We have read what your piety has written to us, and genuinely approve your piety toward Christ. And above all we glorify God, Who has given you such grace as not only to have right opinions, but also, so far as that is possible, not to be ignorant of the devices2 of the devil. But we marvel at the perversity of the heretics, seeing that they have fallen into such a pit of impiety that they no longer retain even their senses, but have their understanding corrupted on all sides. But this attempt is a plot of the devil, and an imitation of the disobedient Jews. For as the latter, when refuted on all sides, kept devising excuses to their own hurt, if only they could deny the Lord and bring upon themselves what was prophesied against them, in like manner these men, seeing themselves proscribed on all hands, and perceiving that their heresy has become abominable to all, prove themselves ‘inventors of evil things3 ,’ in order that, not ceasing their fightings against the truth, they may remain consistent and genuine adversaries of Christ. For whence has this new mischief of theirs sprung forth? How have they even ventured to utter this new blasphemy against the Saviour? But the impious man, it seems, is a worthless object, and truly ‘reprobate concerning the Faith4 .’ For formerly, while denying the Godhead of the only-begotten Son of God, they pretended at any rate to acknowledge His coming in the Flesh. But now, gradually going from bad to worse, they have fallen from this opinion of theirs, and become Godless on all hands, so as neither to acknowledge Him as God, nor to believe that He has become man. For if they believed this they would not have uttered such things as your piety has reported against them.
2. You, however, beloved and most truly longed-for, have done what befitted the tradition of the Church and your piety toward the Lord, in refuting, admonishing, and rebuking such men. But since, instigated by their father the devil, ‘they knew not nor understood,’ as it is written, ‘but go on still in darkness5 ,’ let them learn from your piety that this error of theirs belongs to Valentinus and Marcion, and to Manichaeus, of whom some substituted [the idea of] Appearance for Reality, while the others, dividing what is indivisible, denied the truth that ‘the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us6 .’ Why then, as they hold with those people, do they not also take up the heritage of their names? For it is reasonable, as they hold their error, to have their names as well. and for the future to be called Valentinians, Marcionists, and Manichaeans. Perhaps even thus, being put to shame by the ill savour of the names, they may be enabled to perceive into what a depth of impiety they have fallen. And it would be within our rights not to answer them at all, according to the apostolic advice7 : ‘A man that is heretical, after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such an one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned ;’ the more so, in that the Prophet says about such men: ‘The fool shall utter foolishness, and his heart shall imagine vain things8 .’ But since, like their leader, they too go about like lions seeking whom among the simple they shall devour9 , we are compelled to write in reply to your piety, that the brethren being once again instructed by your admonition may still further reprobate the vain teaching of those men.
3. We do not worship a creature. Far be the thought. For such an error belongs to heathens and Arians. But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God. For if the flesh also is in itself a part of the created world, yet it has become God’s body. And we neither divide the body, being such, from the Word, and worship it by itself10 , nor when we wish to worship the Word do we set Him far apart from the Flesh, but knowing, as we said above, that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ we recognise Him as God also, after having come in the flesh. Who, accordingly, is so senseless as to say to the Lord: ‘Leave the Body that I may worship Thee;’ or so impious as to join the senseless Jews in saying, on account of the Body, ‘Why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God11 ?’ But the leper was not one of this sort, for he worshipped God in the Body, and recognised that He was God, saying, ‘Lord, if Thou wilt Thou canst make me clean12 .’ Neither by reason of the Flesh did he think the Word of God a creature: nor because the Word was the maker of all creation did he despise the Flesh which He had put on. But he worshipped the Creator of the universe as dwelling in a created temple, and was cleansed. So also the woman with an issue of blood, who believed, and only touched the hem of His garment, was healed13 , and the sea with its foaming waves heard the incarnate Word, and ceased its storm14 , while the man blind from birth was healed by the fleshly spitting of the Word15 . And, what is greater and more startling (for perhaps this even offended those most impious men), even when the Lord was hanging upon the actual cross (for it was His Body and the Word was in it), the sun was darkened and the earth shook, the rocks were rent, and the vail of the temple rent, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.
