48.

ANCIENT ARIANISM.

RELIGION is the chief concern of man. The subjects to which it directs our attention are truly momentous. They include in them all that can make man dignified, and useful, and happy in time; all that is necessary to guide him in the way to salvation, and prepare him for the enjoyment of eternal life. Great importance must, therefore, be always attached to discussions on religious topics. Particular circumstances frequently arise, which render them peculiarly interesting, and turn to them the eager attention of the public mind.

In consequence of the occurrences which have lately taken place in the General Synod of Ulster, of the measures which have been adopted by that body, and the separation which has taken place amongst its members, Arianism has become the subject of general conversation among all classes in society. A great anxiety has been excited to obtain satisfactory information respecting its rise, and history, and character; and many have expressed an earnest desire to obtain an accurate knowledge of the peculiar doctrines by which it is distinguished.

The conductors of The Orthodox Presbyterian, therefore, consider it to be a duty which they owe to the people of their own church, and to their Christian brethren of all denominations, to give a brief, but correct and impartial statement of the most prominent and distinguishing reli. gious tenets in the ancient system, known by the name of Arianism. An accurate knowledge of these is necessary to enable us to compare them with the word of God, and to form a judgment for ourselves of their merits or demerits; of their accordance with Scripture, or their deviations from it.

By no professing Christian should the subject be viewed with careless indifference. To every individual it must be a matter of the greatest importance, whether he has embraced the truth as it is revealed in the divine word, or has suffered himself to be led astray into the regions of error. All who acknowledge the divine authority of revela tion, should attentively follow its guidance, and subject their hearts unreservedly to its authority. "To the law and to the testimony, if they walk not according to this rule, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. viii. 20. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put

darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isa. v. 20. "Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks; walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow." Isa. 1. 11.

The particular opinions which distinguish different systems of Christianity, may be known from the statements of them which are found in the writings of those who have adopted and maintained them, and from the accounts of them which have been given by other unprejudiced writers and historians. Though Humanitarians, Arians, and others, disclaim the authority of Confessions of Faith of human composition; though every individual among them refuses to consider himself bound by the creed of any other, yet, from their different publications, acknowledgments, statements, and arguments, we can ascertain the leading pecu. liarities of their respective systems. In this way we are enabled to point out the peculiar and distinguishing doctrines of the Arian system.

Arianism takes its name from its founder Arius, who appeared in the beginning of the fourth century. Of his early life little is known. Having left the Miletian party, and having been reconciled to Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, by whom Miletius was deposed. Arius was ordained a deacon. Cave states that he afterwards incurred the displeasure of the bishop, and was expelled by him from the church. Peter having died a martyr, Achillas, his successor, received Arius again into church communion, and advanced him to the office of Presbyter. Achillas remained in the situation only a short time. He was succeeded in the bishoprick by Alexander. In an assembly of his Presbyters, this bishop, discoursing on the trinity, maintained that Christ possesses the same dignity and glory as the Father; and Cave informs us he affirmed, as has been always done by those who have believed the doctrine, that in the Trinity there is a unity. These doctrines were im pugned by Arius; who, about this time, had begun to avow his particular opinions. A controversy now commenced, which soon excited a deep sensation. Arius obtained followers, who espoused and supported his sentiments. To put an end to the commotions which agitated the church, by the discussions which had arisen, Alexander summoned a meeting of the bishops under his jurisdiction.

E

They condemned the doctrines of Arius, and expelled him, with some of his adherents, from the church. Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and the Bithynian Bishops, exerted all their influence with Alexander, to obtain the restoration of Arius, but did not succeed. Finding that Arius still persisted in disseminating his opinions, Alexander convoked a second Synod to meet at Alexandria, which is said to have been numerously attended. They solemnly excommunicated Arius and his followers. Alexander published this decision in a letter which was sent to the bishops and governors of the church. Informed of the distractions which the Arian controversy had produced, the Emperor Constantine used means to heal the breaches which had been made. Finding that these had no effect, he called a General Council, which met at Nice, in Bithynia, in the year 325, attended, as it is said, by above 300 bishops. The doctrines of Arius were condemned by this Council. He, and some of his adherents, were excommunicated and banished. After some time, the Emperor recalled Arius, and invited him to his court in Constantinople. There, as we are told by Tillemont, the Emperor, wishing to ascertain the truth of the representations which had been made to him respecting the opinions of Arius, and to make himself sure that he held the true faith, sent for him to the palace, and inquired of him if he followed the faith of Nice, and of the true Catholic church. Arius assured him, upon oath, that it was his real faith. The Emperor having required a profession of it in writing, Arius gave it to him immediately. Constantine asked him if he held no other belief, adding, if he acted sincerely, he need not fear to call upon God to witness it; but that if he swore a false oath, God would be his judge. The Emperor then ordered Alexander, the bishop of the place, to admit Arius to the communion; but before this took place he died in a very miserable manner.

