Prefatory Remarks, by Valesius,
Chapter IX.— Constantine enacts a Law in favor of Celibates and of the Clergy .
Chapter X.— Concerning the Great Confessors who survived .
Chapter XI.— Account of St. Spyridon: His Modesty and Steadfastness .
Chapter XII.— On the Organization of the Monks: its Origin and Founders .
Chapter XIII.— About Antony the Great and St. Paul the Simple .
Chapter XIV.— Account of St. Ammon and Eutychius of Olympus .
Chapter XVII.— Of the Council convened at Nicæa on Account of Arius .
Chapter XIX.— When the Council was assembled, the Emperor delivered a Public Address.
Chapter IV.— What Constantine the Great effected about the Oak in Mamre he also built a Temple .
Chapter VII.— How the Iberians received the Faith of Christ .
Chapter VIII.— How the Armenians and Persians embraced Christianity .
Chapter X.— Christians slain by Sapor in Persia .
Chapter XI.— Pusices, Superintendent of the Artisans of Sapor .
Chapter XII.— Tarbula, the Sister of Symeon, and her Martyrdom .
Chapter XIII.— Martyrdom of St. Acepsimas and of his Companions .
Chapter XV.— Constantine writes to Sapor to stay the Persecution of the Christians .
Chapter XX.— Concerning Maximus, who succeeded Macarius in the See of Jerusalem .
Chapter XXII.— The Vain Machinations of the Arians and Melitians against St. Athanasius .
Chapter XXIII.— Calumny respecting St. Athanasius and the Hand of Arsenius .
Chapter XXV.— Council of Tyre Illegal Deposition of St. Athanasius .
Chapter XXX.— Account given by the Great Athanasius of the Death of Arius .
Chapter XXXIII.— Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra his Heresy and Deposition .
Chapter III.— Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, and Macedonius, the Pneumatomachian .
Chapter IV.— A Sedition was excited on the Ordination of Paul .
Chapter XV.— Didymus the Blind, and Aëtius the Heretic .
Chapter XVI.— Concerning St. Ephraim .
Chapter XXI.— Letter of Constantius to the Egyptians in behalf of Athanasius. Synod of Jerusalem .
Chapter XXII.— Epistle written by the Synod of Jerusalem in Favor of Athanasius .
Chapter III.— Martyrdom of the Holy Notaries .
Chapter IX.— Council of Milan. Flight of Athanasius .
Chapter XIV.— Letter of the Emperor Constantius against Eudoxius and his Partisans .
Chapter XVII.— Proceedings of the Council of Ariminum .
Chapter XVIII.— Letter from the Council at Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius .
Chapter XXII.— Council of Seleucia .
Chapter II.— The Life, Education, and Training of Julian, and his Accession to the Empire .
Chapter IX.— Martyrdom of the Saints Eusebius, Nestabus, and Zeno in the City of Gaza .
Chapter XIV.— The Partisans of Macedonius disputed with the Arians concerning Acacius .
Chapter III.— The Reign of Jovian he introduced Many Laws which he carried out in his Government .
Chapter VIII.— Election of Nectarius to the See of Constantinople his Birthplace and Education .
Chapter IX.— Decrees of the Second General Council. Maximus, the Cynical Philosopher .
Chapter XXI.— Discovery of the Honored Head of the Forerunner of our Lord, and the Events about it .
Chapter XXIV.— Victory of Theodosius the Emperor over Eugenius .
Chapter XXVI.— St. Donatus, Bishop of Eurœa, and Theotimus, High-Priest of Scythia .
Chapter XXVII.— St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, and a Particular Account of his Acts .
Chapter IV.— Enterprise of Gaïnas, the Gothic Barbarian. Evils which he perpetrated .
Chapter II.— Discovery of the Relics of Forty Holy Martyrs .
Chapter III.— The Virtues of Pulcheria Her Sisters .
Chapter IV.— Truce with Persia. Honorius and Stilicho. Transactions in Rome and Dalmatia .
Chapter VI.— Alaric the Goth. He assaulted Rome, and straitened it by War .
Chapter X.— A Roman Lady who manifested a Deed of Modesty .
Chapter XVII.— Discovery of the Relics of Zechariah the Prophet, and of Stephen the Proto-Martyr .
Chapter XIX.— Concerning the Deputies of the Council and the Emperor’s Letter; Agreement of the Adherents of Ursacius and Valens afterwards with the Letter put forth; Exile of the Archbishops. Concerning the Synod at Nicæa, and the Reason why the Synod was held in Ariminum .