4. These things then happened, and no one doubted, as the Arians now venture to doubt, whether one is to believe the incarnate Word; but even from beholding the man, they recognised that He was their maker, and when they heard a human voice, they did not, because it was human, say that the Word was a creature. On the contrary, they trembled, and recognised nothing less than that it was being uttered from a holy Temple. How then can the impious fail to fear lest ‘as they refused to have God in their knowledge, they may be given up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting16 ?’ For Creation does not worship a creature. Nor again did she on account of His Flesh refuse to worship her Lord. But she beheld her maker in the Body, and ‘in the Name of Jesus every knee’ bowed, yea and ‘shall bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess,’ whether the Arians approve or no, ‘that Jesus is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father17 .’ For the Flesh did not diminish the glory of the Word; far be the thought: on the contrary, it was glorified by Him. Nor, because the Son that was in the form of God took upon Him the form of a servant18 was He deprived of His Godhead. On the contrary, He is thus become the Deliverer of all flesh and of all creation. And if God sent His Son brought forth from a woman, the fact causes us no shame but contrariwise glory and great grace. For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a woman, and begotten of a Virgin, in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation19 , and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and ‘partakers of the Divine Nature,’ as blessed Peter wrote20 . And ‘what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh21 .’
5. Seeing then that Flesh was taken by the Word to deliver all men, raise all from the dead, and make redemption for sins, must not they appear ungrateful, and be worthy of all hatred, who make light of the Flesh, as well as those who on account of it charge the Son of God with being a thing created or made? For they as good as cry to God and say: ‘Send not Thine Only-begotten Son in the Flesh, cause Him not to take flesh of a virgin, lest He redeem us from death and sin. We do not wish Him to come in the body, lest He should undergo death on our behalf: we do not desire the Word to be made flesh, lest in it He should become our Mediator to gain access to thee, and we so inhabit the heavenly mansions. Let the gates of the heavens be shut lest Thy Word consecrate for us the road thither through the veil, namely His Flesh22 .’ These are their utterances, vented with diabolical daring, by the error they have devised. For they who do not wish to worship the Word made flesh, are ungrateful for His becoming man. And they who divide the Word from the Flesh do not hold that one redemption from sin has taken place, or one destruction of death. But where at all will these impious men find the Flesh which the Saviour took, apart from Him, that they should even venture to say ‘we do not worship the Lord with the Flesh, but we separate the Body, and worship Him alone.’ Why, the blessed Stephen saw in the heavens the Lord standing on [God’s] right hand23 , while the Angels said to the disciples, ‘He shall so come in like manner as ye beheld Him going into heaven24 :’ and the Lord Himself says, addressing the Father, ‘I will that where I am, they also may be with Me25 .’ And surely if the Flesh is inseparable from the Word, does it not follow that these men must either lay aside their error, and for the future worship the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or, if they do not worship or serve the Word Who came in the Flesh, be cast out on all sides, and count no longer as Christians but either as heathens, or among the Jews.
6. Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: ‘Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth26 ,’ and ‘Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us27 .’ But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, ‘Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh;’ and in what Paul writes, ‘Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works28 .’ How then has He given Himself, if He had not worn flesh? For flesh He offered, and gave Himself for us, in order that undergoing death in it, ‘He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil29 .’ Hence also we always give thanks in the name of Jesus Christ, and we do not set at nought the grace which came to us through Him. For the coming of the Saviour in the flesh has been the ransom and salvation of all creation. So then, beloved and most longed-for, let what I have said put in mind those who love the Lord, while as to those who have imitated the behaviour of Judas, and deserted the Lord to join Caiaphas, let them by these things be taught better, if maybe they are willing, if maybe they are ashamed. And let them know that in worshipping the Lord in the flesh we do not worship a creature, but, as we said above, the Creator Who has put on the created body.
7. But we should like your piety to ask them this. When Israel was ordered to go up to Jerusalem to worship at the temple of the Lord, where was the ark, ‘and above it the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the Mercy-seat30 ,’ did they do well or the opposite? If they did ill, how came it that they who despised this law were liable to punishment? for it is written that if a man make light of it and go not up, he shall perish from among the people31 . But if they did well, and in this proved well-pleasing to God, are not the Arians, abominable and most shameful of any heresy, many times worthy of destruction, in that while they approve the former People for the honour paid by them to the Temple, they will not worship the Lord Who is in the flesh as in a temple? And yet the former temple was constructed of stones and gold, as a shadow. But when the reality came, the type ceased from thenceforth, and there did not remain, according to the Lord’s utterance, one stone upon another that was not broken down32 . And they did not, when they saw the temple of stones, suppose that the Lord who spoke in the temple was a creature; nor did they set the Temple at nought and retire far off to worship. But they came to it according to the Law, and worshipped the God who uttered His oracles from the Temple. Since then this was so, how can it be other than right to worship the Body of the Lord, all-holy and all-reverend as it is, announced as it was by the archangel Gabriel, formed by the Holy Spirit, and made the Vesture of the Word? It was at any rate a bodily hand that the Word stretched out to raise her that was sick of a fever33 : a human voice that He uttered to raise Lazarus from the dead34 ; and, once again, stretching out His hands upon the Cross, He overthrew the prince of the power of the air, that now works35 in the sons of disobedience, and made the way clear for us into the heavens.
