Chapter 11: The Final Years
11
The Final Years
World events marched on as the great Athanasius worked in seclusion in the Egyptian desert. Sozomen, the gossipy Christian historian, reported that the bishop lived in seclusion in the home of a holy virgin in the city of Alexandria, though the duration of seven years Sozomen mentioned is unprovable. However, there is an indication that the bishop may have visited the city and hidden himself there from time to time during his exile.579 But once again world politics intervened in Athanasius’s life and ecclesiastical fortunes.
“Julian the Philosopher” was a cousin of Constantius and Caeasar in the West. He was extremely successful in his military campaigns in Europe and was immensely popular with his Gallic troops. After a significant military victory he was proclaimed “Emperor” by his troops, in Thrace, and began to march on Constantinople to claim the capital and throne as his prize. Constantius, who was living in Antioch at this time, had taken ill. He was so ill that he had himself baptized by the Arian bishop of Antioch, Euzoius, and then immediately prepared to undertake a military expedition against Julius. But he died en route, on November 3, 361, having reigned for thirty-eight years, twenty-five of which he was sole emperor of the entire Roman world.580 He begrudgingly left the throne to his uncle Julian.
Julian had been raised as a Christian but was seduced into paganism through his extensive studies in classical Greco-Roman literature and philosophy. And though he had also studied the sacred texts of the Christians, he considered himself a philosopher more than a Christian. Julian had passed himself off as a practicing Christian when that was advantageous to him. He eventually showed his true colors, however, and he began persecuting Christians and favoring the traditional religions of Rome. This practice earned Julian the distasteful epithet of “the Apostate” from the Christian historians, since apostasy describes the process of willfully renouncing one’s Christian faith.
Upon becoming sole emperor, Julian initially pursued a policy of toleration toward both Christians and non-Christians in the empire. This encouraged both Christians and pagans, in Alexandria, to struggle for control of the city. George the Cappadocian, who had been appointed bishop of the city following the exile of Athanasius, attempted to lead the Christians in transforming a site that had been dedicated to Mithra—a location of human sacrifice—into a sacred site for Christian worship and for the construction of a new church. When the Christians discovered human remains in their excavation of the site, they marched through the streets of the city, displaying human skulls to shame and embarrass the pagans with the atrocities and abominations of the Mithraeum. The non-Christians of the city responded with much violence and attacked the Christians with whatever weapon came to hand: “Some they killed with the sword, others with clubs and stones; some they strangled with ropes, others they crucified, purposely inflicting this last kind of death in contempt of the cross of Christ.”581 Neither friends nor relatives, nor women and children, were spared by the wrath of the mob and the shedding of blood. Hence, the Christians stopped trying to cleanse the site of Mithrite worship, and “the pagans meanwhile having dragged George out of the church, fastened him to a camel, and when they had torn him to pieces, they burnt him together with the camel.”582 Julian remonstrated the people of Alexandria through an imperial letter telling them to behave better than this, as their heritage as Greeks would befit them, but he did not otherwise intervene in those events.
With the rise of Emperor Julian and the violent passing of Bishop George, Athanasius returned to the city of Alexandria and took possession of the episcopal see. As Socrates reported, “Athanasius returning from his exile, was received with great joy by the people of Alexandria. They expelled at that time the Arians from the churches, and restored Athanasius to possession of them. The Arians meanwhile assembling themselves in low and obscure buildings, ordained Lucius to supply the place of George. Such was the state of things at that time at Alexandria.”583
Soon after his return to Alexandria, Athanasius called a synod, with the cooperation of the Western bishop known as Eusebius (a third person named Eusebius!). Bishops assembled from various cities to consider matters that were of “the utmost importance.” Socrates summarized their work in this way: “They asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit and comprehended him in the consubstantial Trinity; they also declared that the Word in being made man, assumed not only flesh, but also a soul, in accordance with the views of the early ecclesiastics. For they did not introduce any new doctrine of their own devising into the church, but contented themselves with recording their sanction of those points which ecclesiastical tradition has insisted on from the beginning, and wise Christians have demonstratively taught.”584 This synod also directed an epistle to the church at Antioch that urged them to remain faithful to the Nicene faith and to overcome the divisions by which that church was riven. Bishops Eusebius and Asterius were sent bearing the synodical letter to Antioch “for many reasons, but chiefly that we might embrace your affection and together enjoy the said peace and concord.”585
