These four volumes on the Eastern Fathers of the fourth century and the Byzantine fathers from the fifth to eighth centuries were originally published in 1931 and 1933 in Russian. They contained my lectures given at the Institute of Orthodox Theology in Paris from 1928 to 1931 and were originally published in Russian more or less in the form in which they were originally delivered. They therefore lacked exact references and appropriate footnotes. Another reason for the omission of reference material in the 1931 and 1933 publications is that the books were originally published at my own expense and strict economy was therefore necessary. In fact, their publication was only the result of the generous cooperation and help of personal friends. These English publications must be dedicated to their memory. The initiative of the original publication was taken by Mrs. Elizabeth Skobtsov, who became an Orthodox nun and was later known under her monastic name of Mother Maria. It was she who typed the original manuscripts and she who was able to persuade Mr. Ilua Fondaminsky, at that time one of the editors of the renowned Russian review, Sovremennye Zapiski [Annales Contem poraines], to assume financial responsibility. Both these friends perished tragically in German concentration camps. They had been inspired by the conviction that books in Russian on the Fathers of the Church were badly needed, not only by theological students, but also by a much wider circle of those concerned with doctrinal and spiritual vistas and issues of Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Their expectation was fully justified: the volumes in Russian rapidly sold out and were warmly appreciated in the general press.

Then I began teaching at the Paris Institute, as Professor of Patrology, I had to face a preliminary methodological problem. The question of the scope and manner of Patristic studies had been vigorously de bated by scholars for a long time. There is an excellent book by Fr. J. de Ghellinck, S.J., (Patristique et Moyen Age, Volume II, 1947, pp. 1180). The prevailing tendency was to treat Patrology as a history of Ancient Christian Literature, and the best modern manuals of Patrology in the West were written precisely in this manner: Bardenhewer, Cayre, Tixeront, Quasten, adherents to this school of thought, made only sporadic reference to certain points of doctrine but their approach was no doubt legitimate and useful. However, another cognate discipline came into existence during the last century, Dogmengeschichte, or the school of the history of doctrine. Here scholars were concerned not so much with individual writers or thinkers but rather with what can be defined as the "internal dialectics" of the Christian "mind" and with types and trends of Christian thought.

In my opinion, these two approaches to the same material must be combined and correlated. I have tried to do precisely this with the revision of some of the material for the English publications. I have written some new material on the external history and especially on the ecumenical councils. But in essence Patrology must be more than a kind of literary history. It must be treated rather as a history of Christian doctrine, although the Fathers were first of all testes veritatis, witnesses of truth, of the faith. "Theology" is wider and more comprehensive than "doctrine." It is a kind of Christian Philosophy. Indeed, there is an obvious analogy between the study of Patristics and the study of the history of Philosophy. Historians of Philosophy are as primarily concerned with individual thinkers as they are interested ultimately in the dialectics of ideas. The "essence" of philosophy is exhibited in particular systems. Unity of the historical process is assured because of the identity of themes and problems to which both philosophers and theologians are committed. I would not claim originality for my method, for it has been used occasionally by others. But I would underline the theological character of Patrology.

These books were written many years ago. At certain points they needed revision or extension. To some extent, this has been done. Recent decades have seen the rapid progress of Patristic studies in many directions. We now have better editions of primary sources than we had forty or even thirty years ago. We now have some new texts of prime importance: for example, the Chapters of Evagrius or the new Sermons of St. John Chrysostom. Many excellent monograph studies have been published in recent years. But in spite of this progress I do not think that these books, even without the revisions and additions, have been made obsolete. Based on an independent study of primary sources, these works may still be useful to both students and scholars.

1. The Basic Features

With the beginning of the fourth century a new epoch opened in the life of the Church. Caesar, the "equal of the apostles," was baptized and in his person the empire accepted Christianity. The Church came out of hiding and offered its solace to the dissatisfied classical world, a world filled with anxieties, doubts, and temptations. This world brought with it both a great longing, which the Church had to satisfy, and a great pride, which the Church had to subdue. The classical world was reborn and be came part of the Church but only after a period of confusion and struggle. A spiritual excitement gripped not just ecclesiastical circles but all of society, from the top to the bottom. The calculations of rulers and politicians, personal ambitions, and tribal dissensions all found their way into the religious upheaval.

This time of great and victorious triumph was also a time of trial and sorrow for the Church. During this epoch Orthodox believers frequently had to make their way in bonds and fetters, scorned and persecuted, and often reached the end of their path by accepting the crown of martyrdom. The lives of Athanasius and Chrysostom are typical.

It was too early to speak of a definite victory, for the world still remained "outside" the Church, and paganism continued to flourish immediately beyond the Church's confines. Pagan temples were still open and pagan teachers were still arguing against Christianity. Culture and domestic life were filled with survivals of heathenism and remained pagan. It is not surprising that the monastic movement and the attraction of flight to the desert were so strong. These were motivated by more than a desire for seclusion and solitude. The life of a Christian in that world was truly difficult.

The restoration of paganism under Julian cannot be considered fortuitous. On the contrary, it clearly demonstrates that the old world had not yet died. Pagan culture experienced a revival in the fourth and even in the fifth centuries, which culminated in lamblichus and the Athenian school of Neoplatonism. The quarrel about the Altar of Victory during the reign of Gratian shows that the same thing was happening in the West. During the collision between the two worlds of Hellenism and Christianity the Church never rejected classical culture but the Hellenes refused to accept the Church. A similar situation had existed earlier during the era of the Gnostic school of Plotinus and Porphyry, when Porphyry had resolutely opposed Christianity. (We know of his objections from the refutations of Macarius of Magnesia). Now the resistance became even stronger. The significance of this struggle is not in the external or political events of the period. The internal struggle was even more painful and more tragic because every Hellene had to experience and overcome this division within himself. Some became reconciled too early. Synesius of Ptolemais (also known as Synesius of Cyrene) is typical in this respect, for, although he was made a bishop, he remained a Neoplatonist and maintained his faith in dreams and divination. The spiritual regeneration of classical society began in the fourth century when the majority of men were still living in a spiritual environment made up of two distinct cultures. The spiritual temperament of classical man was transformed very slowly and this process was not completed until much later when a new Byzantine culture was born. The fourth century is significant as a time of transition. It was the end of a previous age, not the beginning of a new period.

The whole of the fourth century was an era of continuous theological debate, which primarily centered around the Church's struggle against Arianism. The Arian movement was not homogeneous and it is necessary to distinguish the problem of the origin of Arius' teaching from the reasons for the positive response which his theology drew from different sides. There is good cause for connecting Arius with Lucian of Antioch and even with Paul of Samosata. Alexander of Alexandria pointed to this from the very beginning: "(His ideas were) were fermented by the impious Lucian." This does not mean that Arius simply borrowed his teaching from Lucian. There is no foundation for denying Arius' independence as a theologian.

Little is known about Lucian and his image has a mysterious duality. Apparently he was connected with Paul of Samosata and he lived under interdiction for many years "during the age of the three bishops." He died as a martyr, however, and his name was entered in the Church canons. He was an outstanding Biblical scholar and continued the work on the correction of the Greek Biblical text which had been begun by Origen. For this he used a Hebrew text, possibly the Syrian Peshitta, which he studied in Edessa with a certain Macarius. It is Lucian's recension of the Septuagint which received general recognition in the churches of Asia Minor and in the environs of Constantinople.

Lucian as an exegete was a resolute opponent of Origen. He tried to replace the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrian school with a more direct and literal "historical-grammatical" method. More than anything else it was disagreement about exegetical methodology which divided the Antiochene and Alexandrian theologians. Just like the classical interpreters of ancient texts, they belonged to completely different schools of philology. At the same time, Lucian in his theological views was not very far from Origen. In this respect it is significant that many of his students were Origenists, which is true of Arius himself. The Arians frequently referred to Origen and to Dionysius of Alexandria because, while they were opposed to Origen in their exegesis, they remained Origenists in their theology.

Thus, the problems of Arian theology can be understood only in terms of the premises of Origen's system. Origen's fear of Modalism can also be discerned among Arian theologians. Since the Arian movement was possible only on the foundation of Origenist theology, the struggle against Arianism was actually a struggle against Origenism. However, the teacher's name was rarely mentioned in this controversy because the opponents of Arianism, especially Alexander, were Origenists themselves. Origen was not an Arian but it is easy to see how the Arians reached their conclusions not merely from misunderstandings of his teachings but from his actual premises. Historically, therefore, the defeat of Arianism proved at the same time to be a defeat of Origenism, at least in trinitarian theology.

At that time the system of Origen as a whole had not yet been subjected to debate and the general question of its validity was raised only at the very end of the century. Origen's trinitarian doctrine was silently renounced, and even such a consistent Origenist as Didymus was completely free from Origen's influence in his dogma of the Trinity. He was even further from Origen than Athanasius. Thus, Origenism was not only rejected but overcome, and this is the positive contribution which the Arian controversy made to theology.

Arius bases his theology on the conception of God as a perfect unity and a self-enclosed monad. For him this Divine monad is God the Father, and everything else in existence is alien to God in its essence. The absolute nature of the Divine Being makes it impossible for God to give or endow His essence to anyone else. Therefore, the Word, the Logos, the Son of God, as an hypostasis and as one who has actual existence, is unconditionally and completely alien and unlike the Father. He receives His Being from the Father and by the will of the Father, just as all other creatures do, and He comes into being as a mediator for the sake of the creation of the world. Thus there exists a certain "interval" between the Father and the Son, and the Son is not coeternal with the Father. If He were, there would be two "eternals" or two ultimate principles, and the truth of monotheism would be abrogated.

In other words, "there was a then, when the Son did not exist." He did not exist, but He came into being and had an origin. This means that the Son comes into being "out of things that do not exist," εξ ουκ οντων. He is a creature, something which is generated and therefore like all generated things He has a "mutable" nature. He is endowed with Divine Glory in advance, from outside, "by grace" and by God's foreknowledge of the future.

