HOME
The Info List - Arius





Arius
Arius
(/əˈraɪəs, ˈɛəri-/; Koine Greek: Ἄρειος, 250 or 256–336) was a Christian
Christian
presbyter and ascetic of Berber origin,[1] and priest in Baucalis
Baucalis
in Alexandria, Egypt.[2] His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized the Father's divinity over the Son,[3] and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great
Constantine the Great
in 325. After Emperors Licinius
Licinius
and Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity
Christianity
of the time in the Roman Empire, Constantine sought to unify and remove theological division within the newly recognized Church.[4] The Christian
Christian
Church was divided over disagreements on Christology, or, the nature of the relationship between Jesus
Jesus
and God. Homoousian Christians, including Athanasius
Athanasius
of Alexandria, used Arius and Arianism
Arianism
as epithets to describe those who disagreed with their doctrine of coequal Trinitarianism, a Homoousian Christology representing God the Father
God the Father
and Jesus
Jesus
Christ the Son as "of one essence" ("consubstantial") and coeternal. Negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father
God the Father
existed. Despite concerted opposition, 'Arian' Christian
Christian
churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa
Africa
and also in various Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries. Even though "Arianism" might suggest that Arius
Arius
was the originator of the teaching that bears his name, the debate over the Son’s precise relationship to the Father did not begin with him. This subject had been discussed for decades before his advent; Arius
Arius
merely intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where other "Arians" such as Eusebius
Eusebius
of Nicomedia
Nicomedia
(not to be confused with his contemporary, Eusebius
Eusebius
of Caesarea) proved much more influential in the long run. In fact, some later "Arians" disavowed the name, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings.[5][6] However, because the conflict between Arius
Arius
and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated—is generally labeled as "his".

Contents

1 Early life and personality 2 The Arian
Arian
controversy

2.1 Beginnings 2.2 Origen
Origen
and Arius 2.3 Initial responses 2.4 The First Council of Nicaea

3 Exile, return, and death 4 Arianism
Arianism
after Arius

4.1 Immediate aftermath 4.2 Arianism
Arianism
in the West 4.3 Arianism
Arianism
today

5 Arius's doctrine

5.1 Introduction 5.2 The Logos

6 Extant writings

6.1 The Thalia

7 See also 8 Notes 9 Bibliography

9.1 Primary sources 9.2 Secondary sources

10 External links

Early life and personality[edit] Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius
Arius
has proven to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius
Arius
was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some—but not all—scholars to question their reliability.[7] Arius
Arius
was of Berber descent.[1] His father's name is given as Ammonius. Arius
Arius
is believed to have been a student at the exegetical school in Antioch, where he studied under Saint Lucian.[8] Having returned to Alexandria, Arius, according to a single source, sided with Meletius of Lycopolis in his dispute over the re-admission of those who had denied Christianity
Christianity
under fear of Roman torture, and was ordained a deacon under the latter's auspices. He was excommunicated by Bishop
Bishop
Peter of Alexandria
Alexandria
in 311 for supporting Meletius,[9] but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius
Arius
was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis
Baucalis
district in Alexandria. Although his character has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius
Arius
appears to have been a man of personal ascetic achievement, pure morals, and decided convictions. Paraphrasing Epiphanius of Salamis, an opponent of Arius, Catholic historian Warren H. Carroll
Warren H. Carroll
describes him as "tall and lean, of distinguished appearance and polished address. Women doted on him, charmed by his beautiful manners, touched by his appearance of asceticism. Men were impressed by his aura of intellectual superiority."[10] Though Arius
Arius
was also accused by his opponents of being too liberal, and too loose in his theology, engaging in heresy (as defined by his opponents), some historians argue that Arius
Arius
was actually quite conservative,[11] and that he deplored how, in his view, Christian theology was being too freely mixed with Greek paganism.[12] The Arian
Arian
controversy[edit] Main article: Arianism Arius
Arius
is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that rocked the Christian
Christian
world and led to the calling of the first ecumenical council of the Church. This controversy centered upon the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God
God
the Father. Leading up to the council of Nicaea, the Christian
Christian
world had many different competing Christological formulae.[13][14] After Nicaea, the dominant orthodox worked to conceal the earlier disagreement, portraying "Arianism" as a radical disagreement to the "norm". The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate that did not have prior agreement.[13] Beginnings[edit] The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople
Constantinople
reports that Arius
Arius
sparked the controversy that bears his name when St. Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop
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."[15] This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine. Socrates of Constantinople
Constantinople
believed that Arius
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
Constantinople
Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius
Arius
derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius
Arius
was spreading but his charge of heresy against Arius
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.[16] The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius
Arius
before Arius".[17] Origen
Origen
and Arius[edit] Like many third-century Christian
Christian
scholars, Arius
Arius
was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.[18] However, while he drew support from Origen's theories on the Logos, the two did not agree on everything. Arius clearly argued that the Logos
Logos
had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal, and that the Son is clearly subordinate to the Father, the Logos
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
Origen
taught that the Son was subject to the Father, and some of Origen's writings seem to imply that the Son is subordinate and less than the Father in some ways. However, Origen believed the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that the Son was "eternally generated".[19] Arius
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
Origen
on this point, Arius found solace in his writings, which used expressions that favored Arius's contention that the Logos
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
Arius
and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.[20] Arius
Arius
emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God
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
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
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.[21][22] Initial responses[edit] The Bishop
Bishop
of Alexandria
Alexandria
exiled the presbyter following a council of local priests. Arius's supporters vehemently protested. Numerous bishops and Christian
Christian
leaders of the era supported his cause, among them Eusebius
Eusebius
of Nicomedia.[23] The First Council of Nicaea[edit] Main article: First Council of Nicaea See also: Nicene Creed

