481Introduction to Tomus Ad Antiochenos.
————————————
The word ‘tome’ (τόμος) 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
Homœan ascendancy which had marked the last six years 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 Vercellæ, 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 Cæsars, 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 Vercellæ, 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 Eubœa,
were all from Egypt and Marmarica, and (probably three only) from S.W.
Asia. The council (Newman, Arians, v. i.; Gwatkin, Stud.
p. 205, Krüger, Lucif. 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 is a
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 (Serap. iv. 7) had treated the subject
with levity, and yet was now disposed to come to terms (as he did a
year later, Socr. iii. 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 (Ep. 204), with the sanction of
Athanasius (cf. below, Letters 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 infr.
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
(ib. and 4) as a return of the larger body to the smaller,
instead of vice versa. (For the sequel, see Prolegg. ubi
supra.) (4) With the rivalry of parties at Antioch, a weighty
question of theological terminology was indirectly involved. The word
ὑπόστασις had been
used in the Nicene anathema as a synonym of οὐσία (see Excursus A,
pp. 77 sqq. above), and in this sense it was commonly used by
Athanasius in agreement with the New Testament use of the word 482 (Westcott on Heb. i. 3), with Dionysius
of Rome, and with the West, to whom ὑπόστασις was
etymologically identified with ‘Substantia’ their (perhaps
imperfect) equivalent for οὐσία. On the other hand, the
general tendency of Eastern Theology had been to use ὑπόστασις in the
sense of Subject or Person, for which purpose it expressed the idea of
individual essence less ambiguously than πρόσωπον. This was
the use of the word adopted by Origen, Dionysius Alex. (supr. de
Sent. Dionys.), Alexander of Alexandria (in his letter Thdt. H.
E. i. 4. p. 16, l. 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 in 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 use36733673 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 categories 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
οὐσία in Greek metaphysics does not easily
fit the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The
οὐσία common to Father and Son is not the
name of a Species, as ‘Man’ applies to Peter and
Paul. But neither can the idea of πρώτη
οὐσία be reconciled with inherence in three
distinct personal existences. (Cf. supr. p. 409, note 7.)
But here the word
ὑπόστασις comes in to help our imagination. The word (see Socr. H.
E. iii. 7. Westcott, ubi supr. and Newman, Arians,
App. 4), from various literal senses came to be transferred to
the philosophical vocabulary, doing duty as verbal substantive not only
for ὑφεστάναι but for ὑποκεῖσθαι. Like the concrete ὑποκείμενον
it was applied (a) to matter as underlying form, (b)
to substance as underlying attributes. In this latter use it served to
distinguish πρώτη from δευτέρα
οὐσία, expressing
moreover a complete self-contained existence in a way that οὐσία did
not. When therefore the idea of personal individuality has to be
expressed, ὑπόστασις is more suitable than οὐσία. But the
ambiguity of the latter word remains. Those who preferred to speak
of μία
ὑπόστασις thought of the Divine Essence rather as πρώτη
οὐσία, and of One
Personal God, with whom Father, Son, and Spirit were each absolutely
and fully identified (περιχώρησις), while with those who preferred πρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις
the idea of the Divine οὐσία approximated to δευτέρα
οὐσία, 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, i.e. of its own incompleteness. (See further Prolegg. ubi
supr. and Zahn, Marcell. p. 87, sq.).
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 Doctrinæ, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §§9.
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.