Arius

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[14] This quote describes the essence of Arius's doctrine.

Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius was spreading, but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive. Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism; rather, he accused Lucian ad invidiam of heretical tendencies—which apparently, according to him, were transferred to his pupil, Arius.[15] The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".[16]

Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.[17] However, while both agreed on the subordination of the Son to the Father, and Arius drew support from Origen's theories on the Logos, the two did not agree on everything. Arius clearly argued that the Logos had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal, the Logos being the highest of the Created Order. This idea is summarized in the statement "there was a time when the Son was not." By way of contrast, Origen believed the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that the Son was "eternally generated".[18]

Arius objected to Origen's doctrine, complaining about it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who had also studied under Lucian. Nevertheless, despite disagreeing with Origen on this point, Arius found solace in his writings, which used expressions that favored Arius's contention that the Logos was of a different substance than the Father, and owed his existence to his Father's will. However, because Origen's theological speculations were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to put an end to any given dispute, both Arius and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.[19]

Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is infinite and eternal and almighty, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, contrary to Origen, who taught that the Son was less than the Father only in power, but not in time. Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Logos was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's productions, before ages.[20][21]

The Bishop of Alexandria exiled the presbyter following a council of local priests. Arius's supporters vehemently protested. Numerous bishops and Christian leaders of the era supported his cause, among them Eusebius of Nicomedia.[22]

The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted beneath the feet of the Emperor Constantine and the bishops

The Christological debate could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against Arius, Arius's doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church. The Church was now a powerful force in the Roman world, with Emperors Licinius and Constantine I having legalized it in 313 through the Edict of Milan. Emperor Constantine had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the Donatist controversy in 316, and he wanted to bring an end to the Christological dispute. To this end, the emperor sent Hosius, bishop of Córdoba to investigate and, if possible, resolve the controversy. Hosius was armed with an open letter from the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant." But as the debate continued to rage despite Hosius' efforts, Constantine in AD 325 took an unprecedented step: he called a council to be composed of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius' recommendation.[15]

All secular dioceses of the empire sent one or more representatives to the council, save for Roman Britain; the majority of the bishops came from the East. Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council, as did his bishop, Alexander. Also there were Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the young deacon Athanasius, who would become the champion of the Trinitarian view ultimately adopted by the council and spend most of his life battling Arianism. Before the main conclave convened, Hosius initially met with Alexander and his supporters at Nicomedia.[23] The council would be presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.[15]

At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[15] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the bishop Alexander. Athanasius was not allowed to sit in on the Council since he was only an arch-deacon. But Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded (as Bishop Alexander conveyed in the Athanasian Trinitarian defense and also according to the Nicene Creed adopted at this Council and,[24][25]) that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) with the Father (or one in essence with the Father), and was eternally generated from that essence of the Father.[26] Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[27] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius argued for the supremacy of God the Father, and maintained that the Son of God was simply the oldest and most beloved Creature of God, made from nothing, because of being the direct offspring. Arius taught that the pre-existent Son was God's First Production (the very first thing that God actually ever did in His entire eternal existence up to that point), before all ages. Thus he insisted that only God the Father had no beginning, and that the Father alone was infinite and eternal. Arius maintained that the Son had a beginning. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being."[28] Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.

According to some accounts in the hagiography of Nicholas of Myra, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face.[29][30] The majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "one in essence", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.[31] On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[31] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of deference to the emperor. The following is part of the ruling made by the emperor denouncing Arius's teachings with fervor.

In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[32]

Historians report that Constantine, who had not been baptized for most of his lifetime, was baptized on his deathbed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.[15][38]

Constantius II, who succeeded Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer.[39] Under him, Arianism reached its high point at The Third Council of Sirmium in 357. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later dubbed the Blasphemy of Sirmium.)

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential', or what is called, 'like-in-essence', there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding.[40]

Following the abortive effort by Julian the Apostate to restore paganism in the empire, the emperor Valens — himself an Arian — renewed the persecution of Nicene bishops. However, Valens's successor Theodosius I ended Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, which condemned Arius anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed.[39][41] This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire.

