The Homoiousians: are they 'Arians'—correcting some misreprentations

Last week, I received the book, How and What You Worship - Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, which contains the papers delivered at the 49th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and published in 2020 by the BYU Religious Studies Center (full book and PDFs available online HERE; videos of the presentations HERE.)

Two of the papers in particular stood out to me: Frederick’s, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine and Covenants 93:1–20”, and Lane's, “Choosing Divinity, Choosing Christ.” Both of these papers contain a misrepresentation of those Christian folk of the fourth century who utilized the Greek term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) to describe the relationship between God the Father and His Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Frederick's wrote:

Debates such as these over the relationship between the Father and Son have deep roots, dating back to the fourth century CE. A similar controversy, which became quite heated and for a time divided the Roman Empire, centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was homoousia (of the same substance) or simply homoiousia (of a similar substance) with the Father. The latter position was termed Arianism after one of its most prominent proponents, a fourth-century bishop named Arius. (Page 15 - link to paper HERE)

And from Lane we read:

Much of this view of Christ and human beings as agents that choose is different than the Christology of historical Christianity. To connect it with traditional christological and soteriological discussion, one could say that, like the Arians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the unity of God the Father and the Son as coming from the perfection of Christ’s will rather than from divine essence or substance. While we would use the Arian term homoiousios, being like God rather than being “of one substance with the Father” (homoousios), for us this does not result in Christ being a creature (that is, not divine) because we do not believe in an ontologically distinct divine substance or essence. (Pages 58, 59 - link to paper HERE)

Neither of the two above authors seem to be aware that the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) was not an “Arian term”. In fact, the folk of the fourth century who held beliefs that emulated those of Arius (i.e. Homoians and Anhomians), repudiated the term. Perhaps even more importantly, two of the most prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. in the fourth century—Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers—embraced those Christians who preferred the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) over ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) as brothers in Christ, and as fellow defenders against Arianism. Note the following:

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [ὁμοούσιον], must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers [ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς], who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence [ὑποστάσεως], and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιου].' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog'. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence [ὁμοιοούσιον],' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιον]?' (Athanasius, De Synodis 41 – NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine)

And:

Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I knew the word ὁμοούσιον, but it greatly helped my belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by ὁμοούσιον while you cannot disapprove it when expressed by ὁμοιούσιον ? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using ὁμοούσιον in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicaea, so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that ὁμοιούσιον does not imply the same belief as ὁμοούσιον ? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one or of a similar substance. The word ὁμοούσιον can be understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that we should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the ὁμοούσιον ? (Hilary pf Poitiers, De Synodis – On the Councils, 88 – NPNF-2, 9.28 - bold emphasis mine)

Shall end this post with the assessments from two patristic scholars that are germane to our topic at hand:

It is certainly true that in the later chapters of the De Synodis Athanasius accepts that those who teach that the Son is homoiousios to the Father are ‘orthodox’, although he continues to maintain the superiority of homoousios to define the relationship of the Father and the Son. This argument is highly significant in the development of Athanasius’ polemic, as for the first time he acknowledges the possibility that a Christian might hold a different theology to his own, and yet not be ‘Arian’. (Gwynn, The Eusebians, p. 43)

In 360 Athanasius realized that Basil of Ancyra and he were basically fighting for the same cause, and held out a proposal of an alliance even if Basil and his friends retained their scruples about the keyword of the Nicene formula, 'identical in essence' (homoousios) : 'Those who accept the Nicene creed but have doubts about the term homoousios must not be treated as enemies ; we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers; they mean the same as we, and dispute only about the word.' The eirenic words introduce Athanasius' longest and best discussion of the meaning of the Nicene formula. The consequent rapprochement between Athanasius and the party of Basil of Ancyra was to contribute much to the ultimate defeat of Arianism. (Chadwick, The Early Church, 1967, p. 144)

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus (a concise, well written, book-length debate)

I first read The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus a few months ago, but recently discovered that it is now available online at academia.edu (LINK), so I thought it would be a good time to bring this interesting book to the attention of AF readers. From the forward of the book, by James McGrath, we read:

