Select Bibliography
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Text H. G. Oprrz, Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, Bd. 23) (Berlin, 1935).
R. P. Casgy, Article, 'Greek Manuscripts of Athanasian Corpora', in Zeitschrift fiir neutest. Wissenschaft., XXX. 49f. (1931).
K. Lake anp R. P. Cassy, Articles, "The Text of the de Incarnatione' and "The Text of the de Virginitate', in Harvard Review of Theological Studies, XIX. 25ff. and 173ff.
R. P. Casry, Article, "The Athens Text of Contra Gentes and de Incarnatione', in Harvard Review of Theological Studies, XXIII.
51ff.
E. Scuwartz, Sermo Mator de Fide des Athanasius (Munich, 1925).
A. SrecmMann, Die pseudoAthanasianische IVte Rede gegen die Arianer (Tiibingen, 1917).
C. M. G. Lupwic, Epistola ad Epictetum (Jena, 1911).
E. von per Gortz, De Virginitate; eine echte Schrift des Athanasius (Leipzig, 1905).
In the edition of Athanasius prepared by the Kirchenvater- | Kommission of the Prussian Academy under the editorship of H. Lrerzmann and R. P. Casey, and published by W. de Gruyter &
Co., Berlin, the following works have already appeared:
Documents relating to the Arian Controversy, 318-28 (1934-5).
De Decretis Nicaents (1935).
De Sententia Dionysii (1936).
Apologia de Fuga (1936).
The text of Athanasius is in Micne, Patrologia Graeca, 25-28, with the translation, apparatus, notes, etc., of Monrraucon,
An English Translation of selected works of Athanasius forms Volume IV of the Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (New
Series), edited with an Introduction by A. Rosertson, and with Newman's notes (Oxford 1892).
A translation of a number of other works isincluded in W. BricutT's Later Treatises of Athanasius (Oxford, 1887).
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
General Works A. Harnack, History of Dogma (English Translation) (London, 1896-8) (cited as H.D.).
J. Trxrront, Histoire des Dogmes, Vol. II, Ninth Edition (Paris, 1921).
J. Lzsreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, Vols. I and II (Paris, 1919- ).
O. BarpenHEweER, Patrologie, Third Edition (Freiburg, 1910).
H. B. Swere, Ox the Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Cambridge, 1873).
H. B. Swete, On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession (Cam- ' bridge, 1876).
H. B. Swere, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church (London, 1912) (cited as H.S.4.C.).
T. ScHERMANN, Die Gottheit des heiliges Geistes nach den griechischen Vatern des Vierten Fahrhunderts (Freiburg, 1901).
H. M. Gwarxin, Studies of Arianism (Cambridge, 1900) (cited as S.A.).
R. M. Saree The Liturgy of the Primitive Church (Cambridge, 1910).
C. E. noite Apollinarianism (Cambridge, 1923).
G. L. Prestice, God in Patristic Thought (London, 1936) (cited as G.P.T.) G. L. Prestice, Fathers and Heretics (London, 1940).
R. V.Sevrers, Two Ancient Christologies (London, 1940).
E. A. Sopuocres, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Memorial Edition (Cambridge, Mass., 1914).
J. H. Moutron and G. Mitutcan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Edinburgh, 1920-6) (cited as V.G.T.).
LrwpE Lt and Scort's Lexicon is cited from the New Edition (1925-
F. ae Grammar of New Testament Greek (English Praneiay) (London, 1905).
Athanasius W. Bricut, Article, Dictionary of Christian Biography, 1. 179f.
H. Srraeter, Erlésungslehre (Freiburg, 1894).
F. Laucuert, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius (Leipzig, 1895).
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
C. Hoss, Studien iiber das Schriftum und die Theologie des Athanasius (Freiburg, 1899).
A. SturicKen, Athanasiana (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchr. Literatur, T.1V, N.F.) (Leipzig, 1899).
E. Werct, Untersuchungen xur Christologie des heiligen Athanasius (Paderborn, 1914).
F. Loors, Article, Herzog Realencyclopaedie, 11. 202ff., Third Edition.
X. ve Bacuecet, Article, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, I.
2143, etc., Third Edition (Paris, 1923) (cited as D.T.C.).
Earlier works on Athanasius are referred to by Ropertson in his Introduction, pp. xii and xiii.
Macedonianism A. M. Merenpa, Prolegomena to his edition of the works of Damasus (Rome, 1754). (Micnz, Pat. Lat. 13.109-442).
F. Loors, Eustathius von Sebaste (Halle, 1898).
K. Hour, Uber die Gregor von Nyssa zugeschriebene Schrift, adv.
Arium et Sabellium (Zeitschrift fir Kirchengeschichte, XXV, 1904), republished in 'Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Kirchengeschichte, 11. 298ff.
(Tiibingen, 1928).
F. Loors, Zwet Makedonianische Dialoge (Seuagtaeniee der Konighch Preussischen Akademie, X1X. 526-51) (1914).
F. Loors, Article, 'MJakedonius', Herzog Realencyclopaedie, Third Edition, XII. 41ff.
F. Loors, Article, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VIII. 225ff.
B. J. Kipp, 4 History of the Church to 4.D. 461, Volume II (Oxford, 1922).
The de Principiis of Origen is quoted according to the arrangement of chapters and fragments in the edition of P. Korrscuau (Leipzig,
1913).
The Comm. in Fohannem of the same author is quoted according to the edition of A. E. Brooks (Cambridge, 1896).
References to the de Trinitate I-III of Didymus, to the adv.
Eunomium of Gregory of Nyssa, to the adv. Eunomium IV and V of ps. Basil, to the de Trinitate (ad Hermiam) VII of Cyril of Alexandria, and to the de Fide Orthodoxa I-III of John of Damascus, are made according to the pages of Mrcne. Passages from other works of Athanasius are usually cited in the translations, by NEwMan, etc.,
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
in Volume IV of the Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.
Passages from Cyril of Jerusalem and Basil are usually taken from Volumes VII and VIII in the same series, prepared respectively by E. H. Girrorp and Biomriztp Jackson. In the notes occasional reference is made to C. F. H. Jounston's Edition of the de Spiritu
Sancto of Basil.
EPISTLE ONE
A LETTER OF ATHANASIUS TO BISHOP
SERAPION CONCERNING THE
HOLY SPIRIT*
1. Your sacrep Kindness's? letter was delivered to me in the desert.2 Though the persecution directed against us was indeed bitter, and a great search made by those who sought to slay us, yet 'the Father of mercies and God of all
11 Title: The reading of RS, Laganiwva, is to be preferred to the Lepaniwva of BA, etc. The form Yagaztwy is read in the title to de Morte Ar. and in Sozomen, H.E.IV.9.In ad Drac.7 there is again a divergence of reading, but elsewhere in Athanasius Lagaziewy is uniformly found : Vit.Ant.82, 91 ("penes omnes MSS.', Montfaucon) of our Serapion; and of others, Apol.c.Arian.50
(twice), 73, 75, Hist.Arian.71. Moreover in the title to Eps.III and IV almost all MSS. concur in this reading. cf. also Socrates,
H.E.IV.23, 6 tijc Ouovitray éxxdnotas dyyehos Lagantwyr, and III.7, V1.4 and 11. This conclusion is confirmed by examination of the Indices to the volumes of Greek Papyri published by Grenfell and Hunt, Yaganiay is there the dominant form. The same variation is to be found in the Vatopedi and Geneva MSS. of Serapion's own work, adv.Manichaeos. For Serapion's life, see D.C.B.IV.613. Almost all we know about him is derived from scattered references in Athanasius's writings.
In his earlier days a monk (ad Drac.7), he enjoyed the friendship of Antony _ (Vit.Ant.82, 91). Athanasius consecrated him bishop of Thmuis, probably soon after his return from the first exile, in 337. (See Robertson, p.564, note
1.) On the importance of Thmuis, see Ammianus Marcellinus xxii.16, who classes it with Oxyrhynchus, Memphis, and Athribis, the largest towns in Egypt after Alexandria. In 353 (Sozomen, H.E.IV.9, Hist.Aceph.3, Fest.Ind. xxv), Athanasius sent him to negotiate with Constantius. The date of his death has already been discussed, Intro.II (16).
2 sacred Kindness: 'tuae charitatis', Montfaucon. cf. the rendering in the Syriac version of Severus of Antioch, c.Imp.Gramm.168B (Opitz, p.173). didbeotc is similarly used as a title, de Dec.2 and de Sent.Dion.1. See also John of Antioch, £p.I.2, and Synesius, Fp.xcviii. This use of abstract nouns as titles of courtesy is common in Athanasius and his contemporaries. cf. davdtn¢ infra and ad Lucif.1, ebAdBeva infra 1V.1, ad Ruf., de Mor.Ar.1, etc. It is found in great variety of expression in Basil. cf. especially his use of dydzn, e.g. Ep.lxxxi, xc, c, etc. From this reference to Serapion, as well as from the character of the correspondence as a whole, we are compelled to conclude that Serapion was at this time living in Egypt and had ready means of communication with the orthodox clergy there. We have already noticed that by the time of the
EPISTLE ONE
comfort' used even this to comfort us. As I remembered your Kindness and all my friends, I imagined that you were with me at that moment. I was-indeed very glad to have your letter. But when I read it, I began again to be despondent because of those who once before set themselves® to make war against the truth. You write, beloved and truly longed for," yourself also in distress, that certain persons, having forsaken the Arians on account of their blasphemy against the Son of God, yet oppose the Holy Spirit, saying that He
12 (continued) Council of Seleucia he had been put out of his see. But Athanasius never mentions him as a victim of the Arian persecution, and it is probable that, although he lost his office, he contrived to escape exile or imprisonment. His deprivation would be sufficient to account for Jerome's statement (de Vir.
IMN.99) :
'sub Constantio principe etiam tn confessione inclytus fuit.' That a similar fate favoured many of the Egyptian bishops may be supposed from Apol. ad Const.27, where it is said that ninety of them came under the persecution ; whereas the lists of those banished (Hist.Arian.72 and de Fug.7) total only twenty-six.
3 in the desert: cf. Bright, D.C.B.1.194: 'As Athanasius appears to have made secret visits to Alexandria, he probably spent some time among the recluses of lower Egypt, in the Nitrean mountain, or in the "wilderness of cells" farther inland, or in the yet remoter Scetis, but he also doubtless visited
. the pathless solitudes which surround upper Egypt, and the monasteries and hermitages of the Thebaid.' It is impossible to track his movements, but the renewed activity of his enemies and the receipt of this letter suggest
Nitria or the lower Thebaid, where he would enjoy the protection of the wilderness without being entirely cut off from Alexandria.
4 2 Corinthians 1s.
* who once before set themselves: 'qui contra veritatem pugnare semel in animum induxerunt, Montfaucon. But the Latin perfect scarcely does justice to the aorist, daa& wedetjoartec. Athanasius grieved for them once before when they joined the Arians. Now they are causing him fresh distress. Or possibly it should be translated: 'Who once and for all set themselves'; i.e. in Spite of their renunciation of the Arians, their disposition toward heresy persists. For examples of uedetdw conveying the notion of purpose or intention, cf. c.Ar.111 and de Sent.Dion.1, where it is suggested by the LXX of Psalm 21,
8 to make war: cf. de Sent.Dion.24, where he speaks of the Arians as being prompted by 76 moos tiv GAnBetav picoc, and the general use of such terms as Oeoudyor, yovotoudyot, etc., in the anti-Arian works. For examples in other
Fathers, see Newman's note on de Dec.3.
7 beloved and truly longed for: This elaborate form of address occurs also, ad Max. (tit.), ad Ant. (init.), ad Adelph.2. See also ad Ruf.i, ad Lucif 11
(init.), and Ep.Enc.7.
THE LETTERS
OF ST. ATHANASIUS
is not only a creature,® but actually one of the ministering spirits, and differs from the angels only in degree. In this they pretend to be fighting against the Arians; in reality they are controverting the holy faith. For as the Arians in denying the Son deny also the Father,® so also these men in speaking evil of the Holy Spirit speak evil also of the Son.
The two parties' have divided between them the offensive against the truth; so that, with the one opposing the Son and the other the Spirit, they both maintain the same blasphemy against the holy Triad. As I regarded these things and reflected deeply upon them, I grew despondent because the devil had got another chance to make game of those who are acting his folly!!; and I had decided to keep silence ¥ at this
18 not only a creature: The offence of the Tropici in the eyes of Athanasius is twofold: firstly, that they call the Spirit a creature, and secondly, that they distinguish Him from the angels in rank only and not in nature. We may compare Basil, Ep.cv: of dé xtiopa Aéyortes 7 tov Yiov 7} to Iveta, 7) GAws abto sic thy Aeitovgyixyy nai dovdiany xatdyortes tdéw (see also Ep.cxxv.3, cxl.fin., and. de $p.8.25); and the terms in which Sozomen, H.E.IV.27, describes the doctrine of Macedonius, dsdxovov xai tanoétny xaldy xai doa nEgi THY Osiwy Gyyédwv déywr tic obx dv dudetot. But the 'Macedonians,' while admitting that the Spirit is dxnoétys (c.Mac.1.17), were at pains to deny that He is an angel. cf. Dial.de Trin.I11.19 and Didymus, de Trin.I1.
576 etc. From Basil (de Sp.8.51) we learn that Eustathius and his associates tried to draw a similar distinction. But the Tropici apparently employed no such refinements, but without equivocation called Him an angel. cf. infra,
10(87-8) and 26(182). Athanasius found this even more outrageous than the - fundamental error itself, though Didymus and Basil are quick to point out that it must inevitably follow from it. See further infra on 11(88).
® deny also the Father: By denying the eternity of the Son they necessarily deny the eternal Fatherhood of God. So Arius explicitly in the Thalia, c.Ar.
1.5, od% dei 6 Oedc Marie 7. Athanasius develops this criticism, ibid.14.
Arianism involves that the essence of God is incomplete, since something external must accrue to Him. Moreover, by denying the eternity of the Word it imputes to God ddoyia, and thus makes Him less than personal. cf. infra on II.2(152).
10 two parties: cf. infra 10 (85). Throughout this letter Athanasius insists that the position of the Tropici is fundamentally identical with that of the Arians. See also infra 17 (105-6), 21(119), 29 (187). So Gregory Nazianzen,Orat. xxxi.l, likens the Arians and Pneumatomachi to a river which divides and meets again; and Didymus conjoins them as 7} 6Aé@g@uo¢ Oude, de Trin.11.619c.
1 acting his folly: the metaphor is common in Athanasius. cf. Ep.Enc.6, Apol.17, 46, 71, etc.
12 19 keep silence: and so again 15(98), II.1(151), and IV. 1(179). We findthis
EPISTLE ONE
juncture. But because of your Holiness's entreaty, and on account of the spirit of innovation}® and the diabolical impetuosity"4 displayed by these people, I write this letter in brief,® though I am scarce able? to do this much; only that you, making these facts your excuse, may supply what it lacks in the light of your own understanding, and the argument against this unholy heresy may be complete.
2. To the Arians! indeed this way of thinking is not strange. Having once denied the Word of God, they naturally say the same evil things against his Spirit. Therefore it is not necessary to say anything more in reply to them; what has previously? been said against them is sufficient. But it
12 (continued) same distaste for controversy expressed, ad Mon.I.1, etc., ad Max.1, de Dec.2.
It was not uncommon for ecclesiastical writers to confess reluctance of this kind. cf. Irenaeus, Haer.Pref., Basil, de Sp.S.79, Didymus, de Sp.S.1. But this surely is no mere literary convention here. Besides the natural discouragement of which he speaks, caused by this recrudescence of heresy and the stress of the peril in which he stood, there was the difficulty of securing the necessary detachment for writing on such a subject. There was, besides, the danger, vividly expressed in de Morte Ar.5, of documents falling into the wrong hands and, either through malice or incompetence, being misinterpreted and falsified.
18 spirit of innovation: cf. c.Ar.I11.22, 4 dddodogia tHv Xovotopdywvr, and Dio Cassius, 79.5, xa0nyeua@y aAdodo€kiac, 'leader of a revolutionary spirit'.
The 'pravam opinionem' of Montfaucon scarcely does justice.
14 impetuosity: A favourite term of abuse with Athanasius. cf. de Fug.13, c.Ar.1.6, I11.44, 63. It conveys an imputation of shamelessness, stubbornness, immoderation, and lack of judgement.
15 jn brief: The letter is not intended primarily for publication, but to furnish materials for a more careful and comprehensive refutation of the Tropici. In this it resembles ad Max. (cf. ibid.5), and differs from ¢c.4r.J-III.
Similar ad hoc communications are mentioned, ad Mon.1.2 and de Morte Ar.5.
16 scarce able: For the strain of self-depreciation cf. Quic.dix.1 init., ad Epict.12.
21 To the Arians: See Intro.III (19). It is not certain at what date they explicitly asserted that the Spirit is a creature. But it is noteworthy that Athanasius takes such an assertion for granted. In IV.5 he attributes it to 'the Eunomii, Eudoxii, and Eusebii', and it is possible to conclude from this that he himself traced the Arian doctrine back to Eusebius of Czsarea, whose statements in the Ecclesiastica Theologia III give colour to such a view. (The Ecc.Theol. was written soon after 336.) But it is possible that Athanasius is referring to Acacius, who was very active about the time of these letters, and who is clearly intended in IV.7.
2 previously: May refer to ¢c.Ar.I-III, as Montfaucon takes it; or, more
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
is right® that, in some way (as they themselves would say!) we should make a careful reply to those who have been deceived about the Spirit. We might well wonder at their folly, inasmuch as they will not have the Son of God to bea creature—indeed, their views on this are quite sound!
How then have they endured so much as to hear the Spirit of the Son® called a creature? Because of the oneness of the Word with the Father,* they will not have the Son belong to things originated, but rightly regard him as Creator of things that are made. Why then do they say that the Holy
Spirit is a creature, who has the same oneness with the Son as the Son with the Father? Why have they not understood that, just as by not dividing the Son from the Father they ensure that God is one,' so by dividing the Spirit from the 2? (continued) probably, to the whole corpus of Athanasius's anti-Arian writings, which by this time was substantially complete.
8 But it is right: The author of de Trin.et Sp.S. has copied this in the opening of his work.
4 in some way: Playing upon the double meaning of tgdzoc. Athanasius does not, of course, mean that he will reproduce the exegesis of the Tropici. cf. infra 3 (66): 'In what tedmo¢ did you fall into such error?'
5 the Spirit of the Son: No doubt suggested by the argument here, but the phrase is none the less characteristic of the whole treatment of the subject by Athanasius. He associated the Spirit primarily with the Son, and it is through the Son and in the Son that he apprehends His unity with the Father. cf. the important passage infra 20 (116ff.), and again in II1.1 (170), and the discussion, Intro.1V (84f.).
® Because of the oneness of the Word .. .: The following sentences really form an introduction to the later sections of the Epistle, 19-31 (108f.), in which Athanasius develops the doctrine of the Spirit, but from which they are separated by the long exegesis of Amos 41s and 1 Timothy 521. The three main points of Athanasius's argument are sufficiently indicated here. Firstly, the Spirit has with the Son the same unity as the Son with the Father. The two relationships are not identical, for the Spirit is not the Son's son (infra
15-16.95ff.), but they are of the same kind. The Spirit is in the Son as the Son is in the Father (19.109#.). Secondly, and following from this, the divinity of the Spirit is a necessary inference from that of the Son, and every argument for the creaturehood of the Spirit is 4 fortiori an argument that the Son is a creature (21.118-19, etc.). 'Thirdly, since Scripture and tradition declare the Godhead to exist in Trinity, to say that the Spirit is a creature is fatally to impair the unity and perfection of God and to render void the means of grace (28-31.188f1.).
7 that God is one: This assertion of the unity of God follows the doctrine
EPISTLE ONE
Word they no longer ensure that the Godhead in the Triad is one, for they tear it asunder,* and mix with it® a nature foreign to it and of a different kind, and put it on a level with the creatures? On this showing, once again the Triad is no longer one but is compounded of two differing natures; for the Spirit, as they have imagined, is essentially different.
'What doctrine of God" is this, which compounds him out of creator and creature? Either he is not a Triad, but a dyad,1#
2? (continued) of Athanasius in his earlier works. cf. c.47.1.17 and the discussion of John 14, ibid 1i1.1-6; and, above all, de Dec.20, the importance of which passage is
. well shown by Prestige, G.P.7.214. But far greater prominence is assigned to it in the argument here than elsewhere. This is no doubt partly due to the fact that all three Persons come now clearly within the scope of the argument.
But it is also due to the character of the heresy he is now opposing. The Arians and Eunomians started from the strict numerical unity of God; even though the conclusions they reached invalidated their premise (see infra on 29.137). The Tropici, by acknowledging that the Son is not a creature, make their starting point His essential equality with the Father. But this involves them in the admission of a unity within God which is capable of sustaining within itself real distinctions of person. Yet when they come to the actual distinctions, they limit themselves arbitrarily and stop short in the middle of 'a Trinitarian confession. That they confess so much is a ground of objection against them that they do not confess more. The Athanasians found their problem in the unity of God. The Arians found theirs in the relationship of the three Persons. 'The Tropici had to face both problems at the same time.
8 tear 1t asunder: ct. c.Ar.1.18 init., de Dec.26, Basil, de Sp.S.25, etc. Notice the threefold aggravation of the error as Athanasius describes it. 'The 'Tropici destroy the unity of the Godhead by rending it asunder; its simplicity by © making it a compound; and its unique dignity by ranking a creature with it.
® mix with it: From this it must follow that the divine gvatc is ovyxerpévy and ovrGerdc, and hence capable of analysis and even of partition. See the full statement, de Dec.22 init., c.Ar.11.38, de Syn.34.
10 on a level; so also infra 10(87): 'By reducing the Spirit to the level of the angels, they are ranking the angels with the 'Triad.'
11 What doctrine of God: This passage is adapted irom ¢.Ar.1.17. See also ibid.1.8.
12 not a Triad, but a dyad: The consequences for faith which follow from this supposition are described at length, infra 29(187f.). cf. also 111.7(177). But whereas here he simply confronts the Tropici with the dilemma that God is either Triad or dyad, in this last passage he charges them with believing in a dyad that develops é% petaBodqc xai mgoxonge into a triad; just as in the passage, ¢.47.1.17, just referred to, he charges the Arians with believing in a monad which becomes a triad. There is a striking, if superficial, resemblance
| between the notion Athanasius imputes to the 'Tropici and Arians and the
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
with the creature left oret, Or, if he be Triad—as indeed he is !—then how do they class the Spirit who belongs to the Triad with the creatures which come after the Triad? For this, once more, is to divide and dissolve the Triad. Therefore, while thinking falsely of the Holy Spirit, they do not think truly even of the Son. For if they thought correctly of the Word, they would think soundly of the Spirit also, who proceeds from the Father,!* and, belonging to the Son,
212 (continued) Sabellian doctrine set out for criticism in c.4r.1V.13. But whereas the Arians' triad is developed by increment from without, the Sabellian doctrine is of a God who expands by a process of evolution from within.
18 proceeds from the Father: Particular significance was, apparently, first attached to the use of éxsogevecOau in John 152s by Clement of Alexandria.
See the fragment quoted by Swete, 'On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession', p. 60, in which occur the words 6i éxnogetcews tod dylov ITvetpatos.
The context suggests that, in speaking of the Spirit's éxadgevoic, Clement did not distinguish between His procession from the essence of the Father and His mission at Pentecost. Origen does use the term, according to Rufinus's translation, in a way suggesting a distinctive formula (de Prin.1.ii.13). But elsewhere he uses éxnogeveobat of the Son (e.g. ibid.7). Examples of its use are rare in subsequent writers before Athanasius, but the persistence of these two confusions is well illustrated in Eusebius, Ecc.Theol.111.4. Eusebius here quotes a passage from Marcellus in which the latter argues from John 1614 and 2022 that the Spirit came forth (xgo7A@e) out of the Word no less than
He proceeds (éemogevetat) out of the Father, and hence concludes that the Father and the Word are one. Eusebius resists this conclusion by refusing to refer John 1526 to anything more than the Spirit's descent at the baptism and upon prophets and apostles. No doubt Asterius, who, as we learn from Marcellus, also took cognizance of the term, understood it in the same way as Eusebius. It would appear from this that the meaning of éxnogeveoOar had been a matter of debate more than twenty years before this letter was written.
On the other hand it is plain, from Marcellus no less than from Eusebius, that the word was not yet exclusively appropriated to the Spirit, for both freely use it of the Son. Athanasius seems to hold a position midway between this and that of later writers with whom éxzogeveo$ar and its cognates are invariably used as technical terms. There can be no doubt that in these letters he understands it not only of the Spirit's ministry but of His essential life. cf.
_ infra 15 init.(96-7). No doubt the interesting phrase, éxégevua tod ITatedc in Exp.Fid.4 is to be understood in the same way; though the subsequent words, éy taic yeool tod néusovtoc [atedc xai tod péoovtoc Yiov, might seem to restrict the reference to the Spirit's mission. But the fact that they are also to be found in Dionysius of Alexandria (ap. de Sent.Dion.17) suggests that the whole phrase may be a liturgical formula. Nor does Athanasius use éxsogeveoOar in any sense whatever of the Son. On the other hand, we do not
EPISTLE ONE
is from him given to the disciples and all who believe in him.
Nor, erring thus, do they so much as keep sound their faith in the Father.15 For those who 'resist the Spirit', as the great martyr Stephen said, deny also the Son.!* But those who deny the Son have not the Father.1'
3. Where then do you find excuse for such audacity, so _ that you do not fear that which was spoken by the Lord,
"Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath no forgiveness, neither in this present age nor in the age to come'! ? The Arians, having misunderstood the incarnate presence? of the Word and the things which were said in 21s (continued) find the term éxndgevorc in his writings. He does not contrast éxnogeveobat, used of the Spirit, with yevyao6at, used of the Son; though such a contrast would have been useful to him in the argument of 15-19. He always argues from the terms Son and Spirit. Athanasius here follows the text of John 156 in using the preposition zagd. Later on (e.g. in 15, 20, etc.) he prefers é, possibly under the influence of those phrases in the Nicene Creed which speak of the Son as yevynbévta éx tod Iatedc and as @edv éx Oeod. Scriptural authority could be found for it in 1 Corinthians 21.
14 belonging to the Son: Accords with Athanasius's teaching elsewhere in these letters on the relation of the Spirit to the Son. The Spirit derives His existence from the Father and receives His mission from the Son; and the former relationship is manifested in and apprehended from the latter. See infra on 20(117). The preposition here again is wagd. Athanasius does say éx tod Yiov of the Spirit, but only in passages where it is suggested by John 1614, as in ¢.4r.
111.25 and infra 11 fin.(89), 20(118), [V.1(180). The Spirit's relation to the Father is very clearly contrasted with His relation to the Son, infra 15 init.
(97), ei .
. . 6x tod Ilatedc éxnogevetat . . . ci dé tod Yiov éotw...
15 their faith in the Father: cf. infra 22(121) and I11.2(171), Basil, deSp.S. 27,
Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.12, and Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Mac.20.
16 Acts 7s1-2.
17-1 John 2a, 3! Whosoever shall blaspheme .. .: Mark 329; Matthew 1232. So again, infra
33(149) and III.7(178), he applies this saying to the Tropici. But contrast Quie. dix.8, etc., where the words 'Holy Spirit' therein are understood of our Lord's divine nature, and it is interpreted in an anti-Arian sense.
2 having misunderstood the incarnate presence: i.e. the limitations and affections of our Lord's human life, the za67juata, some of which he sets forth infra in II.8(165), where see note. These manifestations of weakness gave a certain plausibility to the Arians in their contention that He could not be true God. cf. Quic.dix.8 :
'When therefore men, regarding his human attributes, see the Lord athirst or weary or suffering and foolishly say of the Saviour such things as they would only say of a man, great is their sin; but none the less, upon a speedy repentance, they can receive forgiveness, for they have an excuse in S.A.—5
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
consequence thereof, took from them an excuse for their heresy and were condemned as enemies of God and as speaking things which are in truth idle and earthly.? But whence were you deceived? From whom did you hear # such error? In what way did you fall into it? "We read', they say,
'in the prophet Amos,® where God says*: "I am he that 3? (continued) the weakness of his body.' We must not read into the words here a reference to the peculiar Christology of the Anomoeans, and possibly of Arius himself, that in Christ the divine Logos took the place of a human rational soul. See
Robertson, Intro.xxviii, note 2, and Gwatkin, §.4.25, note 5. In his earlier works, Athanasius never attributes such an opinion to Arius. It is not mentioned in the summary of his teaching, ¢c.4r.1.3: In I11.32-5 he answers it without clearly associating it with the Arians, and in the passage from Qutc. dix.8 he goes on to speak of those who deny that the Word was made flesh, without suggesting that he has any particular school of heresy in mind. It is, moreover, noteworthy that in ad Adelph.1 (dated 369 by Montfaucon, but it may have been earlier), where he definitely charges the Arians with denying our Lord's Manhood, he calls it a new blasphemy. These considerations go far to support R. V. Sellers when he suggests that the doctrine of Eunomius has been read back into the mind of Arius and his contemporaries (Iwo
Ancient Christologies, page 32, note 3). The only contemporary evidence seems to be a hypothetical allusion in a fragment of Eustathius of Antioch, which is curiously paralleled in c.4r.I1.8.. The truth was that whether they denied its reality or no, the Arians, by attributing human passions and affections to the Logos, removed the necessity for any incarnation which was more than the mere assumption of a body. Even if they did not appreciate the point themselves, it can hardly have escaped their opponents.
8 idle and earthly: John 3a. So also de Dec.9 fin. cf. tbid.1, and ad Ajr.6.
4 From whom did you hear: dxovew here has an almost technical sense, 'to hear from a recognized authority'. So c.4r.I.8: 'Who ever heard such doctrine? Whence or from whom . . . did they hear it? Who, when they were under catechizing, spoke thus to them?' cf. infra IV.5(186), de Dec.13, and c.4r.11.34, So, too, de Trin.et Sp.8.1, 'ubi in auctoritate legisti creaturam
Spiritum sanctum?', the Epistle of Alexander, in Socrates, H.E.1.6, and the epigrammatic phrase in ps.Athanasius, c.Apoll.1.22: 6 é tév idtwv Aaddy pedooc Aadsi.
5 in the prophet Amos: The interpretation of Amos 413 was hotly debated in the earlier stages of the Pneumatomachist controversy, and almost every writer on the Catholic side refers to it. Apart from this passage, we have no less than ten exegeses of the text. These are to be found in: Basil, adv.Eun.
III.7; Epiphanius, Haer.lxxiv.8; Didymus, de Sp.8.14-15 and de Trin.I11.951; Ambrose, de Sp.8.11.48; Gregory of Nyssa, de Fide, fin.; ps.Athanasius, de
Trin.et Sp.8.20, Disp.c.Ar.40, Dial.de Trin.111.26; Cyril of Alexandria, Dial. de Trin.V1I.1108. In fact, the text takes a place analogous to that held by
EPISTLE ONE
establisheth thunder and createth spirit and declareth unto men his Christ, that maketh dawn and mist, that ascendeth unto the high places of the earth. The Lord God omnipotent is his name''."? Hence we believed the Arians when they said that the Holy Spirit is a creature.' So you read the passage in Amos. But that which is spoken in Proverbs, 'The Lord
— created me as a beginning of his ways for his works'*—did you not read that? Or did you read it? You explain ® this passage in accordance with the truth, so that you do not call the Word a creature. But the passage in the prophet you do not explain. Simply hearing the word 'spirit', you supposed that the Holy Spirit is called a creature. Although in Proverbs it is clearly Wisdom who says 'created', yet you do well
3° (continued) Proverbs 822 in the Arian controversy. From its appearance in the adv.Eun. of Basil, it must have been urged by the Anomoeans, but we find it expounded already by Eusebius (Ecc. Theol. 111.2) in a discussion of Proverbs 822. Eusebius takes zvedua of the Holy Spirit, but interprets xti¢wy as xatanéuswyr 7}. xatatdoowy. For 'God did not create the Spirit at that time when He through Him declared His Christ to all men'. The Tropici took it up and the Pneumatomachi of Pontus after them. The argument is that because the passage makes mention of Christ, zvedua must refer to the Holy Spirit. But even so, it proved a brittle weapon, and later Macedonian writers probably used it little.
Gregory of Nyssa does indeed discuss it briefly, but not in his work against the Macedonians. It is not referred to in ps.Athanasius, Dial.c.Mac.I. In Dial.de Trin.I11.26 it is actually cited, not by the Macedonian, but by the orthodox, who uses it to prove that the Spirit is creator. Athanasius's exposition was very largely used by his successors. No other treatment of the passage approaches his in length and elaboration; and, apart from noticing the tense of xtilwv (Didymus, Basil, Ambrose, Disp.c.Ar.), others add very little to the points he makes. It should be noticed that Didymus gives two expositions, of which the later, in de Trin.III, shows a greater dependence on the work of Athanasius.
® where God says: A point which acquired great importance later in the controversy. Didymus, de Trin.III, /Joc.ctt., contends that these words must be spoken éx xgoodnov dyiov avetuatoc, who, a fortior:, cannot be the spirit referred to. He charges his opponents with excising idod éy® from the text in order to make the prophet the speaker, and so avoid the conclusion that the Spirit is creator. cf. Dial.de Trin.111.26.
7 Amos 413.
8 Proverbs 822.
° explain: emphatic. They realized that the text required interpretation if its proper sense was to be apprehended. cf. c.4r.I1.62, on Colossians 11s: ei per ovv povoyernc Eat, BonEg ovv xai Eotw, EgunvevéoOw to "newtdtoxoc'.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
enough. You explain the text so as not to put the Artificer Wisdom among the creatures. But the text in the prophet gives no indication of the Holy Spirit; it only speaks of spirit. Why then, although there is in Scripture a great difference in the use of the word 'spirit', and although the text can properly be interpreted" in an orthodox sense, do you—either out of love of contention or because you have been poisoned by the Arian serpent's ™ sting—suppose that it is the Holy Spirit who is referred to in Amos? Only that you may not forget to regard him as a creature |
4. Tell us, then, is there any passage in the divine Scripture where the Holy Spirit is found simply referred to as 'spirit' without the addition of 'of God', or 'of the Father', or 'my', or 'of Christ' himself, and 'of the Son', or 'from me' (that is, from God), or with the article so that he is called not simply 'spirit' but 'the Spirit', or the very term
'Holy Spirit' or 'Paraclete' or 'of Truth' (that is, of the Son who says, 'I am the Truth'),!—that, just because you heard the word 'spirit', you take it to be the Holy Spirit? Leave out of account? for the moment cases in which people who have
31 can properly be interpreted . .
.: cf. c.Ar.11.44. Athanasius is not merely concerned to ask, What is the most simple and natural interpretation of this passage? But, Can it be interpreted in conformity with the tradition of faith?
Thus in 7 and 9 he puts out two different exegeses. For his own part, he is satisfied with the first, but he is prepared, in answer to the objections of his opponents, to offer a second, 'tropical', interpretation, if it will reconcile them to belief in the Spirit's Godhead. He is in the position of counsel urging a series of pleas, not particularly concerned which of them is accepted, provided he wins his case.
11 serpent: a favourite figure with Athanasius. He elaborates it, c.4r.1.1, 7, etc.
41 John 14.
2 Leave out of account: cf. de Dec.24 and c.Ar.11.20. The construction here is curiously compressed, and the association of two clauses, the one referring to characters in the Scriptures and the other to readers of the Scriptures, is awkward and unhappy. The sense, however, is clear from the examples that follow and from the corresponding passages in Didymus, de Sp.8.15 and de
Trin.III.953a. Here is the latter passage, which appears to be almost a transcript of the former: oxariwc ydag td Eyiov IIvedua tod Oeod diya tod ovvdatecbat abt@ to ""dytov"', 7) td "tod Oeod"', 7} td EQGQov, 7} tiv petoyry abtod, cc tina yodyer "Hvedua' Hela', xal "Tvedpati neginateits® For the first of these illustrations Didymus has in mind Luke 117 or possibly 2 Kings 29
EPISTLE ONE
already received the Holy Spirit are mentioned again, and places where the readers, having previously learned of him, are not ignorant of whom they are hearing when heis referred to again, by way of repetition and reminder, merely as 'the Spirit'. In these cases too it is generally used with the article.
To sum up, unless the article is present® or the above42 (continued) (see ps.Athanasius, de Comm.Ess.6). By tv petoxny adtod, which it illustrates, he obviously means the first of the exceptions Athanasius makes here. cf. also his Enarr.in Foh.4.1-2 (1794c): 'Unus et idem Spiritus Dei est Patri unicus et
Filio; qui pluraliter nominatur, in diversis describitur qui eo participantur, quale est Spiritus Eliae et Spiritus unius cuiusque sanctorum, ita ut tanti spiritus videantur, quanti sunt qui eo participantur.? We may compare the distinction drawn by Blass, 'Grammar', p.149, between &yiov xvedpa, 'used to a certain extent personally and with the article', and its use 'for the godlike spirit moving in man, and then without the article'. There are passages, especially in St. Paul, where it is not easy to determine whether the writer is referring to the divine Spirit, as possessed by and abiding in the human, or the human spirit, as energized and sanctified by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius and Didymus are striving to cover such cases. cf. Duncan, Moffatt
Commentary on Galatians, p.166. The second class of exception Athanasius refers to is not so much different in type from the first as an amplification and extension of it, to cover all cases where the context makes it necessary that zvedpa should be understood of the Holy Spirit. Of the illustrations which follow, those from the Epistles are intended to illustrate the first, those from the Gospels the second.
8 unless the article is present: The problem of differentiating the various uses of zvedua had been realized by earlier writers. Origen, de Prin.1.iii.4, speaks of certain of his predecessors who thought that the Holy Spirit is referred to in the New Testament even when the word 'Spirit' is used without a qualifying adjective ('sine adjectione ea quae designet qualis est spiritus').