The Arian Baptistery erected by Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great in Ravenna, Italy, around 500

Things went differently in the Western Empire. During the reign of Constantius II, the Arian Gothic convert Ulfilas was consecrated a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia and sent to missionize his people. His success ensured the survival of Arianism among the Goths and Vandals until the beginning of the eighth century, when these kingdoms succumbed to their Nicean neighbors or accepted Nicean Christianity. Arians also continued to exist in North Africa, Spain and portions of Italy, until finally suppressed during the sixth and seventh centuries.[42]

In the 12th century, the Benedictine abbot Peter the Venerable described the Islamic prophet Muhammad as "the successor of Arius and the precursor to the Antichrist".[43] During the Protestant Reformation, a Polish sect known as the Polish Brethren were often referred to as Arians, due to their antitrinitarian doctrine.[44]

There are several contemporary Christian and Post-Christian denominations today that echo Arian thinking.

Jehovah's Witnesses are often referred to as "modern-day Arians" or sometimes "Semi-Arians",[45][46] usually by their opponents.[47][48][49] While there are some significant similarities in theology and doctrine, the Witnesses differ from Arians by saying that the Son can fully know the Father (something Arius himself denied), and by their denial of literal personality to the Holy Spirit. Arius considered the Holy Spirit to be a person or a high-ranking angel, which had a beginning as a creature, whereas the Witnesses consider the Holy Spirit to be God's "active force" or divine "energy", which had no beginning, and is not an actual person. The original Arians also generally prayed directly to Jesus, whereas the Witnesses pray to God, through Jesus as a mediator.[50]

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are sometimes accused of being Arians by their detractors.[51] However, the Christology of the Latter-day Saints differs in several significant aspects from Arian theology.[52]

Some Christians in the Unitarian Universalist movement are influenced by Arian ideas. Contemporary Unitarian Universalist Christians often are either Arian or Socian in their Christology, seeing Jesus as a distinctive moral figure, but not equal or eternal with God the Father, or follow Origen's logic of Universal Salvation, and thus potentially affirm the Trinity, but assert that all are already saved.

In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius taught:

That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God ('the I AM'—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father's true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God's own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.

— Socrates Scholasticus (Trinitarian)[53]

Alexander also refers to Arius's poetical Thalia:

God has not always been Father; there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.

— Alexander (Trinitarian)[10]

This question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son (a part of the theological science of Christology) had been raised some fifty years before Arius, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in 269 for agreeing with those who used the word homoousios (Greek for same substance) to express the relation between the Father and the Son. This term was thought at that time to have a Sabellian tendency,[54] though—as events showed—this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which followed Paul's deposition, Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria, used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius blames him for using such terminology. Dionysius responded with an explanation widely interpreted as vacillating. The Synod of Antioch, which condemned Paul of Samosata, had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, while Bishop Alexander undertook its defense in another. Although the controversy seemed to be leaning toward the opinions later championed by Arius, no firm decision had been made on the subject; in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria, the debate seemed bound to resurface—and even intensify—at some point in the future.

Arius endorsed the following doctrines about The Son or The Word (Logos, referring to Jesus; see the John 1:1):

1. that the Word (Logos) and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
2. that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
3. that the worlds were created through him, so he must have existed before them and before all time.
4. However, there was a "once" [Arius did not use words meaning "time", such as chronos or aion] when He did not exist, before he was begotten of the Father.