The letter detailed orthodox teaching in the face of the current heresies, particularly with respect to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that had been perpetuated by the Meletians (3), and “to anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a Creature and separate from the Essence of Christ. For this is in truth a complete renunciation of the abominable heresy of Arius, to refuse to divide the Holy Trinity, or to say that any part of it is a creature.”586 This same letter expressed joy (4) at the prospect of theological reunion among those who embraced the theology of “the Old church” and who did not teach anything else than “the Nicene definition.”587 The creed of the Council of Serdica was attacked (5) as being unauthorized and deficient, since it left room for the beliefs of “the Arian madmen.” And once again, the Nicene Creed was upheld as the only suitable and authorized definition of the relationship of the three persons of the holy Trinity.588 The question of whether there is one “substance” (hypostasis) or three was viewed as a divine mystery that need not be pressed so long as one affirms that there is one God, Who has one nature, and Who takes expression in three consubstantial persons, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (6). The full and true humanity of Jesus Christ was affirmed (7) in terms that paraphrased the Scriptures: “And being Son of God in truth, He became also Son of Man, and being God’s Only-begotten Son, He became also at the same time ‘firstborn among many brethren’ [Rom 8:29].”589
Once these fundamental Christian truths are affirmed, questions of particular terminology must not be allowed to divide those Christians who think alike in orthodox doctrine (8). So saying, the letter, sent under the leadership of Athanasius, urged that the disputes among them should not amount to a discussion about mere words or pet phrases but should in fact be focused upon the unity that is to be found in apostolic, orthodox doctrine. The epistle mused, “Perhaps God will have pity on us, and unite what is divided, and, there being once more one flock, we shall all have one leader, even our Lord Jesus Christ.”590 These things were universally agreed upon by the synod, and the letter closed by once again holding up the Nicene Creed as a rallying point and a foundation upon which to build Christian unity. The epistle declared, “These things, albeit there was no need to require anything beyond the synod of Nicaea, nor to tolerate the language of contention, yet for the sake of peace, and to prevent the rejection of men who wish to believe aright, we enquired into.”591 These questions, therefore, have been adequately answered in the Creed, and insofar as Christians can embrace the doctrine of the Nicene Creed, they should also be able to embrace each other, regardless of the terms and phrases they might use to explain it. The letter was received and signed by Paulinus, the bishop, and by other representatives of the church of Antioch, and returned to Alexandria along with a highly orthodox statement of faith attached. Not only did that statement affirm the full deity and consubstantial nature of all three persons of the Trinity, it also anathematized those who affirmed otherwise.592
Meanwhile, Julian had begun earning his nickname, “the Apostate,” by bringing persecution upon the Christians. He had come to the conclusion that his previous policy of toleration had not had its desired effects, namely, the weakening of Christianity (through division) and the return to the traditional Greco-Roman religions. Not only did he single out individual Christians for persecution, he passed laws that dealt unfairly with Christians. This was done through taxation of church property and through various prohibitions—such as forbidding Christians to embark upon literary pursuits.593 Socrates described how Julian carried out this process, partly by interdicts, partly by flattery, and partly by outright oppression:
He moreover interdicted such as would not abjure Christianity, and offer sacrifice to idols, from holding office at court: nor would he allow Christians to be governors of provinces; “for,” said he, “their law forbids them to use the sword against offenders worthy of capital punishment.” He also induced many to sacrifice, partly by flatteries, and partly by gifts. Immediately, as if tried in a furnace, it at once became evident to all, who were the real Christians, and who were merely nominal ones. Such as were Christians in integrity of heart, very readily resigned their commission, choosing to endure anything rather than deny Christ. Of this number were Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, each of whom afterwards became emperor.594
