^{page 408 note 1} Several excellent studies have been published concerning Athanasius and his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Der Heilige Geist als Geist Christi und Geist der Gläubigen, by Laminski, Adolf (St. Benno-Verlag, Leipzig, 1969)Google Scholar, is the most comprehensive, followed in excellence by Shapland's, C. R. B. ‘Introduction’ to his translation of the Letters of St. Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit (Philosophical Library, New York, 1951)Google Scholar. Earlier scholars dealt with this aspect of Athanasius' thought, especially Swete, H. B. in the Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church (Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1912)Google Scholar, and in On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit (Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge, 1876)Google Scholar. Other authors who discussed the Holy Spirit doctrine of Athanasius include Prestige, G. L. in his God in Patristic Thought (S.P.C.K., London, 1959)Google Scholar, and Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, vol. 1 (Harvard University Press, 1964)Google Scholar. The historical context as well as the doctrine itself have been treated in several standard histories of dogma: Bethune-Baker, J. F., An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (Methuen and Co., Ltd., London, 1954)Google Scholar; Gerlitz, Peter, Äusserliche Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung der Christlichen Trinitätsdogma (E. U. Brill, Leiden, 1963)Google Scholar; Grabman, Martin, Die Geschichte der Kalholischen Theologie (Herder and Co., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1933)Google Scholar; Harnack, A., History of Dogma, vol. 4 (Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1903)Google Scholar; Lebreton, J., History of the Dogma of the Trinity (Benziger Brothers, Boston, 1939)Google Scholar; and Tixeront, J., History of Dogmas, vol. 2 (B. Herder, St Louis, 1914)Google Scholar. Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (Adam and Charles Black, London, 1968Google Scholar), and Shermann, Theodor, Die Gottheit des Heiligen Geistes (Herderscher Verlagshandlung, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1901Google Scholar), also discuss Athanasius' place in the history of this problem. Mention is given to Athanasius and his Spirit theology in Berthold Altaner, Patrology (Herder and Herder, New York, 1960Google Scholar) and in Quasten, J., Patrology, vol. 3 (Newman Press, Westminster, Md., 1960)Google Scholar. Two articles of note relating to the issue are Hanson, R. P. G., ‘The Divinity of the Holy Spirit’, ChQ, 1:298–306 (April 1969)Google Scholar, and MacIntyre, J., ‘The Holy Spirit in Greek Patristic Thought’, Scot.J. of Theol, 7:353–375 (d 1954).Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 1} Harnack, A., History of Dogma (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1903), II, pp. 207–209; IV, p. 108Google Scholar. See A. Laminski, Der Heilige Geist, Kapitel I, for a thorough discussion of the preceding ecclesiastical and theological context to Athanasius’ work.

^{page 409 note 2} For a summary of the context directly preceding Athanasius' works, see A. Laminski, op. cit., pp. 28–9.

^{page 409 note 3} Subsequent controversies, and Athanasius' influence on them, will be sketched in the conclusion of this paper.

^{page 410 note 1} For a brief discussion of Serapion and his role in Egypt as Athanasius' (unofficial) voice, see Shapland's ‘Introduction’, p. 58, op. cit.

^{page 410 note 2} For a discussion of the breakdown of the letters, see Shapland's ‘Introduction’ in op. cit., pp. 12–13; for the dating of the letters, pp. 16–18.

^{page 411 note 1} ibid., p. 14, for further considerations on this issue. Also Laminski, op. cit., pp. 36–51; 100–24, for a discussion of references outside of the Letters to Serapion.

^{page 411 note 2} The term ‘Macedonian’ refers here to ecclesiastical parties of the fourth century in Thrace and Asia Minor who hesitated clearly to ascribe full divinity to the Spirit. The term has no direct geographical reference. Shapland, op. cit., 22–5. Laminski leaves open the possibility that the Tropici were of the Eusebian homoiousians, op. cit., 33–5.

