Arius

 Letters  
(Compiled by Paul Chung; asitreads.com)

Preface
 
The word “Arian” was used by Rome as a stigma. And that stigma would apply to
anyone who disagreed with her (Roman Catholic Church and their dogma, especially
the Trinity). It was like a theological slur. This had a real negative tone to it with real
consequences, and history reveals that those who opposed Rome were persecuted as
heretics. It is worth noting that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has adopted an
attitude that is no different than the Roman Papacy as it defends its Trinity doctrine
and similarly labels anyone who opposes the Trinity doctrine as either Arians or
Semi-Arians. Please bear in mind that while our Pioneers held to a belief that was
SIMILAR to Arians or Semi-Arians, I wouldn't necessarily categorize them as either
Arians nor Semi-Arians (as far as how Arians/Semi-Arians are generally portrayed
today). Those who characterize our pioneers as either Arians or Semi-Arians assume
that they believed Christ to be a creation and that they didn’t believe Christ to have
the same substance as the Father and this is simply a misrepresentation. The
mischaracterization of our pioneers’ beliefs (often intentional) are primarily to
discredit the early SDA Church... This is the reason why "non-Trinitarian" SDAs are
often viewed as Arians or Semi-Arians and are also accused of denigrating Christ as a
creation, etc.
First of all, it’s difficult to reconstruct what Arius actually taught, and why, it is a
formidable task, both because very little of his own work survived except in
quotations selected for polemical purposes by his opponents, and also because there
is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his
thought based on Arius’ survived work. This does raise some legitimate questions as
to why the Catholic Church took such drastic measures to destroy all of Arius' works,
and you are left to wonder if there is any credence to any of the criticism against
Arians, for there is no way to really verify what Arius actually taught. Furthermore,
given the fact that the most records we have are those that either fell through the
hands of the Catholic power, or those which they have chosen to keep, whether in
their original form or (possibly) altered by them, it also raises legitimate doubts as to
whether or not any of Arius’ survived work is even reliable for rightly assessing Arius’
views. And yet, many, including Adventist trinitarians, often use the epithet (Arians)
to undermine the non-trinitarians. You can check out my brief article, “Were
Seventh-day Adventist Pioneers Arians or semi-Arians?” here:
http://www.asitreads.com/blog-­‐1/2017/9/21/were-­‐seventh-­‐day-­‐adventist-­‐pioneers-­‐
arians-­‐or-­‐semi-­‐arians?

Having said this, we can find some clues as to what Arius believed based on some
letters that have been preserved in various historical documents (even though at the
Council of Nicaea Constantine ordered the writings of Arius to be destroyed). Below
includes some of those survived letters; numbering of the paragraphs are added for
the convenience of referencing; bold emphasis and notes in bracket are added
through out by me.

__________________________________________________________

 
Arius  was  a  Libyan  whose  name  is  now  used  to  refer  to  the  fourth-­‐century  
controversy  over  Christ’s  divine  sonship,  the  “Arian  Controversy.”  He  seems  to  have  
studied  under  Lucian  of  Antioch.  He  eventually  became  an  Alexandrian  priest  over  
the  Baucalis  region.  He  was  excommunicated  by  the  Bishop  of  
Alexandria,  Alexander,  when  a  dispute  erupted  over  the  nature  of  Christ’s  
relationship  with  the  Father  (c.  A.D.  318).  Arius  was  condemned  by  an  African  
council  around  318  (the  decision  of  which  was  later  re-­‐examined  and  confirmed  at  
another  Alexandrian  council  c.  323),  and  so  he  fled  to  Palestine  with  his  followers.  
The  supporters  of  Arius  and  of  Alexander  soon  released  a  flurry  of  letters,  both  to  
inform  and  convince  a  wider  audience,  and  soon  the  entire  church  of  the  eastern  
empire  was  informed  and  taking  sides.  
 
Arius  was  condemned  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea  in  325  and  banished  to  Illyricum.  But  
Constantine  soon  invited  Arius  to  be  reconciled  to  the  church,  and  the  emperor  
ordered  the  Alexandrians  to  be  reconciled  with  him.  But  the  Alexandrian  leaders  
refused.  The  exact  chronology  is  not  certain,  but  we  know  that  Arius  wandered  
around  and  was  eventually  judged  orthodox  by  a  synod  in  Palestine.  At  some  point,  
he  wrote  a  letter  which  really  angered  Constantine,  leading  Constantine  to  order  all  
Arius’  books  burned.  That  may  have  been  before  or  after  his  banishment.  Athanasius  
continued  refusing  to  admit  Arius  to  communion.  Eventually  Constantine  decided  to  
admit  Arius  into  communion  in  Constantinople,  but  suddenly  Arius  died  the  night  
before  his  re-­‐admission  in  336  (see  Athanasius’  startling  account  in  his  Letter  to  
Serapion  concerning  the  death  of  Arius).  But  by  the  time  of  his  death,  Arius  was  only  
a  minor  figure  in  the  “Arian”  controversy,  and  others  had  taken  leading  roles,  
perpetuating  and  magnifying  the  controversy  for  generations  to  come.  
 
This  chart  lists  any  letters  to  or  from  Arius,  or  letters  which  would  have  impacted  
him,  and  his  Thalia.  (Attached,  please  find  all  the  writings  contained  in  this  chart.)  
 
Date   Description   CPG  
c.  318   Arius  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia   2025  
c.  318   Fragment  of  a  letter  from  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  to  Arius   2046  
Arius  and  other  Alexandrian  clergy  to  Alexander  of  Alexandria  
c.  320   2026  
pleading  his  cause  
c.  321/2   Summary  of  letter  of  a  council  in  Palestine  reinstating  Arius    
c.  322   Priest  George  to  the  Arians  in  Alexandria  defending  Alexander   3556  
Oct.  324   Emperor  Constantine  to  Alexander  of  Alexandria  and  Arius   2020  
27  Nov.  
Emperor  Constantine  to  Arius   2040  
327  
End  of  
Arius  and  Euzoius  to  the  Emperor  Constantine   2027  
327  
333   Imperial  edict  against  Arius  and  his  followers   2041  
333   Emperor  Constantine  to  Arius  and  his  followers   2042  
Thalia  –  Arius’  poem  about  the  relationship  between  the  Father  
?    
and  the  Son  

 1.  Letter  of  Arius  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  

Urk.  1  
Reference  
Doc.  15  
numbers  
CPG  2025  

Incipit   Τοῦ  πατρός  μου  Ἀμμωνίου  

Date   c.  318  

Ancient  
Theodoret,  Church  History  1.5  
source  
used  

Modern  
L.  Parmentier  and  F.  Scheidweiler,  Theodoret.  Kirchengeschichte,  2nd  
edition  
edition,  GCS  44  (Berlin:  Akademie  Verlag,  1954)  
used  

Other  
ancient   Epiphanius,  Refutation  of  All  Heresies  69.6  
source  

To  compare  this  document  with  other  lists  of  sympathizers  with  Arius,  
Notes   see  the  Arian  map.  In  paragraph  3,  Arius  claims  that  nearly  “all  those  of  
the  East”  agree  that  the  Father  pre-­‐exists  the  Son!  
 
(1.)  To  that  most  beloved  man  of  God,  the  faithful  and  orthodox  Eusebius,  from  
Arius,  unjustly  persecuted  by  father  Alexander  because  of  the  all-­‐conquering  truth  
which  you,  Eusebius,  also  are  defending!  
 
(2.)  Since  my  father  Ammonius  is  going  to  Nicomedia,  it  seemed  reasonable  and  
proper  to  greet  you  through  him,  remembering  at  the  same  time  the  innate  love  and  
affection  which  you  have  for  the  brothers  on  account  of  God  and  his  Christ,  because  
the  bishop  [Alexander]  is  severely  ravaging  and  persecuting  us  and  moving  against  
us  with  every  evil.    Thus  he  drives  us  out  of  every  city  like  godless  men,  since  we  will  
not  agree  with  his  public  statements:    that  there  was  “always  a  God,  always  a  Son;”  
“as  soon  as  the  Father,  so  soon  the  Son  [existed];”  “with  the  Father  co-­‐exists  
the  Son  unbegotten,  ever-­‐begotten,  begotten  without  begetting;”  “God  neither  
precedes  the  Son  in  aspect  or  in  a  moment  of  time;”  “always  a  God,  always  a  
Son,  the  Son  being  from  God  himself.”-­‐bold  emphasis  added  
 
(3.)  Since  Eusebius,  your  brother  in  Caesarea,  and  Theodotus,  and  Paulinus,  and  
Athanasius,  and  Gregory,  and  Aetius  and  all  those  in  the  East  say  that  God  pre-­‐exists  
the  Son  without  a  beginning,  they  have  been  condemned,  except  for  Philogonius  and  
Hellenicus  and  Macarius,  unlearned  heretics  some  of  whom  say  that  the  Son  was  
“spewed  out”,  others  that  he  was  an  “emanation”,  still  others  that  he  was  “jointly  
unbegotten.”      
 
(4.)  We  are  not  able  to  listen  to  these  kinds  of  impieties,  even  if  the  heretics  threaten  
us  with  ten  thousand  deaths.    But  what  do  we  say  and  think  and  what  have  we  
previously  taught  and  do  we  presently  teach?    —  that  the  Son  is  not  unbegotten,  
nor  a  part  of  an  unbegotten  entity  in  any  way,  nor  from  anything  in  existence,  
but  that  he  is  subsisting  in  will  and  intention  before  time  and  before  the  ages,  
full  <of  grace  and  truth,>  God,  the  only-­‐begotten,  unchangeable.  (5.)  Before  he  
was  begotten,  or  created,  or  defined,  or  established,  he  did  not  exist.    For  he  
was  not  unbegotten.      But  we  are  persecuted  because  we  have  said  the  Son  has  a  
beginning  but  God  has  no  beginning.    We  are  persecuted  because  of  that  and  for  
saying  he  came  from  non-­‐being.    But  we  said  this  since  he  is  not  a  portion  of  God  
nor  of  anything  in  existence.    That  is  why  we  are  persecuted;  you  know  the  rest.  
I  pray  that  you  fare  well  in  the  Lord,  remembering  our  tribulations,  fellow-­‐Lucianist,  
truly-­‐called  Eusebius  [i.e.  the  pious  one].  -­‐bold  emphasis  added  
 
Translation  by  GLT  
Other  translations  in  New  Eusebius,  no.  283;  NPNF2  vol.  3,  p.  41;  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-­‐1/  
 
