TOMUS AD ANTIOCHENOS. — MONITUM.
to God the Emperor, and to our Lord and Savior Christ, his only-begotten Son, for for your reign, to fulfill the customary prayers with the people, as we have always done, and as we do now while praying.
ON THE TOME TO THE ANTIOCHENES: ADMONITION
A I. In earlier editions, this brief work carries the name of an epistle; this is solely the fault of the editors, for in almost all manuscripts it is called a "Tomus," and in old Latin editions, a "Tomus." Indeed, that such a title is not unusual is proven by very many other examples, and most especially by this clear testimony of Gregory of Nazianzus. For in his first epistle to Cledonius, he speaks of the Apollinarians as follows: "They must show anyway, either by a synodal Tomus, or by letters of communion. For this is the law of the synods." They will certainly show (namely, their admission to communion) either through a synodal Tomus or through letters of communion. For this is the custom of the synods. It is called a *Tomus*, says Philotheus the Patriarch in his second book against Nicephorus Gregoras, because matters are recounted in it *syntetměmenōs*, that is, concisely.
B II. Felckmann thinks that this epistle is a sixth *Tomus*, and a fragment torn from elsewhere. These are his words: "In the Goblerian codex, it is noted next to this epistle: 'Seek the beginning of the same discourse' (for the *acephalus* [fragment] of Liberius preceded it): by which it seems to be suggested that this is likewise a fragment of some book." An indication of this matter is also the fact that below, towards the end, certain things are written about what was done at the Synod of Antioch; yet it appears from the context that it was written only for the holding of that synod, and Socrates is the author. For my part, I would think this epistle, with its appendix, is either a fragment of some synodal book, or at the least, that those things toward the end were stitched onto the epistle from elsewhere. Moreover, it is likewise written in the margin of the Seguier manuscript: *Zētei archēn* ("Seek the beginning"), just as in the Goblerian, the note of which Felckmann did not understand, nor will anyone understand it who has not noted the order of Athanasius's manuscripts. Therefore, in all the manuscripts whose catalogs it has been possible to inspect, this *Tomus* is described twice: first, complete and absolute, it is held in twelfth place; and again, in the same [codices], it is placed seventy-ninth in order, not indeed written out in its entirety, but a not insignificant part of it is recorded there from the beginning. C Therefore, the scribes write in the margin of the twelfth: *Zētei archēn* ("Seek the beginning"), because, forsooth, the beginning of the same is placed again in the seventy-ninth position, with this note in the Royal codex: "The whole was written previously in the sixteenth discourse; the complete [Tomus] is included above in the twelfth treatise." Yet it is clear that this *Tomus* is perfect in all its numbers and parts, so that there is not even the slightest suspicion that it is a fragment. Indeed, the formula of faith of Paulinus, which has been stitched to the end, was indeed published at Antioch, but it is appended to this *Tomus* of the Alexandrian synod appropriately, for he subscribes to the decrees of Alexandria.
D III. What compelled Athanasius and the other Fathers to celebrate that synod can be discovered from this very *Tomus*. For the first item of business there was the settling of the affairs of the Church of Antioch. For the city was at that time torn into three parts. The first, and greatest in number, was that of the Arians, who, having expelled Meletius, had constituted for themselves a man of their own sect, Euzoius, as bishop; the second was that of the Meletians, so called from Bishop Meletius, whom the Arians had ordained bishop, thinking he would favor their own opinion. But as soon as they realized he was a stalwart defender of consubstantiality, they saw to it that he was sent into exile, when he had barely sat for thirty days. He had returned to his own with great joy upon Julian's entry into the empire. The third was that of the Eustathians, from Saint Eustathius, formerly bishop of Antioch, but he was driven into exile by the deceits of the Arians—to whom he was most hostile—and died there. These people, separated from all the rest, attended the assemblies of the presbyter Paulinus and were in communion with Athanasius. Athanasius exhorts them toward peace, and persuades them to be in communion with those who gather in the "Old" church, that is, with the Meletians; in which matter Athanasius and the Alexandrian synod were by no means heeded, for the schism lasted for a long time thereafter.