The non-Christians, being now free to practice their impious rites, including even human sacrifice, returned to them in vast numbers. Socrates reported that “these infamous rites were practiced in other cities, but more particularly at Athens and Alexandria; in which latter place, a calumnious accusation was made against Athanasius the bishop, the emperor being assured that he was intent on desolating not that city only, but all Egypt, and that nothing but his expulsion out of the country could save it. The governor of Alexandria was therefore instructed by imperial edict to apprehend him.”595 Sozomen reported the same event, in greater detail:
The emperor, on being informed that Athanasius held meetings in the church of Alexandria, and taught the people boldly, and converted many pagans to Christianity, commanded him, under the severest penalties, to depart from Alexandria. The pretext made use of for enforcing this edict, was that Athanasius, after having been banished by Constantius, had resumed his episcopal see without the sanction of the reigning emperor [Julian]; for Julian declared that he had never contemplated restoring the bishops who had been exiled by Constantius to their ecclesiastical functions, but only to their native land.596
Hence, eight months after returning from his exile in the desert, Athanasius began his fourth exile; once again he retired to the Egyptian desert. During this period of exile, the tenor of the Eastern Church began to change, and Athanasius’s efforts on behalf of Christian orthodoxy began to change with it. As Barnes pointed out, “Between 356 and 362 the exiled bishop was transformed from a proud prelate with a dubious reputation into an elder statesman renowned for his heroic defense of Nicene orthodoxy.”597
Emperor Julian’s reign was nearly as brief as was Athanasius’s return to Alexandria. In summer of the year following the bishop’s exile, on June 26, 363, Julian died of wounds he received in battle during his unsuccessful military campaign against Persia. Timothy Barnes pointed out, “Julian’s death in Persia soon provided [Athanasius] with yet another proof that God intervened actively in human affairs to protect both the true faith and Athanasius himself.”598 In a quandary, the army declared Jovian to be the next Roman emperor, and he immediately sued for peace with the Persians, which was achieved on the basis of humiliating terms. An orthodox Christian, Jovian established Christianity as the state religion of the empire and recalled the influential Christian bishops who had been exiled by his predecessor. Athanasius was among those bishops who received a letter of recall from Emperor Jovian, and the text of that letter is carried in Athanasius’s collected works:
Admiring exceedingly the achievements of your most honorable life, and of your likeness to the God of all, and your affection toward our Savior Christ, we accept you, most honored bishop. And inasmuch as you have not flinched from all labor, nor from the fear of your persecutors, and, regarding dangers and threats of the sword as dung, holding the rudder of the orthodox faith which is dear to you, are contending even until now for the truth, and continue to exhibit yourself as a pattern to all the people of the faithful, and an example of virtue:—our imperial Majesty recalls you, and desires that you should return to the office of the teaching of salvation. Return then to the holy Churches, and tend the people of God, and send up to God with zeal your prayers for our clemency. For we know that by your supplication we, and all who hold with us [the Christian faith], shall have great assistance from the Supreme God.599
Athanasius responded to Jovian’s epistle with gratitude and with celebration. He was particularly glad that, unlike his predecessor, the new emperor desired “to learn from us the faith of the Catholic Church, giving thanks for these things to the Lord, we counselled above all things to remind your Piety of the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea. For this certain [people] set at nought, while plotting against us in many ways, because we would not comply with the Arian heresy, and they have become authors of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church.”600
Athanasius’s epistle to Jovian gave a brief recounting of the roots and teaching of Arianism and urged Jovian to stand against it as well as the new heresy that taught that the Holy Spirit was also merely a creature: “since now certain [people] who wish to renew the Arian heresy have presumed to set at nought the faith confessed at Nicaea by the Fathers, and while pretending to confess it, do in fact deny it, explaining away the ‘Coessential’ [homoousia], and blaspheming of their own accord against the Holy Spirit, in affirming that It is a creature, and came into being as a thing made by the Son, we hasten as of bounden duty, in view of the injury resulting to the people from such blasphemy, to hand to your Piety the faith confessed at Nicaea . . .”601 Thus, the Nicene Creed, which was enclosed in this epistle, was to be esteemed as a foundation for orthodox Christian unity, as well as a bulwark against heresy (both old and new).
