The ‘ moral’ unity of the Father and the Son (see above, tavrérns BovAnuaros and ék Tod PeAnuatos) is Unity in that very respect in which the Creator stands over against the self-determining rational creature. Yet the im- mutability, the Oneness of God, must be reconciled with the plurality, the mutability of the creature; here the Logos mediates, 514 7& moAAG yiverat ToAAG: but this must be from eternity:—accordingly creation ts eternal too. Here we see that the cosmological idea has prevailed over the religious, the Logos of Origen is still in important particulars the Logos of the Apologists, of Philo and the philosophers. The difference lies in His co-eternity, upon which Origen insists without wavering. The resemblance lies in the intermediate3 position ascribed to Him between the &yévvnros, (6 Oeds), and the yeynrd; He is, as Hypostasis, subordinate to the Father.
Now it is evident that the mere intellectual apprehension of a system which combines so many opposite tendencies, which touches every variety of the theological thought of the age (even modalism, for to Origen ¢he Father is the Movds, the avrd@eos, while yet He is no abstraction but a God who exists in moral activity, s¢pra) and subtly harmonises them all, must have involved no ordinary philosophical power. When we add to this fact the further consideration that precisely the fundamental ideas of Origen were those which called forth the liveliest opposition and were gradually dropped by his followers, we can easily understand that in the next gene- ration Origenism was no longer either the system of Origen, or a single system at all.
In one direction it could lend itself to no compromise; in spite of the justice done by Origen to the funda- mental ideas both of modalism and of emanative adoptionism (cf. Harnack, pp. 548, note, and 586), to Monarch- janism in either form he is diametrically opposed. The hypostatic distinctness of Son and Spirit is once for all made good for the theology of Eastern Christendom. We see his disciples exterminate Monarchianism in the East. On the left wing Dionysius refutes the Sabellians of Libya, on the right Gregory Thaumaturgus, Firmilian, and their brethren, after a long struggle, oust the adoptionist Paul from the See of Antioch. But its influence on the existing Catholic theology, however-great (and in the East it was very great), inevitably made its way in the face of opposition, and at the cost of its original subtle consistency. The principal opposition came from Asia Minor, where the traditions of theological thought (see above, on Ignatius and Irenzeus, below on Marcellus) were not in sympathy‘ with Origen. We cannot demonstrate the existence of a continuous theological school in Asia; but 1 See Newman’snote d7. p. 186, where the additions in brackets seriously modify his statement in the text. Also cf. za/fr. ch. iv. § 3, and Bigg, p. 179, note 2.
Chalcedonists of the sixth century, but is probably a ‘ consequenz- macherei’ from the above; see*Caspari Ate u. V. Quellen, p. 60, note. But xrioma was sometimes applied to the Son in a vague 2 Cels. i. 34, cf. Alexander’s peottevouca pious Movoyerns. | Sense, on the ground of Prov. viii. 22, a text not used in this way But observe that the passage insisted on by Shedd, 294, erepos | by Origen.
Kar ovglayv kat VTOKELMEVOY 6 Vids TOD Tarpds, does not bear 4 Compare the strong Origenist rejection of Chiliasm, the the sense he extracts from it. ovata here is not ‘essence’ but ‘hypostasis.’ be 2 3 The formula xriopa o vids is ascribed to Origen by the antispiritualism of Origen as contrasted with the realism of Asia Minor, the Asiatic origin of Roman Monarchianism, of Montan- ism.
