The above enumeration includes all the writings attributed with any probability to S. Athanasius. The fragmentary character of many of them is no great presumption against their genuineness. The Abbat ae in the sixth century advised all who met with anything by Athanasius to copy it, and if they had no paper, to use their clothes for the purpose. This will readily explain (if explanation is needed) the transmission of such numerous ee of writing under the name of the great bishop. It will also partly explain the large body of SPURIOUS WORKS whic have sheltered themselves under his authority. To this class we have already assigned several writings (25, 26,3710 39—43, 44? 48? 53? 55, 56 in part). Others whose claims are even less strong may be passed over, with only the mention of one or two of the more important. They are all printed in Migne, vol. xxvili., and parallels to some, especially the ‘dubious’ Zz passtonem et crucem Domini, are marked in Williams’ notes to the Festal Letters, Par incorporated in this volume. The efzstola catholica and Synopsis Scripture sacre are among the better known, anc are classed with a few others as ‘ dubia’ by Montfaucon, the fictitious Disputatio habita in concilio Niceno contra Arium, among the ‘spuria.’ The silly tale de Jmagine Berytensi seems to have enjoyed a wide circulation in the middle ages. Of the other undoubtedly ‘spurious’ works the most famous is the ‘ Athanasian Creed” or Quicungue Vult. It is needless to say that it is unconnected with Athanasius: its origin 1s still sab judice. The second part of it bears traces of the period cz7ca 430 A.D., and the question which still awaits a last word is whether the Symbol is or is not a fusion of two originally independent documents. _ Messrs. Lumby, Swainson and others have ably maintained this, but the difficulties of their hypothesis that the fusion took place as late as about 800 A.D. are very great, and I incline to think will eventually prove fatal to it. But the discussion does not belong to our present subject. © 82. Athanasius as an author. Style and characteristics.
Athanasius was not an author by choice. With the exception of the early apologetic tracts all the writings that he has left were drawn from him by the stress of theological controversy or by the necessities of his work as a Christian pastor. We have no systematic doctrinal treatise, no historical monograph from his pen, although his writings are rich in materials for history and dogmatics alike. The exception to this is in the exegetical remains, especially those on the Psalms, which (supra, No. 45, sgg.) imply something more than occasional work, some intention of systematic composition. For this, a work congenial to one who was engaged in preaching, his long intervals of quiet at Alexandria (especially 328—335, 346—356, 365—373) may well have given him leisure. But on the whole, his writings are those of a man of powerful mind indeed and profound theological training, but still of a man of action. The style of Athanasius is accordingly distinguished from that of many older and younger contemporaries (Eusebius, Gregory Naz., &c.) by its inartificiality. This was already observed by Erasmus, who did not know many of his best works, but who notes his freedom from the harshness of Tertullian, the exaggeration of Jerome, the laboured style of Hilary, the overloaded manner of Augustine and Chrysostom, the imitation of the Attic orators so conspicuous in Gregory; ‘sed totus est in explicanda re.’ That is true. Athanasius never writes for effect, but merely to make his meaning plain and impress it on others. This leads to his principal fault, namely his constant self-repetition (see p. 47, note 6); even in apologising for this he repeats the offence. The praise by Photius (quoted below, Introd. to Ova.) of his amépirtoy seems to apply to his freedom not from repetition but from extravagance, or studied brilliancy. This simplicity led Philostorgius, reflecting the false taste of his age, to pronounce Athanasius a child as compared with Basil, Gregory, or Apollinarius. To a modern reader the manliness of his character is reflected in the unaffected earnestness of his style. Some will admire him most when, in addressing a carefully calculated appeal to an emperor, he models his periods on Demosthenes de Corona (see p. 237). To others the unrestrained utterance of the real man, in such a gem of feeling and character as the Letter (p. 557) to Dracontius, will be worth more than any studied apology. With all his occasional repetition, with all the feebleness of the Greek language of that day as an instrument of expression, if we compare it with the Greek of Thucydides or Plato, Athanasius writes with nerve and keenness, even with a silent but constant underflow of humour. His style is not free from Latinisms; rpé5a (= preeda) in the Zucycl., Berepavos (= veteranus), B7jAov (= velum), udyiorpos, &c., are barbarisms belonging to the later decadence of Greek, but not without analogy even in the earliest Christian Literature. évywpis is used in an unusual sense, p. 447. “Apetouavirat seems to be coined by himself; a«abjxwv, drotevifew, émaxovew (= answer), éyxuxAeiv, &c., are Alexandrinisms (see Fialon, p. 289). On the whole, no man was ever less of a stylist, while at the same time making the fullest use of the resources furnished by the language at hiscommand. When he wrote, seven centuries of decay had passed over the language of Thucydides, the tragedians, Plato and the Orators. The Latin Fathers of the day had at their disposal a language only two centuries or so past its prime. The heritage of Thucydides had passed through Tacitus to the Latin prose writers of the silver age. The Latin of Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustin, Leo, with all its mannerisms and often false antithesis and laboured epigram, was yet a terse incisive weapon compared with the patristic Greek. But among the Greek Fathers Athanasius is the most readable, simply because his style is natural and direct, because it reflects the man rather than the age.