The letter closed by reiterating the absolute necessity, demonstrated by the Fathers of Nicaea, that the church affirm the “coessential” nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “For they have not merely said that the Son is like the Father, lest He should be believed merely [to be] like God, instead of Very God from God; but they wrote ‘Coessential,’ which was peculiar to a genuine and true Son, truly and naturally from the Father. Nor yet did they make the Holy Spirit alien from the Father and the Son, but rather glorified Him together with the Father and the Son, in the one faith of the Holy Triad, because there is in the Holy Triad also one Godhead.”602
Jovian recalled all of the Christian bishops who had been exiled by Julian for religious reasons. He decreed that the pagan temples be shut up, and the philosophers who had been granted special privileges under Julian had them taken away. Some of the Christian bishops tried to extract a new creed from Jovian, but he refused to promulgate a new creed; being a proponent of the “consubstantial” theology of the Nicene Creed, he pointed these bishops to it as the basis of orthodoxy and Christian unity. It was also at this time that the churches of Macedonia and Acacia met together in synods and declared their assent to the homoousian theology of the Nicene Creed.603
In the immediate context of Athanasius’s letter and its sentiments, several Alexandrian Arians (principally Lucius and Bernicianus) made petitions to the new emperor, against Athanasius. The first of these was: “May it please your Might and your Majesty, give us a Bishop.” The emperor replied by saying, “I ordered the former one, whom you had before, Athanasius, to occupy the See.” The Arians retorted, “May it please your Might: he has been many years both in banishment, and under accusation.” A solider who was standing nearby interjected, “May it please your Majesty, enquire of them who they are and where from, for these are the leavings and refuse of Cappadocia, the remains of that unholy George who desolated the city and the world.” Upon hearing this, Jovian spurred on his horse and began to ride away from the petitioners.604
But a second petition came quickly after the first: “We have accusations and clear proofs against Athanasius, in that ten and twenty years ago he was deprived by the ever memorable Constantine and Constantius, and incurred banishment under the most religious and philosophical and blessed Julian.” Emperor Jovian replied, “Accusations ten, twenty, and thirty years old are now obsolete. Don’t speak to me about Athanasius, for I know why he was accused, and how he was banished.”605
The Arians urged, a third time, “May it please you, any one you will except Athanasius.” The emperor replied, “I told you that the case of Athanasius was already settled . . . I took pains, and ascertained that he holds right opinions and is orthodox, and teaches aright.” The Arians replied, “With his mouth he utters what is right but in his soul he harbors guile.” The Emperor retorted, “That will do, you have testified of him, that he utters what is right and teaches aright, but if he teaches and speaks aright with his tongue, but harbors evil thoughts in his soul, it concerns him before God. For we are men, and hear what is said; but what is in the heart God knows.” Upon being charged with the same duplicity they would cast upon Athanasius, the Arians requested, “Authorize our holding communion together.” To that the emperor replied, “Why, who prevents you?” The Arians replied, “May it please you, he proclaims us as sectarians and dogmatizers.” To this Jovian retorted, “It is his duty and that of those who teach aright.” Exasperated, the Arians pleaded, “May it please your Might; we cannot bear this man, and he has taken away the lands of the Churches.” The emperor then concluded, “Oh, then it is on account of property you are come here, and not on account of the faith . . . Go away to the Church. Tomorrow you have a Communion, and after the dismissal, there are Bishops here . . . [and] Athanasius is here too; whoever does not know the word of faith, let him learn from Athanasius.”606
Two lawyers among the Arians made charges against Athanasius as well; one claimed that the bishop had authorized the Receiver-General to seize his place of residence. To the one, Jovian responded curtly, “What has that to do with Athanasius?” To the other man, “What have you to do with Christians, being a heathen?” When the emperor learned that Lucius himself wanted to become bishop of Alexandria, he concluded the interview with a benediction of sorts: “May the God of the world, and the radiant sun, and moon, be angry with those men that made the voyage with you, for not casting you into the sea; and may that ship never again have fair winds, nor find a haven with her passengers when in a storm.” After that, it is said, Jovian had those eunuchs punished who had granted the Arians access to him, and said, “If anyone wants to make a petition against Christians let this be his fate.”607
Rufinus, the Christian historian, summarized the reign of Jovian succinctly: “He did not act heedlessly like Constantius; warned by his predecessor’s fall, he summoned Athanasius with a respectful and most dutiful letter. He received from him a creed and a plan for ordering the churches. But an early death ruined these so religious and happy beginnings; eight months after his accession, he died in Cilicia.”608 The means of Jovian’s sudden death is debated; it is sometimes said to have come from eating poison mushrooms, while others suggest that he died in his sleep from the carbon monoxide fumes of his charcoal fire.609 Be that as it may, Jovian’s sudden death brought Athanasius’s stay in Alexandria to an equally sudden end.