Such are the general features of the teaching of Arius, as much as we are able to judge by the fragments of his compositions which have survived and by the evidence of his contemporaries. His doctrine is basically a rejection of the Divine Trinity. For Arius the Trinity is something derived and generated. It has an origin and its members are separated by "temporal intervals," διαστημα. Its hypostases are not coeternal and are not similar but alien to each other. “They are eternally dissimilar.” It is a type of diminishing Trinity, a union or, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, an “association” of three essences which are not alike. It is a union of three hypostases which are united by essence. It is three essences and three coexisting wills which are distinguished by essence.

In his theology Arius is a strict monotheist, almost a Judaizer, and for him a Trinity cannot be a single God. There is a one and only God, and that is the Father. The Son and the Spirit are the highest and first-born creatures who are mediators in the creation of the world. In this doctrine Arius approaches Paul of Samosata and the Dynamic Monarchians, but he is even closer to Philo. It is not difficult to understand why his arguments found supporters among the Alexandrians and Origenists.

The connection between Arius' dogma and the problems of time and the creation of the world are immediately evident. Creation implies origination. That which is created is that which has a beginning, which exists not from itself or through itself, but from another. It is that which does not exist before it comes into being. In Arius' system "creation" is indistinguishable from "generation" because for him both entail origination, which in his understanding can only take place in time.

This difficulty arises because of the ambiguity of the conception of "origination." That which is generated has an origin, a reason for its being outside of and before itself. But "origin" can have two meanings: it can be the cause or source of being, or else it can be a moment in time. For Arius both meanings coincide. For him "eternity" or timelessness means ontological primacy, and therefore he refuses to grant that the existence of the Son is "without beginning" or eternal. This would be a denial of His "generation" and the fact that He is begotten, and, if this were not true, then the Logos or Word would be a second and independent God. If the Word is from the Father, then He must have been begotten. Otherwise, He is not from the Father. From tradition Arius knows that the Word is the God of revelation and the most immediate cause of creation. But a creature is subject to change, since it is temporal, and this gives him another reason to connect the existence of the Word with time.

It thus seems that Arius was in sharp disagreement with Origen. In Origen's doctrine the generation of the Word is eternal and this proves that the Divine Being is immutable. However, Origen inferred too much from this. Because he believed that origination is incompatible with the immutability of God, he posited that the creation of the world is also eternal. In his system the generation of the Son and the creation of the world are united by the concept of origination, and to protect the immutability of God Origen essentially denied that any origination ever takes place. There is nothing in existence about which he was willing to say "there was a then, when it did not exist."

In this way Origen concluded that all existence is eternal and that everything coexists with God, a dogma which is similar to Aristotle's doctrine of the eternity of the world. For Origen the world was not a created thing. This conclusion was unacceptable to his followers who, although they rejected his conclusions, did not deny his premises. Arius also reasoned in this way. He denied that the world is eternal, and the entire emphasis of his system is in affirming the temporal character of everything which is generated or which has the "origin" of its being in another. However, from this he concluded that the Son also is generated in time. Arius differed from Origen in his conclusions but agreed with him in his premises. Within the bounds of Origen's system there was an inescapable dilemma: it was necessary to either admit the eternity of the world or to reject the eternal generation of the Son. This dilemma could be avoided only by denying Origen's premises. For this reason Arius' system attracted those disciples of Origen who did not accept his idea of an eternal world.

Against this background the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea becomes clearer. Eusebius is far from agreeing with Arius on everything and he flatly rejects Arius' basic idea about the "generation" of the Son from "things that do not exist." At the same time, however, he denies that the Son is "coeternal" with the Father. As the cause or source of origin of the Son, the Father precedes Him, although not in time. Even before His actual generation the Son exists "in the Father," but "in potential" alone. Only later is He generated by and from the will of the Father as a real and independent hypostasis, and even as a "second essence" ["vtoraia sushchnost’" (or "second being" ["vtoroe suschestvo"]) with the Father.

In the doctrine of Eusebius the Son in His objective reality is turned toward the world, and in this sense He is the "first-born of all creation." He is the demiurge and the creator of all visible and invisible beings, the first among which is the Spirit of the Comforter. Since He is a direct creation of the Father, the Son is inherent in Him but since He is generated from the Father, He is less than the Father and is an "intermediate" force between the Father and the world. He is the "second God" but not the first, in spite of all His honor from the Divinity. Although He is "not like other creatures," He is still a creature.

Like Arius, Eusebius is essentially dealing with a problem of cosmology, not theology. He continually refers to "generation," and he almost identifies the existence of the Son "in His own hypostasis" with the existence of the world. In order not to efface the boundary between God and the world, he maintains a sharp separation between the Son and the Father: "the existence of the Son is not necessary for the completeness of the being and the divinity of the Father." For Eusebius the existence of the Son is connected with time because the existence of the world is also temporal. He does make a distinction between the generation of the Son and the creation of the world, γενεσις and δημουργια. but even this does not completely resolve the problem.

The Divine "generation" and its relation to time were the main subjects of debate in the Arian controversies. In a certain sense both Arianism and Origenism can be called heresies about time because this was the basic doctrine on which both systems were built.

During the period of the Arian controversies the Church was faced with problems of a philosophical nature and, in answering the heretics, theologians developed systems of philosophical conceptions and terminology. In the words of the Church historian Socrates, Alexander of Alexandria "theologized like a philosopher" in his refutation of Arianism. Alexander's theology is mainly concerned with the problem of time. His basic doctrine is also that the Divine is immutable and unchanging, and for this reason he stresses the complete indivisibility of the Father and the Son. "God has always existed and the Son has always existed; the Son and the Father are together; the Son coexists with God." αμα and αει: this definition excludes the idea of gradation within the Trinity. "The Father does not precede the Son by the slightest instant." He has always and unchangingly been the Father of His Son. The Son is generated "absolutely from the Father" and is His "indistinguishable Image." He is completely and exactly the Image of the Father and is perfectly similar to Him in everything. It is only "unoriginateness" which is the attribute and "personal property" of the Father alone and which does not extend to the Son. But since the Son's generation is eternal, this does not abrogate the complete inherence of the Son in the Father.

Alexander was also an Origenist, but he developed different aspects of Origen's system. He ignored cosmological problems and tried to understand and explain the being of the Son as an internal event within the Divinity, and not as a moment or act of "generation." From his theological creed it is clear that the problem of time and eternity was connected with his doctrine on the being and essence of God. This was tremendously significant at the beginning of the Church's struggle against Arianism. The anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed reject all definitions of the Divinity which suggest any limitation in relation to time, such as "there was a then, when He did not exist," or "(He has being) out of things which do not exist," or which involve the concepts of mutability or a created nature. The Nicene Creed also rejects the idea of origination "from another essence or hypostasis." Socrates reports that Ossius (Hosius) of Cordova, who was sent by the emperor to Egypt to settle the Arian conflict, was the first to raise the question of essence and hypostasis, making these the subject of a new controversy.

The fathers at the Council of Nicaea refuted the doctrine of Arius by means of philosophical terminology and argumentation. The entire meaning of the Nicene acts, the "dogma of the 318 holy fathers," can be expressed in two words: ομοουσιος and εκ της ουσιας, “of one essence” and “from the essence.” The teaching authority of the Church determined the use of these expressions. According to Eusebius of Caesarea these terms were subjected to "careful analysis" at the council: "Questions and answers were given on this subject and the meaning of the words was thoroughly examined." It is possible that the term "of one essence" was suggested at the council by Ossius who, in the words of Athanasius, "set forth our faith at Nicaea." If Philostorgius is to be believed, Alexander and Ossius decided to concentrate on the word ομοουσιος while still travelling to Nicaea.

In the West this term, or rather its Latin analogue, was a common expression. Tertullian used it in his trinitarian theology in the definition tres unius substantiae. In Greek this word had to be translated as homoousios. Novatian also spoke about "one substance" and "a common substance" (communio substantiae ad Patrem)" in the Trinity. Dionysius of Rome reproved Dionysius of Alexandria for his failure to use the term "of one substance." This was remembered in Alexandria and was later mentioned by Athanasius: "The ancient bishops, who lived almost 130 years ago, the bishop of great Rome and the bishop of our city, condemned in writing those who asserted that the Son is a creature and not of one essence or substance with the Father." Although they were not found in Scripture, these expressions did occur in Church usage, and Athanasius made it clear that the Nicene fathers borrowed them "from ancient times, from their predecessors," "having witness to this from the fathers." How ever, the Latin term did not fully coincide with the Greek, and unius substantiae did not protect Tertullian from subordinationism. In the East the term "of one essence or substance" had long been familiar but it was not satisfactory to the fathers and had been condemned at previous councils.

This expression appeared in philosophical literature only in frequently. Aristotle spoke about the consubstantiality of the stars among themselves. Porphyry speculated as to whether the souls of animals are consubstantial with the souls of men. For him "consubstantiality" meant both "of one matter" and "of one kind." Plotinus used the word in the same meaning. The term was first introduced into religious usage by the Gnostics and Valentinians to designate the unity and community among aeons. In their conception that which is of one essence or substance is generated within the bounds of one nature. It seems that this term entered the language of the Church primarily for the translation of Gnostic texts. As used by the Gnostics, it clearly entailed emanation, and this explains the negative or at least cautious attitude that Origen had toward the expressions "from the essence of the Father" and "of one essence." It seemed to him that their meaning was too specifically material and that they introduced into the Divine Being the idea of division, "similar to that which is understood of pregnant women." Dionysius of Alexandria also avoided this word, probably for the same reasons. For the later defenders of homoiousia, "consub stantiality" designated a material union, or uninterrupted matter. Like Origen, they considered the term unsuitable for theology.

It is not entirely clear why the use of the expression "of one essence" was rejected and condemned at the Council of Antioch in 269, which was convened against Paul of Samosata. Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers offer different explanations. Probably Hilary is more accurate, and the term was banned because Paul had imparted a Modalistic meaning to the expression by asserting the complete singleness of the Divinity and the purely nominal distinction of persons. "Quia per hanc unius substantiae nuncupationem solitarium atque unicum esse Patrem et Filium praedicabat." In Paul's conception "consubstantiality" designated the modalistic unity of the Godhead. This is the way the homoiousians explained the Antiochene anathema, and Hilary borrowed their explanation.