§ 3. Lersonal characteristics (see Stanley’s Eastern Church, Lect. vii.). To write an elaborate character of Athanasius is superfluous. The full account of his life (chap. ii.), and the specimens of his writings in this volume, may be trusted to convey the right impression without the aid of analysis. But it may be well to emphasise one or two salient points *.
In Athanasius we feel ourselves in contact with a commanding personality. His early rise to decisive epoch-making influence,—he was scarcely more than 27 at the council of ‘Niczea,—his election as bishop when barely of canonical age, the speedy ascendancy which he gained over all Egypt and Libya, the rapid consolidation of the distracted province under his rule, the enthusiastic personal loyalty of his clergy and monks, the extraordinary popularity t Of his personal appearance little is known. Gregory Naz. | short beard spreading into large whiskers, and light auburn hair, »praises his beauty of expression, Julian sneers at his small stature. | (See Stanley wz sup.) Later tradition adds a slight stoop, a hooked nose and small mouth, CHARACTER OF ATHANASIUS. Ixvii enjoyed by him at. Alexandria even among the heathen (excepting, perhaps, ‘the more abandoned among them,’ Ast. Ar. 58), the evident feeling of the Arians that as long as he was intact their cause could not prosper, the jealously of his influence shewn by Constantius and J eas a combined and impressive tribute to his personal greatness. In what then ___Principally, no doubt, in his moral and mental vigour; resolute ability characterises his writings and life throughout. He had the not too common gift of seeing the proportions of things. A great crisis was fully appreciated by him; he always saw at once where principles Separated or united men, where the bond or the divergence was merely accidental. With Arius and Arianism no compromise was to be thought of; but he did not fail to distinguish men really at one with him on essentials, even where their conduct toward himself had been indefensible (de Syv.). So long as the cause was advanced, personal questions were insignificant. So far Athanasius was a partisan. It may be admitted that he saw little good in his opponents; but unless the evidence is singularly misleading there was little good to see. The leaders of the Arian interest were unscrupulous men, either bitter and unreasoning fanatics like Secundus and Maris, or more often political theologians, like Eusebius of Nicomedia, Valens, Acacius, who lacked religious earnestness. It may be admitted that he refused to admit error in his friends. His long alliance with Marcellus, his unvarying refusal to utter a syllable of condemnation of him by name; his refusal to name even Photinus, while yet (Orat. iv.) exposing the error associated with his name; his suppression of the name of Apollinarius, even when writing directly against him; all this was inconsistent with strict impartiality, and, no doubt, placed his adversaries partly in the right. But it was the partiality of a generous and loyal spirit, and he could be generous to personal enemies if he saw in them an approximation to himself in principle. When men were dead, unlike too many theologians of his own and later times, he restrained himself in speaking of them, even if the dead man were Arius himself.
In the whole of our minute knowledge of his life there is a total lack of self-interest. The glory of God and the welfare of the Church absorbed him fully at all times. We see the immense power he exercised in Egypt; the Emperors recognised him as a political force of the first order; Magnentius bid for his support, Constantius first cajoled, then made war upon him; but on no occasion does he yield to the temptation of using the arm of flesh. Almost unconscious of his own power, he treats Serapion and the monks as equals or superiors, begging them to correct and alter anything amiss in his writings. His humility is the more real for never being conspicuously paraded.
