this ancient sect, was unquestionably so called from Arius, a
presbyter of Alexandria, in the early part of the fourth century. It
is said that he aspired to episcopal honours; and after the death of
Achilles, in A. D. 313, felt not a little chagrined that Alexander
should be preferred before him. Whether this circumstance had any
influence on his opinions, it is impossible to say; but one day, when
his rival (Alexander) had been addressing the clergy in favour of the
orthodox doctrine, and maintaining, in strong and pointed language,
“that the Son of God was co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with
the Father,” Arius considered this as a species of Sabellianism, and
ventured to say, that it was inconsistent and impossible, since the
Father, who begat, must be before the Son, who was begotten: the
latter, therefore, could not be absolutely eternal. Alexander at first
admonished Arius, and endeavoured to convince him of his error; but
without effect, except that he became the more bold in contradiction.
Some of the clergy thought their bishop too forbearing, and it is
possible he felt his inferiority of talent; for Arius was a man of
accomplished learning, and commanding eloquence; venerable in person,
and fascinating in address. At length Alexander was roused, and
attempted to silence Arius by his authority; but this not succeeding,
as the latter was bold and pertinacious, Alexander, about the year
320, called a council of his clergy, by whom the reputed heretic was
deposed and excommunicated. Arius now retired into Palestine, where
his talents and address soon made a number of converts; and among the
rest, the celebrated Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and other bishops
and clergy of those parts, who assembled in council, and received the
excommunicated presbyter into their communion. Eusebius also, having
great interest with Constantia, the sister of Constantine, and wife of
Licinius, recommended Arius to her protection and patronage; through
which, and by his own eloquent letters to the clergy in various parts,
his system spread with great rapidity, and to a vast extent. The
emperor Constantine, who had no great skill in these matters, was
grieved to see the Christian church (but just escaped from the red
dragon of persecution) thus torn by intestine animosity and
dissensions; he therefore determined to summon a general council of
the clergy, which met at Nice, A. D. 325, and contained more than 300
bishops. Constantine attended in person, and strongly recommended
peace and unanimity. Athanasius was the chief opponent of the Arians.
Both parties were willing to subscribe to the language of the
Scriptures, but each insisted on interpreting for themselves. “Did the
Trinitarians,” says Mr. Milner, “assert that Christ was God? The
Arians allowed it, but in the same sense as holy men and angels are
styled gods in Scripture. Did they affirm that he was truly God? The
others allowed that he was made so by God. Did they affirm that the
Son was naturally of God? It was granted: Even we, said they, are of
God, ‘of whom are all things.’” At length the Athanasians collected a
number of texts, which they conceived amounted to full proof of the
Son being of one and _the same_ substance with the Father; the Arians
admitted he was of _like_ substance, the difference in the Greek
phrases being only in a single letter,--ὁμοούσιος, _homoousios_ and
ὁμοιούσιος, _homoiousios_. At length the former was decreed to be the
orthodox faith, and the Nicene creed was framed as it remains at this
day so far as concerns the person of the Son of God, who is said to be
“begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the
Father, by whom all things were made,” &c.
Arius was now excommunicated. The sentence of the council pronounced
against him and his associates was followed by another of the emperor,
whereby the excommunicated persons were condemned to banishment, that
they might be debarred the society of their countrymen whom the church
had judged unworthy to remain in her communion. Soon after which,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, being found to continue
their countenance and protection to the Arian cause, to communicate with
those whom they had anathematized, and to concur in those sentiments
which they had condemned by their subscriptions; they were both
subjected to the same penalty of exile by the emperor, and were actually
deposed, (as we learn from Athanasius,) and had successors ordained to
their sees, though history is silent as to the council by which this was
done. But such was the good nature and credulity of Constantine, that
these men, by their usual artifices, easily imposed upon him, and
brought him to such a full persuasion of their agreement with the Nicene
faith, that in about three years’ time they were not only recalled from
banishment, but restored to their sees, and to a considerable degree of
interest at court. Their thorough attachment to the cause of Arius, and
their hatred of Athanasius, who had so vigorously withstood them in the
council, and was now advanced to the see of Alexandria, made them
watchful of every opportunity to defeat the decisions of the council.
In the meantime one who wished well to their designs, and whom
Constantia had upon her death bed recommended to the emperor, did so far
prevail upon the easy credulity of Constantine, by complaining that
Arius had been misrepresented, and differed nothing in his sentiments
from the Nicene fathers, that the indulgent emperor recalled him from
his banishment, and required him to exhibit in writing, a confession of
his faith. He did this in such terms as, though they admitted of a
latent reservation, yet bore the appearance of being entirely catholic;
and therefore not only gave satisfaction to the emperor, but even
offended some of his own followers, who from that time forth separated
from him. The discerning Athanasius was not so easily imposed upon as
Constantine; but, well assured of the heretic’s prevarication, was
resolute in refusing to admit him to communion, whom the Nicene council
had so openly condemned. Upon this the emperor sent for Arius to
Constantinople, and insisted upon his being received into communion, by
Alexander, bishop of that city. However, on the day before this was to
have taken place, Arius died suddenly from a complaint in his bowels.