The Council of Nicaea, with Arius
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
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
Licinius
and Constantine I
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
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 an council to be composed of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius' recommendation.[16] 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
Arius
himself attended the council, as did his bishop, Alexander. Also there were Eusebius
Eusebius
of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia
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.[24] The council would be presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.[16] At this First Council of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea
twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius
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.[16] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the priest Alexander. Athanasius
Athanasius
was not allowed to sit in on the Council since he was only an arch-deacon. But Athanasius
Athanasius
is seen as doing the legwork and concluded (as Bishop
Bishop
Alexander conveyed in the Athanasian Trinitarian defense and also according to the Nicene Creed adopted at this Council and,[25][26]) 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.[27] Those who instead insisted that the Son of God
Son of God
came after God the Father
God the Father
in time and substance, were led by Arius
Arius
the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[28] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius argued for the supremacy of God
God
the Father, and maintained that the Son of God
Son of God
was simply the oldest and most beloved Creature of God, made from nothing, because of being the direct offspring. Arius
Arius
taught that the pre-existent Son was God's First Production (the very first thing that God
God
actually ever did in His entire eternal existence up to that point), before all ages. Thus he insisted that only God
God
the Father had no beginning, and that the Father alone was infinite and eternal. Arius
Arius
maintained that the Son had a beginning. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. 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."[29] Arius
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
Arius
insisted that the Father's Divinity
Divinity
was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God
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
Arius
across the face.[30][31] 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.[32] On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius
Arius
and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[32] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius
Eusebius
of Nicomedia
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
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[33]

Exile, return, and death[edit] The Homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. Despite Arius's exile and the alleged finality of the Council's decrees, the Arian controversy
Arian controversy
recommenced at once. When Bishop Alexander died in 327, Athanasius
Athanasius
succeeded him, despite not meeting the age requirements for a hierarch. Still committed to pacifying the conflict between Arians and Trinitarians, Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those whom the Council of Nicaea had exiled.[16] Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius
Arius
(who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius
Arius
had reformulated his Christology
Christology
to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius
Athanasius
was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius
Arius
to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop
Bishop
Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius
Arius
might perish before this could happen.[34] Socrates Scholasticus (a bitter enemy to Arius) describes what he claims to be Arius's death as follows:

It was then Saturday, and Arius
Arius
was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death. — Socrates Scholasticus[35]

While many post-Nicene Christians asserted Arius's death as miraculous—a consequence of his heretical views—several recent writers mention that Arius
Arius
may have simply been poisoned by his opponents.[36][37][38] Even with its namesake's demise, the Arian controversy was far from over, and would not be settled for decades—or centuries, in parts of the West.