He applies the same principle to the Old Testament, e.g. in Isaiah 42s. But of other writers in this controversy only Didymus attaches importance to the matter. cf. his observation in de Sp.8.15, that the article in this context is 'singularitatis significator', and also 1bid.3 and de Trin.I1.457c. The use of _ the article as a criterion to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the spirit of man in disputed New Testament passages has long been abandoned by commentators. See Burton, International Critical Commentary, on Galatians
55,16. Some, however, think it possible to distinguish, in accordance with Middleton's celebrated canon, between xvedua with the article, signifying the Holy Spirit considered as a divine Person, and xvedya without the article, signifying the Holy Spirit as an endowment bestowed upon man. See Swete,
'The Holy Spirit in the New Testament', additional note P, and A. J. Macdonald, 'The Interpreter Spirit and Human Life', Chapter 4. It is interesting to notice that Athanasius does not abide by his ownrule. Thus, infra 33(148-9) a
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
mentioned addition, it cannot refer to the Holy Spirit. Take, for example, what Paul writes to the Galatians, "This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?' What had they received but the Holy Spirit who is given to those who believe and are. being born again 'through the laver of regeneration'®? When he wrote to the Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit',® he was speaking to those who themselves knew what they had received; lest through lack of care they should quench the grace of the Spirit which had been kindled within them. When, in the Gospels, the evangelists, for the sake of the flesh he took, use human terms of the Saviour and say, 'Jesus, full of Spirit, returned from the Jordan',' and, 'Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness',® it has the same sense. For Luke has already said: 'But when all the people had been baptized, and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him."® This made it clear that, in the mention of 'the Spirit', the Holy Spirit was intended. So likewise where the Holy Spirit is with men, even if he is mentioned without addition to his name, there is no doubt that it is the Holy Spirit who is intended; especially when it has the article.
5. But do you answer the question which has been oa to you whether anywhere in the divine Scripture you have found the Holy Spirit called simply 'spirit', without the above-mentioned addition and apart from the qualification we have recorded. You cannot answer it! For you will not find it so in Scripture. But it is written in Genesis, 'And the 43 (continued) he takes év zvedpate in John 424 of the Holy Spirit ; while, infra 8(78), he proposes a different interpretation for té xvedua in 2 Corinthians 317.
4 Galatians 32.
5 Titus 3s.
6 1 Thessalonians 519.
7 Luke 41.
8 Matthew 41.
® Luke 321-2.
51 in Scripture: This long list of proof texts may be compared with that compiled by Didymus, de Trin.I1.453n, etc., to show the Spirit's propriety to God. The order in which the books are quoted is the same as that of Ep.
Heort.xxxix, with one or two accountable exceptions. Thus he turns to
EPISTLE ONE
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' And a little later, 'My Spirit shall not abide among these men, for they are flesh.' In Numbers, Moses says to, the son of Nun, 'Be not jealous for me. Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, when the Lord bestows his Spirit upon them !'4
In Judges it is said of Gothoniel: 'And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and he judged Israel.'® And again:
"The Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah.' And concerning Samson: 'The child grew', it says, 'and the Lord blessed him, and the Spirit of the Lord began to accompany him," and, "The Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily.'8 David sings: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me'; and again, in the one hundred and forty-second Psalm: "Thy good Spirit shall lead me in a plain country, for thy name's sake, O Lord.'!° In Isaiah it is written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me.'™
And before this it was said: "Woe to you, rebellious children! Thus saith the Lord: You took counsel, but not from me, and made covenants, but not through my Spirit, to add sins to sins.2# And again: "Hear these things. From the beginning, I have not spoken in secret. When it was, I was there. And now the Lord hath sent me, and his Spirit.'185 A little later he speaks thus: "And this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit which is upon thee'!4; and 51 (continued) the Major Prophets before citing from the Book of the Twelve, no doubt because Isaiah is peculiarly rich in passages suitable to his purpose. So likewise he goes to John before the Synoptics, and interrupts his citations from Thessalonians to go on to Hebrews. The examples have been chosen with care, from a text, and not reproduced from memory. Notice the accuracy of his quotation of 1 Corinthians 210-12 compared with the wording of this passage, infra 22(121), 26(180), etc.
2 Genesis la.
3 Genesis 63.
4 Numbers 1 1a».
5 Judges 310.
® Judges 1129.
7 Judges 1224-5.
8 Judges 1514.
® Psalm 5111.
10 Psalm 14310.
1 Isaiah 611.
12 Tsaiah 301.
"1B and his Spirit: Isaiah 4816. Athanasius gives no indication whether he takes avedpa here as subject, with Ambrose (de Sp.S.I11.7), or object, with Origen (in Matt.XIII.18) and Didymus (de Sp.8.26). See further Johnston's note on Basil, de Sp.S.49.
14 Isaiah 59a.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
again in what follows he adds: 'Neither envoy nor angel, but the Lord himself saved them, because he loved them and had mercy on them; he himself redeemed them and took them up and exalted them all the days of the age. But they were disobedient and provoked his Holy Spirit, and he was turned to enmity toward them."!® And Ezekiel speaks thus:
'And the Spirit took me up and brought me to the land of the Chaldaeans, to the Captivity, in a vision, by the Spirit of God.'!* In Daniel: 'God raised up the Holy Spirit of a young man?' whose name was Daniel, and he cried with a loud voice, I am clear from the blood of this woman.' Micah says:
'The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord'!*; and by Joel, God says: 'And it shall be after these things that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.'1° Again, through Zechariah the voice of God says: "But receive my words and my commandments which I charge by my Spirit to my servants the prophets'; ?° and when the prophet rebukes the people a little farther on, he says: "They make their hearts disobedient, lest they should hear my law and the words which the Lord of hosts has sent by his Spirit in the hands of the prophets of old.' #t These few examples we have collected and set down from the Old Testament.
6. But inquire also about the contents of the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles, and you will hear how there also, inasmuch as there is a great difference between spirits, the Holy Spirit is not particularized simply as 'spirit', but by the addition we have mentioned above. As already stated, when our Lord was baptized in human fashion because of the flesh he was wearing, the Holy Spirit is said
515 Isaiah 639-10.
16 Ezekiel 1124.
17 the Holy Spirit of a young man: Susannah 45, from the Theodotian text.
It is likewise read and understood by Ambrose (de Sp.S.I11.40-3), who argues at length that it is the Holy Spirit and not the spirit of Daniel that is intended here. But observe Didymus (de Trin.I1.652c), é€jyewger 6 Oedc t6 Tvetua td
Gytov tov AavujA, cited to prove that the Holy Spirit is God; and de Sp.S.2, 'et
Danieli adhuc puero suscitens dicitur Deus Spiritum sanctum' (possibly under the influence of the LXX text). In Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat.XVI.31) we find
. the reading éni masdagiov. See the commentary of A. Scholz in loc.
18 Micah 27.
10 Joel 2as.
#0 Zechariah le.
"1 Zechariah 712.
EPISTLE ONE
to have descended upon him. In giving him to his disciples hesaid: 'Receivethe Holy Spirit'!; and he taught them: 'The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.'? And a little later, concerning the same: 'When the Paraclete is come, whom I shall send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.'®
Again: 'For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you'; and_a little farther on: 'But if I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.'> And in him perfecting ¢ all our knowledge of God and the initiation'? whereby he joined us to himself and, through himself, to the Father, he charged the disciples: 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'* When he promised to send him to them, 'he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem' ;° and, after a few days, 'when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven the sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder,
61 John 2023.
2 John 1426.
3 John 1526.
4 Matthew 102.
+ 5 Matthew 12s.
6 in him perfecting: It is possible that é todtw here refers to the ensuing quotation, as in Galatians 32, 'in this saying perfecting'. Athanasius would then mean that it was in the baptismal formula that Christ made perfect our knowledge of God and our initiation into Him. Thisis fullyin accordance with what he says elsewhere, e.g. infra 28(185-6), I1.6(160), III.6(176), etc., where
Matthew 2819 is regarded as a definitive summary of doctrine, the 'foundation' of the faith (28). But this interpretation of év tovv@ is awkward and puts a forced meaning upon ovundnodv. It is better, therefore, to take tovrq, as Montfaucon does, of the Spirit. Our knowledge of God is made perfect in the confession of the Spirit's Godhead, and baptism avails because it is in the threefold name.
7 the initiation: For the full phrase, 4 tedelwotc tod Bantlopatoc, see c.Ar.11.41, etc. But tedetwotc is used absolutely, with the same meaning, infra
30(140), 11.7(168), and c.Ar.II.42. cf. also ps.Athanasius, ad Fov., 4) év mioter teletwoic, and the usage of Gregory Nazianzen, Orazt.xl, e.g. 18 and 28, and also the use of tedewwte of the officiant, 44.
8 Matthew 2819, 9 Acts 1a.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Hence also, through the laying on of the Apostles' hands, the Holy Spirit was given to those who were being born again. One Agabus prophesied by him, saying: 'Thus saith the Holy Spirit.'™
Paul said: '. .
. in the which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops to feed the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood.'!2 When the eunuch was baptized, "the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip'1% And Peter wrote:
'Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and examined diligently, who prophesied of the grace which should come unto us, searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when he testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glories which should follow them.'* And John wrote: 'Hereby know we that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.'
Paul writes to the Romans: 'But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in you.' To the Corinthians: 'For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who knoweth the things of man save the spirit of the man which 619 Acts 21-5.
11 Acts 2111.
12 Acts 2028.
18 Acts 839.
141 Peter le-11.
15 1 John 413.
16 zhrough his Spirit ...: Romans 89-11. Here and infra 19(118) and 23(128) Athanasius has the genitive, the reading of Codex Alexandrinus, as opposed to the accusative of Codex Vaticanus. So also Didymus (de Trin.I1.5593), but in de Sp.S.39 the Latin has the accusative. The reading was of considerable importance later in the controversy inasmuch as it was held to establish the operation of the Spirit in the Resurrection. It was challenged by the Macedonians. cf. Dial.de Trin.111.20.
EPISTLE ONE
is in him? And so the things of God none knoweth save the Spirit of God. But we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might see the things that are freely given us by God."!" And a little later: 'Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?!® And again: 'But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."!® And again:
'But all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each severally, even as he will.'2° And again: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit,2! and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.' See how he writes to the Galatians also:
"That the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.' 2? And again: 'Because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father.
Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.' To the Ephesians he speaks thus: 'And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.'
And once more: 'Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' To the Philippians he writes very confidently: 'What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing shall I be put to shame.'26 And again: 'For we are the circumcision, who wor617 1 Corinthians 210-12.
18 1 Corinthians 31s.
19 1 Corinthians 611.
2 1 Corinthians 1211.
21 the Lord is the Spirit: 2 Corinthians 317. It is not clear whether Athanasius intends us to regard this as a reference to the Holy Spirit, or whether he is merely quoting the whole verse for the sake of what follows. In ¢.4r.I.11 he refers it to the Son. But inconsistencies on such points are found elsewhere in his exegesis (see on Genesis 481, infra 14.98). Basil likewise understands it of the Spirit, de Sp.S.52, and of the Son, adv.Eun.I11.3.
22 Galatians 3.
8 Galatians 4c-7.
4 Ephesians 490.
> Ephesians 4s.
36 Philippians 118-20.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
ship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus.'" To the Thessalonians he testifies: 'Therefore he that rejecteth rejecteth not man but God who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you.'® And to the Hebrews thus: '... the Holy Spirit signifying that the way unto the holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is yet standing.'
And again: 'Of how much sorer punishment, think you, shall he be judged worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ?'8° Again: 'For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto
God, cleanse our conscience from dead works?'*! To the Thessalonians: 'Then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of his mouth and bring to naught by the manifestation of his glory.'
7. See how the Holy Spirit is denoted in all divine Scripture! Did you, then, notice! anything of this kind in the prophet? The 'spirit' of which the prophet is now speaking has not even the article, to give you an excuse. But out of sheer audacity you have invented 'tropes'? for yourselves
6?7 Philippians 3s.
28 1 Thessalonians 4s.
29 Hebrews 9s.
30 Hebrews 10x29.
31 Hebrews 915-14.
53 with the Spirit of his mouth... : 2'Thessalonians 2s. He interprets on the analogy of Psalm 33s. cf. infra 31(148).
7! Did you then notice: Or possibly, 'Why do you speculate in this way about the prophet?' In later writers, e.g. Cyril of Alexandria, in Fob II1.iv, 0ewola is used for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. But Athanasius generally uses Oewoeiv transitively.
* you have invented 'tropes': éxwoeiv is almost a technical term for the introduction of novel teaching. cf. Socrates, H.E.III.7, on the Council of Alexandria in 362 (quoted by Newman on ¢.Ar.I.1. The whole note should be consulted), od yag veagdy twa Oonoxelay énworoartes eic tiv éxndnolav eiofyayov. So alsoinfra17(105—6),and c.A7.1.8, 6 tac aigéoerc éxwvonoac dudBodoc. tednoc is generally used for any figure of speech. Thus Cicero, Brutus XVII.69:
'ornari orationes Graeci putent si verborum immutationibus utentur, quos appellunt teénov''. And 'Tryphon, Tropi, init. (in Boissonade's 'Anecdota Graeca',
EPISTLE ONE
and identified the spirit which is said to be created with the Holy Spirit himself; though even from students of language you could have learned of the difference between spirits.
For Scripture speaks of the spirit of man, as David in the Psalm: 'I communed with my heart and was troubled in my spirit.'4 Baruch says in prayer: "The soul in anguish, the spirit of the troubled, crieth unto thee.'® And in the Song of the Three Children: 'Bless the Lord, ye spirits and souls of the righteous.'*® The Apostle writes: 'The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God; and if children, then heirs.'? And again: 'No man knoweth
7 (continued) Volume III), where it is defined as AéEewc gedoic éx tic nal éautypy dnmoory iudtyntos petatgonny sidnpvia, 616 xai tednoc xadeitas. Although, properly speaking, allegory is only one species of trope, among ecclesiastical writers the term came to mean a figurative interpretation of Scripture. This kind of exegesis was regarded as legitimate in the Church from the beginning.
See the article by Darwell Stone, 'The Mystical Interpretation of the Old Testament? in 'A New Commentary on Holy Scripture'. Origen raised it to the level of a science with fixed principles and laws; cf.in Gen. X1.2 and de Prin.IV. i, Athanasius does not question its legitimacy; though he favours literal interpretations and eschews the extravagance that, at Alexandria, characterized the exposition of Dionysius before him and of Didymus after him. He certainly employs figurative explanations, especially in his earlier works, e.g. on the Fall, c.G.2, 3, and in his apologetic treatment of Proverbs 82, etc., c.4r.II.
He also incorporates in his exegesis fragments of traditional allegorizing, as on Deuteronomy 2866, de Inc.35 and ¢c.Ar.11.16, and on Job 4113, ad Epise.3 and Vit.Ant.5. What then is the force of this accusation? He objects not so much to the method used by the Tropici as to the mind and temper which direct their use of it and the ends to which it is addressed. We may compare his observation on Arian exegesis, c.4r.I.37: 'But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense.' Any system of exposition is vitiated, in the eyes of Athanasius, if it is used'to discredit the tradition of faith.
8 the difference between spirits: A similar classification of the various meanings of zvedua is to be found in Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat.XVI.13-15. Athanasius may well have read these lectures. Basil certainly seems to have done so (cf.
Gifford's note on Cyril of Jerusalem, Joc.cit.). But there is no trace of dependence here. On the other hand, Athanasius's summary may have served as a basis for the long disquisition in Didymus, de Sp.$.54-9. See also Epiphanius,
Ane.72.
4 Psalm 776.
5 Baruch 31.
6 Daniel 3ee.
7 Romans 816-17.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
the things of man save the spirit of the man which is in him.'
In the Epistle to the Thessalonians he prays: 'May your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'® It speaks too of spirits of the wind, as in Genesis: "And God made a spirit to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged." And of Jonah: 'And the Lord aroused a spirit upon the sea, and a great wave rose in the sea, and the ship was in danger of being broken.' And in the one hundred and sixth Psalm it
is written: 'He spoke, and a spirit of storm arose, and its waves were lifted up.'!2 And in the one hundred and fortyeighth Psalm: 'Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps, fire, hail, snow, ice, spirit of storm, fulfilling his word."8 And in Ezekiel, in the Lament for Tyre': 'In the heart of the sea, in much water, thy rowers have brought thee; the spirit of the south wind hath broken thee.'
8. Read the sacred Scriptures, and you will find 'spirit' used of the meaning which is in the divine words, as Paul writes: 'Who also made us sufficient ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.'1 For that which is expressed is inscribed by letter, but the meaning which is in it is called spirit. Thus too, 'the law is spiritual'?; so that, as he says
7® 1 Corinthians 211.
® 1 Thessalonians 52.
1° Genesis 71.
11 Jonah 14.
12 Psalm 10725.
18 Psalm 1487-8.
14 Lament for Tyre: So Codex Marchalianus (MS.M), an Egyptian MS. of the sixth century, entitles Ezekiel 27.
16 Ezekiel 2726.
81 the spirit giveth life: 2 Corinthians 3s. Apparently Athanasius intends to exclude any reference to the Holy Spirit from these words. If so, we find him in opposition, not only to modern commentators, but also to other writers in this controversy, who found in them valuable evidence that the Spirit is
'Lord and Giver of life'. cf. Basil, de Sp.8.56, Didymus, de Trin.I1.560s, ps.
Athanasius, de Trin.et Sp.8.2, Dial.de Trin. 111.20. So likewise, infra, he takes
'the law of the spirit of life' to mean 'the spiritual lifegiving law', as opposed to the old literal law of Moses. This is curious in view of the principle he laid down, supra 4, but here he is following Origen, Comm. in Rom.V1.11: 'Nam de lege literae dicere hoc non poterunt ... quia "litera occidet" ..
. Utrumque ergo continet lex, et literam occtdentem et spiritum vivificantem.'
2 Romans 714.
EPISTLE ONE
again, we may serve not 'in oldness of letter' but 'in newness of spirit'.2 The same writer says, when giving thanks: 'So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin."
Philip, desiring to turn the Ethiopian from the letter to the spirit, said: 'Understandest thou what thou readest?'> Such a spirit® Caleb is, in Numbers, declared to have had, when
God says: 'But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit in him and he followed me, him will I bring into the land whereunto he went." For he pleased God, because he spoke with a different mind from the rest. Such a heart
God enjoined his people to keep, when he said through Ezekiel: "Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.'
In view of these facts, and as we have demonstrated so great a difference between spirits, you would have done better, upon hearing of 'created spirit', had you thought of one of the foregoing. Such a spirit was that of which it is written in Isaiah: 'Syria is confederate with Ephraim, and his heart was moved and the heart of his people, as in a forest a tree is shaken by the wind.'® Such too was the spirit which the Lord 'aroused upon the sea',!° because of Jonah. For the spirits of the wind do follow the thunder, as with the rain that fell against Ahab, when it is written: "And it came to pass in a little while that the heavens grew black with clouds and wind.'?
; 88 Romans 76.
4 Romans 725-82.
5 Acts 830.
8 Such a spirit: from avedpa in the sense of 'meaning', Athanasius naturally passes to that of 'intention' in the human mind, which he expresses in the following sentence by didvora.
7 Numbers 1424.
8 Ezekiel 1831.
9 Isaiah 72.
10 Jonah 14.
11 follow the thunder: The order of natural events corresponds with that of -the terms in Amos 41s. cf. Ambrose, de Sp.S.11.50: 'Ipse ordo nos doceat....
Neque enim antiquiora tonitrua sunt quam Spiritus sanctus; quamvis impii stint, tamen 1d non audent dicere.... Cum enim fiunt aliquae tempestates tstius mundi, praecedere tonitrua, sequi ventorum flatus, coelum nebulis caligare, lucem refundt ex tenebris, ipso usu quotidiano exemploque cognoscimus.' The same point is made by Didymus, de Trin., loc.cit., and also in de Trin.et Sp.8.20 and Dial.
| de Trin.1II.26.
12 1 Kings 184.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
9. 'But', say they, 'since the text makes mention of '\Christ,! to be consistent we must take the spirit it speaks of to be none other than the Holy Spirit.' So you observed that the Holy Spirit is named together with Christ! But when did you find him distinguished in nature and separated from the Son, that, while you say that Christ is not a creature, you say that the Holy Spirit is a creature? It is absurd to name together things which are by nature unlike.* For what community or what likeness is there between creature and Creator? At this rate* you will number and join together with the Son, as well as with the Spirit, the creatures originated through his agency. It would therefore be satisfactory, as we have said, to understand what is written of the spirit of the winds. But since you plead the fact that Christ is mentioned in the text, we shall have to look at the passage carefully, lest haply we find a more suitable interpretation' of 91 makes mention of Christ: Most of those who comment upon this passage feel the difficulty raised here. Didymus is the only one to appeal to the Hebrew against the LXX, in de Sp.$.15. His own rendering, in Jerome's
Latin, is 'loguelam suam'. It enables him to interpret it in an anti-Manichaean sense. The same God who is creator inspires the prophets and declares Himself to mankind. But in de Trin. he tacitly disavows this and returns to the LXX text. Basil explains the allusion to Christ on the ground that the works of nature recorded here display His power as artificer. Cyril of Alexandria finds here another illustration of the sovereign power of God, which, according to him, is the motif of the whole passage. The rest take refuge, with Athanasius, in a figurative interpretation.
2 things which are by nature unlike: It is interesting to notice that Athanasius here uses, to describe the relation of the Spirit to the Son in the doctrine of the Tropici, the term dvduotoc, which the Macedonians expressly repudiate in this context. See ps.Athanasius, c.Mac.1.18. After ovvovoudlew here, RS insert xai ovvdoEdCeww. The addition is reminiscent of Basil's language (cf. de
Sp.8.29), rather than that of Athanasius. Moreover the corresponding clause above has only owvovoudteo@ar, and there is no ground for asserting that the Tropicist exegesis of Amos 413 involves the association of the Spirit with the Son in glory.
3 At this rate ...: cf. c.Ar.1.17: 'Henceforth a thing originated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and glory with him who was ever.' The point is made over and over again by critics of Arianism. See the references given by Newman, on ¢.4r.1.8.
4 a more suitable interpretation: There is no need to suspect irony here.
Athanasius is entirely in earnest in offering this alternative explanation. So . likewise, c.47.1.44 and II.13, he provides a secondary explanation of points
EPISTLE ONE
this spirit which is said to be created. What is meant by 'declare unto men his Christ'® but that he himself becomes man? It is equivalent to the saying, 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel', and the other references to his coming.' But if it is the incarnate presence of the Word that is declared, what spirit must we understand to be created, but the spirit of man whichisrecreated and renewed ?* For this God promised by Ezekiel, saying: 'A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give youa heart of flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you.'® When has this been fulfilled, save when the Lord came and renewed all things by grace? See how in this text too' the distinction between spirits is made clear. Our spirit is renewed; but the Holy Spirit is not simply spirit, but God says it is his
94 (continued) in passages he has already expounded. For a similar combination of a literal with a figurative interpretation, cf. Basil, Ep.viii.6, on Mark 1332. In Dial.de
Trin.II1, loc.ctt., the two explanations given here are tersely introduced together—ei péy xatd to éytdv—si dé xata didvorw—Didymus, de Trin. and Gregory of Nyssa, de Fid., take avedua to refer to the spirit of man.
Ambrose, de Sp.S.11.48, takes it of the anima Christi, 'quam suscepit rationabilem et perfectam'.
5 declare unto men his Christ: Basil, adv.Eun., loc.cit., also sees here a possible reference to the Incarnation. Didymus, de Trin.I11, contrasts dnayyéAdew with xtilew as expressing the true relation of Christ to the Father, but associates it with His baptism rather than His birth. So also Ambrose, /oc.cit.
The neatest of all these speculations is that of Gregory of Nyssa: 'He who is born of the Spirit and made spirit . .
. declares Christ.'
§ Isaiah 714.
7 bis coming: édnuia as in c.Ar.1.59 and 11.67. His usual word is zagovota.
8 recreated and renewed: It is always in such terms that Athanasius describes the work of the incarnate Word. cf. de Inc.7, 10, 13, etc. 'The first need of man is a change in his nature; or rather, the renewed infusion of that highest and divine nature which he has gradually lost-—Robertson, Intro., p.lxx.
How this is accomplished by the presence of the Word in human nature is set forth in de Inc.4—18, and his later works give no indication that Athanasius ever modified his doctrine. So here he accommodates to it his interpretation of this text.
® Ezekiel 3626.
10 i this text too: This distinction is likewise noted by Didymus, de Trin.
11.4564 and 572c. s.A.—6
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
Spirit, whereby ours is renewed. As the Psalmist says in the one hundred and third Psalm: 'Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall die and return to their dust. Thou shalt put forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth."4 But if it is by the Spirit of God? that we are renewed, then the spirit here said to be created is not the Holy Spirit but our spirit. And if, because all things come into being through the Word, you think correctly that the Son is not a creature: then is it not blasphemy for you to say that the Spirit is a creature, in whom the Father, through the Word; perfects and renews all things?! And if, because of the simple statement that spirit
911 Psalm 10420-s0.
12 But if it is by the Spirit of God: The following three sentences, all cast into the same form, convey the conclusions, as to Amos 413, which Athanasius wishes us to draw from the passages he has just quoted. Firstly, the identification of 'thy Spirit' in Psalm 10430 with the Holy Spirit precludes a like interpretation of 'spirit' in Amos 41s. Otherwise we shall be left with an absurdity analogous to that of the 'creature-Creator' he has already exposed a propos of Arianism, c.4r.II.19-21. Secondly, the perfective and recreative activity of the Spirit, no less than the creative activity of the Word, make it impossible for Him to be a creature. Thirdly, the Tropici should be as quick to draw the right conclusion from Ezekiel 36 and Psalm 104 as they are to draw the wrong from Amos 413.
18 perfects and renews all things: cf. infra 23(124—-5). This appropriation of function within the Godhead, of creation to the Word and of sanctification to the Spirit, follows the general line of Christian thought in the fourth century. We observe it in the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, especially in such passages as [V.16 and XVI.3, and in the definitions of the postNicene synods, especially the Fourth Synod of Antioch, the Second of Sirmium, and that of Seleucia. This development may ultimately be traced back to the influence of the Logos doctrine, which, by overemphasizing the cosmological function of the Word, limited and impoverished the Church's conception of the Spirit. See Harnack, H.D.II.207-9, and Raven, 'A4pollinarianism,' p.36. Eunomius, of course, actually divided the functions, explicitly excluding the Spirit from any part in the creative power of God. See
Basil, adv.Eun.111.5 and the Apology of Eunomius himself, 27 init.: Vidor dmhxoov, wnovgyoy, tededtatoy medc ndoay dSnuovoylay .
. txunoéty yowpusvov tq IlapaxArtm meds ayracpuor, med¢ didacxadlar, neds BeBaiwow.
In this the Macedonians imitated him. cf. Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Mac.11 and ps Athanasius, Dial.de Trin.II1.16-19. Catholic writers repudiate Eunomius's doctrine, but continue to accept, and even to stress, the differentiation.
Thus Basil (de $p.8.38) on Psalm 33s: '. . . the Lord who commands, the Word who creates, the Spirit who confirms. And what else would confirmation be
EPISTLE ONE
is created, they have imagined that this means the Holy Spirit, let them know that the Holy Spirit is not created, but that it is our spirit which is renewed in him. Of this spirit
David also prayed}4 in the Psalm: 'Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.' Here he is said to create it, but aforetime, as Zechariah says, he formed it: 'Stretching forth the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and forming the spirit of man within him.' For when that which he formed aforetime had fallen he remade it, coming himself in the creature, when the Word became flesh; so that, in the words of the Apostle,
91° (continued) but perfecting in accordance with holiness?' So Didymus (de Trin.11.565c) interprets Genesis 127, etc. The Father commands, the Son creates, the Spirit blesses, i.e. sanctifies. cf. Dial.de Trin.111.24, did tod Adyov utifer xal dud. tod
ITvetbuatos ayidle. There is nothing in these letters to show that the Tropici circulated the views of Eunomius on this matter. Athanasius's argument here arises strictly from the exegesis he is proposing for Amos 413. His own sense of the unity of the activity of God was so strong that he did not hesitate to associate the Spirit with the work of creation. See infra 24(127) and 31(148).
Here he seems to have gone farther than Basil. Compare the latter's hesitation, adv.Eun.111.4, on Job 334: od éni tic dnutoveyiac, do ola, GAA" éni tis xata tiv avOodneray Goeth tehevdcews Aéyov. But although Athanasius is not concerned to answer Eunomius, his successors found in the argument of this passage useful material for that purpose. If «tiCew and dvaxawiCew are in some sense synonymous terms, no absolute distinction can be drawn between the work of creation and that of sanctification. The whole is the work of the one God, and He who makes perfect that which the Word performs cannot be without part in His creative power. So de Trin.et Sp.8.8: 'Ita plane (i.e. from His operation in baptism) et creatorem Spiritum sanctum agnoscimus.' The whole passage is worth careful study. cf. Basil, de $p.8.49, and Didymus, de
Trin. 11.5698, 6ti 6é xtioa éotiv xai td Gyidoa ..
. Aavid wagtueei pdddwv xagdlav xabagay xticov év éuol, 6 Oedc. So too Dial.de Trin.I11.24, on Psalm
5lio: tO dyidlew uticew éotiy. And in Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Mac.13, the whole activity of creation 'begins from the Father, proceeds through the Son and is perfected in the Holy Spirit'.
14 Of this spirit David also prayed: Athanasius seeks justification for taking xtilew as equivalent to dvaxawiCew in Psalm 5110 and Ephesians 215. His attention was probably drawn to this evidence by Eusebius, Ecc. Theol.III.2. He has already used it once, ¢.4r.1I.46, against the Arian interpretation of 2xtwe in Proverbs 82. Similarly, Zechariah 12: is apparently quoted to show that Scripture has other and more precise terms than xtiCew to denote the constitution of the human race.
15 Psalm 5110.
16 Zechariah 121.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
'He might create in himself of the twain one new man, who after God had been created in righteousness and holiness of truth'.1"? For it was not as if another man had been created, other than he who from the beginning was made in God's image. But he was counselling them to receive the mind that was remade and renewed in Christ; as is once more made clear through Ezekiel, when he says: 'Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God.'!8
10. Accordingly, if created spirit bears this meaning, we can appropriately take the thunder! which is established to be the sure word and unshakable law of the Spirit.? It was
of this word that our Lord wished James and John to be ministers when he called them Boanerges, which 1s, Sons of thunder. Wherefore John cries aloud, veritably from heaven®: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'4 For aforetime the law had 'a shadow of good things to come'. But when Christ was declared to men, and came saying, 'I that speak unto thee am he',® then, in the words of Paul': 'his voice shook
917 Ephesians 215; 424.
18 Ezekiel 18s1-2.
10! the thunder: Athanasius completes his exegesis by interpreting the previous words in Amos 413. The connexion of thunder with 'sons of thunder', suggesting the 'faithful word' of 2 Timothy 2u, is simple. So Eusebius understands it of the evayyedixdr xijovyua, and so likewise Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose. Basil associates it with John 1229.
2 unshakable law of the Spirit: B here, supported by A infra, reads 'Father' for 'Spirit'. But the reading of RS better accords with the contrast between the old law and the doddevtocg vdpuoc, suggested by Hebrews 10:1. The association of ideas is not easy to trace here. Apparently it ran—otegedv—Psalm 921
—ob calevijoetai—dodievtoc—Hebrews 122s—fBacthela—vdyoc.
8 cries aloud, veritably from heaven; cf. de Inc.18, 40, c.Ar.11.10. Possibly he has in mind Revelation 10s.
4 John li.
5 Hebrews 101.
® John 14:6.
7 the words of Paul: Hebrews 1226-s (Haggai 26). While keeping more or less to the actual words of Hebrews, Athanasius completely alters the significance of the passage. tdéte in the New Testament text refers back to the epiphany at Sinai as recorded in Exodus 19, and is contrasted with apocalyptic cevoudc¢ which is to come. Athanasius makes tdte.
. éodAevoev refer to the Incarnation, and treats it as the fulfilment of the prophecy in Haggai. Gregory Nazianzen,
EPISTLE ONE
the earth, as he promised of old, Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of the things that are shaken, that the things which are not shaken may remain. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, we have grace whereby we offer service well pleasing to God.' But that kingdom which he calls unshak- 'able, David in the Psalms declares to be established. 'The Lord reigneth, he hath clothed himself with majesty. The Lord hath clothed and girded himself with strength. He hath also established the world, that it shall not be shaken.'
So then this text in the prophet signifies the coming of the Saviour, whereby we are renewed and the law of the Spirit remains unshaken.
But these Tropici,® true to their name, having made a 10? (continued) Orat.xxxi.25, finds a partial realization of this prophecy in the transition from the law to the Gospel.
; 8 Psalm 93a.
9 Tropict: For t@ dvte cf. 32 (p.147, infra) and de Inc.33, etc. Here it suggests that the name was not invented by Athanasius. It was used in a technical sense by the Stoics, e.g. Diogenes Laertius, vii.194, Arrian, I.29, 40, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, v.15, etc., and hence by Origen, e.g. c.Cels.III.43. But it is not found outside these letters as an epithet, except in ps.Athanasius, c.Omnes Haereses 5, a work of which Montfaucon says with justice: 'patet ex operibus Athanasti expressum fuisse.' Nor does it occur in this correspondence outside E.1. Epiphanius, Haer.lxix.50, charges the Arians with being addicted to the use of tropes, wagtugig tii xéxonrvtar F toomindtEegoy roAAduc 7 Foaph uexonuérn Omyeitat. The term may well have been used quite generally to stigmatize Arians of all shades for their exegesis. But it is difficult to see why it should have been attached in particular to the Egyptian Pneumatomachi.
There seems to have been nothing original about their use of Scripture, and their interpretation of Amos 413 is certainly matched in extravagance by that of Athanasius and the others who write on his side. Possibly the name is due to the prominence the Tropici assigned to this passage and to 1 Timothy 521.
Certainly Athanasius seems to regard their case as resting solely on these two lections. See infra 21(119). It may be significant also that Basil in adv.Eun.
III inverts the order of treatment and appends a brief discussion of Amos 413 and John 1s to his main argument; whereas Athanasius treats the more metaphysical points raised by the Tropici as incidental to their exegesis. Montfaucon, indeed, offers an alternative translation, 'versatiles', and it is quite possible that the epithet derived some of its sting from this additional nuance.
To the orthodox, these heretics were twice turn-coats, once from Arianism rd
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
compact with the Arians and portioned out with them the blasphemy against the Godhead, so that these may call the Son a creature and those the Spirit—the Tropici, in their own words, have dared to devise for themselves tropes and to pervert also the saying of the Apostle which he blamelessly wrote to Timothy, saying: 'I charge thee! in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.' But they say that, because he mentions God and Christ and then the angels, the Spirit must be counted with the angels, and belong himself to their category, and be an angel greater than the others. This discovery first proceeded from the impiety of Valentinus," and they have not been
10° (continued) and then back again to something very like it. (The charge of making a compact with the Arians must not, of course, be taken literally. It is indeed expressly contradicted, infra 32.147.) But it is unlikely that the name was first attached to them in this sense. The technical meaning was far too strongly fixed to it in Christian usage. Moreover, Athanasius has already preferred the charge of 'trope-mongering' against them (supra 2.62) without any reference to the epithet.
10 T charge thee ...: 1 Timothy 521. It is difficult to see in what sense Athanasius could describe the inference drawn by the Tropici from this verse as a trope. The term here can mean no more than that they refused to be satisfied with the bare sense of Scripture, but drew speculative conclusions from it. The text is discussed by Basil, de $p.$.29 and Didymus, de Trin.II.
547c, The former is replying to an attempt to use it as evidence that the conumeration of the Three Persons in the baptismal formula does not involve their association in nature and glory. He dismisses it as undeulag doxolcews
&&toc. Didymus has a very brief account which reproduces the substance of Athanasius's treatment here.
11 V alentinus: For his doctrine of the Spirit, see Hippolytus, Ref.V1.26, and Swete, H.S.4.C.55-6. The charge of imitating him and other Gnostics is brought by Athanasius against the Arians, c.47.1.56, II.21, III.60. Didymus reproduces the accusation here, de Trin.II.548z, etc. Valentinus certainly associated both Christ and the Spirit with the hierarchy of aeons. He also affirmed the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus and Mary. But he places His main activity in the pleroma rather than on earth, and there is no evidence that he ever spoke of the angels accompanying the Spirit upon a mission thither. Athanasius's statement here seems to rest upon a misunderstanding of Irenaeus (Haer.1.iv.5): 6¢ (Christ) dveA@ay cic to aAjewpa attdc per, eixdg
6tt Hxvynoev éx Oevtégov xatedeiv, tov ITagdxAntov dé é&éneupev m0d¢ adbthy, tovtéote tov Lwtijoa, évddrvtoc attH xndoav tiv ddvauw tov ITatedc
. éxnéumetat 6& mQd¢ adbtiv peta th Hhixidtwv avtod taév ayyélwr. By a
EPISTLE ONE
able to conceal the fact that they are expressing his sentiments. For he said that, when the Paraclete was sent, his contemporaries among the angels were sent with him. Yet they have not realized that, by reducing the Spirit to the level of the angels, they are ranking the angels with the Triad. For if, as they say, after the Father and the Son? come the angels, then clearly the angels belong to the Triad and are no longer 'ministering spirits sent forth to do service',!= nor are they sanctified, but rather themselves sanctify others.
11. What is this mighty folly of theirs? Once again, where in the Scriptures have they found the Spirit referred to as an angel? I am obliged to repeat what I have said before. He is called Paraclete, Spirit of adoption, Spirit of sanctification,! Spirit of God, and Spirit of Christ; but never angel? or archangel, or ministering spirit, as are the angels.
10" (continued) natural error Athanasius takes this to mean that Christ sent the Paraclete
Spirit in His own stead. But actually in Irenaeus it is the heavenly or 'first'
Christ who sends the 'second' Christ, Jesus or the Saviour, who is here called Paraclete after 1 John 21.
12 after the Father and the Son: There is, of course, nothing exceptionable in the statement that the angels come after the Father and the Son. Indeed,
Athanasius has already used petd, supra 2(64), to express the relation of creatures to God. The argument here is carelessly compressed. What he means is, If the fact that the angels come after the Son in this passage leads to the conclusion that the Spirit is an angel, then the angels, no less than the Spirit, belong to the Triad.
13 Hebrews 11.
111 Spirit of sanctification: Not actually a Scriptural phrase, but sums up the association of the Spirit with sanctification in the Scriptures.
, 2 never angel: The opinion of Athanasius here was by no means maintained by all his predecessors. There is truth in the observation of Harnack, H.D.II.
359, note 2: 'From Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras we learn how in the second century, both in the belief of educated lay Christians and of the Apologists, Son, Spirit, Logos, and angels, under certain circumstances, shaded off into one another .
. they have certain names and predicates in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as regards the theophanies of the Old Testament, whether it was a high angel that spoke, or the Son through an angel.' So Justin Martyr, in a celebrated passage (Aol.
Prima 6), interpolates a reference to the 'host of good angels' between the Son and the Spirit. In estimating the significance of this, however, attention should be paid to the observations of Swete, H.S.4.C.37, and Harnack, H.D,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
, Rather he is himself ministered unto with the Son by Gabriel when he says to Mary, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.'
But if the Scriptures do not speak of the Spirit as an angel, what excuse have they for so great and absurd an audacity?