The Study of New Testament Christology—the depiction(s) of Jesus articulated by the authors of the New Testament—has never ceased to be of interest. But if it may not be true to say that there has been more interest in the subject in recent years, the past several decades have at the very least witnessed a burst of creativity in the field, with significant new and interesting proposals being offered by a range of scholars. This work has been stimulated in turn by an increased amount of attention to ancient Jewish sources, sparked by the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient literature that was previously neglected or unknown. This has allowed scholars to get a sense as never before of the Jewish context within which Jesus and his earliest followers reflected on who he was. (p. vii)

A bit later, McGrath relates:

The present volume is different from such other volumes in important ways. On the one hand, the contributors share a commit­ment to interpreting the Bible diligently and accurately, and allowing the evidence from the Bible to shape their views. On the other hand, the three christological viewpoints which the authors represent are only relatively rarely found within the same church setting. Trinitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism are typically not found within the same denomination, much less within the same church, and more often than not, adherents to one of the viewpoints will regard the other views as anathema.

And so the fact that the authors are friends across such divides is an important message of the book, one which should not be missed. (pp. x, xi)

But, “the fact that the authors are friends”, does not diminish the passion and resolve that each author has for their respective position—this being evidenced by the clarity provided in their critiques of the opposing views.

Another unique aspect of the book, that I found to be quite valuable, is that each author provides precise definitions of the ‘labels’ given to the view that they defend—'Trinitarianism’, ‘Arianism’ and 'Socinianism’ (pp. xiii-xv).

I really enjoyed this book. The authors are competent and knowledgeable, providing a good defense of their respective views in a format that is concise and readable—without compromising the level of the content.

Hope others will take the time to read the tome, and then share some reflections…

 

Grace and peace,

David

Proverbs 8:22 and Pope Dionysius of Rome

Back on December 30, 2015 I published a post that delved into the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by a number of Church Fathers (LINK). I opened the post with the following:

In the 4th century, one Old Testament text, Proverbs 8:22, became a heated point of contention during the Arian controversy. Interestingly enough, two of the factions involved in the debate—the pro-Arians and the pro-Nicene Church Fathers—introduced interpretations of the text that went against an almost universal understanding by the pre-Nicene Church Fathers who cited it. Though all three parties applied the passage to Jesus Christ, each did so differently. The pro-Arians believed the passage taught that the pre-existent Jesus was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by God the Father. Some of the pro-Nicene Fathers believed that the passage was a reference to Jesus' human nature only, and had nothing to do with his pre-existence (for an early example of this interpretation see Athanasius', Expostio Fidei, circa 328 A.D. - NPNF - Second Series 4.85). Both of these interpretations ran contrary to the pre-Nicene Fathers who taught that the passage did in fact refer to Jesus' pre-existent causation by God the Father (to date, I have found only one explicit exception), while clearly rejecting the pro-Arian novelty that this causation was ex nihilo.

A bit later, I cited nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers’ understanding(s) of Proverbs 8:22. All but one of those CFs applied the passage to the pre-existent Jesus Christ. I would now like to provide one more CF who sided with the eight who constituted the majority—Dionysius of Rome. Athanasius, in his Defence of the Nicene Definition, provided the following from Dionysius:

“Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and godheads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius's opinions ; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God ; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together, For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,—a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons. For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. Equally must one censure those who hold the Son to be a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of things which really came to be; whereas the divine oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once He was not ; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as ye know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes were not ; consequently there was a time, when God was without them ; which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which come to view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I consider, to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works.'

For the sense of 'He created,' as ye know, is not one, for we must understand 'He created' in this place, as 'He set over the works made by Him,' that is, ‘made by the Son Himself,’ And 'He created' here must not be taken for 'made,' for creating differs from making. 'Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee and created thee?' says Moses in his great song in Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O reckless men, is He a work, who is 'the First-born of every creature, who is born from the womb before the morning star,' who said, as Wisdom, 'Before all the hills He begets me?' And in many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to have been generated, but nowhere to have come into being ; which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord's generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making'. Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad ; nor disparage with the name of 'work' the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord ; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is I united. For 'I,' says He, 'and the Father are one ;' and, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved." (NPNF - Second Series - 4.167, 168, bold emphasis mine – link to PDF; Migne's Greek text HERE.)

