C. S. Lewis on Athanasius

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phil D.

ὁ βαπτιστὴς
From Lewis' introduction to a (then) new translation of Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word of God (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei)
His epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world.” We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same. He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius—into one of those “sensible” synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.​
When I first opened his De Incarnatione I soon discovered by a very simple test that I was reading a masterpiece. I knew very little Christian Greek except that of the New Testament and I had expected difficulties. To my astonishment I found it almost as easy as Xenophon; and only a master mind could, in the fourth century, have written so deeply on such a subject with such classical simplicity. Every page I read confirmed this impression.​
His approach to the Miracles is badly needed today, for it is the final answer to those who object to them as “arbitrary and meaningless violations of the laws of Nature.” They are here shown to be rather the re-telling in capital letters of the same message which Nature writes in her crabbed cursive hand; the very operations one would expect of Him who was so full of life that when He wished to die He had to “borrow death from others.”​
 
That might be one of the best-written essays in the English language. Athanasius's book is good, to be sure, but it is nowhere near as important as his later works. I think Lewis's essay gave it a shot in the arm.
 
It's probably the essay that I've quoted the most from Lewis.

This portion has always stood out to me.

Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
 
That might be one of the best-written essays in the English language. Athanasius's book is good, to be sure, but it is nowhere near as important as his later works. I think Lewis's essay gave it a shot in the arm.
Yes! I read that essay almost 30 years ago. You are right about it.
 
I remember this one. It stuck out to me as exceptionally wise. Especially how we learn from ancient and modern writers.

His advice to alternate between ‘new’ and ‘old’ books is something I stick by still.
 
I re-read On the Incarnation this week, along with Lewis's introductory essay. What a great work! Thanks for posting. There is also a Kindle edition that is available on Monergism for free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top