Constantine I
Constantine I
burning Arian
Arian
books, illustration from a book of canon law, ca. 825

Arianism
Arianism
after Arius[edit] Immediate aftermath[edit] Historians report that Constantine, who had never been baptized as a Christian
Christian
for most of his lifetime, was baptized on his deathbed by the Arian
Arian
bishop, Eusebius
Eusebius
of Nicomedia.[16][39] Constantius II, who succeeded Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer.[40] Under him, Arianism
Arianism
reached its high point at The third Council of Sirmium in 357. The Seventh Arian
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 known as 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.[41]

Following the abortive effort by Julian the Apostate
Julian the Apostate
to restore paganism in the empire, the emperor Valens—himself an Arian—renewed the persecution of Nicene hierarchs. However, Valens' successor Theodosius I
Theodosius I
effectively wiped out Arianism
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
Arius
anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed.[40][42] This generally ended the influence of Arianism
Arianism
among the non- Germanic peoples
Germanic peoples
of the Roman Empire.

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

Arianism
Arianism
in the West[edit] Main articles: Gothic Christianity
Gothic Christianity
and Germanic Christianity Things went differently in the Western Empire. During the reign of Constantius II, the Arian
Arian
Gothic convert Ulfilas
Ulfilas
was consecrated a bishop by Eusebius
Eusebius
of Nicomedia
Nicomedia
and sent to missionize his people. His success ensured the survival of Arianism
Arianism
among the Goths
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
Spain
and portions of Italy, until finally suppressed during the sixth and seventh centuries.[43] In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable
Peter the Venerable
saw the Prophet
Prophet
Muhammad
Muhammad
as "the successor of Arius
Arius
and the precursor to the Anti-Christ". During the Protestant Reformation, a Polish sect known as the Polish Brethren were often referred to as Arians, due to their rejection of the Trinity.[44] Arianism
Arianism
today[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses
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
Arius
himself denied), and by their denial of literal personality to the Holy Spirit. Arius
Arius
considered the Holy Spirit
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
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
Jesus
as a mediator.[50] Members of The Church of Jesus
Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are sometimes accused of being Arians by their detractors.[51] However, the Christology
Christology
of the LDS religion differs in several significant aspects from Arian
Arian
theology.[52] Arius's doctrine[edit] Main article: Arianism Introduction[edit] In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria
Alexandria
wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople
Constantinople
and Eusebius
Eusebius
of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius
Arius
had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius
Arius
taught:

That God
God
was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God
God
was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God
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
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
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
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]

The Logos[edit] 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
Bishop
of Alexandria, used much the same language as Arius
Arius
did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius
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
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
Arius
endorsed the following doctrines about The Son or The Word (Logos, referring to Jesus; see the John 1:1):

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

Extant writings[edit] Three surviving letters attributed to Arius
Arius
are his letter to Alexander of Alexandria,[55] his letter to Eusebius
Eusebius
of Nicomedia,[56] and his confession to Constantine.[57] In addition, several letters addressed by others to Arius
Arius
survive, together with brief quotations contained within the polemical works of his opponents. These quotations are often short and taken out of context, and it is difficult to tell how accurately they quote him or represent his true thinking. The Thalia[edit] Arius' Thalia (literally, "Festivity", or "abundance", "good cheer" or "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
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
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
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
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
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
God
is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι, Sufficient proof that God
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
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
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
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
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
God
is wise because he is the Teacher of Wisdom. ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι As a sufficient proof that God
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

See also[edit]

Anomoeanism Arian
Arian
controversy Arianism Semi-Arianism Nontrinitarianism Oneness Pentecostalism Unitarianism First Council of Nicaea

Notes[edit]