I found Dionysius’ statement that, "'He created' here must not be taken for 'made,' for creating differs from making” to be quite interesting…

Grace and peace,

David

John Henry Newman’s, Arians of the Fourth Century

It has been about thirty years since I last read Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century [1833 first edition (link); 1871 edition with added appendix (link)]. Though Arians was Newman’s first full-length book, it was the fourth of his books that I had read—An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Apologia Pro Via Sua, and An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent being the prior three.

My current interest in Arians was precipitated whilst reading Rowan Williams’, Arius – Heresy and Tradition (1987, 2001 – Google preview). Williams wrote:

The modern critical study of the subject [i.e. Arius and Arianism] really begins with Newman’s justly celebrated essay of 1833, The Arians of the Fourth Century, a work many times reprinted, which exercised a formative influence on British scholarship in particular. Newman rightly claimed a degree of originality for his interpretation of the roots of Arianism… (p. 3)

Newman’s “originality” concerning “the roots of Arianism” was his belief that it was the theology of “the Church of Antioch” which was the primary source for Arius’ theology. He sharply contrasted this Antiochene church with the “Alexandrian church”. Newman’s contrast concerning these two churches is summed up by Williams in the following selection:

The Alexandrian church is held up, in contrast, as the very exemplar of traditional and revealed religion (ch. I, s. III, passim). So far from Arianism being the product of an unhealthy Alexandrian flirtation with philosophical mystagogy, and adulteration of the gospel by Platonism (pp. 7, 26), it is the result of a systematic refusal of true philosophy, a refusal of the wisdom that pierces the material veil of things, in favour of shallow materialism. In true Alexandrian (or at least Origenian) style, Newman regards certain exegetical options as moral and spiritual in character and effect. Antioch’s exegetical preference is no mere alternative within the spectrum of possible techniques: it is a spiritual deficiency. (p. 4)

Williams immediately follows the above summation of Newman’s assessment with a sharp critique; note the following:

One must charitably say that Newman is not at his best here: a brilliant argument, linking all sorts of diverse phenomena, is built up on a foundation of complacent bigotry and historical fantasy. However, setting aside for the moment the distasteful rhetoric of his exposition, it should be possible to see something of what his polemical agenda really is. The Arians of the Fourth Century is, in large part, a tract in defence of what the early Oxford Movement thought of as spiritual religion and spiritual authority. It works with a clear normative definition of Christian faith and practice, in which ascetical discipline goes hand-in-hand with the repudiation of Protestant biblicism (and Protestant rejection of post-scriptural development in teaching and devotion) and a commitment to the ‘principle of reserve’ a mystagogic approach to the faith in which deep mysteries could be concealed beneath simple forms and words and only gradually unveiled. (pp. 4, 5)

And in the next paragraph:

Newman’s version of the fourth-century crisis, then, rests upon a characterization of Arianism as radically ‘other’ in several respects. It is the forerunner of stolid Evangelicalism, Erastian worldliness (‘carnal, self-indulgent religion’), and—by 1874, anyway—the new style of university theology. (p. 5)

Williams' criticisms of Newman seemed quite harsh, and unfounded to me. I certainly did not discern the “complacent bigotry”, “historical fantasy” and “distasteful rhetoric” in my original reading of Arians. But then, given the fact that Dr. Williams is a highly respected patristic scholar, I wanted to see if I could find some basis for his assessments. Subsequent research revealed that Williams had written a lengthy introduction for the University of Notre Dame Press/Gracewing 2001 edition of Arians. On page XLVI, Williams wrote: “Newman regarded the book in later life with some real embarrassment” (Google preview). To support this assertion, he provided four references from the multi-volume project, Letter and Diaries of John Henry Newman. I have the first thirty volumes of this series, so I was able to look up all four references; and yes, it sure seems that Newman himself did in fact regard Arians “with some real embarrassment”. Note the following:

TO W. S. LILLY – June 27, 1882

My dear Lilly,

I return with this letter your proof.[3]

The article is most singularly interesting and arresting.[4]

I think you praise my Arians too highly; it was the first book I wrote, and the work of a year, and it is inexact in thought and incorrect in language. When at a comparatively late date I was led to re-publish it, I should have liked to mend it, but I found that if I attempted it would come to pieces, and I should have to write it over again.

