your most happy days, so many Churches are without Bishops. And on this account we again request your humanity, most God-beloved Lord Emperor, that, if it please your religiousness, you would command us, before the severe winter weather sets in, to return to our Churches, that so we may be able, unto God Almighty and our Lord and Saviour Christ, His Only-begotten Son, to fulfil together with our flocks our wonted prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as indeed we ‘have ever performed them, and at this time make them.
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
[The ‘list of Sirmian confessions’ published by New- | is also omitted, as bearing only very indirectly on the man as an Lxcursus to the de Synodis is omitted here. | de Synodis. Caspari Alte und Neue Quellen (xi), p. 161, It will be found printed as ‘Appendix iii.’ to his Avzams| has thoroughly investigated the Confession since Newof the Fourth Century.
man wrote, and has proved (what Newman half sus- The Zxcursus on a Creed ascribed (at the Council of| pected) that the document is of Apollinarian origin. Ephesus, see Hard. Conc. i. 1640, Hahn. § 83; Routh} As Caspari was unaware of Newman’s discussion, this Rell. iii. 367) to the 70 bishops who condemned | result comes as the result of two independent investi-Paul of Samosata, at Antioch A.D. 269, and containing | gations pursued on very different lines. ] the formula dpuoovcrov (against this, supr. §§ 43—47), THE word ‘tome ’ (réyos) means either a section, or, in the case of such a document as that before us, a concise statement. It is commonly applied to synodical letters (cf. the ‘Tome’ of Leo, A.D. 450, to Flavian).
Upon the accession of Julian (November, 361) the Homcean ascendancy which had marked the last six yeats of Constantius collapsed. <A few weeks after his accession (Feb. 362) an edict recalled all the exiled Bishops. On Feb. 21 Athanasius re-appeared in Alexandria. He was joined there by Lucifer of Cagliari and Eusebius of Vercellz, who were in exile in Upper Egypt. Once more free, he took up the work of peace which had busied him in the last years of his exile (see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 9). With a heathen once more on the throne of the Ceesars, there was everything to sober Christian party spirit, and to promise success to the council which met under Athanasius during the ensuing summer. Among the twenty-one bishops who formed the assembly the most notable are Eusebius of Vercellz, Asterius of Petra, and Dracontius of Lesser Hermopolis and Adelphius of Onuphis, the friends and correspondents of Athanasius, The rest, with the exception of Anatolius of Eubcea, were all from Egypt and Marmarica, and (probably three only) from S.W. Asia. The council (Newman, Avians, v. i.; Gwatkin, Stud. p.205, Kruger, Zucif. 45—53, was occupied with four problems: (1) The terms on which communion should be vouchsafed to those Arians who desired to re-unite (§§ 3, 8). They were to be asked for nothing beyond the Nicene test, and an express anathema against Arianism, including the doctrine that the Holy Spirit isa Creature. The latter point had been rising into prominence of late, and had called forth from Athanasius his four Discourses to Serapion of Thmuis. The emphatic way in which the point is pressed in § 3, implies that an attempt was being made in some quarter to subscribe the Nicene Creed, while maintaining the Arian position with regard to the Holy Spirit. The language of § 3 cannot be reconciled with the hypothesis (Gwatkin, Studies, 233), that no formal requirement was made by this council on the subject. The person aimed at was possibly Acacius, who (Sevag. iv. 7) had treated the subject with levity, and yet was now disposed to come to terms (as he did a year later, Socr. 11. 25). It is true that we find the names of Macedonius and his followers (N.B. not Eleusius) in the number of the 59 who betook themselves to Liberius (Socr. iv. 12), and neither in their letter nor in his reply is there any allusion to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; and that Basil (Z/. 204), with the sanction of Athanasius (cf. below, Zetters 62, 63), did not press the test upon those who were otherwise orthodox. But the council of 362 has Syrian circumstances specially in view; and however we may explain it, its language is too clear to be mistaken. (On the general subject, cf. Letter 55.)