Like most men of great power, he had a real sense of humour (Stanley, p. 231, s¢., ed. 1883). Even in his youthful works we trace it (¢z/7. p. 2), and it is always present, though very rarely employed with purpose. But the exposure of the Arsenius calumny at Tyre, the smile with which he answered the importunate catechising of an Epiphanius about ‘old’ Marcellus, the oracular interpretation of the crow’s ‘cras’ in answer to the heathen (Sozom. iv. 10), the grave irony with which he often confronts his opponents with some surprising application of Scripture, his reply to the pursuers from the Nile boat in 362, allow us to see the twinkle of his keen, searching eye. Courage, self-sacrifice, steadiness of purpose, versatility and resourcefulness, width of ready sympathy, were all harmonised by deep reverence and the discipline of a single-minded lover of Christ. ‘lhe Arian controversy was to him no battle for ecclesiastical power, nor for theological triumph. It was a religious crisis involving the reality of revelation and redemption. He felt about it as he wrote to the bishops of Egypt, ‘we are contending for our all’ (p. 234). “om “A certain cloud of romance encircled him’ (Reynolds). His escapes from Philagrius, Syrianus, Julian, his secret presence in Alexandria, his life among the monasteries of Egypt in his third exile, his reputed visits to distant councils, all impress the imagination and lend themselves to legend and fable. Later ages even claimed that he had fled in disguise to Spain and served as cook in a monastery near Calahorra (Act. SS. 2 Maii)! But he is also surrounded by an atmosphere of truth. Nota single miracle of any kind is related of him. To invest him with the halo of miracle the Bollandists have to come down to the ‘translation’ of his body, not to Constantinople (an event surrounded with no little uncertainty), but to Venice, whither a thievish sea-captain, who had stolen it from a church in Stamboul, brought a body, which decisively proved its identity by prodigies which left no room for doubt. But the Athanasius of history is not the subject of any such tales. It has been said that no saint outside the New Testament has ever claimed the gift of miracles for himseli. At any rate (though he displays credulity with regard to Antony), the saintly reputation of Athanasius €2 Ixvili PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § 1.
ee Se eee on et rested on his life and character alone, without the aid of any reputation for miraculous power. ahi Lem And resting upon this firm foundation, it has won the respect and admiration even of those who do not feel that they owe to him the vindication of all that is sacred and precious. Not only a Gregory or an Epiphanius, an Augustine or a Cyril, a Luther or a Hooker, not only Montfaucon and Tillemont, Newman and Stanley pay tribute to him as a Christian hero. Secular as well as Church historians fall under the spell of his personality, and even Gibbon lays aside his ‘solemn sneer’ to do homage to Athanasius the great.
CHAPTER IV.
Tue THEOLOGY oF S. ATHANASIUS. General considerations. Fundamental ideas; Anthropology, Soteriology. Fundamental ideas; God and Nature. Organs of Revelation. Bible, Church, Authority, &c. Content of Revelation. The Trinity, Incarnation, &c. Derivative truths, Grace, means of grace, Ethics, Eschatology.
§ 1. Gencral considerations.
Tue theological training of Athanasius was in the school of Alexandria, and under the still predominant although modified influence of Origen (see above, pp. xIVv., XXVil.). The resistance which the theology of that famous man had everywhere encountered had not availed, in the Greek-speaking churches of the East, to stem its influence; at the same time it had made its way at the cost of much of its distinctive character. Its principal opponent, Methodius, who represented the ancient Asiatic tradition, was himself not uninfluenced by the theology he opposed. The legacy of his generation to the Nicene age was an Origenism tempered in various degrees by the Asiatic theology and by accom- modations to the traditional canon of ecclesiastical teaching. The degrees of this modi- fication were various, and the variety was reflected in the indeterminate body of theological conviction which we find at the time of the outbreak of Arianism, and which, as already explained, lies at the basis of the reaction against the definition of Nica. The theology of Alexandria remained Origenist, and the Origenist character is purest and most marked in Pierius, Theognostus, and in the non-episcopal heads of the Alexandrian School. The bishops of Alexandria after Dionysius represent a more tempered Origenism. Especially this holds good of the martyred Peter, whom we find expressly correcting distinctive parts of the system of his spiritual ancestor. In Alexander of Alexandria, the theological sponsor of the young Athanasius, the combination of a fundamentally Origenist theology with ideas traceable to the Asiatic tradition is conspicuous’.
Athanasius, then, received his first theological ideas from Origenist sources, and in so far as he eventually diverged from Origen we must seek the explanation partly in his own theological or religious idiosyncrasy and in the influences which he encountered as time went on, partly in the extent to which the Origenism of his masters was already modified by different currents of theological influence.
To work out this problem satisfactorily would involve a separate treatise and a searching study, not only of Athanasius? but on the one hand of Origen and his school, on the other of Methodius and the earlier pre-Nicene theologians. What is here attempted is the more modest task of briefly drawing attention to some of the more conspicuous evidences of the process and to some of its results in the developed theology of the saintly bishop.