Upon the death of Jovian, the army declared Valentinian emperor in 364, and the new emperor named his brother Valens to be his colleague in ruling the world. Valentinian ruled the West, whereas Valens oversaw the East, from his dominion in Constantinople. As Socrates reported, “They both professed Christianity, but did not hold the same Christian creed; for Valentinian respected the Nicene Creed; but Valens was prepossessed in favor of the Arian opinions.”610 While both men were zealous for their own theological position and religious party, they conducted themselves and their public religious policy differently. “Valentinian, while he favored those who agreed with him in sentiment, offered no violence to the Arians; but Valens in his anxiety to promote the Arian cause, grievously disturbed those who differed from them . . .”611 After consolidating his rule in the East by defeating the “usurper” Procopius of Constantinople, Valens began to suppress orthodox Christianity in the East and instituted Arianism wherever he could. His vengeance against the recent synods of Antioch and Macedonia (which had affirmed the Nicene Creed) and its framers was particularly acute. The Christian historian Rufinus reported that “during this time the church shone with a purer light than gold in the fire of persecution. For the faith of each was tried not in words but in exiles and imprisonments, since being Catholic was not a matter of honor but of punishment, especially in Alexandria, where the faithful were not even free to bury the bodies of the dead.”612 As orthodox bishops were being arrested, exiled, and banished throughout the East, Athanasius spent four months hiding in an ancestral tomb. Once again Athanasius escaped the clutches of his political and ecclesiastical enemies by what seemed to be an imposition of divine providence. Sozomen explained,
The governor of Egypt and the military chief took possession of the church in which Athanasius generally dwelt, and sought him in every part of the edifice, and even on the roof, but in vain; for they had calculated upon seizing the moment when the popular commotion had partially subsided, and when the whole city was wrapped in sleep, to execute the mandate of the emperor, and to transport Athanasius from the city.
Not to have found Athanasius naturally excited universal astonishment. Some attributed his escape to a special revelation from above; others to the advice of some of his followers; both had the same result; but more than human prudence seems to have been requisite to foresee and to avoid such a plot.613
The people of the city had so much affection for their bishop and were so perplexed by his absence that they petitioned the emperor in support of Athanasius’s work in Alexandria. Valens soon wrote to grant permission for Athanasius to return to his see. Sozomen opined that the influence of Valentinian that might have caused this change in policy: “I rather imagine that, on reflecting on the esteem in which Athanasius was universally held, he feared to excite the displeasure of the Emperor Valentinian, who was well known to be attached to the Nicene doctrines; or perhaps he was apprehensive of a commotion on the part of many admirers of the bishop, lest some innovation injure the public affairs.”614 Socrates embraced the latter opinion, reporting that since “the people, on account of their affection for him, became seditious in impatience of his absence, the emperor, on ascertaining that on this account agitation prevailed at Alexandria, ordered by his letters that Athanasius should be suffered to preside over the churches without molestation; and this was the reason why the Alexandrian church enjoyed tranquility until the death of Athanasius.”615 Despite his sympathy and actions in support of the Arian position, Valens preferred tranquility to riots and insurrection, so he allowed Athanasius to finish his days in Alexandria and at peace.
During these later years Athanasius’s literary work and ecclesiastical leadership continued nearly unabated. In circa 369 he called a synod of the African bishops that was attended by more than ninety clerics from Egypt and Libya. The purpose of this synod was to affirm the finality of the Nicene Creed as the preeminent definition of Christian orthodoxy and unity, over against the deficient creed that had been recently produced by the Council of Ariminum. The report of the bishops of Africa was summarized as an encyclical letter (titled Ad Afros Epistola Synodica) and sent west to Pope Damasus of Rome, to confirm the orthodox faith and to confess their own faith, as enshrined in the Nicene Creed. Athanasius is generally credited with writing To the Africans (Ad Afros), and he stated his purpose quite clearly: “Since we have heard that certain [people] wishing to oppose it [the Nicene Creed] are attempting to cite a synod supposed to have been held at Ariminum, and are eagerly striving that it should prevail rather than the other, we think it right to write and put you in mind, not to endure anything of the sort; for this is nothing else but a second growth of the Arian heresy. For what else do they wish for who reject the synod held against it, namely the Nicene, if not that the cause of Arius should prevail?”616 The lengthy letter that followed falls into ten additional subsections:
1. The Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea was contrasted with the local synods that had been held ever since.
2. The true nature of the proceedings of the Synod of Ariminum was disclosed.
3. The Nicene Creed and its Trinitarian theology were demonstrated as being completely in accordance with holy Scripture.
4. It was explained how the term “consubstantial” (homoousia) came to be used and adopted by the Council of Nicaea.
5. This “consubstantial” test was proven not to be unscriptural, and was not a theological novelty.
6. It was demonstrated that the position that the Son is a Creature is inconsistent with Christian teaching and is untenable.
