THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
he got over his concealed dread of the term homoousios, though without giving up the assimilation of ousia and hypostasis, as to which he was evidently uncertain in the "Orations." In fact, his later homoousios is scarcely distinguishable from monoousios, and the earlier homoios [lis cntsias] no longer sufficed him. If we ask the origin of this change between 339 and 34S-352, it will be obvious that we can not neglect to think of his sojourn in the West from 339 to 346, and his intercourse with Marcellus. Further evidences of development may be found in his teaching as to the manhood of Christ. If, however, his change of attitude toward the Homoousians, his condemnation of Basil of Ancyra, etc., show that he was capable of development, it need not be taken as a reproach. He knew better than many of his contemporaries how to separate the fact, as to which he never wavered, from the formulas employed to describe it ; his convictions were fixed early , but to the end of his life he never obstinately asserted the completeness of the phrases he had chosen to express them. Through evil report and good report, through the many changes of a long and eventful career, he maintained indisputably his title to the respect which we give to love of truth and honesty of mind. (F. Loofs.)
Bibliography: The Benedictine ed. of the works was printed in 4 vols., at Padua, 1677; again at Paris, 1699, ed. B. de Montfaucon; in MPG, xxv-xxviii; and in A. B. Caillau. Patres Aposlolici, xxx-xxxii, Paris, 1842-43. The dogmatic treatises are accessible in the ed. of J. E. Thilo, Leipsie, 1853. Editions or translations of selected works are: Historical Tracts and Treatises in Controversy with the Arians, in Library of the Fathers, viii, ix, xiii, and xxviii. 1843; Contra Gentes, ed. H. von Hurter.inCoZfcrfi'o opusculorum sanctorum patrum, xliv, Innsbruck, 1874; Select Treatises, transl. by J. H. Newman, 2 vols., London, 1881; Historical Writings ed. from the Benedictine Text, by W. Bright. Oxford. 1881; Dialogue of Athanasius and Zaccharus, ed. F. C. Conybeare, in Anecdota Oxoniensia, part 8, ib. 18S2; Orations Against the Arians, ed. W. Bright, with a life, ib. 1873, reissued in Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature, 1887; Select Writings and Letters, transl. with prolegomena, in NPNF, iv; and De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, transl. with notes by T. H. Bindley, London, 1903. Especially noteworthy is the edition of the long lost Festal Letters, by W. Cureton from a Syriac manuscript, London, 1853, Eng. transl. by H. Burgess, Oxford, 1854. His life, from early sources, is in ASB, May, i, 186-258, cf. 756-762 and vii, 546- 547; consult the biographies by P. Barbier, Paris, 1888; R. W Bush, London, 1888; and H. R. Reynolds, ib. 1889 (" lucid and able "). For his writings and teaching consult J. A. Moehler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit, Mainz, 1844 (Roman Catholic); H. Voigt, Die Lehre des Athanasius, Bremen, 1861; F. Boehringer, A thanasius und Arius, oder der erste grosse Kampf der Orthodoxie und Heterodoxie, Stuttgart, 1874 (Protestant, in his familiar series); E. Fialon, St. Athanase, Mude littiraire, Paris, 1877; L. Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des Athanasius, ihre Gegner und Vorlaufer, Munich, 1880; G. A. Pell, Lehre des Athanasius von der Sunde, Passau 1888 (Roman Catholic, " difficulties not always faced "); W. Bright, Lessons from the Lives of Three Great Fathers, •New York, 1891; P. Lauchert, Die Lehre des heiligen Athanasius, Leipsie, 1895; K. Hoss, Studien iiber Schrifttum und Theologie des Athanasius, Freiburg, 1899- Harnack, Dogma, passim (consult Index), 7 vols., Boston, 1S95-1900 (important, very detailed); L. L. Paine, Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, Boston, 1900 (brilliant, deals with the position of Athanasius respecting homoousianism); W. F. Fraser, A Cloud of Witnesses to Christian Doctrine, third scries, Against Arianism, part 1, St. Athanasius, London, 1900; L. H. Hough, Athanasius; the Hero, Cincinnati, 1906. |
ATHEISM : A term employed with some variety of connotation. Sometimes it is taken purely negatively and applied to every point of view which does not distinctly assert the existence of God, or order the life in view of his claims upon Different it. In this application it is broad Uses of the enough to include not only such sys- Word. tems as Agnosticism and Secularism (qq.v.), but even that simple forgetfulness of God which is commonly known as " practical atheism." Sometimes, on the other hand, it is given a distinctly positive sense, and made to designate the dogmatic denial of the existence of God. Even when it is so understood, however, it has a wider and a narrower application, dependent on the meaning attached to the term " God," the denial of which constitutes its differentiation. In its narrowest sense, it is confined to those theories which deny the existence of all that can be called God, by whatever extension or even abuse of that term. In this sense it stands over against Pantheism or Fetishism, as truly as over against Theism; and takes its place alongside of this whole series of terms as designating a distinct theory of the universe. In its widest sense, on the contrary, it receives its definition in contrast with, not a vague notion of the divine, but the specific conception of Theism, and designates all those systems, differing largely in other respects, which have in common that they are antagonistic to a developed Theism. In this application, Atheism is synonymous with Antitheism, and includes not only Pantheism (q-v.), but even Polytheism, and, with some writers, Deism itself, — all of which fail in some essential elements of a clear Theism. Most commonly the term is employed by careful writers either in its narrowest sense, or else in the somewhat broadened sense of the denial of a personal God. Between these two definitions choice is not easy. All depends on our definition of God, and what we are prepared to admit to involve recognition of him. From the point of view of developed Theism all that can be thought God is denied when a living personal God, the creator, preserver, and governor of all things is disallowed; it is inevitable, therefore, that from the standpoint of Theism, Atheism should tend to receive one of its more extended connotations. It may be truer to the historical sense of the term, however, to take it in its narrowest sense and to treat it as designating only one of the Antitheistic theories, and as standing as such alongside of the others, from which it is differentiated in that it denies the validity of the notion of God altogether, while the others allow the possible or actual existence of the divine in one or another sense of that term.
The question which has been much discussed, whether Atheism is possible, depends for its solution very much upon its definition. That negative Atheism, especially in the form of " practical atheism," is possible, is evident from its persistent appearance in the world. Whether men may be totally ignorant of God or not, they certainly can very completely ignore him. And if the great atheistic systems like Buddhism and Confucianism have not been able to preserve the purity of their Atheism, no more have the great theistic