Two Ancient Christologies: A Study in the Christological thought of the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch in the Early History of Christian Doctrine

TWO ANCIE NT CH RISTOL OG I ES A STUDY IN THE CHRISTOLOGICA L THOUGHT OF THE SCHOOLS OF ALEXANDRIA AND ANTIOCH IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE BY

R. V. SELLERS, D.D. Warden of St Augustine's House Reading

Published for the Church Historical Society

LONDON SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE NORTHUMBERLAN D AVENUE, WC 2

'Io THE MEMORY OF MY FATHER

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

PREFACE the nineteenth century, when, in the reaction against "other-worldliness", emphasis came to be laid on the notion of immanence, and values were looked for in this world and its civilization, it was but natural that Christian thinkers should urge the re-exploration of Christianity, and see in the Man of Nazareth and the revelation of God which is to be found in Him the message for the age. Moreover, it was in keeping with this changed habit of thought that students of the early history of Christian dogma should select, as their special field of enquiry, the teaching of the Antiochene theologians, whose writings reveal a lively interest in anthropology; and, as is well known, of recent years much important work has been done on this subject. Now, however, when there appears to be a general dissatisfaction with a civilization which fails to bring with it the healing of man and nation, the pendulum, it seems, is swinging away from immanentism, and there are signs that the coming years will see a demand, not for a religion which proclaims as its basic conception that the Divine is to be found in the soul, but for one which proclaims that God, a living and personal Being, while immanent in creation, certainly transcends it, and that, since He is not "wholly other", but One to whom man can lift up his whole being, knowing that no phase of human life lies completely outside of the divine life, it is in a relationship of mutual love that man's cravings for a more abundant life can be satisfied. It seems likely, then, that in the future more attention will be paid to the work of the Alexandrine theoiogians, who, while affirming the immanence of God in the world and in man, start from the thought of the loving-kindness of the God who transcends the world, and set at the forefront of their teaching the principal assertion of Christianity-namely, that, in order that man, released from sin, might enjoy the fulness of life in perfect communion with his Maker, God has Himself come down and undergone human experiences in the Person of Jesus Christ. But in this reaction against immanentism it is important that

I

N

PREFACE

PREFACE

what has been gained and proved worthy shoul
of the Foundress, the late Mrs Eleanor Barrett Palmer, that St Augustine's should provide leisure for the pursuit of theological studies. To her, therefore, and to the Trustees of the Foundation, I owe no small debt.

Vlll

lX

R. V. SELLERS

Reading 8 May 1939

CONTENTS INTRODUCΠON Έπόμεvοι το!vνν τοίs ay!oιs πατράσιv

ένα και τόv αίιτόv όμολοyοίίμεv

Ylov

τοv Κίιριοv ήμωv Ίησοw Χριστόν

προ α\ώvωv μέv έκ τοίί Πατροs yεvvηθέvτα κατα τηv θεότητα

rn'

έσχάτωv δέ τωv ήμερωv τοv αίιτοv δι' ήμas καi δια την

ήμετέραν σωτηρίαν έκ Μαρίας τfίs παρθέvοv τfjs θεοτόκοv κατeχ τήv avθρωπότητα

CHAPTER Ι. ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY Ι.

The Teaching of Athanasius and his Predecessors

11. The Teaching of Apollinarius of Laodicea and his School ΙΙΙ.

The Teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers

IV. The Teaching of Cyril CHAPTER Ι.

yvωριsόμεvοv

Definitio Fidei αpud Concilium Chalcedonmse

II.

Ι

45 65 8ο

ΑΝηΟCΗΕΝΕ CHRISTOLOGY

The Soteriological Teaching of the Antiochene Theologians

107

11. The Christological Teaching of the Antiochene Theologians

143

έv δίιο φίισεσιv

&σvyχίιτωs άτρέπτωs άδιαιρέτωs ά)(ωρίστως

page xiii

CoNCLUSION

Ι.

