|Died||336 (aged 80)|
|Era||3rd and 4th centuries AD|
|Tradition or movement||Arianism|
Arius (; Koin? Greek: , Áreios; 250 or 256-336) was a Cyrenaic presbyter, ascetic, and priest best known for the doctrine of Arianism. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized God the Father's uniqueness and Christ's subordination under the Father, and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325.
After Emperors Licinius and Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time in the Roman Empire, Constantine sought to unify the newly recognized Church and remove theological divisions. The Christian Church was divided over disagreements on Christology, or the nature of the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity. Homoousian Christians, including Athanasius of Alexandria, used Arius and Arianism as epithets to describe those who disagreed with their doctrine of coequal Trinitarianism, a Homoousian Christology representing God the Father and 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 existed. Despite concerted opposition, Arian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, especially in various Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.
The Son's precise relationship with the Father had been discussed for decades before Arius' advent; Arius intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where others like Eusebius of Nicomedia 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. However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed--though had not originated--is generally labeled as "his".
Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has proven to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while 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.
His father's name is given as Ammonius. Arius is believed to have been a student at the exegetical school in Antioch, where he studied under Saint Lucian. 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 under fear of Roman torture, and was ordained a deacon under the latter's auspices. He was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311 for supporting Meletius, but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria.
Although his character has been severely assailed by his opponents, 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 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."
Though 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 was actually quite conservative, and that he deplored how, in his view, Christian theology was being too freely mixed with Greek paganism.
Arius is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that 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 the Father. Before the council of Nicaea, the Christian world knew several competing Christological ideas. Church authorities condemned some of these ideas but did not put forth a uniform formula. The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate.
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." 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. The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".
Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity. 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. The council would be presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.
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. 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,) 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. 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, 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." Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as : "the Father is greater than I". And also : "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. 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. 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) 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
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 recommenced at once. When Bishop Alexander died in 327, 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. Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. 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 to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen.
Modern scholars consider that the subsequent death of Arius may have been the result of poisoning by his opponents. In contrast, some contemporaries of Arius asserted that the circumstances of his death were miraculous - consequence of Arius's heretical views. The latter view was evident in the account of Arius's death by a bitter enemy, Socrates Scholasticus.
It was then Saturday, and 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.
The death of Arius did not end the Arian controversy, and would not be settled for centuries, in some parts of the Christian world.
Constantius II, who succeeded Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer. 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.
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. This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire.
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.
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". During the Protestant Reformation, a Polish sect known as the Polish Brethren were often referred to as Arians, due to their antitrinitarian doctrine.
There are several contemporary Christian and Post-Christian denominations today that echo Arian thinking.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are sometimes accused of being Arians by their detractors. However, the Christology of the Latter-day Saints differs in several significant aspects from Arian theology.
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)
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)
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, 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.
Three surviving letters attributed to Arius are his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and his confession to Constantine. In addition, several letters addressed by others to 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.
Arius' Thalia (literally, "Festivity", "banquet"), a popularized work combining prose and verse and summarizing his views on the Logos, 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.
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; it may have been written by someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even a person sympathetic to Arius. 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. 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.
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. A translation of this fragment has been made by Aaron J. West, 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 ( for ?, line 5)." Here is the Opitz edition with the West translation:
? ? ? ? ? ?.
... And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
? ? , ? .
He alone has no equal, no one similar (homoios), and no one of the same glory.
We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.
? ? ,
We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning.
? ? ?.
We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.
? ? ? ?
He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things
? ? ,
He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him.
? ? ?¦ ,
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being (kat' hypostasis)
? ?, ' ? ?.
For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him.
? ?, ? .
God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom
? ? ? ,
Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all:
? ? ? ? ? .
He is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself.
?, ? ?·
I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son:
? ? ? ? ? · ?
by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure,
? ? , .
the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined
? ?, ? ? ,
So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings (hypostaseis) are not mixed together among themselves.
? ? ' ?.
As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other.
? ' ? , ? ?.
The Father in his essence (ousia) is a foreigner to the Son, because he exists without beginning.
? , ? ? , ? .
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
? ? ? ? ?.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
? ? ( ? )
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father's will,
? ? .
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others
? ? ?.
Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
? ? ? , ?, ,
Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom,
? ?, ? .