IV. But as for what Baronius says, that Paulinus had been ordained bishop by Lucifer before the Alexandrian synod was convened, it appears to be refuted even by this *Tomus*, on which he alone relies. For if he had been ordained bishop beforehand, why is the name of "bishop" never attributed to him in this *Tomus*, and especially in number 9, where it deals with the legates of Lucifer, Paulinus, and Apollinarius—the first and the last are called bishops, but Paulinus is not? Is it credible that if Paulinus had already been bishop, the Fathers of the synod would not have urged that all Catholics...
be united to their own bishop? But Baronius insists that it was a bishop who sent legates to the synod. Yet it is certain that during a vacancy of the see, it was permissible for a presbyter to send legates to a synod. Moreover, the Antiochene see was vacant at that time, or at least was thought to be vacant; for Euzoius the Arian had been ordained by the Arians. Meletius, likewise, had been appointed by the Arians, and although he was a Catholic, he was still suspected by many of the Catholics, nor had he yet entirely wiped away the stain of his Arian promotion. Add to this that all the writers of ecclesiastical history contradict Baronius, stating that Paulinus was ordained at the time the Alexandrian Fathers were dealing with the affairs of the Church.
V. Furthermore, in this synod, the scroll of Sardica was dealt with, which the Fathers decided should be rejected. There was also discussion concerning the three hypostases, which some wished to have repudiated while others admitted them; but once the opinion of both sides had been weighed, it was seen to be a question of the name only. There was also discussion regarding other matters concerning the Incarnation of Christ, especially regarding the heresy of Apollinarius which was then budding forth, who by means of his legates hid the poison of his heresy for a time, as is related below. This Tome was issued at the beginning of the reign of Julian the Apostate, when by his decree the bishops were returning from exile, in the year 362, and we conjecture from certain notes placed at the end that it was written by the hand of Athanasius himself, as you may see.
TOMUS OF ATHANASIUS ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA TO THE ANTIOCHENES
ATo the most beloved and most longed-for fellow-ministers Eusebius, Lucifer, Asterius, Cymatius, and Anatolius, Athanasius and the bishops who have met in Alexandria from Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya—Eusebius, Asterius, Gaius, Agathus, Ammonius, Agathodaemon, Dracontius, Adelphius, Hermaion, Marcus, Theodorus, Andreas, Paphnutius, another Marcus, Zoilus, Menas, Georgius, Lucius, Macarius, and the rest—send much greeting in Christ.
1. We are persuaded that, being ministers of God and good stewards, you are competent to settle all matters of the Church. But since it has come to our ears that many who had long ago fallen away from us due to contention now desire to live in peace, and many, having abandoned their connection with the Ariomanites, are claiming the communion with us, we considered it necessary to write these things which we and our beloved Eusebius and Asterius have inscribed to your kindness (for you yourselves are beloved and truly most longed-for fellow-ministers), rejoicing indeed at such news and praying B that if anyone is still left far from us, and if anyone still appears to be joining the assemblies of the Arians…
A he might recoil from their madness; so that all may henceforth say everywhere: "One Lord, one faith" (Eph. 4:5). For what is so "good," as the Psalmist said (Ps. 132:1), "or what so pleasant as for brethren to dwell together in unity?" Our house is the Church, and our mind ought to be the same; for thus we believe the Lord also will dwell with us, as He said: "I will dwell in them and walk among them" (II Cor. 6:16), and: "Here will I dwell, for I have chosen it" (Ps. 131:14). But where is "here," if not where one faith and piety is preached?
2. We truly desired ourselves, with our beloved brethren Eusebius and Asterius, to set out to see you for many reasons, but especially for this: that we might embrace your charity and together enjoy such peace and concord. But because, as we have indicated in other letters, and as you can learn from these same fellow-ministers, ecclesiastical necessities constrain us, we are indeed saddened; yet we have asked these same fellow-ministers of ours, Eusebius and Asterius, to go to you in our stead. And we give thanks to their piety, because, although they were permitted to hasten to their own dioceses, B they preferred to set aside all else and, on account of the urgent necessity of the Church, chose to undertake the journey to you. As they therefore acquiesced to our desire, we have consoled ourselves, because, since such men as these have arrived with you, we consider ourselves to be present with you all.
3. Therefore, as many as desire to be at peace with us, and especially those who gather in the Old [Church] (20), and those who are turning away from the Arian parties, receive them to yourselves; and as fathers, receive them as sons; as teachers and guardians, accept them (22); and by joining them to our beloved Paulinus and his followers, demand nothing more (23) of them than C to anathematize the Arian heresy, D and confess the faith confessed by the holy Fathers at Nicea, and to condemn those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate from the essence of Christ.
This is truly to A recoil from the detestable heresy of the Arians, not to divide the holy Trinity, nor to say that anything pertaining to it is a creature. For those who pretend to profess the faith confessed at Nicea, while they do not hesitate to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, do nothing else but deny the Arian heresy in words, while holding it in their mind and intent. Let the impiety of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, the insanity of Valentinus and Basilides, and the madness of the Manichaeans be anathematized by all; for if this is done, every base suspicion will be removed everywhere, and the faith of the Catholic Church alone will be shown pure.