[Note:   # 4   A rius   c learly   d istinguishes   t he   F ather   a s   “ unbegotten”   w hile   t he   S on  
is   d escribed   a s   “ begotten.”   C ontrary   t o   p opular   b elief,   A rius   a ppears   t o   h ave  
held   t o   a   p osition   t hat   t he   S on   w as   “ begotten”   a s   i n   a n   o ffspring   o f   t he   F ather  
but   t he   p hrase   s uch   a s,   “ nor   a   p art   o f   a n   u nbegotten   e ntity   i n   a ny   w ay”   “ he   i s  
not   a   p ortion   o f   G od”   s eems   t o   s uggest   t hat   A rius   d id   n ot   b elieve   t he   S on   a s   a n  
ontological   e qual   w ith   t he   F ather   ( Not   h aving   t he   s ame   s ubstance   a s   t he  
Father).   F urthermore,   A rius’   e xpressions   s uch   a s   “ begotten”   o r   “ creation”   a re  
not   c onclusively   d efined   a s   i n   # 5   “ Before   h e   w as   b egotten,   o r   c reated,   o r  
defined,   o r   e stablished,   h e   d id   n ot   e xist.”   T his   a ppears   t o   b e   t he   c ase  
throughout   h is   w ritings]  
 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
2.  Fragment  of  a  letter  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  to  Arius  
Urk.  2  
Reference  numbers   Doc.  16  
CPG  2046  

Incipit   Καλῶς  φρονῶν  εὔχου  πάντας  

Date   c.  318  

Ancient  source   Athanasius,  On  the  Synods  17  

Modern  edition   H-­‐G.  Opitz,  Athanasius  Werke,  band  2  (Berlin:  De  Gruyter,  
used   1940).  
And  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  in  addition  wrote  thus  to  Arius:  
 
Since  you  think  properly,  pray  that  everyone  will  think  that  way.  For  it  is  clear  to  
all  that  the  thing  which  is  made  did  not  exist  before  it  came  into  being;  but  
rather  what  came  into  being  has  a  beginning  to  its  existence.  -­‐bold  emphasis  
added  
 
Translation  by  GLT  
Other  translations  in  Hanson,  p.  31;  NPNF2  vol.  4,  p.  459  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐2  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
 
3.  Confession  of  faith  from  Arius  and  his  followers  to  Bishop  
Alexander  of  Alexandria  
Urk.  6  
Reference  
Doc.  1  
numbers  
CPG  2026  

Incipit   Ἡ  πίστις  ἡμῶν  

Date   c.  320  

Ancient  source  
used  
Athanasius,  On  the  Synods  16  
(paragraphs  1-­‐
5)  

Modern  edition  
H-­‐G.  Opitz,  Athanasius  Werke,  band  2  (Berlin:  De  Gruyter,  1940).  
used  

Other  ancient  
Epiphanius,  Refutation  of  All  Heresies  69.7-­‐8  
sources  
Hilary,  On  the  Trinity  4.12f.  6.5f.  
(paragraph  1-­‐5)  

Ancient  source  
Epiphanius,  Refutation  of  All  Heresies  69.8  
(paragraph  6)  

Modern  edition  
K.  Holl,  Epiphanius:  Panarion  GCS  37  (Leipzig:  Hinrichs,  1933)  
used:  

The  creed  given  in  this  document  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  of  
Caesarea  in  his  letter  to  Alexander  of  Alexandria  (Urk.  7).  Lewis  
Ayres  points  out  the  difficultly  with  this  document:  “The  question  
here  turns  on  whether  or  not  one  reads  this  letter  as  conciliatory!  
Note   (Nicaea  and  its  Legacy  [Oxford  2004],  p.  17  note  16).  
Williams  notes  that  the  similarity  of  the  creed  to  the  creed  of  the  
council  of  Antioch  (Urk.  18)  gives  credence  to  Arius  claim  that  he  
is  drawing  on  a  faith  learned  from  the  forefathers.  (Williams,  p.  
96)  
 
(1.)  The  Priests  and  Deacons  to  Our  Blessed  Father  and  Bishop,  Alexander;  greetings  
in  the  Lord.  
 
(2.)  Our  faith  from  our  forefathers,  which  also  we  learned  from  you,  Blessed  Father,  
is  this:  We  acknowledge  One  God,  alone  unbegotten,  alone  everlasting,  alone  
without  beginning,  alone  true,  alone  having  immortality,  alone  wise,  alone  
good,  alone  sovereign,  judge,  governor,  and  provider  of  all,  unalterable  and  
unchangeable,  just  and  good,  God  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the  New  
Testament;  who  begat  an  only-­‐begotten  Son  before  time  and  the  ages,  through  
whom  he  made  both  the  ages  [Heb  1:2]  and  all  that  was  made;  who  begot  Him  
not  in  appearance,  but  in  reality;  and  that  he  made  him  subsist  at  his  own  will,  
unalterable  and  unchangeable,  the  perfect  creature  (ktisma)  of  God,  but  not  as  
one  of  the  creatures;  offspring,  but  not  as  one  of  the  other  things  
begotten;  (3.)  nor  as  Valentinus  pronounced  that  the  offspring  of  the  Father  was  an  
emanation  (probolē);  nor  as  the  Manicheans  taught  that  the  offspring  was  a  one-­‐in-­‐
essence-­‐portion  (meros  homoousion)  of  the  Father;  nor  as  Sabellius,  dividing  the  
Monad,  speaks  of  a  Son-­‐Father;  nor  as  Hieracas  speaks  of  one  torch  [lit]  from  
another,  or  as  a  lamp  divided  into  two;  nor  that  he  who  existed  before  was  later  
generated  or  created  anew  into  a  Son,  as  you  yourself,  O  blessed  father,  have  often  
condemned  both  in  church  services  and  in  council  meetings;  but,  as  we  say,  he  was  
created  at  the  will  of  God,  before  time  and  before  the  ages,  and  came  to  life  
and  being  from  the  Father,  and  the  glories  which  coexist  in  him  are  from  the  
Father.    
 
[Note:  regarding,  “the  perfect  creature  (ktisma)  of  God,  but  not  as  one  of  the  
creatures;  offspring,  but  not  as  one  of  the  other  things  begotten;”  While  the  
translation  reads,  “creature”  the  very  expression  is  preceded  by  phrases,  “who  begat  
an  only-­‐begotten  Son”  and  “who  begot  him”  and  also  qualified  by  what  follows,  “but  
not  as  one  of  the  creatures;  offspring,  but  not  as  one  of  the  other  things  begotten;”.  
Again,  in  #4  below,  we  find  such  expressions  as,  “but  the  Son,  begotten  apart  from  
time  by  the  Father,  and  created  (ktistheis)  and  founded  before  the  ages”  “but  was  
begotten  apart  from  time  before  all  things.”  The  usage  of  the  word,  “created”  and  
“begotten”  seem  interchangeable;  There  seems  to  be  a  case  of  grappling  with  the  
right  semantics  regarding  the  concept  of  Christ’s  unique  begetting;  The  term,  
“offspring”  in  #3  clearly  suggest  birth  of  some  kind  or  one  being  brought  forth  from  
another  being;  One  thing  is  clear  is  that  Arius  distinguishes  Christ  from  all  other  
creation]  
 
(4.)  For  when  giving  to  him  [the  Son]  the  inheritance  of  all  things  [Heb  1:2],  the  
Father  did  not  deprive  himself  of  what  he  has  without  beginning  in  himself;  for  he  is  
the  source  of  all  things.  Thus  there  are  three  subsisting  realities  (hypostaseis).  
And  God,  being  the  cause  of  all  that  happens,  is  absolutely  alone  without  
beginning;  but  the  Son,  begotten  apart  from  time  by  the  Father,  and  created  
(ktistheis)  and  founded  before  the  ages,  was  not  in  existence  before  his  
generation,  but  was  begotten  apart  from  time  before  all  things,  and  he  alone  
came  into  existence  (hypestē)  from  the  Father.  For  he  is  neither  eternal  nor  
co-­‐eternal  nor  co-­‐unbegotten  with  the  Father,  nor  does  he  have  his  being  
together  with  the  Father,  as  some  speak  of  relations,  introducing  two  
unbegotten  beginnings.  But  God  is  before  all  things  as  monad  and  beginning  of  
all.  Therefore  he  is  also  before  the  Son,  as  we  have  learned  also  from  your  public  
preaching  in  the  church.  -­‐bold  emphasis  added    
 
(5.)  Therefore  he  thus  has  his  being  from  God;  and  glories,  and  life,  and  all  
things  have  been  given  over  to  him;  in  this  way  God  is  his  beginning.  For  he  is  
over  him,  as  his  God  and  being  before  him.  But  if  the  expressions  from  him  [Rom.  
11:36]  and  from  the  womb  [Ps.  109:3  (LXX),  110:3  English]  and  I  came  from  the  
Father,  and  I  have  come  [John  16:28],  are  understood  by  some  to  mean  that  he  is  
part  of  him  [the  Father],  one  in  essence  or  as  an  emanation,  then  the  Father  is,  
according  to  them,  compounded  and  divisible  and  alterable  and  material,  and,  as  far  
as  their  belief  goes,  the  incorporeal  God  endures  a  body.  
 
(6.)  I  pray  that  you  fare  well  in  the  Lord,  blessed  father.  Arius;  the  priests  Aethales,  
Achilles,  Carpones,  Sarmatas  and  Arius;  the  deacons  Euzoios,  Lucius,  Julius,  Menas,  
Helladius,  and  Gaius;  the  bishops  Secundas  of  the  Pentapolis,  Theonas  of  Libya,  and  
Pistus  whom  the  Arians  [later]  set  up  [as  bishop]  at  Alexandria.  
 
Section  1-­‐5:  Translation  from  Athanasius  (NPNF2  vol.  4,  p.  458),  adapted  by  GLT  
Section  6:  Translation  by  GLT  
Other  translation  in  New  Eusebius,  no.  284  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐6  
 
[Note:  #(5)  suggest  1)  Arius  believe  the  Father  having  no  material  body  or  form  2)  
Son  did  not  have  the  same  essence  as  the  Father;  he  stated,  “But  if  the  expressions  
from  him  [Rom.  11:36]  and  from  the  womb  [Ps.  109:3  (LXX),  110:3  English]  and  I  
came  from  the  Father,  and  I  have  come  [John  16:28],  are  understood  by  some  to  
mean  that  he  is  part  of  him  [the  Father],  one  in  essence  or  as  an  emanation,  then  the  
Father  is,  according  to  them,  compounded  and  divisible  and  alterable  and  material,  
and,  as  far  as  their  belief  goes,  the  incorporeal  God  endures  a  body.”  The  fact  the  
Arius  attributes  these  as  being  “understood  by  some”  suggests  that  he  himself  did  
not  held  to  these  positions]  
 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
4.  Summary  of  a  letter  issued  by  a  council  in  Palestine  
Reference   Urk.  10  
numbers   Doc.  8  

Incipit   [Ὡς  δὲ  οὐδὲν  ἧττον]  

Date   c.  321/2  

Ancient  source   Sozomen,  Church  History  1.15.11  

Modern  edition   J.  Bidez  and  G.C.  Hansen,  Sozomenus:  Kirchengeschichte  GCS  50  
used   (Berlin:  Akademie  Verlag,  1960)  
  
Since  Alexander  was  not  willing  to  give  way  in  his  zeal  for  the  correct  understanding  
of  God,  Arius  sent  messengers  to  Paulinus,  bishop  of  Tyre,  to  Eusebius  Pamphilus,  
who  presided  over  the  church  of  Cæsarea  in  Palestine,  and  to  Patrophilus,  bishop  of  
Scythopolis.  He  solicited  permission  for  himself  and  for  his  adherents,  as  they  
had  previously  attained  the  rank  of  priests,  to  form  the  people  who  were  with  
them  into  a  church.  For  it  was  the  custom  in  Alexandria,  as  it  still  is  in  the  present  
day,  that  all  the  churches  should  be  under  one  bishop,  but  that  each  priest  should  
have  his  own  church,  in  which  to  assemble  the  people.  These  three  bishops,  
concurring  with  the  others  who  were  assembled  in  Palestine,  granted  Arius’  
petition.  -­‐bold  emphasis  added  
 
They  permitted  him  to  assemble  the  people  as  before,  but  commanded  Arius  to  
submit  to  Alexander  and  to  continually  strive  to  be  restored  to  peace  and  fellowship  
with  him.  
 