(2) The Arian Christology also occupied the council (§ 7). The integrity of Christ’s human nature on the one hand, its perfect Union with the Word on the other, are clearly emphasised. This question had begun to come into prominent discussion in several parts of the Christian world (e.g. at Corinth, see zn/fr. Letter 59), and was soon to give rise to the system of Apollinarius, who, however, it is interesting to note, was a party, by his legates, to the present decision. (3) The state of the Church at Antioch was the most practical problem before the council. Meletius was returning to the presidency of the main body of the Antiochene church, whose chief place of worship was the ‘ Palaea’ (§ 3). Since the deposition of Eustathius (c. 330), the intransigent or ‘ protestant’ body had been without a bishop, and were headed by the respected presbyter Paulinus. Small in numbers, and dependent for a church upon the good will of the Arians, they were yet strong in the unsullied orthodoxy of their antecedents, in the sympathy of the West and of Athanasius himself, who had given offence at Antioch in 346 by worshipping with them alone. Clearly the right course was that they should reunite with the main body under Meletius, and this was what the council recommended (§ 3), although, perhaps in deference to the more uncompromising spirits, the union is treated (zd. and 4) as a return of the larger body to the smaller, instead of vice versa. (For the sequel, see Prolegg. bd supra.) (4) With the rivalry of parties at Antioch, a weighty question of theological terminology was indirectly involved. The word tndorams had been used in the Nicene anathema as a synonym of otoia (see Lxcursus A, pp. 717 597- above), and in this a it was commonly used by Athanasius in agreement with the New ‘T’estament use of the wore WOLS INE i (Westcott on Heb. i. 3), with Dionysius of Rome, and with the West, to whom indoraots was etymologically identified with ‘Substantia ’ their (perhaps imperfect) equivalent for ovoia. On the other hand, the general tendency of Eastern Theology had been to use tmsoraors in the sense of Subject or Person, for which purpose it expressed the idea of individual essence less ambiguously than mpdéc@mor.
This was the use of the word adopted by Origen, Dicnysius Alex. (supr. de Sent. Dionys.), Alexander of Alexandria (in his letter Thdt. ZZ. 1. 4. p. 16, 1. 19), and by Athanasius himself in an earlier work (p. 90, supr.)
At Antioch the Eustathians appear to have followed the Nicene and Western usage, using the word to emphasise the Individual Unity of God as against Arian or Subordinationist\ views, while the Meletians protested against the Marcellian monarchianism by insisting on three Hypostases 1n the Godhead. The contradiction was mainly verbal, the two parties being substantially at one as to the doctrine, but varying in its expression. Hence the wise and charitable decision of the council, which came naturally from one who, like Athanasius, could use either expression, though he had come to prefer the Western to the Eastern use’. ne The Tome was carried to Antioch by the five bishops named at the beginning of § 1, and there subscribed by Paulinus and Karterius of Antaradus. As to its effect among the friends of Meletius our information is only inferential (see Gwatkin, Studies, p. 208). On the supposed disciplinary legislation of this council in relation to the Syntagma Doctrine, see Prolegg.
N.B. The translation of the present tract as well as that of the ad Afros and of Letters 56, 59, 60, 61, was made independently of that by Dr. Bright in his Later Treatises of S. Athanasius (see Prolegg. ch. i. § 2), but has been carefully collated with it, and in not a few cases improved by its aid. For a fuller commentary on these pieces than has been possible in this volume, the reader is referred to Dr. Bright’s work.
t It may be well to trace briefly the sense of these technical terms, the history and significance of which is a forcible reminder of the inability of Theology to bring the Infinite within the catesubstantive not only for iderrdvar but for troxctcGa. Like the concrete vmoxeimevoy it was applied (a) to matter as underlying form, (b) to substance as underlying attributes. In this latter use gories of the Finite, to do more than guard our Faith by pointing out the paths which experience has shewn to lead to some false limitation of the fulness of the Revelation of God in Christ.
The distinction (drawn out Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b) between the primary and secondary sense of ovata in Greek metaphysics does not easily fit the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The ovoia common to Father and Son is not the name of a Sfecies,as ‘Man’ applies to Peter and Paul. But neither can the idea of mpwry ovata we reconciled with inherence in three distinct personal existences. (Cf. s2v. p. 409, note 7.)
But here the word wréeraots comes in to help our imagination. The word (see Socr, H.£. iii. 7. Westcott, ub7 supr. and Newman, Arians, App. 4), from various literal senses came to be | i.e. of its own incompleteness. transferred to the dhilosophical vocabulary, doing duty as verbal ' and Zahn, AZarced/. p. 87, sg.)
it served to distinguish mpw7y from éevrépa ovaia, expressing moreover a complete self-contained existence in a way that ovata did not. When therefore the idea of personal individuality has to be expressed, Uréaragrs is more suitable than ovota. But the ambiguity of the latter word remains. Those who preferred to speak of ula vrdcracrs thought of the Divine Essence rather as mpweTy ovata, and of One Personal God, with whom Father, Son, and Spirit were each absolutely and fully identified!reptxwpnors), while with those who preferred tpets Uroardagers the idea of the Divine ovata approximated to devrépa ovala, and guarded against Tritheism solely by holding fast to the Monarchia of the Father. The corrective to each position lay in the recognition of the other, (See further Prolegg. uz supr.