4. That we hold this faith, we believe is hidden from none of you nor anyone else, both [for ourselves] and for all those who have always been joined with us in communion. But since we rejoice with those who desire to be joined with us—with all, but especially with those who assemble in the Old [Church]—and have already given great glory to the Lord, both for all other things and for the good intention of these men, B we exhort you that concord may be entered into on these terms; and, as we said above, that you require nothing more of those who assemble in the Old [Church], and that the followers of Paulinus propose nothing more than what was decreed at Nicea.
5. As for the document which some have brought forward, as if it were composed concerning the faith at the synod of Sardica, do not allow it to be read or produced at all: for the synod defined nothing of the sort. For although some demanded that certain things be written concerning the faith, as if something were lacking in the Nicene synod, and rashly attempted to obtain this, the holy synod gathered at Sardica was indignant and decreed that no further written statement concerning the faith should be issued, but that the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicea should suffice, since it was deficient in nothing but was full of piety; and it decreed that no other profession of faith should be issued, C lest that which was written at Nicea be thought imperfect, and an opportunity be given to those who very often wish to write and define concerning the faith. Wherefore, if anyone proposes that or anything else, restrain such men, and rather D [alt-version omitted]
A exhort them to the study of peace; for we recognize in these things nothing but mere contentiousness. For as regards those whom some accused of speaking of three hypostases—because these terms are not in Scripture and may therefore be suspect—we requested that they demand nothing beyond the Nicene confession. Nevertheless, because of this spirit of contention, we questioned them whether they spoke of those hypostases as the Ariomaniacs do—alien and estranged, and of a substance different from one another, and each hypostasis divided by itself, as are other creatures and those born of men; or whether they spoke of them like different substances, as gold, silver, or brass; or whether they, like other heretics, speak of three principles and three Gods, and in that same sense affirm three hypostases. But they affirmed that they neither say these things nor have they ever held such views. When we asked B them: "Why then do you say these things, or why on earth do you use such expressions at all?" they answered that it is because we believe in a holy Trinity, not only a Trinity in name, but one that truly exists and subsists; as in fact we know the Father to be one who truly exists and subsists, and the Son to be truly substantial and subsisting, and the Holy Spirit to be subsisting and existing. Nor, they said, did they ever say there are three Gods or three principles, nor do they at all tolerate those who say or think such things; but they confessed a holy Trinity, yet one Godhead and one principle, and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, as the Fathers declared, and that the Holy Spirit is no creature, nor foreign, but proper and indivisible from the substance of the Son and the Father.
6. Having approved this interpretation of the terms and the defense, we also examined C those whom the former group accused of speaking of only one hypostasis, to see whether they were speaking in the sense of Sabellius, thereby taking away the Son and the Holy Spirit, or whether they thought that the Son lacked substance or the Holy Spirit lacked hypostasis. But they too affirmed that they neither say this nor have they ever held such a view; rather, they said, "We use the term hypostasis, holding it to be the same to say hypostasis as to say substance; and we believe in one hypostasis because the Son is from the substance of the Father and because there is a oneness and identity of nature. For we believe D that there is one Godhead and that its nature is one, and not that the Father's is one, and the Son's and the Holy Spirit's is strange and foreign to it." Then indeed those who had been accused of saying there were three hypostases agreed with these; and those who said there was one substance likewise interpreted the others' words just as they had, and agreed.
Arius A as a Christ-fighter, and Sabellius and Paul of Samosata as impious, and Valentinus and Basilides as alien to the truth, and Manichaeus as the inventor of evils—all these, by the grace of God, and after such interpretations, together agree that the faith confessed at Nicaea by the Fathers is better and more accurate than such terms, and that for the future, they ought to be content with it and make use of its expressions; and he was anathematized by both sides.
7. But since some also seemed to be wrangling among themselves concerning the incarnation of the Savior according to the flesh, we questioned both these and those; and what the one party confessed, the others agreed to—namely, that it was not as the Word of the Lord “came” B to the prophets, that in the same way he also descended into a holy man at the consummation of the ages; but that the Word himself became flesh, and being in the form of God, took the form of a servant, and was born of Mary according to the flesh as a man for our sake, and thus the human race, being completely and perfectly freed from sin in him and quickened from the dead, is led into the kingdom of heaven. For they also confessed this, that the Savior did not have a body without a soul, nor without sense, nor without intelligence. For it was not possible, the Lord having become a man for our sake, that his body should be without intelligence; for the salvation reached not body alone, but also soul in the Word himself: and being truly the Son of God, he became also the Son of man; and being the only-begotten Son of God, he became the same and the firstborn among many brethren. C Wherefore, neither was there one Son of God before Abraham, and another after Abraham; nor was there one who raised Lazarus, and another who asked about him: but the same one was he who naturally ques-
TO MY MOST HONORABLE LORDS, THE BISHOPS AT DIOCAESAREA, GREETINGS IN THE LORD.
