Reference Dok. 10; Urk. 3; CPG 3500
Incipit Τῷ δεσπότῃ μου κατὰ πάντα
Date c. 320-323
Ancient sources Par. 1-3: Second Council of Nicaea (787), Actiones 5-6
Par. 4-5: Eusebius, Contra Marcellum 1.4.40-41, 57.
Modern editions Par. 1-3: ACO ser. 2, 3:560-562, 736
Par. 4-5: GCS 14:26, 29
AW 3.1:4-6

During the Seventh Ecumenical Council of AD 787 (see intro to Dok. 9), the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea was questioned. During the fifth session (actio), two sections of Eusebius’s otherwise lost letter to Euphration were read out. In the sixth session, two shorter quotes were read. Opitz (without explanation) put the longer citation from the sixth session between the two quotes of session 5, and seemingly ignores the shorter one. AW 3.3.86-87 follows this. The latter also follows Opitz in adding a section from Eusebius’s Contra Marcellum 1.4.40-41 in which Marcellus is quoting Eusebius, although the context does not mention Euphration. There is no way to date this letter any more precisely than to say it comes from the middle of the controversy, Brennecke’s “second phase” when the controversy had expanded outside Egypt.

The Greek texts below are taken from Lamberz’s edition of the Second Council of Nicaea (ACO, Series 2, 3:560, 562 and 736), and Hansen and Klostermann’s edition of  Gegen Marcell (Eusebius Werke 4, GCS 14, 2nd edn. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1972), 26 and 29. The FCC translation below is by Aaron West and Glen Thompson. See also the recent translations of R. Price Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), TTH 68, 403-404 and 513, and that of K. Spoerl, Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical History (FC 135; Washington: Cath. Univ. of America Press, 2017), 108-109, 114.

Click here to access a downloadable pdf of this document.