The Conflict between the two Schools ofThought and its Outcome

202

11. The Value of the Alexandrine and the Antiochene Christologies

243

INDEX

259

INTRODUCT ION HE purpose of this study is to examine the Christological teaching of the Alexandrine and the Antiochene theologians in the early history of Christian dogma with a view to showing that, in reality, they were both contending for the same fundamental truths, and that, in consequence, the conflict which raged between these two ancient schools of thought, and had as its outcome the break-up of the school of Antioch, is to be regarded as one of the major tragedies in the history of the Early Church. We shall first consider the Alexandrine Christology. Its early exponents, Greeks, living in a Greek world, may betray signs of the influence of the thought and religion of Hellenism, but it seems clear that their Christological teaching, even if, in some of its aspects, it must be deemed unsatisfactory, has at its root ideas which are essentially Christian. Their successors in this Greek doctrinal tradition carry forward and develop the same basic Christological principles, only now these appear against a background which is, apparently, more in keeping with Christian fundamentals. These Christological principles are, first, that Jesus Christ is one Person, God Himself, who has become man for man's salvation, and, second, that in Him are the two elements of Godhead and manhood, these remaining real in their union in this one Person; as they are seen from the point of view of what they are meant to deny, the one may be called the antiNestorian, the other the anti-Eutychian principle. It is upon the first of these principles that the Alexandrines, in their determination to resist the Nestorian doctrine, lay particular stress; the second lies at the root of their teaching, but, as we shall try to show, while they hold that the Lord's manhood is real, and that it possesses the faculty of self-determination, they fail to develop what they accept as a principle. The Antiochenes approach the Christological problem from a different standpoint, for if the Alexandrines can be called Christian Platonists, these, brought up in what is known as the Syrian doctrinal tradition, can be called Christian Aristotelians.

T

XlV

INTRODUCTION

Yet, as we would show, these, too, building on the same Christian fundamentals, uphold the same two Christological principles. The difference between these theologians and those of the school of Alexandria would appear to lie in this: that while maintaining the first of these principles (though, if attention is paid merely to some of their terms, it may seem that a very different verdict is called for), the Antiochenes, intent on rejecting the error of Eutychianism, lay emphasis on the second, and, what is more, as it seems, succeed where their opponents fail, in that these make use of the doctrine of the reality of the Lord's manhood to the full extent, and do not hesitate to apply the principle of its individuality. So we would conclude that the Council of Ephesus (43 I), instead of marking the beginnings of a process which ended in the disruption of the Syrian school of theology, might have stood as the place where two ways met-and that to the benefit of the Christian Church. Perhaps in these modern days, when thought is such that the doctrine of the Antiochenes has a special appeal, we can carry forward their work-only, it would seem, we should be prepared to make use of the contribution of the Alexandrine teachers as well as that of the teachers of the school of Antioch, since, the two contributions being complementary, both are necessary in the interest of sound Christological thought.

CHAPTER

I

ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY I.

THE TEACHING OF ATHANASIUS AND HIS PREDECESSORS

Christological thought of the Alexandrine school of theology in the history of the ~arly Church finds its h~ghest expression before the Councll of Chalcedon (4 5I) m the teaching of Cyril, who came to be venerated as the defender of orthodoxy against the peril of N estorianism. But the faith which this theologian proclaimed was not his own creation. Central to the Alexandrine Christological tradition are both the great Athanasius and Apollinarius of .J,apdjc~a, whose doctrine (apart, that is, from the particular error of the latter) Cyril carried forward. But the principles upheld by Athanasius had been upheld before him by earlier Greek teachers, and in particular by Origen. So it is that, if we are to appreciate the development of the Alexandrine doctrine concerning the Person of Jesus Christ, we must first consider the teaching of Athanasius as it is seen in the light of that of his predecessors. Now behind any given Christology there must needs lie certain ideas concerning God and man and the relations between them. It follows, then, that we cannot fully understand the Christological teaching of the Alexandrine theologians without first enquiring into their root ideas. Besides, an enquiry of this sort is necessary in view of the important consideration that if these ideas are not essentially Christian, it cannot but be that the doctrinal structure which is founded upon them is, correspondingly, faulty. So we begin with an investigation of the doctrine of God as this was expounded by Athanasius and those who had gone before. Perhaps it will be well if, by way of introduction to our subject, we try to realize the difficulties that confronted the early exponents of Christianity as these set out to explain their faith to their neighbours. The Greeks had entered into the heritage bequeathed to them by Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics, and, as in Neo-Platonism, were now seeking to effect a closer fusion of