In saying this, I have no intention of withdrawing from the substance of what you quote from me; on the contrary, I hold it as strongly as I did fifty years ago when it was written; but I feel the many imperfections of the wording.[5]

Very sincerely yours, John H. Card. Newman.

[3] Lilly, who printed this letter in the Fortnightly Review (Sept. 1890). Could not remember what this proof was. [See page 434.

[4] This was ‘Sacred Books of the East’, DR (July 1882), pp. 1-32, reprinted in Lilly Ancient Religion and Modern Thought, London 1884, Chapter III.

[5] At the end of his article Lilly quoted with high praise from Ari. Pp. 81-6. (Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman XXX, p. 105)

It was John Nelson Darby’s Analysis of Dr. Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua (link) that prompted me to deeply ponder and reflect on my original reading of the book; Dr. Williams has now done the same for me concerning Arians of the Fourth Century.

Grace and peace,

David

Proverbs 8:22 and the early Church Fathers

In the 4th century, one Old Testament text, Proverbs 8:22, became a heated point of contention during the Arian controversy. Interestingly enough, two of the factions involved in the debate—the pro-Arians and the pro-Nicene Church Fathers—introduced interpretations of the text that went against an almost universal understanding by the pre-Nicene Church Fathers who cited it. Though all three parties applied the passage to Jesus Christ, each did so differently. The pro-Arians believed the passage taught that the pre-existent Jesus was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by God the Father. Some of the pro-Nicene Fathers believed that the passage was a reference to Jesus' human nature only, and had nothing to do with his pre-existence (for an early example of this interpretation see Athanasius', Expostio Fidei, circa 328 A.D. - NPNF - Second Series 4.85). Both of these interpretations ran contrary to the pre-Nicene Fathers who taught that the passage did in fact refer to Jesus' pre-existent causation by God the Father (to date, I have found only one explicit exception), while clearly rejecting the pro-Arian novelty that this causation was ex nihilo.

All three interpretations utilized the Septuagint version of Proverbs 8:22 which reads:

κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ

Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's English translation (1851), reads as follows:

The Lord made [i.e. created] me the beginning of his ways for his works. (Brenton, The Septuagint With Apocrypha - Greek and English, Hendrickson Publishers 1986 reprint of the 1851 edition, page 795.)

Because the pro-Arians maintained that everything which exists, apart from God the Father Himself, came into being 'out of non-existence' (ἐξ ούκ ὄντων) by God's creative will, this meant for them that God's pre-existent Son (His Wisdom/Word) came into being out of nothing. It was Arius himself who introduced this theological novum (scholars have not been able to identify any Christian writer prior to him who taught that the Son was created ex nihilo). Concerning this teaching of Arius, the modern patristic scholar, R.P.C. Hanson wrote:

The part of Arius' doctrine which most shocked and disturbed his contemporaries was his statement that the Father made the son 'out of non-existence' (ἐξ ούκ ὄντων). (Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 1988, p. 24.)

And a bit later:

Scholars have usually been completely at a loss to account for its ancestry, and those few who suggest that Arius derived it from one or another of the Middle Platonist philosophies have not explained that any philosopher who appears to derive some ultimate reality from non-existence in fact assumes that the creation 'from nothing' took place from already existing formless matter. It is likely that Arius, with his usual ruthless logic, decided that as God had created everything out of nothing (a doctrine which was well established in his day), and as the Son was created, so the Son must have been created out of nothing. (Ibid.)

What Arius and his followers failed to grasp is that when the Church Fathers who wrote prior to the Arian controversy applied the term "created" [Gr. κτίζω] to the pre-existent Son of God, they did so with the understanding that it was a synonym of "beget" [Gr. γεννάω]. In other words, in a Christological context, "created" meant "procreated". This understanding seems to fit quite well with Biblical terminology and themes (e.g. God as Father and Jesus as the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, the only begotten Son, etc.), and is embedded in the broader context of the Proverbs 8.22 passage, for just three verses after Wisdom has been identified as being created/made [Gr. ἔκτισέν] by the Lord/Jehovah, we read that the same Lord/Jehovah "begets" [Gr. γεννᾷ] the same Wisdom.

With the above in place, it is now time to examine how the pre-Nicene Fathers made use of Proverbs 8:22. Two important points will emerge: first, the passage, with only one clear exception, is used with reference to the pre-existent Jesus (contra Athanasius and some other post-Nicene Fathers); and second, the surrounding context does not allow for the Arian sense. I will start with the Greek Fathers, all of which make use of the Septuagint version, and then the Latin Fathers, who also used the LXX, but, of course, translated into Latin.

Justin Martyr -

"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos ; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will ; just as we see happening among ourselves : for when we give out some word, we beget the word ; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word  [which remains] in us, when we give it out : and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another] , but remains the same ; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following : 'If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works [Prov. 8.22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 6.616]. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 6.616] (Dialogue with Trypho, 61 - ANF 1.227, 228.)

"And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, 'The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,' the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number : One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom ; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God ; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning, 'Behold, Adam has become like one of Us,' this phrase, 'like one of Us,' is also indicative of number ; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavour to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth. And it is written in the book of Wisdom : 'If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. [Prov. 8.22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 6.777].  From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 6.777] before all the hills.'" When I repeated these words, I added : "You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created ; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit." (Dialogue with Trypho, 129 - ANF 1.264.)

Irenaeus -

I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father ; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation. He declares by Solomon : "God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding hath He established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew." And again: "The Lord created [Lat. creavit - PG 7/1.1033.58] me the beginning of His ways in His work : He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth ; before the mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me forth [Lat. genuit - PG 7/1.1033.58]. "And again : "When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep ; when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men." (Against Heresies, 4.20.3 - ANF 1.488.)

[NOTE: The above passage is the only exception I have found to the almost universal application of Prov. 8:22 to the pre-existent Jesus. Also, though Irenaeus originally wrote in Greek, the Greek for this section is not extant, and has been preserved in Latin.]

Athenagoras -

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being — I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father in idea and in operation ; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence [i.e. not ἐξ ούκ ὄντων] (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός] ; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος γὰρ, φησὶν, ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 6.909.70.] (A Plea for the Christians, 10.3 - ANF 2.133.)

Clement of Alexandria -

Why repeat to you the mysteries of wisdom, and sayings from the writings of the son of the Hebrews, the master of wisdom ? "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways, in order to His works." [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ -PG 8.192.54] And, "The LORD giveth wisdom, and from His face proceed knowledge and understanding."  "How long wilt thou lie in bed, O sluggard ; and when wilt thou be aroused from sleep?" "but if thou show thyself no sluggard, as a fountain thy harvest shall come," the "Word of the Father, the benign light, the Lord that bringeth light, faith to all, and salvation." For "the Lord who created the earth by His power," as Jeremiah says, "has raised up the world by His wisdom ; " for wisdom, which is His word, raises us up to the truth, who have fallen prostrate before idols, and is itself the first resurrection from our fall. (Exhortation to the Heathen, ch. 8 - ANF 2.194, 195.)

Origen -

In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son of God is one thing, and that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the dispensation (of grace) is another. And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon : " The Lord created me —the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; [Prov. 8:22: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum, et in opera sua antequam aliquid faceret, ante saecula fundavit me. - PG 11.130.8] He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills. He brought me forth." [Lat. generat - PG 11.130.8] He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared : " who is the first-born of every creature." The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. (De Principiis, 1.2.1 - ANF 4.245, 246.)

[NOTE: De Principiis was originally written in Greek, but the Greek for this section is not extant. However, the LXX version of Prov. 8:22 has been preserved in Greek in Origen's Hexpla, and reads: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 16/2.1337-1338.]

Now this Son was begotten of the Father's will, for he is the 'image of the invisible God' and the 'efflulgence of his glory and impress of his substance', 'the firstborn of all creation', a thing created, wisdom. For wisdom itself says: 'God created me in the beginning of his ways for his works'. [Prov. 8:22: ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - GCS 22.349.] If he is an 'image of the invisible God', he is an invisible image; and I would dare add that as he is a likeness of the Father there is no time he did not exist. (Origen on First Principles - Being Koetschau's Text of DePrincipiis Translated Into English, by G. W. Butterworth, 1973, 4.4.1, pp. 314, 315.)

