What was the stance of Arius on John 1:1? Introduction

Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? 


  Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis
  in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in
  Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's
  subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become
  the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary
  topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor
  Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source).
  
  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and
  the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV)




Question

What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?
St. Thomas Aquinas discusses various errors of Arius and his followers in his Commentary on Chapter 1 of Gospel of John that are connected to Prologue of Gospel of John. If Arius had something to say on that part of Gospel of John it is very reasonable to believe that Aquinas would mention it. Aquinas does not mention Arius in commentary on John 1:1, however he mentions him in commentary on John 1:2.
Aquinas writes (in commentary on John 1:2):

The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They
think that the Son is less than the Father because it says below
(14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say the Father is
greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature.
And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning
with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the
Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the
Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the
Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no
sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to
Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures,
but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the
Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the
Word, was always with God.
Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior
to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there are two
attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to
God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever
these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is
greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word.
Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the
Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God,
i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the
beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being
and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word
when he adds, Through him all things came into being.

Later Aquinas writes:

Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The
Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God. Finally,
Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist
excludes this by saying, He was in the beginning with God, as was
explained above.

Aquinas later continues:

The first clause, All things were made through him, is used to show
three things concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to
show the equality of the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier,
the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the
coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in the
beginning with God.” Here he excludes the same error when he shows the
omnipotence of the Son, saying, All things were made through him. For
to be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the
great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever the Lord
wills he does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the Word, through whom all
things were made, is God, great and coequal to the Father.

He mentions him later in commentary (on the Prologue of Gospel of John), but for that you can just search &quot;Arius&quot; on the page here and see all places where Aquinas mentions him (in commentary on the Prologue of Gospel of John.)
I do not know whether this answers your question but I think it explains Arius stance on Prologue of Gospel of John.
Further Support
It seems that Arius would interpret words &quot;and the Word was God&quot; meaning that Christ was so perfect (yet inferior to God and not God himself) that he can reasonably be denoted as God. For Christ, in Arius stance, would be greater than inanimate matter, plants, animals, men and angels. It seems that for Arius, he would be so great as to be &quot;almost&quot; as true God (but as Aquinas says above, for Arius he lacks eternity and omnipotence and thefore would not be equal to God). Thefore, it seems that Arius would comment on the passage &quot;and the Word was God&quot; by saying that word &quot;God&quot; should here be understood not in the strict sense, but only to convey the point that he was most perfect creature of God and because he was most similar to God he himself was called God.
I think you could hardly make a better case for Arius. However, his heresy was refuted long time ago (you can find link to Aquinas's refutation of Arius arguments in my answer on this question).
I also found two works that touch upon our discussion.

St. Athanasius - Deposition of Arius


Now those who became apostates are these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales,
Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters: Euzoïus,
Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons: and
with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops. And the
novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures
are these following:— God was not always a Father , but there was a
time when God was not a Father. The Word of God was not always, but
originated from things that were not; for God that is, has made him
that was not, of that which was not; wherefore there was a time when
He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like
in essence to the Father; neither is He the true and natural Word of
the Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things
made and created, and is called the Word and Wisdom by an abuse of
terms, since He Himself originated by the proper Word of God, and by
the Wisdom that is in God, by which God has made not only all other
things but Him also. Wherefore He is by nature subject to change and
variation as are all rational creatures. And the Word is foreign from
the essence of the Father, and is alien and separated therefrom. And
the Father cannot be described by the Son, for the Word does not know
the Father perfectly and accurately, neither can He see Him perfectly.
Moreover, the Son knows not His own essence as it really is; for He is
made for us, that God might create us by Him, as by an instrument; and
He would not have existed, had not God wished to create us.
Accordingly, when some one asked them, whether the Word of God can
possibly change as the devil changed, they were not afraid to say that
He can; for being something made and created, His nature is subject to
change.
3 Now when Arius and his fellows made these assertions, and shamelessly avowed them, we being assembled with the Bishops of Egypt
and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, anathematized both them and
their followers. But Eusebius and his fellows admitted them to
communion, being desirous to mingle falsehood with the truth, and
impiety with piety. But they will not be able to do so, for the truth
must prevail; neither is there any communion of light with darkness,
nor any concord of Christ with Belial.  For who ever heard such
assertions before ? Or who that hears them now is not astonished and
does not stop his ears lest they should be defiled with such language?
Who that has heard the words of John, In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1, will not denounce the saying of these men, that there was a
time when He was not? Or who that has heard in the Gospel, the
Only-begotten Son, and by Him were all things made , will not detest
their declaration that He is one of the things that were made. For how
can He be one of those things which were made by Himself? Or how can
He be the Only-begotten, when, according to them, He is counted as one
among the rest, since He is Himself a creature and a work? And how can
He be made of things that were not, when the Father says, My heart has
uttered a good Word, and Out of the womb I have begotten You before
the morning star ? Or again, how is He unlike in substance to the
Father, seeing He is the perfect image and brightness Hebrews 1:3  of
the Father, and that He says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father
? And if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, how was there a time
when He was not? It is the same as if they should say that God was
once without Word and without Wisdom. And how is He subject to change
and variation, Who says, by Himself, I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me , and I and the Father are One ; and by the Prophet,
Behold Me, for I am, and I change not ? For although one may refer
this expression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of
the Word, viz., that though He has been made man, He has not changed;
but as the Apostle has said, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today, and forever. And who can have persuaded them to say, that He
was made for us, whereas Paul writes, for Whom are all things, and by
Whom are all things ?
4 As to their blasphemous position that the Son knows not the Father perfectly, we ought not to wonder at it; for having once set
themselves to fight against Christ, they contradict even His express
words, since He says, As the Father knows Me, even so know I the
Father John 10:15 . Now if the Father knows the Son but in part, then
it is evident that the Son does not know the Father perfectly; but if
it is not lawful to say this, but the Father does know the Son
perfectly, then it is evident that as the Father knows His own Word,
so also the Word knows His own Father Whose Word He is.


St. Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius.


4 But that the Son of God was not made from things which are not, and
that there was no time when He was not, the evangelist John
sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: The
only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 For
since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son
are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as
being in the bosom of the Father. Now that also the Word of God is not
comprehended in the number of things that were created from things
which are not, the same John says, All things were made by Him. For he
set forth His proper personality, saying, In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were
made by Him; and with out Him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:1-3 For if all things were made by Him, how comes it that He
who gave to the things which are made their existence, at one time
Himself was not. For the Word which makes is not to be defined as
being of the same nature with the things which are made; since He
indeed was in the beginning, and all things were made by Him, and
fashioned from things which are not.Moreover, that which is seems to
be contrary to and far removed from those things which are made from
things which are not. For that indeed shows that there is no interval
between the Father and the Son, since not even in thought can the mind
imagine any distance between them.But that the world was created from
things which are not, indicates a more recent and a later origin of
substance, since the universe receives an essence of this sort from
the Father by the Son. When, therefore, the most pious John
contemplated the essence of the divine Word at a very great distance,
and as placed beyond all conception of those things that are begotten,
he thought it not meet to speak of His generation and creation; not
daring to designate the Creator in the same terms as the things that
are made. Not that the Word is unbegotten, for the Father alone is
unbegotten, but because the inexplicable subsistence of the
only-begotten Son transcends the acute comprehension of the
evangelists, and perhaps also of angels.

Later, we have:

3 Since those about Arius speak these things and shamelessly maintain
them, we, coming together with the Bishops of Egypt and the Libyas,
nearly a hundred in number, have anathematized them, together with
their followers. But those about Eusebius have received them,
earnestly endeavouring to mix up falsehood with truth, impiety with
piety. But they will not prevail; for the truth prevails, and there is
no communion between light and darkness, no concord between Christ and
Belial.2 Corinthians 6:14 For who ever heard such things? Or who, now
hearing them, is not astonished, and does not stop his ears that the
pollution of these words should not touch them? Who that hears John
saying, In the beginning was the Word, John 1:1 does not condemn those
who say there was a time when He was not? Who that hears these words
of the Gospel, the only-begotten Son;  John 1:18 and, by Him were all
things made, John 1:3 will not hate those who declare He is one of the
things made? For how can He be one of the things made by Him? Or how
shall He be the only-begotten who, as they say, is reckoned with all
the rest, if indeed He is a thing made and created? And how can He be
made of things which are not, when the Father says, My heart belched
forth a good Word;  and, From the womb, before the morning have I
begotten You?  Or how is He unlike to the substance of the Father, who
is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, He
that has seen Me has seen the Father?  John 14:9 And how, if the Son
is the Word or Wisdom and Reason of God, was there a time when He was
not? It is all one as if they said, that there was a time when God was
without reason and wisdom. How, also, can He be changeable and
mutable, who says indeed by Himself: I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me, John 14:10 and, I and My Father are one; John 10:30 and
by the prophet, I am the Lord, I change not?  Malachi 3:6 For even
though one saying may refer to the Father Himself, yet it would now be
more aptly spoken of the Word, because when He became man, He changed
not; but, as says the apostle, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday,
today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8 Who has induced them to say, that for
our sakes He was made; although Paul says, for whom are all things,
and by whom are all things?  Hebrews 11:10.

Edit 2.
We read on page 101 of Arius: Heresy and Tradition:

(vi) Again, he has presumed to say that the Word is not true God
(theos alithinos). &quot;He may be called 'God' but he is not 'true God'.
It is only by participating in grace, like all others, that he too is
called by the name 'God'. All beings are, in respect of their
substance (kat' ousian), alien to God and unlike him (xenon kai
anomoion); and so too the Word is entirely different from and unlike
the Father's substance and property (idiotitos). He is 'proper' to
(idios) [the class of] made and created things and it is to this that
he belongs.