who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and to whomever the Son wishes to reveal him.* (Matth. xi, 27).
1. A Eusebius and his associates act impiously toward the Lord, as they do not understand this. For they say: "If all things were 'handed over' (arguing that 'all things' refers to the lordship of the creation), there was a time when he did not have them." And if he did not have them, he is not from the Father; for if he were from the Father, he would have always possessed them, being from him, and he would have had no need to receive them. But even from this point, their folly will be more easily exposed. B For the phrase does not signify the ruling of creation or the governance of things made, but rather it wishes to reveal a certain sense of the dispensation. For if, when he said "were handed over" to him, it is clear that before he received them, the creation of the Word was empty; then where is the saying, *All things hold together in him*? (Coloss. i, 17). But if it is said that all things were handed over to him at the very moment the creation came into being, there was no need for a "handing over"; for all things were made through him, and it is superfluous for these to be handed over to the Lord of whom he himself is the creator. For he was Lord of the things coming into existence while he was making them. C But even if they were handed over to him after they were made, consider the absurdity. For if they were handed over and the Father withdrew because the Son had received them, we are in danger of falling into the myths of some, that having handed them over to him, he himself departed. Or if, when the Son possesses them, the Father also possesses them, he should not have said, "were handed over," but that he took him as a companion, as Paul took Silvanus. But this is even more absurd; for God is not in need, nor did he take the Son as a helper for the sake of need; but, being the Father of the Word, he makes all things through him, and he does not hand over the creation to him, but through him and in him he provides for the creation, so that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the Father (Matth. x, 29), nor is the grass clothed without God (Matth. vi, 30), but while the Father is working, the Son also works even until now (Joan. v, 17). The opinion of the impious is therefore vain. For the phrase does not exist as they think, but is indicative of the dispensation according to the flesh.
2. D For since man sinned and fell, and with him who fell all things were disturbed—death prevailed from Adam until Moses (Rom. v, 14), the earth was cursed, Hades was opened, Paradise was closed, the heavens were turned away, and finally man was corrupted and became like the beasts (Ps. xlviii, 13)—and the
A devil began to leap upon us. Then, indeed, God, being philanthropic and not wishing the man created in His image to perish, was saying: "Whom shall I send, and who will go?" And while all were silent, the Son said: "Behold, I am here, send me." And then, saying "Go," He handed over the man to Him, so that the Word Himself might become flesh, and by taking on flesh, might restore it in every respect. For he was handed over to Him as to a physician, to heal the bite of the serpent; as to life, to raise the dead (61); as to light, to illuminate the darkness; and as to reason, to restore the reason itself. Since, therefore, all things were handed over to Him and He became man, all things were immediately corrected and perfected. The earth received a blessing in place of a curse, paradise was opened to the thief (62), Hades shuddered, the tombs were opened as the dead were raised, and the gates of heaven were lifted up, that He who is from Edom might arrive (63). Indeed, the Savior Himself, wishing to signify how all things were handed over to Him, immediately added (64), as Matthew says: "Come to me, all B you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest; for you were handed over to me, that I might give rest to those who labor, and give life to those who have been deadened." This also harmonizes with what is written in John: "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand." For He gave them so that, just as all things came into being through Him, so in Him all things might be able to be renewed. For it was not so that He, from poor, might become rich that all things were handed over to Him (65), nor so that, as though not having authority, He might receive authority—God forbid!—but rather that, as Savior, He might correct all things (66). For it was fitting indeed that the beginning of creation should happen through Him for things to exist, but that their restoration should be in Him; for the words carry a difference. For in the beginning, all things came into being through Him for them to exist; but later, when all had fallen, the Word became flesh, C and He clothed Himself in it, so that in Him all things might be restored. For by suffering, He Himself gave us rest, and by hungering, He Himself fed us, and by descending into Hades, He lifted us up. Then, indeed, when all things were being made, it was by an imperative command that they came into being, such as, "Let the earth bring forth," and "Let there be light." But for the restoration, it was fitting that all things be handed over to Him, so that He Himself might become man, and in Him all things be renewed. For in Him, the man who was in Him was given life; for this reason, therefore, the Word was conjoined to man, so that the curse might no longer have strength against man. For this reason, also, in the seventy-first Psalm, those D
A who acknowledge God with regard to the human race say: "O God, give thy judgment to the king," so that the judgment of death which was against us might be delivered to the Son, and he, thereafter dying for us, might himself extinguish it in himself. For signifying this, he himself also said in the eighty-seventh Psalm: "Thy fury is laid hard upon me." For he himself bore the fury that was against us, just as he also says in the one hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm: "The Lord will recompense for me."