7. It was demonstrated that the Son’s relationship to the Father is one of shared essential nature, and not only of ethical loyalty.
8. It was urged that the full repudiation of Arianism involves the acceptance of the Nicene test (homoousia) and Creed.
9. It was admitted that one purpose of this letter was to warn against the false teaching of Auxentius of Milan.
10. The full Deity of the Holy Spirit was also affirmed in the Nicene Creed.
This was an important synodical letter, sent under the direction (and probably pen) of Athanasius of Alexandria. It was a summary and repudiation of the Arian heresy that both looked back to Nicaea and the Creed that the first ecumenical council produced, but also looked ahead to the second ecumenical council, which would be called at Constantinople in 381. There the Nicene Creed would be embraced and affirmed and language about the full Deity and equality of the Holy Spirit would be added.
Among his other literary production were several extant letters to various bishops and church leaders. A notable example of these was his letter to “Adelphius, Bishop and Confessor: Against the Arians.”617 In this epistle Athanasius wrote to confirm the faith of Adelphius, bishop of Onuphis, and to urge him to remain resolute against the Arian heresy. In this lengthy letter the bishop repeatedly attacked the “error [that] belongs to heathens and Arians” that Christians worship a creature. He wrote, “But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God. For if the flesh also is in itself a part of the created world, yet it has become God’s body. And we neither divide the body, being such from the Word, and worship it, by itself, nor when we wish to worship the Word do we set Him apart from the Flesh, but knowing, as we said above, that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ we recognize Him as God also, after having come in the flesh.”618 In fact, the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Word, is indispensable, not only as part of His Incarnation, but as a part of God’s plan of salvation: “For the flesh did not diminish the glory of the Word; far be the thought: on the contrary, it was glorified by Him. Nor, because the Son that was in the form of God took upon Him the form of a servant was He deprived of His Godhead. On the contrary, He is thus become the Deliverer of all flesh and of all creation.”619 And so with a characteristic emphasis, which he had maintained since writing On the Incarnation at the beginning of his journey, Athanasius wrote, “For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a woman, and begotten of a Virgin, in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and ‘partakers of the Divine Nature.’”620
In a second letter, this one to Maximus, the Cynic philosopher, perhaps written in 371, Athanasius urged a similar theological connection between Incarnation and Salvation: “For neither does Nature know of a virgin bearing apart from a man. Whence by the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, He became man in the body for our salvation, in order that having somewhat to offer for us He might save us all, ‘as many as through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage’ [Heb 2:15].”621 Hence, the bishop pointed his reader to the Nicene Creed as an apt summary of the Christian faith: “For let what was confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea prevail. For it is correct, and enough to overthrow every heresy however impious, and especially that of the Arians which speaks against the Word of God, and as a logical consequence profanes His Holy Spirit.”622
During these same closing years Athanasius seemed increasingly drawn to study of and commentary on the Holy Scriptures. In his thirty-ninth Festal Letter (367), he criticized the Meletians for using non-inspired books and delineated—in an authoritative manner—the scope of the New Testament canon. In one of the first delineations of what would become the canonical New Testament, the bishop wrote,
Again, it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.623
As to the authority of these canonical books, Athanasius added, “These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.”624 He also penned an important and lengthy (more than thirty pages in translation) pastoral letter to an ill friend, Marcellinus, on how to interpret the Psalms. Marcellinus, reported the writer, had set himself to learning what was truly taught in each psalm, and Athanasius—his archbishop—wrote to help him along in that commendable task. Marcellinus had embraced the study of the Psalms as a part of his “discipline,” which implies it was a part of his daily monastic regimen.
The Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms begins with a strong affirmation of the inspiration and usefulness of the Psalms. Athanasius wrote, paraphrasing 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture of ours, my son—both ancient and new—is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, as it is written. But the book of Psalms possesses a certain winning exactitude for those who are prayerful. Each sacred book supplies and announces its own promise . . . Yet the book of Psalms is like a garden containing things of all these kinds, and it sets them to music, but also exhibits things of its own that it gives in song along with them.”625 The bishop saw the Psalms as a repository of biblical truth and promises that encompassed the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures and set their salient themes to song, as well as making their own unique spiritual contribution. Thus, Athanasius spent considerable time and care delineating how it was that the individual psalms reflected the main themes of the various books of the Old Testament (in §§ 1–14), encompassing and including the Law, Prophets, and historical books.
