Socrates of Constantinople, Church History 1.8.46-1.8.53
https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/475
Context
Socrates of Constantinople, the “Scholastic,” was an otherwise unknown
historian of the early 5th century. He wrote his account of the Church from 305 to 439
to continue Eusebius of Caesarea, adopting a particular perspective on the relationship
between Imperial and ecclesiastical authority. In this passage, Socrates describes the
difficult position of Eusebius bishop of Caesarea at the Council of Nicaea in the summer
of 325 C.E., where he was slow to accept the principle of consubstantiality. In June of
325, Eusebius wrote a long letter of explanation to his congregation at Caesarea, which
Socrates quotes in full (Church History 1.8.35-1.8.54). In the third
section of the letter, after giving the revised draft of the Nicene Creed with
consubtantial (ὁμοούσιος) added, Eusebius explains his reasoning
in agreeing to the final version.
Text
(46) “Καὶ δὴ ταύτης τῆς γραφῆς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὑπαγορευθείσης, ὅπως εἴρηται
αὐτοῖς τὸ ‘ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς’ καὶ τὸ ‘τῷ πατρὶ ὁμοούσιον,’ οὐκ ἀνεξέταστον αὐτοῖς
κατελιμπάνομεν. (47) Ἐπερωτήσεις τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ἐντεῦθεν ἀνεκινοῦντο,
ἐβασάνιζέν τε ὁ λόγος τὴν διάνοιαν τῶν εἰρημένων· καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ ‘ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας’
ὡμολογεῖτο πρὸς αὐτῶν δηλωτικὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι, οὐ μὴν μέρος ὑπάρχειν
τοῦ πατρός. Ταύτῃ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐδόκει καλῶς ἔχειν συγκατατίθεσθαι τῇ διανοίᾳ, τῆς εὐσεβοῦς
διδασκαλίας ὑπαγορευούσης ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, οὐ μὴν μέρος αὐτοῦ τῆς οὐσίας
τυγχάνειν. (48) Διόπερ τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ αὐτοὶ συντιθέμεθα, οὐδὲ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου
παραιτούμενοι, τοῦ τῆς εἰρήνης σκοποῦ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν κειμένου καὶ τοῦ μὴ τῆς ὀρθῆς
ἐκπεσεῖν διανοίας. (49) Κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ‘γεννηθέντα καὶ οὐ ποιηθέντα’ κατεδεξάμεθα,
ἐπειδὴ τὸ ‘ποιηθὲν’ κοινὸν ἔφασκον εἶναι πρόσρημα τῶν λοιπῶν κτισμάτων τῶν διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ
γενομένων, ὧν οὐδὲν ὅμοιον ἔχειν τὸν υἱόν· διὸ δὴ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν ποίημα τοῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
γενομένοις ἐμφερές, κρείττονος δὲ ἢ κατὰ πᾶν ποίημα τυγχάνειν οὐσίας, ἣν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
γεγεννῆσθαι τὰ θεῖα διδάσκει λόγια, τοῦ τρόπου τῆς γεννήσεως ἀνεκφράστου καὶ
ἀνεπιλογίστου πάσῃ γενητῇ φύσει τυγχάνοντος. (50) Οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τοῦ
πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἐξεταζόμενος ὁ λόγος συνίστησιν οὐ κατὰ τὸν τῶν σωμάτων τρόπον οὐδὲ τοῖς
θνητοῖς ζῴοις παραπλησίως (οὔτε γὰρ κατὰ διαίρεσιν τῆς οὐσίας οὔτε κατὰ ἀποτομήν, ἀλλ’
οὐδὲ κατά τι πάθος ἣ τροπὴν ἢ ἀλλοίωσιν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας τε καὶ δυνάμεως· τούτων
γὰρ πάντων ἀλλοτρίον εἶναι τὴν ἀγέννητον τοῦ πατρὸς φύσιν), παραστατικὸν δὲ εἶναι τὸ
‘ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ’ τοῦ μηδεμίαν ἐμφέρειαν πρὸς τὰ γενητὰ κτίσματα τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ
φέρειν, μόνῳ δὲ τῷ πατρὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότι κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀφωμοιῶσθαι καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἐξ
ἑτέρας τινὸς ὑποστάσεώς τε καὶ οὐσίας, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. (51) Ὧι καὶ αὐτῷ τοῦτον
ἑρμηνευθέντι τὸν τρόπον καλῶς ἔχειν ἐφάνη συγκαταθέσθαι, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν τινας
λογίους καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ συγγραφέας ἔγνωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ
θεολογίας τῷ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου συγχρησαμένους ὀνόματι. (52) Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν περὶ τῆς
ἐκτεθείσης εἰρήσθω πίστεως, ᾗ συνεφωνήσαμεν οἱ πάντες οὐκ ἀνεξετάστως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς
ἀποδοθείσας διανοίας, ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου βασιλέως ἐξετασθείσας καὶ τοῖς
εἰρημένοις λογισμοῖς συνομολογηθείσας. Καὶ τὸν ἀναθεματισμὸν δὲ τὸν μετὰ τὴν πίστιν πρὸς
αὐτῶν ἐκτεθέντα ἄλυπον εἶναι ἡγησάμεθα διὰ τὸ ἀπείργειν ἀγράφοις χρῆσθαι φωναῖς, δι’ ἃς
σχεδὸν ἡ πᾶσα γέγονεν σύγχυσίς τε καὶ ἀκαταστασία τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. (53) Μηδεμιᾶς γοῦν
θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς τῷ ‘ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων’ καὶ τῷ ‘ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν’ καὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς
ἐπιλεγομένοις κεχρημένης οὐκ εὔλογον ἐφάνη ταῦτα λέγειν καὶ διδάσκειν. Ὧι καὶ αὐτῷ καλῶς
δόξαντι συνεθέμεθα, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ ἐν τῷ πρὸ τούτου χρόνῳ τούτοις εἰώθαμεν συγχρῆσθαι τοῖς
ῥήμασι.”1
Textual Note
Ed. Hussey and Bright 1893 with ref. to Hansen 1995Translation
(46) “When (the bishops) had proposed this text, we did not neglect
to investigate what they meant by the expressions ‘of the substance of the Father’ and
‘consubstantial with the Father.’ (47) And so from that point questions and answers were
put forth, and the discussion tested the meaning of the things that had been said. As
for ‘from the essence,’ they agreed this indicated that he came from the Father, but not