TOME OR SYNODAL LETTER Ce lala beet EO) Pe Obie ANT 1O OH: To our beloved and much-desired fellowministers Eusebius *, Lucifer 2, Asterius 3, Kymatius, and Anatolius, Athanasius and the bishops present in Alexandria from Italy and Arabia, Egypt and Libya; Eusebius, Asterius, Gaius, Agathus, Ammonius, Agathodzemon, Dracontius, Adelphius, Hermzeon, Marcus, Theodorus, Andreas, Paphnutius, another Marcus, Zoilus, Menas, George, Lucius, Macarius and the rest, all greeting in Christ.
We are persuaded that being ministers of God and good stewards ye are sufficient to order the affairs of the Church in every respect. But since it has come to us, that many who were formerly separated from us by jealousy now wish for peace, while many also having severed their connection with the Arian madmen are desiring our communion, we think it well to write to your courtesy what ourselves and the beloved Eusebius and Asterius have drawn up: yourselves being our beloved and truly most-desired fellow-ministers. We rejoice at the said tidings, and pray that even if any be left still far from us, and if any appear to be in agreement with the Arians, he may promptly leave their madness, so that for the future all men everywhere may say, ‘One Lord, 1 Eusebius of Vercellz, exiled (Hist. Ar. 33; Ap. Mug. 4) after Milan 355. See D.C.B. ii. 374 (93)- d 2 Lucifer of Calaris: cf. Letters 50, 51, below, and Hist. Ar. 33; Apol. Fug. 4.
3 Phe Dianne f all the details that can be collected with regard to the bishops named in the text. Asterius (ist. Ar, 18 note); Kymatius of Paltus in Syria Prima (Afol. Fug. 3; Hist. Ar.s); Anatolius of Eubcea (notin D.C.B.); Gaius (Apol. Fug. 7; Hist. Ar. 72, D.C.B. i. 387, No. 19??); Agathus, Azst. Ar. 72 (not in D.C.B.); Ammonius (see /zs¢. Ar. 72 sub, fin.; Ap. Fug. 7, Letter 49. 7, and infr. Appendix, note x as to names in D.C.B.); Agathodemon (Hist. Av. ibid.); Dracontius and Adelphius (Letters 49, 60); Hermon (Hermion in § 10) unknown, unless the ‘Hermes’ of Hist. Av. 72; Marcus (2), (cf. D.C.B iii. 825 (7) for works ascribed to one or the other); Paphnutius, (7s7. Ar.72; D.C B. iv. 184 (4)); Zoilus of Andropolis (Harduin, &c., suo jure, identify him with the bishop of the Syrian Larissa, who signs at Antioch in 363, Cone. 1. 742; D.C.B. iv. 1220); Andreas, George, Lucius, Macarius, Menas, and Theodore, are unknown and notin D.C.B. The names all recur (excepting those of George, Lucius, Macarius), in § 10, where the sees are specified.
one faith4.? For as the psalmist says, what is so good or pleasant as for brethren to dwell in unity 5. But our dwelling is the Church, and our mind ought to be the same. For thus we believe that the Lord also will dwell with us, who says, ‘I will dwell with them and walk in them °,’ and ‘Here will I dwell for I have a delight therein7.’ But by ‘here’ what is meant but there where one faith and religion is preached?
2. Mission of Eusebius and Asterius, We then of Egypt truly wished to go to you along with our beloved Eusebius and Asterius, for many reasons, but chiefly that we might embrace your affection and together enjoy the said peace and concord. But since, as we declared in our other letters, and as ye may learn from our fellow-ministers, the needs of the church detain us, with much regret we begged the same fellow-ministers of ours, Eusebius and Asterius, to go to you in our stead. And we thank their piety in that although they might have gone at once to their dioceses, they preferred to go to you at all costs, on account of the pressing need of the Church. They therefore having consented, we consoled ourselves with the consideration that you and they being there, we all were present with you in mind.