Generally speaking, the word "consubstantial" allowed for a variety of interpretations, and from the history of the dogmatic controversies of the fourth century we know that it called forth great disagreement. In this respect a letter written to Apollinarius of Laodicea and attributed to Basil the Great is typical. Even if this letter is not the work of Basil, it dates to his era and clearly depicts the contemporary state of mind. The author asks about the meaning of the term homoousios. Does "consubstantial" designate a "common kind," of which the Father and the Son are aspects," or does it designate the unity of a preexisting, "corporeal" substratum, from which both the Father and the Son are generated through separation?

In his book on the councils Hilary of Poitiers, defending the Nicene Creed, explains that homoousios may have, and had been given in the past, an "incorrect significance." He points to three examples or types of false and unorthodox understanding of "consubstantiality." In the first place, "consubstantiality" can be understood in the Monarchian sense as an expression of absolute monotheism in such a way that the Father and Son differ only in name and as modes of the same person. In the second place, "consubstantiality" can be interpreted to mean the "distribution" of a single Divinity between the Father and the Son as co-heirs, or in the manner of two torches from a single flame. Finally, the concept of "consubstantiality" can be understood as a part of the Father or as something "cut off" from the Father, in the same way that a single "thing" is divided and split up into two things, or between them. It must be noted that even Tertullian's dogma of the Son as a derivation of the Father, as something which has been separated ("derivatio" or "portio"), is not entirely free from this.

All these inexact shades of meaning in the conception of "consubstantiality" had to be isolated, refuted, and excluded from theological usage. At the Council of Nicaea the strictly literal Arians drew attention to just these nuances. "To call someone consubstantial" meant, in their view, "to indicate the fact that he is generated from another, either by grafting, like a plant from a root, or by flowing out, like children from fathers, or by separation, like two or three golden vessels." It seems that by "consubstantiality" they understood co-materiality.

All of this explains the cautious attitude which contemporary theologians took toward the Nicene doctrine. It needed to be elucidated and interpreted, and this was possible only within the structure of an integral system of religious instruction. Only then could its exact meaning be explained and protected from unorthodox interpretation. In order to achieve this it was first of all necessary to define the concept of essence or substance, ousia.

In classical philosophy this word had different meanings for different schools. In Platonism and Neoplatonism "essence" meant that which is general or common. For the Stoics also the term "substance" (substantia) designated a common, unqualified substratum, or matter in general, in opposition to the forms which distinguish it. For Aristotle and the Aristotelians, on the other hand, ousia meant primarily individual and indivisible existence, an individual and single thing in the fulness of its immutable attributes, πρωτη ουσια. Only in a secondary sense was a common kind, uniting and comprehending individual existences, called an essence. This was what Aristotle called δευτερα or “second essence.” However, for Aristotle himself ousia did not have an exactly defined significance, and occasionally in his usage it coincides with the concept of existence, “that which is underlying.” Also, essence for Aristotle was connected with the idea of origin, of coming into being, γεννεσις. By the fourth century it was this narrow Aristotelian meaning which was widely in use. In this sense ουσια is not only essence but also being.

The other term of the Nicene Creed, υποστασις, came into use in philosophy comparatively late, in any event after the age of Aristotle. For a long time this word was used in its literal sense, "that which stands under." It was even then not without a particular significance, since for Aristotle καθ υποστασιν meant the reality and actuality of a thing, as opposed to its outward appearance. In the Septuagint hypostasis was used in various meanings and designated, among other things, "foundation" (foundation of a house, or foundation or base of hope), composition, and so forth. In the works of Philo hypostasis meant, apparently, independence and uniqueness. It signified "essence" for St. Paul (Hebrews 1:3): "Image of the Father's hypostasis"). Its significance elsewhere in St. Paul's writings was varied: it meant confidence (II Corinthians 9:4; Hebrews 11:1), composition, etc.

"Hypostasis" was first defined as a term by the Neoplatonists. Plotinus called the forms in which the One reveals itself "hypotases” and, possibly, distinguished ουσια as το ειναι and υποστασις from τι εναι. Porphyry, in any event, maintained such a distinction. It is characteristic that Plotinus considered the term "hypostasis" inappropriate to describe the ultimate principle, as is also the idea of "essence," because the One "is higher than any "essence." Apparently for him it implied the act of generation.

At this same time Origen also referred to "three hypostases," as did Dionysius of Alexandria after him. However, "hypostasis" remained indistinct from the concept of essence and this is why the terminology of Dionysius' theology was so disturbing to the Roman theologians. In general it can be said that until the middle of the fourth century "essence" and "hypostasis" were interchangeable both as ideas and as terms. Jerome said bluntly: "the school of worldly science knew of no other meaning for the word 'hypostasis' than substance." In the anathemas pronounced by Nicene Council "essence" and "hypostasis" were clearly identical ("from one hypostasis or essence"). Athanasius also identified them. However, it should be noted that both of the Greek terms could be expressed in Latin by only one word. Both ousia and hypostasis were translated as substantia.

There remained one major ambiguity in the Nicene Creed. The confession of consubstantiality entailed the complete "identity of essence" of the Father and the Son. Was it possible, then, to speak of the generation of the Son "from the essence of the Father?" This difficulty was later eliminated when "from the essence of the Father" was omitted from the Creed of Constantinople. The works of Athanasius make it clear beyond doubt that in the minds of the Nicene fathers there was no contradiction or hesitation. For them the expressions "from the essence" and "of one essence" affirmed from different viewpoints one and the same thing: the true, immutable co-belonging of the Father and Son in an identity of unchanging life which was common to both of them. By opposing the Arian terms "from the desire" or "from the will" with their own definition "from the essence," the Nicene fathers tried to express the immanent and ontological character of the Divine generation as an internal, everlasting and essential condition, rather than an act, of the Divinity.

"From the essence" for them meant "in essence" or "by essence," and excluded the idea of an act of the will from the concept of Divine generation. Generation and "being from the essence" coincided in the Nicene interpretation, and were opposed to the concepts of creation and being as a result of desire or will, which had frequently been linked together. The shortcoming of the Nicene Creed lay elsewhere: there was no common term to name the three which made up the unity of the Godhead. The unity and indivisibility of the Divine Being had been expressed more clearly than the distinctions of the Trinity. The Divine Being was one essence yet three . . . there was a number, but no noun to follow it.

Soon after the council an intense theological debate flared up around the Nicene Creed. The political, social and personal motivations which complicated and exacerbated the passionate argumentation are not of particular interest for the history of dogma. There were enough purely theological reasons for the conflict without these. The manner of expression used in the creed was confusing to many because it was not familiar and seemed to be inexact. By the standards of contemporary usage, it appeared that the language of the Nicene statement did not express with sufficient strength and precision the hypostatic distinctions, especially in relation to the Son as Word. In addition to this, there was the danger of the Marcellian heresy, which Athanasius and the Nicene fathers regarded with perhaps too much tolerance.

The members of the so-called "anti-Nicene opposition" held various doctrinal positions. Numerically predominant among them were the conservative bishops of the East, who refrained from using Nicene terminology in favor of the older, more familiar expressions of Church tradition. They were united by their common fear of Sabellianism. The most active group of opponents were the "Eusebians," as they were called by Athanasius, who remained firm supporters of Origen and his dogma of subordinationism, and openly rejected the language and creed of Nicaea. They were joined by more extreme heretics who had not previously enunciated their views.

According to Socrates, after the bishops had made the term "of one essence" the subject of their discussions and examination, they declared war on each other, and this war "was like a battle at night, because neither side understood why it was abusing the other." Some rejected the expression "of one essence," claiming that those who accepted it were guilty of the heresy of Sabellianism and were blasphemers who denied the personal being of the Son of God. Others, defending consubstantiality, considered that their opponents were polytheists, and turned away from them "as from pagans." The anti-Nicene factions feared Sabellianism to such an extent that they became careless with regard to Arianism. They tried to protect themselves with sweeping anathemas that were stated in very general terms, and they attempted to replace the Nicene Creed with a new doctrine. Thus arose what Socrates called "a maze of creeds."

It is enough to point out the basic features of these arguments without going into their finer points. In the first place, the deliberate rejection of Nicene terminology is immediately apparent in all the creeds written at this time. In the second place, their main purpose was to make clear the doctrine of the distinction and individuality of the different hypostases. The second creed of Antioch (341) contained the expression "three hypostases," which was qualified by the weaker definition "one by agreement."

At the end of this long and confused struggle, which was complicated by deceit, duplicity, treachery, and the military intervention of various emperors, it turned out that no creed except the Nicene was capable of expressing and protecting the true and orthodox faith. It was in this sense that St. Athanasius called the Nicene Creed "the expression of the truth." He predicted that the dissent and confusion would not end until the "anti-Nicenes" came to their senses and said: "Let us arise and go to our fathers and say to them, 'We proclaim our anathema on the Arian heresy and recognize the council of Nicaea'."

St. Athanasius clearly saw the danger that was latent in the opposition to the Nicene doctrine. Given the prevalence of Arianism which existed at that time, this opposition, in the form of Sabellianism, was a threat to orthodoxy. The older, traditional systems of theology now seemed ambiguous, and a sound, new system could be established only on the basis of the Nicene doctrine of nsubstantiality." The whole structure of theological reasoning I to be rebuilt and regulated by this concept.