^ a b Torkington, David (2011-02-03). Wisdom from Franciscan Italy: The Primacy of Love. John Hunt Publishing. p. 113. ISBN 9781846944420.  ^ Anatolios, Khaled (2011). "2. Development of Trinitarian Doctrine: A Model and Its Application". Retrieving Nicaea. Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic. p. 44. ISBN 080103132X. Arius, who was born in Libya, was a respected ascetic and presbyter at the church of the Baucalis
Baucalis
in Alexandria.  ^ Williams, Rowan (2002) [1987]. Arius
Arius
(Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 98. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5.  ^ Constantine the Great
Constantine the Great
Rules - National Geographic - Retrieved 23 September 2014. ^ a b Hanson, R P C (2007). The Search for the Christian
Christian
Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. pp. 127–128. ISBN 0-8010-3146-X.  ^ Kopeck, M R (1985). "Neo Arian
Arian
Religion: Evidence of the Apostolic Constitutions". Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments: 160–162.  ^ Dennison, James T Jr. " Arius
Arius
"Orthodoxos"; Athanasius
Athanasius
"Politicus": The Rehabilitation of Arius
Arius
and the Denigration of Athanasius". Lynnwood: Northwest Theological Seminary. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ O'Carroll, Michael (1987). Trinitas. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. p. 23. ISBN 0-8146-5595-5.  ^ The Encyclopedia Americana. Volume 2 (International ed.). Danbury: Grolier Inc. 1997. p. 297. ISBN 0-7172-0129-5.  ^ a b Carroll, A. History of Christendom, Volume II. p. 10.  ^ Williams, Rowan (2002) [1987]. Arius
Arius
(Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5.  ^ Williams, Rowan (2002) [1987]. Arius
Arius
(Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 235. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5.  ^ a b Hanson, R P C (2007). The Search for the Christian
Christian
Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. pp. 60–72. ISBN 0-8010-3146-X.  ^ Ehrman, Bart. The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. ISBN 0195182499.  ^ Socrates. "The Dispute of Arius
Arius
with Alexander, his Bishop.". The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates Scholasticus. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ a b c d e f Vasiliev, Al (1928). "The empire from Constantine the Great to Justinian". History of the Byzantine Empire. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Vasiliev, Al (1928). History of the Byzantine Empire. Retrieved 2 May 2012. This school, as A. Harnack said, is the nursery of the Arian doctrine, and Lucian, its head, is the Arius
Arius
before Arius  ^ Moore, Edward (2 May 2005). " Origen
Origen
of Alexandria". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The University of Tennessee at Martin. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Origen. "On Christ". De Principiis. Retrieved 2 May 2012. Wherefore we have always held that God
God
is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning  ^ " Arius
Arius
of Alexandria, Priest and Martyr". Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ( Arian
Arian
Catholic). Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Kelly 1978, Chapter 9 ^ Davis 1983, pp. 52–54 ^ Rubinstein, Richard. When Jesus
Jesus
Became God, The Struggle to Define Christianity
Christianity
during the Last Days of Rome. p. 57.  ^ Photius. "Epitome of Chapter VII". Epitome of Book I. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians, part 9, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm ^ Athanasius, De Decretis, parts 20 and 30, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm ^ Matt Perry - Athanasius
Athanasius
and his Influence at the Council of Nicaea - QUODLIBET JOURNAL - Retrieved 29 May 2014. ^ "Babylon The Great Has Fallen!" - God's Kingdom Rules! Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. - page 477. ^ M'Clintock, John; James Strong. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 7. p. 45.  ^ Bishop
Bishop
Nicholas Loses His Cool at the Council of Nicaea. From the St. Nicholas center. See also St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, from the website of the Orthodox Church in America. Retrieved on 2010-02-02. ^ In this corner, St. Nicholas!. Catholic Exchange. Published: 5 December 2012. ^ a b Carroll, A. History of Christendom, Volume II. p. 12.  ^ Athanasius
Athanasius
(23 January 2010). "Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians". Fourth Century Christianity. Wisconsin Lutheran College. Archived from the original on 19 August 2011. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Draper, John William (1875). The History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. pp. 358–359. , quoted in "The events following the Council of Nicaea". The Formulation of the Trinity. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Socrates. "The Death of Arius". The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates Scholasticus. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Gibbon, Edward (2012). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. CreateSpace. ISBN 1-4700-6709-9.  ^ Kirsch, Jonathan (2005). God
God
