Peace for the Church of Antioch

To our beloved and dearly longed-for fellow ministers Eusebius, Lucifer, Asterius, Kymatius and Anatolius, from Athanasius and the bishops present in Alexandria from Italy and Arabia, Egypt and Libya: Eusebius, Asterius, Gaius, Agathus, Ammonius, Agathodaemon, Dracontius, Adelphius, Hermaeon, Marcus, Theodorus, Andreas, Paphnutius, another Marcus, Zoilus, Menas, George, Lucius, Macarius and the rest. All of us send greetings in Christ. We are sure that, as ministers of God and good stewards, you are able to set the affairs of the church in order in every respect. But word has reached us that many who were once separated from us by jealousy now want peace, and that many, too, who have broken with the Arian madmen are seeking communion with us. So we think it well to write and tell you, our beloved and truly most longed-for fellow ministers, what we ourselves and our beloved Eusebius and Asterius have drawn up. We rejoice at this news. And we pray that if anyone is still left far from us, and if anyone seems to agree with the Arians, he may quickly leave their madness, so that from now on all people everywhere may say, “One Lord, one faith.” For as the psalmist says, what is so good or so pleasant as for brothers to live together in unity? But our dwelling is the church, and our mind ought to be one and the same. For in this way, we believe, the Lord too will dwell with us, who says, “I will dwell with them and walk in them,” and, “Here I will dwell, for I take delight in it.” And what is meant by “here” but the place where a single faith and religion is preached? [a]

We of Egypt truly wanted to come to you along with our beloved Eusebius and Asterius, for many reasons, but chiefly so that we might embrace you and enjoy this peace and harmony together with you. But, as we said in our other letters, and as you can learn from our fellow ministers, the needs of the church keep us here. So, with much regret, we asked these same fellow ministers of ours, Eusebius and Asterius, to go to you in our place. And we thank them for their devotion, for though they could have gone straight to their own dioceses, they chose to go to you at all costs, because of the pressing need of the church. Since they agreed, we comforted ourselves with the thought that, with you and them together there, all of us were present with you in mind.

So call to yourselves all who want peace with us, especially those who meet in the Old Church, and those, again, who are breaking away from the Arians. Receive them as parents receive their sons, and welcome them as tutors and guardians would. Unite them to our beloved Paulinus and his people, and ask nothing more of them than to anathematize the Arian heresy and confess the faith confessed by the holy fathers at Nicaea, and to anathematize also those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate from the substance of Christ. For this is truly 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. Those who pretend to cite the faith confessed at Nicaea, yet dare to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, do nothing more than deny the Arian heresy in words while they keep it in their thinking. But let the impiety of Sabellius and of Paul of Samosata also be anathematized by everyone, and the madness of Valentinus and Basilides, and the folly of the Manichaeans. For if this is done, every evil suspicion will be removed on all sides, and the faith of the catholic church alone will be shown in its purity. [c] That we, and those who have always remained in communion with us, hold this faith is, we think, unknown to none of you, nor to anyone else. But we rejoice with all who desire reunion, and especially with those who meet in the Old Church, and we glorify the Lord greatly, as for all things, so especially for the good purpose of these men. So we urge you to establish harmony with them on these terms and, as we said above, without further conditions. That is, those who meet in the Old Church are to make no further demand of you, and Paulinus and his people are to put forward nothing else, nothing beyond the definition of Nicaea.

And forbid even the reading or publishing of the paper that some talk so much about, as though it had been drawn up concerning the faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no such definition. Some demanded that a creed be drafted, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, and in their haste they even attempted it. But the holy synod assembled at Sardica was indignant and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted. They should be content, it said, with the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea, since it lacked nothing and was full of piety. A second creed should not be put out, so that the one drafted at Nicaea would not be thought imperfect, and so that no pretext would be given to those who were often wanting to draft and define a creed. So if anyone puts forward that paper or any other, stop them, and persuade them instead to keep the peace. For in such men we see no motive except contentiousness. As for those whom some were blaming for speaking of three hypostases, on the ground that the phrase is not in Scripture and is therefore suspect, we thought it right, indeed, to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicaea. But because of the dispute we asked them what they meant. Did they mean, like the Arian madmen, hypostases foreign and strange, alien in substance from one another, each hypostasis divided off by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and with those begotten of men in particular, or like different substances such as gold, silver or brass? Or did they mean, like other heretics, three origins and three Gods, by speaking of three hypostases? They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. Then we asked them, “What, then, do you mean by it, and why do you use such expressions?” They replied that it was because they believed in a Holy Trinity, not a trinity in name only, but one truly existing and subsisting: “We acknowledge a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing.” They said that they had never said there were three Gods or three origins, and that they would not put up at all with anyone who said or held such a thing. They acknowledged a Holy Trinity but one Godhead and one origin, and that the Son is of one substance with the Father, as the fathers said, while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but belongs to and is inseparable from the substance of the Father and the Son. [f]

Having accepted, then, these men’s interpretation and defense of their language, we asked those whom they blamed for speaking of one hypostasis whether they used the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to deny the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son had no substance, or the Holy Spirit were impersonal. But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. “We use the word hypostasis,” they said, “thinking it the same thing to say hypostasis or substance. But we hold that there is one, because the Son is of the substance of the Father, and because of the sameness 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 the nature of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit are distinct.” Well then, those who had been blamed for saying there were three hypostases agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of the one substance also confessed the teaching of the first group as they had explained it. And by both sides Arius was anathematized as an adversary of Christ; Sabellius and Paul of Samosata as impious men; Valentinus and Basilides as strangers to the truth; and Mani as an inventor of mischief. And all of them, by God’s grace, and after the explanations above, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea is better than these phrases, and that from now on they would rather be content to use its language. [i]