T

HE

SAC

2

ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY

traditional philosophical ideas with that essentially religious idea which is to be found at the heart of the Hellenic genius, namely, that blessedness is to be found as the human soul, liberated from all earthly bonds, mounts higher and higher in its contemplation of the Divine. So God was looked upon as the One, utterly transcendent and unknowable, the Father, the God, who, as Plato had said, stands "beyond knowledge and being" .1 But the Christian conception of God-a conception which has its roots in Hebraic Theism-is radically different from this. Christianity proclaims, not that God is the One who, highly exalted and enshrouded in mystery, is banished from the world, but that He is the all-holy and all-loving Creator, who, yearning that man, made in His image, should enjoy perfect communion with Him, and rule his life in accordance with the divine will, again and again intervenes in history-" rising up early and sending"-as He works out His good purpose for His creation. Clearly, then, the task facing early Christian teachers was no light one. How were they to present their message to a world long accustomed to vastly differe~t ideas? Can we blame them if they set out to discover what common ground there was between the Greek and the Christian, and, having discovered such common ground, at once made use of it? Indeed, it must be admitted that such perspicacity is greatly to their credit. Or, can we blame them if, when speaking of God, they adopt terms and phrases which have no ethical significance but are bound up with the Greek philosophical conception of the Divine? After all, they must have felt that it was only in this way that they could be sure of gaining a hearing. 2 But this is far from saying that they were themselves 1

Rep. vi. 509. It may seem that Justin Martyr, for instance, anxious to com~end the Gospel to his Greek neighbours as the only ~afe and profitable phtlosophy (Dial. 8), thinks of God as the nar;>eless: far-dis~ant. Bemg wh_or:' men cannot discover but it is evident that basic to his teachmg IS the Chnstian truth that God is Father and Creator, the Lord and Master of all, who of His goodness has created man in order that in his obedience to the divine commandments, he might reign .:Vith Him (AfJOl. i. 8, ro; ii. 7; Dial. 7), and ':ho, beholdin.g him now subject to the powers of evil, has int~rven~d, and H1mself. sent His Logos as man among men in order to effect his deliverance (Apol. 1. 28, 63; ii. 6). Similarly Athenagoras, answering the charge of "Atheism'.', t;>l~ads that the Christians "acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, mvisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimi:able, who is appreh~nded by the understanding only and the reason, who IS encompassed by hght and beauty and 2