8. Therefore he that dishonours the Temple dishonours the Lord in the Temple; and he that separates the Word from the Body sets at nought the grace. given to us in Him. And let not the most impious Arian madmen suppose that, since the Body is created, the Word also is a creature, nor let them, because the Word is not a creature, disparage His Body. For their error is matter for wonder, in that they at once confuse and disturb everything, and devise pretexts only in order to number the Creator among the creatures.
But let them listen. If the Word were a creature, He would not assume the created body to quicken it. For what help can creatures derive from a creature that itself needs salvation? But since the Word being Creator has Himself made the creatures, therefore also at the consummation of the ages36 He put on the creature, that He as creator might once more consecrate it, and be able to recover it. But a creature could never be saved by a creature, any more than the creatures were created by a creature, if the Word was not creator. Accordingly let them not lie against the divine Scriptures nor give offence to simple brethren; but if they are willing let them change their mind in their turn, and no longer worship the creature instead of God, Who made all things. But if they wish to abide by their impieties, let them alone take their fill of them, and let them gnash their teeth like their father the devil, because the Faith of the Catholic Church knows that the Word of God is creator and maker of all things; and we know that while ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God37 ,’ now that He has become also man for our salvation we worship Him, not as though He had come in the body equalising Himself with it, but as Master, assuming the form of the servant, and Maker and Creator coming in a creature in order that, in it delivering all things, He might bring the world nigh to the Father, and make all things to be at peace, things in heaven and things on the earth. For thus also we recognise His Godhead, even the Father’s, and worship His Incarnate Presence, even if the Arian madmen burst themselves in sunder.
Greet all that love the Lord Jesus Christ. We pray that you may be well, and remember us to the Lord, beloved and truly most longed-for. If need be this is to be read to Hieracas38 the presbyter.
1 Adelphius is named in the ‘Tome’ (above, p. 486), as bishop of Onuphis. Previously he had been exiled by the Arians to the Thebaid (above, pp. 297, &c).. Hence in the title of this letter he is styled ‘Confessor.’ The letter (Migne xxvi, 1072) is directed against the Arian Christology. Although Ath. treats it (§1) as a ‘new blasphemy,’ it had been held by the Arians from the first; Epiph). Anc. 33, traces it back to Lucian; but doubtless it had by this time been brought more to the front in their teaching. We know that it occupied a prominent place in the Eunomian system. (References in Dorner III. 1,3). After briefly refuting the doctrinal error, Athanasius turns to the Arian charge of creature-worship brought against the Nicene doctrine. Not forgetting to remind them that their own doctrine was really open to this charge, Ath. points out at greater length that the object of Catholic worship is not the human nature of Christ as such, but the Word Incarnate; and that the human Saviour is worshipped because He is the Word Himself. The date proposed by Montfaucon is adopted, though there is nothing to fix it absolutely. Its style closely resembles that of the writings of the ‘third Exile.’ (See also Bright, Later Tr., p. 61).
2 (2Co 2,11,
3 (Rm 1,30,
4 (2Tm 3,8,
5 (Ps 82,5,
6 (Jn 1,14,
7 (Tt 3,10-11,
8 (Is 32,6, LXX.
9 (1P 5,8,
10 As some modern devotions at least tend to do.
11 (Jn 10,33,
12 (Mt 8,2).
13 (Mt 9,20
14 Mt 8,26.
15 (Jn 9,6,
16 (Rm 1,28
17 (Ph 2,10-11,
18 Ph 2,6-7.
19 planhqeisan gennhsin.
20 (2P 1,4,
21 (Rm 8,3,
22 (He 10,20,
23 (Ac 7,55,
24 Ac 1,11.
25 (Jn 17,24).
26 (Ps 43,3,
27 (Mt 1,23, and Is 7,14,
28 (Tt 2,13-14,
29 (He 2,14,
30 (He 9,5,
31 Cf. Lv 17,9 Nb 9,13.
32 (Mt 24,2,
33 (Mc 1,31,
34 Jn 11,43.
35 (Ep 2,2, here omits the tou pneumato", thus increasing the difficulty of the gen. particp.