We were expecting, by the letter we sent to you, to receive a letter likewise from your charity, most honorable lords—the kind we always receive from the blessed Bishop Athanasius, who knows that we agree with him in dogma and in all things act according to his custom. But since you have not written back, I thought perhaps the length of the letter had not made clear to you our mind and opinion. We write clearly, therefore, what is consistent with our common teacher and yours. I say these things, therefore, concerning the divine incarnation, since over these matters much tumult has been stirred up, not by us, but by others, whom I pass over. We confess, not that a holy man has D come—the Word of God, which was in the prophets—but that the Word himself has become flesh, not having taken on a human mind, a mind that is changeable and led captive by base thoughts, but a divine mind, immutable and heavenly. Wherefore, the Savior did not have a body inanimate, nor void of sense and intelligence. For it could not be that, when the Lord was made man for our sake, his body should be without intelligence. While he was truly the Son of God, he was made Son of man; and while he was the only-begotten Son of God, he was made the firstborn among many brethren. Whence there was not one Son of God before Abraham and another after Abraham, but one perfect only-begotten of God—perfect, however, with divine perfection, and not human. With those who think thus, we confess that we have communion. But with those who think and write the contrary, we have no communion. Whereas all other things are read here as in Athanasius, yet when he says the Word did not assume a human mind but a divine one, he reveals the poison of his heresy, which he had previously hidden with these words: "The Savior did not have a body inanimate, nor void of sense, nor lacking a mind"—evidently understanding, wily and deceitfully, that only a divine mind was in Christ. On which matter it will be treated again in the books against Apollinarius.
A Thus, they asked concerning Him; but the same One was saying in a human way, "Where is Lazarus laid?" [Jn. xi, 34] and divinely was raising him. The same One was, corporally indeed, as a man spitting, but divinely, as the Son of God, opening the eyes of the man born blind. And by his flesh indeed suffering, as Peter said, [1 Pet. i, 1] but divinely opening the tombs and raising the dead. From which, understanding in the same way all things that are in the Gospel, they affirmed that they held the same view concerning the incarnation and the human nature assumed by the Word.
8. Since these things are thus confessed, we exhort you not to condemn rashly nor reject those who so confess and interpret B the expressions which they use, but rather to receive those who are studying for peace and clearing themselves. But as for those who do not wish to confess and interpret the words in this way, restrain them and cause them to feel shame, as men of suspicious sentiment. And not bearing with these, advise also those others who correctly interpret and think, that they should not inquire further of one another nor contend about words to no useful end, nor fight over such expressions, but agree on the sentiment of piety. For those who do not think in this way, but merely contend about such petty phrases and seek things beyond what was written at Nicaea, do nothing else than "give their neighbor drink with a turbulent subversion," [Hab. ii, 5] as those who envy peace and love schisms. But you, as good C men and faithful servants and stewards of the Lord, stop and hinder those things which cause scandal and confusion, and above all things prefer such peace, provided the faith is sound: perhaps the Lord will have mercy upon us, and will join together that which was divided; and when there is one fold, we shall all again have one leader, our Lord Jesus Christ.
9. We indeed, although there was nothing more needed to be sought after than what was established by the Nicene synod, nor were the words of contention to be endured, yet for the sake of conciliating peace, and so as not to reject those who desire to believe rightly, we examined them, and what they confessed, we have briefly dictated—we who were left behind D in Alexandria, together with our fellow ministers Asterius and Eusebius; for most of us departed for their own dioceses. You also, in turn, collectively where you are accustomed to gather, read these things, and deem it worthy to call together all people there as well. For it is right that the letter should first be read there, and that there those who wish and those who maintain a claim as to the...
peace may be joined together; and that then, once they have been joined, the assemblies may be performed wherever it pleases all the people, in the presence of your Excellency, and that the Lord may be glorified in common by all. The brothers who are with me greet you. I pray that you may be well, and that you may remember us before the Lord. I, Athanasius; and in like manner the other bishops who have met together have subscribed. Also, those sent by Lucifer, the bishop of the island of Sardinia, namely two deacons, Herennius and Agapetus; and by Paulinus, Maximus and Calemerus, themselves also deacons. There were also present some monks of Apollinarius, the bishop, sent by him for this purpose. B
10. Now the aforementioned bishops, to whom the letter was written, are these: Eusebius of the city of Vercelli C in Gaul, Lucifer of the island of Sardinia, Asterius of Petra in Arabia, Cymatius of Paltus in Coelesyria, Anatolius of Euboea.