It was first of all necessary to present and clarify the premises and doctrines of the Nicene Creed, and this was the task of St. Athanasius. What was left incomplete by him was finished by the great Cappadocians. Their work also culminated in the creation of a new terminology. The differentiation of the concepts of essence and hypostasis, and the exact definition of the attributes of the hypostases, gave both completeness and flexibility to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

About 360 the ill-considered and imprudent struggle against the Nicene terminology resulted in the reemergence and apparent victory of extreme Arianism. The symbol of this victory was the so-called Second Formula of Sirmium of 357, which Hilary referred to as "the blasphemy of Ossius and Potamius." This was a daring attempt to end the discussion of the problem by declaring that it had in fact been decided. The purpose of this "Arian treachery," which was inspired not by sincere doctrinal motives but by tactical considerations, was to discredit the Nicene formulations on the grounds that they were not found in Scripture, that they were "incomprehensible to the people," and that the Nicene doctrines in general exceeded the measure of human knowledge and understanding. Catholic teaching was limited to the confession of "two persons" (not two Gods), of which the Father was greater in honor, dignity, and divinity by the very name of Father, while the Son was subordinate to Him together with everything over which the Father had given Him dominion.

However, this attempt to silence the argument proved fruitless. The controversy soon burst out again with new force. The propagation of "Anomoeanism" ("unlikeness") began in 356 in Alexandria, where Aëtius had established a circle of disciples. Soon he moved on to Antioch, where his preaching was very successful and was furthered by his pupil Eunomius.

According to Sozomen, Aëtius was "strong in the art of deduction and experienced in logomachy." "From morning until night he sat over his studies," wrote Epiphanius, "trying to define God by means of geometry and figures." Aëtius turned dogmatics into a dialectical game and he boasted that he "knew God better than he knew himself."

Eunomius gave logical definition to the dialectics of Aëtius. His main doctrine is that the Father is an "eternally unique God," Who "does not transform Himself from one essence into three hypostases" and Who "does not have a partner in His Divinity." His basic and "essential" positive definition of God is that He is unoriginate, αγεννησια. Therefore the essence of God cannot be endowed to anyone else. The "consubstantial" generation of the Son, His generation "from the essence of the Father," is impossible, since this would entail the division or breaking down of that which is simple and immutable. For this same reason a trinity of hypostases, which would abrogate the singleness and uniqueness of God, is inconceivable. Therefore, the Son is "of another essence" and "not similar" to the Father because any comparison or comparability is incommensurate with the absolute uniqueness of the Father, Who is superior to everything. The Son is a creature and does not exist prior to His origination.

For Eunomius the ideas of "generation" and "creation" are identical. The Son is distinct from all other creatures in that He is the immediate creation of the Father, while everything else, including the Holy Spirit, is created indirectly, through the Son. Therefore, the Son is similar to the Father with a "primary similarity," in the same way that a completed work bears the reflection of the artist. He is the image or stamp of the energy and will of the Almighty.

When the opponents of the Nicene Creed were confronted with the resurgence of Arianism, the inadequacy of their irresolute pronouncements was immediately evident. The anti-Nicenes who had remained orthodox became alarmed and their anxiety was expressed first of all by the movement of the so-called "homoiousians," which was concentrated around St. Basil of Ancyra. The teaching of the homoiousians was first set forth at the Council of Ancyra in 358 when the fathers stated that they "wanted to express the creed of the Catholic Church as thoroughly as possible," hoping at the same time to introduce into this explanation "something of their own."

This new element “of their own” was the concept of the kinship or the unity by relation, γνησια, of the Only Begotten Son and the Father. This was a milder form of consubstantiality. The main Concern of the fathers of Ancyra was not to emphasize the separateness and distinction of the persons but to make clear their commonness and unity. By stressing the mystery of the sonship, St. Basil of Ancyra (who was apparently the sole author at the doctrinal "Epistle" of the council) distinguished the "generating energy" of the Father from His "creating energy." In the act of generation not only the will and power of the Father are revealed, but his "essence" also is made manifest. What is essential in generation is likeness by essence. Being a father means being the father "of a like essence."

St. Basil of Ancyra also tried to define the conception of "hypostasis" and the individuality of the Divine Persons. He writes that it is necessary to consider the Son "as an independent 'hypostasis', different from the Father." As they later explained, in using the word "hypostasis," as well as the word "person," the homoiousian theologians wanted to express the "independently and actually existing properties" of the Father, Son and Spirit, and also to avoid Sabellian Modalism in doing so. Although they were not always precise, they tried to maintain a distinction between the concepts of "essence" and "hypostasis," which was understood as the individual existence of an essence. The "individuality" of the Second Person is His Sonship and His generation from the Father. The unity of the Persons was designated by the common term "Spirit." This theological system on the whole was a successful refutation of Arianism, although the homoiousians weakened its impact by their anathema against the term "consubstantiality," which in their understanding implied the identity of the Father and the Son.

The Anomoeans and the supporters of the homoiousian doctrine (The Third Formula of Sirmium of 358) met with hostility and opposition. The homoiousians were forced to replace the expression "of like essence," ομοιουσιος, with the ambiguous “like in everything,” ομοις κατα παντα. Although he signed the so-called “Dated Creed,” St. Basil of Ancyra insisted on specifying what he understood by "like in everything": "That is, not only by desire, but by hypostasis and essence." He anathematized those who limited this likeness "to any one thing." This "Dated Creed" (the Fourth Formula of Sirmium of 359) was largely a repetition of previous doctrinal statements, but it also contained a particular prohibition against the use of the term "essence" in defining God. The authors of the creed justified themselves by claiming that this expression was not found in Scripture and that it could lead to error among the faithful. Later at the council of Constantinople of 361, the explanatory κατα παντα, “in everything," was omitted from the new creed, and the generation of the Son was declared inaccessible to human understanding. The prohibition against the term ousia was repeated, and a new prohibition against hypostasis was added. Thus, from the testimony of unorthodox groups we learn that those who were orthodox deviated from the homoiousian formulas. This was the opinion of the supporters of the Nicene Creed.

St. Hilary of Poitiers, who was exiled to the East for his role in the struggle against Arianism in Gaul, saw in the council of Ancyra and the homoiousian doctrine a light in the darkness and a ray of hope. In his interpretation, "of like essence" meant the same as the Nicene term "of one essence," that is, unity of nature, but not person. In his writings about the councils, St. Athanasius admitted that "it is not necessary to treat people like Basil (of Ancyra) as enemies. They should be considered as brothers who differ from us by one word alone but who think the same as we do." Although by itself the concept of "like essence" is vague and inadequate, when qualified by the affirmation of generation "from the essence," it is equal to "consubstantiality" in the Nicene sense. The expression "like in everything" is found in the writings of Alexander, and Athanasius himself had earlier used it to elucidate "consubstantiality."

The term "of like essence" was used in spite of the fact that as a philological device it was awkward, for, as Aristotle had demonstrated, "likeness" refers to the "qualities" or properties of objects, not to their "essence." In dealing with a unity of essence it is necessary to speak about identity and not likeness. This had been pointed out by Athanasius. But here the meaning of "like essence" was related to "one essence" in the way that a recognition of an "identical essence" is a recognition of "one essence." In the first case it is the separateness of the compared elements which is being emphasized. After the council of Alexandria of 362, which was presided by St. Athanasius, the question was again raised as to the meaning of the concepts ousia and hypostasis. After heated argument it was recognized that the same orthodox truth is professed by those who speak about "one hypostasis" in the sense of a "single essence" and the "identity of nature," and those who teach "three hypostases" with "one ultimate principle," in order to express the knowledge of the Trinity "not only in name, but as truly existing and enduring."

After the Alexandrian council the expressions "of one essence" and "from the essence of the Father" entered the theological usage of many of the eastern churches: for example, in Laodicea, Antioch, Cappadocia. At the same time, the distinction of the concepts and terms ousia and hypostasis as something general and something individual was affirmed. The historical and doctrinal achievement of the great Cappadocians consists in their justification and propagation of this new usage. They were "the trinity which glorified the Trinity." The formula "one essence and three hypostases, μια ουσια, τρεις υποστασεις, has been maintained in general Church usage since their time.

Unexpectedly, much time and labor was required to prove to the West the validity of this formula and its identity with the time-honored western expression tres personae. In the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, "because of the poverty of their language and its lack of designations, the Westerners cannot distinguish between essence and hypostasis." Both were expressed in Latin as substantia. In the confession of three hypostases Westerners seemed to detect tritheism, a recognition of three substances or three gods.

A dangerous ambiguity remained in the formulation "three persons," in both Latin and Greek, for the Easterners and even partially for St. Basil the Great. The classical world did not know the mystery of personal being and in the classical languages there was no word which exactly designated individual personality. The Greek προσωπον meant mask rather than person and, moreover, it was tainted through its association with Sabellianism. Therefore, St. Basil the Great considered that it was inadequate and dangerous to speak of “three persons” and not of “three hypostases." "Person" was too weak, as was also the Latin persona.

Around 370 St. Jerome came under suspicion in Antioch for his refusal to confess "three hypostases." He avoided the new term of "three substances" and confessed instead one sub stance and three persons. Only after the work of St. Gregory the Theologian, who identified the concepts of hypostasis and person, and after the Second Ecumenical Council was an agreement finally reached between the East and West about theological terminology. But by the fifth century St. Augustine was objecting to Cappadocian theology and searching for new paths.

The theological movement of the fourth century had a Christological character. The focus of Church thought was the dual image of Christ as the God-man and Word Incarnate. The consubstantiality of the Son-Word with the Father meant the confession of the completeness of the Divine nature in Christ, which was necessary for the understanding of the Incarnation as the basis for man's salvation. The correlation of these dogmas was fully and clearly developed in the theological system of St. Athanasius. The denial of consubstantiality would invalidate the Redemption, which is based on the true union between creation and God. It was from this point of view that the doctrine of the Pneumatomachi, who detracted from or denied the consubstantiality and complete Divinity of the Holy Spirit, was debated and rejected. Since the Spirit is the principle and power which sanctifies and deifies creation, the sanctification which He brings is of no avail if He is not truly God. This movement also had its source in Arianism.

The doctrine of the Holy Spirit became the subject of debate in 350. This dogma was first examined in the works of St. Athanasius and later in the resolutions of the council of Alexandria of 362. It was set forth in its entirety in the writings of the Cappadocians, especially St. Gregory the Theologian. The elaboration of the doctrine of the Divinity of the Word made a clear understanding of the significance of the Incarnation indispensable, but the problem of the manner in which the Divine and human were united in Christ was not immediately raised. This dogma was not developed until the Creed of Chalcedon in 451, and more than two centuries of theological activity were still necessary before it was completely accepted.