ANTECEDENTS OF ARIANISM: PAUL AND ‘LUCIAN.
iS (270— 300) certainly speaks with the voice of Ignatius and Ireneus. He deals with Origen much as renzeus dealt with the Gnostics, defending against him the current sense of the regula Jjidei, and especially th literal meaning of Scripture, the origination of the soul along with the body, the resurrection of the re ti the Foner sense, and generally opposing realism to the spiritualism of Origen. But in thus opposing Origen : fat) os not oo re by him (see Socr. vi. 13). He, too, isa student of Plato (with ‘little of his style or e J a realism ° is speculative.’ He no longer defends the Asiatic Chiliasm, his doctrine of the Logos is coloured by Origen as that of Irenzeus was by the Apologists. Ze legacy of Methodius and of his Origenist contem- poraries to the Eastern Church was a modified Origenism, that is a theology systematised on the intellectual basis of the Platonic philosophy, but expurgated by the standard of the regula fide’. This result was a compromise, and was at first attended with great confusion. Origen’s immediate following seized some one side, some another of his system; some were more, some less influenced by the ‘ orthodox’ reaction against his teaching. We may distinguish an Origenist ‘ right’ and an Origenist ‘left.’ Ifthe Origenist view of the Universe was gi h coeternity of the S d Spirit wi;: i i eee eternity he Son and Spirit with the Father was less firmly grasped. Origen had, if we may use the expression, ‘levelled up.’ The Son was mediator between the Ingenerate God and the created, but eternal Universe. If the latter was not eternal, and if at the same time the Word stood in some essential correlation to the creative energy of God, Origen’s system no longer implied the strict coeternity of the Word. Accordingly we find Dionysius (see below, p- 173 sgg.) uncertain on this point, and on the essential relation of the Son to the Father. More cautious in this respect, but tenacious of other startling features of Origen, were Pierius and Theognostus, who presided over the Catechetical School at the end of the century 5. as On the other hand, very many of Origen’s pupils, especially among the bishops, started from the other side of Origen’s teaching, and held tenaciously to the coeternity of the Son, while they abandoned the Origenist paradoxes’ with regard to the Universe, matter, pre-existence, and restitution. Typical of this class is Gregory Thaumaturgus, also Peter the martyr bishop of Alexandria, who expressly opposed many of Origen’s positions (though hardly with the violence ascribed to him in certain supposed fragments in Routh, Red. iv. 81) and Alexander himself. It was this ‘wing’ of the Origenist following that, in combination with the opposition represented by Methodius, bequeathed to the generation contemporary with Nicza its average theological tone. The coeternity of the Son with the Father was not (as a rule) questioned, but the essential relation of the Logos to the Creation involved a strong subordination of the Son to the Father, and by consequence of the Spirit to the Son. Monarch- ianism was the heresy most dreaded, the theology of the Church was based on the philosophical categories of Plato applied to the explanation and systematisation of the rule of faith. This was very far from Arianism. It lacked the logical definiteness of that system on the one hand, it rested on the other hand on a different concep- tion of God; the hypostatic subordination of the Son was insisted upon, but His true Sonship as of one Nature with the Father, was held fast. In the slow process of time this neo-Asiatic theology found its way partly to the Nicene formula, partly to the illogical acceptance of it with regard to the Son, with refusal to apply it to the Spirit (Macedonius). To the men who thought thus, the blunt assertion that the Son was a creature, not coeternal, alien to the Essence of the Father, was a novelty, and wholly abhorrent. Arius drew a sharper line than they had been accustomed to draw between God and the creature; so did Athanasius. But Arius drew his line without flinching between the Father and the Son. This to the instinct of any Origenist was as revolting as it would have been to the clear