For even Valentinus, who implanted this evil-mindedness in them, called him Paraclete and them angels; though at the same time he very foolishly ranks the Spirit as coeval with the angels. 'But see,' they say, 'it is written in the prophet Zechariah, '"These things saith the angel that spake within me''.* Clearly, he means that the Spirit who spake within him was an angel.' They would not say this if they gave heed to their reading.' For Zechariah himself, upon seeing the vision of the candlestick, says: 'And the angel that spake within me answered and said, Knowest thou not what these things be? And I said, No, my lord. Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of 113 ( continued) 11.209, note 1. Tatian ([email protected] and 15) speaks of the Spirit as zeéaPdvc of God and dvaxovoc of the Sort. Irenaeus (Haer.IV.vii.4) says that the Son and the Spirit minister to the Father in all things. Origen, according to Justinian
(de Prin.fr.7), did not shrink from describing both Son and Spirit as Aevtoveyixd
C@a. Later Catholic writers continue to seek a manifestation of the Spirit, as well as of the Son, in the angelic epiphanies of the Old Testament. Athanasius himself virtually admits that the Son is sometimes called an angel in Scripture.
See further, 14(98) on Genesis 481s. Didymus, de Trin.II.628c, and the author of Dial.de Trin.III.9, develop the thought of Justin Martyr, Tryph.56, and identify the angels of Genesis 191 with the Son and the Spirit. The latter, in commenting on the very passage here discussed by Athanasius, Zechariah 1o, admits that the angel there may be the Holy Spirit. So also Epiphanius (Ac.
71) appears to mistake the 'angel of good counsel' of Isaiah 96 of the Holy Spirit, and allows the title of Him, but not 'as the other angels'.
3 Luke Iss.
4 the angel that spake within me: Zechariah 1, etc., 6 dyyedoc 6 Aaddy év éuol, a recurrent phrase in Zechariah. The Tropici, on the analogy of Matthew
1020, assumed that it referred to the Holy Spirit. Didymus (de Trin.II.628s) records the argument, though in a different context, and disposes of it, in the same way as Athanasius, from 46.
5 to their reading: A reminiscence of 1 Timothy 41s. cf. de Dec.10. Montfaucon misses it with his rendering, 'quod legunt?. Moreover, such a sense is unusual for avdyvwais, though Apollonius Dyscolus (Synt.164.2) has it of a textual reading.
EPISTLE ONE
the Lord unto Zerubbabel, Not by great might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord Almighty.'¢ It is therefore clear that'the angel who spoke to the prophet was not the Holy Spirit but an angel, while the Holy Spirit i is the Spirit of the Almighty, to whom an angel ministers, who is inseparable from the Godhead and might of the Word.
But as they make the words of the Apostle the basis of their plea, because after Christ he mentions the elect angels, let them tell us which of all these' is the one who is ranked with the Triad. They do not all amount to one! Which of them is he who descended to the Jordan in the form of a dove? For 'thousand thousand' and 'ten thousand times ten thousand'® are they that minister. Why, again, when the heavens were opened, is it not written, 'One of the elect angels came down', but, 'the Holy Spirit'? Why did the Lord himself, when conversing with the disciples concerning the End,° distinguish them by saying, "The Son of Man shall send forth his angels' 1°? And before this it says: "The angels ministered unto him."! He himself says again: "The angels shall come forth.'!? But in giving the Spirit to the disciples, he said: 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit."* And, when sending them out, he said: 'Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'1* He did not rank an angel with the Godhead; nor was it by a creature that he linked us to himself and to the Father, but by the Holy Spirit. And when he promised him, he did not say that he would send an angel, but 'the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father', and from him receives and gives.l® 12. Moses too knew that the angels are creatures and 116 Zechariah 45-6.
7 which of all these: see infra 29(188) and also c.4r.11.27 and 29.
8 Daniel 710.
® the End: as in Daniel 124,18. It is not thus used absolutely in the New Testament.
10 Matthew 1341.
11 Matthew 411.
12 Matthew 1349.
18 John 2022.
14 Matthew 2819.
16 John 15:6.
121 Moses: The whole of this section is followed closely, both in substance
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
that the Holy Spirit is united with the Son and the Father.
For when God said to him, 'Depart, go up hence, thou and thy people which thou hast led up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land of which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, saying, To your seed will I give it. And I will send my angel before thy face, and he will drive out the Canaanites', he refused him, saying: 'If thou goest not with us thyself, carry me not up hence.' For he did not desire a creature to lead the people, lest they should learn to worship the creature beyond God who created all things. So, of course, he refused the angel, and besought God himself to lead them. But after God had given him a promise, saying to him, 'I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken; for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee beyond all men', it is written in Isaiah: 'He that raised up from the earth the shepherd of the sheep, where is he that put the Holy Spirit in the midst of them, that led up Moses by his right hand?'s And a little farther on he says: 'The Spirit came down from the Lord and led them. So didst thou lead thy people to make thyself a glorious name.'* Who cannot from these things perceive the truth? When God promised to lead them, lo ! he promises no longer to send an angel, but the Spirit who is above the angels, and he leads the people.
He shows that the Spirit does not belong to the creatures nor is he an angel, but is above the creation, united to the Godhead of the Father. For it was God himself who, through the Word, in the Spirit," led the people. Hence
121 (continued) and form, by Didymus, de Trin.II.629. Nowhere is his dependence upon Athanasius more clearly to be seen. He proceeds from the citation of Exodus
332 to that of Isaiah 6311-12,14, Deuteronomy 1s0, and Psalm 13616. He even copies the curious combination of texts, 'I brought you. .
. .' He tends to abridge slightly, and has an eye for subtle and pedantic points which Athanasius does not notice. Characteristically, he adds Isaiah 4816 and finds in it a reference to all Three Persons of the Trinity.
2 Exodus 331-2.
3 Exodus 3315.
4 Exodus 3317-18.
5 Isaiah 6311-12.
6 Tsaiah 6314.
7 God ... through the Word, in the Spirit: Athanasius evidently intends us to see in Isaiah 6314 a reference to all Three Persons of the Trinity, the Spirit
EPISTLE ONE
through all Scripture he says: 'I brought you up out of the land of Egypt. You are witnesses if there was a strange God among you but me.'® The saints also say to God, 'Thou leddest thy people like a flock',® and, 'He led them in hope, and they did not fear'#° To him also they offer up the hymn which says: 'To him who led his people through the wilderness, for his mercy endureth for ever.' And the mighty Moses}? unceasingly declares: "The Lord your God who goeth before you."% Thus the Spirit of God is neither angel nor creature, but belongs to his Godhead. For when the Spirit was with the people, God, through the Son in the Spirit, was with them.
13. "But granting this,' they say, 'why did the Apostle after Christ make mention not of the Holy Spirit! but of the elect angels?' In like manner we might ask them: Why was it not archangels or cherubim or seraphim or dominions or thrones or some other, but only elect angels that Paul mentioned? Because he makes no mention of them, are the angels archangels, or are there only angels, and no seraphim
12? (continued) descending from the Son by the will of the Father, who is apostrophized in the following sentence. It is expounded along similar lines and at great length by Didymus, de Sp.8.43-53. The author of de Trin.et Sp.S.9 takes it with Jeremiah 2c instead of Exodus 3317, to establish the association of [Jvedpua and Kéouoc. cf. also de Inc. et c.Ar.17 and Cyril of Alexandria, de Trin.VII.1104p.
8 I brought you up ...: As Athanasius suggests by 'through all Scripture', this is not so much a quotation as a reminiscence of two familiar Old Testament phrases. The first is found in a form very close to that used here, in Leviticus 1936, Judges 6s, Hosea 134. The second is taken almost verbatim from Isaiah 44s, ® Psalm 7720.
10 Psalm 785.
11 Psalm 13616.
12 mighty Moses: So frequently in Athanasius, e.g. c.4r.11.51, 59, ad Drac.5, etc. Likewise Didymus, de Sp.8.30 and de Trin.II.629s.
18 Deuteronomy 120.
131 make mention not of the Holy Spirit ...: In various forms the argument from the silence of Scripture was constantly pressed by the Pneumatomachi against the divinity of the Spirit. cf. Didymus, de Trin.11.7298, Dial.de Trin.
III.9, 14, 15, etc., and the famous passage in Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.
25-8. The particular difficulty raised here is discussed in de Trin.et Sp.8.3-5, in connexion with a long list of passages that are held to mention the Father and Son and to ignore the Spirit. cf. also Ambrose, de Sp.8.1.32 and ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.74A, etc.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
or cherubim or archangels or dominions or thrones or principalities or any other? But this is to put the Apostle to the question, why he wrote thus and not thus, and to be ignorant? of the divine Scriptures, and therefore to err in judgement of the truth. For behold! it is written in Isaiah:
'Come ye near unto me, and hear ye these things. From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; where it was, there was I. And now the Lord hath sent me, and his Spirit.' And in Haggai: 'Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the High
Priest, saith the Lord; and be strong all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work; for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts ..
. and my Spirit abode among you." In both these prophets mention is made only of the Lord and the Spirit. What will they say about this? Because Paul, after mentioning Christ, passed over the Spirit and made mention of the elect angels, they, for this reason, rank the Spirit among the angels. But when they read these prophecies, they must, to be consistent, speak yet more rashly concerning him who is passed over. If they are going to say that the Lord is the Son, what will they say about the Father? If they say he is the Father, what will they say about the Son?
The blasphemy which, according to them, must follow, does not even bear thinking about. For either they must say of the one passed over that he does not exist, or they must number him among the creatures.
14. What will they say! if they hear also the Lord saying:
"There was in a certain place? a judge who feared not God 13? to be ignorant: We may translate 'not to recognize the divine Scriptures', i.e. not to acknowledge their divine authority. This would accord well with the tone of the previous clause. But it is better to take dyvoeiy in its usual sense, 'to be ignorant of', and to regard it as anticipating the list of passages which begin in the next sentence. cf. de Dec.17, a similar context : t¢ dAnOetac ayvwola xai thv Oelwv Toapay azerpia.
8 Isaiah 4816.
4 Haggai 24-s.
141 What will they say ...: cf. de Trin.et Sp.8.4: 'si audieritis Scripturas mentionem facientes Det et Spiritus, quid eritis facturi?? Then follows a long list of passages similar to those cited here. See also ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.7618.
2 in a certain place ...: yoq, read here by RSB, is not supported by any New Testament authority. Its persistence in RS is particularly interesting.
EPISTLE ONE
and regarded not man'$? Because, after God, he spoke of man, is the Son that man whom the unjust judge did not regard? Or because after God he spoke of man, does the Son take third place, after man, and the Holy Spirit fourth?
What if they hear the Apostle saying once again in the same epistle: "I charge thee in the sight of God who quickeneth all things, and of Jesus Christ who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that thou keep the commandment without spot, without reproach'? Because he here says nothing about angels and Spirit, are they in doubt concerning the Spirit, whether he exists, and concerning the angels, whether they exist? Yes, they are in doubt, until practice has made them perfect in this evil-speaking against the Spirit! If they hear Scripture saying in the book of Exodus, 'And the people feared the Lord, and believed in God and in Moses, his servant',® are they going to include
Moses with God and think only of Moses, and not of the Son, as coming after God? What if they hear also the patriarch Jacob blessing Joseph and saying: "The God who hath nourished me from my youth unto this day, the angel who hath delivered me® from all evil, bless these lads'? Because after God he mentions an angel, is the angel before the Son, or is the Son included among the angels? Yes! Once again, they will think so, for their heart is corrupted! But the Apostolic faith is not thus, nor can a Christian endure these things for a moment. For the holy and blessed Triad is indivisible and one in itself. When mention is made of the Father,' there is included also his Word, and the Spirit
148 Luke 182.
41 Timothy 61s.
5 Exodus 14:1.
6 the angel who hath delivered me...: Genesis 4810-16. But in c.Ar.II1.12 he allows this to refer to the Son. For his general doctrine on the subject, cf. tbid.14.
7 When mention is made of the Father...: What Athanasius says here is repeated by later writers. Thus Didymus, de $p.S.29: 'in nuncupatione Spiritus etiam nomen Domini intelligi.' He returns to the point and works it out in great detail from Scripture, de Trin.1.356, etc. cf. also 1b1d.440n and II.548c.
Others take it up in regard to baptism in the name of Christ only. So Basil, de Sp.8.28: 4 yag tod Xeuotod ngoonyogia tod nartdc éotwv dpuodoyia. See also de Trin.et Sp.8.17 and Ambrose, de Sp.S.1.32. As Newman observes, on
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
who is in the Son. If the Son is named, the Father is in the Son, and the Spirit is not outside the Word. For there is from the Father one grace which is fulfilled through the Son in the Holy Spirit; and there is one divine nature, and one
God 'who is over all and through all and in all'. Thus Paul also, when he said, 'I charge thee before God and Jesus
Christ',® realized that the Spirit had not been divided from the Son, but was himself in Christ, as the Son is in the Father. But with them he appropriately introduced" the elect angels; so that the disciple to whom he was speaking a charge should obey his teacher's injunctions, inasmuch as the guardians were there to witness what was said. For the disciple knew, not only that what is spoken from God is said through Christ in the Spirit, but also that the angels minister to our affairs," overseeing 1 the deeds of each one. Or per147 (continued) c.Ar.11.41, what Athanasius says here must be distinguished from the argument, touched on in ¢c.4r.1.34 and fully stated by Hilary, de Trin. V11.31, that the existence of the Son is involved in the very term 'Father'. Here he goes much farther. It follows from the unity of the holy Triad that the three Persons cannot even conceptually be dissociated. God is to be known only through His self-manifestation, and that manifestation, as is all the divine activity, is from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Hence we can know nothing of the Father, apart from the fact of His relationship with the Son and the Spirit, which we do not know also of the other two Persons. The converse of this, that those predicates and titles which Scripture uses to distinguish the Father from the creatures and from the gods of heathenism, cannot be held to distinguish Him from the Son, is argued in c.4r.III.7-8. It is thus entirely natural that Athanasius should choose this point to introduce what is a main argument in these epistles, the unity of the divine éégyeva. The succession of sentences should be noticed here. Starting from the unity of the Triad, we realize the necessary association of the Son and the Spirit in any reference the Scriptures make to the Father. But this necessity itself springs from the fact that God in the Scriptures speaks and acts always as one Being.
Finally, from this unity in activity we apprehend a unity of essence, one divine nature (Bedr7¢). Oedtng¢ is obviously generic here, as infra, in 32(146). cf. Basil,
Ep. clxxxix.8. Elsewhere he has it as a synonym for Gedc, e.g. c.Ar.1.21, 8 Ephesians 46.
® 1 Timothy 521.
10 he appropriately introduced: cf. Chrysostom, on the same passage: 'So also we often call to witness the greater with the less.' He takes the point from Basil (de Sp.S.29), who quotes Psalm 504 and Deuteronomy 42s to show that inanimate objects are invoked in the same way.
11 minister to our affairs: The guardianship of angels was a very ancient
EPISTLE ONE
haps he here invokes angels to witness, because of those who always look upon 'the face of the Father who is in heaven',!® for the sake of the little ones in the Church4; that the disciple, recognizing the people's guardians, should not neglect the injunctions of the Apostle.
15. Such, it seems to me, is the meaning of the divine oracles!; and it refutes the evil which these irrational men2 speak against the Spirit. But they, persevering in their antagonism to the truth, as you write, speak again, no longer out of the Scriptures—they find nothing there—but proclaiming? out of the abundance of their own heart: 'If he
1411 (continued) doctrine. cf. Hermas, Mand.vi.2, Justin Martyr, Apol.Sec.5, Athenagoras,
Leg.24. Origen received it, de Prin.I.viii.l, c.Cels.V.4, etc., and thence it passed into the main stream of Eastern theology.
12 overseeing: Suggests that the angels not only exercise mgdvo1a over our lives, but record and observe our actions. Basil likewise explains the reference to angels here as due to their association with Christ in the judgement. cf. also his use of épogou of the angels, Ep.ccxxxviii; also Gregory Nazianzen,
Orat.xlii, fin.
18 Matthew 1810.
14 the little ones in the Church: ane Origen, de Prin.I1.x.7: 'Every believer, even the humblest, is attended by an angel, who is declared to behold the face of the Father in heaven.' See also ¢.Ce/s. VIII.34.
151 the divine oracles: The argument enters a new stage here. Having disposed of the proof texts employed by the Tropici, Athanasius turns to an objection based on the conception of relationship within the Godhead. To this he devotes the next seven paragraphs, which are the core of the whole treatise. Thus he reverses the order of treatment in c.4r.]-III. There he deals with the general objections raised by the Arians before he examines their citations from the Bible. Here he states the objection, in 15; then criticizes it as intrinsically absurd, based on a false conception of the Fatherhood in God (16), and as an impertinent speculation (17-18). In the concluding sections he suggests the lines along which a true doctrine of the Trinity should
. be developed.
2 irrational men: Gdoyot: In his earlier works Athanasius frequently refers to the Arians thus, finding the term particularly appropriate because they impute ddoyta to God by denying the Word. cf. c.4r.1.35: 'If they slanderously impute alteration to the Logos, let them learn how much their own logos is in peril.' See Newman's note on de Dec.1 and the examples he gives there. The Tropici repudiated the doctrine but inherited the epithet.
8 proclaiming: égevydpevot, 'eructant, Montfaucon, as also in ¢.Ar.III.1, where Newman has 'vomit'. In view of the Scriptural associations of the word, in Psalm 192 and Matthew 133ss, it is very doubtful whether Athanasius meant
THE LETTERS
OF ST. ATHANASIUS
is not a creature nor one of the angels, but proceeds from the Father, then he is himself also a son, and he and the 153 (continued) it to bear this opprobrious sense. On the other hand, he must have intended to strengthen the expression when he substituted this term for the Aadei of Ecclesiastes 215. A similar use is found in Didymus, de Trin.I1.548c. See also infra 1V.5, fin.(175). For the whole sentence cf. Didymus, de Trin.1.280a: of étepddokor ovothoat and Toapaéy ta tic Oonoxeias avtay dmogovrtes, ..
. dudyoga copiopata ovvtayévta abtoig xaxotéyvwc xai xata moAd pedetnGévta stpoPdddovow.
4 I} he is not a creature: The objection stated by Athanasius here is given in a more scientific form by Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.7. Either the Spirit is dyévyntog or else yeryntdc. If He is ayévyyntoc, then there are two unoriginates (dvagya). If He is yevyntdc, then He is begotten either of the Father or of the Son. If of the Father, then there are two sons. If of the Son, then we have a 'grandson-god'. There is also the more succinct statement of Eunomius himself, as given by Basil, adv.Eun.I11.6: édv un xtioua éotiv, odxotv yévrnua 7 ayévyntov. cic d& &vagyos Oedc xal ayévyyntoc. obte pry yérrnua.
It is a strong proof of the popular character of Tropicism that the argument should have reached Athanasius in this form. For the difficulties connected with the use of dyévvytoc are obviously the foundation upon which it rests. The reader should consult the examination of this term made by Prestige, G.P.T.,
Chapter 2, and also Chapter 4, pp.151-4, and his articles in Fournal of Theological Studies, XXIV and XXXIV. The difficulty of describing the Spirit as ayévyntoc was felt by Origen. cf. in Fob.11.10: tH d& un Bovdopéve 6 &ytov
IIvedpa 61a tod Xovotod yeyovévar, énetar to ayévyyntov abto Aéyew, it being assumed that He cannot be a son; and even more clearly in de Prin.Praef.4:
'in hoc non tam manifeste discernitur utrum natus an innatus (factus an tnfectus,
Jerome, ad Avit.2), vel filius etiam tpse Dei habendus sit necne.' The twentieth anathema of the first confession of Sirmium, in 351, de Syn.27, expressly forbids its use in connexion with the Spirit. Nor was the difficulty resolved by the drawing of a clear distinction between dyévyntoc and ayévytoc, for both yévynua and yevntéy are inapplicable to the Spirit. Dr. Prestige, indeed, in F.T.S8. XXXIV.264, says that ayévvyntog was later employed of the Spirit 'as a purely privative term'. But it seems to have remained repugnant to Catholics, in this context, throughout the fourth century. Athanasius never so uses it.
Even when faced with the syllogism of Eunomius, Basil expressly disavows it.
Didymus refers to the Spirit as dvdeyac éxnogevdév (de Trin.I1.448c and 6738), and even as dvagyov (5138), dvagyoc Oedc (6418), and dyévytoc Oedc¢
(748a); but not as adyévyntoc. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.8, contrasts the éxmdgevoig of the Spirit, no less than the yévynatc of the Son, with the ayevynola of the Father. cf. also Augustine, de Trin.XV.xxvi.47. From the rejection of the term in its wider sense, the Eunomians urged the adoption of its opposite in its stricter sense. The result was to exclude any mode of existence within the Godhead other than that of Father and Son. See Newman's note on de Syn.27, But he does riot do justice to the objection when he calls it
'a device of the later Macedonians'. There can be no doubt from Didymus, de
EPISTLE ONE
Word are two brothers. And if he is a brother, how is the Word only begotten?* How is it then that they are not equal,® but the one is named after the Father, and the other after the Son? How, if he is from the Father, is he not also sa d to be begotten or called son, but just Holy Spirit? But if the Spirit is of the Son,' then the Father is the Spirit's
154 (continued) Trin.11.492c and ps.Athanasius, c.Mac.I.1 that the Macedonians pressed it.
But its history had been long and even respectable. Moreover, the necessity of finding a different category for the Spirit came home with particular urgency to people who, like the Tropici, were influenced by the teaching of Asterius.
For Asterius had insisted that the Son, inasmuch as He is wovoyerne, is the sole direct yevntdv of the Father. See Intro.IV(42).
5 only begotten: cf. Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Eun.11.557: odte tH Vids ovveéwoovpevoc, povoyeric yde got 6 Yiod, obdéva Exwv Suoyerf. But, as Didymus points out (de Trin.I1.447c), wovoyeric implies not only that the Sonis unique, but also that He is begotten; and thus sufficiently distinguishes the Spirit from the Son. See also Dial.de Trin.II1.4. Later Macedonian criticism was concentrated against the reality of the distinction between yévynotc and éxndgevotc. Didymus, loc.cit., declares it to be a mystery beyond the knowledge of angels.
6 that they are not equal: Whatever the nature of Athanasius's information about the Tropici, the terms in which this question is stated are not his. His concern is not so much with the equality of the three Persons in the Godhead as with their unity. In setting out their relationship he rarely uses iooc; no doubt for the same reason that he generally scouts the use of 6uovos, because it suggests that the divine nature is possessed by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an attribute which can be weighed and compared, whereas God is beyond comparison (¢.47.1.57): Oedc wév dodvyxgitéy éotw nodyua. When icoc does occur, it is generally suggested by Scripture, e.g. c.4r.1.41, de Syn.49; or else it corrects a possible misapprehension, as in c.4r.1.50, where he quotes John
2022, etc., over against Matthew 1232, to show that the Son is not less than, but equal to, the Spirit. cf. Quic.dix.10. On the other hand, later Pneumatomachi argued the inferiority of the Spirit from the fact that in the baptismal formula
He is after the Son. See Basil, de Sp.S.41-7, and Gregory Nazianzen, Oraz. xxxi.17-20. This passage might appear to suggest that a similar line of argument was current among the Tropici. Athanasius is not unaware that such deductions can be drawn, as we see from IV.5(185). But he nowhere deals with dnagiOunotc as do Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Didymus. These words here are no more than a general reflection of that traditional subordinationism to which Eunomius gave an Anomoean application. cf. his own words, apud
Basil, adv.Eun.I11.1: telzov adrto dfidpatt nai tdfet pwabdrtec, teitov eivat xai
Th psoer METLoTEvHapEr.
7 of the Son: The omission of é here is surely in deliberate contrast with éx tod ITatedc above. cf. supra on 2(65). It is not suggested that Catholics would say that the Spirit is 2 tod Yiod, but that they might put Him in a S.A.—7
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
grandfather.' Thus the wretches make mock,® like busybodies desiring to 'search the deep things of God' which 'no one knows but the Spirit of God',® against whom they speak evil. We ought therefore to answer them no more, but, in accordance with the Apostle's precept,'° after the warning they have had from what has been said already, to shun them as heretics; or else to ask them questions on a level with those they ask, and to demand an answer from them such as they demand from us." Let them tell us then: whether the Father is from a Father!?; whether another has been begotten with him, so that they are brothers from the one father; what are the names of these!*; who is the father and 157 (continued) relation of so close dependence as to make possible the conclusion that His yévynotc is from the Son.
8 make mock: Montfaucon translates 'cavillando effutiun?; as though the participle, zeguegyaldpevor, expressed the principal idea of the sentence as in Acts 1216 (cf. Sophocles, Oedipus Col.1038 and the other examples Jebb gives in his note there). But the connexion between meguegyaldpuevor and béhovtec is very close, and it is better to take them in conjunction. meguegyaldpuevor can then bear its usual sense in Athanasius, as infra 17(105), c.47r.1.24, 29, etc.,
'inquiring out of idle and impertinent curiosity,' derived from 2 Thessalonians 311.
9 1 Corinthians 210-11.
10 the Apostle's precept: i.e. Titus 310, which heagain invokes, in/ra 1V.1(179), ad Adelph.2, ad Max.1.
11 gs they demand from us: i.e. to force from them the same kind of contradictory answer which their questions were calculated to exact from the orthodox.
12 whether the Father 1s from a Father; lf the analogy of human relationships is to be applied in this indiscriminate fashion to the Spirit and the Son, it must also be applied to the Father. So, ¢.4r.1.22, init., he answers the argument that if the Son is in the Father's image He must resemble Him in being a father: 'Let him, therefore, who asks why the Son is not to beget a son, inquire why the Father had not a father.' It is a favourite device with Athanasius to apply to the Father questions his opponents ask concerning the Son. cf. ibid.25, III.63.
18 what are the names of these ...: todtoig ... tovtov ... xdaxelvwr....
There can be little doubt that this, the reading of RSB, is to be followed here, nor should it offer any difficulties. todtouc refers to both the hypothetical persons, the Father's father and His brother; tovtov to the first of these only. éxelvav then may be taken either simply to stand for atrt@y, as in 2 Corinthians 89 and Titus 37, or else, in contrast with tovtwyr, to refer to the 'father and grandfather'.
EPISTLE ONE
the grandfather of this father; and who are their ancestors.
But they will say there are none. How then, let them tell us, is he a Father who is not himself begotten of a father?
Or how could he have a Son who was not first begotten a son? I know the interrogation is impious.1* But when they make mock of such things, it is right to make mock of them, that even from such absurd and impious interrogation they may be able to perceive their own folly. For it is not so. God forbid! Nor is it fitting to ask such questions about the Godhead. For God is not as man, that we should dare to ask
'human questions'® about him.
16. We ought therefore, as I said before, to be silent on these matters and to disregard! these people. But lest our silence should furnish an excuse for their effrontery, let them listen. Just as we cannot ascribe a father to the Father, so neither can we ascribe a brother to the Son.? Other than
1514 the interrogation is impious: We find similar apologetic disclaimers in c.Ar.J.25 and III.63. cf. also Quic.dix.7 and the references given by Newman in his note on c.4r.I.25. Also Didymus, de Trin.1.400z, 11.477c, and Basil, adv.Eun.11.33.
15 human questions: cf. c.Ar.1.15: negi tod dowpudtov ta cwudtwr évOvpotpevot. So it is the answer of Didymus that such terms as brother and grandson are 'corporum nomina et imbecillitatis humanae vocabula', de Sp.8.62.
Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.7, charges his opponents with being Alay gidooduatot, and argues that it is not necessary, because the term 'son' is used: tac xdtw xAjoeic ual thc Hustéoac ovyyevelac petapéger éni td Oetor.
It is lawful to use the analogy of human and purely material relationships to express the mystery of God. See further infra on 19(108ff.). But Athanasius recognizes two limitations to this use. Firstly, the various analogies are to be checked one by the other. So, c.4r.1.28, he defines the Sonship of Christ from His being called also Word of God. Secondly, the scope of these analogies is to be determined by Scripture. The terms 'brother' and 'grandfather' belong to the cycle of human relationships no less than 'father' and 'son'. But Scripture ignores the former and adopts the latter. See infra 16 fin.(108) ; and, even more emphatically, [V.5(186) : "The disciples did not hear, Into the name of the grandfather.
161 disregard: This is not the usual sense of mgoonoveiofar in Athanasius.
But cf. Plotinus, Enn.VL.iii.8, to é& dv odymertat ur) mgoonoveioba, and also ibid.19 and i.1.
2 neither can we ascribe a brother to the Son: As Revelation guarantees the uniqueness of the Father by insisting that God is one, so it also guarantees the uniqueness of the Son by insisting that He is only-begotten. If the human analogy may not be pressed to the denial of the one, it may not be pressed
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
the Father, as we have written already, there is no God'; there is no other Son than the Son, for he is only begotten.
Hence the Father, being One and Only, is Father of a Son 162 (continued) to the denial of the other. It is to be observed that Athanasius meets the objection of the Tropici by showing that it is inconsistent with what we know of the Son. The Son cannot have a brother, and therefore, a fortiori, the Spirit cannot be a son. The Son cannot be a father, therefore the Spirit cannot be a grandson. This line of thought undoubtedly disposes of the immediate difficulty. But it has this defect that, starting from a consideration of the Son rather than of the Spirit Himself, it supplies us with no positive conception of the Spirit's place within the divine life. It leaves us with a series of negatives, 'not brother', 'not son', 'not creature'. See infra on 17(104).
For Athanasius it is not the mode of the Spirit's existence that is in question, but what it is that exists, whether creature or God. The answer to the second question does not depend, as the Tropici would have it depend, on the answer to the first. The Godhead, as Didymus replied to the Macedonians, de Trin.
I1.492c, inheres in the nature and not in the relationship. See also ps.
Athanasius, ¢.Mac.1.1.
8 Other than the Father ...no God; Athanasius might perhaps have made his point more clearly had he written Mat%o for @edc here. But to postulate two fathers would, in effect, be to postulate two gods; for it is the distinctive property of the Father, gua Father, that He is dgy7 of the divine life which is in the Son and the Spirit. Hence he adds here 'as we have written already', in reference to the argument at the end of supra 15(98f.). To suppose that the Father could have a father is virtually to deny that He is Father; for éyevyyotia is the distinctive property of the divine Fatherhood. Thus there is no inconsistency in associating the title 'God' peculiarly with the First Person in the Trinity. So, infra 32(146), he speaks of the Spirit as being 'proper to the Word and to the Godhead of the Father'; and in III.6(176) of the Godhead: 'which is recognized as from the Father'; and a little farther on, in 7, of 'one God, the Father'. The Son and the Spirit are the 'participate' of His nature; c.Ar1.15, of the Son, é% tio odalas tod Iatedc éote tO weteydpuevorv. Likewise, ibid.58, on John 1428, he acknowledges that the Father is greater than the Son: od peyéber twi od0€ yodvm, GAAd did tH & adtod tod ITatedc¢ yévynow. In all this Athanasius is only using the language of the Nicene
Creed. It is interesting to observe that Apollinarius, who shows a very clear appreciation of the characteristic Athanasian doctrine, insists upon the validity of such expressions. cf. his Kata Mégog¢ Iiotic iii, on 1 Corinthians 86:
Bote yrwgiléobw pév badotactc tod Iatedc tH tod Osod nooonyoola, pr) duatetpnjoOw d& tatrtnc 6 Yidc wo dy éx Oeod. But it is not his usual practice. More characteristic is the passage in c.4r.III.9, where he insists that the Son can be called first as truly as the Father. The divine unity, for Athanasius, is most truly expressed, not in the fact that the Son and Spirit derive their
Godhead from the Father, but that each Person is in the others. cf. Prestige, G.P.T.233: 'the three Persons no longer lead back to a unity that is primarily found in one Person; they are in a real sense one in themselves.'
EPISTLE ONE
who is One and Only; and in the Godhead alone' the term 'Father' and the term 'Son' keep to their meaning and are ever thus. For with men, if a man is called a father, he is, notwithstanding, another man's son; and if he is called a son, he is, notwithstanding, another man's father. So that with men the names 'father' and 'son' are not kept to their strict meaning.> Abraham, for example, being Nahor's son,®
16* in the Godhead alone: cf. c.Ar.1.21: 66 ob6é éotw &v toic totovtotc (i.e. creatures), xvoelwc matho xai xvelwc Yidc, oddé gotnxev én' abtay to, "ITatije,' xai to, Yidc. The relation of Father and Son in the Trinity, being outside time, is absolute. It is fact rather than act, and therefore is not to be thought of as the transmission of something which has been received and may be again transmitted. Thus, as we have already seen, to say that the Father is
Father is not only to say that He begets a Son; it also carries with it the implication that He is not son. And to say of the Son that He is Son involves that He is not father. cf. c.4r.[II.4 and 11. So Didymus, de Trin.I1.552a, calls
Him 'Son and not Father, uncreated by nature, by reason of His being truly begotten but not begetting'. In de Dec.10-12 Athanasius draws out in detail this distinction between generation in God and in man. Man begets, in accordance with the nature of bodies, by emanation and partition, many sons.
God, being without parts, begets without partition or passion (duegiotw¢ wai dzaQ7jc), one only Son, whose unique generation is expressed in the title,
Word of God. Human generation is in time; divine generation is beyond time, and not to be understood save by means of similes and analogies. The substance of this passage is reproduced, in more or less detail, in all his later references to the subject; as in c.47.1.14-16, 21, 28, de Syn.41, 51, and the summary of this present passage, infra IV.6(187).
5 to their strict meaning: xvoiwc. It is applied by Aristotle, Met.V.1015a.14, to words used in the ordinary and everyday sense, as opposed to metaphors, which he characterizes by the term teomixdc. From this the Fathers used it to signify a real, but not necessarily a literal, meaning, as opposed to one that is merely nominal or analogous. Thus Didymus, de Trin.I1.648a, says that we are the temple of God: oéte xaf Guwvupiay 7 avvwvepiar, obte xat' aAAnyogiar, obte xatd petagogdy ... dAdd xvolwc ual xat' GAjOeav. Basil, adv.Eun.1I.
24, uses it, as here, of God, who is xugiwe ual ngoonxdytws Martie, if the Fatherhood be conceived as relation (oixelwotc), but toomimdc and & petagogac, if as passion. But Basil can none the less use it of our sonship in Christ, adv.Eun.11.23, inasmuch as that sonship also has validity and reality.
Here, however, and in c.4r.1.21, Athanasius uses it of the divine Fatherhood and Sonship in contrast with all other; as it is apparently used by Justin
Martyr, Apol.Sec.6, 6 udvog Aeydpevoc uveiwc Yidc. (But xvelwc there may mean 'in the sense of Lord'.) Hence it might almost be translated 'absolutely'.
It should be noticed that to Athanasius the terms 'Father' and 'Son' are not merely symbolical or pictorial. The same is true in some measure of all the titles and images which Scripture uses of Him. In employing them we are not
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
is Isaac's father; and Isaac, being Abraham's son, is Jacob's father. And so it is by the nature of men. For they are parts of one another; and each, when he is begotten, receives a part of his father, that he may himself become father of another. But with the Godhead it is not so. For God is not as man, nor is his nature divided. Hence he does not, by division of himself,' beget a son, so that he may himself become father ® to another; for he himself is not from a father. Nor 1s the Son a part of the Father. Hence he does not beget as he himself has been begotten, but is whole image and radiance of the whole.® And in the Godhead alone, the Father is a 165 (continued) attempting to express the divine in terms of the human and material. Indeed, when we use these terms to denote human and physical relationships, we are applying on the plane of time and matter concepts which are only finally relevant in the divine life. This interesting legacy of Platonism is well set out, c.Ar.1.23: 'For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is alone properly and truly Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children. For of Him "is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named".' cf. also Newman's note on de Dec.11 and the references there, and Le Quien's note on John of Damascus, de Fide Orth.1.820a.
6 Nahor's son: The reading of RSB is confirmed by its repetition, infra
IV.6(187).
7 by division of himself: The notion that the Son is a part of the Father, produced by a division of the divine essence, was denounced by Arius in his letter to Alexander (de Syn.16). He associates it with Hieracas and the Manichees. Though he never makes the point, Athanasius in fact retorts the Arians' censure upon themselves. By applying to God the language proper only to human generation, they treat the divine nature as though it were something physical, just as do the Manichees.
8 that he may himself become father: That is, of course, the son. xai attdc.
. un ¢ adtoc here refer respectively to that son and to the Father. For adtdc¢ used of different subjects in the same sentence, see Mark 927-8 and Acts 822.
® whole image and radiance of the whole: So, c.Ar.11.35, the Son is yévynua télevov éx teheiov, and 1bid.II1.6, 6A0¢ xal wdjenc @edc, and de Inc.17, hoc év tH Ilatgi. cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxx.20, dAov dhov tinov. As in c.Ar.1.22, Athanasius here corrects the Arians' misuse of the analogy of human generation from the concept of image. For the conjunction of eixcw and dnavyaopa, see infra 19(109f.). But the second term here adds little to the first. The reiteration 6Aoc .
. GAov signifies the perfection and totality of the image in contrast with the uegulopévn pdotg of men. The Son is not a picture of the Father projected or emanated from Him. He is the perfect expression of all that God is. As the use of 6Aoc excludes the notion of partiality and defect, so the term eixcbv involves the unity of the Son with the Father and
EPISTLE ONE
father in the strict sense, and the Son a son in the strict sense; and of these it holds good that the Father is ever
Father and the Son ever Son. As the Father could never be son, so neither could the Son be a father. As the Father will never cease to be Only Father, so the Son will never cease to be Only Son. By all accounts then, it is madness to envisage a brother to the Son, or to ascribe to the Father the name of grandfather. For the Spirit is not given the name of son in the Scriptures, lest he be taken for a brother; nor son of the Son, lest the Father be thought to be a grandfather. But the Son is called Son of the Father, and the Spirit of the Father is called Spirit of the Son.!° Thus the Godhead of the Holy
Triad and faith therein is one.
17. For this reason! too, it is madness? to call him a creature. If he were a creature, he would not be ranked with the Triad. For the whole Triad is one God. It is enough to know' that the Spirit is not a creature,' nor is he numbered
16° (continued) His inherence in Him. Athanasius is careful to distinguish his use of this analogy from the sense in which the Arians used it, that of the delineation or reproduction of an original. cf. c.47.1.20-1: 'God's image is not penned from without,' and (of the Arians), '. .
. sooner than confess that the Son is the Father's image, they conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the Father, ascribing to Him severings and effluences and influences.' cf. also
Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxx.20: eixwv a> dpuoovoor.
10 the Spirit of the Father ..