This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Conc. Nicaenum II, Actio 5
1. [Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου πρὸς Εὐφρατίωνα οὗ ἡἀρχή·] A letter of Eusebius of Pamphylia to Euphration. It begins as follows:
Τῷ δεσπότῃ μου κατὰ πάντα <χάριν> ὁμολογῶ.I confess to my lord by every grace.
[καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερα·] [And it continues later:]
Οὐ γὰρ συνυπάρχειν φαμὲν τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί, προϋπάρχειν δὲ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ. ἐὰν γὰρ συνυπάρχωσι, πῶς ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς υἱός; ἢ πῶς ὁ μὲν πρῶτος, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος, καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀγέννητος, ὁ δὲ γεννητός; δύο γὰρ ἐξ ἴσου ὁμοίως ἀλλήλοις συνυπάρχοντα ἰσότιμα ἂν νοοῖντο καὶ ἤτοι ἄμφω, ὡς ἔφην, ἀγέννητα ἢ ἑκάτερα γεννητά. ἀλλ’ οὐδέτερον τούτων ἀληθές· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἀγέννητον οὔτε τὸ γεννητὸν <ἀμφότερον> ἂν εἴη. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν καὶ πρῶτον καὶ κρεῖττον καὶ τάξει καὶ τιμῇ τοῦ δευτέρου ἡγεῖται, ὡς ἂν καὶ τοῦ εἶναι καὶ τοῦ τοιῶσδε εἶναι τῷ δευτέρῳ αἴτιον γεγενημένον.For we do not say that the Son is coexisting with the Father, but instead that the Father existed before the Son.  For if they coexisted, how could the Father be a father, and the Son be a son?  Or how could one indeed be the first, and the other second?  And how could one be unbegotten and the other begotten?   For the two, if they are equal, likewise exist mutually and are honored equally, one must conclude that either they are both unbegotten or both begotten, as I have said, but it is clear that neither of these is true.  For they are neither both unbegotten nor both begotten.  For one is indeed the first and best and leads to/precedes the second, both in order and in honor, so that he is the occasion for the second’s existing and for his existing in this particular way.
Actio 6, p. 736
Οὐ γὰρ συνυπάρχειν φαμὲν τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί, προϋπάρχειν δὲ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ. πλὴν αὐτὸς ὁ πάντων μᾶλλον ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενος υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἕτερον ἑαυτὸν εἰδὼς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μείω καὶ ὑποβεβηκότα, εὖ μάλα εὐσεβῶς τοῦτο καὶ ἡμᾶς διδάσκει λέγων· “ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με μείζων μού ἐστι.”2. For the Son of God himself, who quite clearly knows all things, knows that he is different from, less, and inferior to the Father, and with full piety also teaches us this when he says, “The Father who sent me is greater than me” [John 14:28].
καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερα· Ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν θεὸς ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀληθινὸς θεός.
Actio 5, p. 560-562
3. [Καὶ ἀνεγνώσθη ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπιστολῆς·]3. [And it is also written in the same letter:]
Τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ καὶ μόνον ἀληθινὸν εἶναι διδάσκει δι’ὧν φησιν· ἵνα “γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν,” οὐχὶ ὡς ἑνὸς ὄντος μόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἑνὸς ὄντος μόνου ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ προσθήκης ἀναγκαιοτάτης τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν θεὸς ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀληθινὸς θεός· εἷς γάρ ἐστι καὶ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεὸς διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ τινα. εἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ἀληθινός, ἀλλ’ ὡς εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ εἴη ἂν καὶ θεός· ἐπεὶ“καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος,” οὐ μὴν ὡς ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός.But he teaches that that one [the Father] is alone true when he says, “that they may know you, the only true God” [John 17:3], not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of ‘true.’  For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is.  For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed.  But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for [Scripture says] “and the Word was God” [John 1:1], but not as the only true God.
Eusebius, Contra Marcellum 1.4.40-41; 1.40.57
4. Διελεῖν γὰρ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τολμήσας καὶ ἕτερον θεὸν τὸν λόγον ὀνομάσαι, οὐσίᾳ τε καὶ δυνάμει διεστῶτα τοῦ πατρός, εἰς ὅσην βλασφημίαν ἐκπέττωκεν ἔνεστιν σαφῶς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γραφέντων ῥητῶν ῥᾳδίως μανθάνειν. γέγραφεν δ᾽ αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως·4. [40] … For he dared to divide the Word from “the God” and to name the Word another God, differing in essence and power from the Father, [41] he has departed into as great a blasphemy, as is easily discerned from those very terms he uses.  The following is an exact quote from his writings:
Οὐ δήπου δὲ ἡ εἰκὼν καὶ τὸ οὗ ἐστιν ἡ εἰκὼν ἕν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐπινοεῖται, ἀλλὰ δύο μὲν οὐσίαι καὶ δύο πράγματα καὶ δύο δυνάμεις, ὡς καὶ τοσαῦται προσηγορίαι. But surely the image and the one whose image he is are not to be considered the same, but they are two beings and two things and two powers, similarly with other titles
5. Ἄνθρῶπον γὰρ μόνον τὸν σωτῆρα δεῖξαι βουλόμενος, ὡς μέγιστον ἡμῖν ἀπόρρητον τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἀνακαλύπτων μυστήριον, οὕτως ἔφη·5. [57] He writes as follows, wishing to show the savior as only a man, as if he is unveiling to us the apostle’s great unspoken mystery:
Διὸ σαφέστατα καὶ ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος τὴν ἀπόρρητον ἡμῖν καὶ μνστικὴν παραδιδοὺς θεολογίαν βοᾷ καὶ κέκραγεν “εἷς ὁ θεός,” εἶτα μετὰ τὸν ἕνα θεόν φησιν “εἷς μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστός ᾿Ιησοῦς.”For more clearly also the divine Apostle transmits to us the unspoken and mystical theology when he calls and cries out, “There is one God;” then after saying there is one God [he continues,]“One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” [1 Tim 2:5].

Back to Early Arian Documents – Next Arian Document

Last updated 10/19/24 by GLT.

No Responses yet