^{page 411 note 3} ibid., pp. 18–34, for Shapland's argument in full. Several other major authors directly or indirectly agree with this judgment. J. N. D. Kelly point-blankly accepts it (Early Christian Doctrines, Adam and Charles Black, London, 1968, p. 257Google Scholar), as does Swete, H. B. (The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London, 1912, pp. 213–214, 220Google Scholar). Indirect support is given by Bethune-Baker, J. F. (An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, Methuen and Co., Ltd., London, 1954, p. 209Google Scholar) and Tixeront, J. (History of Dogmas, vol. 2, Herder, St Louis, 1914, p. 73Google Scholar), especially concerning the peculiar affirmation of the Son's divinity while denying that of the Spirit's. The context of Athanasius' intense interest in the doctrine of the Son as over-shadowing and involved in his acknowledgment and treatment of the Spirit is upheld by Harnack, A. (History of Dogma, vol. 4, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1903, p. 112Google Scholar).

^{page 412 note 1} Shapland, op. cit., p. 38.

^{page 412 note 2} See Laminski's, discussion of the ‘Easter Letters’ and Athanasius' commentary on the Psalms, Der Heilige Geist als Geist Christi und Geist der Gläubigen (St. Benno-Verlag GMBH, Leipzig, 1969), pp. 110–120.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 1} Letter to Serapion, I, p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 2} Serapion, III, 3Google Scholar; Serapion, I, 23.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 3} Harnack, op. cit., pp. 112–13.

^{page 413 note 4} Serapion, I, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 5} Philippians 2, 6.

^{page 413 note 6} Serapion, III, 5Google Scholar.

^{page 413 note 7} Serapion, I, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 1} Serapion, I, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 2} Swete, op. cit., p. 220.

^{page 414 note 3} Serapion, III, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 1} Oration Against the Arians, I, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 2} ibid., 48.

^{page 415 note 3} ibid.

^{page 415 note 4} Serapion, I, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 5} ibid.

^{page 415 note 6} ibid., 25.

^{page 415 note 7} ibid., 31.

^{page 415 note 8} ibid., 25; also Serapion, III, 5Google Scholar: ‘… things which are created through the Word have their vital strength out of the Spirit from the Word’.

^{page 415 note 9} Serapion, I, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 10} ‘The uniqueness of the Spirit is no less to be established from the fact that he proceeds from the Father. Here, for the first time in this letter, his procession is set forth clearly as a fact within the divine life, as singular as the generation of the Son is shown to be in de Dec. 11. But the emphasis is still upon the Spirit's relation with the Son rather than with the Father. The very procession from the Father is itself apprehended by us from our knowledge of his mission from the Word.’ Shapland's footnote 16, to Serapion, I, 20, op. cit., p. 117.

^{page 416 note 1} Serapion, III, 5Google Scholar. ‘Whenever the titles and figures which express the reality and character of the divine Son are correlated with the particular operation of the Divine power which gives them, for human thought, meaning and pertinence, we find Scripture testifying that it is the Spirit who works.’ Shapland's footnote 11 to Serapion, I, 19, op. cit., pp. 110–11.

^{page 416 note 2} Serapion, I, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 3} ibid., 31.

^{page 416 note 4} ibid.

^{page 416 note 5} Serapion, IV, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 6} Serapion, I, 21.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 7} ibid., 20.

^{page 417 note 1} Scrapion, III, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 2} ibid.

^{page 417 note 3} ibid., 5.

^{page 417 note 4} ibid., 6.

^{page 417 note 5} Serapion, I, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 6} These parallels are given with scriptural references in Serapion, I, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 7} Serapion, I, 21Google Scholar. The Greek word for ‘order’here, τξις does not imply that the Spirit comes after the Son, but that the Spirit is ranked with the Son as with the Father. And the addition ical κα, φσιν ‘and nature’, assures that the τξις is not to be understood as a mere matter of standing or prerogative. See Shapland's footnote 1, op. cit., p. 118.

^{page 418 note 1} Serapion, I, 25.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 2} ‘… “the Son” rather than “God” here, since it is through his propriety to the Son that His propriety to the Father is apprehended. It is one of the characteristics distinguishing Athanasius from later writers… that in establishing the divine unity from passages as those that follow here, he is content to relate what has been said of the Spirit to what is said of the Son, taking for granted that therein is established the Spirit's unity with the Father also.’ Shapland's footnote 3 to Serapion, I, 25, op. cit., p. 128.

^{page 418 note 3} Tome to the People of Antioch, 3; Serapion, I, 26.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 4} Serapion, III, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 5} ibid., 4.

^{page 418 note 6} ibid., 3.

^{page 419 note 1} Serapion, I, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 2} ibid., 32.

^{page 419 note 3} Especially in his treatise On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, which is directed toward a reapproachment with the Semi-Arians of the 50apos;s and 60's.