Some attributed this to poison; others to the judgment of God. The
emperor did not long survive; and Constantius, his successor, became
warmly attached to the Arian cause, as were all the court party.
Successive emperors took different sides, and thus was the peace of the
church agitated for many years, and practical religion sacrificed
alternately to the dogmas or the interests of one party or the other;
and each was in turn excommunicated, fined, imprisoned, or banished.
Constantius supported Arianism triumphantly, Julian laughed at both
parties, but persecuted neither, Jovian supported the Nicene doctrine.
Valentinian, and his brother Valens, took contrary sides; the former
supporting Athanasianism in the west, and the latter Arianism in the
east; so that what was orthodoxy at Rome was heresy at Constantinople,
and _vice versa_. The Arians themselves were not unanimous, but divided
into various shades of sentiment, under their respective leaders; as
Eusebians, Eudoxians, Acasians, Aëtians, &c; but the more general
distinction was into Arians and Semi-Arians; the former sinking the
character of the Son of God into that of a mere creature, while the
latter admitted every thing but the _homoousian_ doctrine, or his
absolute equality with the Father. After this period we hear little of
Arianism, till it was revived in England in the beginning of the last
century by the eccentric Mr. Whiston, by Mr. Emlyn, and Dr. Samuel
Clarke. The latter was what may be called a _high_ or Semi-Arian, who
came within a shade of orthodoxy; the two _former_ were low Arians,
reducing the rank of our Saviour to the scale of angelic beings--a
creature “made out of nothing.” Since this time, however, both Arians
and Socinians are sunk into the common appellation of _Unitarians_, or
rather _Humanitarians_, who believe our Saviour (as Dr. Priestley
expresses it) to be “a _man_ like themselves.” The last advocates of the
pure Arian doctrine, of any celebrity, were Mr. Henry Taylor, (under the
signature of Ben Mordecai,) and Dr. Richard Price, in his “Sermons on
the Christian Doctrine.” It may be proper to observe, that the Arians,
though they denied the absolute _eternity_ of the Son, strongly
contended for his preëxistence, as the _Logos_, or the Word of God, “by
whom the worlds were made;” and admitted, more or less explicitly, the
sacrifice which he offered for sin upon the cross.
presbyter of Alexandria, in the early part of the fourth century. It
is said that he aspired to episcopal honours; and after the death of
Achilles, in A. D. 313, felt not a little chagrined that Alexander
should be preferred before him. Whether this circumstance had any
influence on his opinions, it is impossible to say; but one day, when
his rival (Alexander) had been addressing the clergy in favour of the
orthodox doctrine, and maintaining, in strong and pointed language,
“that the Son of God was co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with
the Father,” Arius considered this as a species of Sabellianism, and
ventured to say, that it was inconsistent and impossible, since the
Father, who begat, must be before the Son, who was begotten: the
latter, therefore, could not be absolutely eternal. Alexander at first
admonished Arius, and endeavoured to convince him of his error; but
without effect, except that he became the more bold in contradiction.
Some of the clergy thought their bishop too forbearing, and it is
possible he felt his inferiority of talent; for Arius was a man of
accomplished learning, and commanding eloquence; venerable in person,
and fascinating in address. At length Alexander was roused, and
attempted to silence Arius by his authority; but this not succeeding,
as the latter was bold and pertinacious, Alexander, about the year
320, called a council of his clergy, by whom the reputed heretic was
deposed and excommunicated. Arius now retired into Palestine, where
his talents and address soon made a number of converts; and among the
rest, the celebrated Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and other bishops
and clergy of those parts, who assembled in council, and received the
excommunicated presbyter into their communion. Eusebius also, having
great interest with Constantia, the sister of Constantine, and wife of
Licinius, recommended Arius to her protection and patronage; through
which, and by his own eloquent letters to the clergy in various parts,
his system spread with great rapidity, and to a vast extent. The
emperor Constantine, who had no great skill in these matters, was
grieved to see the Christian church (but just escaped from the red
dragon of persecution) thus torn by intestine animosity and
dissensions; he therefore determined to summon a general council of
the clergy, which met at Nice, A. D. 325, and contained more than 300
bishops. Constantine attended in person, and strongly recommended
peace and unanimity. Athanasius was the chief opponent of the Arians.