36 He 9,26.
37 (Jn 1,1,
38 Perhaps the ‘Hierax’ of pp. 257, 297, 560, above.
To our beloved and most truly longed-for son, Maximus1 , philosopher, Athanasius greeting in the Lord.
Having read the letter now come from you, I approve your piety: but, marvelling at the rashness of those ‘who understand neither what they say nor whereof they confidently affirm2 ,’ I had really decided to say nothing. For to reply upon matters which are so plain and which are clearer than light, is simply to give an excuse for shamelessness to such lawless men. And this we have learned from the Saviour. For when Pilate had washed his hands, and acquiesced in the false accusation of the Jews of that day, the Lord answered him no more, but rather warned his wife in a dream, so that He that was being judged might be believed to be God not in word, but in power. While after vouchsafing Caiaphas no reply to his folly, He Himself by his promise3 brought all over to knowledge. Accordingly for some time I delayed, and have reluctantly yielded to your zeal for the truth, in view of the argumentativeness of men without shame. And I have dictated nothing beyond what your letter contains, in order that the adversary may from henceforth be convinced on the points to which he has objected, and may ‘keep his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile4 .’ And would that they would no longer join the Jews who passed by of old in reproaching Him that hung upon the Tree: ‘If thou be the Son of God save Thyself5 .’ But if even after this they will not give in, yet do you remember the apostolic injunction, and ‘a man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such an one is perverted and sinneth being self-condemned6 .’ For if they are Gentiles, or of the Judaisers, who are thus daring, let them, as Jews, think the Cross of Christ a stumbling-block, or as Gentiles, foolishness7 . But if they pretend to be Christians let them learn that the crucified Christ is at once Lord of Glory, and the Power of God and Wisdom of God8 .
2. But if they are in doubt whether He is God at all, let them reverence Thomas, who handled the Crucified and pronounced Him Lord and God9 . Or let them fear the Lord Himself, who said, after washing the feet of the disciples: ‘Ye call Me Lord and Master10 , and ye say well, for so I am.’ But in the same body in which He was when he washed their feet, He also carried up our sins to the Tree11 . And He was witnessed to as Master of Creation, in that the Sun withdrew his beams and the earth trembled and the rocks were rent, and the executioners recognised that the Crucified was truly Son of God. For the Body they beheld was not that of some man, but of God, being in which, even when being crucified, He raised the dead. Accordingly it is no good venture of theirs to say that the Word of God came into a certain holy man; for this was true of each of the prophets and of the other saints, and on that assumption He would clearly be born and die in the case of each one of them. But this is not so, far be the thought. But once for all ‘at the consummation of the ages12 , to put away sin’ ‘the Word was made flesh13 ’ and proceeded forth from Mary the Virgin, Man after our likeness, as also He said to the Jews, ‘Wherefore seek ye to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth14 ?’ And we are deified not by partaking of the body of some man, but by receiving the Body of the Word Himself.
3. And at this also I am much surprised, how they have ventured to entertain such an idea as that the Word became man in consequence of His Nature. For if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous.15 For neither does Nature know of a Virgin bearing apart from a man. Whence by the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, He became man in the body for our salvation, in order that having somewhat to offer16 for us He might save us all, ‘as many as through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bondage.17 ’ For it was not some man that gave Himself up for us; since every man is under sentence of death, according to what was said to all in Adam, ‘earth thou art and unto earth thou shall return.18 ’ Nor yet was it any other of the creatures, since every creature is liable to change. But the Word Himself offered His own Body on our behalf that our faith and hope might not be in man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word Himself. Why, even now that He is become man we behold His Glory, ‘glory as of one only-begotten of His Father—full of grace and truth.19 ’ For what He endured by means of the Body, He magnified as God. And while He hungered in the flesh, as God He fed the hungry. And if anyone is offended by reason of the bodily conditions, let him believe by reason of what God works. For humanly He enquires where Lazarus is laid, but raises him up divinely. Let none then laugh, calling Him a child, and citing His age, His growth, His eating, drinking and suffering, lest while denying what is proper for the body, he deny utterly also His sojourn among us. And just as He has not become Man in consequence of His nature, in like manner it was consistent that when He had taken a body He should exhibit what was proper to it, lest the imaginary theory of Manichaeus should prevail. Again it was consistent that when He went about in the body, He should not hide what belonged to the Godhead, lest he of Samosata should find an excuse to call Him man, as distinct in person from God the Word.