 (101) And in relation to this, we will be able to understand what is meant by the beginnning of creation, and what Wisdom says in Proverbs: "For God,'" she says. "created me the beginning of his ways for his works." [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς  γὰρ, φησὶν, ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.53.75] It is possible, of course, for this also to be referred to our first meaning, i.e. that pertaining to a way, because it is said, "God created me the beginning of his ways." [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.53.75]

(102) But someone will say with good reason that the God of all things is clearly a beginning too, proposing that the Father is the beginning of the son, and the creator, is the beginning of the things created and, in general, God is the beginning of the things which exist. And by understanding the Son to be the Word, he will justify his view by the statement, "In the beginning was the Word," because what is said to be in the Father is in the beginning. (Commentary on the Gospel According to John - Books 1-10, CUA Press, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 80, trans. Ronald E. Heine, pp. 54, 55.)

(111) But it is as the beginning that Christ is creator, according to which he is wisdom. Therefore as wisdom he is called the beginning. For wisdom says in Solomon, "God created me the beginning of his ways for his works," [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.56.80] that "the Word might be in the beginning," in wisdom. It is wisdom which is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation to the structure of the contemplation and thoughts of all things, but it is the Word which is received, taken in to the communication of the things which have been contemplated to spiritual beings. (Commentary on the Gospel According to John - Books 1-10, CUA Press, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 80, trans. Ronald E. Heine, pp. 56. 57.)

(221) But if there are letters of God, as there are, which the saints read and say they have read what is written in the tablets of heaven, those letters are the thoughts about the Son of God wich are broken up into alpha and the letters that follow to omega, that heavenly matters might be read through them.

(222) And again the same one is beginning and end, but he is not the same insofar as the aspects are concerned. For he is the beginning insofar as he is wisdom, as we have learned in Proverbs. Therefore it has been written, "God created me the beginning of his ways for his works." [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.84.36.] (Commentary on the Gospel According to John - Books 1-10, CUA Press, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 80, trans. Ronald E. Heine, p. 77.)

(289) Our proposal was to see clearly "In the beginning was the Word." As for "beginning," it has been demostrated according to the testimonies of Proverbs (see Prov. 8:22) that Wisdom is spoken of and that the notion of wisdom precedes the word that annouces it. So it must be understood that the Word always exists in the beginning, that is, in Wisdom. Since he is in Wisdom, which is called "beginning," he is not hindered from being "with God" and he is God, and he is not simply "with God," but, being "in the beginning" in Wisdom, he is "with God." ("Commentary on John, Book 1", in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, 1998, p. 149.)

[NOTE: For a reason(s) unknown me, Origen, in all his Prov. 8:22 citations in his Commentary on John, and the De Principiis 4.4.1 passage, has substituted "Lord" (Κύριος) with "The God" (Ὁ Θεὸς).]

Eusebius of Caesarea -

Next to the Being of the God of the universe, which is without beginning and uncreate, incapable of mixture and beyond all conception, they introduce a second Being and divine power, which subsisted as the first beginning of all originated things and was originated from the first cause, calling it Word, and 'Wisdom, and Power of God.'

And the first to teach us this is Job, saying: 'But whence was wisdom found? And what is the place of understanding? Man knoweth not the way thereof, nor yet was it found among men, ... but we have heard the fame thereof. The Lord established the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof.'

And David also somewhere in the Psalms, addressing Wisdom by another name, says: 'By the word of the LORD were the heavens established': for in this manner he celebrated the Word of God the Organizer of all things. Moreover, his son Solomon also speaks as follows in the person of Wisdom herself, saying: 'I Wisdom made counsel my dwelling, and knowledge and understanding I called unto me. By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice.'  And again:

'The LORD created me as the beginning of His ways unto His works [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 21.541.75.], from everlasting He founded me, in the beginning or ever He made the earth, and before the depths were made, . . . before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 21.541.75];  . . . when He was preparing the heaven I was beside Him; . . . and as He was making safe the fountains beneath the heaven, . . . I was with Him arranging. I it was in whom He daily delighted, and I was rejoicing before Him in every season when He was rejoicing in having completed the habitable world.' (Preparation of the Gospel - Part 1, 7.12, trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford, Baker 1981 reprint, pp. 320, 321.)

IN regard then to the First Cause of all things let this be our admitted form of agreement. But now consider what is said concerning the Second Cause, whom the Hebrew oracles teach to be the Word of God, and God of God, even as we Christians also have ourselves been taught to speak of the Deity.