mind and Biblical sympathy of Origen himself, In theological and philosophical principles alike Arius was opposed even to the tempered Origenism of the Nicene age, The latter was at the furthest remove from Monarchianism, Arianism was 77 i¢s essential core Monarchian; the common theology borrowed its philosophical principles and method from the Platonists, Arius from Aristotle. To anticipate, Arianism and (so-called) semi- Arianism have in reality very little in common except the historical fact of common action foratime. Arianism guarded the transcendence of the divine nature (at the expense of revelation and redemption) in a way that ‘semi-Arianism,’ admitting as it did inherent inequality in the Godhead, did not. They therefore tended in opposite directions; Arianism to Anomceanism, ‘semi-Arianism’ to the Nicene faith; their source was different. ‘Aristotle made men Arians,’ says Newman with truth, ‘Plato, semi-Arians’ (Arians 4, p. 335, note): but to say this is to allow that if Arianism goes back to Lucian and so to Paul of Samosata, semi-Arianism is a fragment from the wreck of Origen, The Origenist bishops of Syria and Asia Minor had in the years 269—272, after several efforts, succeeded in deposing PAUL of Samosata from the See of Antioch. This remarkable man was the ablest pre-Nicene represen- tative of Adoptionist Monarchianism. The Man Jesus was inhabited by the ‘ Word,’ i.e. by an impersonal power of God, distinct from the Aéyos or reason (wisdom) inherent in God as an attribute, which descended upon him at His Baptism. His union with God, a union of Will, was unswerving, and by virtue of it He overcame the sin of man- kind, worked miracles, and entered on a condition of Deification, He is God é« mpoxomijs (cf. Luke ii. 52) by virtue of progress in perfection. That is in brief the system of Paul, and we cannot wonder at his deposition. For the striking points of contact with Arianism (two ‘Wisdoms,’ two ‘ Words,’ mporoma: cf. Orat. c. Ar, i. 5, &c.) we have to account®, The theology of Arius is a compromise between the Origenist doctrine of the Person of Christ and the pure Monarchian Adoptionism of Paul of Samosata; or rather it engrafts the former upon the latter as the eee ee XXvii eee ee XXvii 5 The position of Eusmsius of Czsarea is at the ‘extreme left’ of the Origenist body. (‘A reflex of the unsolved problems of the Church of that time,’ Dorner.) It is as though Dionysius instead of withdrawing and modilying his incriminated statements, had involved them ia a haze of explanations and biblical phrases which left them where they were. But this is not so much Arian- ism as confusion. ‘All is hollow and empty, precarious and am- biguous. With a vast apparatus of biblical expressions and the use of every possible formula, Monotheism is indeed maintained, but practically a created subordinate God is inserted between God and mankind’ (Harnack, p.648). See also Dorner, Lehre der Pers. Chr. Pt. 1, pp. 793798. The language quoted by Ath. below, p. 459, was doubtless meant by Eusebius in an Origenist sense. 6 The theological genesis of Paul’s system is obscure. The theory of Newman that he was under strong Jewish influences ,is largely based upon the late and apparently quite erroneous tradition that his patroness Zenobia was a Jewess; see p. 296, note 9*, and Gwatkin, p. 57, and note 3. Harnack regards him as the representative of ‘archaic’ EHast-Syrian adoption- ism such as pervades the ‘ Discussion of Archelaus with Manes 3’ see Routh, RedZ. v. especially pp. 178—184. But Paul would not have spoken of Mary as ‘ Dei Genetrix,’ p, 128; 1 cannot see more in these ‘Acta’ than a naive adoptionism homologous to the ‘naive modalism’ of much early Christian language, but like it not representative of the entire view of those who use it; we must also note that the statements of ‘ Archelaus’ are coloured by reaction against the docetism of ‘ Manes;’ but Paul may well have taken up this naive adoptionism, and, dy strict Aristotelian logic, developed it as the exclusive basis of his system. Whether Paul’s use of the idea of the Logos betrays the faintest influence of Origen is to me, at least, extremely uncertain.
XXViii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II, § 3 (2).
