It now became impossible for the emperor to remain neutral or indifferent, with safety to himself, or to the tranquillity of the empire. Hosius, bishop of Corduba, whom he had appointed mediator betwixt Alexander and A., took part with the former, and reported unfavorably of A. The result was, that Constantine, in order, as he thought, to effect a final settlement of the question, convoked the memorable council of Nicma (Nice, q.v.), in Bithynia, 325 A.D. Three hundred and eighteen bishops from almost all parts of the Christian world, but especially from the east, were present, besides numbers of priests, deacons, and acolytes. A. boldly expoundedquid defended his opinions. He declared in the most unambiguous manner that the Son of God was created out of nothing; that he had not always existed; that he was not immutable or impeccable; that it was through his free-will he remained good and holy; that if he had chosen, he could as easily have sinned as not; in it word, that he was a mere creature and work of the Deity. He further affirmed that the Son of God was not of the same substance with the Father; that he was not the " Word " or " Wisdom," properly speaking; and that the Scriptures only attribute these names to him as they do to other created intelligences. These propositions were listened to with great calmness by the bishops, but the inferior clergy, or at least a majority of them, manifested the most violent opposition. The document containing his confession of faith was torn to pieces before his face. Argu ments, however, of a more rational kind were also employed. Alexander was ably. seconded by the young deacon, Athanasius, the equal of A. in eloquence, and in the power of his logic. It was principally by the reasonings of Athanasius that the council was persuaded to define, in the most precise manner, the doctrine of the Godhead—viz., the absolute unity of the divine essence, and the absolute equality of the three persons. All the bishops subscribed it except two, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais, who had the heroism (for it must be considered such) to follow the banished A. into Illyricum.
An imperial edict was now issued commanding the writings of A. to be burned, and threatening with capital punishment all who should be convicted of concealing them. This change in the emperor's sentiments as to the importance of the doctrine at issue is attributed by some writers to his recognizing the will of heaven in the harmonious con sent of so many bishops. A more probable explanation is, that lie anticipated the utmost social confusion from the collision of opinions, and resolved to crush that which was at once the youngest and the weakest, hoping thereby to remove the ground of disturbance. He was mistaken, however. At Alexandria, the Arians continued in a state of open insurrection, and began to league themselves with other condemned sects, for the pur poses of mutual defense. The great influence of Eusebius was also exerted on behalf of the exiled heretic, as wdll as that of Constantia, the sister of the emperor, who had herself embraced Arian tenets, and in 328, permission was granted him to return from Illyricum. Constantine was very gracious, perhaps because he thought the chances of peace being restored to the community wer3 now greater, for it had been represented to him by'Eusebius that the doctrines of A. did not essentially differ from those of the Nicene council. In 330 A.D., A. had an interview with the emperor, and succeeded in convincing him that Eusebius lad only spoken the truth. In the confession of faith which he presented, he declared his belief that the Son was born of the Father before all ages, and that as the "Word," he lad made all things both in heaven and earth. The emperor was satisfied, and sent orders to Athanasius, now bishop of Alexandria, to receive A. into the communion of the church. This Athanasius refused to do, and a series of tumults was the consequence. Eusebius was greatly irritated. He called a synod of bishops at Tyre, in 335 A.D., which proceeded to depose Athanasius. The emperor was even prevailed on to remove the latter to Gaul, though he alleged as his reason that he wished to deliver him from the machinations of his enemies. In the same year, another synod met at Jerusalem, which revoked the sentence of excommuni cation uttered against A. and his friends. Still the majority of the Christians of Alexan dria clung to the doctrines of Athanasius, and resolutely resisted every effort to establish the new opinions among them. Disappointed in his expectations, A., in 336 A.D., pro ceeded to Constantinople, where he presented the emperor with another apparently orthodox confession of faith; whereupon orders were issued to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, to administer to Arius the holy communion on the Sunday following.
This was considered a grand triumph by Eusebius and his friends, and when the day arrived, they escorted A., as a guard of honor through the streets of the metropolis. When about to enter the temple in which it•was intended that he should he received with solemn pomp, he retired a moment to relieve nature, but fainted, and died of a violent hemorrhage. His disciples declared that he had been poisoned, while the ortho dox devoutly affirmed that God had answered the prayers of 1/41exander.
A. was exceedingly handsome, hut the harassing cares of allife spent in a continual struggle with his adversaries, is said to.have'given him a worn and haggard look. His manners were gractful andmodest; he was noted even abstinence, and the )urity of his moral character was never challenged by a single enemy. A. is said to lave composed songs for sailors, millers, and travelers, in popular measures, for the purpose of spreading his peculiar tenets; but no traees of these survive.
After the death of A., his followers rallied round Eusebius, now bishop of Constan tinople (338), from whom they were styled Eusebians. The reconciliatory middle party of Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 340 A.n.), who wished to end the great controversy by abstain ing from all strict dogmatic assertions on the matter, soon dwindled into insignificance between the two contending parties. Constans, who ruled the west after the death of Constantine (337), and Constantius, in the east, made an essay towards reconciliation; but it failed at the synod of Sardeis (347), where the occidental bishops gathered them selves round Athanasius in support of the komoousian doctrine (identity or sameness cf substance), while in a separate council at Philippopollis, the oriental bishops asserted the homoiousian doctrine (implying merely similarity of substance). Slight as might appear the verbal difference between the two parties, the bitterness of the controversy was intense, and pervaded almost all departments of public and private life. Constantius having, by the death of Constans (350) and conquest over Magnentius (353), gained dominion over the west, the Arian cause, which he favored, triumphed at the synod of Arelate or Arles (353), and at that of Milan (335). These victories, however, were more apparent than real. The Nicene doctrine had still strong support on its sidc,and *as strictly maintained by the banished Athanasius and his friends, while the Antinicteans, soon after their triumph, were divided into at least three parties. The old Arians, also styled Anomceoi, or Heterousians, asserted, in the boldest style, their doctrine of "distinct substances." The semi-Arians (a large majority in the eastern church) maintained the hoinoiousian doctrine of similar substances. A third party held the same doctrine with some qualification. Morally, the victory was leaning to the side of the Nieman. Julian the apostate (361-363), in his hatred of the Christian religion. left all parties at liberty to contend as they pleased with one another, so that they did not interfere with his plans. Jovianus and his followers in the west, Valentinianus I., Gratianus, and Valentinianus II., extended full toleration to both parties. Arianism, at last, was virtually abolished in the Roman empire, under Theodosius in the east (379-395), aryl Valentinianus II. in the west. Among the German nations, however, it continued to spread through missionary efforts. Bishop Ulfilas, the translator of the Bible intolhe Mceso-Gothic language, had been the means of converting the west Goths to Arian Christianity as early as 348; and they adhered to it until the synod of Toledo in 589. The east Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, the Suevi in Spain, and the Longobards also adopted Arianism; but in all these instances the Nicene doctrine ultimately prevailed, most slowly among the Longobards, who retained the Arian creed until 662. The Arian controversy has never excited any great interest in modern times, though in England it was revived for a time by the writings of the learned Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729), and also by Whiston, who d. in 1752. More recently, a part of the Arian doctrine, the denial of "the eternal sonship," was broached in the Wesleyan Methodist society by Dr. Adam Clarke and a few followerS; but it was soon suppressed by the conference. Pure Arianism can hardly now be said to exist. It has gradually lapsed into Unitarianism. See UNITARIANS.