids that gods be called by the name of many.

Finally, we name the Father and the Son in the catholic manner; but we can neither say nor ought to say that there are two gods—not because the Son of God is not God, indeed true God from true God, but because we know that the Son of God comes from no other source than from the one Father himself, and accordingly we call him one God. For this the prophets handed down, this the apostles, this the Lord himself taught when he says: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). "One" refers to the unity of divinity, as I said; but "we are" assigns the persons. And the Apostle also says: "There is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him; but not in all is there knowledge" (1 Cor 8:6). Wherefore, these words having been explained—words that were causing a scruple not for me, who know what I have said, but for others—I think the occasion of bad interpretation has been removed. For both the confession of faith is manifest, and the person is established together with the terms, and one divinity has been assigned. Or if anything in the words still seems ambiguous to readers, they ought to bring the true meaning to bear upon the senses; because it is not the simplicity of the words but the obstinacy of a bad understanding that smells of fault. But when our meaning agrees with the truth, the words too ought to agree with the most sincere reasoning. Whence let the academic disputant depart from Christian simplicity.

Whoever reads these things, I beseech you by God, do not twist the simplicity of the meaning into ambiguity, nor draw it into meanings other than what has been said; because we confess the Father as true Father, and the Son of God as true Son of God, and we believe the Holy Spirit to be truly the Holy Spirit, confessing three persons of one substance and one divinity. But the sect of Sabellius and Photinus, and also of Arius, and whatever others there are that come against the rule of truth, we condemn. But the treatise of the Council of Nicaea, preserving it with all the effort of our mind and with our whole faith, we embrace; for we know that this treatise has been set against all heresies by invincible truth.

As a corollary to the works of Vigilius of Thapsus, here at last are certain objections of the Arians, and their solutions, which in the manuscripts of Cluny, Paris, Poitiers, and Pontigny were appended to the dialogue against the Arians, with Athanasius, Arius, and Probus alone as the interlocutors and judges. It is easy to judge that these were added by Vigilius to his first dialogue under the name of Athanasius, against the Arians, before he undertook its second edition, in which he also refuted the Photinians and Sabellians together with the Arians.

HERE BEGIN THE SOLUTIONS OF THE ARIAN OBJECTIONS.

Their first objection is that in which they say it is impossible for God the Father, being incorporeal and invisible, to beget from his own substance. From them this must first be asked: whether the Father was unable to beget because his will restrained him; and if indeed he did not beget by will, then he had it in his nature that he could beget, but his will held back the effect of generation; and thus their superfluous objection is conquered and falls shattered, in which they say that it was impossible for the Lord to beget from his substance, since it is certain that the divine nature lacks the defect of impossibility. But if they say that he could not beget because of an impossibility of nature, they fall into the open abyss of blasphemy, asserting that he who is omnipotent is impossible. Then next they will convict God of falsehood, as though he deceived men by his preaching, saying "I have begotten," when according to them he had an impossibility of begetting.

For to teach that He had begotten a Son proper to His own ineffable nature and substance, in order to blunt the madness of unbelievers, He drew the term of earthly birth into an example of divine generation, saying: From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you (Ps. 109:3). What could the Godhead have uttered more clearly, what more luminously? By what indications, by what examples of existing things, could it have made known the propriety of generation, than that it compared itself even by the appellation of a womb? Not because it is composed of bodily members, or distinguished by any bound lineaments, but because we could not otherwise perceive the truth of divine generation by the hearing of the mind, unless we were prompted by the example of a human womb; so that it could no longer be doubted that He was born of the substance of God, who is established to have proceeded from the womb of the Father. Furthermore, these men, as far as I can see, wish to give great abridgment to matters: for if they admit that God did not beget, there is no reason why they should not confess that the Son was born: and thus all our contention will be dispatched.

While they openly deny, while they pretend to confess, they again raise the objection: Was He born when He was, or when He was not? They would object rightly if they did not utterly deny the Son's nativity; only the question of times would remain, whether He was born before time or from time, since it was established that He was born. But since they entirely take away the truth of the Father's generation, why do they ask concerning Him when the origin of His nativity began, whom they altogether deny to have been born? Nevertheless, lest we seem to hold these things out from a lack of an answer, we too, setting forth the solution of the question from this beginning of order, and first refuting a similar question, [say]: Did God the Father beget the Son when He was Father, or when He was not Father? If when He was Father, then He also begot the Son when He was Son; and if when He was not Father, then He received an increase of honor, and thus was not perfect in Himself, who, in order to enjoy perfection, afterward by begetting the Son added to Himself the name of Father; and by this He is mutable in His own substance: there will be one who passed from the dignity of divinity to the effect of eternal honor. Why, I ask, do these torments of questions delight you? Why are you not ashamed to be bound by the insoluble knots of objections, while you stretch the snare for yourself and do not perceive that you are entangled? You say, then: He was born when He was. And where, you will ask, was He? In the heart of the Father, in the womb of the Father, in the bosom of the Father, that is, in the secret eyes of nature. From there, by being born, He proceeded; by not departing, He did not withdraw. I, He says, came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Eccli.

