Four Discourses Against the Arians

by Athanasius of Alexandria

In the fourth century, a group of Christians who followed the teachings of Arius, an Alexandrian presbyter, claimed that Christ was not truly divine but a created being. According to Arius, God alone is unique and self-existent: the Son is not. Although Arianism was condemned as heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325, it continued to exert significant influence. Patriarch of Alexandria, St Athanasius (c.296 373) was among the most vigorous defenders of the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ. This 1873 publication presents the original Greek of four polemical orations directed against the Arian heretics. Also included is an account of Athanasius' life and a commentary on his work provided by William Bright (1824 1901), Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford, who specialised in the history of the early church."

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Church History, History, Nonfiction, Religion

Nook

First published January 1, 360

About the author

born perhaps 293

Greek patriarch Saint Athanasius, known as "the Great," of Alexandria led defenders of Christian orthodoxy against Arianism.

An Athanasian follows him, especially in opposition to Arianism.

Christians attributed Athanasian Creed, which dates probably from the fifth century, but people now consider its unknown origin.

People also refer to Athanasius (Arabic: البابا أثناسيوس الرسولي, as the Confessor and the Apostolic, primarily in the Coptic Church; he served as the twentieth bishop. From 8 June 328, his episcopate lasted, but four different Roman emperors ordered him to spend five exiles for 17 years. People consider this renowned theologian, a Father of the Church, the chief of Trinitarianism, and a noted Egyptian of the fourth century.

People remember his role in the conflict. In 325, Athanasius at the age of 27 years played a role in the first council of Nicaea. At the time, he served as a deacon and personal secretary of Alexander, the nineteenth bishop. Constantine I convoked Nicaea in May–August 325 to address the position of Jesus of Nazareth of a distinct substance from the Father.

Three years after Nicæa and upon the repose of Alexander, bishop, he served in June 328 at the age of 30 years as archbishop. He continued to the conflict for the rest of his life, and theological and political struggles engaged him against Constantine and Constantius II, the emperors, and against Eusebius of Nicomedia and other powerful and influential churchmen. He stood as "Athanasius contra Mundum," against the world. Within a few years of his departure, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus called him the "pillar of the Church." All fathers of the Church followed and well regarded his writings in the west and the east. His writings show a rich devotion to the Word, the Son of Man, great pastoral concern, and profound interest in monasticism.

The Roman Catholic Church counts Athanasius and three other doctors, and east labels him the "father." Many Protestants also celebrate him and label him "father of the canon." People venerate Athanasius on feast day, 2 May in west, 15 May in Coptic, and 18 January in the other eastern churches. The Roman Catholic Church, Orient, east, Lutherans, and Anglican communion venerate him.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work is a step up from Athanasius’s smaller treaty on the Incarnation. Here we begin to see a fully worked-out theological ontology. This review, however, will not deal with the controversies concerning Proverbs 8 in the Nicene world. That would take up too much space.

One needs to see Arius’s thought in context before one can appreciate how Athanasius fundamentally destroyed the Hellenistic mindset. It’s not simply that Arius thought Jesus was created. He did, but Arius also thought he was being faithful to the conservative philosophical tradition in Alexandria. That tradition is best seen as the shadow of Neo-Platonism. It’s not a pure Neo-Platonism (if such a monster even exists), but it’s close enough on issues like simplicity.

Disclosure: I relied heavily on Joseph Farrell’s (D.Phil Oxford, Patristic Theology) analysis of the Athanasian crisis, as well as conversations with several of his students. Any faults are entirely my own.

Establishing the Dialectic

Short answer: Arius defined the deity in terms of a specific property of the Father (unbegottenness), but behind this definition was embedded a philosophical dialectic, which, if left unchecked, would control orthodox categoreis. The Arians saw divine simplicity unicity of a nontransferable monadic state, to use John McGuckin’s fine phrase. If the Father is simple essence, and the Son is not the Father, then the Son is of a different essence. The problem is that the Hellenistic/Arian mind identified God’s essence with a particular property (unbegottenness). It was Athanasius’s genius to break the back of this system by noting that essence isn’t the same as person or property.

Arius shows what Origenism looks like if taken to its Neo-Platonic conclusion. The One is utterly simple and beyond. It is beyond subject and object, yet if the One “thinks” (or makes any kind of distinction, be it the idea to create the world or the decision to beget the Son), and given that person-will-essence are identical, and that ideas/operations are now simply effluences of the essence, Arius is forced to one of several conclusions:

a) The ideas produced by the one are also identical to the one
b) It is completely separate from the one by means of duplication and distance.
c) If the Son is eternal, then Creation, being an object of willing, is also eternal, since the act of will is equal to the eternal essence per Arian simplicity. Simply put, for this tradition, there can’t be distinctions between operation and essence, because the essence itself does not allow for any distinctions!
Why does (c) follow? If God has the property of being-Creator as well as the property of being-Father, and the essence is eternal, and the essence is identical to the act of will/property, then he must be eternally creator, which draws out another inference

cc) Creation is eternal

Smashing the Dialectic

d) The generation of the Son is according to the essence, since the being is from the Father, while the creation of the world is according to the divine will.