But since certain people also seemed to be quarreling with each other about the Savior’s plan of salvation in the flesh, we questioned both sides. And what the one side confessed, the other also agreed to. The Word did not dwell in a holy man at the end of the ages in the way he came to the prophets; rather, the Word himself became flesh, and, being in the form of God, took the form of a servant, and from Mary, as to the flesh, became man for us. And so in him the human race is perfectly and wholly set free from sin, brought to life from the dead, and given access to the kingdom of the heavens. For they also confessed that the Savior did not have 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 brought about in the Word himself a salvation of the body only, but of the soul also. And being truly Son of God, he became also Son of Man; and being God’s only Son, he became at the same time also “the firstborn among many brothers.” So there was not one Son of God before Abraham and another after Abraham; nor was there one who raised Lazarus and another who asked about him. It was the same one who said as man, “Where is Lazarus lying?” and as God raised him up; the same who as man and in the body spat, but divinely, as Son of God, opened the eyes of the man blind from birth; and who, while he suffered in the flesh, as Peter says, as God opened the tomb and raised the dead. For these reasons, understanding everything said in the Gospel in this way, they assured us that they held the same truth about the Word’s taking flesh and becoming man. [j]

Since these things have been confessed in this way, then, we urge you not to condemn hastily those who confess them and who explain the phrases they use in this way, nor to reject them, but rather to accept them, since they want peace and are defending themselves. At the same time, check and rebuke, as holding suspect views, those who refuse to confess in this way and to explain their language. But while you refuse to tolerate the latter, advise the others too, who explain and hold rightly, not to inquire any further into each other’s opinions, nor to fight about words to no useful purpose, nor to go on quarreling over the phrases above, but to be of one mind in piety. For those who are not of this mind, but only stir up strife with such petty phrases and look for something beyond what was drawn up at Nicaea, do nothing except “give their neighbor muddy confusion to drink,” like men who begrudge peace and love quarrels. But you, as good men and faithful servants and stewards of the Lord, stop and check whatever gives offense and is strange, and value above all things a peace of this kind, so long as the faith is sound. Perhaps God will have pity on us and unite what is divided, and, there being once more one flock, we will all have one leader, our Lord Jesus Christ. [l]

There was no need to require anything beyond the synod of Nicaea, or to tolerate the language of contention. Even so, we looked into these things for the sake of peace, and so that men who wish to believe rightly would not be rejected. And what they confessed we have put briefly into writing: we, that is, who are left in Alexandria, together with our fellow ministers Asterius and Eusebius. For most of us had gone away to our dioceses. So, for your part, read this in public where you usually assemble, and kindly invite everyone to come to you there. For it is right that the letter should be read there first, and that there those who desire and strive for peace should be reunited. And then, once they are reunited, the public assemblies should be held, in your presence, at whatever place all the lay people think best, and the Lord be glorified by all together. The brothers who are with me greet you. I pray that you may be well and that you will remember us before the Lord. I, Athanasius, sign, and likewise the other bishops assembled here; so do those sent by Lucifer, bishop of the island of Sardinia, two deacons, Herennius and Agapetus; and from Paulinus, Maximus and Calemerus, who are also deacons. And there were present certain monks of Apollinaris the bishop, sent by him for this purpose. [m]

The names of the bishops to whom the letter is addressed are: Eusebius of the city of Vercelli in Gaul; Lucifer of the island of Sardinia; Asterius of Petra, in Arabia; Kymatius of Paltus, in Coele-Syria; and Anatolius of Euboea. The senders are Pope Athanasius and those present with him in Alexandria, namely Eusebius, Asterius, and the others named above: Gaius of Paraetonium, in Nearer Libya; Agathus of Phragonis and part of Elearchia, in Egypt; Ammonius of Pachnemunis and the rest of Elearchia; Agathodaemon of Schedia and Menelaitas; Dracontius of Lesser Hermopolis; Adelphius of Onuphis, in Lychni; Hermion of Tanis; Marcus of Zygra, in Nearer Libya; Theodorus of Athribis; Andreas of Arsinoe; Paphnutius of Sais; Marcus of Philae; Zoilus of Andros; and Menas of Antiphra. Eusebius also signs the following in Latin, which translates as: “I, Eusebius, in keeping with your exact confession, made on both sides by agreement concerning the hypostases, also add my agreement. Further, concerning our Savior’s taking flesh, namely that the Son of God has become man, taking on himself, without sin, everything that makes up our old man, I confirm the text of the letter. And since the Sardican paper is ruled out, to avoid the appearance of issuing anything beyond the creed of Nicaea, I also add my consent, so that the creed of Nicaea may not seem to be shut out by it, and I agree that it should not be published. I pray for your health in the Lord.” “I, Asterius, agree to what is written above, and pray for your health in the Lord.” [n]

After this Tome had been sent off from Alexandria, signed in this way by those named above, those who received it signed it in their turn: “I, Paulinus, hold as I received from the fathers: that the Father perfectly exists and subsists, that the Son perfectly subsists, and that the Holy Spirit perfectly subsists. So I also accept the explanation above concerning the three hypostases and the one hypostasis, or rather substance, and I accept those who hold this way. For it is a mark of piety 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 became flesh, not in the sense of those most impious people 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 Savior had a body neither without a soul, nor without sense, nor without intelligence. For it would be impossible, when the Lord had been made man for us, that his body should be without intelligence. “So I anathematize those who set aside the faith confessed at Nicaea, and who do not say that the Son is of the Father’s substance and of one substance with the Father. Moreover, I anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature made through the Son. Once more I anathematize the heresy of Sabellius and of Photinus, and every heresy, walking in the faith of Nicaea and in all that is written above.” “I, Karterius, pray for your health.” [s]