3. The‘ Meletians’ to be acknowledged, and all who renounce heresy, especially as to the Holy Spirit.
As many then as desire peace with us, and specially those who assemble in the Old [Church] * and those again who are seceding 4 Eph. iv. 5. 5 See Ps. cxxxiii. r.
6 2 Cor. vi. 16, and Lev. xxvi. 12. 7 Ps. cxxxil. 14 8 "By rh madaa, cf. Theodt. H.Z.i. 3: possibly the old Town is meant, viz. the main part of Antioch on the left bank of the Orontes, so called in distinction from the ‘ New’ town of Seleucu from the Arians, do ye call to yourselves, and receive them as parents their sons, and welcome them as tutors and guardians; and unite them to our beloved Paulinus and his people, without requiring more from them than to anathematise the Arian heresy and confess the faith confessed by the holy fathers at Niczea, and to anathematise also those who say that the Holy Spirit is a Creature and separate from the Essence of Christ. For this is in truth a complete renunciation of the abominable heresy of the Arians, to refuse to divide the Holy Trinity, or to say that any part of it is a creature. For those who, while pretending to cite the faith confessed at Nicaea, venture to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, do nothing more than in words deny the Arian heresy while they retain it in thought. But let the impiety of Sabellius and of Paul of Samosata also be anathematised by all, and the madness of Valentinian and Basilides, and the folly of the Manicheans. For if this be done, all evil suspicion will be removed on all hands, and the faith of the Catholic Church alone be exhibited in purity.
4. The parties at Antioch to unite.
But that we, and they who have ever remained in communion with us, hold this faith, we think no one of yourselves nor any one else is ignorant. But since we rejoice with all those who desire re-union, but especially with those that assemble in the Old [church], and as we glorify the Lord exceedingly, as for all things so especially for the good purpose of these men, we exhort you that concord be established with them on these terms, and, as we said above, without further conditions, without namely any further demand upon yourselves on the part of those who assemble in the Old [church], or Paulinus and his fellows propounding anything else, or aught beyond the Nicene definition.
5. The creed of Sardica not an authorised formula. Question of ‘hypostasts.’
And prohibit even the reading or publication of the paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it 8, the holy synod Callinicus which occupied the Island in the river. The ‘Old’ Church, or Church of the Apostles, was situated in the Old Town, and was at present occupied by the orthodox party of Meletius. The old orthodox party of Paulinus had only oné small church in the New Town, granted for their use out of respect for Paulinus by the Arian bishop Euzoius (Socr. 1, £. iii. g).
8a The draft is given by Theodt. //.Z. ii. 8; it insists vehemently on the ‘ One Hypostusis.’
assembled in Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicza, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at Nicea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences 9, on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicza, but on account of the contention we made enquiry of them, whether they meant, lke the Arian madmen, subsistences foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each Subsistence was divided apart by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass;—or whether, like other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three Subsistences.
They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them ‘what then do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions?’ they replied, Because they believed in a Holy Trinity, not a trinity in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, ‘both a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,’ and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity but One Godhead, and one Beginning, and that the Son is coessential with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence of the Father and the Son.
6. Zhe question of one Subsistence (Hypostasts) or three, not to be pressed.
Having accepted then these men’s interpretation and defence of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the nega- 9 vmootagets.
LETTER TO THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH.
tion of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal**, But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but ‘we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence;’ ‘ But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father, and because of the identity of nature. For we believe that there is one Godhead, and that it has one nature, and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.’ Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichzus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God’s grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Niceea is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language.
7. The human Nature of Christ complete, not Body only.
But since alsc certain seemed to be contending together concerning the fleshly Economy of the Saviour, we enquired of both parties. And what the one confessed, the others also agreed to, that the Word did not, as it came to the prophets, so dwell in a holy man at the consummation of the ages, but that the Word Himself was made flesh, and being in the Form of God, took the form of a servant 1, and from Mary after the flesh became man for us, and that thus in Him the human race is perfectly and wholly delivered from sin and quickened from the dead, and given access to the kingdom of the heavens. For they confessed also that the Saviour had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence; for it was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that His body should be without intelligence: nor was the salvation effected in the Word Himself a salvation of body only, but of soul also. And being Son of God in truth, He became also Son of Man, and being God’s Only-begotten Son, He became also at the same time ‘firstborn among many 10 gyovaiov, avuToo'rarov, the words are rendered ‘unessential’ and ‘ not subsisting’ in another connection, swpr. p. 434, &c. ir Phil, ii. 7, &c.
brethren?2,’. Wherefore neither was there one Son of God before Abraham, another after Abraham?: nor was there one that raised up Lazarus, another that asked concerning him; but the same it was that said as man, ‘ Where does Lazarus lie?;’ and as God raised him up: the same that as man and in the body spat, but divinely as Son of God opened the eyes of the man blind from his birth 3; and while, as Peter says +, in the flesh He suffered, as God opened the tomb and raised the dead. For pee reasons, thus understanding all that is said in the Gospel, they assured us that they held the same truth about the Word’s Incarnation and becoming Man.