3. In this sense it is possible to understand—and if one must understand and speak again—that those things which he did not have are delivered to him. For he was not man before this, but he became man in order to save him. And the Word was not in the beginning flesh, but later he became flesh, B in which he also reconciled our enmity toward you, according to the Apostle, and abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, so that he might create the two into one new man, making peace, and might reconcile both in one body to the Father. Whatever the Father has, however, these things are also the Son's, as he says in John: "All things whatsoever the Father has are mine," the words being very well used. For when that which was not is becoming, all things are delivered to him; but when he wishes to signify his unity with the Father, he does not hide it, but teaches, saying: "All things, whatsoever the Father has, are mine." And one must admire the precision of the statement. For he did not say, "All things, whatsoever the Father has, he has given to me," C lest he appear to have at some time not had them, but: "They are mine." For while these are in the power of the Father, they are in the power of the Son in like manner. And what it is that the Father has, must be examined again. For if he signifies creation, then he had nothing before creation, and it appears that he is receiving from creation. But may it never be conceived! For as he exists before creation, so too before creation he has what he has, which we also believe to be the Son's. For if the Son is in the Father, then all things, whatsoever the Father has, are the Son's. This passage overturns the wickedness of the heretics who say: "If all things have been delivered to the Son, then the Father has ceased from the power of the things delivered, since he has appointed the Son in his own stead; for the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son." D But let the mouths of those speaking unrighteousness be stopped; for because he has given all judgment to the Son, he himself is not stripped of sovereignty; nor, because it is said that all things have been delivered to the Son by the Father, is he not over all things. For they clearly separate the Only-Begotten of God, who is inseparable in nature, even if they madnessly separate him in words, not...
A understanding that the light of the sun could never be separated from the sun, but exists in it naturally. For it is necessary, using the modest image of things at hand and familiar, to set forth what is understood to the reason, since it is daring to intrude upon the incomprehensible nature. The impious, not understanding that the light which shines upon the world could not be conceived to shine without the sun by those who are of sound mind, since the light from it is united to the nature of the sun, and as if the light were to say: "I have received from the sun to illuminate all things, and to increase and strengthen all things through the heat that is in me"—no one, if he were mad, would think to separate the name of the sun from the nature that comes from it, which is the light itself; so it is pious to understand the divine substance of the Word to be united by nature to his own Father. For indeed, the literal text at hand will provide the clearest explanation of the matter sought, since the Savior said: "All things that the Father hath are mine," which indicates that he is always with the Father; for "all things that he hath" shows that the Father maintains lordship, and "are mine" indicates the inseparable union. It is necessary, therefore, for us to understand that in the Father there is eternity, the everlasting, the immortal; and it is in him not as things foreign to him, but C as in a fountain it is in him, resting in the Son as well. When, therefore, you wish to think about the Son, learn first what things are in the Father, and do not doubt that these are also in the Son. If, then, the Father is a creature or a work, these things also are in the Son; and if it is permissible to say of the Father, "there was once when he was not," or "he is from non-existent things," let this be said also of the Son. But if it is impious to say these things exist in the Father, let it be impious also to think these things in the Son. For the things of the Father, these are the things of the Son. For he who honors the Son honors the Father who sent him, and he who receives the Son receives with him the Father; for he who has seen the Son has seen the Father. As, therefore, the Father is not a creature, so neither is the Son; and as it is not possible to say of him, "there was once when he was not," or "he is from non-existent things," so it is not fitting to say the same of the Son. But rather, as in the Father there is D eternity, immortality, "always," and "not a creature," so it is consistent to think the same concerning the Son. For according to that which is written: "As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given also to the Son to have life in himself." He used the word "hath given," that he might show the Father who gives. But as there is life in the Father, so he said there is life in the Son, that he might teach the indivisible and eternal nature. For this reason he also precisely said, "All things that the Father hath," that by naming the Father here, he himself might not also be thought to be the Father.
A
5. For indeed, O Arians, the Only-begotten Son of God is called "Father" by the Father, yet not in the sense that you, being led astray, might perhaps suppose; but he is the Son of the Father who begat him, and he is the Father of the age to come. It is necessary to cut off all your false suppositions. He says, therefore, through the prophet: "A Son is born unto us, and given unto us, whose government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel, Mighty God, Potentate, Father of the age to come" (Isa. ix. 6). Therefore the Only-begotten is both the Father of the age to come, and the Son of God is Mighty God and Potentate. And it is clearly shown that all things that the Father hath are his, and as the Father giveth life, so also the Son is present to give life to whom he will (John v. 25). For, he says, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son, and shall live." There is also one will and purpose of the Father and the Son, because they possess one and an undivided nature. And the Arians afflict themselves to no purpose, not understanding what was said by our Savior: "All things that the Father hath are mine" (John xvi. 15). For from this text, both the insanity of Sabellius is overturned, and the folly of the Jews of the present day is reproved. For this reason the Only-begotten, having life in himself, as the Father hath, B alone knows who the Father is, being in the Father, and having the Father in himself. For he is the Image, and consistently, as in an image, all things of the Father are in him. For he is the Seal, of equal form, showing the Father in himself, the living and true Word, the power, wisdom, sanctification, and our redemption. For "in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts xvii. 28). And, "No one knoweth who the Father is, except the Son; and who the Son is, except the Father" (Matt. xi. 27).
