# Serapion of Thmuis

Source: https://coptic-lore-forge.lovable.app/wiki/serapion-of-thmuis — Coptic Orthodox Wiki (updated 2026-10-03)

Serapion of Thmuis, also called Sarapion, was a fourth-century Egyptian bishop, former monk and abbot, disciple of Saint Antony, and supporter of Saint Athanasius in the Arian controversy. Remembered as a confessor, he is associated with writings against Manichaeism and an early collection of liturgical prayers. His feast is listed as 21 March.

## Overview

**Serapion of Thmuis**, also written **Sarapion of Tmuis**, was a fourth-century Egyptian bishop, theological writer, and supporter of Saint Athanasius I the Apostolic during the Arian controversy. Before becoming bishop he had been a monk and an abbot, and he was a disciple of Saint Antony of Egypt. The Coptic Encyclopedia lists his feast as **21 March** and records that, after his deposition by Emperor Constantius II, he became known as a “confessor.”[^1][^2]

His historical importance lies at the meeting point of monasticism, episcopal leadership, theological controversy, and liturgical writing. He corresponded with Athanasius about the Holy Spirit, wrote against Manichaeism, and is associated with a fourth-century sacramentary or euchologion containing thirty prayers. The extent of his authorship of that collection remains uncertain, since his name appears in only two of its prayers.[^3][^7][^8]

The surviving evidence requires care both in identifying him and in reconstructing his career. Several Egyptian monks bore the name Sarapion or Serapion, while the encyclopedia’s accounts differ over the circumstances of his replacement as bishop and the authorship of the Coptic *Life of Macarius*. These differences should not be obscured by combining all references to the name into a single biography.[^2][^13][^14][^20]

## History and origins

### Education, monastic life, and appointment as bishop

Saint Jerome reports that Serapion received the epithet *Scholasticus* because of his eloquence and erudition. The encyclopedia consequently infers that he had received a good education, although the passage provides no school, birthplace, or account of his studies. His sequence of offices is clearer: he was a monk, then an abbot, and was already bishop of Thmuis by **339**, when Athanasius addressed his festal letter to him as bishop.[^1]

Thmuis was a city of the eastern Egyptian Delta. The encyclopedia’s geographical entry identifies its site as **Tall ‘Abd al-Salam**, southwest of the village of Timay in Daqahliyyah, approximately 12 miles, or 19 kilometres, southeast of al-Mansurah. *Understanding the Liturgy*, however, calls Serapion bishop of “Thmuis (Demiat)”; the two supplied descriptions should therefore be reported without treating their geographical terminology as interchangeable.[^4][^10]

Serapion inherited an established Christian see rather than founding a new bishopric. The city’s earlier bishops included Ammonius, before the middle of the third century; Philippus; Phileas, around 306; and Donatus, who succeeded Phileas after his martyrdom. At the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325, Thmuis had both a Melitian bishop named Ephraim and an orthodox bishop whose name is uncertain because the episcopal lists disagree.[^4]

### Saint Antony and the monastic connection

Serapion’s relationship with Antony is attested both as discipleship and through a specific bequest: when Antony died in **356**, he left Serapion one of his two sheepskins. Serapion also wrote to Antony’s disciples on the occasion of their leader’s death. These details connect his later episcopal and literary activity with the monastic circle in which he had been formed.[^1][^7]

The encyclopedia’s account of Antony proposes that Serapion was probably the former disciple whose recollections helped Athanasius compose the *Life of Antony*. Athanasius stated that he used both his own memories and information from someone who had been Antony’s disciple; the identification of this informant with Serapion is presented as probable, not certain.[^5]

This possible role is distinct from authorship of the biography itself. In the account supplied, Athanasius was the author, while Serapion may have helped transmit firsthand memories of Antony. The encyclopedia’s broader treatment of Athanasius also credits his relationships with Serapion and the Pachomian monks with encouraging and supporting Egyptian monastic and ascetic life.[^5][^6]

### Embassy, deposition, and uncertain final years

Serapion’s support for Athanasius involved direct engagement with imperial authority. During Athanasius’s exile, an embassy that included Serapion went to represent him before Constantius II. The dedicated biography places this mission around the time of Athanasius’s account of Arius’s death, dated 356–358, or slightly earlier; the entry on Thmuis dates the delegation to **356**, identifies Constantinople as its destination, and says that Serapion led it.[^2][^13]

