§ 114. Сочинения св. Афанасия: 1) Догматические: а) Четыре слова против ариан; содержание 1-го, 2-го и 3-го слов.

Throughout the entire pastoral ministry of his St. Athanasius argued with Arius about his affairs; Equally, the largest part of his writings is also directed against Arianism. Nevertheless, among the works of St. Athanasius we see works: I) purely dogmatic, II) dogmatic-historical, III) explanatory, IV) moral 164. I) Words of St. Afanasy against the Arians, due to their connection with the main subject of Afanasiyeva’s pastoral activity, first of all attract attention 165. These words, according to the intention of St. Athanasius, form one whole: only the last of them is concluded with the usual glorification of the Holy Trinity, with which the ancient fathers usually ended their writings. However, they were not published all together at the beginning; at the beginning of the second word of St. Athanasius clearly says that after he reported his first word against the Arians to the Church, he heard new objections from the Arians. First word against the Arians St. Athanasius begins by identifying the Arians as non-Christians; they are not Christians, he says, just like the Marcionites, Manichaeans and all the others who received their name from people excluded from Christian society are not Christians. “The Orthodox people never received their name from their bishops, but from the Lord, in whom we believe. Therefore, although the blessed apostles were our teachers and ministers of the Savior's Gospel; however, we did not receive the name from them, but from the name of Christ. We are and are called Christians.” (§ 2) Arians, continues St. Athanasius, and therefore are not Christians because they ignored the words of divine Scripture, and call the Ariev Phalia new wisdom. (§ 4) Noticing at the same time that Arius in his Thalia imitated the composition of the pagan Herd, which, however, is ridiculed by the pagans themselves, St. Athanasius shows the content of this work, and at the same time the main thoughts of the Aryan heresy 166. The teaching of Arius, which St. Athanasius foretells the Antichrist, contrasts the teaching of the Christian Church, the teaching of the apostles. Arius’s first thought, that “there was a time when there was no Son,” contrasts: a) the words at the beginning of the Word, and other similar ones (Apoc. 1:4, Rom. 9:5; 1:20, 1 Cor. 1:24, John 14:8, 9, Heb. 1:2, etc. 167; b) such expressions as Arius’ expression about the Son God: there was not, before, when, - Scripture uses only about created things and never about the Son of God; c) those who say: “there was once a time when there was no Son, assume that God once existed without Word and Wisdom, was once a light without radiance, a fountain without water.” Having admitted that the Son did not exist from eternity, we must admit that the Son came from someone outside of God, and the world created by God through the Word was created by the Creator existing outside of God 168; e) if the Son is not eternal: then there was a time when there was no truth in God, since the Son is truth 169. “If the Son, say the Arians, is the birth and image of the Father and is like the Father in everything, it is absolutely necessary that the Son also give birth.” In response to this subtlety adopted by the Gnostics, St. Athanasius says that there is no need to connect anything corporeal with the names Son and Father; just as God the Father does not come from the Father, so the Son was not born in order to give birth. Then he denounces the various tricks with which the Arians misled simple-minded people 170. Explains the meaning of the sayings of Phil. 2:9. and Psalmist 44:8., which the Arians interpreted in their favor. The expression exalted does not mean that the being of the Word was exalted, but it means that humanity was exalted. This was not said before, as when the Word became flesh, so that it would be clear that the words: he humbled himself, he exalted himself, refer to humanity. Only that which is low can rise. Because of the taking on of the flesh it is written - he humbled himself; therefore, “exalted” refers to her (§ 41). This meaning of the apostle’s words is further confirmed by parallel passages. With the same purpose and in this sense, the words of the Apostle about the superiority of the Son of God over the Angels are explained (Heb. 1:4.) 171. In the second word of St. Athanasius examines three sayings of Scripture that the Arians interpreted in their favor. St. says about the first saying: “being is faithful to Him who created Him.” Athanasius: “with these words the apostle did not want to signify the nature of the Word or His natural birth from the Father, but pointed to His coming to earth, to His high priesthood. This is the meaning of the apostolic words of St. Athanasius brings it to obvious clarity, considering this passage in connection with previous and subsequent sayings and with the spirit of the whole Scripture 172. In the same way, in relation to the incarnation of the Son of God, to His glorification that followed the sufferings on the cross, he refers to the words of the Apostle Peter: For he created this Jesus Lord and Christ, and you crucified him (Acts 2:36) 173 The explanation of both sayings is excellent. The words of the parables: the Lord created (ἐκτισεν) me at the beginning of His ways, explain at length the dispensation of salvation through the