ATANASIO, SANTO

ATANASIUS, St. — Bishop of Alexandria, Father and Doctor of the Church.

Life. — His life, which was extremely agitated, is almost entirely intertwined with and confused by the history of the Arian controversy of the 4th century. It is easy to establish its periods: there is little certain information before his episcopate; the nearly fifty years of his episcopate (328-73) are interrupted by five different exiles, for which we have precise dates, and can therefore serve as a division for our brief biography.

He is said to have been born around 295 at Alexandria or in its vicinity, and is described as being of Greek origin because of his name and that of his brother Peter (though A. also spoke and wrote in Coptic). It is certain that he was born of Christian parents and received a careful Greek, classical, and Christian education.

In his youth he seems to have frequented St. Anthony, the patriarch of the solitaries, whose life he later wrote, asserting clearly that he had been his disciple. Early on he dedicated himself to the service of the Church; we know that he was a deacon when the Arian controversy arose in the autumn of 323 and that by that date he had already composed his first work, a treatise of apologetics, and the two books *Contra Gentiles* and *De Incarnatione Verbi*. As a deacon he accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to Nicaea (325).

When Alexander died on 17 April 328, A. was called to succeed him. We do not know how his election took place, about which there are many contradictory accounts. The Church of Alexandria was then divided by a double schism: that of Arius and that of Meletius of Lycopolis (v.). According to various sources, the two schismatic groups each put forward a candidate, but the great majority of the Egyptian bishops pronounced in favor of A., who was elected on 8 June 328. One can understand how difficult the task of a bishop was amid so many divisions; and already by 331 intrigues began against him on the part of the Arian court bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. They first tried to make him lose the emperor’s esteem by ordering him to receive Arius’s friends into communion. But A. refused. Then the Meletians accused him before Constantine of having imposed on the Egyptians a tax of linen cloths; and moreover, of the fact that one of his priests, on his orders, had broken the chalice of the Meletian bishop Ischyras and sent a purse of gold to a certain Philumenus, suspected of high tre

Mento. Summoned before the emperor’s tribunal at Nicomedia, A. appeared and refuted all the false accusations, returning to Alexandria in March 332 with a letter from Constantine full of praise for him but very harsh toward his enemies. Emboldened by this success, A. redoubled his efforts against the Meletians, who retaliated by accusing him of having murdered Arsenius, the Meletian bishop of Ispalis. This, however, only added to his enemies’ discomfiture, for Arsenius was found alive at Tyre, and the Eusebians, who had already convened a council at Caesarea to condemn A. (333), were forced to disband without reaching any conclusion. The accused was again vindicated by an imperial letter in which the emperor reproached his adversaries.

The Arians, however, were not deterred and persuaded their leader Arius to subscribe to an equivocal formula of faith. Constantine was satisfied with this and ordered the bishops to receive Arius into their communion. A. again refused, and then Arians and Meletians petitioned the emperor to convene a general council to settle definitively the Egyptian disputes. This council met at Tyre in August 335, but only bishops designated by the Eusebians—almost all of them enemies of A.—were officially summoned.

A. arrived with fifty of his own supporters, but they were not admitted. Of all the charges brought against him, only the matter of Ischyras remained, and even that was so confused that an investigative commission had to be sent to Mareotis. This commission was composed of the accused’s bitterest enemies, and A. did not wait for its return before leaving the assembly and going to Constantinople to defend himself before Constantine himself. At first favorable to A., the emperor ultimately approved the sentence of deposition already pronounced at Tyre. An imperial decree of 7 November 335 relegated A. to Trier in the Gauls without appointing a successor. This was the first exile, and it lasted until Constantine’s death (22 May 337).

On 7 June 337, Constantine II already sent the exiled prelate back to Alexandria, where A. did not enter until 23 November, after meeting the new Eastern emperor, Constantius, at Viminacium and then at Caesarea in Cappadocia. His exile had lasted twenty-eight months and two days.

