Who was Athanasius?

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

In the council of Nice Athanasius had borne a distinguished part; his zeal and abilities designated him at once as the head of the orthodox party, and as the most powerful antagonist of the Arians. On the death of Alexander, in the year 326, he was elevated to the see of Alexandria by the universal voice of his brethren. He was then only thirty years of age, and knowing something of the dangers as well as the honours of the office, he would have preferred a less responsible position; but he yielded to the earnest desires of an affectionate congregation. He held the see for nearly half a century. His long life was devoted to the service of the Lord and His truth. He continued stedfast in the faith and inflexible in his purpose, according to the noble stand which he made in the council of Nice, down to his latest hour. The divinity of Christ was to him no mere speculative opinion, but the source and strength of his whole christian life. And nowhere else is it to be found by any one; as the apostle assures us. "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life; and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 John 5:11-12) This life dwells in the onlybegotten Son of the Father. He is "the eternal life." And this life, to the praise of the glory of God's grace, is given to all who believe in the true Christ of God. In receiving Christ, we receive eternal life, and become the sons of God — heirs of God — and joint heirs with Christ. This life is not the property of any mere creature, however exalted. The holy angels have a most blessed and an unceasing existence by the power of God; but the Christian has eternal life through faith in Christ, by the grace of God. Nothing could be more fatal to the well-being of the human soul than the doctrine of Arius. But to return to our history.

While the advancement of Athanasius to the see of Alexandria gave great joy and hope to his friends, it filled his enemies with the bitterest resentment. They now saw the great leader of the Catholics the bishop of that church from which Arius had been expelled; and that he was supported by the affections of his people and by a hundred bishops who owned allegiance to the great see of Alexandria. They knew his power and indefatigable zeal in defence of the decrees of the Nicene Council, and might well judge, that if his influence had been so great when in a private capacity, what might now be expected when he was placed in so eminent a station? Wherefore, they laid their plans and united their powers to overthrow him.

This dreadful Arian heresy rent Christendom again and again over a long number of years. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, strongly opposed Arius. He was followed by a still more powerful champion of the truth, the famous Athanasius, who subsequently became Bishop of Alexandria; and who for half a century strenuously opposed this heresy, and was driven into exile four or five times during that period. The Christian world to this day owes a very great debt to this great servant of Christ. At one time he was told that all the world was against him. His noble, unflinching reply was “Then Athanasius is against the world.” The humble individual, who stands up for the truth of God against all the forces of evil, relying only upon God, is ever in the majority.

Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, died in A.D. 336. He taught that our Lord existed before His incarnation, but was created of God, the highest of His creatures, empowered to create all else; and, that as the highest and most ancient of God’s creatures, He is to be worshipped, but not in full measure as applied to God, the supreme Creator. This perversion of truth obtains more or less with Millennial Dawnists and its offshoot, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

However, in the mercy of God, there was raised up a mighty defender of the faith in the person of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 326). He suffered greatly in his defence of the truth, for he was exiled several times. He died in 373.

Athanasius and His Times.

Athanasius was born in Alexandria, of christian parents, about A.D. 296. As we have seen, he was present at the Council of Nice and opposed Arius.

In A.D. 326 he became bishop of Alexandria, and from the prominent place he thus held, and from his firm and persistent opposition to Arianism, he has been called the "Father of Orthodoxy." After him has also been named the popular creed handed down to us, which is still in use in the Roman and English churches as "The Athanasian Creed," though it is now generally believed to have been drawn up at a later date; by whom is uncertain. The Greek Church never acknowledged it, and in A.D. 1785 the Episcopal Church of America struck it out of their prayer book.

Athanasius, who became the bishop of Alexandria and was greatly used of God in preserving the Church from the Arian heresy, is a notable example of one standing against all, as the name of "Antipas" indicates. He disregarded the imperial edict of Constantine, who changed his mind two years after the Council of Nice as to Arianism and commanded that Arius and his friends be received into the Church. Athanasius endured persecution, calumny, exile and frequently endangered his life in defence of the great fundamental truth of the Godhead of Christ. Many years after the council of Nice, when the Arian party was gaining influence, Athanasius was summoned before the Arian emperor who demanded that he cease his opposition to the teaching of Arius and receive Arians. When Athanasius refused, the emperor reproved him bitterly and said, "Do you not realize that all the world is against you?" The champion of the truth answered, "Then I am against all the world." He was a true Antipas and a noble example for believers at all times. Thus the faith of God, the revelation of Himself in Christ the Son, was maintained amidst much evil and the Lord noticed it all and commends it.