Translation  from  NPNF2  vol.  2,  p.252,  adapted  by  AJW  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐10  
_________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
5.  Fragment  of  a  letter  from  Priest  George  to  the  Arians  
Urk.  13  
Reference  numbers   Doc.  7  
CPG  3556  

Incipit   τί  μέμφεσθε  Ἀλεξάνδρῳ  τῷ  πάπᾳ  

Date   c.  322  

Ancient  source   Athanasius,  On  the  Synods  17.6  

Modern  edition   H-­‐G.  Opitz,  Athanasius  Werke,  band  2  (Berlin:  De  Gruyter,  
used   1940).  
 
And  [George]  wrote  to  the  Arians:  
 
Why  do  you  find  fault  with  Bishop  Alexander  for  saying  that  the  Son  is  from  the  
Father?    For  you  also  should  not  be  afraid  to  say  that  the  Son  is  from  God.    For  if  the  
Apostle  wrote  ‘All  things  are  from  God’  [1  Cor  11:12],  (though  all  things  have  clearly  
been  made  from  nothing),  and  if  also  the  Son  is  also  a  creature  (κτίσμα),  and  he  too  
was  made,  then  the  Son  can  be  said  to  be  “from  God,”  just  as  all  things  are  said  to  be  
“from  God.”  
 
Translation  by  AJW  
Also  translated  in  Hanson,  p.  44  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐13  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
6.  Documents  of  the  Early  Arian  Controversy  –  Emperor  Constantine  to  
Alexander  of  Alexandria  and  Arius  
Urk.17  
Reference  
Doc.  19  
numbers  
CPG  2020  

Incipit   Διπλῆν  μοι  γεγενῆσθαι  

Date   October  324  

Ancient  source  
Eusebius,  Life  of  Constantine  2.64-­‐72  
used  

Modern  edition   F.  Winkelmann,  Eusebius  Werke,  Band  1.1:  Über  das  Leben  des  
used   Kaisers  Konstantin,  GCS  vol.  7,  7.1.  (Berlin:  Akademie  Verlag,  
1975)  

Other  ancient  
source   Socrates,  Church  History  1.7;  
(paragraphs  6-­‐ Gelasius,  Church  History  2.4  
15)  

Note  on   Stuart  G.  Hall  argues  that  this  letter  was  actually  written  to  the  
recipients   Council  of  Antioch  in  325,  and  that  Eusebius,  who  would  rather  
forget  that  council,  changed  the  recipients  in  his  account  of  the  
letter.1  Parvis  has  critiqued  his  argument  to  say  that  the  letter  
was  certainly  meant  for  a  general  audience  of  eastern  bishops,  
but  not  for  the  Council  of  Antioch  specifically.2  This  could  also  
explain  how  Eusebius  has  a  copy.  
1  Stuart  G.  Hall,  “Some  Constantinian  Documents  in  the  Vita  
Constantini,”  Constantine:  History  and  Historiography,  eds.  
Samuel  N.  C.  Lieu  and  Dominic  Montserrat  (New  York  1998),  pp.  
86-­‐104  
2  Sarah  Parvis  (see  Abbreviations  page),  p.  77,  note  172.  
 
The  Victor  Constantine,  the  Great  Augustus,  to  Alexander  and  Arius.  
 
(1.)  I  call  God  to  witness,  as  is  fitting,  who  is  the  helper  of  my  endeavors  and  the  
preserver  of  all  men,  that  I  had  a  twofold  reason  for  undertaking  this  duty  which  I  
have  now  performed.  My  design  then  was  first  to  bring  the  various  beliefs  formed  by  
all  nations  about  God  to  a  condition  of  settled  uniformity.  Secondly  I  hoped  to  
restore  to  health  the  civil  liberties  of  the  empire,  then  suffering  under  the  malignant  
power  of  an  angry  tyrant.  Keeping  these  objects  in  view,  I  sought  to  accomplish  the  
one  by  thought,  which  is  hidden  from  the  eye,  while  the  other  I  tried  to  rectify  by  the  
power  of  military  authority.  For  I  was  aware  that,  if  I  should  succeed  in  establishing,  
according  to  my  hopes,  a  common  harmony  of  sentiment  among  all  the  servants  of  
God,  the  general  course  of  affairs  would  also  experience  a  change  corresponding  to  
the  pious  desires  of  all.  
(2.)  So  when  I  found  that  an  intolerable  spirit  of  mad  folly  had  overcome  the  whole  
of  Africa,  through  the  influence  of  those  who  with  heedless  frivolity  had  presumed  
to  divide  the  religion  of  the  people  into  diverse  sects,  I  was  anxious  to  stop  the  
course  of  this  disorder.  After  I  had  removed  the  common  enemy  of  mankind  
[Licinius]  who  had  interposed  his  lawless  sentence  which  prohibited  your  holy  
synods,  I  could  discover  no  other  remedy  equal  to  the  occasion,  except  to  send  some  
of  you  churchmen  to  aid  in  restoring  mutual  harmony  among  the  disputants.  
 
(3.)  I  naturally  believed  that  you  in  the  East  would  be  the  first  to  promote  the  
salvation  of  other  nations,  since  the  power  of  Divine  light  and  the  law  of  sacred  
worship,  which  proceeded  in  the  first  instance  through  the  favor  of  God,  from  the  
bosom,  as  it  were,  of  the  East,  have  illumined  the  world  by  their  sacred  radiance.  So  I  
resolved  with  all  energy  of  thought  and  diligence  of  enquiry  to  seek  your  aid.  As  
soon,  as  I  had  secured  my  decisive  victory  and  unquestioned  triumph  over  my  
enemies,  my  first  enquiry  was  concerning  that  object  which  I  felt  to  be  of  paramount  
interest  and  importance.  
 
(4.)  But,  O  glorious  Providence  of  God!  How  deep  a  wound  did  not  my  ears  only,  but  
my  very  heart  receive  when  it  was  reported  that  divisions  existed  among  yourselves  
more  grievous  still  than  those  which  continued  in  that  country  [Africa,  i.e.  the  
Donatist  schism]!  You,  through  whose  aid  I  had  hoped  to  procure  a  remedy  for  the  
errors  of  others,  are  in  a  state  which  needs  healing  even  more  than  theirs.  And  yet,  
now  that  I  have  made  a  careful  enquiry  into  the  origin  and  foundation  of  these  
differences,  I  have  found  the  cause  to  be  of  a  truly  insignificant  character,  and  quite  
unworthy  of  such  fierce  contention.  I  feel  compelled  to  address  you  in  this  letter,  
and  to  appeal  at  the  same  time  to  your  unity  and  discernment.  I  call  on  Divine  
Providence  to  assist  me  in  the  task,  while  I  interrupt  your  dissension  as  a  minister  of  
peace.    
 
(5.)  I  have  hope  for  success:  Even  in  a  great  disagreement  I  might  expect  with  the  
help  of  the  higher  Power,  to  be  able  without  difficulty,  by  a  judicious  appeal  to  the  
pious  feelings  of  those  who  hear  me,  to  recall  them  to  a  better  spirit.  How  can  I  help  
but  to  expect  a  far  easier  and  more  speedy  resolution  of  this  difference,  when  the  
cause  which  hinders  general  harmony  of  sentiment  is  intrinsically  trifling  and  of  
little  importance?  
 
(6.)  I  understand  that  the  origin  of  the  present  controversy  is  this.  When  you,  
Alexander,  demanded  of  the  priests  what  opinion  they  each  maintained  respecting  a  
certain  passage  in  Scripture,  or  rather,  I  should  say,  that  you  asked  them  something  
connected  with  an  unprofitable  question.  You  then,  Arius,  inconsiderately  insisted  
on  what  ought  never  to  have  been  speculated  about  at  all,  or  if  pondered,  
should  have  been  buried  in  profound  silence.  Hence  it  was  that  a  dissension  
arose  between  you,  fellowship  was  withdrawn,  and  the  holy  people  were  rent  into  
diverse  factions,  no  longer  preserving  the  unity  of  the  one  body.    
 
(7.)  And  so  I  now  ask  you  both  to  show  an  equal  degree  of  consideration  for  the  
other,  and  to  receive  the  advice  which  your  fellow-­‐servant  impartially  gives.  What  
then  is  this  advice?  It  was  wrong  in  the  first  instance  to  propose  such  questions  
as  these,  and  also  wrong  to  reply  to  them  when  they  were  presented.    
(8.)  For  those  points  of  discussion  are  not  commanded  by  the  authority  of  any  
law,  but  are  rather  the  product  of  an  argumentative  spirit  which  is  encouraged  
by  the  idle  useless  talk  of  leisure.  Even  though  they  may  be  intended  merely  as  
an  intellectual  exercise,  they  ought  certainly  to  be  confined  to  the  region  of  
our  own  thoughts,  and  not  hastily  produced  in  the  popular  assemblies,  nor  
unadvisedly  entrusted  to  the  ears  of  the  general  public.  For  how  very  few  are  
there  able  either  accurately  to  comprehend,  or  adequately  to  explain  subjects  
so  sublime  and  difficult  to  comprehend  in  their  nature?  Or,  granting  that  one  
were  fully  competent  for  this,  how  many  people  will  he  convince?  Or  again,  
who  in  dealing  with  questions  involving  such  subtle  distinctions  as  these  can  
be  sure  he  is  not  dangerously  departing  from  the  truth  in  some  point?  We  
ourselves  may  be  unable,  through  the  weakness  of  our  natural  abilities,  to  give  
a  clear  explanation  of  the  subject  before  us,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  our  hearers  
understanding  may  prevent  them  from  arriving  at  an  accurate  understanding  
of  what  we  say.  Lest  that  be  the  case,  it  is  our  obligation  to  be  sparing  with  our  
words,  so  that  neither  of  these  situations  will  cause  the  people  to  be  reduced  
either  to  blasphemy  or  to  schism.  
 
