The [ Atreptos ]

 THAT is, of a nature capable of change in ethical character. Arius maintained this of our Lord in the strongest terms in the earlier statements of his heresy. On being asked (says Alexander) whether the Word of God is capable of altering, as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say, 'Yes, He is capable.' Socr. i. 6. vid. the anathema at Sirmium on those who said [ ton logon tropen hypomemenekota ] supr. vol. i. p. 111, note 4.

 It was indeed difficult, with their opinions, to exclude the notion that change of some kind belonged to Him; nay, that He was not only in nature [ treptos ], but in fact [ alloioumenos ]. (vid. Decr. § 23. Orat. ii. § 6.) It would be strange if they stopped short of this, as soon as they came to hold that our Lord s superhuman nature took the place of a soul, and was dependent on the body; and they scarcely would encumber themselves with the mystery of a double [ hegemonikon ], when they had thrown aside the mysterium pietatis. This they seem to have done even in S. Athanasius s lifetime; for he speaks of them in contr. Apoll. i. 15, as supposing that the Saviour took flesh only, and thus imputing suffering to the impassible Godhead. Vid. also Ambros. de Fid. iii. n. 38. Also an assumption of this tenet seems involved (vid. Macrostich 6) in the ground assigned for condemning the Sabellians. vid. supr. vol. i. p. 106.

 This tenet was the connecting point between Arians and Apollinarians. Both held that our Lord was a sort of man made up of a divine being and what resembles a creature, and what Athan. and other Fathers say against the Apollinarians serves against the Arians also. [ Atreptos menon ], etc., he says, Orat. ii. § 6, against the Arians, and so against Apollinaris he says, [ ho logos anthropos gegone, menon theos ]. ii. 7: vid. also ibid. 3 circ. init. So [ ho men en, diemeinen; ho de ouk en, proselaben ]. Naz. Orat. 29. 19. [ ousia menousa hoper esti ]. Chrysost. ap. Theodor. Eran. p. 47. [ ho en emeine di' heauton, kai ho ethelese gegone di' hemas ]. Procl. ad Arm. Ep. ii. p. 615, ed. 1630. vid. also Maxim. Opp. t. 2, ed. 1675. [ hoper en diamenon, kai genomenos hoper ouk en ]. p. 286. vid. also p. 264. Manens id quod erat, factus quod non erat. August. cons. Ev. i. n. 53 fin. Non omiserat quod erat, sed cSperat esse quod non erat. Hilar. Trin. iii. 16. Non amittendo quod suum erat, sed suscipiendo quod nostrum erat. Vigil. contr. Eut. i. 13, p. 498, (Bibl. P. ed. 1624,) and so Leo.