Against the Gods. New York: Penguin Compass. ISBN 0-14-219633-9.  ^ Freeman, Charles (2005). The Closing of the Western Mind (1st Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 1-4000-3380-2.  ^ Scrum, D S. " Arian
Arian
Reaction - Athanasius". Biography of Arius. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ a b Jones, A H M (1990). The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 118. ISBN 0-8018-3353-1.  ^ "Second Creed of Sirmium or "The Blasphemy of Sirmium"". www.fourthcentury.com. Retrieved 2017-03-09.  ^ Freeman, Charles. A.D. 381, Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State. Overlook Press.  ^ "Arianism". The Columbia Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Wilbur, Earl Morse (1977). "The Socinian Exiles in East Prussia". A History of Unitarianism
Unitarianism
in Transylvania, England, and America. Boston: Beacon Press.  ^ Institute for Metaphysical Studies—The Arian
Arian
Christian
Christian
Bible - Metaphysical Institute, 2010. Page 209. Retrieved 10 June 2014. ^ Adam Bourque - Ten Things You Didn’t Know about Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Michigan Skeptics Association. Retrieved 10 June 2014. ^ Dorsett, Tommy. "Modern Day Arians: Who Are They?". Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ "Trinity: Arius
Arius
and the Nicene Creed". Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Young, Alexey. "Jehovah's Witnesses". Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ "Should You Believe in the Trinity?". Awake!: 12–13. August 2013. Retrieved 2 November 2014.  ^ Tuttle, Dainel S (1981). "Mormons". A Religious Encyclopedia: 1578.  ^ "Are Mormons Arians?". Mormon Metaphics. 19 January 2006. Archived from the original on 1 March 2012. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Socrates. "Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop
Bishop
of Alexandria
Alexandria
excommunicates Arius
Arius
and his Adherents.". The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates Scholasticus. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Select Treatises of St. Athanasius
Athanasius
- In Controversy With the Arians - Freely Translated by John Henry Cardinal Newmann - Longmans, Green, and Co., 1911, footnote, page 124 ^ Preserved by Athanasius, On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, 16; Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies, 69.7; and Hilary, On the Trinity, 4.12) ^ Recorded by Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies, 69.6 and Theodoret, Church History, 1.5 ^ Recorded in Socrates Scholasticus, Church History 1.26.2 and Sozomen, Church History 2.27.6-10 ^ Arius. "Thalia". Fourth Century Christianity. Wisconsin Lutheran College. Archived from the original on 28 April 2012. Retrieved 2 May 2012.  ^ Williams, Rowan (2002) [1987]. Arius
Arius
(Revised ed.). Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 99. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5.  ^ a b Williams, Rowan (2002) [1987]. Arius
Arius
(Revised ed.). Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans. pp. 98–99. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5.  ^ Stevenson, J (1987). A New Eusebius. London: SPCK. pp. 330–332. ISBN 0-281-04268-3.  ^ Opitz, Hans-Georg (1935). Athanasius
Athanasius
Werke. pp. 242–243. Retrieved 16 August 2016.  ^ West, Aaron J. " Arius
Arius
- Thalia". Fourth Century Christianity. Wisconsin Lutheran College. Archived from the original on 2012-04-28.  ^ West, Aaron J. " Arius
Arius
- Thalia in Greek and English". Fourth Century Christianity. Wisconsin Lutheran College. Retrieved 16 August 2016.  ^ Stead, G.C. (April 1978). "The Thalia of Arius
Arius
and the Testimony of Athanasius". Journal of Theological Studies. 39 (1): 48–50.  ^ Hanson, R.P.C. (1988). The Search for the Christian
Christian
Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 14–15. 

Bibliography[edit] Primary sources[edit]

Athanasius
Athanasius
of Alexandria, History of the Arians, London, 2013. limovia.net ISBN 978-1-78336-206-6 Athanasius
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

Secondary sources[edit]

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
Christian
Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. T&T Clark, 1988. 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
Christian
Thought, 1980. ISBN 0-8006-1410-0 Schaff, Philip. "Theological Controversies and the Development of Orthodoxy". In History of the Christian
Christian
Church, Vol III, Ch. IX. Online at CCEL. Accessed 13 December 2009. Wace, Henry. A Dictionary of Christian
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
Heresy
and Tradition. Revised edition, Grand Rapids (MI): Eerdmans 2001. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5

External links[edit]

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Arius

Arius
Arius
at Encyclopædia Britannica The Complete Extant Works of Arius
Arius
From the Wisconsin Lutheran College website page entitled "Fourth Century Christianity".  "Arius". The American Cyclopædia. 1879. 

Authority control

WorldCat Identities VIAF: 12404999 LCCN: n82045062 ISNI: 0000 0000 9061 7215 GND: 118645781 SUDOC: 081019815 BNF: cb1246

.