that he subsisted as part of the Father. We thought it right to assent to this
interpretation, because pious teaching dictates that the Son is from the Father but is
not part of his essence. (48) On that account we ourselves also agreed on the
interpretation without deprecating the word consubstantial, since the goal before us was
peace, and not digressing from the correct interpretation. (49) On these grounds we also
admitted ‘begotten, not made,’ for they claimed that the term ‘begotten’ was applied in
common to all creatures made through the Son, to which the Son has no resemblance. This
is surely because he is not a creature resembling the things that came about through
him, but because he is of an essence stronger than any creature. The Holy Scriptures
teach that this essence was begotten from the Father, though the mode of generation is
inexplicable and unintelligible for any creature that has been born. (50) So also in
examining the statement ‘the Son is consubstantial with the Father,’ the discussion
frames it not in terms of the manner of bodies and not by way of analogy to mortal
creatures (for it is not by division of the essence or by cutting away, nor is it by
some pain or change or alteration of the Father’s essence and power, for the unbegotten
nature of the Father is alien to all that). The expression ‘consubstantial with his
Father’ means that the Son of God bears no similarity to creatures that become, but that
he is similar in every respect to the Father alone who begot him, and that he is not
from any other substance or essence but from the Father. (51) It seemed good to agree
with this also, explained in this way, since we recognized that certain learned men in
ancient times and eminent bishops and writers have used the term
consubstantial in their theological thought concerning the Father
and the Son. (52) So let this be said about the Creed that has been published. Everyone
voiced their support for it not without examination but in accordance with the
interpretation that was produced, after it had been investigated in the presence of the
most-loved-by-God emperor himself [Constantine I] and agreed upon for the reasons that
had been expressed. As for the anathema that they added after the Creed, we have
considered it harmless, because it prohibits the use of words unattested in Scripture,
words from which nearly all the confusion and instability of the Church has arisen. (53)
Accordingly, since no divinely inspired Scripture has used the expressions ‘out of the
non-existent’ and ‘there was a time when he was not’ and others along those lines, it
does not seem reasonable to speak and to teach them. This seemed right and we agreed
with it, because in earlier times we were not accustomed to using these terms.”2
Translation Note
Adapted from Zenos 1890 and Périchon and Maraval 2004-2007Discussion Note
The quotations in §53 were phrases commonly associated with Arianism.Works Cited
- 1 Socrates of Constantinople, Ecclesiastical History, According to the Text of Hussey, ed. Robert Hussey and William Bright, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893), bk: 1, ch: 8.46-8.53.
- 2 Socrates of Constantinople, Socrates: Church History from A.D. 305-439, in Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories., trans. Andrew C Zenos, repr. of American ed., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Churhc. Second Series 2 (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), 1–178, p: 11-12.
Additional Bibliography
- Socrates of Constantinople, Kirchengeschichte, ed. Günther Christian Hansen, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte n.F. 1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995), bk: 1, ch: 8.46-8.53.
- Socrates of Constantinople, Socrate de Constantinople: Histoire ecclésiastique, trans. Pierre Périchon and Pierre Maraval, 4 vols., Sources chrétiennes 477, 493, 505, 506 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2004), vol: 1, p: 108-113.
How to Cite This Entry
Joseph L. Rife, “Socrates of Constantinople, Church History 1.8.46-1.8.53,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Collection of Testimonia, entry published June 30, 2023, https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/475.
Show full citation information...
Bibliography:
Joseph L. Rife, “Socrates of Constantinople, Church History 1.8.46-1.8.53.” In Caesarea Maritima: A Collection of Testimonia, edited by Joseph L. Rife., edited by Joseph L. Rife. Caesarea City and Port Exploration Project, 2023. Entry published June 30, 2023. https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/475.About this Entry
Entry Title: Socrates of Constantinople, Church History 1.8.46-1.8.53
Authorial and Editorial Responsibility:
- Joseph L. Rife, general editor, Vanderbilt University
- Joseph L. Rife, editor, Caesarea Maritima: A Collection of Testimonia
- David A. Michelson, Daniel L. Schwartz, and William L. Potter, technical editor, “Socrates of Constantinople, Church History 1.8.46-1.8.53”
- Joseph L. Rife, entry contributor, “Socrates of Constantinople, Church History 1.8.46-1.8.53”
Additional Credit:
- Testimonium edited by Joseph L. Rife
- TEI record created by Joseph L. Rife
- Testimonium translated by Joseph L. Rife
- Testimonium transcribed by Joseph L. Rife
- Testimonium identified by Joseph L. Rife
- Editorial review by Joseph L. Rife
- Testimonium edited by Joseph L. Rife
- TEI record created by Joseph L. Rife
- Testimonium translated by Joseph L. Rife
- Testimonium transcribed by Joseph L. Rife
- Testimonium identified by Joseph L. Rife
- Editorial review by Joseph L. Rife