[Athanasius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) and [Apollinaris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea) were two important figures in the early church, and both were opponents of Arianism. But while Athanasius is regarded as a faithful defender of sound teaching during this period while Trinitarian Christology was being developed, Apollinaris is considered a heretic because he denied that the Son became a full human in the incarnation, but instead only took on a human body, not a human mind or soul. It has been claimed however, since at least the 19th century, that Athanasius' Christology was essentially Apollinarian. Richard Hanson likened his Christology to that of an astronaut and a spacesuit: > Just as the astronaut, in order to operate in a part of the universe where there is no air and where he has to experience weightlessness, puts on an elaborate space suit which enables him to live and act in this new, unfamiliar environment, so the logos puts on a body which enabled him to behave as a human being among human beings. But his relation to his body is no closer than that of an astronaut to his space suit. (*The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God*, p448) > > We must conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being. (Ibid, p451) Trevor Hart [says](https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1992-2_155.pdf) that Hanson followed Baur, Stülcken, Richard, and Grillmeier in interpreting Athanasius as "virtually ignoring the presence of a human soul or mind in the incarnate Christ." This is a big claim, but not one I've heard before. Lots of early church figures have mixed legacies, being instrumental for powerfully and clearly stating true doctrine in some area, while getting it very wrong in another, but Athanasius does not have this reputation. Athanasius and Apollinaris were active at the same time, though Apollinaris outlived Athanasius. A [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24916/6071) has asked whether any of Athanasius' writings about Apollinaris survived, but even if they didn't, enough of Athanasius' writings have survived that we should be able to judge whether this claim has merit. Did Athanasius either deny or ignore that Christ in the incarnation had a human mind and soul?

As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus *On the Incarnation*, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me. Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

The main characteristic of Sabellianism is that God is only one hypostasis (one Person). Sabellianism is sometimes described as similar to Modalism, in which 'Father' and 'Son' are merely two names for exactly the same Person. Others say that Sabellianism did make a distinction between the Father and Son within the one hypostasis, like one can distinguish between the body, spirit, and soul within one human person. While the Trinity doctrine teaches three hypostases in God, Athanasius, like Sabellianism, held that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis: > "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is > close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and **Athanasius**. Eustathius > insists there is **only one hypostasis**“ (Ayres, p. 69). > > The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is > **only one hypostasis in God**” (Ayres, p. 48). > > “Athanasius' most basic language and analogies for describing the > relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as > intrinsic aspects of **one reality or person**” (Ayres, p. 46). He taught that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father: > “Athanasius' increasing clarity in treating the Son as **intrinsic to > the Father's being**” (Ayres, p. 113). > > “Athanasius' argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is **intrinsic to the Father's being**” (Ayres, p. 114). > > “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means > identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for > them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common > insistence that the Son was **intrinsic to the Father's external > existence**” (Ayres, p. 106). For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Person or hypostasis: > “Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the > picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he > emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as > the Son's ‘energy’” (Ayres, p. 214). > > “The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will > soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians' will find the language of > ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly > problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence” (Ayres, p. > 214). Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious” (Ayres, p. 174). For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God. The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with the leading Sabellian Marcellus: > “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against > those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God” (Ayres, p. 106). > > At the time when both Marcellus and Athanasius were exiled to Rome, “they considered themselves allies” (Ayres, p. 106). > > “Athanasius ... continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus” > (Hanson, p. 220). > > Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that > Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems > to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the > 360s” (Ayres, p. 106). Athanasius, in writing, declared the Sabellians to be orthodox: > “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, > presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them > a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine” (Hanson, p. > 801). If Athanasius was not a Sabellian, how did he differ from them?

Edward Healy Thompson, *The Life and Glories of St. Joseph*, ch. 14 "Joseph's Vow of Virginity", p. 89 states that: >Athanasius spoke these short but weighty words of Joseph and Mary: that “both remained intact, as was proved by many testimonies.”11. *De Incarnatione [*On the Incarnation* ].* I am unable to find this quote in the *De Incarnatione*. Is this a real quote or not?

In his recent book on the Arian Controversy (Nicaea and its legacy, 2004), Ayres refers to “Athanasius' own strongly unitarian account” (Ayres, p. 435). He says: > “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent > scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly > unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal > differentiation is underdeveloped” (Ayres, p. 238).

In the Athanasian Creed, the three Persons are one God, and the ‘one God’ is the Trinity. The question is, how are the three Persons one God? If Father = Son = Spirit, that would be Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are three names for the same one Entity. So, I want to assume that Father, Son, and Spirit are not simply three names for the same Entity, but that there are differences between them. The Creed also says that the three Persons differ. For example, the Father begat the Son. So, while the Father has a Son, the Son does not have a Son. Such differences exclude Modalism. The following suggest that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father: - Firstly. the Creed says they are one undivided substance. (“nor dividing the Substance"). It also says that the Father is the Source and Origin of the Son and the Spirit. The ‘undivided substance’, therefore, is the substance of the Father. With the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding, that Substance remains undivided. This means that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father’s Substance; the Son is part of the Father. - Secondly, that is also what Athanasius taught: > - “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426) > - “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428) > - “Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113) > - “Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is > intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (Ayres, p. 114) (Read More ) If the Athanasian Creed is supposed to reflect Athanasius’ theology, which I suspect it does, it would be fair to conclude that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father. - Thirdly, Athanasius was the norm of Western pro-Nicene theology and that theology relied heavily on Tertullian, who also said that the Son is part of the Father. > “The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and > portion of the whole.” (In Against Praxeas 9, Tertullian)