The Eusebians, unable to hope for anything from civil power at the moment, brought the matter of A. before Pope Julius, not without first having recognized as bishop of Alexandria a certain Pistos, appointed by the Arians (338). Having been informed of this maneuver by the Pope himself, A. convened a synod of his bishops, who drew up a lengthy circular letter in his favor. Julius then summoned both parties to Rome for a plenary council. A. responded to the summons, but the Eusebians did not appear; indeed, confident in the support of Constantius, Emperor of the East, they had Pistos replaced by Gregory of Cappadocia in the see of Alexandria. The prefect of Egypt, Philagrius, forcibly seized the churches of the city to deliver them to the intruder, and A., forced to leave Egypt as early as 16 April 339, made his way to Rome after protesting in an encyclical letter (PG 25, 221-40). Thus began his second exile, which lasted until 20 October 346.

During these six years many events occurred. In Rome, A. saw his innocence recognized by a council (autumn 340 or spring 341). He then attended the Council of Sardica (343), where he was again vindicated by the Catholic party. During his stay in the West, he introduced Westerners to the monastic life as practiced in Egypt. He traveled extensively. At Easter 345 he was at Aquileia with Constant I, who obtained from his brother Constantius permission for him to return to Alexandria. This recall became official after the death of the intruder Gregory of Cappadocia (25 June 345); but the exile did not hasten to avail himself of Constantius’s favor, there being too many reasons to distrust him. Having obtained an audience with Constant, he came to Rome, where he received a letter from the Pope for the clergy and faithful of Alexandria. From Rome he went to Adrianople, then to Antioch, where Constantius received him and furnished him with a letter of commendation for the Catholic clergy and civil authorities in Egypt; and on 21 October 346 he made his triumphal entry into Alexandria.

A. enjoyed ten years of relative peace, which he used to compose dogmatic works or defenses of his own position. It was also at this time that he worked for the conversion of Abyssinia (v. ETHIOPIA).

From 351 the intrigues of the Arians began anew, and they even succeeded in turning the episcopate of the West against him. At the Council of Arles (354) and that of Milan (355) all pronounced against him, except for a few bishops such as Liberius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Cagliari. Even Liberius in 357 ended by abandoning him. These defections filled the holy bishop with bitterness, and he prepared himself for his third exile by writing an *Apologia ad Constantinum* (PG 25, 595-642).

On the night of February 8-9, 356, the church of Theonas, where ATHANASIUS was officiating, was invaded by troops; but the bishop managed to flee into the desert, where the monks surrounded him with care and shielded him from all pursuit. With the monks Athanasius spent the eight years of his third exile, until early 362; fruitful years both from the apostolic and the literary point of view. From his solitude he continued to govern his Church, and it was then that he wrote the *Orationes contra Arianos* and the *Letters to Serapion*, which form his glory as Doctor of the Most Holy Trinity. He also wrote some works of personal apology such as the *Apologia de fuga sua* (PG 25, 643-680) and the *Historia arianorum ad monachos* (ibid., 691-796).

In October 358, after the riot that forced the Arian bishop George of Cappadocia to flee, Athanasius was able to slip away for a few days to Alexandria, but his definitive return did not occur until February 21, 362, after Constantius had died (December 2, 361), George had been massacred by the mob, and Julian the Apostate had ascended the throne, whose first act was to recall the bishops exiled by his predecessor.

Upon his return to Alexandria, Athanasius’ first care was to re-establish Nicene orthodoxy and combat the official Arianism that had triumphed at the Councils of Seleucia and Rimini (359). When he had convened a council, decisions were taken marked by mercy toward all who had drifted into Arianism through ignorance, and even on the dogmatic plane there was latitude and tolerance for whatever was mere verbal quibbling or hairsplitting. The christological dogma was very clearly defined against the opposing errors of Apollinarianism and Nestorianism that were beginning to appear, and Athanasius summed up these important decisions in a brief treatise entitled *Tomus ad Antiochenos* (PG 25, 795-810).