. Spirit of the Son: The reading of BA as opposed to the simplified reading of RS which omits tod Yiod. This undoubtedly corresponds in form with the previous clause, but that of BA is in fuller accord with the line of these letters.
11 faith therein: See infra on 30(141), where the unity of the Christian faith and the singularity of baptism is related to the unity of God.
17! For this reason; Having dealt with the objection, Athanasius turns to the contention it was intended to establish. It is no less madness to call the Spirit a creature than to call Him a son. todto at the beginning of a section generally refers to the subsequent argument, as in 26, 27, and II.3, Here, however, odxotv makes it clear that it looks back to the conclusion already reached at the end of 16, the unity of the Triad, which is the subject of the ensuing sections.
2 madness: Takes up the pavia dga of the last sentence but one. Athanasius regularly describes the opinions of his opponents in this way. cf. Apol.6, 49, de Sent.Dion.25, 26, c.Ar.1.1, etc.
8 [t is enough to know: i.e. in contrast with the impertinent speculations of
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
with the things that are made. For nothing foreign is mixed — with the Triad; it is indivisible and consistent.5 These things are sufficient for the faithful. Thus far human knowledge goes. Here the cherubim spread the covering of their wings. He who seeks and would inquire into what lies beyond these things disobeys him who said: "Be not wise in many things, lest thou be confounded.'* For the things that have been handed down by faith' ought not to be
173 (continued) the Tropici. It is not necessary to know the mode of the Spirit's existence, but only that His existence is not creaturely.
4 not a creature: This denial carries with it the positive affirmation that the Spirit is ivov tod Oeod, and Athanasius generally couples some such statement with the negative, e.g. infra21 (119), 25(128), 26(129), 32(146). But the emphasis upon the negative both here and elsewhere is significant. It shows clearly the positive character of the heresy he is opposing, in contrast with the ambiguity of the later Macedonians; and also the prudent restraint of Athanasius. No one can doubt that his own conviction embraced the essential
Godhead of the Spirit, and he does not hesitate to apply to Him the decisive term, 6uoovotoc, infra 27(188) and III.1(171). But he is content with any statement which will safeguard the unity of the Godhead and the reality of the divine Sonship. This attitude is reflected in the language of Tomus ad Antiochenos, in which the decisions of the Council of Alexandria were formulated, in 362. cf. especially 5, where the Spirit is confessed to be, 'not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the essence of the Father and the Son'. See also ad Fov.1, 4. It was through the decisions of this council that the language and thought of Athanasius concerning the Spirit first influenced Basil and the later controversialists in Asia and Pontus. cf. Basil,
Ep.xxv, cxili, cxiv, and especially the confession of Eustathius, cxxv.3: 'They must anathematize all who call the Holy Spirit a creature
. and who alienate Him from the blessed, divine nature.'
5 conststent—ouota éavtyj. Athanasius makes use of this phrase only here and infra 28(185). In both places it is used, not so much for its adequacy to express the unity of God as to exclude its opposite, dvduotocg éavt7j, which is how the Tropici must describe the Trinity, if they are to be consistent. See infra on 30, init.(140), 7 ade2) odca éavt#, which much better accords with Athanasius's doctrine.
® Ecclesiastes 716.
? handed down by faith: ta yag nlorer nagadobévta must not be taken as if it were equivalent to # alotic magadofeioa of Jude's. The dative is instrumental: faith is the means whereby the deposit is delivered to us. So, infra
20(114), he says the Godhead is not 'traditioned' by demonstration in words, but in faith. Hence éy dxof alotews here retains its original Pauline sense,
Galatians 32, the hearing that makes for faith, as opposed to the rationalism of the Eunomians who rejected all mystery; and not 'obedience to the faith', as
EPISTLE ONE
measured by human wisdom, but by the hearing of faith.
What speech shall be able worthily to interpret the things that surpass originated nature? Or what hearing is able to understand things it is not lawful for men either to hear or to utter? For that is how Paul spoke of what he heard; but of God himself, 'How are his ways past tracing out , and,
'Who hath known the mind of the Lord and who hath been his counsellor?' Abraham was not a busybody, nor did he question him who spoke, but believed and 'it was counted to him for righteousness'. Thus Moses was called 'a faithful servant'.1° But if the disciples of Arius, because wisdom will not enter their deceitful hearts, are not able intelligently to believe" in the indivisible and holy Triad, let them not on that account pervert the truth as well, neither let them say that what they cannot understand cannot be true.1* They have put themselves in an absurd position. Because they cannot understand how the holy Triad is indivisible, the Arians make the Son one with the creation, and the Tropici, for their part, number the Spirit with the creatures. It would be better for them either to say nothing at all? in 17? (continued) in 1 Samuel 1523. For Athanasius's conception of the zagddoatc, see infra on 28 init.(188i.).
8 Romans 11s3-4, ® Romans 4s. ao Hae 3s.
11 intelligently to believe: A recognition, unfortunately rare in Athanasius, that his opponents may really feel the force of the arguments they raise. His more usual attitude is to be found in such passages as ¢.4r.1.14: "This is not an objection of men really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies.'
12 cannot be true: cf. infra 11.1(151): 'as though nothing can be unless they understand it.'
18 either to say nothing at all: cf. c.Ar.I1.36: 'Nor, if anyone is perplexed in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the perplexity. For he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy, because, though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet. But when a man is led by his perplexity into forming for himself doctrines which beseem not and utters what is unworthy of God, such daring incurs a sentence without mercy.' In the present passage, however, two alternatives are offered to the Arians and Tropici. Either let them say nothing (cf. Basil, de $p.5.44: ovwnf tysdoOw ta digonta), and not presume to think for theamseligny taking their places with the dxégatot and adopting a simple and uncritical faith—Or, if they must teach, let them defer to the authority of Scripture (émuywwdoxeuy, as in 1 Corinthians
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
their incomprehension, the Arians not ranking the Son with the creatures nor the Tropici the Spirit; or else to acknowledge what is written, and join the Son to the Father and not divide the Spirit from the Son—so that the Holy Triad may still be rightly characterized as indivisible and of one nature.
Having learned these truths, they ought not to be so bold as to ask doubting, how these things could be; lest, even if he whom they question" be at a loss for words, of their own
_ accord they think out false notions! for themselves. For all created beings, and especially we who are men, find it impossible to speak adequately concerning the things that are ineffable. All the more presumptuous, then, if, when we cannot speak, we devise for these subjects strange forms of expression other than those in the Scriptures. Above all is this present attempt madness, both on the part of him who asks and of him who so much as thinks of answering. For he who asked such questions even about originated things would not be regarded as of sound mind.
18. Let them presume to tell us, as they have a glib answer! to everything, how the heavens were formed,? and from what material, and what is their composition; and likewise of the sun and each of the stars. Small wonder if we
1738 (continued) 161s) and dismiss their difficulties in face of the unequivocal testimony it bears to the unity of the holy Triad.
14 even if he whom they question: iva xdv 6 égwtdpevoc. The significance of nay here is shown by the emphatic attoi .
. éavtoic in the final clause. If no one will do it for them, they will do it for themselves.
16 false notions: xaxovolac, 'pravos sensus', Montfaucon. It retains its suggestion of moral quality, notions that are not merely false, but perverse.
181 a glib answer: cf. Apol.37, c.Ar.1.33, de Syn.39, and infra IV.3(188).
Also Basil, Ep.li: & tic dvaweiacg tév advta ~beyyouévar Gadlwc.
® how the heavens were formed: So likewise, in the same argument, Basil, adv.
Eun.1I1.6, and Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.8, challenge their adversaries to elucidate the mysteries of nature before attempting to explain those of God. cf. also Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Eun.X.828a, where he invites Eunomius to interpret T6 puxgdtatoy tTé» neopawouévev. Athanasius takes up the point again against the Arians, infra 11.1(151). cf. also Irenaeus, Haer
II xxviii.2:
'There is no cause for wonder if that is the case with us as respects things spiritual and heavenly and such as require to be made known by revelation, since many of the things that lie at our very feet transcend our knowledge.'
EPISTLE ONE
expose their folly by referring to the things above us, when we do not understand the 'how' of the nature of the trees here below,' of 'the gathering together of the waters', and of the fashioning and forming of living things. But they could not tell us. For even Solomon, who had a far greater share of wisdom than any, saw that it was impossible for men to find out about these things, and said: 'He hath set eternity within their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.'
Because they cannot find out, do they admit ® that these things do not exist? Yes, they will admit it, for their understanding is corrupted." Wherefore we might reasonably ask them:
"You who are without sense and in all things reckless, why do you not the rather cease your impertinent inquiries about the holy Triad, and only believe ® that it exists ? You have the Apostle as your teacher for this, when he says: "'It is necessary first to believe on God that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him."® He did not say,
"how he is," but only, "that he 1s''.' But if they are not overwhelmed by this, let them say how the Father is, that so 18% the things above us: éx tév tneguemérwy. cf. Gregory of Nyssa, adv.
Eun.X. 828c: unre tid tév mQd0w, pte tdv bnEeg xeyadnc épixeiobar.
4 of the nature of the trees here below: At first sight this expression seems very strange, and one is tempted to emend to #Awy. But the whole passage is reminiscent of Genesis 1 and 2. cf. in addition to 110, from which the next phrase is taken, 212. So he may well have had in mind the various évAa of 2s: nay Ediov dgaiov cic Soacw nai xaddv cic Bodow * xai t6 EvAov ths Cwijc .
. nal to EdAov tov eidévat.
5 Ecclesiastes 311.
6 do they admit ...: 'contendunt non existere,' Montfaucon. In spite of the somewhat forced interpretation it attaches to duodoyovot, this is probably correct. It would be possible to translate: 'Do they not admit that these things exist?' But such an admission scarcely calls for the comment that their minds are corrupted! Moreover, Montfaucon's rendering gives a greater force to uaAov in the following sentence. Rather than be forced by the logic of their position into so absurd an admission, let them abandon their speculations.
7 corrupted: cf. supra 14(98) and ad Adelph.1, init.
8 only believe: So also Basil, Ep.ccxxxiv.2, likewise on Hebrews 116: "The object of our worship is not that of which we comprehend the essence, but of which we comprehend that the essence exists.' cf. adv.Eun.1.14, and ps.
Basil, adv.Eun.V.752c.
9 Hebrews 11e.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
they may learn how his Word is. But it is absurd, they will say, to ask such questions about the Father.1° Let them hear, then, that it is also absurd to ask them concerning his Word.
19. Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness !, let no one ask such questions any more, or else! let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures.? For the illustrations* they contain which bear upon 181° ghout the Father: cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat.X1.19: 'Tell me first what
He is who begat, and then learn that which He begat; but if thou canst not conceive the nature of Him who hath begotten, search not curiously into the manner of that which is begotten.' Also Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.8: einé od ti ayevynolay tod Iatedc, xaya thy yervnoly tod Yiod puatohoyijow, nal thy éxmdgevow tod IIvevpatoc.
191 or else: i.e. if they persist in asking questions. There is no need to impart an adversative sense to 7, as Montfaucon does by translating 'sed ea tantum'.
2 in the Scriptures: from the exclusive misuse of one particular analogy, Athanasius turns to other analogies found in Scripture. So elsewhere, de Dec.
12 and c.Ar.1.27, he has already used these similes of fountain and stream, of light and radiance, to guard the title of Son from improper inferences drawn from human generation.
3 illustrations: nagadelypata, a philosophical term, used by Plato of the ideas or forms considered as exemplars of material things, e.g. Parmenides 132p.
Aristotle has it in the same sense, e.g. Met.1.991.a.20, etc. But he also uses it of the establishment of a truth as to one particular from its truth as to another, analogous, particular. For its use as 'instance' or 'precedent', cf. the examples in ZS and V.G.f. Following earlier writers, notably
Origen and Eusebius, Athanasius regularly uses it of those material analogies, sanctioned by Scripture, through which we may apprehend and express the truth concerning the divine nature. In de Dec.12 he calls them eixdva twa ..
. éx tdv dgwpuévwv. Of the two employed here, that of the light and its radiance goes back to Tatian (see note infra, 109f.). It is by far the most important of all such illustrations used by the Fathers, and Prestige,
G.P.T.214, justly calls it 'the traditional way of expressing the divine unity'.
We first find it in association with the other, that of the fountain and stream, in Hippolytus, adv.Noet.11: 'Light from light, water from fountain, ray from sun.' Origen, de Prin.1.1i.4-12, discusses a large number of these zagade/yyata, derived from Hebrews 1s and Wisdom 72s. See also the fragment apud
Athanasius, de Dec.27. As the great Trinitarian controversy began to take shape, interest in them was naturally intensified. We find them used over and over again to express the eternal and impartitive character of the divine
Sonship. Thus Theognostus (apud Athanasius, de Dec.25) describes Christ's generation as 'the radiance of light and the vapour of water'; Dionysius of Alexandria (apud Athanasius, de Sent.Dion.18): 'Life was begotten of life and flowed as river from a well, and of light unquenchable bright light was kindled.' See also 1b7d.15. Lactantius, Jnst.iv.29: 'The Father an overflowing fountain, the Son a stream; the Father like the sun, and the Son as it were
EPISTLE ONE
this subject are sufficient and suitable.t The Father is called fountain and light: "They have forsaken me,' it says, 'the fountain® of living water'; and again in Baruch, 'Why, O
Israel, art thou in the fod of thine enemies? Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom'; and, according to John:
'Our God is light.'* But the Son, in contrast with the fountain, is called river: 'The river of God is full of water.'? In contrast with the light, he is called radiance *—as Paul says:
198 oe a ray.' Eusebius and Marcellus joined issue as to whether the pre-existent
Son could rightly be called the Image of the invisible God (Eusebius, c. M. ar.
II.2, inzt.). See also the long explanation of the light and the radiance With the interesting safeguards against a Sabellian interpretation (Dem.Ev.IV.3.1).
Athanasius, ad Ajr.6, says that the Fathers at Nicaea collected (owrjyayer) from Scripture the radiance and the river and the expression, and summarized them in the 6uoovotorv.He himself makes frequent use of the two nagadelypyata set out here, and also of the eixay already referred to, supra 16(102), and more rarely of the dadotacts and its yagaxtie which he adds in the following section. The principal passages are de Dec.12, 15, 23, c.Ar.1.20, etc., 1.33, etc.,
ITI.3, etc., 10. It must finally be observed that, while they are thus employed to express oo relationship of Father and Son, ae nagadelypara are intimately connected with a still vaster symbolism of light, water, etc., which sets forth the nature and activity of God. This is well seen in de [nc.1 where the notion of the Son as the Father's image is correlated with that of the divine image in man; and by the use of Psalm 360 in later writers, e.g. in de Trin.et
Sp.5.18.
4 sufficient and suitable: It is not clear whether ixavd is merely periphrastic, as Montfaucon takes it to be, or whether it means 'suitable to the conditions and powers of our minds', For Athanasius's conviction of the sufficiency of Scripture, see Robertson, Intro., lxxiv, and the passages referred to there.
5 the fountain: Jeremiah 213 and Baruch 310-12. While the interpretation of Psalm 659 given below is unique in Athanasius, we find a similar exposition of the Jeremiah and Baruch passages in combination in de Dec.12 and ¢.Ar.1.
19. It is interesting to observe that Didymus, de Trim.11.553z applies them, not to the Son, but to the Spirit, as proving His procession from the Father: obtac évtad0a 6tt 4 any ob} yEeveotougyet to && avtyc Bowe, GAN éxstogevdpevoy éyer xali dpoovowoy. Likewise, in de Trin.et Sp.8.19, the Jeremiah passage is held to be spoken by the Son with reference to the Spirit, so that the Son is 'Fons Spiritus'. cf. also de Inc. et c.Ar.9-10, and Ambrose, de
Sp.8.1.152.
6 1 John ls.
? Psalm 650.
8 radiance: The light which a light diffuses by means of the atmosphere. So we must interpret the phrase in the Nicene Creed, pac éx pwrdc, rather than as one light kindled from another. In this latter form the simile is criticized by Athanasius, de Dec.23. Arius also condemned it, according to Epiphanius,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
'Who, being the radiance of his glory and the image of his essence." As then the Father is light and the Son is his radiance—we must not shrink from saying the same things' about them many times—we may see in the Son the Spirit
198 (continued) Haer |xix.7, because it suggested that the divine nature is partitive. It was, however, so used by some earlier writers, e.g. Tatian (adv.Graec.5), whom
Justin Martyr follows (Iryph.61 and 128), expressly preferring it to the adaptation used by Athanasius, on the ground that it safeguards the real subsistence of the Word. But Athenagoras, Leg.10, using it of the Spirit, says 'as a ray of the sun'. cf. also ibid.24, and Tertullian, Apol.21, etc. The Gnostics seem to have used it in both forms of the zgofoAy of the aeons. See
Irenaeus, Haer.II.xiii.5 and xvii.4.
® Hebrews 1s.
10 the same things: 'It is quite a peculiarity of Athanasius to repeat and to apologize for doing it' (Newman). cf. supra 11(87) and infra 19(118), etc. This and similar expressions abound in his writings. See de Inc.20, ¢.Ar.1.31, 11.22,
80, III.54, Quic.dix.11. The greatness of Athanasius as a theologian chiefly rests on the fact that he saw clearly one great truth of fundamental importance in the spiritual crisis of his time, and that he was prepared to state it and restate it in the context of each succeeding phase of controversy.
11 in the Son the Spirit: Athanasius does not try to develop this simile until it corresponds with the whole life of the Trinity; as does Tertullian, adv.
Prax.8: 'sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex Slumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio.' Nor does he simply extend the scope of the comparison, following Athenagoras, so that the Spirit becomes a second radiation and stream, by the side of the Son; or, as in Epiphanius, Anc.71: yas teitov naga Iatedc xai Yiov. His thought follows the line it has already taken, c.4r. III.3-6, where he expounds the notion that the Sonisinthe Father; cf. ibid.3, 'For the Son is in the Father ..
. because the whole being of the Son is proper to the Father's essence, as radiance from light and stream from fountain.' The radiance is not a second light, nor does it participate in the light. It is 6Aov idtov adtod yérynua. The sun and the radiance are two, but there is one light, from the sun in the radiance enlightening the universe.
Farther on, in 1bid.15,in a passage which he certainly had in mind when writing this section, he develops the idea to comprehend the whole Triad. 'We do not introduce three deyai or three fathers
. since we have not suggested the image of three suns, but sun and radiance. And one is the light from the sun in the radiance. ..
. For there is but one eldo¢ of Godhead, which is also in the Word; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself, according as He is above all things, and appearing in the Son, according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit, according as in Him He acts in all things through the Word. For thus we confess God to be one through the Triad.' So here he declares that the Spirit is to be seen in the Son. Whenever the titles and figures which express the reality and character of the divine Son are correlated with the particular operation of divine power which gives them, for human
EPISTLE ONE
also by whom we are enlightened. 'That he may give you', it says, 'the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened'.2 But when we are enlightened by the Spirit, it is Christ who in him enlightens us. For it says: "There was the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world.'* Again, as the Father is fountain and the Son is called river, we are
1911 (continued) thought, meaning and pertinence, we find Scripture testifying that it is the Spirit who works. This is clearly stated, infra 20(116f.): 'As the Son... is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens be one....' See also 30(142): 'Where the light is, there is the radiance, and where the radiance is, there is its évégyera xai advyoedys ydeuc. At first sight this might suggest that Athanasius regards the Spirit merely as an expression of the Son, a form of Sabellianism not unknown in our own day; and it is interesting to observe that, when he traces the same argument, de $p.$.23, Didymus is concerned to safeguard himself against this misinterpretation. But for Athanasius the personal subsistence of the Spirit is a fact so necessary that it hardly . needs affirmation; though he does affirm it, infra 28(185), when he gives a formal statement of the magddoatc as contrasted with Judaism and paganism.
For the importance of the argument from unity of évégyeva to unity of odoia, see Prestige, G.P.£.257-60. From works which deal more specifically with the Spirit, we may add to the references he gives a large number of passages which show how widely Athanasius was followed on this point. Thus Basil,
Ep.clxxxix.6-7, argues that we can only investigate the nature of God by reference to His operations, and that identity of operation clearly proves
TO thc ptoews anapdAAaxtoy. cf. also de Sp.8.37 and Gregory of Nyssa, adv.
Eun.11.5648. Epiphanius (4nc.68-70) cites many passages to prove that the _Son and Spirit minister together (ovrdtaxoveiv), and that both work together with the Father. So likewise de Trin.et Sp.$.10-13. Didymus (de Trin.I1.560600) has a similar list of texts, leading up to the conclusion that there is in the Triad one will, one authority, one activity, and hence one divine nature.
From the same passage we learn that the Macedonians resisted this conclusion, apparently by their favourite device of maintaining that the identity of operation was merely analogical. Of equal interest is the argument Didymus assembles in his de Sp.S.16-25, especially the very clear statement that prefaces it, 16-17: 'Una igitur gratia, Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti operatione completa, Trinitas unius substantiae demonstratur. ... In omnibus enim approbatur eandem operationem esse Patris et Filit et Spiritus sancti. Quorum autem una est operatio, una est et substantia; quia quae eidem substantiae duoovtora sunt, easdem habent operationes, et quae alterius substantiae et dvouoovoua, dissona atque diversa sunt.' See also ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.7218 and 728s, probably also the work of Didymus, and the derivative passages in Ambrose, de
Sp.S.11.142-I1T.40.
'12 Ephesians 117-18.
18 John le.
, '
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
; said to drink of the Spirit. For it is written: "We are all made to drink of one Spirit.' But when we are made to drink of the Spirit, we drink of Christ. For 'they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ'.
Again, as Christ is true Son,!* so we, when we receive the Spirit, are made sons." 'For you have not received', it says,
'the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption."* But if by the Spirit we are made sons, it is clear that it is in Christ we are called children of God. For: 'So many as received him, to them gave he the power to become children of God.' Then, as the Father, in Paul's words, is the 'only wise',* the Son is his Wisdom:
'Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." But as the Son is Wisdom, so we, receiving the Spirit of Wisdom,™ have the Son and are made wise in him. For thus it is written in the one hundred and forty-fifth psalm: "The Lord looseth the prisoners, the Lord maketh wise the blind.'** When the Holy Spirit is given to us ("Receive the Holy Spirit,'** said the Saviour), God is in us; for so John wrote: 'If we love one another, God abideth in us; hereby know we that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.'*5 But when God is in us, the Son also is in us.** For the Son himself
19*4 } Corinthians 12:s.
18 1 Corinthians 10s.
36 true Son: From these similes Athanasius naturally turns to the titles of Son and Wisdom which likewise express Christ's unity with the Father. cf. de Dee.23, ¢Ar1.14, LI.6, and the long list of divine names and symbols in Eusebius, Eee. T4eol 1.20.30. made sems: See c.Ar.I11.19, and Didymus, de Trin.II.748c, where vionoinaic and Geomoinow are said to be the office of the Spirit. The two terms express one idea, and Athanasius generally prefers the latter. See infra on 24(125f,).
18 Romans Ss, "John le.
* Romans 16a.
™ 1 Corinthians la.
*2 Sptrst of Wasdom: cf. Didymus, de Sp.8.21: 'Deus solus sapiens .
. et generans sapientiam et altos faciens sapientes'; also de Trin.et Sp.S.19. Earlier writers actually identified the Spirit with the Wisdom of God in Proverbs
8s, etc., e.g. Theophilus, ad 4uz.I.7, and Irenaeus, Haer.IV.xx.3-4. But Athanasius stresses the genitive. It is not merely that the Spirit bears the name, but that He belongs to the divine Word who is Wisdom.
33 Psalm 1467-8.
™ John 202.
25 1 John 4iaus.
*8 the Som alse is tn us: cf. c.drII1.24, also on 1 John 41s. Didymus makes much of such passages as 1 Corinthians 3: and 69, arguing that it is a proof
EPISTLE ONE
said: "The Father and I will come and make our abode with him." Furthermore, as the Son is life—for he says
"I am the life'**—-we are said to be quickened by the Spirit."
For it says: 'He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, through his Spirit that dwelleth in you.' But when we are quickened by the Spirit,
Christ himself is said to live in us; for it says: 'I have been crucified with Christ. I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me.' Again, the Son declared that the Father worked the works that he did—for he says: 'The Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for his works' sake.'* So Paul declared that the works he worked by the power of the Spirit were the works of Christ: 'For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit.'
20. But if there is such co-ordination? and unity within the holy Triad, who can separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself?
Who would be so audacious as to say that the Triad is unlike 19% (continued) of the Spirit's deity that He dwells in souls 'secundum substantiam', and not merely 'secundum operationem': de Sp.8.24-5 and 60-1, de Trin.11.529a.
Athanasius, however, is not concerned with the character of the indwelling as such, but with the fact that the presence of the Spirit necessarily implies that of the Father and the Son. cf. de Inc.et c.Ar.14, the latter part of which seems to be abstracted from this passage.
" John 14.
™ John 146.
™ quickened by the Spirit: See infra 23(128).
* Romans 811.
"1 Galatians 220.
% John 1410-12. This passage and the following, Romans 1511», are similarly associated by Didymus, de Trin.11.504z.
20: co-ordination: avotorzia. Its usual meaning is column or series in which co-ordinates are assembled. It is so used frequently by Aristotle, e.g. Met.
1004.b.27, 1066.2.15, etc. Athanasius has it in this sense, supra 10(86); cf.
Didymus, de Trin.11.549a and Basil, de 5p.5.43. Here, however, it is actually used of the relationship itself. Didymus has it in the same sense in a passage parallel to this, de Trin.11.640c: tip 19d tov Ilaréga cvatotzlav xai Gpoggoctv anayyé) iv. s.A.—S8
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
itself and diverse in nature,? or that the Son is in essence foreign from the Father, or the Spirit alien from the Son?
But how are these things? If one should make inquiry and ask again: How, when the Spirit is in us, the Son is said to be in us? How, when the Son is in us, the Father is said to be in us? Or how, when it is truly a Triad, the Triad is described as one? Or why, when the One is in us, the Triad is said to be in us ?—let him first divide* the radiance from the light, or wisdom from the wise, or let him tell how these things are. But if this is not to be done, much more is it the audacity of madmen to make such inquiries concerning
God. For tradition, as we have said, does not declare the Godhead to us by demonstration in words,® but by faith and by a pious and reverent use of reason.® For if Paul pro202 diverse in nature: étegopun. cf. de Dec.23, de Syn.45, and Didymus, de
Trin.I1.461a.
8 the Triad is described as one: Here Toudc clearly expresses the triplicity of the Godhead in distinction from its unity, as in c.4r.1.18, etc. cf. Prestige,
G.P.T.90. For the expression éy évt onualyerat, cf. c.Ar.1IL.9.
4 Jet him first divide: cf. c.Ar.11.33, de Dec.12, and ad Episc.13 fin.
5 not... by demonstration in words: The form of this sentence is suggested by the quotation from 1 Corinthians 2 which follows. For the sense, cf. supra 17(104f.), to which no doubt he refers by done eigntar, and 11.5(158f.),
But whereas in those passages he is speaking of the apprehension of the faith by those to whom it is offered, here he speaks of the actual transmission. It is an interpreted faith that is delivered.
6 by a pious and reverent use of reason: 'ratione cum pietate coniuncta,' Montfaucon; as though evoefei and pec' edAaBelac were identical in meaning. As, indeed, they almost are, the former suggesting orthodoxy and the latter reticence. This acknowledgement of the part played by reason in determining and propagating the zagddootc is of great interest, and may serve as a welcome corrective to the rather aggressive insistence on intellectual submission in the preceding sections. It must, however, be read in the light of what follows concerning the zagadelyyuata, and especially of the words, 'to think legitimately'. To Athanasius the function of reason is not, as for Eunomius, the reduction of revelation to the level of a natural, rationalistic, theology. (See the striking passage in ad Mon.J.2.) Nor is it the construction of a basis of natural theology upon which a science of revealed truth can be developed. See Harnack's observations on Athanasius's doctrine of God, H.D.III.141-4, and de
Inc.11-16. It lies within the sphere of exposition, the co-ordination of the various testimonies of Scripture and the discovery of the ecclesiastical sense; which, in this context, means the delicate comparison and cross-interpretation of the symbols and titles Scripture uses of the Son.
EPISTLE ONE
claimed the saving Gospel of the Cross, 'not in words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power''; and if in Paradise he heard 'unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter'®: who can declare the holy
Triad itself? Nevertheless, we can meet this difficulty, primarily by faith and then by using the illustrations mentioned above, I mean the image® and the radiance, fountain and river, essence and expression. As the Son is in the Spirit as in his own image,?° so also the Father is in the Son. For divine Scripture, by way of relieving™ the impossibility of explaining and apprehending these matters in words, has given us illustrations of this kind; that it may be lawful, because of the unbelief of presumptuous men, to speak more plainly, and to speak without danger, and to think legiti20? 1 Corinthians 2s.
8 2 Corinthians 124, ® the image: Of the two additional similes introduced here, we have already met that of the eixdév, supra 16(102). 'The other, that of the indotacis and yaoaxtno, is, of course, derived, with that of the radiance, from Hebrews 1s.
Origen, de Prin.1.ii.8, endeavoured to give it a distinctive force by applying it to the Incarnation. But Athanasius uses it in the same way as the rest; though more rarely, doubtless because it is not readily distinguishable from the eixdyv simile. cf. especially ¢.4r.1.20, 11.33, and IIT.1.
10 gs in his own image: Athanasius has already applied this figure to the Son.
Now he uses it of the Spirit, adding a series of parallel passages to show how faithfully the character of the Son is reproduced in Him. This use of the symbolism is older than Athanasius, for Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his Confession, speaks of the Spirit as the Son's image. It may, indeed, even go back to Irenaeus. cf. Haer.1V.vii.4 and Swete's note, H.S.A.C.88. We find it taken' over by Didymus, de Trin.II.5048: xaba 6 Iarig év dig bmootdcEet OY, éEeixoviletar év tH Movoyevei .
. tov ae tedmov xal 6 Movoyerijc &v tH évi avi@ Ivedpatu. cf. also ps Basil, adv.Eun.V.724c, etc. Its persistence is attested by its appearance in John of Damascus, de Fid.Orth.1.13, We may notice that what Athanasius says here complements and safeguards the statement already made in the preceding section that the Spirit can be seen in the Son.
1 by way of relieving .. .: This passage is closely followed by Didymus, de Trin.11.465a, xagapvbodpeva tiv ddvvapiay, etc. magauv0ovpera is rendered by Mingarelli, 'consolantur', which accords with the 'levaret? of Montfaucon here. cf. Plutarch, Alc.xiii. The stronger sense of 'remove' or 'overcome' might be justified from Strabo, xiii.I.64, but the former agrees better with Athanasius's usual appraisal of the magadelyyara. cf. de Dec.12 and in illud,Omn.3 fin. See also Basil, adv.Eun.11.17 and Ep.xxxviii.5, and the criticisms of Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.32.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
mately, and to believe that there is one sanctification,' which is derived from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy
Spirit.
As the Son is an only-begotten offspring,!® so also the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many," but Only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity*®
2012 one sanctification: As unity of évégyeia involves unity of odo/a, so division of otola involves that the évégyera are also diverse. It is characteristic of Athanasius that he finds the justification of his theology here, in the assurance of the reality of divine grace in which it confirms him.
18 an only-begotten offspring: Athanasius finds no difficulty in using yévynua of Christ; though Aetius and Eunomius (see Epiphanius, Haer.lxxvi.8 and Eunomius, Lib.Apol.17) take it as equivalent to xtiopa or moinua. cf. c.Ar.
III.4, etc. So likewise Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxix.2 and Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Eun.111.608c.
Basil, however, adv.Eun.I1.7, rejects the term on the grounds that Scripture chiefly uses it of inanimate things and never of Christ.
(His subsequent use of it, 2b7d.32, is in a purely general sense, and Maran is wrong in pressing it, V72.xliii.7.) So also Didymus, de Trin.1.340a.
14 one from among many: i.e. He does not owe His pre-eminence to the favour of God (cf. infra 29.188), or to any adventitious circumstance, such as priority in time (argued of the Son, ¢.4r.II.19). The grounds of this assertion are suggested here by the insertion of 'given and sent', and are fully set out in the next sentence.
» 18 the vital activity: Analogous to the use of cogia, dvvayis, Bovdr, etc., of the Son. There were, however, special objections to describing the Spirit as évégyeva, in view of the hesitation still felt by some as to the reality of His personal existence. See Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.6. Either, says Gregory,
~ the Spirit is odo/a or He is ovpPeBnxdc. ei uév obv ovpBéBnxer, évégyera Todto dy cin Oeod.. . xai ei évégyeta, évegynOyjoetat dndovdti, obu évegyyjoet, xai 6uod tH évegynfivat nadvoetat. cf. also Origen, in Foh.fr.37: 06 yag, dc tues olovtat, évégyetd éott Ocod, od &yov xat' adtovc tadebews iduétnta. What Athanasius means here is to be understood from such statements as that found infra
31(148), that all things are actuated (évegyettar) through the Word in the Spirit. But if the Son operates in the Spirit, to deny the Spirit's unity is to call in question that unity of operation upon which the Son's unity and uniqueness depends. In speaking thus, he is still thinking in terms of the similes he has been using, which lend themselves more readily to expressions of this kind. cf. éAdumes in the next sentence. Moreover he safeguards himself here (though not infra in 30(142), when he repeats the expression) with the important qualification C@car. cf. Coa Bovdy (c.Ar.III.63), and see
Newman's note there for similar examples in other Fathers. C@oa évégyeva is actually used of the Son by some later writers. For its significance we may compare ¢.Ar.11.35, 6 pév tév dvOodnwr Adyoc .
. odte CH obte tT eveoyei, in contrast with their hands, which are active because they have real exis-
EPISTLE ONE
and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father,1* because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth!" and is sent and is given.
The Son is sent from the Father; for he says, 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.'!8 The Son sends the Spirit!®; 'If I go away,' he says, 'I will send the, Paraclete.'*° The Son glorifies the Father, saying:
'Father, I have glorified thee.' The Spirit glorifies the Son; for he says: 'He shall glorify me.' The Son says:
2015 (continued) tence (sxdgyovow); whereas God's Word is Cav xai évegyrjc. See also ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.728c.
16 said to proceed from the Father: The uniqueness of the Spirit is no less to ' be established from the fact that He proceeds from the Father. Here, for the first time in this letter, His procession is set forth clearly as a fact within the divine life, as singular as the generation of the Son is shown to be in de Dec.11.
But the emphasis is still upon the Spirit's relation with the Son rather than with the Father. The very procession from the Father is itself apprehended by us from our knowledge of His mission from the Word.
W shines forth: Didymus uses éxAdynew of the Spirit's procession (de Trin.11.452a): é« tig natoumns évvnootdtws éxAdupav anyrc. cf. also John of Damascus, de Fid.Orth.I.833a. But it is unlikely that Athanasius intends it to add anything to the meaning of the verbs that follow, or to define more strictly what he has already said, supra 2(64f.), that the Spirit is proper to the Son and by Him is given to the disciples. cf. tv éxAappw th Oedtytoc
(c.Ar.1I1.53), of the manifestation of the Godhead through the Manhood. A study of the Scripture passages which follow discovers no reference to the Spirit's procession, but only to His mission. On the other hand it is not made clear how the sending of the Spirit by the Son can be held to establish His procession from the Father. Perhaps Athanasius deliberately chose to be vague as to what the Spirit receives from the Son. Perhaps he regards the mission of the Spirit as actually involving procession from the Son. We may compare, infra I1I.1: 'He gave the Spirit to the disciples out of (é~) Himself.' See further Intro.IV(41).
18 John 316.
19 The Son sends the Spirit: With Athanasius's treatment of the texts that follow we should compare Didymus's exposition of the sacramental discourse in John, de Sp.8.25-38. See especially 1b1d.26, 30, and 38, which deal respectively with the mission of the Spirit from the Father and 'Son; His coming in the Son's name (whereas creatures come in the name of God); His glorification of the Son, which is not as creatures glorify Him. The fact that Athanasius starts by finding these qualities and activities in the Son absolves him from the necessity of qualifying them in this way.
20 John 167. a1 John 174, 22 John 1614.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
'The things I heard from the Father speak I unto the world." The Spirit takes of the Son*; 'He shall take of mine,' he says, 'and shall declare it unto you.' The Son came in the name of the Father. 'The Holy Spirit,' says the Son, 'whom the Father will send in my name.'
21. But if, in regard to order and nature,! the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father, will not he who calls the Spirit a creature necessarily hold the same to be true also of the Son ?? For if the Spirit is a creature
208 John 8326.
24 The Spirit takes of the Son: These words became a formula to describe the relation of the Spirit to the Son, and so we find them in Epiphanius,
Anc.6, etc., and Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Mac.10. The general doctrine of these writers makes plain that they thought of the Spirit as receiving from the Son, not only a prerogative or an office, but His divine existence. The same interpretation is suggested by the context of ¢.4r.1.15 and II1.44, in which he quotes the same words. Here, however, the parallel passage concerning the Son, John 826, indicates that he intends a more restricted reference and that it is to be interpreted in its most obvious sense, that the Spirit receives
His message from the Son.
25 John 1614.
6 John 146.
211 order and nature: td&étc here is not numerical order, as when Gregory of Nyssa (adv.Mac.6) says that the Spirit was 'traditioned' to the disciples xata thy toltny tdéw, but more generally 'rank'. Athanasius does not mean that the Spirit comes after the Son, e.g. in the baptismal formula, in the same sense that the Son comes after the Father. He simply means that the Spirit is ranked with the Son as the Son is ranked with the Father. cf. Basil, de
$p.8.43: "The Spirit is spoken of together with the Lord in precisely the same way as the Son with the Father.' But in order to make plain that this identity of td£cc is no mere matter of standing or prerogative, he adds xai pdow, drawing it somewhat harshly into a sentence which derives its form from the notion of taéi¢ with which he starts. Whether he knew it or not, Athanasius was turning Eunomius's own language, as Basil quotes it, adv.Eun.III.1: toitoy advo ad&ubuate xal tdéer wabdytec, tettov eivar xal pvoet memiotEevuaper.
This is a better interpretation of yvoug here than that which Prestige offers (G.P.T. 251), 'function'. See also 1bid.234. Athanasius certainly uses the word in this sense (e. g. c.G.31), but it is not prominent in the numerous instances of the word in these letters.
2 true also of the Son: Athanasius thus establishes the contention with which he started his argument, supra 1(59f.) and 2(64f.). It is the most telling point he has to make, and we are not surprised that in the following sections, when he examines each separate facet of the Spirit's life and activity, he loses no opportunity of driving it home. cf. 22(121), 23 init.(128), 24 jin.(127), 27(182).
