ταῦτα εἰσηγησαμένους ἀπηγόρευσας, ἀλλ ̓, ὡς φάμεν, θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸ χρόνων καὶ προ αιώνων κτισθέντα καὶ τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ εἶναι παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰληφότα, καὶ τὰς δόξας συνυποστήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πατρός· οὐ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ δοὺς αὐτῷ πάντων τὴν κληρονομίαν ἐστέρησεν ἑαυτόν, ὧν ἀγεννήτως ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ· πηγὴ γάρ ἐστι πάντων, ὥστε τρεῖς εἰσιν ὑποστά σεις, καὶ ὁ μὲν θεὸς αἴτιος τῶν πάντων τυγχάνων, ἔστιν ἄναρχος μονώτατος (there are three hypostases, but God, the author of all, is most emphatically alone without a beginning). ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἀχρόνως γεννη θεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός (before time was), καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτισθεὶς καὶ θεμελιωθείς, οὐκ ἦν (did not exist) πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι, ἀλλ ̓ ἀχρόνως πρὸ πάντων γεννηθείς, μόνος ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπέστη. οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἀΐ διος, ἢ συναΐδιος (co-eternal), ή συναγέννητος (unbegotten like) τῷ πατρί· οὐδὲ ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ τὸ εἶναι ἔχει, ὥς τινες λέγουσι τὰ πρός τι, δύο ἀγεννήτους ἀρχὰς εἰσηγούμενοι· ἀλλ ̓ ὡς μονὰς καὶ ἀρχὴ πάντων, οὕτως ὁ θεὸς πρὸ πάντων ἐστί, διὸ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστιν, ὡς καὶ παρὰ σοῦ μεμαθήκαμεν κατὰ μέσην τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κηρύξαντος· καθὸ οὖν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ εἶναι ἔχει καὶ τὰς δόξας καὶ τὸ ζῇν καὶ τὰ πάντα αὐτῷ παρεδόθη, κατὰ τοῦτο ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός· ἄρχει γὰρ αὐτοῦ, ὡς θεὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὤν. εἰ δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ γαστρὸς καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξήλθον καὶ ἥκω (expressions like those in John viii. 42) ώς μέρος αὐτοῦ ὁμο ουσίου καὶ ὡς προβολὴ ὑπό τινων νοεῖται, σύνθετος ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ (would be composite, made up of parts) καὶ διαίρετος καὶ τρεπτὸς καὶ σῶμα κατ' αὐτοὺς καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς τὰ ἀκόλουθα σώματι πάσχων ὁ ἀσώ ματος θεός.

These epistles present the following as the doctrine of Arius when he first came in collision with the church: The Father alone is God in the proper sense of that word. As such, he alone is the unbegotten One (causa sui), and he alone is eternal, without beginning and immortal, alone wise and good, alone almighty, the Ruler and Judge, and, in accordance with his nature, alone unchangeable. The Son, on the other hand, is the begotten One, that is, created, and then existing by the will of God. He is a creature, but nevertheless of a peculiar nature, and not like other creatures, so near to God that he is πλήρης θεός and ἀναλλοίωτος. At one time he did not exist: he had a beginning which preceded all the ages of the world, but God was before him. He came forth out of nothing and, accordingly, did not

proceed from God by emanation nor by any partition of the divine being or essence; neither was he a special manifestation or modification of God. Hence Father, Son, and Spirit are indeed three divine beings or hypostases, but God the Father is the cause or author (airios) of the second and third, while he himself is absolutely God. Arius evidently has a twofold object in these epistles: first, to establish the point that the Father alone is God, and, secondly, to assign to the Son the highest possible position within the sphere of the Deity above all created objects; hence he employs the terms πλήρης θεός, and ἀναλλοίωτος, ἄτρεπτος. There is obviously a discrepancy between these positions of Arius respecting the unchangeableness of the Son, and those which are assigned to him in the contemporaneous epistle of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, his earliest opponent, addressed to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople. It is given by Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. I. 4. Alexander makes the

following charge:

They (Arius and his associates) say: ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, γέγονεν ὕστερον πρότερον μὴ ὑπάρχων, τοιοῦτος γενόμενος ὅτε καί ποτε γέγονεν, οἷος καὶ πᾶς εἶναι πέφυκεν ἄνθρωπος· πάντα γάρ, φασίν, ὁ θεὸς ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησε, συναναλαμβάνοντες τῇ τῶν ἁπάντων λογικών τε καὶ ἀλόγων κτίσει καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ· οἷς ἀκολούθως καί φασιν, αὐτ τὸν τρεπτῆς εἶναι φύσεως, ἀρετῆς τε καὶ κακίας ἐπιδεκτικόν· καὶ τῇ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑποθέσει καὶ τὰς θείας συναναιροῦντες γραφάς, αἳ τὸ ἄτρεπτον τοῦ λόγου καὶ τὴν θεότητα τῆς σοφίας, του λόγου, σημαίνουσιν, ἅ ἐστι Χριστύς· δυνάμεθα γοῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς, φασίν, υἱοὶ γενέσθαι θεοῦ, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνος · οὔτε γὰρ φύσει υἱὸς τίς ἐστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, φασίν.