(9.)  Now  forgive  one  another  for  both  the  careless  question  and  the  ill-­‐considered  
answer.  The  cause  of  your  difference  has  not  been  any  of  the  leading  doctrines  
or  precepts  of  the  Divine  law,  nor  has  any  new  heresy  respecting  the  worship  
of  God  arisen  among  you.  You  are  really  of  one  and  the  same  judgment;  and  so  it  is  
fitting  for  you  to  join  in  communion  and  fellowship.    
 
(10.)  As  long  as  you  continue  to  contend  about  these  small  and  very  
insignificant  questions,  it  is  not  fitting  that  so  large  a  portion  of  God’s  people  
should  be  under  the  direction  of  your  judgment,  since  you  are  thus  divided  
between  yourselves.  In  my  opinion,  it  is  not  merely  unbecoming,  but  positively  
evil,  that  such  should  be  the  case.  Let  me  arouse  your  minds  by  the  following  little  
illustration.  You  know  that  philosophers,  though  they  all  adhere  to  one  system,  
are  yet  frequently  at  issue  on  certain  points,  and  differ,  perhaps,  in  their  
degree  of  knowledge.  Yet  they  are  brought  back  to  harmony  of  opinion  by  the  
uniting  power  of  their  common  teachings.  If  this  be  true,  is  it  not  far  more  
reasonable  that  you,  who  are  the  ministers  of  the  Supreme  God,  should  be  of  
one  mind  in  the  profession  of  the  same  religion?  Let  us  still  more  thoughtfully  
and  with  closer  attention  examine  what  I  have  said,  and  see  whether  it  be  right:  On  
the  ground  of  some  trifling  and  foolish  verbal  difference  between  ourselves,  should  
brothers  assume  towards  each  other  the  attitude  of  enemies?  Should  the  honorable  
synod  be  torn  in  two  by  profane  disunion,  because  of  you  who  wrangle  together  
on  points  so  trivial  and  altogether  unessential?  This  is  vulgar,  and  more  
characteristic  of  childish  ignorance,  than  consistent  with  the  wisdom  of  
priests  and  sensible  men.    
 
(11.)  Let  us  withdraw  ourselves  with  a  good  will  from  these  temptations  of  the  devil.  
Our  great  God  and  our  common  Savior  has  granted  us  all  the  same  light.  Permit  me,  
who  am  his  servant,  to  successfully  bring  my  task  to  conclusion,  under  the  direction  
of  his  providence,  that  I  may  be  enabled,  through  my  exhortations,  diligence,  and  
earnest  warning,  to  recall  his  people  to  communion  and  fellowship.    
 
(12.)  You  have,  as  I  said,  only  one  faith,  and  one  opinion  about  our  religion,  and  the  
Divine  commandment  in  all  its  parts  imposes  upon  us  all  the  duty  of  maintaining  a  
spirit  of  peace.  Because  of  this,  you  should  not  let  the  circumstance  which  has  led  to  
a  slight  difference  between  you  cause  any  division  or  schism  among  you,  since  it  
does  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  whole.    
 
(13.)  I  say  this  without  in  any  way  desiring  to  force  you  to  a  complete  unity  of  
judgment  in  regard  to  this  truly  idle  question,  whatever  its  real  nature  may  be.  
For  the  dignity  of  your  synod  can  be  preserved,  and  the  communion  of  your  whole  
body  can  be  maintained  unbroken,  no  matter  how  wide  a  difference  exists  
among  you  about  unimportant  matters.  We  are  not  all  like-­‐minded  on  every  
subject,  nor  is  there  such  a  thing  as  one  universal  disposition  and  judgment.  
 
(14.)  As  far,  then,  as  regards  Divine  Providence,  let  there  be  one  faith,  and  one  
understanding  among  you,  one  united  judgment  concerning  God.  But  as  to  your  
subtle  disputations  on  questions  of  little  or  no  significance,  though  you  may  be  
unable  to  harmonize  in  opinion,  such  differences  should  be  confined  to  your  
own  private  minds  and  thoughts.  And  now,  let  the  preciousness  of  common  
affection,  let  faith  in  the  truth,  let  the  honor  due  to  God  and  to  the  observance  of  his  
law  remain  immovably  among  you.  Resume  your  mutual  feelings  of  friendship,  love,  
and  respect.  Restore  to  the  people  their  customary  embraces;  and  you  yourselves  
purify  your  souls,  as  it  were,  and  once  more  acknowledge  one  another.  For  it  often  
happens  that  when  a  reconciliation  is  effected  by  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  
hostility,  friendship  becomes  even  sweeter  than  it  was  before.  
 
(15.)  Restore  me  then  my  quiet  days,  and  untroubled  nights,  that  the  joy  of  
undimmed  light,  the  delight  of  a  tranquil  life,  may  be  my  portion  from  here  on.  
Otherwise  I  will  be  forced  to  mourn  with  constant  tears,  and  I  will  not  be  able  to  
pass  the  remainder  of  my  days  in  peace.  While  the  people  of  God,  whose  fellow-­‐
servant  I  am,  are  so  divided  among  themselves  by  an  unreasonable  and  wicked  
spirit  of  contention,  how  is  it  possible  that  I  shall  be  able  to  maintain  a  tranquil  
mind?  And  I  will  give  you  a  proof  how  great  my  sorrow  has  been  in  this  regard.  Not  
long  ago  I  visited  Nicomedia,  and  had  intended  to  proceed  immediately  from  that  
city  to  the  East.  It  was  while  I  was  hurrying  towards  you,  and  had  already  finished  
the  greater  part  of  the  journey,  that  the  news  of  this  matter  reversed  my  plan,  so  
that  I  would  not  be  forced  to  see  with  my  own  eyes  that  which  I  felt  myself  scarcely  
able  even  to  hear.  So  open  for  me  by  your  unity  of  judgment  that  road  to  the  regions  
of  the  East  which  your  dissensions  have  closed  to  me,  and  permit  me  speedily  to  see  
you  and  all  other  peoples  rejoicing  together.  Render  due  acknowledgment  to  God  in  
the  language  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  for  the  restoration  of  general  peace  and  
liberty  to  all.  
 
Translation  from  NPNF2  vol.  1,  pp.  515-­‐8,  adapted  by  AJW  
Sections  6-­‐15  also  found  translated  in  NPNF2  vol.  2,  pp.  6-­‐7  and  New  Eusebius,  no.  287  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐17  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
7.  Emperor  Constantine  to  Arius  
Urk.  29  
Reference  
Doc.  33  
numbers  
CPG  2040)  

Incipit   Πάλαι  μὲν  ἐδηλώθη  

Date   27th  Nov.  327  

Ancient  source   Socrates,  HE  1.25.7  

Modern  edition   W.  Bright,  Socrates’  ecclesiastical  history,  2nd  edition  (Oxford:  

used   Clarendon  Press,  1893)  
 
Constantine  the  Great  Augustus,  to  Arius.  
 
It  was  made  known  to  you  in  your  stubbornness  some  time  ago,  that  you  might  want  
to  come  to  our  headquarters,  so  that  perhaps  you  could  enjoy  the  privilege  of  seeing  
us.  We  are  quite  amazed  that  you  did  not  do  so  immediately.  Therefore,  now  board  a  
public  (official)  vehicle,  and  hasten  to  come  to  our  court.  This  way,  once  you  have  
been  in  our  company  and  obtained  favor  from  us,  you  may  be  able  to  return  to  your  
own  country.  May  God  protect  you,  beloved.  
 
Dated  the  twenty-­‐seventh  of  November.  
Translation  by  AJW  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐29  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
8.  Arius  and  Euzoius  to  the  Emperor  Constantine*  
Reference   Urk.  30  
numbers   Doc.  34  
 CPG  2027  

Incipit   Καθὼς  προσέταξεν  ἡ  θεοφιλής  

Date   End  of  327  

Ancient  source  
Socrates,  Church  History  1.26.2  
used  

Modern  edition   W.  Bright,  Socrates’  ecclesiastical  history,  2nd  edition  (Oxford:  

used   Clarendon  Press,  1893)  

Other  ancient  
Sozomen,  Church  History  2.27.6-­‐10  
source  
 
Arius  and  Euzoïus,  to  our  most  reverent  and  pious  lord,  Emperor  Constantine.  
 
(1.)  In  accord  with  the  command  of  your  devout  piety,  sovereign  lord,  we  declare  
our  faith,  and  in  writing  profess  before  God  that  we  and  our  adherents  believe  as  
follows:  
(2.)  We  believe  in  one  God  the  Father  Almighty,  and  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  
who  was  begotten  of  him  before  all  ages,  God  the  Word  through  whom  all  things  
were  made,  both  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth;  who  descended,  and  became  
human,  and  suffered,  and  rose  again,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  will  again  come  to  
judge  the  living  and  the  dead.    
(3.)  We  believe  also  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  in  the  
life  of  the  coming  age,  and  in  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens,  and  in  one  catholic  church  
of  God,  extending  from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other.    
(4.)  This  faith  we  have  received  from  the  holy  gospels,  in  which  the  Lord  says  to  his  
disciples:  “Go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.”  If  we  do  not  so  believe  and  do  not  truly  receive  the  
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  whole  catholic  church  and  the  holy  
Scriptures  teach  (in  which  we  believe  in  every  respect),  may  God  judge  us  both  now,  
and  in  the  coming  judgment.    
(5.)  Wherefore  we  (who  have  been  consecrated  to  the  ministry,  and  hold  the  faith  
and  opinions  of  the  church  and  of  the  holy  Scriptures)  encourage  your  piety,  most  
devout  emperor,  that  we  may  be  reunited  to  our  mother,  the  church,  by  your  peace-­‐
loving  and  devoted  piety,  avoiding  all  superfluous  questions  and  disputes.  Then  
both  we  and  the  whole  church  will  be  at  peace  and  will  offer  in  common  our  
accustomed  prayers  for  your  tranquil  reign,  and  also  for  your  whole  family.  
 