First then Moses expressly speaks of two divine Lords in the passage where he says, 'Then the LORD rained from the LORD fire and brimstone upon the city of the ungodly ': where he applied to both the like combination of Hebrew letters in the usual way; and this combination is the mention of God expressed in the four letters, which is with them unutterable.

In accordance with him David also, another Prophet as well as king of the Hebrews, says, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand,'  indicating the Most High God by the first LORD, and the second to Him by the second title. For to what other is it right to suppose that the right hand of the Unbegotten God is conceded, than to Him alone of whom we are speaking?

This is He whom the same prophet in other places more clearly distinguishes as the Word of the Father, supposing Him whose deity we are considering to be the Creator of the universe, in the passage where he says, 'By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made firm.'

He introduces the same Person also as a Saviour of those who need His care, saying, 'He sent His Word and healed them.'

And Solomon, David's son and successor, presenting the same thought by a different name, instead of the 'Word' called Him Wisdom, making the following statement as in her person:

'I Wisdom made prudence my dwelling, and called to my aid knowledge and understanding.'  Then afterwards he adds, 'The LORD formed [i.e. created] me as the beginning of His ways with a view to His works [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 21.884.76.]: from everlasting He established me, in the beginning before He made the earth, . . . before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 21.884.76].  . . . When He was preparing the heaven, I was beside Him."(Preparation of the Gospel - Part 2, 11.14, trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford, Baker 1981 reprint, pp. 531, 532.)

Tertullian -

Indeed, as soon as He perceived It to be necessary for His creation of the world, He immediately creates It, and generates It in Himself. "The Lord," says the Scripture, "possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works [Prov. 8:22: Dominus, inquit, condidit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua - PL 2.213]. Before the worlds He founded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the depths was I begotten." Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning, — I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works, — how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? (Against Hermogenes, ch. 18 – ANF 3.487.)

Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person: “At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways [Prov. 8:22: Primo, Dominus creavit me initium viarum in opera sua - PL 2.161], with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;” that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence. (Against Praxeas, ch. 6 – ANF 3.601.)

[NOTE: In the Against Hermogenes passage, Tertullian translates the LXX term, ἔκτισέ, as condidit; however, in the Against Praxeas passage, he uses creavit.]

Cyprian -

TESTIMONIES.

I. That Christ is the First-born, and that He is the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made.

In Solomon in the Proverbs : "The Lord established me in the beginning of His ways, into His works [Prov. 8:22: Dominus candidit me in initio viarum suarum , in opera sua ante sæcula fundavit me. - PL 4.696]: before the world He founded me. In the beginning, before He made the earth, and before He appointed the abysses, before the fountains of waters gushed forth, before the mountains were settled, before all the hills, the Lord begot me. (The Treatises of Cyprian, 12.2 - ANF 5.515.)

Lactantius -

God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty...

Assuredly He is the very Son of God, who by that most wise King Solomon, full of divine inspiration, spake these things which we have added : "God founded me in the beginning of His ways, in His work before the ages. [Prov. 8:22: Deus candidit me in initio viarum suarum , in opera sua ante secula. - PL 7.462] He set me up in the beginning, before He made the earth, and before He established the depths, before the fountains of waters came forth : the Lord begat me before all the hills ; He made the regions, and the uninhabitable" boundaries under the heaven. When He prepared the heaven, I was by Him : and when He separated His own seat, when He made the strong clouds above the winds, and when He strengthened the mountains, and placed them under heaven ; when He laid the strong foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging all things. I was He in whom He delighted : I was daily delighted, when He rejoiced, the world being completed." (The Divine Institutes, 4.6 - ANF 7.105.)

So ends my survey of the early Church Fathers use of Proverbs 8:22. I am convinced the objective reader will discern that their interpretation of the passage is quite different than that of the pro-Arian and pro-Nicene parties. Whether or not their interpretation is the best understanding of the passage is another question I am leaving 'open' at this time...

Grace and peace,

David

Abbreviations:

ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers (American Edition), edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson

GCS = Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, edited by Christoph Markschies

NPNF =  A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace

PG = J. P. Migne's, Patrologia Graeca

PL = J. P. Migne's, Patrologia Latina