Part A: Time Period 275-325

[Peter Kirby]

Relevant to establishing the opinion of contemporaries regarding Arius.

Athanasius defends the opinion of Arius regarding the Son of God being a creation out of nothing, also found in (xxvi).

(xxv) Athanasius of Anazarbos, to Alexander of Alexandria [ca. 320-325] in Athanasius, On the Synods 17.4

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-11/

Why do you find fault with Arius’ men when they say, “The Son of God has been made, a creation out of nothing, (ex ouk ontōn ktisma pepoiētai) and is one with all other things (hen tōn pantōn)?” For in the parable in which all created things are represented by a hundred sheep, the Son is one of them. If then the hundred are not created or begotten things (ktismata kai genēta), or if there are more beings beyond that hundred, then the Son would not be a creation or one of these other things. But if those hundred are all begotten things, and there are none beyond the hundred except God alone, what absurdity do Arius’s men utter by saying that Christ is one among others when they include and reckon him among the hundred?

[Peter Kirby]

This letter of Arius is found in Epiphanius, Panarion 2.69.6 and Theodoret, Church History 1.5.

References to Theodotus, Paulinus, and Athanasius are found in (xxiii), (xxiv), and (xxv). Eusebius of Caesarea, who dedicated books to Theodotus and Paulinus, is also mentioned. The letter is notable for several things, including a claim of support among "all those in the East." It also gives a number of catchphrases attributed to Alexander of Alexandria.

Arius says that he is persecuted for saying "the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning" and for saying "he came from non-being."

(xxvi) Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia [ca. 318-325]

(1.) To that most beloved man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, from Arius, unjustly persecuted by father Alexander because of the all-conquering truth which you, Eusebius, also are defending!

(2.) Since my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and proper to greet you through him, remembering at the same time the innate love and affection which you have for the brothers on account of God and his Christ, because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed];” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself.”

(3.) Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.” (4.) We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full <of grace and truth,> God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. (5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.

I pray that you fare well in the Lord, remembering our tribulations, fellow-Lucianist, truly-called Eusebius [i.e. the pious one].

[Peter Kirby]

Quoted by Athanasius in On the Synods 17.

(xxvii) Fragment of Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Arius [ca. 318-325]

Since you think properly, pray that everyone will think that way. For it is clear to all that the thing which is made did not exist before it came into being; but rather what came into being has a beginning to its existence.

[Peter Kirby]

Quoted by Athanasius in On the Synods 16.2-5.

This letter provides a statement of belief "from our forefathers" according to Arius. It's notable for distinguishing the theology of Arius from other theologies from Valentinus, Manicheans, Sabellius, and Hieracas. It's also notable for its use of Hebrews and again for referencing a large number of other church leaders alongside Arius, including Euzoios who later baptized Constantius, as seen from (xx).

I have bracketed the phrase "whom the Arians (later) set up (as bishop) at Alexandria" as falling after the true end of the quoted letter. This part of the letter is quoted in Epiphanius, Panarion 2.69.

It is a later letter with a different audience (Alexander of Alexandria) than the letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. This letter does not present the idea that the Son was created out of nothing, as in (xxvi), but it still says that the Son is "neither eternal nor co-eternal," with the more reserved language "begotten apart from time before all things."

(xxviii) Arius to Alexander of Alexandria [ca. 318-325]

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-6/

(1.) The priests and deacons to our blessed father and bishop, Alexander; greetings in the Lord.

(2.) Our faith from our forefathers, which also we learned from you, blessed father, is this: We acknowledge One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament; who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made; who begot Him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature (ktisma) of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten; (3.) nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an emanation (probolē); nor as the Manicheans taught that the offspring was a one-in-essence-portion (meros homoousion) of the Father; nor as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-Father; nor as Hieracas speaks of one torch [lit] from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor that he who existed before was later generated or created anew into a Son, as you yourself, O blessed father, have often condemned both in church services and in council meetings; but, as we say, he was created at the will of God, before time and before the ages, and came to life and being from the Father, and the glories which coexist in him are from the Father.

(4.) For when giving to him [the Son] the inheritance of all things [Heb 1:2], the Father did not deprive himself of what he has without beginning in himself; for he is the source of all things. Thus there are three subsisting realities (hypostaseis). And God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely alone without beginning; but the Son, begotten apart from time by the Father, and created (ktistheis) and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence (hypestē) from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten beginnings. But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son, as we have learned also from your public preaching in the church.

(5.) Therefore he thus has his being from God; and glories, and life, and all things have been given over to him; in this way God is his beginning. For he is over him, as his God and being before him. But if the expressions from him [Rom. 11:36] and from the womb [Ps. 109:3 (LXX), 110:3 English] and I came from the Father, and I have come [John 16:28], are understood by some to mean that he is part of him [the Father], one in essence or as an emanation, then the Father is, according to them, compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, the incorporeal God endures a body.