^{page 419 note 4} To Antioch, 5.

^{page 419 note 5} Serapion, I, 31Google Scholar. Θεολομενον is the closest Athanasius ever comes to applying the title of God, Θες, to the Holy Spirit. See Shapland's footnote 2, op. cit., pp. 142–3; also Wolfson, , The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, vol. 1 (Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 244Google Scholar: ‘… Athanasius who, starting to prove only that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Son, wound up by coming near saying that, like the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is God. He does not exactly say that in so many words.’ Kelly, J. N. D. thinks that ‘in deference to current convention Athanasius abstains from calling Him God directly’. Early Christian Doctrines, p. 258Google Scholar. But this seems to be more conjecture than provable fact; there is no textual evidence to support it whatsoever.

^{page 420 note 1} ‘Introduction,’ op. cit., pp. 34–5.

^{page 420 note 2} ibid., p. 35.

^{page 420 note 3} MacIntyre, art. cit., p. 360; p. 361.

^{page 420 note 4} ibid., p. 370.

^{page 421 note 1} Harnack, , HD IV, p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 2} Serapion, I, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 1} Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version.

^{page 422 note 2} Serapion, III, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 3} e.g., Serapion, I, 28.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 4} ibid., 30.

^{page 422 note 5} ibid.

^{page 422 note 6} ibid.

^{page 423 note 1} ‘It is clear that to Athanasius a single divine operation is manifested in the particular acts of the several persons, an operation as truly and definitely single as is the ousia which is manifested in their several objective presentations.’ Prestige, G., God in Patristic Thought (S.P.C.K., London, 1959), p. 259.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 2} Serapion, I, 30.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 3} ibid., 19.

^{page 423 note 4} Serapion, III, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 5} Serapion, I, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 1} Oration Against the Arians, III, 15Google Scholar. The Greek word for ‘form’ here is σος.

^{page 424 note 2} Serapion, I, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 3} ibid., 12.

^{page 425 note 1} ibid., 10.

^{page 425 note 2} ibid., 9.

^{page 425 note 3} ibid., 29.

^{page 425 note 4} ‘Athanasius’ contention here, as in C. Ar. I, 18, is that God must be either one or the other; that it is inconsistent with any conception of God worthy of the name that He should be involved in “becoming” and change. If He is a dyad, He is a dyad now no less than at the beginning. If He is a Triad now, He was so at the beginning no less than now.’ Shapland's footnote 31 to Serapion, I, 29, in op. cit., p. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 5} Serapion, I, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 6} ibid., 2.

^{page 425 note 7} ‘The Tropici destroy the unity of the Godhead by rending it asunder; its simplicity by making it a compound; and its unique dignity by ranking a creature with it.’ Shapland's footnote 8 to Serapion, I, 2Google Scholar. Athanasius gives the argument form again in Serapion, IV, 7Google Scholar. Laminski summarises the issues well: ‘Zu beachten ist, dass Athanasios durch die Irrlehre in dreifacher Weise die eine Gottheit gefährdet sieht: Unter dem Aspekt der Einheit der Personen sieht er die Gefahr der Spaltung, unter dem Aspekt der einfachen Natur die Gefahr der Vermischung, unter dem Aspekt der einzigartigen Würde des Wesens die Gefahr der Gleichstellung mit den Geschöpfen.’ op. cit., pp. 57–8.

^{page 425 note 8} Serapion, I, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 426 note 1} Serapion, I, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 2} ‘It follows from the unity of the holy Triad that the three persons cannot even conceptually be disassociated. God is to be known only through his self manifestation, and that manifestation, as is all the divine activity, is from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Hence, we can know nothing of the Father, apart from the fact of His relationship with the Son and the Spirit, which we do not know also of the other two Persons.’ Shapland's footnote 7 to Serapion, I, 14.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 3} Serapion, III, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 4} Serapion, I, 30.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 5} ibid.

^{page 426 note 6} See Shapland, footnote 5 to Serapion, I, 30Google Scholar, for a discussion of this meaning of ᾑαὐτῄ in the passage referred to.

^{page 427 note 1} Shapland, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., p. 37.