At the same time his interest is not merely that of a debater. Behind the Tropici he always sees the Arians. As he says, the 'language' is the same, even
EPISTLE ONE
of the Son, it will be consistent for them to say that the Word is a creature of the Father. By holding such opinions the Arians have fallen into the Judaism of Caiaphas.? But if those who say such things about the Spirit claim that they do not hold the opinions of Arius, let them avoid his words and keep from impiety toward the Spirit. For as the Son, who is in the Father and the Father in him, is not a creature but pertains to the essence of the Father (for this you also profess to say); so also it is not lawful to rank with the creatures the Spirit who is in the Son, and the Son in him, nor to divide him from the Word and reduce the Triad to imperfection.
As regards the sayings® both of the Prophet and the Apostle, by perverting whose meaning these men have deceived themselves, these considerations are sufficient to 212 (continued) if it is applied to a different Person in the divine Triad. What is admitted of the Spirit must inevitably recoil upon the Son.
8 the 'fudaism of Cataphas: So the Arians are of viv Iovdaiot, infra 28, c.Ar.
1.8, 10, 38, IT.1. cf. also de Sent.Dion.4, ad Adelph.1, Quic.dix.15. The comparison is explained at some length in c.4r.III.27-8. For the reference to Caiaphas, see de Dec.2, where an additional point of resemblance is found in the Arian appeal to the coercive power of Constantius.
* who 1s in the Son, and the Son in him: Thus Athanasius formulates the thought of the preceding sections and sets it in juxtaposition with the corresponding definition of the Son's relation with the Father. Thus he has reached, for the Spirit, conclusions similar to those set forth of the Son, ¢.4r.
III.3-6. A comparison of the two passages shows how truly the idea of a double procession is implied in Athanasius's doctrine. See especially the balanced statement, ibid.3: 'For the Son is in the Father
. because the whole being of the Son is proper to the Father's essence, as radiance from light and stream from fountain ; so that whoso sees the Son sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun. . . for whoso thus contemplates the Son contemplates what is 'proper to the Father's essence, and knows that the Father is in the Son.' But if the substance of these statements is to be found in the fact that the Son is from the Father, the same must hold good, mutatis mutandis, of the Spirit's relation to the Son.
5 the sayings: Athanasius has now completed his'answer to the arguments presented by the Tropici. This allusion to Amos 413 and 1 Timothy 521 is interesting in view,of the fact that both these texts were dismissed at 14,
See supra on 10(85).
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
refute the evil speech to which the ignorance of the Tropici gives rise. But finally let us look, one by one, at the references to the Holy Spirit in the divine Scriptures,® and, like good bankers,' let us judge whether he has anything in common with the creatures, or whether he pertains to God; that we may call him either a creature or else other than the creatures, pertaining to and one with the Godhead which isin the | unoriginated Triad.® Perhaps they may be put to shame when they realize how far the blasphemous words they have devised are out of harmony with the divine oracles.
22. The creatures came from nothing,! having a begin218 in the divine Scriptures: Athanasius arranges his Biblical material roughly around nine points. Among these the second to the fifth form a group by themselves, as they all deal with the Spirit's work in the life of believers.
The various points within this group seem to be suggested by prominent texts rather than by analysis of the doctrine; and, in consequence, it is hard to differentiate them strictly. They all lead to the one conclusion, that, whereas the creatures receive grace by participation in the Spirit, He has by nature what He bestows upon them. The whole should be compared with the long section, de Trin.11.508-56, where Didymus covers the same subject in much greater detail, under twenty-nine heads.
7 like good bankers: Resch, in his Agrapha, gives sixty-nine references to this famous saying. Athanasius quotes it three times, without indicating whether he takes it, with Origen, in'Foh. XIX.7, and Jerome, Ep.cxix.II., to be from our Lord, or, with Dionysius Romanus, apud Eusebius, H.£.VII.7, to be an dnootohixr pwr. It is usually taken as an injunction to discern between good and bad, or true and false. Thus Athanasius has it, de Sent.Dion.9, of discriminating between the Godhead and the Manhood in Christ, and here, between the divine and creaturely. A different interpretation is put upon it in ad Mon.1.3. He tells his correspondents to be content with reading his letters and then to return them, 'like good money changers,' i.e. being content with a fair bargain.
8 the Godhead which is in the unoriginated Triad: The reading of B here, idtov dé nal év tH Gyevritw Tevdd: tho Oedtytoc, furnishes a clue to the correct text, which is probably idvov dé xai év tic év tH dyevit@ Terdds Oedtntos.
On the omission of déyevjt@ in RS see Intro.V.(45). A's variant, dyevy7jta, is of great interest, but it is not possible to pronounce upon it in default of further evidence, and, indeed, until we are able to arrive at a precise estimate of the degree to which Athanasitis distinguished between the two words. ayév[y]ntoc, as applied to the Trinity, is not inconsistent with what he says about the word in de Syn.46, but it is not to be paralleled in his writings.
Compare, however, Didymus, de Trin.III.7938, 4 év évddi ayévntog Tovdc pon, and 1bid,508c, év tH dyevitm md Oedtnte.
22! from nothing: So Didymus, de Trin.I1.508c, begins his comparison
EPISTLE ONE
ning from which they came into being. For, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'? and all that is in them. The Holy Spirit is said to be from God. For no one, it says, 'knoweth the things of man save the spirit of the man which is in him. Even so, the things of God none knoweth save the Spirit of God. But we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God.' What kinship could there be, judging by the above, between the Spirit and the creatures? For the creatures were not; but God has being,4 and the Spirit is from him. That which is from God could not be from that which is not, nor could it be a creature; lest, by their judgement, he also from whom the Spirit is should be considered a creature. Who will endure such fools? For they say also in their hearts that 'there is no God'.® For if, as no one knows the things of man save the spirit within him, so no one knows the things of God save the Spirit who is in him®: would it not be evil speech to call the Spirit who is in God a creature, him who searches even the deep things of God? For from this the speaker will learn to say that the spirit of man is outside the man himself,' and that the Word of God, who is in the Father, is a creature.
221 (continued) between the Spirit and the creatures from the fact that the existence of the creatures is contingent. But he goes on to contrast it with that of the Spirit which is évagyov and beyond temporal succession. The reason for this change of ground is not hard to find. Athanasius presents his argument in such a way as to suggest that he is assuming what he sets out to prove, that the Spirit is from God essentially, and that éz has the same meaning in both the contrasted statements. That this assumption is only apparent is clear from the last sentence of the section, where he argues that the human analogy of 1 Corinthians implies that the very term 'spirit' is by itself sufficient to prove that His relation with God must be essential. Compare what he says of the Son (de Syn.35): 'If you have said that the Son is from God, it follows that you have said that he is from the essence of the Father.'
2 Genesis 11.
§ 1 Corinthians 211-12.
4 has being: dv éotw. So also de Dec.11 and ¢c.Ar.11.35, but 6 dy or to Gy is more usual. Athanasius here is characterizing God rather than defining Him.
Hence we should translate 'has being' rather than 'is being'.
5 Psalm 141.
§ the Spirit who ts in him: The emphasis has now shifted from the éx tov @eod of 1 Corinthians 212 to the év adt@ of the previous verse.
7 outside the man himself: cf. de Inc.et c.Ar.13: 'As the spirit of man is not
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
Again, the Spirit is, and is called,* Spirit of holiness and renewal.® For Paul writes: 'Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.'!? Again he says: 'But ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our
God.' And when writing to Titus, he said: "But when the kindness of God our Saviour and his love toward men appeared, not by works done in righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour, that being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs, according to the hope of eternal life.'12 But the creatures are sanctified and renewed. 'Thou shalt send forth thy
Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth." And Paul says: 'It is impossible for those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly
22? (continued) divided from his humanity and essence, so the Spirit of God is not alien to His Godhead and essence.' See too Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Eun.11.564p, and Cyril of Alexandria, de Trin. VII.1080c.
8 45, and 1s called: For other instances of this tautology, cf. infra 23(128) and 24(127), III.2(171), and 3(171), c.4r.1.29, de Dec.24 ; also Didymus, de Trin.II.
460a, 545c, Basil, de Sp.8.38.
9 Spirit of holiness and renewal: As holiness is the characteristic quality of the Spirit (cf. Basil, de $p.8.48, t@ Hvetuats ovpninowtimy tic picedc gore
% dytétns) so He is, within 'the divine life, peculiarly the principle of sanctification (cf. supra 9(82f.)). That Athanasius was in general conformity with this opinion may be seen from the interpretation of John 1719 in ¢.Ar.I.
_ 46: 'I, being the Father's Word, give to myself, when becoming man, the Spirit, and myself, become man, do I sanctify in Him. .
. .? However, the fact that he adds xal dvaxawaoews, instead of xal dyracuov, shows that he does not distinguish sanctification from that restoration of human nature to incorruptibility which is set forth, without reference to the Spirit, in de Inc.
4-10. And this, as we see, 1bid.54, is none other than the deification of our humanity consequent upon the Incarnation of the Word. All the terms used in this section refer to the same process which is variously ascribed, in different contexts, to the Word or the Spirit. See further, infra on 24(125) and Intro.
IV(87).
1 Romans 14, 11 1 Corinthians 61.
122 Titus 347.
18 Psalm 10430.
EPISTLE ONE
gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit. .
. 4
23. He, therefore, who is not sanctified by another, nor a partaker of sanctification, but who is himself partaken,! and in whom all the creatures are sanctified, how can he be one from among all things or pertain to those who partake of him ?? For those who say this must say that the Son, through whom all things came to be, is one from among all things.
He is called a quickening Spirit.? For it says: 'He that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you.' The Lord is the very life,> and 'author of life',* as Peter put it.
And as the Lord said himself: "The water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up into eternal life... . But this spake he concerning the Spirit which they that believed in him were to receive." But the creatures, as has been said, are quickened through him. He that does not partake of life, but who is himself partaken and quickens the creatures, what kinship can he have with things originated? How can he belong to the creatures which in him are quickened from the Word?
The Spirit is called unction and he is seal.8 For Toke 2214 Hebrews 64.
231 himself partaken: So Didymus argues, de Trin.11.529a, that it is a proof of the Spirit's deity that He is weBextdy, for creation cannot be essentially participated by the rational soul. cf. also his de Sp.8.25, and ps.Basil, adv.Eun.
V.713a.
2 pertain to those who partake of him: cf. Didymus, de Trin.I1.525a: 'If the Spirit is a creature, what need to sanctify the creatures?' Also Basil, adv.Eun.
III.2, and ps.Athanasius, Disp.c.Ar.38.
3 a quickening Spirit: The restricted meaning, 'bestowing immortality,' was fixed upon Cwomody by Romans 81. But in Didymus, de Trin.11.568a, and in de Tr.et Sp.S.14, it is used in connexion with the claim that He is creator.
Macedonian objections to the use of wosoudy of the Spirit were probably due to this association rather than to its appearance in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol, as Loofs suggests in his article, 'IZ acedonianism,' E.R.E.
4 Romans 811.
5 the very life: 4} adtoCwn. For the general use of such compounds, see ¢.G.46, and also Origen, ¢.Ce/s.I11.41. For this particular instance, see ¢.G.47, de Inc.
21, Quic.dix.13. It goes back to Aristotle.
: Acts 315.
~ 7 John 414 and 729, 8 unction ..
. seal: These two figures have already been used, in conjunction,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
writes: 'As for you, the unction which ye received of him abideth in you, and you need not that anyone teach you, but his unction'—his Spirit—'teacheth you concerning ali things.'® In the prophet Isaiah it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me.'°
Paul says: 'In whom having also believed, ye were sealed unto the day of redemption.' But the creatures are by him sealed and anointed and instructed in all things. But if the Spirit is the unction and seal with which the Word anoints and seals all things, what likeness or propriety could the unction and the seal have to the things that are anointed and sealed? Thus by this consideration also he could not belong to the 'all things'. The seal could not be from among the things that are sealed, nor the unction from among the things that are anointed; it pertains to the Word who anoints and seals. For the unction has the fragrance and odour of him who anoints; and those who are anointed say, when they receive thereof: 'We are the fragrance of Christ.'!? The seal has the form of Christ who seals, and those who are sealed partake of it, being conformed to it; as the Apostle says:
'My little children, for whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you.'!* Being thus sealed, we are duly made, as Peter put it, 'sharers in the divine nature'!4; and thus all creation ® partakes of the Word in the Spirit.
238 (continued) of the Spirit, c.4r.1.47. cf. de Trin.et Sp.8.17 and ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.725B.
On the Spirit as unction, cf. Ambrose, de Sp.8.1.94. The metaphor of the seal was commonly used of baptism, and for that reason and because it lends itself more readily to a Trinitarian application, was the more popular.
Didymus's exposition, de Sp.S.22, follows the same line as that of Athanasius:
'Cum autem Filius imago sit Det invisibilis.
. . Similiter et Spiritus sanctus, cum sit signaculum Dei, hi qui formam et imaginem Det capiunt, signati per eum, tn €0 ducuntur ad signaculum Christi sapientiae et scientiae.' cf. also de
Trin.II.525a. For the same figure applied to the Son, see Basil, de Sp.8.64, and Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Eun.11.540c.
® 1 John 227.
10 Tsaiah 611. For Athanasius's 'debe to the exposition of Irenaeus and Origen in this section, see Intro.IV(40).
11 Ephesians lis.
122 C>rinthians 21.
1 Galatians 410.
14 2 Peter 1a.
1 all creation: This would appear to be a natural extension, in conformity
EPISTLE ONE
24. Further it is through the Spirit that we are all said to be partakers of God. For it says: 'Know ye not that ye
2315 (continued) with what is said infra 31(148f.) and II1.4(178), of the statement in ¢.G.41, that all creation, in the very fact of its existence, partakes of the Word. But the quotations from Galatians and 2 Peter suggest that Athanasius is thinking of redemption rather than creation. Nor may we overlook the fact that in - all this section the supernatural benefits conferred by the Spirit are not confined to man but extend to the whole creation. It is not clear whether
Athanasius intends this to be developed along the lines of Romans 819, etc., that all creation is glorified and exalted in the deification of man. The truth is that we do not find in Athanasius the rigid distinction between nature and grace which belongs to medieval theology. On the one hand his doctrine of creation emphasizes the perpetual presence of the Word in His works; a presence in measure analogous to His Incarnation, de Inc.41. On the other, as Robertson rightly observes, Intro.lxxi, 'he makes no such vast difference between the condition of fallen and unfallen man as has commonly been supposed to exist'. cf. also 2bid. note 3. Thus, supra 22, he finds no difficulty in identifying the dvaxalywots of Psalm 10430 with that of Titus 34. In ¢.47.1.39 it is argued, from Psalm 821, that men were deified in the Word even before the Incarnation. Above all, there is the exposition of Colossians 115 in ¢.Ar.
11.624, where the cosmological and soteriological interpretations of ngwtdtoxo¢ are most subtly combined.
241 partakers of God: On Oeonolnotc, see Harnack, H.D.III.164, note. It received great attention from Athanasius, and there are many references, especially in c.4r.J-III. The most important are: de Inc.54, de Dec.14, ¢.Ar.
1.9 (from Psalm 826), 39, II.70, III.19, 33, 53, de Syn.51, ad Adelph.A (from 2 Peter 14), ad Max.2. For the relation of Athanasius's doctrine to that of Irenaeus and Origen, see Intro.IV(85f.). G. W. Butterworth, "The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria', in 7.7.S.XVII.157, etc., argues strongly that Geonoeiv should always be translated 'make... a god', not 'make divine'.
The latter rendering is undoubtedly philologically inexact, and loses something of the force of the original. But the alternative carries with it to modern ears a suggestion of polytheism which was certainly not appreciated by the Christian writers who use the expression. If it owes something of its currency in the Church to the practice of deifying the emperors, it probably owes still more to popular pantheistic philosophy which reduced the gods either to symbols of an impersonal divine life, or else to beings not essentially different from men. But it is to its prevalence in the Mystery Religions that we must finally look for an explanation of its occurrence in Christian terminology.
(The evidence is set forth by S. Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, pp-106-12.) The Church dared not claim less for the grace of God in Christ than the initiates claimed to have received from Mithras or Cybele. But in making the claim she was careful to maintain the 'otherness' of God and the personal relation between Him and the souls that partake His nature. The Arian controversy is itself the most eloquent testimony to this fact. It could never have arisen in the atmosphere of Mithraism. Opitz is right in pointing
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall
God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.'2 If the Holy Spirit were a creature, we should have no participation of God in him.® If indeed we were joined to a creature, we should be strangers to the divine nature inasmuch as we did not partake therein. But, as it is, the fact of our being called partakers of Christ and partakers of God shows that the unction and seal that is in us belongs, not to the nature of things originate, but to the nature of the Son who, through the Spirit who is in him, joins us to the Father. This John taught us, as is said above, when he wrote: 'Hereby know we that we abide in God and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.'* But if, by participation in the Spirit, we are made 'sharers in the divine nature',® we should be mad to say that the Spirit has a created nature and not the nature of God. For it is on this account that those in whom he is are made divine. If he makes
241 (continued) out, on de Dec.14, that it is in that passage that Geonolnotc is first formally ascribed to the Spirit. But such attribution is implied in Irenaeus, Haer.V .ix.i,
'Spiritus Patris qui emundat hominem et sublevat in vitam Dei,' and in Origen, de Prin.IV.i1. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cazt.1V.16, t6 advtwy dyiactindy xai
Geonordy (if the reading is acceptable), is almost contemporary with de Dec.
We find 6eonolnotg through the Spirit also in c.47.1.9 and I11.33. From later works we may cite de Inc.et c.Ar.15, Basil, de Sp.8.23, adv.Eun.I11.5, Ep.cv.,
Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.4, 29, xli.9, Didymus, de Trin.I1.481c and 748c (but the doctrine is not prominent), ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.724.
* 1 Corinthians 316-17. cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.29 (of the Spirit): vatozoloby, Oeonovodv, tedewodv. The evidential value of this passage and 1 Corinthians 619 was well understood by later writers. cf. de Inc.et c.Ar.14, de Trin. et Sp.8.12 and 15, Didymus, de $p.S8.25 and de Trin.11.636a, Apollinarius, Katd Mégoc Iiotic, iii and v, ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.744c, Epiphanius
Anc.9, Cyril of Alexandria, de Trin. V11.1089c.
3 no participation of God in him: cf. infra 33: 'Let them not divide the Triad, lest they divide themselves from life.' Also Basil, adv.Eun.111.5;
Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Mac.23: 'Why do they make war on their own life?
Why exclude themselves from union with God?' And Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.4; and ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.724a, '.
.. they would not divide the Spirit from the Godhead, lest they cut themselves off from the Godhead, and remove God from His creation.'
41 John 413, 5 2 Peter la.
EPISTLE ONE
men divine, it is not to be doubted that his nature is of God.
Yet more clearly, for the destruction of this heresy, the Psalmist sings, as we have said before, in the one hundred and third psalm: 'Thou shalt take away thy Spirit, and they shall die and return to their dust. Thou shalt put forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth.'* And Paul wrote to Titus: 'Through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ...."7
But if the Father, through the Word, in the Holy Spirit, creates and renews® all things, what likeness or kinship ® is there between the Creator and the creatures? How could he possibly be a creature, in whom all things are created? Such evil speech leads on to blasphemy against the Son; so that those who say the Spirit is a creature say also that the Word is a creature, through whom all things are created.
The Spirit is said to be, and is, the image of the Son.'
For 'Whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son'. If then they admit that the Son is not a creature, neither may his image be a creature.
24° Psalm 10420-80.
7 Titus 35.
8 creates and renews: From the casual way in which he introduces this reference to the Spirit's activity in creation, we infer that it had not been called in question by the Tropici. See supra on 9(82f.). The correlation of xtiaw with dvaxatywouc was often exploited by later writers. cf. the striking passage in ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.7283: do&dletat dé into Oedv (4 xtiowc), eineg d0dvata dud xticpatoc xai dplagta xataoxevdletar ta Oardt@ xual pboed
Avbévta, dneg 6 Oedc eigydoato. ..
. And also de Trin.et Sp.8.8, Didymus, de Trin.11.569c, Dial. de Trin.I11.24, and Cyril of Alexandria, de Trin.VII.
1108p.
® what likeness or kinship: On the absurdity of a creature-Creator, see c.Ar.
IT.21.
10 the image of the Son: Romans 82. For a similar exegesis of this passage, see ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.724c and Cyril of Alexandria, de Trin.VII.1089s.
The identification of the 'image of his Son' with the Spirit seems very arbitrary and entirely unsupported by anything in the context. For Athanasius, however, it follows a priori from the interpretation of symbols adopted, supra 20. But whereas there it is the unity of the divine Persons which he deduces from the metaphor, here it is held to prove the ary nature of the Spirit, from His resemblance to the Son.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
For as is the image, so also must he be whose image it is.
Hence the Word is justly and fitly confessed not to be a creature, because he is the image of the Father. He therefore who numbers the Spirit with the creatures will surely number the Son among them also, and thereby will speak evil of the Father as well, by speaking evil against his image.
25. The Spirit, therefore, is distinct from the creatures, and is shown rather to be proper to the Son and not alien from God. As for that wise question of theirs, 'If the Spirit is from God, why is he not himself called son?', already, in what precedes, we have shown it rash and presumptuous, and we show it not less so now.1 Even though he is not called Son in the Scriptures, but Spirit of God, he is said to. be in God himself and from God himself, as the Apostle wrote. And if the Son, because he is of the Father, is proper to his essence, it must be that the Spirit, who is said to be from God,? is in essence proper to the Son.* And so, as the 251 not less so now: In the light of the passages quoted already, Athanasius returns to the question discussed supra in 15(96f.). But whereas there he deals primarily with the absurdity involved in calling the Spirit a son, he now attacks the assumption upon which the question rests, that procession from God is not compatible with any other relationship than that of Son. In effect, however, he adds little, apart from the proof texts, to what he has said, supra
19(109f.), etc.
2 the Spirit, who is said to be from God: The term 'Spirit', no less than the term 'Son', imparts to the é« @eov that follows the notion of essential propriety. See supra on 22(121); and cf. Didymus, de Trin.I1.460a, and ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.733c: GaW ixavdv xai todto t6 dvopua (i.e. avedua) thy Snapéw abtovd dnihdoa try éx Oeod.
8 in essence proper to the Son; 'the Son' rather than 'God' here, since it is through His propriety to the Son that His propriety to the Father is apprehended. It is one of the characteristics distinguishing Athanasius from later writers, especially Didymus, that in establishing the divine unity from passages such as those that follow here, he is content to relate what has been said of the Spirit to what is said of the Son, taking for granted that therein is established the Spirit's unity with the Father also. Whereas Didymus toils to discover parallel references to all three Persons. He has, as it were, to see the Trinity seriatim every time! No doubt this difference is partly due to the fact that Athanasius can assume in his opponents a more definite conviction of the Godhead of the Son. But it is also due to a difference of approach.
Athanasius comes to defend the Godhead of the Spirit from defending the Godhead of the Son. The one issue proceeds from the other. To Didymus
EPISTLE ONE
Lord is Son, the Spirit is called Spirit of sonship. Again, as the Son is Wisdom and Truth, the Spirit is described as Spirit of Wisdom and Truth. Again the Son is the Power of God and Lord of Glory, and the Spirit is called Spirit of Power and of Glory. So Scripture refers to each of them.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: 'Had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.'4 And, elsewhere: 'For ye received not the Spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye received the Spirit of adoption.'® Again: 'God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts crying, Abba
Father.' Peter wrote: 'If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye; because the Spirit of glory and of power resteth upon you."? The Lord called the Spirit "Spirit of truth' and 'Paraclete'®; whence he shows that the Triad is in him complete. In him the Word makes glorious the creation, and, by bestowing upon it divine life and sonship, draws it to the Father. But that which joins creation to the Word cannot belong to the creatures; and that which bestows sonship upon the creation could not be alien from the Son. For we should have otherwise to seek another spirit,® so that by him this Spirit might be joined to the Word. But that would be absurd. The Spirit, therefore, does not belong to things originated; he pertains to the Godhead of the Father, and in him the Word makes things originated divine.
But he in whom creation is made divine cannot be outside the Godhead of the Father.
26. That the Spirit is above the creation, distinct in nature from things originated, and proper to the Godhead, can be seen from the following consideration also. The Holy
Spirit is incapable of change and alteration. For it says, 258 (continued) both are collateral points in a controversy whose crisis is past, and which he can, therefore, see as a whole.
" 1 Corinthians 2s.
5 Romans 815.
6 Galatians 46.
71 Peter 414.
8 John 1416-17.
° to seek another spirit: An adaptation of the argument used of the Son, ¢c.Ar.11.22. cf. also ibid.1.15, III.2, de Dec.8 and ad Epise.14.
261 incapable of change and alteration: dtgentov xai dvadlolwtor, are not to be distinguished in meaning. Their association is in the nature of a formula,
S,A.—9
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
'The Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit and will start away from thoughts that are without understanding.'"® And Peter says: 'In the incorruptibility of the meek and quiet
Spirit.' Again, in Wisdom: 'Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things.' And if 'none knoweth the things of God save the Spirit of God which is in him',® and, as James said, in God
'there is no variation nor shadow that is cast by turning'*— the Holy Spirit, being in God, must be incapable of change, variation,' and corruption. But the nature of things originated and of things created is capable of change, inasmuch as it is outside the essence of God, and came into existence from that which is not. For it says: 'Every man is a liar,'® and, 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.'®
'And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgement of the great day."!° In Job: 'If he putteth no trust in his holy angels... and against his angels he imputeth evil . .
. and the stars are not pure in 261 (continued) and goes back in Christian literature as far as Theophilus, ad Aut.I1.4, where they give general expression to the immortality and immutability
.of God which is involved in His being dyévyntoc. So similarly Origen, in Foh.V1.38, and Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat.IV.4. They may bear this general sense in de
Dec.23. Arius, however, said that the Word was teentdc xal dAdowwrtdc, meaning that He was capable of moral declension and progress. cf. the Epistle of Alexander, apud Socrates, H.E.1.6, and the anathema attached to the creed of Nicaea. It is in this sense that Athanasius uses these terms here and in ¢.Ar.1.35 and ad Afr.7. Didymus apparently uses them thus, de $p.8.5; but in developing the same argument, de Trin.11.512B, he seeks a wider application, and distinguishes between them. Incorporeal rational creatures suffer goed of the will, by changing and falling. Creatures which are rational and corporeal suffer GAdolwotc, in respect of condition (as when Judas lost sanctity), and in respect of essence (as when the mortal 'puts on immortality').
~ Irrational creatures suffer tgoz7, as when darkness turns to light. So ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.7123, distinguishes between teentdétns xatotolay and xatd yrdny. cf. also John of Damascus, de Fide Orth.1.796.
2 Wisdom 1s.
31 Peter 34, 4 Wisdom 121.
5 1 Corinthians 2u.
6 James luz, 7 incapable of variation: For this celebrated word, dmagdAdaxtog in Athanasius, cf. de Dec.20, 24, c.Ar.I11.36, etc. Generally it conveys the notion of exact correspondence between an image and its exemplar.
8 Psalm 11611.
® Romans 33s, 10 Jude 6.
EPISTLE ONE
his sight.' Paul writes: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? Hlow much more things that pertain to this life?'
We have heard too that the devil, who was 'between the cherubim', and was 'the seal of the likeness', fell 'as lightning from heaven'.!® But if, while creatures are by nature capable of change, and such things are written about angels, the Spirit is the same and unalterable; if he shares the immutability of the Son, with him abiding ever unchangeable—what likeness can there be between the unchangeable and the things that change? It will be clear that he is not a creature, nor does he belong in essence to the angels, for they are changeable, but he is the image of the Word and pertains to the Father.
Again, the Spirit of the Lord fills the universe.14 Thus David sings: 'Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ?'5 Again, in Wisdom it is written: "Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things.'1° But things originated are all in places apportioned to them: sun, moon, and stars in the firmament, clouds in the air. For men he has 'set the bounds of the peoples'.!"? The angels are 'sent forth'!® for ministries. 'And the angels came to stand before the face of the Lord,'! as it is written in Job.
And Jacob the patriarch dreamed: 'And behold! a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and the angels of God ascended and descended upon it.'° But if the Spirit fills all things, and in the Word is present in the midst of all things; and if the angels, being his inferiors, are circumscribed, and where they are sent forth, there are they
264 Job 1515, 418, 255.
12 1 Corinthians 6s.
13 Ezekiel 28i2, 107 (2814?), Luke 101s.
14 fills the universe: In de Dec.11 he speaks of God as containing the universe (mequéywv). Didymus, de Trin.I1.509a, combines the two expressions. For the argument, cf. also Didymus, de Sp.8.6, Basil, de Sp.S.54, Ambrose, de Sp.8.I.
74, ps.Athanasius, Disp.c.Ar.39. Athanasius differs from these writers in insisting on the immanence of the Spirit in creation by reason of His coinherence in the Word, whereas they make their point from His indwelling in believers. Cyril of Alexandria reproduces the argument in the Athanasian form, de Trin. VII.1105s.
15 Psalm 1397.
16 Wisdom 121.
W" Deuteronomy 32s, 18 Flebrews 11.
19 Job le.
20 Genesis 2812.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
present: it is not to be doubted that the Spirit does not belong to things originated, nor is he an angel at all, as you say, but by nature is above the angels.
27. From what follows, also, we may see how the Holy Spirit is partaken and does not partake.1 (We must not mind repeating ourselves.) For, 'It is impossible', it says, 'for those who were once enlightened? and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good Word of God... .' The angels and the other creatures partake of the Spirit himself; hence they can fall away * from him whom they partake. But the Spirit is always the same; he does not belong to those who partake, but all things partake of him. But if he is always the same and always partaken; and if the creatures partake of him—the Holy Spirit can neither be an angel nor a creature of any kind, but proper to the Word. And being given by the Word, he is partaken by the creatures. For they would have to say that the Son is a creature, of whom we are all made partakers in the Spirit.
Again, the Holy Spirit is one, but the creatures are many.
For the angels are 'thousand thousand' and 'ten thousand times ten thousand',' and there are many lights® and thrones and lordships and heavens and cherubim and seraphim and 27! partaken and does not partake: cf. supra 23(128). Athanasius makes the point again, not because he has anything to add to what he has said already, but because it is bound up with what immediately precedes. The Spirit cannot lose His sanctity, because He does not receive it by participation, but possesses it essentially, as a part of Himself.
2 who were once enlightened: Hebrews 64s. From the following sentence it might seem that Athanasius is restricting the application of this passage to angels and other dodyata, in order to avoid the conclusion which Origen and Theognostus drew from it, that post-baptismal sin is beyond forgiveness.
See Quic.dix.2. But Athanasius's treatment of it, 1b7d.6, is on different lines.
Moreover, 1t is quite natural for him to specify angels here, for throughout this section it is the contrast between the Spirit and angels which is uppermost in his mind.
8 hence they can fall away: cf. Didymus, de Sp.8.5, de Trin.11.524a, 5403, etc.
4 Daniel 710.
5 lights: pwortiees, suggested by Genesis lu, as in c.Ar.11.27.
EPISTLE ONE
many archangels. In a word, creatures are not one but, taking all together, many and diverse. But if the Holy Spirit is one,* and the creatures many and angels many—what likeness can there be between the Spirit and things originate?
It is obvious that the Spirit does not belong to the many nor is he an angel. But because he is one, and, still more, because he is proper to the Word who is one, he is proper to God who is one, and one in essence' with him.
These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit, by themselves alone, show that in nature and essence he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures, but is distinct from things originate, proper to, and not alien from, the Godhead and essence of the Son; in virtue of which essence and nature he is of the Holy Triad, and puts their stupidity to shame.
28. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith! of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave,? the Apostles preached,
278 if the Holy Spiritis one: cf. supra 11(89) and infra 29(187). Athanasius here applies to the Spirit an argument he has already used of the Son, ¢.4r.II.27.
Didymus repeats it, de Trin.11.553a. See also 1b1d.484.
7 one in essence: 'The first appearance of duoovotos in these letters, For its interpretation, see on I1.3(154f.) and 5(159). Of the Spirit it occurs again only in III.1(171). We may compare its omission in Jom.ad Ant. and in ad Fov. as well as the solitary instance of its use in ¢.4r.J-III, in 1.9. There it occurs at the beginning of the work, in a statement of the orthodox faith, as an authorized term. Here Athanasius introduces it toward the end of his argument, inasmuch as its application to the Spirit is without precedent.
28! tradition, teaching, and faith: cf. ad Adelph.6 init., 'But our faith is orthodox, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the Fathers, being confirmed. .. .? Athanasius does not distinguish magddootc and dvaoxadta, as we find them distinguished, for example, in Clement of Alexandria, Strom.VII.xvii.108, "The magddootg of the Apostles, like their ddacxadla, has been always one', where apparently diacxadla is something fuller in content. cf. Prestige, Fathers and Heretics, p.12. See Apol.37:'... holding the teaching of the Catholic Church which had been "traditioned" to them from the Fathers.'
2 which the Lord gave: cf. ad Afr.1 init.: '. .. concerning the sound faith which Christ bestowed upon us, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers who met at Nicaea... have handed down.' For épvdaéev cf. de Dec.5 init., Basil, de Sp.8.66, Ep.ccxxvi, Didymus, de Trin.11.743s. It is important to understand what Athanasius is appealing to here. The passage from ad Adelph. which we have already quoted makes it clear that tradition to Athanasius is not an indefinite source of knowledge, independent of Scripture. Not only
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God* in Father, Son, and 28° (continued) does he insist upon the sufficiency of Scripture (de Syn.6 and elsewhere), he does not strictly distinguish tradition and Scripture. See Robertson, Intro.
Ixxiv. Nor is he appealing to the authority of earlier Fathers. We may compare the very real difference that exists for Basil between the xagddoatc
Gyeapoc which, as Harnack rightly observes, is a matter of ritual, and the 'testimonia veterum' in which the liturgical wagddootc is occasionally expressed.
In passing, we may notice that Basil does not in fact refer 'the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost to the unwritten tradition', as Harnack, H.D.1I1.
213, note, would have him do. He appeals to the tradition, very properly, upon a point of liturgical usage. There is, therefore, no point in Harnack's comment on the present passage, H.D.IV.113, note 2, that Athanasius is able to construe the tradition 'ideally only', and that he does not quote any authorities. The real direction of Athanasius's appeal is to be understood from the citation of the baptismal formula later on. It is of the faith as delivered, expounded, and confessed in baptism that he is thinking. Thus the tefeuedlmrar of the succeeding sentence is taken up again in the preamble to the citation of Matthew 2819 by todrov Oeuédvoy tuHévar, making plain that the Oeuédioy is nothing other than the threefold Name as invoked in baptism. See also infra I11.6(176). So Cyril of Jerusalem refers to the instruction he gives to | catechumens as didaoxadla and 7 tic alotews didacxadia, i.e. exposition of the baptismal formula, Cat.I[V.1, 2. For similar appeals, cf. the Epistle of Eusebius, apud Socrates, H.E.1.8, and Basil, de Sp.8.67, etc. See also Epiphanius, Anc.119 fin. and de Trin.et Sp.8.7.
8 There is, then, a Triad: The following sentences give the most complete statement of Trinitarian doctrine in Athanasius's writings. We may compare what he says in c.4r.I.18 and III.15. But the present passage emphasizes, as these do not, the distinction of hypostases within the Godhead. His language on this point is almost identical with that attributed in Tom.ad Ant.5 fin. to those who defended the expression toei¢ dxootdoetc, and suggests that he was already alive to the possibility of reaching an understanding with the Asian conservatives. If this be so, it is less likely than ever that the Tropici are to be identified with Macedonius and his party.
* confessed to be God: Oeodoyoupérn. cf. c.Ar.1.10, Oeodoyei xal devxvder Ody elvat. See also tbid,I1.58, 71, and for other examples Newman's note there, as well as infra 29(187f.), 31(142). But the interpretation is not entirely clear.
Athanasius may intend the emphasis to rest upon Oeodoyoupévn, meaning that in confessing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit we necessarily confess the Triad to be divine. So de Inc.et c.Ar.19 of the Word, Oeodoyodpevos év Iargi, aoc xal 6 ITatie év Yi Oeodoyeitat. Or the whole phrase may be an extension of tedsia. 'The Triad is perfect inasmuch as it is confessed in three Persons. cf. ¢.Ar.1.18, év Tovar 1) Ocodoyia tedela éori, ie, not in a dyad or a tetrad
EPISTLE ONE
Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative®; and it is consistent* and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, 'who is over all," and through all, and in all'—'over all', as Father, as beginning, as fountain; 'through all', through the Word; 'in all', in the Holy Spirit. It is a Triad not only in name® and form of speech, but in truth and actuality.® For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is?° and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less
284 (continued) or anything else, but only in a Triad. Or again, there may be a reference to the baptismal formula, confessed, that is, in baptism, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.
5 all creative: cf. again c.Ar.J.18: «tllovod gots xai Onuroveydc 4) Totdc.
8 consistent: duola éavt7. See infra on I1.3(154f.).
? who is over all: Ephesians 4s. cf. supra 15(94) and infra III.6(176). It is noteworthy that in all these places he ignores the xai Tati of the New Testament text of this passage. He makes no use of it elsewhere, but argues from 1 Corinthians 86. In his exegesis here and in de Syn.35 and 49, he takes no account of the argument advanced by Aetius from the association of the pre- . positions dtd and éy with the Son and the Spirit respectively, that the é signifies that the Spirit is no more than an instrument. cf. Basil, de Sp.8.4-12.
Indeed, his assertion, infra 29 init.(187), that to deny the deity of the Spirit is to deny that God is in all things, would destroy the whole case that Basil builds up against Aetius.
8 not only in name: cf. Tom.ad Ant.5: '. .
. not a triad 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.'
® actuality: bnagéc. cf. ad Afr.4: 4 dé dndotaats obcta éoti xai obdEv GAAS onpawwdouevor &yet 7} abt t6 bv. Sno *Tegeutac Sragw dvoudler
. yag dndotacic xai 4 obala bnagkic éots. *Eots yde xai dndoexet. On its use by later writers, see Prestige, G.P.7.245, etc.
10 gne that is: Reading with RSB, dv gots. The context makes it clear that Athanasius means to express, not the Son's participation in the being of the Father, which 6 dv, the reading of A, would suggest, but the reality of the distinction which exists, within the Triad, between them. He usually expresses this, as in the passage from Tom.ad Ant. just given, and as of the Spirit in this passage here below, by dndoyew or dprotdvat or dAnOdc elvat, rather than by elvat by itself, which would suggest that the Father and Son
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius.12 Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven.
29. Since then the Church has this foundation of faith, let these men tell us once again and let them make answer,
Is God triad or dyad?! If he is dyad, then you are welcome to count the Spirit with the creatures. In that case, however,
2810 (continued) have one being, as in c.47.1I.35. Notice, however, the use of évovovoc. But Athanasius never refers to the Spirit as odaia, as does Basil, de Sp.8.46.