4. Let then the unbelievers perceive this, and learn that while as a Babe He lay in a manger, He subjected the Magi and was worshipped by them; and while as a Child He came down to Egypt, He brought to nought the hand-made objects of its idolatry20 : and crucified in the flesh, He raised the dead long since turned to corruption. And it has been made plain to all that not for His own sake but for ours He underwent all things, that we by His sufferings might put on freedom from suffering and incorruption21 , and abide unto life eternal.
5. This then I have concisely dictated, following, as I said above, the lines of your own letter, without working out any point any further but only mentioning what relates to the Holy Cross, in order that the despisers may be taught better upon the points where they were offended, and may worship the Crucified. But do you thoroughly persuade the unbelievers; perhaps somehow they may come from ignorance to knowledge, and believe aright. And even though what your own letter contains is sufficient, yet it is as well to have added what I have for the sake of reminder in view of contentious persons; not so much in order that being refuted in their venturesome statements they may be put to shame, as that being reminded they may not forget the truth. For let what was confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea prevail. For it is correct, and enough to overthrow every heresy however impious, and especially that of the Arians which speaks against the Word of God, and as a logical consequence profanes His Holy Spirit. Greet all who hold aright. All that are with us greet you.
1 Maximus, probably the Cynic philosopher who plays so strange and grotesque a part in the history of S. Gregory Nazianzen’s tenure of the see of Constantinople (the identification is questioned by Bright, p. 72, but without very cogent reasons), was the son of Alexandrian parents, persons of high social standing, who had suffered much for the Faith. He himself was an ardent opponent of Arianism and heathenism, and was banished under Valens (further particulars in Dict. Gr. and Rm Biogr. s. 5,Maximus Alexandrinus). The present letter compliments him on his success in refuting heretics, some of whom advocated the Arian Christology; others the doctrine of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. The Epistle has much in common with those to Epictetus and Adelphius; Montfaucon’s date tor it is adopted. (see Migne 26,1085; Bright, Lat. Tr., p. 72).
2 (1Tm 1,7,
3 (Mc 15,5 Mt 26,64 Mt 27,19
4 (Ps 34,13,
5 (Mt 27,40 Lc 28,37,
6 (Tt 3,10-11,
7 (1Co 1,23,
8 Cf. 1Co 1,24, and 1Co 2,8.
9 (Jn 20,28,
10 Ath. quotes Jn 13,13 in this, the order of several mss. and later fathers, both here and elsewhere.
11 (1P 2,24,
12 (He 9,26,
13 (Jn 1,14,
14 Jn 8,40.
15 Cf). Ad Epict. 5 (supr. p. 572).
16 Cf. He 8,3.
17 He 2,15.
18 (Gn 3,19, LXX.
19 (Jn 1,14b,
20 Cf). de Incarn. 36. 4.
21 Cf. 1Co 15,53.
Athanasius to John and Antiochus, our beloved sons and fellow-presbyters in the Lord, greeting.
I was glad to receive your letter just now, the more so as you wrote from Jerusalem. I thank you for informing me about the brethren that there assembled, and about those who wish, on account of disputed points, to disturb the simple. But about these things let the Apostle charge them not to give heed to those who contend about words, and seek nothing else than to tell and hear some new thing2 . But do you, having your foundation sure, even Jesus Christ our Lord, and the confession of the fathers concerning the faith, avoid those who wish to say anything more or less than that, and rather aim at the profit of the brethren, that they may fear God and keep His commandments, in order that both by the teaching of the fathers, and by the keeping of the commandments, they may be able to appear well-pleasing to the Lord in the day of judgment. But I have been utterly astonished at the boldness of those who venture to speak against our beloved Basil the bishop, a true servant of God. For from such vain talk they can be convicted of not loving even the confession of the fathers.
Greet the brethren. They that are with me greet you. I pray that ye may be well in the Lord, beloved and much-desired sons.
1 Of John and Antiochus nothing is known, unless the latter is the later bishop of Ptolemais and enemy of Chrysostom. Both men seem to belong to the class of well-meaning mischief-makers, given to retailing invidious stories. Hence the polite reserve of our little note (Migne 26,115, and its laconic dismissal of the gossip about Basil, the new bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea (supr. p. 449). The main interest of this and the following letter, which seem to date from the winter 371–372, consists in the testimony of the high esteem of Athanasius for Basil, as well as his indifference to words where no essential principle was involved. The two recipients of this letter either lived or were visitors at Jerusalem. On Basil’s difficulties at this time, see D.C.B. 1,288 a, 293, and on his relations with Athan., cf. Prolegg. ch. 2,§10.