incarnation of Hypostatic Wisdom and the Arian thought about the temporary existence of Wisdom, and are contrasted with the words: before the hills He gives birth to Me 174. It is impossible not to notice that the answer to the objection would be simpler if attention was paid to the fact that the thought of the original is accurately expressed by the word ἐκτήσατο - acquisition 175 . In the first part of the third word of St. Athanasius shows the unity of the Divine essence in the Father and the Son: “The divinity of the Son is the same as that which belongs to the Father, and therefore it is indivisible.” He bases this on the words of the Savior (John 10:30–38; 14:9) and explains how to understand the unity of the Father and the Son. “The Father and the Son are one being, but not in the sense that one was divided into two parts, which apart from this in themselves would not mean anything, nor in the fact that this one bore two names, so that one and the same God would sometimes be the Father, and sometimes the Son of himself. Although the Father and the Son are two persons; for the Father is the Father, and not the son, and the son is the son; and not the father: however, their being is one.” To explain this unity, he provides an example: “Radiance is light that does not appear after the sun, it is not another light that merely borrows brilliance from the sun, but it is the entire product of the sun; such a product necessarily constitutes one light with the sun, and no one will say that these are two lights” 176. After that St. Athanasius resolves the Arians' objections to the unity of the Father and the Son according to their essence. The only Father is God, the Arians said, meaning the sayings of Scripture about the unity of God (Ex. 3:14). Scripture, answers St. Athanasius, speaking about the unity of God, thereby deprives the name and glory of the deity of false gods, and not the Son of God, who is the Truth one with the Father. This is what John also taught, who writes in his epistle: “And let us be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the eternal life” (1 John 5:20). As evidence of this unity, the distribution of gifts by the one Father and Son is pointed out. (1 Cor. 1:3., Rom. 1:7. Coz. 3. 11) 177. “No, when you refuted our previous thoughts,” the Arians said, we found a new one: the Son and the Father are one, just as it is said about us that we can be in God,” and pointed to the words of the Savior (John 17:11–20). St. Athanasius, noticing that such thoughts about oneself are the product of reckless pride, and that the unity that is presented between the Father and the Son is not assimilated in Scripture even to the Angels, says that the unity of the Father and the Son in essence is offered to you only as an example, which, however, is never achievable for you, just as it is commanded: be ye perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is perfect 178 . As a new objection, the Arians presented those passages of Scripture where it is said that power was handed over to the Son by the Father (Matthew 28:18; James 5:22; 17:27). - Athanasius says: “The property of the Holy. The Scripture is such that it shows two sides in the Savior, firstly, that He was always God, and is the Son, being the Word, the radiance and wisdom of the Father, and secondly, that for us He took flesh from the Virgin Mary and became man.” And then he examines in detail the passages of Scripture that depict the actions of the human and divine nature of Christ Jesus. The Arians, insidiously agreeing with the Orthodox about the birth of the Son by the Father, added: “but by definition of the Father He is.” St. Athanasius, revealing this deceit, refutes the false idea by the fact that the determinations of the Father were expressed in the creation of the world, and the Son of God is the Creator Himself and is eternal, and moreover, He is one with the Father in essence, therefore, is not an action of will 179. The best editions of the works of St. Athanasia: a) 4698 Parisiis studio monachorum S. Benedicti, 3 partes in duobus tomis. Montfaucon published additions to this edition in his Nova Col. Patr. Graec. T. 2. b) 1777 Patavii, in 4 volumes. The publisher Justiniani published not only the previous edition with additions by Montfaucon, but also several other works. Op. S. Athan. ed. Migne. T. 1–4. Paris. 1857. Quite a few works were translated into Armenian in the 5th century (Neumann Gesch. d. Armen. Litter. 75); into Syriac - in the same century, but less (Assem. B. Or. T. 3. p. 1–20). Four words against the Arians in Slavenitsky’s Slavic translation were published in Moscow in 1665. The translation is no clearer than the original text. Philo also read this passage: ἐκτήσατο μέ experience of Me, which fully corresponds to the Hebrew קנ ה. The Hebrew words Aquilla, Simachus, and Theodotion were translated in exactly the same way; ἐκτήσατο - read by Origen (Comm. in Math. Vol. 17. Op. T. 3. p. 788), and the same word is read in some ancient copies of the Greek Bible (See Vet. Test. Graec. ed. Holmissii. T. 3. ad. h. 1). Blzh. Jerome translated: Dominus possedit Me - the Lord has acquired Me, and this reading was firmly and thoroughly defended in letter 139 to Cyprian. However, there is no doubt that the word ἔκτήσε here cannot mean creation in the proper sense, as is clearly seen from the connection of the inspired speech about Wisdom. You might be interested in: