Arius the Libyan: A Romance of the Primitive Church

by Nathan C. Kouns

"Not one of these three opinions satisfieth my mind and heart. The martyr Am-nem-hat taught me when I was a boy that the original faith, which long ages ago preceded the polytheism of Egypt, Assyria, India, China, Greece, Rome, and all other heathen nations, uniformly represented the one God to be a dual, spiritual Being, and that the Divine nature must be a Triad, or Trinity, completed by the birth of a son of this double-natured spiritual God. In the gospels I read that Christ is 'the only-begotten Son of God': a Father begets. He was 'conceived' of the Holy Ghost: a Mother conceives. He was 'born' of a virgin, and for our salvation did live among men. The same holy martyr called my attention to the fact, which I have since carefully verified, that while the Scriptures in no place apply the word 'mother' to the Holy Ghost, the words 'Holy Ghost' are used in them two hundred and twelve times, and were uniformly in the Greek neuter gender, which affirmeth nothing as to sex. He also showed me that Moses called the one God by a name which is the plural number of a Hebrew noun. It hath, therefore, appeared to me to be true that, as far as anything concerning Deity can be expressed in human language, the sacred use of the words 'Father,' 'Son,' 'Holy Ghost,' 'begotten,' 'conceived,' were intended to convey to our minds the idea that in some spiritual sense of sexhood the nature of Deity is that in the likeness and image whereof man was created; and signify a divine family, so far as earthly things can typify spiritual truth. Hence, as I did set forth in my letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and to Alexander of Alexandria, as the Church knoweth, I have always taught that the Son is not unoriginate, nor part of the unoriginate, nor made of things previously existing; but that by the will and purpose of God he was in being before time, perfectly divine, the only-begotten; that before his generation he was not; that we believe in one God alone without birth, alone everlasting, alone unoriginate. We believe that God gave birth to the only-begotten Son, before eternal periods, making the divine family a Triad, through whom he made these periods and all else that was made; that he gave birth to the Son, not in semblance, not in idea, but in truth giving unto him a real existence; and we have refused to profess faith in the teachings of Bishop Alexander, that 'as God is eternal, so is his Son'; 'where the Father, there the Son'; 'the Son is present in God without birth'; 'ever-begotten'; 'an Eternal God, an Eternal Son'; 'the Son is your God himself.'

"But I have never taught this philosophy as an article of faith, binding upon the conscience of believers; and have required of them to profess faith in nothing except what the gospels declare."

The philosophy of Arius struck many as a novel thing. To some of them it seemed to be a rational and beautiful solution of problems which they had pondered long and regarded as insoluble, and had abandoned in despair. To none of them did it seem to be at all tainted with heresy.

But Athanasius had a definite end in view, which closed his ears to any statement the presbyter might make, although he waited courteously until Arius had concluded his remarks, and then exclaimed, "Hast thou not taught that the Son of God was created out of things not existing?"

"Never," said Arius. "Thou knowest I have taught that he was not 'created' at all, but 'begotten'; 'conceived,' not made."

"Hast thou not taught that there was a time when the Son was not?"

"Nay, verily! The word 'time' is thine own, not mine. But I have said 'God was, when he was not.' I have said that 'before he was begotten he was not.' Else how could God beget him? But this was in the beginning, before 'time' was."

"Hast thou not taught that the Father was superior to the Son, and the Son inferior to the Father?"

"Nay, verily! I can not conceive of the words 'superior' and 'inferior' as applicable to the divine nature, or family, any more than I can conceive of thy word 'time' as applied to the divine existence. If thou canst do so, O Athanasius, thou or thy friends, and furnish a definition of the Trinity that does not deny the separate existence of the Son; nor imply identity of person in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or which does not set up three distinct, co-equal Gods, or which does not degrade the Son to the condition of a created Being, made, not begotten, except the definition which I quoted from the philosophy of Am-nem-hat the martyr, and have adopted as mine own, announce thou now, or when thou wilt, such a definition of the Trinity, and, if I can at all comprehend it, I will follow thee to death, if need be, in defense thereof: for lo! these many years have I sought for such a definition and found it not, except in Am-nem-hat's profound aphorism that the true and only idea of Trinity subsisteth in family--Father, Mother, Son: the Father-Ghost, and Christ!"

Then answered Athanasius: "Verily I would not dare to utter a formula of faith upon so high a theme in any hasty or inconsiderate manner. So for the present let that question rest, and I doubt not that the learned bishops who defend the deity of Christ will soon frame out of the Scriptures a definition of the Catholic faith which shall both satisfy all orthodox souls and bring thine own God-dishonoring heresies to light."