11 Less than these .. .: To deny the Godhead or hyparxis of the Spirit must lead to unitarianism or Patripassianism, for what is true of the Third Person must be true of the Second.
12 Sabellius: For Athanasius's judgement upon Sabellianism, see infra IV.
5(186), de Sent.Dion.5, 26, etc., c.Ar.III.4.
18 Go and make disciples .
. .: Matthew 2819. Although Athanasius quotes the formula from the text of Matthew, the drift of the passage makes it clear that he regards it as the fundamental of the magddooic and didacxadta to which he is appealing. So Eusebius also quotes the words (¢.Mar.I.1): 8 ayodpou magaddcews. See Prestige, Fathers and Heretics, p.38, etc. cf. Basil's extraordinary question (de Sp.8.67): 'Of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, what is the written source?' The words of initiation are, for him, so knit into the cultus of the Church that for the moment he overlooks their Scriptural authority.
291 triad or dyad: See supra on 2(68f.). To Arius, God is successively wovde, dudc, and terdc, as is admitted in the extracts from the Thalia quoted by Athanasius in de Syn.15. There are indications that Aetius and Eunomius, with greater wisdom, tacitly discarded the whole terminology. Athanasius's contention here, as in ¢.4r.1.18, is that God must be either one or the other; that it is inconsistent with any conception of God worthy the name that He should be involved in 'becoming' and change. If He is a dyad, He is a dyad now no less than at the beginning. If He is a triad now, He was so at the beginning no less than now.
EPISTLE ONE
eve the faith which you hold is not in one God, 'Who is over all, and through all, and in all'.? If you divide and alienate the Spirit from the Godhead, you have not that which is 'in all'; and, if you think like this, the rite of initiation ® which you reckon to perform is not entirely into the Godhead. For with - the Godhead there is mixed a creature; and, like the Arians and the heathen,* you too confess creation to be divine
29° Ephesians 46.
3 the rite of initiation: Athanasius here extends to the Tropici what he has already written concerning baptism by the Arians, c.4r.11.42-3. cf. especially:
'And these too hazard the fullness of the mystery, I mean baptism. For if... they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His essence, and deny also the true Son .
. is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable?
. For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work.' In both passages, however, a certain hesitation is noticeable. He questions the reality of baptism received from these heretics, but does not deny it in so many words. The virtue of the sacrament is 'hazarded'; and, infra, it is dBéBavoc, 'without guarantee' (not 'invalid'). This is consistent with the silence of the Council of Alexandria upon the point, and with Epiphanius's criticism of those who insist on the rebaptism of Arians (Exp.Fid.13).
Basil is very clear as to the principle (for the Pneumatomachists, see de Sp.S.26 and 28) and characteristically cautious in practice. There is no mention of Arians and Pneumatomachists in £p.clxxxviii.1. Didymus insists that baptism into the 'bare name' of the Spirit, i.e. without the true faith, is useless (de
Trin.11.673). But elsewhere he tries to make capital out of the fact that Eunomians and Phrygians are submitted to rebaptism while other heretics, presumably including Pneumatomachists, are only anointed (cf. 1bid.720a).
The text shows some signs of corruption, and possibly a reference to Sabellians was also intended. This would bring the statement into general conformity with the (spurious) seventh canon of Constantinople, which requires rebaptism of all heretics in general and these three types in particular, but excepts from the rule Arians and Macedonians. See Gwatkin, $.4.134-5.
4 the Arians and the heathen: cf. c.Ar.J1.14 jin. It is characteristic of Athanasius that whereas in the previous section he calls the Arians Jews, he now associates them with the pagans. For if the theory of Arianism was unitarian, its practical consequences were none the less pagan. So in ad Epise.
13 it is admirably described as "Jovdaiopds éywy éyyds énaxohovbotvta tov 'Enviopov. It was a fatal defect that, while it claimed to secure the unity of God by excluding the divine Son from the Godhead, it still associated Him with God in grace and glory. Athanasius is never tired of pressing this point.
See c.Ar.III.16 and Newman's references there. Its application to the Spirit is not perhaps quite so telling, for He is never called @edc, and later Pneumatomachists, at least, refused to associate Him in worship with the Father. (See
Basil, de Sp.S.48, and ps.Athanasius, c.Mac.1.4, etc.) But Athanasius is here arguing from His invocation at baptism.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
together with God who made it through his own Word. If this is your attitude, what hope have you? Who will unite you to God,' if you have not the Spirit of God, but the spirit which belongs to creation? How rash and careless on your part to reduce the Father and his Word to the level of creatures, and yet to set the creatures on a level with God! For that is what you are doing when you imagine the Spirit as a creature and rank him with the Triad. What madness too on your part to impute injustice to God,® in that not all angels nor all creatures, but one from among them, is numbered with God and his Word! For if, as you say, the Spirit were at once an angel and a creature and ranked with the Triad, then it would be necessary not for one, but for all the angels that have been created to be ranked with the Godhead, and for there to be no longer a Triad but an unnumbered multitude' therein. So that the initiation therein,® which, to repeat, appears to be yours, is divided this way and that; and, by reason of its variegation,® is without guarantee. Such are
295 Who will unite you: For Athanasius the objection to Arian and Tropicist baptism received added force from the fact that baptism depends for its efficacy upon the very things these heresies denied. cf. c.47.11.69, 'If the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God', and also 1bid.1.34 and de Syn.36.
6 to impute injustice to God: cf. supra 11(89). So (c.Ar.II.29) he charges the _ Arians with imputing 0dvo¢ to God: 'in that he has not taught many how to create, so that there may be around him, as archangels and angels many, so creators many.'
7 an unnumbered multitude: cf. ¢c.Ar.111.16.
8 the initiation therein... .: } év todtm mddw doxodvoa teheiwmotc. mddw here makes it plain that doxovea is to be taken with tede/wotc rather than év todta, for it can only refer back to #v vouilete novety. The doubt attaches, not to the fact that they are baptized into a wAnOdc¢ Oedtytoc, as Montfaucon's renderin& suggests, but to the reality of their claim to be baptized at all.
® variegation: mowxtdia, 'There may be a suggestion of contempt in this word, for Aristotle uses it of the variegated colouring of animals (Hist.Anim.
518.b.16, etc.). That zovxtAoc in this sense was in common use is shown by the examples in V.G.T. On the other hand, in some New Testament instances of the word, plurality, as much as difference, seems to be indicated (e.g.
James 12 and 1 Peter 2c). That this is also the case here is suggested by the previous sentence. Each of this unnumbered multitude of divine personages will contribute its own splash of colour to this patchwork deity. cf. Cyril of Alexandria (de Trin.V1I.1080z): 'We have been baptized into the one God-
EPISTLE ONE
your rites and those of the Arians, who dispute about the Godhead and serve creatures before the God who created all things.
30. Such absurdities meet you if you say God is dyad.
But if he is triad, as indeed he is; and if the Triad has been shown to be indivisible and consistent—then its holiness must be one, and its eternity one, and its immutable nature.
| For as the faith in the Triad,! which has been delivered to us, joins us to God; and as he who takes anything away? from 29° (continued) head and Lordship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not as into a multitudinous number of gods, nor as giving worship to the creature.'
301 the faith in the Triad: Emphatic. It is the faith that unites us to God; and baptism follows upon faith, weta tv niotw, as in Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat.
V.6). So Basil, de Sp.8.28, speaks of baptism and faith as 'two inseparable ways of salvation; faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names.
. first comes the confession, introducing us to salvation, and baptism follows, setting the seal upon our assent'. It should be noted that, as far as our scanty references enable us to judge, Athanasius lays emphasis, in his doctrine of baptism, on the incorporation into the divine life which it bestows, rather than on the forgiveness of sins. So de Dec.30, c.Ar.1.34, 11.41. But see Quic.dix.6. This is, indeed, generally true of the Eastern Church. See Harnack, H.D.II.140, note 4. Also that here and elsewhere he disregards the post-baptismal chrism for the imparting of the Spirit. The Spirit is truly and fully given in baptism. cf.
Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat.XX.6) and see the comments of Gifford (Intro. xxxii). On both points this position is clearly distinguishable from that of the Western Fathers, notably Cyprian; though there is some confusion in Cyprian as to the second (cf. £p.lxxiii.7). It is consistent with this that whereas Cyprian's chief objection to heretical baptism is that it is given by those who, being outside the Church which alone has authority to forgive sins, cannot administer 'true and ecclesiastical baptism'; that of Athanasius and of the Eastern Fathers generally rests on the fact that the faith in which it is given is defective (cf. Cyprian, Ep.|xix. .2). This is seen by the way they apply Ephesians 4s. To Cyprian, the recognition of heretical baptism implies that there are two baptisms, one inside and the other outside the church (sée
Ep.lxxiii.5). To Athanasius, the character of Arian theology implies an inconsistency within the sacrament itself.
2 who takes anything away: Apart from an obscure reference in Cyprian (Ep.lxxiv.18), the indications are that the Trinitarian formula was universally used. Socrates (H.£.V.24) tells us that the Eunomians baptized 'not into the Triad, but into the death of Christ'. (See also Sozomen, H.£.VI.26, and Theodoret, Haer.Fab.IV.3.) But this may mean no more than that they used but one immersion. Epiphanius (Haer.lxxvi.fin.) preserves a Trinitarian invocation as used by Aetius, Passages in the New Testament, such as Acts 816,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
the Triad, and is baptized in the name of the Father alone, or in the name of the Son alone, or in the Father and the Son without the Holy Spirit, receives nothing, but remains ineffective and uninitiated, both himself and he who is supposed to initiate him ? (for the rite of initiation is in the Triad); so he who divides the Son from the Father, or who reduces the Spirit to the level of the creatures, has neither the Son nor the Father, but is without God,* worse than an unbeliever, and anything rather than a Christian. And justly so. For as baptism, which is given in Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, is one; and as there is one faith in the Triad (as the Apostle said); so the holy Triad, being identical with itself® and united within itself, has in it nothing which belongs to things originate. This is the indivisible unity of the Triad; and faith therein is one. But if, from the new discovery you
302 (continued) which seem to speak of baptism into one Person only, were at once a problem, since they seemed to disregard the Spirit, and an opportunity, as they might be taken to mean that the Spirit is invoked in the Son. Compare the references given supra on 14(98f.), especially to Ambrose (de Sp.8.1.35), who defends baptism in one Person, provided there be no denial of the other two, just as he condemns baptism into three Persons if 'the power of any one of them is diminished'.
3 who is supposed to inttiate him: This must be interpreted in a general sense, as Basil (de Sp.8.28): 'perilous to the baptizer and of no advantage to the baptized.' It does not mean that ministers of heretical baptism forfeited the Christian character bestowed upon them by their own baptism. Rebaptism
' of the lapsed was forbidden by Dionysius of Alexandria (apud Eusebius, H.£.
VII.7). Moreover, Athanasius himself taught that baptismal grace was finally withdrawn from the wicked only at the last judgement (Exp.in Psal.lxxvi.12).
4 without God: Geoc. Athanasius applies the term impartially to Jew and pagan and Arian, so that it must not be taken as 'atheist'. See Newman's notes on de Dec.1 and c.Ar.1.4.
5 identical with itself : 4 abti ovoa éavtfj, carries a stage farther the application to the whole Triad of terms already used to define the relation of Father and Son. Together with the use of duoovotoc (supra 27(188)), it prepares the way for the phrase 6uoovotog Tords found in later writers. For references, see
Prestige, G.P.7.225. tadréy and tavtdétng are used by Athanasius to express the numerical unity of Father and Son involved in the confession of the ' dpoovotor (de Dec.23, c.Ar.111.3, etc.). Here, however, 2) adt7} means no more than that each constituent of the Triad is of the same kind as the whole. cf. tavtdétns infra in I1.3(154f.) and in de Syn.53; and also Didymus, de Trin.II.
6298: td tadroy thc év wid Oedtyt ovppadvou Tetddos.
EPISTLE ONE
Tropici have made, it is not so; if you have dreamed dreams ® of calling the Holy Spirit a creature—then you no longer have one faith and one baptism,' but two, one in the Father and the Son, another in an angel who is a creature. There is no security or truth left you. For what communion can there be between that which is originate and that which creates?
What unity between the lower creatures and the Word who created them? Knowing this, the blessed Paul*® does not divide the Triad as you do; but, teaching its unity, when he wrote to the Corinthians concerning things spiritual, he finds the source® of all things in one God, the Father, saying:
'There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of workings, but the same God who worketh all things in all.'° The gifts which the Spirit divides to each are bestowed from the Father through the Word. For all things that are of the Father are of the Son also; therefore those things which are given from the Son in 308 dreamed dreams: évunvidoOyte, suggested, no doubt, by évummaldpuevor in Jude s, 'yielding to their own wayward fancies' (Chase).
7 one faith and one baptism: cf. c.Ar.111.16. There is for Athanasius a clear and intimate connexion between the one faith and the one baptism and the one God. If the integrity of baptism depends upon the integrity of the faith in which it is given, this, in turn, depends on the inner consistency of the divine life it sets forth. Unity of faith is not merely uniformity of confession, as it is in de Syn.54 fin, It also involves the unity of that which is confessed. cf. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat.XVI1.4): 'With the Holy Spirit, through the Son, we preach one God. The faith is indivisible; the worship inseparable.'
8 the blessed Paul: Athanasius now restates from 1 Corinthians 124, etc., and 2 Corinthians 1313 the argument of supra 19-20(108ff.). Only what saw there argued of the Son and the Spirit is now shown to be true of the whole
Triad, and the unity of the Godhead is demonstrated from the one activity whose source is in the Father Himself.
9 finds the source: 'omnia ad unum Deum tanquam ad caput reducit?? (Montfaucon). Athanasius means that the various spiritual gifts and ministries can be grouped together as having their source in the activity of the Father.
Tlatéga here is emphatic. The divine activity, no less than the divine life, proceeds from Him. Although dvaxepadaody is formed from xepddaoy,
Ephesians 110 suggested to Patristic exegetes the force of xepadyj. cf. Chrysostom, Comm. in loc.: wlav nepali dnacw énéOnue tO xara cagua Xgiotdy xal ayyéhotc xal GvOodsmotc, tovréotw ... ulav doyny édwxe.
10 1 Corinthians 124,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
the Spirit are gifts of the Father. And when the Spirit is in us, the Word also, who gives the Spirit, is in us, and in the Word is the Father. So it is as it is said: 'We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him.'" For where the light is, there is also the radiance; and where the radiance is, there also is its activity and lambent grace." This again the Apostle teaches, when he wrote to the Corinthians, in the second letter as well, saying: "The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.'!* For this grace and gift that is given is given in the Triad, from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. As the grace given is from the Father through the Son, so we can have no communion in the gift except in the Holy Spirit. For it is when we partake of him that we have the love of the Father and the grace of the Son and the communion of the Spirit himself.
31. This consideration also shows that. the activity of the Triad is one. The Apostle does not mean that the things which are given are given differently and separately 1 by each Person, but that what is given is given in the Triad, and that all are from the one God. Him therefore who is no creature but is one with the Son as the Son is one with the Father, who is glorified with the Father and the Son, who is confessed as God? with the Word, who is
304 John 1423.
12 its activity and lambent grace: cf. on 20 (p.116 suprd). évégyera and ydgu here are to be interpreted from évégyeva and dweged there. For 'lambent', adbyoetoyjc, cf. Philo, Op.Mund.8, Quis Rer.Div.45, Hippolytus, Ref.1.19,
Origen, c.Ce/s.II.60.
18 2 Corinthians 131s.
311 differently and separately: The charisms of the Apostolic benediction are not to be regarded as separate gifts severally appropriated to the three
Persons. cf. Didymus, de Sp.8.16: 'Ostenditur quippe ex sermone praesenti (i.e. 2 Corinthians 1313) una Trinitatis assumptio: cum is qui gratiam Christi accepit, habet cam tam per administrationem Patris quam per largitionem
Spiritus sancti... . Una igitur gratia, Patris et Filit et Spiritus sancti operatione completa, Trinitas unius substantiae demonstratur.
2 confessed as God: Oeodoyodmevov. The most explicit declaration of the Spirit's Godhead in these letters. Athanasius never applies to Him the title
'@edc, as Basil does in an almost contemporary letter, viii.11. See too Ep. clxxxix.5. (His 'reserve' on this point (see Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xliii.69)
EPISTLE ONE
active in the works which the Father works through the Son—is not the man who calls him a creature guilty of a direct impiety against the Son himself? For there is nothing that is not originated and actuated through the Word in the Spirit. Thus it is sung in the Psalms: 'By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all their might by the Spirit of his mouth.'* And in the one hundred and forty-seventh Psalm: 'He shall send out his Word and shall melt them; he shall breathe his Spirit and the waters shall flow.' We were justified, as the Apostle says: 'in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.'
For the Spirit is indivisible from the Word. So when Christ says, 'We will come, the Father and I',* the Spirit comes with them and shall dwell in us not otherwise than as the Son; as Paul writes to the Ephesians: "That he would grant you according to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward
31? (continued) was limited to official utterances during his episcopate.) Athanasius shows no trace of the embarrassment felt by later Catholic writers at the lack of explicit
Scriptural authority for calling the Spirit @edc. cf. especially Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.25-8 (where the silence of Scripture is explained), and Didy-mus, de Trin.I1.633a (where it is denied !—but see 1bid.7298, where the argument of Gregory is summarized). The appeal to the silence of Scripture : belongs rather to the Macedonians than to the Tropici and their Anomoean teachers. These last, indeed, could hardly make the absence of the divine title significant for the Spirit without admitting its presence to be significant for the Son.
8 By the Word of the Lord: Psalm 33s. 'The following catena of proof texts is intended to establish the operation of the Spirit in all the works of God: in creation and nature, in grace, in prophecy, and in the Incarnation. The first two points are very slightly illustrated, so far as the second is concerned because of the many references in 22 supra. The great attention paid to the Spirit's activity in revelation is in line with the traditional Christian emphasis upon His ministry in prophecy. On the Spirit as creator, see supra 9(82f.) and 24(127). Owing to the dearth of suitable texts, Psalm 33s came to be widely used to prove this point. cf. Didymus, de Trin.II.573., ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.
713z, ps.Athanasius, de Trin.et Sp.8.9, Dial.de Trin.11I.23 (with reply to Macedonian evasions), Cyril of Alexandria, de Trin.VII.1112. Also, more generally, of the Spirit's activity, Basil, de Sp.8.40, and ps.Athanasius, c.Mac.
1.12.
4 Psalm 14718.
5 1 Corinthians 6n.
6 John 142s,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
man, that Christ may dwell. . .'? But if the Son is in us, the Father also is in us; as the Son says: 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me.' Therefore, when the Word is in the prophets, they prophesy in the Holy Spirit. When Scripture says 'The Word of the Lord came'" to this particular prophet, it shows that he prophesied in the Holy Spirit. In Zechariah it is written: 'But receive my words and my commandments which I charge by my Spirit to my servants the prophets; and, when the prophet rebuked the people a little farther on, he said: 'They made their hearts disobedient, lest they should hear my law and the words which the Lord of hosts has sent by his Spirit by the hands of the prophets of old.'!2 Peter in Acts said: "Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy
Spirit spake before.'? And the Apostles cried aloud together, 'O Lord, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, who by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father David1* thy servant, didst say .. .'
And Paul, when he was in Rome, spoke boldly to the Jews who came to him: 'Well spake the Holy Spirit by Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers."® And in writing to Timothy:
"The Spirit saith expressly that in later times some shall fall 31? Ephesians 316-17.
8 John 1410, ® they prophesy in the Holy Spirit: Athanasius's argument here is taken up by later writers. See Didymus, de $p.$.29 (with copious references), de Trin.
II.500, Basil, de Sp.$.37, Ambrose, de S.8.11.130-2, ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.721, ps.Athanasius, de Inc.et c.Ar.14, de Trin.et Sp.8.11, Cyril of Alexandria, de
Trin. V11.1096.
10 e.g. Micah 11, Jeremiah 11.
11 Zechariah 1e.
12 Zechariah 71a.
18 Acts lis.
14 by the mouth of our father David: Acts 4245. The text of Athanasius here is very close to that of Codex Vaticanus, 6 tod matedc judy did. avedpatoc aylov otéuatoc Aapid naidd¢ cov eindv, which is generally agreed to be untranslatable as it stands. It is, however, difficult to believe that Athanasius would have quoted these words unless he had been able to find meaning in them. Accordingly, while the Revised Version rendering is given in the translation, it is probable that Athanasius found here a reference to the Trinity, taking tod matedc judy of the Father Himself, 'O Master, .
. Son of our Father, who hast spoken. .. .' This interpretation would facilitate the perversion of dyidu ... cov to adtov... abtov, which all the chief MSS. attest here.
15 Acts 2825,
EPISTLE ONE
away from the sound faith, giving heed to spirits of seduction."° Thus when the Spirit is said to be in anyone, it means that the Word is in him," bestowing the Spirit. When the prophecy was being fulfilled, 'I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh',*® Paul said: 'According to the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ unto me.'!® And to the Corinthians he wrote,
'If ye seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me'.
. .?° But if he who spoke in him was Christ, then clearly the Spirit that spoke in him was Christ's. For when Christ was speaking in him, he said once again in Acts: 'Now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Spirit testifieth to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.'* Hence, if the saints say, "Ihus saith the Lord', they speak not otherwise than in the Holy Spirit.
And if they speak in the Holy Spirit, they speak the things _ of the Spirit? in Christ. When Agabus says in Acts, "Thus saith the Holy Spirit',* it is not otherwise than by the Word coming to him that the Spirit too bestows upon him the power to speak and to testify to the things that were waiting for Paul at Jerusalem. So when the Spirit once again testified to Paul, Christ, as aforesaid, was speaking in him, so that the testimony which came from the Spirit belonged to the Word. So too when the Word visited the holy Virgin Mary," the Spirit came to her with him, and the Word in the Spirit moulded the body and conformed it to himself; desiring to 316 1 Timothy 41.
17 ¢¢ means that the Word is in him: A further illustration of the unity of évéoyeta in the Godhead. But, even more significantly, it harmonizes the doctrine of Athanasius with the 'Paedagogus' Logosophy of the earlier Alexandrians, notably Clement. See his Paed.I.11 and the note on III.5(174) and Intro.1V(86, note 8).
18 Joel 2as.
19 Philippians 11s.
20 2 Corinthians 13s, 21 Acts 2022-3.
2 e.g. Amos 1s.
23 they speak the things of the Spirit: Reading ta adrod with RS, for the taira of BA which is followed by Montfaucon.
24 Acts 2111.
, 25 once again testified: Apparently the reference is to Acts 2023 once more.
26 eyhen the W ord visited .. .: cf. 11(88) supra and III.6(175f.) infra. Itisclear in both these passages that Athanasius understands 'Holy Spirit' and 'Power
S.A.—I0
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
join and present" all creation to the Father through himself, and in it®8 'to reconcile all things... having made peace... whether things in the heavens or things upon the earth'."°
32. The divine Scriptures, then, consistently show that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but is proper to the Word and to the Godhead of the Father. Thus the teaching of the saints! joins in establishing? the holy and indivisible Triad;
31°8 (continued) of the Highest' in Luke 1ss to refer respectively to the Spirit and the Son.
For the earlier interpretations, which took both to apply to the Word, see Hermas, Sim.v.6, Justin Martyr, 4pol.Prima 1.33, Aristides, 401.15, Theophilus, ad Aut.I1.10, and perhaps Irenaeus, Haer.V.i.2. (The distinction is clear, 1bid.3. It is noteworthy too that Valentinus certainly distinguishes the Spirit from the Power, identifying them respectively with Sophia and the Demiurge. See Hippolytus, Ref. V1.30.) For the persistence of this interpretation, especially in the West, see Tertullian, adv. Fud.13, adv.Prax.26, Cyprian, de Idol.Van.11, Hilary, de Trin.11.26, Marius Victorinus, adv.4r.1.56. For the practice of referring to the Word as [/veta, which chiefly derives from this, see the references given by Newman in his note on ¢.4r.I.11. It is very clearly reflected in Athanasius's own treatment of Matthew 1226 in Quic.dix.
10, etc., where the sin against the Spirit is interpreted as against Christ's divine nature. See especially 12: 'that... by "Spirit" he might signify his spiritual, intelligible, and real Godhead.' Swete justly remarks, H.S.4.C.387:
'The prolonged struggle with Arianism cleared the thought of the Church on this question.' Athanasius's exegesis here does justice to the part taken by both Word and Spirit. It is faithfully followed by the author of de Trin.et
Sp.8.12, and by Didymus, de $p.$.31. But other writers, anxious to establish the creative activity of the Spirit, found Matthew 11s more to their purpose; though Proverbs 91 is cited to prove the uéa évégyera of Son and Spirit. See ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.745c, Ambrose, de Sp.8.1I.37, etc., and ps.Athanasius,
¢.Mac.1.12, Dial.de Trin.111.25. The last two passages are of particular interest, for they make it plain that the Macedonians clung to the old interpretation of [veda dyvov in Matthew lis.
2" t0 join and present: See infra I1.9(167).
°8 im it: ie. in the body. It may be taken instrumentally here, as Athanasius calls the sacred humanity the égyayvoy of the divine revelation (c.Ar.
III.31 and elsewhere). But more probably he conceives the body to be the sphere in which the reconciliation is accomplished, as in de Inc.13.
29 Colossians 120, 321 the teaching of the saints: ie. of the Scriptures. Gyvoe in Athanasius usually refers to Biblical characters or writers, whether of New Testament or Old Testament. So de Inc.57, de Fug.15.
® joins in establishing: ovvdyetat, 'ad Trinitatem adstruendam conspirat', Montfaucon. cf. de Syn.47: dia th ur) al tods matéoac ..
. cic eboéBerav ovvdyoper.
EPISTLE ONE
and the Catholic Church has one faith, even this. But the irrational® and fabulous invention' of the Tropici conflicts with the Scriptures and concurs with the unreason of the Arian madmen. It is natural for them to pretend in this way, to deceive the simple.' But, thanks be to God !, as you write, they have not succeeded in covering themselves by their pretended controversy with the Arians. They have indeed incurred their hatred, because they only call the Spirit a creature and not the Son as well; and by all men they have been condemned, because they are in truth fighting against the Spirit,* and are not far from dead, being destitute and void of the Spirit. In the words of the blessed Apostle, being
'natural men',' they could not receive the things of the Spirit of God, because these things were spiritually judged. But those who mind the things that belong to truth judge all things, but are themselves judged of no man. For they have within them the Lord who in the Spirit reveals to them himself, and through himself the Father.
33. Dwelling as I do in a desert place, yet, because of their effrontery who have turned away from the truth, I have not heeded those who will be glad to laugh at the feebleness and inadequacy of my exposition. But, having written briefly, I send it to your Piety, with many entreaties, that, when you read it, in part you will amend it, and, where it is feebly written, you will excuse it. In accordance with the Apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from the Fathers,
I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything 323 irrational: GAdytotoc. The interesting variant read by BA, etc., here,
GAddéaatos, is not quoted by Sophocles, 'Lexicon', from any writer earlier than Anastasius Sinaiticus in the seventh century. Moreover, éAdysotoc corresponds with ddoyia at the end of the sentence.
4 fabulous invention: wv0ondactia. cf. c.Ar.11.1, 44, T1110, 67.
5 to deceive the simple: cf. c.Ar.1.13 fin.: nods dndtyy tév dxegaiwy.
6 fighting against the Spirit: mvevuatouayodvtes makes its first appearance _ here. It was coined, apparently by Athanasius himself, on the analogy of Aoyopayeiv, which in its turn was probably inspired by the Qeoudyor of Acts
539 and the deowaydpev in the Textus Receptus of Acts 239. cf. infra [V.1(180), Aoyopaysty .
. mvevwatouayodvtec. Athanasius never uses the substantive form, mvevpatoudyo.
7 1 Corinthians 214,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
extraneous to it. What I learned,! that have I inscribed? conformably with the holy Scriptures; for it also conforms with those passages from the holy Scriptures which we have cited above by way of proof. It is no extraneous invention, but the Lord Jesus Christ himself, in his own Person, taught the woman of Samaria and us through her the perfection of the holy Triad, which is one Godhead indivisible.
It is the Truth himself who bears witness, when he says to ~ her: 'Believe me, woman ..
. the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth'; for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship in Spirit and in truth.' From this passage it is clear that the Truth is the Lord himself; as he says, 'I am the truth',> concerning whom the prophet David prayed, saying: 'Send out thy light and thy truth.' True worshippers, therefore, worship the Father, but in Spirit and Truth,
331 What I learned: cf. Quic.dix.16: tadva..
. & dv éuabov éygaya. It is clear, however, that the exegesis to which he refers there is not traditional, but his own. A similar latitude must be allowed here. What he means is that the doctrine is not novel—pndév &wbev éenworoas. cf. supra on 7('76)—but xatda tv ntotw, a faithful interpretation of the tradition. The constant claim, in these final sections, to consistency with Scripture and tradition shows that Athanasius realized that he was breaking new ground, and that he fully felt the silence of the Nicene formula upon the Spirit.
2 inscribed: éveydoata, adds a touch of solemnity, suggesting the cutting of a formal inscription.
8 it also conforms: i.e. as well as being in accordance with the faith delivered by tradition. The distinction is similarly drawn, supra 28(188). On the other hand, Scripture itself is called 4 dnootodum? magddootc (ad Adelph.6).
* in Spirit and in truth: John 421, 23-24. The interpretation of these words given by Athanasius was later seized on by the Pneumatomachi to prove that the Spirit is the instrument by which praise is offered to the Father. Catholic exegetes, therefore, hesitated to identify zvedua here with the Holy Spirit, and fell back on the older exegesis offered by Origen (in Foh.XIII.24). So Didymus, de Sp.8.64: 'in Spiritu, quia corporalia et humilia transcenderunt; in veritate, quia typos et umbras et exemplaria relinquentes ad ipsius veritatis venere substantiam.' But Athanasius's interpretation proved too convincing and pertinent to be entirely disregarded, and other writers give it as an alternative to some variation of the older one. So Ambrose (de Sp.§.1II.81) and, apparently, the text being defective, the author of de Trin.et Sp.8.15, and Didymus in his de Trin.11.741a. Basil (de Sp.S.62—4) takes his own line.
5 John 146.
6 Psalm 43s,
EPISTLE ONE
confessing the Son and in him the Spirit. For the Spirit is inseparable from the Son, as the Son is inseparable from the Father. The Truth himself bears witness when he says, 'I will send you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, whom the world cannot receive',' that is, those who deny that he is from the Father in the Son.
Therefore we ought, after the pattern of true worshippers, to confess and side with the Truth. And if after these things they still have neither the will to learn nor the power to understand, let them at least cease® from evil speaking. Let them not divide the Triad, lest they be divided® from life. Let them not number the Holy Spirit with the creatures, lest, like the Pharisees of old, who ascribed to Beelzeboul the works of the Spirit, they for like presumption incur with these men the punishment which is without hope of pardon both here and hereafter.
33? John 1526, 1417.
8 at least cease .. .: See supra on 17(105f.).
® lest they be divided: For similar references, see supra on 24(126).
EPISTLE
TWO—THREE?
1. I was or the opinion that, even as it was, I had written briefly?; indeed, I taxed myself with great weakness, that I could not put into writing all that it is humanly possible to say against those who are guilty of impiety toward the Holy
Spirit. But since, as you write, some of the brethren have actually asked that it should be abridged, so that they may have the means readily and briefly both to answer those who inquire concerning the faith that is in us, and to refute those who are impious, I am composing this as well, being confident that if here too there is anything lacking, you will not scruple® to supply it. The Arians,' being engrossed in them2 The original title is lost. That found in RS, "These things were written out of the preceding, by way of summary, further against those who say the Holy Spirit is a creature,' appears in B as a marginal gloss, and is thus older than the RS recension. The fact that it makes reference to the Holy
Spirit furnishes additional proof that Zp.II and III were originally one work. See Intro., p.12, etc.
2 I had written briefly: cf. supra 1.1(61) for Athanasius's intention to write a short work; as indeed, judged by the standard of c.4r.I-III, he has done.
But cf. also dv'éAlywr yéyoaga, at the end of de Syn.54. The comment of Leontius, de Sectis vili, is not inapposite: d7jAov dé ndou 6tt ndyta ta ovyyedupata tod aylov °Abavaciov ndvu wéyadd eiow.
3 you will not scruple: avveldnow éywv ayabijv, cf. ad Mon.1.3, Quic.dix.1 and ad Epict.12. The phrase is something of a cliché with Athanasius. Here it means that Serapion is to have no hesitation about adding to his work. Or, less probably, that he has been given the trust because he is a person of 'good conscience'.
4 The Arians: The whole of II is devoted to a restatement of the case against Arianism. Athanasius explains this, infra III.1, on the grounds that a true doctrine of the Spirit can only be developed from a true doctrine of the Son. But, no doubt, he also realized the usefulness of a brief handbook which would cover both aspects of the great controversy. The following sections have points of affinity with Athanasius's other antiarian writings, notably de Dec. and de Syn., as well as with c.4r.I-II1; but it is not an abstract of any one of them. The argument, moreover, is influenced by that of the previous epistle. Thus in 3-4 he shows the propriety of the Son to the Father under much the same categories as he used in I.22~7 to show the propriety of the Spirit to the Son. The prominence of the term doodatog is also
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
selves,® and thinking with the Sadducees® that there is nothing greater or beyond themselves, have met the inspired
Scripture with human arguments. When they hear that the Son is the Wisdom, Radiance; and Word? of the Father, they are accustomed to rejoin, 'How can this be?'8, as though nothing can be unless they understand it. At that rate, they should occupy their minds with similar questions about the universe as well. How can creation, which once was not, come into being? How can dust of the earth be fashioned into a rational man? How can the corruptible become incortuptible? How has the earth been founded 'upon the seas', and how did God 'prepare it upon the floods' ?® Then, last of 14 (continued) interesting, as well as the interpretation put upon it, which has points both of affinity and contrast with that in de Syn.41-53. Finally, the work is influenced by the constituency to which it is addressed, the parochial clergy of Alexandria, and by the character of contemporary Arianism. The unity of God in Father and Son is indeed stated, but the emphasis is chiefly laid upon 'the duplicity of equal hypostaseis'. In this, it anticipates and helps to interpret the doctrine of the Cappadocians.
5 being engrossed in themselves: sig éavtovds otoapéertec, cf. ¢.Ar.1.23: sic Eavtods dnoBiénovtec. 'He (Arius) proclaims a God of mystery beyond the knowledge of the Son Himself, yet argues throughout as if human relations could exhaust the significance of the divine' (Gwatkin, §.4.26). So c.Ar.1.15: to yérrnua tod ITatedc 2& Eavt&v weteovow 6 dyoovec. Indeed, the whole of c.Ar.1.11-36 is generally directed against misapplying to God the analogy of human generation.
6 with the Sadducees: ci. de Dec.10, de Syn.35, etc. See also supra on 21(119).
It should be taken with what follows, dvOownivoic Aoyiopotc, which means not merely 'human arguments', but 'arguments derived from human experience and relationships'. So dvOednwa (supra 15 fin.99). The general point of the comparison is the obdurate scepticism of the Sadducees and Arians, but Athanasius probably has in mind the argument of the former in Mark 12:s-a7.
7 Wisdom, Radiance, and Word: These being the principal analogies in the light of which we learn what the terms Father and Son, as applied to God, really mean. See supra on 15(108ff.), and cf. de Dec.17, c.Ar.1.21, 28, 11.22.
Whereas the Arians, in order to equate yévyqua with xtiopa, were obliged to deny that the Son was in any real sense Word or Wisdom, maintaining in God a purely attributive wisdom and word which had no real connexion with the Son at all. cf. c.4r.1.5 and de Syn.15.
8 How can this be? : i.e. How can the Son be Wisdom, etc. ? The very idea of Sonship appearing to them contradictory to the sense of these terms. cf. ¢.Ar,
II.36.
® Psalm 242,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
all, they ought to add to themselves, 'Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die': that it may be clear that, when they perish," their insane heresy will perish with them !
2. This opinion of the Arians is indeed mortal and corruptible. But the argument of truth, which even they ought to ponder, runs like this: If God is Fountain and Light and Father, it is not lawful to say that the fountain is dry,? or that the light has no ray, or that God has no Word; lest God
_ be without wisdom, reason, and brightness. As, therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also must be eternal; for 11° 1 Corinthians 153s.
1i when they perish: Inasmuch as the Arian doctrine is based upon man's knowledge of his own nature, it will partake of the mortality of its originators and perish with them.
21 the argument of truth: cf. c.Ar.11.35, and see note infra on 7(162).
2 the fountain is dry .. .: cf. de Dec.12, 15, c.Ar.1.14, 19, 24, 11.32; and see supra on 20(120) and the references to other Fathers given by Newman in his note on ¢.47.1.19. By dooyos and dAoyos, Athanasius undoubtedly intends the double meaning, not only 'without Word and Wisdom', but 'irrational and unwise'. So (c.47.1.14 jin.) he charges the Arians with imputing irrationality,
Gioyia, to God. Hence too the epithet Goyor, on which see supra on 15(95).
This play upon the double significance of copia and Adyos, first as titles of the hypostatic Son, and secondly as attributes of the divine essence, goes back, apparently, to Hippolytus, c.Noet.10. See also the excerpt from Origen given in de Dec.27, and also that from Dionysius of Rome in the previous section of the same work: 'If the Son came into being, once these attributes were not; consequently God was without them.' Stated thus, the argument seems to reduce the Son to the level of an impersonal faculty in the divine life, as well as to deny the possibility of personality in a uni-personal God. But, in the thought of Athanasius, it must be studied in relation to his conception of the divine unity. He stands by Revelation. 'To deny the coessentiality of the Son with the Father is, in effect, to deny the fullness of personality in God. Newman, on ¢.4r.1.19, puts it well: 'Our Lord was that essential Reason and Wisdom, not by which the Father is wise, but without which the Father was not wise—not, that is to say, in the way of formal cause, but in fact.' Grant that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and then to deny that the Son is Word and Wisdom is to deny that the Father is wise and rational.
You may construct a conception of deity apart from Revelation. But if you deny the eternity of the Son you have, in fact, destroyed the Christian idea of personality in God. The point is not merely academic. It was for the sake of a philosophical absolute that Arius and Eunomius sacrificed the Godhead of Christ. And philosophy has never failed to furnish evidence how tenuous and unreal becomes the concept of personality in God once Revelation is
Serene God is apprehended as a living, loving, speaking Person in Jesus Christ.
