Alexander's Encyclical

 I HERE set down the internal evidence in favour of this Letter having been written by Athanasius.

 A long letter on Arius and his tenets, addressed by Alexander to his namesake at Constantinople, has been preserved for us by Theodoret, and we can compare the Encyclical on the one hand with this Letter, and with the acknowledged writings of Athanasius on the other, and thereby determine for ourselves whether the Encyclical does not resemble in style what Athanasius has written, and does not differ from the style of Theodoret's Alexander. Athanasius is a great writer, simple in his diction, clear, unstudied, direct, vigorous, elastic, and above all characteristic; but Alexander writes with an effort, and is elaborate and exquisite in his vocabulary and structure of sentences.

 Thus, the Encyclical before us, after S. Athanasius's manner in treating of sacred subjects, has hardly one scientific term; its words, when not Arius's own, are for the most part from Scripture, such as [ logos, sophia, monogenes, eikon, apaugasma ], just as they are found in Athanasius's controversial Treatises; whereas, in Alexander's letter in Theodoret, phrases are found, certainly not from Scripture, perhaps of Alexandrian theology, perhaps peculiar to the writer, for instance, [ achorista pragmata duo; ho huios ten kata panta homoioteta autou ek phuseos apomaxomenos; di esoptrou akelidotou kai empsuchou theias eikonos; mesiteuousa physis monogenes; tas tei hypostasei duo physeis ]. And, instead of the [ ousia ] of the Father, of the Son, of the Word, which is one of the few, as well as familiar, scientific terms of Athanasius (Orat. i. § 45, ii. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 22, 47, 56), and which the Encyclical uses too, we read in the Letter of Alexander, preserved by Theodoret, [ hypostasis ], and that again and again; e.g., [ ten idiotropon autou hypostasin; tes hypostaseos autou aperiergastou; neoteran tes hyposteos genesin; he tou monogenous anekdiegetos hypostasis; ten tou logou hypostasin ], phrases quite out of keeping with the style of the Encyclical. Nor is it only in the expression of theological ideas that the style of the Letter in Theodoret differs from the style of the Encyclical; thus, when the latter speaks of [ phthoreas ton psuchon ], the former uses the compound [ phthoropoios ]. Such, too, are [ he philarchos kai philarguros prothesis; christemporian; phrenoblabous; idiotropon; homostoichois syllabais; theegorous apostolous; antidiastolen; tes patrikes maieuseos; philotheos sapheneia; anosiourgias; phlenaphon muthon ]. It is very difficult to suppose that the same hand wrote this Letter to the Bishop of Constantinople and the Encyclical which is the subject of this note.

 On the other hand, that Athanasius wrote the latter becomes almost certain when, in addition to what has been observed in Vol. i., supr., in the Prefatory Notice, the following coincidence of words and phrases is considered, on comparing the Encyclical with Athanasius's acknowledged writings:

 Encyclical, ap. Socr.  Hist. i. § 6.(Oxf. Ed. 1844.)

 Athan. Opp. (Ed. benedict. Paris.)  1. p. 6, 1. 2, [ exelthon ],   1 John ii. 19.  1. [ hairesis nun exelthousa ], Orat. i. § 1. 2. ibid . [ andres paranomoi ]. 2. [ paranomoi ], etc. Orat. iii. § 2; Ep.   Æg. 16; Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. 3. ibid . 1. 4, [ exelthon   didaskontes apostasian,   prodromon tou Antichristou ]. 3. [ nun exelthousa, prodromos tou   Antichristou ], Orat. i. § 7 4. ibid . [ kai eboulomen men   siotei ... epeide de ], etc. 4. This form of apology, introductory   to the treatment of a subject, is usual   with Athan., e.g. Orat. i. § 23, init .,   ii. 1, init ., iii. 1, init .; Apol. c. Ar. 1,   init .; Decr. § 5; Serap. i. 1 and 16,   ii. 1, init ., iii. 1, init ., iv. 8; Mon. 2;   Epict. 3 fin.; Max. 1; Apoll. i. 1, init . 5. ibid . 1. 6, [ rhuposei ]. 5. Orat. i. § 10; Decr. § 2; Hist. Ar. 3;   Ep. Æg. 11. 6. ibid . [ tas akoas ]. 6. Orat. 1. § 7 and 35; Hist. Ar. 56; Ep.   Æg. 13. 7. ibid . [ akeraion ]. 7. Orat. 1. § 8, ii. 34; iii. 16; Syn. § 20,   32, and 45; Ap. c. Ar. 1; Ep. Æg. 18;   Epict. 1; Adelph. 2. 8. ibid . 1. 14, [ rhematia ]. 8. Orat. i. § 10; Decr. § 8 and 18; Sent.   Dion. 23. 9. ibid . 1. 15, [ kakonoian ]. 9. Decr. § 1; Hist. Ar. § 75. 10. ibid . 1. 22, etc. The   enumeration of   Arius's tenets. 10. runs with Orat. i. § 5; Decr. § 6; Ep.   Æg. 12, more closely than with the   Letter to Constantinople. 11. p. 7, 1. 1, [ anaischun   tountes ]. 11. Decr. § 20. 12. ibid . 1. 7, [ tis gar ekouse ],   etc. 12. Vid. similar form in Orat. i. § 8; Ep.   Æg. 7; Epict. 2; Ap. c. Ar. 85; Hist.   Ar. 46, 73, 74, etc. 13. ibid . 1. 8, [ xenizetai ]. 13. Orat. i. § 35 and 42, ii. 34, 73, and   80, iii. 30, 48; Decr. § 22. 14. p. 8, 1. 27. The apology   here made for the use of   Mal. iii. 6, is 14. almost verbatim with that found in   Orat. i. § 36. 15. p. 8, 1. 12. The text 1   Tim. iv. 1 in this place, is 15. applied to Arians by Athan. also   Orat. i. § 8. By whom besides?