Arius' Thalia (literally, "Festivity", "banquet"), a popularized work combining prose and verse and summarizing his views on the Logos,[58] survives in quoted fragmentary form. In the Thalia, Arius says that God's first thought was the creation of the Son, before all ages, therefore time started with the creation of the Logos or Word in Heaven (lines 1-9, 30-32); explains how the Son could still be God, even if he did not exist eternally (lines 20-23); and endeavors to explain the ultimate incomprehensibility of the Father to the Son (lines 33-39). The two available references from this work are recorded by his opponent Athanasius: the first is a report of Arius's teaching in Orations Against the Arians, 1:5-6. This paraphrase has negative comments interspersed throughout, so it is difficult to consider it as being completely reliable.[59]

The second quotation is found in the document On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, also known as De Synodis, pg. 15. This second passage is entirely in irregular verse, and seems to be a direct quotation or a compilation of quotations;[60] it may have been written by someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even a person sympathetic to Arius.[5] This second quotation does not contain several statements usually attributed to Arius by his opponents, is in metrical form, and resembles other passages that have been attributed to Arius. It also contains some positive statements about the Son.[61] But although these quotations seem reasonably accurate, their proper context is lost, thus their place in Arius' larger system of thought is impossible to reconstruct.[60]

Ceiling Mosaic of the Arian Baptistry, in Ravenna, Italy, depicting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost present, with John the Baptist

The part of Arius' Thalia quoted in Athanasius' De Synodis is the longest extant fragment. The most commonly cited edition of De Synodis is by Hans-Georg Opitz.[62] A translation of this fragment has been made by Aaron J. West,[63] but based not on Opitz' text but on a previous edition: "When compared to Opitz' more recent edition of the text, we found that our text varies only in punctuation, capitalization, and one variant reading (χρόνῳ for χρόνοις, line 5)."[64] Here is the Opitz edition with the West translation:

Αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ θεὸς καθό ἐστιν ἄρρητος ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει.
... And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
ἴσον οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνος οὗτος.
He alone has no equal, no one similar (homoios), and no one of the same glory.
ἀγέννητον δὲ αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννητόν·
We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.
τοῦτον ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα,
We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning.
ἀίδιον δὲ αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνοις γεγαότα.
We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.
ἀρχὴν τὸν υἰὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γενητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος
He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things
καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας,
He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him.
ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ θεοῦ καθ᾽¦ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος,
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being (kat' hypostasis)
οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.
For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him.
σοφὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αύτός.
God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom
ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι,
Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all:
τοῖς τε διὰ υἱοῦ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ υἱῷ ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός.
He is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself.
ῥητῶς δὲ λέχω, πῶς τῷ υἱῷ ὁρᾶται ὁ ἀόρατος·
I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son:
τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἰδεῖν· ἰδίοις τε μέτροις
by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure,
ὑπομένει ὁ υἱὸς ἰδεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ὡς θέμις ἐστίν.
the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined
ἤγουν τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις, ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν,
So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings (hypostaseis) are not mixed together among themselves.
μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δόξαις ἐπ' ἄπειρον.
As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other.
ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ' οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὐπάρχει.
The Father in his essence (ousia) is a foreigner to the Son, because he exists without beginning.
σύνες ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ.
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
αὐτίκα γοῦν υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὁ πατὴρ θεός ἐστι.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
λοιπὸν ὁ υἰὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὐπῆρξε δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ)
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father's will,
μονογενὴς θεός ἐστι καὶ ἑκατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος.
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others
ἡ σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ θεοῦ θελήσει.
Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
επινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις πνεῦμα, δύναμις, σοφία,
Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom,
δόξα θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ λόγος οὗτος.
God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word.
σύνες ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται.
Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light.
ἴσον μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννᾶν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων,
The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son,
διαφορώτερον δὲ ἢ κρείττονα ἢ μείζονα οὐχί.
But not someone more important, or superior, or greater.
θεοῦ ¦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν,
At God's will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ' οὖ καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπέστη,
His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God.
ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς ὢν τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ.
He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior.
συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ υἱῷ ὁ θεὀς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει·
In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.
ἔστι γὰρ ἑαυτῷ ὅ ἐστι τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἄλεκτος,
For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable,
ὥστε οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων κατά τε κατάληψιν συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ υἱός.
So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.
ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσει, ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ.
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself.
αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν,
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia),
υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν θελήσει πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς.
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντα
What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father
αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα γνῶναι ἐν καταλήψει;
should comprehend and know his own parent?
δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ αρχὴν ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον, ὡς ἔστιν,
For clearly that which has a beginning
ἐμπερινοῆσαι ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθαι οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν.
is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning.