It has been said by Harnack that the theology of Athanasius underwent no <levelopment, but was the same from first to last. The truth of this verdict is I think limited by the fact that the Orgenism of Athanasius distinctly undergoes a change, or rather fades away, in his later works. A non-Origenist element is present from the first, and after the contest with Arianism begins, Origen’s ideas recede more and more from view. Athanasius was influenced negatively by the stress of the Arian controversy: while the vague and loose Origenism of the current Greek theology inclined the majority of bishops to dread Sabellianism rather than Arianism, and to underrate the danger of the latter (pp. xviii, xxxv.), Athanasius, deeply MM Sh UN LP Up ANEYN HE t To begin with, we have the interesting fact that Alexander | Nic.), and his letter to his namesake of Byzantium, bear out studied the writings of Melito of Sardis, and even worked up | the above statement. his tract rept Wuyys Kal ocumatos Kai els Td wdO0s into a homi- 2? The reader is requested to supplement the necessarily very letical discourse of his own, omitting such passages as seemed to ee a Fe icoley In He Saris Py. savour of ‘modalism,’ (see Kriiger in Zettschr. f. wiss. The clerring to the \eneral index to this volume, as well as to the 888 S9q. ae - Adehaon Se coe sy) Theol) tadex of Texts, for guidance to the passages of Athanasius which 1888, P. 434 Sgg-: his grounds are convincing). Secondly, the | are needed to check, fill out, and qualify what is here presented expressions attributed to him by Arins (in his letter to Euseb, | only in broad outline.
ATHANASIAN SOTERIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY. | isix impressed, from personal experience, with the negation of the first principles of redemption which Ananism involved, stood apart from the first from the theology ox his Asiatic contem- poraries and went back to the authority of Scripture and the Rule of Faith. He was influenced positively by the Nicene formula, which represents the combination of Western with anti-Origenist Eastern traditions in opposition to the dominant Eastern theology. The Nicene formula found in Athanasius a mind predisposed to enter into its spirit, to employ in its defence the richest resources of theological and biblical training, of spiritual depth and vigour, of self-sacrificing but sober and tactful enthusiasm; its victory in the East is due under God to him alone.
; Athanasius was not a systematic theologian: that is he produced no many-sided theology like that of Origen or Augustine. He had no interest in theological speculation, none of the instincts of a schoolman or philosopher. His theological greatness lies in his firm grasp of soteriological principles, in his resolute subordination of everything else, even the formula ouoovaros, to the central fact of Redemption, and to what that fact implied as to the Person of the Redeemer. He goes back from the Logos of the philosophers to the Logos of S. John, from the God of the philosophers to God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. His legacy to later ages has been felicitously compared (Harnack, Dg. ii. 26, note) to that of the Christian spirit of his age in the realm of architecture. ‘To the many forms of architectural conception which lived in Rome and Alexandria in the fourth century, the Christian spirit added nothing tresh. Its achievement was of a different kind. Out of the many it selected and consecrated one; the multiplicity of forms it carried back to a single dominant idea, not so much by a change in the spirit of the art as by the restoration of Religion to its place as the central motive. It bequeathed to the art of the middle ages the Basilica, and rendered possible the birth of Gothic, a style, like that of the old Greek Temple, truly organic. What the Basilica was in the history of the material, the central idea of Athanasius has been in that of the spiritual fabric; an auspicious reduction, full of promise for the future, of the exuberant speculation of Greek theology to the one idea in which the power of religion then resided’ (2b. and pp. 22 sgg., freely reproduced). ‘ § 2. Fundamental ideas of man and his redemption.
To Athanasius the Incarnation of the Son of God, and especially his Death on the Cross, is the centre of faith and theology (Zucar. 19, xepddaoy rhs micrews, Cf. 9. I and 2, 20. 2, &c.). ‘For our salvation’ (Zzcar. 1) the Word became Man and died. But how did Athanasius conceive of ‘salvation’? from what are we saved, ¢o what destiny does salvation bring us, and what idea does he form of the efficacy of the Saviour’s death? Now it is not too much to say that no one age of the Church’s existence has done full justice to the profundity and manysidedness of the Christian idea of Redemption as effected in Christ and as unfolded by S. Paul. The kingdom of God and His Righteousness; the forgiveness of sins and the adoption of sons as a present gift; the consummation of all at the great judgment;—Christian men of different ages, countries, characters and mental antecedents, while united in personal devotion to the Saviour and in the sanctifying Power of His Grace, have interpreted these central ideas of the Gospel in terms of their own respective categories, and have succeeded in bringing out now one, now another aspect of the mystery of Redemption rather than in preserving the balance of the whole. Who will claim that the last word has yet been said on S. Paul’s deep conception of God’s (not mercy but) Righteousness as the new and peculiar | element (Rom. i. 17, ili. 22, 26) of the Gospel Revelation? to search out the unsearchable riches of Christ is the prerogative of Christian faith, but is denied, save to the most limited extent, to Christian knowledge (1 Cor. xiii. 9). The onesidedness of any given age in apprehending the work of Christ is to be recognised by us not in a censorious spirit of self- complacency, but with reverent sympathy, and with the necessity in view of correcting our OWN: mdvta Sokipacere, TO KaAdY KaTEXETE.