(6.) I pray that you fare well in the Lord, blessed father. Arius; the priests Aethales, Achilles, Carpones, Sarmatas and Arius; the deacons Euzoios, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius; the bishops Secundas of the Pentapolis, Theonas of Libya, and Pistus [whom the Arians (later) set up (as bishop) at Alexandria].

[Peter Kirby]

Notable for the argument from Eusebius of Caesarea that the Father must have existed before the Son, also held by Arius in (xxvi) and by Eusebius of Nicomedia in (xxvii).

Quoted from Eusebius in 2nd Council of Nicaea, Sessions 5 and 6.

(xxix) A letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Euphration [ca. 318-324]

https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-3/

For we do not say that the Son is coexisting with the Father, but instead that the Father existed before the Son. For if they coexisted, how could the Father be a father, and the Son be a son? Or how could one indeed be the first, and the other second? And how could one be unbegotten and the other begotten? For the two, if they are equal, likewise exist mutually and are honored equally, one must conclude that either they are both unbegotten or both begotten, as I have said, but it is clear that neither of these is true. For they are neither both unbegotten nor both begotten. For one is indeed the first and best and leads to/precedes the second, both in order and in honor, so that he is the occasion for the second’s existing and for his existing in this particular way.

(2.) For the Son of God himself, who quite clearly knows all things, knows that he is different from, less, and inferior to the Father, and with full piety also teaches us this when he says, “The Father who sent me is greater than me” [John 14:28].

(3.) But he teaches that that one [the Father] is alone true when he says, “that they may know you, the only true God” [John 17:3], not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of true. For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is. For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed. But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for [Scripture says] “and the Word was God” [John 1:1], but not as the only true God.

[Peter Kirby]

Like the Chronicon Pascale in (xix) and Epiphanius in (xxii), Ammianus Marcellinus indicates how Eusebius of Nicomedia had special access to the imperial family, being himself a relative of the later emperor Julian of the Constantinian dynasty.

(xxx) Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman Antiquities 22.7.4 and 22.9.4 [ca. 380-390]

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... n/22*.html

Eusebius besides, who had been made Constantius' grand chamberlain, a man full of pride and cruelty, was condemned to death by the judges. This man, who had been raised from the lowest station to a position which enabled him almost to give orders like those of the emperor himself,​ and in consequence had become intolerable, Adrastia, the judge of human acts,​ had plucked by the ear (as the saying is) and warned him to live with more restraint; and when he demurred, she threw him headlong, as if from a lofty cliff.

And certain of them he recognised, since he [Julian] had been brought up there [Nicomedia] under the bishop Eusebius,​ whose distant relative he was.

[Peter Kirby]

These fragments are collected in English from references in R. P. C. Hanson, The Origins of the Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 33-35, based on Bardy, Lucien d' Antioch. These references go back to a treatise (Syntagmation) of Asterius. The fragments are described from a modern academic perspective, based on the references from Athanasius of Alexandria.

References to Asterius from Eusebius of Caesarea through Marcellus of Ancyra are given later in (xxxiii).

(xxxi) Fragments of Syntagmation of Asterius [ca. 310-325]

Fragment I (De Synodis 18; Orationes con Arianos I.32)

Here Asterius distinguishes between two types of power and wisdom in God, appealing to 1 Cor 1:24 and Rom 1:20. One is 'the peculiar' (idian) power and wisdom of God (without a definite article), which is natural and innate (sunuparchousan) unoriginatedly and is that which produces and creates the whole world, the 'invisible power and Godhead' of Romans 1:20, that is of the Father himself. The other power and wisdom is manifested by Christ and is visible 'through the products themselves of his ministerial activity'.

Fragment II (De Synodis 18; Orationes con Arianos I.32)

God's eternal power and wisdom, which the Bible calls 'without beginning' and 'unoriginated', and distinguished from the many powers which are created by God, of which Christ is the first-born (prototokos) and only begotten (monogenēs). Other examples of these powers are the locust (Joel 2:25) and the powers which are called upon to praise God (e.g. Psalms 103 (102): 21).

Fragment III (De Synodis 19)

Christ is the first of the things which have come into existence (genētōn), and one of the spiritual natures (noētōn phuseōn),just as
the sun, which is itself one of the phenomena (phainomena), illuminates everything.

Fragment IV (De Synodis 19)

Before the production of the Son the Father had a pre-existent capacity (epistēmen) to produce, just as before a physician cures he has a capacity to heal.

Fragment V (De Synodis 19)

The Son was created by (God's) dynamic abundance (energetikē philotimia), and the Father made him out of the overflow (periousia) of his power.

