|Reference numbers||Urk. 1
|Incipit||Τοῦ πατρός μου Ἀμμωνίου|
|Ancient source used||Theodoret, Church History 1.5|
|Modern edition used||L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler, Theodoret. Kirchengeschichte, 2nd edition, GCS 44 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954)|
|Other ancient source||Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies 69.6|
|Notes||To compare this document with other lists of sympathizers with Arius, see the Arian map. In paragraph 3, Arius claims that nearly “all those of the East” agree that the Father pre-exists the Son!|
(1.) To that most beloved man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, from Arius, unjustly persecuted by father Alexander because of the all-conquering truth which you, Eusebius, also are defending!
(2.) Since my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and proper to greet you through him, remembering at the same time the innate love and affection which you have for the brothers on account of God and his Christ, because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed];” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself.”
(3.) Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.” (4.) We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full <of grace and truth,> God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. (5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.
I pray that you fare well in the Lord, remembering our tribulations, fellow-Lucianist, truly-called Eusebius [i.e. the pious one].
Translation by GLT
Other translations in New Eusebius, no. 283; NPNF2 vol. 3, p. 41;
2.6-8 in Hanson, p. 139;
4-5 in Hanson, p. 6
No Responses yet