foundation principle, seriously modifying each to suit the necessity of combining the two. This compromise was not due to Arius himself but to his teacher, LucrAN the Martyr. A native himself of Samosata, he stood in some relation of attachment (not clearly defineabie) to Paul. Under him, he was at the head of a critical, exegetical, and theological school at Antioch. Upon the deposition of Paul he appears not so much to have been formally excommunicated as to have refused to acquiesce in the new order of things. Under Domnus and his two successors, he was in a state of suspended communion?; but eventually was reconciled with the bishop (Cyril?) and died as a martyr at Nicomedia, Jan. 7,312. The latter fact, his ascetic life, and his learning secured him wide- spread honour in the Church; his pupils formed a compact and enthusiastic brotherhood, and filled many of the most influential Sees after the persecution. That such a man should be involved in the reproach of having given birth to Arianism is an unwelcome result of history, but one not to be evaded’. The history of the Lucianic com- promise and its result in the Lucianic type of theology, are both matters of inference rather than of direct knowledge. As to the first, whatever evidence there is connects Lucian’s original position with Paul. His reconciliation with Bishop Cyril must have involved _a reapproachment to the formula of the bishops who deposed Paul,—a thoroughly Origenist document. We may therefore suppose that the identification ot Christ with the Logos, or cosmic divine principle, was adopted by him from Origenist sources. But he could not bring himself to admit that He was thus essentially identified with God the eternal; he held fast to the idea of mpoxown as the path by which the Lord attained to Divinity; he distinguished the Word or Son who was Christ from the immanent impersonal Reason or Wisdom of God, as an offspring of the Father’s Wil/, an idea which he may have derived straight from Origen, with whom of course it had a different sense. For to Origen Will was the very essence of God; Lucian fell back upon an arid philosophical Monotheism, upon an abstract God fenced about with negations (Harnack 2?, 195, note) and remote from the Universe. It was counted a departure from Lucian’s principles if a pupil held that the Son was the ‘perfect Image of the Father’s Essence’ (Philost. ii. 15); Origen's formula, ‘ distinct in hypostasis, but one in will,’ was apparently exploited in a Samosatene sense to express the relation of the Son to the Father. Te only two points in fact in which Lucian appears to have modified the system of Paul were, firstly in hypostatising the Logos, which to Paul was an impersonal divine power, secondly in abandon- ing Paul’s purely human doctrine of the historical Christ. To Lucian, the Logos assumed a body (or rather ‘Deus sapientiam suam misit in hunc mundum carne vestitam, wii infra, p.6), but itself took the place of a soul?; hence all the tamewa) aégers of the Gospels applied to the Logos as such, and the inferiority and essential differ- ence of the Son from the Father rigidly followed.
The above account of Lucian is based on that of Harnack, Dogmg. ii. 184, sgg. It is at once in harmony with all our somewhat scanty data (Alexander, Epiphanius, Philostorgius, and the fragment of his last confession of faith preserved by Rufin. in Eus. #. Z. ix. 9, Routh, Rell. iv. pp. 5—7, from which Harnack rightly starts) and is the only one which accounts for the phenomena of the rise of Arianism, We find a number of leading Churchmen in agreement with Arius, but in no way dependent on him. They are Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris, Theognis, Athanasius of Anazarba, Menophantus; all Lucianists; The first Arian writer, Asterius (see below), is a Lucianist. (The Egyptian bishops Secundus and Theonas cannot be put down to any school; we do not know their history; but they are distinguished from the Lucianists by Philost. ii. 3.) It has been urged that, although Arius brought away heresy from the school of Lucian, yet he was not the only one that did so. True; but then the heresy was al/ of the same kind (list of pupils ‘of Lucian in Philost. ii. 14, iii, 15). Aetius, the founder of logical ultra-Arianism and teacher of Eunomius, was taught the exegesis of the New Testament by the Lucianists Athanasius of Anazarba and Antony of Tarsus, of the Old by the Lucianist Leontius. This fairly covers the area of Arianism proper. But it may be noted that some Origenists of the ‘left wing,’ whose theology emphasized the subordination, and vacillated as to the eternity of the Son, would find little to shock them in Arianism (Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre), while on the other hand there are traces of a Lucianist ‘ right wing,’ men like ASTERIUS, who while essentially Arian, made concessions to the ‘ conservative’ position chiefly by emphasising the cosmic mediation of the Word and His ‘ exact likeness’ to the Father3. The Theology of the Eastern Church was suffering from the effort to assimilate the Origenist