Translation  from  Socrates  (NPNF2  vol.  2,  p.  28),  adapted  by  AJW  
Other  translations  in  New  Eusebius,  no.  295  and  Sozomen  (NPNF2  vol.  2,  p.  277)  
Source: http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-30
*Note: Arius makes concessions with the “mother church”...not sure if this letter was induced by duress
from the Council and the Catholic Church.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
 
9.  Part  of  an  edict  against  Arius  and  his  followers  
Urk.  33  
Reference  
Doc.  28  
Numbers  
CPG  2041  

Incipit   Τοὺς  πονηροὺς  καὶ  ἀσεβεῖς  

Date   333  

Ancient  
Athanasius,  Defense  of  the  Nicene  Definition  39  
source  used  

Modern  
H-­‐G.  Opitz,  Athanasius  Werke,  vol.  2.1  (Berlin:  De  Gruyter,  1940).  
edition  used  

Other  
ancient  
Socrates,  Church  History  1.9.30  and  Gelasius,  Church  History  2.36.1  
Greek  
sources  

Ancient  
Syriac   2  manuscripts:  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  14,528  and  Vatican  Borg.  Syr.  82  
sources  

Modern   Fredrich  Schulthess,  “Die  syrischen  Kanones  der  Synoden  von  

edition  of   Nicaea  bis  Chalcedon.”  Abhandlungen  der  Königlichen  Gesellschaft  
Syriac   der  Wissenschaften  zu  Göttingen,  Philologisch-­‐Historische  
Klasse  N.F.  10,  no.  2  (Berlin:  Weidmannsche  Buchhandlung,  1908)  
pp.  1-­‐2  
 
(1.)  The  great  and  victorious  Constantine  Augustus  to  the  bishops  and  laity:  
Since  Arius  is  an  imitator  of  the  wicked  and  the  ungodly,  it  is  only  right  that  he  
should  suffer  the  same  dishonor  as  they.  Porphyry,  who  was  hostile  to  anyone  who  
feared  God,  composed  a  book  which  transgressed  against  our  religion,  and  has  
found  a  suitable  reward:  namely  that  he  has  been  disgraced  from  that  time  onward,  
his  reputation  is  completely  terrible,  and  his  ungodly  writings  have  been  destroyed.  
In  the  same  way  it  seems  appropriate  that  Arius  and  those  of  like  mind  with  Arius  
should  from  now  on  be  called  Porphyrians,  so  that  their  name  is  taken  from  those  
whose  ways  they  have  imitated.    
(2.)  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.  
 
And  in  another  hand:  
 
God  will  watch  over  you,  beloved  brothers.  
 
Translation  by  AJW  
Other  translation  in  Socrates  (NPNF2  vol.  2,  p.  14)  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐33  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
10.  Emperor  Constantine  to  Arius  
Urk.  34  
Reference:   Doc.  27  
CPG  2042  

Incipit:   Κακὸς  ἑρμηνεὺς  

Date:   333  

Ancient  source  used   Athanasius,  Defense  of  the  Nicene  Definition  40  

Modern  edition  used   H-­‐G.  Opitz,  Athanasius  Werke,  band  2  (Berlin:  De  Gruyter,  
1935).  

Other  ancient   Socrates,  Church  History  1.9.30  

sources   Gelasius,  Church  History  3.19.1  
 
Constantine  Augustus  to  Arius  and  to  Arians.  
 
