Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God’s attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God’s foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation; foreign in essence from the Father; does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself.

5. Now the commencement of Arius’s Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature, runs thus:—

‘According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones,

Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving,

Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,

Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.

Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions.

I the very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory;

And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.’

And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these19    de Syn. §15. [where the metre of the Thalia is discussed in a note.]:—‘God was not always a Father;’ but ‘once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.’ ‘The Son was not always;’ for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ and ‘once He was not,’ and ‘He was not before His origination,’ but He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ‘For God,’ he says, ‘was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.’ Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. ‘For Wisdom,’ saith he, ‘by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.’ In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God’s own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar20    de Syn. §18; Joel ii. 25., is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the ‘great power.’ The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, ‘The Lord of hosts’ or ‘powers21    Ps. xxiv. 10..’ And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For ‘therefore,’ saith he, ‘as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known22    de Syn. 26, note 7, de Decr. 6, note 8., did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.’

6. Moreover he has dared to say, that ‘the Word is not the very God;’ ‘though He is called God, yet He is not very God,’ but ‘by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.’ And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is ‘the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father’s essence and propriety,’ but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil’s recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that ‘even to the Son the Father is invisible,’ and ‘the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;’ but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees ‘in proportion to His own measure,’ as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension23    Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. κατάληψις was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of ἴδεαι, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none ‘knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him,’ if κατάληψις be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the περιχώρησις, de Syn. 15, ἀνεπιμικτοί, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, ‘searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,’ so the Son, as being ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ alone ‘hath declared Him.’ vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, ’If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour.” Orat. iii. 44., but ‘He knows not even His own essence;’—and that ‘the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien24    de Decr. 25, note 2., and without participation of each other25    de Syn. 15.;’ and, in his own words, ‘utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.’ Thus as to ‘likeness of glory and essence,’ he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius’s fables as they occur in that jocose composition.

7. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage26    Ep. Encycl. 6; Epiph. Hær. 73. 1.? who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counselling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies is not transported? ‘The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered27    Jer. ii. 12.’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind at Arius’s blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, in the words which He has already uttered by the prophet Hosea, ‘Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me28    Hos. vii. 13..’ And soon after, ‘They imagine mischief against Me; they turn away to nothing29    Ib. 15. lxx..’ For to turn away from the Word of God, which is, and to fashion to themselves one that is not, is to fall to what is nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical30    de Decr. 27, note 1. Council, when Arius thus spoke, cast him from the Church, and anathematized him, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius’s error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary, being known as Christ’s foe, and harbinger31    Ib. 3, note 1, §1, note 3. of Antichrist. Though then so great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men flee from that irreligious heresy32    And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erroris eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod hæretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum securitati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494., as I said above, yet since certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pretence, think it, as I then said, little different from the Truth, and call its professors Christians; proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent.