As James Kelley notes, for “Arius the category of what God is (nature) is the same as what God does (operation).”

Now for the actual text….

Discourse I

* The Father and Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin….but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begat him (I.5).

*The Difference between Work and Begetting: “The work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence” (I.8.29).

Discourse II

* The Word must be the living Will of the Father, and an essential energy (enousion energia), and a real Word” (II.14.2). Athanasius’s point is that the Word can’t be a product of the Father’s will since he is the Father’s will.

That blunts Arius on one point but it raises another problem: isn’t making the Word the Father’s will confusing person with nature, which is what Arius did? One could say that Athanasius isn’t defining the Deity of the Son in terms of a specific divine property.

Elsewhere Athanasius notes that the Son is in the Father and the Son’s being is proper to the Father. And given that Athanasius follows the Patristic ordo in reasoning from Person to Operation to Essence, then the Son’s being the living will points to a unity of operation. Hence, we now see that the Son reveals the common operation and energy, and so reveals the common essence.

Discourse III

* The Son doesn’t “participate” in God. This is a break with Platonism (III.23.1).

* The Son is in the Father….because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father’s essence….For whereas the Form and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son” (III.23.4).

Christ’s being in the flesh deifies the flesh, and only God can properly deify (III.27.38).

Nota Bene:

Athanasius has a robust angelology

Angels are not the same as the Thrones, nor the Thrones the same as the Authorities (II.16.19).

[Simon Voth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Outstanding in the description of trinitarian doctrine, while focusing on the Son's relationship to the Father. Simply brilliant in his thoughts about the incarnation, the hypostatic union and the vicarious human life of Christ to unite humanity with him and make us partakers of the divine life. A Christology and Soteriology that goes far deeper than much of the contemporary shallowness.
"For had not our nature been so closely united to the Sons's Divinity, man could not have been made a sharer of Divine perfection. And again, had not the Son of God admitted the imperfections of our nature to a place in His person, it had been impossible for our nature to be entirely delivered from them."

[David Mamdouh · Rating 5 out of 5]

ثاني أقوى كتاب لمعلمنا القديس اثناسيوس الرسولي بعد تجسد الكلمة

[Asnaldo Alvarez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelente los argumentos que Atanasio presenta en esta obra, con un lenguaje propio de su tiempo, pero sin duda una fuente de información valiosa para lo que quieren defender la deidad de Cristo.

[Michael T Moos · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book isn’t a polemic against Arianism but an account of the actions of the church to preserve orthodoxy and those who put forth the heresy including lying and accusations of murder to bring their heresy into the church. Good stuff, it can drag a bit, but there’s a lot of valuable info in here.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Athanasius of course was a dominant participant in the christological debate which raged during the fourth century. For those with a deep interest in how we got from Jesus of Nazareth to the Christ of later orthodoxy, this work is a very important source. It also enlightens our understanding of ancient modes of thought and the character of early Christian debate. Not many will have the interest or the need to wade through it all. That being said, I'm glad I did.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting primary source for the various controversies Athanasius was involved in and the false accusations against him. Quite repetitive since it is a collection of letters in his defense, but it shows the level of support he had and his vindication in the face of false accusations.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Generally, it consists of testimonies from bishops and synods in defence of Athanasius. It is useful as a historical source, though it is not a thrilling read.

[Chandler Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great content in here about the authority of church councils and the schismatic nature of Arian thought. However, it is a slightly dull read at times.

[David Vredenburgh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good work, but the translation is old and Athanasius is very repetitive.

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Trashing Gnosticism to the point of just being nasty

[Peter J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good because I basically hate all things Athanasius and am thankful he quoted the Thalia so much in this work. It has allowed me to piece together the work of his opponent Arius; a far nobler man than the supposed saint.

[Jesse · Rating 5 out of 5]

While is tone leaves something to be desired, Athanasius was a genius.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

More letters in defense of Athanasius than his actual writing.

[Bishoy M. Farag · Rating 4 out of 5]

من اروع واقوي الكتب التي ستقاها في حياتك ردا علي الاريوسيين واثبات ل الوهية المسيح
ياريت الطوائف المسيحية تقرا الكتب دي علشان يستفادوا بدل اغسطينوس وانسلم والاكويني وغيرهم

[Logan Strait · Rating 4 out of 5]

The essential apologetic, foundation of the Trinitarian faith. Refutes Jehovah's Witnesses.

A bit repetitive.