(John 16:28): "I," he says, "came forth from the Lord Father." Behold, you have the procession of his birth; hear now the remaining of him who does not depart from where he had proceeded. "I," he says, "am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 14:11).

Likewise, they say, the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten. For it cannot be that the one substance belongs to the begotten and the unbegotten. If the Father were unbegotten in such a way that the Son were also unbegotten, then their substance could more readily be different, because each, subsisting from himself, would have no communion of substance with the other. But since the unbegotten Father begot the Son from himself, that is, from that which he himself is—whatever that is—it is evident that the nature of the begetter and the begotten is one. Behold, what he said is briefly resolved: let him himself dissolve my proposition by whatever art he can, if he is able. He says, "The Father is unbegotten," for the very purpose of asserting that the Father is unbegotten—which indeed he will be able to show written nowhere. I wish to call the Father God the Begetter, which I will most easily demonstrate to be written. Let him answer me, then, whether the unbegotten and the begotten can have a different nature—which he will not be able to demonstrate even in Adam, who is not begotten, in relation to the one born from him. But if he wishes to admit this, I wonder whether he does not succumb to the testimony of all nature crying out against him, which generates nothing other than that which it itself is.

But let them not slander us, claiming that we wished to use the example of a terrestrial origin; let us have recourse to the teaching of the divine authority itself—although one may rather measure the ineffable nativity of the omnipotent God by the custom of human generation, objecting to the Son that if he was born, he did not exist before he was born. Therefore, as I said, it must be established by divine testimonies that the Father and the Son are of one nature. Concerning God the Father, certainly, we read, with the apostle John as witness: "God," he says, "is light, and in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). But the Son says of himself: "I am the light" (John 8:12). If, then, the Father is light and the Son is light, it appears that they are of one substance, since the nature of light and light cannot be different—namely, of that light which begets from itself and that which exists from the begetter. Finally, lest anyone by rash presumption introduce a diversity of natural light between the Father and the Son, Scripture has handed down that the Son is the splendor of the paternal light, saying: "He is," it says, "the splendor of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:26)—in which it is more evidently taught that he is coeternal with the Father, inseparable from the Father, and of one nature with him. For in this brief verse the whole profession of the catholic faith is contained, since the splendor is always coeternal with the light, since the splendor is never separated from the luminary, since the splendor can never be different from the light in nature and substance.

This is what we profess with the straight course of right faith: the Son is inseparable and of one substance with the Father.

The prophets, they say, were seen by the Son alone, and he who appeared to no one must be called lesser. But if we show that the Father also appeared to men, then either they must confess that those who were seen in like manner are equal, or at any rate they must find someone to whom they can make the Father lesser, if an appearance makes the one who appears lesser. And so that I may not postpone the proof of the Father's appearing to men, I will bring forward the testimonies themselves into the midst. In Genesis, then, it is clearly said of Jacob, when he was journeying to Mesopotamia of Syria, fleeing from Esau his brother, that he saw the Lord leaning upon the ladder and saying to him: I am the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac; do not fear (Gen. 28:13). Likewise, after a long span of time, when he had returned to his father, God appeared to him, saying: Arise, and go up to Bethel, and dwell there, and make there an altar to God who appeared to you when you were fleeing from the face of Esau your brother (Gen. 35:1). Let these men therefore choose for themselves what they wish: either that the Father appeared to him as he fled and the Son to him as he returned, or that the Son appeared to him as he fled and the Father nonetheless to him as he came back. They find no way out from here, because divine Scripture testifies that both appeared.

Likewise the prophet Daniel describes that he saw God the Father in human form: I beheld, he says, until thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days sat: his garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool: his throne was a flame of fire: his wheels were burning fire: a river of fire issued from before him: thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him (Dan. 7:9). So that we may show this more clearly—that it was God the Father who was seen by Daniel in the likeness of an ancient man—he also says the following concerning the Son: Behold, the Son of man came in the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of Days (Ibid., 13). It is evident, therefore, according to the testimony of the present passage, that both the Father and the Son appeared to Daniel the prophet.

Likewise they object: I, he says, live because of the Father; as though from this he might seem inferior, because he does not live because of himself but because of another. But let them reread the preceding chapter: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father (John 6:58). This is similar to what he says elsewhere: As the Father has life in himself (John 5:26). This matter does not indicate inequality, but shows the unity of substance, and that the Son subsists not from himself but from the Father.