3

ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY

taken captive by the very thought which they were attempting to overcome. As seems clear, they never surrender the fundamentals of their faith; at its core, their doctrine does not vary: the God of the Christians, they proclaim, is an ethical God. And, especially at Alexandria, might we have expected Christian teachers to have been so strongly influenced by the spell of Hellas that in their hands the gospel came to be deprived of its essential character. For at this centre of Greek culture, with its Library and Museum, Eastern thought in its manifold forms was being mingled with the philosophy of Greece. Here _Philo, making use of Hellenic conceptions, had sought to present Judaism as a religious philosophy; here the leading Gnostics, Basilides and Valentinus, had flourished. It was here, too, that the first of the Neo-Platonists, Plotinus (204-270), had studied under the renowned Ammonius before he settled at Rome. The tradition of learning for which Alexandria was famed was continued among the Christians, who set up their catechetical school-a school which was to give to Christendom teachers who could make their valuable contribution to Christian theology. But, even if the earliest and most influential heads of the school of Alexandria, Clement (t before 215) and Origen (185-254), were Greeks by birth and outlook, they were never unmindful of their Christian calling. They were Christians living in an atmosphere of Greek thought-but Christians they remained. Clement, intent upon attracting the educated Greeks to the Christian message, lays all stress on the thought that the supreme gift which Christianity has to offer to men is knowledge of the Divine, and makes use of their language. God, he says, is "above all speech, all conception, and all thought, being inexpressible even by His own power"; He is "ranked as the All on account of His greatness"; He is "the One, indivisible, without dimensions and limit, without form and name" .1 Certainly, such spirit and power ineffable" (Suppl. ro). But, as is clear, this Apologist, too, does not consider that God is removed from the world; rather, for him, is He the world's Creator and Framer, who moulds it according to His will, just as the potter moulds the clay (ibid. 8, 9, rs). 1 Strom. v. ro, 12; vii. I. It may be noted that Plato's words, "It is a hard task to find the Father and Maker of this universe, and when you have found f!:im, it is impossible to declare Him to all" (Timaeus, 28 c), are quoted three times by Clement, and that with manifest approval: "We,ll done, Plato; thou hasttouched on the truth" (Protrept. vi (ed. Dindorf, i.p. 74); Strom. v. r2, 14). I-2

ALEXAN DRINE CHRISTO LOGY

LOGY

ALEXAN DRINE CHRISTO 4 expressio ns, viewed by themselv es, are not consisten t with the cardinal truth of the gospel that God can, and does, reveal Himself, but, while owing a big debt to Greek philosop hy, Clement is a Christian . Fundame ntal to his doctrine is the concepti on that God is the Creator who loves all the things which He has made, who, a God of purpose, gave to the world as its instructo rs the Law of Moses and the philosop hy of the Greeks, and who, to complete this process of educatio n, has in these last days sent "Him from whom all instructi on comes", the Logos made man, that through Him man might possess that perfect knowledg e, 1 the attainme nt of which spells his salvation. ethical concepti on same It is reasonable to conclude that the him who, an outof of God is to be found behind the theology ns, was the generatio ng standing mind in his own and succeedi it, greatly in and , theologiae first to offer to the Church a summa , the problems doctrinal to, daring, to face, and to give an answer indebted Origen, realized. be to importan ce of which had yet to Plato and Philo, the Alexandr ian Jew, drew lip a system which may well have appeared to thoughtf ul Greeks as simply another product of Hellenic erudition , and it is easy to understa nd why Porphyry , the disciple of Plotinus, should say of this great thinker that while his life was that of a Christian , his opinions 2 concerni ng the Deity were those of the Greek. He affirms that God is "incorpo real, a simple intellectu al nature", incomprehensib le, impassib le, and uncircum scribed; he adopts the Pythagor ean "Monad "-nay, not satisfied with this, he would establish a new term 'Evas. 3 Again, he speaks of God as Mind and Ousia; indeed, he goes farther and declares that He is 4 "Mind, or somethin g transcen ding Mind and Ousia ". Clearly, it is possible to argue that Origen pushes the idea of divine 5 transcen dence to its farthest limit. But his doctrine has another, and, as it seems, a more fundamental aspect. The foundatio n of his system, he explicitly states, lies in the revelatio n given in Scripture and the truth of the apostolic tradition ; nay, as he himself confesses, it is in order to 2 Eusebius, H. E. vi. 19. Paed. i. 8; Protrept. xi. 4 C. Celsum, vii. 38. 3 De Princ. I. i. 5, 6; c. Celsum, vi. 64. 5 See, for instance, the view taken by De Faye, Origene, sa Vie, son CEuvre, sa Pensee, iii. pp. 27 ff. 1