Such activity directed to procuring Catholic unity could not fail to displease the Apostate Julian, who was intent on restoring paganism. A decree of March 363 ordered the expulsion of Athanasius. On October 23 he left his see for the fourth time, but only for a few months, because Julian died on June 26, 363, and was succeeded on the throne by the Catholic Jovian, who at once recalled the persecuted bishop to Alexandria. Before setting out thither, Athanasius wished to pass through An

He attempted to have discussions with the emperor and to try once more to restore religious concord, but his efforts were again in vain. Only on 14 or 20 February 364 did he reappear among his faithful, but for a short time, since in the meantime Jovian died (17 February) and the empire was divided between his two brothers, Valentinian and Valens, with the West going to the former and the East to the latter. Unfortunately, Valens was favourable to Arianism, and on 4 or 5 May 365 he banished all the bishops whom Julian had recalled. It seemed that A. might escape proscription, having been recalled by Jovian; but despite the efforts made on his behalf by the Egyptians, he had to go into hiding a fifth time as early as 5 October 365, though remaining on the outskirts of the city. After four months, Valens, in order to win the sympathy of the Egyptians, recalled him, and on 1 February 366 A. returned to his see, never to leave it again until his death, which occurred on the night of 2 or 3 May 373.

His last years were peaceful, spent for the general good of the Church, in close communion with all the West. He intervened in the West to warn the bishops against the partisans of the formula of Rimini, and it was at his instigation that Pope Damasus deposed Auxentius of Milan (369). In a Letter to the Africans A. urged them to remain faithful to the formula of Nicaea to avoid the snares of heresy, since the Christological errors that would later be called Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism were beginning to spread. A., who had already condemned them in his Tomus ad Antiochenos, sought to combat them, without naming the authors, in three dogmatic letters: Ad Epictetum, Ad Adelphium, Ad Maximum (PG 26, 1049-90).

History has given A. the title of “the Great,” deservedly so for the unyielding firmness of his character. He was a man of government, and as such had at times to be stern; but he also knew how to show himself paternal and kindly. A. was not quarrelsome, but a man of great good sense and broad views; in doctrinal matters he attached more importance to substance than to form.

Writings and Doctrine. — The literary legacy of St A. is still far from being fully ascertained, as recent research for the critical edition of his works by H. G. Opitz has shown (Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, Berlin-Leipzig 1935). Besides numerous apocryphal writings attributed to him, there are also dubious works, whose number has sometimes been increased without sufficient reason. Especially the translations into Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, etc., seem likely to hold more than one surprise for us.

S. A. wrote few lengthy works, but his numerous pamphlets can be arranged in the following three groups: a) apologetic and dogmatic works; b) historical works and works of personal apology; c) pastoral and ascetic works; to these may be added, given their character, the exegetical writings. It will be necessary to mention the apocryphal or of doubtful authenticity writings.

1. Apologetic and dogmatic works

The first known writing of A., composed around 318-20, is an apology of the Christian religion divided into two parts: 1° The Treatise against the Greeks, in which he combats paganism and indicates the two ways by which one can arrive at the knowledge of God, namely the soul and the external world; 2° The Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, which maintains the moral necessity of the Incarnation to redeem man and demonstrates the divinity of Christianity (PG 25, 3-198). The ideas developed by A. have become classic. It was wrongly sought to contest the authenticity of this apology, although not everything has been done for the textual criticism (cf. J. Lebon, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 21 [1925], pp. 524-30; and 23 [1927], pp. 18, 31, 761, note 2).

Gli scritti dogmatici propriamente detti si riferiscono ai due misteri della Trinità e dell'Incarnazione. A. difende la divinità del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nattì del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nattì del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natì del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natì del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del **VERBUM IN NATIS VERBI**

The expression *Verbum in natis Verbi* (the Word among the offspring of the Word) refers to the presence and action of the divine Word in the saints, particularly in those who, through grace, participate in the divine nature and become "offspring" of the Word. This theological concept is rooted in the Johannine prologue (*In principio erat Verbum*, Jn 1:1) and in the Pauline doctrine of the mystical body of Christ, where believers are incorporated into Christ and, through Him, into the life of the Trinity.

The phrase underscores the intimate union between the Word and the faithful, who are reborn in Christ through baptism and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The saints, as "offspring of the Word," reflect the light of Christ in their lives, becoming living witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. This idea is particularly developed in patristic and medieval theology, where the sanctified soul is seen as a mirror of the divine Word, participating in its wisdom, love, and holiness.