The system of Arius was principally distinguished by the opinions he held respecting the person of Christ. He maintained that Christ was the first and most excellent of all created beings. All other creatures existed after him. The Father employed his agency in their creation, and placed them under his administration. According to Arius, there was a time when Christ was not, and he was made from the things that are not. There is an epistle of Arius, addressed to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, pre

served by Theodoret, in which he gives the following statement of his own opinions :-"What we say and think, we have both taught and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten by any means, nor of any subject matter, but that by will and counsel he existed before the times and the ages, full of God, only begotten, not mixed with any thing heterogeneous, and before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or founded, he was not, for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say the Son is from non-existence; and this we said, because he is not part of God, nor of any subject matter."

According to Arius, Christ was appointed by the Father to be the medium of communication with the human race. He held that Christ appeared to the Patriarchs, presided at the promulgation of the law, and directed the affairs of the church under the Mosaic dispensation. In the fulness of the time, he assumed a body, formed out of the Virgin Mary, by the immediate operation of divine power. This body did not possess a rational soul. The functions of a soul were performed by Christ-or the exalted spirit which was the first created being. For the benefit of the human race, Jesus suffered and died; and, as a reward for his humiliation and obedience, he was exalted by the Father to be the Saviour and judge of mankind. On account of the perfections, authority, and glory, which were communicated to him, Arius and his followers maintained that Christ might be called God, and might be worshipped. On this account their opponents charged them with idolatry. But they argued, that the worship given by them to Christ, was not the same as that which should be rendered to the Father.

Arius maintained that the Son is not co-essential, or co-equal with the Father, and that he is of a different substance or essence from him.

From the writings of some of the Fathers, we learn that Arius held that the Holy Ghost was created by Christ,and, therefore, the creature of a creature, inferior to the Father and to the Son.

These opinions were accompanied by corresponding doctrines, respecting the design of the mission of Christ, and the end of his death.

It is not recessary to detail these in this article, as they will come more fully before us when explaining the system of modern Arianism,

Such were some of the leading doctrines, maintained by Arius and his followers,-such was the religious system which they maintained. On few points will it be found to differ from the system of modern Arians, which is loudly lauded by them as being simple, and clear, consistent with itself, and consistent with the word of God.

But

1. According to this system, Christ was a created being, and yet all things were created by him. Now let us not attempt to impose upon one another, or to mislead the public by an ambiguity in the meaning of the words or expressions which we use. Let us employ language plain and definite in its meaning. Here it is not proposed to enter on the arguments which may be brought forward against the doctrines of the Arians. It is only intended to place before the public eye the doctrines themselves. Creation may sometimes be used to mean fashioning into particular forms, from pre-existing materials. In this sense, many things may be said to be made by men. the principal meaning of the word is, to bring into existence, from a state of non-existence-to bring into existence that which did not before exist-and where there were no pre-existent materials out of which it might be formed. In this sense it was avowedly used by the ancient Arians, when it was applied by them to the creation of Christ. Now let us inquire, can it be a simple, and clear, and scriptural truth, that a creature, limited and finite, can, in the true sense of the word, create? Let it be observed, then, that this forms one distinguishing part of the ancient Arian system, that God, the Father, the only true and supreme God, created the Son, and that by him all other things were created; that a creature-a dependant being, and not possessing the perfections of the unoriginated supreme Lord of all-was the creator of the universe, of angels, and of men.

2. The ancient Arians maintained that the Holy Ghost was created by Christ; and that, while the Son was inferior to the Father, the Holy Spirit was inferior to the Son. And yet some writers assert they held the doctrine of the Trinity. Here let us guard against the equivocal use of the term Trinity. The word itself marks its signification to be triune, or three one. Many triads are found in systems of philosophy, and in different forms of religion. But who would say, that every one of these triads is to be considered as a Trinity? Of Arius and his adherents we may say, that they held a triad; but the nature of their