secondary sense be called "God," but he is a creature, made out of nothing by the will of the Father, and is changeable and imperfect.

Now this view of Arius did not spring out of the ground, and it did not drop ready-made from heaven. It had its antecedents in the church. What were they? Let us see where some of the views of the great church teachers, from Justin Martyr to Arius, anticipate Athanasius and Arius, and thus notice how both were in a line of development.

Justin Martyr (flourished 150) thought that the Logos came forth from God by generation without division or diminution of the divine substance, and thus he (the Logos or Christ) is the only and absolute Son of God, the only begotten. He is divine therefore in the full sense and may be worshiped. But this generation is not an eternal one immanent in the divine essence, but took place through the will of God before time. Christ is the incarnation of the reason of God, is the first-begotten of God, and thus may be worshiped with the Father, but yet is subordinate to the Father. Justin is not clearly Athanasian, much less Arian. He might be called an undeveloped Athanasian. Had he lived later he would, as Semisch has shown, have subscribed to the Nicene Creed.

Clement of Alexandria (died about 235) has both the formula and the conception of the Trinity. Christ is the Logos of God, active in the world from the beginning, the cause of our being and of our well-being, the only one both God and man, the cause of all things good in us. The Logos became man that we might be taught how we may become divine. Christ as God forgives sin. Here we have a doctrine of Christ's divinity in general harmony with the church view, but not fully defined.

Tertullian (flourished 200) taught that the Logos is a real subsistence, a being proceeding from God and begotten by him, but begotten not from eternity but at some distinct time. There was a time when the Son was not, but this does not make the Son a creature in the ordinary sense (his being is not by creation but by generation or procession-prolatio, "extension" [Apol. 21]), for as to his nature he is one with the Father. He is personally distinct from God, but substantially one with him. The Father is the whole substance, the Son a division or portion of the whole. Tertullian was Athanasian

then as to the substantial oneness of Christ with the Father, as to his absolute divinity in nature, but Arian as to Christ's origin. He might be called an Athanasian Subordinationist.

Origen (died 254) came still nearer to Athanasius in looking upon God as always Father, who always generates the Son (as the sun always generates light and heat) who is his image, his crown, his wisdom, his Logos. There is then a unity of substance with God, he is oμooúotos ("of the same essence") with the Father. At the same time he has a separate hypostasis, which does not mean a separate existence in the human sense, for both God and the Logos have the same will, the same activity, the same thought. Here we have an entirely Athanasian Christ. But still Origen has another side to his Christology. Christ's being, though fully divine, is still derived from God the Father and rests on God the Father. He is the "second God," properly God, but as the image of the Father. He has the attributes of God, but as the emanation and image of the Father. One can pray to him, not as the absolute God, but as the executive of God; and yet it is better to pray to the Father. "Christ is God as is the Father, like him eternal; yet he is the 'second God,' and dependent on the Father."

It will be seen from this review that there was an Arian sideif we may so call it-to some of the great teachers in the second and third centuries; but that this side was a small one, their larger view being that of the actual divinity of Christ. Now suppose someone should take hold of that Arian side, develop it logically, carry it out into a consistent Christology-there you would have Arianism, there you would have a created Christ, with certain divine qualities. It is not meant by this that Arius really carried out in any fair way the subordinationism of Origen and other Fathers, as Neander (Ch. Hist., II, 403, 404) seems to think, for I believe thoroughly with Thomasius (DG., 2 Aufl., 1, 214, 215) that he took that theory out of its connection and use, since with Origen and others it had a different significance, aimed at a different error, as it stood with them against a negation of the independent personality of Christ, against Monarchianism, whereas with Arius it was used against the deity of Christ. The non-Arian side of the Fathers was really their larger and deeper view, for Thomasius is right in saying that in so far as it denied

that deity, it "stood in opposition to the whole historical development hitherto, it was an attempt to lead it back to Ebionism-a fundamental (grundstürzende) heresy."

We have failed to mention one great teacher who is the link between Paul of Samosata and Arius, namely, Lucian of Antioch (flourished 275-303) who is said by some to have also sprung from Samosata, and who shared and taught at Antioch Paul of Samosata's views. Here he had as his pupils all those who afterward became known as Arians, namely, Arius himself, Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Maris bishop of Chalcedon, Theognis bishop of Nicaea, Leontius bishop of Antioch, etc. But in one point Lucian differed from Paul of Samosata, namely, in teaching the separate creation of the Logos before time began and his full personality in Jesus. But Lucian was the father of Arianism. It is significant that Paul was put down from his episcopate in Antioch about 268, and that Lucian himself was out of communion with the church there through three episcopates. But whether these disagreements with the Antioch church were solely due to doctrinal disputes, we cannot tell. Later Lucian stood high in the Greek church, and his followers seemed to feel that they were good Catholic Christians.