5

express these fundame ntals that he makes use of sound philosophical teaching. 1 So, building upon this foundatio n, he can establish the thought which is central to his system- the thought, that is, of God's creative activity. With his view of an eternal act or process of creation we are not here concerne d. What should be noticed is that for him this activity proceeds not from "God" regarded as a metaphys ical abstracti on, but from a self-cons cious Being whose very essence, as it is made known to man, is goodness, and who, just because He is what He is, must reveal Himself,2 this divine self-reve lation being seen first and foremost in the Incarnati on itself.3 At the same time, it cannot be denied that with Origen the historica l-and the Christian faith is, of course, bound up with history- recedes into the backgrou nd: as a Platonist , he is concerned rather with the eternal, the only true reality, than with the temporal which is but the shadow of that reality- a characteristic which, as we shall see, is reflected in his Christolo gy. Moreove r, it is not unlikely that those who succeede d him as h~a~s of the catechetical school-n otably, Theogno stus 4 and 5 P1~nus (w~om Jerome calls "Origen Junior" )-had the same the letter of criterion pomt of VIew. But, if we take as our 6 d at assemble who H y~enaeus and the five other bishops of Paul of teaching the on Antwch (c: z.68) to pass judgmen t the of ion intervent the of S~~osa~a, It IS clear that the thought DIVme m the temporal was given first place by churchm en who th~mselve~ looked upon Origen as their master. These may use philosoph.Ic.al terms when speaking of God and say that He is one, un?ngma te, unseen, unchang ing, incompre hensible to man except In so far as He is made known through the Son but it does no~ appear justifiabl e to conclude from this that thei;s is the Deus phzlosophorum. For, upholdin g against the Samosate ne the ~ D~ Princ., Praef. 4_ 10 . · · M · . IJ · But , as h'IS argument agamst arcwn shows Ongen holds G d 1.. ii. th t Ibzd. ' o IS JUSt as well as good (ibid. u. v. 3). ~ on. the Incarnatio n in de Princ. n. vi. 4 ~~~ ~sph the important chapter in h' Hlt 8 ould be noted that, accordmg to Photius (Cod. cvi) Theognost us the ~ ::ftypo~es delibe_r~tely repudiates the notion that an Incarnatio n of 8 teach' g 1. ~n lmposslblh ty. It may be argued, then, that at the root of his God is an ethical God. 5 !Jng ~ t e conception that e Vzr. Illustr. 76. 6 The text is to be found in Loofs, Paulus von Samosata, pp. 324 ff.

0

17

ALEX ANDR INE CHRIS TOLO GY

ALEX ANDR INE CHRIS TOLO GY

6

proce ed to doctri ne of the indivi dual being of the Logos, they , who God" and ten, begot Onlyshow how "the begot ten Son, the ds towar will al patern the ing was "alwa ys with the Fathe r fulfill revela the in n, creatio all creati on", was God's instru ment in He how and Law, tion to the Patria rchs, and in the giving of the ate, and was sent from heaven by the Fathe r, and becam e incarn the trace was made man. Surely , behin d such statem ents we can se purpo a presen ce of the conce ption of an ethical God who has for mank ind, and works for its fulfilm ent.l ne of We are now in a positi on to consid er Athan asius' doctri philonot God. As is often said, his is an intere st which is reform er us religio great the rather is he us: religio sophical, but from than the system atic theolo gian. In this respec t he differs l ethica the his distin guish ed prede cesso rs at Alexandria. For oversly idea of God, which had at times, as it seems, been seriou From shado wed by the Greek idea of Him, is now crysta l clear. truth me supre first to last Athan asius focuses attent ion upon the be sed "Bles expre ssed in the openi ng words of the Benedictus: His med redee the Lord God of Israel ; for He hath visite d and menta l peopl e"; for centra l to his teachi ng is the Chris tian funda effect to that God Himse lf has interv ened in histor y in order His in that not man's redem ption. His view of God, then, is finite of world transc enden ce He is utterl y remov ed from the who Himbeing s, but that He is the living and perso nal Creat or desire s He ess, self draws nigh to His creati on, as, of His goodn Athathat say that man shall draw nigh to him. This is not to Greek the of nasius does not use the terms and expre ssions say, he is philos ophic al schoo ls-he certai nly does; but, as we Thus he us. religio r domin ated by an intere st which is altoge ther in their used s opher uses the term "ousi a ", the word that philos simpl e its in it uses class-rooms, but, it shoul d be observ ed, he says, he am'," I that meani ng of "bein g": "Whe n we hear 'I am 2 Again , he may adopt "we under stand the ousia of Him that is." thoug ht of Plato' s word s-wor ds which , of course, sum up the stratio Evangelica of Cf. in this connec tion the Praepa ratio and the Demon n. In these works traditio istic Origen the in Eusebi us of Caesar ea, who stands the theme " God in history " is upperm ost. s of 2 De Synod. 35· It is notewo rthy that we find no trace in the writing Origen : Is God above ousia Athana sius of the questio n which had disturb ed c. Celsum, vi. 64. in dignity and power. or is He Himse lf ousia? See 1