(1.)  A  wicked  interpreter  is  really  an  image  and  a  statue  of  the  Devil.  For  as  skilled  
sculptors  mould  him  for  an  incitement  to  deception,  as  if  cunningly  contriving  a  
goodly  appearance  of  beauty  for  him,  who  by  nature  is  absolutely  most  base,  that  he  
may  destroy  miserable  persons  by  offering  error  to  them,  in  the  same  way,  I  think,  
must  act  this  fellow,  to  whom  only  this  appears  to  be  worthy  of  zeal:  namely,  to  
proffer  profusely  the  poisons  of  his  own  effrontery.  (2.)  Therefore  he  introduces  a  
belief  of  unbelief  –  new  and  never  yet  at  any  time  seen  since  men  have  been  born.  
Wherefore  truly  that  does  not  seem  at  variance  from  the  truth,  which  long  ago  was  
described  distinctly  by  the  divine  saying:  “They  are  trusty  for  evil.”  (3.)  For  why  can  
anyone  say  this:  that  he  who  no  longer  desires  to  find  any  aid  for  alleviation  has  lost  
the  grace  of  taking  advice?  Why,  then,  do  I  say:  “Christ,  Christ,  Lord,  Lord!”?  Why  in  
the  world  do  bandits  injure  us  daily?  A  certain  harsh  and  violent  audacity  stands  
before  us;  it  roars,  gnashing  its  teeth,  deformed  by  dishonor,  and  wounded  by  
manifold  accusations.  (4.)  Of  course,  it,  just  as  if  scattered  by  certain  storms  and  
waves  of  evils,  in  the  law  and  the  proclamation  about  you  vomits  pernicious  words  
and  in  writing  produces  these,  which  you,  who  do  not  at  all  coexist  with  the  Eternal  
Father  of  your  origin,  have  defined  by  cognition  about  yourself.  In  short,  it  collects  
and  gathers  certain  terrible  and  lawless  impieties,  now  indeed  agitating  tongues,  
now  again  uplifted  by  enthusiasm  for  miserable  persons,  whom,  when  present  for  
security,  it  deceives  and  destroys.  
(5.)  But  now  I  wish  to  examine  the  character  of  its  chief  proponent.  For  what  says  
he?  He  says,  “Either  let  us  hold  that,  of  which  already  we  have  been  made  
possessors,  or  let  it  be  done,  just  as  we  ourselves  desire.”  He  has  fallen  and  in  these  
matters  he  has  fallen  dead;  he  says:  “By  treachery  or  cleverness  of  knavery”  –  it  
makes  no  difference.  He  considers  holy  only  what  has  crept  into  him  through  base  
thought.  He  says:  “We  have  the  masses.”  (6.)  Indeed,  I  myself  shall  advance  a  little  
farther,  that  I  may  become  a  spectator  of  those  wars  of  insanity.  I  myself,  I  said,  shall  
advance,  I  who  have  been  accustomed  to  end  wars  of  senseless  men.  Come  now  Ares  
Arius,  there  is  need  for  shields.  Do  not  do  this,  we  beg;  at  least,  then,  let  Aphrodite’s  
intercourse  detain  you.  But  really,  would  that,  as  you  seem  to  fashion  the  finest  
things  for  the  masses,  so  it  would  be  your  part  to  abound  in  piety  toward  
Christ!  (7.)  Look,  I  come  again  as  a  suppliant  and,  though  powerful  in  weapons  in  
respect  to  the  whole  populace,  I  do  not  wish  to  fight;  but  fortified  by  Christ’s  faith,  I  
desire  you  both  to  be  cured  and  to  heal  others.  (8.)  Why,  therefore,  do  you  say  that  
you  do  these  things,  which  befit  not  your  character?  But  with  what  peace,  tell  me,  or  
encompassed  with  what  abundance,  but  rather,  advanced  with  what  rashness?  Oh,  
audacity  worthy  to  be  destroyed  by  thunderbolts!  For  hear  what  he,  writing  with  a  
pen  distilling  poison,  recently  has  explained  to  me.  He  says:  “Thus  we  believe.”  Then  
I  suppose,  having  added  I  know  not  what  certain  things  somehow  swaggeringly  and  
quite  accurately  elaborated,  he,  going  farther,  left  unsaid  nothing  at  all  of  bitterness,  
but  he  opened  the  whole  –  as  someone  may  say  –  treasury  of  madness.  He  says:  “We  
are  expelled  and  they  take  from  us  permission  to  be  admitted.”  (9.)  But  this  is  not  at  
all  apposite  to  the  matter;  turn  your  mind  to  what  follows,  for  I  shall  use  his  words.  
He  says:  “We  ask  that,  if  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  remains  in  the  same  opinion,  
hereafter  it  be  granted  to  us  –  according  to  the  law’s  arrangement-­‐  to  celebrate  the  
lawful  and  indispensable  services  to  God.”  (10.)  Oh,  terrible  shamelessness,  which  
ought  to  be  refuted  thoroughly  by  the  zeal  for  truth!  For  what  has  happened  to  
please  him,  this  has  been  marked  by  conciseness  of  expression.  What  do  you  say,  
foolish  one?  Do  you  prepare  to  construct  the  disease  of  your  savage  thought  against  
me  as  a  discord,  which  is  specious  in  our  sight?  And  do  you  hasten  to  destroy  the  
persons  involved  with  your  evil?  (11.)  “What,  then,”  you  say,  “Shall  I  do,  if  none  
deems  me  worthy  to  be  admitted?”  For  this  you  often  shout  from  a  profane  throat.  
But  I  shall  speak  against  you:  Where  have  you  shown  a  clear  mark  and  proof  of  your  
intelligence?  And  this  you  ought  to  have  disclosed  and  to  have  established  clearly  for  
gods  and  men-­‐  and  especially  when  poisonous  serpents  even  then  are  by  nature  
more  savage,  when  they  know  that  they  themselves  are  found  in  recesses  of  dens.  
(12.)  But  that  is  indeed  quite  urbane  of  him:  that  quite  eagerly,  just  as  if  under  a  
certain  mask  of  modesty,  he  pretends  silence.  You  indeed  show  yourself  tame  and  
submissive  by  the  artifice  of  pretence;  you  escape  the  notice  of  many,  when  you  
within  are  full  of  countless  evils  and  plots.  But,  oh,  wretchedness!  As  the  Devil  has  
desired,  so  he  had  made  Arius  a  manufactory  of  iniquity  for  us.(13.)  Advancing  now,  
tell  me  the  mark  of  your  faith  and  indeed  not  at  all  be  silent.  Oh,  you  possessor  of  a  
mouth  perverted  and  a  nature  quickly  roused  to  wickedness!  “Do  you  talk  of  one  
God?”  You  have  me  of  the  same  opinion;  think  so.  Do  you  say  that  the  “the  Word  of  
his  essence  is  the  Word  without  beginning  and  without  end?”  I  acquiesce  in  this;  
believe  so.  (14.)  If  you  add  anything  further,  this  I  abrogate.  If  you  join  anything  to  
an  impious  separation,  I  confess  that  I  neither  see  nor  perceive  this.  If  you  accept  
“the  body’s  lodging  in  respect  to  the  administration  of  divine  operations,”  I  do  not  
reject  it.  If  you  say  that  “the  spirit  of  eternity  was  born  in  the  pre-­‐eminent  Word,”  I  
receive  it.  Who  has  known  the  Father,  unless  he  who  comes  from  the  Father?  Whom  
has  the  Father  known,  unless  him  whom  he  has  begotten  from  himself  eternally  and  
without  beginning?  You  think  that  you  ought  to  substitute  a  “foreign  hypostasis,”  
believing  doubtless  badly;  I  know  that  the  plentitude  of  the  Fathers  and  the  Sons  
pre-­‐eminent  and  all-­‐pervading  power  is  one  substance.  (15.)  If,  therefore,  you  
detract  from  him,  from  whom  not  yet  ever  anything  has  been  able  to  be  separated  
even  by  idle  talkers’  process  of  thinking,  you  pave  the  way  for  the  marks  of  addition  
and,  in  short,  you  determine  the  signs  of  inquiries  for  him,  to  whom  he  had  given  
entire  eternity  for  himself  and  uncorrupted  intelligence  and  his  assigned  belief  in  
immortality  through  both  himself  and  the  Church.  Discard  then  this  silly  
transgression  of  the  law,  you  witty  and  sweet-­‐voiced  fellow,  singing  evil  songs  
for  the  unbelief  of  senseless  persons.  (16.)  Quite  fittingly  the  Devil  has  subverted  
you  by  his  own  wickedness;  and  perhaps  this  seems  pleasant  to  certain  persons  (for  
thus  you  have  persuaded  yourself).  But  it  is  in  every  way  a  destructive  
evil.  (17.)  Come  now,  having  departed  from  your  occupation  with  absurdities,  listen,  
good  Arius,  for  I  discourse  with  you.  Do  you  not  understand  that  you  have  been  
barred  publicly  fro  God’s  church?  You  are  lost  (be  well  assured),  unless,  having  
regard  for  yourself,  you  condemn  your  present  folly.  But  you  will  say  that  the  
masses  act  with  you  and  dispel  your  anxieties.  
(18.)  Lend  your  ears  and  listen  a  little,  impious  Arius,  and  understand  your  folly.  O  
God,  protector  of  all,  may  you  be  well  –  disposed  to  what  is  being  said,  if  it  should  
admit  of  faith!  For  I,  your  man,  holding  to  your  propitious  providence,  from  the  very  
ancient  Greek  and  Roman  writing  shall  demonstrate  clearly  Arius’  madness,  which  
has  been  prophesied  and  predicted  three  thousand  years  ago  by  the  Erythraean  
sibyl.  (19.)  For  she  indeed  says:  “Woe  to  you,  Libya,  situated  in  maritime  regions,  for  
there  shall  come  to  you  a  time,  in  which  with  the  people  and  your  daughters  you  
must  be  compelled  to  undergo  a  terrible  and  cruel  and  very  difficult  crisis,  from  
which  a  judgment  both  of  faith  and  of  piety  in  respect  to  all  persons  will  be  given,  
but  you  will  decline  to  extreme  ruin,  for  you  have  dared  to  engulf  the  receptacle  of  
celestial  flowers  and  to  mangle  it  with  a  bite  and  you  have  polluted  it  with  iron  
teeth.”  (20.)  What  then,  knave?  Where  in  the  world  do  you  admit  that  you  are  now?  
There,  obviously;  for  I  have  your  letters,  which  you  have  scraped  with  the  pen  of  
madness  toward  me,  in  which  you  say  that  all  the  Libyan  populace  is  of  the  same  
opinion  with  you  –  doubtless  in  regard  to  salvation.  But  if  you  shall  deny  that  this  is  
so,  I  now  call  God  to  witness  that  truly  I  send  to  Alexandria  –  that  you  may  perish  
more  quickly  –  the  Erythraean  Sibyl’s  very  ancient  tablet,  composed  in  the  Greek  
tongue.  (21.)  Are  you,  then,  really  blameless,  gallows  rogue?  Have  you  not,  then,  
really  perished,  sorry  fellow,  surrounded  by  such  great  horror?  We  know,  we  know  
your  undertaking;  what  kind  of  anxiety,  what  kind  of  fear  troubles  you,  wretched  
and  miserable  person,  has  not  escaped  our  notice.  Oh,  the  dullness  of  your  wits,  you  
profane  person,  who  do  not  restrain  your  soul’s  sickness  and  helplessness,  who  
undermine  the  truth  by  varied  discourses.  And,  since  you  are  such,  you  are  not  
ashamed  to  disparage  us,  now  refuting  (as  you  indeed  suppose),  now  again  
admonishing  (as  if  superior  in  faith  and  in  discourses),  a  person  from  whom,  of  
course,  wretched  persons  are  eager  to  procure  aid  for  themselves,  (22.)  although  
they  ought  neither  to  associate  with  such  a  person  nor,  in  short,  to  address  him,  
unless  anyone  thinks  that  in  this  one’s  rotten  words  and  meters  is  stored  the  hope  of  
living  uprightly.  (23.)  But  this  is  not  so;  indeed,  in  very  truth  it  is  far  from  it.  Oh,  your  
folly,  as  many  of  you  as  associate  with  this  person!  What  madness,  then,  has  
compelled  you  to  endure  this  one’s  bitter  tongue  and  sight?  
(24.)  Well;  but  now  I  shall  proceed  by  my  discourse  against  you  yourself,  you  fool  in  
respect  to  your  soul,  you  wordy  one  in  respect  to  your  tongue,  you  infidel  in  respect  
to  your  wits.  Grant  to  me  a  field  for  discussion  (I  do  not  say  one  wide-­‐spreading  and  
fit  for  horsemanship,  but  indeed  a  circle  easy  to  trace,  not  one  decayed,  but  firm  and  
solid  by  nature),  you  truly  profane  and  basest  and  dissembling  person.  For  I  am  
excited  to  say  these  things;  but  rather,  having  fasted  a  noose  around  you  and  having  
entangled  you  by  discussion,  I  shall  set  you  in  the  midst,  that  all  the  people  may  
observe  well  your  worthlessness.  (25.)  But  I  shall  proceed  now  to  the  matter  itself.  
Certainly,  my  hands  have  been  cleansed.  Let  us  proceed,  then,  to  invoke  God  with  
prayers:  rather,  wait  a  little  while.  Tell  me,  you  very  hasty  one,  what  God  will  you  
invoke  for  aid?  For  I  cannot  keep  myself  quiet.  (26.)  O  Lord,  you  who  have  the  
supreme  authority  over  all  things,  O  Father  of  singular  power,  because  of  this  
profane  person  your  Church  receives  both  reproaches  and  griefs  and  also  both  
wounds  and  pains.  Arius  now  adapts  for  you  a  place  (and  very  cleverly  indeed),  in  
which,  constituting  –  as  I  think  –  a  synod  for  himself,  by  the  law  of  adoption  he  
procures  and  preserves  your  Son  Christ,  born  from  you,  the  bringer  of  our  
aid.  (27.)  Hear,  I  entreat  you,  this  marvelous  faith.  He  thinks  that  you,  Lord,  the  
principle  of  motion,  are  demoted  from  your  place.  He  dares  to  circumscribe  you  by  a  
circle  of  a  defined  seat.  For  where  is  not  your  presence?  Or  where  do  all  persons  not  
perceive  your  activity  from  your  all-­‐pervading  laws?  For  you  yourself  encompass  all  
things  and  it  is  not  right  to  think  of  either  a  place  or  anything  else  outside  you.  Thus  
your  power  with  activity  is  infinite.  (28.)  Do  you,  God,  then  hear;  do  you,  all  the  
people,  pay  attention.  For  this  fellow  is  shameless  and  useless,  who,  having  
progressed  to  the  height  both  of  wickedness  and  likewise  of  lawlessness,  pretends  
piety.  (29.)  He  says:  “Away!  I  do  not  wish  God  to  appear  to  be  subject  to  suffering  of  
outrages,  and  on  this  account  I  suggest  and  fabricate  wondrous  things  indeed  in  
respect  to  faith:  that  God,  when  he  had  made  the  newly  born  and  the  newly  created  
essence  of  Christ,  prepared  aid  for  himself,  as  it  seems  indeed  to  me.  For  what  you  
have  taken  from  him,  this  you  have  made  less.”  Is  this,  then,  your  faith,  spoiler  and  
destroyer?  (30.)  According  to  hypothesis  do  you  accept  as  a  figment  him  who  has  
condemned  the  figments  of  the  heathen?  Do  you  call  foreign  and  –  as  it  were  –  a  
servant  of  duties  him  who  without  reflection  and  reasoning,  in  that  he  coexists  with  
the  Father’s  eternity,  perfected  all  things?  Now  adapt,  if  indeed  you  dare,  adapt  I  say,  
to  God  both  precaution  and  hope  of  what  will  happen,  also  reflection,  reasoning,  
declaration  and  articulation  of  considered  judgment,  and,  in  short,  delight,  laughter,  
grief.  (31.)  What  then,  do  you  say,  one  more  wretched  than  the  wretched,  oh,  truly  
an  adviser  of  evil?  Understand,  if  you  can,  that  in  your  very  knavery  you  are  
destroyed  as  a  villain.  
(32.)  He  says:  “Christ  has  suffered  for  us.”  But  I  already  have  said  that  he  was  sent  in  
the  form  of  a  body.  He  says:”  Truly;  but  it  is  necessary  that  we  seem  not  to  make  him  
less  in  any  respect.”  Then,  mediator  of  wild  beasts,  when  you  say  these  things,  are  
you  not  mad  and  clearly  raving?  For,  look,  the  world  itself  is  a  form  or  at  any  rate  is  
a  figure;  and  the  stars  indeed  have  produced  their  images;  and,  in  short,  the  spirit  of  
this  spheroidal  circle  is  an  appearance  of  existing  things  and  –  as  it  were  –  a  
figuration.  And,  nevertheless,  God  is  present  everywhere.  Where,  therefore,  in  God  
are  outrages?  Or  in  what  respect  is  God  made  less?  (33.)  Oh,  you  patricide  of  equity!  
Consider,  then  conjecturing  from  yourself,  and  conclude,  if  this  seems  to  be  a  sin,  
that  God  is  present  in  Christ.  That  fellow,  then,  has  known  well  the  disgracefulness  
of  his  talk  and  not  slowly  he  brought  punishment  on  himself.  Moreover  doubtless  
daily  sins  are  committed  in  the  world  –  and,  nevertheless,  God  is  present  and  
punishments  are  not  delayed.  In  this  respect,  then,  what  diminution  is  made  in  his  
power’s  magnitude,  if  punishments  are  perceived  everywhere?  Nothing,  I  
think.  (34.)  For  the  mind  of  the  world  is  through  God;  through  him  is  all  stability;  
through  him  is  all  justice;  the  faith  of  Christ  is  without  beginning  from  him.  In  short,  
God’s  law  is  Christ,  having  through  him  boundlessness  and  also  endlessness.  
(35.)  But  you  appear  to  take  thought  from  your  own  self.  Oh,  excessive  madness!  
Turn  now  to  your  own  destruction  the  Devil’s  sword.  See,  then,  all  see  how  he,  when  
pierced  by  the  viper’s  bite,  now  produces  lamentable  sounds;  how  his  veins  and  
muscles,  when  attacked  next  by  the  venom,  evoke  terrible  pangs;  how  his  whole  
emaciated  body  has  wasted  away,  is  full  of  squalor  and  filth  and  lamentations  and  
pallor  and  horror  and  myriad  ills,  and  has  withered  frightfully;  how  odious  and  dirty  
in  his  thicket  of  hair;  how  wholly  half-­‐dead  and  already  exhausted  in  its  glance;  how  
bloodless  in  his  face  and  wasted  under  anxiety;  how  all  things  converging  at  the  
same  time  upon  him  –  frenzy  and  madness  and  vanity  –  through  the  long  time  of  the  
calamity  have  made  him  both  boorish  and  bestial.  (36.)  For  example,  he  does  not  
perceive  in  what  bad  state  he  is.  He  says:  “I  am  exalted  with  delight  and  I  jump,  
leaping  with  joy,  and  I  soar.”  And  again  quite  youthfully  he  says:  “Well,  we  have  
perished.”  (37.)  And  this  indeed  is  true,  for  to  you  alone  wickedness  bountifully  has  
supplied  its  own  enthusiasms;  and  what  had  been  bought  for  a  great  price,  this  has  
been  given  very  easily  to  you.  Come  now,  tell,  where  are  your  august  consuls?  Wash  
yourself,  then,  in  the  Nile,  if  possible,  you  fellow  full  of  absurd  insensibility;  and  
indeed  you  have  hastened  to  disturb  the  whole  world  by  your  impieties.  (38.)  Do  
you  understand  that  I,  the  man  of  God,  already  know  all  things?  But  I  am  in  doubt  
whether  I  ought  to  remain  or  to  depart,  for  I  no  longer  am  able  to  look  upon  this  
person  and  I  am  ashamed  at  sin,  Arius.  You  have  brought  us  into  the  light;  you  have  
hurled  yourself,  wretched  one,  into  darkness.  This  has  appeared  the  end  of  your  
labors.  
(39.)  But  again  I  return  thither.  You  say  that  there  is  a  multitude  of  persons  
wandering  about  you.  That  is  likely,  I  think;  and  take  them,  then,  I  say,  take  them,  for  
they  have  given  themselves  to  be  eaten  by  wolves  and  by  lions.  However,  each  one  
of  these,  oppressed  by  additional  payment  of  ten  capitation  taxes  and  by  the  
expenses  of  these,  immediately  will  sweat,  unless,  running  as  speedily  as  possible  to  
the  salvation-­‐bringing  Church,  he  has  chosen  the  peace  of  love  through  affection  for  
harmony.  (40.)  For  no  longer  will  they,  condemned  for  wicked  complicity,  be  
deceived  by  you  nor  will  they,  entangled  in  your  abominable  investigations,  
continue  to  perish  absolutely.  Your  sophisms  are  clear  and  known  to  all  persons,  at  
all  events  for  the  future.  Nor  indeed  will  you  yourself  be  able  to  accomplish  
anything,  but  in  vain  will  you  contrive,  counterfeiting  both  fairness  and  gentleness  
of  discourses  and  donning  externally  –  so  to  speak  –  a  mask  of  simplicity.  In  vain  will  
be  all  your  artifice,  for  straightway  the  truth  will  circumvent  you,  straightway  the  
rain  of  divine  power  –  so  to  speak  –  will  quench  your  flames.  (41.)  And,  of  course,  
the  functions  of  the  public  services  will  overtake  your  associates  and  likeminded  
persons,  who  have  become  liable  to  the  senate,  unless  indeed  they,  fleeing  as  
speedily  as  possible  association  with  you,  accept  in  exchange  the  uncorrupted  
faith.  (42.)  But  do  you,  iron-­‐hearted  man,  give  to  me  an  evidence  of  your  purpose,  if  
you  have  faith  in  yourself,  and  be  strong  in  the  strength  of  faith,  and  you  absolutely  
will  have  a  pure  conscience.  Come  to  me,  come,  I  say,  to  a  man  of  God;  believe  that  
by  my  interrogations  I  shall  search  your  heart’s  secrets;  and,  if  any  madness  shall  
seem  to  be  in  you,  I,  after  having  invoked  divine  grace,  shall  heal  you  fairer  than  a  
model.  But  if  you  shall  appear  to  be  healthy  in  respect  to  spiritual  matters,  I,  after  I  
have  recognized  the  light  of  the  truth  in  you,  shall  give  thanks  to  God  and  I  shall  
rejoice  with  myself  for  the  sake  of  piety.  
 