theology: it could not do so without eliminating the underlying and unifying idea of Origenism; this done, the overwhelming influence of the great teacher remained, while dissonant fragments of his system, vaguely comprehended in many cases, permeated some here, some there+, Meanwhile the school of Lucian had a method and a system; they knew their own minds, and relied on reason and exegesis. ‘This was the secret of their power. Had Arius never existed, Arianism must have tried its strength under such conditions. But the age was ready for Arius; and Arius was ready. The system of ARIUS was in effect that of Lucian: its formulation appears to have been as much the work of Asterius as of Arius himself. (Cf p. 155, § 8, 6 d¢’Ap. weraypdibas dé5wxe rots idiots. The extant writings of Arius are his letters to Eus. Nic. and to Alexander, preserved by Theodoret and Epiph. Her. 69, and the extracts from the ‘Thalia’ in Ath., pp. 308—311, 457, 458; also the ‘confession’ in Socr. i. 26, Soz. ii. 27. Cf. also references to his dicta in Ath. pp. 185, 229, &c.) Arius started from the zdea of God and the predicate ‘Son.’ God is above all things uncreated, or unoriginate, ayév[v]nros, (the ambiguity of the derivatives of yevvac@a: and 7 amoavvaywyos éwervey, Alex. Alexand. in Thdt.}; the objec- tions of Gwatkin, p. 18, note, are generously meant rather than convincing: the ‘creed of Lucian’ is not usable without dis- crimination for Lucian’s position: see discussion by Caspari A.u.N.Q. p. 42, note.
x It was pointed out clearly by Newman, Arians, pp. 8, 403, but with an eagerly drawn inference to the discredit of the later Antiochene School and of the genuine principles of exegesis as recognised at the present day by Protestants and Catholics alike (see Wetzer und Welte-Kaulen, Airchen-Lexicon, i. 953 sqg., iv. 1116, and Patrizzi as abridged in Cornel. a Lap. 2% Afoc. ed. Par. 1859, pp. xvi. sgg. The Lucianic origin of Arianism was denied by Gwatkin in his Studies, but the denial is tacitly with- drawn in his Avian Controversy. Harnack, Dogimgesch. 11. 598, ii2, 183 sgg. must, I think, convince any open mind of the fact. Consult his article on Lucian in Herzog2. viii. 767 (the best investigation), also Neander 7. Z£. ii. 198, iv. 108; Maller K.G. i. 226, D.C.B. iti. 748; Kélling, vol. 1, pp. 27—31, who makes the mistake of taking the ‘ Lucianic creed’ as his point of departure, _? This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Amcor. 33, and there is no reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eusta- thius, Fragm. apud That. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note s. It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note x, 575, note r.)
3 amapddAaxTov eikéva, which an Arian would be prepared to admit as the result of the mpoxom7j. (See below, § 6, on the Creeds of 341). I cannot regard Asterius as a ‘ semi-Arian:’ the only grounds for it are the above phrase and the statement (Z2b. Syn.) that he attended the Council of 341 with the Con- servative Dianius. But Asterius was as ready to compromise with conservatism as he had formerly been with heathenism, and his anxiety for a bishopric would carry him to even greater lengths in order to attend a council under influential patronage.
4 The letter of Alexander to his namesake of Byzantium in That. i. 4, cannot be exempted from this generalisation.
THEOLOGY OF ARIUS, XXIX yeverOa area very important element in the controversy. See p. 475, note 5, and Lightfoot, Zena. ii. p. 90 sag.
Everything else is created, yeynrdv. The name ‘Son’ ata cys act of Aropreations: Therefore, ie a a there was no Son, nor was God properly speaking a Father. The Son is not coeternal with Him. He was originated by the Father's will, as indeed were all things. He is, then, ray yevntSv, He came into being from non-existence (é ovk dvtwy), and before that did not exist (ob jv mply yévnrat). But His relation to God differs from that of the Universe generally. Created nature cannot bear the awful touch of bare Deity. God therefore created the Son that He in turn might be the agent in the Creation of the Universe—‘ created Him as the beginning of His ways,’ (Prov. viii. 22, LXX.). This being so, the nature of the Son was in the essential point of ayevunoia unlike that of the Father; (&évos rod viot kar? odolay 5 Mathp br. &vapxos): their substances (6mo- ordoets) are avemluixrot,—have nothing in common. The Son therefore does not possess the fundamental property of sonship, identity of nature with the Father. He is a Son by Adoption, not by Nature; He has advanced by moral probation to be Son, even to be povoyerhs eds (Joh. i. 14). He is not the eternal Adyos, reason, of God, but @ Word (and God has spoken many): but yet He is ¢he Word by grace; is no Jonger, what He is dy nature, subject to change. He cannot know the Father, much less make Him known to others. Lastly, He dwells in flesh, not in full human nature (see above, p. xxviii. and note 2). The doctrine of Arius as to the Holy Spirit ae ca but probably He was placed between the Son and the other «ricuata (yet see Harnack ii.