Fragment VI (De Synodis 19)

If the will of God travelled through all the creatures successively, it is evident that the Son, who is a creature (poiēma) came into existence and has been made by his will.

Fragment VII (Orationes can Arianos I.30)

That which has not been made but has existed always is unoriginated (agenētōn).

Fragment VIII (Orationes can Arianos II.24)

When God desired to have a created nature, he saw that nature could not endure to experience his unmediated hand (akratou cheiros), so he first makes and creates, himself sole, a sole being, and he calls this Son and Logos so that through this as a mediator the rest could be created.

Fragment IX (Orationes can Arianos II.28)

(The Son) is a creature and one of the products (genētōn); he learnt to create as from a teacher and craftsman, and so he ministered to God who taught him.

Fragment X (Orationes can Arianos II.38)

He is not a Son because of a birth (gennēsin) from a father and as peculiar (idion) to his substance (ousia), but he is Logos for the sake of rational things, and Wisdom for the sake of things endowed with wisdom, and Power for the sake of empowered things, and so he is called a Son for the sake of those who are made sons (uiopoioumenous).

Fragment XI (Orationes can Arianos II.40)

There is one Logos of God, but many rational beings; and one substance and nature of wisdom, but many wise and good beings.

Fragment XII (Orationes can Arianos II.40)

You would hardly call the children of God words (logoi) or full of wisdom. There is only one Logos and Wisdom, and the substance of the Logos could not be attributed to the great majority (to plēthei) of the children, nor the name of wisdom.

Fragment XIII (Orationes can Arianos III.10)

Since what the Father wishes the Son also wishes and he (the Son) does not oppose him in either his ideas or his judgements, but is in everything harmonious (sumphōnos) with him, and presents identity of doctrines and a consistent and exact correspondence with the Father's teaching, for this reason he and the Father are one (John 10:30).

Fragment XV (Orationes can Arianos III.60)

This fragment is concerned to maintain that creation is not unworthy of God, nor is the will to create, and 'let his superiority be postulated in the case of the first product' (genēmatos, i.e. the Son).

Fragment XVI (De Decret 20)

The argument is here that all the epithets applied to Christ are also in the Bible applied to us: 'Like' (omoios): man is the image and glory of God (1 Cor 11:7); 'forever' (aei): we who live are for ever ... (2 Cor 4:11); 'in him' (i.e. in God): in him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28); 'immutable'; it is written that nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35); on the subject of 'the power'; the locust and the caterpillar are called 'the power' and even 'the great power' (Joel 2:25), and often it is applied to the people, for instance 'all the power of the Lord went out from Egypt' (Exod 12:44), and there are other heavenly powers: for the text runs 'the Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge' (Ps 46 (45):8).

[Peter Kirby]

The Thalia of Arius is introduced with this comment here: https://fourthcentury.com/arius-thalia-greek/

We have reproduced William Bright’s text of On the Councils 15, (The Historical Writings of St. Athanasius according to the Benedictine Text, Oxford: Clarendon, 1881, pp. 259-60). When compared to Opitz’ more recent edition of the text, we found that our text varies only in punctuation, capitalization, and one variant reading (χρόνῳ for χρόνοις, line 5)

The line numbers below do not correspond to any other edition of Thalia; they are given for ease of discussion and reference only.

(xxxii) Thalia of Arius [ca. 318-325]

Αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς καθό ἐστιν, ἄῤῥητος ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει. Ἴσον, οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνος οὗτος. Ἀγέννητον δὲ αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννητόν, τοῦτον ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα, ἀΐδιον δὲ αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνῷ γεγαότα.	1. …And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar, and no one of the same glory. We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.
Ἀρχὴν τὸν Υἱὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γενητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος, καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς Υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας, Ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος· οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.	6. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him. He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being as him.
Σοφὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αὐτός. Ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι, τοῖς τε διὰ Υἱοῦ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ Υἱῷ ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός.	10. God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom – Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all: He is is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself.
Ῥητῶς δὲ λέξω, πῶς τῷ Υἱῷ ὁρᾶται ὁ ἀόρατος, Τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἰδεῖν ἰδίοις τε μέτροις ὑπομένει ὁ Υἱὸς ἰδεῖν τὸν Πατέρα, ὡς θέμις ἐστίν.	13. I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son: by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure, the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined
Ἤγουν Τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις· ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν, μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δόξαις ἐπ’ ἄπειρον. Ξένος τοῦ Υἱοῦ κατ’ οὐσίαν ὁ Πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὑπάρχει.	16. So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings are not mixed together among themselves. As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other. The Father in his essence is foreign to the Son, because he exists without beginning.
Σύνες ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν· ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ. Αὐτίκα γοῦν, Υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος, ὁ Πατὴρ Θεός ἐστι. Λοιπὸν ὁ Υἱὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὑπῆρξε δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ), μονογενὴς Θεός ἐστι, καὶ ἑκατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος.	20. Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence. It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will, He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others
Ἡ Σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ Θεοῦ θελήσει. Ἐπινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις Πνεῦμα, δύναμις, σοφία, δόξα Θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ Λόγος οὗτος. Σύνες, ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται. Ἴσον μὲν τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεννᾷν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων· διαφορώτερον δὲ, ἢ κρείττονα, ἢ μείζονα, οὐχί. Θεοῦ θελήσει ὁ Υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν, ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ’ οὗ, καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπέστη, ἰσχυρὸς Θεὸς ὢν, τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ.	24. Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God’s glory, Truth, Image, and Word. Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light. The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son, But not someone more important, or superior, or greater. At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has. His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God. He, though strong God, praises in part his superior.
Συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ Υἱῷ ὁ Θεὸς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει, ἔστι γὰρ ἑαυτῷ ὅ ἐστι, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἄλεκτος· ὥστε οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων κατά τε κατάληψιν συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ Υἱός. Ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν Πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσαι, ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν, Υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν, θελήσει Πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς.	33. In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For he is inhimself what he is, that is, indescribable, So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence, For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
Τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ Πατρὸς ὄντα αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα γνῶναι ἐν καταλήψει; δῆλον γὰρ, ὅτι τὸ ἀρχὴν ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον, ὡς ἔστιν, ἐμπερινοῆσαι ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθαι, οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν.	39. What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent? For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning.

[Peter Kirby]

These fragments are from Marcellus, who writes Against Asterius, by way of reference from Eusebius of Caesarea, who writes Against Marcellus. I have provided them separately here on the idea that Athanasius may be using the one treatise of Asterius that he mentions, but Marcellus may (or may not) have taken aim at multiple books and letters when writing against Asterius.

The numbering agrees with Bardy (Lucien d' Antioche), leaving out fragments Hanson found repetitious or less interesting.

(xxxiii) Fragments of Asterius [ca. 310-330] by way of Eusebius of Caesarea, Against Marcellus [ca. 336-340]

R. P. C. Hanson, The Origins of the Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 35-37

Fragment XVIII (Against Marcellus 34)

The letter of Eusebius to Paulinus, Asterius said, was designed to assign the genesis of the Son to the Father's will and not to imply human experience (pathos) nor to an issue (probolē) which is in effect a corporeal begetting involving human experience (pathētikē).

Fragment XX (Against Marcellus 65)

Asterius declared his belief in God the Father Almighty and in his Son the only begotten God our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and that the Father must truly (alēthōs) be Father and the Son truly Son and the Holy Spirit similarly.

Fragment XXI (Against Marcellus 96)

The Father is distinct (allos), who begot from himself the only-begotten Logos and first born of all creation, sole (begetting) the sole, perfect the perfect, King the King, Lord the Lord, God (begetting) God, the exact image of his substance and will and glory and power (ousias te kai boulēs kai doxēs kai dunameōs aparallakton eikona).

Fragment XXIII (Against Marcellus 18)

The Logos was produced (gegennēsthai) before the ages.

Fragment XXIV

Asterius wished to allegorize Psalm 110 (109):3 ('this day have I begotten thee') to refer to the original production of the pre-existent Word.

Fragment XXV (Against Marcellus 190)

He (the Son) who came forth from him (the Father) is not the Logos (and this is the way that birth really takes place), but simply the Son only.

Fragment XXVII (Against Marcellus 63)

Which does Exod 3:14 (the appearance in the Burning Bush) refer to, Son or Father? Having in mind the human flesh which the Word of God assumed and through which he was manifested, Asterius said that there were two distinct realities (hypostases) of the Father and of the Son, and so separated the Son of God from the Father.

Fragment XXVIII (Against Marcellus 67)

Here Asterius seems to have used the word face (prosopa) for the distinct existences of the Father and the Son.

Fragment XXX (Against Marcellus 76)

Asterius thinks that the Son must be divided from the Father by hypostasis as the Son of man because he regards the human flesh which he assumed for our sake as a difficulty (skandalizomenos).

Fragment XXXI (Against Marcellus 67)

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Fragment XXXII (Against Marcellus 72)

Asterius said that the Father and the Son are one and the same thing in that they agree (sumphōnousi) in everything. 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30) refers to their exact agreement in all ideas and activities.

Fragment XXXIII (Against Marcellus 104)

Asterius describes the authority given to Christ as glory, and not just as glory but as pre-mundane (prokosmon) glory.

[perseusomega9]

10 (9). Concerning those who carry letters from the confessors, be it resolved that, when they have handed over those letters, they receive other letters of reference.

I know a guy who knew a guy, I gotz proof.