2 (2Tm 2,14 Ac 17,21).
To our beloved son Palladius, presbyter, Athanasius the Bishop greeting in the Lord.
I was glad to receive also the letter written by you alone, the more so that you breathe orthodoxy in it, as is your wont. And having learnt not for the first time, but long ago, the reason of your staying at present with our beloved Innocent2 , I am pleased with your piety. Since then you are acting as you are, write and let me know how are the brethren there, and what the enemies of the truth think about us. But whereas you have also told me of the monks at Caesarea, and I have learned from our beloved Dianius3 that they are vexed, and are opposing our beloved bishop Basil, I am glad you have informed me, and I have pointed out4 . to them what is fitting, namely that as children they should obey their father, and not oppose what he approves. For if he were suspected as touching the truth, they would do well to combat him. But if they are confident, as we all are, that he is a glory to the Church, contending rather on behalf of the truth and teaching those who require it, it is not right to combat such an one, but rather to accept with thanks his good conscience. For from what the beloved Dianius has related, they appear to be vexed without cause. For he, as I am confident, to the weak becomes weak to gain the weak5 . But let our beloved friends look at the scope of his truth, and at his special purpose6 , and glorify the Lord Who has given such a bishop to Cappadocia as any district must pray to have. And do you, beloved, be good enough to point out to them the duty of obeying, as I write. For this is at once calculated to render them well disposed toward their father, and will preserve peace to the churches. I pray that you may be well in the Lord, beloved son.
1 On the general subject and date of this letter see note 1 to Letter 62. Of Palladius, who is clearly a resident at Caesarea, nothing further is known. The tone of this letter is more confiding than that of the previous one. (Migne ib. 1167).
2 Perhaps a bishop in the neighbourhood of Caesarea. See D.C. B, s.v. Innocentius (4).
3 Namesake of a predecessor of Basil, otherwise unknown.
4 The letter here referred to is lost. The monks in question had raised a cry against Basil on account of the reserve with which he spoke of the Divine Personality of the Holy Spirit. (See supr. p. 481).
5 (1Co 9,22,
To my lord, son, and most beloved fellow-minister Diodorus [bishop of Tyre]1 , Athanasius greeting in the Lord.
I thank my Lord, Who is everywhere establishing His doctrine, and chiefly so by means of His own sons, such as actual fact shews you to be. For before your Reverence wrote, we knew how great grace has been brought to pass in Tyre by means of your perseverance. And we rejoice with you that by your means Tyre also has learned the right word of piety. And I indeed took an opportunity of writing to you, longed-for and beloved: but I marvel at your not having replied to my letter. Be not then slow to write at once, knowing that you give me refreshment, as a son to his father, and make me exceeding glad, as a herald of truth. And enter upon no controversy with the heretics, but overcome their argumentativeness with silence, their ill-will with courtesy. For thus your speech shall be ‘with grace, seasoned with salt ,’ while they [will be judged] by the conscience of all. …
1 This fragment (Migne 26,1261) is given by Facundus, Def. Tr. Cap. 4,2, who claims it as addressed to Diodorus of Tarsus, the famous Antiochene confessor and master of Chrysostom and Theodore. Unfortunately this is impossible, as Diodore became bishop of Tarsus not before 378, i.e. after Athan. was dead. The letter itself decides for Diodorus of Tyre, whom Paulinus of Antioch had quite unwarrantably ordained to this see (cf. Rufin, H.E. 2,21). Whether (as has been held on the authority of Rufinus) Diodorus, or (as Le Quien, Or. Chr. 2,865 sq. holds) Zeno, the nominee of Meletius, was first in the field in the unseemly scramble, is doubtful. Zeno is already bishop in 365 (Soz. 6,12); the date of the appointment of Diodorus, whose claim is at any rate no better than that of Paulinus himself, is quite uncertain (see (also Prolegg. ch. ii. §§9, 10). Diodorus was the friend and correspondent of Epiphanius, and of Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, second from Athanasius. Facundus confuses him in these particulars also with his namesake of Tarsus, but the mistake is thoroughly sifted by Tillemont, Mem. 8,pp. 238, 712. The letter is important, along with Letter 56, and the correspondence of S. Basil, as illustrating the attitude of Athanasius with regard to the unhappy schism of Antioch.