The embassy did not reconcile the emperor to Athanasius. According to Serapion’s biography, Constantius deposed him, after which he was remembered as a confessor. The same entry judges him to have been apparently Athanasius’s closest ally and colleague among the Egyptian bishops, while suggesting from the style of the correspondence that Serapion was probably the junior partner.[^2]

The succession at Thmuis is less certain. Epiphanius, in *Panarion* 73.26, identifies Ptolemaeus as bishop of Thmuis at the Synod of Seleucia in **359**. Serapion’s biography leaves open whether Serapion was then still in exile, with Ptolemaeus serving as an Arian replacement, or had already died. The geographical entry instead states that Serapion was removed in 359 and replaced by Ptolemaeus, whom it calls anti-Athanasian.[^2][^13]

Other passages give later indications for his death: the article on Manichaeism supplies **362**, the account of Maximus and Domitius gives **about 362**, and the article on epiclesis describes him as having died **after 360**. These notices do not resolve the uncertainty expressed in his dedicated biography, and an exact death date cannot be presented as unanimously established by the supplied sources.[^16][^17][^12]

## Theology and meaning

### Athanasius’s letters on the Holy Spirit

Serapion sent Athanasius questions concerning the Holy Spirit, prompting at least four letters in **359–360**. The correspondence is therefore evidence of Serapion’s participation in theological discussion, although the doctrinal exposition preserved in these letters belongs to Athanasius rather than being a surviving treatise written by Serapion himself.[^3]

The encyclopedia’s treatment of the Coptic Doctrine of the Holy Spirit places the *Four Letters to Serapion* within Alexandria’s opposition to Pneumatomachianism, which denied the Spirit’s divinity and consubstantiality with the Father and the Son. Athanasius explained the Spirit’s divinity and procession and argued that the Spirit must possess the divine nature in order to divinize and sanctify human beings.[^9]

The argument connects doctrine with spiritual transformation: in the source’s account, the Spirit’s work of sanctification is itself a reason for affirming the Spirit’s divinity. Serapion’s questions thus occasioned an exposition in which the divine identity of the Spirit and the sanctification of believers are inseparable.[^3][^9]

### Opposition to Manichaeism

Serapion’s best-known work is his attack on Manichaeism. The encyclopedia describes it as a strong example of polemical biblical argument, while also observing that it displays some ignorance of Manichaean theology. Its importance as evidence for Serapion’s reasoning must therefore be distinguished from its reliability as an account of the beliefs it opposes.[^7][^8]

This work belonged to a wider Egyptian response to Manichaeism. The encyclopedia discusses writings by both Serapion and Didymus the Blind, possible involvement by Athanasius through his portrayal of Antony, and the circulation in Coptic translation of material from outside Egypt, including passages from the sixth catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem. Serapion’s polemic was consequently part of a broader literary confrontation rather than an isolated undertaking.[^16]

A noteworthy feature of his anti-Manichaean work is its language about Christ. The encyclopedia reports that he used *homoios*, which it glosses as “of like substance,” rather than *homoousius*, “of one substance,” the expression it says Athanasius would undoubtedly have preferred. This difference of vocabulary appears alongside, rather than displacing, the same source’s account of Serapion as a committed supporter of Athanasius.[^8][^1]

## Writings, texts, and terminology

### Letters and biblical commentary

Serapion wrote numerous works, most of which have not survived. Jerome knew a commentary on the titles of the Psalms and several epistles addressed to different recipients. A collection containing at least **twenty-three letters** once circulated, but only a few remain; the longest surviving letter was addressed to monks at Alexandria.[^7]

The other letters specifically identified are a short communication to an ailing bishop named **Eudoxius** and the letter to Antony’s disciples after his death in 356. Together with the address to Alexandrian monks, these show a range of episcopal and monastic recipients, although the supplied passage does not summarize the individual letters’ teachings.[^7]

Serapion was also the recipient of important communications beyond the letters on the Holy Spirit. Athanasius sent him an account of Arius’s death, composed in 356–358. A geographical article on Itfih additionally reports that Athanasius’s paschal letter to Serapion in 339 recorded Serenus’s succession to Theodorus as bishop of Aphroditon, illustrating the episcopal information transmitted through this correspondence.[^3][^18]