(43.)  And  by  another  hand:  May  God  guard  you,  beloved.  
 
And  this  was  executed  by  Syncletius  and  Gaudentius,  magistrians,  when  Paterius  
was  prefect  of  Egypt,  and  was  read  in  the  palace.  
 
Translation  from  Coleman-­‐Norton,  P.R.,  Roman  State  and  Christian  Church,  London:  Society  for  
Promoting  Christian  Knowledge  (SPCK)  1966,  #67.  Used  with  permission.  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-­‐34  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
11.  Arius  –  Thalia  
 
Thalia  literally  means  “abundance,”  “good  cheer,”  or  “banquet”.  It  was  written  in  
verse,  in  order  to  aid  memorization  and  popular  distribution  of  Arius’s  ideas.  
Fragments  of  this  work  survive  in  two  writings  of  his  opponent  Athanasius.  The  first  
is  in  a  report  of  Arius’  teaching  in  Orations  Against  the  Arians,  1.5-­‐6.  This  
paraphrase  has  negative  comments  interspersed,  so  it  is  difficult  to  decide  what  are  
Arius’s  words  and  what  are  comments  of  Athanasius  (Williams  99).  The  second  is  a  
more  direct  quotation  in  On  the  Councils  of  Arminum  and  Seleucia,  15.  Someone  
other  than  Athanasius,  perhaps  even  someone  sympathetic  to  Arius,  may  have  
compiled  the  quotations  (Hanson  10-­‐15,  esp.  12).  We  used  this  quotation  as  the  
basis  of  our  translation.  
 
A  recent  and  thorough  discussion  of  the  text,  meaning,  and  significance  of  Thalia  is  
found  in  Rowan  Williams’  Arius:  Heresy  and  Tradition,  Revised  Edition,  62-­‐66  and  
98-­‐116.  Both  the  translation  found  there,  as  well  as  that  found  in  Hanson’s  Search  
for  the  Christian  Doctrine  of  God,  12-­‐15,  were  consulted  for  this  translation  
(see  bibliography).  
 
See  parallel  Greek  and  English  text  below  
 
…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  
[Williams  suggests  a  section  on  the  Holy  Spirit  may  have  been  omitted  here  (p.  
310).]  
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.  
 
Translation  and  introduction  by  AJW  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-­‐thalia-­‐intro  
 
[Note: “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.”  In reading Thalia one cannot help but to see that Arius’ distinction of the
Father and the Son are such that They are NOT ontological equals; this was clearly
not the case with the Inspiration and the early SDA pioneers: “Jesus said, "I and my
Father are one." The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the
claim that he and the Father were of ONE SUBSTANCE, POSSESSING THE SAME
ATTRIBUTES.” Ellen White {ST Nov 27, 1893 par. 5}

“And He says, ‘I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, EVEN AS THE FATHER
KNOWETH ME, AND I KNOW THE FATHER’ John  10:14, 15, R.V. What a
statement is this!—the only-begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He
whom God has declared to be “the Man that is My fellow” (Zechariah  13:7),—the
communion between Him and the eternal God is taken to represent the communion
between Christ and His children on the earth!” {DA 483.2}

“Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father—one in
nature, in character, in purpose—the only being that could enter into ALL THE
COUNSELS AND PURPOSES OF GOD.” {Patriarchs  and  Prophets, p. 34}
“Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. HE WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED. HE
IS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER, SO THAT IN HIS VERY NATURE HE
IS GOD; and since this is so ‘it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness
dwell.’ Col.  1:19 ... While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of
time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, WHILE CHRIST'S
PERSONALITY HAD A BEGINNING.” — (E.J. Waggoner, Signs  of  the  Times, April 8,
1889)

“The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only begotten son of God.” HE IS
BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire,
nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we
can know about it in these words, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be
little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that
is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of
eternity.” Micah  5:2, margin. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN CHRIST PROCEEDED
FORTH AND CAME FROM GOD, from the bosom of the Father (John  8:42; 1:18),
but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is
practically without beginning…” (E. J. Waggoner, 1890, Christ  and  His  Righteousness,
pp. 19-22)

“CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED; Satan was created, not begotten. As
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON Christ could enter fully into the councils of God.
Because he could not do this as Christ did, envy sprang up in the heart of Satan, and
he began to determine, I will exalt myself. He began to stir up rebellion, to say, God
is arbitrary, and he began also to get his sympathisers. “We are in slavery, and I have
a better plan of government. Choose me as leader, exalt me, and then I will exalt
you.” Do you not see the same principle that has been in the world ever since the fall?
You exalt me and I will exalt you,-perhaps. {E.J. Waggoner Bible Echo and Signs of
the Times February 17, 1896, p. 52.12}
 
“God  alone  is  without  beginning.  At  the  earliest  epoch  when  a  beginning  could  be,—a  
period  so  remote  that  to  finite  minds  it  is  essentially  eternity,—appeared  the  Word. “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness of time, was made
flesh, and dwelt among us. His  beginning  was  not  like  that  of  any  other  being  in  the  
universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s] only begotten Son”
(John 3:16; 1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and, “I
proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42. Thus  it  appears  that  by  some  
divine  impulse  or  process,  not  creation,  known  only  to  Omniscience,  and  possible  
only  to  Omnipotence,  the  Son  of  God  appeared. And then the Holy Spirit (by an
infirmity of translation called “the Holy Ghost”), the Spirit of God, the Spirit of
Christ, the divine afflatus and medium of their power, representative of them both
(Ps. 139:7), was in existence also.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking  Unto  Jesus, page 10)

"Will you please favor me with those scriptures which plainly say that Christ is a
created being?
Answer: "YOU ARE MISTAKEN IN SUPPOSING THAT S.D. ADVENTISTS TEACH
THAT CHRIST WAS EVER CREATED. THEY BELIEVE, ON THE CONTRARY,
THAT HE WAS “BEGOTTEN” OF THE FATHER, AND THAT HE CAN PROPERLY
BE CALLED GOD AND WORSHIPED AS SUCH.”(W.H. Little John Question No. 96,
Review and Herald, April 17, 1883, The commentary, Scripture questions, 'Answers
by W. H. Littlejohn)
“Elder Porter then said that IN SPEAKING OF CHRIST HE SHOULD NOT HAVE
SAID CREATED, BUT “BEGOTTEN.” Begotten is the exact language of the Scripture.
The new birth which we must experience to become the children of God is a new
creation. We are born of the Spirit of God. This is beyond our comprehension.
NEITHER CAN WE TELL HOW CHRIST WAS BEGOTTNE OF THE FATHER. This
is one of the “deep things of God.” {General Conference and Daily Bulletin February
2-4, 1893, p. 120.5}

“It is for the well-being and happiness of God’s creatures that some of his
intelligences should receive “gifts” and “powers” which others do not. UPON
CHRIST, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER (ALL OTHER BEINGS WERE
CREATED BY CHRIST) was bestowed creative, life-giving, and law-making power.
In these he was made equal with the eternal Father. Upon no other being were
bestowed such gifts. With this power Christ not only created all things, but he up-
holds all life in this and every shining world. We read of him, “In whom we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; who is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that
are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him:
and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Colossians 1:14-17. {GCDB
February 2-4, 1893, p. 99.11}

“As the absolute Son, He, who 'in the beginning was with God, and was God,' WAS
BEGOTTEN BEFORE TIMES ETERNAL; as the Son, who was the-God-man, He was
begotten by the resurrection from the dead. So shall we be 'sons of God, being sons,
of the resurrection.' Luke 20:26." (W.W. Prescott Signs of the Times, Jan 8, 1929)

"...ANY IDEA THAT THE SON IS PART OF THE CREATION ITSELF IS UTTERLY
FOREIGN TO PAUL’S CONCEPTION. See Colossians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6;
Philippians 2:6-8. Moffatt makes the expression, "the first-born of all creation,'
plainer by translating the Greek: "born first before all the creation;" and with this
Goodspeed is in substantial agreement.