It was at that time that the Arian controversy was fought out. Arius denied the eternity of the Word. John says, "In the beginning was the Word" -- He always existed. When everything that had a beginning began, the Word was. Arius declared that the Word was the greatest of all beings that ever emanated from God. His opponents insisted that the Word was one with the Father, in one eternal Trinity -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: one God in three Persons. It was the most tremendous issue the church had ever been called to face, and, for over a century, it was the burning question that provoked heated controversy everywhere. For years the church was almost rent asunder over two words, "homoiosian" and "homoousian." The one word meant "of like substance," the other "of the same substance." The first was the battle-cry of the Arians; the second of the orthodox, headed by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. So irreconcilable were the contending parties that Constantine at last decided to take a hand in the matter himself, and he called a great church-council, which convened in the city of Nicea, and there debated the question as to what the apostolic teaching really had been. Was Jesus truly God, or was He only the greatest being that God has every brought into existence? Over three hundred bishops met together, and Constantine, sitting on a golden throne, presided as the acknowledged head of the Christian church, at the very time that he still bore the title Pontifex Maximus, or High Priest of the Heathen -- the same title that the Pope bears at the present time.

The matter in question was examined from all sides. Again and again Constantine was called in to quell disturbances; feelings ran so high. On one occasion it is related that a brilliant Arian seemed to have almost silenced opposition, and the great assemblage appeared to be about to cast its vote in favor of the damnable unitarian heresy, when a hermit from the deserts of Africa sprang to his feet, clad chiefly in tiger's skin. This latter he tore from his back, disclosing great scars (the result of having been thrown into the arena among the wild beasts, and his back dreadfully disfigured by their claws), crying dramatically, "These are the brand-marks of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I cannot hear this blasphemy." Then he proceeded to give so stirring an address, setting forth so clearly the truth as to Christ's eternal deity, that the majority of the council realized in a moment that it was indeed the voice of the Spirit of God. Whether this story be actually true or not I cannot say, but it well sets forth the spirit pervading many who were in attendance, most of whom had passed through the terrible persecution of Diocletian. The final result was that the council of Nicea put itself on record as confessing the true deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, "Very God and Very God," "Light of Lights," "perfection of perfection" -- God and man in one blessed Person, nevermore to be separated. Thus was settled once and forever, in a public way, the acknowledged faith of the church of God, which held fast His Word, and did not deny His Name.

As regards the translation of the Greek in Acts 20:28 ("with his own blood," A.V.), I have not much to say. As to the fear of its touching the divinity of Christ, a person must be very ill-grounded in that fundamental truth to have any such feeling; the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ, His being truly God, Jehovah, I AM, is too inseparably a part of the whole texture of Scripture, too plainly stated in Scripture, and still more strongly proved, if possible, by the way it is supposed or assumed and implied in passages where it is no direct subject of revelation. Nothing could be more mischievous than the resting the divinity of the Lord Christ on this passage - a passage tortured by critics, no two of whom hardly can agree upon it. With the exception of Scholz, hardly any noted critic has simply 'God' in the passage at all. Indeed, as far as I know Mill is the only one; the principal ones have not 'God' at all, reading 'Lord' instead. Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, all read 'the Church of the Lord' - Matthaei, 'Lord and God,' which Middleton approves, and Alford and others of more weight than he reject as perfectly untenable. Alford read 'Lord' in his first edition; and saying? that as B in the Vatican has it by the first hand, the evidence of manuscripts is balanced; but on internal evidence he reads 'God' in the second. To me it remains uncertain if it be by the first hand, for the transcript of the MS is not to be trusted. Wetstein prefers 'Lord.' The new Codex Sinaiticus reads 'God' But A C D E and many others read 'Lord.' Many more, but modern read 'Lord and God.' It would be monstrous to rest a vital doctrine on a text evidently tampered with. Even in Athanasius to Seraphion (1:522), the printed text has 'God,' but other MSS 'Lord' or 'Christ.' I suppose we may account Athanasius as a sufficient champion of the true divinity of the blessed Lord. Of all ancient writers he is known to be the undaunted and suffering defender of this truth against the whole body of Arians, the Emperor and all, and died an exile for this truth. Now, not only in the passage quoted by critics he declares that the blood of God is never used by itself, and that it is Arianism; but the argument of his two books against the Apollinarians, particularly the second book, is based on this. It forms, I may say, the whole point and subject of the second. He denounces as Arian such language as saying, 'God suffered,' or speaking of His blood flowing. He treats it as the madness of the Arians. He says that 'if it be said that God suffered, "in flesh" even, then the Father and the Comforter have suffered, for they are all one'; and concludes, 'The Word is God, if you look at His immortality (athanasia) and incorruptibility and immutability; but man, in His nailing to the cross, and the flowing of His blood, and the burial of His body, and descent into Hades and resurrection from the dead. Thus the Christ is raised from the dead, and being God raises the dead.' He says we are to be content to say, 'Christ has suffered for us in the flesh.' I cannot quote more here: it is, as I have said, the argument of the whole second book. The reader may find a multitude of the Fathers also object to the expression too. They may be found in notes to critical editions. Wetstein gives many of them. At any rate, speaking of the sufferings of God or His blood-shedding is denounced as being Arianism by him, who best knew what Arianism was, and the greatest champion for the blessed truth of Christ's divinity who ever lived. The Arians and Apollinarians did so speak; because the Arians did not hold that Christ was of one nature with the Father, and the Apollinarians held that Christ had no human, intellectual soul, but that the divinity took its place in the Christ. Hence, the former had no difficulty that what was a creature, however elevated, suffered; and the latter must have made God suffer as the mind in Christ, or else He must have ceased to be. Hence, Athanasius opposed them so energetically, and said it was running into Arianism; and hence we can easily see how he rejected an expression such as the one we are considering. Now I admit it was reasoning, not criticism. If I found it in Scripture, I should certainly not mind Athanasius, but take it as what is called koinonia idiomaton, dangerous and slippery as that ground is, if it ever be justified as to the natures of the Lord. I read, "the Son of man who is in heaven"; but that by His Person passes into His divine nature. But I do not believe the natures are so spoken of. They are not to be confounded any more than the Person divided. I do not want to speculate on such subjects. I only say this to express my subjection to scripture language, if such there be. But it is ridiculous to make a matter of orthodoxy, as a fundamental proof of Christ's divinity, what Athanasius denounces as denying that divinity, and being Arianism.