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
whatsoever we see in the Father* must without question also be in the Son. For the Lord himself says, 'All things whatsoever' the Father hath are mine', and all 'mine'' belong to the Father. The Father is eternal,® the Son also is eternal; for through him the ages came into being. The Father is One that is; of necessity, the Son also is 'He that is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen',' as the Apostle said. It is not lawful to say of the Father: "There was once when he was not'; it is unlawful to say of the Son: 'There was once when he was not.' The Father is Almighty; the Son also is Almighty, as John says: 'These things saith he which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.' The Father is light; the Son is radiance and true light. The Father is true God; the Son is true God. For thus John wrote: 'We are in him that is true, in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."!° To sum up, of that which the Father has, there is nothing which does not belong to the Son. Therefore the Son is in the Father,™ and the Father is in the Son; for the things that belong to the Father, these are in the Son,
28 whatsoever we see tn the Father: The eternity of the Son is a necessary inference from the point already made, but it leads Athanasius briefly to state his doctrine of the divine unity, which is fully developed in ¢.4r.IT1.1-25.
The Scripture passages which follow should be compared with the briefer list, 2btd.4, and the longer one, de Syn.49. Athanasius does not cite them merely to show that the Father and the Son are equal and alike. Their equality has to be expressed in terms which involve unity, évoeidéor pwvaic
(de Syn.49). The same qualities are predicated of the Father and Son "because they are one and the Godhead itself is one' (c.Ar.loc.cit.).
4 All things whatsoever ...: John 1615. cf. c.Ar. 111.35.
5 John 1710.
6 The Father ts eternal: takes up the didv¢ of the preceding sentence in terms of Hebrews 1s, as in ¢.Ar.1.12.
7 Romans 95.
8 'There was once ...': ch. c.Ar.1.11-13.
® Revelation Is.
101 John 520.
11 the Son is in the Father ...: Adapted from John 1410 which, together with the other passages here, John 10s0 and 149, form a trilogy of proof texts of great importance in the Arian controversy. Eusebius testifies to their use by Marcellus and others, Ecc.T heol. 111.9, and gives aninterpretation of them which does not differ materially from that 'ascribed to the Arians (c.Ar.IIT.10, etc., and 17, etc.). Athanasius cites them repeatedly, e.g. infra 9(168f.), c.Ar.1.34,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
and again they are seen in the Father. Thus is understood the saying: 'land the Father are one."? For there arenotsome things in the Father and others in the Son; but the things that are in the Father are in the Son also. And if you see in the Son those things which you see in the Father, you have a right understanding of the saying: 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.'1* 3. When these points are thus proved, he is impious who says that the Son is a creature.
For he will be compelled also to give the name of creature to the Fountain which sends forth as its creature! Wisdom, the Word, in whom are all the things of the Father.
Above all, from what follows can one observe how rotten is the heresy of the Arian madmen." Those to whom we are alike and whose identical nature we share, with these we are one in essence.* For example, we men, because we are alike
2H ( continued) III.5, 16. See also the important passage, 7b1d.III.3, quoted supra on 21(119), where the inherence of the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son is expressed in terms of them. For Athanasius, they safeguard and confirm each other in the same way as the several xagadetyyata, with which they are closely associated.
22 John 1030.
18 John 14s.
3! sends forth as its creature: The fountain must resemble its issue. It is better to take xt/owa thus closely with Bgvovoay than merely as qualifying tiv oopiary, as Montfaucon: 'fontem unde emanat creata sapientia.'
2 Arian madmen: Agewomavita. See Newman's note on de Syn.13. That the term is not peculiarly Athanasian can be seen from its use in the letter of the Egyptian bishops (4po/.6) and in that of the Sardican Council (ib1d.44).
8 with these we are one in essence: The punctuation here is that of R, etc., and it is greatly to be preferred to that of S which Montfaucon follows, whereby the comma is placed after todtwy, and xal tiv tavtdétyta &youev taken as part of the main sentence. Athanasius always refused to allow 6uovog to be equivalent to duoovotos, even when strengthened by the addition of dnagddlaxtos or xat' odaiay. (On the use of Suotocg by Athanasius, see Harnack,
H.DAV.33, note 2. For the opposite view see Hoss, Studien, p. 52, etc. But he largely rests his case upon Montfaucon's interpretation of the present passage.) Thus (de Dec.20): un) udvor Suotor tov Vidv, GAAd tadtoy ti} 6uordoet éx tod [atedc elvaronualywor. cf. also de Syn.53: éniydo tar obalaw oby Spots
GAAd tavtdtne Gv AexBetn. It must be noticed, however, that whereasin de Dec. tardy clearly means that the Father and the Son are inseparably one, here and in de Syn.53 tavtétnc means no more than specific identity—i.e. that one man is the same as another inasmuch as both are men. Thus in de Dec. the relation of a human father to his son is rejected as an inadequate illustration,
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
and share the same identical nature, are one in essence with each other. For it belongs to us all to be mortal, corruptible, capable of change, originated from nothing. So too are the angels among themselves, and all the rest in so far as they are one in nature with each other. Let these busybodies then examine whether the creatures have any likeness to the Son,* or whether they can find in things originate the things that are in the Son, that they dare to call God's Word a creature.
But they will not find them there, these men who rush impetuously at everything and who go astray from true religion. Among the creatures none is almighty, and none is in subjection to another'; for each belongs to God himself.
33 (continued) _ of the duoodotoy, 'because bodies which are like each other may be separated and be at a distance from each other'. But a similar objection attaches to the illustration of racial solidarity admitted here and in de Syn.53. The truth is that Athanasius is no longer concerned with the unity and inseparability of the Father and the Son, but simply with their essential equality and likeness.
He knew that such equality involved the essential unity which he has already defended in the previous section, and which, in de Dec.20, he uses the Ouoovotoy to express: that, to be from the Father, the Son must be in the Father. But he is now choosing ground from which to attack the Anomoeans who asserted not merely the separation but the unlikeness of Father and Son.
It is interesting that he should so prominently introduce the dyuoovatoy in this reduced sense. He could hardly have disregarded it, as he does in ¢.4r.I-III.
It took too large a place in the kind of debate for which this handbook was designed to furnish arguments. Furthermore, his interpretation is in line with that to be found in the contemporary work, de Syn.41, etc.; though there he does advance from it to insist (45, etc.) upon the inseparability of the divine
Persons. It asserts that truth which the Semiarians were endeavouring to convey by the duotodouor, that the Son belongs essentially to God and is not a creature. This it does without prejudice to the other, more distinctively
Athanasian, interpretation. It should also be remembered that Athanasius elsewhere propounds partial and inadequate illustrations, trusting to the general scope of his argument to correct their deficiencies, e.g. the image illustration (c.4r.III.5). The point is important, for the Cappadocians have been accused of tritheism, largely because they used the same analogy as Athanasius here. See Prestige, G.P.J.213-18.
4 any likeness to the Son: What follows should be compared with ad Afr.7-8, where the same points are made upon the same interpretation of the éuoovatov.
5 in subjection to another: The article is added to étégov, as though humanity should be considered as divided into two parts, that which rules and that which is ruled. That is, in fact, the opinion of Aristotle (Pol.I.1254.a.15, etc.).
What Athanasius says here is in line with the teaching of Basil (de Sp.S.51):
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
'The heavens declare the glory of God'*; and, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof''; "The sea saw and fled'.®
All things are the servants of him who is their Maker, doing his word and obeying his decree. But the Son, like the Father, is Almighty®; as we have shown from Scripture. Again, among the creatures there is none that is not by nature capable of change.!° Some of the angels 'kept not their own rank'!!; and, 'The stars are not pure in his sight'
.1* The devil fell from heaven; Adam transgressed; and all things suffer alteration. So Paul reminds us from the hundred and first
Psalm: 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands.
They shall perish, but thou continuest; and they shall all wax old as doth a garment; and as a mantle shalt thou roll them up ... and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."* And again he says:
"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, yea and for ever |'14
4. Again, all things originate were not and have come into being. For, 'He made the earth as nothing"; and, 'Who calleth the things that are not as though they were'?; and they are also 'works' and 'creatures'. Therefore they have a beginning*® from which they come to be. For 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth', and all that in _ 35 (continued) 'among men no one is a slave by nature. ..
. As chattels of the Creator we are all fellow-slaves.'
6 Psalm 191.
7 Psalm 241.
§ Psalm 114s, ® the Son... 1s Almighty: cf. c.Ar.III.4 and de Syn.49. shown: i.e. by the quotation from Revelation 1s supra, in 2.
10 capable of change: cf. supra 26(129f.) and ad Afr., loc.cit. And, for the argument, de Dec.23, c.Ar.1.35, etc., 47.
U1 Jude «.
12 Job 25s.
18 Hebrews L1o-12.
14 Hebrews 13s.
4! Tsaiah 4023 (LXX).
2 Romans 417.
3 Therefore they have a beginning: i.e. it is of the essence of a creature—as opposed to a Son—to be from nothing. So c.Ar.II.1: 'It is proper for creatures and works to have said of them, é& od dvtwy and odx fv agi yevynby.' See also 1bid,I.29, where he argues from this premise that the fact that God is eternally creator does not imply that creation is an eternal process.
4 Genesis 11.
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
them is; and again: 'All these things hath mine hand made.'s But the Son, like the Father, is 'One that is' and 'God over all things',® as we have shown.' He is not made, he makes; he is not created, but creates and makes the works of the Father. Through him 'the ages'® came to be; and, 'All things have come to be through him, and without him has not anything come to be'.® And, as the Apostle has expounded the contents of the Psalm, he himself at the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of his hands. Again, none of the creatures is by nature God.
Each thing that comes into being has been called whatever it has come to be: one heaven, another earth; some planets, others stars; yet others seas, depths, fourfooted things; and finally, man. And previous to these, angels and archangels, cherubim, virtues, principalities, powers, dominions, paradise. And so each remains. But if some have been called gods," they are not so by nature, but by participation in the Son. Thus he himself said, 'If he called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came.
. .1# Hence, because they are not gods by nature, there comes a time when some of them
45 Isaiah 662.
$ Romans 95.
7 as we have shown: i.e. supra 2(158).
8 Hebrews 1a.
9 John 1s, 10 angels and archangels . . .: The absence of seraphim from this list—Montfaucon appears to have no MS. authority for inserting it—is probably accidental. Apart from this and the omission of thrones, this enumeration of the heavenly orders tallies with that in ps.Dionysius, de cael.Hier.vi.2. It had already been incorporated in the liturgy of the Eucharist (cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat.XXIII.6). It is likewise found in Didymus (de Trin.I1.553a) and in Gregory of Nyssa (in Cant.XV.1100a, etc.); though in the latter it is not complete.
Comparison with that given supra (in 27.182), shows that Athanasius did not regard the list as exhaustive, for 'lights' and 'heavens' are there included as orders of angelic being. We may compare the inclusion of aveduata by Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat.XVI.23) and the substitution of dvaBdoe and Aapusedtyntec for cherubim and seraphim in Gregory Nazianzen (Orat.xxviii.
31). It is not clear whether we are to take 'paradise' as another heavenly order here, but the analogy of 'heavens' in 1.27 suggests that we should. The Valentinians regarded it as a 'fourth angel possessed of power' (Irenaeus,
Haer.1.v.2. cf. Tertullian, adv.Val,20). Other Gnostics held it to be the title of an order. See Hippolytus, Ref.V.21.
11 ¢¢ some have been called gods: See supra on 1.24(125), and cf. ad Ajr.7 and c.Ar.1.39, 12 John 103s.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
suffer a change" and hear him say: 'I said, Ye are gods and sons of the Most High. Nevertheless, ye dielike men.'
Such was he who heard God say: "Thou art a man and not god.'!5 But the Son, like the Father, is true God. For he is in him, and the Father in the Son. John wrote it, as we have shown; and David sings: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.'!*
And the prophet Isaiah cries: 'Egypt?' was overwhelmed and the commerce of the Ethiopians; and the Sabaeans, men of stature, shall come over to thee, and they shall follow behind thee bound with fetters, and they shall worship thee, because God is in thee. For thou art the God of Israel, and we knew thee not.' Who is this God in whom God is, except the Son who said: 'I am in the Father and the Father in me'!8?
5. Since these things are true and are written in Scripture, who does not recognize that, inasmuch as the Son has no likeness! to the creatures but has all that belongs to the Father, he must be one in essence with the Father? He would be one in essence with the creatures, had he any likeness to them? or any kinship* with them. So likewise, being
433 suffer a change: i.e. not being essentially divine, their divinity is defectible.
This passage is of interest as showing that Athanasius did not regard @eoxolnotc as exclusively a future blessing. This is really implied in its identification with vionotnots in c.Ar.1I1.19, for this is clearly regarded as a present possession in ad Episc.1. For the opposite view, see Harnack, H.D.III.166. G. W. Butterworth has pointed out, in Fournal of Theological Studies, XVI1.360, that Clement of Alexandria in the same way sometimes speaks of Osozotnatc as consummated in this life, sometimes as reserved until after death.
14 Psalm 826-7.
15 Ezekiel 289, 16 Psalm 456.
W Keypt .. .¢ Isaiah 4514-10, Likewise, ¢.4r.11.23, de Inc.et c.Ar.19, and Dial de Trin.III.7.
18 John 1410.
51 inasmuch as the Son: Montfaucon's reading here, énel tv wév .
. ., is a correction of that found in R, which, in its turn, tries to correct the 6te én pév tév ... of SBA by omitting the ét. But the double use of 67 with different significance, though harsh, is not impossible. cf. Ephesians 211 and 1 John 320.
* had he any likeness to them: i.e. likeness upon the points of comparison he has adduced, all of which, as he says below, pertain to the definition of God.
8 kinship: 'Though not so striking a qualification of duoudty¢ as tavtdétys
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
by essence foreign' to things originate and being the Word who is proper to the Father, inasmuch as the Word is « different from things originate® and has as his own properties all that belongs to the Father, it follows that he will be one in essence with the Father. Thus the Fathers® understood it, when at the Council of Nicaea they confessed that the Son is 'one in essence with the Father', and 'from the essence of the Father'. Well they realized that created essence could never say: 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine."' Because it has a beginning from which it came to be, we do not predicate of it that it 'has being' and that it 'was eternally'. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Son does receive these predicates, and as all the things mentioned above that belong to the Father belong to him, it must be that the essence of the Son is not created, but that he is one in essence
53 (continued) above, ovyyévera here makes it plain that the likeness with which he is concerned is that of things which are the same. cf. c.4r.1.55 (on Hebrews 14): 'As there is no kinship, the word "'better"' is used, not to compare, but to contrast, because of the difference of His nature from them.'
4 by essence foreign ...: Also helps to interpret duoudtns. It is worth noting that when seeking to express what the Son is rather than what He is not,
Athanasius drops the use of 6wovoc, and takes up idvog. But too much must not be made of this, as elsewhere he does speak of the Son as like the Father, without safeguard. But the expression does not thus occur, either of the Son or the Spirit, in these letters.
5 inasmuch as the Word is different from things originate: Accepting the reading of BA, wai GAdoc dy ovtoc éxelywy. The insertion of odx after xal, which is made eS S, is an attempt to remedy the confusion which follows the corruption, in RS, of éxelvwy to éxelvov. éxeivewy clearly refers to ta yeryntd, but GAdog adds nothing to dAAdtguoc in the preceding clause, and the text of BA itself is probably corrupt.
6 Thus the Fathers: cf. ad Afr.9 init. For Athanasius's account of the proceedings at Nicaea, cf. de Dec.18-24, and especially 20, where he clearly attributes his own interpretation of duoovotoc to the bishops. Here and in ad Afr. he simply claims that they used the formula to safeguard the unlikeness of the Son to the creatures and His propriety to the Father. Indeed, allowing for differences of language, he makes little more of it than Eusebius in his letter, apud Socrates, H.E.1.8. There is no necessity to assume that he is correcting the earlier account, for the stricter sense includes the less definite.
But there can be little doubt that the account he gives here more nearly represents the mind of the majority at the Council.
7 John 1615.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
with the Father. Created essence his cannot be, for this reason above all, that it can comprehend the properties of God.* By his properties,® I mean the things whereby he is recognized to be God: for example, that he is omnipotent, that he has being, that he is incapable of alteration, and the others aforementioned; lest, by having what the creatures also can have, God himself should appear in the sight of fools to be one in essence with the creatures.
6. In this way too we can refute the impiety of those who say that the Word of God is a creature. Our faith is in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the Son himself said to the apostles: 'Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." He spoke thus that by means of things we know we may understand the matters of which we have been speaking.? Just as we would not call our fathers makers, but begetters, and as no one would call us their creatures, but sons by nature and one in essence? with them: so, if God be Father, he must be Father of one who is by 5° it can comprehend the properites of God: dextixr) tHv idiwy tod Oeod. dextixds was first brought into general use by Aristotle, who has it as meaning both 'capable of receiving' and actually 'receiving'. The former sense is the more familiar in theological writing, as when Athanasius describes Christ's humanity as capable of human affections (c.4r.I11.31, etc.), or man as 'capable of God' (tbid.I.60, I1.59, etc.). Here and in the parallel passage (de
Syn.50) it is used in the second, realized, sense, implying that the Son is actually in possession of the divine attributes.
® By bis properties . . « referring adtod to God, and going on to read, with BA, @edc, instead of 6 Oed¢ with RS. We may cite Didymus (de Sp.5.38):
'Verum quae habet Pater iuxta substantiam, id est eternitatem, immutabilem bonitatem, de se et in se subsistentem, haec eadem habet et Filius.' But Athanasius would not thus distinguish between essence and accident in God, for He has no zegifody, but all that He has He is. cf. de Dec.22, de Syn.34, and ad Afr.8.
6 Matthew 2819.
* matters of which we have been speaking: i.e. the matters discussed in the previous section, the Son's unlikeness to the creatures and His propriety to God. The terms 'father' and 'son' exclude the notion of creation and involve that of propriety. He is repeating, with the same illustrations, the argument
_ of de Dec.13.
8 by nature and one in essence: as opposed to a sonship which is adoptive. cf. de Dec.®, c.Ar.1.5, ad Eptse.12.
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
nature a Son and one in essence with him. Abraham did not create Isaac, he begat' him. Bezalel and Eliab did not beget but made all the works in the Tabernacle. The shipwright and the housebuilder do not beget the things they make; they work, the one on the ship, the other on the house.
Isaac does not make Jacob; he begets him by nature, a son.
And likewise Jacob, Judah and his brethren. Just as one would be mad to say that the house is one in essence with the builder, and the ship with the shipwright, so it is correct to say that every son is one in essence with his own father.
If then there is Father and Son, the Son must be Son by nature and in truth. But this is to be one in essence with the Father, as we have shown from many instances.° Thus of the things that are made it is written: 'He spoke, and they came to be; he commanded and they were created.' But of the :
Son: "My heart hath uttered a good Word." Daniel knew the Son of God and he knew the works of God. The Son he saw quench the furnace®; of the works he said, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord',® and then he enumerated each of the creatures. But he did not number the Son with them, for he knew that he is not a work. It is through him that the works came into being; while he in the Father is praised and exalted. As then through him God is revealed to them that know him, so through him, 'blessing and praise and glory and power' are ascribed to the Father—through him and in him, that this ascription may, in the words of Scripture, be 'acceptable'4 From these sayings, therefore,
64 create... begat: But see c.Ar.I].4 where Isaiah 3819 and other texts are used to show that xtitew, etc., can be used for yevrdo0at. But not (1b1d.57) yevvaoOa for xtlCew, nor xtloua for vidc.
5 from many instances: The reference of &« xoAAdy is not altogether clear.
It can scarcely be to Scripture, for 6uoovotoc is not a Scriptural term. Apparently, it refers back to the illustrations of the duoovowoy, supra in 3(154f.).
6 Psalm 1485.
7 My heart hath uttered .. .: Psalm 451. cf. de Dec.21, de Sent.Dion.2, ¢.Ar
II.57, III.59, 67.
® guench the furnace: See Daniel 325 (LXX, #2).
°O all ye works .
.: Song of the Three Children 3s. So ¢.dr.I1.71. The same point is made of the Spirit in de Trin.et Sp.8.,2.
10 Revelation 51s.
111 Peter 26.
Rod ice wy |
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
among many, we have shown, and we now show, that he is impious who says that the Word of God is a creature.
7. But as they plead the passage in Proverbs, "The Lord created me,! a beginning of his ways, for his works', adding,
'See, 'He created" | He is a creature |': we must show from this passage too how greatly they err, not realizing the scope of divine Scripture.? If he is a Son, let him not be called
7 The Lord created me .
. .: For the importance of Proverbs 822 to the Arians, see Theodoret, H.£.1.5, Epiphanius, Haer.lxix.12, etc., Hilary, de
Trin.IV.11, and the testimony of Eunomius in his Lib.Apol., ad fin., and apud Gregory of Nyssa, adv.Eun.111.573. cf. also c.Ar.1.53, I1.1, 44, where it is made plain that their exegesis of other Scriptures is built upon it. Their interpretation was anticipated to a certain extent by Origen (de Prin.IV.1).
In taking éxtvse to refer to the sacred humanity, Athanasius follows the line adopted by the Nicenes from the beginning of the controversy. cf. Exp.Fid.1,
Eustathius of Antioch apud Theodoret, Dial.1.90, and Marcellus apud Eusebius, c.Mar.I1.3, And, among later writers, by Epiphanius, Haer.lxix.21,
Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxx.2, Didymus, de Trin.II1.816, etc., ps.Basil, adv.Eun.1V.704, and Gregory of Nyssa, c.Eun.II1.5848. Another line of interpretation appears to start from Dionysius of Rome, apud de Dec.26, who takes éxtise as equivalent to éxéotnoe. This is followed by Eusebius (Eccl.
Theol.111.2), with references to the Hebrew and versions other than LXX.
Basil (adv.Eun.11.20) also interprets from the Hebrew. But in de Prin.Prov.3 he regards the oogla of Proverbs as a personification of God's wisdom in nature. An independent interpretation is offered by Hilary (de Trin.X11.35 and de Syn.16), who takes étice of the generation of the eternal Son, as a corrective to the analogy of human generation. For yet another explanation, see de Inc.et c.Ar.6. Rejecting the authenticity of this last work, we find that Athanasius consistently adhered to the explanation given here. The present passage has very close affinity with de Dec.13-14, but the long discussion in ¢.Ar.11.18-72, and the brief reference in ad Episc.17 should be considered as well.
4 the scope of divine Scripture: 'the general drift of Scripture doctrine'— Newman. cf, c.4r.I11.28 and 58. In like manner, supra 2(152), he speaks of the 'word of truth' as opposed to the private perversions of heretics. It is to be noticed that here, as in ¢.4r.1I.18, etc., and de Dec.13, he prefaces his actual exposition with a general appeal to Scripture teaching. This was, indeed, his usual practice: 'to start with some general exposition of the Christian doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter' (Newman, on c.Ar.II.1). Here, however, it is imposed on him by the nature of the task he has undertaken. The prima facte sense of Proverbs 822 (LXX) is undoubtedly in favour of the Arians.
Athanasius virtually admits this (de Dec.13 and c.Ar.I1.44).
8 If he ts a Son... .: This point is reproduced from de Dec.13 fin.: 'If Son, therefore not creature; if creature, not son; for great is the difference between them, and son and creature cannot be the same unless His essence be con-
EPISTLE -TWO-TH REE
creature; if a creature, let him not be called Son. For in what precedes we have shown how great is the difference between a creature and a son. And inasmuch as the baptismal initiation' is not validly performed into Creator and creature but into Father and Son, the Lord must not be called creature but Son. 'But,' says the Arian, 'is it not written?' Yes, it is written | And it is necessary that it should be said. But what is well written is ill understood by heretics. If they had understood ® and grasped the terms in which Christianity is expressed, they would not have called the Lord of glory a creature nor stumbled over what is well written. They, therefore, 'knew not, neither did they understand'.* Therefore, as it is written: 'They walk in darkness.'"? But as for us, speak we must, that in this matter also they may be shown up as fools, that we may not neglect to answer their impiety, and that they may perhaps even repent. These then are the terms in which we express® our faith in Christ: the Son of God,
73 (continued) sidered to be at once from God and external to God.' The Arians argued that there is no difference between generation and creation, as the Scriptures apply these terms to God, and that the title 'Son' is therefore entirely consistent with their interpretation of Proverbs 822 which makes him a creature.
Athanasius argued that such an identification was impossible, and that they must choose between the Sonship and the creaturehood they extracted from Proverbs. cf. c.4r.11.20. But whereas here and in de Dec. Athanasius argues from the general, i.e. from the term 'son', in c.4r.II. he argues from the particular, i.e. from the character and office of this divine Son.
4 baptismal initiation: See supra on 1.6(78). Athanasius does not ara to it merely as an instance of what the Arians must reject to retain their view of Proverbs 822, but as the supreme instance. For to reject this or to misinterpret it, is to stake salvation itself. Thus he makes the point the climax of his introductory observations, ¢.4r.11.41-3.
5 I} they had understood: cf. de Dec.13: 'If they had understood, they a not have blasphemed the Lord of glory.' The whole passage is reminiscent of ¢.Ar.11.1.
6 Psalm 825.
7 ibid, 8 in which we express ...: For yagaxtijo—'characteristic idea,'
Newman—cf. c.Ar.III.29, where this little confession of faith is paralleled. 'Tt is framed in language reminiscent of the credal pronouncements of the period. Thus, 'for our salvation,' Nicene; 'at the end of the ages,' Ninth of Seleucia, etc. (de
Syn.29); for ofxovounjoas, cf. the Confession of Nike (1b1d,.30): adons tie oixovoulas mAnowbelons.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
being the Word of God ('in the beginning was the Word ...and the Word was God'), being the Wisdom and Power of the Father ('Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God"), at the 'end of the ages' became man for our salvation. For John, after he had said, 'In the beginning was the Word', after a little added, 'And the Word became flesh', that is to say, became man. And our Lord said concerning himself: 'Why seek ye to kill me.
. a man that hath told you the truth ?"* And Paul, having learned from him, said:
'One God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.' Being made man, and having fulfilled his human economy, having overthrown and abolished death," the penalty we had incurred, he now sits at the right hand of the Father, being in the Father and the Father in him, as always was and for ever is.
8. In these terms, derived from the Apostles through the Fathers, our faith is expressed. It remains that he who reads
Scripture should examine and judge! when it speaks of the Godhead of the Word, and when it speaks of his human life; lest, by understanding the one when the other is intended, we become victims of the same derangement as has befallen 'the Arians.2 Knowing him to be Word, we know that 'through him all things were made, and without him was not anything made',' and, 'by the Word of the Lord
7° John li.
101 Corinthians les, U1 end of the ages: generally used by Athanasius of the final consummation, but here and in ¢.4r. loc.cit. and de Dec.14, it is used in connexion with the Incarnation.
12 John 11, 18 John 719 and 840.
141 Timothy 2s.
15 having fulfilled bis human economy: oixovdunoac, cf. c.Ar.1.59.
16 abolished death: from 2 Timothy lio. cf. de Dec.14, tov judy Odvatoyr xatagyjoat Oédwy. It certainly suggests that Athanasius is thinking of death as a judicial sentence given against us rather than as yOogd. But the forensic notion is not lacking in his works. See Robertson, Intro.lxx.
81 examine and judge: and so de Dec.14: 'Any one may find this sense. . . who investigates the time and characters (mdowza), and the object, and thus judges and ponders what he reads,'
2 as has befallen the Arians: Athanasius exemplifies this charge, c.4r.III.
26-7. For his insistence on the reality of the two natures in Christ, cf. de Inc.8,
Quic.dix.7, c.Ar.111.30-5, and Tom.ad Ant.7.
8 John 1s,
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
the heavens were established',4 and, 'he sendeth his Word and healeth all things'. Knowing him to be Wisdom, we know that "God by Wisdom founded the earth',* and the Father 'hath made all things in Wisdom'.' Knowing him to be God, we have believed that he is the Christ®; for, 'Thy throne, O God,' sings David, 'is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated unrighteousness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows'.® In Isaiah he says concerning himself: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me." Peter confessed: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' So likewise, knowing him to be made man, we do not repudiate those things which are spoken of him in his human nature, as, for example, that he hungered,! thirsted, was smitten, wept, slept, and finally endured death in our behalf upon the Cross. For all these things are written concerning him. So Scripture has not suppressed, but employs the words, 'He created', though they are applicable to men. For we men have been created and made. But as, ' when we hear that he hungered, slept, was beaten, we do not deny his Godhead: so, when we hear the words, "He created', we should be consistent and remember that, being
God, he was created man. For it belongs to man to be created, as do the experiences mentioned above, hunger and the like.
9. Then too there is that other saying, which is indeed 8! Psalm 336.
5 Psalm 10720.
6 Proverbs 319.
7 Psalm 10421.
8 that he is the Christ: This certainly suggests that our Lord's Messiahship is the property of His divine nature and not of His consecrated and Spiritanointed humanity. The interpretation of Psalm 45c-7 and of Isaiah 611 is conformed to this view. But in c.47.1.44-7, where they are again associated, they are understood of the anointing of the humanity at the Baptism, which is the more usual interpretation in Alexandrian theology. The point gained importance in the later Christological controversies. cf. ps.Athanasius, ¢.
Apoll.11.2, and see Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies, pp.177-8.
® Psalm 456-7.
10 Tsaiah 611.
11 Matthew 16:6.
12 that he hungered .
.: For similar lists of maOyjpyata, cf. de Dec.14, c,Ar 111.31, etc., Quic.dix.11,
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
well said, but by them ill understood1—I mean: 'Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels, neither the Son." It also has a true meaning. From the words
'neither the Son' they suppose that by his ignorance he makes it clear he is a creature. It is not so. God forbid! For as, when he said, 'he created me', he spoke as a man; so too he spoke as a man when he said, 'neither the Son'. And there is good reason why he spoke thus. For he was made man, as it is written, and it belongs to men to be ignorant, as it belongs to them to hunger and the rest. For they do not know unless
91 well said ..
. ill understood: cf. c.Ar.111.50.
2 Of that day .. .: Mark 13s2 is discussed at length by Athanasius (c.47.III.
42-50). There can be no question of ignorance in the Word. He knows the Father, and therefore must know the times the Father has appointed. Times and seasons have been created through Him and He cannot be ignorant of His own works. His motive in adding 'neither the Son' was the welfare of the disciples, whose importunity was checked by this avowal of ignorance.
Yet it is not falsehood, for He speaks 'in regard to His human ministry' (44), 'according to the flesh, because of the body; that He might show that, as man,
He knows not' (45), 'after the flesh, for the sake of the flesh which is ignorant'
(48). For Patristic exegesis of this passage the reader should consult the lengthy note in Lebreton's Origines du dogme de la Trinité (Volume 1, note C.
It is not in the English Edition). The way for the Arians in their use of this passage had been prepared by Irenaeus (Haer.II.xxviii.6—-8), and to a certain extent by Origen (in Mazt.LV). Athanasius's treatment is anticipated by Eustathius of Antioch, apud Facundus (Pro Def.Ir.Cap.XI1.1), and followed by Basil (Ep.viii.6) and Gregory Nazianzen (Orat.xxx.15). The former, however, has an alternative explanation (ibid.7 and Ep.ccxxxvi.2) which has influenced subsequent exegesis; notably that of Didymus (de Trin.I11.917, etc.), who clearly regards the ignorance as unreal. These Fathers, inasmuch as they write against the Arians, emphasize the reality of our Lord's knowledge as Word of God. On the other hand, Gregory of Nyssa, writing against Apollinarius (c. A poll.24), insists on the reality of the ignorance as proving the reality of the Manhood. But none of them attempts to show how ignorance and knowledge can subsist side by side in the one Christ. Cyril of Alexandria, however, writing against Nestorius, cannot evade this difficulty, and is led to regard the ignorance of Christ as something external and imputed, not actual in His human mind. tanelywotc, oixovoula, duolwotc, and (above all) oxfjua, are some of the terms he uses. cf. Thesaurus XXII, passim. Lebreton thinks that Athanasius's attitude is not inconsistent with that of Cyril, inasmuch as, without committing himself to any opposed opinion, he shrinks from plainly and directly attributing ignorance to the incarnate Lord. But the imprecision of Athanasius's language is surely due to his inadequate psychology. Moreover, such expressions as 'having the ignorance of men in His body' and 'that He might show that, as man, He knows not', vaguejand unstudied}though
EPISTLE TWO-—THREE
they hear and learn. Therefore, inasmuch as he was made man, he displays the ignorance which belongs to men: firstly, to show ® that he really has a human body'; secondly, that, having in his body the ignorance of men, he might redeem his humanity® from all its imperfections ® and cleanse it and offer it perfect and holy to the Father.
What further excuse will the Arians discover? What else 92 (continued) they may be, are sufficiently definite to be decisive against this view. Similarly, however unsatisfactory it may be to include our Lord's ignorance with His physical za6xjuara, it does at least imply that the one is as real as the others. See further, Robertson, Intro.]xxviii.
8 to show: It should be noted that Mark 13:2 is here clearly and immediately connected with the fact of the Incarnation, as it is not in c.4r.II1.48. This nullifies whatever force there may be in Newman's comment upon that passage, that our Lord avows His ignorance 'with a purpose, not as a mere plain fact or doctrine'.
4 a human body: Athanasius regularly uses ode& and oda to designate our Lord's human nature. But even in his earliest works these terms are used side by side with, and in the same sense as, &v09wa0c. cf. de Inc.17:6 Adyoc év tH av0eénq. Moreover, the Incarnation in that work is regularly spoken of as évavOedmnotc. There is thus no warrant for the statement that the use of a0ownoc, av0gwndtns of our Lord's humanity is due to the insertion of the words xai évavOgmaijoarta in the creed at Nicaea; though it is to be admitted that they occur much more frequently in his post-Nicene works. Later still, after the measure of Arian Christology had been taken, Athanasius explicitly asserts that our Lord 'did not take a body without soul, nor without sense and intelligence' (Tom.ad Ant.7).cf. also ad Epict.7. This development does not represent any change in thought. The terms odgé and oma continue in general use in his later works, e.g. ad Epict. and ad Max., as being equivalent to 'man'.
See c.Ar.III.30 and ad Epict.8. On the other hand, in the relatively early work, Quic.dix.(7), we find him grappling with the question of the union of the divine and human in Christ, which confronted the Church after Apollinarianism had been repudiated. This question would not have occurred to him, had he conceived of the humanity as a mere veil of flesh. Moreover, the terms ode& and oda have not the same limited connotation as 'flesh' and 'body'.
'By flesh the Bible repeatedly designates human nature in its fullness', Prestige, Fathers and Heretics, p.218. This point was not missed by the early expositors. cf. John of Damascus, de Fid.Orth.III.1073a. The same thing is, less markedly, true of oda. cf. Genesis 36s and Revelation 1813; and, above all, 1 Corinthians 612-20, on which J. Weiss (Urchristentum, p.453) remarks that oda here 'almost means personality'. See also le Bachelet, D.T.C.1.2171.
5 his humanity: literally, 'his man,' reading tv &yOgwnov with BA rather than tv dv0gmndtnta with RS. dvOgammdtng is, however, occasionally found in Athanasius, e.g. c.4r.1.41. Earlier students of Athanasius based their estimate of his Christology on the two books against Apollinarius, now admitted to be
THE LETTERS
OF ST. ATHANASIUS
will they devise to chatter about? They have been convicted of ignorance as to 'The Lord created me for his works'.
They have been shown to have no understanding of: 'Of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels, neither the Son.' By saying, 'He created' he signifies his human nature, that he became man and was created. But by saying, 'I and the Father are one',' and, 'He that hath seen
9° (continued) spurious. See, for example, Pell, Lehre des hl. Athanasius, p.125. Harnack, H.D.
IV.147#., led the way in questioning whether Athanasius had any real apprehension of Christ's humanity, and he has been followed by Stuelcken,
Athanasiana, pp.90ff., and Hoss, Studien, pp.77ff., who suggest that for Athanasius the manhood is nothing more than a series of qualities and attributes, an abstract nature born by a person who is never really human. The criticism has been pressed even farther by Raven, Apollinarianism, pp.79ff. and 112ff. But, on the other hand, see Robertson, Intro.lxxvii, Prestige,
Fathers and Heretics, p.218, and R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies, pp-33ff. Athanasius was certainly no docetist, if docetism be interpreted to be what both its adherents and critics in the Early Church understood it to be. If we find it hard to discover the human Jesus in his presentation of Christ, it is because he is preoccupied with the doctrine of the Trinity and never comes to grips with the problem of human consciousness in Christ; partly, too, because his psychology is unreal to us, inasmuch as it was possible for him to talk of knowledge and ignorance and mind and will as though they were material or physical things.
6 from all its imperfections: By tov dv8gwnov, Athanasius undoubtedly refers to our Lord's humanity as one with and representative of human nature as a - whole. While he seems to assert the sinlessness of the actual humanity the ' Word took of the Virgin (de Inc.8), such an assertion is only incidental, for he has no real doctrine of original sin. The consequence of the Fall is to be found in the reassertion of the corruption and mortality of man's nature which is its natural state, not in the perversion of the will. cf. supra on 23(125).
Thus, de Dec.14 and c.Ar.II.6, in a discussion of the indefectibility of the incarnate Christ, the question of the sinlessness of His humanity does not arise. It is that the immutable Word remains immutable in His economy.
Likewise in ¢c.4r.I.42, he can speak of mankind as 'of one body with Him', and, 1bid.43, of the Word 'putting on the flesh which is enslaved to sin'. ef, Cyril of Alexandria (ad Swcc.1.233c): 'that human flesh subject to corruption and sick with the lust of pleasure He might make His own.' It is this fact, that Athanasius is under no necessity to distinguish the individual humanity of Christ from that of mankind as a whole, which lends colour to the statement of Hoss, Studien, p.77, that Athanasius understands by the Incarnation, not that the Word became a man, but merely that He assumed 'die allgemeine
Menschennatur'.
* I and the Father .
. .: John 1030, 149, 1410, On the conjunction of these three texts, see supra on 2(158f.).
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
me hath seen the Father', and, 'I am in the Father and the Father in me', he signifies his eternity and that he is one in essence with the Father. So likewise when he says, '. .
. knoweth no one . .
. neither the Son', once more he speaks as a man, for it belongs to men to be ignorant. But when he says,® 'No man knoweth the Father save the Son', nor the Son save the Father, by how much more does he know things originate! In the Gospel according to John the disciples said to the Lord: 'Now know we that thou knowest all things.' So it is clear that there is nothing of which he is ignorant, for he is the Word through whom all things came to be. But as 'all things' includes 'that day', it will come to be through him—though in their ignorance the Arians explode" ten thousand times over | III. 1.