The second major concern and interpretive lens he urged upon Marcellinus was to look at the Psalms from the standpoint of the “soul’s course of life.” He wrote, “For as one who comes into the presence of a king assumes a certain attitude, both of posture and expression, lest speaking differently he be thrown out as boorish, so also to know the one who is running the race of virtue and wishing to know the life of the Savior in the body the sacred book first calls to mind the emotions of the soul through the reading and in this way represents the other things in succession, and teaches the readers by those words.”626 Thus the Psalms are to be sung and prayed as expressions of one’s own soul’s quest for Christian virtue and truth. There are some that teach us how to pray with confession and petition (Pss 18, 43, 48, 49, 72, 76, 88, 89, 106, 113, 126, and 136).627 Other psalms urge and prescribe along with prophecy (Pss 28, 32, 80, 94–97, 102, 103, and 113), while some combine the expression of exhortation with praise of God (Ps 149). Many simply express praise (Pss 90, 112, 116, 134, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150), while others involve the singer and prayer in the expression of joyful thanksgiving (Pss 8, 9, 17, 33, 45, 63, 76, 84, 114, 115, 120, 121, 123, 128, and 143). And a few psalms promise blessedness to the singer (Pss 1, 31, 40, 118, and 127). Some psalms exhort the singer to courage (Ps 80), while others lay charges against those who are impious and lawless (Pss 2, 13, 35, 51, and 52). There are psalms that teach a person to announce supplications to God (Pss 19 and 63), as well as those that teach one to boast in the Lord (Pss 22, 26, 38, 39, 41, 61, 75, 83, 96, 98, and 151).628 A few psalms are designed to arouse a sense of shame in their singers (Pss 47, 64), and one (Ps 65) speaks of resurrection in words of exultation.629 Thus, the Psalter is to be employed as a handbook and a model, as well as a tool for instilling Christian spiritual life within a person.
For the circumspect reader, singer and prayer, the Psalms are a medicine for what ails the human soul. They give voice to our yearnings to thank and praise God, as well as our supplications in times of need and extremity. Hence, Athanasius urged, “When you behold the Savior’s grace, which has been extended everywhere, and the human race, which has been rescued, if you wish to address the Lord, sing the eighth [Psalm].”630 Or, “Let us say you stand in need of a prayer because of those who have oppressed you and encompass your soul: sing Psalms 16, 85, 87, and 140.”631 And again, “But you sinned, and being ashamed, you repent and you ask to be shown mercy. You have in Psalm 50 the words of confession and repentance.”632 And, “Whenever you want to celebrate God in song, recite the things in Psalm 64. And if you wish to instruct some people about the resurrection, sing the words in Psalm 65.”633
For Athanasius and those who followed him in this practice of reading and singing the Psalms with an eye to their spiritual expression and theological payload, the Psalter became a living handbook for growing Christian spirituality and for gaining full salvation. He concluded of this process for studying the Psalms,
“I will meditate on Your ordinances; I will not forget your words” [Ps 118:6]. And again, “Your ordinances were my songs in the place of my sojourning” [Ps 118:54]. For in those they were gaining salvation, saying, “Were it not that your law is my meditation, then I should have perished in my affection” [Ps 118:92]. It was for this reason also that Paul fortified his own disciple [Timothy] by these things, saying “Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that your progress may become manifest” [1 Tim 4:15]. You too, practicing these things and reciting the Psalms intelligently in this way, are able to comprehend the meaning of each, being guided by the Spirit. And the kind of life the holy, God-bearing men possessed who spoke these things—this life you also shall imitate.634
The great Athanasius died peacefully on May 3, 373. The Christian historian Rufinus of Aquileia recorded his passing with these words: “During this time, then, in the forty-sixth year of his priesthood, Athanasius, after many struggles and many crowns of suffering, rested in peace.”635 Like Moses before him, Athanasius died before he managed to bring God’s people into the rest they sought. Turmoil continued to assail the church of Alexandria as Bishop Peter—Athanasius’s named successor—was driven out by the riotous attacks of the Arians of the city, led by Lucius their bishop.636
Peace and unity finally came to the Eastern Church in 380, when Theodosius I (347–95) became sole Roman emperor. A westerner, he was a staunch supporter of Nicene orthodoxy, after nearly half a century of emperors who favored Arianism. Shortly after his elevation to the throne he declared that the orthodox Christian faith taught by the bishop of Rome was the correct faith. As Sozomen reported, “The emperor [Theodosius] soon after convenend a council of orthodox bishops, for the purpose of confirming the decrees of Nicaea and of electing a bishop to the vacant see of Constantinople.”637 Hence, in 381 Theodosius ordered all churches in the empire to be placed in the hands of clergy who affirmed the Nicene Creed. “He enacted,” Sozomen recorded, “that the title of ‘Catholic Church’ should be exclusively confined to those who rendered equal homage to the Three Persons of the Trinity, and that those individuals who entertained opposite opinions should be treated as heretics, regarded with contempt, and delivered over to punishment.”638
In May of the same year, Theodosius called the first ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which was led by Gregory of Nazianzus (329–90), who was elected archbishop of Constantinople and served in that capacity until 390. The council affirmed the Nicene Creed as the standard definition of Christian faith and strongly condemned Arianism. It also added the final clause to the Nicene Creed that emphasized the full deity and full equality of the Holy Spirit. It read as follows: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets . . .”639 The triumph of the Nicene Creed and its theology was, in no small part, the triumph of Athanasius of Alexandria, who had spent his life explaining, defending, and laboring for the Nicene theology.