Arius, then, a presybter in Alexandria, a pupil of Lucian, came out in the first quarter of the fourth century with a full-fledged Unitarianism, couched in terms made familiar by the discussions of the two preceding centuries. God only is without beginning; the Son had a beginning before all time; the Son is the Logos and wisdom of the Father, but not the Logos immanent in God, but a created being who received a share of the immanent Logos. This created Son created the world, and received so much of the divine favor that he receives the names God and Son of God, though he is unlike the substance or nature of the Father in all respects. Though mutable, God saw that the Son or Logos would remain good, so he bestowed upon him in advance the pay which his life merited. Arius differed from Paul of Samosata in teaching that Christ did not have a human soul. These views Arius set forth with great zeal and polemic vigor, preaching them everywhere, composing hymns, interesting all classes of people, winning followers wherever he could. Of course, his old fellow-students under Lucian took up his views.

Now it is instructive that no sooner did Arius come forth with these ideas than he evoked a bitter opposition. Alexander, his bishop, preached against him with great positiveness, teaching the Athanasian view, which shows that there was a great doctrinal tradition in the church which Arius' view outraged. So interested was Alexander in getting a consensus of opinion on Arius that he called two synods (320 or 321), in both of which the latter was condemned. Arius then appealed to his friends in Asia Minor, those under the influence of Lucian and his circle, and a synod in Bithynia favored him. The strife spread, and Constantine, who had only recently become sole ruler of the Roman world, and who had the heathen idea of the oneness of religion being necessary to the oneness of the state, or if there were differences that they should be held peaceably and buried under outward uniformity, felt that measures must be taken to restore peace to the church. For this purpose he called a council to meet at Nicaea, in Bithynia, where he had a summer palace, twenty miles from his regular capital at Nicomedia. Nicaea was then an important town on the great highway of commerce, and easily accessible by water from all parts of the empire. This is the first ecumenical council (325), a turning-point in the history of the church, a date which stands with 1517 as the best known in church history. It was not actually an ecumenical or universal council, however, as the number of bishops there were at the most only about three hundred, when there were really about eighteen hundred bishops in the empire. Nor was it representative as to sections of the empire, as the whole western church had only seven delegates.

Constantine cared for the council with princely generosity. He paid all the traveling expenses of the delegates and of their presbyters and servants and saw to their entertainment in Nicaea. This brought all the delegates under personal obligation to him, and helped to secure the adhesion of the council to the views indorsed by him.

What was the opinion of the majority of the council when they came together? Bernoulli says that the most of them had no decided views one way or the other. Some were ignorant, others had never heard of the controversy, others looked upon Christ as Lord and Savior without having thought through the theological implications of that belief, others still were willing to vote according to the strongest

arguments, yet others according to the emperor's wish. Though not : acting as president, the emperor was really moderator of the council, hearing one and then another, trying to calm the Hotspurs, producing reasons himself, and making every effort to get some united decision. It is significant of the strength of the Athanasian view that Constantine, though originally surrounded by those entirely or partially in sympathy with Arius, changed his opinion. His bishop at Nicomedia (Eusebius) was an Arian; the bishop at Nicaea itself, Theognis, was an Arian; and the emperor's friend and later panegyrist, Eusebius bishop of Caesarea, the church historian, was at least not a strong Athanasian, but rather a follower of Origen. "He preferred," says Bernoulli "the modal theology of the Orient, poorlydecked out with philosophical tinsel work; and he could not decide to believe in the unity of the nature of the Son with the Father" (Das Konzil von Nicaea, Freib. i. Br. and Lpz., 1896, 9). Naturally the half-heathen Constantine would be inclined to the doctrine of Lucian and Arius, which fitted in well with the Roman pantheon. Then he gave Arius, a presbyter condemned by the councils and bishop of his own province, a seat in the council, where he took part in the debates and explained and defended his views. Besides, as just said, the bishops of the east who were nearest to Constantine were Arians and semi-Arians. When we add to all this the fact that the Arians went to the council with unconcealed confidence that they would be victorious, we may be quite sure on whose side Constantine was at the beginning. The fact that in spite of this tremendous difficulty the Athanasians won both the council and the emperor speaks volumes.

Outside of the dummies and other neutrals, there were three parties at the beginning-the right, center, and left. The right I Seeck (ZKG., XVII, 10 [1897]) says that there were only two parties, and this is true in the sense of the final and logical disposition of the members. But it is not true in the ordinary sense, as may be seen from Eusebius of Caesarea's letter (in Socr. I, 8 and appendix to Athanasius' De Decr.) compared with Theod. I, 6. First, the Arians presented their creed through Eusebius of Nicomedia, which was rejected, then the middle party presented the Caesarean creed, which was accepted with the additions nsisted upon by the Athanasians. The actual numbering in the sources gives two parties (cf. exáтeроv таyμа in Eus., Vita Const., iii, 13, and Ath., De Deor., ii, 3), while the historical facts in the sources imply three. So with the world outside. See also Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism (London, 1882), 52, indorsed by Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, III, 137, note.