I read this quote for Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in an Arabic book, but I am trying to locate the source (reference) of that quote (in which work for Athanasius), or something of the similar meaning by the saint. > "The Persons are not three gods, but rather they are one triune God > with the consistency of His mind (the Father), His word (the Son), and > His Spirit, who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

In 325, the bishops gathered at Nicea (with Athansius present not as a bishop but as a deacon-secretary to the Bishop of Alexandria) for an ecumenical council---in which the Council declared that the Son had no beginning, but had an ``eternal derivation'' from the Father, and therefore was co-eternal with Him and equal to God in all aspects. Did St. Athanasius actually speak at the Council of Nicea; if so, is there a record of what he said? Or, perhaps, was his earlier treatise ``On the Incarnation'' invoked during the Council's proceedings? In a nutshell---What was the extent of St. Athanasius' contributions personally *at the Council* and which affected the outcome(s) of the First Council of Nicea?

Did Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers, in their condemnation of Arius, draw the conclusion that the personage which Arius is actually describing (and whom he, presumably, worshipped) is really the one generally called ‘The Devil’ and that, therefore, Arius could be categorised as a ‘Devil Worshipper’ ? 1. The historical context 2. Athanasius’ account of the excommunication of Arius 3. Arius’ own description of what he calls ‘Christ’ and the ‘Word’ 4. The inference, from scripture, of whom Arius is actually describing 5. The question of what, specifically, was ever documented of the one Arius worshipped. ================================================================================ 1. Charles Lee Irons (1), in the synopsis of The Biblical Basis of Eternal Generation , recounts the history of Arius’ denial of the eternal and divine existence of the Son of God : > Throughout the fourth century, the church fathers were engaged in a bitter debate with Arianism, and it was within the context of that debate that they clarified the church’s doctrine of the Trinity. Arianism was the view that the Son is a sub-deity **who did not always exist** but was created by God as the first and most glorious being in the universe, “the firstborn of all creation.” Arians affirmed the pre-existence of Christ — He existed as the Logos before His virgin birth. But they **denied the eternal pre-existence of Christ**. They said there was **a time when He did not exist**, and that before His generation, He did not exist. They said He was **created out of the things that do not exist**. They say that although He is the most glorious and first creature made by God, and can even be called “God” in some sense because of His exalted honor and divine glory, He falls on the creature side of the Creator-creature distinction. 2. Athanasius of Alexandria records the event of the excommunication of Arius in his Discourses Against the Arians , in the First Discourse chapter 1 and paragraph 7 : >For this was why the Ecumenical Council, when Arius thus spoke, **cast him from the Church,** and **anathematized him**, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been reckoned for a **heresy** more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist 3. In the same First Discourse - chapter 2, paragraphs 5 and 6, Athanasius exposes what Arius describes of the person which he (that is, Arius) calls ‘Christ’, as follows : > … the Word of God Himself was made out of nothing … (sic) > > … and, once (meaning ‘once upon a time’ - Edit) he was not … (sic) > > … though (he) is called God, yet is he not ‘very God’ … (sic) 4. If one examines Arius’ own description against scriptural references, it becomes clear that there **is** a person answering to that description. *But it is not Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary.* Since a person is being described, by Arius, who is ‘the firstborn of creation’ (that is to say, the first creation - Edit) and ‘the first created spirit’ and ‘who once was not’ and ‘who was made out of nothing’ - then that is the person who, in scripture, is called ‘the son of morning’ and ‘Lucifer’, Isaiah 14:12-15, who said ‘I will be like the most High’; and the person who is the first - created - spirit identified by scripture (in both Genesis and Job) that is to say the Serpent in Eden, and the person who, as one of the sons of God, requested of God that he be a ‘satan’ (an adversary) to Job; and is the same person who tempted Jesus in the wilderness being called a ‘Tempter’ and ‘Diabolos’ ; and is elsewhere called *Antidikos* (1 Peter 5:8) *Anomos* (2 Thessalonians 2:8) *Poneros* (1 John 2:13,14) and the Dragon (Revelation 12:3). In short, this is the ‘Angel of Light’ described by the apostle Paul : >... For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, **transforming themselves into** the apostles of Christ.And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an **angel of light**. [I Corinthians 15:45 KJV] 5. Then is it the case that either Athanasius or the Nicene fathers drew this conclusion in their opposition to Arius and their excommunication of him at the Ecumenical Council in 325 AD, either specifically at the time, in their condemnation of him, or thereafter in publications denouncing him ? Did they ever assert that Arius was actually describing - and worshipping - the ‘Devil’ ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Charles Lee Irons, PhD, is an adjunct professor at California Graduate School of Theology.

What did St. Athanasius believe about the Papacy and are there any special mentions of the *bishop of Rome* in his writings?