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀρχὴ τῆς Ἀρειανῆς Θαλείας καὶ κουφολογίας, ἦθος ἔχουσα καὶ μέλος θηλυκὸν, αὕτη· «Κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ, συνετῶν Θεοῦ, παίδων ἁγίων, ὀρθοτόμων, ἅγιον Θεοῦ πνεῦμα λαβόντων, τάδε ἔμαθον ἔγωγε ὑπὸ τῶν σοφίας μετεχόντων, ἀστείων, θεοδιδάκτων, κατὰ πάντα σοφῶν τε. Τούτων κατ' ἴχνος ἦλθον ἐγὼ βαίνων ὁμοδόξως ὁ περι κλυτὸς, ὁ πολλὰ παθὼν διὰ τὴν Θεοῦ δόξαν, ὑπό τε Θεοῦ μαθὼν σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν ἐγὼ ἔγνων.» Τὰ δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ κροτούμενα παρ' αὐτοῦ σκώμματα φευ κτὰ καὶ μεστὰ δυσσεβείας τοιαῦτά ἐστιν. «Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ ἦν· ἀλλ' ἦν ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς μόνος ἦν, καὶ οὔπω Πατὴρ ἦν ὕστερον δὲ ἐπιγέγονε Πατήρ. Οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Υἱός· πάντων γὰρ γενομένων ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ πάντων ὄντων κτισμάτων καὶ ποιημάτων γενομένων, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονε, καὶ ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν· καὶ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται, ἀλλ' ἀρχὴν τοῦ κτίζεσθαι ἔσχε καὶ αὐ τός. Ἦν γὰρ, φησὶ, μόνος ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ οὔπω ἦν ὁ Λό γος καὶ ἡ σοφία. Εἶτα θελήσας ἡμᾶς δημιουργῆσαι, τότε δὴ πεποίηκεν ἕνα τινὰ, καὶ ὠνόμασεν αὐτὸν Λόγον, καὶ Σοφίαν καὶ Υἱὸν, ἵνα ἡμᾶς δι' αὐτοῦ δη μιουργήσῃ. ∆ύο γοῦν σοφίας φησὶν εἶναι, μίαν μὲν τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ συνυπάρχουσαν τῷ Θεῷ, τὸν δὲ Υἱὸν ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ σοφίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι, καὶ ταύτης μετ έχοντα ὠνομάσθαι μόνον Σοφίαν καὶ Λόγον. Ἡ Σοφία γὰρ, φησὶ, τῇ σοφίᾳ ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ Θεοῦ θελήσει. Οὕτω καὶ Λόγον ἕτερον εἶναι λέγει παρὰ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ τούτου μετέχοντα τὸν Υἱὸν ὠνομάσθαι πάλιν κατὰ χάριν Λόγον καὶ Υἱὸν αὐτόν.» Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν ἴδιον φρόνημα, δηλούμενον ἐν ἑτέροις αὐτῶν συγγράμμασιν, «ὅτι πολλαὶ δυνάμεις εἰσί· καὶ ἡ μὲν μία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἰδία φύσει καὶ ἀΐδιος· ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς πάλιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλη θινὴ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ μία τῶν λεγομένων δυ νάμεών ἐστι καὶ αὐτὸς, ὧν μία καὶ ἡ ἀκρὶς καὶ ἡ κάμπη οὐ δύναμις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ μεγάλη προσαγορεύεται· αἱ δ' ἄλλαι πολλαὶ καὶ ὅμοιαί εἰσι τῷ Υἱῷ, περὶ ὧν καὶ ∆αβὶδ ψάλλει λέγων· Κύριος τῶν δυνά μεων· καὶ τῇ μὲν φύσει, ὥσπερ πάντες, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Λόγος ἐστὶ τρεπτὸς, τῷ δὲ ἰδίῳ αὐτεξου σίῳ, ἕως βούλεται, μένει καλός· ὅτε μέντοι θέλει, δύναται τρέπεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς, τρε πτῆς ὢν φύσεως. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο γὰρ, φησὶ, καὶ προγινώ σκων ὁ Θεὸς ἔσεσθαι καλὸν αὐτὸν, προλαβὼν αὐτῷ ταύτην τὴν δόξαν δέδωκεν, ἢν ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔσχε μετὰ ταῦτα· ὥστε ἐξ ἔργων αὐτοῦ, ὧν προέγνω ὁ Θεὸς, τοιοῦτον αὐτὸν νῦν γεγονέναι πε ποίηκε. «Εἰπεῖν δὲ πάλιν ἐτόλμησεν, ὅτι οὐδὲ Θεὸς ἀλη θινός ἐστιν ὁ Λόγος. Εἰ δὲ καὶ λέγεται Θεὸς, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀληθινός ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ χάριτος, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς λέγεται ὀνόματι μό νον Θεός. Καὶ πάντων ξένων καὶ ἀνομοίων ὄντων τοῦ Θεοῦ κατ' οὐσίαν, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἀλλότριος μὲν καὶ ἀνόμοιος κατὰ πάντα τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας καὶ ἰδιότητός ἐστι· τῶν δὲ γενητῶν καὶ κτι σμάτων ἴδιος καὶ εἷς αὐτῶν τυγχάνει. Μετὰ τούτων δὲ ὥσπερ καὶ διάδοχος τῆς προπετείας τοῦ διαβόλου γενόμενος, ἔθηκεν ἐν τῇ Θαλείᾳ, ὡς ἄρα καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ ὁ Πατὴρ ἀόρατος ὑπάρχει, καὶ οὔτε ὁρᾷν, οὔτε γινώσκειν τελείως καὶ ἀκριβῶς δύναται ὁ Λόγος τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα· ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ γινώσκει καὶ ὃ βλέ πει, ἀναλόγως τοῖς ἰδίοις μέτροις οἶδε καὶ βλέ πει, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς γινώσκομεν κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύ ναμιν. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, φησὶν, οὐ μόνον τὸν Πα τέρα ἀκριβῶς οὐ γινώσκει· λείπει γὰρ αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ καταλαβεῖν· ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδε· καὶ ὅτι μεμερισμέναι τῇ φύσει, καὶ ἀπεξενωμέναι καὶ ἀπεσχοινισμέναι, καὶ ἀλλότριοι, καὶ ἀμέτοχοί εἰσιν ἀλλήλων αἱ οὐσίαι τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, καὶ, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐφθέγξατο, ἀνόμοιοι πάμπαν ἀλλήλων ταῖς τε οὐσίαις καὶ δόξαις εἰσὶν ἐπ' ἄπειρον. Τὸν γοῦν Λόγον φησὶν εἰς ὁμοιότητα δόξης καὶ οὐσίας ἀλλότριον εἶναι παν τελῶς ἑκατέρων τοῦ τε Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύ ματος· τούτοις γὰρ ἐφθέγξατο τοῖς ῥήμασιν ὁ ἀσε βής· καὶ διῃρημένον δὲ εἶναι καθ' ἑαυτὸν, καὶ ἀμέτ οχον κατὰ πάντα τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν ἔφησε.» Ταῦτα μέρη τῶν ἐν τῷ γελοίῳ συγγράμματι κειμέ νων μυθιδίων ἐστὶν Ἀρείου. Τίς τοίνυν, τῶν τοιούτων καὶ τοῦ μέλους τῆς Θαλείας ἀκούσας, οὐ μισήσειεν ἐν δίκῃ παίζοντα τὸν Ἄρειον ὡς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς περὶ τοιούτων; Τίς οὐ θεωρεῖ τοῦτον διὰ τοῦ δοκεῖν ὀνομάζειν Θεὸν καὶ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγειν, ὡς τὸν ὄφιν συμβουλεύοντα τῇ γυναικί, Τίς δὲ, τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐντυγχάνων, οὐ βλέπει τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῦ ὄφεως τὴν μετὰ ταῦτα πλάνην, εἰς ἣν παρήγαγε σοφισάμενος τὴν γυ ναῖκα; Τίς ἐπὶ ταῖς τοιαύταις βλασφημίαις οὐκ ἐξ ίσταται; Ὁ μὲν οὖν οὐρανὸς, ὡς ὁ προφήτης φη σὶν, ἐξέστη, καὶ ἡ γῆ ἔφριξεν ἐπὶ τῇ παραβάσει τοῦ νόμου· ὁ δὲ ἥλιος πλέον ἀγανακτῶν, καὶ μὴ φέρων τότε τὰς κατὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν ∆εσπότου γε νομένας σωματικὰς ὕβρεις, ἃς ἑκὼν αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ὑπέμεινεν, ἀπεστράφη, καὶ τὰς ἀκτῖνας συ στείλας, τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην ἀνήλιον ἔδειξεν· ἐπὶ δὲ ταῖς Ἀρείου βλασφημίαις πῶς οὐ πᾶσα τῶν ἀνθρώ πων ἡ φύσις ἀφασίᾳ πληγήσεται, καὶ κλείσει μὲν τὰς ἀκοὰς, καμμύσει δὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς, ἵνα μήτε ἀκοῦσαι τοιούτων, μήτ' ἰδεῖν τὸν ταῦτα γράψαντα δυνηθῇ; ὁ δὲ Κύριος αὐτὸς πῶς οὐ μᾶλλον δικαίως κατὰ τούτων, ὡς ἀσεβῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀχαρίστων βοήσει, ἃ καὶ διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Ὠσηὲ προείρηκεν, Οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἀπεπήδησαν ἀπ' ἐμοῦ· δείλαιοί εἰσιν, ὅτι ἠσέβησαν εἰς ἐμέ. Ἐγὼ δὲ ἐλυτρωσάμην αὐτούς· αὐτοὶ δὲ κατελά λησαν κατ' ἐμοῦ ψευδῆ. Καὶ μετ' ὀλίγα· Καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ ἐλογίσαντο πονηρὰ, ἀπεστράφησαν εἰς οὐδέν. Τὸν γὰρ ὄντα τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον ἀποστραφέν τες, πλάσαντες δὲ ἑαυτοῖς τὸν οὐκ ὄντα, εἰς τὸ μηδὲν πεπτώκασι. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἡ οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος ταῦτα λέγοντα τὸν Ἄρειον ἐξέβαλε τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισεν οὐ φέρουσα τὴν ἀσέβειαν· καὶ λοι πὸν αἵρεσις ἐλογίσθη ἡ Ἀρείου πλάνη ἔχουσά τι πλέον τῶν ἄλλων αἱρέσεων, ὅτι καὶ χριστομάχος ἐκλήθη, καὶ πρόδρομος ἐλογίσθη τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου. Εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα τοίνυν, ὡς προεῖπον, αὐτάρκης ἡ τοσαύτη κρίσις κατὰ τῆς ἀσεβοῦς αἱρέσεως πεῖσαι πάντας φεύγειν ἀπ' αὐτῆς· ὅμως, ἐπειδή τινες τῶν λεγομέ νων Χριστιανῶν, ἢ ἀγνοοῦντες, ἢ ὑποκρινόμε νοι, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρόσθεν, ἀδιάφορον πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἡγοῦνται τὴν αἵρεσιν, καὶ τοὺς ταῦτα φρο νοῦντας Χριστιανοὺς ὀνομάζουσι, φέρε κατὰ δύναμιν ἐρωτῶντες αὐτοὺς, ἀποκαλύψωμεν τὴν πανουργίαν τῆς αἱρέσεως. Τάχα κἂν οὕτω συμποδισθέντες ἐπιστομισθῶσι καὶ φύγωσιν ἀπ' αὐτῆς ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου ὄφεως.