The Christological debate had begun in the fourth century in connection with the heretical doctrine of Apollinarius of Laodicea. Of the "countless" works of Apollinarius only a few have been preserved. Among these are a series of fragments and citations which have been taken from writings denouncing him, and several of his compositions have survived under the names of other writers, including Gregory Thaumaturgus and Pope Julian.

In the first years of his activity Apollinarius was a zealous defender of the Nicene resolutions. But even before 362 he had begun to express his own Christological views, apparently in order to counteract the teaching of Diodore of Tarsus, who at that time was the leader of the Antiochene school. Apollinarius tried to define the conditions in which the Incarnate Word could be recognized as a complete union of Divine and human natures within the person of Christ. Since he did not distinguish between "nature" and "hypostasis," Apollinarius saw in Christ not only a single person and hypostasis but also a single nature. "God and flesh made up a single nature, complex and composite." For Apollinarius, unity of person is possible only in conjunction with unity of nature. A "complete unity" cannot be formed "from two complete entities."

If God was united with a complete man, who consists of a spirit or intellect, soul, and body, then an irreconcilable duality would be formed. In the conception of Apollinarius, if the Word assumed a human intellect, which has the properties of freedom and self-determination, then no true union would take place, for there would remain two center points, two ultimate principles. Redemption, which is the goal of the Incarnation, would not be achieved because it would be a man who died and not God as man. Furthermore, a human intellect, in maintaining its freedom and self-direction, would not be able to overcome sin within the soul. This is possible only for the Divine Intellect.

With this in mind, Apollinarius denied the presence of the complete triad of human qualities in the Incarnate Word. He asserted that Christ did not assume a human "intellect," but that this was replaced by the Word, which was united with an animate body. Christ became flesh, but He did not become man. Apollinarius held that the animate body of Christ "coexisted" and indivisibly "grew together with" the Word, Who became the principle of action in it, and thus took on a new manner of existence "in the unity of a complex incarnate Divine nature," μια φυσις τον Θεου λογου σεσαρκωμενη.

Apollinarius had many followers and the struggle against his teaching began at the Alexandrian council of 362. About 370 a two volume treatise against Apollinarius was written by an unknown author and included among the works of St. Athanasius. At this same time Apollinarius was denounced by St. Basil and, after a series of condemnations by various Church councils, Apollinarianism was officially rejected at the Second Ecumenical Council. In order to oppose him, the fathers of the fourth century, in particular St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian, developed the orthodox doctrine of the unity of two natures in one hypostasis. It is the completeness of the human nature in Christ that makes salvation possible. Christ is "one from two."

All of this prepared the way for the Creed of Chalcedon. Once again the main problem was terminology. The concepts of "nature," "person," and "hypostasis" had to be distinguished and the nature of "the union of God and man" had to be precisely defined. In the fourth century this theological work was just beginning. At the same time in Antioch an extreme position was being developed in opposition to Apollinarianism by Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who were later regarded as the precursors of Nestorianism.

These theological arguments developed the consciousness of the faithful and made it strong. The apostolic tradition was elaborated and recognized as the highest form of wisdom and philosophy, as the reason of truth and the truth of reason. Through both speculation and the assimilation of experience, modes of thought were transformed and a new system of concepts was developed. The Church fathers had good reason for devoting so much attention to problems of terminology. They were trying to find and establish words that would be adequate to their conceptions of God and which would precisely express, and thus protect, the truths of their faith. Their concern for terminology was not excessive. A word gives outer form to a thought and verbal precision is necessary for the full expression of intellectual conception. The patristic theologians tried to formulate their creeds with clarity because they hoped to establish the living traditions of the Church by expressing them in a versatile system of theology. This task was not easily fulfilled and theological speculation in the patristic age developed in many different directions. But all coincided in their basic principles and all were united by the common experience of the Church. "That is the mystery of the Church, that is the tradition of the fathers."

St. Athanasius was born into a Greek Christian family in Alexandria at the end of the third century, probably in 295. During his youth he witnessed the persecutions which took place under Diocletian. In the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, he spent "little time" in getting a general education or in studying the secular sciences but he had some knowledge of classical philosophy and of Neoplatonism in particular. He gave most of his attention to the study of Scripture, which he knew extremely well. Possibly he studied at the Catechetical School in Alexandria.

St. Athanasius was noticed by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, when still very young. He lived in Alexander's home and was instructed in grammar and rhetoric under his guidance. St. Athanasius was appointed deacon and became secretary to the bishop not long before the beginning of the Arian controversy. He accompanied Alexander to Nicaea where he "boldly rose up against the impiety of the Arians." Alexander died soon after the council. Apparently he had designated St. Athanasius as his successor. At the Alexandrian council of 339 it was stated that "all the multitude of inhabitants, everyone belonging to the Catholic Church, had gathered together and unanimously, as if in one body, cried out demanding Athanasius as bishop of the Church. Throughout the land they prayed to Christ for this for many days and many nights." In 328 St. Athanasius was consecrated bishop of Alexandria at a large gathering of prelates.

St. Athanasius was persecuted throughout his administration. He spent more than 15 of his 47 years as bishop in exile and banishment. The Arians and Meletians responded to his elevation with hostility and slander and the Eusebians saw him as the main obstacle to their attempts at compromise. Athanasius cleared himself of all the accusations brought against him at the council of Tyre in 335 but his enemies managed to convince Constantine that he was responsible for the dissension. The emperor ordered Athanasius to leave Egypt for the West and sent him to Trier, but he did not give permission for anyone to succeed him to the Alexandrian see. Athanasius was received at Trier with honor and love. During his short stay he exerted great influence on ecclesiastical circles and he was long remembered with veneration. After the death of Constantine in 337 Athanasius and other exiles received permission to return to Alexandria, where he was greeted with popular rejoicing.

However, the intrigue against St. Athanasius was immediately resumed. Eusebius accused him of having returned to his see legally, since his deposition by the council at Tyre had not been overturned by a new council. An Arian presbyter Pistus, who had been made bishop by Secundus of Ptolemais, also an Arian, was sent to take his place, but he was anathematized by the Egyptian bishops.

In spite of the unanimous defense which St. Athanasius received at the council of Alexandria in 339, at the council of Antioch in 340 he was again deposed, and a Cappadocian named Gregory was installed in the Alexandrian see. Gregory and his armed supporters rushed to Alexandria and seized the churches after much bloodshed. Athanasius considered it necessary to leave Egypt and went to Rome, where a local council cleared him of the accusations made against him and received him into their community. Pope Julius also interceded on his behalf. Roman supporters of monasticism, who were attracted by the renown of the Egyptian anchorites, gathered around Athanasius. In 343 he attended the council of Sardica. In 345 Constantius invited him to come back to Egypt, and in 346 Athanasius returned to Alexandria.

The Arian controversy broke out again toward the middle of 350, and St. Athanasius was deposed at the councils in Arles (353) and Milan (355). At the beginning of 356 the military commander Sirian was sent to Alexandria with orders to seize Athanasius, but Athanasius went into hiding and withdrew into the desert. The see of Alexandria was usurped by a new bishop, George, who subjected the orthodox to cruel persecution. Alexandria temporarily became the center of Arianism, and Aëtius and Eunomius began their preaching at this time.

During this period Athanasius hid in the desert among the hermits in complete seclusion. It was at this time that he wrote and circulated his most important denunciatory and apologetic Works. His enemies continued to look for him, but he was not found. Athanasius was not able to return from this exile until the sign of Julian in 361, but again for only a short time. During the few months of his tenure in Alexandria he succeeded in calling and leading a large council in 362, which made important definitions of doctrine.

At the end of 362 Athanasius was again exiled. He went to Egypt and stayed there until the death of Julian. After a preliminary meeting in Antioch with the new emperor, Jovian, Athanasius returned to Alexandria in 364. He again had to leave in 365 when Valens ordered the banishment of everyone who had been exiled under Constantius and returned under Julian. In four months this order was revoked by popular demand and Athanasius spent the rest of his days in Alexandria, occupied with literary and pastoral affairs. He died on May 2/3, 373, having ordained his successor, Bishop Peter, shortly before his death.

Only two of Athanasius' apologetic works date from the early years of his life: Oratio contra gentes [Discourse against the Pagans, λογος κατα ελληνων] and Oratio de incarnatione Verbi [Discourse on the Incarnation of the Word, λογος περι της ενανθρωπησεως]. They were probably written c. 317-319. There is no trace in these two works of the Arian controversy or of Nicene theology. These are interconnected by theme and content and Jerome united them with the common title Adversum gentes duo libri [Two Books against the Pagans]. The first discourse or oration demonstrates the falseness of paganism and outlines the path of ascent to the true knowledge of God and the Word through introspection and through the contemplation of the external world in its harmony and beauty. In this discourse certain elements of Hellenism and Neoplatonism are very strong, especially in the criticism of idolatry and in the depiction of the fall and return of the soul.

The second discourse or oration deals with the truth and significance of the Incarnation. Athanasius demonstrates that it is a fulfillment of prophecy and that it marks the moral rebirth which took place in the Christian world. He concludes his argument with references to Scripture, which was set forth by God through wise and holy men. He adds that "without a pure mind and without imitating the lives of the saints, no one can comprehend these holy words."

Many of Athanasius' exegetical works were known in antiquity but only fragments of his interpretations of the Psalms and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which were preserved in catenae, have survived to our time. His commentary has an Alexandrian character and deals primarily with moral problems. In his Epistula ad Marcellinum de interpretatione Psalmorum [Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms] Athanasius expresses his general view of the Old Testament. It was written by one Spirit and was written about our Savior. The Psalms have a particular and primary grace because the law and the prophets are combined in them. At the same time, they were written about each of us, as examples for our edification.

Athanasius set forth his theology as a polemic in the struggle against Arianism. Most of his dogmatic and polemical works were written during his third exile (356-362). Most important are the Three Discourses against the Arians [Orationes contra Arianos]. A fourth is frequently added to these but it was probably not written by Athanasius.