The *Verbum in natis Verbi* also implies a dynamic relationship: the Word not only dwells in the saints but also acts through them, transforming their lives into a continuous proclamation of the Gospel. This concept is closely linked to the doctrine of *theosis* or divinization, where the faithful are called to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pt 1:4).

BIBL.:
- **S. Agostino**, *De Trinitate*, lib. IV, cap. 20; *In Ioannis Evangelium*, tract. I, 13.
- **S. Tommaso d’Aquino**, *Summa Theologiae*, I, q. 43, a. 3; III, q. 62, a. 5.
- **J. Maritain**, *Distinguere per unire. I gradi del sapere*, Brescia 1947, pp. 450-455.
- **H. de Lubac**, *Catholicisme. Les aspects sociaux du dogme*, Paris 1938, pp. 120-125.

**A. M.**ti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati delVERBO

The term *Verbo* (Word) in those born of the Word refers to the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, a central mystery of Christian theology. This doctrine, rooted in Scripture and developed by the Fathers of the Church, affirms that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity proceeds from the Father by way of intellect, as His eternal Word (*Logos*).

The concept is explicitly articulated in the Gospel of John (1:1-14), where Christ is identified as the *Verbum* (Word) made flesh. The Patristic tradition, particularly in the works of **SANT’AGOSTINO** and **SAN TOMMASO D’AQUINO**, deepens this understanding, distinguishing the *Verbo* as the perfect expression of the Father’s essence, co-eternal and consubstantial with Him.

In theological speculation, the *Verbo* is also associated with divine wisdom, the exemplar of creation, and the mediator of salvation. The Council of Nicaea (325) and subsequent ecumenical councils, such as Chalcedon (451), defined the orthodox doctrine against heresies that denied either the divinity or the humanity of the Word incarnate.

BIBL.:
- **SANT’AGOSTINO**, *De Trinitate*, libri XV;
- **SAN TOMMASO D’AQUINO**, *Summa Theologiae*, I, qq. 27-43;
- **J. H. NEWMAN**, *The Arians of the Fourth Century*, London 1871;
- **M. SCHMAUS**, *Dogma cattolico*, tr. it., Torino 1958, vol. II.
**G. PHILIPS**ti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del Verbo nei nati del Verbo nei natti del

Stanziale Nicene (ὁμοούσιος), he also knew how to employ equivalent expressions. He was ready to extend a hand to Basil of Ancira and his Homoians, and he abhorred logomachies. In him are found these expressions: ὁμοίως κατ'οὐσίαν, κατὰ πάντα; ὁμοίως, ὁμοίως νὴς τῇ φύσει (the Son similar to the Father according to essence, in all things, by nature). At the Council of Alexandria in 362, he even consented to give the word ὀντόσασις the sense of "person" instead of that of "essence" and "substance" habitually used. This imprecision in terminology does not impair in him the clarity of doctrine, and is explained by the fact that at his time Trinitarian and Christological formulas were still in formation and had not yet assumed their definitive form.

After having expounded in the Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word the mystery of the Redemption, which he presents above all as a divinization of humanity through the contact of the incarnate Word with our nature, A. was led in his later years to concern himself with the properly Christological dogma, which was beginning to be the object of dangerous speculations. As has already been said, since 362 he had clearly condemned the nascent Christological errors (Apollinarianism, Pestiarism, Docetism, Eutychianism). One need only consider the condemnation of Apollinarianism, both in the Tomus ad Antiochenos and in the letter to Epictetus, for A. has been accused of having taught that error, given his habit of indicating the humanity of the Savior with the words "body" and "flesh." In good time, moreover, the Apollinarians falsified several of his works, such as the famous Epistle to Epictetus (cf. J. Lebon, Altération doctrinale de la lettre à Epictète, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 31 [1935], pp. 713-61), where they sought to pass off their own productions under his name. Far from being an Apollinarian, A. clearly affirms the substantial union of the Word with human nature and the unity of subject in Christ. He gives to the Blessed Virgin the title of Θεοτόκος and in advance refutes Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius, although he employs terms that seem to favor the error, since at his time the Christological terminology was not yet well fixed. Likewise, the will and human freedom of Jesus remain in the shadows.