A slightly different edition of the fragment of the Thalia from De Synodis is given by G.C. Stead,[65] and served as the basis for a translation by R.P.C. Hanson.[66] Stead argued that the Thalia was written in anapestic meter, and edited the fragment to show what it would look like in anapests with different line breaks. Hanson based his translation of this fragment directly on Stead's text. Here is Stead's edition with Hanson's translation.

Αύτὸς γοῦν ὁ θεὸς καθό ἐστ' [ιν] ἄρρετος ἅπασιν ὑπαρχει
God himself, therefore, in himself remains mysterious (ἄρρετος).
ἴσον οὐ δὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνοσ οὗτος
He alone has no equal, none like him, none of equal glory.
ἀγέν[ν]ητον δ'αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννετόν
We call him unoriginated (ἀγέν[ν]ητον) in contrast to him who is originated by nature ...
τοῦτον ... ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα
we praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning,
ἀΐδιον δ'αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνοις γεγαότα.
we worship him as eternal in contrast to him who came into existence in times (χρόνοις).
ἀρχὴν τὸν υἰὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γεννητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος
He who was without beginning made the Son a beginning of all things which are produced (γεννήτῶν),
καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς υἱον ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας.
and he made him into a Son for himself; begetting (τεκνοποιήσας) him.
ἴδιον οὐδεν ἔχει τοῦ θεοῦ καθ᾽ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος
He (the Son) has nothing peculiar to (ἴδιον) God according to the reality of that which is peculiarly his (καθ᾽ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος),
οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος ... ἀλλ' οὐδ' ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.
and he is not equal ... far less is he consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) to him (God).
σοφὸς [δ'] ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αύτός.
And God is wise because he is the Teacher of Wisdom.
ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι
As a sufficient proof that God is invisible (ἀόρατος) to all,
τοῖς τε δι' υἱοῦ καὐτῷ τῷ υἱ(ῷ) ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός...
that he is invisible to the Son's people and to the Son himself...
ῥητῶς δ' <ἐγὼ> λέχω πῶς τῷ υἱῷ ὁρᾶτ' ὁ ἀόρατος·
I will declare roundly, how the invisible can be visible to the Son:
τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύνατ' ὁ θεὸς ἰδεῖν ἰδίοις. . τε μέτροις
by the power in which God can see, according to his individual ... capacities (ἰδίοις ... τε μέτροις)
ὑπομένει ὁ υἱὸς ἰδεῖν ... τὸν πατέρ' ὡς θέμις ἐστιν.
the Son is able to see... the Father as is determined (θέμις).
ἤγουν τριάς ἐστιν ... δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις
Certainly there is a Trinity .. and they possess glories of different levels (δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις)
ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς [εἰσιν] αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν
their individual realities (ὑποστάσεις) do not mix with each other,
μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δοξαῖς ἐπ' ἄπειρον.
The sole glory is of the Sole (μία τῆς μιᾶς), infinitely more splendid in his glories.
ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ' οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ ὅτι ἄναρχος ὐπάρχει.
The father is in his substance (οὐσίαν) alien (ξένος) from the Son because he remains without beginning.
σύνες <οὖν> ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δ' οὐκ ἦν πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ.
Understand therefore that the Mondad (μονὰς) existed, but the Dyad (δυὰς) did not exist before it attained existence.
αὐτίκα γοῦν υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὁ πατὴρ θεός ἐστι.