7

One- that the Neo-P latoni sts conce rning the super- essent ial out, 2 it is points tson God is "beyo nd all being '? but, as Rober that God significant that he insert s the word "crea ted", saying refers to one when is "beyo nd all create d being "; and, as is seen 3 occurs, ssion expre the the passages in the contra Gentes in which man. to ness" "near upper most here is the thoug ht of God's to us Timae the in saying Moreo ver, he adopt s the celebr ated tially "essen is He suit his purpo se: God is "good ", or rather none, but the source of goodn ess", who grudg es existe nce to -a lovingdness desire s all to exist as objects of His lovin g-kin ce of kindn ess which, he goes on to show, is seen in the presen which His Logos in creati on and (here bringi ng out the truth of Neoever separa tes the message of the Gospe l from the ideas n body for Platonism4) in the comin g of that Logos in a huma our salvation. 5 ates that Again, one side of their Logos -doctr ine plainly illustr tian Chris the d uphol would rs teache ndrine the earlie r Alexa in that l conce ption of God. For if the Chris tian funda menta is men g Jesus Chris t God Hims elf has come down as man amon e becam to be maint ained, it must be assert ed that the Logos who do they what man is eo-ete rnal with the Fathe r-and this is ne of the assert. At the same time, as it has been put, "the doctri ured harbo gy, Logos , great as was its impor tance for theolo 6 Jesus of ead Godh deadly perils in its bosom ''. ·In confessing the with the Chris t, theolo gians were at once broug ht face to face betwe en ction probl em as to how they were to expre ss the distin ve the preser to the Fathe r and the Son, and at the same time ted inheri had they truth conce rning the unity of God which this but r, answe their from ancien t Israel. The Sabel lians had answe r me~nt the denial of the Son's perso nal existence. The onism , dinati Subor of r whtch came from the other side, the answe 1

Rep. vi. 509. , Proleg. p. lxxii. : "Athan asius ",in Nicene and Post-N icene Fathers C. Gentes, z, 35, 40 . 4 ions, vii. 9: the Greek Cf. the celebra ted statem ent of August ine, Confess in the openin g words of could agree that the Logos is all that is said of Him writing was it said that "the ~e Fourth Gospel , but in no Neo-Pl atonic "God spared not his ogos became flesh and dwelt among st us", or that ow;,n ~on, but deliver ed Him up for us all". here n1aking use of y· ee c. Gentes, 41,6 and de Incarn. 3, Athana sius ic Though t, p. IZ9. Patrist in God e, Prestig L. G. So zmaeus, Z9 E.