Those who actually wrote the letter are these: Pope Athanasius and those who were present with him in Alexandria, namely Eusebius and Asterius themselves; and the rest: Gaius of Paratonium, which is near Libya; Agathus of Phrágonis and part of a certain Elearchate of Egypt; Ammonius of Pachnemunis and the rest of the Elearchate; Agathodaemon of Schedia and Menelaitus; Dracontius of the lesser Hermopolis; Adelphius of Onuphis, which belongs to the Lychni; Hermion of Taneus; Marcus of Zygra, which is near Libya; Theodorus of Athribis; Andreas of Arsenoitis; Paphnutius of Saïs; Marcus of Philorum; Zoilus of Andrum; Menas of Antiphrae.
Eusebius also subscribed to these in Latin, and their interpretation is as follows:
"I, Eusebius, bishop, according to your exact confession of both parties, by which you have agreed together in the same sentiment concerning the hypostases, I also have agreed to the same; but I have also confirmed with my suffrage, according to the context of the letter, that concerning the incarnation of our Savior, namely that the Son of God has become man and has assumed all things without sin, such as our ancient man consists. And since the Sardican scroll is said to be excluded, so that nothing may appear to be set forth beyond the Nicene faith, I also agree to this matter, lest by that [scroll] the Nicene faith should appear to be excluded, D and I do not think it should be brought forward. I pray that you may be well in the Lord."
A I, Asterius, concur with what is written above, and I pray that you may be well in the Lord.
11. Now, after this Tome had been sent from Alexandria, having been subscribed to by those aforementioned in this way, those others (the Antiochenes) subsequently subscribed as follows:
I, Paulinus, hold this view, as I have received it from the Fathers: that the Father is perfect, existing and subsisting; that the Son is perfect, existing and subsisting; and that the Holy Spirit is perfect, existing and subsisting. Wherefore I also accept the aforementioned interpretation concerning the three hypostases and the one hypostasis, that is to say, substance, and I accept those who think in this way. For it is pious to believe and confess the holy Trinity in one divinity. And concerning the incarnation of the Word of the Father, which took place for our sake, I hold this view, as it is written, that, according to John, the Word became flesh; not according to those most impious men who say that He underwent change, but that He became man for our sake, having been born of the holy Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. For the Saviour did not have a body that was inanimate, or devoid of sense, or devoid of a mind; for it was not possible, since the Lord became human for our sake, for His body B to be devoid of a mind. Therefore, I anathematize those who set aside the faith confessed at Nicaea, and who do not say that the Son is from the substance of the Father and consubstantial with the Father. I also anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature made through the Son. Furthermore, I anathematize [the followers] of Sabellius and Photinus, and every other heresy, following the faith according to Nicaea, and all those things written above. I pray that you may be well; I, Carterius, [so subscribe].
C I, Carterius, concur with what is written above, and I pray that you may be well in the Lord.
NOTE ON THE SUBSCRIPTION OF PAULINUS
The subscription of Paulinus and this profession of faith are found in Epiphanius, heresy 77, page 1015, with this title, and subsequently, in the same place: "Copy of the hand of Paulinus the bishop." "I, Paulinus the bishop." Shortly [thereafter], "from the Fathers." He persuaded us through a written exposition, to which he had already previously given his assent for the sake of an apology to the blessed Athanasius. For he brought and delivered to us a copy of this, with a subscription, clearly containing [statements] together concerning the Trinity, and concerning the mind of the incarnation of Christ, [written] by the hand of our blessed Father Athanasius himself. D This subscription of Paulinus and profession of faith are held by Epiphanius to have been first edited when the Tome to the Antiochenes arrived at Antioch, as is also hinted at here, that is, in the year 362, and that Paulinus offered a copy of this profession to Epiphanius and other Fathers of the Antiochene synod in the following year, 363. In the same place, Epiphanius [says that it was written] by the hand of Athanasius, as was also said above; but whether these are words of Paulinus, or of Epiphanius, or of some scribe, is not clear. Carterius is mentioned by Athanasius, bishop of the city of Antaradus in Syria, in the *Apology for his Flight*, number 3.