^{page 427 note 2} Shermann, T., Die Gottheit des Heiligen Geistes (Herdersche Verlagshandlung, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1901), p. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 3} MacIntyre, , ‘The Holy Spirit in Greek Patristic Thought’, Scot J. of Theol, vol. 7 (1954) PP. 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 428 note 1} MacIntyre, , ‘The Holy Spirit in Greek Patristic Thought’, Scot J. of Theol, vol. 7 (1954), p. 356.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 2} Shapland's footnote 3 to Serapion, I, 6, op. cit.

^{page 428 note 3} Shermann, op. cit., p. 62.

^{page 428 note 4} ibid., p. 60.

^{page 428 note 5} MacIntyre, art. cit., p. 357.

^{page 428 note 6} Shapland, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., p. 36.

^{page 429 note 1} ‘How is it, then, that they are not equal (ἴσος), but the one is named after the Father, and the other after the Son?’ Serapion, I, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 2} Shapland's n. 6 to the above quotation, op. cit., p. 97.

^{page 430 note 1} Serapion, I, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 430 note 2} ibid., 19, 30.

^{page 431 note 1} Serapion, I, 16.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 2} ‘To Athanasius the notion of a Father-Grandfather, etc., involves the loss of immutability, as well as of simplicity, in God. Such a combination of relationships cannot be conceived out of the realm of temporality and contingency. The Father cannot be both father and grandfather, but only now father and now grandfather.’ Shapland's n. 10 to Serapion, IV, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 3} Serapion, IV, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 4} ibid.

^{page 432 note 1} Letter to the Church of Antioch, 6.

^{page 432 note 2} Letter to the African Bishops, 4.

^{page 432 note 3} Serapion, I, 28.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 1} Gerlitz, , Äusserliche Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung des Christlichen Trinitätsdogma (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1963); pp. 211–212Google Scholar.

^{page 433 note 2} His opinions are found in op. cit., p. 209.

^{page 433 note 3} ibid., p. 212.

^{page 434 note 1} Serapion, I, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 1} Shapland's n. 17 to Serapion, I, 20, op. cit., p. 117.

^{page 435 note 2} Laminski, A., Der Heilige Geist als Geist Christi und Geist der Gläubigen (St. Benno-Verlag, GMBH, Leipzig, 1969), pp. 153–155.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 3} Serapion, III, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 4} Serapion, I, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 5} ibid. 25.

^{page 436 note 1} Serapion, IV, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 2} Such an avoidance seems to be the case in the argument of Serapion, I, 15Google Scholar. See Shapland's n. 17, op. cit., p. 97. This silence as a defense against arguments for the Spirit's inferiority to the Son seems to be the consensus judgment of several important commentators. MacIntyre clearly supports such a view (art. cit., p. 373) as does Shapland (‘Introduction’, op. cit., p. 41). Both suggest that Athanasius' probable familiarity with the heretical use made of the concept of procession by Eusebius and Marcellus makes him reluctant to chart a course between the Scylla of Arianism and the Charybdis of Sabellianism. Shermann approaches the problem in terms of a double procession, suggesting that both a fear of giving an opening to subordinationism of the Spirit to the Son, and a need to firmly ground the origin of the Spirit in the Godhead of the Father, keep Athanasius from developing a doctrine of the Spirit's procession from the Son. And Swete (who maintains that Athanasius in substance holds to the procession of the Spirit from the Son) says that ‘to preserve the μοναρχα S. Athanasius carefully avoids the use of κ and κπορεεσθαι…’, On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit (Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge, 1876), p. 92.Google Scholar Shermann's discussion is found on p. 70 of his op. cit.

^{page 437 note 1} Shapland, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., p. 42.

^{page 437 note 2} Swete, op. cit., p. 92.

^{page 437 note 3} Tixeront, op. cit., p. 74.

^{page 437 note 4} Shermann, op. cit., p. 73.

^{page 437 note 5} Laminski, op. cit, p. 181.

^{page 438 note 1} A. Laminski gives a short but concise and thorough discussion of Athanasius' influence on his immediate contemporaries and successors in op. cit., pp. 172–6. His references to Didymus are found in pp. 173–4.

^{page 438 note 2} ibid., pp. 175–6.

^{page 438 note 3} ‘Allgemein wird man sagen können, dass Athanasios mit seinen Konzeptionen den Grund gelegt hat, auf dem seine Nachfolger im Streit um die Gottheit des Heiligen Geistes weiterbauen konnten, um das Trinitätsdogma zum Abschluss zu bringen.’ op. cit., p. 176.