λοιπὸν ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὐπῆρξε<ν> δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ)
So the Son having not existed attained existence by the Father's will.
μονογενὴς θεός ἐστι<ν> κἀ κατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος.
He is only-begotten God and he is different from any others.
ἡ σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ θεοῦ θελήσει.
Wisdom became Wisdom by the will of the wise God,
επινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις
and so he is apprehended in an uncountable number of aspects (ἐπινοίαις).
πνεῦμα ... δύναμις, σοφία,

δόξα θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ λόγος οὗτος.
He is God's Glory and Truth, and Image and Word.
σύνες ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμά <τε> καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται.
Understand too that he is apprehended as Reflection (ἀπαύγασμα) also and Light.
ἴσον μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ' γεννᾶν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων
The Greater One is able to beget (γεννᾶν) someone equal to the Son,
διαφορώτερον δ' ἢ κρείττονα ἢ μείζονα, οὐχί.
but not someone more important or more powerful or greater.
θεοῦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστὶν,
It is by the will of God that the Son has his stature and character (ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος)
ἐξ ὅτε κἀφ' οὖ κἀπὸ τότ' ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπέστη.
when and whence and from what time he is from God.
ἰσχυρὸς <γὰρ> θεὸς ὢν τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ.
For he is the Mighty God [i.e., the Son, Isa 9:15] and in some degree (ἐκ μέρους) worships the Greater.
συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ υἱῷ ὁ θεὸς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει
To summarize, God is mysterious (ἄρρητος) to the Son,
ἔστι γὰρ ἁυτῷ ὅ ἐστι<ν>, τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἄλεκτος,
for he is to him that which he is, i.e. ineffable (ἄλεκτος),
ὥστ' οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων ... κατά τε κατάληψιν
so that none of the things spoken ... [text is corrupt for some words ]
συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ υἱός, ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ
 ... for it is impossible for him
τὸν πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσαι ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ' αὑτοῦ·
to trace out in the case of the Father what he is in himself.
αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν αὑτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν
Indeed the Son himself does not know his own substance (ousia),
υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν θελήσει πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς.
for though he is the Son he is really so by the will of the Father.
τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντα
For what sense does it make that he who is from the Father
αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα ... γνῶν' ἐν καταλήψει;
should [text corrupt] in comprehending his own begetter?
δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ αρχὴν <τιν'> ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον ὅς ἐστιν
For it is clear that that which has a beginning, of him who is without beginning the nature (ὡς ἔστιν)
ἐμπερινοῆσ' ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθ' οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν.
could not possibly comprehend or grasp.

• Athanasius of Alexandria, History of the Arians, London, 2013. limovia.net ISBN 978-1-78336-206-6
• Athanasius of Alexandria. History of the Arians. Online at CCEL. Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part VII Part VIII. Accessed 13 December 2009.
• Socrates Scholasticus. A.C. Zenos, Translator. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2 - Socrates: Church History from A.D. 305-438. Online at newadvent.org.
• Sozomen, Hermias. Edward Walford, Translator. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen. Merchantville, NJ: Evolution Publishing, 2018. Online at newadvent.org

• Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. T&T Clark, 1988.
• Latinovic, Vladimir. Arius Conservativus? The Question of Arius' Theological Belonging in: Studia Patristica, XCV, p. 27-42. Peeters, 2017. Online at .
• Parvis, Sara. Marcellus of Ancyra And the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325–345. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
• Rusch, William C. The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought, 1980. ISBN 0-8006-1410-0
• Schaff, Philip. "Theological Controversies and the Development of Orthodoxy". In History of the Christian Church, Vol III, Ch. IX. Online at CCEL. Accessed 13 December 2009.
• Wace, Henry. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects a.d Heresies. Online at CCEL. Accessed 13 December 2009.
• Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. Revised edition, Grand Rapids (MI): Eerdmans 2001. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5