We have now transcribed the letter of the council of Ariminum. Ursacius and Valens, with their adherents, anticipating the
arrival of the deputies of the council, showed to the emperor the document which they had read, and calumniated the council.
50
In addition to the references in 18, Athan. Synodis, 55; Ep. ad. Afros episcopos,
3, 4. Documents reproduced in Soc. ii. 37.
The emperor was displeased at the rejection of this formulary, as it had been composed in his presence at Sirmium, and he
therefore treated Ursacius and Valens with honor; while, on the other hand, he manifested great contempt towards the deputies,
and even delayed granting them an audience. At length, however, he wrote to the Synod, and informed them that an expedition
which he was compelled to undertake against the barbarians prevented him from conferring with the deputies; and that he had,
therefore, commanded them to remain at Adrianople until his return, in order that, when public business had been dismissed,
his mind might be at liberty to hear and test the representations of the deputies; “for it is right,” he said, “to bring to
the investigation of Divine subjects, a mind unfettered by other cares.” Such was the strain of his letter.
51
The reply of the bishops to Constantius, also reproduced in Theodoret, H. E. ii.
20, from Athan. de Synodis, 55. Soz. presents the best general grouping of the facts.
The bishops replied that they could never depart from the decision they had formed, as they had before declared in writing, and had charged their deputies to declare; and they besought him to regard them with favor, and to give audience to their deputies, and to read their letter. They told him that it must appear grievous to him that so many churches should be deprived of their bishops; and that, if agreeable to him, they would return to their churches before the winter. After writing this letter, which was full of supplications and entreaties, the bishops waited for a time for a reply; but as no answer was granted them, they afterwards returned to their own cities.
What I have above stated clearly proves that the bishops who were convened at Ariminum confirmed the decrees which had of old been set forth at Nicæa. Let us now consider how it was that they eventually assented to the formulary of faith compiled by Valens and Ursacius and their followers. Various accounts have been given me of this transaction. Some say that the emperor was offended at the bishops having departed from Ariminum without his permission, and allowed Valens and his partisans to govern the churches of the West according to their own will, to set forth their own formulary, to eject those who refused to sign it from the churches, and to ordain others in their place. They say that, taking advantage of this power, Valens compelled some of the bishops to sign the formulary, and that he drove many who refused compliance, from their churches, and first of all Liberius, bishop of Rome. It is further asserted that when Valens and his adherents had acted in this manner in Italy, they resolved to handle the Eastern churches in the same way. As these persecutors were passing through Thrace, they stopped, it is said, at Nicæa, a city of that province. They there convened a council, and read the formulary of Ariminum, which they had translated into the Greek language, and by representing that it had been approved by a general council, they obtained its adoption at Nicæa; they then cunningly denominated it the Nicæan formulary of faith, in order, by the resemblance of names, to deceive the simple, and cause it to be mistaken for the ancient formulary set forth by the Nicæan council. Such is the account given by some parties. Others say that the bishops who were convened at the council of Ariminum were wearied by their detention in that city, as the emperor neither honored them with a reply to their letter, nor granted them permission to return to their own churches; and that, at this juncture, those who had espoused the opposite heresy represented to them that it was not right that divisions should exist between the priests of the whole world for the sake of one word, and that it was only requisite to admit that the Son is like unto the Father in order to put an end to all disputes; for that the bishops of the East would never rest until the term “substance” was rejected. By these representations, it is said, the members of the council were at length persuaded to assent to the formulary which Ursacius had so sedulously pressed upon them. Ursacius and his partisans, being apprehensive lest the deputies sent by the council to the emperor should declare what firmness was in the first place evinced by the Western bishops, and should expose the true cause of the rejection of the term “consubstantial,” detained these deputies at Nicæa in Thrace throughout the winter, under the pretext that no public conveyance could be then obtained, and that the roads were in a bad state for traveling; and they then induced them, it is said, to translate the formulary they had accepted from Latin into Greek, and to send it to the Eastern bishops. By this means, they anticipated that the formulary would produce the impression they intended without the fraud being detected; for there was no one to testify that the members of the council of Ariminum had not voluntarily rejected the term “substance” from deference to the Eastern bishops, who were averse to the use of that word. But this was evidently a false account; for all the members of the council, with the exception of a few, maintained strenuously that the Son is like unto the Father in substance, and the only differences of opinion existing between them were that some said that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, while others asserted that he is of like substance with the Father. Some state this matter in one form, others in a different one.