The genuineness of the Gesta has been disputed by Père Chifflet, who maintained that they were a forgery of the Vigilius mentioned above: his arguments however are satisfactorily refuted by Tillemont in an elaborate note. ( Vol. x. p. 738. note 15. on S. Ambr. Life.)
1. IN the consulship of the illustrious SYAGRIUS and EUCHERIUS,on the 3rd day of September[18], the under-mentioned Bishops[19], sitting in council in the church atAquileia, namely, VALERIAN, Bishop of Aquileia, AMBROSE, EUSEBIUS, LIMENIUS, ANEMIUS, SABINUS, ABUNDANTIUS, ARTEMIUS, CONSTANTIUS, JUSTUS, PHILASTER, CONSTANTIUS, THEODORUS, ALMACHIUS, DOMNINUS, AMANTIUS, MAXIMUS, FELIX, BASSIANUS, NUMIDIUS, JANUARIUS, PROCULUS, HELIODORUS, JOVINUS, FELIX, EXUPERANTIUS, DIOGENES, MAXIMUS, MACEDONIUS, CASSIANUS, MARCELLUS, and EUSTATHIUS, Bishops:
Ambrose, Bishop, said;
2. ‘We have long been dealing with the matter without any Records[20], and now, since our ears are assailed with such sacrilegious words on the part of Palladius and Secundianus, that one can scarce believe that they could have so openly blasphemed, and that they may not attempt hereafter by any subtlety to deny their own words, though the testimony of such eminent Bishops does not admit of doubt, still as it is the pleasure of all the Bishops, let Records be made, that no one may be able to deny his own profession. Do you therefore, holy men, declare what is your pleasure.’
All the Bishops said, ‘It is our pleasure.’
Ambrose, Bishop, said, ‘Our discussions must be confirmed by the Emperor’s Letter, as the subject requires, so that they may be quoted.’
3. The Letter is read by Sabinianus a Deacon;
“Desirous to make our earliest efforts to prevent dissension among Bishops from uncertainty what doctrines they should reverence, we had ordered the Bishops to come together into the city of Aquileia,out of the diocese[21] whichhas been confided to the merits of your Excellency. For controversies of dubious import could not be better disentangled than by our constituting the Bishops themselves expounders of the dispute that has arisen, so that the same persons from whom come forth the instructions of doctrine may solve the contradictions of discordant teaching.
4. “Nor is our present order different from our last: we do not alter the tenour of our command, but we correct the superfluous numbers that would have assembled. For as Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, eminent both for the merits of his life and the favour of God, suggests that there is no occasion for numbers in a case in which the truth, though in the hands of a few supporters, would not suffer from many antagonists, and that he and the Bishops of the adjoining cities of Italy would be more than sufficient to meet the assertions of the opposite party, we have judged it right to refrain from troubling venerable men by bringing into strange lands any one who was either loaded with years, or disabled with bodily weakness,or in the slender circumstances of honourable poverty;[22] etc.”
5. AMBROSE, Bishop, said; ‘This is what a Christian Emperor has ordained. He has not thought fit to do an injury to the Bishops: he has constituted the Bishops themselves Judges. And therefore since we sit together in a Council of Bishops, answer to what is proposed to you. Arius’s letter has been read: it shall be recited now again, if you think proper. It contains blasphemies from the beginning; it says that the Father alone is eternal. If you think that the Son of God is not everlasting, support this doctrine in what manner you please: if you think it is a doctrine to be condemned, condemn it.Here is the Gospel, and the Apostle[23]: all the Scriptures are at hand. Support it from what quarter you please, if you think that the Son of God is not everlasting.’