RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Athanasius
wrote his successor a letter of warm sympathy. These long and intimate relations with Egyptian monasticism support the assertion of Jerome (Epist., cxxvii) that the Roman lady Marcella first heard through Athanasius, in 341, of Anthony, Pachomius, and the ascetic communities of the Thebaid. If however, he rendered monasticism a service by calling to it the attention of the western world, he did even more for it by successfully combating the tendency which it showed at first to form a caste apart from, and to some extent in rivalry with, the clergy; he was also the first (at least in the Church of the empire) to promote monks to the episcopate — a point of great importance to the later development of the Eastern Church.
II. Writings: Athanasius ranks high as an author— though it may be doubted whether he would
have attained so high a place had it not
i. His been for the epoch-making war which
Works in he waged upon Arianism. Of pure
Chronolog- learning he had not much, or else it
ical Order, was put in the background by the more
absorbing interests of his life. His most important works were written for some special purpose of the moment; and they may therefore be best considered in their chronological order, the more that any classification of them is practically impossible. The editors of his works place first the two connected treatises " Against the Heathen" and " On the Incarnation." These have until recently been considered as a product of Athanasius's youth (c. 318); but some recent critics (Schultze, Draseke) have attempted to deny his authorship and to assign them to the middle of the fourth century. The grounds given for this opinion are unconvincing, although the date may be brought down as late as 325. Next follow the oldest of the "Festal Letters" (329-335 and 338-339); of the later ones only short fragments have been preserved, either in Greek or Syriac — among them part of the 39th, which is important for its bearing on the New Testament canon. Up to 348 the only things that can be surely dated are the "Encyclical Letter," written soon after Easter, 339, and the discussion of Matt, xi, 27 (probably incomplete), belonging to a time before the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia. But with the collection of documents known as the " Apology against the Arians " (between 347 and 351 ) begins a long series of works more important for the history of the period, and at the same time more certainly to be dated. These are the "Defense of the Nicene Council" (probably 351); the "Defense of Dionysius" soon after; the " Letter to Dracontius " (Easter, 354 or 355); the "Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya " (between February of 356 and the same month of 357); the "Apology to Constantius" (probably summer of 357); the "Apology for his Flight," a little later; the "History of the Arians for Monks " (end of 357 or beginning of 358); the " Letter to Serapion on the Death of Arius " (358); the four "Letters to Serapion," decisive for the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost (during the third exile); " On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia" (end of 359); the "Book to the Antiochians" (362); the "Letter to Jo-
vian" (364); the " Letter to the Africans " (probably 369); and about the same time, after the Roman synod of 369 or 370, the " Letters to Epictetus," "to Adelphus," and "to Maximus the Philosopher," so weighty for the controversies of the fifth century. We have not mentioned in this enumeration a few important works whose date can not be certainly determined, as well as a large number of smaller letters, sermons, and fragments. To the former class belong the " Life of Anthony," whose genuineness has been disputed of late years on insufficient grounds; the " Four Orations against the Arians," which have by many been considered the dogmatic masterpiece of Athanasius (usually dated in the third exile, but for various reasons more probably to be assigned to a much earlier date, say, 338 or 339); the fragmentary " Longer Sermon on the Faith,"and the " Statement of Faith," both of which seem fairly assignable to the earliest period of Athanasius's authorship. Owing to his fame, it is not to be wondered at that a large number of works were ascribed to him which have since been classed as doubtful or certainly not his. For the famous exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which passes under his name, see Athanasian Creed.
As to the teaching of Athanasius, especially in regard to his Christology, consult the article
Arianism; some further discussion
2. His of his views on the human nature of
Teaching. Christ, which deserve a more thorough
examination than they have ever received, will be found under Nestorius. It is the opinion of Harnack that the doctrine of Athanasius is identical with that of Alexander and underwent no development. But it would be difficult to prove that the teaching of the two is really identical, at least on the basis of the writings of Athanasius from the " Defense of the Nicene Council " on; and perhaps as hard to show that his views did not develop as time went on. It is more probable (though the question needs more thorough investigation) that he began by simply accepting Alexander's teaching, and then struck out a path of his own. His terminology, in questions of Christology, demonstrably changes. The earlier works, like those of Alexander, do not use the word which became the crucial test of orthodoxy, homoousios; even in the main thesis of the "Statement of Faith" homoios toi patri is found, though homoousios occurs in the explanations, but with an express caution against a Sabellian meaning. The same impression is strengthened by the " Orations against the Arians," written after he had spent some time in banishment at Treves; it is probably an already visible effect of his contact with western thought that we get a slightly different terminology — but the influence of the older phrases, which he gave up later, is still clearly marked; he employs the word homoousios, which his opponents rejected as unscriptural, only once in passing, and uses homoios several times to denote the generic identity of substance between the Father and the Son. In short, in these "Orations" Athanasius's terminology is in a transitional stage, not free from uncertainty. Later,
Athanasius Athenag-oras