, note 2).
Arian Literature. Beside the above-mentioned letters and fragments of Arius, our early Arian documents arescanty. Very important is the letter of Eus. Nic. to Paulinus, referred to above, § 3(1), pp. xvi., xvili., other fragments of letters, p. 458 sy. The writings 5 of ASTERIUS, if preserved, would have been an invaluable source of information °. Asterius seems to have written before the Nicene Council; he may have modified his language in later treatises. He was replied to by Marcellus in a work which brought him into controversy (336) with Eusebius of Czsarea. With the creeds and Arian literature after the death of Constantine we are not at present concerned.
Arianism was a novelty. Yet it combines in an inconsistent whole elements of almost every previous attempt to formulate the doctrine of the Person of Christ. Its sharpest antithesis was Modalism: yet with the modalist Arius maintained the strict personal unity of the Godhead. With dynamic monarchianism it held the adoptionist principle in addition; but it personified the Word and sacrificed the entire humanity of Christ. In this latter respect it sided with the Docetze, most Gnostics, and Manichzeans, to all of whom it yet opposes a sharply-cut doctrine of creation and of the transcendence of God. With Origen and the Apologists before him it made much of the cosmic mediation of the Word in contrast to the redemptive work of Jesus; with the Apologists, though not with Origen, it enthroned in the highest place the God of the Philosophers: but against both alike it drew a sharp broad line between the Creator and the Universe, and drew it between the Father and the Son. Least of all is Arianism in sympathy with the theology of Asia,—that of Ignatius, Irenseus, Methodius, founded upon the Joannine tradition. The profound Ignatian idea of Christ as the Adyos amd ovyijs mpocA@év is in impressive con- cae with the shallow challenge of the 7zalia, ‘Many words hath God spoken, which of these was manifested in the flesh?
Throughout the controversies of the pre-Nicene age the question felt rather than seen in the background is that of the IDEA OF Gop. The question of Monotheism and Polytheism which separated Christians from heathen was not so much a question of abstract theology as of religion, not one of speculative belief, but of worship. The Gentile was prepared to recognise in the background of his pantheon the shadowy form of one supreme God, Father of gods and men, from whom all the rest derived their being. But his religion required the pantheon as well; he could not worship a philosophic supreme abstraction. The Christian on the other hand was prepared in many cases to recognise the existence of beings corresponding to the gods of the heathen (whether 1 Cor. viii. 5 can be quoted here is open to question). But such beings he would not worship. To him, as an object of religion, there was one God. The one God of the heathen was no object of practical personal religion; the One God of the Christian was. He was the God of the Old Testament, the God who was known to His people not under philosophical categories, but in His dealings with them as a Father, Deliverer, He who would accomplish all things for them that waited on Him, the God of the Covenant. He was the God of the New Testament, God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, manifesting His Righteousness in the Gospel of Christ to whosoever believed. In Christ the Christian learned that God is Love. Now this knowledge of God is essentially religious; it lies in a different plane from the speculative dropfa: as to God’s transcendence or immanence, while yet it. steadies the religious mind in the face of speculations tending either way. A God who is Love, if immanent, must yet be personal, if transcendent, must yet manifest His Love in such a way that we can know it and not merely guess it. Now as Christian instinct began to be forced to reflexion, in other words, as faith began to strive for expression in a theology?, it could not but be that men, however personally religious, seized hold of religious problems by their speculative side. We have seen this exemplified in the