They say, that there was a time when the Son of God had no existence; and that, not having existed from eternity, he must have had a beginning; and that when he was created, he was made like all other men that have ever been born. God, they say, created all things, and they include the Son of God in the number of creatures, both rational and irrational. To argue consistently, they, as a necessary consequence, affirm, that he is by nature liable to change, and capable both of virtue and of vice. Their hypothesis, of his having been created, contradicts the testimony of the divine scriptures, which declare the immu

tability, the divinity, and the wisdom of the Word, which Word is Christ. We are also able, they say, to become, like him, the sons of God..... for God, say they, has not any son by nature." -Bagster's Eccl. Hist., Theodoret, Vol. V. pp. 8, 9.

Here Alexander accuses Arius of holding the doctrine that the nature of the Son was liable to change. As the statements of the former are as fully entitled to credit as those of the latter, Voigt explains the apparent contradiction in the following manner. Athanasius specifies among the errors of Arius which led to his excommunication, the proposition: "The Son is capable of change (TpETTós) as to his nature (þúsa), but as to his own free will (aỷτežovσíov) he remains good (kaλós),” Athan. Ep. Encycl. 12. Such terms might allow Arius to maintain with apparent consistency, that he regarded the Son as unchangeable, and the circumstances under which he composed the Epistles requires a distinct expression of the latter view. Alexander could, nevertheless, according to his conception of the subject, with justice ascribe the opposite opinion to Arius; for, if the nature of him who is unchangeable only by virtue of his own free will, still remains itself subject to change, that free will may at any moment determine itself otherwise, and hence to describe merely the free will as unchangeable is a contradictio in adjecto [as if, for instance, a man should speak of a square globe]. Arius became aware of this circumstance himself, and aimed at greater accuracy and precision in his language in his Thalia. He composed this work when all his attempts to reconcile his views with those of the church, and to be restored to fellowship with Alexander had been unsuccessful. He addressed himself in this feeble essay to the public in general, and courted the favor of the latter by adopting a low and inelegant styleἔγραψε Θαλείαν ἐκτεπηλυμένοις καὶ γελοίοις ἤθεσι κατὰ τὸν AiyÚTTIOV Zwτádny, de seut. Dion. 6. From this work Athanasius (1. c.) quotes the following:

Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ἦν ὅτε ὁ θεὸς μόνος ἦν καὶ οὔπω πατὴρ ἦν, ὕστηρον δὲ ἐπιγέγονε πατήρ· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός· πάντων γὰρ γενομένων ἐξ VOL. XXI. No. 81.