The first discourse or oration refutes the rational and exegetical arguments of the Arians. Here Athanasius cites and analyzes a series of excerpts from the Thalia [Banquet] of Arius. He defends the definition of faith of the Council of Nicaea (325) that the Son is eternal, uncreated, αγεννητος, unchangeable, and of one Divine Essence with the Father. The second discourse deals mostly with the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, the text which the Arians used as one of their main proofs for the created nature of the Son-Wisdom ("He created me at the beginning of His works"). In both the second and third discourse he analyzes otter Scriptural texts used by the Arians to refute Arian exegesis -- Hebrews 3:2; Acts 2:36; Matthew 26:39; 28:18; John 3:35; 12:27; Mark 13:32; and Luke 2:52. The third oration explains Divine consubstantiality, and also the significance of the passages in Scripture which seem to detract from the divinity of Christ.

At this time Athanasius wrote Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum [Four Letters to Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis] on the divinity and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit. These four letters comprise an integrated work. Not only are they addressed to the same person but they deal with the same subject — the Holy Spirit. Serapion had written to Athanasius but "certain persons, who, although having left the Arians because of their blasphemy against the Son of God, oppose still the Holy Spirit; they claim the Holy Spirit is not only a creature but actually one of the ministering spirits; that the Holy Spirit differs from the angels only in degrees.” [I,I]. Athanasius called this group the “tropicists,” τροπικοι because they used tropical or metaphorical exegesis to explain away Scriptural texts not in accord with their doctrine. In these letters Athanasius stresses that our knowledge of the Spirit is derived from the Son. His theology of the Holy Spirit is expressed very clearly in these important letters.

An oration on the words: "Everything has been given to me by my Father" may very well prove to be authentic and to have been written in the early part of his life. The authenticity of De Trinitate Libri XII and De Spiritu Sancto (which have survived only in a Latin translation) is questionable. Both the work against the Arians and the work against Apollinarius on the appearance of God in the flesh are dubious. Several of his letters, including some to Epictetus of Corinth [Epistula ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi], Adelphius the Confessor [Epistula ad Adelphium episcopum et confessorem], and to Maximus the Philosopher [Epistula ad Maximum philosophum] have a dogmatic content and deal mostly with Christology.

Athanasius was more than once forced to defend himself against libel. He wrote three apologetic works to justify himself: Apologia contra Arianos [Apology against the Arians], which includes all the documents relating to his case from his first two exiles (probably written c. 357); Apologia ad Constantium impera torem [Apology to Emperor Constantius] (probably written c. 357); and Apologia pro fuga sua [Apology for His Flight] (probably written c. 357) which Athanasius addressed to the entire Church and has, as such, remained one of his most famous works.

The historical and polemical works of Athanasius were also intended as apologies. Historia Arianorum ad monachos [History of the Arians for Monks] was written probably in 358 at the invitation of the monks with whom he had found refuge. In this work he attacks Emperor Constantius as a precursor of the Antichrist, as a patron of heresy, and as an enemy of Christ. However, in his Apologia ad Constantium imperatorem Athanasius utilized his most dignified language to the emperor. His Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi [Letter concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea] was probably written about 350/351 and is a defense of the Nicene definition. The Epistula de synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria celebratis [Letter Concerning the Synods of Ariminum in Italy and Seleucia in Isauria] was written in the autumn of 359 and constitutes an extensive report and analysis. His Epistula de sententia Dionysii episcopi Alexandrini [Letter on the Opinions of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria] is authentic; there may be merely a question as to whether it was a later addition to his work on The of the Council of Nicaea, but that it is authentically from Athanasius is not seriously questioned. To these can be added encyclical epistles from the Alexandrian councils: Tomus ad Antiochenos [Tome to the People of Antioch]; Epistula ad Afros episcopos [Letter to the African Bishops], and others.

Contemporaries are unanimous in ascribing The Vita of St. Antony, the father of monasticism, to Athanasius. During Athanasius' lifetime it was translated into Latin by Evagrius, a deacon and later bishop of Antioch, probably in 371 or 382, but in any event before 383, which was the year of the death of the youth Innocent, to whom the translation was dedicated. Doubts about the attribution of the Vita to Athanasius, which have existed since time of the Centuriators of Magdeburg, have no foundation.

Vita was written soon after the death of Antony (356), during the "Arian invasion" which forced Athanasius to leave Alexandria and take refuge in the remote desert. It was written for "our brothers in another land," in a country where monasticism only recently begun to appear. Athanasius saw in St. Antony "a worthy model of asceticism." The Life of St. Antony had great influence on the development of hagiographic literature, and especially on Jerome's Life of Paul of Thebes. Recently an ancient Syriac adaptation of the Life of Antony has been published.

Athanasius' Epistula ad Amunem monachum [Letter to the Amun] (written before 356) and his Epistula ad Dracontium [Letter to Dracontius] (written about 354 or 355) were intended to instruct them in the practice of ascetic discipline. The authenticity of De virginitate [On Virginity] is highly doubtful, to the testimony of Jerome in his De viris illustribus, 87. However, there is another treatise De virginitate that may be prized as genuine; a substantial Syriac fragment of it has edited and the complete text is extent in Armenian.

A particular place in the works of Athanasius is occupied by his paschal letters — επιστολαι εορταστικαι. Only insignificant fragments have been preserved of the original Greek, but a large collection has survived in Syriac translation. These letters are important for the chronology and history of the epoch. A fragment of the thirty-ninth letter (367) contains a list of the canonical books of Holy Scripture. This is supplemented by a list of books which were not included in the canon but which the fathers did not condemn for reading by the faithful: the Wisdom of Solomon; the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach; Esther; Judith; Tobit (Athanasius omitted the books of the Maccabees); the so-called "Doctrine of the Apostles" or The Didache; and The Shepherd. This is the first time that the 27 books of the New Testament were enumerated as a single whole.

The theology of Athanasius is based on the historical figure of Christ, the God-man and Savior. The trinitarian question of the generation and consubstantiality of the Son of God is for him primarily a Christological and soteriological problem. He is concerned not with speculation, but with living religious experience. The reality of salvation is Athanasius' proof of the divinity and consubstantiality of the Incarnate Word, for only the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten brings salvation. He sees the significance of salvation in the fact that a created human nature is united (or, more exactly, reunited) with God. This is possible only if it is truly God who takes on flesh and becomes a man. Salvation is "deification," θεοσις. In this respect St. Athanasius follows the teaching of St. Irenaeus and the tradition of the Church of Asia Minor.

In the theology of Athanasius there is an absolute opposition between God and creation. "Everything which is created is not at all like in essence to its Creator," for created things originate from that which does not exist and can have no similarity with that which has independent being. Created from nothing, creation exists above the abyss of nothingness and is ready to fall back into it. The created world is generated and has an origin, and therefore its nature is "fluctuating and subject to dissolution," since it has no support or foundation for existence within itself. True being belongs only to God, and God is first of all Being and Existence because He was not generated but is eternal. However, creation exists and at its origin it receives not only being but also stability and harmony. This is possible through participation in the Word, Who is present in the world. Creation, ruminated by the dominion, works, and order of the Word, can attain stable being by "participating in the Word, Who truly exists from the Father."

The Word of God as the Strength and Wisdom of the Divinity is the source, builder, and guardian of the world. God in His goodness does not let creation "be enthralled or enslaved by its own nature," but the one and only Word of the Father descends into the universe and spreads His power. He enlightens all things visible and invisible. He supports and strengthens everything in Himself, and He gives life to and preserves every individual thing amid all things as a whole. The Word is the source of the order and unity of the world. Everywhere in the world there is symmetry and proportion, the harmonious combination of opposite things. God is revealed in this unity and harmony: "No one dares to say that God's invisibility is harmful to us or that it is completely impossible for us to know God. On the contrary, He has brought such order to His creation that, although He is invisible by essence, He is knowable by his works."

The God of revelation is the Word. "For the Word has spread everywhere, both above and below, into the depths and in all directions: above in creation, below in Incarnation, into the depths of hell and everywhere in the world. Everything is filled with the knowledge of God." "The stamp and likeness" of the Divine Word and Wisdom have been placed on all creation and On every individual creature in the world, and this preserves the from decay and disintegration. Here Athanasius' ideas seem similar to the teaching of Plotinus about the ordering of matter by Intellect, but there is a sharp distinction between them. According to Plotinus, Intellect imprints itself on unqualified Matter and remains in it. For Athanasius, the origination and existence of creation is based on the presence of the Word in it. He rejects the Stoic concept of “seminal” words, λογοι σπερματικοι. The source of the order of the world is the Word of the Father.

For Athanasius the origination of the world and its impression by the Word are not separated in time. He wants to stress the duality of creation, which has its own fluctuating and created nature, and also bears the preserving stamp of the Word, through Whom it exists. Thus, creation has both "nature" and "grace." Athanasius' system is built on the distinction and opposition of these two elements. He developed his teaching about the Word as sovereign and creative Wisdom before the Arian controversy. His work is a continuation of the pre-Nicene tradition but his cosmology remains completely free of subordinationism. "Coexisting with the Father as Wisdom, and gazing at Him as the Word," the Son of God "creates, brings into being, and gives order to the universe, and, as the Strength of the Father, maintains all creation in its being . . . As the true Son, begotten of the Most Good, He is the Father's Strength and Wisdom and Word, not just by participation, as though everything were given to Him from outside, as it is to those who participate in Him . . . but in such a way that He is the very Wisdom, the very Word, the very Strength of the Father, the very Light, Truth, Justice, Virtue, Imprint, Radiance, Image. In short, He is the most perfect fruit of the Father, the Only Son, the unchanging Image of the Father." This means that the Father is completely knowable in the Son.

Athanasius developed his teaching about the Word at the height of the Arian controversy. He stressed the close connection between the creative action of the Word and the Incarnation, the work of salvation. He united these in the concept of the entry of the Word into the universe. In Scripture the Word is called the First-born in relation to creation "because the Word, Who created the world at the beginning, came down to the things that were created so they could come into being, and also because all creation was adopted by the Word at His descent." The Son was placed as the foundation before the beginning of time, "at the beginning of His works."