"THE WORD “BORN” IS USED BECAUSE, IN CONTRASTING THE CREATOR*

WITH HIS CREATION, IT POSTULATES THE NATURE OF THE LORD’S ORIGIN.
HE WAS NOT CREATED AS WERE CREATURES, BUT WAS BORN OUT OF GOD
AS GOD; AND SO IS OF THE SAME NATURE AS THE FATHER. Just as a human
son is born human by nature because his father is human, so the divine Son of God is
by nature "born" God because His Father is God" ("William G. Wirth "The 'Signs"
Question Corner" Signs of the Times, August 5th, 1930)]

 
 
Arius  –  Thalia  in  Greek  and  English  
 
We  have  reproduced  William  Bright’s  text  of  On  the  Councils  15,  (The  Historical  
Writings  of  St.  Athanasius  according  to  the  Benedictine  Text,  Oxford:  Clarendon,  
1881,  pp.  259-­‐60).  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)  
 
The  line  numbers  below  do  not  correspond  to  any  other  edition  of  Thalia;  they  are  
given  for  ease  of  discussion  and  reference  only.  
 
Αὐτὸς  γοῦν  ὁ  Θεὸς  καθό  ἐστιν,   1.  …And  so  God  Himself,  as  he  really  is,  is  
ἄῤῥητος  ἅπασιν  ὑπάρχει.   inexpressible  to  all.  
Ἴσον,  οὐδὲ  ὅμοιον,  οὐχ  ὁμόδοξον   He  alone  has  no  equal,  no  one  similar,  and  no  
ἔχει  μόνος  οὗτος.   one  of  the  same  glory.  
Ἀγέννητον  δὲ  αὐτόν  φαμεν  διὰ  τὸν   We  call  him  unbegotten,  in  contrast  to  him  
τὴν  φύσιν  γεννητόν,   who  by  nature  is  begotten.  
τοῦτον  ἄναρχον  ἀνυμνοῦμεν  διὰ  τὸν   We  praise  him  as  without  beginning  in  
ἀρχὴν  ἔχοντα,   contrast  to  him  who  has  a  beginning.  
ἀΐδιον  δὲ  αὐτὸν  σέβομεν  διὰ  τὸν  ἐν   We  worship  him  as  timeless,  in  contrast  to  
χρόνῷ  γεγαότα. him  who  in  time  has  come  to  exist.
Ἀρχὴν  τὸν  Υἱὸν  ἔθηκε  τῶν  γενητῶν  ὁ   6.  He  who  is  without  beginning  made  the  Son  
ἄναρχος,   a  beginning  of  created  things.  
καὶ  ἤνεγκεν  εἰς  Υἱὸν  ἑαυτῷ  τόνδε   He  produced  him  as  a  son  for  himself  by  
τεκνοποιήσας,   begetting  him.  
Ἴδιον  οὐδὲν  ἔχει  τοῦ  Θεοῦ  καθ’   He  [the  son]  has  none  of  the  distinct  
ὑπόστασιν  ἰδιότητος·   characteristics  of  God’s  own  being  
οὐδὲ  γάρ  ἐστιν  ἴσος,  ἀλλ’  οὐδὲ   For  he  is  not  equal  to,  nor  is  he  of  the  same  
ὁμοούσιος  αὐτῷ. being  as  him.
Σοφὸς  δέ  ἐστιν  ὁ  Θεός,  ὅτι  τῆς   10.  God  is  wise,  for  he  himself  is  the  teacher  of  
σοφίας  διδάσκαλος  αὐτός.   Wisdom  –  
Ἱκανὴ  δὲ  ἀπόδειξις,  ὅτι  ὁ  Θεὸς   Sufficient  proof  that  God  is  invisible  to  all:  
ἀόρατος  ἅπασι,   He  is  is  invisible  both  to  things  which  were  
τοῖς  τε  διὰ  Υἱοῦ  καὶ  αὐτῷ  τῷ  Υἱῷ   made  through  the  Son,  and  also  to  the  Son  
ἀόρατος  ὁ  αὐτός. himself.
Ῥητῶς  δὲ  λέξω,  πῶς  τῷ  Υἱῷ  ὁρᾶται  ὁ   13.  I  will  say  specifically  how  the  invisible  is  
ἀόρατος,   seen  by  the  Son:  
Τῇ  δυνάμει  ᾗ  δύναται  ὁ  Θεὸς  ἰδεῖν   by  that  power  by  which  God  is  able  to  see,  
ἰδίοις  τε  μέτροις   each  according  to  his  own  measure,  
ὑπομένει  ὁ  Υἱὸς  ἰδεῖν  τὸν  Πατέρα,  ὡς   the  Son  can  bear  to  see  the  Father,  as  is  
θέμις  ἐστίν. determined
Ἤγουν  Τριάς  ἐστι  δόξαις  οὐχ   16.  So  there  is  a  Triad,  not  in  equal  glories.  
ὁμοίαις·   Their  beings  are  not  mixed  together  among  
ἀνεπίμικτοι  ἑαυταῖς  εἰσιν  αἱ   themselves.  
ὑποστάσεις  αὐτῶν,   As  far  as  their  glories,  one  infinitely  more  
μία  τῆς  μιᾶς  ἐνδοξοτέρα  δόξαις  ἐπ’   glorious  than  the  other.  
ἄπειρον.   The  Father  in  his  essence  is  foreign  to  the  Son,  
Ξένος  τοῦ  Υἱοῦ  κατ’  οὐσίαν  ὁ  Πατήρ,   because  he  exists  without  beginning.
ὅτι  ἄναρχος  ὑπάρχει.
Σύνες  ὅτι  ἡ  μονὰς  ἦν·  ἡ  δυὰς  δὲ  οὐκ   20.  Understand  that  the  Monad  [eternally]  
ἦν,  πρὶν  ὑπάρξῃ.   was;  but  the  Dyad  was  not  before  it  came  into  
Αὐτίκα  γοῦν,  Υἱοῦ  μὴ  ὄντος,  ὁ  Πατὴρ   existence.  
Θεός  ἐστι.   It  immediately  follows  that,  although  the  Son  
Λοιπὸν  ὁ  Υἱὸς  οὐκ  ὢν  (ὑπῆρξε  δὲ   did  not  exist,  the  Father  was  still  God.  
θελήσει  πατρῴᾳ),   Hence  the  Son,  not  being  [eternal]  came  into  
μονογενὴς  Θεός  ἐστι,  καὶ  ἑκατέρων   existence  by  the  Father’s  will,  
ἀλλότριος  οὗτος. He  is  the  Only-­‐begotten  God,  and  this  one  is  
alien  from  [all]  others
[Williams  suggests  a  section  on  the  Holy  Spirit  may  have  been  omitted  here  (p.  
310).]
Ἡ  Σοφία  σοφία  ὑπῆρξε  σοφοῦ  Θεοῦ   24.  Wisdom  came  to  be  Wisdom  by  the  will  of  
θελήσει.   the  Wise  God.  
Ἐπινοεῖται  γοῦν  μυρίαις  ὅσαις   Hence  he  is  conceived  in  innumerable  aspects.  
ἐπινοίαις  Πνεῦμα,   He  is  Spirit,  
δύναμις,  σοφία,  δόξα  Θεοῦ,  ἀλήθειά   Power,  Wisdom,  God’s  glory,  Truth,  Image,  
τε  καὶ  εἰκὼν  καὶ  Λόγος  οὗτος.   and  Word.  
Σύνες,  ὅτι  καὶ  ἀπαύγασμα  καὶ  φῶς   Understand  that  he  is  also  conceived  of  as  
ἐπινοεῖται.   Radiance  and  Light.  
Ἴσον  μὲν  τοῦ  Υἱοῦ  γεννᾷν  δυνατός   The  one  who  is  superior  is  able  to  beget  one  
ἐστιν  ὁ  κρείττων·   equal  to  the  Son,  
διαφορώτερον  δὲ,  ἢ  κρείττονα,  ἢ   But  not  someone  more  important,  or  
μείζονα,  οὐχί.   superior,  or  greater.  
Θεοῦ  θελήσει  ὁ  Υἱὸς  ἡλίκος  καὶ  ὅσος   At  God’s  will  the  Son  has  the  greatness  and  
ἐστίν,   qualities  that  he  has.  
ἐξ  ὅτε  καὶ  ἀφ’  οὗ,  καὶ  ἀπὸ  τότε  ἐκ   His  existence  from  when  and  from  whom  and  
τοῦ  Θεοῦ  ὑπέστη,   from  then  —  are  all  from  God.  
ἰσχυρὸς  Θεὸς  ὢν,  τὸν  κρείττονα  ἐκ   He,  though  strong  God,  praises  in  part  his  
μέρους  ὑμνεῖ. superior  .
Συνελόντι  εἰπεῖν  τῷ  Υἱῷ  ὁ  Θεὸς   33.  In  brief,  God  is  inexpressible  to  the  Son.  
ἄρρητος  ὑπάρχει,   For  he  is  inhimself  what  he  is,  that  is,  
ἔστι  γὰρ  ἑαυτῷ  ὅ  ἐστι,  τοῦτ’  ἔστιν   indescribable,  
ἄλεκτος·   So  that  the  son  does  not  comprehend  any  of  
ὥστε  οὐδὲν  τῶν  λεγομένων  κατά  τε   these  things  or  have  the  understanding  to  
κατάληψιν  συνίει  ἐξειπεῖν  ὁ  Υἱός.   explain  them.  
Ἀδύνατα  γὰρ  αὐτῷ  τὸν  Πατέρα  τε   For  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  fathom  the  
ἐξιχνιάσαι,  ὅς  ἐστιν  ἐφ’  ἑαυτοῦ.   Father,  who  is  by  himself.  
Αὐτὸς  γὰρ  ὁ  Υἱὸς  τὴν  ἑαυτοῦ  οὐσίαν   For  the  Son  himself  does  not  even  know  his  
οὐκ  οἶδεν,   own  essence,  
Υἱὸς  γὰρ  ὢν,  θελήσει  Πατρὸς   For  being  Son,  his  existence  is  most  certainly  
ὑπῆρξεν  ἀληθῶς. at  the  will  of  the  Father.
Τίς  γοῦν  λόγος  συγχωρεῖ  τὸν  ἐκ   39.  What  reasoning  allows,  that  he  who  is  
Πατρὸς  ὄντα   from  the  Father  
αὐτὸν  τὸν  γεννήσαντα  γνῶναι  ἐν   should  comprehend  and  know  his  own  
καταλήψει;   parent?  
δῆλον  γὰρ,  ὅτι  τὸ  ἀρχὴν  ἔχον,  τὸν   For  clearly  that  which  has  a  beginning  is  not  
ἄναρχον,  ὡς  ἔστιν,   able  to  conceive  of  
ἐμπερινοῆσαι  ἢ  ἐμπεριδράξασθαι,   or  grasp  the  existence  of  that  which  has  no  
οὐχ  οἷόν  τέ  ἐστιν.   beginning.  
 
Translation  by  AJW  
Source:  http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-­‐thalia-­‐greek