8

was unsatisfac tory because it always carried with it the suggestion that God is the transcende nt, self-sufficient, and distinct Being, and that there must needs be a mediator, a "second God", between Him and the world, if the world is to be accounted for. As is well known, the principle of the Son's subordination to the Father is to be found side by side with that of His eo-eternity with the Father in Clement and Origen. Neither is there any need for us to enlarge on the subject that it was Origen's teaching on the subordina tion of the Son, at the expense of that on His eternal generation , which was developed by his followers, as these were intent upon resisting the Sabellian doctrine, and that this teaching, being carried even farther by the Lucianists , had its outcome in the Arian scheme of logical deduction s-itself a witness to what could be built on the foundation of Subordina tionism, once the doctrine that the nature of the Son is the same as that of the Father had been cast aside. But, now that Arianism was in the field, Athanasiu s sees full well that it is no longer possible for Christian teachers to hold together the two contradict ory principles of the complete divinity of the Son and His inferiority to the Father; now, as he realizes, if the fundamen tal Christian conviction that it is God Himself, and not a second and inferior God, Himself a creature, who has made the world and redeemed mankind is to be upheld, it must-and that with all boldness -be asserted that the being of the Son is identical with that of the Father. Let the Scriptures be set up as a light upon its candlestick, he declares, and it will be understoo d that it must be confessed that the Logos, the very Son of the Father, is no creature or work, but an offspring (yEwrn.!a) proper to the Father's ousia-and , therefore, very 1 God, and "homoous ios" with the Father. Whathete aches, then, , as he has it, Son-that the is is that whatever the Father is such of the Son, being the is "the fulness of the Father's Godhead 2 the Godhead of the Father and the and the Son is whole God'', Son being one. 3 Moreover, he insists that there is all the difference in the world between "begettin g" and "creating ". The Son is not a creature, but the offspring proper to the Father, as 1

C. Arian. i. 9•

2 TO 1TATjpw~a TijS TOV TiaTpos 6EOTT)TOS icrn TO elvat TOV Yiov, Ka\ of..os ee6s 3 Ibid. iii. 11. Y16s (ibid. iii. 6).

9 are rays of light to the sun: the rays are of the sun, but they \J are inseparabl e from it. So also, he goes on, is the Son of the f-.. Father's ousia, while the ousia, the Godhead, is indivisible ; ·He is other as offspring, but the same as God, He and the Father being one "in the identity of the one Godhead" .1 It is, then, through this Logos who is "Whole God" that, Athanasiu s insists, God has created the world. To say-as, in effect, the Lucianists had said-that God made the Son alone and then committed the rest to Him because He did not deign to make them Himself is, he exclaims, to say what creation itself will condemn as unworthy of God. There is no pride in God: as the Lord Himself has told us, this teacher affirms, God exercises His Providenc e even down to things so small as a hair of the head, a sparrow, and the grass of the field-ther efore it cannot be unworthy of Him, through a Logos who is proper to Him and no creature, to make all things. 2 Thus is rejected the idea of an utterly transcende nt and self-sufficient Being: God is indeed a transcende nt Being, but His transcende nce is not such that He is removed from His creation. In fact, this latter point is upheld again and again by Athanasiu s when he speaks of the function of the Logos. "It pleased God", he says, "that His own wisdom f( should condescen d to the creatures so as to introduce an impress and semblance on all in common and on each, that what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy of God " ; a so does God, "because He is good, guide and settle the whole creation by His own Logos who is Himself God, ... that creation )C may have light and abide alway securely" -for "it would have 4 come to nothingne ss but for the maintenan ce of it by the Logos'' . the to inferior medium, no According to Athanasiu s, then, it is Supreme, but God Himself who, through a Logos who is proper to Him, creates the world, and who, while transcende nt, is also, through this same Logos, immanent in creation: not only ALEXAND RINE CHRISTOL OGY

ALEXAND RINE CHRISTOL OGY

ECJ"TlV

6

1

2

Ibid. iii. 4 (cf. de Decret. rz). Ibid. ii. :