We are disposed to believe that, under the blessing of God, he was the means of preserving the church from the Arian heresy, which threatened to extinguish from Christianity both the name and the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. The enemy aimed at nothing short of a Christless system, which might ere long issue in an utter abandonment of Christianity. But the Nicene council was used of God to overthrow his wicked devices. The assertion of the Godhead of Christ and of the Holy Ghost as equal with God the Father, was greatly blessed of God then, and has been from that day even until now. Though the church had been unfaithful, and drifted into the world, "even where Satan's seat is," the Lord in mercy raised up a great testimony to His holy name, and to the faith of His saints. Historians, both civil and ecclesiastical, bear the most honourable testimony to the ability, activity, constancy, self-denial, and unwearied zeal of Athanasius in the defence of the great doctrine of the holy Trinity. "Thou holdest fast My name, and hast not denied My faith," are words that refer, we doubt not, to the faithfulness of Athanasius and his friends, as also to the faithful in other times.

Eusebius, of Nicomedia, first resorted to apparently friendly measures with Athanasius, for the purpose of inducing him to re-admit Arius to the fellowship of the church; but, failing completely in this, he influenced the Emperor to command him. An imperial mandate was issued to receive Arius and all his friends who were willing to connect themselves once more with the catholic church; and informing him that, unless he did so, he should be deposed from his station, and sent into exile. Athanasius, however, was not to be intimidated by imperial edicts, but firmly replied, that he could not acknowledge persons who had been condemned by a decree of the whole church. "Constantine now found to his astonishment," says Milman, "that an imperial edict — which would have been obeyed in trembling submission from one end of the Roman empire to the other, even if he had enacted a complete political revolution, or endangered the property and privileges of thousands — was received with deliberate and steady disregard by a single christian bishop. During two reigns, Athanasius contested the authority of the Emperor." He endured persecution, calumny, exile; his life was frequently endangered in defence of the one great and fundamental truth — the Godhead of the blessed Lord, he confronted martyrdom, not for the broad distinction between Christianity and heathenism, but for that one central doctrine of the christian faith.

The celebrated confession of faith usually called "The Nicene Creed," was the result of the long and solemn deliberations of the assembly. They decided against the Arian opinions, and firmly maintained the doctrines of the holy Trinity, of the true Godhead of Christ, and of His oneness with the Father in power and glory. Arius himself was brought before the council, and questioned as to his faith and doctrine; he did not hesitate to repeat, as his belief, the false doctrines which had destroyed the peace of the church. The bishops, when he was advancing his blasphemies, with one accord stopped their ears, and cried out that such impious opinions were worthy of anathema together with their author. St. Athanasius, although at the time but a deacon, drew the attention of the whole council by his zeal in defence of the true faith, and by his penetration in unravelling and laying open the artifices of the heretics. But more of the noble Athanasius by-and-by.

This famous creed was subscribed by all the bishops present, with the exception of a few Arians. The decision of the council having been laid before Constantine, he at once recognised in the unanimous consent of the council the work of God, and received it with reverence, declaring that all those persons should be banished who refused to submit to it. The Arians, hearing this, through fear subscribed the faith laid down by the council. They thus laid themselves open to the charge of being dishonest men. Two bishops only Secundus and Theonas, both Egyptians, continued to adhere to Arius; and they were banished with him to Illyria. Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, were condemned about three months later, and sentenced by the Emperor to banishment. Severe penalties were now denounced against the followers of Arius: all his books were sentenced to be burnt; and it was even made a capital offence to conceal any of his writings. Their labours being completed, the bishops dispersed to their respective provinces. Besides the solemn declaration of their opinion of the doctrine in question, they finally set at rest the question respecting the celebration of Easter; and settled some other matters which were brought before them.