2

οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ πάντων ὄντων κτισμάτων καὶ ποιημάτων γενομένων, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεοῦ λόγος ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονε, καὶ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται, ἀλλ ̓ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κτίζεσθαι ἔσχε καὶ αὐτός. ἦν γάρ, φησί, μόνος ὁ θεός, καὶ οὔπω ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ σοφία· εἶτα θελήσας ἡμᾶς δημιουργῆσαι, τότε δὴ πεποίηκεν ἕνα τινά, καὶ ὠνόμασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ υἱόν, ἵνα ἡμᾶς δι' αὐτοῦ δημιουργήσῃ. δύο γοῦν σοφίας φησὶν εἶναι, μίαν μὲν τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ συνυπάρχουσαν τῷ θεῷ, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ σοφίᾳ γεγενῆσε θαι καὶ ταύτης μετέχοντα ὠνομάσθαι μόνον σοφίαν καὶ λόγον. ἡ σου φία γάρ, φησί, τῇ σοφίᾳ ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ Θεοῦ θελήσει. οὕτω καὶ λόγον ἔτε ρον εἶναι λέγει παρὰ τὸν υἱὸν ἐν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ τούτου μετέχοντα τὸν υἱὸν ὠνομάσθαι πάλιν κατὰ χάριν λόγον καὶ υἱὸν αὐτόν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς αἱ ρέσεως αὐτῶν ἴδιον φρόνημα, δηλούμενον ἐν ἑτέροις αὐτῶν συγγράμμασιν, ὅτι πολλαὶ δυνάμεις εἰσί· καὶ ἡ μὲν μία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ἰδία φύσει καὶ ἀίδιος, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς πάλιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὴ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ μία τῶν λεγομένων δυνάμεών ἐστι καὶ αὐτός, ὧν μία καὶ ἡ ἀκρὶς καὶ ἡ κάμπη οὐ δύναμις μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ μεγάλη προσαγορεύεται· αἱ δ ̓ ἄλλαι πολλαὶ καὶ ὅμοιαί εἰσι τῷ υἱῷ, περι ὧν καὶ Δαβὶδ ψάλλει λέγων· κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων (Ps. xxiv. 10). Καὶ τῇ μὲν φύσει ὥσπερ πάντες οὕτω και αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ τρεπτός, τῷ δὲ ἰδίῳ, αὐτεξουσίῳ, ἕως βούλεται, μένει καλός, ὅτε μέντοι θέλει, δύναται τρέπεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς, τρεπτῆς ὢν φύσεως. διὰ τοῦτο γάρ, φησί, καὶ προγινώσκων ὁ θεὸς ἔσεσθαι καλὸν αὐτόν, προλαβὼν αὐτῷ ταύτην τὴν δόξαν δέδωκεν, ἣν ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔσχε μετὰ ταῦτα, ὥστε ἐξ ἔργων αὐτοῦ, ὧν προέγνω ὁ Θεός, τοιοῦτον αὐτὸν νῦν γεγονέναι πεποίηκεν. εἰπεῖν δὲ πάλιν ἐτόλμησεν, ὅτι οὐδὲ θεὸς ἀληθινός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος· εἰ δὲ λέγεται θεός, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἀληθινός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ χάριτος, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς λέγεται ὀνόματι μόνον θεός. καὶ πάντων ξένων καὶ ἀνομοίων ὄντων τοῦ θεοῦ κατ' οὐσίαν, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος ἀλλότριος μὲν καὶ ἀνόμοιος κατὰ πάντα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας καὶ ἰδιότητός ἐστι, τῶν δὲ γενητῶν καὶ κτισμάτων ἴδιος καὶ εἷς αὐτων τυγχάνει, ὡς ἄρα καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ὁ πατὴρ ἀόρατος ὑπάρχει, καὶ οὔτε ὁρᾷν οὔτε γινώσκειν τελείως καὶ ἀκριβῶς δύναται ὁ λόγος τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πα· τέρα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ γίνωσκει καὶ ὃ βλέπει, ἀναλόγως τοῖς ἰδίοις μέτροις οἶδε καὶ βλέπει, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς γινώσκομεν κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ υἱός, φησίν, οὐ μόνον τὸν πατέρα ἀκριβῶς οὐ γινώσκει, λείπει γὰρ αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ καταλαβεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδε · καὶ ὅτι μεμερισμέναι τῇ φύσει καὶ ἀπεξενωμέναι καὶ ἀπεσχοινισμέναι καὶ ἀλλότριοι καὶ ἀμέτοχοί εἰσιν ἀλλήλων αἱ οὐσίαι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, καὶ ἀνόμοιοι πάμπαν ἀλλήλων ταῖς τε οὐσίαις καὶ δόξαις εἰσὶν ἐπ ̓ ἄπειρον· τὸν γοῦν λόγον φησὶν εἰς ὁμοιότητα δόξης καὶ οὐσίας ἀλλότριον εἶναι παντελῶς ἑκατέρων τοῦ τε πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου

πνεύματος· καὶ διῃρημένον δὲ εἶναι καθ ̓ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀμέτοχον κατὰ πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἔφησε. ταῦτα μέρη τῶν ἐν τῷ γελοίῳ συγγράμματι κειμένων μυθιδίων ἐστὶν ̓Αρείου.

Arius proceeds in the Thalia on the principle that the Son is a creature of the absolute God and Father in every aspect, and now maintains the changeableness of the Son without any reservation. His general theory may be thus expressed : The Father is God, the Son is a creature; the latter at one time did not exist, and had a beginning of existence. He was created from nothing. Without him God has reason and wisdom and power, and he bears the latter name only in an improper sense, like the locust and the palmer-worm mentioned in Joel ii. 25. [Arius here refers to the text of the Septuagint, which renders "", "my host," or "my army," thus: dúvapis pov: comp. his words as given above, ¿ dè Χριστὸς πάλιν, κ. τ. λ.]. In his nature and will he is changeable, and remains good (xaλós) only during his own pleasure. But as God foresaw that he would remain good, he bestowed his own glory on him anticipately, and the Son also gained that glory subsequently, as man, by his virtue. He consequently bears the name of God, not as being true God, but as all others, because he shares in the divine grace. Like all creatures he is in his nature different from God, and co-essential with other creatures. Therefore he does not know God with entire accuracy, nor indeed does he know himself perfectly.

No essentially new features were afterwards added to this theory by the representatives of the heresy of Arius, who himself disappeared at a comparatively early period from the field of battle. The most obstinate among them, as Aëtius and Eunomius, paraded indeed their sophisms in connection with the technical terms begotten and unbegotten; and it is worthy of notice, that, when they discussed the abstract conception of God, and the degree in which he may be known and understood, they ultimately adopted views that were precisely the reverse of those of Arius; for Eunomius boasted that he knew God perfectly. Other Arians