The later reception of the correspondence was not without dispute. In its history of editions of Athanasius, the encyclopedia records that Erasmus rejected the authenticity of the letters to Serapion when preparing a collection in **1527**. Elsewhere, the encyclopedia treats the letters as works of Athanasius and as central evidence for his teaching on the Holy Spirit.[^19][^9]

### The euchologion or sacramentary

The liturgical collection associated with Serapion is described as a **sacramentary**, technically an **euchologion**, and is also called the *Euchologium of Serapion*. A manuscript from the Monastery of Mount Athos contains thirty prayers followed by a treatise on the Father and Son. The collection is dated to the middle of the fourth century.[^8][^10]

Serapion’s name occurs in two prayers. The encyclopedia notes that many scholars assume he was responsible for the whole collection, but its wording preserves the distinction between those named prayers and the broader attribution. *Understanding the Liturgy* similarly says that the work “appears” to be his.[^8][^10]

The terminology in the supplied discussions includes *anaphora* for the eucharistic portion, *Sanctus* for the liturgical “Holy,” and *epiclesis* for an invocation. The encyclopedia identifies the sacramentary as containing the **first definite use of the Sanctus in eucharistic liturgy**; its comparison with other Egyptian prayers draws attention to the triple “Holy” and the continuation through the word “full.”[^8][^11][^12]

Modern scholarship represented in the supplied bibliography includes F. E. Brightman’s two-part study, “The Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis,” published in the *Journal of Theological Studies* in **1900**, and R. P. Casey’s *Serapion of Thmuis Against the Manichees*, published in **1931**. The bibliography also cites the third volume of J. Quasten’s *Patrology*, published in 1960.[^26]

### The disputed Life of Macarius

The Coptic *Life of Macarius of Scetis*, published by E. Amélineau, has been attributed to Serapion, but the supplied encyclopedia entries are not consistent about that attribution. The entry on Thmuis calls him its author, whereas the entry on Sarapion explicitly says that the attribution is incorrect because the work is much later. The biography of Macarius likewise calls the attribution false.[^13][^14][^15]

The account of Maximus and Domitius mentions an episode preserved in this attributed *Life*: Macarius’s reception of two young “Romans” in the desert of Scetis. That reference documents the circulation of a work under Serapion’s name, but the conflicting authorship assessments prevent the episode from being used uncritically as evidence of his own literary activity.[^17][^14]

## Liturgical and practical use

### An Egyptian liturgical witness

The collection attributed to Serapion is important for the history of the Eucharist in Egypt. In discussing the Liturgy of Saint Mark, the encyclopedia identifies features shared by its anaphora, Serapion’s fourth-century euchologion, and a sixth- or seventh-century papyrus from Dayr al-Balayzah. It regards these common features as characteristically Egyptian.[^11]

The comparison concerns the association of the congregation with heavenly beings in the triple “Holy,” the continuation from “Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory” through the word “full,” and the position of an invocation asking that the sacrifice be filled with divine blessing. The source expressly qualifies the comparison: Serapion’s anaphora differs in the placement of the intercessions and perhaps in the second epiclesis.[^11]

These qualifications are important because the source does not identify Serapion’s euchologion as an exact equivalent of the surviving Liturgy of Saint Mark. It presents it instead as an earlier witness sharing Egyptian structural characteristics while retaining differences in arrangement.[^11]

### The epiclesis and the Arian context

The encyclopedia’s article on Epiclesis describes the liturgy associated with Serapion as containing an invocation of the **Logos**, or holy Word, before the words of institution. It suggests that this invocation probably served to express the divine nature of Jesus Christ during the Arian controversy. That explanation is offered as a historical interpretation, not as a statement of intention quoted from Serapion.[^12]

The same article states that this liturgy is **not in recent use**. *Understanding the Liturgy* characterizes the euchologion as a highly localized tradition rather than the common usage of the Church, while expressly distinguishing such local texts from heretical ones. It explains their disappearance in terms of the consolidation of the authority of the pre-eminent bishop within each ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[^12][^10]

The two accounts therefore support a distinction between historical importance and continuing liturgical use. A prayer collection can preserve early Egyptian evidence without being a service currently celebrated, and a local tradition need not be understood as a doctrinal deviation simply because it did not become the Church’s standard form.[^10][^12]