Both parties were willing to subscribe to the language of the
Scriptures, but each insisted on interpreting for themselves. “Did the
Trinitarians,” says Mr. Milner, “assert that Christ was God? The
Arians allowed it, but in the same sense as holy men and angels are
styled gods in Scripture. Did they affirm that he was truly God? The
others allowed that he was made so by God. Did they affirm that the
Son was naturally of God? It was granted: Even we, said they, are of
God, ‘of whom are all things.’” At length the Athanasians collected a
number of texts, which they conceived amounted to full proof of the
Son being of one and _the same_ substance with the Father; the Arians
admitted he was of _like_ substance, the difference in the Greek
phrases being only in a single letter,--ὁμοούσιος, _homoousios_ and
ὁμοιούσιος, _homoiousios_. At length the former was decreed to be the
orthodox faith, and the Nicene creed was framed as it remains at this
day so far as concerns the person of the Son of God, who is said to be
“begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the
Father, by whom all things were made,” &c.
Arius was now excommunicated. The sentence of the council pronounced
against him and his associates was followed by another of the emperor,
whereby the excommunicated persons were condemned to banishment, that
they might be debarred the society of their countrymen whom the church
had judged unworthy to remain in her communion. Soon after which,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, being found to continue
their countenance and protection to the Arian cause, to communicate with
those whom they had anathematized, and to concur in those sentiments
which they had condemned by their subscriptions; they were both
subjected to the same penalty of exile by the emperor, and were actually
deposed, (as we learn from Athanasius,) and had successors ordained to
their sees, though history is silent as to the council by which this was
done. But such was the good nature and credulity of Constantine, that
these men, by their usual artifices, easily imposed upon him, and
brought him to such a full persuasion of their agreement with the Nicene
faith, that in about three years’ time they were not only recalled from
banishment, but restored to their sees, and to a considerable degree of
interest at court. Their thorough attachment to the cause of Arius, and
their hatred of Athanasius, who had so vigorously withstood them in the
council, and was now advanced to the see of Alexandria, made them
watchful of every opportunity to defeat the decisions of the council.
In the meantime one who wished well to their designs, and whom
Constantia had upon her death bed recommended to the emperor, did so far
prevail upon the easy credulity of Constantine, by complaining that
Arius had been misrepresented, and differed nothing in his sentiments
from the Nicene fathers, that the indulgent emperor recalled him from
his banishment, and required him to exhibit in writing, a confession of
his faith. He did this in such terms as, though they admitted of a
latent reservation, yet bore the appearance of being entirely catholic;
and therefore not only gave satisfaction to the emperor, but even
offended some of his own followers, who from that time forth separated
from him. The discerning Athanasius was not so easily imposed upon as
Constantine; but, well assured of the heretic’s prevarication, was
resolute in refusing to admit him to communion, whom the Nicene council
had so openly condemned. Upon this the emperor sent for Arius to
Constantinople, and insisted upon his being received into communion, by
Alexander, bishop of that city. However, on the day before this was to
have taken place, Arius died suddenly from a complaint in his bowels.
Some attributed this to poison; others to the judgment of God. The
emperor did not long survive; and Constantius, his successor, became
warmly attached to the Arian cause, as were all the court party.
Successive emperors took different sides, and thus was the peace of the
church agitated for many years, and practical religion sacrificed
alternately to the dogmas or the interests of one party or the other;
and each was in turn excommunicated, fined, imprisoned, or banished.
Constantius supported Arianism triumphantly, Julian laughed at both
parties, but persecuted neither, Jovian supported the Nicene doctrine.
Valentinian, and his brother Valens, took contrary sides; the former
supporting Athanasianism in the west, and the latter Arianism in the
east; so that what was orthodoxy at Rome was heresy at Constantinople,
and _vice versa_. The Arians themselves were not unanimous, but divided
into various shades of sentiment, under their respective leaders; as
Eusebians, Eudoxians, Acasians, Aëtians, &c; but the more general
distinction was into Arians and Semi-Arians; the former sinking the
character of the Son of God into that of a mere creature, while the
latter admitted every thing but the _homoousian_ doctrine, or his
absolute equality with the Father. After this period we hear little of
Arianism, till it was revived in England in the beginning of the last
century by the eccentric Mr. Whiston, by Mr. Emlyn, and Dr. Samuel
Clarke. The latter was what may be called a _high_ or Semi-Arian, who
came within a shade of orthodoxy; the two _former_ were low Arians,
reducing the rank of our Saviour to the scale of angelic beings--a
creature “made out of nothing.” Since this time, however, both Arians
and Socinians are sunk into the common appellation of _Unitarians_, or
rather _Humanitarians_, who believe our Saviour (as Dr. Priestley
expresses it) to be “a _man_ like themselves.” The last advocates of the
pure Arian doctrine, of any celebrity, were Mr. Henry Taylor, (under the
signature of Ben Mordecai,) and Dr. Richard Price, in his “Sermons on
the Christian Doctrine.” It may be proper to observe, that the Arians,
though they denied the absolute _eternity_ of the Son, strongly
contended for his preëxistence, as the _Logos_, or the Word of God, “by
whom the worlds were made;” and admitted, more or less explicitly, the
sacrifice which he offered for sin upon the cross.