2. Historical works and personal apologetics

Persecuted, slandered, attacked in every way, A. knew how to defend himself vigorously with the pen, convinced that his cause was intimately united with that of orthodoxy. The personal apologies are also historical documents in which absolute impartiality cannot be expected. For the most part they were composed during the third exile (356-62).

Here they are in chronological order: 1° The encyclical letter, written in 339 as he set out for his second exile, to protest against his expulsion and the intrusion of the Arian Gregory of Cappadocia (PG 25, 221-40); 2° The apology against the Arians of 348, a collection of official documents on the persecutions suffered from 330 to 348, on the Councils of Tyre and Serdica: an incomplete collection because only the documents favourable to him are included (ibid. 240-410); 3° The letter to the monks of Egypt and Libya (ibid. 537-94), written in 356-57, as he set out for his third exile, to warn the bishops against an Arian formula and encourage them in the struggle; 4° The apology for his flight of 356 (ibid. 643-80), written in 357. A. justifies his flight and indignantly denounces the atrocities committed by George of Cappadocia and his followers; 5° The apology to Emperor Constantius (ibid. 595-642), begun perhaps even before 355 and completed in 357; a fine example of careful rhetoric, written in a calm tone, where the official praises given to the emperor have a touch of irony; 6° The history of the Arians to the monks (ibid. 691-796), of 358, where he narrates to the solitaries, in a lively and picturesque style, his adventures as a persecuted man and the infamies committed by his enemies, sparing no one, not even Emperor Constantius, whom he compares to the Antichrist and whose caesaropapism he condemns; 7° The letter to Serapion on the death of Arius (ibid. 685-90), written c. 358, in which he recounts the final moments of the heresy.

3. Pastoral, ascetical and exegetical works

A. was not only a theologian of great worth and an untiring fighter, but also a zealous pastor. He took particular care of chosen souls, monks and virgins; and this office of spiritual director, hitherto little known, has been brought to light by recent discoveries. And it is more for edification than to produce scientific exegesis that A. commented on certain texts of Holy Scripture.

As properly pastoral works, his Festal Letters must be noted, which every year he addressed to the faithful of his city to announce to them the date of Easter and exhort them to the practice of Christian virtues. Of these letters only 15 (from 329 to 348) have come down to us in Syriac translation (translated into Latin in PG 26, 1360-1433). There are also some fragments, among which one of the 39th letter, preserved in the original text, is particularly important because it gives us the biblical canon of the Church of Alexandria (ibid., 1176-80, 1436-40). This canon corresponds to the Catholic one for the New Testament, while for the Old Testament A. recognises only the Hebrew canon, though he points out and recommends the deuterocanonical books as reading material, with the exception of the book of Maccabees, adding to them the Didache of the Apostles and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Most of the discourses, or fragments of discourses, that have come down to us under his name are apocryphal; others are doubtful, and one must await the critical edition of his works to know what may be considered authentic (PG 28, 133-250, 501-1114). Various letters addressed to monks are of an ascetic and edifying character. We have already made mention of the Letter to Dracontius (PG 25, 523-34); noteworthy also is the Letter to Amun (ibid. 26, 1169-78) and the Letters to Orsisius and the monks (ibid. 26, 977-80, 1185-90). The celebrated Letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms (ibid. 27, 11-46) is regarded as the introduction to a Commentary on the Psalms, of which long fragments remain, considered authentic at least in their entirety (ibid. 27, 55-59). On the other hand, the De Titulis Psalmorum must be attributed to Hesychius of Jerusalem, which has been placed under A.’s name (ibid. 27, 649-1344). Fazio also attributes to him a Commentary on Ecclesiastes and one on the Song of Songs. While in his writings of dogmatic controversy A. adheres to the literal sense of Scripture, in the commentary on the Psalms he strives particularly to give the moral sense.

The Life of St. Anthony, written around 350 (PG 26, 838-976), is not only a biography of the great Egyptian but also an account of his spiritual doctrine, and it exercised a great influence both in the West and in the East. Evagrius, a priest and later bishop of Antioch, published it—not so much a translation as a reworking—into Latin before 388.

The authenticity of the small treatise On Virginity (critical ed. by Ed.