God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word.
Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light.
? ? ? ? ,
The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son,
? ? ? ?.
But not someone more important, or superior, or greater.
? ¦ ? ? ? ? ,
At God's will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
' ? ? ,
His existence from when and from whom and from then -- are all from God.
? ? .
He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior.
? ? ? ?·
In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.
? ? ? ?' ?,
For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable,
? ? ? ?.
So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.
? ? ?, ' .
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself.
? ? ,
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia),
? ? ? .
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father
should comprehend and know his own parent?
?, ?, ,
For clearly that which has a beginning
? ? .
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, and served as the basis for a translation by R.P.C. Hanson. 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.
? ? ? ? '  ? ?
God himself, therefore, in himself remains mysterious (?).
? , ?
He alone has no equal, none like him, none of equal glory.
We call him unoriginated (?[?]?) in contrast to him who is originated by nature ...
... ? ?
we praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning,
?' ? ? ?.
we worship him as eternal in contrast to him who came into existence in times (?).
? ? ?
He who was without beginning made the Son a beginning of all things which are produced (),
? ? .
and he made him into a Son for himself; begetting () him.
? ? ?
He (the Son) has nothing peculiar to () God according to the reality of that which is peculiarly his (? ),
? ? ... ' ' ?.
and he is not equal ... far less is he consubstantial () to him (God).
[?'] ? ?, ? .
And God is wise because he is the Teacher of Wisdom.
? ? ?
As a sufficient proof that God is invisible (?) to all,
? ' ? (?) ? ? ...
that he is invisible to the Son's people and to the Son himself...
?' <> ? ?' ? ?·
I will declare roundly, how the invisible can be visible to the Son:
? ? ' ? ? . . ?
by the power in which God can see, according to his individual ... capacities ( ... ?)
? ? ... ' .
the Son is able to see... the Father as is determined ().
Certainly there is a Trinity .. and they possess glories of different levels ( ?)
?  ?
their individual realities (?) do not mix with each other,
? ? ' ?.
The sole glory is of the Sole ( ?), infinitely more splendid in his glories.
? ' ? ? ?.
The father is in his substance () alien () from the Son because he remains without beginning.
<> ? , ? ? ?' ? .
Understand therefore that the Mondad () existed, but the Dyad (?) did not exist before it attained existence.
? ? ? ? ?.
? ? (<?> ? )
So the Son having not existed attained existence by the Father's will.
? ?<?> ? .
He is only-begotten God and he is different from any others.
? ? ?.
Wisdom became Wisdom by the will of the wise God,
? ? ?
and so he is apprehended in an uncountable number of aspects ().
... ?, ,
? ?, ? .
He is God's Glory and Truth, and Image and Word.
Understand too that he is apprehended as Reflection () also and Light.
? ?' ? ?
The Greater One is able to beget () someone equal to the Son,
?' ? ? ?, ?.
but not someone more important or more powerful or greater.
? ? ? ? ? ,
It is by the will of God that the Son has his stature and character ( ?)
' ? ' ? .
when and whence and from what time he is from God.
? <> ? .
For he is the Mighty God [i.e., the Son, Isa 9:15] and in some degree ( ) worships the Greater.
? ? ? ?
To summarize, God is mysterious (?) to the Son,
? ? ? ?<?>, ?' ?,
for he is to him that which he is, i.e. ineffable (?),
' ... ?
so that none of the things spoken ... [text is corrupt for some words ]
? ?, ? ?
... for it is impossible for him
? ' ·
to trace out in the case of the Father what he is in himself.
Indeed the Son himself does not know his own substance (ousia),
? ? ? .
for though he is the Son he is really so by the will of the Father.
For what sense does it make that he who is from the Father
? ... ?' ;
should [text corrupt] in comprehending his own begetter?
<'> ?, ?
For it is clear that that which has a beginning, of him who is without beginning the nature ( )
?' ? ?' ? .
could not possibly comprehend or grasp.
Arius, who was born in Libya, was a respected ascetic and presbyter at the church of the Baucalis in Alexandria and was the founder of Arianism.
This school, as A. Harnack said, is the nursery of the Arian doctrine, and Lucian, its head, is the Arius before Arius
Wherefore we have always held that 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