influence of Platonic philosophy on the Apologists and Alexandrine Fathers. But to Origen, with all his Platonism, belongs the honour of enthroning the God of Love at the head and centre of a systematic theology. Yet the theology of the end of the third century assimilated secondary results of Origen’s system rather than his underlying idea. On the one hand was the rule of faith with the whole round of Christian life and worship, determining the religious instinct of the Church; on the other, the inability to formulate this instinct in a coherent system so long as the central problem was overlooked or inadequately dealt with. God is One, not more; yet how is the One God to be conceived of, 5 They appear to have comprised the Arian appeal to Scrip- ture of which (considering the Biblical learning of Lucian and what we hear of the training of Aetius, to say nothing of the exegetical chair held by Arius at Alxa.) their use must be pro- nounced meagre and superficial. In the O.T. they harped upon three texts, Deut. vi. 4 (Wonotheism), Ps. xlv. 8 (Adopiionism), and Prov. viii. 22, LXX. (the Word a Creature). In the N.T. they appeal for Monotheism (in their sense) to Luke xviii. 19, ohn xvii. 33 The Son a Creature, Acts il. 36, 1 Cor. i. 24, Col. 1. 15, Heb. iii. 2; Adoptionism, Matt. xii. 28; mpoxomn, Luke ii. 52; also Matt. xxvi. 41, Phil. il. 6, sg., Heb. i. 4; The Son tpentos, &c., Mark xiii. 32, John xiil. 31, x1. 345 inferior to the Father, John xiv. 48, Matt. xxvii, 46, also x1, 27 a, Xxvl. 29, xxviii. 18, John xii. 27, and 1 Cor. xv. 28 (cf. pp. 407, sg.). In this respect Origen is immeasurably superior.
6 They are regarded by Athan., a generation after they were written, as the representative statement of ‘ the case’ for Arianism (pp. 459 S¢-3 324 sgg., 361, 363, 368, &c., from which passages and Eus. c. Marcell. a fragmentary restoration might be at- tempted). For what is known of his history (not in D.C.B.) see Gwatkin, p. 72, note; for his doctrinal position see above, p- Xxviii.
7 A theology which aims at consistency must bo1row a method, a philosophy, from outside the sphere of religion. The most de- veloped system of Catholic theology, that of S. Thomas Aquinas, borrows its method from the same source as did Arius,—Aristotle.
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 3 (2).
XXX what is His relation to the Universe of yéveois and p@dpa? and the Son is God, and the Spirit; how are they One, and if One how distinct?. How do we avoid the relapse into a polytheism of secondary gods? What is—not the essential nature of Godhead, for all agreed that that is beyond our ken—but the mp@rov juiv, the essential idea for us to begin from if we are to synthesise belief and theology, rieris and yvaots?, Arianism stepped in with a summary answer. God is one, numerically and absolutely. He is beyond the ken of any created intelligence. Even creation is too close a relation for Him to enter into with the world. In order to create, he must create an instrument (pp. 360 sgg.), intermediate between Himself and all else. This instrument is called Son of God, i.e. He is not coeternal (for what son was ever as old as his parent?), but the result of an act of creative will. Howthen is He different from other creatures? This is the weak point of the system; He is not really different, but a difference is created by investing Him with every possible attribute of glory and divinity except the possession of the incommunicable nature of deity. He is merely ‘anointed above His fellows.’ His ‘ divinity’ is acquired, not original; relative, not absolute; in His character, not in His Person. Accordingly He is, as a creature, immeasurably far from the Creator; He does not know God, cannot declare God tous. The One God remains in His inaccessible remoteness from the creature. But yet Arians worshipped Christ; although not very God, He is God tous. Here we have the exact difficulty with which the Church started in her conflict with heathenism presented again unsolved. The desperate struggle, the hardly earned triumph of the Christians, had been for the sake of the essential principle of heathenism! The One God was, after all, the