8. Questions of words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike.
These things then being thus confessed, we exhort you not hastily to condemn those who so confess, and so explain the phrases they use, nor to reject them, but rather to accept them as they desire peace and defend themselves, while you check and rebuke, as of suspicious views, those who refuse so to confess and to explain their language. But while you refuse toleration to the latter, counsel the others also who explain and hold aright, not to enquire further into each other’s opinions, nor to fight about words to no useful purpose, nor to go on contending with the above phrases, but to agree in the mind of piety. For they whoare not thus minded, but only stir up strife with such petty phrases, and seek something beyond what was drawn up at Nicea, do nothing except ‘give their neighbour turbid confusion to drink 5,’ like men who grudge peace and love dissensions. But do ye, as good men and faithful servants and stewards of the Lord, stop and check what gives offence and is strange, and value above all things peace of that kind, faith being sound. Perhaps God will have pity on us, and unite what is divided, and, there being once more one flock ®, we shall all have one leader, even our Lord Jesus Christ.
9. The above terms unanimously agreed upon.
These things, albeit there was no need to require anything beyond the synod of Niczea, nor to tolerate the language of contention, yet for the sake of peace, and to prevent the rejection of men who wish to believe aright, we enquired into. And what they confessed, we put briefly into writing, we namely who are left in Alexandria, in common 1 John viii. 58. 47, Pets iv. x with our fellow-ministers, Asterius bius. For most of us had gone away to our dioceses. But do you on your part read this in public where you are wont to assemble, and be pleased to invite all to you thither. For it is right that the letter should be there first read, and that there those who desire and strive for peace should be re-united. And then, when they are ré-united, in the spot where all the laity think best, in the presence of your courtesy, the public assemblies should be held, and the Lord be glorified by all together. The brethren who are with me greet you. J pray that you may be well, and remember us to the Lord; both I, Athanasius, and likewise the other bishops assembled, sign, and those sent by Lucifer, bishop of the island of Sardinia, two deacons, Herennius and Agapetus; and from Paulinus, Maximus and Calemerus, deacons also. And there were present certain monks of Apolinarius7 the bishop, sent from him for the purpose.
Io. Signatures, Io. Signatures, The names of the several bishops to whom the letter is addressed are: Eusebius of the city of Virgilli in Gaul®, Lucifer of the island of Sardinia, Asterius of Petra, Arabia, Kymatius of Paltus, Coele-Syria, Anatolius of Eubcea.
Senders: the Pope Athanasius, and those present with him in Alexandria, viz.: Eusebius, Asterius, and the others above-mentioned, Gaius of Paratonium? in Hither Libya, Agathus of Phragonis and part of Elearchia in Egypt, Ammonius of Pachnemunis?° and the rest of Elearchia, Agathodemon of Schedia ™ and Menelaitas, Dracontius of Lesser Hermupolis. Adelphius of Onuphis*? in Lychni, Hermion of Tanes ‘3, Marcus of Zygra?®, Hither Libya, Theodorus of Athribis *4, Andreas of Arsenoe, Paphnutius of Sais, Marcus of Phile, Zoilus of Andrés *5, Menas of Antiphra*.
Eusebius also signs the following in Latin, of which the translation is: I Eusebius, according to your exact confession made on either side by agreement concerning the Subsistences, also add my 7 Of Laodicea, the later heresiarch. *Cisalpine’ Gaul, or Lombardy.
9 In Marmarica or ‘ Libya Siccior’ near the Ras el Harzeét.
10 Capital of the Sebennytic nome, near Hardahur.
it A town and custom-house near Andropolis, between Alxa. and the Canopic arm of the Nile.
12 Chief town of a nome in the Delta. 13 ‘Zoan.’
14 A very important town near the head of the Tanite arm. See Amm. Mare. xxii. 16. 6, who calls it one of the four largest cities in Egypt proper, 15 j.e. Andropolis (above, note 11), 16 West of Alxa. toward the Libyan dessert, and not far from Zyzra in Marmarica.