Perhaps you will wonder why, when I was charged to abridge? and briefly to explain the letter I had written concerning the Holy Spirit, you find me, as though
I had laid aside my work on that subject, writing against those who are guilty of impiety toward the Son of God and who call him a creature. But you will not blame me, I know well, when you understand the cause, Indeed, when you see how reasonable it is, your Piety will welcome it. Our Lord himself said that the Paraclete 'shall not speak from himself,
_ but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak . for he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you'?; and, 'having breathed on them', he gave the Spirit to the 98 Mark 1332.
° when he says: Matthew 1127. cf. de Inc.et c.Ar.7: 'If He knows the Father, how is He ignorant of the last day? ..
. And if ages and times were originated through Him, then clearly the last day is included among ages and times, and He cannot be ignorant of it.'
10 John 1630, 11 explode: cf. Marcellus, apud Eusebius, Eee. Theol.11.10; de Dec.17, c.Ar.11.
23, 64, de Syn.34, 54, ad A delph.8. The expression survived, and is to be found in John of Damascus, de Fid.Orth.I11.1021c.
2 to abridge: The 'following sections are indeed an abridgement, rather than a summary, of £.I. No attempt,is made to reproduce the argument of 1-21. Six only of the points in 22-7 are repeated. The final paragraphs restate,
with some alteration in order, the substance of 28-31.
2 John 1613-14, 8 John 2022.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
disciples out of himself,' and in this way the Father poured him out 'upon all flesh', as it is written. It is natural, there- 'fore, that I should have spoken and written first concerning the Son, that from our knowledge of the Son*® we may be able to have true knowledge of the Spirit. For we shall find that the Spirit has to the Son the same proper relationship as we have known the Son to have to the Father. And as the Son says, 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine',' so we shall find that through the Son all these things are in the Spirit also. And as the Father attested the Son, saying,
'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased',® so the Spirit belongs to the Son; for the Apostle says: "God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts crying, Abba,
Father.' And, what is remarkable,}° as the Son said, "What is mine belongs to the Father'," so the Holy Spirit, which is said to belong to the Son, belongs to the Father. For the Son himself says: 'When the Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.'!2 And Paul writes: 'No man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him. Even so the things of God none knoweth save the Spirit of God which is in him. But we received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God, that we might see the things that are freely given to us by God.'!8 And throughout divine Scripture you will find that the Holy Spirit, who is said to belong to the Son, is
14 out of himself: as though the mission of the Spirit were itself a sort of procession. cf. supra on 20(117) and Intro.IV(41).
5 Joel 2a0.
° from our knowledge of the Son: The proposition, reiterated, in Ep.I, that what is held of the Spirit must be held of the Son, is here inverted to form a positive basis for the doctrine of the Spirit; and the argument of I.22-7 is slightly recast in conformity with this.
7 John 161.
8 Matthew 317.
® Galatians 4s.
10 what 1s remarkable: cf. to nagadoédtatov (de Inc.17). Eunomius, no less than Athanasius, emphasizes the close relation of the Spirit with the Son.
But whereas in his theology this only serves to separate the Spirit from the Father, Athanasius is careful to insist upon the fact that He is not less the Father's for being the Son's.
1 cf. John 1710.
12 John 15s.
18 1 Corinthians 211-12, pits :
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
L7k also said to belong to God. This I wrote in my previous letter.1¢ If therefore the Son, because of his proper relationship with the Father and because he is the proper offspring of his essence, is not a creature, but is one in essence with the Father: the Holy Spirit likewise, because of his proper relationship with the Son, through whom he is given to all men and whose is all that he has, cannot be a creature, and it is impious to call him so.
2. These considerations are sufficient to dissuade anyone, be he never so contentious, from continuing to call the Spirit of God a creature, who is in God and searches the deep things of God and who is given from the Father through the Son; lest from this he shall be forced to call the Son also a creature, who is Word,
Wisdom, Image, and Radiance, seeing whom we see the Father; and lest finally he should hear the words: 'Whosoever denieth the Son hath not the Father.) For such a man will soon be saying with the fool: "There is no God.'2
None the less, so that our reply to the impious may be more fully established, it will be well to make use of those considerations which show that the Son is not a creature, to show that the Spirit is not a creature. The creatures come from nothing ® and their existence has a beginning; for, 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth',* and what is in them. The Holy Spirit is, and is said to be, from God (so said the Apostle). But if the Son cannot be a creature because he does not come from nothing, but from God, then of necessity the Spirit is not a creature, for we have confessed that he comes from God. It is creatures that come from nothing.
3. Again, the Holy Spirit is called, and is, unction and seal. For John writes: 'And as for you, the unction which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any_ one should teach you, but as his unction, his Spirit teacheth
14 in my previous letter: i.e. Ep.1.20, 30, etc. But it is never brought out so fully as here. Indeed, it is possible that Athanasius intends to correct a false impression which the earlier work may have caused.
21 1 John 2s.
2 Psalm 141.
3 cf. supra 1.22.
4 Genesis 11.
31 from [.23. e
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
you concerning all things.'? In the prophet Isaiah it is written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me.' Paul writes: 'In whom having also believed, ye were sealed,' and again, 'Grieve not the Holy Spirit... in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption'.® The creatures are anointed and sealed in him. But if the creatures are anointed and sealed in him, the Spirit cannot be a creature. For that which anoints is not like to those which are anointed. Moreover, this unction is a breath of the Son, so that he who has the Spirit says: 'We are a sweet savour of Christ.' The seal gives the impress of the Son, so that he who is sealed has the form of Christ; as the Apostle says : 'My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you.' But if the Spirit is the sweet savour and form of the Son, it is clear that the Spirit cannot be a creature; for the Son also, "being in the form' of the Father, is not a creature.
Moreover, as he who has seen the Son ® sees the Father, so he who has the Holy Spirit has the Son, and, having him, is a temple of God. For Paul writes, 'Know ye not that ye are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ?'!®
John says: 'Hereby know we that we abide in God and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.'!! But if we have confessed that the Son is not a creature, because he is in the Father and the Father in him, then the Spirit likewise cannot possibly be a creature; for the Son is in him and he is in the Son. Wherefore, he who receives the Spirit is called a temple of God.
Furthermore, it will be well to look at it in the light of the following consideration. If the Son is the Word of God, he is one!" as the Father is one; for, "There is one God, of whom are all things .
. and one Lord Jesus Christ'.13 Hence both in our speech and in the Scriptures he is called 'only begotten Son'. But creatures are many and diverse: angels,
3? 1 John 227.
3 Tsaiah 611.
4 Ephesians 11s.
5 Ephesians 40.
6 2 Corinthians 215.
7 Galatians 419.
8 Philippians 2s.
® from 1.24, 1 } Corinthians 316, 11 1!John}ns.
12 from 1,27.
13 1 Corinthians 86,
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
archangels, cherubim, principalities, powers, and the rest, as we have said.!* But if the Son is not a creature because he does not belong to the many, but is one as the Father is one: then the Spirit likewise—for we must take our knowledge of the Spirit from the Son—cannot be a creature. For he» does not belong to the many but is himself one. 4. This the Apostle knows when he says: 'All these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally, even as he will'; and a little farther on: 'In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body . .
. and were all made to drink of one Spirit.'?
Once more, if we must take our knowledge of the Spirit from the Son, then with propriety we may put forward proofs which derive from him. The Son is everywhere'; for he is in the Father and the Father in him. He controls and contains all things; and it is written: 'In him all things consist, whether seen or unseen, and he is before all things."
But the creatures are in the places which have been assigned to them: sun, moon, and the other lights in the firmament, angels in heaven and men upon the earth. But if the Son is not a creature, because he is not in places assigned to him, but is in the Father, and because he is everywhere even while he is outside all things; it follows that the Spirit cannot be a creature, for he is not in places assigned to him, but fills all things® and yet is outside all things. Thus it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord hath filled the world.'* And David sings, 'Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?'," inasmuch as he is not in any place, but outside all things and in the Son, as the Son is in the Father. Therefore, as we have proved, he is not a creature.
Over and above these things, the following considerations will confirm the condemnation of the Arian heresy, and once more make plain from the Son what we know
314 as we have said: i.e. supra 11.4(157).
41 1 Corinthians 12u.
2 1 Corinthians 12:3, 3 cf. supra 1.26.
4 Colossians 116-17.
5 but fills all things: cf. de Dec.11.
Wisdom 17.
7 Psalm 1397.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
concerning the Spirit. The Son, like the Father, is creator®; for he says: 'What things I see the Father doing, these things I also do.'® 'All things', indeed, 'were made through him, and without him was not anything made.'!° But if the Son, being, like the Father, creator, is not a creature; and if, because all things were created through him, he does not belong to things created: then, clearly, neither is the Spirit a creature. For it is written concerning him in the one hundred and third Psalm: "Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall die and return to their dust. Thou shalt put forth thy
Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth."4 5. As it is thus written, it is clear that the Spirit is not a creature, but takes part in the act of creation.
The Father creates all things through the Word in the Spirit; for where the Word is, there is the Spirit also,t and the things which are created through the Word have their vital strength out of the Spirit from the Word. Thus it is written in the thirty-second Psalm: 'By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth is all their power."
| | So clearly is the Spirit indivisible from the Son that what is now to be said leaves no room for doubt. When the Word came? upon the prophet, it was in the Spirit that the prophet used to speak the things he received from the Word. Thus it is written in the Acts, when Peter says: 'Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spake before.' In Zechariah it is written, when
48 The Son... creator: See supra 1.24(127). But the point is made more forcibly and prominently here.
9 John 519.
10 John 1s.
11 Psalm 10429, 30.
51 where the Word ts, there is the Spirit also: See supra on 1.31(145) and Intro.
IV.36. The doctrine of 'Spiritus Creator' is thus acknowledged to be an extension of the more primitive notion of creation by the Logos-Sophia.
2 Psalm 336.
° When the Word came ... : Thissection, onthe operation of the Spirit in prophecy, is detached from its context on I.31(142ff.) and joined to the summary of 22-7(121ff.), so that it is made to introduce, rather than to illustrate, the exposition of 2 Corinthians 131s.
4 Acts lio.
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
the Word comes upon him: 'But receive my words and my statutes, which I charge in my Spirit to the prophets.'> And when, a little farther on, he vPaicad the people, he said:
"They made their hearts to be disobedient, lest they should hear my law and the words which the Lord of hosts has sent by his Spirit in the hands of the prophets of old.' And when
Christ spoke in Paul—as Paul himself said, 'Seeing that ye seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me''?—it was, none the less, the Spirit that he had bestowing upon him the power of speech. For he writes: 'according to the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ upon me.'* Again, when Christ spoke in him, he said: 'Save that the Holy Spirit testifieth unto me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.' The Spirit is not outside the Word, but, being in the Word, through him is in God. And so the spiritual gifts are given in the Triad. For, as he writes to the Corinthians, in their distribution there is the same Spirit and the same Lord and the same God, 'Who worketh all things in all'.1° For the Father himself through the Word in the Spirit works and gives all things.
6. Assuredly, when he prayed for the Corinthians, he prayed in the Triad, saying: 'The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.'* For inasmuch as we partake of the Spirit, we have the grace of the Word and, in the Word, the love of the Father. And as the grace of the Triad is one, so also the Triad is indivisible. We can see this in regard to Saint Mary herself. The archangel Gabriel,' when sent to 5® Zechariah 16.
6 Zechariah 712.
7 2 Corinthians 13s.
8 Philippians 119.
9 Acts 202s.
10 1 Corinthians 126.
61 in the Triad: cf. 'praying in the Holy Spirit', Jude 2. But the meaning here is to be understood from the statement made infra and in I.28(184), that the Church is rooted and grounded in the Triad. It is his confession of the Trinity that gives his prayer its character and significance and validity. cf. supra 1.30(141).
* 2 Corinthians 131s.
8 archangel Gabriel: cf. supra 1.31(145). But there the Word is said to be in the Spirit for the creation of the sacred humanity. Here the Spirit is in the Word for the descent of the Word to Mary. The alteration is natural in the light of the different angle from which the Incarnation is viewed. |
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
announce the coming of the Word upon her, said, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee', knowing that the Spirit was in the Word. Wherefore he straightway added: 'and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.'* For Christ is 'the Power of God and the Wisdom of God'. But if the Spirit was in the Word, then it must be clear that the Spirit through the Word was also in God. Likewise, when the Spirit comes to us, the Son will come and the Father, and they will make their abode in us. For the Triad is indivisible, and its Godhead is one; and there is one God, 'over all and through all and in all'.® This is the faith of the Catholic
Church. For the Lord grounded and rooted it in the Triad, when he said to his disciples: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'? Were the Spirit a creature, he would not have ranked him with the Father; lest, by reason of something strange and foreign being ranked therewith, the Triad should not be consistent. For what was lacking to God, that he should take to himself something foreign in essence and share his glory with it?
God forbid! It is not so! He himself said: 'I am full.'
Therefore the Lord ranked the Spirit with the name of the Father, to show that the Triad is not composed of diverse elements, I mean of creator and creature, but its Godhead is one. It was because he had learned this that Paul taught the oneness of the grace given in the Triad, saying: 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'.® As there is one baptism, so there is one faith. For he who believes in the Father, in the Father knows the Son; and it is not apart from the Son that he knows the Spirit. Therefore he believes also in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. For the Godhead of the Triad is one, as it is made known from one,}° even from the Father.
64 Luke 13s.
5 1 Corinthians les.
6 Ephesians 4s.
7 Matthew 2819.
® I am full: Isaiah 1u. cf. c.Ar.11.29 and Ep.Heort.xix.2. The exposition is from Irenaeus, Haer.[V.xvii.1, and Origen, in Foh.fr.9.
® Ephesians 45.
| 1 made known from one: The significance of é here is not altogether clear.
EPISTLE TWO—THREE
7. In these terms the Catholic faith is expressed. But as for those who speak evil of the Spirit and call him a creature, if what we have said does not make them repent, then may what we are about to say overwhelm them with shame. If there is a Triad, and if the faith is faith in a Triad, let them tell us whether it was always a Triad, or whether there was once when it was not a Triad. If the Triad is eternal, the Spirit is not a creature, for he coexists eternally with the Word and is in him. As for the creatures, there was a time when they were not. If he is a creature, and the creatures are from nothing, it is clear that there was once when the Triad was not a Triad but a dyad.1 What greater impiety can man utter? They are saying that the Triad owes its existence to alteration and progress?; that it was a dyad, and waited for the birth of a creature which should be ranked with the Father and the Son, and with them become the Triad. God forbid that such a notion should so much as enter the minds of Christian people! As the Son, because he always exists, is not a creature; so, because the Triad always exists, there is no creature in it. Therefore the Spirit is not a creature. As it always was, so it now is; as it now is, so it always was. It is the Triad, and therein Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And God is one, the Father, who is 'over all and through all and in all', who is 'blessed for ever. Amen'.!
I have written this in brief, as you directed, and am sending it. If anything is lacking therein, as a man of understanding, be kind enough to supply it. Read it 'to them that 61° (continued) It is possible that Athanasius means that the initiative in divine revelation is the Father's. cf. John 32s. Or else, that our knowledge of the Son and Spirit is a corollary of our knowledge of the Father, the idea of Fatherhood implying the rest. It is very unlikely that he is anticipating the suggestion of Gregory Nazianzen, Orat.xxxi.26, that revelation is progressive, starting from the Father and proceeding to the Son and thence to the Spirit. But inasmuch as the emphasis here rests upon the unity of God, it is best to connect this statement with those already noted, supra on I.16(100), which associate the unity with the uniqueness of the divine Fatherhood.
7 cf. 1.29(186f.), etc.
2 to alteration and progress: cf. supra on 1.2(68f.), etc.
8 Ephesians 46.
4 Romans 9s, $.A.—-12
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
are of the household of faith',> and refute those who love contention and evil speech. Perhaps, even by a late repentance, they may wash away ° from their souls the perversity which formerly was in them. It were well for them, as it is written, 'to turn aside and not to tarry"; lest, by delaying, they should hear that which was spoken by the Lord:
"Whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in the age to come.'®
7° Galatians 610.
« ® wash away: so also de Dec.2 and c.Ar.III.28.
7 'to turn aside and not to tarry': These words are taken from an addendum to Proverbs 913-18 (LXX) found in Codex Alexandrinus. The point of the quotation is fully appreciated when the context, a warning to those who consort with Folly, is taken into account. The Tropici had better not hang about the harlot's house any longer!
8 Matthew 12s. cf. supra 1.3(65) and 33(149).
EPISTLE FOUR
A LETTER FROM THE SAME TO THE
SAME SERAPION LIKEWISE CONCERNING
THE HOLY. SPIRIT:
1. | nave ReaD the letter which your Piety has now written; and the shamelessness of the heretics filled me with such amazement that I came to the conclusion nothing can so appropriately be said of them as what the Apostle enjoined ?:
'A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted and sins selfcondemned.' For, having a warped mind, he does not inquire that he may hear and be persuaded, or that he may learn and repent, but just because of those whom he has deceived; lest, keeping silent, he should be condemned by them also. What we have already said would have sufficed.
It would have sufficed ® had they, after receiving such proofs, desisted from their evil speech against the Holy Spirit. But 1! The preceding letter had taken no account of the argument of the Tropici stated in 1.15(95ff.), and the answer of Athanasius in the following sections. Accordingly Serapion, while reporting the persistence of the heresy, asks Athanasius to supply the defect and thus leads him to write yet a third time. This present letter, though it owes much to I.15-21(95ff.), is not a summary, but an independent work. Indeed, the treatment of the subject is fundamentally different. Whereas previously he has argued a priori, from the character of the divine Sonship, that the analogy of human relationships cannot be indefinitely extended to the Triad, here he retorts the dilemma upon its authors, and shows that, if it is real, the sense of Scripture will reduce the -Tropici to the same absurdity with which they tax him (2-3). The co-existence and co-operation of Son and Spirit is real, but it does not mean that their relationship to the Father is identical. The being of God is mystery, and revelation is not to be questioned but received (4-5). The analogy of human relationship is not to be pressed, or else we are inevitably led back to paganism (6).
2 the Apostle enjoined: Titus 310, See supra on 1.15(98).
8 It would have sufficed: Athanasius does not ask the Tropici, as a condition of their continuance in communion with him, to accept a formal statement of belief or even to retract their views about the Spirit. He is satisfied to let
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
they were not satisfied. Once more they indulge their shamelessness, to show that, having trained themselves to fight with the Word, they are now fighting with the Spirit,* and will soon be dead in unreason. For if we should answer their present questions, none the less will they be 'inventors of evil things'>; only that seeking they may not find, and hearing they may not understand. Their wise questions run like this.
If the Holy Spirit is not a creature, then, say they, he is a son, and the Word and he are two brothers. Then, as you write, they add, If the Spirit 'shall take of'* the Son and is given from him, (for so it is written)—they go on directly,
Then the Father is a grandfather and the Spirit is His grandson.
2. Who, when he hears these things, will still regard them as Christians, and not rather as pagans? For such things the pagans say against us in conversation among themselves.
Who will be willing to answer this folly of theirs? For my part, in my search for an appropriate answer to them, after much thought I find none except that which of old was given to the Pharisees For as the Saviour, when the Pharisees maliciously questioned him, questioned them in return, that they might perceive their evilmindedness; so likewise, when they ask such questions, let them tell us, nay rather, let them answer us, being questioned as they question. If, when they speak, they do not understand their inventions,? perhaps, when they listen, they may realize their folly. If the Holy
Spirit is not a creature, as has been shown in our previous writings, but is in God and is given from God: then he is a 18 (continued) the matter drop, provided they will keep quiet. See supra on I.17(105f.), and Intro.111(28).
"with the Word ... with the Spirit: cf. ps.Basil, adv.Eun.V.753a. For Aoyouayeiv cf. de Syn. 54, ad Epict.1, and taic tmaariean Basil, de Sp.8.16.
5 Romans Iso.
6 John 161.
2! to the Pharisees: It is clear from what follows that Athanasius is here referring to Mark 1127-33. But the question there did not come from the Pharisees.
* understand their inventions: i.e. that they are inventions. éyevgloxeu, etc., are commonly used of the fabrication of heresy, e.g. c.4r.1.3, 4, 8, 21, etc,
EPISTLE FOUR
son, and there are two brothers, he and the Word. And if the Spirit is of the Son, and the Spirit receives all things from the Son, as the Son himself said and inasmuch as it was he who gave him to the disciples by breathing upon them (for you too acknowledge these things): then the Father is a grandfather and the Spirit is his grandson. It is just that you should be questioned from the same Scriptures with the same questions to which you in your questioning ask answer from us.
If you deny those things which are written, then you can no longer be called Christians,? and it is just for us who are
Christians to be questioned by you. But if you read the same Scriptures as we read, then must you likewise be questioned about the same by us. Tell us, therefore, and do not hesitate, whether the Spirit is a son and the Father a grandfather. But if, as did the Pharisees of old, you too reason and say among yourselves, If we say that he is a son, we shall hear the question, Where is it written? If we say, he is not a son, we fear lest they say to us, How then is it written*: "We received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God'>? But if, when you debate these things among yourselves, you too say, We do not know: then must he of whom you ask these questions be silent also, in obedience to him who says: 'Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.'® Silence is the answer most appropriate to you, that you may realize your own ignorance.
3. Once again, in the following way also, it is just for you to be questioned from the questions you ask. If the pro28 no longer be called Christians: cf. de Dec.15: 'If then they deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and may fitly be called of all men atheists."
4 How then is it written: If the Tropici really believe that for the Spirit to be proper to God He must be God's Son, they will find themselves at once without Scriptural authority for so calling Him, and yet committed to it by the other expressions Scripture uses of Him. The argument is developed further in the following sections.
5 1 Corinthians 212.
® Proverbs 2645. cf. Gregory of Nyssa, c.Mac.1.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
phets speak in the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit prophesies in Isaiah,t as has been shown in our previous writings, then the Spirit is a word of God, and there are two
Words, the Spirit and the Son. For it was when the Word came upon them that the prophets used to prophesy.
Furthermore, in addition to these things, if all things were made through the Word and 'without him was not anything made',? and if 'the Lord by Wisdom founded the earth'' and 'in Wisdom"! made all things; and if it is written, as has been shown in our previous writings, "Thou shalt send forth thy Spirit and they shall be created'*—then either the Spirit is the Word, or God has made all things in two Persons,* both in Wisdom and in the Spirit. How then does Paul say:
'One God ... of whom are all things, and one Lord through whom are all things'? Again, if the Son is an 'image of the 31 in Isatah: Apparently he is thinking of Isaiah ae though he does not refer to it in this connexion in 1.31(142).
2 John Is.
8 Proverbs 319.
4 Psalm 1042s.
5 Psalm 10430. cf. supra 1. 24(124) and III.4(174).
8 two Persons: év dvot. Athanasius has, of course, no word for Person. In his early works (Exp.Fid., 2 and In illud, Omnia, 6) we find the expression tgei¢ dnootdoetc. But it is abandoned in the later writings, possibly in deference to the anathema of Nicaea, which takes dadotaots as equivalent to otafa, perhaps under the influence of Western-usage. cf. ad Ajr.4. tpiotavat, however, still continues to be a characteristic Athanasian term for expressing the true subsistence of the Persons in Godhead. See supra I.28(185). The use of tgeic dnoordoets is acknowledged as permissible (Tom. ad Ant.6). It is also to be found in the received text of de Inc.et c.Ar.10; but, apart from the question of authenticity, there may be reason to doubt the reading. (Felckmann rejected it.) See Robertson, Intro.xxxii. It is surely a mistake to conclude, from the inadequacy of his terminology, that the maintenance of the distinct Personality of the Son and Spirit was for Athanasius the great problem of theology. That distinction was datum for him no less than for the Origenists. If the interpretation of the duoovatoy suggested above, on II.3, be accepted, the Nicene
Council raised not that question, but, in a very pressing way, that of the unity of the three co-equal Persons. Nothing in these letters or in c.4r.I-III suggests that Athanasius felt that his orthodoxy could be impugned as to the true hypostasis of the Son or the Spirit. His very indiscretions (cf. supra on I.20.116) testify to the lightness of his conscience, If he here touches for a moment on the possibility of the identification of Son and Spirit, it is not because he believes his own doctrine to need defence against such an imputation, but simply as yet another absurdity to which his opponents may be reduced.
71 Corinthians 86.
EPISTLE FOUR
invisible Father',® and the Spirit is an image of the Son °—for it is written, 'Whom he foreknew he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son'!°—then, according to this, the Father is a grandfather. And if the Son came in the name of the Father, and the Son says, 'The Holy Spirit whom the Father shall send in my name'"—then thus also is the Father a grandfather. What have you to say to this, you who have a glib answer to everything ?!2 What are you reasoning among yourselves? Do you find fault with such questions, now that you see yourselves at a loss? First blame yourselves, for you were used to ask them, and harken to the Scriptures, and, if you are at a loss for words, become learners at last. In the Scriptures the Spirit is not called son but Holy Spirit and Spirit of God. As the Spirit is not called son, so neither is it written of the Son that he is the Holy
Spirit. If then the Spirit is not called son, nor is it written that the Son is the Spirit,1* is the faith in contradiction to the truth? God forbid! It is rather that each of the abovementioned terms1* has its proper meaning. The Son is an offspring proper to the essence and nature of the Father; that is the sense the term bears. The Spirit, who is said to be of God and is in God, is not alien to the nature of the Son™ nor to the Godhead of the Father. Therefore there is in the 38 Colossians 11s.
9 image of the Son: cf. supra on 1.20(115) and 24(127).
10 Romans 829.
11 John 1428.
12 q glib answer: cf. supra on 1.18(106).
18 that the Son is the Spirit: Translating with Montfaucon, as though Athanasius had written 060' étt 6 Yidc gots td Ivedua. All MSS. read Yidc without the article, which makes the clause simply repeat what precedes. The whole sentence is obviously determined by the previous and requires a reference to the Son here.
14 the above-mentioned terms: for this use of onuarvdpuevoc, see the examples in V.G.T. you here, in the sense of 'meaning', is unusual. But see Plato
(Theaetetus 206b); and cf. Didymus (de Trin.11.460c): ion» éyew éntyywow.
15 not alien to the nature of the Son: Nothing in these letters shows more clearly than this how unstudied are the references in Athanasius to the procession of the Spirit. Here he is in urgent need of a term which shall distinguish the relation of the Spirit to the Father, as yévvqua in the previous sentence distinguishes that of the Son. Yet neither here nor elsewhere in this letter does he employ éxmogeveo@at.
184/
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
Triad—in Father and in Son and in the Holy Spirit himself —one Godhead, and in the same Triad there is one baptism and one faith. Thus when the Father sends the Spirit, it is the Son who, by breathing upon them, gives him to the disciples.
For 'all things whatsoever the Father hath'!* belong to the Son. When the Word came to the prophets, they used to prophesy by the Spirit, as it is written and we have shown.
And: 'By the Word?' of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth is all their power.'
4, Thus the Spirit is not a creature but proper to the essence of the Word and proper to God in whom he is said to be. Once more, we must not shrink from repeating ourselves. Though the Holy Spirit is not called son, yet he is not outside the Son. For he is called 'Spirit of sonship'!; and as Christ is 'the Power of God and the Wisdom of God',? it is fitly said of the Spirit that he is 'Spirit of Wisdom'? and 'Spirit of Power'. When we partake of the Spirit we have the Son; and when we have the Son, we have the Spirit, as Paul said, crying in our hearts: 'Abba Father !'> But seeing that the Spirit is of God and is said by Scripture to be in him
('The things of God none knoweth save the Spirit of God which is in him'*) and that the Son has said, 'I am in the Father and the Father in me'"7—why have not these two the same name, but the one is Son and the other Spirit? If anyone asks such a question,® he must be mad. For he is search- { 316 John 1615.
7" And: 'By the Word ...': The true reading, found in all MSS., is rendered here. By omitting xa/, Montfaucon suggests that Psalm 33 exemplifies what precedes. Actually, Athanasius gives three proofs of the unity of Godhead: the Spirit is sent both by Father and Son; the Son and Spirit work as one in the inspiration of prophecy and, again, in creation. It should be noticed once more that it is the Spirit's work in creation rather than in sanctification that is urged here.
41 Romans 815.
2 1 Corinthians les.
3 Tsaiah 112.
4 Wisdom 523 and 1120.
5 Galatians 46.
6 1 Corinthians 211.
7 John 1410.
® such a question: Athanasius here argues for the terms 'Son' and 'Spirit? what later writers, notably Didymus (de Trin.I1.447, etc.), argue for yévynots and éxndoevoic. The difference of term attests a real difference, even though it is impossible to define it.
EPISTLE FOUR
ing the unsearchable and disobeying the Apostle when he says: 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?'® Moreover, who shall dare to rename what God has named? Otherwise, let him bestow names on the things of creation! Let them tell us, since creation came into being by one and the same fiat, why one thing is sun, another heaven, earth, sea, air. But if the fools find this impossible—for each thing remains as it was originated—much more have the things above the creation an eternal stability.1° And it is not otherwise than that the Father is Father and not grandfather, and the Son is Son of God and not father of the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit Holy
Spirit and not grandson of the Father or brother of the Son.
5. These things being thus proved, he must be mad who asks, Is the Spirit also a son? But neither let any man, because this is not written, separate him from the nature of God and from that which is proper to God.! As it is written, let him believe and not say, Why thus and not thus? Lest from reasoning about these things he take counsel and say,
Where then is God? And lest finally he hear the words:
'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The traditions of the faith are not to be known by impertinent scrutiny.2 When the disciples heard the words, "Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', they did not ask impertinently, why the Son comes second and the Spirit third, or why the whole is a .
49 Romans 11s.
10 gn eternal stability: To Athanasius the notion of a Father-Grandfather, etc., involves the loss of immutability, as well as of simplicity, in God. Such a combination of relationships cannot be conceived out of the realm of temporality and contingency, The Father cannot be both father and grandfather, but only now father and now grandfather.
51 that which is proper to God: For iduétns here cf. ¢.Ar.1.6, IIL.5, 6, etc., Basil, Ep.xxxviii.5 and 111.3.
2 Psalm 141.
3 by impertinent scrutiny: So dnegiégyaotoy here, not 'inscrutable' but 'apart from idle curiosity', retaining the usual, unfavourable, sense of neguegydteobat, as in Basil (Hexaem.I1.5): tod oxdrouc tiv Evvoray anddc xai dnegupydotws ..
. éxdeEdueba.
4 Matthew 2810.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
Triad. But as they heard, so they believed. They did not ask, as do you, Is the Spirit then a son? Nor, when the Lord spoke of the Spirit after the Son, did they ask, Is the Father then a grandfather? For they did not hear ® 'into the name of the grandfather', but 'into the name of the Father'. They came to sound conclusions and preached this faith everywhere. For it was not to be put otherwise than as the Saviour put it, that he himself is the Son, and that the other is the Holy Spirit. Nor was it right to change the order in which they have been ranked together. This holds good of the Father also. As it is not lawful to speak of him in any other way than as Father, so it is impious to ask whether the Son is the Spirit or the Spirit a son. For this cause Sabellius*® was judged a stranger to the Church, because he dared to apply to the Father the title, Son, and to the Son the name of the Father. After this, will anyone still dare to say, when he hears the words son and spirit, Is the Father then a grandfather? Or, Is the Spirit then a son? Yes, they will dare, the Eunomii and the Eudoxii and the Eusebii !? When once they affect the Arian heresy, they will not keep their tongues from impiety. Who delivered these things to them?
Who was their teacher? Certainly no one taught them out of the divine Scriptures. It was out of the abundance of their hearts this folly came.
¥ 55 they did not hear ...: cf. supra on 1.15(99).
6 Sabellius: Athanasius is quick to make capital out of the resemblance between the Son who becomes the Spirit's father and the Father who becomes a son in His self-manifestation, the viondtwe of Sabellius. It is a bold debating point, for the two heresies were justly considered to be at opposite poles. cf. Basil, de $p.8.59.
7 the Eunomit and the Eudoxti and the Eusebii: No doubt, these three names are chosen for the sake of the alliteration. But Eudoxius, whom Athanasius regarded as the leader of the 'political' Arians, together with Acacius and Patrophilus (see de Syn.1, 38, etc.), was at this time the patron of Eunomius, the principal representative of the new 'ideological' Arianism. The reference to the Eusebii is suggested by Acacius, the disciple and successor of Eusebius of Caesarea. But it also expresses Athanasius's conviction that the new
Arianism and the old are continuous. In Homoeans and Anomoeans he sees his old foes the Eusebii of Nicomedia and Caesarea still alive. For his animosity toward the latter, cf. de Syn.13.
EPISTLE FOUR
6. For if you ask, Is the Spirit then a son?, since, by our showing, he is not a creature—so must you ask, Is the Son then a father ?, for you have learned that he is not a creature inasmuch as through him things originate were created.
Or it may run thus: Is the Spirit then the Son and the Son himself the Holy Spirit?, But if this be their opinion, they will be cut off from the holy Triad? and will be judged to be godless,* inasmuch as they change the names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, transposing them at will on the analogy of human generation, calling them grandchildren and grandfathers, and remaking for themselves the genealogies of the gods of the pagans. This is not the faith of the Church; but, " as the Saviour said, it is into Father, Son and Holy Spirit—
Father who cannot be called grandfather, Son who cannot be called father, and. Holy Spirit who is named by no other name' than this. Of this faith it is not permissible to interchange the terms. The Father is always Father, and the Son always Son, and the Holy Spirit is and is called always
Holy Spirit. In human relations® it is not so, despite the Arians' delusions.' As it is written, 'God is not as man',® so we might say, Men are not as God. For in the case of men the father is not always a father nor the son always a son.
The same man becomes father of a son, who was himself another's son; and the son, being his father's son, becomes another's father. Abraham, for example, being son of Nahor, became father of Isaac; and Isaac, being son of Abraham,
6 inasmuch as through Him ...: cf. supra 1.24(127) and III.4(174), and see Newman's note on ¢.4r.II.21.
2 cut off from the Holy Triad: cf. de Dec.2 init., tév te véuwy xai THC... énayyehiac éw yeydvaot.
8 godless: See supra on 1.30(140). Here again it obviously means no more than pagan.
4 by no other name: cf. Basil (de Sp.S.22): [veda aytov 7) xvgia adtod nai idudlovoa xAjotc.
5 to interchange the terms: cf. yey (Ep.ccli.4): idiavy toic dvduacr tag énwoeiy (and also lii.4).
6 In human relations: See supra 1.16(101f.) and the notes there.
? the Arians' delusions: i.e. that human and divine relationships are strictly analogous; and not the converse, as the form of the sentence seems to suggest.
8 Numbers 2319.
THE LETTERS OF ST. ATHANASIUS
became father of Jacob. Each, being a part of his sire, is begotten a son, and becomes himself another's father. But with the Godhead it is not so; for, 'God is not as man'. Thus the Father is not from a father; wherefore he begets not one who should become another's father. Nor is the Son a part of the Father; wherefore he is not a thing begotten to beget a son.®
Hence in the Godhead alone the Father is and was and always is, because he is Father in the strict sense, and Only
Father. The Son is Son in the strict sense, and Only Son.
And of them it holds good that the Father is and is called always Father, and the Son, Son; and the Holy Spirit is always Holy Spirit, whom we have believed to be of God and to be given from the Father through the Son. Thus the holy
Triad remains incapable of alteration, and is known in one Godhead. Wherefore he who asks, Is the Spirit then a son?, as though the name could be altered, is deluded and infects himself with madness. And he who asks, Is the Father then a grandfather?, by inventing a new name for the Father, errs in his heart. It is not safe to make any further answer to the effrontery of the heretics, for that is to oppose the Apostle's injunction.' It is good rather to give the counsel he commanded.
7. These things are sufficient to refute your foolish speech. Mock no more at the Godhead. For it is the part of those who mock to ask the questions which are not written and to say, So the Spirit is a son and the Father a grandfather? So scofts he of Caesarea and he of Scythopolis.! It is
6° a thing begotten to beget a son: 'The phrase must be taken together as a whole. Athanasius has no objection to yévynua in itself. cf. supra on 1.20(116).
10 injunction: i.e. Titus 310, as above in 1. This constitutes a definite instruction to Serapion to break off relations with all who continued to speak of xdxnog and éxyovoc. The only alternatives for such people are silence or excommunication.
7) he of Caesarea and he of Scythopolis: Acacius and Patrophilus. The latter was prevented by ill health from taking an active part in the proceedings at Seleucia in the autumn of 359. But a formal record of the Dated Creed, as amended and promulgated at Constantinople in the following year, was sent to him. See Socrates (H.#.II.39 and 43). This creed follows the line of that which Acacius presented at Seleucia in emphasizing the mission of the Spirit in antithesis to the generation of the Son. The implications of this may well
EPISTLE FOUR
sufficient * for you to believe that the Spirit is not a creature, but is Spirit of God; and that in God there is a Triad, Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. There is no need to use the name Father of the Son; nor is it lawful to say that the Spirit is the Son, nor that the Son is the Holy Spirit. But as we have said, so it is. The Godhead which is in this Triad is one; and there is one faith and one baptism given therein. And one is the initiation in Jesus Christ our Lord: through whom and with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit® be glory and power to all ages of ages. Amen.
71 (continued) have been defended by the xdamoc argument at the time when this letter was written. It is unlikely that Patrophilus survived these events by any long time.
His remains were violated by a pagan mob during the reign of Julian. Theophanes in his Chronographia (Migne, Pat.Gr.108.156) and the Chronicon
Alexandrinum (ibid.92.740) suggest that the outrage took place shortly after that emperor's accession in November 361. Epiphanius, indeed, seems to suggest (Haer.lxxiii.24) that his successor, Philip, was actually appointed at Seleucia!
9 [t 15 sufficient .. .: Takes up again, at the end of the letter, the statement in I.1. There is no question of imposing a theology upon the Tropici. They are only asked to desist from repeating their offensive opinions.
8 with the Holy Spirit: obv dyim Hveduat. This accords with Athanasius's assertion (ad Fov.4 fin.): '.. . rather glorified Him together with the Father and the Son.' But elsewhere there is only one certain instance of Athanasius using odv dylw IIvedpate in a doxology (ad Amun.fin.). In de Dec.32 we find dua, and one preposition or the other must have been used in Ep.Heort.xix (for 347, the last complete letter we possess). In. Quic.dix.16 the text is corrupt—RSP read ody and L &ya, but the original reading of BA is irrecoverable, and may well have been éy. On the other hand, we find é éyi@ Ivetpare in de Inc.57, ad Episc.23, de Fug.27, and in Ep.Heort.i, ii, iii, vii. The alternative forms of the doxology were, of course, the immediate cause of the writing of the de Sp.S. of Basil. cf. ibid.3 and 58-68.