In keeping with his general teaching on the dual nature of every created being, Athanasius distinguishes two logical (not chronological) stages in the creation of man: the creation of human nature from nothing, and the imprinting or anointing of creation with the image of God. This "genesis" or adoption is made possible by the Son in the Spirit. God through His grace became the Father of those whom He created. Creation, maintaining its createdness, was adopted by the Father through its participation in the Son. At the moment of creation man, who had been led out of nonexistence, was anointed by the Spirit. The "breath of life" which God blew into Adam was not a soul but the holy and life-giving Spirit, and the first man was a "spiritual man" pause he had the Spirit within him. By making him like Himself, God enabled man to contemplate and observe the true Divinity, end introduced him to the bliss of true life.

But the grace and gifts of the Spirit were given to the first man from outside. Therefore it was possible for them to be lost, and indeed man did lose them at the Fall. Man turned away from the contemplation of God, ceased his intellectual striving toward Him, mid became shut up in himself, giving himself over to "self-consideration." It was then that passions and desires flared up in trim, and his life disintegrated and became fragmented. People fell into "self-love" and the soul turned from the intellectual to the corporeal, forgetting that it had been made in the image of God, Who is good. The soul "turned its thoughts to that which does not exist," gave it form, and thus became the inventor of evil. For evil is nothingness. It has no example for itself in God and is derived by human reasoning. The multitude of corporeal desires which crowded together in the soul hid the mirror it contained by Which it could and should have seen the image of the Father. The soul no longer saw or contemplated the God of the Word, in Whose image it was created, but gave its thoughts to a variety of things and saw only what was subject to the senses. This was the intoxication and bewilderment of the mind.

By breaking God's commandments the first man was deprived of the light of intellect and was returned to his "natural condition." He became the slave of the "natural" law of decay. Man's mind turned to vanities and was poisoned by sensual desires, and humanity was lost in the darkness of paganism.

At the Fall man was impoverished and nature was deprived of grace. In this way it became necessary for a "reunion," a "renewal of creation, "which was created in the image of God," to take place. The lost grace of God's image had to be restored. The as the Creator or Demiurge, had to "take on Himself the renewal of creation." And this was accomplished. "The Word became flesh." The Word assumed human nature which, while being similar to our nature, was enlightened and freed from weaknesses that are natural to it. "In this same way a straw, if it is covered by asbestos to oppose the action of fire, will no longer be afraid of fire, since it is safe in its nonflammable covering."

Although it is condemned to decay "by its essence," human nature was created and called to immortality. Indirect participation in the Word, which had existed from the beginning, was insufficient to preserve creation from decay. Repentance and forgiveness would be adequate only if transgression were not followed by decay, for "repentance does not lead man out of his natural condition, but only stops sin." Death, however, had become established in the body and had taken power over it.

God, of course, is omnipotent and could have driven death from the world with a single command, but this would not have healed man, who had become accustomed to disobedience. It would not have been in accord with divine justice. Such a complete forgiveness would show the power of the one who ordered it but man would remain the same as Adam, and once again grace would be given to him from outside. In that case the possibility of a new Fall would not be excluded. But through the Incarnation of the Word grace was given to humanity immutably. It became inalienable and remains with man constantly. The Word was clothed in a body in order to dress the body anew in life, in order to preserve it from decay not only externally but also to truly join the body to life. In this way "the body is clothed in the incorporeal Word of God and thus no longer fears death or decay, for it has life as a robe and decay is destroyed in it."

The Word was in the world from the beginning. As if the world were some large body, the Word gave it life and order. It was fitting for the Word to also appear in a human body and give life to it as well. The image of the Word was already outlined on man but when it became dirty and invisible "it was fitting to restore it." This was accomplished by the Incarnation of the Word.

The Word became man, similar to us in all respects. Athanasius employs the term "incarnation" and by this he means that in assuming flesh the Word became a full man, taking on an animate body with all the senses and sufferings that are proper to it. By virtue of its union with the Word, "because of the Word, which was in a body," the body was freed from its weakness and subjection to decay. The life-giving strength of the Word freed the body of the Savior from natural weaknesses: "Christ thirsted, since that is an attribute of a body, but He did not perish from hunger."

The body was subject to suffering but the impassible Word was within it. The body experienced weakness by the permission and will of the Word and not by necessity or against His will. The Lord tolerated everything proper to the body: He thirsted, wept, and even accepted death. But the death of the Lord took place because of His humility and love and not from necessity. He had the power to separate Himself from the body, and His body was able to die. However, it could not remain dead, for "it had become the temple of life." Therefore it immediately revived and arose from the dead "by virtue of the life that dwelled within it."

The Word was not bound by the body but freed the body from its limitedness and its inclination to sin. By the strength of the changing Word, the mutable human nature in Christ became immutably good, and all delusions were powerless over it. "Wisdom caused humanity to flourish, and humanity gradually rose above human nature, became deified, and acted as the agent of Wisdom in the service of the Divinity and its radiance." "The works proper to the Word were achieved through the body." The flesh was deified by serving the works of God, and the humanity Christ was without sin.

The human nature in Christ was fully anointed by the Spirit even before His baptism in the Jordan. Through Him we also were anointed by the Spirit and received Its imprint and presence within ourselves. Flesh was sanctified for the first time in the Spirit. The radiance of the human nature in Christ is the radiance of all human nature in its Source. In this way the Word through the Incarnation again stands ("is created") "at the beginning of his works," and is therefore called the First-born. The Lord "be came our brother through the likeness of the body," and His flesh "was saved and liberated before the others." Since we "share in His body," we also are saved and our life is renewed "because our flesh is no longer earthly but has been made identical with the Word by the Divine Word Himself, Who became flesh for our sakes."

Redemption and salvation were achieved not only at the Moment of the Incarnation but were accomplished throughout the earthly life of the Lord. The Lord revealed His love for humanity in two ways, by destroying death and renewing nature, and by "revealing Himself in His works" to show that He is the tend of the Father, the Leader and Emperor of the universe. By visible appearance the Lord showed His invisible Father to kind, which had abandoned intellectual contemplation. By fulfilling the law He removed from us its curse and condemnation. But decay could not be halted in men other than by death," and More the "ultimate goal" of the saving Incarnation must be seen as death itself. "He had a body in order to accept death, and it was not fitting to prevent death, lest the resurrection also be prevented." The death on the cross was an "offering," the fulfillment of a common obligation. But the body of the Lord "could not be held by death and rose from the dead." "Two things were marvelously accomplished in this one action: the death of all was carried out in the Lord's body, and death and decay were destroyed in it because of the Word which was inherent in it."

The Lord died not by the weakness of nature but by His own will, for the sake of the resurrection of all. "His body did not cast off its own death, but accepted death from men in order to completely destroy death." The body of the Lord did not experience decay but arose whole, for it was the body of Life itself. The death of the Lord was a true death, but a brief one. "He did not leave His body in that condition for long, but showed that it was dead and immediately resurrected it on the third day. Thus He raised the sign of victory over death by showing that His body did not decay and did not participate in suffering." All humanity was resurrected and exalted in Christ: "Through death immortality was given to all." The Lord rose from the grave "in the flesh, which had been deified and had cast off mortality." The flesh had been glorified and "this grace belongs to us and this exaltation is ours." We who share in a body with Him have been admitted to heaven.

Thus, Athanasius' teaching on redemption is primarily concerned with the Resurrection, the resurrection of man by Christ and in Christ.

Holy Scripture tells us two truths about the Savior: He has always been God, Son, and Word, and He became man. This occasionally leads to ambiguity in passages dealing with Christ because, although He is glorified, His human nature is underemphasized.

The Word did not simply "desire to become incarnate" or "manifest Himself in a body." He did not descend to man, but He became man, He made Himself the Son of Man. In this respect Athanasius sometimes uses incomplete or inexact expressions: the Word "clothes Himself" or "dwells within," and He is a temple, dwelling-place, or agent. However, Athanasius carefully distinguishes the appearance of the Word in Christ from His appearance and presence in saints. Christ became man. The visible body of Christ was the body of God, not man. He made the body "His own," and the weakness of the flesh became "proper" to the Word. Christ's works were not separated in such a way that one accomplished by His divine nature and another by His human nature, but "everything was achieved in combination" and indivisibly.

The very saliva of Christ was divine, healing, and life-giving use the Incarnate Word "adopted" all the properties of the and made them His own. It was He Who both grieved for us and then resurrected him. God was born in the flesh from Virgin, and Mary is the Bearer of God, Θεοτοκος. The flesh, which was born from Mary, did not become consubstantial with Word, and the Word was not joined to it. Mary was chosen so the Lord could receive “from her” a body that would be "similar to ours" and not consubstantial with the Godhead. "From Mary the Word received flesh, and a man was engendered whose nature and substance were the Word of God and whose flesh has from the seed of David, a man from the flesh of Mary."

Athanasius clearly emphasizes both the unity of Christ the man and His unmerging two natures. Christ has a Divine nature, by which He is consubstantial with the Father, and also a man nature, by which He is similar and related to us. For this reason He is the Savior, the Word, and the Second Adam all at once.

The Word became man so that we could "become divine," "in her to deify us in Himself." Deification is adoption by God, and "human sons have become the sons of God." We are "received by the Word and are deified through His flesh" by virtue of the Incarnation. Born from the Virgin, the Word was not united with only one man, but with the whole of human nature. Therefore everything that was achieved in the human nature of Christ is immediately extended to all men because they have a body in common with Him. There is no coercion involved here. Men are more than similar to Christ; they are truly participants in the human nature of the Word. Christ is a vine and we are the branches, "united with Him by our humanity." In the same way that the tendrils which grow from a grapevine are consubstantial with it, so are our bodies consubstantial with the body of the Lord, and we receive what He has accomplished. His body is the "root of our action and salvation." Everyone is renewed, anointed, and exalted in Christ, for "He has taken everyone on Himself." This is not merely similarity or substitution, but actual. Therefore all humanity is anointed by the Spirit in the Jordan dies on the cross, and is resurrected to immortality in Christ because "He Himself bears our body."