## Namesakes and historical identification

The name **Sarapion**, also written **Serapion**, derives from the name of the god Sarapis and was borne by several monks in the fourth and fifth centuries. The encyclopedia explicitly warns that these figures are difficult to distinguish and records earlier attempts by Lenain de Tillemont and Cuthbert Butler to separate them.[^20]

One particularly important namesake is **Sarapion Sindonita**, an itinerant ascetic whose nickname referred to his light linen garment, a *sindonion*. The encyclopedia probably assigns to him the familiar story of a monk who sold his only Gospel book to feed the starving, saying that he had sold the book that commanded him to give to the poor. This anecdote should not be transferred to the bishop of Thmuis merely because both bore the same name.[^21][^14]

Likewise, the monks named Sarapion associated with John Cassian’s conferences and the anthropomorphite controversy are discussed separately from Antony’s disciple who became bishop of Thmuis. The sources even differ over whether some of those Scetis figures should be identified with one another; that uncertainty does not establish their identity with the bishop.[^20][^22][^14]

There was also a distinct **Serapion the martyr**, associated with Lower Egypt and commemorated on **27 Tubah**. His martyrdom narrative concerns Panephosi in the eastern Delta, whereas the bishop of Thmuis is identified as a confessor with a feast on 21 March. The shared personal name should not erase the difference between their commemorations and biographies.[^23][^1][^2]

## Significance in Coptic Orthodox tradition

Serapion’s place in Coptic Orthodox memory rests on his connection with Antony, his support for Athanasius, his theological correspondence, and the liturgical collection associated with his name. These strands connect the monastic, episcopal, doctrinal, and worshipping life of fourth-century Egypt without requiring every later story about a Serapion to be assigned to him.[^1][^3][^8][^20]

His enduring doctrinal significance is especially clear in the encyclopedia’s treatment of the Holy Spirit. It places Athanasius’s letters to him within the history of the Alexandrian defense of the Spirit’s divinity and describes the Coptic Church’s teaching that the Spirit is consubstantial, coeternal, coequal, and coadorable with the Father and the Son. His questions thus remain connected with an exposition of beliefs presented as part of the Church’s continuing doctrine.[^9][^25]

Liturgically, his legacy is historical rather than evidence of a presently used service: the attributed euchologion preserves early prayer material, while the source explicitly says that the liturgy bearing his name is not in recent use. The listed commemoration on 21 March and the preservation and study of his writings provide firmer grounds for describing his legacy than unsupported claims about particular modern hymns, shrines, or devotional customs.[^8][^12][^24]

## Frequently asked questions

**Who was Saint Serapion of Thmuis?**
Serapion was a fourth-century bishop of Thmuis in the Egyptian Delta who had previously been a monk and abbot. He was a disciple of Saint Antony and supported Saint Athanasius during the Arian controversy.

**When is Saint Serapion of Thmuis’s feast day?**
The Coptic Encyclopedia lists his feast day as 21 March. He should not be confused with the martyr Serapion, whose feast is listed as 27 Tubah.

**What is the Euchologion of Serapion?**
It is a collection of thirty prayers, followed by a treatise on the Father and Son, preserved in a manuscript from the Monastery of Mount Athos. Serapion’s name appears in two prayers, and attribution of the entire collection to him is not certain.

**Why did Athanasius write letters to Serapion?**
Serapion sent Athanasius questions about the Holy Spirit, to which Athanasius responded in at least four letters dated 359–360. These letters explain the Spirit’s divinity and procession and argue that the Spirit must be divine to sanctify and divinize human beings.

**Did Serapion of Thmuis write the Life of Saint Macarius?**
The supplied encyclopedia entries disagree: the entry on Thmuis calls him its author, while the entries on Sarapion and Macarius explicitly reject the attribution. The Sarapion entry identifies the work as substantially later than the bishop.

## Sources
[^1]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 160)
[^2]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 160)
[^3]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 160)
[^4]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 571)
[^5]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 382)
[^6]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 730)
[^7]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 160)
[^8]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 161)
[^9]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 621)
[^10]: Understanding the Liturgy, Father Athanasius Iskander (p. 90)
[^11]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 466)
[^12]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 736)
[^13]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 571)
[^14]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 159)
[^15]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 343)
[^16]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 416)
[^17]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 565)
[^18]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 786)
[^19]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 731)
[^20]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 157)
[^21]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 158)
[^22]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 379)
[^23]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 223)
[^24]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 134)
[^25]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 621)
[^26]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 161)