One of the most extensive resources on the internet
for the study of early Christianity
“Eusebius of Caesarea - Letter to his Church about the Creed of Nicaea - original Greek Text with English translation”
From Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1.8. The letter is an important witness to the text of the Creed and has given rise to discussion about the role and motives of Eusebius at Nicaea in 325.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more about our use of cookies here. Click here to read at earlychurchtexts.com in the original Greek (with dictionary lookup links). The English translation below is from the NPNF series. earlychurchtexts.com
Try out the feature
rich subscription version of the Early Church Texts website for just $5
for a trial period or $30 for a year ($15 student rate). Click
here for more information. Check out the video demo of the site. Click here to go to the Early Church Texts Home Page
for the publicly available version of the site which has just the original Greek and Latin texts with dictionary lookup links. |
Relevant
books Eusebius studies and translations Several also below TEXTS & TRANSLATIONS History of the Church Andrew Louth ed. ----- Cameron and Hall ----- ----- W. J. Ferrar -----
Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparations, Tomus I (Greek Edition) ----- Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea - the Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine. Two Volumes ----- ----- Notley and Safrai ----- STUDIES Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism Harold W. Attridge ----- Constantine and Eusebius Timothy Barnes ----- Glenn Chesnut ----- Robert Grant ----- Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism Aryeh Kofsky ----- Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis C. Luibheid ----- Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea,
Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria ----- Wallace-Hadrill
|
You have probably had some intimation, beloved, of the
transactions of the great council convened at Nicæa, in relation to the faith of
the Church, inasmuch as rumor generally outruns true account of that which has
really taken place. But lest from such report alone you might form an incorrect
estimate of the matter, we have deemed it necessary to submit to you, in the
first place, an exposition of the faith proposed by us in written form; and then
a second which has been promulgated, consisting of ours with certain additions
to its expression. The declaration of faith set forth by us, which when read in
the presence of our most pious emperor, seemed to meet with universal
approbation, was thus expressed: “According as we received from the bishops who
preceded us, both in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when
we were baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures:
and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging
the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we believe and
present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It is this: We believe in one
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one
Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life,
the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father,
before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our
salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again
on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to
judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe in
the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is
truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as
our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, ‘Go
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.’ Concerning these doctrines we steadfastly maintain
their truth, and avow our full confidence in them; such also have been our
sentiments hitherto, and such we shall continue to hold until death and in an
unshaken adherence to this faith, we anathematize every impious heresy. In the
presence of God Almighty, and of our Lord Jesus Christ we testify, that thus we
have believed and thought from our heart and soul, since we have possessed a
right estimate of ourselves; and that we now think and speak what is perfectly
in accordance with the truth. We are moreover prepared to prove to you by
undeniable evidences, and to convince you that in time past we have thus
believed, and so preached.” When these articles of faith were proposed, there
seemed to be no ground of opposition: nay, our most pious emperor himself was
the first to admit that they were perfectly correct, and that he himself had
entertained the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present to give them
their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus agreeing in a unanimous
profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word “homoousios”
(consubstantial), an expression which the emperor himself explained, as not
indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did
not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission: for said he, a
nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be subject to any
corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things can only be in divine
and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by
our most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the word
homoousious, drew up this formula of faith. “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit. But those who say ‘There was a time when he was not,’ or ‘He did not exist before he was begotten,’ or ‘He was made of nothing’ or assert that ‘He is of other substance or essence than the Father,’ or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the Catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.”
Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not neglect to
investigate the distinct sense of the expressions “of the substance of the
Father, and consubstantial with the Father.” Whereupon questions were put forth
and answers, and the meaning of these terms was clearly defined; when it was
generally admitted that ousias (of the essence or substance) simply
implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of
the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that
the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to
us to assent. We ourselves therefore concurred in this exposition; nor do we
cavil at the word “homoousios” having regard to peace, and fearing to
lose a right understanding of the matter. On the same grounds we admitted also
the expression “begotten, not made”: “for made,” said they, “is a term
applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom
the Son has no resemblance. Consequently he is no creature like those which were
made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance
the Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation
as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.” Thus also the
declaration that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father” having been
discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense,
or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by
division of substance, nor by abscission nor by any change of the Father’s
substance and power, since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent
with all these things. That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply
implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in
every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other
substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this
way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent
bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “homoousios”
in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son.
Such is what I have to state to you in reference to the articles of faith which
have been promulgated; and in which we have all concurred, not without due
examination, but according to the senses assigned, which were investigated in
the presence of our most highly favored emperor, and for the reasons mentioned
approved. We have also considered the anathema pronounced by them after the
declaration of faith inoffensive; because it prohibits the use of illegitimate
terms, from which almost all the distraction and commotion of the churches have
arisen. Accordingly, since no divinely inspired Scripture contains the
expressions, “of things which do not exist,” and “there was a time when he was
not,” and such other phrases as are therein subjoined, it seemed unwarrantable
to utter and teach them: and moreover this decision received our sanction the
rather from the consideration that we have never heretofore been accustomed to
employ these terms. We deemed it incumbent on us, beloved, to acquaint you with
the caution which has characterized both our examination of and concurrence in
these things: and that on justifiable grounds we resisted to the last moment the
introduction of certain objectionable expressions as long as these were not
acceptable; and received them without dispute, when on mature deliberation as we
examined the sense of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had
originally proposed as a sound confession of faith. |
Mac Users please note that the site may not work with Safari versions lower than version 4. (It has been tested with version 4.0.3.) It will work with Firefox, which can be downloaded from here.
Please note that for all features of the site to work correctly javascript must be enabled and the operation of "pop-up" windows must not be blocked. Click here for more information.
Eusebius of Caesarea
Nicaea
Creed
Nicene Creed
325
Eusebius under suspicion
Eusebius heretic?
Was Eusebius heretical?
Did Eusebius accept the Nicene Creed?
Eusebius excommunicated
Role of Eusebius at the Council of Nicaea
Migne Greek Text
Patrologiae Graecae Cursus Completus
Patrologia Graeca