8 i.e. Vercellee, in and Euseagreement; further concerning the Incarnation of our Saviour, namely that the Son of God has become Man, taking everything upon Himself without sin, like the composition of our old man, I ratify.the text of the letter. And whereas the Sardican paper is ruled out, to avoid the appearance of issuing anything beyond the creed of Nicea, I also add my consent, in order that the creed of Niczea may not seem by it to be excluded, and [I agree] that it should not be published. I pray for your health in the Lord.; I Asterius agree to what is above written, and pray for your health in the Lord.
tr. Zhe‘ Zome’ signed at Antioch, And after this Tome was sent off from Alexandria, thus signed by the aforesaid, [the recipients] in their turn signed it: I Paulinus hold thus, as I received from the fathers, that the Father perfectly exists and subsists, and’ that the Son perfectly subsists, ;and that the Holy Spirit perfectly subsists.
Wherefore also I accept the above explanation concerning the Three Subsistences, and the one Subsistence, or rather Essence, and those who hold thus. For it is pious to hold and confess the Holy Trinity in one Godhead. And concerning the Word of the Father becoming Man for us, I hold as it is written, that, as John says, the Word was made Flesh, not in the sense of those most impious persons who say that He has undergone a change, but that He has become Man for us, being born of the holy Virgin Mary and of the Holy Spirit. For the Saviour had a body neither without soul, nor without sense, nor without intelligence. For it were impossible, the Lord being made Man for us, that His body should be without intelligence. Wherefore I anathematise those who set aside the Faith confessed at Nicza, and who do not say that the Son is of the Fathers Essence, and coessential with the Father. Moreover I anathematise those who say that the Holy Spirit 1s a Creature made through the Son. Once more I anathematise the heresy of Sabellius and of Photinus*7, and every heresy, walking in the Faith of Nicaea, and in all that is above written. I Karterius?® pray for your health.
17 See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) ad fin. This is remarkable as the first Eastern condemnation of Photinus by name from the Nicene side. He had been condemned at Sirmium in 347, and under pressure from the East apparently at Milan in 345 and 347, as well as in the Councils of Antioch in 344, and Sirmium in 351 (supr. pp. 463, 464). On the document of Paulinus, see Epiph. Her, \xxvil. 20, 21, also Dr. Bright’s note.
8 Bishop of Antaradus on the Syrian coast (D.C.B. i. 410 (3)); see de Fuga, 3, and Hist. Ar. 5. note 6a. Y APPENDIX. EXILE OF ATHANASIUS UNDER JULIAN, 362—363.
__ THE fragment which follows, containing an interesting report of a story told by Athanasius to Ammonius, Bishop of Pachnemunis, is inserted here as furnishing undesignedly important details as to the movements of Athanasius in 363. See Prolegg. ch. v. §3 h, also ch. ii. §9. It is excerpted by Montfaucon from an account of the Abbat Theodore, written for Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (385—412) by a certain Ammon (Acta SS. Mait, Tom. iii. Append., pp.63—71). The writer was at that time a bishop (see unknown): he was born about 335, as he was seventeen years old when he embraced the monastic life a year ‘and more’ after the proclamation of Gallus as Caesar (Mar. 15, 351). About the time of the expulsion of Athanasius by Syrianus he retired to Nitria, where he remained many years, and finally returned to Alexandria, where he appears (éz/fra) as one of the clergy; the date of his elevation to the Episcopate cannot be fixed, but it obviously cannot be as early as 356-7 (so D.C.B. i. 102 (2), and probably is much later even than 362, in which year he would still be hardly twenty-eight. (He mentions the objections to the election of Athanasius, who was probably 30 in 328, on the ground of his youth.)
Accordingly (apart from the different form of his name) he cannot! be identified with either of the Ammonii referred to in Jom. ad Ant. 1, note 3; Hist. Ar. 72, &c. The elder of the two does not concern us here: the younger (spr. pp. 483, 486), is the Ammonius to whom Athanasius told the story in the hearing of Ammon, and was now dead. Of Hermon, bishop of Bubastis, mentioned as present along with Ammonius, Theophilus, and Ammon when the story was told, nothing is known (except that the date D.C.B. iii. 4 (2) is over 25 years too early). As he is not ‘of blessed memory,’ he was possibly still living during the Episcopate of Theophilus and Ammon. (There is nothing to identify him with the bishop of Zanes in Zon. Ant. 1, 10.)