This participation in the humanity of Christ must also be realized in the actions of men. Because the Word assumed flesh, human nature has become "spiritual" and actually receives the Spirit. We are a "temple of God," a temple of the Holy Spirit which lives with in us and we become "friends of the Spirit." In receiving the gifts of the Spirit we are united with Christ. "The Spirit gives us to drink and we drink Christ." "The Spirit anoints Christ and is the breath of the Son," and in the Spirit "the word glorifies creation, deifies it and adopts it, and leads it to the Father." The Word anoints and seals everything through the Holy Spirit, and in the Spirit we be come "participants in the Divine nature." The Spirit is the "energy" of the Word, and therefore in receiving the Word we win the Spirit. The Word received flesh and men received the Spirit, becoming "bearers of the Spirit." By virtue of the presence of the Spirit in human nature sensual desires burn out, temptations to sin are driven away, and men are given the ability "not to be deceived by worldly things." After the coming of Christ the devil is "only a sparrow, a toy for children." Men have been given power over demons and temptations and the sign of the cross, as a sign of victory, can destroy all magic and charms and show demons that they are dead.

What is most important here is that the sting of death has been removed from creation. Because they have been received by the Word, men have "inherited eternal life." "They do not remain sinul and dead in their passions but they arise by the strength of the Word and become immortal and free from decay." Death is no longer terrible, for we have been promised that we will arise from the dead and become rulers with Christ in heaven. This is the path followed by Christian ascetics, who conquer the mysteries and become bearers of God. Their accomplishments testify to the victory of Christ over death, and every day the host of martyrs laughs at death and rejoices in Christ. Let those who doubt approach Christ with faith and they will see the feebleness of death in His victory over it. Christ "instills strength against death in all who come to Him." Christ is the cornerstone which has been laid "so that we can be built up on Him, like precious stones." Deification is the foundation for the complete union of men by love for one another in the image and by the example of Divine consubstantiality, all by the strength of the Spirit.

Redemption, the work of the Word, is the completion and renewal of creation. But the grace it offers man is much more than a simple return to the original condition which was lost at the Fall. For the Word became flesh, and man became a permanent participant in God. Decay was overcome and creation received its final stability through the "body of God." In this way a new creation was achieved. This was revealed in Scripture in the passages on the "First-born" and "the beginning of His works." "From before the hills," the Wisdom of God "was created at the beginning of His works" (Proverbs 8:22-25). Thus was announced before the beginning of time the creation and salvation by the Word and in the Word, the saving Incarnation of the Word as the source of a "new creation," superior to the "original creation." Every intention of God will be fulfilled at the second Corning of Christ: Christ will come in glory "to render to all the fruit of His Cross: resurrection and immortality.

Athanasius' explanation of the mystery of the Trinity was called forth by the Arian controversy. His work is largely an examination of the Scriptural passages which the Arians used to support their arguments, which Athanasius refutes. At the same time, Athanasius' trinitarian doctrine is the result of his own personal needs. It is the foundation of his faith and hope for salvation.

The false teaching of the Arians negates the work of Christ. A creature could not have true knowledge of God, could not overcome death, and could not unite us with God. "If the Word which became man was a creature, then men would not be deified and joined with God." It is only the Savior's consubstantiality which establishes the contact between men and God. Only a consubstantial Spirit unites us with the Father. In his dogma of consubstantiality Athanasius is defending the reality of salvation.

The starting point of Athanasius' trinitarian doctrine is the concept of God as the goodness and fullness of being. As a simple, holy and incomprehensible Being, which is higher than any fence, God is beyond human understanding. The perfect simplicity arid inner fullness of Divine Being and Life is the basis for Athanasius' teaching on the eternal generation and consubstantiality of the Only-Begotten, the Son and Word. The Word is rated by the Father and from His essence: He is the "proper generation of His essence." Everything which is generated is always consubstantial with that which engenders it. This is the feature of generation which distinguishes it from other modes of origination, and especially from creation. That which is created always originates either from some preexisting matter or from nothingness. It always remains unlike and external to its creator, "of another essence."

The Son is generated. His being is a necessity of the Divine nature, which is fertile and fruitful in and of itself. "The substance of the Father has never been incomplete, and that which is proper to it has never come to it at a later time." The denial of the Son's eternity and coeternity with the Father is blasphemy not only against the Son but also against the Father. It diminishes the dignity of the Father and negates His immutability. It supposes that "He once was without His own Word and Wisdom, that there was light which had no rays, that there was a spring which was dry and without water."

God is eternal, the source is eternal, and therefore the Wisdom-Word and His generation must also be eternal. If there was a time when the Son did not exist, then there was a time when God the Father and the Trinity did not exist. It would be as if "at one time the Trinity did not exist, but a Unity existed; as if there once was an incomplete Trinity, which at one time became complete." In this way the Trinity would be divided and corn posed of things which once had no existence, "of natures and essences that were alien among themselves." If this were true, the Trinity would have had an origin. It would be a complex "creation" which was composed through connection and adhesion. Athanasius uses this reasoning to show that the "mystery" of Arianism is a denial of the Divine Trinity. In fact, Arianism is a reversion to abstract monotheism. It rejects the knowledge of God as the Trinity, which is the highest truth of Christian revelation.

Athanasius stresses that the Father is immutable. He has always been the Father of "His own Son." There can be no question of succession in the relation of Father and Son, and there is not "interval" or "distance" between them. They are completely and perfectly coeternal. The possibility of a temporal relationship is excluded because it is impossible to designate the eternal and unchanging Father and the Son Who always abides in Him with temporal definitions. This eternity and coeternity means that the Son is generated, not created. Since He is generated, He is “from the essence,” εκ της ουσια. The Son is thus consubstantial with the Father, ομοουσιος. “That which proceeds from someone by essence is truly generated." Generation takes place "by nature," and not by will or desire.

The necessity of Divine generation does not entail coercion or involuntariness. Athanasius was frequently accused of this, but he consistently denies it. He does not mean to replace free desire by compulsion, but he points out that "that which is entailed essence is higher than free choice and antecedes it." before, that which cannot not be does not have a source from which it came to be. God had no beginning. He did not begin to be good and merciful, nor was an act of His will necessary for Him to become good, for God is Good. However, He is good not by compulsion or against His will. In this same way God is the Father but His willing to be so, and it is impossible to consider God not having a Son. The Father desires His own Hypostasis and He also desires His own Son, Who is from His essence. Being is before will, and only in will does the uncertainty of choice become possible. The generation of the Son is a condition within Divine Life, not an action. This explains the perfect closeness and unity of the Father and the Son. The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The "essence of the Father belongs to the Word." "The being of the Son is a property of the Father's essence . . . The being of the Son, since it comes from the Father, is in the Father. And the Father is in the Son, for that which is from the Father is the Son. He is in the Son, as the sun is in radiance, as intellect is in the word, as the spring is in the stream."

Therefore the Son is the "Image of the Father," the true and "indistinguishable Image," and the "form of the Divinity" in which the Father is known and contemplated. "As soon as there is the Father, there is also the Son." "Since there is the Hypostasis (of the Father), then without doubt there must also be His Image and because the Image of God is not drawn from outside, but God Himself engenders His Image, and seeing Himself in it He s in it." "When did the Father not see Himself in His own Image?"

This line of reasoning contains many elements of Neoplatonism, but Athanasius manages to free Origen's concept of eternal generation from subordinationism. Athanasius develops the idea of the Trinity as self-enclosed and complete Being and Life, which has no relation to the Revelation of God in the Word, and which is unconditionally and ontologically prior to any Revelation.

Athanasius bases his theology on the living unity of the Son and Father. "The divinity of the Father unceasingly and permanently abides in the Son, and the divinity of the Son is never exhausted in the bosom of the Father." The Father and Son are united in the unity of essence, in an identity of nature," and in the indivisible "identity of a single Divinity." The Son has the Father's nature without change, and the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father. Athanasius expresses this identity as a property or attribute, ιδιοτης. He considers that its most exact definition is the Nicene “consubstantial,” ομοουσιος.

This signifies more than equality, identicalness, or likeness. For Athanasius it means the complete unity of being, the indissoluble and immutable identity, and the absolute inseparability of the Son and the Father. Likeness, similarity, and coincidence in definition are the results of this unity. The concept of likeness is too weak to express this, and furthermore it is used not of essences but of external appearances and qualities. Moreover, this concept gives too much weight to the separateness of the elements that are being compared. Consubstantiality means not only likeness, but identity in likeness. "The Father and the Son are one, not in the sense that one is divisible into two parts which compose a whole, nor in the sense that one bears two names. On the contrary, They are two in number because the Father is the Father and not the Son, and the Son is the Son and not the Father, but their nature is one. The Son has been generated, but He is also God."

The Father and the Son "are two, and together form an in separable and indistinguishable Divine unity," μονας της θεοτητος. The difference and distinction of the Father and Son exists within a single Divine Being. Athanasius has no particular terms to describe the three which make up the Divine unity. He never uses προσωπον, a “face.” The meaning of “hypostasis" coincides with the meaning of ουσια for him, as it did for the fathers of the Nicene Council. Athanasius never distinguishes them as the Cappadocians were doing even during his lifetime. He restricts himself to the proper names of Father, Son, and Spirit, and explains their mutual relation by such expressions as "the One who generates" and "the One who is generated," "One who is from someone" and "the One from whom He is."

This leads to a certain lack of clarity in Athanasius' distinction of the three hypostases. He concentrates his attention on refuting attempts to divide or negate the consubstantiality of the indivisible Trinity. In his interpretation of the Nicene formulation "from eessence of the Father," he stresses the internal nature of the Divine generation and being. This expresses the "truth and immutability" of the Sonship, its "indivisibility and unity with the Father," and the "true eternity of essence from which the Word is generated." Athanasius refers equally to "natural generation," Sonship by nature," and "generation from the essence."