6. And how dare the impious prattle about things that are not lawful, being men, and not being able to explain the things upon the earth? And what do I say "the things upon the earth"? Let them tell us of their own, if they can find out how to trace the nature of themselves. Truly they are bold and arrogant, not trembling at the glories where angels desire to look (1 Pet. i. 12), to whom they are so much superior in both nature and rank. For what is nearer to God than the cherubim or the seraphim? And yet not even they, while standing or with feet established, C indeed they do not even stand with naked faces, but as though covered, they offer up the doxology with unceasing lips, celebrating nothing else than the divine and ineffable nature with the triple holiness. And nowhere did any of the divine prophets, who were especially deemed worthy of such a vision, report to us that in uttering "Holy" the first time they used a loud voice, and in the second time a lesser voice, and in the third time a lower voice; and that after this they called the first sanctification the one properly speaking, and the second one subordinating, D and the third one lower. But away with the folly of those who hate God and are senseless...
A For the all-praised and venerable and adorable Trinity is one and indivisible and has no form. It is joined without confusion, even as the monad is separated without division. For the fact that these venerable living creatures offer their doxology by saying "Holy, holy, holy," B shows forth three perfect hypostases, just as by saying "Lord" they signify the one substance. Those, then, who diminish the only-begotten Son of God blaspheme against God, holding wrong views concerning His perfection, and slandering Him as imperfect; and they render themselves liable to the greatest punishment. For he who utters blasphemy against any one of the hypostases shall have no forgiveness either in this age or in the age to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their heart to the understanding of the Sun of righteousness; that, having acknowledged Him whom they once rejected, they may with constant piety of mind praise Him with us, for His is the dominion, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and unto the ages. Amen.
ADMONITION ON THE ENCYCLICAL EPISTLE TO THE BISHOPS
I. After the treatise on "All things have been delivered unto me by the Father," etc., there opportunely follows the Encyclical Epistle to the bishops, written in the year 341, which has hitherto been the cause of most serious dispute. For some, having rightly suspected a flaw in the published versions, thought that Gregory should always be substituted for George, who occurs therein everywhere, and that Pistus should once be substituted for Gregory: others have manfully defended the ancient reading. We, however, believe that with the help of the very ancient Royal codex, we have restored this distinguished work of Athanasius to its integrity, and at the same time put an end to this great question. But in order that it may be understood what labor we have contributed to the restoration of this epistle, the matter must be repeated from a deeper level.
II. After Athanasius had returned from Gaul, the Eusebians, relying on the authority of the Emperor Constantius, appointed Pistus as Arian bishop of Alexandria. But moved by the indignity of the situation, both Athanasius himself and other Egyptian prelates proclaimed the audacity of the Eusebians everywhere, and complained to all the bishops about so great an injustice. When the Eusebians learned that the ordination of Pistus was ill-spoken of everywhere, and that he was condemned by the common judgment of all as an intruder, they gathered a synod at Antioch in the year 341, and replaced Pistus with Gregory, also an Arian, and sent him to Alexandria, supported by the protection of the governor Philagrius: at whose entry, those outrages were committed which are recounted throughout this entire epistle. For Athanasius, when he had hurried himself out of the city amidst such a great tumult, wrote an epistle concerning the events at Alexandria—not "to all the orthodox," as the old editions claim, but to all the bishops of the world. Nor, indeed, did this single error creep in by the defect of the amanuenses, for all the copies, both printed and manuscript, with the one exception of the Royal, always have George in place of Gregory, an error naturally born from the similarity of the names: likewise, all the printed copies and some manuscripts have Gregory in place of Pistus. This fact has cast the densest shadows upon this history. But we are certain that the reading of the Royal codex is the genuine one, and that in this epistle the intrusion of Gregory, not George, is narrated. 1. For the Royal codex excels the others in both antiquity and trustworthiness, as is observed elsewhere in many places. 2. Besides the Royal codex, which others and the printed editions omit. and the printed editions omit. Soon the same ones omit the word, which others and the printed editions contain. and in the following they omit. Ibid. Seguerianus, [the word] null and [the word] and are omitted by the Royal and Basilian. The Royal adds also at the end, Amen.