579. Sozomen, Church History IV.6, NPNF, vol. II, 330.
580. Socrates, Church History II.47, NPNF, vol. II, 75.
581. Socrates, Church History III.2, NPNF, vol. II, 79.
582. Ibid.
583. Church History III.4, NPNF, vol. II, 80.
584. Church History III.7, NPNF, vol. II, 81.
585. Athanasius, Letter to the Church of Antioch 2, NPNF, vol. IV, 483.
586. Letter to the Church of Antioch 3, NPNF, vol. IV, 484.
587. Letter to the Church of Antioch 4, NPNF, vol. IV, 484.
588. Letter to the Church of Antioch 5, NPNF, vol. IV, 484.
589. Letter to the Church of Antioch 7, NPNF, vol. IV, 485.
590. Letter to the Church of Antioch 8, NPNF, vol. IV, 485.
591. Letter to the Church of Antioch 9, NPNF, vol. IV, 485.
592. Letter to the Church of Antioch 10–11, NPNF, vol. IV, 486.
593. Socrates, Church History III.11–12, NPNF, vol. II, 84–85; Sozomen, Church History V.15–20, NPNF, vol. II, 336–42.
594. Socrates, Church History III.13, NPNF vol. II, 85.
595. Ibid., 86.
596. Sozomen, Church History V.15, NPNF, vol. II, 136.
597. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 152.
598. Ibid., 159.
599. Letter 56, NPNF, vol. IV, 567.
600. Ibid.
601. Ibid., 568.
602. Ibid.
603. Socrates, Church History III.24, NPNF, vol. II, 94.
604. Appendix to Letter 56, NPNF, vol. IV, 568.
605. Ibid.
606. Ibid., 568–69.
607. Ibid., 569.
608. Rufinus, Church History XI.1, 63.
609. Sozomen, Church History VI.6, NPNF, vol. II, 349.
610. Socrates, Church History IV.1, NPNF, vol. II, 96.
611. Ibid.
612. Rufinus, Church History XI.6, 67–68.
613. Sozomen, Church History VI.12, NPNF, vol. II, 354.
614. Ibid.
615. Socrates, Church History IV.13, NPNF, vol. II, 103.
616. Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa 1, NPNF, vol. IV, 489.
617. Athanasius, Letter 60, NPNF, vol. IV, 575–78.
618. Ibid., 575.
619. Ibid., 576.
620. Ibid.
621. Athanasius, Letter 51, NPNF, vol. IV, 579.
622. Ibid.
623. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, NPNF, vol. IV, 552.
624. Ibid.
625. Gregg, Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus, 101–2.
626. Ibid., 112–13.
627. Athanasius’s numbers are taken from the Septuagint (LXX) or Greek translation of the Psalms; to find these psalm numbers in a modern English version, add one to the LXX number.
628. Gregg, Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus, 113–14.
629. Ibid.
630. Ibid., 115.
631. Ibid.
632. Ibid., 118.
633. Ibid., 119.
634. Ibid., 129.
635. Rufinus, Church History XI.3, 64.
636. Ibid.
637. Sozomen, Church History VII.7, NPNF, vol. II, 380.
638. Sozomen, Church History VII.4, NPNF, vol. II, 378.
639. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 298.