Different ages and classes have necessarily thought under different categories. The cate- gories of the post-apostolic age were mainly ethical; the Gospel is the new law, and the promise of eternal life, founded on true knowledge of God, and accepted by faith. Those of the Asiatic fathers from Ignatius downwards were largely physical or realistic. Mankind is brought in Christ (the physician) from death to hfe, from $édpa to ap@apzia (Ign. passcm); 1) ebayyéAov.. « dndpricpa apbapaias (Ign., Melit.); human nature is changed by the Incarnation, man made God. ‘Tertullian introduced into Western theology forensic categories. He applied them to the Person, not yet to the Work, of Christ: but the latter application, pushed to a repellent length in the middle ages, and still more so since the Reformation, may without fancifulness ° Ixx PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV,, § 2.
be traced back to the fact that the first Latin Father was a lawyer. Again, Redemp- tion was viewed by Origen and others under cosmological categories, as the turning point in the great conflict of good with evil, of demons with God, as the inauguration of the deliverance of the creation and its reunion with God. The many-sidedness of Origen combined, indeed, almost every representation of Redemption then current, from the pro- pitiatory and mediatorial, which most nearly approached the thought of S. Paul, to the grotesque but widely-spread view of a ransom due to the devil which he was induced to accept by a stratagem. It mav be said that with the exception of the last-named every one of the above conceptions finds some point of contact in the New Testament; even the forensic idea, thoroughly unbiblical in its extremer forms, would not have influenced Christian thought as it has done had it not corresponded to something in the language of S. Paul.
Now Athanasius does not totally ignore any one of these conceptions, unless it be that of a transaction with the devil, which he scarcely touches even in Oradé. ii. 52 (see note there). Of the forensic view he is indeed almost clear. His reference to the ‘ debt’ (16 dpesddpevoy, Incar. 20, Orat. ii. 66) which had to be paid is connected not so much with the Anselmic idea of a satisfaction due, as with the fact that death was by the divine word (Gen. ili.), attached to sin as its penalty.
The aspect of the death of Christ as a vicarious sacrifice (dvri mavrwyv, de [ncar. 9; mpoopopa and 6vcia, 10) is not passed over. But on the whole another aspect predominates. The cate- gories under which Athanasius again and again states the soteriological problem are those of (oy and Oavaros, POdpa and dpdapoia. So far as he works the problem out in detail it is under physical categories, without doing. full justice to the ideas of guilt and reconciliation, of the reunion of w// between man and God. The numberless passages which bear this out cannot be quoted in full, but the point is of sufficient importance to demand the production of a few details.
(a) The original state of man was not one of ‘nature,’ for man’s nature is POdpa; (rip ev Gavat@ xara piow POdpar, Incar. 3, cf. 8, 10, 44) the Word was imparted to them in that they were made «ard rHy rod Beod etxdva (tb). Hence what later theology marks off as an exclusively supernatural gift is according to Athanasius inalienable from human nature, i.e. it can be impaired but not absolutely lost (Zzcar. 14, and apparently Oraf. iii. 10 jin.; the question of the teaching of Athan. upon the natural endowments of man belongs specially to the Introd. to de Lncarnatione, where it will be briefly discussed). Accordingly their infraction of the divine command (by turning their minds, ¢ Gent. 3, to lower things instead of to the Oewpia tov Oeiwr), dogically involved them in non-existence (de Zucar. 4), but actually, inasmuch as the likeness of God was only gradually lost, in pédpa, regarded as a process toward non-existence. This again involved men in increasing zgnorance of God, by the gradual obliteration of the eixav, the indwelling Logos, by virtue of which alone men could read the open book (c. Gent. 34 fi.) of God’s manifestation of Himself in the Universe. It is evident that the pathological point of view here prevails over the purely ethical: the perversion of man’s will merges in the general idea of @6dpa, the first need of man is a change in his ature; or rather the renewed infusion of that higher and divine nature which he has gradually lost. (Cf. de /ucar. 44, xpnfovray ths adtod Oedrnros did Tod 6poiov).